Neither Bush or Kerry a Possibility?
There has been some interesting speculation about the election recently.
Speaking on Larry King Friday night, Walter Cronkite predicted that we will not know the winner of the election until April due to litigation. I doubt this will be the case as most likely any court battles, to be meaningful, will have to be concluded around the scheduled mandated by the Constitution for the electors to choose the next President. On the other hand, do we dare distrust anything Walter Cronkite has to say?
There have been a number of scenarios published in which the electoral college winds up in a tie and goes to the House. It has been noted recently on some blogs that the Constitution then calls for the House to choose the next President by deciding among the top three candidates in the electoral college. This opens up the possibility of someone besides Kerry or Bush becoming President.
The Republicans would dominate any such vote (assuming they retain control of the House, which appears likely) virtually guaranteeing that a Republican would be chosen. However, many Republicans realize that George Bush is not fit for the job, and has caused considerable harm to the country. They might support Bush in a two way race out of party loyalty, but what if there was another Republican choice? If the race winds up with neither candidate achieving 270 electoral votes, perhaps the Democrats should cast a few votes for a moderate Republican. This would allow the House to still chose a Republican, but one who would be less damaging to the country than George Bush. John McCain's name has been the obvious suggestion here.
Speaking on Larry King Friday night, Walter Cronkite predicted that we will not know the winner of the election until April due to litigation. I doubt this will be the case as most likely any court battles, to be meaningful, will have to be concluded around the scheduled mandated by the Constitution for the electors to choose the next President. On the other hand, do we dare distrust anything Walter Cronkite has to say?
There have been a number of scenarios published in which the electoral college winds up in a tie and goes to the House. It has been noted recently on some blogs that the Constitution then calls for the House to choose the next President by deciding among the top three candidates in the electoral college. This opens up the possibility of someone besides Kerry or Bush becoming President.
The Republicans would dominate any such vote (assuming they retain control of the House, which appears likely) virtually guaranteeing that a Republican would be chosen. However, many Republicans realize that George Bush is not fit for the job, and has caused considerable harm to the country. They might support Bush in a two way race out of party loyalty, but what if there was another Republican choice? If the race winds up with neither candidate achieving 270 electoral votes, perhaps the Democrats should cast a few votes for a moderate Republican. This would allow the House to still chose a Republican, but one who would be less damaging to the country than George Bush. John McCain's name has been the obvious suggestion here.
posted by Ron Chusid at 11:31 PM
5 Comments:
Any one look at the past record of John Kerry in the Senate, there is nothing he has done meaning full for common people. He never been a spoke person for the poor and the oppressed. He never sponsored any bill to support the needs of young people in this country. He enjoyed in the Senate as talker not a doer. Now his supper rich wife want him to be the President so she can get all kinds of attention that she wasn't able to buy with her money.
What Kerry has done for the minority and the poor when he was in the Senate for the last more than 20 years? Nothing he talked too much and did very little. Now he wants to kiss me to get my vote forget man I am not a fool. You and your super rich wife aren't getting my vote.
johnk
More Bush nonsense. Ignore Kerry's actual record, and hope that people won't pay attention to how harmful Bush's policies have been for the young, minorities, the poor, and virtually everyone else. Such absurd lines of attack won't work as the groups mentioned in these two posts are already heavily in support of Kerry.
That the election process is won is a lot more important than how it is won. The Party is wisely putting itself into a position to litigate. If the election is close, but a loss for the Kerry/Edwards ticker, the legal battles can bring the country to its knees. Do the Republicans really want that?
In 1960, the election was very close, with Illinois and Texas bringing the victory to the other JFK. Both states were known for their legendary voter fraud. Nixon could have challenged the outcome and may have won the election. He didn't have the guts. Nixon lost and later explained that he didn't want to divide the country. The Democratic Party is not so weak.
Things are a lot different now than in 1960, so I wouldn't call this a measure of Democrats being stronger than Nixon was.
Compared to 1960, attempts to suppress the vote and other dishonest tactics have become a multi-state strategy with the Republicans, rather than being a more local problem in 1960. If the Republicans are making it a major part of their strategy to deny Democrats their right to vote, there is no choice but to fight this.
While not as blatant as the fraudulent attempts to deny the right to vote, the Republicans should also be condemed for their overall strategy of trying to prevent voters from voting on the issues by their rather elaborate misinformation campaign.
Another reason why it is necessary to pursue all lega channels if this election is stolen is the consequences of this election. Nixon knew that if he lost the country would survive, and he would also have the chance to run again. Considering the degree of harm the Bush administration has caused, including the way in which they have seriously undermined our national security, it is essential to remove Bush from office. Their multiple attempts to undermine the two party system and fair elections raises legitimate concerns as to the future of democracy in this country if Bush is reelected.
Post a Comment
<< Home