Thursday, November 02, 2006

"Securing" votes

A report (here) pooh-poohing Republican complaints of a privately-funded-publicly-administered program giving "free" flu shots at polling places.
[Republican party official] Woodfill said the program violated a provision in state law that prohibits any benefit or consideration in exchange for a vote. He said the local GOP is pledging $1,000 to provide free vaccinations the day after Election Day, and he called on the city and the local Democratic Party to match the pledge.
To his credit, the Democrat Mayor had the wisdom to shut down the program.

I wasn't sure that this was worth a comment until I read the following over at Music Row Democrats:
Quelle horreur! Can't have that, now, can we? The worst they can say is that Democrats want to offer low-income people some free flu shots. Hey, don't the Republicans have all the health care they need, anyway? And if they don't, why aren't they voting for it then?

I guess Southern Beale doesn't care what the law says, much less the intent of the law; or perhaps s/he missed some of the pertinent facts in the article . . . then again, no need for facts to get in the way of a bit of good demagoguery. I would submit that the people most in need of flu shots (particularly free ones) would be conveniently congregated in nursing homes; but that assumes that getting flu shots to needy people (vs. getting voters for seedy politicians) was the objective.

And isn't the French expression rich?

No comments: