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?
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Isn't this article from Rolling Stones a bit late?
2 - JustOneMan
YYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN...
Did someone post something?
3 - JustOneMan
Ruvy...late and already proven to be a bunch of drivel...
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
JOM,
Just curious, not looking for any arguments here. How was the article proven already to be drivel?
5 - JustOneMan
Ruvy...
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."
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Thanks, JOM!
7 - Thomas M. Sipos
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.
8 - Al Barger
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.
9 - 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.
10 - Dave Nalle
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...
Dave
11 - Timmy
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.
12 - Dave Nalle
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.
Dave
13 - 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:
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.
14 - Dave Nalle
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.
Dave
15 - Dave Nalle
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.
Dave
16 - Justene
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.
17 - Thomas M. Sipos
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.
18 - Al Barger
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.
19 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
JP,
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.
20 - Dave Nalle
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.
Dave
21 - Jet in Columbus
That and the republican secretary of state happend to be Bush's co-campaingn manager... Uh the secretary of state controls the election process?
duh
22 - 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.
23 - Thomas M. Sipos
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."
24 - 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?
25 - 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.