Blame for loss in the 2000 election

[Terwilliger]

what say ye?

[JohnKleeb]

1. Terwill where the hell is this opition

Jebbie Bush and Kathy Harris.

[FDRrocks]

25. BFEE, kleebo-son! n/t

[bowens43]

2. The supreme court and a really poor presidential campaign

on Gore's part.

[Baconfoot]

6. Where's the "the Supreme Court, the Media, the FL Purge List" Option?NT

http://gore2004.meetup.com
(...till the fat lady sings)

[Zynx]

3. We have to be honest with ourselves.

The candidate and the party failed us. It should have been nowhere near as close as it was. We should have won in a classic landslide margin like 55-45% or 60/40% with a massive majority of electoral votes, but instead, we lost.

[AP]

7. Don't forget the media, if you're wondering why it wasn't a landslide.

[Cocoa]

19. the media was atrocioius

especially cable news.

[demnan]

4. I picked the media, and I'll tell you why

if Gore had gotten fair coverage and Bush the same there would have been no way that Bush would have been President.

Another point in my argument: What has Al Gore done since the "Selection". He has sought out, as a businessman to buy and produce a liberal media outlet.

So I think that he feels that's why he lost.

[AP]

9. And don't forget that the media is complicit at so many levels including..

as it related to Green voting patterns, but more importantly in (1) hating Gore, and (2) calling the election.

[AP]

5. If you work backwards from the last thing that could have made a differenc

here's the order (and, I guess, Republicans pulled most of these strings):

1) The Supreme Court betrayed its own states rights precendents and crowned Bush (which was one step removed from the way Napolean crowned himself)

2) Gore chose not to fight (included in this was Lieberman saying they wouldn't challenge unfranked military ballots, and that Gore ignored advise to ask for a state-wide recount in the first instance, to which he was entitled.

3) The media calling the election for Bush, creating a national mood which contradicted the legal and political reality.

4) The media campaign against Gore

5) The crapola pulled in FL, including not cleaning the chads out of the machines for 7 straight elections, intentional bad ballot designs, removing predominantly black voters from the rolls, allowing something like 20 parties on the ballot, etc. etc.

6) Gore's strategy of putting all his eggs in a basket controlled by his opponent's brother. (He picked his VP because of FL...had he picked Edwards he probably would have won TN and Ark.)

7) The few Green voters who chose not to vote for Gore in FL at the last minute (and, excluded from this number are the Green voters who wouldn't have voted at all if Nader hadn't been on the ballot).

If I thought about this more, I could probably think of a few more things to list between numbers 6 and 7 above.

[library_max]

14. Gore did ask for a state-wide recount

When he was entitled to it, in the contest phase. Florida state law was clear on the difference between the protest phase, in which ballots may be recounted in individual counties at the request of their election officials, and the contest phase, in which the courts could apply "any remedy." The Republican Florida Legislature changed the law since then to cover their tracks, but that's what the law said at the time.

[AP]

28. That's not what happened.

Read "Too Close to Call."

Gore was entiteld to ask for a recount in every county. He had these two lawyers tell him this on Wed morning. These guys were the experts on recount law and they did a statistical breakdown and told Gore exactly where the vote he needed were. Gore ignored their advice (instead, probably listening to his daughter, who, along with Al, seemed to care more about what the NYT editorial board would say about him than he was in actually winning). Gore decided that he should only ask for recounts in four counties. There was a second stage when he did ask for a statewide recount. However, he had the opportunity earlier, and he didn't take it.

Had he, the voting everywhere would have started sooner and he probably would have won.

In any event, it turned out that he didn't have enough votes in the four counties he chose, but he did in the state-wide recount. This allowed papers to lie and say that the recount Al wanted still wouldn't have led to his victory.

[library_max]

40. Gore asked for a statewide recount.

The Florida Supreme Court granted it. The US Supreme Court stopped it. The US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. There is no court of appeal above the US Supreme Court.

So what is there in all your going-on about chronology that changes those basic facts? What difference does it make whether Gore asked for a statewide recount when you would have asked for it or when he did ask for it? The SCOTUS would have stricken it down in any case. The papers would have lied about it in any case.

[AP]

48. Gore originally asked for a recount in 4 counties.

If I remember correctly -- and this is all in Too Close Too Call, so if you want to take this up further, I suggest you either complain to Toobin, or you read the book -- Gore asked for a recount in 4 counties during the challenge (?) phase. This was appealed. Things were held up. They finished that. The proceeded to the next stage (contest?). They asked for a statewide recount. Started. Appealed. Stalled. Ran out of time.

Gore was told to ask for a statewide recount in the first instance (either as part as the contest phase, or, and my memory is vague, or he was told to skp the contest and go right to the challenge so that things would get underway quickly). Gore thought that the NYT ediotorial page would complain that he was overreaching. He thought that he'd seem like the level headed, non-overreaching guy by asking for less than he was entitled too. (Meanwhile Clinton is telling people whom he hopes will relate his thoughts to Gore -- 'cause Gore wasn't consulting Clinton -- that Gore should make a big stink, should get people excited about this, and should blame the SCt for intervening.)

If Gore had listened to the advice of the consultants he hired, it's possible that he could have gotten that statewide recount started earlier, that the Republican White Riot squad would not have been able to cover all the bases, and that they would have gotten much farther along. And remember, the statewide recount the press did showed that Gore got more votes.

[library_max]

58. I did read the book

More than that, I read Florida state law (at the time - they've changed it since to cover their tracks, the bastards). Gore did ask for a statewide recount in the contest phase. The four-county thing was in the protest phase, when only election board officials (not the candidates or their campaigns) could call for a recount. The four counties selected themselves - that they were selected by Gore is a Republican lie. Toobin repeats it because Toobin loves to pretend to be even-handed. In A Vast Conspiracy, he placed a lot of the blame on Clinton for the same reason.

And right, Gore got more votes. We all know that. Did it make one micron of difference to SCOTUS? No it did not. Even if the law had allowed Gore to ask for a statewide recall sooner (which it didn't) and even if that recall had not been disrupted by the Republicans (which it would have been, with even many of the election officials themselves opposed to it), it still wouldn't have changed the outcome of Bush v. Gore, which settled the election.

[AP]

62. Wasn't Toobin's point that Gore should have accelarated throught the

protest phase, which he didn't do.

If Toobin's wrong about this, I'd like to know. I also read the FL statutes and didn't notice anything that said the counties pick themselves. Could be wrong. Do you have any other evidence?

I don't doubt that earlier counting of the votes would have been sabotaged somehow.

Other than the SC, the only thing Gore could have done was to create a sense of outrage over not counting the votes, and the closer he got to getting votes counted quickly (the argument, ultimately, by the SC was that there wasn't time), the more outrage he could have encourged.

But it didn't look like Gore was interested in outrage.

[library_max]

66. All of the outrage was going the other way

You can't get the country on your side just by being pissy. The media favored the Bush view, which was simpler to explain and therefore commanded the assent of the easily outraged. Any "outrage" expressed by Democrats was just dismissed as crybabyism. Remember the "Sore/Loserman" bumper stickers?

Gore did all he could. Stop blaming him already.

[Darranar]

8. Hmm...

Democrats, Republicans, BFEE, the Media, SCOTUS, ignorance, stupidity, right-wing nuts, cheating, election fraud, Gore, Clinton, Joe in New Hampshire who voted for Bush over Gore...

The list is practically endless.

[RoeBear]

10. If he had won Tennesse...

...his home fricking state, he would have won the election.

[agincourt]

50. That's what happens

when you take on big tobacco.

[ozone_man]

55. Right, and that is why Gore is to blame.

I assume that the category for Gore was Democrats? These elections are like a pendulum, and it was working against Gore in 2000 certainly, but Gore did not seem to have the personality appeal to overcome this. This time the pendulum swings back to the Democrats, after Bush's miserable failure.

[gully]

70. No, Al Gore is not to blame. See here....

http://www.democrats.com/view2.cfm?id=6543

"As someone who lived in Florida for 16 years and volunteered on numerous Democratic campaigns while I lived there, I know both the disputed territory and Florida election law extremely well. It pains me greatly that two of the people involved in this unjust attack are none other than two of my favorite Democrats in the entire world, James Carville and Paul Begala. Also involved in this false attack is my favorite journalist Greg Palast, and two authors whose books do an outstanding job of documenting many of the illegal acts that the Bush campaign used to steal the election - Jeffrey Toobin and Jake Tapper.

These false attacks range from accusing Al Gore of not fighting hard enough to win in Florida to blaming Al Gore for the pro Bush media's unprecedented campaign against him. They include allegations that Gore abandoned African American voters who were illegally purged off of the Florida voting rolls, that he vetoed public demonstrations, that he did nothing to promote voting reform and counting all of the votes. The truth is that there was nothing short of starting a civil war that Al Gore could have done to have gotten the uncounted, legal votes in Florida counted.

The Gore campaign followed Florida election law to the letter. In contrast, the Bush campaign broke numerous Florida and federal laws to steal the election in a broad daylight coup d'etat. Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris grossly abused their offices to aid in the theft of the election."

[library_max]

71. Thank you, Gully!

[ozone_man]

76. Gore was certainly up against the BFEE,

and I'm not saying it was fair what happened in Florida. But there were folks in the Democratic Party that Gore did not bring on board. Maybe this is because he was DLC, I don't really know, but to me, he did not seem to have enough to relate to, personality or substance. In Vermont Nader got 7%, mainly because Gore did not excite the left up here. Also, we knew he would win VT anyway.

So, I see a possibility of history repeating itself in 2004, if the DLC gets a candidate through that splits the real Democratic Party. There are some that I won't vote for.

[burr]

11. I know why we lost...and so do you.

It wasn't Nader, Gore, the Supreme Court, or the sorry campaign run by our party. It was the Electoral College that caused this loss. I am sick and tired of the fucking blame game. Greens blame Gore, Democrats blame the Greens, Lieberman blames the Supreme Court, and the Repukes blame the Democrats.

None of this would of happened if the President was elected by the popular vote, like any other public official. Instead of serving the neo-con's purpose by playing the blame game, why not unite behind a nonpartison comman cause? The abolishment of the Electoral College is all we need, then the people can set the agenda. And if our party listens to the needs of the people, then we can win!

[LifeDuringWartime]

20. you've got that right

would that require amending the constitution?

[Mairead]

38. We don't actually need it abolished

We only need that each state allocate electors among the candidates to reflect the popular vote rather than winner-take all.

That's a much bigger target to hit.

[burr]

43. If the goal is to change the Constitution, why should it be minor?

Abolishing the Electoral College would have the overwhelming support of the people. It could become a losing issue for any politician opposing it. But the change would require 2/3's support in Congress and the approval of 3/4's of the state legislatures. If this ever happened, why settle for minor changes in a flawed system when it can be replaced with the popular vote?

When the Electoral College was approved as part of the Constitution, only a fifth of the adult population was literate. Then it was logical to have educated state electors selecting the President for each state. But now voters can make this choice for themselves, no middleman is required. And it will never happen unless one of the two major parties backs it. Then some Republicans will eventually break rank, after all..who would oppose making the President accountable to all voters?

[Mairead]

52. I think my point was that there's more than one way to reach the goal

Getting proportionate allocation in the states would probably be easier (in some states it could be done by initiative), but would yield a less-stable result. Getting abolishment would be much more stable once done, but possibly also much harder to do.

I'm in favor of any method.

[burr]

67. We agree on one thing...

proportional allocation of electors is better than the current system. I just don't think the same public support or enthusiasm needed for such a change would exist, like it would for having the President elected by popular vote.

Instant runoff voting could also be included in such an amendment, to insure that the winning candidate is elected by the majority. I believe most voters would rally behind our party if Democratic candidates campaigned on it, and it would not hurt us or become a losing issue. No voter wants the President to be selected by aristocrats in a smoke filled room!

[TruthIsAll]

12. All of the above..and Katherine Harris with tweezers... n/t

....

[HEyHEY]

13. The American people allowed the president to be chosen

A re-election should have been called.

[library_max]

15. The U.S. Supreme Court stole it.

Florida Greens left the door unlocked and the keys in the ignition.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[library_max]

30. My indignation

Because I'm the one screaming and cursing. Right.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grasswire]

17. factors

1. Failure of Democratic leadership to strategize as if Republicans are the enemy of democracy. Political strategy has been half-assed and rinkydink.

2. Failure of Gore to campaign as if Republicans are the enemy of democracy. Too much Mr. Congeniality.

3. Failure of moneyed Dems to fund strategies that will preserve democracy. Infrastructure such as think tanks, television, etc. are still lacking, thirty years after Scaife-Murdoch-Moon started propagandizing America.

4. Failure of Dems to correct the perception of "liberal bias" in the media.

5. Failure of Dems to understand and anticipate the threat technology poses to free elections: a. FL purging of databases, b. votescam, and anticipate how Republicans would use these technologies.

Well, that's a few. The actions taken by the SCOTUS, by Katharine Harris, by Bushco....they should all have been anticipated by political strategists on the left.

Doesn't the DNC ever WAR GAME the election ahead of time?

[Tinoire]

18. Where is the DLC Option ??!!!

I had to vote Democrats when what I really wanted was the DLC.

[karlschneider]

21. All the above plus Lieberman. I think he cost us a LOT of votes. eom

[scottxyz]

22. I blame ChoicePoint, Jeb, Katherine Harris

I guess that falls roughly under BFEE.

Maybe you need a separate choice for that. "Rigged election process". Might be nice - then we wouldn't go around blaming ourselves.

I think much of the country is quite liberal. If we didn't have Rupert Murdoch beaming FoxNews and if we didn't have Diebold's rigged voting machines and we didn't have Katherine Harris taking away black people's right to vote and if we had Instant Runoff Voting (so the losing Green party's votes would automatically go to the Dems instead of just being lost)... then maybe this would be more obvious.

[sasquatch]

23. DLC pink tutu democrats are the root cause

Having them put LIEberaman up as Gore's running mate. Second is the media for not talking about the "voter purge" in Florida. Third is the Supreme Court for ruling that the american people don't have the right to elect thier leaders. Fourth is us for not having a mini -revolution, marching to washington with whatever weapons we had and throwing thier sorry asses in front of a execution squad or having a peaceful overthrow by Gore refusing to conceed.

[Loyal]

24. Greenies

They threw the election to Bush in Florida. Thanks a lot, Ralph Traitor! :puke:

[VOX]

33. New Hampshire is a prime example of Green-vote damage in 2000...

Put Florida aside for a moment (even pretend it went to the GOP legitimately, as hard as that idea is):

In NH 2000, Bush beat Gore by only 7,211 votes. Nader got 22,198 votes in NH. No Nader votes, Gore takes NH. Add NH's 4 electoral votes, Gore takes the election with 270 total electoral votes.

[Loyal]

56. 271, 1 DC elector did not vote

because she was mad about Florida.

[Township75]

68. Wrong Reason

She didn't vote out of protest that DC was not given representation like a statehood (i.e. reps and senators).

[Loyal]

74. Ah,

my bad. Well, not that it would have made a difference anyway.

[mot78]

26. Four Factors

1. The Supreme Court, who unfairly blocked the will of the people.

2. Catherine Harris/Jeb, for disrupting voter turnout, and using faulty voting machines.

3. The media bias (caricaturing Gore as a chronic liar, while portraying Bush as a "moderate" and as a "laid back" politican. And figuratively lumping Gore with Clinton on Clinton's negativities, like Monica.)

4. Ralph Nader, who kept telling voters that Gore and Bush were the same on the issues. This, along with the media bias helped make Bush out to be a centrist. BTW, Terwilliger: The registered Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush probably haven't voted Democratic since Carter, or LBJ. The majority of registered voters in the South who are Democrats, a great deal of them are Strom Thurmond/Zell Miller Dixicrats.

[library_max]

29. Terwilliger's had that explained to him dozens of times

He doesn't want to get it, because that would mean the Florida Greens really did screw us over in 2000. He wants it to be all Gore and the DLC's fault. He is never going to let go of his little debater's point about registered Democrats voting for Bush, no matter how many people explain to him about Dixiecrats.

[Terwilliger]

34. So you agree what Dixiecrats want should be shunned

yet you keep trying to capture that vote by running away from the party base

[Taxi Driver]

27. Lieberman

great way to win the South, get a Jewish lawyer from Connecticutt. It SHOULD have guaranteed Florida, but it was a ridiculous gamble.

[VOX]

31. Most of the above. Gore should have run a stronger campaign;

the media took a perverse delight in trashing Gore (for an excellent analysis, read Bob Sommerby's Daily Howler accounts on the "Invented the Internet" fabrication); Nader siphoned off precious votes; the BFEE disenfranchised countless Florida voters; the Supreme Court in a *very* partisan vote prevented a proper recount; and Gore made a strategic error in calling only for a selected recount in Florida, rather than a statewide recount.

[mermaid]

32. One Word....

NADER!!!

[Thomas Jefferson]

36. My vote didn't register

In fact the number of votes in the catagory when down. There must be a glitch somewhere.

[JVS]

37. UFO's dude, definitely the UFO's

:D

[nolabels]

42. Would that be in the vote for the "other" catagory

I posted some of what's below on another thread, but it had something to do with Nazi's so maybe others want to dismiss it because of that, I don't know. The problem I have is some say it linked with RENSE which gets bad credibility rating because of stories of Flying saucers on the site.

I am trying to link up the connections with I have got this stuff below so far, but need a some more sources for viability, maybe some one wants to help the story? I figured I could post it here since their might be a few guru’s on this looking at this thread!!

I found this link to the reporter I heard speak on the radio Saturday, she seems to have done some homework too. I found it through that other link of votescam2002, lots of stuff there too (maybe it’s old news, I don’t know, I am no expert)

http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm
THE SECRETIVE WORLD OF VOTING MACHINES
privatizing the vote - sabotaging the system - around the world
by Lynn Landes
Over the last 100 years Americans have slowly, but surely, surrendered our public voting process to private corporations and their voting machines... in violation of our constitutional right to fair, open, and observable elections. The price paid has been the legitimacy of our democracy. And countries around the world are following our lead. Today, two Republican dominated corporations, Election Systems and Software (ES&S) and Diebold Voting Systems, control about 80% of the electronic vote count in the U.S., while dozens of both foreign and domestic companies have jumped into the vote counting business. Our national security is at stake. Anyone can own and operate a company that counts Americans' votes - there are no restrictions. Meanwhile, the long history of election upsets due to voting machine "glitches", that overwhelmingly favor Republican candidates, continues to grow. Where is the outrage? Where's the concern? Where are the Democrats? Citizens have a constitutional right to a election process that is transparent and observable. The use of a voting machine prevents that. Voting machines are easy to rig and impossible to monitor. It's a Trojan Horse, a Pandora's Box, an accident waiting to happen... all rolled into one. Poll watchers have nothing to watch. Federal Observers have nothing to observe. And that makes the Voting Rights Act unenforceable. Congress has failed to safeguard our right to vote. Instead, they passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) that give billions of dollars to the states to purchase voting machines, while failing to require any mandatory safeguards or standards. Meanwhile, misguided voting rights groups are suing for the right to use the latest most sophisticated computerized voting equipment which are the easiest to rig by the fewest number of technicians. In the last several decades the rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer. This is not a formula for a conservative groundswell. Yet, both conservative Democrats and Republicans have long enjoyed success at the polls. Have elections in America been rigged to shift power to right wing candidates from both parties, despite the public's support of left-wing causes such as universal health care, quality public education, a clean environment, and a living wage? In the secretive world of voting machines... anything is possible.

WHAT TO DO? There are two things I can recommend: 1) advocate for a return to only a paper ballot and local hand-count, see Canada's excellent voting system, and 2) file suit in federal court against the Department of Justice for failing to enforce the Voting Rights Act, see Constitutional & Legal Issues.

Also see:
Landes voting articles
News from other reporters
Links to voting experts
For a good summary, even though it's somewhat dated, read Pandora's Black Box (1996) by Philip M. O’Halloran of Relevance

For more detailed information: notes, links, etc. These webpages are frequently updated.

• Overview
• Constitutional & Legal Issues (this is the most important aspect of voting)
• Ownership & Organization Information / global promotion of voting technology
• Technical Reports - 'voluntary' technical standards, no government oversight, etc. / includes list of Voting Machine Errors
• Voter News Service (VNS) - polling
(snip)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=161235
Bush-Nazi Link Confirmed (J. Buchanan/New Hampshire Gazette)
(snip)
The vanquished are often footnotes



How are they all connected, somebody asks. Follow the money. Here is a nice long one that connects a lot of them also. A new name to add to my list for people to look for is the "Rothschilds"


(snip)
1895 - Rothschilds begin to finance American business. They do so primarily
through the Warburgs of Germany who were partners of Kuhn, Loeb and Company
of New York. Both Warburgs and Kuhn/Loeb would be principals of Federal
Reserve Board. Rothschilds would finance Rockefeller's Standard Oil,
Carnegie Steel, and the Harriman Railroad system.



1896 - McKinley elected president. Marcus Alonzo Hannah from Standard Oil
of Ohio raised 16 Million dollars for campaign, otherwise unheard of until
1960's.

(snip)

(snip)
1922 - Benito Mussolini takes power in Italy, furthers Fascism. Pope Pius
XI takes over. Tries more middle of the road approach to dealing with
Soviet Union, but hopes for collapse of revolution so Vatican can regain
power in Eastern Europe. Federal Narcotics Control Board formed. Military
intelligence targets organizations like the International Workers, (IWW),
World War Veterans, Communist Party, American Federation of Labor, and
others for anti-subversion surveillance and action. Efforts are possibly
influenced by the National Association of Manufacturers, a known fascist
anti-labor organization. W. Avrell Harriman of the firm W.A. Harriman & Co.
meets with Fritz Thyssen, German industrialist to discuss setting up a bank
for Thyssen in America. By Personal agreement between Harriman and Thyssen,
the plan for Union Banking Corp. Was agreed to. Sometime before 1924 a
Thyssen representative, H.J. Kouwehnoven came to the United States for
talks with Harriman. By 1924, Union Banking was a quiet part of W.A.
Harriman & Co., who would be joint owner and manager of Thyssen's banking
business outside of Germany.
(snip)

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=341305&group=webcast
(snip)
. ARNOLD, BUFFET AND THE ROTHSCHILDS IN A SECRET MEETING IN 2002 IN ENGLAND!

XI. ARNOLD'S CAMPAIGN DECIDED IN THE AMERICAN FASHION--ENTIRELY IN SECRET, AT BOHEMIAN GROVE.

XII. DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS BOTH WANT TO REMOVE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE FOREIGN BORN FOR THE PRESIDENCY--SETTING UP UNREPENTANT NAZI ARNOLD FOR THE NEXT G.H.W. BUSH PRESIDENCY
(snip)

I listened to another story on the radio Saturday morning on how the ROTHSCHILDS own voting machine manufactures in europe and have also have a lot of money into the few others. Also a few stories about how Arnold boasted about he was going to be the governor of California way before it ever got put in the mill and such. These are just rumors but it would fit the MO of Arnold and the ROTHSCHILDS are real people.

Does anyone have any stuff on ROTHSCHILDS and voting machines?

(snip)
(snip)
And from Tulsa is where I think they picked up the embryo of Enron



I thought I heard something about where some of the double dealers picked up their tactics with natural gas and trading with some natural gas pipeline company

Anyway to answer another question I had I found this stuff

http://www.rense.com/general31/roth.htm
(snip)
Rense.com



Rothschilds Famliy Part Owner
Largest Voting Machine Company
Posted at SF Indymedia.org
11-11-2
The Rothschilds are part owners of voting machines.

These infamous international private bankers are only by chance involved in this?
Just like they were by chance involved in Enron?

http://www.talion.com/voting-machines.html

Charter Oak Partners, an affiliate of Rothschild Realty Inc., which is an affiliate of Rothschild, Inc.

Rothschilds Inc is the same as The Rothschild family bank

Take a look at this court document -
http://www.state.vt.us/psd/6107/6107wlr.pdf

Here is the qoute:

Q. What is your occupation?

A. I am a Senior Managing Director at Rothschild Inc., the United States affiliate of the 200 year old worldwide Rothschild Group.


Want to know more about the Rothschilds?
See their website http://www.nmrothschild.com

About Election Systems & Software
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

ES&S

Q: What does ES&S do?

A: Election Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S) is the world's largest election management company. Headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska with over 400 employees located in eight regional U.S. offices and agents on five continents, ES&S has supported more than 40,000 elections worldwide for over 30 years. In the 2000 U.S. elections alone, ES&S systems counted over 100 million ballots. ES&S' hardware and software solutions support the entire election process to include voter registration, ballot production, voting, vote tabulation, and results reporting.

Electronic Ballot, Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Voting Systems - The iVotronic, Votronic® and V-2000 are decentralized touch screen / touch-panel voting systems that count and tabulate electronic ballots at the polling place, as votes are cast.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

They were also behind the whole Enron debacle.
Now they will be in charge of the software that runs the voting machines.
The other owners have similar NWO backgrounds as well.

Some related article links -

How will we survive without Lord Fixit?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/...36,00.html
(snip)

Here is a nice little link with a thousand more attached to it.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/votefraud.html
(snip)
ELECTION FRAUD 2002
It's all here, too much to read in one day. I suggest you get a cup of coffee and start out by reading Votescam. Votescam lays out the blueprint that everything else is essentially built apon. Save for future reference and send out to everyone!

"The concept is clear, simple, and it works. Computerized voting gives the power of selection, without fear of discovery, to whomever controls the computer," - James & Kenneth Collier, authors of VoteScam (1992)
"There are no documented cases of electronic vote-rigging occurring anywhere in the country, but only because it's nearly impossible to prove."
"Hand counting is the gold standard against which we check machine counting efficiency." - James Baker
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything."
- Joseph Stalin
"I think it is safe to say at this point that the election of 2002 lacks any credibility at this point. Too many "mistakes", too many malfunctions, too many missing documents, too many dirty tricks, all combine to destroy the illusion that the results to be announced have any basis other than in wishful thinking by those in control of the vote counting process. Certainly the sudden abandonment of the VNS exit polls suggests that the actual polling results are so far out of alignment with the desired results that the media predictions had to be shut down."
(snip)

[KG]

39. blame St. William of Clintons self indulgent affair with a young intern.

time to face facts people - no blow job, no bush.

[dolstein]

45. I Agree

NT

[Tinoire]

49. Sadly to say- I know agree

and am grateful to the male DUers who convinced me of this point.

I'd never looked at it the way they did- that the fate of the free world was hanging on Clinton's thing... and he chose his thing.

I still think it was a trap and that what they did to him was despicable but HE chose that of his own free-will.

How sad for us all.

[burr]

51. hello...anybody home?

Gore won the popular vote. He won more popular votes than Clinton ever did. Did most white southerners hate Clinton?...the answer is yes. But at least in 92 and 96 Perot was taking some of these votes away from the Republicans.

blame Clinton, blame the Greens, blame the Supreme Court, blame Gore and his handlers, blame who you like...but we don't elect the President and we never have. Blaming each other will get us nowhere!

[Speed8098]

53. You're crazy

President Clinton held high approval ratings all the way through the farce the pukes called impeachment.

Time to face facts people, no SCOTUS intervention, no *

Not to mention, Katherine Harris had 25 fresh electoral reps waiting in the wings should the original 25 lean toward Gore.

The fix was in, there was no way Gore could have won Florida

If you blame Clinton, or Gore, or the media, or anyone but * and his minions, you are delusional.

2000 was going to the re:puke:'s no matter what.

On edit: fixed typo

[WALib]

41. it was due to

Kathryn Harris ..getting rid of how many thousand votes that was srubbed from the rolls ?

It was the media THEY WANTED BUSH !!!

[dolstein]

44. Bill Clinton

If he hadn't screwed around with Monica Lewinsky, Gore would likely have won the 2000 election by a comfortable margin.

Yes, I know that Clinton continued to enjoy high job approval ratings in the polls up through the 2000 election. But his personal approvals went straight into the gutter. And I'm sure that that if you looked at the people who voted for Clinton in 1996 and then voted for Bush in 2000, the Lewinsky scandal played a big role.

If nothing else, the Lewinsky scandal united and energized the Republican Party.

[fujiyama]

46. I hate to admit it...

but I do think it made an impact on some people, especially in the south. While some like to think it was gun control, but Clinton and Gore shared similar stances on gun control, and I don't recall Gore taking any radical measures like gun registration.

I think Clinton's affair did turn many pople away from Gore (thinking Bush would bring "honor and integrity to the white house" -- some bullshit!)...

That, the media's obsession with "personality", and "lies" (he invented the internet, etc etc). Meanwhile Bush's lies ovre his tax cut were never made an issue of.

Gore did listen to pollsters and consultants way to much -- such as in how to speak and how to dress.

And finally the Supreme Court which disgraced itself, and has made it obvious that it is just another partisan political institution.

[charlie]

65. Not to mention

Gore also wouldn't have been averse to using Clinton in his campaign.

[FDRrocks]

47. Greens are more to blame

than BFEE! Which I take to include all thier operatives, including Baker, Harris, and Jeb.

Wow. edit: and by WOW, i mean WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW!!

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

54. Definitely a combination

If I were to rank them in order:

Media (the "Gore Lies" myth)
Supreme Court (appoints son of their political patron)
Gore (distancing himself from Clinton)
Democratic Party (grassroots? what grassroots?)

[Terran]

57. DU thread #14,289,401 on 2000 elections blame game

Congratulations on a complete waste of DU's bandwidth. How about we stop rehashing who is to blame and concentrate on preventing the same thing from happening in 2004, okay?

:eyes:

[Terwilliger]

59. I'd love to dirk, but they blame Nader EVERY FREAKING DAY

STILL!!!

To this moment!!!

Nader or the Greens! Doesn't matter! "Let's look at some other cause for our problems! We need a scapegoat so we don't have to look at our failing party!!"

SHEESH!

If you want to win in 04, blaming Nader and suggesting that his absence is somehow a guarantee that everything will be alright is pure fantasy.

I'm disturbed that there are Democrats on this board that want to be so ignorant of the realities of their situation that Ralph Nader is comparable to George Bush in a particularly destructive denial of reality.

[Terran]

72. Not to sound trite, Terwillinger, but

two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, I know the Greens continue to get a bum rap at DU, and that's utterly irrational at this point. But I just think all concerned on both sides of that issue should move the hell on--what's done is done. You especially, as a prominent representative of the Green movement, might set an example by ignoring other people's stupid anti-Green rhetoric and talk about how Dems and Greens can be *together* in 2004.

What really mystifies the fuck out of me is how so many good Dems here can trash the Greens over 2000, when, ideologically, the Greens stand for positions that most Dems should be 100% in accord with. So why this pointless venom about 2000 three years later? I hate to say it, but everyone should just "get over" that aspect of the 2000 elections.

Dirk

[Terwilliger]

73. how Dems and Greens can be *together* in 04

get the conservatives out of the Democratic party

[ulysses]

75. but what does that even mean, dirk?

You especially, as a prominent representative of the Green movement, might set an example by ignoring other people's stupid anti-Green rhetoric and talk about how Dems and Greens can be *together* in 2004.

I know you're talking to Ter here, but what does it mean to "be together"? Vote Dem? Most Greens and Greensymps here, as far as I can tell, are already planning to vote Dem in 2004 out of the need to rid ourselves of Bush. That leaves half of those involved in these discussions satisfied and not much interested in further discussion, while the rest of us, talk as we might about such noble (and evidently passe) things as coalitions, with the same long-term doubts as before.

[Terran]

77. I'm no political strategist

but it seems like a coalition is just what is needed to unseat Bush next year. If the Green Party were to take the outrageous step of endorsing the Democratic candidate in 2004, then the Dems would be forced to work with the Greens thereafter. You'd have the opposite situation we had after 2000--instead of Dems blaming Greens for a loss, the Greens might be able to point to a win they helped hand to the anti-Bush forces. Thereafter, I would think (I would hope) the Dems would be forced to give more serious consideration to the Green agenda. Maybe that's wishful thinking, but it seems to me that that is how political coalitions work, when honor is involved.

It's a difficult situation, I grant. In former times, when the need wasn't so urgent, I was always confident that the Greens would, over time, grow into a major political force on the American scene, the way other parties have evolved over a long period of time. There seemed less urgency about it because we didn't have a madman in office tearing apart the planet. Now it seems like there is no time left for the Greens to evolve that way--barring something truly cataclysmic that sends millions over to the Greens (like catastrophic effects of global warming, maybe?).

Dirk

[fatalaccident]

60. vote

I vote to blame the Green party.

[Terwilliger]

61. good for you

given that their influence on the final outcome was minimal to non-existent, could you tell me why they should receive the blame?

[Capn Sunshine]

63. Even the DLC

says that the poorly articulated campaign got the Gore forces in enough trouble to get the election close enough to steal. Of course, THEY say that it was because Gore strayed from their message. I asy the opposite.

Either way, if the dems had run a better campaign, there wouldn't be a need to blame the greens for doing what comes naturally.

[The White Rose]

64. If the media had been honest during the campaign...

...it wouldn't have been close enough to steal.

[DoNotRefill]

69. Ya forgot national FOID cards....

If Gore hadn't have gone there, he wouldn't have had to go home.