|November 10, 2004|
Hey Right Wingers, This Ain't 2000 Anymore
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
Dear Right Wingers,
I hope you've been having a pleasant week! It certainly seems like you have been enjoying yourself! It's so nice to see you in a good mood.
Though if you would, please remind me again...were you guys actually able to prove that the memos Dan Rather used in his report on Bush's National Guard service were actually fraudulent? Or did you just come up with enough questions about them that you found enough confidence to go ahead and label them as frauds? Enough certitude about a purposeful case of attempting to disrupt a Presidential campaign that you were able to go ahead and create a whole "Gate" out of the matter ("MemoGate", "RatherGate") and then feel confident enough in what you had found to call for the resignation of the reporter who ran the story?
As I recall, at the time, you felt that a journalist who may have been too careless in his reporting deserved to be fired for that sloppiness, despite inconclusive proof of the legitimacy of the documents in question, and despite even the slimmest shred of actual evidence that the reporter in question purposely reported on a story that he knew to be untrue.
So please explain, if you would, why in the case of potentially, even likely fraudulent documents used to back up a story with a body of evidence to suggest at least the substance of the documents themselves was likely true, that it was more than enough to invalidate the entire story and to call for the resignation/firing of the reporter who brought it to you? But yet similar signs of fraud don't seem nearly important enough to you to investigate a growing body of evidence that suggests the most recent Presidential Election in the world's most important democracy might be similarly, if not even more, fraudulent?
The stunning silence on this from the Rightwing Brigade of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists and their lack of interest in examining a possibly fraudulent Election -- one that didn't simply embarrass someone on 60 Minutes, but rather may have actually installed a man to the American Presidency despite having fewer than the required votes needed to win -- would seem to highlight the very essence of what I could only refer to as...um...hypocrisy.
How else to explain it?
Certainly, with the strength of your convictions that George W. Bush handily defeated John Kerry in a "broad, national victory" with a "convincing margin of the popular vote" I'd think you'd not be frightened to find out the truth. Would you?
Surely, you'd like this "mandate" you're now claiming to be as legitimate as possible, no?
And with so many votes for George W. Bush, one would think you'd not be frightened to have the election results audited and/or certified by independent investigators. Would you?
With the love of truth you've demonstrated in the past, your newly demonstrated fear now is certainly notable and...dare I say...girlie-man-like?
Since I know that couldn't possibly be the case -- you are manly men and women after all -- I'm sure you'll now join me in calling for an independent investigation, audit and re-count of the votes in Ohio and Florida to prove once and for all that George W. Bush really is the legitimate 43rd or 44th President of the United States! What's to fear?
The fact that there is a rapidly emerging body of evidence to suggest fraud and/or counting errors in both Ohio and Florida which may have lead to an incorrect result in the Presidential Election is at least as important to your proven quest for truth as the "mysteries" surrounding allegations of fraud in the Rather case, is it not?
You seemed so passionate about protecting the world from fraud at the time, but all of a sudden, you've become timid! As if you're no longer interested in the truth coming out! Why is that, do you suppose?
While I'm at it, I'm also wondering if you'd let me know why you were so very outraged to the point of charging "BIAS IN THE MEDIA!" back in 2000 when some of the networks called Florida for Al Gore before all the polls had closed in that state.
Yet in 2004, with good Americans in Ohio still voting until 3:55am in the early morning -- after standing in line to do their civic duty for up to ten hours -- you made no similar outraged cries of "BIAS IN THE MEDIA!" when the Fox Network alone called Ohio for George W. Bush at 12:41am?
Don't you suppose that the announcement on a major network of Ohio going to Bush, and with it the Presidency, a full four hours before voting finished may have had at least as much impact and dispiriting effect on voters still lined up as the networks in 2000 calling Florida for Gore an hour before polls had closed in the panhandle?
It's almost as if you have two different sets of standards or something.
I just don't get it.
Though something tells me that if the vote for Bush in Florida showed him losing this time around, and you all had discovered that the tallying machines in a heavily Republican county of Florida actually began subtracting votes from the totals when it reached 32,768, you all just might have stormed the clerks office and media outlets demanding that an investigation be launched to determine what other counties used that exact same software but didn't notice the counting error.
Call me French, but for some reason, I have a feeling you might have done that -- had the case been the reverse of what it is now -- before you felt like calling this election "legitimate".
But then again, when the Exit Polls are "inaccurate" in regards to who Americans actually voted for, but perfectly "accurate" when they suggest that Rightwingers showed up in droves, I guess it probably serves you better to keep quiet and move on to other topics.
As I recall, that's exactly what you recommended to Democrats in 2000. They should just "move on" after you were able to steal that particular Presidential Election. And already, before counting in any state has even been certified, you've already begun your rallying cry.
Well, guess what? This ain't 2000 anymore.
Fool me twice...ya can't get fooled again.
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
Brad Friedman is a freelance writer, investigative blogger, software designer and all around trouble maker. He broke the story of the "White House Website Scrubbing" and is also a proud member of the "Liberal Hollywood Elite" who shares the great esteem and many rewards that come with it. He has been closely following the story of "GRAND THEFT AMERICA" at his site, The BRAD BLOG, which can be read -- when hackers are not trying to take it down -- at http://www.BradBlog.com
Interested in contributing an article to BuzzFlash? Click here for more info.
Articles in the BuzzFlash Contributor section are posted as-is. Given the timeliness of some Contributor articles, BuzzFlash cannot verify or guarantee the accuracy of every word. We strive to correct inaccuracies when they are brought to our attention.