Carol Hathaway wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:03:11 -0800, Mickey
> <mickey_and_edith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> I don't question Gore's right to challenge the results of the Florida
>> contest.
> Well many republicans did, calling him a sore looser.
>
>
>> Provisions for such a challenge are part of the election laws
>> for that state.
> A law that only applies to republicans. Republicans have a
> rigth to fight it in court, the democrats don't because
> republicans will immediately brand them sore loosers.
I'm sorry, I miss understood your argument. I thought you meant "loser."
So let's reset the debate by you telling me what a "looser" is. I'm sure
a "sore looser" is painful, but I'm not quite sure what it is.
> And Sean Hannity will lead the charge.
Lord, I hope not. The odd are better than even he'd get lost.
>
>>> The moral is clear, republicans can fight election results
>>> in court, the democrats can't.
>> I'm not versed on the contest in Wa****ngton, but if the Republicans
>> employed anything remotely resembling the Gore 2000 Florida strategy,
>> their behavior is no less dishonest and reprehensible.
>>
>> The Other Mickey
> About year or two after Bush/Gore there was a hotly
> contested congressional race in Wa****ngton. After
> months of recounts, the democrat was declared the
> winner. The republicans were in court faster than
> you can say recount.
>
> There is a long history of lawyers getting involved in
> various elections, settling disputes on both sides.
>
> The hanging chads in Florida was nothing new. It occured before
> in other elections accross the US of A.
Your point, other than the obvious, i.e., that elections are contested
in court? Hardly news. The topic in question is not whether court
challenges occur or whether they are appropriate: they do and they are.
The question is if the challenge presented by David Boies on behalf of
Al Gore was legal, that the arguments he presented were legally
persuasive, that the evidence and sup****ting do***ents he presented were
accurate both as to fact and as to their characterization, that the
remedies requested would have been equitable, and whether the Florida
Supreme Court acted honorably and honestly. The answer is yes, no, no
and no, no, and hell no.
The Other Mickey
|
