Peace Hugs

Kate Anne, communikating on multi-levels -- personal and political, as well as for peace, justice and nonviolence

Friday, June 02, 2006

RFK, Jr: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Robert Kennedy Jr. writes an articulate fact-filled summation of the election fraud of 2004 in the Rolling Stone Magazine, just out, and available online (title link and at and ). Of course, the facts are already out there but Bobby gives them new voice and attention. Please read the article and encourage others to do so as well. LOTS of footnotes to show the proof of what we know: The dunderhead lost.

Which leads us to another question, where to from here? How do we prevent election stealing, especially when states continue to install hackable electronic voting machines and where a corrupt politician is rewarded his party's gubernatorial nomination -- Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell -- but of course, he may have stolen that as well. Speak out on this important issue. Bush lost. We need fair and transparent elections. See and Thanks.

Peace hugs,
Kate Anne


At 6/02/2006 12:03:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Umm, Bush DIDN'T lose. He won. Get over it.

And I find it interesting how when Repubs win elections, they must have stolen them yet when Dems win, they're legitimate. Washington State is a prime example of this.

Having worked the polls in Chicago for a number of years I can tell you that Dems are VERY adept at rigging and stealing elections. Nixon-Kennedy is a prime example of this.

Perhaps if Dems/Liberals spent more time and energy actually coming up with ideas and plans for this country rather than belly-aching about the past, they might stand a chance to actually WIN an election. Keep choosing this path and you'll continue to be in the minority for YEARS to come.

At 6/02/2006 09:48:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One could make a reasonable argument that Gore won the 2000 election and that Dubya stole it with the help of his father-appointed supreme court. However to make the same statement in the Kerry case is to excuse systematic failures in the democratic candidate selection, campaign style and message from Kerry. Therein lies the danger of messages such as the one from RFK Jr.: if the democrats lost because they had the wrong message then a reexamination of policies and strategies is in order. On the other hand if it boils down to fraud then there is nothing that needs to be fixed. Just nominate Kerry again and we'll win.

A good solid party with the right message wins by a landslide, thus making itself impermeable to fraud. Gore left himself open by being unable to win states such as his own Tenessee and Arkansas, for chrissakes! Similarly Kerry couldn't waffle himself out of a paperbag. The psyche of a country under terrorist threat needs someone with more gravitas than that.

Lastly, every election has irregularities. If one went and searched with as careful attention for errors favoring the democrats we would surely find them (Olympia Snow anyone?). Elections are dirty, that's why one needs to win them decisively by running a real candidate with guts such as Dean, instead of Loserman.

Cheney never apologized for calling a reporter a ^%%@!&^#!@. Why did the democratic party then force Dean to drop because of simple unpresidential growl?

Dean could have brushed it off if the democratic spin machine had gone into action. Instead he was promptly offed by his own party.

At 6/02/2006 11:50:00 PM, Blogger Adam S. A. said...

Both of the previous comments fail to address the key issue. That is, that a systematic effort was very successful in Ohio to cheat voters out of their constitutional right to vote. No matter how much you whine that Bush won, unless you address point by point the issues raised in this chilling article, you haven't a leg to stand on.

And, to address the second post, even if the Democrats changed their message to appeal to a vast majority of Americans, if the elections are rigged, it doesn't matter.

At 6/03/2006 03:31:00 AM, Anonymous chballs said...

Farhad Manjoo over at says Kennedy's all wet.

Is he or is Manjoo sniffing glue?

At 6/03/2006 12:04:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...whine that Bush won...

It is the other way around my friend. Bush won and it is you and RFK Jr. the ones who are whining about a Kerry victory.

Furthermore, I supported Kerry and wish that he had won. Simply I do not agree with whiners saying "the democratic campaign in 2004 was a fine campaign, the only problem was that Bush stole Ohio".

The facts do not support etiher claim. The campaign was full of flaws *and* despite numerous irregularities in Ohio, no credible evidence has come up to show outcome deciding electoral fraud. RFK Jr simply parrots conspiracy theory data and minor irregularities which, as stated before, are par for the course for an election campaign, from both sides. Just look at the Olympia Snow case.

At 6/03/2006 02:59:00 PM, Blogger Kate Anne said...

Isn't it amusing that the nay-sayers are anonymous? Obviously, they don't want to put a name or a face to their words. Wonder if any of them read the Kennedy article? Or Marc Crispin Miller's book? Or John Conyers? Or if they've checked out I seriously doubt it.

While there has been election fraud in the past, nothing so blatant or extreme has existed until 2000 and 2004. I am not whining. I am speaking up proudly for the truth. Those footnotes in Bobby Kennedy's article speak up for the truth too. And the truth will out. We must keep speaking it until we reach critical mass. For now, our nation is in deep dubya-doo-doo

At 6/03/2006 10:47:00 PM, Blogger whiskeytown said...

regarding the Salon article - it doesn't really do anything - it mostly says one of two things.

1. - there are other possibilities for discrepencies - in this case, I'd rate Kennedy's source (Zogby, for example) higher then Farhad's

2. - The line "Everything they did was legal" - clearly the Secretary of State did things to disenfranchise Democratic voters - it's also clear this was done by manuipulating existing law to do so -

the Republican Mantra is always "What we did was legal" but by and large, the courts reject that reasoning when the laws are applied in a deliberately unconstitutional method.

an investigation into the Ohio Secretary of State would kick ass - I am fairly certain the Salon article Farhad wrote is basically just him affirming a position he's gone on record twice about - mostly it's just smoke and mirrors - no one who knows research is respecting his strawman arguments.


At 6/03/2006 11:30:00 PM, Anonymous BobB said...

I suppose we'll never reach a conclusion on the question of voting fraud in Ohio in 2004. But I do know that my niece called on her cell phone on election night.

She was standing in a line in Columbus waiting to vote. She had been there for 5 hours in a raw November rain and was nowhere near the polling booths. She said people were leaving in untold numbers. Only the physically able and incredibly dedicated were enduring a very grim ordeal. And she was weeping in despair. She voted an hour and a half later.

This sort of thing, which was a common event in the cities of Ohio, just didn't happen in Shaker Heights, or suburban areas or rural towns.

You can argue statistics if you want but if it smells like fraud and looks like fraud it most probably is.

At 6/04/2006 05:43:00 AM, Blogger James said...

To the first courageous anonymous, I find it odd that when Dems question the results of some suspicious elections, they're whining, but when Repubs use every means to question the results of an election, as in Washington, they're legitimate. Or the corollary: thinking you can fix an election is just crazy conspiracy talk, but no doubt Richard Daley fixed elections in Chicago.

We are having an increasing problem in the validity of our elections. We need reform. We need publicly-financed elections and a transparent and verifiable registration and voting procedure. Get over it, as you say incessantly when it serves you.

At 6/04/2006 09:04:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fraud in Ohio is the chant of the syrens calling the democrats away from rethinking and refocusing of their message and instead into a state of whining in which they think they won the election by putting forth a candidate so mediocre that is a match for Bush's dimwittedness.

Not long ago John Stewart had an excerpt of Kerry giving an interview and inanely pondering two sides of an issue that was rather clear cut. Stewart annotated: after that even I would vote for Bush.

The problem in 2004 was not fraud in Ohio. It was lack of a good message put forth by a good candidate.

This is not to excuse the many irregularities and violations of the law of the ethics-impaired Bush administration. It is simply a call for democrats to focus their energ and efforts where it matters. Given the dismal record of Bush and its low popularity it ought to be possible to win in a landslide while keeping fraud low by threatening the full force of prosecution for partisan bureaucrats.


Post a Comment

<< Home