Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000
Slanting towards Gore
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
> From Harry Binswanger
>
>The media have been treating Bush's win as the story
>of Gore's defeat....In judging what to cover, everything
>is being seen through Gore eyes.
It's far worse than that in some circles. Locally, a liberal
talk show host substitute (she says she's not a liberal, but
rather a green, but she spouts liberal rhetoric almost to the
point of being a republican composed on-spot parody of a
liberal) has been saying for two days that Bush stole the
presidency from Gore, which was sanctioned by a politicized
Supreme Court. The first day, many conservatives called up to
set her straight, but she hung up on them in mid-sentence.
I spoke to my father earlier today (Thursday), and he has heard
similar things in the Pittsburgh area (I live in the Dallas,
Texas area).
Evidently, many in the media are still pushing the idea that
counting non-votes by no standard should not have been called
illegal and unconstitutional.
<HB: Good summary. Non-votes by non-standards = non-constitutional.>
And by the way, aren't the President and the Vice-President
supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States? Who
kept saying every non-vote is a vote for Al Gore? Who said
federal troops ought to surround the Florida State Legislator to
prevent them from selecting a new slate of Electors, as is their
Constitutional right? Gore and Leiberman, that's who.
But we shouldn't expect the mainstream media to report this as the
potential crime that it was -- they have all been laid bare and
their talking heads are now foaming at the mouth.
The response we are witnessing, despite Gore's call to reduce
the rhetoric and come together, is the liberal mind-set that
**any** standard -- moral, political, legal, epistemological,
character -- is an effrontery and should be eradicated. This is
pure subjectivism run amuck.
Though I can't say I am a strong supporter of GW Bush;
symbolically, I'm glad the conservatives have taken over
Washington. Having once been a Catholic, I know the dangers of
the intrinsic mind-set, but I would much rather have them in
power than those who believe they should be allowed to get away
with anything -- then have the gall to have a pouting fit when
they get caught in the act. [Though I have to admit it was fun
watching CNN for once, when all of the newspersons choked up --
not wanted to report that the head of the DNC had asked for Al
Gore to concede ;) ]
>Gore had no choice. He had no options, no further suits.
>His only choice was whether or not to start riots--he had
>no legal avenues left. He didn't stop or withdraw his
>harassment: he was stopped.
Yes, with a special thanks to the Founding Fathers, the checks
and balances set forth in the institutions of this country put a
stop to Al Gore et al attempting to take over the election
process. The vice-president and his minions were not able to
impose their collective will to have dimpled chads counted as
votes even in Democratic counties because they had no authority
on the local level. This should be the civics lesson learned in
this election.
We should be very dubious of any mention of "election reform."
Some people on this forum have even said we should switch to a
uniform election apparatus. I strongly disagree with this. The
frustration of Gore in not being able to commandeer this
election in a handful of supportive counties ought to be enough
for anyone to realize the system works quite well as it is. We
should leave it up to each county, because it makes universal
fraud nearly impossible.
There is nothing wrong with getting better and more accurate
machines, and insuring legally registered voters get their vote,
but let's not tamper with a system that has preserved us from
ambitious politicians for more than two hundred years (with rare
exceptions). Likewise for the Electoral College.
The complexity of our system of checks and balances -- and why
they are there -- brilliantly revealed themselves in this
election, and should be welcomed by any lover of freedom.
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:59:35 -0800
Slanting towards Gore
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
[I've been trying to confirm the following for several days by
searching newsmax.com articles, which is why there is such a
delay in my reply. Their search engine is OK, but not excellent,
though I found a lot of related articles.]
>From: Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
>
>And by the way, aren't the President and the Vice-President
>supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States?
>Who kept saying every non-vote is a vote for Al Gore? Who
>said federal troops ought to surround the Florida State
>Legislator to prevent them from selecting a new slate of
>Electors, as is their Constitutional right? Gore and
>Lieberman, that's who.
>
><HB: I don't believe that Gore or Lieberman ever said
>anything about federal troops.>
I'm still trying to confirm that part of the story, but
Lieberman definitely thought a move on the Florida State
Legislature to appoint new electors would be unconstitutional:
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/11/30/153237.shtml
"Lieberman said the legislature should reconsider, because it
'threatens to put us into a constitutional crisis.' He asked
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, brother of the president-elect, not to
agree to the special session."
There was also a story about a NYC high-priced Democratic lawyer
who said that if the Florida State Legislature picked their own
slate of electors for Bush then Florida would be violating the
part of the US Constitution that said state governments had to
be republican in nature; and that if that occurred, federal
troops could be sent into Florida to rectify the situation. I
believe it was right after this report that Lieberman came out
with his statements above, and there were several stories about
how he was trying to legitimize the NYC Democratic lawyer's
stance by claiming we were heading for a Constitutional crisis
that would require extreme remedies [I couldn't verify this via
newsmax search engine, however].
I apologize for not being able to confirm my report more firmly,
but I had become a news junkie during this election and can't
remember where I had heard the news that Lieberman supported (or
at least implied) that federal troops ought to be sent into
Florida to prevent the "Constitutional crisis."
<HB: More importantly, don't believe everything you hear. The federal
troops idea is too absurd for Lieberman or Gore to have even floated.>
