blogThis entry is from the blog Johnalism. He has an entry regarding the election results.
It's a segment I'm calling "The Democrats Were Right About..."
1. The Democrats were right about election fraud.
Democrats were right. The returns from yesterday's voting makes it perfectly clear that Republicans rig the voting machines.
In reality, I would *hope* last night would at least shut the liberals up about this absurd conspiracy theory that Diebold is sitting in a smoky back office manipulating the computers to make sure the GOP comes out on top. It's an absurd thought that certainly doesn't get backed by the results of yesterday.
My goodness, can we say "straw man"? I would not doubt that there are liberals who do sit around talking about conspiracies with voting machines, but I don't think they are the majority or the most vocal. (There are at least as many conservative sheep who sit around talking about the homosexual agenda). The outcry about voting machines was really an outcry for accountability. IF someone were to for some reason want to manipulate the vote on electronic machines, whether tied to the manufacturer or not, it would be nice to have a paper trail to reduce the chance of intentional fraud. Now the fact that Diebold's owner is so incompetent that he would actually write in a memo that he felt it was his duty to deliver Ohio for President Bush while his company was providing voting machines is more than enough to convince me that they deserve all the mistrust and conspiracy accusations they do get. But this blanket generalization of liberals is just a refuge for those who drink the kool-aid and don't want to seriously consider the real world. There are conspiracy nuts on all sides of the political spectrum. Because the right in general - and more specifically in this case Diebold's owner- are so disconnected from reality that they often act in a way that creates an impression of impropriety is no reason to go around labeling all liberals as conspiracy theorists. Their incompetence feeds these theories.
Yes, a LOT of major companies are controlled by Republicans. And most seem to care less about the good of this nation and more about their own selfish whims. I don't care about the political leanings of corporate executives. However, the combination of an owner who is more a Republican enthusiast rather than just having leanings, a contract to provide voting machines, large donations to the President's campaign, the memo mentioned earlier, having a Bush campaign coordinator supervise elections in an important battleground state, admitted glitches in machines which seemed to favor the candidate chosen by Diebold's owner, and a general nasty stubborn attitude about paper receipts, proprietary software, and security issues have not helped increase confidence in Diebold. You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to want accountability in elections. You do have to be a nut to think that corporations would have any ethical qualms about any activity that they may believe will be to their benefit. And if Diebold was owned by Democrats, there would be Republican whackos screaming all over right now.Diebold might be controlled by Republican-leaning people, but aren't a LOT of major companies? Just because they own a company do they surrender their political interests? If Diebold was owned by Democrats would that make the equipment more fair?
Show me actual proof that Diebold is rigging these machines and then maybe we can discuss whether the umpire is guilty of home cooking.
Hey, I'm with you on this. I am not going to support a theory about election rigging whether directly by Diebold, indirectly by Diebold, or by another player entirely without some good solid evidence. I'm a skeptic. But until you show me that we are doing everything reasonably possible to make these elections and machines secure, verifiable, and accountable, then don't ask me to trust any corporation or politcal power or the absolute legitimacy of any election.
If you weren't so frightened by capitalism maybe you'd realize that smart business people are out to satisfy their clientele. Not to rig elections with their equipment.
And how do you satisfy the clientele in this case? Presumably, the clientele would want functional, easy to operate, and accurate voting machines. The most important point being accuracy of course. But low and behold, there is resistence to any attempts to make the results verifiable. In some countries exit polls are used to verify election results. But for some reason, exit polls have stopped being as accurate in America in the last four years or so.
Now let's consider. If I was a corporation, and my machine was not very reliable, I would be afraid that my clientele would be upset. But, I can resist attempts to check their reliability. Hey, we have proprietary software and we just can't share it with anyone. Oh yeah, it's too difficult to come up with a computer system that also keeps a paper trail. No, sorry, you just have to trust us that they're accurate. What do you mean in the town ofGahanna in 2004 the machine registered a total of 4,258 votes for Bush and 260 votes for Kerry, despite the fact that there were only 800 registered voters in the town, of whom 638 showed up? ( Columbus Dispatch, November 5, 2004)
2. The Democrats were right about the nation's attitude toward Iraq.
This election really was a referendum on the War in Iraq. Look no farther than the race for Senate in Connecticut involving Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman. Lamont won the Democratic primary running opposite of Lieberman who was getting blasted for his conservative stance on the War in Iraq and other policies embraced by President Bush and the Republicans.
So, Connecticut was out to show us that America was tired of the war and tired of President Bush and the Democrats tossed Lieberman to the curb. This race above all others would show just how badly this nation wanted to go in a new direction with the war.
And of course, on election night Ned Lamont repeated his primary victory by stomping Joe Lieberman and proving that all of America is unsatisfied with our progress in Iraq.
No wait, I missed something. I'm reading now that Lieberman, running as an independent, defeated Ned Lamont. He was up by a whopping 10 percent with 95 percent of the precincts reporting. That's a referendum all right.
I can't help but wonder what *else* the Democrats are right about.
Wow, that is so insightful. But let me see. The Democrats have been discussing changing our Iraq strategy including ideas to withdraw troops for months. Murtha has been one of the loudest voices calling for troop redeployment. Wait...he was re-elected. As a matter of fact, the general perception is that most Democrats favor a change in our Iraq policy. And what do you know, Democrats take the House and Senate despite what Rove called "the" math. Now it could have been inspired by the economy. But haven't Republicans been touting how great they have made the economy? Could it have been gasoline prices that sparked this blue velvet revolution? No, they are at the lowest they have been in quite a while. I guess the widespread corruption and obvious lack of scruples may have been the issue which pushed the elephant out of the room, but if I were in that party I think I would prefer to accept that Americans may have disagreed with my ridiculously naive plan to invade Iraq and completely incompetent administration. And by the way, Murtha won by 20%.
For me it's not so much about always being right. It's more important to have the courage to own up to mistakes and the resolve to correct those mistakes despite consequences or embarassment. This is the principle that too many on the right currently lack. Too many have rhetoric and slogans and straw men but no real courage, no values beyond self-interest, and no ideas but ideology.
Finally, I wanted to share something I read.
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America took a look at 324 legislative votes in the last five years which affected American troops and veterans. Legislative proposals included veterans' benefits, healthcare, and medical research dedicated towards injured soldiers (head injuries, etc.) Based on these votes, IAVA calculated which senators and congressmen had a history of supporting the troops, and which didn't, and graded them on a curve. The original grades can be found here.
But, taking the list of Senators, and placing it in order based on grades, from highest to lowest with party affiliation noted, the list looks like this:
Origin
Till Next Time,
The Southern Fried Skeptic
