Another DU Fisking: Part 5

It's time for the final edition of this DU Fisking! I'm going to cover the last two sections of the article here, and then I'll sum up the whole thing. I realize this isn't exactly the best Fisking ever, but I really couldn't let an article this good go to waste. To quote Sideshow Bob: "And now, the final curtain:"

DIRTY TRICKS AND COMPUTER-VOTING
All signs point at this stage to yet another extremely close election in 2004. Which means that, once again, we can anticipate dirty tricks being employed in numerous large electoral-vote states...

You mean like only recounting the votes in highly Democratic districts and claiming the the electoral college is irrelevant?

...- last time in Florida, more than 90,000 voters were illegally purged from the roles in advance of the balloting, and similar ploys may be tried this time in several key states. In addition, the potential computer-voting scandal could well become actual.

"The U.S. population would NEVER elect a Republican president if the votes were counted fairly, but since the average American is a dimwitted sheep who needs heroic liberals to safeguard the ballots, we must do our Democratic duty! Remember, if Bush wins, he must've cheated, because only big corporations and paranoid NRA members vote Republican!"

If several thousand votes could determine elections in those key states, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the vote-counting computer software could be fiddled with to determine the winner.

IT'S A VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY, I TELLS YA!

As mainstream press outlets finally are starting to report...

I thought the mainstream press outlets were cheerleaders for the administration.

...those computer-voting software codes are mainly controlled by three major Republician-supporting corporations - the CEO of one of those companies, Diebold, promised to "deliver" Ohio to Bush in 2004 - and they refuse to permit examination of those codes by outside inspectors.

I'm glad you're so willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Reason enough to push for paper ballots for the 2004 election, counted by hand...

Having...dimpled...chad...flashbacks!

...computer-voting technology is simply too new and too open to manipulation. A journalist recently demonstrated how easy it is to enter into the machines, manipulate the tally numbers, and exit without leaving any trace of having even been inside the system.

In other words, he voted Republican.

There is some evidence to suggest that such vote-tampering may have taken place in the 2002 elections in key states.

The evidence? Republicans are still in power!

Given how close the 2004 vote might be, and the built-in problems with the vote-counting software, it is incumbent on all of us interested in the democratic process...

I'm sure he meant to use a capital D.

...to lean on our state and county election officials not to certify those touch-screen computer-balloting machines until the software codes can be certified and until a paper-trail of votes cast can be built into the process.

Translation: Keep recounting the votes until it looks like the Democrat has more.

For more information on all this, see the Electoral Integrity file on The Crisis Papers, and Congressman Rush Holt's bill on computer-voting.

Weren't they all complaining about paper voting last time anyway? Something about chads and arrows and misleading ballots and old people and minorities and...I forgot what I was talking about.

DEFEAT IS UNACCEPTABLE
It is possible to defeat Bush in 2004...

Vive la revolucion!

...but, from this moment on, it will take lots of time, money, energy and determination.

And miracles. Lots of miracles.

Once the Dems choose the nominee, it's full speed ahead in terms of mobilization, signing up new voters, working for the candidate, insisting on demonstrably fair vote-tallying, etc. Without this kind of massive activism and determination, we could lose.

COULD? COULD? I think it's a little more likely than that.

If Bush gets elected in 2004, the world and our country are in for policies too awful to contemplate.

Notice the use of the phrase "too awful to contemplate," then note the description and therefore contemplation of said policies below. Way to be consistent.

There would be more "preventive" wars...

"Death to Iraqi civilians...Crap! Did I say that out loud too?"

...more imperialist aggression, more terrorist responses.

Because 9-11 was obviously a response to Clinton's jingoistic foreign policy.

Domestically, there is no telling what would happen to our fragile, time-honored Constitution...

We may actually have to take it literally!

...to our civil liberties...

How dare you point out flaws in my arguments, you fascists!

...to our economy...

"If poor people get jobs, it will prove that they don't need welfare anymore! Then we won't be able to give them handouts to create the illusion of compassion!"

...to our air and water...

Which would otherwise be full of anthrax.

...to our schools and kids...

They might learn how to think instead of what to think!

...to all sorts of helpful social programs. And to our sense of ourselves as a moral, democratic society.

"Because it's only a democratic society with a Democratic president, and morals are whatever we say they are based on our interpretation of the Constitution, the Bible, and the universe itself, and if you don't agree with us, you're an anachronistic, intolerant, bigoted neanderthal."

Let's get to work. Now.

Either he meant to say "Let's get to work, N.O.W.," or he's admitting that people can work for themselves. Take your pick.

Wow, that was a long one. I'll admit that I still tried to take more of a comedic/satirical approach to it, but it's hard to take these people seriously. They continuously make accusations, but they never back them up with facts. He does have a point, though. As soon as the Democratic hopefuls can show the Bush has actually done all the things they claim he has, they will have a good chance of winning.

So much for the Democrats.

Posted by CD on November 15, 2003 07:52 PM
Category: