Comments on: Hello from Dean for America Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Me Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:51:39 +0000 Phoenix Woman: Gore did not “Win”. It was a statistical tie.

Anyone with any knowledge of basic math and political science can see that, when Gore’s supposed victory margin is an order of magnitude less than the margin of error, it is not a “victory” of any sort. I provided citations up above. You can look up the numbers of votes yourself.

And J-Sin: You may bite my red-hot, glowing ass.

By: Peter Tue, 22 Jul 2003 12:05:39 +0000 Jason writes:
“I do think, however, that many who have posted have unrealistic expectations of the political process.”

I agree. While Gov. Dean’s staff should have prepped him more regarding the issues that dominate this blog, too many of the bloggers here ignore the issues which exist beyond this blog.

By: Phoenix Woman Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:35:08 +0000 Oh, and “me” —

Please provide cites showing that Al Gore, as you claim, lost the overall popular vote in the US. Most legitimate sources I’ve seen say he won it by over 500,000 votes.

By: Phoenix Woman Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:33:17 +0000 What I find interesting is that the tenth post in this thread is by someone who chides Dean for not being courageous, yet was himself too cowardly to make a post with any sort of name. (Too bad for him that the sysops can see his IP address anyway.)

By: J-Sin Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:57:32 +0000 Me: Say “hi” to Karl Rove for us.

By: Me Sat, 19 Jul 2003 01:59:17 +0000 Filchyboy, the Constitution is there as a reference. When people can’t agree on the law, however, it goes to the courts.

Better than having a fistfight over it.

By: filchyboy Fri, 18 Jul 2003 23:14:25 +0000 Nope me. We have a Constitution to “adjudicate matters like these.” It very specifically lays out the method for dealing with matters like these.

SCOTUS is not mentioned. The House is.

By: Me Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:34:52 +0000 Carlton,

They’re not lies. Gore didn’t win the popular vote overall. Even if it were entirely optical, with an error margin of 1-2%, he wouldn’t have better than a statistical tie.

And where the hell did I ever mention New Mexico?

By: Carlton Nettleton Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:20:20 +0000 Thanks to everyone for having us Dean people over for the week. Like most guests, we have trashed the place and overstayed our welcome. I hope to come back sometime in the future, but this time mostly as a lurker. I know next to nothing on IP issues so I hope to learn a bit more before participating in the future. While that would normally not stop me from commenting, this blog expects its contributing members to have a good grasp of the material.

By: Carlton Nettleton Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:24:11 +0000 The margin of error quoted assumes that EVERYONE in the country used punch card ballots using the same model of punch card machines. Quoting this obscure fact is also a misunderstand what margin of error means. I am not surprised since I have observed many instances of nonscientific people abusing scientific language to support casual observations and using those casual relationships as fact or proof to something generally not support by facts.

Margin of errors are applied to OBSERVATIONS to provide qualifiers when it is impossible to make a continuous recording of observations. Margin of error is generally used to incorporate instrument error, human error, bad record keeping and the obervation that natural processes are chaotic and/or do not behave identically under the same measurement conditions. High margins of error often indicate poor recording techniques, bad equipment and/or improper application of theory to data. Scientific studies with high margins of error are usually sent back to the researcher since they show poor methodology and sloppy research.

The only standards that have any meaning are the standards the judge overseeing the recount had ordered – a statewide recount of ALL legal votes in every county in the state. The only standard in which Bush wins Florida is when you ignore the overvote on the optical scanner ballots – an overvote on an optical scanner ballot is when the bubble is marked for one candidate AND that voter has added candidate’s name on the write-in line.

If you don’t believe me, then try the experiment yourself:

Or better yet, here is the link to the raw data from the NORC study:

What evidence do you have that the votes in New Mexico are invalid? There are no facts to support your claim, just as there are no facts to support your claim that Gore lost the popular vote in Florida. Just because you don’t like the truth, or the outcome, doesn’t mean you can ignore it or supress the facts. It is about time that people of good conscience starting standing up and calling things what they are – lies.

By: Richard Bennett Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:22:59 +0000 Tony Blair gave a speech to Congress yesterday, in which he said: Can we be sure that terrorism and WMD will join together? If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that, at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive. But if our critics are wrong and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in face of this menace, when we should have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive.

I think it would be interesting to compare Blair’s moral seriousness, his gravitas, and his vision to Dean’s yapping dog, petty, and silly criticism of the campaign that deposed Saddam Hussein, but it wouldn’t be fair to make such comparisons because they inevitably show Dean to be a lightweight.

So I won’t do that.

By: Clay Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:01:29 +0000 Dr. Dean has a problem in that he is seen as weak on defense. One way to counter this is by presenting the health care system as a second front to the war on terrorism. After all how can we handle a wide scale biological attack if people can’t get their kids in to see a Dr. as it is?

There is no way anyone can beat Bush by being Bush Lite. If Dr. Dean pushes medical care for all children it can help bring the non-voters back into the fold. At the very least it would force Bush to back the issue himself.

By: Me Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:30:53 +0000 “a. Gore got more votes than Bush in the nation overall”

The error margin of paper (punch card) ballots is KNOWN to be as high as 4-5%.

Now, Gore “won” (according to your thinking, which is false to start with: it’s electoral votes, not the popular vote total, that matters) by only 0.5% of the vote.

We can NEVER say with any accuracy that Gore won the popular vote. As far as the 2000 election goes, it was a statistical tie, and that’s the best we can do. Considering that Gore won Mexico by 1.3 Million, a full million of which were suspect, anyone who tells you Gore won the popular vote is lying through his/her teeth.

“b. by any consistent standard of ballot counting, from the most strict to the most lenient, Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida (this was shown by the newspapers� recount).”

Back this up with a source. I heard news reports that were exactly the opposite: that by Democrats’ standards, Gore would have lost, while by Republicans’ standards, Bush would have lost.

“c. With Florida�s electoral votes, Gore would have won the Electoral College.”

With Florida’s electoral votes, Bush DID win the electoral college.

“d. Five Supreme Court �Justices� declared that �irreparable harm� would be caused if the votes in Florida were recounted. (What irreparable harm? According to Scalia, �a cloud� would be cast over Bush�s legitimacy. How is this �irreparable harm�? And doesn�t stopping the vote count create a bigger cloud, especially since it turned out that Bush got fewer votes than Gore?) This was a self-evidently wrong decision.”

Only if #2 and #1 are both correct; you didn’t source #2, and #1 is self-evidently false. This hasn’t stopped the liberal media from trying to cast a pall over Bush’s legitimacy anyways, though.

“e. The aforementioned �Justices� were appointed by Bush�s father, or by the man who was President when Bush�s father was vice-president. Two of them had known conflicts of interest, and failed to recuse themselves. This gives obvious, and damning, evidence for their motives in making the clearly wrong decision.”

Not sure which conflicts of interest you speak of, but there’s a reason we have the Supreme Court. It’s to adjudicate matters like these. Your dislike of the outcome is no reason to attack the legitimacy of the supreme court of the land.

“f. Bush is President.”

Or at least some guy wearing his underwear is. ;)

By: KEVIN DELANY Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:17:27 +0000 Gov. Dean: What follows is a Letter to the Editor I have sent to the Burlington Free Press. They may use it or they may find it too long for their format. Whatever, as a strong supporter, I wanted you to see my take on your future challenge. You have wowed many of the informed thus far, but you have a tougher job ahead in winning over the bulk of the populace — the uninformed. I hope it is helpful. KD


Former Governor Dean has reached the top tier of Democratic candidates. His passion on the issues and grass roots appeal has excited many of the Democratic faithful, including myself.

My experience from a career in news and as a media consultant/trainer tells me that Dr. Dean’s real challenge lies ahead.

Dean’s support thus far appears to have come from those who are angry at George Bush and his radically conservative policies, as well as what is seen as a passive Democratic leadership. Dean’s support in other words
is largely from the informed, those who take their politics seriously

Most voters, however, do not keep up with the issues to any great degree. When they pull that lever in the voting booth, it is usually based on two questions: do I like this candidate and, second, is he (or she) a strong leader, i.e., is he presidential in bearing?

The elements are hardly insurmountable, but Howard Dean has a ways to go on both counts. A few suggestions as starters: Dr. Dean has a great smile; he should use it more often. He also needs to give us some relief from his machine gun style delivery. It would be wonderful to see him in some low-key, reflective situations, such as on a porch swing in discussion with a few potential voters.

Self-effacing humor is always attractive in a candidate. It is also important generally to take the high road whether discussing the president or other Democratic candidates. Occasional criticism is understandable, but it is unbecoming if it is overdone.

Howard Dean tends to be very combative with media – and they are happy to oblige. If you knock heads with a reporter, in most cases, you will lose. Instead of fighting them, it is far better to work with them to reach their very large audiences.

It is worth noting that Senator John McCain also was seen as a straight talker and because he took the time to nurture the reporters on his bus, he got adoring coverage. Even George Bush has done a pretty good job of schmoozing the campaign and White House media.

I am not suggesting a major Howard Dean makeover. His success to date speaks for itself. I would suggest there are other attractive facets to Dr. Dean that we have not yet seen. Most Americans – the largely less informed – still do not know his name, much less his persona. The impressions they get will be made in the next year or more to come.

Kevin Delany
Washington, D.C.

By: Dave Buster Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:11:59 +0000 I would like to hear more from Democrats during the upcoming election on some of the more “real” issues and distortions presented by the Bush administration: i.e. horrible Homeland Security, gutting the environment, the coming fiasco with North Korea, ties to the Saudi government, Taliban in Afghanistan, the economy (obviously), etc.

All I hear from the left these days is “yellowcake”. We have so many more pressing issues that carry far more weight than the line in the SOTU, but that’s all I seem to hear these days.

On another note, I like the fact that Governor Dean is here, but being that tomorrow is his last day, can we get some more stances on the issues than the few he has blogged about already?

By: Juan Eliseo Caceres Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:52:49 +0000 Me gustaria saber si el Gobernador Dean tiene alguna pol�tica referente al acceso al Internet de las minor�as en USA. Sabe el Gobernador cuantos latinos en los Estados Unidos accedemos al Internet, c�mo har�a para poder romper la brecha tecnol�gica entre los ciudadanos de este pa�s.

By: anon Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:43:21 +0000 Um. Remember that
a. Gore got more votes than Bush in the nation overall
b. by any consistent standard of ballot counting, from the most strict to the most lenient, Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida (this was shown by the newspapers’ recount).
c. With Florida’s electoral votes, Gore would have won the Electoral College.
d. Five Supreme Court “Justices” declared that “irreparable harm” would be caused if the votes in Florida were recounted. (What irreparable harm? According to Scalia, “a cloud” would be cast over Bush’s legitimacy. How is this “irreparable harm”? And doesn’t stopping the vote count create a bigger cloud, especially since it turned out that Bush got fewer votes than Gore?) This was a self-evidently wrong decision.
e. The aforementioned “Justices” were appointed by Bush’s father, or by the man who was President when Bush’s father was vice-president. Two of them had known conflicts of interest, and failed to recuse themselves. This gives obvious, and damning, evidence for their motives in making the clearly wrong decision.
f. Bush is President.

This is not how elections work in a successful democracy. However, the country recovered from the fraudulent “election” of Rutherford B. Hayes, and hopefully it will recover from this one as well. We shall see whether Bush attempts to steal the next election as he did the 2000 election. If he does, then the system will evidently be in need of saving. If he doesn’t, we may be OK.

By: Me Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:03:55 +0000 Uhm, no, Bill.

If we had no elections, we would have a problem. If we had no opposition candidates, we would have a problem.

Our system of government provides for an orderly transition of power every time there is an election (well, 2000 was a bit wonky, but it got sorted out in the end, and except for a bunch of knee-jerks who just really, really hate Bush and can’t find any other reason, the majority of the nation has gotten over it).

Now, if we had someone refusing to leave office, that would be one thing. If we had a lack of candidates, that’s another.

But we don’t. Gov. Dean is one of a bunch of Democrats seeking the nomination to run for President. He is welcome to try. Nobody is saying he doesn’t have the right to run, nobody is trying to stop him from running. Yes, people are interested in keeping him from WINNING, but that’s because they support other candidates.

See the difference? You talk about a man who’s in mortal peril, who would need saving whether the lifeguard was on the way to do so or not. I’m talking about a man who hasn’t even gotten in the water yet; very little chance of his drowning to say the least.

All we really need to do is maintain things. That’s not saying there aren’t things that are important, because there are: we do need campaign finance reforms to make the monetary aspect less important, and we do need to make sure that touchpad voting systems have publicly analyzable code so that we know, by the transparency of process, that the elections are not tampered with.

But the system itself is still solid and is in no need of saving. Stop trying to pretend that somehow Gov. Dean is the only one who can “save” it, and concentrate on presenting him as the best candidate for the job, if you believe he is.

I personally haven’t made up my mind yet.

By: Jim Hassinger Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:59:50 +0000 My favorite for vp would be Wesley Clark. That would hold the naysayers who maintain, without evidence, that Dr. Dean is a “peacenik” and another McGovern.

By: Bill Rehm Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:40:09 +0000 And a man who’s drowning doesn’t need to be saved by the lifeguard swimming towards him. The fact that the lifeguard is in the water proves that.

By: Me Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:41:56 +0000 Uhm… one thing I take issue with.

Our Democracy (and it isn’t really, it’s a Representative Republic, but why split hairs?) doesn’t need saving.

The fact that you’re a candidate for President proves that.

By: J-Sin Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:30:18 +0000 Another question for Dean:

Would you make your White House this difficult to email? Or would you find a better way?

I called the White House comment line before the war in Iraq started to state my objection. I said to the operator that I was opposed to the war in Iraq and that we should have the UN’s support in any engagement with Iraq. Then I asked for the operator to read back what she had put in her computer as my response. She said that I disagreed with the UN and supported Bush. I obviously had to correct her but it’s these type of inconsistencies and false tallying that scares me. Is this why our President appears to be so popular because pollsters either record the wrong response or ask dubious questions geared towards a particular response. Sure polls have been like that for quite some time but enough is enough. It also scares me that the networks have agreed to not conduct exit polling during elections–whether they totally abandon that old system for this new one is still left to be decided, but with control of elections being put in corporations hands our sense of democracy is changing…I digress.

By: Timothy Phillips Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:11:13 +0000 At 10:03 AM today a contributor wrote: “the ability of people to re-use copyrighted materials is near and dear to many reading this blog. One way to permit this is to release materials to the public domain.”

The difficulty with this statement is that things in the public domain are not copyrighted. In my case, and I suspect their are others whose situations are similar, I don’t have much need to “re-use copyrighted materials”. Given a reasonable margin of fair use, first sale rights, access, and a reasonable breadth and consistency in the distinction between “sentiment” (sometimes carelessly called “idea”) and “language” (also called “expression”) , I am willing to wait until the copyright expires on the materials in question, and only then use them. But the wait should be for a moderate time; life+70/95 years is ridiculously long.

Note the condition, “given a reasonable margin of fair use, first sale rights, access, and a reasonable breadth and consistency in the distinction between ‘sentiment’ and ‘language’”. Lest I be misunderstood I will state that these limitations on copyright’s scope, necessary though they are, are no substitutes for reasonable limits on its duration. Even if the scope of copyright were as it was in 1790, with no performance right, no derivation right, and no need for a concept of “fair use” since most uses other than republishing the copyrighted book itself were “fair”–even if we had copyright as narrow in scope as this, life+70/95 years would still be too long.

Note also that I think the copyright terms created by the CTEA are too long even as they operate prospectively. The retrospective effect of the CTEA was a still greater insult than its prospective effect. It was like being just a year or two from paying off the mortgage on a house, only to have the bank send some nasty brutes to say, “That house you bought for a hundred thousand dollars: we’ve decided you should have payed two hundred thousand dollars. You owe us twenty more years of house payments. “

By: MB Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:42:02 +0000 Great post! I’m as excited about this inovative campaign as I am about Dean.

By: J-Sin Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:38:16 +0000 Question: Would you fight to repeal the USA Patriot Act, restoring all of our citizens lost civil liberties and form a non-partisan Office of Civil Liberties that could monitor all government to prevent further abuses?