Michael Z. Williamson
  • Voting Irregularities

    In response to a post on Baen's Bar:

    They are spending a lot of time on the "problem" of voting irregularities...

    Now, 13 years of working the polls in IL and IN has taught me that if there is cheating, it is a Dem doing it, and there will almost always be cheating. Your mileage may vary, but I speak from experience.

    To hear them claim that CHICAGO and YOUNGSTOWN had Republican cheats is just so boggling I can't respond. The Dems have stolen every election in Chicago since the 1930s. That they would probably win honestly doesn't stop them. The LEADERSHIP's mindset is, "if we might lose, we need to cheat, and if we're going to win, it can't hurt and will drive the point home, and THEN ONCE WE'RE ELECTED, we'll be honest and help The Workers!"

    Um....no. Thanks, but no thanks.

    I just got an email about how horrible it is Republican appointed justices support the on Constitution as written and thereby somehow destroy civil rights, and probably our precious bodily fluids, too.

    Look, Bush won a very narrow victory in 2000 (Oh, yes he did, you paranoid loons) against an entrenched incumbent veep during a still mostly good economy that hadn't yet quite reached the crash point.

    Conventional wisdom said he should have catered to the "middle" to pick up more votes.

    Bush stuck to his guns, and picked up more people who agreed with him, some who didn't but thought him the lesser evil, some who didn't but respected him for taking a stand. Right or wrong, he acted like an EXECUTIVE, which is what the job IS, and what's been lacking for three previous terms.

    From a POLITICAL VIEWPOINT ONLY, it was brave and genius and it swung a lot of people.

    And the Dem response since 2000 (on the DNC website) has been, "Can you believe what the Republicans are doing now? We're not them!"

    Now, doing the math for the DNC leadership morons:

    A: most people who voted voted R, and enough did so in the right places for the prez to win it.

    2) therefore, claiming to not be the party that won is not a winning strategy.

    c] possible winning strategies include offering a PLATFORM with ALTERNATIVES, or revising the party position on the issues that lost voters (for example, there is not, cannot, be any such thing as an anti-gun "liberal." If you truly believe in equality, it's an axiom that everyone have equal access to the means of defense, recreation and revolt. To legislate the cost of owning a gun (with licenses, "safe storage," etc) to where only the textbook rich white male can own one is NOT "liberal." And when many of your own party (working class unionists) are voting AGAINST you over your issue, you ARE "extreme" and DO need to change positions. See?).

    Point 2:

    A candidate should offer a clear vision and a platform as above. "I would not have made the wrong decision for the wrong war at the wrong time...a war I support, of course, except that it's wrong, and I will get our troops out hopefully within my first term, unlike my opponent who may have them another three or four years...etc, etc" is NOT a clear vision or a platform or a change. Kerry basically came down to, "I'm not Bush, but if you like Bush I'm very much like him so you can vote for me, and if you don't, I'm not him, and as you all hate him, you should vote for me."

    Not to mention his attempt to suck up to gun owners and hunters with a CANNED HUNT. For those not familiar, the animals he SLAUGHTERED in Wisconsin were trotted out in front of him for "Guaranteed kills." THAT is the level of contempt he has for outdoorsmen and women who stalk an animal for the intellectual and physical challenge and then eat the rewards. It's an atavistic, primitive ritual that creates respect for the animal, because, for those of you who don't know, deer, rabbits and even groundhogs can be BASTARDS about not holding still long enough, or getting close enough to let you get a clear shot. Kerry's "HA! I killed meat! I am one of you!" charades was insulting.

    Special award for moral corruption goes to the "animals are people with rights, too!" asshats who voted for him. After all, he wasn't REALLY pro-hunting, it was just an act to win the election. After all, once he wins, he'll be one of the GOOD GUYS. See my point way above.

    Point 3

    Then, there was the abysmal stupidity of MOST Dem pundits that it was axiomatic that the military hated Bush because "people died," unlike Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia under Clinton (Who should have been SHOT for his "leadership" in Somalia, speaking as a veteran. That gutless, pandering, @#$%#@$%, #@$%#$%#, @#$%#$@%, @#$%#@$%, #$%#$@%, @#$%#@$%$# piece of moral #$^#^%$, #$^&^, @#%$#@^!)

    Point 4

    Then there was the "So most people are rightwinger christofascist idiots controlled by Karl Rove(tm) and the Saucer People!" after action report. A position that MOST Dems I met at Windycon in Chicago spewed at me, an alleged friend. Well, I know who my real friends are now. #@$& those bigoted fascists.


    So, whether you agree with them and him or not, most people voted, and voted for Bush, because he had a POSITION, and a MORALITY, and a PLATFORM of what he intends to do. REPEAT: WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH SAID POSITION OR NOT, OR THINK THEY MISSED A LOT OF WHAT WENT ON BEHIND THE SCENES, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.

    And it's a good thing.

    It means if the Dems run HONEST candidates within those criteria (hey, first time for anything, right?), they are very likely to start winning elections.

    It would help to stop being worse fascists than the big gov't Republicans they hate, too. But one step at a time...

    [/sarcasm][/political lecture]

Recent Posts