Democrats & Liberals: Archives

America is tired of Democrat whining about “stolen” elections. RFK Jr. is making a (bigger) fool of himself with his much publicized rantings.

When Dems win, its evidence of a public mandate. When the GOP wins, its the result of theft.

The only people convicted of voter fraud for actions in the 2004 election were DEMOCRAT operatives. And they were convicted in urban areas of BLUE STATES!

Your whining would be funny, were it not so utterly pathetic.

Take off the tinfoil hats, you look ridiculous.

Quick question for the Republican bloggers:

Why are you against paper receipts for electonic voting machines?

This suburban Chicago Republican is for paper receipts.

It’s the only way to ensure the city Dem machine isn’t stuffing the ballot box.

Sorry to cheat you out of your tinfoil hat buzz dude.

“Is it time for election reform?”

What a silly question—of course not! Let’s keep things exactly the way they are.

After all, you can’t get people who have a vested interest in the status quo considering serious reform.

“It’s very difficult to get a man whose salary is dependent on not seeing something, to see.”

I never supported Tim Crow laws and I’m not about to start now!

Right-of-Way,

I am glad that you are for paper receipts of electronic voting machines, now maybe you could convince the Republicans in congress to require them for all elections starting with the one coming up.

And you have the right-of-way to drive of a cliff, along with your backward, juvenile thinking.

Hang on one sec while I fold my tin foil hat into a diebold admin key for ‘proper’ adjustments…

Back in the day, in the former Soviet Union, if in fact they decided to vote via electronic devices, all in our land of freedom would shout foul play.
Why? Because it’s just too easy to manipulate and we know how corrupt things are there.

Right-of-way posted

When Dems win, its evidence of a public mandate.

This is what needs to happen (most likely several times) for the public to gain trust in electronic voting. Sorry, but common public trust is not in the egg basket of Republicans.

Voting has never needed to be electronic. That is for impatient individuals.

You speak of people being able to spend their money to promote their views as free speech. There is merit to that. However corporations are not people even though they have been granted the same rights by the courts. That is a travesty that can be corrected legislatively.
There is a fact that has held for all of human history. The wealthy must control the government. It is a class imperitiv like dogs have to run and fish swim. They will do it by any means necessary,contributions,bribery,coersion. It is just a fact.That is the reason groups like the UAW,AFL-CIO are reticent to give up that power. By combining small contributions from many people they can have their voices heard and that is why they are under attack by the wealthy. How dare they speak like us!

“Quick question for the Republican bloggers:

Why are you against paper receipts for electonic voting machines?”

Because they can be bought for money after the voter leaves the polling place opening up room for real corruption on both sides. There is a reason why “receipts have never been used in any elections. Now come up with a paper trail that doesnt walk out the door in the hand of the voter and you might have something.

and it is well worth repeating:

“The only people convicted of voter fraud for actions in the 2004 election were DEMOCRAT operatives. And they were convicted in urban areas of BLUE STATES!”

and I lived in Florida in 2000. 7 seperate media organizations, (on both sides) found no matter how long you kept counting, Gore did not have enough votes.

Dont take my word for it. Research it yourselves.

What is meant by “indexing the numbers of Senators per state to the U.S. population”? I am certain the author meant Representatives, right?

Scott:

7 seperate media organizations, (on both sides) found no matter how long you kept counting, Gore did not have enough votes.

That’s a lie. The consortium of newpapers that looked into the 2000 fiasco (including the NYT and the St Pete Times) found that if there had been a state-wide recount that the Florida state supreme court had demanded, there would have been more than enough votes for Gore to have won. The results were published in October of ‘01

scott,

I am talking about the type of paper receipt that can be verified by the voter before leaving the booth, but stays in the booth so it can be hand counted later if necessary.

Oh and I just cannot help my self. Which stolen election do we find in our history books? HMMM

If I remember right it was Joseph Kenedy buying Enough votes in Chicago to get JFK elected. Yes that one was proven wasn’t it!

Tim Crow is correct, a statewide recount would have gone to Gore. It’s just a shame that Gore listened to his advisors and only asked for recounts of the three counties at first. But it was an even bigger shame that the Supreme Court prevented a statewide recount.

And the Kennedy theft of the 60 election by Chicago’s Daley is equally egregious—and you won’t get me to defend it.

bushflipflops

That may be what you may be talking about. That’s not what your Democratic leadership wants. And no Republican that I know of has a problem with that kind of paper trail.

Tim

“That’s a lie. The consortium of newpapers that looked into the 2000 fiasco (including the NYT and the St Pete Times) found that if there had been a state-wide recount that the Florida state supreme court had demanded, there would have been more than enough votes for Gore to have won. The results werepublished in October of ‘01”

So you say one thing and I say another. That leaves the others to look it up themselves.

and try to stay away from far right ot far left sites. You may not find the facts.

Ahhh What The… Ill Help:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

Scott:

I’ll look for the article I saw. But the end of yours has an interesting disclaimer:

“Most importantly, there is no guarantee that the judgments of the NORC investigators would have matched those of local election boards had the recount been permitted to proceed under any scenario”

That is the syndicate of papers I read about—the conclusion was different. And buried in the 9th or 10th paragraph as I remember.

Of course if you want to go to the world socialist website they say that:

“Media review of Florida ballots whitewashes theft of 2000 election”

HEHEHE now thats funny. But at least they back up my position.

“Most importantly, there is no guarantee that the judgments of the NORC investigators would have matched those of local election boards had the recount been permitted to proceed under any scenarioâ€

All that is saying is that each person counting may differ in deciding on each ballot. But they all came to the same conclusion. Most likely the election board would have also.

If the results had been different I think we all would have to agree it would have made national news fo many weeks on end, Time magazine cover, etc

BTW Tim,

“That’s a lie!”

No hard feelings, but do you take that back?

That was rather harsh, wasn’t it? I’ve had a long day. Okay, I take it back—but let me assure you, I did see an article that contradicts your assertion. Now, whether I can find it…my research skills aren’t what they used to be.

In any event, Scott, I apologize.

Tim,

All forgiven!

“I did see an article that contradicts your assertion.”

Ive been looking and the only things I find that even look close are on the far left sites.

I would encourage all to stay away from those extremist sites on both sides. Very rarely will you find the facts

Scott,

|If the results had been different I think we all would have to agree it would have made national news fo many weeks on end, Time magazine cover, etc|

That is so true, If all the accusations that were made about people being kept from voting because of race (and all the other examples that I am sure some who follow the extremist logs will blog into this discussion later on down)had been actually proven, they would have made the front cover of all the major news magazines. I dont necessarily like everything that Bush has done but the endless “Bush stole the election” that has gone on really does us true Democrats an injustice.

What else has been proven is that Al Gore’s father who was a Tenessee Senator was one of the most currupt in our history. That’s why I didnt vote for Gore.

Talondegato

I appreciate your honesty.

“What else has been proven is that Al Gore’s father who was a Tenessee Senator was one of the most currupt in our history. That’s why I didnt vote for Gore.”

I dont hold that against Gore. However he aughtn’t be ranting about any coruption issues. Especially after he lied on Larry King the other night and stated that virtually all scientist anymore agree with him on global warming. That kind of rhetoric doesnt help any environmental movement.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Here is more about Gore’s big lie

ROW:

“America is tired of Democrat whining about “stolen” elections. RFK Jr. is making a (bigger) fool of himself with his much publicized rantings.

There have been plenty of reports (the Conyers report, the GAO, and others) that have carefully documented in detail the overwhelming evidence of voter fraud in 2000 & 2004, not to mention the very public unethical behavior of partisan political operatives in key electoral positions.
I’m not going to list them for you because it is a waste of time.

But this issue isn’t going to go away. Because it hasn’t been fairly addressed. If one third of this fraud had been perpetrated on the GOP, the Right-wing echo chamber would be having a field day.

So, no we’re not going to shut up—no matter how much you whine, and bloviate and bellow, and ridicule and snipe and generally being as disagreeable as your poor upbringing allows you to be.

The 2000 presidential election was stolen and illegitimate, there is strong evidence from exit polls that the Senate race and gubenatorial race in Georgia and elsewhere were suspect. The presidential 2004 race had serious problems, and 95% of those problems favored Bush. Exit polls were running strongly for Kerry across the board, and suddenly, inexplicably changed. And that doesn’t even take into account the illegal dumping of legal minority registered voters months before the elections.

What this stonewalling and denial by the Right is doing is assuring that deceit and nefarious underhanded corruption pays. This steadfast refusal to even have a bi-partisan investigation of legitimate greivances assures that someday, in the not-to-distant future, the voting procedures in this country will be thoroughly and completely corrupted. And there could well come a time when you people will be on the receiving end of an outrageous lie. And you know what? It will still be wrong—but your opponents may just blow you off too, telling you to straighten your tinfoil hats.

There are consequences to deceit, there are penalties for denying the truth, and there are people in this country that won’t forget.

Bellow all you want—those elections were probably stolen, and there will be consequences.

right of way, you have provided our WB community with many valuable comments and arguments from your perspective while observing our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger. However, the following two comments are crossing the line:

“Sorry to cheat you out of your tinfoil hat buzz dude.”

“I never supported Tim Crow laws and I’m not about to start now!”

These comments take the discussion to the personal level and into the area of flame-baiting. Please insure your comment privileges remain intact by critiquing the message, not the messengers.

Thanks.

After the 2000 election I was curious about the truth, so I looked it up.
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. constitution states the manner of electing the president. There is no mention of a popular vote.
The pertinent federal law is U.S. Code, Title 3, Chapter 1.
Since the election was disputed in Florida, Florida election law applies. It is Title IX, Florida statutes. The sections relevant to the dispute are Sections 101, 102 and 104.

jurist.law.pitt.edu/election2000.htm

George W. Bush was legitimately elected President of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law as written and in force at the time of the election.

The only people who attempted to steal the election were the Democrats. Their shameful actions were a coup d’etat. Fortunately, it was foiled by the rule of law.
A fitting end to the Clinton administration.

The only way to acheive election reform is to elect a DEM Congress that is veto-proof.
But voters must demand that the very first acts by such a Congress be the elimination of lobby influence.
I suggest that any lobby be limited to 20 hours of contact with any elected official during a session. This would allow more time for smaller lobbies to adress their issues. It would also reduce the money from large corporations, as they would know regardless of money, they would have limited time.
Violations of the time rule by any Congressmen should be punished with immediate removal from all committees, and a suspension from voting, until proven innocent.
I would also suggest they eliminate any and all 527’s; and prevent any non-profit religious organizations from any public discourse of political issues.
But it is up to the voters to make these demands and follow through with them, including recall elections.

No presidential election has been “stolen” since Hayes v Tilden, and maybe not that one.

When Kennedy won in 1960, there was a lot of fraud in Texas and Chicago, but probably not enough to sway the election.

A paper receipt is okay, but it won’t solve any problem. What do you plan to do with those receipts if there is a dispute? Not everyone, or even most people will keep theirs and it will be possible to print new ones.

The bottom line is that any system can be defeated. That is why we have poll watchers from both parties and armies of lawyers hanging around. And that is why no presidential election has been stolen since Tilen v Hayes, maybe.

This stolen election crap is getting old. If ytou really believe it, you are stupid, at least in the political sense. Most of the people who say it in the media don’t believe it. They use it to rile up the cognitively challenged.

“Violations of the time rule by any Congressmen should be punished with immediate removal from all committees, and a suspension from voting, until proven innocent.”

Guilty until proven innocent.

“I would also suggest they eliminate any and all 527’s; and prevent any non-profit religious organizations from any public discourse of political issues.”

Free speech only for the select few.

Continuing the left’s tradition of authoritarianism.

If Dems can’t win, it can’t be because of anything they are doing wrong (moving to the far left fringe, or lack of any direction at all). The Republicans must be causing this. wah wah

In order to reform campaigns, we must all move on from debating “stolen elections” and use our energy in preventing this big-business/government merger. Why not have a limit that each person can donate? Maybe a $100. If a corporation is a “person”, then they, too, cannot donate more than the person making mimimum wage. That seems reasonable for a democracy. Also, if it is one-person-one-vote, do corporations get to vote? If not, should they get to donate any money? I think that whatever side of the political spectrum you are on, you would still want to be heard and your opinion not lost in the special interest and lobby buy-out. If government decisions were not influenced by “who do I owe a favor too?”, then wouldn’t decisions and legislation be more sound? I’m sure even republican legislatures wouldn’t loosen environmental standards if they had no connection to the offending industry.

When you don’t like what is on TV or radio you simply use the button (most likely located on your remote) marked OFF.

When you are disgusted with main party/individual politicians serving special interests, financing campaigns with “questionable” money, irresponsible government, etc. you vote for a challenger, a non-incumbent.

The folks at voidnow.org are working very hard and are making excellent progress in this regard.

Ya, void. Anyway, what do you do if the DNC plans UN take over of the electoral college as the UN monitors the elections for changes which will include them?

Void the ones who asked for the monitoring. They are all foreign anyway………….

I think it is the Republican’s interest to clean up their act. The more doubt that can be legitimately cast on their election results, the less an election of a Republican in disputed territory will carry substance among voters.

This is part of the trouble Bush borrowed for himself by acting the way he did to win. By making it look like he and his folks were grabbing power rather than letting the results speak for themselves, he created a situation which made him look more the partisan, and less the legitimate successor to the Oval Office. It is more important in the long run to win elections with respect than to win them by tough tactics. Respect is the foundation of long-term power.

There is not and can never be any REAL campaign finance reform as long as the politicians themselves are writing the rules.

The last attempt was a joke of the lowest caliber. And George Bush provided the puch line by signing it into law.

Even before the ink was dry, both parties were scouting ways to get around the law. And the bill was so generic, getting around it was not diffict.

Anybody who honestly believes that you can get the money out of politics is living in fantasy land.

As I’ve said before, a poor, self-educated rail splitter from Illinois could not even be elected dog catcher today.

And as long as we endure the current system, only the wealthiest and most elite among us will ever sit in the halls of Congress or the Oval Office.

While we are discussing things unlikely to happen I would like to add some thoughts. Most of us are concerned that so many citizens choose not to vote. I would propose we do something about that. Lets say we raise everyones taxes 100-200 dollars or so and then give a tax credit of the same amount for voting.The additional money raised , less the additional cost to states and counties for providing proof,goes into real public financing of campaigns.
Voters could not complain that their money is going to help politicians and non-voters could complain all they want,who cares.
This could be done on a state wide basis,probably an easier sell than federally.Of course it would never happen in Florida.

Ray, terrific article!!! Wish I had more time to reply, but this will be a busy day for me, so I’ll have to keep this short.
Is it time for election reform? Hell, yes. It’s long PAST time.

Tim Crow, here is an article that explains the many ways the 2000 election was stolen from Gore:
CNN: Florida Ballots Project
The Republicans always try to point to the 2001 recount as though it meant something, but there was so wide a margin of error that it was totally inconclusive.
Bush won by 537 votes in that state, but when you add up all the screwy things that happened, it becomes crystal clear that Democrats were cheated, and Gore was robbed. This is just the plain and simple fact that emerges when one looks at everything. But of course, the Republicans here will refuse to do that. See no Evil, Hear no Evil, Speak no Evil.
What the Supreme Court did was a travesty in that election. Furthermore, they knew it was as unconstitutional as could be, which is why they told us that no precedent should be established regarding that particular decision.
Ohio in 2004 saw the exact same kinds of GOP dirty tricks. Anyone who looks at all the evidence will come away saying that there was too much wrong, and too much questionable. In each and every instance where questions are raised, it benefitted Bush, which makes it stupid for people to deny that it wasn’t somehow orchestrated. Republicans won’t look at that evidence or discuss it with Democrats respectfully. They just cover by heaping those of us who force the subject with the “tin foil hat” insults.

Watchblog Manager:

The fifth message in this thread I take exception to. I just got dressed down in the red column for answering some flame-baiting and mendacious distortions by Right-Of-Way, yet nothing is said about this insulting distortion of my name.

I’m constantly hearing warnings about critiquing the messenger— and the Right at this blog have gotten very adept at sliming, and walking a fine line between sliming an entire political movement (liberalism) and thinly veiled insults.

I am beginning to detect a double-standard here.
Do your job!

Watchblog manager:

Just saw your warning to ROW—sorry I missed it. I apologize for my post to you.

Gundark,

No I don’t mean Representatives, I mean Senators. Given the growth of U.S. population, there should be at least 4 Senators per state. That way they would be closer to their smaller constituency and less easily controlled by money. In Michigan we have two Dem Senators but plenty of unrepresented Republicans for example.

IMO when we criticize the business of the government which of course is the finished product in the business of politicians we either choose not to mention or, lose sight of the fact that being a politician is a salaried profession. Save blatent nepotism most U.S.Senators work through less visible political jobs before the final test. They train by taking a message around the country, shaking hands and holding babies, they test the waters in a primary and, they interview at the party’s convention. The passing grade comes at election.

Like any other profession/job that people have, they would like to keep it unless something better comes along. In the case of the Senator, the pay is good, the perks are great, you are guaranteed 6 years at a clip, retirement benefits are close to second to none, etc.These guys will do almost anything to hang on to those jobs yet, we seem surprised at some of the “irresponsible” things that they do.

I would be very surprised if more than a miniscule % of politicians currently holding office are doing so at their own sacrifice for the good of their constituants and the country they love.

Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy. Doing so could be in itself a roadmap for those advocating term limits.

Jack:

“This stolen election crap is getting old. If ytou really believe it, you are stupid, at least in the political sense.”

Your estimation of who is stupid wouldn’t be a bit biased would it?

Frankly, I don’t give a hoot in hell you think I’m stupid. If HALF of the crap pulled against the Dems in 2000, 2002, and 2004 had happened to the Neocons, you’re hot air would supply the country with energy for the next 100 years. Your nonchalant dismissal of the 1960 election is only provided to dismiss far more egregious mendacities by the GOP this decade.

This is not going away, and until there is a legitmate, bi-partisan Congressional investigation into the last three Federal elections, I’m not shutting up—live with it.

Adrienne:

Thank you for the post on the elections.

Scott, did you see this?

What do you guys think about a 1 term presidency with term lengthened to 6 years?

The Florida vote was a loss. The democrats sued because they lost-did’nt like Americans’ answer. The US Supreme Court decided it was fair. Democrats did not like the Supreme Court’s answer, so it deferred to the UN to run our elections. This is treason. So, the UN agreed to monitor.

Adrienne,
What the Supreme Court did in the 2000 election was to uphold the law. In an earlier post I included a URL to a site that has the election laws and the Supreme Court’s decision. You can read the laws yourself.

As for allegations of voter fraud, there is plenty of that to go around on both sides. When you add up all the screwy things that happened you have… nothing unusual. I have no doubt that some of it is true and that most of it is made up.

Why do the bushes of Idaho have more senatorial representation than the city of Los Angelus or Buffalo,NY?

Ray Guest,
The House of Representatives represents the people. That’s why the number is indexed to population.
The Senate represents the states. Originally Senators were chosen by their repective legislatures. (Article I, Section 3) The seventeenth amendment changed it to a popular election. The amendment plainly states, in the section dealing with vacancies,”When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate…”
We are not a democracy. We are a federal republic.
Federalism is dying, helped by the seventeenth amendment. We are witnessing the descent of our great nation into the hellhole of democracy. Indexing the Senate to the census would hasten its demise.

The single biggest flaw in our election system is that candidates need to go crawling to the rich and beg for money. Those who give money, gain “access,” another way of saying “influence.”

No money, no “access,” and no “influence.” This is the reason that there is plenty of legislation about what rich people want and extremely little about what the non-rich want.

How can anyone call this “free speech”?

We must have public financing of campaigns. And there is nothing liberal about wanting political campaigns to be honest and fair. Don’t conservatives want honesty and fairness too?

traveler:
“The hellhole of democracy.”..please
So we are trying to bring a hellhole to Iraq?

BillS,
You should read what the founders had to say about democracy.

I’m adamantly opposed to nation building and our continued presence in Iraq.

All,

It is nice to have people fired up.

Jack,

The purpose of hard copy paper receipts are twofold. One: People can verify that the paper receipt matches their intended vote before leaving the booth. If it does not their vote could be electronically reversed / canceled and recast. Two: The receipts would then be placed in a locked ballot box and saved for recounts if necessary. Of course everybody knows that any recipes that leaves the polling place is worthless and nobody is suggesting that. That kind of hard copy paper trial would not be verifiable. We are talking about a verifiable paper trail, so please don’t cloud the issue with irrelevant issues. The paper receipts could then be used to routinely do random statistical samples comparing the electronic count to the actual hard copy vote, and there by prove that the electronic count is accurate, increasing the public’s confidence in the electoral process. In close elections, the entire vote could be recounted if necessary.

Jack,

Forget about hanging chads. There is good evidence that Gore won. But forget that. There were bigger fish to fry then a few hundred hanging chads. What about the 90,000 predominately black, predominately Democratic voters who were accidentally illegally improperly purged from the voter rolls in Brother / Cousin Jeb’s state in the 2000 election. You don’t think that that would have put Gore over the top? What about Florida State Police surrounding polling places only in black neighborhoods in their cruisers with lights flashing there by making black people with unpaid tickets paranoid and afraid of being arrested and there by intimidated from casting their votes. The list is endless.

There is evidence that Kennedy stole votes - maybe the election. Do two wrongs make a right, or are too righties just wrong?

Finally, the intended focus of this article is about limiting the influence of big money in our elections and on politicians of all stripes.

traveler:
By “founders” do you mean the all white,all male, slave owning,landowners that framed the constitution?They were indeed men of great courage and vision. Just comming to the conclusion that we did not need a king to govern was a radical idea at the time but they were who they were and the thought of the “rabble” governing was more than they could accept. However they did have the foresight to build into the constitution the ability to change,hence the amendments regarding civil and voting rights.

BillS,
By founders I mean the brilliant men who created the freest, richest and most powerful nation in history.
Even during the slavery era America was the freest country in the world.
Some of them owned slaves, some did not. Some were landowners, some were not.
Creating the United States cost them all dearly.

“the thought of the “rabble†governing was more than they could accept.”

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution? Or the Constitution itself? If you did, are you capable of comprehending not only the words on the page but the ideals behind them? From your show of contempt for America I would say not.
For all their brilliance the founders were fallible and they knew it. What they did was a radical step for liberty but not the last step and they knew it.

traveler
I evidenced no contempt. Most were land and slave owners,all were white men. “Not the last step and they knew it” was my point if you choose to read more closely.

Ray

The verifiable paper trail would give you exactly that, a paper trial. So what? When we had all paper ballots we still had fraud. If the paper record diverged from the electronic record, how would you know which was right? Why would the paper be any better? I do may taxes with a computer program. The computer is more accurate than my paperwork.

All human systems can be cracked by humans. That is why we have poll watchers etc. I don’t have a problem with a paper record as a check, but I do not think that will help get rid of the conspiracy theorists.

There is no good evidence that Gore won. That is the whole dispute. None of those stories you heard about the cops etc have panned out. They are urban legends, lies and deceit. They are ghost stories. We all heard about them, but nobody found real particular provable cases.

The Civil Right commission, run at that time by a woman who really wanted to find racism, looked far and wide and found nothing she could get past the equivalent of peer review.

It is a bit of a compliment to Republicans. Dems evidently believe that all the people who are too stupid to vote properly are Democrats. They further believe that Republicans even in counties controlled by Democrats can so effectively manipulate things to keep timid Dems from coming to the polls. And after all that, the few Republicans in majority Dem districts can trick everybody at the polling station to manipulate the numbers. You have a very low opinion of Democrats.

Elections cannot be made foolproof because we expect fools to vote. We encourage people to vote who we would not trust with any other important life decision, so voting has to be EASIER than using an ATM machine. I will not argue whether this is good or bad, but it is the reality and it has ramifications for voting.

Elections are a statistical process. In most cases, the result is fairly well known and we have few troubles. In the case of a very close election, we really do not and cannot know the “real” winner. What we can do is make sure we follow the procedures in place before the election and confer legitimacy on the person who wins according to those rules.

I understand why Dems are upset about 2000. That election was essentially a tie. We used the tie breaking mechanisms available in our Constitution and our laws, but clearly it could have gone the other way. That is not the same as saying the election was stolen. 2004 was not even close. Unfortunately, some Dems just used the same script they wrote for 2000. And they still are using it.

My point with Kennedy was only historical. That was the last important case of fraud that may have changed an election. I don’t believe it did and neither do most historians. This seems to be the same way reasonable people are looking at 2000.

Jack,

“I understand why Dems are upset about 2000. That election was essentially a tie.”

Gore won Florida by approx 175,000 votes. With all the lying, cheating and stealing the republicans did… beside the fact that they disinfranchised thousands of voters and paid operatives to steal Al Gore lawn signs. And lets not forget Katherine Harris and that wonderful butterfly ballot. I’m sure 8,000 jews voted for Pat Bucanan. According to an article published in the New York Times buried in the 17th paragraph on the 54th page somewhere.

The 2004 election WAS also stolen… you can hear it for yourself at ClintCurtis.com Thanks to the paperless voting machines in Florida and Ohio. Also, the fact that thousands of voters were not given access to voting machines and were forced to stand in line for hours and hours.

Pat

I put Bush lawn signs up during the last election and every morning half of them were stolen. I don’t know if they were paid operatives who did it, but they did it - every night.

I am sorry if many Dems could not figure out how to use a ballot designed by other Dems to be simple. Katherine Harris did not design the ballots. It was the local Dem officials. They ran the election in those Dem counties. So maybe we have stupid voters and maybe we have stupid officials but they are all your guys.

We can talk about other ghost stories if you want, but it seems you have two alternatives. Either you can understand that elections are complex and this one was not stolen or you can believe that Republicans managed to steal 175,000 votes out from under watchful Dems. If that is possible, maybe they are too dumb to win anyway.

BillS,

“Most were land and slave owners,all were white men.”

Of the 112 men considered founders, 12 were land owners, another 6 were land speculators and 15 owned slaves. 12 0f the 15 were the land owners. (Franklin later freed his slaves and became an abolitionist)

Your contempt was quite evident.

Pat,

“Gore won Florida by approx 175,000 votes.”

No, he didn’t. The president isn’t elected by popular vote.
Article II, Section 1, U.S.Constitution

Katherine Harris did exactly what the law said she was required to do.
Title IX, Florida statutes

Traveller

Actually, I just take it that BillS was showing pride in the extraordinary accomplishments of these dead white males who did something nobody else had ever done. Of course, his implication that others did not do as well until that time is unfortunate. It is probably bad manners to point out race and social class in such situations.

Ray,

Great article. Clearly it’s time for a change. Anyone that doesn’t think so should just google The Harri Hursti Hack and read away.

Your article made me wonder if there were any knew developments and I found the following:
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/32762.html

I hope you’ll take the time to read it. I’m certainly not tech savvy enough to understand it all, but it’s one possible part of the solution. I especially like the idea of lending more transparency and citizen oversight to the election process, while still maintaining voter privacy.

KansasDem

You left out drunkards.

It is a known fact that copious amounts of beer and spirits were consumed by the delegates at the 1st and 2nd Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention.

Of course, the fact that the water was often contaminated and killed people by the thousands is conveniently left out by the revisionists.

You can call the Founders by whatever names that please you. The fact is they were human beings, subject to all the failings and shortcomings that brings.

But they overcame all that, forging a nation and producing the greatest single document the world has ever known.

And for their efforts, the revisionists seek to eradicate their names and deeds from the historical record of the nation they founded because they were “all white, all male, slave owning,landowners.”

Oh yes. And drunkards.

Paul,

You stated:
there is plenty of legislation about what rich people want and extremely little about what the non-rich want.

This is the real problem…everyone wants something and its up to the government to supply it…just how stupid is that!!!

The government should get out of the “give people what they want” syndrome and make sure we only supply needy people.

I have to just sit here and laugh as I read the posts here. If read through there seems to be a singular theme by those advocating for reform. That theme of being on the losing side of elections and the use of excuses to account for those losses. Almost every post cites the arguement that with reform their candidate would be the winner. When was the last time a candidate advocated for reform because he was the winner instead of being the loser of his election?

Politics, by its very nature, is the art of manipulation. Each and every politician or political party attempts to manipulate the decisions of the voter in their favor in order to be elected. And every call for reform can be traced back to the idea that one side manipulated the election in their favor at some expense of the other side.

Another theme I saw was the lack of comments in regards to the type of reform that the author of the article was speaking of, the influence of money on poltics. I did not see a single comment that showed that money was the cause of the accusations of corruption in past elections.

So, based upon the comments posted, my only conclusion can be is that reform is called for to manipulate elections in the favor of the losing candidate rather than a fair election.

Griper

I must be misunderstanding what it is you’re trying to say.

Many posts, including my own earlier comments, spoke directly to the issue of money and the corrupting influence it has on politicians and elections.

The Griper,

Good point. I stirred up a hornets nest with my “hook” remarks about stolen elections. For the most part, people really don’t seem interested in the real theme of my article - public financing of elections. But election fraud is sexier and more interesting and also important. We do need transparency in our elections and better ways to test the accuracy of our elections. My nemesis - Jack - makes an accurate point when he says that all systems designed by humans can be defeated by humans. This is true - BUT - what Jack fails to acknowledge is that electronic voting machines - manufactured and designed by a partisan company - whithout any verifiable paper trail - are like taking candy from a baby. They are black boxes that tell you who the winner is. Without paper trails there is no independent way to check their accuracy. Sure, you can have some programmer go through the code line by line - tens of thousands of lines - tens of thousands of lines of cryptic code - and when he is done - you have his word that, that one particular machine is not fraudulent - no chance that he could be a partisan hack, that was bribed or blackmailed to lie to you - and then you have to repeat the same process with thousands of machine for even a random sample - tens of thousands of machines for a complete verification - and then when your “one” “honest” pencil neck geek has peered into all of those black boxes - then have your “one” “honest” electronics technician come and verify that the machines have not been electrically modified - and then when you are done with that - then - then - account for the possibility that fraudulent software was uploaded into those machines - conducted its fraud - and then self destructed and self removed itself leaving only non-fraudulent software behind - then - then - then - assume that it removed itself using a Department of Defense hard disk wipe - so - then scan the hard disk - tens of thousands of hard disks with a very, very, very, slow speed microscopic bit by bit nano-level scan - and then - and then - you can say that you have verified the accuracy of the magical black box voting machine - but Jack - Jack would not want a paper hard copy of what the machine did - not Jack - not as long as Republicans are winning anyhow.

I guess we better reform something,

Read this about election fraud

Some interesting points:

Based on the review of several different very specific state and federal requirements, laws and provisions, the unsecured overnight storage of Diebold voting machines and their memory cards in poll workers houses, cars and garages in the days and weeks prior to the closely watched election between Republican Brian Bilbray and Democrat Francine Busby violated several federal and state provisions which, if not followed, would revoke the certification of use for the voting systems in any California election.

just last week, two different elections in an Iowa Republican primary revealed that the popular incumbents — who had both apparently “lost” their races after paper ballots were optically-scanned — had in fact won their races after a subsequent manual hand-count revealed the scanners were programmed incorrectly.

Interesting stuff. I’m going to see if I can find out more about it. Wish I could post, I hate to put this at the end of a long blog, it needs it’s own.

Now bear in mind, when talk about a very, very, very slow microscopic bit by bit hard drive scan… A one hundred Gigabyte hard drive contains 100 trillion bytes - each byte is 8 bits - so you are talking about 800 trillion bits - slowly - one by one…

Ray:

What are you talking about?

womenmarine,

Just keep applying to become a WatchBlog writer. I am sure that they will let you on as soon as space becomes available.

womenmarine,

I am not sure which part of my comments that you are asking about?

This one:

Now bear in mind, when talk about a very, very, very slow microscopic bit by bit hard drive scan… A one hundred Gigabyte hard drive contains 100 trillion bytes - each byte is 8 bits - so you are talking about 800 trillion bits - slowly - one by one…

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 18, 2006 12:35 AM

This one is an easier read:

just the tip of the iceberg I think

That comment was an emphasis and continuation of a “rant” at Jack comment I posted above it - but comments got posted in between. The non-ranting point that I am emphasizing is that it is very difficult to verify the technical accuracy of electronic voting machines without paper trials. A “black box” as commonly applied to electronics refers to a box with some wires hanging out of it - typically, you only know what the inputs and outputs of it are - you can hook it up - but you don’t know how it works - I am an electronics technician - I have studied digital electronics - but my laptop is a black box to me - I turn it on - it connects to the WiFi - I have a vague understanding of what is happening inside of it - but I have no electrical schematics and could not read them all even if I did - so I don’t really know how it does what it does - it does it magically - electronic voting machines are the same way - that is why we need another way to check them.

Jack:thanks

traveler: I am humbled by your historical prowess.I will still submit that the founders class,gender , race and culture shaped their thinking and actions. If you find that as holding contempt for them you are in error. I find that just a recognition of their humanity. The dichotomy of Jefferson(my hero) I find particularly striking. The hand that penned the Declaration of Independance was also the hand of a slave owner as you know. I am quite grateful they had the wisdom to build in the ability to change the Constitution and I regard misuses of that ability as near sacreligious. For example the Volstead act and the current flag burning and anti-gay marriage proposals.Disgraceful. Theres your real contempt for the founders.
At any rate I responded to your post refering to democracy as a hellhole mostly out of curiosity. Did I miss a satirical point ?
. Would you care to elaborate?

Interesting to be a nemesis.

You have to be careful with elections. They are just not that precise. People make mistakes. Not everyone can figure out the system. There is a simple statistical variation. An election is not a metaphysical event where we divine the true intention of “the people.” It is a practical exercise where we come to a reasonable approximation of the consent of the governed.

Of course we should work to make them as accurate and honest as possible and eliminate any systemic bias, but demanding perfection will destroy democracy, which is not a perfect organizing principle.

Consider the very real constraints.

You are working with a diverse group of people. Many of the voters will be confused. People who could not properly use an ATM machine are encouraged to vote. Illiteracy is no barrier. We don’t want to intimate people, so we require less from them than we would for a person to borrow a book at the library. It is also true that people are conflicted when they vote and may well lie about their true intentions that is why we have a SECRET ballot. That is the biggest challenge of all. We can NEVER match a particular vote with a particular person, so there is a limit to the effectiveness of any audit.

I have been an election observer. It is a very serious business. Both parties are represented (and other can also watch). The polls are usually run by old people who don’t seem to have any particular bias. Lawyers are all over the place. News cameras are filming. It would be hard to pull anything.

There is no doubt that in every election mistakes and fraud happens, but there is a lot more smoke than fire. When you compare all the tall tales with actual indictments, you see that. This is the kind of thing we are talking about.

You can make a conspiracy theory about that if you want, but you have to recall that this particular county is run by Dems.

So, Jack, you think that just because folks get upset at obvious discrepancies that they shouldn’t? We do understand that perfection probably cannot be achieved, the point is that we should assure that we are as close as possible.

You can keep you’re “we can’t get it right so why worry” attitude. It’s that kind of thing that allows for fraud and makes people more concerned. It is not conspiracy theory to wonder about obvious discrepancies. Plus, there really are conspiracies sometimes :)

Amazing! It just goes on and on. Democrats lost in Florida because they did not get the electoral college vote…PERIOD! Elections are not won by popular vote. When they don’t win, Democrats just demand recount after recount UNTIL they do “win”…just look at all the recounts done in the state of Washington during their last election for Governor. Gregoire demanded recount after recount until they finally came out in her favor, and then declared herself the winner…never mind the fact that there were accusations made that she “won” throught the use of votes cast by dead people and repeat voters. All that matters is that ONE of the many recounts gave her the victory. She stole the election, but I don’t hear any Dems complaining about voter fraud in Washington.

Ray—

In your opening article, you say that liberal groups such as UAW are better than “big business” b/c they have a history of representing the common man, and politics would be better if politicians ONLY had to sell out to liberal groups. WHAT COMPLETE ARROGANCE!!!!! But that should come as no surprise, because arrogance and disdain for the common man you supposedly represent is a hallmark of the liberal mentality!! (Oh and by the way, the UAW IS big business).

Want to have campaign finance reform? Lets talk about some of the Dems’ favorite “big money” spokesgroups. AFL-CIO and UAW, two of the biggest and most powerful and clearly left wing groups in the United States, even though they constantly go against the wishes and beliefs of their members, most of whom are conservative. Or how about groups like PETA and Greenpeace and the Brady Campaign, and the other wacko environmentalist and anti-gun groups whose anti-gun agendas are constantly touted as the majority opinion in a country where gun ownership is guranteed by the Constitution? They don’t give “big money” to their favorite liberal politicians in an attempt to sway their vote on gun legislation? BULL!!!

What about the power of the liberal Hollywood elites?! How many of you regular people out there have ever been allowed to testify before Congress about YOUR pet issues? I know I haven’t. So how is it OK for them to have more representation and sway, just because of their celebrity status, than I have? I think that qualifies as having more free speech than the rest of us (re: your opening comments Ray). But of course it must be because they know so much more than the rest of us about any issue…just ask them, they’ll tell you!

I have read hundreds of articles, blogs, books, newspaper stories and various other writings by liberals and Democrats, and one theme comes through loud and clear. Liberals have a total disregard for the opinions of others, especially those who dare to disagree with them; and a terrifying excess of contempt for those who don’t think like they do and vote like they do.

I have seen, without any provocation from other writers, liberals in blogs and chat forums resort to name calling against conservative writers for no other reason than that the conservative dared to voice an opinion contrary to that liberal’s dearly held beliefs. I have seen conservatives referred to, in blatant personal attacks, as being ignorant, rednecks, hicks, morons, stupid, dumb (that one right here in an earlier liberal post…one, I might add, that the blog moderator didn’t chastise the writer for as he did to my conservative brother) and numerous other vile and derogatory names, for no other reason than that the liberal author/s had decided that the conservative authors, because they dare to voice an opinion contrary to the liberals point of view, was not worthy of being heard. ARROGANCE!!

You liberals think that you are right on every issue, and anyone who dares to disagree with you is ignorant, uneducated, or has been manipulated (indicating that until such time as they agree with you they obviously can’t think for themselves, because if they could, they would agree with YOU)!! Again…arrogance.

You are hung up on “education”, using this as a means of attacking someone when they voice a contrary opinion. It wasn’t the conservatives or the Republicans who brought up education and IQ in the last Presidential race, it was liberal Democrats, attacking George Buch because he didn’t have better grades, and because he supposedly had a lower IQ than Kerry and Gore and the rest, as if this somehow makes him less of a man. Liberals routinely launch personal attacks against their “adversaries” when all else has failed, attempting to denigrate their opponents and thereby downplay their views, ideas and beliefs as unimportant, bigoted, mean-spirited, hateful and unworthy of consideration.

I could go on, but I see I have filled too many paragraphs as it is. Last thought…for the author who earlier said that Republicans need to clean house…look in the mirror brother. You guys aren’t squeeky clean either (Thomas Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana comes to mind).

DaveR

traveller,
It is a long thread and I missed your earlier comment about the number of Senators being indexed to population. I don’t think that you understood what I was saying. I am not suggesting having 2 Senators in one state and 5 Senators. The Senate would be just like the House and that would undermine our system. What I am saying is that population density has increased dramatically in the last two hundred years, so each Senator now represents a much larger number of people. If you increased the number of Senators to 3 Senators per state, or 4 Senators per state. This would still retain the Federalist states rights nature of the Senate which is important. But it would do is reduce the size of each Senators district. This would have several important effects. One: Smaller district = less expensive campaign = less dependence on money = less dependence on big money special interest. Two: Smaller district means each Senator has a smaller number of constituents, which means the Senator can make the time to meet more of the small business owners, more of the preachers, community leaders, and local activist, so common people will have more influence on their Senator which could counter-balance the influence of big money special interest. Three: Michigan for example, is a blue state with two great Democratic Senators - this is good - for me - I am a Democrat - but there are plenty of Republicans around here - if we had 3 Senators - there would be no way to gerrymander the state that did not involve allowing one Repub bum in - so this would result in more bipartisanship as mixed state delegations agreed on initiatives in the best interest of their respective states - and Republican Michiganders would have a Senator to rally round - and of course those red state Dems would wind up with a Democrat Senator to rally to. Finally, smaller districts might give independents a chance. But, for emphasis, understand, I am not talking about having different numbers of Senators in different states - each state would continue to have equal representation as every other state.

David Riley,

Welcome. I think this is your first comment in one of my threads - keep coming back - my nemesis Jack needs help. Now… …about your comment… gosh… I agreed with a lot of it… if you apply it to both Republicans and Democrats - that is. Hadn’t thought about the liberal Hollywood elites… of course the conservative Hollywood elites get more play as well… of course these are real people - not synthetic corporate people - real people who have risen to the forefront as leaders through their own initiative - people who become public figures are natural leaders and will have a louder voice - politicians are also in the forefront as public figures and leaders and they have a louder voice as well. Corporation are synthetic people using synthetic free speech (money) to control the mass media and shout the rest of us down. That is different from natural real people leaders - leading.

The UAW is a large institution - a synthetic person - but it has proud tradition of fighting for the poor and disenfranchised and of course it has its own sacred cows - and I pointed out the corrupting influence of that - but there is no comparison between that and Merck Medco A.K.A. Satan Incarnate.

Finally, It is true. We Dems are a little hung up on education and science. True. All true.

Tim and Adrianne,
The headline on your link is still:

Florida recount study: Bush still wins

The only reason stated for a possible Gore victory (and notice it is slightly possible) lies in voter errors. So we are going to go ahead and blame that on Bush. I think it would be the Democratic voters then who made the errors.

Tim as far as voter fraud in both elections, In lots of research I only find individual voters commiting some kind of fraud and that on both sides. I dont know where you get your 95% benefit to Republicans figure but I sure cant find it.

Ray Guest.

“There is good evidence that Gore won. But forget that.”

Where? Show me! we already dicounted that

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

And let’s throw this in for good measure:

Question: Which national party had it in their handbook to yell election stealing whether or not it really happened?

ANSWER: OK look it up!

Adrianne’

One more thing. (sorry)

I love your link:CNN: Florida Ballots Project
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
But you say:
here is an article that explains the many ways the 2000 election was stolen from Gore:

It Includes:
Gore’s four-county strategy

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted — a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election — by a 225-vote margin statewide.

But nowhere does it say anything about any election stealing. If anyone can find it in there let me know!

Ok I thought I would let you guys run in circles for a while but I changed my mind.

TIM ADDRIANNE

The article Adrianne refers to is the exact SAME article I refered Tim to in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

Ray

Thanks for the welcome, although you may regret it later…LOL.

First: I don’t think Jack “needs help”. He does a find job all by himself. Your liberal arrogance is what leads you to believe that you are somehow “beating” him and thus he needs my assistance.

Second: The elitist Holloywood lefties are not leaders because they have “…risen to the forefront…through their own initiative…”. I would argue that they are not leaders at all, because no one with any common sense would follow them. They are activists, with specific agendas, which they espouse at every opportunity. The reason they are able to do this is not because they are leaders and therefore people want to hear what they have to say. They are able to get their word our because they are celebrities, and thus have almost unlimited access to forums and venues which the rest of us do not have. Try calling up “People” magazine or “Us” or “Access Hollywood” and offering to give an interview on the subject of your choice…see what they say. Try offering to testify before Congress about some fake scare like Alar on apples or global warming, and see how many major media outlets would give a damn what you have to say. Get real Ray…liberal Hollywood elites are able to ram their agendas down our throats purely because they have access to the media and we don’t…it is that simple. And by the way, name me one conservative Hollywood elite who pushes their agenda publicly in the media. I bet you can’t do it.

Third: Regardless of whether you are willing to admit it or not, there are no better “big business” influence peddlers. Having a tradition of fighting for the common man doesn’t make up for the crap UAW and many of the other major unions have been guilty of. My sister worked in a grocery store when she was a teenager. She worked part time and was forced to pay union dues (in the same amount as the full time workers), but was not allowed to participate in the union activites, collect union benefits or have any say in the running of the union. Basically she was robbed of her money and got nothing for it…all under the guise of “fighting for the poor and disenfranchised” members of the union. So don’t try and sell me on the good intentions and actions of the UAW or any other union…they are as corrupt and arrogant and totally unresponsive to the needs and wants of their members as any other organization YOU can name. Don’t get me wrong…unions have been very beneficial in the past for a great many people in situations where they would otherwise have been unable to make needed changes. But they have all, almost without exception, become bloated and corrupt, representing not the members, but the deep pockets and lying, cheating activites of the elected leadership. They have allowed the worker to become SO POWERFUL that now the employer has virtually NO say in how their companies are run. My father worked in a union shop where many of the workers routinely stood around doing nothing, or stopped production whenever thay felt like it, or asked for tools or services they didn’t need just because they were allowed to have them by union regs; and the company execs were paralyzed from doing or saying anything for fear the employees would cry foul and run to their union reps in tears over some perceived violation of their “rights”. Unfortunately unions, particularly the big powerful ones like UAW and AFL-CIO and others, have outlived their usefulness and have become parodies of themselves. You want to talk about greed and theft and bribery and the rich haves against the have-nots…look no further than your local union leadership cadre.

Fourth: Please don’t try to convince me that the mass media is being “controlled” by anyone. The “mass media” as you liberals like to refer to it, is almost 100% liberal. It is rather funny that you rail against the control of the mass media by big business but you also made the comment about the moneyed elites trying to “…Fox newsify the Internet and spoon feed our opinions to us”. The mainstream liberal media in this country do that on a daily basis. They dictate what stories are run, how they are reported, how they are slanted (usually against the military, against gun ownership, pro-abortion, pro-big government, pro new taxes and new social programs, anti-business, anti-religious) and in affect force feed us their version of events. Along comes Fox news, with their more conservative bent and letting people decide for themselves what is true and what is not, and you liberal hate them.

You liberals can’t stand anyone or anything which allows people to think for themselves and possibly leads to them disagreeing with YOU!! Hence your (liberals) intense dislike (I would say outright hatred) for people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and the like. They tell the stories that that the liberal mainstreamn media won’t, and they advocate positions which are contrary to the liberal party line, leading to more name calling and outright slander, often aimed at the messenger and not the message!!

Admit it Ray…until we all think like you and follow you lockstep down the liberal path to enlightenment, in your eyes we are all just dumb, uneducated redneck backcountry hicks whose opinions aren’t worth the keyborad I typed this on. You won’t be happy until everyone thinks like you and is willing to give up all their rights and let the government (ie: you liberal elites…a chosen few I am sure) control every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave…all for our benefit of course, because we are ignorant and don’t know what is good for us…which you do I am sure.

Jack,

I am deeply sorry. I have not provided your comments in this thread with level of attention that the comments of a Nemesis deserve. I have been busy putting out Bush fires. Your arguments in this thread seem very reasonable and persuasive. Indeed, I agree with much of what you say. If you keep this up, I shall promote you to ARCH NEMISIS with the full Honorary Suffix of Mighty Little Sicillian Eagle Poop.

It is late so just a short response for now…

Much is made of the fact that many of Bush’s Republican followers tend to be fundamentalist Christians. This may explain why we talk past each other on this issue of electronic voting machines and paper trails.

We have a lot of fun pointing out the logical inconsistencies, contradictions, and paradoxes of fundamentalist Christian dogma. But, fundamentalist Christians accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour on blind faith… Soren Kierkegaard basically said that one should make an empty handed leap of faith into the void against all reasonable probability that God exists. In other words, you should not try to prove Gods existence through reason - because to do so is to place your faith in reason and not in God - rather you should “know” God through a leap of blind faith - knowledge of God lies in that existential / experiential relationship with God that results from blind trust. That is what the best of the fundamentalist do. God is real for them because of their personal experiential relationship with God. I am not so different. Part of the time, I am a meditative tin hat atheist. Part of the time, I am a new age tin hat mystical Christian (A Course In Miracles) that interprets Christ message from an eastern or Buddhist perspective. But all of the time, I believe that spirituality is experiential.

God works in Mysterious ways his wonders to perform… Electronic voting machines also work in mysterious ways. Many of you folks accept God on blind faith and you want the rest of us to accept the results of electronic voting machines on blind faith. Experiential blind faith relationships with God work great. Have you ever had an experiential relationship with an electronic voting machine? You could unplug it from the wall and stick the cord in your annal orifice… That would be experiential… Cogito ergo cord up the duppa… Translated as: I think I have a cord up my… experience that. So, experiential relationships with electronic voting machines are kinky at best… but you will know that your duppa exists.

God works in mysterious ways… experiential relationships with God are better than experiential relationships with electronic voting machines… It would in point of actual fact, be more reasonable to simply ask Jerry Falwell who God wants the next President to be. After all Jerry has an experiential relationship with magical mystical black box that has told him why America was struck on 911. He is a Republican. Diebold Voting machines work in mysterious ways. The head of Diebold is Republican. Whats the difference? Blind faith - mysterious ways - Republicans. I see no difference.

DaveR,
Wow, Nice rant. Unfortunately you lost me when you said most UAW members are consertive. That sir is a complete and outright lie. You see I work in an auto factory and i am in the UAW, I am also a 3rd generation union man. Who happens to live in Michigan , so i have known quite a few auto workers in my 36 yrs and i would say 90% are not conservative at all. At least the few thousand ive met. Try know what youre talking about before you explode into a diatribe of neocon talking points.

Invictus

First of all, what the hell is a “neocon”? You guys throw this term around constantly whenever you want to make us look bad, so I assume it has some deep meaning. Talk about a talking point…this term comes from the liberal 101 vocabulary list.

Second, I don’t quote “talking points”. That’s another accusation you libs like to use whenever a conservative disagrees with you, as a way to say that we can’t think for ourselves and we are being led around like sheep. Not so Invictus. I don’t need someone else to do my thinking for me. It is the libs, not the conservatives, who are constantly quoting this and that author, or telling everyone that they should go read this book or that book and we would become so enlightened and come over to the side of the liberal elites.

Third…I believe that MOST blue collar workers, and hence most people in unions, are conservative, or at the very least they are middle of the road. Maybe the people you spend the most time with are more liberal, because most people spend their leisure time with people like themselves. And maybe the UAW is more liberal, but blue collar people and the average Joes in general tend to be conservative and want many of the same things socially, politically and economically as their conservative brethren. That is my opinion based on the hundreds of people I have worked with and known in my career, in many years of attending college in Ohio and Idaho, and in my daily life and travels. Most people in this country are disgusted by and fed up with things such as the idea of abortion on demand; “art” that consists of a jar of piss with a crucifix in it; rich white Democrats who get away with murder (Teddy Kennedy comes to mind) while rich white Republicans are the bad guys; failed social programs rampant with fraud (food stamps and welfare come to mind)…created by liberals to “help” the poor while stealing from the rich; anti war zealots who undermine our goals and would see us dismantle our military or turn control of it over to the United Nations; higher taxes and more socialized programs; attempts to create yet more programs for “rights” we don’t have and for services that the individual should be responsible for themselves (health care comes to mind). So if you or your buddies agree with 2 or more of these ideas, then you might be a closet conservative.

DaveR,

I am a UAW member as well, my father joined the union at Chrysler Corp back when the company goons were throwing people off from overpasses…
Me and my buddies; closet conservatives… you take that back… call us commie pinko fags if you want… but not closet conservatives… The UAW is democratic, if so many of its people are conservative, how come they keep electing liberal leaders. It is true that some of us are conservative. It is true that many of us are conservative on a few hot button issues. But just because we have a few latent conservative tendencies, (we do like the NRA and guns) - it doesn’t mean that we are closet conservatives…

From your vehemence, I am sure that your talking points are sincerely held personal beliefs… but they do kind of line up with conservative talking points… maybe… you hears some conservative talking points somewhere… Faux News comes to mind… and maybe you agreed with them… that is why THEY create them… that is why we liberals wear our tin foil hats - they protect us from the red rays. My wife explained that to me last night. Before that I didn’t even know why I wore that thing. I thought that it was a fashion statement.

DaveR,

To continue my last comment: Closet conservatives… of all the gall… We in the UAW like our guns… half of our guys are armed and dangerous… those postal guys are just men in short pants… we got Uzzies - we got Glocks… don’t make us go postal… closet conservatives… we get free lawyers… we can shoot you in the face - wait 24 hours to sober up - then call a free lawyer… the Dick Cheney has nothin on us… of course even as we speak, the NSA is probably assigning a crack team of men in blue to infiltrate and subvert the UAW… I am a true blue liberal though. I don’t own a gun. You can call me anything. Now as far as urine and crucifixes… well if the artist or observer happened to be an alter boy in the wrong church… it does kind of make a bold unequivocal cathartic statement - doesn’t it.

No kidding, but here is a way to help at least ONE candidate with funds:

This is it! Nancy is one of only five candidates in the country that has made it to the Democracy for America runoff! Today, Monday June 19, is the only day you can vote for Nancy to become the next candidate to be endorsed by Democracy for America. The polls are open from 9am to 5pm Eastern. Follow this link to the DFA website and vote for Nancy right away: http://tools.democracyforamerica.com/housevote/. Just 30 seconds of your time can help raise us tens of thousands of dollars and get the netroots excited about the campaign!

Nancy is running in Michigan’s Ninth district. MI-09 is a 50/50 district and has a history of voting for Democrats. Governor Jennifer Granholm and Senator Debbie Stabenow both won the district in 2002 and John Kerry got 49% of the vote in 2004. It took Republican incumbent Joe Knollenberg outspending his last opponent by at 10-1 margin to win in ’04. Since then, he’s gotten himself into some hot water. He’s been forced to defend his $8.3 million earmark in the latest AMTRAK budget bill intended for his second largest donor in the international news.

It turns out Knollenberg’s pork is really starting to get under the skin of people who want the government to start spending their money responsibly. Largely because he toes the Republican Party line with Tom DeLay 96% of the time and turns a blind eye to wasteful spending, only 43% of respondents a recent poll registered to vote say that they plan on voting for Knollenberg against an unnamed Democrat. The time to take back our country is now! Vote for Nancy in the DFA Grassroots All-Star Contest and help make a change for 2006!

Andrea,

I did not see the link to the voting on that site… please post better instructions… I am in Michigan and might be able to give Nancy some support.

Andrea,

Sorry, voting is closed.

Dave R,

Guess who said this:

“People talk about the middle of the road as though it were unacceptable. Actually, all human problems, excepting morals, come into the gray areas. Things are not all black and white. There have to be compromises. The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters.”

KansasDem

Dave R.: Neo-con meams literally new conservative. A tradional conservative’s primary political objective is preservation of the status quo along with a respect for individual rights,states rights etc. A go slow approach is their hallmark. This just does not apply to neo-cons. Somewhat apt would be “radical conservative”. Problem with that is the two words constitute a contradiction in terms.Some on the left might refer to them as reactionaries,also not quite accurate. The term neo-con in itself is not negative any more than the term liberal although both sometimes get spit out with venom.
I am a union member(Carpenters local 751). My union has a big PAC and for the most part they use it to our benefit. Members that object to its use can opt out anytime they want to. By pooling many small contributions into large ones we are able to get into the room with the wealthy doners. They resent the hell out of working people speaking the same language and launch periodic campaigns to shut us up. Look around. There are no other institutions in America that speak up for working people.Under this administration,even the Dept. of Labor is a corporate schill.
Generally our members are pretty conservative on many issues. We do not spend our money on gay rights or womens choice issues etc. But if you look at classic left- right issues most members are far left. By that I mean we believe working people are not getting their fair share of the wealth they create. We support candidates that help to that end, supporting things like minimum wage increases,work place safety,lobor law enforcement. Currently most of these candidates are Democratic but we do support the very rare pro-labor Republican.

Andrea: Read that Huffington artical closely and pay close attention to how the vote is actually taken. Meet the county registrar, ask questions and let them know we are watching closely.

OK Kansas:
My guess is GWB, He says a lot of things. I like this one better,to paraphrase” The only thing to be found in the middle of the road are white lines and dead armidillos.”

To expand on BillS’s definition of neo-conservatism-
It came into the fore when a group of socialists began began supporting Nixon and the Vietnam war.
Nixon being deemed a conservative for no other reason than his membership in the Republican party, as is the case with Bush, they called themselves new conservatives, thus, neo-conservative.
One of their early guiding lights was Irving Kristol, publisher of “The Weekly Standard ” magazine. A prominent leader of the current infection is Paul Wolfowitz who has been known to openly praise Trotsky and debate the best way to incorporate his ideology into American policy.
The foundational ideology of neo-conservatism is Trotskyism with its call for welfare statism, internationalism, perpetual war and the destruction of the middle class.

Jack,

In another post I asked if you would stand in line ten hours to vote. This is what people in Ohio had to do, but only in precincts that were expected to vote heavily democratic. Exit polls showed Ohio going to Kerry beyond the margin of error. I don’t know nor can I claim that 2000 or 2004 were stolen but there is certainly enough evidence in my mind to suggest that it was possible. It has to be in the best interest of this country to have an election that all but eliminates these things from happening. One reform that could be made is a automatic audit or “recount” of the paper ballot that is filled out and fed into some of the electronic voting machines. A scientific sampling should be taken and compared to the actual results. Not the entire vote but a random sample of a small percentage of that vote. Do you think this is possible, or would it be to great a threat to the status quo?

Bill S,

That was actually Dwight Eisenhower. My follow up was going to be an explanation of what the Republican Party used to be and what the Neo (or new) conservatives are, but you already nailed that to the barn door. I would add that there has not been a true “old-school” conservative in the white house since Eisenhower.

Eisenhower actually “grew” social programs considerably because he recognized the need. He’d seen first hand what the results could be of failed social policy. He knew that the success of a community could only be measured by including every member of the community in the equation.

Not so with the “Neo-Cons” who actually prefer to turn things back to what they were 80 to 100 years ago. I honestly do think a very few Republicans still “get it”. Maybe Chuck Hagel, maybe Arlen Specter, maybe John McCain, I’m certainly not sure by any means.

I can say with certainty of opinion that the majority of the current “ruling class” have things totally wrong and they are driven by misinformation, greed, and fanatical religious belief. The worst mistake is assuming such an arrogant stance.

The pendulum will swing back to the left. How long and how far are yet to be seen. Then it will swing back to the right. Only change is certain. As pawns in this game we can only hope that we survive to see the next changing of the guard.

KansasDem

Kansas Dem,
That’s a good quote. I haven’t a clue as to who said it but you’ve sure got me curious.

Kansas Dem,
I’m not surprised the Ike said such a great line(s). I refer to him as the last good Republican(which makes some of my Dem friends shudder, they prefer to go back to Abe). My biggest regret about Eisenhower is we ignored his warning about the military-industrial complex. Now, today, we have Chaney and Haliburton running the country.

Mark,

I catch hell for favoring the opinions of Joe Biden. He’s too “Conservative-Lite”. I certainly don’t have the answers to all of our problems, but I’m smart enough to know that extremism on either the right or the left is bound to fail over time.

Knowledge is the single most important quality of a leader. So, what can a human being “know”? Only what has transpired in the past. Everything else is speculation. Knowledge of history is therefore the most important quality in a leader.

Knowledge of history prevents foolish mistakes and allows for wise decisions. It’s been quite a while since I’ve seen knowledgable leadership of my beloved USA.

KansasDem

Ray/BiilS/Traveller

SO given your explanation of what neo-conservative means, how do you all figure that I fit into that category? How do you figure that ANYONE fits into that category if they haven’t specifically come out and said that is what and who they are?

When have I EVER said anything that could be remotely construed to mean that I am against individual rights and states rights, or that I support the creation of a welfare state, perpetual war, the destruction of the middle class and all the other crap you have erroneously attributed to me? How do you get that from what I have written?

You are all so clueless about what it truly means to be “conservative” in middle class America. The values my conservative peers and I believe in and espouse have nothing to do with any of the accusations you have made against me.

I am all for fair treatment of the “working class”, but some of the laws you and your unions have been instrumental in creating go way overboard. Take workplace safety for instance. In my workplace, we recently had an OSHA inspection. We had to do some ridiculous things in our facility, because OSHA, and those who supported its creation, think that people are idiots who can’t and shouldn’t be held responsible for at least SOME of their own safety!! We had to paint certain areas of our walkway RED, just in case after having worked here for months or years, we somehow “forgot” that this area was a tripping hazard. We had to put little caps on the ends of some of the threaded valve wheel bars b/c someone might fall and impale themselves. But if I fall hard enough to impale myself on these bars, the cute little “protective” caps aren’t going to do a damn thing except get lodged in my corpse!! This kind of regulation is ridiculous.

I do believe that people should be paid well for what they do. But when you take a job, you know what you are going to be paid for that job. If it isn’t enough, don’t work there!! If you take the job you can’t go back and whine later about how underpaid you are!!

And none of you ever addressed the abuse by union members of their “rights”, abuse that you KNOW exists. Don’t even deny it. People abuse the system and get away with it because the unions have harassed and bullied the emloyers, who are afraid to say anything about it for fear of crybabies going to their union reps and whining about how the big mean boss got on their shit for standing around and not doing their job and still expecting to get paid for it!!! Well imagine that…a supervisor or company owner actually expecting you to do what you are getting paid for! What a concept!

I am not now, nor have I ever been in support of screwing the little guy. But I also believe in personal resposibility. I believe that you and I and all of us have to take SOME measure of responsibility for our own safety at work and in everyday life. You can’t and should not expect the governemnt to protect you and your family from all the possible bad things that can happen to you. It is unrealistic, and reeks of socialism and big brother.

If you care to have me enlighten you on what I and my fellow conservatives REALLY hold dear in our hearts, I would be happy to do so.

Don’t compare me to the politicians. Those guys abd gals (on both sides of the aisle) do whatever they have to in order to get votes. Being conservative is NOT necesarrily the same as being Republican, but their party best represents what we believe.

Great posts, Ray.
You too, womanmarine.
DavidR, I’ll be the forth person replying to you who has direct connection with Unions and who is liberal. I was a former member of Union, and I’m liberal. My husband is a Union man and a liberal also. Most of us brothers and sisters in unions are Liberals not “conservative”. We’re just not that stupid. The idea of “conserving the status quo” and giving the wealthy all the power over us would be utterly and completely illogical.

Re: Screwed up elections:
I’m tired of debating this issue with the Republicans, and I’m not going to bother to do so any longer. I honestly don’t give a rats tuchus what they “think” about this issue. Their c