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: Math Junkie who wrote (8650)	12/10/2000 2:07:27 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

Richard, Thanks for a good post. Dan B. has the fixed idea that Bush was taking the high road in fighting recounts. I couldn't persuade him that Bush was just pursuing his own interests; maybe you can. In my opinion, the really unusual thing about this recount fight (aside from the fact that it involves the Presidency) is that both sides knew from the start which side would benefit. This is usually not clear in advance; most recounts confirm the original winner. The Republican strategy from the start has been to claim that manual recounts are a zoo and then to turn them into a zoo. An impartial election authority would have concluded IMO that the loser deserved a recount, considering the large number of under-votes and the extremely tiny margin of victory. Of course, in this case the election authority was the campaign co-chair of the winner. I agree with you about what the FSC should have done in hindsight except I don't think they could have set a statewide standard; it wouldn't have stood up under appeal.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (8650)	12/10/2000 3:36:28 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 10042

I am an issues guy, not a party guy. Hi, Richard. Lonely, isn't it? Of all the interesting aspects of this business, one of the most interesting to me is the inability of some to grasp that some others can and do analyze issues independent of any party affiliation they might feel. I never expected everyone to be inclined or able to DO that, but I thought that everyone recognized that the behavior was actually practiced in the real world by some elements of the population. I don't know what debating clubs do now, but, as I recall, they used to require participants to be able to argue either side of an issue. Nowadays, it seems too much to ask that people simply acknowledge that issues are multifaceted, that there's more than one legitimate position to take, and that sometimes the other guy has a point. Sigh. Karen