News

Sports

Business

Multimedia

Life

Opinion

Obituaries

Community

Classifieds

Jobs

Motors

Real Estate

Letters to the Editor

Our readers views, June 24

Wednesday, June 24 | 1:00 a.m.

Object to expanding quarry operation

If you live on Livingston Mountain or drive on 53rd Street in East County, you should be aware that Clark County Public Works has applied to re-open a 170-acre rock quarry adjacent to the existing quarry site. The department also wishes to expand operating hours to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday.

Many local residents would like to see the proposed quarry hours limited to the current hours, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, and forbid crushing, drilling, blasting or mining operations on Saturday. Additional monitoring for noise, compliance, and possible damage to nearby homes and water systems should be in place as well.

A hearing is scheduled for 6 p.m. Thursday, June 25 at the Public Service Center, 1300 Franklin St., Vancouver, room 680. You may voice your opinion in three ways:

1. Testify in person at the meeting.

2. E-mail comments to rosie.hsiao@clark.wa.gov.

3 Or call 360-397-2375 to submit written testimony.

For information on the project visit maulfoster.com/705-clark-county.

Barbara Rider

Camas

Hatcheries can augment wild fish

Steelhead management is an important issue and I would like to clarify my point of view as former chair of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group. The study referred to in the June 11 story "Study: Offspring of hatchery fish carry reproductive ‘handicap’" addressed the effects of hatchery steelhead spawning in the wild.

The results of this study do indeed underscore the importance of managing hatchery and natural steelhead populations to minimize the proportion of hatchery fish on spawning grounds. This, however, does not mean that genetic risks to the natural population always outweigh the abundant benefits to harvest and conservation. It’s important to not overstate the implications of this study by suggesting that hatcheries have no place in management.

The federal review completed for Columbia River hatchery programs emphasized the importance of controlling hatchery influence on natural spawning, but it also concluded that there are solutions that allow us to use hatchery production to augment harvest in a manner that is compatible with the conservation needs of the naturally spawning salmon and steelhead populations. Keep in mind that this study applies to steelhead, perhaps the most domesticated of hatchery fish. The effects on other salmon species may well be different.

Lars E. Mobrand

Vashon

Generosity cheered on

Three cheers for John and Debra Bauman who stepped forward with $3,000 to save the "Sunday Fundays" at Marshall Community Center from the city of Vancouver budget cuts (see Page D1). These first Sundays each month provide free entry for families to enjoy games, crafts and swimming from 2 to 5:30 p.m., a great boon to families who have nonexistent entertainment budgets in these tough economic times.

As we read The Columbian each day and pay attention, we will find something or someone calling for our help. The Baumans’ generosity is a quality typically found among people in wonderful towns that care.

Florence Wager

Vancouver

Each person can improve commute

The Interstate 5 Bridge is not the problem. Two lanes of traffic through Portland is the southbound problem. I-5 northbound’s main problem is the entrance from Hayden Island.

To help the commute:

1. Get up 10 minutes earlier.

2. Carpool one day a week.

3. Close the Hayden Island northbound on-ramp from 3:30 until 6:30 p.m.

4. Ride transit one day per week.

The Yellow-line Max is a trolley line, not a high-speed commuter line. It will not be a viable way to commute if the replacement bridge is built.

Thomas R. Carney

Vancouver

We don't govern by democratic rule

Columbian columnist Ann Donnelly ought to keep in mind that if this country were anything at all like Venezuela, not only would an antigovernment screed like hers never be published, but she would also probably be arrested for writing it.

While I strongly disagree with most of what she says in her June 18 column, "Dean’s speech misled local Democrats," I am forced to agree that we no longer live in a democracy. That notion was put to rest in the context of the 2000 presidential election when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision that deserves a place in history alongside the Dred Scott decision, effectively negated the votes of the citizens of Florida (as well as those of the majority who voted for Al Gore) and handed the presidency to George W. Bush.

I trust that those of the currently unemployed, bankrupt and evicted Americans who voted for Bush are still grateful.

Charles Gretsch

Vancouver

Single-payer care has best potential

Does your health insurance provide you with "care?" Is it directly responsible for the care you receive, or is it just that they arrange payment for the care you receive?

If the answer is simply payment, then why wouldn’t it make sense, in the name of health care, to cut out or limit the for-profit portion of the payment process, which contributes little to the quality of care?

Why does health care need the connection to an investment scheme, basically what insurance is, to exchange money on its bills? Would the doctors or hospitals be paid any less by one entity than another?

Why shouldn’t the population of the United States be one big group for insurance purposes? Why should the bargaining power of the group be wasted in profit for a few?

We’ve let some ghosts of political philosophy and the monsters of business control this debate too long. And this debate is less about health care quality than the right to access to all that cash while it’s floating around in a convoluted system.

It’s time to seriously consider single-payer system. No other scheme I’ve seen has the potential to create a more available health-care system.

Robert M. Schneider

Vancouver

Be ready to pay for a choice

As an American taxpayer, would you prefer the current Social Security system, Medicaid and Medicare as we know it, or a universal health care system? Write or call your representative in Congress, the Senate, and the president and tell them which you are ready to pay for.

And if you’d like all three, just tell them you prefer national bankruptcy, California style. Or even easier, just relax and let the proven experts in our government make the decision for you.

Michael B. Lumbard

Washougal

by NoRule OfLaw : 6/24/09 5:10am - Report Abuse

Charles Gretsch,

Ms Donnelly was referring to the idea that we were never a democracy but rather a representative republic. It seems we meed more of the former and less of the later these days because our representatives are doing much representing.

Regardless of the distinction, your point is correct that we lost our "representative republic" when the SCOTUS installed a dictator in 2000.

by NoRule OfLaw : 6/24/09 5:12am - Report Abuse

Oops, meant "need" not "meed" and "our representatives are [not] doing much representing"

by bonnie blue : 6/24/09 6:08am - Report Abuse

CORRECT!! They represent themselves and their special interest buddies and to HE** with the American people who sent them there. We need to do some serious housecleaning and send the rats scattering back under the rocks they crawled out from under.

by Don Steinke : 6/24/09 6:49am - Report Abuse

Regarding the Livingston Mountain Quarry . . .

Into which creek does rainwater runoff?

The County did a great job protecting water quality when they built the Amphi-Theater. They had a mile of silt fence and buffers around the property.

I believe that sediment and fertilizer are the two main water pollutants. When a rocky streambed is covered with sediment, existing ecosystems are lost. Protecting water quality from an elevated quarry might be a challenge.

I hear that gravel trucks degrades stream health from the grit they spill and track on to the roads with their tires. When the Seattle Airport was expanded, an expensive tire washing facility was required.

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 6/24/09 7:06am - Report Abuse

According to 28 USC 455 "ALL Magistrates, Judges and Justices SHALL recuse themselves from adjudicating any matter before them in which they have even an appearance of conflict of interest that would undermine confidence in the impartiality of the Judiciary. In Bush v Gore, Scalia had two sons not only working for the Bush campaign, but who were lawyers working, at the state level, for the very law firm, representing Bush, and who not only stood to gain but did indeed gain significantly with the decision for Bush. Thomas' wife at the time, held a senior position in the Bush transition team vetting resumes and stood to gain and did gain with a Bush victory. O' Connor was overheard at a cocktail party, in front of numerous witnesses, saying she wanted Bush to win because she wanted to retire and did not want Gore appointing her successor. All three not only should have by law recused themselves, but should have been impeached for not doing so. Further, the decision, was the only decision of the Supremes in the over-200-year history of the Court to be sui generis (of a special type with no value as precedent). Further, the Supremes ordered a suspension of the total state-wide vote recount, mandated by the Florida Constiution (States Rights) which has jurisdiction on voting even in federal elections according to the U.S. Constitution, and then invoked the very situation they created, not enough time supposedly left for a full recount, to deny that very recount. And finally, in his decision for Bush, Scalia and the others cited as possible "irreparable harm" to Bush if a full recount were allowed, in that the true and correct election results might show Bush did not win and this would undermine his ability to govern; how is that for logic? Truly priceless.

On stealing elections, both parties have done it over U.S. history. Historically, Dems have preferred the method of vote early/often/dead (e.g. 1960 Nixon v Kennedy in Illinois and Texas) where the Republicans have preferred voter suppression, intimidation, machine rigging, collecting and dumping absentee votes of the elderly and disabled, and engineered long lines of voters via underallocations of machines in certain districts.

by Lew Waters : 6/24/09 7:20am - Report Abuse

Simply amazing how supposed intelligent adults cling to campaign talking points for so many years, without ever actually verifying what their party candidates tell them. And the BDS flows on.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005682

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/01/the_myth_of_the_stolen_electio.html

http://www.florida2000election.com/sections/facts.asp?p=facts

by Ace High : 6/24/09 8:04am - Report Abuse

Lew Waters,

I picked one of your posts to read, (The American Thinker). Below is one excerpt from the article.

The left likes to say that the United States Supreme Court gave the election to Bush. They did no such thing. What they did was reverse the Florida Supreme Court's effort to keep on counting until Gore won.

They admit that all of the votes weren't counted and that they went to court to stop the counting before Gore would have won.

Another excerpt from the article:

Most significantly, the Bush team won every important decision by a court in Florida, except for two decisions by the Florida Supreme Court, a partisan Democrat court if there ever were one.

By checking one of your links I think I will have to say that I will stick with my contenetion that Bush stole the 2000 election. I don't feel the need to check your other links because as the past has taught me, they will say the same thing

by billy o : 6/24/09 8:19am - Report Abuse

Lew,

The second paragraph of your Washington Post link says that if the rest of the disputed votes were allowed to be counted, then Gore would have won. Read a little farther than the headline.

Your last link is nothing more than a blog and cannot be relied on.

The american thinker site is another blog site with far right wingers on the board.

You failed to mention the thousands of black (likely Democratic)voters that were prevented from reaching the polls in Broward county by barricades erected by the State police.

You failed to mention that Katherine Harris was in complete control of the recount process, halting it before it was finished and prematurely declared Bush the winner.

A Bush was the governor of the state of Florida at the time.

Exit polls had Gore in an overwhelming victory.

As it is, all your links are opinions written by right wing columnists bent on rewriting history-- or at least attempting to verify their version of it. Millions of people think otherwise.

These were not campaign talking points, they were documented after the election. At the time these facts were revealed, the campaign was over.

What are you saying? The slogan was " Vote for us, because we lost?"

Give me a break, the biggest mistake in presidential history was never elected, he was 'selected'. Half the Supreme court should have recused themselves for their public statements of their political opinion before and after the election.

by OCCNC : 6/24/09 8:24am - Report Abuse

From Lew's 1st link -

'The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue...'

From Lew's 2nd link -

'In June 2001, following a six-month investigation that included subpoenas of Florida state officials from Governor Jeb Bush on down, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report that found no evidence of voter intimidation.......of black voters.'

From Lew's 3rd link -
'In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Flroida and the presidency last year if either of the two limited recounts....had been completed according to a study commissioned by the Washington Post and other news organizations.'

I guess that is an indication of two things, Bush 'stole' the election, and BDS is real'. At least that's the way Ace High would read it.

by Ace High : 6/24/09 8:38am - Report Abuse

OCCNC,

It is easy for anyone to say "in all liklihood," and I am sure it makes them feel better, but let me ask you, were all of the votes counted?

by Ace High : 6/24/09 8:40am - Report Abuse

sorry.. likelihood

by NoRule OfLaw : 6/24/09 8:50am - Report Abuse

Even if you concede the dictator won Florida in 2000 (which I do not because the credible evidence indicates otherwise), you still cannot deny that the SCOTUS installed him. And by doing so they undermined the constitution and the rule of law.

I am not going to "get over it" as Scalia recommends. To many fought too hard and gave up too much to "get it" in the first place.

by Collegial Fool : 6/24/09 9:11am - Report Abuse

Thanks for the letter, Robert.

It is amazing that we Americans seem willing to accept a healthcare system that delivers a lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, lower levels of satisfaction with the quality of care than most other industrialized countries.

The one that wants to make sure the parasitic insurance companies skim off their profits, pay bloated CEO salaries, and provide income for stockholders by denying payments and treatments.

by billy o : 6/24/09 9:51am - Report Abuse

OCCNC,
This was also in that same inconclusive article:

"The study did not credit Gore with the thousands of votes lost as a result of the infamous butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County. Many voters using the ballot became confused by the listing of presidential candidates on two facing pages and punched Gore's name and one of the candidates next to him, nullifying their vote.

An examination of the Senate choices on those ballots indicates the mistakes were made overwhelmingly by Democrats and suggests that Gore lost about 8,000 votes because of the confusion. The Post study did not award those overvotes to Gore because no clear voter intent could be determined on a ballot where two candidates were marked. A similar analysis of the two-page presidential ballot in Duval County showed Gore lost about 7,000 votes, which also could not be given to Gore in the study."

There were several other cases where the vote was manipulated with confusing ballots, flyers sent to voters telling them to vote on Wednesday. These voters were identified as typically voting Democrat.

Of course any investigation initiated by the Bush administration was tainted, they cleared themselves of any wrong doing in the lead up to the war, in dealing with Katrina survivors, in the aftermath of 911, etc.

So why does it surprise you that they were not found culpable of one of the most blatant manipulations of the vote in history?

Tell ya what OCCNC, keep searching the web for debunking stories by the right... they've had 7 years to manufacture enough propaganda to confuse anyone. You still can't deny that just the fact that so many charges were brought up from a wide range of sources is suspicious in it's own right.

No rule's point about the Supreme Court is right on. AND, if the SCOTUS had to get involved, which they shouldn't have, there must NOT have been conclusive proof.

Just think, if the SCOTUS had been tilted to the left, instead of the right, and Gore ended up being elected, Texas would have seceeded, Hannity would have incited riots in Washington, and Rush would have had a coronary screaming about it for 4 years.

Face it, the right are worse losers than the left. Just look at their antics now; they ALL voted against pretty much everything that Obama has proposed so far. They are pouting, obstructionist, righteous, and stubborn. I'm glad that they don't represent me, they have made fools of themselves for six months.

by Lew Waters : 6/24/09 10:39am - Report Abuse

Cherry picking just reinforces what I said. Even the New York Times ran an article where they and other more liberal media outlets conducted their own recounts of the disputed 2000 election and the only way Gore would have won was for the most creative of recounts and discerning intent of voters who did not properly cast a vote.

If we will count votes based upon perceived intent, why not include people who intended to vote, but just didn't get around to it?

The "confusing butterfly ballot" from Palm Beach County is the most laughable. It was designed by Democrats and vetted by both party's as well as placing it before the public months before the election.

Gore did not seek a statewide recount, only in four counties he felt would give him the win. Even with all the reports that came out after wards, you fail to notice words in the articles such as "might," "may," "could have."

Speculation is what you cling to your bitter hatred by.

Florida had established law that had to be followed and they were, once the Supreme Court handed down their ruling. If you don't like that the Supreme Court got involved, blame Gore, he is the one who took it to the courts to overturn a legal election and recount.

You can ad media culpability to the confusion as they were announcing Gore the winner before the polls in Florida even had closed. Was that deliberate? How many people did not cast their vote thinking it was of no use?

But, why let facts interfere with your hatred of half of the country, right?

by OCCNC : 6/24/09 10:40am - Report Abuse

billy o -
Do you know who designed those ballots? Who was running the voting places in Florida in that election? And is there any reason Democrats were more confused?

SCOTUS got involved to prevent Al Gore from stealing the election.

As far as Obama is concerned, I'm so pleased that things have improved since he got into office. It's a relief to me and thousands of others in the country. And overseas they really are relieved.

There, I think I've commented on all of your diversions from the facts.

by Shann McFadden : 6/24/09 10:50am - Report Abuse

The most appalling part of this sad story is that in a country that has been producing legislation for 232 yrs, with attorneys, judges and courts as far as the eye can see, we still cannot after a reasonable amount of time, have a winner declared in an election. 10 yrs, after the debacle in Florida, a race for a senate seat from Minnesota is still disputed, closer to home the last governors race in this very state took an excruciating length of time to settle. This may not be very PC but that in itself is massively retarded. A footnote, anybody ever hear of the guy who work for the republican campaign and was prosecuted for his conduct, his name escapes me just now, but he wrote a book about how to steal an election, very interesting reading I've no doubt.

by OCCNC : 6/24/09 12:31pm - Report Abuse

Hey, I've got an idea...why don't we all admit that Bush stole the election in 2000, declare Al Gore the winner, and go back and re-do the past 8 years?

by billy o : 6/24/09 12:46pm - Report Abuse

If not for a lame GOP candidate and an overwhelming public mandate for change, along with massive efforts to prevent voter machine fraud and companies like Diebold from de-railing the process, we would have seen it happen again. Just think, we could be invading Iran right now. Banks would have failed like dominoes and we would be heading into complete economic collapse, instead of the light at the end of the tunnel growing larger.

Good thing that we learned from the previous two "elections".

by Shann McFadden : 6/24/09 12:55pm - Report Abuse

Clever beyond compare OCCNC

by billy o : 6/24/09 12:58pm - Report Abuse

Scotus ensured the theft of the election. They lean to the right, remember? I know, why don't we just have them just appoint the next guy? One more GOP president, another SCOTUS appointment, and we would have sealed our path into Facism, with corporations writing our laws and continuing their conquest of the world through any means necessary including militarism.

Of all the money we spent in Iraq, a large percentage was allotted to No-Bid contracts to the vice-president's company that was on it's way to bankruptcy before those billion-dollar contracts were awarded. What did we get? Shoddy service, tainted water and rotten food for our troops and poorly grounded electrical systems resulting in electrocution of our soldiers.

Where are they now? Why, in Dubai, of course, where they can enjoy their tax shelters. Thanks George!

by Shann McFadden : 6/24/09 1:44pm - Report Abuse

I'm not certain what label should be applied to your 12:31 post tactic OCCNC, but we should contrive a moniker for it now, since you seem reticent to employ any other stratagem. Exorcise in the absurd comes to mind, but that's been used before. Bleating rants from a compassionate conservative, no, sounds like a left wing militant screed. Musings of the majority, has possibilities, but that implies the opinion is that of a majority. I know, I just heard this one the other day, views of those desperately clinging to their pathologically narcissistic beliefs. Just kidding, all I'm saying is "can't we all just get along". Offer some path to reconciliation, make a contribution that has at least some hope of endorsement, by those who may not as yet be on board 100%. Then again I could be wrong, fortunately our democracy does make provisions for those in the minority. In all honesty I've used the tactic myself, to a degree, lead someone down the path of their own logic to it's "inevitable conclusion". Perhaps that is a more palatable label.

by OCCNC : 6/24/09 3:26pm - Report Abuse

Shann McFadden : 6/24/09 1:44pm

Acquiescence to the absurd?

I just get tired of the arguing over things so long past. The issue we should be discussing is how to prevent these same issues in the future as your post from 10:50 suggests.

Although a discussion of what the US would look like after 8 years of Al Gore given the same set of outside circumstances might prove enlightening too. Surely global warming would not be an issue. Learning Farsi might be.

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 6/24/09 3:36pm - Report Abuse

For the moment, never mind votes cast and never counted etc; What about 28 USC 455 and failure of Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor to recuse themselves for not just the appearance of conflict of interest but actual, provable and material conflicts of interest and bias? Plus Kathryn Harris refusal to recuse herself with clear conflicts of interest between public position certifying vote count and co-chair of Bush campaign in Florida. And the U.S. and these neo-fascist Republicans--and Dems--dare to lecture anyone bout "democracy"?

The federal statute governing the recusal of judges, 28 U.S.C. § 455, describes two categories for disqualification. The first, contained in Section 455(a), states that a judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The parties to a case are allowed, following full disclosure of the basis for disqualification, to waive a judge's recusal if the ground for disqualification arises only under Section 455(a). See 28 U.S.C. § 455(e).

The second situation in which recusal is necessary is described in Section 455(b). It requires a judge to recuse if, among other things, he or she: has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party; has a direct financial interest, however small, in a party; has served as lawyer in the matter in controversy while in private or governmental practice; or has a spouse or child who is a party, lawyer or witness in the proceeding. The parties cannot waive a judge's recusal pursuant to Section 455(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 455(e).

More recently, two other Justices received criticism from some quarters for participating in the presidential election cases out of Florida. One Justice's child was a partner at a law firm representing one of the candidates, and another Justice's spouse was working for an organization viewed by some as supporting one candidate's transition efforts.

2. EX-WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SUGGESTS JUSTICE SCALIA RECUSE HIMSELF
The Associated Press
12/11/2000
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
FIVE STAR LIFT
Page A8
(Copyright 2000)

A former Clinton White House counsel suggested Sunday that conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia may want to recuse himself from the Florida recount case because his son works for a firm that represents George W. Bush.

Eugene Scalia is a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Ted Olson, also a partner there, will represent Bush for a second time in oral arguments today, when the Supreme Court considers whether to allow hand counting of ballots in Florida to resume.

3. December 12, 2000, New York Times CHALLENGING A JUSTICE
Job of Thomas's Wife Raises Conflict-of-Interest Questions

By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 -- The wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said today that she was working at a conservative research group gathering resumes for appointments in a possible Bush administration but that she saw no conflict between her job and her husband's deliberations on a case that could decide the presidency.

The comments from the justice's wife, Virginia Lamp Thomas, a former Republican Congressional aide, came as a federal judge in Nashville said Justice Thomas faced a serious conflict of interest as a result of his wife's work for the Heritage Foundation.

The foundation has close ties to the Republican Party and would probably have a say in the hiring of key government officials if Gov. George W. Bush assumed the presidency. In e-mail distributed on Capitol Hill earlier this month, Mrs. Thomas solicited resumes "for transition purposes" from the government oversight committees of Congress.

A decision by Justice Thomas to recuse himself could alter the outcome of the case now before the court, which is weighing whether to allow a manual recount of votes in Florida. On Saturday, by a vote of 5 to 4, the court blocked the recount for now. Justice Thomas, who was appointed to the court by President George Bush, Governor Bush's father, was in the majority.

If Justice Thomas were to recuse himself, it could result in a 4-to-4 tie in the case now before it, which would allow the ruling by the Florida Supreme Court to stand.

"There is no conflict here," Mrs. Thomas said in an interview. She insisted that she rarely discussed matters before the Supreme Court with her husband and that Justice Thomas therefore should not consider recusing himself from the landmark case.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0621-11.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000
http://www.gregpalast.com/how-they-stole-ohio/

by Collegial Fool : 6/24/09 3:38pm - Report Abuse

-The three recounts that had been most widely discussed during the battle of Florida, including the partial recount requested by the Gore campaign and two interpretations of the Florida Supreme Court order, would have given the vote to Mr. Bush.

But the six hypothetical manual recounts that would have covered the whole state - including both loose and strict standards - would have given the election to Mr. Gore. And other evidence makes it clear that many intended votes for Mr. Gore were frustrated.

So why do so many people believe the Bush win was rock solid?-
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/opinion/22krugman.html

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 6/24/09 3:42pm - Report Abuse

http://www.petitiononline.com/senate/petition.html

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 6/24/09 3:43pm - Report Abuse

http://www.petitiononline.com/senate/petition.html

by OCCNC : 6/24/09 4:10pm - Report Abuse

Collegial Fool : 6/24/09 3:38pm

'But the six hypothetical manual recounts that would have covered the whole state - including both loose and strict standards - would have given the election to Mr. Gore. And other evidence makes it clear that many intended votes for Mr. Gore were frustrated.'

That's sarcasm, right? What exactly is a hypothetical manual recount? Other evidence? Intended votes were frustrated?

by Collegial Fool : 6/24/09 5:06pm - Report Abuse

@ 4:10pm

Gee, there's a link. Try reading.

Here it is again, to make it easier....
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/opinion/22krugman.html

by OCCNC : 6/24/09 5:17pm - Report Abuse

@ 5:06
Gee, your link appeared to be on a different subject. I'll give it a read.

Generally quotes are used to indicate a quotation. But you know that.

by OCCNC : 6/24/09 5:23pm - Report Abuse

Gosh, I read it. It's an opinion piece.

by Mag Boiler : 6/24/09 6:23pm - Report Abuse

Professor: Have you noticed...no one is paying any attentions to your rantings!

by Collegial Fool : 6/24/09 6:24pm - Report Abuse

Golly, it was talking about the study (-In November 2001 a larger consortium, which included The New York Times, produced more definitive results that allowed assessment of nine hypothetical recounts.-) that certain people are saying supported the 'Bush would have won anyway' trope.

by Ernest Tru : 6/27/09 10:12am - Report Abuse

"Scalia and the others cited as possible "irreparable harm" to Bush if a full recount were allowed, in that the true and correct election results might show Bush did not win and this would undermine his ability to govern; how is that for logic? Truly priceless."

Priceless, indeed...Another myth debunked: "Of the people, for the people and by the people."