Powerline vs. The Reality-Based Community

Oh, this is rich. I don't know anything at all about Milwaukee in 2004, and, since I trust the Democrats only a little bit (well, o.k., a moderate bit) more than I trust the GOP, I can't say it would blow me away if this were true. But it does, you must admit, detract from the prima facie plausibility of their case when they write that it is becoming "increasingly clear" (increasingly? Huh?) that the Democratic party "perpetrated massive voter fraud in state after state" in the last election....and...here's the kicker....wait for it...wait for it....:

"...just as it did in the 2000 election."

My god these people are loathsome. Unbelievable, eh? They steal the election, and who can expect them to admit it? But to then accuse us of having tried to steal it...pathetic.

Hell is the absence of reason.

This reminds me of walking through the book store and seeing, for the first time, that book titled If it Isn't Close They Can't Cheat.

Damn straight, I thought. I almost couldn't believe my eyes when I picked it up and realized what it was about...

This is, perhaps, a part of a general strategy that the right seems to have been employing of late. See, Bill Clinton was a pretty good president, and that's pretty much what Democrats said about him. Pretty good. About a B+. If it weren't for the Lewinsky fiasco, he could maybe be an A-. The Republicans decided, however, that he was the Anti-Christ before he was even inaugurated, and they launched an eight-year (well, twelve year by this point) effort to defame him (an effort he helped along with his Oval Office antics). Anway, your average Joe on the street who doesn't really follow politics tends to split the difference on these things: one side says he's pretty good, the other says he's the Anti-Christ...so he must be a pretty darned bad guy.

With W, the right is taking no chances. Here's a very bad president who is recognized as such by almost the entire world, and the right seems mindful of the inevitable difference-splitting. It's kind of embarrassing when they even try to make him out to be adequate, but they aren't going to stop there. They've basically deified the guy. They've compared him to Churchill, for chrissake! Such a comparison is enough to make a normal person a tad queasy. It's the silliest thing since the Republicans used to say that Reagan was "the best president since Thomas Jefferson," [sic] a statement at which the mind reels.

At any rate, I guess they're going to try the same thing with the election of 2000. Not content to have in essence stolen it, not content to deny that they did, I suppose their line now is that we tried to steal it and they heroically...um...stole it back?

Loathsome.