-Caveat Lector-
[I think what I like the best about all this stuff is how it
shows so clearly how unprepared [and unoriginal] the Republicans'
manuvering is, and how good the Dems are at this type warfare.
The Reps seem to be ever-recovering from most Dem
actions/motions/ploys...never seeming to regain their balance
before being hit by another action only they seem to be surprized
by. It's as if they were totally new to real campaign fights.
The more this all goes on, the more I am convinced in general
that Gore would be far the lessor of the two evils for this
country. --MS]
11/21/00 4:35 p.m.
Eyewitness to a Travesty
This is no high-minded �civics lesson.�
By Observer X
National Review
I've just returned as a vote-counter from the mess in Florida
that the media insists on portraying as a high-minded "civics
lesson" for the nation. A lesson is certainly being taught, but
the curriculum is more along the lines of a master's class on how
political wars are won and lost. Guess who's winning?
A life-long Republican, I am all too familiar with the spectacle
of bare-fanged Democrats scenting blood going up against the
rule-abiding, ever-hopeful, flat-learning-curve Republicans.
It's like watching the Bloods and the Crips take on the kids in
the playground, bent on stealing more than their lunch money.
But I had never seen it up close before, able to touch it, had my
nose rubbed in it.
At my vote-counting post, I witnessed many, many things that
would disturb any sentient creature interested in the well-being
of the Republic and the Republican Party, ranging from the mass
in-flocking of clueless, strutting, and ultimately useless
Republicans to the roll-out of successive "strategies" that would
make French war-planners look masterly. But I will focus on the
process of vote counting itself. For some reason, the phrase
"Idle hands are the devil's workshop" seems appropriate.
I confess to having arrived a skeptic of the Republican spin that
"manual counts are inherently unreliable." Huh? On TV, the
process looks as close to being idiot-proof as one can get: four
sets of adult eyes riveted on a simple piece of paper, jointly
tasked with identifying a single, tell-tale hole. Any mammal
could be trained to do it; one can readily imagine a pod of
dolphins whipping through these things in record time, eager for
their reward of fish. The process is brainless enough to be a
perfect candidate for automation (there's an idea!). In the
thousands of ballots I examined, there were virtually none for
which any reasonable person would have any trouble identifying
the choice.
So where is the problem? Hanging chads? I examined thousands of
ballots; I never saw a single one in the presidential column.
Ambiguity? Just how ambiguous can a hole in a piece of paper be?
Even lawyers would have a tough time arguing that the ballots I
saw were tough calls.
But the so-called "pregnant chads" are altogether a different
thing. I did see quite a few of those, but, interestingly, only
in the presidential column. Now, some ballots have up to twenty
holes in them (there were other people and things to vote for in
this election, after all), all cleanly and confidently punched.
And a few of these riddled ballots have a pregnant chad in the
presidential column, still clinging desperately by all fours to
the ballot, refusing to give way. The Democrats are loudly
spinning these aborted acts as clear evidence that weakened
voters were unable to complete the arduous task of tapping that
spring-loaded puncher one more time. In this scenario, those
over-taxed voters were somehow able to draw upon their last
reserves of strength, gently tap the lever (utilizing the
approximate energy of a flea jumping up and down), and thereby
barely imprint an impression of their "intention," much like a
murder victim summoning his last breath to whisper the guilty
party's name. One presumes that they then collapsed and were
dragged from the voting booth.
That sounds good; I sort of leaned towards that explanation
myself. After all, what else could an indented chad mean than the
register of an intent? Well, that was before I saw the evidence.
Having examined these ballots up close, real close, by the
thousands, it's clear that the most reasonable explanation is
that the voter changed his mind in the process of voting and
chose not to vote for a particular presidential candidate.
How else to interpret those numerous ballots where there is a
clear punch for a presidential candidate along with a pregnant
chad for his rival? Either the voter changed their mind or
realized they were making a mistake and pulled back at the last
moment. Is it so difficult to imagine not wanting to vote for
any candidate?
Many of the ballots I saw had a clear punch in every column
except for that of president: every chad in that last column was
as flat as if it had been ironed. Clearly, the voter was so
disillusioned by the choices available that they chose to vote
for "none of the above" (note: the Democratic observers
inevitably identified these blank columns as votes for Gore,
demonstrating a keenness of eyesight unparalleled in my
experience).
Why is this important? Well, the ultimate decision-makers of
these and other disputed ballots are canvassing boards dominated
by Democrats, every one of whom understands what's at stake and
what's expected of them. The voter's intention? What could be
more simple? The experts can deduce paternity just by looking at
the swollen belly of a pregnant chad where the rest of us might
be hampered by doubt or the possibility that the intact chad was
more likely to represent voteris interruptis than consummation.
Now, even the Democrats understand that the public's gullibility
is not infinite, even with the services of a complicit press.
So they will resort to counting pregnant chads for Gore only if
all other avenues of boosting his vote totals fail. Because of
the smell factor, they're holding the pregnant chads gambit in
reserve. Which is a good insight into the Democratic strategy,
or rather strategies (they're always pursuing several
simultaneously). If one fails, there's always another moving
ahead on a different front. It's analogous to shark's teeth,
stacked up in reserve: when one falls out, another pops right
into place. Sharks never run out of teeth.
I come away from the experience surprised at what I've learned.
I now have no doubt that, even with the best of intentions and
the most conscientious of participants, a manual recount cannot
but be inherently inaccurate, and will be far more inaccurate
than any conceivable machine count. I have personally witnessed
scores of incidents � miscounted votes, wrong tallies entered,
boxes of ballots being carted off by unescorted individuals to
God-knows-where � that convince me that the Democrats would have
to be lazy and incompetent not to be able to steal this one.
And when have they ever been accused of that?
So, I've been to school and have received a "lesson." It's being
openly taught, free of charge, by the Democrats. Well, not quite
without cost: I was actually forced to participate in a fixed
election, watched it happen, and was unable to do anything about
it. I'm not disillusioned; I don't fear for the Constitution.
I just want to take a bath.
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF:
*Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
