Replies

I am not going to dispute your post point by point. However, the example of a local election and using our courts was excellent. That is the American way.

I glanced back at a thread regarding the Democrats call for UN observers and the outrage felt by Republicans and conservatives on this site. There were over 200 hits denouncing this.

Now, since GW Bush has called them foreign observers is it OK? Go to the UN website and click on human rights then search for ODIHR or OCSE. Both of theses organizations are UN organizations. Bush just didn't go to the main body of the UN. He went to the organizations of the UN that specialize in elections. It is still the UN.

Did you scream in 2002? Have we lost sovereignty since 2002 because we had foreign election observers? If 200 people make a fuss, are they all correct, always, on everything?

Just what sort of betrayal, in concrete terms, happened because we had foreign observers in 2002? What sort of betrayal, in concrete terms, is going to happen in November because we had foreign observers?

Some people have a hot button called the UN. I don't like them, much, but they exist even if they have been somewhat hijacked by our enemies. BUT: 2 of the 5 SC seats are the USA and the UK. Our two nations are the bulk of the real military force available to the UN or to nations who need military intervention. Russia needs us as a market. China also needs us as a market. Neither Russia nor China is going to challenge us militarily as they cannot afford it monetarily and would lose militarily. France cannot do more than posture and obstruct, sorta like the Donks. The USA alone contributes 25% +/- of the UN budget.If we are not members and do not hold onto our major position there, they will then be a unified front against us and one where we have no leverage. We withheld funds from UN organizations that funded abortions, as an example; this is another major issue for many people. We also refused to give the UN an interest-free loan for their needed renovations.

The UN is sort of like politics in general: it is war by other means, in the case of the UN, by diplomatic means.It is a way of keeping our enemies closer.

So far as I can tell over the past 59 years (and I am old enough to have observed most of that time period), the UN hasn't harmed the USA. They may have plots and plans and they are a huge bureaucracy seemingly bent on taking over the world, but they cannot. They lack the money. They lack the military force. They lack the unity among themselves. They lack any real reason to even try. They posture and they obstruct and sometimes they steal. That's about it. They can give us diplomatic cover when we need to act militarily. They provide a neutral forum where nations can work to avoid all out hot war.

Bush took a grandstanding issue from the Black Caucus and just repeated what was done in 2002. In 2002, we had less fraud than previous years and Republicans won huge, everywhere, up and down the ticket. This is one more way to prevent an outcry from the Donks about stolen elections and disenfranchised voters.The Donks are less inclined to steal an election if their revered foreign friends are watching.

I really wish everyone who has the answers would just run for office. Even run for school board or a neighborhood council. See how it works. Try and keep everyone happy. Balance priorities, serve constituents, deal w/dirty tricks and above all: first win the damned election. Then come back and tell a man who has won 3 tough races with the same campaign staff how it is done.

Bush ran the huge state of Texas and did a good enough job that he was the first Governor elected to a second term and at that point, it was not a Republican state. He has had 4 stressful years as President and has dealt with the world continuously in that time. He has done all right, IMO. The rest of the world has lied, cheated, thrown mud, stabbed us in the back, obstructed and wished us ill. We prevailed and it is to Bush's credit. I will trust his judgement on the foreign election observers. YMMV.