Our country, our selves
of course been extremely close presidential elections in the past, especially the recent past: 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000. But this election is shaping up as uniquely close. For one thing, we are aware beforehand that it is terribly close, which was not the case with those past elections, and second, the divisions between the parties are more bitter than at any time in the last 150 years. Ironically, as I consider my own intense opposition to both Kerry and Bush, I realize that the evenly split, tortuous division in the nation as a whole matches the division within myself, and, I think, within not a few VFR readers.
However, let us hope that, whoever wins the election, the margin of victory is not razor thin. There are thousands of lawyers waiting like wolves in every state of the Union, looking for their chance to turn America into a continent-sized version of Florida 2000.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 31, 2004 09:11 PM | Send
There will be litigation, litigation, and litigation…guaranteed. The democrats opened up that can of worms in 2000. In 1960 then candidate Richard M. Nixon could have (But didn’t for ethical and other reasons) contested the election in Cook County, Chicago. Most people consider the JFK victory to be the result of a clearly stolen election by Joseph P. Kennedy’s former boot legging henchmen:
Secondly, it is my belief, that the democratic party, the vast fortunes (the frightening leftist Soros for one) backing the Manchurian candidate Kerry and the pathological hatred of Bush has concocted a deadly brew that will result in a lot of illegal activity which can and I think will defeat Bush, much more that what the nano-criticized republican party is willing to engage in.
I predict Kerry will win because I think that there are too many people willing to defeat him by hook or crook and to use an old radical slogan “any means necessary”. When considering Bush’s popularity is on par with that of Hitler’s and the liberals have unleashed the most multi-dimensional, international propaganda campaign in presidential history, I think Bush will loose under the weight of his demonization and also as a result of outright voter fraud and shenanigans.
This election will also test if our democracy, inexorably based on the integrity of the balloting system, which some have noted is also getting closer to a banana republic standards (felons, deceased, illegal immigrants all voting, etc.)
The election is razor close, Kerry is a STAR, his character, and his vile odious nature doesn’t seem to matter—good. Give the people what they want, a leader who will in all likelihood be a teflon president like the Great-Stain maker Clinton, who under the loving gaze of the mesmerized masses and under the observation of the star struck press has NEVER had to answer for his abysmal role in ignoring the conditions which resulted in America being forced to face Islamic violence after 9-11.
The same will be true for the Manchurian candidate Kerry. He tastes blood and knows that his presidency will always get a free pass from the liberal media who will NEVER hold their golden boy, limousine liberal accountable for anything he does because after all, he can flip it back to BLAMING Bush for the mess in the first place.
Mr. Auster is right. Perhaps a Kerry/UN co-presidency would be just the insulting backhand slap followed by an eventual knockout punch that American conservatives need to wake them from their hopefully dormant slumber.
Yesterday, I was appalled when I heard someone from People for the (un)American Way say that that they would consider an election margin within “3 to 4%” potential grounds for challenge. In most cases, a margin of 3 to 4 percent is a convincing, if close, margin of victory.
I think Congress needs to establish a standard whereby no election can be challenged unless the margin is less than 1000 votes *and* there is evidence of fraud. Remember, when Gore decided to challenge Florida, he made no actual charge of ballot fraud, only that there was ballot confusion and that state law allowed the challenge because the margin was within one quarter of 1 percent (if memory serves).
Gore established a very dangerous and pernicious precedent in 2000 that will redound to the detriment of election integrity unless measures are passed.
“Yesterday, I was appalled when I heard someone from People for the (un)American Way say that that they would consider an election margin within ‘3 to 4%’ potential grounds for challenge. In most cases, a margin of 3 to 4 percent is a convincing, if close, margin of victory.”
This is truly frightening and shows the nature of the left. They want to delegitimize our most basic institutions and turn America into a battle zone. Their statement amounts to saying that there are no legitimate elections, that all elections must be decided by litigation.
But, to continue my thought, none of this should be surprising. Since the late 1990s and their all-out defense of Clinton’s crimes, the Democrats have been a more or less openly criminal party, by which I mean, not that they are all literally criminals, but that they have a criminal mentality: the desire to get away with whatever they can get away with, to lie, to cheat, and indignantly justifying themselves when they are caught.
This criminal mentality of the Democrats is described by Fred Barnes, though he doesn’t use that word. He says the Democrats feel justified by the supposed stealing of the election in 2000 to do ANYTHING against Bush now. But that IS the criminal mentality. Criminals feel justified—by the wrongs committed by someone else against them, or by the wrongs committed by society—to do whatever they are doing.
Amen to Mr. Auster’s comment. While I would not differ from the above assessments of the Democrats, I think the absolute WORST outcome would be a bitter legal contest in which Bush squeaked through. This would embitter our politics beyond belief, while ensuring that the GOP stayed in the Bush-Rove rut. A Kerry victory in which the Democrats looked dirty might be better!