It seems as though there is a concerted effort to discredit Paul Krugman of the NYTimes.
I read the complaints of Luskin's Truth Squad at the NRO. He does make some points regarding Krugman's initial presentation of the facts. However, he then proceeds to totally discount the 3rd point, as stated by Krugman:
The third is what would have happened if the intentions of the voters hadn't been frustrated by butterfly ballots, felon purges and more; the answer is that Mr. Gore would have won by a much larger margin.
Most people seem to forget that this is a partisan time. The theory is that there are people who might willing interpret the rules and regulations of govt to their favorâ€¦aka Rove/Novak.
I know, it's a slap in the face to think that anybody from a Bush campaign would play hardball, ask John McCain. So the theory goes that someone associated with the Bush campaign/family might want to use the levers of power to tilt the machine in their favor. Everything legal mind you, but just a little off the path for a political campaign, unless your brother controls the levers of power in said state. Of course it's just a silly conspiracy theory, with no bases in fact. The state of
In November the
Me, being a regular guy would never think that something as important as the presidency of the
However, if I were to put myself in the position of a person, Rove, who shouldered the task of having to get a brain dead, dry drunk, Christian evangelist elected to the Presidency; I would do whatever it takes, even bending/breaking the rules. And me being a superb manipulator would leave not one fingerprint. It would be years later that anyone would associate such crude electioneering tactics to someone know as, "a senior administration official".
Godâ€¦I am good.
For further study on the science of election stealing read onâ€¦.