Was the 2004 US Presidential Election Stolen?

[DudeAsInCool]

[uPDATED] EXCLUSIVE: BOBBY KENNEDY JR. TO QUESTION 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN MAJOR ROLLING STONE FEATURE ARTICLE!

Tells BRAD BLOG: 'Evidence Shows High-Level Republicans Succeeded in Scheme to Steal Election in Ohio'!

Mag to Hit Stands Friday, Internet on Thursday, Publicity Push to Accompany

A damning and detailed feature article, written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for Rolling Stone and documenting evidence of the theft of the 2004 Presidential Election is set to hit newstands this Friday, The BRAD BLOG can now confirm. The online version of the article will be posted tomorrow (Thursday) morning.

The article -- headlined on the cover as "Did Bush Steal the 2004 Election?: How 350,000 Votes Disappeared in Ohio" -- has been several months in development and will contend that a concerted effort was undertaken by high-level Republican officials to steal the Election in Ohio -- and thus the country -- in 2004!

Read more:

Source: Bradblog

[DudeAsInCool]

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.(11)

Read more:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/104...on_stolen/print" target="_blank">Source: Rolling Stone

[method77]

the election was stolen.

it's up to the american public to choose how to react

[DudeAsInCool]

the election was stolen.

it's up to the american public to choose how to react

It would be nice if the rest of the media jumped on this bandwagon - the American public doesnt read Rolling Stone by and large for news (note the Harper's article below)

[method77]

According to the charts, 80% of amricans have an internet connection. It is unacceptable to say this "How could I know?" shit

Open your fookin eyes damnit!!!! Wake up!!!!!

This goes for everyone around the globe, including Greeks in case you think I'm anti-american or something

[DudeAsInCool]

None Dare Call It Stolen

Ohio, the election, and America's servile press

Posted on Wednesday, September 7, 2005. What actually happened in Ohio in 2004. An excerpt from this report appeared in August 2005. The complete text appears below. Originally from August 2005. By Mark Crispin Miller.

Taking the oath of office, August 1897

Whichever candidate you voted for (or think you voted for), or even if you did not vote (or could not vote), you must admit that last year’s presidential race was—if nothing else—pretty interesting. True, the press has dropped the subject, and the Democrats, with very few exceptions, have “moved on.” Yet this contest may have been the most unusual in U.S. history; it was certainly among those with the strangest outcomes. You may remember being surprised yourself. The infamously factious Democrats were fiercely unified—Ralph Nader garnered only about 0.38 percent of the national vote—while the Republicans were split, with a vocal anti-Bush front that included anti-Clinton warrior Bob Barr of Georgia; Ike’s son John Eisenhower; Ronald Reagan’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, William J. Crowe Jr.; former Air Force Chief of Staff and onetime “Veteran for Bush” General Merrill “Tony” McPeak; founding neocon Francis Fukuyama; Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, and various large alliances of military officers, diplomats, and business professors. The American Conservative, co-founded by Pat Buchanan, endorsed five candidates for president, including both Bush and Kerry, while the Financial Times and The Economist came out for Kerry alone. At least fifty-nine daily newspapers that backed Bush in the previous election endorsed Kerry (or no one) in this election. The national turnout in 2004 was the highest since 1968, when another unpopular war had swept the ruling party from the White House. [1] Yet this ever-less-beloved president, this president who had united liberals and conservatives and nearly all the world against himself—this president somehow bested his opponent by 3,000,176 votes.

How did he do it? To that most important question the commentariat, briskly prompted by Republicans, supplied an answer. Americans of faith—a silent majority heretofore unmoved by any other politician—had poured forth by the millions to vote “Yes!” for Jesus’ buddy in the White House. Bush’s 51 percent, according to this thesis, were roused primarily by “family values.” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called gay marriage “the hood ornament on the family values wagon that carried the president to a second term.” The pundits eagerly pronounced their amens—“Moral values,” Tucker Carlson said on CNN, “drove President Bush and other Republican candidates to victory this week”—although it is not clear why. The primary evidence of our Great Awakening was a post-election poll by the Pew Research Center in which 27 percent of the respondents, when asked which issue “mattered most” to them in the election, selected something called “moral values.” This slight plurality of impulse becomes still less impressive when we note that, as the pollsters went to great pains to make clear, “the relative importance of moral values depends greatly on how the question is framed.” In fact, when voters were asked to “name in their own words the most important factor in their vote,” only 14 percent managed to come up with “moral values.” Strangely, this detail went little mentioned in the post-electoral commentary.[2]

The press has had little to say about most of the strange details of the election—except, that is, to ridicule all efforts to discuss them. This animus appeared soon after November 2, in a spate of caustic articles dismissing any critical discussion of the outcome as crazed speculation: “Election paranoia surfaces: Conspiracy theorists call results rigged,” chuckled the Baltimore Sun on November 5. “Internet Buzz on Vote Fraud Is Dismissed,” proclaimed the Boston Globe on November 10. “Latest Conspiracy Theory—Kerry Won—Hits the Ether,” the Washington Post chortled on November 11. The New York Times weighed in with “Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried”—making mock not only of the “post-election theorizing” but of cyberspace itself, the fons et origo of all such loony tunes, according to the Times.

Read more at:

Harpers

[Malicious Intent]

What do the upcoming mid-terms decide?

[DudeAsInCool]

What do the upcoming mid-terms decide?

Big gains in Congress for the Democrats. The question is how big - its unlikely that the dems will retake the majority in in the House of Representatives...but they might retake the Senate. If gas prices remain steady, the Repubs are toast

The right wing is gasping for air - Bush and Rove's latest quest is to have a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as a gesture to the Christian Rightwing. As if it the issue means anything to the American public...

[Malicious Intent]

If representatives are being replaced, what is the difference to the main elections?

[DudeAsInCool]

If representatives are being replaced, what is the difference to the main elections?

In the main election, every four years, the President's office is at stake, as well as various Senate and House of Representative seats. There is never a complete changeover.

[Malicious Intent]

In the main election, every four years, the President's office is at stake, as well as various Senate and House of Representative seats. There is never a complete changeover.

Mid-terms still sound very important, but there is none of the ritz and glamour?

[DudeAsInCool]

Mid-terms still sound very important, but there is none of the ritz and glamour?

Fits and starts if you have a celebrity involved - otherwise the media and public don't seem to care unless it's the Presidential election.

[method77]

If representatives are being replaced, what is the difference to the main elections?

it's State Democracy. Very different from the system you have which is similar to ours. It's complicated yet very interesting because every state is like a small country with it's own laws.

[CTC Command]

Its already quite interesting here, in RI (as per)--the Senate Republican primary has already turned quite nasty, with the ultra-right wing Mayor Laffey of Cranston going up against the "liberal" Republican Linc Chaffee. Ironically, ol turd blossom Rove's war machine is coming out in favor of Chaffee, figuring Laffey has a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning here. Laura Bush even showed up for a $500 a plate benefit on behalf of the Lincster, who publically announced that in the 2004 general election that he wrote in W's father, George H.W. for his vote for the Oval Office.

The Democratic primary for the same seat has already been settled--Matt Brown bowed out after going broke after his campaign was found to be accepting "questionable" donations, and, with the media completely ignoring third rail demeocratic candidate war veteran Carl Sheeler and his platform of impeachment for Bush, it looks like Former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse will be arrive completely unscathed to take on whichever battered GOP candidate wins the primary...

I'm torn between registering Republican to vote for Laffey just because he can't possibly win the general election (while Chaffe actually could)and he's like watching a train wreck over and over again, or going with my conscience and voting for Sheeler, who is less of a machine Dem than Whitehouse but for that reason stands no chance of emerging from the primary...

[Shawn]

If I were you I'd save time and move to....say.... Canada.