Recounts are just so ugly. Here in Washington, State our "recount" crisis during the Governor race just a few years ago, ended in chicanery and a lot of meddling by both parties to incluence the recount.
Now Minnesota is about to have their own recount debacle, this one over a senatorial seat.
Let me be clear: I loathe Al Franken.
I've listened to his radio show, I read his book and he's a jerk. He hides behind the "satire" to say irresponsible things about his opponents, or indeed anyone who dares contradict his narrow point of view. He's the kind of liberal, many of us independents loathe, because he's more focused on demonizing the other side of the political spectrum, than he is about offering solutions, researching facts, or providing real leadership.
His opponent in Minnesota is a very weak counter-proposal to be honest, and really the independent candidate that is running in this race, would have probably received my vote.
However, despite all this, Franken is right, in that he deserves to have the ballots recounted. In fact, he doesn't just deserve it, the law demands he gets a recount. So on this issue, Franken and I agree.
My only word of warning is, watch how quickly the recount is politicized, and watch how much the recount skews the current totals. Recounts are a huge mess, and all kinds of tricks and games come into play, and both the left and right make no apologies in warping, skewing and altering the final totals for their cause.
When a recount triggers, I wonder if it would behoove us all, to simply have an entirely new vote instead? Perhaps, the candidate list should be trimmed to the top 2, so that those who voted for the third and fourth candidates are now forced to choose, similar to the "run off" vote that Georgia will go through in a few weeks.
This would seem to me, to be a more fair way to resolving a race this tight, otherwise ballots suddenly go missing, or suddenly appear (as they have already), or suddenly polling officials claim they "mistyped" their results; and what we get is more about legal manuevering and tricks, than actually determining who the people voted for.
...
Showing posts with label Election Fraud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election Fraud. Show all posts
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Conservative Litmus: George Will
Do you want to know if you're a genuine conservative? If you demand a conservative litmus test, personally, I'd leave the final verdict to George Will.
His verdict on Sarah Palin is not a good one. This editorial from him is outstanding reading.
My two favorite quotes from this are below and my commentary follows:
Later in the article George Will attacks the scapegoat tactics, that have demonized Obama's fund raising:
MY COMMENT: Palin was a farcical pick, a "sugar rush" that provides instant momentum for McCain's campaign, but then crashed and burned when it was obvious that even the most basic question from the press (say a question like "what newspapers do you read?"), had her stumbling for words, and struggling to deliver a single coherent sentence.
On campaign financing, Will makes superb commentary, but missed why McCain is making noise on this issue. While we all agree, public financing of presidential campaigns, need to go the way of the dodo (public financing does far more harm than good), the reason why McCain is raising the issue isn't because he defends public financing, it is because it is setting the stage for the inevitable Republican response to this election.
That response will be: fraud, fraud, fraud.
Obama's campaign financing will receive massive scrutiny in the weeks ahead, and his use of e-Commerce to raise hundreds of millions, will be called into question, and there will be enough odd cases of fraud, that the cry that his entire victory was fraudulent will sadly gain traction in the press.
Still, Will's commentary is laser sharp in the above editorial, and ends on a "delicious" piece of trivia about potato chips. It's worthy reading, from a worthy voice in our political landscape.
...
His verdict on Sarah Palin is not a good one. This editorial from him is outstanding reading.
My two favorite quotes from this are below and my commentary follows:
Did McCain, who seems to think that Palin's never having attended a "Georgetown cocktail party" is sufficient qualification for the vice presidency, lift an eyebrow when she said that vice presidents "are in charge of the United States Senate"?
-- George Will
Later in the article George Will attacks the scapegoat tactics, that have demonized Obama's fund raising:
Why is it virtuous to erect a dam of laws to impede the flow of contributions by which citizens exercise their First Amendment right to political expression? "We're now going to see," McCain warned, "huge amounts of money coming into political campaigns, and we know history tells us that always leads to scandal." The supposedly inevitable scandal, which supposedly justifies preemptive government restrictions on Americans' freedom to fund the dissemination of political ideas they favor, presumably is that Obama will be pressured to give favors to his September givers. The contributions by the new givers that month averaged $86.
-- George Will
MY COMMENT: Palin was a farcical pick, a "sugar rush" that provides instant momentum for McCain's campaign, but then crashed and burned when it was obvious that even the most basic question from the press (say a question like "what newspapers do you read?"), had her stumbling for words, and struggling to deliver a single coherent sentence.
On campaign financing, Will makes superb commentary, but missed why McCain is making noise on this issue. While we all agree, public financing of presidential campaigns, need to go the way of the dodo (public financing does far more harm than good), the reason why McCain is raising the issue isn't because he defends public financing, it is because it is setting the stage for the inevitable Republican response to this election.
That response will be: fraud, fraud, fraud.
Obama's campaign financing will receive massive scrutiny in the weeks ahead, and his use of e-Commerce to raise hundreds of millions, will be called into question, and there will be enough odd cases of fraud, that the cry that his entire victory was fraudulent will sadly gain traction in the press.
Still, Will's commentary is laser sharp in the above editorial, and ends on a "delicious" piece of trivia about potato chips. It's worthy reading, from a worthy voice in our political landscape.
...
Sunday, October 26, 2008
The "Fraud" Narrative Gains Momentum
I continue to harp about the inevitable Republican response to an Obama victory, which I predict will be: fraud, fraud, fraud!
We saw initial seeds planted last week for this narrative, and now we see mainstream slowly taking the bait.
A key quote from this article in the Washington Post:
As someone with a decade of electronic commerce experience in my career, I can tell you, there will be many examples of "suspicious" donations in Obama's campaign.
It won't matter that there was a serious effort to thwart the fraud, or that the vast majority of the contributions were probably legal, or that Obama was clearly the preferred candidate.
No, the narrative will be, that America's first black president, used "Chicago-style" politics to steal the presidency.
Sean Hannity is writing his first diatribe on this topic already, to be delivered within 24-hours of an Obama victory.
What is the left doing in anticipation of this? Nothing, they are popping champagne, laughing at SNL skits and saying stupid things like "leave nothing on the road, nothing".
It will be giddy cheerleaders versus a savvy, media-driven narrative to discredit the left's largest political gain in decades. I think it will be the cheerleaders that might end up "on the road:, if they don't start acting now to counter these accusations.
...
We saw initial seeds planted last week for this narrative, and now we see mainstream slowly taking the bait.
A key quote from this article in the Washington Post:
Donors to the Obama campaign using false names such as Doodad Pro and Good Will gave $17,375 through 1,000 separate donations, with no sign that they immediately tripped alarms at the campaign. Of more concern, Cairncross said, are reports that the campaign permitted money from 123 foreign nationals to enter its accounts.
-- Matthew Mosk, Washington Post
As someone with a decade of electronic commerce experience in my career, I can tell you, there will be many examples of "suspicious" donations in Obama's campaign.
It won't matter that there was a serious effort to thwart the fraud, or that the vast majority of the contributions were probably legal, or that Obama was clearly the preferred candidate.
No, the narrative will be, that America's first black president, used "Chicago-style" politics to steal the presidency.
Sean Hannity is writing his first diatribe on this topic already, to be delivered within 24-hours of an Obama victory.
What is the left doing in anticipation of this? Nothing, they are popping champagne, laughing at SNL skits and saying stupid things like "leave nothing on the road, nothing".
It will be giddy cheerleaders versus a savvy, media-driven narrative to discredit the left's largest political gain in decades. I think it will be the cheerleaders that might end up "on the road:, if they don't start acting now to counter these accusations.
...
A Worrisome Mess
A quote worthy of repeating, (and even shouting from rooftops if you have the energy):
I have warned for a while now, how the outcome of this election will likely bring thunderous cries of “voter fraud”. If Obama wins, the validity of his victory be called into question, primarily because our election technology and voter audit procedures are sadly lacking.
Think of it: the first African-American President will have his legitimacy questioned, merely because our procedures can be called into question. That's just tragic, and we have only ourselves to blame.
We should be pushing our leaders for reform of our electoral process, and provide a means by which we can all track our individual vote, and ensure it was recorded correctly.
The full diatribe from Michael can be seen here.
...
We can go to the moon, split atoms to power submarines, squeeze profits from a 99 cent hamburger and watch football highlights on cell phones. But the most successful democracy in human history has yet to figure out how to conduct a proper election. As it stands, the American voting system is a worrisome mess, a labyrinth of local, state and federal laws spotted with bewildered volunteers, harried public officials, partisan distortions, misdesigned forms, malfunctioning machines and polling-place confusion.
-- Michael Sherer, Time Magazine
I have warned for a while now, how the outcome of this election will likely bring thunderous cries of “voter fraud”. If Obama wins, the validity of his victory be called into question, primarily because our election technology and voter audit procedures are sadly lacking.
Think of it: the first African-American President will have his legitimacy questioned, merely because our procedures can be called into question. That's just tragic, and we have only ourselves to blame.
We should be pushing our leaders for reform of our electoral process, and provide a means by which we can all track our individual vote, and ensure it was recorded correctly.
The full diatribe from Michael can be seen here.
...
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Lions, Tigers and ACORN, Oh My!
Great quote from Lisa Lerer on this idea that ACORN is part of a vast conspiracy to destroy democracy:
The full article can be found here
“But faulty registrations rarely turn into illegal votes. While ACORN has admitted to errors in its registration process, documented cases of illegally cast ballots remain rare. A five-year investigation by the Bush administration resulted in the convictions of only 26 voters found guilty of voting more than once, registration fraud, or ineligible voting.” – Lisa Lerer
The full article can be found here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)