It would be if true...but like usual...it is obviously just fabrication. That is why it is only getting traction in the few "truely blue" states. The rest of us don't even know anyone who admits to being a liberal...so we can hardly imagine how Kerry got any votes, much less that the republicans needed to cheat.

Good point. Methinks it's the states that Kerry won that we should be looking for election fraud in...

What leads you to believe this is "fabrication?"

And you're probably right about the Kerry votes, but unfortunately, there is no way to AUDIT it! What's up with that?

I can verify that both of these are incorrect:

6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a long-time friend of the Bush family, was caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee.

7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice- presidential candidates.

First, Hagel is no republican. He make all of us Nebraska republicans ashamed to have him, and if he ever does run for president, it will be as a democrat. His record is solidly democrat, and he takes every opportunity to bash our President and the War.

Second, the idea that Hagel was considered to be Bush's running mate is ridiculous. Besides, if Cheney was running everything behind the scenes, do you really think he'd let that happen? You can't have all of your conspiracy theories, stick with one.

hmmmm
Hagel was co-chairman of Bush's re-election campaign in Nebraska.

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 87% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 50% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (Dec 2000)
Rated 36% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 92% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated "A" by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 78% by NTU, indicating a "Taxpayer's Friend" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

Is a registered Republican (a Republican Senator in fact).

Yet somehow you are able to convince yourself that he is a democrat & "disprove" the above post?

http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/chopper.gif

Seems some are just upset cuz Hagel had the audacity to speak against the "king" by saying Bush needs to run the war just a little better.

See, saying anything against the "king" is treason.......

I've been debating about wheather I sould take time off to help in the Ohio recount..............................this thread may of been the tipping point.SmileWavy

By all means pitch in. Then when the counting is over, there wont be any more threads about voter fraud conspiracy theories.

Being an "observer" in a BFE county of Ohio won't dismiss all my misgivings nationwide.

You have to check out http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ some time.

Hagel was co-chairman of Bush's re-election campaign in Nebraska.

Who else would have done it, Ben Nelson? Nelson has always been a republican in a democrat shirt, and he'd switch if it weren't for his loyalty to his former mentor, Frank Morrison. Hagel takes every single opportunity to go against the president, and he's given all of us in western/central Nebraska the finger numerous times. I think we'd know our leaders better than you would.

Well, in 2002 Hagel won his re-election bid by a landslide with 83% of the Nebraska vote. Why do Nebraskans keep voting for him in such huge numbers if he has such a long & consistent history of going against the President, and has been continually giving you guys the finger?

Wow. Sounds like the mirror political image of Zell Miller.
I guess every family has one.........

Not even close. Miller was a wolf in sheep's clothing...his voting practices, work, were conservative. He was basically a republican claiming to be a democrat.

Hagel, all he did was speak out against the way this administration was handling this war (along with a buttload of other republicans). His voting record, work, is conservative.

All Hagel did was to commit the "sin" of speaking out about the poor way this administration was handling this war.

There is a personal danger in not being in perfect lockstep with the leader. I think some of the comments here prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

A little tid bit on how a liberal professor handeld the election:

Terrorists off-limits but Christians fair game
December 01, 2004

The faculty at UC Berkeley has a set of guidelines designed to keep professors from pushing their personal agendas on students. These guidelines were established to keep the campus from becoming a sanctuary for communist professors. Teaching should “stick to the logic of the facts.” This policy was largely forgotten until recently when a course catalogue for a “Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance” class warned that “conservative thinkers are encouraged to seek other sections.”

This type of agenda is to be expected at Berkeley; I doubt too many of you are surprised. It’s somewhat less expected; however, here at U of L. While “Social Stratification” sounds somewhat less threatening than the Arafat love-fest mentioned above, and its course description neglects to warn students of any political persuasion to “enter at their own risk,” the lack of tolerance for conservative opinion is no less prevalent.

The Thursday following President Bush’s resounding reelection, K.C. Martin walked into a class discussion of the election among the students and her professor, Dr. John McTighe. With much of the class upset over the outcome, one student asked how we managed to reelect “such an idiot” president.

Many exit polls suggested that voters considering morals made up a significant part of President Bush’s voting block. Dr. McTighe took this one step further when he said, “It was the religious zealots who say they are voting on morals. I think we should all buy AK47’s and shoot them all! That’s what I would suggest, if it were allowed.”

McTighe saw no problem with making this type of statement in class because apparently he felt among friends. According to Martin, “on several occasions the teacher [McTighe] said we were all liberals, so he probably assumed it was okay to bash Republicans.”

Understandably, Martin was upset: “I was offended that he would say such a thing…he has no idea what I believe. I don’t think that gives him the right to assume every student is a liberal and he can say whatever he wants.”

McTighe contends that he qualified his outrageous comments by saying “Yes, I’m being sarcastic,” and that while he does believe “religious zealots” were partly responsible for the president’s reelection, his reference to guns came while discussing the “implications of a widely perceived connection between fervent religious beliefs and support for gun ownership.” Not to get off the subject here, but maybe this “widely perceived connection” could be more that people who support the First Amendment also just happen to support the Second Amendment as well. You know, all those nuts who actually believe in upholding the Constitution.

McTighe told university officials that he said people should buy a weapon to protect themselves from those in the gun ownership movement. (Note: it’s not a movement; it’s a constitutionally-protected right.) He may as well have claimed that he was suffering from “post-election selection trauma” and knew not what he was telling his class.

The scorn for all of us professing to believe in God is clear in McTighe’s obscene remarks to his sociology class. The reason for this is simple: liberals feel threatened by God. Op-ed pages across the country were echoing with shouts that voters making decisions based on their morals is bad for America. It’s not bad for America; it’s bad for liberals.

Let’s put this in perspective here: liberals have spent the past three years whining about the need to protect the rights of terrorists. Remember the uproar over classifying detainees at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants? We were told that we should have more concern for the rights of terrorists. What about giving Saddam the death penalty? Oh, how inhumane! Liberals won’t allow us to shoot terrorists and murdering dictators, but if you believe in God, not only should you be shot, but they want to use an assault weapon.

Many of you are probably incensed at McTighe’s words right now; however, I’m prepared to let him off the hook. He’s understandably upset following a difficult election. He is in luck though; the American Health Association is offering free counseling for those afflicted with Post-Election Selection Trauma. He seems to be in dire need.