Reply #5: It's dismissive, but why? [View All]

[Helga Scow Stern]

That article, while at least acknowledging some concerns, was very dismissive.

It seemed almost to be a preemptive strike to try and deaden any thunder from the lawsuit tomorrow.

It was quite dismissive of Arnebeck. It did not mention that he used to be an attorney for Republicans, specifically McCain, I believe, but instead tries to quote only bits from Arnebeck's career that make people not take him seriously:
1)Perot supporter in Ohio; 2) failed candididate for Congress twice.

Makes him sound like a loser, but we know he is anything but that.

It was put out to sound like LATimes is fairly considering the challenge to the results, but instead of really having the facts, as someone stated on the other thread--it really makes light of all the massive disenfranchisement, etc. It flatters Blackwell. It is clearly biased reporting, propaganda, not news.

Too bad. We need to remind them of the facts, not that this reporter cares, but the Editor might.

On the other hand---it may go along with that weird comment by Arnebeck about Skull and Bones. It may be a deliberate strategery to not wake up the dogs, while getting in the yard.

I like the quote it ends with:

If the court orders a full and thorough investigation, he said, Kerry will win. He wishes Kerry would join the fight.

"He and his people are too ready to disbelieve that Republicans could be this bad," Arnebeck said. "They are this bad. Ballot-box stuffing is an old American tradition, and they've just updated it. I'm not surprised that somebody hacked this vote."