>I thought of an analogy this morning. Think of the election as a sporting event. It was tied at the end of regulation. The rules call for a full period of overtime. The Bush people want it to be sudden death, and now that they've scored say the game should be over. What do you think?
>
>Tamar

This is more accurate - at the end of regulation, Team R is leading Team D by a few points. Team D thinks there were some bad calls. Even after a review of the calls though, the score tightens, but the outcome stands. So despite the fact that they have lost in regulation by all the rules that were in place when the game started, Team D DEMANDS to change the rules and have an overtime period with the following rules:

1 - Only team D is allowed to have the ball
2 - It is sudden death if Team D scores and pulls ahead, but a "full period of overtime" if Team R scores or prevents Team D from scoring.

Now - the referees - who all happen to part-owners of Team-D, decide to change the rules and allow the overtime even though they really can't do that, but hey - they are on the field. But - even after the "overtime" - team R still leads. Well - now Team D says that we need another overtime. This time the rules Team D wants are:

1 - Only Team D gets the ball, and they always get it placed inside the ten yard line - with an unlimited number of downs.
2 - They get to ask the referees to remove points that Team R has scored.
3 - They get to count a score if the runner kind of comes close to the goal line or if they determine that he intended to score.

yeah - this is about the way I see it ....