from Kos - the most important thing about the RFKjr's article

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

Most Important Thing About RFK Jr.'s Election Fraud Story
by Steven D
Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 08:41:12 AM PDT

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/2/114112/7902

I agree with him. These facts have been out there for a long time. Any major media or even minor media outlet could have done just the tiniest bit of investigation and they would have had the story of the century. We don't have even the pretense of a watchdog media in this country.

Has anyone heard any MSM picking up this story at all? I know RFKjr was on with Tucker, but aside from that? I only wish that RFKjr had titled his piece "The 2004 Election WAS Stolen" - a declarative sentence as opposed to the question "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?".

[npincus]

1. you're right. why posit it as a question?

[gkhouston]

3. hey, I'm glad they're even discussing it on dailykos

there was a period of time when that subject wasn't welcome over there.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. pretty active thread over there too - about 150 comments.

I use both DU and Kos as my primary sources of info. Then I use Huffingtonpost. Then Raw Story. Then maybe I will stroll around the WP and NYT and marvel at what they AREN'T writing about.

[Richard Steele]

12. Yeah, I remember the day Kos announced that topic was forbidden.

It was the last time I went there, and that announcement
was the reason why.

[gkhouston]

15. me, too.

I've followed one or two links from DU over to dailykos since then, if there was supposed to be a good diary discussion, but the times I've done that can probably be counted on one hand.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

17. That was before I was going there, I guess

I think that was a very bad decision. I thank God that the topic was kept alive and kicking on DU at least. And, if it was previously a banned topic, then it's a good thing that this diary is so hot over there.

[mojowork_n]

2. Disinformation management Monkey Island

"Move along, nothing to see here..."

Yes, it sure is puzzling that The Chimp
is at the center of what's turned out to
be a media establishment populated by
thousands and thousands and thousands of
'No-hear, No-see, No-speak' Newsmonkeys.

[enid602]

4. media

I prefer to think of the meida as being full of 'repub-lickers.'

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

14. Overpaid news models

nm

[eowyn_of_rohan]

6. I think the most important thing is that

this breathes new life into the subject of the stolen 2004 election, and the corruption of our electoral process. With everything else that the BFEE has done since then, maybe more people are ready to hear this...ready to accept the truth, which was too horrible for too many to accept back in 2004.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. Kudos to Rolling Stone for not letting this subject die

and I thank RFKjr too, for sticking his neck out and just publishing the facts.

[joanski0]

7. I saw a CNN ad that said RFK would be on

with Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room during the 7:00 p.m. hour.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. dupe. delete. nt.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. fantastic!!! I hope this drives people to the article. nt

[wisteria]

11. Well since Kerry did win the election will Kos and the gang stop

trashing Kerry for losing something he didn't lose?

[KittyWampus]

13. The NYTimes did a SERIES of editorials on the subject. Where were DU'ers?

Why didn't they blast those around when they were current?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

16. What series of editorials? I don't recall them - I recall stuff like

http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html
From Harpers

None Dare Call It Stolen
Ohio, the election, and America's servile press
Posted on Wednesday, September 7, 2005. What actually happened in Ohio in 2004. An excerpt from this report appeared in August 2005. The complete text appears below. Originally from August 2005. By Mark Crispin Miller.

The press has had little to say about most of the strange details of the election—except, that is, to ridicule all efforts to discuss them. This animus appeared soon after November 2, in a spate of caustic articles dismissing any critical discussion of the outcome as crazed speculation: “Election paranoia surfaces: Conspiracy theorists call results rigged,” chuckled the Baltimore Sun on November 5. “Internet Buzz on Vote Fraud Is Dismissed,” proclaimed the Boston Globe on November 10. “Latest Conspiracy Theory—Kerry Won—Hits the Ether,” the Washington Post chortled on November 11. The New York Times weighed in with “Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried”—making mock not only of the “post-election theorizing” but of cyberspace itself, the fons et origo of all such loony tunes, according to the Times.

If you could post links to the editorials you are referring to, that would be great.

But actually, editorials is missing the whole point. What was lacking was the REPORTING, not opinion writing.

[Nay]

18. My ? is -- what now? If either/both elections were stolen, how do

we now award the presidency to the right guy? If a thief steals my car and is caught, he doesn't get to keep the car because, gee, he's had it for 5 years already -- I get my car back, and he goes to jail. Also, my car does not get passed on to his cronies or relatives, so a repub VP or repub speaker of the house should not ascend to the presidency. It should go back to the one(s) it was stolen from.

I know the Constitution does not directly address this question, but have any Constitutional scholars speculated upon this at any time in our history?

[gkhouston]

19. as far as I know, the electoral college did their thing, he took the oath,

and we're screwed. It could, however, make impeachment more popular with the general public. Not clear that this would be legal grounds (although it should be, IMO), but it's the emotional grounds that would get a lot of people outraged and might make Congress do something, assuming we take back Congress in the fall.

[Nay]

20. So, since the electoral college is not bound to vote the way the

actual voters voted, whatever they did was legally the "correct vote." Holy shit. I didn't think of that angle, but you are probably exactly right. What about 2000, though? If the electoral college decided on Bush then, what was the Supreme Court for? If Gore had actually won the vote count, the electoral college would presumably have the FL electorates casting its votes for Gore -- so, this is like the chicken or the egg problem.

In theory, the delegates to the electoral college can cast their votes individually or collectively for any candidate, right? Why has no state ever split its electoral votes, giving some to one candidate and some to another? And has a state's electoral delegates ever cast its votes for a candidate its voters DID NOT vote for?

I think the legality of any of this rests upon the above questions. And part of the answer to a state like FL may be that when its electoral delegates see a fraud being perpetrated, they may need to vote against the fraudster. But heck, I really don't know how much of this works.

[gkhouston]

21. what the Supreme Court did was a travesty

this is news? It's certainly ancient history.

In some states, the electors are allowed to divide their votes proportionally, but that's uncommon. As for unfaithful electors, it can happen but hasn't happened often because electors are usually chose for their faithfulness to the party.