And no, the headline does not refer to our bungled governor's election. Various local left-wing bloggers are working themselves into a blather over Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s article in Rolling Stone this month alleging that the Republicans stole the 2004 election in Ohio: "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?"
The short answer is -- if it was, RFK Jr. doesn't make a very good case for it --
It's tempting to answer RFK Jr.'s question with the same flipness that the local left-wing bloggers have dismissed concerns about election intregrity in this state, i.e. "No judge has found evidence of fraud or illegal activity, therefore it could not possibly have happened". But as we know from our own experience, a lot of the most persuasive evidence of election illegalities never even makes it into a courtroom, so I'll keep more of an open mind about RFK Jr.'s allegations of problems in Ohio than the local lefties admit to having an open mind about election problems here in Washington.
RFK Jr. alleges quite a number of irregularities and he includes citations to some of his sources. I personally don't have the time and resources to check all of his facts, but a few of the things that he does allege appear on cursory review to be substantially less than what he claims them to be. Below I look at just two examples of what appear to be wildly overstated claims by RFK Jr. Others have found different problems with the article (Instapundit links to a few other reasonable critiques and mentions that both NPR and Mother Jones have already debunked some of RFK Jr.'s claims. James Taranto also wrote on this yesterday)
I'm still open to the possibility that some illegalities occurred in Ohio in 2004, but if RFK Jr's article is the best shot at making the case, I'm deeply skeptical that there's as much there as some Democrats seem to hope there is. In any event, I believe that elections administration everywhere has room for improvement and I hope that those who are concerned about the subject will continue to be vigilant and hold elections officials to a high standard of lawful conduct and without regard to partisanship. And please, do a better job at gathering the facts than RFK Jr. seems to have done.
Some of my issues with the RFK Jr. article follow -- 1)
Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.This claim has a footnote to the document, "A Summary of the 2004 Election Day Survey; How We Voted: People, Ballots & Polling Places; A Report to the American People by the United States Election Assistance Commission'" I couldn't find the phrase "faulty voting equipment" in the referenced document, but the closest fact was this:
Not every voter votes in every contest on a ballot. The drop-off—the difference between the number of ballots counted and the total number of votes for all the candidates in a specific contest—generally increases as voters work their way down the ballot.It's possible that some of the drop-off was caused by faulty voting equipment, but the cited study doesn't attempt to quantify the phenomenon. Another reasonable explanation is that "up to 1%" of voters simply had no preference for any presidential candidate.For the states reporting information in 2004, the drop-off rate for the presidential contest was 1.02 percent, with at least 1,160,961 voters not voting in this contest. This was the lowest dropoff rate in post-World War II presidential elections and a significant dip from the last presidential election.
[Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth] Blackwell permitted election officials in Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo to conduct a massive purge of their voter rolls, summarily expunging the names of more than 300,000 voters who had failed to cast ballots in the previous two national elections.Without additional detail to explain why this was problematic, it appears to be routine and lawful maintenance of voter registration rolls. This is provided for in Ohio state law and also consistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which was passed by President Clinton and a Democratic Congress. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 03, 2006 01:01 PM | Email This
Most amusingly I think he shot himself in the foot. Trying to prove that the Republicans must have stolen the election, he points out that Republican leaning precincts were reporting a 25% increase in voter registration, (a huge number), and then says the Democrat precincts reported a 250% increase in voter registrations.
...
Yeah... 250%
Then the very next part of his article is a series of complaints about Republican attempts to challange false and illegal voter regestrations. A huh.
I see. To a Democrat, refusing to allow and illegal voter is voter fraud because you are suppressing a vote. But to a Republican, allowing a false and illegal voter to vote is voter fraud. Thus the accusations of voter fraud by a Democrat is completely different than that made by a Republican. A Republican claiming voter fraud means that the law has been violated by a person voting when they are not entitled to. A Democrat claiming voter fraud means that the law obey and people unentitled to vote were refused ballots.
Posted by: Cicero on June 3, 2006 01:48 PMMany of the "faulty voter equipment" studies are confusing the two issues. While a specific piece of equipment might have a poor design, and a poor user interface, that does not necessarily mean that it is faulty. Case in point, the butteryfly ballot machine. If you've ever used one, you know that it can be tricky to line up the ballot in the machine, and then line up the choices with the correct butterfly plastic page, etc. It's quite possible that the many undervotes in Ohio were simply brand new voters, spurred into action by GOTV efforts, who had never seen butterfly and / or other voting equipment before. Their confusion could have easily lead to voting in the wrong races, which would easily explain an undervote percentage for the presidential race. It's very easy to screw up the butterfly ballot voting if you don't pay close attention to detail. From some of the interactions I've had with "urbanites" in various cities, I'd say it's quite easy to see how they would fail to be detail oriented enough to handle a butterfly ballot.
Whatever the problems, it's clear that there were also problems in Wisconsin and in other states as well. Wisconsin went narrowly for Kerry. So it's easy to play tit for tat with this argument if one really wants to to dig in on a nationwide basis. Most Dems ( and we all know Stefan is talking about Goldstein when he talks about local lefty bloggers ) want to cherry pick issues and information to suit their needs. The Dem friendly media love the "narrow camera angle" for the same reason.
From Global Warming, to vote problems in Ohio, to the aftermath of Katrina, again and again, the Dem / Lib tactic is to use a narrow case or partial examination of the evidence to sell an entire idea.
I don't buy the RFK article mainly because I find it impossible that the entire Republican party could effectively engage in a deliberate conspiracy to limit the voting in Ohio, without there being at least someone to blow a whistle.
And unlike the 2004 gubernatorial race here in WA, RFK is making many more claims across many different aspects of the election to make his case. What we know happened here in WA, was mainly a product of one county, King County, and a blatant counting of absentees that were not properly validated.
That's a lot more palpable. Still though, I'm with Stefan. If the Repubs did something wrong in Ohio, then let's punish them, and while we are at it, let's not forget to punish Dean Logan and team for what they did here in WA.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 3, 2006 02:45 PMSounds to me like the Dems have it backwards- they were the ones trying to steal the election!
Posted by: David on June 3, 2006 03:05 PMNot owning up to your own mistakes and pointing fingers at others....so Kennedy-like isn't it?
Posted by: Susu on June 3, 2006 05:18 PMThe author claims that Kerry won Ohio.
Just the latest in a thinly veiled attemp to sell books. Not surprising to see new life in the old lefty blogs. Nothing to see here folks, just move along.
Posted by: Fed Up on June 3, 2006 06:50 PMNearly half of our nation (liberal Democrat) has gone stark raving mad, and much of the other half acts like they feeeel guilty for being sane. GW Bush is a great man and his efforts will be successful to such an extent that most Americans will forget what all of the absurd liberal hatred and rank stupidity from the left was about.
Given the enormous power and nearly endless cache of resources available to the left, if there was any substantial evidence that Bush stole the election, someone would certainly make a better case than Kennedy (or for that matter anyone else) has.
Locally, liberals like Paddy crap stare blindly at facts and pretend they don't exist while making up any silly garbage he can use to change the subject; nationally, liberal morons like him stare at the same type of irrefutable evidence of the contrary, see things that simply don't exist, and make up any silly garbage they can use to change the subject. Last week it was the dreaded "culture of corruption," the week before, secret deals with Vicente Fox, next week it will be Laura's divorce from GW.
Hey, did you hear that GW went AWOL from his national guard unit . . . huh, huh, . . . we made up er found proof . . . uh . . .
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 3, 2006 08:45 PMOn a large scale, he is trying to agitate the Dem base for November so they will get out to vote, part of the Democrap strategy. So, what are the Republicans going to do to counter this ? Sit and twiddle their thumbs ? They had better come up with something, although the Illegal immigration poliicies of the White House and the progress of the war in Iraq has put their backs up against the wall.
I can't understand what you are writing. It seems all you do is offer insults, it would nice if you actually wrote down a thought or fact sometime. I think you have a God complex, where anything you say is by definition true and does not need to be supported.
For example you state: "In a political atmosphere where keeping your own life's energy (money) makes you a scoundrel
and stealing others money to give to your constituents -- a hero -- who do you think is morally and ethically challenged?" would you care to offer some facts or least a little context to your statement.
2nd paragraph "Nearly half of our nation (liberal Democrat) has gone stark raving mad" ...do you have any proof that 50% of Americans are insane. "and much of the other half acts like they feel guilty for being sane." So 100% of Americans are not at your level ... you must be pretty arrogant. "GW Bush is a great man" well at least one American has reached you stature.
"and his efforts will be successful to such an extent that most Americans will forget what all of the absurd liberal hatred and rank stupidity from the left was about." The 100% of Americans that are insane and cowards are going to eventually come around :-) according to you. I think that it is a higher probability that you are the raving lunatic and that most Americans are neither insane or cowardly - but I could be wrong.
The rest of your drival is unsupported as well. Well good luck, you might want to go to some other country that is not make up of 100% insane people and cowards - you brave sane soul.
The only thing you said that is true is "I can't understand what you are writing." That much is apparent!
The only thing you have offered on this site is Bush bashing...this from an alleged "conservative". Conservative my a$$!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2006 12:38 AMIt is easy to understand why an avowed liberal who supports Patty Murray would hate GW Bush, and it is also boring to listen to his pathetic deranged nonsense.
However, anyone friggin stupid enough to claim to donate $1000.00 to the Bush campaign and then repudiate Bush for doing almost exactly what he said he would do if elected, is either a bad liberal liar or too full of mental disturbance born of dim-wittedness and foul humor to bother paying the complement of respectful discourse.
John is a humorous clown though, and he keeps the silly crap he feeeeels are "thoughts" and "facts" coming.
Posted by: Amused by liberal morons on June 4, 2006 12:49 AM1. Expand the size of the Federal Government faster than any one since LBJ. I understood the GWB deficit because the market crashed, 9/11, and the Iraq war. I don't understand the massive spending that has gone on since then and is unrelated to direct war spending inspite of a massive boom in real estate. I thought conservatives were against expansive government, apparently many "conservatives" here are all for it.
2. GWB apparently doesn't know the difference between legal and illegal. Ann Coulter has a great column on illegal immigration and she is no friend of GWB on this issue.
3. GWB is not standing up for our troops in Iraq. Where is the innocent until proven guilty standard, our guys are being put in jails for years over a few pranks and dog barking. Our troops are being put on trial, while Al Queda are being set free from Gitmo and have had no trial.
4. GWB's foriegn policy has been a disaster since 2004. We have turned our backs on many countries who were allies in the war on terror, we've lost bases across cental asia, we lost entire countries to Islamic fundamentalism, and we set up Sharia law in Afghanistan. Our state department works in opposition to the pentagon.
5. Hurricane Katrina showed how the 100 billion of federal money we spent on disaster preparation has been largely wasted.
6. Iran is making a mockery of us.
7. GWB has started the expansion of the federal government into health care. The perscription drug bill will turn into expansive health insurance over the next 20 years, following the path of every federal program.
8. GWB has done nothing and remained silent about our private property rights being put on par with Communist China. A private party can now take your property over your objections. We used to bash China for allowing the destruction of homes to make way for their economic build up ... how times have changed as we have destroyed a fundamental right of a free person. All under GWB since 2004.
9. Nominating people to the supreme court who are not qualified. Harriet Meyers .... please. And then L. Graham tells the conservatives to "shut up" when they objected. The only reason a good guy like Alito is on the court is because we objected. And guys like me are suppose to be happy when our leadership tells up to shut up - talk about lousy politics and marketing.
If a liberal had done any of this ... many authors on this website would be furious, but since it is our guy we sit passively by and try to justify the anti-conservative action by using logic that stretches the imagination or we focus on liberals and say they are worse. As compared to Bush, Clinton accomplished far less of the liberal agenda.
To recover, Bush will trot out the gay marriage stuff or some other red meat. It won't work as you cannot completely ignore your base and work against them, insult them, and then expect them to believe your sincerity on a red meat bill with zero chance of passing.
See you after the disaster in November.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 4, 2006 08:33 AMGlad to see you're on the other team. I prefer not to associate with losers and wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that I would have anything in common with someone who pretends to be a conservative, yet carries the Dhimmicrats water.
Thanks for clearing that up for us john!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2006 09:51 AMHis rhetoric displaces thoughts and facts as if anything he says is by definition true and does not need to be supported. His clichéd air of humility and mock idealism poses a false impression of sincerity that is directly countered by the content of every one of his comments.
Those comments consist of overblown claims suggestive of bogus connections between superficially unattractive notions and entirely false attributions of blame. Depth, analysis, perspective, nuance, as well as any appreciation of causality are characteristically absent in everything he says because he has no intention of sincerely examining facts.
Opposed to any use of reason, he resorts to one fallacy after another from false causation to misstated premises, through appeals to fear, ignorance, false authority, blame shifting, and baseless innuendo – just to name a few.
Thoroughly deluded by his own tactics, John assumes that everyone is as stupid as he is, and his central mode of persuasion is piling inferences. A paper thin air of reasonability can be achieved by implying numerous slight superficial attributions to create the impression of substantive weight where there is none. This seemingly uncontroversial reasoning is cynically used to arrive at a semi-reasonable sounding -- but obviously false conclusion. Appropriately enough, the most common way of describing this tactic is attempting to baffle everyone with bull$hit. Throw enough against the wall and liberals will flock to it like flies.
No wonder John supports Patty Murray; every opportunity to promote cheap lazy liberal nonsense.
Lazy idiot with poor reasoning skills? Hate Bush . . . . . it works for John.
Let's make this real simple:
1. Has the size of the federal government gone up or down both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of the economy under Bush? Now subtract all military and terrorism related spending, Has the size of the federal government gone up or gone down both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of the economy under Bush. Up or Down? Real simple question. Do conservatives believe in smaller government or bigger government? Real simple question, bigger or smaller? Just try answering the question with out insulting me first, then insult all you want.
2. Are you for the Bush plan to legalize illegal immigrants? For or against? I don't want your explaination, I just want to know if you are for Bush's plan without any changes just the way it is.
3. Do you support the trial and convictions of the prankster's at Abu Ghraib? Yes, or No. No explaination please, just Yes or No. Dog Barking case for 90 days hard labor, Yes or No.
4. Do you support Sharia law in Afghanistan? Yes or No.
5. Do you think the federal response in Hurricane katrina was good, medium, poor, or 3rd world. You can comment about how bad the local and state response was too, but at least tell me how the feds did.
6. Do you think Iran gets nuclear weapons or not? Will the US do anything meaningful?
7. For or against the drug bill?
8. For or against the recent supreme court ruling on property rights?
9. For or against the Harriet Meyers nomination?
Perhaps you have the courage to actual answer the questions, I doubt you do as you'd rather go with the insults and besides the truth hurts.
Bush was on vacation while 9/11 happened. He ignored hundreds of warnings from internal agencies as well as from foreign countries. He's demonstrated his incompetence over and over and over and over again. And 70% of Americans have had enough of him.
The people on this board probably think Global Warming is a myth too. Completely out of touch with 70% of Americans.
Posted by: Jacob on June 4, 2006 03:20 PMBut I am here to remind them of their crimes. Here is just one instance of Democrat vote fraud:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050219/NEWS02/502190352/-1/NEWS
Posted by: pbj on June 4, 2006 03:58 PMThe Republican party is imploding and you people are the reason why. You support criminals in your own party don't you? Don't you? Just admit it.
Posted by: Jacob on June 4, 2006 04:39 PMIf you're looking to a waning music publication for your hard hitting news stories, I've got a friend from the internet in Nigeria who needs your help in getting his fortune out of the country.
Was this article by chance co-authored by Neil Young or the Dixie Chicks? I sure love their political savy.
Posted by: Andy on June 4, 2006 07:59 PMPehaps you missed the images of grateful Iraqi's after the fall of baghdad (I am sure Pravda didn't publish them). Here are some for you to view:
http://static.flickr.com/3/4439911_7c92655fc3_m.jpg
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/htimages/E020_Iraqis%20receiving%20Americans%20Apr%2009%20(AP).jpg
http://www.poy.org/61/14/photos/61-14-ColeC-09.jpg
Posted by: pbj on June 4, 2006 08:20 PMWhen will we have a congressional inquiry on the stolen Washington State governor election?
Thought so. Hypocrit!
Posted by: pbj on June 4, 2006 08:22 PMYou go girls! I just love the (un)ambiguosly gay duo. It's so cute that alphie always chimes in when his partner is making his clever arguments at people.
Posted by: M on June 4, 2006 08:56 PMJust answer the questions in the previous post ... I hope you have the courage too and are not going to act cowardly.
The Democrats have lots of trouble as well. The primary trouble they have is a lack of fresh relavent leadership. So many of their leaders are hacks from a past era. They need a positive vision, however will all the help GWB is giving them they may only need to be anti-Bush to win. I'm predicting that they get a massive anti-Bush vote this November sweeping the House and Senate.
However, the single biggest long-term problem that Democrats have is a demographic problem. Every election there are about 500,000 more conservative voters. The reason so many more people are conservative is because liberals have smaller families, and abortion has disproportionally eliminated future liberals to the tune of 1 to 1.5 million per year since 1973, especially affecting the African American community (a 90% Democrat voting block). Just look at the raw numbers of votes the republican and democrats receive each election cycle.
Today, Republicans can win every national election provided their base votes. 2004 proved this without a doubt as liberals and conservatives showed up in high numbers and conservatives won. Democrats must nominate a moderate and Southern Democrat to have any chance of winning.
The only possible salvation for the demographic crisis facing the democrats is the legalizing illegal immigrants. Immigrants on the whole are generally slightly more democratic than republican. However, Illegal immigrants when legalized last time were overwhelming democratic. George Bush and the Republicans are attempting to rescue the democratic party with their current legalization plan. 10M+ new citizens voting overwhelming Democratic will put the Democrats back in business for awhile - perhaps a long while if they do a respectable job and don't offend the common sense of the American Public like GWB is doing.
As the old adage goes, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 4, 2006 09:36 PMNow John feels that under pain of his scorn -- I take his examination for entry into the Laputa College of liberal nonsense and gratuitous Bush hate. His paranoia combined with insistence that it is somehow “courageous” to argue with a lunatic is hilarious.
Hey John: The subject of this thread is the question;” was the 2004 election stolen?”
If you want to claim it was, register your silly a$$ claim along side your Kennedy buddy so we can all get a good laugh and be done with it. If not, go peddle your foolish arrogant liberal nonsense somewhere that morons like your newfound partisan compatriot and intellectual peer Jacob can appreciate it. You two are perfect for each other.
Amusing.
I comment "Lazy idiot with poor reasoning skills that hate Bush . . . . . it works for John," and immediately Jacob shows up.
I hadn't really considered it, but do you suppose heroin is John's problem?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 5, 2006 11:10 AMI am new to this blog, but, you know if you go back and read the whole thread again, you will see bush-hater, and other names as such as that, all over about anyone who disagrees with GWB. Its seems to me the only NON-thinkers (or) Dumb-@sees (as they prefer to be called) are the idiots who only see what the RNC tells them to see say and think. So please before you comment, and start hating on me go back and look. Tell me what everyone has said about any one dissing GWB about all his screw-ups. Its funny, tell me something to like about him and I will. Tell me 3 things he has done that everyone says you know that was an awesome idea!! Just list 3 things, I dare you!!
Second, none of you chicken shits answered John's questions in any of your responses, you just bashed him. But, according to morons like Ann C., Bill O., and Fnews, you say the Dems are the ones who hate and have no ideas. Just listen to yourself. If Jesus was here he would slap all of you, for knowing better and still doing it anyway.
So, you'd better hurry, live it up, Lie it up, spin it up and hate it up as much as possible!! This hell is coming to an end this Nov. But, morons dont fret, the RNC machine will give you non-thinking followers something to hate about the next democrat pres, or leader. And just like they(RNC) did with Clinton, they will help your simple minds to hate for no cause. You've been fooled into voting AGAINST your own best interest and into voting for the extreme wealthy who dont give a shit if you live or die. God help you, God help all of you, I will be praying for you.
True Christian
Thanks for the demo there A New Hope -- desperation mixed with stupidity is quite pathetic and silly. I suppose if Jesus were here he would say . . . "hey there A New Hope you fine feller you . . . . fine job telling those chickenshit morons like Ann C., Bill O., Fnews and SP'ers extreme wealthy who don�t give a shit if you live or die persons and stuff . . . and on . . . and like that.
God help us, God help all of us, A New Hope will be praying for us.
Pray for your own sanity ding-dong . . . you are demented.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 8, 2006 01:04 AMThe study paints a picture of voter fraud. People vote one way, but the results get tabulated another. I've had problems finding any critisms or rebutals of it. Can someone point me in the right direction?
Posted by: Greg on June 9, 2006 08:59 AM1. How can anyone get proof of a stolen election when its impossible to do recounts. Please tell me.
2. Why have republicans blocked all attempts by democrats to make paper trails mandatory on these machines. What problem could they have with recountable verifyable voting. Please tell me.
3. Why has Jeb Bush made it illegal in Florida to recount by hand votes that have already been counted by machine. Please tell me.
How dare you impungn the reputation of the Bravest man in the USA. Hes the only one who will stand up to you nutcases.
Posted by: susan on June 11, 2006 03:53 PM