View Full Version : Was The 2004 Election Stolen?
Bronco_Beerslug
06-06-2006, 03:51 PM
The more I read about Ohio the more questions that come to mind. I didn't pay too much attention to the Ohio claims at first but more and more information is at hand now and some of it is very troubling. If we can't have confidence in voters being able to vote and votes being counted correctly we are lost as a country.
-----------------------------------------------------
Was the 2004 election stolen?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Farhad Manjoo face off.
June 6, 2006 | Robert F. Kennedy Jr.:
It was good to see Farhad Manjoo weigh in on my article in Rolling Stone about the 2004 election. Unlike reporters in the mainstream media, Manjoo has displayed a willingness to actually read the published reports that document the electoral travesty that occurred in Ohio. It is a shame, however, that in his attempt to debunk my article, he commits precisely the sins of omission and distortion that he accuses me of having perpetrated.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/06/rfk_responds/story.jpg
Jerry Collier, left, and Mike Tolbert, center, inspect ballots while conducting the official count Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2004, at the Hamilton County Board of Elections in Cincinnati.
The key example of this is Manjoo's flatly inaccurate claim that the Democratic National Committee report identifies only 129,543 voters, or 2 percent of the electorate, who were disenfranchised by the long lines in Ohio. I can only point to the executive summary of the DNC report, which states:
"Scarcity of voting machines caused long lines that deterred many people from voting. Three percent of voters who went to the polls left their polling places and did not return due to the long lines."
Manjoo seizes on one line in the 204-page report and then attempts to play a clumsy game of gotcha. But if he had read more carefully he would have understood that the 129,543 votes he refers to were only a subset of those disenfranchised by the long lines. Had Manjoo read a mere paragraph further in the report, he would have seen that it identifies a second group, comprising roughly 48,000 citizens, or 0.83 percent of Ohio's electorate, whose votes were also suppressed because of the lines and other factors.
The authors of the DNC report aggregate these totals to arrive at the 3 percent figure that I cited. Does Manjoo pretend to have a better grasp on the data than the DNC's own experts? If so, his beef is with them, not me.
Manjoo also raises the issue of voting preference identified in the DNC's report, insisting "that those votes would have split evenly between Kerry and Bush." But, again, the DNC only ventures an estimate for the subset of 129,543 voters, not the full 3 percent turned away by long lines, writing of the additional 0.83 percent, "We do not know the voting preferences of these approximately 47,979 voters."
I chose not to rely on this incomplete picture from the DNC. It was evidently informed by self-reports of voter preference by citizens surveyed months after the victor had already been determined -- a notoriously unreliable measure that routinely overstates the performance of the victor. Instead, I cite the lone report on the Ohio scandal that was produced by the federal government, the Conyers Report. It concludes that the majority disenfranchised by the lines were Democrats. That report -- along with every news report from Election Day -- identifies that the worst lines were in urban areas and on college campuses, Democratic strongholds both.
Contrary to Manjoo's insinuation, I never suggest that no Republicans were disenfranchised in 2004. Many thousands were doubtless caught up in the massive voter suppression effort. But they were also clearly in the minority. The most severely affected were urban dwellers, in particular black urban dwellers. Ohio's biggest cities voted for Kerry by margins approaching 5-to-1. Eighty-four percent of black voters voted for Kerry.
Next page (http://tinyurl.com/okv8b): "Ohio stands as a case study in how officials, acting under color of law, can deprive citizens of their constitutional rights"
Do you have to be the set-up man for LABF so often?
Bronco_Beerslug
06-06-2006, 03:59 PM
Do you have to be the set-up man for LABF so often?
So you didn't read the article (B) read it but had your mind made up already or (C) didn't even notice their was an article to read in your haste to jab at LABF.
Garcia Bronco
06-06-2006, 03:59 PM
The DNC handbook says to race bait on election day. Just Sad.
Two words make your post lose a lot of cred - "Conyers Report".
Bronco_Beerslug
06-06-2006, 04:03 PM
Two words make your post lose a lot of cred - "Conyers Report".
So in your view none of the article can possibly be true?
In another specious attack, Manjoo questions whether any of the more than 300,000 voters who were purged in advance of the 2004 election actually showed up at the polls. "It's impossible to know if those were even real people," he writes.
Farhad Manjoo, meet Barbara George. She was among the tens of thousands disenfranchised in this manner. "My God. We are sixty-six years old," she told the Toledo Blade at the time. "We registered when we first turned twenty-one. We have lived in this same house for forty-four years, and [now, because of the purge] I can't vote. It just seems ridiculous that you have to keep re-registering if you don't vote."
Mrs. George was among 28,000 voters who were purged from the voter rolls only a few months before the election in Lucas County. Why before and not after the election? That arbitrary decision was made by the Lucas County Board of Elections, a group so ethically challenged, the whole lot of them, Democrats and Republicans alike, were forced to resign following a state inquiry.
It is also arbitrary that the voter rolls were purged in some cities -- Toledo, Cleveland, Cincinnati -- but not others, notably Columbus. This disparate treatment raises serious equal-protection concerns under the Constitution. Indeed Ohio stands as a case study in how officials, acting under color of law, can deprive citizens of their constitutional rights.
As to estimating the number of these voters, I took a decidedly conservative approach. The experts we interviewed suggested that 10 percent of those purged were likely purged by mistake. That alone accounts for 30,000 voters disenfranchised. The actual total is in all likelihood higher.
Hotrod
06-06-2006, 04:04 PM
No....next
So in your view none of the article can possibly be true?
"Conyers" has the same level of cred as "Limbaugh".
Bronco_Beerslug
06-06-2006, 04:07 PM
The DNC handbook says to race bait on election day. Just Sad.
What's really sad is Americans not understanding what happened in the last two elections.
----------------------------------------------
I appreciate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s response to my article, and I'd like to first note that I agree with him on one main point -- that we should urgently begin the work of honest election reform.
DBruleU
06-06-2006, 04:52 PM
Yes it was. And I would also like to add I feel very "good" about the '08 election as well. I like knowing we have the best frauders in the business working for the GOP.
Edskins_RVA
06-06-2006, 05:00 PM
Yes it was. And I would also like to add I feel very "good" about the '08 election as well. I like knowing we have the best frauders in the business working for the GOP.
:~ohyah!: :thumbsup:
Garcia Bronco
06-06-2006, 05:19 PM
What I don't understand is how the DNC keeps getting beat with the okie doke. "Fool me once...shame on you...fool me twice... shame on me" Is that how it goes? Why should I vote democrat when you constantly get fooled. Why should I vote for you when you can't come up with any ideas?
cbs1177
06-06-2006, 05:47 PM
Yes Republican stole the entire election b/c they actually made the Democrats believe Kerry / Edwards was the strongest candiate team that they could produce.
spdirty
06-06-2006, 06:31 PM
Why in the hell do you need to start a new thread about this when LABF just put up a thread with exactly the same subject matter? Why not just add this silly little article to his thread so us bushbots only have to ignore or post snide remarks on one thread?
Bronco_Beerslug
06-06-2006, 07:08 PM
Why in the hell do you need to start a new thread about this when LABF just put up a thread with exactly the same subject matter?
Just to piss you off.
spdirty
06-06-2006, 07:10 PM
Just to piss you off.
OK...well, you succeeded.
We should look more closely at the 1960 election too.
It brings to mind the old "All in the Family" episode where Archie goes to vote in the 1972 election. The workers can't find his registration, to which he protests that he voted for Nixon last time. Turns out he last voted in 1960, and was purged because he hadn't voted in 12 years.
The government has done just about everything reasonable to make being properly registered to vote a trivial matter; are we so lazy as citizens that even that low a level of commitment is just too much hassle?
Bronco_Beerslug
06-06-2006, 07:23 PM
We should look more closely at the 1960 election too.
It brings to mind the old "All in the Family" episode where Archie goes to vote in the 1972 election. The workers can't find his registration, to which he protests that he voted for Nixon last time. Turns out he last voted in 1960, and was purged because he hadn't voted in 12 years.
The government has done just about everything reasonable to make being properly registered to vote a trivial matter; are we so lazy as citizens that even that low a level of commitment is just too much hassle?
This article points out things that need to be addressed including that there is no national voting verification requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/7171/vot0bo.png
Verified Voting Sweeps the States!
VerifiedVoting.org, our partners, and voters across the country have successfully persuaded state governments to pass or propose legislation / regulations to require voter-verified paper ballots. Help us complete the legislative landslide toward reliable, secure, and transparent elections!
Please visit our action center (click here) to turn the whole country green with voter-verified paper ballots. Click on the map to see our legislation tracking web page. [PDF for printing]
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
This article points out things that need to be addressed including that there is no national voting verification requirements.
Do so many things have to be legislated at the national level? Sheesh.
Edskins_RVA
06-06-2006, 07:37 PM
This article points out things that need to be addressed including that there is no national voting verification requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/7171/vot0bo.png
Verified Voting Sweeps the States!
VerifiedVoting.org, our partners, and voters across the country have successfully persuaded state governments to pass or propose legislation / regulations to require voter-verified paper ballots. Help us complete the legislative landslide toward reliable, secure, and transparent elections!
Please visit our action center (click here) to turn the whole country green with voter-verified paper ballots. Click on the map to see our legislation tracking web page. [PDF for printing]
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Yes, but elections in all the voting districts in the US are generally run and overseen by the parties in power in those districts. Please note how many of the places where "irregularities" are reported are Democrat districts. How are the Dems running these polling operations in all these various districts screwing over their own voters/constituents and costing elections?!
1960 is a great rebuttal also! LOL
Spider
06-06-2006, 07:50 PM
Was The 2004 Election Stolen? yep ....... without a doubt
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-06-2006, 08:14 PM
So you didn't read the article (B) read it but had your mind made up already or (C) didn't even notice their was an article to read in your haste to jab at LABF.
I'll take (D) all of the above.
In any event, don't hold your breath waiting for W*GS and the rest of the bush jock riders to actually attempt to refute any specifics from the article you posted.
spdirty
06-06-2006, 08:16 PM
I'll take (D) all of the above.
In any event, don't hold your breath waiting for W*GS and the rest of the bush jock riders to actually attempt to refute any specifics from the article you posted.
Well, stealing the election was a necessary evil in order to ensure the greater good. Once you guys get out of the reeducati...errr, happy camps, you'll understand.
spdirty
06-06-2006, 08:19 PM
Dramatic new charges deepen link between Ohio's 'Coingate,' Voinovich mob connections, and the theft of the 2004 election
COLUMBUS -- New charges filed against Ohio Governor Bob Taft's former top aide have blazed a new trail between "Coingate" and the GOP theft of the 2004 presidential election.
Brian Hicks appears in court today to answer charges that he failed to report vacation trips he took to Coingate mastermind Tom Noe's $1.3 million home in the Florida Keys. A top Taft aide for a dozen years, Hicks stayed at Noe's place in 2002 and 2003. Another Taft aide, Cherie Carroll, is charged with taking some $500 in free dinners from Noe.
Noe is a high-roller crony of Taft, US Senator George Voinovich and President George W. Bush. Noe charged the Ohio Bureau of Workman's Compensation nearly $13 million to invest some $58 million. Ohio Attorney-General Jim Petro, to whom Noe once donated money, says some $4 million disappeared into Noe's pocket.
The new charges against Taft's former aide are at the edge of Coingate's links to Bush, Voinovich and organized crime. Through Noe's wife Bernadette, those links extend to the GOP theft of Ohio 2004.
Tom Noe, northwest Ohio's "Mr. Republican" and a close Bush/Rove crony, is under federal investigation for making possibly illegal contributions to the Bush/Cheney campaign...
More: http://www.freepress.org/departments...y/19/2005/1387
What a waste...you shouldve started an entirely new thread for this.
Spider
06-06-2006, 08:23 PM
the 2004 election was stolen between child molesting , Using Taliban christian tactics , having several wives , stealing elections , starting wars , Republicans have screwed everyone in this country
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-06-2006, 08:28 PM
Was The 2004 Election Stolen? yep ....... without a doubt
Can you imagine the outcry you would have heard from the bush minions if (1) Ohio's secretary of state (i.e., the guy responsible for supervising and certifying the votes) was also his state's chairman for the Kerry/Edwards campaign, and (2) virtually all of the companies who sold the voting machines used to cast and count the votes in the election were owned by Democrats with ties to John Kerry - one of whom actually made a promise to deliver his state's electoral votes to Kerry?
You would have never heard an end to the "whining."
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-06-2006, 08:31 PM
Why in the hell do you need to start a new thread about this when LABF just put up a thread with exactly the same subject matter? Why not just add this silly little article to his thread so us bushbots only have to ignore or post snide remarks on one thread?
Why in the hell do you have a chick with a dick in your avatar pic?
spdirty
06-06-2006, 08:31 PM
You would have never heard an end to the "whining."
uhh huh...Well, please let me know when your done.
spdirty
06-06-2006, 08:32 PM
Why in the hell do you have a chick with a dick in your avatar pic?
It amused me.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-06-2006, 08:33 PM
What a waste...you shouldve started an entirely new thread for this.
Sensitive topic, huh?
spdirty
06-06-2006, 08:35 PM
Sensitive topic, huh?
I was giving you a helpful tip...sheesh
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-06-2006, 08:36 PM
uhh huh...Well, please let me know when your done.
Translation:
"Cheating and fraud are OK when my side does it."
In any event, don't hold your breath waiting for W*GS and the rest of the bush jock riders to actually attempt to refute any specifics from the article you posted.
This from the guy who, if he can't cut-and-paste from some far-left blog or website in response to someone, has very little to say.
In that way, you're a lot like Bush - without a script, you're lost. Extemporaneous thought is one of your weaknesses.
Spider
06-06-2006, 08:42 PM
This from the guy who, if he can't cut-and-paste from some far-left blog or website in response to someone, has very little to say.
In that way, you're a lot like Bush - without a script, you're lost. Extemporaneous thought is one of your weaknesses.
and you .Republican one week , Libertarian another week .........
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-06-2006, 09:02 PM
This from the guy who, if he can't cut-and-paste from some far-left blog or website in response to someone, has very little to say.
This from a guy who, if he can't flat-out lie about the sources someone uses, doesn't really have any other recourse in his efforts to attack the messenger and pretend he's discredited the message.
In that way, you're a lot like Bush - without a script, you're lost. Extemporaneous thought is one of your weaknesses.
You're a dead ringer for Bush: When one takes away your lies, distortions, deflections, obfuscations, and swift boat tactics, there's nothing left of your "arguments."
Edskins_RVA
06-06-2006, 09:36 PM
and you .Republican one week , Libertarian another week .........
Unfortunately most of us Libertarians must reside in the GOP since the Libertarian party is not a viable option at this point..
Spider
06-06-2006, 09:38 PM
Unfortunately most of us Libertarians must reside in the GOP since the Libertarian party is not a viable option at this point..
So Libertarians are more mixed up then a feather in a whirlwind ...... I had my suspicions ;D
Edskins_RVA
06-06-2006, 09:39 PM
This from a guy who, if he can't flat-out lie about the sources someone uses, doesn't really have any other recourse in his efforts to attack the messenger and pretend he's discredited the message.
Pot? Is that you? ... It's Kettle! .. Why do you look so black dude?!
You're a dead ringer for Bush: When one takes away your lies, distortions, deflections, obfuscations, and swift boat tactics, there's nothing left of your "arguments."
LOL
Edskins_RVA
06-06-2006, 09:40 PM
So Libertarians are more mixed up then a feather in a whirlwind ...... I had my suspicions ;D
Sometimes! Must have something to do with their position on legalizing drugs.. ;D
Spider
06-06-2006, 09:41 PM
Sometimes! Must have something to do with their position on legalizing drugs.. ;D
i was on medication once , found my self pulling a refridgerated units to new york city ;D
Edskins_RVA
06-06-2006, 09:48 PM
i was on medication once , found my self pulling a refridgerated units to new york city ;D
Doh!
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-06-2006, 10:14 PM
Pot? Is that you? ... It's Kettle! .. Why do you look so black dude?!
:oyvey:
Nothing like a new kid on the block acting like he knows the history of the neighborhood.
Edskins_RVA
06-06-2006, 10:16 PM
:oyvey:
Nothing like a new kid on the block acting like he knows the history of the neighborhood.
What does that even mean? ... ?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-06-2006, 10:16 PM
So Libertarians are more mixed up then a feather in a whirlwind ...... I had my suspicions ;D
A libertarian is just a republican with commitment phobia. :D
(Although a few seem to recognize a con man in Bush when they see him.)
Edskins_RVA
06-06-2006, 10:20 PM
A libertarian is just a republican with commitment phobia. :D
(Although a few seem to recognize a con man in Bush when they see him.)
That's was actually funny!
Except for the BS at the end.. :giggle:
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-06-2006, 10:22 PM
What does that even mean? ... ?
It means you haven't been here on this forum long enough to have sufficient experience and information to support your "pot/kettle" claim.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-06-2006, 10:23 PM
Except for the BS at the end.
Thank God only 29% of Americans have yet to realize it's not BS! :thumbsup:
Edskins_RVA
06-06-2006, 10:25 PM
It means you haven't been here on this forum long enough to have sufficient experience and information to support your "pot/kettle" claim.
That's just laughable! I've been here plenty long enough to see you be hypocritical..
Who EXACTLY do you think you are?
Edskins_RVA
06-06-2006, 10:26 PM
Thank God only 29% of Americans have yet to realize it's not BS! :thumbsup:
I'm part of the reason why it's 29%! However, that has nothing to do with your convoluted theories..
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-06-2006, 10:48 PM
That's just laughable! I've been here plenty long enough to see you be hypocritical..
The you should be able to give "plenty" of examples, I would think.
Who EXACTLY do you think you are?
{In best Sly Stallone as "Cobra" voice:}
"You're the disease, and I'm the cure"
:~ohyah!:
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-06-2006, 10:49 PM
I'm part of the reason why it's 29%!
I gathered that.
However, that has nothing to do with your convoluted theories..
Aw, how cute!
He's trying to use the new word I just taught him in a sentence.
:D
This from a guy who, if he can't flat-out lie about the sources someone uses,
Let me put it this way - if 'bartcop' didn't exist, your posting volume would be greatly reduced.
doesn't really have any other recourse in his efforts to attack the messenger and pretend he's discredited the message.
That's your tactic, not mine. You think calling someone a "Bushbot" or a "reich-winger" or whatever is sufficient to prove their arguments wrong. You do it all the time!
You're a dead ringer for Bush: When one takes away your lies, distortions, deflections, obfuscations, and swift boat tactics, there's nothing left of your "arguments."
:bs:
You're describing yourself. You've got a real problem with projecting your shortcomings on to others.
Unfortunately most of us Libertarians must reside in the GOP since the Libertarian party is not a viable option at this point..
Speak for yourself.
Spider
06-07-2006, 08:10 AM
Speak for yourself.
I see we have the libertarian W*GS this week ......
I see we have the libertarian W*GS this week ......
And we wonder where the scum who murdered Matt Shepard learned how to hate...
Spider
06-07-2006, 08:16 AM
And we wonder where the scum who murdered Matt Shepard learned how to hate...
no need to thank me on a job well done .........I do what i can
no need to thank me on a job well done .........I do what i can
I thank you for making it clear just what you truly are...
Spider
06-07-2006, 08:32 AM
I thank you for making it clear just what you truly are...
no problem , we need to be cleansed of all abortion-loving, French-appeasing, gay-marrying sodomites and sinners...... Fred phelps for president
no problem , we need to be cleansed of all abortion-loving, French-appeasing, gay-marrying sodomites and sinners...... Fred phelps for president
He is in your party...
Spider
06-07-2006, 09:32 AM
He is in your party...
your point ? this person is in your party also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjLaoz-nR6c
enjoy
Spider
06-07-2006, 09:33 AM
she should do you proud W*GS .......
55CrushEm
06-07-2006, 09:42 AM
No....next
LOL
your point ? this person is in your party also
Ahhh, no, she is not. I'm a libertarian, remember?
bendog
06-07-2006, 09:50 AM
Did ya hear the one about the libertarian pervert. He wanted to access internet porn, but he didn't want to give up possible privacy to Alberto and the Gitmo Gizmos, nor could he admit that Larry Flynt just couldn't invent the internet with Al Gore's help, so he broke down with frustration in flagillation.
Spider
06-07-2006, 09:51 AM
Ahhh, no, she is not. I'm a libertarian, remember?
oh thats right , this week you are .So Jonathan "The Impaler" Sharkey is your guy ... there is a rock sold canidate Hilarious!
Spider
06-07-2006, 09:54 AM
or how about this rock solid mensa canidate Hilarious!
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/offbeat.blue.candidate/
Stan Jones,a 63-year-old business consultant and part-time college instructor, said he started taking colloidal silver in 1999 for fear that Y2K disruptions might lead to a shortage of antibiotics.
He made his own concoction by electrically charging a couple of silver wires in a glass of water.
His skin began turning blue-gray a year ago.
Edskins_RVA
06-07-2006, 07:54 PM
Speak for yourself.
Fair enough.. They just haven't found strong charismatic leaders and a coherent platform that can be articulted to draw enough national attention.. They need to get better communications people in the camp and also deal with how to break through the barriers of the MsM and the established parties for that matter..
However, I am not prepared, at this point, to allow the Dems to take power based on a principled vote for a 3rd party.. I made that mistake in '92 and it bit me in the a$$.. Then again, we did get Congress out of it! :approve:
Edskins_RVA
06-07-2006, 07:55 PM
Did ya hear the one about the libertarian pervert. He wanted to access internet porn, but he didn't want to give up possible privacy to Alberto and the Gitmo Gizmos, nor could he admit that Larry Flynt just couldn't invent the internet with Al Gore's help, so he broke down with frustration in flagillation.
Hilarious!
Bronco_Beerslug
06-08-2006, 05:45 AM
Then again, we did get Congress out of it! :approve:
Libertarians won control of Congress? I must have missed that or did you get confused on what party you are?
Edskins_RVA
06-08-2006, 06:53 AM
Libertarians won control of Congress? I must have missed that or did you get confused on what party you are?
Please pay attention.. I was explaining why I am a Republican, though my political philosphy is Libertarian.. I don't vote with the Libertarian Party (except in a few cases) because of the viability issue I explained above.. I am a Republican by default..
Rohirrim
06-08-2006, 07:01 AM
If 1960 is a rebuttal to 2004, what about 1972 and the Nixon Dirty Tricks team. We shouldn't forget about them. After all, they worked so hard. ;D
Edskins_RVA
06-08-2006, 07:05 AM
If 1960 is a rebuttal to 2004, what about 1972 and the Nixon Dirty Tricks team. We shouldn't forget about them. After all, they worked so hard. ;D
Nixon crushed in '72.. What's your point?
Bronco_Beerslug
06-08-2006, 07:05 AM
Please pay attention.. I was explaining why I am a Republican, though my political philosphy is Libertarian.. I don't vote with the Libertarian Party (except in a few cases) because of the viability issue I explained above.. I am a Republican by default..
Ah, so you're a wanna be libertarian that doesn't have the cojones to be a "libertarian", gotcha :thumbs:
Edskins_RVA
06-08-2006, 07:07 AM
Ah, so you're a wanna be libertarian that doesn't have the cojones to be a "libertarian", gotcha :thumbs:
Wrong again.. There is a difference between Party and Philosophy! My phil. is Libertarian, my party is Republican..
Rohirrim
06-08-2006, 07:12 AM
Nixon crushed in '72.. What's your point?
That was the election where guys like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove were weaned. Surely, the vote grabbing by the mob in a couple of precincts of Chicago doesn't measure up to the high standards Atwater and Rove have brought to American political elections? The mob were amateurs compared to these guys.
Bronco_Beerslug
06-08-2006, 07:47 AM
Wrong again.. There is a difference between Party and Philosophy! My phil. is Libertarian, my party is Republican..
Too bad so many Americans hold this view (voting party) and not researching all candidates and voting person.
I don't vote with the Libertarian Party (except in a few cases) because of the viability issue I explained above.. I am a Republican by default..
How is the LP going to become more viable if you keep voting GOP? I, for one, cannot fathom voting for those scumbags. It sends the totally wrong message!
55CrushEm
06-08-2006, 07:59 AM
Too bad so many Americans hold this view (voting party) and not researching all candidates and voting person.
Including you, I presume.
Bronco_Beerslug
06-08-2006, 08:03 AM
Including you, I presume.
Your "presumting" skills suck but that's obvious from your posting.
55CrushEm
06-08-2006, 08:12 AM
Your "presumting" skills suck but that's obvious from your posting.
Obvious to you only......your deduction skills suck as well......:raidstink
Bronco_Beerslug
06-08-2006, 08:19 AM
Obvious to you only......your deduction skills suck as well......:raidstink
Well, lets find out? In the last presidential election I voted for 4 democrats, 1 independent and 2 republicans.
You?
55CrushEm
06-08-2006, 08:42 AM
Well, lets find out? In the last presidential election I voted for 4 democrats, 1 independent and 2 republicans.
You?
I voted for Bush (holding my nose in the process)....and actually voted for Tierney (Democrat) for the House of Reps....I can only hope that the disgrace Ted Kennedy will be voted out this year.....we can all dream can't we?
....then I abstained on the others....
Spider
06-08-2006, 08:48 AM
I voted for Bush (holding my nose in the process)....and actually voted for Tierney (Democrat) for the House of Reps....I can only hope that the disgrace Ted Kennedy will be voted out this year.....we can all dream can't we?
....then I abstained on the others....
LOL I did just the oppisit . voted for D.Kerry , R.Enzi , R.Thomas ,D Ladd , DFruedenthal , R.Blankenship ( that was a huge mistake ;D )
Edskins_RVA
06-08-2006, 06:23 PM
Too bad so many Americans hold this view (voting party) and not researching all candidates and voting person.
What the hell are you talking about? Do you really think that I do NOT research candidates and issues before I make up my mind? Whether you agree with my opinions or not, you have no evidence to your premise..
I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in my days. However, because of my political philosophy, I have tended towards the GOP more than the others..
Edskins_RVA
06-08-2006, 06:27 PM
How is the LP going to become more viable if you keep voting GOP? I, for one, cannot fathom voting for those scumbags. It sends the totally wrong message!
That's a very valid point! I also used to think the same.. The Ross Perot experience left a bad taste in my mouth.. :-[
I have often voted for Lib. candidates. Usually it's when it comes to situations where I'm not worried about the outcome due to my vote.. When the Libertarian Party gets its act together, I will give it more love.. :)
Don't even get me started on my rant about how America is too addicted to socialism to accept Libertarian ideals.. :P
Spider
06-08-2006, 06:36 PM
and they say Bush doesnt care ... http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/_/f/bush_guitar_superdome.jpg
Spider
06-08-2006, 06:38 PM
another proud moment http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/H/f/bush_no_missionaccomplished.jpg
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-24-2007, 02:28 AM
In 2008, Bush v. Gore Redux?
By BOB HERBERT
Published: September 22, 2007
Right now it’s just a petition drive on its way to becoming a ballot initiative in California. But you should think of it as a tropical depression that could develop into a major storm that blows away the Democrats’ chances of winning the White House next year.
And it could become a constitutional crisis.
It’s panic time in Republican circles. The G.O.P. could go into next year’s election burdened by the twin demons of an unpopular war and an economic downturn. The party that took the White House in 2000 while losing the popular vote figures it may have to do it again.
The Presidential Election Reform Act is the name of a devious proposal that Republican operatives have dreamed up to siphon off 20 or more of the 55 electoral votes that the Democrats would get if, as expected, they win California in 2008.
That’s a lot of electoral votes, the equivalent of winning the state of Ohio. If this proposed change makes it onto the ballot and becomes law, those 20 or so electoral votes could well be enough to hand the White House to a Republican candidate who loses the popular vote nationwide.
Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has suggested that the initiative is a form of dirty pool. While not explicitly opposing it, Mr. Schwarzenegger said it smacks of changing the rules “in the middle of the game.”
Democrats are saying it’s unconstitutional.
The proposal would rewrite the rules for the distribution of electoral votes in California. Under current law, all of California’s 55 electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote statewide. That “winner-take-all” system is the norm in the U.S.
Under the proposed change, electoral votes would be apportioned according to the winner of the popular vote in each of California’s Congressional districts. That would likely throw 20 or more electoral votes to the Republican candidate, even if the Democrat carries the state.
A sign of the bad faith in this proposal is the fact that there is no similar effort by the G.O.P. to apportion electoral votes by Congressional districts in, for example, Texas, a state with 34 electoral votes that is likely to go Republican next year.
Longtime observers in California believe the proponents of this change — lawyers with close ties to the Republican Party statewide and nationally — will have no trouble collecting enough signatures to get it on the ballot in June. The first poll taken on the measure, which is not yet widely understood by voters, showed that it would pass.
Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and one of the nation’s pre-eminent constitutional scholars, believes the initiative is blatantly unconstitutional. “Entirely apart from the politics,” he said, “this clearly violates Article II of the Constitution, which very explicitly requires that the electors for president be selected ‘in such manner as the Legislature’ of the state directs.”
In Mr. Tribe’s view, the “one and only way” for California to change the manner in which its electoral votes are apportioned is through an act of the State Legislature.
Professor Tribe is not a disinterested party. He represented Al Gore in the disputed 2000 presidential election. And not all constitutional experts agree that this would be such an easy call. “This is not an open-and-shut case,” said Richard Pildes, a professor at the New York University School of Law.
What is undisputed is that the Democrats will mount a ferocious legal challenge if the ballot initiative passes — “maybe even before it has a chance to pass,” a Democratic source said yesterday — thus opening the door to an ugly constitutional fight reminiscent of Bush v. Gore in 2000.
The potential for trouble in the event of a close election is huge. Said Professor Tribe: “This is really a prescription for a possible constitutional crisis in which we have one president if California electors act in accord with the method set out by the State Legislature, and another president if the electors are divided according to this ballot initiative.”
The operatives behind the initiative are experts at causing trouble. The effort is being led by Thomas Hiltachk, a lawyer who was one of the leaders of the successful effort to recall California Gov. Gray Davis in 2003. Politics is not just hardball to this crowd; it’s almost literally a fight to the death.
The proponents of the initiative understand completely that a constitutional crisis could damage the nation’s democratic process and undermine the legitimacy of a presidential election. In their view that’s preferable to a Republican defeat.
California voters would be doing themselves and the nation a favor by soundly defeating this poisonous initiative if it makes it onto the ballot in June.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/22/opinion/22herbert.html?_r=2&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp% 2dEd%2fColumnists&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Colorado had an amendment to the state constitution back in 2004 that attempted to do the same thing - Amendment 36. It was backed by Democrats, generally, since they knew that Bush was likely to take Colorado and thus anything to get more electoral votes for Kerry was a Good Idea.
It went down to resounding defeat, 34% for, 66% against.
Bronco Bob
09-24-2007, 12:17 PM
You think this may have something to do with the GOP wanting to change the rules in California?
Clinton Holds Double Digit Leads Over GOP Hopefuls in California
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Not surprisingly, Senator Hillary Clinton has solid leads over all Republican hopefuls in the nation’s largest state.
In the battle for California’s 55 Electoral College votes, Clinton leads Rudy Giuliani by ten points (50% to 40%)
and Fred Thompson by eleven (50% to 39%).
The Democratic front runners lead is twice as big when matched against John McCain (54% to 35%) or Mitt Romney (53% to 31%).
John Kerry won California by ten percentage points in 2004. Al Gore carried the state by twelve in Election 2000.
Clinton is the clear front runner among those seeking the Democratic Presidential nomination (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/daily_presidential_tracking_poll__1).
Among Republicans, the race remains very fluid (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_republican_presidential_primary) without a clear leader.
The former First Lady is likely to find a warm reception for her new health care proposal among California voters.
Sixty-one percent (61%) say they support statewide health insurance coverage for all California residents. Only 28% are opposed.
Clinton is viewed favorably by 54% of California voters and unfavorably by 45%.
Giuliani is viewed favorably by 59%, Thompson by 52%, McCain by 52%, and Romney by 39%.
A proposal to change the way that California allocates its Electoral Votes draws little support from the voters.
The plan being considered, if passed, could shift 20 Electoral Votes to the Republicans in next year’s Presidential campaign.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/clinton_holds_double_digit_leads_over_gop_hopefuls _in_california
Garcia Bronco
09-24-2007, 12:35 PM
"The proposal would rewrite the rules for the distribution of electoral votes in California. Under current law, all of California’s 55 electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote statewide. That “winner-take-all” system is the norm in the U.S."
we should get rid of this practice, and every electoral district should vote for the winner of that district. It would be much representative of the process.
Bronco Bob
09-24-2007, 01:29 PM
"The proposal would rewrite the rules for the distribution of electoral votes in California. Under current law, all of California’s 55 electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote statewide. That “winner-take-all” system is the norm in the U.S."
we should get rid of this practice, and every electoral district should vote for the winner of that district. It would be much representative of the process.
I'll go you one better. Get rid of the electoral college altogether
and let the popular vote decide who is president. The presidential
election is the only election in the country were the majority of
voters don't have a say in who wins the election.
yavoon
09-24-2007, 01:54 PM
I'll go you one better. Get rid of the electoral college altogether
and let the popular vote decide who is president. The presidential
election is the only election in the country were the majority of
voters don't have a say in who wins the election.
haha yah try to amend that into the constitution.
Bronco Bob
09-24-2007, 02:22 PM
haha yah try to amend that into the constitution.
Do you think the majority of Americans would oppose such an amendment?
TailgateNut
09-24-2007, 02:29 PM
Do you think the majority of Americans would oppose such an amendment?
.....just all of the republicans!
I'd love it. Let the naked numbers speak. Erase the state lines for National Votes!
yavoon
09-24-2007, 02:30 PM
Do you think the majority of Americans would oppose such an amendment?
I would, one of the fundamental compromises in the US constitution is the division of power between urban and rural areas/states. though sometimes it ends up being silly w/ hawaii/alaska/wyoming overall its good imo.
defenseman
09-24-2007, 03:11 PM
The answer is NO...dman
alkemical
09-24-2007, 03:39 PM
there's no market for a "fool proof" voting system.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-24-2007, 07:14 PM
You think this may have something to do with the GOP wanting to change the rules in California?
Clinton Holds Double Digit Leads Over GOP Hopefuls in California
Nah - everybody knows the GOP would never try something like that.
You're just a conspiracy nut, dude. ;)
This thread is another example of the insanity, which is the left. When you get your girl in office, as most of those on the right get the rule of law, we will be able to abide by it, after we get the bad tastes out of our mouth -- and sure as heck will not be posting three years after the fact about how the election was stolen.
TailgateNut
09-25-2007, 02:46 PM
This thread is another example of the insanity, which is the left. When you get your girl in office, as most of those on the right get the rule of law, we will be able to abide by it, after we get the bad tastes out of our mouth -- and sure as heck will not be posting three years after the fact about how the election was stolen.
Because if she would make it to the WH, she would'nt steal the key like BushCo did!
Bush, Bellicheck, Bonds = Cheaters!
You and Rosie have been getting together with the president of Iran to have bon bons and discuss conspiracy theories?
Garcia Bronco
09-25-2007, 02:51 PM
I'll go you one better. Get rid of the electoral college altogether
and let the popular vote decide who is president. The presidential
election is the only election in the country were the majority of
voters don't have a say in who wins the election.
The Electorate in place is fine. It serves the purpose of broadening the scope of which a candidate must appeal. Otherwise population centers would elect the President. It's a good system, and I think on only 3-5 ocassions has the incumbent lost the popular vote and still won the whitehouse.
The Electorate in place is fine. It serves the purpose of broadening the scope of which a candidate must appeal. Otherwise population centers would elect the President. It's a good system, and I think on only 3-5 ocassions has the incumbent lost the popular vote and still won the whitehouse.
And you would have NY and LA deciding for teh majority of the states who is going to lead. I guess if you cant win, change the rules -- make a fairness doctrine -- do something!
TailgateNut
09-25-2007, 02:54 PM
It's a good system, and I think on only 3-5 ocassions has the incumbent lost the popular vote and still won the whitehouse.
Good SystemHilarious!
Garcia Bronco
09-25-2007, 02:56 PM
And you would have NY and LA deciding for teh majority of the states who is going to lead. I guess if you cant win, change the rules -- make a fairness doctrine -- do something!
Exactly, what would be the point of a state like Kansas staying the Union when their right to select the President has been removed. I understand that people are upset their guy didn't win, but to keep bitching about it 7 years after the fact IMO shows the nature of what we are dealing with. As you said....if Clinton wins I'll be on board with our President to get things accomplished.
yavoon
09-25-2007, 02:58 PM
Good SystemHilarious!
yah **** the constitution.
Good SystemHilarious!
Yes it is -- perhaps the best in the world. I suppose that you will think it is great again if a donk gets elected. You just dont change the rules and the freaking consitition on a political powerplay.
Bronco Bob
09-25-2007, 03:09 PM
Yes it is -- perhaps the best in the world. I suppose that you will think it is great again if a donk gets elected. You just dont change the rules and the freaking consitition on a political powerplay.
Isn't this what the Republicans in California are trying to do though?
They know they can't win the state, so they are trying to give
the equivalent of Ohio to the GOP. Yet when Colorado tried to do
the same thing, which might have given Kerry enough electoral
votes to win, the GOP screamed bloody murder. And now when
you Republicans see a chance Hillary will win the popular vote,
suddenly you all start screaming about protecting the Constitution.
(Never mind that everyday Bush is chipping away at more
and more of the rest of it.)
Garcia Bronco
09-25-2007, 03:27 PM
Isn't this what the Republicans in California are trying to do though?
They know they can't win the state, so they are trying to give
the equivalent of Ohio to the GOP. Yet when Colorado tried to do
the same thing, which might have given Kerry enough electoral
votes to win, the GOP screamed bloody murder. And now when
you Republicans see a chance Hillary will win the popular vote,
suddenly you all start screaming about protecting the Constitution.
(Never mind that everyday Bush is chipping away at more
and more of the rest of it.)
Like I said. I think votes should be decided per electorate across the board. But after doing some reading, all the states can do it differently and can be decided by state how they cast electorial votes and select electorates. So the GOP in California wanting this has little to do with the GOP in Colorado doing it.
yavoon
09-25-2007, 03:29 PM
Isn't this what the Republicans in California are trying to do though?
They know they can't win the state, so they are trying to give
the equivalent of Ohio to the GOP. Yet when Colorado tried to do
the same thing, which might have given Kerry enough electoral
votes to win, the GOP screamed bloody murder. And now when
you Republicans see a chance Hillary will win the popular vote,
suddenly you all start screaming about protecting the Constitution.
(Never mind that everyday Bush is chipping away at more
and more of the rest of it.)
by congressional district still keeps in tact the bargain between the house and senate(population and state). its not a terrible idea, though as you observed correctly whoever thinks they can win that state will scream bloody murder at the minority party that wants the votes split.
TailgateNut
09-25-2007, 03:33 PM
Yes it is -- perhaps the best in the world. I suppose that you will think it is great again if a donk gets elected. You just dont change the rules and the freaking consitition on a political powerplay.
If it in fact is the best in the world, why then, are records missing and destroyed, why are there so many questions about the validity and accurancy of the electronic voting "gadgets", why were many citizens not able to vote due to unequal distribution of "gadgets".
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY QUESTION RE: "The best system in the world"?
Rohirrim
09-25-2007, 04:35 PM
Why was the average voting time in Ohio's Republican districts only 45 minutes and in the predominantly Democratic districts, over 4 hours? Why did one of the executives of Diebold guarantee Bush Ohio? Anyone who is committed to the cause of liberty would care deeply about this, and those who are committed to the Republican party's "win at all costs" philosophy do not. Party before country.
ant1999e
09-25-2007, 05:49 PM
Why don't you sore losers just moveon.org?
Isn't this what the Republicans in California are trying to do though?
They know they can't win the state, so they are trying to give
the equivalent of Ohio to the GOP. Yet when Colorado tried to do
the same thing, which might have given Kerry enough electoral
votes to win, the GOP screamed bloody murder. And now when
you Republicans see a chance Hillary will win the popular vote,
suddenly you all start screaming about protecting the Constitution.
(Never mind that everyday Bush is chipping away at more
and more of the rest of it.)
No, I just want consistency -- if wrongs are being done by the elephants - they should be strung up too. I am a right-wing nut job, but know that the right has lost their ability to call out their “own” when they act unethically. Wrong is wrong – when Larry Craig commits a crime he should be gone – likewise the left should have that mentality – when one suspends that intellectual honesty because the end justifies the means, then we all windup unable to trust any level of government. Taken too far, it will lead to anarchy and civil unrest.
My point is simple -- the constitution is only changed (thank goodness) by a huge majority voting to make an amendment. There is a delicate balance of powers -- and when there are abuses, and power-plays and when ANYONE starts talking about changing these balances for an extra vote, or to win an election it erodes the core of what makes America great.
I don’t claim to know all the abuses of the elephants in various states -- it obviously happens on both sides -- when a donk does it, or when an elephant attempts to change long-standing balances of power -- one has to be VERY careful.
If it in fact is the best in the world, why then, are records missing and destroyed, why are there so many questions about the validity and accurancy of the electronic voting "gadgets", why were many citizens not able to vote due to unequal distribution of "gadgets".
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY QUESTION RE: "The best system in the world"?
That’s easy, you send too much time getting information from blogs, and folks like Rosie who state falsehoods created in the heat of emotion and agenda. I too want the voting machines to be as accurate as possible, but I think most complaints are sour grapes, crushed and made into bad whine.
The more we see ourselves as two different types of animals, the more we will be inclined to act that way. The two party system gains from continual mistrust, they feed mistrust and make every vote and every ideological battle into an “us” vs. “them” prospect. IF we saw ourselves as Americans FIRST, I think that suddenly some of these wild conspiracies be put to rest.
In 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 the authors argued that someday the government might restrict information from the people and control them -- I think the opposite has occurred, we are awash in information, and misinformation -- one can believe ANYTHING that one wants to at this juncture -- and be able to back it up (loosely speaking) through multiple sources -- it is the negative flip-side of the Internet.
TailgateNut
09-26-2007, 09:20 AM
[QUOTE=Bob;1727665]That’s easy, you send too much time getting information from blogs, and folks like Rosie who state falsehoods created in the heat of emotion and agenda. I too want the voting machines to be as accurate as possible, but I think most complaints are sour grapes, crushed and made into bad whine.
The more we see ourselves as two different types of animals, the more we will be inclined to act that way. The two party system gains from continual mistrust, they feed mistrust and make every vote and every ideological battle into an “us” vs. “them” prospect. IF we saw ourselves as Americans FIRST, I think that suddenly some of these wild conspiracies be put to rest.
QUOTE]
1.I don't "send" any time getting information from blogs.
2.I'd like the voting machines to be accurate, but all indications to date show them to be easily manipulated without hard copy record to contradict the manipulation.
3. Many complaint may be "sour grapes" in YO, but have been validated and documented. I haven't heard of many Republican districts which had issues with access to voting.
4. Most of us see ourselfs as Americans first, but when the other half attempts to negate the voice of the opposition in order to further their cause, what type of response do you expect. At least it hassn't resulted in violence YET!
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-26-2007, 07:17 PM
Why don't you sore losers just moveon.org?
Ha ha ha! :giggle:
Join the Corrupt Old Party - be a winner!
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-18-2008, 12:11 AM
Michael Collins: Election Fraud and Tyranny - Part 2
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Articles/BanksyBushRe.jpg
From image: "I can't believe you morons actually buy this sh..."
They don't. They're just following the script. That's why Miller calls them
"the servile press." Banksy (http://heady.co.uk/rm/banks_amend450.jpg)
"Loser Taker All: Election Fraud and The
Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008" (http://www.amazon.com/Loser-Take-All-Subversion-Democracy/dp/0978843142)
Edited by Mark Crispin Miller
Ig Publishing
Michael Collins (http://electionfraudnews.com/MichaelCollins.htm)
"Scoop" Independent News (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00177.htm)
Washington, D.C.
Also see Part 1 (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00133.htm)
How did we reach our current state of decline in just eight excruciating years? Aren't we working hard enough? Was there some millennial shift in consciousness and morality? How could we elect leaders like Bush and Cheney and their minions on Capitol Hill?
Mark Crispin Miller's latest book, "Loser Take All," provides an explanation that precedes any other: election fraud. In his collection of essays, Miller shows that the losers took everything in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. That made all the difference.
We're working harder than ever. Citizens are no less concerned and compassionate than they were in 1999. But as Miller demonstrates, the way we elect leaders is inherently unreliable and corrupt. He shows how the current group of extremists who dominate public policy used a loosely regulated, unwatched election system to create the results they willed in order to achieve the power they craved.
Part 1 of this review of "Loser Take All" discussed how Miller's theme showed up in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections. In Part II, we'll take a look at Miller's explanation of events in 2006 and the system in place for the November 2008 elections.
2006 - Landslide Denied
The Big Picture - the U.S. House of Representatives
The 2006 election resulted in major pickups for the Democratic Party in the House, enough to return them to power with a significant but not overwhelming margin. Senate seats were a tougher fight but the Democrats managed to gain a one seat majority in the Senate with surprise wins in Virginia and Montana. But that's wasn't the whole story.
Election Defense Alliance researchers Jonathan Simon and Bruce O'Dell studied the 2006 results and found that there was a net shift of at least three million votes away from the Democratic candidates in the 2006 elections for the House of Representatives. The Democratic victory margin was shaved by 4% according this highly persuasive analysis.
Simon and O'Dell conclude:
"there was gross vote count manipulation [that] had a great impact on the results of E2006, significantly decreasing the magnitude of what would have been, accurately tabulated, a [Democratic] landslide of epic proportions." (Emphasis added)
How do we know that a landslide was denied? Simon and O'Dell persuade us in two rather simple steps. First, they show that the 2006 Election Night national exit poll sample gave the Democrats a victory margin at least 3 million votes greater nationwide than that tabulated by the vote-counting computers. Then they examine the exit poll sample itself and very simply and persuasively refute the charge that it over-sampled Democrats. This is the excuse that corporate media used to dismiss the obvious signs of election fraud and justify their own silence. Their analysis is based not on a general assertion of the reliability of exit polls, but on the specific and publicly available evidence that this particular exit poll was highly reliable.
Their thorough handling of these necessary and logical steps builds a strong foundation of credibility for their analysis. By the end of this process, which turns into an engaging narrative, they've established these remarkable findings regarding vote manipulation.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Articles/LSBlog.gif
A 12% victory margin measured on Election Day 2006 was
reduced to 7.6% through the vote counting process. This meant
3 million less votes for Democrats in House races.
In a separate paper, "Fingerprints of Election Theft," Simon, O'Dell, et al established a clear pattern indicating that certain competitive races were targeted for manipulation. Adding that information, a 3 million vote shift nationwide would likely determine the outcome of dozens of targeted competitive races.
Simon and O'Dell are a quantitative version of Holmes and Watson and like those two sleuths, they're right. Election 2006 was a "landslide denied."
A 14 Point Lead Vanishes at the Last Minute
This meticulous high level analysis was brought into reality in Jean Kaczmarek's chapter on "Fighting Dem" Tammy Duckworth's race for the U.S. House of Representatives, centered in DuPage County, Illinois. In addition to strong civic credentials, Duckworth served in Iraq with her National Guard unit. She lost both legs when her helicopter was attacked.
This looked like a sure Democratic win of the seat formerly held by Henry Hyde. Duckworth was ahead of her opponent. 54% to 40% right before the election Somehow, Republican Peter Roskam pulled a win out right at the last minute.
Kaczmarek and her partner Melisa Urda had been looking at election problems in DuPage for some time. They'd discovered the improper destruction of public records; cronyism and political bias in contract awards; tens of thousands of purged voters; and "Suspiciously large voter turnout in many elections, affecting the outcomes in local and state races." An observer reported that a representative of Robis, DuPage's election manager in 2006, was in the tabulation room and appeared to have access to memory cards and the tabulator. Robis also was in charge of election night web hosting.
Does all of this add up to a fair out come for Tammy Duckworth? Does it help us understand how a 14 point lead turns into a 2 point loss?
More Trials for Don Siegelman
2006 also saw the return of Don Siegelman to the political scene after losing the governor's race in a dead of night recount in 2002. Larisa Alexandrovna's chapter tells this story with revelations that should have created a national scandal and mandated an investigation. In 2005, the Bush Department of Justice ended Seligman's attempt to retake the governorship by indicting Siegelman and gaining a conviction in October 2006 amidst rumors of jury tampering.
This was a death sentence for this once popular governor's political comeback. With help from the extremist establishment, Siegelman has gone from a broad majority win of 57% in 2002 to a seven year sentence in a federal prison.
Alexandrovna reports on the subsequent deposition and testimony by Dana Jill Simpson, an Alabama lawyer and opposition researcher who targeted Siegelman in 2002. Simpson told of White House involvement in the 2002 election and 2006 prosecution. She offered information on threats of federal prosecution in 2002 if Siegelman chose to contest the highly questionable recount that cost him the election. There was more. Simpson's car was run off the road and her home burned down before her testimony given to the House Judiciary Committee.
Siegelman has been freed from jail and the investigation continues with Karl Rove traveling overseas instead of honoring a House subpoena to testify on this matter. This series of attacks on Siegelman has turned him into a real world political version of Job.
2008 And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Given this sorry decline of elections since 2000, what can we anticipate in 2008?
Activists Nancy Tobi and Paul Lehto outline the regulatory and legal hurdles facing us.
Tobi has been a fierce advocate for clean elections for years. Her assessment of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) and the nearly dictatorial powers of the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) have favorably influenced national policy. In her chapter, she shows the connection between the lobbyist friendly HAVA, the politically appointed EAC, and the series of election disasters experienced under the rule of partisans with little regard for democracy. Her solution is both simple and practical, a return to citizen run elections with hand counted paper ballots.
Paul Lehto presents an engaging analysis of the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision. The court claimed it was a one time only decision and not to be used as a precedent. This decision effectively terminated the 2000 recounts in Florida. Lehto sees bigger things coming out of that ruling and questions the court's ability to resist the political power offered by expanding that precedent. He sees a malevolent future for the court and argues that by re-animating Bush v. Gore, the court will assume a new function -- "election termination."
Attorney, journalist and college professor Bob Fitrakis has been in the trenches opposing election fraud well before the 2004 Ohio travesty. During that post election controversy, he faced down threats of contempt of court for even speaking of a stolen election. Fitrakis summarizes the sad history of Ohio before, during and after 2004 from a position of real authority and uses it to anticipate what we can expect in the future.
By skillfully illustrating the latest outrage, Fitrakis tells us why Ohio's election problems continue. In 2007, we discovered that 56 of 88 Ohio counties destroyed 2004 ballots; evidence in a federal law suit on election fraud. Ballot preservation was ordered by a federal court and required by both Ohio and federal law. The same people in the 56 counties who wrongfully destroyed ballots from 2004 are in charge of running the elections in 2008. This is not a comforting situation.
What should we anticipate in 2008? We'll have at least more of the same according to journalist Steven Rosenfeld. He reminds us that election fraud almost always begins with the race-based strategy of contracting the vote of minority citizens. This is accomplished through voter suppression tactics like voter identification laws, active campaigning to restrict the right to vote by the Bush Department of Justice, and the ever present, unreliable, and always secret voting machines.
Rosenfeld reveals that the U.S. Department of Justice has made proactive requests for a number of states to "purge" their voting roles. This is exceptionally bad news since "purges" are inherently biased against poor and minority citizens. It was the Florida pre-election "purge" that got us into our current troubles.
Election 2008 will have all of the effective voter suppression tactics from the past and the lock step support of corporate media. There will, no doubt, be some new tricks to dazzle and amaze all of us in the multilevel, three dimensional magic show that passes for open and fair elections.
Mark Crispin Miller's Contributions
Without any doubt, Mark Crispin Miller is one of our most astute, accurate, and prolific critics of the Bush administration. He provided a dire warning in 2001 and two critical analyses of the 2004 election. Combined, these explain the shift from human rights to torture as the defining feature of our approach to the world and the relentless diminishment of the vast majority in order to subsidize the decadent elements of the corporate elite.
The Bush Dyslexicon (http://tinyurl.com/5kg86b) by Miller was an early roadmap to the little explored territory of the Bush mind. Miller knew what few would admit. We had a president who could barely speak the English language when dealing with just about any topic other than war and revenge. On those topics, the brain fog cleared and Bush became alarmingly coherent.
Miller's compilation of Bush distortions was a source of humor for many. At the same time, it served as one of the great warnings for the next seven years: Bush and his cabal were extremists with a radical plan that would bring the nation to its knees.
Bush had won by losing in 2000. He did it again in 2004 but with better planning and support. Miller had no illusions about the "integrity" of the 2004 election. His efforts gave broad credibility to the notion of a stolen presidential election. He wrote a ground breaking article for the respected Harpers Magazine in August 2005, "None dare call it stolen: Ohio, the election, and America's servile press (http://harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696)."
After showing the rampant fraud and irregularities in Ohio, all readily available to those who chose to look, Miller concluded that "the press has unilaterally disarmed" in the battle to maintain our very best national values.
Miller followed up with one of the great exposes of modern political commentary, "Fooled Again: The Case for Electoral Reform. (http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Again-Real-Electoral-Reform/dp/0465045804)" He documented and analyzed the connection between the Republican extremists, corporate interests, and the political-religious factions that chose to serve as foot soldiers for a world view characterized by violence abroad and greed everywhere.
Miller's latest effort, Loser Take All (http://www.igpub.com/losertakeall.html), documents this sorry but powerful chapter of election fraud that started with the 2000 election. The carefully chosen articles and cogent narrative provided by Miller form a whole that is required reading for those interested in the restoration of our lost rights and the mobilization needed to put citizens in charge of their fate. Elections are the point at which capital, greed, and personal ambition dominate the field. It's not all about elections, but that's where it starts.
<a href="http://MoveOn.org">MoveOn.Org</a>, man!
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-18-2008, 05:52 AM
W*GS is still carrying water for Dubya.
Looks like old habits die hard.
Another lie on LABF's part...
How can we tell when LABF is lying about me? When he writes about me...
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-18-2008, 09:06 AM
W*GS' smarmy dismissal of the evidence presented
here (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2009429&postcount=119) is no different than that of any other Bush water carrier.