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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (6198)	11/15/2000 5:33:32 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

First off, let me correct myself. Point of view is one thing. But truth is not only in the eye of the beholder. Second, yes, I'm aware that the Bush camp had an opportunity early on to go for widespread statewide hand-counting and chose not to take that route. This doesn't have to mean they didn't recognize early on that it would be technically fair in a perfect world. Hence, in fact, their case is, very importantly, based in the relative unfairness of selective handcounting VS full state handcounting. Hence, I see they surely have recognized publicly the fairness of full handcounting all along, no? Neither camp, of course, had the power to mandate them. Bush could only enter into them by his choice and he chose not to. Gore understood why Bush held back(he'd won as it stood). The reason Gore is much worse is that Bush held at a level playing field by NOT seeking handcounts(granted, easy as the winner), and that simply is a fair playing field, I think we've agreed. But Gore, knowing full well this situation, had a chance to propose a fairness as a resolution like you and I might agree would be best. He could have appealed to have a statewide hand-count in the interests of a complete count of the voters(thus, in the beginning, I believe, would be where Gore refused this option, well, unquestionable he didn't do this). Instead, he vigorously sought a resolution that would produce skewed unfair results in his own favor by taking every advantage of existing laws in friendly territories, and promising lawsuits from Wednesday morning on. He instigated this as the guy behind, and I can fault his sense of fairness in this unprecedented time. He cuased calls to be placed before the polls closed which successfully convinced 50% of Gore voters surveyed that they "may" have voted for Buchanan by mistake(hilarious results). He backed suits he'd encouraged the night before, immediately. Those calls Dem's made cannot, simultaneous, accomplish protecting voters rights and securing skewed partisan election results at the same time, that dog don't hunt, you see? If selective counting and other vote recovery efforts effectively favor only him by design, he was unfair from the get go. Dan B