Reply #65: Yes, in Florida 2000 [View All]

Many of these issues just slid by, ignoring all sorts of padding and other forms of balloting in the haste to mine a few worthy causes for Gore votes. THEN they used that cherry picking that abandoned other fertile areas to accuse Gore of fishing for partial recounts and ignoring the state!

Making life miserable for them must include hitting ALL areas, although obviously some Will have different results or difficulties.

And where is the crunch point for a spoiled election anyway? Simply because the unquestionable ballots don't give Kerry a clean win doesn't mean he wasn't victimized and the legal loser.

And WHEN are we going to include the Civil Rights issues so long as the whole picture is being taken into account. I don't see why we have to look as they need "protecting" from being the ones to knock Bush down. Somehow I don't think they mind at this point. I know it is being addressed somewhat in the voters' complaints procedures, but somewhere it should be launched to increase the punch through effect. Being "Gored" means surrendering or limiting all the way down as the clock runs out on the "game" and it centers on a small dramatic handful of ballots on a single issue. That is unjust and stupid and reduces victory back to the game and not the injustice. Gore NEVER got credit for fighting an unfair and crooked result. And the Senate paternalistically never allowed the Black Caucus to address the real crying issues either.