READER COMMENTS ON

"KUCINICH CALLS FOR 'RECOUNT' OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BALLOTS"

(228 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Jon in Iowa said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:26 pm PT...





I knew there was a reason I liked that guy. I hope Conyers is taking notes, too.

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Arctic said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:28 pm PT...





Thank God we didn't have to count on Ron Paul to challenge. Let's hear it for Dennis!

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Bob In Pacifica said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:33 pm PT...





Well, let us see if he gets the recount.

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... KestrelBrighteyes said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:34 pm PT...





Pretty kewl Brad, thanks for keeping us posted. Kucinich rocks! OT - Any new news on Sibel Edmonds?

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... JC said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:40 pm PT...





YES!!! Great job, Dennis!

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Adam Fulford said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:44 pm PT...





No doubt the morally spineless, and intellectually dishonest sycophants of the Democratic party, aided by the criminal media, will squirm out this one too. They'll do as Republicans do because they are either 1)corporate whores or 2)wimps. Of course, Dennis Kucinich, being intellectually honest and clearly not a party-line eunuch, is shut out of debates by the fascist media (with nary a peep from the other candidates). Dennis Kucinich, a moral giant among his courage-deficient colleagues (as illustrated by their voting records)will likely witness his call for a recount being drowned out by the horrendous squawk of enraged Democratic eunochs.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Doug said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:44 pm PT...





Awsome, I wonder if Ron Paul will join him.

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... gtash said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:45 pm PT...





I knew it would take a Democrat to do this. I was hoping Dennis would enter the fray despite being marginalized unfairly by the party and the media. I think this is great news. I just hope he can make it happen. Brad, let us know how we can help if he needs any.

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... fred w. said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:51 pm PT...





Brad,

Have you read this piece Computer Glitch on the AAMVA Servers, HAVA and the November Elections over at ePluribus Media?

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:55 pm PT...





AND NOT ONE OF THOSE "2004 OHIO RECOUNTS", WHERE THE THOSE 2 PEOPLE ARE NOW IN JAIL!

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:57 pm PT...





Do new Ohio recount prosecutions indicate unraveling of 2004 election theft cover-up?

by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman

January 19, 2007 Three criminal prosecutions in Ohio's biggest county have opened with strong indications that the cover-up of the theft of the 2004 presidential election is starting to unravel. Prosecutors say these cases involve "rigging" the recount in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), where tens of thousands of votes were shifted from John Kerry to George W. Bush, or else never counted. Meanwhile, corroborating evidence continues to surface throughout Ohio illuminating the GOP's theft of the presidency. According to the AP, County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter opened the Cuyahoga trial by charging that "the evidence will show that this recount was rigged, maybe not for political reasons, but rigged nonetheless." Baxter said the three election workers "did this so they could spend a day rather than weeks or months" on the recount. http://freepress.org/dep...nts/display/19/2007/2362

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:58 pm PT...





I am hoarse from screaming with glee! WHAT a MAN! omg

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:58 pm PT...





BLOGGED BY (bd: "conspiracy theorist & crackpot) Brad Friedman ON 3/13/2007 6:20PM

Ohio Election Workers Sentenced to 18 Months for Rigging 2004 Presidential Recount

Judge Says He Believes the Conspiracy Goes Higher... https://bradblog.com/?p=4266

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:00 pm PT...





Let's interview those 2 Ohio election workers who are in jail! About the upcoming New Hampshire recount! And see if they recommend "rigging" it!

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:02 pm PT...





Brad, can you get them to call in to the radio shows you're always on? Those 2 Ohio 2004 recount vote riggers who are in jail?

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Reader said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:08 pm PT...





WOW! God bless Dennis. That guy is my new hero.

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Reader said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:13 pm PT...





I wonder if any "kossack" will have the balls to post this news over there or if they have all been cowered into silence?

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... GademVote said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:18 pm PT...





Congratulations to Dennis. Let's prepare ourselves for an all-out assault from the media and Dem standard-bearers. We are so lucky this "Hillary Cried for Me" nonsense happened in New Hampshire, where the hand-counting goes on in parallel to the Diebold/LHS mockery. Anywhere else and we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... MEP said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:19 pm PT...





Damn near wet my pants with glee. Maybe there is a Santa.

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... GWN said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:23 pm PT...





OMG this is refreshing (I love Dennis! especially after just peeking at the DickHeadinMI diary at kos.

(you know what they say about writers, make your readers mad enough and they'll write your column/blog for you) Who decides if he gets a count or not? The SOS of NH?

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:24 pm PT...





Oh. Sheesh. I think I did wet my pants.

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... A. F. Smith said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:42 pm PT...





That's MY candidate for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination that did that! Too bad I don't get to cast my vote for Dennis until the Oregon Democratic Primary, which is currently scheduled for December of 2011.

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... Melissa said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:01 pm PT...





A true act of patriotism! Woder why Hillary isn't questioning the count? .

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... OMSmedia said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:05 pm PT...





Sooooo..if the recount comes back the same, and the undervotes stay the same....will you post it?...will you just shrug it off?...will give up this fear crusade?

I doubt it.

(Brother of Former SD ROV- and the current ones boss)

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Steve O said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:14 pm PT...





As an Obama supporter, I would like to see a recount. But it wont happen because Kucinich cant get a recount under the law since he was not the agreived party.

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... Sally said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:18 pm PT...





Hillary is either been set up as the nominee who can't win the presidential race or she's in on it. I personally think shes been made a fool of. Seen it happen to women in many top posistions. They are often put there for reasons not known to them, used and destroyed.

I think this is why Fox have been supporting her as the democratic candidate. They know once she goes for the presidential race she can't win because outside the democratic party gender and your policies on gender are a big issue.

Hillary, look at polls in both races (primary and presidential) to see if this is right. Make the manipulation of the primaries and the scullduggery public. Go to the UK or wherever to get the truth out. You can't win. Don't let them suck you in to loosing the presidency for the democrats.

Its either that or you have been corrupted and are in with them.

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... Joseph Cannon said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:20 pm PT...





I looked up NH recount law. Any candidate for president may call for a recount, not just the "aggrieved party." Also, here's the key sentence: "No mechanical, optical, or electronic device shall be used for the counting of ballots."

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:21 pm PT...





OMSMedia #24 - As with our reportage on your brother Mikel Haas, one of the country's worst registrars of voters (who never met a Diebold machine he didn't like), we report whatever we can, and whatever is newsworthy, and mostly, whatever we feel we can add something to. I'm fairly certain we covered just about every beat when your brother defied the will of the voters, and arbitrarily and capriciously overpriced a request recount by a voter, in apparent attempt to keep anyone from noticing what happened on the Diebold machines that were used illegally in San Diego at the time your brother was in charge of undermining democracy there. More on Mikel Haas, the brother of "OMSMedia" (Don Haas) is here, for those interested.

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... DerekLarsson said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:22 pm PT...





Excellant news. Does Dennis Kucinich need financial support to make this happen? Can the BradBlog put up a "Recount Fund" to go toward this worthy cause? What can we do to help push this through?

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... MrBill123 said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:39 pm PT...





This issue of the NH primary and election fraud in general isnt about who "won" or who "lost" it is about the integrity of the system. A system without the highest integrity can not embue legitmacy on the victor. When verifiable questions arise as to the vericity of the either the methods imployed or the results produced, ANYONE interested in the legitimacy of the outcome must question the process. Failure to do so only casts those who are silent as those who care not for the legitamcy of the out come.

People who dismiss scientifically documented abnormalities and result to obfuscations and mis-directions are underminers of legitamcy.

As citizens we granted the right to the government to conduct elections in our interest and when we challenge the exercise of our right we are called "conspiratists?" Dare you to fight the Constitution, traitor! Dare you to deprive a citizen of his vote and dare you to call yourself an American!

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... Thick-Witted Liberal said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:45 pm PT...





There is one honest person in Congress.

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... Bruce said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:47 pm PT...





"Candidates who lose by 3 percentage or less are entitled to a recount for a $2,000 fee. Candidates who lose by more must pay for the full cost. Kucinich's campaign said it was sending the $2,000 fee to start the recount." from yahoo news quoting Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan who said Kucinich is entitled to a statewide recount but, under New Hampshire law, Kucinich will have to pay for it.

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... Lance Del Goebel said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:49 pm PT...





The corporate media rat filth will never allow this story to receive any serious light of day....the same way they suffocate the Kucinich campain by denying it oxygen We need a counter-revolution to take back our country from the 1980 corporate fascist revolution. Until then, America is a sorbid Orwell novel

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... Lance Del Goebel said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:53 pm PT...





Please open or provide a link to a recount fund

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... AHiddenSaint said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:54 pm PT...





Brad may want to look at this.

http://www.freep.com/app...20080110/NEWS06/80110061 A Republican is also calling for a Recount. Albert Howard Howard, one of 42 so-called minor candidates in the primary, received 44 votes in the primary, according to the official tally. But at one point during the night’s vote counting, Howard said his tally was over 170 votes, making him wonder what happened. ----- Howard, a chauffeur for Checker Sedan and father of eight, paid $1,000 to be on the New Hampshire ballot as a Republican presidential candidate. He is not on the ballot in any other states, most of which, like Michigan, require petitions signed by several thousand voters to get a candidate’s name on the ballot.

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... Ancient said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:55 pm PT...





Okay that's it, I challenge this administration to rise up to a better standard.

NOW.

At this point... I feel glad we have at least two candidates to represent us in Kucinich and Paul!

Straight forward and

balanced analysis.

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... Bruce said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:57 pm PT...





And Dennis isn't the only one calling for a recount:

http://freep.com/apps/pb...20080110/NEWS06/80110061

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... Doug Somers said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:59 pm PT...





Has there been any TV follow up concerning the convicted Ohio Election Workers? If not, why not?

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... WOW said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:01 pm PT...





WOW! Unbelievable! The hand-machine statistics are perfect mirror images of each other while other numbers are perfectly consistent as a system control check. I am a mathematician. I can conclude the following: (1) Ms. Clinton won a 100 million dollar jackpot on a given day of her chosen. The odds is astronomical to absolute impossible. (2) God really exists and helped her out. The only logical explanations are: (a) The optical scanners were innocently programed to swap the two candidates. A program error. (b) The election is ragged. It has to be one of the two. It is amazing!!!

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:03 pm PT...





So the so-called media experts "explanation" of the Hillary/Obama swing, is that RACIST New Hampshire WHITES were afraid to say they were voting for Hillary in the polls, and then in the privacy of the voting booth they voted for Hillary! So, New Hampshire citizens: Are you going to sit there and take it, when the media is portraying New Hampshire as a bunch of racists? If you're silent about it, then I guess you are!

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:06 pm PT...





...and that's assuming the only 2 candidates were Hillary and Obama! I think ALL the candidates were white, exept Obama!

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... NorthBlg said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:06 pm PT...





I've been asking the same question during the last election when media predicted through exit polls that Kerry won. Then the result came out differently and they quickly dismiss it as inaccurate exit polls. Few months later, Ukraine exit polls differ from the election result and people revolted using that as ground that there was election fraud. Exit polls have been used for quite a long time in U.S. and people, including Kerry was quick to accept that exit polls was wrong and media remain quiet afterwards. Hopefully someone will have the guts to really look into this rather than being afraid of opening a can of worms.

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... Bev Harris said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:06 pm PT...





Careful.

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... JW said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:17 pm PT...





I can't believe it myself. The question now is at what point IF the integrity of the voting system was compromised did it occur and will a recount be able to catch it and most importantly, won't they delay it and delay it as long as possible? As far as this other guy who's requesting it, the media will make a joke of him in a second --- he may be sincere, but he's better off not requesting it b/c as more fringe people come out for it, it will be a hey day for the media. Even Olbermann and so called "liberals" will probably join in. So let's hope more than anything this leads to a discussion of the integrity and security of voting in this country --- something that I don't think most Americans think of and probably take for granted.

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... danielle said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:24 pm PT...





bev harris says careful? how so. . .finish the sentence! what dont we know?

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... Agent_#69 said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:25 pm PT...





.. Reader wondered... "I wonder if any "kossack" will have the balls to post this news over there or if they have all been cowered into silence?" (Underneath an orange hat and matching scarf whiskers twitch and a pair of furry ears prick up...) Agent #69 in place. A coded message to our dkosian EI supporters has been cleverly planted near the top of one of their "dairy rescue open threads." Don't worry, it seems that a percentage of dkosians responding to those threads actually don't toe the party line. Now scouting enemy administration defensive emplacements... looks like it's all blanket forts with occasional pillows for reinforcements... #69 out for now

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... JUDGE OF JUDGES said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:33 pm PT...





DaMitt ! ~ I missed the republican Debate Minstrel Show... again . . .

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... Reader said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:35 pm PT...





(Underneath an orange hat and matching scarf whiskers twitch and a pair of furry ears prick up...) LOL!

COMMENT #49 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:36 pm PT...





#69 out for now Max won't let anyone have a lower number than his! You have to be Agent ZK or something like that, and you must prove yourself against the forces of KAOS first!

COMMENT #50 [Permalink]

... JUDGE OF JUDGES said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:37 pm PT...





Hmmm... A schism at dkos . . .

COMMENT #51 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:38 pm PT...





And no chewing on my shoe phone!

COMMENT #52 [Permalink]

... JUDGE OF JUDGES said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:45 pm PT...





99 ~ Heheheheeeehheeheee. . .

COMMENT #53 [Permalink]

... Bluebear2 said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:46 pm PT...





I've been on the road all day, just found this excellent news! Yes Dennis!!!!!

COMMENT #54 [Permalink]

... Bluebear2 said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:47 pm PT...





Agent 99, I have requisitioned CONTROL to send you a case of Depends!

.

COMMENT #55 [Permalink]

... IMA Believer said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:04 pm PT...





Yea for the people! Yea for Kucinich! Now will you all vote for him?

And support his campaign?

COMMENT #56 [Permalink]

... Warren said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:06 pm PT...





Bev Harris #43: I too would love to hear more

COMMENT #57 [Permalink]

... TruthIsAll said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:14 pm PT...





Brad, the coincidence is even greater than that. The numbers match to within .0001% ! Optical Scan

Clinton 91,717 52.9507%

Obama 81,495 47.0493%

Total 173,212 Hand Counted

Clinton 20,889 47.0494%

Obama 23,509 52.9506%

Total 44,398

COMMENT #58 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:24 pm PT...





Agent BB2! It's too late!

COMMENT #59 [Permalink]

... mike said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:26 pm PT...





Way to go Dennis and Thanks

COMMENT #60 [Permalink]

... Good Govt Guy said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:29 pm PT...





Obama doing better in the rural areas while Hillary "wins" in the bigger towns seems counter-intuitive. Given that all polling would indicate that Obama did well with Independent voters, it would seem likely that this would translate into even better results for him in more urbanized settings. It might also be worth investigating the results in NH's college towns, where you would suspect that Obama would have done particularly well. If the Op-Scan "counts" from those districts don't have show him with a sizable margin then that would be the perfect place to begin the hand "re"counts.

COMMENT #61 [Permalink]

... Stephen Martin said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:36 pm PT...





I agree with Kucinich. This is terrible.

COMMENT #62 [Permalink]

... semperfi said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:37 pm PT...





Danielle and Warren-- I bet that's "Be careful what you wish for!"

COMMENT #63 [Permalink]

... Badger said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:54 pm PT...





A recount would be great- with a caveat: Chain of custody of the ballots. You have to know exactly where they are, where they've been, who has had access to them, and who might get access with a recount threat. So far I have heard no information about those ballots. Did LHS have access to them at any time? This had also better be a recount of the whole darn thing, no cherry picking of precincts. If those ballots have had the potential to be compromised, I think the SOS of New Hampshire has a lot of explaining to do.

COMMENT #64 [Permalink]

... CAM said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:57 pm PT...





Well, I can tell you this. I was watching CNN the entire night making written notes of the totals of several of the candidates as they were being updated, and at one point Kucinich had one amount and then in the next update, his total actually went down!!! How could that possibly be? I have a sick feeling about this next presidential election. Kucinich is right. AFter 2000 and 2004, 2008 results will not be able to be trusted either. Maybe it really is the Bilderburg group that decides the presidency.

COMMENT #65 [Permalink]

... billl4 said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:04 pm PT...





Good Govt Guy #60 said... It might also be worth investigating the results in NH's college towns, where you would suspect that Obama would have done particularly well. Were the college students in town or were they on holiday on primary day? If the kids were out of town that might skew the result you'd expect to see. ===================== Big thanks to Dennis, but as others have cautioned, the audit/recount/1st count process must be fully scrutinized. It is very easy to rig the "recount" process to achieve the results you desire, especially if you know which precincts were altered (allegedly). Will the "recount" be a 100% full recount or a "random" sample recount. The random sample can be easily fixed to give you the precincts that were not altered. I'm not up on my NH election rules, so I don't know what percentage is recounted. I could look it up, but if anyone already has the link, please post. While I hope there was no funny business, the worst thing that could happen would be to have a rigged recount that "proves" that everything was on the up-and-up if it actually was not.

COMMENT #66 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:06 pm PT...





TruthIsAll - What in the world do you make of that? It's one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen, to be frank. Have no idea what it means...

COMMENT #67 [Permalink]

... semperfi said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:08 pm PT...





In other words, re-read the part of Brad's post concerning Nancy Tobi's concerns.

COMMENT #68 [Permalink]

... Bev Harris said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:32 pm PT...





The election integrity community is abuzz with news that candidate Dennis Kucinich will ask for a recount in New Hampshire, and Ron Paul fans have been pushing him to recount as well. Careful. NEW HAMPSHIRE ELECTION INTEGRITY ADVOCATE NANCY TOBI IS CORRECT: "We have no control over the ballot chain of custody and we have learned the pain from the 2004 Nader recount, in which only 11 districts were counted, chosen by a highly questionable person, and then nothing showed up. Now all we hear is how the Nader recount validated the machines." As Tobi says, "A candidate asking for a recount may well be a tool used to 'prove' everything was okay and then that candidate will be further discredited." I'll go further than that. The only way a recount makes any sense at all in New Hampshire is AFTER an assessment is made of the chain of custody issues. If the chain of custody isn't intact the recount won't be worth a cup of warm spit. TOBI: "This is high stakes. "You do not walk into a battle ground not knowing where the snipers are, just because you were invited. Strategically, going into something like this where you have NO CONTROL is foolishness. "And I say this as one of the strongest recount proponents of former times. Things I have come to learn and understand have changed my mind. The recount is someone else's game, not ours. "In the recount, we have no control, and we have already lost 48 long hours of ballot chain of custody oversight. "We need citizen control and oversight. This is not going to come from the recount. If the election was rigged...don't you think the riggers would have a backup Plan B for a rigged recount, knowing how easy it is to get a recount in NH? No. It is time to take control. " BLACK BOX VOTING: The following is excerpted from our New Hampshire election protection information published in November 2007: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

Knowing that the greatest opportunities for election fraud are with insiders, this tells us something about what to examine first. If you are a person with inside access in New Hampshire, because any candidate can ask to recount any location, if you plan to manipulate the election you'll want to make sure you can achieve ballot substitution, ballot removal, or ballot stuffing. You need a strategy just in case someone asks for a hand count. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT'S THE POINT OF A RECOUNT IF THE CANDIDATE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW... 1) The name of all companies that print ballots for New Hampshire elections. 2) The ballot ordering history for each location, especially those using computerized voting systems and the inventory records for the current contest. 3) The ballot chain of custody plan for each location and for the state of New Hampshire. IMMEDIATE CONCERNS - We don't have information on ballot inventory records. - With ballots and recounts, it's all about blocking ballot substitution. To achieve substitution, you need extra ballots. If you get more ballots, someone might follow the money trail and ask you why you're sitting on 10,000 or so blank ballots. So you need some workarounds. BALLOT CHAIN OF CUSTODY WAR STORIES Patriot Richard Hayes Phillips, while writing his brilliant upcoming book "Witness to a Crime," uncovered evidence that an Ohio County took delivery on 10,000 off-the-books ballots in 2004. Employees for the Diebold ballot printing plant slipped us financials showing that Diebold was printing 25% more ballots than ordered. This could be handy: If a governmental entity doesn't take official delivery on ballots, Plan B can sit at a print house somewhere, on private property and absent from either government bookkeeping or public records. CONVICTED FELONS The Diebold ballot printing plant at the time we got records on the overages, was being run by a convicted felon who had spent four years in prison on a narcotics trafficking charge. No, not New Hampshire's voting machine programming exec Ken Hajjar, who cut a plea deal in 1990 for his role in cocaine distribution. This was another convicted felon, John Elder, who ran the Diebold ballot printing plant; he's now an elections consultant. We have so far been unable to learn whether New Hampshire has convicted felons printing their ballots; we've got a records request in on this. New Hampshire officials like to say "The state prints the ballots" but they sure aren't printed in Secretary of State Bill Gardner's office. Frank S., one of the new breed of citizens jumping in to take back control of our elections, took the initiative on his own to help today by spending several hours trying to find the ballot printer in NH. It may be that convicted felons print the ballots: Frank turned up evidence that one state-paid printing vendor is NHCI - New Hampshire Correctional Industries, a prison-based printing outfit. New Hampshire Correctional Industries is a job training program for inmates. After they get out of prison they have a skill! I'm not sure we want a bunch of ex-convicts running around in New Hampshire with ballot printing expertise, so I hope a different ballot printing vendor will show up. Any candidate seeking a recount needs to know this stuff. IDENTIFY NARROW SPOTS IN THE PIPELINE What is the smallest number of people with access, and at what points does centralization of access occur? WHERE HAVE THE BALLOTS BEEN DURING THE LAST 48 HOURS If there's going to be a recount of this magnitude, we need to know whether checks and balances have been followed. Let me give you an example of what I mean: In San Mateo County, California, citizen Brent Turner asked for ballot chain of custody records for 2007; a six-week gap in the access logs was revealed in the documents. SHOULD CANDIDATES RECOUNT NEW HAMPSHIRE? In concept I love the idea, but as it currently stands, it makes me queasy. They're walking into this blind about the details that make or break the integrity of the process. WHAT TO DO INSTEAD Tobi calls for doing a real investigation in order to take corrective action by November. I'm not sure about that. New Hampshire had hearings on the hackable Diebold optical scan machines, and didn't take any action to mitigate the risks. New Hampshire knew it was running elections on machines that can't be trusted. And today, thanks to the efforts of two more citizen volunteers, I learned that the New Hampshire Secretary of State knew about the narcotics trafficking conviction of Ken Hajjar, yet still authorized LHS to code every memory card in New Hampshire. Harri Hursti himself testified in New Hampshire in Sept. 2007, urging them to disconnect the wiring allowing reprogramming of the memory card through the modem port. New Hampshire took no action. New Hampshire didn't take even the half-step actions other states used to beef up voting machine security. Maybe there are better ways to skin this cat. THE IDEA OF A RECOUNT STILL INTRIGUES ME BUT... At this moment I can't think of a way to offset the chain of custody unknowns. The last thing we want is a recount that doesn't answer our questions, or raises new suspicions that aren't answered. There must be a way. It's been a long day. Let me think on that.

COMMENT #69 [Permalink]

... JUDGE OF JUDGES said on 1/11/2008 @ 12:00 am PT...





I figure anyone that pulls this kinda shit is thinking 10 steps ahead . . .

COMMENT #70 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/11/2008 @ 12:09 am PT...





Then, indeed, why bother with ballots? If they're no good to us after the hackable machine counts, why are we here? If Dennis can't handle this correctly, why is he here? If there is no way to insure election integrity in too many places, why are we still blathering about being a democracy? If it is already this bad, why aren't we in the middle of the Second American Revolution? W H Y ??????

COMMENT #71 [Permalink]

... Carol Sterritt said on 1/11/2008 @ 12:33 am PT...





The situation in New Hampshire is troublesome. Equally awful is the mesmerizing effect of having the M$M call the election results even though 67% or less of the final votes are in. Maybe it doesn't matter in the Primaries, or so I have been told. Supposedly those in charge of the Primary can "undo" it if the Networks announce a candidate as a winner and it later turns out they weren't. But it sets us up for accepting that the Media should call the shots on election night. And once ABC or MSNBC or whoever calls the winner, and it is acknowledged by the Powers that Be, we will perhaps be right where we were on Nov 3rd 2004 when Andrew Card announcing that Bush was the winner of the election. Are we all ready for stolen election # 3? We need to have ech candidate's guarantee that they will neither accept a victory or make a concession until all the votes are in. And until they are really counted, not simply offered up to the networks for "projections."

COMMENT #72 [Permalink]

... Carol said on 1/11/2008 @ 12:41 am PT...





As Bev points out, many pitfalls here and it could end up a disaster, further "validating" machines and furnishing more hype about why they should be trusted and hand counts aren't needed. WHO is on the ground covering all of the danger points that Bev raises? Has anyone done anything to preserve the ballots at this point and ensure that there is SOME form of VALID chain-of-custody tracking and protection of not only the ballots but also the cards?

COMMENT #73 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 1/11/2008 @ 12:52 am PT...





JOJ says I figure anyone that pulls this kinda shit is thinking 10 steps ahead . . . Might be more than that, did you read Fred W's #9 link ?, that the AAMVA computers are puking in Indiana, Ohio and Missouri ? This little "glitch" apparently reduced the number of applications processed in Ohio, from a normal 10,000 per day to 35. Isn't one of these States trying to jam voter ID's down the throats of it's citizens via the laughable SCOTUS? Go read Fred's link and tell me that the whole thing isn't a sham from stem to stern

COMMENT #74 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 1/11/2008 @ 12:57 am PT...





LOL on the Depends BB2...are you saying Agent 99 is an old biddie with that remark ? LOL ( my quote above is supposed to start out 'This' not 'his') {Ed Note: He was saying that because MEP said he almost wet his pants, and I said that I did! I better hurry up and post a current picture of me on my blog! Fixed yer boo-boo.... --99}

COMMENT #75 [Permalink]

... ilovemylife said on 1/11/2008 @ 1:06 am PT...





The New Hampshire Secretary of State's

Election Division William M Gardner Location: State House, Room 204, Concord, N.H. 03301

Phone: 603-271-3242 Fax: 603-271-6316

Email: Elections@sos.state.nh.us

COMMENT #76 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 1/11/2008 @ 1:11 am PT...





Oh, I was still laughing about your earlier old biddies running to the polls to vote for Hillary comment yesterday 99, and how I could have made a fortune selling Depends to them standing in line...there was so many of them you know

COMMENT #77 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/11/2008 @ 1:17 am PT...





Heh. I'm freakin' about the contortionist explanations for this gig. Blows my mind how crazy people will get to explain away something so suspicious as to be almost positively fraud. Mainstream America is running around with its fingers in its ears, yelling, "No, no, noooooo! We don't have election fraud! That's third world shit! The racist old ladies stormed the polls at the last minute, and if you suspect otherwise yer a conspiracy theorist!"

COMMENT #78 [Permalink]

... Grizzly Bear Dancer said on 1/11/2008 @ 1:27 am PT...





Tell you what i make of it. Prior to the 2004 rigged recount of Ohio ordered by Green party candidate David Cobb and the Independent Party candidate, a PHD political science expert at Ohio Free Press studied the exit poll data and claimed that the possibility of Bush beating Kerry by the tallied results at a million to one. Bush/Cheney of course did not win but the damage these treasonous murderous criminals have done to this country and our world is still increasing. I fully believe that this rigged election system is a biproduct of staying the course with the bush/cheney government of despicable terrorists. Give props where earned. The fact of the matter remains: 1. In U.S. elections, votes are allowed to be counted in secrecy by private computer companies. Even worse, these companies have known ties to the people who stole the election in 2004. 2006 numbers didn't match but was unquestioned by the Democrats who became the majority in Congress. Didn't matter because a corporate 1%er is a still a fascist sellout. Right Flipper Joe Lieberman? THIS PROBLEM HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTED THUS AS BRAD STATED 80% OF THE VOTES IN NH WERE COUNTED BY dIEBOLD IN SECRECY. 2. Computer voting machines can eliminate or alter votes, flipping votes when 1st cast or changed by remote at any point up to and including at final tabulation. Best of all in some instances the program eats itself never to be discovered. 3. To fully understand the theft of 2004, that actually happened in the 4 swing states of OH,NV,NM, and FL, you have to understand that massive humanistic fraud happened. Please refer to John Conyers 104 page paper on the theft in Ohio for examples of the disinfranchisment thanks to star performer Ohio Secretary of State kenneth Blackwell. No conflict of interest and NO time served for his efforts as co-chair of the bush/cheney re-election campaign. 4th problem deserving honorable mention posted by Fred W at commment #9 is just around the bend if a voter ID becomes a requirement per the Bush appointed majority in Supreme Court. This state computerized left turn that exists in 41 states can stop the validation of a citizen's ID under the excuse of an untimely server coincidently going down. This is bush/cheney government at it's finest hour occupying a country near you to impose this U.S. form of Democracy as pre-empted by the commander in chief. And that's dictator to you pal if he declares a national emergency since May 2007. 2008: Impeach the treasonous lier dick cheney and immediately start prosecution of the bush administration in a world court for high crimes and misdemeanors. Investigate former secret agent Sibel Edmonds gagged by bush whose claim in the British Times this weekend that 25 high level US government criminals were directly involved in selling nuclear secrets to Pakistan and some have direct involvement in 9/11. Dennis Kusinich: Please let us know Sir that you are aware of these new findings in the Edmonds case and your course of action.

COMMENT #79 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/11/2008 @ 1:31 am PT...





It's just like these corrupt oath breakers to go through all this trouble and fuck-up the chain of custody. Here we are bitching about the fucking electronic vote tabulation devices and there they are fucking up the chain of custody of the actual evidence itself. The paper ballots What the fuck do we fucking need a fucking ARMED ZORRO to protect the vote!?

So abort this re-count?

Is that the message here?

Screw the constitution?

Screw the people because we've been tricked again by these pieces of crap. Their "perceived diligence" but utter fucking corrupt ass negligence?

If these motherfucking SOS's can't handle chain of custody, throw their fucking ass in jail.

THEY ARE DOMESTIC TERRORISTS

Oh that's right dawgz, can't do that. Due process and all that fucking crap. I have message for Secretary of States who are inside of the United States of America and all of it's Territories and everywhere fucking else we have an interest. If you don't allow us to vote, and we can't validate our vote, then you and everything you say is now officially nullified. And yeah sure you can sick the police after us saying some bullshit unconstitutional crap, but you have NOW SHOWN your true colors, you haven't thought this shit through, and you haven't a backup plan. You can say whatever fucking crap you want, you are nullified by "We The People" you and the fake ass people you put in power are the enemy of state. Once folks finally wake up to this fact it is going to be a fucking bloodbath. We now know who the TRUE DOMESTIC TERRORISTS ARE. and it ain't "We The People." It's the officials counting the vote. And if it aint the shitty fucking electronics it's the shitty leadershits and their crap ass chain of custody. (Didn't we just get a giant fucking ear full of bullshit from a bunch of ROV's saying policies and procedures policies and procedures? Oh you fuckers really are too much now. We've all just fucking had enough of your crap. What do you want from us? Silence? Violence? Let us all know.) I had it with all your unconstitutional shit. Your all fucking miserable failures as leaders. A BIG thanks to the few people that actually care about this stuff. There's a lot of folks laughing out there.

I want to remind them that this ain't funny, it ain't cool, it pisses people off, and it will come to a head one way or another.

COMMENT #80 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/11/2008 @ 1:34 am PT...





GBD, #78 Sibel wasn't a secret agent. She was a translator for the FBI.

COMMENT #81 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/11/2008 @ 1:35 am PT...





If the chain of custody is broken, do a 100% re-election. All over from scratch. We have already spent millions on this shit. Don't you actually want to get the vote right? Any answers to the contrary are domestic enemies. It's really that simple.

COMMENT #82 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/11/2008 @ 1:38 am PT...





I don't care which political party did or didn't win. I Care that the fucking vote gets counted accurately. If your against that your a fucking domestic enemy.

COMMENT #83 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/11/2008 @ 1:41 am PT...





Phil, I don't think Dennis will fail. For however goofy he comes off sometimes, he is incredibly smart and I've seen him get serious as a heart attack. He is NO wuss. He absolutely can handle this, if anyone can, and it's completely crazy not to take it to the mat every time there is THIS much suspicious stuff attached... no matter what the criminals try to make of it, and no matter how many steps ahead they might be. He can do it, and we'll all be behind him.

COMMENT #84 [Permalink]

... Grizzly Bear Dancer said on 1/11/2008 @ 1:45 am PT...





Richard Hayes Phillips was the associate at Ohio Free Press who findings claimed the chance of bush winning Ohio was a mil to 1. Was working on my post before Bev's was added.

COMMENT #85 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/11/2008 @ 1:54 am PT...





Yep 99 I am behind him too right now. Actually I am behind anyone that will uphold the Constitution as I remember it as I was taught in school. Not the new modified crap that happened in the last 7 years. That shit is nullified as far as I am concerned. If I ever have to do jury duty for someone and I see this unconstitutional crap on them I will not only nullify it I will send a message back. All these fucking pacifist yuppies are full of shit. Perhaps if they were required to SERVE this country they would have a lot more respect for the constitution . I am cussing a lot and that does bother me, but I don't know what else to do to get this word out . It's now or never. IF it's never, then I want to know, I wanna know where I can go to get away from these domestic terrorists. I want out of this country where they have no say, where the wind from their fucking nukes won't cross my path. I say this as a veteran. I am not stupid, if my country turns into a fucking war zone, I will use my two feet and get as far away as I can. If I am in the military I will die going against the brick wall. I am tired of this chicken shit crap that passes off for elections and the "media pass" that is granted on it. No I ain't forgot about the Sibel case too, there's so much crap in play right now, that I almost expect the oath breakers to attack us right now to bury all this shit. These fucking people (if allowed to continue down this same old bullshit path) are going to wipe the face of the earth clean with radiation. Kiss your children goodbye.

COMMENT #86 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:11 am PT...





Thanks to RAWSTORY too. I know they put up with hell of bullshit over the last few years. Maybe it's time for RAWSTORY to get a little place in my show at the end. This will be the new title screen now.... Sacxtra! Thanks AccessSacramento.Org

newsreview.com

blackboxvoting.org

BRADBLOG.COM

gregpalast.com

TRUTHOUT.ORG

Rawstory.com (HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT)

An Uninformed Population

Is Necessary for Fascism

To take root

DID CORPORATE Media

IGNORE YOUR CANDIDATE? MEDIA BLACKOUTS on

ELECTRONIC VOTE

TABULATION PAPER BALLOTS

HAND COUNTED

PUBLIC OVERSIGHT

VISIT sacxtra!

sacxtra.com

COMMENT #87 [Permalink]

... ROTTEN said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:20 am PT...





Those numbers look correct to me BECAUSE Hillary won the LARGEST and most densely populated areas of New Hampshire because those were MODERATE Democrats. Obama won the college towns and basically the SAME AREAS HOWARD DEAN WON BEFORE! Look it up. Plus the % points of the victory was less than 3% which means it is a virtual tie. Both got 9 delegates. The woman didn't expect to win and had not written a victory speech. Move on and stop slamming Dems. Either Hillary or Obama will be the Dem nominee so stop cutting each other at the knees for the Republicans.

COMMENT #88 [Permalink]

... Grizzly Bear Dancer said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:21 am PT...





To cut to the chase. If the frigin diebold criminals are the ones that have had sole control and or unsecured storage of the original physical evidence or ballots totally 80% of the total New Hampshire vote, how hard could it be to fix a recount? Think about it for 1 second. If you were a treasonous pirate in the business of fixing elections with virtually an unlimited budget, wouldn't it make sense that you would have evolved a plan B after the rigged recount of Ohio? While the election advocates have voiced their evidence of fraud the US election system has remain unchanged an UN-uniform across the 50 states. So the answer is YES. The corporate 1%er that the corporate 1%ers want after occupying the office without winning the popular vote in the last 2 election in all likelyhood has a backup plan in 2008 to continue the changes they have made in 7 yrs of bushit and increased Executive powers. My final word tonight: Fck this bullshit and reject this system of elections regardless of what results are discovered.

COMMENT #89 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:25 am PT...





Listen, ROTTEN, it may not matter to you whether the nominee is the one chosen by the voters, but it matters to most of the rest of us. When do you suppose AMERICANS stop getting cut off at the knees by criminals? Surely never if we listen to you.

COMMENT #90 [Permalink]

... ROTTEN said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:25 am PT...





Oh and Kucinich, sit your ass down. It is guys like you who love to lose like Nader and love to make greenies think losing is A-OK. I got news for you, it is not especially when we have so much at stake. Stop being divisive so that we can get one of OUR candidates in the Whitehouse.

COMMENT #91 [Permalink]

... MrBill123 said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:26 am PT...





Have advocates who question the wisdom of a recount, though based on experienced thought there might be a different purpose that exposing explicit examples of fraud? Should one honestly think a man of Mr Kucinich's intellegence, advised by similiar people are not aware of what they are up against? That this decision was made in a vacum of knowledge - unaware of the tactics and operators involved? All the honest and hard earned efforts have done much to lay the ground work for a public debate -one that has been vacant from the political landscape. Maybe Mr Kucinich's action is designed to shed light on a process shrouded in secrecy, operated by convict felons, rife with vulnriblities. The buzz is in the air on a subject that stikes to the heart of what is means to be a representative democracy. To miss an opportunity to confront the system at an early stage is important. Lets see what the back-up plan is, lets see how they plan to cover their tracks. Let see who steps up or sink into the shadows. Exposure of atleast some of the plan now gives transparency advocates advanced warning on what to expect and possible responses. Start forcing the hand now instead of being blind-sided later on. Stop being one step behind and start to plan to be one step ahead. 60,000 caged voters - too late to do anything about in Fla...Provisional ballot objections en mass - too late to do anything about it. 3,000,000 "soil ballots" - too late to do anything about. 7 years of fighting modern election fraud and vulnerabilties after the fact has done NOTHING to prevent the exact same system to continue to operate. Maybe moving on the offensive might work maybe it wont, but the process of taking it to sham artists before they can sham must be done. Of course I know the deck is stacked. Of couse I know there are back-up plans. But shouldn't advocates of transparent government want to expose the traps now and expose the strategies in advance rather than when it is too late? I agrue that what Mr Kucinich stated in his release is exactly what he expects. If there is veracity in the election process, let those who profess it be forced to show it. If there is fraud in the system, let those wrong doers cover it up. We know the probable outcome of the recount. What we dont know if fraud is present. And if

there is - what methods will be (not might) used to cover it up. If not to force their hand now? When? Agnst in the general populous is deep, be it high gas prices, no medical care, shrinking middle-class or lives lost in foreign wars. What treatens this country's existence is when the populous no long feels that their voice will atleast be heard. The detactment between government and the governed has always led to civil strife and suffering. My final note:

My father has recently started to relate a story to me about FDR and the 1930s. He was born in 33 and lived as a poor child though the heart of it. While the world bubbled in turmoil, some moved to Fasism as the answer and others to Communism. Protests on the streets in America were growning, the trust in government was eroding rapidly. Food riots, chained out unemployed workers, Hoover-blankets and Hoover-villes. Hope was evaporating.

FDR a man of considerable means and one of priveldge and position was elected President. Something had to be done, but what? What motivated FDR to start working for "socialist programs"? Here is what my father says: FDR said, "He did not want to be the last President of the United States." Do we want to be the last citizens of an honestly elected democratic republic?

COMMENT #92 [Permalink]

... Grizzly Bear Dancer said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:28 am PT...





Thanks 99. Sometimes i get so wrapped up with this stuff that i'm sort of like Belucci in Animal House when when he's giving the fiery speech to his frat house and references something like when the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor. I am just so sick of what these bastard have done to our country, i need to help stop them at all costs.

COMMENT #93 [Permalink]

... tep said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:30 am PT...





Those numbers being swapped thing is a message from the person who swapped them, and it says: Up yours, you cant catch me, I´ll do whatever I want.

COMMENT #94 [Permalink]

... don myers said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:30 am PT...





it would cost too much - we'd rather have it wrong

COMMENT #95 [Permalink]

... ROTTEN said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:32 am PT...





Well I'm for doing like some of the states have done and they have thrown out electronic voting machines all together. My problem with Kucinich is the way he implies some how Hillary is cheating which is not true. I think the Dems are playing the game within the rules and that means all Dems. We've had 7 years to throw these machines out!

COMMENT #96 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:35 am PT...





Well, right here we have a lot of really good examples of why we can't be keeping our powder dry on the chance that the bad guys would have disappeared votes or padded ballot boxes. We've got a huge population of people who are ready to fight or die or move or get hauled off to the bin or drink themselves to death over the loss of our Constitution. We've got others who don't care what or how as long as we can have any Democrat presiding over our "soft fascism". Dennis!!!!!!!! YOU ROCK! GO GET 'EM!

COMMENT #97 [Permalink]

... Adam Fulford said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:36 am PT...





MrBill123 wrote: "60,000 caged voters - too late to do anything about in Fla...Provisional ballot objections en mass - too late to do anything about it. 3,000,000 "soil ballots" - too late to do anything about." Voter ID law too late to do anything about. Looks like the fascist-stacked Supreme Court of the United States will uphold it. US democracy is a farce. Without it, the United States Gov't has no moral authority around the world, and certainly not domestically. No wonder countries around the world are dumping the American dollar, basically writing US off...

COMMENT #98 [Permalink]

... Caleb said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:41 am PT...





I'm convinced. The exact flip-flop of results between the hand-counted and machine ballots shows there must have been either fraud or a computer glitch. There is no other reasonable possibility.

COMMENT #99 [Permalink]

... the_zapkitty said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:42 am PT...





dkosian diary on Kucinich recount climbs to the top of the "recommended" list overnight... http://www.dailykos.com/...ry/2008/1/10/221155/524/ ... so a "few" dkosians actually approve of talking about such... maybe as much as 6 or 7, yathink? To avoid bursting blood vessels while reading the comments on the diary just note and ignore the prolific ignorance and occasions of outright wankery... and instead reflect on the dozens and dozens of sensible replies to the foolishness.

COMMENT #100 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:43 am PT...





ROTTON, look what up? Some fucking Corporate Vaporware statistics posted on some biased URL?

Or maybe look up the (oop's I dropped the ball again) Broken chain of custody statistics? Right now from my understanding that if the CHAIN OF CUSTODY for the PAPER BALLOTS or the ELECTRONIC RESULTS are broken.. Either OR Either one. Then no outcome can be validated. The only electronic outcome can be validated is if it compares to a 100% match of a paper outcome. If one single ballot is wrong, then the electronic vote tabulation device failed. The only paper ballot recount outcome can be validated if a 100% proper chain of custody was followed. (let me explain this... Imagine your on a jet aircraft working in the USAF, and you remove a black box to get to your own shit to fix a problem, well you have to write in the forms you removed that fucking box to get to your shit e.g. F.O.M. Maintenance, meanwhile..... your about 1/2 mile from anywhere you could turn that classified box into a vault to be secured, so HOW DO YOU GET THERE BY YOURSELF????? hmmmm? And no you don't have a phone or radio.. I'll tell you how you do it, you pick the fucking box up and carry it by hand for 50 yards and set it down, then go get another and another and another until you make it back with nothing interfering with your shit or the physical obstruction of the view of your shit during the whole ordeal. If something interferes with your shit your welcome to KILL it. and then make a report that the dead thing in the path was fucking with my classified boxes. But now we have a new problem, you filled out paperwork and put (cough signed) the shit into a vault, but now it's missing. That's called a broken chain of custody.) YET the fucking corporate mainstream media has finished with this and published their results and declared winners and is moving on to SC. Nobody is slamming democrats or republicans. (sic) I say that likely just your opinion. I know that I ain't allowed to personally attack you, but if I could, I would. I am fucking sick of all this shit.

COMMENT #101 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:51 am PT...





Golly, zap, you sound so mellow! Have they got you on chill pills? You read all that stuff without popping an aneurysm? I'm so impressed!

COMMENT #102 [Permalink]

... A. F. Smith said on 1/11/2008 @ 3:06 am PT...





Rotten... Just think out loud here, but I don't think the Clintons were behind this. I think you guys have left some other important data out that needs more preliminary research done. Hillary and Obama's votes weren't the only ones affected. Ron Paul's vote tally was apparently cut approximately in half too. Nobody in the Clinton camp gives a rat's derrière what Ron Paul's number were, but the right wingers most certainly do. That actually puts Ron Paul in 3rd ahead of Huckabee. I don't think I'm overstating how many GOP apple carts get overturned if anti-war libertarian Ron Paul finishes in 3rd in the New Hampshire Primary ahead of a Baptist Preacher and the mayor of 9/11. Anyone here have a problem visualizing in their head some Focus on the Family Dobson subordinates on the ground in NH losing their mind and pushing panic buttons all over the country when their internal polls showed Huckabee behind Paul? And since Jesus already got the voting machines open for them already... might as well make sure that "Damascus Candidate" Hussein Obama isn't going to be lopping the heads of Christians with scimitars. Praise Jesus.

COMMENT #103 [Permalink]

... MrBill123 said on 1/11/2008 @ 3:13 am PT...





I am embolden by the responses posted here - the spirit that I was taught that ran deep in Americans is still strong. 27 years of increasing repressive government and 7 years of accelerated dismantling of the Constitution has not gone un-noticed. There is indeed a unity of opinion expressed here that represents the same spirit that fought against the tyranny of George III. Until recently, the US had the best educational system. I can see the results. The priciples of freedom and justice expoused by the Constitution and Bill of Rights has not yet been squashed.

There is indeed hope when men and women of all backgrounds, status and position still carry the same fire that forced out the imperial British in 1776, forged a revolutionary compact between the government and the governed in 1787, who shed countless lives of bother and kin to preserve the Union in 1865 who fought on foreign shores to free men, woman and children enslaved and slaughted by the darkest forces yet seen on this earth in 1945. I for one will continue to defend this Constitution and demand that legitmacy of any government elected be shown without any reasonable doubt. I stand with other writers before me in unison. There will be no further compromise as to the integrity of our election system.

The battle in 2008 is more than policy - it is about legitmacy. Does America still have what it takes to ensure it has a legitmate government.

The names and faces in the government is less important than knowing that they were legitimately placed there.

COMMENT #104 [Permalink]

... wow said on 1/11/2008 @ 3:32 am PT...





Guys, of course Hillary Clinton was not behind it. She is obviously and consciously in front of this. She was instrumental in making sure there was no recount in 2000 and in 2004. Her doing this guaranteed her inexplicable rise to power in 2008. The way she/bush/pelosi/cheney see it is the following: It is her turn to get appointed by a fixed system of appointing dictators. Also look at all her lovely little puppets (gergen, carville, etc.) making up every excuse in the world about how all the polls from Timbuktu to Siberia were all wrong. I mean these guys are spreading outlandish conspiracy theories that give aid and comfort to the enemy. Will you Clintonian Conspiracy Theorists (CCT) stop spreading this viscious hate against the victims in this catastrophic and catalyzing event? This catastophic and catalyzing event of elitest presidential voter fraud will cause a strategic transformation within the American people. This transformation acts as a "New Pearl Harbor" to force them to work together and restore the constitution. I guess Hillary pulling the trigger and defrauding the American people prematurely has in a way assisted the American people in bringing about this change rapidly rather than it being a slow gradual process. So in a way, her greed and hubris has added velocity toward restoring the constitution. That should be taken into account during her obvious future sentencing.

COMMENT #105 [Permalink]

... the_zapkitty said on 1/11/2008 @ 3:38 am PT...





99, nope, medication unchanged for the moment and is all vascular and/or diabetes related. But a recent diagnosis of sleep apnea related to my failing heart explained what I had feared was increasing dementia... and learning that I'm just perpetually exhausted instead of losing my mind has done wonders for my mood And they can treat the apnea symptoms...

COMMENT #106 [Permalink]

... BOB YOUNG said on 1/11/2008 @ 3:48 am PT...





“Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand: Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%

Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05% Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%

Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95% The percentages appear to be swapped. That seems highly unusual, to say the least.” No big surprise to me. It sure would be easy to program a 100% vote swap! It sure looks like every machine “counted” vote for Clinton could have went to Obama and every machine “counted” vote for Obama could have went to Clinton. I’m not sure such a switch has not been done before. In the Ohio 2005 referendum the first two options on the list were expected to have about 2/3 of the votes going in one direction. Almost the exact percentages came up in the results except no votes had the strength that was expected for yes votes and yes votes had the percentage expected for no votes. The expected results were taken from a conservative newspaper that up until that time had and almost perfect record of predicting results. The rest of the issues in that election also had unexpected results but were close enough that a switch would not have been a sure bet. The results for most if not all of those came out unexpectedly but did not appear to be the result of a 100% vote swap. The conservative position was the big winner as it always seems to be whenever these “counting” machines appear to have a “glitch”. I read about those Ohio results at this site a couple of years ago: http://www.freepress.org/index2.php I don't have a clue if that is what happen or not. Unless the votes are counted for a change none of us will ever know.

COMMENT #107 [Permalink]

... Reader said on 1/11/2008 @ 4:12 am PT...





There might be nothing to it. But I think a recount is in order. All I know for sure is that I really like the style of this Agent 69 (no offense to 99).

COMMENT #108 [Permalink]

... Lani said on 1/11/2008 @ 4:38 am PT...





How do we the people get them to recount, or can it only be from a candidate. Why isn't CNN, MSNBC reporting about Dennis Kucinich...something seems fishy, like the media is trying to keep it under wraps. I only found out about Dennis through the net. Finally foxnews has an article about it on their site, however they are monitoring comments. Not only do I demand a recount for all the candidates, but screw those machines that have been proved you can hack it. Whatever happened to good old fashioned paper ballots...that is counted by trusted officials.

COMMENT #109 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 1/11/2008 @ 4:44 am PT...





I have to tilt my head to read this now

COMMENT #110 [Permalink]

... plunger said on 1/11/2008 @ 4:52 am PT...





Dennis: Focus on Rove and his desire to forever "Swiftboat" the reliability of Exit Polls. THAT is the entire game being played. Unless and until they can eliminate the practice of Exit Polling in the United States, it will always be obvious when they steal an election. No Exit Polls - No Evidence of fraud. Dick Morris, a career pollster (who has worked for both parties), states in the Hill News that the Election Night pattern of exit polls versus popular vote in six battleground states - Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa - was "virtually inconceivable": "Exit polls are almost never wrong ... So reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries. … To screw up one exit poll is unheard of. To miss six of them is incredible." http://en.wikipedia.org/...ontroversy%2C_exit_polls THIS IS A SET UP. If you are going to STEAL AN ELECTION VIA VOTE RIGGING – you need to lay the ground work – planting doubt in the minds of the electorate through the media shills. Exit polling has been a reliable method by which to approximate the result of elections prior to the final votes being tallied. Exit polling has only been called into question in the last two election cycles – but ONLY because the Exit Polling data were not confirmed by the final “official” vote tally. As has now been proven, it was not the Exit Polling data that was inaccurate or unreliable, it was the reporting of the Official Total” that had been tampered with. It’s time to TAKE THE OFFENSIVE where Exit Polling is concerned and reveal this Swiftboating of “Exit Polling” for what it is – a Rovian sham designed specifically to condition the electorate to disbelieve the exit poll results (which will portray the house and Senate going under Democratic Control), and rather to only believe the “Official” (FALSE) vote count. The Mainstream Media is fully complicit in the Rovian Brainwashing campaign to discredit “Exit Polling” as unscientific hoohah, when in fact it is the smoking gun EVIDENCE of election fraud used throughout the world. Ask International Elections Observers about the value of Exit Polling. FOCUS ON THE REAL GAME - and the reasons behind it. This is all in preparation for the main event.

COMMENT #111 [Permalink]

... plunger said on 1/11/2008 @ 4:55 am PT...





As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." (The US dictionary definition has gotten somewhat squishier since then, as all the larger dictionary companies have been bought up by multinational corporations.) Mussolini was quite straightforward about all this. In a 1923 pamphlet titled "The Doctrine of Fascism" he wrote, "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." But not a government of, by, and for We The People - instead, it would be a government of, by, and for the most powerful corporate interests in the nation. It seems that facism more resembles bush policy that islamic theocracy...

Here is the 14-point Britt definition as posted some months ago... Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each: 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes, media is directly controlled by the government. But in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

COMMENT #112 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 1/11/2008 @ 5:10 am PT...





MrBill123 #30 Well said. I will not vote for Hillary or Obama in the primary, however, a call for a recount is about real elections, not play pretend drama by sicko pols. John Stewart illustrated that fiasco appropriately. The entity or realm that is in the greatest danger in preznit blush's empire of incompetence is fact, accuracy, and truth. These are supressed over and over again. That empire is Amurka, and it is a blood sucking parasite. We have to swim upstream to get anything resembling election sanity done these daze.

COMMENT #113 [Permalink]

... danielle said on 1/11/2008 @ 5:14 am PT...





it's dejavu all over again.

To Phil: I'm right there with you, bro.I have that sinking sickening feeling again just i did in 04 when i leanred within 24 hours of the results that the polls reflected Kerry won and yet after 8pm that tuesday, Bush numbers started climbing inexplicably. I will never forget that night/morning when i relaized we do not have democracy here. To TruthIsAll: where the hell have you ben??!! It was your data over at democraticunderground that i read obsessively for days weeks months after 04. Are you on top of this? So glad you're still around, and i pray and hope you are in good spirits and health. to Brad: im a TU over at Kos and the minute i posted about suspect polls and ballots, i was hammered and threatened to be thrown off the site. Luckily Booman gets it as do other genuine progressive blogs. so here i am in 2008 with that sick feeling of powerlessness, that not enough people understand the complexities of how their votes end up meaning nothing, that this is just a horse and pony show, that the next POTUS has already been decided for us --Guliani will beat Hillary by 1 or 2 states --- and that the organized criminals win again. Does anyone honestly believe that the GOP is going to hand the keys of power to anyone but their own? Guiani is their own, complicit in their crimes and the ongoing FALSE REALITY that we continually find oursleves living in will never end until everyone in this country knows what we know.

COMMENT #114 [Permalink]

... plunger said on 1/11/2008 @ 5:20 am PT...





Danielle said: "complicit in their crimes and the ongoing FALSE REALITY that we continually find oursleves living in will never end until everyone in this country knows what we know." This Suskind article (where he is referring to Rove) says it all: http://www.nytimes.com/2...03a2a9db7c23&ei=5070 It was during a press conference on Sept. 16, 2001, in response to a question about homeland security efforts infringing on civil rights, that Bush first used the telltale word ''crusade'' in public. ''This is a new kind of --- a new kind of evil,'' he said. ''And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.'' In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend --- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency. The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality --- judiciously, as you will --- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' Who besides guys like me are part of the reality-based community? Many of the other elected officials in Washington, it would seem. A group of Democratic and Republican members of Congress were called in to discuss Iraq sometime before the October 2002 vote authorizing Bush to move forward. A Republican senator recently told Time Magazine that the president walked in and said: ''Look, I want your vote. I'm not going to debate it with you.'' When one of the senators began to ask a question, Bush snapped, ''Look, I'm not going to debate it with you.''

COMMENT #115 [Permalink]

... plunger said on 1/11/2008 @ 5:24 am PT...





http://www.arcticbeacon.com/18-Aug-2006.html A TOP GLOBAL CONSPIRATOR CONFIRMS THE GLOBAL CONSPIRACY For the benefit of knee-jerk 'smart fellows' whose minds are befogged by 'slides' and who will be inclined to accuse the Editor of International Currency Review of being a 'conspiracy theorist', the following statement by one of the leading globalist strategists, Mr David Rockefeller, published in 2002*, will no doubt come as a shock: 'For more than a century ideological extremists [sic] at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicised incidents such as my encounter with Castro, to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and over economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure ? one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it'. As will be seen, David Rockefeller acknowledges that he is part of a secret cabal (synarchy) which works against the best interests of the United States. Why has he not yet been indicted, then, for conspiring against the United States under Section 371 of the United States Code, Title 18, 'Crimes and Criminal Procedure', which states that 'if two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both'?

COMMENT #116 [Permalink]

... plunger said on 1/11/2008 @ 5:26 am PT...





It’s time to raise the level of discourse where the term “Conspiracy” is concerned: http://www.globalsecurit...indictment_04aug2005.htm We’ve all been conditioned to snicker and ridicule when non-professionals offer theories about conspiracies. It’s time to talk about all of these theories and unravel the whole thing. The Abramoff, AIPAC and Libby Trials are ALL THE SAME CONSPIRACY: http://plungerspeaks.blogspot.com/ Cheney sent Ledeen to meet with Ambassador Mel Sembler in Italy to plant the forged Niger document. COINCIDENTALLY…

Mel sembler heads up Scooter Libby’s Legal defense fund

AND

Despite the fact he’s a lifelong Republican, Sembler held a fundraiser for Lieberman in Palm Beach - in coordination with Rove and the WH. Connect ALL the dots…

Lieberman is now assigned the task of protecting Chertoff. How does McCain factor in? A New Jersey-based investment banker deeply involved in fund-raising efforts for the 2004 Republican convention, Lewis Eisenberg, is signing on with Mr. McCain. Mr. Eisenberg is a former Goldman Sachs partner who served as chairman of the Port Authority board at the time of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. WHAT A COINCIDENCE! It was Eisenberg who passed the $15 billion Asbestos Liability represented by the Twin Towers onto Larry Silverstein, the man who confessed publicly to having Building 7 “PULLED” by explosives – despite the fact that no plane struck it: Pull the entire thread and don’t stop pulling.

The Asbestos liability belonged to Halliburton, having acquired it along with his acquisition of Dresser. GW included the issue in his State of the Union speech in 2005: “To make our economy stronger and more competitive, America must reward, not punish, the efforts and dreams of entrepreneurs. Small business is the path of advancement, especially for women and minorities, so we must free small businesses from needless regulation and protect honest job-creators from junk lawsuits. (Applause.) Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back by irresponsible class-actions and frivolous asbestos claims — and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year.” FULL CIRCLE.

COMMENT #117 [Permalink]

... Paul said on 1/11/2008 @ 5:47 am PT...





What vote fraud experts are heading to NH to look into this?

COMMENT #118 [Permalink]

... semperfi said on 1/11/2008 @ 5:58 am PT...





Those folks who think that a recount will get to the bottom of things had better read what Nancy Tobi, an EI activist in NH, has to say: http://www.democracyforn...shire.com/node/view/5324 "... Proponents and apologists of the privatized and computerized corporate elections often justify computerized elections saying how “easy” it is to corrupt a hand count election. They say, “But you can always swap out the ballots to get the count you want!” And they are 100% correct about this. But only when there is no citizen oversight. And the only time this happens in a hand count election is in a recount. In the Election Night count, the first count, the count that matters, all hand count elections have complete citizen oversight as a check against the kind of corrupt outcome you would find in a ballot swapping affair. But in a recount, there is absolutely no citizen oversight for the entire time between Election Night and the recount itself. If we are going to assume the possibility that some nefarious super spy has bothered to rig a New Hampshire election, wouldn’t we assume they have also taken into account our liberal recount laws? Wouldn’t we assume they might have a Plan B to ensure a recount validates their nefarious doings? Is it at all logical that evildoers who find their way into our machine counts might not also find a way into our recounts? Open and honest elections require citizen oversight. This is a simple thing to accomplish in a hand count Election Night count. But in a recount it is impossible. In a recount, citizens have no control over the ballot chain of custody. Unless citizens have stood guard over every ballot box from the moment that it was sealed and signed by our local election officials, the recount provides no more assurance than the machine counts. A recount of a secret computerized vote count is just another weak link in the chain of publicly observable ballot custody required for honest and open elections. In 2004, on request from citizen activists, candidate Ralph Nader had a New Hampshire recount. Only 11 districts, chosen by a mysterious out of state activist, claiming to be a statistician who had found anomalies in the results, were recounted. New Hampshire officials at the time disagreed with her interpretation but the recount occurred as she directed. To nobody’s surprise, the recounts uncovered no significant discrepancies, and New Hampshire’s system of corporate controlled secret vote counting got a big stamp of approval. And here we are again. Another corporate controlled New Hampshire election. Another questionable outcome. Did the Nader recount change things for the better? Did it resolve the problem? If New Hampshire conducts a recount now, it’s as reasonable as not to assume this recount will again not reveal any significant discrepancies. Our corporate controlled secret vote count elections will be validated, and we will continue to have elections whose outcomes can not be trusted. ..." This issue is also discussed at BBV: http://www.bbvforums.org...gi?file=/1954/71260.html

COMMENT #119 [Permalink]

... danielle said on 1/11/2008 @ 6:00 am PT...





plunger . . i had referenced the susking article a few days ago for a post at DK . . i will never forget those quotes regarding "we act and you study what we do" theme.right now they are acting and the media is spinning and the people are believing. but i'm not. thanks.

COMMENT #120 [Permalink]

... analyst said on 1/11/2008 @ 6:21 am PT...





... TruthIsAll said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:14 pm PT... Brad, the coincidence is even greater than that. The numbers match to within .0001% ! Optical Scan

Clinton 91,717 52.9507%

Obama 81,495 47.0493%

Total 173,212 Hand Counted

Clinton 20,889 47.0494%

Obama 23,509 52.9506%

Total 44,398

---------------- To me this implies that the entire vote counting was/is a sham --- the vote numbers appear to have been totally fabricated (a figment of somebodies very creative mind!) Couple this with the Ron Paul "Sutton" affair. There, 31 votes for Ron Paul appeared from nowhere. Let me elaborate suppose a 1000 votes were cast in Sutton So the totals reported would have been 1000 votes with Ron Paul getting 0 votes. Now that his votes were corrected to 31 votes --- did the total vote count sum to 1000 or 1031 --- where did these 31 votes come from?

COMMENT #121 [Permalink]

... analyst said on 1/11/2008 @ 6:30 am PT...





The implication of my previous comment is that it is not that easy to change and fabricate numbers without being caught. THe totals should match up with the number of voters that came in to vote. I am presuming that that record is kept seperately. If the totals do not match up, then the vote counts are suspect as I believe happened in Sutton

COMMENT #122 [Permalink]

... Bob In Pacifica said on 1/11/2008 @ 6:32 am PT...





I'm not sure if I grasp why there shouldn't be a recount in NH. I got an email, which seems to have been repeated here several times, that we can't be sure of who possessed the ballots, who printed the ballots, etc. True. Perhaps someone printed an entire duplicate set of paper ballots and have swapped the phony ones for the real ones. But that's really damned unlikely. And the longer we wait the more monkey business there will be. I will entertain any theory as to how an election may have been stolen or how the evildoers may try to cover it up. However, I find the argument that you don't do a recount because they might fake the recount is a rather sad argument. It's sort of surrender because you might lose. And as far as looking bad, people presume you are nuts if you question these machines. Am I worried about being called a nut at this late stage?

COMMENT #123 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 1/11/2008 @ 6:40 am PT...





the italians italics have run amok ... ... plus there is a background task that is eating up CPU time suspiciously ...

COMMENT #124 [Permalink]

... Bob In Pacifica said on 1/11/2008 @ 6:40 am PT...





There is no logical reason for Clinton and her people to risk her integrity to steal so few delegates. However, it makes perfect sense to steal delegates for her in order to sink her later. If there was a fraud here, even if Clinton had nothing to do with it, this will be a time bomb ready to go off when the perps want it to.

COMMENT #125 [Permalink]

... GWN said on 1/11/2008 @ 6:54 am PT...





#109 Floridiot

"I have to tilt my head to read this now"

COMMENT #126 [Permalink]

... Cindy said on 1/11/2008 @ 6:56 am PT...





W00t W00t W00t!!!!!!!!!!!

FYI I just went over to Dennis's web site and made a contribution. He is now my guy, ska-rew the MSM poleeeticians. I do agree with Brad:

"We would also caution Kucinich and his team to closely inspect the chain of custody for the ballots in question, and what has happened to them, and the vulnerable op-scan memory cards, since the election two days ago, during the period that concern has been widely expressed about the seemingly anomalous results of Tuesday's election. It's important that the chain of custody be both secure, fully logged, and transparent." In computer forensics, the chain of custody is everything. We have to know how the chain of custody was maintained from the point throughout the cycle. You can bet your patootie that the MSM won't be saying a word about this nor slags lit Ed whatsit on Air America, nor that jerk Bennett on Sirius, who this morning was having a spirited discussion on how many times he changes his underwear - (with call ins)........ as Stephie Miller would say on her show - I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. GO Dennis!!!

COMMENT #127 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 1/11/2008 @ 7:05 am PT...





OT Musharraf has threatened US Troops ... have we not paid him lately? The fascist phone companies stopped the spying on Americans when the FBI stopped paying them. Likewise, Lets stop paying election warlords when they fail to do their proper job.

COMMENT #128 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 1/11/2008 @ 7:07 am PT...





Dredd, funny you should say that about a background task.

ever since last July when we were having our little discussion about Southworth et al, I have had the same thing happen.

It doesn't show up on the task manager, or the running programs, but when I go to shut down sometimes it hangs and I get a glimpse of it...I'll get the name of it next time.

COMMENT #129 [Permalink]

... GWN said on 1/11/2008 @ 7:29 am PT...





I'm sure Brad, your most "tenacious election integrity fighter" , would appreciate a little $$$$ too.

COMMENT #130 [Permalink]

... Bob In Pacifica said on 1/11/2008 @ 7:35 am PT...





I have been using the numbers at "Ron rox". Is there a better source? If so, could someone please post it?

COMMENT #131 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 1/11/2008 @ 7:43 am PT...





Here's McCains new campaign song, he's a one ball (marble) man Link

COMMENT #132 [Permalink]

... RatherNotSay said on 1/11/2008 @ 7:53 am PT...





(I've posted here before under another alias, but will use a pseudonym here for reasons that will become obvious.)

{Still, you will want to have picked out a screen name and stuck to it. Those are the rules. --99}



I hate to bring this up, but something doesn't smell quite right here. Assuming that this voting was actually gamed, why would they be so blatently obvious? These people are experts - they know that they only need to fix it by one vote more than the competitor to win the election, and they've done it many times before. Further, in this case, for all intents and purposes, the outcome is irrelevent - by the time the recount is done, many other states will have had their primaries and what the recount reveals will change nothing. The wide margin between the polls and votes suggests to me one of two possible scenarios - either the polling was gamed somehow (up until very recently, polling nearly matched the outcome), or they were rigged specifically to draw massive attention from the election advocates (and possibly away from something else?*). My prediction for the outcome of the recount - there will be some anomalies, but most of those can be explained by mistakes made by humans (such as transposing numbers or miscalibration of the card readers); the machines will have worked "flawlessly". Regardless, the errors found would not have changed the outcome of the voting. Additionally, some of the swing could easily be explained by the large number of "improper or illegal" voters - we've already seen suggestions (real or not) of precincts running our of votes (meaning obviously that more people voted than should have), and non-residents voting (a report on this forum noted a large number of out-of-state license plates in a precinct parking lot, and in the same post a comment noting the lack of ID checking). Therefore, the obvious conclusions of this whole mess would be the following: Polling cannot be trusted since it was so wrong compared to the actual voting that the recount proved to be accurate; Since there were so many human related errors in the counting process, it would be better to remove them from the process entirely, for instance the calibration errors in the card readers could have been avoided entirely if we had only used touch-screen machines. Additionally, since it appears that many people who should not have voted actually did, we need stronger voter registration and identifcation laws to ensure that only those that should vote actually do so. Believe me, the scenario I outlined above is not my desire, but one possible explanation of the evidence that I've seen so far. I hope I'm wrong. If you have an alternate explaination that fits all the facts, please share it. (*Note that the polls started changing only a short while ago - about the time the Times would have started fact-checking the Edmonds story {and tipping off those involved that publication was imminent}. It's also an interesting coincidence how the Edmonds story started gaining momentum on the day of the primary, and then quickly died.) So, with that, let the flaming begin.

COMMENT #133 [Permalink]

... JUDGE OF JUDGES said on 1/11/2008 @ 7:53 am PT...





Flo ~ hitler too...

This tune keeps playing in my mind...

It would have to be edited for radio these days.

COMMENT #134 [Permalink]

... BOB YOUNG said on 1/11/2008 @ 8:00 am PT...





I stated in #106 that I do not have a clue what happened. What I meant to imply Is I don’t have proof that they were swapped. I do have a very good clue that some action was taken by the machines that resulted in Clinton getting credit for votes one would expect to go to Obama and Obama getting votes expected to go to Clinton. Here is why I can say that: It is a very long shot that any contestant’s machine count will match the percent of the hand count of any contestant that has a different percentage of the hand count. The more the hand counts differ the more unlikely it is that such a thing will happen. Having it happened once in any race is a long shot. Having it independently happen to two contestants in the same race is a much longer shot. With the hand counts acting as good but far from perfect predictors for the machine “count” the likelihood of any contestants machine “count” matching their own hand count should not be a long shot at all. It should in fact be somewhat expected. If a vote swapping action by the machines caused Obama percentage to match Clintons hand counted percentage it automatically forced Clinton’s machine count to the percentage that Obama got in the hand count. If there was no swap then these two long shots had to happen independently. Without a swap any other contestant could have recovered Obamas lost votes. Every single one of those lost Obama votes would not have had to go to Clinton. So what are we to believe? 1. That their votes were swapped . 2a. That two contestants hit on very long shots in the same contest:

2b. The two contestants who hit on those very long shots (2a) just by fluke chance happened two be the two contestants who did not perform according to pre-election expectations ALL of the Smart Money is clearly on option number one. So I can’t really say I don’t have a clue. I know where to put my money.

COMMENT #135 [Permalink]

... Bob In Pacifica said on 1/11/2008 @ 8:15 am PT...





RATHERNOTSAY, The possibility of voter fraud in NH is not obvious to most people. And it's not being covered in the mainstream media at all. If this were some kind of setup to once and for all destroy the idea of election fraud in the American public this early in the primary season so that frauds may be perpetrated later then you would expect a lot more reporting to call attention to it in order to slap it down. If a narrative were being created the mainstream media would be right on top of this.

COMMENT #136 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 1/11/2008 @ 8:18 am PT...





Dudes, the Kucinich recount story is on the local news channel down in Tampa

COMMENT #137 [Permalink]

... JUDGE OF JUDGES said on 1/11/2008 @ 8:26 am PT...





Unfortunatly there aren't more folks like Brad Friedman in public office.

COMMENT #138 [Permalink]

... noob said on 1/11/2008 @ 8:46 am PT...





Regarding the exact percentage matching of the votes:

Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%

Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05% Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%

Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95% Would it be just as suspicious if the Clinton Obama votes were reversed on the optical as well? In other words, Why would the percentage break be exactly the same from hand to optical, whether they give the same winner or opposite? Just wondering, I'm all on board with the need for a "counter" revolution.

Thanks

COMMENT #139 [Permalink]

... BOB YOUNG said on 1/11/2008 @ 9:06 am PT...





#138 I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Matching your own hand count with your correct machine count is much easier than maching to that someone else. Any one match as exact as these is a long shot. If one of these happend as the result of a swap program the other would automatically happen too. Without a swap type program acting on the results you have to have two independent long shots happening to these two people. And you also have to be foolish enough to believe that these flukes just happened to happen to two people who by fluke chance just happened to match each others percentage rather than that of any other of the contestants. In short you have do defy all the laws of probibality to believe that this was an honestly counted election!

COMMENT #140 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 1/11/2008 @ 9:18 am PT...





There's a letter written by someone named Nancy Tobi at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30018, urging progressives NOT to do a recount. It's a very weird letter, and I thought I'd pass it on to see what you folks here think about it.

COMMENT #141 [Permalink]

... Eric said on 1/11/2008 @ 9:23 am PT...





I heard Dennis on the radio this morning and he will be getting this recount as long as he can pay for it. Way to go.

COMMENT #142 [Permalink]

... noob said on 1/11/2008 @ 9:28 am PT...





#139 I'm pointing out that there are two improbable things: 1: the hand and optical percentages are identical. 2: the hand and optical results are reversed.

COMMENT #143 [Permalink]

... B CAREFUL DENNIS said on 1/11/2008 @ 9:30 am PT...





W A R N I N G: Since Obama and Clinton had their numbers exactly SWAPPED by the optical scanners SOMEONE INVOLVED with the original fraud is going to insert themselves into the recount process and insist that the ballot order for Obama and Clinton are SWAPPED as well This way the recounts will be TOTALLY CONSISTENT and "PROVE" Hillary WON. This is a DISASTER and Kucinich is walking into a trap. We NEED MASSIVE EYES ON THIS RECOUNT PROCESS AND WE NEED TO KNOW THE ORIGINAL BALLOT ORDER. Much was made of the fact that Clinton was at the TOP of the ballot and Obama was at the BOTTOM. Was this true or was this part of the plan to RIG ANY RECOUNT? WE NEED SWORN STATEMENTS FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE VOTERS AND POLL WORKERS AS TO THE ORDER IN WHICH OBAMA AND CLINTON APPEARED ON THE BALLOT ON ELECTION DAY OTHERWISE THIS RECOUNT IS WORSE THAN USELESS. WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE RECOUNT WORKERS ARE NOT MISLEAD ABOUT WHICH END OF THE BALLOT IS READ BY THE MACHINE. IF RECOUNT WORKERS ARE TOLD THAT THE MARK AT THE BOTTOM IS THE CLINTON VOTE AND THE MARK AT THE TOP IS THE OBAMA VOTE AGAIN THEY WILL HAVE SUCCESSFULLY STOLEN IT. SEE HOW CLEVER THIS FRAUD WAS? BALLOT POSITION SWAPPING IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE ELECTION FRAUD - NOT FRAUDULENTLY CHANGING THE VOTE TOTALS.

COMMENT #144 [Permalink]

... danrose said on 1/11/2008 @ 9:34 am PT...





Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand: Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%

Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05% Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%

Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95% The percentages appear to be swapped. That seems highly unusual, to say the least. I just ran the numbers, using the town by town data from the NH Secretary of State (who has a typo in his county totals incidentally, but only one vote down for Richardson in Grafton, and one vote up for Richardson in Strafford, so they even out) and the hand count vs. machine count descriptions from the ronrox page (who has wrong overall totals, too).

The total percentages aren't reflected in the numbers above. Clinton actually got 40.63% of the vote in optical scan towns, and 34.88% of the vote in hand count towns. Obama actually got 36.13% in optical scan and 39.22% in hand count towns.

The only way to get the percentages above are if you compare Clinton/(Clinton+Obama) votes, not Clinton/(entire field) of votes. This is just a coincidence, and isn't really reflected in the data. Additionally, for the hypothesis that machine counted towns flipped votes towards Clinton from Obama, if you look through the data, most of the smaller towns (Lebanon and Keene) went for Obama while the larger ones went for Clinton (Manchester and Nashua). Even within large cities, some wards went to Obama and some to Clinton - Concord was split down the middle this way, but edged slightly Clinton. Not saying this was a perfectly above board election, but from the actual data published by the secretary of state, it doesn't look like the above vote-flipping hypothesis is supported by fact. If anyone is interested, I have the complete data as an excel spreadsheet. Feel free to email me at my name above at gmail.

COMMENT #145 [Permalink]

... Alice said on 1/11/2008 @ 9:38 