David,
"I think that, back when she was first asked to be co-chair of the Bush campaign in
Florida, she should have declined on he grounds that, as the state's chief
supervisor of election procedure, she ought not to actively campaign for one
candidate in an election which she would be supervising."
I would agree. Unfortunately her compaigning was a fait accompli prior to the election. Nothing could be done about it once the voting started.
"..a person aware of the realities of politics should have recognized that in a disputed situation, her official position as co-chair of Bush's Florida organization would be open to misinterpretation. "
She was highly aware, by her own words, that given her position, having to make a ruling could be open to misinterpretation.
They may bleat until their breath runs out but the law and case law stands fully behind her action. One cannot assume a disputed situation will occur. She was thrust into the situation by circumstance, not of her own doing. Once involved, she acted responsibly and lawfully under the full weight of a political machine more than willing to eats its young to win. Perhaps we should be fortified by her strength of character rather than fret over the opinion of an overtly biased, media driven, frenzied portrait of impropriety. If we continue to hold dear the the opinions of those who do not care about being impartial or the rule of law, then we've lost already. They don't care and they never will.
"If she wants to do both roles, she will have to be ready to defend herself against accusations, unfounded though they may be."
She was quite ready to defend herself and in fact has done so admirably. No problem here. Her rectitude during this time of personal vilification is an example to all, particularly for those skittish souls in the republican party who've yet to meet a principal they couldn't run away from.
"This will detract from the real issue, which is who got how many votes."
It will only detract from the real issue of who won for those people so inclined, those politically and philosophically predisposed to such intrigue. This will always be the case. The votes have been counted, counted again and yet again. Thankfully someone has finally had the courage exert a "controlling legal authority."
Respectfully, Chris..
"I think that, back when she was first asked to be co-chair of the Bush campaign in
Florida, she should have declined on he grounds that, as the state's chief
supervisor of election procedure, she ought not to actively campaign for one
candidate in an election which she would be supervising."
I would agree. Unfortunately her compaigning was a fait accompli prior to the election. Nothing could be done about it once the voting started.
"..a person aware of the realities of politics should have recognized that in a disputed situation, her official position as co-chair of Bush's Florida organization would be open to misinterpretation. "
She was highly aware, by her own words, that given her position, having to make a ruling could be open to misinterpretation.
They may bleat until their breath runs out but the law and case law stands fully behind her action. One cannot assume a disputed situation will occur. She was thrust into the situation by circumstance, not of her own doing. Once involved, she acted responsibly and lawfully under the full weight of a political machine more than willing to eats its young to win. Perhaps we should be fortified by her strength of character rather than fret over the opinion of an overtly biased, media driven, frenzied portrait of impropriety. If we continue to hold dear the the opinions of those who do not care about being impartial or the rule of law, then we've lost already. They don't care and they never will.
"If she wants to do both roles, she will have to be ready to defend herself against accusations, unfounded though they may be."
She was quite ready to defend herself and in fact has done so admirably. No problem here. Her rectitude during this time of personal vilification is an example to all, particularly for those skittish souls in the republican party who've yet to meet a principal they couldn't run away from.
"This will detract from the real issue, which is who got how many votes."
It will only detract from the real issue of who won for those people so inclined, those politically and philosophically predisposed to such intrigue. This will always be the case. The votes have been counted, counted again and yet again. Thankfully someone has finally had the courage exert a "controlling legal authority."
Respectfully, Chris..