Worcester 6th and Blatant democratic fraud

Readability

Worcester 6th and Blatant democratic fraud

You might recall the Worces­ter 6th race, the shenani­gans we talked about con­cern­ing recounts, the judge rul­ing that a man who claimed his vote wasn’t counted could vote after the fact to tie the elec­tion, the Demo­c­ra­tic leg­is­la­ture instead of hav­ing a new head to head elec­tion allow­ing inde­pen­dents to cut down on the GOP vote. Now the Worces­ter Telegram this morn­ing report on the icing on the cake.

Town Clerk Mada­line I. Daoust was in the process of sell­ing her house to a key fig­ure in the dis­puted 6th Worces­ter Dis­trict elec­tion dur­ing the same time period she tes­ti­fied twice under oath that she did not know the man.

Run that through your head a sec­ond, the South­bridge Town Clerk, the per­son who makes sure elec­tions are hon­est, tes­ti­fies under oath, not once but twice. that she doesn’t know the man claim­ing to have been “dis­en­fran­chised” when she’s sell­ing her house to him?

How do you get to such a point? Easy, you have an elec­tion where every state office is returned to the one party state. She is not afraid of the Attor­ney Gen­eral, She is not afraid of the Sec­re­tary of State, she cer­tainly isn’t afraid of the state Leg­is­la­ture. As the Telegram is a paper that leans left she likely didn’t fear them either. Lucky for us they are honest.

Cor­rup­tion thrives when peo­ple are not afraid of the law or it being enforced. In South­bridge the Demo­c­ra­tic machine is not afraid of the law, of the state and are cer­tainly not afraid of the voters.

Now the ques­tion becomes what will the judge do? Will he throw out the pre­vi­ous rul­ing and declare Durant the win­ner? Will he cite the clerk and claim it’s too late to change things” 3 weeks before the re-​election. My guess is the latter.

Who is to blame for this? It’s us, the Vot­ers. The vot­ers of South­bridge voted for their city gov­ern­ment, the vot­ers of the dis­trict for send­ing Alicea to the Gen­eral court and the vot­ers of Mass­a­chu­setts send­ing the same tired crew back as Gov­er­nor, Attor­ney Gen­eral, and Sec of State year after year. We had our best chance to change things last time and we did not.

And it will be up to us the vot­ers again. Until and unless we demand a change we won’t get one.

Or to put it another way, we always get the gov­ern­ment we deserve. We will shortly find out what we deserve.

Update: A clas­sic bit, The telegram asked Ms. Daoset why she didn’t tell the court that Mr. Miranda was buy­ing her house her answer was: “They didn’t ask” say­ing you don’t vol­un­teer infor­ma­tion that’s court 101.

Now I’m Sicil­ian and maybe that is the answer I might expect to hear from peo­ple in cer­tain fam­ily busi­nesses, but if you are the City Clerk I would have thought that the court and the city would not have to pull answers out of you con­cern­ing clean elections.

You might recall the Worcester 6th race, the shenanigans we talked about concerning recounts, the judge ruling that a man who claimed his vote wasn’t counted could vote after the fact to tie the election, the Democratic legislature instead of having a new head to head election allowing independents to cut down on the GOP vote. Now the Worcester Telegram this morning report on the icing on the cake.

Town Clerk Madaline I. Daoust was in the process of selling her house to a key figure in the disputed 6th Worcester District election during the same time period she testified twice under oath that she did not know the man.

Run that through your head a second, the Southbridge Town Clerk, the person who makes sure elections are honest, testifies under oath, not once but twice. that she doesn’t know the man claiming to have been “disenfranchised” when she’s selling her house to him?

How do you get to such a point? Easy, you have an election where every state office is returned to the one party state. She is not afraid of the Attorney General, She is not afraid of the Secretary of State, she certainly isn’t afraid of the state Legislature. As the Telegram is a paper that leans left she likely didn’t fear them either. Lucky for us they are honest.

Corruption thrives when people are not afraid of the law or it being enforced. In Southbridge the Democratic machine is not afraid of the law, of the state and are certainly not afraid of the voters.

Now the question becomes what will the judge do? Will he throw out the previous ruling and declare Durant the winner? Will he cite the clerk and claim it’s too late to change things” 3 weeks before the re-election. My guess is the latter.

Who is to blame for this? It’s us, the Voters. The voters of Southbridge voted for their city government, the voters of the district for sending Alicea to the General court and the voters of Massachusetts sending the same tired crew back as Governor, Attorney General, and Sec of State year after year. We had our best chance to change things last time and we did not.

And it will be up to us the voters again. Until and unless we demand a change we won’t get one.

Or to put it another way, we always get the government we deserve. We will shortly find out what we deserve.

Update: A classic bit, The telegram asked Ms. Daoset why she didn’t tell the court that Mr. Miranda was buying her house her answer was: “They didn’t ask” saying you don’t volunteer information that’s court 101.

Now I’m Sicilian and maybe that is the answer I might expect to hear from people in certain family businesses, but if you are the City Clerk I would have thought that the court and the city would not have to pull answers out of you concerning clean elections.