Is the Democratic Party inconsistent in challenging California’s recall election? (Yes, Jones)

I’m getting sick of California. Between the endless recall election and the imbecilic political opinions of its celebrities, I’m ready to cede Mexico the whole damn state. The only good side effect of the recall election’s soap-opera politics is that purely by accident, it revealed issues of national importance.

In California, Davis is opposed 2-to-1 by Democratic voters. Nevertheless, the national Democrats have launched a massive campaign to rescue the hapless governor. The strategy? Re-fight the Florida election of 2000.

“Florida and the 2000 election…the California recall. The pattern could not be clearer: When they don’t win elections fair and square, the Republican leadership goes to extreme lengths to overturn the democratic will of voters,” said Zack Exley, organizing director for the far-left Web site

“This is clearly a partisan conservative move to win something they couldn’t do at the ballot box,” said Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

The California recall is based on state law, passed in 1911 by the left wing Progressive Party. So, according to prominent Democrats, recalling a Democratic governor who is opposed by most Democrats, using a 92-year-old law enacted by left-wingers, constitutes a Republican assault on democracy. Brilliant.

So desperate are the Democrats for a California victory that they have revisited the Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore, which settled the Florida mess.

For those who don’t remember, during the presidential election of 2000, the Florida balloting was unusually close. Normally, this wouldn’t have mattered, except that Florida’s 25 electoral votes were the deciding factor in the national election.

The mechanics of the election were intricate. Since the election, won by Bush, was extremely close (within 1.5 percent), an automatic machine recount occurred. Bush won the machine recount. Gore then sued for another, manual recount-but only in those four counties where he thought he could pick up votes.

Gore clamored to count every “legally cast ballot.” In certain counties, the infamous butterfly ballot-designed by Democrats and approved by Gore’s campaign-became the focus of attention.

According to state law, a “legally cast ballot” had to have the paper square completely punched out. Instead, Gore demanded to have partially punched ballots counted, while his campaign was suing to have absentee ballots of overseas soldiers invalidated.

Florida’s Attorney General ordered the counties to certify their results by Nov. 14, the date specified in Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court (a majority of whom were Democrats) intervened, upon the request of Gore, and voided the election laws of Florida. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a non precedent setting decision decided, seven to two, that this was a violation of the 14th Amendment. (Only five judges voted to enforce the decision.)

So, in Florida, a Democratic candidate tried to illegally count votes, complained about a Democratic voting machine (the butterfly ballot) and persuaded a Democratic panel of judges to overrule Florida’s election laws and make him president when, legally, he had lost. This is supposed to constitute the “selection” of George Bush and the basis for a paranoid conspiracy theory that Republicans are assaulting democracy?

In a 2002 New Jersey Senate race, the Democratic candidate dropped out because he was falling behind his Republican opponent. The Democrats were far past the mandated 51-day filing deadline, but sued anyway. The Democratic New Jersey Supreme Court overturned state election laws to allow Frank Lautenberg to enter and win the race.

And, just a week ago, three Democratic judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (that oversees California) overrode California election laws, illegally cited Bush v. Gore in the decision, and moved the recall vote from October to March, during a Democratic primary. The decision was overturned by the 9th Circuit Court 11-0.

Three states, three Democratic courts, three sets of election laws overridden to aid three Democratic politicians. Who’s assaulting democracy?

[email protected]