Who is rigging our elections? Clues from Massachusetts.

For OpEdNews: Josh Mitteldorf - Writer

Since the stolen presidential election of 2004, Jonathan Simon has been at the forefront of analysis and research into election fraud in America. Yesterday, Simon published the result of his inquiry into the special election last January in which Ted Kennedy's Senate seat (from the nation's most solidly Democratic state) was offered up by the Democrats to a Tea Party Republican.

This was an election with crucial national significance. The Democrats had exactly the 60-vote margin in the Senate needed to push through Obama's health care initiative over united Republican obstruction. Ted Kennedy had been a lifelong champion of that legislation, and his was widely regarded as a safe Democratic seat. State Attorney General Martha Coakley was supposed to be a shoo-in.

But Coakley campaigned half-heartedly -- some would say incompetently. The RNC shoveled money into the race. A media campaign before the election proclaimed that challenger Scott Brown was unexpectedly competitive.


Most inexplicably -- perhaps this is the biggest clue -- Coakley conceded the race at midnight, with a quarter of the votes still uncounted.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Who-is-rigging-our-electio-by-Josh-Mitteldorf-100902-920.html

it is because we are the nice folks and they are the mean ones. So we say "oh, OK, we'll concede." But I guess there could be something more sinister.

Rahm & Gibbs bad mouthing the base = Coakley

+

Tea Party hype = Brown

Hmmmmmm......

"Why do the Democrats want to lose? What's going on, and who is running this show?"

I didn't know about the 3% hand-counted votes in MA. Why are we still using machines from these two
companies? So they stole Ted Kenedy's seat and we're stuck with Scott Brown. I thought something was
fishy with his win. A bunch of lying cheats.

voting process? Why are they not screaming their heads off about election fraud? Hell, they wouldn't even investigate Alvin Green in SC.

I really do think the only reason Obama was allowed to be elected is the turnout in his favor was so massive that the surely-planned vote tampering would have been exposed.

You can bet that won't happen again for a long, long time. 90% of the public discussion is focused on getting Repubs to the polls and making sure Dems stay the hell home. A 10 point difference is probably close enough to get any result desired. I don't understand the motive unless it's just making sure the dark-complexioned man isn't a success.

We got Obama for two reasons: 1.) He won in a landslide, 2.) He's not really a threat.

No need to wise up the Rubes unless you really have to.

what happened to the Kennedys and Wellstone. "Would you rather have integrity or be alive?"

Bill