"educate Mr. Wycliff politely"?? That's a tall order. His ignorance is so astonishing, and his condescending tone is so insulting, it may take me several days to find a single polite thing to say ... I hope cooler heads can be found because [though it shames me to admit it] at the moment I am definitely not up to the task.

Hey everyone!

Regarding this quote from the article

~ Jones pointed out that in Columbus and Cleveland--where Koehler says "lines were so long and the voting machines were so few"--final decisions on where to place the available voting machines belonged to local election officials, who in each case were Democrats.~

I've heard this before, I think from Blackwell,
Can anyone help me to find information on this and quotes showing an explanation for it. When taken out of context and used by these "non-conspiracy theorist" (LOL), it gives them alot of power to bury the truth. I want to be able to answer back.

I believe the orders for machine allocations came from above these democrats. But I'm not positive and I want to have quotes to submit to back up my claims.

Thanks to you all....

I think that Wycliff brings up a valid point [if true] that the decisions on the distribution of machines in poor black districts were made by democrats.

However, I wonder a couple of things:

1) Were the democrats in question given an artificially limited "budget" of machines to work with and therefore had to do the best they could?

2) Were most or all of the machines the democrats requested in place and working on Election Day? If so at what time during Election Day? (I've heard that many machines were delivered very late in the day.)

3) Why would Democratic operatives (rather than non-partisan persons) be given that decision?

4) Why are Jones’ "non-partisan" sources not named? Were they unwilling to speak on the record? If so, why? (By the way - it's getting pretty hard to be both informed and non-partisan these days.)

5) Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that all the problems in Ohio were the fault of inept democratic operatives. Shouldn't the national media still be at least remotely concerned with the problems that occurred? the long, long waits caused a large number of people (particularly blacks and young students) to be denied a right to vote. Isn't that a problem in and of itself?

Yes, I agree, I am so tired of being called a conspiracy theorist. It's so lazy on their part. Can't they find anything better. It becoming hilarious because it is so predictable, and it is losing it's effectiveness. It's an embarrassment to them that they can't be more imaginitive.

This is what I wrote at the end of my letter to Wycliff:

......"We, the conspiracy theorists, have heard this so many times it is no longer effective. All of you out there who blindly take everything at face value should think of another way to insult us and get us to back down.
Happy gas prices and corporate profits to you,".......

Thanks to all, and Winter, know that you aren't alone. We are all sick of the denial, hey can't wait to watch GW make a fool of himself tonite. It'll be fun as always.

re: the question raised by Becky in comment #2, I can't tell you much about Ohio but I ran across something very interesting here [and the emphasis is mine]:

Josh Mitteldorf, of the Philadelphia Inquirer, reports from a recent meeting of people investigating 2004 vote fraud:

I met David Griscom, a retired physics prof who spent months with colleague John Brakey poring over election tapes, signature rosters and "consecutive number registers" from Brakey's Tucson home precinct.

They audited and verified, one by one, the 895 votes in the precinct and found: 12 innocent and unsuspecting voters who had their names duplicated on the roster and their votes for Bush counted twice. Twenty-two "undervotes" where the machine had failed to register a preference for president, and these had been dutifully and meticulously converted to 22 votes for Bush.

The "Republican" and "Democratic" co-directors of the polling place were a local fundamentalist preacher and his wife. Thirty-nine of their parishioners from another precinct had cast provisional ballots, which were (illegally) converted to regular ballots and passed through, all 39 for Bush.

I met Richard Hayes Phillips, a geologist from New Hampshire who was invited to Ohio to study the integrity of the vote, and realized that a complete inventory of lost and miscounted votes was needed. To date, Phillips has analyzed 15 of Ohio's 88 counties, and by his most conservative estimate has found 101,000 uncounted Kerry votes - 136,000 is the margin by which Bush officially defeated Kerry.

By the way, my source here is the excellent Australian blog, Bush Out (by Gandhi). This Gandhi fellow is another blogger who really does get it!

What's to stop Bush supporters from registering as Democrats and then being appointed to oversee elections? NOTHING! Don Wycliff doesn't want to believe it happens? Maybe he should be talking to Josh Mitteldorf!

Wow. This is one of the worst "prfoessionally" written articles I've ever read.

He starts off, not by looking at the points made regarding election problems, but by calling a bipartisan group "conspiracy nuts".

He goes on to say that all the problems have been properly explained...except the exit polls, and the Ohio lockdown, and voter disenfranchisement, and the unusually long lines, and the possibility of computer hacking, etc, etc, etc. Other than ALL those things (and more) everything has been explained so stop asking questions.

Then he states that the word of multiple studies adn reports done by statisticians, mathematicians, computer programers, etc that say the exit polls predicting Kerry Won were RIGHT, is not as good as the word of Tim Jones. After all Time Jones talked to a couple unnamed sources.

Then he closes by saying these issues SHOULD be looked at by the media and looked at very seriously. It is their job. But they haven't done it and continue to refuse to do it because really it is only sore losers and whiners complaining.

Talk about deluded. I should be a journalist since the only qualification is being able to stick your head up your ass and make up crap. The hardest part of the job is to routinely ignore those pesky facts. You'd think sooner or later soemthing would get through.

But I guess as long as good ol' Tim is around, who needs investigations and fact checks. Tim knows all!

To: dwycliff@tribune.com
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 5:06 PM
Subject: When winning isn't everything Published April 28, 2005

Mr. Wycliff, with all due respect, you are probably NOT a PhD-level mathematician or computer programmer or other numbers-savvy scientist or else you would not have had to ask ANYONE else's opinion of what happened in Ohio. The reality is that people like you listen to other people like you about matters that neither you nor they have any FIRST HAND knowledge.

Your today's article continues to pass out propaganda that ignorant, lazy, or otherwise motivated, media people have been passing out since Nov. 2. Associated Press, in particular, passes on the opinions of a particular Ohio State University law professor who also appears to be numbers-challenged and, yet, is cited as an "expert." The professor may actually be an expert - but not in relevant disciplines.

If you were not intelligent and a good writer you would not be writing for your paper. Please take a look at the big picture: Do you want this country to be ruled by a single individual? Please do your homework (that has little to do with numbers). Read the speech that Al Gore made yesterday and then tell me if you learned anything. I hope you will do that and I further hope that you will be permitted to write your conclusions after reading the speech. If you would like, I would be more than happy to provide you with additional "pointers."

Here is the link to Al Gore's speech: http://www.algore-08.com..._frontpage&Itemid=78 Please read ALL of it.

Sincerely,

I wrote Mr Wycliff a e-mail. Short and semi-nice.
I don't know why I bother. Just when things seem to be catching fire-it rains.
But tomorrow is another day!

I just re-read the Koehler article & then read Mr. Wycliff's. My, my...guess I gotta write another letter, which I will do, but right now I just cannot contain my initial response to one of Mr. Wycliff's more startling statements:
" Jones said he has talked at length with people in Ohio whose credentials as non-partisan and unbiased are beyond question, and they, he said, "found no irregularities."
NO IRREGULARITIES!!!!!!!!
Well, case closed!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh dear, I know it's rude & unkind to belly-laugh. After all, the poor man! What a handicap it must be for him---an editor, no less!---to be deaf, dumb & blind.

oh yeah and I have to agree with Winter Patriot at this point....polite?
hmmmm
remember that scene in pulp fiction where bruce willis asks ving rhames "are you alright?"...and his response?
well damn, darlin..I'm feelin pretty f***ing far from polite...

The text of my letter to Mr. Wycliff:

You say:

Koehler and those who have been boosting his "silent scream" column make one very powerful point: It is the duty of the news media, as watchdogs of our democracy, to study, identify and shine a spotlight on weaknesses and abuses in our most fundamental democratic activity--elections.

And most of you have yet to study, identify, or shine that spotlight in the US. (Of course, the Ukraine is another matter.)

First, the statistical study itself should raise enormous concern. Plus, it's a little more than suspicious that so many of the discrepancies can be traced to a particular technology (optical scanners), and that the places where Republicans are particularly over-represented, sometimes by over %100 participation, in several highly Republican precincts, are also where investigators are less likely to look for vote fraud. It has been demonstrated and confirmed that it only takes a few partisan geeks in one or two states to hack into untraceable tallying databases. Our concern doesn't merely reflect bitterness about losing an election; it's about the legitimacy of our election process, about losing our very democracy--a non-partisan issue if there ever was one. We want transparency. We want verifiable elections. The very fact that many of Koehler's questions can never be answered is itself the problem. So shine that light (it's your job, for God's sake) instead of trying to turn it off.

I simply told him that the truth always comes out. It always does. And people will know about his participation in the lie.

Notice we're becoming a 3rd-world-country? You don't even see hours-long voting lines in 3rd-world countries! The is the f***ing United States!!! And we have video of hours-long voting lines!!! No one's mentioning how embarrassing our country is, and we're bombing the hell out of other countries, forcing what we call democracy down their throats. If hours-long voting lines are U.S.-brand democracy, we shouldn't be in Iraq!

My email to Wycliffe

"Dear Editor,

Sincerely,
[name]"

That is as PC as I could get with this one!

I guess I am a bit upset to the comparison to the Nixon/Kennedy election, as if Nixon's behavior was exemplary and the "correct" behavior for a losing candidate and victim of fraud. However quoting only one of several articles I read (http://slate.msn.com/id/91350/):

"More to the point, while Nixon publicly pooh-poohed a challenge, his allies did dispute the results—aggressively. . .

National GOP officials plunged in. Thruston Morton flew to Chicago to confer with Illinois Republican leaders on strategy, while party Treasurer Meade Alcorn announced Nixon would win the state. With Nixon distancing himself from the effort, the Cook County state's attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, stepped forward to lead the challenge. A Daley antagonist and potential rival for the mayoralty, Adamowski had lost his job to a Democrat by 25,000 votes. The closeness of his defeat entitled him to a recount, which began Nov. 29.

Completed Dec. 9, the recount of 863 precincts showed that the original tally had undercounted Nixon's (and Adamowski's) votes, but only by 943, far from the 4,500 needed to alter the results. In fact, in 40 percent of the rechecked precincts, Nixon's vote was overcounted. Displeased, the Republicans took the case to federal court, only to have a judge dismiss the suits. Still undeterred, they turned to the State Board of Elections, which was composed of four Republicans, including the governor, and one Democrat. Yet the state board, too, unanimously rejected the petition, citing the GOP's failure to provide even a single affidavit on its behalf. The national party finally backed off after Dec. 19, when the nation's Electoral College certified Kennedy as the new president—but even then local Republicans wouldn't accept the Illinois results."

My comments:

Nixon DID dispute the results aggressively, he just managed to do it through proxies and kept his own name clean. Interestingly what happened is that apparently although there was fraud in Daley's Chicago, fraud by southern Illinois republicans more than offset Daley's efforts. In the end the recount changed the vote in only one state (Hawaii), and even this was reversed when the accounting errors surfaced.

Nixon is no paragon of virtue, and the fraud of 1960 was strictly farm league compared to what went on in the last election.

Vdres & Dredd #s 11 & 14
Great Great Great!!

Do these media shills actually not know that this stuff, this garbage they're calling journalism, and all the attendant commentary, is going out into the rest of the world too? Going around the globe?
I have to quote Jpentz:
"...the truth always comes out. It always does. And people will know about his [their] participation in the lie."

I just cannot help being astonished, again & again & again, that they seem not to care about this!

Thanks for that, Charles.

Perhaps these idiots would be more concerned if they thought "terrorist" could be manipulating the votes from a cave in some foreign country. That might rile the masses!

You all are amazing..

My letter to Wycliff:

Dear Mr. Wycliff,

RE: When winning isn't everything, April 28

Any truly nonpartisan person looking at ALL the facts regarding the past Presidential election (really, the past two) would say that there was something rotten in Ohio and in many other parts of the US. Let me refer you to a far more insightful journalist than yourself, a conservative by the name of Christopher Hitchens, who was actually willing to look at all of the peculiarities in Ohio and came to a more learned and very different conclusion than yours).

You use some ridiculous, anecdotal testimony from your apparent guru, Tim Jones, who himself relays anecdotal reports from UNNAMED "nonpartisan, unbiased" individuals and that is supposed to satisfy us that there were "no irregularities" despite all the evidence to the contrary??!! I would certainly put more faith in "The Conyers Report: What Went Wrong in Ohio" than your conclusions based on another person's anecdotal conclusions based on some other people's anecdotal conclusions.

What Nixon did or didn't do is irrelevant to ANYONE who cares about our democracy. In case you didn't realize it, we are now using closed-code, non-verifiable vote counting machines, produced by a small group of highly partisan Republicans to tabulate a large percentage of votes in this country. In addition, 100,000 votes can be switched in a minute by a relatively unsophisticated hacker while leaving NO TRACE of the act (see Bev Harris AND Chuck Herrin).

The implications go FAR beyond a question of crying over spilt milk. You say winning isn't the sole end of politics- maybe not (although the Republicans aren't acting that way) but honest elections that answer to the true will of the people should (MUST) be. It is never sufficient to say that maybe a previous election was stolen, so what's another stolen election here or there. The ability to steal elections and thwart our democracy was NEVER greater than it is now and it will only get greater if we continue to turn a blind eye.

You point to "one very powerful point" that Mr. Koehler's article makes- "the duty of the news media, as watchdogs of our democracy, to study, identify and shine a spotlight on weaknesses and abuses in our most fundamental democratic activity--elections". Indeed, that is what it is all about. Regrettably, that spotlight is not being shined and it won't be if the so-called mainstream media continues to put out pablum like your article. Amazingly, your column was run by the Chicago Tribune. Mr. Koehler's far more insightful and well-written column, which you slight, was not picked up by any of the flagship Tribune newspapers. Nothing could be more telling.

To number three on your question about the democrats I think we would've heard about it already. It would've been all over the MSM and local news in Ohio and newspapers. Also if democrats were in charge in democratic areas wouldn't they have still had to answer to Blackwell???

Charles #15-

GREAT! I HOPE YOU SENT THAT TO wycliff.

Becky #2, Tim #3 --

There were 81 extra, in perfect working order voting machines, belonging to minority and/or democrat precincts that were withheld by Blackwell, on trucks and in warehouse storage. It is alleged they literally drove around the city with most of them on trucks the entire election day, Nov. 2nd 2004.

The local election officials didn't have enough machines to go around because they were never delivered, despite assurances from Blackwell that all would be fine. In contrast, the primary election (with lighter turnout and one-party voting) in these same districts had more voting machines in use than during the Nov. 2, election day. There were no significant problems reported during the primary.

See: Startling new revelations highlight rare Congressional hearings on Ohio vote

Some great letters here, folks. Better than any I could have wriiten with all that steam coming out my ears.

Thanks especially to Steve for #19. Steve, if you don't mind, I'll change the URLs to links so readers can access your sources more easily.

Thanks also to Charles for #15, debunking the Nixon-was-a-good-loser legend. Pretty hilarious when you think of it. I can't even imagine Richard Nixon putting the best interests of the nation above his thirst for power! But then again maybe I know too much history.

Thanks also to everyone else who kept their heads when a certain occasional guest blogger was losing his! You guys really do rock!

I've been at the keyboard for hours trying to bang out a letter to our friend Wycliff, amid the usual distractions.
I may have composed the world's longest, most verbose run-on sentence. Getting a bit bleary (it's 2 a.m. here) but I WILL finish it.

Obviously Mr. Wycliff is working from that same old, worn out, November 3, "Election fraud talking points" memo. The one republicans and corporate media all seem to be spouting verbose, acapella.

I sent Mr. Wycliff a civil note too but it wasn't pretty. The man doesn't deserve respect and until it's earned it's being withheld. We don't need his help or his "journalism" anyway.

OT...apologies, I'm not sure where to appropriately post this actually, but I wanted to reply...

to Peggy,
re my letter to Pastor....
yes, certainly, y'all can copy any posts of mine, no problem.

and to GrizzlyBearDancer,
You may be right about Kerry...dunno...dunno...dunno...
but I may certainly be wrong any day, any time!....

Hi, Becky #2 - I thought Election Boards were made up of 2 Demos. and 2 Repubs.??? How do the Boards make their decisions?? Are they all joint, or is the work divided up????

I was so outraged about this article that I couldn't help myself and wrote Mr Wycliff.

"Mr. Wycliff:

I read your article entitled "When winning isn't everything" and had a couple of comments and a question or two about it.

In the article you wrote “To his credit, Nixon is said to have rejected a challenge as not worth putting the country through. In other words, winning wasn't the sole end of politics.” I honestly wish it were quite that simple and that I could trust the fact that the regime that did “win” the election wasn’t so bad after all, and that they were looking out for my best interests. But that is obviously not the case. Have you been watching the agenda the “winners” of the 2004 election have been following? In my opinion it’s nothing short of disastrous. I could rant on and on about how Bush and company are ruining the good name of America and write for hours about its failures and lies, but that’s not why I’m writing you.

In my opinion, there is nothing that any politician does of more significance than to preserve and protect democracy. I believe that the electoral system is the foundation of a democracy and if there is even a hint of fraud or deceit that makes citizens wonder if their votes were being counted accurately, that it is incumbent upon those politicians to investigate such charges to the satisfaction of those who question the integrity of the voting process.

Do not be so fast to dismiss the facts of the 2004 election under the guise of some higher minded ideal. To do so undercuts the responsibility you have as an independent journalist, and quite frankly makes you sound like a Republican lackey who’s repeating the same old tired rhetoric that dismisses these serious allegations as “conspiracy theory” or “sour grapes”.

Let me ask you a question. If you were shown physical and circumstantial evidence that there was indeed widespread fraud in the 2004 Presidential election that allowed a criminal to unlawfully take the office of the Presidency, would you fall back on your high minded ideals, shrug it off and say “It’s not worth it to put the public through this controversy.” or, “Well, at least I voted.”

I don’t know who Tim Jones is, the individual you quoted as saying that “people in Ohio whose credentials as non-partisan and unbiased are beyond question, and they, he said, found no irregularities." But have you just accepted the explanations that Edison/Mitofsky spinned off about their own exit polls discrepancies? These are the same exit polls used in elections around the world to verify the accuracy (or fraud) of suspect contests. If so I can only conclude that you are just another journalist that has fallen asleep at the wheel or are not being allowed to ask the question “Could this have happened in America?” And I gather from the point of your piece that this is the case.

That being the case, I’ll simply say get out of the way Mr. Wycliff, because there are a lot of Americans like myself who will not stand for some phony baloney election software firms (who pledged to deliver the 2004 Presidency to Mr. Bush) to count my vote. I’ll not let it rest that a Secretary of State who’s given the responsibility to ensure an honest election takes place goes out of his way to make sure the votes he doesn’t agree with are not counted. How stupid do you believe American citizens are Mr. Wycliff, to not see the absurdity of allowing the Co-Chair of Ohio's Committee to Re-Elect Bush/Cheney '04 to even hold the office of Secretary of State? The fact that you seem to be willing to accept all this as being status quo doesn’t say very much about your ability to report the news in a fair and unbiased manner. That is what you’ve promised to do as a journalist, is it not?

The mainstream media and our current elected officials have abandoned the citizens of this country, and you should be ashamed to write such a spineless piece of journalism. I recommend that you put in a little more work than simply asking one individual for his opinion of the Ohio election outcome, and hanging your hat on that as proof that everything is all right with our electoral system. Fortunately there are a lot of us that will not accept what’s being served up to us and are concerned enough to do something about it.

Sincerely,

Jeff J"

I was so outraged by this article that I fired off a response to Mr. Wycliff:

"Mr. Wycliff:

I read your article entitled "When winning isn't everything" and had a couple of comments and a question or two about it.

In the article you wrote “To his credit, Nixon is said to have rejected a challenge as not worth putting the country through. In other words, winning wasn't the sole end of politics.” I honestly wish it were quite that simple and that I could trust the fact that the regime that did “win” the election wasn’t so bad after all, and that they were looking out for my best interests. But that is obviously not the case. Have you been watching the agenda the “winners” of the 2004 election have been following? In my opinion it’s nothing short of disastrous. I could rant on and on about how Bush and company are ruining the good name of America and write for hours about its failures and lies, but that’s not why I’m writing you.

In my opinion, there is nothing that any politician does of more significance than to preserve and protect democracy. I believe that the electoral system is the foundation of a democracy and if there is even a hint of fraud or deceit that makes citizens wonder if their votes were being counted accurately, that it is incumbent upon those politicians to investigate such charges to the satisfaction of those who question the integrity of the voting process.

Do not be so fast to dismiss the facts of the 2004 election under the guise of some higher minded ideal. To do so undercuts the responsibility you have as an independent journalist, and quite frankly makes you sound like a Republican lackey who’s repeating the same old tired rhetoric that dismisses these serious allegations as “conspiracy theory” or “sour grapes”.

Let me ask you a question. If you were shown physical and circumstantial evidence that there was indeed widespread fraud in the 2004 Presidential election that allowed a criminal to unlawfully take the office of the Presidency, would you fall back on your high minded ideals, shrug it off and say “It’s not worth it to put the public through this controversy.” or, “Well, at least I voted.”

I don’t know who Tim Jones is, the individual you quoted as saying that “people in Ohio whose credentials as non-partisan and unbiased are beyond question, and they, he said, found no irregularities." But have you just accepted the explanations that Edison/Mitofsky spinned off about their own exit polls discrepancies? These are the same exit polls used in elections around the world to verify the accuracy (or fraud) of suspect contests. If so I can only conclude that you are just another journalist that has fallen asleep at the wheel or are not being allowed to ask the question “Could this have happened in America?” And I gather from the point of your piece that this is the case.

That being the case, I’ll simply say get out of the way Mr. Wycliff, because there are a lot of Americans like myself who will not stand for some phony baloney election software firms (who pledged to deliver the 2004 Presidency to Mr. Bush) to count my vote. I’ll not let it rest that a Secretary of State who’s given the responsibility to ensure an honest election takes place goes out of his way to make sure the votes he doesn’t agree with are not counted. How stupid do you believe American citizens are Mr. Wycliff, to not see the absurdity of allowing the Co-Chair of Ohio's Committee to Re-Elect Bush/Cheney '04 to even hold the office of Secretary of State? The fact that you seem to be willing to accept all this as being status quo doesn’t say very much about your ability to report the news in a fair and unbiased manner. That is what you’ve promised to do as a journalist, is it not?

The mainstream media and our current elected officials have abandoned the citizens of this country, and you should be ashamed to write such a spineless piece of journalism. I recommend that you put in a little more work than simply asking one individual for his opinion of the Ohio election outcome, and hanging your hat on that as proof that everything is all right with our electoral system. Fortunately there are a lot of us that will not accept what’s being served up to us and are concerned enough to do something about it.

Sincerely,

Jeff J"

Sorry for the double post

Jeff

This is a letter I sent Wycliff. I'm a little more of a polite Southerner, I suppose, for good or for ill; but I appreciate the passion y'all bring to the table. I think it's good that the Trib is at least feeling the pressure of Bob's work.

Shannon

Don Wycliff,

Thank you for writing the column today addressing the issues brought up by Mr. Koehler's columns. It is always a positive when thinking writers thoughtfully consider issues of the day. I was at the Nashville gathering, as a member of the steering committee. Though you and I agree on several ideas, I think you may not be completely aware of the focus of our group. Allow me to make a few salient points.

1. We are NOT trying to overturn the election. The National Conference on Election Reform, not revocation. You mention Mr. Nixon. Both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore before him, though they may have (like Nixon in '60) had legitimate complaints, decided to concede and go forward for the good of the country. We agree. The final score stands whether the ref made a game-changing bad call or not.
2. Our Conference had Democrats, Republicans, and folks from across the political spectrum. We had the Green presidential candidate and the vice-chair of the Libertarian National Committee.
3. There were many more problems in Ohio other than long lines in the college and low-end neighborhoods. See the information gathered by Rep. Conyers. A Nashville speaker, Joanne Roush, one of the recount observers in Ohio (a Green, not a sore-loser Democrat) saw first hand evidence of not just election fraud but recount fraud, and in a small rural county that went strongly for the President. There are many more observers just like her.
4. There is strong evidence that fraud was committed in most states in America; enough so that Florida, Iowa and New Mexico had votes that, had the will of the voters been counted, would have swung those states to Kerry.
5. Election questions were confined (mostly) to the presidential race.
6. WHAT WE WANT. (a) Fair, transparent, paper-ballot verifiable elections from now on. (b) Continued media scrutiny in observation of the problems that occurred in November, so that media awareness will insure that such problems never happen again.
7. Polls have shown that fully 30% of Americans believe that there was fraud in the November 2004 election. This is not just of group of nutty conspiracy whiners. Even if there was no fraud, it is extremely important to our country that we convince all Americans that our elections are fair.

In conclusion, let me note that I'm merely a guy who believes that our right to come together as a nation and vote, and to be sure that all our votes are counted fairly, is the most precious right we have as citizens of the United States. I am neither an alien chaser, nor an Elvis sighter; and I don't know or care who shot JFK. I would urge you, in the interest of fairness (since you have not seen fit to run the column in question), to run Mr. Koehler's second column on the subject of election reform. I would also urge you to keep considering the facts of the last election and the need for election reform. I appreciate your work.

Thanks for you time,

Shannon Williford
Nashville

Very very slightly OT - the key to Bush's political demise, and electoral reform victory.

http://www.cbsnews.com/s...opinion/main688188.shtml

The above poll says 50% of Americans think Bush deliberately lied to get us into war. My guess is, once you belive that, as I do, there is no going back. Someone can't conclude that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD, and then later change their mind back. It's a one-way street.

How does this relate to our case for possible/probable election fraud?

Well, it's turned out to be easier for people to believe that Bush lied about the war vs. stealing the election. HOWEVER, that "Bush lied" 50% (and growing) population are likely the people who will be receptive to the idea of election fraud - at some point. But the difference between Iraq and election fraud is that the MSM actually has (some) coverage of Iraq, so Iraq is on people's minds, whereas elections are not. I think that if a person TRULY believes that they were lied to about WMD and Iraq, it's not too difficult for them to believe the Bush admin would try to manipulate elections.

The bottom line:
We have to revitalize our efforts to expose people to the truth about Iraq, because it is an easier case to make. As the number of people who believe they were lied to increases to 55%, to 60%, etc, the population will be ripe for the idea of election fraud. If you haven't been vocal with your friends and family about Iraq, do it. It is the route to electoral reform victory, and taking down that cold-hearted asshole we call President. I don't know what "critical mass" is, as far as polls go, but I bet a 60% disapproval is pretty close to it. Our work is to convert 1/5th of the remaining 50% (that's 10%) to the "Bush lied" camp. As the US population gets to that point, making the case for election fraud will become much much easier.

Hey y'all, I finally got a response from Dr. Pastor regarding James Baker, the ACVR, and the commission on election fraud.

Wow, sure took him a long time, given he only had to respond to six or seven different folks *she says with tongue firmly in cheek*

I won't put y'all through reading my entire letter to him and his whole response, but I will say, though I think he's blowing smoke for the most part, he was very polite (am I wrong to be surprised)?

Anyway...

Here's a very brief cut and paste:

*****

from my letter: However you feel about
our statements regarding the makeup of the commission, I am disheartened
that you choose to so easily dismiss those of us who love this country and
are willing to do whatever it takes to work towards fair and clear
elections.

AMERICANS deserve better.

Perhaps I'm still a bit naive in my hope for a better future, but I implore
you, sir, to please do the right thing.

***

Response: President Carter and I both believe that James Baker's leadership increases the chances that our hopes for reform will change policy.

The blog that you read unfairly and inaccurately characterized my views.

***

Given he feels that way, I'd say an invite to the good Dr., to give him the opportunity answer serious questions and set the record straight might be in order.

Brad, how do you feel about extending an invitation to him to take phone calls on the Brad show? If we approached him in the "a lot of people want to hear what you have to say and judge for themselves" way..well it couldn't hurt to ask, could it?

(And yes I know Brad's not around right now but perhaps Winter Patriot could ask that question?)

I'd be REALLY surprised if he accepted the invitation, and not sure it would accomplish anything, but if he did...

I think there is going to be at least one more, maybe two more meetings of the commission?

I'm not naive enough to believe he's objective regarding election fraud, and frankly I'm tired of treating these folks like they are angry and misguided children, but maybe if we attempt to present a united front that wants to be part of the solution, instead of what many see now as an adversarial relationship of gov't vs. conspiracy theorists...?

Just a thought If I'm too far out in left field, nevermind - and you may now start throwing rocks.

Kestrel #34,
I wouldn't mind reading your entire letter and Pastor's response. If people don't want to read it, they can skip it. If you have a chance, please post all of it.

I want to know how anyone in Washington DC didn't freak out when bush put james baker on the Commision on Federal Election Reform? I know bush has made a lot of insane appointments, the list to long to mention. But it's a moral outrage to put baker the man that helped make the fraud of 2000 possible in charge of such a group. I'm mad as hell! Jimmy Carter should have spoke up and said baker was immoral and the wrong thief for the job. How can voting get fixed with him on the board????? I feel helpless, without fixing elections we can't win (and with the insane judical choices, the election rules will change more towards the idiots)...help!

Reading all the great letters here - I am so humbled. Thank you all for sharing those.

Shannon re: #32 - Hey Nashville! I'm south of you, in Lincoln County. And don't worry about our southern-ness showing through in our letters (I admit, mine tend to be a bit understated and on the polite side too, which is one reason I'm a little shy about sharing them them) but I think the diverse styles point up even more that it's citizens all over the country (and, thank goodness, even our friends in other countries) who are concerned with what's happening to our government and to our country.

Benjamin re: #75 - Okay, I'll post it. And please forgive the personal info. I've found that "putting a face" on the letter writer tends to make a point come across a little stronger, and make it easier to remember.

As I said, it is rather understated and polite. I didn't point out everything that I'm sure he'd already read in other emails, in part hoping that a shorter email would make it more likely to be read.

And anyone that wants to skip it - please feel free to do so.

(I'll just snip my name for privacy)

*****

Dear Dr. Pastor:

I am a former computer analyst and a full time homeschool teacher and stay
at home mom. I am an independent who is politically active and therefore
very aware of the problems that have surfaced regarding our election system,
particularly in regards to the 2004 presidential election.

I am not one of the signers of the original petition to remove James Baker
from the Election Reform Commission. I am, however, a concerned voter and
patriot who has perhaps been a bit naive in believing that truth always
comes out and the good always win in the end. I believe that allowing James
Baker and the ACVR to be part of this commission is a mistake of grand
proportions.

My son has, from an early age, gone with me to cast my vote in every
federal, state, and local election, and I have made it clear to him the
importance of exercising the priviledge of voting in this country, and the
obligation to research all of the issues and make an informed and
independent decision. He will be old enough to vote in his first election in
2010, and his first Presidential election in 2012. I want him to know for
sure that his vote will be counted.

I am familiar with your statements last year regarding distress at the image
Americans have in the eyes of the rest of the world, and was holding out
hope that you, sir, would be part of the solution. However you feel about
our statements regarding the makeup of the commission, I am disheartened
that you choose to so easily dismiss those of us who love this country and
are willing to do whatever it takes to work towards fair and clear
elections.

AMERICANS deserve better.

Perhaps I'm still a bit naive in my hope for a better future, but I implore
you, sir, to please do the right thing.

Sincerely,

(snip)

"True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else."
- Clarence Darrow

*****

Dear Ms. (snip):

You are not naive about the possibilities of change. Your concerns about our democracy and your idealism are the same that motivated me to help form the Commission on Federal Election Reform and help make the Carter-Baker Commission a success in tackling the electoral problems that I have witnessed over the course of 15 years of observing U.S. elections.

President Carter and I both believe that James Baker's leadership increases the chances that our hopes for reform will change policy.

The blog that you read unfairly and inaccurately characterized my views.

Please stay engaged. That is the purpose of our Commission, and that is what our country needs.

Sincerely,

Dr. Robert A. Pastor
Executive Director, Commission on Federal Election Reform
American University
3201 New Mexico Ave. N.W. - Suite 265
Washington, D.C. 20016-8026
Phone: 202-885-2728; Fax: 885-1366

David Greenberg wrote an article for Slate awhile back about the legend of stolen 1960 presidential election.

Was Nixon Robbed?

Are is another Link that may provide you all with some aswers. And the opportunity to ask Wycliff what size his tin foil hat is.

Personally, I no longer give a shit who won. I don't care who stole it, as long as it wasn't this moron Bush.

BTW, I don't wear tin foil hats. Kerry won Ohio. That's a stone cold fact.

Pastor: "The blog that you read unfairly and inaccurately characterized my views."

So is Dr. Pastor saying he misspoke or that he was inaccurately quoted by Brad?

Baker presence on the commission is the direct result of Gore’s 2000 concession and subsequent disengagement. To the extent that we, the people, allowed that to happen, we too, are responsible.

Many charges of serious electoral fraud were made by both parties in the 2000 debacle. Baker made repeated unproved claims of massive Democratic electoral fraud. After Gore’s concession, Democrats should have made him put up or shut up. If the Democratic Party’s hands were reasonably clean (I doubt that they were perfectly spotless), then they should have pushed for a thorough investigation of Republican claims, while at the same time pushing for a thorough investigation into suspect Republican activity.

Instead they chose to let sleeping dogs lie. In so doing, they conferred upon Baker the title of Chief Republican Advocate for Electoral Reform. In the eyes of the many honest (but perhaps ill-informed) Republicans out there, he still holds that title. Consequently, it makes perfect sense to many Americans to include him on the commission. Nothing we can do at the present moment can change that. Moral: If a sleeping dog is rabid, you should shoot it while it sleeps.

Kestrel, thankyou for posting the letters.

I find Pastor's statement very revealing:
"President Carter and I both believe that James Baker's leadership increases the chances that our hopes for reform will change policy."

Ummm, WTF ?!?! "Leadership" ?!?!

Pastor may as well have said:

"Senator Elizabeth Dole and I both believe that Count Drakula's leadership increases the chances that our hopes for blood drive collection reform will change policy."

OR

"So-and-so and I both believe that Al Capone's leadership increases the chances that our hopes for banking reform will change policy"

I hate to say it, but we can't trust too many people at the top, even Jimmy Carter. If Jimmy Carter thinks that James Baker's "leadership" is going to help election reform... And the same goes for former Sen. Daschle. He likely got engineered out of his Senate Seat, and now he's on the Commission, enabling it. Even John Kerry. I can't be 100% sure of him either. Seems to me like he did just good enough to make it a close race. There are so many painfully obvious woulda-coulda-shouldas with Kerry's campaign. I think it's possible Kerry did not want to win because he was not supposed to win.

Do I sound too paranoid? I can't help it.

Mr. Wycliff need look no further than the great Florida debacle of 2000 if he seeks evidence of vote fraud. Al Gore graciously conceded, the Supreme Court decided the election, and when the votes were audited we found that Gore had indeed won the 2000 Presidential Election. Gore would be the person he's looking for.

It is not such a great leap in faith to have witnessed the same problems in Ohio in 2004 as were evidenced in Florida in 2000. Though we concede that Ohio's "problems" were a little neater than Florida's.

But speaking of learning, one would have to be pretty stupid, or at least have a bonafide learning disability, to think what happened in Ohio is somehow different than what happened in Florida.

And so, we may safely assume that Mr. Wycliff is simply stupid or has a learning disability.

We must remember that to Wycliff and the others of his ilk, bad is good, good is bad, facts are fiction, fiction is fact, and of course stupidity is brilliance.

Pay no mind to the man in the corner.

Kestrel #38

Your letter is an impassioned, quietly forceful, and polite plea for fairness and diligence in caring for the bedrock of our democracy, our right to vote, and to have those votes counted. Southerners may be polite, but they really know how to convey a belief with clarity and conviction that is at the same time respectful and reverent. Personally, I've always had a soft spot for southern girls/women, and married one.

Anyway, I agree that the diversity shown here at Bradblog gives a good cross reference of the diverse groups of people in this country who are concerned about the integrity of our elections. I hope you'll feel less uncomfortable about sharing your writing with us from now on, since judging by your letter, you have an eloquent way of articulating how you feel.

Peace

yeah, what Supersoling said (#45)

Kes #38

Pastor's comment: "The blog that you read unfairly and inaccurately characterized my views."

WELL --- Mr. Pastor ?? What exactly are your views?

I can't imagine what he means, unless he's making a claim that Brad distorted his words.

I think ALL 6 or 7 of us should email anew to ask Mr. Pastor to please tell us what he meant by that statement.

Just a quick one -

This thread is amazing and heartwarming! How proud I am of you all!!

On a lighter note: One of my 6 or 7 friends has sent the following letter to Don Wycliff. I hope you'll enjoy reading it as much as I did.

Subject:"When winning isn't everything" Raises The Bar!

Greetings and hearty congratulations, Mr. Wycliff.

You have achieved a new pinnacle in professional journalism.

Your recent editorial, "When winning isn't everything",
is simultaneously more condescending
and more devoid of knowledge
than any other editorial I have ever read.
You should be very proud of it.

Ignorance and arrogance are seen often these days,
but they rarely appear together quite so abundantly
as in your most recent masterpiece.
It's sets a new standard, raising a vital bar
and posing a difficult challenge for other journalists.
Let's see if anybody can top that!!

No doubt you have received many negative letters lately.
I have read a few of them on the internet.
Pay them no heed.
You have suddenly become a leader in your profession.

The depth of your research is most astonishing!
You recall a legend about Richard Nixon
and you made a phone call to "an Ohio native" who
"spent a great deal of time in the state last year".
How dare anyone criticize such diligence?

It's not your fault Tim Jones doesn't know anything.
I have friends who have lived in Ohio their whole lives
and they don't know anything either!

So what? That's what I say.
It's not my fault, and it's not yours either.
Keep up the great work, and always remember:

Never let a lack of knowledge stop you
from telling your side of the story!!

I'll be reading you very carefully from now on,
and loving every word of it.

Best wishes from your newest fan,

[name]

Bejammin075 #33 The article you cite (link here) is an MSM (CBS) article, and is quite good.

Half the american people, it seems, believe the bu$hites lied deliberately to get us into war.

You said: HOWEVER, that "Bush lied" 50% (and growing) population are likely the people who will be receptive to the idea of election fraud - at some point. But the difference between Iraq and election fraud is that the MSM actually has (some) coverage of Iraq, so Iraq is on people's minds, whereas elections are not. I think that if a person TRULY believes that they were lied to about WMD and Iraq, it's not too difficult for them to believe the Bush admin would try to manipulate elections.

The cited poll, then, shows that the body politic is slow but sure. It has taken a couple years for the opinion to form that lies preceeded the war. If the same timeframe applies to the election, we need to keep it up. But as you say, there is less exposure to the election fraud, and so we need to keep at it.

Velvet Revolution and the rest of the blogosphere are on the case and therein lies our hope for triggering some serious consideration in the MSM.

Thanks for the link.

Excellent letters! I read the Wycliff column and thought my head was going to explode. What nerve. How can he be perceived as anything but a jerk?

WP #49 --- I like your friend's style!

WP #49 Nice letter.

An article on WMD by Wycliff would probably be something like:

"the conspiracy nuts are so impatient ... if they would only give our good bu$h admin more time we will find the WMD's ... and if Tricky Dick had been given more time he too would have been able to show his innocence.

How do I know? I asked Tricky Dick II Cheney".

As the letter you posted says, Wycliff is unmatched in his journalism on this one.

Wycliff's argument that Democrats were responsible for making final decisions on allocation of voting machines IS NOT VALID.

The SUPPLY of voting machines remained under the control of Blackwell's office. Machines remained in warehouses (this was acknowledged) while local officials in Columbus begged for help to no avail. In Cleveland local officials asked for more machines and were told "no more are available." It wasn't true.

I e-mailed Wycliff and told him the dearth of voting machines in Democratic precincts wasn't limited to Ohio; I had seen it with my own two eyes as a pollwatcher in Florida on Election Day. Republican Secretaries of State made a conscious effort to make it hard for Democrats to vote. Period.

I closed my e-mail to Wycliff with a history lesson. Richard Nixon conceded the 1960 election because even if Illinois had gone into his column, Kennedy would still have won the Electoral College. Wycliff either didn't know this fact, or ignored it. In either event, he's an incompetent.

re: Pastor's comment: "The blog that you read unfairly and inaccurately characterized my views."

Hey, if y'all wouldn't mind holding off on that, I've sent the question to the good Dr. Pastor myself.

I may have overstepped protocol by not asking permission to reprint his response. I'll be sure and ask first this time, and post his answer here.

Since he was courteous enough to reply to my email, I want to ask him respectfully to clarify his remarks.

Although I don't mind putting him on the spot, I don't want to antagonize him.

And btw, thanks for the kind words everyone, I'm flattered (and I don't know how to make the blush icon work *L*).

Happy to read so many wonderful, passionate, kickass letters!
#32
Shannon,
I admire your politeness, sincerely, and your letter is great; but re

"...We are NOT trying to overturn the election...Both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore...decided to concede and go forward for the good of the country. We agree. The final score stands whether the ref made a game-changing bad call or not..."

Is anyone else SICK of hearing "this is not about overturning the election"??!!

WHY is this said as if it is the absolute ultimate imaginable motive/action in the entire known cosmos? Really, somebody explain this to me. Please. Value of politeness? Deference? What?

I agree that if we're talking ballgames (and I say this to Wycliff in my letter to him which hopefully I'll soon post), yeah, maybe it's a waste of time to argue with the ref. It's only a game, move on, get over it.

but *IF* the voting process of the United States WAS in reality deliberately, secretly, pre-meditatedly and---dare I say it---criminally fucked with...aren't we literally talking treason here? And I don't mean treason in the absurd Ann Coulter sense.

It's as if we not only have the elephant in the room that everyone pretends is not there, but this elephant is defecating in our LAPS big time & people keep saying it's chocolate pudding!!

it just makes me crazy

I hope to God I have not offended you Shannon!

Joan #54

I'm right there with you on your statements. A little analogy would be if your bank had made half your money disappear and then said you must be mistaken, just get over it. How many of those rightwingers would agree to that? It's just bullshit and we're not alone - a lot of people want to discover the truth by examination.

#49
Omigod...lmao...thanks for that

Kes #53

Sorry --- you're right about us not violating the privacy of Pastor's note to you. I'm waiting to hear what he has to say!

BTW - if anyone's having trouble providing links and using emoticons, I'm reposting the link to Torqued's excellent ASSISTANT page. Make sure you save the link to this page either on your desktop or a file you can keep handy when posting comments. It's REAL HELPFUL!! (Thanks Torque!)

Torqued's Community Assistant

I am posting my answer from Pastor,just got to work out an answer and suggestions for the man.(one of the 6 or 7)is how he addressed his reply.

Thank you for your recent comments about the need for election reform. The Commission on Federal Election Reform was established to achieve that goal.

Common Cause (www.commoncause.org) and the Election Protection Coalition (www.electionprotection2004.com) registered hundreds of thousands of complaints related to the 2004 presidential election. Public confidence in the electoral process is low, and reform is needed. This was underscored by a meeting convened by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and other groups in December 2004. I was invited to testify and remained for the entire day. The audience was deeply concerned about the state of the electoral process, and many advocated change.

After the hearing, I spoke with President Carter, who said he would favor establishing a panel to examine U.S. election reform. As you may know, he co-chaired a Commission with President Gerald Ford in 2001 that made recommendations that led to the Help American Vote Act (HAVA). I worked with both of them on that Commission and, indeed, worked with President Carter on election-monitoring projects for seventeen years at The Carter Center. As President Gerald Ford was not able to Co-Chair this panel, we consulted with Republican leaders who spoke with President Bush. They proposed former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III. President Carter has worked with Mr. Baker many times and is extremely pleased to work with him again. With such highly-respected Co-Chairs, we expect that Congress will take our recommendations seriously.

We solicited suggestions for other members of the Commission from a wide range of groups, and the Co-Chairs selected the members. It is comprised in roughly equal numbers among people who have served or were elected as Republicans and Democrats (though none are incumbents), and roughly one-third as non-partisan leaders. We understand the objections that some people have regarding individuals on the Commission, but we believe that the best way to promote real reform is to do so through a group that has broad credibility in Congress. You can read the bios of the members at www.american.edu/Carter-Baker. The Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University is organizing the Commission with the support of the Carnegie Corporation, the Ford Foundation, and the Knight Foundation.

Our current challenge is to look beyond the partisan perspectives and fashion proposals that address the problems in a practical, democratic, and effective manner. We would greatly appreciate your ideas as we carry out this work. Please send them to cdem@american.edu, or mail them to 3201 New Mexico Avenue, Suite 265, Washington, DC, 20016.

Sincerely,

Dr. Robert Pastor

Executive Director,

Commission on Federal Election Reform

I'm nowhere near as good as most of you at email writing... at least I didn't insult him completely and tried to mention a few facts..

Any pointers for future email writing???... (here's my effort http://stash.ath.cx/ltr.htm)

Peace!!

A copy of the email I sent is here

I'm not as good as most of you at the email writing... I've sent one but could probably do with pointers for future attempts... any suggestions...

#58
Maxie,
Thanks so much for posting Pastor's reply. At the end he writes:

Our current challenge is to look beyond the partisan perspectives and fashion proposals that address the problems in a practical, democratic, and effective manner. We would greatly appreciate your ideas as we carry out this work. Please send them to cdem@american.edu, or mail them to 3201 New Mexico Avenue, Suite 265, Washington, DC, 20016.

Wow! Let's get busy sending him ideas!

Dear Dr. Pastor,
Idea #1: Please reread that there first sentence....
"Our current challenge is to look beyond....."
because that is pretty much exactly what we want! Good for you, you get it! (clap,clap,clap,clap,clap)

In re the rest of your very nice rosy letter,
Idea #2: Please look up the word 'credibility'.
Sincerely,
Shirley Yewjest

Here's Wackoff's reply to a short e-mail I send the other day.

From: Wycliff, N. Don [mailto:dWycliff@tribune.com]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 1:09 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Vote fraud

Guss I'm an old monarchist at heart.....dw
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 10:03 PM
To: Wycliff, N. Don
Subject: Vote fraud
Dear Mr. Wycliff,

Your lack of concern for Democracy astonishes me.

Onyx - does that piss one off or what. I highly doubt the man is capable of being astonished much less aroused to respond in any healthy way. Communicating with Wycliff is like whistling to someone at a frequency only dogs can hear. (Picture the expression.)

It seems to me that "Democracy Defined" is now just a front in itself. Think of it. If the world were to know that we were truly on the precipice of a civil war...geesh...they'd call in the debts. And then...geesh...we wouldn't be a "Democracy" any more would we. The faux election cycle is critical to the image.

P.S. I'm a Nor' Easter. Thank goodness for representation here on Brad Blog!

Keep up the good work ALL!!!

Here's my letter to Don Wycliff. I would really appreciate any input or criticism. I'm thinking it may be a bit over the top. Bit long, too. Sorry.
Oh does anyone have a snailmail address for him?

Dear Mr. Wycliff,

Re "When winning isn't everything"

Let's start with that title, shall we? You're right, winning isn't everything. But that's not what the fuss is about, Don. And that screamingly obvious fact seems to have sailed right over your head. George W. being in the Oval Office doesn't please us, of course; but the problem is not that the 6 or 7 conspiracy theorists out here are "...unable to come to terms with the fact that their guy lost". The real issue is a little more important than that.
Since you used a sports analogy, I assume you're familiar with the old adage: "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game." I doubt you'd be so content with the numbers up on the scoreboard if you had reason to suspect the other team of being pumped full of steroids. Your casual disregard for expert opinions ("...it's not the pregame prognostication and expert opinions that count...") in regard to a ballgame is of little consequence. I would think, however, that the presence of a throng of experts attempting to determine the relative veracity of an alleged threat to the integrity of your country's entire electoral process might be deserving of a bit more scrutiny.

You write: "I'm not sure that all of Koehler's questions could ever be answered." I'm not either, especially if no one's asking them.
Of course, these questions ARE being asked, just not by the right people (the ones with the "spotlight", but we'll get to that in a minute), and a number of hitherto highly regarded professionals are doing their best to answer them. But rather than peruse the work of these pesky, upstart experts, you chose to talk to fellow journalist, Tim Jones. Mr. Jones, as it turns out, came up with a rather astounding assessment of the Ohio election situation, all things considered:
He spoke with people in Ohio "whose credentials as non-partisan and unbiased are beyond question, and they, he said, "found no irregularities."
Well, case closed! And here I was worried.
I confess I am at a loss to understand exactly why you consider Mr. Jones to be "...the most reliable authority..." that you know, or why he compares so favorably in your estimation to the available multitude, consisting of experts in several disciplines relevant to the task, since you offer no explanation. He must be quite a guy.

At the end of your article you not-so-subtly insinuate what you evidently believe is "....the real agenda of the election reformers..." namely to "...call into question the legitimacy of the 2004 election....". I suspect that nothing I could say would dissuade you from embracing this erroneous belief. Although I, along with a sizable portion of the American people, would no doubt celebrate were George W. to be removed from office (quite frankly I believe the scope of such global celebrations would surpass that of the worldwide protests we saw in the February before the war. It'd be a sight to behold), that is not the main objective. The truth is, the main objective is both very simple and alot more important: we want that spotlight.

The truth is that extraordinarily serious allegations have been made concerning the most basic, the most crucial, the most precious elements of our democracy.
The truth is that these allegations have prompted a prodigious amount of scrutiny from "our side" (and it pains me as a citizen that we are continually "taking sides" on issues that should unite us as Americans & as citizens of the world, as if we were children in some ugly, twisted tug-of-war).
The truth is that said scrutiny has been undertaken by a stunningly impressive and diverse list of people: mathematicians, professors, statisticians, scientists, computer experts, theologians...scholars of all stripes, members of all parties.
The truth is that these eminently respectable people, after diligent and meticulous research, have authored numerous reports concerning the virtual "mountain" of evidence that now exists pertaining to the aforementioned allegations.
The truth is that the worthy members of this "convocation of conspiracy theorists", as you so dismissively describe them, seem all to have come to remarkably similar, if not identical, conclusions as to the legitimacy, gravity and urgency of said allegations; one might even say that, for all practical purposes, they all came to one, unanimous conclusion: the need for a serious, non-partisan and immediate investigation.

And the truth is, Don, interestingly enough, that you actually managed to hit the nail on the head (once, at least) in your spurious, deceptive, condescending, pathetic excuse for an article, though only partially. You're correct that "It is the duty of the news media, as watchdogs of our democracy, to study, identify and shine a spotlight on weaknesses and abuses in our most fundamental democratic activity--elections." I would add, however, that it is the duty of our elected officials as well to shine that spotlight, on behalf of the people they claim to represent; on behalf of the troops who fight without armor while their benefits are cut; on behalf of the country they've sworn to honor and protect.

It seems excruciatingly clear to me---and I would venture to guess that a growing number of people throughout the world, not to mention future historians, would agree---that both our elected officials and our media have failed in that duty.
They have NOT studied. They have denigrated. They have ridiculed.
They have NOT identified. They have smeared, accused, twisted, distorted and ignored.
They have not only failed to shine that damn spotlight, they have buried it! And they continue to bury it, under the biggest, blindest, most incredible stinking pile of horsepoop I ever would have thought possible. And I am being POLITE.
And then they have the God-awful audacity to stand atop this reeking mound of dreck and spout hypocrisy disguised as morality and family values and patriotism while waving two of the most loved, respected and revered of American symbols: the flag and the Bible.......!

All in an extravagantly elaborate, Kafka-esque attempt to keep that damn spotlight off.
I'll bet the damn thing hasn't had a bulb in it since Ken Starr left town.
Sincerely,

WOW! No wonder you took awhile to write that. Absolutely great! A home run (game winning grand slam!) to use your sports metaphors. You are now officially one of my heroes (I guess that should be "heroines" but that word sounds too much like a controlled substance).

I recently talked to Bill Anthony, Chair of the Franklin County Board of Elections , (central Ohio), and Chair of the Franklin County Democratic Party.

Anthony conceded to me that the numbers were, in fact, suspicious in Warren, Clarmont, Butler, and other southern Ohio counties.

More shocking, although he publicly refers to anyone who questions the election results as "conspiracy theorists," he acknowledged that "there are no real Democratic parties down there. There is no two party system to watch the vote."

If anyone would like to start a discussion with Tim Jones here is his e-mail address. Appears he's a colleage of Wycliff's.

Don Wycliff
Tim Jones

I'll try that again.

DWycliff@tribune.com
TMJones@tribune.com

Hello Bob Fitrakis! Thanks for joining in here with this discussion. Can you answer the questions Becky had in her post #2?

I have been trying without success yet to find the info re: her quote: "final decisions on where to place the available voting machines belonged to local election officials, who in each case were Democrats."

Also, from your post #67, what exactly did Anthony mean when he said there are "no real Democratic parties down there"? No Democrats in Southern OH?

BTW - thanks for all your tireless & invaluable work on the election 2004 fiasco.

Joan #54 -

Three cheers x infinity!!!!!!

Miss P #64 -
I'm a far nor'easter too and feel breathless and ashamed and...yikes!

Bob Fitrakis #67 -

Thanks for visiting us with that input. I think we all had come to a similar conclusion regarding collusion in Ohio (the "Dems" aiding and abetting the fraud). WHY though? What was in it for them?
And so transparent too, with stickers over Kerry votes and Bush pencilled in (another county, but the same problem)?????

Money? Favors? Threats????

Just sent the following to Mr. Wycliff and his editor. Man, the MSM does print stuff good enough to wrap the kitty litter in, no?

Dear Mr. Wycliff:

In your recent column, you conclude: “But if the real agenda of the election reformers is to call into question the legitimacy of the 2004 election, they would be better advised to follow the example of Richard Nixon. Winning isn't the sole end of politics.”

Mr. Wycliff, are you saying that it doesn’t really matter whether or not the will of the people is expressed in our national elections, as long as the transfer of power is smooth? You allege that Nixon felt that “a challenge [w]as not worth putting the country through.” Do you mean by this that if either political party is able, using subtle means not easily detectable by casual public scrutiny, to gain control of the election system, that that party should not be challenged because this would be disruptive to the country?

Mr. Wycliff: do you really believe in democracy, or do you think that a faux election followed by the inauguration of a faux president leading a faux democratic government is close enough for jazz? I don’t know if this is what happened in 2004, but I have read and listened to lots of (often tedious) information and testimony by the only people who have really investigated the 2004 election in any meaningful way. Have you? Tim Jones may be an excellent correspondent, but the information from him that you cite is anecdotal and tells me nothing more than what I saw for myself in Ohio, where I spent the few days before, and the day of, the election.

Have you read Christopher Hitchens’ piece, Ohio’s Odd Numbers, published in the March 2005 issue of Vanity Fair ? In case you haven’t, I attach it above. It is a very well-written, non-strident, mainstream media article for which the author actually seems to have done a bit of old-fashioned research and analysis.

Did you even bother to talk with ANY of the attendees at the Nashville conference before dismissing them and their motives? I believe, for example, that if you had spoken with Josh Mitteldorf, PhD, you might have been able to answer a few of Mr. Koehler’s questions, to wit, "why so many PhD-level mathematicians and computer programmers and other numbers-savvy scientists are saying that the numbers don't make sense." [**Please see article, link pasted below.] Dr. Mitteldorf and many other intelligent, committed people in the field are convinced that serious, systemic electoral fraud was perpetrated; what’s more, they have solid answers for the most frequently-expressed questions from skeptics such as yourself. You would do well to interview them, with an open mind, before writing another such facile, muddled column.

Mr. Wycliff, you started your column with the notion that questioning the legitimacy of a U.S. election is somehow unpatriotic. You didn’t bother to examine the motives of those who are working hard to discover the truth about what happened in 2004. Had you done so you would have found that for most it is not the victory of a particular candidate or party that drives them; it is the fair counting of the votes cast in a democracy that they feel is of paramount importance.

Sincerely,
Sheila Leavitt, M.D.
60 Parkway Rd.
Newton, MA 02460

**Live link to a statistical analysis of the Mitofsky Exit Poll Study; its contributing authors:

http://www.italyhousescout.com/

http://electionarchive.o...2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf (March 31, 2005)

Contributors and Supporters include:

Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. - Temple University Statistics Department

Kathy Dopp, MS in mathematics - USCountVotes, President

Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Visiting Scholar & Affiliated Faculty, Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania

Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics and Director of Statistical Consulting (ret), University of Wisconsin

Frank Stenger, PhD - Professor of Numerical Analysis, School of Computing, University of Utah

Richard G. Sheehan, PhD -Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame

Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. - Associate Prof., Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University

Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. - Lecturer, Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University

Campbell B. Read, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University

Also Peer Reviewed by USCountVotes’ core group of statisticians and independent reviewers.

Press Contact: Bruce O'Dell, USCountVotes, Vice President bruce@uscountvotes.org

Late P.S.-

My comment #66 was obviously in reference to Joan's comment #65.

Re my #72 -

This is obviously a series of naive questions. ANYONE can register as a member of ANY party, at will. In the distant past, I have registered Repug to vote in the primary for the lesser of two evils. And Arizona proved how a "bipartisan" election team can consist of an evangelical pastor and his wife, One registered Rebublican, the other Democrat.

The boards of elections in Ohio were obviously "seeded" very carefully with Democrats in name only. Whatever, the fix was a fix, and we know it. What in God's name has happened to this country?

Sheila #73
Great letter (again).

I sent a short and polite letter to Wycliffe, and got back a short and polite response: "Thanks for writing. dw." I'll give him points for civility.

Miss Persistent, #63, cuts right to the chase, doesn't she? If they realized we were on the verge of civil war here, "they'd call in the debts..."

Right. The charade must go on, because the alternative is unthinkable.

Re Post #73 from Sheila Leavitt

Excellent letter Sheilla! Your letter contained tons of facts from respected individuals and the list of references at the end was great. I somehow don't expect Mr. Wycliff to do mush followup on them however. After all, he's already spoken to Tim Jones!

We have to keep the pressure on these so called "journalists" to do their jobs. Calling them out on ridiculous articles like Wycliff's may get more people's attention.

If anyone else prefers to send a letter to Wycliff via snailmail, as I do, I finally reached someone at the Chicago Tribune who gave me this address:

Mr. Don Wycliff, Public Editor
The Chicago Tribune
435 N. Michigan Avenue
Chicago IL 60611

I'm assuming & hoping it's correct.

Kestral... (#34) -

Yes, I'm not around to respond quickly to such notes right now. Have net access for only short periods of time currently.

In any case, wanted to let you know that I *did* invite Pastor to respond either on BRAD BLOG or appear on The BRAD SHOW to give his point of view. He did not respond to my invitation.

I would have been happy (and still would!) to give him the opportunity to do so.

It doesn't matter whether they were real Democrats or not, Peg. The fact is, Blackwell's office remained in charge of DELIVERING machines to the various precincts. Real Democrats might or might not have ORDERED them, but what good is ordering something that doesn't get delivered?

More than 80 machines that were badly needed in Columbus and Cleveland remained in warehouses. If the polls were open for 12 hours, and 30 people can vote per hour (estimates), then those 80 missing machines could theoretically have handled another 28,800 votes...mostly Kerry votes.

Not enough alone to overturn the election, but the G.O.P. didn't rely on only one strategy. They locked down Warren County, flipped votes in Youngstown and elsewhere, told people on line they could vote on Nov. 3, sent the Texas mafia to threaten people with unpaid parking tickets that the F.B.I. was after them, and violated their own registration guidelines.

And Blackwell is running for governor as the "moral Christian's" candidate of choice. It's all the stuff of a Saturday Night Live skit, except it isn't funny.

Pastor is sending out form replies to everyone who contacted him. I honestly can't tell from the wording whether it's a deliberate obfuscation of the commission's motives, or if he really believes that James A. Baker III is there in the interest of real reform. His rude treatment of Brad would suggest the former, but his past record is actually quite progressive, which would suggest the latter.

I took issue with his use of the phrase "put partisanship behind us and seek answers...etc." The real partisan is Baker, obviously...just as he was in 2000 when he went to Florida at the Bush family's behest to cut off the recount and prevent the fraud from being exposed. Could Pastor truly believe Baker has become a public-minded citizen?

Remember Pastor's comment to Brad ..."But there are people on the Right that have problems with all the Democrats on the committee."

Ain't that the telling comment? When the repugniCONS scream for non-partisan participation, what they really mean is, if you don't agree 100% with them, you are partisan! 5 yr. old bullies.

In response to comment #3, let me add the following insights:
County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy in Franklin County (central Ohio) is on the record saying she asked Franklin County election officials if they needed more money to conduct the 2004 election. She said they told her everything was under control. The official explanation from Matt Damshroder, Franklin County Board of Elections Chair, and former head of the Franklin County Republican Party, is that it made no sense to buy old technology, that is, the 1992 Danaher machines. He's also under oath on election day claiming that there were no machines available, althought Bill Anthony, the Franklin County Board of Elections Chair and head of the Franklin County Democratic Party, admits that a "truckload" of machines were held back. Public documents from the Board obtained by the Free Press indicate that a truckload means 76 machines were held back--all in the city of Columbus that votes Democratic, none from the suburbs who vote Republican. 42 were held back that had been specifically assigned to inner-city minority wards who voted more than 80% for Kerry.

Anthony also acknowledges that they requested that paper ballots be used as a backup on election day, but that Blackwell refused to allow it. Hence, both Damshroder and Anthony admit that 5000 machines were needed on election day. Their own records show that they put out 2741 at the beginning of the day, and by the "close of polls" put out an additional 47, making the total 2798 out of 2866 available.

The Free Press has sworn testimony from a poll judge that one of the machines was wheeled in right at the close of the polling place at 7:30pm. Anthony at one point claimed that poll workers, who only work if they're lucky two days a year at the primary and election day in November, waved off the machines. This is absurd. Insiders in the Democratic Party say that essentially, Anthony is not a hands-on chair and got snookered by Damshroder's allocation of machines, which allocated machines based on "likely voters," not on new registrations which were heavily in the Democratic inner city wards.

The reality is, there is barely a functioning Democratic Party on the state level in Ohio. Denny White was a Republican during the 1980s and is now the Chair of the Ohio Democratic Party. Except for Cleveland in the north, there are no real well developed Democratic Party organizations. Youngstown, for example, has long been compromised by the Mob and that's why it ends up in the Sopranos series. Anthony and others admit and know that in southern Ohio, except perhaps for a weak organization in Cincinnati, there's no real Democratic Party organizations. There are a few entreprenuers that masquerade as Democrats in order to be appointed to the paying job at the Board of Elections.

Moreover, under Ohio law, all BOE employees are hired by Blackwell and serve at his pleasure. Hardly a non-partisan system.

Also, as a result of the Moss v. Bush challenge, which led in part to the Congressional challenging of Ohio's electoral votes, Rep. Dewine of Ohio (Republication) has just included in SUB HB3 in section 3515.08:
"The (A) Except as otherwise provided in this division, the nomination or election of any person to any public office or party position or the approval or rejection of any issue or question, submitted to the voters, may be contested by qualified electors of the state or a political subdivision. The nomination or election of any person to any federal office, including the office of elector for president and vice president and the office of member of congress, shall not be subject to a contest of election conducted under this chapter. Contests of the nomination or election of any person to any federal office shall be conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of federal law."

This, of course, means that there can never be another challenge under Ohio law to Ohio's electoral votes. Chilling and telling.

To: dwycliff@tribune.com
Subject: Voter Confidence
Sent: 4/29/05 1am

Dear Mr. Wycliff,

My position is simple: there is no basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections.

Your position seems to be: there is no basis for questioning the results reported from U.S. federal elections.

Please read the Voter Confidence Resolution below and reconsider. If you still disagree I expect you will be prepared to explain on what basis we should maintain confidence in a system designed to make a conclusive outcome impossible. I truly look forward to your reply.

In Respect and Peace,

Voter Confidence Resolution
(v6.0, LAST UPDATED: 4/23/05 11pm)

Whereas an election is a competition for the privilege of representing the people; and

Whereas each voter is entitled to cast a single ballot to record his or her preferences for representation; and

Whereas the records of individual votes are the basis for counting and potentially re-counting a collective total and declaring a winner; and

Whereas an election's outcome is a matter of public record, based on a finite collection of immutable smaller records; and

Whereas a properly functioning election system should produce unanimous agreement about the results indicated by a fixed set of unchanging records; and

Whereas recent U.S. federal elections have been conducted under conditions that have not produced unanimous agreement about the outcome; and

Whereas future U.S. federal elections cannot possibly produce unanimous agreement as long as any condition permits an inconclusive count or re-count of votes; and

Whereas inconclusive counts and re-counts have occurred during recent U.S. federal elections due in part to electronic voting devices that do not produce a paper record of votes to be re-counted if necessary; and

Whereas inconclusive results have also been caused by election machines losing data, producing negative vote totals, showing more votes than there are registered voters, and persistently and automatically swapping a voter's vote from his or her chosen candidate to an opponent; and

Whereas inconclusive results make it impossible to measure the will of the people in their preferences for representation; and

Whereas the Declaration of Independence refers to the Consent of the Governed as the self-evident truth from which Government derives "just Power";

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

Because inconclusive results, by definition, mean that the true outcome of an election cannot be known, there is no basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections; and

Be it also resolved:

Ensuring conclusive results is only one necessary step toward creating a new basis for voter confidence in U.S. federal elections. Additional reforms that would take further steps toward building voter confidence include:

1) voting processes owned and operated entirely in the public domain, and
2) clean money laws to keep all corporate funds out of campaign financing, and
3) a voter verifiable paper ballot for every vote cast and additional uniform standards determined by a non-partisan nationally recognized commission, and
4) declaring election day a national holiday, and
5) counting all votes publicly and locally in the presence of citizen witnesses and
credentialed members of the media, and
6) equal time provisions to be observed by the media along with a measurable increase in local, public control of the airwaves, and
7) presidential debates containing a minimum of three candidates, run by a non-partisan commission comprised of representatives of publicly owned media outlets, and
instant runoff voting (see H.R. 5293) and proportional representation to replace the winner-take-all system for federal elections;

Be it further resolved:

When elections are conducted under conditions that prevent conclusive outcomes, the Consent of the Governed is not being sought. Absent this self-evident source of legitimacy, such Consent is not to be assumed or taken for granted.

***
The permalink for the Voter Confidence Resolution is:
http://guvwurld.blogspot...nfidence-resolution.html

Thank you #84 - Wycliff's brain has been officially debunked. What's he left with? Just paper, pencil and perhaps a dull headache.

And thank you, thank you GuvWurld. You've said it all. Please send your Resolution to Pastor!

I have always said that if you can't itemize, one by one, the intent of a single voter, be it one or many, then such thing as a "recount" is not possible and therefore has not legally happened. How fortuitous for some.

Re: #84 --

Chilling and telling indeed! Thank you for that!

This compilation is from a DU member (TruthIsAll) working on the election polls data. Mathemeticians may lie but mathematics can't:

IT WOULD BE NICE IF FEBBLE READ THIS AND STILL BELIEVED THAT RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER THEORY IS EVEN WORTHY OF DISCUSSION

BTW, excellent thread and so many excellent letters! You rock!

"An Ohio native, Jones spent a great deal of time in the state last year, including the last two weeks before the election. On Election Day he was in the Columbus area, visiting polling places that ranged from silk-stocking suburban to poverty-ridden inner city. At the latter, he said, "I talked to people who waited in line four hours and were determined to vote."

Jones pointed out that in Columbus and Cleveland--where Koehler says "lines were so long and the voting machines were so few"--final decisions on where to place the available voting machines belonged to local election officials, who in each case were Democrats.

It's always possible that these Democrats were secretly working for Bush's re-election, but not likely. What's more likely is that they based their decisions on placement of people and equipment on earlier elections, when turnout in inner-city and college precincts lagged that in other areas."

Even Senator Kerry has said that whatever irregularities might have occurred in Ohio (and, if you were into telling the truth, those were very few in number), they were insufficient in number to have changed the outcome of the election.

The entire premise behind the challenges is strange. The "Silent Scream of Numbers" article assumes that the exit polling numbers were somehow correct, being that they were not subject to interference from Republican Party cheaters, and the actual electoral results were stolen or hacked or somehow cheated.

But there were other polls, polls being taken all along, by professional polling organizations, organizations with much more experience than the hastily-created consortium which did the exit polling. (The old Voter News Service died following the 2000 elections.) And the professional polling organizations (Gallup, Harris, and the like, really all of them except Zogby) found a solid, if narrow, lead for President Bush throughout the last month of the campaign, including the very last weekend.

For the exit polls to have been right, not only would the GOP have had to have somehow cheated the electoral machinery, but they would have had to have somehow hacked all of the pre-election polls as well. And the pre-election polls pretty much got it right: they closely predicted the final margin of the vote, and they correctly predicted the electoral outcome on a state by state basis. President Bush went into Election Day with a lead in Ohio!

I'm sorry that y'all didn't like the election results. (Well, no, that's a lie: I'm GLAD you were unhappy with the election results!) but in the end, it's really pretty simple: President Bush won, fairly and squarely, and Senator Kerry lost. In 3½ more years, you'll get another chance.

#85
GuvWurld, EXCELLENT EXCELLENT EXCELLENT!

The text of that post should be sent to Congress---as if, but still---in its entirety. They ARE still pretending to be legitimate.

88, please read 85.

RE: Voter Confidence Resolution (Comment #85)

This resolution dates back to *last* April, prior to the November 2004 charade, when it was just as obvious as it is today that there is no basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections.

All versions of the resolution prior to the one above went by the name No Confidence Resolution. This new version is being received much better, though if you want to see all of the local press coverage we've gotten in the past year, as well as all the previous versions of the resolution, see this section of the GuvWurld News Archive.

Also note, there has always been a clear strategy for rolling this out that simply hasn't yet gathered its critical mass. The idea is that this resolution needs to be supported at the City and County level across the country. Like the 300+ anti-Patriot act resolutions that have passed, we can anticipate this trend. To have a more meaningful effect, however, requires that we introduce a mechanism for cumulative impact so that five resolutions means more than one and fifty means more than five (after all, 300+ anti-Patriot act resolutions still have not restored our rights).

The cumulative impact can be created by use of this frame: Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET? We've already established in the resolution that the Consent is not being sought. To withdraw this consent should hardly stretch the imagination. The application of this frame ensures that as each community passes its version of the Voter Confidence Resolution we are consciously upping the ante. If it is not generally agreed that the Consent of the Governed has been withdrawn after one resolution, or five, or fifty, well it is still only a matter of time before that tipping point necessarily arrives.

This link goes to the Strategy and Talking Points Primer in the GuvWurld blog. It needs to be updated for this new version of the resolution but it spells out in detail how this summary would work. Please post the resolution anywhere you see fit. Please also get your friends and neighbors to join you in bringing it to your City Council or similar local government body.

Will somebody educated Dana Pico? The last Ohio poll had the Bush/Kerry race even. Bush did not have a "narrow but solid" lead.

It is an article of faith among pollsters that the undecideds break toward the challenger on Election Day. Thus, a tie in the last pre-election poll was predictive of a Kerry win in the state. The exit polls confirmed that on Election Day. Only the tabulated vote, which was subject to vote-flipping all day long (in Youngstown, it began when the polls opened and continued throughout the day), as well as impossible to explain anomalies, favored Bush.

I love Dana's comment, "You'll get another chance in 3-1/2 years." Considering that the G.O.P. has stolen two elections in a row, what makes Dana think 2008 would be any different? Only if we are able to show that the last two elections were phony will people be confident the next one won't be.

Dana Pico #88 --

Do the math. Mathematics is an exact science. Numbers can't lie. Your attempt to discredit the exit polls have already been met with the facts. Your pre-election polls claims are equally bunk. Perhaps you've stumbled into the wrong precinct.

No, Torqued #93, Ms. Pico knows exactly the territory into which she has once again stumbled.

To Dana Pico #88

Other than the fact that your redness is showing, you still have not done real research on the pollsters, so I can't take anything you say with anything more than a grain of salt.

I refer you to this article and hope you will study up:

Media relying on flawed polls: Gallup and CBS/NYT skewed toward Republicans

..."Three polls, conducted by The Pew Research Center for People and the Press (September 11-14), Harris Interactive (September 9-13), and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (September 12-14) all found Senator John Kerry and Bush either within one point of each other or tied among likely voters. A Gallup poll conducted September 13-15 found Bush leading Kerry among likely voters by 13 points (55 percent to 42 percent) and by eight points among registered voters (52 percent to 44 percent). A CBS News/New York Times polls (pdf) conducted September 12-16 showed Bush with a nine-point lead among registered voters (50 percent to 41 percent).

But the media has largely ignored both Gallup's and the CBS News/New York Times polls' oversampling of Republicans. As author and joint fellow at the Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation Ruy Teixeira explained, these polls include more Republicans in their sample than is representative of the electorate. According to Teixeira, the CBS News/New York Times poll sample included 4 percent more Republicans than Democrats. And Gallup told TheLeftCoaster.com's Steve Soto that it surveyed 7 percent more Republicans than Democrats. Media Matters for America has previously noted that John Zogby, president and CEO of independent polling firm Zogby International, pointed out on September 7 that in the last two presidential elections, Democrats have represented 4 percent to 5 percent more of the electorate than have Republicans ***more***

Another article for Ms. Pico - and anyone else who might have missed it:

From the Free Press
by Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence
September 28, 2004

Gallup Polls- Conditioning for Vote Rigging?

The recent polls showing a large Bush lead seem to be designed to either discourage Democratic voters and/or condition the American public for a Bush victory based on vote rigging. The methodology that seems to be in use by Gallup and most other polling firms connected to large corporations are greatly over weighted to give Republicans excessive representation and do not give sufficient weight to Democratic voters based on historical voting trend. Polls by independent polling organizations that are using properly weighted samples (like Zogby, Pew Research, Harris and others) are not showing a significant Bush lead and some have Kerry ahead!

*MORE, please read further by following the above link*

Oh my - I really meant to include this paragraph from the article I gave a link for (my #95) because it is a VERY TELLING bit of information --- especially for Ms. Pico --

"It is interesting to note that James Clifton who bought the Gallup organization is a big Republican donor. He gave thousands to Right Wing Republican Georgia Senate candidate Herman Cain. (See http://www.opensecrets.org) Cain ran as a huge backer of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans. This is essentially the same tax position supported with vigor by the Bush-Cheney ticket."

Oink oink!!

I didn't know where to post this, so I decided here might be ok.

Winter Patriot - Brad - have you taken a look at the Media Channel Org.? There are 1007 global members for this network for democratic media. On the site you will find a link to words by Walter Cronkite who spoke out in their support when they launched this Internet Channel. Here's just a snip of what he said:

"I'm pleased that the Media Channel opens an immediately available resource for media whistle-blowers. Anonymity will be protected, of course—if their stories check out, of course. And, of course, are backed up with the facts."

This column is an absolute JOKE!

Even Christopher Hitchens, who by the way was PRO-Bush, came out and said there was definitely something funny going on in Ohio.

Partisan operatvives were allowed to remove the cassettes from the voting machines and "count the votes". This should definitely not be allowed, but cars with Bush/Cheney stickers were spotted carting away these cassettes. Also, thousands of "phantom votes" were produced for Bush/Cheney.

At many of the electronic voting sites, voters found that Buish/Cheney was the "default" choice and they had to "force in" a Kerry/Edwards vote or any other vote.

How can this be an accident.

The exit polls, which have been dead on for as long as we have been doing them, for the first time in our history, were wildly off. And not everywhere! Theyw ere STILL accurate where there were paper ballots. ONLY in the precincts which employed electronic voting machines, were there "surprise Bush" outcomes---but lo and behold, NO "surprise Kerry" outcomes.

If the mistakes had truly beenr andom, bOT sides would have benefitted equally.

Hey, Don---get your head out of the sand.

(Note: That's a polite version of what I really wanted to tell you.)

This column is an absolute JOKE!

Even Christopher Hitchens, who by the way was PRO-Bush, came out and said there was definitely something funny going on in Ohio.

Partisan operatvives were allowed to remove the cassettes from the voting machines and "count the votes". This should definitely not be allowed, but cars with Bush/Cheney stickers were spotted carting away these cassettes. Also, thousands of "phantom votes" were produced for Bush/Cheney.

At many of the electronic voting sites, voters found that Buish/Cheney was the "default" choice and they had to "force in" a Kerry/Edwards vote or any other vote.

How can this be an accident.

The exit polls, which have been dead on for as long as we have been doing them, for the first time in our history, were wildly off. And not everywhere! Theyw ere STILL accurate where there were paper ballots. ONLY in the precincts which employed electronic voting machines, were there "surprise Bush" outcomes---but lo and behold, NO "surprise Kerry" outcomes.

If the mistakes had truly beenr andom, bOT sides would have benefitted equally.

Hey, Don---get your head out of the sand.

(Note: That's a polite version of what I really wanted to tell you.)

"Florida 2000 was universally misunderstood and mischaracterized in the press as a crisis of hanging chads on the punch-card ballots. The serious issue, then as now, was embodied in the explicit though all but unreported position that James Baker, George W. Bush's field commander in Florida, staked out to stop the recounting of votes. The computerized vote-counting systems, Baker declared, are "precision machinery" that both count and recount votes more accurately than people do."

(This is from "How They Could Steal the Election This Time," The Nation 8/16/04 by Ronnie Dugger.]

Baker got it wrong, of course; knows zilch about voting systems except maybe how to squash them in court. You were right to see his presence on the Commission as dubious.

People DO count better that machines. Reference: From the New York Times:

“After the 2000 election, a study by the Voting Technology Project, a joint effort by the California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, took a hard look at the nation's voting systems. Using a measure of what they called "residual votes" - overcounting, undercounting or not counting votes for any reason - researchers found that two existing voting methods had produced relatively low error rates in the last four presidential elections: old-fashioned hand-counted paper ballots and optical scan systems.”
DREs and old mechanical lever machines were worse.

“The Hand-Marked Ballot Wins for Accuracy,” New York Times, 9/19/04, Tom Zeller Jr.

Dugger, if any one here hasn't heard of him, has a long history of concern with the vulnerability of voting equipment, the odd connections of the manufacturers, etc...The New Yorker in 1988 - when they still carried good, long articles - carried a piece he did; it is startingly prescient...complete with example of how to plant a trapdoor in software...

Regards; and tnx to all

Dear Mr. Wycliff:

I am glad you referred to the Nixon stepping-down from demanding a recount in Illinois as "legend" because that's exactly what it was. First, Nixon's campaign advisor let him know that Republican cheating in Southern Illinois was probably more rampant than what was suspected in Chicago and that bringing it to light would be a career-ending scandal. Second, Illinois didn't matter because by then it was clear Nixon had also failed to carry Texas and thus did not have enough electoral votes to carry the election.

It saddens me that someone in your position would seemingly brush aside the overwhelming evidence that in large ways and small, the center of technical mass has shifted to favor one party over another. Winning isn't everything but fair elections are.

Hello all,

Don Wycliff is only a symptom of the absolute disregard his employer has for the ultimate beneficial CIVIC purpose of public media - to truthfully, completely, and timely inform the people.

Whenever it negatively impacts their bottom line, his corporation will censor content that their advertisers and op-ed page letter writing cranks object to...but known hate and lie mongers like Charles Krauthammer receive carte blanche...Amity Schlaes, Kathleen Parker...etc.. Oh, sure, to prevent massive defection by Progressives, or by other persons who have A LEGITIMATE interest in understanding valid contrary viewpoints, thry selectively pick up from time to time, product from persons like Molly Ivins. But the editorial content is only the symptom and the icing, if you will. The almost total affirmation of every WMD red herring during the Iraq war buildup, endless stories that could have come direct from Baker Botts or John Bolton during Bush II Selectin Round One in Florida, followed almost one year later with apologies and a paucid summary of the Miami Herald U of C Statistical analysis of the uncounted and tampered vote impact on election results in Floriduh 2000...the only thing this bunch cares about is money! Kid yourself not, it is money and only money. So. what to do? Well. lemme pose a question, hokay?

What if they gave a media and nobody was having any? Stop buying corporate media in any form, join white dot.org and get a life...and save trees, energy, etc..

It was never so hot to begin with, since the previous conservative political-economic-military hegemony pretty much played most media outlets like an organ until the mid 1970's, and even then, there was some semblance of balance due to the SEC doctrine of fair and equal access of dissenting viewpoints. But Ronzo MacReckon sure put the kibosh on that doctrine, eh? The media proved to be Nixon's nemesis, and this great mediocre media wasteland is his revenge. Wycliff feeds on it, so no surprise he refuses to bite the hand, to honorably bow out to work in alternative media...the paychecks there are pretty slim!

Here's my letter to Don Wycliff:

Dear Mr. Wycliff,

It's "defenses" such as yours that further convince me that the 2004 election was fraudulent. If this is the best that you, or anyone, can come up with in defense of the legitimacy of the election, then the integrity of our democracy is seriously in question.

Of course, there is no positive proof of that integrity --- the Republican partisans who build and operate the touch-screen machines and the central compiling computers have seen to that. The source codes are secret and there is no independent audit trail. Moreover, as a myriad of computer professionals have proven, and as Howard Dean and Bev Harris demonstrated to the public on CNBC, vote totals can be readily altered without leaving a trace of the hacking.

Your citation of Nixon's alleged acceptance of the 1960 results (probably an urban myth), is totally irrelevant. Nixon's behavior in 1960 has not the slightest bearing on the issue of the validity of the 2004 election. Meanwhile, you offer not a shred of rebuttal to the strongest evidence of fraud --- the patterns of exit poll discrepancies and the statistical analyses of these patterns.

As for the Ohio election, there is a record of sworn testimony before the Conyers Committee, along with voluminous reports and documents collected by the Ohio Citizens' Alliance for Secure Elections and the Columbus Free Press. In rebuttal you offer us hearsay remarks by unidentifiable individuals.

The integrity of our ballot is at the heart of our democracy. Without it, there is no democracy. Accordingly this issue surely deserves thorough investigation by our media. If, as you claim, the election was honest, then answer the critics with something more than irrelevancies and ad hominem insults (e.g., "conspiracy theorists"). If your position has merit and the support of solid evidence (which I doubt), then at last the issue might be put to rest.

Instead, The Chicago Tribune, and regretfully all of the mainstream media, has elected to ignore the question of whether or not we now have a legitimate government in Washington.

The silence is deafening.

But I assure you, the issue will not go away --- not while the compelling evidence of fraud accumulates and goes unanswered.

Sincerely,

Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor
The Crisis Papers.
www.crisispapers.org

re #103 Thank you, Mr. Partridge. That's another excellent letter and there are a lot of them on this thread.

By the way, Ernest Partridge is a Co-Editor of one of my favorite websites (which I have been plugging here recently) and the author of the excellent article What Can We the People Do About Election Fraud? (a permanent link to which is also prominently featured at please don't read my blog).

Here's my letter, sent on 4/29/05. So far he hasn't responded to any of my questions.. Does anyone think Mr. Wycliff is doing any research on this?

Dear Mr. Wycliff,
I am appalled by your lack of knowledge regarding the apparent election fraud that has occurred in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Did you even take the time to talk to Bob Koehler about his article to understand his point of view? Have you done any research on the issue of apparent voter fraud in last year's election???? It seems that you don't really have enough information to back up the points made in your article. Your only source appears to be Mr. Jones, who also works for the Tribune.
Voter irregularities in Ohio were not the only problem we faced concerning the 2004 election. If you aren' t aware of this fact, please note that in February, 2005, Black Box Voting was able to hack into a " real system in a real location using the actual setup used on Election Day, Nov. 2, 2004." I have posted the link to this story below:
http://www.bbvforums.org...cgi?file=/1954/3826.html

I have also printed part of the story below:
"In February, we were allowed to try various hacking techniques into a real election system. To our surprise, the method used in our October simulation did not work.

However, another method did work. The hack that did work was unsophisticated enough that many high school students would be able to achieve it. This hack altered the election by 100,000 votes, leaving no trace at all in the central tabulator program. It did not appear in any audit log. The hack could have been executed in the November 2004 election by just one person.

This hack stunned the officials who were observing the test. It calls into question the results of as many as 40 million votes in 30 states. We are awaiting the response of the House Judiciary Committee to this new development for their investigation."

Do you think the House Judiciary Committee, of which the Democrats are the minority, will investigate these findings??? I doubt it, unless there is tremendous pressure to do so. The right to vote and have every vote counted is not a partisan issue. Articles like yours will not shine light on this problem. Don't you believe that every vote should be counted correctly??? I do!!
At the end of your dubious article you stated, "Winning isn't the sole end of politics." Does that mean it's okay for our voting system to have 30% of voting machines with no verifiable paper trail? Does that mean it's acceptable for many black, poor, AND democratic voters in Ohio to be denied the chance to vote because there aren't enough machines to handle the record voter turnout, even though Republican precincts in Ohio had no such shortages?
If there are doubts about which candidate really won the election, why don't we just perform a complete investigation?? Can you answer that question?
If the election was stolen, what would be the "moral" thing to do? Winning isn't everything, but apparently if you can cheat to avoid losing and get away with it, that's not a problem… If Nixon was robbed, I think he should have challenged the results...
Please respond back with answers to my questions, but only after you've done the kind of investigation that all respectable journalists should do whenever they cover a story, especially on topics as critical as this one.

Sincerely,

David Fisher

re # 105: David wrote:

"Does anyone think Mr. Wycliff is doing any research on this?"

No. I don't think he cares one little bit.

I suggest Mr. Wycliff study the basics about polling.

http://www.democraticund...;address=203×404988

This is a more recent post regarding the basic mathematics of polling.

In the post, there is a link to an Excel model which simulates the 2004 election. The state electoral vote and national popular vote models are based on the exit polls and indicate that Kerry won - easily.

It's so easy to run (just press F9) that Mr. Wycliff can even run it himself - but only AFTER he learns the basics. H will have to eplace his belief in intelligent design with a rudimentary knowledge of probability ansd statistics.

http://www.progressivein...um=120&topic_id=1273