a call for Gore to stop?
November 10, 2000 10:20 AM   Subscribe

a call for Gore to stop? This is a well reasoned argument but is sometimes rambling. Do you think it makes sense? Is Gore really loosing credibility? Should he really give up the fight? Discuss.
posted by Adman (21 comments total)
I think he should continue. Yes, it could be called undignified. However - I think it represents the will of the people, and I think it is honourable of him to continue fighting when the popular vote is already his.
posted by annathea at 10:28 AM on November 10, 2000

Patience is a virtue. There are still overseas absentee ballots to tally. And while those ballots have historically favored Republicans, it is silly for the Bush people to be saying "Give it up, Al" until ALL the votes are counted. This is an unique event in the U.S.'s history where one person leads by 327 votes—as reported by the Associated Press, and not an official count—in one state, and the other leads the popular vote by 218,599 overall. Both sides should just shut up, and wait until everything is counted. However, I do not think it is unreasonable for the Democrats to disput the voting irregularities in Florida—and specifically in Palm Beach County—when had such irregularities occurred in another country the U.S. would have asked the Organization of American States (OAS) to send election monitors to investigate. We have a president and his name is William Jefferson Clinton. And he is in office until mid-January. There is no need to rush things. A lot is at stake.
posted by terrapin at 10:33 AM on November 10, 2000

This is a no win situation and you damn well know if the situation was reversed that Bush would be doing the exact same things that Gore is doing now.Folks, we'll be very lucky if we have a president by Inauguration Day. Personally, I hope that Strom Thurmond gets appointed!He's a heartbeat from the presidency and a heartbeat from death!
posted by Mr. skullhead at 10:35 AM on November 10, 2000

That letter begins with an incorrect premise: "You are currently arguing that you have the right to do so because you have won the popular vote."

I haven't read that anyone in the Gore camp is arguing that the popular vote gives them any special standing at all in this affair.

The thing is - it's an election. Generally, that means you count each vote carefully, according to regulations (not an off-the-cuff, casual count) and you see who wins.

Just because generally we go with the more casual counts doesn't mean that the "real" thing is any less appropriate, does it?

Why in the world there's anything wrong with Gore waiting for a real count in such a situation I'll never know. And honestly, if it has to be Gore that speaks out for the voters in Palm Beach County that's good - cause unfortunately no one else would.

Bush seems very happy being casual about this - but it comes off as smugness more than anything.
posted by mikel at 10:38 AM on November 10, 2000

I think the whole election should be done over. People who have sat out this one, about half of the registered voters, would probably vote and there would be a true mandate.
I also think the electoral college should be scrapped.
My $.02.
posted by janethia at 10:49 AM on November 10, 2000

Here's an interesting Radio interview of President Clinton supporting Gore and addressing a number of questions (from 2600).

posted by john at 10:54 AM on November 10, 2000

If the situation in Florida has shown us anything, it's that the vote counting process is an inexact science. Recounting votes (I would hope) is more precise. Therefore, politics aside, it seems that the most logical course of action is to recount votes in all the states in which the outcome should be reasonably affected by a recount in order to assure the most accurate results possible. We're not playing a guessing game here; we don't need to fudge the results. It is possible to determine the actual results to the necessary degree of accuracy and a failure to do so would be both silly and very disappointing.

However, since we are dealing with politics, words like "logical", "precise", "accurate", and "reasonable" are nearly meaningless. Both candidates are doing what the other would do if their situations were reversed. Somehow this will get sorted out. It won't be pretty, but it will be damn interesting.
posted by jkottke at 11:01 AM on November 10, 2000

Both sides are guilty of politicizing the process. I think the Dems' strategy is to contest and protest, not with the intention of actually changing anything, but to put an indelible stain the Bush's win.

Real party players know that elections happen every year, and presidential elections every 4-- it's not the end of the world to lose, especially if you can set your opponent on a terrible footing from which he might not recover.

The Republicans are just as guilty by trying to hurry the process along-- apperently it's too much to ask for both of them to just chill until all the votes are counted.

And don't forget the media-- they're just as guilty here, although I'm not exactly sure how! They're just stirring the pot, though, that much is clear

posted by s10pen at 11:06 AM on November 10, 2000

Like I said in another topic, the calls for Gore to abandon his effort in the name of grace or dignity have already begun, despite laws, rule and justice. These calls are baseless and transparent.

Gore's fight is a fair fight and he should pursue it.

That said, the above linked article is riddled with errors and typos, beyond such fatuous statements as "The loosing party will most probably win the mid-term election, and the loosing party in this election will capture the White House unless the president elect does an amazing job over the next four years." If these are the kinds of people who are fighting against the ongoing legal and political process then I'm even more for Gore and the Democrats than I was before the election.
posted by Mo Nickels at 11:10 AM on November 10, 2000

Once Gore gives up with dignity, as he might when the absentee ballots come in, he sets everything in place to win big in 2004. (That is, unless Jakob gets there first.)

That said, there's no reason to stop until the count's over. And it's making the Bush camp look undignified and power-hungry.
posted by holgate at 11:35 AM on November 10, 2000

And, I'd add, scared. What's the rush? If Bush is so sure he's won, why not wait until all the votes are counted?
posted by megnut at 11:56 AM on November 10, 2000

What's the rush?
I heard when W.'s Brother Jeb recused himself from the Election Commission, he left for a vacation trip to Bermuda carrying a suitcase large enough to hold 3000 ballots...
posted by BozLee at 12:11 PM on November 10, 2000

I'd take this clown's argument a lot more seriously if he/she would learn to spell. Loose= not tight. 2 or more typographical errors = dumb. May not be true, but that's the impression I get.
posted by norm at 12:11 PM on November 10, 2000

Whoops, due to lack of refresh on the job, I failed to note Mo's comment about the moron's spelling. Excuse the redundant comment. . .

posted by norm at 12:17 PM on November 10, 2000

the election isn't over until the ballots are counted, pure and simple.

for bush to call on gore to concede is ludicrous; even if he *did* conced, does that have any legal standing? not to my knowledge.

the candidates do not get to decide who won the election: the people do. and that will happen once the votes are counted.

and I'm already tired of hearing this referred to as the "post-election process". they're still counting the votes: that makes it the "election process."

posted by rebeccablood at 12:33 PM on November 10, 2000

the boston herald on Gore:
"He's like the rich kid on the playground who won't let you go home until he wins the game. And this is the same bum who told Slobo that he had to respect the results of the election and he couldn't have a ``run-off'' with the people he'd already lost to.

It's obvious what's going on here. Gore wants the counting to continue until he wins. It will never stop until he gets the result that he wants.

If he loses the recount today, then we hand-count the four counties. If he loses those recounts, then he'll demand more hand recounts. If he loses there . . . "

and the nypost on Gore:
"Daley chose to use the press conference to launch a direct assault on the Bush camp: "I believe that their actions to try to presumptively crown themselves the victors, to try to put in place a transition, run the risk of dividing the American people."

Run the risk of dividing the American people? To compare this to the old cliche about the pot calling the kettle black is to libel the pot. The Bush camp didn't import Jesse Jackson into Florida to mount a street demonstration conducted solely for the benefit of the national television cameras. The Gore campaign did."

This is going like a high school election-give it up and go home!

posted by riley370 at 12:57 PM on November 10, 2000

The Bush camp, it would appear, is trying to give off the impression of confidence and unconcern precisely to try and force Gore into a situation where he's forced to back down from pressing for recounts.

Awww, don't be a sore loser, Al. Yield graciously.

Brilliant spin, you've got to admit.
posted by grimmelm at 1:01 PM on November 10, 2000

I thought to get the "oo" sound in "lose" you had to use two O's. Doubtless the Bush camp would prefer it were spelled with the French "ou", i.e. "louse" ... ;-)
posted by dhartung at 1:09 PM on November 10, 2000

a big part of the problem is that the media has failed to analyze and report the situation in florida. after the initial returns were counted early wednesday, it was quite apparent that the it would be impossible to actually call an official winner until all the outstanding absentee ballots arrived. if you only read the headlines, or perhaps 3-4 paragraphs into the stories, it is clear the message was the recount winner was the official one. (i followed zero tv coverage, maybe someone can add their thoughts about it)

the headlines should have read 'Presidency depends on absentee vote', and the story explaining the florida procedures regarding postmarked ballots and how long the state must wait to have an accurate count.

posted by lescour at 1:32 PM on November 10, 2000

It'd be nice (though it won't happen) if the Florida officials, along with the two parties, declared a media truce (or blackout) for the next week or so, while the count takes place. Because if this verbal jousting has any tangible consequence, it's to raise the emotional temperature in Florida even higher. And it's in neither candidate's best interests to take office amid scenes of civil unrest.

But because the media -- particularly network news -- is now predicated on the notion of "eyewitness coverage of breaking stories", there's the desire for instant results. I've seen the five copters over Atlanta, trying to be first to spot the rush-hour wrecks on I-75/85; I've seen the "live on the scene" reports from drive-by shootings and natural disasters. This is just an extension of the trope.

At least Gore's keeping quiet. That's smart.
posted by holgate at 1:58 PM on November 10, 2000


This seems like a reasonably good time for me to inject a related thought on the PBC balloting and recounts.

Yes, perhaps the people who spoiled their ballots in that county exercised poor judgement. But I sure wish everyone would note that the fact that they were dumb, *and* the fact that they are arguing the wrong point about it (a point that tends only to prove that they are dumb) does *not* mean that the ballots suddenly somehow did *not* violate the law.

Why is this on topic for this particular thread? Because I can't read either^W^W^W^WGore isn't the one *doing* the fighting, so far as I've been able to see.

The *voters*, the disenfranchisado, are the ones protesting and filing lawsuits.

Gore *did* stop.

Counterexamples with references gladly accepted.
posted by baylink at 5:48 PM on November 10, 2000

« Older   |   Basic Instinct 2 Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments