Home / Fraud, Stolen Elections, And Politics As Usual

Fraud, Stolen Elections, And Politics As Usual

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

An in-depth analysis of the "anomalies" that occurred during the 2004 presidential election by Rolling Stone magazine offers a chilling account of wide-scale fraud.

According to the author, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (whose four-page article includes more than 200 citations), the problems were widespread: millions of Americans overseas did not receive their ballots in time, voting machines failed in New Mexico, and Democratic voter registrations were shredded in six states! In Ohio, every shenanigan you can imagine (and some you couldn't) took place: voters were removed from lists, registrations were not processed, reports of impossibly high voter turnouts in Republican counties (98%, anyone?) were turned in while there were unbelievably low ones in Democratic strongholds (7%). The list goes on and on.

So basically, what this means is to hell with democracy. Why not just get together with your friends, decide who should be president, and do everything conceivable to make that happen? Is this really what those oft-quoted Founding Fathers meant, or is it every man for himself as long as he has the money to lie, cheat, and steal his way to the top? What really scares me is that as angry as this makes me, I still don't see any way to fix it or prevent it from happening again. If our ballots, supposedly our most powerful tool, are worthless, what can we do?

Powered by

About lklawless

  • troll

    as soon as you vote you legitimize the den of corruption that is our fed government

    until ‘none of the above’ is on the ballot not voting is the only way to express a vote of no confidence


  • heh…Nancy..that is unConstitutional, and will not fly…but you get a pass on the knuckle busting gavel hit…the Judiciary does not make the Law, just rules on it

    now, Congress could put Civics back into the curriculum of required HS courses…

    but i digress


  • Nancy

    If I were POTUS – or SCOTUS – I’d pass a law that anyone who missed 2 federal elections in a row without just cause (i.e. death or coma, must be medically documented) is automatically disenfranchised & loses their vote; and if they want it back they have to take a minimum of 100 hours of civics classes & get a passing grade of 75%.

    Aren’t you glad I’m not in charge?

  • You want to talk about being disillusioned! I voted absentee for 20 years! And for what? So my envelope could be thrown in the shreader…and then people back here won’t even take the time to walk down the street and press a lever…pathetic I tell ya!

  • as far as i understand, they are obligated to count them all…

    but you get into sticky waters with the jurisdiction of local boards who say “well, this guy has a 10,000 vote lead…and there are 83 absentee ballots…fuck ’em”

    the Federal Election Commission is the responsible body, and they are failing the U.S. miserably

    nuff said


  • Nancy

    Yeah, somehow that stuck me as being, shall we say, somehow unconstitutional? I, too, thought They were required to count all – ALL – votes, regardless, & not just when it was close. Comments, constitutional/legal pundits out there?

  • You know what bothered me the most about the 2000 election?

    That’s when I found out that ALL those absentee ballots I filled out all those years were never even counted unless they really needed to count them. I honestly thought they counted EVERY vote…but they don’t even open the envelopes of absentee voters unless the race is close!

  • ok..the Big Lie…
    *the disinformation machine of the left has been extraordinarily effective*

    Yes gonzo, I was indeed referring to the ‘big lie’ – and the left’s use of it has been prodigious since 2000 – but I prefer to put it in a more generic form rather than engage in more tedious Hitlerian references.


  • Nancy

    Well, IMO as many times as it took to get to a total that was acceptable to the greater number of people (not to mention independent overseers who were as honestly neutral as possible), instead of just because one candidate threw in the towel like a spineless jerk. That would at least have had the virtue of ending the controversy once & for all, instead of perpetuating the idea (in the minds of the voting 49% of 30%, as it were) that there was foul play in the state of Denmark. Or Florida. I know you weren’t targeting me. Thanks.

  • If that dweeb gore had only won his home state…his home fucking state!!!!! well…that’s not exactly true…that’s like calling NY hillary’s home state…

  • I wasn’t pointing fingers at you…what I was saying is that even if 49% of the population of this country is pissed, about half of them more than likely didn’t vote…so…I don’t give a rats ass if they are pissed…

    and just how many times do they have to count those FL votes before we get the fuck over that one?

  • Nancy

    Haven’t missed a national or state election since the day I turned 18, back in the Stone Age. I did miss a local one, but I had been hospitalized & couldn’t get a write-in in time. Therefore I can bitch loud & long; I’ve earned it.

  • Ruvy from Jerusalem

    I turned the page on the 2004 election – and told every Jew voting with Israel as their top priority to do the same.

    If I complain about Bush, it’s not because you chose him, it’s because he is an idiot ruining your country and following a policy guaranteed to ruin mine.

  • and here I thought gonzo was talking about Weezie!

  • The problem I have with 49% or whatever number you want to use is that usually, only about 30% of the population votes…so the other 70% can kiss my ass if they’re upset about an election that happened 6 years ago or even 2 years ago…you don’t vote…don’t bitch!

  • lmgdfao…


    i’m suprised no history buff catches the bit of a thing that comes around again…that Jefferson postulated should come generationally (every 20 years, i believe was the Quote…)

    but my Preference is for Revoloution to happen at the ballot box, the civilized Way… i’m kinda silly like that…

    but i digress…


  • I think Gonzo is referring to a somewhat more respectiable Jefferson who may or may not be the lineal ancestor of the current controversial figure.


  • JustOneMan


    “the Jeffersonian Option”???

    What does hiding a hundred thousand in bribe money in fridge have to do with this?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem


    I’ll catch you on this topic then at Mark Schannon’s piece on the 2008 elections.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Nancy, re: comment #34.

    I do not wish to hijack this fine article and comment section with the long article I sent out to a few (thousand) friends and relations in Nov. 2004. If you read though my comments elsewhere, you will see most of it. Go to my article Dependence Day in Jerusalem and examine comment 11.

  • Ruvy..i do indeed subscribe, and sometimes advise to excercise what i call “the Jeffersonian Option”

    but i much prefer it to be done at the ballot box

    as i have stated, November is crucial to our Republic…

    i don’t want things slipping further into “the Dark Side”


  • Ruvy in Jerusalem


    Kvetch kvetch,

    My beliefs happen to be based on religion, and yes, I do look forward to a Sanhedrin – but there are a lot of people here who share my political outlook without necessarily sharing my religious outlook.

    Caroline Glick, a columnist for the lefter-leaning-these-days Jerusalem Post who was an embedded reporter during the campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein, is a perfect example. she wants to keep her perch at the Post so she doesn’t call Olmert a traitor. She stops one centimeter away.

    Generally, you can see the hostility against Bush and his anti-Israel policies in her articles. Then there is Reuven Koret of Israel Insider, David Bedein, Prof. Arieh Zaritzky, Prof. Paul Eidelberg….

    A lot of Israelis understand very clearly that Bush works against us. Then there are the Osloids, who cannot bring themselves to admit that the Oslo Accords were one big BLOODY failure.

    But I digress…

    Looking at the centurions hustling to be emperor in your country, do you still feel it may be time to take the revolutionary step and literally throw all the rascals out? I thought I read you expressing a view similar to that recently.

  • gonzo marx

    Nancy..to Ruvy, and many who share his beliefs…any backing of the secular Israeli government, and some of their policies..is “anti-Israel”

    this woudl include, but not be limited to, things like taking out the settlements or actually trying to co-exist wiht Palestinians (those who don’t bomb, at least)

    so, any policy…especially the neocon imperial policies written by US born secular jews, woudl be suspect and against the messianic politics or those who long for a Sanhedrin once again

    i’m certain Ruvy will kvetch if i missed something…( and i mean that in the best possible way, of course)


  • Nancy

    Ruvy, that’s interesting that you say Bush is actually anti-Israel; I always thought he pandered slavishly to Israel, almost as much as he did to the religious reich. Why do you think/say he’s anti-Israel, just because he urged the Israelis to give the Palestinians some rights? Please explain, ’cause I never heard this line of thought.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem


    Re: comments #23 and #27

    The ex-pat Democrats and Republicans had one whale of a fight here. But how the actually vote went I don’t know because the ballots were mailed all accross the 2,000 odd counties in the United States.

    A lot of us felt that Bush was just as bad as Kerry. Remember that we actually feel the crap the State Department pulls here. American Jews are watching from a distant sideline and often getting skewed information. The best friend baloney is just that – baloney.

    Suffice it to say that the more secular the ex-pat, the more comfortable he probably felt with Kerry. Religious Jews here were split between their desire to kick the Democrats in the teeth and their knowledge of how anti-Israel Bush and his minions really are.

    MAOZ, please feel free to correct me if I’m off base here.

  • gonzo marx

    ok..the Big Lie…
    *the disinformation machine of the left has been extraordinarily effective*

    your mileage may vary


  • Nancy, all you’re really saying is that the disinformation machine of the left has been extraordinarily effective with their base. They keep pushing the same lies over and over and eventually those who are inclined to believe fall into line despite all the evidence to the contrary.


  • Alright Dave then I’ll ask again, so Ken Blackwell being the Secretary of State and Bush’s co-campaign manager had nothing to do with it?

    Not according to the studies from MIT and CalTech which analyzed voting patterns and the various claimed anomalies with the voting machines – both mechanical and distributional. Blackwell may be incompetent in various ways, but there’s been zero real evidence produced that he rigged anything or showed any favoritism. Local papers like the Cleveland Plain Dealer have also investigated Blackwell and ultimately found no real issues.


  • Nancy

    Dave, when you have 49% of a population convinced they were cheated & that some kind of connivance occurred, you have a lot more than neurotic little old Aunt Fanny who thinks there are communists under the bed. 49% is a serious chunk of folks who think the incumbent is not a legitimate president and that, further (and in the eyes of some, the more serious charge) he poisoned the integrity of the USSC as well with the mechinations of his followers. Rightly or wrongly, this is going to be a major source of suspicion & resentment for a long, long time with a lot of people out there. To have only 1% who are willing to give the incumbent party the benefit of the doubt is not very good, either for the nation or the future. Unfortunately, Junior made very good on his pronouncements that he wanted to be a uniter not a divider, because he seems to have gone out of his way after his initial election to do everything he could to further alienate the 49% who are convinced he’s a cheat, a crook, & a liar, at the least. He sure did unite them, altho not the way he intended. I don’t know, maybe it’s where you live (TX). Especially in the so-called Blue States, there’s a lot of still very virulent antagonism verging on active hatred of BushCo. It isn’t just the nutcakes on MoveOn.Org or the Dem Party Central with their weekly pronouncements on the latest dastardly deed the GOP has committed. I think this could have been defused & avoided and should have been, at all costs.

  • Alright Dave then I’ll ask again, so Ken Blackwell being the Secretary of State and Bush’s co-campaign manager had nothing to do with it?

  • MAOZ

    #23 Thomas, my 2 cents’ worth, or 2 agorot worth — I’ve often gotten the impression that whoever happens to be the current occupant of the White House gets to carry the title of “The Best Friend Israel Has Ever Had!!!”[breathless panting].

  • So Nancy, do you notice that the number of voters who think they were cheated is roughly equivalent to the number whose candidate lost? It’s off by about a percentage point, which suggests that only 1% of Democrats have any grip on reality at all.


  • Nancy

    Oh, absolutely a good GOP can beat a Dem in any election. The problem, AC, is that the 2000 election was just a little too blatant, enough so that 49% of the voters still are convinced they were cheated. That kind of resentment & rankling doesn’t go away, ever, & ends up poisoning every election subsequently, even if there’s no basis for it. Gore would have done far better to have stiffened his jelly spine, stood his ground, & insisted on seeing it through to the bitter end, even if it did create a huge ruckus at the time, rather than knuckle under ‘in the name of national peace’…because national peace it wasn’t & it didn’t solve anything. Geez, AC, people are still fighting the civil war, and you wonder at people still being bitter over 2000? Where is your sense of history, as well as human nature?

    No – a good candidate is a good candidate. For example, I trust the Plame prosecutor, Fitzgerald, absolutely. His rep for honesty regardless of party (his or the person he’s after) far outweighs whether I like or dislike how he’s handled any particular case. I would vote for him for any office he chose, any old day. He’s a rock.

    Can’t say the same for Junior & co.

  • Arch Conservative

    Nancy…in your mind is there no way a Republican can beat a democrat lest their be voter fraud?

    Do you realize how riduculous you sound 6 and 2 years out babbling on about conspiracies?

  • Ruvy: It didn’t matter to me who got elected in the States in 2004. From my point of view they were equally bad. I was convinced – for what some would call irrational reasons – that Bush would win – or if he didn’t win, he would steal the election.

    Is that the general feeling in Israel? I’ve often heard that American Jews were more likely to vote for Bush than for past Republican candidates, because Bush is perceived as very pro-Israel.

    For instance, here in Los Angeles, KFI-AM’s Bill Handel has said that his father, and his rabbi, are both longtime Democrats who admit voting for Bush because Bush is “good for Israel.”

  • Nancy

    Junior’s buddies blatantly screwed the 2000 elections, and then even more blatantly suborned the Supremes, reducing their future credibility to a shred. Damn Al Gore; he should have stood his ground & fought, even if it meant we were STILL counting the fucking ballots 6 years later. At least that way 49% of the voters wouldn’t still be certain that their votes were nullified by fraud & still bitter about it.

  • That and the republican secretary of state happend to be Bush’s co-campaingn manager… Uh the secretary of state controls the election process?


  • If the Democrats are so concerned with voter fraud, why do they advocate legislation that actually enhances voter fraud?

    Because historically they have been the primary beneficiaries of almost all voter fraud, and it has been of the simple kinds which can be implemented when the system is kept primitive and insecure.


  • Ruvy in Jerusalem


    Thanks for the link. I have to be honest. It didn’t matter to me who got elected in the States in 2004. From my point of view they were equally bad. I was convinced – for what some would call irrational reasons – that Bush would win – or if he didn’t win, he would steal the election.

    My comment #1 was based on the fact that Kerry has moved on, the polity has moved on, and there are fresh congressional elections in November. If the claims of voting irregulaity are true, there is no way to undo the last two years without a revolution overthrowing the federal government.

    I would note that some on this site feel the time may be approaching for that.

  • If you’re really concerned about stopping vote fraud, we can consider making votes a matter of public record- transparency and all. Besides other benefits of openness, this would seem to cut the possibilities for monkey business dramatically. If there’s questions about a vote, we can then individually track down the supposed voter and ask if they cast this ballot for these candidates.

  • If the Democrats are so concerned with voter fraud, why do they advocate legislation that actually enhances voter fraud?

    For instance, Motor Voter, and other laws that make it easier to register also make it easier to commit voter fraud.

    To prevent fraud, we need a system that exerts serious effort into checking voters’ I.D., both when registering and when voting. But Democrats decry even the mildest of such attempts as “trying to prevent people from voting.”

    Yet people have risked death in foreign lands to vote, so it’s not unreasonable to establish a few administrative safeguards here in the US, just to make sure that voters are eligable, and that they vote only once.

  • It is very hard for me to believe this is news. There were 10,000 lawyers FROM EACH SIDE on the ground watching that election. Plus a HUGE number of non-lawyers. I was there for the GOP, watching polls 2000 miles from home, seeing things good and bad that surprised me.

    All of these fraud reports (on both sides) were being fed back to party reps and channeled up the line almost in real time. The next morning, there was a second mobilization into Ohio because Kerry knew of the Ohio problems and was considering the challenge. It was very very close to being the kind of delay we had in 2000. It got called off when KERRY conceded because he and his advisots decided that even if he proved it, it wasn’t enough to sway the election.

    In 2008, become a poll monitor. You won’t be saying to hell with democracy if you spent the day watching the seriousness of the voters and the people on both sides who worked to make sure that misconduct didn’t affect the outcome.

  • Well, JP. Now I’ve read the Miller article too. I can see why Salon.com didn’t publish it. The guy is apparently insane. He has some sort of weird theocratic conspiracy fetish going and thinks the GOP is engaged in a plot to bring about the end of days or somesuch. Not exactly a credible critic.


  • The main distinguishing feature of Manjoo’s article which is different from Kennedy’s article is that Manjoo appears to be able to do basic math, while Kennedy does not. Aside from Kennedy’s reliance almost exclusively on partisan sources, of course.

    I particularly liked when Manjoo pointed out that Kennedy had drawn all these conclusions from the partisan congressional report on the election and then neglected to mention that the authors of that report themselves had said IN the report that it didn’t support the contention that the election was stolen by fraud.


  • JP

    Ruvy – If you’re interested in the full picture, I’d suggest you read the open letter to Salon that Mark Crispin Miller put together recently (yes, on the unabashedly liberal Huffington Post) on 6/16:

    One week after Kennedy’s article appeared, Salon posted an attack upon it by Farhad Manjoo, the magazine’s technology reporter. That piece contained so many errors of fact and logic, and was throughout so brazenly wrong-headed, that several hundred readers sent in angry letters, many of them brilliantly refuting some of Manjoo’s misconceptions and mistakes, and quite a few demanding that Salon cancel their subscriptions.

    Those here who write off the whole thing because it’s written by a Kennedy probably won’t be persuaded, but I prefer to take a rational look at what happened.

    JOM, I would not begin to argue that Democrats’ hands are any cleaner in terms of voter fraud than Republicans’, but let’s not ignore what’s happening here. Many grass roots level Democrats with knowledge of what was happening were upset at Kerry’s failure to challenge the outcome, and thought the Democrats failed to investigate properly. So that WaPo quote of yours doesn’t do anything for me.

  • Woohoo, I’m saved from having to write my in-depth rebuttal of RFK Jr. alltogether, because it seems the good folks at salon.com have done it for me, with a devastating deconstruction of RFK Jr’s bad methodology and outright misrepresentation of the facts of the election in a great article by Farhad Manjoo. A great reminder not to believe everything you read in Rolling Stone.


  • Articles like this one are wasted words. Rolling Stone should leave elections alone and stick to in-depth articles on the sensitive side of Tommy Lee, or whatever crap they call music.

  • Wow, I was going to rip the author and RFK Jr. a new one based on various evidence contradicting the ridiculousness in this article, but I see that others have beaten me to it while I was cooking dinner.

    Perhaps more after desert…


  • RogerMDillon

    “it’s widely believed that Loretta Sanchez did not honestly beat Bob Dornan for Congress”

    No it isn’t and that includes the members who served on the House investigation. Garden Grove grew more Hispanic and whites have fled to the Inland Empire or out of state, so the results weren’t a surprise.

  • Yes, yes. But you really should quit speaking in euphemisms. When you write “How many stolen elections before we reform the system?” you really would be more honest if you said ‘How many elections must the Republicans beat us before we figure out some way to outlaw them?’

    Oh, and I’m SO interested in hearing about stolen presidential elections from a KENNEDY.

  • Unless they also analyzed the historic voter fraud done routinely by Democrats, the article was biased and incomplete.

    For instance, it’s widely believed that Loretta Sanchez did not honestly beat Bob Dornan for Congress (back in the 1990s), but that she had “help” from illegal absentee ballots from Santa Ana.

    Also in 2000, there were (mostly Democrats) double registered in Florida and New York. And other problems in New York in 2000, which were briefly reported at the time.

    Also in 2000, there were the Missouri polls kept open past their official closing time, which supposedly helped defeat Ashcroft. A practice allowed by the courts — no complaints from Democrats about judicial interference there.

    And what about JFK’s stolen election in 1960, due to ballot box stuffing in Illinois and Texas? And Tammany Hall? And Chicago’s “vote early, vote often”?

    Democrats have engaged in other shady electoral practices, such as switching their tainted candidate after he’d won the primary, so they could insert a better one (Lautenberg in New Jersey). A practice allowed by New Jersey’s supreme court (again, no complaints from Democrats about judicial interference there).

    It’s ironic that Democrats have lately complained so much about voter fraud and judicial interference, since they’ve traditionally been so good at it.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Thanks, JOM!

  • JustOneMan


    The Ohio newspapers that are quoted in the article have all disputed Kennedys interpretation in addition his own party and Washington post reported the follwing…

    “It was looked at quite a bit at the time,” Washington Post veteran political reporter Dan Balz said Monday about the 2004 election. “The Democratic National Committee] did a study and it concluded that there were irregularities, that there were not enough machines in some places and some confusion about ballots, but the Ohio newspapers seem to have investigated and did not conclude that this was necessarily partisan-inspired.”

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem


    Just curious, not looking for any arguments here. How was the article proven already to be drivel?

  • JustOneMan

    Ruvy…late and already proven to be a bunch of drivel…

  • JustOneMan


    Did someone post something?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Isn’t this article from Rolling Stones a bit late?