A Liberal argues that Bush would be the best conciliator

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

RICHARD COHEN, WASH POST

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 24, 2000

Answers

Lars, you ignorant slut. The Washington Post is an establishment rag that is bought and paid for by the Bushmeisters. Please return to your shuffleboard.

-- (who_let_the_dogs_out@who.who), November 24, 2000.

Do you think a guy who oversees an operation that hires and ships thugs to Miami-Dade to shove, kick, and punch innocent people would make a good "conciliator"?

-- Bush Good for the Mafia (not@for.usa), November 24, 2000.

No offense, Lars, but that article has already been posted here today. Somehow the second read doesn't do it any more justice than the first.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 24, 2000.

Who wants to conciliate?

-- Three Decades Army (hooda@thunk.it), November 24, 2000.

Richard Cohen is an asshole. Anyone who votes and then changes his mind 2 weeks later is clearly an idiot flake and a sellout media whore.

-- (2 weeks from now @ he'll. say the opposite), November 24, 2000.


11/24/00 1:55 p.m.

PATIENCE FRAYIMG?

Brewing elite disgust with the vice president.

By Rich Lowry, NR

Richard Cohen's column this morning saying that he would, given current circumstances, revoke his vote for Al Gore is possibly a leading indicator of brewing elite disgust with the vice president. Now, it may be that Gore gets the laxer standards for dimpled chads that he needs to eke out enough votes to pass George W. Bush in Florida (must reading on this question: a Washington Post article this morning about how dimpled chads are counted almost nowhere else in the country, and how the Florida supreme court misread an Illinois court ruling to suggest otherwise). But there is a chance that he doesn't get those votes, and soldiers on anyway. This is where the Cohen effect may kick in in earnest.

Because then what should have been clear all along would become truly undeniable: That Gore's gracelessness is undermining the legitimacy of America's electoral process. Yes, in everything Gore has done since the election, he has been strictly within his legal rights. But only in a culture with a degraded sense of honor would that be considered enough to make it acceptable. The secret that has been revealed in this election is that all human institutions are flawed. Which is why it is always a mistake to examine them too closely, to push them to their limits. They depend on a certain forbearance and care, a willingness to accept the result they produce even if it is not perfect (and it never is).

This was the point of Nixon's concession in 1960 (all the revisionist commentary on that election, by the way, brushes by Nixon's quick concession as if it were minor matter). And it would have been the point of a graceful Gore concession this year. But the vice president didn't have it in him. Elite commentators have shown a remarkable willingness to give Gore a pass on this score. But, as Cohen demonstrates this morning, they may reach the limits of their patience, especially those honest liberals who style themselves as "responsible." They have an awful lot invested in Washington's institutions after all, and the sight of Gore tugging away at the columns in an attempt to bring the edifice crashing down eventually will become appalling to them. The sooner, the better.

-- (RichardLoowry@NationalReview.Online), November 24, 2000.


GORE NOT FIT TO BE PRESIDENT

Friday, November 24, 2000

As a lifelong Democrat, I had such strong misgivings about Al Gore's integrity that I did not vote for him. His behavior during the past two weeks only strengthens my view that he is not fit to be president.

Since the election, his political hacks have strong-armed local elections officials; high-paid lawyers have distorted the definition of what a vote is; and campaign operatives have worked to nullify some 40 percent of the ballots from overseas military personnel.

The goal is clear: Steal enough votes to win the election. The long-term result is equally clear -- the crippling of our political process through media spin, legal manipulation and outright fraud.

While I agree with many of his policies, Gore's past and current behavior lead me to the conclusion that the character of his presidency would be that of "no legal controlling authority." We've had eight years of that already. We don't need any more.

DAVE UNDERHILL Southeast Portland

Top Print this page Send to a friend

To subscribe to The Oregonian, click here

Copyright 2000 Oregon Live. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

TODAY'S OP/ED

Friday, Nov. 24, 2000 Editorial Utility poles not sign poles When a ski crash is a crime

Commentary Hunters need to pay attention to the

-- (OpEd@Oregon.Live), November 24, 2000.


Richard:

This editorial is...well, all wet. First of all, Nixon did NOT concede graciously in 1960. You might want to check history before you accept this as fact. Secondly, I understand that the Republicans have been circulating a memo regarding the Illinois decision, but the Florida Supreme Court mentioned TWO decisions in their recent conclusion: Pullen vs. Mullegan and Roudebush vs. Hartke. The Republican memo cites strongly from ONE, yet ignores the other.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 24, 2000.


"...campaign operatives have worked to nullify some 40 percent of the ballots from overseas military personnel."

In court today, county canvassers strenuously objected to Republican charges that Democrats had influenced or overseen how they counted military ballots, and the judge said he could so far find no evidence of any illegality occurring in the ballot counting. The only illegal thing is the GOP trying to count illegal votes while drumming up propaganda that the Democrats are anti-military.

This from a party headed by a guy who was AWOL for over a year!

-- Shining Hypocrites (lying@cheating.gop), November 24, 2000.


The fallacy of Nixon's graceful exit

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 24, 2000.


Thanks for re-introducing that thread, Hmm. IMO, Hayes' election mirrors this one right down to the states in the "game".

One electoral vote

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 24, 2000.


Cohen "bought and paid for"? Wow, that must have cost a reeeeal bundle.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), November 24, 2000.

Regarding attempted parallels between the Nixon concession and a Gore concession:

Nixon knew that he had lost to his opponent in the popular vote.

Gore knows that he has beaten Bush in the popular vote.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmil.com), November 25, 2000.


No spam--

Gore has .2% more popular vote than Bush. Vote counting by any method is not that accurate--statistically the election is a tie. If it makes you feel better to say that Gore won the pop vote, fine, but until the Constitution is amended, it's still the EC that matters.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 25, 2000.


No Spam,

"Gore knows that he has beaten Bush in yhe popular vote."

Well, with the Richard Cohens, as well as the people on the street (see my recent NY Times thread regarding the Chicago interviews, quoting Dems who now wish they hadn't voted for Gore -- (sorry, I don't recall the title)) --

Gore won the popular vote? On November 7th -- absolutely.

But while certainly legal, does it have any real meaning now -- now that his erstwhile support is eroding? Does his paper margin of 200,000 plus even really exist anymore, given the current hearts and minds of all those former supporters who are now alienated?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 25, 2000.



No Spam:

On another thread, you have been a stickler for the letter of the law. From that perspective, the popular vote should be irrelevant, yet here it seems important to you. Does your respect for the law depend on whom you see that law supporting? If the popular vote does not matter by law, I'd expect you to be pointing this out.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 25, 2000.


from The New York Times' letters to the editor, 11/25/00...

Although I voted for Al Gore and support much of his agenda, I am increasingly concerned by the lack of public leadership he is showing in these turbulent days.

With the Republicans clearly seizing the rhetorical advantage, Mr. Gore has left his followers defenseless. Arcane legal arguments -- even if correct -- are trumped by pithy one-liners around the water cooler. While common sense and gut feelings may be disdained by the sophisticated policy analyst, they are necessary and unavoidable aspects of American political discourse.

If Mr. Gore doesn't get this now, how can he hope to counter Republican sound-bite politics from the Oval Office? And if he lacks the impulse to reassure the millions of Americans bewildered by the events in Florida, how can he hope to lead the country?

(--Maia Ettinger, NY Times letter to the editor, 11/25/00)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 25, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ