Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

[Guest guest]

Normally I would not send such an overtly political link to this

list. However, if this article is accurate and nothing is done to

prevent this again, the ramifications for our healthcare system and

our health could be vast (ranging from the future of medicare to

environmental regulations to medical research). This should not be

construed as the beginning of a thread to debate the veracity of the

article or these issues, but rather to inform all consumers and

providers of healthcare of information that might affect your health.

If you want to debate the points of the article, I suggest you log on

to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/

guarded_outrage_with_intimatio.php or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

2006/06/01/robert-f-kennedy-jr-th_n_22019.html#allcomments and read

comments pro and con and add your two cents, if you wish.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/

was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

 

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dude, try using: TinyURL <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>

 

 

Here's the story.

http://tinyurl.com/ru3uk

 

Fernando

 

 

, <

wrote:

>

> Normally I would not send such an overtly political link to this

> list. However, if this article is accurate and nothing is done to

> prevent this again, the ramifications for our healthcare system and

> our health could be vast (ranging from the future of medicare to

> environmental regulations to medical research). This should not be

> construed as the beginning of a thread to debate the veracity of the

> article or these issues, but rather to inform all consumers and

> providers of healthcare of information that might affect your health.

> If you want to debate the points of the article, I suggest you log on

> to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/

> guarded_outrage_with_intimatio.php or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

> 2006/06/01/robert-f-kennedy-jr-th_n_22019.html#allcomments and read

> comments pro and con and add your two cents, if you wish.

>

> http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/

> was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

>

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbs

>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I have a free Rolling Stone subscription, and this article caught my

eye. I am very concerned for the state of our democracy after

reading this article.

 

 

On Jun 3, 2006, at 9:15 AM, wrote:

 

> Normally I would not send such an overtly political link to this

> list. However, if this article is accurate and nothing is done to

> prevent this again, the ramifications for our healthcare system and

> our health could be vast (ranging from the future of medicare to

> environmental regulations to medical research). This should not be

> construed as the beginning of a thread to debate the veracity of the

> article or these issues, but rather to inform all consumers and

> providers of healthcare of information that might affect your health.

> If you want to debate the points of the article, I suggest you log on

> to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/

> guarded_outrage_with_intimatio.php or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

> 2006/06/01/robert-f-kennedy-jr-th_n_22019.html#allcomments and read

> comments pro and con and add your two cents, if you wish.

>

> http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/

> was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

>

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbs

>

>

 

[Guest guest]

Democracy? Isn't it an oligarchy, a few elect the leader? Is this in response

to the government saying it is going to tap journalist phones to find all their

leaks?

 

 

<zrosenbe

 

Saturday, June 3, 2006 8:54:37 PM

Re: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

 

I have a free Rolling Stone subscription, and this article caught my

eye. I am very concerned for the state of our democracy after

reading this article.

 

On Jun 3, 2006, at 9:15 AM, wrote:

 

> Normally I would not send such an overtly political link to this

> list. However, if this article is accurate and nothing is done to

> prevent this again, the ramifications for our healthcare system and

> our health could be vast (ranging from the future of medicare to

> environmental regulations to medical research). This should not be

> construed as the beginning of a thread to debate the veracity of the

> article or these issues, but rather to inform all consumers and

> providers of healthcare of information that might affect your health.

> If you want to debate the points of the article, I suggest you log on

> to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/

> guarded_outrage_with_intimatio.php or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

> 2006/06/01/robert-f-kennedy-jr-th_n_22019.html#allcomments and read

> comments pro and con and add your two cents, if you wish.

>

> http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/

> was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

>

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbs

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You mean since 2000, don't you?

 

ann

 

 

I have a free Rolling Stone subscription, and this article caught my

eye. I am very concerned for the state of our democracy after

reading this article.

 

On Jun 3, 2006, at 9:15 AM, wrote:

 

> Normally I would not send such an overtly political link to this

> list. However, if this article is accurate and nothing is done to

> prevent this again, the ramifications for our healthcare system and

> our health could be vast (ranging from the future of medicare to

> environmental regulations to medical research). This should not be

> construed as the beginning of a thread to debate the veracity of the

> article or these issues, but rather to inform all consumers and

> providers of healthcare of information that might affect your health.

> If you want to debate the points of the article, I suggest you log on

> to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/

> guarded_outrage_with_intimatio.php or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

> 2006/06/01/robert-f-kennedy-jr-th_n_22019.html#allcomments and read

> comments pro and con and add your two cents, if you wish.

>

> http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/

> was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

>

>

>

 

----------

 

 

 

Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/355 - Release 6/2/06

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev, did you mean a free subscription or a life-time subsciption? :-)

And Ann, the book is about the 2004 election... 2 more years to go till the

next.

 

If it was any one but Todd who posted this I wouldn't let CHA get into this

discussion.

However, since we are here I would suggest reading this from salon.com if you

can. It's

debunks Kennedy's ideas. You may have to be a paid r to this website to

read

this so I will quote the first few paragraphs.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kennedy/

 

" After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the

president's party

mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in

2004, "

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declares in the latest issue of Rolling Stone. And so, 19

months after

the election, let us head once again into this breach.

...................

Whatever his aim, RFK Jr. does not appear intent on fixing the problem. He's

more content

to take us through a hit parade of the most popular, and the most dismissible,

theories

purporting to show that John Kerry won Ohio, theories that have been swirling

about the

blogosphere ever since the race was called. I scoured his Rolling Stone article

for some

novel story or statistic or theory that would prove, finally, that George W.

Bush was not the

true victor. But nothing here is new. If you've spent time on Democratic

Underground or

have read Mark Crispin Miller's " Fooled Again, " you're already familiar with

everything

Kennedy has to say.

 

If you do read Kennedy's article, be prepared to machete your way through

numerous

errors of interpretation and his deliberate omission of key bits of data. The

first salient

omission comes in paragraph 5, when Kennedy writes, " In what may be the single

most

astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who

registered to vote in

2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the

rolls, thanks

to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast

ballots. " To

back up that assertion, Kennedy cites " Democracy at Risk, " the report the

Democrats

released last June.

 

That report does indeed point out that many people -- 26 percent -- who first

registered

in 2004 did not find their names on the voter rolls at polling places. What

Kennedy doesn't

say, though, is that the same study found no significant difference in the share

of Kerry

voters and Bush voters who came to the polls and didn't find their names listed.

The

Democrats' report says that 4.2 percent of Kerry voters were forced to cast a

" provisional "

ballot and that 4.1 percent of Bush voters were made to do the same -- a stat

that lowers

the heat on Kennedy's claim of " astounding " partisanship.

 

Such techniques are evident throughout Kennedy's article. He presents a barrage

of

seemingly important, apparently damning data to show that Kerry won the race.

It's only

when you dig into his claims that you see what thin ice he's on.

.....................

 

 

 

, <snakeoil.works wrote:

>

> You mean since 2000, don't you?

>

> ann

>

>

> I have a free Rolling Stone subscription, and this article caught my

> eye. I am very concerned for the state of our democracy after

> reading this article.

>

>

> On Jun 3, 2006, at 9:15 AM, wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

Douglas,

 

What book? I thought we were talking about Kennedy's Rolling Stone article. I

know Kennedy is focusing on the '04 election in his piece, and mostly on Ohio,

which, because of it's momentous swing state status, was the most 'significant'

for that election. But the nature of electoral disorder was evidenced in

multiple other states, including red states. And I believe he makes mention of

the finding by a 'consortium' of newspapers that if all the counties in Fla. had

been recounted in 2000 (!!), the state would have been clearly in Gore's column.

However, that finding was not published until Oct or Nov of '01 - in the back

pages of the Times, with the key finding buried deep into the column -- the

paper is on record saying they felt they couldn't undermine the president at

that perilous time by giving the story more prominence. --Sound of big stone

sinking.

 

When I have a free minute I will read the Manjoo article you link to below

(which does appear to be available for reading for free, with comm'l), but his

lead-off rebuttal, that the Reps were equally inconvienced by having to cast a

provisional ballot already seems bizarre. 4 per cent of each. But this is

something that tended to happen in predominantly Dem districts. In that case, 4%

of a much larger population of dems in Whoville would be a much larger number of

dems having to cast provisionally, taking them into the other category of

undercounts.

 

Anyway, I think a lot more black American voters stood patriotically in the rain

for hours. I wasn't there. But I heard numerous reports from people who were.

 

Anyway, I admit, they had me at hello with the exit polls story. That still

stands in spite of efforts to spitball it. Did the press cover this adequately?

Not really. Isn't that a big story in itself? Potentially the biggest story ever

in American politics?? Now they're trying to say it wasn't a story because the

press didn't cover it.

 

So Kerry didn't win. And the globe isn't warming. And cigarettes are harmless.

 

Winston Smith lives,

Ann

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Ann, the book is about the 2004 election... 2 more years to go till the

next.

 

If it was any one but Todd who posted this I wouldn't let CHA get into this

discussion.

However, since we are here I would suggest reading this from salon.com if you

can. It's

debunks Kennedy's ideas. You may have to be a paid r to this website

to read

this so I will quote the first few paragraphs.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kennedy/

 

" After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the

president's party

mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in

2004, "

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declares in the latest issue of Rolling Stone. And so,

19 months after

the election, let us head once again into this breach.

..................

Whatever his aim, RFK Jr. does not appear intent on fixing the problem. He's

more content

to take us through a hit parade of the most popular, and the most dismissible,

theories

purporting to show that John Kerry won Ohio, theories that have been swirling

about the

blogosphere ever since the race was called. I scoured his Rolling Stone

article for some

novel story or statistic or theory that would prove, finally, that George W.

Bush was not the

true victor. But nothing here is new. If you've spent time on Democratic

Underground or

have read Mark Crispin Miller's " Fooled Again, " you're already familiar with

everything

Kennedy has to say.

 

If you do read Kennedy's article, be prepared to machete your way through

numerous

errors of interpretation and his deliberate omission of key bits of data. The

first salient

omission comes in paragraph 5, when Kennedy writes, " In what may be the single

most

astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who

registered to vote in

2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the

rolls, thanks

to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast

ballots. " To

back up that assertion, Kennedy cites " Democracy at Risk, " the report the

Democrats

released last June.

 

That report does indeed point out that many people -- 26 percent -- who first

registered

in 2004 did not find their names on the voter rolls at polling places. What

Kennedy doesn't

say, though, is that the same study found no significant difference in the

share of Kerry

voters and Bush voters who came to the polls and didn't find their names

listed. The

Democrats' report says that 4.2 percent of Kerry voters were forced to cast a

" provisional "

ballot and that 4.1 percent of Bush voters were made to do the same -- a stat

that lowers

the heat on Kennedy's claim of " astounding " partisanship.

 

Such techniques are evident throughout Kennedy's article. He presents a

barrage of

seemingly important, apparently damning data to show that Kerry won the race.

It's only

when you dig into his claims that you see what thin ice he's on.

....................

 

 

 

, <snakeoil.works wrote:

>

> You mean since 2000, don't you?

>

> ann

>

>

> I have a free Rolling Stone subscription, and this article caught my

> eye. I am very concerned for the state of our democracy after

> reading this article.

>

>

> On Jun 3, 2006, at 9:15 AM, wrote:

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----------

 

 

 

Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/355 - Release 6/2/06

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I just returned from a vacation during which I didn't think about or discuss

politics. Both my tongue and pulse displayed big improvement. This

listserv has more than a modicum of chinese medicine political sniping,

polemics, flaming, proselytizing and other behaviors that we civilized and

enlightened folks abhor in others without revisiting a most shameful episode

in USA history. (BTW, I'm an American and I vote. If you don't fit both of

those criteria then shut yer unentitled mouth.) As I was saying, I get

plenty of rudeness, intolerance, shallow and short-sighted opinions from the

world I must inhabit and I'd like for the discussion about the 2004 election

to cease.

 

Thanks to all in advance, JOE

 

BTW, when George W. Bush was circumcised they kept the wrong half.

[Guest guest]

Has it ever changed?

Is someone under the impression that the DNC doesn't do this same stuff or

worse(assuming the article in the Rolling stone is unbiased, which is unlikely),

given their union constituency and the tendency to have dead folks voting?

After all, Al Gore got 105% of the vote in Philly in 2000 which made it so he

won Pennsylvania. If either side was honest, they would lose. Merely because

someone with a bias to write only about one side get published, because of that

bias, doesn't make it true, or at worst, necessary to achieve balance.

Not that I expect many folks to want to be neutral in this matter.

There is lots more to say, but if you read the whole story, you already know.

I to Roling stone mostly for their entertaining political coverage,

but I don't take their journalism as seriously as Mother Jones or National

REview.

DAVe

In a message dated 6/3/06 11:55:02 PM, zrosenbe writes:

 

 

> I have a free Rolling Stone subscription, and this article caught my 

> eye.  I am very concerned for the state of our democracy after 

> reading this article.

>

>

> On Jun 3, 2006, at 9:15 AM, wrote:

>

> > Normally I would not send such an overtly political link to this

> > list. However, if this article is accurate and nothing is done to

> > prevent this again, the ramifications for our healthcare system and

> > our health could be vast (ranging from the future of medicare to

> > environmental regulations to medical research). This should not be

> > construed as the beginning of a thread to debate the veracity of the

> > article or these issues, but rather to inform all consumers and

> > providers of healthcare of information that might affect your health.

> > If you want to debate the points of the article, I suggest you log on

> > to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/

> > guarded_outrage_with_intimatio.php or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

> > 2006/06/01/robert-f-kennedy-jr-th_n_22019.html#allcomments and read

> > comments pro and con and add your two cents, if you wish.

> >

> > http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/

> > was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Herbs

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >