First of all, no one has mentioned that your Rolling Stone article is written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. If you were presented with an essay by Jerry Brown entitled "Why Oakland has become a better and more wonderful place to live recently" , would you think that is an unbiased analysis? Come on.

But I'm not the type to villify the messenger and not the message.... unlike how Mr. Kennedy does in his own article. I'll tell you what, here is another example of his article's mischaracterizations.

His section "V. ''The Wrong Pew'' talks extensively about voters being denied provisional ballots by the Ohio Sec of State, thus manipulating the outcome. What Kennedy doesn't tell you is that provisional ballots are not counted in elections.

Provisional ballots are for people who are ineligible to cast a real ballot. It is a result of the HAVA bill Congress passed after the 2000 election to make a uniform nationwide process of rejecting voters who for whatever reason cannot vote. Once again, this guy is mischaracterizing something into something sinister. I repeat provisional ballots are not counted
so even if they issued thousands of them, they would not have been counted.

(Interestingly, Kennedy upholds the HAVA bill here, but I wonder if he feels the same way about it's requirement that all voting to be conducted on electronic voting machines)

This is a precise example of mischaracterizing what happened and twisting it.
Just like how people twist and mischaracterize our businesses for their own purposes.

I've now specifically rebutted two points of why there was not enough voter fraud in Ohio to change the outcome. But remember, this is a conspiracy theory, so no amount of intellectual ammunition will take down this article of faith.

Steve