My comment on a comment...

[A reader of this blog was moved to take issue with my theory that the GOP stole the election. His/her comment is in the comments section under that post, but I thought my response to her/him might be of sufficient interest generally to merit front-pageness.]



I'd like to institute a rule on this blog: if you make a comment about something serious--something substantive--please sign your name to it. I have to sign my name to my opinions, and it's not fair to make me respond to a voice in the ether.



"This stole-the-election crap"

What makes it crap? They had the means, motive, and opportunity. This game isn't being played for chocolate kisses--you don't think there's enough money at stake for the right people to make sure the right result was returned? Friend, people get KILLED for whatever happens to be in the cash register--rigging an election to stay in power is nothing, especially if you've done what the Bush crew has done. They were fighting to stay out of jail; the sanctity of Democracy means less than nothing when those are the stakes.



It amazes me how some people can't acknowledge this kind of truth--it's like they're waiting for a memo that says, "You're right. We stole it." History is rife with rigged elections, and the more powerful a country, the more likely its processes will be subverted. Was Ohio stolen? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it's goddamn JOB #1 to look. I agree we shouldn't get obsessed about it, but it happened frigging TUESDAY. They're still counting votes! It's absolutely essential that we attack this issue, and attack it now--because it's not partisan crap. In a democracy, the integrity of the voting process is the bedrock on which everything else is built.



More from your mail:

"Look: if you're an undecided voter, you are presented with, yes, a heinous administration, but what is your alternative? A cold, shamefacedly opportunistic Northeastern liberal who voted in favor of the war and then against its funding?"



Arguing the merits of John Kerry IS truly useless, because there's no way to prove it one way or the other, and he's never running for President again. I think it's logical to assume that his waffling on the war deterred undecideds. But listen, any undecided who's against the war--as it seems you are--should've logically voted for Kerry--as you say you did. With all this evidence that Bush is bad for the country, why must it come down to Kerry's personality? I prefer to give my fellow voters more credit. If you don't, fair enough, but it's not really an arguable issue.



"[Kerry] was frankly not a candidate who could inspire passion or a belief in idealism and change. The popular vote proves this."



The popular vote that showed him getting more votes than any Democratic candidate in history, you mean? I'm not saying he's not flawed in precisely the way you say he is, but Christ, we're talking about a bona-fide war hero who's spent a life in public service running against an unquestionably irresponsible and overmatched President. Anybody who was undecided as of Nov. 2 is pro-Bush whether they admit it or not--they forgave him 2000, and the scandals, and 9/11, and Tora Bora, and Iraq, and Haliburton, and the economy, and and...At a certain point it becomes incumbent on the voter to recognize reality, whether or not John Kerry has a great personality or a lousy one.



You make some good points about how Kerry was complicit in his own defeat(?)--which are all completely besides the point. The integrity of the voting process is the first step, and that first step wasn't taken, by Kerry, Dean, or anybody else. Jesus Christ (D-Galilee) himself couldn't take the South if the GOP was counting the votes. That's a fact, friend Anonymous, and to think that the US is somehow above election-stealing (or that it happens here, sure, but not so much that we should pay attention to it) is at best naive and at worst delusional.

Until somebody explains to me how vast numbers of Americans were convinced to vote against their obvious self-interest, I think vote-stealing is the most likely explanation. You may disagree, but attributing it to something as fundamentally undefinable as Kerry's personality--or even his murky position on Iraq--is truly a fool's game. You can look for the perfect candidate all you want, but until the voting problem is fixed, it won't matter.