Barring any real evidence of fraud, The good news is this time we watched an elected president get sworn in. The last 4 years we had a guy who won by electoral, but truthfully lost . Popular vote should be given more weight in the new world, Internet, travel and the movement of people around the country reduces the need for electoral college. We need a way to limit any localized fraud, but once that is done, I think the electoral college would be rendered useless. Our country should be finally considered one big voting block. Electoral vote system merely takes power out of the peoples hands. The contention that it localizes fraud is wrong to, It merely tells politicians where to commit fraud (Florida, Ohio). But I think we can take a tiny bit of comfort in the fact that it was not as 2004 a popular vote loss and electoral win. Electoral vote counting doesn't truly make the smaller states more equal, it gives them more power then their population demands. Popular vote would be certainly the ultimate in one vote, one person!!

Well, I guess you could call him elected, if you don't mind the fraud and vote suppression.

Im not totally buying the fraud, but the suppresion argument is compelling!

When someone can prove to me that the machine votes weren't altered,
then I'll believe he was legitimately elected. If they didn't commit a crime,
then they shouldn't have a problem with a verifiable vote.

Can we prove that Bush did not kill Jon Benet Ramsey? Where was he that night, anyway?

Seriously, what proof is there that they were altered? How many credible people have come forward and said "I participated in or witnessed hacking into the Diebold machines?"

There's no reason not to audit what happened, so I would agree that the Republicans should have not any problems checking out what happened.

Thanks Only, for pointing out that fraud and vote suppression are two different things. I'm not saying that Democrats have nothing to complain about.

Your welcome. I saw voter suppresion, I saw the lines, I garantee some voters gave up. Thats the issue that needs to be adressed. I saw no real fraud, just suppresion. That kind of stuff has to go.

Smeagle STOLE this election from John Kerry by several means, the least of which is NOT voter fraud, suppression and theft.

The mainstream media was largely responsible for the lack of coverage of Kerry and Edwards on the campaign trail. I firmly believe that had the media not been bought off and/or coerced, the right men would have been sworn in yesterday. There is no way that even mediocre minded voters could have chosen smeagle over Kerry if there had been truthful and widespread press coverage.

NEVER, NEVER will I believe that the American people as a whole are so stupid. Perhaps 30 - 40% were snookered, but the rest of the votes supposedly 'electing' smeagle were STOLEN.

Theres simply no proof. To make such a case, you gotta prove it. For all eyes saw those long lines, but no one conclusivly proves it was a republican deed that made it happen. No one tied it directly to Bush or his campaign either. Until they do, you lost. TV stations SOLD commercials, and HIRED their own people. Theres an awful lot of biased media on both sides of aisle. That allegation is just silly.

I often wonder what the hell happened to the liberal media???

Republicans have it made, They have you guys chasing your tail, Kinda looks like Whitewater in reverse huh? Get on the real trail....The republicans love watching the fraud and stolen media stuff!! It helps them refute any truth in other allegations. I cabn see it now....Those guys are just bitter democrats trying to destroy me!! A vast left wing conspiracy!! LOL the tables are turned, wise up, They are going to use Clinton methods on you!! Very effective!

You're wrong........look at the whole picture. Concerted efforts by Blackwell to do anything he possibly could to suppress minority votes is reason enough to doubt everything else. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

Where's your source "proving" biased media in favor of Kerry? Some backwater TV station with 500 viewers??????? And I'm not talking about SOLD TV spots, anyway. The bought-and-paid-for commentators like Wolf Blitzer and the rest of CNN were biased, prejudiced and slanderous to Kerry/Edwards every chance they got! What news channels were you watching?

The media leave a lot to be desired but blaming them for Bush's election (at least pinning the major blame on them) IMO is foolishly behaving like the right-wingers who like to whine about the "liberal" media for the fact that more people don't buy their ideas. People "out there" have some ability to see the truth through the fluff, those of us here are not the only ones blessed and intelligent enough to think things through.

Wheres your proof republicans bought Blitzer??????You simply defy logic! Ask for proof from me, yet refuse to show any yourself? Get real!!

What have you been smoking?

If there had been electromnic machines with paper ballots - then we could have done a real recount in Ohio...

If there had been enough voting machines in minority nehighborhoods in Ohio - then maybe people would not have been disenfranchised and maybe more would have been able to vote there for Kerry.

There is no proof - yeah - well according to the Bushies there was no proof in 2000 either depite the US Civil Rights Commission detailing in a report all the proof...

John Conyers filed a report detailing all the problems that more than contributed to a 60,000 vote swing for Bush...

http://yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_16832.shtml

Whether those long voter lines were deliberate or the result of incompetence there is no excuse and this must be corrected, that should be the main message. Not that we shouldn't be interested in evidence that those long lines were deliberate.

It never actually existed. It was just a myth created by the right, so they could reframe the reported truth as the false product of a biased media.

If the suppression argument is compelling then your initial thesis is incorrect - that we finally have an "elected" president...because my understanding is that voter suprression is illegal.

Rox - you got that right...

What;'s going on to this - how come we can;t post?

The ease of voting in Bush county, polling places where there were no lines, is what got Bush elected.
In Kerry's districts, lines were long and working people were forced to leave before voting. They had children to pick up due to no child care facilities they can afford. They had to go to the restroom, and none were available in many places, etc.

If anyone can call that a fair election, you must be a Bush person at heart.

EXACTLY!! But thers no evidence pointing at Bush or his campaign directly. If there was he would have been resigning not getting sworn in. These people in here are angry, and I understand the frustration, BUT I WILL NOT JOIN IN A BITTER CAMPAIGN OF UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS!! These guys arguing with me proves their illogical stance, I say I am upset that Bush won, but will not support people that disparage our President until they have conclusive proof that sticks directly to him. I am being fair and sensible. People that grab onto EVERY bad allegation sometimes damage the credibility of true ones by setting up the perpitraters ability to claim its all biased. If you spout an agenda backed by half truths or unproven things, WHO IS GOING TO BELIEVE YOU ONCE YOU DO HAVE A TRUE ALLEGATION?

I agree 100 percent. You are absolutely right! The media in this country made it possible for Bush to slide back into office. Where there's smoke there's fire. These people are corrupt, un-America, and Pro-cooperation.

The news media handed Bush the Presidency on a silver platter. That's why I will no longer support them.

My daughter asked me once Mom how do you know God is real if you can't see him, I told her I don't need to see him, I can feel him, and I see him in you and all the good people in the world. The same logic applies here, how do we know that votes were suppressed if we didn't actually see it?

Thats assumptive on your part. It depends on in which way and to what degree its compelling. It may prove to be true, yet not be tied to Bush in any provable fashion. If he can't be proven guilty, then he still won.

Exactly - and that should be a violation of federal and state law - if not wholly unconstitutional itself...

The fact that direct blame cannot be levied at the Bush campaign itself...even though in Florida no direct link to the Bush campaign was ever shown for the police that but up barricades to the election areas - or in Ohio this year for the repubs that made phone calls telling people to vote at different voting booths...that does not mean that the election was valid...

Those are Voting Rights Act violations...

Where there's smoke there's fire.
True, but YOU CANNOT CONVICT AN ARSON WITH SMOKE...CAN YOU!!

I totally disagree. Look at the 34 scandals, this stuff isn't made up, it's actually going on. Why wasn't it reported by the media? Why did the media give the Swift Boat Liars for Bush so much airtime? Why didn't the media reveal the results of the Navy's investigation regarding Kerry's medals with the same amount of airtime? Yes the media is pro-Bush. God help any reporter that try's to tell the truth on these people.

This grab onto every allegation thing suppresion, fraud, media control, will only serve to set the left to be labeled as running a VAST LEFT WING conspiracy to discredit the President. It will be used just as Clinton used it to great effect!! Think about what your doing, your sabatoging your own chances. I am not saying some things are not true, but overstatement and pushing of a half proven agenda will discredit any true pieces to a puzzle!!

Again, what is quickly beocming my popular refrain, what are you smoking?

It does not matter to what degree...if people were disenfranchised - if thousands of people could not vote because they were misled by others about where their polling place was - or whether the election was on a Tuesday or a Wednesday - or were not able to vote because they had to take care of their kids or go to work because of long lines...whethe ror not it can be pinned on George W. Bush is irrelevant...

The laws in this nation regarding the sanctity of the voting process have nothing to do with proof that a candidate was personally responsible for the disenfranchisement...ther eis no mens rea requirement....

We're not grabbing onto any VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY...


What we are pointing out is that just as your suggest that there is no evidence that Bush was "not elected" - we would suggest that because of a plethora of problems in the process there is equally no definitive proof that Bush was "elected" - because it can not definitively be verified - especially in light of all the problems and what impact those problems actually had on the final vote.

No, but if he smells of an accelerant , chances are he set the fire. I'd say Bush seems to reek of an accelerant .

I believe your out of line!! Go away with your repeated garbage, your attacking me with slanderous crap. I want proof that Bush was involved. If you prove RNC, or his campaign did it then you will have an acceptable and logical case. You cannot use one lone vote theft guy to nullify an election or Kerrys votes most likely would not count either, I bet theres one instance of a democrat somewhere doing improper things. You need a proven large and systematic Republican tied thing. You do not have it. YOU LOSE. If you had it the republicans who organized it would be on trail. Your simply arguing for a case that has not been proven.

Precisely. Without a voting system that has an audit trail... WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHO THE WINNER OF ANY ELECTION TRULY IS. And there is not an audit trail for a large percentage of the vote.



With electronic voting there IS NO AUDIT TRAIL and you can't audit what doesn't exist. That is precisely the problem. Then you have one of the execs at Diebold guaranteeing a Bush victory... now how is that possible ? Also... there do not have to be hacked voting machines. The machines can be programmed to produce whatever result is desired. So a vote for A could add to B's total, or a formula could be coded into the software that switches votes only after a certain threshold is reached, or any other number of such tricks. Unless the programs are audited and then secured to prevent manipulation there is a huge problem, and without an audit trail nobody will ever know. Not to mention the same problem exists with the vote tabulating computers.



A myth propagated by the right to make right-wing biased media reporting appear to be normal. Essentially creating a perception of bias where it didn't exist so they have a free pass to say whatever they want in favor of the right and not be called on it.

As Rox said...

what do you call bush campaign reporter in fox, whose wife openly campaigned for bush, 'no conflict of interest'...
whhat do you call fox gloating the 'french connection', 'the unimaginable kerry win' ?

i wonder noone has sued them

in russia, free press is suppressed by government

in usa, free press begs to be governed

from the moveon's doc: the media bias had such a big effect (&compared to soviet, eg) because us people do not suspect media/news manipulating

I guess the Left wing made this up. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/18/scandal/

If he smells of accelerant, then investigate, but do not conclude case before you get proof. Thats my stance, its perfectly logical.

I agree with you there, but I can only judge George by his past actions. He hasn't given one reason to believe that he's an moral, honest man... Not one.

I read the summary of the report in the link. From that it seems:

The report makes a very plausible case that the election in Ohio was not run in a fair manner.

The report points to some spooky results that would point to the need for investigation to see what was up. But apparently they don't have proof that anyone actually altered the election results.

I would say that it would be wise to make the case for which a stronger argument can be made, things were not run fairly in Ohio and Blackwell has a lot of, if not primary, responsibility for that. I would think that the Republicans would only be too happy for us to make the weaker case that there was deliberate and election result altering fraud.

And what do you call Dan Rather....Its on both sides, be honest, reporters are not nuetral, none of them are, its just a fact. Both sides have their shills.

I think he is full of BS, but I can't convict him without proof. Its my sense of fairness and beliefs in our system that require this. Im not a supporter , I just do not like the putting out of so much anti-bush stuff that it will cloud any truth in real allegations. Its like Whitewater, Repub's chased their tails, looked very foolish, I think the Repub's very well may use a VAST LEFT WING conspiracy defense. They learned it from Clinton, and it works great!!!

The difference here is there's proof . There's proof about someone leaking the name of the agent, there's proof that money was taken from the war in Afghanistan and used for Iraq. That's the difference.. the proof is out there and yes the media will not report it. The media let Cheney sit on national TV and tell a huge lie. He said he had never met John Edwards before. That was an out and out lie. Why didn't they jump all over that? If a man lies about something so small, one can only conclude that he'll like about things of greater importance.

I was not defending the media, my point was that putting all of the blame on them is unproductive whining similar to what a lot of right-wingers love to do.

I am going to be deliberately provocative here. Abraham Lincoln said that you can fool some of the people some of the time but that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Some people here seem to have the view that you can fool most of the people all of the time but that "aware" people like themselves just aren't fooled at all. I think this is an essentially elitist view. There is nothing wrong in attacking the media and bemoaning the fact that a lot of people bought what many here (myself included) considered to be the rather poor case for re-electing Bush, but we have to give people "out there" some credit and look primarily on how we can do a better job of making the sale for a progressive political direction and progressive candidates.

I can't give people who have such a warped view of right and wrong any credit.

Make the diverted money case stick and I'll smile, as far as the having never met Edwards lie, thats hardly impeachable. This is the irrational reactionary stuff I am fighting, To talk as if not remembering or lying about meeting Edwards as a MAJOR offense and proof of a major problem is grossly out of touch with reality.

LOL! Do you really belive he forgot that he met Edwards? In any case watch the Daily Show, Jon has a way of showing what they said before and what they're saying now.

Are you just goading us - or do you really believ ethis stuff?

You want proof that he was involved?

Show me where in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 where proof of a candidate's or party's involvement is a requirement to establish a prima facie case for voter disenfranchisement?

Its not there mate.

People were disenfranchised. It happened. I can't prove that the disenfranchisement changed the outcome of the election and you can not prove that it did not. But it did occur.

I posted this:


And NiteOwl responded:



You misunderstood what I meant by "audit". I should have said "investigate". I would strongly support electronic voting machines producing paper records that can be verified by the voters as they apparently already have in Nevada.

The idiot at Diebold who talked about guaranteeing a Bush victory has been rightly criciticized for what he said, but where is the proof that he meant anything other than raising money for and otherwise providing legal political support to Bush? You are being technical about my comment on "hacking". I'm no electronics expert so please excuse my sloppy use of terms. By "hacking" I meant fiddling with the machines in general which would cover the programming that you mention. Who has come forward to say that they witnessed such chicanery? I agree that measures should be taken to better secure these machines, but that fact that they weren't doesn't mean that the results were tampered with.

If you cannot prove it, find something you can prove. Its common sense isn't it? Complaining isn't going to change a thing, to change things, get proof or work for 06 or 08 elections. Not only can you not prove it effected results, you cannot tie it to Bush. if it was big enough to effect results, I believe it would eventually be tied to them. This stuff like right wing media, and lying about knowing Edwards lines in here are truly laughable. Its not that i believe Bush is innocent, I just will not convict him without proof.

onlyinNY, you are right, proof needs to be brought forward. Your stirring of the pot here, however, is not a positive force for anything other than proving you some kind of feely-good superiority on this forum. The sad truth is that those in our Congress that are fighting for further investigations to expose or expel possible problems in our electoral process from poor planning, disenfranchisement or all out fraud will be ridiculed and stifled by the majority Repubs and thus, it probably won’t happen. Election improprieties is not a crime against Democrats or Republicans or Greens or any other party, it is a crime against all of us.

Stir the pot some more and feel squeaky feely-good some more! (I really think you need to get a life!)

Even after all of this discussion, I'm sure that not one mind of the posters was changed, especially mine.

If 2000 angels came bearing vats of gold and dancing on my front lawn declaring that intellectually challenged piece of crap is MY president; I'm afraid I'd have to languish in purgatory for a while.

Bush has been a fraud since he snuck out of the TANG. He's become a front for a lot of evil men and enjoys it. IMO, he's a psychopath at worst, a sociopath at best. He defames the title and office of President of the United States.

I agree.

Bush was elected president. It's a fact. People forget that it was commonly thought that there were voting irregularities in Illinois in 1960 that helped Kennedy get elected. I think Nixon felt he was robbed.

However, voting in Ohio and in other parts of the country was problematic. Electoral reform definitely is needed to correct inconsistencies and failures of the voting system. Hopefully, Congress will take this seriously and get to work on some solutions, and we should definitely keep their feet to the fire to see that it's done.

I agree with OINY and Arne that focusing on fraud and that the election was stolen by Bush makes our side look bad. And, it makes John Kerry look bad as a consequence, in my opinion. We look like sore losers.

As for media bias, if you go on freerepublic.com, you will see all kinds of complaints there about the media bias toward the left. I think they're exaggerating and taking any criticism at all of Bush or others on the right as "bias."

I believe the media is biased in favor of "the establishment." And, the establishment right now, as well as the majority of the country, is very conservative. Therefore, you don't get reporters questioning why we need to go to war in Iraq when it was Al Queda that attacked us. You don't get the media questioning the President's motives. You don't get the media questioning elements of the Patriot Act. You don't get the media questioning the "34 Scandals" published on salon.com.

You do have the media buying the President's argument that there is a Social Security "crisis." They don't seem to question what the President says! I don't understand how the Bush administration gets away with what they do. But, I don't think it is flattering or helpful to our cause to claim that the media has caused us to fail. We need to figure out some way to counteract the present bias and MAKE OUR VIEWS THE POPULAR ONES TO HAVE. We need to help create a shift in the country from conservatism to progressivism.