A pre-cursor to this blog was a series of e-mails I sent out beginning several years ago. These letters to friends highlighted items of special interest.
Beginning almost immediately after the Election of 2004 I began sending links to articles questioning the announced result of a win for George W. Bush. At that time such questioning was being done by very few people. I received criticism, some of it harsh, for raising the possibility of a stolen election. Now, almost three years later, I feel more like an excavator than a radical. That is, I am now more of a historian, rather than a firebrand.
However that may be, the issues surrounding a Presidential election which was the first to be debated by Congress since the nineteenth century are still current. In the article referenced below, writer Michael Collins looks at the election break-down. How is it possible, he asks, that in an election in which the increase in turn-out in big cities, historically Democratic-leaning, was 66 per cent -- how was it Bush did so well, causing him to win the election? The article is must-reading. In a future post I hope to connect the import of the Dan Rather suit against CBS (and corporate parent) with the Collins article.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0708/S00284.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting. All comments are moderated. Your comment will be reviewed as quickly as possible. Off-topic or inappropriate will not be considered. Timely and appropriate messages are most welcome.