I don't know, and, as far as I can tell, neither does anyone else. But there are some numbers from the Florida 2000 election that suggest that illegal votes from felons may have provided Christine Gregoire's 129 vote margin.
First, the basic data from John Fund's Stealing Elections.
Both the Miami Herald and the Palm Beach Post found that, if anything, county officials were too permissive in whom they allowed to vote, and that this largely benefited Al Gore. An analysis by the Post found that 5,600 people whose names matched the names of convicted felons who should have been disqualified were permitted to cast their ballots. "These illegal voters almost certainly influenced the down-to-the-wire presidential election," the Post reported. "It's likely they benefited Democratic candidate Al Gore. Of the likely felons identified by the Post, 68 percent were registered Democrats."
The Miami Herald found a similar number with a similar search. Both newspapers endorsed Gore, and I think it fair to say that the Palm Beach Post is one of the most Democratic newspapers in the country.
There were this many felons on the rolls in spite of a 1998 Florida law requiring county election boards to remove felons from the rolls. (The bill was sponsored by two Democratic legislators and signed by Jeb Bush's Democratic predecessor, Lawton Chiles.) Some of the county boards had tried to follow the law; others, mostly Democratic, had not.
First, a mildly technical point on the search: Matching names (and birth dates) this way would provide a few false positives, citizens who were unlucky enough to share the name and birth date with a felon, but would miss felons who changed their names after they were convicted of a felony. Most likely, more than 5,600 felons voted in Florida in 2000, perhaps thousands more.
Next, how many votes net did these 5,600 felons give Al Gore? Unfortunately, the Post gives us only the number of Democrats, so we can't use the simplest method to estimate that number, giving Gore all the Democrats, half the independents, and none of the Republicans. We can use that simple procedure to set bounds. If we assume that all of the remaining 32 percent are Republicans, then we could estimate Gore's net gain at 2,016 votes. If we assume that all the remaining 32 percent are independents, then using the same simple method, we would estimate that Gore gained 3808 votes from these 5,600 felons. No doubt the actual number is somewhere between those two estimates. We would probably not be too far wrong if we were to say that Gore gained nearly 3,000 illegal votes from these 5,600. (And who knows how many from felons not found in the computer search.)
At this point it would be tempting to simply take that 3,000 and adjust for Washington's smaller population, about 3/8 of Florida's, giving us a net gain for Gregoire of about 1,000 illegal votes. Tempting, but wrong, because it does not take into consideration important differences between Florida and Washington. Florida's crime rate is somewhat higher than Washington's, so there are, most likely, proportionately more felons in Florida.
More important, the two states have different laws on the restoration of voting rights to felons, Florida making it much more difficult than Washington. As I recall, Florida felons actually have to petition the governor to have their voting rights restored. Washington gives felons several ways to restore their voting rights:
When are felons eligible to vote again?
All persons convicted of a felony who have met the conditions of their sentences may have their voting rights restored a number of ways.
- Upon completion of their sentences, the Department of Corrections may restore the persons' rights through the court of their original convictions.
- These persons may return to the court of conviction and petition the judge to restore their rights via court order.
- They may receive a pardon from the Governor.
- If their crime was committed before July 1, 1984 they may contact the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board and ask for restoration of their rights.
I would guess that the first is the most important. A casual search of the Department of Corrections site found no information on their policy on the restoration of voting rights. I have heard both that they do it routinely, and that they make it conditional on restitution, a condition not met, at least immediately, by many released felons. I plan to write to the Department of Corrections asking for a description of their policy; meanwhile, if any of you happen to know the answer to this question, I would appreciate hearing from you.
We also should not assume that Washington's counties are as bad at clearing felons from their rolls as counties in Florida. I have many criticisms to make of the King County elections office, but they seem to do far better than, for example, the election board in Florida's Broward County. And there are other differences that could affect my estimate of Gregoire's gain from illegal felon votes. The two states have a different ethnic mix, so it is plausible that felons in Washington state are not as heavily Democratic as Florida felons.
So I don't think that Gregoire received a net gain of 1,000 illegal votes from felons. But, even allowing for all the factors that I have mentioned (and a few I haven't), I do think it entirely possible that Christine Gregoire received a net gain of 130 illegal votes from felons. (There's a small irony in that, given her long service as Attorney General.) And Democratic strategists may agree with that, given the party's resistance to letting Republicans do the same kind of search done by the Palm Beach Post and the Miami Herald.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at January 15, 2005 09:30 AM | Email ThisIn Florida, ex-felons are never allowed to vote.
In Washington, ex-felons automatically have their voting rights restored upon completion (and discharge) from their parole or probation.
99% of ex-felons voting in Washington do so legally.
Sorting out the illegal 1% will be quite a chore.
Posted by: Von from Bellingham on January 15, 2005 10:05 AMThousands of felons voted in the presidential election last year, despite a three-year, $3.3 million campaign by state officials to keep them off the voter rolls.
A Palm Beach Post computer analysis has identified more than 5,600 people who voted on Nov. 7 though they appeared to perfectly match names on a statewide list of suspected felons.
THE GREAT FLORIDA EX-CON GAME How the 'felon' voter-purge was itself felonious
Harper's Magazine
Friday, March 1, 2002
E-Mail Article
Printer Friendly Version
by Greg Palast
In November the U.S. media, lost in patriotic reverie, dressed up the Florida recount as a victory for President Bush. But however one reads the ballots, Bush's win would certainly have been jeopardized had not some Floridians been barred from casting ballots at all. Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.) A portion of the list, which was compiled for Florida by DBT Online, can be seen for the first time here; DBT, a company now owned by ChoicePoint of Atlanta, was paid $4.3 million for its work, replacing a firm that charged $5,700 per year for the same service. If the hope was that DBT would enable Florida to exclude more voters, then the state appears to have spent its money wisely.
Two of these "scrub lists," as officials called them, were distributed to counties in the months before the election with orders to remove the voters named. Together the lists comprised nearly 1 percent of Florida?s electorate and nearly 3 percent of its African-American voters.
Posted by: Alan in Las Vegas on January 15, 2005 10:26 AMAre these articles suggesting that 2/3 of registered (to vote) African-American felons should be able to vote because A smaller percentage of non-African American felons registered?
"If the hope was that DBT would enable Florida to exclude more voters, then the state appears to have spent its money wisely."
The felons are not voters because they are felons, according to Florida law. The idea that excluding illegal voters helped the Republicans win implies that Democrats could have only won by breaking the law.
If one thinks that felons should vote, change the law, not the inforcement. Oh, and stop playing the race card.
Posted by: VaCSProf on January 15, 2005 10:43 AMOf the "matches' on these lists, the civil-rights commission estimated that at least 14 percent - or 8,000 voters, nearly 15 times Bush's official margin of victory - were false. DBT claims it warned officials "a significant number of people who were not a felon would be included on the list"; but the state, the company now says, "wanted there to be more names than were actually verified." Last May, Florida's legislature barred Harris from using outside firms to build the purge list and ordered her to seek guidance from county elections officials. In defiance, Harris has rebuffed the counties and hired another firm, just in time for Jeb Bush's reelection fight this fall.
So, the point of the article was not that felons should be able to vote but that an overly-aggressive campaign to exclude felons can also exclude many non-felons. It's just an example to show that you can take the same story and spin it both ways.
Posted by: Alan in Las Vegas on January 15, 2005 10:56 AMVon is absolutely correct on the felons being able to vote in Washington State. Laws like this do vary from state to state. Further, in order to get a revote, Rossi's people will have to prove that those that voted did so in sufficient numbers as to send the vote to Gregiore when it should have gone to Rossi.
Carla@preemptivekarma
Posted by: carla on January 15, 2005 10:58 AMDo not get stuck on the felons. This is one of the weakest grounds for re-vote. It is only a small part of a big picture. When looking at the whole picture the court should rule that this election is flawed and it is only equitable for them to order a re-vote.
Posted by: Barry on January 15, 2005 11:08 AM If a vote was cast inappropriately, it should never be counted. Moreover, it's clear that the system needs much stricter safeguards, overwatch, and must bolster the honesty and integrity of the system. Most of all, it should be fair!
AMEN!!....bottom line stuff....my sentiments exactly.
Posted by: Susu on January 15, 2005 11:14 AMWhat needs to be done with this information is to prosecute all those that can be proved and demand that election officials clean up the voter registration rolls. Both of these actions will help reduce this type of election fraud.
Why did KC, as Stefan has so carefully investigated, end up with fewer votes in the manual recount? Given their propensity to cheat, it's most likely the case that the vote difference favoring Rossi simply exceeded their capacity for using manipulations to flip the outcome in CG's favor.
Consider, during the initial vote tabulation they had exhausted every means to include every fraudlent vote with felons, absentee dead voters, provisional ballots fed directly into the vote counting machines, double voters who reside in mail boxes and storage units, etc., etc. The reserve of fraudlent votes was exhausted and so they resorted to "finding" ballots and getting previously rejected votes to count. Damn! Still 261 votes short.
So, during the machine recount they set about "enhancing" every questionable ballot they could and still Rossi maintained a slim 42 vote lead. How frustrating! What to do?
Our ever resourceful team is not done yet. During the manual recount they have their last chance. Having about run out of tricks and, being last to report, knowing the needed margin of victory, they were pushed to the wall. Hanging in there, they gamely continued to "find" missing ballots here and there, but still came up short. Having exhausted all available means, more drastic steps were needed. The only remaining tactic was to "lose" some Rossi votes. No? What do you think?
I'm sure they managed to "lose" some Rossi votes before, but not on the scale of the last desperate manual recount that succeeded, against all odds, in pusing the margin of victory over the top by what? Eight or ten votes, before winning the legal battle to get those last disputed ballots counted to finish with a flourish! 129 votes! Hurray! Go team!
Posted by: RLG on January 15, 2005 12:06 PMSo, the point of the article was not that felons should be able to vote but that an overly-aggressive campaign to exclude felons can also exclude many non-felons. It's just an example to show that you can take the same story and spin it both ways.
I don't want any legit person not to have their vote. The non-felons could have voted by provisional and then Gore would surely have sued to have their vote counted.
I'd rather stop spinning and just be legal. The point is that D's have illegal motives when they try to keep the R's from removing the felons from voting, and the R's have illegal motives if they stroke with a broad brush.
The problem is that both the R's and D's want to have ambiguous gerrymandered elections so they can retain their oligarchy.
1.) Every LEGAL vote should count.
2.) Every vote should have one and only one voter.
3.) Every voter should have one and only one vote.
Seems pretty amazing (sad, depressing, incredulous) that the most industrialized nation in the world can't even get one of the above three rules to work.
Posted by: VaCSProf on January 15, 2005 12:24 PMMost of the big "errors" occured in the first count. That is the voterless ballots, unchecked provisional ballots and unchecked provisional ballots were included in the original count completed on November 17th.
The problems with the manual recount in King County only added a net of 9 votes go CG. 120 of the increase came from the ballots the Supreme Court allowed KC to fix their “filing error”. Other than the “finding” overlooked ballots the manual recount did not change much in any county.
The problem was most of the ballots “found” helped CG. Rossi’s team says there are hundreds of other “overlooked” ballots that were not counted that will favor him. This does appear to be true, but will see in the weeks ahead.
To be sure there are enough other problems that the court should overturn the election.
Posted by: Barry on January 15, 2005 12:24 PMMost of the big "errors" occured in the first count. That is the voterless ballots, unchecked provisional ballots and ENHANCED BALLOTS were included in the original count completed on November 17th.
Posted by: Barry on January 15, 2005 12:27 PMTestimony under oath with depositions taken in advance tends to send a chill through those guilty of fraud. Takes some of the fun out of the game when you're facing jail time for being a "good team player." Too many people know what happened and are unwilling to "hang together." What say you?
Posted by: RLG on January 15, 2005 12:28 PMDon't waste to much of your anger on post election irregularities. Its the pre-election and election day irregularities that will overturn the final count and hopefully lead to a re-vote.
By pre-election irregularities I mean double registrations, felons voting and the like. And election day iriegualrities include not properly handling provisional ballots.
One thing that kind of surprises me is that no one has mentioned what I think is a pretty significant source of double voting. These are the college kids who were registed in their college dorms and, by absentee, in their home town. Is nobody looking into this? Say by comparing names and addresses of Whitman and King Counties.
Posted by: Deadwood on January 15, 2005 12:30 PMRLG – you are right once people are under oath, there will be other things that come out. I have had my deposition taken on a few occasions and for most people it tends to bring out the truth.
Torridjoe – I have not seen any unsubstantiated charges made by RLG. I know we disagree on the meaning of the laws, but facts are facts, especially when most of them have been admitted to by KC. So, what to you mean when you say unsubstantiated charges?
BTW I was reading the PI's coverage of the request for felon records at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/208073_governor15.html.
I found the most telling quote from the dems:
Comparing voter lists with the state's criminal history database, as Republicans are doing in their attempt to nullify the gubernatorial election, infringes on voter privacy and could have a "chilling" effect on voter turnout, Democrats said yesterday.
I hope so! Image all those felons having to consider further incarceration when they contemplate casting illegal ballots!
Posted by: Deadwood on January 15, 2005 01:03 PMI have information that if the R's request is denied that they will ask the AG to take their master list and have the AG's office do the work, since it is a crime to vote as a felon. I would expect that the R's will be given access to the state database. I would also expect the AG's office to pursue the felons that voted.
Ok, I just couldn't resist this:
Fla. scraps flawed felon voting list
MIAMI (AP) — Florida elections officials said Saturday they will not use a disputed list that was designed to keep felons from voting, acknowledging a flaw that could have allowed convicted Hispanic felons to cast ballots in November.
The glitch in a state that President Bush won by just 537 votes could have been significant — because of the state's sizable Cuban population, Hispanics in Florida have tended to vote Republican more than Hispanics nationally. The list had about 28,000 Democrats and around 9,500 Republicans, with most of the rest unaffiliated.
Also:
Another problem was that about 2,700 people who had received clemency were still on the list.
Now, it seems that it's ok for Cuban felons to vote, but not black felons (even if they received clemency and had their legal voting rights restored.)
No, I really don't think that this was a deliberate attempt by the Republican party. Perhaps some overzealous individual thought that it was so important that the President carry Florida that a little cheating (just to "offset" the Democrat's cheating, of course) was justified.
It isn't of course. Cheating is wrong, no matter who does it. Oddly enough, though, Florida's (Republican) Secretary of State is simply accepting the company's explaination that it was "inadvertant" and no further investigation will be made.
Again, incumbents (both parties) have little incentive to fix the system that put them in office. It's easier to see the speck in your neighbor's eye than the log in your own. (Although I'll grant that we both seem to have logs.)
Posted by: John Barelli on January 15, 2005 01:22 PMSo, if there is some small number of felons, some small number of dead voters, a larger number of improper provisional ballots and an even larger number of ballots for which there is no matching voter and no possbile reconciliation, when are all you Dems going to acknowledge that indeed the whole election is suspect and in an error margin that is wider that the victory margin in any of the three counts?
Every time Dems like Joel Connelly and Goldy continue to insist that just because of the way the law is written, the third result stands and that's good enough for them, they discredit their case a little more.
It's just outrageous to ignore the discrepancy in this race and especially with respect to the margin of victory.
You know what's particularly amazing about the Dems insistence? It is that everytime they spew their evasive rhetoric that flys in the face of a very obvious degree of suspiciion that even they are willing to acknowledge to some extent, they probably convince one more voter to switch sides in this argument in favor of Rossi which will probably gaurantee a loss for Gregoire if there is a revote.
One thing can be said about the Dems here is that in terms of strategy and PR throughout this whole mess, they've been beyond stupid.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 15, 2005 01:29 PMPosted by: RLG on January 15, 2005 01:57 PM
1.) Every LEGAL vote should count. 2.) Every vote should have one and only one voter. 3.) Every voter should have one and only one vote.Seems pretty amazing (sad, depressing, incredulous) that the most industrialized nation in the world can't even get one of the above three rules to work.
Actually, it's only amazing if you think it's by chance.
Posted by: Boonie on January 15, 2005 02:03 PMI am willing to acknowledge that the "margin of error" (or margin of uncertainty) was greater than the margin of victory for all three counts.
Now what? Can you point me to a statute that indicates this is sufficient reason to throw out an election? Or are we working outside the law?
Posted by: scottd on January 15, 2005 02:05 PMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002150778_recount14m.html
Democrats say Republicans are using the lawsuit as a "broad fishing expedition ... to prop up their otherwise unsupported allegations." Geeess louiseeeee want to talk about King County's Voter fishing machine. Unsupported allegations, well what about Dean Logan's admitting nearly 400 provisional votes were counted without being checked. Is that Unsupported allegations? It's ok when they scrounge all of King county for the few necessary votes they need to throw the final count, but a contest should not have the right (from their perspective to examine the votes that King County counted). Yeah Right...
I want to see them argue this one in court.
And they call this a democracy - Ha!
Agree 100%.
Posted by: Alan in Las Vegas on January 15, 2005 02:14 PMThere are no depositions taking place right now. There is a court hearing next week to determine whether or not the GOP can begin taking depositions.
The hurdles that the GOP face here appear to me to be quite substantial. The threshold to overturn the election and get a revote requires Rossi to prove that the number of illegal votes cast would have changed the outcome of the election. Given that at least several have come forward to say they voted for Rossi...that's going to be tough.
I have a blog post planned on this myself that I hope to complete in the next day or two. I hope that you will come over to PreemptiveKarmadotcom and check it out.
Posted by: carla on January 15, 2005 03:23 PMI don't have any info on depositions, etc. Just an "interested observer" who's trying to keep up with the details of events as they unfold. I'd believe things had to be pretty far along in getting ready for the court proceedings that were scheduled for last Friday, before they things were postponed.
One thing more about the totals of ballots and voters. Looking back at Stefan's reported findings of Dec. 31st, there was 3,539 vote discrepancy between ballots and voters, but this was due to some 5,000 more ballots than voters in some precincts and 1,500 more voters than ballots in other precincts. Remember, these numbers should match! So the larger number of 6,500+ votes being off is the real estimate of what was being manipulated behind the scenes. I suspect the "lost" Rossi votes is just the "thread" that, once pulled will lead to further unravelings.
Posted by: RLG on January 15, 2005 03:34 PMThere are no depositions taking place right now Huh?
Perhaps there are no depositions being argued in court, but that doesn't mean none are being taken. Is that what you mean, or are as ignorant you (and your counter blog as well) indicate?
At the very least you clearly misunderstand Chapter 29A RCW if you don't understand that over 2,100 (that 1,800 ballots without voters plus 300+plus illegally handled provisional ballots) mishandled greatly exceeds the 129 vote margin that Gregoire used to claim victory in the last recount.
Your own blog clearly paints you as a spoiler here - so please go away and bother someone else with your wind and blather.
Posted by: Deadwood on January 15, 2005 03:36 PMThe problem was most of the ballots “found” helped CG. Rossi’s team says there are hundreds of other “overlooked” ballots that were not counted that will favor him. This does appear to be true, but will see in the weeks ahead.
To be sure there are enough other problems that the court should overturn the election.
Barry:
I don't think you can possibly know that. The Republicans had to challenge these votes under RCW 29A.08.810 and RCW 29A.08.820.
810 requires challenging at the time a vote is made.
Unless you can prove that there was tampering with ballots sufficient to turn the election from Gregiore to Rossi (via Foukes)...it's a very large uphill climb.
Carla@preemptivekarma
It's my understanding that the court case next week is procedural in nature to determine whether or not the Republicans can begin taking depositions. If you know that to be nonfactual, please say so.
Further, I misunderstand nothing on the legal aspect of this per RCW 29A.68.110. Rossi must prove much more than vote mishandling. He has to prove that he would pick up 130 votes..enough to overturn the election.
And finally...why would you want me to go away? I've been told numerous times that this group just wants to get to the truth. Well here it is. If the truth is a "spoiler"...then so be it, right?
Posted by: carla on January 15, 2005 03:43 PMPosted by carla at January 15, 2005 03:43 PM
I just wish we had somebody as smart as you at reading and understanding the law on our side. I think poor old Dino is actually stuck with Law school graduates to get him through this contest.
Oh whatever shall he do ?
Bravo!
Carla,
Have you passed the Bar yet? No, I didn't mean your favorite bar...
Posted by: smegma on January 15, 2005 05:12 PMWho'd have thunk it? LOL
Luckily, I can read using left to right progression. Further, I also know a few people who practice law in the State of Washington..who happen to be friends of mine. Imagine that! (I used to live in Washington State, fyi)
Notice how I've not name called or tossed about ad hominem here. I've stated factual information based on research I've conducted. You're more than welcome to check my research and see if it's correct for yourself. But please....the silly ad hominem is what children do on the playground.
Trying out words and/or phrases with which they are wholly unfamiliar "is what children do on the playground", dearest little Carla.
I suggest dictionary.com.
Posted by: Cheryl on January 15, 2005 07:45 PMYou might also want to try grammarstation.com.
Posted by: Cheryl on January 15, 2005 07:52 PMThis year? These types of ploys have been used by both parties for years. Recall Grover Norquist's remarks about bankrupting the sources of Dem money. Frankly, it sucks that it happens. But don't think that what the Dems are doing re: BIAW is an unprecedented practice or that the Republicans haven't done the same.
Not that I'm a huge fan of BIAW, either.... But for principle's sake I hope that they win this one.
Posted by: Tasso on January 15, 2005 07:53 PMThanks very much for the lesson in grammar. Were I to take it in the spirit that it was given, I'm sure you'd be insulted. Instead, I'll reciprocate and offer you an education by coming to my blog, Preemptive Karma.
Please feel free to join the discussion.
Posted by: carla on January 15, 2005 08:50 PMI must have failed to make my point, and you have presented factual baseline schooling for all of us. Great Job! I hope you are teaching other people than us (I can think of many who need it)!
I wish I had realized just how insipid these people are...
ad hominem: adjective; marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made...
Well done!
And Carla, go back to the playground...and remember, reading left to right is Western. The Arabic nations read right to left (no point other than to say thinking is different over there...)
Posted by: smegma on January 15, 2005 09:19 PMWOW.... I actually still live in Washington in the city of Seattle in King County.
And (here's the kicker) I sleep with a practicing member of the WSBA every night.
Does that make me an expert too ?
Now, now J Mc, I read that to say we should be shocked ("Imagine that!") that some of those same people who practice law are ("happen to be") her friends!
I simply have to wonder why she would think we would have a hard time imagining she has friends in the legal profession... unless friends are a rarity.
Gosh, didn't someone just recently mention that grammar matters?
Thanks ever so much for the invite Carla. I have been over to PK, but saw very little different than what's offered over at HA.orgy, except they present a more unequivocal picture of where they stand. I did indeed read your bio, as well as Kevins. In as much as you are/were a Gore fan, I hope you didn't miss this tidbit that was posted elsewhere here today:
Special Report:
Touring the Al Gore Presidential Library and Museum
By Leonard Albin
Published 1/13/2005 12:08:26 AM
Almost obscured by the climbing pink orchids and dense sub-tropical foliage in Boca Raton, Florida, a one-story, somber post-modern building of concrete and glass rises from the landscape. Though locals just refer to it affectionately as "that ugly damn place," the newly completed Al Gore Presidential Library and Museum is an important cultural site that should be part of everyone's Florida vacation -- even during the off-season. Just off I-95 in Palm Beach County, and convenient to the Pompano Beach Motel 6, this new historical and educational landmark is simply as magical as Disneyworld. Much more than a civic building, the Al Gore Library is a testament to one Tennessee man's heroic stand against adversity, who dared challenge the status quo with courage, resolve, and above all, a team of ferocious lawyers.
As my wife and I entered the soaring 20-foot-high sun-filled atrium and lobby, one nagging thought did keep coming to mind: Al Gore was never President. That much, of course, is true. However, the Al Gore Library's founding charter (signed by 162 nations) clearly states that it should be the popular vote, not the Electoral College, which elects presidents. Since this conflicts with certain language in The United States Constitution, the Library is not recognized as an official landmark by the Federal government and no public money was used in its construction. Instead, the Library was funded in large part by a generous grant from a mysterious "Warren," and has also received millions of dollars in contributions from donors who either believe that Al Gore really is president, or really was elected president, or was president for a month until the Supreme Court threw him out of office -- and from a much larger group of people who realize that Gore was not elected president but should have been, although he probably was elected after all, if all the votes were actually counted.
Soon, we were greeted by our docent, a retired high school shop teacher originally from Kew Gardens, Queens. "We got over ten thousand books here," he said, as he started the tour. Yet it wasn't books that first piqued our interest, but the question of whether it was appropriate to charge $15 for adults (and $7.50 for children under 12) for admission to a presidential library that had no president. But our docent wasn't bothered by that. "Al Gore won the popular vote," he said. "And he did seem to be president there for a while, at least on a couple of networks."
That philosophical matter solved, we turned our attention to the main feature of the airy lobby: a mural that stretched across the entire back wall. Here, enlarged to about 1,000 times actual size, was a print of a Mapquest map of Massachusetts Avenue in Washington D.C. -- the street where Al Gore spent much of his life. First, we saw the blue "X" marking his boyhood home at the posh Fairfax Hotel in the 2000 block, back when Al's Dad was a United States Senator. Then, we noticed another blue "X" marking the young Albert's prep school, the swank St. Alban's School, near the 3700 block. Nearby, there was another blue "X" at 3450 Massachusetts Avenue -- the former Naval Observatory that serves as the Vice President's official residence. Towards the eastern end of the Avenue, there was another blue "X" signifying Al Gore's 16 years' employment as a Congressman and Senator at the United States Capitol, conveniently located just two blocks from Massachusetts Avenue. (The huge Mapquest map was generated on a NASA Supercomputer and superprinter, by clicking repeatedly on maximum Zoom In.)
There was no blue "X" at the White House, of course, since there was no Gore presidency. Nevertheless, the Al Gore Library and Museum's curators have carefully considered what a Gore presidency would have been like, if he had actually won. As a result, the place proudly displays several fascinating exhibits portraying the projected great moments and achievements of a Gore Administration, as if they had already happened.
To combat global warming, there was Gore's ambitious National Central Air Conditioning, mandating that cool air be pumped into every building with four walls and a roof in America retrofitted with the proper ducts -- at no charge. This Act is commemorated at the Library and Museum with an original Jimmy Carter oil painting depicting the sun, with a red circle around it and a red slash through it. For consumer safety, there was the Mandatory Airbags for Bicycles Act, and in education, the No School Lunch Left Behind program, designed to help public school children learn the basic skills and fundamentals necessary for finishing Lunch. Yet the Gore Administration's finest achievement would have been The Beverly Hills Peace Accords -- a unilateral "statement of purpose" drafted by major film stars, directors, and producers calling on all the Nations of the World, large or small, or rich or poor, to stop fighting. As the Accords' Article I eloquently puts it: "Dude, can't we all just get along?" Yes, these are words to live by. The Accords exhibit was aptly dignified and austere, too: an original Jimmy Carter oil painting of George W. Bush, with a red circle around it and a red slash through it.
After we spent fifteen minutes marveling at these exhibits, and a half-hour enjoying Kosher hamburgers at the adjacent Joe Lieberman Delicatessen & Lounge, our docent led us down the hall and asked us to give our serious and undivided attention to the Library and Museum's principal attraction.
"Come here," he said, beckoning with a finger. "You gotta see this."
Inside a special, large acoustically-dampened room, seven cheerful uniformed Library employees were sitting at a long, low folding table, piled high with papers and cards. Behind them, a blackboard was covered with numbers and check marks and unfamiliar names like "Volusia" and "Osceola," and now and then somebody would yell out a number -- like "62" or "73." For a moment, we were drawn in by everyone's visible enthusiasm, and we almost called out, "Bingo!" But then we realized what this room was for. This was The Vote Counting Room. They were counting the Florida ballots from the 2000 Presidential Election again. Nearby, supervising the tally, was an Ernst & Young senior accountant and two heavily armed Florida State Troopers, who gathered the ballots each day at closing time and deposited them overnight in the largest, most secure vault in Palm Beach County -- the one at the Limbaugh estate.
"Who's winning?" I finally asked.
Our docent grinned and said, "It's still too close to call."
The Al Gore Presidential Library and Museum, located near N. Federal Highway in Boca Raton, Florida, is open daily (except holidays) from 5 to 4, in observance of the Supreme Court decision that gave George W. Bush the presidency.
Leonard Albin is a writer in San Francisco.
I believe the person that originally posted this article suggested that perhaps Al-the-unemployed could help our Miss Congeniality design and build her own little temple to herself - perhaps it will keep them BOTH busy for a while. I doubt they could count on help from the BIAW though. :)
Posted by: Cheryl on January 15, 2005 10:33 PM"Dems push bill to cut income of political foe"
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002151622_biaw15m.html
Their machine, however, is the legislature. Fraudoire claims not to have read the bill, too bad it was probably authored by her cronies, hell it practically has Berendts tears all over it!
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 15, 2005 11:22 PMIt is not intrinsically relevant that you
provided "factual information based on research."
Stefan has as well. And you are not too impressed
with Stefan's research.
The reality is that you have presented a
paucity of facts. Instead, you have postured
as if you were the judge of this debate, as
opposed to a participant, and then awarded
yourself a victory based on grossly overweighing
the limited number of facts you have presented,
and grossly underweighing the facts set forth
by your opponents.
I am not particularly impressed by your
sophistry. Nor are many readers here.
Let me tell you who is fact are the judges of the
debate. They are Judge John Bridge, The Washington
Supreme Court, and the people of Washington.
Frankly, I am not certain how the Judge will
rule, nor how the Supremes will rule. I do know
the judgment of the people of Washington: About
53% of Washingtonians believe Rossi received the
most lawful votes, while 37% of Washingtonians
believe Gregroire received the most lawful votes.
And, about 62% of Washingtonians want a revote,
while about 36% do not. [Judges tend to consider
polls.]
Subtracting the number of hard-core Republicans
[less numerous] and Democrats [more numerous]
the pro-Rossi, pro-revote cases have prevailed
by an even larger margins among independents and
persuadables.
That is to say my side is winning this debate,
and your side is losing, and losing badly.
Why is that?
One explanation is that my side has brainwashed
a gullible public with the Big Lie. Another
explanation is that our side actually has a
pretty persuasive case, and the facts and the
law happen to be on our side. [And, that is not
the mention the outrageousness of conduct such
as polling voters before selectively informing
them that they failed to sign their ballot!]
Feel free to act from the assumption that our
side has told the Big Lie. In that case you don't
have to debate us, or debate the facts, you
merely have to phone some partisan hack and
quote him as divine revelation. Go ahead. I
don't care. Because, in doing so you will appear
high-handed, arrogant and rude. It will only have
the effect of alienating undecided people from
your viewpoint. Your side has already dug a
pretty deep hole with such people. Digging
harder, faster and more frantically is not
the answer.
I know one thing for certain, when the Democrats
go in court they will take the facts the
Republicans present dead seriously and try to
argue against them in a rational and serious
manner. You should consider doing the same.
Who know's, that might even create some better
Karma for yourself!
"I hope that you will come over to PreemptiveKarmadotcom and check it out."
Posted by carla
"I'll reciprocate and offer you an education by coming to my blog"
Posted by carla
Just a thought anyway
"Instead, I'll reciprocate and offer you an education by coming to my blog, Preemptive Karma."
Carla, this is a political blog. People "debate"
here. I am perfectly willing to debate the
facts, laws and circumstances of this election
with you.
However, it is insulting and demeaning to posture
as if you were in a position to "educate" me! You
systematically engage in sophistry. As a result,
"debating" you does not mean challenging your
"facts" or refuting your "logic," but, rather,
it means exposing the techniques of sophistry
you use. The queen has no clothes, so to speak.
Frankly, if that is the level of intellectual
discourse you wish to engage in I suspect your
blog will never take off. You can plug it till
the cows come home, but your posts will
consistently lack the intellectual stimulation
that is necessary to retain readers.
Perhaps, you would benefit from an objective
analysis of the success of Sound Politics. A
study could "educate" you about how to create
a successful blog!