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: greenspirit who wrote (99570)	12/3/2000 5:53:06 PM
From: Ellen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Michael, I very much appreciate your responses. However, I am beginning to wonder if anyone - any of the spin doctors, 'independent' analysts, etc. - can truly remain or are remaining impartial. This has gone on so long and with so much rancor that I fear even this Mr. Lowenstein's analysis is not impartial. He writes: though one should allow for informalities typical in rural counties. Why allow that there and not allow for "informalities" elsewhere? But what could justify disqualifying--"disenfranchising," to use the word fashionable in election disputes--voters because of an arguably wrong decision by the election supervisor? He admits the election supervisor was "arguably wrong" but where is the allowance for 'decisional factors' elsewhere? But that is not the extent of the suit. There is no way to separate the 5,000 ballots whose applications were handled by Republican workers from the other 10,000 absentee ballots cast in Seminole. The separation of 'undervotes' from 'no votes' could just as easily be argued. Do you see my point...? It has become nearly impossible to find a truly impartial source or analyst. No matter where one turns, there is an argument or analysis that focuses on one aspect of an issue but refuses to apply the same argument or analysis for the other side of the coin, so to speak. Very frustrating.