If we are to be as
> technically
> and excruciatingly accurate as is being demanded down in Florida,
"Excruciatingly accurate??!!!" There are always procedural inaccuracies and
invalidated ballots in every election, but here we are talking about over
23,000 votes. And there is no question that those votes would have
determined the outcome. Anyone out of kindergarten knows that had those
votes been counted, Gore would have won Florida. People are not trying to
be "excruciatingly accurate." People don't care much about technicalities,
but they know and care when their vote is being pissed on. I stand by my
comment that Bush is wiling to take office on a technicality, knowing that
the officially counted Florida vote does not represent the real will of the
people there.
> See Michael, this is where I start to spin - the Dems in 1960
> benefited from *proven*, in a court of law, criminal fraud consisting of
votes
> from people who were dead and other ballot box stuffing (This was also was
> explained to me by the esteemed NPR radio today).
I heard the same NPR report, and the historian who talked about the 1960
election concluded by saying that the fraud in Chicago and Texas would not
have affected the ultimate outcome, because it was Texas that put JFK over
the top and he won there by too many votes to have beent the result of
fraud. He also said the Republicans stole votes in southern Illinois!
