Underhandedness was the topicOctober 19 2003 at 9:23 PM
|Van (no login)|
from IP address 18.104.22.168
Response to Yeah, I read that stuff a while back
What I was getting at was internal process flaws, to whit, the problem within the APO/FPO system and proper handling. The Gore (some of his people, not VP himself) team remarks in the paper were, IMO, "ther truth comes out" which reconfirmed 8 years of anti service persons policy of the administration. I won't open this can of worms again, but Try To Find Care. :-P The anger is still too recent.
Hmm, now yer saying it was the remarks that made you angry. But when you brought up disenfranchising, you said:
How the Gore Campaign's attempt to disenfranchise, or at least to cast into dispute, absentee voters from Florida, whoe were serving overseas in pursuit of Clintonian policies in the Balkans and elsewhere, was in any way not underhanded crap?
If you don't disagree with the article, then what you initially said regarding "underhanded crap" applies more to the Bush team than the Gore team. The fact that the Bush team succeeded in disenfranchising sneakily and quietly makes the Bush team the "winners" of underhandedness IMO--- and in my mind validates the challenge of those ballots.
Stepping back to The Point:
This whole sub-thread came about from Pete's comment:
Both parties were at fault, the Reps a bit more so than the Demos.
I agreed with Pete. I added "Gore's team stayed within the law." You disagreed with one or both, citing Gore's team and absentee ballots. I don't think the absentee ballots countered Pete's statement, nor mine.
- So what? - Occhi on Oct 20, 6:40 AM