Why Tea Partiers Should Despise George W. Bush

January 6, 2011
A Little History Before the Kowtowing
Why Tea Partiers Should Despise George W. Bush
By JAMES BOVARD

The Tea Party movement rattled many politicians' cages last November. Many Tea Party supporters define themselves by their opposition to big government. However, according to an April CBS-New York Times poll, 57 percent of Tea Party supporters approve of George W. Bush.

It is not surprising that Obama's abuses would cause some people to wish for his predecessor. However, liberty-loving Americans should never forget George W. Bush's crimes against the Constitution, freedom, the economy, and the political system.

Political cosmetics pervaded many Bush policies. The No Child Left Behind Act was perhaps his biggest domestic fraud. The act was falsely sold as giving a wide ambit of authority to local school officials. In reality, it empowers the feds to effectively judge and punish local schools for not fulfilling arbitrary guidelines. Many states are "dumbing down" academic standards, using bureaucratic racketeering to avoid harsh federal sanctions. Though the No Child Left Behind Act promised to permit children to escape "persistently dangerous" schools, most states defined that term to claim that all their schools were safe. As long as people believed that Bush cared about children, it didn't matter that his education policy was a charade.

Bush browbeat Congress into enacting the biggest expansion of the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The White House blatantly deceived Congress about the cost of a new Medicare prescription drug entitlement, withholding key information that would have guaranteed the defeat of his giveaway. The administration launched a federally financed ad campaign showing a crowd cheering Bush as he signed the new law; federal auditors ruled that the ads were illegal propaganda.

Vote-buying was the prime motive of many Bush policies. Bush signed the most exorbitant farm bill in history in 2002, bilking taxpayers out of $180 billion to rain benefits on millionaire landowners and other deserving mendicants. Bush repeatedly bragged that his farm bill was "generous" ­ as if Washington politicians have carte blanche to redistribute Americans' paychecks to any group they choose. Bush imposed high tariffs on steel imports, wantonly destroying thousands of American manufacturing jobs simply because he wanted to try to snare the endorsement of the United Steel Workers and to boost his reelection chances.

Some of Bush's cherished reforms consisted of little more than finding new names for old boondoggles. He sharply boosted foreign aid and created a new program, the Millennium Challenge Account. He denounced traditional foreign aid for bank-rolling corruption. But his "bribes for honesty" program was a bust. The U.S. government continued giving handouts to some of the Third World's most notorious politician-looters.


Compassionate conservatism

Bush's compassionate conservatism schemes -- such as the bloating AmeriCorps -- were little more than velvet wrapping for the iron fist. Compassionate conservatism pretends the state does not raise its money by means of coercion and harsh threats against taxpayers. It presumes that since the government just happens to have so much cash in its coffers, why not do some good deeds with it? Handouts become symbols of generosity rather than acts of redistribution at gunpoint. Compassionate conservatism portrays government as a font of moral greatness, rather than a primary source of corruption, manipulation, and degradation.

Bush's compassionate conservatism was little different than Bill Clinton's perennial portrayals of government as an engine for uplift.Clinton and Bush both profited greatly from prattling about moral issues and making moral appeals, regardless of whether their own policies were responsible or honest. Unfortunately, bosh about virtue and compassion is often sufficient to persuade many voters that a politician is a good man.

Despite the pervasive "compassionate" pretensions, Bush's drug policy relied on wrath and harsh punishment (except for special cases, such as his niece Noelle Bush and talk-show host Rush Limbaugh). John Walters, Bush's drug czar, demonized drug users in federally funded TV ads, portraying people who buy drugs as terrorist financiers threatening America with complete destruction. Federal drug warriors arrested cancer patients who smoked marijuana to control their chemo-induced nausea, busted doctors who gave suffering patients more pain killers than the DEA approved, and carried out high-profile crackdowns on targets ranging from hemp food makers to comedian Tommy Chong (busted for bong trafficking).

Bush governed like an elective monarch, entitled to reverence and deference on all issues. Secret Service agents ensured that he rarely viewed opponents of his reign, carefully quarantining protesters in "free speech zones" far from public view.

Bush dropped an iron curtain around the federal government. His administration hollowed out the Freedom of Information Act, making it more difficult for citizens to find out about government actions and abuses. He invoked executive privilege to block a congressional investigation into the FBI's role in mass murder in Boston and in framing innocent men for those murders. (Congressman Dan Burton was the point man in challenging Bush's coverup of FBI abuses in the Whitey Bulger mafia case dating from 1965.) Federal courts acceded to Bush administration legal claims that authorized the feds to carry out mass secret arrests and suppress all information about the roundup (including the names of those detained, charges, and details on prison beatings).


Protecting America

After 9/11, Bush decided that privacy was a luxury Americans could no longer afford. His administration gave itself powers to sweep up people's email with the FBI's Carnivore system, unleash FBI agents to conduct surveillance almost anywhere, allow G-men to secretly search people's homes, bankroll Pentagon research to create hundreds of millions of dossiers on Americans, expand the military's role in domestic surveillance, and vacuum up personal data to create a federal "color code" for every air traveler. The Bush administration defined freedom down, pretending that protection from federal prying was no longer relevant to liberty.

Bush proudly declared in 2003, "No president has ever done more for human rights than I have." In reality, he did more to formally subvert rights than any American president of the modern era. He claimed the right to label people as enemy combatants and thereby nullify all of their legal rights. Once detainees had no rights, there were no limits on how they could be abused ­ at least in the eyes of some Justice Department and Pentagon officials.

At times, Bush appeared determined to force Americans to pay almost any price so that he could be a world savior. He declared in December 2003, "I believe we have a responsibility to promote freedom [abroad] that is as solemn as the responsibility is to protecting [sic] the American people, because the two go hand in hand." But the Constitution does not grant the president the prerogative to dispose of the lives of American soldiers any place in the world he longs to do a good deed.

Especially in foreign policy, Bush acted as if he had a mandate from God. He declared that at the time he launched the invasion of Iraq, "I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will…. In my case, I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible." Bush's attitude brings to mind the old quip that "a fanatic is someone who does what God would do if God knew the facts of the matter." Bush's personal religious views may have fueled his intolerance and rejection of any evidence that did not support aggression.

The more arrogant and righteous Bush became about spreading democracy, the more the American republic became a parody of the vision of the Founding Fathers, who did not intend to permit presidents to "hock" American rights for foreign conquests.


The desirability of dictatorship

President Bush commented shortly before 9/11, "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier; there's no question about it." He used the same phrase to tout dictatorships as paragons of efficiency a month before taking office. He always seemed oblivious to why dictatorships drag nations to ruin.

Bush declared in 2002, "I'm the commander ­ see, I don't need to explain…. That's the interesting thing about being president…. I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." And his prerogative extended ­ at least in his own mind ­ to giving marching orders to hundreds of millions of Americans. In an October 29, 2003, speech, he declared, "A president must set great goals worthy of a great nation. We're a great nation. Therefore, a president must set big goals." But most Americans were not seeking someone to impose goals upon them.

More Americans recited the Pledge of Allegiance after Bush was elected ­ but fewer Americans seemed concerned about government's trampling their rights. More Americans had U.S. flag decals on their autos ­ but fewer Americans supported the right of people to publicly oppose government policies. At least after 9/11, more Americans revered the president ­ but fewer Americans seemed to recall the Founding Fathers' warnings about the corrupting nature of political power.

Perhaps Bush's most important legacy is his embrace of torture. In a June 2010 speech in Grand Rapids, Michigan, he declared, "Yeah, we water-boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I'd do it again to save lives." There is no independent evidence that Bush-era torture saved any American lives.

The fact that a former president can stand up in public and admit that he ordered torture is a sea change for the American republic. (While he was president, Bush consistently denied that the U.S. government engaged in torture.) Torture is not a "bleeding heart" issue; instead, it is merely a question of whether a president will have absolute power. In reality, the Bush administration's torture policies were simply the most vivid example of its belief that the president was entitled to do as he pleases. Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury declared in 2006, "Under the law of war, the president is always right."

Bush and many of his supporters forgot that the Constitution was created by a generation of men who had fought a war against the most powerful government in the world. The Constitution was not made for sunny days and smooth sailing. Instead, it was crafted for hard times, with many provisions for dealing with deadly threats to the nation's survival. For a president such as Bush to act as if he could no longer be bound by the Constitution is an insult to the Founding Fathers, who survived far harsher tests in their time than America did on and after 9/11.

If Tea Party activists are truly devoted to freedom, they must recognize the crimes and abuses of both Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. A little history could do wonders to enlighten the partisanship and curb the kowtowing.



James Bovard is a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation and is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, Terrorism and Tyranny, and other books.

http://www.counterpunch.org/bovard01062010.html

Re: The New Republican Congress Begins....say hello to...........

bruce i guess you and tommy dont really like each other, i guess you two
like calling each others names

On 1/6/2011 10:03 AM, Bruce Majors wrote:
> no tommietard
>
> most of what government does is bad
>
> stopping them from doing things and spending money is good
>
> you are too stupid to understand that, being illiterate
>
> if you spent some time reading a book, something by James Buchanan or
> Bryan Caplan for instance
>
> and less time spamming airheaded fascist press releases you would know
> that
>
> at your age I am sure you will die first

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Empirical Proof and Documentation

Once again Keith, you are mistaken and annoying.

On 1/6/11, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once again Tom, you are so stuck on trying to revise American history, and
> attempting to jam down your militant, Marxist inspired far left extremist
> Anti-American agenda down the American public's proverbial throats, that you
> are not even paying close attention to what you write.
>
> You try and argue that Gore won the election, but when confronted with the
> facts, you then revert to, "Gore won the popular vote".
>
> A minor point, but you cite "American Analysis dot org"; which may very
> well be where you got the article that you posted. Nevertheless, American
> Analysis cites the Wiki article that I reference. Biased to say the least.
>
>
> Even FactCheck.org, which has been proven to be a biased, partisan
> organization admmits conclusively that the eight news media organizations
> who ran the "Consortium" and checked the results after the election found
> that President Bush did in fact win Florida.
>
> For you to stand here and make the statement (continuously) that "Gore won
> the election"; or that "Bush stole the electon"; again, confirms that you
> are a Moonbat. Gore didn't. There is nothing that you can do to change
> history, and the proof is positive that such a claim by you (and most every
> one of the small, but very vocal minority of Americans who are Moonbats)
> demonstrates how out of touch with politics, current/national events,
> contemporary history, and life in general, that you and your brethren really
> are.
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
> KeithInKöln
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Mark <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Then you admit to lying about your position ie: """""First, Gore did in
>> fact win the popular election, he got more votes,
>>
>> as I have cited and proved. Therefore, your aseertion that Bush won
>> the election is quite false"""""
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Markie Mark-
>>>
>>> I know all about the electoral college, dearie. Thanks anyway.
>>>
>>> On 1/6/11, Mark <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Tommy,
>>> >
>>> > The President of the USA is NOT selected by popular vote....not now,
>>> > not
>>> > ever in history.
>>> >
>>> > Adams, Hayes, Harrison, Bush..... All lost the Popular vote.... Adams
>>> lost
>>> > by over 10% popular AND 15 electoral college but was LEGALLY elected by
>>> > congress.
>>> >
>>> > Quit whining.... shit happens.
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Keith-
>>> >>
>>> >> This information is from Political Analysis . org, not from Wiki.
>>> >>
>>> >> http://political-analysis.org/vfraud/id11.html
>>> >>
>>> >> First, Gore did in fact win the popular election, he got more votes,
>>> >> as I have cited and proved. Therefore, your aseertion that Bush won
>>> >> the election is quite false. The Conservative SCOTUS appointed Bush,
>>> >> he was not elected. Those are the facts.
>>> >>
>>> >> There is no "Cherry picking" involved at all.
>>> >>
>>> >> Here are the statistics again, from the Federal Election Comission.
>>> >> Please review them again.
>>> >>
>>> >> 2000 OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS
>>> >>
>>> >> Bush 47.87 % Gore 48.38 %
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Al Gore won the election.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 1/6/11, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > Tom,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I took the time to peruse your articles from Wiki, (the
>>> >> > introduction
>>> of
>>> >> the
>>> >> > Wiki article is not cited).
>>> >> >
>>> >> > A couple of questions for you:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > First, let's assume that the recount in Florida would have been
>>> allowed
>>> >> to
>>> >> > have continued. You do understand that the eight news organizations
>>> >> > that
>>> >> I
>>> >> > have cited did in fact determine that President Bush was the winner
>>> in
>>> >> > Florida, after polling all 66 counties of Florida? That assuming
>>> that
>>> >> Gore
>>> >> > had won in court, he would have lost the election?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Second, I refer you to the recent court battle in Minnesota, where
>>> >> Senator
>>> >> > Frankin prevailed, after what you are suggesting should have taken
>>> place
>>> >> in
>>> >> > Florida, took place in Minnesota. What I reference, is that a
>>> >> politically
>>> >> > influenced Court, with a politically influenced Supervisor of
>>> Elections
>>> >> was
>>> >> > allowed to cherry pick different precincts, counties and polling
>>> >> stations,
>>> >> > and in essence, threw the election in Senator Frankin's favor.
>>> >> > This
>>> is
>>> >> not
>>> >> > me attempting to sound like sour grapes, it is well documented that
>>> the
>>> >> > Democratic Party literally stole the senatorial election in
>>> Minnesota.
>>> >> > This is what you are suggesting that the United States Supreme Court
>>> >> should
>>> >> > have allowed in Florida, in the 2000 Presidential election. That
>>> then
>>> >> Vice
>>> >> > President Gore should have been allowed to have "cherry picked"
>>> certain
>>> >> > counties and polling stations, that were predominately Democratic in
>>> >> nature,
>>> >> > and, using the, "Squeaking wheel gets the most grease" theory,
>>> >> > those
>>> >> > who
>>> >> > cried the loudest, got their votes recounted.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Surely, you don't advocate such a policy? That is in essence, what
>>> it
>>> >> > sounds as if you are calling for here today. Tell me that you are
>>> >> > more
>>> >> > astute than this!!!
>>> >> >
>>> >> > KeithInKöln
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Lil' Keithie Keith-
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> No, the Reich wing SCOTUS got it wrong. Bush versus Gore was
>>> >> >> decided
>>> >> >> on political bias rather than on legal grounds.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Empirical Proof and Documentation:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Was the Supreme Court's ruling an example of judicial activism
>>> >> >> supporting election fraud? There are numerous cases where the
>>> >> >> state
>>> >> >> courts have supervised recounts, and this should have been another
>>> >> >> such case; however, the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the
>>> >> >> recount, by overturning the Florida Supreme Court's holding
>>> >> >> authorizing the recount. Given the diffidence the Republican
>>> >> >> packed
>>> >> >> Supreme Court has shown both to federal and state governments and
>>> >> >> their courts since November of 1975, political bias is the only
>>> >> >> reasonable conclusion in Bush vs. Gore. Moreover a purported
>>> conflict
>>> >> >> of the 2 statutes (7 day limit for certifying an election result,
>>> and
>>> >> >> the 6 days to challenge to call for a recount) is easily resolved
>>> >> >> by
>>> >> >> interpreting as conjunctive, namely that the recount law stays the
>>> >> >> 7
>>> >> >> day limit. The Supreme Court didn't need to overturn the Florida
>>> >> >> Supreme Court holding which stayed the time limit and for Florida
>>> made
>>> >> >> election recounts unlikely. Bush versus Gore was decided on
>>> political
>>> >> >> rather than legal grounds.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Even more disconcerting is the fact that politics decides law
>>> >> >> enforcement. The criminal violation of election laws and civil
>>> rights
>>> >> >> were ignored by the attorney generals' office (state and federal)
>>> and
>>> >> >> the legislative bodies. The attorney general's offices were filled
>>> >> >> with Republican appointees, and Republicans controlled both federal
>>> >> >> and state legislatures. Obviously our country needs an independent
>>> >> >> department of the FBI set up just to investigate political crimes.
>>> I
>>> >> >> would suggest that such a department should be under the
>>> >> >> supervision
>>> >> >> of law professors—jk.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> How the courts handled the election issue
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> From www.wikipedia.org
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a U.S. Supreme Court case
>>> heard
>>> >> >> on December 11, 2000, which directly influenced the outcome of the
>>> >> >> 2000 presidential election. In three separate opinions, seven
>>> justices
>>> >> >> found that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain
>>> >> >> counties
>>> >> >> in the State of Florida was to be stopped due to the lack of a
>>> >> >> consistent standard; two justices disagreed. A 5-4 majority further
>>> >> >> declared in a per curiam opinion that there was insufficient time
>>> >> >> to
>>> >> >> establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's
>>> >> >> deadline for certifying electors.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The decision stopped the statewide recount that was occurring in
>>> >> >> Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State (and Bush's Florida
>>> >> >> campaign co-chair) Katherine Harris to certify George W. Bush as
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> winner of Florida's electoral votes. Florida's 25 electoral votes
>>> gave
>>> >> >> Bush a majority of the electoral college with 272 votes and enabled
>>> >> >> him to win the Presidency.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The Presidential election in question took place on November 7,
>>> 2000.
>>> >> >> Under the Electoral College system, each state conducts its own
>>> >> >> popular election for president, and the winner of each state's
>>> >> >> election receives a number of "electoral votes." The winner of a
>>> >> >> majority of the electoral college is elected President of the
>>> >> >> United
>>> >> >> States. In 2000, 270 electoral votes were required for victory.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported
>>> >> >> that
>>> >> >> Bush had a margin of victory of 1,784 votes.[1] The margin of
>>> victory
>>> >> >> was less than 0.5% of the votes cast so an automatic machine
>>> >> >> recount
>>> >> >> was issued. The recount resulted in a much smaller margin of
>>> >> >> victory
>>> >> >> for Bush—on November 10, with the machine recount finished in all
>>> but
>>> >> >> one county, Bush's margin of victory had decreased to 327.[2]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Florida's election laws[1] allow a candidate to request a county to
>>> >> >> conduct a manual recount, and Gore requested manual recounts in
>>> >> >> four
>>> >> >> Florida counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade. The
>>> >> >> four counties granted the request and began manual recounts.
>>> However,
>>> >> >> Florida law also required all counties to certify their election
>>> >> >> returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the
>>> >> >> election,[2] and several of the counties conducting manual recounts
>>> >> >> did not believe they could meet this deadline. On November 14, the
>>> >> >> statutory deadline, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the 7-day
>>> >> >> deadline was mandatory, but that the counties could amend their
>>> >> >> returns at a later date. The court also ruled that the Secretary,
>>> >> >> after "considering all attendant facts and circumstances," had
>>> >> >> discretion to include any late amended returns in the statewide
>>> >> >> certification.[3] Prior to the 5pm deadline on November 14, Volusia
>>> >> >> county completed its manual recount and certified its results. At
>>> 5pm,
>>> >> >> Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced that she
>>> >> >> was
>>> >> >> in receipt of the certified returns from all 67 counties, while
>>> >> >> Palm
>>> >> >> Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties were still conducting
>>> >> >> manual
>>> >> >> recounts.[4]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Harris issued a set of criteria[3] by which she would determine
>>> >> >> whether to allow late filings, and she required any county seeking
>>> to
>>> >> >> make a late filing to submit to her, by 2 p.m. the following day, a
>>> >> >> written statement of the facts and circumstances justifying the
>>> >> >> late
>>> >> >> filing. Four counties submitted statements, and, after reviewing
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> submissions, Harris determined that none justified an extension of
>>> the
>>> >> >> filing deadline. She further announced that after she received the
>>> >> >> certified returns of the overseas absentee ballots from each
>>> >> >> county,
>>> >> >> she would certify the results of the presidential election on
>>> >> >> Saturday, November 18, 2000.[5]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On November 16, Gore and Palm Beach filed suit to compel Harris to
>>> >> >> accept the amended returns, and on November 17 appealed the case to
>>> >> >> the Florida Supreme Court.[4] On November 17, the Florida Supreme
>>> >> >> Court issued an injunction preventing Harris from certifying the
>>> >> >> election, pending a final ruling of the court. On November 21, the
>>> >> >> Florida Supreme Court, in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v.
>>> Harris
>>> >> >> (Harris I) ordered Harris to accept the results of any manual
>>> recount
>>> >> >> certified before November 26 at 5pm.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On November 22, Bush appealed the Florida Supreme Court's ruling to
>>> >> >> the United States Supreme Court. On December 4, the Court rendered
>>> its
>>> >> >> decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70
>>> >> >> (2000). The Court opinion remanded the case back to the Florida
>>> >> >> Supreme Court for a clarification as to whether the basis for their
>>> >> >> ruling was the Florida constitution or Florida statutes. The Court
>>> was
>>> >> >> concerned that if the basis of the ruling was the Florida
>>> >> >> constitution, which was not written by the Florida legislature, the
>>> >> >> ruling might be unconstitutional under Art. II, § 1, cl. 2 ("Each
>>> >> >> state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may
>>> >> >> direct, a number of electors . . .").
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> While the Supreme Court appeal was pending, Miami-Dade county
>>> canceled
>>> >> >> its manual recount on the ground that it could not complete the
>>> >> >> recount by November 26.[6] Gore sued to compel Miami-Dade to
>>> complete
>>> >> >> the recount but lost. On November 26, Harris certified the Florida
>>> >> >> Election. She declared Bush the winner of the Florida election with
>>> >> >> 2,912,790 votes over Gore, who had 2,912,253—a margin of 537 votes,
>>> or
>>> >> >> about 0.01%.[7]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> BACKGROUND
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On November 27, Gore filed suit to contest the certified results of
>>> >> >> the election. The case was heard by Judge N. Sanders Sauls, who
>>> denied
>>> >> >> the requested relief on December 4. Gore appealed the case to the
>>> >> >> Florida Supreme Court. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court
>>> issued
>>> >> >> its opinion in Gore v. Harris (Harris II). The court ordered a
>>> manual
>>> >> >> recount of only undervotes,[5] to be conducted by the Leon County
>>> >> >> district court, for ballots from the counties and portion of
>>> >> >> Miami-Dade county not subject to the previous manual tally. The
>>> court
>>> >> >> further ordered that the results of the November manual recount,
>>> which
>>> >> >> was conducted by the various County canvassing boards, for disputed
>>> >> >> ballots in three counties and portions of a fourth county, which
>>> would
>>> >> >> have presumeably included some overvotes, be included in the final
>>> >> >> state tally. Bush appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court
>>> >> >> on
>>> >> >> December 9, and the Court issued a 5-4 injunction stopping the 64
>>> >> >> of
>>> >> >> 67 county recount pending a final decision. The split on this was
>>> the
>>> >> >> same as the 5-4 split in the final ruling.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The oral arguments in Bush v. Gore were brought before the court on
>>> >> >> December 11 by lawyers representing both sides. Due to the nature
>>> >> >> of
>>> >> >> the case, the U.S. Supreme Court gave its opinion just 16 hours
>>> after
>>> >> >> hearing arguments. The Florida Supreme Court provided the requested
>>> >> >> clarifications on Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board while
>>> the
>>> >> >> U.S. Supreme Court was deliberating Bush v. Gore; the two cases
>>> >> >> were
>>> >> >> subsequently combined.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> RELEVANT LAW
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1
>>> >> >> "No State shall...deny to any person...the equal protection of the
>>> >> laws."
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> [edit]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2
>>> >> >> "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
>>> >> >> thereof
>>> >> >> may direct, a Number of Electors...."
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> [edit]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 3 U.S.C. § 5
>>> >> >> "If any State shall have provided...for its final determination
>>> >> >> of...the appointment of all or any of the electors of such
>>> State...at
>>> >> >> least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the
>>> electors,
>>> >> >> such determination...shall be conclusive."
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> THE ISSUES
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The court had to resolve two different questions to fully resolve
>>> the
>>> >> >> case.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Who wins on the merits of the case: Bush or Gore? In other words,
>>> are
>>> >> >> the recounts as they are currently being conducted, constitutional?
>>> >> >> If the recounts are unconstitutional, what is the remedy?
>>> >> >> The court, especially the majority, had trouble with the timing:
>>> they
>>> >> >> thought that there was little chance of the recount being finished
>>> by
>>> >> >> the December 12 safe harbor deadline.
>>> >> >> Bush was essentially making two distinct claims:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> [edit]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Equal Protection Claim
>>> >> >> Bush argued that the recounts in Florida violated the Equal
>>> Protection
>>> >> >> Clause of the 14th Amendment because there was no statewide
>>> >> >> standard
>>> >> >> that each county board could use to determine whether a given
>>> >> >> ballot
>>> >> >> was a legal vote. His argument was that since each county used its
>>> own
>>> >> >> standard to count each vote, some counties would have more liberal
>>> >> >> standards than other counties. Therefore, two voters could have
>>> marked
>>> >> >> their ballot in an identical manner, but one voter's ballot in one
>>> >> >> county would be counted while the other voter's ballot in a
>>> different
>>> >> >> county would be rejected, due to the varying standards.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Gore argued that there was indeed a statewide standard, the "intent
>>> of
>>> >> >> the voter" standard, and that this standard was sufficient under
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> Equal Protection Clause. Furthermore, Gore argued that the
>>> consequence
>>> >> >> of ruling the Florida recount unconstitutional simply because it
>>> >> >> treated different voters differently would effectively render every
>>> >> >> state election unconstitutional. This is because every state uses
>>> >> >> different methods of recording votes in different counties (e.g.,
>>> >> >> optical scanners, punch-cards, etc.), and that each method has a
>>> >> >> different rate of error in counting votes. A voter in a
>>> >> >> "punch-card"
>>> >> >> county has a greater chance of having his vote undercounted than a
>>> >> >> voter in an "optical scanner" county. If Bush wins, Gore argued,
>>> every
>>> >> >> state would have to have one statewide method of recording votes to
>>> be
>>> >> >> constitutional.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Seven justices agreed that Bush won on this claim.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> [edit]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Article II Claim
>>> >> >> Bush also argued that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling violated
>>> Art.
>>> >> >> II, § 1, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires each state
>>> to
>>> >> >> appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
>>> >> >> direct." Essentially, Bush argued that the Florida Supreme Court's
>>> >> >> interpretation of Florida law was so erroneous, that their ruling
>>> had
>>> >> >> the effect of making new law. Since this "new law" had not been
>>> >> >> directed by the Florida legislature, it violated Art. II.
>>> Ordinarily,
>>> >> >> when a state's highest court interprets state law, that
>>> interpretation
>>> >> >> is final, and a federal court can't question it. Bush argued,
>>> however,
>>> >> >> that Art. II gives the federal judiciary the power to interpret
>>> state
>>> >> >> election law for itself to ensure that the intent of the state
>>> >> >> legislature is followed.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Gore argued that Art. II presupposes judicial review and
>>> >> >> interpretation of state statutes, and that the Florida Supreme
>>> >> >> Court
>>> >> >> did nothing more than exercise the routine principles of statutory
>>> >> >> construction in order to reach its decision.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Only three justices, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia and
>>> >> >> Justice Thomas, accepted Bush's argument on this issue.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> [edit]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The remedy
>>> >> >> If the current recount were unconstitutional, the State of Florida
>>> >> >> would have to fashion the proper remedy. Since oral arguments in
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> case occurred on December 11, there was a limited amount of time
>>> >> >> available to conduct a recount. By law, the Electoral College was
>>> >> >> scheduled to meet and cast their votes on December 18, just seven
>>> days
>>> >> >> away. A further complication was the fact that 3 U.S.C. § 5
>>> >> >> established a safe harbor for states. A state had to select its
>>> >> >> electors at least six days prior to the date the Electoral College
>>> >> >> would meet in order to ensure their electoral votes could not be
>>> >> >> challenged in Congress. This safe harbor deadline was December 12,
>>> the
>>> >> >> very next day. It is possible that the recount would have been
>>> >> >> finished by this non-binding deadline if the Supreme Court had not
>>> >> >> stayed the recount on December 9th.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Consequently, the court had to address whether to allow the redo of
>>> >> >> the recount that would subsequently be submitted by Florida, but
>>> miss
>>> >> >> the deadline established by 3 U.S.C. § 5; or stop all recounts and
>>> go
>>> >> >> with the certified results of November 26.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Five justices decided to stop all recounts.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Bush was represented before the Court by Theodore B. Olson, a
>>> >> >> Washington, D.C. lawyer and future Solicitor General. Gore's oral
>>> >> >> argument was delivered by attorney David Boies.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> [edit]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The decision
>>> >> >> A 5–4 majority ruled that the Florida recount was unconstitutional.
>>> >> >> The majority opinion, which represented the opinions of five
>>> justices,
>>> >> >> noted significant problems in the uneven way the votes were being
>>> >> >> recounted. It cited, in particular, the use of differing standards;
>>> >> >> the combination of full manual recounts for some counties and for
>>> >> >> selected precincts within Miami-Dade County with partial recounts
>>> for
>>> >> >> other counties and for the rest of Miami-Dade; and the perceived
>>> >> >> impracticality of the process ordered by the Florida court.
>>> >> >> Furthermore, this 5-4 majority ruled that no constitutionally-valid
>>> >> >> recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline set in
>>> statute,
>>> >> >> effectively ending the recounts. The opinion stated that the
>>> >> >> state-wide standard ("if the voter's intent is clear, the vote
>>> should
>>> >> >> be counted") could not guarantee that each county would count the
>>> >> >> votes the same way, and held that this violated the Equal
>>> >> >> Protection
>>> >> >> Clause of the United States Constitution.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The case was steeped in controversy as the majority versus minority
>>> >> >> opinion on the remedy was split along the lines of the more
>>> >> >> conservative justices voting in favor of Bush and the more liberal
>>> >> >> justices voting in favor of Gore. Additionally, part of the reason
>>> >> >> recounts could not be completed was due to various stoppages
>>> >> >> ordered
>>> >> >> by the various branches and levels of the judiciary. Opponents
>>> argued
>>> >> >> that it was improper for the court (by the same 5–4 majority) to
>>> grant
>>> >> >> an injunction stopping the recounts pending the outcome of the
>>> ruling
>>> >> >> based on the possibility of "irreparable harm" to "George Bush's
>>> >> >> reputation as the legitimate winner." Injunctions for irreparable
>>> harm
>>> >> >> cannot usually be granted if doing so would do equal or greater
>>> >> >> harm
>>> >> >> to another party (in this case, Al Gore).
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The minority dissents noted some of these issues and others
>>> including
>>> >> >> the principle of fairness, and the conflicting laws which could be
>>> >> >> interpreted as invalidating the December 12 deadline. It appears
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> minority would have wished to allow the recount to continue up
>>> >> >> until
>>> >> >> the college of electors were mandated to meet on December 18. The
>>> >> >> majority, however, accepted the finding of the Florida Supreme
>>> >> >> Court
>>> >> >> that the Florida legislature intended to obtain the benefits of
>>> >> >> federal statute. This included the December 12 deadline. Thus,
>>> sending
>>> >> >> the case back to the Florida Supreme Court until December 18 could
>>> be
>>> >> >> not appropriate under Florida statute. ([8] 4th & 5th paragraphs
>>> from
>>> >> >> end).
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The dissenting opinions were notable for their unusually harsh
>>> >> >> treatment of the majority. Justice Stevens' dissent scathingly
>>> >> >> concluded:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the
>>> Florida
>>> >> >> election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the
>>> >> >> impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the
>>> >> >> critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise,
>>> their
>>> >> >> position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position
>>> by
>>> >> >> the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most
>>> cynical
>>> >> >> appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is
>>> confidence
>>> >> >> in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the
>>> >> >> true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound
>>> to
>>> >> >> that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One
>>> thing,
>>> >> >> however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete
>>> >> >> certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential
>>> >> >> election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the
>>> >> >> Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the
>>> rule
>>> >> >> of law.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I respectfully dissent.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The decision was widely criticized for the following sentence in
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> majority opinion:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the
>>> >> >> problem of equal protection in election processes generally
>>> >> >> presents
>>> >> >> many complexities.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The court's defenders considered this a reasonable precaution
>>> against
>>> >> >> the possibility that the decision might be read overbroadly,
>>> >> >> arguing
>>> >> >> that in the short time available it would not be appropriate to
>>> >> >> attempt to craft language spelling out in greater detail how to
>>> apply
>>> >> >> the holding to other cases. Critics, however, interpreted the
>>> sentence
>>> >> >> as stating that the case did not set precedent in any way and could
>>> >> >> not be used to justify any future court decision, and some
>>> >> >> suggested
>>> >> >> that this was evidence the majority realized its holding was
>>> >> >> untenable. It was seen by many as a departure from the stare
>>> >> >> decisis
>>> >> >> principle.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> In brief the breakdown of the decisions were:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The remedy of ceasing all recounts was approved by 5 to 4.
>>> >> >> (Kennedy,
>>> >> >> O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer,
>>> >> >> Ginsburg,
>>> >> >> Souter and Stevens opposed)
>>> >> >> The finding that using different standards of counting in different
>>> >> >> areas without a single overseer violated equal protection was
>>> approved
>>> >> >> by 7 to 2. (Breyer, Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Souter
>>> >> >> and
>>> >> >> Thomas in support; Ginsburg and Stevens opposed)
>>> >> >> The view that the Florida Supreme Court acted contrary to the
>>> >> >> intent
>>> >> >> of the Florida legislature was rejected by 6 to 3. (Rehnquist,
>>> Scalia
>>> >> >> and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter
>>> and
>>> >> >> Stevens opposed)
>>> >> >> ENDNOTES
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Facts & Circumstances warranting waiver of statutory deadline
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 1. Where there is proof of voter fraud that affects the outcome of
>>> >> >> the election. In re Protest of Election Returns, 707 So. 2d 1170,
>>> 1172
>>> >> >> (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Broward County Canvassing Bd. v. Hogan, 607 So.
>>> 2d
>>> >> >> 508, 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 2. Where there has been a substantial noncompliance with statutory
>>> >> >> election procedures, and reasonable doubt exists as to whether the
>>> >> >> certified results expressed the will of the voters. Beckstrom v.
>>> >> >> Volusia County Canvassing Bd., 707 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1998).
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 3. Where election officials have made a good faith effort to
>>> >> >> comply
>>> >> >> with the statutory deadline and are prevented from timely complying
>>> >> >> with their duties as a result of an act of God, or extenuating
>>> >> >> circumstances beyond their control, by way of example, an
>>> >> >> electrical
>>> >> >> power outage, a malfunction of the transmitting equipment, or a
>>> >> >> mechanical malfunction of the voting tabulation system. McDermott
>>> >> >> v.
>>> >> >> Harris, No. 00-2700 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Nov. 14, 2000)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Facts & circumstances Not Warranting waiver of statutory deadline
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 1. Where there has been substantial compliance with statutory
>>> >> >> election procedures and the contested results relate to voter
>>> >> >> error,
>>> >> >> and there exists a reasonable expectation that the certified
>>> >> >> results
>>> >> >> expressed the will of the voters. Beckstrom v. Volusia County
>>> >> >> Canvassing Bd., 707 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1998).
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 2. Where there exists a ballot that may be confusing because of
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> alignment and location of the candidates' names, but is otherwise
>>> >> >> in
>>> >> >> substantial compliance with the election laws. Nelson v. Robinson,
>>> 301
>>> >> >> So. 2d 508, 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) ("[M]ere confusion does not
>>> amount
>>> >> >> to an impediment to the voters' free choice if reasonable time and
>>> >> >> study will sort it out.").
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 3. Where there is nothing "more than a mere possibility that the
>>> >> >> outcome of the election would have been effected." Broward County
>>> >> >> Canvassing Bd. v. Hogan, 607 So. 2d 508, 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> More:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> http://political-analysis.org/vfraud/id11.html
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On 1/5/11, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> > And once again, Tommy forgets that Knight Ridder, Hearst, CBS,
>>> >> >> > and
>>> >> five
>>> >> >> > other news organizations collectively recounted all 66 Florida
>>> >> counties'
>>> >> >> > votes. It was conclusive that George Bush won Florida, which
>>> >> >> > was
>>> >> >> > the
>>> >> >> > determinative State during the 2000 election. Again, Moonbat's
>>> >> >> > with
>>> >> >> hate,
>>> >> >> > lies and smear, who would love to do nothing less than revise
>>> >> >> > history.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:59 PM, GregfromBoston
>>> >> >> > <greg.vincent@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> No, they got it right. State courts have no say in elector
>>> >> >> >> selection
>>> >> >> >> rules. NONE. Its that friggin simple Tommy.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> And by the way, the SCOTUS death blow, was 9-0
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Cumulative score, 21-6, with all 3 UBER liberal circuit courts
>>> >> >> >> in
>>> >> >> >> agreement. Gore was never in the ballpark. Had he gone to the
>>> >> >> >> legislature, he'd have had standing. He didn't, and didn't.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Most learned that lesson. See Article II, Section 1.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> On Jan 5, 10:36 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> > The Conservative, biased SCOTUS got it wrong. Gore won the
>>> >> election.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > Appointing BUSH was a grave and costly mistake.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > On 1/4/11, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > > Al Gore won the election in 2000
>>> >> >> >> > > The truth conservatives COULDN'T spin in 2001
>>> >> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > > LOL!
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > > Damn shame 3 circuit courts, the Constitution and the
>>> >> >> >> > > Supreme
>>> >> Court
>>> >> >> >> > > think you're wrong.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > > Gore sought relief in the wrong room, and got dope slapped.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > > Now, maybe he didn't know the state court was irrelevant,
>>> >> >> >> > > but
>>> >> that
>>> >> >> >> > > would make him the dumbest VPOTUS in history.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > > Scary dumb.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > > I don't believe that.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > > --
>>> >> >> >> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>> >> >> >> > > For options & help seehttp://
>>> >> groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > > * Visit our other community
>>> >> >> >> > > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/><
>>> http://www.politicalforum.com/
>>> >> ><
>>> >> >> http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>>> >> >> >> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>> >> >> >> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > --
>>> >> >> >> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>>> >> >> >> > Have a great day,
>>> >> >> >> > Tommy- Hide quoted text -
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > - Show quoted text -
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> --
>>> >> >> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>> >> >> >> For options & help see
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> * Visit our other community at
>>> >> >> >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ <http://www.politicalforum.com/><
>>> http://www.politicalforum.com/><
>>> >> >> http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>>> >> >> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>> >> >> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > --
>>> >> >> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>> >> >> > For options & help see
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > * Visit our other community at
>>> >> >> > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ <http://www.politicalforum.com/><
>>> http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>>> >> >> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>> >> >> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>>> >> >> Have a great day,
>>> >> >> Tommy
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>> >> >> For options & help see
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> * Visit our other community at
>>> >> >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ <http://www.politicalforum.com/><
>>> http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>>> >> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>> >> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>> >> > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>> >> >
>>> >> > * Visit our other community at
>>> >> > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>>> >> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>> >> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>>> >> Have a great day,
>>> >> Tommy
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>> >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>> >>
>>> >> * Visit our other community at
>>> >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>>> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Mark M. Kahle H.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>> > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>> >
>>> > * Visit our other community at
>>> > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>>> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>>> Have a great day,
>>> Tommy
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>
>>> * Visit our other community at
>>> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark M. Kahle H.
>>
>> --
>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>
>> * Visit our other community at
>> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The dire negative consequences of health reform repeal

Tom cannot respond to logical, thoughtful, empirical data and fact Mark......Waste of time.

 

 

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Mark <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:

Tommy,

After you read the real numbers from the US Government Treasury below (please follow the links) your continued cry that Clinton left a surplus would make you an absolute and resolute liar. Facts are a bitch. 

Here are the facts and how to find them regarding the bogus Clinton surplus as well as a quote from the leading Democratic Congressman of the time:

Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999

Fiscal Year	Year Ending	National Debt	Deficit
FY1993	09/30/1993	$4.411488 trillion
FY1994	09/30/1994	$4.692749 trillion	$281.26 billion
FY1995	09/29/1995	$4.973982 trillion	$281.23 billion
FY1996	09/30/1996	$5.224810 trillion	$250.83 billion
FY1997	09/30/1997	$5.413146 trillion	$188.34 billion
FY1998	09/30/1998	$5.526193 trillion	$113.05 billion
FY1999	09/30/1999	$5.656270 trillion	$130.08 billion
FY2000	09/29/2000	$5.674178 trillion	$17.91 billion
FY2001	09/28/2001	$5.807463 trillion	$133.29 billion

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:

Fiscal Year	End Date	Claimed Surplus	Public Debt	Intra-gov Holdings	Total National Debt
FY1997	09/30/1997		$3.789667T	$1.623478T	$5.413146T
FY1998	09/30/1998	$69.2B	$3.733864T  $55.8B	$1.792328T  $168.9B	$5.526193T  $113B
FY1999	09/30/1999	$122.7B	$3.636104T  $97.8B	$2.020166T  $227.8B	$5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000	09/29/2000	$230.0B	$3.405303T  $230.8B	$2.268874T  $248.7B	$5.674178T  $17.9B
FY2001	09/28/2001		$3.339310T  $66.0B	$2.468153T  $199.3B	$5.807463T  $133.3B

1. Go to the U.S. Treasury website: http://www.ustreas.gov/
   
2. Click on "Bureaus": Takes you to http://www.ustreas.gov/bureaus/
   
3. Click on "Bureau of the Public Debt": Takes you to http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/
   
4. Scroll down to the section "The U.S. Public Debt" and click on "See the U.S. Public Debt to the Penny."
   
5. This takes you to the link: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:

Wrong again, Fool.

Clinton did indeed leave a surplus, which Dubya squandered away.

Look it up.

On 1/5/11, dick thompson <rhomp2002@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Fool, Clinton did not leave a surplus.   The Bush recession you keep
> blabbing about started in 2000 under Clinton and was in its 3rd quarter
> when Bush was inaugurated.
>
> On 01/05/2011 10:17 PM, Tommy News wrote:
>> "Obamacare" is an offensive and misleading negative term.
>>
>> Government plans rarely come in on or under
>> budget.
>> W. Bush caused the gigantic deficit and squandered the Clinton
>> surplus. Yes, he did.
>>
>> On 1/5/11, Mark<markmkahle@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> Tommy,
>>>
>>> Is it not a health care plan championed by Obama ?? On ewould think he
>>> would
>>> be PROUDER than a peacock to have his name so closely associated.
>>>
>>> Please list any and all Government plans that have come in on or under
>>> budget and accomplished at least 80% of their goals.
>>>
>>> I am waiting.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Tommy News<tommysnews@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is a plain lie.
>>>> That is another plain lie.
>>>> That is yet another plain lie.
>>>> The derogatory term "Obamacare" is an offensive misnomer, and yet
>>>> another
>>>> lie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/5/11, dick thompson<rhomp2002@earthlink.net>  wrote:
>>>>> That is a plain lie.  Your various insurance companies will have to
>>>>> offer the plan as defined by the administration, not the plan the
>>>>> individual may want or need.  As an example I would have to buy a plan
>>>>> that had neo-natal care and pregnancy care even though I am 70, single
>>>>> and male.  That is a change that makes no sense to me.  As it stands
>>>>> now
>>>>> I can pick and choose what plan I want or even have a plan that allows
>>>>> me to pay for most of my current needs and have in addition a plan for
>>>>> catastrophic care.  The Obamacare plan does not allow that at all.
>>>>> That is the lies and false smear that should be fought, not what the
>>>>> Republicans are talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/05/2011 08:47 PM, Tommy News wrote:
>>>>>> Point is, Markie, those plans were unaffordable for many and
>>>>>> unobtainable for those with "pre-existing conditions" like cancer and
>>>>>> other diseases, and even to pregnant women needing natal care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the United States, under President Obama's health reform bill, your
>>>>>> ability to choose personally the people  to be involved in your health
>>>>>> care does not change one iota. Not one bit. You still have the exact
>>>>>> same feeedom of choice you had before. The Reich wing and the
>>>>>> corporate profiteers spread false lies about this and other provisions
>>>>>> of the bill constantly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fight the lies and false smear!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/5/11, Mark<markmkahle@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>> Point is Tommy, the alternative was already in place. A free
>>>>>>> enterprise
>>>>>>> system that allowed every working man, woman in the US to choose his
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>> own best policy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We simply need to go back to that which worked and was the envy of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>> as far as health care was concerned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I want the people I choose personally to be involved in my healthy
>>>>>>> care... I
>>>>>>> do not want to be in a healthcare "queue" managed by faceless
>>>> bureaucrats
>>>>>>> Check those social welfare systems in any socialized medicine country
>>>> and
>>>>>>> see how many more people are eligible yet add in the numbers that
>>>>>>> literally
>>>>>>> die waiting. All of those countries have developed private systems to
>>>>>>> serve
>>>>>>> the working man.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Tommy News<tommysnews@gmail.com>
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wrong. You are not everyone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does Mr Boehner know about whom he's speaking when he and any of his
>>>>>>>> conservative cronies say "the American people".  I think he and they
>>>>>>>> mean "it has to be my way".  I wonder what their consituents will do
>>>>>>>> when they learn that they can't get the health care they need
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> insurance companies ... well, we all know about that part of it.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> Republicans have been bitching and moaning about what they like to
>>>>>>>> derisively call "Obamacare", yet not one of them has come forward
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> a scintilla of an alternative.  I doubt if they have a plan since it
>>>>>>>> seems to me that they've mostly been concerned with knocking down
>>>>>>>> President Obama at every turn.  Our health insurance system is one
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the most cumbersome in the world, since it's really not a system by
>>>>>>>> subject to the individual money-grabbing whims of the insurance
>>>>>>>> companies.  We are supposedly the richest country in the world.
>>>>>>>> While
>>>>>>>> we spend mountains of moolah on every kind of war effort, there's
>>>>>>>> never any money to take care of our citizens.  It's interesting that
>>>>>>>> in all this talk about saving money, it's never once been brought up
>>>>>>>> that perhaps we should cut back in the war mongering department.  We
>>>>>>>> say we're a peace-loving nation.  Our actions do not back up our
>>>>>>>> words.  I was born in 1940 and have lived through 5 wars (WW2,
>>>>>>>> Korea,
>>>>>>>> Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).  That seems a bit on the excessive
>>>>>>>> side.
>>>>>>>> I think it's important to remember that when it comes to war we are
>>>>>>>> not always in the right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/5/11, Mark<markmkahle@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I bought the "rider" on my policy.... that is not an option they
>>>> have.
>>>>>>>> Free
>>>>>>>>> enterprise means getting what you pay for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Tommy News<tommysnews@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Markie Mark Mark-
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And what happens when you get cancer or some other  disease and
>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>> insurance company "death panel" drops your policy and you cannot
>>>>>>>>>> buy
>>>>>>>>>> another policy because you now have a "pre-existing condition"?
>>>>   What
>>>>>>>>>> then, Markie Mark?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/11, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmkahle@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> @@@@ they want to put insurance companies back in charge of our
>>>>>>>>>>> health
>>>>>>>>>>> care.@@@@
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You bet I want that. I work hard and pay my own bills. I want to
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> able to hire any one or any company I choose to meet my personal
>>>>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>> whether it is health care or which gas station to fill my tank.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 5, 2:13 pm, Tommy News<tommysn...@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The dire negative consequences of health reform repeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   From Mitch Stewart, BarackObama . com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tommy --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Our progress is under attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Their majority is not even a day old, but House Republicans are
>>>>>>>>>>>> already getting ready to pass a bill to repeal health reform.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of focusing on the future, they want to put insurance
>>>>>>>>>>>> companies back in charge of our health care. To go back to the
>>>> days
>>>>>>>>>>>> when these companies could deny coverage to children based on
>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-existing conditions, cancel coverage when people would get
>>>> sick,
>>>>>>>>>>>> or limit the care you could receive -- even when you needed
>>>>>>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>>> When
>>>>>>>>>>>> seniors would be forced to choose between paying their mortgage
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> paying for their prescription drugs, simply because they landed
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> "donut hole" in coverage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They want to turn our progress into a partisan fight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But you and I know that the Affordable Care Act and other
>>>>>>>>>>>> reforms
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> protect consumers did not pass because of a partisan or
>>>> ideological
>>>>>>>>>>>> agenda.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They passed because millions of Americans stood up and said we
>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>>> ready for commonsense solutions after years of fraud and abuse,
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> new era of responsibility after unchecked power. They passed
>>>>>>>>>>>> because,
>>>>>>>>>>>> after 100 years of debate and negotiation, we said we would wait
>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>> longer for health reform.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> These reforms passed because of you. Now, we must prepare to
>>>>>>>>>>>> stand
>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>> for them again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Organizing for America is pulling together a team of organizers
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteers to defend reform -- and we need you on this team.
>>>>>>>> Together,
>>>>>>>>>>>> we'll show how our progress is already improving lives across
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> country -- and take on those who are pushing for repeal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Join the fight to protect our progress and keep Congress focused
>>>> on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> future:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://my.barackobama.com/ProtectOurProgress7
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's clear that's not where House Republicans are looking --
>>>> they're
>>>>>>>>>>>> putting the car in reverse and heading straight toward the ditch
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> we just spent two years climbing out of.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As the President said this week, we are still emerging from a
>>>>>>>>>>>> recession that took a toll on millions of families, many of whom
>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> still trying to get their lives back on track. The Affordable
>>>>>>>>>>>> Care
>>>>>>>> Act
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Wall Street reform were important steps forward on the road
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> recovery, and we can't afford to play political games with them
>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We have an obligation to ensure our progress is not rewritten by
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> insurance industry and big banks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This year, we'll need to stand by the President as he works to
>>>> grow
>>>>>>>>>>>> our economy, make the United States more competitive, and keep
>>>>>>>>>>>> moving
>>>>>>>>>>>> the country forward -- but we're also going to have to work hard
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> defend what we have already achieved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Join the campaign to protect our progress:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://my.barackobama.com/ProtectOurProgress7
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mitch
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mitch Stewart
>>>>>>>>>>>> Director
>>>>>>>>>>>> Organizing for America
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a great day,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tommy
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>>>>>>>>> For options&   help see
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>>>>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>>>>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>>>>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>>>>>>>>>> Have a great day,
>>>>>>>>>> Tommy
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>>>>>>>> For options&   help see
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>>>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>>>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>>>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Mark M. Kahle H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>>>>>>> For options&   help see
>>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>>>>>>>> Have a great day,
>>>>>>>> Tommy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>>>>>> For options&   help see
>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Mark M. Kahle H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>>>>> For options&   help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>>> For options&  help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>>
>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>>>> Have a great day,
>>>> Tommy
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>> For options&  help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>
>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark M. Kahle H.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>> For options&  help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>
>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.