Posts Tagged ‘south carolina’

check out the first paragraph from The Brad Blog’s report on the ruling concerning Allan Greene’s election in SC:

The South Carolina Democratic Party Executive Board rejected Judge Vic Rawl’s protest to the results of last week’s U.S. Senate primary, despite no evidence presented that the results were accurate, and despite Alvin Greene having not even shown up to the protest hearing.

Let that rolls through your head. A statewide election takes place, the democratic party doesn’t like the results and appeals based on the fact that…they didn’t like the results, and what is their argument? No evidence presented that the results were accurate.

Poor Brad, maybe he doesn’t understand the concept that you don’t simply overturn an election that your man has lost by 20 points because you don’t like your chances in the fall. It is YOUR burden to prove that the election was fixed, not the other way around. The people have the right to be wrong, or foolish or horror of horrors have an opinion contrary to the democratic leadership!

The argument that there was “no reasonable explanation” for the results is an argument that our friends on the left would make for the election of any republican. You want to overturn a 20 point election how about some actual you know evidence? From the CNN story:

The forensics expert hired by Rawl said it was possible the voting machines were tampered with and theorized that a hacker could have uploaded a “malicious code” into the machines to alter the results. But Rawl’s team had no evidence that any machines were meddled with.

Hay who needs physical evidence that the machines malfunctioned? We are liberals we know what the result should be.

Now I’m a big fan of paper ballots and I don’t like touch screen voting myself, but if you are going to overturn an election you need more than theory and to the credit of of the democratic party officials that wasn’t enough for them. CNN again:

Ludwig, Rawl’s campaign manager, rejected the theory that Greene picked up votes because he has an African-American sounding name in a state where the majority of Democratic primary voters are black.

After all it’s not like the democrats use race as a club during elections do they? Nah we’ve never seen that done before. As we might say live by the race card, die by the race card.