Regardless of which poll you contemplate, the jury is still out on the presidential election. And, unfortunately, the possibility that we won’t know who will be our 42nd president on election night looms large.
My worst fears are realized with the answer to this question: How many lawyers does it take to scare American voters away from the polls?
The Democrats reportedly have 10,000 lawyers fanning out in all directions, mounting court challenges and preparing to hijack democracy and the will of the people if the two Johns fail to sufficiently pimp their politics at the polls. The Republicans, meanwhile, have a lawyerly contingent as well.
In 2000, following the debacle that was Florida, came the forewarning for 2004 — and, frighteningly, future presidential elections as well. In 2000, lawyers who stand with Republicans and lawyers who stand with Democrats did precisely what they are trained to do: debate. Neither side was as interested in democracy as the elderly voters throughout Florida who complained that their votes weren’t counted, nor the blacks who complained they weren’t allowed to vote. The lawyers just wanted to win — at all costs.
Lessons learned? Hardly.
Here we are, in these waning days of Decision 2004, and the lawyers are at it again, gearing up for their day(s) in court.
Each set of legal accusations will, undoubtedly, scare some voters from the polls. The intent, the lawyers say, is to ensure voting rights and voting laws are upheld. If you believe them, then you are stuck in the past with those who still think Dewey defeated Truman.
If democracy as we now know it doesn’t collapse under the pressure of the lawyers instigating court intervention, then tactics employed by special interests might long endure.
Democrats are accusing Republicans of trying to suppress the votes of racial and ethnic minorities. In fact, as the Oct. 14 Drudge Report said: A 66-page mobilization plan to be issued by the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee urges partisans that: “if no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a ’pre-emptive strike’. ”
It is ironic, to say the least, that jurisdictions already under the thumb of Democrats are employing intimidatating strategies. In New Mexico, where Gov. Bill Richardson was once considered a possible running mate for John Kerry, authorities are considering sending”troubleshooters” to the polls to keep an eye out for “suspicious” activity. Meanwhile, Chicago, the citadel of Big-City America’s Democratic liberalism, officials are beefing up security to protect “election-tracking” computers.
Dirty politics at its worst. Whatever happened to protecting voters from electioneering and protecting democracy from voter fraud?
On their way out, seemingly, are the days of the last half of the last century, when politicians hurled their best ideological shots at their opponents and then let the voters’ chips fall where they may. In those days, candidates appealed directly to certain constituencies, creating cultural jargon (“soccer moms,” for example) and, for the most part, forcing candidates to develop platforms on issues of considerable concern to Americans.
Having been reared in a city where political rhetoric and lies rule inside the Beltway, John Kerry gets my vote — for jive talking. He is a man who, so far as I can tell when watching him on the stump via television, employs his killer lawyerly instinct at every opportunity — even it it means lying to the public about where he stands on any given issue. Abortion? He’s Catholic and believes life begins at conception, but Mr. Kerry believes abortion on demand is the way to go. (Not unlike on-demand TV movies and pay TV?)
John Kerry likes it both ways. A vote for the war, but a vote against supporting our troops. Bragging rights to military service and his several medals, but no details on how he would have fought the Iraq war differently. He even claims to support education reform, then offers nothing in his platform that moves the federal educational bureaucracy in that direction.
John Kerry even says, with a straight face, that he will turn the tide in favor of hard-working Americans by giving them “A Fresh Start.” Too bad no politician of conseqence has challenged him on that slogan.
A man of so little conviction should have been put on a short leash months ago. A man of so little conviction — even when it comes to his Roman Catholic faith — will say anything to get your vote on Nov. 2.
Don’t be afraid or intimidated on Tuesday. If we exercise our civil right, the lawyers will look like fools.
Vote. And remember this: A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.