It doesn't matter what his approval ratings are. The Republicans have already stolen two presidential elections in a row, with the so-called political opposition just folding up like cheap lawn furniture instead of raising holy hell. In that context, it's hard to see how low approval ratings will translate into a change in people or policy. Yeah, I know it eventually could, but people have to get a lot more angry than they appear to be now--and a lot more active.

---

by Sandia
It doesn't matter what his approval ratings are. The Republicans have already stolen two presidential elections in a row, with the so-called political opposition just folding up like cheap lawn furniture instead of raising holy hell.

---

I know aspects of the 2000 election was about as fair as a business deal in a bananna republic, but didn't he win the 2004 election fair and square?

---

by Byron
(quotes)
I know aspects of the 2000 election was about as fair as a business deal in a bananna republic, but didn't he win the 2004 election fair and square?

---

No, he didn't. It's alleged he didn't win the 2004 election either, and that the fraud was even more massive than in 2000.

In 2000, it's alleged the fraud was coordinated by a Bush partisan in Florida. In 2004, it's alleged it was another Bush partisan in Ohio.

There is evidence that Kerry would have won Ohio without the alleged fraud. And if he had won Ohio, Kerry would have won the election.

Here's just some of the stuff that allegedly went on in Ohio:
--Kerry's name "accidentally" having been removed from ballots in one county.
--Machines in heavily Democratic areas breaking down repeatedly. In one area, the machines were locked in a room for which there seemed to be no key available.
--Deliberate decisions to provide fewer than needed machines in heavily Democratic areas, producing lines where people had to wait for hours to vote, causing a lot of people to get discouraged and go home.
--Kerry votes mysteriously disappearing after counts in heavily Democratic areas.
--Kerry votes strangely changing to Bush votes on electronic machines. The number of Bush votes counted in one county was higher than the number of registerd voters in the county.
--Intimidation and challenges to black voters (who usually vote Democratic) in some areas; such as asking for ID that's not required before someone can vote

And on and on.

The alleged 2004 fraud didn't get as much media attention as the 2000 debacle because Kerry conceded the election almost immediately. In 2000, the election hung in the balance for two or three weeks while there were court challenges and so on. So it got a lot of media exposure. But when the opposition candidate concedes right away, as in 2004, the mainstream media basically moves on. And that's what happened in most cases.

Luckily, John Conyers, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives from Michigan, wasn't satisfied to let it rest. He and the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee went to Ohio and conducted a five-week investigation into the fraud that went on. They held hearings, interviewed people, did research, and documented the fraud in an incredible report called "Preserving Democracry: What Went Wrong in Ohio."

If you're interested in the report, you can get it on the Internet fairly easily. (It's also available on Amazon.)One easy way to get a look at it is to go through Conyers' website. I'm not sure what the policy is here for posting links. But I'll try. If you go to www.house.gov and scroll down to John Conyers under "Representative websites" you'll come to a page that has a direct link to the report. I haven't read the whole thing. But the part I've read makes amazing reading.

No, there's great evidence that Bush wasn't fairly elected either time.


(Edited by Sandia 21/10/2005 18:47)

(Edited by Staff 21/10/2005 21:07)

Very interesting Sandia.

I'm truly loathed to do this, but under UK libel law Tangent21 could be held liable for unproved allegations against named individuals, so I've edited out any direct allegations in your post while, I hope, leaving the gist of the allegations intact. The link is, as far as I'm aware, fine.

We need a First Ammendment. Badly.

---

by Byron
I'm truly loathed to do this, but under UK libel law Tangent21 could be held liable for unproved allegations against named individuals, so I've edited out any direct allegations in your post while, I hope, leaving the gist of the allegations intact.

---

Sorry about naming names in the post. I didn't mean to cause a problem. I totally forgot about the UK libel law. I'll try to be more careful next time.

No problem Sandia. Out of interest I checked my uni law library the other day and as I'd suspected, US and UK libel laws are very different beasts.