Skip to comments.Need Succinct "Bush Stole Florida" Rebuttal
Posted on 08/11/2004 12:45:43 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
We've all been there.....a relative that insists some sacredly held leftist point is correct. In this case, it is my brother - who has far more conservative views than he knows. Well, in this case, he is convinced that Bush stole the election in Florida. Anyone who can direct me to a factual summary of those painfully long events, it would be greatly appreciated. I believe my brother to be intellectually honest and the "pesky facts" may sway him.
I only on the rarest occasion post vanities. Any help is appreciated.
He won it on election night. He won the state mandated recounts. He won EVERY recount done by EVERY media outlet. It was GORE he took matters to the courts to try and overturn the results.
If Gore had been able to win his home state, he wouldn't be whining about Florida.
Get the book "At Any Cost" by WA Times author Bill Sammons.
Also, there were 6-7 recounts and media recounts, some after the SCOTUS ruling, and Gore lost every one....
How 'bout "He won on election night and in every recount."
There have been three separate audits of the Florida election by various networks, and in each case Bush won by more than the official election results showed.
i tell them that "yes, he stole florida and he's going to steal it again and there's nothing you can do about it!" ... and then i laugh really loud
"George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes more than triple his official 537-vote margin if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election."
because you aren't going to change their minds anyway
I usually favor:
"Get a life"
"The New York times even concluded Bush got more votes in Florida than albert."
All the info you need is in post #2. The Miami Herald did a recount and declared Bush the winner as did other media outlets.
Find Nat Hentoff's archives. He posted a succinct column in the Village Voice (?) in December 2000 that laid out the Constitutional argument in favor of GWB's actions, and against algore's interpretation of the FL fiasco. Given that Hentoff is a left/liberal, his opinion should be respected by your brother.
Agree with him tell him were getting ready to steal it again.
Call the men with the white jackets. Anybody who keeps visiting that issue is delusional.
Good post. On a related note when you hear (some) minorities talk about Flori-duh you hear them say "we were disenfranchised" "we weren't allowed to vote" etc. etc.
While this is almost certainly not true, it's something they seem to believe.
Of course it's hard to prove a negative (or is it disprove a negative?) but how does one respond to this argument?
Note that this has nothing whatever to do with counting or recounting - this minority viewpoint says that they never were allowed in to the polling places so they never got as far a having their votes counted (or not).
GW won on election night and in every recount. End of story. Anyone who can't read and understand all the news articles about this has to be a dimmy dem with a closed mind. Truth counts. Only with conservatives and pubbies.
If he's your brother, just punch him in the middle of the back until the wind is knocked out of him. Then tell him if you hear any more liberal drivel out of him you'll do it again twice as hard. That ususally works.
Just point out that it was Gore who went to court to get the election law changed after the fact. The Bush stance (upheld by the USSC) was only that the law should be followed.
How about this?
See also Dave Kopel's thorough bashing of MM's assertions on this issue in "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11" :
Send em to the NY Times.
November 12, 2001
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER
Acomprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.
"He stole it fair and square."
Fellow Freepers, please forgive me posting this. I do so only in the spirit of "know thy enemy" and pertains to what Al Franken has been drooling out on his unentertaining radio show. He was commenting on this topic and told his microscopic audience that the "Bush Won the Recount" only applied to the selected counties involved, but that the media recounts done state wide, regardless of which standard was used, showed clearly Gore to be the Florida winner. How much of this is Franken-spew or is there any merit in this claim? I worry that this may turn into two conflicting stories in the media and the truth will be lost in the polarizing nature of the topic.
George W. Bush (W) 2,912,790 48.850 Republican
Al Gore 2,912,253 48.841 Democrat
2) The Supreme Court decision stopping the recounts was 7-2, not 5-4 as widely revised. Check it out and check out the reports from when it was given.
3) There is no evidence that minorities were disenfranchised. Ask a person making this claim to provide evidence if they claim there is some.
4) The state was called for Gore at least 10 minutes before the polls closed in the panhandle by several networks. There are claims, more credible than those that minorities were disenfranchised or elderly people misplaced their votes, that Bush voters on the panhandle got out of line rather than voting, costing Bush votes.
The reality is that the Florida election fell within the "margin of error" such that a minor adjustment here or that could have given either candidate the win. But in every reasonable recount by the press, Bush won, and the number of voters that Bush lost in the panhandle likely cancels any possible case of minority voter disenfranchisement that can be considered. What about all those Buchannan votes? It's entirely possible that hundreds voted for him in Palm Beach County. I believe he owns a house there. And the bottom line is that we can't assume that everyone who didn't vote for Gore would have any more than we can assume that every bad ballot was an intended vote for Bush.
Also, ask any Gore supporters if they are troubled by the legendary voter fraud in the Democratic Northeastern cities. My stepmother (a widow who married my father) had to tear the voting card for her first deceased husband out of the voting book in Hudson County, New Jersey to stop him from voting while dead. Does that sort of stuff trouble the Gore supporter as much as the unsupported allegations of voter disenfranchisement in Florida do? And while you are at it, ask them why Democrats consider asking a voter for identification to prove that they are who they claim to be before they vote "harassment". This demonstrates that Democrats have zero interest in fair elections. They will simply say anything and do anything to win, which is why leftist thugs need to be kept out of power.
Once you do that, your sources will be challenged.
Therefore, you are well-advised to include some credible liberal source.
A good one is...
I like to think so...(as i would tell a lib)
"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: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
This means that they have to go by the rules that were made by the state legislature. And these rules must be made before the election takes place.
The Democrats in Flroida tried to change the rules by use of the courts. And they tried to make these changes after the election had already taken place.
The U.S. Supreme Court said you can't do that.
If you want to change the rules, then you must do it through the state legislature. And you must do it before the election takes place.
Also, if you're going to have a recount, it must be across the entire state. The Democrats only wanted recounts in heavily Democratic districts.
They did many counts and recounts. Bush won every count, and every recount.
I am still looking for more information on the story broken by British lefty Greg Palast that suggested possible hanky panky on the part of Florida election officials in eliminating qualified voters from the registration rolls based on dubious criteria that they might be felons.
Even if this story eventually turns out to have merit in favor of the the Rats, it is selective outrage. It does not take into account voting irregularities in other states, or the effect on panhandle voting of an early call of Florida for Gore by the media.
Nevertheless, if anyone has any information confirming or refuting this story, please let me know.
This isn't a short answer. However, if they throw any obsure inanity your way, this page probably has the answers. You'll just have to get back to them
How about, "Go f*** yourself!"
Don't knock yourself out trying to change your brother's mind. Liberals cheat, including using family relationship to keep conservatives from being more effective.
Of course, if Gore could have won his own home state, FL would not have mattered.
Also, I have never heard ANYTHING about the other states that were very close, but that W would not dispute, or ask for a recount.
1. Bush wanted to follow the rule of law. (Gore wanted to change the rules.)
2. Bush wanted to treat all counties equally. (Gore wanted vote-expanding recounts only in a few counties where he knew that would expand his vote count.)
3. Bush won every count ever made.
4. The SCOTUS voted 7-2 that the Gore-proposed, SCOFLA-adopted selective recount was illegal.
IIRC, the extensive post mortems all concluded not only that Bush would have won under the improvised ballot standard Gore was demanding, but also that Bush would have won under any counting methodology with regard to the undervotes.
That leaves the overvotes (more than one choice for President). Overvotes, of course, were automatically discarded per Florida law, and Gore never asked that overvotes be examined. The open question, I think, is what would happen if you counted the ballots where someone punched Gore and then wrote in Gore at the bottom (or both punched and wrote in Bush).
Dubious criteria? LOL. You are a lost soul. Bug somebody else.
Or just do what Michael Moore does and make a sh!tty documentary or 6.
Try, "Wait until you see how many he steals this time!"
Your opponent will usually respond with a really stupid, somewhat sad or angry reply.
Because, if Bush was able to steal the election while not being President, obviously nothing is going to stop him this time.
Thus, you may lead them to consider the logical conclusion of their stupid "stole the election" premise - to stay home and not vote because the whole thing is fixed - our desired result.
Then they can remain extremely angry about the fact that they live in the freest and most prosperous country in human history and Bush is corrupt and stupid or something like that.
He interviewed Gore poeple, Bush people, poll workers, military guys who had their absentee votes thrown out, all sorts of people.
The loss of the military votes alone should make him furious. I just read this book although I have read Sammon's other books; I just couldn't face reading about the whole mess in 2001.
Bush is president, Gore is not.
Turn it around, Bush won every count, every recount, every time. He won the media recount by some of the most hard left media in the country, and by a larger margin than the official count!
Make them show you one instance where AlGore won a count.
Tell him to just go, now what was it that Cheney said?
But the better response is "Why did Al Gore concede a corrupted election when he was the sitting Vice President?"