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: Dan B. who wrote (7072)	11/21/2000 2:39:45 PM
From: RCMac	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

NYTimes op-ed piece today: "Can Gore Even Win?" nytimes.com (requires FREE registration) Excerpts: " . . . one has to ask Mr. Bush: Is there any condition under which you would now accept Al Gore as the legitimate winner? "I don't think so. Mr. Bush has behaved as if this were not a close election at all, as if he had won by a landslide, and therefore the notion that every last vote be hand-counted to determine the winner is only an effort to steal the election from him — the already obvious winner. And therefore, in Mr. Bush's view, under no condition can Al Gore ever be deemed the legitimate next president. By opposing any hand counts with a scorched-earth media blitz, Mr. Bush has left himself no room to be a gracious loser. He has left no scenario in which to say: "I lost fairly. Now let's all rally behind Al Gore." "Mr. Bush needs to remember that he lost the popular vote in the country and he was ahead in Florida by only 300 votes out of six million before the absentees were counted. The fact is, this election was too close to call, and therefore conducting a hand count is both legal and legitimate, especially when it's being done under the same rules that apply in Texas."

To: Dan B. who wrote (7072)	11/21/2000 2:44:48 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10042

<<to say simply Baker rejected statewide handcounts ignores the reason and I believe, implies an untruth. >> How so? Baker made only disparaging remarks when Gore suggested it. He defiantly ruled it out. No means no.......Don't it. What's good for the Goose....If their are drawbacks to state wide they would apply to both sides..... Baker doesn't want it because he has the current lead .....Why should he consent to something that may take that lead from him?