Irony

[Sanford Levinson]

I very much appreciate Greg Sisk's analysis.  Much of it sounds right.
Perhaps we can add Al Gore's running a dreadful legal campaign to his
having run a dreadful election campaign.  As much as I'm opposed to Bush's
presidency (because of his remarkable ignorance about things presidents
should know something about), I don't rule out the possibility that he will
display considerably more political skills, including the ability to reach
across party lines, than Gore, who probably has the tinnest ear among
big-time American politicians. (This is only one reason that I almost
literally can't imagine his being a successful candidate in 2004.  The
Democratic Party has no reason to reward such a bumbling candidate with
another opportunity, even if one believes that he in fact won this
election.  As Ralph Nader accurately pointed out, an incumbent running on
peace and prosperity, should not have had trouble winning a mandate to
continue the good work.)

As a technical matter, I am curious whether Gore really had the legal right
to call for a state-wide recount since he registered no objection to the
way votes had been counted elsewhere.  I can't imagine how he could have
done so in the contest stage.  And one might display a bit of charity
toward Gore's lawyers, who could reasonably have believed that existing
equal protection doctrine would not in fact invalidate the varying
standards.  I think that Greg is on sound ground in suggesting that this
was never Gore's strongest point re the public debate, but, as we all learn
anew every day, there are real differences between arguments submitted to
the court of public opinion and arguments that one believes desirable or
necessary to submit to a court.


sandy