America's descent will be in some part due to Al Gore's most enduring legacy.
No, not the War on Weather.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
12 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good gosh! At the end of the piece, the writer properly schools idiots like Harry Reid as to what constitutes a valid vote. I could sit in my living room and insist that I vote for Howdy Doody. But if I don't go to the polls and cast my vote according to how the law mandates, I have not voted at all. In the same way, if I don't properly punch a ballot card, or pull the right lever or properly cast my vote at the polling place, by whatever means provided, then that vote also is worthless. It is true that every person should have his vote counted, but for Pete's sake, let's all vote properly and be man enough to acknowledge when we've failed to do so.
ReplyDeleteThis whine about disenfranchisement is more Democratic enabling. Idiots that don't understand the process, and don't take the time to learn, have no business cluttering the polling places. This process is far too important for the sake of future generations for people to take it so carelessly. We've seen examples of how badly people inform themselves about the candidates. It's no surprise that some can't figure out how to either use a simple ballot or inquire about how to do so. The result is fair and simple: they lose the right to have their vote count.
If Al Gore has any enduring legacy attached to the 2000 election, it is that he had incompetents running the legal challenge. He had every right to challenge an election with a difference of 537 votes. Every right! The mistake was to put the challenge in the hands of people who would allow the matter to go to a partisan Supreme Court that had no jurisdiction in the case.
ReplyDeleteWAAGH, WAAAGH, WAAAAGH.
ReplyDeleteReally good, Al. So profound! I'm not revisiting 2000 (anymore than you in making this idiotic post). I'm simply refuting that there should be any negative connotation associated with demanding a recount in a close election unless and until we have a perfect way to cast and count votes.
ReplyDeleteI've never voted via absentee ballot but it can't be too difficult to understand. How hard could it be? If Al Franken believes absentee ballots have instructions too difficult for his prospective voters to understand, I would have to say his voters must not be very bright. Perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to vote if they can't even follow simple directions like Name, address, and which box to check for which candidate.
ReplyDeleteI sincerely doubt there are enough Franken voters in Minnesota so stupid that it would make a difference if they did count inelgible absentee ballots.
"...with demanding a recount in a close election..."
ReplyDeleteDid you read the article? It's not about the recount...it's about giving in gracefully when you know you're defeated.
Gore 2000 already HAD given in...then he decided to pursue the low path to the presidency.
As is the other Al with the Senate seat.
He's lost, he knows it, he's throwing a waagh, waagh hissy.
Like you still are about the Goracle.
I'm not throwing a hissy, and anyone who claims that I am is full of crap. Al Gore had not given in. He almost conceded based on the network calls for Bush's victory. When his advisers said it was too close, he decided not to concede. All reasonable regardless of the final outcome or the courts' involvement. To say that any candidate should concede a close race based on a networks call (made by a cousin of Bush) is delusional.
ReplyDeleteAnd Al Franken has every right to pursue a recount until it is resolved. It just so happens that 206 votes warrants an automatic recount, so why should anyone quit when that recount is incomplete.
I understand what Coleman is doing here. It is the same thing Bush smartly did in 2000. Make everyone believe you are the winner and the opponent is a sore loser whether it's decided or not and then you have the upper hand PR-wise and possibly even in the eyes of the court. Even Scalia in stopping the recount declared that a continuation of the recount of all undervotes in all Florida counties would threaten irreparable harm to Bush by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. In other words, although the election had not yet been decided, Justice Scalia was presupposing that Bush had won the election, had a right to win it, and any recount that showed Gore got more votes in Florida than Bush could "cloud" Bush's presidency.
Getting an accurate count can never by a "low road" to the presidency.
I have no problem with a recount over a close vote. AlGore indeed played it in a whiney manner. Later counts showed Bush the winner anyway, and he also played fast and loose with military votes. So Gore was definitely taking the low road. Even Nixon refrained from a recount as he felt it would be bad for the country. AlGore insisted because he thought to do otherwise would be bad for him. The same with Stuart Smalley.
ReplyDelete"And Al Franken has every right to pursue a recount until it is resolved." Jim
ReplyDeleteAgain...you're missing the point. The recount is conclusive...as was the recount in Florida in '00.
But you just can't take the toddler out of the Democratic candidates these days.
Which is the whole point of the article.
Like I said...waagh, waaagh, waaaagh.
Al, again you bloviate and say nothing. The recount can't be conclusive, because it's not done yet. And you are missing another important point. The Florida recount was NOT conclusive. Why?
ReplyDeleteThere WAS NO RECOUNT in Florida in 2000. Scalia and his brethren made sure of that. I repeat, there was no recount, it was halted by Scalia and the rest of the Court.
A media consortium performed several unofficial recounts using various scenarios. Gore would have one if a full recount of all counties had been completed. Good thing for Bush that the Court didn't allow that.
Coleman is suing every time he sees and advantage for Franken. What a child!
"Gore would have one..."
ReplyDeleteYou mean he doesn't even have ONE?
That makes complete sense!
Excuuuuuuuse me.
ReplyDelete