RFK Jr. on the Stolen 2004 Election

Regardless of who you supported in the 2004 presidential election, I think you have an obligation to consider the case presented by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the latest issue of Rolling Stone: Was the 2004 election stolen?

He presents a pretty powerful argument. At the end of the day, I think there’s every reason to believe that George Bush and the Republican party stole not just one, but two elections. That a group of people who have turned out to be such poor defenders of our democracy once in power would have been willing to subvert that democracy in order to gain power shouldn’t be surprising, I guess. But it is kind of depressing.

14 Responses to “RFK Jr. on the Stolen 2004 Election”

  1. Aaron Says:

    Isn’t this really just another example of Schoedinger’s cat? Before you open the ballot box, the votes inside are in a superposition of valid and invalid states, and are thus simultaneously both valid and invalid. The determination of their validity should not be ascribed to the Republican operative who opens the box, as the operative is merely an observer. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by quantum mechanics.

    Or maybe it’s your discomfort with what seems to be the Bush Administration’s preferred brand of capitalism, where it isn’t really “stealing” if (a) it’s arguably legal, (b) you don’t get caught, (c) you tie things up in the courts so long that your opponent gives in, or (d) you bribe the judge. Why do you hate capitalism?

  2. enkidu Says:

    Amazing how exit polling can be used in every nation on earth to predict the outcome of elections (exit polling was used to challenge some recent elections in the Ukraine and elsewhere), yet in ’04 suddenly it just doesn’t add up.

    What also doesn’t add up are the huge number of black box (Diebold etc) voting machines that had all kinds of problems. Problems that (statistically, verifiably) nearly always seemed to favor shrub. Like the -25 million votes for Kerry in Ohio. Like the votes being flip flopped from the exit polling numbers.

    Diebold uses an easily hackable microsoft database product (now that reassures me! microsoft… mmmmm secure!) It seems obvious that these machines were not intended to count votes but to fix them. Just like the facts were being fixed around the policy for the Iraq war.

    I think this gang of criminals and thieves will stop at nothing to retain control. So lets see, 70% of America wants regime change at home… shrub’s approval numbers went up after 9/11… they need a casus belli for their Iran plans… a little Reichstag fire anyone?

    Thank god all the big problems America used to face are resolved and we can move on to preventing gay people from attaining their civil rights! The Decider has decided! And another great decision it is! Lets amend the Constitution to discriminate against people because of their pillow politics! Halelujah!

  3. treehugger Says:

    Okay, I always suspected it, but that article is a pretty thorough fact-filled reassurance that the GOP stole not one, but two elections.

    No wonder people like TeacherVet don’t trust exit polls. They manipulated the results so much in the actual vote totals that of course the exit polls don’t jive. Enkidu raises a very valid point when he said exit polls are almost bang on in every other democracy in the free world, and as the article states, exit polls are so precise that they are used to measure the validity of third world elections. Funny, exit polls used to be accurate in America too, until about 6.5 years ago.

    Im not sure what disgusts me more, the alleged vote rigging, or the fact that there are now Democrats out there to stand up and finally declare that, “Enough is bloody enough! We want our country back.”

  4. treehugger Says:

    umm, I meant, “… that there are no Democrats out there…”

  5. Craig Says:

    Well, hopefully this link will work.

    This issue is never going to be clear of all doubt based upon either argument, I’m afraid. Were there irregularities and some questionable actions and intents by Republican officials? No doubt. But every election can likely make a case if a side should wish (though maybe more so in some respects in these most recent elections). Is it a clear case of outright fraud and massive deception on a broad scale that handed Bush an election? Not hardly.

    But at the end of the day, slanted arguments such as Kennedy’s, which are ripe for persuasive rebuttal by others who have researched this issue, including writers such as the author of the Mother Jones article, who attempts some degree of evenhandedness despite his anti-Bush core beliefs, are not going to do anything more than preach to the Bush-hater choir.

    Which moves the argument nowhere.

  6. Craig Says:

    One of the trackback articles listed in my link above, written by “Rightwing Nuthouse” also covers things impressively. Despite the blog’s extreme-sounding name, its usually quite thoughtfully written and is never afraid to call out Bush and his Administration on numerous occasions, including on the war.

  7. Craig Says:

    And a blogger who is a polling expert , no less!

  8. leftbehind Says:

    If the last two elections really have been rigged, then it is going to take a lot more than the Democratic party to get the country back. If the system has become so corrupt that it can be manipulated twice without any significant opposition, than elections are meaningless. The results of the last two elections may have been slanted towards the Republicans, but surely those with vested interests in fixing presidential elections are bigger than George Bush or the Republican Party, and would not be above letting a Democrat in, if only to throw critics off their scent. Besides – do the real power brokers in this nation even care what party the President belongs to? Why should they?

  9. treehugger Says:

    It seems though, that the GOP has more of a relationship with corporate America. I’m not saying that Democrats don’t, but the GOP’s ties to the energy, pharmacutical and defense industries warrants my suspicion.

    To put in context, Clinton wanted a public health care system that ensures universal access to basic health care for every American. A grand idea, but would have cost a bundle. (Of course, compared to the wars/tax cuts Bush unleashed, the price tag would have been miniscule by comparison).

    On the other hand, the GOP and their army of lobbyists killed Clinton’s vision for health care and Bush decided to invade Iraq. Under Bush’s watch, the price of energy and prescription drugs has skyrocketed and has made a lot people rich, at the expense of the middle class in this country. And those defense contractors? Well, I think we all know how they are making out.

    So do the power brokers even care what party the president belongs to? I say yes they do, very much so.

  10. leftbehind Says:

    Respectfully, I think you have a greater faith in words and apparent motives than I do.

    I can’t help but think about how far in bed the Clinton Administration was with Enron, the same folks who practically put Bush in the White House:


    Enron had a pretty fair run of the White House no matter who was in power, any they certainly can’t be alone in that, can they?

  11. John F Says:

    I would never use Clinton or any other DLC operative to counter speculation of corporate control / in bed with corporations type thinking. The DLC and their entire “triangulation” mumbo jumbo walks hand in hand with corporate masters as well. Why do you think Joe “Joementum” Lieberman has fallen out of sorts with voters? Why do you think there is such hostility from the left (as well as the right) with the idea of Hillary Clinton running for president? They’re off the same tree in thinking as Bill and they approve of the Enron’s, Wal Marts and other industries that need the government to bend the rules to help increase their profits.

    Sorry about going off on a rant there — this goes far away from the “GOP stole the election” talk.

  12. ymatt Says:

    I don’t doubt that there were some funny irregularities on the ground, but I tend to agree that despite Kennedy’s crying “fire”, I’m more convinced by the cooler heads at the NYT and Wapo that there was probably no significant fraudulent skew.

    And agreed, I’m ready to throw out every man and woman in Congress except a few like Obama who don’t seem to have their head up corporate America’s ass (how’s that for mixed metaphors). By the way, plug for Obama’s podcast: http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/ Definitely worth listening to, it’s the only podcast I actually subscribe to.

  13. treehugger Says:

    Yeah, I guess corruption in politics has no boundries – I just like to single out the people in charge now.

    Oh, and Obama is the man.

  14. Craig Says:

    The final installment has been posted by the blogger who has critiqued the RFK Jr. article. I linked to his other comments earlier in this thread.

    This blogger is, by the way, a professional Democratic pollster.

    In the end, it’s a very clear that (a) exit polls are a very untrustworthy way to prove a charge of vote fraud, and (b) the author is quite disappointed in the way RFK Jr. has purposely played fast and loose with many facts, while wholly ignoring valid and generally accepted information that contradict his claims.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.