http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/06/03/kennedys_claim_refuted.html
Kennedy's Claim Refuted -----------------------------------------
i knew someone here would pick up on that article here too.
there is a ongoing (3 parts for now) rebuttal of the refutation by charles at 'mercury rising'. a few excerpts with links, for those interested:
from part 1 (http://phoenixwoman.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-robert-f-kennedy-jr-article.html): "The nub of the problem lies in understanding the role of the Kennedy article. Manjoo thinks that Kennedy must prove to a courtroom standard that Kerry would have won Ohio:
But to prove Blackwell stole the state for Bush, Kennedy's got to do more than show instances of Blackwell's mischief. He's got to outline where Blackwell's actions could possibly have added up to enough votes to put the wrong man in office.
But this is a ridiculous standard. Kennedy is not in a position depose witnesses nor sanction perjurers nor find people guilty and deprive them of property or liberty. He can only use his voice to try to urge a formal investigation, so that justice is done."
from part 2 (http://phoenixwoman.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-robert-f-kennedy-jr-article_03.html)
"But more important are the holes in Manjoo's reasoning: We are supposed to assume that (a) the need to cast a provisional ballot is equally distributed, (b) that everyone who should have been allowed to use a provisional ballot was in fact allowed to, and (c) that provisional ballots were counted in an equitable manner. In fact, the Conyers report found that Democratic voters were disproportionately (and in violation of the Voting Rights Act) targeted for challenge at the polls, that many more Democratic than Republican voters were turned away by long lines, and that many were improperly denied provisional ballots."
and from part 3 (http://phoenixwoman.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-robert-f-kennedy-jr-ar_114938582462198184.html)
"If George Bush, or one of his agents acting with his knowledge, caused even one vote to be stolen, that would disqualify him from the presidency.
If a man wandered into the police station and said he had been robbed of $100, would the very first response of the police be that he had to prove that he had $100 before they would investigate the robbery? Isn't this self-evidently absurd?
So, why are so many otherwise intelligent people demanding that Democrats prove that so-and-so-many votes were stolen before an official inquiry can be opened? "
-Aditya -- "All our lauded technological progress -- our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal." -Albert Einstein