As if a congressional investigation can put a stake in the heart of the "suppression of the minority" vote canard. And aren't the people who are complaining about electronic voting the same folks who complained about the outdated punch-card system?

Congress investigated all the allegations of the 2000 election and came up with nothing. Not that proof is important when you can merely complain about Republican majority supression when no intentional fraud is discovered.

Ain't nothing wrong with the voting system that a John Kerry win wouldn't have eclipsed...

The point is to give legs to the lefty meme that Karl Rove and Republican officials plan and carry out nefarious deeds (such as an election heist) like characters in an Oliver Stone movie.

Then they break for a working lunch involving scheming with the Swift Boat vets...

Sheesh...

Cecelia,

I smell bait.

"As if a congressional investigation can put a stake in the heart of the "suppression of the minority" vote canard." Perhaps not, but we owe it to ourselves to see. "...Aren't the people who are complaining about electronic voting the same folks who complained about the outdated punch-card system?" I suspect that many who cursed the punch cards in 2000 are also disenchanted with the electronic machines. Does that make either concern less valid? Or is your point that we should simply disregard these as the wailings of chronic whiners?

"Congress investigated all the allegations of the 2000 election and came up with nothing." Woops...Republicans turned down a bipartisan proposal to investigate. Lacking senatorial support, the official request for a congressional investigation stalled. In 2002, Florida settled with the NAACP and four other groups who sued the state alleging various types of election fraud in 2000.

(http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.28A.Election.Fraud.htm)

"Not that proof is important when you can merely complain about Republican majority suppression when no intentional fraud is discovered." We MUST have proof, however, no proof will ever surface if allegations remain uninvestigated.

"Ain't nothing wrong with the voting system that a John Kerry win wouldn't have eclipsed." AS IF in the case of a Kerry win, the GOP would have graciously accept it. If the Washington gubernatorial race is any example, what would indicate that the GOP's reaction to a loss would be any different from those you so vehemently chastise? Were the tables turned, why do you think you'd act differently?

"The point is to give legs to the lefty meme that Karl Rove and Republican officials plan and carry out nefarious deeds (such as an election heist) like characters in an Oliver Stone movie." If you truly believe this, I'll never convince you that some of us really care about election reform. It should be a bipartisan issue, but I doubt it ever will become one.

"Then they break for a working lunch involving scheming with the Swift Boat vets..."

Let's allow the Swift Boaters to gently drift away with the tide, shall we?

-p

The groups trying to raise rabble over the Ohio vote are giving new meaning to the term
"Sore Loserman". I think that most Republicans would welcome investigations into voter fraud, because most if any of it is coming from Democrats. Probably they will find a total lying ideologue like Mary Francis Barry and the Human Rights Commission to conduct it like they did in Florida, which was a total sham.

Rumours are flying around that Barbra Boxer will join the black caucus and object to the Ohio vote. If she does, if she is that dumb, it will just make the leftie Dems look that much worse.

I sort of have an uneasy feeling about all this, though. These people do not give up their delusions easily, and lack of evidence seems not to matter. They are going to keep going on this forever, it seems. Oh well, there are still pacifists around who think we should have stayed out of WWII. The only thing is that they didn't have Keith Olbermann around to pimp for them then.

Now there's a fact-based argument. Thanks for your enlightening contribution.

Paul,

You're right, I mispoke when I said that congress had investigated the 2000 election, it was the civil rights division of the Dept of Justice and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Both groups found no evidence that there was any organized or systemic pattern of voter fraud.

But ya know, what does anything like proof matter when you play the race card. The mere allegation itself is potent, even when it comes with a contradict as the one made today by the Democrats. They assure us that they aren't saying Bush didn't win the election... they're just suggesting he might have gained the office because of the disenfranchisement of what would have to be close to 100,000 people.

And I'm aghast at some sort of point you're trying to make about my statement that Dems wouldn't care about election problems if Kerry had won. You'd think the fact that they focus solely on Ohio, with all it's electorial votes, would overwhelmingly point to that conclusion?

So why the 'apples compared to oranges' reference to Washington State with it's much closer election and out-of-the-blue discovery of uncounted votes?... And is the argument-- saying it proves you guys (Republicans) would demand an investigation if Kerry had won in Ohio... REALLY the point you want to make when you're defending the legitimacy of an investigation based on objective merits and not political objectives?

But hey, why should I be surprised that you'd contradictorally defend something as beng non-political based on your inevitable argument that you're playing politics like Republicans do.

Kerry had millions of lawyers on the ground. he is not participating in this fiasco, and made sure he distanced himself (in Iraq) as it unfolded. If slimy lawyers Edwards and Kerry, along with hoardes of other slimy lawyers, couldn't find anything, what is the protest all about? PAUL, WHY DIDN'T KERRY STAND UP AND PROTEST? WHY DID BOXER HAVE TO DO IT! RETARD

You know, we hear a lot about how Republicans gay-bait and race-bait and the Southern Strategy and what not. But here's a piece written by Shelby Steele after the 2000 election. Substitute Kerry for Gore in the piece and see how appropriate it is for 1/6/05.

As a Southerner, I especially appreciate Steele's point about the cynicism inherent in using unfounded claims and rumors to evoke a shameful period in our history where disinfranchisement was much more than standing in line for hours.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=65000710

‘Race Card, C?’ OUTRAGEOUS! The fact that the NAACP was involved was immaterial--it could have been anyone. They were named in the article, which I included to show that your claim of polka dots and moonbeams in the 2000 election is full of hot air. Race card? Ridiculous.

You go on: "They're (the dems who objected to Ohio's official electoral results) just suggesting he might have gained the office because of the disenfranchisement of what would have to be close to 100,000 people."

While predominantly black, urban precincts were among those affected, the allegations went way past them. That's NOT ALL they were suggesting, even though it was indeed a component of their claims.

You wrote,� I’m aghast at some sort of point you're trying to make about my statement that Dems wouldn't care about election problems if Kerry had won."

Did I say that? Nope. My point was that if W had lost under similar conditions, I doubted the repubs would handle it much differently. I'll give you that Washington State isn't "apples to apples" with the national election. I used it to show only that both parties want to win and will challenge until they hit a roadblock. If you contend that repubs are above such "sore-loserman" behavior, I don't buy it. And yes, it's the "argument I want to make". I never said the investigation wasn't political. I said, "We MUST have proof, however, no proof will ever surface if allegations remain uninvestigated... It should be a bipartisan issue, but I doubt it ever will become one." Reforming the electoral process is inherantly political.

To your comment: "You'd think the fact that they focus solely on Ohio, with all it's electorial votes, would overwhelmingly point to that conclusion." It points only to the fact that Ohio was the only place with allegations that if proven, had a ghost's chance to affect the outcome...nothing more, nothing less. If you care to read more into it, be my guest.

Whimsically, you wrote, "But hey, why should I be surprised that you'd contradictorally defend something as beng non-political based on your inevitable argument that you're playing politics like Republicans do."

What? This is so convoluted readers should take a muscle relaxer or at least take a hot bath to get though it. But why should I be surprised, Cecelia, when put routinely words in my mouth to argue points I never made? In the past, you've accused me of selective reading. At least we have THAT in common.

They took their shot. Now, let’s move on.

Hey, WB (AP, whatever), welcome back... I thought you were through with this blog? I'll add "retard" to my list and as ever, thanks for your thought-provoking, inciteful discourse.

Paul,

I'll admit I'm no writer but that's of little necessity when you make a point of agreeing with nearly all of my assertions.

Speaking of muscle relaxers...you might want to consider your own contortions when arguing simultaneously that cries for an investigation into unfounded allegations of voter fraud in Ohio are politically motivated BUT this sort of fishing expedition is for the good of the country... Afterall, how else will the Democrats find the proof they need?...

Now why would THAT effort be less than bipartisan? Evidently, when your side says that election reformation is badly needed in the U.S., you also mean for YOUR political landscape...

Wow! Not even Anti-Paul encouraged liberals to make a bipartisan effort for the good of the country AND ...oh yeah... it'll help us realize our political ambitions...

As for the race card... evidently you missed the C-Span speeches... One moment particularly stands out: Maxine Waters says she regrets that Mr Blackwell in Ohio is a African-American.

Now that I think about it, maybe this effort has been bipartisan. After all, the vast majority of the Congress and Senate shot it down.

You write swell, C and I admire your choice of words. You come up with words I've never even heard before.

Politics is a conduit through which most social change passes. The struggle to affect any socio-political change is enacted by our elected officials, lawyers and politicians, many of whom have a clear agenda. Change agents also include the media, courts and public opinion, all of which can be manipulated.

I'm not suggesting that all those who participated in yesterday's protest were "politically pure" (an oxymoron?). I'm saying it's all essentially political. When you accuse them of being politically motivated, I don't see that as an egregious condemnation. Find me a politician without an agenda and I'll buy you lunch.

Proven or not, from my white-bread, suburban cubby-hole, I saw in this election, for the first time in my life, things that made doubt the fairness of the electoral process. In saying this, I don't suggest elections have always neen fair.

I've admitted that this election rekindled a long dormant political activism in me, but it probably started back in 2000. Although I was never a huge Gore fan, the outcome of that election amazed me. And when it comes to stupefaction, last year's election didn't disappoint. That we failed to prove fraud is unfortunate, because what some of us saw in this election--while not proven to be fraudulent-- is decidedly different from fair. Until we're able to prove change is needed, suspicion will continue to cloud the process.

Some of your comrades feel I'm a traitor for merely suggesting this. To them, my wanting as seamless an electoral process as is practical is outright seditious. Even so, the right to participate in free and fair elections is the bedrock of the democratic process. If it ain't "broke," don't fix it. But I contend that while it may not be "broke," it's in dire need of routine maintenance.

Well, Paul, you're a swell writer too and I'm absolutely sure that I know a lot of choice words you've never heard before.

I know too that arguments suggesting that the surest way to bring about any needed improvements in the voting process can be achieved by giving a national forum to anyone with a beef, is a very convenient non-sequitur.

Don't believe that could possibly be the case? Why don't Dems try the non-political route and see.

Nothing is stopping you. Paul, from carrying on with your new-found activistism.

Yeah, we won, but youse guys can certainly continue to agitate for change in the system. And while you're at it see if you can remind O.J. to find his wife's killer.

I appreciate your consent to dissent in lieu of your ringing endorsement. You truly have a gift for combining totally discordant objects. Ever consider surrealism?

Impressionism describes it more aptly.

Impressionism describes it more aptly.