'No Problems' in NH Hand Count Says Local Media (Who Apparently Didn't Bother to Check First with Anybody but the SoS)
Also meanwhile...Out there in MSM world, where reality creates its own definition, WMUR is reporting that all is fine in New Hampshire:
CONCORD, N.H. --- The continuing Democratic primary recount in New Hampshire has not found any voting problems.
Well, they're sort of correct. "Voting" problems aren't the concern. As we frequently point out, the voters are still doing fine. Leave them alone. The election problems, and the horrible administration thereof, is another matter entirely. And on that front, loads of problems have been "found". But only if you bother to look at them. of course.
Given WMUR's following quote from NH Sec. of State Bill Gardner, which is demonstrably wrong in 3 seconds time if you bother to look at the SoS' very own web page for hand count results, it's not a surprise that WMUR thinks everything is just rosy:
"We did nine of the 12 wards in Manchester, and a lot of the votes were exactly the same," Gardner said. "Some went up by a vote or two." That is what we in the business of actual reporting would call: a lie. Check the numbers for yourself. Yeah, "a lot of the votes were exactly the same," as Gardner says. Many more were not at all the same, ranging anywhere from 5 to 8 votes off in regular cases, across almost all candidates.
And before you say that's no big deal, we'll remind you that in 2004, had just 6 votes per precinct been registered in Ohio for John Kerry instead of George W. Bush, we'd have a different person sitting in the White House right now.
Other than that, and the fact that Gardner has no idea where the memory cards are for his Diebold machines, and all other matter of horrible election oversight, yeah, everything's just fine in New Hampshire.
Poster Comment:
Black Box Voting reported that the real problem with the recount is the lack of chain of custody for both the memory cards and for the paper ballots.
Since there is no guarantee that these are the same ballots that the voters cast, we cannot say that this will be an accurate recount and we will have a free and honest election in 2008.
Let's see. I have a choice between Hillary Clinton who is a Bilderberger and a criminal, John McCain who amended his statement that he does not mind if we stay in Iraq for 100 years to say that 1,000 years was just fine and Michael Bloomberg, the Independent candidate, who is a Zionist and just might be the devil incarnate.
I nearly forgot Senator Lieberman's second bid for the vice-presidency. I wonder if he will run with McCain or with Bloomberg?
Looks like I will be voting for Ralph Nader again. I can't be the only lifelong Republican who voted for Nader against Bush. I pride myself in saying that I never voted for either Bush father or son for any office.
I think Bloomberg will jump into the race if he feels he needs to threaten one or both of the major parties and/or their candidate with $500 million in attack ads. Nobody in their right mind would vote for him. The only point of a Bloomberg candidacy is to threaten the other candidates. The man is not electable outside New York City and then only against the crazies who run for mayor of New York.