"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95ACF011A242Dkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>...

Election Official Calls Recount Request Frivolous, Insulting
Cost Of Recount Estimated At $1.5 M

Republicans prove again that they can't abide by the rule of law.
Recounts are provided for in the laws of each state. The laws cover
who is responsible for paying for them, and if Ohio says that it's not
enough, it's not the fault of the candidates. Ohio election officials
who blocking them with these flimsy excuses are raising even more
doubt over an already fishy election result.

Now, after they resist counting all legal ballots ("just count ballots
until you're ahead, and then stop the counting"), the Ohio GOP wants
to do away with the most basic of practices in a democracy: recounting
the ballots.

Do you see what I mean now when I say that Bush (and the GOP) has a
long history of wanting the rules changed after a race has started
(and even finished), with all advantages going to his side.

The GOP is a crime organization.

Ukrainians Won't Be Put Off - They're Putting U.S. to Shame

Ukrainians, new to democracy, aren't putting up with a stolen
election. We have much to learn from them:


Sadly, the American election was almost a carbon copy of the Ukranian
one and this point will certainly be raised in future arguments. Most
elections lately seem to be less than satisfactory and this is
something that needs to be looked at much closer in future. Too many
people are getting cheated by politicians and winning power without
the help of voters. Either by cheating with the voting system, or
using unfair tactics in their campaigns (or both!)

It is a pity that the people who have the real power to change this,
the voters, don't realize what is happening. But maybe in the Ukraine
they do and this may produce an example for others to follow?

http://www.profindpages.com/news/2004/11/25/MN537.htm

Ukraine Media Revolt
The parallels, and contrasts, between the Ukrainian and American
election experience continue. Imagine if FOX, and the other mainstream
outlets in the States, faced an uprising from reporters and editors,
all refusing to lie to the American people. Imagine the media
footsoldiers standing up for the well-being of the nation, rather than
the narrow interests of their elite-media masters. Ukrainians today do
not have to imagine, it's happening!
http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?

id=1070&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0



Regime's control over TV media crumbling
Roman Olearchyk
Post Staff Writer
Nov 25, 21:43

As the fifth evening of growing civil protests approached o-n Nov. 25,
it became clear that the ruling regime's control over television media
was crumbling.

Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma's establishment had, according to
oppositionist political forces and media experts, used their control
over a handful of channels with nationwide coverage to manipulate
voters. Losing control over the media is expected to weaken support
for Kuchma, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych and their cronies in
eastern and southern regions of the country where they benefit from
strong support, partly due to the lack of oppositionist media
presence.

On Nov. 25, privately owned television channel 1+1 announced that
Vyacheslav Pikhovshek had been removed as editor of the venue's news
programs.

Oppositionist political figures have accused Pikhovshek of spreading
biased news coverage designed to lower support for Yushchenko while
beefing up Kuchma and his allies.

A recent survey of journalists funded by Democratic Initiatives
Foundation, a western-funded NGO, singled out Pikhovshek as the "least
trusted" journalist in Ukraine.

Officials at 1+1 said Pikhovshek would continue to work at the studio
as author of Epitsenter, a political analysis show aired o-n Sunday
evenings.

News programs o-n 1+1 virtually disappeared earlier this week after
journalists and editors and the channel went o-n strike in protest of
alleged pressure from management and certain political forces to
produce biased media coverage that favored Kuchma and allies.

In a statement issued late o-n Nov. 25, the news team announced that
they would resume with fair coverage that evening.

"We guarantee that all information distributed by our channel will be
complete, in accordance with professional standards of journalism,"
the statement reads.

At 7:30 pm o-n Nov. 25, news coverage o-n TSN resumed, but started
with a short statement from the channel's editorial team. The
collective said they would resume news reports but promised they would
be objective, explaining that previous editorial policy was not so,
due to political pressure.

Pikhovshek's departure from TSN follows strikes by journalists at
state-owned television channel First National Channel, known as UT-1,
and at other channels. They include ICTV, owned by Kuchma's son-in-law
Viktor Pinchuk, reputably Ukraine's second richest man. Calls for fair
coverage have also been heard at other channels with nationwide
coverage including Inter, which is controlled by members of the Social
Democratic Party of Ukraine (united), headed by Presidential
Administration Chief Viktor Medvedchuk.

Growing resistance by journalists at these channels seems to have
limited their capability to report o-n the tense political situation.
News programs have not been frequent, possibly an indication that
these channels have tried to ignore the growing protests.

Editor in chief of Inter's news programs and SDPU(u) member Oleksy
Mustafin disagrees with this notion.

"I think we are covering the events sufficiently," Mustafin said,
adding that he would not comment o-n what is going o-n at other
channels.

"I don't have time to watch other channels these days. I have heard
about what is going o-n at the other channels and read about it in
media."

http://www.kyivpost.com/top/21909/

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95ACF011A242Dkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>...

Election Official Calls Recount Request Frivolous, Insulting
Cost Of Recount Estimated At $1.5 M

Republicans prove again that they can't abide by the rule of law.

On 26 Nov 2004 04:36:03 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

Election Official Calls Recount Request Frivolous, Insulting
Cost Of Recount Estimated At $1.5 M
POSTED: 1:56 PM EST November 22, 2004
UPDATED: 2:02 PM EST November 22, 2004



CINCINNATI -- Third-party candidates for president said they would sue
in federal court Monday to force a recount of Ohio ballots before
returns are certified next week - prompting one election official to say
he might mobilize fellow counties to resist a recount.

"Counties are very upset," said Keith Cunningham, director of the Allen
County Board of Elections and incoming president of the Ohio Association
of Election Officials, who called the lawsuit "frivolous."

"Commissioners are beginning to understand - and if they don't, will
understand soon - what kind of financial impact this is going to have on
them, in a year when elections already cost a great deal more than
expected."

Libertarian Michael Badnarik and the Green Party's David Cobb said last
week that they had raised more than $150,000 to cover the state's fee
for a recount. Ohio law requires payment of $10 per precinct, or
$113,600 statewide, but election officials say the true expense would be
far greater.

"It's going to crush county governments," Cunningham said.

Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, has
estimated the actual cost at $1.5 million.

Even though the two third-party candidates received a combined 0.26
percent of the vote in unofficial results, they contend a recount is
necessary to ensure accuracy and that an immediate recount should begin,
even though the official canvass is not complete.

Counties have until Dec. 3 to report official vote counts, and LoParo
has said results will be certified by Dec. 6.

The third-party candidates that would not allow enough time for a
recount of Ohio's 5.5 million votes before the state's presidential
electors meet Dec. 13.

"Nothing could be more important to our country than ensuring the
results of the Ohio presidential election are accurate and complete,"
Cobb said. "Our faith and trust in the democratic process all hinge on a
fair, unbiased and transparent counting of ballots in Ohio."

That assertion offends Cunningham.

"The inference is that Ohio election officials will not count every
vote," Cunningham said. "That's just insulting; it's frivolous and
simply harassment."

Cunningham said he was consulting with officials in several counties
before deciding whether to pursue legal action to prevent a recount.

"I need to see if this is merely my opinion or reflects the opinion of
the association," he said.

"If, indeed, we are all forced to do the recount, the negative economic
impact far outweighs any positive good that could come from this
recount. My intention would be to attempt to argue in court that it's
time for the secretary of state to take a stand and attest that every
vote is being counted by local boards."

LoParo did not immediately return a call seeking additional comment.

http://www.channelcincinnati.com/print/3939806/detail.html?use=print

So, where is your outrage about the elections in Ukraine?

james g. keegan jr. <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

Libertarian Michael Badnarik and the Green Party's David Cobb said
last week that they had raised more than $150,000 to cover the state's
fee for a recount. Ohio law requires payment of $10 per precinct, or
$113,600 statewide, but election officials say the true expense would
be far greater.

"It's going to crush county governments," Cunningham said.

Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, has
estimated the actual cost at $1.5 million.

Well gee, why bother with the expense of having elections at all?
Why not just have these bureaucrats decide who will be the next
president?

james g. keegan jr. <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

Libertarian Michael Badnarik and the Green Party's David Cobb said last
week that they had raised more than $150,000 to cover the state's fee for a
recount. Ohio law requires payment of $10 per precinct, or $113,600
statewide, but election officials say the true expense would be far
greater.

"It's going to crush county governments," Cunningham said.

Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, has
estimated the actual cost at $1.5 million.

Well gee, why bother with the expense of having elections at all?