You Can Count on Krugman, To Be an Alarmist

Paul Krugman has a column up, this morning, titled “Voting and Counting." Let’s review what old Krugman has to say.

"If the election were held today and the votes were counted fairly, Senator John Kerry would probably win. But the votes won’t be counted fairly, and the disenfranchisement of minority voters may determine the outcome."

Right out the blocks, you can determine that Krugman has swallowed, whole, the Democratic Party line that the upcoming election vote count will be rigged.  I guess Paul and the rest of his liberal, whining, “unbiased” team at The New York Times could count, “fairly.” Just like they report the news “fairly.”

Further in, Krugman adds fuel to his little alarmist fire.

"And votes for Mr. Kerry will be systematically undercounted."

Two for Bush, and one for Kerry.  Three for Bush and one for Kerry.  Is that how the systematic vote count will work, Krugman?

Krugman ends his little alarmist diatribe with this comment.

"And the media must not treat such a suspect win as a validation of skewed reporting that has consistently overstated Mr. Bush’s popular support."

Paul Krugman, media elitist, and the boy who’s crying wolf, while it is still in the cage.

Posted by on 10/22 at 06:12 AM

  1. It would appear the Mr. Krugman has received his copy of the Democratic Election Playbook and has taken it to heart. 

    “Democrats got caught with their election playbook open Thursday when a leaked page was published urging operatives to lodge a “pre-emptive strike”

    Via Rocky Moutain News

    Posted by The Wizard  on  10/22  at  07:14 AM

  2. Dang it, Wiz, quit wasting so much space here when you post those links.  I fixed it.

    Posted by  on  10/22  at  07:48 AM

  3. Not that I’d want either of these two yahoos running anyone’s life but their own, but it takes some pretty hefty denial and lack of objectivity not to admit that there will be an equal number of people willing to engage in any amount of chicanery and skullduggery, solely for the purpose of ensuring that “BUSH == HITLAR” is not elected. You can also bet they’ll be able to easily formulate some sort of rationalization that allows them to see their activities as a moral act and their opponents’ as immoral, when in fact they’re both engaging in the same sort of sickening attempt at dice-playing with the lives and liberties of others.

    Posted by damaged justice  on  10/22  at  01:40 PM

  4. Mr. Venlet,

    For someone who is such a strong advocate of not voting …

    … you certainly seem obsessed with voting.

    Why would you even care whether or not the votes are counted fairly?

    What difference does it make to you? Do you even care who wins?

    Posted by  on  10/22  at  02:13 PM

  5. Shut up, Serpent.

    Posted by  on  10/22  at  11:39 PM

  6. Unfortunately I don’t have magical mind-reading powers like yourself Mr. Ivan, so the only way I can comprehend the point Mr. Venlet was trying to make is by asking him for clarification (that’s no offense where I come from).

    But since you seem to imply you comprehended what he meant, perhaps you could explain it to me?

    Posted by  on  10/25  at  08:37 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: It's None of Their Damn Business

Previous entry: Dealing in Time, Pieces

<< Back to main