Friday, December 31, 2004

The 're-canvassing' problem

Most might consider me to be slightly behind the times by posting this. I'm still fed up, you see, with the decision to change election policy by the courts. I have hemmed and hawed because I didn't know state law as well as I wished. However that is finally over thanks to Bob Williams of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation! His excellent December 22 commentary is spot on in covering what is sticking in my craw. Read it and thank God we still have people like Mr. Williams to inform us.

Is anyone else out there afraid of sounding like a whining Democrat? I sometimes wonder that we could have been so willing to fight by their rules when they and the ridiculous Sec. of State, Sam Reed, succeeded in playing the grinch in the court. This is why I am so happy that Rossi deflated it all by shifting to challenging the election as a whole. This should and will be done if we can awaken this state properly.

Start buying those orange ribbons and let's really "canvass" this state.
<< Home 3 Comments:
Blogger Wheelson said...

That is an interesting article however it avoids mention of many key pieces in the Supreme Court's opinion. Why is that? I think a stronger article would have been one that examined the reasoning of the Supreme Court for flaws in their arguments, logic and opinions and offered proofs to that end. In essence the article claims simply that the court ignored "plain language" but supplies no evidence for this claim. He creates his own argument that is in opposition to perhaps some small generalized pieces of the opinion, but it avoids direct analysis and debate of the Supreme Court opinion. So, I'd say the article is a bit of a Straw Man response that maybe sounds good on the surface, but isn't very effective because all of the arguments made within the Supreme Court opinion remain unchallenged by Mr. William.

And what do you mean by the "whining Democrat" remark?

11:21 AM, December 31, 2004  
Blogger Mark R said...

"Whining" Democrat versus "thinking" Democrat. I do know many good, thinking Democrats who don't fit that description... There are all types--unfortunately the whiners are the loudest. (just my humble opinion)

I know what you are referring to regarding Mr. Williams. I will freely admit that I base PART of my endorsement on past recognition of his work. I'm a big follower of the EFF because of the work they did to expose the crooked Boeing deal. I will not by any means consider Mr. Williams the "end-all" argument, though. On the contrary, I'm sure, after all is said and down, and you and I analyze this to death, we will still have divergent opinions.

11:56 AM, December 31, 2004  
Blogger Wheelson said...

Well, we might have divergent opinions, but I'm afraid my opinions will always be based on being confused, so I don't know how much weight I'd give to mine. It's funny, I program computers all day and it's interesting to see that sometimes legal writing is similar to a programming language...only not as precise so that lack of precision is always very frustrating when i read it.

Anyway, as I was being a pain I neglected to mention to good parts about the article and that is that it made me actually go to the Supreme Court ruling and read it with a specific goal in mind. That is I read it trying to figure out whether Williams' commentary was well founded or not. Having links to all the info was great and his thoughts did challenge me to give the subject a bit more thought (as much as I can spare which is nowhere near enough other than a good amount to annoy you with comments ;-)

And that's what I hoped you meant by whining Democrat, just wanted to make sure I was avoiding that title (which I sort of did anyway by definition because I am not a Democrat).

12:38 PM, December 31, 2004  

Post a Comment