.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;} <$BlogRSDURL$>

Monday, July 19, 2004

HOW TO STEAL AN ELECTION

1) Get a swing state in your pocket

Re: Jeb Bush (What kind of name is Jeb anyway? Who would vote for a Jeb? Jeb is a tow truck operator, not a Govenor)

2) Litigate

"Rather than attempting to resolve the actual vote count in the most equitable way possible, the Supreme Court litigation, and many of the numerous cases pending in other courts, is not calculated to produce a comprehensive and accurate count of the votes. Instead, this litigation constitutes the legal equivalent of musical chairs, in which one party may win by a technicality when the music of court proceedings finally stops."

-- Professor William G. Ross, Cumberland School of Law, Samford University

3) Let's let the court (we bought ) decide:

"The Court's authority, possessed of neither the purse nor the sword, ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction. Such feeling must be nourished by the Court's complete detachment, in fact and appearance, from political entanglements and by abstention from injecting itself into the clash of political forces in political settlements."

� Felix Frankfurter, dissenting in Baker v. Carr, 1962.

In other words, it should never have been decided by a court.
A re-count happens in a booth, not a court.

Disclaimer:
George is not the first to rig an election. See JFK/ W. Virginia/ Sam Giancana/ Teamsters

Comments:
The negativity, conspiracy, and "they're all evil" thing is wearing me down. We get it, you think the country with the current republican administration (house and senate included), don't fairly represent your personal positions. It's all going to hell in a hand basket. The funny thing is that most conservatives feel exactly the same way just for different reasons. They just seem to out number liberals at this juncture. All the senatorial and house elections can't be rigged as well, can they? There will always be dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court. I am glad the Honorable Mr. Frankfurter wrote it. But the majority decision was that the country needed to move on after two months of recounting an extremely flawed and antiquated system of voting. It would have been hugely detrimental to our country, the markets, the world economy, etc� to have dragged the election out any further than we did. Both Gore and Bush conceded that in the best interest of OUR COUNTRY they would let the court and the subsequent process decide. This was a very pragmatic and wise decision on both candidates part, and whether you believe me or not, had Gore won I wouldn�t be writing anything to the contrary on this subject. Both men deserve huge credit for this. Both men. In any other part of the world, an election result like this would have resulted in massive civil war. In America, we all got up, went to work, and had something different to talk about. Gore lost by an extra point, game over. The instant replay was inconclusive, the play stands as called. The college football BCS calculation is more relevant at this time.

You must learn to accept the opinions of your political opposition because, in most cases, what final decisions/elections that are feted out will most likely be a compromise. Even using the most conservative estimates, a little over half the country lines up on the conservative side of the fence. Their feelings cannot be ignored no more than yours. Political suicide for any public official if he/she does. As a matter of fact, you should spend a proportional amount of your reading time trying to learn where their feelings on these issues come from, not to change your opinion on guns, abortion, Iraq, etc� but to see the opportunities for compromises that will surely be the reality, at the very least to discover aspects that are less defensible to your opposition. This is exactly what my approach to politics is and has been going back to the Clinton victory over Bush Sr. It may seem like I read a lot of �conservative� opinion because of the counter nature of my posts, but I can assure you that my goal is to be balanced with my consumption. Unfortunately, balanced is boring, and polarized sells newspapers. Because of this, I have to read twice as much. As an example, the Palestinian position on Israel�s Gaza pullout. I have an opinion on it, but I freely admit that I don�t fully understand the Palestinian opposition to the current plan, but I absolutely WANT to know. It may very well change my position; it may only solidify my gut feeling.

Playing golf with my dad last weekend he offered his usually sage observation, �All these squawkers, dissenters, rabid, Bush/Kerry polarized debaters� all of them just underestimate exactly how complicated it all is, we will never know or even partially understand a fraction of what we argue about when it comes to politics on that level�.

Ah, the ignorance factor. Never want to get burned in a debate by that�

Peace, Love, and Understanding� TA
 
Post a Comment


Links to this post:

Create a Link

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?