Everything I Know Is Wrong

Eeet iz wery eazy to hack into zee muzer machinez.

Just think of the rich, bloggy goodness--she could have been the First Lady.

Election Fraud Round-up

Just doing a little cleaning up around the blog.

The Seattle Times
Reed sides with GOP before court

Secretary of State Sam Reed filed court papers this week siding with Republicans on key legal issues in the lawsuit over the governor's election, saying, for example, that the dispute should stay in the courts and not move to the Legislature as Democrats want.

Reed said that in court, the Republicans' effort to have Gov. Christine Gregoire removed from office and to force a new election can be decided in "a prompt, orderly, and non-partisan manner."

The Seattle Times
GOP says it found 300 illegal votes

The state Republican Party said in court papers filed yesterday that it has found 300 illegal votes and more than 400 that can't be verified in the governor's election.

With Christine Gregoire winning the governor's race by 129 votes, Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance says he now has found far more than enough evidence to persuade a judge to nullify the election and call for a rematch between Gregoire and Republican Dino Rossi.

National Review Online
Re-Vote

E-mail Author Author Archive Send to a Friend Print Version January 28, 2005, 8:05 a.m. Re-Vote Washington State needs to get their gubernatorial election right. During the Florida-vote controversy in 2000, Democrats always said they wanted to "count all the votes." Skeptics thought what they really meant was "count enough votes for Al Gore to win." In Washington State it is this latter mantra that has apparently been the operating principle. A Democratic governor, Christine Gregoire, has just taken office after the state kept recounting until she finally overcame the slight advantage of her Republican opponent, Dino Rossi, and — voila! — all curiosity about getting ever-more accurate vote counts ended.

JS Online
City OK'd 1,305 flawed voter cards

Milwaukee officials said Thursday that 1,305 same-day voter registration cards from the Nov. 2 election could not be processed, including more than 500 cases where voters listed no address and dozens more where no name was written on the card.

But the revelation of the actual number of cards that couldn't be processed, far lower than previous estimates of 8,300 or more, raised new concerns, because it leaves a clear gap of more than 7,000 people who voted on Nov. 2 and cannot be accounted for in city records.

Two Tours

American Conservative Union
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth will be presented with the American Conservative Union's "Courage Under Fire Award" at the 32nd annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), ACU Chairman David A. Keene announced today.

The award will take place during CPAC's annual Ronald Reagan Banquet, February 18, 2005.

"For a second time, the Swift Boat veterans stepped up to serve their country honorably and courageously by telling the truth about John Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam," Keene said. "Despite vilification, character assassination, and the hostility of the elite media, these veterans dared to tell a side of the story that the American people otherwise would not have heard. John Kerry truly was unfit to serve as commander-in-chief and these veterans had the courage to say so publicly."

Previous recipients of ACU's Courage Under Fire Award include Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton and Chief M.G. Buthelezi of South Africa. The award is not given annually, but only in those years in which someone has shown exceptional courage under fire.

"These Vietnam veterans did not have to stand up and expose themselves to the opprobrium of the liberal media," Keene noted. "They could have remained silent, comfortably out of the public eye and the line of fire. But they put the good of their country ahead of their own personal interests."

On behalf of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, John O'Neill said: "We are honored that the American Conservative Union has chosen our organization to receive this award. We did not go into this seeking recognition for ourselves. We did it for the good the country, for all those who served honorably in Vietnam and who John Kerry slandered, and for all those fallen heroes who did not come home."

Indeed.

Kerry-Edwards Intervention in Ohio Recount

The Kerry-Edwards campaign has apparently gotten involved in the effort being promoted by the Greens and Libertarians to force a recount in Ohio.

Green Party
Today, attorneys representing the Kerry-Edwards campaign filed papers in Delaware County, Ohio to intervene in legal proceedings in defense of Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb, Libertarian Michael Badnarik and their legal counsel, the National Voting Rights Institute, who are seeking a recount of all votes cast for president in the Ohio 2004 general election.

What are they thinking? That they're going to win?

Update: James Taranto points out that Michael Moore is "having none of it."

Newsmax.com reports that Moore appeared on "The Tonight Show" Monday and told host Jay Leno "that President Bush won the contest fair and square":

Asked why Democratic hopes went up in smoke on Election Day, Moore said simply, "I think Bush got more votes."

"The Republicans--I'll give them this--they had a story to tell," the Bush-bashing filmmaker conceded. "The Democrats, oftentimes, aren't very good at telling a story." . . .

"People who voted for Kerry shouldn't be depressed at this point. They should pick themselves up. . . . There's another game in four years. And we'll come back and do the best we can."

When Michael Moore is the voice of reason, the Democratic Party is in a strange state indeed.

Yep.

And Still They Try

Despite a recount in the most heavily Democrat counties, The Miami Herald could find "no flaw" in President Bush's Florida win. In fact, "the newspaper's count of optical scan ballots in Suwannee, Lafayette and Union counties showed Bush whipping Sen. John Kerry in a swath of Florida where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-1."

Miami Herald
 Since George W. Bush captured Florida and the White House again, critics have fixed their sights on northern pockets of the Sunshine State and asked: How did the Republicans win so heavily in counties stocked with Democrats?

Some wondered whether Florida's tally was corrupt, with one Internet site writing: "George W. Bush's vote tallies, especially in the key state of Florida, are so statistically stunning that they border on the unbelievable." [Hyperlink mine - Sean]

Last week, The Herald went to see for itself whether Bush's steamroll through North Florida was legitimate. Picking three counties that fit the conspiracy theory profile -- staunchly Democratic by registration, whoppingly GOP by voting -- two reporters counted more than 17,000 ballots over three days.

The conclusion: No conspiracy.

I find it... ironic... that Democrats thought President Bush wasn't legitimate because he didn't win the popular vote in 2000, and they haven't changed their mind now that he has won the popular vote hands down.

MoveON Gets Its Wish

MoveOn, the Pro Kerry, Democratic 527 group that billionaire George Soros spent a fortune financing, to no avail, has been trying their best to continue a strategy that stirred up their base after the 2000 Florida recount fiasco.

MoveOn
Questions are swirling around whether the election was conducted honestly or not. We need to know — was it or wasn't it? If people were wrongly prevented from voting, or if legitimate votes were mis-counted or not counted at all, we need to know so the wrongdoers can be held accountable, and so we can prevent this from happening again.

It now looks like the tin-foil-hats at MoveOn may get their wish, but the answer won't change their rhetoric.

AP
A statewide recount of the presidential vote appears inevitable after a pair of third-party candidates said they have collected enough money to pay for it.

The recount would be conducted after the election results are certified in early December. 

[...]

[Libertarian Michael] Badnarik and [David] Cobb [of the Green Party] said they aren't trying to overturn President Bush's 136,000-vote victory in Ohio, but just want to ensure that all votes were counted properly in the face of concerns about Election Day irregularities.

"Our bottom line is to stand up for the integrity of the voting process because the voting process is the heart of the democratic process," said Blair Bobier, spokesman for Cobb.

Bobier said it will be worth the price to ensure the final outcome can be trusted.

The words sound OK, they're just hard to believe. Remember all the fuss over the Florida recount in 2000? Remember the recount... after the recount?

Insight
Back in January 2001, before Bush was inaugurated, a media consortium that included the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Associated Press, CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Orlando Sentinel, the Palm Beach Post, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale and the St. Petersburg Times commissioned the National Organization of Research at the University of Chicago (NORC) to conduct an independent study of the ballots.

[...]

It wasn't until Nov. 12, more than a year after Election Day, that NORC announced that Bush still would have won.[Emphasis mine - Ed.]

The list of newspapers that commissioned the NORC study are some of the heaviest heavy-weights in the world. The only one in the group that sometimes leans to the Right is the Wall Street Journal, the other papers lean, or have fallen altogether, to the Left. Yet Bush won.

Did that change Terry McAuliffe's rhetoric? No. What was the rallying cry of the Democrats for the last four years? "Bush: Selected, not elected!" Does anyone really think that the DNC was ignorant of the findings of the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Associated Press, CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Orlando Sentinel, the Palm Beach Post, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale and the St. Petersburg Times? Does anyone think that their rhetoric was based in a sincere belief that Gore won?

Does anyone believe that a low-life organization like MoveOn, with a record of "misstatements" a mile long, will really accept a Bush victory after the recount proves it once and for all?

Give me a break.

Psychologists: Rush Limbaugh is a PEST

This is so, so sad. And it speaks volumes about the left in America.

BocaNews
Mental health officials in South Florida blasted Rush Limbaugh on Monday, saying the conservative talk show host’s offer of “free therapy” for traumatized John Kerry voters has made a mockery of a valid psychological problem.

Wait, wait tell me again, and go slower this time; who's making a mockery of what?

“Rush Limbaugh has a way of back-handedly slamming people,” said Sheila Cooperman, a licensed clinician with the American Health Association (AHA) who listened Friday as Limbaugh offered to personally treat her patients. “He’s trying to ridicule the emotional state this presidential election produced in many of us here in Palm Beach County. Who is he to offer therapy?”

The Boca Raton News reported last week that more than 30 distraught Kerry supporters in South Florida contacted the non-profit AHA following their candidate’s Nov. 3 concession to President Bush. AHA officials have diagnosed the disorder as Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST) and have scheduled the first of several free group therapy sessions for just after Thanksgiving.

Cooperman, whose professional practice is based in Delray Beach, said the election-related symptoms she sees in the Kerry supporters more than quality [sic. (qualify?) -Ed.] PEST as “a legitimate syndrome or disorder within the trauma spectrum,” according to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

“Rush Limbaugh has no clinical qualifications to counsel anyone,” Cooperman said. “He’s not only minimizing PEST, but he’s bastardizing the entire psychological field and our clinical expertise.”

Man, these guys really take themselves seriously.

Bush Gets Post-Election Bounce

To me this seems a little odd. The president has gotten a post-election bounce in the polls.

A post election bounce...

Gallup
President George W. Bush's job approval is now at 53%, up from 48% measured just before the election. This five-point bounce is slightly larger than the average bounce for re-elected presidents since 1956. Bush's approval on terrorism is at 60%, up three points from before the election.

What does this mean? Did these people vote for John Kerry and then decide that, really, President Bush was doing a great job after all? Did they suddenly realize he was really rockin' on that war on terror thing?

What?

Pres. Bush Now Over 60 Million Votes

First announced on Free Republic this morning, and now confirmed by Yahoo!, President Bush's popular vote total has exceeded 60 million due to continued counting.

Candidate	Electoral	States  Won	Vote %	Votes
Bush	286	31	51%	60,383,548
Kerry	252	20	48%	56,956,500

Getting It

Zell Miller gets it.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution
America's faith in freedom has been reaffirmed. With the re-election of President Bush, America recommitted itself once again to expanding freedom and promoting liberty. Only the 1864 re-election of Abraham Lincoln, the 1944 re-election of Franklin Roosevelt and the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan rival this victory as milestones in the preservation of our security by the advancement of freedom.

This election validated not just freedom, but also the faith our Founding Fathers placed in average folks to navigate the course of this great nation. By weighing the greatest issues at the gravest times and choosing our path, ordinary people have again accomplished extraordinary things. With courage and caution, rather than fear and timidity, the voters chose a path to ensure others would enjoy the same freedom to set their own path.

This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints — bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices — amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election.

But the Democratic Party is no longer a national party. As difficult as the challenges are — both real and fabricated — Democrats offered no solution that was either believable or acceptable to vast regions of America.

Tax increases to grow the economy are not a solution that is believable or acceptable. Democratic promises of fiscal responsibility are unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of "allies" such as France is unacceptable. A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator.

Democratic Party policies haven't sold in large sections of America in decades, and the only success of Democrats in presidential elections for 40 years was when they pitched themselves as pro-growth, low-tax, strong-defense, fiscally responsible, values-oriented candidates.

Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times doesn't get it.

Two Nations Under God
Whatever differences I felt with the elder Bush were over what was the right policy. There was much he ultimately did that I ended up admiring. And when George W. Bush was elected four years ago on a platform of compassionate conservatism, after running from the middle, I assumed the same would be true with him. (Wrong.) But what troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a country that allows a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn't trump science? And, most important, is it a country whose president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us - instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?

Already the accusations of division. They just can't see that it is they who have been rejected because of their divisiveness.

This was not an election. This was station identification. I'd bet anything that if the election ballots hadn't had the names Bush and Kerry on them but simply asked instead, "Do you watch Fox TV or read The New York Times?" the Electoral College would have broken the exact same way.

My problem with the Christian fundamentalists supporting Mr. Bush is not their spiritual energy or the fact that I am of a different faith. It is the way in which he and they have used that religious energy to promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad. I respect that moral energy, but wish that Democrats could find a way to tap it for different ends.

"The Democrats have ceded to Republicans a monopoly on the moral and spiritual sources of American politics," noted the Harvard University political theorist Michael J. Sandel. "They will not recover as a party until they again have candidates who can speak to those moral and spiritual yearnings - but turn them to progressive purposes in domestic policy and foreign affairs."

They don't want to have moral and spiritual yearnings they want to manipulate them.

I've always had a simple motto when it comes to politics: Never put yourself in a position where your party wins only if your country fails.

Too late.

This column will absolutely not be rooting for George Bush to fail so Democrats can make a comeback. If the Democrats make a comeback, it must not be by default, because the country has lapsed into a total mess, but because they have nominated a candidate who can win with a positive message that connects with America's heartland.

They want to seem as though they offer somthing of value. A "message" indeed.