View Full Version: Recount in Ohio!

Al Gore Support Center Online Forum 2008 :: A Reality Based Organization Fighting For Al Gore! > Past and Present Elections > Recount in Ohio!



Title: Recount in Ohio!


ErinB - November 16, 2004 01:09 PM (GMT)
Ohio: Official Recount Now Expected

http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR111504.htm


# DAVID COBB, [via Blair Bobier, b2@bobierlaw.com], www.votecobb.com
Cobb was the 2004 presidential candidate for the Green Party. He said today: "We announced our intention to seek a recount of the vote in Ohio. Since the required fee for a statewide recount is $113,600, the only question was whether that money could be raised in time to meet the filing deadline. That question has been answered. Thanks to the thousands of people who have contributed to this effort, we can say with certainty that there will be a recount in Ohio." The Green Party is working with the Libertarian Party in securing a recount. The presidential candidates for the two parties have demanded that Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican who co-chaired this year's Bush campaign in Ohio, recuse himself from the recount process.

The media director for the Cobb-LaMarche campaign, Blair Bobier, said today: "The Ohio presidential election was marred by numerous press and independent reports of mis-marked and discarded ballots, problems with electronic voting machines and the targeted disenfranchisement of African-American voters. A number of citizens' groups and voting rights organizations are holding the second of two hearings today in Columbus, Ohio, to take testimony from voters, poll watchers and election experts about problems with the Ohio vote. The hearing, from 6 to 9 p.m., will be held at the Courthouse, meeting room A, 373 S. High St., in Columbus." For more information, see: www.caseohio.org.

# JOHN BONIFAZ, JBonifaz@nvri.org, www.nvri.org
General counsel for the National Voting Rights Institute, Bonifaz is the lawyer for the recount effort. He said today: "We must ensure that all votes are properly counted."

# JONATHAN TURLEY, jturley@law.gwu.edu, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6452480
Turley is a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University; he is not connected to the recount efforts. Turley said today: "Electors are certified on Dec. 7. They actually vote on Dec. 13. But those votes are not opened by Congress until Jan. 6. So there is still time to challenge the results in Ohio -- as well as other close states such as New Mexico, Iowa and Nevada."

Turley added: "I was surprised on the morning after the election. I was legal analyst with CBS News for the election and we did not go off the air until 6 a.m. At that time, due to the reports and my conversation with Kerry attorneys, I expected a challenge. Kerry's statement the day after the election that there were not enough provisional ballots to have any chance to alter the result of the election may have been true, but it was a bit misleading since provisional ballots are only part of the story. There were also absentee ballots, there were reports of substantial pockets of election problems, and allegations of over-voting and machine malfunction. In addition, over 70 percent of Ohio's votes were done with punch cards. We know that when you do a challenge to those, they tend to turn over. So there is room to challenge Ohio and other states. This is not to say that a recount is likely to change the result of the election, but it is not an impossibility."

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

THANK YOU GREENS AND LIBERTARIANS!
:clap:

earthmother - November 16, 2004 04:33 PM (GMT)
Great, but why didn't this happen in Florida in 2000? Because the courts got involved? :(

ErinB - November 16, 2004 05:33 PM (GMT)
The law is more straightforward in Ohio. When a recount is called, all counties are recounted, not just selected ones. The law was so ambiguous in Florida and by the time the recount was underway, the beloved Supreme Court intervened.

We'll see if the Republicans don't try some funny business in Ohio now.

ALGOREismylife - November 16, 2004 06:23 PM (GMT)
When will they get started and how long will it take???? The damn republiTHUGS better keep there noses out of the recount, if there is one. Please, please, please, let it happen. It didn't go right in Florida because of evil little Jebby and all those jealous right-wing hypocrites that like to sabotage PRESIDENT AL GORE in everyway they can. Deep down inside these ignorant jerks know they ain't nothing compared to the real PRESIDENT AL GORE.

ErinB - December 21, 2004 05:27 PM (GMT)
No its the 22 souls that were killed in Iraq today. They are the ones who lost. They are the ones who were let down.

Its not about politics anymore its about humanity.

earthmother - December 21, 2004 05:52 PM (GMT)
So, answer this, IGMY. Why should these young AMERICAN soldiers have given up their lives for what Iraqis have suffered for the last two decades? What business is it of ours? Why, exactly, are we there?

GSC Admin - December 21, 2004 06:40 PM (GMT)
Since when did Republican start caring about how other countries feel?

earthmother - December 21, 2004 06:57 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
Since when did Republican start caring about how other countries feel?

ZING!

Touche, Chris. :P

Garden Stater - December 21, 2004 07:33 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (IGotMailYAY @ Dec 21 2004, 12:49 PM)
No its the 22 souls that
But in the bigger picture this does not represent a blip as compared to what the Iraqi's went thru for 20+years.

Actually, in another way, it does add up to a "big blip" (I don't like using such glib terms when talking about human life - not that I'm implying you did, I just don't have a better word than yours. In the year and a half we've been fighting this war 100,000 Iraqis have died, from my understanding the estimates of how many people Saddam killed was 200,000. It looks like we're approaching a prett big "blip" pretty fast.

Garden Stater - December 21, 2004 07:46 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (GSC Admin @ Dec 21 2004, 01:40 PM)
Since when did Republican start caring about how other countries feel?

Only when it's convenient. In a debate I was having about 2 weeks ago, I went to Free Republic for information about the attrocities committed under Saddam and one person had an extensive history of the use of biological and chemical weapons, including Saddam in the 70s and 80s (it might've included the 60s too). So in response to this, people responded in a "Zing on Saddam" kind of way, like "we've got him pinned", as if they gave a rat's tail about what Saddam did when using chemical weapons on his own people.

Well sure enough later that year in response to The Guardian reporting on our use of Napalm in Iraq:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/961150/posts
US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq
The Independent on Sunday (U.K.) ^ | 08/10/03 | Andrew Buncombe

Posted on 08/09/2003 1:08:58 PM PDT by Pokey78

American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.


These same bleeding heart Republicans Responsed:

To: Pokey78
We should have nuked 'The Independant'
2 posted on 08/09/2003 1:13:57 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Pokey78; SAMWolf
Whatever they want to call it, we used it and good for us.

Does the reporter think we should feel sorry for the enemy?

Like the Marine said, "We told them to surrender".
3 posted on 08/09/2003 1:17:19 PM PDT by snippy_about_it (Pray for our Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: Pokey78
They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.

Furthermore, I've been lead to believe that that smell, that napalm smell--particulary in the morning, smells like victory.

Where is the problem here?
4 posted on 08/09/2003 1:21:24 PM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (The Guns of Brixton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: snippy_about_it
How is napalm worse than a bomb full of ordinary explosive? I wasn't aware there was a controversy over its use.
5 posted on 08/09/2003 1:23:32 PM PDT by Threepwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]
To: snippy_about_it
Makes sense to me to use this on positions located on bridge approaches. You wouldn't want to use HE and accidently damage a bridge you want to take intact.

There is no treaty prohibiting this weapon that the U.S. is a party to. War is hell and there are few pleasant ways of dying in combat.

These hypocrites want to pin an unjust "war crimes" label on the U.S. while ignoring Iraq's refusal to adhere to the Geneva Convention.
6 posted on 08/09/2003 1:23:57 PM PDT by colorado tanker (Iron Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]
To: chookter
Where is the problem here?

Our enemies get unlimited free Press Time.
7 posted on 08/09/2003 1:24:14 PM PDT by Gorzaloon (Contents may have settled during shipping, but this tagline contains the stated product weight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]




Hosted for free by InvisionFree