<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Saturday, August 14, 2004

The disenfranchisement of New Jersey voters 

By delaying the effectiveness of his resignation until November 15, James McGreevey has effectively disenfranchised the voters of New Jersey. We will now have to endure an unelected caretaker governor for more than a year, until the inauguration of the winner of the 2005 gubernatorial election. McGreevey could remedy this situation by resigning right now. He doesn't, because he and the national Democratic Party are concerned that a special election for governor in New Jersey might increase the chances of George Bush scoring an upset victory for New Jersey's electors.

For four years, we have been suffering howls of sanctimonious outrage from the left about "disenfranchisement" in Florida in 2000. Why are those same people so silent now? If votes are so damned sacrosanct, why aren't Democrats demanding McGreevey's resignation right now? Could the concern of the left for the sanctity of the ballot be purely cynical? Say it ain't so!

Of course, there's a lot of talk about the need for "a smooth transition" in Trenton. Scrappleface shreds that argument:
Mr. McGreevey spent the day after his announcement arranging all the details of his transition out of the governor's office--a process that will occupy almost every hour of the next 94 days.

"I'm pouring all of my efforts into ensuring that the government of New Jersey does not collapse into utter chaos because of a hasty transition," he said. "I spent most of this morning reviewing my packing-tape options. It's grueling work, but I'm devoting meticulous attention to it for the good of the people of the Garden State. It will be a challenge to meet the November 15 deadline, but I gave my word, so you know what that means."

Heh.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?