Now, this is an interesting question folks

[Guest]

Quoted in it's entirity with credit given to author from discussion page @ http://www.historychannel.com

Subject Let's Brooch a Subject that is being Ignored
Posted by Knuck
Posted on 11/8/00 09:05 AM

Everyone who watched last night knows that at one point Al Gore called Bush and conceded the election. He then recanted that concession.

Now, IMHO, the decision to pick up the phone and make that call was a major decision. He was in fact, giving up on the efforts of fourteen months of campaigning and he was wrong. How can that decision be ignored. It wasn't a little minor error.

Based on that error, how can we realistically expect Al Gore to make the right decision the next time he's faced with a crucial situation. Especially when he's the guy with his finger on the buttons.

Can we trust him to make the right decision at the right time when the stakes are global thermonuclear war?

Based on that thought, would you now change your vote?

Yes, I voted for Al Gore, however, I thought this raised a pertinate question. No, I would not change my vote. I also find that the link from a concession phone call to dealing with a national/global emergency somewhat thin.

Any opinions ?

 

[Juliangel]

I think he made a wise choice each time. Why? Because he was listeniing to what he thought the people wanted.

Bush was said to have won so he made the call to step aside because that is what the people wanted.

The numbers came back saying something different that maybe the people wanted him instead so he made the second call, saying hey the people may not have chosen you, I have to stay in this because they may still want me.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Exactly. First of all, every Network CALLED it for Bush. They weren't guessing. The Networks ahve best info, and they're very careful about when they call something, despite the fact that they screwed up Florida once already. Gore knew that after that they'd be very, very careful. So when they called Florida for Bush, and put on every screen in the world the legend "BUSH ELECTED PRESIDENT", Gore was pretty damn sure that was that.

Now, the reason the President Elect allows the loser to speak first, and take a concession call, is not out of politeness, but because of the respect for the peaceful transition of power. It's important that the coutnry know that the loser will support, and immediately acknowledge the winner, without udue rancor, for the absolute good of the country.

Gore's reaction was logical, and proper, as was Bush's decision to not open the champagne when the Florida Sec of State announced that more votes were coming in for Gore.

When Gore's camp came out and made the public statement that the concession call had been recinded, they very clearly said that if Bush wins Gore will support him. That HAD to be said, and I'm thrilled they did that. They did it for the good of the country.

Nixon should have demanded a re-count in 1960. He knew that there was a very high possibility that he would win. Shouldn't a smart, trustworthy leader want that? Perhaps. But he decided not to ask for the re-count because he knew it would seriously polarize the nation, maybe even damaging the electoral process for the future. (As a result, Nixon became paranoid about dirty tricks, which very likely led to Watergate).

I think both Gore and Bush behaved very responsibly last night, both with a healthy respect for the country and the process. Want to whine? Pick on Dan Rather.