They got the money together, so it looks like Ohio's getting the recount!  Nervous Bush supporters can rest easy.  The recount will take place after the certification, so it won't overturn the election, even if it shows that Bush really lost the state by double digits. 

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/news/OhioRecount.html

Who cares?  Recount it now, it won't change anything.  I'm still happy that Kerry WASTED so much time in conservative Ohio, like he was really going to win that.  He should have stuck to Florida, but I guess I wasn't the Clintion campaign manager helping for Hildabeast '08.

I think it's worth uncovering any election monkey business and holding it up to the light.

Who cares? Recount it now, it won't change anything.

So if it's proven that Bush won Ohio fraudulently, you really won't care?  No, you probably wouldn't - "democracy" is just a word... an excuse to invade other countries, not anything that really matters.

So if it's proven that Bush won Ohio fraudulently, you really won't care?  No, you probably wouldn't - "democracy" is just a word... an excuse to invade other countries, not anything that really matters.

Never underestimate the power of denial.  They denied Florida for four years!  My hunch says Bush did win the popular vote, and would have won the popular vote without any monkey business.  My hunch is also that there was monkey business anyway.  Regardless of who was monkeying around with ballots and votes, it's important not to let them get away with it.

To say Bush stole Ohio without any proof is just as insane as me saying: You know what, I think Kerry cheated.  I think Bush really won Ohio by 300,000 votes, and should have gotten 55% of the popular vote, but Kerry cheated.  Same dang thing.

Again, no proof.  ABC, CNN, and Fox News have all done studies to see if any fraud was done.  All three said that their was ''no evidence of any widespread fraud,'' all three said this election was clean.

Just because you don't like the election results doesn't mean there was any fruad.

To say Bush stole Ohio without any proof is just as insane as me saying: You know what, I think Kerry cheated.  I think Bush really won Ohio by 300,000 votes, and should have gotten 55% of the popular vote, but Kerry cheated.  Same dang thing.

I haven't said that: as usual, you're not answering the question.  I'm not arguing the result because I don't like it: I'm arguing the result because it appears to swing dependent upon whose voting equipment was being used.

Will you answer this one, this time, please: IF it is proven that Bush won Ohio fraudulently, will you care?  Will you happily say "democracy doesn't matter, what does is that the guy I wanted to win, won"?


Again, no proof.  ABC, CNN, and Fox News have all done studies to see if any fraud was done.  All three said they say ''no evidence of any widespread fraud,'' all three said this election was clean.

Given that the voting software used could quite easily be tampered with leaving no audit of the tamperings, the only possible evidence of fraud would come from recounting votes in individual counties and comparing the totals with those submitted; and given that in many cases there isn't even the possibility of doing that check because there is no paper trail... who knows?  Certainly Fox, CNN et al haven't done the sort of counting required to prove *or disprove* fraud.

Don't you even find it the teensiest little bit worrying that millions of votes were cast on kit that provides no way of proving that those votes were counted or not?  Probably not, because your guy won.

The thing that is saddest in the whole sorry event is that there are millions of people who really don't care whether there was fraud or not, and that there is no possible way of proving it either way.

Very well put Philbo.  If Kerry had wopn through fraud I would just as concerned as I am at the FACT that Bush did so in 2000, and that there could have been ()probably was) fraud in this election in several places, like with the machines that counted backwards, and those that gave Bush 110% of the votes cast.  Evan if these were very isolated events, they cry out for national standards.  How can we claim to be a beacon of democracy and condon election fraud and manipulation?  It has always been not who casts the votes, but who counts them.

Very well put Philbo.  If Kerry had wopn through fraud I would just as concerned as I am at the FACT that Bush did so in 2000, and that there could have been ()probably was) fraud in this election in several places, like with the machines that counted backwards, and those that gave Bush 110% of the votes cast.  Evan if these were very isolated events, they cry out for national standards.  How can we claim to be a beacon of democracy and condon election fraud and manipulation?  It has always been not who casts the votes, but who counts them.

GWB doesn't understand we don't hold the Dems infallible.  I wouldn't put it past anybody to cheat.  The point is--I repeat--to root out this danger to democracy no matter who perpetuates it.
Of course, the CEO of an Ohio-based company that manufactures voting machines did say he was committed to delivering Ohio's electoral votes to Bush, sooooo...can you see where people might be a leeeetle teensy bit more suspicious of the GOP in this case?