Doesn't say much for the self control abilities of their side, if they lose does it?

So what she's saying is, she expects the average Republican-in-the-street to take a political loss calmly, and not break the law -- but she's not so sure about the average Democrat-in-the-street?

The term "damning with faint praise" is coming to mind here. At least.

I dunno who said it, but I am inclined to agree - All I ask for come November 3rd is that WHOEVER wins does so by a massive margin.

However, in my heart I believe that a Bush landslide of 76% wouldn't change the fact that the Dems are going to fight this tooth and nail.

see update

Well knock me sideways with a feather.

A democrat is "getting an unfair treatment from Drudge". Count me in as being totaly non-plussed, surprised and hurt that the normaly exemplary Drudge woud resort to such scandalous behaviour.

Truly amazing!

Sometimes I think he's right, other times, not so much. This treatment is ludicrous, especially after you hear the clip.

I am not sure I would use Drudge as a measuring stick of journalistic standards.

He is really a meme-floater and that is it.

Right of Center -

I actually meant to compare Drudge to drudge (look at his placement of the Kerry story), and prematurely criticize the inevitable focus of some of the rightie blogosphere.

Okay, if your point is that the Kerry lying about UN meetings is ignored for the more fluffy Mrs Edwards comment, I actually agree.

But I also admit that I find Elizabeth Edwards take on the rioting situation interesting.

Well, far be it for me to defend drudge. But the Edwards quote is interesting for the general public, I think, because of the general anxiety  in the general public about the consequences of this bitter election.

I know I am concerned about the posibility of riots or somekind of violence in places.

Actually I think there *is more* possibility of riots if the outcome is clear and definitive -- because of the shock.

The interesting (or not) thing about the E. Edwards quote is that the supporter and Mrs. Edwards were not talking about the same riots. The suppporter meant Republicans "rioting" if Kerry took PA and Edwards meant Dems "Rioting" if Bush wins the whole election.

Partly this is interesting because of the recent revelation that Mrs. Edwards is a regular "lurker" at DU.

Careful. Drudge lead off the day with a story that isn't very significant, he does need a confirmed header for the morning. The Kerry/UN and explosives stories appears to have paused for breath. Common with a story released Monday. I expect that a lot of phone calls and story boarding is going on right now to determine just how to handle them in every camp, Drudge included. Watch Drudge over the day for the relative placing of the explosives, the Kerry/UN, and even the Mrs Edwards stories for a hint of how the storyboarding is going.

But,
Do I think the focus should be on the Edwards quote vs. the UN meeting story? No. I am the wonkish sort.

But, do I think the Edwards quote might be more damaging? Yes. maybe.

Lots of people are not wonks.

They may be surprised that Mrs. Edwards *has* and opinion on the "cause" or likelyhood of post election riots.

A more "normal" reaction would have been "Riots? Oh lets hope there are no riots"

He comment lays bare their belief in the absolute, unquestionable "rightness" of their cause.

I think people will notice that and some people will not see it as a possitive attribute.

Polite discourse has deteriorated to the point where it is almost impossible for me to judge when someone is or is not being sarcastic.

The wife of the VP candidate confirms that if they don't win, there will be riots. This isn't so bad or scandalous by you? How about criminal? Inciting a riot is still against the law in Pennsylvania isn't it? Or have the liberals completely taken over PA too?

Add this threat to Gore's pathetic efforts to incite blacks in Florida to act up and we can see that libs, true to their warnings last week, have begun their drive to stage a successful coup d'etat this time round.

I hope we can count on you to be in the president's corner.

The idea that the left would riot is one more reason to keep them out of power.

To elect them would be like a parent letting a whiny child dictate to them for fear of them throwing a tantrum.

Then, of course, there are those who are cleaning their weapons in anticipation of a "target rich environment" should the moonbats riot.

Wow, we've got a coup d'etat by the liberals coming, but don't worry, Michael's friends will be there to pick them off with their guns.

And you guys talk about moonbats?

Thanks for the post, Bill. After the past twelve years, "wolf" has been cried so many times by the right that I've almost developed a switch that flips off when I hear right wing "outrage". It's hard for me to know if the right is really and justifiably outraged over an incident, or if it's just more puffery.

I'm sure I'm not alone in this. When people of good faith on the right rein in some of the shouters, it does a lot to earn credibility for the right from this side of the ideological divide. I'll make every effort to do the same from the left.

And - by the way - I would really recommend reining in the stray "gearing up for the revolution with my guns" crowd. Several threads have degenerated into some sort of survivalist fantasy, and it's disturbing to me.

-Fe Wm.

hyperbole aside, I think the point is that if you riot because you don't get your way in public discourse - an election being the indicator of whether you got your way - people inclined to accept the results of the election either way are not going to support your right to do so.

Off the cuff remarks - made when there is no knowledge of anyone recording them - are the most revealing, and most truthful.

Either Edwards knows of a plan, or she thinks kerry supporters are thugs -- probably BOTH.

In addition to preemptive legal challenges, and massive organized voter fraud, it seems OBVIOUS that the DNC is planning to stage riots --- a "KERRY INTIFADA" - I predicted this on 10/10 in my blog - The Astute Blogger.

Oh no, I'm so afraid of the democrat riots...in your mind.

I do think it revealing that Mrs Edwards implies that a violent reaction to the election results might be expected from one side, but not the other.

Having said that, any 'KERRY INTIFADA' would be a VERY small portion of the democratic party. Their 'reality based' community is made up of the frindge and mostly blowhards at that.

I would be far more concerned about the Kerry plan to automatically contest any close results with his legal SWAT teams. That is a move that will establish a precedent that could completely chamge the way future elections are held.

'cmon. I am a commited conservative and I don't think there will be organized riots by the DNC anymore than I believe Rove is out to disenfranchise the black vote.

There might be violence from either side, but the one thing that is certain if it does, is that it will come from the wackos (on either side).

I do think the Edwards quote is interesting for what it reveals about her thinking, but not surprising.

Ultimately I don't care because SHE is not up for election.

I think "hyperbolics" (is that the right word?) on both sides are so convinced of the absolute rightness of their cause and the evilness of the other side, that they believe such things.

Her comment is noteworthy *because* it indicates she *may* be one of the 'hyper'. That is noteworth but not too surprising.

I would be far more concerned about the Kerry plan to automatically contest any close results with his legal SWAT teams. That is a move that will establish a precedent that could completely chamge the way future elections are held.

You have read about Karl Rove's M.O., haven't you?

It's going to be messy this time around - no doubt about that - and it might be irrelevant "who started it". Still, don't discount the litigiousness that's coming from the GOP as well.

-Fe Wm.

I hope you are right but Edwards remarks taken with other things the Democrats are saying, lead me to believe we need to take a closer look.

For instance, Terry Mcullife said the other day the Dems would know the result early. ???

And there is this:

Unlike the former vice president, who lost a recount fight and the 2000 election, Kerry will be quick to declare victory on election night and ***begin defending it.*** He also will be prepared to name a national security team ***before knowing whether he's secured the presidency.***

Look at all the pre-election violence we see today from the Democrats. What do you think is going to happen when Kerry loses?

Remember, EE is a skilled lawyer. She knows something and it slipped out. Her comment is very likely a peek inside the covert contingency planning she has been a party to. The culture of the SEIU leadership is essentially neo-Stalinist; aggressive and confrontive. It is not paranoid to consider whether McAullife would try to use third parties to RICO his way into an election victory for Kerry. Itchy-faced crackheads are the tip of the iceberg. Shrum is such a mess; a twisted and vicious partisan. These guys are running to eat. To keep their jobs. They're going for broke; it's the last hurrah for McAuliffe and Shrum.. the desperation is obvious. The SEIU is headed by former SDS leaders and deeply tied to the EU and International Left. We've seen in recent news reports an elevated proclivity for bullying and violence from DNC-Unionist operatives. Hide and watch. Expect the polemic trick of Kerry declaring victory as a preemptive device. Expect organized outbursts of violence threatening greater violence to follow. Man, do I hope I have this all wrong.

For instance, Terry Mcullife said the other day the Dems would know the result early.

Yeah - they will. Karl Rove and the Republican insiders will know as well. Exit polls are very effective, which is why the media won't be broadcasting them until the polls close.

Look at all the pre-election violence we see today from the Democrats. What do you think is going to happen when Kerry loses?

I hope none of this comes to pass, but I'd be prepared either way for some level of disquiet. Dems have the GOP out-lawyered this year, but don't think that Mr. Rove isn't planning to automatically dispute close vote results.

Look - either way, Dems are going to claim "voter intimidation" and Republicans are going to claim "vote fraud". It's in the cards. Our only real hope to avoid another 2000 (or worse) is that the electorial college is definitive enough that continued challenges are seen as futile. And I don't see that happening right now.

-Fe Wm.

it doesn't take a moajiry of the dems to cause riots - only a few, and we've seen them do it before: in Seattle and elsewhere; they're practised at it.

i'm a de for bush by the way...

but one who feels that the party is once again under the control of an irrational Left-wing who will riot.

bet on it. it's a sure a thing as a dem legal challenge, and part of a strategy to diminish bush's victory.

as marc noted above: the dem violence has already begun.

OPEN YOU EYES.

I don't think she implied at all that there would be organized or planned riots, I just think she thought the anger at Bush could be tranferred to a riot.

I do think the pre election violence at the various GOP headquarters are enough evidence to indicate rioting is possible-let's just hope it isn't.

I also agree that the lawyers descending on various states to file suit will be far more damaging in the long run, than some idiots who decide to riot.

The Democrats have thrown the rule of law out the window for this election...they are literally placing their own power before the good of the country.

We should all rise up and punish the Dems at the ballot box...

Apples and oranges. Drudge's story may have made a mountain out of a molehill, but at least he didn't float advance teasers implying that this story was going to be about something else. That is the objection to this yawner - not the story, but your pre-hyping of it. Had you waited a little longer and linked to the story when it broke, no one would be yawning, and everyone would be talking about what should be the real story: Kerry got caught in yet another lie.

OK - first of all I don't believe that EE is aware of any plans for organized rioting.

I do however believe that as a LAWYER she is aware of every word she says and what effect such words might have.

That being said I don't think she would be above taking advantage of the irrational fears of a leftist lunatic who probably has her by the sleeve.

Liberals don't have the healthy energy, or even the optimism, to riot; they are a sullen, hostile lot, more prone to feuds and sarcasm than a good, old-fashioned riot. Nor do they wish to jeapordize their Malibu digs or their cushy DC jobs.

What did the maniacally motivated Deaniacs do when they lost? Cried, and evaporated into cyberspace.

What did the maniacally motivated Deaniacs do when they lost? Cried, and evaporated into cyberspace.

They cried, evaporated into cyberspace, and coalesced into organizations like MoveOn.org, ACT, and the sea of left-wing bloggers dominating the internet. If Mr. Kerry wins election this year, these Deaniacs will be one of the strongest reasons.

-Fe Wm.

Okay, Mr. Defensive..watch those generalizations.

And, keep in mind that...statistically speaking, half of the population is stupid.

The rest read your posts!

7124
this is a great plae to play texas holdem online. feel free to try out the http://texas-holdem-a.fateback.com for big bonuses! texas holdem poker

4109 http://www.e-slots.info slots click here to play
online slots

6886 http://texas-hold-em-w.fateback.com
texas hold em
online texas hold em

1676 http://poker-online-a.6x.to

poker online

1038 count sheep or use ambien for your
sleeping pill needs.