Told Ya Kerry Won

[Nbadan]

Court victory lets preserved Ohio 2004 ballots tell new tales of theft and fraud as indictments and convictions mount
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
September 25, 2006



Ohio election protection activists have won a landmark court battle to preserve the ballots from 2004's disputed presidential election, and researchers studying those ballots continue to find new evidence that the election was, indeed, stolen. Among other things, large numbers of consecutive votes in different precincts for George W. Bush make it appear ever more likely that the real winner in 2004 should have been John Kerry. Meanwhile, indictments and prison terms are mounting among key players in that tainted contest.

In King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association et. al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, three community groups and five individuals have won a precedent-setting federal decision preserving the ballots from the 2004 election. By federal law those ballots could have been destroyed en masse September 3, twenty-two months after the November 2, 2004 balloting. Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell gave every indication that he would order the records to be destroyed as soon as he could. Admissions have already come from a few counties that illegally disposed of election-related materials well before the federal deadline. By law, all such documents were to be preserved, under lock and key, right up to the federal deadline.

While running the 2004 election, Blackwell served as the very active co-chair of Ohio's Bush-Cheney campaign. He is now the GOP nominee for governor, but is trailing substantially in all major polls behind Democratic Congressman Ted Strickland.

Blackwell was put on notice by Columbus Attorney Cliff Arnebeck and others who filed the King Lincoln suit contending illegal discrimination against black and young voters in 2004. The suit is based on widespread allegations involving mal-distribution of voting machines, dubious vote counts, race-based voter suppression and many other questionable occurrences before, during and after the 2004 balloting. The suit asked Judge Algernon Marbley of the federal district court in Columbus to order Blackwell to force Ohio's 88 county boards of elections (BOEs) to preserve ballots and other election-related materials so the full extent of the allegations could be proven.

Freepress (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006/2162)

I want my V-bookie money back!

:lol

[boutons_]

The Repugs, conservatives, red-staters, and "Christians" have fomented and inflamed polarization and incivility for over a decade in politics. Looks like the US will be split for a long time.

The Repugs know their best campaign tactic is to disenfrancise and outright intimidate blacks and other poor. Anti-voting fraud laws are nothing but a code word for racism and anti-democracy. The Repugs are foaming at the mouth at the cheating possibilities presented by fucked up, insecrure, buggy Diebold/Repug voting machines.

==================

September 26, 2006

Stricter Voting Laws Carve Latest Partisan Divide

By JOYCE PURNICK

MESA, Ariz. — Eva Charlene Steele, a recent transplant from Missouri, has no driver’s license or other form of state identification. So after voting all her adult life, Mrs. Steele will not be voting in November because of an Arizona law that requires proof of citizenship to register.

“I have mixed emotions,” said Mrs. Steele, 57, who uses a wheelchair and lives in a small room in an assisted-living center. “I could see where you would want to keep people who don’t belong in the country from voting, but there has to be an easier way.”

Russell K. Pearce, a leading proponent of the new requirement, offers no apologies.

“You have to show ID for almost everything — to rent a Blockbuster movie!” said Mr. Pearce, a Republican in the State House of Representatives. “Nobody has the right to cancel my vote by voting illegally. This is about political corruption.”

( but you, you corrupt, lying, hypocritical sonofavitch, intend to block Democratic voters )

Mrs. Steele and Mr. Pearce are two players in a spreading partisan brawl over new and proposed voting requirements around the country. Republicans say the laws are needed to combat fraud, especially among illegal immigrants. Democrats say there is minimal fraud, if any, and accuse Republicans of suppressing the votes of those least likely to have the required documentation — minorities, the poor and the elderly — who tend to vote for Democrats.

In tight races, Democrats say, the loss of votes could matter in November.

In Maricopa County, Arizona’s largest in population, election officials said that 35 percent of new registrations were rejected for insufficient proof of citizenship last year and that 17 percent had been rejected so far this year. It is not known how many of the rejected registrants were not citizens or were unable to prove their citizenship because they had lost or could not locate birth certificates and other documents.

In Indiana, Daniel J. Parker, chairman of the state Democratic Party, said: “Close to 10 percent of registered voters here do not have driver’s licenses. Who does that impact most? Seniors and minorities.”

A law in Indiana requiring voters to have a state-issued photo ID is being challenged in the federal courts, as are the voting laws in Arizona and in many other states.

Republicans say the Democratic complaints are self-serving.

“Democrats believe they represent stupid people who are not smart enough to vote,” said Randy Pullen, a Republican national committeeman from Arizona who championed a statewide initiative on the new requirements. “I do not.”

( There you go again, Randy, with slimy straw man )

The new measures include tighter controls over absentee balloting and stronger registration rules. The most contentious are laws in three states — Georgia, Indiana and Missouri — where people need government-issued picture ID’s to vote, and provisions here in Arizona that tightened voter ID requirements at the polls and imposed the proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration.

Several other states are considering similar measures, and the House of Representatives, voting largely along party lines, recently passed a national voter ID measure that is headed for the Senate.

The debate in Washington and the state capitals has been heated, with only one note of agreement: that voting, once burdened by poll taxes and other impediments, is as divisive an issue as ever.

“I have never seen such a sinister plot — I won’t say plot, I’ll say measure — as to target a group of people to try to make it difficult for them to vote,” said Roy E. Barnes, a Democrat and former governor of Georgia who is fighting the new identification law in his state.

Mr. Pearce, the Arizona Republican, said: “We know people are approached to register whether they are illegal or not. We know the left side’s agenda.”

Underlying the debate is the fundamental question of voter fraud and whether people who are not who they say they are — impostors — are voting. Some suggest that the problem is so widespread that the standard methods of proving identification, like a utility bill and a signature, are no longer adequate.

“I know a lot of allegations of voter fraud, especially by noncitizens, that may have been able to tip the balance in favor of one candidate,” said Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado and an advocate of tough immigration laws.

The tighter voting rules appeal strongly to people worried about illegal immigration, Mr. Tancredo said.

There is no data, however, to show more than isolated instances of so-called impostor voting by illegal immigrants or others.

( without data on voting fraud, the Repug voting restrictons are based on nothing but "belief" http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )
Experts in election law say most voter fraud involves absentee balloting, which is unaffected by the new photo identification laws. Few people, they say, will risk a felony charge to vote illegally at the polls, and few illegal immigrants want to interact with government officials — even people running a polling place.

Of Arizona’s 2.7 million registered voters, 238 were believed to have been noncitizens in the last 10 years; only 4 were believed to have voted; and none were impostors, plaintiffs stipulate in their lawsuit to overturn the law, statistics the state has not challenged. Nor is there evidence of impostor voting in Georgia, Indiana or Missouri.

( so by blocking those 4 fraudulent voters, the Repugs know they will block 1000s of black, poor, elderly voters from voting Democractic )

Advocates for the new laws do not dispute the figures — just their relevance.

Thor Hearne, a lawyer for the American Center for Voting Rights, a conservative advocacy group, who was President Bush’s election law counsel in 2004, says there is little proof of impostor voting because few have looked for it.

( there they go again, they "believe" there is significant voter fraud )

Todd Rokita, the Indiana secretary of state, agrees. “Critics will say there is no wholesale fraud, and to that I say you don’t understand the nature of election fraud,” said Mr. Rokita, a Republican. “A lot of this goes unreported. Until you have a mechanism in place like photo ID’s, you don’t have anything to report.”

Arizona’s new rules were passed as part of Proposition 200, a referendum that denies certain state and local benefits to illegal immigrants. It got 56 percent of the vote two years ago, after Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed a Republican-backed measure passed by the Legislature.

Rooted in the state’s debates over illegal immigration, the measure is the broadest in the country, requiring a driver’s license, a state photo ID or two nonphotographic forms of identification at the polls. Lawyers for the Navajo Nation and other American Indian tribes say the provision particularly discriminates against Indians, many of whom are too poor to drive or are without electricity or telephone bills, alternative forms of identification.

Because the Arizona measures have been in place for less than two years, there is limited documentation of their impact. Lawyers fighting the rules say the measures have prevented thousands of people from registering to vote, particularly in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, a city with many Latino voters.

Supporters of the measures say elections have gone smoothly. Critics point to individual cases, like confusion at the polls in the primary elections earlier this month. They say that people without adequate documentation have been turned away or required to file “conditional provisional” ballots that are counted only if voters follow up — and that not all of them do.

Deborah Lopez, a Democratic political consultant in Phoenix, said that the once simple matter of registering voters at a rally or a fiesta now required labor-intensive door-to-door visits.

It was during a registration drive at her assisted-living center, Desert Palms, that Mrs. Steele learned she could not vote. Disabled, with a son, an Army staff sergeant, on active duty, she left Missouri recently to stay with her brother and subsequently moved into the center.

Lacking a driver’s license, she could get a new state identity card, but she said she had neither the $12 to pay for it nor, because she uses a wheelchair, the transportation to pick it up.

“It makes me a little angry because my son is fighting now in Iraq for others to have the right to vote, and I can’t,” said Mrs. Steele, who submitted an affidavit in the suit against the Arizona law.

Asked if she was a Republican or a Democrat, Mrs. Steele said she was neither: “I vote for the best person for the job.”

Or, she added, she used to.

==============

The non-proportional, unrepresentative electoral college is a superb tool for disenfranchisement. When a state is known to be strongly red, many blue voters don't bother to vote since they know their votes don't and won't count because the all electoral votes go to the red voters. So "every vote counts" is a bullshit myth. )

[101A]

:cry this lady can get a freaking state id card :cry the stupid reporter could have driven her to the office in the time it took to get that interview

exactly

[101A]

BTW, Dan, Wasserman is a GREAT source.

[Crookshanks]

My god! This is just another scare tactic by the Libs. These "poor" people have to show ID in order to get their welfare and social security benefits - why is it all of a sudden discrimination to have to show ID in order to vote?!

I heard a woman on the radio the other day talking about this subject. This woman is an 80-year old blind woman. Yet, she moved to another state and was perfectly able to take a bus across town and get her ID. If an 80-year old blind woman can accomplish this - I have NO sympathy for able-bodied people who are complaining that it's impossible to do!

We have to show ID to board a plane, cash a check, rent a movie, or do just about any financial transaction. Yet, one of our most valuable rights - the right to vote, should be able to be done by anyone, anywhere, without showing any form of identification? That's just preposterous!

[Crookshanks]

Oh, and BTW, Dan - I bet when all is said and done, this "investigation" will show the same thing that happened in Florida - all the allegations of voter fraud and intimidation couldn't be proved. And, even when several news organizations counted the votes, George W. Bush still won!

[Ocotillo]

Oh, and BTW, Dan - I bet when all is said and done, this "investigation" will show the same thing that happened in Florida - all the allegations of voter fraud and intimidation couldn't be proved. And, even when several news organizations counted the votes, George W. Bush still won!

Uh actually, no, when all the votes were recounted Gore won.

[Nbadan]

Oh, and BTW, Dan - I bet when all is said and done, this "investigation" will show the same thing that happened in Florida - all the allegations of voter fraud and intimidation couldn't be proved. And, even when several news organizations counted the votes, George W. Bush still won!

Your confusing hasn't been proven' with hasn't ever been properly investigated and prosecuted.

In every scenario, when all the Florida votes were recounted by the media, Al Gore won, bozo.

[Ya Vez]

yeah thats why gore and kerry conceded the election....... because they won... lol

[Yonivore]

Your confusing hasn't been proven' with hasn't ever been properly investigated and prosecuted.

In every scenario, when all the Florida votes were recounted by the media, Al Gore won, bozo.
Okay, you're not being completely honest here.

When the votes were recounted as Al Gore had requested, Bush won by 225.

When the votes were recounted as the Florida Supreme Court ordered them to be, bush won by 493.

Whe the media counted all the ballots, using precinct rules developed during the media survey -- not that were in place during the election -- Gore won by 171.

When the media counted all the ballots, and included (by devining the intent of the voter) disqualified ballots due to abnormalities that would not reveal the intent of the voter, Gore won variously by 107 or 60, depending on which flaws you allowed and which you did not.

The only scenario in which a person could reasonably conclude that Gore got more votes than Bush was when the media counted all the ballots and included overvotes where the chad had been completely punched but that was invalidated in some other way beside another chad being punched. This resulted in Gore winning by 115.

In other words, it was a statistical tie and even Vice President Gore's remedy would not have resulted in his favor.

Besides, all this discounts other anomolies in the election that sure resulted in a different vote count. The Democrats have their conspiracies about blacks and felons being denied the vote.

Well, you might recall the media called the election for Gore an hour before the polls closed in the Florida panhandle. It is believe this prevented more than 15,000 voters from going to the polls and probably, due to the principally conservative/republican makeup of that area of Florida, resulted in President Bush losing more than 5,000 net votes.

Also, recall that the nonsense that started the whole thing was the Palm Beach butterfly ballot -- which was designed by a Democrat and fielded in a principally Democrat precinct.

No one can help that Democrat voters are just that stupid.

[Nbadan]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7c/Nytimes.svg/706px-Nytimes.svg.png

[Yonivore]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7c/Nytimes.svg/706px-Nytimes.svg.png
Yeah, that was mentioned in the wikipedia article where I got my information.

Not exactly honest either. But, I've come to expect nothing less from the NYTimes.


After the election, USA Today, The Miami Herald, and Knight Ridder commissioned accounting firm BDO Seidman to count undervotes, that is, ballots which did not register any vote when counted by machine. BDO Seidman's results, reported in USA Today [12] (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm), show that under the strictest standard, where only a cleanly punched ballot with a fully removed chad was counted, Gore won by three votes. Under all other standards, Bush won, with Bush's margin increasing as looser standards were used. The standards considered by BDO Seidman were:

Lenient standard. Any alteration in a chad, ranging from a dimple to a full punch, counts as a vote. By this standard, Bush won by 1,665 votes.

Palm Beach standard. A dimple is counted as a vote if other races on the same ballot show dimples as well. By this standard, Bush won by 884 votes.

Two-corner standard. A chad with two or more corners removed is counted as a vote. This is the most common standard in use. By this standard, Bush won by 363 votes.

Strict standard. Only a fully removed chad counts as a vote. By this standard, Gore won by 3 votes.

The study remarks that because of the possibility of mistakes, it is difficult to conclude that Gore was surely the winner under the strict standard. It also remarks that there are variations between examiners, and that election officials often did not provide the same number of undervotes as were counted on Election Day. Furthermore, the study did not consider overvotes, ballots which registered more than one vote when counted by machine.

The study also found that undervotes break down into two distinct types, those coming from punch-card using counties, and those coming from optical-scan using counties. Undervotes from punch-card using counties give new votes to candidates in roughly the same proportion as the county's official vote. Furthermore, the number of undervotes correlates with how well the punch-card machines are maintained, and not with factors such as race or socioeconomic status. Undervotes from optical-scan using counties, however, correlate with Democratic votes more than Republican votes. Optical-scan counties were the only places in the study where Gore gained more votes than Bush, 1,036 to 775.

A larger consortium of news organizations, including the USA Today, the Miami Herald, Knight Ridder, the Tampa Tribune, and five other newspapers next conducted a full recount of all ballots, including both undervotes and overvotes. According to their results, under stricter standards for vote counting, Bush won, and under looser standards, Gore won. [13] (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-05-10-recountmain.htm) However, a Gore win was impossible without a recount of overvotes, which he did not request.

According to the study, only 3% of the 111,261 overvotes had markings that could be interpreted as a legal vote. According to Anthony Salvado, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine, who acted as a consultant on the media recount, most of the errors were caused by ballot design, ballot wording, and efforts by voters to choose both a president and a vice-president. For example, 21,188 of the Florida overvotes, or nearly one-fifth of the total, originated from Duval County, where the presidential race was split across two pages. Voters were instructed to "vote every page". Half of the overvotes in Duval County had one presidential candidate marked on each page, making their vote illegal under Florida law. Salvado says that this error alone cost Gore the election.

Including overvotes in the above totals for undervotes gives different margins of victory:

Lenient standard. Gore by 332 votes.
Palm Beach standard. Gore by 242 votes.
Two-corner standard. Bush by 407 votes.
Strict standard. Bush by 152 votes.
And then they show the graph you just posted.

[Nbadan]

It is kinda disappointing because Wikipedia doesn't even begin to cover the 50,000 disenfranchised ex-felons who should have been allowed to vote but weren't thanks to Katherine Harris. It is also disingenious for wing-nuts to say that Gore lost Florida because Duvall county voters couldn't punch a ballot correctly, if that were truely the standard and both over-votes and under-votes counted, then Gore still would have won Florida by 3 votes.

[Yonivore]

It is kinda disappointing because Wikipedia doesn't even begin to cover the 50,000 disenfranchised ex-felons who should have been allowed to vote but weren't thanks to Katherine Harris. It is also disingenious for wing-nuts to say that Gore lost Florida because Duvall county voters couldn't punch a ballot correctly, if that were truely the standard and both over-votes and under-votes counted, then Gore still would have won Florida by 3 votes.
I don't understand why the left just can admit it was a statistical tie in which anomolies that occur in every election were magnified by the closeness of the vote.

There are a myriad of scenarios and countless permutations which could be documented, proved, disproves, reformulated ad nauseum, that would produce the desired result for anyone so inclined to see it.

Like I said, you have your conspiracies but, the fact remains, the vote was certified in President Bush's favor and even if the votes had been recounted like his opponent had wanted, he would have still been the victor.

You can spend the rest of your life digging up reasons Bush shouldn't have taken Florida but nothing will change the fact that he did.

[smeagol]

Who the fuck cares.

Seriously.

[Yonivore]

Who the fuck cares.

Seriously.
Well, Dan cares. That's who.

[smeagol]

Well, Dan cares. That's who.
Right.

And it's sad.

Give it up, Dan. Bush is the president. Give it up.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Let. It. Go.

I'll give the libs credit - Bush's poll numbers are going back up, despite all the trashing of the president on Iraq, so right on cue we get Clinton's bullshit about trying to get bin Laden and the alleged voter fraud is back in the news.

I guess when you don't have a campaign platform to speak of, all you can do is go back to 2004 to find something to talk about.

[boutons_]

'Clinton's bullshit"

How soon you forget, to your convenience.
The Repugs started the distraction, weeks before the election, with the ABC fantasy show.

Meanwhile, the Repugs remain profoundly accused by the 9/11 commisision report as not having reacted AT ALL to the extremely high level of warnings in the 2 months before 9/11 about al-Quaida attacking USA.

The Repugs also did nothing more in their 8 months than the Clinton did, but the Repugs think they can trash Clinton. Pure election bullshit and smoescreen to try to hide the Repubs' 100% culpability for the 9/11 attack.

[Yonivore]

Bush is president? :depressed
Now, that's reality-based thinking.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

'Clinton's bullshit"

How soon you forget, to your convenience.
The Repugs started the distraction, weeks before the election, with the ABC fantasy show.

Meanwhile, the Repugs remain profoundly accused by the 9/11 commisision report as not having reacted AT ALL to the extremely high level of warnings in the 2 months before 9/11 about al-Quaida attacking USA.

The Repugs also did nothing more in their 8 months than the Clinton did, but the Repugs think they can trash Clinton. Pure election bullshit and smoescreen to try to hide the Repubs' 100% culpability for the 9/11 attack.


It is impossible for AHF to respond to such comments with the same witticism.

[George W Bush]

Bush's poll numbers are going back up.


I don't listen to polls.

[ChumpDumper]

Dumbass.

[Yonivore]

Dumbass.
Okay, I agree with that characterization. Somebody must have downloaded one of them there anonymous browsers.

[gtownspur]

its okay..... its only a matter of time before i end george bushs life


What will spare Bill Clinton's life? The fact that he played the sax on arsenio hall?

Yeah, you're a moron.

Black Power!

[ChumpDumper]

Okay, I agree with that characterization. Somebody must have downloaded one of them there anonymous browsers.He didn't. That's the dumbass part.

[Yonivore]

He didn't. That's the dumbass part.
It's dumbass on quite a few levels.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The Repugs started the distraction, weeks before the election, with the ABC fantasy show.

Where were your cries when Michael Moore was airing his epic fantasy show prior to the last election? Is it only fair to do shit like that when it helps your democraptic party? It's politics, fucking deal with it.


The Repugs also did nothing more in their 8 months than the Clinton did, but the Repugs think they can trash Clinton.

You're really a fucking moron, you know that?

ABC aired it's little docudrama, which by the way, was critical of BOTH Bush and Clinton's lack of interest in going after AQ prior to 9/11.

Then all the polls showed an uptick for Bush when people realized it wasn't all his fault, as the Demos had been insisting for the last two years.

So, to respond to that Clinton had his little blow up the other day to distract from the ABC fallout, and to top it off you had the leak of the NIE memo.

It's politics as usual, but quick with the Republican conspiracy bullshit. The democrats are just as guilty as the Repubs, and it gets pretty boring hearing about those mean little Republican party strategists fighting back when the Demos do the same thing to Bush and Co.

I get the sense that if Clinton and W. fought in a ring, croutons would cry if Bush actually got to hit back and would insist that Bush fought with both hands tied behind his back to "make it fair."

[Nbadan]

Right.

And it's sad.

Give it up, Dan. Bush is the president. Give it up.

I've proven that Gore won in numerous other threads in this forum, most having to do with Diebold, and ES&S. If anyone wants to look at these threads they can always google my name and Al Gore, 2004 or some combination.

My point in this thread was that if they followed the most stringent standard to count the over-votes and under-votes in the 2004 Presidential election in FL, which I believe should have counted, Al Gore wins. So the people who couldn't punch their votes correctly were actually Bush voters if you are to believe the final verdict.

Also, the Democratic Precinct officer infamous for the Palm Beach butter-fly ballot was a Democrat in name only simply because the office had traditionally been held by a Democrat.

[Yonivore]

I've proven that Gore won in numerous other threads in this forum,...
Okay, Dan, you've proven nothing. You've merely satisfied your moonbat mind of the rightness of your moonbat conspiracies. Nice going.

Proving something would require there to be irrefutable evidence of your proposition. So far, you've been unconvincing.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I've proven that Gore won in numerous other threads in this forum,...

IF there was really enough proof out there, I'd venture to say that someone from the left up on Capitol Hill would have rolled out impeachment proceedings by now.

[smeagol]

I've proven that Gore won in numerous other threads in this forum, most having to do with Diebold, and ES&S. If anyone wants to look at these threads they can always google my name and Al Gore, 2004 or some combination.

My point in this thread was that if they followed the most stringent standard to count the over-votes and under-votes in the 2004 Presidential election in FL, which I believe should have counted, Al Gore wins. So the people who couldn't punch their votes correctly were actually Bush voters if you are to believe the final verdict.

Also, the Democratic Precinct officer infamous for the Palm Beach butter-fly ballot was a Democrat in name only simply because the office had traditionally been held by a Democrat.
:clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap

I applaud you and ask again, who the fuck cares?

Bush is in office and will stay there for two more years. Gore is doing films about the climate. That ain't changing, no matter how many threads you start.

And the fact that two years after the events, you keep dwelling on what happened then, is sad. Sad, I say.

S-A-D.

[Yonivore]

:clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap

I applaud you and ask again, who the fuck cares?

Bush is in office and will stay there for two more years. Gore is doing films about the climate. That ain't changing, no matter how many threads you start.

And the fact that two years after the events, you keep dwelling on what happened then, is sad. Sad, I say.

S-A-D.
It's actually been six years.

[George W Bush]

I stole them elections fair and square!

[smeagol]

It's actually been six years.
Fuck, you are right. Six years!

Even S-A-D-D-E-R.

[SA210]

It's actually been six years.
And he still hasn't caught Bin Laden?

[rascal]

Yonivore you will only know the truth after you die. That Gore was the real winner. Life is often not fair and only after you die will all truth be known.

No sense arguing this. You will know the truth.

[101A]

I've proven that Gore won in numerous other threads in this forum, most having to do with Diebold, and ES&S. If anyone wants to look at these threads they can always google my name and Al Gore, 2004 or some combination.



Damn, that's some piece of work there Dan. Proving Al Gore won an election he wasn't even on the ballot for.