posted on November 16, 2000 01:03:24 PMWorking with people, negotiating etc. is a top value of a President - one who runs or shies away from that is not secure enough to be in office.
The problem now, right now, about any meeting, or a possibility of any deals in a meeting, that was proposed by V.P. Gore is that neither candidate (they still are candidates as of this moment) has been elected President, neither one has been decided yet. So what is the purpose of this meeting. Neither Gov. Bush nor V.P. Gore is in the Presidential seat yet, and so, why should any descions, deals, negotiations or anything else between the two be done, made, whatever now?
Gov. Bush is NOT the President yet. I think he made his decision last night, and did not shy away from his invitation from V.P. Gore.
He told him, he would be happy to meet with after the election, whomever is the President then. I don't think that was shying away or avoiding anything. IMO.
posted on November 16, 2000 01:11:39 PMWorking with people, negotiating etc. is a top value of a President - one who runs or shies away from that is not secure enough to be in office.
Wisely using discretion and not being intimidated when faced by an "offer" by a desperate opponent is a sign of a strong leader. Gore made an obviously desperate attempt to place Bush on the defensive and he didn't fall for it. Very shrewd move IMO.
posted on November 16, 2000 01:12:34 PM
Hey, Maybe they could ditch Lieberman & Cheney and TAKE TURNS. One week Gore, next week Bush and so on........that way one could be resting at Camp David during his off week. Double your pleasure, double your fun!
posted on November 16, 2000 01:32:10 PM
If Gore was sincere in his stated desire to meet with Bush before the end, (and I'm not at all sure Gore was sincere, he might have banked on Bush's refusal. Gore's proposal was very clever. Gore would have scored points if Bush had agreed to meet with him before it was over, and Gore still scores points by Bush's impolite refusal to meet with him before it's over. Gore pretty much put Bush in a no-win situation just by that proposal to meet before this is over, it was a nifty piece of maneuvering.) Gore could have one or several motivations.
Could be, Gore is worried that tensions in Florida will escalate to the point of physical violence. I'm very surprised that I haven't heard of one case where a demonstrator has whacked another demonstrator over the head with one of his signs. Gore might genuinely be worried about peoples' safety. Or, a bit more cynically, he might worry that if violence did break out, he would be blamed (along with Bush, probably) for contributing to an escalation of private person Gore supporter vs. Bush supporter anger by not setting a better tone himself, personally, and not reigning in his spin doctors. Carol Roberts, the Palm Beach County board member, has said she's had threats against her life, and has been under police protection. That's a serious situation. Whether you agree with her dogged pursuit of her political agenda or not, it's nothing that justifies killing her.
To be even more cynical, Gore's desire to meet with Bush before this is officially over involves a bit less obvious Gore/Democrat agenda.
Pretty much from day one, Bush supporters have attempted to breed a sense of urgency. "This is a Constitutional Crisis!" they've yelled. "We need to wrap this up right now!!" "We can't wait for hand counting, we need resolution, fast!!" and, of course, Jim Baker's Chicken Littleish's cries that "The market is falling, the market is falling!!"
If Gore met with Bush before this was over, with plenty of photo opps of both of them shaking hands and smiling together and generally acting like they're having a wonderful time and everything's just dandy, this would go quite a ways towards taking the Republican edge off things, undermining the sense of crisis that the Republicans have tried to foster in an effort to stop this now (while we've won.)
It's not hard at all to see why Bush wants it to have ended last week and Gore wants it to end sometime after now. Last week, Bush was winning. Sometime after now, Gore might be winning.
[ edited by donny on Nov 16, 2000 01:36 PM ]
posted on November 16, 2000 02:00:53 PMabindoncomputerGore will be remembered as the candidate who refused to accept the outcome of the election. The people have voted. The votes have been counted over and over again. And he's still whining. It's easy to see why the people of Tennessee rejected him as one of their own. He's an embarrassment to them.
You're 100% right - the people have voted. And they voted for Gore - he won the national popular vote.
posted on November 16, 2000 02:09:09 PMYou're 100% right - the people have voted. And they voted for Gore - he won the national popular vote.
You're almost right, but not quite. Gore won the popular vote, but in the end he will lose the electoral vote. And the electoral vote is the bag that holds all the marbles.
Al is a sore loser. He's trying to steal the election with the help of Daley, who's an expert in this area. I'm sure his father (who helped steal the 1960 election) taught him well. The only difference was that Nixon backed down from the fight, something that Bush has the guts not to do.
posted on November 16, 2000 02:11:21 PM
Unless you want to disregard the U.S. Constitution...the "popular vote" is actually for the electors. The Electoral College votes for the President. So far, Bush is ahead in electoral votes...if you consider the fact that he is ahead in Florida.
You really can't change the rules until you manage to amend the Constitution down the road. So, the "popular vote" is worth exactly doodly. But, you knew that...
posted on November 16, 2000 02:16:24 PM
Ya might have a bunch of electors that don't vote the way their state told them too---ublikely--but 'We are Living in Interestng Times'
posted on November 16, 2000 02:21:00 PM
Latest report on Fox is that PBC is now considering changing its CHAD criteria. The idea is that now the counters are to consider the other punches on the ballot in determining the voter's "intent". For example, if a ballot has a number of "dimpled" CHADs, the counter could infer that (in the words of the head of the PBC board) that voter "had trouble with" punching the ballot, and therefore a "dimpled" CHAD is a valid vote. They think. Right now, at least.
IOW, more than a week into this debacle, PBC still hasn't quite agreed upon a standard by which these votes should be manually counted.
posted on November 16, 2000 02:28:47 PMIOW, more than a week into this debacle, PBC still hasn't quite agreed upon a standard by which these votes should be manually counted.
As long as they've had their bank accounts verified, it'll be okay, probably.
posted on November 16, 2000 02:33:33 PM
Ah, yes. Those deeply confused, but extremely wealthy folks... Maybe they could petition to use the "help" as surrogates in the voting booth? Nah. There's that nasty old Constitution looming in the way again.
posted on November 16, 2000 02:36:06 PMYa might have a bunch of electors that don't vote the way their state told them too---ublikely--but 'We are Living in Interestng Times'
True, and it has happened once or twice in the past when it didn't affect the outcome of the election. But when the votes of the electors are read to a joint session of Congress by the Vice President on Dec. 18, the House of Representatives can choose to disregard the votes of selected electors should they so choose by a simple majority vote. And since the Republicans hold a simple majority in the House, it's quite apparent that the elector would be wasting his/her time by voting for Gore against the instructions given to them by the state. In other words, if Gore loses Florida, he's toast, even if an elector or three decide to "vote their conscience".
posted on November 16, 2000 02:40:59 PM
zazzie...there was a report in the Columbia (S.C.) State newspaper that said two South Carolina electors received telephone calls from an unidentified party that asked them to change their votes from Bush to Gore. http://www.thestate.com/politics/docs/scelectors15.htm
Even if some electors do change their vote from Bush to Gore, it won't affect the outcome. The GOP controlled House of Representatives would simply vote to ignore their votes and Bush would still end up the winner.
posted on November 16, 2000 03:23:09 PM
So what's the point of having the 'physical' electors then. The electoral vote should just be a thing that occurs if the state goes one way or the other.
It probably costs a pretty penny to stage the whole 'electoral voting' thingy in December with everybody being flown in from their various states, hotels, dinners etc.
posted on November 16, 2000 03:31:13 PM
Zazzie, I'm not sure, and this could definitly be wrong, but the actual electors, don't need to go to D.C. but gather someplace in their own state, vote, send votes to D.C, which then are read by the Head of the Senate. But I am not absolutely sure.
And the electors can change their votes. And I believe its not against any 'rules' for the other party to try to change their minds either. I'm not sure where I heard that, so that could be wrong too
posted on November 16, 2000 03:39:42 PMHey, Maybe they could ditch Lieberman & Cheney and TAKE TURNS
I'd feel MUCH more comfortable with Cheney as prez than Bush...had the ticket been reversed, Cheney/Bush, I would have been more inclined to vote Republican. Would definitely be more to consider, although I might still have voted for Gore.
Interesting speech Bush gave, lol... did anyone else notice a couple of slight breaths he took before a couple of big words he had to say? I chuckled to myself...they've both got good speech writers, but Bush sounded more like he was reading someone else's book report. JMHO.
posted on November 16, 2000 03:42:04 PM
I just "Asked Jeeves' where the electors cast their votes and after a little bit of poking around the info--- it says they meet at their respective 'State Capitals'--
posted on November 16, 2000 03:51:46 PM
zazzie...even if we had to fly the all the electors into D.C., it would still be only a fraction of what it cost for Hillary & Chelsea to do their "goodwill tour" through Africa & Asia. Somehow, I consider the electoral vote much more important.
*********************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 16, 2000 03:59:54 PM
Hey doesn't the American public OWE Chelsea a tour of Africa and Asia? She needs a break from her tough schedule...........
posted on November 16, 2000 04:30:21 PMIf Mr. Gore has no authority to waive the 72 hour recount request limit, this is merely grandstanding, seeking credit and public support for an ultimately empty gesture.
It's true Gore has no authority in the matter. However, the Secretary of State presumably does. At least some of the courts have been saying she does indeed have "discretion."
If both parties (Gore and Bush) had chosen to agree on such a point, they could have pressed their joint case to her and she very easily could have said yes.
After all, this isn't a criminal case where someone must be *punished.* It's a civil matter. Usually in civil matters, the legal authorities are very happy to try to accommodate litigants who provide their own solution.
I'm not saying my scenario is a given, just much more a possibility than has been allowed for in this discussion.
posted on November 16, 2000 05:56:51 PM
I don't know whether the Secretary of State's discretion extends to such an unambiguous law as the 72 hour limitation for recount requests.
In any event, Bush is agruing that hand counting is bias and unreliable. If Bush had shown any interest in this offer, you would have heard a big "AH HA" from Gore-he was trying to amBUSH the strategy.
This had only the appearance of a legitimate attempt at fairness.
This is a quote from the article that you referenced:
It is true that Nixon did quickly concede the election to Kennedy. And while he was careful not to put a public imprimatur on the concerted Republican effort to challenge the election results, he privately not only authorized it, but actively encouraged it.
Nixon did not have the guts to mount an all-out assault on Illinois similar to the one that Gore is pursuing in Florida. He did indeed concede the election very quickly. If you will re-read my post above you will see that I never said that Nixon bowed out gracefully. He bowed out shamefully.
The bottom line is that officially he personally conceded the election in order to save his political capital for a later day. And it paid off with his subsequent election as President.
This is the BIG mistake that Gore is making at the moment. IMO he is wasting his political capital in what will ultimately be a losing cause. Very foolish IMO.
Furthermore, your "Wisely using discretion and not being intimidated when faced by an "offer" by a desperate opponent is a sign of a strong leader. Gore made an obviously desperate attempt to place Bush on the defensive and he didn't fall for it. Very shrewd move IMO" shows more of your failure to see the point of the democrat actions, including those of Al Gore.
I believe that the democrats know full well that this election is lost no matter what ensues between now and the electoral vote. By these acts, in court and publically, the democratic party has led GW into insuring, all by himself, that he will be held to one term, and that is now their sole aim. The loss of this election will gain the democratic party full court advantage in 2004, and the Republican party will be floundering around to find a viable candidate just as they were in 1992.
The GW Bush administration will be fraught with critisism and legislative failures along with a full four years of the sorts of personally embarrassing (though he is too obtuse to realize his own, err, frailties) gaffs before the country and the world toward which he tends.
Though Jimmy Carter may well be one of the most intelligent people in the country who's statesmanship could not be questioned even as his administration was, the next four years will be as though Jimmy's brother Billy has been elected.
Do you think that your hero is pouting tonight over the act of the U.S. Supreme court in stopping the execution of the Texas retard today?
posted on November 16, 2000 09:44:41 PM
I don't see how it is that all of you supposedly free thinking women's liberation advocates can object so strongly to the desire of those poor confused elderly Jewish ladies of Palm Beach to be sure that their vote to maintain their right to abortion is correctly tabulated, chad or no chad.
posted on November 16, 2000 10:18:35 PM
My point, Abingdon, and I think the point of the article, was that Nixon did not really concede the election, very quickly or otherwise. He pretended to concede very quickly, talking out of one side of his mouth while directing court challenges galore and FBI involvement out of the other side of his mouth.
I don't see Nixon's actions as cowardly, but as duplicitous, that duplicity that Nixon was so good at. Nixon really was a master of the game, it was just that the game he was a master of was reprehensible.
Remember, mouthing a concession to the other candidate doesn't mean much more than that the guy is moving his mouth. It doesn't give the one conceded to anything he didn't have before.
Nixon's quick concession and wrongly remembered refusal to contest election results has been brought up over and over, and that situation and this one are different. When Gore called Bush to concede, Gore really meant it. When Nixon called Kennedy to concede, he might not have been sincere. While Gore's battles have been out in public for all to see, Nixon's were done as he preferred most things, covertly. That was Nixon's preferred strategy, and it worked great, until one stupid mistake that his guys made in a D.C. hotel.
Until Gore's proposal to Bush, I thought Nixon was much slicker than Gore. Now, I'm not at all sure.
