It's been asked elsewhere, but why is it always the Democrats that have to give up things for the good of the country? John Kerry, after promising that every vote would be counted, conceded the election long before the final votes were counted. In fact they still have not been counted. But he did so for the good of the country - so that we would not have to go through 2000 all over again.
I'm not sure what to make of Greg Palast's claims at TomPaine.com. But here's his opening paragraph... except two words:
I know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was ...You know what he's going to say; Palast was the one who laid out all the evidence for the theft of the 2000 election. Is it true? I think it's too early to say. Do we really want to do this again?
Can we really afford not to?
Post Script: I suppose that the real question is whether or not anyone in the mainstream American media will pick this up and run it to ground. Will anyone in the White House press pool be willing to give up their precious access (what the hell that access is getting them in the way of information is beyond me anyway) to dig for the facts? I think we all know the answer to that question. And even if one of them were to have the gonads to take on this story, which corporate-owned media conglomerate network would agree to publish their findings and endanger all the goodies flowing from this administration?