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.