US Republican corporations to handle election counts

"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.

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.

"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.

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:35:58 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


"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.

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

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.

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.

Eloquence never hurts, nor does courtesy and politeness in debate.
Thank you for noticing. But, it isn't the published author part that
leads me to address the question. It's the BS and MPS in Political
Science and the MSIR in International Relations and the seven years
teaching poli sci at the local community college.

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.

Well, if you've no interest in revisiting, you could have fooled me. I
thought that's exactly what the initial post was about. But, I'll take
you at your word.

Why then, when faced with some detail (dare I call them facts?) do you
insist on "stick with my previous position..." and "elected/appointed
(whichever)" Sec'y of State? I agree that the coincidence of Brother
Bush being the Governor of a state in question is remarkable, but how
could that have been manipulated, arranged, coordinated, influenced or
whatever beforehand? And, if the Secretary of State (whose only
function in the matter was to "certify" the results supplied by the
clerks of the counties or if challenged to refer it to the courts,
which she did) isn't appointed but is elected, doesn't that mean your
basic position that somehow Jeb and Kathryn skewered the election for
Gore is flawed?

If we're dealing attaboys there are few to go around. The whole issue
was booted early on when Dan Rather miss-called the election and Tom
Brokaw shortly confirmed the mis-call. Then it was further screwed up
when the media continued to overlook the opportunity to clear up facts
in question with a bit of high school civics.

If it's brickbats, then let's award them to the media first and then
to the poor voters of those three counties who had such difficulty
deciphering complex instruction like "punch hole next to arrow by your
candidate's name" and were physically unable to get that nasty old
chad to separate from where they were punching.

Democracy is poorly served by people of such manifest ignorance,
regardless of the party with which they affiliate.





George Z.

George Z:

"NIT PICKY ISSUES?!?!?!"

Circumventing AND BREAKING the law to try to get your candidate (illegally)
"elected" are NOT "Nit Picky" issues.

You're a very ungracious loser.

And I'm not talking about the election.

Steve Swartz

(The democrats certainly have "Chutzpah," though. After unsuccessfully
trying to steal the election, they have remained solidly "on message" that
it was the republicans who tried to "steal" the election! What Gall!)

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"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.

While I completely agree with the substance of Ed Rasimus' posting, I find that
most discussions of the Bush Gore Florida fiasco tend to avoid several salient
points.

1: Al Gore's father and my father could never have been friends. My father
taught me that a man's word is his bond. Apparently Al Gore Senior neglected
to teach this to his son. Al Gore conceded the election. His reasons and
motivations for doing so are neither relevant, pertinent, or important. He
conceded the election of his own volition.

Subsequently, Al Gore withdrew his concession. Again, his reasons and
motivations for doing so are neither relevant, pertinent, or important. This
was an immoral act, and as Ed Rasimus stated in his post,

"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."

If Al Gore made a bad decision based on flawed information, then he should have
had the moral courage to live with it. He didn't. This reflects poorly on his
character and on his intelligence. As a sidebar, I contend that a president
should possess superior judgment than Al Gore demonstrated that evening.

2: The Democrat final recount awarded the win to George Bush by 537 votes.
The Democraft news media independent recount awarded the win to George Bush by
493 votes. Democrat vote counters awarding the election to a Republican
candidate. Where is the conspiracy? Where is the wrong doing? While not
detracting from Ed Rasimus' valid point concerning how the President is really
chosen, it does invalidate the ever persistent claims that "they stole the
election from us."

3: Any and all discussion of the Supreme Court's involvement in this situation
are irrelevant. Al Gore fired the first writ. Again, to paraphrase Ed
Rasimus, don't play the game if you don't like the rules and the potential
outcome.

Many conservative defenders have become fond of replying to their Liberal
attackers on this subject with, "Live with it!" What's to live with? The
complaint and the challenge are both invalid. They are based on a lie. A
better response would be, "Start telling the truth and start following the
rules."



Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.

Remove "DELETEME" from my address to reply

So-o-o-o-o-o if the local Democrat fails to follow state procedures, in
order to perpetrate a fraud, then it's the Governor's fault?

Ri-i-i-i-ight.

Steve Swartz


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"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.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"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,

Nope, the State Legislature controls how Electors are selected.