SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (124519)1/30/2001 8:25:52 PM
From: Srexley  Read Replies (1) of 769667
 
Quick takes on your points:

"Didn't you find it strange that in real life the SOS expressed no interest at all in getting an accurate count?"

They DID get the FAIREST recount possible. That is the one that favored neither candidate. Gore wanted rules that favored him. It had to be stopped.

"I guess all the previous cases were flukes, huh?"

The other recounts you that I believe you are referring to had a judge rule on the very few ballots that were truly in dispute. This case would have required hundreds of people (not judges) to determine tens of thousands of votes in a couple of days. It is completely different, and again I will say that if you think that is more accurate than the margin of error you are crazy. You must realize that Florida law did not have an additional provision to keep counting if the mandatory provision made the margin closer. If it was closer than 1/2% there was a required re-count. They did it, and he was still behind. Sorry it was so close.

You believe (I think) that either the system that Al took advantage of, or the one that was shot down by 7-2 would be fairer than the impartial machine recount. IT WOULD NOT.

"I guess all the previous cases were flukes, huh?

He already won. Twice. Way way way more shameless to keep it going. He conceded once, and this would have been a good time to save some dignity, regroup and try it again. Either he played the game against better opponents, or he was wrong with his interpretation of the law. I believe both of those premises.

Regarding who's attacking was more out of line I look at it like this. If you walk up and punch someone in the face, all rules are out. Al Gore punched GWB in the face when he kept going after the mandated automatic recount. He threw out the gentleman's rules and went for a weasely way to win. Guess what, he got his but kicked, and in my mind did great damage to the demo party. Time will tell, but I view them far more harshly than I used to.

For an example of class in a situation like this see how John Ashcroft handled loosing an election to a dead person, even after some polls were illegaly kept open after they were to close.

You seem to have integrity, but your party does not. America is starting to see this, and I can only hope that the trend continues. I am getting tired of the dem leaders telling their constituents that they cannot succeed on their own. I am tired of the name calling and the lying. I am tired of the ends justifies the means. I am tired of the class warfare.

I like GWB's message of compassionate conservatism and responsibility. I also think it is good for the country.

And I believe Antonin Scalia is a good man and a good Supreme Court Justice. If they all leaned the way of Ginsberg (although I am sure she is a nice person) I would consider packing up my tax money and taking it elsewhere.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext