akarunway 1 #1 March 13, 2006 This wouldn't be the same Kathy Harris that, ah, nevermind_________________________________________Reports of illegal contributions dog Senate candidacy. Tamara Lytle | Washington Bureau Chief Posted March 12, 2006 Republican may take on Harris bid Mar 10, 2006 WASHINGTON -- Rep. Katherine Harris fueled already rampant speculation about the status of her campaign for the U.S. Senate when she released a statement Saturday promising a "major announcement" about her future this week. The Longboat Key Republican's campaign is barely stumbling along after revelations that she took thousands in illegal contributions from a defense contractor who bribed a California congressman. And while she has had little to say about the matter, many others are talking, including Republicans worried about losing the Senate race and Democrats emboldened by the financial and political woes confronting Harris. It didn't help when rumors circulated last week that Harris might not stay in the race. In her statement, Harris acknowledged all the speculation, notifying Republican activists at a meeting in Memphis that she was canceling her scheduled appearance there Saturday night "as I prayerfully prepare with my family, friends and advisors to finalize the strategy for a major announcement next week concerning my candidacy for the U.S. Senate." Harris continued: "I will continue to look to our founding fathers, who pursued their vision with integrity and perseverance, to discern the best course of action for the state of Florida and our nation." Tallahassee Republican strategist Rick Wilson said Harris is likely feeling whipsawed, with some advisers pushing her to get out of the race and others telling her to keep running. But Saturday's announcement, he said, will make it all that much harder to quash speculation that she's dropping out. While she told The Associated Press last week that she was staying in, the pressure has not eased. Wilson and other Republicans have been worried that Harris will bring down other candidates if she runs. "I have no happy fairyland vision that she can win," Wilson said. Republican consultant Geoffrey Becker said the race has gotten out of her control. "It sounds like she's thinking of a way to get out," he said Saturday. GOP lobbyist John "Mac" Stipanovich noted the letter comes on the heels of Harris canceling some campaign appearances, although she had five events Saturday. "If it's not a prelude to withdrawal, it surely is an unusual strategy," Stipanovich said. Even before her latest crisis involving the illegal contributions, Harris faced some formidable obstacles in her quest to unseat Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson. When her campaign began last year, unenthusiastic Republican leaders tried to lure others into the race. Then came the distraction caused by staff turmoil in her campaign and her congressional offices. One big necessity for a successful campaign -- money -- hasn't exactly been in great supply. At the end of the year, Harris had $1 million in the bank, compared with Nelson's $8 million. The polls have been pretty rough, too. In the latest Quinnipiac survey, she trailed Nelson by 22 percentage points. And that was before a defense contractor admitted giving her illegal campaign donations while asking her to help him win $10 million in federal aid. Harris said she did not know the $50,000 was illegal, and she has since donated it to charity. "Things are beginning to spiral out of control," said David E. Johnson of Atlanta, a pollster and GOP consultant with Strategic Vision LLC. "If she cannot right her campaign, the thing to do for the good of the party would be to get out." But people who have known Harris for years say she doesn't bend to pressure.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #2 March 13, 2006 QuoteEven before her latest crisis involving the illegal contributions, Harris faced some formidable obstacles in her quest to unseat Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson. When her campaign began last year, unenthusiastic Republican leaders tried to lure others into the race. Then came the distraction caused by staff turmoil in her campaign and her congressional offices. One big necessity for a successful campaign -- money -- hasn't exactly been in great supply. At the end of the year, Harris had $1 million in the bank, compared with Nelson's $8 million. The polls have been pretty rough, too. In the latest Quinnipiac survey, she trailed Nelson by 22 percentage points. And that was before a defense contractor admitted giving her illegal campaign donations while asking her to help him win $10 million in federal aid. Given her long-shot chances, I hope that daddy's little girl decides NOT to drop out of the race and opts to go with this pipe dream that she can win. I, for one, would love to see her humiliated in a national election after what transpired in 2000. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #3 March 14, 2006 Quoteafter what transpired in 2000. You make it sound like enforcing the election laws is a bad thing...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #4 March 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteafter what transpired in 2000. You make it sound like enforcing the election laws is a bad thing... Well, it is if it causes your guy to lose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #5 March 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteafter what transpired in 2000. You make it sound like enforcing the election laws is a bad thing... Well, it is if it causes your guy to lose. here I will translate for you . some still believe the election was stolen, even if the outcome was legal they don't like the way it was done...legally in a court of law...geez couldn't they just have had a duel? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #6 March 15, 2006 QuoteYou make it sound like enforcing the election laws is a bad thing... Well, you make it sound like she actually enforced election law. I don't care to rewind six years and bicker about the 2000 election, but just to let you know where I'm coming from... from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1114377.stm: QuoteBut some voters and civil rights groups have argued that blacks and others in the state were systematically and deliberately deprived of their right to vote. One area that has aroused suspicion is that Miss Harris's department commissioned a Texas-based company with strong Republican links to draw up a list of convicts in Florida who were banned from voting. Miss Harris admitted that she learned that the company had made mistakes which involved innocent people losing their voting rights. One of the many things she did to facilitate getting the most incompetent, corrupt and disgraceful president (your ex-governor -- thank you for your excellent voting judgement) in modern history into office. And GM, Gore wasn't my guy; I voted for Nader in 2000. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #7 March 15, 2006 QuoteAnd GM, Gore wasn't my guy; I voted for Nader in 2000. Thanks for helping to elect Bush. I owe you a beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #8 March 15, 2006 Al Gore publicly conceded the election after the December 12, 2000 Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. The Court voted 7–2 to end the recount on the grounds that differing standards in different counties constituted an equal protection violation, and 5–4 that no new recount with uniform standards could be conducted. The decision was extremely controversial due to the partisan split in the court's 5–4 decision and the majority's extremely irregular instruction that its judgment in Bush v. Gore should not set precedent but should be "limited to the present circumstances". ___________________________________________________Let's see umm. Why couldn't they take more time to allow for a recount? Umm, maybe Gore was getting ahead? I was there. My home state. I was personally disenfranchised in one prior POTUS election due to the incompetence of the election office in Orlando. They took the phone off the fu cking hook so as not to be able to verify change of addresses (or for whatever reason). I myself called an operator (from the voting place) cause they got tired of a getting a busy signal and she told me it was off the hook. The electoral process in this country is a sham, a scam and downright disgraceful. In the end it's ALL ABOUT MONEYI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #9 March 15, 2006 Are you on this kick again? Gore lost every count and every recount - even the recounts conducted after the decision was finalized by the courts. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #10 March 15, 2006 For the Supreme Court to turn its back is the kicker, especially when we understand that 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Reagan, Bush, Bush.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #11 March 15, 2006 We need to stop thinking this is an objective Democracy. This country is run autocratically and I see no change. The rigjties talk smack cause they are winning via corruption, then play it off as, "the rules." The Dems keep trying to hold the Repubs to some sort of rule when in reality that won't work. The Dems need to start being as slimy as the Repubs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #12 March 15, 2006 QuoteThanks for helping to elect Bush. I owe you a beer. If I were a Floridian, I might have voted more pragmatically. But considering Gore was a shoe-in for NY, I voted with my heart. So no need to thank me since I didn't help elect your jackass prez, but I'll gladly take the beer, thanks Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #13 March 15, 2006 My bad. I'll get back to you after reading>THIShttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-949I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #14 March 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou make it sound like enforcing the election laws is a bad thing... Well, you make it sound like she actually enforced election law. I don't care to rewind six years and bicker about the 2000 election, but just to let you know where I'm coming from... from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1114377.stm: QuoteBut some voters and civil rights groups have argued that blacks and others in the state were systematically and deliberately deprived of their right to vote. One area that has aroused suspicion is that Miss Harris's department commissioned a Texas-based company with strong Republican links to draw up a list of convicts in Florida who were banned from voting. Miss Harris admitted that she learned that the company had made mistakes which involved innocent people losing their voting rights. One of the many things she did to facilitate getting the most incompetent, corrupt and disgraceful president (your ex-governor -- thank you for your excellent voting judgement) in modern history into office. And GM, Gore wasn't my guy; I voted for Nader in 2000. "Votes for smokes". Since you brought it up... how many Floridians were supposedly denied? Hard numbers, not guesses, please... Florida state upheld a state law that said felons cannot vote. The list of names provided by the company (btw, prove the company was biased - thanks!) were supposed to be vetted by the individual counties - looks like those same election coordinators that are bitching about people being denied didn't do THEIR part and just accepted the list without doublechecking it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #15 March 15, 2006 QuoteAl Gore publicly conceded the election after the December 12, 2000 Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. The Court voted 7–2 to end the recount on the grounds that differing standards in different counties constituted an equal protection violation, and 5–4 that no new recount with uniform standards could be conducted. The decision was extremely controversial due to the partisan split in the court's 5–4 decision and the majority's extremely irregular instruction that its judgment in Bush v. Gore should not set precedent but should be "limited to the present circumstances". ___________________________________________________Let's see umm. Why couldn't they take more time to allow for a recount? Umm, maybe Gore was getting ahead? I was there. My home state. I was personally disenfranchised in one prior POTUS election due to the incompetence of the election office in Orlando. They took the phone off the fu cking hook so as not to be able to verify change of addresses (or for whatever reason). I myself called an operator (from the voting place) cause they got tired of a getting a busy signal and she told me it was off the hook. The electoral process in this country is a sham, a scam and downright disgraceful. In the end it's ALL ABOUT MONEY Why should they break the law??Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #16 March 15, 2006 LOL. I don't what else to sayI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #17 March 15, 2006 Quote"Votes for smokes". I'm not surprised the Democrats would resort to such tactics. That's pathetic. Creative, funny in a dark way, but pathetic nonetheless. QuoteSince you brought it up... how many Floridians were supposedly denied? Hard numbers, not guesses, please... The numbers were in the thousands -- more than enough to have tipped FL the other way had those voters voted for Gore. You can look here for hard numbers. Quotebtw, prove the company was biased - thanks!) Not sure if you read what Ms. Harris admitted in my excerpt from the article, but that makes it obvious enough that they were biased. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #18 March 15, 2006 Ok, the BBC says the company was biased - how does that make the data provided biased? The election commissioners of the Florida counties were responsible for re-checking the data - in fact, your same article stated that the company TOLD them to recheck the data, as the parameters were left deliberately loose. Failure to verify data on the part of the county election commissioners != fault on Harris' part. I commend Harris for not knuckling under to the Democrats' demands that she break the law.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #19 March 15, 2006 We could debate the legality forever and not get anywhere. So let's approach this from the, "ends justify the means" perspective. Bush has been a wonderful president, so please list for me the top 10 accomplishments of Bush that have actually helped the country and why. Try not to be vague by writing, "the war." Be more specific by writing something about the elements of the war or some benefit and elaborate, of you think the war was/is a positive thng. Again, this doesn't address the issue of whether the election was legit or not, but I want to see if it was a great turn for the county and why.... 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #20 March 15, 2006 How about if we stay on topic, hm? You want to talk about Bush, go to the other threads and comment there. Harris upheld the Florida State law and state constitution. Period, end of sentence, full stop. If you can't understand that concept, I can't help you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #21 March 16, 2006 Apparently she's staying in. http://feeds.feedburner.com/PoliticalWire?m=3274 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #22 March 17, 2006 QuoteHow about if we stay on topic, hm? You want to talk about Bush, go to the other threads and comment there. Harris upheld the Florida State law and state constitution. Period, end of sentence, full stop. If you can't understand that concept, I can't help you. OK, so to apply this logic to another current thread, Jane Fonda has never been convicted of treason so she's not a traitor. Period, end of sentence, full stop. If you can't understand that concept, I can't help you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #23 March 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteHow about if we stay on topic, hm? You want to talk about Bush, go to the other threads and comment there. Harris upheld the Florida State law and state constitution. Period, end of sentence, full stop. If you can't understand that concept, I can't help you. OK, so to apply this logic to another current thread, Jane Fonda has never been convicted of treason so she's not a traitor. Period, end of sentence, full stop. If you can't understand that concept, I can't help you. Quote"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." Do the words "Aid and comfort" ring a bell? I suppose you're not understanding that concept, either.... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #24 March 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteHow about if we stay on topic, hm? You want to talk about Bush, go to the other threads and comment there. Harris upheld the Florida State law and state constitution. Period, end of sentence, full stop. If you can't understand that concept, I can't help you. OK, so to apply this logic to another current thread, Jane Fonda has never been convicted of treason so she's not a traitor. Period, end of sentence, full stop. If you can't understand that concept, I can't help you. Quote"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." Do the words "Aid and comfort" ring a bell? I suppose you're not understanding that concept, either.... When was the trial and what was the sentence?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 March 17, 2006 Ah, but convictions don't mean anything to the Liberals...the accusation is all you need, remember?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites