Oh wow, voter fraud... Who woulda thunk it?
From the Business Insider:
In an email sent on November 7, 2008, and titled " Insight - The Dems & Dirty Tricks ** Internal Use Only - Pls Do Not Forward **," Stratfor vice president of intelligence Fred Burton wrote:The original emails are here and here.
1) The black Dems were caught stuffing the ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio as reported the night of the election and Sen. McCain chose not to fight. The matter is not dead inside the party. It now becomes a matter of sequence now as to how and when to "out".
In an email sent two days earlier and titled "Insight - McCain #5 ** internal use only - Pls do not forward **," Burton wrote:
After discussions with his inner circle, which explains the delay in his speech, McCain decided not to pursue the voter fraud in PA and Ohio, despite his staff's desire to make it an issue. He said no.
Staff felt they could get a federal injunction to stop the process. McCain felt the crowds assembled in support of Obama and such would be detrimental to our country and it would do our nation no good for this to drag out like last go around, coupled with the possibility of domestic violence.
Of course, this is not the first time that accusations of fraud have made in a Presidential election. the Kennedy/Nixon piss off of 1960 comesimmediately to mind. Although no instances of rampant voter fraud were ever officially uncovered in either Illinois or Texas-
[...]On the other hand, some fraud clearly occurred in Cook County. At least three people were sent to jail for election-related crimes, and 677 others were indicted before being acquitted by Judge John M. Karns, a Daley crony. Many of the allegations involved practices that wouldn't be detected by a recount, leading the conservative Chicago Tribune, among others, to conclude that "once an election has been stolen in Cook County, it stays stolen."
What's more, according to journalist Seymour Hersh, a former Justice Department prosecutor who heard tapes of FBI wiretaps from the period believed that Illinois was rightfully Nixon's. Hersh also has written that J. Edgar Hoover believed Nixon actually won the presidency but in deciding to follow normal procedures and refer the FBI's findings to the attorney general—as of Jan. 20, 1961, Robert F. Kennedy—he effectively buried the case.
Another man, too, believed Nixon was robbed: Nixon. At a 1960 Christmas party, he was heard greeting guests, "We won but they stole it from us." Nixon nursed the grudge for years, and when he was criticized for his Watergate crimes he would cite the Kennedys' misdeeds as precedent. He may have felt JFK's supposed theft entitled him to cheat in 1972. It's an interesting hypothetical: If no pall had been cast over the 1960 election, would Watergate have happened?
9 comments:
James O'Keefe is keeping the Breitbart dream alive:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/post/james-okeefe-tries-to-defend-voter-id-laws-by-filming-dc-election-workers/2012/04/09/gIQAgINT6S_blog.html
Voter fraud is so easy in this county, and all the dems can say is that there is no proof that it is a widespread problem.
When I encounter such a liberal, I ask them if they leave their keys in their unlocked car and leave their house unlocked. Do they wait for a break-in or for their car to be stolen before they lock up their possessions?
People who are too stupid or irresponsible to have a valid ID have no business voting.
Watergate was a stupid unnecessary thing to do. Nixon's people really blew it. And the rest ... it's the Chicago way.
It's all Bush's fault.
Seriously though, if Nixon had won against Kennedy the country and the world may have looked different today but would it be better?
Its a big "If dog rabbit" query with allot of possible scenarios but as I view it my answer would be no.
This is not by any means an argument for fraudulent voting but rather an exercise in thinking on an alternative history like what would have Vietnam looked like, Kennedy(s) not assassinated and quite possibly no Ronald Reagan as POTUS.
Sounds like "coulda, woulda, shoulda" as far as protesting the vote in either election. To give both Nixon and McCain their due they kept the interests of the nation in place over their ambitions.
Tell me if I'm wrong but "Tricky Dicky" did it again when facing impeachment, i.e. rather than put the nation through that particular wringer, he resigned.
Now on the other hand, when "Slick Willie" Clinton was confronted with the Lewinsky debacle...lets just say the Dems wouldn't have been so hellbent to impeach Bush if there wasn't an imagined score to settle.
Silverfiddle - unfortunately many of our politicians are in the business of gettingmillions of stupid, irresponsible people to the polls as many times as possible.
Odie - you're right; Nixon's mistake was in trying to protect his people from the consequences of their own stupidity.
Chris - Yes, it can be fun to speculate but it is no basis for trying to figure out a plan of action for the future.But it can be useful if it motivates responsible persons to get out and vote and get that lying Kenyan out of office.
Subvet - the only thing wrong with that is the continued degradation of our politics. When crimes are committed and are successful in promoting the interests of one party over the other, it breeds contempt for the system, promotes continued lawlessness and demoralizes the righteous.
Sig,,,
Respectively, I did not imply fun but rather speculated freely based on your wording and left an open-ended thought.
If one might draw even more from my "if dog rabbit" query as in possibilities then one might see we may not have this Keynesian to deal with.
The underlying point is not to go back but Rather to correct it as in past mistakes as Americans collectively do.
Let us not rehash the past but learn from it.
Post a Comment