Richard Baehr on The American Thinker systematically dismantles Paul Krugman’s wishful analysis of the “stolen” 2000 election today and recalls the disenfranchisement of Florida’s Panhandle voters:
The Panhandle was Bush's strongest section of the state. While turnout in Florida was up across the state from 1996 to 2000, it was up by a much smaller percentage in the Panhandle than in the rest of the state. Were voters less interested in the contest in the Central Time Zone counties of Florida or did some of them listen to and believe the reports that the polls had closed or that the race was decided in the state and not vote? Some analyses of the Panhandle vote have suggested Bush may have lost net between 5,000 and 10,000 votes due to the errors (presumably not deliberate) by the TV broadcasters, who seemed blissfully unaware that Florida is one of the states with two time zones. If this had happened and the Panhandle had been a Democratic voting area, there would have been screams of voter suppression from Krugman, Jesse Jackson, and Mary Frances Berry.Absolutely correct. What does it say about NY Times columnist and sometime economist Paul Krugman that he needs to devote two columns in a row picking at the scab of the 2000 election? It’s an ordeal reading any of Krugman’s tendentious articles. As Baehr notes in his analysis, Krugman’s articles reveal him to be either lazy, stupid, or a liar. It’s a wonder the NY Times keeps him on the payroll as he embarrasses himself with instantly refutable scribbling.
Extra – More piling-on over at Ankle Biting Pundits and Brainster.