« Bonfire of the Vanities - Week 77 | Main | What's Arabic for "Kick Me?" »

The Vote Fraud Story

The king of the "election fraud as infotainment" news anchors, Keith Olbermann, makes and unscheduled return from vacation to pour cold water on the conspiracy theories that Countdown has been cultivating. By and large he does a pretty good job of addressing the fact that there's no legs in the Ohio story.

If you're looking for real honest to goodness Florida-style shenanigans you'll have to go all the way out to Washington state, as John Fund reports. There's also still controversy in San Diego, where write-in candidate Donna Frye faces long odds in getting 5,547 ballots they had Frye's name written but lacked the required voter-shaded-in bubble next to it.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Vote Fraud Story:

» File it under... linked with File it under: LMB

Comments (8)

Yeah, but Olbermann is stil... (Below threshold)

Yeah, but Olbermann is still a douchebag. His point #3:

"3. The American media has a liberal bias:

I think we can pretty much put this one to bed."

Right, Ken. You're part of the truth to that statement. If you can't see that it's because you blend right in!

"The mainstream media has so tiptoed around the voting irregularities stories..."

Because there's NOTHING THERE! And if the liberal MSM is "tiptoeing" around a story, it's because even they can't spin it to any advantage. No election issues? That's ok. The MSM is going to cram Iraq Is A Failure down our throats. Bush is untouchable? Let's behead Rumsfeld.

MSM = Liberal. It's no secret.
Olbermann = idiot. It's no secret.

Olbermann was an idiot when... (Below threshold)

Olbermann was an idiot when he was struggling as a sports commentator. I am just wondering who the genius was that said "this guy is a mindless dip as a sports commentator, lets give him some primetime news to goof up!"

This piece was just more dr... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

This piece was just more drivel from Keith O. He says little or nothing, but wants it to appear he is actually saying something. I really believe that his whole motivation was to write something to assure his loyal viewer that he was fine.

(Yes, I know I said "viewer.")

- Out here in SD the bettin... (Below threshold)

- Out here in SD the betting is that Frye will duke it out and may just possibly win....which has the incumbents sweating bullets...(they're all under investigation over retirement fund irregularities)... the bubble thing is a total technicality. I havn't heard it argued properly yet. The bubble should be considered redundent. It can't be anymore exacting than if a voter actually writes in the name of a candidate. So far no ones argued it from that standpoint. I also have a suspicion its against federal law to make any voting rule based on voting mechanics that disenfranchise a voter. ie... The "machine" needs the bubble to count a vote. I think the registar of voters made an illegal rule and thats how it should be argued. I'm a dyed in the wool conservative, but right is right. The lady won fair and square and she's being "gamed"....

I also have a suspicion ... (Below threshold)

I also have a suspicion its against federal law to make any voting rule based on voting mechanics that disenfranchise a voter. ie... The "machine" needs the bubble to count a vote.

If that were true, then hanging, dimpled and pregnant chads would have been legal votes in Florida 2000.

You have to have enough intellect to read, understand, and comply with the rules before your vote will count. If the rule says "fill in the bubble" and you don't fill in the bubble, you fail the "qualified voter" test through sheer imbecility.

- McGehee - You missed the ... (Below threshold)

- McGehee - You missed the main point of my comment. You can't have it both ways. The second you put a line on the ballot for a write-in vote you force the requirement for hand counting as an alternative. At that point the bubble becomes redundent. What can be more indicative of a voters preference than when he/she actually writes out the candidates name. Nothing. At that point the bubble becomes redundent. To argue otherwise means you're backing a loser who's trying to overcome the fact he lost by count. He knows it. you know it, everybody knows it. One of the reasons they're fighting this so hard is there's an on-going investigation into a bunch of retirement funds irregularities and they're scared to death they won't be able to control things from the inside. Everybody knows that too. I don't care what party someone belongs to. If they're crooks they're crooks, and I won't defend them no matter how conservative I am......

You missed the main poin... (Below threshold)

You missed the main point of my comment.

And you're deliberately ignoring mine. If the rules under which the election is carried out are not hard and fast, in the end it doesn't matter who voted how, because it will ultimately be the vote-counter's discretion that decides the outcome.

If the rules are not going to be applied as they;re written, there's no point even pretending to have elections.

End of conversation.

"If the rules are not go... (Below threshold)

"If the rules are not going to be applied as they;re written, there's no point even pretending to have elections."

Actually thats the crux of the whole problem. The Registrar of voters made the rule about the bubbles in the first place. Its most probably illegal since it makes a "requirement" for something that with a write-in line is redundent. Get it. I stand by my original statement. There can be no clearer way for a voter to express their preference than actually writing out a candidates name....

- The Lady won. Whether or not that makes me unhappy is beside the point, and your comments are not relevant....

- BTW. The end of the conversation will be when its adjudicated in court. I'm betting the judges will agree....






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy