They DID get the FAIREST recount possible.
I don't think a recount is the fairest possible if it is not accurate enough to tell who won. Do you deny that machine-unreadable ballots that show voter intent are legal? It remains my view that counting these votes is fairer than not counting them. We'll just have to differ on this.
You seem to believe that if positions had been reversed -- that Bush had been behind by 300 votes out of 6,000,000, the Republicans would have folded gracefully. I don't believe it. Of course, in that case, matters would have unfolded more quietly because Katherine Harris would have suddenly developed an interest in the accuracy of the count and the two parties would have negotiated a recount. That is my speculation.
Ashcroft lost by 49,000 votes out of 2.3 million. His only hope was to throw out the whole election because his opponent was dead, and that would have been bad PR. If he had lost by 150 votes and just conceded, the analogy would be more accurate.
In 1994 the Republicans had substantial majorities in both Houses of Congress. Now they have, is it 7 seats? advantage in the House, and the Senate is evenly split. Remind me again where this Republican trend is occurring.
There's hypocrisy all around in Washington, and it's always easier to notice when it's coming from the other side. I just find that the Democrats are in hock to a slightly less scary bunch of special interests. With GW Bush, I worry less about the programs that are openly espoused than the deals that will be quietly done in the corridors of power. |
