Bush wins? Oh well, he does in a manner of speaking
Readers are bound to ask why this column's prediction last week about John Kerry winning the US Presidential election did not materialise -- to put it mildly! It's elementary my Dear Watson. Last week's article ended by saying "don't blame me if George Bush wins, I am not responsible for election malpractice in America.'

So take a deep breath. Then, take for example, the following Associated Press article datelined Columbus Ohio: (Please note that this is not just any old Internet blogger losing his cool, this is AP, the premier news agency in America.) "Ohio machine error gives Bush extra votes" screams the headline of the article datelined 5.11.2004, by John McCarthy, Associated Press writer.

It goes onto say: "Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry 's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush's total should have been recorded as 365.'' So there it is then: In certain precincts in Ohio, there were more votes cast than there were registered voters, and this in a state which decided the Presidency by a mere 140,000 ballots! So need I repeat: "I am not responsible for election malpractice in America." Now for the clincher. If you think the above is just an aberration, you ain't seen nothing yet. The AP article lists a whole litany of complaints of voter machine problems in other states, which all helped, guess who, George W. Bush!

In an article in Bellaciao, a multi lingual news site, the following considered claim is made by a staff writer: "Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state. So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know. Here's why: Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. (See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten," November on http://www.tompaine.com/articles/an_election_spoiled_rotten.php.) Once again, at the heart of the Ohio uncounted vote game are, I'm sorry to report, hanging chads and pregnant chads, plus some other ballot tricks old and new.''

The writer Greg Paslat a Harper's Magazine contributor goes onto say that a system of "voter spoilage'' systematically disenfranchised black voters and other probable pro-Kerry voters in Ohio. Election malpractice scenarios that he cites are unfortunately too numerous to mention here.

But take the AP article in the context that voting machines in Florida "leave no paper trail,'' and anyone really can be excused for being doubtful about how Bush won in key states such as Florida and Ohio. Enough said then about the possibility of election malpractice, in a poll in which a mere 140,000 or so votes in Ohio would have delivered the Presidency to John Kerry.

The obvious question maybe - - if Kerry conceded the election, why is one Rajpal Abeynayake in obscure Sri Lanka bothered? The answer is that I don't in fact give a damn. All this is just by way of proving the point that election malpractice in America is hard to beat, even for John Kerry. He was in fact trailing in Ohio on the face of the numbers, and that made it extremely difficult for him to mount a challenge without being accused of "plunging the nation into chaos.'' Plus, the Democrats are inherently more decent - - some would say inherently more wimpish.

The other thing about the malpractice factor is that most people still say "Bush won the election fair and square.'' That's because they do not know. Facts take time to percolate in America. It took a long time, even last time around, for folks such as Michael Moore to come out with books such as "Stupid White Men'' about election fraud in 2000. In other words the conventional wisdom now is that Bush won legitimately last week, and that conventional wisdom, spurred on by spin and the human tendency for order against chaos, is hard to upend. But eventually, the conventional wisdom will be questioned. There will be more convincing evidence forthcoming -- as it was last time by those such as Moore - - that in 2004 Kerry may have won.

To utter a word of caution, rigging is nothing new in America. John Kennedy happily acknowledged that his father bought enough votes for him to secure the election way back in the 60s. There was that famous tongue-in-cheek, where Kennedy told the Press Club that his father telegrammed him ""Dear Jack, don't buy a single vote more than is necessary, I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide.” When charges of election theft were levelled at Kennedy, an indubitably charismatic President, he joked "who the hell said its going to be fair." (!)

But of course others might contend that Bush this time has a clear majority of the popular vote - - around 3.5 million. If there is malpractice in all the Bush states, totting up a 3.5 million mathematically may not be that difficult but it takes time for people to consider that argument.

But assume that Bush won "fair and square'', not a safe assumtion, and yet some interesting thoughts emerge about the state of the American electorate. Now they say that Christian evangelicals won the election for George W. Bush on a "values based" turnout!! I nearly fell off my chair laughing.

So, these votes represent born again Christians and their righteous indignation?? Hmm, born-again rhymes gloriously with won-again. These are won-again Christians in the Bush camp rationalising an election victory that baffled the world and made regular Americans blush!

Take the following for instance: This is not me saying it. The Daily Mirror in UK took out a full front page, to scream in a banner headline "How can 59,651,269 people be so dumb''. Tell me about it. This is in reference to the same George Bush who once said in support of gynaecologists everywhere: "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Exclamation marks mine.

He also said during the Presidential debates, of which he lost all by every estimate that: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

But the American choice is dumber that even Bush is, because America chose the bigger hypocrite. No doubt Kerry was a hypocrite, saying that he would have also invaded Iraq. But Bush’s Bible reading hyposrisy seems greater. Let this article not be a Bible reading lesson, but any Christian will recall what Jesus did to the hypocrites. He did not tell the money lenders in the temple "would you please vacate kindly, that will be duly appreciated by the temple management.'' He got so angry, he upended the tables, and sent the hypocrites packing and their money reeling.

If Jesus walked today I dread what he would do to Bush and his Oval Office desk. Will he upend the table when he sees the hypocrisy of values where stem cell research is deemed muder, but attacks on civilains in Iraq passes muster? Bush says human foetuses are destroyed for stem cell research, but does not mind sending American troops to kill 100,000 men, women and children in Iraq.

(Those are the Guardian numbers, of civilains dead since the invasion.) Americans have to be egregious idiots to think this hypocrite should be endorsed for his values. Bush may have fooled some of the people all the time (and robbed the election from some others twice) but he cannot fool all the people all the time. His cant will surely be exposed before his term is up.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.