When you see statements like this starting someone’s post, you just know that there can be no agreement with anything that follows:
Newsweek is looking pretty stupid right now.
Long story short, Roberts played a big role in stealing the election in Florida in 2000, despite Newsweek assertions to the contrary.
There is just no way to bridge the gap between my worldview and someone who honestly believes that. At least not on this issue.
*** Update ***
Jeff just thinks this is a coordinated strategy. I just think I simply can not agree with the basic premise that the 2000 election was stolen.
rilkefan
Don’t follow – do you believe it’s impossible the election was stolen, or that there’s no good evidence, or what? I think it’s highly likely the election was stolen, and more likely that more legal votes were cast for Gore in Florida than Bush, and near certain that more people tried to legally cast votes for Gore than for Bush.
Mike S
I had the same reaction when I read this, from “The Blog of The Year.”
Geek, Esq.
Hold on a second John.
The overall characterization of the recount legal struggle, and the characterization of the significance of Roberts’ role in it, are two entirely different subjects.
For instance, it’s very possible that one could both concede that the election wasn’t ‘stolen’ but also note that Newsweek was incorrect in its appraisal of Roberts’ role in the legal machinations.
John Cole
The election wasn’t stolen.
Maxwell
The White House is mishandling the Roberts nomination. The nominee has an oustanding record,but the White House is making it look like there is something to hide. Why else would they conceal Roberts’ past association with the Federalist Society, withhold records of the type that other Republican nominees have offered up, and refuse to release his income tax records?
A week ago it looked like only a few Democrats would oppose the nomination. The number is growing.
Or maybe the White House wants to have a close vote, so they can show the far right how tough it is to get a nominee confirmed?
Tulie
John, why do you say the election wasn’t stolen?
Seriously. There have been many credible (and many non-credible) reports of “irregularities” in polling and counting. Do you discount them all? And if so, why?
srv
But were the Dems trying to steal the election? And if not, had SCOTUS ruled their way, would it have been stolen?
John Cole
Nope Tulie, Ain’t happening.
I would rather shower in prison than re-argue the 2000 election again, ever.
Mike S
Does anyone see the irony in the fact that Ken Starr went to the Supreme court, iirc, and won the case making the WH council non-privelidged yet the Republican WH is refusing to release documents because a lawyer in the council’s office has priv?
Nathan Lanier
I was just about to write about that. Kos likes to make blanket statements grounded in ‘reality’, ie what moves the agenda.
matt
Alright, well, time to lose any credibility I had here, but the election was stolen. I say that as an objective observer not a partisan democrat (which I’m not anyway).
It’s pointless to argue about it here, but I’ll just say if you look into the facts, into what actually happened, it’s not some crazy 9-11 style conspiracy, it’s not even close to something like that. That election was stolen, period.
Jimmy Jazz
Agreed, and when you consider that Republicans controlled the state level election machinery, intimidated the shit out of the parts it didn’t control, and had James Baker channelling Juan Peron, “stealing” is only mild hyperbole, if at all. 70% of Dems polled in 2000 thought the system had failed, and now we’re talking about the nomination of an individual who may have been directly involved with this issue being appointed to a Supreme Court which most Dems think made a political decision to hand the election to Bush. These aren’t exactly “fringe beliefs”, even if you strongly disagree with them.
Mike S
Stolen or not, I think many would agree that it was a “catastrophic success.”
james richardson
john,
there’s a movie out there which has not been able to be shown in america save for the sundance channel. it’s called “how george bush stole the [2000] election.”
i personally have come to the conclusion that the election was stolen for him, but not after researching what happened in florida in 2000. see the movie. if you still think 2000 was 100% legal, i respect that. but a LOT of people have seen a LOT of research about florida 2000 and have come to the opposite conclusion.
if we can’t agree, we can at least try to understand each other’s viewpoints.
JR
Geoduck
I can never get too worked up one way or the other about Florida 2000, because it would never have happened if Gore had run a halfway-competent campaign. The man couldn’t even carry his home state.
matt
Mike S, heh.
I’m sympathetic to John’s view though, it is a rather outrageous claim, and it doesn’t help that it’s usually people like Michael Moore carrying the stolen election flag. Still, it doesn’t change what happened.
jdm
You are a rascal, John C. You don’t wanna discuss the 2000 election and, yet, you brought it up. It doesn’t get any better than that.
washerdreyer
What’s the overlap between one’s opinion on the question, “Was Bush v. Gore rightly decided?” on which I find Jack Balkin’s arguments that the answer is “No” quite persuasive, and the question “Was Florida stolen?”, on which I lean no at least in part because of ambiguity about what it means to steal an election.
Don
The 2000 election was a fucter-cluck and the supremes almost to a one violated their positions on federalism but “stolen” is not a word I’d use. More effectively gamed, maybe. Certainly it was serendipitous that the issues occured in a state where his brother was the big kahuna and the legislature was republican-controlled. But stolen has way to many other connotations for me to sign off on, even as a leftish centrist.
Then again even in retrospect I can’t bring myself to wish it has been Gore, his lying censor wife and that fascist DINO (to borrow the blogger venacular) scumbag Lieberman winning that battle. So perhaps I’m the wrong guy to weigh in.
rilkefan
If the Republicans are proud of Florida 2000 – if they think what they did was above-board and non-political, just defending their sides’ turf – then why the effort to downplay Roberts’s role in it?
And concerning Bush v Gore – if, as I read, that’s considered one of the worst decisions by the court in living memory by legal scholars across the spectrum, and if Roberts worked to bring that decision about – shouldn’t Roberts answer questions about the case?
albedo
Guess it depends on your definition of “stolen.” If you define stealing an election as a rigorous and with malice aforethought statewide policy of overturning or misrepresenting the real popular vote a la Slobodan Milosevic, then no, it wasn’t stolen. OTOH, if you define it as a bunch of nebulously-related improprieties, irregularities, and voter intimidation following a certain statewide pattern, coupled with several extremely dubious court decisions, then yes it was stolen.
Also, predicating an inflammatory header upon the assumption that the election wasn’t stolen (or unfairly influenced, or whatever), and then refusing to discuss the undergirding premise, seems a bit, as the kids say, wack.
M. Scott Eiland
So, we’ve established that the central battle cry for the opposition to the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court is going to be a reprise of the “Sore Loser Chorus”–with “Screw ‘Em” Kos as the head soprano?
[Scott steeples his fingers and channels Mr. Burns]
Ex-cellent.
Geek, Esq.
I don’t think the chorus should be ‘stolen’ election.
It should be that Roberts is nothing more than a glorified political hack–a Republican “company man” with spiffy credentials. Same effect as putting Karl Rove on the bench.
Zifnab
I don’t think it matters. Bush won the ’04 election fair and square (for the most part) with a 5 million vote majority. Arguing the 2000 election don’t really resolve anything since you’re never going to find the incontrovertible proof that Bush somehow corrupted his way into the White House.
Even if one were to argue that the Supreme Court ultimately was the sole decider on who became President in ’00 (which would imply that you’re ignoring the hundred million people who actually participated in the election) and that this in and of itself is unconstitutional or un-democratic, you’d be pointing the finger at the actual supreme court justices on the bench and not the various lawyers and circuit court judges through who’s hands the case passed.
John Roberts might have influenced the Bush victory in ’00, but no more than any other politican, political advisor, or big money donor.
However, if you honestly believe that an election CAN’T be stolen or jury-rigged (no pun intended) then you’re living in a dream world. One of the great fears of an all Republican government is that with absolute power concentrated in one party, it is possible for the loyal opposition to be outlawed and crushed. With a fully Republican loyal Supreme Court, a fully Republican Congress, and a Republican President all beholden to the party at large even rank corruption will go uninvestigated and unstopped. Same goes with a totally Democratic majority. I’m not saying that the nation definately will plunge into a one-party system like the Germans in the 1930s or the Soviets in 1920s or the Chinese in the 1940s, but the possibility exists and it’s a very frightening possibility. Something you have to be on guard for.
Anga2010
Scott,
That is exactly what I was thinking! This “Sore Looserman” reprise will work to the detriment of Democrats as it has so many times before.
Heh.
Defense Guy
Zinfab
I have read this argument before, and I prefer the shorter version.
Mark
If the 2000 election was “stolen,” then why is Joe Lieberman going to vote to confirm Roberts?
Geek, Esq.
I don’t think it was ‘stolen,’ but the answer would be that Joe Lieberman thinks more like a moderate New England Republican than a partisan Democrat.
Sojourner
He wouldn’t have been up for re-election if he hadn’t been awarded the presidency in 2000 so this is a silly point.
There is quite a bit of evidence suggesting that more people voted for Gore in Florida than for Bush. Second, the SC had no business getting involved. There is a Constitutional process for handling this type of problem and it should have been followed. Finally, the SC justices clearly contradicted their own judicial philosophies in ruling for Bush.
And if anybody questions the right of the Dems to thoroughly vet a SC nominee, the 2000 selection is more than enough reason.
Kimmitt
I dunno; seems to me that the CEO of Diebold got his brother to do what he pledged to do in Ohio.
(Reference: CEO of Diebold (Bob) pledged to deliver Ohio for Bush. Many, many votes counted on ES&S voting machines, founded by CEO of Diebold (Bob) and his brother (Todd). Brother (Todd) still a major muckety-muck at ES&S.)
bains
Just amazing…
I agree with John; it is pointless to discuss the 2000 election with those who think it was stolen. Honest discussions require an initial agreement on basic logical and legal tenents.
Stormy70
With a brillo pad.
Defense Guy –
Hee Hee!
Bob
Don’t drop the soap!
I am continually amazed at how these guys all interconnect in the scandals. Roberts didn’t anything to do with outing Plame, did he?
TallDave
DUCK!!! The board has been infested by blood-sucking moonbats!!
That’s my reaction when I see not only the old “stolen 2000 election” canards trotted out, but the “2004 election stolen by Diebold” tinfoil-hat conspiracy-mongering. In 2000 Bush won the initial count, the recount, and the major papers found he would have won the illegal hand recount too. Sheesh. If you want to start talking about “intended to vote” then you’d better look at the military ballots thrown out for being late and the thousands of votes Bush lost in the panhandle, which was told Gore had already won the state while polls were still open. And the 2004 allegations just make me giggle.
And that’s speaking as someone who only votes Republican as the lesser of two evils.
TallDave
Upon Roberts’ confirmation —
Mike S
He was Judy Miller’s source.
Stormy70
New Supreme Court Motto. Thank you, Admiral Motti.
Mike
“Sojourner Says:
And if anybody questions the right of the Dems to thoroughly vet a SC nominee, the 2000 selection is more than enough reason.”
Agree. And the answers should be to the same degree as what Ginsburg answered and the amount of documentation provided should be the same amount that any lawyer should have to provide in concert with Lawyer/Client priveleges. So we agree on this point entirely then…
Sojourner
The Repubs didn’t have to grill Ginsburg much. After all, Hatch is the one who first suggested her. Bush’s nominee could have been in the same position except that Bush didn’t accept a Democratic suggestion for a nominee.
Different situations, different rules.
Randolph Fritz
“The election wasn’t stolen.”
John, a straight count of the 2000 ballots conducted under Florida’s legal standard by NORC, independent research organization with an excellect reputation, gave the election to Gore.
“Stolen”, I suppose, is a loaded word. But an honest election, it wasn’t. If Roberts participated in that, he doesn’t belong in the judiciary or, so far as I am concerned, any government office.
Sojourner
Absolutely. If this is true, I don’t care how smart or how non-partisan he claims to be. Enough people have been paid off for helping Bush get selected. No more.
TallDave
Fritz, you seem to be misinformed. NORC wasn’t doing a recount, didn’t use Florida standards, and didn’t include all the ballots.
Worst of all, you characterize the election as “not honest,” as though vote tallies were being rigged. That kind of rhetoric is just irresponsible. It undermines our electoral process.
Key points about the study that are overlooked:
It was not a recount. NORC merely categorized ballots according to their characteristics (such as hanging chads, dimples, etc.)
It included all disqualified ballots. Whereas Gore sought manual recounts involving primarily just undervotes, the study looked at all spoiled ballots, including overvotes.
The ballots were from all 67 Florida counties, not just the four counties where Gore wanted recounts.
There were as many as 2,200 ballots that were not included in the study because counties were unable to deliver them.
Many people have used the study to speculate about recount possibilities. These people are not a part of the NORC study itself. Rather they are media personnel who have analyzed the complex data. Any conclusions based upon the study are speculative and likely unrealistic.
“…the project does not identify “winners.” Its goal is to assess the reliability of the voting systems themselves, using the highest standards of scientific accuracy and reliability.”
– From NORC Website
“NORC will not attempt to assess whether any particular ballot contains a “vote” but simply describe the marks.”
– From NORC Website
rilkefan
Talldave, you’re mistaken about the conclusions of the newspapers, which were (hated phrase by Bush supporters) not black-and-white. And it’s silly to claim that the recount procedure wasn’t affected by the Republican efforts to harrass and frighten the counters, which you’d have to claim to back your thesis. And to argue that any discussion of a disputed election “undermines our electoral process” – well, that’s like the kid who killed his parents and asked for mercy from the court because he was an orphan.
Pan is a non...
No mention of the fact that thousands of primarily black voters were denied their voting rights because Choice Point, the Bush friendly company that was awarded a huge contract by the state to compile the database of ineligable voters, did an absolutely abhorant job matching names and identities of felons with potential voters. Many non-felons were stripped of their voting rights, while many felons from other states, eligable to vote under Florida law, were similarly disenfranchized. These people were overwhelmingly African American, and African Americans overwhelmingly prefered Gore.
james richardson
talldave….. it was “florida standards” that brought on the 2000 fiasco in the first place.
and not to pull my tin-foil hat on too tight, but guess who was on the board in ohio that selected which voting machines to use, DieBold’s, which didn’t provide voter receipts, or the other machines, that did? Guess which board member INSISTED Diebold’s machines be used?
Tom Noe’s wife.
[takes tin-foil hat off]
Randolph Fritz
“I deeply resent the way this administration makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist.”–Teresa Nielsen Hayden.
p.lukasiak
the election was stolen on election night, when over two dozen heavily republican counties HAND COUNTED only their absentee ballots that were “spoiled”—handing Bush an advantage of at least couple of hundred votes that he would not have otherwise had on election night.
In other words, there was a highly selective hand recount of ballots in GOP counties that no one knew about until after the Supreme Court handed the White House to Bush…
This wasn’t reported until January, 2001, in the Orlando Sentinel…and it explains why Gore did unexpectedly well in so many GOP counties when the Herald and NORC recounts were done.
And although most of these “hand-counted” counties appear to recorded the hand counted ballots properly, in at least two, and probably three, panhandle counties, the outcomes were so completely ridiculous that its clear that serious fraud was involved.
In addition, hundreds upon hundreds of fully legal votes as defined by Florida law were never counted — with the lion’s share going to Gore. (There were ballots with a mark for a listed candidate, and a mark for “write in”…under Florida law, that ballot had to be counted as a vote for the listed candidate unless the name of a “qualified write-in candidate” appeared in the area designated for “write-in votes.)
Unfortunately, people like our host prefer not to confront the facts about the Florida election after bringing it up. But were it not for the theft of the election in Florida, over 1700 America troops would not be dead today….
capelza
As my husband said during the whole 2000 fiasco…”It’s not over till your brother counts the votes”. :P
rs
I will confess that I am one of the tens of millions who believe that the 2000 election was “stolen”, starting with the machinations of ChoicePoint before the election to the intervention of the SCOTUS afterwards,particularly the energetic?no.enthusiastic?no,that’s not the word-I know,the actively-originalist Scalia and his pet Clarence.So clearly I’m prepared to be objective.I understand tens of millions don’t agree the 2000 election was pilfered,but don’t pretend our thinking a larceny was committed is some mass black helicopter fantasy when,if the situation was reversed, we’d still be hearing about it daily on AM stations everywhere.And don’t be surprised that if with these new revelations the Roberts nomination is percieved as just one more “fuck you” to the sizable minority who didn’t vote for Bush-Cheney,either intentionally or not,and is responded to in kind.2000 was unprecedented in our lifetimes,and wise and patriotic leadership would have tried to prevent the continued deterioration and polarization of American politics,instead of purposely exacerbating that descent for partisan purposes.
Stormy70
Here come the black helicopters, again. Put your tin foil hats on and they may not get you.
Angie
Showering in prison?Why do variations of that theme show up so frequently in the conservative blogosphere?
Sojourner
Stormy never lets the facts get in her way.
BumperStickerist
P. Lukasiak –
Did Gore win the actual popular vote?
Or just the certified election return totals?
Given the vagaries with the Florida ‘actual votes counted’ and the razor thin margins involved – could you at least shut the hell up about ‘Gore won the popular vote?
Mmmmm’kay?
Gore didn’t.
The vote differential in 2000 was *well* within the margin of error of the vote counting process. So, at best, you can say “We think that more people voted for Gore”.
Meanwhile, we do know that Bush won both Presidential elections.
Sojourner
Are you sure the reference wasn’t to the national total which Gore did win?
Sinequanon
I think the whole thing is a sham. There is little doubt in my mind that the Robert’s nomination is a shoe-in which is why you aren’t seeing the insane battle everyone predicted from the liberals, me included. I believe that Bush tactics are to hold back information, not so much because it hurts Roberts, but as a carnival sideshow illusion. A distraction away from the slight of hand. Basically, Bush is changing the subject. Again. Last week, the Robert’s issue rather died. There is nothing to write. It’s boring, boring, boring and there is nothing sensational about this guy. Therefore, no controversy. Unless you withhold info, act like the Dems have an ulterior motive in demanding non-secret records about Roberts and then distract the public and make them wonder about this basically boring guy. But the reality is this: we are distracted from very important events and I have been saying this since about two days after the guy was nominated. There is nothing there. Sure I don’t like his last vote prior to nomination, and he isn’t a moderate, but, that doesn’t change the fact that this guy is not in the mold of Scalia and Thomas and there is nothing anyone can do about his position being confirmed. I’m personally grateful he isn’t a Scalia-Thomas wannabe. And, let me tell you, the next nomination for the Supremes is the one we should ALL worry about. I’m sure it will be BAD, for everyone.
As for me…I will continue to concentrate on the lies, deceit, and hoodwinking the American public by this administration as our loss of individual freedoms and protections continue to drastically erode under this administration.
And, John, the Supreme Court handed the election to Bush. Man, unfair saying you won’t talk about it! (I know life isn’t fair!) Gore decisively won Florida after all the recounts, and therefore, won the 2000 election. There is no doubt about it. It’s been hard for me having that synchophant as President after living under his yoke in Texas – I am just so tired of the Bush family and their nasty underhanded machinations and even dirtier friends.
To think, Texas still has the joy of claiming Tom Delay and Joe Barton.
And, now we see that Diebolds, one of the two electronic voting machine manufacturers software, apparently sent votes to the wrong parties by around 10 percent. Interesting, isn’t it?
Well…that was a bit longwinded. Sorry…
Stormy70
Please cite your sources for this. All the recounts came out in Bush’s favor. I’m talking about actual ballots, not mistakes made by Democratic voters too ignorant to read a ballot’s instructions. You also discount the loss of the 1hour of voting going on in the Panhandle of Florida by heavily Rep. districts, when the press mistakenly called the state for Gore. Gore is a loser, and killed his chances for running again by calling for a recount in Dem districts only.
Sinequanon
Stormy70
Since most of the previous posts which agree with me had already indicated said sources, re-reciting those sources is quite superflous. However, I note your own comments do nothing of the kind.
Sinequanon
Stormy70
p.lukasiak is a nutcase who is in to conspiracy theories, big time. The other sources are opinion pieces that show no actual proof. Funny how all you guys have is the latest in conspiracy theories. Do you live in Ausin, by the way?
james richardson
Basically it says that if Gore’s request for a limited recount had gone through, Bush still would have won.
If a statewide recount would have been ordered by the courts, of if all of Florida’s votes would have been counted (checking voter intent on butterfly ballots and hanging chads), or if Katherine Harris would have not disallowed certain results, Gore would have won.
So it’s basically about who’s interests Florida’s legislators were looking out for (when they weren’t busy running GW’s election campaign).
John Cole
Heh. Voter intent. Double Heh.
Kimmitt
Also, keep in mind that Gore had no standing to sue for anything other than the limited recount; my understanding is that if the limited recount had gone through and shown large discrepancies, that would have given Gore standing to sue for a statewide recount, which was the plan all along — to try to get the votes counted as accurately as possible.
Knemon
“I’m not saying that the nation definately will plunge into a one-party system like the Germans in the 1930s or the Soviets in 1920s or the Chinese in the 1940s,”
… or America in the 30s, 40s, and most of the 60s?
Knemon
“Gore decisively won Florida after all the recounts, and therefore, won the 2000 election. There is no doubt about it.”
Um, obviously there is an enormous amount of doubt about it, which is why we’re still arguing about it 55 months later.
Randolph Fritz
Just to add a few facts to this stew; there’s a summary of an independent security consultant’s audit of a Diebold optical scan machine, with links to the whole report, at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.94.html#subj8
I think I can fairly say it is the stuff of nightmares. Or, I suppose, for unscrupulous voting machine owners, dreams.
Sojourner
It’s not a problem for the Repubs until the other side figures out how to play the same games.
Randolph Fritz
A few more facts, these on Ohio in 2004:
http://nypress.com/18/30/news&columns/taibbi.cfm
We may be turning into the sort of single-party state Mexico used to be, or for that matter the old South; elections of a sort, but somehow the ruling party always wins.