The AP reports that people are voting in Ohio even with the election more than a month away. Why, is another question. I don’t quite get just why people are voting there, although absentee ballots are cast earlier than election day, of course. Still, I have a few things to say about this article which gives us a good example of classic liberal tactics or just shoddy journalism.
To begin with, the headline leads one to believe that the article will be about the controversy in Ohio at the moment. When one gets into it, the entire article down to the last two paragraphs is about the election in Ohio itself. During this little analysis piece, the authors Liz Sidoti and Thomans Sheeran write
Most recent state polls show a dead heat; others give McCain an edge. National surveys show Obama slightly ahead if not more. The disparity underscores the difficulty Obama is having in closing the deal in this pivotal state. He’s a first-term senator from Chicago with a liberal voting record and would be the country’s first black president.
And, just how does the fact that Obama might be the first black president fit into the list of reasons Ohioans might not vote for him like his lack of experience and liberal voting record? I don’t know unless the authors are insinuating racism on the part of would be conservatives in Ohio. Or, this might just be the disdain the authors likely have for the mid-west.
What is also great about this article is what actually is reported in the last two paragraphs with such blaze conclusions. The authors state that it is Ohio law that you can’t cast a ballot until 30 days after registering to vote, yet a Democrat Secretary of State is allowing same day registering and voting.
On Monday, the absentee ballot on the same day from Tuesday through Oct. 6. Republicans argued that Ohio law requires voters to be registered for 30 days before they cast an absentee ballot.and two upheld the ruling by Democratic Secretary of that allows new voters to register and cast an
So, just how is this legal? Rarely are the Democrats concerned with this save in the cases of murderer, rapists and terrorists. This is legal because someone with power, but not authority, is doing it, and the 6th district court of appeals is allowing it. The real story here is why this is allowed, and unfortunately there is no way for the people to stop it. The reporters should be questioning why Secretary Brunner is even thinking about forcing this issue. Why is the Secretary of State writing new law? If it is against the law, she should be disdained for such tactics. The left loses their mind when a Republican does such a thing even when they are acting within their authority, like say, the war in Iraq. Or, interestingly enough, the left also lost its collective mind when members of governments were involved in the 2000 election. Unfortunately, while the authors do report these facts and analyse the election for us-for some reason-, they are unwilling to draw the conclusions that journalists doing their job serving the public should be drawing when it is the Democrats who will likely benefit.