Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Something "smells here"? Sheesh. Trust me, Norm Coleman is crying tears of bitter defeat right now. Wellstone, like Carnahan in 2000, will be re-elected to the U.S. Senate anyway.

Originally Posted by nd boom '59

IMHO the race should be poseponed for thirty days to allow all sides to have a fair and equal chance to imform the voter.

Regardless of what the current election laws say (and surely in 150+ years of voting, I'm sure the law addresses a candidate death) on this issue, one thing is for sure, some liberal notion of "fair and equal" will trump the rule of law.

Imagine, during a football game, that officals suddenly decide a crucial play merely on their perception of what would be "fair and equal" while tossing aside the rule book. What rioting would ensue, huh?

How much more important is an election than a football game? Today, it's the football game that's far more important to the voters. Which is why the election rule book will be tossed aside in Minnesota, just as it was in New Jersey.

Perhaps I am just down wind, but the odor is increasing.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Trust me, Norm Coleman is crying tears of bitter defeat right now. Wellstone, like Carnahan in 2000, will be re-elected to the U.S. Senate anyway.

From today's Washington Post:

Republicans say Coleman will be sidelined until the funeral takes place and a new Democratic nominee starts campaigning. "Out of respect for the recent tragic events, the Coleman office is closed. The campaign has suspended activities," says a somber recording at his campaign headquarters.

A top White House official said Mondale would be tough, if not impossible, to beat.

That two Republican senate candidates, that were giving incumbent Democrats a great run for their money, got completely nuked like they have, is amazing.

But it is interesting, is it not, the generational angle to the senate story this year? Two Baby Boomers, the Torch and Wellstone, both in hotly contested races, being replaced by a GI and an aging Silent?

This tells me that Democrat party is not the party with any new ideas, but one inexorably stuck in the past. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

The law was written for a reason. That reason was to prohibit candidate switcheroos, for whatever reason, as an election nears.

Simply stated, you can't vacate within 51 days of the vote. But if you do vacate, prior to the 51 day deadline, you have only to within 48 days of the vote to name the replacement.

Dance w/wo the law all you want, but at least be honest and call it a dance. And it a pretty convoluted dance at that. Sheesh.

Well then, if the purpose of the law was that clear and they were that determined about their goal to prevent a party replacing its candidate, then shouldn't they have made it explicit in its expression in the law? Don't you think they'd write the law to list an entire sentence that these slimy weasels aren't allowed to change anyone at all by the 51-day boundary? If not, they should have. I wouldn't have any problem with that stipulation--just write it down!

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Are any of you on the left growing tired of this sophistry?

No.

Originally Posted by buzzard44

Senator Wellstone and family killed in a plane crash eleven days before an important election... Democrat... Liberal... Voted against the resolution on Iraq... Outspoken...

Something smells here.

This is not lost on anyone here in Missouri, who lost Mel Carnahan in a plane crash just three weeks before the 2000 elections. I'd be lying if I said that I had no suspicions.

And if something WERE fishy regarding this tragedy ( and it sounds like even the Minnesota election itself has potential) this could be a catalyst.

Most Americans ridicule the idea that political conspiracy could exist. I've always thought that the chances of it happening were good. Really now, don't most of you agree?

Originally Posted by cbailey

Really now, don't most of you agree?

No.

For some evidence we're in a Third Turning....

This comes from FoxNews. It's reprinted here for educational purposes only.


Adults Take Over Teen Sports

Sunday, October 13, 2002
By Dari Alexander


NEW YORK —— More and more, it seems, the line between childhood and adulthood is
blurring.

And when it comes to the domains that once belonged solely to kids, especially extreme sports
like skating and snowboarding, "adolescent adults" have a passion to play -- and powerful pockets
to pay for fancy equipment, special gear and other merchandise.

"Snowboards aren't cheap. They're really expensive and only grownups can basically afford them,"
said Hose Cedeno, a spokesperson for the sports equipment maker Blades Board and Skate.

A recent study by the MacArthur Institute says that age 34 is the new 18, and hitting 50 is like
turning 30.

And these adults who are young at heart play harder than their parents did when they were that
age. It's a group that's 76.1 million strong with an annual disposable income of $930 billion.

As a result, the retail industry is salivating. Scooters and skateboards, for example, used to be
strictly kids' stuff. Now manufacturers are making them for adults.

And men who are holding onto their youth are one of the hottest markets, according to some.

"Gadgets, gears and girls: the three G's," Maxim magazine's Steve Russell said. "I think a real
important thing to consider in this trend is that men are living much longer than they used to. If
you're going to live until 80 years old, why stop having fun when you're 30?"

Indeed, perhaps the world's most famous skateboarder is 34-year-old Tony Hawk, who still skates
regularly and is the only person ever to perform a 900-degree turn.

But women, who are surfing and snowboard in record numbers, are also in on the act.

Some say the need for fun and such on-the-edge excitement is fueled by a fear of commitment,
but others say it's just a temporary escape for those who are already over-committed with work,
friends and love lives.

"When you look at the reality, these people have made commitments to their jobs, they've made
commitments to their family, they really seem to have no problem with commitment,"
psychologist Georgia Witkin said. "They plan to get married, just not yet, and in the meantime it's
all about them."

So enjoy the snowboards, hiphuggers, scooters and skates, said Witkin.

Meanwhile, as the Peter Pan set goes through a second adolescence, retailers are making big
bucks off of what they call the new-generation market.

[quote="Marc Lamb"]

Originally Posted by cbailey

Really now, don't most of you agree?

No.[/quote

Really. Why are the chances not good?]

Reason: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits effective conspiracy which, to have any real significant effectiveness, must operate in a vacuum.

While some willful political party, or business or national concensus may encourage conspiratorial behavior, such as mob activity, New Deal politics etc..., for a "season", First Amendment right still limit their effectiveness.

Originally Posted by madscientist

Originally Posted by buzzard44

Senator Wellstone and family killed in a plane crash eleven days before an important election... Democrat... Liberal... Voted against the resolution on Iraq... Outspoken...

Something smells here.

This is not lost on anyone here in Missouri, who lost Mel Carnahan in a plane crash just three weeks before the 2000 elections. I'd be lying if I said that I had no suspicions.

For the heck of it, I took a look at www.democraticunderground.com to see what active Democrats are saying. I found a link to the article below. What on earth is this shadowy Americans for Job Security with deeper pockets than the candidates? Do you know anything about it, Robert?


http://startribune.com/stories/587/3382739.html

(For educ. and discussion)


Mysterious group spends $1 million on anti-Wellstone campaign

Patricia Lopez
Star Tribune

Published Oct 23, 2002


Americans for Job Security, a Virginia-based interest group that opposes the reelection of Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone, has made an unprecedented $1 million ad buy that will fill the airwaves in the last two weeks before the election, according to Wellstone campaign officials.

Campaign manager Jeff Blodgett said the buy is so large that it may equal what Wellstone and Republican rival Norm Coleman and the two state parties each are expected to spend on media in the closing weeks.

Blodgett said his biggest concern is that no one knows who funds the mysterious group, which has found a legal loophole that apparently allows it to keep its donors secret.

"In a state with a reputation for clean, transparent campaigns, this is an outrage, that a group can come in and spend this kind of money and no one knows who their donors are," Blodgett said at a Tuesday morning news conference. "We demand to know. We ask Norm Coleman to join us in this."

Michael Dubke, president of Americans for Job Security, would neither confirm nor deny the amount of the ad buy "because I don't want to play their game," but said that "we're up [on TV] in Minneapolis, Duluth, Rochester, Fargo and statewide with radio and let's just say Minnesota's not an inexpensive state."

He said the group would have a "significant presence" on radio and TV over the next two weeks. Dubke said he has made similar-size buys in South Dakota and Missouri -- the two other states that are top targets in President Bush's attempt to put Republicans in control of the U.S. Senate.

Dubke is unapologetic about the group's refusal to disclose its donors, saying the decision is legal and is common among issue advocacy groups.

Coleman campaign manager Ben Whitney said Tuesday that Coleman would not be contacting Dubke's group or asking it to disclose its donors.

Wellstone, he said, had benefited for months from ads run by liberal interest groups. "He's getting money from radical groups like Council for a Livable World -- and we don't know who its donors are -- and then he demands that we ask someone else not to advertise in Minnesota because he doesn't like what they're saying," Whitney said.

He noted that Coleman, at the beginning of the race, had offered Wellstone a joint agreement to keep third-party money out of the race and that Wellstone refused. "It's brazen hypocrisy and it leaves me kind of breathless," Whitney said.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communications, said the group's tactic is "the reason issue advocacy is so problematic. You can disguise the nature of the group through a lovely sounding name."

Jamieson, a national expert on political ads, said the sheer magnitude of such an ad buy could change the course of the election.

"Large amounts of money from a third-party group late in a tight race can, in fact, shift votes, unless the message is off-strategy," she said.

The high-buck, high-profile race has been one of the tightest in the country, drawing celebrities and political luminaries from across the nation, along with a raft of outside interest groups.

Americans for Job Security has been a player in the race since June, when it began a round of radio ads that labeled Wellstone a "money-grubber" for his opposition to a permanent repeal of the estate tax, which it calls the "death tax."

A new TV ad criticizes Wellstone for taking special-interest money and for breaking a promise not to run for a third term.

Blodgett said Tuesday that he was less concerned about the content of the ads than the sheer magnitude of the buy, which he said might be the largest ever by an outside group in a Minnesota race.

Little is known about Americans for Job Security, which is based in Alexandria, Va., just outside Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1997 with a $1 million contribution from the American Insurance Association, which Dubke says is no longer associated with Americans for Job Security.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center Web site, which analyzes issue ads, describes the group as a "tax-exempt, conservative, business-backed, pro- Republican organization" that was an offshoot of a coalition of business leaders who came together in 1996 to advocate against issues promoted by the AFL-CIO.

Americans for Job Security has taken several unconventional tacks in this race -- it flew a banner over the State Fair this summer asking Wellstone to "stop taxing the dead." Its latest radio ad features a couple speaking in English and Norwegian.

In the ad, Lloyd tells Ruth in Norwegian that Wellstone is a money-grubber and should stop taxing the dead. "If he doesn't get it in English," Lloyd says, "maybe he'll get it in Norwegian."

Dubke said the group is trying to "cut through the clutter."

"Our whole goal since June has been to energize the debate," he said. "I think in American politics we don't have enough debate on public policy issues. If we let [candidates] do what they wanted, we'd get a bunch of ads telling us how much their mothers love them."

Perfect example of what I mean:

Mysterious group spends $1 million on anti-Wellstone campaign

Ain't a "Mysterious group" anymore, huh?

Thus the effectiveness of the supposed "conspiracy" is busted by the press, protected from any power the the vacuous "conspiracy" might weld to silence it by the First Amendment.

Yet, none of this tames the conspiracy buffs who, for whatever reason, just cling to this notion that the demon is lurking out there in the form of the next CFR. It's quite funny to watch these conspiracy freaks trade in their craft. It's as if having worked so long with there noses closely pinned to the wall of conspiracy, they never do realize that the lights got turned on long ago and there isn't that much stuff out there that hasn't already been exposed.

Plus there's a lot of good money in the conspiracy game, like the Apocalyse-game, too.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Reason: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits effective conspiracy which, to have any real significant effectiveness, must operate in a vacuum.

While some willful political party, or business or national concensus may encourage conspiratorial behavior, such as mob activity, New Deal politics etc..., for a "season", First Amendment right still limit their effectiveness.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Perfect example of what I mean:

Mysterious group spends $1 million on anti-Wellstone campaign

Ain't a "Mysterious group" anymore, huh?

Thus the effectiveness of the supposed "conspiracy" is busted by the press, protected from any power the the vacuous "conspiracy" might weld to silence it by the First Amendment.

Yet, none of this tames the conspiracy buffs who, for whatever reason, just cling to this notion that the demon is lurking out there in the form of the next CFR. It's quite funny to watch these conspiracy freaks trade in their craft. It's as if having worked so long with there noses closely pinned to the wall of conspiracy, they never do realize that the lights got turned on long ago and there isn't that much stuff out there that hasn't already been exposed.

Plus there's a lot of good money in the conspiracy game, like the Apocalyse-game, too.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Reason: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits effective conspiracy which, to have any real significant effectiveness, must operate in a vacuum.

While some willful political party, or business or national concensus may encourage conspiratorial behavior, such as mob activity, New Deal politics etc..., for a "season", First Amendment right still limit their effectiveness.

I have to disagree with you there Marc. Hillary said that a certain wad of spoog on a dress would indicate a "vast Right Wing Conspiracy". I have to admit I'm part of that conspiracy. :lol:

Originally Posted by voltronx

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

The law was written for a reason. That reason was to prohibit candidate switcheroos, for whatever reason, as an election nears.

Simply stated, you can't vacate within 51 days of the vote. But if you do vacate, prior to the 51 day deadline, you have only to within 48 days of the vote to name the replacement.

Dance w/wo the law all you want, but at least be honest and call it a dance. And it a pretty convoluted dance at that. Sheesh.

Well then, if the purpose of the law was that clear and they were that determined about their goal to prevent a party replacing its candidate, then shouldn't they have made it explicit in its expression in the law? Don't you think they'd write the law to list an entire sentence that these slimy weasels aren't allowed to change anyone at all by the 51-day boundary? If not, they should have. I wouldn't have any problem with that stipulation--just write it down!

Well said, and welcome back! :-) (I already gave my potential explanation for why the law is what it is; do with it what you wish ;-))

Originally Posted by Glass Joe

Originally Posted by voltronx

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

The law was written for a reason. That reason was to prohibit candidate switcheroos, for whatever reason, as an election nears...

Don't you think they'd write the law to list an entire sentence that these slimy weasels aren't allowed to change anyone at all by the 51-day boundary? If not, they should have. I wouldn't have any problem with that stipulation--just write it down!

Well said, and welcome back! :-) (I already gave my potential explanation for why the law is what it is; do with it what you wish ;-))

Come now, folks, don't throw your brains in the blender on this thing! Have you guys ever heard medical professionals talk among themselves with jargon that seemed to come straight from the planet Neptune? Yet who doesn't trust the good doctor with the knife when in comes time to do surgery?

Granted, legalese, with all it's heretofores, wherewithals, and aforementions, can bog the layman down. But that doesn't mean they lack clarity. And if the layman sets aside his own politics for a moment, perhaps a method in the apparent madness will become clear.

Perhaps listening to what the NJ Supremes had to say about the "vacancy statute" they ruled on can shed light on this matter:

"Here, however, the court did not re-write the statute, but rather "interpreted" it out of existence. New Jersey law provides a procedure for filling vacancies occurring "not later than the 51st day before the general election." The New Jersey Supreme Court only makes one reference to the statute, in which it notes (without quoting the law) that the statute "does not preclude the possibility of a vacancy occurring within fifty-one days of the general election." It is at this point that one wonders if the court was even trying. Yes, under the statute, it is metaphysically possible that a vacancy, as that term is ordinarily used, could occur within 51 days of an election. After this digression through the obvious, the court fails to take the next step, which is question what the statute requires when such a vacancy occurs. The answer is clear: by providing for a procedure which shall be applied to vacancies "not later than the 51st day," the statute does not permit that same procedure to be used to fill vacancies after the 51st day. To read the statute any other way is to make the number 51 superfluous in the statute, which is precisely what the court did. Given the New Jersey Court's ruling, the deadline is now whenever the New Jersey Supreme Court says it is."--Robert Alt Reaping the Whirlwind: The After-Effects of the New Jersey Opinion

Not much, it seems. :wink:


p.s. Sorry, Sweet Maxine, the "vast right-wing conspiracy" did not qualify as such. First, Janet Reno would have had to of been a member of the club, too. Second, there was no secret that a lot of people didn't like the Clintons. And third, it not only failed, but it succeded only in giving Clinton even higher approval ratings. Shame. :wink:

It matters little that Bush was ELECTED president on the first, count, the recount, the re re re re count. And a year after election the shocking news came out that after all the votes were offically counted again, Gore still didn't have enough votes.

It bothered me in my gut that the justices got involved at all. And now that they've gotten involved, lawyers, judges, and the slime on weasles will now be forever part of elections. I fear our elections from now on will be decided in court. 2000 wasn't a one time deal. The dems already have in position 100 ( or is it 1000 ) lawyers poised to patrol voting places. :evil:

I suppose they don't want to disenfranchise the 100%voter turn out in the black neighborhoods of St. Louis.
__________________________________________________ ___________

As far as conspriacies go, they're just fun. It makes your enemy the scape goat of all you love to hate.

Originally Posted by justmom

It matters little that Bush was ELECTED president on the first, count, the recount, the re re re re count. And a year after election the shocking news came out that after all the votes were offically counted again, Gore still didn't have enough votes.

That's funny... I thought that the report said that based on their count of votes, more people casted legal votes for Gore than for Bush in Florida

It bothered me in my gut that the justices got involved at all. And now that they've gotten involved, lawyers, judges, and the slime on weasles will now be forever part of elections. I fear our elections from now on will be decided in court. 2000 wasn't a one time deal. The dems already have in position 100 ( or is it 1000 ) lawyers poised to patrol voting places. :evil:

I suppose they don't want to disenfranchise the 100%voter turn out in the black neighborhoods of St. Louis.
__________________________________________________ ___________

As far as conspriacies go, they're just fun. It makes your enemy the scape goat of all you love to hate.

But anyway, I agree with you here *barfs*; with this, can the fall of democracy really be that far behind?

Marc Lamb wrote:
"Reason: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits effective conspiracy which, to have any real significant effectiveness, must operate in a vacuum.

While some willful political party, or business or national concensus may encourage conspiratorial behavior, such as mob activity, New Deal politics etc..., for a "season", First Amendment right still limit their effectiveness"


I think what we're talking about here IS "seasonal" conspiratorial behavior.
And not their effectiveness, but whether there is a chance they could exist.

Originally Posted by Glass Joe

Originally Posted by justmom

It matters little that Bush was ELECTED president on the first, count, the recount, the re re re re count. And a year after election the shocking news came out that after all the votes were offically counted again, Gore still didn't have enough votes.

That's funny... I thought that the report said that based on their count of votes, more people casted legal votes for Gore than for Bush in Florida

I'm sorry Joe! I guess you missed the news !
The real story is in the first paragraph.
The rest is just sour grapes and crocodile tears.
Bwhaahahaha hahahahah


IF YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO VOTE, STAY OUT OF THE BOOTH


Ballot paper study makes Bush winner in Florida

Tim Johnston
Monday November 12, 2001
The Guardian

George Bush would probably still have won the disputed presidential election vote in Florida if the US supreme court had allowed a recount, a comprehensive study of disputed ballot papers has found.
The study, commissioned by eight news organisations, showed that under the existing electoral laws in Florida, Mr Bush would have won by several hundred votes.

But if the recount had been held under new vote-counting rules that Florida and other states are adopting - rules aimed at recording the inten tions of as many voters as possible - Democratic candidate Al Gore probably would have won, albeit by an even thinner margin, the study found.

It provides evidence that more Florida voters tried to vote for Mr Gore than for Mr Bush, but so many Gore voters marked their ballots improperly that Mr Bush received more valid votes. As a result, under rules accepted by the Gore campaign at the time, Mr Bush probably would have won a recount.

The study comprised an inspection of 175,010 Florida ballots not included in the state's certified tally.

As for me I've never TRIED to vote in my life

How Bush Lost Florida But Won In The Supreme Court And The Media


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by jerry politex, www.bushwatch.com

Ever since Bush was selected by the Supreme Court by a vote of 5-4 to take over the U.S. presidency, the Dems have said that a fair and thorough recounting of the Florida vote would prove that Gore won. While the jury is still out on whether the reported Consortium recount, published late Sunday November 11, was fair and thorough, let's assume that it was. What does it tell us? It tells us that Gore won the Florida electoral vote, the U.S. Supreme Court took the presidency away from him, and the media is wrong in reporting otherwise. Here's how Bush lost Florida.

First, it is an established fact that Gore beat Bush in the national popular vote by over a half million votes. (*) Secondly, Consortium interpretations of the voting data conclude that thousands more people voted for Gore in Florida than Bush. The problem for Gore is that many more votes in his favor were declared invalid than similar votes for Bush. Third, discounting such invalid votes, Consortium interpretations conclude that Gore still beat Bush statewide in Florida by a thin margin of under 200 votes. Which brings us back to the Supreme Court decision.

In its Dec. 12 decision the Supreme Court indicated that its conclusions were based upon equal protection law, and decided that in order to have equal voter protection in Florida the entire state should be recounted. However, even though there were weeks left for such a recount prior to the formal reception of the states' electoral college votes in Congress, the court decided that there wasn't enough time for such a recount, so five of nine members of the court decided, along party lines, to select Bush as the winner in Florida. The Consortium data indicates that they were wrong to think that Bush had won the popular vote in Florida. At any rate, in its Dec. 12 decision the Court made clear that if it hadn't selected Bush, its fallback decision would have been to call for a statewide election, since it considered the case to be a matter of equal rights. It further indicated that not taking a position on the matter was not an option.

Strangely, not one media member of the Consortium has reached the conclusion that if the Supreme Court had not selected Bush, Gore would have won the election by a Florida recount. Instead, in every instance of Consortium reporting, the big headlines say the data shows Bush won with more "valid votes," that he won because of the partial recount mandated by the Florida Supreme Court, or that he won because he would have had more votes than Gore under Gore's recount request. Buried in some of the stories are the six ways that Gore could have won. However, all of these suppositions are moot.

The unvarnished fact is that the U.S. Supreme Court had the final say on the election, not the Consortium voting data, and, left with the choice of giving the election back to the people of Florida through a statewide recount or selecting Bush, they selected Bush. That's what makes the New York Times headline for the Consortium story particularly egregious: "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast The Deciding Vote." While the headline represents a badly needed attempt to restore credibility to the U.S. Supreme Court, it fails on the facts and it fails because the media cannot do what the Court, itself, has failed to do since its politicized decision in the case of Bush vs. Gore.

(c) copyright 2001. May be reprinted with attribution and link to www.bushwatch.com

provides an interpretation which I agree with; although to avoid debate I probably should have said "intended to vote for" rather than "to cast legal votes for"

Like I said, sour grapes and crocodile tears. We aren't a direct democracy. The laws are set up the way they are and Clinton got to be President with 40% of the people voting for him. And Bush gets to be president with Gore winning the popular vote.

And that's the way it is...............

Originally Posted by justmom

Like I said, sour grapes and crocodile tears. We aren't a direct democracy. The laws are set up the way they are and Clinton got to be President with 40% of the people voting for him. And Bush gets to be president with Gore winning the popular vote.

And that's the way it is...............

"..., discounting such invalid votes, Consortium interpretations conclude that Gore still beat Bush statewide in Florida by a thin margin of under 200 votes" (how is that "sour grapes" or "crocodile tears"?)

now for some ACTUAL sour grapes :-):
well, maybe I should be more thankful that the Dems have the Senate because of this change in events (would jeffords switch if gore was president?), but whatever - there's an election coming up in a few days and a presidential election two years later; until then, que sera sera :-)

It's poetic justice the only people he could get to vote for him were too stupid to figure out how to cast a ballot properly.

Originally Posted by Glass Joe

How Bush Lost Florida But Won In The Supreme Court And The Media

Not again!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by jerry politex, www.bushwatch.com

Ever since Bush was selected by the Supreme Court by a vote of 5-4 to take over the U.S. presidency, the Dems have said that a fair and thorough recounting of the Florida vote would prove that Gore won. While the jury is still out on whether the reported Consortium recount, published late Sunday November 11, was fair and thorough, let's assume that it was. What does it tell us? It tells us that Gore won the Florida electoral vote, the U.S. Supreme Court took the presidency away from him, and the media is wrong in reporting otherwise. Here's how Bush lost Florida.

First, it is an established fact that Gore beat Bush in the national popular vote by over a half million votes. (*)

WRONG. It is NOT established that Gore beat Bush even in the national popular vote. Folks, evidently I'm going to have to go through this again, since they just keep running out this nonsense.

The Gore national-popular victory was by less than one million votes nationally, well less. That is within what is called the statistical margin of error for the count process. What that means is Gore might actually have won by twice as many votes as he was credited nationally. It's equally likely that he actually LOST to Bush nationally. The margin was so narrow that for all practical and realistic purposes it was a TIE. Anyone who tells you that Gore's national popular win is certain, or established, is either lying or doesn't understand that he's talking about.

Secondly, Consortium interpretations of the voting data conclude that thousands more people voted for Gore in Florida than Bush. The problem for Gore is that many more votes in his favor were declared invalid than similar votes for Bush. Third, discounting such invalid votes, Consortium interpretations conclude that Gore still beat Bush statewide in Florida by a thin margin of under 200 votes. Which brings us back to the Supreme Court decision.

A vote for Buchanan, whether or not it was intended to be for Gore, is not a vote for Gore. Likewise, a double-vote, regardless of intention, is not a vote at all. That isn't a scam or con, it's the way things are. In the final analysis, it is the responsibility of the voter to vote the way they intend to, or to ask for help if they don't understand the ballot.

In its Dec. 12 decision the Supreme Court indicated that its conclusions were based upon equal protection law, and decided that in order to have equal voter protection in Florida the entire state should be recounted. However, even though there were weeks left for such a recount prior to the formal reception of the states' electoral college votes in Congress, the court decided that there wasn't enough time for such a recount, so five of nine members of the court decided, along party lines, to select Bush as the winner in Florida.

WRONG. What this doesn't mention is that there are built in legal deadlines that have to be met. Also, there were TWO SCOTUS decisions, both occasioned by the illegal actions of the Florida Supreme Court, which was packed with Democrats and trying to give the election to Gore by whatever means they could find.

Note, too, that in the case of the second Florida Supreme Court decision, even the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court balked at the bizarre logic of the decision.

The Consortium data indicates that they were wrong to think that Bush had won the popular vote in Florida.

No, Bush won the popular vote, since the decision to invalidate those so-called Gore votes was the CORRECT one, legally.

Strangely, not one media member of the Consortium has reached the conclusion that if the Supreme Court had not selected Bush, Gore would have won the election by a Florida recount. Instead, in every instance of Consortium reporting, the big headlines say the data shows Bush won with more "valid votes," that he won because of the partial recount mandated by the Florida Supreme Court, or that he won because he would have had more votes than Gore under Gore's recount request. Buried in some of the stories are the six ways that Gore could have won. However, all of these suppositions are moot.

There were NO legal ways Gore could have won. Unless Gore could demonstrate a clear popular vote win in Florida, meaning undebatable, unscrewed up votes for him, not Buchanan, Nader, or anyone else, then all roads led to Bush, even if the Supreme Court of the U.S. did nothing.

Unless, of course, Gore could have turned the Bush electors, which they were debating making the attempt at. The legality of that would be debatable either way, and it's the ONLY way Gore could have won short of that undebated majority of the Florida popular vote, which he simply could not produce.

Remember, the Florida Legislature was already getting ready to overturn any pro-Gore decision that he might manage to sleaze out of it, on the grounds that he was trying to steal the election, and they had the power to do it under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

The unvarnished fact is that the U.S. Supreme Court had the final say on the election, not the Consortium voting data, and, left with the choice of giving the election back to the people of Florida through a statewide recount or selecting Bush, they selected Bush.

That's not just incorrect, it's a bald-faced lie.

That's what makes the New York Times headline for the Consortium story particularly egregious: "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast The Deciding Vote." While the headline represents a badly needed attempt to restore credibility to the U.S. Supreme Court, it fails on the facts and it fails because the media cannot do what the Court, itself, has failed to do since its politicized decision in the case of Bush vs. Gore.

It was the Florida Supreme Court, and Gore himself, who turned the aftermath of the election into a circus, there is no legitimate debate abotu that. As for 'politicizing' it, it's inherently political, it's an ELECTION!

Sorry, Joe, but your article has it wrong on essentially every point.