The bunker mentality of the GOP in the what house has now met the trickle down phenomenon, and thru that blend, the lackeys are now bunkering down too.

The new mantra of the GOP bunker crowd is "come and get me coppa" a la James Cagney.

Incompetence is morphing into stubborn, tantrum enveloped incompetence. The virus is spreading.

Is it bad karma to so thoroughly enjoy watching this house of cards come tumbling down?

Dredd, the is not a "partisan" problem. The Democrats have a big problem in Cuyahoga County themselves.

As Brad pointed out on 3/19:

Those "alleged procedural defects" have been proven in a court of law to have been using to rig a Presidenital recount, have resulted in the convictions of two elections officials, the resignation of another and a request by the OH SoS for the resignation of the entire county Board of Elections.

https://bradblog.com/?p=4292#comments

These "alleged procedural defects" were approved by Bill Mason. Mr. Mason is a Democrat who was thought to be a candidate for Ohio Attorney General

It appears that Bennett is going to call SoS Brunner's hand. He is going to try to force her is to go after Mason, and have him explain why he approved the procedures that thwarted the recount.

"The Board operates under the advice and counsel of the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office. The Prosecutor's Office was specifically asked to review the recount procedures consistently utilized by the Board since 1982. The Board was advised to continue operating under the precedent used for more than two decades. Unfortunately, this same process has now resulted in indictments based on alleged procedural defects."

http://www.wkyc.com/news...ticle.aspx?storyid=40043

M.L. Cook #3

As I said, "the virus is spreading". I mentioned where the bunker mentality comes from, but I did not say it cannot infect democrats too. We have Joe Lieberman as another example (besides the one you cited) of one who is also morphing via the virus.

We go back to the infestation started by the "bi-partisan" Supreme Court in Bush v Gore in the 2000 cycle. Five GOP members of the court were the deciding 5 votes. Infectus maximus.

Next we go to subsequent wars, corruption, and criminal convictions galore. The invalid election wars led to other wars and to where we are now.

The GOP suing of the state of Florida/Gore in 2000 in the GOP majority Supreme Court is the initial point of decline where Gore won the popular vote, but "lost" the electoral college vote thru the Bush v Gore debacle in the Supreme Court.

Thanks Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and O'Connor.

I'm afraid "justice" will never be fully served unless Ken Blackwell should suffer too. I don't wish ill will on too many people, but KB is on my short list and I would laugh myself silly if he were to some day (perhaps in hell, and for all eternity, repeated each day) suffer the fate of one of his forefathers, Claude Neal. (Read about the history of the Southern United States and their treatment of blacks here)

And Dredd, those ugly five Rethuglicans Traitors are also on my short list. Scalia, Thomas and Rehnqist at the TOP for being vile thugs and slimeballs, and Kennedy and O'Connor for knowing better and following party over country ANYWAY. O'Conner gets a special dash of disgust for "warning America about the threat of rising Fascism" while ignoring her role in the rise --- talk about trying to "reform your reputation" for history --- UGGG.

And to M.L. Cook, I don't take the title of "Democrat" in Ohio too seriously unless I have a full run-down on that person's political views. There are too many DINO's in Ohio, and many who Rethuglicans-at-heart who registered Democrat just so they could fill out those supposedly "bi-partisan" election boards that Blackwell manipulated so well to steal the 2004 election for Bush and the Rethuglicans.

It's not that there aren't some Democrats as vile as the Rethuglicans, but I don't accept the premise unless it's PROVEN.

What path needs to be followed to

a) put the crooks in jail, including Blackwell, for as long as possible,

and

b) undo all the evil that's been done as a result of their crookedness; install Kerry and / or Gore as Presidential team and start righting all the wrongs that have happened in the world as a result of these criminals taking control of OUR country, including "cleaning up" the Supreme Court of partisan hacks
?

#4, #5, #6.

You have the wrong court. If you are going to be angry at a court, then you should direct your anger to Gore and the 6 Democrat members of the Florida Supreme Court. They decided to allow Florida's electors to be granted on a partial recount.

The 12th Amendment of the US Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to accept or reject elector. In turn, Congress has passed the Electoral Count Act of 1887 to set the rules for that process.

The 2000 election was one that would split Congressional power between the Democrats and the Republicans. 50/50, with Gore as the tie breaker until 1/20/2001 in the Senate, and Republican majority in the House. Any electoral college disputed would be settled with this split in Congress.

That is important to understand. For Congress to remove a slate of electors, it would take an agreement between both the Democrats AND the Republicans on who would win. Without an agreement, the first to certification would be the winner by default (3 U.S.C. section 15).

Bush won on election night, Bush won the automatic recount. If certified, the election is over (who really believes that the partisan Republicans would give this election to Gore?). Gore filed suit and every Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court decided to allow for a recount of 4 Democrat majority counties. The candidate who was ahead, no matter if all the ballots had been recounted, by the deadline set they set, would be the certified winner.

The deadline came, and Bush was ahead, thus he was certified as per the Democrats order on the court. That put Gore in a very bad position. He now has to fight the PARTISAN REPUBLICANS in the US House to win.

But instead of fighting for a recount that even the more Partisan Republican could not deny, he stupidly kept fighting for a partial recount. That type of recount would give these Partisan Republican all the political cover that they needed.

Gore took a chance, and it backfired on him. You can't blame the USSC for actions that Gore took, nor can you assign the court power that they do not have. The court had no power to remove those Bush electors granted to him by the FSC (Palm Beach v. Harris).

As it played out, the election was over on 11/26/2000. All we were waiting for was for Congress to accept the results outright or by default.

Once the process has been completed, by law, the election is valid.

Btw, newjesustimes, there is no way under the US Constitution to now "install" Gore or Kerry. Both challenges were filed on a timely basis, but failed to gain the needed support in Congress. There is no other recourse, other than for them to run again.

Village Voice, 12/8/2000

"If the chambers do in fact disagree, then the Electoral Count Act specifies that the electors chosen by the governor-Jeb Bush-shall be accpetd."

http://www.villagevoice....0049,elect5,20581,6.html

"STUART TAYLOR: I suppose that's a remote contingency. But my reading of the United States Code provisions, which Congress passed in 1887 on this, is that it would violate federal law for any court to try and make the slate of electors that's already certified disappear, and that if you get another slate certified, the solution is Congress figures out which ones to count and the courts have no part in it.

http://www.pbs.org/newsh...y-dec00/legal_12-12.html

Charlie L. #5:

Bill Mason was not appointed to as Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, he was elected by the voters in this Democrat majority county. In turn, he was hired by the Cuyahoga County Election Board as their attorney.

He was also thought to be running on the Democrat ticket for Ohio Attorney General.

If he is a Republican, not only did he fool the Democrats in Cuyahoga County, he also fooled the Ohio State Democratic Party.

"Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason, long presumed to be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, surprised many with his announcement late last month that he would not be a candidate for Attorney General in 2006. He cited family concerns as the reason for his decision."

http://www.ohiochamber.c...rnmental/edge_051005.asp

ML Cook, I know how deeply Republican talking points can be engrained, but in Cuyahoga County, this "It was Bill Mason's fault" isn't going to wash especially since Bennett accompanied it by blaming everyone short of the man in the moon. Blaming Candice Hoke, a respected fair-elections expert, was the pits. Mason is not clean and a lot of people, even Democrats, wouldn't be sorry if he went down. But the ultimate resposibility for fair and legal procedures on the BoE was Bob Bennett's and the other three board members that he controlled like puppets (I have no idea why the Democrats were as docile and pliant as they were, but they were. I sat in board meetings and saw with my own eyes.) If Bennett had been doing his job, the prosecutors' office need never have been involved. All Bennett is doing with his blame-throwing meltdown is making himself look desperately partisan, especially in light of the gracious acquiescence of both Democrats on the board. I won't even bother to get into your misinformed comments of FLorida because the turf I'm concerned about now is here in Ohio.

Charlie L, I couldn't agree with you more: Ken Blackwell is ultimately the one who needs to go to prison for election tampering in Ohio. Most of what occurred in Cuyahoga County is traceable back to him. I have no doubt that he colluded with Bob Bennett to create as much chaos in Cuyahoga County, which contains the state's largest pool of Democratic voters, as possible.

Anastasia P #9,

"Mason is not clean and a lot of people, even Democrats, wouldn't be sorry if he went down."

Let's see. If I claim that Mason may be dirty, and should ALSO BE INCLUDED int the election probe, it is "Republican talking points".

But if you AGREE that Mason may be dirty, that is NOT "Republican talking points".

That is too funny.

M.L. Cook - Only have time to comment on one of your "Republican talking points" for now. It's the DemocratIC Party. Not the "Democrat party" nor the "Democrat counties" nor the "Democrat members of the Florida Supreme Court."

I promise to show your party enough respect (whether deservedly or so) to not refer to them as the Republic Party, if you show the same to your opponents in the Democratic party. Thanks.

See, that's why I accused Cooke of being a partisan hack. The ONLY people I see refering to the Democratic Party as the Democ'rat' party are hard-core right-wing types. The claim of "not registered" is moot when the bias is obvious.

As I stated before, if Mason is guilty of breaking a law, by all means.. charge and convict him. Yet, even now I can't quite get my head around exactly what Cooke is trying to say in the first post.. That Mason "approved the procedures"? Weren't the workers convicted for "not following procedures"? ... or am I missing something? I mean, from the article from wkyc.com referenced in the comments on the other thread, The -board members- said "we've done nothing wrong, we followed the approved rules".. yet, the -facts- seem to contradict that since the "approved rules" required a "random sampling", but that random sampling was "rigged" (i.e. NOT RANDOM, but several quick counts made and 'samples' only taken from places where the counts lined up).

Much like the other (now ignored) thread.. I'll point out this. Saying a "Democrat did it" doesn't make it true. Saying the Democratic Party is to blame when there is no evidence doesn't make it true. The accused saying "uh, we didn't do what they said we did" doesn't make it true. From all the bits I've heard, the people convicted of crimes violated the law, and I've not seen -anything- that said "the long standing procedure was to game the definition of 'random' when looking at sampling for recounts". If you (or anyone) has a link to the "long standing procedures" that implies random = count first, then select and call 'random', let me see it..

Here's a tip for you.

IANAL so I'm not sure what this means, but I haven't seen it in the news.
http://www.sconet.state..../2007/2007-ohio-1280.pdf

2007-0209. State ex rel. Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner.
In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Upon determination pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5), It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that an alternative writ is granted. The parties shall comply with the following expedited schedule for presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X.:
The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 10 days of the date of this entry; relator shall file its brief within 7 days of the filing of the evidence; respondent shall file her brief within 7 days after the filing of relator's brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 3 days after the filing of respondent's brief. It is further ordered by the court, sua sponte, that an oral argument on the merits shall be held on Tuesday, May 1, 2007.

Ooops, nevermind that last post. I didn't realize it was related to SB 117 and paint.. Thought it was firing BOE members.

http://lawandmore.typepa.../03/oh_117_veto_bat.html
http://www.lexisnexis.co...newsItem.aspx?ItemID=967

ML Cook

I join Brad in his post #11, and the other posts that expose your right wing neoCon bias. But let me just say that this blog has a high degree of competence when it comes to election criminality.

Ghouls of the Thor Hearne ACVR scandal have arisen, and it isn't even halloween yet.

We now have a link to the new US Attorney in Arkansas, who was Rove's point man on "voter fraud" (anti-minority dems), and Rove and the ACVR conspiracy.

Check this out:

Another newly installed U.S. attorney, Tim Griffin in Little Rock, Ark., was accused of participating in efforts to suppress Democratic votes in Florida during the 2004 presidential election while he was a research director for the Republican National Committee.

(Link Here, emphasis added).

Before last year's election, I posted this:

The fact of the matter is that election felonies are being directed from the White House itself:

The fourth man indicted in a New Hampshire phone-jamming scheme --- in which Republican operatives jammed the phone lines of Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts in a 2002 Senate race --- will argue at trial that the Bush Administration and the national Republican Party gave their approval to the plan, according to a motion filed by his attorney Thursday.

(Raw Story, bold added).

It turns out that Bradblog was on the right trail when this was happening behind the scenes:

Suffice to say, Karl Rove spoke to Republican lawyers this weekend (carried on C-SPAN) and thanked them for their work ensuring "clean elections" in 2000 and 2004.

He singled out Mark F. "Thor" Hearne by name. Hearne was the National General Counsel for Bush/Cheney '04 Inc. who, along with RNC Communications Director Jim Dyke, created the so-called non-partisan "American Center for Voting Rights" (ACVR) just three days before being called to testify before Rep. Bob Ney's (R-OH) U.S. House Administrative Committee hearing in March of 2005 on the Ohio Election. The front group, which declared tax-exempt 501(c)3 status, has still failed, to our knowledge, to disclose any information of it's funders or proof of their 501(c)3 non-profit, non-partisan status. They operate out of a PO Box in Houston, TX, though neither of their founders live in Texas.

ACVR was the only "Voting Rights" group called by Ney to testify at the hearings, and identified himself only as a "longtime advocate of voter rights" in his testimony. He failed to mention his connections to Bush/Cheney '04 Inc.

(Bradblog Article, emphasis added).

Ney is now in prison where Gonzales and Rove should go ... after all Scooter will be there too.

Bottom Line: Rove ran the largest criminal election fraud organization in American history ... directly from the White House!

Brad, If you have a problem with what I post, then please deal with the facts. Shows us where I am wrong.

Whining that I may be a Republican (which I am not), or I am posting the "Repubican talking points" shows that you have a problem dealing with the facts.

IF you go back and read what I have written, you will notice that I have NEVER DEFEND a single Republican. All I posted the facts. PERIOD.

Savantster #12,

"See, that's why I accused Cooke of being a partisan hack. The ONLY people I see refering to the Democratic Party as the Democ'rat' party are hard-core right-wing types. The claim of "not registered" is moot when the bias is obvious."

Nice try, but lying doesn't cut it. I didn't use the term "Democrat Party", thus your logic is a complete and utter failure.

"Yet, even now I can't quite get my head around exactly what Cooke is trying to say in the first post.. That Mason "approved the procedures"?"

I suggest that you go back and read what Brad's response.

"For the record, I'll mention that M.L. Cook's comment above quotes a two year old story, which references "alleged procedural defects".

Those "alleged procedural defects" have been proven in a court of law to have been using to rig a Presidenital recount, have resulted in the convictions of two elections officials, the resignation of another and a request by the OH SoS for the resignation of the entire county Board of Elections."

https://bradblog.com/?p=4292#comments

M.L. Cook (#16) said -

Whining that I may be a Republican (which I am not), or I am posting the "Repubican talking points" shows that you have a problem dealing with the facts.

IF you go back and read what I have written, you will notice that I have NEVER DEFEND a single Republican. All I posted the facts. PERIOD.

By that disingenuous defense, I suppose if I ONLY attack Republicans, I'm also free to say that I NEVER DEFEND Democrats, correct?

In anycase, I said I only had time to respond to the one issue in my original response. The fact that you, quite literally, used the literal talking points of Bob Bennett from his public defense of himself/attack on Mason the day before, I believe, speaks for itself.

Whether or not there is merit to Bennett's claims, will become clear, likely, on April 2 when the hearing that he is entitled to, occurs. I tend to like to let the facts speak for themself. But I did want to point out to folks that you were a) using the Republican Bennett's talking points (a fact) and b) using the well-worn Republican slur of "DemocRAT" in the bargain, revealing your bias in the matter.

Folks can, and will, make of that what they wish.

M.L. Cook (#17) said:

Nice try, but lying doesn't cut it. I didn't use the term "Democrat Party", thus your logic is a complete and utter failure.

"Mr." Cook. You are allowed to voice your opinion here, even as it disagrees with either my opinions or those of other commenters. As long as you do not post knowing disinformation or personally attack other commenters (or use different names other than "M.L. Cook")

While it's true you didn't use the phrase "Democrat Party" literally, you did use the "Democrat" pejorative in several instances, some of which I pointed out to you in a previous comment, such as "Democrat counties" and "Democrat members of the Florida Supreme Court."

So insinuate Savanster's logic was "a complete and utter failure" because of the semantic difference you pointed out, is disingenuous to say the least.

I'd suggest if you are able to be an honest broker for your party's point of view, and do so respectfully here, your stay, like BubbleYum, will both more fruitful, and longer lasting.

I hope that is helpful, and that you take my advice to heart.

Finally, perhaps you've missed my reportage on this point concerning your attempts to dishonestly level the playing field in Ohio, so I'll summarize what I've shown here on many occassions:

+ Many of the supposed "Democratic" members of many of Ohio's supposedly "bi-partisan" boards of election, have been shown to have never voted in a Democratic primary until just prior to being named to those boards.

+ Further, all of them, true Dems or DINOs or whatever were all serving "at the pleasure" of the hard, rightwing, partisan, co-chair of the Ohio Bush/Cheney election committee, former SoS J. Kenneth Blackwell, who had --- and used --- strongarm tactics on many occassions to force BoE members of all parties, to follow his partisan edicts or face termination from their jobs.

To suggest, under both of the above circumstances, that this is somehow an equal "Democratic and Republican" problem is dishonest, to say the least.

Brad #19:

Thank you for your response.

First, "Democrat counties", "Democrat members...",
"Democrat majority", is not improper use of the term. In fact, I have seen "Democrat majority" used by your "non-Republican" members on YOUR WEBSITE!!!! Yet, I have not seen an attack on them.

IF Savantster's logic was sound, it would apply to EVERYONE. As he said, "The ONLY people I see refering to the Democratic Party as the Democ'rat' party are hard-core right-wing types." Notice that he said "ONLY PEOPLE". Your own website proves this to be FALSE. It is common for those who are not Republicans who also use that term.

Because I PROPERLY used the term, it was Savantster who started with the attacks. His logic was flawed, and I was correct to point that fact out.

But of course, it is your site, if you want to defend his attacks, that is your right. But please don't try to come across as a fair abritor in this matter. Clearly, I his logic was flawed.

Now as to my parties views. What party would that be??? I have HONESTLY told you that I do not belong to any party. You are disingenuous to claim otherwise.

My opinions are based on following election disputes since the 1984 Indiana 8th District race (mention in the Jacobson suit). I didn't vote for either candidate in the matter, but I found it hard to believe that Congress would invalid more than 20% of the vote.

My analysis on the Florida 2000 election is 100% correct. Gore took a chance, and he lost. But that was the ONLY shot, no matter how unfair (if the FSC was going to ignore case law, they should have at least ordered all ballots to be recounted) this was only to get past the PARTISAN REPUBLICAN HOUSE. Those facts to NOT make me some hard-core right-wing type.

Fair elections is a non-partisan issue, except with a few such as Savantster. But clearly, there are those here who AGREE that Mason could be or may be dirty, but then go ahead attack me by putting labels on me such as "neoCon" or "hard-core right-wing types".

As to the members of the Cuyahoga Election Board itself. Have you noticed that I have not once defended that board? Have you noticed that I have not shown any support for that board? I pointed out that Bennett is trying to force the SoS state to ALSO include Mason, who is a member of her own political party, to be included in the probe.

I never once said that the problems in this county are equally distributed between Democrats and Republicans, I said that the Democrats ALSO have a problem. That is YOU using your bias to put words in my mouth. No one with a straight face can say that Mason is a DINO or a Republican.

I suggest that you read what I post WITHOUT YOUR bias.

"There is no question about the politics of Bill Mason. It looked as if he was going to run for Attorney General on the Democrat ticket"

No, you didn't say "Democrat Party", you said ticket.. As Brad pointed out, it's the same premise, therefore my logic isn't flawed and you -are- being disengenuous.

As for this on going hair splitting about exact words versus intent, I stand by my statement (though, given your desire to use absolutes, not accounting for the occasional typo or someone being in a hurry and leaving off the 'ic' on occasion) that when we see new hard-core right-wing types show up to the blog, they seem to refuse to use the term DemocratIC, done as an insulting and instigating tactic. Granted, in a "litteral sense" they are "Democrats", and so the "Democrat('s) Party" is technically correct, it's still a commonly used -slur- by the "right wing". Get it?

And, you'll note, I'm one of the first (oh, wait.. I better go read dozens of pages of comments and make sure I was in the first 1/2 of all posters to acknowledge it!! lest I be called a liar!) to say that if Mason was guilty, charge and convict. Believe it or not, I'm less partisan than many here at Brad Blog.. and despite that, almost every one here (meaning regulars that I'm aware of.. again, we'll try to prevent from having hairs split and lables applied simply because someone might not fit in the 100% catagory, or because there are some here that I don't know all that well) agrees that Dems that commit crimes -should be punished-.. Yet, from "most right-wing types", I don't see the same willingness for accountability.

And, your linking to the same confusing post this time that you linked to last time doesn't do anything. As I said, "I've not heard that the crime was following flawed procedures", but that people did NOT follow the 'procedures in place'.. I've not heard anything (outside of your link to Brad's statement about allegedly flawed procedures) indicating that the process was "wrong", but that the PEOPLE doing the recount sampling were wrong. I'll ask again, and try to be more precise.. for the last time (I tire of the useless attempts at nit-picking to try and be right despite the CLEAR meaning and intents presented.. splitting hairs during an honest exchange of ideas when there is NO confusion is dishonest and petty, and I don't deal with those people long. If you have a legitimate question because you don't understand my position, then by all means.. split hairs.. but doing it to avoid dealing with the subject is pathetic).. Show me a link to a credible source (not Brad's comment) that says Mason approved bad procedures, and there was something 'criminal' or 'shady' about it. Credible meaning some source other than the people being brought up on charges..

Brad and Savantster, I am not going to play your silly games anymore. It is clear that both of you are either backtracking on what you have already said, or plain out making things up.

FACT: Savantster, by using the word "ONLY", you framed your argument with an absolute. Don't whine and cry when people use reply in the same manner.

FACT: I don't care if you want to call it the Republican Party, the Republic Party, or the party of idiots (which would be a pretty good description). It doesn't matter to me. I am not a member of that party, so you can't insult me by doing so.

If you want to try to insult me, then start whining and crying about people who do not make the effort to join either of the two major parties.

FACT: I did not use the term "Democrat Party".

FACT: Using the term "Democrat members", "Democrat ticket", "Democrat majority", is proper grammar.

FACT: When DEMOCRATS use the same phases, it cannot be a Republican "slur". That is just you two just trying to start trouble.

FACT: Brad you confirmed the NBC article. IF you believed it was Bennett's talking points, you should have said so then. Backtracking 5 days later shows that you are being intellectually dishonest. You are just looking for any excuse to attack me.

From Maida Coleman, D-MO. Member of the Missouri State House.

"as Floor Leader of the Democrat members of the Missouri Senate."

http://www.senate.mo.gov...etters/coleman2004NL.pdf

From the Illinois General Assembly, controlled by the Democrats.

"House Sponsors Rep. Michael J. Madigan - Arthur L. Turner - Calvin L. Giles - Marlow H. Colvin - Monique D. Davis, All Democrat Members of the House and Mary E. Flowers"

Using the logic that both of you have set forth, these are Republican "slurs". You need to call these Democrats and straighten them out. They should be using "slurs" against themselves. But of course, this proves that both of you are making things up.

And by the way, Brad, you use the AP as a source in some of your blogs. Do a google check and see just how many times they also use "Democrat" as an adjective. Why are you using a source that use what you have wrongly called a Republican "slur"?

One last thing, I have noticed that you cannot defeat my points about Bush v. Gore. Of course, I knew that you could not. The laws on the matter are not in dispute. That is why you two have had to resort to personal attacks. You know just as well as I do that it was Gore and the FSC who screwed the pooch, not the USSC.

Actually, Cook, I agree with you about Gore messing up by not calling for a full state-wide recount. However, it doesn't change the -simple fact- that recounts were stopped at one point, and the USSC -appointed- Shrubby by not a) allowing the recounts in progress to complete, or b) demanding a full state-wide recount to ensure the people's will was enacted (of course, after many independant recounts we found that Gore did in fact win Florida in 2000... so it makes sense that legal posturing [combined with Gore's initial potential mistake] was used to thwart the will of the people).

As for the rest of your BS about "not playing games", then spitting out FACT and FACT (while ignoring new supporting statements so you can remain 'technically' correct despite being wrong in spirit and intent), well.. more dishonest debate, but we're used to it here. Nothing was "made up", and Brad even said in his -initial- post that he didn't have time to get in to it fully.. so you throw that in his face and claim victory? LMAO..

At the end of the day, with or without Mason possibly doing something wrong (you still haven't shown the Democrat broke the law, or even tried to support your assertion outside of a confusing post by Brad), poll workers broke the law and rigged the recount. Cleaning out the BoE is probably a good idea (which is what this blog item is about).

Good day, sir.

Dude needs to mix in a SlimFast for goddsake!!! What--was he eating votes?

Savantster #23

In the CA-50 decision, they reference the 1984 Indiana Congressional race. I lived there. I followed that dispute start to finish. The one thing that I could not believe at the time was that the Federal Gov't had the right to come into our district, set the election rules, and then conduct their own recount.

We never studied this in school, thus I got a lesson is how Federal Elections really work. As the court noted, Congress can seat who the wish. That also works in Presidential Elections.

"However, it doesn't change the -simple fact- that recounts were stopped at one point, and the USSC -appointed- Shrubby by not a) allowing the recounts in progress to complete, or b) demanding a full state-wide recount to ensure the people's will was enacted (of course..."

You are forgetting one simple fact, by the time that the USSC received Bush v. Gore, Bush was ALREADY certified the winner of the state, and he held the state electors. Considering who held Congress, that made the recounts meaningless. I know that you will go bananas, but it is Congress who makes the final decision. The courts have no say is a slate of electors that have already been certified.

The PARTISAN REPUBLICANS held the US House.

Now let that soak in. PARTISAN REPUBLICANS.

Under 3 U.S.C. 16, that is all they needed to deny Gore the white house. They could make any excuse, such as Florida case law had found those ballots were not legal votes, thus it was a violation of 3 U.S.C. section 5 to now change that case law.

Do you really believe that these PARTISAN REPUBLICANS were going to allow Gore to take office?? REALLY??? Would you like to buy a bridge??

"after many independant recounts we found that Gore did in fact win Florida in 2000..."

Actually this is false on two fronts. First, nobody has recounted all the votes. Nobody has even recounted all of the "disputed" ballots, including the overseas ballots that were found to be legal by a Federal Judge.

Second, how do you make those ballots, that were spoiled by voter error, legal ballots under 3 U.S.C. section 5?? Remember, the Federal Law does not allow for change in election code after the fact.

"so it makes sense that legal posturing [combined with Gore's initial potential mistake] was used to thwart the will of the people)"

In disputes (dead heats, ect) such as this, the "will of the people" is to be decided by our elected Representatives, not the courts. History shows this to be true. Examples are the 1984 Indiana 8th district race, 1876 Presidential election, 1824 Presidential election, ect.

As to the "Democrat" vs. "Democratic". I will accept that it is the Democratic Party. That is their name. But I did not use that term, thus I am not guilty of repeating a "Republican slur". But when we have Democrats using the term "Democrat" as an adjective, it can't be considered wrong for others to do so. That is the game I am not going to play either of you.

As to Mason, if you don't believe that he was part of the process, or approved the process that is used in recounts, then post it. I gave the link to the NBC story. The ball is in your court.