Thursday, October 14, 2004

Democrats Destroying Democracy

The attempts by the DNC to delegitimize the upcoming election are beyond outrageous.

Have you followed the bits of news? Numerous break-ins at Republican campaign offices; vandalism, including gunfire; coordinated invasion and intimidation of Republican volunteers by the AFL-CIO; damaging and stealing signs; exploiting handicapped children; and (at least according to Drudge) even written instructions to operatives to lay the groundwork for future claims of "voter intimidation" even if none has occurred!

One essayist writes here:
If Drudge has it right, then the Kerry-Edwards campaign is going to do its damnedest to turn our fine nation into a banana republic.

To these guys, winning office is more important than the sanctity of elections. Holding power is more important than the Constitution. Much as I despise at least half of what most Republicans stand for, they don't seem nearly as willing to trash the system they're trying to run. Too many Democrats, especially at the national level, just don't care that our system, our nation is far more important than any single election.

I could mention the Lautenberg Trick in New Jersey. Or Gore's ballot shenanigans in Florida. Or the voter-registration fraud currently going on in Colorado, Nevada, and elsewhere. Or the Democrats' successful call to bring election observers into this country. Bring them in from where, Venezuela? Hey, no big deal sullying the reputation of the world's oldest continuously-functioning democracy, just so long as we can make the Republicans look bad, right?

The rules don't matter. The reputation of the country doesn't matter. The political health of the nation doesn't matter. Power matters.
Farfetched? Hardly. See this NY Post column:
Marc Elias, the general counsel for the Kerry team, has said the campaign intends to be able to "fight five statewide recounts and still have funds available to the campaign." The New York Law Journal reports that the local Lawyers Committee for the Kerry Campaign has raised $2 million to support recount efforts...

In New Mexico, Democrats already won one lawsuit, which argued voters shouldn't have to show ID at the polling place because that would have disproportionately affected minority voters. (The suggestion that minority voters can't be trusted to bring their drivers license will strike some as a condescending insult, but never mind.)...

Of course, rationalizing is what lawyers do best. But you'd think vigilance against voter fraud would be a bipartisan issue. As "Stealing Elections" author John Fund points out, at least eight of the 9/11 hijackers were registered to vote in U.S. elections.

In fact, many of the Democrats' legal efforts and claims of disenfranchisement are meant to thwart attempts to stop ineligible voters. Jesse Jackson and the NAACP routinely complain that, if the felons in Florida weren't "disenfranchised," Al Gore would be president today.

Hey, Gore would be president if Canadians were allowed to vote, too, or if residents of heavily Democratic districts in Florida could vote twice. Too bad those pesky election laws have been used systematically to cheat Democrats of the presidency!

...For the lawyers, the delicious turn of events since Florida 2000 is about oh-so-much more than just assuring a future tort reform veto. If every election is now potentially reversible in court, the litigation lobby will finally have achieved its ascendancy over all three branches of government.

And for the Democratic Party, that seems to be a small price to pay for never having to admit they've lost.
That's not even getting into the collusion of the major media, as expressed in the ABC News internal memo:
ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff: During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to “reflexively and artificially hold both sides ‘equally’ accountable.”

The controversial internal memo obtained by DRUDGE, captures Halperin stating how “Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.”

Halperin states the responsibilities of the ABCNEWS staff have “become quite grave.”
Bias? What bias?


Blogger Bandersnatchi said...

"To these guys, winning office is more important than the sanctity of elections." It's funny. I think the same thing about the Republicans.

To me, the difference is that the Repbulicans have the power right now and that's why they appear to not want to be as willing "to trash the system they are trying to run."

We are, I think, in a period of transition. Looking back over time, the country has swung from conservative ("Leave it to Beaver") to Liberal ("Call Me Mellow Yellow") and back and forth. The pendulum swings to correct over-"liberalsim". Why is it swinging? Well, the liberal's have been in power so long that things have moved a bit too left of center for the majority of Americans. And, during that time, they've become complacent and begun to infight which has further fractionalized their hold on power.

The conservatives, on the other hand, have had a common enemy and a clear and focused mission. I fully expect that they will obtain the power in this ideological battle and hold it for some time. During that time they will become complacent, fractionalize and the "left" will focus and eventually disrupt them.

The problem with this swinging pendulum is too much extremism in both directions. I do not agree with either extreme, but the exteremists are the once who are most motivated to fight.

The left (Democrats) are mad, scared and deeply concerned and, like any cornered opponent, are becoming increasingly reactive...much like the "right" had done when some made the decision that to best preserve the sanctity of life, they should shoot abortion-performing doctors, bomb clinics and - more mainstream - terrorize scared young women, some of whom are merely turning to Planned Parenthood for information.

Ah well. Such are the times in which we live.


11:50 AM, October 15, 2004  
Blogger RDS said...

MTLChris -- I think your comment is correct. I predicted here that the Democrats will split, when the far-left, which currently (and disastrously for the party) holds the leadership, is jettisoned:

I certainly don't claim there aren't extremes on both sides, or that both sides don't want power. It could have gone either way, but my point is the far Left has a tighter hold in the party apparatus than the far Right does in the Republicans. And that's bringing them down. And that's bad for the country: an honest opposition produces better competition of ideas.

Extreme conservatism just wasn't a winner issue for the Republicans after the Cold War: they made Newt Gingrich step down as speaker; at one time the religious fundamentalists had such momentum that Pat Robertson considered running for President 10-15 years ago, but that was shot down decisively; the Militia movement hasn't been heard of since Oklahoma City.

The new crop of Republican stars, (Schwarzenneger, Giuliani, even to an extent Bush) are seen as more socially liberal than the far Right would have liked.

There were close states in 2000 that Bush narrowly lost by just a few hundred votes to Gore, and there were indications of irregularities, but they didn't litigate it. Using the courts in such a way is inconsistent with conservative beliefs.

You're absolutely right that it's driven by losing power, but not just power in the immediate future (there's always another election, which is why the Republicans don't get so bent out of shape), but they see themselves losing in the big sweep of history! That's what's really got them seething: the promised Marxist revolutions aren't catching on. Capitalism and globalism and yes, sometimes even individual liberty, are on the march. With China becoming more like mere despotic capitalists rather than Red Revolutionaries, and the USSR collapsing, the whole leftist project is seeing itself fading out after 100 years.

And that's feeding the tantrum.

9:42 PM, October 15, 2004  

Post a Comment

<< Home