Diebold Charged With Bribery, Falsifying Docs, 'Worldwide Pattern of Criminal Conduct'

[Ace Acme]

77. So first he conceded, and then he participated in the recount.

And you claim that his concession was not premature?

Al Gore did not concede the 11/7/00 election until 12/13/00, so your claim about Kerry is not true.

And why do you ignore Bush's failure to concede in 2000? Were you born yesterday?

There was nothing gratuitous about noting Roundheel Kerry's dissing of the African-American voters who had stood out in the November rain for hours to vote for a man who had promised that he would see their votes counted, and who then saw him give a blatantly dishonest election away the very next morning--especially after Roundheel Gore gave away the 2000 election.

I bet you don't even know that the final ballot study for Florida in 2000 showed that Gore got more legal votes in Florida than did Bush. Most of the media buried that fact, but the Washington Post at least reported it at the top of the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush
But Study Finds Gore Might Have Won Statewide Tally of All Uncounted Ballots

By Dan Keating and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, November 12, 2001; Page A01

In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.

But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins. . . . {A} statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes.