That's why I think the Democrats are not serious about election reform; they subconsciously understand that if all fraud were uncovered, nearly all of it would have been that involving Democrats.
I mean, can anyone name a Republican "machine" anywhere?
All I can think of is that Pennsylvania, and the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, used to be run by Republican machines, but that was circa 1890-1930, and they were utterly destroyed by the Great Depression.
In the meantime, the Democratic machines are still very much alive in Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Lost Angeles, Boston, New York City, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, &c., &c., &c.--just about every city in the United States with more than 800,000 in population.
So I think the Democrats are not really serious about election reform; it would uncover too much, and uncover things they don't want uncovered.
Anyway, however, as we learn from the DUmmies, the "cause" (election reform) provides a convenient cover, a respectable facade, for their real interests, raising dough for 5-star hotels (Bev Harris) or underwear (the DUmmie "Andy Stephenson").
"So I think the Democrats are not really serious about election reform; it would uncover too much, and uncover things they don't want uncovered."
No kidding. Without some pretty blatant fraud in Detroit I think Michigan may have ended up as a red state. Everyone was so sure that we would go to Kerry that no one bothered to look at how it happened.
http://www.nationalreview.com/battleground/2004/battleground200411040640.asp
So I think the Democrats are not really serious about election reform; it would uncover too much, and uncover things they don't want uncovered.
And not just about how adept they've gotten at stealing elections. Although I am glad Republicans are finally speaking out about this. I've never understood how it could be better for the country/state/county, etc. to be represented by someone the majority don't want, especially when the "socialist" programs they want to promote are so bad for the country. Allowing them to continue to steal election after election and keeping quiet to preserve national "unity" is a grave disservice to the majority that voted for you.
Then again, if they couldn't steal elections (or believe with every fiber of their dillusioned minds) that the only reason they lost was because it was stolen by the "other" side, without the slightest proof, they might actually have to admit they lost because they are woefully out of step with the rest of their countrymen. Even their "leaders", who should know better, buy into this. Just witness the ridiculous Conyers whine-fest during the elector confirmation process or Kennedy saying they may be a minority in the congress, but they represent the majority of Americans. I'm still trying to figure this one out. I know their friends at the NEA are real fond of the "new math", but when there are less Democrats elected to congress each election and more Republicans (which would mean MORE people are voting Republican), how do you say with a straight face that you represent the majority? You'd think they'd get dizzy from all the spin they swallow.
Cindie
Oh, I think the DUmmies are sincere -- just like Pauline Kael (?) saying "How could Nixon have won [over McGovern]? I don't know anyone who voted for him!"
I do, however, think this is the reason the DUmmies are so frustrated in their attempts to get their Dem senators and reps to do something! (What do I mean, "think"? Some things you can be sure of!)