Article

2004-11-01 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-11-01 10:23:13 AM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Nor is the damage done to democracy by involving lawyers in our elections limited to our own soil. We hope to spread democracy abroad â donât any of the hacks in either party stop to think?

Smell the coffee, Ralphie: one party DISAGREES about us spreading democracy abroad...

Posted by Ptah 2004-11-01 10:32:42 AM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-11-01 10:32:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Well frankly Ralph boy, I can never respect a man who betrayed his county in time of war period.....

Posted by Bill Nelson 2004-11-01 10:39:36 AM|| 2004-11-01 10:39:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Ralph's dead on. Something changed for the worse in this country during the last four years, and for my money that change occurred in the four days after the 2000 election. It was Al Gore who broke precedent and began arguing-- shamefully, in my view-- that the elction had been "stolen."

Nixon had a far stronger grievance in 1960, when Cook County Illinois was, in best Mayor Daley fashion, tipped to JFK. Also, Nixon lost Texas by only 9,000 votes, and there was certainly significant voter fraud there as well. Yet Nixon refused his supporters' pleas to challenge the election results in court because he knew that to do so would be to destroy the gentleman's rule of respecting the ballot results that underlines this nation's precious political stability. Nixon recognized that the stakes were far, far greater than the ambitions of one man, and even someone as devious, ambitious and emotionally disturbed as Nixon could grasp this.

The blame rests with Gore. Shame on that fool. The only way to get back to where we were would be for both Kerry and Bush to do the right thing and agree--quietly, as gentlemen concerned about the fate of our democracy-- not to challenge the results tomorrow. Ralph Peters is on the right track here.

Posted by lex 2004-11-01 11:00:31 AM|| 2004-11-01 11:00:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Lex, I agree with you. But help! I also agree with Ptah.

I think Ralph is spot on here, but I see a disconnect that I don't know how to deal with - should Kerry win. If one side is committed to undermining democracy through the use of lawyers, thug tactics and subverting our basic rights by turning over my vote to the unelected members of the UN - then how can I support Kerry?

Likewise there is another disconnect in Ralph's article here. We says, "we can't allow lawyers to do this" but...what exactly...are we supposed to do about it???????

The Dem's have made clear that they plan to pursue the legal maneuver around the votes. What am I, as an idividual supposed to do to stop them, if indeed that is what they do? Just throw my support to Kerry? Yeah...that'll show them not to do that next time.

I want to do what Ralp is proposing - but if the Dem's win through the courts...then Peter's is telling me not to allow it in one breath...and then telling me to allow it in the other.

Posted by 2b 2004-11-01 11:15:04 AM|| 2004-11-01 11:15:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 2b: âhow can I support Kerryâ

Punish the Democratic Party by supporting non-Democrats in elections in which you donât have a strong preference for a candidate. (Iâd expect those unhappy with Republican election tactics to do the same.)

Accept whoever is declared winner as your president. If there is a clear mandate from the people then voter fraud wonât change the result. If there is no clear mandate then preserving democracy is more important than which man becomes president. (Both sides have claimed fraud and voter disenfranchisement. Neither side is going to see the issue from the otherâs perspective.)

Let go of the past and start with a clean slate. When it is best for the US to show a united front then back the President. If you disagree with the Presidentâs policy then criticize the policy and not the man.

For the future, support laws to clean up issues that have led to claims of voter fraud.

Posted by Anonymous5032 2004-11-01 12:33:48 PM|| 2004-11-01 12:33:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 What A5032 said. Support the nation's president.

Express scorn for all attempts to circumvent the democratic electoral process with lawsuits.

If the lawsuits drag on and through the legitimacy of the election results into jeopardy, then it's really time for a third party, one dedicated to national unity in the war effort.

Posted by lex 2004-11-01 12:56:15 PM|| 2004-11-01 12:56:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Why limit it to national unity around the war effort? Why not just national unity? Like A5032 said, preserving democracy is more important than who become President, and would be a better rallying cry for national unity than one built around the War on Terror.

Posted by IG-88 2004-11-01 1:13:51 PM|| 2004-11-01 1:13:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Why limit it to national unity around the war effort? Why not just national unity?

OK, add national unity around the war and preserving our democracy. But let's not pretend that there are not serious and valid differences over the proper role of religion in American life or any of a dozen other issues people consider vital. For ex my views on domestic issues probably have far less in common with those of ma fellow Rantburgers than with John Kerry.

My point is to bring us back to the foreign-policy bipartisanship that characterized the last long twilight struggle this nation fought against a foreign enemy. That was the era when Dems were so solid on national security that a Republican presidential candidate who likely won the vote in reality but lost the election due to fraud could graciously accept the ballot results without legal challenge or fear that our national security would be compromised.

Posted by lex 2004-11-01 2:18:49 PM|| 2004-11-01 2:18:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 i largely agree with Ralph Peters here. See also Christophers Hitchens clarification in Slate.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-11-01 2:39:12 PM|| 2004-11-01 2:39:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 well....I'm pulling a straight republican ticket for the first time in my life. I haven't even bothered to read up on the candidates...

I hear what you are saying Lex and LH...and I'll do my best to support Kerry if he wins. But if the Dems win by cheating or with lawyers - I believe that blind loyalty, for the sake of unity, is a mistake.

Hitler won an election. Throwing support behind him was not useful to the German people. And no, I'm not calling J Kerry Hitler - just pointing out that appeasement is never a useful reward to limit bad behavior.

Posted by `2b 2004-11-01 2:54:26 PM|| 2004-11-01 2:54:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 I'm convinced that the two party system is the best. Get into one and work to get 'it' close to you. A third party is lame. This is a bipolar world.

I'm concerned about Kerrys willingness to do the wrong thing. and I'm worried about the election night rukus that will be hyped by CBS et all to ramp up dissent. But if the results go wrong, Ill hang tough. No Canada for me and no childish behavior like I've seen the last four years.

Posted by Lucky 2004-11-01 3:29:41 PM|| 2004-11-01 3:29:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 If Kerry/McAwful's lawyers challenge the results and impair our democracy's prestige and with it the president's effectiveness in the war, I will renounce the Democratic Party for good.

Posted by lex 2004-11-01 3:38:52 PM|| 2004-11-01 3:38:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 If the Dems go the lawyer route, then they MUST be blamed for putting the country's democracy at risk in order to further their own desire for power. The party, not the man, must be blamed. Likewise, the party must be blamed for the mistakes of the man (Kerry) during his administration. They will be legion and the press will turn on him like a rabid dog. But the press will try to blame the man. NO! It is the party who selected the man and it is the pary that demonstrated their willingness to put this great country at risk in order to gain power. Therefore, it is the party that must pay. If elected Kerry will be my president, though I will disagree with virtually everything he stands for. I will not be one who furthers to dissolution of America because I disagree with the results of an election. Unlike the opposition, I will act like an adult regardless of the outcome. (OK, if Bush wins big, I will point and laugh at some of the Kerry people here in the SF Bay area, but not for long.)

Posted by remote man 2004-11-01 4:20:09 PM|| 2004-11-01 4:20:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I think one can act like an adult and not support John Kerry or his actions. There is a difference between calling him Hitler or not standing behind him as he works to provide the same fate for the Iraqi's that he did for the South Vietnamese - massive genocide and betrayl.

While I will never stoop to the name calling; or celebrate lies just because they hurt the Dems; or work to undermine any of the good that he may do, I will NEVER lend my good name to the support of John Kerry. But I will hold my tounge and resist the urge to say "what did you expect when you were stupid enough to elect a guy who produced no viable legislation after being in the Senate for 20 years AND was deemed unfit for command by everyone he served with, except one man?" Talk about a major DUH when they suddenly discover this man can't lead.

Hopefully - I will, instead, just be able to act all nicey nice and concillatory toward my ABB friends and relatives, offering to drive them down to get their perscriptions of prozac and lithium filled.

Posted by 2b 2004-11-01 5:03:08 PM|| 2004-11-01 5:03:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 If the results are really close on Tuesday even if Bush and Kerry try to call off the dogs some of the dogs will go forward on their own. But if either candidte wins by a significant margin I hope they hold out the olive branch to the other side. The devisive politics in this country need to stop or the nation will tear itself apart

Posted by Cheaderhead 2004-11-01 6:02:12 PM|| 2004-11-01 6:02:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 When you have lived in California as long as I have you come to understand a few things about the Democratic Party (as well as their constituency): 1) They are corrupt, immature liars 2) They do not, I repeat DO NOT believe in the constitution 3) They actually are Marxists, gun grabbers, and internationalists who look with contempt upon our nation and its history 4) They really do hate conservatives with a passion and will suppress, kill, and/or imprison them where opportunity permits. That is the hard, cold reality of the California Democratic Party people.... a reality that John F. Kerry will bring to even the remotest corner of America.

President Kerry? I'll never recognize it. National unity with the Democrats? You can forget that. If he wins every effort should be made to make his life a living hell in every way possible.

Posted by Secret Master 2004-11-01 8:18:30 PM|| 2004-11-01 8:18:30 PM|| Front Page Top

19:06 John Q. Citizen
19:06 John Q. Citizen
15:38 Konichiwa
15:37 Konichiwa
15:35 Konichiwa
15:30 Konichiwa
15:24 Konichiwa
00:15 nona6334
00:15 nona6334
00:50 Sleagum Slinemble2359
15:26 Konichiwa
12:37 An In-valid
12:37 An In-valid
15:26 Konichiwa
15:29 Konichiwa
15:29 Konichiwa
15:35 Tom
15:35 Tom
23:21 Cephas
23:55 Alaska Paul
23:52 Alaska Paul
23:50 Atomic Conspiracy
23:35 Bomb-a-rama
23:23 smn