Nashua Telegraph – doing Ray Buckley’s dirty work on Martha’s Motel?

So tell me again - vote stealing activists use NH Democrat Martha Fuller Clarks house to vote fromAfter all, a deflection from wrong doing by using the “well, everybody does it” sounds more like a tweener trying to get out of a bad spot with Mom & Dad rather than from a professional journalistic entity?  Or, is this simply yet another manifestation of how journalism is downgrading itself?  After all, after paying $1.4 Billion for the Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette back in 1993, the NYT sells them off to Red Sox owner John Henry for $70 million – a 94% discount?  Places a high value of by the public on the Fourth Estate, yes?  And given that itself was recently sold…but I digress.

Given that quick discussions on “high value”, a few thoughts on an Editorial they recently did on Voter Fraud (reformatted, emphasis mine): Party flap hardly voter fraud case

To hear New Hampshire Republican Party Chair Jennifer Horn tell it, Democrats are trying to steal elections in the state.

Horn recently wrote state Attorney General Joe Foster, asking him to investigate media reports that state Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, D-Portsmouth, allowed four Democratic campaign workers to live at her house and use her address to register to vote in the 2012 elections. The Republican Party head accused Fuller Clark of creating “a sanctuary for voter fraud.”

Well, at least the Telegraph deigned to mention Martha’s Motel – I guess the story coming out of the blogosphere (er, us) finally started to percolate (you DO read the ‘Grok, eh Kevin Landrigan?).  It will be interesting to see if the new AG, a former Democrat State Senator, will do anything more than any other former AGs (including Republican ones as well).  There have been reports, credible reports, of voter fraud from all over the state over the years.  Multiple times, people like Ed Naile (a registered Democrat, I might add), these instances have been brought to the authorities – only to see them “round filed” or lost into the black maw of a political bureaucracy that seemingly is more content with the status quo of the First In The Nation Primary than defending its underlying foundation of a fair process that has a rock solid reputation for integrity (James O’Keefe, Geoff Wetrosky any one?).

Horn claims Fuller Clark, the vice chairman of the state’s Democratic Party, knew the workers were in the state only temporarily and would be leaving shortly after the election to assume political jobs in other states, which they did.  Fuller Clark told WMUR that she had “no idea” how long the political operatives intended to remain in the state. We don’t think Fuller Clark is a mind-reader, but we don’t buy that answer, either. We think it’s likely that she knew full well that most, if not all, of the workers would be leaving the state within weeks of the election. To ask voters to believe otherwise does them a disservice.

OK, 1) Martha’s Motel.  2) Acceptance that Martha is lying (yes, my words – the editorial pulls back from that brink).  However, the indication is “non-truth telling instead of using the more efficient 3 letter word.

In letters she wrote about the matter to Fuller Clark and the attorney general, Horn called the voting “illegal” and “improper.”  Well, there is a difference.

Sure is – we here at the ‘Grok are politically incorrect (right Jennifer Horn?  We certainly would be loathe to disambulate or skirt that description of us).   And until sexual orientation license starts to legally trump the First Amendment Rights to freedom of religious express and freedom of speech, we are not illegal.  Unlike what seems to be the majority of folks that associate with the Republican Party, we see political correctness for what it is – Political Castration / Cultural Marxism.  Either term has the effect to keep you from saying things that you would ordinary say but think it would be seen as impolite.  The opposite side, the Statists, use it to simply win the argument without actually making one.  We simply say “Bring it (right Harrell Kirstein, OFA and NH Democrat Party press flack – hey, does this mean that Obama’s political organization is in the process to take over the NH Democrat Party.  Gosh, I can’t even begin to believe that the NHDP could become even more extremist in the Alinsky tradition than it already is).  But I digress again.

But that phrase “Well, there is a difference.” is the beginning of the Telegraph’s attempt at deflection outrage at the Dems here (and I would add, the Republicans that also do so).  In essence, they take advantage of the fact that words mean things and, being wordsmiths, the fact that the meanings of words can be manipulated.  And here it starts, IMHO.

Horn said Fuller Clark allowed the workers to “parachute” into New Hampshire and was complicit in what she called “illegal drive-through voting.” Horn deserves credit for colorful imagery, perhaps, but not much else. The fact is, this sort of thing happens all the time, and there’s nothing illegal about it, though whether it should be is open to debate.

So, a law that on the books can be flagrantly flouted (“all the time“).  I don’t read the paper all the time but it does mostly call illegal things, well, illegal.  With the sale of the paper, does this mean that it is going to slide into that Lefty notion of relative morality – bad only when we need it to be and simply boffo otherwise?  How does this square with Consistency – for not only do political parties need Trust from its members and the voters, but Trust from its readers.  And when readers see this “no big thang!”, what do you think happens (remember, Newsweek sold back in 2010 for $1.  No, not an issue – the entire enterprise.  That is a demonstration of “no trust”).

State election law allows someone to vote if they establish a “domicile” in the state before the election, but there’s no minimum residency requirement and University of New Hampshire law professor John Greabe told the Concord Monitor that “domicile” is an “inherently mushy and highly subjective standard.”  Horn is just trying to score political points when she claims that the Democratic campaign workers “improperly influenced New Hampshire elections and canceled out the votes of actual Granite Staters.”

But there is “intent” – a word that the Telegraph fails to mention along side the word “domicile” – in the law, those two are linked.  Intent stands for the idea that NH is going to be your home; if you come here as a political operative (paid or not), work on campaigns, vote, and then skidaddle out (be it the next day like Wetrosky did or even a week later).  And that is what Martha Fuller Clark seemingly relies on as a defense as in “well, I thought their intent was to say – who knew?).  Ditto for Zandra Rice-Hawkins on Close Up.  And here is what NH’s Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan’s own words said (emphasis mine, with my commentary):

In general terms, unrelated to the allegations against Fuller Clark, Scanlan said voter fraud “is a significant crime…Problem is, over the last few years, his office has done diddly squat.  Ditto the Attorney General’s…He also said state law allows a person to move to the state one day, with the intention of staying in New Hampshire and registering to vote the next day, then moving out-of-state the third day because of a life change.

A life change.  As in, perhaps, “my work here is done!” ?

But if someone moves solely to vote, he said, “that’s something completely different.

Which speaks to intent.  The intent to win for “your side”?  The intent to to make the other side lose?  Simply a “means”, as Alinsky Progressives believe, “to obtain the greater good” which for them, results in “The Bigger the Government, the smaller the citizen”.  Screw over the actual inhabitants of that particular State by ‘stealing’ a vote?  Meh – merely that a few eggs got cracked, merely some are collateral damage to “Lean Forward” in progressing The Collective.  Onward Workers!  Your Paradise awaits!

With that has a background, here a doozy of a “fact” that this “Nashua’s paper of record” decided to drop onto its readers:

Actually, it’s more likely that they canceled out the votes of Republican campaign workers who did pretty much the same thing. The state Democratic Party website notes that campaign workers for Republican presidential nominee Gov. Mitt Romney also voted in the last election, even though they had out-of-state mailing addresses.

Such a debonair attitude – “both sides do it – meh!”  So much for reporting actually truth as “more likely” is throwing something against a wall to see if it sticks – and if it does, it MUST be a fact, right?  Instead of looking opportunity for some investigative reporting (hey, they have one of the States crack political reporters in Kevin Landrigan, right?) and “making the world a better place” blah blah blah “afflicting the comfortable”, the Editors of the Telegraph give me the feeling they are trying out to be the Wizards of Oz with smoke, loud noises, and a phantom head mouthing  a Democrat policy talking point “nothing to see here, move along”.  And now we all can just hear their snoring on the job.

Horn also asked Fuller Clark to remove the names of the workers from the Portsmouth voter rolls. “If you fail to take action the New Hampshire Republican State Committee is prepared to take any appropriate action under the law including bringing it to the attention of the Superior Court.”

And the Telegraph should be jawboning the same of the Republicans instead of adding to the dirt pile under the rug, shouldn’t it?  Or are the Editors on the side of a less open and transparent process?  And if so, who are they trying to protect (“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?“, boys?  The Blogosphere?  Do we have to do the work you refuse to do?

As if the state’s court system doesn’t have enough of a backlog without being further clogged up with lawsuits based on actions practiced, if not condoned, by both political parties.

Tsk, tsk, tsk – a paper that, in effect, is saying “go ahead, practice politics the Chicago Way” even if writ small.  I thought that Journalists, that “newspapers of record” were supposed to ferret out the truth and correct that which is wrong.  Instead, are we seeing The Telegraph all in and willing to join the rats down in the rat hole?

This is a classic case of political grandstanding and a matter best left to the Legislature. If state lawmakers think they can craft something that narrowly addresses the issues raised by these claims and counterclaims, they should have at it.

And this is a case of a “butt covering for the local Democrat Party masquerading as a “reasonable commonsense” editorial.

But it shouldn’t be used to bootstrap passage of the sort of voter laws that Republicans across the country have sought to get passed – laws that impede the voting rights of minorities because Republicans see as more likely to vote for the other party.

Ah yes, the Telegraph throws the Race Card!!!  This is the harbinger and signature of Lefties everywhere – when hemmed into the corner during an argument, throw the Race Card – it’s Political Correctness will stop the other side.  Your J-school mentors would be so proud (Moms too – but I bet they can out logic you fools as well).

Silly creatures – do you really think I really care to bow down for that stupidity.  With that, you might as well have transgressed Godwin’s Law.

Because that’s how elections really get stolen.

And how newspapers look idiotic.  And confirm that both feet of the Telegraph is planted firmly on the Left side of the political aisle.  Thanks -we’ll remember that the next time you claim “objectivity” – visions of the Wizard’s smoke will pass before my eyes.

© 2013, The Telegraph, Nashua, New Hampshire

Good thing it’s their copyright – I would NEVER want to be associated with this pile…