Comments on: Democrats, Once Again, Use Courts for Poltical Ends

By: Nick Marinelli

Nick Marinelli — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:50:59 +0000

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.

By: Ann

Ann — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:08:38 +0000

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.

By: Nick Marinelli

Nick Marinelli — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:58:56 +0000

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.

By: Ann

Ann — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:44:48 +0000

Mike may not have been offended by your comment, Nick, but I was and I commend you for your well-stated apology.

By: Mike Thomas

Mike Thomas — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:40:59 +0000

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?

By: Nick Marinelli

Nick Marinelli — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:52:21 +0000

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.

By: Mike Thomas

Mike Thomas — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:10:29 +0000

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.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:38:26 +0000

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.”

By: Mike Thomas

Mike Thomas — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:00:40 +0000

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.

By: Ann

Ann — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:49:33 +0000

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.