2004 President

DeJaVu

Chip — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:36:36 -0400

As we drift through this political season, preoccupied with Plain Palin antics while John McCain tries to be the unBush, take a look and a lead from the past. Is this the America we want?

Look here for more presidential commercials.

Pope Versus President

Heather Wokusch — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:26:07 -0400

The Vatican’s recent snub of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is only the latest salvo in the battle between Pope Benedict XVI and President George W. Bush. This tug of war has profound implications for both U.S. foreign policy and the critical Catholic vote in 2008's presidential race.

Overlapping Agendas

Things haven't always been tense between Bush and Benedict. They share similar views regarding abortion, gay marriage, and other hot-button conservative issues. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (as Benedict was known before becoming Pope in April 2005) even helped Bush secure the White House for a second term.

Specifically, after Bush visited the Vatican in June 2004, complaining that "Not all the American bishops are with me," Ratzinger sent a letter to US bishops, ordering them to refuse Communion to "a Catholic politician … consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" - a thinly-veiled reference to John Kerry. Ratzinger added that any person even voting for this Catholic politician would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion." Probably no surprise, then, that Bush increased his margin among Catholics by 6% from 2000 to 2004.

In an interesting twist, Ratzinger also partnered with George W. Bush's brother Neil in a foundation "to promote ecumenical understanding and publish original religious texts" in 1999. Oddly enough, business credit reports listed the foundation as a "management trust for purposes other than education, religion, charity or research," leaving the true nature of the Neil Bush/Cardinal Ratzinger venture unclear.

In 2005, Ratzinger was named as a defendant in a U.S. lawsuit suit accusing him of conspiring to cover up the sexual abuse of minors. At the center of the controversy was a May 2001 confidential letter he had sent Catholic bishops across the world ordering them to keep evidence of the sexual abuse of minors by clergy secret until 10 years after the child had reached adult status.

Soon after becoming Pope, however, Ratzinger was dismissed from the case. A US federal judge decided the lawsuit would be incompatible with the United States' foreign policy interests."

Disagreements Multiply

On many contentious issues since then, Pope Benedict XVI has disagreed with the Bush administration's policies, but only politely and indirectly. For example, Benedict has spoken in favor of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is often at loggerheads with Bush administration foreign policy.

Similarly, Benedict's Vatican has taken a firm stance against global warming, even acquiring a carbon offset forest to make the Vatican the first entirely carbon neutral sovereign state." He has called for greater international co-operation to fight ozone depletion, yet not overtly criticized White House foot-dragging in that area.

The gloves came off, however, regarding the war in Iraq. In a May 2003 interview, Ratzinger said, "There was not sufficient reasons to unleash a war in Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war.'"

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was similarly contentious for former Pope John Paul II, who sent a special envoy to the White House in March 2003 in an effort to prevent an attack. The papal envoy's pleas fell on deaf ears.

Vatican criticisms of the Bush administration’s military intervention in Iraq have continued unabated. French Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, told an Italian magazine in August 2007, "The facts speak for themselves. Alienating the international community (with the U.S. push for war) was a mistake." Tauran, who has referred to the invasion and occupation as a "crime against peace," also said that Christians in Iraq "paradoxically, were more protected under the dictatorship" of Saddam Hussein.

Rice Rebuffed

As such, it is perhaps unsurprising that Benedict failed to honor Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's urgent request for a private meeting last month. The Italian periodical Corriere della Sera reported that Rice was hoping to capitalize on the Pope's moral authority by having a papal audience focused on the Middle East. Instead, Rice was told that Benedict was on holiday and had to settle for a telephone conversation with a lower Vatican official.

The ongoing tensions between Bush and Benedict over Iraq put America's over 75 million Roman Catholics in a tricky position for 2008. By supporting candidates hawkish on the Bush administration's Iraq policies, are they defying the Pope and the Catholic Church?

For its part, the powerful United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has taken a firm stance against the US presence in Iraq. A July 2007 letter to House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH), USCCB noted, “The current situation in Iraq is unacceptable and unsustainable, as is the policy and political stalemate among decision makers in Washington … our nation must have the moral courage to change course in Iraq.”

Dissent is swelling up from the grassroots as well. In August 2007, an alliance of religious groups calling itself Catholics for an End to War collected 10,000 signatures for an online petition “urging leaders to commit to a responsible withdrawal of U.S. troops.” Sister Simone Campbell of the national Catholic social justice lobby NETWORK said, "Church leaders and individual Catholics have opposed U.S. policy in Iraq since before the war began," adding that the petition “lets thousands of Catholics unite to speak out even more strongly for an end to the violence and occupation.”

In other words, being dovish on Iraq might help the next Democratic presidential contender win Roman Catholic votes. Whether the current front-runners qualify for that distinction, however, is another matter.

This article first appeared in Foreign Policy in Focus. Heather Wokusch is the author of The Progressives’ Handbook series, and can be contacted at www.HeatherWokusch.com .

Electronic Voting Machines "Hack" Off Democrat Jim Webb's Name from Ballot!

Frank Ranelli — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:26:39 -0400

As being reported by the AP press, Jim Webb, Democratic challenger to George "Macaca" Allen, has had his name chopped off or "hacked" off by electronic voting machines!

What is being called a "glitch", three cities in Virginia -- Alexandria, Falls Church and Charlottesville -- will not properly display Jim Webb's name on the November ballot. Voters will only see 'James H. "Jim"' on the ballot, instead of James H. "Jim" Webb.

To make matters worse, the candidates will have "their party affiliations...cut off."

To summarize, in Alexandria, Falls Church and Charlottesville, Virginia, voters will not be able to recognize Jim Webb by name OR by party affiliation!

The AP is also reporting, "Jean Jensen, secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections, pledged to have the issue fixed by the 2007 statewide elections."

How generous of her, to have the "issue" fixed by next year! In the mean time, unsuspecting voters, in these three cities, will show up on election day and not even find "Webb" on the ballot or to even find his party affiliation!

I smell some hometown, Republican-cooked thuggery going on here! The same kind of thuggery that helped steal 2000, 2002, 2004 and now trying to steal 2006 for the neocons!

To contact the Virginia State Board of Elections:
http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Index.html

# # #

John Kerry Was Right

Bob Fertik — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:24:15 -0400

So sayeth George Will (h/t Glenn Greenwald):

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Of course the Busheviks vehemently rejected Kerry's view at the time:

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. [Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

Two years too late, Will delivers a smackdown:

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."

Hey George: why don't you atone for your sins by telling Bush and Cheney to resign and appoint Al Gore and John Kerry to replace them?

Of Course the 2004 Election Was Stolen

davidswanson — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:46:59 -0400

If you've read Congressman Conyers report or Greg Palast's book or Mark Crispin Miller's book or if you had access to the internet in November and December of 2004, or if you follow Brad Blog, then you probably already know the answer to the question in the title of this new Rolling Stone article: Was the 2004 Election Stolen? The author is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and his concludion: "Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House."

Hmm. Where have I read this before -- 19 months ago?!

Two Cleveland Election Officials Indicted For Felonious 2004 Recount

CactusPat — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:37:42 -0400

Stolen Election 2004 just won't go away, 'cause Bush's Grand Larceny Democracy is just too large a crime to cover-up... this COULD open the floodgates to state-wide prosecutions of election theft in Ohio...

(newsnet5) BOE Employees Indicted In 2004 Presidential Recount - Women Charged With Disobeying Election Laws Two Cuyahoga County Board of Elections employees were indicted Tuesday on charges stemming from the 2004 presidential election recount. Rosie Grier and Kathleen Dreamer have been indicted on six counts each. The charges include failure to perform duties imposed upon them by law, misconduct of Board of Election employees, knowingly disobeying elections law, unlawfully obtaining possession of ballots/ballot boxes or pollbooks, and unlawfully opening or permitting the opening of a sealed package containing ballots. If convicted, the women could spend up to four years in prison each...

The Cleveland Plain Dealer has more in depth coverage -

)2 elections officials indicted in recount Two Cuyahoga County elections officials were indicted Tuesday on charges of not handling ballots correctly during the recount of the 2004 presidential election. Kathleen Dreamer, manager of the board's ballot department, and the assistant manager, Rosie Grier, were each charged with six counts of failing to follow Ohio laws that spell out how ballots are selected and reviewed during a recount. The most serious charges carry a maximum of 18 months in prison. Erie County Prosecutor Kevin J. Baxter conducted the investigation at the behest of Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason, who recused himself from the case because his office represents the elections board. The charges stem from a complaint first raised last December by Toledo lawyer Richard Kerger, who watched over the recount on behalf of two third-party candidates. Kerger charged that elections officials failed to randomly select precincts that were supposed to be counted by hand and compared against ballots tabulated by a machine; conduct test-runs before witnesses; and investigate discrepancies between vote totals. Baxter would not offer details of his investigation but said he examined allegations that officials took "measures in order to all but assure that there would not be a countywide hand count." Cuyahoga County's four elections board members issued a statement defending their employees and the voting process. "These allegations are based on interpretation of procedures, not on any suggestion of fraud," they said. Dreamer and Grier could not be reached for comment. Roger Synenberg, who represents Dreamer, said the charges are unfounded. He accused Baxter of failing to fully examine the board's procedures and interview all potential witnesses. "It's impossible to investigate this in a three-day grand jury investigation," said Synenberg, a former longtime elections board member. "He took the word of a few people at the board who don't understand the process." Synenberg asked Baxter last week to turn over all evidence to U.S. Attorney Greg White. "Calling into question the integrity of a national election requires that a thorough investigation be completed by the federal authorities," Synenberg said in a letter to Baxter. Baxter said Tuesday that he "thoroughly and exhaustively investigated this" during almost three days of testimony. He said he even allowed a witness suggested by Synenberg to testify Tuesday morning. Baxter said the indictments will probably end his investigation. To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: mnaymik@plaind.com, 216-999-4849

Hopefully these two birds will sing and help bring down Blackwell's whole corrupt vote stealing machine.. stay tuned! update: Things are also cooking in the 2004 recount fraud arena in New Mexico... see New Mexico Court Hears Presidential Recount Dispute for more...

Torturer General Gonzalez's Justice Dept. Clears Ohio Of Election Fraud

CactusPat — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:46:41 -0400

It's shades of Stolen Election 2000 all over again. Back in 2001 it was Inquisitor General AshKKKroft's Justice Dept. that found no wrong doing in Florida, months and months after the Bush Junta was first installed. Now we get the same shite in Stolen Election 2005. Only more blatant!, report says distribution of votings machines favored black voters because of lower turnout in the black community. Gee, wonder if that might have anything to do black voters having to wait in line for hour upon hour to exercise their franchise? Think perhaps thousands were discouraged from voting and left the long lines?

Justice Clears Ohio in Voting Booth Bias
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - The Department of Justice says it found no evidence of discrimination in the distribution of voting machines in two Ohio counties in the 2004 presidential election. The department began investigating after voters complained of long voting lines and alleged discrimination in Franklin and Knox counties. Investigators wanted to determine if elections officials had intentionally skewed the placement of machines to favor Republicans. The Justice Department said, however, the distribution in Franklin County narrowly favored black voters. Because turnout in predominantly black precincts was lower than in white ones, machines in those districts averaged fewer votes, according to a report released Wednesday.

An unanticipated 76 percent turnout - with many first-time voters - contributed to the long lines in the Kenyon College precinct in Knox County - with some people forced to wait until 4 a.m. to vote on just two available machines, officials found.

Distribution of voting machines is determined by county boards of elections, made up of two Democrats, two Republicans and two nonvoting members.

Franklin County, which includes Columbus, had 2,904 machines on hand for 535,575 people who showed up to vote.

In the Knox County precinct, the number of registered voters more than doubled to 1,607 between March and November of 2004. But by the time those numbers were available, the Knox County board already had decided on the distribution of voting machines.

The election turned on Ohio's 20 electoral college votes, and not until preliminary results were available early Nov. 3 did Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry concede. President Bush defeated Kerry by about 118,000 votes in the state.

Important Victory: Blackwell Loses Ohio Supreme Court Case Against Recount Lawyers

CactusPat — Sat, 21 May 2005 01:03:12 -0400

Via the Kucinich forum comes news from the CommonBlog...

An Important Victory: Blackwell Loses in Court
By Barb Burt

You may remember that attorney Cliff Arnebeck, a board member of Common Cause Ohio, was threatened with sanctions for his activism concerning the recount effort and other suits related to the November 2nd, 2004, election in Ohio. We believe that such an action (sanctioning activists for questioning the outcome of an election) would have a chilling effect on others' efforts to raise reasonable doubts about election administration and election validity -- and indeed we believe that was the intent behind the motions for sanctions, which were entered by Attorney General Petro at the official request of Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. Therefore, we're glad to know that Blackwell's effort failed. In an email today, Cliff sent us the good news that, "Decisions [were] issued today denying the motions for sanctions in the elections contests we filed." Sometimes the good guys win, even in Ohio!

Also, the decision has been posted on Ohio Honest Elections Campaign website.
http://www.ohiohonestelections.org/

A Google News search for this news produced only four results as of 3:00AM 05-20-05...

washingtonpost.com

Ohio.com

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/05/19/national/a15...

http://www.whiotv.com/news/4507520/detail.html

Ohio Court Won't Punish Lawyers Over Vote

By JOHN McCARTHY
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 19, 2005; 10:41 PM

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Ending one of the last fights from the contentious 2004 presidential campaign, Ohio's top judge on Thursday declined to punish four attorneys who had challenged the results in court. Chief Justice Thomas Moyer ruled against Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro's attempt to have the lawyers sanctioned for filing "a meritless claim" against the vote that gave President Bush a win in Ohio and, as a result, enough electoral votes to win a second term in the White House.

In legal documents filed with the state Supreme Court, the lawyers had said the challenge they filed on behalf of 37 voters included enough evidence of voting irregularities to back up their allegations of widespread fraud. Neither Democratic Sen. John Kerry's campaign nor his party were part of the challenge, which was later withdrawn. Petro, a Republican, asked for sanctions against lawyers Cliff Arnebeck, Robert Fitrakis, Susan Truitt and Peter Peckarsky. If the court had sanctioned the lawyers, they could have been forced to repay attorney's fees and court costs.

Moyer, acting under the court's power to assign election-related complaints to a single justice, said that while the court has the authority to sanction attorneys, the speed with which elections must be challenged allows the court some leeway. "The General Assembly could have expressly authorized courts to sanction those who pursue frivolous election contests. It has not," Moyer, a Republican, wrote in his decision.

The judge added, however, that the lawyers' allegations in the contest of the presidential election were "at best, highly improbable and potentially defamatory, inflammatory, and devoid of logic." Bush beat Kerry by about 118,000 votes in Ohio, which turned out to be the pivotal state in the Nov. 2 election. The lawyers' election challenge was withdrawn in early January, with those contesting the results saying it was clear their argument would be dismissed as moot with Bush set to be inaugurated.

Petro spokeswoman Kim Norris said the attorney general welcomed Moyer's ruling, but also noted that the plaintiffs withdrew the case and no fraud was ever proven. Fitrakis said he stands by the allegations raised in the challenge.

"All the evidence suggests the election results were irregular," he said. "We should have been congratulated for trying to make sure the election was conducted properly." Arnebeck, Peckarsky and Truitt agreed that the judge ruled correctly.

Separately, another judge denied a request for sanctions against the same lawyers in a similar challenge of Moyer's own Nov. 2 election, which he won with 53 percent of the vote. Moyer's ruling leaves one remaining case involving the presidential vote in Ohio _ a challenge filed by the National Voting Rights Institute.

Exit Poll Big Lie Exposed

Bob Fertik — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:44:16 -0500

On Inauguration Eve - to prove Bush "really" won this time - Warren Mitofsky published his analysis of why the exit polls that showed Kerry won were "wrong." He offered four hypotheses:

Distance restrictions from polling places imposed upon the interviewers by election officials at the state and local level.
Weather conditions, which lowered completion rates at certain polling locations.
Multiple precincts voting at the same location as the precinct in the exit poll sample.
Interviewer characteristics, such as age, which were more often related to the errors last year than in past elections.

After reading the 77-page document, Stop_George of Newsclip Autopsy discovered one teensy-tiny flaw with Mitofsky's self-criticism.

Even if all of these factors had been "fixed," Mitofsky's own numbers show KERRY STILL WON!

Has Mitofsky proven that these variables account for the significant discrepancy between the exit poll numbers and the actual results of the election?

That answer is a BIG RESOUNDING "NO".

According to Mitofsky's results, there would STILL be a significant discrepancy even if all of his recommendations were followed. Why no mention of this extremely important detail? The silence, as we say, is deafening.

A crude analogy would be to say that a bowl of sh*t would taste bad because one put too much pepper on it. However, I think we would all agree that if we take away the pepper, it would still taste bad. (I hope no one argues with me on that particular detail).

So remember: When the editorials from the mainstream give you the pablum that it has been proven by Mitofsky that the exit poll discrepancy was a result of Republicans not wanting to participate (due to the variables listed above) -- please write them and set them straight!!! THERE IS STILL AN "UNACCOUNTED FOR" DISCREPANCY.

I would love for Dr. Freeman to do another follow-up to his yet unrefuted research, showing that these variables listed by Mitofsky do not adequately account for the overall significant discrepancy between the exit polls and the official election results. I'm sure we will hear from him soon!

Mitofsky (and the mainstream media) still assume that there was no significant COUNTING ERROR (malicious or benign). The evidence of widespread irregularites across the U.S. and, most notably, in Ohio, paints Mitofsky (and the press) as being a bit naive (or careless) in this regard. As he states in his report:

It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters. There were certainly motivational factors that are impossible to quantify, but which led to Kerry voters being less likely than Bush voters to refuse to take the survey.

How about this reason: More people voted for Kerry than what was officially recognized.

In other words, KERRY REALLY WON!

Winning Brings Respect

Bob Fertik — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 06:38:04 -0500

Our hard-fought victory is winning us respect.

For example, here's today's NY Times:

The election in Ohio, one of the most fiercely contested states, has been seized on by the Green Party, liberal Democrats and advocates of changing the voting system because of its long lines, lack of uniform policies on provisional ballots and the allocation of voting machines.

In many ways, the debate came about because of the relentless efforts of a small group of third-party activists, liberal lawyers, Internet muckrakers and civil rights groups, who have been arguing since Election Day that the Ohio vote was rigged for Mr. Bush.

In the weeks since, those groups have organized rallies and public hearings in Ohio protesting the vote, filed lawsuits contesting Mr. Bush's victory and demanded a statewide recount that resulted in Mr. Bush's margin of victory shrinking by 300 votes, to about 118,450. They also protested in Washington on Thursday.

"I think we're seeing a political realignment going on," David Cobb, the Green presidential candidate, said at a rally across the street from the White House. "The rank and file of the Democratic Party are far more progressive than the corporatist leaders of the party."

Before yesterday's victory, an article like this would have been impossible.

Michael North sent this Google link to help us count the number of stories - 983 as of 7 a.m. Friday.

And the voters are overwhelmingly on our side! CNN is running a poll asking "Should Congress look into the validity of the presidential election results in Ohio?" As of 7 a.m., the results were Yes=66% No=34% with nearly 30,000 votes.

Meanwhile, Bush is losing respect - his disapproval rating of 49% equals his approval rating, by far the worst rating for any incumbent on the eve of his second inauguration.