Re: [A-List] None Dare Call It Stolen

["tony black" <tal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

..Fascinating article...Should be forwarded widely.

Should be complemented, however, with Lance Selfa's essay in the Jan/Feb
issue of Int'l Socialist Review entitled - at least, on the website -
www.isreview.org - 'Is the US turning to the right?'.

 An article which looks more at how Kerry and the Democrats lost the
election (vote rigging aside) through their own sheer obtuseness, arrogance,
and political expedience.

i.e. The failure of the Democrats to even bother trolling for the 40 to 45%
non-voting public comprise mostly of the young, women, and lower working
class; the undercutting of Nader, of black and working class political
organizations; and, as well, the abject failure of the US left to hold Kerry
& co. accountable to anything other than those principles espoused by the
far-right - especially those issues pertaining to the war in Iraq - and so,
in essence, abdicating the field almost totally  to right-wing ideology.

Tony


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Totten" <shimogamo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "A-List" <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 2:18 AM
Subject: [A-List] None Dare Call It Stolen


> Ohio, the election, and America's servile press
>
> By Mark Crispin Miller
>
> Harper's Magazine (August 2005)
>
> Whichever candidate you voted for (or think you voted for), or even if you
did
> not vote (or could not vote), you must admit that last year's presidential
race
> was - if nothing else - pretty interesting. True, the press has dropped
the
> subject, and the Democrats, with very few exceptions, have "moved on". Yet
this
> contest may have been the most unusual in US history; it was certainly
among
> those with the strangest outcomes. You may remember being surprised
yourself.
> The infamously factious Democrats were fiercely unified - Ralph Nader
garnered
> only about 0.38 percent of the national vote - while the Republicans were
split,
> with a vocal anti-Bush front that included anti-Clinton warrior Bob Barr
of
> Georgia; Ike's son John Eisenhower; Ronald Reagan's chairman of the Joint
Chiefs
> of Staff, William J Crowe Jr; former Air Force Chief of Staff and onetime
> "Veteran for Bush" General Merrill "Tony" McPeak; founding neo-con Francis
> Fukuyama; Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, and various large alliances
of
> military officers, diplomats, and business professors. The American
Conservative,
> co-founded by Pat Buchanan, endorsed five candidates for president,
including
> both Bush and Kerry, while the Financial Times and The Economist came out
for
> Kerry alone. At least fifty-nine daily newspapers that backed Bush in the
> previous election endorsed Kerry (or no one) in this election. The
national
> turnout in 2004 was the highest since 1968, when another unpopular war had
swept
> the ruling party from the White House. And on Election Day, twenty-six
state
> exit polls incorrectly predicted wins for Kerry, a statistical failure so
> colossal and unprecedented that the odds against its happening, according
to a
> report last May by the National Election Data Archive Project, were 16.5
million
> to 1. Yet this ever-less-beloved president, this president who had united
> liberals and conservatives and nearly all the world against himself - this
> president somehow bested his opponent by 3,000,176 votes.
>
> How did he do it? To that most important question the commentariat,
briskly
> prompted by Republicans, supplied an answer. Americans of faith - a silent
> majority heretofore unmoved by any other politician - had poured forth by
the
> millions to vote "Yes!" for Jesus' buddy in the White House. Bush's 51
percent,
> according to this thesis, were roused primarily by "family values". Tony
Perkins,
> president of the Family Research Council, called gay marriage "the hood
ornament
> on the family values wagon that carried the president to a second term".
The
> pundits eagerly pronounced their amens - "Moral values", Tucker Carlson
said on
> CNN, "drove President Bush and other Republican candidates to victory this
week"
> - although it is not clear why. The primary evidence of our Great
Awakening was
> a post-election poll by the Pew Research Center in which 27 percent of the
> respondents, when asked which issue "mattered most" to them in the
election,
> selected something called "moral values". This slight plurality of impulse
> becomes still less impressive when we note that, as the pollsters went to
great
> pains to make clear, "the relative importance of moral values depends
greatly on
> how the question is framed". In fact, when voters were asked to "name in
their
> own words the most important factor in their vote", only fourteen percent
> managed to come up with "moral values". Strangely, this detail went little
> mentioned in the post-electoral commentary. {1}
>
>
> THE PRESS HAS HAD LITTLE TO SAY ABOUT MOST OF THE STRANGE DETAILS OF THE
> ELECTION - EXCEPT, THAT IS, TO RIDICULE ALL EFFORTS TO DISCUSS THEM. YET
THE
> EVIDENCE THAT SOMETHING WENT EXTREMELY WRONG LAST FALL IS COPIOUS
>
>
> The press has had little to say about most of the strange details of the
> election - except, that is, to ridicule all efforts to discuss them. This
animus
> appeared soon after November 2, in a spate of caustic articles dismissing
any
> critical discussion of the outcome as crazed speculation: "Election
paranoia
> surfaces: Conspiracy theorists call results rigged", chuckled the
Baltimore Sun
> on November 5. "Internet Buzz on Vote Fraud Is Dismissed", proclaimed the
Boston
> Globe on November 10. "Latest Conspiracy Theory - Kerry Won - Hits the
Ether",
> the Washington Post chortled on November 11. The New York Times weighed in
with
> "Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried" - making mock
not
> only of the "post-election theorizing" but of cyberspace itself, the fons
et
> origo of all such loony tunes, according to the Times.
>
> Such was the news that most Americans received. Although the tone was
scientific,
> "realistic", skeptical, and "middle-of-the-road", the explanations offered
by
> the press were weak and immaterial. It was as if they were reporting from
inside
> a forest fire without acknowledging the fire, except to keep insisting
that
> there was no fire. {2} Since Kerry has conceded, they argued, and since
"no
> smoking gun" had come to light, there was no story to report. This is an
oddly
> passive argument. Even so, the evidence that something went extremely
wrong last
> fall is copious, and not hard to find. Much of it was noted at the time,
albeit
> by local papers and haphazardly. Concerning the decisive contest in Ohio,
the
> evidence is lucidly compiled in a single congressional report, which, for
the
> last half-year, has been available to anyone inclined to read it. It is a
> veritable arsenal of "smoking guns" - and yet its findings may be less
> extraordinary than the fact that no one in this country seems to care
about them.
>
>
> On January 5, Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking
Democrat on
> the House Judiciary Committee, released Preserving Democracy: What Went
Wrong in
> Ohio. The report was the result of a five-week investigation by the
committee's
> Democrats, who reviewed thousands of complaints of fraud, malfeasance, or
> incompetence surrounding the election in Ohio, and further thousands of
> complaints that poured in by phone and email as word of the inquiry
spread. The
> congressional researchers were assisted by volunteers in Ohio who held
public
> hearings in Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo, and Cincinnati, and questioned
more
> than two hundred witnesses. (Although they were invited, Republicans chose
not
> to join in the inquiry.) {3}
>
> Preserving Democracy describes three phases of Republican chicanery: the
run-up
> to the election, the election itself, and the post-election cover-up. The
wrongs
> exposed are not mere dirty tricks (though Bush/Cheney also went in heavily
for
> those) but specific violations of the US and Ohio constitutions, the
Voting
> Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the National Voter Registration
Act,
> and the Help America Vote Act. Although Conyers trod carefully when the
report
> came out, insisting that the crimes did not affect the outcome of the race
(a
> point he had to make, he told me, "just to get a hearing"), his report
does
> "raise grave doubts regarding whether it can be said that the Ohio
electors
> selected on December 13 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to
Ohio law,
> let alone Federal requirements and constitutional standards". The report
cites
> "massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies" throughout
the
> state - wrongs, moreover, that were hardly random accidents. "In many
cases",
> the report says, "these irregularities were caused by intentional
misconduct and
> illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J Kenneth
Blackwell,
> the cochair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio". {4}
>
> The first phase of malfeasance entailed, among many other actions, several
> months of bureaucratic hijinks aimed at disenfranchising Democrats, the
most
> spectacular result of which was "a wide discrepancy between the
availability of
> voting machines in more minority, Democratic and urban areas as compared
to more
> Republican, suburban and exurban areas". Such unequal placement had the
> predictable effect of slowing the voting process to a crawl at Democratic
polls,
> while making matters quick and easy in Bush country: a clever way to
cancel out
> the Democrats' immense success at registering new voters in Ohio. (We
cannot
> know the precise number of new voters registered in Ohio by either party
because
> many states, including Ohio, do not register voters by party affiliation.
The
> New York Times reported in September, however, that new registration rose
25
> percent in Ohio's predominantly Republican precincts and 250 percent in
Ohio's
> predominantly Democratic precincts.)
>
> At Kenyon College in Gambier, for instance, there were only two machines
for
> 1,300 would-be voters, even though "a surge of late registrations promised
a
> record vote". Gambier residents and Kenyon students had to stand in line
for
> hours, in the rain and in "crowded, narrow hallways", with some of them
> inevitably forced to call it quits. "In contrast, at nearby Mt Vernon
Nazarene
> University, which is considered more Republican leaning, there were ample
> waiting machines and no lines". This was not a consequence of limited
resources.
> In Franklin County alone, as voters stood for hours throughout Columbus
and
> elsewhere, at least 125 machines collected dust in storage. The county's
> election officials had "decided to make do with 2,866 machines, even
though the
> analysis showed that the county needs 5,000 machines".
>
> It seemed at times that Ohio's secretary of state was determined to try
every
> stunt short of levying a poll tax to suppress new voter turnout. On
September 7,
> based on an overzealous reading of an obscure state bylaw, he ordered
county
> boards of elections to reject all Ohio voter-registration forms not
"printed on
> white, uncoated paper of not less than eighty pound text weight". Under
public
> pressure he reversed the order three weeks later, by which time unknown
numbers
> of Ohioans had been disenfranchised. Blackwell also attempted to limit
access to
> provisional ballots. The Help America Vote Act - passed in 2002 to address
some
> of the problems of the 2000 election - prevents election officials from
deciding
> at the polls who will be permitted to cast provisional ballots, as earlier
Ohio
> law had permitted. On September 16, Blackwell issued a directive that
somehow
> failed to note that change. A federal judge ordered him to revise the
language,
> Blackwell resisted, and the court was forced to draft its own version of
the
> directive, which it ordered Blackwell to accept, even as it noted
Blackwell's
> "vigorous, indeed, at times, obdurate opposition" to compliance with the
law.
>
> Under Blackwell the state Republican Party tried to disenfranchise still
more
> Democratic voters through a technique known as "caging". The party sent
> registered letters to new voters, "then sought to challenge 35,000
individuals
> who refused to sign for the letters", including "voters who were homeless,
> serving abroad, or simply did not want to sign for something concerning
the
> Republican Party". It should be noted that marketers have long used zip
codes to
> tafget, with remarkable precision, the ethnic makeup of specific
neighborhoods,
> and also that, according to exit polls last year, 84 percent of those
black
> citizens who voted in Ohio voted for Kerry. {5}
>
> The second phase of lawlessness began the Monday before the election, when
> Blackwell issued two directives restricting media coverage of the
election.
> First, reporters were to be barred from the polls, because their presence
> contravened Ohio's law on "loitering" near voting places. Second, media
> representatives conducting exit polls were to remain 100 feet away from
the
> polls. Blackwell's reasoning here was that, with voter turnout estimated
at 73
> percent, and with many new voters so blissfully ignorant as to have "never
> looked at a voting machine before", his duty was clear: the public was to
be
> protected from the "interference or intimidation" caused by "intense media
> scrutiny". Both cases were at once struck down in federal court on First
> Amendment grounds.
>
> Blackwell did manage to ban reporters from a post-election ballot-counting
site
> in Warren County because - election officials claimed - the FBI had warned
of an
> impending terrorist attack there. The FBI said it issued no such warning,
> however, and the officials refused to name the agent who alerted them.
Moreover,
> as the Cincinnati Enquirer later reported, email correspondence between
election
> officials and the county's building services director indicated that
lockdown
> plans - "down to the wording of the signs that would be posted on the
locked
> doors" - had been in the works for at least a week. Beyond suggesting that
> officials had something to hide, the ban was also, according to the
report, a
> violation of Ohio law and the Fourteenth Amendment.
>
> Contrary to a prior understanding, Blackwell also kept foreign monitors
away
> from the Ohio polls. Having been formally invited by the State Department
on
> June 9, observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe,
> an international consortium based in Vienna, had come to witness and
report on
> the election. The mission's two-man teams had been approved to monitor the
> process in eleven states - but the observers in Ohio were prevented from
> watching the opening of the polling places, the counting of the ballots,
and, in
> some cases, the election itself. "We thought we could be at the polling
places
> before, during, and after" the voting, said Soren Sondergaard, a Danish
member
> of the team. Denied admission to polls in Columbus, he and his partner
went to
> Blackwell, who refused them letters of approval, again citing Ohio law
banning
> "loitering" outside the polls. The two observers therefore had to
"monitor" the
> voting at a distance of 100 feet from each polling place. Although not
> technically illegal, Blackwell's refusal was improper and, of course,
suspicious.
> (The Conyers report does not deal with this episode.)
>
> To what end would election officials risk so malodorous an action? We can
only
> guess, of course. We do know, however, that Ohio, like the nation, was the
site
> of numerous statistical anomalies - so many that the number is itself
> statistically anomalous, since every single one of them took votes from
Kerry.
> In Butler County the Democratic candidate for State Supreme Court took in
5,347
> more votes than Kerry did. In Cuyahoga County ten Cleveland precincts
"reported
> an incredibly high number of votes for third party candidates who have
> historically received only a handful of votes from these urban areas" -
mystery
> votes that would mostly otherwise have gone to Kerry. In Franklin County,
Bush
> received nearly 4,000 extra votes from one computer, and, in Miami County,
just
> over 13,000 votes appeared in Bush's column after all precincts had
reported. In
> Perry County the number of Bush votes somehow exceeded the number of
registered
> voters, leading to voter turnout rates as high as 124 percent. Youngstown,
> perhaps to make up the difference, reported negative 25 million votes.
>
> In Cuyahoga County and in Franklin County - both Democratic strongholds -
the
> arrows on the absentee ballots were not properly aligned with their
respective
> punch holes, so that countless votes were miscast, as in West Palm Beach
back in
> 2000. In Mercer County some 4,000 votes for president - representing
nearly
> seven percent of the electorate - mysteriously dropped out of the final
count.
> The machines in heavily Democratic Lucas County kept going haywire,
prompting
> the county's election director to admit that prior tests of the machines
had
> failed. One polling place in Lucas County never opened because all the
machines
> were locked up somewhere and no one had the key. In Hamilton County many
> absentee voters could not cast a Democratic vote for president because
county
> workers, in taking Ralph Nader's name off many ballots, also happened to
remove
> John Kerry's name. The Washington Post reported that in Mahoning County
"25
> electronic machines transferred an unknown number of Kerry votes to the
Bush
> column", but it did not think to ask why.
>
> Ohio Democrats also were heavily thwarted through dirty tricks recalling
Richard
> Nixon's reign and the systematic bullying of Dixie. There were "literally
> thousands upon thousands" of such incidents, the Conyers report notes,
> cataloguing only the grossest cases. Voters were told, falsely, that their
> polling place had changed; the news was conveyed by phone calls,
"door-hangers",
> and even party workers going door to door. There were phone calls and fake
> "voter bulletins" instructing Democrats that they were not to cast their
votes
> until Wednesday, November 3, the day after Election Day. Unknown
"volunteers" in
> Cleveland showed up at the homes of Democrats, kindly offering to
"deliver"
> completed absentee ballots to the election office. And at several polling
places,
> election personnel or hired goons bused in to do the job "challenged"
voters -
> black voters in particular - to produce documents confirming their
eligibility
> to vote. The report notes one especially striking incident:
>
> In Franklin County, a worker at a Holiday Inn ob served a team of 25
people who
> called themselves the "Texas Strike Force" using payphones to make
intimidating
> calls to likely voters, targeting people recently in the prison system.
The
> "Texas Strike Force" paid their way to Ohio, but their hotel
accommodations were
> paid for by the Ohio Republican Party, whose headquarters is across the
street.
> The hotel worker heard one caller threaten a likely voter with being
reported to
> the FBI and returning to jail if he voted. Another hotel worker called the
> police, who came but did nothing.
>
>
> THE WASHINGTON POST REPORTED THAT IN OHIO'S MAHONING COUNTY "25 ELECTRONIC
> MACHINES TRANSFERRED AN UNKNOWN NUMBER OF KERRY VOTES TO THE BUSH COLUMN",
BUT
> IT DID NOT THINK TO ASK WHY
>
>
> The electoral fraud continued past Election Day, but by means far more
complex
> and less apparent than the bullying that marked the day itself. Here the
aim was
> to protect the spoils, which required the prevention of countywide hand
recounts
> by any means necessary. The procedure for recounts is quite clear. In
fact, it
> was created by Blackwell. A recount having been approved, each of the
state's
> eighty-eight counties must select a number of precincts randomly, so that
the
> total of their ballots comesto three percent (at least) of the county's
total
> vote. Those ballots must then be simultaneously hand counted and machine
counted.
> If the hand count and the new machine count match, the remaining 97
percent of
> the selected ballots may be counted by machine. If, however, the totals
vary by
> as little as a single vote, all the other votes must be hand counted, and
the
> results, once reconfirmed, must be accepted as the new official total.
>
> The Ohio recount officially started on December 13 - five days after
Conyers's
> hearings opened - and was scheduled to go on until December 28. Because
the
> recount (such as it was) coincided with the inquiry, Conyers was able to
> discover, and reveal in his report, several instances of what seemed to be
> electoral fraud.
>
> On December 13, for instance, Sherole Eaton, deputy director of elections
for
> Hocking County, filed an affidavit stating that the computer that operates
the
> tabulating machine had been "modified" by one Michael Barbian Jr, an
employee of
> Triad GSI, the corporate manufacturer of the county's voting machinery.
>
> Ms Eaton witnessed Mr Barbian modify the Hocking County computer vote
tabulator
> before the announcement of the Ohio recount. She further witnessed
Barbian, upon
> the announcement that the Hocking County precinct was planned to be the
subject
> of the initial Ohio test recount, make further alterations based on his
> knowledge of the situation. She also has firsthand knowledge that Barbian
> advised election officials how to manipulate voting machinery to ensure
that
> [the] preliminary hand recount matched the machine count. {6}
>
>
> ACCORDING TO HOUSE REPUBLICANS, IT WAS THE DEMOCRATS WHO WERE THE CYNICAL
> MANIPULATORS, SPINNING "FANTASIES" AND "CONSPIRACY THEORIES" TO "PLANT THE
> INSIDIOUS SEEDS OF DOUBT IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS"
>
>
> The committee also learned that Triad similarly intervened in at least two
other
> counties. In a filmed interview, Barbian said that he had examined
machines not
> only in Hocking County but also in Lorain, Muskingum, Clark, Harrison, and
> Guernsey counties; his purpose was to provide the Board of Elections with
as
> much information as possible - "The more information you give someone", he
said,
> "the better job they can do". The report concludes that such information
as
> Barbian and his colleagues could provide was helpful indeed:
>
> Based on the above, including actual admissions and statements by Triad
> employees, it strongly appears that Triad and its employees engaged in a
course
> of behavior to provide "cheat sheets" to those counting the ballots. The
cheat
> sheets told them how many votes they should find for each candidate, and
how
> many over and under votes they should calculate to match the machine
count. In
> that way, they could avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated
by
> state law. If true, this would frustrate the entire purpose of the recount
law -
> to randomly ascertain if the vote counting apparatus is operating fairly
and
> effectively, and if not to conduct a full hand recount.
>
>
> The report notes Triad's role in several other cases. In Union County the
hard
> drive on one tabulator was replaced after the election. (The old one had
to be
> subpoenaed.) In Monroe County, after the three percent hand count had
twice
> failed to match the machine count, a Triad employee brought in a new
machine and
> took away the old one. (That machine's count matched the hand count.) Such
> operations are especially worrying in light of the fact that Triad's
founder,
> Brett A Rapp, "has been a consistent contributor to Republican causes".
(Neither
> Barbian nor Rapp would respond to Harper's queries, and the operator at
Triad
> refused even to provide the name of a press liaison.)
>
> There were many cases of malfeasance, however, in which Triad played no
role.
> Some 1,300 Libertarian and Green Party volunteers, led by Green Party
recount
> manager Lynne Serpe, monitored the count throughout Ohio. {7} They
reported
> that: In Allen, Clermont, Cuyahoga, Morrow, Hocking, Vinton, Summit, and
Medina
> counties, the precincts for the three percent hand recount were
preselected, not
> picked at random, as the law requires. In Fairfield County the three
percent
> hand recount yielded a total that diverged from the machine count - but
despite
> protests from observers, officials did not then perform a hand recount of
all
> the ballots, as the law requires. In Washington and Lucas counties,
ballots were
> marked or altered, apparently to ensure that the hand recount would equal
the
> machine count. In Ashland, Portage, and Coshocton counties, ballots were
> improperly unsealed or stored. Belmont County "hired an independent
programmer
> ('at great expense') to reprogram the counting machines so that they would
only
> count votes for President during the recount". Finally, Democratic and/or
Green
> observers were denied access to absentee, and/or provisional ballots, or
were
> not allowed to monitor the recount process, in Summit, Huron, Putnam,
Allen,
> Holmes, Mahoning, Licking, Stark, Medina, Warren, and Morgan counties. In
short,
> the Ohio vote was never properly recounted, as required by Ohio law.
>
> That is what the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee found,
that
> is what they distributed to everyone in Congress, and that is what any
member of
> the national press could have reported at any time in the last half year.
> Conyers may or may not have precisely captured every single dirty trick.
The
> combined votes gained by the Republicans through such devices may or may
not
> have decided the election. (Bush won Ohio by 118,601 votes.) Indeed, if
you
> could somehow look into the heart of every eligible voter in the United
States
> to know his or her truest wishes, you might discover that Bush/Cheney was
indeed
> the people's choice. But you have to admit - the report is pretty
interesting.
>
> In fact, its release was timed for maximum publicity. According to the
United
> States Code (Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15), the President of the
Senate - that
> is, the US Vice President - must announce each state's electoral results,
then
> "call for objections". Objections must be made in writing and "signed by
at
> least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives". A
challenge
> having been submitted, the joint proceedings must then be suspended so
that both
> houses can retire to their respective chambers to decide the question,
after
> which they reconvene and either certify or reject the vote.
>
> Thus was an unprecedented civic drama looming on the day that Conyers's
report
> appeared. First of all, electoral votes had been contested in the Congress
only
> twice. In 1877 the electoral votes of several states were challenged, some
by
> Democrats supporting Samuel Tilden, others by Republicans supporting
Rutherford
> B Hayes. In 1969, Republicans challenged the North Carolina vote when
Lloyd W
> Bailey, a "faithless elector" pledged to Richard Nixon for that state,
voted for
> George Wallace. {8} And a new challenge would be more than just
"historic".
> Because of what had happened - or not happened - four years earlier, it
would
> also be extraordinarily suspenseful. On January 6 2001, House Democrats,
> galvanized by the electoral larceny in Florida, tried and failed to
challenge
> the results. Their effort was aborted by the failure of a single
Democratic
> senator to join them, as the law requires. Al Gore - still vice president,
and
> therefore still the Senate's president - had urged Democrats to make no
such
> unseemly waves but to respect Bush's installation for the sake of national
unity.
> Now, it seemed, that partisan disgrace would be redressed, at least
> symbolically; for a new challenge from the House, by Representative
Stephanie
> Tubbs-Jones of Ohio, would be co-signed by Barbara Boxer, Democratic
senator
> from California, who, at a noon press conference on January 6, heightened
the
> suspense by tearfully acknowledging her prior wrong: "Four years ago I
didn't
> intervene. I was asked by Al Gore not to do so and I didn't do so.
Frankly,
> looking back on it, I wish I had".
>
> It was a story perfect for TV - a rare event, like the return of Halley's
comet;
> a scene of high contention in the nation's capital; a heroine resolved to
make
> things right, both for the public and herself. Such big news would
highlight
> Conyers's report, whose findings, having spurred the challenge in the
first
> place, would now inform the great congressional debate on the election in
Ohio.
>
> As you may recall, this didn't happen - the challenge was rejected by a
vote of
> 267-31 in the House and 74-1 in the Senate. The Boston Globe gave the
report 118
> words (page 3); the Los Angeles Times, 60 words (page 18). It made no news
in
> the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Newsweek, Time, or US News & World
Report.
> It made no news on CBS, NBC, ABC, or PBS. Nor did NPR report it (though
Talk of
> the Nation dealt with it on January 6). CNN did not report it, though
Donna
> Brazile pointedly affirmed its copious "evidence" on Inside Politics on
January
> 6. (Judy Woodruff failed to pause for an elaboration.) Also on that date,
the
> Fox News Channel briefly showed Conyers himself discussing
"irregularities" in
> Franklin County, though it did not mention the report. He was followed by
Tom
> DeLay, who assailed the Democrats for their "assault against the
institutions of
> our representative democracy". The New York Times negated both the
challenge and
> the document in a brief item headlined "Election Results to Be Certified,
with
> Little Fuss from Kerry", which ran on page 16 and ended with this quote
from
> Dennis Hastert's office, vis-a-vis the Democrats: "They are really just
trying
> to stir up their loony left".
>
> Indeed, according to the House Republicans, it was the Democrats who were
the
> troublemakers and cynical manipulators - spinning "fantasies" and
"conspiracy
> theories" to "distract" the people, "poison the atmosphere of the House of
> Representatives" (Dave Hobson, R, Ohio), and "undermine the prospect of
> democracy" (David Dreier, R, California); mounting "a direct attack to
undermine
> our democracy" (Tom DeLay, R, Texas), "an assault against the institutions
of
> our representative democracy" (DeLay); trying "to plant the insidious
seeds of
> doubt in the electoral process" (J D Hayworth, R, Arizona); and in so
doing
> following "their party's primary strategy: to obstruct, to divide and to
destroy"
> (Deborah D Pryce, R, Ohio).
>
> Furthermore, the argument went, there was no evidence of electoral fraud.
The
> Democrats were using "baseless and meritless tactics" (Pryce) to present
their
> "so-called evidence" (Bob Ney, R, Ohio), "making allegations that have no
basis
> of fact" (Candice Miller, R, Michigan), making claims for which "there is
no
> evidence whatsoever, no evidence whatsoever" (Dreier). "There is
absolutely no
> credible basis to question the outcome of the election" (Rob Portman, R,
Ohio).
> "No proven allegations of fraud. No reports of widespread wrongdoing. It
was, at
> the end of the day, an honest election" (Bill Shuster, R, Pennsylvania).
And so
> on. Bush won Ohio by "an overwhelming and comfortable margin",
Representative
> Pryce insisted, while Ric Keller (R, Florida) said that Bush won by "an
> overwhelmingly comfortable margin". ("The president's margin is
significant",
> observed Roy Blunt, R, Missouri). In short, as Tom DeLay put it, "no such
voter
> disenfranchisement occurred in this election of 2004 - and, for that
matter, the
> election of 2000. Everybody knows it. The voters know it, the candidates
know it,
> the courts know it, and the evidence proves it."
>
> That all this commentary was simply wrong went unnoticed and/or
unreported. Once
> Bush was re-inaugurated, all inquiries were apparently concluded, and the
story
> was officially kaput. By March talk of fraud was calling forth the same
> reflexive ridicule that had prevailed back in November - but only now and
then,
> on those rare moments when somebody dared bring it up: "Also tonight",
CNN's Lou
> Dobbs deadpanned ironically on March 8, "Teresa Heinz Kerry still can't
accept
> certain reality. She suggests the presidential election may have been
rigged!"
> And when, on March 31, the National Election Data Archive Project released
its
> study demonstrating that the exit polls had probably been right, it made
news
> only in the Akron Beacon-Journal. {9} The article included this response
from
> Carlo LoParo, Kenneth Blackwell's spokesman: "What are you going to do
except
> laugh at it?"
>
> In the summer of 2003, Representative Peter King (R, New York) was
interviewed
> by Alexandra Pelosi at a barbecue on the White House lawn for her HBO
> documentary Diary of a Political Tourist. "It's already over. The
election's
> over. We won", King exulted more than a year before the election. When
asked by
> Pelosi - the daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi - how he knew
that
> Bush would win, he answered, "It's all over but the counting. And we'll
take
> care of the counting."
>
> King, who is well known in Washington for his eccentric utterances, says
he was
> kidding, that he has known Pelosi for years, that she is "a clown", and
that her
> project was a "spoof". Still, he said it. And laughter, despite the
counsel of
> Kenneth Blackwell's press flack, seems an inappropriate response to the
prospect
> of a stolen election - as does the advice that we "get over it". The point
of
> the Conyers report, and of this report as well, is not to send Bush
packing and
> put Kerry in his place. The Framers could no more conceive of electoral
fraud on
> such a scale than they could picture Fox News Channel or the Pentagon; and
so we
> have no constitutional recourse, should it be proven, finally, that the
wrong
> guy "won". The point of our revisiting the last election, rather, is to
see
> exactly what the damage was so that the people can demand appropriate
reforms.
> Those who say we should "move on" from that suspicious race and work
instead on
> "bigger issues" - like electoral reform - are urging the impossible; for
there
> has never been a great reform that was not driven by some major scandal.
>
> "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization",
> Thomas Jefferson said, "it expects what never was and never will be". That
> much-quoted line foretells precisely what has happened to us since "the
news"
> has turned into a daily paraphrase of Karl Rove's fevered dreams. Just as
2+2=5
> in Orwell's Oceania, so here today the United States just won two
brilliant
> military victories, 9/11 could not have been prevented, we live in a
democracy
> (like the Iraqis), and last year's presidential race "was, at the end of
the day,
> an honest election". Such claims, presented as the truth, are nothing but
> faith-based reiteration, as valid as the notions that one chooses to be
> homosexual, that condoms don't prevent the spread of HIV, and that the
universe
> was made 6,000 years ago.
>
> In this nation's epic struggle on behalf of freedom, reason, and
democracy, the
> press has unilaterally disarmed - and therefore many good Americans, both
> liberal and conservative, have lost faith in the promise of
self-government.
> That vast surrender is demoralizing, certainly, but if we face it, and
endeavor
> to reverse it, it will not prove fatal. This democracy can survive a plot
to
> hijack an election. What it cannot survive is our indifference to, or
> unawareness of, the evidence that such a plot has succeeded.
>
>
> Notes
>
> {1} Another poll, by Zogby International, showed that 33 percent of voters
> deemed "greed and materialism" the most pressing moral problems in
America. Only
> twelve percent of those polled cited gay marriage.
>
> {2} Keith Olbermann, on MSNBC, stood out as an heroic exception, devoting
many
> segments of his nightly program Countdown to the myriad signs of electoral
> mischief, particularly in Ohio.
>
> {3} The full report can be downloaded from the judiciary Committee's
website at
> www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf and is also, as
of May,
> available as a trade paperback, entitled What Went Wrong in Ohio. I should
note
> here that, in a victory for family values, the publishers of that
paperback are
> my parents, Jordan and Anita Miller.
>
> {4} When contacted by Harper's Magazine, Blackwell spokesman Carlo LoParo
> dismissed Conyers's report as a partisan attack. "Why wasn't it more than
an
> hour's story?" he asked, referring to the lack of media interest in the
report.
> "Everybody can't be wrong, can they?"
>
> {5} Let it not be said that the Democrats rose wholly above the electoral
fray:
> in Defiance County , Ohio, one Chad Staton was arrested on 130 counts of
vote
> fraud when he submitted voter-registration forms purportedly signed by,
among
> others, Dick Tracy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Michael Jackson, and Mary Poppins. Of
course,
> depending on party affiliation, the consequence of election misdeeds
varies.
> Staton, who told police he was paid in crack for each registration,
received,
> fifty-four months in jail for his fifth-degree felonies; Blackwell, for
his part,
> is now the GOP front-runner for governor of Ohio.
>
> {6} In May 2005, Eaton was ordered by the Hocking County Board of
Elections to
> resign from her position.
>
> {7} The recount itself was the result of a joint application from the
Green and
> Libertarian parties.
>
> {8} Offended by the president-elect's first cabinet appointments (Henry
> Kissinger, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, et al), Bailey was protesting Nixon's
> liberalism.
>
> {9} On the other hand, the thesis that the exit polls were flawed had been
> reported by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Chicago
Tribune, USA
> Today, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Columbus Dispatch, CNN.com, MSNBC,
and
> ABC (which devoted a Nightline segment to the "conspiracy theory" that the
exit
> polls had been correct).
>
>
> Mark Crispin Miller is the author of The Bush Dyslexicon (W W Norton,
2002) and,
> most recently, Cruel and Unusual (W W Norton, 2004). His next book, Fooled
Again,
> will be published this fall by Basic Books.
>
>
> Bill Totten     http://billtotten.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>