Kerry Proven Right, Yet Again, This Time on Ohio

Posted in general discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3925474

I'll be off line for a bit so it might need some defending from Kerry supporters


From Light Up The Darkness--see original post for links
(Also cross posted at the Unofficial Kerry Blog and at Dembloggers)

Kerry Proven Right, Yet Again, This Time on Ohio
22 June 2005

I've had several posts (such as here and here) on how Kerry has been proven to be right over time on numerous election issues, such as Bush's "out-sourcing" of the hunt for Bin Laden and allowing Iraqi weapons to be stolen. Today more evidence came in that Kerry was also right despite attacks from both the left and the right on his handling of the Ohio vote.

After the 2004 election, Kerry was attacked by conservatives for stating that voter suppression influenced the election results. He has also been attacked by some liberals for not fighting more to expose what they believed was outright fraud.

A report entitled Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio was released today supporting Kerry's position against both types of attacks. The New York Times summarizes the report by stating, "A five-month study for the Democratic National Committee found that more than one in four Ohio voters experienced problems at the polls last fall, , but the study did not find evidence of widespread election fraud that might have contributed to President Bush's narrow victory there."

The report verifies Kerry's claims that voter suppression was a factor, and gives suggestions for future elections to reduce these problems. The lack of evidence of fraud in a this five-month study conducted by the DNC also shows that the attacks on Kerry in parts of the liberal blogosphere for not contesting the Ohio results were unwarranted.

I hope they give Kerry a break, now that Dean and his DNC have backed the position Kerry sadly reached on Nov 3.

that by comparing 2004 with 2002, that the DNC was comparing fraud with fraud. That's the comment out there now. That the trends in 2002 are useless, as that was the year that electronic voting was introduced.

Whether there could have been fraud really isn't the point.

Kerry had a very limited time after the election. If the DNC couldn't come up with evidence proving fraud in five months, it sure wasn't likely that Kerry could have done so in the immediate period post election.

I have no objection to continuing to look for fraud, but we now know there were two possibilities--either it didn't exist or it was very well hidden. If it was hidden so well that nobody could find evidence of it yet, there was not point in Kerry taking further action in November.

You KNOW this won't make a dime's worth of difference for those who will insist still that Kerry shoulda fought. They can't say HOW he shoulda fought. But he shoulda fought. A-huh.

Kind of like the Schindlers with the Schiavo autopsy.

Or the Smear Vets with the 180.

Truth and ultimate proof mean diddly squat to those who are disconnected from reality.

And the "Kerry conceded at record speed" people are disconnected from reality big time.

You're right--most of the Kerry bashers start from the premise that Kerry is wrong and work backwards. Hopefully there are still some people who will look at the facts.

and I agree, nothing JK could have done in a day or week to prove anything. If the voting machine tabulators can indeed be "fixed", then we have a new and more insideous form of fraud that will take a long time to uncover. It's no longer enough to just get votes, you have to prevent them from being stolen by an unseen and unknown electronic hand.