Rappin1,
You seem to miss the point. It is not whether Gore would have had more votes, it is the fact that those votes were not counted. Bush fought to have them not counted and the Supreme Court seems to have machined things to not have them counted.
I would have been very pleased to have seen some decision about a standard arrived at based on precedent in Florida and other states. The Supreme Court could have provided more guidance the first time they remanded the case, for example, and enough time would have remained for the job to have been done correctly. If Bush had not fought the manual recounting of the votes it would not have gone to the Supreme Court for the reason it did in the first place.
Now that I hear so much about how it wouldn't have made a difference and that Bush would have won anyway, it strikes me that his position is even less defendable than before. Why wouldn't you work together with the other side (one of the big selling points of his campaign, BTW), enfranchise as many people as possible, and keep this out of the courts as much as possible?
The question is rhetorical, obviously. The answer is that he wanted to ensure that he won, and he saw foot-dragging as the best way possible.
Again note - I am not defending Gore here. He wanted to win just as badly as Bush did. I am just pointing out the correct solution as I saw it, and the part Bush played in preventing it and in causing the so-called damage that was done. |
