'Blackwell was a one-time stockholder in the former Diebold company (now Premier Election Solutions). Blackwell was responsible for handing Diebold the contract to supply Ohio with voting machines, which was later reported during his failed run for Governor. '

Indeed...this should have raised the red flag of a conflict of interest!

This is the SAME US that pretends to be a showcase of democracy....and dictate to other countries what it cant do itself.

Indeed Brian, Indeed....

As Secretary of State, Blackwell had no one looking over his shoulder except the Republican Party.
Click on the URL in the body of the article that links to my other article on Blackwell.

Very important to point out there that not one word was said to sugges that any fraud DID take place, just that the machines were vulnerable.

Dave

Yeah, you're right, just because the election figures went contrary to almost every poll in the state (except for republican ones of course) and a little thing called "undervotes" were reported (less votes than were recorded as cast), that's nothing to get suspicious about.

From the Secretary of State's website...

The Evaluation & Validation of Election-Related Equipment, Standards & Testing report, known as EVEREST, is a comprehensive review of voting systems revealing startling findings on voting machines and systems used in Ohio and throughout the country. The Ohio study tested the systems for:
- risks to vote security,
- system performance, including load capacity,
- configuration to currently certified systems specifications, and
- operations and internal controls that could mitigate risk.

The $1.9 million study, paid for using federal funds, was structured to allow two teams of scientists, corporate and academic, to conduct parallel assessment of the security of the state's three voting systems - Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Hart Intercivic and Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold) - in both voting and board of elections environments. Separate research was conducted on each voting system's performance, configuration and operations and internal controls management. A bipartisan team of 12 election board directors and deputy directors advised the study and evaluated all reports, participating with the secretary in making recommendations for change.

While some tests to compromise voting systems took higher levels of sophistication, fairly simple techniques were often successfully deployed.

"To put it in every-day terms, the tools needed to compromise an accurate vote count could be as simple as tampering with the paper audit trail connector or using a magnet and a personal digital assistant," Brunner said.

The researchers in the Ohio study didn't address the issue of probability of attack, leaving that to the determination of state and local officials. The researchers commented that with the lack of technical measures in voting system design, its integrity "is provided purely by the integrity and honesty of election officials." (p. 20, Final Report of Academic Researchers.)

"It's a testament to our state's boards of elections officials that elections on the new HAVA mandated voting systems have gone as smoothly as they have in light of these findings," Brunner said.

Testers looking at the performance of the voting systems used in Ohio and in many locales throughout the country, identified numerous risks to election integrity ranging from minor to severe, according to the review.

Also, those examining how voting systems were configured in the field found risks such as the use of materials like memory storage and printer paper that had not been certified by the voting system manufacturers; a lack of standardized equipment testing and that revisions to voting system software for all systems and counties were not documented or tracked, the review said.

The researchers commented that with the lack of technical measures in voting system design, its integrity "is provided purely by the integrity and honesty of election officials."

Which is exactly where the integrity of a paper ballot system rests as well. They aren't exactly tamper proof.

Dave

Kinda proves both our points, don't it?

Now, about all those people who supposedly voted for every candidate except President?

Yawwwnnnnnn...this is like a bad dream all over again...Al Gwhore..and John "I was for it before I was againts it" Kerry....lost...get over it...

In addition...I though your John Denver review was much more insightful and "timely" than this OLD story...

JOM

#9 is like listening to a radio station that keeps playing the same song over and over and over and over.

I'm relieved that I haven't lost my most loyal of fans.

The announcement was made yesterday, read the article again...

Hugs and Kisses
Jet

Now, about all those people who supposedly voted for every candidate except President?

I actually don't find this surprising. If you don't like the presidential choices - understandable in 2004 - you might still vote for local candidates.

Dave

That sounds like squirming Dave...

Very unbecoming.
(:^p~~~~~~~~

Yet another article about a country that has lost its way - and the fault can be split between the leaders and the people who allow them to steal manipulate elections.

Good to see you writing about politics again, Jet. This and Marlowe's piece about needing another FDR make a good pair to read together....

Dave, I'm surprised that you can't see the obvious - that crumbs of goodies tossed out by politicians (like contracts) are supposed to result in something good somewhere for them.

I think one of my favorite sayings apply here Ruvy?

Whose the bigger fool; the leader, or the people who follow him blindly?

Nice to see your voice back in the fray Mr. Jet. So does this mean that you will be returning to writing on more of a regular basis? Anyway, welcome back.

-Glen

I've got a few operations for my eyes, leg, and congestive heart failure, but hopefully my recovery during Jan-Nov of next year will be productive.

I appreciate the nice words Glen.
thanks
Jet

Actually Ruvy, I've learned out of necessity what not to waste my energy on...

New Jersey huh?
... that explains a lot

Actually, the only legally confirmed account of cheating in Ohio I've heard about was by a couple of democrat election workers in Cuyahoga county.

Interestingly, they were caught rigging a sample recount, to avoid a larger recount. I guess it was like cheating to avoid being caught cheating.

Provide a link to the story before you make unsubstantiated statements like that. If you dare.

Here's the story Dan referred to, Jet.

It's also hard to ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of election fraud indictments nationwide involve ACORN and people working for ACORN to promote democratic candidates.

Dave

"If you dare." Always amusing, Jet. You imply half a dozen federal crimes based on the possibility that they could have happened, but ignore the ones that did.

Look, if Diebold machines were easy to hack, they'd be losing a fortune on bank machines. ATM's are money boxes that sit out on the street all night and never get robbed. Anyone who can build those can write voting software. But please, keep fighting old battles rather than learning from them. Republicans will concede the 2000 and 2004 elections if you write one more article.

"It's also hard to ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of election fraud indictments nationwide involve ACORN and people working for ACORN to promote democratic candidates."

And that's just when their caught. Even then, corrupt democrat partisan prosecutors sometimes fail their responsibilities to prosecute. That's what happened with some of the rogue prosecutors Bush had to fire.

Non-votes included any candidate votes not counted (i.e. hanging chads, other spoilage) and no vote cast for president. In some states, the undervote percentage is well below one percent. Ohio recorded near the highest rate in 2004. The Ohio e-vote non-vote percentage was near normal, at 0.76% compared to 1.90% for punch card voters. However, precinct level analysis indicates that many punch card precincts had normal non-voting percentages. Non-voting distribution is skewed rather than normal and correlates with Kerry support.

The non-vote rate is more than three times the normal expectation in precincts with highest Kerry support. Suspiciously, where cross-voting reduces Kerry's vote the most, the non-vote rate is highest. The rate jumps significantly in precincts which reported more than 70% Kerry support.

In Cuyahoga County, Kerry lost a very high, non-random proportion of the uncounted votes. This cross-voting/undercounting concentration where it lowers Kerry's tally the most raises suspicion of irregularities and presents yet another mystery, "Why is undervoting concentrated in locations with the highest Kerry support?"

Mr. Nalle, any website that would display the following, would NOT be considered a balanced or even vaguely credible source of information...

"Every week, the RNC should take out an add showing the (crime of the week by Democrats) It would do two things, 1. it would show what we all know is the truth that Democrats are crooks.
2. Show how the MSM does NOT put a (D) next to their names.
If the MSM does not cover it, then some how you have to pay to shine the light on the truth!"

"Why is undervoting concentrated in locations with the highest Kerry support?"

If true, my guess would be that just like Gore voters in Miami Dade who had trouble figuring out how to navigate a butterfly ballot, Democrat voters find casting a proper vote somewhat more challenging than Republican voters.

However, this discrepency seems to even out after voters die, where Democrats are about 6 times more succesful voting than dead Republicans.

I bet you wear JOM's underwear don't you?

Dan, I've got a better explanation. A lot of people were unsatisfied with Kerry as a candidate. I know people who hated Bush, but couldn't bring themselves to vote for a candidate who had expressed no vision or agenda. But like I said, if the Dems want to keep disputing the 2004 election, they'll never learn any lessons for 2008.

"I know people who hated Bush, but couldn't bring themselves to vote for a candidate who had expressed no vision or agenda."

And what was Bush's "vision or agenda"...besides wasting over $490 billion and 3800 American lives in that shithole of Iraq...??

We don't have to specifically dispute the outcome of the 2004 election to be glad that Florida and Ohio are moving from touch-screen to optical-scan systems.

Our grouchy Republican commenters here should join in celebrating this improvement, which will help ensure a more reliable tally in all future elections, whatever the outcome.

It's too bad the touch-screen machine companies somehow managed to control the argument for so long, causing needless wasteful spending on machines that will never be used again.

Baronius, the notion that voters were turned off by Kerry's lack of vision and agenda doesn't explain why Democrat voters are allegedly more likely to botch the voting process.

Jet, Nalle's source to the Cuyahoga county election workers disgraceful misconduct isn't a source you approve of, but it's necessary to the point. The problem is that MSM sources that you would approve of hide the fact that the wrong doers are Democrats.

That's how you and anyone else who still believes "old" media is objectively reporting facts remain ignorant of reality.

It's also why the circulation of "old" disreputable/liberal MSM outlets continues to tank, while credible, objective sources of information, like Fox News, are on the rise.

Dan, again I would not refer to the website quote that I cited at the end of comment #25 as the source of objective, nor reliable information. Any jerk with a keyboard can find a website that'll agree with him, but that doesn't make him right.

Since my writing seems to be a hobby of yours, I suggest you write a few articles on your own so I can return the favor and nonchalantly shit on them for all to read with half-truths and unfounded inuendos.

Frankly I have better things to waste my time on than your childish rants.
Take an example from Dave Nalle. We disagree on almost everything and on nearly every political subject, but instead of being a smartass, he writes thoughtfully and intelligently worded comments expressing his views, and I respect him for his insights because they're phrased in a learned manner... though as I've said, I don't always agree.

You and JOM are slowly succeeding in turning this website into a place where idiots compete to see who can come up with the best smartass remarks-one of the major reasons I stopped writing for BC.

I remember a time when people here wrote intelligently, and swayed educated opponents with reason not instead of playground-grade remarks.

A shame really
...but of course that's only my opinion!

Jet

I think for me, the biggest issue with this article and this viewpoint has to do with the rabid childishness of the Dems on this very issue. I still hear to this day that Bush wasn't elected or that he stole the vote. Sorry but this just isn't reality.

As this is a country with nearly 300 million people, chances are somewhere, somehow, someone cheated on a ballot. On both sides of the partisan fence. But where you lose me is when in 2000, as per the laws of this great country, the Supreme Court rules that Bush is president and for the next 4 years I have to hear that Bush "stole" the election from Al Gore.

Then in 2004, another close election, one that Bush won, I continue to hear this kind of aluminum foil hat conspiracy.

Let's face facts, the country is nearly equally divided, especially when it boils down to the electorial college vote.

Was it not true that approximately 50% of Americans voted for Bush in 2000? Was it not true that 50% of Americans voted for Bush in 2004? Of course it was.

These were emotional, hotly contested elections, with a very fine majority. But a majority nonetheless. So don't try to take away 50% of our voices by claiming the same grand old vast right wing conspiracy because it just doesn't play.

One more point if I may on this dead horse of an issue. I live in a distinctly blue state. Thankfully 40% of us in this state have some sense of reason, but especially where I am, there is a high majority of liberal Democrats. When I go to my voting area, there is a guy who sticks a card into the back of the machine before I go in. Once I pull the lever, and pull back the curtains, he takes the card out and gives it to the other election workers.

Do I have any faith that they aren't throwing my vote right in the trash? Not at all. Might the biddies at the voting facility actually do that? Knowing the extend of Bush Derangement Syndrome in these parts, it's a distinct possibility. Still I cast my vote. And when we elect Democrats to office, I don't whine that my vote was stolen, I realize that people probably just voted for the Democrat.

There are plenty of Republicans in this country, and lots of people voted for Bush in both elections, and why not considering the competition, bleeeaaaach!

Real people. Actual Americans with a vote casting their ballots for Bush. It wasn't all some vast right wing conspiracy, I swear. And just FYI, I'll be amongst a possible majority of Americans voting Republican in 2008 as well. Don't be so surprised then either.

Voting is a rather simple thing to do, whether it is to touch a screen or punch a tab. The constant bickering on this issue reminds me of a football game that two fans of the competing teams are arguing because a referee's botched a call. Although, good points are made in the arguments presented, credibility is lost with shrill dialogue. It makes one appear unhinged and manachial. Thus losing ground on all the points they were trying to make.

Dearest Obnoxious, Just for your information, the national popular vote had Gore winning the election of 2000

The results were as follows:
George Bush: 50,456,002
Al Gore: 50,999,897

Just because you stick your self-righteous nose up in the air and spew your pompus pronouncements don't make them true.

Easily verifyable facts don't seem to be your strong point.

It's wonderful to watch right-wing nuts just ignoring the facts doesn't it. Just because you say it's so don't make it so.

All this article says is that Ohio acknowledged a study made independantly after the election.

The results of the study were suppressed (I wonder why) until the duly elected new administration took over the state house.

But Jet. As I pointed out before, the report does not say that there was any fraud in the election, just that the voting machines suck, which we all knew already.

And it also doesn't change the fact that even if every questionable vote were switched to Kerry he'd still have lost the election.

Dave

Dave, for reference I'll send you back to the 3rd paragraph of comment 32

Uh... where in the article did I say there was fraud?

Oh, and going back to the link I posted for the Cuyahoga election fraud story. I didn't even bother to check the political leanings of the source, I was just providing the story which Dan referenced.

If it had been my point to make I'd have linked to a left-wing site for proof, like Common Dreams whose coverage of the article subtly understates but does make clear that the two indicted officials were democrats. They make a clever attempt to make it look like Republicans were at fault, but aren't quite willing to absolutely straight-out lie, so in the opening paragraph you see them say that 2 republicans and 2 democrats were fired. Then they go into detail on the two republicans who were not indicted and discuss the other two people who were actually indicted for election fraud without mentioning that they are democrats, except for that reference in the first paragraph. And then they blame the fraud on the GOP, when clearly the opposite is the case.

However, the Common Dreams article may be incorrect, because an actual MSM article in the Toledo Blade says that one of the convicted women was a democrat and the other a republican, which seems to contradict every other source which claims that they were both democrats, including left-leaning sources.

What none of the articles mentions is that the election supervisor for Cuyahoga County under whom all of this fraud took place, Michael Vu, is also a prominent democrat, since forced to resign - something I learned on Daily Kos of all places.

Dave

Ah hem, the article is about flawed machines and a suppressed report on same... Nowhere was it said the actual fraud was committed.


...sigh

And thus, we agree.

And it is a very valid concern, because these machines are so screwed up that anyone of either political persuasion could figure out a way to cheat with them.

Dave

Jet, it seems like you're teasing a point that you know you can't make. You don't say there was fraud, but you give Blackwell's bio and talk about presidential polling and non-votes. Make your accusation. "If you dare."

I. The Exit Polls
The first indication that something was gravely amiss on November 2nd, 2004, was the inexplicable discrepancies between exit polls and actual vote counts. Polls in thirty states weren't just off the mark -- they deviated to an extent that cannot be accounted for by their margin of error. In all but four states, the discrepancy favored President Bush.

Over the past decades, exit polling has evolved into an exact science. Indeed, among pollsters and statisticians, such surveys are thought to be the most reliable. Unlike pre-election polls, in which voters are asked to predict their own behavior at some point in the future, exit polls ask voters leaving the voting booth to report an action they just executed.

Jet #36,

That would be an excellent point, IF we elected entirely on popular vote. But we don't. We elect based on the electorial college and it's been that way for as long as I can remember. As as best as I can tell, no one had an issue with the electorial process when a Dem was elected president.

That you trot out the old tired point that "He won the popular vote" proves my characterization. I can attest that your point has been heard time and time again by all here and I can tell you I think its total hogwash. Unless you are suggesting moving to abolish the electorial college (which you aren't) what is your gripe exactly? That Gore/Kerry lost? Sorry about that, but this is a democracy.

To quote my own comment (#33) which you chose to ignore, "Let's face facts, the country is nearly equally divided, especially when it boils down to the electorial college vote. " The popular vote numbers that you brought out agree with this.

As I said before, it's a close vote, nearly equally divided country. You lost this time. I might lose next time. But don't try to take away my voice because the votes fell out of your favor and you don't like it. That's plain childish. No conspiracies, half of this country voted for Bush whether you like it or not.

I can assure you that if a Dem is elected in 2008 (god forbid), you can be sure that I won't be sitting here whining about how the election process is somehow "fixed." But I will be here reminding all about each and every policy issue I disagree with. And I will be presenting facts and not ad hominem attacks to back my case. Something that can't be said about the left in this electorial season.

Give Jet a break. He's being honest. He would really like to accuse Republicans, but he's limited himself to what he can claim based on the facts, and you can't fault him for that. And it does have value because he's brought our attention to a very real problem that ought to concern all of us.

dave

As reported on line...
As the last polling stations closed on the West Coast, exit polls showed Kerry ahead in ten of eleven battleground states -- including commanding leads in Ohio and Florida -- and winning by a million and a half votes nationally. The exit polls even showed Kerry breathing down Bush's neck in supposed GOP strongholds Virginia and North Carolina.(30) Against these numbers, the statistical likelihood of Bush winning was less than one in 450,000.

'Either the exit polls, by and large, are completely wrong,'' a Fox News analyst declared, ''or George Bush loses.'

But as the evening progressed, official tallies began to show implausible disparities -- as much as 9.5 percent -- with the exit polls. In ten of the eleven battleground states, the tallied margins departed from what the polls had predicted. In every case, the shift favored Bush. Based on exit polls, CNN had predicted Kerry defeating Bush in Ohio by a margin of 4.2 percentage points. Instead, election results showed Bush winning the state by 2.5 percent. Bush also tallied 6.5 percent more than the polls had predicted in Pennsylvania, and 4.9 percent more in Florida.(33)

According to Steven F. Freeman, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in research methodology, the odds against all three of those shifts occurring in concert are one in 660,000. ''As much as we can say in sound science that something is impossible,'' he says, ''it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote count in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error.''

"Over the past decades, exit polling has evolved into an exact science. Indeed, among pollsters and statisticians, such surveys are thought to be the most reliable. Unlike pre-election polls, in which voters are asked to predict their own behavior at some point in the future, exit polls ask voters leaving the voting booth to report an action they just executed. "

Really? Exact science? I don't think ANYTHING can truly be called an exact science, and certainly not sample based polling.

There are a few explanations for why exit polls might be wrong.

1) People may not always want to share who they voted for

2) In 2004, it was difficult for people who are republicans living in a blue state to be honest about their political preference. A sad side effect of BDS that the left thinks the right is evil and therefore won't engage.

To this point, there is an old saying amongst the GOP, "date republican but marry democrat" This saying came about because of the supposed kind heart of the dem, with the belief that they would turn GOP as they got older and wiser (a fairly common phenom). But I've noticed that there are dating sites that cater the left wingers, these people won't even date someone who disagrees with them. How closed-minded is that. But I digress.

3) Those who respond to pollsters color the results. In 2004, liberals were HEATED on rhetoric against Bush. Republicans on the other hand, with an incumbent president running for re-election, just didn't have the same fire. Someone leaving a polling station voting for Kerry would be a lot more likely to talk to an exit poller than someone voting for bush. Because the Bush supporter just isn't nearly as fired up.

4) When we start trusting the media to carry out "exact sciences" is when i stop using any form of technology whatsoever.

Facts gentlemen... Facts had you bothered to read them.

There's a difference between articles filled with sarcasm and inuendo, and articles thich plainly state facts.

Sorry you're so confused...

From your sainted Fox news...

'Either the exit polls, by and large, are completely wrong,'' a Fox News analyst declared, ''or George Bush loses.'

Uh Dave...

Industry peers didn't buy it. John Zogby, one of the nation's leading pollsters, told me that Mitofsky's ''reluctant responder'' hypothesis is ''preposterous.'' Even Mitofsky, in his official report, underscored the hollowness of his theory: ''It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters.''

Now, thanks to careful examination of Mitofsky's own data by Freeman and a team of eight researchers, we can say conclusively that the theory is dead wrong. In fact it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were more disinclined to answer pollsters' questions on Election Day. In Bush strongholds, Freeman and the other researchers found that fifty-six percent of voters completed the exit survey -- compared to only fifty-three percent in Kerry strongholds.(38) ''The data presented to support the claim not only fails to substantiate it,'' observes Freeman, ''but actually contradicts it.''

Dave,

I agree that voting machines suck, even and especially the old ones.

But the underlying premise of this article is what I take objection to. That tired refrain from the left, most recently the Clinton camp, of the wheels of society being rigged supposedly by the evil corporations that make these machines, and of course the story wouldn't be complete without a reference to someone tied to the GOP who owns two shares of said company...

This very line of thinking is in the article above. If the discussion was only limited to the machines themselves then I wouldn't have even posted. But a central theme of this article is the association of Blackwell with the GOP. Jet is in essence making the accusation that the GOP rigged 2000 and 2004 elections. It's these types of snide, underhanded attacks that liberal columnists use to discredit the GOP, without a shred of proof. Sorry but I won't quietly abide by that.

If there was fraud carried out by the GOP, then title this article "Fraud by the GOP" and back it up with facts. But don't mask allegations against a party that was elected to office by the people in some article supposedly about voting machines, without facts to back it up, and then claim that the article is somehow unbiased.

It's just all a bit too silly for me, and frankly I can't stand it when people try to take away my voice by saying that the election was rigged simply because the votes were not in their favor. Exit polling is not and never will be fact nor science.

Facts:
The evidence is especially strong in Ohio. In January, a team of mathematicians from the National Election Data Archive, a nonpartisan watchdog group, compared the state's exit polls against the certified vote count in each of the forty-nine precincts polled by Edison/Mitofsky. In twenty-two of those precincts -- nearly half of those polled -- they discovered results that differed widely from the official tally. Once again -- against all odds -- the widespread discrepancies were stacked massively in Bush's favor: In only two of the suspect twenty-two precincts did the disparity benefit Kerry. The wildest discrepancy came from the precinct Mitofsky numbered ''27,'' in order to protect the anonymity of those surveyed. According to the exit poll, Kerry should have received sixty-seven percent of the vote in this precinct. Yet the certified tally gave him only thirty-eight percent. The statistical odds against such a variance are just shy of one in 3 billion.

Such results, according to the archive, provide ''virtually irrefutable evidence of vote miscount.'' The discrepancies, the experts add, ''are consistent with the hypothesis that Kerry would have won Ohio's electoral votes if Ohio's official vote counts had accurately reflected voter intent.'' According to Ron Baiman, vice president of the archive and a public policy analyst at Loyola University in Chicago, ''No rigorous statistical explanation'' can explain the ''completely nonrandom'' disparities that almost uniformly benefited Bush. The final results, he adds, are ''completely consistent with election fraud -- specifically vote shifting.''

Jet,

I live in a blue state. My wife and I generally vote repulican. And I can promise you that neither of us would respond to an exit poll. At best, I'd be worried about having to debate a throng of BDS sufferers, and not being able to get a word in edgewise. At worst, I'd be concerned that the people working at the polling station would throw my vote in the trash or put me on some list of 'Bush sympathizers'. Now I know that my own views aren't as official as Mitofsky's but I can tell you that virtually every republican I know in the area would do the same.

Every liberal I know on the other hand, is extremely vociferous about their views. Not necessarily regarding the facts to back it up. But if I had a dime for every liberal that felt the urge to tell me how "stupid" Bush is intellectually, I'd have enough to run for office myself.

Jet,

Starting a post with the word "Fact" at the beginning does not make it so.

All of the items you referenced were people analyzing the same exit polling data. These non-partisan groups (not sure what that means even, do these people really have no opinion?) never did the polling themselves.

If the exit polling data is flawed (and I think we all are educated enough to know that exit polls are definitive by ANY stretch or definition) then the analysis of those numbers are meaningless, no matter how pious we believe them to be.

When the day comes that exit polls are factored into the electorial process, then we can talk. But for now, given the choice between a Zogby exit poll, and the "certified vote count" I will believe the vote count thank you very much. Unless you have some actual facts to prove the certified vote count is wrong. You don't? Oh well.

Correction: If the exit polling data is flawed (and I think we all are educated enough to know that exit polls are not definitive by ANY stretch or definition)

One point here. In 2006, the GOP lost BOTH houses of congress after winning the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections. If elections were as fixed as some feel they are, then that would never have happened.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that after the GOP loss in November 2006, the GOP didn't make widespread claims that I know of regarding voter fraud. Certainly none that were taken seriously by anyone.

Instead, the GOP asked themselves why the American people didn't vote for them. Some felt that the GOP lost the moral vote as a result of scandal, some felt it was pork barrel budgeting that did them in, others felt that the war in Iraq and the deteriorating situation on the ground was the motivating factor to vote Dem.

Either way, the question among those in the GOP was how to do better next time. Not some wild eyed conspiracy theory, no claims that the "fix was in". No one screaming, "It's not fair!" at the top of their shrill lungs. We took our lumps, because we deserved it.

If the GOP loses in 2008, it won't be because of voter fraud, it will certainly be because of a lack of compelling candidates, or the loss of backbone by some in the GOP who have gravitated leftwards.

By contrast, can you honestly say, if the GOP does win does win in 2008, that those on the left won't once again be screaming foul play like they did in the last two presidential elections?

I am very turned off by this behavior by my compatriots on the left (as I am sure others are). It's shameful. Let's try to have some decorum as Americans, and focus on the real issues facing this country, and there are plenty of them. Because this just a stupid ideological struggle in the name of partisanship.

Obnoxious, I don't consider Liberal a bad word, nor do I consider conservative a bad word, but as long as you insist on putting labels on things and just nonchalantly dismissing any point of view out of hand,

I have no intentions of paying any attention to you.

people learn by their mistakes, People grow by learning from their mistakes.

Taking the attitude of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" sucks, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Period

If that makes me a liberal bacause I listen and learn from other points of view than so be it.

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

The GOP won the 2006 elections. By just barely throwing the election, they gave democrats just enough to say they were in charge, but in actual fact, since nothing passed by this congress has a veto proof majority, Bush can get his way and the country thinks it's the democrats fault for getting nothing done.

Just for reference, here's a CBS NEws article on ACORN election fraud activities in Ohio 2006, show that they're still up to the same tricks that got so many of their workers indicted after the 2002 and 2004 elections. Keep an eye out for ACORN workers registering voters in a graveyard near you for 2008.

Dave

I can google just as many repudable articles on right wing organizations that did the same thing... what would that prove? The don't represent the goals of the Republican Party, as ACORN doesn't represent the Democratic party.

Integrity score: Stalemate

One could google the 77 page report undertaken by the company that did the exit polling Edison/Mitofsky. It pretty well debunks the "facts" Jet cut and pasted from his kook left website.

That is, unless they're in on it.

That was so funny... Any more corny prostlazations?

I'm not sure. My dictionary goes from prostitute to prostrate. There's no entry for prostlazation.

"He only hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

Simon & Garfunkle "The Boxer"

Okay so I misspelled it. Excuuuuuuuuuuuse me and my big vocabulary!

proselytize

Main Entry: pros·e·ly·tize
Pronunciation: ˈprä-s(ə-)lə-ˌtīz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pros·e·ly·tized; pros·e·ly·tiz·ing
intransitive verb
1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive verb
: to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause

I can google just as many repudable articles on right wing organizations that did the same thing... what would that prove? The don't represent the goals of the Republican Party, as ACORN doesn't represent the Democratic party.

Actually, Jet, I understand where you're coming from, but purely on the facts I don't think you can identify any organization of any political affiliation which has had as many members indicted or been involved in as many instances of fraud as ACORN. I'm also pretty confident that statistically there are far more cases of Democrats being indicted for election tampering than there are of Republicans.

Republicans tend to try to buy elections by spending a lot of money. Democrats try to win by getting out the vote. The result is that Republicans tend to get in trouble for fundraising violations while Democrats get in trouble for voter intimidation and fraud.

Dave

"Obnoxious, I don't consider Liberal a bad word, nor do I consider conservative a bad word, but as long as you insist on putting labels on things and just nonchalantly dismissing any point of view out of hand, I have no intentions of paying any attention to you."

Jet, for one thing, words are necessary to describe things. Voters use these words to describe themselves, so I'm not really sure why you'd have a problem with it. Either way, I don't consider these words a bad thing either, I am only trying to use a common lexicon.

That said, I've only made points in response to your article and your follow up posts. I've never attacked you, or called into question your feelings or viewpoints with ad hominem attacks. Your article makes a point that I've heard echoed many times before in more informal discussions. Since you've raised it here, I will of course take the opportunity to argue the facts as I see them.

Given this, I really don't see how you can claim I am dismissing your views. I am in fact responding to your views. I just think you are wrong. If my believing that I am right annoys you, if you think "it sucks," feel free to respond to me by refuting the points I made. After all, that is the reason for the discussion.

Or, as you said, you could just "not pay attention to me." But that's kind of a cop out in my opinion, especially since my only argument with you is specifically on the topic of this article.

Perhaps you should disable comments on your next article if you cannot withstand the answering of questions from those that disagree with your views.

But, if you do decide to engage me in the issues I've raised, I'd be most interested in hearing about why I am wrong about the GOP response to losing in 2006, versus the Dem responses in 2000, 2002 and 2004 (basically the points I made in comment #58). And let's try and make that response something more than even more wild eyed conspiracies, such as your post in #60.


As an aside, in response to #60, Bush does not have a veto proof majority in terms of cutting the funding of the Iraq war as well as a few other items.

Many claimed after the 2006 election that the Dems were mandated in a large part to end the war. It's within the dem majority in both houses to end the war right now by cutting funding. Why haven't they? Even if they could get vetoed, even if they couldn't override the veto, why not take that stand if the Dems are the anti war party? I suspect it's because they are afraid of the consequences. That's shameful politiking in my opinion.

Unfortunately, the Dems are not the only ones guilty of this behavior. However, at least I can admit that, and not post blame on the other party for my own party's foibles.

Dave and Dan and others slam ACORN every chance they get. It's somewhat reminiscent of John Bambenek's continual slander about the ACLU.

In the context of everything Acorn does and has done, the overreaching of some individual operatives are minor matters. How many results were changed by any of the incidents Dave cites?

On the other hand, how many genuine voters have honest Acorn volunteers registered? A lot more than the isolated incidents of fraud.

Acorn's other efforts include [according to their web site] "neighborhood safety, health and environmental justice, jobs, living wage, schools, housing, community reinvestment." Voter registration is not their only area of work.

If the organization [as opposed to some individuals] has deliberately engaged in fraud, shame on them. But I don't think Dave and co. have proved that.

Thanks Handyguy, I was wondering if I'd hear a sane voice...

I must agree with Obnoxious, regarding post #60.I can't imagine republican, democrat, independent, whig, federalist, green or any other party throwing and election. To make such a crass claim discredits other points you make. Some of which may actually be valid.

I have had the pleasure of reading the post of all in the forum. I might add in regards to liberal or conservative. Many people don't even understand the definition of those terms as they were meant to be difined politically. I have found people that describe themselves as liberal that after discussions you are left with no doubt they are conservative. I have also experianced the same in reverse.

Okay, I'm going to try this one more time. Kids, the article's about voting machines!

As for those of you who can face facts, I'll repeat, nothing of any worth, not even the budget will get done by this congress as long as Bush continously threatens a veto. The almost nonexistant Democratic majority is not strong enough to override his veto, and he knows it, and he's been gleefully celebrating it since the election.

Just today war funding was put back into the budget, because BUSH THREATENED A VETO that the Democrats can't override, even though that's what they were elected for.

We were stupid enough to elect a democratic majority in both houses by the slimmist majority, and then effectively tied one had behind their backs to they can't do anything without the threat of a Bush veto.

The republican party knew that Americans were getting more and more frustrated with the republican congress, and the GOP knows how short the voter's memory is.

It's to their ADVANTAGE to lose the majority last time, so that in the 2008 elections, the voter will blame the Democrats for the mess the RUBBER STAMP republican congress made.

Well, Jet, that's actually evidence that the system is working. When we get our Dem president in Jan 2009, perhaps there will be less rancor and paralysis on the Hill for a while. Wouldn't count on it, though.

It will be fun to listen to some of the righties on here whine though, won't it? Sweet sound.

Disgruntled, it is NOT up to you to decide who is or isn't credible. Just because I think you're a narrow minded self-righteous fool who can only mindlessly quote from the GOP songbook, no matter how silly you sound, doesn't mean that you actually are....

Sorry Jet but you'll have to do better than that.

For one, you never addressed the question I raised about why Dems always scream that the game is rigged when they lose, while the GOP actually looks at their policies when they lose. The only response you gave that comes close is actually claiming that the GOP intentionally threw the election in 2006 which is unsubstantiated, and doesn't even make sense.

Second, you didn't address the question regarding why the Dems, who control both houses, wouldn't pass a bill tommorrow cutting funding for the war. They could end the war tommorrow. They won't. You say it's because of Bush's veto power, but the reality is that there are certainly enough Republicans who are scared for their seat, that they would likely vote in accordance with the dems.

And even if the bill got vetoed didn't at least the Democrats could say that they tried. Thus far, their only attempts to stop the war has been to assign timetables for withdrawls within funding bills, or to come up with some faux readiness standard.

You say its because of Bush, I say it's because the Dems know, if they cut funding, American troops will need to pull out precipitously, and having that scene of troops climbing into a heli ala vietnam won't look good for 2008 - they won't do it because they are afraid of their future chances in office. Even reasonable Democratic pundits agree with this (and are rightfully mad).

Moreover, this article isn't about voting machines, it's partially about that, also about you slamming the GOP (blackwell, etc).

Liberal means free. I think we are all smart enough to know that. But let's not play word games. We all know what we mean when we say liberal in an American political context. As Jack Nicholson said in the movie Hoffa, "Are you using words with me?"

Obnoxious, you named yourself well. You pretend to be reasonable, but you actually never look at both sides of any issue. You are as narrow-minded and stubborn [the English call it "bloody-minded"] as they come. Your postings are filled to the brim with glib non-reasoning and false generalizations. And they are always so long!

The Democrats could not end the war tomorrow. What a ridiculous thing to write! Where do you come up with this? The House has indeed passed [multiple] bills without Iraq funding. They died in the Senate. A narrow margin there does tie their hands. What is your point anyway?

And this:
...the question I raised about why Dems always scream that the game is rigged when they lose, while the GOP actually looks at their policies when they lose.
...is just ridiculous. You just made it up! Not based on factual information of any kind!

Loll, don't blame me if you have trouble reading concepts. Maybe school vouchers would have helped...

I just wanted to point out here, every post of mine actually talks about the topic, but many of the posts by Jet or you are about the person posting. To wit:

"I think you're a narrow minded self-righteous fool who can only mindlessly quote from the GOP songbook, "

"Just because you stick your self-righteous nose up in the air and spew your pompus pronouncements don't make them true."

Evidence of a lack of real platform? I think so.

You call me narrow minded and stubborn, based on what exactly? That I don't agree with these rantings that the GOP fixed the 2006 election, SO THEY COULD LOSE? Jet literally said that!

Jet is basically blaming the GOP for every bad decision, as if the Dem party's excrement does not stink. What happened to Pelosi's first 100 hours? What about the Dem adgenda to work more than the previous congress? What about Paygo? All concepts the Dems were riding high on last November, all platforms they quickly abandoned and not at all because of Bush or the GOP. Because it was either too hard, or too politically unwise for the Dems to undertake. This is the type of leadership you'd elect in 2008?

At least I can admit that Bush is lacking in many areas, he's certainly not my favorite president by any stretch. That's a whole lot more than you or Jet have done with your Can-Do-No-Wrong Democratic Congressional and Senatorial members.

Handyguy,

They have never tried to pass a bill to cut funding. This is a fact. They have tried to pass war budgets, with clauses in them that would limit the Military's choices in action. These attempts were absurd and anyone who is familiar with the sitaution can tell you politcal.

Congress' role here is clear, it's not to define readiness standards or set withdrawl timetables. It's to approve or not, funding for the military.

The fact is the Dems have never tried to pass such a bill for the reasons I stated earlier. Every bill they've passed which was rightfully vetoed, stepped over the bounds of congressional oversight, but trying to define the terms under which the military can prosecute this war.

As far as my making up the point about the GOP response to loss, ok if you say so. A kind of funny point for you to make considering the article we are posting in.

I dare you to show me one widespread claim by the GOP of malfeasance by the Dems as a whole that caused them to win the 2006 elections. You won't be able to because there wasn't one. But the dems on the other hand...

Second, you didn't address the question regarding why the Dems, who control both houses, wouldn't pass a bill tommorrow cutting funding for the war. They could end the war tommorrow.

Bush would veto it and scream that the democrats aren't supporting our troops

PERIOD

He's doing right now as we speak

You SAY all Democrats are evil cheaters and whining wimps, and all Republicans are angelic underdogs being picked on and slandered?

BULLSHIT

Excuse me
...GOP bullshit

Dave and Dan and others slam ACORN every chance they get. It's somewhat reminiscent of John Bambenek's continual slander about the ACLU.

In the context of everything Acorn does and has done, the overreaching of some individual operatives are minor matters. How many results were changed by any of the incidents Dave cites?

A lot of folks went to jail. That means something.

ACORN registers tens of thousands of voters every year, and every year there are multiple instances of fraud and ACORN employees indicted and convicted.

At some point when the same thing happens again and again and again you have to conclude that it's a result of organizational policy, not just isolated incidents of overzealous field workers.

In instances where voter registrations from ACORN have been independently verified it's typical for more than HALF of those registered to be fraudulent. And it happens again and again.

How many times have ACORN or other associated groups done this and gotten away with it? Scores and scores for each time they've been caught, certainly.

Dave

Jet, I am glad you have truly shown your intelligence on this issue. I am sure the DNC needs a strategist like yourself, perhaps you can get them to throw the 2008 elections and foil the evil GOP strategy. You said I was narrow minded. How did I demonstrate that, What did I say to make myself appear self righteous. You have accused me of two things that any intelligent person could not have possibly come to as a reasonable conclusion with the two post I have made. But then you have concluded that parties throw elections, nevermind I understand. You have also said it is NOT up to me to deem whether you are credible or not. I beg to differ, if you post something on an open forum, who else is better to determine whether you are credible or not other than the reader. Perhaps, you think someone who didn't read you post would be a better judge as to whether you are credible. You also accused me of singing from the GOP songbook. How?, by saying the republicans didn't throw the election. That's it. How many republicans have set that up in their talking points, or platform? If you can find a few and can produce evidence of your claim, let me know and I promise not to sing from that songbook again. It has been my experiance that when someone does not have eveidence to back up what they claim, they immediately go on the offensive and resort name calling. Logical people do not rant and make ridiculous claims. They merely lay out verifiable facts for everyone to see. When you provide undisputable facts there is no reason to rant, no reason to grasp at straws to make your point.

Thank you Mr. Spock.

As I've said, I've learned what, and what not to waste my time on.

All the above are undeniable facts.

1. The voting machines have shown to have had exploitable flaws during the 2004 election process.

2. Evidence of those flaws only saw the light of day a few days ago.

3. Mr. Blackwell owned stock in the very company that made those voting machines. The Diebold chairman blatantly promised a ballroom full of cheering people that he intended ot guarantee Bush Ohio's electoral votes. A party that Ken Blackwell was in attendance of and was co-chairman of.

4. Mr. Blackwell owned that stock during the period in which he served as Secretary of State of Ohio.

4. In his capacity as SOS he awarded contracts to purchase those machines by, and for the use of his state of Ohio.

5. Just days before Blackwell announced his run for Governor, he was forced to reveal he'd owned that stock and had sold it only days before.

6. Blackwell was co-chair of the ReElect Bush campaign in Ohio.

7. As secretary of state it was his job to gather and announce Ohio's election results and to assign its electoral votes.

It's obvious that your mind can't digest thos facts.

This article was not about ACORN
I don't care about ACORN
I've never professed to know anything about ACORN

I'm sure I could name a few radical right wing organizations that you're not affiliated with, but you don't see me trying to imply that now do you?

Jet, also let me comment on your post #84. You are saying that the Democrats could stop the war by cutting funding. But Bush would say they are cutting funding to our troops, as he is doing right now. (I hope I have not mischaraterized your statement.)

I ask you then; Why do the Democrats want to stop the war? Is it because they think that it is wrong? Is it because too many Americans have died already? I ask you these questions because it would seem to me that if these are indeed two of the main reasons they feel it needs to be stopped. Then you are also saying that stopping the war would save more American lives are you not? If tis is true, then one can only logically deduce; That any attempt on cutting funding for the war would ultimately be an attempt to save American lives.

If the Democrats will not cut funding for the war because Bush would veto it and paint them in a bad light. As you say he is doing now. Then one can further logically deduce the democrats will not try to attempt to save American, lives because doing so may make them look bad, and might cost them their seats in the next election. Therefore, it is safe to say, is it not? The Democrat view is better to save you seat in congress than try to save an American life.

To quote someone I admire...

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

You're only up to page 42 in the Official republican quotes and smartass comebacks book.

I'm very disappointed in you.

SNAP!

Now THAT was a snappy retort!

(CBS) By CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer David Paul Kuhn

Officials in Oregon have launched a criminal investigation after receiving numerous complaints that a Republican-affiliated group was destroying registration forms filed by Democratic voters statewide, Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury told CBSNews.com.

Meanwhile, CBS affiliate KLAS-TV is reporting accusations of similar malfeasance in Nevada.

Both state's allegations are linked to a Phoenix political consulting firm called Sproul & Associates run by Nathan Sproul, former head of the Arizona Republican Party. Sproul & Associates has received nearly $500,000 from the Republican National Committee this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Calls from CBSNews.com to Sproul were not returned.

Klas TV News Las Vegas...

George Knapp, Investigative Reporter
Investigation into Trashed Voter Registrations

Clark County Election Dept. - look up your registration

(Oct. 13) -- Federal, state, and local officials are gathering information about allegations of voter registration fraud that were first raised Channel 8 Eyewitness News.

An employee of a private voter registration firm alleges that his bosses trashed registration forms filled out by Democratic voters because they only wanted to sign up Republican voters.

The allegations have set off a political firestorm stretching from Las Vegas to Washington D.C., and beyond.

As with everything else in this election year, it's now become a political football being tossed between the two parties, with charges and countercharges, but at its core, there still remains the matter of registration forms that were ripped up and tossed in the trash.

Intereting story, Jet. It's eerily reminiscent of the ACORN (I know you don't want to hear about them) worker in Misouri who was sent to jail for separating out 300 republican registrations from the ones he had collected and never submitting them. They were found in the trunk of his car.

Seems like the whole professional voter registration worker industry needs to be looked at.

Dave

Indeed Dave, Indeed...

Jet, the problem is that everyone sees that you have avoided defending your position and you statements. I did not ask you to match wits, just asnwer the questions. Is it because you are afraid everything I said is true? Remember, my questions are garnered from YOUR statements. So thruthfully if you are to match wits as you say you would be matching wits with youself. (That would explain the unarmed quote you made.) The truth is you have been hung by your own words. You cannot defend them. You truly remind me of a guy from my school days, you know the guy in class that slings insults and tries to be funny, endeavoring to hide his own ignorance. You make insults and dodge questions.
Dave Nalle, points out an actual conviction, you point out an allegation. Somehow that is comparable to you.
This difference is an allegation requires NO evidence, a conviction requires evidence.

As I've stated before, I've grown to know what not to waste my time with, and you're it.

Have a nice holiday
Jet

I suspected as as much. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

I'd hardly call CBS News, CNN, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press inuendo, or unreliable sources-however since you continue to amuse me, while ignoring facts in front of your own eyes, I'll go on letting you make a fool of yourself.

By the way I love the use of your "royal we", as if you think you have more than a hand full of people that agree with you.

snicker snicker

The sad thing is that in an old-established democracy like the USA there shouldn't even be any voter fraud.

I've never heard of any stories of fraud in a British election, for instance. I'm sure it happens occasionally, but if it does it's on such a small and insignificant scale it's not even worth the column inches to report it.

Well I think one thing we can agree on is that voter fraud, by ANY party, is something that should be prosecuted to the fullest.

Jet, regarding comment #85, I think I've been pretty even handed on my critisism of the left and the right. I've critisized Bush in this very thread. Please stop making things up. And you are doing exactly what disgruntled says you are doing, avoiding the question. I happen to think that you are pretty ignorant, based on your article and the comments here. But I will still give you the respect of acknolwedging the words you type, and not resort to name calling (unarmed man).

I was never a big believer in snaps, sure they sound great, but when you use them to defend an indefensible view, it's a sign of weakness of principle.

I wish you too, a happy holiday.

Obnox, Jet has made his position perfectly clear. This article IS about Ohio's voting machines. It IS NOT about any party's voting fraud. It IS about Secretary Blackwell, who is a Republican, and promised fraud, and Bush won his state. It IS NOT a place to point fingers.

Thanks Mr. B.