recount redux (was Re: [lbo-talk] Re: What's at stake?)

[Shane Taylor]

Michael Pollak wrote:
> It seems the film concedes -- much to my surprise -- that Bush
> would have won the four-county recount that Gore asked for
> in the counties that they most expected to be Democratic.
> (They quote not one but several experts to that effect and
> none against it.) And the film then ends by noting (without
> explaining or refuting)  that Bush would have won a statewide
> recount.  (Which seems to make sense if he would have
> won the recount inthe most Democratic counties.) To which
> I say: Huh??  If those two things are true, then all those
> spectacles I got outraged about -- the mob-rule prevention
> of recounts; the absurd VSOP Supreme Court opinion made
> by people who should have recused themselves -- seem
> to be so much extraneous noise. What do they matter if in
> a purer universe with a liberal court where people did the
> right thing, Bush still would have won?

Wouldn't it be a be more than extraneous noise?  Neither the mobs or the
SC justices knew Bush would win a recount.  Their position was that the
recount shouldn't decide the election.  Even if Bush would have won the
recount, it wasn't the recount that got him into the White House.

I'm not trying to excuse Palast.  I agree with the bulk of what you're
saying.   But a recount that goes for Bush doesn't excuse or render
irrelevant the mobs and the SC ruling.

-- Shane

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!