Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Good for you. I've searched high and low to find numbers that prove the so-called theft and have found none. Miller's screeds have been especially fact free.
The left's continued discediting of the election process is a very dangerous game, one even Richard Nixon wouldn't play. The Supreme Court gave W. the presidency in 2000, not the south Florida counties overwhelming run by Democrats, that was a case of incompetence, which Democrats have refused to hold the own accountable.
2004 in Ohio? Well as Mr. Manjoo has said thin facts, lots of conjecture. It really is despicable.
I must wonder why you never mention the GAO report on election irregularities that has recently been released. It seems to substantiate much of what is in the Conyers report and the Miller book.
I haven't read teh book, but if the GAO recognizes the many problems don't you think the rest of us should notice them too.
I don't know anything about Mark Crispin Miller's book, but there is some very compelling evidence that the 2004 election was rigged, and it's the statistical analysis of the exit polls. I noticed this discrepancy on election day, but a very respected series of statisticians have all concluded that the likelihood of all the exit-polls being wrong in precisely the same way is 1 in a million, about the same as earth being struck by a previously unidentified meteor---tomorrow. The website showing these very sound studies is:
http://www.donotconcede.com/Dataexitpolls.html and I defy anybody to say that these studies are not scientifically valid. Somebody was tampering with the results of the 2004 election. Somebody has turned the United States government into a secretive and tyrannical enemy of the peace and prosperity of people worldwide (notice that I said "of people"---somebody obviously likes every "person" whose name ends in "Inc."). I feel quite certain that the same "somebody" is involved at all levels---and that "somebody" is either the Bush-Cheney-Rove triumvirate or the "invisible hand" that moves them all and keeps them in power when they should be....elsewhere.
I urge everyone interested in the topic to read the above website and:
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf
Scientific Analysis Suggests Presidential Vote Counts May Have Been Altered
Group of University Professors Urges Investigation of 2004 Election
Officially, President Bush won November's election by 2.5%, yet exit polls showed Kerry winning by 3%[1]. According to a report to
be released today by a group of university statisticians, the odds of a discrepancy this large between the national exit poll and election
results happening by accident are close to 1 in a million.
In other words, by random chance alone, it could not have happened. But it did.
Two alternatives remain. Either something was wrong with the exit polling, or something was wrong with the vote count.
We might not know for sure whether the 2004 election was stolen but we can count on one thing: Good ol' reliable Farhad Manjoo. If Bush had gotten 103% of the vote Mr. Manjoo would dependably say that the election wasn't really stolen because Bush probably got a majority anyway.
If the 'foil heads' reforms are adopted we will have unquestionably fair elections. Treating the problems as minor glitches that don't really change anything and can be fixed when we get around too it hasn't given us such elections and I doubt that that approach ever will.
I'd like to post something that's authoratatively informed to help resolve the issue. But I can't. I simply have not put the amount of effort into learning about the election to be able to get past the 'presumed innocent, want more investigation' stage.
But I would like to add a few comments from what I have seen.
A few blocks from Salon, Crispin gave a speech last week to the Commonwealth Club. I have to say my reaction to it was similar to Farhood's reaction to his book: I felt he talked a whole lot about the topic of the criticism of his assertions - but while expecting that to lead up to some summary of the facts supporting them, he suddenly announced his speech was over without 'the meat' being delivered, IMO.
He made various references and assertions, and his message was well structured around how republicans stole the election 'before, during and after the voting', and he made reference to some activities, but I never felt he supported much - as Farhood said, he seemed to assume the correctness of the allegations.
Now, there is smoke - and I'd like to see it investigated. Examples include his allegations of (IIRC) 'thousands' of activities including the calls to black voters telling them they'd be arrested if they voted with any unpaid child support or traffic tickets - he even referred to a specific team of paid republican operatives who travelled from state to state making these calls. But that's all the evidence for them.
Another is the problem with why republican districts had plenty of machines and short lines, democrats had few machines, long lines.
He offered many assertions on this too, such as there being thousands of machines left locked in storage that could have been used.
Crispin makes his case passionately - he puts his neck so far out that you want him not to be exaggerating. It reminds me of watching Nixon play all the cards about the American people having to be able to trust their president and such, raising the stakes to use all the goodwill of the office, making the price far higher if (and when, in his case) the truth shows otherwise.
In other words, Crispin isn't just making the case - he's laying it out in such a way, to appeal to anyone who cares about the integrity of our system, asserting so strongly that he's right and being falsely smeared, the the stakes greatly increased for all investigators of election wrongs if the truth is otherwise.
It's the sort of thing, if false, you might see the republicans put someone up to to discredit the whole side of the argument.
I'm not beginning to allege Crispin has done that.
I think too, though, that whatever the fact with the election being 'stolen', we should not lose site of the many other problems with our current system - including the issue of corporate donations playing such a large, corrupting role. I think we should ban corporate donations from the system, removing the laissez-faire late 19th century policy that corporations are legally people.
Crispin had a lot of other points and anecdotes that are interesting and should be further looked into.
Let's figure out a mechanism to do so - with the congressional investigations so broken now, and the media investigations so broken now, that'll take some effort (the Viet Nam 'hearings' with veterans John Kerry participated in come to mind) - and debunk any the moment we find they're false, as Farhood did with at least one.
Finally - it'd be nice of some people recorded some of these calls telling them the election is on another day, etc.
An actual tape might get some media exposure, and convince a lot of people that the problem is real.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
