Sunday, November 06, 2005

Follow up on Kerry and Mark Crispin Miller

Computer problems (again!) kept me away from posting yesterday. I was thus prevented from discussing the controversy that arose from Kerry's alleged I-wuz-robbed statement to Mark Crispin Miller, author of Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They’ll Steal the Next One Too.

Before proceeding, a full quote from Miller might help:
Kerry's statement was not planned. He did not expect to see me. His sister, Peggy Kerry, purposely invited me to that fundraiser so that I could hand the senator a copy of my book. (She too understands the urgency of getting the top Democrats to push the issue of electoral reform.)

So I spoke briefly with him just as he arrived, and handed him the book, saying, "You were robbed, Senator." He said, "I know!" with a clear gesture of extreme frustration, and then said that he can't get any of his colleagues on the Hill to face the issue. Said that he had lately had an argument about it with Chris Dodd, who didn't want to hear about it. Kerry tried to tell him about all the problems with the electronic touch-screen machines, but Dodd refused to listen, saying that he had looked into it, and that "there's nothing there." (In bringing the subject up with Dodd, Kerry was not influenced by the GAO report, which he didn't even know about until I mentioned it to him. Indeed, he seemed mightily impressed that the GAO had come out with a strong report.)

I urged him to spearhead a major senatorial investigation into what went down last year, in the spirit of his best work in that chamber, when he led inquiries into Iran/contra and BCCI. He said that, given his position, he doubts that he can be the one to go out front about the issue, because of the "sour grapes" factor. I appreciate his dilemma, but still think that he must embrace the issue of electoral reform, for the country's sake. (I also think that it would be the only way in which he might redeem himself for his deplorable concession just a year ago.)

Believe me, I understand, and share, your feelings of impatience at the senator's long silence (which, again, he certainly would not have broken if I hadn't happened to bump into him). But if he'll champion the issue of electoral reform, we stand to gain much more than we can get from merely cursing him for his timidity. I therefore would advise you all to shower him with strong encouragement ASAP.
A denial later came -- not from Kerry himself, but from a spokesperson named Jenny Backus:
I know Mr. Miller is trying to sell his book and he feels passionately about his thesis but his recent statements about his conversation with Senator Kerry are simply not true. The only thing true about his recollection of the conversation is that he gave Senator Kerry a copy of his book.
Miller called this rebuff "contemptible."

Nearly anyone who has ever tried to do investigative writing of any sort can understand his reaction. I have (on a much less rarified level) encountered individuals who denied saying things that I know damn well they said. The feeling is infuriating.

Kerry has, in the past, made statements which came thisclose to an endorsement of the vote fraud thesis. In an AP story from last April 10, we read:
Many voters in last year's presidential election were denied access to the polls through trickery and intimidation, former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told a voters' group Sunday.

"Last year too many people were denied their right to vote, too many who tried to vote were intimidated," the Massachusetts senator said at an event sponsored by the state League of Women Voters.

"There is no magic wand. No one person is going to stand up and suddenly say it's going to change tomorrow. You have to do that," he said.

Kerry supporters have charged that voting irregularities in largely Democratic areas made it difficult for voters to cast ballots in the November election. A lawsuit in Ohio cited long lines and a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority neighborhoods, but the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the suit.

Kerry also cited examples Sunday of how people were duped into not voting.

"Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote," he said.
What makes me truly angry is Backus' insinuation that Miller lied to promote a book. Such insinuations can be (and often are) leveled against any writer who writes any book for any reason. If lucre motivated Mark Crispin Miller, he would have devoted his energies to another enterprise.

A lazy accusation of this sort would carry no weight if the general public didn't have such inane ideas regarding the amount of money authors fetch. Very often, researching and writing a non-fiction book will require a year or two (or more), even though many titles sell fewer than 5,000 copies. The author may consider himself lucky if he sees one or two dollars for every copy sold. On a per-hour basis, people do much better working for Wal-Mart.

So how do I interpret these contradictory accounts?

Miller no doubt reported Kerry's words accurately. And Kerry no doubt regretted saying what he said the moment he visualized the words appearing in print. Kerry thus finds himself in the position of the Kennedy family after 1963 -- denying a conspiracy theory in public while endorsing one in private.

The "I take it back" reaction is thus understandable. It may even be better politics. As Bush's poll ratings sink past the toilet bowl level and enter the sewer system, why give the right any reason to switch subjects?

The rightist propagandists would love to make John Kerry the topic of debate. They would love to give him the Perot treatment. "See? Aren't you glad you didn't vote for him? He's craaaa- zeee! What a wacko!"

(Yes, people who coddle Darwin-haters will call John Kerry a "wacko" if he speaks about a fraud that really did occur. Such are the exasperating times we live in.)

I can understand the thinking in the Kerry camp. But is that strategy correct?

If trickling doubts about Bush have already given way to a damburst of antipathy, then the public will no longer categorize all talk of 2004 vote fraud as "unthinkable." Perhaps, though, that dam has not yet truly buckled. Perhaps if Bush's approval rating sinks further (35%? 30%? 25%?), anyone will be able to say anything about the man without fear.

Still, one can argue that the wisest course right now would be to emulate Republican tactics during the Clinton era. Within the G.O.P., the candidates for high office and the leading spokesmen for the party usually held back from endorsing the wilder accusations against Clinton. But on a slightly lower level, anything went.

Perhaps what we need most are more mid-level Democrats who will dare to use the words "vote fraud." To counter the smear-artists, these bold voices need merely point to the GAO report -- and to the shady histories of Diebold, Sequoia, Triad and ES&S. Let the top-level figures within the party hover just a few inches above the controversy.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow, Kerry has finally done a real "flip-flop" on the voter fraud issue. thanks for providing the retraction statement from his spokesman.

I believe that high visible senior Democrats such as Kerry cannot make declarations of "voter fraud" in public because this is would be construed by the public that our voting system is broken. If our voting system is wrecked by thieves who support the Republicans, then Americans will decide that voting is fruitless, that we no longer live in a democracy, that this country is essentially being run by fiat by a a handful of wealthy conservatives who own this country and won't let the rest of forget.

So Kerry is keeping up the pretext that elections are still legal and binding, that democracy still "works" because to say "voter fraud" or "stolen election" means that we are no longer living in a free country any more. (we haven't for many decades)

On a side note, Al Franken spoke last night to a packed audience in Berkeley on his tour to promote his new book "The Truth", and he revealed during a question and answer session that he doesn't believe that last year's presidential election was stolen. He says that there were problems caused by the secretary of state Ken Blackwell being compromised by his role with re-electing Bush in Ohio. Whoever controls the voting mechanics, i.e. Blackwell, can help influence the outcome by not providing enough voting machines, tossing out voter registrations, etc.

But Al said that he doesn't believe that the voting machines were tampered with and that the outcome was the result of a stolen election.

I was disappointed and thought that by now Al would come to realize that last year's loss in Ohio wasn't just the result of what he called "garden variety" Republican dirty tricks to disenfranchise minority and democrat registered voters but also the result of tampering with the voting machines (optical scanners/voting tabulator). Especially with all the new information that evidence/analysis that shows the exit polls were accurate and showed evidence of vote tampering.

go to Kathy Dobbs' website, http://www.uscountvotes.org , for the latest on updates and analysis regarding voter fraud, tampering, exit polls.

Keep up the good work Joseph!

On another side note, Al said it was a good thing Rove hasn't gotten indicted because with Bush's approval ratings having sunk to 35%, keeping Rove around continues to make Bush look bad and is doing great things to keep his approval ratings low and lower.

Anonymous said...

Don't take your cues from Al Franken. He's not well informed, on this or any other question of public policy. Listening to him on the radio can be painful.

His liberalism is more attitude than anything else. Twenty years ago, anyone holding his view would have been deemed a centrist.

Attacking Bill O'Reilly is grand, doesn't make him a hero, a scholar or a messiah.

Anonymous said...

may i again BEG everyone to make the effort to id yourselves beyond anon? it's worse than trying to converse with ghosts. anything will do, rin tin tin, chewbacca, tinkerbell. use your imaginations, for chrissake; just give us something specific to respond to.

that said, anon the latter, i agree about al franken. though i was excited about airamericaradio at first, i quickly tired of al's silliness, and at times his crude misunderstandings of the subtleties. and sometimes he was just plain rude and undiplomatic; if he's planning to run for office, he needs to be less like o'reilly than he's been.

but then, soon after he moved back to MN, i noticed that he'd become almost disgustingly centrist and spineless. so sad, so manipulative, and so dishonest.

never forget, he originally backed the invasion of iraq.

as for kerry, what a kennedy-like pickle he is in, as joe pointed out. i'm content to trust that he'll do what he can behind the scenes, and again press my point that each citizen needs to do more than just vote to correct the problems. sometimes those in the lead are hamstrung by their very positions, and democracy is, let us not forget, by its very nature OF THE PEOPLE.

in my opinion, kerry's campaign was doomed from the beginning, not so much by his handlers (though they did do some really stupid stuff), but just by the fact that cheney and rove are not going to give up power, period, no matter what evil it takes to keep it. it's just rove's way to slime his way to the top and stay there, and cheney's way to ok any means to justify the ends.

their level of corruption cannot sustain itself forever; it's so destructive, it will ultimately be the victim of its own power. meanwhile, i have often been openly grateful that kerry did not win, simply because if he had, these thugs would have 'gracefully' (as much as they are able) stepped aside, only to slime their way back to the top another day. much of their insanity would have gone unnoticed, undisclosed, and unexposed. their 04 'win'/steal gave them the opportunity to continue doing their evil deeds (and us the opportunity to view it), which as i said, will ultimately be their undoing.

but only as long as we citizens do more than just vote to keep our democracy.

Joy Tomme said...

I don't want to hear at this late date from Kerry saying he was robbed. And I certainly don't want to hear from flacks that he didn't say he was robbed because they think it's better to lie than have people believe the man said what he said. I believe he said it but it's too late now.

Will the flunkies never learn? We don't hate people making stupid mistakes nearly as much as we hate lies about the stupid mistakes.

Kerry chose not to raise a stink when he should have raised a stink. I don't want to hear it now.

What I do want to hear are some good solid plans about what the Dems intend to do during the period of time the White House is cutting off its vestigial ca-jones. And then I want to hear what the Dems intend to do after the White House is finished cutting off its vestigial ca-jones.

And I would like to see someone come forward who is electable. Hillary is not electable, Biden is not electable. Edwards may be. But whoever should jump out of the trees and say, ala Isaiah, HERE AM I!

Let's get on with it!

Joy Tomme
http://ratbangdiary.blogspot.com

Joy Tomme

Joseph Cannon said...

Look, I remaina Kerry admirer. If he had indeed raised a stink when you say he should have, Bush would be more popular now. In politics, as Martin Anderson used to say, it's always a matter of "compared to what?" -- and the right-wingers would have argued, and would still be arguing, that Bush looks fine when compared the nutty conspiracy theorist who ran against him.

For the same reason, I never blamed the Kennedy family for refusing to get out in front on what really happened on November 22, 1963, although a lot of JFK researchers have always been FURIOUS at the family.

Anonymous said...

We are talking about truth here, right? Godalmighty, what's the big problem with telling the truth? Back in the old days of Islam, you were allowed to lie for only two reasons: to flatter a woman, or to save your life. Once you begin allowing other reasons to lie (and I include a deliberate withholding of truth in the lying category) you automatically allow EVERYONE to decide for themselves--just as you have--when it's okay to lie. It's just a variation on Kant's categorical imperative.

If Kerry can pick and choose when to lie, so can Bush and Libby and Rove. So can the cop who pulls you over because "your vehicle matches the description of a stolen one." So can the mechanic who replaces your shocks "because they were leaking." So can your wife when she tells you she was only "shopping with a girlriend."

As for the Kennedys keeping mum, well, it's not for nothing that people say this country has been going downhill since JFK was shot. Maybe if Jackie had spoken the truth, it would be otherwise.

Joy Tomme said...

What's funny, Joe, is that I agree with you. Back when Kerry lost the election, which was when he decided not to whine about it or say he was robbed, I was all for him making that decision. I thought then, and think now it was the right decision. What I'm saying now is that back then is when he should have whined if he was going to whine. He decided to act like a man and suck it up.

That's why I say I don't want to hear it now. Let him continue to suck it up...that was his original decision. I don't want to hear him whine now, the time for that is over. That's what I'm saying.

Joy Tomme
(http://ratbangdiary.blogspot.com)

Anonymous said...

Kerry is my senator, and I have so little use for him, I can't even be bothered to write and tell him off for this patently obvious lie. He's an elitist who resides primarily in PA as far as I can determine, and is all but invisible to his actual "constituents."

And yet, he's more informed than CT's Chris Dodd, who can't even be bothered to open his mind to the facts about proprietary vote-counting machines...(apparently largely because of Dodd's disabled wife's allegiance to a pro-Diebold voting advocacy group for the disabled?).

It is really rather breathtaking how UNINFORMED our federal officeholders are about so many topics. They have made virtually NO effort to learn about the complex case against electronic VOTE-COUNTING (it's not "voter fraud" please note). Dr. Stephen Freeman has coined an excellent phrase to describe the status quo: a "corrupted vote-count." Just ask those with closed minds whether they know or understand what happens to their "vote" after a scanner has digitally read their ballot. That is the BEGINNING of the process, not the end. It is AFTER that scanning that the (unaudited/invisible) errors and manipulation of the digitized number counting come into play. If Chris Dodd, for example, doesn't understand how the system is SUPPOSED to work, nevermind how easy tampering and inadvertent corruption is in these systems, he has no business saying he's "looked into" anything.

Yeah, the truth sure WOULD be nice to hear from a United States Senator, at least once in a while, wouldn't it... We REALLY need to get an information source established that would educate these grand poohbahs, not to mention all those Americans shut-out by the corporate-run media from all objective fact. But how??

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to agree with the request made by lll that every contributor at least consider attatching a name to his/her comments. It would make information exchange in the comments section much more effective.

Anonymous said...

As the de facto representative of tens of tens of millions of Americans, and the actual representative of every American who voted for him, I don't think the choice was Kerry's.

He had a fiduciary responsibility to raise the question of vote fraud, tally manipulation and anti-democratic tactics, whatever the consequences to him personally or the party.

Maybe the facts weren't clear at the time of his concession. But there has been plenty since, and Kerry hasn't been heard from. That the rest of his party is also silent only deepens the indictment of the Democratics as an incoherent and largely disfunctional collection of disparate interests and personal vanities. These ignorant, timorous, self-regarding fools -- Christopher Dowd being one -- are evidently content with the system as long they themselves get elected.

As for Kerry in particular, he's been remarkably quiescent on a whole host of issues, most of which wouldn't get him tarred as a "whiner". The man just doesn't have the outrage or instincts.

What ever happened to that youth who testified as a youth before Congress? God knows.

Anonymous said...

Joseph,

Here is an Excel Interactive Election Model which you and your readers can download and run.

It's a polling data warehouse and analytic engine which tells us why the pre-election and exit polls all confirm that Kerry won the election - easily.

http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/InteractiveElectionSimulation.xls

Analyze a 200 trial simulation of 2004 pre-election state and 18 national polls as well as 51 post-election state exit polls and the National Exit Poll.

See why the Final National exit poll time line which matched to a corrupted vote and had Bush a 51-48% winner (1:25pm Nov.3,2004, 13880 respondents) is bogus (the "How Voted in 2000" demographic weightings are mathematically impossible). And see why the 12:22am NEP (13047 respondents) time line is close to the truth (Kerry won by 51-48%)

A challenge to those who still believe Bush got more votes than Kerry: Play what-if. See if you can come up with just ONE plausible Bush win scenario.