Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank Griffin who wrote (73495)	11/13/2000 10:26:35 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769667

Clear, concise, and accurate. Why is there such misunderstanding about this? Why are people claiming this is a political hack-job? LoF

To: Frank Griffin who wrote (73495)	11/13/2000 10:32:41 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Don't be silly. She has prerogatives to delay certification. She won't use them though, because she wants to do what she can to tip the election to Bush. Until all of the overseas ballots are in on Friday the final tally cannot be certified in any event. This supposed "mandate" of hers is quite simply put - bogus. There is no harm to a full accounting of the votes cast. It is only the paranoia of the Bush people that they may lose that stands in their way of letting the true will of the people speak.

To: Frank Griffin who wrote (73495)	11/13/2000 10:32:45 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

C'mon now. She is exercising judgment about whether to reject votes counted after tommorrow. We can argue about whether that judgment is justified and whether it is politically motivated, but she is being a bit disingenuous in arguing that her hands are tied. And based on his questions, it sounds like the judge isn't so convinced: "The judge questioned lawyers for Ms. Harris' office and the campaign of George W. Bush, asking why the Florida legislature would have enacted a law allowing recounts by hand if it did not give large counties enough time to complete a manual count." nytimes.com