To: Mr. Palau who wrote (87947)
From: Mike
Sunday, Nov 26, 2000 12:19 PM ET
Reply # of 88080

ok, one last try.... although I am not a lawyer, I can read. And it looks like you're locked into reading the Texas law the same way the mainstream media is reporting it. You've taken one aspect of the law, and come to a conclusion, without considering the other elements of the law in their entirety.

The law clearly states' the preference applies only when (1) two or more parties are requesting the recount and (2) the parties requesting the recount note in their application for a recount pursuant to section 214.042-A difference in the type of recount requested.

The same statute also provides that "an electronic recount using a corrected program shall be conducted in preference to an electronic recount using the same program as the original count." Electronic counts with amended programs are always given preference to regular electronic counts.

In Section 214.042 of the election code the law states that an electronic recount be conducted by default unless the application for a recount specifically requests otherwise. Section 214.042 clause C notes "Unless a different counting method is requested, the ballots shall be counted electronically using the same program as the original count."

Cutting through all the legal terminology, What I believe the law is saying in plain language is this....

We prefer an electronic recount unless the parties disagree with that method. In that case, we will choose the manual recount, because, we don't want to pay for both a manual recount and an electronic recount. In other words, we recognized the two methods may differ in tabulation results. therefore, we first default to the electronic recount, then as a last resort shift to manual recount.

That is very different than saying we prefer manual recounts. And make no mistake, the media has been reporting that very thing for the better part of 3 weeks. Manual recounts are NOT preferred in Texas over electronic recounts. And George Bush did not sign a law stated as much.

Finally, in their pief with the FLSC, Gore lawyers were wrong when they said on page 54.

"What is more, by providing for manual recounts in close elections, Florida law (like Texas law, see Tex. Elec. Code Section 212.005(d) (“[a] manual recount shall be conducted in preference to an electronic recount”)), expresses a preference for manual counts over machine counts."

The Brief is here, and this quote is on page 54: http://www.flcourts.org/pubinfo/election/00-2346_inigore.pdf

What more can I say to convince you Mr Palau?

To: Ellen who wrote (86316)
From: Mike
Friday, Nov 24, 2000 11:34 AM ET
Reply # of 86369

Ellen, I am sick of seeing how Democrats on this board are going so far out in left field in order to justify the stripping our the right to vote from our military personnel. It's shameful and despicable. These exerps from Peggy Noonan's article say it better than I ever could.

This naked attack, on our most basic right as citizens, must not and will not stand!

------------------------------------------------ In the most shameful and painful act of the hand counts, the Democrats on the ground, and their operators from the Democratic National Committee and the state organization and the Gore campaign, deliberately and systematically scrutinized for challenge every military absentee ballot, and knocked out as many as they could on whatever technicality they could find or even invent.

Reports begin to filter out. The Democratic army of lawyers and operatives marches into the counting room armed with a five-page memo from a Democratic lawyer, instructing them on how to disfranchise military voters. The lawyers and operatives unspool reams of computer printouts bearing the names and party affiliation of military voters. Those who are Republicans are subject to particular and seemingly relentless scrutiny. Right down to signatures on ballots being compared with signatures on registration cards. A ballot bearing a domestic postmark because a soldier had voted, sent his ballot home to his parents and asked them to mail it in on time, is thrown out. A ballot that comes with a note from an officer explaining his ship was not able to postmark his ballot, but that he had voted on time--and indeed it had arrived in time--is thrown out, because it has no postmark.

The Democratic operatives are ruthless, focused. As one witness says, "They had a clear agenda."

Received late Wednesday, an e-mail forwarded from a Republican who witnessed the counting of the Brevard County overseas absentee ballots.

It is 11:30 PM (Tuesday) and I have just returned from the count of absentee ballots, that started at 4PM. Gore had five attorneys there, the sole objective was to disenfranchise the military absentee voter. . . . They challenged each and every vote. Their sole intent was to disqualify each and every absentee voter. They constantly challenged military votes that were clearly legitimate, but they were able to disqualify them on a technicality. I have never been so frustrated in all my life as I was to see these people fight to prevent our active duty Military from voting. They succeeded in a number of cases denying the vote to these fine Men and Women. This was a deliberate all out assault on the Armed Forces solely to sustain the Draft Dodger and his flunky. These people must have a hard time looking at themselves in a mirror. . . . They denied a number of votes postmarked Queens NY, ballots that were clearly ordered from overseas, clearly returned from overseas, and verified by the Post Office that DOD uses the Queens post office to handle overseas mail, were denied because it didn't say APO, They denied military votes postmarked out of Jacksonville, Knowing full well it came from ships at sea and was flown into Jacksonville . . . .

This is what you can expect from a Gore administration a further trampling on the Military and more trampling on your rights. . . .

The attorneys there treated it all as a joke, and when my wife protested their actions she was told she didn't understand

BY PEGGY NOONAN Friday, November 24, 2000 12:01 a.m. EST http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=65000671

some fun http://www.dovewinds.com/dubya/alshokeypokey.html

Mr Palau, a few days ago you challenged me on the issue of whether Bush had signed a Texas law which mandated manual recounts. It seemed the evidence you presented was strong, but the one thing that kept bothering me was the link you provided never gave indication of who signed what when. So, I left it at bay in the hopes of digging something up later. Well....here goes....

The statute is clear when read fully. A manual recount only comes about in a rare case when an extensive list of other criteria occur first. Only by chopping off sections of the statute's can it be read the way Gore's lawyers spun it. The preference applies only when (1) two or more parties are requesting the recount and (2) the parties requesting the recount note in their application for a recount a difference in the type of recount requested. Additionally, that part of the law was not signed by Bush and was already law when Bush took office. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/el/el012700.html#el046.127.130

While it is true that Bush signed an amendment to the law in 1997, this amendment relates only to the use of a manual recount and modified only the procedure on recounts found in a completely different section from the manual recount standards section.

The uniform code for conducting a manual recount was last amended in 1993 and took effect September 1, 1993, almost a year and a half before Bush took office. The code itself was further enacted January 1, 1986. In both cases, the laws were passed under Democrat legislatures with Democrat Governors. Ann Richards was governor in 1993 and Mark White was Governor in 1986. Both are Democrats.

The statute on manual recounts is documented here: Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 728, § 52, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/db2www/tlo/billhist/a...

The law which sets as standard that electronic recounts be conducted unless specifically requested otherwise was signed into law by Governor White in 1985 and later amended in a measure signed by Governor Bill Clements, a Republican, in 1987.

Therefore, Gore's talking points that Bush signed a law which:

1. Established standards for a manual recount. 2. Included in those standards provisions for counting pregnant, swinging, hanging etc. chads. 3. Included in those standards provisions giving counties widespread discretion in interpreting the "intent" of the voters. 4. Declaring that a manual recount always be given preference as the best and most accurate way to conduct a recount.

Is complete nonsense. Michael p.s. I'm still digging into the federal postage stamp requirements of overseas military personnel.

To: Joseph who wrote (87310)
From: Scrapps
Saturday, Nov 25, 2000 2:48 PM ET
Reply # of 87328

Don?t take it lightly, Republican Rent a Mobs are real. Here is the evidence.

They are not demonstrators?they are a mob. When reviewing the video footage shot by the media in Fl. It is easy to come to a clear and factual decision, which will conclude they are a mob. Of course the word ?Mob? can be used in different ways, but in Fl. It is used as a noun. The mass of common people; the populace.? in this case the populace refers to Americans.

Now let us look at the threatening acts. The mob was yelling and some members were even doing the ghastly act of cupping their hands around their mouths so as to direct the sound in a targeted direction. As a group?WHOOPS?I mean mob, sorry. As a mob they were also chanting, which is proof they are in fact organized. Being organized is doubly threatening?opposed to not being organized or being disorganized or higgledy-piggledy, however, I?m speaking of the republicans so we can take it for granted they are not a bewildered or confused mob. Now you may have guessed already that this evidence indicates they are an ?Organized Mob?. This explains why that when the doors to the ballot counting room were being closed they stepped back as an organized mob to allow the doors to be closed. They did this while chanting, holding up signs, pointing fingers and stepping back. They must be highly trained professionals. I have come to that conclusion since it is clear nobody was injured. These people are so well organized that real horses are not needed to control them. The video shows without exception they remain behind simple boundaries of wooden sawhorses. This is what makes them an intimidating mob.

They?re a mob and not demonstrators. I?ve looked at the video over and over again as most everyone has, obviously the media is getting their cookies by hyping and sensationalizing especially through inclusion of exaggerated or lurid details. But the mob is not demonstrating anything. I?ve not seen an appliance, gizmo or any item demonstrated.

So they must be a mob and such a friendly well behaved one they are.