Republican George W. Bush's victory in Florida, which gave him the White House, almost certainly would have endured even if a recount stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been allowed to go forward.

In fact, a comprehensive review of 64,248 ballots in all 67 Florida counties by The Herald and its parent company, Knight Ridder, in partnership with USA Today, found that Bush's slender margin of 537 votes would have tripled to 1,665 votes under the generous counting standards advocated by Democrat Al Gore.

http://www.miami.com/herald/special/news/flacount/docs/032868.htm

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Answers

I've said all along that Florida didn't decide the election.

Gore's failure to win his own home state of Tennessee decided the election.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Either way It's Over. Where's Roy Orbison when you need him?

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Does it matter? SC stopped the election, so, as I've said before, what difference does it make? Party showed its contempt for the process in a very clear manner, that matters far more than recounting the votes 100,000 times.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Game, set, and match -- to Paul.

Of course, the little Shrub "supporters" won't see it, but thanks for raising it anyway.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

SCOTUS didn't stop the election. Al Gore could have challenged in Congress. He chose not to.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Paul,

At the original Poole's Roost, you said that, if a fair recount of all counties was done, Gore would win Florida. "You know it and I know it." The Herald's research seems to indicate otherwise.

The only reason why this matters is because you have people (like Terry MacAuliffe) who insist that Gore really won Florida and that the election was "stolen." This sortof takes the wind out of his sails with some finality; he can no longer say that, not with a straight face.

If we're repeating arguments, mine, from the point that the election first appeared in dispute, was that it should have gone to the legislative branch. This would have meant that Bush won, anyway, but that's how the Constitution says that it should be done.

Bush's people should never have gone to court, but then neither should have Gore's. And the record shows that the very first lawsuits in Florida were filed by Democrats with direct ties to the Gore campaign.

BOTH parties showed contempt for the process, as far as I'm concerned.

Still, the fact is that Florida didn't cost Gore the election. Losing his home state of Tennessee cost him the election. You're a resident of that state; have you got ANY idea why he would lose it? It defies all conventional wisdom.

(I'm asking that honestly; it truly puzzles me. Gore SHOULD be in the White House, according to conventional wisdom. If he'd won Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have mattered.)

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Contempt for the process? Let's see here. Both sides sued, both sides won some, both sides lost some. So Paul and Patricia now decree that only the *wrong* side showed "contempt for the process"? How very peculiar. If I didn't know better, I'd say this is distilled sour grapes.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

I think the question most Americans want answered is this.

Did BOTH Jeb and GW do Kathy Harris?

BTW that Herald deal does not even touch the OVERVOTES the machines simply tossed as invalid. It also says this about the undervotes:Indeed, in one of the great ironies of the bitter 2000 election, Bush's lead would have vanished only if the recount had been conducted under severely restrictive standards advocated by some Republicans.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

BTW, WHY does it take someone like ME, a nobody in bumfuck nowhere, to even point out how jaded this Herald story becomes when it is distilled down by AP for mass consumption?

Where is the Liberal Media? The Democrats? Al Gore himself?

We have a school shooting a week now, where is the call for more Gun Controls from the Media?

Call me cynical but I suspect all of us are being taken for some major rides in this here "CONtry"

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Let's see, Flint. The case that decided it all was Bush v. Gore.

Let's look at that again, shall we?

Bush v. Gore

One more time to make sure I have this right:

Bush v. Gore

This tells me that the man whose platform included much ado about "state's rights" ran to the FEDERAL COURT to get this "settled", because he didn't like what the State Court decided.

Yep, I stand by my belief that Bush and his cronies have nothing but utter contempt for the process, the law, state's rights, etc.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Welcome to the Doc and Pat show. You two have a job or are you living on public assistance? That would explain everything. Losers!

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Patricia:

Let's see here. Both sides sued. Both won some. Both lost some. Both appealed their losses. But only the "wrong" side showed "contempt for the process". Uh huh, right.

I agree with Stephen that the dispute should properly have been decided through the legislature. I believe forcing ANY court to effectively pick the president requires that the judge(s) be interested parties, and this is to be avoided. I believe BOTH sides violated the process.

But your ability to look at two groups doing *precisely* the same things for *precisely* the same reason, and finding ONLY ONE of them to be in "contempt of the process" is simply hilarious. Can't you see that you are insulting your own intelligence saying something this stupid?

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Flint, I wonder why you can't see the irony in a candidate campaigning on a platform of State's Rights This, and State's Rights That running to The Supreme Court to HALT the re-counts. The same campaign who complained about "judicial activists" (the FSSC), but nary a word on the "opinion" of the USSC which stated that continuing the counts would do "irreparable harm" to the candidacy of GWB.

THAT'S what my "intelligence" wonders; and I don't find it "insulting" in the least. What I DO find "insulting" is your intellectual dishonesty.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Correction....that should read:

What I DO find "insulting" is your apparent intellectual dishonesty.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Patricia:

Sigh. Both sides did the same thing for the same reason, and did it in the same way. I think they were both wrong, but there was no difference between them.

You are stretching beyond all recognition to find "irony" in one side going to court, while you somehow see none in the other side doing the same thing.

Now, as for intellectual honesty, you have taken a position that things equal to the same thing are NOT equal to one another when YOU happen to HATE one of them! Uh huh. *Apparently* you are good at lying to yourself, but don't expect everyone else to be so puppydog eager to agree.

In any case, once again I say both parties showed contempt for the system, both tried for quick fixes, neither had the slightest interest in the will of the people unless they thought it would help them win. In short, they both understood that winning comes before principles, because if you lose, your principles don't matter. They are politicians!

(And how is it you never seem to remember that, given one USSC justice going the other way, YOUR guy might have won using EXACTLY the same tactics? Do you see no irony there? Or have you *apparently* convinced yourself that Gore's shit don't stink?)

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Gore's failure to win his own home state of Tennessee decided the election.

Not that you'd ever be tempted, but NEVER join a Democratic list and say this. I'm convinced that this thought got me kicked off one of them.

IMO, the Florida fiasco was a good lesson. It's unfortunate that the situation decided an election through all the court proceedings, but had it not, the eyes of the country wouldn't have been opened to the blatant inequities in voting procedures that occur regularly nationwide.

Alabama had many of the same roadblocks presented to black voters as Florida. Texas didn't fare much better. Some folks walked in to polling places and found that their ballots were already partially completed. Some places had poll workers who worked for the Christian Coalition, who provided the "preferred voter list" to voters along with their ballots. I'm not so naive as to suggest that this will never happen again [Charlie's mantra on exposing the Y2k Charlatans], but it's a start.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Flint, please, just once, address what I said and not what you interpret it to be.

I thought going to the courts on ANY side was wrong because that's NOT where it should have been decided. Feel better now?

Now PLEASE, if you're going to address something, address the IRONY that I mentioned.

You complain incessantly about my "partisanship", but I've yet to hear YOU speak one bad one word about the party in power.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

A splinter sect of people (the Ch.C.) influenced people on the way to the polls and that "disturbs" some? HOW ABOUT 120 YEARS OF RIGGING ELECTION "TECHNOLOGY" INVENTED, PROPAGATED AND ENSHRINED BY THE Democratic Party in every election from President of the US to DOGCATCHER OF PODUNK, Anywhere???

The ultimate hypocrisy of 2000 could be witnessed by watching the party of Voters by Tombstone (Chicago and Boston), Voters by Beer Keg (NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston) and Voters by Welfare protested the recording of Voters in a County NOT of illiterates or poor or "dis-enfranchised Tired and Poor Yearning to Be Free" but rather the recording of Voters of the Middle and Upper Middle Class Citizens of a County overwhelmed with refugees from the Cities mentioned above (or at least the Better Burbs of such Cities). Anyone who EVER believed the comic strip that Nice Aunt Sadie (Formerly from Great Neck, Long Island, New York and veteran of 50 years of clubhouse politics with "the Girls") DIDN"T KNOW HOW TO PUNCH HER BALLOT was worthy of Saturday Night Live Sketches Narrated by "Linda "Talk Amoungst Yourselves" Richmond"

For every one voter the Ch.so-called Coalition could ever influence, they nicely turn off anyone to the Left of themselves or TWENTY OTHERS except in precints where a Gary Duct Tape might reside (population 37). Meanwhile, 120 year old tactics birthed in the Cradle of Crookedness (TAMANY HALL, NYC) of "Get out OUR Voters" in the Democratic Dominated Cities to insure the "proper" Gerrymandering of the Congressional Districts via the 2000 Census transported 10s of thousands more voters to the polls thus insuring the Continuation of the 120 Years of Waste and SPEND and TAX and SPEND while Staff from D.C. to Precinct insures a Bloated Government that must be cut and reduced to insure that any Tax Cut can be paid for.

And curiously, the Flight of the People to states like Nevada (FEW TAXES) stands as proof that the People want an end to such things or they vote by picking themselves up and moving out of the Waste and Spend Areas.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Charlie, why not try discussing things, oh I don't know, that happened RECENTLY? Can't find any back-up in that area?

The "flight" to NV of SOME people had ZERO to do with "taxes" (when I received my first pay check here I went to payroll and told them they forgot to take out state and local taxes; they told me there weren't any). Nyahh.

You're on thin ice Reuben; I respectfully request that you DO NOT bring it up again.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

As for "partisanship", I am most unhappy that the GOP has placed some truly minor and obscure humans from the Questionable Right into positions that COULD but not necessarily will influence anything but the noise level of political discourse by rabid fans of either side.

AND I most certainly hope that the Fringers of the Right do not assume just because they have a few sympathetic ears in D.C. that they have ANY FRANCHISE either with the GOP OR...THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Because that is not the case as Pat Buchanan learned at the hands of W.F. Buckley years ago.

The huge swing vote of Conservatively 'oriented' lies in the Soccer Parent Burbs and Sr. Areas which would drop any LOONIES as fast as possible. (Evidence was seen in Kansas after the Bd.of Ed. passed the silly no Evolution in the Schools. The proponents of that were tossed out as they came up for re-election.) We may be deliberately slow and pokey but hardly stupid. And politico-religio agendas don't go down well in Burbia when it comes to "education".

Ashcroft could do the GOP a favor by resigning in due time to run for something suitable : Justice of the Peace in some hamlet in Mo.

Most of the others will be muted by the Inner Core or Kitchen Cabinet that GWB uses to "administrate" (as he did in Texas where "delegate it" was the mantra).

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

I'm am not talking about YOU. It is a FACT that people move to Nevada because it is a LOWER COST STATE. It has been true for 15 years and the resumption of business moves there from the West Coast will resume big time if you can insure Water and Power.

That is also why they move to Texas (NO INCOME TAX, .06 KW electricity and pro-business climate).

It is also true for Utah, Idaho, Washington and Ore vs. Calif and the South East Vs. the North East.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Not sure if I agree on the "soccer moms" thing, but you could have a point there. I don't think I agree with the "senior" swing either. Something about "fuzzy math" comes to mind.

I absolutely disagree with your opinion that the religious right DOESN'T have an "in" now; I think at least a couple of the administration's moves in the first month have clearly shown that.

If that's all that will be done, fine. Somehow I doubt it. I REALLY don't like the "sympathetic ear" the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation have in this admin.; not to mention the membership relationships.

And whatever DID happen to the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives? Funny how the "liberal media" hasn't reported on it of late.

Look at it this way; YOU view them as wackos, *I* view them as wackos. GWB does NOT view them as wackos. He thinks of them as "friends". That should be enough to make you quake a bit.

BTW, I was pleasantly surprised by the no state and local taxes thing here. I really didn't know about it. Of course, what the papers DON'T tell you is things like to register a new vehicle, one gets to pay a "privilege" tax (oh joy). As if it was a "privilege" to own a vehicle out here. NOT.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

I was a bit taken back when I heard an interview with Bois who was p&m about Bush taking this to the courts. What? Bush was still having his steak and eggs Wednesday morning when the dems had 50 lawyers already filing suits in Florida. It should have been decided by law not the courts.

Pat, I agree that the republicans showed "contempt for the process"... so did the dems. It leaves a bad taste.

BTW, you didn't know about the no taxes in NV?! Glad to see you do get out more! (joke) ;)

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Maria, it's kind of like when I was growing up. Two of my best friends were, respectively, black and Puerto Rican. I assumed EVERYONE grew up like that. It never occurred to me that there were some people who not only didn't know that kind of scenario, but didn't like it at all. I never noticed.

Living in NYC for 40 years, I assumed EVERYONE paid state and local taxes (except CT and FL). FL was a possibility for a couple of years there, but for the beaches, not the tax situation. CT was never in the cards. Hell, NOT paying sales tax on clothing in NJ was a surprise to me. (We pay it here.)

It's all in what you're accustomed to, I guess.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

A splinter sect of people (the Ch.C.) influenced people on the way to the polls and that "disturbs" some?

This lady was the one sitting behind the table checking off folks' names and providing them ballots [along with a copy of her "preferred" voting list, along with a statement about how voting for Gore was voting for the devil.] I'm sure most folks laughed at her, but one guy pointed out that what she was doing was illegal. She said, "The Christian Coalition TOLD ME to do this." By the time the guy came back with her supervisor [or whatever they call the folks in charge at the polls], she'd dumped the voter's guides in the wastebasket beside the table.

I want to volunteer to work at the polls in 2002. Here again, however, I think I must declare a party first. I'm curious to see what kind of training poll workers get on the laws involved with elections.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Every time I've voted, there are these signs that state "NO ELECTIONEERING BEYOND THIS POINT".

Guess that only applies to SOME, eh?

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Trish,

If you see ANYONE electioneering at a polling place, Democrat or Republican, black or white, tall, skinny or short, immediately call the local elections board. If they won't take action, call the sheriff.

My father used to get at least one complaint in every election.

If the people who are doing it don't immediately cease and desist and you can document their refusal, it's sufficient grounds to overturn an election. You can also get that person barred from serving in the polling place in the next election.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Here is the "liberal media" take:

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40608-2001Apr4.html

From Election Audit, Mostly Uncertainty Miami Herald Review Shows Result Hinges on Standard Used in Recount

By Dan Keating and John Mintz Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, April 5, 2001; Page A15

A statewide review of the Florida presidential ballots by two media organizations demonstrated just how subjective a hand recount can be, with the outcome hinging on which standards are applied and which ballots are reviewed.

The newspaper study said President Bush would have been the winner of a recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court under the combinations of factors they considered most likely. But some combinations of circumstances the newspapers considered less likely could have given the election to former vice president Al Gore.

Even more uncertainty emerges, the study found, because their own reviewers at times came to different conclusions about the same ballot.

In addition, it was hard for county election officials even to locate undervotes -- the ballots on which no vote for president was discerned by the machine -- due to inconsistent results when ballots are re-run through balky voting machines. That meant that not all the undervoted ballots were reviewed and that other votes may have been counted twice, once by machine and again in the manual review.

"Some would say that [uncertainty] makes the whole effort futile," said Mark Seibel, managing editor/news for the Miami Herald, which published the story yesterday along with its parent company, Knight Ridder Newspapers, and USA Today. "I think it just tells you something about the kind of elections equipment we have. It's extremely imprecise."

The $550,000 study was intended to determine who would have won if the Dec. 8 statewide recount order by the Florida Supreme Court had not been halted the next day by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In trying to answer that question, the newspapers excluded counties that had already finished their recounts by the time the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in -- leaving the existing counts in place. Under that scenario, they said, Bush was the most likely winner -- whether or not counters used a permissive standard that included ballots that were merely dimpled or only counted as votes those with at least partially detached chads.

However, when the newspapers redid the counts themselves, reviewing ballots in counties such as Broward and Palm Beach that had already completed their own manual review, it found that Gore could have won the election if a loose standard was used, counting every dimpled ballot as a vote. Under a stricter test, Bush would have won in that situation as well.

The newspapers retained the BDO Seidman accounting firm to examine 64,248 "undervotes," ballots on which no vote for president could be read by machine. The accountants were not asked to decide whether any ballot markings constituted a vote, but used a classification scheme to describe ballots as having dimples or partially detached chads.

The political parties seized on the outcomes they preferred and disparaged the scenarios that were less generous to them.

"The truth is the election's been over for three months," said Mark Miner, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "While this may make for good commentary in Washington, the president is trying to move forward and focus on his agenda of tax relief and education."

A statement released by Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe dwelt on the Gore-victory view.

"The same study that Republicans tout as proving that Bush really won Florida, also shows that if all the ballots were counted on election night, Al Gore would have won," he said.

"Overall the study didn't conclude very much," said former Gore campaign spokesman Doug Hattaway. "Bush won under some scenarios, and Gore wins under others. It certainly confirms Florida's election system failed the voters."

"One of the most striking findings is Palm Beach and Broward counties threw out hundreds of ballots with valid votes under their own criteria," he added. "If that hadn't happened, Al Gore could well be in the White House right now."

The Herald, USA Today and some other partners are also examining overvote ballots from the presidential election, ballots that were invalidated because more than one presidential candidate was marked. The newspapers said that study would be done in about a month.

A separate ballot review study is underway by a group of news organizations including The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, the Orlando Sentinel, Newsday, Newsweek, the Palm Beach Post and the St. Petersburg Times. That study of both undervotes and overvotes is being conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. It may be complete next month.

The Herald/USA Today stories noted an obscure provision in Florida law that requires an election night manual inspection of "defective" ballots that the machines were unable to read.

If that inspection were done, and every dimple or other mark were counted as a vote, Gore could have won the election, the study said. But election officials noted that large counties have several thousand punch-card ballots without discernible votes and have never tried to review them on election night. Some smaller counties, such as Leon, routinely go through the undervotes and overvotes to try to find attempted votes on election night.

Phil Meyer, who holds the Knight chair of journalism at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and advised the newspapers on the project, said declaring a winner is newsy but ignores the question of whether the uncertainties are too great to make that assertion.

"The really interesting question is whether it's ever really knowable," he said.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Patricia:

[I've yet to hear YOU speak one bad one word about the party in power.]

An interesting statement. On this very thread, I wrote "BOTH sides violated the process." I also wrote "both parties showed contempt for the system, both tried for quick fixes, neither had the slightest interest in the will of the people unless they thought it would help them win."

If you can't grasp that "both" includes the party in power, let me make this explicit. The republicans were WRONG in going to the courts. OK?

Now, I admit I've assumed you read this thread and simply somehow missed those parts. I'm willing also to assume you haven't noticed that I have been railing consistently and frequently at every religion-based initiative the Bush administration has taken. I've gone so far as to say I'd be willing to campaign for Gore if they keep this up. Haven't you noticed this? I repeat for your edification -- I am appalled at this bible-banging. I also oppose this administration's continued stupid war on drugs. I think their new bankruptcy rules took too big a step in the right direction, and may have crossed the ideal and swung too far in the other direction, but I'm waiting to see what actually happens before I'm sure. I recognize the necessity to compromise between providing the resources we want (power, housing, etc.) and environmental protection, but I suspect this administration isn't giving nearly enough weight to the environment, and I oppose that too. Should I go on?

As for your specific complaint, I've never before seen anyone claim that "states rights" means NOT appealing wildly partisan decisions by state courts -- especially when those decisions trampled on decisions by lower state courts. I believe if you do a literature search, you will find that in your zeal to support your hatred, you have pulled a rationalization out of thin air. I very much doubt that "states rights" includes the right of one particular (and VERY partisan) state court to *ignore* the relevant STATE laws to put their own party into FEDERAL power. This states' rights business is simply an excuse to vent your hatred. BOTH parties were wrong, and the courts were too, for accepting as political an issue as there possibly can be and trying to adjudicate it.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

You'all are discussing the technical details of the situation rather than the impression it left on the country. I have been in a lot of states in the last month and talked to a lot of people. They vary from academics to industrialists to farmers. I got just one message about the Supreme Court intervention.

How do I summarize this: Well lets just go with one farmer in southwestern Oregon [down Klamath way]. His response was, " you just can't take the stink out of a skunk". These impressions are far more important than legal discussions.

Cheers,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Flint, you make very valid points. And I did overlook your words that "both sides were wrong"; sorry. The only other thing I've ever seen your negative opinion on is the "bible-banging". I've never seen you post any of the other opinions you've just stated.

Frankly, I think Z has it nailed and maybe that's what I'm arguing without recognizing it. Doesn't matter a damn whether the USSC was actually practicing "judicial activism" or not; the IMPRESSION was that that was EXACTLY what they were doing.

I believe it's further reinforced by some of the more recent decisions they've handed down; they've all had the same "5-4 majority".

I think THAT'S more telling than anything else. I'm sure you'll disagree. Sigh.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Patricia:

No, I don't disagree with you (I don't think I do, anyway). I also agree with Z, that the whole business just stunk. But I've been saying all along (and so has Stephen) that the courts had NO BUSINESS plunging into this political morass, and once they did they could not possibly have avoided the stench that goes along with it. Dammit, no judge on any court in this country is *disinterested* in who becomes president!

Just so long as you recognize that we really did reach the point where ANY USSC decision was judicial activism, INCLUDING a decision not to hear the case at all! (Because that would be a decision to let the FSC select the president, if they possibly could).

Like you and most people, I'm not comfortable with a whole string of 5-4 decisions, especially when it's the same 5 and the same 4 every time. It implies that a narrow majority is selecting cases based on their ideological content, and all 9 justices just keep voting their politics, the law be damned (except as window dressing). But once again, NOT accepting these cases implicitly means letting lower courts make the decisions. Is that what we want instead? I don't know...

Back to the original topic, everything we read continues to indicate that who really won the election depends on who counts the votes. Just as I've been saying since election night. I also predicted that based on the definition of a legal ballot, BOTH candidates would win AT LEAST ONE recount, and so it seems to have come to pass.

Unfortunately, the only action I've seen is some sporadic efforts to upgrade some of the most obsolete or rundown voting equipment here and there. More to the point, I've seen NO effort to clarify the procedures that should be followed when the ballot counts are genuinely too close to call. I guess we've decided (as usual) that the cheapest and easiest "solution" is to HOPE this doesn't happen again. If it ever does, well, we get another disputed election, another random president, and more clucking about how we really ought to fix this someday...

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Patricia:

The Supreme Court should never have been involved. BOTH sides should have stayed out of court.

There, I said it, too. :)

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Flint:

Intellectually, I can agree with what you and Poole say, except: for the general impression. Don't underestimate it. It wouldn't be a big deal if Harvey Wallbanger was governor of Florida and the Texas justice system hadn't been involved in disqualifying voters in Florida.

Hell, the people on EZ turned against Bush months ago. Just imagine what will happen in the future. It is a dream for those that believe in conspiracies. Like most things, it is just a matter of time before it is in the mainline press. Although I doubt that they will go this far: Bush

We will see.

Best Wishes,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

By-the-by:

I will save the link proving that Dubya is a reptilian for another time. *<)))

Cheers,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Z,

No! Don't tell me that David Ickes has conferred lizard status on BUSH, too!

ROFL! This is too good.

(I was pleased enough when he stamped that label on the Q of E!)

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001