Posted by
Charles Lewis on Monday, January 21, 2008 2:45:07 PM
by Charles Lewis
WBT (Charlotte, NC) talk show host Keith Larson graciously accorded me and my latest blog piece (A Reeking Rat in the SC Diebolds)
over an hour of shrift on his show this morning. While Larson made it
clear he in no way allowed that my premise - that there may well have
been fraud in the tallying of voting machine ballots in the South
Carolina GOP presidential primary accorded to liberal John McCain -
might be true, Larson gave me quite a bit of time to state and defend
my case.
I
told Mr. Larson that I earnestly prayed that he was right and I was
wrong, and then I invited his listeners (as I had previously invited
WORD listeners here in upstate SC, in an invitation that had had no
takers) to prove him right and me wrong, with at least accounts of real people (rather than riggable machines) that had voted for McCain.
To
my delight, two people actually called in to substantiate that unlikely
reality. I actually prefer to think that the victory of this world
federalist, first amendment destroying, Marxist economics embracing,
path-to-citizenship for leftwing America hating invaders advocate among
Republicans in one of our most conservative states was the result of
mere good old fashioned government-school induced voter stupidity. While
that presents a daunting picture of prospects for turning things around
in a state that also is home to a sizable leftist Democrat population,
it's still preferable to a scenario where fixed, paper-trail-less
elections make electoral wins for the good guys impossible.
May
I say that since the blog's posting I surveyed quite a few
acquaintances, talked with parishioners in our family church (hardly a
conservative activist bastion, although generally on the "right" side
of issues), including the assistant pastor with the closest ties to the
church's hundreds of families, and e-mailed hundreds of friends. In no
case had anybody voted for McCain, and in no case did anybody know of
anyone who had. That was pretty discouraging to the side of me that
doesn't want to believe that election fraud was a possiblity.
That,
combined with the WORD web poll on the day of the election (referred to
in the blog piece) that showed McCain with only 1% (and Mike Huckabee
with only 12%), plus Larson's own revelation of his
station's poll that had shown that, mainstream media polls
notwithstanding, only 7% had expected a McCain win, presented a pretty
good circumstantial case that this might be something worth at least
looking into - especially considering the dire implications for future
elections if it were true. That all the conservative icon talk show
hosts and pundits (witness Trent Lott's ugly reaction to their success
in rallying the rank-and-file troops to defeat the Kennedy-McCain
invader amnesty bill) had made it plain that both McCain and Huckabee
were closet lefties (something already starkly obvious from their
records in public life, in any event) made it all the most improbable
seeming that about 60% of those who, in alleged exit polls, called
themselves "very conservative" voted for one of these two.
None
of this seemed to impress Mr. Larson as so much as circumstantial
evidence that something might be amiss. I tried to explain to him the
difference between "evidence" and proof, and that whereas single bits
of evidence might be easily shot down as inconsequential, a huge mass
of such tidbits - especially in the absence of many to the contrary -
certainly might be said to merit further scrutiny, especially when the
integrity of our political process is at stake at a critical juncture
in our nation's history. This did not move him.
I
pointed out that he and I agree on the whole range of political issues
on which I've heard his positions (which is true - I am a huge fan of
his), and that the only area where we appear to disagree is where an
argument implies some sort of political conspiracy. His position, I
pointed out, entailed the automatic rejection of an argument that might
imply the "c" word in his mind, whereas mine left the door open for the
possiblity. He swiftly rebuffed my assertion, stating that he'd never
said he rejected conspiracy theories out of hand, but he never made it
clear - to me, at least - where his position on my premise did not in
fact rest on that assumption.
At
any rate, those two above referenced calls (one from a gentleman who
said he had in fact voted for McCain, as had many of his friends, and
another from a staunch Thompson supporter who said a couple of his
associates who also liked Fred switched to McCain because they believed
the polls that said the former had no chance, and they wanted to vote
for a winner) did give me some glint of hope that maybe pitifully
uninformed voters, and not rigged machines, gave McCain this alarming
victory. And Larson's argument supported this. I'm not convinced, but I
took a baby step in that direction. If not fraud, here are some ideas
about what might have given McCain the push:
-
the self-fulfilling prophetic notion of biased "mainstream" polls, as
evidenced by those erstwhile Thompson partisans who wanted to be on the
winning side,
-
other voters who, though under no major illusions about Huckabee's
pseudo-conservatism, also believed the polls and would prefer to vote
for a non-McCain candidate with a chance of winning to backing one that
didn't,
-
the endorsements of the state's three largest newspapers (all very
liberal, I hasten to add), as well as that of Senator Lindsey Graham
(which, at this point, is, arguably, a negative, however),
-
the Supreme Court decision of a few years back (one which - until
eminent domain - I used to cite as its worst ever) that banned run-offs
in presidential primaries, one which meant McCain walked off with
nearly the whole prize despite being voted against by 67% of the voters
(he just about certainly would have lost a runoff),
-
the truth having come out about Huckabee's "bleeding heart
conservatism," a revelation that probably helped Thompson more than
anybody, but may have sent a few votes McCain's way, and certainly
limited Huck's ability to overcome McCain,
-
the remnant of the 42% that voted for McCain in th 2000 primary (I
understand that if he'd gained the same overall total of votes this
time, it would have represented over 50% of the votes in this more
sparsely participated-in edition); he won several tens of thousands less votes this time around, and yet is being credited with having won a major victory,
-
his favor among the mainstream TV stations that even many if not most
nominal Republicans most likely still watch for their nightly news,
-
a supposed push from the state's huge retiree set (perhaps
subconsciously wanting a vicarious buzz from a win for the
71-year-old), especially from military retirees (apparently unaware of
niceties such as McCain's betrayal - in conjunction with his buddy,
John Kerry, of remaining MIA's in Vietnam), and
-
a huge "crossover" vote from leftist Democrats and "independents" in
this state where such voting is legal; I've heard that the majority of the votes he received Saturday were from this group, and that among Republicans he finished something like fourth.
Still, I want to finish, rather syllogistically, in defense of my previous proposition:
1
Anybody on the informed side of things realizes that the left, given
the chance, would rig any election it could. The left believes in
situational ethics, and that the end justifies the means. And it
doesn't believe in a Creator to which it must answer. Plus history
speaks to this proclivity - over and over.
2
There is a body of evidence - totally circumstantial, unconvincing,
even trivial taken individually, but, taken as a mass, at least
provocative, that makes the McCain victory (in pre-election "polls" as
much as actual election results) seem, at best, improbable. Not the
least of this evidence is his total rejection by evangelical leaders
(James Dobson, perhaps most prominently), much of it stemming from
McCain's blanket condemnation of evangelicals following his defeat in
South Carolina in the 2000 primary. But the absence of evidence -
whether on the call-in shows, the online polls, or, anecdotally, among
acquaintances, acquaintances of acquaintances, church mates, etc - of
many actual human supporters of McCain also rings alarms, and this
could be multiplied with time. Add to that the Limbaughs and Coulters
of conservative punditry, and the simple common sense that an SC
citizenry - even if largely oblivious to the across-the-board leftist
McCain record - has to recall at least the recent McCain collusion with
Teddy Kennedy on immigration surrender, complete with sanctuary cities,
paths to citizenship even for MS13 gangsters, "where's the fence," and
jailed border agents. That this apparently didn't matter is enough to
make one at least curious.
3
So we have both motive, propensity, and a very surprising result. What
remains is opportunity. Here we have, at once, absence of paper trail,
a state-run elections system, and machinery that we're told has been
successfully (and easily) hacked in trial after trial.
This
doesn't establish fraud, and I'm not claiming that it does. I'm just
stating that it's enough (and the stakes are high enough) to warrant:
1 a demand for a transparent voter-based inquiry, and, more importantly,
2
a call for a return to a more accountable, paper-ballot-based system,
with bi-(actually, multi-)partisan participation in the certification
of counts.
No more, no less.