Captain's Quarters Comments - Latest Comments in Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

unclesmrgol — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:28:52 -0000

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

herddog505 — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:42:33 -0000

I see your point. Still, I respect Obama for playing by the rules. Was he stupid to expect the Hilldabeast to do the same? Yes.

If the Hilldabeast wins the nomination because of these shenanigans, it will be FASCINATING to watch what the dems do. It'll be like 2000 all over again, but without a Republican. Tee hee.

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

Roy Lofquist — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:08:25 -0000

Hey, guys,

I've been voting Republican for more than 40 years. My very first vote was for Goldwater. I live in FL and have followed this closely. The Democrats in the legislature opposed the move because of the promised sanctions. The Republicans played a little hardball. Us Republicans ain't all angels, you know. Good thing, too.

Regards,
Roy

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

faulkner — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:18:18 -0000

Wow.

Source for Popular Vote data: Texas Secretary of State, County by County Tabulation of the votes cast at the General Election, November 8, 1960, for the offices of the President and Vice-President (Austin, 1960)

What's Schlesinger got to do with anything we've been talking about? Or, for that matter, pajamasmedia, whatever the heck that is?

"Richard Nixon turned to his campaign secretary, smiled, and said, 'We got plenty of help down south. We're waiting for Daley to release his numbers so we can cook the books just enough.' " http://imadethisupbutitsont...

Seems I've picked a fight with the Fox Mulder of elections results. Night all.

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

Phil Weingart — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:13:49 -0000

Faulkner writes, "...please show me where I accuse Ms. Harris of nefarious behavior."

Ok, here's the quote from your earlier post:

"At the end of the day, Republicans controlled the Sec. of State position and hence had "rule of law" on their side.

And my comment about this -- my ONLY comment about this -- was that the rule of law had nothing whatsoever to do with whom the Secretary of State was, nor which party. I said so, because to imply that the rule of law was on the side of the Republicans because the SoS was Republican is to suggest that the rule of law is about partisan interpretation, not about objective law.

Seems pretty clear to me. And yes, that's both cynical and vicious, not to mention false.

As to when McCain ought to concede, what I want to see is an attitude that says "What's important is the health of the nation, not my personal achievement." Nixon had that attitude. Gore did not. No amount of excuse-making about the closeness of the election or the inaccuracy of the counting process can erase this clear, undeniable difference in personal character.

Finally, regarding the honor of your Democratic friends, their unwillingness to characterize properly the deliberate assault on the public's confidence in the voting process eliminates any defense they might otherwise have had. The public outcry was manufactured by push polling. The tactic of endless recounts is known to every political hardballer in the country. Whatever else might be said about this or that, the simple fact is that if Gore had a half a gram of honor, none of this would ever have happened.

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

Del_Dolemonte — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:04:56 -0000

"JFK's margin in Texas was about 46,000 votes."

That's what Kennedy defender "historian" Arthur Schlesinger says. Arthur also claimed that Dubyah Bush's action in Iraq was comparable to the Japanese Imperial Navy when they attacked Pearl Harbor. Please pardon my laughing in your general direction.

"At around 5:00 AM, a Kennedy aide approached Bobby Kennedy (JFK had already gone to bed) and glumly reported that Nixon had a lead of almost 10,000 votes in Illinois with just a few precincts in Chicago still out.

Kennedy smiled a tired smile and told the aide not to worry, that Daley had those downstate Republicans right where he wanted them. And indeed, despite Nixon taking 91 out of 103 counties in Illinois, Kennedy won the state by nearly 9,000 votes. He did it thanks to Daley’s machinations which gave the Democrat an unbelievable 450,000 vote margin in Cook County.

No such drama was necessary in Texas. In counties along the Mexican border, it has been alleged that simple vote buying by the Lyndon Johnson political machine ended up giving that crucial state to Kennedy as well. By winning both states by razor thin margins, Kennedy was able to best Nixon in the electoral college 303-219 while beating the Republican by 110,000 in the popular vote."

http://pajamasmedia.com/200...

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

HongKongFluie von AH_C — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:56:43 -0000

I am equally responsible if I elect strong conservatives down-ticket and write in anybody but McVain for the top ticket. I'm not being petulant in the least bit. I want to make sure that McVain is under my thumb & not the other way around. Where does he get off, thinking he can call me a racist over illegal immigration and like a battered wife, I'll pull for him to keep the happy family together?

The way I see it, one of 3 things will happen:

a) it's easier for GOP Congress to say no to a Donk POTUS, than one of their own "R"s. IOW, there were times when they should have said no to Bush--recall the arm-twisting over the Prescription Drug plan
b) if McVain does win, I'm helping the GOP Congress say no to him on conservative issues because they have see the numbers and know that we put them in while McVain was just lucky to squeak in. IOW, a mandate for conservative Congress, but no mandate for McVain. Mileage will vary from State to State, but in OK, it will work quite well, more so if cHillary is on the opposite ticket.
c) If there is a viable 3rd party candidate, wouldn't it be just peachy if he won with 34% of the popular vote & EC vote? Now we'd have a conservative Congress & a conservative POTUS.

Hey, if Huckster can believe in miracles, why can't I? But under no circumstances will I give McVain a mandate to stab me in the back with amnesty, carbon taxes, shutting down Gitmo, demonizing businesses, and other pet liberal causes sure to bankrupt this nation.

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

Del_Dolemonte — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:52:56 -0000

"There was no procedure in place in Florida to verify the ACCURACY of a vote or recount to a probability better than 0.001 percent. I'm not saying there should have been or could have been. But in that absence, there was simply a procedure for legally certifying an election, and yes, that process favored Republicans, and yes, it was entirely legal -"

When you can credibly prove this, we'll talk. As I have already explained, the standard in Florida at the time of the 2000 election was that if the margin of "victory" was 1/2 of 1 % or less, Florida law called for an autoimatic recount.

The ballots that were disputed in Palm Beach County were designed by and approved by Democrats, and fully vetted with the public before the election. It was only after the candidate they wanted seemed to be losing that they claimed the ballot design was "faulty". That would be an intereresting election story in another more repressive country, but not here.

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

Del_Dolemonte — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:46:20 -0000

So which books about Florida 2000 have you actually read? Obviously only Dershowitz's, which as I said above was horribly researched, and also only used "sources" that he agreed with.

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

faulkner — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:32:21 -0000

JFK's margin in Texas was about 46,000 votes. You can't get a voter fraud number anywhere close to that without going north, south, east, and west in Texas. A lot of people feel LBJ's machine was capable of that level of fraud, but no hard evidence exists. Absence doesn't mean innocence, but it does leave us speculating.

For Nixon, he would have had to overturn Texas and Illinois. The RNC did contest Illinois, and the Cook County state's attorney -- a Republican -- turned over a lot of leaves, including several that favored Nixon. A Republican-majority state board of elections ultimately denied the challenge.

Nixon did steer clear of a constitutional confrontation, and he lobbied the press to the high road as well.

I am not saying there wasn't fraud, but again, this stuff is hardly as neat and clean as people present it. Two sides to every story.

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

faulkner — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:04:27 -0000

So, if Obama wins Ohio by 537 votes of 5.8 million, thus winning the Presidency, at what point should McCain concede? When CNN declares Obama the winner at 4 a.m.? Should he completely trust the recount efforts by Ms. Brunner and Mr Strickland? How much "trust but verify" is appropriate in a situation like this? Should he call off legal challenges by outside but interested parties? Does he even have the power to do that? Should he just walk away and concede to avoid a nasty scene?

As for Florida, Bush won, and he's a legitimate president. He and Gore moved on. Apparently you and Delmonte have not. Both of you read things into my post that aren't there (please show me where I accuse Ms. Harris of nefarious behavior or defend the legal footing of the Florida Supreme Court decision). No, that's not quite right -- both of you seem to be enraged over things I never said (or even hinted at) in my post. All because I dare suggest that there are two sides to the story there.

There was no procedure in place in Florida to verify the ACCURACY of a vote or recount to a probability better than 0.001 percent. I'm not saying there should have been or could have been. But in that absence, there was simply a procedure for legally certifying an election, and yes, that process favored Republicans, and yes, it was entirely legal -- and probably the best that could be done under the circumstances. But I understand why my Democratic friends got angry at some things, and they make some excellent (independently verified) points. I could pretend these friends have no merit, no brains or no values, or some lethal combination of the three, but I know better.

If that's vicious and cynical, so be it.

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

essucht — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:02:19 -0000

Isn't it amazing? After all the criticism of the electoral college, the Democrats are still running a *significantly* less representative system for their own elections, and see no disconnect between their rhetoric and their actions...

I hope that someone is paying close attention to the bankrolls of those superdelegates, Bill Clinton just got $31M from the dictator of Uzbekistan*, and I'm sure the money is burning a hole in his pocket.

* And if the Uzbeks are coming up with that kind of sum as a bribe, ah, fee for consulting, makes you wonder how much money the Saudis and the Chinese are bankrolling the Clintons...

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

Kevin71 — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:58:56 -0000

Since Rush's success has nothing to do with who wins or loses elections, he has nothing to save face about. And he won't endorse McCain, unless (maybe) McCain chooses a solid conservative as his running mate. What he will do, however, is endorse or support conservative candidates running for both the House and Senate to block liberal initiatives from getting passed to a liberal Hillary or Obama for signature. If Huckabee is selected as Veep, there will be no support to that ticket. I don't think Huckabee will be the choice though, I fully expect McCain to throw him under the bus in the next few days. If McCain picks a solid conservative as his running mate, then maybe Rush will support them.

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

essucht — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:50:34 -0000

Isn't it odd how things like this never seem to tarnish "Camelot"?

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

Phil Weingart — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:35:56 -0000

Alright. I don't want to get nasty or start calling names, and I was going to ignore you...

... but if you will REREAD my post from five hours ago that you COMPLETELY BLOODY MISREAD, you FREAKING IDIOT, you will discover that I was saying that I was going to work to prevent a REPEAT of this fiasco IN THE BLOODY FUTURE!!!!!!

In the name of all things great and small, you'd think you would be able to bloody READ if you were going to post stuff on a nationally read blog.

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

faulkner — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:27:44 -0000

Actually, I never accused Katherine Harris of breaking any laws. I sad the Sec of State was in Bush's corner, which was absolutely an advantage on his part -- and a legal one. If Dems wanted that card in their deck, they could have won that race. But the fact you jump to that conclusion indicates the spirit in which you read the post and in part makes my point for me.

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

Yashmak — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:23:36 -0000

As you might want to re-think any notion that you can somehow single-handedly prevent John McCain from becoming the Republican nomination.

I can only think of one way you could, and you'd have the secret service on you for that one ;)

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

Del_Dolemonte — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:15:30 -0000

The 1960 fraud in Texas was mainly in Angelina and Fannin counties. Both of these are up in the northern part of the state.

Fannin County, Texas had only 4,895 registered voters. BUT 6,138 votes were cast, 75% of which went to Kennedy.

Angelina County, Texas: In one precinct, only 86 people voted yet the final tally was 147 for Kennedy, 24 for Nixon.

Texas refused to conduct a recount. The Texas Election Board consisted entirely of Democrats, and the Board certified John Kennedy the winner in Texas.

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

unclesmrgol — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:58:53 -0000

We expect honesty, but we also expect intelligence. I believe that the decisions of the national party organizations are inherently trumped by state law. I have yet to locate a state which defers to the national party organization in preference to the state organization with respect to ballot composition. When I find one, I'll post it here, but I've done 10 of the 50 states and each one requires a state organization to submit its list of electors.

So the national organization can use its big stick and beat those state organizations which promulgated early balloting upon the head, but the state organizations can fight back exactly where it hurts -- ballot content.

I think Hillary's folk recognized this, and Obama's folk didn't.

As I've pointed out in a previous post, Abraham Lincoln got 40% of the popular vote in the Presidential election. 60% of that vote went to his three Democratic challengers combined. Guess who won the election?

If Hillary manages to get those two states to stonewall on Obama's appearance on the ballot, she's got the nomination locked up, because the Democrats as a national organization cannot tolerate the non-appearance of the national nominee's name on the November ballots in Michigan and Florida.

The key to this entire argument is looking at the problem from the viewpoint of the affected states -- Michigan and Florida. How can they consolidate their claims to a right to hold early balloting? How can they protect the expressed will of their voters in those early ballots?

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

herddog505 — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:45:32 -0000

I see your point, but we expect the president to have some modicum of honesty and honor. Obama, though he might well be considered a fool for doing it, played the game by the rules. That's a point in his favor. The Hilldabeast did exactly what anybody with a lick of sense would have expected, i.e. cheated.

Do we want somebody who respects the rules to be our chief law enforcement officer... or somebody who thinks that rules are for everybody else except her?

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

Labamigo — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:43:36 -0000

"Would the U.S. Supreme Court even take the case after having been excoriated for years by liberals for daring to restore order in the Florida vote-counting in 2000?"

Come on Ted, you know better. Federal courts don't get involved in intra party disputes. Remember LBJ stealing the 1948 democrat senate primary from Coke Stevenson with the famous Box 13. The federal courts said "none of our business."

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

unclesmrgol — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:02:48 -0000

Which is fine by me. Edwards is -- where? And Obama, while still standing, abandoned these two states.

I think what Hillary did was legal and shows the depth of her team's political experience compared to that of newbie Obama.

If I had to choose between the two to go up against, say, Kim Jong-Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I'd prefer the one who is politically wisest at playing the game as it's played in reality, not wisest at playing someone's altruistic idea of how the game should be played.

I wonder if Barack would read other people's mail, or if he would ban that, given the chance.

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

SaipanDrunkenSailor — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:53:54 -0000

If Obama were worthy of the Oval Office he would have foreseen this.

Politics ain't beanbag. If he's too dainty to get his hands soiled, the Clinton crime machine will roll him like a two-bit drunk in a dark alley.

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

Kalena — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:44:57 -0000

I thought the Extra Texas votes in the 1960 election came from South Texas, where there were more Democrat votes counted than there were residents in those counties. Same outcome, but the fraud was somewhere else in that state.

Gore did not do the noble thing and I believe that set the stage for such bitter partisanship for the Bush Presidency.

Re: Ted Olson Grabs His Popcorn

onlineanalyst — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:25:30 -0000

"...and there will be hell to pay for Clinton at the ballot box. Clinton cannot afford to win the nomination through any other means than a clear and unambiguous numerical victory>"

Another delicious irony is that Barbara Olson, Ted Olson's wife, wrote a book about the unethical Hillary! called Hell to Pay.