Since RFK, Jr.'s Rolling Stone article on the Ohio '04 fiasco, I've tried to parse out the reaction, and it's pretty mixed. Surprisingly mixed.
Still no mention whatsoever on dailykos or even atrios that I've been able to find. Crooksandliars gave it a grudging glance through this frustrating video of RFK, Jr., debating Terry Holt, who could do no better than to rag on voter fraud and all those Mickey Mouse registrations. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me just why that's a problem, even if Mickey actually tried to vote.
Digby also puts a jaundiced eye to the RFK piece, but be sure to check out the comments, which offer a number of very interesting perspectives on several of the issues.
Far more gratifying, though, is this review by MyDD, and certainly this take by Thom Hartmann is outstanding, as ever, especially when he lampoons the naysayiing "liberal" bloggers.
Really, one would think that, at least on liberal blogs, RFK's exposure of the disaster that was our election would be more championed than we find. But then I'd forgotten the cynical dismissal from the likes of Markos at dailykos right after the fact.
One very unsurprising response came from Farhad Manjoo over at Salon. He posted "liberally" (excuse me while I get my tongue out of my cheek here) about the Ohio mess right after Kerry conceded, and at no point did he really make good comprehensive sense. Oh, on one or two finely detailed points, he offered an angle worth considering, but nothing at all convincing. He tended to quote only one side of the fence on most issues, and made it perfectly clear he'd made his mind up well before he reviewed all the data. So every time something new would come out, there he'd be, pouncing on it with all fours without so much as a sideways glance.
I tangled with Manjoo during that time, via email. To his credit, he did respond. Have to say, that was one of the more puzzling and frustrating exchanges of my life. A lot like trying to talk to a signpost. I finally suggested to Brad Friedman that he have Manjoo on his show to debate the finer points of '04 election scandals. But alas, Manjoo declined. If memory serves, he told Brad he didn't really feel he was the best expert on the topic. And yet, he'll write about it as if he is. Whatever.
In any case, Manjoo wasted no time in responding to RFK, Jr., and they had a round of it on Salon. I confess, I have not been able to bring myself to scrutinize their back and forth, which is unusual for me. Must be my science and philosophy training, as I normally enjoy following an argument to find its weak point and unraveling it.
But with Manjoo, there is just so much wrong with his entire approach that it's like trying to read a review of cognitive neuroscience written by a plumber. He might be able to wave a lot of words around and put them in the correct order, but he so thoroughly misses the big picture that few of the details can be meaningfully placed anywhere.
That may be harsh. He sure goes after as many details as he possibly can, seemingly attempting to trash the very notion of any misdeeds, all the while claiming to be nonetheless suspicious of a couple of problems. And he takes the position that fraud requires widespread conspiracy, which is just utter nonsense. Can he really believe that the suppression of the black vote until the sixties was a widespread conspiracy, that someone was pulling the strings and they had meetings every Tuesday to discuss strategy? What utter foolishness! All this kind of election fraud requires is a common mindset. Just as deep racism did it a century ago, the pervasive and highly enabled and rewarded notion that the ends justify the means drives it today, along with the simple motivation lower on the food chain of keeping one's job. Oh, and not to mention the Dominionist and criminal background of more than one voting machine companies.
In any case, I just emailed Manjoo, again. Here is the text of interest:
You leave me with two nagging questions.Will let you all know if he responds this time.
One, given the rampant and pervasive corruption throughout the Republican party, across the entire country, including now two convictions for election tampering in NH from 2002, what exactly is it about this party and this administration that leads you to trust that they would leave elections to the voters and not extend their corruption to that realm, now clearly so vulnerable and easy to manipulate? Really; what is it about the current Republican party and their behavior regarding elections that gives you such faith that they would manage elections honorably?
And two, given that you obviously do not believe that Republicans are at the very least promoting a muscular campaign to do everything in their power to manipulate elections in their favor, just how is it you explain the numerous incidents that you so summarily dismiss in RFK’s article? I mean, one or two of those incidents, explained away, and well ok, maybe not enough for concern. But for chrissake, the incidents and claims are voluminous, and they keep growing, from disenfranchisement to poll rigging to intimidation to machine manipulation to shutting down the count and rigging the recount to (now convictions for) phone jamming..... Just how is it you explain ALL these incidents converging for the past six years in ways that stack elections in favor of Republicans? Especially in light of question number one? What precisely IS your version of reality that can account for such a monumental and miraculous abundance of coincidence?
Meanwhile, RFK, Jr., is scheduled to be on The Colbert Report next Monday night. Don't miss it!
UPDATE: A couple of things that have been brought to my attention that need to be front and center here. First of all, how could I have overlooked the seminal contributions of Mark Crispin Miller? Clearly, it was late and my weeny brain was fried. Here is his piece from last fall that was in Harper's, and here is his website where he has numerous articles reflecting on the RFK, Jr., piece, so scroll down; loads of stuff.
And of course, there is the remarkable work by the indefatigable Bob Fitrakis at FreePress, in Ohio on the front line. Here again, the site is teeming with articles, so look around, if you haven't visited before.
Also, how could I have forgotten to reference the scathing editorial in the NYTimes focusing on the threat of coming voting rights violations in Ohio, and essentially skewering Blackwell? Very encouraging stuff, and dare we note the timing after the Rolling Stone piece?
Finally, RFK,Jr., has announced through Thom Hartmann that he invites all listeners to alert him and his law partner, Mike Papantonio, to any questionable election activities, as they plan to prosecute these cases. Where is the ACLU on this? I know they're looking into supporting the League of Women Voters' lawsuit in Florida, and hopefully in Ohio. Dare we pressure the DNC to take up this banner? Would that invite accusations of partisan mudslinging?
Sigh, again. We are dealing with the mob here, folks; lots of no win options we'll be facing because they set it up that way. Catch-22.
So I guess I would say at this juncture that perhaps we should remain exceedingly grateful to RFK, Jr., and the Rolling Stone for their courage here in getting this issue on the front burner. And then we need to hold everyone's feet to the fire from now till kingdom come, certainly through this November. Use this moment to build momentum, without expectation of an instant miracle. Whatever flaws that article may have, they are small and slight, certainly not undermining of the essential points, and it provides a dense and well-organized survey of the biggest problems that occurred in one state, and that likely happened to some degree or other all over the country. Pick up a copy and share it with friends who may still be vague on the concept.
And for the love of our rights, we need to do what we can to get the attention of those within our own ranks who have for some unfathomable reason shoved this into the freezer. That means you, Markos! And you, DLC operatives!!
9 comments:
re DKos - are you kidding??? There were a number of diaries over quite a few days, a few of which hit the recommended listing, with enormous numbers of commentary.
Mark cripin miller blogspot has some interesting back and forth too.
Anon you are right re DKos but there was not even a whimper from Kos himself.
"Moo-Juice," as my ladyfriend calls him, has staked out an interesting position. He keeps writing on voter fraud, but when it comes time for the old mano-a-mano confrontation, he backs away, claiming to be less than expert.
That said, I am disappointed in RFK. The attacks followed a pattern I could and in fact DID predict. The right wing propagandists went after the alleged JFK vote theft in 1963, even though this "crime" was actually mythical.
And they kept making reference to the putative epidemic of faked registrations -- another myth. (This latter-day fable was used as justification for the voter intimidation and suppression in Ohio in 2004.) The accusations stemmed from certain claims made by a crook who wormed his way into a voter registration group called ACORN. These claims were later proved false. The guy who made them may have been paid to prevaricate.
The bad guys "worked" the Abramoff thing in exactly the same way. They kept repeating the canard that Dems took jack from Jack, even though none did.
Why am I disappointed in RFK? Because he should have been prepared. And he should have shouted -- I mean SHOUTED -- "That's a damned lie!"
joe, why do you blame rfk,jr?
first of all, shouting does not appear to be his style, for at least the reason that his voice is impaired. mercy, please. second, i don't think it is his personality, either. and more power to him. i'm shamefully prone to lapse into raising my voice to get my point across, but i'm always embarrassed after. this does not get the ear of those who'll listen.
and then there is the way of the media. this is my same response when folks want to blame kerry for his 'poor' campaign. to be sure, kerry did not play by their rules, but by god, more power to him. he maintained his integrity and his civility. these are simply things i am not willing to sacrifice in the name of winning. both he and rfk are of course to expect being slimed by the right. hell, we all should be ready for this. but for cryin' out loud, the rightwing media so thoroughly stacks the deck, i would defy any of us to be able to pull off a strong appearance on those shows. they're ambushes. even when someone makes a good point, the focus is immediately shifted.
let's be real about what we're up against here. it's all fine and good to claim what we would expect to face, but quite another to be in those shoes. i'm not at all convinced shouting would have made the best impression. the right quickly makes shouters - only from the left, of course - out to be crackpots.
so we really can't win with this setup, so what's the use of being upset with those with the names and cahunas to step up to the front line? we really have to start eating our own here. why not call it like it is, and recognize that had jesus christ himself written that piece, he would not have been given a voice? this really is the way it is.
not to say that there aren't plenty of dems, particularly dlc, who have ignored this mess since fall 2000. THAT is a legit complaint. but rfk hardly fits that description.
i'll update to reflect the miller blog on all this (duh! how did i miss him??), and the latest nytimes editorial on ohio yesterday.
and finally, thanks lasky, for noting that, despite plenty of diaries on kos, markos himself ignores the issue. but only after trashing the whole notion of a stolen election. again, eating our own.
who needs enemies with friends like that?
Okay, it was embarrassingly rude for e to use the word "shout" in the case of RFK Jr. I didn't mean literally. I meant he should have spoken forcefully.
My point is simple. He appeared in enemy territory. If the exact nature of the enemy attack was predictable to me, it should have ben predictable to him. He should have had a response planned. That response should have been forceful and memorable.
There should have been strategy sessions: "When they talk about 1960, here is what you say." "When they bring up those phoney claims of fake registrations, here is what you say."
Instead, we got the deer-in-headlights reaction. It's so bloody frustrating. Why do Dems get plouwed under by these utterly foreseeable attacks EVERY damn time when a little advance planning -- and some very forceful wording -- could turn the attacks back?
joe, actually i should not have spoken so forcefully about the shouting; of course i knew you did not mean it literally.
and you are right. even i know enough to prep for public presentations, listing predictable questions and points so i can establish the most succinct and pithy, even catchy responses. so far from the appearances i've seen, kennedy did not have such a bag of tricks prepared.
still, let's give this some time. he's a smart man, and with the nytimes editorial, as well as the fact that many primaries will be happening between now and november, perhaps we can hope that the story will be revisited repeatedly over the next few months. and hopefully he'll be better prepared.
What has disappointed me so desperately is Keith Olberman not offering even so much as a comment on the RFK article. I had thought he would be the only one to give the whole thing a fair shake-instead, nothing. I e-mailed him,but never got a reply.
Crap.
It is alarming so few are taking this serious. It has been proven Diebold's machines are easily hacked into. The security standards for Diebold's machines are so weak or actually nonexistent is an invitation to switch memory cards. It only takes one or two people to change election results. Even the election officials take machines home without supervision or security measures for up to two weeks at a time.
"Harri Hurtsi, proved Diebold - one of the three major companies which supplies computerized voting machines to almost every county in the USA - had no safeguards against election fraud in their "vote-counting" computers." He easily hacked into the machines which have virtually NO safeguards. Others have demonstrated just how easily the votes can be altered.
The most disturbing thing about this: while the machines are easily hacked there is no way to prove it.
"Ion Sancho, Leon County's Supervisor of Elections, tested the Diebold system and allowed experts to manipulate the card electronically, he could change the outcome of a mock election without leaving any kind of trail. In other words, someone could fix an election and no one would know. "The expert that we used simply programmed it on his laptop in his hotel room," Sancho said."
Why is it so difficult for Diebold to build voting machines with paper receipts! They make ATM's...
Have you ever found discrepancies in your banking statements for a credit card purchase? checking and savings account statements? mortgage statements? What about receipts for items paid for with cash? Or an ATM receipt? Without a receipt for withdrawing cash from you account how could you prove you took only $100.00 dollars out instead of $500.00. How would you even know if the bank had incorrectly subtracted that amount out unless you received a bank statement? So why then would we not question whether our votes are counted accurately! People make mistakes, computers make mistakes -- sometimes people manipulate machines to make mistakes or make certain changes ...
Theretofore by looking at this in a logical way it's not that conspiratorial of an idea to suspect or question whether our votes are counted accurately. Nor is it that out of the realm of mainstream thinking that the elections could be and can be stolen when the facts are known! Without any sort of a paper trail receipt how can be there be an accurate re-count if necessary. Is it too much to ask that our voting machines have security standards built in as well.
Until then, no election will safe from fraud and doubts will linger about whether the "winning" candidate really won.
Post a Comment