OK, I've had my fresh air, so now I can respond to your points.
Re: "I guess I did imply you sought the middle, but I don't know such and so take any implication in my words back, intended or not."
I'm not committed to the middle as a religion. I am an issues guy, not a party guy. Neither party represents my beliefs on every issue. Consequently, I am most definitely not in the middle on specific issues, but when it comes to "my party vs. your party" discussions, that is where I end up. I am pretty much in the middle in this particular discussion because for me it was nearly a toss-up as to which presidential candidate to vote for, and more importantly, because I think that the integrity of the process is much more important than which candidate wins the White House.
"I think the bolded above is a stretch and a half, because the manual re-counts, specifically as sought and attained by Al Gore, are indeed wholly un-precedented, unintended, and in fact un-specified in Fla.law- even downright un-american, IMO. In short, no hand-recounts resulting in territorial counting advantages have been "used all over the nation." Yesterday's FSC action was the first hand-count order in this case to date that is even remotely comparable to their proper use."
Many of the statements of the Republican politicians have attacked hand-counting in general, not just the way Al Gore wanted it done.
"Yes, and an inventor involved testified to that, and also to the fact that dimples can appear for various reasons and shouldn't be counted. Certainly they don't have to be necessarily flawed, and you may win that strict point taken alone, yet in this real case in Fla., watching Local boards fight to include them, and in Broward successfully so, is certainly nothing known to be favored by the manufacturers."
The Republicans have every justification for complaining of varying and/or subjective standards in hand-counting. That does not justify portraying hand-counting as being flawed in general.
"The uncompleted third count was an uncompleted count of strictly partisan territory, was it not? Hence it would have been incomplete even if it were "completed" as it existed. To the extent that its results were included, it only added to a Gore territorial counting advantage coming after the original deadlines set by the legislature."
I agree that the original plan of hand-counting only in counties favorable to Gore was biased. That does not justify the Republicans' blanket statement that, "The votes have already been counted three times."
"I don't believe we should be extending deadlines for the inclusion of plainly partisan counting advantages such as, now that I think of it, even the FSC self-contradictorily, now seems to recognize as such."
It's obvious by now that the Florida Supreme Court has pretty much made a mess of things. With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, here's a way that they could have ensured a fair outcome:
(1) Turn down the original request for delaying the certification deadline. This would have allowed time for a proper contest of the election on a statewide basis.
(2) When the contest reached them, set a middle of the road, objective standard for manual recounts, and order such a recount on a statewide basis.
Would such a solution pass muster with the U.S. Supreme Court? Beats me, but at least it has the advantages of being (a) unbiased, and (b) since the contest statutes which were passed by the legislature specifically provide for judicial involvement, and since those statutes grant the courts wide authority to order remedies, that would seem to provide a better chance of meeting the requirements of the U.S. Constitution for the rules to be set by the state legislature.
"So we know, as you say, what the fair way would be, despite the FSC's original decision to extend a deadline to include an unfairness. I just maintain it's plain that the actions of Gore are plainly reprehensible, and are themselves the main source any inkling anyone has that Bush has come even close to such bad behavior."
What Gore wanted was biased, since only counties favorable to him would have been counted.
What Bush wants is biased because the Republican-dominated counties tend to have newer equipment, and thus fewer uncounted votes.
Since neither side has proposed a solution that is not biased in their favor, I conclude that both sides are pursuing their own interests first, and the interests of the nation second.
"I conclude that you are too hard on Mr. Bush, and seem to have bought a Gore introduced fallacy or two, in order to be so."
I've gotten to the point where, when a politician comes on the tube, I change stations. And I don't see where you have identified any fallacies in what I have written. |
