Replies

Well, we are in agreement that there is chicanery on both sides AT TIMES. But your question was why would people ASSUME that there was corruption, and when the Dems are at work, especially in LA, Chicago, and so on, I think you that one must presume corruption first.

And Nixon did not, according to his biographers, hesitate to call for a recount because he would have to "give something back," but because he a) did not think down the line they could prove enough, and b) he honestly didn't want to put the country through it. Ambrose, especially, noticed a change in Nixon after 1960 to a more distrustful, suspicious guy.

But come on: surely you remember in 2000 the Dem judge keeping the inner city polls open two hours longer to give Carnahan the victory? And surely you must at least SUSPECT that Thune was cheated by fraudulent votes on Indian reservations---especially since the SD papers were already alerted to that fraud before the election? And the "timely" withdrawal of the Torch and the subsequent "flexible" interpretation of the NJ laws by the NJSC is on the up and up?

No, I think recently Dems have become the masters at corruption and crime. But if you've read any of my posts, I'm the FIRST one to blame the candidates themselves, and their campaigns, for a loss. This is true of simon, of Forrester, of Terrell, and of Schundler. Still, we would be fools not to recognize criminal activity when it stares us in the face.

But come on: surely you remember in 2000 the Dem judge keeping the inner city polls open two hours longer to give Carnahan the victory?

I didn't follow that election at the time. And there are legitimate reasons to keep polls open past the usual closing time. Election judges get "lost" and don't open the polls on time, voting equipment is lost/missing/malfunctional, etc. I don't know what the grounds were given for keeping those polls open.

And surely you must at least SUSPECT that Thune was cheated by fraudulent votes on Indian reservations---especially since the SD papers were already alerted to that fraud before the election?

That one has been sounding quite suspect. One would think an investigation of some kind would be forthcoming. Hm. If I'm a voter in an election and someone has fraudlently voted, or otherwise interefered with the electoral process, haven't my civil rights been violated? Seems to me any voter in the state could file suit....And the "timely" withdrawal of the Torch and the subsequent "flexible" interpretation of the NJ laws by the NJSC is on the up and up?

From a moral viewpoint I think that allowing Torcelli's late withdrawal is wrong, but from a legal viewpoint it seems to me that the NJ Democrats took advantage of a loophole in a poorly written law. At least that's the NJSC's story, and they're sticking to it. The Federal SC let them get away with it, so I figure there's some validity to it. Unfortunately.