Perspective?

[Leslie Goldstein]

here is one dem (me)saying I favor not just recounts wherever they seem
reasonable (and I am not sure that hand counts only in hte most pro-Gore of FL
counties is anything close to reasonable--seems it should be whole state or
none)., but also that we should mandate are-vote for all who voted and only
htose, in Palm Beach County.  This is not because I want to favor one party
because I believe in democracy, which i believe was thwarted by a grossly
misleading and illegal ballot in htat one county.  There should also be
recounts in Wisconsin and Iowa and Oregon.  And whoever wins wins.  Too bad if
it is tough for Gore to govern; no on e forced him to run.
LFG
Cornell Clayton wrote:

> In partial response to Greg Sisk's point about evaporating intraparty
> support for further challeges to the election let me share a post I made
> this morning LawCourts list (I apologies to those on both lists):
>
> Stepping back to put this mess in perspective, I'm struck by two things:
>
> 1.  Why has there been so little attention paid to the role television is
> playing in this process?  My guess is that cool-headed advisors inside both
> the Gore and Bush camps are giving their men the same advice that Howard
> Gillman and others have expressed on this list and elsewhere -- wait, be
> patient, be conciliatory, reach-out for unity, ratchet down the rhetoric.
> But the events are being driven by T.V.   When television reported
> yesterday that the Bush campaign was beginning to consider the transition
> (something that is perfectly reasonable for them), Gore had to respond
> forcefully to keep the public from forming the impression that the election
> was over.  Once the Gore campaign (and Jesse Jackson) threw-down the glove
> (basically suggesting that Gore was the legitimate president-elect and Bush
> was trying to steal the election), Bush had to respond forcefully
> (portraying Gore as willing to win at any cost and unwilling to play by the
> rules), and so on and so on!   Clearly, it would be best if neither
> campaign said another word until Florida (and other states have certified
> their elections).  But clearly neither can back away (or refrain from going
> "on air") for fear of losing the PR war.  Of course, none of this was
> necessary in 1876 or 1888.  Then, the public didn't know what was going on
> inside the campaigns, the presidential candidates could behave like
> "statesmen," deals could be cut, and cooler heads could prevail without the
> arbitrary pressures of shifting "public opinion" formed by
> immediate-by-minute television coverage.
>
> 2)  As a Gore voter, I'm baffled why any Democrat (other than Al Gore)
> wants Gore to assume the presidency under these circumstances.  I think
> there is lots of evidence to suggest that 1992 was the beginning of a
> lasting Democratic realignment (at least at the presidential level).  Not
> only did the Democrats convincingly win again in 1996, but the Y2K election
> was fought on Democratic policy terrain and Democrats won the popular
> election and picked-up seats in both houses.  Does anyone not belive that,
> absent the Clinton scandal/impeachment, Gore would have won this election
> easily (even as a weak candidate)?  Given that context, if Bush wins, this
> election looks a lot like 1976 (when Watergate was responsible for the
> one-term Carter presidency in an otherwise 24-year Republican domination of
> the White House).  Now, if Gore succeeds in somehow changing the current
> voting-outcome in Florida, he comes to office under an election cloud, he
> faces a hostile Republican controlled Congress with which he will get very
> little accomplished, and he will probably be facing an economic recession
> in the next two years.  He will undoubtedly lose Democratic seats in 2002
> (given the history of mid-term  losses by the presidential party) and the
> presidency in 2004 -- in other words, he kills the realignment!  If, on the
> other hand, Bush assumes office, he does so with no mandate (having lost
> the popular vote) under a election cloud in Florida.  He faces a bitterly
> divided Congress (with Democrats galvanized by the feeling the election was
> stolen from them) that is unlikely to pass any radical GOP proposals.  He
> too faces an economic down-turn for which his party will be blamed (are you
> better off today than four years ago?).  The GOP will undoubtedly lose
> seats, and probably control over both houses of Congress in 2002 , and will
> undoubtedly be a one-term president!  In other words, the Democratic
> realignment will be cemented by 2004!  If I'm a Democrat (other than Gore
> or someone hoping for a Cabinet position in his admin.) I'm telling him to
> concede the election.  Would this put the country's interest first?  Maybe.
>  Would it put the Party's interest first,?  Definitely!
>
> Cornell Clayton
> Washington State University