Stu707’s Letter
Stu707, aka Stuart Makagon, wrote a letter to the Whittier Daily News (reprinted here in the Pasadena Star News), which reads as follows:
When the New York Times lifted the Times Select curtain, it returned columnist Maureen Dowd to the light of day.
The angry left’s maiden aunt displayed her work in a tasteless caricature of Justice Clarence Thomas (Oct. 10). She even flayed fellow journalists, ABC’s Jan Crawford Greenburg and Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes,” for daring to depart from leftist media orthodoxy on Justice Thomas.
Maureen Dowd revisited another of the left’s cherished notions – Al Gore’s “true claim” that the Supreme Court “carjacked” the presidency from him in Bush v. Gore. Leaving aside the question of how anything other than a car can be carjacked, Dowd ignores the rulings in Bush’s favor by every Florida and federal court – save the ultra-liberal Florida Supreme Court – that heard any aspect of the case.
After the election, a consortium of media outlets including the New York Times conducted an extensive review of Florida ballots in the 2000 election. They concluded that Florida’s election officials got it right. Bush won Florida.
They even considered the hypothetical results had Florida used any of several alternative counting methods. Bush would have won under any of these save one.
Ironically, Gore’s attorneys had argued in court against that method claiming it would have been unfair.
Stuart Makagon
“Leaving aside the question of how anything other than a car can be carjacked . . .” Classic! I love it!
I actually stumbled across this e-mail on my own, and asked Stu707 if I could reprint it here, and reveal his identity to all of you. I saw Dowd’s column and merely sighed. But it’s nice to see someone willing and able to make her look even stupider than she makes herself look.
UPDATE: Some commenters say Stu707 is wrong. They want to refight the 2000 election yet yet yet again. Count me out. But that doesn’t mean I have never discussed it. I have — at length. I wrote a whole lot of words on this topic a long time ago, here, so that I would never have to write about it again.
“After the election, a consortium of media outlets including the New York Times conducted an extensive review of Florida ballots in the 2000 election. They concluded that Florida’s election officials got it right. Bush won Florida.”
No, they did not report that.
If all the votes had been recounted, not only those requested by Gore’s team, then Gore would have won.
We’ve gone over this before on this site. This time, Pat, you’re simply lying.
blah (7b03e4) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:17 pmI hate to see your credibility get carjacked like this, “blah.” (Assuming that is your real name . . .)
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:24 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_recount
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi
And Dowd a leftist. what a fucking joke
blah (7b03e4) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:25 pmLinks to Wikipedia and Bugliosi on a political issue?
Don’t get me wrong: I like Bugliosi. But he’s wigged out on political issues.
Yeah, where did I ever get the idea that Dowd was a leftist? Now I am being taken to task for it — by a guy named “blah,” no less. How utterly humiliating.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:34 pmA couple of points:
Dowd ignores the rulings in Bush’s favor by every Florida and federal court – save the ultra-liberal Florida Supreme Court – that heard any aspect of the case.
Actually, that’s not true. As far as I know, the only federal court that ruled in GWB’s favor was the USSC. The federal district and appellate courts ruled against GWB in Siegal v. LePore and against the pro-GWB plaintiffs in Touchston v. Shepperd.
—————————–
After the election, a consortium of media outlets including the New York Times conducted an extensive review of Florida ballots in the 2000 election. They concluded that Florida’s election officials got it right. Bush won Florida.
They even considered the hypothetical results had Florida used any of several alternative counting methods. Bush would have won under any of these save one.
Ironically, Gore’s attorneys had argued in court against that method claiming it would have been unfair.
If you’re talking about the review conducted by NORC under contract with the media consortium, the fact is that the scenario under which Gore would have won is actually the scenario closest to what the USSC had contemplated. That is, with the ballots being counted again from the beginning (not just a continuation of the existing count), including overvotes as well as undervotes (a standard implied in the USSC holding), Gore always comes out ahead:
Mickey Kaus went so far as to say that if the USSC had allowed the count to proceed, Gore likely would have won. He finds it ironic that it would have been under a standard that the GWB lawyers had actually urged:
Kausfiles
Itsme (689e6f) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:35 pmSee my update. I once said all I plan to say on this topic. You guys have fun re-fighting it.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:44 pmWell, my post was addressed to the misstatements in this guy’s letter. Which you posted.
Sorry you don’t care to stick around and defend it, but hey … it’s your blog.
Itsme (689e6f) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:53 pmI can’t help but notice this, though, from Itsme’s own link. I cite it only because it’s the very link Itsme used. Here is some language that, while admittedly highly equivocal, gives us a suggestion as to what might have happened if the counting hadn’t stopped:
Kinda mealy-mouthed, but there you have it.
Again, though, I cite it only for the amusement of pointing out what Itsme’s own link says. If anyone wants to really get into the meat of it, they must show familiarity with my former post on the matter, linked in my update. It demolishes the Democrats’ spurious claims on this matter, once and for all, and is my final word on the matter.
Here endeth the lesson.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:55 pmI already defended it, at very great length, Itsme. But since you can’t be bothered to follow a link, I’ll just reproduce my entire post here. Then I will go to bed. Good night.
Don’t miss the discussion of dimples. Brings all the horrors back.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:57 pmWhy thank you, I actually was aware of what that article said. And I had no problem linking to it.
Because the point I was including appears a little farther down.
It had to do with what would happen if a full statewide, from the beginning recount happened that included overvotes as well as undervotes.
You see, all those other scenarios only included undervotes. Yeah, I’m pretty sure you do see that, ’cause it had a big red arrow next to it:
Now, we know that if there had been time for the USSC’s order to be carried out, the recount would not have “continued,” it would have started over completely, with uniform standards.
And, as most likely contemplated by the USSC as well as the Florida judge preparing the standards, it would have included overvotes as well as undervotes. Meaning Gore would have won.
Of course Mickey Kaus seems to believe it would have happened anyway. But I know you don’t think very highly of him.
Disingenuity doesn’t serve your argument well.
Itsme (689e6f) — 10/18/2007 @ 12:05 amI said you didn’t care to defend a letter you posted.
And I did read your link. Thanks.
Itsme (689e6f) — 10/18/2007 @ 12:07 amItsme – Very deceptive interpretation and quoting in your comment from the St. Pete Times article, which concludes Bush won under the recounts. From the article:
Under the conditions set by the Florida Supreme Court, Bush began Dec. 9, the day of the recount, 195 votes ahead of Gore. The state’s highest court had reduced the Republican’s state-certified 537-vote advantage by adding in the results of completed recounts in Palm Beach County and in 139 precincts in Miami-Dade.
Based on the NORC review, Gore never would have gotten closer to Bush than those 195 votes.
If the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the frantic counting under way that remarkable Saturday, Bush would have increased his lead to 493 votes, the media analysis shows.
While Gore would have gained 3,010 votes under the recount standards that likely would have been used by the individual counties, Bush would have gained 3,308 votes.
When you get into the fantasy scenarios of counting spoiled ballots is where you pulled your conclusions and ignored the overall gist of the article. The Supreme Court decision emphasized the equal protection of voters, something Gore and his lawyers could not come up with a plan to do. The Sepremes merely threw it back to the state. Your man lost because the voters decided.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/18/2007 @ 12:20 amDeception and bad pull quoting seem to be par for the course for you Itsme. I guess like Greenwald, you bear watching. Credibility is not one of your strong points with comments like yours above.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/18/2007 @ 12:22 amP #9:
To address your post republished here, let me just say, first, it seems only to talk about the review done by the Miami Herald consortium. The letter you posted referred to the findings of the larger consortium that included the New York Times, and that is what I referred to.
Second, I don’t see anyplace where you discuss the scenario of a recount that includes overvotes, which is what the media consortium/NORC review posited. And which is what I was discussing.
And when I say you didn’t care to stick around to defend the letter, I mean that you didn’t defend it against this point as far as I can tell.
You seem to be rebutting an argument I have not made.
Nor did you defend what I believe were misstatement of the results of the federal cases. But I guess maybe we agree on that then.
Itsme (689e6f) — 10/18/2007 @ 12:31 amYeah, Patterico. You also didn’t analyze the outcome if all the Unicorn votes had been counted, or if the election had fallen on National Opposite Day (where the winner would be the loser), or if people with the middle name of “Beatrice” had been allowed to vote 3 times! You’ve simply stuck to the facts!
It’s hardly fair to say you’ve covered the topic unless and until you address all the fantastic, invalid-under-the-law scenarios any nutjob can think of which might have eked out a Gore victory.
Shad (ed8abc) — 10/18/2007 @ 3:38 amCounting overvotes? Why the heck would anyone do that? Which way would you count them? Assume straight-party voting?
You can’t tell me that’s fair.
Rob Crawford (c55962) — 10/18/2007 @ 4:48 amNor did you defend what I believe were misstatement of the results of the federal cases. But I guess maybe we agree on that then.
I thought he mentioned “the case” and then you cited other cases.
Second, I don’t see anyplace where you discuss the scenario of a recount that includes overvotes, which is what the media consortium/NORC review posited. And which is what I was discussing.
I don’t see anyplace where you prove that overvotes are typically counted in recounts. That evidence is . . .?
I’ll just throw that question out there like chum in the water and let you sharks feed on it.
And yes, I hold Mickey in high regard, and don’t appreciate even a sarcastic remark suggesting I don’t — but he and I disagree at times.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/18/2007 @ 5:35 amAccording to the State of Florida, 46,000 New York snowbirds were registered in both New York and Florida; many of them voted in both states in the 2000 election.
Empire State voters picked Gore by 62.4% compared to 36.5% for Bush. If the dual voters chose at the same rate, and if just 5% of the 46,000 dual-registered voters actually cast ballots in both states, then that amounted to an additional 2059 votes for Gore and 840 votes for Bush, a swing of 1219 votes in Gore’s favor.
aunursa (f365f4) — 10/18/2007 @ 5:50 amBasically, anyone who thinks Gore won the election is incredibly stupid, insane, or blindly partisan.
One point I never see made is that Chicago used punch cards like Florida before, during, and after 2000, yet I don’t see the notoriously corrupt Chicago election results challenged. Remember the dead vote Democrat in Chicago.
PCD (b47ba5) — 10/18/2007 @ 5:59 amSince PCD brought up Chicago: Bill Daley was Gore’s campaign manager in Florida. Democrats find it utterly incredible that a Daley could not “produce” 5,000 votes to put Gore over the top. It was a humiliation for Bill Daley, too. He had to leave Chicago and go live in New York for a while. 😉
nk (6e4f93) — 10/18/2007 @ 6:11 amnk, I always found that funny…
They sent a Daley to make sure the votes were ocunted fairly. Oh the irony!
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/18/2007 @ 6:53 amEXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER (NYT) 2527 words
A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
I can’t reproduce the entire 2527 word article that appeared in the NY Times in 2001. But the above summary of the article was prepared by the NY Times. Due to the age of the article you will have to buy it from their archives if you want to read it.
Stu707 (adbb5a) — 10/18/2007 @ 6:55 amPatterico;
I thought you were done with the subject of who woulda’ won?
I guess your position is; if Bush was gonna win anyway, the Supremes did the right thing with their ‘one time only’ dalliance. Is that your ‘magic bullet’ of jurisprudence?
Semanticleo (f46d18) — 10/18/2007 @ 7:24 amChoice quote from the USA Today article:
“Because Gore fought for the lenient standard, it may be more difficult now for Democrats to argue that the election was lost in the chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court rather than the voting booths of Florida.”
Ahhhh… if wishes were horses.
DubiousD (911d3b) — 10/18/2007 @ 8:06 amStu707:
Can you give me a date on that NYT piece?
DubiousD (911d3b) — 10/18/2007 @ 8:19 amThese mental masrurbations by the left about the outcome of the 2000 election gave rise to the very appropriate term, Miss Havisham Democrats. You would have thought all the skin on their dicks had rubbed off by now, but some are clearly still enjoying the self abuse.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/18/2007 @ 8:25 am#25 DubiousD
November 12, 2001
Cut and paste the title into the NYT’s search line (the post ’81 catagory).
Or here’s a link…
🙂
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/18/2007 @ 8:46 amStu707,
I liked your letter. Well done.
DRJ (67ced6) — 10/18/2007 @ 10:16 amI don’t care who would have won if the recount had proceeded. The only way to ensure fairness and avoid partisan cheating is by conscientiously following the rules that are put in place before the election. By those rules, George Bush won the election. The Florida Supreme Court overturned those rules in order to throw the election to Gore, and by that unbelievably corrupt action, created a national political disaster that still poisons political discourse seven years later.
If the Florida state legislature cared about the law and about democracy then those justices would have been impeached within a week of having made the decision. The fact that they have escaped all consequences for trying to steal a presidential election is a black eye for Florida.
Doc Rampage (ebfd7a) — 10/18/2007 @ 11:22 amA bit off the topic, but still germane: how does one determine which candidate gets an overvote? If, say, all the overvotes are for Gore, then it goes into the Gore column?
Additionally, how does one determine when/if the voter’s intentions are “clear”? A friend of mine is a staunch Republican, but detested Ronald Reagan. Her 1980 ballot would have been quite a sight to a recounter.
Viktor (6c107f) — 10/18/2007 @ 1:59 pmThanks, DRJ.
Stu707 (adbb5a) — 10/18/2007 @ 3:52 pmP #17:
I thought he mentioned “the case” and then you cited other cases.
I see your point. But because he mentioned “rulings in Bush’s favor by every Florida and federal court,” and there was only one lower state court case that led to Bush v. Gore(Gore v. Harris), and no lower federal cases at all, I assumed he meant all the cases.
——————————————-
Second, I don’t see anyplace where you discuss the scenario of a recount that includes overvotes, which is what the media consortium/NORC review posited. And which is what I was discussing.
I don’t see anyplace where you prove that overvotes are typically counted in recounts. That evidence is . . .?
I think that’s pretty much a nonanswer to my post.
You had posted a letter that made claims about the NORC review of ballots, and the various scenarios the review looked at.
I made a point about a scenario under the NORC review that included overvotes.
You “defended” the letter with a link and then a post that talked not about the NORC review but the Miami Herald review, and discussed my point about the overvotes not at all.
Say what you want, but it wasn’t a “defense” that responded to my points.
As to whether overvotes are “typically counted in recounts,” I don’t know why it would matter to this discussion.
The point was that, given the GWB arguments, the implications in the USSC holding, and the comments of the Florida judge setting the standards under the FSC order, the scenarios that included counting overvotes in a full statewide recount (either under the USSC or FSC order) may possibly have been the most likely scenarios of all. Not just one highly unlikely scenario low on the scale of possibilities.
And that was the point I was trying to make in response to the letter.
————————————-
I’ll just throw that question out there like chum in the water and let you sharks feed on it.
And yes, I hold Mickey in high regard, and don’t appreciate even a sarcastic remark suggesting I don’t — but he and I disagree at times.
And I don’t appreciate being called a “shark.”
This letter made very particular claims. I don’t know why you posted it if you are going to insult people who respond to it.
Itsme (77c7e1) — 10/18/2007 @ 5:49 pmViktor #30:
A bit off the topic, but still germane: how does one determine which candidate gets an overvote? If, say, all the overvotes are for Gore, then it goes into the Gore column?
Additionally, how does one determine when/if the voter’s intentions are “clear”? A friend of mine is a staunch Republican, but detested Ronald Reagan. Her 1980 ballot would have been quite a sight to a recounter.
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the NORC review didn’t attempt to determine whether a particular ballot should be counted for a particular candidate (I think the media consortium interpreted the data).
I’d guess the types of ballots counted as overvotes where the intent of the voter is clear would include ballots where the voter marked an oval and also wrote in the name of the candidate, or where the ballot was rejected by a scanner because of a stray mark of some sort.
Itsme (77c7e1) — 10/18/2007 @ 6:03 pmPS to Viktor:
I looked it up, and I need to correct my prior about NORC not determining whether a particular ballot went for a particular candidate (which wouldn’t make sense). Here’s the way it worked:
Hope that’s helpful.
Itsme (77c7e1) — 10/18/2007 @ 6:10 pm“I don’t care who would have won if the recount had proceeded. The only way to ensure fairness and avoid partisan cheating is by conscientiously following the rules that are put in place before the election. By those rules, George Bush won the election.”
The law said that the courts should decide. Those were the rules.
blah (7b03e4) — 10/18/2007 @ 9:10 pmblah – The only place where that assessment holds any sway is in your head, and in the DU threads.
JD (ba4c77) — 10/18/2007 @ 9:18 pmYes, the courts should decide, by following the laws as writen.
Not ignoring them entirely as was done by the state Supreme Court.
That little fact escapes you, doesn’t it…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/18/2007 @ 9:30 pmScott Jacobs #37:
Yes, the courts should decide, by following the laws as writen.
Not ignoring them entirely as was done by the state Supreme Court.
Which laws were those, exactly?
Itsme (77c7e1) — 10/18/2007 @ 11:24 pm