Things only a democrat will say with a straight fa

Posted: Dec 02, 2000 12:00 AM
If you have any doubt that Al Gore's selfless pleas for "democracy" are part of his scheme to steal the election, consider this: In one of Gore's many pending lawsuits against the Florida election results, he asked the court to declare him the winner on the grounds that there are still thousands of votes to be counted. That's funny. If these ballots haven't been "counted" yet, how does he know he's the winner?

As we know from the chads littering the floors of the "counting" areas, these late-breaking votes are not only being "counted" three weeks after the election, they are also being cast three weeks after the election.

In the category of "Things Only a Democrat Would Say With a Straight Face," a Democrat woman on CNBC explained that some voters meant to vote but didn't actually punch the ballot (undoubtedly for Gore) because -- I quote -- they were "afraid to hurt the machine."

Unpunched ballots are a gold mine for Democrats. Through pure cheek and brazenness, they can turn uncast votes into votes for Gore. Total subjectivity -- like counting earwax on a punch card ballot -- is a Democrat's friend. We've entered the Alice-in-Wonderland realm of polls and spin and lies. Facts prohibited. This is the liberals' playing field. Truth doesn't matter, honor doesn't matter, fairness doesn't matter, logical consistency doesn't matter. Once Democrats are freed from the tyranny of objectivity, they are liberated to lie and cheat and steal.

They want the census to be determined by "sampling" rather than an "actual enumeration," as the Constitution specifies. They want SAT scores dropped as a criterion for college admissions -- in deference to subjective evaluations. They want criminals punished not merely for the objective act of, say, committing a murder, but also on the basis of a subjective determination of whether the murder was committed out of "hate" (as opposed to, presumably, all those crimes being committed out of love).

They promote the concept of a "living" Constitution unbounded by the objective and determinant words in the document. They prefer spin to hard facts. They want polls to determine constitutional questions like impeachment. In fact, they prefer polls to elections. (Those dazzling Florida exit polls should give you some idea why.)

It was bad enough having to suffer through six months of polls purporting to demonstrate that 20 million voters were swinging back and forth wildly each week from Bush to Gore, back to Bush, and on and on. Finally -- finally! -- we took the only poll that really counts: A focus group of 100 million Americans choosing a president, insulated from Democrat harangues by the privacy of a secret ballot. Gore lost but refused to concede ... and now we're right back to hearing who the polls say should be president.

Gore deployed his lawyer David Boies -- who is fast becoming the William Ginsberg of the election -- to argue that the unambiguous seven-day deadline for election returns imposed by Florida law is optional. Just a suggestion. Nonbinding thoughts tossed out by the legislature.

In short order the media took up the cudgel: Who's to say? There are arguments on both sides. Democrats and Republicans are both just playing politics. The New York Times spoke of the Republicans' "contention" that the seven-day deadline was meant to indicate a seven-day deadline. Unambiguous statements of the law are now called mere "contentions." And for the final patina of legitimacy for a crackpot argument, the Florida kangaroo court "interpreted" seven days, as written in the law, to mean 19 days.

That really happened.

Indeed, only a Democrat could come up with Gore's brazenly illogical litigation posture. It is utterly incoherent, but coherence is irrelevant. Only spin matters.

Gore and his partisans insist on manual recounts (in only three heavily Democratic counties in a single state -- so that "every vote" will count!) They denounce the "butterfly" ballot as biased and borderline sadistic. They claim Democrat voters were intimidated from approaching the polls. (Evidently, Gore voters could be easily spotted on account of their tendency to follow traffic laws as well as they follow voting rules.)

Are you still with me? OK, how is it that a manual recount will remedy the problem of the "butterfly" ballot? How can it compensate people who claim they voted for the wrong guy by mistake (whoops! slipped!)? How will it rectify alleged voter intimidation? (And if humans are better than machines, what accounts for the runaway popularity of ATMs?)

If the whole point of this little exercise in "democracy" is to impair President Bush's legitimacy, winning will take care of that. Al Gore and his Democrat cult followers understand that, which is why they will say anything, do anything, to win.