Scathing Jon Stewart video clip on E-voting and Diebold

Video clip from the Daily Show (prior to the election)

http://avirubin.com/vote/dailyshow.mov
(Be sure to watch to the end; it looks like it ends before it does, but there is a bit more that is worth catching after that)

Clip was posted by tommcintyre on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss//duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x330570

and I thought it deserved its own thread. This clip answers the question about whether Jon Stewart knew about the perils of e-voting, but raises more questions about why his silence on the issue after the election.

Could only think he thought it would be a career killer. ???

Didn't touch any of the abnormalities or "glitches" -- overvotes or Kerry changing to * votes or even voter supression and disenfranchisement?

Nada?

and I had fully expected to. Was disappointed night after night. I think he made some mention of the Jan 6th electoral counts but did not dive into the story Stewart Style much to my disappointment.

repub and dem challenges but that was it.

saying anything, so I'm sure if he had, someone would have posted it.

Amazing that he hasn't done follow up. But I think it's like a family paralyzed by alcoholism or child abuse. There is ONE THING that cannot be SAID. In this case, it's that Bush IS NOT THE LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT.

It's easy to say that electronic voting is extremely insecure and fraud-prone. It's NOT EASY for a national figure--even a comic--to say that BUSHCONS STOLE THE ELECTION, and BUSH IS NOT THE PRESIDENT.

He needs an angle into it. One could be Bush's dismal approval ratings, a clip of Bush claiming a "mandate," and a Jon Stewart raised eyebrow--perhaps followed by a run-down on who owns and controls the secret source code.

Maybe could also use the Wizard of Oz, or Alice in Wonderland (the Red Queen ordering all the white roses painted red).

Someone should send him the USCountvotes report--with nine Ph.D.'s saying odds against Bush win are 1 in 10 million, pointing to electronic fraud, and embarking on an investigation. There there are a bunch of other PhDs--Dr. Baiman, U. of Chicago, the UC Berkeley statistics dept. Now there is lots of evidence that he can rely on--from experts.

Anybody know how to get stuff to Stewart--other than simply dumping it into the public comment email?

know that he's got to watch who pays the bills (I've been told that there are reporters out there that wish that they could do something, but their editors won't touch it). If several of us sent him "care" packages of things that touch us the most about this election, maybe he'd at least look over the abyss...(not that he would jump into it, or over it, but at least somewhat address it...)

It took a few days for Gannon, so I can see how people were waiting for him to do something, and then were suprised when he didn't. But -- again, maybe he doesn't really know the entire scope....

any celebs?

And if I could get a comprehensive list to her, I will. Please help me out. I need a complete and not so overwhelming list to point her to. For those of you who don't know her, here is her website:

http://www.mimikennedy.net/

She worked HARD for Dennis Kucinich and came out to Salt Lake City for our 9/11 event last summer:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595090546,00.html

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595090777,00.html

http://sltrib.com/ci_2411777

Could you talk with her about how to gather celebrities who might be willing to speak out together about the stolen election?

but like I said, I need a "one stop shop" so to speak with stuff like Truth Is All's work (I can design the site myself) as well as not overwhelming links to other proof.

A comprehensive list of the problems cannot be brief. There are too many, and they're too varied.

The quickest way to say it might be something like this:

Discrepancies between exit polls and vote totals, which are broadly seen in other countries (most recently Ukraine) as enough evidence to prove fraud, were huge in the U.S. and yet are not being considered by our government as credible evidence of fraud.

While there were massive problems with the election in many states, Ohio alone had enough electors to push Bush over the top. So all that's necessary to prove Bush isn't the rightful occupant of the white house is to prove that Ohio really went to Kerry.

Types of problems in Ohio included:
Targeted underallocation of voting machines in African American and other heavily democratic areas resulting in such long lines that multitudes (thousands, I believe, no one has a firm number, of course) of voters had to leave the polls without voting;

Other forms of voter disenfranchisement targeting heavily democratic areas including notifications of incorrect election day or polling places, misuse of provisional ballots, purges of voter rolls, and many more;

Problems documented with all of the types of voting machines used in the state, including punchcard ballots given to voters with the hole for Bush already punched; optical scan ballots which were counted by central tabulator machines to which employees of Republican voting machine companies had access both remotely and in person; electronic voting machines where voters who selected Kerry had their votes recorded as votes for Bush;

Illegal lockdown of the administration building in Warren County on election night while votes were "counted"--this is a county where Bush recieved unexpected gains;

Numerous other problems including vote rigging, ballot box stuffing, break-in to Democratic Party headquarters (Lucas County);

All of the so-called "irregularities" favored Bush except one (that I know of), which was in one tiny precinct in one tiny county.

All of this was followed by:

A bogus recount in which laws were not followed;

Evidence exists to prove all of these things. Maybe this is enough to start her off with, and then she can ask questions and you/we can supply answers.

Again, because of the way this election was stolen, one precinct at a time, it is not possible to be both thorough and concise.

I hope this is helpful.

But Chuck Herrin's website and this article would be a great thing to send her. Expecially this article:
http://www.chuckherrin.com/ConservativeEmpathy.htm

Wonder if we could get Jon Stewart to interview Chuck Herrin?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x331151

I've put together a powerful quick argument on electionic and other election fraud, backed by numerous Ph.D.s (with citations). I think it works. It speaks to everybody's gut feeling about the election: IT DOESN'T ADD UP!

I gave it a separate post, addressed to you.

and Stewart, as much as I love him, is not an activist. He lampoons what's in the regular news channels.

Sad to say it, cause I love him and his show, but ever since Viacom started kissing * ass, Stewart has started watching his political humor.

:scared:

His piece on Gannon was spot on. He is only going to use what is in the mainstream press. If Bush doesn't give a press conference, Stewart isn't going to 'attack' him. He is NOT a political activist, he makes fun of stories that are already in the newspapers or on television.

Daily Show's Lewis Black Comments On The Election

This is from the November 4, 2004 program.

Lewis Black On Election 2004

Lewis comments on Alaska's allowing Bear Baiting, Brad Pitt (for) vs. Mel "God is on my side" Gibson (against) on California's Prop 71 (Stem Cell Research - Yeah! it passed), and the 11 states that passed anti-gay "marriage protection" laws.

Quote from Lewis:


These ballot initiatives remind us that America is the land where people are free to dream whatever they want, so long as that dream doesn't make midwesterners feel icky!

Posted by Lisa at November 12, 2004 06:09 PM | TrackBack

--------------------------------------------

<This is the best site I've ever found for Daily Show archives.>
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/daily_show_comedy_clips/index.php

On Lisa Rein's Radar
Things On Lisa Rein's Fair and Balanced Mind Today
home > archives > Daily Show Comedy Clips

<I haven't had time to watch them, but these clips may be of interest also:>

Daily Show Compendium Of Reactions To The Election - Tony Blair, Anti-Bush Demonstrators, and The Shrub "Reaching Out"
Daily Show Comedy Clips From November 3, 2004
Daily Show Comedy Clips From October 27, 2004 - Including An Interview With Jesse Jackson
The Daily Show On Farenheit 911

<A search of the page for: Boxer, Conyers, Tubbs, Jackson, Blackwell yielded nothing more relevant.>

-------------------------------------------------

Get the irony of this quote from dailykos:

"Sigh. Some people just don't get it. But people who genuinely want to get it, and understand what yesterday was really about, are not being served by the mainstream media. Jon Stewart was right."

<I guess, ultimately, Jon Stewart doesn't "get it" either.>

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/7/11846/55861
Challenging Ohio's electors: what it meant

-------------------------------------------------
<That's Barbara in the pants suit. ;)>



Edit: credits:

From:
http://nathaniel.blogdrive.com/

"RJ Matson, the best political cartoonist, got the Ohio situation, Barbara Boxer's opposition to Ohio's 20 votes to Bush, and the Republicans' response absolutely right:"

http://www.rjmatson.com/index_js.htm

This clip answers the question about whether Jon Stewart knew about the perils of e-voting, but raises more questions about why his silence on the issue after the election.