scylla:
Of course the market reacts to short-term uncertainty. The key, however, is short term. My blood pressure is also adversely affected in teh short-term. I see no reason why either factor should be raised as an issue in the political debate.
Because a short-term fluctuation at this particular time of market vulnerability can become a catalyst for a larger correction that can have more lasting effects, and really screw things up.
Personally, I think that once we resolution and certainty the market will move just like it did when Desert Shield turned into Desert Storm, no matter who wins.
The Democrats are being equally harsh on the Republicans. What I’m observing is that Republican charge seems to be sticking a bit better.
You are right about Bush’s efforts to portray himself as the winner. Bad move. But now that he has apparently abandoned that tack, it is possible that pressure will build on the Demos.
Dinsdale,
Your first paragraph is indeed the Republican argument. This is what they actually are saying. So all’s right with the world.
Of course, the fact that the market was moving upward before the announcement that the deadline would hold (kind of) coupled with the fact that the large drops in market value of the last few moths have not precipitated any drastic consequences argue a gloom and doom prognostication. But hey, sell if you want to.
I’m in agreement with Spiritus, Gaudarene, Karellen et al. The rhetoric from both camps does nothing to prove points.
This election, at this point does NOT have a winner. While I might concede that one outcome is more likely than another, for either party to claim victory is premature. Neither side is guilty of “taking the high road”.
And, when all the dust settles we still all need to be able to get along with each other on an individual basis. So, the comments about “whining” or “smug” or any of the rest of it, will only serve to divide us further.
BOTH parties need to look at the total numbers - this was VERY close. Neither view point has a clear “mandate”. Cooperation will be vital. And toning down the rhetoric now will make cooperation easier later on.
Izzy: Has Bush abandoned that tack? I haven’t seen it. Do you have a cite? If you do have a cite, is it from somewhere other than Faux News?
And in what way do you feel the Republicans’ charges to be sticking more? From what I know, the Republicans are charging that Gore endeavors to “have recount after recount after recount until he gets a result that he likes.” Oh, and “even Nixon stepped aside gracefully in 1960. Gore must be worse than Nixon!”
The first of these charges is patently absurd to anyone with knowledge of Florida state law and/or common sense; the second is woefully historically inaccurate.
Are there other, more substantive charges that I’m missing?
And lawyers wonder why so many people don’t trust them or even like them. (Consider that a hijack and a subject for a future Great Debate. Now, back to the discussion at hand.)
Considering Gore’s politics, I’m not surprised that he didn’t carry Tennessee. If I ran for President, it would not surprise me I failed to carry the state where I was born, Texas, since my politics are much further left than that of most Texans. I also would not hide my atheism and that would certainly doom me.
OTOH, it could be that Gore foolishly believed there was no way he could lose Tennessee and did not campaign there as much as he should have. If that was his reasoning, maybe he doesn’t deserve to be President if he’s capable of such a serious tactical error. This does not mean that Bush deserves it, though! (I voted for Nader.)
Gadarene,
I’m not sure what you mean. I am referring to the court of public opinion. In the first days Bush seemed to go about forming his transition team etc. This was fodder for critisism. I’ve not seen this going on lately, or at least not as much focus on it. In either case, the public is less likely to continue to be offended.
Regarding the matter of charges sticking, it is not relevent whether you think they are justified or even (for this discussion) whether they are. If they “stick” in the mind of the public, they will hurt the case of Gore. Even if he himself is not deterred, he would be in danger of being abandoned by other Democrats, who have thier own careers to worry about. The fact that Democrats keep pointing out that if the shoe were on the other foot etc, suggests that there is a body of public opinion that believes otherwise.
Izzy: Agreed. Rest assured, though, that Bush’s “transition team” rhetoric has continued, albeit in slightly muted form. As far as he’s concerned–or at least as far as he’d like the public to believe–he won this election on November 7, and Gore’s been trying to steal it away since then. This is unremittingly presumptive of him, at the least, and certainly conflicts with the “trust the American people” message he’s been dispensing during the campaign.
All the more reason, if Bush becomes President, that I’ll be calling him “the Player-King” all four years he’s in the White House.
Gaderene, just curious, what will you call Al Gore? (win or lose).
Honestly, trade, I dunno. Probably nothing. But then, my politics are unabashedly progressive, and I view Gore as far more competent a politician than Bush. I just wish I’d been politically active for the Reagan years–now THERE’S a guy for whom the “Player-King” appellation would have been spectacularly appropriate!
(Which reminds me of the wonderfully satirical book about the 1980s entitled The Clothes Have No Emperor. Heh. :))
Gaderene - I think Gore makes a wonderful target, no shortage of Woody rerrferences, and the fact that this election will be questionable (no matter who takes it), ‘Al Gorleoni’ could be good for a ganster reference.
By the way, throw in Lieberman, and you’ll have better material still. (Kept his Senate campaign going while running for VP - yeah, that’s good stuff.)
Gadarene,
According to a recent Warren Christopher interview, VP Gore has also been actively engaging in building his transition team. This prompts me to ask two questions of you. Why is it presumptuous and/or inappropriate for Bush to establish a transition team but not Gore? (Never mind that as the sitting VP Gore’s transition would require a fraction of the effort that will Bush’s.) What would you have them do? Sit and watch CNN until the courts decide a winner?
Style, they can build their transition teams all they want. Bush, however, is (or was) making it a part of his rhetoric, building on the fact that he had been prematurely announced as the winner coughJohnElliscough in order to make it look as if Gore was trying to prolong a process which had already been completed (while Bush was moving on to the next stage). I can dig up quotes, if you’d like.
The difference is that Bush deliberately made a public show of establishing his transition team, in an effort to establish a presumption that he was the winner and pressure Gore to stop challenging the results. Had he gone about it in a more low key manner (as he is evidently doing now), he would not have received the same reaction.
Izzy, we gotta stop agreeing like this. Think of our reputations. 
If we’re talking about political competency as opposed to idealogy, I think you have to take into account the current situation. When an incumbent vice president with the best economy in history behind him and all the powers of incumbency at his disposal cannot beat an inexperienced governor who has been portrayed incessantly in the media as a bumbling moron, you gotta wonder just how good a “politician” he is. At almost every turn, including most importantly during the debates, Bush got the better of Gore in a strictly political sense. Certainly you may despise his idealogy, but you gotta admit that Bush has proven to be a pretty wily politician.
Ok folks, refresh my memory.
I only recall one “informal” interview where Bush stated that he and Cheney were putting together their transition team. It was a straight answer to a direct question.
Where did Bush accentuate or emphasize this?
There’s a post I made regarding the media on the Pointed Questions for Bush Supporters thread that I suggest you take a look at. Failing that, just go to this Salon article. Or this FAIR article.
Also, I’d gently point out that the ability to run a campaign has little or no direct correlation with the ability to govern effectively. Your assertion that Gore is a bad politician because he has had difficulty beating Bush shows a miniscule understanding of how politics actually works.
Do you have anything at all to back this up? And speaking of the debates and the media, by the way, how’s this: In the first debate, Gore claimed that he had visited Texas in the company of the head of FEMA, when in fact he and the head of FEMA had visited Texas at different times. Many in the media added this to their growing litany of Gore’s ‘lies’ and exaggerations. It was an issue for at least several days. In contrast, Bush claimed that Gore’s campaign had outspent him by a factor of 2 to 1, when in fact the opposite was true: Bush had, and has, outspent Gore by a considerable margin–there is no level on which Bush’s claim could be remotely justified. Wow, remember the media firestorm that followed that, um, misstatement? Neither do I.
Maybe when you refer to a “strictly political sense,” you mean that Bush was able to get away with more in the debates than his opponent. If so, I agree. Otherwise, let’s pull out those debate transcripts and go over 'em, shall we? You’d be hard-pressed to find very many issues in which “Bush got the better of Gore.”
Wily, yes. Competent? Nope.
Care to pull out his record in Texas? I will if you don’t.
Well. Please forgive my miniscule understanding, you know us conservatives have so much of our brain devoted to greed and hate that we don’t have room for much rational thought.
I was under the impression (mistaken, I guess) that the art of politics involved the ability to get the most number of people to agree with your positions and your abilities and then to translate that agreement into action - by electing you in the first place and then supporting your policies to the extent that they become law. As far as your ability to campaign correlating to your success governing I would only submit one piece of evidence: Bill Clinton. The man has yet to stop campaigning - he has used it as his governing style for 8 years! Frankly, I have been saddened by this style of governance - just look at the polls then give the people what they want at that moment. No overarching principles, no attempt to “lead” the populace for the betterment of the whole. Just raw campaign politics with only “winning” as its goal. Regardless, for the purpose of this discussion, he has been extraordinarly successful. I see little evidence that this standard set by Clinton will be abandoned by either of the current contenders, unfortunately, therefore an ability to campaign effectively will by default translate into “success” in governing.
**
I mean that Bush salvaged his campaign and then pulled even with Gore in the polls by his debate performances. I have no doubt that he is the lesser of Gore in the intelligence department, and no doubt that Gore is more “competent” on his issues (even though I disagree with many of them). However, enough of the voting public decided that Bush performed well enough to vote for him as president. That is the art of politics.
BTW, using Salon articles and FAIR statements as ammunition for your arguments is pretty lame. I could cite dozens of articles from National Review or American Spectator or maybe the latest rantings from the John Birch Society to make my case, but considering the sources, they are less than reliable arbiters of accuracy of fairness.
Finally:
I’m sure Bush personally executed piles of innocent, retarded juveniles, took medicine away from old widows, used storm troopers and dogs to block minority kids from attending their decrepit schools, and it’s well known that he ate polluted babies for breakfast. And yet, despite these horrendous deeds the ignorant yokels from that slimy backwater we call Texas re-elected him Governor with darn near 70% of the vote. Yeah, he must be a bad politician.