>No, Tamar's analogy is much closer.
>
>Dems had the legal right to ask for a manual recount. They also have the legal >right to contest the certification. It is called due process. The Republicans >wanted to cut the process short because they were ahead and there was no >benefit to them to have the votes being recounted. Of course, there was no >guarantee that Gore would pick up enough votes in the recount but why take >that chance, especially since the recounts were being done in strongly >Democratic counties.
>
>The Dems are doing everything to squeak out more votes for them (not >necessarily manufacture votes but looking in only certain places). The Repubs >are doing everything possible to stop the process before it has run its >course...and are definitly not interested in whether they got more votes or >not. Only that they have more votes right now.
>
>And anyone who continues to repeat that inane Baker phrase: "there was a >count, there was a recount of the count, there was a recount of the >recount..." should be taken behind the woodshed.

Ok, so explain this. Why is Gore so AGAINST recounting ALL the votes in Florida, and only wants to recount in three counties? He himself says this is because after the election, both parties had an equal opportunity to contest the results in any county the desired. And his party chose only those three to contest. Which is all fine and dandy, and sounds reasonable, except that when does the person who is AHEAD EVER contest the results? The initial count showed Bush ahead. So what POSSIBLE reason is there for the Republicans to contest the results?
No, ther has not been 4 counts, except in a certian subset. But in some palces there HAVE been three counts, and EVERY BALLOT has been counted twice, once on election night and once in the mandated machine recount.

Randy