Katherine Harris kicks off U.S. Senate campaign
Reuters
By: Robert Green
08/09/05

SARASOTA, Fla. (Reuters) - Republican U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, famed as Florida's top election official during the disputed 2000 presidential vote, opened her campaign for the U.S. Senate on Tuesday and promised to defeat Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson of Florida.

"Our polls show that when we get our message out, Florida's message, we will win," Harris told about 100 supporters at a community center in her home town of Sarasota.

Most statewide opinion polls show Harris trailing Nelson, a former congressman and state insurance commissioner who was elected to the Senate in 2000.

"I want to say I'm trailing by an eyelash, but I know what you guys (the media) would do with that," Harris said.

She was referring to frequent jokes about her makeup while she was Florida's secretary of state during the 2000 presidential election.

In a radio interview last week, Harris blamed newspapers for the jokes and said some had colorized her photos to make it look like she was wearing more makeup than she was. She did not name any specific papers.

As Florida's top election official during the 2000 election, Harris certified Republican George W. Bush as the state's winner by 537 votes, over the objections of Democratic candidate Al Gore, who sought more time for a recount.

Democrats vilified Harris and said her decision had been influenced by her role as Bush's Florida campaign co-chair, but she was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Harris was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2002 from a heavily Republican district. Last year, she passed up a chance to run for the U.S. Senate and was reelected to the House while Republican Mel Martinez won the Senate race.

The White House and some Republican leaders have tried to recruit other party candidates to run against Harris this time, fearing her polarizing role in the 2000 election would alienate moderate voters. But no other Republican has entered the race.

Harris, 48, said she would run as a conservative but progressive candidate. After her announcement, she began a five-day campaign tour of 10 major Florida cities from Miami to Pensacola.

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050809/pl_nm/politics_harris_dc

is conservative but progressive anything like a compassionate conservative?

Will she get to count her own ballots?
::)

Will she get to count her own ballots?
::)

Well, she'll probably get a friend to... :(

is conservative but progressive anything like a compassionate conservative?


No, compassionate conservitive actually makes sense.  Conservitive but progressive is like trying to eat your cake and have it.

I lived in Sarasota for 6 years. She'll probably win, but much to the chagrin of the people who actually live in the city limits and are not millionaires.

She's my Tallahassee Lassie down in F-L-A!
--Freddie "Boom Boom" Cannon

This is a bad sign of the times, baby, I'm talking the Union of the Snake,
the Reign of the Elapids for 1000 years!

This woman is still being attacked for doing what every other secretary of state did in 2000, certify the election results of their respective state.  How terrible!  ::)

This woman is still being attacked for doing what every other secretary of state did in 2000, certify the election results of their respective state.  How terrible!  ::)


Yeah, but at least they knew how to put on makeup.  She didn't do herself any favors by doing herself
up like the clown she is.

No, she was attacked because people thought the results were fishy and people thought she wasn't objective. 


Every state's secretary of state is partisan.  Here in Georgia, secretary of state Cathy Cox is running for the democratic nomination for governor.  It's not like she was the odd ball out. 

Every state's secretary of state is partisan.  Here in Georgia, secretary of state Cathy Cox is running for the democratic nomination for governor.  It's not like she was the odd ball out. 


Yes, but not all perform so egregiously in regards to voting irregularities that they are sued in federal court, and lose.

The irrefutable proof of her malfeasance is out there.  It also shows Governor Jeb Bush was involved in the election theft of 2000.  One can believe the proof, or live in denial.  Ditto Blackwell in Ohio, 2004.  Sorry if you don't like it, but that's how it is.
Harris is a crook.

The irrefutable proof of her malfeasance is out there.  It also shows Governor Jeb Bush was involved in the election theft of 2000.  One can believe the proof, or live in denial.  Ditto Blackwell in Ohio, 2004.


Click here

Yes, but not all perform so egregiously in regards to voting irregularities that they are sued in federal court, and lose.


She was upheld by the United States supreme court, it's in the article for Christ's sake.

She was upheld by the United States supreme court, it's in the article for Christ's sake.


The Supreme Court upheld the vote count to put georgie in as President.  AFTER the election the federal
court did find against her and the state of Florida in regards to irregularities in regards to the dropping off
of legally registered African Americans from the rolls.  That could explain why the repubs are so reluctant
to go all out for her.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1011442&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
www.tucsoncitizen.com/breaking/080405katherine_harris.php

The Supreme Court upheld the vote count to put georgie in as President. AFTER the election the federal
court did find against her and the state of Florida in regards to irregularities in regards to the dropping off
of legally registered African Americans from the rolls. That could explain why the repubs are so reluctant
to go all out for her.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1011442&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
www.tucsoncitizen.com/breaking/080405katherine_harris.php


IOW she was guilty as hell, was proven to have rigged the vote but the Supreme Court accepted the (incredibly close) vote anyway?  Sounds like democracy in action...

Sounds like democracy in action...


More like democracy "inaction"  ;)

Click here

"Click here," like "pull my finger."  No way Jose, I showed you the moon once, I showed you the moon twice, I showed you the moon three times, and you still come back to me and say there's no moon.  So I'll be switched if I'gwanna show you the moon again!
:D

IOW she was guilty as hell, was proven to have rigged the vote but the Supreme Court accepted the (incredibly close) vote anyway? 


Now why would the U.S. supreme court uphold an election where Bush won every count and there was no real proof that any voter fraud took place?  It's a real mystery, ain't it?

Now tell me about how the 1969 moon landing took place on Earth.

Now why would the U.S. supreme court uphold an election where Bush won every count and there was no real proof that any voter fraud took place?  It's a real mystery, ain't it?



Can anyone tell me if they know of a more politically naive question than this?

Now why would the U.S. supreme court uphold an election where Bush won every count and there was no real proof that any voter fraud took place? It's a real mystery, ain't it?

If memory serves, didn't they give their verdict before (quite a bit before, even) Harris's illegal manipulation of the voting register was proven in court?  It *was* proven that names which should not have been were removed from the voting rolls, but that only came after Georgie had been confirmed as president... a rather dodgy way to run a democracy, if you ask me.  ISTM that they were more concerned at the time with getting a result than getting the result that people had actually voted for.



Now tell me about how the 1969 moon landing took place on Earth.

In '69?

a rather dodgy way to run a democracy, if you ask me


The way our government is set up, any party can challenge any state's electoral votes in the legislature during the January 6th congressional election certification.  It takes at least one member of the United States house of representatives and one member of the United States senate to get together and challenge one state's electoral votes.  Any amount of states can be challenged, as long as there are at least one member of each chamber to challenge it.  The house members go to their chamber, and the senate members go to their chambers and they debate for two hours, which is divided equally, about the challenged state's electoral votes.  Then after the debate, they vote.  It takes a simple majority vote in the house of representatives AND the senate to overturn a state's electoral votes.  There are checks and balances.

If memory serves, didn't they give their verdict before (quite a bit before, even) Harris's illegal manipulation of the voting register was proven in court?  It *was* proven that names which should not have been were removed from the voting rolls, but that only came after Georgie had been confirmed as president... a rather dodgy way to run a democracy, if you ask me.  ISTM that they were more concerned at the time with getting a result than getting the result that people had actually voted for.



Just as I said before.  The proof is out there.  It is irrefutable.  The partisan Republican U.S. Supreme Court took the case (Bush V. Gore) for partisan reasons and disregarded the basic principles of democracy.
I recommend a slim volume by retired Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, None Dare Call It Treason.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010205&c=1&s=bugliosi

What do you think the guilty parties are going to do? Admit they stole the election?  No, they're going to lie.  Some of them lie to us, some of the lie to themselves and us.  I can't decide which one is sicker!  As I implied in an earlier post, if I say there is no moon in the sky, and you say there's no moon in the sky--because they say there's no moon in the sky--then, by gum, there is no moon up in the sky!

"What happened here is not the sunlight of democracy, but the dark and ominous shadows of totalitarianism."
-- Vincent Bugliosi

As true in Ohio in 2004 as in Florida in 2000.