Redstate

For bringing this from RedHot to front and center. This is almost a bottomless pit for topical discussion.

If Ken Mehlman had done something similar, would it have gone unnoticed by the press?

Dean must be doing some good drugs these days.

Ya gotta love the way he is just inventing this stuff.

And, uh, no.  Mehlman would never be able to get away with saying something so profoundly stupid and untruthful.

Come on, now.  This is the way Liberals talk.  This is the way Howard Dean in particular talks.  We have seen this often.  This is why Liberals can't win elections, so don't upset any apple carts - like driving Dean out of office, when he might be replaced by someone marginally more competent.

Howard Dean, the gift that keeps on giving. Long may he reign as DNC chair because the longer he does the longer it will be before the Democratic Party has a chance at anything above dog catcher.

and we shouldn't delude ourselves, based on his semi-deranged pandering the moonbat wing of the Democrat party, into thinking otherwise.

There is only one reason why Dean would front a lie of Biblical proportions: there is polling and/or focus group data that shows that a lot of Americans believe that conservative justices voted for Kelo.

Moron + crack + ignorance = Howard Dean

But I fear you may be correct that Dean only threw this whopper out there because he had data showing that people might actually believe it.  

The story posted on TownHall is from CNN.  Dean was just flat wrong, and CNN called him on it.

If Mehlman had said for example "these stories just show that Rove is not guilty of leaking the identity of a a covert C.I.A. operative" when the stories were about reporters saying they learned the identity of the C.I.A. operative from Rove, I would also expect the media to be all over it.

The Party chair on both sides are notably uncredible news sources, they simply say stuff that reporters print.

Most people are entertained by Dean, but only the people who believe that Elvis is still alive actually listen to him. Most everybody else is tired of his political road-rage.

It's from CNS. CNN isn't quite on their level yet.

If this is confirmed, then I'm embarassed for Dean.

of the folks who hoisted Dean into power to me:

but only the people who believe that Elvis is still alive actually listen to him

Talk about your paucity of coverage.

Chicago Sun-Times (AP story): Dean: 'We need to welcome pro-life Democrats'

Washington Times: Dean: Democrats need 'big tent'

And the Kaiser Network has a nice round-up of the "reaching out to pro-life voters" angle.

Abortion trumps all other news angles, it seems. And to be fair about it, Dean's comments about appealing to anti-abortion voters were newsworthy.

But the Kelo decision remains big news, alarming disparate constituencies. Conservatives and libertarians seem the most exercised, but unhappiness appeared across the political spectrum.

So the reporter(s) missed an interesting storyline, first a straight-reporting one -- Dean mischaracterizes Court decision on eminent domain -- and then a more analytical, speculative one - Dean attempts to recast court decision that angered property-rights advocates.

will once again go crazy.  But I'm not sure why this is so shocking really.  

He's playing to the crowd.

What does Dean lose by making this statement? He'll never have redstate.org support so ticking us off doesn't bother him. He's hoping to put the idea in the back of undecided voters heads that Republicans with their big business connections want to take steal their homes.

Now the republicans to some degree have to go and correct this and that puts them off the Roberts story.

It's not about being right or wrong to either party head it's about winning. You'll know if this worked for Dean if they're talking about this on the Sunday shows.

By flat out lying.

Just stating the small salient detail you left out.

By flat out inventing facts?

This isn't just saying something politically outrageous to get a rise, flyerhawk, this is intentional deceit about the party and ideology responsible for an extremely unpopular SCOTUS ruling.

That's not "playing to the crowd", that's "lying to the crowd."

Firstly he always talks first and thinks later, that's his style. Sometimes it gets him in hot water.

But it is all part of the "there is no bad publicity" rule.

His job is to get the Democratic party noticed by those not paying attention. Then he can ask for money.

If this requires a bit of hyperbole he thinks it's worth it. Time will tell...

"Now the republicans to some degree have to go and correct this and that puts them off the Roberts story."

I think that if Republicans push back on this pointing out that the type of judges Bush has said he would nominate, and that he has in Justice Roberts, are the type who were in the minority on Kelo. It fits into the whole Roberts confirmation narrative quite well, actually.

If you're curious--in the universe where the Supreme Court voted 5-4 (along party lines) in Bush v. Gore. Having a majority of the Supreme Court behind you--even a 5-4 majority--is all it takes.

But yes, as you mention, blaming Kelo on Bush 'and his right-wing Supreme Court' is silly. However, I think it highlights the fact that many of us (including myself, no doubt many of you, and apparently Howard Dean as well) aren't happy with that decision. It makes you wonder what Souter was thinking.

"But it is all part of the "there is no bad publicity" rule."

YYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
HHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

All that publicity didn't work to Dean's advantage last year.....

On the Constitutional issues of Bush v. Gore, the Court came down 7-2. It was only on the question if there was sufficient time for the SCOFLA to try again did things come down 5-4.

If you're curious--in the universe where the Supreme Court voted 5-4 (along party lines) in Bush v. Gore. Having a majority of the Supreme Court behind you--even a 5-4 majority--is all it takes.

That makes it Bush's court, does it? Despite the still indisputable fact that he put zero of those judges there, and the indisputable fact that judges aren't affiliated with political parties, and that even in the strained interpretation of your words, the Bush v. Gore decision was not along the party lines of their nominees?

But anyway, care to imply a little more clearly that Bush stole the 2000 election?

Known Fact™ warning.

However, I think it highlights the fact that many of us (including myself, no doubt many of you, and apparently Howard Dean as well) aren't happy with that decision.

Which is exactly why it's insidious that Dean blames it on the right-wing, when it's explicitly the fault of the left-wing judges. It makes me wonder what ALL the libs were thinking.

I don't presume to assume that Souter thinks whatsoever.

the responses I'm seeing focus on his malicious misrepresentation of the Supreme Court's composition and/or the vote distribution in Kelo.  I think it is very important to pay attention to the other aspect of his comment - President Bush's perspective on eminent domain abuse.  As I have said in multiple previous posts, it took a concerted effort on behalf of conservative and libertarian organizations to persuade the White House not to submit a brief against the homeowners in Kelo.  The President ultimately did the right thing by staying out of the mix, but his history with eminent domain abuse makes him a vulnerable target on this issue.  Republicans have got to come up with a way to address this before Dean (or some other Democrat) can manage to raise the point without looking like a total imbecile.

Because Dean if I was Dean I'd then start a chorus to ask Roberts how he'd rule on Kelo and Roberts won't answer the question because it would open the door to every other judicial question.

I figure out will come the republican and democrat talking heads and this will be a one day story on news junkie shows. If the republicans are good they can make Dean the topic and how unstable and nutty the guy is. That should limit this.

but this was a 5 to 4 decision by a court with 7 Republican appointed justices.  So he is misleading but not entirely "lying."  Playing politics -- no doubt about it but he'll have an out if someone wants to get technical.

I know, I know -- conservatives don't claim Souter, Kennedy or even O'Connor.  But to most folks it could be pointed out that they were appointed by Republicans and they'll just go "Oh" and go on about their business.

Wacko Dean Pops Off Again

He said, "Bush and his right-wing Supreme Court".

The vote count by Bush nominees (right wing or otherwise) was 0-0.

and I am on the record.

Threw a dkos diary out there as well, which will likely slide beneath the waves, little-missed and little-noticed. Unless the RS contingent goes there and hits Recommend ;)

we're still talking about him...

a mischaracterization!  :-)

Of course, only on political blogs is anyone parsing that specifically.  Outside of the Internets, this one isn't probably going to boomerang even, if, the media makes this distinction.

Let's be honest, the media, in general, gives politicians a free ride on most nonsense they spout.

...because, once upon a time, he was the leading Democrat contender for the job of having a finger on The Doomsday Button...and he's a complete moonbat.

And exactly why his statement was so despicable.

And also, that's why we're ringing the alarm bell.

not in a good way, in politics you have to WIN elections in order to implement anything. If you're a celebrity trying to sell your movie, you can go crazy, jump on couches and have fake relationships with your co-stars, etc, we might watch the movie, buy the CD, but I doubt we want them running the country

I don't like it when the Kos contingent comes over here and does that to us. For that reason, I've refrained from even creating a dKos account.

In any event, thanks for the intellectual honesty.

to anyone else who might have been so inclined, please dont go to dkos and recommend my diary...

May he remain.

I'd think we would want to limit them to running the state of California at most!

This is Clinton's legacy. What Clinton showed the Democrats is that you can look the American people right in the eye and lie to them. The more outrageous the lie, the better.

Democrats have always traded on ignorance to fudge things around the edges, but this takes the practice to a whole new level. Clinton proved that you can tell people something that is 180 degrees from the truth, and enough people out there won't know the difference, and will believe it, that you will get away with it.

You watch... within a month, we will have Kossacks over here "correcting" people who make comments about Kelo, pointing out that it was "Bush's court" that decided it, and it was the "right-wing judges" who made the decision. They will believe they are telling us a fact. They will be astounded that we tell them they are wrong. They will not believe us when we do. It will be a Known Fact™ that the right-wing judges on Bush's court tried to take people's houses away.

I just ran Dean's quote through Google. There is no covereage whatsoever in the media. There will be. It won't be in the form of news, though. We will see it in the form of an explanatory, throw-away line in articles about other things. The author will say, "Just as the right-wing judges on Bush's court voted to seize people's houses to aid developers...."

People here will tear their hair out when they see that. But it will not stop. Dean's version of events will eventually be the only version most people have ever heard. And at that point, it will be The Truth. Because no one will know otherwise.

Welcome to 1984, where the Ministry of Truth is an arm of the Democratic Party.

If Dems hadn't blocked Bork, Kelo wouldn't be law (nor would Roe by the by).

Let's just say, Rs are pushing for judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas who voted correctly on Kelo.  Dems are not.

the celebrities usually don't go insane WHILE they are trying to get into politics

but it was before I saw your post here; I've been trying to find any reaction to this elsewhere and naturally checked dKos. Sorry about that.

What does that mean?

First, judges are not members of a party in general or at least not in public.

Second, if you are using the proxy of the party of the President who appointed them.  Then Rs voted 5-2 and Ds voted 2-0.  So in other words, Rs split on the merits and Ds voted on "party line."

Hey, you asked. If you want to know why Dean is making that specific claim, I think Bush v. Gore is as good a reason as any. I saw a couple of other ones cited in the comments over at Balloon Juice too. Oh, and as for "judges aren't affiliated with political parties"--please; of course they are. Supreme Court justices, like most other adults in America, can and do vote for and belong to political parties. They aren't supposed to let it affect their judgement in a professional capacity, however, and they are supposed to step aside in the case of a conflict of interest--although this is entirely voluntary.

As for "Bush stole the 2000 election"--the margin of error involved there was absurd. It could have gone either way. In fact, from what I've heard, although Gore would have won in a full recount, he wouldn't have won in the 'partial recount' that he supported--go figure. I do object to the Supreme Court's interference however, on its merits (or lack thereof).

Finally, I agree--"what were they thinking?"--this is one of those populist/libertarian issues that doesn't necessarily break down as a left-wing/right-wing or democratic/republican issue. But in this case the three most "right-wing" members of the Supreme Court were indeed against it. Whether or not you agree that the Supreme Court generally backs the current administration's views (which may have been in favor of this ruling, who knows?).

... if the comment is on the find line between stupid and clever.  Maybe it's the opening salvo to the Democrats hammering Bush for almost being on the wrong side.

The Democratic talking point would read:  

Quickly and dismissively acknowledge Dean's error (see "Of course we think the world is better off without Saddam" for a case study), then quickly mention that Bush submitted a friend of the court brief on behalf of the developers (No, it's not quite true, but the president never said he'd fire Rove, either, and that one stuck...)

What a country...

"I'm perfectly willing to go for a false statement that illustrates a truth."

- Kossite

Aziz, thanks for slapping this person down.  I hope I have the will to do the same lest one becomes welcome in the RS community.

Amazing that he even was considered a front-runner...

Inconceivable!

Of course, I can't find the Townhall piece via google either (even with site-specific search). The most obvious explanation being, google's spiders are constrained by relativity and can only crawl so fast.

However, if this is confirmed (beyond CNS), then I am absolutely with you guys on this one. It's blatantly wrong.

That's how people often look at it; another way to look at it is by philosophy. There's a high correlation between self-identified liberals and conservatives or people who hold such views and membership in the two major political parties in America. Although perhaps I should have said "along ideological lines"; in this case I think it's a distinction without a difference.

Also, as has been previously mentioned here, there were two decisions involved--the first was a 7-2 decision with Ginsburg and Stevens opposed.

and I certainly don't want to spout any Known Facts but what Pelaguis said rings a bell.  As someone who strongly supports private property rights I distinctly recall being concerned about things I've heard about Bush and his administration's positions on private property rights, both in certain eminent domain cases and and something about keeping affected property owners from learning the exact location of a proposed pipeline so that they couldn't oppose it.  I'm thinking I've heard snippets on Neal Boortz's show about this so I'll start to Google. ED, and private property rights, are issues on which Neal has been pretty outspoken and outraged for some time, and IMHO rightly so.

None of this has anything to do with Howard Dean's statement.  Bush didn't decide Kelo and didn't have anything to do with it.  OTOH, I am not going to assume that Bush disagrees with it.  With all due respect, just because private property rights are a cornerstone of conservative values (at least for me) I am no longer willing to assume that they are important to any politician, including self-professed conservatives.  I would hope so, but after having seen politicians of all stripes, including alleged conservatives, take part in profligate borrowing, spending, the Medicare drug bill and corporate welfare, I no longer assume any politician is going to adhere to his professed values.  

I would like to know where Bush stands on Kelo.  Is there such a thing a federal Eminent Domain?  If so shouldn't why isn't there already a bill on the floor proposing a federal statute limiting Kelo, as many states are doing at the state level?

I doubt Google News indexes CNS. IIRC, it's part of the Brent Bozell show.

Check the link under the second update of this post.

You get two guesses as to which party supported private property rights (by an overwhelming margin).

Is this the new, official name of the MSM?

..."would have won in a full recount"...

ONLY if that full recount were conducted using the most lax, most Karnac-The-Magnificent-like divine-the-invisible vote from the hanging/dimpled/swinging/two-cornered/three-cornered chad standard.

Which standard had never ever EVER been used before in ANY lawfully ordered election recount in the HISTORY of punchcard-based voting in ANY precinct in this country.

But sure, IF you want to tilt the playing field that far, then yeah, Gore would have "won".

Don't forget that the MSM-Democrat, e.g. NYTimes and WaPo, generally cheered the Kelo ruling.

Apparently google news does, in fact, index townhall.com anyway. I found the story there, after missing it on ordinary google. My mistake, and apologies.

HR 3083 IH

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3083

To protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights, by limiting the power of eminent domain.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 28, 2005

Mr. REHBERG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

--------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL

To protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights, by limiting the power of eminent domain.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizures and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our Nation's Founders.

(2) As Thomas Jefferson wrote on April 6, 1816, the protection of such rights is `the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it'.

(3) The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically provides that `private property' shall not `be taken for public use without just compensation'.

(4) The Fifth Amendment thus provides an essential guarantee of liberty against the abuse of the power of eminent domain, by permitting government to seize private property only `for public use'.

(5) On June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108.

(6) As the Court acknowledged, `it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B', and that under the Fifth Amendment, the power of eminent domain may be used only `for public use'.

(7) The Court nevertheless held, by a 5-4 vote, that government may seize the home, small business, or other private property of one owner, and transfer that same property to another private owner, simply by concluding that such a transfer would benefit the community through increased economic development.

(8) The Court's decision in Kelo is alarming because, as Justice O'Connor accurately noted in her dissenting opinion, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Court has `effectively . . . delete[d] the words `for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment' and thereby `refus[ed] to enforce properly the Federal Constitution'.

(9) Under the Court's decision in Kelo, Justice O'Connor warns, `[t]he specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory'.

(10) Justice O'Connor further warns that, under the Court's decision in Kelo, `[a]ny property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party', and `the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result'.

(11) As an amicus brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, AARP, and other organizations noted, `[a]bsent a true public use requirement the takings power will be employed more frequently. The takings that result will disproportionately affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly'.

(12) It is appropriate for Congress to take action, consistent with its limited powers under the Constitution, to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain.

(13) It would also be appropriate for States to take action to voluntarily limit their own power of eminent domain. As the Court in Kelo noted, `nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power'.

SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF HOMES, SMALL BUSINESSES, AND OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

(a) In General- The power of eminent domain shall be available only for public use.

(b) Public Use- In this Act, the term `public use' shall not be construed to include economic development.

(c) Application- This Act shall apply to--

(1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government; and

(2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and local government through the use of Federal funds.

The 'hanging chad' stuff was inane, definitely; I'm glad they worked to get rid of those machines, at least. The 'butterfly ballot' was just as stupid. So is not having a paper trail, so as to make verifiable recounts actually impossible. It's amazing that there are so many ways a bureaucracy can mess up the execution of something that is so simple in concept.

your stock has just gone up trmedously with me.  You, my friend, give me hope. :)

He's too deep cover on both sides.

Shame on you Flyerhawk, you know better.

I don't want to debate such a time-worn issue but this kind of disinformation can't be allowed to slide:

..."would have won in a full recount"...

ONLY if that full recount were conducted using the most lax, most Karnac-The-Magnificent-like divine-the-invisible vote from the hanging/dimpled/swinging/two-cornered/three-cornered chad standard.

Which standard had never ever EVER been used before in ANY lawfully ordered election recount in the HISTORY of punchcard-based voting in ANY precinct in this country.

The facts are that the consortium recounts showed several things. Among them:

  - Gore "won" under EVERY standard if the

      standard was applied the same way across

      the state and if all votes were counted.

      Although the margins were all narrow.

      Uniform standard, count all the votes -

      President Gore.

  - If you threw out overvotes, then there were

      uniform standards under which Bush "won" and

      uniform standards under which Gore "won".

  - Bush may have won if the recount were not

      statewide and if certain counties already

      partially recounted had only those counts

      included and if you assumed overvotes

      would not be counted.  This

      was the one all the headlines went with.

In the end it doesn't matter. Two facts remain:  1) that more Floridians left the voting booth thinking they'd voted for Gore than for Bush (by a margin of at least several thousand) and  2)  it's pretty clear in retrospect that the counts didn't matter. If the SCotUS hadn't nullified the election, the Florida legislature was going to.

End of story.

It's good to see there are those on the other side of the moat who believe in civil disagreement.

Having said that, some of your fellow Kossacks scare me.

I'm 100% behind it. Why? Because it resonates, and I'm perfectly willing to go for a false statement that illustrates a truth.

  The GOP is the party of Big Business. Big Business (business in general) is who benefitted from the Kelo case.

  So, frankly, I say it's a great line of attack. Screw accuracy -- remind people that now big business can take their homes away to make a shopping mall, and that's A-okay by the GOP.

Wow.

That said, I think Dean should apologize... after the Republicans apologize for all of their lies.  Starting with the lies that are killing people.

Wow, wow, wow.

So, as usual, Howard Dean is Right.

And even if I agreed that your nit-picks made Dean's statement a mis-statement, Dean captured the spirit of the argument correctly.

Dean is one of the few people in this country trying to restore America's freedom and democracy.  Why don't you save your venom for the Bad Guys?

I have to go wash out my eyes now....

-TS

Chaboard:

Two facts remain:  1) that more Floridians left the voting booth thinking they'd voted for Gore than for Bush (by a margin of at least several thousand) and

One is entitled to one's own interpretation of the facts, not one's own facts. Let's not claim something as a "fact" on the basis of the "evidence" you cited above.

2)  it's pretty clear in retrospect that the counts didn't matter. If the SCotUS hadn't nullified the election,

The SCOTUS didn't "nullify" the election. They held the SCOFLa to Florida election law, which was constitutional.

Now, I think that you contribute a lot to the discussion on this site, and I've stuck up for you several times, but it's really time to let go of "The SCOTUS stole the election for Bush." Really, really. Ok?

The persistant, pervasise lying of the MSM is a far greater threat to the future of this country than any terrorist group with any WMD.

When Dan Rather kills a couple thousand people, I'll believe that.

All the Republicans need to do is make opening statements at the Roberts confirmation hearings stating "Even Chairman Dean agrees that justices such as Ginsberg, Souter, etal are out of control..."

In the Kelo Decision, the majority of justices who ruled that public use includes pork for corporations with political pull were Republican appointments.

Stevens (Republican - Ford)

Kennedy (Republican - Reagan)

Souter  (Republican - Bush I)

Breyer  (Clinton)

Ginsburg (Clinton)

Maybe we should remember this and demand that we don't get any more like these.  Otherwise, what good is a Republican anyway?

Frankly, I'd feel a lot better about Roberts if he had a paper trail.  I'm willing to give the Senate Judiciary Dems something to carp about if I can be sure.

Two facts remain:  1) that more Floridians left the voting booth thinking they'd voted for Gore than for Bush (by a margin of at least several thousand) and

One is entitled to one's own interpretation of the facts, not one's own facts. Let's not claim something as a "fact" on the basis of the "evidence" you cited above.

I wasn't intending to make the case - merely to state the conclusion to counter the revisionist history I was responding to.  I'd be more than happy to post supporting evidence for my claim that both complete unofficial recounts (the Miami Herald one and the consortium one) showed Gore winning by every standard used so long as all ballots were included and the same standard was used statewide, should anyone want to see it.

Being a guest I'm not inclined to push it on you guys unless if no one really wants to see it. Your call.

But note that that's not necessary for my claim as written to be true. Even if we accept the Bush official margin of +537 there were way more than enough "Unintentional Jews For Buchanan' in Palm Beach to make my statement pretty ironclad.

2)  it's pretty clear in retrospect that the counts didn't matter. If the SCotUS hadn't nullified the election,

The SCOTUS didn't "nullify" the election. They held the SCOFLa to Florida election law, which was constitutional.

No, they prevented the SCofFLa from enforcing Florida election law by ruling it was unconstitutional and that there was not enough time to correct it. After they ran out the clock.

Now, I think that you contribute a lot to the discussion on this site, and I've stuck up for you several times,

And I appreciate it.  I'm amazed every day I post here that I've lived another day...  ;)

But I do try to tone it down and remember where I am. As anyone who's had political discussions with me in other forums can attest.

but it's really time to let go of "The SCOTUS stole the election for Bush." Really, really. Ok?

Hey, I didn't bring it up!  I may have overreached but I was just correcting a wildly inaccurate claim.

I don't think that was the Governor's point, but it's an interesting take on the present court.

"I wasn't intending to make the case - merely to state the conclusion to counter the revisionist history I was responding to.  I'd be more than happy to post supporting evidence for my claim that both complete unofficial recounts (the Miami Herald one and the consortium one) showed Gore winning by every standard used so long as all ballots were included and the same standard was used statewide, should anyone want to see it."

Bravo Sierra.

No, they prevented the SCofFLa from enforcing Florida election law

Tell that to the other branches of Florida's government. Suffice it to say, they were amazed that "rewriting election law wholesale" had become "enforcing election law."

Properly, they stopped the Florida Supreme Court from picking Gore, then having the Florida Legislature pick electors for Bush, then have a little war in the House.

This really is turning into a bottomless pit for discussion.

Leon - maybe you just need a daily story headed, "What Dean said today" and let us fire away.

One more observation - isn't it odd that Dean, Pelosi and Reid seem to need to get together a lot to coordinate their stories? Does it matter that the democrats don't seem to have a position on Kelo? If you think it matters, then what is their position on Kelo?

Won't their 2008 POTUS candidates start to worry about this next year some time?

Just wondering.

Ms. Pelosi. Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well.  [emphasis supplied]

What in the great blue blazes is she talking about?  Is she really conflating the separation of powers with some kind of Holy Trinity of Government, or is she just so busy talking she has no idea what she's saying... or both?

Source: http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_06_26_corner-archive.asp#067983

"What in the great blue blazes is she talking about?  Is she really conflating the separation of powers with some kind of Holy Trinity of Government, or is she just so busy talking she has no idea what she's saying... or both?"

This is your brain.

This is your brain on Botox.

Any questions?

We need "Bolton 3:16" along the lines of "Austin 3:16."

from someplace other than CNS...

Will a few million Cambodians and Vietnamese do? Will 55,000+ American casualties wasted in a war that the MSM would not allow to be won do? Would all the casualties in Iraq do if we cut and run like a President Kerry most certainly would have done, supported heartily by Rather and the MSM do? How about expanded partial birth abortions and euthanasia supported by a liberal court appointed by a President Kerry, elected in part by Rather lies? Get the drift?

Only 2 were appointed by Democratic Presidents.

So Gov Dean is factually correct.

Because that's not what he said.

If you will read carefully, you will note that Dean called it "Bush's right-wing court".  GWB did not appoint one of those justices.

Thanks for playing.

The only point Dean has is between his ears covered in tinfoil. What he said is an absolute lie and no amount of parsing changes that.

Dean's comment just points out how wrong this decision really was.  When a Democrat like Dean uses it to bash Republicans, it's a fair bet that deep down inside Democrats know it's wrong, too, even though most of them seem to be supporting it publicly.

Since when are Democrats so keen to transfer private property to even richer and more powerful folks?  They seem to have painted themselves into a corner on this one.

Of course, that doesn't seem to stop them from supporting all kinds of things they know (or should know) are wrong.  I'll leave the bill of particulars for another time.

Perhaps there is a way that some good can come from Howard Dean's lie.

If Dean thinks it is such a winner to be against the taking of private property to benefit some other private individual or corporation, perhaps the Democrats will get on board for passing laws in every single state to outlaw such takings.

Look, don't come here and try to defend statements that are indefensible.

"Bush and his right wing court think..."???

How exactly does Howard Dean presume that this is what Bush thinks?

I don't recall Bush making any statement that seems to indicate that.

Is Howard Dean a mind reader?  Is that something that comes with his special screeching power?

It was not the right wing of the court that took away Mrs. Kelo's home.  It was the LEFT WING OF THE COURT.  Bush and his right wing court, PLEASE.

Which right-wing judges supported that decision?

Are you trying to tell me that Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Kennedy, the five most liberal justices on the court are suddenly RIGHT WING?

That's assenine.  If you're going to come here and try to front like you're smart, at least make some sense.

I love it.  Dean can't find a Supreme Court decision made by conservatives that will get his mealy-mouthed minions riled up, so he finds a liberal Supreme Court decision, and makes it sound as though having a Democrat in the White House might have prevented that.

The only thing a Democrat in the White House would do is give us more Bader-Ginsburgs.

Dean is such a loser.  He even makes John Kerry look good by comparison.

a different Miami Herald than my library does.

From the right-wing republican shills at PBS:

the Herald pointed to one scenario under which Gore could have scored a narrow victory -- a fresh recount in all counties using the most generous standards. [emphasis added]

There were, by the way, TWO different media recounts -- the one by the Miami Herald and a few newspapers, and a later one by Univ Chicago's NORC and funded by those well-known Bush-lovers at  NYT/CNN/ChicTrib/etc.  That SECOND study presented, it is true, TWO different scenarios under which Gore may have "won":

(1) using the Karnac AKA Palm Beach County standard, applied statewide, Gore might have "won" by 42 votes.  This is a different number than that acheieved by the Herald recount -- but it's the same generous scenario as the Herald's only pro-Gore result.

(2) adding "overvotes" -- which was never seriously considered by any FL court during the 37 days of hell -- where moron!voters marked the ballot next to Gore's name and ALSO marked the ballot next to "WRITE IN" and wrote "Gore" on the line (Ditto all the Republican moron!voters who did the same thing for W).  Under this scenario, Gore might have "won" by as many as 200 votes.

That's TWO.  TWO different scenarios that end up for Gore.  You need to go read a REAL copy of the Herald, and not that fake version your buddies printed up for you to make you feel better.

On the final issue, I (almost) agree -- if the SCOFLAws had refrained from trying to rewrite election law AFTER the election, then Harris' cert would have been final.  End of story.  Since the SCOFLAws did do so, it was left to either a higher court (aka SCOTUS) to b****slap them back down, or for the coequal branch of Florida's state government, to whom the Florida Constitution specifically delegates the power to organize the state's elections (never mind the specific delegation of power by the US Constitution to the State Legislators for determining electoral college votes) to do so.

You can call that "nullifying an election" if you want; I call it upholding the rule of law, obeying the separation of powers doctrine, and honoring the US and State Constitutions.

But it sure would have been fun to see fisticuffs in the US House chamber if FL sent two slates of electors...

The Liberals truly think that if you repeat something enough times, the public will believe it even if it is a Lie. This is just one more in a string of many lies that the Liberals try to pass out. Don't forget that the Republican's want to kill your childeren by spoiling the enviroment in favor of the oil industry (how many times has that been said)

that the SCotUS ruled that the ScofFla was ignoring Florida election law then you should be able to point me to the relevant section of the ruling.

Bush argued that the SCofFla was in effect making "new law" - this was the "Article II" argument - but only 3 of the 9 justices signed onto that claim. If that was the issue then we either have President Gore or Bush handed the Presidencyy by the Florida legislature overruling their own law.

Look, the fact is that the SC ofFla ruled in favor of Bush more often than Gore...so this whole "trying to give the election away by writing new law" is just bunk.  They followed Florida law to the letter except where two Florida laws conflicted - where they did their (not the ScotUS's) job of weighing the conflicting laws.

I think < A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore"> Wikipedia </A. has it right:<br&gt

n a 7-2 per curiam opinion, the court ordered that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in Florida was to be stopped due to lacking a consistent standard. The court further declared, in a 5-4 vote, that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors.

That's exactly what I said. They ruled 7-2 that the counting violated the Equal Protection clause - and note that it was the Florida legislature that wrote the law without a consistent standard. The SCofFla didn't establish one precisely because they weren't overruling the law in place on election day. They ordered the recount with exactly the standard specified in Florida law - "the intent of the voter".

And they ruled 5-4 that there wasn't time to establish standards - after they had run out the clock with a ridiculous stay on the counting the previous Saturday (not to mention refusing to even consider the Equal Protection argument several weeks earlier).  Just like I said.

As for the Equal Protection ruling itself, not only was it very bad law (don't take my word for it, go read what ultraconservative legal expert Richard Posner had to say about it - and note that their own strange language about this interpretation of EP not applying in any other cases) - but it was really bad mathematics.  Because the undeniable mathematical effect of hand recounts (regardless of who won) is to lessen the enormous disparities in counting efficiency between the various balloting mechanisms.  By stopping  the counting on Equal Proection grounds they actually  guaranteed a result with less consistent standards and more unequal protection. Regardless of who "won".

I'll shut up about it now (unless anyone really cares to see the evidence on the statement that Gore won both unofficial recounts under every standard). But the facts are on my side in this one....  ;)

It would be nice if the guy I originally responded to would try to back up his wildly inaccurate claim, though.

Republicans actually gain by this because Republicans get to go out and point out that the Chairman of the DNC has his facts so thoroughly wrong that one can either assume he was (a) lying or (b) so woefully ignorant and over his head as to warrant a CAT scan. Incidentally, let us remember that every single time that Dean appears on one of the Sunday talk shows, he makes some ridiculous statement that any reasonably sensate pet canary can correct within the course of 5 seconds. And I exaggerate only slightly in saying that.

The connection between the two events is obvious. Pelosi was asked what it was, and couldn't remember anything about it, so she threw out some boilerplate calling on Republicans to obey the Supreme Court. Dean could remember that it was bad, so he blamed it on the right wing. Clearly, what we're witnessing is somebody in Special Projects testing a new amnesia ray on a relatively harmless subject, Kelo, to get the bugs worked out. When Dean can't remember the name of Joe Wilson's wife, we'll know it's entered production.

Does anyone know either the roll call vote number or bill number so that I can see who actually voted against this?

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California was among those who voted against the amendment, saying she opposed withholding federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."

Bookmark the above.  If Bush is succesful with the Court, we'll have plenty of opportunities to remind her of her view.

The Texas Rangers stadium is on land that was seized if I'm not mistaken.  This was done when Bush was the managing partner of the team.

say that "Bush and his right wing court think it's okay to take your house and put up a hotel"?

Why didn't Dean say anything about a ballpark?

Are you really going to try and tell me that this is what Dean meant?

If so, what do you base that on?

Or is that just the "monday-morning scramble" to try and make sense out of what appears to be the kind of outright deception that you liberal dems are always trying to accuse Bush and Cheney of?

Dean tried to ensnare the simple-minded into thinking that the Kelo decision was a conservative one. (Despite the fact that Armando and others on dKos had mostly positive things to say about it and the decision was lambasted here on redstate.)

Kelo was a liberal decision.  You can't hide from that.  You can't try and weasel your way out of it.  It was a liberal decision and Bush had nothing to do with it.

And show some facts if your going to accuse Bush of being an eminent domain abuser.  If he was the managing partner of the team, then the decision must have been made when Ann Richards, a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, was governor of Texas.  So once again, you are trying to lay the decisions of liberal democrats onto Republicans and make Bush and 4 great conservative justices, who actively opposed the Kelo decision, pay the price for these bad decisions.

Shame on you.

Did Dean really say that?

Got a link?

original post.  Sometimes it helps to read the whole thread, not just cherry pick comments.

I just want to see a better source for such an odd comment. Via Google News, the closet comment I could find (not from CNS) is:

"We have a republican appointed supreme court that decided they can take your house and put a Sheraton Hotel in there."

from http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=219207

which is very different. The CNS article doesn't say anything about when or where he said that so it is impossible to know for sure if they just misquoted him, but the similarity makes me think they did. Forgive me if I don't like "cherry picking" quotes.

http://www.collegedems.com/convention/

Discredit townhall all you want, but you'll only be fooling yourself.

The man is completely unhinged.  He will say anything to smear Republicans at this point in the hopes that if it gets repeated enough, it will become a Known Fact.

But that's a very selective reading of what happened, and some cruddy logic, to boot.

I'm now straining not to go any farther, but I am also succeeding. I know you guys have your narrative of what happened, but it's incomplete. However, I realize that the left side of the spectrum needs its comforting myths, so I'll not disabuse you.

Posner is only an "ultraconservative" if you're a Marxist. He's a rightish libertarian.

That is all I have to say, or will say, on this.

..I think my earlier plan to drop the topic is inoperative long enough to defend myself.

You must subscribe to a different Miami Herald than my library does.

From the right-wing republican shills at PBS:

    the Herald pointed to one scenario under which Gore could have scored a narrow victory -- a fresh recount in all counties using the most generous standards. [emphasis added]

The article pointed to one scenario. But their numbers said otherwise.  Here's a copy of a post I made on another forum back when it was a current topic. Note that this was posted before the consortium results (hence the "only statewide..recount" line]. The link appears to be dead now, but at the time it pointed to the raw data of the recount on the Herald's website. And my apologies for the formatting - I have no idea how to make the columns line up here:

The results of the only statewide uniform-standard recount of all

undervotes & overvotes done to date are here:

       http://advapps.herald.com/elec tion_results/default.asp?st=1

The data translates to following margins:

            Bush         Gore      Margin

Overvotes    1189         1871      Gore +682

Undervotes In Optical Counties     860         1179      Gore +319

       --------------------------------------------------------------------

        Subtotal of Non-PunchCard   2049         3050