Here's the docs I've pasted into Word for handing out to fair-minded [hopefully] liberals in my network.
They do not have the bold and color emphasis as I've no time to do the html coding for that. IF YOU ARE A FREQUENT POSTER AND KNOWN TO ME, FREEPMAIL ME and I'm happy to privately email you a Word attachment with the bold and color emphasis intact.
I do not claim that these are the best docs to choose. They are the readily available ones from a few threads today. I have tried to get a committee of FREEPERS todgether to choose the best 6-8 docs for such handing out and not a single FREEPER has volunteered for such a tough task. I too have other priorities and actually a life not wedded to FR, contrary to appearances.
I have a file folder on my HD under my special projects category wherein I save threads etc. which might be useful for such distribution. I suspect the totals are above 100 and maybe above 200 threads/docs by now.
The college kid in the pottery studio I've tried to literally hire at $5.25/hour to read such docs as an experiment is still stalling after 4 months and he needs the money for a trip to Europe. Go figure. He sort of prides himself as being called a Commie in most of his classes though mostly he's a fiesty, moderately rebellious son of Quakers and a flaming liberal partly because he gets so much attention playing that role. Will post the results if he ever completes the task of marking the documents up and discussing them with me.
Anyway--for what the following may be worth for your copying and distributing to your network, here they are.
MY MARGINS ARE SET AT: 0.5" RIGHT AND LEFT AND 0.4" TOP AND 0.3" BOTTOM.
I removed some line spaces between paragraphs and put in 7 spaces at the beginning of a paragraph to fit some things on 2 pages.
I'd suggest copying and pasting each doc seperately into a different Word Doc. Though, certainly you could copy and paste the whole thing into a Word doc and divide it up after that.
FOLLOWING DOC PRINTED UP IN 2 pages; 1 sheet front/back
The below does not even consider the court cases. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200312100915.asp
These [blatantly false] charges have been rebutted before, but with so much misinformation and people's short memories simply accepting the charges, many risk believing that they are true. There has also been new research of which most people may not be aware which helps replace myth with reality.
1. THE MYTH OF THE FLAWED VOTING MACHINES & DEMOCRATIC DISENFRANCHISEMENT
Suppose spoiled or non-voted ballots really did indicate disenfranchisement, rather than voter preferences. Then, according to the precinct-level vote data compiled by USA Today and other newspapers, the group most victimized in the Florida voting was African-American Republicans, and by a dramatic margin, too.
Earlier this year I published an article in the Journal of Legal Studies analyzing the USA Today data, and it shows that African-American Republicans who voted were 54 to 66 times more likely than the average African American to cast a non-voted ballot (either by not marking that race or voting for too many candidates). To put it another way: For every two additional black Republicans in the average precinct, there was one additional non-voted ballot. By comparison, it took an additional 125 African Americans (of any party affiliation) in the average precinct to produce the same result.
Some readers may be surprised that black Republicans even exist in Florida, but, in fact, there are 22,270 such registered voters or about one for every 20 registered black Democrats. This is a large number when you consider that the election in the state was decided by fewer than 1,000 votes. Since these Republicans were more than 50 times more likely to suffer non-voted ballots than other African Americans, the reasonable conclusion is that George W. Bush was penalized more by the losses of African-American votes than Al Gore.
Democrats have also claimed that low-income voters suffered non-voted ballots disproportionately. Yet, the data decisively reject this conclusion. For example, the poorest voters, those in households making less than $15,000 a year, had non-voted ballots at less than one-fifteenth the rate of voters in families making over $500,000.
It is difficult to believe that wealthy people were more confused by the ballot than poor people. Perhaps the rich or black Republicans simply did not like the choices for president and so did not vote on that part of the ballot. Perhaps there was tampering, but it is difficult to see how it could have been carried out and covered up. We may never know, but, clearly, the figures show that income and race were only one-third as important in explaining non-voted ballots as the methods and machines used in voting. For example, setting up the names in a straight line appears to produce many fewer problems than listing names on different pages or in separate columns.
2. THE MYTH THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS WERE INCORRECTLY PLACED ON THE CONVICTED-FELONS LIST AT A HIGHER RATE THAN OTHER GROUPS
The evidence on convicted felons comes from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's Majority Report, which states: "The chance of being placed on this list [the exclusion list] in error is greater if the voter is African-American." The evidence they provide indicates that African-Americans had a greater share of successful appeals. However, since African-Americans also constituted an even greater share of the list to begin with, whites were actually the most likely to be erroneously on the list (a 9.9-percent error rate for whites versus only a 5.1-percent error rate for blacks). The rate for Hispanics (8.7 percent) is also higher than for blacks. The Commission's own table thus proves the opposite of what they claim. A greater percentage of whites and Hispanics who were placed on the disqualifying list were originally placed there in error.
In any case, this evidence has nothing to do with whether people were in the end improperly prevented from voting, and there are no data presented on that point. The Majority Report's evidence only examines those who successfully appealed and says nothing about how many of those who didn't appeal could have successfully done so.
3. THE MYTH THAT GORE WOULD HAVE WON IF RECOUNT HAD ONLY BEEN ALLOWED
There were two news consortiums conducting massive recounts of Florida's ballots. One group was headed by USA Today and the Miami Herald. The other one was headed by eight newsgroups including the Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, and CNN. Surprisingly, the two groups came to very similar conclusions. To quote from the USA Today group's findings (May 11, 2001) on different recounts:
Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten the manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush.
Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards.
Who would have won if all disputed ballots including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president had been recounted by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely used standards; Gore, under the two least used.
Of course, Florida law provided no mechanism to ask for a statewide recount a la the last option, only county-by-county recounts. And of course neither Gore's campaign nor the Florida Supreme Court ever asked for such a recount.
4. DON'T FORGET THE EARLY MEDIA CALL
Florida polls were open until 8 P.M. on election night. The problem was that Florida's ten heavily Republican western-panhandle counties are on Central, not Eastern, time. When polls closed at 8 P.M. EST in most of the state, the western-panhandle polling places were still open for another hour. Yet, at 8 Eastern, all the networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and NBC) incorrectly announced many times over the next hour that the polls were closed in the entire state. CBS national news made 18 direct statements that the polls had closed.
Polling conducted after the election indicates that the media had an impact on voter behavior, and that the perception of Democratic wins discouraged Republican voters. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel concluded Mr. Bush suffered a net loss of up to 8,000 votes in the panhandle after Florida was called early for Gore. Another survey of western-panhandle voters conducted by John McLaughlin & Associates, a Republican polling company, immediately after the election estimated that the early call cost Bush approximately 10,000 votes.
Using voting data for presidential elections from 1976 to 2000, my own own empirical estimates that attempted to control for a variety of factors affecting turnout imply that Bush received as many as 7,500 to 10,000 fewer votes than he would normally have expected. Little change appears to have occurred in the rate that non-Republicans voted.
Terry McAuliffe clearly stated his strategy "to use the anger and resentment that will come out of that 2000 election, put it in a positive way to energize the Democratic base." Democrats have used the notion that Bush is an illegitimate president to justify everything from their harsh campaign rhetoric to their filibusters against his judicial appointments.
More could be said about these myths, but most of them hardly merit discussion. Unfortunately, as Terry McAuliffe implies, these falsehoods will continue to be trumpeted frequently over the next year; thankfully, a few facts can help dispel them.
John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His data on the Florida 2000 election may be found at www.johnrlott.com.
The following printed up in 2 pages; front/back 1 sheet
YOU NEED TO INSERT A MANUAL P2 SOMEWHERE NEAR THE BOTTOM OF P2. The one I put here may not work as you'd wish when you copy and paste.
Author's Note: Bob Brinker is the host of the weekend financial talk program "MoneyTalk," which is broadcast live on Saturdays and Sundays from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM Eastern Time. This letter is being posted as a public response to a major topic on his shows during the weekend of February 21-22. . . . . .
I am writing to express my disappointment at one of the topics of discussion on your weekly "Moneytalk" radio show last weekend - namely, the events surrounding the results of the 2000 Presidential election. While that election has been (and will continue to be) the subject of endless discussion, there were a number of inaccurate comments on your show (by yourself as well as some of your callers) that need to be clarified. In particular, your statement that "the votes were not properly counted in Florida" was a gross misrepresentation of what actually transpired.
While it is true that there were a substantial number of ballots that were not tabulated for any candidate, a more accurate statement would have been that "many votes were not properly cast in Florida." Large numbers of ballots are discarded in any election - and for any number of reasons. What made this such an issue in Florida is that the number of discarded ballots greatly exceeded the margin of victory of the winning candidate. In your haste to blame improper vote tabulations, confusing ballots, and Ralph Nader for the demise of Al Gore in 2000, you have overlooked a number of important events from the weeks following the 2000 election. They are as follows:
1. If you are searching for one prime culprit in Gores unsuccessful legal challenges in Florida in November and December of 2000, look no further than his own lawyer, David Boies. Boies only sought hand recounts in 4 of Floridas 67 counties - all of them heavily Democratic counties with election boards controlled by the Democratic Party. In doing so, he virtually guaranteed that the results would be challenged in Federal courts on the grounds that subjecting ballots to different levels of scrutiny was a violation of Federal election law. Not only did each of these counties use their own standards for their hand counts, but in some cases the standards for tabulating the ballots changed even in the midst of the recount process. When it became clear that Florida election officials were attempting to "determine the intention of the voter" for each ballot, the tabulation process officially became a farce. At this point, there was nothing to prevent election officials from making a determination that a ballot with a "hanging" chad for Pat Buchanan and a "dimpled" chad for Al Gore was actually a clear indication of a vote for Al Gore - without any rationale other than the partisan leaning of the election official.
2. While the media focus in 2000 revolved around the hand recounts of "overvote" ballots with more than one vote cast for president, the issue of potential miscounts of "undervote" ballots was overlooked. Under some of the counting standards used in Florida in 2000, there was a strong possibility that many voters who had every intention of submitting ballots with no presidential candidate selected actually had their votes case for one of the major candidates. Counting this type of vote erroneously is no less egregious a violation of a voter's civil rights than failing to count a legitimate vote for one of the candidates.
3. The questions surrounding the "butterfly ballot" in Palm Beach County are particularly interesting, and the complaints about "voter confusion" would have been dismissed by any objective person once it was determined that: 1) county election officials reviewed the ballot before it was used on Election Day in 2000; and 2) the person who was ultimately responsible for preparing the ballot -- a Ms. Theresa LePore -- was a Democrat. While there is no question that something unusual had happened in Palm Beach County (Pat Buchanans 3,000+ votes were clearly an anomaly of some sort), there is a limit to how far an election board can go after votes have already been cast. The fact that many people decided after Election Day that they may have "voted for the wrong candidate" is not a sufficient reason to throw out the results of an election. . . . . .P 2 . . . .
4. There was some talk even among callers on your show about the "early call of Florida" by the media - before the polls had closed in the Florida Panhandle counties (which are in the Central Time Zone). Even if we assume that this was an honest mistake on the part of the U.S. media, there are two irrefutable facts here that have gotten surprisingly little attention: 1) Not only did the media project a winner in Florida before the polls closed in that state, the original projection was incorrect; and 2) The media predicted a winner in Florida - where the margin of victory was razor-thin no matter how it turned out - before a winner had been projected in several other states in the Eastern Time Zone where the margin of victory was substantial. (For what its worth, I have no patience for people who claim that the "early call" may have cost George W. Bush several thousand votes in the Florida Panhandle. Anyone in the Panhandle who stayed home on Election Day - and neglected to vote in any other state, county, or local elections in the process - does not deserve any consideration for how they "would have voted" if only they had been sufficiently motivated to make their way to their local polling place.
5. Despite the incessant complaints that "Bush was appointed by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision," the reality is that there were actually two Supreme Court decisions related to this case. By a 7-2 margin, the court ruled that the hand recount (with all the varying standards mentioned above) was, in fact, a blatant violation of Federal election law. The 5-4 decision involved the question of whether Florida should certify the results in time for the December 18th Electoral Collage vote or extend the deadline in order to allow for a state-wide recount under a uniform standard (which, ironically, is something that the Gore campaign had never asked for - but in retrospect may have been their best chance at securing enough votes to win the state).
The complaints about the 5-4 decision on the second issue are [D3 note: AT BEST AND MOST CHARITABLY] misguided. In fact, what very few people seem to have recognized is that the U.S. Supreme Court really had no business getting involved in this case in the first place. For that matter, the Florida State Supreme Court had no business interjecting itself in the process, either. All legal cases brought by both sides should have been thrown out of court without so much as a preliminary hearing.
In 2000, there should have been only two possible scenarios regarding the state of Florida: it would either certify a candidate as the winner in time for the December 18th Electoral College vote, or it would not certify a winner at all. The silly notion of "extending the deadline to count all the votes" was not a possibility - especially under the direction of a state court in Florida or the U.S. Supreme Court. Under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution ("Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."), the authority for certifying the results in Florida rested with the Florida legislature, not the Florida Supreme Court and not the U.S. Supreme Court.
Further, Article II, Section I states that "Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States." If the situation in Florida were so chaotic that a clear winner could not have been certified, then the state would have no certified results, and would cast no votes for president in the Electoral College on December 18th. Al Gore would have been the "winner" of the electoral vote by a 267-246 margin, with Floridas 25 electoral votes cast for neither candidate.
But that would not have been sufficient for him to be elected President of the United States, as Article II requires the winning candidate to not only have more electoral votes than any other candidate, but a majority of the 538 electoral votes. With no candidate securing such a majority, the president would then be elected in the House of Representatives. A vote in the House along party lines would have resulted in the election of George W. Bush as President of the United States.
Perhaps the most telling pieces of evidence regarding the "real vote count" in Florida in 2000 were the results of the 2002 elections in that state. Jeb Bush became the first Republican governor to be re-elected to office in the history of Florida, winning a landslide victory over Bill McBride, the Democratic candidate selected by Terry McAuliffe specifically to topple Jeb Bush. Katherine Harris (the Republican villain in the 2000 Florida certification) was successful in her bid for a seat in Congress, while Bob Butterworth (Al Gores Florida campaign manager) was defeated in his re-election bid as Floridas attorney general. [D3 note: those facts fly in the face of any logic purporting to be supportive of Gore].
The most inane comment from your radio show last Saturday was your statement that in future Presidential elections the Electoral College should be dispensed in favor of a nationwide popular vote - ostensibly because "people simply dont understand how the system works now." The ignorance of American voters about our system of electing government officials is a scathing indictment of our nations failure to educate its people about their responsibilities as citizens of this great country, but it is not a valid reason to change a process that has worked for more than 200 years. Anyone who does not understand how our system of government works ought to stay home on Election Day (along with all of those Palm Beach County voters who were incapable of using a ballot that even an average first grader could understand) and leave the governance of this country to those who do [D3 note: I mean, the idiocy of any other conclusion boggles my mind!].
Along these lines, the greatest fallacy about the 2000 election was that "Al Gore would have won based on the popular vote." While it is true that Gore received about 550,000 more votes than George W. Bush, the notion that this would directly translate into a Gore victory is ludicrous. The fact that Gore "won" the popular vote in an election that was held according to a different set of rules is utterly irrelevant. This is comparable to an assumption that the Philadelphia Eagles would have beaten the Carolina Panthers in this years NFC championship game if field goals in pro football were worth fifteen points instead of only three. The fact that the Bush campaign would certainly have had a different strategy under a "popular vote" election than they had under the current system is apparently beyond the comprehension of many people in this country.
Ironically, the exact reverse of the scenario that unfolded in 2000 was a potential part of the Gore campaigns strategy, in which they sought to secure a razor-thin margin in the Electoral College even if it meant "losing" the popular vote. A number of polls in the last few weeks of the campaign seemed to indicate that this was certainly a plausible scenario, so much so that Al Gore himself was moved in the last days of the 2000 campaign to sanctimoniously proclaim that the constitutional process must be upheld. It is amazing how few people today even remember that pompous [duplicitous, hypocritical] crap.
Your sarcastic comments about the subject aside, the reality is that the popular vote is irrelevant because the President of the United States is not selected by a nationwide vote - he is selected by the weighted results of 51 individual elections. People can certainly argue the merits of a presidential election by nationwide popular vote, but I am certain that your listeners and subscribers on the West Coast will question the wisdom of an election system in which enormous geographic regions in this country become largely irrelevant, and the entire election process revolves around that large portion of the American population that happens to live within 250 miles of Columbus, Ohio.
I happened to be living in Canada during the time the events surrounding the 2000 election unfolded. I was able to witness the whole charade from a distance, and I must admit that I was quite impressed (and bothered as hell) that all the Canadians I knew seemed to understand the U.S. electoral process better than many Americans did. The hockey fans among them compared it to a Stanley Cup championship series in which one team opens the series with a 5-0 victory but then loses four consecutive games by a 1-0 score. In this hypothetical scenario the team that scored the most goals goes home, while the team with fewer goals to its credit skates around with the Stanley Cup over their heads. And anyone who complains about the inherent unfairness of the process is rightly dismissed as a whining malcontent.
Stick to the financial stuff, Mr. Brinker. Nobody wants to hear a whining malcontent on the air. Sincerely, Alberta's Child P.S. If you truly believe that you "dont need" the tax cuts that youve received in the last couple of years, then set a good example for us all and just give the money back instead of complaining about it. p.3
2 PAGES; FRONT/BACK 1 SHEET: note: YOU MUST DELETE THE LINE SPACES BETWEEN THE URLS. I put those in here to try and make sure they showed up OK on FR without doing the htm ...thing.
Welcome to Bendell Enterprises
Cañon City, Colorado.
FORMER GREEN BERET TACKLES KERRY AGAIN!
Thank you, John Kerry, for helping make us Vietnam veterans war heroes now, but you also were the primary reason that the American public grabbed sturdy unbending brooms of judgment and swept us into the closet of silence and shame for so many years. Now, with your latest unreported insanity, you are getting ready for our society to grab those same stiff brooms and sweep our brave, noble young men and women fighting against the War on Terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, into that cold, dark cell of heartbreak and betrayal, like we Vietnam veterans had to endure in silent dignity. I cannot and will not watch this country go through that again.
The hardcore America-hating, Israel-hating, jihad-spouting Muslim clerics in the mideast are very excited and passing around a front page newspaper story from the very anti-American TEHRAN TIMES in Iran. In the country that is home of the worlds toughest theocratic dictatorship, an e-mail from Democratic Presidential nominee, you, John Forbes Kerry, sent to the paper by your campaign committee, although they deny sending it, was printed word-for-word on the front page of Irans main newspaper. Your message states emphatically that, if elected President, you, John Kerry plan to, within 100 days, not only end the War on Terror, but travel to the mideast and elsewhere and apologize for our actions and the actions of President Bush in the War on Terror. It says that you plan to apologize to friends and foes alike. That is right, folks. John Kerry will say he is sorry, and in his mind, all those jihad extremists, who have vowed to kill all Americans wherever we are, will simply forgive us, hold hands with Kerry, start singing Kumbaya, and all will be right in the world. This is insane!
Senior writer Kenneth R. Timmerman in the March 1st edition of INSIGHT, tells about the massive campaign contributions to the Kerry-for-President campaign by three Iranian businessmen living in the US, who are lobbying for the US lifting of sanctions on Iran and accepting the anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-American Tehran regime and the close ties of one to the chairman of Mobil Oil.
Pro-democracy dissidents in Iran are shocked and appalled at your remarks, and have reported that in Iran and other Mideastern countries, that all the extremists and anti-west mullahs who strongly supported the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, USS Cole, Marine Barracks, and any place Americans congregate, want you to become our President, but they are scared to death of George W. Bush. Just think, The Democratic candidate for President, you, John Forbes Kerry, is endorsed by the Al QAida, Hezbollah, PLF, and Hamas.
But on February 27, 2004, in a speech at UCLA , you, while trying to talk tough, despite voting against all major weapons systems for the past 18 years, stated that you will continue the War on Terror, but would use our police forces, and especially those in foreign countries, and you would also put our troops back under the powder blue flag of the United Nations . You recently made comments about Bush making troops fight without Kevlar vests, but you, Senator Kerry, voted against buying them while you were in the Senate.
Like the Kama Sutra, Senator, you change positions constantly. Youre not going to end the War on Terror, but instead use police to handcuff terrorists and read them their rights; then a week later, you are going to end the War on Terrorism and apologize to everyone we have offended, such as Iran. What is it going be next week, Kerry? You flip-flop more than a beached tuna on steroids.
You convinced TV reporters Chris Wallace on Fox and NBCs Tim Russert that a photograph circulating the web and news showing you a few rows away from Jane Fonda at a September, 1970 Anti-War Rally at Valley Forge, was simply a coincidence and that you and Hanoi Jane barely knew each other. But, in fact, Senator, there were only 8 speakers that day, including Fonda, Donald Southerland, and Bella Abzug, and Hanoi Jane funded that rally, and the keynote speaker was you, John Forbes Kerry, executive committee member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
We must be Americans first, and think about our political parties after that. Sometimes we lose sight of that. I have six grown children and two are democrats. I voted for Jimmy Carter. This is not about politics. It is about standing up to the ultimate playground bully, and not simply cowering and kissing his shoes.
I left it all on the field in the jungles back there when I was medevaced out of Vietnam in March of 1969 and sent back to hospitals in The World. Although You, Mr. Kerry, painted all of us Vietnam veterans with the yellow brush of My Lai and Tiger Force, most of us, draftees and lifers alike, actually poured our hearts out in the tropical rain forests and in the rice paddies, thoroughly gave it our all, and acted as warriors who had honor. I have a son earning his green beret at Fort Bragg right now and a daughter-in-law on orders for Iraq. I am not going to stand by and watch them go through the same treatment we did, because some of our well-meaning fellow Americans choose to wear blinders and believe things just because they heard it on the network news or simply not care enough to get involved.
I am not a baby-killer, torturer, or murderer, John Kerry. I am a Vietnam veteran and an American who will not soon forget, or ever want to see again, any more jets loaded with fuel and screaming, innocent Americans slamming into our buildings on our very own soil. I have shed enough tears for ten lifetimes. We all have. I will never again let my fellow countrymen get away with making American veterans feel like bastard step-children.
Santayana said, Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
John Kerry, I now call on my Band of Brothers, those who have heard the sound of guns and cries of orphaned children, those who hate war more than anyone who has not been there, to join me in this difficult battle ahead. Republicans, democrats, independents, and the apolitical, I call on the 25,000,000 veterans of this country to help me confront this evil facing our great nation, not with guns and bombs, but with our voices, our votes, our computers, and with all our fighting spirit.
My fellow veterans, your families, survivors, and neighbors: God bless you and God bless America.
You want proof of all I have to say. Here are the references: http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_2889.shtml http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=6246 http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=03&d=01&a=12 http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040229-105340-2864r.htm http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html http://nyyrc.blogspot.com http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_3130.shtml
Want more proof? Read the very exposing February 27, 2004 article, on page 8, of the NY Sun by Thomas Lipscomb, founder of Time Books and publisher of Admiral Elmo Zumwalts best-selling book. ON WATCH . Also read what the man who pinned the Silver Star on John Kerry had to say about him. The article is entitled Setting Straight Kerrys War Record
Don Bendell is a former green beret captain, who served in Vietnam on an A-Team and in the Top Secret Phoenix program in 1968 and 1969, as well as in three other Special Forces Groups. He is a best-selling author of 21 books, with over 1,500,000 copies of his books in print worldwide, and a seventh degree black master in four martial arts, who was inducted into the International Karate Hall of Fame in 1995 and Martial Arts Museum of America in 1996. e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
1 PAGE; ONE SIDE; ONE SHEET.
EDITORIALS ABOUT THE BOOK ON GORES ELECTION GRAB . . . AT ANY COST:
At Any Cost : How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election
by Bill Sammon FROM AMAZONS SITE:
Price: $19.57 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.
You Save: $8.38 (30%)
94 used & new from $1.85 Let us know if any of these recommendations are inappropriate.
Washington Times reporter Bill Sammon makes it clear in the opening pages of At Any Cost that he's not a big fan of Al Gore. In this fast-paced account of what happened to Florida's controversial vote, he explains how a defeated Gore desperately fought to turn things around. He starts by suggesting that tens of thousands of voters in the Florida Panhandle--Republican country--decided not to cast ballots when the media wrongly called the state for Gore early in the evening on Election Day, before all the polls had closed in the western part of the state. Without this blunder--which hasn't received nearly the attention heaped on the media for prematurely calling the election for George W. Bush several hours later--Sammon believes Gore would have given up his post-election campaign much sooner. Sammon also believes this had repercussions outside Florida: "If not for the networks' early and erroneous projections, Bush might have easily won the popular vote, and carried a few congressional seats with him."
The bulk of the book zeros in on Gore and his goal of "seizing the presidency." In one nifty bit of reporting, Sammon tracks down a navy lieutenant whose military ballot Gore's lawyers were determined to throw out. Sammon describes the unseemly spectacle of their success:
When the [Duval County] canvassing board announced that the ballots of 149 soldiers, sailors, and airmen had been disqualified, a pair of jubilant Gore lawyers exchanged high-fives. A Republican, visibly shaken by this sight, demanded to know how they could celebrate the disenfranchisement of U.S. military members risking their lives around the world. One of the Gore lawyers glibly replied, "A win's a win."
Sammon also covers all that business about the chads, Gore's "smear campaign" against Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and the Supreme Court's controversial Bush v. Gore ruling. This is by no means the definitive story of what happened in Florida, but it's a useful piece of journalism--and one that Bush's supporters will read with that heady mixture of outrage and excitement that politics uniquely provides. --John J. Miller
From the Inside Flap
Al Gore was furious. He wasn't supposed to lose.
Drawing on exhaustive, on-the-scene reporting and exclusive interviews with the key players including President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney Washington Times reporter Bill Sammon has written the definitive account of the most contentious presidential election in U.S. history.
At Any Cost is a breathtaking examination of Vice President Al Gore's audacious and unprecedented effort to overturn the presidential...
The only book on the Florida election debacle to make the New York Times bestseller list.
part of a page if your printing allows it. May put it on back of page 3 of the 3 pager above--Brinker's I think.
Turn it around on THEM. Make them show you ONE SINGLE RECOUNT that came up with anything other than Bush won in Floriduh. They can't.
It is a well known DemocRat tactic to "find" ballots or to count and recount and recount until they "find" enough ballots to put their candidate ahead and then declare that person the winner and the election over.
Make them argue that at 10 counts that show Bush as the winner are somehow less valid than ONE count that showed AlGore as the winner. (Like I said, they can't even find one instance where a recount came out in gwhore's favor.)
Make them support the argument that it is okay to take the ballots from a few Rat strongholds and give them special attention while ignoring the other 90+ counties to determine who should get the electors for the WHOLE state.
18 posted on 03/09/2004 10:12:18 AM MST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldnt be, in its eyes, a slave.)
THAT'S IT. I'd love to have 8 or so about Shrillery and Billdo's treasonous, illegal stuff.
Thanks very kindly- I saved it to a separate file and will back that up to another drive later.