Just watched the Nightline piece. WTF?

[smartvoter]

>Not one mention of the Conyers report.
>Not one academic on our side was interviewed.
>Cokie Roberts cited an 89% turnout for Kennedy as highly suspect in 1960. HELLO!!! We had higher than that for Bush in numerous places!!!
>Not one review of variances by technology type.
>Roberts said the machines are reliable, when in fact we have far too many DOCUMENTED problems (never mind what we suspect) documented to make that claim. (This technology gap is a killer -- people who don't understand software don't get that a problem in one machine is a problem in many machines.)
>They actually reported the machine allocation discrimination but turned around and dismissed it as irrelevant.

I have no problem with them presenting the other side -- I would expect no less. But they didn't present this side well at all. They were where we were on about November 4th. Someone in research completely dropped the ball.

[Fenris]

1. Cokie Roberts...no wonder.

[smartvoter]

3. Just one aspect. The whole thing failed to represent this side even

remotely accurately. nt

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. Kookie Roberts?

:puke:

[mdb]

4. Reminded me of something you would see on Fox News.

The Dem they had on there they probably searched (something Fox does) for a Dem who would stand on Bush's side or the rest of the panels side. What BS.

[smartvoter]

5. There were so many credible people they could have put up there. nt

[KoKo]

6. Sounds like they might be doing a "pre-emptive strike" on Conyers....

putting my "tinfoilhat" on...I read that next week Conyers wants to push for more hearings with the Repugs involved.

Why else would Nightline do this show the week of the Chimp's Coronation? And, bring Cokie in to mention JFK's election.

Some of us think our Dems have been involved with vote fraud along with the Repugs...so Cokie brings up JFK and goes back to Chicago with Daley who was rumored to have brought in the vote (bought) years ago?

It seems like something is behind this to thwart an investigation and to head off any publicity about Conyers?

Sorry...maybe this is really too "tinfoil."

[smartvoter]

7. Well, I don't know about motive. It could be that they could only

talk about history because, like so many with their heads in the sand, they don't know the facts. She cited a very improbable turnout for Kennedy in Chicago. We had impossible turnouts (>100%) for Bush in some places. No one even knows the facts, and they wasted time with people who can't even talk about 2004. It was pathetic.

[European Socialist]

8. No fraud here-or those crazy repukes are just imitating dem fraud from

45 years ago. Let's move on.

[genieroze]

9. They should know better, NIXON did get a recount.

This RW lie has been going on for to long and for these media whores to repeat this LIE is disgusting.

http://slate.msn.com/id/91350/