Bev Harris

This post is not easy to write.

Internecine conflicts have split the community of individuals looking into the vote fraud controversy. In previous posts, I've called for greater cooperation, and I've offered apologies for any occasion on which I lacked generosity of spirit.

Alas, the time has come to reconsider the work of Bev Harris and her organization, Black Box Voting.

Her tiff with Randi Rhodes did not strike me as worthy of discussion -- both women seem to possess the kinds of personalities that make conflict inevitable. Rhodes became angered -- on the air, no less -- because Harris did not answer messages left on her machine. Perhaps Randi should have just interviewed the machine? Considering the way she talks (and talks), her listeners would never have known the difference.

Even so, we must face the fact that Bev Harris has established a pattern. Search the net and you will find many anecdotal reports indicating that this woman simply cannot work with other people.

Is that a sin? No.

Frankly, much the same could be said of yours truly. That's why I now run a blog, having learned (the hard way) to avoid all groups, nonprofits, cliques, subcultures, etc. After reaching a certain age, people should understand how to work within the limits of their personalities.

Bev Harris' dismissive comments directed toward the Democratic Underground boards were puerile and unbecoming. Her "sour grapes" attitude reflected badly on her.

And her recent "blame the victim" stance toward Kerry raises much ire:

I hear the angst in America, from people who know this election was not trustworthy. I do believe that the person most responsible for failure to get an accountable election is John Kerry himself.

Yeah. Right. And Poland invaded Germany.

Kerry, in my view, has played such cards as he holds wisely. His critics are the sort of people who are never happy unless a Democrat commits political suicide.

Now, Bev Harris certainly has every right to express her anger at those who have made evidence-free suggestions that she profits from her work. (And even if she did profit from a movie or a book, so what?) To this degree, she retains my sympathies.

And if Harris uncovers further evidence of vote-rigging in Florida, hosanna and hallelujah.

But I am starting to worry.

She has recently taken to making vague remarks about Democratic wrongdoing. At the same time, she refuses to divulge the evidence she once claimed to possess demonstrating Republican wrongdoing.

We still have not seen copies of the "original" poll tapes which reportedly show conflicts with the copies Florida officials tried to palm off on her. The discrepancies, we were told, showed clear evidence of alteration in Bush's favor.

Why hasn't this evidence showed up on the internet? Harris refuses to offer specifics. She claims that secrecy is necessary because the investigation is ongoing. If it "ongoes" beyond the Bush inauguration, what is the point?

In a Democratic Underground forum, a poster said: "In any case, all she has to do is produce copies of the tapes."

Bev Harris replied:

"OK. Please go ask Greg Palast to produce all his investigative material during the middle of his investigations. See what HE says."

If Greg Palast possessed hard evidence that poll tapes were faked to benefit Bush, and if he refused to reveal this evidence until after the inauguration, I wouldn't care about anything he had to say. Frankly, I'd be tempted to reach for my trusty tire iron, which I would use to make the guy eat his own teeth.

My imagination is as elastic as the next fellow's. For the past half-hour, I've been trying to imagine a scenario in which keeping such important evidence under wraps might actually help the cause of democracy.

Imagination fails. I can't think of any such scenario. Can you?