Politics Extra: Jesse Jackson's back in town

Monday, September 18, 2006

Jesse Jackson's back in town

On the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s way to a reception hosted by the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus at the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center this evening, he rallied a coalition of Ohio’s election conspiracists in Columbus.

More than 100 people from 54 Ohio counties met at The King Arts Complex to, among other things, rehash what they called the stolen election of 2004 and enlist a "rainbow of representatives" to stand guard at Ohio’s polls Nov. 7.

Bob Fitrakis, Ohio’s Green Party candidate for governor, gave Jackson credit for bringing the 2004 presidential race in Ohio to the nation’s attention.

Alleged irregularities in the Ohio race have been highlighted in the national media and have clogged the courts with state and federal lawsuits brought by such organizations as the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now and the League of Women Voters of Ohio.

"Ohio is a battleground state when it comes to the integrity of our democracy," Jackson, a Democrat and former presidential candidate, said in an interview with the Enquirer. "We’ve compounded the 2004 schemes here with voter suppression schemes. There is no southern state today with more voter suppression schemes than Ohio."

When asked where he ranks the importance of Ohio’s November vote, Jackson said, "It’s at the very top."

"The Secretary of State rather overtly increased the burdens of voter registration,'' Jackson said. "This state shamelessly is making voter access more difficult."

"It’s absurd," said Carlo LoParo, campaign spokesman for Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Republican who is running for govenor.

"Ohio had record voter registration in 2004. Ohio’s voter registration rolls are the highest they have ever been even though the state continues to lose population," LoParo said. "The U.S. Census Bureau found that African-American participation and participation by voters 18 to 24 years-of-age were at record levels during the presidential campaign."

"Jesse Jackson is a partisan operative who is engaging in an unfortunate campaign of misinformation," LoParo said.

14 Comments:

at 10:58 AM, September 19, 2006

Anonymous said...

Annie Hall "is a partisan operative who is engaging in an unfortunate campaign of misinformation,"

Annie is a coincedence theorist that believes there were no problems with the 2004 election, where partisan Ken Blackwell disenfranchised unprecedented numbers of African Americans and young voters in a systematic way.

She doesn't need to look at any evidence, she just asks Ken Blackwell how it went, because she works for a republican rag.

Annie doesn't bother to ask about Blackwell's blatant conflict of interest overseeing his own election or why he won't turn over his tax returns and explian how he became a millionaire while making the salary of a public servant, because that might resemble real reporting.

Keep it up Annie, your job is secure at the Enquirer as long as they last.

at 1:00 PM, September 19, 2006

Anonymous said...

Ms. Hall your, partisanship is showing: "a coalition of election conspiracts". In realist, Rev Jackson spoke to a coalition of labor, legislative, community activists, and election reformers in hopes of coordinating efforts toward the upcoming midterms.

Have you bothered to research the evidence? I highly recommend reading RFK Jr.'s highly regarded piece entitled "Did Bush Steal the 2004 Election? How 350,000 Votes Disappeared in Ohio."

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

at 1:09 PM, September 19, 2006

Anonymous said...

Election conspiracists?

MISALLOCATION OF MACHINES (and less reliable machines) in high Dem Precincts:

Fixing America's Broken Elections
Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
February 08, 2005

My staff reviewed thousands of pages of primary source materials, including copies of actual ballots, voter registration databases, and poll books. They also met with several individuals having firsthand knowledge of irregularities. What they found indicated problems in multiple areas, from machine tampering and malfunction, to the intimidation and caging of minority voters in urban and rural areas, to the purposeful misallocation of voting machines and the unjustifiable restrictions that were placed on the use of provisional ballots.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/fixing_americas_broken_elections.php

Ohio 2004 election thief grabs Gov nod while (surprise! surprise!) voting machines malfunction
by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
May 5, 2006

Ohio's Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell has grabbed the GOP nomination for governor in a vote count riddled with machine breakdowns. In Franklin and Delaware Counties, election officials had to "shut down and recalibrate [machines] throughout the day," according to the Columbus Dispatch. Election officials use recalibration as a code word when machines are malfunctioning including the recording of votes for wrong candidates.
-snip
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006/1953

at 1:11 PM, September 19, 2006

Anonymous said...

election conspiracists?

MANIPULATION OF VOTER REGISTRATIONS and PURGES:

Did 308,000 cancelled Ohio voter registrations put Bush back in the White House?
by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
February 28, 2006

-snip

It turns out, we missed more than a few of the dirty tricks Karl Rove, Ken Blackwell and their GOP used to get themselves four more years. In an election won with death by a thousand cuts, some that are still hidden go very deep. Over the next few weeks we will list them as they are verified.

One of them has just surfaced to the staggering tune of 175,000 purged voters in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), the traditional stronghold of the Ohio Democratic Party. An additional 10,000 that registered to vote there for the 2004 election were lost due to "clerical error."

As we reported more than a year ago, some 133,000 voters were purged from the registration rolls in Hamilton County (Cincinnati) and Lucas County (Toledo) between 2000 and 2004. The 105,000 from Cincinnati and 28,000 from Toledo exceeded Bush's official alleged margin of victory---just under 119,000 votes out of some 5.6 million the Republican Secretary of State. J. Kenneth Blackwell, deemed worth counting.

-snip
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006/1832

“Finally on Voter Registration Mr. Chairman, as the Committee is well aware, there were innumerable political parties and 537’s spending tens of millions of dollars on voter registration drives. In Franklin County alone, we processed more than a quarter of a million voter registration forms between January 1, 2004 and the close of registration in early October. This was twice the registration activity as compared to the same period in 2000.”

Bill Anthony testimony on March 21 2005
http://cha.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=477

Mr Anthony’s testimony stated that in Franklin County alone, more than a quarter million voter registrations forms were processed between Jan. 1 2004 and the close of registration in early October. Yet when the registered voter numbers are compared from 2003 to 2004, we see a change of 120,869.

google: Ohio voter registration historical data
http://elections.ssrc.org/data/voterreg/

Ohio Election Data - Registered Voters before Certification
The Feminist Majority Foundation
Detailed chart of annual changes in Ohio voter registration numbers from 2000 to 2004. The data demonstrates a large voter roll purging in 2002 and relatively high numbers of new registrants from 2002-2004.
voters in 2004 = 845,720
voters in 2003 = 724,851
# Changed
from 03-04 = 120,869

http://www.feminist.org/pdfs/OH_election_precert.pdf

-October 4, 2004 was filing deadline for new voter registrations. At that point there were approximately 20,000 unprocessed voter registration applications with less than a month before the election. One mail tray containing 4,500-7,000 (estimates vary) unprocessed “Project Voter” registrations were discovered on or about October 18,2004.
SOURCE: SOS Investigation pg 10

***Of interest here is information obtained from the SOS website entitled ElectionsVoter/results 2003 and 2004 which show the # of registered voters number change from ‘03-’04 was 11,947 in Lucas County: reg voters 2003 in Lucas=288,190 ; registered voter in 2004=300,137.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/lucas.htm

at 1:13 PM, September 19, 2006

Anonymous said...

Election conspiracists?

UNCOUNTED VOTES:

Cranks and Kooks: Kerry won in '04
by Greg Palast
May 11, 2006

Answer: The Uncounted.

In Ohio, there were 153,237 ballots simply thrown away, more than the Bush "victory" margin. In New Mexico the uncounted vote was fives times the Bush alleged victory margin of 5,988. In Iowa, Bush's triumph of 13,498 was overwhelmed by 36,811 votes rejected. In all, over three million votes were cast but never counted in the 2004 presidential election. The official number is bad enough-1,855,827 ballots cast not counted, reported to the federal government's Election's Assistance Commission. But the feds are missing data from several cities and entire states too embarrassed to report the votes they failed to count. Correcting for the under-reporting of the undercount, the number of ballots cast but never counted goes to 3,600,380. And there are certainly more we couldn't locate to tote up.

Why doesn't your government tell you this? Hey, they do. It's right there in black-and-white on a U.S. Census Bureau announcement released seven months after the election -- in a footnote to the report on voter turn -- out. The Census tabulation of voters voting "differs," from ballots tallied by the Clerk of the House of Representatives for the 2004 presidential race by 3.4 million votes.

This is the hidden presidential count which, excepting the Census' whispered footnote, has not been reported.

Unfortunately, that's not all. In addition to the 3 million ballots uncounted due to technical "glitches," millions more were lost because the voters were prevented from casting their ballots in the first place. This group of un-votes includes voters illegally denied registration or wrongly purged from the registries.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006/1961

November 2, 2004 Election

Iowa New Mexico Ohio

Ballots “spoiled” 18,847 21,084 103,660

Provisional Ballots Uncounted 7,368 6,593 33,998

Absentee Ballots Uncounted 10,596 4,217 15,519

Ghost Votes & blocked votes unknown 2,087 85,950

Total Uncounted* 36,811 33,981 239,127

Bush “Victory” Margin 10,059 5,988 118,599

*Totals here include ghost vote only for New Mexico and machine shortage only for Ohio. Registry purges etc., would increase these totals.

-U.S. Civil Rights Commission reports that ballots of “non-black” voters were rejected: 1.6% (1 in 63 did not count); while black voter ballots were rejected 14.4% or 1 in 7 African American votes went uncounted.

-The rejection of provisional ballots were cast over-whelmingly in Democratic precincts.

-In New Mexico, 9 out of 10 votes uncounted were cast by non-Anglo voters. (90% of this population vote Democratic.

-Nationally, the total numver of voters voting provisionally was 3,107,490 and the rejection rate was 1,090,729.

SOURCE: Greg Palast "Armed Madhouse"

1,597 Provisional Ballots from Franklin Co categorized as Status 200-”Not Registered”, yet voters were registered

http://my.core.com/~rhh/index.htm

Study of Provisionals in Cleveland
Edited on Tue Jan-24-06 01:34 PM by mod mom

From a recent Cleveland study on ‘04:
Almost 1,000 provisional ballots may have been wrongfully rejected because of registration problems alone. At least 944 rejected provisional ballots, mostly classified as “not registered”, were apparently mistakenly purged from the registration lists. Since this error was detected by only one type of search, which did not detect other voters who claimed similar errors, the true number of provisional ballots wrongfully rejected is likely to be higher.
We estimate that 2 out of every 5 provisional ballots that were rejected should have been accepted as legitimate. If we combine incorrectly purged provisional votes, projected votes rejected because of initial registration errors, provisional ballots lost through polling place misinformation and innocent errors filling out the provisional application, it appears that over 41% of rejected provisional ballots (or 14% of all provisional votes) may have been unnecessarily rejected.
We estimate that simply changing residence exposes voters to a 6% chance of being disenfranchised. Youth, the poor, and minorities are disproportionately affected. In fact, with respect to just provisional ballots, we found a two-fold increase in rejection rate in predominantly African-American compared to predominantly Caucasian precincts.
Full text: http://www.clevelandvotes.org/news/reports/summary.html
from Feb 2005-but important, in case you missed it.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Page A28:

A Defense Department survey on military voting found that 79 percent of military personnel tried to vote in the 2004 presidential election and that 73 percent of those actually voted [news story, Dec. 7].

But the survey obscured an important fact: Disenfranchisement of military and overseas absentee voters remains high. Between 30 and 45 percent of these potential voters failed to receive their absentee ballots or received them too late to matter, according to surveys by the National Defense Committee and the Overseas Vote Foundation.

About 1.4 million active-duty members of the uniformed services and 1 million spouses and family members are eligible for absentee voting. In addition, an estimated 4 million U.S. civilians who live abroad are eligible. Yet most states still conduct absentee voting through U.S. mail via a cumbersome three-step process.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301729.html

at 1:15 PM, September 19, 2006

Anonymous said...

Election conspiracists?

GOP DIRTY TRICKS:

Busheviks connected to New Hampshire phone-jamming scheme
by The Ostroy Report
April 14, 2006

Every day brings new surprises in the wild and wacky world of the Bush Monarchy. One day its WMD lies, the next day illegal wiretappings, the next day leaks of classified data, and now news that the Busheviks and the GOP may be central figures in the 2002 phone-jamming scheme that kept New Hampshire Democrats from voting in that year's midterm elections, according to court documents.

Phone records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin made dozens of calls to the White House in the immediate days leading up to New Hampshire's election for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Robert C. Smith. Tobin and two others were convicted in December 2005 of hiring Virginia-based GOP Marketplace on behalf of the New Hampshire GOP to jam another phone bank being used by the state Democratic Party and the firefighters' union to get-out-the-vote for then-governor Jeanne Shaheen. John E. Sununu, the Republican candidate, won 51% to 46%. The phone records show that most calls to the White House were from Tobin, who became Bush's presidential campaign chairman for the New England region in 2004.

-snip
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006/1931

GOP SUPPRESSION FLYERS
http://www.solarbus.org/stealyourelection/voter-suppression-flyers.html

Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
February 08, 2005

My staff found substantial evidence, admitted by a Triad voting machine company employee—in public, videotaped testimony— that he developed documents and manipulated voting machines for the purposes of allowing county officials to forgo a legally required full hand recount of ballots. Other instances of inappropriate political advocacy by voting machine company officials are well known.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/fixing_americas_broken_elections.php

Free Press uncovers evidence of ballot tampering in Warren County, Ohio
April 19, 2006

After locking out all media observers and declaring a Level 10 Homeland Security Alert, the Republican-dominated Warren County, Ohio reported the vote tally in the wee hours of the morning on November 3, 2004 -- and gave George W. Bush a surprising 14,000 vote boost. Two election workers told the Free Press that the ballots had been diverted to an unauthorized warehouse where they had been possibly stuffed. That is, punched for Bush only. Maps were supplied to the Free Press showing the locations of the warehouse and the Board of Elections.

Warren County officials refused to allow the Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism to handle the ballots, but they did allow us to photograph a few. Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D., has analyzed the ballots for the Free Press and concluded that there is evidence of fraud in Warren County. The ballots as photographed with Dr. Phillips' commentary below each ballot are included here for the first time.

The Free Press predicted early on that the ballots would be found punched only for Bush in Warren County. The Moss v. Bush lawsuit pointed to Warren, Butler and Clermont Counties as the three counties that provided more than Bush's entire margin in the Buckeye State: Bush won Ohio by 118,000, and 132,000 votes were supplied in these three southwestern Republican counties.

Now, for the first time, the Free Press is releasing images of the obvious election fraud in Warren County. The Free Press will continue its ongoing investigation in Ohio despite stonewalling by Republican state officials. See the images by clicking on the link below.

-snip
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2006/1355

Ohio GOP Challenges 35,000 Voters
Saturday, October 23, 2004; Page A09

The Ohio Republican Party challenged the eligibility of 35,000 newly registered voters yesterday, an action that party officials said was unprecedented but necessary to prevent election fraud in a state where polls show President Bush and John F. Kerry in a statistical tie.

Most of the 35,000 voters live in urban, Democratic areas, party spokesman Jason Mauk said. Local party officials, joined by Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie at a news conference, said the voters were mainly registered by "shadowy" Democratic-leaning groups and were chosen after the GOP sent them mail that was returned as undeliverable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55472-2004Oct22.html

at 1:21 PM, September 19, 2006

Anonymous said...

HOW VOTE TABULATION SOFTWARE CAN STEAL ELECTIONS UNDETECTED

This paper presents a simple formula that vote tabulation software can employ to steal an election undetected.

I will show that this algorithm is guaranteed to be immune from detection under all conceivable circumstances except one: a full hand recount in a precinct that was hacked. I will also show how the formula can be designed to significantly reduce this risk using publicly-available information. I will highlight some political and procedural ways that this risk factor can be further reduced.

This document is based on information regarding the tabulation software called ElecTab produced by Triad Government Systems, Incorporated. Triad software was used in many counties in Ohio that voted using punch card and optical scan ballots. This algorithm could be adapted to work with many others systems’ tabulation software.

REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCEALMENT

The software used to tabulate ballot counts from punch card readers or optical scan readers have two essential functions:

a) interpret the results from the card reader, e.g. to match up the hole punched on the card with a candidate’s name.
b) total the votes

A third function could be introduced to contain the logic that will alter the outcome based on a simple formula designed to reduce the risk of detection. This formula depends on the inclusion of the following pieces of information within the program code:

1) precinct number
2) expected turnout
3) Yes/No flag indicating whether the precinct is safe to hack

The precinct number is required information that must be present in order to interpret results from the card reader. Expected turnout is used to distinguish whether the current tabulation is a test run or an official vote count. Expected turnout could be predicted ahead of time based on information about past turnouts and current voter registration information.

Defining certain precincts as unsafe to hack will protect against the risk of a full hand recount exposing the discrepancy between the true ballot count and the results generated by the software. It can be shown that the lax enforcement of Ohio recount procedures in combination with an intelligent assessment of precincts likely to be chosen for a hand recount can eliminate the risks of detection.

This information can be inside the compiled code of the tabulation software which is unreadable to the human eye. Only a court can order the software vendor to de-compile the code so others can inspect the source code. Otherwise there will be no other physical evidence on the computer that fraud occurred.

The software must be able to protect itself against detection during an audit. Therefore it must be able to determine whether the current tabulation is a test or the real thing. The test hand counts must always match the machine count. Ohio recount provisions state that actual ballots can not be used to perform the test. Because of this provision, the software will never hack a test count because the precinct information used to interpret the results will never match a precinct on the previously defined “safe” precinct list.

To guard against the possibility that Board of Elections workers will use the ballots from a real precinct in the test, the software can reference the computer’s system date and/or an audit file containing the results of previous tabulations. By incorporating conditions based on previous counts and the system clock the program will succeed in detecting test counts even in the cases where a) the battery-powered system clock is inaccurate; and b) the file containing past tabulations is missing.

Please note that it would not be unexpected for the tabulating computer to have the results of previous tabulations written to a file on the computer’s hard disk. In fact, it may even be required in some places as an auditing mechanism.

THE ALGORITHM

Designing software is a simple logical process. The program receives input and processes it based on clearly defined conditions. The designer must identify which conditions to test and process the input based on the answers. The decision charts shown below can be used to meet all the requirements mentioned above.

The first test shown below can be used if it is found that the system clock is unreliable. The system clock on personal computers is powered by a small battery that lasts up to ten years. Since one of the two algorithms shown below relies on the current date, it is necessary to code for the contingency that the system clock is not set correctly.

The first algorithm therefore depends on the existence of a file containing the results from a previous tabulation. That information can then be combined with the expected turnout number and safe-to-hack precinct flag to determine the results.

Below are the decision charts designed for arriving at the decision to hack or not hack the count in the current run of ballots. The software program will test for the conditions shown in the first three columns. The decision whether to hack the precinct during this tabulation is shown in the fourth column.

PREVIOUS TABULATION
SAVED TO FILE

Is PREVIOUS count close to expected turnout? Is the CURRENT count close to expected turnout? Is this precinct hackable? Hack Decision
N N Y N
N N N N
N Y Y Y
N Y N N
Y N Y N
Y N N N
Y Y Y Y
Y Y N N

If the file containing the previous tabulation numbers is not present OR the hack decision is YES, the program would then proceed to check against the system date to make the final decision whether to alter the results in this tabulation.

CURRENT SYSTEM DATE

Current Date Is THIS count close to expected turnout? Is this precinct hackable? Hack Decision
< Nov 2 N/A N/A N
>= Nov 2 Y Y Y
>= Nov 2 Y N N
>= Nov 2 N Y N
>= Nov 2 N N N

These tests will determine conclusively whether the current tabulation is for a test or for an official count. It will alter the outcome of the individual precinct only if it is an official ballot count and the precinct was pre-identified as one that is “safe” to hack. Additional logic can be included in the program to scientifically determine how many votes to flip in a way that will also help it avoid detection.

CONCLUSION

The programming design illustrated in this document guarantees against detection except in the situation where a full hand recount occurs in one of the precincts that was expected to be “safe” to hack. This design produces tabulation software that a) leaves no physical evidence of fraud; b) can differentiate between test runs and official counts; c) always returns the same results; and d) never needs modifying after the candidate rotation is entered. It can also run on any MS-DOS or Windows operating system released in the past 15 years.

Thus the key to avoiding exposure is to ensure that none of the hacked precincts are chosen for a full hand recount. Lax enforcement of recount guidelines greatly reduces this risk. Risk is reduced even further because many precincts will be not be hacked.

To swing the election in favor of a candidate by 2% percent only requires changing the votes on 1% of the ballots. Due to the small number of voters per precinct, the change would be quite small even in a hacked precinct. The discrepancy can even be small enough to be explained away by under votes or by chads falling off after the first tabulation.

According to published reports, random selection of the precincts for the full hand recount occurred in only one county. Many other irregularities surrounding the recount process have also been reported. Many of the hand counts that were conducted produced results that were slightly different from the machine count.

The design presented here offers a fool-proof method for avoiding detection when the risk of hand counting a known hacked precinct is managed.

at 1:34 PM, September 19, 2006

Anonymous said...

"It’s absurd," said Carlo LoParo. OH REALLY, MR LOPARO? JUST LOOK AT THIS REPORT FROM THE SOS OFFICE ON DEM STRONGHOLD LUCAS COUNTY:

Bernadette Noe and Tom Noe both have links to the Lucas County BOE. Ms Noe was Chairperson of the Lucas County BOE during the 2004 election. I hope you have taken the time to read the SOS's Investigation of Lucas county following the election:

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/lucas.htm

This report includes the fact that REPUBLICAN VOLUNTEERS were allowed UNSUPERVISED ACCESS to UNSECURED BALLOTS prior to the election, as well as this list:

*failure to maintain ballot security
*Inability to implement and maintain a trackable system for voter ballot reconciliation .
*failure to prepare and develop a plan for the processing of the voluminous amount of voter registration forms received.
*issuance and acceptance of incorrect absentee ballot forms.
*manipulation of the process involving the 3% recount.
*disjointed implementation of the Directive regarding the removal of Nader and Camejo from the ballot .
*failure to properly issue hospital ballots in accordance with statutory requirements.
*failure to maintain the security of poll books during the official canvass
*failure to examine campaign finance reports in a timely manner.
*failure to guard and protect public documents.

Notable info from the SOS Investigation on Lucas county:

-One-half of the ballots printed and used in the 2004 general election in Lucas county were stored in an open space on the fhird floor of the county warehouse with no Ecurity measures in place.
SOURCE: SOS Investigation on Lucas County BOE page 4

-Live ballots were delivered to polling locations a week in advance of the election. Although the ballots were retrieved, one board employee who was assigned to the warehouse informed the SOS staff that he did not believe all the ballots were successfully retrieved.
SOURCE; SOS Investigation, page 5

-Lucas County BOE failed to record or retrieve ballot stub numbers of absentee voters’ ballots as required by statute OH Revised Code 3505.23. It was reported by an elector that her mother had received not one, but three absentee voter ballots. there was no way to determine if similar incidents occurred and if so how many.
SOURCE: SOS Investigation, page 7

-October 4, 2004 was filing deadline for new voter registrations. At that point there were approximately 20,000 unprocessed voter registration applications with less than a month before the election. One mail tray containing 4,500-7,000 (estimates vary) unprocessed “Project Voter” registrations were discovered on or about October 18,2004.
SOURCE: SOS Investigation pg 10

***Of interest here is information obtained from the SOS website entitled ElectionsVoter/results 2003 and 2004 which show the # of registered voters number change from ‘03-’04 was 11,947 in Lucas County: reg voters 2003 in Lucas=288,190 ; registered voter in 2004=300,137.

-In late September or early October an employee of the Ohio Republican Party contacted Sam Thurber (*involved with politician wife Maggie Thurber in Noe scandal.) wanting to inspect and have copies made of all recently returned voter registrations, Ohio Republican Party offered to furnish volunteers to assist with copying postcards. No one at the Lucas County BOE can confirm that anyone was assigned to supervise Republican volunteers. On their second day of copying, a BOE employee, Jennifer Bernath, Democratic Booth Official) saw republican party volunteers peeling off the yellow return stickers applied by the post office. (Violation of RC 149.43 (B) (I) , and agruably a violation of 149.351.
SOURCE: SOS Investigation, pgs 18-19

-The Swanton 3 poll book turned up missing and has never been recovered.
SOURCE: SOS Investigation pg 16

at 5:06 PM, September 19, 2006

Anonymous said...

What? Yellow Journalism isn't your color anymore? Stick w/the features in January and February.

at 5:06 PM, September 19, 2006

Anonymous said...

What? Yellow Journalism isn't your color anymore? Stick w/the features in January and February.

at 6:15 PM, September 19, 2006

Anonymous said...

THANK YOU, gang !

I've been getting tired of being one of the few blasting the wRong wingnuts on these blogs.

Thanks for the help !

You guys did an excellant job of displaying the wRong wingnut fishwrap for their pathetic bias.

The fishwrap doesn't get any of my money and until they start being balanced, they never will !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2006 !

at 6:56 PM, September 19, 2006

Anonymous said...

And lets not forget stickers on the optiscan ballots in Clermont County. Must be an explanation you say? Nope, no explanation. Want to guess whose bubble they covered? Not George Bush's. Ballot tampering.

at 8:59 PM, September 19, 2006

Anonymous said...

Carlo LoParo is a partisan operative who is engaging in an unfortunate campaign of misinformation.

at 4:17 PM, May 24, 2008

Anonymous said...

Please! Stop bashing Hillary for every comment she makes. It is so obvious she meant nothing personal or unkind by her comment regarding Bobby Kennedy being assasinated. The media are overly solicitous of Obama's remarks and Obama jumps on both Hillary and McCain without shame. Obama is an expert at pointing his finger at others by using "moral equivocations, illogical rhetoric and sophistry, and ongoing narcissistic excuses.

Previous Posts

Monday, September 18, 2006

Jesse Jackson's back in town

14 Comments: