Greg Palast: Kerry Won in '04

Journalist Greg Palast first caught my interest when he was a guest on The Randi Rhodes Show. Impressed by that and other appearances, I read Armed Madhouse, his book dealing with election theft and general government corruption. I was alarmed by what I read, but didn't have a blog at the time to use as a forum.

In the past week, my interest was re-sparked by another appearance on the radio, very shortly followed by the Andrew Meyer tasering the other day (Meyer was quoting Armed Madhouse right before he got into trouble). So, I've been checking out his blog.

I've posted a couple of items on Palast over the last couple of months, in fact two in the last couple of days. But this story is important, so we're triple-dosing.

Palast has recently excerpted a chunk of his book, which really captures the gist of what really happened in 2004. This saves me a lot of time trying to recap it myself! So, please do go check it out. If this interests you, and you want to learn more, check out Armed Madhouse, all righty? OK then.

[Excerpt]

Cranks and Kooks: Kerry Won in ‘04

THE CON

Kerry Won. Now Get Over It . . .

. . .because they’re putting ‘08 in their pocket. Republicans just seem to have that winning spirit. They also have caging lists, felons of the future, rotting ballots, snuffed canaries, and a lock on the votes of Kissinger-Americans and the undead.

WARNING! There are cranks and kooks and crazies out there on the Internet who say that George Bush lost the 2004 election, like one titled, “Kerry Won” published on the TomPaine.com web site two days after the election. I wrote it.

On November 11, a week after TomPaine.com published it, I received an e-mail from The New York Times Washington Bureau. Hot on the investigation of the veracity of the vote, The Times reporter asked me pointed questions:

Question #1: Are you a “sore loser”? Question #2: Are you a “conspiracy nut”?

There was no third question. . .

Read the rest (it's good): GregPalast.com

LogoTV/HRC Presidential Forum: Mini Review

I just finished watching the LogoTV/HRC Presidential Forum on gay rights issues, and I have to say I was impressed. Mostly by the fact that it was held, televised, and that most of the Democratic candidates appeared. For the record, the Republican candidates were invited, but declined.

My DVR--for some reason--cut off the beginning of the program, so I missed Barrack Obama and most of John Edwards. I have managed to catch several clips from their sections, but I don't have an entire view of how well they did.

From what I saw, Obama was his usual self, seeming (slightly) unprepared (lots of "uhs"), and pandering a little to his audience. Edwards (my favorite, but slipping) seems a bit patronizing, and talks like he's uncovered amazing facts we don't already know. I still like him, but I'm going to be watching closer.

Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich came off very well (if overselling the love thing a bit). Unfortunately, they have virtually no shot at winning. Bill Richardson came off as a bit of a lummox, managing to sound both conceited and humble at the same time, and badly fumbled the "is it a choice" question.

Hillary Clinton continues to surprise me. When I saw her at a forum here in Las Vegas, I was stunned by how she commanded the room. She did the same thing here, exuding warmth, regardless of her "cold" reputation. She dodged a bit on same-sex marriage, but to be honest, I'm not sure any of these candidates is really against it--they just don't feel they can say so. Which is a bit sad.

So, who came off best? Melissa Etheridge! I thought she was a slightly odd choice as a questioner (and I think she did too). But she more than acquitted herself, coming off as intelligent, articulate and funny. Can we vote for her?

Here is a clip from Good Morning America. I really don't like the reporter's tone, and don't much agree with his assessment, but at least you can see a few clips.




If you are interested in seeing more about this event, go here: LogoOnline

Voter Fraud: 2004 Ohio Votes Tossed Out

Voter fraud. It's one of the more serious transgressions against a citizen's rights. Both Democrats and Republicans claim to be against it. But they don't both hold the same view of what "voter fraud" is.

Republicans tend to think that voter fraud is the registering of people (illegal aliens, felons, dead people) who shouldn't be allowed to vote. This may happen, but I don't think any wide-spread case has ever even been close to being proven in recent years. Certainly it shouldn't be allowed, but I'm not sure anybody could declaritively say that it has swayed an election.

Democrats tend to think that voter fraud constitutes a deliberate plan to disenfranchise voters, by way of caging lists, placement of inadequate or nonworking machines, phony phone calls, misleading pamphleting, and vote flipping. Some of these things have been proven. Don't believe me?

Start your homework here:

GregPalast.com

BradBlog.com

BlackBoxVoting.org

Often times, even when large-scale voter fraud is suspected, steps are taken (apply sinister motives or not) that prevent a definitive conclusion from ever being drawn. Read on. . .

[Excerpt]

In Violation of Federal Law, Ohio's 2004 Presidential Election Records Are Destroyed or Missing

In 56 of Ohio's 88 counties, ballots and election records from 2004 have been "accidentally" destroyed, despite a federal order to preserve them -- it was crucial evidence which would have revealed whether the election was stolen.

Two-thirds of Ohio counties have destroyed or lost their 2004 presidential ballots and related election records, according to letters from county election officials to the Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner.

The lost records violate Ohio law, which states federal election records must be kept for 22 months after Election Day, and a U.S. District Court order issued last September that the 2004 ballots be preserved while the court hears a civil rights lawsuit alleging voter suppression of African-American voters in Columbus. . .

Read more at: AlterNet.org