Fitrakis/Wasserman: RFK and Rolling Stone Nail Ohio's Stolen 2004 Election

[Wilms]

RFK and Rolling Stone nail Ohio's stolen 2004 election, but much more must be done

By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman

Online Journal Guest Writers

Jun 5, 2006,

The story of the stolen election of 2004 has FINALLY busted into the mainstream media, thanks to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Rolling Stone Magazine.

snip

Now we'll see if there's any further media follow-up. And if the Democratic Party actually DOES SOMETHING about the fact that America is about to be hijacked again in 2006, and then for the third straight presidential race in 2008.

snip

In the meantime, two things:

In 1960, Bobby Kennedy's uncle Jack won what was until then the closest election in US history amidst charges that the vote count in Chicago -- -and thus the presidency -- -had been stolen. No doubt many Foxist right-wing bloviators will bring this up as Kennedy travels the talk show circuit.

But it's a lie. It is likely many graveyards voted in Chicago for JFK in 1960. But many also voted for Nixon downstate. And though right-wingers have portrayed Nixon as a "great patriot" for (reluctantly) declining to fight that election's outcome, in fact he could have carried Illinois and still not won the presidency. JFK won the Electoral College that year 303 to 219. Illinois gave him 27 electoral votes. You do the math.

snip

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_869.shtml

[m.standridge]

1. re: 1960

Yes, the math still didn't work out for Nixon in 1960. He actually asked for recounts in at least two states, including Illinois and New Jersey, and the result was that he lost ground. This is recounted, among other places:

Michener, James. Report of the County Charman (New York: Random, 1961. 212-13).

Nixon's recount, in other words, backfired. He dropped it, especially when late-arriving results revealed JFK had carried Hawaii.

This phenomenon is best explained by what virtually every recount has ever shown between Democrats and Republicans: in a crunch,in a very close race, it is usually the Democrat that picks up some marginal ground as the result of a recount. This is why these close races can be so interesting to Democrats.

You may recall from 2000, for example, that W. kept threatening to request a "recount" in Wisconsin, as it was close. He never followed up on that or any other state but Florida. And Gore had started the recount ball rolling there.

That's because even the GOP knows this marginal pick-up of votes is going to the Democrat in those situations.

[m.standridge]

2. re: paper

Paper trails and receipts are what the GOP is after, of course. Without those, it's relatively easy to rig an election done on computerized and/or electronic equipment. That way, if it gets close, there's nothing to tip it to the Democrats.

Hence, all these GOP-backed efforts at laws to change the use of paper in elections, as warned against here by Mr. Fitrakis and others. And, yes, another 1960 is unlikely (with that result) without some paper involved in the election process, in enough places to make a difference.

One tip-off: a "power failure" on election day. We saw that, anmong other places, in 2004, in Iowa, Colorado, Arkansas and North Carolina. This is a possible sign the GOP is trying to "arrange" a result by shutting down computers, then, as they reboot, having downloaded a new result. Without an original paper as a guide, who's to know the difference?

The polls might give us some indication. If we blow off various polls--as many in the media seem willing to do--we can tolerate the result without anxiety for the democratic process.

[mod mom]

3. In Ohio, the GOP has used a" Homeland Security Alert" and "High Humidity"

to postpone results.

[Wilms]

4. Great posts.

Thanks

[Einsteinia]

5. Yes, post-impeachment (in the 80's) I recall

Nixon was on 60 Minutes and he said that Kennedy stole the election, but he was mum because he thought the U.S. couldn't handle the truth about itself--that is wasn't a democracy--or something to that effect. And I didn't believe him, because he was a proven liar.

Funny how the same ruse gets replayed over and over. For instance two years Conny McCormack of LA said that the reason she didn't do the required manual recounty by hand, but instead just ran the ballots through the same computer twice was that the Americans would be shocked if the outcome were different. Again, I didn't believe her, because she is a proven liar.

When Fox pulls this no one will believe them at this point (except those with sub-90 IQs), because they've proven themselves to be liars.