The Democrats stole two Senate seats--and still it wasn't enough ~ WSJ.

The Wall Street Journal. editorial page ^ | November 14, 2002 | The Wall Street Journal. Editorial Board

[Elle Bee]

It's not enough for John Thune to just talk about "unethical" voting practices.

Republican John Thune threw in the towel on his South Dakota Senate race yesterday, notwithstanding the suspicious circumstances under which he lost by a mere 524 votes. We think that at a minimum he owed his many supporters a recount.

[mj1234]

Sheeeeple people--the repubs are stuck--they have tried several
times to tightening voter registration....no luck, I know a
Demonrat who MOVES voters from district to district to vote
NO LAW AGAINST THAT! I know someone who voted who showed a
gas/electric invoice and stated she was the one living at that address!! NO LAW AGAINST THAT! away at college? vote there
and in original place of residence--NO CHECKING who cares?
Until an OUTRAGEOUS fraud is caught nothing will change--that
is my hope that this election South Dakota will prevail--and
catch Dozens of fraud voters--THE RATS are Scurrying-can they
hide quick enough?

[Elle Bee]

The fact is that a recount will simply recount the fraudulent votes. We need to find fraud. If it can be proven that Johnson knew about it, he can be unseated. Otherwise, I'd be perfectly happy to see some SD Democrats in jail for this.

I quite agree

The current figures are a sufficent boilerplate for the investigation of this fraud

I don't trust the FBI

.

[Francohio]

Many contributors to this site do not really believe that massive voter fraud exists in, among other places, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and above all, California. Other contributors to this site maintain (thanks to Rush Limbaugh, apparently) that, "High Republican Turnout is the Best Answer to Fraud."

That is statistical nonense. One answer is enforcing Federal and State Law. The Democrats (Brazile, Carville, Daly, Rendell)have as much as PUBLICLY stated. "Get us close, we'll steal the rest." 2-3%? No problem.

Thune's race was, IMHO, the best possible place to start the long and arduous fight that lies ahead. That's because it is a small state and a thorough check of the rolls would be easier than in say, California, with its 40 Million people.

I don't know the legalities of his stance. I do know his vacuous and cowardly statements have sent a message of despair to many Republicans who are concerned about this issue. I also know that his wimpery will only serve to embolden the Democrats to arrange more, and ever more sophisticated fraud in the future.

I can't believe the Party that sent 300,000 men to their deaths to preserve the Union and which freed the slaves, has sunk to this low level of timidity.

[Elle Bee]

I agree

if it's only about winning (next time) then there is nothing worth winning

.

[captnorb]

Thune will have clean hands as the investigations turn up irregularities. The Attorney Generals office will pursue wrongdoing and seek convictions for felonious crimes. Thune stays away at a distance ready to run in 2004. Thune has class.

My 2 cents.

[Alaska007]

Mr. Thune is doing the right thing, and I still feel he won his senate race. The probem is though we have had election reform supposidly, there appears to be election fraud abound. The republicans had better utilize their new found power in all houses and come up with election reform that addresses fraud within our election process. The demoncrates know the only way they can have an edge on the political process is through fraud!

[Flint]

I just don't understand why Mr. Thune and the GOP are so passive on the SD election results.

Well, consider this. (1.)Tom Daschle is going to have to run for office again in the near future. (2.)The only way to beat an incumbent is to have some one with big name recognition in through out the state. (3.)What name is most likely to be remebered by the voters? (4.)Do you want the voters to remember a gentleman or to remember a guy that started a loosing pissing contest?

There are much bigger fish to be caught than the current Senate seat, since the Repubs have a small majority anyway.

Just be a little patient here and you'll be grinning from ear to ear in a couple of years.

[San Jacinto]

In a recount, all you are doing is recounting the fraudulaent votes.

I was waiting for someone to say that. You could count the votes a hundred time and probably get very little variance.

If the DOJ investigators turn up irrefutable evidence of significant voter fraud, there may be a legal remedy. Admittedly, it is a long shot, and the fraud would have to be discovered very quickly now to have any chance, but there is probably little to be gained from just having a recount of the same votes over again.

[G Larry]

Well the FBI is OBLIGATED to investigate this voter fraud.

What happens when the FBI finds sufficient fraud to overturn the results?

[Mmmike]

Is there a Daschle Body Count that Mr. Thune has to fear? :-)

[hchutch]

But a lot of Americans, including people in SD, have a high opinion of the FBI.

If it gets to the point where there is a fight over unseating Johnson because vote fraud altered the totals in Johnson's favor by a wide enough margin, we need to make sure that people will trust the informationb on the party -line vote that might likely occur.

Who would the average people (I am talking about folks who hardly pay attention to politics until the last two weeks before an election) believe? The RNC, the DNC, or the FBI?

The FBI is believable to the vast majority of the people because they clearly do no thave a dog in the fight - Thune does, and he'd be painted as a "Sore Loserman."

[MissAmericanPie]

Well said.

[Nogbad]

In a recount, all you are doing is recounting the fraudulaent votes.

This is not exactly true.
In a recount the number of fraudulent votes may increase.
This is what happened in the first Florida recount
where the number of Democrat votes increased significantly
in every county except 2.
Statistically such a result was impossibe if there was no fraud.

[Miss Marple]

The DOJ is NOT Thune. A recount questions the accuracy of the grandmas who count, and who would have to do it all over again. An investigation targets the perpetrators of fraud (not the grandmas who simply did the counting).

These are two separate things. Investigation, yes. Recount, no.

[AFPhys]

Miss Marple has this right again. Patience, everyone...

There IS an ONGOING investigation here. The SD and US attorney general are working on this. The FBI has at least 30 agents working on the SD fraud. They have already produced THREE indictments.

It is NOT the place of a candidate to investigate fraud, it is LE's. Thune has done the best he can. He is almost certain to take D'assoles seat in 2004, in fact it is unlikely he will even be challenged for it. This is a minor hiatus for a good Republican, and his graceful behavior is the right thing to do for the long haul. SD Republicans will reward him for it.

One of the major reasons he lost to begin with is that over 20,000 republicans (who voted for other R candidates) voted for Johnson in an effort to maintain a "majority" senator. That dumb move backfired. They won't have that dumb excuse in '04...

[Petronski]

If the evidence this strong--and I trust the Journal--then Thune is a fool, and should NOT run for office again.

[Elle Bee]

What happens when the FBI finds sufficient fraud to overturn the results?

They hide it

.

[Miss Marple]

Correct. You can increase fraudulent votes. Since I assume the Republicians would not be manufacturing votes, all that would happen is that Johnson would have a chance to increase his margin. NOT a good thing.

[Elle Bee]

These are two separate things. Investigation, yes. Recount, no.

Could you really have a credible investigation without begining with a forensic audit / recount?

Otherwise you're just backing into a predetermined result

In that case just call on William Webster and get a bucket of white-wash

.

[Elle Bee]

If the evidence this strong--and I trust the Journal--then Thune is a fool, and should NOT run for office again.

If he let's this lie lie .... I'm going to take his lunch money next time I'm in SD ....

.