Posted on 10/19/2004 6:41:54 PM PDT by TBBT
It could have happened in the house. The Senate was too close, and some of the RINOs would have walked. Collins, Snowe, Chaffee, and McCain can not be trusted to do what is right.
I disagree with her on one thing. She's wrong when she implies that 1996 was our last uncontested election result. That would mean both parties plan to use lawsuits to tie all future results up in court.
I don't think that will happen because I don't see any indication that the GOP would play hardball on this issue. Miss Noonan should have said we'll never again have a Republican win that goes uncontested.
Look at the record. Back in 1960 the 'Rats almost certainly stole the presidency, but Nixon refused to challenge the results because of the negative effects it would have on the nation's institutions and the people's respect for them. More recently, the 'Rats stole the 1996 senate election in Louisiana. The GOP Senate dismissed the challenge and seated Mary Landrieu. In California, it was virtually proven that illegal aliens put Loretta Sanchez in office over Bob Dornan, but the GOP refused to make an issue out of it. Tim Johnson beat John Thune in 2000 in South Dakota with phony indian reservation votes, and the GOP decided not to make an issue of it. They seated Johnson without even a challenge.
If Bush loses in two weeks, and there's widespread evidence of fraud, nothing will come of it. Republicans will huddle together, decide that it would "hurt the nation" to challenge the results. They'll fret that any challenge on their part will be declared racist (since the 'Rats conduct much of their fraud in minority precincts deliberately so they can scream "voter intimidation" in case of an investigation). The media will scream that it's racist to even think about filing a challenge.
But if Bush wins, there will be lawsuits and injunctions filed all over the country. The media will dutifully report every fanciful 'Rat claim of minority "voter suppression". The 'Rats will claim Bush stole the election for the next four years, even after they lose in court.
The 'Rat party is now a totalitarian party. It doesn't recognize the right of people to hold contrary views. Look at Fahrenheit 9/11. It showed at thousands of theaters with no violence. Conservatives often handed out flyers outside theaters to give an opposing view, but no one even hinted of censoring the movie, even though it was a pack of lies. President Bush ignored the film. In contrast, Kerry has tried to suppress books critical of him, and the few outlets willing to broadcast an anti-Kerry film are receiving threats.
We now have a totalitarian party in our midst.
Correcting myself: The Johnson vs. Thune race was in 2002.
I agree. Bush lost Pennsylvania and Michigan to Gore solely on the voter fraud in Philadelphia and Detroit. Gore won Philadelphia by 348,000 votes and Pensylvania by about 200,000 votes. Gore won Detroit (Wayne County) by 307,000 votes and Michigan by 217,000 votes.
What is unconstitutional is for the federal government to dictate to the states how they will conduct elections.
Dont forget to mention electronic voting.
Just on your recommendation I caught it on repeat later in the evening; you're right, it was very good. I like and admire her a great deal.
Just as an aside, this is an issue that has come up in the recent Venezuelan election debacle and is affecting their upcoming elections.
They have national ID cards, which are used for voting, but there are 1.8 million ID cards that can't clearly be tied to any actual person, but which are on the voters registry. No one knows who these people are, but they vote. (1.8 mm in a small country is a large number).
In addition the government there has been issuing ID cards to non-citizens during the runup to the elections.
That, combined with the electronic voting machines that gave results that didn't square with any exit polling, and you have an unstoppable vote fraud. Of course, once vote fraud is unstoppable, there is nothing left but revolution.
That doesn't really argue against your case, it just shows that any system can be rigged if there is a will to rig it. There is no substitute for integrity. Once thats gone there isn't anything else except force.
Well... knock on wood, so far Arizona has been pretty clean in our elections... and we use punch cards!! McCain would probably go along with getting this system cleaned up, however.
Right now on Sacramento's KFBK, there's a guy that's filling in for the regular talk host that's the station's go to guy for political analysis. He's griping about CA not having any say in the Presidential election since CA is forced to send more money to D.C. than we get back out of Washington.
He's promoting the same formula that Colorado is voting on that will somehow change all this, that he claims doesn't void the Electoral College, but will still force candidates to come here to campaign.
Sounds to me like a clever way to take advantage of exactly what I quoted you as correctly saying. If this spreads as he proposes we do in two years on our ballot, pretty soon the rural states will have no voice in anything, just as rural cities and counties have been stripped of their representation by the Earl Warren court's "Cows Don't Vote" decision of 45 years ago!!!
Rural America will soon be as powerless as the "Out Back" of Austrailia and the rural resident will have taxation without representation all over again!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.