portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

election fraud

KUCINICH SUPPORTS GREEN PARTY DEMAND FOR OHIO RECOUNT

I guess a few Democrats are principled.
Support for Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb's demand for a recount of the Ohio presidential vote continues to grow. Ohio Congressman and former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has joined a growing list of individuals and organizations calling for a recount.

"I strongly support the request for a recount in Ohio," Kucinich said in a statement sent to the Cobb-LaMarche campaign.

Kucinich said that a "recount is an appropriate response to officials who tried to suppress the vote" and that the "highly partisan activities of state election officials cast doubt on the integrity of the elections process."

Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik, who intend to file jointly for the recount, have demanded that Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican who chaired the Ohio Bush campaign, recuse himself from the recount process.

"We need an election system and election officials we can trust. The problems in Florida in 2000 and the problems in Ohio in 2004 will repeat themselves in 2008 unless we do something about it. Our elections should be administered by an independent non-partisan commission, and not by the state chairs of the Republican presidential campaign," said David Cobb. The Secretary of State in Florida in 2000, Katherine Harris, was also the state chair of the Bush campaign and the person responsible for counting the presidential ballots.

Kucinich's support of Cobb's recount demand comes on the heels of another prominent endorsement of this effort. On Monday, Common Cause, the National Voting Rights Institute, Demos, the Fannie Lou Hamer Project and People for the American Way Foundation issued a joint statement in support of the Cobb and Badnarik demand for an Ohio recount.

Kucinich expressed his appreciation of the growing movement demanding accountability for the 2004 election.

"Thank you to the Greens and all others whose support for a recount will rescue a shred of honesty in the conduct of the 2004 Ohio election," said Kucinich.

The Cobb-LaMarche campaign is now in the process of recruiting volunteers and raising funds for monitoring the actual recount process which is expected to take place in early December. Volunteers and donors should visit the campaign website,  http://www.votecobb.org, for more information.

homepage: homepage: http://www.votecobb.org

That's all good and well 17.Nov.2004 10:04

Dorothy

I even believe it is possible that Kooch means well.

However, all this time and money, spent fussing over which massa's boots we get to lick, seems wasted. Do you really want to spend eight years bickering over who might be licking John-Boy's pickle?

Dennis is THE MAN! 17.Nov.2004 10:35

peacenik

Dennis Kucinich is the only real democrat in the party.

Where is the rest of the democratic leadership? Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Dean....all said they would make sure the votes counted and now they don't seem to give a damn.

Hey Dorothy 17.Nov.2004 10:45

Brian

Don't you want to know about election integrity? Or should we just go back to being sheeple and go to sleep?

Raise the Visibility of Election Fraud 17.Nov.2004 12:27

wake up the blind and the dead

Good for Kucinich. The more media that public personalities can shine on the election fraud, the more people will focus their energies on solutions. Many people feel they can ignore politics and that people with passion and energy for these issues will keep the tyranny at bay. Once they taste the reality of the peoples' inability to change things through the electoral process others will feel the urgency to do something. Perhaps they may even start questioning the status quo and pull their own weight in the fight for liberty.

With Reluctance 17.Nov.2004 14:27

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

Grudgingly, because I don't like Kerry one bit, and never have, I would still agree with the previous poster that this level of scrutiny is important. It has the power to affect future elections, not just this last sorry spectacle.

That being said, I chafe at seeing people like Kucinich, Nader and Cobb having to carry water for the latest worthless quarterback of this perpetually-losing team. It's pretty damn sad.

Not Meant to Get Kerry Elected 17.Nov.2004 16:59

Scotty B.

I'm rather...ambivalent about the endorsements given by Kucinich and People for the American Way, because it makes it seem like the purpose of the recount is to somehow help Kerry. It's not. The sole purpose of the recount is to expose voter fraud and irregularies in the vote - we don't expect it to change the result. So I'm glad that progressive Dems are breaking away from party leadership and supporting the effort, but I want everyone to know that the Democratic Party itself is in no way involved, and that this is solely a Green/Libertarian effort. Hopefully we can expose voter fraud without looking like lackeys.

thank you Brian, for setting Dorothy straight 17.Nov.2004 17:19

me

For as long as we have a system that allows for (and tolerates) voting fraud, we will not be able to have a real say in "choosing" our "leaders". So I damned well care that I get to choose which set of boots to lick.

Progressive Bait. 17.Nov.2004 20:15

Red neck

How many progressives did this guy pull into the scam this year? It was Kucinich, then Dean, then nothing.
Do we really need another Jesse Jackson? If this guy is serious then he needs to get the hell out of the Democratic Party. Why would you stay in the much laughed at and completely ineffectual green bean wing? The party's over.

What an idiot 17.Nov.2004 20:47

Dorothy

"election integrity" includes a whole lot more than fraudulent vote-counting. For example, fraudulent selection of candidates renders votes and counting irrelevant.

There is nothing in my comment which excludes interest in "election integrity", or even vote-counting. I stated that there are better ways to spend our resources. I implied that vote-counting was not the most serious fraudulence.

Any competent anarchist will tell you that elections are themselves essentially fraudulent, at the very least an admission of failure. Even a democrat knows that an accurate vote-count is only one of many necessary conditions. Frankly, the sleeping sheeple are the folks who think recounting Ohio will resolve anything, the folks waiting for others to feel an urgency to do something.

For as long as we allow other people to run whatever system of goverance, for as long as we submit to whatever others choose to offer, for as long as people search eagerly for a pair of boots to lick, we will never have any real choices.

_WE_ are the system which tolerates voting fraud. We, who avoid our tedious responsibilities, are the system which gives over everything to murderers and thieves, except the licking of the boots they choose.

The recount scam is just an excuse to avoid tiresome, risky, effective work for another four years.

Why 17.Nov.2004 21:52

josie

did it take Dennis so long? He could have been one of the congressmen to sign the letter asking for a recount. The only Dem I really like is Cynthia Mckinney. Isn't it funny that Kerry is sitting on $45 million campaign dollars and we the people who earn $10/hour have to fund the (re)count. This is Amerika: "bleed 'em as much as you can!".

Join the Greens 17.Nov.2004 22:51

Brian

Dorothy,

I agree that the elections are rigged. I put maybe 10-15% of my activism in the electoral arena. I think elections as a way to change things is way way overrated but, it does have some effect and accordingly, I participate.

Despite that, I hope everyone here that agrees with Green values would register Green and support the Green Party with a little time and money. We take no corporate money and we are out their working hard to change the course of this deadly, destructive and dangerous culture.

I had really hoped 18.Nov.2004 00:24

we'd heard the last of Kucinich for a while

Look, Dennis Kucinich is an idiot. The man has no critical thinking skills. His function in the system is to gather vegan hippie voters back into the Democratic Party to keep them from leaking out into Green/Nader/nonvoterland.

Kucinich calls Greens to get out of Congressional races 18.Nov.2004 07:26

Brian Setzler

I agree with the last comment. Dennis Kucinich personally called Teresa Keane to ask her NOT to run for office.

I know many people who were impressed with Kucinich. I don't know that much about him because I oppose all corporate candidates.

If you take corporate money you are tainted.

Brian

Whee! 18.Nov.2004 14:38

Colby

Why'd it take him so long?

If you'd been on his mailing list or bulletin board, you'd have seen his message about it last week.

At this point, the vote fraud, it's like, a million little problems, and the mass media is using that to their advantage to avoid covering it. They don't WANT to see if it'll add up to a big problem.

They'd rather marginalize it, say "Oh, that one was human error, that was a computer glitch, oops, our bad, won't happen again" and pacify the sheeple.

Kucinich was saying that, basically, the truth will out. That if there was fraud, that it would show up in the official counts(which began on Saturday) and that then those of us who felt it in our gut on Election Day, that things were fucked, would be vindicated, and have something to back us up when we shouted "FRAUD!"

We saw what happened in 2000. A little research shows that Gore's recount strategy was rushed and weak and ultimately it didn't hold up. His case wasn't good enough - even if he was in the right, he went about it all wrong. And you can't take it back once you say it. He made it harder for anyone else to request a recount, which is not as unusual as we've been led to think - recounts are always available to candidates, if they've got some time and money, or if the result's really close.

And in this case, look what happened. Ohio's heading for a recount, and the more people scrutinize it, the more they find to scrutinize, and the more it starts to smell like fraud - even the sheeple can smell it now.

But if we had cried fraud from day one, we'd have been laughed at, and blocked at every turn, so this time we step back and say "Ok, fine. Count the ballots. You'll see it too, when you do," and they DO see it, because it is SO GLARINGLY OBVIOUS.

And some people need it to be that obvious and see it for themselves, before they'll believe it. The biggest indicator, I think, is that #1)most of this crap went down in swing states and #2)if this was true error, it would benefit Bush sometimes and Kerry sometimes. That it ONLY benefited Bush smacks of manipulation!

On Kerry - frankly, it won't surprise me if he genuinely lost, albeit by a far smaller margin than we've been told - but if he is the winner, well, whoop dee doo. If this proves he won, well, then he better realize what a deep debt of gratitude he owes to the people on the ground who proved it. He better be freakin' HUMBLE and do a good job.

But honestly, I don't think it'll play out like that. And this ain't for Kerry anyway. This is for all the candidates who ran this year and who will run in 2006, in 2008, and every election hereafter. This is for the sake of the system itself that we defend so mightily when we say "VOTE F*CKER" or suchlike.
This is for US, when we say, "I want THAT GUY!" and we expect our choice not to be tampered with!

Oh, and as far as Congressional races... 18.Nov.2004 14:44

Colby

You see what happens when Republicans control Legislatures. They were controlling all of Oregon's Legislature for YEARS. So while I don't support everything the Dems do, well, I can understand some people just wanting the Reps knocked down a peg. We got half the Legislature back under Democratic control, which is good - not because the Dems are particularly good, but because it means neither side has all the pie.

That said, I voted for Theresa Keane myself, and I don't know what Dennis's issue with her was(probably the one I just mentioned since it's in line with stuff he's said on occasion - who knows, maybe he wishes she was a Democrat?), but I have worked for the Democratic Party and volunteered for it before, and they can certainly be jerks and they were using the heck out of him too in the last days, sending him here there and everywhere to campaign for Kerry and no doubt they were putting pressure on him, because Parties do that kind of shit to people when they think they can get away with it.

Perhaps if the Greens ran a whole ton of candidates at once, then they could get a chunk of the seats and then they'd have some leverage. I'd like to see that.

come now, Dorothy 18.Nov.2004 16:21

me

"Frankly, the sleeping sheeple are the folks who think recounting Ohio will resolve anything, the folks waiting for others to feel an urgency to do something."

Your first post as much as says that a recount is a wasted effort. And your second post is quite off-base as well. Look, a recount of Ohio, or Florida, or where ever, may show conclusively that there was systematic fraud. If it's demonstrated, and the media covers it, then that is a great tool to get voter reform. It may be a long shot, but what a coup if it happens!

All of those other frauds you speak of (I suppose voter suppression, etc?) are NOTHING when the votes can be manipulated after the fact. If the media reported the facts instead of White House spin, if every US citizen voted, if corporations were slapped back down and could no longer contribute, we still wouldn't have shit as far as democracy goes.

"Any competent anarchist will tell you that elections are themselves essentially fraudulent, at the very least an admission of failure."

Are you saying that anarchy is a realistic option? That it should be given some credence? Where are all the great anarchist societies in the world? Even if I were to smoke crack and imagine that there were some, I would still be hard-pressed to explain how they, without some form of centralized leadership, were able to withstand the imperialistic ravages of the rest of the world. Anarchy is quite a bit less a realistic option than the small chance we have of fixing our system without it first collapsing. And no, that collapse won't result in anarchy.

Come on, yourself 18.Nov.2004 21:06

Dorothy

I thought "seems wasted" is clearly stronger than "as much as says [...] a wasted effort", and I heaped up scorn and ridicule to reinforce the point.

It is dishonest to say "And your second post is quite off-base as well" before you show that my first is off-base.

A long shot indeed. If the people don't know there is systematic voting fraud. If it can be "conclusively" shown. If the people who befit from the fraud succumb to a massive attack of heretofore comatose conscience and report it prominently. If the people who are famous for refusing to get involved decide to do more than than throw isolated temper-tantra. If the press does not with its usual skill lead them around in circles. ... ...

You still have a system with "all of those other frauds". A count accurate to ther nearest half-vote is NOTHING when our enemies choose which Tweedledum and Tweedledee appear on the ballot.

We do need accurate information. We won't get that until people demand it -- and go out of their way to find it. That won't happen until people are involved.

We do need people to vote, preferably informed. We need to have candidates chosen by the people. Those won't happen until people are involved.

We do need to shoulder the corporations out of the way. That won't happen until people are involved.

We do need fair votes, accurately counted. That won't happen until people are involved.

When people are involved, all those things will happen, or poeple will make them happen. And the White House won't dare spin so much as a propeller beanie, either.


No, I am not "saying that anarchy is a realistic option". I am saying, "Any competent anarchist will tell you that elections are themselves essentially fraudulent, at the very least an admission of failure." I also said, "Even a democrat knows that an accurate vote-count is only one of many necessary conditions." Add to the list of needs, the necessary conditions : people who understand what the information they have means.


I also said, "The recount scam is just an excuse to avoid tiresome, risky, effective work for another four years."

Join the Greens if you wish 18.Nov.2004 22:56

Dorothy

Elections are overrated. However, elections and parties are where Americans do politics.

The cold, unpleasant facts are that solid majorities of Americans believe it is acceptable to murder and rape and torture other people, to pillage and pollute the earth, to punish those who disagree, and so on.

The point is, we must persuade Americans to forswear these beliefs. It doesn't matter what colour badge you wear, or no badge, you must meet people, one by one, to influence their beliefs. Once they change their attitudes, the people will change their government. They will use whatever party seems most effective.

you debunk yourself very nicely, thanks 18.Nov.2004 23:04

me

"It is dishonest to say "And your second post is quite off-base as well" before you show that my first is off-base."

Lazy, not dishonest. :P I felt that other posts had soundly illustrated the value in a recount. But really, I could have neglected to mention the first post again at all because the second post contains a similar dismissal of spending time on a recount effort. But I won't say it's dishonest of you to imply that the first post needs debunking.

"A count accurate to ther nearest half-vote is NOTHING when our enemies choose which Tweedledum and Tweedledee appear on the ballot."
True but getting one good candidate to select is NOTHING when our enemies count the votes.

"We do need accurate information. We won't get that until people demand it -- and go out of their way to find it. That won't happen until people are involved." Like Bev Harris? Like Greg Palast? Like all the PhD's kicking out papers showing things are almost 100% likely to be fraudulent? I think the recount HAS involved people, and HAS made some folks care. That's what you want. If accurate information is what people are pushing for, that why oppose a recount? Maybe some of these folks are side-tracked from other tasks.

At any rate, you go on to point out that all the ailments will be cured by the involvement of the people. Guess what? You've got a lot of people involved. Bravo! Not enough people, YET. I can assure you that I've got friends who never used to give a damn. Well, some of them sure do give a damn about fair elections now.

But I don't mean to come off as an optimist. We're in deep doo doo. You say the White House won't dare make a peep when the people are involved. This isn't Venezuela. This is a country where people have their televisions, gaming consoles, and typically enough to eat. They won't do what it takes until you threaten to take away their comforts.

Anyway, enough. How do I figure that you debunk yourself? You say we need accurate information. You say we need corporations out of the way. You say we need a fair voting system, and votes to be counted accurately. Without one of those things, the others won't give us a good system. That is the fair voting system. And so the recount is damned important because it is a push for a fair voting system. And people are working on it. Please don't say anything to dissuade them--especially since you say that a fair voting system is important.

"I also said, "The recount scam is just an excuse to avoid tiresome, risky, effective work for another four years.""
Yes, you did. And my opinion is that you're wrong. I wonder what tiresome, risky, and effective work you have in mind.

"No, I am not "saying that anarchy is a realistic option". I am saying, "Any competent anarchist will tell you that elections are themselves essentially fraudulent, at the very least an admission of failure." I also said, "Even a democrat knows that an accurate vote-count is only one of many necessary conditions." Add to the list of needs, the necessary conditions : people who understand what the information they have means."

Then why mention the anarchist at all? If you accept the value of a functional voting system, then I don't believe there's much value in mentioning something which derides the value of voting altogether. And the Democrat does know that an accurate vote count is just one step. The Dem also knows it's a damned important step. Many Dems feel that a recount is an important effort towards taking that step.

See you in the streets. And hopefully you will be a bit more cool towards supporting a recount effort. A properly conducted one that won't sweep fraud under the carpet.

Bunk 19.Nov.2004 15:28

Dorothy

"Lazy, not dishonest. :P"

Only an American would lie and try, when caught, to pretend it's a joke.

"True but getting one good candidate to select is NOTHING when our enemies count the votes."

So, you agree that "an accurate vote-count is only one of many necessary conditions."

"Like Bev Harris? Like Greg Palast?"

No, they already agree with us. Like the 98% of voters who chose Bush and Kerry.

"If accurate information is what people are pushing for"

You haven't shown this. The paucity of votes for Nader and Cobb, the lack of mass riots, are strong evidence that not many people are pushing.

"You've got a lot of people involved."

Yes, a small circle of your friends, the usual malcontents -- which is why the efforts to demand recounts are wasted. Our time and energy would be far better spent persuading other people to become involved.

"They won't do what it takes until you threaten to take away their comforts."

Yes, I agree, the efforts spent on recounts is largely wasted.

"you say that a fair voting system is important."

But I don't and didn't. I said, indirectly by citing anarchists, that elections are essentially fraudulent and an admission of failure.

I said people's involvements were more important.

"Then why mention the anarchist at all?"

Because he says something quite different from the democrat.

"If you accept the value of a functional voting system, then I don't believe there's much value in mentioning something which derides the value of voting altogether."

Your belief is incorrect.

However, the simple conclusion is more germain, that I don't accept the value of the kind of "functional voting system" which you are defending. After all, it functions much better for corporations than for me. And it is designed to discourage interference by the people.

"And the Democrat does know that an accurate vote count is just one step."

Well, I was talking about democrats. And saying they realized it is "only one of many necessary conditions" -- the word "necessary" means the result will not be successful until _all_ conditions are met.

But I agree, the Democrats have known for a long time that "it's a damned important step" and probably "[m]any Dems feel that a recount is an important effort towards taking that step."

That is why, prior to Johnson, they maintained a system of poll-taxes and selective voter-qualifications, and fiercely opposed voter-registration drives. That is probably why they show so little interest in the present recounting drive.

In the case of Johnson, the involvement of the people, many people, trumped corporate money and party vote-manipulation, caused passage and signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and eventually drove Johnson from office. In spite of the obvious, Democrats attempted to suppress civil-rights and anti-war activists by manipulating functions of the voting system, lost the next presidency, and has since been little more than a convenient cuspidor for anybody-but-bush/reagan.

"See you in the streets."

Not likely. My hip is a huge liability when so many fools and agents are provoking the pigs to attack me. More important, those people whom we must involve (on our side, I hope), the 98% who voted for oppression, are very consistent : they either turn off or become involved against anything the corporate media choose to associate with the "rioters".

"A properly conducted one that won't sweep fraud under the carpet."

We have already touched on this, relying, against all evidence, on hostile media to report accurately, on top of the carpet.

Let us remember, also, that the custodians of the ballots, real and virtual, are hostile and probably defensive. That the quixotic band of challengers are ill-funded and inexperienced. That the judiciary are alleged to be hostile. That their opponents are well-funded, experienced, and hostile.

That the 98% are not showing, publicly, any signs of interest -- in fact, they show every sign of obedience and of hostility against those who threaten to provoke authority "to take away their comforts".

Which is why our efforts would be better by far spent influencing their beliefs and attitudes.

my oh my 19.Nov.2004 17:34

me

"Only an American would lie and try, when caught, to pretend it's a joke."
You certainly are delusional. First, I didn't lie. Second, I don't pretend that it's a joke. And third, I'm right and you haven't illustrated how I'm not. Which would, by your standards, make you the dishonest one.

"Like the 98% of voters who chose Bush and Kerry."
Like get real. Only about a third of America was on the side of the revolutionaries, and do you really think that of the third, that all of them were active in their opposition?

ME "If accurate information is what people are pushing for"
YOU "You haven't shown this. The paucity of votes for Nader and Cobb, the lack of mass riots, are strong evidence that not many people are pushing."
ME Didn't you see that cities all over America were in the streets following the election? And are you advocating for riots rather than mass protests? As far as "showing" that people are pushing for accurate information, it's not your place to determine that the number of people pushing is insignifigant. Is MoveOn insignifigant? They were a powerful change agent. Maybe they still are. At any rate, they were just a fraction of the Americans who opposed Bush. It seems pretty clear to me based upon the people I speak with in the streets, stores, and workplace, that it's no small percentage of folks who think the recount is inaccurate, and still not a small percentage when you consider the number of folks who are talking about it. Maybe it's just Portland where we have Air America radio and such, but I doubt it. So in conclusion, I'm not talking about a small circle of my friends or even my acquantances.

"which is why the efforts to demand recounts are wasted."
Or not. You say there's no way in hell we'll get the media to do its job. On the contrary, we the people may not have forced the Bush Administration to properly investigate 9/11, but we did force them to take some degree of action by merit of our small news outlets working up into larger ones. And, here again, some undetermined critical mass is what we're aiming for. And when the Iran-Contra scandal broke, it had been percolating in the South American media for a long time. Yes, sometimes the media is forced to do its job.

ME "They won't do what it takes until you threaten to take away their comforts."
YOU "Yes, I agree, the efforts spent on recounts is largely wasted."
Touche. Or not. When I say they, I am referring to the "they" who camped out outside of the Presidential residence in Venezuela demanding a return of their leader. The "they" needed to do this in America just isn't going to show up. The "they" needed to accomplish reform, which would seem to be a "they" that you don't acknowledge very well, is going to be more widely distributed, and is goinng to work within the system. Will they succeed? To not try is a near-guarantee of failure.

"Our time and energy would be far better spent persuading other people to become involved."
It seems like you're suggesting that more people need to become involved, but that since not enough people are involved now, we should abandon ship on things needing fixing for now--until we can get more people involved. That really is stupid logic. Of course you'll deny you think that way. How do you get people involved if not with showing them they have something they care about to work on? I think I'll just walk around the block telling people to spread the word that they should be ready to be involved.

ME "you say that a fair voting system is important"
YOU "But I don't and didn't. I said, indirectly by citing anarchists, that elections are essentially fraudulent and an admission of failure."
ALSO YOU "No, I am not "saying that anarchy is a realistic option"."
ALSO YOU "We do need fair votes, accurately counted."
ALSO YOU "We do need people to vote"
ME You think that elections are fraudulent and an admission of failure, and yet you want fair votes, accurately counted. So are you advocating a system where people vote on things (things which will require oversight otherwise these things we vote on will not be heeded), but not for leaders? And yet anarchy is not a realistic option, you would seem to agree. I give up. You win.

"However, the simple conclusion is more germain, that I don't accept the value of the kind of "functional voting system" which you are defending. After all, it functions much better for corporations than for me. And it is designed to discourage interference by the people."

That certainly is a simple conclusion. I've got another one; if we don't have a voting system that allows, and easily, all deserving (whatever that means) people to participate, and ensures that their votes are counted, then it really isn't much use to kick around corporations and the media to behave. You can't ban the greedy and misguided from trying to get their initiatives etc on a ballot.

"Well, I was talking about democrats. And saying they realized it is "only one of many necessary conditions" -- the word "necessary" means the result will not be successful until _all_ conditions are met."
I'll agree that Kerry would not be a success, but he would be more of one than Bush as far as I, and millions of Americans, are concerned. If we can define Kerry as some sort of success, then you are clearly incorrect in stipulating that all conditions must be met. The evidence is quite strong that, with proper vote counting, and in spite of all the other foul play, Kerry would have won the election. The recount is important.

"That is why, prior to Johnson, [Democrats] maintained a system of poll-taxes and selective voter-qualifications, and fiercely opposed voter-registration drives. That is probably why they show so little interest in the present recounting drive."
Way to make it a partisan issue.

"Which is why our efforts would be better by far spent influencing their beliefs and attitudes."
I have convinced a number of centrist people that the 2004 vote is fraudulent. And their attitudes have changed. If that's not doing what you prescribe, then I give up. You win.

Phrases 20.Nov.2004 17:21

Dorothy

taken out of context, don't mean anything.

This is futile. I'm giving up, too.