Not quite as quickly; he didn't instigate it. There was no reason for Bush to start suing for recounts since he was shown as the winner in Florida. I agree that in other states Bush definitely was covering his ass trying to convince them to do recounts, but he wasn't NEARLY as litigious as Gore. (Florida alone won Gore that honor.)
Dubious? I don't consider military ballots any more important than any other ballot cast by any other citizen. However, if you're talking voter intent (a phrase we couldn't get away from last election), which shows it more? A ballot with a clear vote on it, but no postage stamp, or a ballot that's slightly dimpled? I think the former, personally.
At the time, I had tried to raise the point in a political forum that this election shows clearly the hypocrisy of both candidates and both parties. When it came to democratic districts Gore would say "Count every vote!", but when it was military votes (which we all know are traditionally more Republican), Gore would say, "There's a set standard for determining which votes are legal." When it came to military votes Bush would say "Count every vote!" and when it was the democratic districts Bush would say, "There's a set standard for determining which votes are legal." I'm paraphrasing, of course, but their message and intent were as stated.
I see the media generally ignoring more stories that make democrats look bad (or republicans good) then the other way around. Could it be my bias? Maybe. But using Ockham's razor, what seems more likely, that national media organizations retain a tenuous objectivity, or that national media organizations, which are mostly based in two largely democratic areas (New York and California), let their regional bias seep into their reporting?
I used to think of France whenever such a statement was made, thinking that having too many disparate parties might confuse voters and the process. But after this last election, I'm reformed. I've never seen two sadder asses running for city councilman, let alone president. We need some diversity. BADLY.
I think the problem comes from campaign financing. The way our political machine has evolved is that the one who raises the most money gets the office. And the way you raise money is by making A LOT of promises. And if you make a lot of promises, you know you're not going to be able to keep all of them. So it's as if dishonesty is almost the litmus test for attaining political office. Not that there aren't exceptions. (Matt Salmon, in my own state, Arizona, is one of them. A rare breed who votes his conscience.)
Sorry if I droned on. I haven't visited a political forum in a while. :)
---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.
