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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (79199)	11/16/2000 11:36:35 AM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Again I am not defending the Democrats. And yes many trial lawyers are greedy SOBs. But they pale next to the greedy SOBs in Wall Street and the Corporate sector. Unfortunately in our society people need to have some greedy SOBs willing to take their side if they are to have any chance of prevailing against the greedy SOBs ripping them off.

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (79199)	11/16/2000 3:46:55 PM
From: JungleInvestor	Respond to of 95453

OT: I've believed from the time that Gore first requested manual recounts and threatened lawsuits that the Supreme Court would wind up ruling on this election and preserve the integrity of the election process. Following NY Times article agrees: nytimes.com November 16, 2000 ESSAY Fight to the Finish By WILLIAM SAFIRE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Al Gore is determined to fight to the finish. His strategy is to draw the finish line at a place where he takes the lead. Gore tried to avert a quick Bush victory in Florida by demanding a manual recount of the machine recount in selected counties. In response, George W. Bush set aside the traditional Republican preference for states' rights by going to federal court to deny the counties' recounts. But the federal judge denied that Bush request for intervention. Bush did gain an advantage when the Florida secretary of state, Republican Katherine Harris, reminded all counties that the law required results to be in by Tuesday of this week. A Florida judge ruled this was the secretary's obligation, provided she did not arbitrarily turn down a counties' request for a supplemental, belated manual recount. Yesterday the Florida Supreme Court, its members all appointed by Democratic governors, encouraged manual recounts. That's the confused state of play. Now let's peer through the pettifog and strategize. At midnight Friday, the overseas absentee ballots will be counted. If Gore picks up some 300 votes and thereby wins the Florida machine- plus-absentee total, Bush should give up and make an immortal concession speech. Assume, however, that tomorrow's overseas vote favors Bush. Gore will not concede. He will insist that manual recounting in his strongholds continue and thereby move the finish line further ahead. But Florida Secretary of State Harris says she has duly considered the counties' requests for hand re- recounts, and — following the court's guidelines — has non-arbitrarily turned them down. And she could then declare Bush the winner after the overseas count. Then what? The Florida Supreme Court, in a ruling yesterday, tipped its hand about what side it would take. Its Democrats would probably continue to allow the hand re-recounts to go forward, hoping that Gore would come out ahead. How could Bush counter that count of selected Democratic counties? He has rejected Gore's offer to throw open all counties to manual recounting because Bush's finish line is midnight tomorrow, not a month from now. The answer for Bush would be to go to the U.S. Supreme Court to argue that a manual recount would introduce more human error or possible mischief and stretch out the decision for weeks. If the high court disagreed, all would not be lost for Bush: nobody knows what result a statewide manual recount would bring. The Supreme Court (whose unanimous ruling against Nixon on the tapes led to his resignation) would put its imprimatur on the best way to decide who shall occupy the presidency. And the vast majority of Americans would readily accept the decision. Neither the Harris pat, in Cole Porter's phrase, nor the partisan state judges can legitimate our national election. Once the legal game began, the game had to be played out to the end. But it need not be the bitter end. Public-spirited observers have urged one or the other players to resign for the good of the country, thereby becoming a hero in history. Others toy with the notion of an unprecedented coalition, with a president of one party and a vice president of the other, with a switch in midterm. Or an agreement to divvy up cabinet posts, as if ours were a parliamentary system. None of that will happen. Not because the ideas are unconventional or the contestants unworthy, but because both sides have chosen to fight to the finish in court. As the case progresses, Bush should take up Gore's invitation to "lift up this discourse" by arguing his case personally on television. Does the closeness of the campaign's finish ordain political paralysis? Not at all; deals are there to be made, and not all splitting the difference: leaning one way on taxation in return for the other way on school accountability, or a sharing of the pain in biting the bullet of Social Security reform. Gore's call last night for a summit is premature. Bush will take up his offer but probably only after the Supremes have spoken. Though Bush and Gore are locked in a fight to the finish, it is only the finish of a campaign. Cheer up, nail- nibblers; it could inspire the beginning of surprisingly creative government.