Was he there to dump on Bush?
That's the mystery! No one knows why Larry was there because Larry himself should have known that he had no standing in the matter. (It took the judge
approximately 2 seconds to refuse Larry permission to speak.) Personally, I believe that Larry was continuing his undying quest for face time which Larry hopes will result in more donations.
34 posted on 7/30/02 1:39 PM Pacific by Clara Lou
I do not remember from the time what Larry was there for. Let's say for arguement's sake he was there to side with Gore. I'd hate like heck to see it and would probably trash Larry right along with you on that point. Believe it or not I slammed Buchanan for some of his comments in that time frame. But if Larry was there to postulate that recounts of chads were a falicy, I'd hate like hell to see someone on our side damn him for supporting our cause.
You see, saying that you know Larry didn't have standing is rather interesting in light of the horde of attornies from all over the nation that swarmed the state. Did they have standing? I doubt Larry's was the only friend of the court presentation offered up.
You know, when I work on a public event, there are generally some very qualified individuals who show up to help out. I wouldn't dream of slaming them if they weren't quite up to par. And that goes for the people who do the menial tasks as well. It's just bad form to pounce on someone who is definately, or just may be on your side.
"That's the mystery" doesn't quite cut it for me. What if he were about to offer up ten minutes of very effective arguements on behalf of your candidate? You don't know that he wasn't, but you're more than willing to ridicule him. I just do not understand that.
Let me say this, if Hillary Clinton had said something beneficial to Bush during that time, I'd have still thought she was a crook, but I would have apprecitated the comments. Can we treat Klayman with any less respect?
I just think you guys are letting your animosity cloud your judgement here. If you bring up valid points, I would probably ease of on my objections to your stance. I might even agree with you on a number of points. I just don't like seeing Larry savaged for no more than you folks have offered up.