CNN is finally covering this .... article attached

This is practically the first article I have seen CNN run that isn't making fun of the fraud

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/29/ohio.vote.ap/index.html

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

PNAC

Next

By the way, YOU DO KNOW what PNAC stands for, don't you?

because I predicted the Iraq war before * was inaugurated.

NGU.

Mid-2001, my not-yet-Ex asked me what I thought about her joining the Navy. I begged her not to go... "There are ugly things that are about to happen." She thought I was just holding her back.

Mid-2002, she woke up suddenly, turned over, and asked me in my sleep what else was going to happen. "Two more." She thought I was holding her back again.

She's a Nuke Tech on a carrier now, and its been over for a while. I think about the Sunburn Anti-Ship Missile and Iraqi / Iranian / Russian / Chinese forces deciding they've had enough with US shenanigans, and I worry about her. I think about the possibility that we'd sacrifice a carrier in a L(or M)IHOP event, and I worry about her even more.

:shrug:

Nothing left for her but some prayers.

This election means a lot to me on a personal level. I've seen good friends lose college, seen a lot of horror that * has put this country through, and seen a lot of innocent people die.

Go get 'em, Jesse!

(but that didn't require psychic powers.)

But I can be sure the republicans would be.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

DIShonest??

Is that what you're saying??...

NGU.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I wouldn't be pushing for a recount for Goerge Bush's sake, that would be the republicans job.

we wouldn't have to be demanding it. The Republicans would be doing all the work for us. Actually, if it were reversed, I wouldn't mind the recount because I would see myself as being fairly certain Kerry won. The reason I'm so stoked about the recount is that I really can't believe that many Americans, no matter how stupid we collectively might be, voted for *.

i would not have voted for anyone i thought would rig an election. i would definately support a recount or whatever it took to have a fair election. even if I didnt like the outcome.

i supported counting in 2000 and would have been glad to accept the honest will of the people. i have practice at this, im a south floridian.

I'd like to think I would, but it's impossible to answer that question because it's a trap - whether that was what you intended or not.

NGU.

I would like to think my highest concern is legitimate elections, but I think I would have a hard time wrapping my brain around democrats rigging an election of this magnitude. I'm not naive, but I confess to finding it easier to believe the far right wing of the republican party is more likely to attempt something like this than the extremists on the left. Definitely a matter of bias and perspective.

fixing an election this wide scale. But a *very* easy time wrapping it around the Bush cartel doing it. They've been so dirty, for so long.

I probably should have been more specific and said "neo-cons"

It's not just about the exit polls. If you think about it you'll figure out what I mean.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If the situation were reversed ON EVERY ACCOUNT, I wouldn't be supporting this party.

NGU.

When the Democratic Party participates in stuff like this (1960), it shames us all. Some people call for hardball tactics, which I see nothing wrong with, but we should stop short of overt attempts to suppress/pad/deny votes a la Katherine Blackwell.

The Republicans in Ohio said that our registration drives resulted in many multiple registrations, this was their disingenuous excuse for slowing lines with poll-watchers.

They talked about how Mickey Mouse was registered to vote in Ohio. I actually got into an argument with one on the DNC blog. I told him I hoped Mickey kicked his ass for trying to suppress his vote. :)

But seriously, we wouldn't and couldn't support a party that does that kind of thing. That's why we're Democrats. If we were into "win by any means necessary," tactics, we'd already be voting for Republicans.

If the situation were reversed I would be calling myself a Republican.

What I'm saying is that you can't take one incident out of a complex world and analyze it out of context.

For the situation to be fully "reversed", it's not just the exit polls and the results and the irregularity reports that would have to be reversed; it's also the amount of trust or distrust that I have in each side that would have to be reversed.

So, in other words, had the Democrats already stolen one election, led an Orwellian secretive crooked administration, lied their way to a war and in general behaved like nuts for 4 years and before that -- I wouldn't have voted for them to begin with.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

NGU.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

NGU.

If the evidence were identical yet reversed I would probably feel incredibly betrayed and just as frustrated. I like to believe I support the "good guys." If there were evidence to the contrary I'd be downright pissed.

I see plenty of people around here who consider themselves democrats because nothing else exists that properly reflects their personal beliefs. To assume that most espouse the set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of the democratic party is a sweeping generalization that doesn't hold up. I see more vague "anti-republican" sentiments than any sort of monolithic ideology around here.

I never called myself a Democrat before the Republicans got so damn scary. I was a proud independent. And even voted for a Republican governor candidate. But no more!

And to be honest, if Kerry had won, I wouldn't be as enthusiastic about a recount. But I don't think we'll get a recount anyway. In which case, we'll all continue bugging our congresspeople and media about the perils of e-voting machines and partisan election boards... and THAT I would have supported either way.

Blanco was just too hip-deep in the tourist industry for my tastes, and too much a part of the EWE crew. I voted for Jindal on health care and education. Independent no longer, I'm afraid. GlibDem all the way! ;)

Jindal and Blanco rarely had different answers. The only difference was that Jindal would give a yes or no answer and qualify it if necessary, and Blanco would hem and haw. Plus, yes, education was a huge strong point for Jindal. But I liked Blanco as well. It was so nice to know that for once, no matter who won, we would be getting a fresh face and a governor that actually cared about Louisiana.

...commited to an ideology.

But I despise any kind of personality worship.

If a person betrays my ideology -- which includes political honesty -- then I, as an ideologue, want to see that person pay for it.

Seriously? What's your question about? We all want fair elections here. That's the only way we're ever going to win.

-Laelth


edit:Laelth--clarity.

recorded votes for Kerry.

Do you really think any repubs would have a "gut-check" or a crisis of conscience if they thought the vote was fixed for them?

Just wait and see what happens if its found out the votes in Ohio and Florida went for Kerry. There would be a huge outcry of repubs everywhere saying "to late" and he already conceeded, and we cheated. They won't look at the facts.

Remember florida 2000 and the storming of the count?

But since you ask, the answer is "yes".

I'm a liberal at heart, Democrat by mere compromise.

OnEdit: oops, meant to post this in reply to post #1.

Another edit: seems there's a bug with this post...

and IF there were as many other problems as there are, then yes I would. even though i can't stand Bush, I can stand the idea of a false democracy even less.

I'd be on the side of recount, if the situation was reversed. Not because I like bush - I can't stand him! I'd be in favor of a recount because it would be the right thing to do. Yeah, I'm a idealist and it is way over rated most of the time.

~kydo

I'm against vote fraud PERIOD. If dems were shown to have committed it, I'd be just as strongly opposed.

believe it or not, dems DO have principles. Go back to your friends and tell them that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

NGU.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Were you attempting to put words in the poster's mouth?

NGU.

I'm just asking a question.


:toast:

LOL

NGU.

Everyone who supported Bush is devoid of the morals and principles I cherish. He advocates raping and plundering the environment, murder, war, blurring the separation of church and state, curtailment of civil liberties, discrimination against segments of the electorate, etc. So anyone who voted for him is making a statement of the type of leadership they want for our country. If this type of leadership is indicative of a "moral choice" than their morals and principles do not match mine.

as someone else already said, it's not about putting Kerry in, it's about the fight for our democracy. How can this administration talk of bringing democracy and freedom to the world, when ours is in such a shambles?

I know of many who voted for * , and I don't necessarily hold it against them, because it is near impossible to get objective reporting via television "news". They watch Faux news, and take it as the gospel. Many don't realize what the ass stood for. Many who voted for Kerry don't even realize it.

That said, yeah maybe we are idealouges, but at least we are willing to stand up for the integrity of our country, AND listen to others. Last time I checked those were pretty decent "values".

perhaps you accidentally responded to the wrong poster?

In case it was directed to me: um..no. You started off by implying people "here" would have no problem accepting tainted elections if "our" guy won. You asked us to check our guts: in essence implying we weren't being honest about our concerns for a fair election.

I rejected that notion out of hand, its a false assumption on your part. I said nothing about anyone else's morals and principles, simply defended "ours" from your implications.

However, I am bemused by your nonsequitor question...I think it reveals much more than you intend.

to wit: I was under the impression none of us here had voted for Bush. Your question implies you and your friends HAVE voted for Bush. Interesting. I made no reference to how someone voted, never mentioned Bush.

I think you need to learn to set better traps. You're getting caught in your own. I'm going to pop some popcorn and watch you chew off your own leg to get out of it.

;)

that you're just trying to stir up a hornet's nest. You're obviously rooting for the other side here.

They'd be RIGHT to do it. I may not like the way it turns out, but at least it would be hones. So, no I wouldn't be demanding them, but would fully expect the other side to fight for their guy (and their vote)

So the real intellectual honesty comes in the form of another question: If the exit polls showed a solid Bush win and Kerry ended up winning, and allegations of fraud then surfaced, would repukes be "whining" about it like they accuse us of doing?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

WWPD? (what would pukes do?)

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's like asking if a frog had wings, would he bump his butt when he jumps?

Don't play devil's advocate with this situation. The devil is already advocating bush.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it's getting a resounding yawn from me.

Do I think that Bush supporters are all immoral? No. But I think they are, in most instances, less in touch with reality than Kerry supporters.

Jimnm, could you please let me know what you think about this:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

Here is an excerpt...

"It is normal during elections for supporters of presidential candidates to have fundamental disagreements about values or strategies," said an analysis produced by PIPA.

But "the current election is unique in that Bush supporters and Kerry supporters have profoundly different perceptions of reality. In the face of a stream of high-level assessments about pre-war Iraq, Bush supporters cling to the refuted beliefs that Iraq had WMD or supported al-Qaeda."

Indeed, the only issue on which the survey found broad agreement between the two sets of voters was on the question of whether the administration itself actively propagated the misconceptions about Iraq's WMD and connections to al-Qaeda.

"One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these (erroneous) beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them," noted PIPA Director Steven Kull. "Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree."

The survey also found a major gap between Bush's stated positions on a number of international issues and what his supporters believe that position to be.”

...and phrases it at a question to make it seem innocent?

NGU.

the owners of companies making and programming voting machines were democrats who swore to deliver the electoral college to kerry

if there had been democratic challengers intimidating republican voters and denying them their vote.

if the democratic SOS had purged republican voters from the rolls

if democratic election officials had locked down the offices so no one could watch the counting

if democratic election officials were throwing greater number of provisional ballots than normal.


yes, I would be demanding recounts.

so, since all this HAS happened under republican officials, SOS and voting machines makers, I fully expect you and the freepers elsewhere to stand with us and demand recounts now.

"If the positions were reversed and the exit polls pointed to Bush and Kerry won...Would ANYONE here be demanding a recount?"

The answer for EVERYONE should be absolutely yes. Fight this battle now, or no one will pay attention to what needs to be done BEFORE the 2006 election. (verifiable paper trail, random vote audits, open source code, consistent election rules across all States). THIS IS NOT A BIPARTISAN ISSUE - THIS IS A DEMOCRACY SURVIVAL ISSUE!

By 2006, there will be:

100% electronic voting (HAVA mandated)

+ no paper trail, etc (the way things are going, unless we make this a grassroots, bipartisan issue)

+ no, or at least delayed exit polls (which can (have?) be tampered with)

= no more American Democracy for ANYONE.

Do you think the neocon/ corporate interests will give a damn about what even the religious right thinks anymore? Why would they? NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO VERIFY THE VOTE ANYMORE! They won't need anyone. Only their interests will matter. (Don't forget, Fox really started the "sleaze TV" movement. Money (greed) will always trump "social values" - you can count on that.)

Money (and corporate power/control) will be the only thing that matters anymore. So even those of you that voted for Bush had better spread the word before its too late.

<This message was written by a "true independent", that has supported Independents, Democrats AND Republicans over the years; and wants a viable, multi-party system to continue.>

}(

Found this in Harper's today:

Chance that a Republican president has not won the popular vote : 1 in 6

Chance that a Democratic president has not : 0

I thought this article was better than most but the previous article parroting the Miami Herald was bad journalism. I wante to let them know what I thought.

Trudyco

it would have been nice if, before quoting Jesse Jackson on the subject, the author had referred to Blackwell as, at least, Republican "activist", rather than just a Republican; As they surely would have, had he been a Democrat.

Still, we must be grateful for small mercies. I like most of the guys and gals there, too - even mad Larry. Mostly, I suppose, because he reminds me of a cross between Lee Van Cleef in "The Good The Bad and the Ugly", and (the way he kind of hunches over) Klaus Kinski, in "For a Few Dollars More". I dream of the day when Lee Van Clief will come in and strike a match on his braces... hoping he'll slowly turn round and scowl at him.

important if subtle change in the language

Jackson is doing his job.

I have seen some people calling him a "media hound" for getting into this. Aren't there some causes that he could get a lot more media exposure out of if he wanted. I mean, he could lead a humanitarian mission to the Fallujah aftermath and get a lot more exposure. Or a thousand other things...

Voter rights is not something you take on just to get media exposure.

"An attorney for a political advocacy group on Wednesday plans to file a "contest of election." The request requires a single Supreme Court justice to either let the election stand, declare another winner or throw the whole thing out. The loser can appeal to the full seven-member court, which is dominated by Republicans 5-2."

5-2 are not good odds if it came to an appeal

I'm kind of annoyed with Jesse Jackson for making that stupid comment about "You can't be chairman of the Bush campaign and then be the chief umpire in the seventh game of the World Series,"
What a stupid way to mix metaphors. It makes no sense. Either say, "You can't be owner of the Red Sox and then be the chief umpire in the seventh game of the World Series," OR "You can't be chairman of the Bush campaign and then be the non-partisan election supervisor" (or something to that effect), but he goes and makes a nonsensical mixing of his metaphors and misses the chance to make that point.

Aaargh. How is it that all our leaders who are actually given a platform flub it? We need a Clinton type, who can articulate and make a succinct point eloquently.

You go Jesse!!!

Democracy Now
Tuesday, November 30th, 2004
Jesse Jackson: Kerry's "Early Concession Betrayed the Trust of the Voters"
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/30/1526202

JESSE JACKSON: You could take a couple million dollars of that money and hire Cliff Arnebeck’s law firm and partners and the Common Cause lawyers who are credible and bright and able lawyers. You could you take a couple million dollars and put a renewed light on Ohio. That can determine not only the outcome of this election but the future of democratic elections. We have to go beyond this matter. We really need, which we do not have, we need the Constitutional right to vote for President federally protected. We do not have the Constitutional right to vote for President. We only have the state's right to vote. We asked 50 state separate and unequal elections within those states, Ohio for example, 88 counties, each running their own scheme. We must now go to another level. Not only should we count these votes, we need an amendment to the Constitution. We need -- all Americans need the Constitutional, individual right, federally protected right to vote for the President.

AMY GOODMAN: Reverend Jackson, have you talked to John Kerry about this?

JESSE JACKSON: I did talk with him about the election and he first thanked us for our continued effort, but will not take a public position, nor offer any resources at this time, substantial resources to help make it happen. So we are doing it on our will.

AMY GOODMAN: So what's he doing with his $51 million? more...

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

"The problem seems to be that Rev. Jackson's candidate didn't win," said Carlo LoParo, a Blackwell spokesman.

Do they have to keep quoting that idiot LoParo every time this issue is brought up? By "they" I mean the media in general -- every article I have read always end with that quote. If someone is skimming an article that is going to stand out and stick with them. That single quote makes the whole article seem unsubstantiated and wholly lacking in credibility. And we know from our examination of the results that the article is long over due and wholly credible.

I guess it took "celebrity" involvement to warrant coverage.

Thanks for posting this..it is good news!

:toast:

CNN's Anderson Cooper program Friday (7p EST) will feature Election 2004 as conspiracy ..this week is devoted to conspiracy themes...San Diego Dem

"a ballot-machine error that gave hundreds of extra votes to Bush."

it was close to 3,000 extra votes to Bush from this one machine, but if they say thousands of votes to Bush from one error, everyone will know The election has a good chance of going to Kerry.

it was almost 4000 votes.

But spinning with turn-off terms ( to the general public) will work wonders, ie 'Activists', and 'Jesse Jackson', etc.

And count the number of times the article says there's no evidence.

Also, did this story show up clearly on the TV broadcast or is it only on the web?

Crossfire is on now. They just did a teaser about voting in Ohio.