I'm trying to find yesterday's article on the NYTimes website, but I don't seem to be able access it. I've got the print version here in front of me, it's quite lengthy. Basically, what it says is that Gore's decision not to ask for a state wide recount was a blunder.
Another blunder was to ask for an extension of time for the protest phase, which shortened the time for the contest phase.
Another blunder was playing hardball and going for the favorable votes instead of asking that all votes be
counted regardless of the political consequences.
Since, as we all know, the New York Times is a bastion of liberalism, printing that criticism even before Gore had conceded was an acknowledgement that it was over, and they were, and are, blaming Gore and his legal team.
I think that is somehow, slightly, helpful to Bush. They aren't blaming Bush and Bush's lawyers. In fact, the Wednesday article was somewhat favorable to Bush's lawyers. They have an interview with Ben Ginsberg, one of Bush's chief strategists, saying that the Gore legal team was being intellectually dishonest and hypocritical about their goal, which was to find enough Democrat votes to win. He said that hurt them in court.
The article also says that courts at all three levels found a constitutional flaw in failing to have a statewide recount - not only Judge Sauls and the United State Supreme Court, which ruled against Gore, but also the Florida Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of him. In fairness to Gore, they probably never thought it through, but that was the fatal blunder.
At least they aren't blaming Bush. So that's a good sign. |
