How to be a good politician: Lessons from Silvio Berlusconi

dod

I see that Italy have taken over the six-month revolving presidency of the EU, and that the Italian President Silvio Berlusconi has managed to kick up a diplomatic furore in his speech by labeling a German representative a Nazi.

Quite rightly, the German government has informed the Italian ambassador of its displeasure. If these sort of remarks were to become the norm, imagine the name calling and slagging it could all lead to in political circles? (In some bizarre abberation of english they called this 'razzing' in my school. I always assumed it was a non-word which they had made up, like 'tit' for the milk-jug, 'jizz-box' for the portable stereo, 'sitting-room' was the noun which referred to your weekend visitors. 'Stitch' was when the priest whacked you across the face with the open palm of his hand. However I've just found 'razz' in the OED and I'm afraid to look up the others lest they are real words too).

Anyway, back to the rollout in Ireland of this practice of political razzing: Bertie Ahern and his Dail cohorts might make snide remarks to the Sinn Fein TDs about their (alleged!) associations with any of the various shades of IRA. Sinn Fein might retort that Bertie is in the pocket of the FAI, why else would he want to spend a billion quid on a stadium that we can't afford and that nobody wants? Hell, it could get nasty if Emmet Stagg threw his hat in the ring and started name-calling. It would make for great television though - they could move Oireachtas Report to prime-time TV. The apparent apathy among the youth for politics would be drowned out by people running for the Dail where they could say anything they liked about anyone they liked with impunity due to Dail privilege. Imagine being able to repeat those allegations that you hear said in the pubs around Ireland about Bertie but that no press will print because of libel laws? Libel Laws? Hah - Dail Privilege! If the holier-than-thou FF TDs are going to accuse Sinn Fein of associations with factions that resort unneccessarily to violence, then ...

So the slagging continues. Enda Kenny might take exception to Berties daily hanging, drawing and quartering of the English language. I saw Bertie on the news the other day talking about how, once the statues were in place, government policy could be followed through. I had visions of Commendatore Bertie wreaking revenge on Don Giovanni Rabbitte for his wanton left-leaning lifestyle until, after he had referred to the statues repeatedly, I decided that perhaps he had intended to say 'statutes'. Honestly, I exaggerate not. What are the chances of setting up an International Criminal Court for crimes against the English language? Actually, once we arraign Bertie, we might get him for crimes against logic, crimes against style, inability to answer a simple 'Yes' or 'No' question with a simple 'Yes' or 'No', speaking with a forked tongue, and speaking in an unrecognisable language with the aforementioned forked tongue. Now that I think about it, perhaps we could do a prisoner exchange and with the Hague and swap Bertie for Milosevic. If Milosevic were Taoiseach and were to speak to us in his native tongue, he could be no less incomprehensible than that offices current incumbent.

Ahh the possibilities, I know the terms in which they would have reffered to Nora Owen if she were in school with us. Oh for the opportunity to have an unfettered go at our fine Minister for Finance McCreevy. Seamus Brennan? Biffo Cowen? Oh the possibilities, the possibilities I tell you! Imagine electing somebody whose platform was that their command of sarcasm and utter dislike of everybody would make for good Dail debating. Well, entertaining Dail debating anyway. This could be better than WWF. Point me to whoever Moya Doherty got to copyright her entertainment ideas...

Sparks

As I understand it, someone could claim that Bertie is in the pocket of the FAI at the moment in the Dail without fear of libel anyway. You just can't actually say that someone is lying in the Dail. Even if they are.

Only in Ireland...


[/off-topic]

So is this the sort of thing we have to get used to from our new EU president then? It might prove to be the first time Bertie taking the reins on anything was welcomed....

Sarky

Imagine electing somebody whose platform was that their command of sarcasm and utter dislike of everybody would make for good Dail debating.

Hmm, I have been getting a little more interested in politics...

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
So is this the sort of thing we have to get used to from our new EU president then? It might prove to be the first time Bertie taking the reins on anything was welcomed....

Well, while I agree that Berlusconi was well out of order, I notice that much of the reporting of it is not entirely accurate, or providing the full story.

From one of the articles I found (can't remember where, sorry) :

And then, Martin Schulz, a Social Democrat and German member of the European Parliament, chided Italy's wealthiest man over alleged conflicts of interest between Berlusconi's political power and his media empire. Schulz intimated that Berlusconi used a new Italian immunity law to wiggle out of a bribery trial in a Milan court. He also criticized the prime minister for not distancing himself from right-wing members in the Italian government whose beliefs are contrary to the spirit of the EU.
"In Italy," Berlusconi snapped at Schulz, "they are making a movie on Nazi concentration camps. I will propose you for the role of chief."

So, in fairness to the man, he made his inaugural speech and was immediately being attacked on issues which were really nothing relevant at the time.

He insists that his joke was meant to be ironic, that something was lost in the translation, and that no offence was made. I don't entirely believe that, but at the very least there was provocation.

All told, this reads to me like people throwing insults at each other, and one of them not watching his insults carefully enough.

jc

Sparks

bonkey,
He called a german MEP "ideal for the role of camp commendant" in a nazi concentration camp.
Now I know we see politicians as something other than human, which isn't correct, but there's a difference between a human mistake and picking the most contraversial statement you could make and slinging it out in public as the president of the EU...

Sesshoumaru

So, in fairness to the man, he made his inaugural speech and was immediately being attacked on issues which were really nothing relevant at the time.

I think its very relevant considering he is supposed to represent Europe for the next 6 months and in fairness he should have predicted these kinds of questions. Did he honestly think no one would question him on his conflicts of interest regarding his media empire? Especially considering all the bad press he got in nearly every newspaper in Europe on the previous day.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sesshoumaru
I think its very relevant considering he is supposed to represent Europe for the next 6 months and in fairness he should have predicted these kinds of questions. Did he honestly think no one would question him on his conflicts of interest regarding his media empire? Especially considering all the bad press he got in nearly every newspaper in Europe on the previous day.

OK...this is where you need to read up on the principle concepts of an idea called democracy.

Regardless of what these people may think of him, he was validly elected by his own people, and the EU system does not put formal restrictions on which elected representatives are "acceptable" to become EU presidents.

If someone has a problem with Berlie becoming EU president, then the correct way to deal with that is to attack the system which permitted him to become EU president in the first place.

He was elected democratically. He holds a valid office. There is nothing else to say.

I am no fan of the man, just like I am no fan of Haider, but it p1sses me off to no end that there seems to be this increasing belief that democracy no longer means "the choice of the people", but rather "the choice of the people that the people of other nations find acceptable".

His comments were - as I have already said - well out of order. However, I will still stand by my stance that the person he insulted in retaliation was equally out of order. The EU has absolutely nothing to do with the issues raised, nor has his EU presidency. His inaugural speech was in no way the place to start launching an attack which can basically be summed up as "you're not fit to be president, are you".

This is a case of someone attacking the man because they think the system is wrong, and then getting offended when the man in question attacks back.

I'm not saying that he was right...what I'm saying is that it is equally shameful that no-one sees anything wrong with the events which led up to this insult, which (IMHO) were equally out of order, regardless of how justified they were.

If you are happy to see democratic politics reduced to mob rule, where the moral or vocal majority is all that matters, rather than the voting majority, then thats all well and good, but personally, I see that as a disastrous failure rather than a wagon to jump on.

jc

Sparks

he was validly elected by his own people

I think that you'll find that that's a point being contended in Italy at present in the same way that Bush's election is a point of contention for some in the US.

His inaugural speech was in no way the place to start launching an attack which can basically be summed up as "you're not fit to be president, are you".

Why, exactly, should he receive a free pass? It strikes me that a speech which is pretty much dedicated to his inaugeration as EU president is precisely where such a comment should be made!

This is a case of someone attacking the man because they think the system is wrong, and then getting offended when the man in question attacks back.

And this is where the definition of the word "statesman" comes into play...

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
I think that you'll find that that's a point being contended in Italy at present in the same way that Bush's election is a point of contention for some in the US.

No, actually it’s not. There are question marks over his influence over Italian media, business interests and allegations of corruption, but these are quite different to the fun and games that the Texas mafia have been accused of in the 2000 US presidential election, vis a vi electoral irregularities (which are a far more serious charge).

Why, exactly, should he receive a free pass? It strikes me that a speech which is pretty much dedicated to his inaugeration as EU president is precisely where such a comment should be made!

Parliamentary courtesy - as has been afforded to all his predecessors. Just because you don’t like him doesn’t mean you have to be a guttersnipe.

Sparks

TC,

No, actually it’s not.

Actually, yes it is. The method he used however, were legal, if borderline - namely that he had an obscenely large conflict of interest in his ownerships of so much of Italy's media. He was likened to "Citizen Kane on steroids" if I remember the quote correctly (though I can't remember the source Probably BBC News 24 reporting though).
As opposed to Shrubya, whose methods were pretty blatently illegal.

Parliamentary courtesy - as has been afforded to all his predecessors. Just because you don’t like him doesn’t mean you have to be a guttersnipe.

There's a significant difference between a personal attack based on not likeing the guy ("You can't be president because your mother wears army boots!") and an attack based on his actual background - remember, he's still up on bribery charges in Milan, and as soon as he steps out of office, there are more charges awaiting him.

dod

Personally, I'm not sure that the distinction between majority-voting and mob-rule is that clear in this circumstance. However, let's not indluge in idle speculation in respect of his modus operandi just yet.

He is the elected head of state of Italy. His comments were made in his capacity as president of the EU, an unelected position. I believe that in his position as head of the EU, he should have risen above some jibing, maliciously intended or not. He must exercise the most delicate of diplomatic positions for the next six months, not be drawn into petty squabbles or schoolboy oneupmanship.

I believe that his little outburst may strengthen the hand of the federalists, who wish to see the position of the president of the EU made an elected position, and this ill advised verbal attack may force the hands of many into the open who were otherwise going to manoeuvre quietly in respect of their federal/ anti-federal positions.

I think there may be some considerable fallout from this incident yet.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, yes it is. The method he used however, were legal, if borderline - namely that he had an obscenely large conflict of interest in his ownerships of so much of Italy's media. He was likened to "Citizen Kane on steroids" if I remember the quote correctly (though I can't remember the source Probably BBC News 24 reporting though).

How is the contention with Berlusconi’s election the same as Bush’s, exactly? I get that you don’t like him (neither do I, tbh), but I still don’t see the allegations of electoral fraud that have been levied at Bush. You could argue that his influence over the media gave him an almost fraudulent advantage, but then we could argue that Bertie’s election promises gave him an almost fraudulent advantage too...

As opposed to Shrubya, whose methods were pretty blatently illegal.

Sorry, I thought you said that this was “a point being contended in Italy at present in the same way that Bush's election is a point of contention for some in the US”? Now it’s not the “same way”?

There's a significant difference between a personal attack based on not likeing the guy ("You can't be president because your mother wears army boots!") and an attack based on his actual background

The mob-like heckling that took place during the inaugural speech, by a head of state, of a term of the EU presidency was wholly out of order and a deplorable breach of Parliamentary courtesy. Regardless of Berlusconi’s foolish retort, this behaviour was completely out of line as it preceded his comments - in fact, his comments were a direct response to this behaviour.

Sparks

but then we could argue that Bertie’s election promises gave him an almost fraudulent advantage too...

Actually, it's a better comparison to point to the overspending by certain FF TDs in the last election...

Sorry, I thought you said that this was “a point being contended in Italy at present in the same way that Bush's election is a point of contention for some in the US”? Now it’s not the “same way”?

*sigh*
That they were properly elected is what's the same - the precise manner in which the election was improper is what's different.

Sparks

Just a small correction:

The mob-like heckling that took place during the inaugural speech, by a head of state, of a term of the EU presidency was wholly out of order and a deplorable breach of Parliamentary courtesy.

This "mob-like heckling" consisted of several Green Party MEPs holding up signs little bigger than A4 sheets of paper - not actual groups of people heckling him. One german socialist MEP actually heckled him verbally - and Berlusconi lost the plot completely, complete with shouting, reddened face and gesticulation. There was a rather stunned silence and then Berlusconi was invited to apologise for his remarks right there - and he refused.

So frankly, he got little in the way of provocation and a chance to clean the situation up on the spot, which he then chose to disregard.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
That they were properly elected is what's the same -

You do mean "improperly" I assume?

jc

Sparks

You do mean "improperly" I assume?

Ach. Gah. Yes, brainsleepyhiccup led to fingerpokentrubbles. I meant "improperly".

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Just a small correction:

This "mob-like heckling" consisted of several Green Party MEPs holding up signs little bigger than A4 sheets of paper - not actual groups of people heckling him. One german socialist MEP actually heckled him verbally - and Berlusconi lost the plot completely, complete with shouting, reddened face and gesticulation. There was a rather stunned silence and then Berlusconi was invited to apologise for his remarks right there - and he refused.

http://msnbc.com/news/934453.asp?newguid=1B623B31184146E48DA179224AE9D8D1&cp1=1

puts it differently. (but then again, it is MSNBC I'm linking to!) They assert that :

Several left-wing politicians spoke out about his suitability for the European leadership post in the wake of his corruption trial, and the conflict of interest in his ownership of the private networks and his control of the public networks in his role as head of government. Another sore point mentioned was his alliance with Bossi, and when a German deputy summed these all up in one provocative address, Berlusconi lost his cool.

jc

Sparks

Bonkey,
I'm just typing in a description of the video footage they've been showing all night (Insomnia strikes again ) on BBC news 24 and Sky News. I suppose they may have edited out huge swathes of it - but their voiceover specifically said that only one MEP had actually verbally heckled him.
And if you think that the joke was bad, you ought to have seen his face after telling it - he looked more smug than CJH must have looked after they said he'd never stand trial because it would be unfairly prejudiced...

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Ach. Gah. Yes, brainsleepyhiccup led to fingerpokentrubbles. I meant "improperly".

There is no way you can create such a comparison between the two men. One has been accused of direct irregularities in the electoral process and the other has not. Such an inclusive comparison, as you’ve made, could be made with practically any government as any perceived irregularity (and not just in the electoral process) could be argued to have resulted in an improper election.

This "mob-like heckling" consisted of several Green Party MEPs holding up signs little bigger than A4 sheets of paper - not actual groups of people heckling him. One german socialist MEP actually heckled him verbally - and Berlusconi lost the plot completely, complete with shouting, reddened face and gesticulation. There was a rather stunned silence and then Berlusconi was invited to apologise for his remarks right there - and he refused.

There were quite a few more, and a good few jeers and shouts. He was forced to restart his speech on at least one occasion. Eventually, he came out with the now infamous ‘joke’. There was a severe breach of parliamentary protocol, considering the occasion. This should not exonerate him from his comments, but it should be, and has been, taken into account.

Your interpretation of events as well as your definition of improper elections appears born from your opinion of the man rather than fact. As I’ve already said, I’m not terribly fond of him either (and did not vote Forza Italia in the last election), but I do not share your apparent need to demonise him.

Sparks

TC,

There is no way you can create such a comparison between the two men. One has been accused of direct irregularities in the electoral process and the other has not.

One has been accused of indirect irregularities and illegal acts and the other has been accused of direct irregularites and illegal acts- therefore I can compare them by saying that both have been accused of irregularities and illegal acts.
Doesn't seem like I'm breaking any logical precepts here.

Such an inclusive comparison could be made with practically any government as any perceived irregularity (and not just in the electoral process) could be argued to have resulted in an improper election.[/.quote]
Totally correct. Just that in Berlusconi's case, it's a lot more likely that the "perceived irregularity" is an actual irregularity, given the specific details of the charges laid against him.

There were quite a few more, and a good few jeers and shouts.

If so, they were edited out of the footage and implicitly denied in the voiceover.

Your interpretation of events as well as your definition of improper elections appears born from your opinion of the man rather than fact. As I’ve already said, I’m not terribly fond of him either (and did not vote Forza Italia in the last election), but I do not share your apparent need to demonise him.

As I said in my last post,

I'm just typing in a description of the video footage they've been showing all night on BBC news 24 and Sky News. I suppose they may have edited out huge swathes of it - but their voiceover specifically said that only one MEP had actually verbally heckled him.

It'd be nice if you wouldn't accuse me of letting emotional dislike set my opinions in stone in disregard of available fact, especially one post after I state my sources.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
One has been accused of indirect irregularities and illegal acts and the other has been accused of direct irregularites and illegal acts- therefore I can compare them by saying that both have been accused of irregularities and illegal acts.
Doesn't seem like I'm breaking any logical precepts here.

Both are accused of irregularities and illegal acts, yet only one is accused of those acts with relation to their election. You’ve thus used the unrelated irregularities and illegal acts rather creatively to stretch your logic so that both men are now improperly elected in your eyes. That is not a sound argument.

Just that in Berlusconi's case, it's a lot more likely that the "perceived irregularity" is an actual irregularity, given the specific details of the charges laid against him.

Do you mean that even though there are no irregularities in Berlusconi’s election the fact that he is accused of irregularities elsewhere means that he must have acted in an illegal fashion in his election? If so, that’s a pretty tenuous and bizarre argument.

It'd be nice if you wouldn't accuse me of letting emotional dislike set my opinions in stone in disregard of available fact, especially one post after I state my sources.

I’m not questioning your sources, just your rather imaginative interpretation designed to reinforce your own view of Berlusconi rather than his actions.

Sparks

Both are accused of irregularities and illegal acts, yet only one is accused of those acts with relation to their election. You’ve thus used the unrelated irregularities and illegal acts rather creatively to stretch your logic so that both men are now improperly elected in your eyes. That is not a sound argument.

Both are accused of illegal acts in relation to their election! Berlusconi is accused of abusing his monopoly on Italian media to promote his electoral campaign, and his campaign has resulted in a move to reform campaign finance. If anything, it's Bush that isn't accused of an illegal act in relation to his election - that's his brother you're thinking of.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Both are accused of illegal acts in relation to their election! Berlusconi is accused of abusing his monopoly on Italian media to promote his electoral campaign, and his campaign has resulted in a move to reform campaign finance.

That is not an accusation of electoral fraud. It may be an unfair advantage, it may also be illegal, but it’s a far cry from striking swathes of the electorate (likely to vote against one) off the registrar or other polling irregularities. The comparison is not a valid one.

If anything, it's Bush that isn't accused of an illegal act in relation to his election - that's his brother you're thinking of.

Actually both have been and his brother has been accused of said acts to benefit GWB.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks

And if you think that the joke was bad, you ought to have seen his face after telling it - he looked more smug than CJH must have looked after they said he'd never stand trial because it would be unfairly prejudiced...

As I just posted in the other thread we have going about this....I think the guy pulled off a masterstroke. Of course he looked smug.

jc

Sparks

bonkey,
See my post in the other thread. Maybe the two should be merged?

TC,
There are rules as to how you can run a campaign. Breaking them counts as an electoral irregularity. As now being demonstrated here. Whether it's a direct interference with the electoral process or an unfair advantage in the campaign stage, it's still an irregularity.
As to Jeb and George, as far as I knew, Jeb was the one that committed the act - George might be a conspirator, but somehow I doubt he knew the specifics ahead of time. Too much of a cute hoor, that one.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
There are rules as to how you can run a campaign. Breaking them counts as an electoral irregularity. As now being demonstrated here. Whether it's a direct interference with the electoral process or an unfair advantage in the campaign stage, it's still an irregularity.

What rules did Berlusconi break exactly? If one candidate has ten times the campaign funds as another, does that give them an unfair advantage in the campaign stage? Certainly. Are they breaking any rules? Probably not (unless specified).

So unless there’s presently such a rule (there's not, although there may well be a need for one in Italy), then he has broken no rules. He did not commit electoral fraud. Simple as that. Anything else is frankly your invention.

As to Jeb and George, as far as I knew, Jeb was the one that committed the act - George might be a conspirator, but somehow I doubt he knew the specifics ahead of time. Too much of a cute hoor, that one.

And Nixon did not break into the Watergate himself. Hardly made him an innocent.

Sparks

TC,
After doing some digging about, it would appear that you are correct in that Berlusconi violated no specific technical rule. Mind you, that doesn't mean his election was a fair one:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/ital-a07.shtml

Sort of the same way that campaign finance rules here aren't so great because they only limit spending for a certain period before the election - so FF had those "A lot done" posters put up all over the gaff long before the election was announced, and had spent a lot more than their legal allowance on their campaigns before the final run-up to the election itself.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
After doing some digging about, it would appear that you are correct in that Berlusconi violated no specific technical rule. Mind you, that doesn't mean his election was a fair one

Sounds suspiciously like “factually you’re right, but morally I’m right”

My objection was towards the implication that Berlusconi had been accused of similar electoral improprieties to those that have been levied towards the Texas Mafia. This is not the case.

As to the question of something being democratically fair or not, this is debatable (and off topic). Berlusconi’s present influence over the media would be dubious at best in my own opinion, however I also recognise that both the communists and socialists in Italy have often held unfair influence in various branches of the media and judiciary for decades.

As an aside, the three state television channels (RAIUNO, RAIDUE and RAITRE) have long been partisan - traditionally towards the Christian Democrats, Socialists and Communists, and their post-Tangentopoli successors, respectively.

Sparks

Oooh, a comparison of morally correct, factually correct and "fair".
And me without my running shoes...

I think perhaps though that "that berlusconi is an example of why we need EU-wide rules regarding the fairness of democratic elections and the rules governing eligibility for those elections" is a more worthy debate topic...

Turnip

Originally posted by The Corinthian
however I also recognise that both the communists and socialists in Italy have often held unfair influence in various branches of the media and judiciary for decades.

As an aside, the three state television channels (RAIUNO, RAIDUE and RAITRE) have long been partisan - traditionally towards the Christian Democrats, Socialists and Communists, and their post-Tangentopoli successors, respectively.

I'm inclined to think that something similar can be said about RTE and the BBC. The left wing bias is unbelievable at times. eg. the row over the WMD dossier and the BBC's determination to attack the government using evidence from dubious sources.

Sparks

You might think that Turnip, but you're wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4705363,00.html

Turnip

Originally posted by Sparks
You might think that Turnip, but you're wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4705363,00.html

The Guardian has never pretended that it's anything other than a mouthpiece for the left. Even if the BBC was stuffed with Jeremy Paxmans and smug Ian Hislops, they'd still say there's a right wing bias.

Sparks

Turnip,
Did you even bother to read the article?
And more importantly, can you prove that their conclusion is wrong?
Because what you just posted was pretty much the definition of ad hominem.

Xhen

Berlusconi's remark was boorish and tactless, but so were the heckling, mobster references, and questions about his suitability. Why are Eurolefties so intent on questioning Berlusconi's fitness for office while the odious Jacques Chirac is also avoiding corruption charges by remaining in office? So far the EU parliament looks like a regular three-ring circus.

BTW, there are no charges of illegality being made against either Bush or his brother over the 2000 elections except by a few loons like Michael Moore. The election was a virtual tie so one side was going to be angry about the results no matter who came out on top. The election did reveal some structural problems in Florida's polling system but absolutely no evidence of illegality on anyone's part. Anyone who claims that Bush didn't legally win the election is either lying or doesn't understand the American election system.

Sparks

Why are Eurolefties so intent on questioning Berlusconi's fitness for office while the odious Jacques Chirac is also avoiding corruption charges by remaining in office?

Chirac's corruption is both known and condemned. However at the last election, he survived because the only other candidate was a rabidly xenophobic fascist. So given the choice between corrupt moderate and xenophobic fascist...
It's was a major scandal at the time.

The election did reveal some structural problems in Florida's polling system

Yes, and there were some minor tobacco abuses under Clinton.
:rolleyes:

but absolutely no evidence of illegality on anyone's part.

Only because those involved claimed gross incompetence.

Anyone who claims that Bush didn't legally win the election is either lying or doesn't understand the American election system.

You might want to tell that to the people making the charges...

BTW,

can you prove that their conclusion is wrong?

Xhen

Originally posted by Sparks

You might want to tell that to the people making the charges...

BTW,

You might want to tell me the names of the people making the charges first.

BTW, "making charges" doesn't mean sour grapes whining by someone with an agenda. Any idiot can throw out unsubstantiated claims, and most do. Please provide the name of the investigative body that found illegalities and the charges filed.

Sparks

You might want to tell me the names of the people making the charges first.

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/011101/gen_0111017695.shtml
http://www.hurricane2001.com/03/04/florida/d924919a.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.27B.fl.avoid.suit.htm

BTW, "making charges" doesn't mean sour grapes whining by someone with an agenda. Any idiot can throw out unsubstantiated claims, and most do. Please provide the name of the investigative body that found illegalities and the charges filed.

That would be the US Commission on Civil Rights...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004pZP

Xhen

You've provided evidence of lawsuits - an inevitability in a close election - and a US Commission on Civil Rights report that makes claims of sloppy voting procedures but no allegations of illegality. No one has argued that there weren't problems with the voting procedures in Florida but where is the proof that either Bush or his brother Jeb were guilty of crimes? If you're going to claim it start backing it up.

Sparks

a US Commission on Civil Rights report that makes claims of sloppy voting procedures but no allegations of illegality

It's more than that, and you know it.
From here:

It accuses Governor Jeb Bush, the president's brother, and his secretary of state, Katherine Harris, of "gross dereliction" of duty, saying they "chose to ignore mounting evidence" of the problems.

After more than a month of haggling over recounts and the intervention of the supreme court, George Bush was declared winner of the presidential election in Florida by 537 votes.
The report says the tiny margin was overwhelmed by the numbers of disproportionately minority voters denied the right to vote by the flawed database of felons, and the widespread use of outdated voting technology in black and Hispanic districts, where the resources to correct mistakes were scarcest.

And from here:

Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it is not necessary to prove deliberate or intentional discrimination against citizens, only that certain practices resulted in the disenfranchisement of those whom the statute is designed to protect. Practices, the commission noted, “are illegal when they have the effect of restricting opportunities for people of color, language minorities, persons with disabilities, and the elderly to participate fully in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice.”
In her conclusions, Chairwoman Berry was careful not to state explicitly that Jeb Bush, Harris or other Florida officials were guilty of violating voting rights. However, her preliminary report provides a picture of pervasive fraud, manipulation and intimidation, which can be explained rationally only as the outcome of a deliberate policy. Moreover, the ferocious effort of Republican officials, both nationally and in Florida, to block manual recounts after election day is consistent with a policy of suppressing votes on election day itself.

Xhen

Sparks, your source is an opinion piece from the unbiased folks at the World Socialist Website? Even the WSW admits "Chairwoman Berry was careful not to state explicitly that Jeb Bush, Harris or other Florida officials were guilty of violating voting rights" before launching into their predictable spin on the report.

You haven't made your case. None of those articles, not even the one by the Socialists, claim the George W. Bush himself did anything illegal, so I suggest you put that particular piece of propaganda back into your bag until you can back it up.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Xhen
You haven't made your case. None of those articles, not even the one by the Socialists, claim the George W. Bush himself did anything illegal, so I suggest you put that particular piece of propaganda back into your bag until you can back it up.

And I suppose that Nixon had nothing to do with the Watergate breaking because he did not break in himself? :rolleyes:

I don’t think it an unfair assumption that if an action, legal or otherwise, strategically benefited him in his election that he would have been party to it, even if he were not so directly. Were the actions taken in Florida to help GWB’s election illegal, it would probably be very naive to assume that he had no knowledge of it at the very least, although he almost certainly will have retained plausible deniability.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
although he almost certainly will have retained plausible deniability.

Which seems to be all that Xhen is interested in. Reading through his various posts, all I see time after time is "show me the proof".

In other words - Buish is completely innocent and even above suspicion because nothing has been proven against him in a court of law, and to even suggest anything otherwise would be a disastrously bad move - as Xhen put it : you'd have to be lying or just not understand the US system.

Xhen - I'm curious about something. Using your logic and requirements of proof : was Bush lying about Saddam's possession of WMDs - including being close to obtaining nuclear technology - or did Bush just not understand what a WMD or the terms "possession", "close to" or "obtaining" actually means ???

After all - you're the one insisting that these seem to be the only two possible explanations for allegations based on lack of conviction in court and a lack of absolute proof.



jc

Xhen

Originally posted by The Corinthian
And I suppose that Nixon had nothing to do with the Watergate breaking because he did not break in himself? :rolleyes:

I don’t think it an unfair assumption that if an action, legal or otherwise, strategically benefited him in his election that he would have been party to it, even if he were not so directly. Were the actions taken in Florida to help GWB’s election illegal, it would probably be very naive to assume that he had no knowledge of it at the very least, although he almost certainly will have retained plausible deniability.

This is a perfect illustration of how arguments are made, not on the basis of evidence or reason, but on assumption of guilt because it fits into a person's ideology. It's a kind of circular reasoning where absence of evidence becomes further proof of guilt and conspiracy theories are concocted to fill in the gaps. If one politician is involved in a crime - don't forget Nixon and Watergate! - then that proves that ALL politicians are involved in similar crimes!

If you're going to make a claim that Bush's election was illegal or that he was involved in a crime, then you're doing so with an absence of proof no matter how you try to spin it. If your ideology depends on the spreading of unproven allegations in order to justify it then maybe you ought to re-evaluate that ideology.

The Saint

If your ideology depends on the spreading of unproven allegations in order to justify it then maybe you ought to re-evaluate that ideology.

Where are the WMD's. Proof please.

Xhen

What's the matter? The debate over the election isn't going well so you want to throw in unrelated issues like WMDs? Trying to shift the focus when an argument isn't going well is a typical debating maneuver but I'm not going to get suckered into it. I'll be happy to discuss WMD's but not while the issue is the 2000 election and the lies and disinformation being passed around as facts on this forum. You people are too used to getting away with discussions where anything and everything is thrown against the wall to see if something sticks. Get back to proving your contention that Bush stole the election and we'll move onto WMDs later.

Sparks

Xhen,

Sparks, your source is an opinion piece from the unbiased folks at the World Socialist Website?

No, my source is the US Committee on Civil Rights - the opinion piece I cited was in direct reference to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - but you happily saw that my point was made and so you jumped at the ad hominem argument, didn't you?
And yet in another thread, you use a blogger with no qualifications who posts from the "USS Clueless" as a more believable source than an international team of lawyers with pertinent qualifications and decades of experience - and somehow that's supposed to pass the Xhen test of source credibility?

Trying to shift the focus when an argument isn't going well is a typical debating maneuver

Quite right Xhen - now, back past your diversion and to the point - can you say that their specific opinion, which I quoted, on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is in any way incorrect?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Xhen
This is a perfect illustration of how arguments are made, not on the basis of evidence or reason, but on assumption of guilt because it fits into a person's ideology. It's a kind of circular reasoning where absence of evidence becomes further proof of guilt and conspiracy theories are concocted to fill in the gaps. If one politician is involved in a crime - don't forget Nixon and Watergate! - then that proves that ALL politicians are involved in similar crimes!

The Watergate analogy served only to remind us that even if one does not commit an act directly, one might still be guilty of conspiracy in that crime.

There is no assumption of guilt. However one may point at circumstantial evidence. Many crimes are in fact not proven as a result of direct evidence but by the weight of indirect evidence. So that while one may not directly prove an individual has committed an act, one may still possess enough circumstantial evidence that would point to a probability so high of this being the case that the opposite would be absurdly unlikely.

I would contend that you appear to be ignoring the weight circumstantial evidence, regardless of how damning it may be; for the very (if opposite) ideological reasons that you accuse Sparks or myself of.

Oh, and for the record, Sparks and I share very little commonality ideologically.

If you're going to make a claim that Bush's election was illegal or that he was involved in a crime, then you're doing so with an absence of proof no matter how you try to spin it. If your ideology depends on the spreading of unproven allegations in order to justify it then maybe you ought to re-evaluate that ideology.

But if you read what I wrote you’ll find I made no such accusation. I said “Were the actions taken in Florida to help GWB’s election illegal” as opposed to “The illegal actions taken in Florida to help GWB’s election” or similar (which I never said).

My point was not to say that the actions were illegal, but that if they were (or even if they weren’t illegal, for that matter), they would almost certainly imply collusion by GWB given the circumstances surrounding them.

As such, you seem to be as guilty of the same ideologically based selective deduction as you accuse others of. Ironic, isn’t it?

bonkey

Originally posted by Xhen
What's the matter? The debate over the election isn't going well so you want to throw in unrelated issues like WMDs?

At the risk of pointing out what would appear to me as glarilgly obvious, the link is the convenience of the use of proof.

You seem to think it, and its presentation, is an absolute requirement for the issuing of any statement which doesn't fit ideally with your beliefs.

On the other hand, the leader of your nation whom you are so strenuously defending with all of your prodigious might would appear to have differing standards - proof and its presentation would appear somewhat less sacrosanct.

And if the man you are defending can be so dismissive of such stricture when discussing the future of a nation, don't you think that it is at teh very least ironic that you are demanding struct adherence to the same principle in the midst of whats supposed to be some friendly discussion.

Unrelated? Not to anyone who's actually following the discussion, I'd warrant. Inconvenient? Most definitely, in terms of the distraction from the discussion.

jc