If Talking Points used

Views

If Talking Points used headlines or titles for his posts he might call this one “moronic crap watch.” The Miami Herald article discussed in the previous post included comments on the article’s findings from the Bush and Gore campaigns. It’s bad enough the Bushies keep insisting that undervotes are just ballots from people who didn’t want to vote for president. Now Bush flak Tucker Eskew trots out this one:

Eskew, the spokesman for the Texas governor, flatly rejected [the study] as “hocus pocus” and “an utterly unfounded scientific process.” In addition to mistakenly assuming that voters handing in undervotes intended to vote, he said, the analysis also ignores the notion that many of the double-punched ballots may have been “protest votes,” intentionally spoiled. “That is a deeply flawed model that suggests statistical voodoo,” he said.

Yeah, I’m so mad I’m votin’ for Bush and Nader. That’ll show ’em. I’ll vote for Bush and Gore. Let ’em take that!

Please.

You wonder after a while why the Bushies don’t stick to the unexceptionable argument that overvotes (double voted ballots) don’t count, period. Don’t these transparently ridiculous assertions just make them seem indifferent to the truth?

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK