Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Moore Tweets On Wisconsin Election

Michael The Twit Moore Tweeted: "Republicans created the rule: "Whoever declares victory first, wins! When will the Obama Justice Dept. impound ballots and stop the shenanigans?" That's probably not a silly question, considering the proclivities of the Holder Injustice Department, but good luck.

Moore was complaining because the lefty DNC/union tool who had sought to be elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court had prematurely declared victory with a puny 250 vote margin. JoAnn Kloppenburg, the anointed candidate of the mob, was not expecting a bolt out of the blue. Under ordinary circumstances, even a 250 vote deficit for a Democrat means ultimate election after the recount. In a tight race followed by a recount, the Democrat always "wins." The other day, I mentioned that the rule is "keep counting until the Democrat is ahead, then stop and demand certification of the results."

But a clerk's error in Waukesha County turned a "victory" that was within the automatic recount margin into an almost insurmountable lead for the sitting Justice David Prosser. Tantrum time! Along with Moore, I was sure that like the gubernatorial election in Washington State in 2004 and the more recent election of Al Franken in Minnesota in 2008, any narrow margin would automatically go to the Democratic tool. Who knew that after the votes of Waukesha County came in, Prosser would have a commanding lead? This time, all the odds favor the Republican's ultimate success.

First of all, a 7,500 vote margin (more or less) is extremely hard to challenge. It is certainly not within the automatic recount margin, and well above the margin that thinking politicians would even attempt to challenge. There is a clear and verifiable paper-trail to confirm the Waukesha County results, even after the clerk's error. County canvassing member Ramona Kitzinger strongly confirms the result. A machine politician, Kitzinger is also the Vice Chairman of the Waukesha County Democratic Party. Liberal operative and statistician Nate Silver was mystified with the early result from Brookfield in Waukesha County, and after the error was discovered, stated that statistically the new results were in keeping with expected voter turnout.

None of this matters to Michael Moore. The disheveled Moore has time and again held himself out to be a gadfly for the people. Well, I think we know which people he means. In fact, he is an obvious believer in rigged elections such as Cuba's and Iran's. When the anointed candidate doesn't actually win, either change the numbers or use outside force to change the result. What Moore, the great democrat, is suggesting is simple: Use the power of the federal Department of Justice to overturn the clear results of a state election in order to seat the losing candidate based solely on the candidate's own declaration of victory and erroneous early election returns that favored Moore's, the unions' and the Democrats' chosen candidate.

I'll go with Jonah Goldberg's definition of Moore and people like him--liberal fascists.

17 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

Like T-Rav, election fraud probably bothers me more than any single thing I can think of. It makes us like a Banana Republic. Has their never been fraud by a Republican? Probably not, but the left pretty much invented the template. The two examples cited were, I believe engineered by the same Dr. Fraud.

Oh, and nice use of Michael Moore to get a cheap laugh! :-) He is the political version of a teenage "fart" joke, and I am appalled, no make that appalled you would mention him, let alone picture him in polite company. Nasty Hawk

Teresa said...

This sounds familiar, like when Al Gore prematurely declared victory in the 2000 presidential election. Your right, Liberal fascists describes these people best. Since Moore loves Cuba so much I wish that he would just move there.

Tennessee Jed said...

While off topic, I would be remiss if I did not mention that today marks the 150th anniversary of the commencement of the civil was. I confess to being an avid military historian in general and civil war enthusiast in particular. I realize 150 is not really different than 149 or 151, but we do like the years ending in zero. More than any other, this period has shaped our country. To the extent you can, I urge all readers to find a way to find out more. I suggest you look at your local history's involvement. That may involve an ancestor, relative or place you were born.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, There is indeed something about round numbers that draws humans in.

In terms of Moore, I got a real kick out of his whining when BH posted his tweets last week. I made a comment then that I think is appropriate to repeat here:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

(breathe)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Keep 'em coming Mikey! Your stunningly hypocritical outrage is a national treasure.

StanH said...

Michael Moore is the poster child of what’s wrong, and right with this country. He became fabulously wealthy using the very system he lambasts on a daily basis. In his desperate attempt to remain relevant he’s even more hysterical than normal. Hypocritically injecting himself into the anti-taxpayer, anti-American protest in Wisconsin, as the “common man” regaling the evil rich for hording their cash, I guess he’s referring to is his Hollywood brethren. In my experience the “wealthy” (I’m not talking about spooners Hollywood stars, or Washington elite, etc.) are some of the hardest working people that I’ve ever known, that’s why they’re rich. In their ambition, they employ hundreds if not thousands of people spreading their wealth the American way, a honest day wage, for an honest days work. In summation, I say again, “I really hate these people!”

T_Rav said...

LawHawk, don't look now, but the Dems are already trying to knock out the planks in your argument:

http://www.orchidforchange.com/parties/waukeshadems.com/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/1343504

Basically, the county Democratic official who lent support to the new numbers giving Prosser the lead is reneging and saying something shady was going on. What that would be, she of course doesn't say; she seems to base her claim on the fact canvassing and verifying was done Wednesday morning rather than Thursday, as usual. I bet that had nothing to do with the intensity and/or national interest in the race, but who knows? (snort)

It won't change the numbers. The investigators haven't found any evidence of irregularity so far, and as you say, the new numbers are closer to average anyway. But of course, it's not about making accurate statements, it's about setting up talking points for the Dems. (sigh)

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Score!

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: I felt a little guilty posting the picture knowing that many of you would see that right around breakfast time. But, duty called.

I know from my history and political science background that Republicans are not simon-pure in the voter fraud department, but they've never been as good at it, nor have they ever done it on such a breathtakingly massive scale as the Democrats.

I remember as far back as my high school days when I was a budding Democrat, one of my Republican friends sent me an election-day card. On the front: The Democrats will surely win the election. Inside: If they let them all out of jail. LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

Teresa: I didn't mention the Gore-Bush election solely because that was a national election. In this case, we have a strictly state election for a state office and Moore and the brown shirts want to bring in the federal department of justice to confiscate ballots and declare the victory. This is the stuff of which civil war is made.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: I made my response to Teresa before I saw your second comment. This kind of proposed interference with the internal workings of a free and independent state was as much a spark for our Civil War as was the issue of slavery.

One side of my family fought for the North in an Illinois regiment. The other side of the family was still busy trying to keep the King of Prussia from becoming the Kaiser of Germany.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: You forgot one "ha." LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: And we might as well add that the whole dirty election was about installing a labor/left candidate to replace a justice who is likely to uphold the state's limited "right to work" law. The unions put everything they had into the fight. So should we mention that Moore goes out of his way to avoid filming in union states and does everything he can to avoid using union labor on his mockumentaries?

T_Rav said...

Also, like Jed, I think it's important to remember the 150th anniversary today. I had ancestors on both sides of the conflict--though pretty much everyone in the family today sympathizes with the Confederacy. Not to continue my rant against higher ed history, but I think it's worth noting that historians hate monocausal explanations. You can never attribute something as big as a war to any one thing, to the exclusion of all other factors--until the South gets brought up. Then the professors will tell you until they're blue in the face that the region only went to war over slavery, and nothing else. Hypocrites.

LawHawkRFD said...

T_Rav: I did see that after I wrote the article. Pretty lame, I'd say. Her back-pedaling is almost pathetic, but she doesn't really deny what she said. Her excuse is that she's 80 years old and doesn't know anything about computers. So what? Her abacus and number 2 pencil already tipped her off that the votes from one city were missing, and she still can't find anything that dissuades her from her original statement. Not being able to explain how computers work doesn't change a thing.

Here's a direct link to the statement: Statement of Ramona Kitzinger.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Yes, but now Moore and the Democrats want to change the rules of the game so that like golf, the one with the lowest score wins.

LawHawkRFD said...

T_Rav: I come from the era when Marxist history was really beginning to get legs. So we had "the industrial north versus the agricultural south" as the daily dialectic.

Slavery set the tone as a major moral issue long before Lincoln's election, but anyone with half an ounce of sense knows that it was just one of several synergistic causes. The flaw in the Constitution had to be corrected, and the outcome could only be determined by the impossible choice between letting the South secede or fighting to keep the Union together. Slavery was the emotional and moral spark that triggered all the other ingredients.

Patti said...

mm gives me the blechs. i just wanna stuff a triple-meat cheeseburger in his piehole and hope that the cholesterol does its thang...

Post a Comment