Question for Americans?

Thanks

from JoeUser Forums
Hi Guys

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, and while it was nothing I didn’t already know, It was a bit wish washy, and not objective at all… I am looking forward to seeing a movie that tells the story in an objective fashion…

I did learn something last night though – I was completely unaware that it only took one member of the senate to sign an objection to Bush becoming president in 2000 – I know, I am a bit daft, but could one of you please kindly tell me, in your opinion, why no member of the senate considered the petitions coming from the African American communities?

The impression I got from the movie was that Al Gore would have won quite easily if just one member of the senate objected, hence getting the ball rolling for a thorough investigation… Whether Bush won or not, well, it’s irrelevant now, I would just like to know why not one member of the US senate had the courage to object and instigate the investigation…

I could be completely wrong, and because it was directed by Michael Moore, a blatantly obvious fact might be missing from my picture here – that’s why I am asking for your help…

Thanks Yanks!!!

BAM!!!
politics
10,764 views 27 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
MM is an ambush journalist at heart so twists to the left are the only thing he can stand. (Now that he is famous and rich that is). The details escape me but the legal teams for both campaigns had plans vis a vis the Florida results. The big problem for Algore (the phony enviornmentalist) was that his stategy on what votes to count worked in GW's favor...ooopsy! The election in florida would not really have been that close if they had allowed the overseas military person's ballots to be counted. The military generally votes more than 60% republican vs Dem. Especially after the embarassment of the amoral sleazebag who was in office previously. This precludes the fact that the voters in the electoral college could have voted for whomever they wanted, no matter what the popular vote was. Not a direct election; hmmm, wonder if the founding fathers really trusted us to make the right decisions???
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Um.... thanks for you input bro... alas - I noticed a few people have looked at this thread, but no one can answer the question...

The African American communities of Florida vehemently opposed the result, and no Senator would represent them - why is this?

BAM!!!
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gore lost the election. Regardless of what Moore wishes.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gore lost the election. Regardless of what Moore wishes.


Did you even read the article Brad? Thanks for pointing out the bleeding obvious - thats not what i asked...

I wanted to know why the US Senate does not have one member who was willing to object on behalf of the African Americans - that is my question, and Brad, I know that you are more than capable of answering it... Answer with your usual conservative diatribe, and then I am sure I can come to a conclusion on my own based on two extreme views - yours, and Michael Moores.

BAM!!!
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
The 2000 election was actually hashed over quite thoroughly. Yes, there was a serious error in Palm Beach County, but it must be pointed out that BOTH democrat and republican election officials approved the ballot. You don't approve a ballot and then complain about it later.

The allegations of African Americans being turned away from the polls in Miami-Dade County are another matter entirely, if true. It must be pointed out that one of the chief accusers on this point was Jesse Jackson, a man who has played the race card repeatedly for his own financial and political gain.

Frankly, I believe there was a whole lot of malfeasance in the 2000 Florida election. But whining about it repeatedly won't help.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Frankly, I believe there was a whole lot of malfeasance in the 2000 Florida election. But whining about it repeatedly won't help.


Hehehehe... not whining.... you still didn't answer the question...

Is the presidency of the USA looked upon so lightly that not one US senator (Democrat or Republican) felt the need to represent the objections of fellow citizens? I will hound, and hound, and hound, until I get an acceptable answer...

the problem is, there probably isn't an acceptable answer...

BAM!!!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
What US Senator in thier right mind would put themselves out for the stoning that was sure to come?

There were no less than 3, count 'um, three different investigations into the vote count. To come out and say that you think there should be an investigation of the investigation (by neutral parties/Repub./Dem) would be political suicide. It would be essentially seen as dragging out a process that was being dealt with in every possible way already. The objections of the citizens was taken into consideration durring the investigation; trying to stall the proceedings any longer would be seen as redundant and foolish by the majority of US citizens.

Just as a note, since the election, investigations by various news sources...CNN, NYT, etc have come to the same conclusion.....Bush won fair and square. IF any elected official had stepped up and tried to stall, eventually the truth would come out and they would have been seen as an idiot and promptly removed.

As I said, political suicide.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Is the presidency of the USA looked upon so lightly that not one US senator (Democrat or Republican) felt the need to represent the objections of fellow citizens? I will hound, and hound, and hound, until I get an acceptable answer...


I don't think the process is as simple as Moore makes it sounds...if it was, Lieberman, the vice presidential candidate and a SITTING US SENATOR, certainly would have done it.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmmm... from that post - I would say you are a republican... I could be wrong...

If indeed what you say is correct - Michael Moore has lost a lot of my respect.

So, let me get this right - there were already 3 seperate investigations into why those people couldn't vote, and the result was inconclusive at the time of swearing in - so Bush was awarded the presidency?

I dont think the objections of the citizens were taken into account though - because it's quite obvious to me, that a lot of people weren't happy with Bush's election, and it's a shame that the US senate has members who are more interested in their own political carreers, rather than the interests of the public they are supposed to represent...

BAM!!!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Here's an
article that might answer your question. I know very little about the
situation myself though. It seems that one reason might have been that Gore
himself objected to the objections.


Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Muggaz:

repeat after me: Gideon is a Libertarian, Gideon is a Libertarian, Gideon is a Libertarian.

Sorry, but I have made this clear on post after post. I am firmly set against BOTH political parties, and, frankly, think they're the same thing, different clothes (in 2002, 90% of the seats in the House of Representatives went virtually or completely uncontested, meaning the opposition party determined their representation to be "good enough").
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

when the senate met to ratify the electoral vote on january 6, 2001, a single senator could have stopped the process--at least temporarily--by objecting to the florida totals.  thats what the black congressional caucus was calling for.  in that event, the senate would have adjourned and both the senate and house would have met to consider the objection.  sustaining it would have required a majority by both chambers.


republicans had a slight majority in the house.  the senate was divided 50-50 so the deciding vote there would have gone to the president of the senate...the seated vice-preisdent...none other than al gore himself. 


there was little chance of a an objection being upheld and it would have required gore to vote for himself.  considering the situation, im guessing the senate didnt wish to make the country look less stable.  gore overruled several objections by representatives from several states because there was no senate backing--inlcuding one from jesse jackson jr not jesse jackson (i think gordon may have confused the two)

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
repeat after me: Gideon is a Libertarian, Gideon is a Libertarian, Gideon is a Libertarian.


Hehehe - I know Gid!!! I meant the other dude!!! (lifehappens) We just posted at the same time

Thanks for the Link Joseph!!! the article went a long way to explaining what happened... but not why... if anything, it increased my skepticism... something fishy went down... I mean, noble of Al Gore and all that... but a little too noble, know what I mean?

BAM!!!
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

interestingly enough, al gore--the losing candidate--demonstrated the type of impartiality and fairness one would expect from the supreme court while the three most conservative members of the court--rendering a decision totally inconsistent with their previous rulings--embarassed themselves and the court by stepping into the matter.   there's always a chance they werent motivated by partisan politics or ideological advocacy but then there's always a chance monkeys will fly outta scalia's butt. 

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
interestingly enough, al gore--the losing candidate--demonstrated the type of impartiality and fairness one would expect from the supreme court


Yeah - thats what really shocks me about the whole thing... either he is one outstanding individual, and he did his job with perfection, or there is something else going on...

What a conundrum!!! Oh well... no use questioning it now... the last 4 years have been a bit whack - I just hope this election goes much better for you guys!!! The whole world is affected, and the whole world is counting on a reliable result.

BAM!!!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

It might help to learn more about a similar situation that happened with Kennedy and Nixon. I haven't waded much through the links myself, but a quote from this article might explain why Gore acted as he did. After all, Nixon was definitely not noble, and yet he "graciously" accepted defeat.


"It was seen as opening a Pandora's box where Nixon could be viewed as a poor sport and destroy his political future and his own votes could be challenged as well," says Lanoue. "Like Nixon, Al Gore is walking a thin line. Gore has a tough decision. He could be in the same position as Nixon. If he challenges, he could be perceived as a political spoiler or a martyr of the political election. If Gore wins the popular vote and bows out graciously he will get brownie points. But it may be too late for that now."

And if you don't mind, one more link about the Nixon/Kennedy election. I find the similarities to be quite intriguing.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

I find the similarities to be quite intriguing


it is amazing how life imitates life huh?  quite intriguing to say the least.  i cant image gore looking to nixon's example but it was a lose-lose situation for both.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
They were some cool Links Joseph!!! thanks!!!

America is a great place huh??? What a model democracy

BAM!!!
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

either he is one outstanding individual

gore is an honest man as nearly as i can determine.  unfortunately boring trumps honesty in america's political circus.

although you were inspired to ask the question by moore's film (i havent seen it btw) the answer had nothing to do with the movie or moore's character, etc.    sorry you had to deal with the editorializing.    

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

That the Supreme Court made its ruling negated, I believe, any action from the senate.


Good question, though.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
although you were inspired to ask the question by moore's film (i havent seen it btw) the answer had nothing to do with the movie or moore's character, etc. sorry you had to deal with the editorializing.


Yeah - I know Kingbee... I am really happy with the discussion though, I have actually learnt a lot about the American political system in this thread... Brads post included.

BAM!!!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I remember that there were 3 vote counts, and Bush won all 3. The Florida state government, controlled by Republicans including GW's brother Jeb, decided to not do another recount. Gore sued to do another recount, and the Florida Supreme court sided with Gore. The ruling was appealed to the US Supreme court, which ruled against Gore.

An independent study determined that even with another recount, Bush still would have won.

Also worth noting is that the Florida panhandle is on Central time, which is one hour later than most of Florida. Many national networks reported that Florida's polls were closed, even when the places on Central time were still open. This is believed to have caused some in the panhandle not to vote. The Florida panhandle is primarily Republican.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Oh I read the article. specifically:

The impression I got from the movie was that Al Gore would have won quite easily if just one member of the senate objected, hence getting the ball rolling for a thorough investigation…

Moore gives lots of impressions. Few of them accurate.

Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top
Steven I think got it right I believe. The Supreme Court made a ruling and it was final. About the only thing Congress could have done was brought up a Constitutional Ammendment for instances like this that should happen in the future. In the end though, it was proven Bush did not steal the vote at all but won it fairly according to the election process set out by the Constitution. As for voters not being allowed to vote, I find it to be a travesty even if Bush, my personal choice, would not have won because of it. I believe that if their really was blacks not allowed to vote, then that is a travesty and should be dealt with accordingly with prison sentences for those denying the right to vote to anyone. Not only the blacks, and I would like to see proof of this, but also the overseas military votes not counted.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Few of them accurate


as i said, i havent seen the film.  in this case, the assertion--as re-stated by muggaz--seems correct.  the senate could have objected to ratifying the electoral vote as provided by us code, title 3, chapter 1, section 15.