A couple items in the news over the past week were a bit bothersome to me.

One was reported quite prominently. One was not.

First, the one that was.

I was reading an Associated Press story about the Senate confirmation hearings and how a bunch of Democrats were throwing darts at John Ashcroft.

Pretty usual stuff, actually, until I read this:

"Ashcroft's personal convictions as a deeply religious, conservative Republican have triggered an outcry of opposition from civil rights and women's groups not witnessed since Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court a decade ago."

This struck me as a bit bizarre.

I understand why liberals would shudder at the the thought of a pro-life, pro-gun guy doing Janet Reno's job.

What the AP story seemed to be saying is that Ashcroft's opponents believe his deep religious convictions somehow disqualify him for service as attorney general.

And you thought religious conviction was a positive attribute.

I guess religious conviction is OK with these folks as long as your religion embraces things like abortion and gay rights.

The whole episode certainly does show how far-flung we are from the days of the Founding Fathers.

Consider what some of them had to say:

"Let the religious element in man's nature be neglected, let him be influenced by no higher motives than self-interest, and subject to no stronger restraint than the limits of civil authority, and he becomes the creature of selfish passion or blind fanaticism. On the other hand, the cultivation of the religious sentiment represses licentiousness ... inspires respect for law and order, and gives strength to the whole social fabric, at the same time that it conducts the human soul upward to the Author of its being."

That's Daniel Webster in 1850. Look how out of step he is. He was talking about religious conviction and law and order in the same sentence.

"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly implore his protection and favor."

That was George Washington.

"The first and almost the only Book deserving of universal attention is the Bible."

That was John Quincy Adams.

And, "All the good from the Savior of the world is communicated through this Book, but for the Book we could not know right from wrong. All the things desirable to man are contained in it."

That was Abraham Lincoln.

What was wrong with those guys?

Seems to me if Webster, Washington, Adams and Lincoln were up for Cabinet posts today, they'd have a tough row to hoe in Senate confirmation hearings.

*****

I am not omniscient, but I do try to keep up on things in the news.

It is not beyond the realm of probability that I could miss something, but I certainly didn't see anything this past week about the recount of presidential election ballots in Palm Beach County, Fla.

Did anybody else hear about this?

Imagine my surprise Wednesday when I found an editorial about it on the Scripps Howard wire service.

Apparently, this story wasn't newsworthy enough for AP or the networks to pick up.

Again, there is a chance I just missed it, but even if I did, it certainly wasn't household news.

According to the Scripps Howard editorial, a manual tally of 10,600 ballots was conducted by two reporters from the Palm Beach Post and an election official.

The recount was done precisely the way Al Gore's attorneys would have wanted it done.

The ballots counted were those that did not register a vote for president in the voting machines. The infamous undervotes, as it were.

The counters counted all hanging chads and dimples.

Gore's attorneys and virtually all his supporters contended that if only those ballots could have been recounted, it may have given Gore the edge he needed to win the Florida election and the White House.

Well, in Palm Beach County, after the newspaper recount, George W. Bush gained six votes.

That's right, Bush ended up even farther ahead.

That should be soothing news to Bush and his supporters.

It's nice to know that Bush still would be taking the oath of office today, even if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't ruled on his behalf.

Bush still would be president even if the high court hadn't stood in the way of Gore's less-than-legal strategy of counting Florida votes over and over until he got the desired outcome.

Of course this will mean nothing to some Gore supporters. They will say that it was the infamous butterfly ballot or voting irregularities among minorities that did Gore in.

Some will never view Bush as legitimate no matter how many times the votes are counted.

The even more salient question for me is, why aren't the media jumping up and down about this?

Why aren't there big stories on CNN, Headline News and all the networks?

And one more question:

If the result had been different, say, giving a couple hundred votes to Al Gore, do you think there would have been the same lack of news coverage? [[In-content Ad]]