The mainstream media (with the notable exception of Keith Olbermann over at MSNBC and the local Ohio and Florida newspapers) just doesn't get it. Commentators, TV reporters, and pundits keep repeating over and over that exposing voter fraud "won't change the outcome of the election," as if that was a reason not to investigate it.
If I didn't already know investigative journalism had one foot on a banana peel and the other in the grave, I'd know it now. Are they really so mind-bogglingly stupid and engrossed in their own little world of instant answers and sound bites that they think that's the only possible reason anyone would care about voter fraud? That the ultimate count would or wouldn't tip the election in a different way?
If some individual or group actually was able to perpetrate voter fraud, be the scale small or massive, we have to know, we have to find out what happened, we have to find out how it happened, we have to find and punish whoever did it, and obviously, we need to prevent it from happening again in the future. Is this amazingly apparent point really invisible to the idiots who spout off their glib punditry on the cable news shows every night?
If I see one more commentator say "But Kerry conceded" or "But Bush won the popular vote" as if that closes the issue of possible voter fraud in Ohio, Florida, or any other state, I'm going to get in my car, drive to where they are, and smack them on the side of the head. WAKE UP! You're so wrapped up in being right and clever and fast on your feet you're not doing your jobs anymore.
Jon Stewart was right when he scolded the cable pundits for hurting America in his infamous Crossfire appearance during the election campaign. Who knew it could get worse?
Thank you for the Jon Stewart link. I hadn't had the pleasure of seeing that clip until just now. Gotta love him, don't you? :)
Posted by: Kim | 06 January 2005 at 10:01 AM
LOL Kim, yes, I DO gotta love him!
Posted by: Christie | 06 January 2005 at 12:36 PM