Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
Every single vote was counted, Cali. I'm curious, if Bush would've won in "all 4 scenarios" of a statewide recount, would you still be such an advocate.
Why do you think Gore didn't advocate that? Because he thought he would lose? Because of the massive headache it would've caused? You seem to ignore all the legal wrangling (dimpled chads, etc.) that went around the charade. Imagine Bush and Gore representatives and lawyers being dispatch to every precinct in the state. Imagine lawsuits filed over how to count this and that in every county. You talk like a recount would've just been a natural thing. "We'll be done by dinner, honey!"
This is to say nothing of the fact that it wasn't supported by law (a point you concede). Democrats have a habit of wanting to change the rules after the fact. See Bob Torricelli 2002. See Hillary Clinton 2008 re: Florida, Michigan.
All this is, of course, beside my original point, which is that the Supreme Court did not decide the election. Startlingly, even the New York Times conceded the point:
If even the Times can get it right, how come CBS news can't?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A9679C8B63 |
Why do you think Bush advocated the position he advocated (even though if he won the point, he would have lost the election)? Of course he and Gore pushed forward the idea that they thought would help them win, within the limits of the law. I am not arguing that the legal result should have been a recount of the entire state. I have said that multiple times now, so I can only assume that this latest attempt will also be an exercise in futility.
I am arguing that the best measure of the will of the people of Florida would have been a complete recount of all votes cast, and Gore wins in that scenario. It would still be the best measure of the will of Floridians even if Bush won under that scenario. I really don't know why you would even argue that point. Why are you arguing that point?
The law didn't support a statewide recount, so both Gore and Bush argued for a more limited version (i.e., the law produced a result that was less than perfect). Ironically, they both selected a choice that would have been a losing position if adopted. The courts ultimately decided on what the appropriate standard would be for the recount. That decision dictated who would win the presidency. In a very real sense, therefore, the courts decided the presidency. I also don't find this particularly debatable. And this isn't an issue of "changing the rules after the fact." Can you even point to a single statement of mine in this thread to support your accusation? I will happily wait for your evidence.