Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Karl Rove (Probably) Didn't Hack the 2004 Election (32 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't know... (0+ / 0-)

    The (probably) in the title may be enough to push kos over the edge.

    Just a guess.

    •  That would be too bad, then. (4+ / 0-)

      this is a solid diary.. totally worth a read, and not about CT at all.

      Howard Dean will always be my president.

      by 4democracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:26:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The thing is, I think the topic (0+ / 0-)

        is toxic for kos right now.

        Probably safer to avoid it, unless it's unquestionably being mocked.

        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
        ~ Jerry Garcia

        by DeadHead on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:34:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Here is the problem ... (0+ / 0-)

        At first sight, it reads a little like a solid Diary ...

        but take out all the "Rove may have tried to steal the election" nonsense, and it isn't really a Diary at all.

        The Diary is predicated on the discussion of a Conspiracy Theory, which has been specifically banned.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        by twigg on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:35:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  not really (0+ / 0-)

          it goes into great detail (in the second half) about why, while many Democrats were certain the election was stolen, there was plenty of evidence pre-election day that Kerry was probably not going to win.

          The kind of evidence we're pointing at today and laughing at the Republican's angst.

          47 is the new 51!

          by nickrud on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:09:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's Like You And I Read Totally Different Diaries (0+ / 0-)

          This one is pretty clearly pointing out how out of touch with reality the CT'ers are. In no uncertain terms.

      •  It's not a solid diary (0+ / 0-)

        when it talks about a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to Karl Rove planning an election rigging scheme in advance, yet most of that circumstantial evidence is more readily explained by something that is, it can safely be said, known to be true; to wit:

        The Republicans are arrogant morans.

        That alone can readily explain why:
        1) Many [R]epublicans... predicted a Romney win in Ohio despite all polls pointing towards a substantial Obama margin of victory...

        2) Mitt Romney's Project ORCA was a failure and showed ... slowdowns, crashes, etc. on Election Day.

        3) Karl Rove suffered an infamous meltdown on TV...

        4) Mitt Romney hadn't prepared a concession speech Despite all the evidence to the contrary Romney clearly expected to win the election....

        As for this:
        5)Romney owned the voting machines in Ohio...
        The apparently correct explanation is this: No, actually, he did not.

        Please remember, folks: Every time you repeat a claim that's already been refuted on Snopes, Karl Rove eats a kitten.

        Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

        by Nowhere Man on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:41:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site