Thanks so much, Teddy; just ordered my copy of the DVD and will be showing it soon here in the Roanoke area.

Steve

Teddy,
I think that we have had this exchange before.  Yes, I have seen "Uncounted" and it is, indeed, an interesting film.  I put in on the same level as Oliver Stone's "JFK."  Very entertaining, but not believable.

Now then, how does this theory of election-stealing fit into our recent historical context?  If the Republicans rigged the 2004 general elections and if they interfered with the 2006 mid-term elections, then why did they permit the Democrats to take control of both houses of Congress in 2006?  Was it because they clairvoyantly knew that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would be such wusses when it came to impeaching Bush-Cheney, cutting off funding for the Iraq war, and imposing meaningful carbon-emission restrictions, thereby ensuring a Republican presidential victory in 2008?

The Republicans are not nearly as smart as you think they are.  (Exhibit A:  Sarah Palin)  If I believed for a moment that the scenarios in "Uncounted" were factual, I would stop voting and join the Resistance.  We ain't there yet, thank God.  I still have faith in our democracy.  "They" couldn't stop Jim Webb from coming out of no where and taking a safe Senate seat away from the Republicans.  "They" couldn't get Jerry Kilgore elected Governor of Virginia.  And, the only way that "they" could get Gimmick Gilmore the Republican nomination for the Senate was to use a rigged convention instead of a balloted primary.

This dog won't hunt.

Okay, Green Miles.  Hit me with your Unproductive or Troll rating.

The Republicans stole the presidential election in 2000, no question about that one, but I don't in the slightest believe that they stole 2004, let alone 2006 (where Democrats romped). Republicans are bad, but they're not that good if you know what I mean.

I don't think that they stole the 2000 election.  They created that impression by rushing to the Supreme Court and its 5-4 Republican majority.  After the dust had settled, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Miami Herald conducted the state-wide recount of Florida that the Republicans had quashed and found that Bush had actually won.  Another reason that I think people give the Republicans too much credit.  They could have let the recount run its course and never had to deal with Bush v. Gore for the next four years.

and that is what the comment said about happened in 2006. Please don't exaggerate. This is not a tinfoil hat conspiracy, so calm down. Maybe we need to check out the documentary to get some tips on dirty tricks that can (and may well) be utilized again. Why is there such a determined desire to squash any investigation, or at least to educate the naive who persist in trusting the system to their own detriment? Maybe it's a cold trail, but the dog is hunting Arf! Arf!

First, about the 2004 election. There is enough proof of vote rigging that there is a lawsuit in Ohio about this. Secondly, the patch that was installed to steal Max Cleland's seat was sent to the FBI for analysis. The "patch" had been flown in just before the election by the president of Diebold and the patch did not fix the clock problem it was supposed to fix. It contained two sets of the same software program.

About the 2006 election. The polls indicated a much bigger win AFTER all the homosexual scandals came out just before the election. If the Republicans had sent out a fix it would have been before the scandals came out. Therefore the Dems won, but not by as much as they should have.

Next, 35 tin-foil-hat-wearing state election boards have discarded the Diebold no-paper-ballot systems and gone to systems which leave some form of paper ballot for a recount. These states include Florida. According to HisRoc though they must be conspiracy theorists.

In Virginia it is harder rigging an election because the totals are done locally and then called in to headquarters rather than transmitted electronically to a central tabulator where the results could be rigged by one person shifting a few thousand votes.

Anyone who thinks rigging is not possible doesn't appreciate that every state has its own system, therefore the ability to rig an election would vary by state and would not be easily accomplished everywhere.

For heaven's sake there was rigging BEFORE we had voting machines! Ballot boxes dumped into the river or lost all together. Voting corruptions are on the record so why would anyone even suggest that there would never be any vote rigging now that we have gone electronic? Do machines make people more honest? So why do good Democrats still demand that Republicans would never try to rig an election? This assumption is logically inconsistent with all the other unethical things the Republicans have done while in office. The reason for denial is simple. Its too scary for many people to even consider.

I would love to see some logic on this issue. Believing an election can be or has been rigged has absolutely nothing to do with having a belief in democracy. I believe in democracy that's why I want to make sure we have one. Does believing in democracy equate with believing no one would want to steal democracy? Let's get real. Just because you like democracy doesn't meant EVERYONE likes democracy. As the demographics shift from WASPish to darker skined races there are more and more angry white people who would just as soon not see a democracy. They just want to be in charge.

To assume no important elections have been rigged is to believe that no one would really want to do so, and that these people would never have the opportunity to do so. To me that is akin to believing in the Easter Bunny.  

One of McCain's advisors today called the Blackberry assertion "boneheaded."  I think that the numb part of the body involved was somewhere south of there.

and you also get to see the beautiful new library building itself. Plus, after the show we can adjourn to nearby restaurants and bistros for a discussion and sustenenace.  Come see what all the controbersy is about.