The Washington Times carries a story today entitled "Ethics charges hurled in House." It seems that our Congress Critters don't work and play well together.
Have you ever watched a professional football game when a defensive player charges across the line of scrimmage before the ball is snapped? The offense and defense point fingers at each other hoping the decision of the referee will go against the other team.
Our Congress is doing the same thing. While they should be taking care of business, they instead act like a bunch of spoiled little children on a playground.
I don't really care who the worst "ethics" offender is in Congress. If they violate laws and/or rules the simple answer is that they should resign. It doesn't matter if it's a democrat or a republican -- they should quit. Make room for someone that will follow the laws and rules.
Tom DeLay, as noted in a post below, should be the first to go, then Jim McDermott. I'm sure there are others just as bad -- they just haven't been caught yet.
Congress needs to clean itself up. Our representatives are not there to build power and fiefdoms. They are supposed to be taking care of the people's business. It's about time for them to stop bickering and finger-pointing and get to work!
Today is the 141st anniversary of the Gettyburg Address. In honor of Abraham Lincoln I am providing a copy of his address as given on November 19, 1863.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
"MILWAUKEE - A radio talk show host drew criticism Thursday after calling Condoleezza Rice an "Aunt Jemima" and saying she isn't competent to be secretary of state.
John Sylvester, the program director and morning personality on WTDY-AM in Madison, said in a phone interview Thursday that he used the term on Wednesday's show to describe Rice and other blacks as having only a subservient role in the Bush administration."
"... Sylvester, who is white, also referred to Powell as an "Uncle Tom" — a contemptuous term for a black whose behavior toward whites is regarded as fawning or servile..."
And what does the NAACP have to say about this?
"Linda Hoskins of the NAACP's Madison branch said she could not comment on Sylvester's remarks until she had heard them in their entirety."
Why am I not surprised? Now, if Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or any other conservative commentator had referred to Maxine Waters, Carol Mosely-Braun, Eleano r Holmes Norton or any other liberal black woman with political clout as an "Aunt Jemima," can you even begin to imagine how loud and vicious the outcry would be? Mfume and Bond, along with Jesse, Al and the gang, would be screaming bloody murder, picketing and demonstrating outside of their offices, demanding their resignations and their heads (à la Zarqawi). Think back to the Rush Limbaugh-Donovan McNabb issue in the not-too-distant past, and you'll see exactly what I mean. -- Dutch Martin
"U.S. Marines rallied round a comrade under investigation for killing a wounded Iraqi during the offensive in Falluja, saying he was probably under combat stress in unpredictable, hair-trigger circumstances. Marines interviewed on Tuesday said they didn't see the shooting as a scandal, rather the act of a comrade who faced intense pressure during the effort to quell the insurgency in the city.
" 'I can see why he would do it. He was probably running around being shot at for days on end in Falluja. There should be an investigation but they should look into the circumstances,' said Lance Corporal Christopher Hanson. 'I would have shot the insurgent too. Two shots to the head,' said Sergeant Nicholas Graham, 24, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 'You can't trust these people. He should not be investigated. He did nothing wrong.'
"...Marines have repeatedly described the rebels they fought against in Falluja as ruthless fighters who didn't play by the rules. They say the investigation is politically motivated. 'It's all political. This Marine has been under attack for days. It has nothing to do with what he did,' said Corporal Keith Hoy, 23."
Tom DeLay is a valuable commodity in the republican party. So valuable that Congress is changing a rule the republicans put in place 11 years ago.
House republicans proposed changing their rules Tuesday night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post. Mr. Delay has not yet been indicted but may be soon by a Texas grand jury, which in September indicted three of DeLay's political associates on charges of using a political action committee to illegally collect corporate donations and funnel them to Texas legislative races.
In 1993 the republicans wanted to show the world that they held themselves to high standards. They made rules to clean up what they saw as ethical problems in the House leadership under the democrats, such as then-Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.), who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to prison.
Now one of the republican's own has come under fire. But Mr. Delay needs to be protected! This is the man responsible for helping the republicans gain five new seats in the House.
" House Republicans recognize that DeLay fought fiercely to widen their majority, and they are eager to protect him from an Austin-based investigation they view as baseless and partisan, said Rep. Eric I. Cantor (Va.), the GOP's chief deputy whip.
"That's why this [proposed rule change] is going to pass ... because there is a tremendous recognition that Tom DeLay led on the issue to produce five more seats" for the Republicans, Cantor said." -- WaPo 11/17/04
I wrote here on Oct 8, 2004 that Mr. DeLay should resign immediately. I wish he would have done so. All this action by House republicans does is give their party a black eye. As much as I hate to agree with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), she said on Tuesday night: "If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing."
Mr. DeLay, it's time for you to leave -- go before you create more damage to your country and your party.
The first said, "My son is such a saint. He works hard, doesn't smoke, and he hasn't so much as looked at a woman in over two years."
The other woman said, "Well, my son is a saint himself. Not only hasn't he not looked at a woman in over three years, but he hasn't touched a drop of liquor in all that time."
"My word," the first mother said. "You must be so proud."
"I am," the second mother replied. "And when he's paroled next month, I'm going to throw him a big party."
"Some 40 Marines have just lost their lives cleaning out one of the world's worst terror dens, in Fallujah, yet all the world wants to talk about is the NBC videotape of a Marine shooting a prostrate Iraqi inside a mosque. Have we lost all sense of moral proportion?
"The al-Zarqawi TV network, also known as Al-Jazeera, has broadcast the tape to the Arab world, and U.S. media have also played it up. The point seems to be to conjure up images again of Abu Ghraib, further maligning the American purpose in Iraq. Never mind that the pictures don't come close to telling us about the context of the incident, much less what was on the mind of the soldier after days of combat.
"Put yourself in that Marine's boots. He and his mates have had to endure some of the toughest infantry duty imaginable, house-to-house urban fighting against an enemy that neither wears a uniform nor obeys any normal rules of war. Here is how that enemy fights, according to an account in the Times of London:
"'In the south of Fallujah yesterday, U.S. Marines found the armless, legless body of a blonde woman, her throat slashed and her entrails cut out. Benjamin Finnell, a hospital apprentice with the U.S. Navy Corps, said that she had been dead for a while, but at that location for only a day or two. The woman was wearing a blue dress; her face had been disfigured. It was unclear if the remains were the body of the Irish-born aid worker Margaret Hassan, 59, or of Teresa Borcz, 54, a Pole abducted two weeks ago. Both were married to Iraqis and held Iraqi citizenship; both were kidnapped in Baghdad last month.'
"When not disemboweling Iraqi women, these killers hide in mosques and hospitals, booby-trap dead bodies, and open fire as they pretend to surrender. Their snipers kill U.S. soldiers out of nowhere. According to one account, the Marine in the videotape had seen a member of his unit killed by another insurgent pretending to be dead. Who from the safety of his Manhattan sofa has standing to judge what that Marine did in that mosque?"
Can't get enough election news? Are you wondering what will happen in 2006?
From John J. Miller of NRO comes this: "There will be 33 Senate elections in 2006, for seats currently held by 17 Democrats, 15 Republicans, and one independent. Top Republican targets probably will include Florida, Minnesota, and Nebraska; Democrats will take aim at Missouri and Pennsylvania and possibly Virginia."
For those political junkies out there, Mr. Miller has a state by state look at all the 2006 Senate races at the above link.
"Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union announces that it has intimidated the Pentagon into agreeing 'to end direct sponsorship of hundreds of Boy Scout units, which require members to swear religious oaths, on military facilities across the United States and overseas.' . . . The ACLU used to be so committed to free expression that it would even represent Nazis and Klansmen seeking to express their views. But apparently they draw the line at the Boy Scouts."
A Global Perspective - Relationship between Toilets & Quality of Human Life
World Class Tourism & Toilets
Entrepreneurship: Social & Economic Returns on Investments
Maintenance - Good Toilets Improve Heartland Community Living
Design - The Challenges and Considerations in Establishing the Code of Practice for Toilets.
Catering to the diversity of Culture - toilets for different cultures
Water Conservation: The Cost Effective Use of a Valuable Resource, Water
Toilet - The Past, Present and Future of Public Toilets in Beijing
Many more….
Wide ranging toilet-related topics covered by the Experts!
Benefit from an interesting mix of plenary sessions covering in-depth situational studies and invaluable experiences from not less than 25 international and local speakers on Tourism, Design, Maintenance, Water Conservation, and Challenges and Considerations of the Toilet Code of Practice!
Network, exchange and share ideas, knowledge and skills with industry experts and your peers from around the world
Celebrate World Toilet Day on 19 November 2004!
For more details of the World Toilet Summit 2004, the following documents are available for download
Founded on the principle that veterans make citizenship’s greatest sacrifices, the Project seeks to assist those men and women of our armed forces who have been severely injured during the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other world hot spots. Many of their injuries are traumatic, as they return to civilian life minus one or more limbs, or with serious wounds or disfiguring scars. Many will face greater challenges obtaining assistance and finding opportunities that would enable them to provide for themselves and their families.
"As far as I know, all religions and all churches are equally demented in their belief in divine intervention, divine intercession, or even the existence of the divine in the first place. But all faiths are not always equally demented in the same way, or at the same time."
But even he is capable of recognizing the differences between religions; something, as he points out, the Left seems to be unwilling or incapable of doing.
"Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine—disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO—described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. If this is liberal secularism, I'll take a modest, God-fearing, deer-hunting Baptist from Kentucky every time, as long as he didn't want to impose his principles on me ..."
The Orange Unified School District in Southern California has a winner of their school board election. Only one problem ... they can't find him.
The Los Angeles Times reports:
"Forget provisional ballots in Ohio and hanging chads in Florida. The Orange Unified School District has its own election woe: It can't find the winner of Tuesday's board election.
" Public records point to the fact that Steve Rocco really does exist.
" He's a registered voter. He owns a home in Santa Ana. And he filed paperwork in July to run for the school board.
"He is not a figment of your imagination," said Christina Avila, a campaign disclosure filing officer at the Orange County registrar of voters and apparently one of the few people who can confirm his existence, because he handed his papers over to her. "He's a real man."
"After that, the details start getting sketchy.
"He is registered to vote, though he declined to state a party. Neighbors who have lived next door to him for years say they've seen the 53-year-old man only occasionally, when he takes out the trash from the home he shares with his parents. On the ballot, he listed his occupation as teacher and writer, though proof of either is elusive.
" He's become a bit of an urban legend, a kind of political Loch Ness monster or Sasquatch."
Mr. Rocco's opponent in the race spent over $6,000., had the endorsement of the teachers union, and the local PTA. Mr. Rocco won by spending nothing and making no public appearances.
I am a political conservative -- some might say reactionary. I am also a Christian. Wait! Don't leave yet!
There is always a bit of conflict between my political and religious beliefs. A national election like the one last week only serves to intensify that internal conflict. I look at the men and women that are put up for election by our two major political parties and wonder; Is this all there is?
In 1968 George Wallace was running for president. In his stump speeches he always made a remark about the choices we have for president. I may not be quoting him exactly, but it was "why do we have to choose between the lesser of two evils -- why can't we choose the better of two goods?" While Mr. Wallace and I did not have much in common, this remark has always stuck with me.
This year we were offered Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush, both far from good choices. Neither man articulated a clear and convincing vision for America's future. Neither man was a choice between the better of two goods. The best description I can come up with is that Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush was a choice between two mediocre -- not evil -- men.
There is no reason to list here all the pros and cons of each man. We should all know by now where each stood on the important issues of the day.
In several comments left on other posts I have been accused of being a Bush backer, of being blinded by White House propaganda. I have always challenged those people to show just one place on this blog where I backed or endorsed Mr. Bush. Usually the response was silence. I do not march in lockstep with any political party -- never have and never will.
Which comes back to my vote. In my state there were several down ballot races and initiatives that precluded me from not voting at all. A couple of the initiatives were more important to me than the presidential contest. They dealt with real issues of taxes and spending in my local community. I had to vote on those issues.
I waited until late in the day to vote on November 2nd. I was going to hold my nose and vote for Mr. Bush. But I just couldn't do it. Couldn't vote for Kerry either. In Nevada, on statewide races, we have the choice of "None of these." Not really a good choice -- if none of these wins the popular vote (it happened once) the election is given to the candidate with the next highest vote total. I ended up with a third-party presidential candidate. I voted, I did my duty to God and country. My candidate didn't win, but I left the voting booth feeling I had done the right thing.
Now that Bush has won the election, I will accept the judgement of my fellow citizens. My hope is that in 2008 we have better choices and less anger and hate from both sides.
It's all over the mainstream media and the internet -- Terry McAuliffe has to be replaced as DNC chairman. Some democrats are blaming Mr. McAuliffe for their decline in Congress and two presidential election losses.
Who do you think would make a good replacement for Mr. McAuliffe and why. Do you think a more centrist or hard left person would be better for the democrats?
If I was in charge, my pick would be Howard Dean. First, he is a proven fundraiser. Second, he stands by his core beliefs and speaks from the heart. Third, he has a sense of humor, unlike Mr. McAuliffe. And last, I believe Mr. Dean could unite the various factions of the party and possibly reclaim some of the middle ground.
Have you witnessed the fallout from the latest election -- how it has affected Liberals? It has unmasked them entirely.
They think religious people are stupid. Not just stupid, dangerous.
Make that Christians. More specifically, make that Evangelicals.
The Left, the base of the Democratic Party, hail the virtues of tolerance and consider themselves to be THE tolerant citizens of America. In their touting of tolerance they express their obvious disdain for those whose views run contrary to that of enlightened Liberalism.
Dare to make a statement of conviction of any kind, and one of these Leftists will set down his cheese and wine, pause his lecture on the virtues of plurality and the absurdity of the belief in absolute Truth, and tell you your convictions -- everything you believe and hold dear -- are absolutely wrong. Where does he get his understanding that what you claim is "right" is actually not? Against what standard is this wrongness measured? He can't say. All he knows is that you're a bigot, you're intolerant, you're not worthy of being an American. In fact, you're not smart enough to understand what it means to be an American.
And not only are you dumb, you're dangerous. Fanatics like you don't belong in a "tolerant" culture like ours. You and your beliefs and the people who share them should not be allowed in our civilized society . . . or, at the very least, you should be denied the right to vote. Because when you vote, when you're politically active, you screw everything up.
People like you foist upon the world monsters like Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Antonin Scalia.
People like you are the most likely to attack America: you're no different than the Islamists who fly planes into buildings, suicide-bomb pizzerias, detonate car bombs in the middle of busy streets, and blow up buses. At least those Islamic terrorists had a reason: America, pushed by people like you, has oppressed the Arab world. Yes, you are the reason 3,000 Americans were killed on September 11.
Nowhere has your un-Americanism been more poignantly explained and demonstrated than on the New York Times opinion pages over the last two days. Need evidence? Here are portions of five opinion pieces that made it into the ever-so-prestigious (and self-righteous) newspaper of record.
#1 -- From "The Day the Enlightenment Went Out" by Garry Wills:
"The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.
"Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.
"It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one American general put it, in words that the president has not repudiated.
" The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment."
#2 -- From "The Red Zone" by Maureen Dowd:
"The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel.
"W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage."
#3 -- From "Two Nations Under God" by Thomas Friedman:
"Why didn't I feel totally depressed after George H. W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis, or even when George W. Bush defeated Al Gore? Why did I wake up feeling deeply troubled yesterday?
" hat troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.
" At one level this election was about nothing. None of the real problems facing the nation were really discussed. But at another level, without warning, it actually became about everything. Partly that happened because so many Supreme Court seats are at stake, and partly because Mr. Bush's base is pushing so hard to legislate social issues and extend the boundaries of religion that it felt as if we were rewriting the Constitution, not electing a president. I felt as if I registered to vote, but when I showed up the Constitutional Convention broke out.
" My problem with the Christian fundamentalists supporting Mr. Bush is not their spiritual energy or the fact that I am of a different faith. It is the way in which he and they have used that religious energy to promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad. I respect that moral energy, but wish that Democrats could find a way to tap it for different ends."
#4 -- From "O.K., Folks: Back to Work" by Bob Herbert:
"Mr. Bush's victory on Tuesday was not based on his demonstrated competence in office or on a litany of perceived successes. For all the talk about values that we're hearing, the president ran a campaign that appealed above all to voters' fears and prejudices. He didn't say he'd made life better for the average American over the past four years. He didn't say he had transformed the schools, or made college more affordable, or brought jobs to the unemployed or health care to the sick and vulnerable.
"He said, essentially, be very afraid. Be frightened of terrorism, and of those dangerous gay marriages, and of those in this pluralistic society who may have thoughts and beliefs and values that differ from your own.
"As usual, he turned reality upside down. A quintessential American value is tolerance for ideas other than one's own. Tuesday's election was a dismaying sprint toward intolerance, sparked by a smiling president who is a master at appealing to the baser aspects of our natures."
#5 -- From "No Surrender" by Paul Krugman:
"President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.
" Democrats are not going to get the support of people whose votes are motivated, above all, by their opposition to abortion and gay rights (and, in the background, opposition to minority rights). All they will do if they try to cater to intolerance is alienate their own base.
" Democrats mustn't give up the fight. What's at stake isn't just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it."
Don't you get it, you rubes? You and your God and your morality are destroying America.
I'll add another to the above list. From Jane Smiley at Slade.com:
"I grew up in Missouri and most of my family voted for Bush, so I am going to be the one to say it: The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not."
"Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell."
"The reason the Democrats have lost five of the last seven presidential elections is simple: A generation ago, the big capitalists, who have no morals, as we know, decided to make use of the religious right in their class war against the middle class and against the regulations that were protecting those whom they considered to be their rightful prey—workers and consumers. The architects of this strategy knew perfectly well that they were exploiting, among other unsavory qualities, a long American habit of virulent racism, but they did it anyway, and we see the outcome now—Cheney is the capitalist arm and Bush is the religious arm. They know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. Lots of Americans like and admire them because lots of Americans, even those who don't share those same qualities, don't know which end is up. Can the Democrats appeal to such voters? Do they want to?"
The left-wing moonbats have struck again. Somebody decided it would be a good idea to put up a web page full of pouting left-wingers. The idea is for left-wing crybabies to make a sign saying how sorry they are for the election results and photograph themselves with the sign. The photo is then uploaded to the website and published for the world to see. It's a stomp-your-feet, hold your breath until your're blue in the face, throw a temper tantrum moment for most of the folks I saw pictured. I almost fell off my chair laughing! below is a small sample of the photos they offer.
[image]Stephen89702_30559 1507.jpg[/image]
[image]Stephen89702_17197 5238.jpg[/image]
I am not giving the link to this page - if you really want to see the whole collection try searching Google for "crybabies", "whiners", "pouting", "sore losers", "moonbats", etc. You may get lucky!
MSNBC decided to edit their transcript of Brokaw's interview with John Kerry. The original transcript was dated at 6:41 p.m. ET on Oct. 28, 2004. The edited transcript is dated 7:54 p.m. ET on Oct. 31, 2004.
What seems odd about these two transcripts is the way some questions and answers were expanded and/or edited. Enough of the Q & A are the same to indicate they came from the same interview.
Since I was called a "liar" in a comment on part I of this post, I offer both MSNBC versions below, starting with the Oct. 28, 2004 transcript, for your reading pleasure.
START 10/28/04 TRANSCRIPT:
Sen. Kerry: Nation 'is polarized' The challenger on Iraq's missing explosives and Mary Cheney
By Tom Brokaw Anchor & Nightly News Managing Editor NBC News Updated: 6:41 p.m. ET Oct. 28, 2004
After starting his day in Ohio, Sen. Kerry brought his campaign to Madison, Wisconsin and one of the largest crowds of the election: more than 80,000 people.
But "the Boss," Bruce Springsteen, may have had something to do with the turnout. He's been raising money for Kerry at concerts and now — in the final days — he's bringing him on, like a rock star.
In his appearances Friday, Kerry hit hard on Iraq and economic issues. When we sat down for a formal interview, he continued on the same themes — dismissing suggestions that voters still are not enthusiastic about him.
Tom Brokaw: Senator, if things are so wrong in Iraq and in America, why is this election still so close, just the weekend before Election Day?
Sen. John Kerry: Because it's polarized. And because the Bush campaign has mostly run a very negative campaign to push the hot buttons of polarization. So it's very hard. Particularly when you're a nation at war.
Brokaw: A number of people even in your own party, however, say, "look, it's anybody but Bush." They're still not warming to John Kerry.
Kerry: Well, I don't agree with that. Everything in our indicators show differently. The rope lines, the people that I'm meeting around the country. There's an energy out there.
Brokaw: This week you've been very critical of the president because of the missing explosives in Iraq.The fact is, senator, we still don't know what happened to those explosives. How many for sure that were there. Who might have gotten away with them? Is it unfair to the president, just as you believe he's been unfair to you, to blame him for that?
Kerry: No. It's not unfair. Because what we do know, from the commanders on the ground, is that they went there, as they marched to Baghdad. We even read stories today that they broke locks off of the doors, took photographs of materials in there. There were materials. And they left.
Brokaw: The flip side of that is that if you had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Because you...
Kerry: Not necessarily at all.
Brokaw: But you have said you wouldn't go to war against him...
Kerry: That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons.
Brokaw: But he wasn't destroying them...
Kerry: But that's what you have inspectors for. And that's why I voted for the threat of force. Because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were president, he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone. Because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war. But if we did, I'll tell you this, Tom. We'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden. And the entire world would have understood why we were doing it.
Brokaw: Let me ask you about social and domestic issues. Your colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Ted Kennedy, says that he's proud to be a liberal. Are you proud to be a liberal?
Kerry: That depends on what the issue is, Tom. I've always hated labels. And I don't abide by labels. You know, I'm an ex-prosecutor. I've sent people to jail for the rest of their life. I've busted up the number-two organized crime figures' organization in New England. What does that make me? I led the fight to put 100,000 cops on the streets of America. What does that make me?
Brokaw: But you don't deny your liberal credentials.
Kerry: On certain issues, I'm a liberal, Tom. On certain issues I'm a conservative. I'm a fiscal conservative. I believe in balancing the budget. And we worked at it, and we did it in the 1990's. You know, like Franklin Roosevelt said, I really don't care if a good idea is Republican or Democrat. I care whether it works for America. And that's what I'm gonna do as president.
Brokaw: You're very protective of your family, and very proud of them, I know. Do you regret invoking Mary Cheney in your debate with President Bush?
Kerry: No. I…
Brokaw: You don't regret it at all?
Kerry: Tom, it was done with respect, and it was done with pure sense of admiration for Dick and Lynne Cheney, who I think obviously love their daughter and are very proud of their daughter. She's made it a public thing. He's made it a public thing. I could have and should have perhaps mentioned Dick Gephardt, who honors his daughter. And loves her, in the same way.
Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.
Kerry: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from.
Brokaw: Do you think he's a smart man?
Kerry: I do. Yes, I do think he's a smart man.
Brokaw: Do you think too many people in your party underestimate?
Kerry: I think people have always underestimated President Bush. But I'm proud that in those debates, I didn't underestimate him.
Brokaw: Senator, I'm going to see the President over the weekend. Anything you want me to convey to him?
Kerry: Just say hello to him, and we'll chat on Tuesday.
Brokaw: I'll say to him what I'm going to say to you. Good luck.
Kerry: 'America can do better' Senator talks with NBC's Tom Brokaw as election approaches
By Tom Brokaw Anchor & Nightly News Managing Editor Dateline NBC Updated: 7:54 p.m. ET Oct. 31, 2004
Senator John Kerry started his Sunday in Ohio, a state many people believe he must carry Tuesday to be elected President of the United States. His first stop was the Shiloh Baptist Church in Dayton. Saturday, the candidate once again responded to the tape of Osama bin Laden made public on Friday:
Senator John Kerry: "As Americans we are absolutely united, all of us. There are no Democrats and no Republicans, as Americans we are united in our determination to destroy, capture, kill Osama bin Laden and all of the terrorists."
We caught up with Senator Kerry on Thursday as he traveled from Ohio to another critical toss-up state: Wisconsin.
Tom Brokaw: "The conventional wisdom in both parties at the moment is, you’ve got to have two trifectas, you’ve got to win two of the big three, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Florida and you’ve got to win two of the smaller three, Iowa, Minnesota, or Wisconsin. You buy that?"
Senator John Kerry: "Tom, I leave all of that to other people, I really do. I'm campaigning on what makes a difference to the lives of Americans all over the country. And it will sort out Tuesday night. What's important is I think that America can do better than we're doing today. That's what's important."
Brokaw: "What's also important to the American people is the integrity of the election system and there are lots of anticipations of things going wrong, votes not being counted right, people being rejected from the polls in both parties Are you confident that this can be solved on Tuesday or do you think this will have to be settled in the courts?"
Kerry: "Oh, I don't think it's going to be settled in the courts. You know, I've got 10,000 lawyers who are going to be out there in America on Election Day working to protect people's constitutional rights. We're not trying to stop anybody from voting. We want to make sure people vote."
Once we got to Wisconsin, Senator Kerry was greeted by a huge crowd, 80,000 people who turned out to see him and not incidentally rock star Bruce Springsteen.
Brokaw: "Did you ever think you could do as much for Bruce Springsteen's career? I mean think about it."
Kerry: "It's stunning, isn't it?"
Brokaw: "He might be able to make something of himself! Are you at all tempted to get up there in the old Bill Clinton mode and sing along?"
Kerry: "I might play rhythm guitar, but I'm not going to sing. I know my limitations."
A short time later, I sat down with the Democratic nominee for an extended interview.
Brokaw: "In the final analysis, isn't this election really a referendum on terror and Iraq?"
Kerry: "No, not exclusively. No. Not exclusively."
Brokaw: "But primarily?"
Kerry: "No. Americans want to know that I will make the country safe. And I've shown, each step of the way, how I can do a better job than George Bush. For instance, George Bush went to war without the numbers of troops necessary. George Bush rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. He's pushed our allies away from us, and made it more expensive for the American people. Then, you get to the other issues: health care, education, jobs, paying people a decent wage, making America fair again. And I think people will understand, I have a better agenda than George Bush."
Brokaw: "They have been making sport of your comments in The New York Times that you want to reduce terrorism to a nuisance in America. Saying it's not a nuisance, it's a reality and we're involved in a war here. Was that the wrong choice of words on your part?"
Kerry: "Of course we are. Of course we are involved in a war here. And what I was talking about is winning that war.The president is the one who just the other day said in an interview that whether or not we can be safe is up in the air. That's a quote of the president. Well, I don't think it is up in the air. What I was talking about was how you make America safe, so that it doesn't bother us. So that it's not something that's in our lives, tearing at the fabric of our country. I will defeat terror."
Brokaw: "This week you've been very critical of the president because of the missing explosives in Iraq."
Kerry: "Uh-huh."
Brokaw: "The fact is, Senator, we still don't know what happened to those explosives, how many for sure that were there, who might have gotten away with them. Is it unfair to the president, just as you believe he's been unfair to you, to blame him for that?"
Kerry: "No. It's not unfair. The truth is, they were warned about the ammunition dumps. They didn't give the right orders. They didn't secure it. The ammunition is missing. Those are the facts. And it happened on this president's watch."
Brokaw: "The flip side of that is that if you had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Because you—"
Kerry: "Not necessarily at all."
Brokaw: "Well, you have said you wouldn't go to war against him. And he would have his hand on those 350,000 tons, or however—"
Kerry: "No. Tom."
Brokaw: "Three hundred and fifty tons, or however many it is."
Kerry: "No, that's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons."
Brokaw: "But he wasn't destroying them."
Kerry: "And we would, but that's what you have inspectors for. And that's why I voted for the threat of force. Because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were president, he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone. Because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war. But if we did, I'll tell you this, Tom. We'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden, and the entire world understood why we were doing it."
Brokaw: "Are you committed to the idea of elections in Iraq? And if you're president, will you send in more American troops to make sure that they can be done in a secure fashion?"
Kerry: "I don't think we need more American troops. And yes, I am committed to elections. Yes, I am committed to success. No one has talked about cutting and running."
Brokaw: "The president says that liberty is not a gift of the American people, but that liberty is a gift of God almighty to every man and woman. Do you agree with his statement?"
Kerry: "I think everything is a gift from God almighty. Liberty, our life itself. All of the blessings of this country are a gift from God. But that doesn't mean that you can automatically make other people accept what you want them to accept. You have to bring them to the table in a thoughtful way. That's been all of history's truth."
Brokaw: "Let me ask you about social and domestic issues. Your colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Ted Kennedy, says that he's proud to be a liberal. Are you proud to be a liberal?"
Kerry: "That depends on what the issue is, Tom. You know, I'm an ex-prosecutor. I've sent people to jail for the rest of their life. What does that make me? I voted for welfare reform. I believe in the Second Amendment. I'm a hunter."
Brokaw: "But you don't deny your liberal credentials."
Kerry: "On certain issues, I'm a liberal, Tom. On certain issues I'm a conservative. What people need to do is look you in the eye and look you in the gut, and see what you're going to do to make their lives better. We need leadership that unites America."
Brokaw: "What Republican ideas do you like? And would you be willing to try to get moving forward in your Administration, if you're elected?"
Kerry: "Well, you know, I've supported faith-based efforts. I just don't support them the way the president defined them. But I think it's important to have faith-based interventions, whether it's counseling or soup kitchens, or shelters."
Brokaw: "You're very protective of your family, and very proud of them, I know. Do you regret invoking Mary Cheney in your debate with President Bush?"
Kerry: "No."
Brokaw: "You don't regret it at all."
Kerry: "Tom, it was done with respect, and it was done with pure sense of admiration for Dick and Lynne Cheney, who I think obviously love their daughter and are very proud of their daughter. She's made it a public thing. He's made it a public thing. And all I was trying to do was honor the reality that people are who they are."
Brokaw: "Someone has analyzed the president's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do."
Kerry: "That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it."
Brokaw: "Do you think too many people in your party underestimate?"
Kerry: "I think people have always underestimated President Bush. But I'm proud that in those debates, I didn't underestimate him. I like the President. I just disagree with his choices. He chose not to give health care to Americans when he could have. He chose to block people importing drugs from Canada, when he could have done otherwise. He chose to create the biggest deficit in American history, so wealthy Americans could get a tax cut. I disagree with that value system. That, to me, represents the wrong choices for our country."
Brokaw: "Vice President Cheney says it's going to be 52-47 for their ticket. What do you say?"
Kerry: "You know, that's bravado. Here's what I'll say about Tuesday. I hope America comes out and votes in record numbers, because this is the most important election of our lifetime. And I believe America can do better. We can go to work. We can be stronger at home. We can regain our respect in the world. And I hope Americans will give me the chance to make them proud."
"Cupcakes became contraband at Meadowside elementary school (Milford, CT), after Principal Robert Davis banned all celebratory sweets - a move that has made some parents sour. Health officials said Davis adopted a new policy of using games and crafts instead of baked goods to fete birthdays, holidays and special occasions, and praised it as a way to combat childhood obesity. Parent Jack Fowler said no one should dictate what students can bring to school for special events. He said health and school officials have turned into the 'fat police,' in an attempt to rid schools of foods children enjoy."
".(P)ay no attention to the sissy, panty-waist, good government, sanctimonious, upstanding, highly principled, furrow-browed, chin pulling, thoughtful, easily-shocked, commentators, who complain about lying candidates, robo-telephoned slanders, whispering campaigns, stuffed ballot boxes and biased reporting. This is what a muscular, healthy democracy (or a constitutional republic, for you semantic, constitutional purists) looks like when it cares about the outcome of an election.
"This is the kind of election our Founding Fathers and their first-and second-generation sons actually ran from Adams to Lincoln. They accused each other of treason, atheism, sexual misconduct, miscegenation (inter-racial copulation and child-bearing) and whore-mongering. They attacked the wives and children of the candidates. They set up newspapers for the express purpose of lying about their opponents. They wrote nasty anonymous letters.
"They gave whiskey to the voters. They traded offices for votes. They played off class against class, the monied against the poor, the bankers against the farmers. They fought duels, sometimes to the death. They may have written a high-minded Constitution, but they fought elections about the same way that a New Orleans pimp keeps his women in line and fights off his competitors. And they approached the voters about the same way those prostitutes approached their customers."
"The number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada's main immigration Web site has shot up six-fold as Americans flirt with the idea of abandoning their homeland after President Bush's election win this week.
...On an average day some 20,000 people in the United States log onto the Web site, www.cic.gc.ca -- a figure which rocketed to 115,016 on Wednesday. The number of U.S. visits settled down to 65,803 on Thursday, still well above the norm."
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. -- Matthew 11:28-30 (KJV)
I have a bias against lawyers. If you want to discuss the most greedy segment of American society, lawyers have to be at the top of the greed heap. Everything most lawyers do is dictated by how much money it will put in their pocket - the more the better.
Lawyers are becoming power players in American politics. The American Enterprise Online reports "Federal Election Commission data show that many of the very wealthiest political players are now in the Democratic column. Today's most aggressive political donors by far are lawyers--who donated $98 million dollars to 2004 political candidates as of June. (By comparison, the entire oil and gas industry donated $13 million.) And rich lawyers do indeed tilt strongly Democratic [sic]: 71 percent of their contributions went to Democrats, 29 percent to Republicans.
Lawyers have good reason to support democrats. The democrats refuse to consider any common sense tort reform. After all, tort reform might limit fee income, therefore political contributions to the democrats from the lawyers might be limited.
The jury is out on Scott Peterson. What do you think the verdict will be? Guilty or not? First degree or second degree?
My prediction is guilty in the second degree on both counts. It just seems impossible that any other person would have the motive, means, and opportunity. Peterson wanted out of his marriage and did not want the responsibility of being a father. He also did not want to be stuck with child support and alimony for at least 18 years.
As always, the Republicans, who by the way won the election, have to "reach out" to the democrats. The only time you will hear an elected democrat say "bipartisan" is when they lose elections. When the demos win and have majorities in Congress they act as if there is no other party.
Two democrats in the House spoke out yesterday.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California democrat said she will try to work with Mr. Bush, but the president must move toward democratic [sic] positions on Social Security and taxes, and must present a new plan for Iraq.
"I think we're going to have to actually hope that he comes to us and hopefully tries to find some way that we can work on a bipartisan basis on these issues," Mr. Robert Matsui [D-CA] said, "because if, in fact, he continues to do what he did for the last four years, I believe, unfortunately, it's going to be a very, very difficult time, and we have problems that have to be solved."
Mr. Matsui seems to think that the Republicans are too stupid to do anything in Congress without democrat help. Mr. Matsui, where was that "bipartisanship" when your party had control of Congress? Nonexistent, you say?
Pelosi is somewhere left of Cuba's Castro. Pelosi also said "It may be about how we can educate the American people more clearly on the difference between democrats and Republicans." Will she be setting up Vietnam-style re-education camps and force all of us to attend? Is this how democrats "reach out", by forcing re-education on us? Seems to me most people already know the difference between the parties and voted accordingly.
I hear there is about 20,000 lawyers looking for work today. If you need a lawyer they may be ready to deal on legal fees. Call either the Kerry or Bush campaign headquarters for further information.
I'm sitting here laughing at the democrat talking heads on the television. All of them are saying President Bush has to "reach out" to the demos. Why??? So they can bite his hand off?
UPDATE: Why don't the demos ever try to "reach out" to the Republicans? I notice the Republican talking heads never suggest the demos "reach out" to them! The Republicans already know the demos just want to obstruct, whine, and cry.
Window smashed at Alachua County GOP headquarters:
Minutes after a piece of concrete block was thrown through a window at the Alachua County Republican headquarters early this morning, a man was arrested and told officers he was upset about the election.
The incident occured about 3:15 a.m. today at 1212 N. Main Street in the Gainesville Shopping Center, said Sgt. Keith Kameg of the Gainesville Police Department. He said two people were inside the building watching election returns and saw the man walk up and throw the block. The people, Nicholas Biltz, 27, and Katherine Vitale, 19, both of Gainesville, were not injured.
"They gave a very good description of the man, and he was arrested at 200 NW 7th Ave. five minutes after it happened," Kameg said. "Apparently he didn't know anybody was inside." Arrested was Matthew Wade Elliot, 24, of Gainesville.
"After he was arrested, Elliot made a spontaneous statement, 'I did it,'" Kameg said. "He was taken to jail and charged with throwing a deadly missle into an occupied structure, a felony."
The piece of concrete block went through a large window and landed 15 feet inside the building, he said. Damage was estimated at $500.
Kameg said that after he was taken to jail, Elliot "said 'I'm against the establishment,' and then he went on to say he voted for John Kerry and was upset."
President Bush: *** Became the first President to be re-elected while gaining seats in the House and Senate since 1936 and the first Republican President since 1924 to be re-elected while re-electing Republican House and Senate majorities. *** Became the first President to win a majority of the popular vote since 1988. *** Received 57.4 million votes - more than any other candidate in history. He broke President Reagan's 1984 mark of 54.5 million. (96% reporting) ***Increased the popular vote by seven million votes since 2000 - more than twice Clinton's increase from 1992 to 1996. ***Improved his percentage in every state except four (MD, OR, VT and WY). This includes a four percent increase in John Kerry's home state, Massachusetts.
Democrat presidential contender John Forbes Kerry today voted to re-elect George W. Bush, but then requested a new ballot and voted for himself for president.
"I actually did vote for George W. Bush, before I voted against him," said Mr. Kerry. "After I punched my ballot, I remembered that the 'W' stands for 'wrong'. I told the election official at the precinct that I had spoiled my ballot, and she gave me a new one."
Asked if other Americans should vote for him, Mr. Kerry said, "I believe in voting for John Forbes Kerry, but I can't take what is an article faith for me and impose it on people who don't share that faith."
A vote for John Kerry is a vote AGAINST the U.S. military personnel who liberated Iraq -- those Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines -- who are now on the frontline defending our critical national interests in the region against Jihadi terrorists. It is also a vote against those who have already provided the last measure on that front in service to our great nation.
Indeed, there is a direct correlation between Kerry's efforts to politicize dissent against U.S. resolve in the war against terrorism -- specifically on the Iraqi warfront -- and American and Allied causalities on that front. Those forces, including countless Iraqis, are being injured and killed in ever-increasing numbers because of the political discord Kerry and his ilk are fomenting.
If you think there is not a connection between Kerry's campaign rhetoric and U.S. casualties, read on....
Kerry has reduced the war to liberate Iraq to nothing more than political fodder, which has emboldened our Jihadi enemies. As noted recently by Professor Mohammad Amin Bashar at Baghdad's Islamic University, "If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people." To that end, Abu Jalal, an influential Iraqi resistance leader, said last month, "American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together. We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud."
The net effect of Kerry's dissention can certainly be felt in terms of increased numbers of American and Allied casualties. A few weeks ago, John Edwards unwittingly provided the evidence for this very correlation: "We lost more troops in September than we lost in August; lost more in August than we lost in July; lost more in July than we lost in June."
This was, and remains, the unavoidable consequence of Kerry's reckless campaign rhetoric. The blood of those American Patriots (like the blood of his "brothers" in Vietnam, after he used that war as fodder for his 1972 congressional campaign), is on John Kerry's hands.
To be sure, this is the harshest of all condemnations. But it is also the truth.
Now, Osama bin Laden, who planned the 9/11 attack killing 3,000 of our countrymen -- men, women and children -- has emerged from his rat hole, and issued a statement which is, unquestionably, timed to support John Kerry.
In that light, the most challenging question that can be asked on this, the eve of the 2004 Presidential Election, is not so much, "For whom will you vote?" but "With whom will you vote?"
Will you vote with Osama bin Laden, Abu Jalal, Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi? How about Kim Jong-Il, Mohammad Khatami, Moammar al-Ghadafi and Hu Jingtao. All of these tyrants support John Kerry.
or...
Will you vote with America's fighting forces, who, according to a just- published Army Times poll, overwhelmingly support President George W. Bush. In fact, 82 percent of our Armed Forces said they do not want John Kerry as their Commander in Chief.
On Tuesday, SUPPORT OUR TROOPS -- VOTE FOR GEORGE W. BUSH!
By Jim Treacher Monday, November 1, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST Wall Street Journal
10. Do you really think it's a good idea to be Hitler, George? Hitler killed millions of people and his approval ratings are in the toilet. Why can't you be somebody people like? Regis, maybe, or the Prophet Mohammed. Anybody but Hitler! Being Hitler = BAD IDEA.
9. Two words: You. Are. Dumb.
8. When Karl Rove used the remote-control device implanted in your upper back to force you to murder Iraqi babies and American soldiers for oil and/or no reason because Saddam was mean to your dad, plus what about the WMDs you lost after you lied about them even being there in the first place, and then Rove tried to make everybody think your Thanksgiving turkey wasn't plastic by planting fake documents about your military service and forcing Dan Rather to say "Sorry, I guess" on national TV, did you really think we wouldn't figure it out?
7. People might make fun of me. Maybe you're used to it by now, but I'm not.
6. I mean, black hoods? Fa-shion dis-a-a-a-ster. Wasn't Abu Ghraib dreary enough already? (More like Abu Drab!) I would have started a riot--a laugh riot. While pointing at you!
5. How dare you taunt a dying Christopher Reeve with a big brown bottle of stem cells? The man was on his deathbed, you sick monster. Why did you have to hold the spoon right in front of his lips? "C'mon, Chrissy, it's right here. You can do it, bwah! Just another coupla inches. Oooh, yer close. Close!" Shame on you, Dubya.
4. I can't really think of anything for item No. 4, and for that I blame you. (Also the Jews.)
3. Where's Osama? C'mon, Shrub, we all know you've got him in some secret Ashcroft prison and he's running around loose in the world, plus also besides which everybody just saw him live on tape giving the dramatic reading of "Fahrenheit 9/11" that the Halliburton PR department wrote for him to swing the election your way. Well???
2. The Internet.
1. I can no longer afford the premiums on my falling-sky insurance. Adios, chimp!
Mr. Treacher writes at JimTreacher.com. Editor's note: This is a satire of the Angry Left. Please do not take it seriously.
FINAL WORD
OK, because some Democrats truly are dumb as door-knobs, I better fess up. The rotating election day note in the first item was a JOKE. Everybody votes TODAY. Unfortunately, the part about Democrats voting "often" probably isn't a joke. It's fraud. And it will run rampant for the next several hours. Watch for it at a polling location near you.
"Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin says John Kerry has been gaining in the polls every day since Oct. 21, and George Bush has been going down every day. 'That's how God wants it to be,' Harkin told a group of about 25 people at the Benton County Headquarters in Vinton on Thursday afternoon."
"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual—or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country." -- Samuel Adams
But much more is at stake in election law suits. Each and every one of those suits uses up the stock of trust that the American public has in the voting process and the democratic system. Even a suit that is eventually thrown out makes people question, not only the particular election in question, but the overall proceedings of all elections. To copy a recent analogy: frivolous lawsuits are more than a nuisance. We can’t accept them as if they were no more than a nuisance, an unpleasantness that grown-up mature people should just learn to live with. These are the moral equivalent of terrorist attacks, moral terrorist attacks that threaten the heart of our electoral system. Someone who wants to turn the US election system into a banana republic is not innocent. This is a frontal attack on our way of choosing our government.
Democracy is a fragile plant. In the grand historical sweep of things, self-government is rare and delicate. The success of the American experiment depends on people controlling themselves, on not stuffing the ballot boxes, on not being so cynical that they take advantage of every opportunity for vote fraud that they might plausibly get away with.
Filing these frivolous law suits is a serious offense that should be punished. It is similar to counterfeiting money. It uses up the trust in the abstraction called the electoral process, just as counterfeiting uses up confidence in the abstraction of paper money. Both paper money and trust in the electoral process are at the heart of our free society. Frivolous election law suits are no small matter. -- Jennifer Roback Morse
