Unspun Logo

How Fraud Won the Election

Posted by Rick · December 5th, 2004 · 5 Comments

You do not have to believe that voting machines were rigged, ballots were not counted, or minority voters were intimidated to understand that George W. Bush won the United States election by fraud.


I personally have no doubt those things occurred, but they aren’t necessary to sustain a charge of fraud.

There’s a discussion happening over at Chepooka’s that started over the CBS/NBC/UCC thing and partly encompasses the “how Democrats lost the election” thing.

A number of reasons for the “loss” have been given since the election, most of which are based on myth.

I suppose it’s entirely appropriate that this should be, since in addition to the mythology of the Bible, this election also involved a number of other myths and lies. My favorite is that the people backing Bush, who see no problem with torturing prisoners, holding “enemy combatants” indefinitely (three years so far) without charges or trials, denying rights to people who disagree with them (not limited to gays, who they sometimes actually kill), throwing people in jail forever for stealing videotapes while electing convicted criminals to the Presidency of the United States, cutting social welfare programs — all the things Jesus would not do no matter how much you stretch and twist the Christian bible — are Christians. But another odd favorite is that “we lost to an incompetent.”

It has to be remembered that “we” didn’t lose to George Bush. “We” lost to an army of people, most of whom were willing to do anything necessary, including lying to the public, harassing candidates and voters and, apparently, even rigging voting machines and altering or destroying ballots. And to the extent that they have a single leader at all, it’s Karl Rove — who masterminded the President’s transformation from boozing brat to national leader — not Bush.

Furthermore, it’s hard to make a case for our having “lost” the election at all, when you take into account voting fraud. Losing implies that there was a meaningful and honest contest, which there wasn’t. And I personally think it’s significant that even with the lying, cheating and stealing that occurred, the President’s “mandate” is based on votes from just over one-half the voting population — which, I remind you, is not even close to half the population of the United States. The only man dates the President got have been with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, who clearly are responsible for that odd smirk he’s always sporting.

Yet, in comments over at Chepooka and on his own website, “Mr. M” argues that if “we” want to win, “we” have to be willing to do whatever it takes.

I should pause to note a few things before developing my response to this. First, I like Mr. M. So readers should not take any criticism of the views he expresses as indicating otherwise. I periodically read his blog and find that I’m often in agreement with him. But as outlined in the current blog entry, I disagree with this particular view about the election and what “we” need to do. Let me remind you that it’s the Republicans who foster the view that if you disagree with an idea, you ipso facto must hate and attack the person who floats it.

The second thing I should note is that repeated use of scare quotes around the word “we.” I’m not sure, but when Mr. M says this, I think he means “Democrats.” I’m not a Democrat — not at all sure I’d want to be a Democrat — and yet I think Mr. M wants to include me in “we.” The scare quotes have been just my way of ensuring that bozos like Nat Dawson don’t slip back into thinking I’m a Democrat.

So back to the point. This election was won by fraud. And it didn’t take rigged voting machines from Diebold, although I think there’s good good reason to believe that happened, too. But the fraud started long before anyone actually voted.

Snay — and to answer a question posed by my wife, I think I figured out that he’s malnurtured because he spends so much time bloggin’! — quotes the Louisiana Conservative as saying,

The truth of the matter is that liberals see things as black and white all the time. The core conviction of a liberal will change at the behest of political convenience. Anything by the left is good. If it’s done by the right, then it is evil. It’s that simple to them. Jeff Blanco, Black and White (December 1, 2004) Louisiana Conservative via Malnurtured Snay.

This quote — a lie — virtually singlehandedly exemplifies the fraudulent methodology used by the Bush Administration and its acolytes to “win” the election. It also demonstrates what I’ve been trying to explain to Mr. M: Republicans have taken their ways, beliefs and attitudes and successfully projected them onto non-Republicans. Americans, who recognize those heinous characteristics as un-American as well as undesirable, have been bombarded with the idea that characteristics that really belong to Republicans are “liberal” traits. And they’ve bought that lie — hook, line and sink-the-Constitution.

Who, after all, said, “You’re either for us, or against us”? There’s no shade of disagreement permitted. You can’t disagree with our view and still be part of our party. You can’t disagree with our approach and still consider yourself our ally.

Who has declared that he has a mandate based on obtaining the support of less than half the United States’ adult population? If that doesn’t demonstrate an inability to see shades of gray, I don’t know what does!

Although it’s frequently been suggested, I’m not going to move to Canada just because Republicans have successfully pulled off a coup with virtually no disruption or significant protest. Not even with Canadians offering to marry Americans so they can become citizens.

I’m going to stand and fight for the truth. And the truth is that the occasional foibles of Democrats and other liberals notwithstanding, liberals not only founded this country, but are responsible for having made America the most powerful nation on earth to date. And the party that truly supports ideas that are destructive of the United States and will cause its downfall if unchecked is the Republican Party.

Fact is, “there are loons on both sides of the aisle.” There are even liars and bad people on both sides of the aisle. But there’s organized deception on only one so far. And I’m not in favor of adopting that strategy to make it two (or more).

Categories: Law and Legal Issues · Politics-In-General

Tags:

5 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Chepooka // Dec 5, 2004 at 12:38 pm

    Actually, I think it was Hitler that originally coined the phrase, “You’re either with us or against us.” Or was it the “God is on our side” — yeah, that’s it.

    I think, in all fairness, that Mr. M. is not necessarily advocating that we republicanize for the sake of winning. I think the point is that we need to get in the “winning” mindset. Now, I don’t agree that we need to do what it takes to win and THEN win hearts and minds. I think we need to win hearts and minds and then WIN.

    But still, getting into “winning mode” is the same thing as not moving to Canada and staying here and fighting. As you suggest, we need to make sure that the neo-Pharisees’ (is that how you spell it?) message is diluted with our message. Let the people decide. Let the republicans sink their own ship.

    I am confident that the truth will prevail. If it doesn’t, we’re fucked. Perhaps Mr. M already thinks we’re fucked and that’s why he just wants to win, first, and then make things better once we’ve got the power to do so.

  • 2 Malnurtured Snay // Dec 5, 2004 at 12:50 pm

    Must Read

    Head on over to Unspun™ and read this: A number of reasons for the “loss” have been given since the election, most of which are based on myth. I suppose it’s entirely appropriate that this should be, since in addition…

  • 3 Mr. M // Dec 5, 2004 at 1:30 pm

    Bravo, and well written. I think we may be closer to an accord regarding winning then we may have previously been willing to agree to.

    You really do hit the head on how the Republicans won the election, and rightly outed Karl Rove.

    Mr. M
    LOFC.BLOGSPOT.COM

  • 4 Chepooka // Dec 6, 2004 at 10:36 pm

    STUDY MAN.

  • 5 Mark // Dec 7, 2004 at 6:33 am

    “Gott Mit Uns,” God is with us. This was on the belt buckles that Nazi soldiers wore during World War II. Popular revisionist mythology would have you believe that Hitler was an atheist. Quite the opposite. He repeatedly professed his Christian faith in public. He railed against the teaching of evolution in schools. He hated homosexuals, women who were unfortunate enough to have miscarriages (much less abortions), and anyone who did not subscribe to his “God is on Germany’s side” theology.

    If you’d like to read more about Hitler’s brand of holy-roller religion, go to http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/12/far04041.html

Leave a Comment

CommentLuv badge