United Nations WILL monitor Presidential election

[Hawk]

I'm no expert on the ramifications of everything that's been brought up, but I do feel the indignation that filled my sails at the start of this thread slowing leaving me, perhaps only to be replaced by cynicism and a certain grudging respect for the state departments "people skills".

Ms. Johnson was nice enough to post a graphic of the letter she recieved from the state department acquiescing to her demands here.

Well, we ARE already on the
calender. Said calendar looks to include everybody and their brother.

Based on the pdf file linked from this page , specifically paragraph 11.1, page 24, the invitiation is implicit as part of the agreement.

So, we've got a Dem with her knickers in a twist, writing the Secy Gen of the UN requesting inspections. Said dem gets a letter back from a DoS functionary stating that someone, not the UN, will be sending observers, just like they do to every signatory of the agreement, just like they did back when she didn't think to ask.

The Dems holler for one thing, get something totally different (and by all appearances, quite routine) and claim a victory. Can't even holler about stolen elections now should W prevail. Mr. Kelly deserves a raise. Betcha when his kids hollered for candy bars he could give 'em granola and send 'em to bed happy.

I'll defer to the more politically astute as to any real danger associated with our signup onto the OSCE.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Otherwise, a spokesman said, it could be considered"intervention in a country's sovereignty."

So even the U.N. considers it intervention. Which you say it is not. Tell ya what, JPL. Go talk to some WWII veterans. Ask them their opinion of "inviting" U.N. "monitors" to "oversee" U.S. elections. Not that it will change your mind, as you've already boxed yourself into an indefensible position.

 

[Matt G]

.... Oh yeah, let's have mob rule. That's real smart

Um,no. We're not talking about the "mob" (you, me, and our fellow voters!) "ruling." We're tallking about the nation's votes actually meaning what they're supposed to mean. This is NOT a Democracy; it is a Republic. The people of this nation do NOT vote on every decision; they elect representatives to make those decisions for them. As such, the only chance for the people to make their decisions count is on Election Day, when they vote for the candidate of their choice. Oh, I agree-- there's a passle of really odd people out there with really odd ideas, who somehow have managed to obtain voter registration cards! [ ] But if you don't let their vote count, you don't have a real Republic. So what have you got? No Democracy. No real Republic. Just a sham. Not good for public confidence in their government.

Presidents don't win on popular votes. Get over it. Anyone who thinks the Electoral College or one district/one vote should be abolished did not pay attention to the civics lesson during the last election. Proposing abolition of the EC could only come from a Democrat or one not accepting our republican form of government. Gore lost. Bush is legitimate, no apologies.

You misconstrue my motives. As I mention above, I'm all in favor of a republican form of government. FWIW, I've been a registered Republican since I was 18, and I'm hard approaching 33 years of age, now. I don't think Bush lost, nor that he "stole" the election. I think he won it, playing by the rules set out at the time. I also happen to think that the rules are kind of dumb. Why create a situation where we have an elected president who received few votes than his opponent? Funny thing is, I've been a critic of the E.C. for a long time, and this last election, though it went the way I wanted it to go, confirmed my distaste for it. Frankly, I think that Bush likely could have won it, had he been campaigning for popular votes over E.C. votes.

But the problem is one of perception of legitemacy.

The tyranny of the majority...oh yeah, that's what we need...let CA, NY, NJ, and Chicago decide. The FF had it all wrong.

Scary, isn't it? Only thing scarier is the thought of a minority selected by others making the decision for you.

 

[JPL]

"Go talk to some WWII veterans. Ask them their opinion of "inviting" U.N. "monitors" to "oversee" U.S. elections."

With all due respect, perhaps you should ask someone to teach you to read.

I explained how this is NOT the United Nations sending observers, and posted the quote from the UN rep, and yet you come back with this...

"inviting UN monitors..."

No where, and I mean no where, has anyone in the tin foil crowd been able to explain why this is such a huge and monumental threat when it clearly isn't.

We simply get hyperbole and jingoism and absolutely meaningless appeals to emotion like "Go talk to some WW II veterans."

Obviously, the unfounded implication is that WW II veterans, having fought the last righteous war, are somehow going to be standard bearers for "keep everyone out of America no matter what," and will be VERY vocal about it.

So, I decided to take your advice, and talk to a World War II veteran -- Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii, ranking Senator, recipient of the Medal of Honor and other decorations for valor, and missing an arm due to wounds suffered in combat.

I actually spoke with his public affairs liaison, as I don't have traction to get through to the good Senator himself.

He's a WW II veteran, which by your standard should make him VERY opposed to inviting in elections monitors.

But, then again, he's a Democrat, so if he's a Democrat, he must be jumping for joy, fully supporting this alleged destruction of American rights.

But, as a WW II combat veteran, he fought against destruction of American rights, even though he and his family were actually stripped of their Constitutional rights as Americans during the war because they were Japanese Americans.

But what is the REAL story?

Per the press liaison, Senator, Democrat, and highly decorated WW II veteran Inouye position on this matter is that...

He currently has no position.


Another decorated and wounded WW II veteran, Republican Senator Bob Dole?

He chairs an OSCE panel.




Look, RileyMC, you seem to be a generally fairly level headed person, so you should recognize that speaking in sweeping generalizations tinged with undefined fear and "supported" by appeals to emotion, as opposed to rational examination of fact sets and objective identification of issues, isn't any way to carry out a debate.

It's widely decried when the Democrats try to do it regarding firearms, and it should be as widely decried when Republicans do it.

Claiming it's "FOR THE WORLD WAR II VETERANS" is just as ingenuous as the anti-gunners yelling "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!"

 

[Thumper]

This particular Veteran has serious reservations about allowing foreign interference of any kind.

Why set a precedent of having any sort of outside "observers?"

From Webster's:

Main Entry: monitor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): mon·i·tored; mon·i·tor·ing /'mä-n&-t(&-)ri[ng]/

: to watch, keep track of, or check usually for a special purpose

You argue that they have no authority? If the monitors have no authority, then what is the purpose of monitoring?

They can certainly, at the least, discredit our election process, correct?

In fact, that's all they could do, I suppose. Hmmm...

JPL, You've stated that you don't care either way, but your arguments seem quite vociferous (read: emotional) for someone who doesn't have a dog in the fight.

Try to keep the snide comments about a particular member's capacity to read (or painting your opponents as unreasonably fearful or blindly paranoid) and try to argue your points.

Why are you so interested in defending the actions of the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe?

(Forgive me for writing it out; I just love the irony inherent in the name)

 

[ctdonath]

My question remains unanswered: what are they going to observe?

If they can't get within 100' of polling sites, what and how will they observe?
How many will do the observing? how does that relate to the number of polling sites?
If they have no ability whatsoever to influence the process, why and what are they bothering to observe?

At the request of a dozen whiny Dems and a on-the-edge cabinet member, a few dozen non-US-citizens are going to fly around the world - spending many thousands of $$$ - to come stare at the outsides of buildings in which people may vote. WHY? Something just ain't adding up here.

 

[R.H. Lee]

From the article:

Assistant Secretary of State Paul V. Kelly, who handles legislative affairs for the department, affirmed the invitation this week in a letter to the 13 House members. They had requested U.N. monitors for this year's elections in an effort to avoid the charges of voting irregularities that plagued the 2000 election, the closest in history.

So we are incapable of conducting our own elections. We need oversight from some Europeons sent by the U.N. to ensure there are no voting irregularities and you don't have a problem with that? You're in a minority then, JPL. A small, albeit shrill, minority.

Nice try with Inouye, but next time find a WWII vet who hasn't based his entire career on victimhood from his service and ethnicity. Many vets lost limbs; many lost their lives. Not many became wealthy from "public service" as a result.

 

[flatrock]

They can certainly, at the least, discredit our election process, correct?

You mean more than our own legislators discrediting it for political gain?

You mean more than "civil rights" groups discrediting it?

The people who are attacking the credibility of the US elections aren't concerned with the truth, and will find a source for their claims of irregularities regardless of who is there to monitor things.

If the "observers" come up with some concrete proof of election problems, then they need to be addressed.

If they come up with some B. S. "irregularities" that can't be substantiated, then they will only be believed by those who would believe people like Jesse Jackson complaining about voting irregularities.

Do you really think that officials in Europe are beleived by their citizens? I don't see much evidence that they trust their government any more than we do. Those who believe the B. S. believe it because they want to, not because the facts are there to support it.

Are these observers likely to try and find problems where none exist? I really don't know, I don't have enough knowledge about the orginization. However, Bush invited them in, and hasn't been shy about objecting to the UN appointing unfriendly representatives to look into things in the past. I suspect he considered the issue before deciding.

Let's face it. You and I aren't ever going to have all the facts available to properly evaluate a situation like this. Even if you think Bush is stupid, you have to realize that he has really sharp people in his administration that would send up a red flag if this were a problem of the sort some of you seem to fear it might be.

Our government has made some stupid mistakes from time to time, but this president hasn't shown himself to be willing to allow congress, other nations, or anyone to stick their noses where he doesn't feel they belong. It would be very out of character for him to allow "observers" in that were going to try and cause trouble where none existed.

I don't have enough information to know if this decision makes sense or not, but it's a type of issue that Bush has handled well in the past, and I have no reason to suspect he's screwing up this time. Therefore I'm not willing to get upset and start accusing my president of treason about things I know too little about.

 

[JPL]

"Doesn't have a dog in the fight..."

You caught me, Thumper.

I'm actually a faceless minion of foreign evil who has been tapped to be an election monitor.

Resistance is futile.

You will be assimiliated into the greater European collective mentality, and this is how we're gonna do it.


No, my dog comes to this "fight" wondering just how otherwise sane individuals can read so much mayhem and catastrophe into an absolute non-event, all while blaming the WRONG organization for all of their woes.

My comments about reading ability/desire were not snide; they were blatant, and were designed to be.

The misrepresentation of positions, responsible entities, etc., has been absolutely frightening.

As I've said several times already, when the left resorts to this kind of hyperbole and hysteria on the subject of firearms, the condemnations are loud and long.

But, being an arbiter of exactness is something that cuts both ways.

You should not, cannot, and must not demand accuracy in others while falling into their particular patterns.

One of the major reasons why I found my political bent moving away from the left is because of the absolute fantasies that they would spin.

I find that to be less of an issue with the right---or I did up until yesterday.

My comments about blind paranoia are also backed up by what's been posted here.

A good example was the structured "sanctions against the United States" argument that was floated yesterday.

Why was it ultimately blindly paranoid?

Because while the reasoning appeared to be sound, on its surface it was fatally flawed -- the United States, through its absolute veto powers, can kill any potential sanctions.

There's also, as I've stated numerous times, a strong undercurrent of unreasoned "they're out to get us and election monitors is just how they're going to start" running through this thread, as well.

It's completely bizarre.


"Why are you so interested in defending the actions of the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe?"

Ah!

Perfect!

Another EXCELLENT example of what I'm talking about, another MISREPRESENTATION of my position.

That's right, a blatant misrepresentation.

Please go back through my messages and tell me where I've defended the actions of the OSCE.

I'll give you another hint (given for the same reason as before) -- I haven't.

You're only ASSUMING that I'm defending OSCE because you're not bothering to read what I'm actually posting.

 

[RealGun]

You're in a minority then, JPL. A small, albeit shrill, minority.

The only thing that makes JPL a minority is that there are so few willing to waste there time on a non-issue, especially when talking to those who want to remain critical.

 

[JPL]

You're doing it again, Riley.

"We need oversight from some Europeons sent by the U.N."

I've already shown you, and explained to you, that the UN is not involved in this process.

The request to the United Nations was turned down, and the observers are coming from OSCE.

In the second sentence, "they" refers to the 13 Senators, not the administration.

This, Thumper, is the kind of willful disregard for/inability to understand the extant information that I'm talking about.


"Nice try with Inouye, but next time find a WWII vet who hasn't based his entire career on victimhood from his service and ethnicity. Many vets lost limbs; many lost their lives. Not many became wealthy from "public service" as a result."

So now you're going to change your own criteria and try to impeach a member of the very group that you claimed would support - en masse - your position.

That's not very original.

You asked for some World War II vets, I gave you TWO.

Wealth wasn't a factor for your critera.

Status after the war wasn't a factor for your criteria.

You attempted to make an appeal to authority and emotion by tacitly claiming that ALL veterans of World War II would think as you do, and to counteract the damage of being presented with two who don't, you've undermined your own credibility by attempting to place new restrictions on your initial argument.

That doesn't fly for the anti-gunners, it shouldn't fly here, either.

Oh, and I'm in a shrill minority?

I will admit that I'm in a minority, at least here, of those who have bothered to actually make their veiws on this subject know.

But there certainly doesn't seem to be a national upwelling of rebellion against this move that would suggest that I'm truly in the minority.

But what of those who are manufacturing facts and scenarios out of thin air, those who are crying treason, claiming the end of American sovereignity, those who are beating their breasts over the dastardly, evil, UN, and those who are without support or cause claiming blanket solidarity with veterans groups?

They certainly don't seem to be bombarding their elected representatitives with doom and gloom predictions about how their job is going to be given to a mid-level administrator from Western South Central Flunkystan, and the good Senator/Congressman shipped off to a Parisian reeducation camp.

Those World War II vets haven't broken out their stored arms and made a march on Washington.

In the end, if calling for sane, rational thought and examination of the actual facts is being shrill, then I'm all for it.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I've already shown you, and explained to you, that the UN is not involved in this process.

Semantics and hair splitting. "One of the OSCE's closest partners is the UNITED NATIONS", this from the OSCE Website

Once again you've shown:
1) Either a lack of understanding of the issue, or
2) A complete inability to admit you've simply made a mistake in your
earlier assessment.

Your continuing ad hominems are simply an attempt to change the focus, since you have lost the argument.

 

[Thumper]

This, Thumper, is the kind of willful disregard for/inability to understand the extant information that I'm talking about.

So you chastise Riley because of which particular external organization is doing the supervision?

Until yesterpage, you were a little confused about who was involved in this deal, yourself:

Because I don't care if the UN sends observers or not

You think that there will be a UN monitor standing IN the voting booth with you?

That petty point aside...

The bottom line is this:

My outrage over our elected officials' actions is based on the concept that a request for supervision connotes a NEED for supervision.

Having foreign officials "monitor" our election process CAN ONLY be harmful to the concept of American autonomy. For you to argue that it could be in any way helpful (to your credit, you haven't) would be laughable.

So, at the risk of repeating ctdonath for the umpteenth time, why have 'em?

 

[RealGun]

since you have lost the argument

Why? On technicalities meaningful only to you? That's wishful thinking. JPL has patiently made good points that are being ignored by some, damned if they'll concede a point because they want to be mad and like it that way.

If the presence of foreign observers adds credibility, either here or abroad, to the outcome of the next election, I'm all for it. American elections are historically corrupt or at least controversial in some respects, so we can't say there is no need for oversight. How else do you find a disinterested party in some way qualified to comment?

Basically I don't care, with more important things to worry about. Being vigilant or skeptical is fine. Being paranoid is not.

 

[Thumper]

American elections are historically corrupt or at least controversial in some respects, so we can't say there is no need for oversight. How else do you find a disinterested party in some way qualified to comment?

Oversight by whom? And under what authority?

Basically I don't care

Fascinating. Both you and JPL claim not to care and yet you both have invested a considerable portion of your day in this thread.

I DO care.

I hate to keep using Webster's, but it seems you both use words that you don't understand the ramifications of:

Main Entry: over·sight
Pronunciation: 'O-v&r-"sIt
Function: noun
1 a : watchful and responsible care b : regulatory supervision

Regulatory supervision...that's the concept inherent in the idea of "monitor", "oversee", or "supervise." I pointed that out with references earlier in the thread. It is conferring authority to an outside source.

These are EXTERNAL organizations. To even approach the slippery slope of allowing external authority of the process that puts in power those that govern us is unacceptable.

 

[RealGun]

Thumper, when we're down to being petty, it's time to quit. See ya.

 

[Art Eatman]

And when the arguments are less about the issue than the words folks are using, after five pages it's time to move on...

Art