Below The Beltway

I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in.

The Revenge Of The Paul-Bots

by @ 5:50 am on January 12, 2008. Filed under 2008 Election, Moonbats, Politics, Ron Paul

Or, how a bunch of people who believe all the world is a conspiracy turned the life of New Hampshire town clerk upside down:

Jennifer Call’s eyes searched the office for nothing in particular. Her arms waved and her fear spilled out.

“This is where I grew up,” Sutton’s town clerk said yesterday. “This is my hometown, this is where my family is, and all of sudden, my name is being splashed across the internet as this horrible person. And the frightening part is, I don’t know these people and they don’t know me.”

Call wants the nationwide army of boisterous Ron Paul supporters, believers in more conspiracy theories than Oliver Stone, to know that she’s committed no crime.

Not treason, as the dozens of phone callers screamed. Not fraud, as the dozens of e-mails charged. Nothing.

Human error, by someone unknown, caused Call’s office to claim Paul received zero votes from the town during Tuesday’s first-in-the-nation primary.

Paul actually got a whopping 31 votes.

Out of 920 cast.

Launch an investigation. Alert the media.

The mistake was corrected early the next morning, but that hardly mattered. The Paul machine, upon reading the number in print, quickly went into counteroffensive mode.

As I suspected, what happened in Sutton was simple human error:

Call, 35, arrived at the Pillsbury Memorial Hall Tuesday morning at 7 for the start of a marathon day. About a dozen or so staffers coordinated the effort, guiding voters, counting votes, rechecking totals.

Paul’s 31 votes got lost in the shuffle, lost in translation between moderator Greg Hill’s voice and Call’s pen.

The slot next to Paul’s name on the original return sheet said 31, but a space on Call’s return, next to Paul’s name, remained blank.

“He’s (Gill) reading off his results, I’m writing them down on the return,” Call said. “I don’t know why it was blank. I don’t know if he skipped over it or if someone interrupted him to repeat the last name and it got skipped, or maybe I missed it. It was that simple.”

Simple ? Yes, but not if you’re a “true believer”

Money quote:

“Most of the these people are not rational,” Call said.

You got that one right.

8 Responses to “The Revenge Of The Paul-Bots”

  1. Dan Four says:

    Where is the logical reasoning being applied incorrectly?

    Is it – this person was so stupid she couldn`t manage to fill out the penultimate form out for this event, or her misfeasance represents and reflects on the state of voting in the United States?

    Judging by their education system – this particular case could definitely be a result of idiocity – Florida 2000 and 9/11 don`t stand up similarly, if you truly examine it.

    Stupidity doesn`t explain what has happened over in Amerika.

  2. Mr Grinch says:

    Doug the grasper of straws, I bet you will will be soundly outnumbered here as on your other worthless propagandist rant.

    I bet about 90% of replies will be people telling you your being foolish.

    PC conformist junk journalism and education has changed our once fierce independent freethinking people (of which the press had been considered to be) into a bunch of cowardly thoughtless insolent yes men. (with a huge side of arrogance as if your so smart)

    Doug Mataconis :Repeater not a Reporter.

  3. concerned citizen says:

    Just leave the poor woman alone! The fact is that it WAS human error, it happens. Nobody is perfect. Yes, it is a shame that this happened, but it was resolved within hours. End of story. There is no need for insults.

  4. Economist says:

    I agree with Concerned Citizen. The reaction of the Paul supporters reminds me more of the “Internet Lynch Mob” Phenomenon. Similar to the “Korean Dog Poop Girl” Incident in Korea.

  5. Mr Grinch says:

    New Hampshire vote fraud evidence elicits calls for recount

    by Tom Flocco

    New York—January 12, 2008——Evidence of vote fraud in Tuesday’s New Hampshire Primary has inflamed the internet with reports that disparities exist between swapped precinct percentages regarding Diebold electronic optical scanning machines versus hand-counted ballots involving presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

    Curiously—with percentages so perfect as if someone was attempting to entrap the perpetrators—Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton received 91,717 votes or 52.95% in precincts using Diebold Accuvote optical scan electronic voting machines and 20,889 votes or 47.05% of ballots from precincts using hand-counted votes.
    Democratic Senator Barack Obama received the same 52.95% or 23,509 votes in hand-counted precincts and the same 47.05% or 81,495 votes in precincts using Diebold optical scanning tabulators, both according to analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) who used results from the New Hampshire Secretary of State website, raising questions as to how the percentage swap occurred.

    More importantly, CNN, MSNBC, FOX and the three television networks all had scores of election analysts and exit poll reporters watching New Hampshire ballot returns like hawks, yet all failed to report the above anomaly to New Hampshire voters.

    There is also evidence that at least one cable television network may have already known about vote count and percentage anomalies given the manner in which coverage was affected according to one authority with strong U.S. intelligence connections.

    Election officials and supervisors tasked with assuring a fair ballot count also kept quiet regarding the curious vote percentage swap when it should have raised eyebrows, especially given years of national complaints about Diebold electronic voting machine accuracy and controversial Diebold election results in other states.

    The news media also failed to report the total number of hand-count and Diebold electronic precincts won by each candidate and whether Clinton overwhelmingly won the Diebold precincts or whether Obama convincingly won hand-count precincts—both of which may indicate additional evidence of voting “irregularities.”… cont..

  6. What does that have to do with Jennifer Call and Sutton ?

    In case you don’t know, Sutton doesn’t even use voting machines.

  7. From Florida says:

    Had Jennifer Call added 15 + 18 = 32 – That could be a human honest mistake…. However, To put 0 when > READ CAREFULLY>>> she had just counted the “Votes” DUH! she would know the figure was not 0. She got caught – maybe her “fear” was caused more by her own guilt. She should be removed from her job. For incompetence – or for the more obvious. Maybe going forward people in Jennifer Calls position will decide it prudent to recheck the form before submitting it. Seriously – outside of the backlashing of “Ron Paul Supporters” what punishment does she face for her ” Error” – NONE.

  8. FF,

    If you’ve ever actually worked at the polls on an election day, you’d know just how long a day someone like Ms. Call had last Tuesday. It’s not surprising that, out of simple fatigue, she made a mistake.

    And I still don’t know what the big deal is, she corrected the mistake the next day.

[Below The Beltway is proudly powered by WordPress.]