I know the most important thing in the world is to give ABC better ratings for it’s interminable bore, but if you’ve got some time between the football game and your daily dose of Republican propaganda, you should check this out. Helen and Harry have this pithy commentary:

He was sworn in weeks before the election was certified, but his position in Congress cannot be questioned by a judge, or at least, that’s this judge’s ruling. The state’s voters have no legal standing to challenge this — because Bilbray was sworn in.

The Republicans have discovered yet another tactic to circumvent elections. Under the logic of this ruling, Republicans who control Congress can swear in Republicans who ’win’ an election before a recount is conducted, or before a recount is even possible. They can simply swear in their preferred candidate, and all challenges and recounts become moot.

Following this concept to its logical conclusion, is there any reason why the Republican Congress couldn’t swear in the Republican candidate, even if an opposing candidate clearly has more votes? Why bother conducting elections for Congressional seats, if the party in power can swear in anyone they choose, and their decision cannot be challenged?

The point about the Bilbray election isn’t so much that it was stolen, but rather that there are a now seemingly insurmountable series of legal hurdles preventing citizens from having confidence that their votes were tallied correctly. Just to refresh your memory, here’s one reason why folks like Brad think that those citizens’ fears are not unfounded:

Questions about the results of the Busby/Bilbray special election were first raised here on BradBlog, where it was revealed that the Diebold electronic election equipment–proven to be easily hackable–was sent home with volunteer pollworkers for days and weeks before the election, violating both state and federal regulations and rendering the voting equipment uncertified for use in an election. Plaintiffs Barbara Gail Jacobsen and Lillian Ritt, both CA-50 voters, filed the election contest when efforts for a hand count of the ballots were thwarted by Registrar Mikel Haas’s refusal to provide the necessary public information.

But who cares about those silly “regulations” anyway? Really, they’re just suggestions, not anything all legal-like and with penalties.

People keep telling me that Diebold isn’t the way in which Republicans steal elections, and indeed there’s plenty of evidence that old fashioned methods like those seen in OH work just fine, swinging elections by denying people things like accurate voter rolls and access to the proper number of voting machines in Democratic precincts. But unless and until situations like this one in CA are cleared up, people like me are going to wonder. I wouldn’t accept shoddy practice like this from a bank or mechanic, yet I’m told to just shut up when it comes to my vote?

It’s lonely out here in the wilderness, I’m telling ya. I’m working very hard on not being a nasty cynic today, in the face of all this chatter about TV. I guess the lesson I need to learn is that for most Americans, TV is more important than real life. Too bad the Republicans have figured that out, as well as ways to make sure that what they do will never appear there factually.