Republicans steal 2004 elections

This is a MUST READ!

Bobby Kennedy Jr, writing for Rolling Stone Magazine details the lengths to which the GOP went to steal votes and disenfrachise Ohio voters in 2004. The web version features additional documents and sources.


KoalaBear said...

You're a bit late with this one.

See this NPR story, from the week before the RFK piece was released. It neatly debunks RFK's entire premise without knowing it. Of course, everyone knows that NPR is filled with fascist Chimpy-loving Rethuglicans.

See this post at Salon.com. Of course, it's written by an obviously fascist Bushco neocon cabal crony. I mean, joo is part of his name!

See this post from the blatantly paste-eating Mystery Pollster today. His blogroll? It's just a sick wingnut ploy to throw people off his scent.

Besides, the 2004 election is so... 2004. When RFK Jr. runs for president in 2012, and gets his moonbat ass spanked, will you still be whining about stolen elections?

I can't wait until the 2008 donk primaries, where it'll be a cage match between the World's Smartest Man and the World's Smartest Woman. The punch line is that either of them will be defeated by a stupid monkey. Or by whatever racist, bigoted moniker you moonbats stick to whoever runs against them.

John in Atlanta said...

Get your head out of your ass. The Fahad Manjoo article has been proven to be full of inaccuracies and bullshit.

RFK Jr and Rolling Stone checked every fact from one end to the other before printing the article because they knew the smear machine would be frothing at the mouth to release their counterpoints. As usual their "debunking" is full of holes and lies. Checking facts is a concept that is all but lost on America's wingnuttery.

John in Atlanta said...

I just have to ask - did you actually READ RFK Jr's article or just the "debunking" smears?

Do yourself a favor - read up on what those you choose to defend are up to. After doing so tell me, as an American, if you find that behavior acceptable.

KoalaBear said...

Yes, sadly, I read the RFK Jr. article. I also just spent an hour searching for the "proof" that the Farhad Manjoo article is "full of inacuracies and bullshit", so I won't whine that you didn't link to that proof yourself, because 1) I do my own research, and 2) there is no such "proof".

I've read exerpts of the editors notes on the RFK story. Good luck with your moonbat research skillz getting a hold of that. I would like you to link to a source that can independently confirm that the Rolling Stone checked all the "facts" in this piece.

I did that favor, too. It seems that, knowing what our troops are doing in Iraq (namely, close to 100% good work overall), that I do find their behavior acceptable. I read up on the officers and administration bureaucrats that sent our troops to war on October 7, 2001, and I know what they are up to, and I find their behavior acceptable.

Tell me, what does Abu Ghraib say about you? When UN "peace keepers" rape refugees, why aren't you screaming for Kofi Annan's head on a platter? When millions are slaughtered every year at the hands of leftist guerilla thugs in Africa, and in Asia, and in the Pacific, why do you hold those thugs to be morally superior to your fellow countrymen and the civilians who decide to send our fellow countrymen to war?

How many Al Qaida members have been tried by Al Qaida for war crimes? When a car bomb kills our troops, Iraqi troops, and Iraqi civilians, why do you blame Bush? When the number of collateral civilian casualties, wrongful deaths and murders in Iraq this year is the lowest it has been for over 20 years, why do you call Bush and our fellow countrymen murderers? Read up on who you choose to defend. A bunch of sniveling, sore-losers who are still smarting from an election that was almost six years ago, who were screaming "No Blood for Oil!" before the 2000 election even occured (I know, I voted for Gore in 2000 as a stupid liberal, and every leftist consideration of a potential Bush presidency back then pointed out the likelihood of Bush actually following up on Iraq, never mind that they never mentioned the finishing clause "where Clinton never did". I remember when Jim Jeffords went Independent, and the Iraq talk died down because the media thought the Senate gridlock would prevent Bush from gaining authorization, at least until after the 2002 elections.)

No sir, you should get your head out of your ass. Realize that your country is being threatened, and it isn't by some rethuglican cabal. There are people in this world who will kill you, your wife, your children, and everything you love, while they do the same to me, and they will do so without a second thought and without warning if only given the chance. I want those people killed first. I'm about 100 lbs too thick to be allowed to help do the job myself. If it comes down to a poor, disenfranchised Muslim youth being detained for waging warfare outside of the Geneva conventions being tortured (in the worse case) for information, or the armed forces and law enforcement being unable to stop an attack that kills your family, would you honestly choose to let the kid go?

If so, I, as a human being, find that behavior to be reprehensible.

When the day arrives, that Americans have to watch over their shoulders at all times, just like the Iraqis, just like the Israelis, like the French and the rest of Europe will soon have to do, in anticipation of the next suicide bomber, or the next random shooting on civilians for dress code non-compliance, rest assured that there are Americans who have had their heads quite comfortably out of their asses, and who will do the hard, but necessary work of torturing captured "insurgents" to help stop as many attacks as possible, and to help even sorry moonbats as safe as possible. Especially because we know that they'll come for the defenseless women, children, and moonbats first.

Signing off from Tijuana...

John in Atlanta said...

Koalabear, do you know what really chaps my ass? Even if only one little part of JFK Jr's story is true, doesn't that cause you any concern whatsoever? Probably not. I'm sure you have the "as long as it's my party doing it" mentality. Knowing what I know now it really infuriates me to hear wingnuts say "Dems can't win elections". That's like holding someone under water and saying "you can't even breathe properly".

KoalaBear said...

The thing is, none of the allegations made in that article are true. None of them. The sources that RS helpfully cited (most with no links, but Lexus/Nexus is the rich wingnut's friend) give incorrect, inaccurate, and/or misleading information, or the relevant claims and/or statements of fact from the cited sources have, since they were originally published, been thoroughly and completely debunked.

But lets imagine a world when there is voter disenfranchisement and fraud. I know it happens. The Dem's and the GOP both do it, extensively and comprehensively. It happened to me, in the great state of GA, in a heavily conservative Republican-leaning precinct and district!!!!! When people show their ID, they get a ballot number and the poll worker notes the number, and makes a mark on their master roll. When I showed up to vote in the General Election of 2004, I was among the first 50 through the door, and my name already had a number (76!) and a mark. Who knows what that means, or if there was even fraud, or if any fraud was to benefit the GOP or the Dems? Maybe it was a simple mistake? Maybe they were tracking primary participation on the same rolls? I got to vote, and I was late for work, so I didn't raise a stink.

Do I care if 10, 20, 20000, a million people are improperly prohibited from voting? Not much, when I know that there are millions of voters who DO get to vote improperly. Do I think that people where blocked from voting in Ohio? We should all assume that it happens in Ohio and every other state by default. It's really part of the broken system. Was it only Democrat voters disenfranchised? Most certainly not. Was there a nefarious plot by the GOP to stop Democrats from voting? The fact is BOTH parties perform activities meant to both increase positive turnout and decrease negative turnout. The tactics involved are quite nefarious, but only total idiots will be deceived by these tactics. I'll concede that there are more Democrat idiots than Republican idiots, so there may have been more disenfranchised Democrats. As for actually denying people their franchise, every state has procedures in place, where all major parties can insert their own auditors, to handle the processing of provisional ballots for people who cannot prove their eligibility to vote.

Would Kerry have won had the election be absolutely flawless? No. His margin of defeat would have been much higher.

No one, zero persons, absolutely none, no one who presented themselves to complete a ballot was denied. Some may have been offered a provisional ballot, but there's nothing wrong with that. If a person cannot figure out how to register to vote in a timely manner, to ensure that they are indeed on the voter rolls in a timely manner, and to file the proper complaints on election day if they feel their rights are being violated, then frankly I'm perfectly happy with those people being disenfranchised, regardless of how they want to vote. All those provisional ballots that were thrown out? Thems the shakes. There is public information to be had for each and every decision to reject a provisional ballot. The media is definitely analyzing that information, but they aren't reporting their findings. You hear about so many provisional ballots being rejected, especially that the majority of them were for Democrats when the Democrats lost, but you never hear why. Why do you think that is? Those ballots were rejected because the persons who cast them were NOT ELLIGIBLE TO VOTE UNDER THE LAWS OF THEIR STATE. Ditto most rejected absentee ballots (the rest being rejected because of improper submittal). If an overseas voter cannot work out how to get their ballot, complete it, and return it properly and on time, then I have no problem with them being disenfranchised. The fact that a lot of our military men and women fall under this category makes me sad, but thems the shakes. Even troops who are out in the shit 90% of the time (of which there are relatively few; most troops rotate back to some sort of base at least every few days) can manage to successfully send in an absentee ballot if it really matters to them. Sure it's a pain in the ass, but you'd think being in the shit 90% of the time is more of a pain in the ass.

KoalaBear said...

FWIW, total actual cases of alleged disenfranchisement are down since the 90's, as is the number of cases found to be true. It's just we never heard much about disenfranchisement when Democrats were winning presidential elections.

Try doing a search of news articles that mention "disenfranchisement", for every year where there are searchable archives, and compare the counts of such articles for each year. The results obviously skew upwards for years after presidential elections, but even a cursory consideration of these numbers is very interesting.