The conspiracies are still going strong. Now MSNBC takes a pitiful shot at the elections in Ohio. Apparently, it is big news that 37 people had issues with the elections in Ohio.
One voter didn’t see any signs of fraud on Election Day but was suspicious of the results. Another was surprised by long lines in her suburban city, where voting was always quick in the past.
Others were angered by having to wait hours to vote in black neighborhoods. Some left in frustration without casting their ballots.
In all, 37 voters in this swing state are challenging President Bush’s Nov. 2 victory over Democratic Sen. John Kerry. They want Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer to set aside the election results.
First of all, having a suspicion is not proof of fraud. Second, standing in long lines is not proof, either. Wait times at an early polling place in Raleigh, NC, that I tried to go to 2 Saturdays before the elections were 4-5 hours. Big deal. More people voted this year then ever before. Too bad the Democratic Precincts were not ready to handle the load. Third, if folks left early, that is their problem. It is not fraud. They had plenty of time to go the early voting route.
Finally, the courts certainly do need to protect the rights of the Minority. But, to throw out an election because of 37 people with minor issues vs. the other 5.6 million? That is absurd. Ridiculous. Consider that the majority of counties in Ohio went for Bush, with the more urban areas going for Kerry. Are we to deny the VAST, VAST, VAST majority their Rights? It is time for the Democrats who are pushing this to put up or shut up: provide hard evidence of fraud, or move on.
“Jesse Jackson can complain, grand stand, whine, stamp his feet all he wants,†Blackwell spokesman Carlo LoParo said. “It’s not going to change the results of Ohio’s election or how voters cast their ballots on Nov. 2.â€
Yeah, we he said about all of them.
Man you just keep at this. OK, I’ll bite. First, it is not “37 people with minor issues vs. the other 5.6 million” it is 37 people were compelled to take on the time and expense of filing suit re: those issues. Big difference.
And second, “having a suspicion is not proof of fraud”. Clearly not. But having suspicion could be enough to file suit, and filing suit can give one subpoena power (a basic civil right), and THAT could potentially uncover proof of fraud. I’m not saying it WILL, but would you expect someone to just come forward and say, “OK, I defrauded the voters” on their own?
Third, “Too bad the Democratic Precincts were not ready to handle the load”. The people in charge of supplying these districts were not Democrats. You would be more accurate to say “too bad the people appointed by the Republican governer to ensure that there are enough voting machines in Democratic precincts shorted them”. If this was done with the expressed intention of suppressing turnout, it could, in fact, constitute fraud. Again . . . I ain’t saying it did.
“Provide hard evidence of fraud” And just how are they supposed to do that outside of legal channels, Teach? Seriously. Osmosis? Lucky leaks? Divine intervention? What? Let the suits work themselves out. If you’re right and there is no “there” there . . . what is the problem?