Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Foundation for the legal challenge in the 2004 election is being laid....let's see why:

Posted on 03/08/2004 2:48:10 PM PST by TexasRainmaker

John Kerry is determined not to lose Florida's 27 electoral votes in a swamp of recounts and recriminations this fall, vowing to mount an early legal challenge in any district that might repeat the problems that bedeviled Democratic supporters in 2000. source

Let's not forget an attempt by Kerry's party to disenfranchise many American military men and women in 2000.

"Democrats lose bid to throw out 25,000 absentee ballots in Florida election - Saying that the sanctity of the election was left intact despite "irregularities" with the way ballot applications were handled, two Florida judges on Friday refused to throw out 25,000 absentee ballots in Seminole and Martin counties." href="http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/08/absentee.ballots.ruling.pol/">source

Why does this mean anything? Maybe a former democrat can say it best:

Wall Street Journal November 20, 2000

How Democrats Wage Political War By Cleta Mitchell, a Washington attorney who has previously served as a Democratic member of the Oklahoma legislature.

In case you're bewildered by the machinations of the Gore campaign-turned-law-firm, let there be no doubt that the goings on in Florida are perfectly in keeping with the way Democrats normally think and behave. Lawsuits are a key part of the Democrats' political strategy, so nothing about Florida should surprise anyone who has spent time in the Democratic Party.

Until 1995, I was a Democrat. I've been a Democrat elected official, a party official and an active party member, so I know how Democrats think.

Democrats know and internalize, understand and are motivated by, certain ideas, concepts and principles that seem to be foreign to Republicans. And Democrats are elated that Republicans don't know or function under the same ideas. These basic rules of Democratic thinking are at work in Florida. This primer should help explain what makes the Democrats tick.

Rule 1: If we don't win, we don't eat.

The fundamental motivation for Democrats is their understanding that winning control of government is tied to paychecks, jobs, government grants, public money for private groups and companies, government contracts, union bargaining advantages, rules by which trial lawyers bring lawsuits, and on and on. The use of government to feed friends and starve enemies is something Democrats know instinctively. Winning elections means getting or keeping a livelihood.

Say what you will about trial lawyers, but remember this: They only get paid if their clients win. Extending that principle to politics means that various Democratic constituencies are convinced that a Democratic victory means food on the table.

Rule 2: State courts are "home" to Democrats.

There is a reason why, of the more than two dozen lawsuits filed in Florida by various Democrats, virtually all have been filed in state courts.

Democrats are at home in the state courts. It is where the judges are elected, often on partisan ballots. And the trial lawyers are the most ardent in overseeing who fills and keeps judicial positions.

Trial lawyers normally hate federal court, where rules are more strict and standards much higher, and where attorneys can be, and often are, sanctioned for filing frivolous lawsuits.

Against the backdrop of the myriad state lawsuits filed by Democrats in Florida, and the call by the Gore campaign for even more trial lawyers to come and assist in the litigation battles there, the Bush campaign filed one legal action. It was filed in federal court as a challenge to the constitutional validity of the manual recount procedures in Florida and the absence in the statute of any objective standards for such recounts. The evidence to support the sole Republican lawsuit has unfolded on our television screens during the manual recounts conducted to date.

State courts are often a blank page to be filled in by the most clever manipulator in the courtroom. (No wonder the Democrats have brought in super-litigator David Boies.) Only a state court judge would have entertained, much less Ruled on, a lawsuit like the one filed by the Palm Beach Democratic Party, which argued that incomplete ("dimpled") Ballots should nonetheless be counted. And that's just one example of the kinds of cases the Democrats have filed.

Republicans depart from their customary arguments in favor of federalism, decentralization of government power and devolution of authority to the states when civil justice system and lawsuit reform are at issue. Then, the parties switch sides and it is Republicans who prefer federal courts and uniform national standards and Democrats who fight vigorously to protect their state court fiefdoms. This may seem inconsistent -- but it isn't, when one understands the hometown advantage of the Democrats and trial lawyers in state courts. Remember Rule #1.

Rule 3, the "golden rule": He who makes the rules wins the gold.

The post-election fight in Florida is the best evidence in my lifetime of the absolute supremacy of the rules-as-gold principle. Democrats understand impressively well that the rules, the regulations, the procedures and the processes will almost always dictate the outcome. In a nutshell, rules provide victories -- or defeats. Because the statutory process in Florida did not provide the result the Democrats wanted, they knew it was imperative to change the rules after the election.

When I was first elected to the Oklahoma legislature, a veteran Democrat member told me to learn the rules. He told me, "If you know the rules better than your opponent, you can beat him every time." He was right. I also learned that writing and rewriting the rules is as important as understanding them.

The legal wrangling this week in Florida is neither about "technicalities," nor about "fairness." It is about winning. See Rule #1. Changing the rules is why the Gore campaign dispatched lawyers and organizers to Florida in the early morning hours of election night -- because the rules had to be rewritten under public pressure, either through executive or judicial decisions, in order for Al Gore to prevail.

Changing the rules required a massive public relations effort by the Gore campaign to discredit the rules and procedures under which elections are normally conducted in the state of Florida. Changing the rules was the objective in the Gore campaign's vilification of Katherine Harris, the Republican secretary of state, for enforcing the existing laws and rules.

Any Republican who misses the 4 lessons the Democrats are teaching us on national TV these past two weeks is terribly naive. If, as a result of all this, Republicans don't commit themselves to learning and practicing the art of political war, as well as its natural extension in the courtroom, there may not be much of a GOP to kick around anymore in the future.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; kerry

1 posted on 03/08/2004 2:48:11 PM PST by TexasRainmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TexasRainmaker; NormsRevenge; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Avoiding_Sulla; Roscoe; Dog Gone; SierraWasp; ...
I've heard this guy before. He is right on.

The people of California, those who are not already suckling off the system, need to read this and take it to heart. This is political war. Nothing less than starving them out of their jobs and out of State will save us from these bloodsucking freaks.
2 posted on 03/08/2004 3:00:57 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
We took the state of Texas back from the Democrats, and California can, too. It's not easy. Some will argue that it's impossible.

This article is spot on. Control the courts and you control the political process.

3 posted on 03/08/2004 3:10:14 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TexasRainmaker
Perfect.
4 posted on 03/08/2004 3:11:09 PM PST by MegaSilver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRainmaker
"Foundation for the legal challenge in the 2004 election is being laid..."

Sure sign Bill Clinton is running again.
5 posted on 03/08/2004 3:11:31 PM PST by Buck W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRainmaker
learning and practicing the art of political war

It seems many of the Pubbie Senators will never "get it" even after the Dim's rub there nose in their crap.

You can only play fair with reasonable people. Like Saddam you must dig them out of their rat holes.

6 posted on 03/08/2004 3:16:00 PM PST by TUX (Domino effect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
It took more than 30 years (starting with Congressman Bush) for Texas to move to the Republicans.
7 posted on 03/08/2004 3:20:15 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Yeah, but what about Bush.

Is he 'conservative' enough?

For example, was the tax break sufficiently big.

I am having serious reservations, and am considering voting for Kerry.

/end of hysterical laughter and sarcastic slight at moronic McNaders who would let these thugs back in
8 posted on 03/08/2004 3:24:16 PM PST by Enduring Freedom (To smash the ugly face of Socialism is our mission.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TexasRainmaker
What happens if this next election gets tied up in the courts.....for a long time? Doesn't the currently sitting president continue in office until a new president has been selected? As Bush is just in his first term, the constitutional amendment against more than two terms would not preclude him serving while the courts sort things out. That is different from the situation with Bill Clinton.
9 posted on 03/08/2004 3:26:29 PM PST by LOC1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enduring Freedom
Yes, it's important to send a message to a politician who gets it right 95% of the time or so, by either staying home or even voting for the candidate who will get it right less than 10% of the time.

Demand perfection! Nothing less will suffice.

10 posted on 03/08/2004 3:42:59 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TexasRainmaker
Democrats and lawyers - peas in a pod.
11 posted on 03/08/2004 4:12:31 PM PST by RightthinkinAmerican (You can have my gun when I'm done shooting your cold, dead body with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRainmaker
To summarize:

1. If they don't win, they don't eat

2. They are at "home" in state courts

3. He who makes the rules wins the gold

12 posted on 03/08/2004 4:20:27 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Thanks for the flag. Good read.
13 posted on 03/08/2004 4:39:36 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Um, I did flag some gang flaggers. Isn't it worth even the "short list"?
14 posted on 03/08/2004 6:34:24 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
color me confused. lol
15 posted on 03/08/2004 6:50:01 PM PST by TexasRainmaker (God only created a few politically perfect people. The rest He called democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; adversarial; Alylonee; AmericanHombre; BibChr; blaze; BornOnTheFourth; budwiesest; ...
Isn't it worth even the "short list"?

It is worth all of them.

16 posted on 03/08/2004 6:56:48 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TexasRainmaker
Headline should instead read, "Democrats lay groundwork to steal the 2004 election"
17 posted on 03/08/2004 9:01:06 PM PST by My2Cents ("Well...there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRainmaker
BTTT
18 posted on 03/08/2004 9:04:29 PM PST by Fiddlstix (This Space Available for Rent or Lease by the Day, Week, or Month. Reasonable Rates. Inquire within.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRainmaker
bttt
19 posted on 03/08/2004 9:26:06 PM PST by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
BTTT!!!!!!
20 posted on 03/09/2004 3:07:58 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson