Rolling Stone’s Election 2004 Conspiracy
The left-side of the blogosphere is all atwitter about an interminably long article, by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in Rolling Stone, that posits that the vote was rigged in Ohio in 2004. It’s really nothing more than a silly conspiracy theory piece and therefore, unsurprisingly, it uses a technique commonly used by kooks: the old, “Throw as many pieces of mud against the wall as possible and see what sticks,” concept.
This is same sort of thing that the moonbats who claimed the Pentagon wasn’t hit by a plane used to sell so many books to liberals and Frenchmen. The point isn’t to make solid arguments, it’s to sling countless out accusations, true or false, from reputable sources or not, and then say that unless all your wacky claims are disproved — then only a conspiracy could explain it! Meanwhile, any contrary evidence, no matter how devastating it may be to your case, is simply ignored as if it didn’t exist.
To Kennedy, things like making sure that voter addresses match up to where they actually live and purging the voter rolls of people who no longer live in a district are nefarious acts while poorly handled elections in districts that are run from top to bottom by Democrats are clearly part of a Republican plot. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense or not, the important thing is just to run up the number of accusations.
He also seems, like a lot of conspiracy theorists who focus on the election, to put a great deal of stock in the supposed infallibility of the exit polls which seemed to show a Kerry victory. Yet, he doesn’t believe the exit pollsters themselves who admit that they got it wrong, nor does he note the fact that in the last 4 elections prior to 2004, the exit polls have been off every time and have leaned towards the Democratic candidate in each instance, 3 times by rather large margins.
Does that mean the vast right wing conspiracy has controlled the results of the last 5 elections? If so, then it seems rather puzzling that they handed the election to Bill Clinton in ’92 and ’96, does it not? Moreover, how do they control the elections in states and districts run by Democrats? Who knows? It’s just one of those mysteries that the conspiracy theorists never seem to be able to explain — like what happened to the plane full of people who went missing if the Pentagon wasn’t actually hit by a plane.
Kennedy goes on to claim that more than 300,000 voters, primarily Democratic voters, were disenfranchised and blocked from voting. Why, if they’d have had a chance to vote, it would have been a Kerry landslide!
However, Al Gore only received 2,186,19 votes in Ohio in 2000, while John Kerry received 2,741,165 votes in 2004. That’s a pretty pathetic job of voter suppression by the vast right wing conspiracy if you ask me. If they were really on the ball, the number of votes the Democratic candidate received would have dropped, not gone up significantly.
But, if Bush wasn’t, “cheating,” how can Republicans explain the fact that Kerry was way up in the polls before the election? Oh wait, Bush actually won 9 out of the last 10 polls done in Ohio right before the election. So, the fact that he came out on top on election day wasn’t surprising at all, it was expected.
How about the fact that Kerry’s pollster, Mark Mellman, for all intents and purposes, predicted in an article that came out on election day that Kerry would probably lose? It’s funny how Kennedy just skips right over inconvenient facts that undercut the tall tale he’s trying to tell.
Here’s the reality: people like Kennedy are not looking at the facts and determining that the election was rigged — they decided that the election must have been rigged the moment that Kerry lost and then they worked from there. So, if Kerry had to have Ohio to win, then Ohio must have been rigged even though Bush won by a staggering 118,775 votes. The fact that you have so many Democrats crying, “fraud,” in a race that wasn’t even that close, just goes to show you how flaky parts of the “democratic mainstream” have gotten in the last few years.