Posted on 9/17/2002, 5:23:02 PM by NorCoGOP
DEKALB, Ill. -- The most recent election snafu in Florida made me wonder when doing what's best for your country went out of style.
Ever since the challenged presidential election, this question has been circling in my mind with my utmost concern on what this will hold for the future. When Al Gore decided to challenge the election, he did what was best for himself, without consideration for the repercussions it would have throughout the country.
Gore didn't consider that stock markets balance on presidential election results. In this case, the results didn't come for 30 days, sending the market into a tailspin. Gore didn't consider the precedent that might be set for his party in the future. It also seems he didn't consider the effect it may have on him running for president in the future, as he seems to be ready to run again in the 2004 election.
Recently, there was a Democratic primary vote in the state of Florida to determine the party's candidate for the upcoming election for governor. Janet Reno and Bill McBride were at the head in the running. The vote used new election machines, which were implemented in the aftermath of the last presidential election, to record the vote.
Soon after the votes were counted, Tampa lawyer McBride was declared the winner in an unexpected victory over Reno. However, as everyone now knows, that doesn't mean he had won, which unfortunately is a direct result of Al Gore's disrespect for serving oneself before serving one's country. Finality is very important in every election and now it is in question.
Can there ever again be finality in an election? Where will the democrats draw the line?
Will they draw the line?
Let's hope so. However, it doesn't look to be in the near future. Even with the use of new voting systems in Florida, where non-chad touchscreens are abound, Reno was unhappy with the results and actually is challenging her own democratic primary. Will they ever again believe they lost an election because they didn't get more votes, or will they continue to believe uncounted votes caused their demise?
Gore couldn't even get enough votes in the state where he had been a senator for 20 years, yet he blamed his loss on Florida?
Reno can't believe she lost to a no-namer after she had been the attorney general, but usually the winner of the primary receives full support of the party and especially of the losing candidate. However, just as Gore's ego was too big to do what's best for the country, Reno's ego wouldn't let her do what's best for her party.
Precedent has definitely been set. You know how it works. If the big dogs can do it, why can't you? So, Reno thinks if Gore can challenge the presidential elections, "why can't I challenge this little old primary?"
This selfishness within the democratic party needs to be stopped. It's been taking place at the sacrifice of everyone in America, and could grow out of hand.
I'm all for fair elections, but the guidelines set in place a long time ago are starting to be abused.
The same liberal party that's all for changing the Constitution is using every nook and cranny of its election law to try and win elections. During the presidential snafu, the so-called party of the people was using every law in its power to keep people's votes from being counted.
The democratic party needs to put its people in check and make them understand that they're running for the betterment of their country, and not the betterment of themselves.
I don't know where Mike Jackson has been all these years, but democRATs have resisted doing what's best for the country for at least all of my viable memory.
Other candidates have simply dropped out rather than cause a crisis for the country by contesting election results. Nixon, in spite of all his faults, refused to contest the 1960 elections which he would have won if he had contested the Illinois and Texas results. And he certainly is not the only one who has done that.
Now if she had a job and she had to be there, I could see the complaint.
But the crux of the matter is that she said "I was told that I couldn't vote". Obviously that wasn't the case but it lends some new meaning to those folks who said they were turned away at the polls and not allowed to vote. (Of course, the polls were already closed).
The simple answer is that many of the Dem voters are stupid, can't follow directions, are lazy and can't get to the polls on time and blame all their woes on someone else.
I'm still laughing that they forgot to turn on the machines. (An unlit screen wasn't a clue??)
Sac
I am too.
But in all fairness, we're told that in the Miami area, the polling volunteers weren't given nearly adequate training on the voting computers, the software was being modified right up to the last minute, there was an internal software lock which prevented the computers from being turned on until opening time, and they took as long as 10 to 20 minutes to boot up.
I can see how some polling volunteers could get overwhelmed and very frustrated with that going on as well as a bunch of obnoxious democRATs trying to figure out how to vote at the same time.
Nixon was a statesman. The typical Demcrat these days is an over-aged adolescent with a running demand for everything his or her way or a temper tantrum will ensue.
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.