Phandel, as to the CNN article, not so fast -- for one thing, the article had this to say: "The Herald's review also discovered that canvassing boards in Palm Beach and Broward counties threw out hundreds of ballots that had marks that were no different from ballots deemed to be valid. The paper concluded that Gore would be in the White House today if those ballots had been counted." More importantly though, this newspaper, the Miami Herald, broke off amid much criticism from the main consortium that's been doing a recount. That consortium includes the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, etc; this is the one most people are waiting for. Why did the Miami Herald go off and do their own? They cut corners to finish the recount faster, quite simply, cause they wanted to scoop the other newspapers, results be damned (this is basically according to their own comments). So, wait until that other recount is completed first, it will be much more credible. -- And, hey, by asserting Bush would've won anyway, isn't that kind of admitting he acted like a weasel through the whole recount thing? It's hard to imagine McCain trying to confuse and politicize the simple issue of getting the vote counting straight. Wouldn't you think Bush's professed mantra would be something like "take it like a man"?
Hey ncc74656, entirely off topic, but as to your tag line (Bush won, Gore lost, get over it) -- if Bush asked his friends on the Supreme Court to stop the count, how can we know who really won? That's the whole point, of course. And, as for the getting over it part -- you know, Clinton's out of office now, it's been 8 years since he was legitimately elected, and Republicans are *still* trying to impeach him, again... as if the first time weren't enough for them. Seriously, when those guys get over it, *then* maybe we can talk about the pro-Gore people getting over it. What do you think?
-- srmclellan@yahoo.com if you want to reply off topic...
Slashdot Mirror
Phandel, as to the CNN article, not so fast -- for one thing, the article had this to say: "The Herald's review also discovered that canvassing boards in Palm Beach and Broward counties threw out hundreds of ballots that had marks that were no different from ballots deemed to be valid. The paper concluded that Gore would be in the White House today if those ballots had been counted." More importantly though, this newspaper, the Miami Herald, broke off amid much criticism from the main consortium that's been doing a recount. That consortium includes the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, etc; this is the one most people are waiting for. Why did the Miami Herald go off and do their own? They cut corners to finish the recount faster, quite simply, cause they wanted to scoop the other newspapers, results be damned (this is basically according to their own comments). So, wait until that other recount is completed first, it will be much more credible. -- And, hey, by asserting Bush would've won anyway, isn't that kind of admitting he acted like a weasel through the whole recount thing? It's hard to imagine McCain trying to confuse and politicize the simple issue of getting the vote counting straight. Wouldn't you think Bush's professed mantra would be something like "take it like a man"?
Hey ncc74656, entirely off topic, but as to your tag line (Bush won, Gore lost, get over it) -- if Bush asked his friends on the Supreme Court to stop the count, how can we know who really won? That's the whole point, of course. And, as for the getting over it part -- you know, Clinton's out of office now, it's been 8 years since he was legitimately elected, and Republicans are *still* trying to impeach him, again... as if the first time weren't enough for them. Seriously, when those guys get over it, *then* maybe we can talk about the pro-Gore people getting over it. What do you think? -- srmclellan@yahoo.com if you want to reply off topic...