Monday, January 17, 2005

Now is it Obvious Why He Lost?


The man who voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it, the man who threw away all his ribbons but kept his medals, the man who accepted the results of the last election, now says that there were voting irregularites:
BOSTON (AP) - Sen. John Kerry, in some of his most pointed public comments yet about the presidential election, invoked Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy on Monday as he criticized President Bush and decried reports of voter disenfranchisement.

The Massachusetts Democrat, Bush's challenger in November, spoke at Boston's annual Martin Luther King Day Breakfast. He reiterated that he decided not to challenge the election results, but ``thousands of people were suppressed in the effort to vote.''

``Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways. In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, eleven hours to vote, while Republicans (went) through in 10 minutes - same voting machines, same process, our America,'' he said.
[More . . . ]

So, if this was such a horrible, unfair result, where the hell were you? Why weren't you manning, errr, personning, the barricades with the rest of the proles? Was it just not that important to you?

Or are you just making political hay in front of a majority black audience?

Frigging shameless. If the results bothered you that much, you'd'a done something about it.

And in our continuing pointless examination of media bias . . .
Voting irregularities in Ohio drove primarily Democratic challenges to the Nov. 2 election, but Congress eventually affirmed President Bush the winner by a slim electoral vote count of 286-251 - plus a single vote cast by a Minnesota elector for Kerry's running mate, former Sen. John Edwards.

Riiiiiight. A margin of victory of 15% is a slim electoral vote count. Riiiight.
First Lady Teresa Heinz-Moonbat-Kerry was going to be a lot of fun, tho. Divorced by 2006, I tell ya.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home