pat-OT-
And while we're at at, we ought to have a good look at the kind of shenangins the Democrats have been perpetrating for years, with precious little reaction. This year in Milwaukee, one precinct (heavily Democrat, and significant recipient of the welfare state) was routinely handing out two ballots to each voter. They did this with posters for Gore/Lieberman smiling down on the voters. Good clean fun, I'm sure. I hope the Republicans stop accepting this kind of crap that the sleazebag Democrats have been perpetrating for years. To say nothing of ensuring that the institutionalized mentally retarded are "ensured their constitutional right to vote" (and given "appropriate" instructions).
Here is something from Willian Bennett (FYI, I'm no fan of the neo-Nazi narco-cop) that speaks more eloquently than I can. But nothing mentioned about your novel interpretation of why Nixon declined to press for a recount in Illinois and Texan in 1960.
<<Our democracy depends on people abiding by certain unwritten rules. One of them has been that presidential candidates who lose an election do not
contest the loss unless there is evidence of massive fraud and abuse (which is clearly not the case in this election). If those unwritten rules are violated,
it sets in motion events that could precipitate an authentic political crisis.
If the Gore campaign continues down this road, it will establish precedents.
Do we really want to get into the habit of contesting every state that is
decided by a razor-thin margin? Do we want to arrive at a point where, in
a close campaign, the losing candidate reverts to challenge after challenge?
Is it healthy for our nation to endlessly search for voter grievances? Do we
want to make it a commonplace practice for losing candidates to resort to
manual recounts of counties that are favorable to them? Is it a good idea to
force winning candidates to take actions they would rather not, so they can
preserve their victories? There would be no end point to such challenges.
Regrettably, and recklessly, during the past 100 hours the Gore campaign
has begun to poison the wellspring of American democracy. We are
beginning to see the early consequences: street demonstrations, protests,
increasing acrimony and bitterness. Things will only get worse, far worse, if
they prolong this ordeal. To use a favorite Gore campaign phrase, "You
ain't seen nothing yet."
Forty years ago, Richard Nixon had a far more compelling reason than
Mr. Gore to challenge the 1960 election results, since we know fraud in
Chicago and Texas helped swing the election to John Kennedy. But Nixon
refused to challenge the results; the morning after the election he conceded.
Nixon has been universally praised -- including by many liberals and
Democrats -- for his gesture. He put his nation above his own ambitions.
The same can be said of Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft, who last week
graciously conceded defeat rather than pursue a court challenge after losing
to a deceased candidate.
But Mr. Gore has chosen a different path. Every day, it seems, he and his
lieutenants pull a new trick out of their bag, challenge settled practices, and
issue irresponsible threats and baseless accusations. The end game is clear:
to throw sand in the machinery of democracy and destabilize American
presidential politics.>>
Funny how the butterfly ballot was considered totally a non-issue for years until it produced the "wrong results".
But now the hive demands a re-vote.
Larry |
