Tin-Foil Hattery & the Media

The blogosphere rumblings about vote counts in the recent presiential election are finally starting to bubble to the surface in “mainstream” meida. Keith Olberman of MSNBC’s Bloggerman, reminds us that no candidate’s concession speech is final, and no election is over until the “fat lady”—in the form of the electoral college, in this case—sings.

This is mentioned because there is a small but blood-curdling set of news stories that right now exists somewhere between the world of investigative journalism, and the world of the Reynolds Wrap Hat. And while the group’s ultimate home remains unclear – so might our election of just a week ago.

Stories like these have filled the web since the tide turned against John Kerry late Tuesday night. But not until Friday did they begin to spill into the more conventional news media. That’s when the Cincinnati Enquirer reported that officials in Warren County, Ohio, had “locked down” its administration building to prevent anybody from observing the vote count there.

Suspicious enough on the face of it, the decision got more dubious still when County Commissioners confirmed that they were acting on the advice of their Emergency Services Director, Frank Young. Mr. Young had explained that he had been advised by the federal government to implement the measures for the sake of Homeland Security.

Gotcha. Tom Ridge thought Osama Bin Laden was planning to hit Caesar Creek State Park in Waynesville. During the vote count in Lebanon. Or maybe it was Kings Island Amusement Park that had gone Code-Orange without telling anybody. Al-Qaeda had selected Turtlecreek Township for its first foray into a Red State.

Of course, the blogsphere got hold of this early on, because bloggers aren’t necessarily worried about being objective.

But here’s an interesting question, folks. How badly do we want a win here? Do we want one badly enough to accept one this way; on a technicality rather than a KO? Suppose there was enough evidence to show that enough votes were wrongly counted for Bush, and should have been counted for Kerry, to give the Democratic candidate enough electoral votes to be declared the winner. Say this happens sometime in December.

Would that be good for the Dems, or bad for the Dems? Good for the country or bad for the country?

I’m still turning this one over in my head, but I’d like to hear what other’s thinks.

This entry was posted in 2004 Election. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Tin-Foil Hattery & the Media

  1. Beth says:

    I don’t think this will go anywhere, but I love any story that interrupts the Republican claims of “mandate” and “landslide.”

    If, however, it were discovered that more people voted for Kerry, that wouldn’t be winning on a technicality. That would just be winning. 🙂

  2. sam says:

    Well, what’s better for everyone? Democrats in office or 4 more years of BushCo? I’ll take what I can get.

  3. Jim says:

    My thinking is that with everything in such a mess, it would probably be better to just let the Republicans have it. In 8 years, it will be 1968 all over again, except the parties will be reversed.

    But jsut as I become satisfied with that answer, I start thinking about the Supreme Court…

  4. Jim says:

    Oops…. That should read “In 4 years it will be 1968 all over again…”

  5. cherokee says:

    If Kerry were to win the election based on the most votes, then that’s good for the country (whether it makes things messy or not).

Comments are closed.