What will convince me that there was fraud in the 2004 election

[Walt Starr]

It's simple, really.

If Barack Obama stands up to contest the Ohio slate of electors, I will believe 100% that there was fraud in the election. If Conyers has some evidence that wasn't presented to the public and gave it to Obama, and he considers it to be a smoking gun of widespread election fraud conspiracy, I have to go with it.

So, Barack Obama's reaction to this is the telling story for me. I sent him this email earlier:

To the Honorable Senator Barack Obama,

I am honored on this date to write my first email to you as my new Senator. I supported you in the Democratic Primary and in the General Election. I was also pleased to donate to your campaign.

On this day I am writing specifically to urge to you consider carefully your reaction to the numerous emails I am certain you are receiving on the issue of the Senate certification of the electoral votes from the 2004 presidential race. Specifically, I urge you to not make the mistake of taking these to heart. A very small and vocal minority of the Democratic Party have convinced themselves that there was a widespread conspiracy to defraud the electorate in this past election.

If, however, John Conyers has presented you with evidence that is currently not known to the public, please weigh that evidence. I have every confidence in your ability to make the right decision in this matter and will support your decision whatever it is.

My wife and I shook hands with you outside Chicago Union Station on March 16th after we had already cast our votes for you in the Democratic Primary. I must say, I have met many politicians in my life and to date, I have only met and spoken with one whom I feel I can trust 100% to make the right decision after weighing all of the evidence.

Senator Obama, you are that one politician.

Sincerely,
Walter E. Starr
Aurora, IL

[liam97]

1. so you

don't need the confession from Bush anymore?

[Walt Starr]

2. Never needed a confession from Bush

Fraud could have ahppened and Bush not even be close to being a part of it.

[purduejake]

5. Uh, s/he was being sarcastic.

And I think you are pretending to be ignorant about that.

edit: from he to s/he. Sorry about that. :(

[Walt Starr]

10. Sorry, I cannot pick up on sarcasm in the written message board format

I've never been able to pick up on sarcasm.

[purduejake]

24. Okay, sorry.

You must think we're all a bunch of monsters here at DU, then because I see sarcasm all the time. No wonder why you don't believe our evidence. I find it hard to believe you would rather trust that the freepers carried out an honest election, but whatever.

[In Truth We Trust]

30. Seems you may have a problem picking up on fraWd too.

Good letter though. I hope Barack does step forward!

[Walt Starr]

33. If there was evidence, I'd believe it

Obama has already stated he thought the election was over, there was no fraud and is moving on. If Conyers has anything, Obama will stand up.

Frankly, I see conyers as pulling a political showboat and nothing more. Obama will never go for it if there's no there there. If there's something real, Obama will stand up.

I trust the man 100% to do the right thing whatever it is.

[KerryOn]

169. Hold on a minute.

This is not just about fraud. This is about our current voting system. Why does everyone seem to confuse the two.

I live in Ohio, and have so for my entire life. There is very clear and overwhelming evidence that irregularities took place in Ohio. We are not talking about a couple of computer glitches. We are talking about massive voter suppression, which could in its self prove fraud at a latter date, if investigated.

A few questions for you:
Why did Blackwell refuse to except new voter registration, unless they were printed om 80 lb paper?

And then why did Blackwell wait until three days before voter registration dead line to send back the registrations that were on the wrong weight paper, saying he would ot except them?

Sine he waited so long there was not enough time for these people to re-register.

Final question:
With all of that being said, tell me why the Franklin County of Ohio web site gives instructions for printing a voter registration form at their web site informing one to print the form on their own computer, fill it out, and mail it in. (It does not mention anything about it having to be on 80 lb. paper, and it never has.)

Check It Out:
http://www.co.franklin.oh.us/boe/content/registration/PDFregistration.html

You are missing the boat here. Its not just about counting the vote, and making sure that every vote was counted, it is about makeing sure everyone that has the right to vote, GETS TO VOTE!

Even if a Senator stands up, it will not change the outcome of this election, as the republican party rules. If it goes to vote, Bush still wins. But all of these so alled MINOR glitches need to be fixed!!

[formernaderite]

192. I tend to agree....Conyers also has nothing to lose by doing this...

he's in a safe seat. His involvement is the democratic party throwing the base a bone. Although I think there is always a certain amount of fraud on the local levels, I have not seen evidence of a concerted centralized effort. Voter suppression is also not something that will overturn an election. What I don't get is how this was done in democratically controlled areas of Ohio, or what their motive in doing this would be.

[DELUSIONAL]

3. Listen to Randi Rhodes NOW

[proud2BlibKansan]

135. I heard Randi today

She pounded the vote fraud story. I hope some of our skeptics here at DU were able to listen.

[Walt Starr]

136. I listened

Rhandi is,....well...Rhandi.

:eyes:

I like Franken's take on it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

147. Franken is getting ready to run for office

so he is understandably low key on this fraud issue.

[Walt Starr]

188. Quite frankly, there is no issue

as there was n fraud.

[joeunderdog]

190. "understandably" low key on the issue?

Huh? A stolen election for the President of the United States. Four more years of a war-mongering, hateful, deficit-busting, program-savaging drunk running the country into the ground, stacking the Supreme Court and others with RW assholes, trampling rights, shredding the Constitution and disgracing us the world over.

Sure, be a good little democratic politician in the making...

ssshhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[purduejake]

4. Yea, Bush just beat impossible odds...

It's good having Jesus(c) on your side.

[zapped 1]

6. try listening to Randi Rhodes, right now

she has an amazing command of the facts.

[zapped 1]

8. actually, why don't you call her?

I would love to hear that convo.

[Walt Starr]

32. I'm listening

It seems to me Franken is a realist and Rhodes is living in Fantasyland.

[zapped 1]

67. c'mon Walt, call her and tell her that

Like I said , her command of the facts are second to none, and it would make for a fascinating debate. Of course, you'd lose, but at least you would walk away more educated.
Do it! Don't be afraid of Randi.

[Walt Starr]

77. Yeah, right!

:eyes:

[zapped 1]

82. Seriously. She really is a warm person eom

[Walt Starr]

92. YEah, like I'd call somebody that rabidly a fraudist

:eyes:

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[Laurab]

172. Aren't you lost?

It's "Allamericanguy"s like you that should be in Iraq right now, backing up your President I think. And fighting for America to have a one party system. It's gonna be great - until you no longer agree with your party "leader" of course, which is what ALWAYS happens in dictatorships.

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

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

[Laurab]

184. With all due respect

This is laughable. If you read your post, you pretty much said he was your leader. Comparing today's republican party to Kennedy's democratic party is ASSININE - ask Caroline Kennedy, who requested that GW STOP referring to her father - it was in far stronger words than that, and I wish I had the exact quote. It's an insult to Kennedy, and to the democratic party, to compare them in any way, shape or form to the present administration. The republican party can't even SEE the center from where they're standing.

Extremist is a pretty strong word - actually, I was never even interested in politics, and not really affiliated with any party, until I saw the damage that was being done by the present administration. The more I learned, the more frightened I got.

Yes, maginalize me - I'm DANGEROUS, because I DON'T believe in unnecessary wars and loss of innocent lives, and I DO believe in Constitutional rights, and I DO believe the poor and middle class deserve some recognition from the office that is supposed to serve them. I DO believe in a government by the people, for the people. A government that doesn't do their planning and scheming behind closed doors. A government that feels they do indeed have to answer to the people. That's what I was always taught democracy was. We've strayed far from that, and we're getting further away from it everyday.

Oh, and he WAS appointed, we are headed toward facism - look up the 14 signs when you get a chance, and I'm pretty much a realist, not an extremist. You are not a democrat, and it's doubtful that you'll fool anyone with statements like "the republican party today is the democratic party of Kennedy". It's probably the most ridiculous statement I've read on here, ever since I've become an extremist and all.

Edited to remove what might be construed as a personal attack.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

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

[Pooka Fey]

7. We'll just overlook the whole disenfranchisement "problem".

It's only black people, right?

/sarcasm

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[MarkusQ]

20. Not implying, stating it outright.

The allocation of voting resources in Ohio was racist.

Whites got more than they needed, blacks got much less.

This may have been enough to give Bush a win in a state where he would have lost but in any case, it is racist, even if it didn't effect a single race.

Clear enough?

--MarkusQ

[bettyellen]

39. Not clear enough for Walt to respond, I guess.

I've seen him turn tail and run on many an intelligent arguement.

[femme.democratique]

64. Nah, he just hits "ignore" on anyone who REALLY challenges him.

[Walt Starr]

45. Sorry, thought you were attempting to imply I was a racist

:shrug:

I'm still not convinced that the issues are race related. More likely, it's a class situation and the poorer precincts suffer the most.

[Pacifist Patriot]

71. I think you resolved it right there.

Whom do you think reside in poorer precincts?

[Walt Starr]

73. Poorer precincts do not have the tax base to support purchasing new

equipment.

It's pretty simple.

In urban areas, the poorer precincts will be primarily minority.

In rural areas, the poorer precincts will be primarily white.

:shrug:

Urban areas get more national play than rural areas. Both had issues. Look at the college district in Ohio where Kenyon college is located. It's poorer than much of the Hamilton County areas that had adequate equipment. The racial makeup of that county, where lines were the longest and stayed open until about midnight, is ioverwhelmingly white.

Go figure.

[Pacifist Patriot]

81. Then explain why that precinct had fewer machines in the

general election than in the primary. Explain why a neighboring (Republican dominated) precinct refused to loan them a voting machine to replace one of their two when it broke despite the fact that there were no lines at the other precinct.

I understand what you are saying, but that does not explain the discrepancies between the number of machines per capita allocated in the 2002 mid terms and the 2004 primaries and the number allocated in the 2004 general election.

[Walt Starr]

85. Machines broke down

go figure. It's an imperfect world. Machines break.

:eyes:

[Pacifist Patriot]

103. No, that doesn't answer the question.

They didn't have fewer machines because a machine broke down, they started the day with fewer machines. The break down compounded the problem.

[Darknyte7]

104. Sorry Walt...

But there are just too many "coincidences" here. There isn't that much coincidence in the world, much less in the state of Ohio.

[Pooka Fey]

114. It is an imperfect world. Machines break. Black people get screwed.

What can you do? Oh and nobody is calling you a racist, Walt. Anyone can see that you are a champion of justice and all people being created equal. And if the people who aren't getting a fair shake happen to be black that's just an unintentional, understandable, unplanned coincidence. Every goddamn time it happens.

Aren't you supposed to be working on the 2006 election?

[Walt Starr]

116. White people got screwed in the worst example of long lines

The precinct that had a single machine in the district where Kenyon College is has a primarily white population.

[Pooka Fey]

119. That's right. Sometimes Whitey gets screwed too. n/t

[FreepFryer]

129. Liberal college-student whitey, that is. Rural/suburb whitey got no lines.

n/t

[bettyellen]

144. Well they did spend all their $$ on demographic research, didn't they?

[Raksha]

179. Well, liberal college-student whiteys are honorary N-words...

...always have been. If "honorary" is the right word for it.

[KerryOn]

170. Walt, Ohio here again.

In live in a suburb of Columbus that is about 75% republican, and Bush took this area by about that much. We had (4) four voting machines in our precinct. I waited in line for about 15 minute. First time I ever had to wait in line for a presidential election.

I have a fried who lives on the soutside of Columbus. My friend had never voted in his life, and I convinced him to vote this year. His south side neighborhood is primarily black, with a 90% democratic make up. There were twice as many registered voters in his precinct then mine.

Guess how long my friend waited in line? Guess how many machines were in his precinct?

SIX HOURS and TWO MACHINES.
Voter Suppression - - - -
Blackwell Cheated!!!
AND I'M MAD!

[chorti]

84. No, it is more than that

Voting machines are allocated on a county basis, not precinct-basis. And it wasn't just a matter of poorer counties not being able to afford enough machines. There were decisions made on where to remove machines and where to add machines and it was racist and illegal and, is, in and of itself, sufficient reason to nullify Bush's victory in Ohio.

See my (old) article on Franklin County voting machine allocation:
<http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/12/1708672.php>

[Walt Starr]

87. Then I suggest you write to Obama

If there is one Senator who is the real deal, it is Barack Obama. Convince him there was fraud and he'll stand up.

So again, convince Obama. He's the one who needs convincing, not me. I'm just a nobody from Illinois.

:shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

139. So each precinct has to pay for its own equipment?

Why doesn't the state pay for this? This is ridiculous. The vote process will NEVER be fair if this continues.

[merh]

44. So that gives you grounds to oppose the investigation of

election fraud "MOST Democrats do not buy into the theories of a widespread election fraud conspiracy!"?

You are following the flock?

[Walt Starr]

79. It gives me the right to write to MY SENATOR

and express MY OPINION on the issue, which I did.

[merh]

131. You have the right to your opinion, but you are sadly mistaken.

What is so sad is that you don't care. It was stolen in 2000, elections in 2002 were hijacked and now, 2004 they have improved their tactics by using varied means to alter the results.

[Walt Starr]

137. IF that's so, then Obama will stand up

I don't think he will because I believe that like me, he finds no evidence whatsoever to support the allegations fo fraud.

[merh]

146. No solid evidence can be found until it is investigated!

Why is it so hard for you to fathom that they were able to steal the election, again! You use exit polls to support a position in Vensuela, yet you give them no realibilty in the US. Why won't the appropriate agencies release the raw data? Why was it MSM reported Kerry ahead by 3% and then that number mysteriously switched to Bush within the hour?

You insist upon evidence, yet the computer equipment cannot be thoroughly examined until an investigation is conducted by someone and/or ordered by the court to be seized for the purpose of investigation. Poor and minority precincts were deprived of the necessary equipment on election day, others reported when they voted Kerry, bush showed up on their screens, provisional ballots were trashed, folks that had voted at precincts were turned away or told they could only vote by provisional ballots, which were discarded or lost. Absentee ballots were lost in the mail. Registrations were destroyed.

Do you realize that it would have taken only 11 votes in each of Ohio's precincts to give Bush the lead?

Why are you so insistent that an investigation into the election irregularities and/or fraus is a waste of time? Why does it bother you so? And why, oh why can you not accept that K/E campaign did great, despite the efforts by the MSM to ignore them, the free coverage given to the weed and the blatant negligence of the MSM to report the truth about the criminal that is Bush? You of all people know what a liar the AWOL moron is, after all of your work on his fake medals, how can you not see that Kerry did tremendously well, in spite of the lying GOP and their accessory to their crimes, the media?

Recognize what was good about the election, recognize the obstacles and more importantly, recognize the efforts of so many to try their damnedest to make sure that this doesn't happen in 2006 or 2008.

[bettyellen]

150. Walt is invested in this obstruction of justice that's happening in Ohio.

All the while crying for proof.
I haven't see him supporting anything except hanging this on Kerry 100%.

[merh]

151. Is he mad because no one covered the medals story?

That is not the dems fault, that is not our fault. If we can get a handle on the election fraud, maybe, just maybe we can pry the corporate media out of the hands of the corrupt and give it back to the people!

[bettyellen]

161. Anybody want to find a MSM story or poll on the medals story?

Wow, iI can only find info on that in bloggs, mustn't have happened then.

[merh]

162. I know it never happend, it is not our fault, we were all pulling for it

to be made public, we were all sending it to everyone we could think of. The failure of the media to report that story just proves my point about how they did everything they could to insult the weed and to attack Kerry, yet Kerry did garner 57 million plus votes. Just imagine what would have happened if the media had been fair and "balanced".

On edit: Sorry, I get the drift of your message. It tood me a minute. You make a very good point. ;-)

[bettyellen]

185. i was being a tiny bit sarcastic-- keep forgetting walt's not able to

*grasp* sarcasm and i'm expected to label my post as such!!

LOL!!

[Walt Starr]

189. It's BEEN INVESTIGATED

No fraud. None. Nada. Just a bunch of conspiracy theory bullshit!

[merh]

194. IT HAS NOT -

Stop yelling and stop being so stubborn.

Its a shame you have closed your mind, it is such a waste. No sarcasm intended.

[trudyco]

197. You are joking, right? No blue ribbon panel for exit poll....

No forensics on voting machines... heck just now some are looking at the pollbooks in Ohio and there are wierd things coming up.

I don't know if you are purposely stirring people up - there was a great post on this yesterday saying you go to your part of the town (work on 06/08) and we'll go to our part of the town (04 election fraud and reform cuz we think otherwise there is no 06/08) and you should just leave us be. What you are doing is not productive. Hmm. Makes me wonder about you.

Certainly there were means and motive to hijack this election. The whole idea of the machines counting the vote not only being strong Bush supporters, some of them felons, but that code is supposedly proprietary and can't be looked at is enough to alarm a true democrat. Frankly, it should alarm most republicans too. Nobody should have a chokehold on our voter lists, our poll registraion lists, our ballots, our vote counting. They can screw Democrats. They can also screw any republican they don't like in a primary.

I don't know if it is people just stirring up election fraud folks or they really don't get that "Massive Fraud" may not be a smoking gun. Not a smoking canon,either. It may be thousands of bee-bee guns pointing in the same direction. And a "Massive Conspiracy" may be massive in scope but only involve a tiny number of people.

As for "Proof of Fraud" - well I don't know what is required legally (not that it matters if the judge is partisan). But it seems that there is the "Without a Reasonable Doubt" you condemn criminals with, then there is "Preponderance of Evidance" that you nail people in lawsuits with, and then there is "Enough Circumstantial Evidance to Warrant an Investigation". Everybody who cries out "where's the Proof of Fraud" seem to want the without a reasonable Doubt sort of evidence. They are putting the cart before the horse.

It seems to me that the Repubs/Shrub team have been very good at perpetuating this misconception of MASSIVE = Big Smoking Canon or Huge numbers of people in a Conspiracy. They are also good at saying "Well no Fraud has been Proven therefore there is none".

And frankly I don't get the media. Not just TV which is obviously in the shrub pocket, but the major newspapers and even the alternative stuff. When I joined DU after the election I also subscribed to The Nation. Well, one of the first issues I get has an editorial saying "There was no Fraud. Move on." It was really sh*tty journalism. In a Democracy you would think that its pretty obvious that a journalist should be Proving There Is No Fraud when 20% of the electorate thinks there was. Especially an alternative rag - certainly their readership must have a much higher number of people believing the fraud occurred. Instead they sit on their editorial haunches and say "well I haven't seen anything handed to me so obviously there is nothing". That's it. No proof that there is no fraud. Just a stupid statement. I stopped reading The Nation. It ain't my Nation.

trudyco

[merh]

199. Please share with me

Who investigated?
When was it investigated?
Who were the subjects of the investigation?
Who conducted the independent review of the computers and tabulators?
Where can I find a copy of the report outlining the results of the investigation?

Did you watch the movie "Dodge Ball" recently? (sarcasm intended)

[helderheid]

46. Most Dems

are still believing in what they hear on MSM too, which is owned by right wing wackos.

[femme.democratique]

48. Seriously Walt, if you have done a caucus/poll of Democrats...

...please fill us in? Otherwise stop claiming that you know what "MOST" Democrats believe.

[mod mom]

58. thats because of MSM lack of coverage, we who believe

have put much time and effort into reading and stay up on new information.

[Darknyte7]

97. Who said "wide spread"?

Oh... That was you...

I've been reading your posts man, and you are forever using overly broad language. The pattern of behavior we're talking about here is targeted. It's akin to the "red lining" that was so pervasive 20-30 years ago.

Perhaps you should get off of your own high horse friend.

[Carolab]

99. Since when do YOU speak for "most" Democrats?

Do you personally know MOST of them, Walt?

What about the 19% in the Gallup poll who believe fraud occurred? If you extrapolate to the entire voting population (Dems and Repubs) that is 23 million people. Will you allow that many of them are Dems and at least some are Repubs and "other"?

[bobbieinok]

159. because they haven't heard abou t it??? ...

[Darknyte7]

93. Exactly!!! n/t

:grr:

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

12. A *CONSTITUENT* of the Honorable Senator Barack Obama

and it just goes with the numbers, man. 18% in the last poll on the issue is a VERY SMALL minority.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[K3RRY1]

18. to many elsewhere

many here are a laughing stock.

[bobbieinok]

160. why should DU care??

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

25. Fine

buh bye

[AmerDem]

27. that's right back down

This is exactly how we should treat the cowardly bunch that are repukes. Get in their face and they will act the same way!

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[AmerDem]

29. I don't want to ignore

I want people like this brought out into the open!

[Pacifist Patriot]

38. I've got a question about that.

And this seems like a good enough place to ask it. When you put someone on ignore, do they have a way of knowing that was done?

[Walt Starr]

41. Go to options and look at your ignore list

Everybody you have on ignore will show up there. Usualy I don't put people on ignore as a rule, but I've had to put a couple of the more vociferous "believe my way or you must be a Freeper" fraudists had to go on my ignore list recently (i.e. within the past 24 hours).

[Pacifist Patriot]

43. Oh I know *I* can tell....

I'm wondering if the ignoree can tell. I've only once put someone on ignore and that was shortly before the person got tombstoned anyway. I don't need help ignoring people. If I don't want to read something I won't.

[Walt Starr]

47. When you stop responding to the ignoree's posts

most likely they'll get the picture.

[katinmn]

56. I don't know. Someone who has been ignored might know.

That's a good question, though. You can un-ignore at anytime in options. In my case it is a good temporary solution since I hate to be told over and over and over for days that I am invested in a "meaningless cause."

[FreepFryer]

17. In the latest Fox poll, that 18% was 35%

And don't bother asking for my source (oh, wait - I provided it anyway - how nice of me!), I didn't ask for yours.

I do agree with your right to put your Senator in the hotseat.

However, I will still work to support Obama on Jan. 7, regardless, so as to win the greater war against GOP (and Dem) corporatism.

[AmerDem]

26. screw percents,

Let's start equating the 18% to 35% to whole numbers. Small my ass!

[FreepFryer]

53. Problem is,

it's polls. So the totals are widely divergent from poll to poll. %'s are the only value in polls - and polls only tell you what those who were asked choose to answer.

[Pacifist Patriot]

31. Interesting, I'd have expected lower numbers from Faux.

[bettyellen]

95. and 35% from Fox is amazing when we have a MSM blackout.

[Green Mountain Dem]

28. Right On.....

I know I believe all those MSM polls of the past few years...if they show 18% it MUST be true. ROTFLMAO at those fuckin exit polls too..besides Blackwell himself stated it was the best run election yet in the State of Ohio. These freakin minorities are always claiming conspiracy...WTF do they know ????

[Pacifist Patriot]

37. Despite your attachment to the 18% which isn't the last poll on the issue,

I wouldn't consider one out of approximately every five people polled to be a "very small minority," but granted that's just my opinion.

I think your letter is well written, but asking a senator to disregard the communication he's receiving from other citizens and constituents is reprehensible. You may disagree with those of us asking him to contest based on the information we are forwarding to him, but asking him to brush us aside is incredibly arrogant. I have yet to see anyone's letter include a comment that letters from people like you should be dismissed out of hand. You over stepped your bounds on that one.

[bettyellen]

52. Exactly right, it's the most arrogant and manipulative letter and I think

Walt is just interested in wasting our time until the 6th.
He'll probably disappear until it's time to discourage people from acting on another issue.
What a pointless existance. I'm going to use ignore for the first time in my life, he hasn't responded with a decent arguement as to why he is so invested in this in the first place.

[femme.democratique]

54. Right on, bettyellen! eom

[bettyellen]

74. unbelievable, the stones on this fella.

Don't listen to the calls and read the emails flooding in!! Listen to meeee, instead!!
LOL!! Who is dumb enough not to see an agenda there?
I am so sure he believes Obama needed him to remind him to consider the issue carefully!!

(hey walt- that was sarcastic)

[Walt Starr]

55. I recommend you look at my profile

and maybe read some of my thousands of post....

FROM 2001!

[Pacifist Patriot]

63. I looked at your profile.

What am I supposed to be seeing?

What did you say in 2001 and why is it relevant to this discussion?

[Walt Starr]

70. My post was directed at bettyellen, not you

bettyellen implied I would stick around on DU until January 6 and would not be around after that. I was using my history at DU as evidence to counter that charge.

[Pacifist Patriot]

75. I understand it was directed at bettyellen, but

having followed the thread I didn't understand what you were getting at, particularly when you referred to 2001 posts which we are not able to read. I thought you meant content not longevity. I was wondering if you were a big tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nut with regard to election fraud back then or something.

[Walt Starr]

80. Sorry, forgot we are at level 1 loss of functionality

when everything is back, search back in the database, the 2001 posts are still there.

[bettyellen]

90. 3 years of posts i can't read? so what does that mean....

I wonder? Maybe you've spent the last three years trying to convince Senators to ignore some of their mail as well. Not a commendable action if you believe in democracy.
And you are prety savvy at walking the line, using the troll label on a group so you avoid calling anyone out. Not suprising you could survive so long here.

[Garbo 2004]

145. It means he's been here a long time, is not a hit and run poster or a

freeper. Even if the archives aren't available here, try Google and see what comes up.

While the position Walt takes in this thread is controversial to many, in fairness anyone unfamiliar with Walt should view him in context of all his other posts/efforts before they presume to know his "agenda" or his politics.

[FreepFryer]

152. As point of fact, there's no way to 'prove' a freeper unless he suicides

Walt's 4-year-tenure or history does not render him immune from suspicion.

And he's getting that suspicion not for his beliefs, but for his castigation and abuse of others 'in order to save them from disappointment' or 'as a reality check'.

Not community-building, not listening, not working to consensus.

That's what I look for in a freeper.

Not that he is one. :hi:

[bettyellen]

155. I never used the word freeper, but i did point out he was

throwing around the troll label in a vauge way. and that if he indulged in the name calling directly towards a person, he would be warned from the mods right?

[FreepFryer]

156. You cannot expect justice all the time, but yes you're right.

:)

[Garbo 2004]

157. So alert a mod then if you consider a post against the rules.

They're not necessarily reading everything to pick up violations on their own, but will check it out if alerted.

[bettyellen]

163. Like i said, he's smart enough not to call out a single person.

[T Town Jake]

198. The purpose of a discussion board, "Freep"...

is to discuss. I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but political discussions often involve this quaint concept called debate. This babble of yours about "community-building...listening...working to consensus" is just a cheap way of saying I disagree with what the poster is saying, therefore he/she should be quiet. That's not how things work around here, "FReep."

[bettyellen]

154. I did not accuse him of being a freeper, i said he's dismissing

people who disagree w/ him as trolls in this thread and has been spending a great deal of this past week trying to discourage people from merely encouraging a continuation of the investigtion in Ohio. I only presume to know his position on this one issue, and that is searchable in his posts of the last week.. The only other post i found giving a clue to his point of view was slamming Kerry.
Google turned up a little about Bush's medals. That's kind of off the topic, as I didn't suggest he was a freep. Just that he has great interest in this for some reason. That's kind of obvious isn't it?

[bettyellen]

186. yuuck walt, why'd you go ask me to read yer darn posts!! LOL!!

i just confirmed that you've been thinking of little else than discouraging people for the past week.

:puke:

[FreepFryer]

59. in the language of old-school IRC,

+1 bettyellen

[bettyellen]

164. thanks fryer

[eowyn_of_rohan]

177. Why do we waste our time on a guy who asks US to spoon-feed him

all the painstakingly gathered data on fraud, while he poisons our threads and CANCELS out our letters to senators ...

[FreepFryer]

180. Naw, he wishes he was - but he isn't.

He's noisy, but he's not achieving his goal. He's actually focusing us wonderfully.

Remember - judo. Use your enemy's strength against him.

[merh]

62. link?

:freak:

[Walt Starr]

66. Sorry, it's 16%

Harris Poll, 81% believe it was conducted fairly compared to 16% who do not:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=520

[Pacifist Patriot]

72. Did you look at the date of that poll?

[merh]

125. Not quite what you stated - also poll was Nov. 17

Democrats
68% fair 27% unfair 4% unfair

====================

If polled today, the numbers would be much different for repugs & dems.

[stellanoir]

13. Walt,

I've paid attention to the political scene for a good long time. Obama is one of the few politicians that I've ever observed who has a seemingly uncorruptible soul.

I've been wrestling in my mind as to whether it would be better for him to adjust and tow the party line, or totally be an upstart and cry "foul," in defense of all those disenfranchised Black voters.

I think your letter was really even handed.

Congrats.

[Walt Starr]

16. Thank you

If he has been wrestling with his conscience over something he has that we don't, I am hoping my letter will allow him to vote his conscience.

He is the only genuine human being in politics, IMO. I've know a ton of politicians and Barack Obama is the real deal.

[Snivi Yllom]

15. awesome post and letter

And although you easily can take care of yourself, don't let the incoming flamers get you down. You are right on this one.

[Walt Starr]

21. I appreciate it

Realists have to stick together.

:grouphug:

:pals:

On Edit: I've put the worst trolls on ignore.

:D

[bettyellen]

34. Nothing, from what I can see. You support the obstruction of justice....

in Ohio so that evidence won't be gathered.Remind us again Walt why you are so invested in stopping the investigation?

[bettyellen]

165. and have ignored the tough questions over and over again.

[LittleClarkie]

35. I think you'd be more into fraud talk

If the candidate was someone you supported more strongly.

[mattclearing]

36. Great letter and post.

I can respect that you aren't convinced.

I'm convinced just because of the mass of circumstantial evidence that points to Kerry winning.

Still good for you for bringing up the issue with your fine new senator. Let's hope your faith in him is well placed, either way.

[SaveAmerica]

40. It doesn't appear that you have confidence in his ability to make

the right decision since you're telling him which e-mails to take to heart. I love that you think yours is the mail he'll pick out and take to heart.

[hholli1]

42. oh...THERE WAS FRAUD in the 2004 Election...

and I don't think Mr. Obama should commit political suicide in order for YOU to "really" believe there was fraud in the 2004 elections. Like it or not, he is part of a system, and a very engaging man. He will not alienate red state people at the behest of your ego. His message is always about unity. In fact, a second Bush term gives Barack Obama more of a chance to shine by comparison.

Look, NINE HOUR WAITING LINES are proof of fraud. It is a civil rights issue to be sure. The Geneva Convention states that PRISONERS OF WAR are to be treated better than Ken Blackwell saw fit to treat some American citizens.

NINE.

HOUR.

VOTING.

LINES.

I don't need statistical anomalies, I don't need someone to stand up on Thursday, I don't need exit poll descrepancy. NIE HOUR VOTING LINES is all the proof I need.

And they got away with it. There is no "shock and awe" "da capo" assault that is going to change a thing. We need to work systematically.

And LOCALLY.

We're all national political junkies at heart. That makes local activism awkward. The answer is out there somewhere...our message IS getting out and more and more, people are getting "buyer's remorse" with this guy.

The point should be, I think, not to alienate those people by smearing their nose in it when they come to their senses. We need to be nice to those considering jumping ship.

Bush's actions will be his own undoings. The media can't keep him covered all that much longer.

[Walt Starr]

51. Poor planning is not fraud

it's incompetence.

:eyes:

[FreepFryer]

57. When black precincts have fewer machines than they did in the Primary,

And many other machines go the whole day in storage unused, that's not poor planning, that's disenfranchisement.

Source: see Conyers, the forums, and the wikipedia for excellent sources on this topic.

[mod mom]

65. It's not poor planning when the results favor one party over the other!

[bettyellen]

69. So willfully ignoring requests for more booths is"poor planning" is it?

Interesting slant on things. You have an excuse for everything, don't you?

[Terre]

143. Just some definitions of "fraud"

Courtesy of georgia10's research, I'm copying a portion of what she included in her "Guide to the 2004 Election":

Actionable Fraud Defined

Fraud: n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right.(1)
Constructive fraud: n. when the circumstances show that someone's actions give him/her an unfair advantage over another by unfair means ... the court may decide from the methods used and the result that it should treat the situation as if there was actual fraud even if all the technical elements of fraud have not been proven.(2)

Common Definitions

Fraud: n. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.(3)
Fraud In Law: n. fraud that is presumed from the circumstances although the one who commits it need not have had any evil intent.(4)


(1) http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=785&bold=
(2) http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=318&bold=
(3) http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=fraud
(4) http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/fraud+in+law

#2 & #4 Appears to hit the mark quite nicely, considering the facts we do know, don't you think?

[bettyellen]

158. sounds like fraud to me... and the intent part is hard to prove

we know Walt, we know- which is exactly why the investigation should continue, and not be discouraged.

[Laurab]

49. Ahh a direct line to the one non-corrupt politician!

And if he reads your letter and does what you tell him, then both you and he are right? Actually, I don't really care what would convince you there was fraud, but I do wonder why you insist that there wasn't. Obama seems like a great guy - he's also a brand new senator who is probably not in the position some long-time, more secure, senators are, but I am happy he has your permission to at least look at the fraud report.

Oh, my last sentence did contain a bit of sarcasm.

[Walt Starr]

61. I'm glad you poiinted out it was sarcasm

Notice I urged him I made no demands and I let him know that regardless of his decision on the matter I would be supportive of him.

So, I suggest you try and convince him to stand up if you believe tehre was fraud. If you aren't a constituent, though, I doubt your letter would be considered as important as one from an actual constituent.

[karlrschneider]

50. Sensible letter, Walt. Uh, I just asked my Magic 8-Ball "Was it fraud"

answer: "Without a doubt." So is that good enuf fer ya?
:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[berni_mccoy]

68. So basically...

If Fraud happens in the wilderness and no one is there to witness it, the Fraud never happened?

Like a tree that falls that no one hears it fall, the fact that the tree lying on the ground says that it DID INDEED fall, even though it's only strong circumstantial evidence to the fact.

Same goes with Fraud. There is plenty of strong circumstantial evidence to prove it. It's just like everyone is looking at this dead tree lying on the ground and saying it must have grew from the ground that way.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who has read this forum and looked at all the evidence that's out there AND has been collected has any doubt that fraud did happen.

[Walt Starr]

83. Don;t try to convince me

Convince Obama!

[berni_mccoy]

91. So...

Does that imply I had an impression on you?

The only way we'll convince senators is if we convince a growing number of the voting population.

I understand people's fear of thinking our system encountered fraudulent activity, but it's nothing new really. People have been stuffing ballot boxes since democracy was born. What's new is that a small group of people can pull it off in a NATIONAL election, mainly due to technology.

BushCo has been very successful at keeping the opposition controlled with fear and they are doing it now by labelling anyone who even thinks of suspecting fraud as a lunatic. I'm sure they are even planting a few themselves to make it look even less credible (they did this for the election anyways... misrepresented dems to voters).

There is way too much evidence available. What I can't understand is the fear of the Dems to speak out on this issue. The republicans don't seem to be afraid to scream fraud (see Washington state governer race).

IMO, it raises a BIG RED FLAG!

[Walt Starr]

102. No impression on me

I trust Obama 100% on this one. If you convince him, I'll come back after the two hour delay in Bush being officially named the winner and admit I was wrong.

[KerryOn]

173. I thought your thread that started this said:

"What will convince ME?"

They/We are trying to convince you.

[myschkin]

76. Walt Starr

you are really ignorant. You even wouldn't support a recount in Ukraine if you had lived there at that moment ("oh this are only Exit Polls... where is the hard proof?").

You don't believe in Conyers and Jackson, but only in Obama? Why do you think they fight for this when there is no evidence of fraud?

It seems to me that you are cold like a fish and have no feeling for justice - because injustice happened...

You don't understand that this Bush team do everything to have success - EVERYTHING. They have no moral thinking as they prooved many times.

So why are you so naive - and support the wrong side?


PS: Please believe me, that Clinton and Co. don't support this because they are not fully informed (and don't see through)...

[Walt Starr]

96. I love the smell of ad hominems in the afternoon

Smells like...

Victory.

[suziedemocrat]

78. a signed confession from Rove might convince them - maybe not? n/t

[liam97]

86. only if the signature is verified

honestly - I am finding it really difficult to tolerate this "no evidence: stuff any more

[Walt Starr]

89. Then I suggest you present some evidence

:hi:

[liam97]

98. Oh no I have no intention of presenting evidence

just as you appear to have no intention of looking at all the evidence that is there. If you consider them invalid, I consider your skepticism invalid and just like you will keep going from thread to thread and repeat my refrain "I am sick of the no evidence stuff". Works for me.

[Walt Starr]

109. I've looked at the so-called"evidence"

:eyes:

Like I've been saying, if Obama is convinced, I'll be convinced.

[troubleinwinter]

88. "It's simple, really"

Obama is not on the ground investigating.

Maybe you should read some threads about what is going on there in Ohio by the volunteers that are/have been witnessing utter filth in the election and recount.

[Walt Starr]

94. It's simple, really

Obama is in the position to stand up. According to some of the more rabid fraudists on DU, Conyers sent evidence to the Senators on his list that we are not privy to.

So convince Obama. He's an accomplished legal mind. If you have a REAL case with REAL evidence, Obama will stand up. If it's hokum, he won't.

[Kota]

100. Do you not consider

the long lines and the limited machines in certain counties proof of
fraud. Surely you will admit that voters were disenfranchised?

[Walt Starr]

111. Nope, I consider it evidence of incompetence

not fraud.

Happened in primarily black districts and it happenedin primarily white districts too.

It's not fraud, it's incompetence.

[Kota]

120. It was intentional, that makes it fraud.

[livvy]

128. It happened in Kerry districts. n/t

[Snivi Yllom]

115. that's not proof of fraud

That's evidence of election problems. But certainly nothing that affected the outcome of the election. And that's what Walt was adressing in his letter to Obama, as January 6th is about certifying the election, not solving election problems by unjustly contesting the election results.

[Kota]

126. They had the extra machines until

Blackwell says under oath that he didn't intentionally withhold them
its intentional.And its fraud. He has talked alot, but not under oath.

[troubleinwinter]

118. If this is how you care to devote yourself, fine.

"If Barack Obama stands up to contest the Ohio slate of electors, I will believe 100% that there was fraud in the election."

You needn't form any further opinions at all. Just see what Obama thinks. Don't do your own research or formulate your own ideas. Obama can do your thinking for you, and you can just go along with whatever he says.

Easy. Nice. Hope he never lets you down.

[Walt Starr]

122. According to some of the more rabid Fraudists on DU

Conyers presented evidence to the Senators on his list which was not public. If that's the case, I have to hold out the possibility there is actual evidence of fraud. If that is not the case, Obama will not be standing up as he has already made his opinion on the evidence from Conyer's hearings abundantly clear.

[troubleinwinter]

140. Dude, if you hang your hat on one politician from a state senate

rather than your own research and personal opinion and belief, then... there ya go. Help yerself.

Personally, I would think it's pretty stupid to give over my judgement to a politician, but that's just me.

[Walt Starr]

142. I've done my own research

and like Obama, the evidence is not compelling to me.

So holding out the possibility that the Senate has some astounding evidence that Conyers presented is a must, and Obama is the only one I trust to make the right decision on it.

[brindis_desala]

101. So African-American disenfranchisement is a black problem

not a problem for "responsible" Democrats like Walter who thinks double standards are justified since poverty has its inherent disadvantages. Great take on democracy. If Walter does represent most Democrats this party will never win another election. Not only will the Republicans own all the machines what's left of the middle class is going to be poor and busted standing in line for a day and a half to cast their faith-based vapor votes.

[Pacifist Patriot]

105. I agree.

The attitude with respect to precinct disparities based on either economics or race doesn't seem very, um, democratic.

[Walt Starr]

107. Oh yes. that's exactly what I was saying /sarcasm

:eyes:

I am The honorable Senator Barack Obama's *CONSTITUENT*.

:eyes:

He's my SENATOR!

:eyes:

I supported him when he was a nobody in the primary, worked for him, donated to him, and voted for him twice!

:eyes:

So yes, this whole thing was a race issue. /sarcasm

:eyes:

[brindis_desala]

121. you miss the point entirely

Obama is the ONLY black senator so you expect him to carry your water even though he's a freshman. How about trying your senior senator...I believe Mr. Durbin is a Democrat too.

[Walt Starr]

124. Obama is the ONLY POLITICIAN I TRUST 100%!!!!!

It has nothing to do with the color of his skin. It has everything to do with the content of his character!

:eyes:

But no, this is all about race. /sarcasm

:eyes:

[brindis_desala]

132. Educate yourself . You have no clue what democracy is about

[Walt Starr]

133. Uh,.....yeah. I do know what Democracy is about

It's not about twisting statements about my Senator into a race issue, that's for sure!

[Terre]

181. I think Obama is great as well

however, I certainly wouldn't put him on such a high pedestal. The man is human after all, not God. And I would bet my life that he's not 100% right on all issues. Why you think he is, is beyond me.

I hope you never find yourself disappointed in your idol worship of him.

[Land Shark]

106. I will post report on fraud by 8 pm PST

You be the judge of whether the evidence is there or not, but it is interesting, to say the least...

[Land Shark]

108. Make that 8 p.m. EST

[IndyPriest]

110. Is it just Obama, or would you take another senator? n/t

[Walt Starr]

112. Obama is the only politician I've ever met whom I trust

I trust no other poltiicians like I trust this man.

I voted for him because I trust his judgement on issues like this.

[IndyPriest]

123. Gotcha. But if you got Levin?

Just trying to understand how your head's thinking this through. I can imagine the 6 or 7 "possibles" sitting in an office Wednesday afternoon trying to decide how they might do this, who should, etc. For a lot of reasons, they might want Obama to hang back and let a "seasoned" guy do it. I understnad the trust issue, but if that's the way they work it, would you accept someone else, like Levin?

[Walt Starr]

127. I'd have to wait and see

Like Boxer, if she sees a political advantage in it, she'll stand up. That won't convince me.

That holds true for most of them.

But in Obama's case, if he truly believed fraud took place based upon the evidence he has, he'll stand up. That's the character of the man!

so I'll trust Obama's judement on it. If he truly does not believe there is a real case, he'll vote that way. He's got an impeccable legal mind, so if the evidence for fraud is there, he's standing up.

[RaulVB]

113. Who wants to "convince" YOU? (n/t)

[livvy]

117. 0%, 2%, 5% Maybe

The whole point is there are too many people who do not have faith in the outcome of this election. When you have 16%, 18%, or more of the people who feel there was a problem, there...was...a...problem! What,do you think all these people who reported waiting in lines, having * name pop up on the screen over and over again, when they kept choosing Kerry's, and those that got sent from one precinct to another and back again were lying? To what end? Why would there be so many reports of problems if they didn't exist?
This is about fair elections, with everyone having the equal opportunity to cast their ballot. This is about having a voice and faith in the system. Even the lowball figure of 16% means there was a problem. I would like to see the proof that the election was fair and equal. So far all I've seen is the proof that it wasn't.


What are they hiding?:think:

[L. Coyote]

130. How about if you saw for yourself, would you believe then. Here it is

just discovered in the last few days, more to add to the growing list.

Read the details here.

snips

"How Kerry Votes were Switched to Bush Votes!"

"Every time one vote is switched from one major candidate
to the other, the margin changes by two votes! ... Every switched vote counts twice! "

"... the most alarming aspect of this breakdown is the non-random distribution of the ballot order combinations. For some reason, the subset where major candidate votes can be switched is two-thirds larger..."

and located in high Kerry support areas to maximize vote-switching.

"How much of the punch card correlation is attributable to switched votes?
This graph illustrates how the percentage of Bush vote change from 2000 has the
strongest correlation with Bush votes in punch card counties. Is vote switching the reason?"


Another tip of the iceburg rolls to the surface.
....

[Walt Starr]

134. Really, I've already seen that

and I consider it the most whacked out conspiracy theory of the bunch!

[L. Coyote]

200. Perhaps you need to look closer before throwing mud

It has nothing to do with conspiracy or with theory.

It is simple probability and the mechanics of Cuyahoga County voting.

Voters are defrauded, but the site does not say there was a conspiracy. It shows how votes are switched and where, when, and why this happens.

What's whacked out is that a state conducts an election in this manner.

The non-vote rate is down dramatically in Florida after getting rid of punch cards. That's one aspect of defrauding voters, taking away a percentage of their votes.

Placing multiple ballot orders in one location is another aspect of how voters are unnecessarily defrauded. The ballot orders could just as easily be rotated without placing multiple orders at the same location. In fact, a whopping 2.94% of the Cuyahoga precincts are at locations with multiple precincts and only one ballot order. At those very few locations, the voters cannot be defrauded if they cross-precinct vote!

On second thought, Why would someone set up an election this way? Maybe there is a conspiracy. No, they would have to be pretty whacked out to do that. After all, it just too easy to see what was done.

Don't you think there is a need for reform in the way Cuyahoga conducted the election?

Are you not concerned about the number of voters whose intent was either altered or not recorded?

You don't need a conspiracy to defraud voters!!

[scottxyz]

138. Sorry, Walt - You have the burden of proof backwards

There is no need to prove fraud.

What is needed is proof of legitimacy. We certainly don't have that - therefore, we must conclude there may have been fraud.

[Walt Starr]

141. Not accoding to the constitution

I suggest you read that document with regards to this issue.

[fooj]

148. The wording of the Constitution is general, Walt!

That is why this country has been feuding over it for years. You must know that!

[Vektor]

149. While I certainly see your point...

The MSM has hardly addressed the Election irregularities. The 18-20% I have heard reported that do doubt the validity of the election, are the people like us, who actually SEEK information instead of gulping whatever is spoon-fed to us by the cable news.

Think of all the elderly people who never really use the Internet. All the middle American family folk who do not have the time or wherewithal to seek the truth when they are just primarily concerned with their day to day life, their kids, their soccer games. They cast their vote on Nov. 2 and never gave it a second thought.

If ALL people were privy to the information that all of us on DU are, there would be a skyrocketing number of people who doubted the Election. Not everyone takes a hearty interest in politics like we all do. Very few know anything about these matters we have all been discussing.

How would they? It's not on their local evening news.

[The Gigmeister]

166. "A very small and vocal minority of the Democratic Party"

And they have the nerve to tell the rest of us that WE'RE destroying the Democratic Party!!

It's sad...

[Verve]

167. Yeah right Walt! A newbie is going to start out his political career

by pretty much flipping off the majority. It would be great to see but I don't think so.
We need some hardened politicians to do the job!

[deacon2]

168. What is your point?

That only another person can make up your mind for you and that person has to be Barack Obama? Have you tried weighing things for yourself? Whether or not ANY Senator stands may have much more to do with careering than giving a damn about America. And it won't change the facts one way or another...

[KnowerOfLogic]

171. Don't expect any truth-telling from Obama; he's already drunk

the kool-aid.

[KerryOn]

174. This is a good letter.

However;

>>If, however, John Conyers has presented you with evidence that is currently not known to the public, please weigh that evidence. I have every confidence in your ability to make the right decision in this matter and will support your decision whatever it is.<<<

Isn't the evidence that has already been presented enough?

I realize that {out right fraud} has not been proven, and it can not be proven, unless there is an investigation.

There is, in my opinion, enough evidence to warrant an investigation, that could prove fraud, by some individuals.

Why does new evidence have to be presented, before you ask that your Senator contest the election?

There is surly enough evidence to prove that our voting system has some major problems. It appears you are asking your Senator to ignore all of these problems.

What type of new evidence do you think it would take to convince your Senator to contest?

[Walt Starr]

193. There is only one way to justify failure to certify the electoral votes

Absolute proof of fraud. Anything short of that is not compelling enough for any Senator to stand up. In fact, it would be a measure of incompetence in a Senator if there was no absolute proof of fraud.

Nope, an unprecedented move lkike this will shut down the electoral process if there is no absolute proof of fraud. This sort of reckless behavior would bite us in the butt quickly. Imagine a Democratic president being elected in 2008 with a Republican controlled Senate. If one Democratic Senaotr does this now without incontrovertable evidence, no Demcrat will EVER be elected president so long as the Republicans control the Senate.

[marcologico]

175. Nothing, obviously.

Obama is the last guy in DC who's gonna stand up on Thursday so it's a safe bet to look to him. Your illusions are safe.

[BigBearJohn]

178. Anyone who can't SEE there is fraud involved in this election - - -

must also believe that Shrub is a wonderful, intelligent president
and only has our best interests at heart. Oh, and, uh, Cheney
is still not convinced there are no WMD's in Iraq. Go figure.
Maybe Obama should go have a talk with him.

[tritsofme]

182. Nice letter

my sentiments exactly.

[eridani]

187. Do you know the difference between 'proof' and 'probable cause'?

From Ernest Partridge, http://www.crisispapers.org/

The preceding is a partial list of clues and evidence that the 2004 election was stolen. But it does not add up to proof-positive that such a horrendous crime against our republic was in fact committed by the "winners" of this election. This lack of proof gives aid and comfort to those in the corporate media who insist that we "get over it" and "move on," and who dismiss these investigations as the work of "conspiracy nuts."

This dismissal disregards an essential point: forensic investigation does not begin with proof. Its objective is to end either with proof of a crime and apprehension of the criminal, or with exoneration. Forensic investigation properly begins with probable cause. And probable cause of a stolen election is, I submit, inescapably before us.

[pointsoflight]

191. He's in the worst possible position to step up here.

Obama's great, but he's the last one who should be stepping in here. If he had any inclination to step in, I'm sure his colleagues would strongly advise against it.

In other words, whether he steps in or not says nothing about his beliefs on the election issues.

[FogerRox]

195. yeah I agree-- Obama is a Globalist--hes more like Clinton the best Repub

President in decades--Obama-is not a true McGovern Democrat--or even an FDR Democrat

[AtLiberty]

196. I smelled a rat...

...when not a single Republican was remotely concerned about machine voting fraud before or after the election. In fact, they're busy buying more machines to be in place for 2006.