Ping
LOL! But...
Might wanna double check...you've got a dupe verse in there. Unless you meant for it to be that way. (I've never been good at appreciating poetry, lol)
That's one of your best ones yet!
I'm beginning to think there may be a method to their madness:
They're expecting the election in 2008 to be closer. (Remember: If it isn't close, they can't cheat.) By going to extremes to check votes this year, when it comes time to check on the usual 'rat area voter fraud in 2008, they're counting on being able to do their usual disenfranchisement moanin' 'n groanin' and then claim that they "checked all that in 2004 and it was proven false." IOW, they're preconstructing evidence to use falsely later. They don't expect to find problems in the areas they're checking. They'll use what they didn't find in Ohio to justify their claims that recounts aren't needed in those places they don't want them to take place later.
(I'll put my tinfoil hat back on now.) ;)
For a man who claimed a recount in Ohio wasn't necessary and wouldn't change the outcome of the election, I read today that his attorneys are up to request #11 on how the recount should proceed. Let's hope today's certification goes without a hitch.
Moveon.sing