Watching the Democratic National Convention this week, one reoccurring theme is that "every vote counts." It's a sad display of "Al, we feel your pain." But there's another part to this picture that no one is talking about.<br><br>In the aftermath of the 2000 Elections, Al Gore decided to contest the Florida outcome. Put aside the fact that the ABC, CBS and NBC all prematurely called Florida for Gore and informed voters that the polls in Florida were closed, which, in the Panhandle they were not and it's estimated that this "gaffe" cost Bush between 8,000 to 10,000 votes, I want to look at something else. I want to put aside for a moment that Gore resorted to piecemeal litigation in Florida counties where he thought he might gain an advantage from a recount, while skipping the demands for a recount in counties where a recount might add votes to the Bush column. Gore proved to be much more ruthless and corrput than that.<br><br>Team Gore wanted use whatever means possible to supress absentee votes from military personnel serving overseas. These votes were to be excluded based on "technicalities" relating to postmarks and signatures. When exposed, harsh and intense criticism fell upon these Democratic tactics. The Democrats efforts to exlude the votes of military personnel serving our country overseas stunned Americans across party lines. Disgust errupted across the political spectrum. But it's important, in this 2004 election cycle, where Al Gore stands up and hypocritically reminds us that "every vote counts" to remember who didn't stand up:<br><br>Not one single Democrat, in that time, stood up to condemn the Gore Campaign's decision to win, even at the cost of casting aside the votes of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Not one Democrat, including John Kerry.<br><br>John Kerry likes to talk about championing the causes of veterans. Most veterans would count among these causes the protection of the voting rights of those serving our country in the military. Yet, in December 2000, John Kerry did nothing to protect that "value." John Kerry remained silent and went along, in complicity with Democrats, to help Gore win at all costs.<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:red]VOTE for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
***************<br><br>This space left intentionally blank
wait, kerry is at fault in 2000 because of the link you've just made yet you failed to see the osama and cleland link yesterday? that's quite the selective interpretation you have there.<br><br>gore was trying to have ballots tossed that didn't meet the requirements of the law, though, it looks like local election officials were playing a bigger role in trying to follow the law. amazing how this gets skewed into something evil...and, then linked to kerry. <br><br>anyway, here is a cnn article discussing those military ballots.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A six-month investigation into the overseas absentee ballots by the newspaper concluded that the Republican effort to get questionable ballots accepted had a "decided impact on the outcome," the newspaper said. George W. Bush won the presidency by 537 votes.<br><br>The newspaper analyzed 2,490 overseas absentee ballots that were counted as legal votes after the general election, November 7, 2000. It found 680 questionable votes: "ballots without postmarks, ballots postmarked after the election, ballots without witness signatures, ballots mailed from towns and cities within the United States and even ballots from voters who voted twice. All would have been disqualified had the state's election laws been strictly enforced," the article said.<br><br>The newspaper said it is not known for whom the flawed ballots were cast, but that "four out of five were accepted in counties carried by Mr. Bush."<p><hr></blockquote><p>perhaps you missed the part about the legality of those ballots...here it is again, "All would have been disqualified had the state's election laws been strictly enforced."<br><br>--<br>"It is worth seeing, debating and thinking about, regardless of your political allegiances...[Moore's] most disciplined and powerful movie to date." -- A.O. Scott, NEW YORK TIMES
You fail to see that the only link between Cleland and Osama was the one the New York Times tried to make when falsely decribing the Chambliss ad. The ad was linking Cleland and his anti-Homeland Security voting record in context to world events.<br><br>Meanwhile, back in 2000: Since when were Democrats concerned about following Florida election law? <br><br>It was VP candidate Joe Lieberman, not John Kerry, who first stepped up for military personnel:<br><br>"My own point of view, if I was there, I would give the benefit of the doubt to ballots coming in from military personnel, generally . . . if they have the capacity, I'd urge them to go back and take another look [at accepting the ballots], because again, Al Gore and I don't want to ever be part of anything that would put an extra burden on the military personnel abroad."<br><br>Bob Graham, D-Fla on the Today Show:<br><br>"I believe that we ought to bend over backwards to have everybody's vote, and particularly those men and women who are serving us in uniform in high-risk areas"<br><br>"The federal law provides that a postmark is not required for absentee ballots for overseas-stationed military personnel. That ought to be the governing rule, and every possible vote that can be counted ought to be counted."<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:red]VOTE for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
***************<br><br>This space left intentionally blank
okay, you've just named one of the guys who was actually running and another guy who was the senator from florida. of course they are going to speak up. i am glad to read that you view those democratic senators the same way i do...as participants in the party who fights for every vote.<br><br>did kerry say back then that they votes should not have counted? because, i did not read that in your initial post. i think you are making a huge stretch to try and make a point.<br><br>--<br>"It is worth seeing, debating and thinking about, regardless of your political allegiances...[Moore's] most disciplined and powerful movie to date." -- A.O. Scott, NEW YORK TIMES
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.