[NWPT43] If there’s any indication of how yesterday’s rulings really went, I’d say it’s the predictable judge-bashing already coming from the other blog. I was particularly struck by this thoughtful piece of analysis from one (u)SP regular:
why does Judge Bridge wear an earing? Unless he’s a right wing Harley riding ex hippie I remain nervous about his politics…
Later in the same thread, one of our very own right-wing resident trolls, Jeff B., manages to cut straight through all the bullshit and and convincingly enunciate his own “bloody glove theory” of election fraud:
I suspect that when all is said and done, the outcome will be similar to that of the OJ trial. We all know he did it, but he got off because a very partisan jury was convinced of a reasonable doubt.
For the last time Jeff, even if OJ did vote in Washington’s November election… he was never actually convicted of a felony. (And besides, OJ’s vote would probably have been offset by that of convicted perjurer and Spokane talk radio host, Mark Fuhrman.)
Of course, I would hate to be judged by the content of my blog’s comment threads (I’d probably be judged mentally incompetent.) But this sort of
paranoid emotional calculated lashing-out at the courts when decisions don’t go their way is de rigueur in Republican circles these days, and Stefan himself set the tone early when he dismissed Judge Bridges’ ruling on voter-crediting by implying that the Judge hadn’t bothered to read the depositions.
In what I suppose serves as his final post-hearing analysis, Stefan comes back with a typically constructive critique, focusing on Judge Bridge’s firm statement that “Unless an election is clearly invalid, when the people have spoken, their verdict should not be disturbed by the courts.” To this, Stefan thoughtfully asks:
What might make an election “clearly invalid”?
I don’t know. Hundreds more ballots than voters? Ballots that appeared out of nowhere and were tabulated? Fraudulent ballot accounting statements? Election officials who knew about hundreds of unverified provisional ballots that went into the ballot boxes but somehow forgot to tell the canvassing board?
Maybe something will come up.
Oh… did I say “thoughtfully”…? I sometimes confuse thoughtfulness with sarcasm.
Well, yes Stefan, if you can prove that there were indeed hundreds more ballots than voters, and that ballots fell from the sky and into the Accuvote machines like manna from heaven, and that election officials committed fraud, then yes… the Judge might rule this election “clearly invalid.” But you can’t prove any of these allegations, and that’s why, dollars to doughnuts, Rossi’s attorneys won’t even try during the four days they’ve been alloted to present evidence.
And that is the extent of the post-hearing commentary from the blogosphere’s most celebrated, self-appointed election expert. I’d say that this atypical lack of loquaciousness might suggest that yesterday’s rulings have him feeling a little despondent, or even depressed… but I wouldn’t want to accuse Stefan of suffering from a mental disorder he clearly doesn’t suffer from.
The truth is, it’s hard to generate much spin when somebody nails your rhetorical dreidel to the floor.
And man did Stefan’s rhetoric get hammered yesterday by Judge Bridges… most devastatingly when he definitively ruled that voter crediting is a “post-election administrative exercise” and “does not bear upon the authenticity of election results.” That one ruling flushed months of Stefan’s hard work (and not so hard numbers) down the toilet, and with it, the last vestige of his “total mess” theory.
I can imagine how disappointed Stefan must be. All those tedious, quixotic hours pouring through election documents, compiling databases, and finagling spreadsheets… all those late nights emailing with the BIAW, and early mornings laying out his latest “findings” to the half dozen or so people listening to Mike Siegel at 6:30AM… all that hard work, only to be told by a lowly judge of all people, that he’s been looking at the wrong data set! (I tried to warn you, Stefan… tried to save you from this crushing heartbreak… but would you listen? No!)
Ah well. I had intended to discuss in detail some of my personal observations on how Judge Bridges’ rulings might ultimately effect the outcome of the trial… but it was just too much fun teasing Stefan. More analysis later….