Aftermath of Kerry Victory

Will Democrats show integrity?

Published on October 26, 2004 By messybuu In Democrat

In 2000, many Democrats accused Bush of stealing the presidential election because the Supreme Court of the United States would not allow infinite recounts to take place in selective counties in Florida. The Democrats still complain to this day that Bush stole the election.

The election of 2004 is sure to be close. It'll be so close that recounts are inevitable. If Kerry wins, will the Democrats fight for the right of Bush to have infinite recounts in counties he lost? If Kerry wins, will the Democrats condemn the Supreme Court for not allowing Bush to have infinite recounts in selective counties?

Or will Democrats demand that Bush accept the results of only three recounts, showing that it was never about preserving democracy to them, but about swindling their way into the White House?

Well, Democrats?

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Oct 26, 2004

It is apparent by the fact that Kerry already has lawyers lined up coast to coast that he will fight for endless recounts no matter who wins!

yea, and Dan Rather reports news Objectively!

Hopefully, it will not be that close and whoever wins (Bush), will be far enough ahead that any attempt by the loser (Kerry) will be met with contempt and derision. Well, at least by half the country. The other half are still on Kool aid!

apdelong31

on Oct 26, 2004

Say if I'm a Red Sox fan (which I am, go Sox!), if a close call at the plate goes their way, why would anyone who supports the Red Sox make a determined effort to question the call that could potentially give the Cardinals an additional run? That doesn't make any sense at all.

apdelong31

on Oct 26, 2004

It is apparent by the fact that Kerry already has lawyers lined up coast to coast...

Both parties have lawyer battalions ready to go.
Link
Link

messybuu

on Oct 26, 2004

So, it is only about getting the Democrats into the White House, and not about preserving the integrity of the election?

citahellion

on Oct 26, 2004

See, this is exactly what's wrong with sports in general, many players, and way too many people across the board. As long as "we" win, it doesn't matter how it happened. So what if the umpire called you safe when you know you were out, so what if the linesman missed the ball being wide by an inch, so what if the ref didn't see your man blatantly facemasking the QB. As long as we win, that's what matters.

Just toss sportsmanship, fair play, honesty, and integrity all aside. They're irrelevant in today's competitions, sporting or political.

The idea that these things "don't make any sense at all" is a pathetic reflection on the state of our nation.

apdelong31

on Oct 26, 2004

I never said the WRONG call went the Red Sox way, I said a close call.

I'm done trying to look for fair play, sportsmanship, honesty, and integrity in politics. Honestly, if you want to try to instate (note: not REinstate, there's no honor in politics) it, more power to you. Both sides are using dirty tricks, under the table restrictions, mudslinging at it's best, among a buttload of other shameless tactics.

Now with sports, they're worth trying to save. If you won on a close call, and you believe you were in the right, then why contest it? There should be no feeling of remorse if you honestly believe you were safe/out/whatever (without convincing yourself of a lie). In other words, if I slide into home to win a game, believe I got under the tag and the umpire calls me safe, I am not going to say "Well did you see it alright? Are you sure I got under the tag? He might have tagged me before I reached the plate" Nobody would fabricate false evidence to go against your own case.

CrispE

on Oct 26, 2004

Messy Buu:

What would be your standard for a "fair election"? Would it be that every vote was counted or would it be that both sides had equal numbers of votes disqualified?

Both parties have an equal interest in the election but one party has more registered voters than the other. Does this lead to campaigns to shortshrift the opposition to keep voter tallies down?

As has already been reported both sides have done "questionable," probably illegal things such as throwing away registrations of voters who were not from their party to jamming phone lines so that organizations couldn't call voters to tell them of when the election was.

When elections used to be about the issues, this election was less about billions of dollars and when money like that gets put in play, most of the players don't want to be playing "Texas Hold 'em" for the Presidency. Since neither side will a) limit contributions or

amounts spent and allows 527 to clog the airwaves with no standards on what is said, do you really wonder why the situation has evolved like this?

messybuu

on Oct 26, 2004

I'm done trying to look for fair play, sportsmanship, honesty, and integrity in politics. Honestly, if you want to try to instate (note: not REinstate, there's no honor in politics) it, more power to you. Both sides are using dirty tricks, under the table restrictions, mudslinging at it's best, among a buttload of other shameless tactics.

That's true, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to be fair. Of course, I'm not a Democrat.

messybuu

on Oct 26, 2004

What would be your standard for a "fair election"? Would it be that every vote was counted or would it be that both sides had equal numbers of votes disqualified?

Well, to Democrats, it was unfair for the Supreme Court not to allow the Democrats to recount votes in specific counties (while accepting the votes in counties they won) as many times as they needed. So, to a Democrat, a fair election sounds as though the loser should have the right to infinite recounts in counties they need to win.

As for me, I'd say a fair election would be one without infinite recounts and one in which the recounts aren't just in counties that the candidate lost.

apdelong31

on Oct 26, 2004

Of course, I'm not a Democrat.

Don't lump all Democrats in with what I say. I don't portray an ideal Democrat, even a good one, it's an insult to the party.

Myrrander

on Oct 26, 2004

Don't forget, if we lose, riots and our bests attempts at bringing about total global armageddon. At least, that's what the party here locally is putting out in their newsletter.

Lee1776

on Oct 26, 2004

At least, that's what the party here locally is putting out in their newsletter.

Miss Edwards also agrees with that too.

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/25/20041025_162404_dncee.htm

Don Bemont

on Oct 26, 2004

Your original question drips with equal (but opposite) bias of several of my family members.

The trouble is that there are multiple ways to define "fair."
* All voters who arrive, registered, to vote and do their job properly having their votes correctly tallied?
* Maintaining the proper local and state control over elections procedures?
* Following precedent in how to count votes?
* Being sure that both parties get an equal number of recounts, in the places they want them? (That number could be zero, of course.)
[I could go on, but you get the idea.]

The trouble is that these criteria are probably mutually exclusive. It seems clear that some localities have (and had in the past) various methods of vote tabulating designed to edge the vote in the direction desired by the entrenched party. Many Democrats feel very strongly that Republicans were particularly guilty of this in 2000, but the issue does not rest on this alone -- Illinois Republicans have some stories of their own mistreatment in this area, as do, I am sure, many others.

The bottom line was that the extremely close vote of 2000 was bad for the nation, because our system of government depends on the reliability and certainty of smooth succession. Even worse was the appearance of politicalization of the courts in 2000, when the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court both split along party lines. That latter fact was crucial, and it is extremely important that it not be repeated.

Those of us Americans who value our democratic system (hopefully all of us) really need to hope that Tuesday night's vote is decisive. Further, if it is not, we better pray that election officials and courts find the strength to act on principle, not out of partisan politics. We are not far from witnessing a death spiral for out elective system.

In the meantime, we can all help by squelching irreponsible critiques. We do not use popular vote to elect the president, and there is no point acting as though the man who gets the most votes automatically wins. We do not use square mileage to elect the president, and there is no point acting as though a map of the US color coded by county represents who wins... These sorts of things just work to de-legitimize the outcome even further -- as though we didn't have problems enough.

messybuu

on Oct 26, 2004

Yeah. It's hard to define fair, but this is how I see it...
Republicans complained that Kennedy won the election because of voter fraud. Therefore, if Bush wins the election because of voter fraud, it would be right for Republicans not to accept such a dishonest victory.
Democrats complained that Gore was not allowed infinite recounts in Florida counties he wasn't winning. Therefore, it would be right for Democrats to demand that Bush have the right of infinite recounts in counties he isn't winning if he desires, unless they're hypocrites.

CrispE

on Oct 26, 2004

Messy Buu:

So what you're saying specifically about Florida is that there was no tampering and no possibility that an election with as many voters as there were could be "accurately" talied as being 257 votes separating the candidates with no recounts necessary?

The Republicans in 2000 asked for recounts in several states also. What were they thinking?! Tally the votes once and flip a coin and let's get on with the Presidency! Woohoo!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!