Instead of registering to vote, people should sign up for law school.

As someone whose parents are Dems, and was raised in a hardcore Dem state, I'm a little offended. Not all Dems are like that... which is probably why so many are voting Bush instead of Kerry this year.

Not ALL Democrats want to win at any possible cost. Keep in mind, most DO believe people should only vote once, and only be able to vote if you're still alive.

What this basically boils down to is the DNC/Kerry are having a temper tantrums, jumping up and down screaming "I want to be President! I want to be President NOW! Mo-ommm, make it happen!"

I mean sure, if you don't count electoral votes, or votes for the other candidate, you too can be president.

Anne, I obviously mean the Democrat party/leadership, not the 50 million or so people who are still registered in the once respectable party.

The Dems are setting the stage for a rationalization when they lose the election. Here is the logic:

They believe that Clinton was the greatest President ever, so obviously, the people really wanted Gore as President. Since Gore won the popular vote, it is clear that Bush stole the election. Bush was able to steal it because his lawyers did a better job. If Kerry has more lawyers running around, he should be able to counteract Bush's better lawyers. Thus, Kerry really wins the election if he loses and, once again, Bush stole it.

"they [Democrats] will try to gain power via the courts."

It worked for Bush

I’m not a lawyer mind you, but I believe that the Constitution says something along the lines that Congress has the ultimate and final say on how electoral votes apply. In other words, if the legal community, Democrats and Republicans let the post election legal wrangling get out of hand, Congress can step in. Perhaps a smart legal type with a much better grasp of this issue than I have can step forward and clarify things

"I don't understand why the Democrats have so much trouble accepting that Bush won Florida because he got more votes."

This may be true, or it may not. We simply don't know, because they stopped counting. I want every vote counted, and if that takes getting the courts involved, then so be it. Besides, do you really think the Republicans are not getting teams of lawyers ready?

- Rollins - They stopped counting becaue Gore refused to ask for a full recount... There is a lot of speculation as to why he didn't follow through. But we will probably never be able to say with assurance what his motives were. Most pundits believe it was intentional to leave the whole mess unresolved to lend more credence to the idea that Bush "stole" the election and set the stage for this election cycle...

- At any rate if the Den's think they can "Election fillibuster" and tie everything up in the courts if they lose they are mistaken. At some point the Court will just make a decision on the vote and it will revert to congress and the EC....

- What is clear is that its in the Media's "bottom line" interest to keep this race as close as possible. In that sense you could liken the presidential race to Monday night football. The last thing the Networks want is a one sided blowout. Sometimes I think the proping up of either candidate every time one starts to take a clear lead has more to do with dollars and Ad revenue than partisanship or political bias....

I don't know if this is a true story but ...

Back in 1960 ( the original) JFK had help getting votes from some of his fathers' old mafia contacts
Nixon decided not to challenge the results in order not to taint the proccess

Thats what they call a subversive reading of the popular narrative

I have already decided that in sjpite of the NRA voting guide which supports Democrats in my state, I will not be voting for any Democrats this year, and none in 2006. If a local Democrat wants to repudiate Kerry and Kerry's tactics I will reconsider my stand concerning that individual. I've never gotten involved politically before, but I am getting to the point where I want to join campaigns and work to oust the Dems.

"It worked for Bush"

NeilS--if you mean the Supreme Court stopped the Florida Supreme Court from changing Florida law...then I agree with you. Florida's election laws were very clear as to what constituted a vote and what didn't, yet the FL SC decided they would rather legislate from the bench and prolong the fiasco.

The DNC leadership has said they intend to mount legal challenges even if the vote is not close. This is so typical of the left wing liberals. They cannot impose their agenda on us through the legislature because it is out of the mainstream. So they consistently use the courts and liberal judges to implement their concept as to how society should be, e.g., the gay marriage issue. That is why they try to block Bush's nominees. Now, they want the courts to decided the elections too.

The appointment of judges is going to be a significant issue over the next four years, particularly on the Supreme Court. That is yet another reason why we cannot let Kerry in the White House.

We need a Bill of Responsabilities to sit side by side with our Bill of Rights.

At the top of the list is accepting the responsability to get yourself registered, get yourself to the appropriate polling place at the appropriate day and time and cast a LEGAL vote for the candidate of your choosing so that your vote can be LEGALLY counted.

Florida's election laws were very clear as to what constituted a vote and what didn't,

Not really the only standard in Florida law at the time was a “clear intention”. Gore cherry picked counties because that is what Florida law said he had to do, select counties he wanted to recount, he was under no obligation to count the entire state and Bush could have recount any that he wanted to recount as well and declined preferring to file a lawsuit to stop Gore form recounting counties that he was perfectly entitled to under Florida Law. Further the Bush camp filed another suit to force the state of Florida to ignore state law and count absentee ballots without a post mark from military bases. In fact Bush’s first lawsuit was designed to stop Gore from recounting counties that he was perfectly entitled to under Florida law. How you all think that Gore was trying to “change the law” after the fact is puzzling to me, it was Bush vs Gore not Gore Vs Bush.

Ironically, if Bush had allowed Gore to recount exactly those counties that he requested, Gore would have lost and the court fight would have never got to SCOTUS. There were not enough votes in those three counties to put Gore over the top.

This is evidence of what I've always felt is true: Liberals care about power, first and foremost. They spout phrases from the US Constitution, but they really don't believe in it. We call them Liberals, but they are not. Classical Liberals are reasonable and sometimes correct. These people are left-wingers and neo-Marxists. And dishonest? They bring dishonesty to a new level. I just heard an exchange between Kerry and some jerk-off professor Walter Dong in New York City. During the exchange -- with an audience of other left-wing wackjobs -- Kerry out-and-out tell the professor and audience that his Administration will turn everything in Iraq over to the United Nations. And Kerry almost sounded rational next to Walter Dong, a true believer in Marxism.

Do any of you seriously believe that the RNC will be any less "lawyered up" on election day than the DNC plans to be?

I'm with Rance -- if you don't think both sides have teams of lawyers champing at the bit, you're delusional. No matter what the outcome of the popular vote/electoral vote, I have no doubt this election will be settled in the courts.

Maybe Democracy will get lucky this year because Ketchup Boy hired more metrosexual hair combing shysters like "Pottsie" Edwards, and instead of bloviating (BO bedamned!) in court they'll all be in the powder room primping and prancing about like fairies....heh heh

(Not that there is anything wrong with that....)

Rance & Mac:

The DNC has $2-3million to pay for those 10,000 lawyers. The RNC has an estimated $8million, but won't officially say. You better believe the RNC has just as many, if not more, lawyers ready to go. But they haven't released any specifics.

But think a little harder, a little beyond that. What do you have to gain from announcing you have thousands of lawyers ready to deploy? If you were heading either campaign, which would route would you honestly take?

It boils down to political instincts. The Kerry campaign has had numerous backfirings of what they thought might be great ideas. When everyone knows you have 10,000 lawyers ready 2 weeks before the election, Nov 3rd is gonna roll around and it'll all look too planned and desperate. Planned and desperate unfortunately, have been the tenets of the Kerry campaign. The Kerry camp merely guesses forced by internal analyzation of polls, but guesses wrong. Bush has instincts, which match the feelings of many Americans. That's the root of the DNC's problem.

Basically John Kerry is a grown up version of my favorite childhood toy, Fisher Price's See 'N Say.

Rance: Do any of you seriously believe that the RNC will be any less "lawyered up" on election day than the DNC plans to be?

Of course the RNC will be every bit as "lawyered up," if not more so -- because the DNC has been saying for four years this is what they plan to do.

We Republicans don't bring a knife to a gunfight, and we don't bring sweet nothings into what is obviously going to be a lawyer-eat-lawyer attempt by Dembats to subvert the electoral process.

Mac: No matter what the outcome of the popular vote/electoral vote, I have no doubt this election will be settled in the courts.

Even if it's a popular and electoral vote landslide? I realize the conventional wisdom claims that won't happen, but the posturing Dembats have got a lot of Republican voters pissed off this time around, including millions who didn't vote in 2000, whose votes would have settled that election before the polls closed in California.

Anne,

"Bush has instincts, which match the feelings of many Americans. "

Are those the same instincts that he was following when he told Pat Robertson "We're not going to have any casualties [in Iraq]"?

Blah blah blah. I'll be there.

My guess is that we will have an Austalian, John Howard result....

Your momma named you Floyd?

Rick,

If the Dems really wanted "Every Vote Counted" in Florida, to the point of devising numerous (and inconsistent) schemes for "counting" hanging chads and stray pencil marks, then they should have had no objection to the overseas military ballots. Even if the postmarks were incorrect, the ballots themselves were unspoiled and would have provided a clear indication of the voter's intent.

The Florida Supreme Court usurped Florida state law by ordering recounts to continue past the manditory recount deadline (I believe it was 14 days) that was part of the Florida election law. Even the Florida Secretary of State (our dear friend Katherine Harris) did not have the power to strike down the deadline. It was this decision, made without input from the Florida legislature or a referendum from Florida voters, that was the basis of the original Supreme Court suit filed by the Republicans.

The SCOTUS vacated the decision on this first suit, pending an explanation from the Florida Supreme Court outlining how and why they were able to arbitrarily usurp Florida state law.

You can read the SCOTUS decision here: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

At any rate, an army of 10,000 lawyers should scare the willies out of anybody.

And I wonder ... how many hungry children could have been fed with all of those attorney fees?

Floyd: You mean this article in CNN detailing Robertson's comments?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/robertson.bush.iraq/index.html

I'm entertaining your question only because I want to see you defending the leader of the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson. Mr. Robertson also said in the same article, that even though Bush is making mistakes and stumbling, that he's still ahead because "I just think God's blessing is on him."

Short of pronouncing Bush a modern-day savior for Americans, I would like to see you defend not an entire person, not even that person's view, but just a single CNN article that person was in.

Also, the White House denies Bush ever said that to Robertson. But please, do go ahead and defend the leader of the Christian Coalition who's still behind Bush 100%.

I have a theory about Kerry claiming victory election night. If there's a clear Bush win and Lurch tries this stunt I think Bill Clinton will step up and call on Lurch to concede defeat for the good of the country. The worst kept secret is Clinton wants Lurch to lose. Clinton plays the adult election night and he and Hillary keep control of the Democratic party and gear up for 08. Clinton knows this strategy will backfire on the party plus he makes political eunuchs of Kerry and trip&fall.

McGehee,
Perhaps I'm just pessimistic about either candidate's ability to accept the outcome -- yes, even if one candidate wins a clear popular vote majority and clear electoral vote majority. With luck, I'm wrong.

Mike,

You nailed it! Not sure if the Florida Supremes roster has changed since 2000, but now we need to worry about PA, OH, MI, and a few others. How many of those will also drink the democrat Kool-Aid?

"This is evidence of what I've always felt is true: Liberals care about power, first and foremost. They spout phrases from the US Constitution, but they really don't believe in it."

Jim, thanks for reminding me why I stopped reading this blog.

Listen, the notion that the Republicans were complete angels in the Florida fiasco is patently absurd. The governor was his brother and the lady certifying the votes worked for his campaign. And you talk about valuing power over democracy?

Worldmaker I'm not sure sure why you complained about being deleted... Nobody deleted you! (well until now) That was your first post!

Having said that, I have a new rule.

Anyone complaining that we delete people just because they disagree-- gets deleted. And I applied the rule retroactively.

Anyone who on their first post says we delete people who don't agree, deserves to be deleted.

Everything Kerry does is lawyered up; makes you want to hate lawyers more.

As in the movie "Philadelphia" - what do you call 1000 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean?

A good start.

hehehehehe - get rid of the lawers - they have been busy trying to protect Edwards and Kerry since they became a couple. Disgusting.

~Cindy

Everything Kerry does is lawyered up; makes you want to hate lawyers more.

As in the movie "Philadelphia" - what do you call 1000 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean?

A good start.

hehehehehe - get rid of the lawers - they have been busy trying to protect Edwards and Kerry since they became a couple. Disgusting.

~Cindy