As for the "legislative solution", I am puzzled by why they would want to meet this Wednesday, which I believe is their plan. First of all, they would look bad if some later recount finds Gore to be the winner. Secondly, their constitutional authority exists only if the election fails to choose a slate of electors. Thus it would seem to me that they only have that authority if December 12th comes and there is still no winner. Under my understanding therefore they shouldn't meet prior to December 12th. Maybe they expect a filibuster until then and want to get an early start. LOL
As for a statewide recount, Bush's failure to demand one is clearly evidence with does not support the hypothesis that he is "running the clock out". In fact to the contrary it shows that he is gambling that his narrow lead will hold up even if recounts are ordered of only the Democratic counties. Even though he would almost certainly gain votes if dimples in Republican counties are counted, he doesn't feel that it is necessary to take that chance.
Note that accepting your suggestion (a statewide count) at this point is quite different than accepting it two weeks ago. He has lost (so far) in all his efforts to prevent manual recounts. Two weeks ago he wanted to avoid any recounts. It wouldn't really be inconsistent at this point for him to say that while he still thinks the manual recounts are unnecessary and inaccurate, if they are going to force recounts on him, at least they should be fair by counting additional votes in Republican counties in addition to Democrat strongholds.
BTW, speaking of lawsuits, I understand that Gore has been taking pains to separate himself from the Seminole county lawsuit, probably because it is clearly inconsistent with his rhetoric that "every vote must be counted". In today's paper though it revealed that the plaintiff plotted strategy with Gore's attorneys prior to filing. It really isn't a big deal as I think most people attribute the lawsuit to him, anyway, as obviously they should.
Carl |
