« Whither the Swing State Project? | Main | Bush Pulling Out of PA »

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Massive Voter Fraud in Nevada

Posted by DavidNYC

This story is getting a lot of play in the left-blogosphere, but not enough in the media: Apparently, a private voter registration firm working in Nevada has been collecting registrations - and then throwing out those marked "Democrat." Bastards.

More from Tapped, DailyKos, TPM. If you're in Nevada and you or a friend has registered Dem recently, you should double-check to make sure your registration is valid. This is an outrage.

UPDATE: This shit just doesn't fucking end. Read this summary and prepare to get really, really angry. Then, call ACT and get out into the field to fight these bastards.

Posted at 12:38 PM in Nevada | Technorati


Love this site. The same voter registration fraud racket is going on here in Portland, Oregon. Local news intereviewed a canvasser downtown who was both 1)throwing away democratic registration cards and 2) getting paid for it. The Republicans here deny any knowledge. Also, the woman running BC04 in Oregon denied any knowledge. Frankly, though, I find it hard to believe that the canvasser would do this on his own. In his words, he's in it "for the money."

Posted by: MarkPDX at October 13, 2004 02:07 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

All the more reason for those who can to be actively engaged in voter protection and registration, especially on the Big Day itself. I know of one drive in Nevada particularly targeted at young Asian-Americans, the least likely group to vote. Let's all get out and help each other!

Posted by: shimamoto at October 13, 2004 02:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Unrelated topic, but Bush seems to have decided to pull out of PA. He is not advertising in Philly, an expensive market.

This is good news for Kerry, no doubt. Bush may have decided that its worth defending Ohio and FL, since he can win merely by defending.

Posted by: erg at October 13, 2004 02:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Not just Nevada, but all over the U.S., but the same Republican National Committee-backed firm. Check out Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/13/15534/960

Posted by: Jordan Barab at October 13, 2004 03:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Let me start by saying while I'm not enthusiastic about John Kerry, I find him and more importantly, the Democratic party, far more palatable than the GOP alternative for a variety of reasons. Yet regardless who wins the upcoming election, I find it alarming and profoundly sad that there in one thing we ALL might agree on: Clinton's reelection in 1996 could be our nation's last presidential election to be viewed by the vast majority of Americans (Republicans and Democrats alike) as "legitimate" and fairly won. I have been following this 2004 election campaign more closely than any other in my lifetime, and there is much for all of us, on both sides of the political fence, to be gravely concerned about. Probably around half of all Americans feel the 2000 election was stolen from Gore in Florida, and I hear people on both sides saying that if their man doesn't win in 2004 it will be due to voter registration fraud, dirty politics, tampering with the ballots, disenfranchising certain voters--you name it. The voting machines in Florida and Ohio, Democratic voter registration forms being dumped in Nevada, perhaps thousands of people registered to vote in Florida as well as New York or another "home" state, purging of voters on voting lists, illegal immigrants voting. . .and on it goes. Over the past several months I've read election horror stories coming from both sides. The election hasn't even happened yet, and already the Republicans and Democrats are sowing fears and convincing themselves and each other that the only way their man can lose is by having the election stolen from them. And maybe they're right, who knows? I can't even imagine how ugly it will be if we have yet another election determined by the Supreme Court. That's certainly not out of the question, and it's pretty scary to think it could happen again, isn't it? There's definitely enough animosity, hysteria and paranoia to make me wonder if our poor country is going to be more divided than at any time in its history since before the War Between the States. All I know is this has me feeling depressed and deeply concerned about the future of this country. I don't know how much more I can take of this, let alone how much more the United States can take of it before it really does prove to be our ultimate undoing. Let's face it, when roughly 50 percent of a nation views its president as illegitimate, we all lose in the end.

Posted by: pepe at October 13, 2004 04:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Clinton's reelection in 1996 could be our nation's last presidential election to be viewed by the vast majority of Americans (Republicans and Democrats alike) as "legitimate" and fairly won.

I don't even think this is true. Republicans have long clung to the utterly false claim that Perot handed Clinton a victory in 1992. (Chris Bowers, among others, has thoroughly debunked this.) The GOP has always fundamentally viewed Clinton as "illegitimate" in some way.

But I don't take as dim a view. I think one day, not too long from now, a Democrat will be elected president by a substantial margin. Kerry `08 comes to mind.

Posted by: DavidNYC at October 13, 2004 04:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The transcript from the CBS story is available at http://jabbs.blogspot.com

Posted by: DM at October 13, 2004 04:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Massive voter fraud by both Dems and Reps is the news????? I think I have other things to worry about, like a safe America and a GLOBAL war to win.

Posted by: Great Hunter at October 13, 2004 05:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I knew it, the only way they can win is to cheat! Nevada is going Kerry mark my words. If he gets a large turnout in Clark county; he will squeak by.

Posted by: godfrey at October 13, 2004 05:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

pepe, I've said for the past month that there are likely to be riots after this election no matter who wins, particularly if the margin is razor thin and the outcome is determined by a few hundred votes in one or two battleground states. A country as polarized as ours can't sustain its civility through more than one controversial election, particularly when the stakes are as high as they are in 2004, as opposed to what they appeared to be 2000. Few would be surprised if rabid leftists took their frustrations to the streets in the event of a questionable Bush victory (or perhaps even a lopsided Bush victory), but I think we all saw in 2000 that the right is capable of their own Gestapo tactics if they feel their man is getting a raw deal. How many of us will ever forget watching those polo-shirted quasi-terrorists mobbing election workers and obstructing a legally mandatory recount of votes in Miami-Dade County in 2000? And how many of us would be surprised if a similar situation produced a mass exodus of bloodthirsty Bush supporters emptying out of their gated communities, country clubs and oil company headquarters to stage another such revolt if things don't go their way this time?

Posted by: Mark at October 13, 2004 05:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

DavidNYC, Perot was a legitimate candidate though, and he certainly did influence and affect the race; but that is not the same thing as voter fraud. Do you really believe that Republicans think that somehow the 1992 and 1996 elections were stolen from Bush Sr. and later Bob Dole? There may have been a few with sour grapes, but I honestly don't recall millions of Americans viewing Clinton as an illegitmate president or a usurper of the presidency. Republicans may have loathed him (and UNJUSTLY so!), but the majority of them to my knowledge didn't question that he won the both elections fair and square.

Posted by: pepe at October 13, 2004 05:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Mark, What you say is truly frightening, and all quite plausible. On the surface our country's institutions may seem quite stable, but just barely below the surface there is much chaos and uncertainty brewing that could very easily upset them and make our nation vulnerable to God knows what.

Posted by: pepe at October 13, 2004 05:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Always, always the bitching and moaning about Kerry, based always on trumped up slanders. When will you Republicans think of something good to say about President Bitch, who stands a fair chance of ending up regarded as the very worst president in the history of the Republic?

Posted by: Marsden at October 13, 2004 06:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

It couldn't be any worse than W!

Posted by: gustav at October 13, 2004 07:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I checked out the JABBS site (see above), and it also has the full press release from Oregon's Secretary of State regarding an investigation of the voter registration fraud charges.

Go to http://jabbs.blogspot.com and click on the comments.

This is kind of a big story, right? I didn't see it on the national news tonight. Just "Air America."

Posted by: GOP cheaters at October 13, 2004 11:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

This fraud is illegal! What can be done? Can we ask MoveOn to run an ad? This is despicable and blatant.

Posted by: Nathaniel at October 14, 2004 10:59 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

It'd be interesting to read a study about voter fraud, to help gain some perspective of which party does it the most. I tend to be cynical about all politicians' honesty, but the GOP seems to have dishonesty down to a science. Bush lies like a rug. No matter how good his statements in the debates may sound, doesn't necessarily make them true - not coming from an established liar. With such people, the words cease to have meaning; it is the actions and the results which determine the truth of such a person. We've seen plenty of those truths about Bush, haven't we? Kerry may be as dishonest as your average politician, but that's nothing compared to Bush. Or his party's leadership.

Are there any of you who have heard rumblings about voter fraud by Democrats in this election year? Whether valid or not, it's good for voters to know about ANY voter fraud, regardless of who's doing it.

When I lived in Texas some years back, there were politicians in a very rural county who were giving out food vouchers to poor folk in direct exchange for their vote. Several people went to the pen for it. They were Republicans.

It does appear that the GOP is much more comfortable with committing voter fraud, but that could be from lack of full information about what the Democrats do. My tendency is to doubt that Democrats do it as much, because greed is a much bigger factor in the GOP. Greed will accomplish what a solid political platform cannot.

Whether Republicans win more candidates into office or not this election is far less important to me than whether a particular Republican remains as our President. If we vote ourselves another four years with Bush, it's going to be...bad.

We're told often enough that we should "vote our own self-interests." But that is a very bad policy. It results in electing politicians who will serve those self-interests rather than national ones. If we want to keep our country free, strong and win back any respect at all, we have to elect leaders who put the country first, and voters' self-interests second - or less.

It's fine to want self-interests served, but not at the expense of our liberty or our standing in the world. Bush caters to the rich, most of whom cater only to themselves, and put themselves far above national interests. They have the power to get presidents elected, and also have the power to destroy our country with their greed. You can say the same things about people who think religion should be a part of our government, electoral processes, or even of campaigns.

Keep religion out! It belongs in the house of worship and in the heart of the believer. Nowhere else. Bush wants to guide our international relations to serve his beliefs about Revelations. Is this a man who can be trusted to guide us all? To protect any of us? Kerry is a solid Catholic, but does not believe in pushing Catholic beliefs on the entire nation. For this openmindedness, many Catholics are actively trying to keep him from being elected. They should be proud that Kerry recognizes that America contains people who are not Catholic, and who also have rights. I'm like Kerry, on the abortion issue; I think it is a reprehensible act when done for personal convenience, but it's also the moral choice of the woman to make. Her decision should not be legislated for her. Like me, Kerry recognizes that this kind of morality is not an appropriate subject for legislation.

Can anyone tell me how Bush managed to give these huge and wildly lucrative contracts to Halliburton without competitive bidding, AND without being accused of violating the law? Where is the outcry for him to be impeached for doing this? Or isn't the crony-ism of a President against the law?

We've got to vote Bush out - and without fraud at the polls. Which means Democrats have to work harder and hang together more, despite the fact that they have many differences - many more than the Republicans do within their ranks. Bush is killing our country financially, and making a laughingstock of us when he's not shaming us. He's inept when he's not being "consistent."

You might spread the word that alQueda is just as consistent as Bush is. Does that make them right? Consistency is only a virtue when the plan is working well. Sticking to it when it isn't is stubbornness and tunnel-vision. Kerry is called a flip-flopper. Sometimes flexible people are viewed that way, because they have one of the best natural attributes for human survival: flexibility. In a world where change occurs with blinding speed, adaptability is the most important attribute any leader can have. I believe Kerry would be consistent, if a plan of his was going nicely, and he'd change to a better one if it wasn't. If that's flip-flopping, may we all have that much wisdom. It's a shame that Bush doesn't. Let's not compound that shame by re-electing this dude.

Posted by: Holly at October 14, 2004 09:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I am a modereate Republican from Massachusetts, an old friend of Bill Weld's--and I even used to like the old President Bush; but I cannot stand his lying, thieving, dishonest disgraceful, ignoramus son. And the country cannot stand him either; he is really the biggest threat to law and the Constitution in 100 years, or maybe since the Civil War. He has no scruples and no morals but far worse for a President, no brains.
It was bad enough when he hijacked the Presidency, and then governed as if he had a landslide mandate, but the REAL crime is the Bushies covering up their lousy record, by lying about everything Kerry did and said in the past 20 years. As a constituent, as well as a journalist, I've seen Kerry up close, and I know he's a good man. Not only would he be a good President, Bush has already BEEN a lousy one! And people still don't get it? They can't see the truth in front of them? The Bushies are a disgrace and they should be indicted FOR MANY REASONS; but Kerry MUST be elected, or else Bush will lead us into worse disaster then we already are. And that could destroy the country!

Posted by: Stanley White at October 15, 2004 10:16 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm in washington state and I was just looking up how to report voter fraud. Last night after a movie a friend and I stopped to have a beer. This
guy came over asked for a cig. and said he just got back from Iraq, so we asked him who he was voting for and he said he already voted twice for Kerry/Edwards, once in North Carolina and he said he had just voted here too. I was very mad and I would be very mad had he said he voted twice for
the current President. So I want SOMEONE to come up with a way for people national to be only allowed to vote once, and if anyone tries fraud,
make it a felony. I want this years voting stopped, fixed and redone.For everyone's peace of mind.

Posted by: SUE at October 17, 2004 02:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Sue, as far as I know early voting in NC doesn't start until tomorrow, which is when I plan to vote. My guess is that guy was pulling your leg.

Posted by: pepe at October 17, 2004 03:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Just because you heard of one allegation on one side doesn't mean that this isolated to one party or another. Voting has always relied on the honor system for the most part. In 2000 it came down 533 votes in one state where our technology had a margin for error of a few hundred votes. I remember seeing a democrat caught by CNN or some other news network using a puncho-matic to make the ballots more "readable" while he was counting them. Such a slim victory was so polarizing that people are loosing there minds over this now. What ever happened to "shame". That used to stop people from doing bad things. Hopefully before the next election we will switch to a national ID system that can be used for security as well as making voter registration easier and more reliable.

Posted by: JonBoston at October 18, 2004 04:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I looked up N.C. Voting and it started on Oct. 14th (Thursday)morning, I saw this guy Sat. night and he said he did this, I don't know why he would make it up. It made him look bad. I told him that what he did was illegal. My friend wanted to change the subject, I just decided not to talk to him at all.

Posted by: sue at October 18, 2004 10:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Don't kid yourselves.

Just for fun, I tried an experiment. I went to google & searched for "voter fraud". I then took a look at each hit to see if it was from an original news source (as opposed to a blog).

If it was from an official news source, I then checked to see who the beneficiary was of the reported fraud.

Democrats benefitted more than Republicans, in a very clear majority of the cases.

And before you jump on me as a member of the VRWC, let me tell you I have voted for Democrats my whole life. Not this year, and maybe not ever again.

Posted by: Bostonian at October 20, 2004 07:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

And before you jump on me as a member of the VRWC, let me tell you I have voted for Democrats my whole life.

I am the king of Prussia. And before you jump on me as a liar, let me tell you that I have only told the truth my whole life.

Posted by: King Jerome at October 20, 2004 07:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I haven't checked but bostonian makes a good point. I mean the traits of republicans in general are to be conservative, straight laced, patriotic, law abiding citizens. When the democrats were running things in the 90s we had tremendous corporate coruption. Companies lying about their books, and fooling investors. Since Bush took office they have been busted.

Posted by: JonBoston at October 21, 2004 02:07 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

When the democrats were running things in the 90s we had tremendous corporate coruption. Companies lying about their books, and fooling investors
Since Bush took office they have been busted.

1) Ken Lay was a great friend of Bush, in fact he was Bush's biggest contributor until very recently
2) The only reason Enron was busted was because they could no longer paper over the cracks. It had nothing to do with Bush
3) Bush's appointed SEC head did nothing about these scandals until they blew up in their faces
4) When Enron was illegally manipulating electricity prices up for California consumers, Bush refused to do anything.
5) During the Republican era, 1980-1992, we had huge scams. Remember BCCI (busted by Kerry), the biggest scam in history ? Remeber the Texas S&L scam (and what was neil Bush doing that time anyway) ?

Posted by: erg at October 21, 2004 02:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Some good points Erg. But one of the few things that I like about Bush is that no matter how good of a friend Ken Lay was, and no matter how much money various companies contributed to campaigns they got no special treatment when they broke the law. They are indicting everyone they can build a case against.

Contrast that with Bill Clinton giving PARDONS to CONVICTED criminals like Mark Rich, just because Hillary's Brother is his lawyer. It was like Clinton was selling get out of jail cards to the highest bidder.

Bush may have been their friends before, but once they break the law, it is as if they are dead to him. I didn't mean to get into a thing on whose is better, just who is more likely to do something shady.

Posted by: JonBoston at October 21, 2004 04:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


Bush broke the law when he sold shares of Harkin stock shortly before they warned of missing their profits. Bush was lucky because his dad was president in 1991 so the SEC did not press charges.

Posted by: DFuller at October 21, 2004 05:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Hmm... I read up and it looks like he might have pulled a Martha Stuart a while back. It's is something that knocks him down a tiny bit in my book, but I mostly judge him on the choices he has made as president. I don't know if those choices were made by him or Cheney or some other advisor, but I feel comfortable with the choices that were made given the information available at the time.

He has a world approach that not everyone agrees with. The effects of transforming the Middle East into a place full of democracies may take 10-20 years to fully be realized. But we found out the hard way what can happen if you ignore the threat of terrorism like we did in the 90s. In the 90s we were attacked repeatedly and did nothing in response. That showed the bad guys that we were a "paper tiger" (Bin Laden's words). So they kept trying bigger and bigger attacks.

I don't know how Bush ended up in the most difficult job on the planet, but he has had the strength to stand up to criticism and keep the pressure on the terrorist, in a spectacular way. It would've been nice for our troops, and for the country, if the Democrats had been more supportive of Bush and the war effort and acted like they wanted us to win, instead of belittling it and pointing out the flaws. I'm from NY and I don't know if 911 felt distant to people in the rest of the country but at least 20 people that I've known to some extent were in the towers. Most fortunately got out unharmed, but some didn't.

I want the president to be a mad dog, that will regime change another country just for looking at us sideways. There are 1000 tons of uranium safely stored in the U.S. that was hand over by Libya the week after Sadam crawled out of the rat hole. Our show of strength in Iraq turned a murdering tyrant in Libya into a reformed criminal that wants to make nice, and rejoin the world. Thanks to Bush���s policies we are running out of enemy countries at a rapid pace.

What���s Kerry about? 20 years is the senate and participation in only 5 bills. That���s one for every 4 years. Kerry voted to cut defense just about every chance he had. He tries to use an opponent���s gay daughter for political gain. He criticizes Cheney for getting a flu shot. The guy is 65 and had 4 heat attacks, he needs the shot. He says Iraq is the wrong war, and that he will get more countries to joins us there. He also says it���s the right thing to do but he would have done it differently. He still can���t make up his mind. He calls our allies the coalition of the bribed and cajoled. After the interim prime minister of Iraq came to speak before the senate, and Kerry found out, he called him a puppet. Poor Alawi he has to dodge bullets and car bombs all day long and then to get called names by someone that might become president. How could anyone trust a guy that has already verbally assaulted just about all of the U.S. allies? These unscripted comments seem natural for Kerry because he is a phony pampas ass and isn���t used to showing people respect.

Go Mad Dog go!!!

Sorry for getting off topic and rambling, that was building up for a while, and just scratches the surface.

Posted by: JonBoston at October 21, 2004 10:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


If your assertion that the U.S. now has in it's possession 1000 tons of uranium handed over by Libya is true, I want to point out that Libya's compliance had much less to do with the invasion of Iraq than it did with the back-channel negotiations the British have been engaged in via the U.N. with the Khaddafi regime over the past 10 years. The British have a much better reputation in the Mid-East than America due to a number of historical factors that are to complex and nuanced to discuss in this forum. That is why it was so important for the U.S. to have the Brititsh involved in the overthrowing of Saddam. And have you noticed that the Brits have suffered many fewer casualties than the U.S. in the present conflict? It is also why the Brits are redeploying to areas around Baghdad. The occupying U.S. forces hope this move will help pacify the Sunni triangle. In Iraq, pre-invasion, the British were always viewed as favorable. Most Iraqi's affectionately knew the Brits as Beni-Niji, a reference to colonial occupying forces in the 1800's. Do you know what most Iraqi's called Americans prior to the invasion??? Beni al-Kalb...Beni al-Kalb means Sons of Dogs. Are you aware of what Islamic ppl. think of dogs????

Posted by: bigguy at October 21, 2004 11:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Negotiating can be a wonderful thing, if the one who���s been bad can be made to see reason. In that region the Iraqi army was supposed to be formidable. Seeing us take them apart in a week may have help Khaddafi see reason. Most of the work was probably already done in the late 80s when Regan sent a missile into Khaddafi's house while he slept as a warning and showed him that we could get him any time we wanted.

The Brits were probably saying to Khaddafi "Listen you better come clean, I don't know how long we can keep the Americans off you."

I'm not sure if it went through Britain, but the U.S. has the Uranium now.

I'm glad the Brits are helping in Iraq. They are more than allies.

As for Islamic people, I don't know what we did in the past for them to call us dogs. I mean the Brits did kind of rule over them for a long time. Do they like that sort of thing? If we rule over them will they like us better?

Posted by: JonBoston at October 22, 2004 01:06 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


You accuse Kerry of being a liar, yet you told one yourself.

"What���s Kerry about? 20 years is the senate and participation in only 5 bills."


Even Bush didn't tell that big a whopper. You really need to check your facts. Bush claimed it was 5 bills authored. So lets analyze that.

You see the right wing kool-aid just doesn't add up. Chimpy MCflightsuit counted only bills that Kerry authored THAT PASSED THE SENATE, AND BECAME LAW IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM. Bush doesn't count any bill that was altered in any way by the conference committee (where house and Senate versions of bills are reconciled) Nor does it count the Bills Kerry Authored that passed the senate, but did not become law, nor does it count any bills that failed, nor does it count any bills Kerry sponsored, but did not author. It doesn't mean Kerry hasn't done anything as the kool-aid distortionist in chief implies. Isn't Oh but wait, a Republican did it, therefore it's ok.

Speaking of lies, here's a few more from your boys. These quotes are all loose but the gist of them are correct.

"Why I don't think I've met Senator Edwards before this debate and I'm in the Senate every Tuesday." Tricky Dick Cheney.
"Do I own a Timber company? It's news to me."
"I don't remember ever saying I wasn't all that concerned with Bin-Laden." George, the Whopper Bush.
"We have a memo from British intelligence that Saddam Hussein obtained Nucular (spelled phonetically how he pronounces it) material from.....(later, after it's found out they knew it was fraudulent before hand) "well that was technically true because we attributed it to British intel."
Yeah. Presenting knowingly false info without disclosure that it is false is fraud. A lie.
"We have evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.... (they don't find any)...Well we know he had programs and mobile labs to develop him....(experts say that isn't true) well we went in because he had plans to start up those programs in the future... He was a brutal dictator. yeah yeah that's why we went in.
"Mission Accomplished."
"Why the boys on the ship made that banner, not my campaign."
"I never claimed Saddam was tied to Al-Quada." Tricky Dick.
"John Kerry, the most liberal man to ever run for President."
Guess your boy forgot Eugene Debs, a socialist eh? Guess he forgot William Jennings Bryan (3 times) William Wallace, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis.
"350 votes for higher taxes" Debunked.
No wait, 98 votes for higher taxes... yeah that's it. Debunked again. It counts proceedural and amendment votes on bills WHETHER KERRY VOTED YEA OR NAY ON THE FINAL VERSION. It also counts no votes on Tax cuts WHERE THE BILL IN QUESTION DIDN'T RAISE TAXES ONE CENT. It also counts, budget target and cap votes THAT AREN'T APPROPRIATIONS BILLS AT ALL!!! Another nice distortion.
By the Bush new math method of counting, I'm sure Kerry could claim over 1,000 votes to cut taxes instead of what he does.
"John Kerry and the Liberals in Congress have voted to raise the gas tax 10 times...
Try once George. Only once has a bill been voted on to rais Gas Taxes. Unless again you count 9 proceedural motions and attempts to shelve the bill or no votes on a later attempt to repeal it that again didn't raise it by one thin dime.

I could print 100s more whoppers from your boys. But I think I've made my point. So I'll quit here.

Now what did your cut and paste from several right wing hack sites have to do with votor Fraud in Nevada?

Back to the subject. If we catch Democrats committing it, we need to turn them in too. But I'm not at all convinved the "I heard this guy say he voted once in carolina and once in Oregon AND HE'S VOTED TWICE FOR KERRY SO YOU'RE ALL CHEATING is anything other than made up BS. You should have gotten his name and turned it in to the authorities. Did you do that? If no you have nothing to complain about, because you didn't do your duty. Now what we are talking about here is a company that has, under the guise of being a non partison GOTV group, has systemicly, and systematically destroyed Democratic Registrations in several states. This is well documented. Your complaint doesn't rise to even close to that level.

Posted by: Kerrywillwin at October 22, 2004 04:00 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Wow, you really see the world through a prism. I'm a seeker of truth. Let me see if you have any good points in there. The bottom 3 paragraphs contain the more pertinent points about votes if you want to skip down.

I may not have been clear. When I was talking about participating in bills, I meant as an author or amender. Like the amendment that would cut 6 billion from the CIA for example in the 90s. I wasn't talking about votes on bills.

Oh yes how embarrassing for Cheney. He said that in all the time he's presided over the senate he's never met Edwards or been in the same room before, or something like that. Cheney sure had egg on his face when Mrs. Edwards reminded him that they had met at breakfast once. I think it would have been a sharper retort if they had met in the SENATE where Edwards was supposed to show up.

Timber. You can own stock in companies and not know what all of their subsidiaries are. I think Bush has had a lot to deal with in the last few years and probably hasn't been in touch with his broker that whole time since he isn't allowed to transact stocks. I don't remember all the subsidiaries held by of stock that I bought more than 4 years ago. As an example I owned Tyco briefly and they hold hundreds of companies and I can't remember more than 2 of them.

The comment about bin laden. You try remembering everything you've said for the last 4 years and the context which it was said. That's just nit picking. You don't hold Kerry to a standard anywhere near that. Kerry can take 5 positions on the war that are all incompatible and then he says "I've been consistent" and you just pretend the previous 5 statements were never made.

As far as the Nucular (Midland, TX spelling ;) ) material thing, there was one report that it happened from the Brits. Then the CIA said it was unconfirmed so people jumped on that. Then it later was confirmed to be true by other intellegence offices and the press hardly covered it.

We went into Iraq because we thought he had WMD, and also because they fired at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone about 400 times since '91. Oh yeah and also Sadam's consistent support for terrorists mostly the ones that attack Israel but some al quada. Iraq used to pay $25k to suicide bombers families. These things added up to Breaches of our cease fire agreement with Sadam. It is a mystery as to what happened to all the weapons that Sadam had. Sadam fail to demonstrate to the UN how they were destroyed. Do you agree with the approach of Kerry who says "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place", 'now I'm going to get the international community to help'. Kerry also said "Iraq was a distraction from the was on terror", 'now I'm going to get more allies to join this distraction'.(Paraphrased) Alawi may be remembered in Iraq as a George Washington like figure, and when he visited Kerry pissed on him by calling him a puppet.

I never understood what the issue was with "Mission Accomplished". He was giving a speech to an air craft carrier that had finished its mission in Iraq. The bombing phase of the war was over, and all the people on the ship were going home. They were done, their mission was accomplished. Since the content of his speech was directed at those people why would anyone think that he was talking about the whole war?

Bushes hyperbole about Kerry's liberalism may have been unfair. BTW, wasn't Kerry was Dukakis's lieutenant governor.

I think a "no" vote on a tax cut is a vote for higher taxes. You may not agree.

I didn't cut and paste anything, I just made some observations. I think it's funny that you think what I said was hackery and the stuff you are saying isn't. Both candidates make mistakes or stretch facts to suit them at times. I could tell you 100s of slimy things that Kerry said. I try to look at what they do and figure out what their character is about. John Kerry���s constant pissing on everything that the U.S. has been doing, for political gain doesn���t seen helpful.

I think that Bush has gotten us through a difficult time with pretty good results. If you think about what could have happened to our economy after the dot-com bubble popped in 2000 and then 911 which cost the economy several hundred billion dollars. The fact that we had such a small recession and now have half the unemployment rate of many European countries is astounding. The fact that we've thwarted so many attacks on the U.S. since 911 is astounding. If we don't get hit between now and the election I think undecided people will walk into the booth and want Bush to keep up the good work keeping us safe.

AS far as the GOTV group, if the accusation turns out to be true, then the people who did that are scum. I haven't heard of any evidence so far so I won't jump to any conclusions about them.

My point was that it's not something I would expect from republicans. Most of the politicians, who have been busted for crimes like smoking crack with hooker in DC (Marion Barrey), and leaving the scene of drunken driving crashes that resulted in a death (Ted Kennedy), and stuffing top secret documents in their shorts (Sandy Burger) are democrats. There are about 20 other examples of that on the Democrats side and on the Republican side all I can think of is Watergate. After watching the Clinton administration set a tone of disrespecting the law, culminating in pardoning criminals for money, I tend to associate law breaking with democrats. More to the point in 2000 when Gore lost by 537 votes he trying to change the election laws after the election happened in order to win. He didn���t care that there were already specific laws on the books that say how things are supposed to be counted. He selfishly dragged the country through that ordeal of challenges in an attempt to change the laws after the election was over and apply those changes retroactively. If Gore had won would he have been so concerned with the methods of counting? Gore wanted to pick and choose which counties to hand count in hopes that he could find the right combination that would give him the lead. Fortunately the Supreme Court ruled that a candidate picking and choosing was unfair.

Posted by: JonBoston at October 22, 2004 06:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment