November 08, 2005

2004 election = stolen?

And worse -- does John Kerry believe it?

According to Mark Crispin Miller, the answer is "yes" to both counts. Miller has written a book, Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them), which, as you can guess, posits that Republicans snatched the 2004 election via a

conspiracy of GOP officials, voting-machine companies, and shadowy political operatives [which] created, in the words of Miller's publisher, "a new Republican electoral strategy...not one overwhelming fraud but thousands of little ones."

And last week, Miller, on Pacifica Radio, stated

Speaking of John Kerry, I have some news for you. On Friday, this last Friday night, I arranged to meet Senator Kerry at a fundraiser to give him a copy of my book. He told me he now thinks the election was stolen. He said he doesn't believe that he is the person who can go out front on the issue, because of the sour grapes, you know, question. But he said he believes it was stolen. He says he argues about this with his Democratic colleagues on the Hill. He had just had a big fight with Christopher Dodd about it, because he said, you know, "There's this stuff about the voting machines; they’re really questionable." And Dodd was angry. "I don’t want to hear about it," you know, "I looked into it. There’s nothing there."

Kerry's spokeswoman says Miller's account is "simply not true."

I'm inclined to go with the spokeswoman's statement. Miller, after all, is the dude who was

on a crusade to convince Americans that a powerful, well-organized theocratic movement, fronted by George W. Bush but controlled by a secretive group of right-wing religious figures, is working to establish Biblical law in the United States. Miller wasn't speaking figuratively; he wrote of a Republican-dominated United States in which adultery, for example, is punishable by death by stoning.

Sounds just like a certain cretinous troll about a week ago!

Posted by Hube at November 8, 2005 05:15 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Making adultery illegal would make Newt Gingrich public enemy number one, which would hurt his chances for winning the nomination.

Posted by: Jason at November 8, 2005 05:30 PM

That's not too nice calling Jason a troll. He's probably just the offspring of one of those who wore the tin-foil hat! So, it's not his fault he is the way he is.

Posted by: AJ Lynch at November 8, 2005 05:35 PM

cretinous troll? You are being too nice.....This clown just didn't hear enough cowbell when in the womb of ignorance.....

Posted by: cardinals fan at November 8, 2005 09:52 PM

I think this whole election conspiracy obsession is great. Which party was practically synonymous with urban electoral fraud since Kennedy won Illinois in 1960? It wasn't the Republicans. Now the Democrats are obsessing about preventing fraud and at the same time wondering why close elections aren't always swinging their way anymore.

This is not to say that the Republicans are angels of course. I'm sure there are members of both parties that go the extra mile.

Posted by: Jeff the Baptist at November 8, 2005 10:21 PM

Theocracy? Given the alternative that would be crated by our Leftist "friends", I would prefer a theocracy that at least paid lip-service to the notion of unchageable and immutable human dignity to a secularist oligarchy that views human dignity as a social construct to be changed upon the winds of public opinion -- and the whims of the elite.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at November 8, 2005 10:22 PM

RWR: Well stated. With the exception of the brand of Islam that confronts us today, religious influence has advanced human rights and social justice much more than the 'break a few eggs' socialist and communist regimes that try to marginalize religious influence out of existence. History has proven your point repeatedly.

Posted by: mikem at November 8, 2005 11:33 PM

About those tinfoil hats:

Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We investigate the efficacy of three aluminum helmet designs on a sample group of four individuals. Using a $250,000 network analyser, we find that although on average all helmets attenuate invasive radio frequencies in either directions (either emanating from an outside source, or emanating from the cranium of the subject), certain frequencies are in fact greatly amplified. These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities. We speculate that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason.
(On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets:
An Empirical Study
Ali Rahimi1, Ben Recht 2, Jason Taylor 2, Noah Vawter 2
17 Feb 2005
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department, MIT) (Emphasis added)

Hmmm? Hmmm?!

It's all coming together now, see.

Posted by: mynym at November 11, 2005 09:21 PM

Here's the link.

Posted by: mynym at November 11, 2005 09:23 PM

Post a comment

Remember personal info?