Over the past few years Democrats have been afraid to appear as 'obstructionist.'

Whether in legislation, appointments or investigations they've been all too reluctant to appear disruptive.  

David Broder would lower the boom on them if they ever tried to set anything right. Not bi-partisan you know.

So a useless, damaging war goes on, elections get fixed, the Constitution is ignored, extremist judges take over the courts, federal agencies are crippled, all because they don't want the reputation as obstructing the acts of a criminal element in American politics.

The simple expedient, by GOP operatives, of taking punchcards from one precinct & counting them in another precinct in which the numbered locations for the presidential candidates were reversed is documented at this website.

Cross-voting can occur in several ways. Wrong-precinct voting occurs if voters inadvertently punch their ballot with another precinct's voting machine. With multiple ballot orders at a location, cross-voting can result. Cross-voting also occurs when, anytime after voting and before counting, ballots are switched to a precinct with a different ballot order. This study addresses the evidence for cross-voting without distinguishing or quantifying causes. Significant chain of custody concerns exists with ballot transport to central tabulators as well as with ballots at precincts. Wrong-precinct voting, innocent or directed, and ballot switching, whether fraudulently stuffing ballot boxes or by inadvertence, all have the same effect and their specific causes are not readily distinguished in vote results. Herein cross-voting and vote-switching refers to the process, the change of the vote count, without distinguishing a motive or reason.

The other technique of offering voters the "wrong" card for the machine at their precinct is even more clever.

I believe Kerry might well have won without the efforts of the GOP to suppress and invalidate voters and votes in Ohio.

Kerry should have fought it, and I believe Edwards wanted to do that.

So we will probably never know for sure, but the indications are that the Repubs stole the election in Ohio in 2004.

Even now, though, it's clear that lots of Dems still buy the "conspiracy theory" about this election.

Maybe now not so much about Florida in 2000, but that was also dismissed as a conspiracy theory at the time and well afterward.

It's clear the GOP is working hard to set up conditions to do the same in the 2008 election. They are trying to invalidate 200,000 newly registered voters here in Ohio and more new voters across the country.

If Obama wins, they will litigate loudly and intensely.

The claims of caging in 2004 have been repeated by Palast in books and interviews since 2004 and have been often cited as evidence of voter suppression--and, certainly, his charges should be taken seriously. Unfortunately, no one has followed up on Palast's work. Not, that is, until we did. Though our investigation found there were no poll challenges in Duval County in 2004, which would be the most likely way of using the "caging" information, that does not mean that there was no preparation to use "caging," should the need arise. Further investigation, therefore, is needed.

Further investigation is needed also, for we found things that, though they do not negate Palast's findings, show a situation much less clear-cut than he presents. As noted in earlier stories and on blogs, in his book and in press releases, for example, Palast cites one "Randall Prausa" as an example of an African-American serviceman disenfranchised by caging. On page 204 of Armed Madhouse he reports:

We checked one list that included 50 Black soldiers. We called one, Randall Prausa. His wife indicated that his address had changed because he was shipped overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Nice. A Black soldier's vote gone. Mission Accomplished.

In addition, in a June 2, 2006 report, by Palast contains this:

Was it deliberate? Oh, my God, yes. I'd like you to take a look at the "caging" lists the Republican National Committee concocted to challenge voters with "suspect" addresses. It included page after page of African-American soldiers, like one Randall Prausa, shipped overseas. Mission accomplished, Mr. President?

The problem with this choice of Randall Prausa to illustrate disenfranchisement of African American servicemen by caging is that Randall Prausa (see the photo above) is not Black. This fact does not put the lie to Palast's conclusion, but does mean that any study of this issue is going to have to be conducted very carefully from here on out.

In its own checking on "caging," ePluribus Media was able to reach Mr. Prausa by email and telephone. Mr. Prausa told us he did previously live at the address listed on the caging list. He also reports that he was deployed overseas and voted by absentee ballot in 2004. Review of the election data we received from the Duval County Election Office confirms that he voted by absentee ballot in 2004 and his ballot was counted. Furthermore, Mr. Prausa claims he has never spoken with Palast. His wife told us she was contacted by the BBC in October 2004, but the question of ethnicity never came up. The Prausas have not been contacted again by the BBC or anyone else about the 2004 election until we contacted them at the end of May 2007. Additionally, we found that of the 50 "soldiers" on the caging list (listing "Naval Air Station" as their address), 43 remained on the Voter Registration roll. Of these, nine are Black, four Hispanic, and twenty-three are white. Nine are registered Democrats (24%) and sixteen are registered Republicans (38%). While this spread of party affiliation does not show that the RNC was not involved in caging to eliminate Black voters, it makes it that much harder to prove that it was.