Many people are beginning to smell a big rat in Florida and the stench is rising to high heaven. Is there really a voting problem in Florida or do they just want us to think so? How difficult can it possibly be, to press a touch button on a computer? Even a child still in the learning stages can follow most simple directions. There has to be more to the voting woes than appears on the surface. I guess they have to keep voters punching buttons or pulling levers until the liberals are satisfied with the results. And if all else fails, those ole' hanging, dimpled, and half-punched chads can be resurrected.
The Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition that formed soon after the 2000 election debacle is still having trouble due to voting data being lost. In the 2002 primary election, where the electronic touch screen voting technique was first implemented, reports of lost votes probably sent the makers of the controversial touch screen voting software to the medicine cabinet for a Goody's headache powder. Maybe it's time to go back to the original voting procedure and minimize voting problems. I am sure this method was not without problems, but certainly not to the level it is now.
Since Florida Governor Jeb Bush is the brother of President Bush, I believe if the dots could have been connected, we might have been led straight to that ole' smelly rat. Many Floridians seemed primed up and ready for the controversy — after the liberal news media called Florida for Al Gore, well in advance of the closure of voting polls in the 2000 election. And we are already hearing about another possible "fallout" in the presidential election in Florida on the first Tuesday in November 2004. Voter problems might be more believable if another state besides Florida became the prime target for voter difficulties. Attempts to make Gov. Jeb Bush and former Secretary of State Katherine Harris "patsies" in the 2000 election finally failed, making many conservatives breathe a big "sigh" of relief.
Florida is definitely still a sore spot with the Democrats. They are still eating crow from the last presidential election. Evidently, they still refuse to believe Bush would have won the election, even if the recount had been allowed to continue. The pro-Democratic doubters need to ask liberal newspapers like the New York Times the outcome, when they packed up and went to conduct a recount of the votes in Florida on their own. They later had to concede — George W. Bush won the 2000 election.
Sometimes people only believe or see what they want to and completely ignore the facts. Perhaps, the question one might consider asking if they are honestly seeking truthful answers by putting themselves in another person's shoes: Would you have challenged the way the recount started off in Florida if you were in George W. Bush's shoes, or let it go if you were the one running for president? I suspect the challenge would win out every time.
The United States Supreme Court justices did not hand the election over to Bush, they simply stopped an "unfair" recount where poll workers were trying to determine voters intentions, when they were probably using discarded (messed-up) ballots that should have been thrown in the trash can in the first place.
And since our presidential election hinges on the electoral votes and has for many years, voters have to wonder what is the big deal going to the polls when the populace vote has absolutely nothing to do with who eventually becomes president. The big deal is a lot bigger than you might think. The voters are actually voting for the candidates who will comprise the next electoral voters in the upcoming presidential elections, every four years.
Now . . . if we can only avoid those ole' smelly rats that oftentimes rear their ugly heads in elections, we'll be good to go.
© Kaye Grogan
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.