DIEBOLD-FACED LIES (And Florida 2000 lies, and Memogate lies...all by Paul Krugman)

The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid ^ | December 3, 2003 | Donald L. Luskin

[Southack]

What Krugman is doing is completely irresponsible in that he is prepping the battlefield with his columns such that every election can be contested. that would have an adverse impact on how Americans view a Democratic Republic.

If Krugman had limited his screed to simply demanding that electronic voting have better audit controls, then he'd be doing America a service.

But he didn't, and he isn't doing us a service, either.

What he's doing is sowing dissent for the sake of dissent.

Krugman knows full well that if all Bush did in 2004 was carry his same states that he won in 2000, that due to the electoral revision per the 2000 census Bush would win in 2004 by 18 electoral votes rather than just by the 4 he won by in 2000.

Krugman also knows that due to the redistricting in Texas, that Democrats are set to lose more seats in the House in 2004, as well as that the Dems are in position to lose four or more Senate seats in 2004.

So what he's doing is providing an excuse to the leftist diehards to be enraged rather than discouraged by their inevitable rout that they are about to suffer in 2004. They can point to Krugman's NY Times columns and claim that the 2004 election was "rigged."

That's pretty sad. The hardcore leftists are already planning on doing damage control for their inevitable 2004 losses, and once-respectable papers such as the Times are carrying their water by running such irresponsible columns.

Ask for better audit controls and paper trails from the electronic machines; that's fine. Just don't wildly claim that the reason for your forthcoming losses are due to alleged fraud rather than to a lack of mature political gamesmanship (read: new ideas, policies, positive proposals, etc.).

[ItsMyVoteDammit]

You are right, even though Krugman is biased against the GOP doesn't mean that voting machines which cannot give a verified audit trail is a good thing. These machines are being sold to states, and the party in charge of each state is the party that could be suspect.

I live in Illinois, so you know which party may be doing the funny business with these machines over here.

[WorkingClassFilth]

"...touch screen voting will make it too easy for Democrats to rig the voting even more than they usually do."

At least the dead that vote from the grave for RAT candidates have to send a medium to fill out their ballots. With little electronic blips, well, who'd ever be cynical enough to believe something like computers could ever be illicitly manipulated?

[mrustow]

But wasn't it the Dems who vehemently insisted that anything but touch screen voting was inadequate, and thus racist?

[.cnI redruM]

You're expecting consistency or something. Sorry, the author was Krazy Krugman. TO him, consistency is the hobgoblin of academic big think.

[Re-electNobody]

I agree. We need some paper trail with this computer voting for verification. The Democrats have been known to steal a few elections in their time.

[Tired_of_the_Lies]

I agree with the need for an audit trail. Computer hackers can work seeming miracles.

Wasn't it President Reagan who said "Trust, but Verify"? The ability to verify is necessary, imo.

[mrustow]

You're expecting consistency or something. Sorry, the author was Krazy Krugman. TO him, consistency is the hobgoblin of academic big think.

As with Krugman, so with the Times' readers -- his columns are consistently in the top 5 or 10 of e-mailed Times articles. Heck, this one was #1 or #2 the other night.