The usual Kevin election post.

[Kevin_Lowe]

For those who asked, back in the day, "If this is all true why isn't CNN reporting it?", stories from CNN and the NYT.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/10/unsettled.election.ap/index.html

(The same story is on the NYT site at http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/10/unsettled.election.ap/index.html but it requires registration or a trip to www.bugmenot.com so I'd advise using the CNN link).

I like the way they say very early on in the piece:

Few mainstream politicians dispute Bush's victory, and the incumbent's 3.5 million-vote margin nationwide was wider than any of the reported problems, which included insufficient or incomplete provisional ballots and, in some places, brazen partisan shenanigans.

Which is newspaperspeak for "some mainstream politicians do dispute Bush's victory, and there were brazen partisan shenanigans".

Meanwhile the Clinton Curtis affidavit case appears at the moment to be firming up. Many but not quite all of the major questions about Curtis' story seem to be nailed down now and his credibility is still intact after a few days worth of controversy. It is starting to look more credible that Feeney, quite possibly acting as an intermediary and fall guy for Jeb Bush, was looking into fixing electronic elections even before the 2000 election.

http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/

A bit further down is a link to a story here that needs the usual 48 hour caution but, if true, seems to be both evidence of out and out corruption and a legal basis for criminal charges against Blackwell and other Ohio election officials and/or a revote.

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2004/12/blackwell-locks-out-recount-volunteers.html

We'll see how thos one goes. If the facts turn out to be as presented one can only assume that Blackwell has been blocking audit activities because he is hiding serious "irregularities" (fraud). Since Ohio was and is the critical state that would of course mean a real possibility that GWB stole the 2004 presidential election, and a real possibility that the perpetrators will get caught. Interesting times... see you in 48 hours.

 

[Grammatron]

Still no evidence of voter fraud.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Still no evidence of voter fraud.

In your opinion, is it evidence that Uri Geller is a fraud if he refuses to be frisked before "scientific testing"? Or for that matter when individuals like Sylvia Brown duck scientific testing entirely?

My own opinion is that such things are very strong circumstancial evidence of fraud. In much the same way, trying to impede a recount is very strong circumstancial evidence of fraudulent deeds. In fact, if you had taken the time to read that last link, you would have seen that the law of Ohio actually agrees with me on this precise point:

ORC Sec. 3599.161 makes it a crime for any employee of the Board of Elections to knowingly prevent or prohibit any person from inspecting the public records filed in the office of the Board of Elections. Finally, ORC Sec. 3599.42 clearly states: “A violation of any provision of Title XXXV (35) of the Revised Code constitutes a prima facie case of election fraud within the purview of such Title.”

That link again:

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2004/12/blackwell-locks-out-recount-volunteers.html

 

[DaveW]

My own opinion is that such things are very strong circumstancial evidence of fraud. In much the same way, trying to impede a recount is very strong circumstancial evidence of fraudulent deeds.

No, it could just be evidence that the requirements for a recount are not met, and that said party is trying to block an illegal or wasteful (in terms of money, time, whatever other resource) recount. Or that they like the outcome and don't want it challenged (yeah, weak argument, but try to tell me this is not something that happens ) Not that this is necessarily the case in your example, but attempting to block a recount hardly counts as very strong evidence for fraud.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, it could just be evidence that the requirements for a recount are not met, and that said party is trying to block an illegal or wasteful (in terms of money, time, whatever other resource) recount. Or that they like the outcome and don't want it challenged (yeah, weak argument, but try to tell me this is not something that happens ) Not that this is necessarily the case in your example, but attempting to block a recount hardly counts as very strong evidence for fraud.

You're entitled to your opinion. I suppose it is also possible that Uri Geller has psychic powers but is also incredibly ticklish. Or something.

Making a public legal challenge to the recount would be one thing. Acting illegally to sabotage it would be something very different to my mind.

48 hour rule applies, though. We'll see if that's actually what happened.

 

[DaveW]

You're entitled to your opinion. I suppose it is also possible that Uri Geller has psychic powers but is also incredibly ticklish. Or something.

Making a public legal challenge to the recount would be one thing. Acting illegally to sabotage it would be something very different to my mind.

48 hour rule applies, though. We'll see if that's actually what happened.

Hmm, you're the one pushing conspiracy/fraud, and I am offering possibilities quite a bit less involved and convoluted, and you compare my offerings to something so absurd? Come on, Kevin, I am not coming out and saying that fraud has not occurred, but you expect us to take the links you keep providing as close to absolute proof that fraud has occurred? When/if they find some real proof, I'll take them seriously. Since so far it seems they have behaved rather unprofessionally themselves (jumping to conclusions, asserting fraud, etc), they (and you) shouldn't be surprised that they are getting hostile responses (doesn't make it right that they do get hostile responses, but I would expect it).

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hmm, you're the one pushing conspiracy/fraud, and I am offering possibilities quite a bit less involved and convoluted, and you compare my offerings to something so absurd? Come on, Kevin, I am not coming out and saying that fraud has not occurred, but you expect us to take the links you keep providing as close to absolute proof that fraud has occurred?

If you look back you'll see I have never made that claim. Nor is what you are saying relevant to the material I linked to. More than anything else it looks like an attempt to discredit that material by implying I have a history of making silly claims.

In other words, it's what's formally known as an ad hominem argument.

When/if they find some real proof, I'll take them seriously.

I guess "they" are the tight-knit woo-woo conspiracy theory commune, and your position is that concerns about electoral processes are silly and should be ignored until a smoking gun is found.

I'm not sure how smoking guns would ever be found if everyone adopted that position though, so maybe I have misunderstood.

Since so far it seems they have behaved rather unprofessionally themselves (jumping to conclusions, asserting fraud, etc), they (and you) shouldn't be surprised that they are getting hostile responses (doesn't make it right that they do get hostile responses, but I would expect it).

Who in particular has jumped to conclusions and asserted fraud, and why do you think they speak for everyone with concerns about electronic voting in general or the 2004 election in particular?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Xenia-phobia

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

For those who asked, back in the day, "If this is all true why isn't CNN reporting it?", stories from CNN and the NYT.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/10/unsettled.election.ap/index.html

(The same story is on the NYT site at http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/10/unsettled.election.ap/index.html but it requires registration or a trip to www.bugmenot.com so I'd advise using the CNN link).

I like the way they say very early on in the piece:



Which is newspaperspeak for "some mainstream politicians do dispute Bush's victory, and there were brazen partisan shenanigans".

Meanwhile the Clinton Curtis affidavit case appears at the moment to be firming up. Many but not quite all of the major questions about Curtis' story seem to be nailed down now and his credibility is still intact after a few days worth of controversy. It is starting to look more credible that Feeney, quite possibly acting as an intermediary and fall guy for Jeb Bush, was looking into fixing electronic elections even before the 2000 election.

http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/

A bit further down is a link to a story here that needs the usual 48 hour caution but, if true, seems to be both evidence of out and out corruption and a legal basis for criminal charges against Blackwell and other Ohio election officials and/or a revote.

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2004/12/blackwell-locks-out-recount-volunteers.html

We'll see how thos one goes. If the facts turn out to be as presented one can only assume that Blackwell has been blocking audit activities because he is hiding serious "irregularities" (fraud). Since Ohio was and is the critical state that would of course mean a real possibility that GWB stole the 2004 presidential election, and a real possibility that the perpetrators will get caught. Interesting times... see you in 48 hours.

So you now admit that Bev Harris is a liar? Afterall, she claimed that the story was being suppressed by the media. This proves it.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Re: Re: The usual Kevin election post.

So you now admit that Bev Harris is a liar? Afterall, she claimed that the story was being suppressed by the media. This proves it.

Game. Set. Match.

I guess we can all go home then.

Bev Harris said someone told her stories about vote fraud were being suppressed, and a month or so later a story hinting that some people might think that fraud might have taken place is on CNN. Case closed.

 

[DaveW]

If you look back you'll see I have never made that claim. Nor is what you are saying relevant to the material I linked to. More than anything else it looks like an attempt to discredit that material by implying I have a history of making silly claims.

In other words, it's what's formally known as an ad hominem argument.

Actually, it is very relevant to the material you linked to. If you don't see them trying to show the "conspiracies" involved, look again. As far as ad-hom goes, please check your own post that I was responding to. I think you'll see one there. (Remember the Uri Geller being ticklish thing you said?)

I guess "they" are the tight-knit woo-woo conspiracy theory commune, and your position is that concerns about electoral processes are silly and should be ignored until a smoking gun is found.

I'm not sure how smoking guns would ever be found if everyone adopted that position though, so maybe I have misunderstood.

Since you started pointing out logical fallacies: straw man. My position is that starting from the assertion that fraud occured then looking for evidence, or screaming conspiracy whenever they don't get their way is silly. Looking for irregularities is fine, but there certainly has been no evidence as of yet to give them the backing to call fraud or conspiracy.[/b][/quote]

Who in particular has jumped to conclusions and asserted fraud, and why do you think they speak for everyone with concerns about electronic voting in general or the 2004 election in particular?

Bev Harris had asserted fraud on Blackboxvoting.org a few weeks back when you linked it and I commented on it. This particular group is saying that there is a conspiracy to hide the evidence.

If there was fraud, sure it should be outed and shown. The tactics of the people doing the searching (at least the ones you keep linking to) are not the way to do it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Since you started pointing out logical fallacies: straw man. My position is that starting from the assertion that fraud occured then looking for evidence, or screaming conspiracy whenever they don't get their way is silly. Looking for irregularities is fine, but there certainly has been no evidence as of yet to give them the backing to call fraud or conspiracy.[/b]

[/quote]

I started a more detailed reply, but at the point where you started saying things like "screaming conspiracy whenever they don't get their way" I realised that going on the available evidence you are here to sling mud rather than to have a sensible discussion.

So far I've usually managed a polite reply to trolls, but it's after midnight and I just don't have a polite reply in me at the moment.

'Night.

 

[corplinx]

I just think Kevin needs to dump the passive agressive schtick and join Rouser2 for a conspiracy version of CNN's Crossfire.

 

[Bruce]

Still no evidence of voter fraud.

You know what's really funny? My ultra-right boss is convinced that there was voter fraud in Illinois by a left-wing group in Chicago that stuffed ballots and thinks it should be investigated.

When are left-wing extremists and right-wing extremists going to realize they are on the same plane?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: Re: Re: The usual Kevin election post.

I guess we can all go home then.

Bev Harris said someone told her stories about vote fraud were being suppressed, and a month or so later a story hinting that some people might think that fraud might have taken place is on CNN. Case closed.

Oh, so now someone told her that is was being suppressed. I see. Was it one of the guys flying the black helicopters?

Except that Keith Olberman of MSNBC covered it weeks ago. So how is it again that she isn't a liar?

Case closed indeed.

 

[Frank Newgent]

If there was fraud, sure it should be outed and shown. The tactics of the people doing the searching (at least the ones you keep linking to) are not the way to do it.

Is Bloggermann better?

My MSNBC colleague and Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman shares my amazement at the Inspector Clouseaus of the Ohio Secretary of State’s office. If there’s nothing wrong in Ohio, it sure won’t be because Secretary Blackwell didn’t try to make it look like there was.

“I think that Ken Blackwell and his people have behaved in a duck-and-cover mode a la Florida, even before Election Day,” Howard said in a conversation before his appearance on tonight’s edition of 'Countdown'. “By extending the ‘canvassing period’ until now, they make it look as though they have something to hide. They’re supposedly doing it in the name of security, but you can’t do that if you’re leaving the doors unlocked.”

 

[Frank Newgent]

From the same:

Conyers said he had not yet received a reply to his request to the Cincinnati field office of the FBI and the office of the Hocking County, Ohio, Prosecutor, to begin an investigation into the allegations that a vote-tabulating machine there was manipulated there last Friday, contrary to the statewide instructions of Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell that no ballots or vote-counting equipment be inspected except in the presence of bi-partisan observers of that state’s recount.

He said he “didn’t know” if the explanation offered by the president of Triad, the manufacturer of the tabulator, that his employee merely conducted maintenance on the machine, was valid. But he did note that the source of the allegations, Hocking County Deputy Director of Elections Sherole Eaton, has “given a sworn affidavit. The president of the company hasn’t.”

John Conyers is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and might/could challenge (with an agreeable Senator) the Ohio electors’ votes. Then:

...there is a subsequent window, and a process, for challenging whether voters from a state, pledged to one candidate and not the other, should be allowed to vote.

“If there are controversies,” Professor Turley reminded me, “such as some disclosure that a state actually went for Kerry (instead of Bush), there is the ability of members of Congress to challenge. It requires a written objection from one House member and one senator.”

Once that objection is raised, the joint meeting of the two houses, convened to formally count the Electoral College votes and certify the winner of the presidential election, would be immediately discontinued. “Then both Houses separate again and they vote by majority vote as to whether to accept the slate of electoral votes from that state.”

And so have a verifiable record concerning a record not so verifiable. What do you call that?

 

[Ion]

...
And so have a verifiable record concerning a record not so verifiable. What do you call that?

Possible tampering with the record and masking it.

If the tampering is true -and it seems true now at more than 50%, since vote counting equipment had been altered without the presence of bi partisan observers of that state's recount-, the tampering is known as:

fraud.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The usual Kevin election post.

Oh, so now someone told her that is was being suppressed. I see. Was it one of the guys flying the black helicopters?

If you bother to check back to the original post on democraticunderground, which you really should be familiar with anyway because you have been harping on it for weeks, you'll see that's exactly the claim Bev Harris originally made. She claimed a journalist had phoned her and told her vote fraud stories were being suppressed.

Except that Keith Olberman of MSNBC covered it weeks ago. So how is it again that she isn't a liar?

Case closed indeed.

Do you have evidence that the claim was false at the time she made it yet? You've had weeks.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The usual Kevin election post.

Do you have evidence that the claim was false at the time she made it yet? You've had weeks.

Yes, and I gave it weeks ago. You've had weeks to explain why she isn't either a liar or a conspiracy woo-woo, and have failed to do so.

I win.