| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Barack Obama is glad that Ohio is run by Democratic machines like Chicago
Given the things going on in Ohio over the next couple of days, perhaps Barack Obama shouldn't be comparing the Ohio election process to the Chicago machine:
Transcript:
SUPPORTER 5: i would like to know what you can say to reassure us that this election will not be rigged or stolen? [applause] -- or stolen? [applause]
SEN. OBAMA: it helps in Ohio that we have democrats in charge of the machines. but, look, i come from chicago. some want to be honest, it is not as if it is just republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. sometimes democrats have, too.
Turns out that there's even some overlap between the Chicago and Ohio machines:
"Who are you voting for?" I asked another homeless man. "Baraaaack," he replied. "I want him to do his thang, you know, do his THUG THIZZLE, you know..."
As I started interviewing the homeless men, it became clear that their "buddies" who drove them to the polls were pushing quite an agenda. The homeless guys were being bribed with rides, food, and who-knows-what to go "vote."
My new THUG-THIZZLE friend told me that he wasn't even from Ohio and that he was getting on a Greyhound to go back to Chicago. Yet he was voting in one of the key battleground states? How was that fair?
And how was he going to get to the Greyhound station? His "friend" that had brought him to the poll promised to take him wherever he wanted... the only problem was, his friend appeared to be long gone.
At this point, I was disgusted that the organizations seemed to be exploiting the homeless. But I was even more disgusted when they flat out admitted it.
- Soren Dayton's blog
- Login or register to post comments


Comments
What goes around comes around
This is rich considering the shenanigans that Blackwell and the Republican machine pulled in 2004. I don't know why it is so hard to agree that counting more votes from more citizens is a good thing.
And of course, we all know there are lies, damned lies, and anecdotes.
Uh, I'm trying to find a
Uh, I'm trying to find a subject worthy of discussion in this post. What are you trying to say? Is your "evidence" for whatever you are trying to tell us really anecdotal, and features a drunk's ranting as the central "fact?" Have you really conflated "machine politics" and voting machines?
Think of me as your old English teacher, and work with me here.
KJ and Repack don't get it
Is KJ saying s/he condones whatever Blackwell really did? I doubt it.
Here's the point: you get one vote (assuming you play fair). If I can vote twice, or bring in a guy from Chicago to vote with me, I can nullify and reverse your vote. Are you sure you are comfortable with that?
What's the problem with trying to keep the system honest? Oh, I see, you might not win, right? That's sure a good system. That will inspire confidence.
If you don't have a system that people trust, then if things get bad enough they will make changes in other ways, and you may not like how they do it. Neither side is wholly virtuous and neither side can be trusted to do the right thing in the absence of mechanisms for correcting wrongs. Fair elections are such mechanisms, and if the elections are perceived as not fair, otther means of change will be employed. So do you really mind if we dispense with "one person, one vote?"