While I completely agree with the substance of Ed Rasimus' posting, I find that
most discussions of the Bush Gore Florida fiasco tend to avoid several salient
points.

1: Al Gore's father and my father could never have been friends. My father
taught me that a man's word is his bond. Apparently Al Gore Senior neglected
to teach this to his son. Al Gore conceded the election. His reasons and
motivations for doing so are neither relevant, pertinent, or important. He
conceded the election of his own volition.

Subsequently, Al Gore withdrew his concession. Again, his reasons and
motivations for doing so are neither relevant, pertinent, or important. This
was an immoral act, and as Ed Rasimus stated in his post,

"All of this was known by all of the players prior to the election.
After you've played the game, if you are unhappy with how the score
was kept, it is too late to change the rules. You've got to amend the
Constitution BEFORE the election if you want the prez elected by the
popular vote."

If Al Gore made a bad decision based on flawed information, then he should have
had the moral courage to live with it. He didn't. This reflects poorly on his
character and on his intelligence. As a sidebar, I contend that a president
should possess superior judgment than Al Gore demonstrated that evening.

2: The Democrat final recount awarded the win to George Bush by 537 votes.
The Democraft news media independent recount awarded the win to George Bush by
493 votes. Democrat vote counters awarding the election to a Republican
candidate. Where is the conspiracy? Where is the wrong doing? While not
detracting from Ed Rasimus' valid point concerning how the President is really
chosen, it does invalidate the ever persistent claims that "they stole the
election from us."

3: Any and all discussion of the Supreme Court's involvement in this situation
are irrelevant. Al Gore fired the first writ. Again, to paraphrase Ed
Rasimus, don't play the game if you don't like the rules and the potential
outcome.

Many conservative defenders have become fond of replying to their Liberal
attackers on this subject with, "Live with it!" What's to live with? The
complaint and the challenge are both invalid. They are based on a lie. A
better response would be, "Start telling the truth and start following the
rules."



Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.

Remove "DELETEME" from my address to reply