The leaks and gotcha journalism showing bad--and illegal--election behavior by the Democrats come from dubious sources. Wikileaks are stolen and could easily be altered. Somehow we are supposed to look at this stolen stuff and be uplifted, titillated, or enlightened. We are supposed to be grateful and entertained.
It is a little different with the ever-present "undercover guy," James O'Keefe, from the overbearingly named Veritas Project. The undercover guy is a hard guy to like. Nonetheless, this is worrisome material--the people he traps are not nice people who generally wish us harm--and it is surprising that the press is so casual about the information. I know this is common and historical but it is a lot easier to do if the press does not care or, worse, is complicit.
It is a little different with the ever-present "undercover guy," James O'Keefe, from the overbearingly named Veritas Project. The undercover guy is a hard guy to like. Nonetheless, this is worrisome material--the people he traps are not nice people who generally wish us harm--and it is surprising that the press is so casual about the information. I know this is common and historical but it is a lot easier to do if the press does not care or, worse, is complicit.
In the Thirties, the Prendergast Democrat machine ran Kansas City and the city's votes ruled the state. In his biography of Truman, Robert Ferrell has reported that a single house at 912 Tracy Street managed to produce 141 voters, and a vacant lot at 700 Main Street yielded 112 voters. The Second District, with a population of 18,478, brought in 19,202 votes for Pendergast's ticket, to 12 for the opposition. The total Kansas City vote had 200,000 more voters than its actual population. When Truman ran for the Senate, the Second District gave him 15,145 votes, to 24 for his opponent and that district, when combined with the votes of the other two Kansas City districts, accounted for the entire margin by which Truman carried the state.
Ah, tradition.
No comments:
Post a Comment