Mike the Usurper wrote:

Decius wrote:

After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004.

Memeing this because it demands commentary. Rolling Stone often has good political articles, but for something this serious I dare say its the wrong forum. Partisan conservatives, most of whom have certainly never read Rolling Stone, are likely to laugh out loud at the idea that a Kennedy accused them of fraud in a rock and roll magazine. If, say, a law professor accused them of fraud in a dry academic journal, and the results were publicised elsewhere, that would be a very different thing.

In any event, a little bit of fraud might get you 1,000 votes here or 1,000 votes there. If you have enough local political power to pull it off, you can sustain a small margin this way. You can't convert a large margin. Can you produce 2 million votes?

In any event, I think the greatest injustice of our system is that a 2 million vote difference grants broad power to the nutjobs who make up each party's respective "base." America is moderate.

Yes, you can produce 2 million votes. RFK Jr is showing you where they found a couple hundred thousand in Ohio alone.

Just as important, saying this (Rolling Stone) is the wrong forum is probably the worst thought I've seen you make here. As Kennedy points out in this extensively footnoted piece, reports of this have been showing up everywhere, yet how much attention has anyone paid it? None. The law professors in their dry journals have been ignored. Maybe this will start the ball rolling.

It probably won't, but I agree with your assertion that Rolling Stone is as valid a forum as any.

For one thing, it's not the partisan conservatives we need to convert, because they probably won't be. It's the middle of the road folks who don't follow closely and think that accusations of massive voter fraud are about as believable as alien abductions. To convince them, you need penetration, and you don't get that from scholarly journals.

RE: Rolling Stone : Was the 2004 Election Stolen?