Count the falsehoods: Sammon discussed 2000 election recount on C-SPAN's Washington Journal
SUMMARY: On C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Washington Examiner senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court halted the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election by a 7-2 margin; and that a study of the 2000 presidential vote in Florida, commissioned by a consortium of major media outlets, "concluded essentially that [George W.] Bush would have won even if the Supreme Court hadn't stopped the counting." Both of these statements are false
On the March 14 edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Washington Examiner senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon falsely claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court halted the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election by a 7-2 margin; and that a study of the 2000 presidential vote in Florida, commissioned by a consortium of major media outlets, "concluded essentially that [George W.] Bush would have won even if the Supreme Court hadn't stopped the counting."
Hosted by Peter Slen, the broadcast featured Sammon and David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, discussing the state of the Republican Party in light of President Bush's low approval ratings and the failed deal for control of shipping terminals at six U.S. seaports by Dubai Ports World (DPW). During the discussion, a caller questioned the results of the 2000 presidential election in which the Supreme Court issued a decision on December 12, 2000, reversing the Florida Supreme Court and stopping the recount of ballots in that state, thus allowing Bush, then governor of Texas, to narrowly defeat then-Vice President Al Gore in that state.
Sammon told the caller that "there's this sort of lingering myth ... that somehow the Supreme Court, in a narrowly divided decision, stopped the counting and thereby handed the election to George W. Bush" and claimed falsely that the Supreme Court decided the case of Bush v. Gore by a vote of 7-2. In fact, while the court issued a per curiam opinion in which the individual vote breakdown was not given, a review of the separate opinions written or joined by individual justices indicates that five voted to stop the recount and four voted to let it go forward. Slen did not challenge Sammon's assertion.
Sammon's claim that the court decided the case 7-2 was a reference to opinions by two of the dissenting justices -- David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer -- agreeing with the majority that the recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protection Clause. But, contrary to Sammon's claim, their position was not that the recount should be halted, but that the case should be remanded to the state court to correct the constitutional infirmity.
Sammon's assertion of a Bush victory in a model recount conducted by mainstream media outlets was similarly misleading. Apparently referring to a study conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (NORC) -- organized by a consortium that included The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, the Associated Press, the Tribune Co. (publisher of the Chicago Tribune and the Orlando Sentinel), and The Wall Street Journal -- Sammon misrepresented the results. The NORC researchers "examined all ballots that were initially rejected by voting machines" and then applied "different standards for determining voter intent and tallied results based on several scenarios that sought to approximate conditions on the ground in Florida."
Contrary to Sammon's claim that the media recounts "all concluded" that Bush would have emerged victorious, different recount scenarios yielded different winners, as Media Matters for America has previously documented. According to the Post, when the recount tallied ballots in which "at least one corner of a chad was detached from punch-card ballots," Gore won Florida by 60 votes. "[U]nder the least-restrictive standard for interpreting voter intent, which counted all dimpled chads and any discernible optical mark (which in the case of optical ballots Florida's new election law now requires to be counted as votes)," the Post reported, "Gore had 107 more votes." One recount with a "more restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a valid mark on optical scan ballots" -- and in which chads had to be "fully punched" -- saw Gore win by 115 votes. And a recount that replicated "the standards established by each of the counties in their recounts" gave Gore 171 more votes than Bush.
From the March 14 edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal:
SAMMON: President Bush won the state of Florida in 2000 by 537 votes. There were many recounts that were instituted by Al Gore. At some point, the Supreme Court got involved, and there's this sort of lingering myth to this day that somehow the Supreme Court, in a narrowly divided decision, you know, stopped the counting and thereby handed the election to George W. Bush. First of all, it was a 7-to-2 decision. Secondly, even the press, which cites this continuously -- for example, The New York Times led a consortium of mainstream media news outlets -- CNN, The Washington Post -- on what I call "the mother of all media recounts." There were many media recounts of the ballots after the Supreme Court stepped in, and they all concluded essentially that Bush would have won even if the Supreme Court hadn't stopped the counting. So, to continuously talk about how Bush stole the election and the Supreme Court handed him the election when the press itself -- which is certainly no fan of President Bush -- demonstrated that if you actually counted all the ballots, every which way you cut it, Bush would have won, I think, is silly.
Do you see, we live in a society with such an short attention span that 30 years of documented history, filmed, video taped, streamed on the internet, is distorted in plain site.
How does this warped view of events just a few short years removed allowed? Would the same answer to why O'Neal could not smear John Kerry during the Vietnam War, but 30 years later, Republicans in power and the truth is not the truth. Chuck Colson couldn’t get veterans to lie, but Karl Rove could, or a more enlightened public wouldn't stand for it.
Could we conclude the difference in an open forum with Dick Cavette is not the same as an open forum with Matthews, Hume, or Gigot?
Which do you believe had truth in mind, and which had an agenda which truth was whatever promoted the agenda? commonly referred to as PROPAGANDA.
This sort of journalism is not sustainable in a Freedom Loving Democracy, but, Right at Home with a Fascist State.
Revisionists are necessary to promote an agenda of a Fascist State. A true recounting of historical events contradicts all that they would promote for their transformation of our democracy.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
...I might add... If the Democrat in your district is ineffectual... vote in a DIFFERENT Democrat. We need a courageous and unified front in order to make our country a democracy once again!
Wasn't the 7-to-2 desicion that the recount was unconstitional because the was not state wide? (Gore was critisised properly I thought that he did not push for a state wide recount.) And there was also a 4-to-5 desicion to ban further recounts.
And it was not only Gore who "instituted" recounts.
Only by solely reading conservative sources can one believe Sammon, who, it is obvious, only reads conservative sources himself.
Also, when counts get down to differences of a few hundred out of milllions cast it is in the margin of error.
"This again? 7-2, 4-5, unfair recounts, stopped recounts, what's the difference?" says the Republican noise machine, still rewriting history in favor of Bush #43.
Do you people realize that the Encarta Encyclopedia that I have (its' dated and updated to include all "major" events through December 2002) doesn't even mention the Supreme Court in conjunction with Bush #43's being elected in 2000.
But they sure included the mythology of Clinton leaving office with "low public opinion" because of his 11th hour pardoning of some criminal or another that NOBODY remembers or cares about. If you count yourself among the dwindling number of our society who do NOT think we are slowly being taken over by fascists, think again.
Wasn't the 7-to-2 desicion that the recount was unconstitional because the was not state wide? (Gore was critisised properly I thought that he did not push for a state wide recount.) - from GA
I'm ready to be corrected on this, but if I recall correctly, Florida has no legal mechanism for requesting a statewide recount. Recounts are requested strictly at the county level. Gore could have requested a recount in every county, but it certainly seemed sensible at the time for him to concentrate on those counties that looked most like recounts would benefit him.
He chose to request recounts in counties where he ran strongest and where there appeared to be the highest likelihood of errors. His campaign simply never foresaw that the right was imply nefarious intent to his operating within Florida law.
...I recall correctly, Florida has no legal mechanism for requesting a statewide recount.
I only had one reference about that. And now that I research deeper, Wikipedia states: "Florida's election laws allow a candidate to request a county to conduct a manual recount, and Gore requested manual recounts in four Florida counties..."
Thanks for replying. Obviously this is a complex subject and I don't want to get facts wrong.
As in this case, when Sammon is adamant about something, you can bet there'll be a foul smell in the air.
Why?
The smell comes from where Sammon has pulled his facts.
Probably why he's a FOX NEWS favorite.
The recounts can only tabulate the ballots generated...which show, as documented here, several scenarios where Gore was the winner.
What goes unremarked upon is the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of registered voters, a majority of them Democrats, (though not all). These people were removed from the voting rolls--without warning--because their names were the same or similar to the names of convicted felons that the State of Florida used specifically for this purpose. This list has been shown to be riddled with errors, and of course one must be suspicious that a majority of the disenfranchised were likely to have voted for Gore.
"This list has been shown to be riddled with errors, and of course one must be suspicious that a majority of the disenfranchised were likely to have voted for Gore."
More than suspicious! It was Katherine Harris's office that ordered this "scrubbing" of the voter rolls, even when the company in charge of it questioned it. What they did was specifically order that the criteria for disqualification be severely loosened, to increase the number of disenfranchised voters.
You were probably aware of this, but I wanted to make sure everyone knew that this was no accidental happenstance that hurt the Gore campaign.
was asked by the company compiling the list if they wanted only people who they were sure were felons or those with similar names who could be felons. she replied in a letter to include all the names. a few county supervisors of election refused to use the list because it had so many errors. one panhandle county supervisor found her own name on it. but if the list was used then those on it had no means of removing their names when they got to the polls.
On "This Week" the Sunday before the election, George Will said that if a candidate won the popular vote but lost the electoral college "the American public will be outraged, and rightly so." Will obviously thought that Tuesday's outcome would be the reverse of what it was (and had that been the case, the right would have raised all holy hell, I'm certain). But where is the outrage? I don't think this fraud could have been sucessful of a majority of liberal and moderate Americans weren't scared to death to admit that this sort of crime can, and did, happen right here in the U.S.A. We want so much to believe that our system is just and perfect so that we can just go on living our lives trusting it and our government to take care of us.
Wow, this fascist takeover must be a real eye opener for some white folk. As a black man, I've never been under the illusion that this is a just society. I can't conceive of it ever coming close to OK let alone perfection. The farther we go back in time the closer we get to slavery. The farther we go forward out of the past the closer we get to today's Ku Ku Klan fascist government. The best we could hope for in the past were windows of opportunity. Now, Gee Dumbya is obliterating the hopes of the whole world. Thanks neocons, the moron just might start the Armageddon you dreamed about.
Are these "journalists" that stupid or that corrupt? And they are only dealing with the issue of the recount, ignoring the issue of the huge numbers of people disenfranchised before election day by Secretary of State Harris, hidden from the American Public by mainstream media for months while BBC was revealing the problems brought to light by Greg Palast during a time frame that should have permitted redress before the Supreme Court got its tarnished hands on the case. [link to www.gregpalast.com] and [link to www.gregpalast.com] and [link to www.gregpalast.com]
This is a call to all denial-ridden Repubs and lazy Dems... CHECK THE RECORD!! Read, educate yourself and take a stand as an American. Do not rely on the media to tell you the truth -- it will not.
If you care about this country and enjoying the luxury of being an American... take an active stance and save our country.
If all the eligible people who tried to vote were allowed to
OR
if all the votes in the state were recounted
OR
if the will of the people who were voting on a confusing butterfly ballot was correctly recorded
OR
any number of dirty tricks by the Repugs had not occured,
THEN
Bush would not have stolen the PR-esidency.
Quoted from Wikipedia [link to en.wikipedia.org] v. Gore
In brief the breakdown of the decisions were:
* The remedy of ceasing all recounts was approved by 5 to 4. (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens opposed)
* The finding that using different standards of counting in different areas without a single overseer violated equal protection was approved by 7 to 2. (Breyer, Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Souter and Thomas in support; Ginsburg and Stevens opposed)
* The view that the Florida Supreme Court acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature was rejected by 6 to 3. (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter and Stevens opposed)
I messed up the link. It is:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Wikipedia is little more than the Internet Grapevine, and not a reliable source,
Sammon is a serial liar. Back when he worked for the Moonies, he wrote a book about the 2000 election in which he accused Gore of trying to steal it. When asked by the host of this same show whether the Republicans had done anything questionable during the recount, he said, with a straight face, "Of course not."
is that most people who voted in florida that day meant to vote for al gore. the polls that morning showed him with a 2 to 3 point lead. the state was called for him early in the evening because of what people were telling the pollsters. the palm beach post examined the butterfly ballots and concluded that it probably cost gore 6000 votes. even buchanan conceded he did not get 1500 votes in palm beach co. there were also people who invalidated their ballots by punching two holes thinking that they were voting for gore and leibermann. and no one discusses the thousands of votes invalidated in duval co.-jacksonville because the ballot had the presidential candidates listed on two consecutive pages and the instructions said vote every page. the problem was that besides bush gore buchanan and nader, there were probably another 9 or 10 minor candidates. jeffrey toobin at the end of "too close to call": "the wrong man was inaugurated on jan 20, 2001 , and this is no small thing in our nation's history. the bell of this election can never be unrung, and the sound will haunt us for some time." truer words were never spoken.
headline from the WashPo article MMFA links to in this posting
"Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush"
First paragraph:
"In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations. "
the subheading to the headline: "but study finds gore might have won statewide tally of all uncounted ballots". in the second paragraph: "an examination of uncounted ballots throughout florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give gore the narrowest of margins". exactly what mmfa claimed it said. and gore asked bush to agree to a statewide recount. bush refused.
Dear Leader's cheerleading squad, along with the Republican Congress's spin meisters are trotted on to TV to lie, distort, fabricate, invent history, re-write history, deny history, revise, clip, hurl insults, propagandize and they are NEVER challenged for their fascist tactics by their hosts because their hosts either agree with the lies their guests are spewing or are simply ignorant and lazy. (Journalism is NOT a profession!) It's only supposed to appear to be a debate or discussion. The quality of the information reaching the populace is thoroughly Orwellian. Just think of all these news shows and journalistic blather as The Ministry of Information. When will people finally have enough of it and turn it off?
the issue with the recounts is that in every case, the consortium used local standards. The Florida Supreme Court made it clear that they would use a single standard of voter intent. If the SCOTUS had not intervened, Gore would have won that weekend's statewide recount by more than 50,000 votes. That is why the SCOTUS intervened. The Bush camp knew that they could not win.
"If the SCOTUS had not intervened, Gore would have won that weekend's statewide recount by more than 50,000 votes. "
completely false...perhaps you missed this statement from the article:
"In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations. "
once and for all, because MMFA doesn't see to understand it.
The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to stop recounts in selected counties (4 counties of undervotes only). They determined 7-2 that particular method of recounting was unconstitutional. So the original FLA Supreme Court ruling (that hand recounts in selected counties of undervotes were acceptable) was struck down 7-2.
Then there was a vote on whether to allow additional recounts (or other measures) in the tabulating of the votes. That decision was 5-4 and stopped the overall recounting process. But the process which Gore originally asked for and the FLA supreme Court gave (recounts in selected counties) was stopped 7-2.
Even if that unconstitutional recounts would have gone through, it was determined that George Bush probably would have won.
"The study showed that if the two limited recounts had not been short-circuited -- the first by Florida county and state election officials and the second by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Bush would have held his lead over Gore, with margins ranging from 225 to 493 votes, depending on the standard. "
"if you actually counted all the ballots, any which way you cut it, bush would have won..." actually gore would have won if all the ballots were counted. all the court had to do was order a statewide recount, which gore agreed to and bush did not. if the majority was so interested in equal rights under the 14th amendment, then everyone should have had their vote counted.
Abolish th e electoral college!Sammon thnks Bush's poll number will go up, but Iahve confidene in W., he'll find a way to get them to plummet more.