Friday, November 04, 2005

Kerry says "I wuz robbed"

Drop everything and go directly to Democracy Now. Today, host Amy Goodman devotes much of her program to Mark Crispin Miller's new book "Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They’ll Steal the Next One Too."

Here's the jaw-dropping quote from Miller:
[Kerry] told me he now thinks the election was stolen. He says he doesn't believe he is the person that can be out in front because of the sour grapes question. But he said he believes it was stolen. He says he argues with his democratic colleagues on the hill. He said he had a fight with Christopher Dodd because he said there's questions about the voting machines and Dodd was angry.
I'm a Kerry fan -- always have been, since before most of you heard of him. But the man has little or no chance to become the Democratic nominee again. Best, I say, for him to speak his piece and say it loud. Publicize the issue of vote fraud. Screw Christopher Dodd and screw the right-wing smear artists.

And before some of you use the comments section to play the game of Let's Kick Kerry, let me give you a reminder: Traditionally, when Republicans lose, they blame the opposition; when Democrats lose, they blame their own candidates. Change that whining, self-defeating tradition and we may start winning more elections.

In another segment of the same program, Professor Miller also mixes it up with Mark Hertsgaard on the subject of vote fraud; a partial transcript of the debate is already up. I generally admire Hertsgaard, but he's all wrong in this case:
But there's a difference between something being suspicious and it definitely being the case. For example, one of the things that is constantly offered in Ohio is this idea that in Warren County that there was a supposed lockdown on election night of the building where the votes were being counted and that this was defended by a supposed terrorist threat and that the F.B.I. then denied that any such threat had been given. And there's some truth to that story, but not as much as is said in the Conyers Report. Yes, the F.B.I. denied any such terrorist threat. Yes, the county did say that originally. But it is not true that those votes were then counted in secret. Those votes were counted in front of both the Democratic and the Republican election board supervisors, as is always the case. And the only -- according to people on both sides of that, the only person who was supposedly locked out of that counting was the reporter from the Cincinnati Enquirer who later wrote the story, and rightly or wrongly, in Warren County reporters have never been allowed into the counting room.
Hertzgaard ignores the fact that this supposedly-spontaneous lockout was planned weeks in advance. The uncontested fact of deception gives us all the proof we need that sinister doings were afoot. As Peter Dale Scott used to say, cover-up obviates conspiracy.

Fortunately, Miller is far less naive:
Now, I found stuff in writing Fooled Again that the Conyers people didn't go over. I talked to some people who worked in Ohio and have documentary evidence that some 10 to 20% of all the hard line Democratic voters in their precincts just disappeared from the rolls. I have all the details in the book, but it was systematic.
We should have a dozen more books of this sort lined up on the shelves, their titles staring like inescapable accusations at anyone who wanders into any major book store. Suggestion: Call your local Barnes & Noble and ask if they have copies of Fooled Again by Mark Crispin Miller. If you hear a no, don't wait for the "I can order it for you" spiel. Just say "I'll go elsewhere" and hang up. If a store receives ten calls of that sort, the manager will know what to do.

Library copies are even more important, and the buyers for libraries do take suggestions. Call your local librarian to learn more.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

One of the best compendiums on 2004 vote fraud is in the Top Ten Censored Stories collection for 2005. The sheer number of statistical anomolies one has to concede (listed in the article) before allowing for a legitimate Bush win is fairly staggering, and beyond any reasonable probability.

The most glaring is the simplest to comprehend: exit polls were 8 million votes off -- a preposterously high margin, given the typical margin of error of under 1%. Note also that these same exit polls were accurate to a fraction of a percent in districts with hand-marked and hand-counted ballots, but off by 10% or more in Republican controlled machine districts with automated equipment.

Meanwhile, the major media dismissed anyone as a kook who pointed out that the Bush administration's faith in exit polling (in Ukraine) would indicate clear and convincing evidence of vote fraud in the U.S.

As for blaming Kerry, he was an incompetent and timorous candidate who declined to speak the truth, and his character appears to be deeply flawed, but he was still robbed. It's possible to hold both ideas --damnable John Kerry, and vote fraud -- in mind at the same time.

I hate to say it, but Al Gore seems to be the only democratic politician who is talking truth these days -- probably because he's out of the running.

Anonymous said...

Kerry's spokemen denys Kerry ever making that statement

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senator_Kerry_rebuffs_claim_he_said_1104.html



A Detroit News investigation raises serious questions about the handling of absentee ballots under Detroit City Clerk Jackie Currie as the city prepares to choose a mayor, City Council and school board Nov. 8.

Currie has been accused of irregular election practices in several lawsuits, and a review of election results, property records and databases of registered voters uncovered procedures that experts and other election officials described as questionable.

Among findings by News reporters were ballots cast by people registered to vote at abandoned and long-demolished buildings; a master voter list with 380,000 incorrect names and addresses -- including people who have died or moved out of the city; and a practice of hand-delivering ballots from senior citizens and disabled voters that were filled out in private meetings with Currie's paid election workers.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0510/30/A01-365796.htm

Anonymous said...

Funny, isn't it, how the Republican disinformation specialists (anonymous 9:16) crawl out of the woodwork whenever this subject arises?

As for the case of this lady clerk who you link to, and who's presumably a Democrat, her conduct hardly nulifies persuasive statistical evidence, exit polls and pages of documented instances of obstruction of Kerry voters by Kenneth Blackwell, the Secretary of State of Ohio.

But, according to you, the real vote fraud is being committed by Democrats and Detroit voter clerks. That explains why Democrats routinely overcome 8 point pre-election polling deficits to win by 7 points (15 point upsets), and seem to own the presidency, despite running candidates with approval ratings below 50%, and despite losing exit polls by 8 million votes.

Or is it the Republicans I'm describing? Somehow, I think so. But that can't be possible, can it? Only Democrats steal votes and only Republicans go to heaven....

Anonymous said...

Excuse me for thinking you would be interested in the fact that Kerry is denying making this statement. Perish the thought that the truth be told! As for the election fraud alledgedly going on in Detroit, is it only Republican election fraud that is suppose to concern the American people? Is that how it works? 370,000 bogus names on the voter rolls in Michigan should concern everyone.

Anonymous said...

sure wish you folks would avoid the 'anon' nomers; gets really confusing. you could use perfectly 'anonymous' misnomers, like elmer fudd or chauncy gardner. please, geez.

anyway, this deal with bringing up detroit is serious for a couple of reasons, only one being that it is after all our election process that is involved. the other is that republicans will explode this one case as if it equalizes the playing field; so completely NOT equal, which is no small point.

nevertheless, anon the first is right, in that any and all, republican and democrat, cases of election fraud need to be exposed as corrupt and then rendered no longer necessary by air-tight (as possible) legislation that returns the count to the hands of the voters, quite literally; hand counts, all the way.

of course, that would not have caught the detroit mess. such a situation as that, a situation that has been rampant since the founding of our nation, would require that each and every citizen actively participate in the democratic process, and that means beyond just voting.

republicans need to back off from defending their party, 'right or wrong', and democrats need to take care that such tactics as alleged of this detroit woman are not simply excused. i can easily imagine that she had a strong sense of righteousness associated with her actions (all those incarcerated black men who cannot vote to reject those who imprison them, just one example), in addition to her personal greed. but this would place her in the same camp as the republicans who justify the supremes' 2000 decision (including the five openly biased and undemocratic justices who did the dirty deed), and who justify stealing 02 and 04, and the war and the crimes and every little and big stupid thing that bush et al. do. ultimately it's all just part of the grand scope of human failings. too many to count, and no group or race or organization or country or gender holds the corner on the market of either good or evil. we each can only really hold ourselves accountable in the end; which makes the need for each of us to work harder to make the democratic process work all the more important.

as for kerry's comment. or now his disclaimer. reviewing the logic, it makes no sense whatsoever that mark miller would just do this for book sales or ha-has. the man has way to much integrity for that. might have kerry asked, and miller misunderstood, that the comment be kept 'on background'? that seems quite possible; think of the bind it would place kerry in. he could not publicly slam miller for that, as it would expose his true, but politically incorrect (???) feelings. so kerry is left to attack the messenger, to keep up appearances.

honestly; he evidently told edwards that the reason his handlers said to bail on the election so quickly was to avoid looking like a sore loser. he (may or may not have) said that the reason he could not lead the dispute of the 04 outcome was he'd look like sour grapes. now, by my presumptions, he may be avoiding coming clean in order to avoid looking like a radical in a tin foil hat. talk about an image problem.

much as i have admired so much of what kerry has stood for and actually done in his life (and this is no small opinion; for starters, he has represented me so well as my senator, along with kennedy, that i hardly have to think about how they vote on most issues, they've so rarely let me down), his tendency since deciding to run for prez to defer to 'handlers' has just ruined his image. that image is not the man, but in this case it's hard to know if it really makes any difference.

still, say whatever ill you will about kerry, i cannot imagine anyone would argue that his presidency would have landed us anywhere near where we are now on virtually any dimension of life, including iraq. that is simply a no-brainer (which is unfortunately what we do have in the white house).

Anonymous said...

Someone or other -- apparently a Republican lurker on this site - writes:

"Excuse me for thinking you would be interested in the fact that Kerry is denying making this statement. Perish the thought that the truth be told! As for the election fraud alledgedly going on in Detroit, is it only Republican election fraud that is suppose to concern the American people? Is that how it works? 370,000 bogus names on the voter rolls in Michigan should concern everyone."

First of all, I don't give a damn what Kerry says about the election. He doesn't own the electorate or the democratic process. The evidence stands, whatever he may say about it. Besides, wasn't he vilified by BushCO for being a liar and a flip-flopper? Why do you trust him now, but not before?

As for 370,000 "bogus" voters, that's your claim, I wouldn't know whether it's right or wrong, and you provide no evidence for it. But I can tell you this: whatever vote fraud is occurring in Detroit has zero impact on national politics and the course of destiny.

The same cannot be said of Duyba's two stolen elections. If there were true rule of law in this country, the whole lot of them would be in prison now, and on offenses ranging from war crimes to theft.

Anonymous said...

Judge finds Currie violated injunction, appoints receiver on absentee ballot operations


By David Josar and Lisa M. Collins / The Detroit News

Follow the links friend, not my claims, but the claims of the Detroit News, who conducted the investigation. As for Kerry spokesmen denying the comments attributed to Kerry , it goes to the credibility of Mark Crispin Miller.

Anonymous said...

In addition,


"But I can tell you this: whatever vote fraud is occurring in Detroit has zero impact on national politics and the course of destiny."

That has to be one of the most asinine, pitiful statements I have read to date concerning voter fraud.

Anonymous said...

If the words "asinine" and "pitiful" have any applicability in this discussion, it goes to people (like you) who are trying to divert attention from massive wholesale Republican criminality by pointing to isolated instances of vote fraud perpetrated by individuals identified as Democrats, but on a scale which is laughable, compared to Republican endeavors.

We're talking here about two stolen presidential elections, and several highly questionable senate seats, currently held by Hagel, Chambliss and Coleman (all Republicans, if you didn't notice). Can your lady in Detroit even begin to compare? Or are you such a high-minded zero-tolerance fellow that all crimes are equal? I suppose, in that case, if a Democrat stole the presidency, you'd get indignant over local Republican fraud in, say, Cincinatti or Salt Lake, and urge your fellow right-wingers to focus their attentions in those backwaters and calmly accept Democratic policies unlawfully imposed on them? Or do I have it wrong, somehow?

Rest assured, gumshoe, everyone here knows what you're doing, which is the same thing the Republican disinformation crowd typically does when it descends on this blog: ignores debunked claims, throws insults, and adds more disinformation which each successive post, requiring endless correctives.

In any case, take up your argument with people who have more time to waste, because I'm through with you.

Anonymous said...

A little defensive, are we? Your problem is the only truth you want to see or consider is your own truth. If you think 380,000 bogus voters on the rolls in Michigan cannot affect a national election, you are deluding yourself. Kerry won Michigan by less then 170,000 votes.What is John Conyers doing in Ohio? Perhaps he needs to clean up his own house.

Anonymous said...

Hey gumshoe,

If you have proof Kerry stole 370,000 votes in Michigan, I suggest you go the authorities with your evidence, as Dubya probably has an open ambassadorship he could gve you in return. Or how about head of FEMA? George & the Boy Genius have a lot of use for people who can come up with 370,000 phantoms. (On a more serious note, I for one don't know where the figure comes from, or what it's real significance is supposed to be. Maybe repeating it over and over again makes it true and/or significant in ways you intend?).

In the meantime, if you really want to stamp out election fraud, how about this: we appoint two special prosecutors, one Republican (say, someone like Patrick Fitzergald) and one Democrat with broad subpoena and investigative powers, to examine *all* accusations of fraud in the 2004 election, including your lady in Detroit and her 370,000 purloined votes (according to you).

If you can get a single prominent Bush Republican behind this effort -- and why not, in the face of 370,000 votes stolen from defenseless Republicans? -- you will have achieved what at least half the U.S. population failed to get (a decent accounting of what happened in 2004).

If not, go shit on some other blog.