Chicken Little and the Sky is Falling
By pete streiff, May 29, 2003
From: pete streiff [midnightfortune@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 7:43 PM
To: editors@mikehersh.com
Subject: Chicken Little and the Sky is Falling...
Hey, I read with some interest (and I must admit much amusement) your article regarding "I'm not gonna get over it"- establishing the claim that Bush really did not win the election of 2000, and that Jeb Bush had his minions rigging the election, and blacks were disenfranchised,and Bush's daddy's friends on the court "really" elected him, and blah, blah , blah..... and that it was "proven" that this is what "really" happened.
Just one quick, itty-bitty question, if you will? Wasn't there a circuit court judge that addressed the issue of "recount" and ruled in Bush's favor in Florida BEFORE Gore appealed that decision, BEFORE the dominant Florida State Supreme Court ruled in Gore's favor, and BEFORE the US Supreme Court ruled in Bush's favor? And wasn't THAT judge a DEMOCRAT? Hmmm....
Good Day, P. Streiff
From: editors@mikehersh.com
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 8:03 pm
Subject: RE: Chicken Little and the Sky is Falling...
Actually no. I think you refer to Judge Sander Sauls, a right wing Democrat who supported Bush and blew several decisions in a case focusing on other issues.
That case didn't address the wholesale violations of the Voting Rights Act, Florida and federal election law etc. by the Bush team -- all of which are well documented. What you call "blah, blah, blah" is what real Americans call democracy. (see: Rehashing the Recounts: http://www.mikehersh.com/Rehashing_the_Recounts.shtml)
From: pete streiff [mailto:midnightfortune@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 10:19 PM
To: editors@mikehersh.com
Subject: Re: RE: Chicken Little and the Sky is Falling...
Thank you for proving my point, once again...that selective history by you guys is not "democracy", it's hate-mongering .... you blow off a letter that lists several points (and dare I say valid ponits) about your hypocracy of logic in lambasting the Republican Party for actions that all parties partake in, and rather than acknowledging this, you center (no pun intended, obviously) on only one issue (Judge Sauls) and then give a half-hearted, mean-spirited response to that, no less (do you really think 70% of Americans AREN'T "real" Americans?)! (And don't forget, Mr. Right-Wing Sauls is a Democrat whom you advocate voting for...Democratic Straight ticket, remember?) One thought, and then I'll let you go Republican bash some more:believe in your cause, but admit your faults when you're wrong... it's a healthier position to take...for yourself and your readers...
It was good talking to you, even though I disagree with you...(hey, you got me to read you're articles, didn't you?... But then again, I got you to read mine...haha :) Have a good evening and thanks for the reply (I really didn't think I would get one)
Pete
From: editors@mikehersh.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 10:59 PM
To: 'pete streiff' Subject: RE: RE: Chicken Little and the Sky is Falling...
It's unseemly to rattle off scores of statements after asking "Just one quick, itty-bitty question" and then complain that we "blow off a letter that lists several points." You asked a question and we answered it, "no less."
Compounding your unfairness, you insult us: "your hypocracy of logic," [sic] but then call us "mean-spirited" and accuse us of "hate-mongering." It's not that this hurts our feelings, it's just that we can't resist calling you on your "hypocracy" [sic].
Telling the truth isn't "hate-mongering," not even if you hate the truth. Your points aren't valid. That's why it was so easy to refute them. You asked if Sauls found against Gore on all the issues you listed, and we accurately said he didn't. You manage to be wrong on so many points it's hard to know where to start, but we will try to explain the errors of your ways.
Sauls is a southern right wing Democrat who had been disciplined for violations of ethics. He may be better than a criminal right winger like AWOL or Jeb Bush, but he's not much better. All parties do not make a mockery of elections cheating every possible way, losing and then ending the electoral process with a rigged court case. That isn't democracy.
Additional inaccurate comments from 'pete streiff' with rebuttal:
(do you really think 70% of Americans AREN'T "real" Americans?)!
Of course not. However, voting rights violations, breaking the law and still losing then suing the voters undermine our republic. Therefore the people who do these things or refer to these violations of the most fundamental basis of our republic as "blah, blah, blah" are anti-republican and unAmerican.
I'm just curious how Bush's "Daddy" pulled that one off (but I'm sure you'lle be able to explain it to me)?
Easy. Bush's Daddy didn't do it himself. His friends on the Supreme Court -- Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor and Kennedy did. With help from Bush's brother Jeb, his cousin John Ellis, Katherine Harris, and a mob of right wingers gathered from as far away as Alaska who were flown into Florida to block the democratic process.
And even if you are correct, and that somehow there is a "vast right wing conspiracy"
We reported established facts about the stolen election. Dismissing known facts as "conspiracy" is a cheap trick. People who can refute facts do so. Those who cannot refute or face facts hide behind cheap tricks.
(I prefer to call it 'being educated'),why the sudden outrage now, why the proclamations of distress now, why the "chicken little" act....now?
This is about an article so old it predates this site, (I'm Not "Getting Over It" by: Mike Hersh - 12/04/01) so the "why now?" question is either not "being educated," dishonest or both.
Come on, guys, even in 1960, it's been "proven" that ol'Jack bought the election. Remember the old story even JFK was known to bestow upon his elitist comrades about a letter from his Daddy Dearest, "Dear Jack-Don't buy a single vote more than is necessary- I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide."
This is what's known as a joke.
And don't EVEN get me started about your Democratic icon Mayor Daley and the "proven" ballot-stuffing scandals incurred during his tenure. Where's your "outrage" about that? Where's your sense of "morality" about that?
Even if tales of JFK's "stolen votes" in Chicago were true, Nixon "stole" at least as many votes down-state and JFK would have won even if Nixon carried Illinois' 27 Electoral Votes.
Bottom line, no matter what happened in 1960, that cannot excuse what the Bush brothers, Katherine Harris, Clayton Roberts and the right wing five Supreme Court "Justices" did in 2000.
Where's your "high ethical standards" about that? WHERE'S YOUR 'I'm not gonna get over it' ABOUT THAT? Ah, It's interesting how we all can pick and choose our own battles; forgetting the nasty little skeletons of our own closet only to protest (with voice loud, clear, and emotional)with indignity, shame, and disdain for another's possible (but sorry, guys-in no WAY proven)mis-deeds.
Sorry guy, but the US Civil Rights Commission, Greg Palast and many other unbiased reporters found concerted criminality by the Bush team in Florida.
When your forum reaks of "selective history", you do nothing but present yourself as Chicken Littles- running around looking like fools proclamating gloom and doom (especially when the President [sic] has a 70% approval rating!!)
Who's the real "Chicken Little?" Bush and company who claimed there would be "mushroom clouds" and millions of dead Americans, or those of us who called those hysterical comments lies? We present truth here, not "gloom and doom."
Rehashed Reagan Era nonsense won't refute our facts or keep Bush at 70%. As we've reported, Bush's "Iraq Bounce" is almost gone. Bush's "doctrine" already failed in Afghanistan and is failing in Iraq. A few reporters are actually reporting the truth, that Bush lied us into war. Where's Saddam? Where's Osama? Where are those WMDs?
You know, the sad part about your forum is that you make SOME good points about SOME valid issues, but because you cannot see the difference between "good political debate/discussion" and "pure, unadulterated leftist propaganda", you limit yourself to the eyes of a nation who only see you for what you are; an organization (dare I say 'vast left wing conspirators'?) that is bitter and humiliated because a President [sic], who has defined himself as a leader and has the approval rating of the majority of Americans, is not the President that YOU chose, that YOU agree with, that YOU respect. Well, I say to you, "GET OVER IT"!
Bush is not the person the voters chose. By US law, Al Gore won. Bush said he'd trust the American people, but when the people elected Al, W sued the voters!
You don't speak for "the nation." That's a cheap illogical appeal to authority you lack. Your name calling, fallacies and refusal to bring accurate facts to the debate (old JFK jokes aren't facts) shows you have no standing to claim others cannot tell the difference between "political debate/discussion" and " propaganda."
At least you understand that we make good points. Too bad you call anything you don't agree with "hate" or "propaganda" or "conspiracy." Labeling facts this way and trying to dismiss them will not make reality change. We think that's what makes you really sad.
We're never going to "get over" a stolen election, a squandered surplus, and an illegitimate unqualified liar wasting American blood and $billions in his war games. Don't bother telling us what to "get over." Save your breath.
I lived (agonized) with Clinton/Gore for 8 years, and hey, I'm over it.
Yes, that horrid peace and prosperity under President Clinton's enlightened, moderate leadership! Somehow you hardly seem "over it."
The only re-ocurring nightmare I have is that somehow, some way, America will let her guard down and through blurry eyes allow Hillary into the highest office of the land. Maybe then will you have the "socialism" that you desire.
It's pathetic you feel so insecure in your position that you try pretend you can read minds. Telling other people what they "desire" is another cheap trick. Your red baiting is so 1950s. Get over that and then we can talk about getting over Bush's criminal coup against the republic.
My point, pure and simple is this: life is full of curves- Nixon probably SHOULD have won in 1960 (because of the "proven" illegalities of the Democratic party), but I will be the first to say that as a History major, it was best that JFK won, due to the tactical moves he made regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis.
As mentioned, the accusations against JFK were matched by those against Nixon. JFK would have won in 1960 even if Nixon carried Illinois. Kennedy won the Electoral College by 83 votes - 302 to Nixon's 219.
Nixon's allies in the media and the Republican Party itself did all they could to prove these allegations, but failed as David Greenberg reports:
Three days after the election, party Chairman Senator Thruston Morton launched bids for recounts and investigations in eleven states -- an action that Democratic Senator Henry Jackson attacked as a "fishing expedition." Eight days later, close Nixon aides, including Bob Finch and Len Hall, sent agents to conduct "field checks" in eight of those states. Peter Flanigan, another aide, encouraged the creation of a Nixon Recount Committee in Chicago.
The Republicans pressed their case doggedly. They succeeded in obtaining recounts, empanelling grand juries, and involving U.S. attorneys and the FBI. Appeals were heard, claims evaluated, evidence weighed. The New York Times considered the charges in a November 26 editorial. (Its bold verdict: "It is now imperative that the results in each state be definitively settled by the time the Electoral College meets.") The results of it all were meager.
In Illinois, the appeal was pursued more vigorously, maybe because the electoral take was higher (twenty-seven) and Kennedy's margin slimmer (9,000 votes). Charges focused on Cook County (specifically Chicago) where Kennedy had won by a suspiciously overwhelming 450,000 votes.
National GOP officials plunged in. Thruston Morton flew to Chicago to confer with Illinois Republican leaders on strategy, while party Treasurer Meade Alcorn announced Nixon would win the state. With Nixon distancing himself from the effort, the Cook County state's attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, stepped forward to lead the challenge. A Daley antagonist and potential rival for the mayoralty, Adamowski had lost his job to a Democrat by 25,000 votes. The closeness of his defeat entitled him to a recount, which began November 29.
Completed December 9, the recount of 863 precincts showed that the original tally had undercounted Nixon's (and Adamowski's) votes, but only by 943, far from the 4,500 needed to alter the results. In fact, in 40 percent of the rechecked precincts, Nixon's vote was overcounted.
See: FISHY OUTCOME: The Legend of Nixon's 1960 Loss. Was the Election Stolen from Him? by David Greenberg, Tom Paine.com: http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3851
I think Carter was an inept President, but his Presidency did betstow morality upon that office and give peace to Egypt and Israel.
Carter's real record speaks for itself: better job creation than Reagan. A mild recession, which had ended before Reagan took office and tanked the economy (which Reagan dishonestly blamed on Carter). Carter's policies and appointees squeezed inflation out of the economy. Reagan dishonestly took credit for that. See Happy Birthday, Jimmy Carter: http://www.mikehersh.com/article_117.shtml.
You disagree with Reagan's tenure in office, but no Democrat could have aided in ending Communism in Russia or have been such an important instrument in bringing down the Berlin Wall as he did.
More mythology. In fact, Democrats Harry Truman, JFK, and the maligned Jimmy Carter did much more than Reagan to win the Cold War. After undermining the winning containment policies for decades with his rash and irresponsible rhetoric, Reagan came along too late to matter in a positive way, but nearly caused World War Three with his big mouth.
I reported this in articles The Real Reagan Record and Republicans Can't Keep Us Safe: http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_Cant_Keep_Us_Safe.shtml.
However, no matter how much you disagree, you move on- and you fight based on political philosphy- not personal attacks.
This would be more persuasive if we did indulge in "personal attacks" and you didn't. Since the reverse is true, you should try to use more facts, less invective, and stop refusing to "move on" while demanding others "get over" the Republicans' concerted attack on voting and the Constitution. See the articles about Republicans at our site.
That, my friend, is why the Republicans will maintain the Congress and the Presidency in 2004-
Over this democracy's dead body - only if the GOPs rig the voting machines and pull out all the stops with other crimes.
for "your party" has become the "New Klan"
The Republicans intentionally threw innocent blacks off the voting rolls in Florida, accusing them of felonies they never committed. The GOP leadership harbors segregationists like Lott and other bigots like Santorum. AWOL Bush refused to even meet with the family of a hate crimes victim and vetoed a hate crimes bill in Texas (and then lied about it). That's "your party's" record.
your personal attacks and disdain on every Republican ("Vote the Democratic Straight Ticket")only separates those who otherwise might be willing to listen to you.
Saying people should vote for the better party -- the one which respects voting -- is not a "personal attack" or "disdain." You should stop accusing others of doing what you do, and not whine when others prove you're wrong.
You do nothing but empower that which you seek to destroy, and come November 2004, you WILL be "updating" your article once again, entitled, "I'm STILL not gonna get over it- by Chicken Little"...
Again with the silly little insults! And this from someone who calls us "mean-spirited" and complains about "personal attacks" and "disdain" then accuses us of "hypocracy" [sic].
Without the huge money and media advantages, your party would be in a shambles. Even with them, Bush cheated and broke the law in 2000 and still lost. As for 2004, don't count your "Chicken Littles" before they hatch. Not even Katherine Harris would try that scam. Or would she?
© Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by MikeHersh.com and identified authors. MikeHersh.com invites you to broadcast any material at this site, provided you identify the source as MikeHersh.com. All print, Internet, email and other summaries, excerpts or other written reproductions must include this blurb and a link to http://www.MikeHersh.com.