More (if you can stand it) on the fraudulent 2004 election

Commenter Doug Scott led me to this post over at CANNONFIRE and this article by Michael Collins. Both are dated today.

...Trying to find a Bush victory in 2004 leads you down a number of dead end streets. What happened to the rural vote? It was less as an over all percent of the national total and this segment provided less actual votes for Bush. What happened in the big cities? White votes were up from 5.0 to 9.0 million in one election; an 80% increase in white big city turnout.

One thing that we can no longer assume is that the election of 2004 produced the current occupant of the White House. In fact, the inability to show a logical path to the popular victory argues for a stance of informed scrutiny and intense skepticism.

If you believe 4.0 million new white big city voters showed up in 2004, you can believe the 2004 election results.

If you believe that Bush could conjure those new voters representing an 80% increase in white turnout over 2000 with just the slightest Get Out the Vote (GOTV) activity in big cities, you can believe the 2004 election results.

If you acknowledge that Bush lost votes in his political base compared to 2004, the rural segment, yet soared to victory on the basis of substantial gains in the urban areas, then you can believe that he was the truly elected president in November 2004.

Anyone see anything to debunk here? I've never accepted that Kerry lost in 2004 - a lot of us haven't accepted it. I'd like to hear any of the 2008 contenders address this question in a serious way. But I'm not holding my breath. It makes me sick that we were cheated out of a Kerry administration.

Small wonder the Bushies pressed so hard to prosecute phantom voter fraud allegations. It's classic Rove - distract, distract, and attack your enemies' strengths.