OT, damned cold OT

Not true. Rather than doing the work the American people elected him to do, he was using his tax-payer funded office and staff to advantage on his own campaign. That's not fair to non-incumbents, who don't have such luxuries. And so it biases elections. It's unfair, and forbidden.

Read the Washington Post article:

Mr. Gore also solicited and accepted money from Chinese nationals, which is also strictly illegal. Caught, he denied, apologized, and gave it back, but he did it nonetheless. And isn't character defined by what a man does when no one's looking?

Of course I would, if it were true. Except, alas, every time I take precious time to delve deeply into one of these stories, it turns out to be patently untrue.

Al Gore would've easily won if he'd just won in his own state-- Tennessee--but the voters of Tennessee didn't want him.

Mr. Gore could have simply availed himself of the statutory recount system in Florida, and might possibly even have won. Maybe. And I would've supported that.

Instead of properly pressing for a full, fair, accurate recount of everyone's votes, Mr. Gore tried to game the system; he waited until well after the statutory deadline to file his appeal. That bespeaks incredible incompetence--I was anxiously waiting for him to file, to beat the generous deadline. But he didn't. Amazing.

Then he filed, disreputably, seeking to bar military voters' absentee ballots, for recounts in districts where he expected to gain, and against those voters' districts where he thought he might lose. And, incredibly, he got his initial recounts, but picked wrongly.

So, Mr. Gore hoisted himself. And that's karma.

Best, James Arthur

It biases elections more than a totally corrupt system? What is the point in recounts when a bunch of crooks has already subverted the constitution by rigging the system that determines eligibility to vote?

Your theories are creative, but hypothetical.

Cheers, James Arthur

Your views epitomize bias.

Your question, presupposing "a totally corrupt system," a vast criminal conspiracy ("bunch of crooks"), a subverted constitution, election-rigging, etc., is itself the epitomy of bias.

None of those apply, to my knowledge, and some sound just plain wacky.

For example: you do understand that, despite the republican governor, Florida is dominated by Democratic officials, who oversaw the election/voting/recounts/etc. ? It's hard to imagine such widespread bumbling on the one side, and such devious cunning on the other from people you regularly refer to as brainless.

As for drawing best conclusions from available evidence, call it 'bias' if you will. I call it 'thinking.'

Best, James Arthur

Wishful thinking. The removal of the 'black sounding' names is well documented and even the people who did it warned what would happen.