uring the presidential campaign, the GOP often sharply criticized Al Gore as inconsistent, saying he routinely changed his views for political expediency - unlike George W. Bush, who was portrayed as the epitome of consistency.
Yet as the recount drama unfolds in Florida, a new and perhaps more accurate image has emerged of the two men who would be president.
During his quest for a manual recount in three heavily Democratic counties, Gore has been consistent in arguing that the will of the voter must be honored. He has pressed that point not just when it benefited him, but when, for example, he called for a statewide recount of all counties - Republican as well as Democratic - in a bid to glean the true tally.
Bush, on the other hand, has proved inconsistent in his philosophy. Throughout the campaign, he maintained that he consistently supports states' rights, and the right of the people to decide the direction of this country. But Bush and his team, in a desperate effort to stop the hand recount in Florida, have sought to get an opinion from the US Supreme Court that would overrule the Florida Supreme Court's decision to have the recount go forward. This move - attempting to usurp the authority of a state's highest court - is simply a contradiction of Bush's earlier views of states' rights.
Gore has also shown he is a more determined and formidable fighter than he might have conveyed to the Bush team, and to many voters, during the presidential campaign. If anything, Gore's efforts in Florida may have solidified his supporters as well as won over others who doubted his toughness when the going gets tough.
There's no doubt the vice president believes he won Florida's popular vote as well as the popular vote nationally.
Gore and his backers know that a far larger number of his supporters were disenfranchised in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties than were backers of Bush. That is because in those heavily Democratic counties votes were not counted because of confusion over the ''butterfly'' ballot and because voting machines did not tally ballots not punched all the way through.
But - depending on whether the US Supreme Court, after hearing the case Friday, rules that the hand recounts are legal - Gore may still have enough votes to win the White House. Even if he doesn't, voters will know that he fought to have their votes count, and that sits well with them.
Meanwhile, Bush's talk of upholding and respecting the law has been increasingly selective: After the hand recounts that the Gore campaign requested began, Bush saw this as violating state law as interpreted by the secretary of state, a Republican and strong supporter of Bush. And when the circuit court of appeals ruled that the secretary of state can certify the election without including the hand-counted votes, which were going in Gore's favor, the Bush campaign saw this as a victory for the state's laws.
Yet, when the State Supreme Court ordered the secretary of state to delay the certification, and later ruled that the hand recount totals be included in the overall certified total, the Bush team cried foul, saying the state's highest court had overstepped its authority.
But Bush's negative view of the court changed when the canvassing board in Miami-Dade County decided to stop its recount, ostensibly because it would not have time to count all the involved ballots in time to meet the court's deadline.
When the state Supreme Court ruled against Gore's request that the Miami-Dade County canvassing board be ordered to resume counting, the Bush team was once again elated.
Finally, by taking this issue to the US Supreme Court, the Bush team has shown that it apparently has no confidence in Florida's highest court. Gore is determined to prove that the intent of the majority of voters in Florida was to support his candidacy. Bush is determined, by any means possible, to thwart the rights of disenfranchised voters to have their votes count - apparently fearful that the true will and intent of most of these voters was to elect Gore as the next president.
Despite the closeness of this election, and the apparent even divide in this country, it is possible that after this fierce battle, one of the candidates will enter the presidency with enhanced credibility. And it's even possible that the candidate who does not become president will have more credibility and legitimacy than the one who assumes the Oval Office.
Should either happen, in both instances that candidate would be Al Gore.
Robert A. Jordan is a Globe columnist.
