Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Ohio Was Stolen" Crowd, Pay Heed To Tom Hayden

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:41 PM
Original message
"Ohio Was Stolen" Crowd, Pay Heed To Tom Hayden
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 03:41 PM by ProSense
Russell Shaw
08.21.2006

"Ohio Was Stolen" Crowd, Pay Heed To Tom Hayden

Snip

Consider if you will, the wise words of Tom Hayden. A progressive who has worked in successful opposition to, as well as within the electoral political system, Tom has more than 40 years of experience to guide him when he writes:

"And to the bloggers, I say stick to standards of evidence that will convince the mainstream voters. Sometimes we stray from what we know, and what can be proven to the public, into the world of, well, conjecture. We cannot fight against a faith-based crusade with one that sometimes appears to be fantasy-based. We cannot fight the conservative model with a conspiracy model. The facts are staggering enough to cause deep public questioning and, in time, a radical public awakening. We should see ourselves as the questioning conscience of the nation, the prod to deeper digging by the media, the force that pushes politicians to address all the "inconvenient truths", every last one of them."

What Tom is saying is, when you take your "fantasy-based," "Ohio was stolen" opinions to the public square, and demonize anyone who asks for confirmational clarity, you run the risk that millions of voters who we all need to come down on our side this time will tune you out. Why? Because, frankly, the most shrill of you who are absolutely convinced that Ohio was stolen sound like sore losers, pundits with agendas, wack jobs, or some sort of combination of all of the above.

I know some of you have attacked Salon, Mother Jones, The Nation's David Corn, and even Jimmy Carter- who has monitored dozens of elections around the world and knows from stolen ones (like 2000).

Now I dare any of you to attack Tom Hayden and his motivations.

There are two other reasons that you "Ohio was stolen" folks should consider the impact of your bloviations.

First, all this "Ohio was stolen" blather is a petri dish for even more politically bioresistant strains of cynicism. In an election season climate where the likes of Rev. Dobson are attempting to register even greater numbers of loyal Republican end-timers, we need every progressive who doesn't vote to join our side.

more

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-shaw/ohio-was-sto...



How is this rational: insult people while advising them not to insult people? What an idiot!



Clinton: RFK, Jr. Made A Very Persuasive Case
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3949
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. Russell can take a big flying ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. '"Ohio Was Stolen" Crowd' -- in other words:
anyone with any sense who's looked at the evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. He's stretching Tom's point to bolster his own. Hayden knows that the
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 03:50 PM by blm
election was stolen, just like Kerry knows it. The problem is that you really need hard evidence in hand to say so, and we need to find a way to pursue securing the machines for the next races without focusing our attention BACKWARDS.

The only way Kennedy could get Diebold people to testify was if they only pointed to what CAN be done and that the company was always well aware of the vulnerabilities. NONE would speak about the last election and what DID happen.

No whistleblower has come forth in that regard, and until one does, we need to deal realistically with WHAT WE DO HAVE to change the future.

Well, most voting advocates have agreed on that course, and no doubt Tom and other practical pols are on that page. Why Shaw has coopted Hayden's words and exaggerated their meaning to make his case is another matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. Yes, Avi Rubin has said our only remedy at this late date is to physically
guard the machines and have monitors at the vote counting to make sure no one comes hear the tabulating computers, "mother computers" as Teresa Heinz Kerry has called them. Otherwise, there is nothing we can do regarding the machines approaching the mid-terms as the software is still proprietary--this must be changed somehow!

Paper trails are not required in all states and neither are random mandatory recounts of a small percentage of precincts. We are ripe for Rethug shenanigans. They are without honor, and are determined to keep and hold power in November. Otherwise, they may be held accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. He's absolutely correct.
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 03:51 PM by longship
Consider how the 9/11 Conspiracy nonesense has totally defused any attempt to hold the administration accountable for their clear and unambiguous incompetence in handling the attacks on 9/11.

Conspiracy kooks suck all the air out of the dialog and give people a very valid reason to say, "This is all kookie."

We have to fight these things with *facts*, not wild conjectures or faulty conclusions. There's just too damned much of that going on.

on edit: Hayden is absolutely correct. Not sure of the other guy's agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. In the real world, 9/11 conspiracies have had nothing to do
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 03:55 PM by ProSense
with the inability to hold Bush accountable. That would be lack of oversight by the Republicans. See that's the problem, when people don't want the real message to get out they lump everyone together into the "kook" category. This guy is insulting, and by focusing on whomever he deems to be zealots, is dismissing anyone with legitimate concerns about election tampering.

He references Tom Hayden's article completely out of context as his point was about framing the argument and being able to support statements, not dismissing facts as conjecture!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. Hear, hear! There has been no accountability.
It's not the fault of those who push MIHOP or LIHOP -- it's the fault of those with the power to oversee, who know that the Administration was asleep at the switch on 9/11, and who fail to do anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Anyone who dares point out irregularities in the the evidence
is a kook! I always feel fortunate when I have such a wise man such as yourself to tell me how to think and what I should talk about.

There is nonsense being spouted here all right, a little groupthink anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Relax, you'll only be labelled kookie if you make shit up.
So if you don't make shit up, we'll all be cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. Strange, whether or not it's TRUE doesn't matter to him.
In my world, stating what I believe to be TRUE trumps everything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. Somebody tell this idiot what Jimmy Carter said about our
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 03:55 PM by sfexpat2000
election systems.

And what the GAO said. And what the Conyers Report said. And also what Mark Crispin Miller, Steve Freeman and Bob Fritrakis say. Or what Bobby Kennedy is saying.

But, that would involve learning. Maybe that's too much to ask. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liam_laddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. I don't know who the eff Russell Shaw is...
But the word "stolen" may be a problem in discussing this with unbelievers.
How about - the reported results were certainly unethically, and probably
illegally MANIPULATED by the majority party in Ohio, and their operatives.
Manipulated sounds less strident but means the same damn thing...right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. I agree that evidence is key.
Which is why the Brazile/Dean report on Ohio 2004 was not a total bust. They meticulously documented the abuses perpetrated by Blackwell in Ohio, abuses he is not only using currently but is kicking up a notch, i.e., shortchanging voting paraphernalia in Dem precincts, purging voter rolls, etc.

On the other hand, RFK, Jr's brilliant expose in Rolling Stone Magazine provides that very evidence Hayden speaks of, and as soon as the gag order is lifted on RFK, Jr's litigation, he plans to start screaming about it.

Election fraud entails more than EVM fraud. It also encompasses the hardcore cheesy tactics employed by the GOP to win at any cost. Any elucidation of that is great in my book.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Yes voter purges and long lines don't suffice
you have to stick to changed votes and votes never counted which, if I am not mistaken, would have given Kerry the win in Ohio. Talking about the post card paper requirement, the Franklin county private vote count, and all the other roadblocks they threw up does show that THEY had a conspiracy but in terms of who won you have to stick to votes cast and which ones were not counted or miscounted.

I will say this though the compelling argument that I read that made me feel safe to come out and say it was by none other than Jim Lampley (on Huff's website or "blog" if you will). Not only is he seen by most of the crowd as a stand up guy (from the boxing crowd and the OLD college football crowd) he points out that offshore gambling sites had Kerry a 2 to 1 lock to win. THAT carries weight in a way that no anedotal story comes close to. Trust me I have laid that on some friends and they froze and said "Okay maybe there is something to it" and that is the foot in the door.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I will never forget that day.
I left the house at 4:45 P.M. PST to pick up my son from school. Kerry was ahead in 7:8 battleground states and tied in the other. They were prepared to call it virtually a done deal and a Kerry win.

By 5:30 P.M. when we returned, the results were upside-down.

Look for the new Rolling Stone Magazine with Christina Aguilera on the cover (issue 8/26/06). There is a follow up article to RFK's, this one focusing on Ohio. It talks about what an epic asshole Blackwell is to this day and it appears nobody is going to stop his illegal, immoral machinations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. No, Lampley's argument was one of the most ignorant in history
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 04:45 PM by Awsi Dooger
He claimed he checked Las Vegas betting lines on the afternoon of the 2004 election. There are no political betting odds in Nevada. You can only wager on sporting events decided on the field of play. There isn't even wagering on sporting elections like MVP awards or the Heisman Trophy.

The Imperial Palace got in trouble in 1992 when it put up a gag line on the Clinton/Bush 41 race. There was no betting on it but they had it up for a few days and it got some publicity. The gaming control board found out and several members marched in to confront the sportsbook manager. He got the hint, as described to me a few days later when he was still shaking. They threatened the license of the sportsbook.

Frankly, Lampley made up that story. Or severely embellished and misled using a small bit of correct information. It wasn't offshore betting sites who had Kerry a 2/1 favorite. Those sites closed the election betting as soon as the polls opened and long before the early exit polls came out. I've wagered on politics since '96 and I checked all the major offshore sites on election eve and election morning. They were all closed and that's typical. They are very conservative in shutting down the betting on unique events like that where they can be burned significantly thru early info.

The only kernel of truth in Lampley's article was the odds on the wagering site Tradesports.com went to 2/1 in Kerry's favor at about 5 PM Eastern time on election day. Big deal. I was part of that. Tradesports is a man-to-man site so it stays open after the event has begun. You can wager on baseball games tonight even when they are in the 7th or 8th inning.

My friend Paul and I wagered big on Kerry on Tradesports after I checked DU briefly while on break from GOTV and saw the early exit poll hysteria. I asked Paul to check Tradesports and we bought as many Kerry shares as we could, mostly in the mid to high 50s and some in the low 60s. It eventually reached maybe 67, which would indeed be 2/1.

But to demonstrate how flimsy that is, 2/1 is basically the equivalent of a 4 point favorite in a football game. How does that qualify as a lock? There were plenty of sharp people on Tradesports on election day 2004 who were buying the Bush shares at underdog prices because they realized early exit polls were not necesarily reliable. Bush was never the underdog all year on Tradesports or the Iowa Futures Market or any other betting site. Even when Kerry led the polls, Bush was always the favorite.

For reference purposes, on primary day two weeks ago Lamont was 7/1 favorite before we even got the first early results. Once he had the lead, Tradesports odds soared and Lamont traded as high as 99, the maximum. That is a lock. Kerry was nothing but a small favorite for an hour or two due to overreaction to the early exit polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Wow
Well that changes things now doesn't it. I had never heard that about Lampleys's article. Why would he think he could get away with that?

Thanks for the information. I was wrong at least about the betting part (Damn that was a real eyeopener) anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Here's the link to Lampley's article
In the first sentence he claims he checked sportsbook odds in Las Vegas and on offshore sites: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/b...

"At 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Election Day, I checked the sportsbook odds in Las Vegas and via the offshore bookmakers to see the odds as of that moment on the Presidential election. John Kerry was a two-to-one favorite. You can look it up."

Frankly, I'm astonished no one knew enough about gambling to challenge him and pointed out there are no election odds in Nevada sportsbooks. Or that offshore sites hardly stay open during an event. I damn sure would have, but when I finally heard about Lampley's claim months later I looked at the date of that article and I was on vacation in Alaska.

There were many high profile responses to Lampley's article on Mystery Pollster and elsewhere but everyone took on the other aspects of Lampley's article, such as bettors being "extremely scientific in their assessments." What a crock. I've worked in every aspect of the sports betting field since the '80s, both sides of the aisle, and it's an ongoing struggle to eek out a minor advantage. Oddsmakers put up a line and hope it doesn't zoom one way or the other. Bettors hope they don't get screwed at the end of every tossup result.

I would have liked to have seen Lampley's response if someone challenged him on the most basic aspect; what odds he looked at, since the two specifics he mentioned are blatantly impossible. My guess is someone told him after the fact that Kerry reached 2/1 favoritism, and Lampley embellished the tale to claim self involvement. After all, he's a sports guy who has covered dozens of big fights in Las Vegas. Understand I'm a Lampley fan. He went to the same high school I did in Miami and I love his politics. Be he got this one flat wrong.

This was the greatest Lampley sentence of all: "Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election."

Incredible he can pass out garbage like that and people will think it's legit. Go to Tradesports tonight and you'll see how it works. There are running comments on the front page. On election afternoon those comments were brief exclamations about the early exit polls. On the Politics screen the shares were showing up in waves with people scrambling to buy Kerry shares. Oddsmakers had nothing to do with it. It was a bunch of clowns sitting in their living rooms, absorbing information and trying to profit from it through quick thinking and fast typing.

Remarkable that the most intelligent comment I've seen regarding political odds this cycle came yesterday from the president of Club for Growth, of all people. He was on CSPAN in the morning and correctly quoted the current Tradesports odds on whether Republicans would retain the House and Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I emailed him
Thanks again.

What did the Club for Growth guy say-that the Repubs would hold on ? For all the talk I have heard about a Dem win it first strikes me as a set up for what they think will be the killing blow and secondly I haven't seen a good seat by seat breakdown on where we are supposed to get this majority from.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
10. It's funny how evidence and fact...
matter sometimes...but not so much other times. When the facts support the wrong conclusion, they are irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
21. Nice frame: "...fight the conservative model with a conspiracy model"
How about "fight the lazy MSM No-Nothing Bush Apologist Excusenik model with a bi-partisan analytical and fact-rich model"...

Perhaps trying to debunk RFK Jr's Rolling Stone article would be a start for the Repugs...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC