The Democrats' Favorite Conspiracy Theory

Frontpage ^ | November 14, 2001 | Chris Weinkopf

[Mr. Mulliner]

Everyone's getting mileage out of this election story, but as silly as the Democrats look and sound to us, I have my concerns that they are working this thing pretty well. They'll take the jeers that their guy lost and used bad strategy and whatever as long as they can keep in front of the public, enough so that they won't forget, their conspiracy theory that the election was stolen.

Who said that now famous line, "Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it"? Seems to be the Dems strategy: just keep saying the election was stolen and remind people through various ways and when the next election rolls around, enough people might be conditioned to believe it and respond.

[Mr. Mulliner]

ping for yet another re-re-re-recount story

[Cincinatus]

Actually, I think that the Democrat die-hards are starting to look pretty silly. I don't think they'll get much political mileage from this lie campaign.

However, it will serve to stoke the fires of hatred in their base and as a money-raising tool (as it most certainly would have for us, had the re-counts gone Gore's way).

[Mr. Mulliner]

I don't think their strategy is to pull votes away from Republicans. But they want the issue to be their issue and, as you say, to fire their people up. You think there aren't a couple of million couch potatoes who didn't vote in the last election but somehow are getting worked up about this stolen election and will vote for the Dems?

[glc1173@aol.com]

Reality is that in a "nation" so balkanized, no system or equipment for doing elections will be seen as "legitimate" by nearly everyone.

That became obvious right after the Florida coup attempt - when a widely-made proposal to switch to touch-screen voting machines produced lawsuits against Philly's adoption of them. There, disability-rights activists claimed that such machines were inaccessible to disabled voters!

[hchutch]

It was either Hitler or Goebbels that used that line.

This is my concern, too. They, and enough people in the press, will keep that myth alive. Just as the left claims that the Rosenbergs were not spies, that Alger Hiss never committed perjury, and that Reagan was wrong to fight the Soviet Union.

[mbb bill]

Should some one mention to the Crats that the world trade center has been bombed since the election??

[Mr. Mulliner]

I was thinking Goebbels, but wasn't sure.

Assuming you were around here at Free Republic back during the recount, you'll recall clearly how much anger there was and how many people were voicing their determination to fight vote fraud and bring about reform. It seemed like a great sign that change was ahead.

But what has happened since then? Very little reform, although some changes have been implemented in some places. What's worse, though, is that the Democrats have commandeered this issue and taken it away from the Republicans. I guess because Bush won the election, it became too much to hope that people would keep beating the drums about the Dems dirty tricks, but the Dems are sure beating the drums now.

[Cincinatus]

You think there aren't a couple of million couch potatoes who didn't vote in the last election but somehow are getting worked up about this stolen election and will vote for the Dems?

I'm not sure that I understand your question. I think coach potatoes will remain couch potatoes. The only people in America who care about this "stolen" election are die-hard Democrats, who are already going to vote Democrat. I do not think any "undecided" will lean Democrat, based on this flimsy evidence of election "stealing."

[Mr. Mulliner]

Well, all I'm really saying is that the Dems strategy is to mobilize their forces more and give people a reason to vote "against" the Republicans -- for stealing the election -- if not for them. As close as the last election was, they stand a pretty good chance if they can mobilize their own people, plus get a few more sheeple off their butts and into the voting booth.

[PetroniDE]

It was Hitler who said "tell the lie often enough and loud enough, it becomes the truth".

[zip]

I don't think they'll get much political mileage from this lie campaign.

Sorry, but that is wishful thinking. Over the 8 evil years, I watched ridiculous statements come out of DNC and laughed until the media and the spin doctors made it "true" to the sheeple. Sad but true.

[Mr. Mulliner]

bingo!

[hchutch]

Give McAuliffe time, and a chance to hit hard on this for another three years. The fact is, the dirty tricks need to be exposed. Didn't John Lott come out with stuff indicating that it was really REPUBLICANS who were targeted for disenfranchisement?

[Mr. Mulliner]

That was an excellent piece of information that John Lott wrote about. The main point that I remember from it is that black Republicans were about 50 times more likely to be disenfranchised by having their vote thrown out than black Democrats.

Now take your average person who considers themself well informed and in the know and see if they know that. Our media makes it breathtakingly easy for Democrats to get out their talking points and Republicans have hope for a few editorials to go their way.

[hchutch]

So, in other words, we need to make ours count.

[Terry Mross]

There is a large percentage of dems out there who refuse to accept the truth. They even turned on their own newspaper, the NYTimes. They refuse to accept that a black could even vote republican, much less be "disenfrancished". You're only disenfranchised if you're a democrat. These people are evil, pure and simple.

[Mr. Mulliner]

Hearing the Democrats whine about a "media cover-up" is about as strange as hearing them whine about vote fraud. Go figure.

[hchutch]

The fact is this, they whine about a stolen election, and we can pull out the articles from papers not friendly to our side that show that Bush either won, or it was so inconclusive that the Supreme Court made the right call.

[Irene Adler]

What I simply do NOT understand is how anyone can say that the voter's "intent" can be determined when the voter VOTED FOR TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE on the ballot. Today, this is called an "overvote" by democrats in order to disguise the actual situation (it's actually a spoiled ballot). When a voter marks a vote for two different candidates, how can ANYONE know which one the voter "intended" to vote for? This is just an excuse for democrat-dominated voting boards to call all those votes for the democratic candidate which is what they did in Florida.

The same situation applies for the "undervote". This is a no-vote situation; the voter left all candidates blank. How can the voter's "intent" be determined other than that he may well have "intended" not to cast a vote in that particular race?

Am I missing something, here?