NYT on Vote Fraud

Let me say once again, I would be thrilled to have it proved that no fraud occurred in the 2004 presidential election.

By “proved” I mean recounts and audits such as are being ordered in Ohio, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, on the basis of serious concerns raised by troubling statistical anomalies all over the place.

By “proved” I do not mean supercilious pooh-poohing by the New York Times about Those Wacky Bloggers and their conspiracy theories.

To read that NYT piece you’d think that a dozen bloggers had cooked up these crazy ideas of election fraud based on disappointment over a Kerry loss.

There’s no mention of the fact that this kind of fraud was warned about and predicted years in advance, and that the particular signs which in every other country in the world are taken as an obvious warning of fraud occurred. There’s no mention of the fact that the three most important non-major-party candidates in the 2004 election — who obviously, by running against Kerry themselves, could hardly be dismissed as disappointed Kerry fanatics — are all financing recounts in key states.

There’s no mention of really any facts whatsoever.

I guess I’d summarize the article as “Move along. Nothing to see here. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

Those wacky Liberal Media, huh?

UPDATE: Similar pooh-poohing from Wired. Again, the point is missed that what people are calling for is the facts and that the facts are, and will be, unavailable to us without a recount.

If the facts support the Bush victory, well, I don’t know about anyone else who’s making noise about it but I will personally be thrilled. I really would rather believe in an electorate that supported Bush than in an RNC which was able and willing to sell out the democratic system completely on a national scale.

But dismissal of anyone who is demanding the facts as a crazy “Internet pundit” doesn’t make me feel particularly confident.

Both links via Steve Dekorte.