Ever since the Goracle attempted to overturn the results of the 2000 Presidential Election, the Democrats have become more and more dependent on the courts to achieve their political agenda. Time after time, that which they cannot achieve legitimately via the vote they attempt to achieve using Democrat appointed judges.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House’s contempt citations against two of President Bush’s top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers committed no crime.
As promised, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she has given the Judiciary Committee authority to file a lawsuit against Bolten and Miers in federal court.
“The House shall do so promptly,” she said in a statement.
Mukasey said Bolten and Miers were right in ignoring subpoenas to provide Congress with White House documents or testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.
As you will recall, House Democrats believe that the firings of 8 U.S. Attorneys were politically motivated, and therefore improper. So, they have been raising a highly publicized stink about the firings, using the press coverage to help elect their candidates for the House and Senate. However, something that has apparently not been noticed by the Democrats in all of this is that the position of U.S. Attorney is a political appointment, and that appointees serve at the pleasure of the President and can be dismissed for any reason whatsoever, or no reason at all.
So, in a time when the Democrats in Congress refuse to renew surveillance legislation, and therefore prevent our intelligence agencies from doing their best to keep America safe, they apparently have all the time in the world to file politically motivated lawsuits which will undoubtedly end up dismissed as frivolous.
But don’t you dare question their patriotism!
How can you question something they so obviously lack?
NOTE: The first sentence of this post has been edited to correct an error. The original sentence gave the impression that Gore was the first to file legal action in the 2000 Election Recount. In fact, Bush filed the first lawsuit on November 11, 2000 to block Gore’s request to have only four heavily Democrat counties recounted by hand.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Once again, it was the Bush team that ran to the courts first, filing a lawsuit to stop any attempts to recount the results of the razor thin race. Subsequent recounts that took into account every vote, and corrected for the undervotes and the overvotes (i.e. actually reflected the results the voters had intended) showed a clear victory for Gore. But since Bush had a partisan majority of the U.S. Supreme Court on his side, he was able to shut down the recount effort and have his candidacy declared by the courts to be victorious - despite losing the overall popular vote by more than half a million ballots.
And so we ended up with the Worst President Ever who’s latest approval rating was at 19 percent.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Mike, the Democrats were trying to hand-pick Democrat stronghold precincts for hand recounting. Bush was still declared the winner on Nov 10 after the automatic Florida recount had been completed. From that point on, no vote count performed showed that Gore was the winner. In fact, several media organizations, most of which were very liberal in their political leanings, conducted vote counts after all was said and done and they all concluded that Bush won Florida. You guys on the left can squeal all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the candidate with the most electoral votes is the winner of the Presidential Election, and that was Bush. It has always been that way, and unless the Constitution is changed, it will stay that way. The fact that Gore got more of the popular vote is for all intents and purposes is meaningless.
Finally, as you will recall, the worst President in history was one James Earl Carter, who single-handedly brought inflation to double-digits, allowed the country to be humiliated by Iran by failing to recover the hostages, and almost completely destroyed our military’s ability to defend this country. All in a single term. He was so bad that, even though Watergate was only a few years old, the public elected a Republican rather than endure another 4 years under him.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I always thought it was a boneheaded move on Gore’s part to try and hand count just a few counties he picked out rather than insisting on a thorough recount of the whole state from the beginning. But my point remains that it was Bush and the Republics who first ran crying to the courts for relief.
And I wasn’t intending to rehash the whole Florida election debacle, but my contention all along has been - and I think this is indisputable - is that if the will of the voters had been accurately reflected in the vote count Gore would have won. In other words, a majority of Florida voters went to the polls on election day intending to vote for Gore, but because of complications and screwups (butterfly ballots, overvotes, hanging chads, etc.) the official count gave Bush a super-slim lead and before a thorough recount could be conducted the Supremes stepped in on a 5-4 partisan vote and awarded the crown to Bush.
And this idea that the popular vote in a democracy is meaningless is horrific. It’s that kind of thing that makes more than half the electorate stay home on election day every year.
As for Carter being the worst president, I think you would have a hard time selling that today outside of hardline rightwing circles. Inflation was worse under Carter, but that’s about the only area where Bush can claim to have bested him.
Overall, the economy tends to perform poorly under Republics as compared to Democrats.
And the Iranian hostage crisis pales in comparison to Bush’s letting Osama bin Laden slip away after 9-11 and then bogging the U.S. down in a bloody, costly and totally unrelated quagmire for the next five years.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Mike, Mike, Mike. Do you realize that when you say that, “a majority of Florida voters went to the polls on election day intending to vote for Gore, but because of complications and screwups (butterfly ballots, overvotes, hanging chads, etc.) the official count gave Bush a super-slim lead,” you’re saying that the Democrats who voted in Florida were so mentally challenged that they were unable to properly mark their ballots, and further were too mentally challenged to ask for help from the people running the voting precinct? Remember, as was widely known at the time, the precincts during this election were run almost entirely by Democrats, so had the voters asked for help they almost surely would have gotten it.
As for knowing who the majority of voters intended to vote for, nobody can say one way or the other. However, if you can prove to me that you are able to read minds, I’ll reconsider. Otherwise, the only true measure of who the majority of voters voted for that day remains the official totals and those recounts undertaken by various media outlets after the fact, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM DECLARED BUSH THE WINNER.
Face it, that was eight years ago. You need to “move on” and let the past go. Absolutely no one is going to buy your “Gore really won the 2000 Election” whining as anything other than sour grapes. Also, this line of whining reflects bad on you personally.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Also, this line of whining reflects bad on you personally.
Your own poor grammar reflects pretty bad-ly on you, too, Nick, not to mention your fallback on an ad hominem snark which does nothing to address the substance of Mike’s points. As for Democrats “moving on” don’t worry. You are fixing to find out just how far we have “moved on” this fall.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
As you can see here, a review of all the Florida votes statewide would have given Gore the victory under all scenarios. That is because a thorough review of all ballots statewide would have taken into consideration the high number of overvotes which clearly favored Gore.
It doesn’t take a mind reader to ascertain that a voter who spoiled their ballot by voting for more than one person for president was intending to vote for Gore when they marked the ballot for Gore and then wrote in Gore (or Lieberman) in the space for a write-in candidate. There were hundreds of ballots like this that were discarded, more than enough to make up the difference that gave Bush his slim victory.
If you think it gives Bush more legitimacy by laughing at the voters who spoiled their ballots out of ignorance or confusion, then go right ahead. But I think it is a travesty regardless of who was ultimately responsible for the poor design of the ballots. Further more, my point stands that more people went to the polls that day intending to vote for Gore than had intended to vote for Bush.
Also, if we weren’t still relying on the antiquated and outdated electoral college system, then those 500,000 extra people who voted for Gore would not have had their votes discarded and dismissed. You can call it sour grapes if you like, but those are the facts. I do not “whine” about the outcome. But neither do I shy away from pointing out that the result was a crippling blow to our democratic ideals of one citizen, one vote. I’m sorry if you think that reflects badly on me personally. We will just have to agree to disagree on that point.
March 6th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Mike, as far as the Electoral College goes, everyone knew the rules of the contest before they entered. It’s poor form to complain about the results when the rules were followed and your side lost. If the current election turns out to be as close as the 2000 Election, and the Republicans loose the EC vote but win the popular vote, I doubt you’ll see the pettiness demonstrated by the Democrats.
Say all of the bad things you want about Nixon (he deserves them), but after loosing a very close Election in 1960 to Kennedy amid stories of vote fraud, rather than drag the country through the mud he publicly conceded and prevented what he viewed as a “Constitutional Crisis.”
March 6th, 2008 at 8:10 am
First off, I was in favor of ditching the electoral college long before the 2000 election fiasco. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes just this kind of travesty before people can be motivated to make a necessary change.
Secondly, Al Gore did concede just as Nixon did and no one drug the country through a “Constitutional Crisis.”
Finally, I would have been just as appalled if the results had gone the other way (i.e. Bush wins popular vote but loses the electoral college). And I can guarantee you that if that had happened, there is no way the Republic Party and the rightwing spin machine would have EVER conceded any legitimacy to a Gore presidency under those circumstances. They (rightwing radio, Faux News, etc.) would have raised a stink like you have never seen and we would have never heard the end of it.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:52 am
First and foremost, I owe Mike an apology. Mike, I am sorry for making a remark regarding you personally. I try to not allow that type of commentary here, and after reviewing this thread I have come to the conclusion that I have broken my own rules. I can assure you that I meant no personal offense to you, and I hope you will accept this apology and continue to participate on this blog.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mike, it took Gore 36 days (Nov. 7 to Dec. 13) to concede the election; Nixon did it immediately. As far as putting one’s country before self, it’s obvious Nixon cared a lot more about this country than Gore did.
I understand that you don’t like the Electoral College and hope for its demise; the point I was making is that it was still in use for the 2000 Election, and all parties knew it was in use, so if any of the campaigns failed to take that knowledge into consideration when planning their election strategy its their problem.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:40 am
No apologies are necessary, Nick. I was not offended and I did not mean to offend you in anyway. As I’ve said before, the fact that you are willing to tolerate myself and Ann on your blog and engage us in thoughtful discourse is a testament to your good will. I greatly appreciate it.
I don’t harbor any illusions that we are going to persuade one another to change our views. My goal, personally, is to come to a better understanding of the other side’s views and to dispel any misconceptions that lead to the two sides being further apart than they really are.
I can understand how someone who thought their candidate won on election night in 2000 would have resented the 36 days that Al Gore held out before conceding. But you have to understand that Gore not only had the popular vote lead, he also believed quite legitimately that a recount would give him the electoral college lead as well.
As for Nixon being this high-minded example of a politician conceding from Day 1, I would just point you to this entry from Wikipedia:
Nixon publicly refused to call for a recount, saying it would cause a constitutional crisis …. Privately, however, Nixon encouraged Republican National Chairman Thruston Morton to push for a recount, which Morton did in 11 states, keeping challenges in the courts into the summer of 1961…
Hmmmm. It was in the courts into the summer of 1961? That certainly beats Al Gore’s 36 days, doesn’t it?
March 6th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Mike may not have been offended by your comment, Nick, but I was and I commend you for your well-stated apology.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Yes, the RNC took it to court, however since Nixon conceded immediately, Kennedy was able to begin the transition of power without delay, and the public knew that a new Administration was on it’s way into the White House.
When Gore refused to concede, it delayed the transition process (to the point that a temporary Transition Office had to be used) and the public had no idea of when or if a transition would take place. The public’s expectation of a smooth, peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next was destroyed.
March 6th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
The public’s expectation of a smooth, peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next was destroyed.
Speaking on behalf of “the public”, or at least the half of the public that voted for Al Gore, I can tell you that my expectation of a smooth transition was far less important to me than my expectation that the majority of the citizens of this country who voted with me would have their votes honored. “Smooth transition” to a power that is broadly seen as illegitimate can hardly be described as good for our country.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Even before the Supreme Court made a final decision in this case, the far-left wing fringes of the party were trying to sell the notion that no matter what, the Bush Administration would be illegitimate for the sole reason that Bush did not win the popular vote. This, of course, completely ignores the fact that Bush won the election according to the rules which governed the election, and all elections previous to it. The fallacy that Bush was an illegitimate President was a feeling driven by the far-left’s hatred of the man, which was in turn fueled by the far-left’s perceived injustice caused by the election results.
The United States of America is a Republic, not a democracy. When citizens vote in Federal Elections, they are voting for Electors not candidates. That is how it is, and until the Constitution is amended, that is how it will be. Since the people’s representatives appointed the judges to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court made the final decisions to end the election which resulted in Bush’s victory, the legitimacy of Bush’s victory was, and is, indisputable. You may not like it or agree with it, but there it is.
Suck it up and move forward.