- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I love the way hard core problems are simply dismissed by the author.
Voting machines reallocated so that the Dem counties have almost none and the Red counties have dozens? Dismissed. "Why, it was probably more likely just simple confusion than anything else! Certainly one of Bush loyal servants would NEVER do anything like that on purpose." Then the author turns into a mind reader and states that, of course, the four hour waits PROBABLY wouldn't have changed the outcome by much, if anything, so who cares? "Even if there was some mild, tiny problem with allocating the voting machines, well, surely the outsome would have been EXACTLY the same so who cares?"
The election was rigged. Every single dirty trick Ohio got away with is dismissed by the author as simply being unimportant or unintentional and ultimately having no effect on the election outcome whatsoever.
So why bother with election with reform then, Farhad?
Is the author totally full of shit when he opens the article saying he "hopes" Kennedy will really address the flaws in our voting process? Because every single time brings up a huge flaw the author dismesses it as inconsequential and then breaks his back trying to "prove" that such flaws or outright dirty tricks wouldn't have changed anything at all!
Farhad, you're full of shit. Sorry buddy, but that whole song and dance about how you'd really like to see the election process "reformed" and then you spend the entire article going on and on about how LITERALLY nothing occured that whould have made any difference in the elections outcome -- that pretty much proves that you don't think anything should be changed at all. Why should we if all the problems outlined wouldn't have changed the outcome in any way???
