Replies

What have you seen in the actions of the dems that makes you want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

It's not something I've seen in the Dems per se. It's something I've seen in the United States Constitution, the American legal system, and the English common law on which it's based.

Those who are accused of criminal activity always get the benefit of the doubt. Those who are accused of criminal activity are always considered not guilty unless proven otherwise by the evidence. And "well, it's the sort of thing they would do" doesn't meet any evidentiary standard.

How about one more question? Do you honestly believe the recount tactic is anything other than an attempt to steal the election?

Absolutely. I think the recount "tactic" is an attempt to win, not necessarily an attempt to steal. Let me repost something I posted in another thread:

My litmus test for all this sort of stuff is simple: how would I feel if things were the other way around? If everything were exactly the same, all the numbers were exactly the same, but the candidates were switched.

If Gregoire led by 261 in the initial count and by 42 after the machine recount, would I object to a manual recount? Hell, no. I'd demand it. If the Democrats tried to stop the manual recount, how would I feel? Nauseated.

If a bunch of absentee ballots were found that had been improperly rejected in the state's biggest county, which also happened to be heavily Republican, what would I think? Would I think they should be counted? Well, of course. Those ballots were cast by legitimate voters, and mistakes by county officials shouldn't disenfranchise them. If the Democrats tried to prevent them from being counted? They're bastards, trying to steal the election by disenfranchising Republicans.

If that heavily Republican county, being by far the largest in the state, was last to report because of its enormous size and correspondingly enormous number of ballots to count by hand, would I be suspicious? Nope, that's to be expected. If the tabulated votes in that heavily Republican county put Rossi over the top, would I suspect fraud? Nope, that comes with being "heavily Republican".

If the Republicans shelled out the money for a manual recount and it turned out that Rossi really won, should he get his money back? Well, duh. Why the hell should a candidate have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to force the state to recognize that he won?

And I daresay that these would be the majority stances on Free Republic... if everything were the other way around.

Do you honestly believe what you are writing?

Every last word.

Good evening.

Your response to my questions leads me to another. I can appreciate your point but how far must we go? How many recounts is enough and why should election rules be changed in an attempt to allow enough questionable votes to be counted to change the results?

Evidentiary standards have changed since the Constitution was written. All of the rules we live under are interpreted by judges. This will have to go to the state Supreme Court. And if that doesn't provide a satisfactory result then on to the highest court in the land? After that...?

I'm unable to respond to your litmus test because I can't recall the Republicans ever going to the lengths the dems have to 'win'.

Michael Frazier

FWIW, I also appreciate the "litmus test" you run, as I use it myself. If we cannot face a turning of the tables, then how weak is our position? We must be able to be objective--blind partisanship is hardly attractive to the populace at large, and it doesn't help much to advance a conservative agenda. If we can face an honest appraisal, however, we can demonstrate we are better than the Dems.

I do believe that the Democrats are not acting as honestly as the Republicans in the election; however, I agree with the standard of proof and I know you're not a shill for the Dems.

There's an additional point here, though. Regardless of innocence or guilt, it is bad practice to include ballots that turn up later--after observers had the chance to confirm the process--with a broken chain of custody.