It looks like the Bush administration has actually done something I agree with. The administration has invited the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to monitor the 2004 presidential elections.
Provided they do their job, I’ll be a lot more willing to accept the results of the election if the OSCE says everything went smoothly. The 2000 elections I still have deep issues with. Not that I think that Gore should be in office. However, I do think that the moment the courts had to get involved, the instant the question was raised about voting accuracy in an election that was so close, I think any decision rendered would have been tainted. I really think we should have had another election, with a more clear procedure for recounting. Yes, it would have been expensive, but can we put a price tag on proving that we are in for a penny, in for a pound with this democracy business?
What does irk me, however, is that some lawmakers (guess which party affiliation) actually objected to having observers:
The issue was hotly debated in the House, and Republicans got an amendment to a foreign aid bill that barred federal funds from being used for the United Nations to monitor U.S. elections, The Associated Press reported.
Exactly why would anyone object to this? What do we have to hide here? After all, they’re going to be here to ensure a fair and orderly electoral process, and that’s what we all want… right? [/innocence]
Haha, as long as there’s no talk of a recount by November, I’ll be happy.
This is one Conservative that’s thinking Kerry’s looking more appealing than Bush each day.
And as long as we don’t get a large shipment of morons, I’m almost certain that Nader’s just going to be background color.
I just find it really scary that:
1. So many people seem to like Bush in office, or at the very least don’t care enough to remove him, and
2. That this seems to extend to the Democratic Party. They waited SO LONG to position Kerry as a contender, almost as if they planned on throwing this election. And now Kerry has a lot of catching up to do. I still have to say that I don’t know enough about Kerry to vote for him comfortably, yet I probably will because I don’t think we can survive another 4 years of Bush. And this is because I’m a liberal; I think conservatives should be scared too.
As for Nader, no one but the morons think he’ll really ever be elected, but he’s a good test of character for the Democrats; if Kerry loses and the DNC uses Nader as their scapegoat, then it’s a sign that there really needs to be another party established so take the liberal front, and the DNC has had its day. It’s not Nader’s fault that Gore had such a dismal showing and couldn’t command a solid majority; it was Gore’s fault. It wasn’t Nader who “stole” votes from Gore and made him lose; it was Gore who lost the votes to Nader.