Sunday, March 25, 2007

Who? Tell us who!

Here's a post I started last week, but never finished.

Let me get this off my mind. A few days ago, I read this NYT's editorial, which I found via Ann Althouse:

In its fumbling attempts to explain the purge of United States attorneys, the Bush administration has argued that the fired prosecutors were not aggressive enough about addressing voter fraud. It is a phony argument; there is no evidence that any of them ignored real instances of voter fraud. But more than that, it is a window on what may be a major reason for some of the firings.

In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people. By resisting pressure to crack down on “fraud,” the fired United States attorneys actually appear to have been standing up for the integrity of the election system.

Emphasis added. It is certainly true, where Civil Rights are concerned, some conservatives don't have a good record. Nor do some Democrats, but I wish wish wish that instead of spreading the smelly manure of accusatory racism accusations, that the editorialists at the NYT's would just do a little reporting and tell us which Republican circles it is that want to suppress votes of minorities. Where I come from, that's called journalism. What we have here is rumor-mongering.

PS I'm not really sure what 'mongering' means or where it comes from.

Labels: ,

3 Comments:

Anonymous kathy said...

They have reported on it a bunch though. I mean, you might argue that their reporting is crappy or biased or incomplete (ie, I am not saying it would convince you); but if you search the NYTimes archives on "voter suppression" you will get a gazillion stories over the past few years. So I think it's okay for them to refer to that reporting in an editorial. But I say this humbly as a non-journalist, I don't really know what's accepted practice.

7:05 PM  
Blogger Nancy said...

A fair point! (I actually can't read any of those stories because they are all under Times Select.)

I think I'm just used to assertions being factually backed up within editorials, and I think editorialists should follow that prescription. I know they don't always have a lot of room, but I think it's important and more persuasive.

7:36 PM  
Blogger Mike in S.A. said...

In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people.

In partisan Democrat circles, reducing voting restrictions means rigging elections to ensure their candidates are elected - often on the basis of promising lavish government benefits which are never delivered. To this day, that's still a common practice in my birthplace of Laredo.

If the votes can't be secured that way, they can be created from nothing, as Washington's fraudulently-elected Democrat governor (Christine Gregoire) can attest.

As far as racism goes, the donkeys would do well to remove the log in their own eye before criticizing others for the mote in theirs. They can start by condemning the recent racist outbursts by Robert Byrd and Cruz Bustamante, among others.

And then there's the matter of how the "enlightened" liberals treated the Cuban-American community during the Elian Gonzalez crisis...

7:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home