MuD & PHuD

It appears that the Bush Administration has agreed (see also CNN) (via email from insomnomaniac) to allow Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to monitor our November election.

At this point, I don't quite know what to make of this as I don't feel like I have all the information. The way I see it right now there are at least a three possible explanations:

1) The Bush Admin. might really just be in the process of fulfilling a decade-old commitment to allow this outside 'observation' of our elections,

2) This might be yet another attempt by the President to outflank the Left by (dare I say it) preemptively pulling the rug out from under the Democrats and depriving them of a potential campaign issue,

3) Bush wants to use this group as a means of providing support for whatever actions he deems necessary in the event that some (God Forbid) terrorists action successfully disrupts our elections.

#1, if true, is fine if we are truly under a legal obligation that we can't find a loophole out of.

#2 would be yet another iteration on the old Teddy-K-writes-the-Education-Bill political crap and I whole-heartedly disagree.

#3 is, perhaps, a legitimate purpose for such a group, but only if they can either be properly controlled or if their purposes always (and I mean always) coincide with our own (which, as Alphecca points out, can't possibly be the case).

Regardless, this development seems to carry with it the unacceptable risk of entangling our domestic affairs with international involvement. We are the model by which all other Democratic countries are measured...and I think it's pretty insulting that some people in our very government don't trust that we can ensure fair and honest elections.

Now that you've gotten some of my reaction, here's what Deb had to say:

But I will be damned if I will cast my precious vote for a guy who would allow anyone from France, Germany or Russia to "observe" our election process simply because a bunch of left-wingnuts from the Congress (and only 13 of them at that) demand it.

[...]

I'm going to go sulk, and right after that I'm going to start researching other candidates for President. I am LIVID, and you should be too.

First off, the "other candidates for President" are far worse than our current President.

Secondly, I am going to say something here that I will most likely draw ridicule from both sides of the aisle: I think that if #1 (above) is incorrect, President Bush might just have something up his sleeve. Whether it's something along the lines of #3 (i.e., these people can be controlled and used to our advantage) or something I haven't thought of, it has been my experience that when Bush makes a political move that seems really (or even really) stupid, if I just wait a while it often becomes clear that 1) he was right and 2) he's a way better politician that I would most likely be.

So I suppose the short post would look something like this:

I am disgusted by the prospect that other countries will be allowed to monitor our elections. I think Bush is being an absolute idiot with this move. However, it is entirely possible that I'm wrong and Bush knows what he's doing. In conclusion, I will vote for Bush regardless because to vote for Kerry is to vote against America and all for which She has always stood.

Update:

Here is Rush's take on the whole Kerry'ed up situation:

The key is that taking litigation or doing litigation, taking this kind of action, suing election results, has as its primary objective the de-legitimatization of the winner. It is to de-legitimate the winner of an election regardless the margin. So let's say that candidate A beats candidate B, and let's say it's a Senate race. It doesn't have to be presidential, could be anything. But let's say that Bush beats Kerry in Florida 54-46%. Pretend there's no Nader. But in some counties it's extremely closer than that, so the Democrats send in their lawyers and send in this human rights from Europe and they sue based on fraudulent vote counts or whatever. It's not going to change the outcome of the state and the Electoral Votes but they will be able to de-legitimate the winner by claiming the election was a fraud in these particular counties, and then, if they can get that much done, they can then assume and try to make the case that all the results in a particular state are thus fraudulent, and the whole point is to de-legitimize the winner, ladies and gentlemen, which is exactly what they've done to Bush this whole four years or 3-1/2 years of hate and irrational anger aimed at Bush has been built on the foundation that he's not a legitimate president. That's what they seek to do, I think, with each Republican victory in substantive races from here on out is to de-legitimize whoever wins. That's a direct result of the floodgates being opened by Gore taking these litigation actions after the 2000 election. Just keep a sharp eye on it. See if I'm not right.

|