« Which Way Backward for the Democratic Party? | Main | We Belong at Applebee's! »

In Which Way Backward for the Democratic Party?

November 11, 2004

Leaked Letter from DNC: “We Demand More Vote Fraud!”

Thanks to dedicated operatives currently under “deep cover” within the bowels of the Democratic Party, we are able, from time to time, to bring you exclusive documents that otherwise might never have reached the light of day. To help our loyal Reverse Vote Swappers better understand the utter depths of despair recently reached by the Democrats, ReverseVoteSwap.org present to you this secret document, likely to be part of the Democrats’ electoral plans for 2006.

Unable to even contemplate the idea of perhaps adjusting their platform to address the concerns of their voters rather than the lusts of their corporate backers, the Democrats seek any other possibility for eking out a few more votes. Looking back to the 2000 election, in which they fared marginally better, in that they got more votes than the other guys, Democrats have apparently decided that GOP voter fraud is their only possible salvation in upcoming confrontations. Thus, the relatively fraud-free (by US standards) 2004 election is bad news for the Democrats, and they aim to turn things around.

Letter from Terry McAuliffe to Ed Gillespie: We Demand Appropriately Fraudulent Elections

Since Election Day, we have heard numerous reports from voters in Ohio describing harrowing experiences of electoral woe. Voters who had lived in the same district for decades found their names stricken from the rolls. Voters were forced to wait in line upwards of six hours to cast their vote in the most important election ever in democracy’s own empire. Some reports even showed thousands of votes erroneously credited to Bush due to machine errors.

All of this, however, is not enough. In 2000, Democrats relied on massive voter disenfranchisement and Election Day shenanigans to insure that we could talk about the “evil” Republicans rather than issues that matter to voters. Therefore, in 2000, leading Democrats were able to criticize illegal practices by the GOP in Florida and did not need to court progressive voters by calling for a reasonable minimum wage or a just US foreign policy or universal healthcare. This, I’m sure we can both agree, is an example of the two-party system working at its best. You court the right, we invoke the fear of the right to court the left, and we both divvy up the spoils for another four years. This, my friend, is US democracy as it is best played.

2004, however, was quite different. Your candidate beat up my candidate by millions of votes. And I’m not going to say that you didn’t cheat at all; everybody cheats a little. But can you really look yourself in the mirror and say, “I cheated enough”? I don’t think so. A few votes here and there in Ohio is the sort of thing that you guys and pull off in your sleep. Whatever happened to the long, drawn-out, Florida-style debacle? I haven’t even heard the word “wrangle” used once by pundits, and believe you me, I watch a lot of television.

Ed, I don’t want this to sound like a threat But be that as it may, I have to make one thing clear: if Democrats start to find that they don’t have the support of Republican election fraud to bolster our support, we might have to talk about actual issues. You don’t want that, and I don’t want that. Hell, I probably want it even less than you do! But the good of the system is at stake. We’re in a bad way here in the blue states. If we don’t have some real, down-home, Karl Rove-style evil to deal with, this party is going to be in a lot of trouble, and we both know what that means. Need I remember you of the 60s?

Please, Ed, I urge you. We need to unite America under a single business-friendly banner, and the only way to do that is to make sure that Democrats are constantly harping on anything other than issues. So help us out in 2006 with some serious, blatant fraud. A little effort on your part, and we can keep America from talking about things that matter for years to come.

Terry McAuliffe

Posted by convener at November 11, 2004 06:01 PM