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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (85672)	11/18/2000 1:44:26 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

the last 7 words are the key words. this is my point. none of this process is about fairness, it is all about personal gain. The system tries to be fair, Skeets, in that it is set up to allow both sides equally to maneuver for personal gain. Like a court case, it's an adversarial system. So of course the Democrats asked for recounts where they thought it would help them. Do you blame the prosecution for not making motions that favor the defense? As I said before, I think the Republicans maneuvered badly in choosing to cling to a 300+ lead (now 900+) and call "time" before a manual recount could be done. With a lead like that, the loser would be calling for a recount in a city council race, for goodness sake. I agree with you that Gore would be a higher ground if he had called for a full recount earlier. But he chose to follow normal procedure; I had hoped for better, but I don't find it particularly despicable. he lost several KEY court battles. he FINALLY mentioned the right course of action after being FORCED Gore was the overall winner of the court actions this week, not the loser. This week the Republicans were trying to "call time" on the election, i.e. certify it today, and to prevent recounts; the result of the various court judgements is that the recounts continue and the election will be decided in the Florida State Supreme Court (if not the US Supreme Court). however, why would any winner agree to anything that is a no win/lose situation? Why do you say that a manual recount would be a "no win/lose" situation for the Republicans? It is, after all, a Republican controlled state. I conclude that the Republicans believe that they would lose a manual recount because of their desperate efforts to stop it from happening. Secretary Harris tries to certify the election before manual recounts can be done; every Republican official from Jim Baker down proclaims that manual recounts are unAmerican, unreliable, fraudulent, subject to no uniform standards (this is usually called "being under local control"),etc., etc. You know, manual recounts are part of the normal election process in a tight race and the Republican party never had anything against them up until now.