THE POLITICS OF PETULANCE

BUSH PLANS TO WIN, BUT THE KERRY KOOL-AID DRINKERS WON'T TAKE LOSING LYING DOWN

We already know that the Democrats have dispatched legions of lawyers to states where they expect the election to be close (most notably, Florida--though they may have gone home for this month to avoid drowning in the wrath of God). We already know that the Democrats didn't believe they lost last time, even after multiple counts of the votes and a thorough explanation of the electoral college system had been made available to them.

So I was wondering what will happen this time, if last time is any indication. It seems likely that a close election will be interpreted again as a "stolen" one. Any state in which the margin is less than five million votes (including Vermont and Rhode Island) will be held in abeyance while the lawyers hash it out. The absentee votes will be complicated and final results won't be available for a time, during which the Democrats will attempt to discover a new form of math that allows them to win without taking the majority of either the electoral college or the popular vote.

Of course, the race card will be flipped out again, with Democratic lawmakers (or are they? Their elections, too, might be in jeopardy) dragging out whatever minority, poor, elderly, handicapped, or freedom-challenged (incarcerated) would-be voters they can find or coach to claim their vote was interfered with. Jesse Jackson, Henry Waxman, Robert Wexler, and other troublemakers from the donkey side of the circus will hold rallies and act victimized. No doubt, there will be plenty of Alzheimer's patients who didn't get to vote for fear that they might be Democrats. Perhaps the party will sue because they aren't allowed to get people drunk and take them to the polls anymore. Who can know what they might do?

What I do know is that all of this is extremely dangerous. Democrats and their lawyer buddies might find the sue-till-you-drop game fun and exciting, but what it does is retard the transition from one administration to the next. It prevents people from getting into position to do the job of running--and protecting--this country.

Wouldn't it have been nice, and generous, and statesmanlike of Al Gore to eschew all that time-wasting lawyering in 2000? How come, being the Vice President and (one assumes) knowledgeable of the immensity of the threat that international terrorism posed to the US, Mr. Gore did not choose to go quietly and let the next president get settled in before something horrible happened? Why did Gore barely mention national security when vying to become our next president? Why did he act like the most terrible threat this nation faced was gas-guzzling SUVs and traffic jams?

He was THERE. He was in the White House. He should have known, as well as President Clinton now claims to have known, how dangerous Osama was. Was he so inconsequential as a Vice President that President Clinton, Sandy Berger, and Geroge Tenet didn't even consider him worthy of finding out about the mayhem going on against American interests all around the world? Doesn't that make you feel better about having Vice President Cheney on the team? We KNOW he knows what's going on. No question. He's on top of it.

But if Gore knew, his oath to preserve, protect and defend this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic, took a backseat to his political ambition--nay, lust--to be president of the United States. Instead of protecting the system, instead of protecting the process, instead of protecting the nation, Gore chose to resist, rebuke, and recount.

Can we expect any less from Mr. Kerry and his team?