by Joshua Micah Marshall (bio)

(November 21st, 2000 -- 9:48 PM EST)

He shoots ...  He     S-C-O-R-E-S!!!

-- Josh Marshall


(November 21st, 2000 -- 8:07 PM EST)

Talking Points runs with some breaking news! The Florida Supreme Court will announce a decision tonight. Not tomorrow, tonight. Apparently they've given the heads-up to the networks. But the networks aren't supposed to tell anybody. Apparently the delay has to do with a broken xerox machine in the court, which has slowed things up.

Hey, that's what I'm hearing.

-- Josh Marshall


(November 21st, 2000 -- 7:38 PM EST)

As of about 7 PM on Tuesday, Talking Points heard (from his sources on CNN and MSNBC) that Palm Beach County had given Gore a measly 3 more votes, with about 1/5 of the precincts reporting. Broward had given the veep a semi-respectable 118 votes more with all the precincts reporting. And Miami-Dade had given Gore 114 more votes with 99 out of 614 precincts.

Let's hear it for Miami-Dade! These guys are really pulling their weight!

(Actually the vote woman on MSNBC says those hundred-odd precincts already reporting lean even more Democratic than the rest of the county. So maybe it's not as good as it sounds.)

Of course, the real issue is dimples. And which counties have how many 'undervotes' - that undiscovered country of hidden suffrage? Palm Beach has about 10,000; Broward's got between 1,000 and 2,000; and Miami-Dade has some 10,750.

So, hey, there's plenty of work to be done, assuming the Florida Supreme Court doesn't completely shut Gore down.

Oh yeah, one other thing. If you include the already counted Palm Beach ballots with dimples Gore picks up another 301 votes.

So Gore's not doing that badly. But obviously it's going to come down to whether or not he gets his dimples.

From real Gore campaign sources I've heard that the whole race will come down to 100 or 150 vote spread either way. Unfortunately for them they're not sure which way.

Talking Points is also wondering what's up with retiring Senator Bob Kerrey. Normally Kerrey is a bit of spoil sport, especially in partisan terms. And for years he could be counted on to trash and take potshots at the Clinton-Gore administration. (In fact, Talking Points has been trashing Senator Kerrey in print for a couple years now - example one, two, and three.)

But all of sudden he's Al Gore's biggest pit bull. Today the Gore team had Kerrey (a Vietnam vet who lost the lower part of one leg in the war) down in Florida taking the fight to the Republicans on the military overseas ballot issue. Apparently, a bunch of those overseas military ballots had problems besides not being postmarked. No signatures, no witnesses, etc.

Senator Kerrey's line: if you're in the military, you're supposed to follow the rules.

I could get to like this guy!

P.S. Talking Points would like to make clear that he is actually quite pro-military, and something of a foreign policy hawk. So no emails saying he's ganging up on the military!

-- Josh Marshall


(November 21st, 2000 -- 9:30 AM EST)

Finally, finally, finally someone has the good sense and courage to point out how hideously unfair and outrageous those charges are about the Gore campaign trying to deny soldiers their right to vote. (A few days ago Talking Points said the Republicans were playing the Sturm und Drang, Stab-in-the-Back, Last-Days-of-the-Weimar-Republic card. He thought that was pretty clever. But it was too generous, because too jocular.)

Listen to Florida Democrat Peter Deutsch last night on Crossfire:

Let me just talk a little bit about the whole, I guess, spin from the Republicans about -- which has been to me the absolute most -- the worst statements I have ever heard probably in my life about anything. I mean, almost a blood libel by the Republicans towards Al Gore, saying that he was trying to stop men and women in uniform that are serving this country from voting. That is the most absurd thing and absolutely has no basis in fact at all.
Alright, alright, not the most articulate guy in the world. But you get his point!

"...almost a blood libel." That's pretty strong stuff. Strong, but not too strong. Because it's true.

(Deutsch can get away with this statement, in part, because he's Jewish. But so is Talking Points; so he gets a pass too!)

You don't just toss around charges that the possible next president of the United States is conspiring to take the vote away from American soldiers overseas. Given the volatility of the moment and the divisions already existing in American society it really is almost like a blood libel. Almost.

People in the press should have called the Bushies on this rather than treating their new line of attack as if it were nothing more serious than the dissing and trash-talking one hears on the Jerry Springer show.

Talking Points was going to leave it at that. But then he read Tom Friedman's column in the NYT this morning. Friedman said:

Our armed forces, the courts, the federal government - these are the nonpartisan institutions we need to hold our country together once there is a partisan outcome to this election. It was out of line for Ms. Hughes to imply that our armed forces are pro- Republican and that the Democrats were trying to prevent them from voting. Ms. Hughes might as well have called Mr. Gore a traitor. It would be like Mr. Gore accusing Mr. Bush of bigoted motives because he resisted recounts in counties with heavy black and Jewish populations. You just don't talk that way about the man who might be our next president.
Talking Points couldn't have said it better himself. I guess that's why Friedman is on the Op-Ed page of the NYT and Talking Points … well, just has Talking Points.

-- Josh Marshall


(November 20th, 2000 -- 11:36 PM EST)

Talking Points understands that every self-respecting post-election presidential candidate these days needs his surrogates. But why can't George W. Bush at least get political hacks from Florida to make his case for him?

The Dems have Reps. Peter Deutsch D -Fla. and Robert Wexler D -Fla., two congressmen from the Palm Beach area, spinning for them. But who's Bush got? Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y who told the AP today that "Miami-Dade has become ground zero for producing a manufactured vote" and Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio who called the balloting there "a joke on our democracy." What's the deal here? Why can't Bush get any home grown talent?

And what's with Marc Racicot, the governor of Montana? Since when is this guy Bush's press secretary? What happened to Karen Hughes? Aren't the folks in Montana starting to wonder why their governor has set up residence in Austin, Texas?

Is this the kind of scut work you have to do to get an appointment in the new Bush administration?

-- Josh Marshall


(November 20th, 2000 -- 5:43 PM EST)

Talking Points is not a lawyer (though he did take the LSAT during one very misguided summer in the mid-nineties). But he feels qualified to offer some advice to Joseph Klock, the lawyer who represented Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris today before the Florida Supreme Court.

1. When addressing the Court (especially a potentially hostile one), refrain from sassing, getting in the face of, talking over, or in other ways mouthing off to the justices. While this seems like a sure-fire strategy, it sometimes produces negative results.

2. When presenting arguments, refrain from interjecting or ending statements with gratuitous throw-away lines commonly used on Hardball. Free form prose poems about chads ("hanging chads, banging chads, pregnant chads, schmegmant chads, etc.") are particularly to be avoided.

3. Avoid legal arguments which imply that the vice-president's campaign would actually be in a much better position to lodge complaints once the election is certified and his opponent is elected.

-- Josh Marshall


(November 20th, 2000 -- 1:15 PM EST)

Talking Points really liked Juliet Eilperin's and Eric Pianin's article in today's Washington Post about how furious Republicans might cripple a potential Gore presidency. (Actually, Talking Points likes everything Eilperin writes; he doesn't know the Pianin guy.) But maybe this is a moment for a reality check.

No doubt the Republicans will be furious with Gore if he wins; they'll do all sorts of nasty things because of it; they'll probably try to obstruct his agenda, and so forth. And this would be in contrast to …?

The get-along-go-along free ride they've given Bill Clinton?

Please!

Hardcore Republicans (and not a few soft-core ones) never accepted the legitimacy of Bill Clinton's presidency either. And while no one can be happy about the sour feelings which will result from this mess (however it turns out), Democrats shouldn't be bullied or intimidated by Republican threats, or mau-maued into inactivity should Gore win Florida.

-- Josh Marshall


(November 19th, 2000 -- 10:18 PM EST)

There's a lot of talk about rejected military absentee ballots, but Talking Points still isn't convinced that a lot of civilian (and thus more likely Gore) absentee ballots weren't rejected in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and other counties. Yesterday's New York Times says that "Lawyers for each party made sure that each envelope containing civilian ballots met the stringent requirements of state law, including having the voter's signature and the date, with the signature crossing the seam where the ballot is sealed, and having the signature of a witness who is either a notary or a registered Florida voter [italics added]."

But a Talking Points reader in Israel, who tells me he helped others navigate the paperwork of absentee-ballot-dom, says there was never any mention of this requirement in the absentee ballot instructions. And he actually seems to have some proof to back up his claim. The Federal Voting Assistance Program website has instructions for obtaining and completing overseas absentee ballots. And the site has information for how to deal with absentee ballots for citizens of each state - information gathered from the state authorities.

But on the Florida section of the site there is no mention of needing a notary or a registered Florida voter to witness your ballot.

Now Talking Points has to admit he got pretty confused reading this material. It took him a while to realize that a good bit of the information on the site applies to the card you send to get your absentee ballot.

But ... but the document does clearly state: "When returning a voted ballot, the certificate on the return envelope must be witnessed by one person over the age of 18. The name and address of the witness are required on the certificate."

No notary, no registered voter Floridian required!

Who's responsible for this screw up? The Feds or Katherine Harris? Did it say something different on the absentee ballots themselves? And how many civilian votes got tossed because of it?

P.S. Talking Points has to admit that he's still a little confused about this; but he thinks he got it right.

-- Josh Marshall


(November 19th, 2000 -- 4:24 PM EST)

An update on how Gore's doing in the recount: according to CNN, with roughly 30% of the precincts counted in Palm Beach County, there are some 1000 ballots which have been set aside as under dispute. Those will later be reviewed by the canvassing board and, in all likelihood, later by a court. What does that mean? That a Gore-friendly resolution of the chad question could well give the veep enough votes to move ahead of Bush.

-- Josh Marshall


(November 19th, 2000 -- 12:41 PM EST)

The new Republican line is that all the mess going on down in Florida is the result of the Democrats' decision to "depart from the rule of law." (I'm calling this the new Republican line because they're all using it on the Sunday morning shows - especially Sen. Fred Thompson on This Week.) But wait a second: aren't law courts the font of the "rule of law"? I know there a difficulties aplenty with getting elections into the courtrooms. But for serious "rule of law" theorists the rule of law is all about independent courts, an independent judiciary, and - yes, god forbid - lawyers. Process, process, process! Procedure, procedure, procedure! Give two hypocrite points to the GOP on this one.

Several Talking Points readers have pointed out the answer to the apparent contradiction noted in last night's post: i.e., why the Republicans are going ballistic over the hand-recounts at precisely the moment when those counts don't seem to be going as well as the Democrats had hoped.

The answer? These unofficial estimates coming out of Broward and Palm Beach don't include a growing stack of disputed ballots with dimpled chads and pregnant chads and so forth. Depending on how the Florida Supreme Court rules those ballots could throw the count decisively in Al Gore's direction. So, yes, the Bush folks do have reason to be worried.

One more question. The new Republican battle cry is over these tossed out military absentee ballots that don't have postmarks. The GOP is really sharpening the blade on this one - trying to characterize this as a Dem effort to disenfranchise soldiers. (Ahh … what a responsible thing to say.) But according to the New York Times, "In counties carried by Mr. Bush, 29 percent of the overseas ballots were ruled invalid, but in counties carried by Mr. Gore, the figure was 60 percent." It sounds like Gore's ox is being gored more than Bush's. Are those tossed out ballots in the Gore counties military ballots or are they civilian ballots? That's the question Talking Points hasn't heard the answer to. The Times article seems to imply that the thrown out ballots in the Democratic counties were military ballots, but doesn't quite say so.

-- Josh Marshall


(November 18th, 2000 -- 10:37 PM EST)

Do you notice something odd? The Bush campaign today launched a ferocious attack on the hand counting procedures being used in Palm Beach and other counties in southern Florida. They're no longer challenging hand-counting as inherently unreliable and perhaps open to 'mischief,' they're leveling explicit charges of ballot tampering and fraud.

The Bush folks are also charging the Democrats with plotting to toss out military absentee overseas ballots because they lack postmarks. Bush surrogate, Montana governor Marc Racicot charged that "the vice president's lawyers have gone to war in my judgment against the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. In an effort to win at any costs, the Democrats have launched a statewide effort to throw out as many military ballots as they can [italics added]."

(This, you might say, is the Bush team's effort to play the Sturm und Drang, Stab-in-the-Back, Last-Days-of-the-Weimar-Republic card.)

The implication of this quickly escalating rhetoric is pretty clear: the Republicans are scared to death of what might be found in those hand counts.

The problem is that the hand counts don't seem to be going that well for the Democrats. At least that's what CNN and the rest of the nets seem to be reporting. A hand recount of a third of the precincts in Broward county yielded only 59 new votes for the vice-president. A Democratic member of the Palm Beach canvassing board said he wasn't "seeing much of a change" in the vote totals so far in the recount in his county. Gore's got to get a thousand votes to catch up to Bush; and it doesn't look like it's going that well.

So what gives? What does the Bush campaign know that the rest of us don't?

-- Josh Marshall


(November 17th, 2000 -- 3:26 PM EST)

As of late afternoon on Friday only about a half-dozen Florida counties had reported their overseas absentee ballot totals. But the results weren't pretty. So far the numbers are running 31 to 10 in favor of George W. Bush. Yikes! If that sort of percentage holds up Bush could move another thousand votes ahead of Gore.

Consider this, though. Fox News reported on Wednesday that the US Postal Service was expediting delivery of military absentee ballots. But only military ballots. That doesn't seem fair. What if you're a Floridian hanging out in Tel Aviv? What about your vote?

The question, though, is this: Did the Bush folks lean on the USPS and get them to move those ballots along? And if so, why are the postal folks such push-overs?

Why does Talking Points think the Bush folks may have gotten in touch with the people at the US Postal Service? He has learned, on good authority, that the Bush campaign sent a letter to the Defense Department asking them to help insure that all military absentee ballots got to Florida in a timely fashion. Don't get me wrong: nothing untoward was implied or requested. But the folks at the DOD rightly responded that there are already procedures in place for this sort of thing.

Maybe the postal service didn't respond in quite the same way.

-- Josh Marshall


(November 16th, 2000 -- 2:29 AM EST)

Talking Points thought he'd said enough about Al Gore's new state-wide recount gambit; but he was wrong. Anytime your spin makes your opponent respond with counter-spin that is self-defeating and transparently moronic you know you're dishing out some really good spin.

Think Gore's offer last night was generous? Generous, Shmenerous! Listen to the Washington Post's David Broder summarize the Republican line: "Bush aides said ... that the offer of a statewide hand count was less generous than it seemed. Looking at precinct returns even in counties carried by Bush, they said, more spoiled or uncounted ballots may have been cast by Democrats than by Republicans."

Good point! In other words, this is a devious ploy by the vice-president to demonstrate that he really won the election.

There's no denying this was a tactical coup for Gore. Let's get him into the White House and have him loose some of that mojo on Saddam Hussein!

Of course, the fight's far from over. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris may exercise her authority to burn all remaining uncounted ballots, which from what I see of Florida election law she is probably entitled to do. But for right now the veep is looking pretty good.

-- Josh Marshall


(November 16th, 2000 -- 1:55 AM EST)

Gore wins! Well, at least sort of. Whether or not Al Gore becomes the next president, last night he went a long way to winning -- perhaps already won -- the publicity war, the war for public opinion.

Gore's offer to agree to a statewide hand recount of the votes, and abide by the results with no recourse to the courts, is an eminently reasonable offer -- one which George W. Bush will have a really hard time refusing.

Of course, Bush DID reject the offer, just a couple hours after the vice-president made it. But, finally (for once?), the editorial responses were swift and unequivocal against the governor. Both the Washington Post and the New York Times teed off on the governor, granting that Gore's offer played to his advantage, but also agreeing that it was the only fair and logical way out of this mess. (Talking Points doesn't mean to indulge in a hideous, East Coast, elite media bias - but he suspects editorials from around the country will come to a similar conclusion, as will most members of the American public with whom he is in a constant and almost mystical communion. (Late Update: USAToday was a little less kind. They called Gore's gambit "artful political alchemy, not altruism."))

The Times wrote "Mr. Bush's swift rejection of the proposal was a disappointment on civic grounds, a political mistake and unsound as to his reasoning that a manual recount would be 'arbitrary and chaotic' … Mr. Gore's proposal was right on the substance and also tactically smart." The Post made a similar argument and concluded by writing "Mr. Gore's offer was doubtless in some ways to his own advantage. But it was to Gov. Bush's disadvantage only if he was clinging to an artificial lead that would not stand up to legitimate review."

Both papers also took a stern swipe at the increasingly unforgivable stance of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Harris makes a commentator's task a difficult one. Normally, a bad actor proceeds with sufficient deftness to make their bad conduct require explanation. But Harris' attitude and actions have been so brazen, so partisan, and so clearly ill-considered as to make any discussion or attack upon them thoroughly redundant. In our modern political culture, so sensitive to conflicts of interest, people commonly recuse themselves from decisions they would likely have little difficulty making fairly. Harris, though, persists not only in making decisions she is clearly not in an appropriate position to make, but makes them in the most transparently partisan way.

When Talking Points thought it over, the most offensive thing he found in Harris' behavior was not so much her transparently partisan conduct as her brazen willingness to act in such a way in the full light of media attention. She isn't even trying to hide it. And thus her real message seems to be: I've got the power to do this, and I just don't care what anyone thinks.

-- Josh Marshall


(November 15th, 2000 -- 9:44 AM EST)

Somehow or another the Republicans appear to be on the verge of shutting down the whole process of manual recounts in Florida. The only thing that may stand in their way now is public opinion and elite opinion - obviously two different things. So how do the prestige national dailies react on their editorial pages? Well, it's pretty disappointing. The Washington Post has a typically supercilious, plague-on-both-your-houses complaint about how both campaigns have their spokesman saying some awfully un-nice things. (Did Chris Lehane really call Katherine Harris "Commissar Harris"? Chris, I'm on your side, man, trust me. But that kind of talk really doesn't help matters.)

Anyway, back to my story. The Wash Post editorial is a pretty big disappointment. Characteristically they seem quite oblivious to the thought that there might be an issue of small-d democratic principle at stake here. Since when does David Broder get to write the unsigned editorials for the Post anyway?

The NYT editorial is a little more encouraging, praising the state court decision which agreed that Katherine Harris has discretion over what to do about accepting those overdue election returns, but encourages her not to exercise that discretion in the irresponsible and arbitrary way she seems to intend.

Apparently Bob Torricelli is still playing the nay-sayer, bucketing water into the Democratic boat rather than the other way around. Anyway, that's what Kausfiles seems to imply that Torricelli did last night on Hardball. Talking Points would comment on this matter directly. But he's currently visiting his girlfriend in New Haven and she doesn't have cable TV so he has no direct evidence. He has to rely on Kaus.

The one half-way decent editorial on this is in USAToday. They basically make the standard anti-litigation argument. But they're at least sensitive to the fact that the Republican strategy is to avoid accurate tabulation and avoid having everyone's vote count. The real answer to this quagmire, they argue, is to have the whole state do a manual recount. (Note: here's where my editorializing begins) That really is the one solution that no one should be able to argue with. It really will get the most accurate count. There would be no question of selective counting. And perhaps best of all the proposition would create sufficient uncertainty for both camps - a decent shot at winning or losing - that pressure might be applied to get both to agree in advance to honor the result without further grousing. (Secret word to fellow Democratic partisans: apparently the big Democratic counties are the ones that tend to have the machines most likely to miss votes. So even the fair way of settling this seems to lean in our favor - of course, that's only because most people in Florida did apparently vote for Al Gore.)

-- Josh Marshall


(November 14th, 2000 -- 11:02 PM EST)

From FEED Magazine, here's a quick take on Florida, spin, and the perils thereof.

-- Josh Marshall


(November 13th, 2000 -- 11:31 PM EST)

Tomorrow's big question is whether state judge Terry Lewis will prevent Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris from making 5 PM Tuesday the drop-dead deadline for all ballot recounts - a decision that would effectively prevent hand recounts in several key Democratic counties, and probably make George W. Bush our next president.

But has anyone else noticed how feeble an argument Harris' attorney made in court on Monday afternoon?

A number of good articles ran Monday explaining that Harris is much more than a passive supporter of Governor Bush (see these effective flayings of Harris in Salon and ABCNews.com); but Harris and her supporters argue that, whatever her personal feelings in the matter, Florida statute mandates that she enforce the deadline, period.

Reports from Reuters and the New York Times imply that the judge was leaning against Harris' arguments. And it's not hard to see why. Even Harris' attorney didn't seem to buy her argument.

Here's how Reuters described one exchange:

Debby Kearney, general counsel for the secretary of state's office, acknowledged that state law gave Harris discretion to extend the deadline but said she refused to do so because the counties had given no adequate reason why they could not comply.

``We don't think anything has happened to require us to use that discretion,'' Kearney said.

Is she kidding? The counties have "given no adequate reason why they could not comply." Please! Can't they do better than this transparently false assertion?

If that's the best they can do I'm dusting off my résumé and sending it off to Warren Christopher. I hear he's slated to head up Gore's transition.

-- Josh Marshall


(November 13th, 2000 -- 5:04 PM EST)

Okay. Let's assume that somehow or other Al Gore pulls out a victory in Florida. Republicans have made it clear that they have a fall-back plan: try to Floridize the vote-counts in Wisconsin, Iowa, and possibly Oregon. If the Bushies can flip those states into their column, they figure, they may not need Florida, especially if they can hold on to New Mexico which has now flipped over to Bush by a handful of votes.

Is this likely to work? Don't bet on it. Here's why: Iowa and Wisconsin are progressive, reformist, clean-election states. You're just much less likely to find the kind of craziness you're seeing in Florida in either of these states. Possible; but not likely.

-- Josh Marshall


(November 13th, 2000 -- 3:50 PM EST)

Has Karl Rove screwed George W. a second time? Think back to that long ago time before last Tuesday's election. The Bush campaign was following a strategy based on Rove's 'band wagon' theory of election finishes. According to Rove, toward the end of an election voters look to see who's winning and often decide to vote for that candidate. So projecting an image of confidence may be even more important than whether the polls actually give any cause for optimism. You just need to look like you're winning, and the voters will take it from there. At least that's Rove's theory.

That's why in the week before the election Rove was telling reporters that Bush was going to win by 6%-7% of the vote and had him going to states like New Jersey and California, ones he hadn't a prayer of winning. As we now know, Bush not only didn't win big, he didn't win at all -- at least in the popular vote. Bush would have done a lot better focusing on Florida and not taking that victory lap in the final days.

After the election it seems like they did the same thing over again. The Bush plan -- which I gaurentee you came from Rove -- was to just look like you're the president-elect and everyone will believe you. It was just a post-election of Rove's confidence game.

But Bush and Rove committed the cardinal sin of politics: they fell for their own spin. They really thought it was all over. And because of that they didn't take advantage of the opportunity to request recounts in areas where it could have helped them. Bush may still pull this out. But if he does he'll do so by having a friendly Secretary of State in Florida use her power to prevent an accurate vote count in several key counties. Can you say 'legitimacy problems.'

I'm hoping the Bush operation puts Rove in charge of their legal strategy. Actually, come to think of it, maybe they have?

-- Josh Marshall


(November 13th, 2000 -- 3:37 PM EST)

As if things couldn't get any weirder, did you notice the name of the lawyer who made the Republicans' unsuccessful arguments before that federal judge today? That would be Ted Olson, a man Washingtonians often refer to as a 'Washington super-lawyer.' Who is Ted Olson? Well, that would be the same one knee-deep in the Arkansas Project, which in league with the American Spectator spent a ton of money digging dirt on Bill Clinton in Arkansas. And, yes, he's also the husband of Barbara Olson, author of Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (which, in case you're wondering, is not a flattering portrayal) and former investigator for Dan Burton and a bunch of other House committees.

Of course, Olson (Ted, that is) is also the Olson from Morrison v. Olson, the supreme court case which upheld the constitutinality of the Independent Counsel statute. Olson was against it. Come to think of it, we Dems now think he and Scalia were right. So maybe chalk one up in his favor.

But anyway, back to my story.

Republicans and most A-list pundits are running around saying Al Gore's got to get Jesse Jackson out of Florida before anything can get settled. Jesse Jackson? What about Ted Olson? Olson is about as brass-tacks, down-in-the-dirt a partisan as you can find. I could say worse things; but I'll leave it at that. I think we can assume the Republicans have set aside the high-road strategy they were pursuing at the end of last week.


Send Tips or Comments to TPM.

ARCHIVE
- March 22nd-31st Talking Points -
- March 15th-21st Talking Points -
- March 8th-14th Talking Points -
- March 1st-7th Talking Points -
- February 22nd-28th Talking Points -
- February 15th-21st Talking Points -
- February 8th-14th Talking Points -
- February 1st-7th Talking Points -
- January 23rd-31st Talking Points -
- January 15th-22nd Talking Points -
- January 8th-14th Talking Points -
- January 1st-7th Talking Points -
- 2001 -
- December 23rd-31st Talking Points -
- December 15th-22nd Talking Points -
- December 8th-14th Talking Points -
- December 1st-7th Talking Points -
- November 23rd-30th Talking Points -
- November 15th-22nd Talking Points -
- November 8th-14th Talking Points -
- November 1st-7th Talking Points -
- October 23rd-31st Talking Points -
- October 15th-22nd Talking Points -
- October 8th-14th Talking Points -
- October 1st-7th Talking Points -
- September 22nd-30th Talking Points -
- September 15th-21st Talking Points -
- September 8th-14th Talking Points -
- September 1st-7th Talking Points -
- August 22nd-31st Talking Points -
- August 15th-21st Talking Points -
- August 8th-14th Talking Points -
- August 1st-7th Talking Points -
- July 22nd-31st Talking Points -
- July 15th-21st Talking Points -
- July 8th-14th Talking Points -
- July 1st-7th Talking Points -
- June 22nd-30th Talking Points -
- June 15th-21st Talking Points -
- June 8th-14th Talking Points -
- June 1st-7th Talking Points -
- May 22nd-31st Talking Points -
- May 15th-21st Talking Points -
- May 8th-14th Talking Points -
- May 1st-7th Talking Points -
- April 22nd-30th Talking Points -
- April 15th-21st Talking Points -
- April 8th-14th Talking Points -
- April 1st-7th Talking Points -
- March 22nd-31st Talking Points -
- March 15th-21st Talking Points -
- March 8th-14th Talking Points -
- March 1st-7th Talking Points -
- February 22nd-28th Talking Points -
- February 15th-21st Talking Points -
- February 8th-14th Talking Points -
- February 1st-7th Talking Points -
- January 22nd-31st Talking Points -
- January 15th-21st Talking Points -
- January 8th-14th Talking Points -
- January 1st-7th Talking Points -
- 2000 -
- December 22nd-31st Talking Points -
- December 15th-21st Talking Points -
- December 8th-14th Talking Points -
-December 1st-7th Talking Points -
- November 22nd-30th Talking Points -
- November 13th-21st Talking Points -