NY Slimes
01/02/05 - UPDATE:A great deal of apparent fraud is coming to light.
From the Seattle Times
The NYT should be ashamed of themselves for ignoring the need for a fair vote in favor of the outcome that meets their approval.
***
The New York Times is sporting an op-ed about insidious Republican attempts to block hundreds of votes that were "found" in a Democratic county in Washington. They lament the fact that the desire for all votes to be counted is not automatic. Hmmm...perhaps could it be because of a little something called...fraud? Third time is a charm for Ms. Gregoire as she lost the election for governor, then lost the more reliable machine recount, but won the much less reliable hand recount. Machines don't make errors, so obviously the Democrats had to get the election into the hands of people so they could "discern voter intent" a little more in the Rats' favor.
Discerning voter intent any time it is not 100% clear should never be done. I mean look at Florida in 2k. If a ballot was spoiled, they could easily determine it to be a vote for Gore because Republicans were smart enough to know how to vote. While that sounds like a logical argument to me, it is bad for democracy.
And why does it seem like whenever there is a close race, Democrat votes are suddenly "found" in Democrat counties? Remember the ridiculous calls for a re-vote in 2000 because evidently the idiot Democrats couldn't figure out how to vote? Luckily that silly talk died down, but Al Gore didn't need/want a re-vote, anyway. All he needed was hand recounts in a few Democrat counties so that votes could be "found" by Democrat operatives. Why do voters who are found to be dead tend to be Democrats? Why are the double dippers voting in more than one state overwhelmingly Democrat (the ones registered in NY and Florida were 68% Democrat vs. 12% Republican)? And yet the Times doesn't get why Republicans are suspicious when Democrat votes are "found" by Democrats in a Democratic county. If Democrat poll workers are so incompetent that they lose hundreds of votes so often, maybe they should be barred from running polling places.
We should get more Democrats working in law enforcement as they are becoming master detectives when it comes to "finding" long-lost Democrat votes. We could also throw out juries and lawyers, as we don't need proof of guilt. For Democrats have also become masters at discerning intent.
The Times apparently doesn't get why a fair election is more important than counting fudged votes. Perhaps they think the votes that were "found" are okay and should be counted, but I would be suspicious any time votes are "found" by the losing party (or the winning party, for that matter)in a very tight election. What would the Times say if a bag of Republican votes were suddenly found by Republicans in a Republican county in Washington, and the election swung back to the Republican?
From the Seattle Times
As has been the case since Election Day, much of the attention is focused on King County. Republicans are asking questions about why the county's list of registered voters who cast valid ballots in the election shows about 3,500 fewer people than the total number of votes certified in the race.
The NYT should be ashamed of themselves for ignoring the need for a fair vote in favor of the outcome that meets their approval.
***
The New York Times is sporting an op-ed about insidious Republican attempts to block hundreds of votes that were "found" in a Democratic county in Washington. They lament the fact that the desire for all votes to be counted is not automatic. Hmmm...perhaps could it be because of a little something called...fraud? Third time is a charm for Ms. Gregoire as she lost the election for governor, then lost the more reliable machine recount, but won the much less reliable hand recount. Machines don't make errors, so obviously the Democrats had to get the election into the hands of people so they could "discern voter intent" a little more in the Rats' favor.
Discerning voter intent any time it is not 100% clear should never be done. I mean look at Florida in 2k. If a ballot was spoiled, they could easily determine it to be a vote for Gore because Republicans were smart enough to know how to vote. While that sounds like a logical argument to me, it is bad for democracy.
And why does it seem like whenever there is a close race, Democrat votes are suddenly "found" in Democrat counties? Remember the ridiculous calls for a re-vote in 2000 because evidently the idiot Democrats couldn't figure out how to vote? Luckily that silly talk died down, but Al Gore didn't need/want a re-vote, anyway. All he needed was hand recounts in a few Democrat counties so that votes could be "found" by Democrat operatives. Why do voters who are found to be dead tend to be Democrats? Why are the double dippers voting in more than one state overwhelmingly Democrat (the ones registered in NY and Florida were 68% Democrat vs. 12% Republican)? And yet the Times doesn't get why Republicans are suspicious when Democrat votes are "found" by Democrats in a Democratic county. If Democrat poll workers are so incompetent that they lose hundreds of votes so often, maybe they should be barred from running polling places.
We should get more Democrats working in law enforcement as they are becoming master detectives when it comes to "finding" long-lost Democrat votes. We could also throw out juries and lawyers, as we don't need proof of guilt. For Democrats have also become masters at discerning intent.
The Times apparently doesn't get why a fair election is more important than counting fudged votes. Perhaps they think the votes that were "found" are okay and should be counted, but I would be suspicious any time votes are "found" by the losing party (or the winning party, for that matter)in a very tight election. What would the Times say if a bag of Republican votes were suddenly found by Republicans in a Republican county in Washington, and the election swung back to the Republican?
posted by Unknown at 6:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home