Was Bush always this bad at press conferences?

[tanstaafl2]

Depends if in 2027 Iraq is a terrorist sanctuary and Tel Aviv is a radioactive hole from an Iranian nuke ...

Nah, they will both be territories in "New China" by then...

[15QuestionsAway]

To answer Appa's question, I imagine it will be much as it is today: the vast majority of folks convinced that those who think Gore won are just a bunch of discontented whiners.

Serious students of history, however, may very well ferret out the serious voting irregularities in Florida and Ohio. The consensus may even be, among scholars, that the election of 2000 went the wrong way.

Ridiculous, you say? Check out the election of 1876 for parallels, right down to Florida being the crucial state.

This has been done already. If the Supreme Court didn't rule in favour of Bush, and a full recount was done in Florida, Gore would have won. A consortium of media outlets performed the analysis in late 2001.

One problem was that the Gore camp was looking at only the "undervotes" - ballots that didn't clearly have a presidential candidate selected. If they knew about the "overvotes" (ballots with more than one possible presidential candidate selection) and counted all of the ballots as the media consortium did, Gore wound up with the majority in Florida.

I also think it's quite possible 2001/9/11 would have been averted. The Bush administration was briefed about Al Qaeda by the Clinton administration during the transition. And the smoking gun, which Condoleeza Rice testified about in Congress, was the Presidential Daily Briefing of 2001/8/6 entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US". The intelligence community obviously knew something was up five weeks before the attack.

Regardless of this, it's done. $2 trillion and countless lives wasted for no good reason. Well, unless you think privatizing much of the military, and transferring the wealth of the country to enrich your buddies are good reasons. I can only hope that the catastrofuck that is this administration ushers in a new FDR-style progressive era.

As for Bush's public speaking ability, the most surprising thing I've seen was a video clip of him speaking about 10 years ago while he was Texas governor. He was quite lucid. Put it side by side with some of his more modern utterances and it's very scary.

[TheCalvinator24]

To answer Appa's question, I imagine it will be much as it is today: the vast majority of folks convinced that those who think Gore won are just a bunch of discontented whiners.

Serious students of history, however, may very well ferret out the serious voting irregularities in Florida and Ohio. The consensus may even be, among scholars, that the election of 2000 went the wrong way.

Ridiculous, you say? Check out the election of 1876 for parallels, right down to Florida being the crucial state.

This has been done already. If the Supreme Court didn't rule in favour of Bush, and a full recount was done in Florida, Gore would have won. A consortium of media outlets performed the analysis in late 2001.

One problem was that the Gore camp was looking at only the "undervotes" - ballots that didn't clearly have a presidential candidate selected. If they knew about the "overvotes" (ballots with more than one possible presidential candidate selection) and counted all of the ballots as the media consortium did, Gore wound up with the majority in Florida.

I also think it's quite possible 2001/9/11 would have been averted. The Bush administration was briefed about Al Qaeda by the Clinton administration during the transition. And the smoking gun, which Condoleeza Rice testified about in Congress, was the Presidential Daily Briefing of 2001/8/6 entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US". The intelligence community obviously knew something was up five weeks before the attack.

Regardless of this, it's done. $2 trillion and countless lives wasted for no good reason. Well, unless you think privatizing much of the military, and transferring the wealth of the country to enrich your buddies are good reasons. I can only hope that the catastrofuck that is this administration ushers in a new FDR-style progressive era.

As for Bush's public speaking ability, the most surprising thing I've seen was a video clip of him speaking about 10 years ago while he was Texas governor. He was quite lucid. Put it side by side with some of his more modern utterances and it's very scary.

There is no valid way to count a vote for any candidate in an overvote circumstance. Thus, any analysis that included overvotes is worthless.

[15QuestionsAway]

There is no valid way to count a vote for any candidate in an overvote circumstance. Thus, any analysis that included overvotes is worthless.

I don't agree, but I do understand this line of thought. The Wikipedia page on the subject is actually quite good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

[ne1410s]

There is no doubt in my mind that 9/11 was going to happen no matter who was President at the time. My concern is the loss of focus on terrorism and the focus on deposing the man who "tried to kill my Daddy." We are fighting the wrong war in the wrong place.


Now, where is that deceased equine??????????????????????????????

[cindy.wellman]

There is no doubt in my mind that 9/11 was going to happen no matter who was President at the time. My concern is the loss of focus on terrorism and the focus on deposing the man who "tried to kill my Daddy." We are fighting the wrong war in the wrong place.


Now, where is that deceased equine??????????????????????????????

giddy-up

[NellyLunatic1980]

Now, where is that deceased equine??????????????????????????????

[fantine33]

There is no doubt in my mind that 9/11 was going to happen no matter who was President at the time. My concern is the loss of focus on terrorism and the focus on deposing the man who "tried to kill my Daddy." We are fighting the wrong war in the wrong place.


Now, where is that deceased equine??????????????????????????????

giddy-up

And you only had to kill Patty's Daddy once to get that gal PO'ed.

[TheCalvinator24]

There is no valid way to count a vote for any candidate in an overvote circumstance. Thus, any analysis that included overvotes is worthless.

I don't agree, but I do understand this line of thought. The Wikipedia page on the subject is actually quite good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

From your cited source:

According to Mickey Kaus of Slate.com ([italics] in original), "If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes in which case Gore might well have won."

Note it doesn't say he would have won. That's a mightly large amount of conjecture

According to the New York Times, the Palm Beach County butterfly ballot may have cost Gore a net 6286 votes, and the Duval County 2 page ballot may have cost him a net 1999 votes, each of which would have made the difference by itself.

First off, there's no objective way of knowing how many votes Gore might have lost due to voters who were too stupid to vote correctly. That may sound harsh, but we don't get to make things up as we go. If a voter is unable to vote correctly, the fault lies with the voter, and there's no way to claim that any given vote should really have counted for Gore instead of the candidate for whom the vote was cast.

I'm sure the stat is accurate, but 20% of voters in Lake County "double-voted" for the candidate of choice? Of course, the article doesn't claim that the 20% all voted for Gore, so the writer tries to make it look like more of a significant swing for Gore than it might have been.

I read recently someone who pointed out that the people who decry the US Supreme Court allegedly deciding who the President would be seem to have no problem with the fact that if the USSC had not taken the case, then the Florida Supreme Court would have decided who the President would be.

From the Project's website FAQ:

for Votomatic (and to some extent Datavote) ballots, coders noted whether chads were dimpled and if so, whether light was shining through the dimple.

I reject the notion that a dimpled chad should be counted unless a vast majority of the races show dimpled chads instead of punched chads.

There's simply too much subjectivity in the process for it to be reliable.

[cindy.wellman]

Snippers from Cal: If a voter is unable to vote correctly, the fault lies with the voter, ..........(more here snipped)


Were the voters given a reasonably fail-proof and accurate way to vote? I'm not disagreeing with you on the last part of your post, which is why I snipped it.

Next election in 04: We were sent multiple absentee ballots from Alaska. Alaska was fighting within party lines, and every time a new ballot would go out, we would fill it out, and mail it back. Quibbling would occur between those Rs and Ds, and it would be deemed an inaccurate ballot and all the ballots would be tossed. Finally, the last time, we received our ballot, but due to the lateness of arriving, it didn't make it in to be counted in time. Was that my fault? Did it even matter? AK is such a small state and it wouldn't have made a whit of difference. I'm only using this example as an example that it isn't always the voter's fault.

[15QuestionsAway]

There is no valid way to count a vote for any candidate in an overvote circumstance. Thus, any analysis that included overvotes is worthless.

I don't agree, but I do understand this line of thought. The Wikipedia page on the subject is actually quite good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

From your cited source:

According to Mickey Kaus of Slate.com ([italics] in original), "If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes in which case Gore might well have won."

Note it doesn't say he would have won. That's a mightly large amount of conjecture

According to the New York Times, the Palm Beach County butterfly ballot may have cost Gore a net 6286 votes, and the Duval County 2 page ballot may have cost him a net 1999 votes, each of which would have made the difference by itself.

First off, there's no objective way of knowing how many votes Gore might have lost due to voters who were too stupid to vote correctly. That may sound harsh, but we don't get to make things up as we go. If a voter is unable to vote correctly, the fault lies with the voter, and there's no way to claim that any given vote should really have counted for Gore instead of the candidate for whom the vote was cast.

I'm sure the stat is accurate, but 20% of voters in Lake County "double-voted" for the candidate of choice? Of course, the article doesn't claim that the 20% all voted for Gore, so the writer tries to make it look like more of a significant swing for Gore than it might have been.

I read recently someone who pointed out that the people who decry the US Supreme Court allegedly deciding who the President would be seem to have no problem with the fact that if the USSC had not taken the case, then the Florida Supreme Court would have decided who the President would be.

From the Project's website FAQ:

for Votomatic (and to some extent Datavote) ballots, coders noted whether chads were dimpled and if so, whether light was shining through the dimple.

I reject the notion that a dimpled chad should be counted unless a vast majority of the races show dimpled chads instead of punched chads.

There's simply too much subjectivity in the process for it to be reliable.

Again, I understand your opinion, but the first line of the table in the Wikipedia article sums up mine:

Review of All Ballots Statewide (never undertaken)
Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey
Gore by 171

You reject the standards set by each county canvassing board. I do not, and neither the Florida nor US supreme court had the chance to rule on their methodology, since the full recount was not performed before the US supreme court decision.

I disagree with the original US supreme court ruling, but as the final arbiter, they made it. And since Gore chose not to fight it, it's water under the bridge.

[TheCalvinator24]

the full recount was not performed before the US supreme court decision.

It was never performed because it was never requested. Gore only asked for recounts in Counties he thought would be favorable to him. I'm not criticizing him for that necessarily, but one of the points in the USSC opinion was that the only appropriate way to do a recount would have been for one to be done statewide. That had not been requested, and by the time the Supremes got the case, there was not sufficient time for one to be done.

So, it could be said that Gore pled himself out of the White House.

[earendel]

So, it could be said that Gore pled himself out of the White House.

And there are some Democrats who will never forgive Gore for not putting up more of a fight.

[TheCalvinator24]

So, it could be said that Gore pled himself out of the White House.

And there are some Democrats who will never forgive Gore for not putting up more of a fight.

Once the USSC ruled, what could he do?

Seriously, what options did he have?

[earendel]

So, it could be said that Gore pled himself out of the White House.

And there are some Democrats who will never forgive Gore for not putting up more of a fight.

Once the USSC ruled, what could he do?

Seriously, what options did he have?

I have no idea. I just know that there are some who believe that Gore should have done more - perhaps not by the time it reached the USSC but beforehand.

[Sir_Galahad]

Just imagine if the Supreme Court had gone the other way, after all, Gore did win the popular vote.

How many people would still be alive? The people in the Twin Towers? The soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? Innocent Iraqi civilians caught in the crossfire?

To their families it made have made a huge difference.

I find this statement to be rather naive, PSM. You can't pin the Twin Tower disaster on Bush no matter how hard you try. He was just the wrong president at the wrong time. Try taking a look at the history of the clown that was holding the office the prior eight years.

[Rexer25]

Just imagine if the Supreme Court had gone the other way, after all, Gore did win the popular vote.

How many people would still be alive? The people in the Twin Towers? The soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? Innocent Iraqi civilians caught in the crossfire?

To their families it made have made a huge difference.

I find this statement to be rather naive, PSM. You can't pin the Twin Tower disaster on Bush no matter how hard you try. He was just the wrong president at the wrong time. Try taking a look at the history of the clown that was holding the office the prior eight years.

You can't pin it all on the current administration. I do believe they are in part at fault, and not just because it occurred on their watch. It should have been stopped long before it happened, and we shouldn't have overreacted by starting two occupations.

[silverscreenselect]

He was just the wrong president at the wrong time.

Bush was the wrong president at any time. Unfortunately, he happened to have picked a particularly bad time to be president. If he'd been around in, say, the 1840's, he couldn't have done nearly as much damage.

[Ritterskoop]

Just imagine if the Supreme Court had gone the other way, after all, Gore did win the popular vote.

How many people would still be alive? The people in the Twin Towers? The soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? Innocent Iraqi civilians caught in the crossfire?

To their families it made have made a huge difference.

I find this statement to be rather naive, PSM. You can't pin the Twin Tower disaster on Bush no matter how hard you try. He was just the wrong president at the wrong time. Try taking a look at the history of the clown that was holding the office the prior eight years.

Why do defenses of Bush so often end up being attacks on Clinton? How is it relevant to discuss the previous person to the one you are talking about? If you want to evaluate a conservative president, why wouldn't you compare him to other folks of his same group? It doesn't make sense to me to compare liberals to conservatives, no matter which one you want to defend or attack. They are fundamentally different. Comparisons should be to someone who has some similarities.

[Sir_Galahad]

Just imagine if the Supreme Court had gone the other way, after all, Gore did win the popular vote.

How many people would still be alive? The people in the Twin Towers? The soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? Innocent Iraqi civilians caught in the crossfire?

To their families it made have made a huge difference.

I find this statement to be rather naive, PSM. You can't pin the Twin Tower disaster on Bush no matter how hard you try. He was just the wrong president at the wrong time. Try taking a look at the history of the clown that was holding the office the prior eight years.

Why do defenses of Bush so often end up being attacks on Clinton? How is it relevant to discuss the previous person to the one you are talking about? If you want to evaluate a conservative president, why wouldn't you compare him to other folks of his same group? It doesn't make sense to me to compare liberals to conservatives, no matter which one you want to defend or attack. They are fundamentally different. Comparisons should be to someone who has some similarities.

I wasn't comparing liberals to conservatives, Skoop. I was merely pointing out that, IMO, Clinton had more of hand in the tragedy that was 9/11 than any other president. Perhaps if he had gotten bin Laden as he had the opportunity to do, 9/11 may not have happened. Also IMO, Bush had nothing to do with that attack. He was in office for, what, eight months? He had no more to do with 9/11 than he had to do with Hurricane Katrina (the storm itself) or global warming.

I do not think he is a particularly effective wartime president (especially when the war is of his own making). But, he's all we have at the moment and we're stuck with him until next year. What do you think Gore would have done if he had been elected president? Negotiated? "Oh, please, Mr. bin Laden. Don't do that again." Hahahahaha.....

[BackInTex]

He was just the wrong president at the wrong time.

Bush was the wrong president at any time. Unfortunately, he happened to have picked a particularly bad time to be president. If he'd been around in, say, the 1840's, he couldn't have done nearly as much damage.

You're kidding, right? Had he been president in the 1840's we'd all be speaking Cherokee.

[Sir_Galahad]

I also think it's quite possible 2001/9/11 would have been averted. The Bush administration was briefed about Al Qaeda by the Clinton administration during the transition. And the smoking gun, which Condoleeza Rice testified about in Congress, was the Presidential Daily Briefing of 2001/8/6 entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US". The intelligence community obviously knew something was up five weeks before the attack.

If you seriously believe this, I would highly recommend you read "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright. It will open your eyes. The wheels for this tragedy were in motion long before Bush became president.

[SportsFan68]

Why do defenses of Bush so often end up being attacks on Clinton?

Yay, Skoop!!

I've been asking this for almost eight years.

After about two years, I quit fighting it and just smiled when the Bush defender said Clinton, Bill, or Hillary, then changed the subject at the earliest opportunity.

[Ritterskoop]

Why do defenses of Bush so often end up being attacks on Clinton?

Yay, Skoop!!

I've been asking this for almost eight years.

After about two years, I quit fighting it and just smiled when the Bush defender said Clinton, Bill, or Hillary, then changed the subject at the earliest opportunity.

It seems to me a fallacious argument, redirecting the focus away from the person in question. I'm not sure which of these fits but it happens a lot, when there is no explanation for what you've been asked, so you redirect the question toward someone else. I understand now that Sirge was trying to say Bush is not responsible for the Twin Towers but Clinton is. But his original statement did not make that clear.

appeal to spite
false dilemma
guilt by association

I don't think it serves much point to talk about who is responsible for the attacks, because it's pretty clear it was al-Qaeda. One or another presidents might've had more effectiveness at preventing them, but it's a fog of possibilities. We don't know.

[gotribego26]

I disagree with the original US supreme court ruling, but as the final arbiter, they made it. And since Gore chose not to fight it, it's water under the bridge.

What do you mean by the original ruling? If the Fla Supreme Court had followed the advice from the original USSC ruling it may not have gone back to the USSC for the final ruling.

The real problem was the final ruling of the Fla SC. The most lucid analysis was C.J. Wells Dissent in the Fla Supreme Court ruling.

While the remedy to declare the election over won by 5-4, the ruling that the Fla Supremes were wrong was 7-2. If the Supremes had issued a decision on Dec 8 that made sense a recount may have gone on - they overreached at least as much in that decision as the US Supremes did, IMHO.