June 16, 2009

Why does the Left accept the legitimacy of "elected" dictators so quickly ...

... yet will prattle on endlessly about conservative conspiracies to "steal" our own elections?

Great question.

Back in 2004 the New York Times offered up this lovely nugget a mere three days after Venezuelan quasi-dictator Hugo Chávez was re-elected. Now, two Politico writers are doing the same about Iran's recent election:

Without any evidence, many U.S. politicians and “Iran experts” have dismissed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s reelection Friday, with 62.6 percent of the vote, as fraud.

The shock of the “Iran experts” over Friday’s results is entirely self-generated, based on their preferred assumptions and wishful thinking.

... one poll conducted before Friday’s election by a Western organization that was transparent about its methodology — a telephone poll carried out by the Washington-based Terror-Free Tomorrow from May 11 to 20 — found Ahmadinejad running 20 points ahead of Mousavi. This poll was conducted before the televised debates in which, as noted above, Ahmadinejad was perceived to have done well while Mousavi did poorly.

To which Newsbusters' PJ Gladnick retorts:

Yeah, an Iranian gets a phone call asking him who he supports. He knows, living in an authoritarian state, that if he gives the wrong answer he could suffer severe consquences so to be on the safe side, he gives the "right" answer which means Ahmadinejad.

Amazing how Politico authors Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett couldn't conceive of that (among other things), eh?

Posted by Hube at June 16, 2009 10:42 AM | 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.)

Wait, if a dictator wins an election and Jimmy Carter isn't there to monitor it, does it still count? They could have flown him in on one of those helicopters he sent Delta Force in with.

Posted by: G Rex at June 16, 2009 12:01 PM

As valid as a telephone poll in Germany in 1938 asking if one supported the Hitler Administration.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at June 16, 2009 05:51 PM

I don't know that the Leverette's are regular writers for Politico. Barry Rubin provides some background.

But Leverett presents this not as a stolen election but as a bunch of sore losers whining about their inevitable defeat.

What is especially humorous here—in a horrible sort of way—is that the extent of the theft is used as proof of its validity. “You can’t explain a margin this big with the kind of irregularities” Mousavi is citing.

Hey, right! It wasn’t minor vote tampering. It was wholesale fabrication.

Wanna bet that they consider Netanyahu's election illegitimate?

Posted by: soccer dad at June 17, 2009 09:59 AM