Could this be why so many Dems won't talk about electoral fraud?

Top Democrats, and many Democratic pundits/bloggers, have been strikingly reluctant even to admit, much less discuss, the possibility that Bush & Co. stole the last election. Likewise with the MSM: “There is no story there!” CBS’s Don Hewitt barked on C-SPAN not too long ago–a staunch denial wholly typical of bigfoot media types.

Such willful silence is bizarre, considering (a) the ever-growing wealth of evidence that Bush & Co. were really not elected, and (b) the fact that, if the Democratic Party doesn’t face up to to the dire need for electoral reform, the party will be coming to an end.

Here, from Elaine Ermis, is a simple theory that may well explain the Democrats’ unwillingness to tell it like it is–and thereby save American democracy:

Has anyone looked into the possibility that the Democratic primaries were also tampered with? If you recall Howard Dean had overwhelming support during the debates, but the media “kept insisting” that when the voters go to the polls they are going to vote for Kerry because he “has a better shot at defeating Bush”. Sure enough that is what happened. Now we know whose side the media seems to always be on (or in whose pocket), and don’t you think this would have been a good “rehearsal or trial run” for Diebold et al to “test” their machines (by tampering the votes) and see if anyone would complain or be suspicious about the outcome (having Kerry come out as the winner instead of Howard Dean? Howard Dean had such HUGE support before the primaries that the Bush camp was worried that they could not defeat Howard Dean if he won the primaries, but they knew they could smear John kerry’s record. Thats why the press kept making howard Dean seem like a risk because he was a “hothead, etc” It seemed VERY important to the Bush camp that Kerry win the primaries because they were afraid of Howard Deans large following. That is why the press kept “insisting” that when it comes down to voting the voters will turn on Dean and go with a “safer” bet (Kerry)? The media was trying to plant the idea of why Kerry will win the primaries so it won’t be so “shocking” that Dean loses and then no one would be suspicious of voter fraud? I really hope you have someone look into this possibility.

0 replies on “Could this be why so many Dems won't talk about electoral fraud?”

I agree with your suspicions and also believe that many Democrats (including Kerry)were aware of the vote rigging in a few primaries. Kerry didn’t fight the thrown election in Ohio becauase he benefitted from Diebold’s manipulations earlier. With all the evidence of tampered vote counting, isn’t it strange that Democrats aren’t concerned?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.