Kerry To Sign The 180?

Mickey Kaus and Instapundit both point to a Philadelphia Inquirer analysis of John Kerry’s political activities since his loss in last year’s elections, which suggests that the Senator may request the complete release of his military records at last:

For Kerry, indignities abound. He trails Hillary Rodham Clinton in every 2008 survey. The other day, he was assailed by Clinton aide Ann Lewis for running “an inconsistent campaign.” Indeed, in focus groups conducted this winter by Democratic strategists, he was still seen as indecisive; one participant said, “He’s the guy that holds up the line at McDonald’s.”
And he’s been dogged by bloggers who want him to authorize the release of all his military records, to clear up questions raised in 2004. He told NBC on Jan. 30 that he would sign military form SF-180 to do so, but he hasn’t yet. Most of the heat has come from conservatives, but Democratic blogger Mickey Kaus also is on the case, urging party brethren to “remove this increasingly pathetic figure from our national stage.” (The word in Washington is that Kerry will sign the form soon.)

Mickey asks what will happen if nothing interesting develops from the release, but that would wind up outraging his supporters even further. Just as his leftover $15 million left them wondering if that money could have made the difference in Ohio, a release of squeaky-clean records will cause Democrats to wonder why Kerry blocked their release throughout his entire campaign and caused such controversy over their contents.
No, this is a smart move by Kerry, one of the few he’s made. He will sign off on the release three years ahead of the start of the primary season, plenty of time for whatever bad news in the file to be assimilated and then discounted by the true believers. The problem with releasing them a year ago was the proximity of a release to the primary vote, and then after that to the general election. It wouldn’t have been an issue at all, of course, if Terry McAuliffe hadn’t made the mistake of accusing George Bush of desertion during his service and continuing to use that smear for months afterward. That made a complete release by Kerry impossible.
My best analysis, furthered by sources which I cannot name, is that Kerry’s file contains a less-than-honorable discharge from the 1971-72 period that his later 1978 discharge overrode. With three years between a revelation such as that and any voting, Kerry could eventually sell voters on the idea that the times in which that discharge occurred reflected the deep divisions in America, etc etc. If he runs to Hillary Clinton’s left, which appears inevitable unless he changes his name to Joe Lieberman, that could convince the International ANSWER/MoveOn crowd of his viability — but they’ll be the only ones. They might well get him either to the top of the ticket, but if he couldn’t beat Bush, there’s no way in Hell he could beat any other Republican candidate in 2008.
Assuming, of course, that Kerry really signs the 180 and isn’t just trying to blow the issue off again.

Another John Kerry Flip-Flop

John Kerry did it again. In an interview with the Boston Globe, Kerry insists that his full military records have been made public, and challenges his critics to do the same, and George Bush as well:

The furor over military credentials hasn’t ended with the campaign. Kerry pledged to sign Form 180, releasing all of his military records, but challenged his critics, including Bush, to do the same.
”I want them to sign it, I want [swift boat veterans] John O’Neill, Roy Hoffmann, and what’s their names, the guys on the other boat,” Kerry said. ”I want their records out there. They have made specific allegations about my record, I know things about their records, I want them out there. I’m willing to sign it, to put all my records out there. I’m willing to sign it, but I want them to sign it, too.”
Kerry later confirmed that his decision to sign the form is not conditional on any others signing, but he expressed lingering bitterness over double standards on military service.
”Let me make this clear: My full military record has been made public,” Kerry said. ”All of my medical records and all of my fitness reports, every fitness report involving each place I served, is public. Where are George Bush’s still? Where are his military records? End of issue.”

Er, no. Kerry knows that this isn’t true, because he told Tom Brokaw that very thing just before the election. Perhaps John Kerry doesn’t want to recall it now, but on October 28th, the week before the election, Brokaw asked him about the IQ tests that he took in the military, which I noted in this post:

Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President’s military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.
Kerry: That’s great. More power. I don’t know how they’ve done it, because my record is not public. So I don’t know where you’re getting that from.

Later on, when NBC aired the interview a second time, they edited that response down to exclude the admission, although the transcript remains on their site. Perhaps John Kerry thought that NBC’s historical revisionism had gotten him off the hook.
The fact is that Kerry’s full Navy records have never been released, and probably never will, unless someone sues the military for a Freedom of Information Act release. Kerry isn’t about to allow that file out, as his discharge papers will show that Kerry got booted out on a bad-conduct discharge due to his post-Viet Nam activities, which Thomas Lipscomb and the New York Sun confirmed two days after the interview. If they are released, his political career is over.
Kerry may well believe that a good offense makes for the best defense. It’s likely the only defense he truly has left. (See Beldar for more details.)

Good Riddance To Sore Losers

The International Herald-Tribune reports on the continuing efforts of a small number of Democrats to flee the country for the sole reason that their candidate lost. While Iraqis brave bullets and bombs for the privilege to select their leaders by majority vote, thousands of sore losers can’t bear the thought that others may have a different opinion than their own:

After three months, memories of the election have begun to recede. There has been an inauguration, even a State of the Union address.
Yet immigration lawyers say that Americans are not just making inquiries and that more are pursuing a move above the 49th parallel, fed up with a country they see drifting persistently to the right and abandoning the principles of tolerance, compassion and peaceful idealism they felt once defined the nation.
America is in no danger of emptying out. But even a small loss of population, many from a deep sense of political despair, is a significant event in the life of a nation that thinks of itself as a place to escape to. Firm numbers on potential immigrants are elusive.
“The number of U.S. citizens who are actually submitting Canadian immigration papers and making concrete plans is about three or four times higher than normal,” said Linda Mark, an immigration lawyer in Vancouver.

I suppose I should welcome the exodus of idiots that believe they can’t abide living with a GOP majority; after all, the more that leave only helps that majority survive that much longer. Their departure also has the beneficial effect of raising the IQ averages afterwards. However, given the example of Iraq and Afghanistan, watching pampered Americans go weeping across the border to Canada simply because they can’t adjust to losing their monopoly on political thought in the US is an embarassment to America and to the very notion of democracy.
Part of the compact of a democracy is a commitment to majority rule. That means accepting the role of minority status when your party/ideology falls out of favor. Like it or not, Republicans committed themselves to working within the system for over 40 years of minority status, eventually adjusting their platform and their priorities while the Left lost favor. The GOP didn’t flee to Mexico just because their leaders couldn’t win elections.
In the end, the people who flee America because they backed John Kerry are nothing but cowards who have no real commitment to democracy. Good riddance.

Inaugural Address: Brilliant And Historic

Unfortunately, I am buried in meetings today and could not listen to President Bush’s inaugural speech, so I have to be satisfied with reading it from the White House site. I have not yet read any other reviews or commentary, so I have not yet been influenced by friends or opponents; nor have I heard the delivery, so I cannot know how well the words came across. But from reading the speech, I can only say that Bush’s words will ring out as a clarion call for America to rise up and accept its mission of freedom for the world once again, for ourselves and the sake of humanity.
One element of this speech that sets it apart from other such events is the lack of any mention of programs, bills, or specific ideological issues. The upcoming State of the Union speech will contain all that and more, I’m certain. Bush briliantly avoids this petty politicking in favor of expressing a vision of an activist America standing beside those who work and suffer (and die) to advance the cause of human liberty. He picked this one theme and explores all of its reach and ramifications.
I especially liked this passage:

America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation’s security, and the calling of our time.
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

If I could have listened to just one small part of this speech, I would have chosen this passage. I believe that the declaration “no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave” will truly have historical reach. In the most basic analysis, that has always been the promise of America, even when we refused for almost 200 years to live up to that mission.
What may garner more attention in the moment is this bold statement from Bush:

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

That sets the bar at the highest levels for this American administration and all that follow. For too long, we have allowed those who trade stability for freedom in other nations to achieve the peace of the moment. On 9/11, we found out that this has its own price, and that we received no bargain for our efforts. Excusing dictators and kleptocrats in the long run creates fury, rage, and hopelessness that these same autocrats find useful in directing against us for their own purposes. That cycle has to end, for our own security.
In fact, in its own way, this might be one of the most radically classical-liberal American speeches in a generation.
No great inaugural speech is without a call to serve a greater vision, and Bush’s speech eloquently fills this requirement:

All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself – and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character.
America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home – the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.

And the final invocation reached back to the founding of this greatest experiment in self-government and demanded recognition that it remains as relevant, audacious, and hopeful as it was 230 years ago:

When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, “It rang as if it meant something.” In our time it means something still. America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength – tested, but not weary – we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.

Truly inspired. Truly inspiring. This was a speech that almost all Americans can own without regard to ideology or partisanship.
UPDATE: RattlerGator has the breakdown of “best lines” from the Fox News panel. I have to agree with Fred Barnes on this one, which I should have mentioned in my post:

By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

That almost completely sums up the theme of this inaugural address and the overall philosophy of this Bush presidency.
UPDATE II: The Elder at Fraters Libertas explains why the hard Left hates Bush. It’s all about the F-word. Really. It’s one of the best analyses I’ve read so far.
UPDATE III: Another great analysis from Brant at SWLiP looks at the similarities between Bush’s speech and the writings of noted Soviet dissident turned Israeli politician Natan Sharansky. Brant is encouraged, and so am I.

Washington Times Notices Wisconsin Voter Fraud, CQ

Large Bill alerted me to a Washington Times editorial from yesterday which shows that the Silence Of The Cheese may start to break out in the national media. The Times reacted to John Kerry’s whining about supposed disenfranchisement in Ohio, where he lost by almost 120,000 votes, and his silence on the shenanigans in Milwaukee:

At the same time, it’s curious that Mr. Kerry should use Ohio as an example to trumpet his forthcoming legislation. Apparently, Mr. Kerry sees no evil in Wisconsin, where his margin of victory was 11,000 votes, and where the watchful bloggers at have noticed some disturbing irregularities. Milwaukee County, which broke for Mr. Kerry 62 percent to 37 percent, saw voter turnout increase by just under 49,000 votes, or 10 percent, from 2000. For comparison, the national voter increase was 6.4 percent. A portion of that increase can be attributed to the 83,000 people who completed a same-day registration, which is more than 20 percent of all voting-age residents in the county. Blogger Captain Ed is rightly suspicious: “Now, Wisconsinites may procrastinate a bit, but in order to believe that number, you’d have to expect that 20% of the county had moved or became newly eligible within the past two years (after the previous election cycle).” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel also reports that now 10,000 of those registrations cannot be verified, or just under the number of votes that clinched the state for Mr. Kerry.

It’s quite an honor to get mentioned in the Washington Times, especially in an editorial. I’m more happy, though, that perhaps the fraudulent balloting in Milwaukee County, and perhaps elsewhere in Wisconsin, might start getting national attention. The laxity of Wisconsin’s election laws and the flood of new voters in the last two election cycles certainly show more potential for fraud than anything we’ve seen in Ohio or Florida. Why doesn’t Wisconsin get any attention? Because the Democrats took Wisconsin in both cycles, and both times by a hair.
If one wanted to demonstrate a case for liberal media bias, all that would be necessary would be to count the mainstream media resources committed to reporting Ohio election issues the past ten weeks against those in Wisconsin. That makes the case Rather-clear.

Exit Polling Flawed, Skewed To Kerry

In a development that should embarrass Jesse Jackson and shame Barbara Boxer — but won’t — the AP reports that both firms conducting media exit polling for the presidential election found flaws that overreported support for John Kerry:

Two firms that conducted Election Day exit polls for major news organizations reported Wednesday that they found a number of problems with the way the polls were carried out last year, resulting in estimates that overstated John Kerry’s share of the vote.
Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International found that the Democratic challenger’s supporters were more likely than President Bush’s supporters to participate in exit polls interviews. They also found that more errors occurred in exit polls conducted by younger interviewers, and about half of the interviewers were 34 or under. …
They noted that in a number of precincts, interviewers were kept 50 feet or more away from polling places, potentially skewing results toward people motivated to go out of their way to participate in exit polls. They also found suggestions that interviewers may not have carefully followed rules for selecting voters at random, which may have skewed results.

For the past ten weeks or so, we have heard over and over from Jackson, Boxer, and the like that the exit polling “proves” that vote fraud occurred in Ohio. They point to the early lead which the data supposedly predicted, even though the firms warned that initial data could not be considered reliable for projections. The Democrats, including the Kerry campaign, used the exit-polling data as the basis for several costly legal challenges, including a recount that cost Ohio over a million dollars … and resulted in a 0.025% change in the election returns.
Now that even the polling firms have confirmed their sloppy work in the election, perhaps we will hear an explanation from the Democrats for their hysterical and paranoid response. After all, everyone knows that exit polling samples only the willing. The big poll takes place behind the curtain, which allows everyone to be “sampled” and the results to be much more reliable. At the least, Democrats should apologize to Ohioans, especially those whose reputations they besmirched in their zeal to justify the hijacking of the political process.
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that apology. From now on, the news media should take care to report the news rather than predict it, and the rest of the country should learn to exercise a little patience while the real votes are counted. Finally, Democrats should choose their candidates with more care to avoid having to sue everyone in sight to overturn fair elections.
UPDATE: Be sure to read the exhaustive analysis at Daly Thoughts.

Boxer Signs Onto Ignominy

Barbara Boxer signed onto John Conyers’ challenge of the Ohio electors this morning, setting up a useless two-hour debate in both chambers on the election won by George Bush two months ago:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., signed a challenge mounted by House Democrats to Ohio’s 20 electoral votes, which put Bush over the top. By law, a challenge signed by members of the House and Senate requires both chambers to meet separately for up to two hours to consider it. Lawmakers are allowed to speak for no more than five minutes each.
While Bush’s victory is not in jeopardy, the Democratic challenge will force Congress to interrupt tallying the Electoral College vote, which is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. EST Thursday. It would be only the second time since 1877 that the House and Senate were forced into separate meetings to consider electoral votes.
“I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light by allowing you to have a two-hour debate to let the American people know the facts surrounding Ohio’s election,” Boxer wrote in a letter to Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, a leader of the Democratic effort.

What a waste of time and effort. Hand recounts and smearing Ohio’s Secretary of State and Chief Justice of their Supreme Court isn’t enough for the lunatics of the American Left. They want to hold Congress hostage for two hours in order to rant away at their abject failure to win an election in Ohio. Their excuse? Long lines and a lack of voting machines in predominantly Democratic counties — where the officials in charge of the election were Democrats! Just as in Florida, the Democrats blame the GOP for what they consider poorly-run elections, when Democrats themselves ran them.
Boxer, Conyers, and Harry Reid will get their debate — a two-hour marathon of smoke and bile which will change nothing, except their prestige and honor with the American electorate. They continue their Great March To The Fringe, now at double-time.

Conyers Launches Challenge To Ohio Electors

In a sign that the Democrats are determined to pursue their scorched-earth policy on elections to its bitter conclusion, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has filed an objection to Ohio’s presidential electors. John Conyers of Detroit published a report that claims irregularities in Ohio’s election accounts for more than the 118,599 votes that George Bush won over John Kerry:

The 102-page report titled “Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio?” lists such problems as unusually long lines, a shortage of voting machines in Democratic-leaning areas, confusion over provisional ballot rules and computer problems.
The report also contends there were widespread instances of intimidation and misinformation, improper purging of voter registration lists, a lack of inspection for about 93,000 ballots where no vote was cast for president, and vote totals not matching registration numbers or exit poll data.
“In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio,” the report said.

We’ve gone over the nuts and bolts — mostly nuts — of Conyers’ arguments on this blog and others. After a costly recount and the move of just over 300 votes, Conyers and the Democrats know that further recounts won’t win them the election, and so they intend on casting aspersions on the legitimacy of the contest itself. They have chosen Kenneth Blackwell as their bete noir, just as they smeared Kathleen Harris in Florida four years ago. As I wrote below, in the face of the inexplicable (How could Bush actually beat Kerry?), conspiracy theories grow like mushrooms in the dark.
Of course, the explanation that the Democrats fielded a terrible candidate that ran a lousy campaign never occurs to them.
Conyers needs a sponsor in the Senate to invoke a joint session to consider the objection. Barbara Boxer of California is rumored to be mulling over the idea of jumping on board Conyers’ runaway train. It should enrage the country that the Democrats want to hijack yet another presidential election and embarass the nation, this time while we’re at war. The Democrats apparently learned nothing from 2000 and the shellacking they took in the next two election cycles. No one will trust them with leadership while they pursue this kind of lunacy; even moderate Democrats can count the difference between 566 and 118,599.
Conyers would better spend his time tracking down what his staff did with the 60 turkeys they stole from poor families this Thanksgiving than to stuff this turkey down the throat of Congress and the nation.

Still Clueless After All These Weeks

Two articles on the Internet this afternoon show that the Democrats and their candidate still have no clue why they lost the presidential election, even after eight weeks of soul-searching. Adam Nagourney reports on the analyses promulgated by party leaders about their loss and what it means for their future:

With exception of a few Democratic outliers in Ohio, few people dispute that the election for president is done and decided: President Bush won and John Kerry lost.
But as the new year begins, no such consensus exists among Democrats about why Mr. Kerry was defeated, and the party is locked in a battle of interpretation over just what went wrong. Was it values? Terrorism and Iraq? A better Republican get-out-the-vote operation or a rush of Hispanics to President Bush? A gawky candidate with little to say?
Presidential elections often produce a clear story line, a lesson for winners and losers alike. Not this one, at least not yet, and that is a matter of increasing concern for Democrats who would like to learn from the past as they face a series of critical decisions, including picking a new party chairman and laying out a plan to avoid even more losses in the 2006 Congressional races. And there is the immediate tactical question of how stridently to push back against Mr. Bush’s efforts to change Social Security and the tax code.

Harry Reid tells Nagourney that the Democrats failed to speak to rural voters, noting that the Republicans blew Democrats out in rural Nevada. Well, that’s hardly news; anyone who looks at a county-based red/blue map could provide that analysis. Reid doesn’t explain why, nor does he pretend to know:

“We all have come up with our individual thoughts, but as far as coalescing on what happened – I don’t think there’s been a determination about what really happened,” said Harry Reid, the new Senate Democratic leader. “It’s not that easy to figure out.”

Isn’t that why they pick party leaders — to figure these things out? Thus far, Reid has hardly distinguished himself on any particular issue ever since succeeding former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. He started his career as the Democrats’ point man by issuing a bizarre statement calling Clarence Thomas an “embarrassment” as a Supreme Court justice, without specifying exactly what Reid found embarrassing. In the same statement, he dismayed a large section of his party by endorsing Antonin Scalia for Chief Justice.
Now we understand just how badly the GOP damaged the Democrats by chasing Daschle out of office.
On the other hand, the Democrats’ other Congressional leader hardly does any better. Nancy Pelosi can’t come up with anything better than claiming that GOP lies did them in:

Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, said that Democrats, despite their best efforts, had been outgunned on voter turnout by Republicans and that they didn’t push back hard enough against what she described as false attacks.
“I don’t subscribe to any of these notions that we have to examine our conscience as to who we are,” Ms. Pelosi said. “We know who we are. We know what we stand for. We’ll make it clearer in the non-presidential election year what the differences are between the Democrats and the Republicans.”

Of course. The only explanation that Pelosi can ever come up with is that Republicans lie, led by the eeeeeeevil Karl Rove. The Democratic leadership shows itself about as inept as any in recent memory. Nor does their candidate have much to add. Matt Drudge reports on an upcoming Newsweek article that has John Kerry sounding just about as clueless as the rest of the Democrats:

While he quarreled with descriptions of his speaking style as “soporific,” Kerry tacitly acknowledged that he failed to connect with enough voters on a personal level. Jose Ferreira, Kerry’s nephew, told his uncle, “Some people are saying that your candidacy was driven by ABB [Anything But Bush].” Kerry replied: “Do you think so?” Ferreira said that once people got to know Kerry, they were intensely loyal. “Those are the people I let down,” Kerry said, falling silent. In conversation with Newsweek, Kerry seemed particularly interested in trying to find a way to speak to ordinary voters that didn’t sound too grandiose or “political.” Though Kerry did not directly criticize his friend Bob Shrum, it’s clear he did not feel well served by his message makers and speechwriters.
The deeper problem may be Kerry’s personality, which may be too distant or reserved to win mass affection. As Thomas left Kerry’s house in November, Kerry called out and followed him down the street. Kerry wanted to show a letter from a schoolgirl that had been left on his stoop. The letter read, in part, “John Kerry, you’re the greatest!” Kerry looked into the reporter’s eye. “The pundits have never liked me,” he said. “Is it the way I look? The way I sound?” He seemed vulnerable for a moment, then caught himself, smiled and walked home to his empty house.

So for Kerry, the problem was Bob Shrum or possibly the pundits who “never liked” him. So far, no one in the Democratic Party seems willing to take ownership of the lousy campaign run by Kerry this year. Not only did the superior intellect get snookered on multiple occasions by the supposed doofus of George Bush, but Kerry changed positions on almost every important issue in the campaign. Even on abortion — about as safe an issue as the Democrats have amongst their faithful — he managed to bone it up by claiming to believe in life at conception while approving of late-term abortions.
Ill do the Democrats a favor and explain it. Kerry made himself into one of the most untrustworthy candidates ever fielded, and the Democrats’ surrender to the radical leftists in this campaign made them untrustworthy to a large number of centrists. Those voters may not like Bush’s approach to abortion or to health care, but they weren’t going to give the national-security reins to a candidate and a party that couldn’t tell the truth if their lives depended on it.
When the Democrats finally figure it out, they may start reversing their six-year slide into minority status. I doubt that time will come with their current leadership.
UPDATE: Newsweek has released the article to the Internet. If you wanted a picture of Democratic cluelessness, you couldn’t find any better example than this:

He never quite came out and said it, but Kerry sounded very much like a man who was running for president again. He has a mailing list with 2.9 million names and an organization in every state. His moneymen have not backed away. By and large, Kerry has not been blamed for the defeat, at least not the way former vice president Al Gore was after the 2000 election. Some of Kerry’s followers are already plotting how Kerry can defeat Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucuses in 2008. The conventional wisdom, already congealing before Bush’s second Inaugural, pictures Kerry and Clinton as the early Democratic front runners.

Conventional wisdom by whom? Teresa and Bill? If the Democrats think that John Kerry remains blameless for the terrible candidate that he was, whose fault is it? He couldn’t beat Bush in an election that had their far-left base fired up instead of defecting to the Greens. Had the Democrats picked someone with any credibility on national security — like Joe Lieberman — they might have won this election. The GOP can’t wait to run in 2008 against Kerry again.

Ohio Recount Partisans Want Another Round On The House

After having blown $1.5 million of Ohio taxpayer money on a recount that resulted in a 0.27% adjustment to George Bush’s margin of victory, Buckeye State voters might expect that the idiots who pushed for the recount would go away quietly. Unfortunately, idiots by definition notoriously learn lessons the hard way:

Two third-party presidential candidates asked a federal court Thursday to force a second recount of the Ohio vote, alleging county election boards altered votes and didn’t follow proper procedures in the recount that ended this week.
Lawyers for Green Party candidate David Cobb and the Libertarian Party’s Michael Badnarik made their request in federal court in Columbus.
The two candidates, who received less than 0.3 percent of the Ohio vote, paid $113,600 for a statewide recount after the vote was certified earlier this month by the secretary of state. They have said they don’t expect to change the election results, but want to make sure that every vote is proply counted.

Ohio has to be getting tired of paying for the selfish indulgence of a couple of minor-party stooges acting as fronts for the Democrats and the Kerry campaign. They want to have as many recounts as necessaary in order to (a) delegitimize Bush’s solid victory, and (b) manufacture enough votes to reverse it. At the rate we’re going — 300 votes every two months — in 2084, John Kerry will be declared the winner.