NBC's Andrea Mitchell claims Supreme Court "denied Gore the Presidency."

NBC Nightly News | 12/09/04 | Andrea Mitchell

[Michael.SF.]

LOL,

I am not surprised. Thanks for the affirmation.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I will agree, if under the conditions desired by the Democrats, the counting had continued, Gore would have won.

Um, that's what I said.

[kabar]

I took issue with your comments concerning Andrea Mitchell's statement, i.e., "but in a way, what she said is accurate." SCOTUS never denied Gore the election. He didn't have more votes than Bush. The rest is supposition about a contrived outcome, which will always be the subject of conjecture. Mitchell's statement was political commentary and in no way accurate.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

She should be fired for being unable to understand fundamental concepts.

[Michael.SF.]

Um, that's what I said.

I qualified it further. I took your statement to mean that even under a fair and resonable recount, Gore would have won. On that I would diagree. Only by using the questionable methods that they tried to use would Gore have then won.

[StarFan]

Next year were bound to hear "Gore won. Bush lied. Bush knew. Worst economy in 80 years. The war is wrong. Bring the troops home. Over and over and over and over

Next year??? It began weeks ago and continues non-stop.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I took your statement to mean that even under a fair and resonable recount, Gore would have won.

But that's not what I said. I already was taking your qualifications into account.

For the record I believe all the recounts which took place (apart from the first, legally-mandated statewide recount) were both unfair and unreasonable, because they involved either or both of the following:

(a) hand-counting ballots which were not meant to be hand-counted, and in circumstances where no tabulation or mechanical error had been discovered (only voter error). Hand-counting was only provided for under the law in cases where tabulation or mechanical error had been found (during canvassing), but because local election boards Wanted Gore To Win, they pretended that hand-counting was allowed in case of voter error ("dimples" etc) as well, even though voter error occurs in every single election, proving that they were cherry-picking;

(b) forcing Katherine Harris to allow such vote counts (or, more precisely, vote FINDS) to be added to previous, legally-valid vote totals, and to certify the updated results, even after the legal deadline for certifying the election had already passed.

Only by using the questionable methods that they tried to use would Gore have then won.

Right. And this is why I believe Gore would have won. Because it is a matter of historical record that they were prepared to using questionable methods, and indeed did so throughout the process. Understand what I'm saying now? :)

[Dr. Frank fan]

I took issue with your comments concerning Andrea Mitchell's statement

I think that's probably because you misunderstood them.

SCOTUS never denied Gore the election. He didn't have more votes than Bush.

I didn't say he did. But they did deny Gore the election. More precisely they denied him in his efforts to steal the election. Ok?

The rest is supposition about a contrived outcome, which will always be the subject of conjecture.

I guess I agree w/that. My conjecture is that if the USSC hadn't stopped the SCOFLA from illegally extending deadlines and ordering new vote counts etc., eventually, the Dem. partisans who ran the election boards in the counties Gore was focusing on would have found one method or another of finding enough votes for Dan Rather / Peter Jennings / Tom Brokaw to go on TV and say "according to the latest vote count, Gore is now on top", at which point the matter would have been considered closed, with the result being Gore ends up being President.

Understand what I'm saying now?

[Michael.SF.]

Understand what I'm saying now? :)

It looks like Kabar in the post above also had a difficult time understanding what you said vs. what you meant.

Hmmm, makes me think you may not be expressing your thoughts as clearly as you think you are. It happens sometimes.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Hmmm, makes me think you may not be expressing your thoughts as clearly as you think you are.

Could be. Could also be that you guys didn't read my post #10 carefully enough, in your zeal to jump on someone. It happens sometimes.

[Fresh Wind]

I am proud to say that we voters in Tennessee denied Gore the Presidency!

Perhaps, but you had a bit of help from Bill Clinton. If he had done the honorable thing and resigned over the Monica affair, then Gore would have been running as the incumbent, and might actually have won.

[Michael.SF.]

You stated:

you guys didn't read my post #10 carefully enough, in your zeal to jump on someone

The opening line in my initial post to you said :

"Although what you say is correct, the chosen phrase just sounds wrong."

I was agreeing with you and now you state I am jumping on you?

Your sarcasm and implied/stated comments, that others do not understand you, due to their fault, are becoming quite tiresome. Obviously there is a communication and understanding problem here, one, which I hope, ends with this final comment.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Whatever. I don't even know what we're arguing about. You're right, you've been agreeing with me (without quite knowing it) for several posts now, and every time I tell you "that's what I said", you give me a "yes, but..." response to deal with. I'll stop if you'll stop. :)

[Michael.SF.]

I said in Post #112:

"I was agreeing with you

Then you said in # 113:

you've been agreeing with me (without quite knowing it)

Sounds like there exists here a total failure to comunicate and understand. That failure stems from your end, not mine, as witness the above and other comments.