Put simply, from my point of view, when a Democrat says "If we let Bush stop votes from being counted, it'd just be criminal," the Republicans tend to argue legalese concerning rules and time-limits and such. That doesn't fly. It's off point. The simple proper reply is to show that the counting that's being stopped "CANNOT give us a fair result, since it contains unfair advantage to Gore, at Gore's request."
It seems this point gets stuck in sometimes, but too often too late in the converstions I see on my tube, and then only in legalese. It needs to be put simply and up front first and foremost, each time the claim that "Bush wants to stop all the votes from being counted" is made. There is no other sufficient, easily understandable, and currently provable answer to the specific Gore plain language argument requiring few words. This serves to address the issue head on. I want it boiled down first, then get into the details later. Don't tell 'em about chads, standards, and time limits- those all sound potentially complicated and/or phony...give 'em first the conclusion...that Gore's version of a count is skewed. Only when that is simply stated, continue on to back it up as needed.
Ya don't have to answer to "what are the Bush forces afraid of?" on their terms, you just point out that Bush is KNOWING the planned counting is skewed in Gore's favor...and THAT is a fearsome and un-american thing.
Dan B |
