OT Kodiak Bull RE: <<But I'd like to think that if Bush had brought in someone with a pedigree like Daley and attempted to recount 4 heavily Republican counties in an attempt to overturn 2 machine votes, that I would say, this is just a crock.>>
Kodiak, maybe it's because my view of the issues is too simple. The way I see it, there are really only two issues in an election this close; first, what is the most accurate method of counting the votes? and, second, is it unfair to use different methods of counting votes in different counties; especially when different methods are used in counties favoring one party and not the other?
I think we could all agree that people rather than machines must make the call on how a ballot was marked in those cases where the the mark is clear but not readable by the machine. The only problem is to be sure the ballot is preserved and the people evaluating it are honest. I believe that there are procedures available to moniter the hand count to be sure that this process is fair. Both parties have shown that they are willing to throw millions of dollars and countless man hours into this process. I assume one of the issues being litigated is whether hand counting is, in fact, the most accurate method of tabulating votes in an election this close.
The question of the fairness of having a recount by hand in Gore country but not GW country is one that must have been made as a tactical decision by the GW camp when they decided not to request a recount in counties that favored GW. That tells me that they made a tactical choice that such a recount would not help them in terms of numbers, or that the benefits of digging in their heels on "no recount" justified the risks of making that choice. In either event, it was not Gore that prevented them from requesting such a recount and if there is any unfairness there, they should take a look in the mirror.
My personal preference would be to recount all the votes under close scrutiny with procedures that assured the American public and our elected officials that the process was fair and as accurate as possible. That would require court oversight and cooperation. I don't know whether we could still end up there, however this seems to me to be too important of an issue to leave in the hands of the "parties" and I would like to see an action by a true non-partisan "citizen's group" to request this relief. Not going to happen, but it should.
My bottom line is that I don't believe that either of the two parties is really interested in an accurate count. Gore is trying to net 300+ vote regardless of the most accurate tally that could be made and GW is trying to preserve the status quo, once again without regard to a most accurate count. I can deal with all that, my post was more concerned with the scorched earth policy being used to try to control and mold public opinion to bring additional pressure to bear. This is inexcusable and shows a patent disregard for the good of the country and a serious lack of character.
The anger at these tactics that is being generated on capital hill and throughout the country in the minds of informed partisans is escalating every time one of these "you're cheating and trying to steal the election" conferences is held. More and more people are being persuaded that the process is flawed and the opposition is criminal. What good does that do for any of us?
That's why I believe that we are dealing with people too foolish to see a forest among all the trees. I think this does not bode well for the next four years. As some posters have pointed out, if you want to win the house and senate and then the presidency, hope the other guy makes it. Ed |
