Sedgwick County commissioners found it in their coffers Wednesday to comply with Election Commissioner Bill Gale’s request for $300,000 to buy 60 optical-scan vote-counting machines. Voters now must hope that Gale is right that the counters will avert long lines at the county’s far fewer voting machines and far fewer polling places, by allowing wannabe voters to fill out paper ballots that can be fed into the new tabulation machines. Still, the best advice for how to avoid a problem on Election Day: Vote early, at one of the 15 advance voting locations Gale will make available before the Aug. 1 primary and Nov. 7 general election. How odd that the local antidote to all the problems being created by the high-tech, streamlined, federally funded system is the good, old paper ballot.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
83 Comments
VOTE EARLY AND OFTEN
In the neighborhood I live in, the voting line for the last election was three hours long – I stood that long while 7 months pregnant and now you are telling me the lines are going to be longer? No thank you! Ohhhh and I forgot to mention in my parent’s much nicer neighborhood (where I grew up) their wait time was less than 15 minutes at its busiest time. I think the problem here is much deeper than they would ever care to admit and anyone who tries to say it doesn’t matter where you live, try moving into a lower income area and see for yourself. Your eyes will be opened and you will be sadly amazed, as I was.
The Republicans stole the election!!! Waaaahh!
The preceeding message has been brought to you by the Democrat Party.
Has anyone paid attention to the reason for the closing of polling places? The ones that were closed were not ADA compliant.
Are some of the people complaining the loudest about the closures the same people who champion ADA as a wonderful thing?
raptor,
I never said that Gale’s decision was a ‘Republican’ plot. The local Republican Party has been as dissatisfied with it as the Sedgwick County Democrats, and the County Commission regarded it as sufficient reason to buy more voting machines.
Rather, my point was that electoral fairness is a nonpartisan issue. Partisan hacks like Blow Joe can’t get past their partisanship to see the basic point: if we don’t have free and fair elections, then American democracy is a fiction. He seems not to care. His side won, so what’s the problem?
Well, he and his ilk damn well better watch it. Having gotten away with it twice, they think Americans indefinitely can be distracted from stolen elections with bread and circuses.
I’m not buying it. There will be hell to pay at some point down the line–up to and including the destruction of the Constitution and the dissolution of the union. If we don’t have free and fair elections, we have nothing.
The 2004 election in Ohio was fraudulent, and George Bush is not a legitimately elected President. This story may be too late, but it’s better late than never. And I, for one, am not about to let it drop.
Well said CF! Couple the fraud in 2000/Florida with 2004/Ohio and you start to see a pattern. Any concerned citizen will never let it drop either!
I wonder if that long article, posted in its entirety, was protected by copyright.
KCL,
Indeed, and my bad for not posting the copyright or the link. It appears in the June 1, 2006 edition of Rolling Stone, and was authored by Robert Kennedy Jr.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/1
I wonder, did you ask their permission to reproduce the article, or was that not required in this case?
Good Lord, CF,We need to find you a book publisher!
Having known Bill Gale I believe that he is trying to make the best he can with a limited budget. I like the idea of scanned paper ballots and might add that they could send me the ballot ahead of time. Another thing that would help would be to publish good sample ballots so I can have mine ‘pre-marked’ as a crib sheet when I show up. Then I can quickly transcribe my votes to the machine and be on my way.
The Republicans stole the election! Waaah!
This message brought to you by CF and his crybaby loser friends.
The “Losers” would be the entire country, irregardless of political affiliation.
Voting early may not be entirely useful if the whole voting process is already corrupted.
Personal story here.
I went to vote early last election. It was an honest slip up that I was wearing an anti bush T shirt. I am aware of the laws against electioneering. Truthfully, I just didn’t think about it when I got dressed that day.
The staffer checking me in was VERY alert to my mistake. She informed me that I would have to cover my shirt or leave. I was able to use my ballot information to cover the offending words and satisfy her. She was very busy, but my sense was that if she could have her way she would have told me to go home and change.
As I stood in line, the door to the place opened and closed and I observed a car parked just outside the door sporting a very prominent “Support the troops, VOTE BUSH” flag mounted on the front left fender. I made mention of this to the staffer who had questioned my shirt. “Isn’t THAT electioneering?”
“That’s MY car!” she rather curtly replied.
I know and respect Bill Gale, too. I am sure that he is doing what he is doing to meet the ADA requirements and stay within his budget.
My problem is that I think voting should have a higher priority for the county government over building more jail space. If voting is not central to the very foundation of democracy, I don’t know what is.
In truth, Republicans have always been interested in making it difficult for people to vote, whereas Democrats have always been interested in making voting easier. It seems clear who is guiding budget decisions this year.
JR, you damn anarchist! Way to speak truth to power!
JR,I have worked for the polls last year and in 2004. What you are describing with the woman poll worker should not have happened. I am sure the vast majority of those who work that long day as poll workers abide by the rules.
Funny story and sad too, JR.
The thing about Joe Blow and the conservatives is they don’t really believe in democracy. That makes them effing traitors to American values.
You can either have CONTROL or you can have DEMOCRACY. In places like Somoza’s Nicaragua and Pinochet’s Chile, the conservatives have shown that legitimately elected leftists can be overthrown with impunity.
The CIA also backed a coup in Iran that got rid of a left-leaning Prime Minister and reinstituted the Shah of Iran, with disasterous results that we’re still dealing with.
Even now, the Joe Blow’s and the lying Price’s are all gung-ho to go in and take out Hugo Chavez, even though he won landslide victories twice.
You’re either a true American who believes in democracy, or you’re a fascist who doesn’t. The conservatives of today are the latter–they only believe in democracy when it gives them the result they want.
For Blow Joe, facts are for sissies.
And he still hasn’t wiped off his chin after cruising the mens’ restroom.
KCL, whatever. Posting here is fair use. If you want to be anal about it, be my guest.
True Blue,
Indeed. In the wake of two stolen Presidential elections, where the will of the electorate was deniesd, that’s the only “you’re either with us or against us” that matters.
I would suggest, CF, a brush-up on the nature of fair use. A good place to look is fairuse.stanford.edu.
KCL–
For your information, up to four paragraphs can be copied verbatim without breaking copyright.
He also provided a LINK which would increase their website/circulation traffic.
If you don’t like the argument, try attacking it instead of legal fine points that you apparently don’t know crap about.
I have no opinion as to the argument, True Blue, as I didn’t read much of the article.
And thank you for that information. I certainly appreciate those who are able to spot what I don’t know about.
By the way, the post in question has disappeared, hasn’t it?
Yup, that’s why they call them “editors.”
Interestingly, they leave the death threats stand.
Hmmm . . .
KCL,
Indeed it has. It could have been the length. Or, length considerations aside, the fact that this blog generates traffic that is used to attract advertisters may be sufficient to trigger the clause of Fair Use that prohibits one from depriving the content originator of income. That would be a sufficient reason for removing the post.
My intention in posting the entire article was to force a confrontation with those who would deny that the 2004 election was stolen in Ohio. Monetary considerations did not govern my use of the post. The desire to make sub-primates like BlowJoe defend their position did.
Here, by the way, it the link to the story:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
True Blue,
Good point. Maybe it’s the fact that death threats are criminal rather than civil, and that what the Eagle REALLY fears is having a pack of lawyers come after them.
Ah yes, the Rolling stone and Robert Kennedy…
I should have known that the election was stolen after all.
How wrong I was…
Just out of curiosity, Nathan, what sources would you consider trustworthy.
By the way, why do hate democracy?
If you really believe in democracy like you say you do, why don’t we respect the democratic will of the Iraqis and end the occupation of their country?
Answer: because you conservatives don’t really believe in democracy–you believe in power and control, and if you can justify it with “democracy,” then all the better.
But when it comes to a choice between democracy or control and power, you people go with big money every time–to hell with the will of the people . . . for examples, see Iraq, PM replaced with Shah (King), Chile president Allende replaced with dictator Pinochet, Nicaragua president replaced by dictator Somoza, and now Iraq, Iran, and Hugo Chavez in Venezula.
Waaaahhh! CF called me Blow Joe…Waaaahhh!
WIPE YOUR CHIN!
True Blue,
Only if I were to accept your premise that providing stability for a growing democracy was in fact contrary to democracy would your statement be true…
However, since I don’t accept the premise you set forth, I disagree with your assertion that I or America doesn’t support democracy.
HARDTRUTH,
Good of you to point that out, but I think you can see how extensive BlowJoe’s denial is with regard to all the time he spends on his knees in men’s room stalls.
Nathan,
Please. The whole ‘I won’t read if it it’s in magazine X written by person Y’ is called an ad hominem argument, and it’s no response. Either read the article and refute it or concede that the GOP stole the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio.
Teaching Wingnuts to read is a waste of time if they’re scared to read arguments to the contrary of their positions.
CF,
I don’t have to accept your statement of either or…either.
You can’t confine my choices to either I accept what this says and Bush stole the election or I refute it.
I read the article. The article for the most part doesn’t cite any proof of anything.
It shows you some facts here and there and then it draws conclusions of those facts that Bush stole the election.
I read no proof which actually supports that.
What I did read was a bunch of statistics and things that were believed to happen and accusations…
Once again, no proof that Bush did anything.
CF,
I have to ask you:
If Bush really stole the election and they really did not allow people to vote contrary to the rules and all this wrong doing really happened…
then why is it reported in rollingstone Magazine and written by Robert Kennedy?
Don’t you think that maybe, just maybe if there was any solid truth to this it would be a bit bigger of a deal than just another attack piece in rollingstone?
Nathan,
‘Shows you some facts here and there.’
Um, it does rather more than that. It shows literally thousands of facts in support of a number of converging arguments.
But let’s cut this down to size and take three particular arguments. Here’s the first one.
When the statisticians looked at one precinct in particular (named precinct two),
“According to the exit poll, Kerry should have received sixty-seven percent of the vote in this precinct. Yet the certified tally gave him only thirty-eight percent. The statistical odds against such a variance are just shy of one in 3 billion.(40)”
Now, if it were just one precinct that tabulated votes that were sharply at odds with the exit polling, that would be one thing. But this happened in many, many precincts, the majority of which were made up of predominately black voters. So, ask yourself; in majority black precincts, where the majority of these disparities between exit polling and voting were registered, what’s the statistical likelihood that the disparity would always go in Bush’s direction, as it almost invariably did? This is, admittedly, an inferential argument. But I think it’s a strong one.
Here’s another strong one. The rural counties of Ohio showed strong evidence of outright vote stealing. Here’s my favorite example.
“Nor does the electoral tampering appear to have been isolated to these dozen counties. Ohio, like several other states, had an initiative on the ballot in 2004 to outlaw gay marriage. Statewide, the measure proved far more popular than Bush, besting the president by 470,000 votes. But in six of the twelve suspect counties — as well as in six other small counties in central Ohio — Bush outpolled the ban on same-sex unions by 16,132 votes. To trust the official tally, in other words, you must believe that thousands of rural Ohioans voted for both President Bush and gay marriage.” (195)
Follow that, Nathan? Statewide, the anti-gay marriage amendment got 470,000 more votes than did Bush. But in the aforementioned counties, Bush racked up 16,132 more votes than the amendment. In order for that to be possible, there’d have to be 16,132 rural Ohioans who liked both George Bush AND gay marriage.
And finally, there is direct evidence that in the recount, ballots were tampered with and selected to match the official posted vote counts.
“But election officials in Ohio worked outside the law to avoid hand recounts. According to charges brought by a special prosecutor in April, election officials in Cleveland fraudulently and secretly pre-counted precincts by hand to identify ones that would match the machine count. They then used these pre-screened precincts to select the ”random” sample of three percent used for the recount.
”If it didn’t balance, they excluded those precincts,” said the prosecutor, Kevin Baxter, who has filed felony indictments against three election workers in Cleveland. ”They screwed with the process and increased the probability, if not the certainty, that there would not be a full, countywide hand count.” (196)
If you can, Nathan, it would be nice to get your response to just these three points.
But regardless of your answer, given these examples and the mountain of evidence in the story, it is clear that the GOP orchestrated a successful effort to manipulate the election and successfully manufactured a vote count that favored their candidate. I could go on and on, but it’s pretty clear that the Secretary of State did everything he could, legal and illegal, constitutional and unconstitutional, to disenfranchise large blocks of voters (African-Americans, liberal college students, and urban residents) who were likely to vote for Kerry. At the local level, it is statistically clear that officials tampered with vote totals. And it is also clear that political operatives were brought in from out of state for a campaign of voter intimidation.
As for your final question, well, I don’t know. Could have something to do with the free pass the print and broadcast media have given the Bush “Administration” over the last six years.
Considering the NYT’s unwillingness to run stories about domestic wiretapping prior to the 2004 election, and their, well, complicity with the media-blitz runup to the 2003 Iraq invasion, they’ve thrown in their lot with the Bush Administration. “The Liberal Media.” God, if only.
You can’t have it both ways, Nathan. You can’t excoriate the mainstream media, and then turn around and insist that stories are only legitimate if they run in it.
As the Iraqis pointed out to the Bush administration, it is not possible logically to prove a negative – this response was an answer to Bush’s demand that they prove they did not have WMD.
They were correct in their statement and it was a demonstration that someone in Saddam’s administration had paid attention when they were in Logic class.
The relevance of the above, is that there would not be a way to logically prove the absence of vote tampering in the 2004 election. One can only make statements indicating why one doubts the claim – as Nathan has done above.
In the Rolling Stone article, it mentions early on that the Washington Post and New York Times rejected the notion of vote tampering — how and why they concluded that was not explained that I recall.
I was interested in the question about which sources Nathan would find acceptable – I don’t think he actually answered that. Citing sources is basic, good schlarship and I am sure they must teach that at WSU. The question still stands as I read the above.
DD,
It is kind of a trick question.
I don’t really assume that any source is 100% ture based soley on it coming from that source alone.
If I were to name sources I find valid then what happens when that source says something? Is it held over my head and am I beaten with it with question of why I don’t accept it’s validity?
Besides, In all honesty, I can’t sit here and name sources I find valid. There must be a million things which could be a source.
I can tell you that I look at who the cource is, where they got their information, what are thier conclusions and assertions and what are the facts they drew them from.
There are a bunch of things involved in determining the validity of a source.
It just seems fairly obvious that rollingstone and Robert Kennedy are not the ones to be citing as the final proof of Bush’s supposed election fraud… LOL
I take it back… I do consider only one source to be 100% true, that is the Bible.
CF, thanks for the link. This article is exceptionally well written and credible. Unlike most magazine articles, it includes information source citations. Interviewed people include a standing U.S. senator and Lou Harris of the Harris poll. Harris isn’t some partisan crank, he leads a team of expert statisticians. If he called the 2004 election dirty, it was. Harris explained that the results in some cities and counties didn’t correspond to historic patterns. He should know. His business is collecting, analyzing and keeping this data.
For the analytically minded, the article describes exit polling, which asks voting-place-departing voters, “Can you tell us who you voted for?” Unlike pre-election polls that ask voters to state whom they will vote for at a point when they may change their minds, exit polls measure decisions people have already made. Germany’s exit-poll vs. actual vote count correlation is 99.7%. The article describes how exit-polling versus putative counted-vote results were so discrepant in two former Soviet republics, that cheaters were ousted.
CF,
First of all I never said anything about why the media didn’t take this up. I said someone besides Robert Kennedy and Rollingstone would be making a deal out of it of it were really true.
All of the things you cited as “proof” that Bush stole the election is a bunch of statistics with conclusions.
The funny thing with statistics is that they can be used to say many things and depending on how they were taken can yield different results.
I suppose you and I could argue about the statistics, but that is what it would be. It would be a discussion about statistics. I have no problem with that.
You on the other hand are still trying to argue that this is all “proof” that Bush stole the election and that is nothing more than a conclusion which is not based in fact. It is still nothing more than an allegation which is not proven.
Nathan,
If one ignores basic facts and arguments, your argument sounds great!
What counts as ‘proven’? Upthread you said that your standard of proof was…the Bible. If that’s your standard, then if one considers the 2500+ years of interpretive controversy, statistics look rock-solid by comparison.
More to the point, you again refuse to deal with the examples I provided, only the first two of which are statistical in nature. In the third, the prosecutor had sufficient grounds of tampering to issue indictments. If this holds up in court, will THIS count as GOP election fraud?
So silly. The fact that you ignore the facts doesn’t change them: the preponderance of evidence for the assertion of GOP election theft is such that you have, literally, no answer.
Care to respond to the last CF post, Nathan. It might be better for you, if you didn’t.
“The funny thing with statistics is that they can be used to say many things and depending on how they were taken can yield different results.”
This is a standard non-statistician criticism of statistics that is basically without merit. One can misuse statistics to say about anything, but the misuse is obvious in those instances. Sorry, once more, Nathan.
DD,
I don’t really know how to respond sometimes DD.
What do you say to someone who presents what he claims to be facts and proof of something which is clearly not?
I am not disputing some of the facts and evidence presented.
I am saying that the conclusions, allegations, assumptions, and accusations made off of them are not proof or facts of anything.
It is kind of hard to convey that in type… without this being about 100 pages long.
I should play Low-Ball every hand; I might win that way.
Yes, they call your example the gambler’s fallacy. It is hard to stick with what we know about probability theory when money is involved.
I would like to seem summaries of the stat studies CF’s article describes. That would help me decide on what is up with these reports.
Nathan,
OK.
I’ve presented facts, specifically, the ones pertaining to discrepancies between exit polling and final results, and to anomalous/questionable patterns of vote casting consistent with electoral fraud.
Provide a plausible alterative that explains these facts.
Let me help you, Nathan:
Lets take CF’s three points:**********************************”According to the exit poll, Kerry should have received sixty-seven percent of the vote in this precinct. Yet the certified tally gave him only thirty-eight percent. The statistical odds against such a variance are just shy of one in 3 billion.(40)”
**********************************Rare events do happen. This statistical anomaly does not prove anything, necessarily. But, it would be reasonable to conceed that these data are “highly suggestive” that something was wrong here. I would feel better if I had access to the raw data (or a summary report); that would help me know for sure that there wasn’t anything funny with their stats.
Point Two:**********************************”Nor does the electoral tampering appear to have been isolated to these dozen counties. Ohio, like several other states, had an initiative on the ballot in 2004 to outlaw gay marriage. Statewide, the measure proved far more popular than Bush, besting the president by 470,000 votes. But in six of the twelve suspect counties — as well as in six other small counties in central Ohio — Bush outpolled the ban on same-sex unions by 16,132 votes. To trust the official tally, in other words, you must believe that thousands of rural Ohioans voted for both President Bush and gay marriage.” (195)
Follow that, Nathan? Statewide, the anti-gay marriage amendment got 470,000 more votes than did Bush. But in the aforementioned counties, Bush racked up 16,132 more votes than the amendment. In order for that to be possible, there’d have to be 16,132 rural Ohioans who liked both George Bush AND gay marriage.**********************************
Again these data do not make sense, but that is not proof the election was stolen. Again, we could concede that some statistically rare events appear to have occurred with this election. This rare and strange event in combination with the preceding one, does have to make you wonder what went on here. Maybe nothing illegal or untoward happened, but would further investigations hurt anything? Probably not.
Point 3:**********************************”But election officials in Ohio worked outside the law to avoid hand recounts. According to charges brought by a special prosecutor in April, election officials in Cleveland fraudulently and secretly pre-counted precincts by hand to identify ones that would match the machine count. They then used these pre-screened precincts to select the ”random” sample of three percent used for the recount.
”If it didn’t balance, they excluded those precincts,” said the prosecutor, Kevin Baxter, who has filed felony indictments against three election workers in Cleveland. ”They screwed with the process and increased the probability, if not the certainty, that there would not be a full, countywide hand count.” (196)**********************************
Well, he saved his strongest for last and this should be investigated and it sounds like it is being investigated. It is still a trial in progress and we will know the results of the competing arguments.
Certainly, there are converging lines of data suggesting something happened with this election. Suggestions are not proof. If nothing untoward happened, investigations could help settle that once and for all.
My conclusion is that I don’t know what happened, but things look funny to me. I am ultimately an agnostic on this question.
Nathan appears to discount the conclusion that vote fraud occurred based on what he sees as flimsy evidence. It may be flimsy, but further investigations are warrented.
How would you do this process differently, Nathan?
CF,
I would have to look at those statistical studies first CF.
Quite frankly I don’t really care to waste my time doing it so I can win a debate with you.
Ultimately I don’t have to offer you a plausible alternative. The beauty of it is that my failure to do so in no way proves you any more right or correct either.
You can believe that Bush stole the election, you can believe that it was some grand conspiracy. It is over. It is done. Even if it is true, it seems no one cares except for you and a few other crack-pot liberal nutjobs.
I can guaruntee you that Robert Kennedy doesn’t believe it either. It is just politics for them. Just another piece of mud to throw at Bush.
You want a plausible alternative?
Here ya go:
In the world of poker, which I love to play, there are statistics on hands and the probability of who could have what and how often.
Do you know what the odds are of not getting a single pair dealt to you in over an hour? (roughly)
10,522,652,460,000,000,000,000 to 1.
It happens though.
They are numbers CF. So what if the exit polls were off. It doesn’t proove anything.
What you are missing is some evidence to show the cheating, not some statistics that could allude to it.
“According to the exit poll, Kerry should have received sixty-seven percent…”
It would be reasonable to ask how the exit poll was sampled.
DD,
Sometimes investigations are needed.
I would look at it this way:
There are a bunch of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. I used to be fascinated with the stuff. I loved all those shows on the Sci-Fi channle too.
There are a bunch of things that are facts and evidence which can point to it being true.
In the end though, it is not enough to justify some grand investigation.
That is how I see this.
I guess we are all typing at the same time. Nathan, would you not concede (don’t worry that is not necessarily a bad word) that these data, if accurate, look funny? And given that, would it be wrong to investigate further?
I don’t think it would hurt anything to investigate further.
Thanks, you answered my question before I could ask it. You must be a faster typer than me.
I apologize in advance… I was not trying to say CF is crackpot liberal nutjob.
That came across wrong in my writing.
“Do you know what the odds are of not getting a single pair dealt to you in over an hour? (roughly)
10,522,652,460,000,000,000,000 to 1″
If this were true, wouldn’t it take forever to finish a hand of 5 card draw, jacks or better to open?
Can you point to a reference?
DD,
As presented here, the numbers do look funny.
I would whole heartedly agree.
I am not being rude or trying to be difficult when I say I don’t want to waste my time looking at the way they did this either.
It would seriously be a bunch of time which I really don’t have.
When I did study probability and statistics we learned a bunch about how easily numbers can be used to show something which is not true.
Take the age old flipping of the coin example.
What is the probablity of hitting heads vs tales?
50/50
What is the probability of hitting heads vs tales after heads has been hit 10 times already?
50/50
Now if you were to ask what is the probability of hitting heads 11 times in a row, that would be different.
Each indvidual try is still it’s own 50/50 shot though.
However, people will mistakingly believe that their odds of actually hitting tales is greater now simply because heads has been tossed 10 times already. It is still 50/50 though.
I am sorry, I misread: you said “_not_ getting a pair dealt to you”
I am such a unlucky poker player, I bet I have received fewer pairs than those odds would suggest.
I was using Doyle Brunsons book Super System.
He qoutes peoples supposed bad beat stories.
That was the largest one I seen as I was flipping through.
Someone claimed to have not gotten even a pair dealt to them in over an hour. That was the odds of it actually happening.
Is it rude to suggest that Nathan simply CANNOT consider the serious danger inherent in the theft of an election merely because he happens to like the outcome?
How very Machiavellian!
Yes, they call your example the gambler’s fallacy. It is hard to stick with what we know about probability theory when money is involved.
I would like to seem summaries of the stat studies CF’s article describes. That would help me decide on what is up with these reports.
The whole issue is irrelevant to me because the choice between shrub and kerry was like a choice between horse crap and dog crap. Also, there is strong evidence to suggest that JFK literally stole the 1960 election from Nixon with the help of organized crime and I don’t hear repukes/”conservatives” doing too much whining about that.
V.L.R.B!!!
Do you think JR has a point there, Nathan?
I read a critique of Bush’s thinking whereby the author was saying that on subjects like global warming Bush demanded pretty high levels of proof; but not so about Iraqi WMD. The point being that what Bush wished to have happen affected his proof requirements.
Is it possible that this might be true for you on this subject?
“Also, there is strong evidence to suggest that JFK literally stole the 1960 election from Nixon with the help of organized crime and I don’t hear repukes/”conservatives” doing too much whining about that.”
Yes, it was mayor Daley who helped JFK and people knew better than to whine. They did not want any new pairs of cement overshoes.
JR,
You are correct to some extent JR. I have no reason to see Republicans in general as evil or criminals.
I don’t have a preconcieved notion that Bush does bad things or is a liar or is a bad guy.
So, you are correct in my already being biased towards Bush in his not stealing an election, thus I am less inclined to agree with thing like what CF presented.
Would you also be willing to say the opposite? That because you and CF do not like or trust not only Bush but don’t care for the Republican party that you are more inclined to accept any type of proof which supports that?
DD,
LOL… yeah DD, JR has a point.
Now look who is bashing.
Nathan I consider the theft of elections in a democratic republic absolutely unacceptable regardless who wins.
To illustrate my lack of bias in such important matters, I find it outrageous that congressman Jefferson of LA is being protected from possible prosecution out of deference to the niceties of the Senate and House. Yes the separation of powers at question in that matter is important. But it smells more to me like “I’ll cover my a.. by covering yours”
Did I miss something? I was not trying to bash anyone.
I may have misnterpreted “LOL JR has a point”
Sorry, typing stinks.
I was laughing to DD because our threads kept overlapping. He would be typing something just as I was and vice versa.
Nathan completely side-stepped the question by calling our occupation “stability for democracy.”
Wait a minute! If the Iraqis really have democracy, then we don’t get to decide for them what constitutes “stability.”
The Iraqis have voted for candidates of parties that overwhelmingly want the US out NOW.
But Nathan claims we can only protect Iraqi democracy if we deny them their democracy. Hey, that sounds familar: sometimes you have to destroy a village to save it.
How about Hugo Chavez, Nathan? Would you support a US backed military overthrow of a democratically elected leader?
And check this gem from the radical right: “Even if it is true [that Bush stole the election], it seems no one cares except for you and a few other crack-pot liberal nutjobs.”
I LOVE IT! This totally proves what I’ve been saying–conservatives like Nathan don’t give a shit about democracy, they only care if they WIN.
In fact, that’s usually what they say whenever one brings it up–”you’re only mad because your side lost,” as if winning the election is more important than protecting the will of the people.
I believe in God too, Nathan, and I think we Martin Luther King when he said, “Don’t let anybody make you think God chose America as His divine messianic force to be, a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems I can hear God saying to America “you are too ARROGANT, and if you don’t change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power and give it to a nation that doesn’t even know My Name.”
Food for useless thought:
According to the Playboy Party Book (probably 30 years old, at least), because the heads side is heavier, due to the additional metal used for the raised bust of Jefferson (it is Jefferson, isn’t it? I just spend it.), the odds are in favor of tails, unless the coin is flipped onto something after the initial flip.
Don’t ask me. I remember the dumbest things.
Where’s the proof that JFK himself was behind the election stealing?
Sorry, I was at the perfect age to think he was the greatest at that time. We learn more as we grow. But he had so much charisma, and so does Clinton, which is why I think the Republicans hate(d) them both. :)
RD- I agree-I too thought he was the greatest. At that time, I couldn’t vote , but I still was interested and proud of our President.Today, in contrast- I’m ashamed and embarrassed by the antics of Bush- he is not a John Kennedy, to paraphrase the late Senator Bensen.
Interesting comment, Gster. It tends to fit with the Rolling Stones article about exit polling referred to earlier.
It seems to me that for exit polling to be that far off it means that many of the people who voted for Bush were not willing to admit or own up to it when they left the polling place. Why would they be ashamed of the candidate they had just voted for?
On a side note, I have no axe to grind with Bill Gale. But I would like to see a study on the number of voting places that were eliminated in the downtown area or the less prosperous areas of the city as compared to the more prosperous areas of the city. In other words, were more voting places eliminated because they were not ADA compliant in predominately Democratic areas than those in predominately Republican areas? Isn’t this a way to conveniently use the law to change the outcome of a vote to benefit a chosen party?
It seems to me that eliminating almost 75% of the counties voting places is pretty draconian. I can understand changing to a better place, or eliminating a few by choosing an easily accessable, larger place. I cannot understand eliminating THAT MANY voting places and expecting things to go smoothly.
One thing for sure, Bill Gale has made sure that people will remember his name during this next election. The problem is, it may be for notoriety instead of fame!
To comment on the 2004 election, I think the Democrats, along with a lot of the news media, let it slide because of the catastrophy of the 2000 election.
If they had pushed the issue it would have meant a bigger mess than the results of the 2000 election. In truth, neither party would have won and the greatest loss would have been to the faith in the democracy of our country. It was easier to let it slide and prepare for the elections in 2006 and 2008.
Sometimes you have to pick your battles carefully. It may be a fight that everyone talks about for years, but there is truly no winners when both fighters are maimed for life when the battle is over.
I find it ironic that Nathan accepts no proof of WMDs and believes they were/are there without question, yet he doesn’t think there was voter fraud in Ohio, in spite of what’s been discovered. Oh, well.
Waaaaaahhh! They STOLE it I tell ya. They STOLE it! I’m tellin’ Mom!!!
Yep, and they gonna’ be given’ it back before too long.That’s what Mom said.
Joe, if the shoe were on the other foot, you’d be ranting about it for eternity. The more you make fun of it, the clearer the issue becomes.
Republican rule: Belittle the issue to avoid it in the hope it will go away.
See this pdf for an analysis of the exit polling issues in the 2004 election. It would appear that the exit polls provided accurate data.
http://www.electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf
I think it is striking that according to the left, the dastardly Bush gang can’t shoot straight in prosecuting a war, in education policy, in handling the economy, in energy policy, in foreign policy etc.., etc.. Yet, when it comes to stealing elections, they are geniuses.
Although I know that electioneering has gone on in the past (the Daley machine in Chicago for example), I would think that it would be very difficult to develop a conspiracy of the extent as apparently alleged and to keep everyone quiet. And in a basically 50-50 state!And would a polling company such as Mr. Harris operates, who are involved in the all the pre-election polls, the exit polls etc.. have a natural inclination to want it to appear to be fraud rather than just inaccurate polling?
Out,The Edison/Mitofsky consortium who did the exit polling offered the suggestion that Bush voters were more disinclined to talk to exit pollsters than were Kerry voters. In the above PDF, a group of statisticians and mathmeticians examine this hypothesis and come to the conclusion that this explanation was not likely the reason for the official count and exit poll discrepencies.
There are some statistical stuff in here, but I think the article is approachable by the average reader.
Here’s a repost of the link:http://www.electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf
If the EM consortium would release their raw data, the questions about the election could be laid to rest. I believe there are compelling reasons to ask them to do this.
Another interesting finding reported in the above pdf is that all the other exit polling (those other than the presidential race) done in Ohio were as accurate as is usually expected. It is odd that this result would be observed unless there was highly unusual vote splitting going on.
Exit polling is done to monitor election fraud in other countries. An exit polling effort done by the U.S. denied Yushchenko the presidency in the Ukraine in 2004. It is much more accurate that pre-election polling. The authors of this exit poll criticized their methodology which is the scientifically responsible thing to do, rather than question the certified count. In the above pdf it is demonstrated how the authors criticism of their method is unwarrented. More could be known with the release of the full raw data set. I hope to find how that can be advocated.
“The authors of this exit poll criticized their methodology…”
To clarify this should have read -The authors of the E/M consortium poll criticized their methodology…
Finally got to that link RFK Jrs. article. Like Joe Williams, I made it through page 1. I must go back later and read the rest.
Page 1 was enough.
Having succesfully stolen the election of 2000 for bush, it is now evidently clear that stealing the election of 2004 was a given.
The article centers on exit polls.
Of course, those polls have now fallen into disrepute given that they were so “wrong” in 2004.
Here is my personal take.
Certainly exit polls were highly respected their accuracy by none other than Lord Ha ha Hannity, THE shill for the bush admininistration. I well remember election day 2004. Hannity was clearly shaken. He pleaded. He wheedled. He pissed and moaned and did everything short of breaking down live on the air.
He literally BEGGED for his listeners to get to the polls and drag anyone they could.
Clearly, Mr. Hannity respected the previous accuracy of election exit polls! My only sorrow is that he did not shoot himself before he found out the fix was in.
Sean Hannity the flack routinely makes a guest of Robert Kennedy jr. We will see if he affords the same after these devastating charges. My bet? He won’t.
This story should be completely and fully investigated. If those among the bush faithful dispute it let them discredit it if they can. For those who simply call “sore loser” I suggest that they are something less than patriotic Americans in favor of a democratic republic. I struggle to find a name for them. Flack? Mindless idealogue? Traitor? All these come to mind.
What do you call an American who is willing to sell out all core American ideals for the sake of his own idealogues winning? I certainly could not call any such person friend. I would struggle at affording them anything more than scorn and the back of my hand.
And that is just what they will get from me.