November 8, 2006

OK, I Just Have To Ask

Since the George W. Bush Republicans clearly stole the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, are we to assume they threw this one?

I'm just saying....

Posted by Kate at November 8, 2006 4:19 PM

Truth be told, I would normally think that it's just fine and dandy to have the House of Representatives controlled (with a slight majority) by the party that is not the President's. I would think that a balance of power would at least force the politicians to work at least a little harder at making their case to the people.

The problem here is that the Democrats hate Bush so much that I am afraid all they'll try to do is make him as ineffective as possible by just saying "no" to anything he asks for.

I'm no expert on the US system...but is it true to say that they can't do much to him except deny him money for creating/expanding operations?

Posted by: bryceman at November 8, 2006 4:40 PM

No, of course not. The Democrats stole this one. Let's wait to see all the demands for vote recounts this time around.

Posted by: tom at November 8, 2006 4:47 PM

"Since the George W. Bush Republicans clearly stole the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, are we to assume they threw this one?"

Ah, but the forces that control the Bush Aministration still won this election...:-) I admit, I thought the GOP would've done better.

Posted by: Bob at November 8, 2006 4:49 PM

It's just not possible that this election wasn't tampered with - I mean, there were all kinds of news reports about funny stuff even before the ballots were cast! They just couldn't be wrong, could they?

Posted by: Shane O. at November 8, 2006 4:54 PM

That's what I just commented on in the Goldberg thread from last night.

So much for that conspiracy theory.

Watch Chavez get in a dig. (In ref. to Sequoia voting machines, and feared ties to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.)

Posted by: Cheri at November 8, 2006 5:10 PM

I think its obvious that Rove was tired of all the finger pointing and thought he'd give the press what they wanted for two years before the next real election. As long as he still has the veto power, he's fine.

Pelosi and Clinton will annoy the voters now that they actually have some control and the GOP will come back stronger in 2008.

The real question is, now that the Dummycrats have control of both seats, is Canada now Pro USA?

Posted by: Sheldon Kotyk at November 8, 2006 5:13 PM

The tampered voting machines was just the Moore/Chomsky democrats' fall back in case they didn't get control of Congress. If I remember my politics courses, isn't it true that the President can still veto Congress and it takes 2/3 of the vote to overturn his veto. Not sure what issues affected by this.

Posted by: Shamrock at November 8, 2006 5:16 PM

One possibility is that those who would like to tamper with results (or machines) could only wisely do so to a certain extent, or only 'steal' so many votes. The argument is therefore that only close races could be manipulated. Who knows?

Posted by: Crabgrass at November 8, 2006 5:19 PM

"Pelosi and Clinton will annoy the voters now that they actually have some control and the GOP will come back stronger in 2008."

Not unless the GOP can sell a better message this time, and win back the voters who swung/stayed home. It's going to be an interesting two years, and I hate it when politics gets interesting.

Posted by: rick mcginnis at November 8, 2006 5:21 PM

Go Democrats!

Posted by: Anth at November 8, 2006 5:21 PM

Kate.....your not supposed to be saying that out loud!

Way to blow the cover off the "Vast Rightwing Conspiracy" we're trying to work here!

Posted by: OMMAG at November 8, 2006 5:23 PM

but now the real fun begins . . the dumbocrats have to DO something instead of just finger point & whine.

should be good for some giggles . . .

Posted by: Fred at November 8, 2006 5:24 PM

Playing the "just saying" game, Greg Palast has done an interesting summary of possible vote theft in the mid-terms.

Assuming some validity to the theft potential of 4.5 million votes he identified, the Democrats must have won big to squeak through. Details at

Posted by: agitfact at November 8, 2006 5:37 PM


The answer is YES they threw this one.

They let Rahm Emmaneul and his Committee have all the war vets. The MSM still paints this as a repudiation of Iraq, yet the final nail in the coffin of the GOP was Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, a decortaed officer whose son has just been deployed to Iraq (volunteer). As usual we wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of our pre-determined headline.

Even CNN (makes CBC look impartial) had to admit that there were many conservative Dem.'s that will have trouble with the left-wing ideology of Pelosi and her gang.

Maybe it is(was) part of the master plan, short-term pain for long-term gain.

Posted by: KenA in CGY at November 8, 2006 5:54 PM

It's a great result for Bush, he can coast through the rest of his tenure without taking all the blame for whatever goes awry. The Democrats can put their money where their mouths are.
So he'll have the label "lame duck", just what the people voted for.

Funny how time forgives. Look at the popularity of Bill Clinton as a spokesperson for any cause celebre you can mention and for a high price. Who's talking about the scandal he was at the center of now? Add to that he LIED about it.
We really can't predict how Bush will be portrayed a few years hence.
If Slick Willy can be forgiven for his pecadillos and his lying about it,history may be kinder to Bush.

Who are the Liberals and NDP going to accuse Harper of caving in to now, a Lame Duck or a Democratic Congress and Senate majority?
Of course, it has to be remembered, the US government works together, the good of their Country will trump partisan politics.

Posted by: Liz J at November 8, 2006 5:59 PM

"Even CNN (makes CBC look impartial) had to admit that there were many conservative Dem.'s that will have trouble with the left-wing ideology of Pelosi and her gang."

Karl Rove - you magnificent bastard!

(shamelessly stolen from a commentor somewhere....)

Posted by: Kate at November 8, 2006 6:00 PM

The media has short memories. Either that, or they weren't around to remember their own vitriol and scorn for Ronald Reagan. Because, when I listen to them talk about Bush, it's like deja vu all over again....

Posted by: Kate at November 8, 2006 6:03 PM

If I may, I'll add the following post of mine to the analysis:

GOP Lost Because "Reaganite Soul" Missing: Conservative Analysis

What happened to the GOP reminds me of what happened to the PCs, though not to the same extent. I have recommendations in the post for my Republican friends based on Canadian conservative experience.

Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at November 8, 2006 6:08 PM

Dems elected a lot of Centrists. I'm a right-wing Conservative through and through, but think that this may be a defining moment for the Dems. If they can work with Dubya on good, clean and needed legislation then they will prove their worth. If, on the other hand, they use their power to stall legislation for partisan political purposes, then they are doomed.
It's their call now. Let's wait and see what they are really all about.

Posted by: Rattfuc at November 8, 2006 6:12 PM

Of course it would have made no difference who "owned" the house and the senate when the decision to go to Iraq was made because "that"
decision was passed by a HUGE majority. So why isn't the blame being spread around? It seems we humans need a specific person to crucify.

Posted by: al-lea at November 8, 2006 6:14 PM

you left out some key words.

Go [to Hell] Democrats!

Posted by: Doug at November 8, 2006 6:24 PM

I agree with liz j - the next two years, for both parties, are about the 2008 elections. But, the easy travel during this two years might well be for the Republicans.

Anything that goes wrong, can now be blamed on the Democrats. They will have one focus - to win the next election; that means, they'll have to be very careful. Any threat to American security, any incident to American security - and they are finished. Any economic, immigration problems - and they are in trouble.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have an 'off the carpet' two years to hone and prime themselves for that 2008 election.

By the way, the American election system is quite remarkable. Every four years there may be a presidential election, but, every two years, there's the 'midterms'. Essentially, you have a government that is constantly answerable to its electorate. Compare with Canada, with its unelected and unaccountable Upper House and its 'every five years or..' Commons.

And, the US also has direct democracy; those ballots contained direct referendum questions for the electorate - on a variety of issues, such as SSM. Admirable.

And yes, as liz j says - who are the Liberals and NDP going to accuse Harper of being close to- if the Democrats have key power in the US?

Posted by: ET at November 8, 2006 6:27 PM

bryceman says, "The problem here is that the Democrats hate Bush so much that I am afraid all they'll try to do is make him as ineffective as possible by just saying 'no' to anything he asks for."

EXCEPT THAT: a bunch of Democrats that have been elected are on the conservative side of the political spectrum. I hope the Dems can't insist, like the Librano$ used to, that all of their members have to toe the Party line on votes.

There are over 16, I believe, Dems who think more like Republicans (that's how they won) in the Conress, which could work in President Bush's favour.

At least now the Dems are going to have to be accountable for every one of their votes in the House. May the un-American, anti-Western stooges among them be smoked out by their own Party mates.

Posted by: 'been around the block at November 8, 2006 7:15 PM

Well, it's a little convoluted, but here's the deal.

Republicans allowed themselves to feel that they were invulnerable because they had successfully managed to gerrymander the Congressional districts.

I don't know if you have gerrymandering in Canada. It's a process by which the majority party rearranges the geographical and population areas in them to make the re-election of their party a shoo-in.

Previous to the Republican takeover the House, the Democrats had gerrymandered the districts to be favorable to their party. When Republicans got into power, they re-arranged it. Unfortunately, one of the consequences of this was to make the Republicans feel more bullet-proof than they were.

As Republicans thought they had it in the bag, they did not feel it necessary to forcefully move on issues important to conservatives. You know, here in the States, conservatism is a highly defined set of principles, and conservatives do not necessarity get on board if they see those principles are not being serviced.

Well sir, the Republican Party saw fit to overspend, not to accomplish new measures with Social Security, to stall around on real border and sovereignty reforms, not to bother to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

All these matters as well as others did not receive the attention that conservatives require from our politicians. So this left Republicans having nothing to run on except the war.

So the upshot is that Republicans found themselves in a position of not having anything to run on except the war, after having upset conservative voters.

Even William F. Buckley, Jr., admires Bush's capacity as a forceful leader but wondered if his personal conservative principles extended into the dimension of political life.

You have to understand that many people down here have been working their entire lives to get control of the House, Senate and executive branch. People sweated blood to make that happen, and conservatives have been very disappointed with Speaker Hastert and with the failure of the Republican Party to produce when the conservative base has been screaming for the reforms I mentioned above to take place.

Posted by: Greg in Dallas at November 8, 2006 7:16 PM

I never thought I'd hear Kate finally admit that Bush stole an election. Kate, are you now going to dedicate as much effort to reporting Republican corruption and election tampering as you do with everyone else?

Posted by: ken Melrose at November 8, 2006 7:31 PM

There were numerous documented irregularities in previous elections, so voters were right to be sucpicious.

Seeing as there was so much scrutiny both from MSM, and bloggers, it's just as likely that nobody was willing to mess with results they didn't like this time around.

Posted by: John at November 8, 2006 7:32 PM

Fox says that voter turnout, at around 40%, was higher than the last mid term. More Democrat voters turned out and less Republican. Makes sense.

The Democrats now have enough rope and a couple of years to hang themselves. Pelosi first.

Although, on a more positive note, I think Iraq and the war against Jihad needs a better approach. Lets see what happens.

Posted by: irwin Daisy at November 8, 2006 7:36 PM

been around said: "There are over 16, I believe, Dems who think more like Republicans..."

I find this to be such an interesting statement, not only since it went unchallenged here (maybe because it's true), but because it appears to acknowledge the shift to the right-wing formerly centrist parties like the Democrats have undergone in the last few years. So much for our society being threatened by the so called left wing moonbats.

Posted by: craig at November 8, 2006 7:55 PM

That's the ticket Kate.

The Republicans probably did throw this election.

Pres. Bush saw how much fun PM Harper was having running a minority government with a sharply divided and leaderless opposition.

Rove-you magnificent bastard.

Posted by: concrete at November 8, 2006 8:14 PM

":Thrown away" could be a little strong but it certainly is a strange thing to see how sharply and violently a few planks have been yanked out from under Georgie Porgie, who has even dropped his pilot. To add insult to injury it looks like his dad and friends, who have several times previously got him out of scrapes, have fitted him up with a minder, an old spy catcher.
But for Canada all this is great news. The USA will now turn from making wars to making deals, perhaps hoping there is some place in Asia where they are not so hated the locals will make a deal, any deal, wlith China or Russia rather than the Americans. And just look at South America. It was never thought that when the Europeans and others had been warned off from poaching on an American preserve the populations down there would dare to run their own affairs.
Oh the Yanks will have their hands full. Why even the British, who only wanted a kind word, now and then, have become distinctly huffy.
And so for a few years, probably, the pressure is off. And no need to get in a snit about free trade since it is unlikely lthe Dems can come up with anyhing more rotten than the Softwood lumber dispute, and it is our own fault that we elected a government that perpetrated a "solution" to it that was actually worse than the American theft. So there will be hardly any push for a while to help out the worst of our reactionaries to make war on our social programs, health care, Defined Benefit pension plans, even the Wheat Board might be successfully defended by the farmers against the barley boys. Won't it be great to have a truly internal tussle over, say, what must be done on, say greenhouse gas, instead of listening to people who take their lead from misinformed foreigners.
Let us start by taxing the living daylights out of Alberta which is squandering hydrocarbons.

Posted by: garhane at November 8, 2006 8:17 PM

sorry everyone. I thought it was my name that was blocking the spam guard. Or something.

Posted by: craig at November 8, 2006 8:21 PM

Garhane; Alberta produces hydro-carbons,Ontario and Quebec squander them.In fact Qubec should only drive electric cars.

Posted by: spike 1 at November 8, 2006 8:29 PM

It's all part of their master plan. Give the Democrats a full term, and they'll screw things up so bad that the next two decades will be run by Republicans. That's why I find it funny when the 9/11 deniers talk about "false flag attacks". Who needs a false flag attack when you've got Democrats to make you vulnerable?

Posted by: Alex at November 8, 2006 8:31 PM

Of course this is a disaster. No making light about it. In the eyes of the world this is a major defeat for the US. Frankly, I think it marks the end of the US as a serious power. They'll be out of Iraq in a year - with their tails between their legs like the whipped curs they have let themselves become.

So much for the Yanks winning WWI and WWII. They needed the stiffening they got from the British and the Empire. As George H Bush needed Margaret Thatcher's stiffening to undertake the first Gulf war.

The Americans like the taste of defeat - or think that they do. But this time, unlike Vietnam, unlike Somalia, their enemies will come after them. It took 700 years for the Arabs and Turks to bring down the "Red Apple", Constantinople. It will take nowhere near that long to subjugate the "Big Apple"

Allahu akhbar! God is great!

Posted by: John Lewis at November 8, 2006 9:02 PM

garhane said: "The USA will now turn from making wars to making deals ..."

garhane is spouting anti-American bs. ...-

"• Of the 29 state-based armed conflicts in 2003, only 2 were interstate (India against Pakistan and the US-led war against Iraq). The remaining 27 were civil wars (government against rebels)."

[PDF] Human Security Report - Armed Conflict Factsheet

The Human Security Report is made possible by support from:

the Human Security Program at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Canada);

the Canadian International Development Agency;

the Department for International Development (United Kingdom); the Norwegian Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency; the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.

Posted by: maz2 at November 8, 2006 9:09 PM

I was just listening to the Canadian Liberal Propaganda Agency's (aka "The CBC") 6pm news. They had a pretty fair reporting of what went on in the U.S. yesterday. But there choice of the follow-up story was interesting. Apparently a new poll by Environics was commissioned by the CBC. The findings reportedly indicated that the Canadian Conservative Party's Top 5 initiatives are now "out of touch with most Canadians".

Hmmm, there's a poltical switch in the U.S. from conservative to liberal and now suddenly, within 24 hours there's an apparent similar change here in Kanuckistan.

But I must be imagining things. After all, according to the media, they just report the news, they don't influence it. And everyone knows that the CBC is the most unbiased news organization of all. Or at least that's what I recall hearing in a CBC poll earlier this year...

Posted by: Robert W. at November 8, 2006 9:15 PM

Robert W. at 9:15: I heard the same report. Whatever. Put this poll on the heap with the rest of them. If Harper walked on water they would push a poll that would conclude Harper "is a poor swimmer". When the real polls are taken next year Harper will beat Rae/Iggy/Dion.

As for the U.S. the Democrats will soon start talking about a "phased withdrawal" from Iraq while obstructing Bush's efforts there. They will likely succeed. If the American people want their troops to leave Iraq that's how democracy works.

It is, however, easy to imagine there is a lot of high fives and yipping going on in a lot of caves and madrassahs in the Middle East tonight.

Watch for the MSM/Libs/Dippers in Canada to start soon connecting imaginary dots between the U.S. Iraq withdrawal and the Canadian mission in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Bart F. at November 8, 2006 9:44 PM

Go to and find out how the CIA has covertly been keeping the mujhadeen/Al Qaeda on the payroll since the Carter years.

All brought to you by a democratic leaning supporter.

Sweet Divine Providence gets the Democrats to help start cleaning up that which was created under Democratic President Carter.

For this is truly priceless, for everything else there is Mastercard!! They won't be leaving Iraq too soon.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at November 8, 2006 10:00 PM

Pelosi, as the first female speaker has to set the bar very high, to prove women are capable of tough decision making. If she screws up, it will foul things up for Hillory in 08. After Kim, what woman in canada has achieved leadership of a major party and accomplished anything. 1% of delegates voted for the lone female in the leadership race. But, has there every been an election on any level, in Canada or the US, until last night, where not one incumbenant of one party was not defeated. That fact alone makes me suspicious of the results. What if in a few places the voting machines were started with a minus few thousand votes for a republican, so the first several cast did not count. No paper trail, to verify this. 40% turnout, and almost 50-50 in many races means 20% of american voters elected this group. As for the senate passing anything, it takes 60 votes to pass legislation, so it will not be easy. The conservatives elected as democrats is the biggest fraud, as they will have to follow the liberal line or they will get no help next time around. 2008 starts today. If this election wasn't thrown, why didn't Rummy resign a month ago. Watch for many of the defeated to try again, and how many were defeated because they had been there for 20 years or more.

Posted by: maryT at November 8, 2006 10:25 PM

"Since the George W. Bush Republicans clearly stole the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, are we to assume they threw this one?"

This was a Presidential election? Who knew?!

Posted by: djb at November 8, 2006 10:59 PM

I think Republicans lost this election because they had a majority and blew it. They refused to listen to their base and it riled them mightily.
Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer ran a brilliant campaign, finding and supporting more conservative democrats to run against pubbies who got a deserved drubbing. But, that is what they had to do to get elected, so that tells us that it is conservatism that won and the democrats either had to change their tactics and pretend they are something else or actually wooed those who are something else. The Lamont loss is a direct hit on the leftoid crazies of the party and the more mature senior party members will hold sway. If Hillary wants a run at '08 and if dems want any chance at long term governance they will keep the far left in check and there will be no impeachment hearings or other such nonsense. If there are it will cost dems two years away and I do not think that they want that, not in a presidential election cycle.
Besides, this is the kind of atmosphere George Bush is most comfortable in. Now that dems have majorities in the House and Senate, the ball is in their court and Bush's veto power can hold them in check if need be. We might actually get a secure border but illegal aliens are going to get 'amnesty' which is what Bush has pushed for all along. I think Bush's personal politics is more along these lines as well and one of the reasons some pubbies were dissatisfied.
The war in Iraq needs to move forward to some positive conclusion with Iraq taking the lead and it is more than time that the nonsense was stopped.
Do the job and do what is necessary to get the job done, but damn well DO it! Never mind the political correctness nonsense. No war has been politically correct. It is either won or lost.
Look at Fallajuh... it took them a year to go in there and kick ass..when they did it was a rat's nest of terrorists. Because of political correctness they left it far too long. They should have gone in there right away and kicked ass.
Now, it is going to be dealt with for good and all and the Middle East gets the message: The US wants out and wants out badly. The West does not yet know what they fight nor do they really know how to fight it.
Blair wants Hussein to be spared the death penalty after all of this... This is exactly how we got to the point of having to go to Europe in 1944 in the first place ...and this time , as hard as that was, it won't be that easy.
For us in Canada...our fate is tied to the US so we had better hope all those bobble heads in Congress and the Senate somehow make the right decisions.
I ain't holdin' MY breath... don't know about you all.

Posted by: Snowbunnie at November 9, 2006 1:16 AM

Another item worth considering is the liklihood that American voters are sick of the rest of the world and want to flee both the brickbats and the responsibilities. I believe there are three elements of this phenomenon, all unwittingly working together toward the same end; #1 being the "Whatever we do is imperialism, so don't do anything" crowd, #2 being the "It's too expensive, spend the bucks here" crowd, and #3 being "The rest of the world sucks, let them all kill each other and go to hell" crowd.

I sadly fear that the United States may slowly be turning inward and, by choice, truly alone.

Posted by: Jeff in Pullman, WA at November 9, 2006 1:49 AM

Crabgrass, that might be a plausible theory, but the GOP is losing (or has already lost) two of the most closely contested and most important races, for the Senate seats in Virginia and Montana.

Posted by: Eugene Chan at November 9, 2006 1:51 AM

That's true, Eugene, but one could argue (and some certainly do) that one or both of those races shouldn't have been so close. I'm not saying that there was cheating going on - I'm just pointing out that a loss doesn't prove that the results are 'clean'.

Posted by: Crabgrass at November 9, 2006 9:07 AM

spin spin spin. ooooo Im dizzy !!!

nobody 'threw' or 'stole' this one. Democrats took it because of a little thing called counting ballots.

Posted by: qwerty at November 9, 2006 9:31 AM

Man!! I sure could go for a hanging chad.

Posted by: Norm Shanahan at November 9, 2006 9:33 AM

You folks are forgetting that Democrat Kennedy got the US into war in Vietnam.Then came the election, Democrat Johnson vs Republican Goldwater,where Democrat Johnson said that he would get out of Vietnam .He was elected and sent thousands more soldiers to war and finally Republican Nixon pulled out of Vietnam.Nixon also normalized relations with China.Nixon was impeached for his efforts.

Posted by: spike 1 at November 9, 2006 10:11 AM

actually, the repubs rigged it up so that the dems got some power and influence this election.

now watch for another spectacular "terrorist" attack on US soil between now and the presidential elections, so that the repubs can say "see? the democrats are soft on terrah!"

bet on it. just like the Madrid bombing on the eve of an election where the anti-war party was leading in the polls. I even saw a CIA spokesperson being interviewed on CNN a few months after that. the question was something about terror attacks and their influence on elections and the the guy said "well, what we learned from the Madrid experimen-- uhhh experience..."

priceless that was...

Posted by: Gnome Sayin? at November 9, 2006 10:20 AM

No matter who won the election, shouldn't Americans be demanding better from their electoral system? Why not have a uniform process across the country? And why have voting machines at all? Is it too hard to do an "X" on a ballot and have the voting scrutineered by campaign supporters?

Although Canada is 1/10 the size of the U.S., we do manage to do a general election where the results are known practically within a few hours. Putting a machine in the middle of the election, while admirable from supposed productivity gains, just sets up any party for claims of fraud. Machines can be reprogrammed or hacked, period.

Posted by: Todd at November 9, 2006 10:54 AM

No matter who won the election, shouldn't Americans be demanding better from their electoral system? Why not have a uniform process across the country? And why have voting machines at all? Is it too hard to do an "X" on a ballot and have the voting scrutineered by campaign supporters?

Although Canada is 1/10 the size of the U.S., we do manage to do a general election where the results are known practically within a few hours. Putting a machine in the middle of the election, while admirable from supposed productivity gains, just sets up any party for claims of fraud. Machines can be reprogrammed or hacked, period.

Posted by: Todd at November 9, 2006 10:56 AM

No matter who won the election, shouldn't Americans be demanding better from their electoral system? Why not have a uniform process across the country? And why have voting machines at all? Is it too hard to do an "X" on a ballot and have the voting scrutineered by campaign supporters?

Although Canada is 1/10 the size of the U.S., we do manage to do a general election where the results are known practically within a few hours. Putting a machine in the middle of the election, while admirable from supposed productivity gains, just sets up any party for claims of fraud. Machines can be reprogrammed or hacked, period.

Posted by: Todd at November 9, 2006 10:58 AM

"Let us start by taxing the living daylights"

Well said garhane!
Put that on the grave marker of the socialist utopians.

Posted by: richfisher at November 9, 2006 10:59 AM

By whatever comparison, to even attempt to position Canadian democracy as being better than the US is ridiculous.

An unelected Liberal senate?

Quebec maintaining the balance of power with 73 seats, while stealing money in transfers?

The Bloc?

I think the only way this country can become a true and just democracy, rather than the travesty it is - is for Alberta to elect a federal separatist party with seat demands equal to Quebec, and then form a coalition government with the Conservatives.

The economic engine of Canada has moved to Alberta, so must the political power if strong armed.

Socialist Quebec would no longer have a death grip on the political future of Canada. And the Liberals, if they were ever to hope to form a government again, would have to campaign on ideas good for everybody in the country, rather than only good for themselves.

Posted by: irwin daisy at November 9, 2006 11:49 AM

The Democrats stole this one.

It's obvious,

Posted by: DrWright at November 9, 2006 12:18 PM

First of all Todd, the theme of this thread is about accusations of Bush throwing elections. It clearly did not happen.

Second; comparing our population to the States is ridiculous. First of all what was the turn out/total amount of votes counted? I daresay the U.S. vote participation is way better than our pathetic exercises at democracy. There is also a huge amount of absentees to count in the US. One County quit counting the absetees because it was a long day and as the Returning officer stated; "tired people make mistakes."

In the same story I read that they were translating people's intentions, decipering scribbles and mistaskes and transfering the votes to the mmachines (in the presence of witnesses). You will never see that happen in Canada. I don't think you should either, but their ballots are way more complex with all the local initiatives to vote on.

Many voters, including Republicans, were satisfied with the machines. I don't think it's an issue. The issues I read were in relation to too few and more than 1 type used. Those could be valid concerns. If they want quicker results, machines are the way to go.

Posted by: Cheri at November 9, 2006 12:38 PM

Cheri, my comments were to the point of accusations of cheating. Simply put, if a machine is inbetween a person and what is actually recorded, their will always be a chance of cheating, the machine having problems or votes just plain getting screwed up.

I still don't understand why the way people vote are different from not just each district but potentially each county. Why isn't there a uniform way of voting across the U.S.?

I've particiated in elections where there are initiatives or referendums too. It's not to hard to count 'yes' or 'no' checks.

Posted by: Todd at November 9, 2006 2:48 PM

Kate, my dear, you are missing the point. Let me try an analogy from poker: if you try to bluff with every hand, you'll eventually go broke. Similarly, if you try to steal every election, you'll eventually get caught. So you have to let one go by every now and then so that you can win the big one, which is trying to keep Hillary in NY in 2008.

Bill could have been a disaster but he had a Republican congress to prevent that. The US government really didn't do much in the Clinton years, which is certainly one reason the 90's were so prosperous. But Hillary with a Democratic congress? (shudders)

Posted by: KevinB at November 9, 2006 2:52 PM

Here's the Toronto Star's take on election ballot messages:

Headline: "Voters jolt red-state religious right"

Ah, yes, of course, it's those evil Christians that are the enemy, and the non-Christian Liberals finally did 'em in. This despite the fact that many Democrats were openly campaigning as Christians and Conservatives. But that doesn't matter in bubbleville.

"This was really a rebellion in the heart of red-state, pro-life America - the heart of the northern Bible Belt," said Sarah Stoesz, head of the Planned Parenthood chapter that oversees South Dakota.

The wins:

- "The verdict on abortion rights was particularly clear. Oregon and California voters defeated measures that would have required parents to be notified before a girl under 18 could get an abortion." Two states make it "particularly clear" in la la land. And I didn't know that either of those are red 'Bible Belt' states. Curious.

- "Endorsing stem cell research in Missouri." It seems stem cell approval in one state has, "...altered America's culture wars and dismayed the religious right."

- "...and in a national first, rejecting a same-sex marriage ban in Arizona." Oh, boy, and now because of one state not banning SSM, "Conservative leaders were jolted by the setbacks and looked for an explanation yesterday."

Buried at the end of the article, though:

"Liberal groups did have some setbacks..."

- "Michigan voters banned some types of affirmative action programs."

- "Colorado and Arizona passed measures targeting illegal immigrants."

- "Seven states approved gay-marriage bans, joining the 20 that had done so in previous elections." (Score: 27 no vs. 1 yes)

This is what passes for news rather than opinion, in the star.

Posted by: irwin daisy at November 9, 2006 3:03 PM

With the type of voting system they run in the States, there's plenty more stealing yet to come from "both" sides.

Posted by: Saskboy at November 10, 2006 2:46 AM

And they can't cheat with paper ballots?

Posted by: Cheri at November 10, 2006 12:58 PM

I think the comments that the Democrats are not some androgynous leftie party are correct. Add to that the the US system is more bipartisan than our system and, of course, the Dems are to the right of the Liberals here. With a one seat majority in the Senate, it will be difficult to completely impose an aganda, especially when one considers Joe Lieberman in the mix. Having said that, the dems still control Congress, though it will likely be in their best interests to gain cooperation with GOP. Clearly this isn't a simple majority situation for the dems.

Posted by: Shamrock at November 10, 2006 1:01 PM

"And they can't cheat with paper ballots?"
That's right Cheri, they can't on as wide a scale, in such a significant and undetectable way.

Posted by: Saskboy at November 10, 2006 7:22 PM

Saskboy; at one time I admit, I too was suspicios of machines. No longer. I'm fed up with all the conspiracy theories. If someone wants to cheat badly enough, here or in the States, they'll do it. They'll also get caught eventualy.

I'm not too sure how confident I am of Elections Canada after some of the shenanigans in the last couple Federal Elections. Ditto the last municipal election in Calgary. Both were hushed up, never to be heard of again.

Posted by: Cheri at November 12, 2006 1:30 AM