"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:55:05 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...

And all this while I thought that Gov. "Jeb" Bush, and his Secretary of
State
Katheryn Harris and all of the rest of the people he appointed to help him
run
the state were Republicans.

Silly me!

If the truth doesn't suit you, just revise it into something that will.

George Z.

I think what he meant George was that the individual counties in question,
that
the ones in charge of the voting process were democrats, since those were
largely urban counties in which Democrats were elected and in charge.

The last time I looked, the governor was in charge of the election process
within his state, and his appointed secretary of state monitored that
function
for him. It didn't matter who the Indians were.....they were the Chiefs and
they had the authority and power to dictate to those Democratic Indians how
things needed to be done. They get the "attaboys" when things work right,
and
the brickbats when they don't.

Blaming it on Democratic county officials does not wash, at least for me.
The
supervisors could have seen to it that things worked better, and they didn't.
They have to take the rap.

George Z.


Well, when it comes to revising into a truth that suits, there seems
to be a bit on George Z's side of the issue as well. Secretaries of
State are elected offices, not appointed. Elections are administered
at county level by county clerks (elected) who certify voter lists,
establish polling places, design and certify ballots, purchase and
maintain voting equipment, count ballots and certify the results to
the state. So, you might be able to assign a bit of blame to Democrat
county officials.

Then, let's also be "fair and balanced" to note that the recount
demand focussed on three counties, not all of the counties of the
state. Why do you suppose that was? Did you note that those counties
were Democrat controlled?

Did you notice the discounting of absentee ballots? Who would be
disenfranchised by that? Why do you suppose that was?

But, most importantly (and to be fair, an issue you didn't raise),
there is the question of who won the popular election. It doesn't
matter!!! Constitutionally we elect the president through the
electoral college. That's established by the Constitution. Selection
of electors is controlled by the states. Voting procedure by the
electors is established by the states. Unit rule voting is mandated by
the laws in 38 states and done in the remaining twelve by tradition.

All of this was known by all of the players prior to the election.
After you've played the game, if you are unhappy with how the score
was kept, it is too late to change the rules. You've got to amend the
Constitution BEFORE the election if you want the prez elected by the
popular vote.

And, as I recall, it wasn't the Governor of FL or the Secretary of
State that ruled in finality. It was the US Supreme Court, with its
Constitutionally provided authority over lesser courts in our federal
system that finally closed the issue. If that was unsatisfactory, then
that rule needs to be changed BEFORE subsequent games as well.

So, start concentrating on those Constitutional amendments. Start
choosing your best candidate from the large cast of contenders. But,
most importantly get over the last one. You can't make ground beating
a poorly embalmed dead horse.

Well, I'm flattered that a published author spent so much time straightening me
out, and so eloquently, too.
I'll concede all of the nit picky things you pointed out, primarily because I
have no interest in revisiting the 2001 presidential election in Florida. And,
when all is said and done, I'll stick with my previous position vis-a-vis the
responsibilities of the elected Governor and his elected/appointed (whichever)
Secretary of State. AFAIAC, it's all about attaboys and brickbats.

George Z.