United Nations WILL monitor Presidential election

[flatrock]

We had 13 congressmen slandering the US and making it look like we had something to hide.

We've had years of Democrats claiming that Bush somehow stole the election, when he won the election by the original count and even the recounts.

These congressmen aren't trying to right a wrong, or prevent a possible election scandal. They are appealing to the hate-mongers in their party, and defaming our country and making us look bad in the eyes of the world for political gain.

Bush has only one way to shut them up. He can invite in observers.

I don't like the precedent of inviting other nations to be involved in our elections, but it seems obvious to me that Bush has little to fear.

The only real election issues I've seen are where illegals and the dead seem to vote Democrat.

I bet those 13 congressmen were at least as surprised as I was to hear Bush invited observers. He just took away their false argument, and they'll have to invent a new thing to be irate about to rile up their constituants. Anger and hate are the only tools they know how to use.

I don't know enough details to guage how the invitation of these observers will efect things in the long run, but I bet the Bush administration has a lot more information, and his record shows pretty clearly that he doesn't let foreign nations dictate the actions of the United States.

Saying that Bush is commiting treason, is silly at best. Bush hasn't given up our nations soventry, and he's stood his ground against the UN more than the last few Presidents.

People should use their brains a bit more before throwing around words like treason. Treason is among the highest crimes in the land for good reason. It's not an accusation that should be made lightly whenever someone does something you disagree with.

 

[2nd Amendment]

And a hearty AMEN!

 

[JPL]

Whoops...

Wrong place...

 

[JPL]

"I don't like the precedent of inviting other nations to be involved in our elections..."


While I agree with, and applaud, the sentiment of your entire post, I do disagree with this small phrase.

Observers OBSERVE.

They aren't "involved."

They have no power to do anything other than look, and report back.

If someone attemps to vote Republican, they can't castigate the individual and force him to vote Democratic.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, attempting to coerce someone to change his/her vote in a polling place is illegal in many states.

 

[1776]

After being a life long Republican (I'm 66), I will not vote for Mr. Bush this year.
No.., I won't vote for Mr. Kerry either. I just won't vote.
What will that accomplish? It MAY get the Democrats back in power.
With the Democrats back in power perhaps things in this country will come to a head a lot quicker.
And perhaps I will be able to contribute to the fight for my country before old age makes me infirm.

When I read with a sick feeling in my stomach that " An international team to monitor presidental elelction".

I refuse to be a participant in the globalisation and destruction of MY country.
Am I an isolationist? You bet I am. "America first, screw the rest"

I read with shock that the conditioning of the American people is progressing toward a one world government with the U.N. in charge. I for one will not allow a family that lives four blocks away come into my home and tell me how to live my life. Espesially if that family can't run their home any better then the Simpsons. (analogy)

I know that the Democrats are like spoiled chaildren, But I also now know that the Republican polititions are plain and simply STUPID eunuchs . I do not approve of creeping incrimentalism that will give my country to the likes of koffe Annis(sp).

I understand that I am in effect giving my vote to Kerry. So be it.
My feeling is this. If the pols of this country refuse to live by and protect the Constitution, I will consider them traitors to America. I think that I have had enough. Before any of you jump all over me, Please consider my thoughts.

Is this all a secret plan by the Republicans to beat the Democrats? I don't give a rats patutie if it is..

 

[Zundfolge]

We have a choice between the village idiot and Karl Marx this November.

Agreed ... I'll take the village idiot over Karl Marx any day ... at least the village idiot is not surrounded by communists who wish to load us on cattle cars and ship us to the gulag.



I don't like Bush, but the damage that will be done by Kerry and his bunch is much worse then what Bush will do (at least with Bush we Republicans have some slight pull).

I refuse to be a participant in the globalisation and destruction of MY country.

Then they have won, because you're also not going to be a participant in the fight against the the globalisation and destruction of OUR country.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I suppose they can "observe" all they want. If they're armed and/or wearing blue helmets, or writing down license plates numbers, then we're gonna have a problem.

 

[JPL]

"If they're armed..."

I don't think there's a state in the nation where it's legal for someone to be armed in a polling place.

It is probably legal for a "police officer" to be armed in a polling place while carrying out his duty (arresting someone, investigating a crime), but I don't think it's legal for a police officer to stand in line to vote while armed.

OK, that's the law in Pennsylvania, the first state that popped up when I googled, and I'm pretty sure that's the law in other states.

 

[R.H. Lee]

"If they're armed..."

I don't think there's a state in the nation where it's legal for someone to be armed in a polling place

I hadn't thought of that, and that's probably true. Besides, this is only the first step toward getting Americans used to becoming a part of the "global community".

 

[ctdonath]

So tell me: Where is the harm?

1. Matter of privacy. My vote is a matter only between me and my gov't. It's none of OSCE's dang business. Imagine me hanging around your house, just to make sure nobody does anything wrong: where's the harm?

2. Those who observe tend to develop a sense of interest beyond mere observing. It is in their interest to find something wrong (according to them, not us), make it a big deal, and thus justify their existence.

3. What IS their purpose in observing? What happens if they do find something wrong? surely then the whole point is for these outsiders to loudly declare their findings for the purpose of causing change. If there is no possibility of influence - and thus no possibility of harm - what is the point of their observing in the first place?

4. Our laws describe exactly who is allowed to do what in relation to voting. For some legally non-permitted entity to inject themselves into the process - even just to observe - is to disrupt a very sensitive process. Up 'til now, I have trusted who is present at the voting site: anyone there is either voting or facilitating voting (or family/friend tagging along) ... now I and many others will be watching for outsiders whose purpose & motive for being present will be challenged, and they will be asked to leave.

5. If our voting process needs observing, let us observe ourselves. Jim March is doing a fine job making sure e-voting is legit; there are plenty other citizens who can do just as good a job without outside "help".

All boils down to: It's none of OSCE's dang business. Why should one side have to justify the "no OSCE here" view? Shouldn't it be the "pro-OSCE-observers" view job to justify their presence?

 

[RealGun]

All boils down to: It's none of OSCE's dang business. Why should one side have to justify the "no OSCE here" view? Shouldn't it be the "pro-OSCE-observers" view job to justify their presence?

Sorry. If you want to be critical, you need to justify your complaint. Anti-establishment is not the baseline.

 

[JPL]

"My vote is a matter only between me and my gov't."

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


"Those who observe tend to develop a sense of interest beyond mere observing. It is in their interest to find something wrong (according to them, not us), make it a big deal, and thus justify their existence."

And that would be different than what the UN currently does regarding the United States, how?

I'm sure there will be reports and memos and bleatings coming out of the UN.

But, SO WHAT?

What can the UN do in the United States regarding how we vote, other than wiggle their fingers or cluck their tongues?

Hint -- absolutely nothing.


"Our laws describe exactly who is allowed to do what in relation to voting."

The laws regarding observers in polling places are left up to the states, as per the Constitution.

Observers are, and have always been, legal in every state that I know of.


"Why should one side have to justify the "no OSCE here" view? Shouldn't it be the "pro-OSCE-observers" view job to justify their presence?"

You seem to be mistaking my attitude of who cares, it doesn't make a bit of difference, but it does pull the props out from under some very annoying politicians, for one of active support for UN monitors.

That's wrong.

I don't care of they come to monitor.

I don't care if their plane crashes into the sea en route (although I'm sure we'd hear claims of Republicans shooting the plane down).

What I would like to see, though, is some justification that would prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this is the end of soverignty for the United States and the beginning of US subjegation in a world government headed by the UN, that somehow we'll be turned into mere slaves in chains.

Chicken Little is running hard today...

 

[R.H. Lee]

Sorry. If you want to be critical, you need to justify your complaint. Anti-establishment is not the baseline.

[assume europeon mentality]
Yeah, ctdonath, you sound like some imperialistic arrogant 'merican. Who are you to object to NON-CITIZENS in a SEMI/PSEUDO OFFICIAL capacity observing our elections? Sheesh.[/europeon mentality]

Man, I'm sorry to see the globalist mindset coming to THR.

 

[JPL]

"Man, I'm sorry to see the globalist mindset coming to THR."\


Ah, I get it.

Because I don't care if the UN sends observers or not (because I recognize it as the absolute non event that it is), I'm immediately lumped into the globalist group.

How....

Nice.

 

[sendec]

This is Amazing.....

We hold ourselves out as a model of democracy and freedom and people are complaining because someone might watch us do it. After the last voting fiasco we should be "observed"........I've seen 3rd grade student council elections handled much better, but that can't be true because public education is probably a puppet of the Soros Foundation, the UN and a secret sect of vampire Mennonite pedophiles. These attitudes are embarrassing.

I am rapidly becoming much more concerned about some of my fellow Americans than any Pakistanis in blue helmets.

 

[flatrock]

1. Matter of privacy. My vote is a matter only between me and my gov't. It's none of OSCE's dang business. Imagine me hanging around your house, just to make sure nobody does anything wrong: where's the harm?

They'll have to stay 100+ feet from the polling place. I forget the number, but they aren't allowed in the polling place, or right by the doors.

2. Those who observe tend to develop a sense of interest beyond mere observing. It is in their interest to find something wrong (according to them, not us), make it a big deal, and thus justify their existence.

I somewhat share this concern, however it's a concern founded in suspicion rather than based on solid facts. I agree that we need to be cautious about inviting involvment even at the spectator level, but in the end I'm not sure my paranoia on the subject is justified. I'm definately not an expert of the subject of election observers, and I suspect that Bush and the state department looked into this before inviting them in.

3. What IS their purpose in observing? What happens if they do find something wrong? surely then the whole point is for these outsiders to loudly declare their findings for the purpose of causing change. If there is no possibility of influence - and thus no possibility of harm - what is the point of their observing in the first place?

If they see something wrong, they'll report on it, and then we get to deal with it. We are a country of laws, and we would need to deal with it according to those laws. I think the observers may be a bit hesitent to point fingers where no problem exists. It appears we have a treaty which might allow us to hold them to the same standards, which encourages keeping their mouths shut more than looking for problems where none exist.

If they do find a problem, then we do need to address the problem. Hiding elections problems is not acceptable.

4. Our laws describe exactly who is allowed to do what in relation to voting. For some legally non-permitted entity to inject themselves into the process - even just to observe - is to disrupt a very sensitive process. Up 'til now, I have trusted who is present at the voting site: anyone there is either voting or facilitating voting (or family/friend tagging along) ... now I and many others will be watching for outsiders whose purpose & motive for being present will be challenged, and they will be asked to leave.

They aren't going to be allowed to violate our laws and interfere with the elections process.

5. If our voting process needs observing, let us observe ourselves. Jim March is doing a fine job making sure e-voting is legit; there are plenty other citizens who can do just as good a job without outside "help".

We already do have some organizations that observe elections to the extent they are available. Some are more partisan than others, but all have that right. This is theoretically inviting in a third party with no role in the elections to observe. It's a good idea in theory. I don't think it's needed, but unless they try and scew things, I don't see the harm.

All boils down to: It's none of OSCE's dang business. Why should one side have to justify the "no OSCE here" view? Shouldn't it be the "pro-OSCE-observers" view job to justify their presence?

It's definately none of their business unless we make it their business. Some of our congressmen have decided to ask for outside observation as a political ploy. The administration apparently didn't see the harm in doing so, but saw the harm in allowing those 13 congressmen to continue trying to degrade the office of the president and make our country look bad. He called their bluff.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I am rapidly becoming much more concerned about some of my fellow Americans than any Pakistanis in blue helmets.

No problem with people from other countries coming to "observe" our elections. However, when they are under the UNITED NATIONS, a completely corrupt and self serving entity, yeah, I have a problem with that.

 

[Thumper]

JPL said

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

From Webster's:

"Observe 4 a : to watch carefully especially with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment.

Surely you understand that the word 'judgement' has an authoritative connotation?

Why you would be ambivalent to conferring authority over the U.S.' election process to an outside organization is puzzling.

 

[flatrock]

From Webster's:

"Observe 4 a : to watch carefully especially with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment.

Surely you understand that the word 'judgement' has an authoritative connotation?

Why you would be ambivalent to conferring authority over the U.S.' election process to an outside organization is puzzling.

So you're saying that if you strech the definitions of the words observe, judgement, and authority, you have a logical basis for fear that this is the first step in a foreign power gaining control over our government?

Maybe I can gain control of CNN by observing their news coverage and making a judgement about their objectivity. Ok, bad example because they have no objectivity, and I believe our elections are fair in the overwhelming majority of situations. However, you should get the idea.

 

[Thumper]

How can I judge anything without exercizing some authority over it?

Here, for reference:

"Main Entry: judg·ment
Variant(s): or judge·ment /'j&j-m&nt/
Function: noun
1 a : a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion"

Know what the root word of authoritative is?

 

[JPL]

Thumper,

I'm puzzled as to why you believe that any "authority" would be conveyed to an outside entity.

Just WHAT "authority" would be conveyed to the UN observers?

Will they have the "authority" to accompany you into the voting booth?

No.

Do they have the "authority" to tell you or me how to vote?

No.

Will they have the authority to actually stand IN polling places?

Apparently not.

Will they have the authority to alter the outcome of an election?

No.

Will they have any official status other than GUESTS in this nation, here at the request, but also the temper, of the government?

No.

Now that you've cracked your dictionary, look up the word judgement.

In my dictionary, there's absolutely no link between judgement and ENFORCEMENT.

These observers can observe and judge all they want.

But I've yet to see anyone in the "sky is falling" contingement give anything even remotely resembling a plausible explanation as to how this will allow the UN to inject itself into the American democratic process.

 

[Thumper]

In my dictionary, there's absolutely no link between judgement and ENFORCEMENT.

Please see my post immediately previous to yours.

 

[ctdonath]

I don't care of they come to monitor.

Would you care if I come monitor you? in your house, or maybe 100' from your house, taking detailed notes and posting them on www.jplwatch.com?

They'll have to stay 100+ feet from the polling place. I forget the number, but they aren't allowed in the polling place, or right by the doors.

So what are they actually going to observe? Will they be in the counting rooms? or just making sure would-be voters are allowed in the door? who watches them to ensure non-interference?


If nothing else, this is a hugely bad PR move. This sounds bad on the face of it, happened suddenly for no apparent reason (beyond 13 Dems whining), and comes with no explaination of what this entails. It also creates bad precident: "you asked us to observe last time, so why not next time ... and with a little more 'observation' than before? it's just so reasonable to continue, if not increase, our involvement in your affairs ..."

Things were fine without OSCE's involvement. Why involve them now? If no harm in doing so, then what's the harm in not doing so? Why must I, as a voter, have to now deal with the spectre of foreign meddlers? having only vague reports/rumors to go on, now I must spend time finding out what OSCE's involvement means and how to deal with them crossing the line.

Maybe OSCE observing is harmless after all. Then why have them observe at all?

 

[ctdonath]

These observers can observe and judge all they want.

Observe what? If they can't be in the booth, can't be in the voting area, can't watch the tabulation process, can't be at more than a few dozen sites (100+ ft away at that), etc. ... then what, pray tell, are they observing?

They'd do better to stay home & watch CNN report exit polls.

 

[Daniel T]

I'm observing a lot of paranoia in this thread.

You see, that observation is my judgement.

So, umm, what authority do I have?

...

ctdonath,

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is somehow "sudden". We signed a treaty several years ago, and observers were here during the midterm elections. You know, the elections where the people of the US voted decidedly Republican. What did the OSCE do then?