Since the 2000 elections, I've watched liberals clutch their pearls about the possibility of voter fraud every time a vote is cast.
To be sure, voter fraud is quite possible, but when liberals worry about voter fraud, they aren't worried about the effects of Motor Voter. They are concerned that Republicans are deliberately undercounting Democrat votes or, worse yet, switching Democrat votes to Republicans.
Because of the closeness of the Florida votes in 2000, every kook on the left is sure Republicans are stealing their votes, even though, historically, Democrats are the ones who have stolen elections (hello, LBJ!).
But now, the tin foil hat crowd thinks the vote-stealing has gone high tech. In 2004, they accused Diebold of rigging election machines. They've accused police of scaring voters. They've accused cities of intentionally providing an insufficient number of voting booths in Democrat areas. But all those accusations were aimed primarily at Republicans because everybody knows only Republicans steal elections *cough* LBJ *cough*.
Now, Democrats are accusing Democrats of stealing elections.
The results weren't even in when the blogosphere started to hum with a theory that sharply divided Democrats online: Barack Obama lost to Hillary Rodham Clinton in New Hampshire because the vote was rigged.
"Something stinks in New Hampshire," a commenter posted on the popular liberal site Americablog.com.
Amusingly, Daily KOS founder Markos Moulitsas has called those making these accusation "cranks." Funny, when those same "cranks" are saying President Bush was "selected, not elected," he doesn't mind one bit.
Frankly, I enjoy watching Democrat paranoia create widespread panic even before they select a nominee. It will possibly destroy any remaining credibility they might have.
|