Hope is on the way...

[Chip NoVaMac]

After four years of despair and heartache, hope is o the way. It is the name of Kerry and Edward's. Maybe no longer the congressional leaders will have better healthcare than the rest of us. Maybe now those that grew fat off the sweat of the American worker will pay the price for their fatteness. Maybe now our vets well get the care their deserve. So will our seniors that provided so much so far in obtaining the American dream.

Sure it is the battle of the rich guys. But at least two came from humble beginnings. Not living off their Daddies connections, ans trying to repay them now,

Hope is on the way. Unlike the promise of of a unified country. A country of compassion. After fours years of despair, hope is on the way. And their names are not Bush and Cheney.

[pseudobrit]

A little fired up by Edwards' speech, are we?

[themadchemist]

Edwards' speech was good, but it could have been better. It got good toward the end, from the struggling mother at her kitchen table onward.

I wish he'd built up hope is on the way and ended it on that. It would have left THAT as the resounding message of the speech, and that would have been a strong point on which to end.

[Chip NoVaMac]

A little fired up by Edwards' speech, are we?

Whether it is "what do we have to fear, but fear itself", or even "I have a dream"; there are few words that mean something to many. For me 2004 will be "Hope is on the way". Better than the compassion that never should its head under Boozer Bush and Cheating Cheney.

Bush in a month from now can stand there and say that God spoke to him, and I would believe that the Devil is with him. He has lied to get in to office, and will lie to stay in office. To borrow from his father, am i better off today than four years ago? Hell no.

My lover and I have no chance in sharing everything that most other Americans can share in. Companies are getting my tax dollars to send jobs overseas. The troops that Bush sent in on lies, are ill equipped to do the job. Not to mention he committed treason in getting us there in the first place. the only compassion I see is for illegals, and the corporations that exploit them.

Hope is on the way, Bush is back in Texas in 2005!

[jelloshotsrule]

hope's on the way...

unless you're a gay person who wants to be married (with fully equal rights to heterosexuals).

or if you're one of the unlucky ones that wouldn't be covered by the kerry healthcare plan

or if you can't live on $7/hour as a 'living wage'


but kerry/edwards will be a nice change from chimp/grandpa

:)

[Chip NoVaMac]

hope's on the way...

unless you're a gay person who wants to be married (with fully equal rights to heterosexuals).

or if you're one of the unlucky ones that wouldn't be covered by the kerry healthcare plan

or if you can't live on $7/hour as a 'living wage'


but kerry/edwards will be a nice change from chimp/grandpa

:)

Amen,. As a Gay male, I have a better chance with Kerry for a civil union, than under Herr Bush and his Staff.

We will see who will not be covered under Kerry's plan for healthcare. It should be better than the handout that Bush and the Republicans gave to the drug companies under MediCare Reform.

Maybe we will see the government crack down on illegals, so that wages can rise so that citizens and legal aliens can earn a decent wage.

Lets not forget that it will not happen with Kerry coming into office alone. We need to send every politician packing that created the mess we are in, packing for home...

[Thanatoast]

Edwards speech was okay, but there was too much cock-talk in defense of the Democrats' "toughness". Half of it was about posturing for the military and the Republicans. How about we don't let the Republicans define the debate? What happened to "strength and wisdom are not opposing values"?

Now Sharpton's speech was awesome. He didn't give an inch. Let's see the party leadership call the Republicans out, instead of leaving it to the supporting cast. The Dems keep letting the Republicans portray their strengths as weaknesses.

[themadchemist]

Edwards speech was okay, but there was too much cock-talk in defense of the Democrats' "toughness". Half of it was about posturing for the military and the Republicans. How about we don't let the Republicans define the debate? What happened to "strength and wisdom are not opposing values"?

Now Sharpton's speech was awesome. He didn't give an inch. Let's see the party leadership call the Republicans out, instead of leaving it to the supporting cast. The Dems keep letting the Republicans portray their strengths as weaknesses.

sorry, the base doesn't count. we need the swing to win. the base isn't going to go to bush just cuz they ignore 'em. they needs to make sure the ticket looks good to the undecided voters.

[Chip NoVaMac]

sorry, the base doesn't count. we need the swing to win. the base isn't going to go to bush just cuz they ignore 'em. they needs to make sure the ticket looks good to the undecided voters.

My comments were not just about the speech tonite. Edwards reached me with his "hope" message. To me that s the theme for 2004. Hope has been lacking for far too many Americans. We bought the false prophets promises four years ago. No compassion, Now is the time for hope.

[pseudobrit]

Amen,. As a Gay male, I have a better chance with Kerry for a civil union, than under Herr Bush and his Staff..

At the very least, you won't see an administration chomping at the bit to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America to specifically deny you any rights.

[Chip NoVaMac]

At the very least, you won't see an administration chomping at the bit to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America to specifically deny you any rights.

Thank you, I see no compassion in that.

Also with the speech tonite, Edwards spoke of those that "work" towards the American goal. As a Democrat I do not support handouts, in a pure and simple way. There are those that may need help. And in my mind they should be helped.

Edwards may have made his money as an attorney. But he worked hard for it. He started from the ground up. Right or wrong. He will have to answer to his God for his actions. I would rather have someone that earned their money the hard way than having it handed to them by relationships.

[IJ Reilly]

Count me as another who wasn't too impressed by Edwards' speech. He's got more kitchen tables than Ikea.

[jelloshotsrule]

Amen,. As a Gay male, I have a better chance with Kerry for a civil union, than under Herr Bush and his Staff.

We will see who will not be covered under Kerry's plan for healthcare. It should be better than the handout that Bush and the Republicans gave to the drug companies under MediCare Reform.

Maybe we will see the government crack down on illegals, so that wages can rise so that citizens and legal aliens can earn a decent wage.

Lets not forget that it will not happen with Kerry coming into office alone. We need to send every politician packing that created the mess we are in, packing for home...

why are you ready to settle for "civil unions" when there are sooo many rights not inherent to them, that are a part of "marriage"....?

yeah, kerry's plan will have plenty of handouts to drug companies. but probably a bit less than bush.

i think the gov't needs to crack down on corporate crime, that should also help reduce money lost to corruption, which could be going to pay workers a decent wage

if we do what you suggest in your last paragraph, i think we'd have about 4 incumbent elected officials. ;)

[3rdpath]

Count me as another who wasn't too impressed by Edwards' speech. He's got more kitchen tables than Ikea.

har-dee-har-har...;)

i liked the speech a lot. was it a home run? nope. but it certainly proved he can hit the ball well. give the guy a chance to get up to speed...theres no need to burn out before the debates.

[pseudobrit]

I admire your dedication to political reform, jello.

I still think the proper way to go about it is the way Moore (also a 2000 Nader supporter) detailed in his book Stupid White Men: grassroots on up.

I think today the most important thing is to give the most progressive candidate who's got a shot into office as much a chance as we can, and down the road look to build up a more progressive base of politicians. Eventually you'll end up changing the face of politics, but remember you can only go so far with it, because middle America will always hold you to middle politics.

Some call it settling for the lesser of two evils and refuse to do participate.

I call it compromise, the most fundamental political strategy.

Also, in addition to cracking down on corporate crime, I think making US companies that relocate offshore to avoid paying taxes... well, making them pay taxes would relieve a load of debt.

[Chip NoVaMac]

why are you ready to settle for "civil unions" when there are sooo many rights not inherent to them, that are a part of "marriage"....?

yeah, kerry's plan will have plenty of handouts to drug companies. but probably a bit less than bush.

i think the gov't needs to crack down on corporate crime, that should also help reduce money lost to corruption, which could be going to pay workers a decent wage

if we do what you suggest in your last paragraph, i think we'd have about 4 incumbent elected officials. ;)


It depends on how "Civil Unions" are defined legally.

As I said in another thread, call it "Fido" for all I care. If it makes it acceptable, that is all that matters. Civil Unions do offer the possibility (courts will decide on the rest) of equal rights for committed Gay couples. As long as the Republicans and Religious Right confuse the word "marriage" with its religious connotations, we ill have issues.

My hope s that Civil Unions will confer most if not all rights enjoyed by all so far. In a perfect world the SOCTUS would decide before November that "separate but equal" does not apply tp same sex unions. Much like the promises that the Drug Company Support Bill (otherwise aka MediCare Reform), we can only hope to reform it to make it better.

There is hope for America. One in that we can all benefit in. As I have said before, it is better than failed compassion.

[jelloshotsrule]

i understand that you don't care what it's called, but people like john kerry and john edwards do... as of now, a civil union (legally speaking) is not equal to a marriage. if that changes, then fine. but i don't hear them saying they'll change the rights of a civil union under federal law....

billy clinton passed the defense of marriage act. how do you feel about that?


pseudo- i agree that local is a great place to start. probably *the* place to start.

at the same time, i don't think that it's unreasonable to run as a third party to pressure the democrats to have a backbone and stand up for themselves and a lot of things that they seem to be afraid to stand for (health care for all, reformed/reduced military budget, etc).

you're right about corporations not paying taxes. i just don't think kerry/edwards will do enough to shut off the loopholes (admittedly they'll do a better job than bush, but who wouldn't? hah).

i also think that cutting the defense budget would free up a ton of money for other much better things. even without cutting size of military (though we should), one could get rid of a lot of the waste... the gov't is so inefficient it's sad.

but anyhoo

i'll admit, i'll be happier/relieved if kerry wins. at the same time, i would never try to take anything away from any candidate who runs when he's told time and time again "not this year"...

[Sayhey]

I tend to get rather cynical in my view of politics, but I can recognize a great speech when I hear it. That was one of the best speeches given at a political convention. Period. That was a speech that reaches out to average Americans struggling to make it and moves them to action. This guy is amazing. I've heard over and over again that those who have seen him in action that this wasn't his best effort - if it wasn't the GOP is in trouble.

[Thanatoast]

sorry, the base doesn't count. we need the swing to win. the base isn't going to go to bush just cuz they ignore 'em. they needs to make sure the ticket looks good to the undecided voters.
there is no swing this year. the election is close, but nearly everyone has already decided which way they're going to vote. instead of going for the swing vote, why *not* energize the base, and get some of those non-voting Dems off their asses and into the voting booths?

[Chip NoVaMac]

I tend to get rather cynical in my view of politics, but I can recognize a great speech when I hear it. That was one of the best speeches given at a political convention. Period. That was a speech that reaches out to average Americans struggling to make it and moves them to action. This guy is amazing. I've heard over and over again that those who have seen him in action that this wasn't his best effort - if it wasn't the GOP is in trouble.

Thank you. Despite jelloshotsrule's comments; we have to look at the greater possibility. Desegregation did not bring an end to discrimination. Look at the movie Hairspray. It is a good example of the discrimination that existed after the SCOTUS ruling. Virginia has yet to amend the sodomy laws after the SOCTUS ruling.

I have not seen anything that says that Kerry does not at least support equal rights between the issue of marriage and civil unions. It is boiling down the the word "marriage".

Now we have Bush supporters calling for a law that restricts under certain circumstances, the rights of the court to interupt the Constitution and the law in general. The Republicans are truly the party of fear.

They fear the poor. They fear the Gay. They fear those that fear guns. They fear those that don't hold Christian ideals.

We should fear them.

[Chip NoVaMac]

there is no swing this year. the election is close, but nearly everyone has already decided which way they're going to vote. instead of going for the swing vote, why *not* energize the base, and get some of those non-voting Dems off their asses and into the voting booths?

More so we need to get those that see no need to vote, to vote. I speak from a standpoint that the more people that vote, the greater the possibility of clearer position as to the peoples intent.

As shown in FL, you vote does count.

[zimv20]

there is no swing this year. the election is close, but nearly everyone has already decided which way they're going to vote. instead of going for the swing vote, why *not* energize the base, and get some of those non-voting Dems off their asses and into the voting booths?
indeed.

the latest zogby electoral poll, here (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=847), shows that kerry can win w/o florida, missouri and nevada. wacky, eh?


Released: July 27, 2004

Democrat John Kerry Holds On To A Tentative Lead,New Zogby Interactive Presidential Battleground Poll Reveals

In a two-week stretch in which there was very little going on around the world or domestically, the race for the White House has followed suit, settling down a bit, the latest edition of the Zogby Interactive poll shows. Democratic challenger John Kerry of Massachusetts retains his Electoral College lead over President Bush, but the race in many key states is too close to call as Democrats gather in Boston for their quadrennial nominating convention.

The collection of state polls, conducted July 19-23, shows Mr. Kerry leading, 275 to 220, with three of the 16 states in the collection - Florida, Missouri, and Nevada - excluded from the count.

Florida is an absolute dead heat; while Missouri and Nevada are razor-thin advantages leaning toward Mr. Kerry. All three states were won by Mr. Bush four years ago. Even without considering the votes from those states, Mr. Kerry still has enough support in the Zogby model to win the Presidency.

But it cannot be emphasized enough that the polling shows this race is too close to call right now.


and to support what thanatoast said above:

Pollster John Zogby: "Another testament to why these are called ‘battleground states’. There are so few undecided voters and in later rounds of polling we will try to get a close look as to who these thousands among millions really are."

[Chip NoVaMac]

indeed.

the latest zogby electoral poll, here (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=847), shows that kerry can win w/o florida, missouri and nevada. whacky, eh?



and to support what thanatoast said above:

I hope that Kerry holds to the high ground, compared to Bush. Even if he looses. Just as with Gore, there is victory in defeat.

[Thomas Veil]

Like jelloshotsrule, I don't believe Kerry is any Great White Hope. For that, we need to nominate Dean or Kucinich. But I too believe Kerry will be miles better than Bush.

As far as inspirational words, for me so far the biggest thrill of the convention has been seeing Clinton walk out to the podium to that familiar tune:

Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Don't stop; it'll soon be here.
It'll be here, better than before.
Yesterday's gone. Yesterday's gone.

For me that summarizes the difference between the hope of the liberals and the hopelessness of the conservatives nicely, thank you.

I know that's considered Clinton's "theme song", but they should really make that the official song of the Democratic party.

[jelloshotsrule]

I hope that Kerry holds to the high ground, compared to Bush. Even if he looses. Just as with Gore, there is victory in defeat.

you took gore's giving up of the vote as a victory?

did you see fahrenheit 9/11?

i took it as an abadoning of many many voters who voted for him (or who tried)..


as for marriage vs civil unions. i can no longer easily find kerry's position on gay marriage on his site. interesting.... with some searching, one can find a quote from his daughter that is something about how though he stands for civil unions, not marriage, he wants full equal rights under the law. that's great and all, but he's never talked about how he'll achieve it. that would require making c.u.'s and marriage equal on the federal level. which is fine i guess, but i've never heard him say it... please correct me if i'm wrong.

[Sayhey]

you took gore's giving up of the vote as a victory?

did you see fahrenheit 9/11?

i took it as an abadoning of many many voters who voted for him (or who tried)..


as for marriage vs civil unions. i can no longer easily find kerry's position on gay marriage on his site. interesting.... with some searching, one can find a quote from his daughter that is something about how though he stands for civil unions, not marriage, he wants full equal rights under the law. that's great and all, but he's never talked about how he'll achieve it. that would require making c.u.'s and marriage equal on the federal level. which is fine i guess, but i've never heard him say it... please correct me if i'm wrong.

Whoa, jello, you missed the point of the scene in F9/11. No one can blame Gore for the dignified role he played in presiding over the challenges to the Florida electoral votes. Moore's criticism, rightly or wrongly, is toward the fact that no Senator would join in the challenges. One can make the argument that, regardless of the simple fact the votes to sustain a challenge were not there, it should have been made anyway. However, Gore doesn't get the blame. He lead a fight far longer than his many critics thought he should to try to get every vote counted. For that effort he deserves respect, not snide remarks about "abandoning" those "who voted for him."

As to Kerry's position on civil unions and Gay marriage, you and I may well agree that he doesn't go far enough, but his position has been clear for a very long time. He has been one of the most advanced thinkers on this question in the Senate. While that statement may well be an example of "damning with faint praise," it is also a statement of where the struggle is today. Right now, the key is to defeat efforts of the religious right and the Bush administration to amend the Constitution and take away the power of the courts to decide this question. In that fight, Kerry and Edwards are clearly on the right side.

[mischief]

As with all the speaches so far: A bit too long.

Very persuasive, though it did take a sec to get rolling.

I was right there with him until the signs came out, making it OBVIOUS how coached the audience was. Half the effectiveness of the "preacher style" call-and-answer speech motif is via suspension of disbelief in regards to spontaneity.

[Bobcat37]

They fear the poor. They fear the Gay. They fear those that fear guns. They fear those that don't hold Christian ideals.

Stereotypes + Rhetoric = Blatant Lies...

I didn't think that was allowed at this board :confused:

You people can do better.

[Sayhey]

Stereotypes + Rhetoric = Blatant Lies...

I didn't think that was allowed at this board :confused:

You people can do better.

Let's refine Chip's points a little. I don't for a moment believe that all republicans fall into the categories he legitimately raises, so let's put it this way - the GOP campaign fosters the fear of the poor, the tactics of Rove and company plays on the fear of gays, the NRA-shilling republican party apparatus spreads the fear among gun owners that anyone who wants reasonable restrictions on guns is out to repeal the second amendment, and the fundamentalist religious right, starting with Bush himself, wrap themselves in rhetoric of exclusive christian piety and wisdom.

Those aren't stereotypes, they are the themes of Bush and Cheney. I'm glad if you, as a Republican, don't subscribe to the themes of Bush's campaign - themes that Chip so rightly condemned.

[jelloshotsrule]

Whoa, jello, you missed the point of the scene in F9/11. No one can blame Gore for the dignified role he played in presiding over the challenges to the Florida electoral votes. Moore's criticism, rightly or wrongly, is toward the fact that no Senator would join in the challenges. One can make the argument that, regardless of the simple fact the votes to sustain a challenge were not there, it should have been made anyway. However, Gore doesn't get the blame. He lead a fight far longer than his many critics thought he should to try to get every vote counted. For that effort he deserves respect, not snide remarks about "abandoning" those "who voted for him."

As to Kerry's position on civil unions and Gay marriage, you and I may well agree that he doesn't go far enough, but his position has been clear for a very long time. He has been one of the most advanced thinkers on this question in the Senate. While that statement may well be an example of "damning with faint praise," it is also a statement of where the struggle is today. Right now, the key is to defeat efforts of the religious right and the Bush administration to amend the Constitution and take away the power of the courts to decide this question. In that fight, Kerry and Edwards are clearly on the right side.

i guess when i was talking about gore, i was talking about him as a democrat. and therefore extending it a bit to all democrats... i realize i didn't make that clear. :)

the reason i take it this way is because so many people blame nader for the 80000 or so votes he "took away from gore" in florida. (most of these people are democrats). these people ignore the fact that 260,000 (around there) registered dems voted for bush in florida. likewise, they ignore the fact that gore should've won, and the case can easily be made that had a dem senator (or any, but obviously the reps wouldn't do it) had the balls to stand up for the recount as requested by the representatives, then there wouldnt' be any nader blaming at all

so, in other words, any democrat who fought his ass off for a real recount, great. for those that didn't, don't try to find a scapegoat for gore's campaign's failings, and the failings of his fellow dems in the senate

i have a sensitive ear to what the dems say these days, sorry. :)


as for gay marriage

i realize it won't all happen in a day.

but why not aim for the stars? why start out with low sights? it's ok to aim for the ideal with the understanding that it may come in stages, but if you aim for one of those stages, then you may come up short of that even... you see what i'm saying?

it's kinda how i feel about kerry in general. his positions are perhaps more realistic than what a nader administration would be able to pass in this current stage in the usa. but if you aim for nader, maybe you get somewhere between kerry and nader. if you aim for kerry, you get somewhere between bush and kerry. and on a lot of things, there's not a lot of space between them


whoa. sorry i'm offtopic.

or am i?

"in the light of things, hope"

[zimv20]

the reason i take it this way is because so many people blame nader for the 80000 or so votes he "took away from gore" in florida.
i don't blame nader. he's got a right to run.

i mostly blame gore for not running a better campaign, and for not speaking w/ the fire with which he speaks today. it's lame that he lost his home state.

next, i blame jeb bush and his cadre of election officials for, i'm quite certain, disenfranchising thousands of FL voters. i blame the media and american public for not being more outraged.

then, i blame gw bush and co. for lawyering up the thing so quickly and heading straight for the federal courts (states' rights, my ass) once the FL supreme court okay'ed the recount.

finally, i blame the voters for, when being told they couldn't vote, simply listening. if someone told _me_ that, there'd be hell to pay.

oh yeah -- let's not forget the GOP machinery which sent congressional pages and others down to FL to intimidate the recount judges.

democracy at its finest.

[Sayhey]

jello,

I don't blame Nader for Florida. The problem with the 2000 Florida count was that not all the votes were counted. That was a problem coming from the then Florida Sec. of State and Governor. It was a function of an active voter suppression campaign on their part. It is that campaign that I believe must be held responsible, and hopefully someday, including a real investigation into criminal responsibility.

That is not to say both Nader and Gore did not make tremendous mistakes that allowed Bush to do what he did. Gore should have made a statewide recount his goal from the outset. He should have utilized Clinton in places like Arkansas, etc. etc. Nader should not have gone around the country telling people there was no difference between Gore and Bush. It is something he still says in regards Kerry and Bush, and it is demonstrably not true. They both need to take responsibility for their mistakes that led to Bush's takeover of the country, but it was the Bush campaign that was responsible for stealing the election.

Again on gay marriage. I agree that it is important to strive for equality. I don't think Kerry or Edwards has a position that is in support of full equality. However, their position is far different, and I would argue far better, than Bush's position. I'm not one who believes that victories are won by building castles in the air. Right now, the GOP has successfully passed a bill through the House that would forbid the Supreme Court from deciding on the issue of gay marriage. That is the real world, as ugly as it looks, that is the battle line of today for people, gay or straight, who believe in equality. Let's not weaken our side by excluding allies like Kerry and Edwards.

[Backtothemac]

jello,

I don't blame Nader for Florida. The problem with the 2000 Florida count was that not all the votes were counted.

Not to get off topic, but....
You have to quit saying this. They were all counted. All of the BALLOTS that met established election law prior to the election were counted, and then recounted because of state law that required a recount if the total vote seperation was less than 1%.

The "votes" that were not counted, they were not votes. They were ballots that were not correctly completed thus, they were discarded ballots, not votes. If the ballot wasn't correctly filled out to meet election law requirements, then they do not count. Period. No if's, and's or but's about it.

[zimv20]

The "votes" that were not counted, they were not votes. They were ballots that were not correctly completed thus, they were discarded ballots, not votes.
what do you call it if a citizen, showing up with the intent to vote, is incorrectly prevented from doing so?

[Sayhey]

Not to get off topic, but....
You have to quit saying this. They were all counted. All of the BALLOTS that met established election law prior to the election were counted, and then recounted because of state law that required a recount if the total vote seperation was less than 1%.

The "votes" that were not counted, they were not votes. They were ballots that were not correctly completed thus, they were discarded ballots, not votes. If the ballot wasn't correctly filled out to meet election law requirements, then they do not count. Period. No if's, and's or but's about it.

Sorry, B2TM, but it is you who have it wrong. It is clear from surveys of the ballots by news organizations that if all the ballots were counted under the last order of the judge giving the standards for the statewide recount that Gore would have won. We have gone over this time and again and refusal to look at the facts doesn't change the facts.

That doesn't even get to the many thousands of voters who were wrongly drop off the voting rolls, targeted in predominantly African American voting precincts (who just so happen to vote historically largely for Democratic candidates) by Jeb Bush's and Katherine Harris' voter purge. That is voter suppression in a very ugly and racist way.

So sorry, B2TM, I'm not going to stop saying they didn't count all the ballots or stop talking about how they stole the election. This stuff isn't something to forget about - it is the essence of democracy.

[skunk]

Damn right!

[Leo Hubbard]

Sorry, B2TM, but it is you who have it wrong. It is clear from surveys of the ballots by news organizations that if all the ballots were counted under the last order of the judge giving the standards for the statewide recount that Gore would have won. We have gone over this time and again and refusal to look at the facts doesn't change the facts.

That doesn't even get to the many thousands of voters who were wrongly drop off the voting rolls, targeted in predominantly African American voting precincts (who just so happen to vote historically largely for Democratic candidates) by Jeb Bush's and Katherine Harris' voter purge. That is voter suppression in a very ugly and racist way.

So sorry, B2TM, I'm not going to stop saying they didn't count all the ballots or stop talking about how they stole the election. This stuff isn't something to forget about - it is the essence of democracy.

Reporting on the undervotes, USA Today discussed four possible standards for judging whether punch-card votes (used in 25 of Florida's 67 counties in the 2000 election) were valid. Bush would have won under the two standards most widely used, the paper said. If at least two corners of a partially attached bit of paper, or chad, must be detached to validate a vote, Bush's lead would have dropped from the official 537 to 407, still enough to award him Florida's 25 electoral votes and the election. By the strictest standard, requiring a completely clean punch for the vote to be counted, Bush's lead would have been even smaller, 152. Under two looser standards, in which “dimpled” but not detached chads are counted, Gore would have won the state by a margin of between 242 and 332 votes.

These figures were used to manufacture headlines suggesting that Bush's occupancy of the presidency was valid and reasonable. “Bush Would Win Recount of Disputed Ballots,” said Reuters. “Bush Still Wins Florida,” reported CNN.com. “Vote Analysis: Bush Wins, Again,” ABCnews.com declared.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/may2001/flor-m28.shtml

Note this is an extreme leftist site, they post the above USA news report to prove Gore should've won. What they also did was brush aside the fact that under the two most commonly used methods Bush won. It is only when you use illegal methods of counting votes that Gore would've won. They use that as proof that Bush stole the election.

BTW here is the USA Today's actual news story on this that stated recount proves that Bush won. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.

[Sayhey]

First, if we want to continue this debate let's take it to this thread,

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=78987

A quick perusal of the thread will show some of the arguments raised here, have already been dealt with in this older thread.

I will say this, I don't need any "extreme" web sites to support the idea that the 2000 election in Florida was stolen. Nor do I accept your characterization of the Judges orders for a statewide recount with standards that would have given Gore the majority as "illegal." The US Supreme Court may have rendered the order moot, but it was not illegal. It was in keeping with the standards set in previous statewide election disputes. So if we are to continue this discussion, in another thread, then let us get our facts straight.

[themadchemist]

there is no swing this year. the election is close, but nearly everyone has already decided which way they're going to vote. instead of going for the swing vote, why *not* energize the base, and get some of those non-voting Dems off their asses and into the voting booths?

The country is very polarized. The base is energized without the candidate needing to pander to it. This country is divided evenly into Bush supporters and Kerry supporters. You gain no ground sticking to your base.

However, you're mistaken in thinking that there's no swing. There's about 9% swing, according to most polls. That 9% will determine this election. Not only is it enough for a comfortable margin to the candidate who best appeals to it, but that swing vote is found predominantly in the swing states. By appealing to maybe 100,000 voters in Ohio who aren't decided, you gain infinitely more ground than preaching to a choir of people who already support you.

You can only energize the base so much. The Bush and Kerry camps know that they have to devote the greatest amount of energy to those areas in which they have a shot, but they don't have it clinched. Because for every vote you capture in those areas, that's a possible vote that your opponent lost. That's not true of the conventions or the bases (Republican or Democratic) because the folks there made up their minds months ago, if not years ago.

[Sayhey]

The country is very polarized. The base is energized without the candidate needing to pander to it. This country is divided evenly into Bush supporters and Kerry supporters. You gain no ground sticking to your base.

However, you're mistaken in thinking that there's no swing. There's about 9% swing, according to most polls. That 9% will determine this election. Not only is it enough for a comfortable margin to the candidate who best appeals to it, but that swing vote is found predominantly in the swing states. By appealing to maybe 100,000 voters in Ohio who aren't decided, you gain infinitely more ground than preaching to a choir of people who already support you.

You can only energize the base so much. The Bush and Kerry camps know that they have to devote the greatest amount of energy to those areas in which they have a shot, but they don't have it clinched. Because for every vote you capture in those areas, that's a possible vote that your opponent lost. That's not true of the conventions or the bases (Republican or Democratic) because the folks there made up their minds months ago, if not years ago.

I think the argument is that all the polls you cite that show an evenly divided electorate are of likely voters, and does not include the many voters who decide to sit out the election. Howard Dean and on the other side, Karl Rove argue that by giving these disinterested voters something to vote for and enlarging your base then more votes are to be had than playing for to the middle. I'd say one has to figure out how to do both.

[TreeHugger]

Edwards' speech was good, but it could have been better. It got good toward the end, from the struggling mother at her kitchen table onward.

I wish he'd built up hope is on the way and ended it on that. It would have left THAT as the resounding message of the speech, and that would have been a strong point on which to end.

Edwards was very toned down, and this speech was very different from his speeches during the primaries. I thought it was still a great speech none the less...