Skip to comments.All In All, The Headlines Were Surprisingly Pro-Bush
Posted on 11/12/2001 9:03:21 AM PST by stayoutEdited on 09/03/2002 4:49:31 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
After hearing that the outcome of the media consortium's recount of the 2000 Florida vote was coming out last night, I was expecting a fiercely pro-Gore spin by all our favorite liberal newspapers. I must say I was pleasantly surprised by the generally neutral to pro-President Bush slant of the headlines (which is the only part most people would read anyway). Here is the results of my impromptu survey: 1. "Slim win-lose scenarios in Fla. vote review" Source: Boston Globe2. "Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds" Source: L.A. Times3. "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds ...
(Excerpt) Read more at Various ...
Yes, but what they did makes sense. I think there would have been a big backlash against the media and DemocRATs if they went against Bush during war time with this. Before 9/11, they would have sucker punched away.
"STUDY SHOWS THAT IF ALL BUSH VOTES WERE DISCOUNTED, GORE WOULD HAVE PROBABLY WON"
Followed by an angry editorial from Alan Drizzlesh*ts saying that all Bush voters should be impeached.
If the media could have, they would have done it. Another possibility is that if they had claime that Gore had the most votes, one can be sure the GOP would really dig deep into the rampant vote fraud in Florida and other states.
He got conservatives and even DUh'ers tuning in to hear his show last night.
They couldn't go against Bush even if they felt like it - Most of these counts were along the line of "if every ballot" meaning those ballots were nobody voted, where people voted for multiples, etc.
I think even Gore knows it - He knew it when he conceded and he knows it now, else he would be out there crying about it. Even some of the very liberal news media were saying Bush won it.
Bush Wins 47th Recount! 48th recount to start of Algore's birthday! Hope looms on for Algore!
Sioux Falls Argus Leader: "Extended Survey Of Disputed Fla. Ballots Finds Virtual Tie"
Burlington Free-Press: "More Voted For Gore, Study Says"
Chicago Tribune: "Florida In The Rearview Mirror"
Chicago Tribune: "Ballots, Rules, Voter Error Led To 2000 Elections Muddle, Review Shows"
Chicago Tribune: "Both Parties Failed To Scrutinize Area With Most Spoiled Ballots"
Chicago Tribune: "Still Too Close To Call"
Los Angeles Times: "GOP Was The Real Victim In Fla. Vote"
New York Daily News: "Full Fla. Recount Favored Gore -- Study"
Detroit Free-Press: "Faulty Voting Machine Part Blamed For Fiasco"
Detroit News: "Recount Gives Florida To Bush"
Los Angeles Times: "Bush Still Had Votes To Win In A Recount, Study Finds"
Los Angeles Times: "Many Voters Simply Did It Wrong"
Los Angeles Times: "Even For Veteran Research Team, It Was New Territory"
Los Angeles Times: "Vote Reform Slow To Come"
Miami Herald: "New Study Shows Bush-Gore Still A Tough Call"
Miami Herald: "Most States Fail To Reform Voting Systems"
Miami Herald: "Faulty Part May Have Voided Ballots"
Miami Herald: "State Repairing Image After Flawed Elections"
Modesto Bee: "Election Result Hinges On Ballot Count Rules That Show Voters' Intentions"
New York Post: "Bush Wins 'Re-Recount' -- Sort Of"
New York Times: "Study Of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast The Deciding Vote"
New York Times: "Who Won Florida? The Answer Emerges, But Surely Not The Final Word"
New York Times: "How The Consortium Of News Organizations Conducted The Ballot Review"
New York Times: "The Time For Ballot Reform"
Orlando Sentinel: "Uncounted Ballots Held Key To Bush-Gore Election"
Orlando Sentinel: "Both Sides Guessed Wrong; In Best Scenario, Gore Would Win By 171"
Orlando Sentinel: "Gore Could Have Overtaken Bush Under New State Rules"
Orlando Sentinel: "It's A Matter Of History, Not Politics"
Orlando Sentinel: "Court-Ordered Recount Was Guessing Game"
Orlando Sentinel: "Detailed Analysis Not Fast Or Cheap"
Orlando Sentinel: "Florida Officials Hope Machines Will Cut Errors"
Orlando Sentinel: "Volusia Down For The Recount"
Palm Beach Post: "Under The Two Most Likely Scenarios, Bush Wins Florida"
Palm Beach Post: "If Clearly Marked 'Over-Votes' Had Counted"
Palm Beach Post: "Statewide Recount Might Have Made Gore A Winner"
Palm Beach Post: "Screen Of Workers Missed Partisan"
Palm Beach Post: "Rights Panel Faults Harris On Handling Of Election Dispute"
San Francisco Chronicle: "Vote Study Concludes Florida Winner Was Bush (Or Maybe Gore)"
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "Media Review Gives Florida Vote To Bush -- By A Sliver"
St. Petersburg Times: "Recount: Bush"
St. Petersburg Times: "Without Overvotes Gore Was Doomed"
St. Petersburg Times: "Confusion, Inexperience Led 2,500 Voters To Err"
St. Petersburg Times: "Despite Election Fixes, Questions Remain"
Charlotte Sun-Herald: "Voting Equipment Heads Agenda"
Wall Street Journal: "A Review Of Controversial Election Shows Bush Winning A Recount Of Florida Ballots"
Wall Street Journal: "How The Media Consortium Conducted Its Exhaustive Review Of Florida's Ballots"
Wall Street Journal: "One State's Embarrassment Offers Lessons For Others"
Washington Post: "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush"
Washington Post: "Resolving The Dispute Over Dimples"
Washington Post: "A Symbolic, But Muddled, Victory; Cause For Democratic Outrage Is There, Even If The Case Isn't"
Washington Times: "Media Recount Of Florida Ballots Has Mixed Findings"
Washington Times: "Recount Provides No Firm Answers"
He actually took time out from his important new career pounding sand and sucking rocks to issue this brilliant statement?
What's with "effectively?" Did he really say that? What a punk!
And the NYT wrote: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. This is pure anti-Bush spin by Drudge.
So I can only assume from this, that their cry of outrage is really, "count all the non-votes and overvotes that are ordinarily excluded; and if the holes are punched for both Bush and Gore, then it is obvious that it was a stupid voter and we know that stupid voters vote overwhelmingly for Gore, so those votes obviously can't be counted for Bush. The fix was in and we were cheated out of the votes we bought and stole."
A danmed important distinction!!
Doesn't matter. What matters are three factors:
1 - Under an earlier Florida Supreme Court decision, it is the responsibility of the voter to properly fill out his or her ballot, and
2 - Under Florida law, a full recount for a county can only proceed if, upon request for a recount, a sampling determines that there was a machine or tabulation error. Of the four counties where Gore requested a recount, only Volusia County fit that criteria, and they had their recount done within the legally-mandated time frame. There is no provision in Florida law for a statewide recount, and no provision to correct voter error, so
3 - Under United States law, guidelines and laws for elections cannot be altered after the election - something the Florida Supreme Court was clearly trying to do, as witnessed by the dissent by Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Wells in the second decision by that court:
I want to make it clear at the outset of my separate opinion that I do not question the good faith or honorable intentions of my colleagues in the majority. However, I could not more strongly disagree with their decision to reverse the trial court and prolong this judicial process. I also believe that the majority's decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution. My succinct conclusion is that the majority's decision to return this case to the circuit court for a count of the under-votes from either Miami-Dade County or all counties has no foundation in the law of Florida as it existed on November 7, 2000, or at any time until the issuance of this opinion. The majority returns the case to the circuit court for this partial recount of under-votes on the basis of unknown or, at best, ambiguous standards with authority to obtain help from others, the credentials, qualifications, and objectivity of whom are totally unknown. That is but a first glance at the imponderable problems the majority creates.
Importantly to me, I have a deep and abiding concern that the prolonging of judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional crisis. I have to conclude that there is a real and present likelihood that this constitutional crisis will do substantial damage to our country, our state, and to this Court as an institution. On the basis of my analysis of Florida law as it existed on November 7, 2000, I conclude that the trial court's decision can and should be affirmed.
So all this blather is completely irrelevant. Bush won - deal with it.
- NY Post