Poll: Is Bush's Presidency legitimate?

[TomClash]

Poll question: Poll: Is Bush's Presidency legitimate?

Number 7 deserves a :puke:

[rzemanfl]

1. I picked number 2. But for the butterfly ballot, Repug skulldugery

and Scalia, * would be in Crawford jerking off horses.

[TomClash]

2. LOL!

He'd probably prefer that.

[LittleClarkie]

3. John Dean saying he saw no evidence of it shook my perception a bit

But he was looking for a concerted widespread conspiracy to fraud. What if it was localized to only certain areas, like NY, Texas and Ohio, as Madsen claimed.

In other news, wouldn't you break Coutier if you tried to shag her. She looks like a concentration camp survivor.

[Imagevision]

108. So John Dean is saying that he is unaware of anything Blackwell

may have done that would cause one to re-think the goings on while the votes were trying to tallied -- that Blackwell never adhered to the rules for the recount -

Whether it be Dean or Kerry who share these views - one can only surmise there was a bigger game plan because Kerry at least to me, never got behind the election-fraud issues.It's like what happened in Ohio and elsewhere was a figment of countless millions of imaginations!!

I believe especially after Clinton told us; "whinners" to "get over it" 3 weeks after the election that the middle-east must be occupied/controlled by the US. because of the threat of the oil shortage becoming more and more of the reality.

Bush started started the war, we do need the oil and a position in the middle-east so why not just allow Bush to continue until Iraq is a success for the US.

Many more lives will have to be sacrificed" and there's rumors the draft may be in effect by Febuary/07 simply because recruitment is so down in figures the Marines refused to comment on total numbers for May.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TomClash]

6. I'm not sure I could rise to the occasion

[Warpy]

12. Use somebody else's equipment

You never know where that thing has been,

[johnaries]

27. Frankly, I'm afraid I DO know where that thing has been!

That's what's so frightening! :scared:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

65. You mean you "bang" other women, but respectfully?

[gulliver]

5. Won on illegitimate incumbency in 2004. Ergo, completely illegitimate. n/t

[eallen]

7. This is so, so much a non-starter, it needs to die. It hurts us.

Yes, investigate. If culprits are found, yes, prosecute.

But the truth is that US elections never have been pure. Kennedy won from the mortuary turnout produced by the Daley machine and LBJ's men in Uvalde. Does that make his presidency illegitimate? Unless fraud can be proven -- in a way that leads to a criminal case, not just a statistician crying wolf -- soon after the vote, it leads to future election reform rather than to retroactive undoing of the results.

Democrats who are still beating this horse as a way to discredit Bush just make themselves look like fools, and by association, the rest of us. Yes, if you can find a way to identify and prosecute the culprits involved in any election fraud, go after it. That would be great, and would throw well-deserved egg on the GOP. But face the fact that nothing at this point will change the result of the 2004 election. That race has been called. That ship has sailed. That parrot is dead. Not sleeping. Dead. Like a fucking doornail. Stop acting like ninny's who have to replay a hundredth time the badly called play that caused their team to lose the big game. Start looking forward. Because the more you look back, the more you risk we'll lose 2006. And 2008.

[truth_is_extreme]

9. wrong

one thousand times WRONG, nothing matters if elections continue to be stolen, how can you say "look forward"? That's what Karl Rove keeps telling us, "move on".

Elections will continue to be stolen from people with this kind of sheepish attitude, we need to expose these illegitimate lying little Nazis, and by that I mean exposing what happened in 2000 and 2004.

[eallen]

17. No, I didn't say that.

Let me be clear. Yes, we should investigate election fraud. Yes, we should push for election reform. Yes, we should look at past elections for that purpose.

But there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between saying "look at what happened in 2004, and here is what we should do to fix that," and saying "Bush isn't really the president." It's the difference between the fan who watches a badly called play a thousand times, because it caused his team to lose the Superbowl, and the people who actually work towards rule and process changes that actually make for better play. The first is a ninnie staring at his navel. The second can change things for the better. But nothing is going to change the team that carries the trophy for that season.

There are millions of Democrats who are acting like that fan, saying to themselves and whoever will listen, "it was stolen, it was stolen, it was stolen." And -- listen carefully -- that behavior does nothing to change the rules or process for future elections. If you want to talk seriously about election reform, you cannot begin by saying that Bush is not really president. That turns you from a serious election reformer into that hopeless fan.

[truth_is_extreme]

36. you can consider Bush illegitimate

and still fight for election reform, why on earth would one preclude the other?

If someone is driving a stolen car, does it make him the legitimate owner?

Accepting Bush's legitimacy only invites more crimes from this little Nazi worm and his crime family.

[eallen]

37. You can consider Bush whatever you want...

But you can't participate in serious discussions of rule and referee reform by leading with the complaint that your team was the "real" winner of the Superbowl last year, despite all the hoopla to the contrary, because of that bad call. I'm sorry, but that shows you as just the sour fan, and takes any seriousness out of your calls for changing the process. Get over the damn game. Stop trying to change a result that's not going to change. Face the reality that the process never is and never will be perfect, but that results get called nonetheless. Then -- and only then -- will people take you seriously when you start to talk about the need for more cameras, better referee training, or even the need to get some particular referee out of the sport.

Accept that Bush is the president does NOT make him anything more than the theofascist worm he is. The US has elected some pretty awful presidents in its time. Bush is the most corrupt president since Nixon. And Nixon won by the largest landslide in US history.

And you might take note that election shenanigans have helped the good as well as the evil. Why is it those who want to label Bush as an imposter never so label JFK? There was much clearer evidence of election corruption in 1960 than there yet is in 2004. The point is that (1) any need for election reform or change in process, and (2) the evil that is Dubya have very little to do with each other. Trying to couple those things will prevent you from making headway against either. If you want to change how elections are done, you can't lead by talking about Bush. If you want to win 2006 and 2008, you had better start thinking about next year's game, and not keep replaying that one bad call of last year's game.

[truth_is_extreme]

38. Of course Bush is president

no one is denying that. That doesn't make him a legitimate one.

And you can't win next year's game if you don't know why you lost last year's. Accepting an illegal loss only invites more theft.

[eallen]

41. No one denies it?? Are you reading the same DU as me?

In my version of DU, there's a post just a few below this one about the "United States Imposter Government." In my DU, there are multiple posts daily about Bush "stealing" the election of 2004.

You're right, that we can't win next year's game if we don't look at why we lost last year's. So let's be clear: Kerry did not lose the election of 2004 on a technicality. He lost by three million popular votes. We can't go into 2008 doing what we did in 2004, and hoping that with a 3 million vote deficit, somehow the electoral college will save the day for us.

Kerry lost because he ran a lousy campaign. The party lost because it nominated a weak candidate. There are important lessons there.

Now, if you want to talk about election reform, that's a different topic.

[truth_is_extreme]

48. It's incredible

to still find people here who think that Bush, who on a daily basis kills thousands of innocent Iraqis and Americans for corporate profit, is incapable of a much lesser crime of stealing 3, 5 or 10 million votes.

You probably missed the conclusions of the John Conyers commission. You probably missed the fact that exit polls gave Kerry the victory and were later changed. You probably missed the coverage here on DU of that confession by a computer technician who designed a voting software to steal votes for Bush.

[eallen]

71. I didn't miss any of that. It just doesn't mean what you think.

What Bush is capable of doing isn't relevant. There are millions who are capable of committing murder. Most of them don't.

Wrong exit polls don't prove squat.

The confessions of that computer technician might lead somewhere, if the trail can be chased to fraud that was actually committed.

It's ironic that at a time when we discover who was Deep Throat, so few understand why Woodward and Bernstein did such a great thing. There were thousands of conspiracy theories circulating about Nixon, who was capable of crimes just as egregious as Bush's. Most of those conspiracy theories were bullshit, much as is -- most likely -- your theory that Bush stole millions of votes. What Woodward and Bernstein did, unlike the kvetchers who accused Nixon of everything and anything, was to pin down a specific criminal act, with names, places, times, and relevant details.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eallen]

74. ROTFLMAO. So if I don't swallow your notions whole...

That means I'm a Rove-bot?

:eyes:

I have been the staunchest opponent to the Rove/Bush machine you ever will engage in discussion. But note, importantly, that there is a difference between being a staunch opponent, and a wacko one. I prefer to remain credible.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eallen]

78. You don't know squat about the Rove/Bush spin machine....

First, that's not -- emphatically NOT -- one of their talking points. They would be stupid as hell to make it one of their talking points. Especially if they were directly involved in electoral fraud.

Second, there are many ways in which Bush was dishonest in the election campaign of 2004. What neither you or anyone else has done so far has yet produced is even a scintilla of evidence that Bush (or Rove) were personally involved in electoral fraud. Nada. Zip. Read that carefully, and note the specific claim at issue, and note also what I am not saying. Use a little logic.

Third, when a Democrat comes out and says "Bush stole the election" -- NOT just "the GOP stole the election," NOT just "there was electoral fraud," NOT just "there was something fishy about Ohio," NOT just "there are real problems with these electronic voting machines, but "Bush stole the election" -- they are the ones feeding directly into Rove's hands. When Democrats say stupid things like that, and can back it up with no evidence, they look like fools. Score one for Rove.

[LuPeRcALiO]

80. Blackwell was Bush and Cheney's campaign co-chair in Ohio.

I'd call that involvement.

[eallen]

84. Yep. Blackwell's involvement. Not Bush's or Cheney's.

This is the kind of stuff that separates the conspiracy wacko from the legitimate critic. And it's really simple: Bush's involvement requires Bush's own knowledge and intent, not just that he was the intended beneficiary by someone in his party. That was one of the big issues surrounding Watergate for months and months: What did Nixon actually know? And when?

Of course, it can scandalize his administration if one of Bush's staff -- whom he appointed -- commits a crime. But he didn't appoint Blackwell. And you still haven't shown that Blackwell committed a crime.

If you think these points I raise are Rove talking points, you're not thinking. The point's I'm raising are what you would learn to ask yourself in a course of journalism, logic, or law. These are the kinds of questions that prosecutors and police and journalists ask themselves, when putting together a case or an accusatory article. Bush and Rove are the ones who directly benefit when Democrats harping on these issues leap from general to specific accusation, when they fail to connect the dots, and when their mouths go beyond the evidence they have. That's the easiest kind of criticism to deflect, and it leaves us looking like bumblers and wackos.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

86. "you still haven't shown that Blackwell committed a crime" -- Au Contraire

Numerous election laws and First Amendment rights were blatanty violated by Blackwell, Ohio county election board officials, and e-voting machine company officials. Do some more research.

[truth_is_extreme]

81. Score one for Rove indeed.

As if we needed even more evidence of fraud....it's exactly the 'let's move on' attitude like yours that allowed them to steal it in 2004. And they'll do it again.

[eallen]

82. I don't tell anyone to "move on." What I say is...

Make sure you have evidence of the specific claim before you try to turn those claims into a political message. Otherwise, you just make us look like fools.

So far, you have no evidence of fraud. The programmer who says he was hired to develop a program that would serve that says that someone was thinking of fraud. But not that fraud was committed. It says, "investigate more."

There is significant evidence that the voting in Ohio was run in a biased fashion, regarding how machines were allocated to various districts. That's not right. I don't know if it is a crime. It certainly shows the need for electoral reform.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

85. You, sir, have obviously not studied this subject

to the degree that most of us here have. There is plenty of evidence for each specific claim being made - clear and direct and/or circumstantial, so before telling us what "we" must do, please do your own homework.

[eallen]

87. You're right. I just read what the accusers are saying here & elsewhere...

If what you say is true, then you have a terrible presentation problem. Because the most ardent accusers come off like a bunch of conspiracy wackos. Their accusations are vague, they vary between the first phrasing and second, the evidential chain typically is unrelated to the accusation, the culprits are unrelated to the evidence, and mostly it is embarrassing to be on the same side as the people making them.

I would love for someone who knows that evidence to put it together in a fashion that a prosecutor presented with it would be derelict not to go forward with it, and the NYT would publish an article on its basis, naming a perpetrator. Begin with a specific statute and a specific person who committed a specific act on a specific date, and a description of how that act violated the statute. Just seeing that stated would be great! Then, show how the evidence proves that commission.

I would love to see that. Do it.

Because the kind of accusations I see thrown here are half-baked. No one in the Rove-Bush machine will even pay them attention. Except perhaps for laughs.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

88. Why don't you do it?

*I* am sick of all the critics who refuse to do their own research, coming in here and asking us to compile all the data for them, then present it in a manner that is acceptable to them. We owe nothing to you, and I wonder if you are really on the same side as "us" anyway. People who have paid closer attention than you don't make statements such as "the most ardent accusers come off like a bunch of conspiracy wackos". While there is plenty of strong evidence, as I said, both direct and circumstantial, it is going to take more time and investigation to bring down the Rove-BFEE machine. But it will happen. Watergate took time too.

[truth_is_extreme]

90. and you are one of the people helping give honest citizens

the image of "wacko conspiracy theorists".

Do your homework before insulting 85% of DU.

[eallen]

95. No. I have done the homework for MY claims....

My claims have entirely to do with how some of the people here present theirs. There were some good examples in this thread, such as the notion that Blackwell committing some crime would automatically implicate Bush. It is those leaps of mislogic that create the image that harms us.

[truth_is_extreme]

96. Why are you so eager to defend Bush?

He stole the first election, why wouldn't he steal the second?

And even if he were not behind Blackwell (which is the same as to say Rumsfeld was not behind Abhu Graib, an insane and absurd claim) elections crimes were committed anyway.

[eallen]

99. I'm NOT defending Bush. I'm trying to make Democrats look better.

That accusation is precisely one of the problems in how these discussions go. If you read back through this thread, you will notice I have never said Bush is innocent of anything. Rather, what I have pointed out is the way in which some accusations are so carelessly and illogically made that they only make us look bad. When there is a small, but alas loud, group that continually issues such rhetoric, Bush & company just chuckle. They chuckle twice. They first chuckle when the accusations are hurled, because against such blatant noise, a chuckle is plenty of response. They then chuckle a second time, at the harm that this has done their opposition.

[truth_is_extreme]

100. if you knew ANYTHING

about what happened in Ohio and other states in 2004, you wouldn't be writing this monstrosity. And you ARE defending Bush, in fact that's all you have been doing so far.

[eallen]

102. You don't get it.

If someone starts preaching that the coral reefs are dying, and he knows this because his aunt's coral bracelet turned brown, you don't have to know a thing about marine biology to point out the stupidity of his preaching. If you understand that, you'll understand why your last comment is completely irrelevant.

And if you happen to know that the coral reefs are dying, and you want to get out some messages relevant to that, you don't want anyone around "helping" who keeps talking about his aunt's coral bracelet as proof. And it doesn't matter what other facts he knows. Until he starts speaking rationally, he hurts his own cause.

I'm done with this. You can have the last word, accuse me of working for the Bushkultie, whatever. Make it a good one.

[truth_is_extreme]

104. You are defending a well-known election-thief

Bush stole in 2000 and you still haven't answered why he wouldn't do it again in 2004.

Calling people who believe that 'stupid' is insulting 90% of DU.

[truth_is_extreme]

89. thank you I was wondering

when someone else with sense would join the discussion.

[googly]

92. You keep saying "Bush is illegitimate" and only thing that does is

make us (democrats) look foolish and ignorent in the eyes
of majority of American voters. Like the man says, MOVE ON.
Avoid making dumb statements, statements which have not been
proven in American courts nor is there much chance they ever
will be.

Yes, words do carry weight. Saying stupid things can not make
you look intelligent or attract voters to your side.

[Bridget Burke]

39. Since when are we LEADING with complaints about past elections?

That is the subject of this poll, but most threads here deal with other matters.

Nixon's people wanted to report on corruption in Chicago in 1960--until their research uncovered Republican corruption in other parts of the state. We went through that particular Republican Talking Point earlier here. (You left out "Sore Loserman"!)

And unless we make elections honest, there's no point in looking to the future.

[eallen]

43. Maybe not you personally. But there are many who lead that way.

[LuPeRcALiO]

44. "Get over the damn game"

Completely wrong attitude IMHO, because it wasn't a game, it was a crime.

[eallen]

45. When you can identify the criminal & prove his crime, put him away.

But even that won't remove Bush from office, no more than anyone convicted of election fraud, in Chicago, over the 1960 elections, would have removed JFK.

[LuPeRcALiO]

46. That's the idea.

And since when does Chicago need "mortuary votes" to vote Democratic?

[eallen]

52. Except neither you nor anyone else are anywhere close to doing that.

Chicago didn't need mortuary votes to vote Democrat. But Chicago doesn't get any electoral votes. Illinois does. 1960 was a very close race, and Kennedy carried Illinois by a razor slim 9,000 votes, pushed over the top late in the day by an amazing number of votes reported out of Cook County. He carried Texas by a slender 46,000 votes. If those two states had gone Republican in 1960, Nixon would have been president eight years earlier.

The case that there were electoral shenanigans in 1960 was much stronger than in the 2004 election. So... Did JFK "steal" the election? Was JFK an "illegitimate president"? Was the US government in 1961 an "imposter government"? And here's the $64 question: was that a good issue for the GOP to harp upon for the next five years?

Bush is a lot of things. He is corrupt. He lives in a spin machine that substitutes fantasy for truth. He surrounds himself by a clique more loyal to him than to the nation. He is the most dangerous current threat to the Bill of Rights. He has recreated the GOP as a marriage between the religious right and K street. And -- to our great shame and misfortune -- he is the US president. What we need most to do is figure out how to swing three million voters.

[Bridget Burke]

56. "Was Nixon Robbed? The legend of the stolen 1960 Presidential election"

The simple answer: No, he wasn't.

http://slate.msn.com/id/91350/

Your burning urge to make us shut up would be more valid if you didn't keep pushing a Republican Legend.

[eallen]

59. "GOP's failure to prove fraud doesn't mean that the election was clean."

I didn't say that JFK stole that election. What I pointed out was that the evidence for shenanigans in that election was quite strong. As the article you reference admits. A lot stronger than anything yet turned up for the 2004 election. The Slate article you post mostly demolishes the myth of Nixon's gracious concession. It also points out that the votes were tallied under about as good a process as was possible. "On the other hand, some fraud clearly occurred in Cook County. At least three people were sent to jail for election-related crimes."

What the GOP failed to show was that the fraud swayed the election, or that it was connected to the ticket. Sound familiar?

BTW, I'm not trying to get you to shut up. I'm trying to get you to speak out in more effective ways. Talk about a "US Impostor Government" just makes us seem wild-eyed, and hence ineffective.

[LuPeRcALiO]

70. Did any senators challenge the certification of JFKs

election in 1960? No, and that makes a huge difference.

[googly]

93. Chicago needed mortuary votes in 1960 to win Illinois

Read your history. Or better yet, do some research on
newspaper archives from that era.

[AntiCoup2K4]

73. If someone is driving a stolen car, does it make him the legitimate owner?

If his brother's girlfriend runs the Department of Licensing and writes him a title for the car, it would appear to be so.

[pgh_dem]

54. How do you propose *WE* investigate election fraud?

Do WE have subpoena power? Or the ability to confiscate and test voting equipment? Or the ability to sequester material witnesses?

Who do you think would investigate these allegations, in a state where every lever of power is controlled by republicans who OWE THEIR JOBS to this fraud, even if they were not directly aware of it?

Check out how the investigation into missing workers' comp fund/investment in B* pioneer fundraiser Tom Noe is going...

If it wasn't for dogged reporting by the Toledo Blade, this case would've died like every other injustice perpetrated in Ohio. They dragged the machinery of state kicking and screaming into investigating the theft of $11 million in state money, with the obvious implication that some or all of that money went to B*/C campaign. Now, 5 out of 7 OHSC justices, including Moyers who was named as a co-defendent in election fraud lawsuit, had to recuse themselves due to their acceptance of $ from Noe.

The bottom line is WE can't investigate...all WE can do is raise a big stink about it and hope SOMEBODY with that ability has an ounce of integrity...and the good taste not to tell us to 'get over it and look forward'.

[eallen]

60. Raising a stink is fine.

You raise a stink the way the Toledo Blade did. Not by questioning Bush's legitimacy.

In addition to raising a stink, we also need to push for election reforms. But if you want to be effective at that, you have to sound as if that were your goal, not trying to slur Bush. (Need I point out, again, that there are many more substantive issues on which Bush can be rightly hoisted?)

[pgh_dem]

61. That reasoning is circular.

If we are pushing for election reforms, what basis do we have for pushing for them, if the impetus does not stem from our suspicion of fraud?

Not for nothin, but I *can't* raise a stink the way the Toledo Blade did, because I'm not a newspaper publisher.

Someday (hopefully), when the Toledo Blade team is receiving its Pulitzer for this series, maybe we'll find out that they got interested in the case because enough people in Lucas County were screaming, "THIS ELECTION WAS FRAUDULENT! BLACKWELL and TOM & BERNADETTE NOE HAD THE MEANS MOTIVE AND OPPORTUNITY TO DISENFRANCHISE KERRY VOTERS IN LUCAS COUNTY!"

[eallen]

63. No, it merely separates two issues.

As Bridgette Burke pointed out above, election fraud was proved -- proved in a court of law! -- in the 1960 presidential election.

Did that show JFK was an illegitimate president?

Not by a long shot. Proving fraud does not by itself prove either (a) that the fraud affected the election results, or (b) that the nominees were criminally involved in the fraud. It's still important to pursue the fraud, because the criminals involved should be punished, and because it points to election reforms that will prevent future such frauds. But you go about that wrong when you begin by saying "Bush is illegitimate."

[Cynot]

64. Yes, but what about the point about Kennedy?

Dems have stolen elections too. If Daley hadn't pulled off some skulduggery in the Chicago area, Nixon would have been elected in 1960. Most historians agree on that point.

[johnaries]

29. I think we have plenty of other issues to hang Bush with. But,

if we don't deal with election fraud ASAP, we'll never have honest elections again. Maybe continually bringing up 200 and 2004 won't do it, but we need to find SOME way to get people to pay attention and do something!

[dean2016]

32. What hurt us was not the fair election

it was picking the wrong candidate.

I worked the polls and resent all the smears against my profession. do


Are there mistakes made yes but did it cost us the electon hell no.

Grown ups admit defeat and learn from there mistakes, children whine when they don't get there own way.

Get over yourselves and admit defeat and next time pick a candidate that doesn't vote to support an illegal war.

[johnaries]

75. the fraud had nothing to do with the poll workers...

the poll workers did a GREAT job!
You should go hang out in the 2004 Election forum for a while. You will not believe your eyes.
Welcome to DU! :hi:

[truth_is_extreme]

8. #1 for sure

The 2004 theft was way greater than 2000. Bush deserves to share the same jail cell with Saddam, Osama and Cheney.

[dean2016]

13. Mistake was made in the primary

It makes me sick when I told everyone we needed someone with a clear difference on Iraq to win in november.

I was told no Kerry was the electable one so Dean couldn't do.

I feel like saying to everyone I told you so. But Kerry kool aid supporters still won't admit they were wrong in picking Kerry over Dean.

What makes it worse now they see they were right and they won. That Kerry's vote for the war has been proven right because he won.

Kerry winning the primary cost us the election not election fraud and I am sick that people are not looking at the real reason why we lost. Giving credit to a failed strategy is wrong.

I am angry at Edwards for going after Dean too this week, we need a strong voice and Dean is that voice.

For everyone that is getting on Edwards how can you get on him if according to this poll he is the sitting vice president. And if so if he decides to run in 08 he will have to win because of his incumbency.

[truth_is_extreme]

15. I wasn't for Kerry either

but he got more votes than Bush did in Ohio, there's no question the election was blatantly stolen.

Having said that, I don't think Dean would stand for this crime as sheepishly as Kerry did.

[dean2016]

16. I live in Ohio

I personally have gone to many counties and recounted the ballots there Kerry did not win Ohio he didn't even come close.

You can go to many ohio counties and recount the ballots, 81 out of 88 ohio counties used paper ballots.

I fought for my life to get dean as the nominee and I will not listen to lies afterwards that Kerry was right after all.

Go to ohio and count the ballots yourself. I went and counted the ballots Kerry lost.


Ohio wasn't even close Kerry lost by 118,000 votes to say he won is an insult to anyone's intelligence.

Kerry ran an incompetent campaign look at the election results in the rural areas in ohio kerry was not competitve.

Kerry ran an absurd campaign in ohio campainging in only 10 of ohio's 88 counties.

Kerry lost and I was right that we needed Dean as the nominee, please don't lie and say the repug lite pro iraq war resolution candidate was the answer.


Wisconsin was decided by 10,000 votes, New Hampshire was decided by 9,000 votes


Ohio was a blow out decided by 118,000 votes if you can't understand that Kerry was crushed in Ohio then you are a pro war kerry kool aid drinker.

[dean2016]

19. Come to Ohio and count the votes

I will pay for you to come to ohio and count the votes I want to hear that I was right about Kerry being the wrong candidate.

o
I will fly you to ohio so you can count the votes and then not vote for Kerry in 08 and have to go through this all again.


I spent countless hours counting the votes in Butler County ohio kerry lost that county by 53,000 votes you can't win ohio losing that county by 53,000 votes.

I went to Claremont county and counted every single vote in that county Kerry lost that county by 50,000 votes i saw the votes my own eyes they were optical scan ballots, you can't win ohio and lose claremont county by 50,000 votes.

Bush was closer in minnesota than Kerry was in ohio.

Kerry staffers slashed gop tires in wisconsin and there has been major fraud that occured in milwaukee.

In all reality Kerry probably lost wisconsin so ohio doesn't even matter.


Kerry staffers were convicted of slashing gop get out the vote tires in milwaukee, and more than 20,000 registered voters voted in milwaukee then there were voters, if bush had gone to court he would have won wisconsin.


Wisconsin was a close state decided by 10,000 votes


Ohio was not a close state it was decided by 118,000 votes


Give me the proof that Kerry has some magical 118,000 more votes in ohio, where are they. Where is the proof.

[pgh_dem]

49. There were other DU'ers who recounted Butler, Claremont and

Hamilton.

One name I remember was Liam Laddie. I recall Liam posting the opposite of your claims, that the vote counts were in fact off (though perhaps not enough to change results), and in many cases the signatures on the poll books did not match up to voters, a clear indication of fraud.

I think you are mistaken about where you were during the election, and what you recounted post-election. Your profile says you live in DC, and you just created your account on June 5.

Do you seriously contend that you were SO committed to the election that you served as a poll worker in Ohio, then went back to investigate election fraud, spending "countless" hours, and yet didn't feel it appropriate until June 5 to share those results?

Maybe you were posting them... somewhere else?

[dean2016]

22. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled no fraud

They basically laughed at the fraud claims, people that believe in fraud need to come to ohio and count the ballots. Stop the yapping count the ballots see the results for yourself then stop it.

Diebold wasn't used in ohio that is a myth I hear a lot that diebold cost us the election diebold wasn't used in ohio.

I hear about the warren county lockdown, Kerry staffers were in the building the whole time the vote was being counted.


Bush lost thousands of military ballots in ohio that were delayed because of ralph nader's name being put on late.

Bush lost thousands of votes in rural counties in ohio because absentee ballots arrived after nov 2 but were mailed before hand.

ACT registered dead people's names in ohio.

Bush lost thousands of votes because people voted at the wrong machine in many rural counties in ohio.

Not only did Bush win Ohio by 118,000 votes from my research he probably won ohio closer to 130,000 votes,

Clinton won ohio by 92,000 votes in 92 nobody said a word about that victory that is how decisive bush's victory in was.

Dean would have kicked the shrub back to texas.

[truth_is_extreme]

34. The Supreme Court ruled no fraud??

That's the same as confirming the theft, don't make me laugh. The owner of Diebold is from Ohio and promised the state to Bush. The ballot count is irrelevant, the computers were fixed. Sorry, Bush stole it again.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. Obviously stole the election in 2000

Making 2004 fruit of the poisonous tree. 2004 is irrelevant, since the accoutrements of office came at the expense of the will of the electorate in 2000. Finito.

[dean2016]

14. 2000 recount study done

Actually if all the votes were counted in the 2000 election including the military ballots that were thrown away because of a technicality of not having the right stamp we would have still lost.

We have to be strong and stop acting like kids crying over spoiled milk.

We lost the 2004 election because we ran the wrong candidate.

Dixiecrat counties in northern florida that used paper ballots were recounted and we lost.
won
Kerry didn't pay attention to rural or exurban areas. Kerry blew the election by his Iraq war vote. We have to admit that or else we will be picking Kerry in 08 again because some people think he won an election that he blew.

Kerry lost by 3 million votes to a chimp moron. Kerry lost rural counties in Ohio by a huge margin. Kerry won many states like wisconsin, new hampshire that were much closer than ohio and should have been won in a blow out.

And I am tired of hearing about exit polls, the exit polls had dean winning the new hampshire primary how come the kerry cool aid drinkers aren't giving us dean supporters the new hampshire primary win and then dean could have won the nomination.

Wisconsin was ten times closer than ohio, kerry lost ohio by more votes than Clinton won ohio in 92 or 96 and clinton won ohio easily.

Kerry was a boring candidate with no message because of his iraq war vote.

No one voted for Kerry because they like him they voted against bush you can't win an eleciton that way.


Kerry lost 255 of the 435 congressional districts to Bush, it is an insult as a dean supporter to hear from the same people that said no we can't have dean to then say he won a race that he got crushed in.

I live in Ohio and worked the polls in columbus and no many poll workers across the state anyone that thinks kerry won ohio when he lost by a considerable margin over 118,000 votes is very dangerous.

I fear that people will vote for Kerry in 08 because they think he is really the incumbent which is very dangerous because Kerry lost and instead of realizing Kerry was not the right candidate we will have pick the same pro iraq war resolution candidate again.

Once was enough never again let's stop this madness that Kerry won, he didn't win we lost when we picked him over Dean.

[eallen]

20. I hope we have learned something since running William Jennings Bryan.

Three times.

:hippie:

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Everything you said about 2004 is of no interest to me

Bush was able to hold the mantle of the Presidency because he stole the lection in 2000. Kerry was about as strong a candidate as you could put up against the so-called "war president," who was - of course - actually a snivelling coward and draft dodger. That the veneer of office held to him at all was derived from his fraudulent "win" in 2000, period.

Your bullshit about the "recount study" is just that: bullshit.

[dean2016]

24. Recount study

In 2000 the media called florida an hour before the panhandle polls closed costing bush thousands of votes.

GOre lawyers had thousands of military ballots thrown out because they didn't have the right stamp, as a veteran I thought that was wrong.

I have studied the 2000 election and Bush lsot the popular vote but did win the electoral college making him legitimate.

As much as I can't stand how that coward could ever be president we have to admit the stupidity of this nation's voting base.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dean2016]

26. Just because I like Dean over Kerry

doesn't mean I don't hate Bush


That is what is so frustrating about Kerry kool aid supporters they can't admit that dean was a better candiate and then they come back with you like Bush. No one likes Bush but when I fought so hard to defeat Bush by electing Dean it makes me angry to see people still not get that Kerry caused bush to be in office for 4 more years, it didn't have to be that way.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. Whatever you say

I don't believe a word of it.

[Awsi Dooger]

35. Your selective analysis is remarkable

First of all, it's pure speculation Bush lost votes due to the early call. It can just as easily be argued Gore supporters bolted line to celebrate the unexpected early call. I looked carefully at the vote totals from those panhandle counties and there was zero evidence of lack of GOP participation.

There were also considerable reports of military ballots that were cast post-election and stamped with doctored dates, once it was obvious every ballot was crucial.

Most importantly, you cherry pick the study of the unattributed or wrongly attributed votes during Florida in the 2000 election. No mention of overvotes whatsoever. Every legit study screamed Gore would have won by 25,000+ votes if the flawed two page or butterfly ballots had not been used. The phony Pat Buchanon votes in Palm Beach County alone would have put Gore over the top by several thousand.

If overvotes are excluded, the conclusions differed regarding undervotes alone. Certain criteria for counting chads favored Bush, others Gore. So far we have completely ignored the purged voter rolls which probably cost Gore tens of thousands of perfectly legit African American votes. Regardless, Bush winning Florida was the most illegit and against-the-will-of-the-voter electoral result in contemporary political history.

IMO, you got 2004 wrong also. I completely agree Kerry was the wrong candidate. But I believe the proper nominee to sway white women and swing independents was Edwards, not a loose cannon like Dean. Bush's 2004 victory was legitimate and in retrospect I think he would have nipped Edwards as well. 9/11's impact on the white female vote, the so-called security moms, was much more widespread and impactful than we dared accept.

[Bridget Burke]

40. Please provide a link to the study about 2000...

The one I read about noted that, in most ways of counting the votes, Gore actually won.

It's always interesting to hear a new DU'er instructing us to shut up.

[dragonkeep]

42. I have to contradict you (Dean2016) here....

When all the ballots in Florida for the 2000 election were counted, Gore won. Our votes in Florida were negated by the Supreme Court not allowing ALL of the votes to be counted. I am still angry about this. When there are paper ballots, people willing to count them, and the election in doubt, there should be NO excuse for not counting all the votes. Not having enough time should not be an issue. In my book, the vote is more important than the inaugural date.

I don't know what happened in 2004. The advent of the paperless trail for votes allows the possibility of corruption and fraud. If you look at history, every time you make it easy to steal or commit fraud, people come along and avail themselves of that opportunity. Given that the primary manufacturers of the paperless voting machines are very partisan Republicans; that they have refused to release the code to nonpartisan overseers for review, that they could have incorporated a paper trail (these same manufacturers make ATM machines for God's sake, and you know they have printers!); that there is no valid chain of custody for the ballots, cards, and voting machines, etc.; that exit polls we used to challenge foreign elections indicated as much suspiscious results here; that lots of the voting machines were in Republican (or well-off) neighborhoods while sparsely populated in poorer or minority regions (most likely Democratic voters)had fewer machines and, as a result, longer lines; I do believe that the election was rigged to enhance the Republican vote and depress the Democratic vote. All in all, not a very American value.

We need to take the validation of votes seriously, have a verifiable backup (paper) when elections are close, and make our vote as precious to the government as it is to we who have cast it.

[SophieZ]

11. USIG - U.S. Imposter Government

I've decided that it's misleading to say things like:

"The U.S. invaded Iraq." or

"The U.S. backed out of the signed nuclear treaty."


The preponderance of the evidence points to election fraud in many states in 2004, and certainly enough fraud to have flipped the 60,000 votes it would have taken to switch Ohio to Kerry. (The tallied difference in Ohio was about 118,000 votes.)

But, I think we need to stop speaking of the US government as "the U.S."

Especially THIS government.

So, I'm going to say,

"The U.S. Imposter Government invaded Iraq." or

"The U.S. Imposter Government backed out of the signed nuclear treaty." or

"The U.S. Imposter Government refused to take responsibility for the torture of prisoners."

They are NOT the U.S. They are not us.

[Imagevision]

18. Yes, I agree -- Ohio was obvious as hell & Blackwell's BS...

[dean2016]

21. I recounted the ballots in ohio

I will pay anyone to come to ohio and count the ballots and see that we made a major mistake in picking Kerry over Dean and we never again can pick a candidate like candidate Kerry probably the most boring candidate to ever come on the scene.

Kerry lost 255 of the 435 congressional districts to Bush.

Kerry cost us senate seats in Kentucky, South Dakota, Alaska, and Florida


Kerry was a drag on the ticket Kerry cost us at least 4 senate seats

Kerry was on top of a ticket that lost the congress by 29 seats.


Kerry was the biggest nightmare on the ticket he cost many good candidates to lose senate seats.,

Kerry should be a model of why we lost and not to pick someone like him again, not to lie and say because we hate bush that he won an election he blew.

Never again with Kerry, I am tired of the Kerry defenders who blew this election with there electable Kerry and are still sticking by there electable loser kerry for 08.

[LuPeRcALiO]

47. I'm glad Mr. Blackwell gave you the run of his office.

Very kind of him.

[uppityperson]

79. Pay me to come to Ohio and count ballots, including the electronic ones

You keep saying you will pay someone to come to Ohio and count the ballots. I will. You need to provide the paper ones and the electronic ones and I will count them all. If you cannot provide all the ballots, I will not pay you any further attention.

[dean2016]

33. There should be no open primary then in 08

By your logic Kerry is the sitting incumbent president and he should get to pick his own dnc chairman too. Edwards as shadow vp will get to toss dean out.

With kerry being the incumbent nobody can run against him in the 08 primary because it isn't customary to run against a sitting elected president.

So by this logic everyone on this board will surely be voting for Kerry.


Kerry is so yesterday's news life is too short to be obessing over the a lost election over 6 months ago.

We can make great gains in 06 and we will make those gains because the public has tired of the repukes, issues matter not fair elections, we have fair elections, are they perfect no, but we didn't lose the 2004 election because of not having fair elections, we lost because that moron in the white house got more votes.

[FreedomAngel82]

28. He didn't win 2000

and he didn't win 2004. There is no proof whatsoever of 2004 and the proof of it.

[dean2016]

31. 2004 wasn't even close

Kerry lost by 3 million votes and lost ohio and florida badly.


To say Kerry didn't lose in 2004 is not living in reality, we need to learn from our mistakes and pick the right candidate next time, enough with the kerry pro war apologists that want to say kerry won so they can run another pro war candidate like kerry or hillary in 08.

[VOX]

76. 2004 *was* close. Kerry lost Ohio by only 118,599 votes; if he took Ohio..

He would have won, regardless of Florida and regardless of the three million mostly red-state overvotes.

With a truly fair media, a popular vote difference of 3 million in an election where 121.5 million voted would be called what it was: close.

But this reality remains: Less than 120,000 votes separated Kerry from the presidency of the United States. That a margin so thin that it could easily be tampered via less-than-honest voting methods, and in a state (Ohio) that was guaranteed to be delivered to * by none other than the CEO of Canton, Ohio-based Diebold himself.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud_ohio.html
IN mid-August <2003>, Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold Inc., sat down at his computer to compose a letter inviting 100 wealthy and politically inclined friends to a Republican Party fund-raiser, to be held at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year," wrote Mr. O'Dell, whose company is based in Canton, Ohio.
<snip>

No one can say that the 2004 election wasn't close.

[Lost Dutchman]

50. Legally, this isn't a matter of opinion.

2000 Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush. Case closed.
2004 Kerry conceded. Case closed.

Like it or not those are the facts we have to live with.

Until he is removed from office, he is the legitimate President.

[pgh_dem]

51. You're right and wrong

You're right that the case is closed, but you cite the wrong reasons.

B* is in office 'legitimately' because the states' votes were cast without (sustained) objection by the Senate. At that point, we can still call his election illegitimate, but there is no doubt he was legally installed as president.

Facts we do not have to live with, but currently are living with: rigged machinery, partisan actions by state election officials, total lack of objective oversight of the process, completely unresponsive and retarded media.

[Lost Dutchman]

53. Your second point is correct...

But the poll was for the presidency, not the election. Once he was legally installed, the question of legitimacy was over.

As for your Third point. Spot on. This needs to be addressed if the U.S. is to survive as the Constitutional Republic it is suppose to be.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

83. When our legal system is corrupt

Why should we consider its rulings legitimate? When half the members of Congress are corrupt, bought, bribed, and/or illegitimate themselves, why should we accept Congressional decisions as legitimate? Fact is, we shouldn't.

[Lowell]

55. 2000 was stolen

but I don't know what happened in 2004. I saw the hijacking of the government first hand here in Florida in 2000. I was glad Gore fought the bastards and sorry to see the SCOTUS appoint Bush president.

In 2004 Ohio suffered the attention of the nation that Florida had in 2000. My relatives in Ohio tell me that they thought it was a closer race than the numbers show. Who knows? The Diebold machines virtually eliminated a paper trail and there is no way to do a real recount anymore.

Kerry was a good candidate, but he was not as exciting as Dean. I was disappointed at how quickly Kerry tossed in the towel. He should have made the GOP sweat and count every vote before conceding.

[Deja Q]

57. No, but he's in. And that's all that matters.

Winning, personal glory. Much better than actually running a society.

[GOPBasher]

58. No. n/t

[Protagoras]

62. 2 people here would shag Coulter? Yeech

She's nasty and foul beyond the needs of even the most extreme fetishist.

I think we know that he clearly STOLE the election in 2000...and I think so many things were broken, fixed, and corrupt in 04 that we simply didn't have an election.

BBV = no democracy at all.

As far as I'm concerned, we're still in Bush's first, stolen term.

[ihelpu2see]

66. I HOPE THEY GOT THEIR PENICILLIN!! eom

[KansDem]

67. Damn! George W. Bush and Ann Coulter mentioned in the same thread!

:puke:

Time to take a shower!

[dajoki]

68. no!!

shag coulter, that's disgusting!:puke:

[ComerPerro]

69. The way I see it: no

He was installed in office in 2000, and no matter what happened in 2004 he was elected under false pretenses.

Also, knowing that the only reason he is still in office (or has been at all for the past three years or so) is because of 9/11 really makes me sick.

[DemGirl7]

91. Bush will never be seen as a legitimate president in my eyes...

NEVER...NEVER...NEVER!!! I refuse to call him president, he is nothing more than a lying, retarded twit...seeing his presence on TV just makes me want to :puke: and I completely have NO respect for him or his ilk...

[googly]

94. and you have every right to think so....but for gosh sake don't

say that in public. You won't win any votes by saying things
that have not been proven in courts and not likely to be. It
makes you look illogical, untrustworthy and incoherent.

[Bridget Burke]

98. Thanks for the warning.

We'll give it all the respect it deserves.

Anybody who knows the true story of the 2000 election knows that Bush stole it. That is--it was stolen for him.

[radfringe]

97. it was all a miscalculation

I've designed a poster... a gif version is below...
the poster is 22" x 34" and can be found here http://www.cafepress.com/radicalfringe.23919237





"They have miscalculated me as a leader -- G.W.Bush". These words were spoken in the year 2000 and have proven amazingly prophetic.

[jsw_81]

101. First term no, second term yes

He clearly won in 2004.

[Spectral]

103. Not legitimate in any year

:kick:

[Old_Fart]

105. Bushs Presidency is about as legal as booze was during the prohibition era

:rofl:

[hippiegranny]

106. #s 3, 5 and 7

are a crack up. Even funnier is that there are obviously trolls hanging out and choosing them.

[AlabamaYankee]

107. Not only NO

But HELL NO