2000 articles on "Whitewater" ... mainstream media have been virtually silent about the issue of election fraud ... despite suspicious 153% Bush surge

Election Fraud: Where’s the Outrage? Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor The Crisis Papers. July 3, 2007
...
Six and a half years and some $70 million taxpayers’ dollars later, Whitewater Special Prosecutor, Ken Starr, told the House Judiciary Committee that he lacked the evidence to continue his investigation. During those six plus years, the Washington Post published over 2000 articles about “Whitewater” (Media Matters, Nexis search), but neglected to give prominent space to Starr’s virtual exoneration of the Clintons.

Now compare this extended media frenzy over what turned out to be a non-story, with another story which, if true, strikes at the very heart of our democracy. This is the substantial and unrebutted evidence that the past two presidential elections, along with the intervening congressional elections, were stolen and that, by implication, the United States has, for the past six years, been ruled by an illegitimate government.

Just last month, astonishing new evidence has come forth that in 2004 millions of Kerry votes were “switched” to Bush, and millions more “graveyard votes” were added to Bush’s total. Mainstream media coverage? Nada! Instead the source is the New Zealand website, Scoop, and subsequently other progressive websites. I will return to this remarkable report later in this essay.

As noted, the mainstream media have been virtually silent about the issue of election fraud. ...
...
About that new evidence:On June 13, the New Zealand based website, Scoop, published Michael Collins’ “Election 2004: The Urban Legend.” In that election, eleven million more votes were cast than in the 2000 election. Of these additional votes, eight million were for Bush, and three million were for Kerry. By comparing the 2000 and 2004 totals from five distinct geographical regions – rural, small towns, suburbs, medium cities, and big cities – Collins has discovered that Bush’s support in the rural areas was unchanged, that he lost support in the small towns, and remained essentially even in the suburbs. These regions were the locations of most of Bush’s “base,” and this net decline indicated a landslide loss in the election.How, then, did Bush win?

We are expected to believe that he did so through an astonishing and totally inexplicable “surge” of support in the medium and large cities. In those big cities, Bush's support increased from 26 percent of the vote in 2000, to 39 percent in 2004, and from 2.3 million votes in 2000, to 5.4 million in 2004 – an increase of 153 percent. This “surge” of Bush-support encompassed urban whites, blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities, whose enthusiasm for Bush was utterly inconspicuous and unanticipated in the pre-election polling. So great was this enthusiasm, that the vote totals, in many urban precincts, exceeded the voter registration. In addition, there were apparently more than a few posthumous votes as well.

This “urban surge” took place, despite the fact that Bush and Cheney did relatively little campaigning in the cities, and that the Bush-Cheney issues (“gays, guns and God”) failed, by and large, to excite the interest of urban voters.With tongue firmly in cheek, Collins concludes,

After four years of national struggle and focus overseas, inner city Americans came to the polls in record numbers, voted more Republican than before or since, and gave George Bush the necessary votes for his victory in 2004!Is this Pattern Plausible or even Possible?
...
Read Collin's article, where you will encounter the numbers, the supporting argument, and extensive documentation. But don’t expect to find any of this it in the mainstream media.