Jeb Bush's Florida Republicans claim they mailed those 60,000 ballots (to majority-Democrat neighborhoods) and that they got lost in the mail. Has anyone ever heard of any letter ever getting lost in the mail? I haven't! I'm 56 years old and I've never seen a letter get lost in the U.S. mail. It's common in Mexico, but not here. So somewhere in Florida, some Republican party or government functionary has 60,000 absentee ballots. Last time, Jeb Bush illegally turned away 5,000 black voters from the polls and gave his state's electoral votes to his brother by a 500-vote margin. He's playing it safer this year. Many of those 60,000 voters will still be able to vote, but what do you want to bet those 60,000 ballots wind up in the final vote count with all the Republican candidates' names marked? Theoretically, it may be possible to sort out the illigitimate ballots, given enough time. But it won't be possible before the vote is certified. Yep. Jeb Bush is a politician in the good old American tradition. If you can't win clean, win dirty. It's the American way.
I don't doubt at all that this will be one of the messiest elections ever. People are just simply too divided. This election is almost like a civil war... (here's hoping you're de-bushed on Tuesday). Dave
There was an interesting anology to what is going on today being much like what went on prior to the Civil War. Both parties became so entrenched in their ideology that strife was unavoidable. It was kind of scary. I firmly believe that after this election is over, we all need to stand back and act in a manner that will help the country. I may be very difficult, but it can't go on like this.
Kerry has already made it clear that he will appoint Republicans to his cabinet. The Democrats Bush allows near his administration are fringe Democrats. If anyone wants a semblance of unity after this election, vote Kerry. Ever hear of "Recess appointments?" If congress is on recess, the President can appoint a Supreme court justice without congressional approval. Scenario: Reinquist resigns or dies, the election is in chaos due to being too close to call, Bush appoints someone more fringe than Allen Keyes to the supreme court -- and it would be the CHIEF justice. The court gets even more creative then they did on Dec 12th 2000 and gives the election to Bush. And since GW is ordained by God himself, I think this man just might have no qualms but to do something like this. ("God made me do it") Now that also might unite us, but not like you meant above.
I think you are mistaken about the recess appointments. Apparently there have been long periods when the Supreme Court sat with vacancies. This would not have happened if the president could have appointed someone as soon as Congress was in recess. At worst, such an appointment would be temporary. I also doubt that the election will be too close to call. I think a fraudulent outcome is much more likely than a too-close election. And of course, if the electoral college cannot decide, then it simply goes to the House, where, presumably, the vote would be along party lines. The Republicans already have a large machine geared up to challenge likely Democratic voters' right to vote at the polls. If you plan on voting, bring your ID with you, and if you look Hispanic, bring your passport or your birth certificate, to prove you are a citizen. Here's a joke: Because I'm on the campaign committee of a candidate for state senate, I'm going to be the official Democrat election observer at my precinct for two hours on election day. (I'm involved at the local level. It's national and state-wide where I regard the whole system as farcical.)
Didn't Bush do this last year to push through some Appellate court nominees that were being filibustered in the Senate? I don't know if this could happen for the Supreme Court, however. In any event, the new person would not automatically become Chief Justice I don't think. Wouldn't that go to someone with more seniority on the court? I'm just surmising here....anyone with the knowledge step in at any time
Me! Some years ago my wife got a birthday card from her aunt. It arrived, as usual, a couple of days before her birthday. A few days after her birthday, she got another, from the same aunt. It seemed really odd since her aunt wasn't senile. It was postmarked a year earlier! Must have fallen behind some desk somewhere. Of course that is ONE, not 60,000. You'ld have to drop an entire truck in the ocean to lose that many.
Oh, I've had stuff lost in the mail, one was a phone bill payment. However, 60,000 parcels getting lost all at once........... not hardly, since we haven't heard of any USPS planes crashing, or vehicles burning.
Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court as a recess appointment. September 30th 1953. You might remember him. He was a justice who forced our government to actually pay attention to the constitution, something conservatives refer to as "an activist judge".
well you could do what one district here in WA did with their absentee ballots. that was to put the address of the ballot box on the delivery address. so they were sent out and received back 2 days later. that is what happened during the primaries. it only caused a district to get their absentee ballots a little late.
No. When the Chief Justice retires or dies, the president appoints a new chief justice (with the "advice and consent" of the Senate). The president can promote a sitting justice to the post and appoint a new justice, or the president can appoint a new chief justice who has never been on the court. He can even appoint a non-lawyer to the post if he likes, though ratification by the Senate would likely be harder to get. Seniority on the court plays no part. To contradict a previous post (or several) of my own, the selection of Supreme Court justices is one area in which there are real differences between Bush and Kerry. Bush would certainly appoint reactionary fanatical "Christian"* idealogues. Kerry would give more weight to judicial competence, though you can bet that his nominees would not be left of the political center. * I put "Christian" in quotes because a real Christian would never tell anyone else how they should behave unless asked; a real Christian would never try to justify killing children to "make our country safe;" and a real Christian would not even participate in worldly politics, since the second most fundamental tenet of Christianity is that nothing in this world matters; only the next world matters.
Daniel, I disagree about what matters in this world versus the next world vis-a vis Christianity. Ever hear of the Protestant work ethic? One of the reasons work is so valued is because how you succeed in this life affects the next one. It you became rich it was because God was looking down on you and rewarding you for your output, and this most especially included the King and his nobles --the politics of the day. It's a lot more complicated than this, but this work ethic led in many ways to the development of western capitalism. Historically, Catholics tended not to embrace this "Protestant" work ethic. Thus, to this very day, Catholics are under represented in the highest levels of industry and government, when compared to their make up of the overall population. So I would say your assessment of how a true Christian does not care about wordly matters is not quite true. Of course, this difference may hinge more on the definition of the word "true". What Christ meant for his flock and what current and past church leaders have perverted it into, are surely quite different. I've long felt that if Jesus came down today he would surely rid his church of the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons. And there is no doubt in my mind he would be appalled at GW Bush's manipulation and perversion of His teachings.
Daniel I think I need to retract my last post. I realized later that I mistook "true Christian" with the pervasive model of christianity that exists today. You were comparing one to the other and I mixed them up. The question then becomes what would Christ want us to do or to be. "It is easier for a rich man to fit through the eye of a needle then to enter heaven." Conversely, Christ was not an anarchist and understood the need for government and civil laws. So I would suspect that Christ would approve of involvement in worldy affairs, but he would demand that society do something profound for "the least among us". And in 2004, at least in the USA, our "society" is codified into our Government. WE are the government and the government is us. So when government is imposed upon you, Jesus would indeed advocate to stay out of it. But in the USA, WE are the government. And by that I mean we the people and not we the corporations. (To paraphrase FDR, good government social policy is not just a moral imperative, it also makes good economic sense. I think the American 20th century proved this.) From my understanding of religion (14 years of Catholic school), I think it is quite clear that Christ would be a liberal today. Paul Wellstone and Barney Frank are probably two idealogies that come to mind as being the closest to true Christianity, as taught by Jesus and not bastardized by the religious right wing of today.
Do you realize that you cited two Jews as men whose ideologies are closest to true Christianity in your mind?
I don't pay much attention to religion. I really don't notice. And I still feel that their idealogies are more in keeping with the teachings of Jesus than Bush and company. I can't think of a gentile to mention that is not a lightening rod that would obscure my point. How about if I say that Perle and Wolfowiitz are downright evil? Does that add fairness? For years I've been saying that if Frank wasn't gay, fat and funny looking, and didn't have a lisp, he'd be President in a flash. He's brilliant , charming and funny and he has his heart in the right place.
Jesus was not only an anarchist, but he was a communist as well. And our country is about as democratic as Lybia. The super-rich give us two picked men to choose from, and we get to vote. Once in a while, they actually put the man we voted for into office. Dissident voices are systematically excluded, and even information about alternative candidates and methods is highly supressed. G.B. Shaw said that the only thing wrong with Christianity is that it has never been tried. Paul turned everything Jesus said upside down, and people have been following Paul ever since. (Lenin and Stalin did the same thing to Marx, by the way.) Both Jesus and Marx advocated a system where people would share everything, voluntarily, and without coercion. Jesus's Kingdom of God was a world without government; and Marx's "whithering away of the state" was a process whereby government would gradually cease to exist. Communism, like Christianity, has never been tried. But in the final analysis, they are the same thing, if you leave out the stuff about God.
