How Dems Enabled Republicans to Steal the 2004 Presidential Election

[tavalon]

http://www.onlinereviewofbooks.com/

This is a discussion of how Kerry and other Democrats may have been complicit in the election having been stolen. I know, I know, we've been over this.

But you see, it fits, well, it fits up to the part where Kerry decided to join the fight in Ohio, but even that could figure in.

People, explain to me in simple words why this is not right. I'm not arguing that it is right, I'm just having a hard time finding the holes in it. Show me.

[Eric J in MN]

1. Only seven Senators co-sponsored the "Voter Confidence Act"

for a voter-verified paper ballot.

All were Democrats.

John Kerry wasn't one of them.

Sponsor: Sen Graham, Bob (introduced 12/9/2003) Cosponsors (6)
Related Bills: H.R.2239
Latest Major Action: 12/9/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. COSPONSORS(6), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen Dayton, Mark - 5/18/2004
Sen Hollings, Ernest F. - 4/1/2004
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 3/25/2004
Sen Nelson, Bill - 2/23/2004
Sen Schumer, Charles E. - 2/23/2004
Sen Wyden, Ron - 9/7/2004

[lonestarnot]

6. Kerry was tooo busy fighting the lies in the campaign.

I knew all along that the paperless ballot thing was going to get us, but only because I had time to research the possibilities. He was too busy and maybe a little emotionally tied to defending his war record. It sneaked up on him like a cancer. I don't think he realized just how easy it was to throw the damn thing.

[Nightwing]

2. I dint buy it

I do not understand how any rational mind could come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party and John Kerry rolled over and were complicit in a stolen election. Please explain how that would benefit the Dem's and Kerry long term, especially with them having raised so much money over the course of this election cycle to oust Bush.

Any thinking person is aware that voter fraud was abundant and was done so in nearly every state of the union. Kerry, unlike Gore, was faced with battles in a hell of a lot more states in order to win this battle. Kerry's people are on the ground and are still making the push to get all the votes in Ohio counted. The Kerry camp may be doing this behind the scenes, but just because you dint see it or hear about it on our "liberal media" doesn't mean it is not an ongoing process.

To expose the big lie, it takes time; Be patient.

[LisaL]

7. I don't think democrats were in on it.

It would have been pretty stupid to be in on your own destruction. Most likely democrats were completely outsmarted by the republicans, when republicans decided that Diebold is going to declare the winners from now on.

[bunny planet]

14. Kerry was a patrician Boston Brahman before Vietnam. Vietnam changed

him. He became the person he is today because of his experiences during and after Nam. He is no sellout, he is the real deal. His only achilles heel seems to be that he is too honest to recognize the lengths dishonest people will go to, he did not listen to his gut instincts and come out fighting at the first hideous smear they sent his way. Same thing with stolen election, people tried to warn him about potential fraud, especially with the e-voting machines, he appears to not have taken them seriously enough. But....... there is always the possibility that he is working on it like a prosecutor, and will pounce soon. I don't believe he has a fake bone in his body.

Just for the record, I also believe he performed successful CPR on that hamster!:-)

[demnan]

3. I think a lot of this is true

but I disagree with his accessment of Nader. Nader was taking campaign donations from the Republicans so as far as I'm concerned, he was complicit as well.

[lonestarnot]

4. Not a chance!

Go back and look at Kerry's face in the video, the first video he sent via email. He looks like a man who has been threatened, perhaps his family also threatened. He looks worn and tired as though he is under tremendous strain. You can't fake that kind of look. It's there. There are just too many possibilities to explain all of them. Then there were further complications with John Edward's wife and the breast cancer issue, and a possible scism between the two or what was broadcast in MSM this week. Don't know if that is even true. Don't trust ANYTHING ON MSM anymore. DEMS don't roll over! Would you roll over? for bushit? not on your life.

[Nightwing]

5. A BIG Amen to that!!

Excellent post!

[enough]

8. There is a legitimate question here --

Why, after both 2000 and 2002, did the Dems not consider the issue of vote fraud to be crucial?

You don't have to conclude that they were in on the scam (which I do not believe), but you do have to wonder why they were so blind to the reality of what was going on.

And you also have to wonder what it would take for the Democratic party to get behind this issue in a meaningful way.

from the article:

snip>

3) Is it possible that many Democrats were simply unaware of Diebold, ES & S and Ahmanson? Possible, but if they weren't aware, they should have been, because ever since the 1990s, there were numerous reports about their influence on elections, including a nice little piece in 1996 when Republican Chuck Hagel, who at the time had a major financial interest in ES &S, ran for the U.S. Senate and won "stunning upsets" in both the primaries and the general election.

4) In case Democrats missed that news item, were they also dozing through the 2002 mid-term elections when fellow Democrats, including the enormously popular Max Cleland of Georgia, were losing Congressional elections across the country in which Democrats were ahead by wide margins in the polls, only to lose in "amazing upsets" at the end of the race?

5) Were Democrats also unaware that the word was out that the mid-term Congressional elections were a "trial run" for the upcoming presidential election? And if Diebold and ES & S machines were successful at "counting the votes" to assure Republican victories during the mid-term elections, wouldn't it be logical to assume they would also be successful at counting the votes for Bush in the presidential election?

snip>

[Stevepol]

9. I agree wholeheartedly with you Enough.

I've wondered the same thing. I don't believe this voting scam could have been more transparent. I saw Mark Shields after the GA fiasco remarking how amazing it was and even mentioning, if I'm not mistaken, that it was the first time the Diebold machines had been used statewide. Yet he just seemed to gloss it over and go on. Couldn't these guys get the significance of this? I did just a little Google search about the GA 02 election. I thought maybe turn-out was down or there was some reason to explain it, but no, Blacks and voters in general turned out in droves according to a couple newspaper accounts at the time of the election. And the exit polls I believe showed strongly Dem results (I'm not sure of this since these exit polls are no longer available. The note about it says that there were serious problems with them. Evidently, when they showed such wide disparities from the machine count, the obvious conclusion was that the polls had to be wrong. In any case, I don't think they are available anymore. Barnes had an 11% pt lead 4 days before the election; Cleland, a 5% lead. Barnes lost by 5% pts, Cleland by 8%, absolutely impossible numbers. Add to all that the fact that this was a mid-term election and the usual time for the opposition party to show gains, and voila. What could be clearer?

[OneBlueSky]

10. some of us have been asking these questions repeatedly . . .

for the past three years or longer . . . I don't know how many times I posted, for example, that there's no way BushCo will allow Kerry to win, and that they have the means to accomplish that because the Democrats refused to stand up against touchscreen voting with no paper trails . . . and I know many others posted similar comments many, many times . . . and it turned out exactly as we predicted . . .

[Stevepol]

11. Amen Brother

[Stevepol]

12. Amen, Brother

I've tried to understand why the Demos would ignore this issue when it's so transparent and so clearly the single greatest threat to the very existence of the Demos around. There won't be a Demo Party in four years if the machines are not cleaned up with audit trails, and audits required on elections. Possible conclusions: (1) Nobody wants to be considered odd or strange in opinion, certainly one wouldn't want to be accused of being a "conspiracy nut." (2) Since we have the greatest democracy in the world, such a thing couldn't happen; therefore, it's not happening. (3) When everybody seems to be seeing the Emperor's clothes, it takes a lot of self-confidence to actually believe that what you're seeing is what you're actually seeing and that all there is is bare skin. (4) I have cheated (am cheating) myself in various ways and I wouldn't want my closets emptied out for all to see, which could happen if I get too vocal about all this.

Any other theories?

[Eloriel]

13. Absolutely spot on

at least the first half of the piece. I'm not quite so enthusiastic about some of the speculation in the 2nd half, but eventually one DOES start to question motives -- stupidity loses its lustre as a probable motive after a while.

Dodd and Hoyer have a LOT to answer for, IMO. Bad enough that they pushed this through in the first place, but to have opposed the clean up on HAVA at all, let alone as vigorously as they did, is unconscionable, simply unconscionable.

And AFAIC, as long as the Dems aren't out in front of the parade of people and computer scientists who have been waging this war against auditless computerized voting, then they're ALL complicit. They all have staffs who can research this stuff, and in fact sometime last year there was a pretty damning (tho IMO imperfect) report done by one of the Congressional research offices (forget the name of it, not CBO tho). Why haven't they paid attention to that?

There's no excuse, none whatsoever.