This is from the September 24, 2003 program.
So I really do have another 8 clips in the kitty that will be going up today, but then this happened last night and I really felt that it demanded priority over the others.
Great real news coverage of the implications of this week's decision by the courts by Jon before the comedy kicks in with a vengeance.
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I saw this one. I think I laughed until I cried (for a lot of different reasons).
Why is the Daily Show the only "news" program to cover the real issues surrounding the decision by the 9th District Court of Appeals to knowingly disenfranchise millions of California voters?
I can't answer that question. But I did stay up late last night to bring this to you today.
CA Recall Update - Bush v. Gore Take 2 (Small - 10 MB)
The Daily Show (The best news on television.)
Bio
Collected Works
Email: lisa@lisarein.com
finetuning.com
Glossary
Hiding
It's Alright
James and Marybeth
lisarein.com
Monsturd Movie
Monsturd Theme Song
Monsturd Video/Trailer
Music
Number Two
On Lisa Rein's Radar
O'Reilly Network Weblogs
O'Reilly P2P Directory
Poltergeist
Rain
Shake All Over
Something Better
Spunky Funk
Wander
XML
XML.com Resource Guide
no kidding... the daily show is so good i have to pinch myself.
Posted by: S F Gull on September 25, 2003 05:15 PMWhy is the Daily Show the only "news" program to cover the real issues surrounding the decision by the 9th District Court of Appeals to knowingly disenfranchise millions of California voters?
Maybe because the only real news was that the original boneheaded, Hail-Mary play by the court to thwart the (legal) recall was even attempted in the first place?
Those same machines are the machines that voted in Davis. They are the same machines that sent California's Electoral Reps to vote for Gore. They are the *SAME MACHINES* that have been the "voice" and "will" of the people as recently as last year.
These same machines are "disenfranchizing" just as many people in October as they did in the last elections. You should know that elections don't have to be perfect, they just have to be as fair as possible.
Additionally, in listening to the questioning, I gathered that the lawyer for the injunction was basing his arguement on the premise that the machines were "outmoded" *not* broken, *not* unserviceable, but *outmoded*. What an assinine statement. We should then invalidate elections done with paper-and-pencil, or in fact every electoral device that isn't nuclear-powered with fins on it. I'm glad his premise didn't go unquestioned
I'm glad the appeal court saw that the district court "abused it's discretion" (pg9). I've been saying that for years aabout the 9th circuit.
P.S. I think you use the word "atrocity" too lightly as to take away it's meaning and power.
Auschwitz-Birkenau was an atrocity. Dachau was an atrocity. The Killing Fields were an atrocity. Smacking down an abusive court is not.
