Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

About Ohio - going to ask you all a favor.

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 » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 09:34 PM
Original message
About Ohio - going to ask you all a favor.
Edited on Mon Oct-17-05 09:44 PM by pirhana
I subscribe to Mother Jones magazine. And they had an article on the election in Ohio....and how fraud can't be proven, and how the far left is making something out of it that may or may not have happened.
The article is long. So I am posting the link, and hoping that some of you will read it in your spare time. I think it is important since this is the number one issue about Kerry. They do say that it didn't help that Kerry conceded so soon. But that is the only negative thing they say about Kerry, so get mad now, before you read it :).

Anyway, I was thinking that if some of you read it, we can dissect it a little and put together some ammo for when people start up about Kerry not fighting for us.

It opened up my eyes, as everything I have ever read has been from the far left. But there were dems in Ohio that would have loved it if all that has been said could be proven, or even true.


There's also a great spread on Hackett, which I so far have only skimmed through. I just got the lastest edition today, and haven't had time to read thru the Hackett article.

http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2005/11/recountin...

Thanks!

edit - better link

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. If anyone does read this, pm me and I will have to give you my
access code to get to the rest of the article.

I tried to update the link, but it went back to the original.
So what you get at the above link is only 1/2 of the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ray of light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I will read it (tomorrow after I've rested my brain cells.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. I can understand why Kerry conceded when he did, fraud
isn't something that is easily proven in a short period of time. Kerry also had the history of the Gore/Bush 2000 election to consider. Gore just about ruined his reputation back then with all the press focusing on the Repubs and their whining. From what I have read, this sounds like a good article. I would suggest that we leave out the references to the concession. The concession, is a sure anti- Kerry rouser.
Ps, I'm not sure how to pm you to receive access code. can you explain it to me. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ray of light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. fraud which can't easily be proven, and a media who didn't give
a crap about the supression of minority voters!

That didn't fit their message of a "fair" and democratic election so they pretended it didn't exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. It was bizarre.
They kept saying how smooth it all went. Even though they were showing us lines of people waiting for hours.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. I decided to just copy and paste the rest of the article - here it is.
Edited on Tue Oct-18-05 04:14 PM by pirhana
The GOPs Closet Gay-Rights Voters

If voting machines were hacked, skeptics argue, that could explain some improbable results in three Bush strongholds near Cincinnati. In Warren, Butler, and Clermont counties, Kerry got 132,684 fewer votes than Bush did. But Kerry also got 11,923 fewer votes than C. Ellen Connally, the Democratic candidate for Ohio chief justice. It is beyond plausible, argues the Free Press, that Connally, an African American supporter of gay rights, would do better than the top of the Democratic ticket, especially in three Bible Belt counties that overwhelmingly approved a gay-marriage ban on the same ballot. Kerrys true count must have been suppressed. Take Ohio without those three counties and Kerry would have carried the state, argues attorney Cliff Arnebeck, a Fitrakis ally.

Not so fast, replies Michael OGrady, the legal counsel to the Ohio Democratic Party. OGrady, who helped advise Connallys campaign, agrees that her results in those counties do stand out. But he credits the 8 to 10 percentage boost that female candidates often get from voters simply because they are female. And, he adds, many Ohioans didnt know that Connally supported gay rights or even that she was blackher campaign deliberately downplayed those facts.

Exit-Poll Enigmas

The discrepancy between exit polls and the official results is a key part of the skeptics argument: Kerry was projected to win nationwide by a close but comfortable 3 percent, and in Ohio by 6.5 percent. But the skeptics betray a poor grasp of exit polling, starting with their claim that exit polls are invariably accurate within tenths of a percentage point. In truth, the exit polls were wrong by much more than that in the 1988 and 1992 presidential elections.

Warren Mitofsky and Joe Lenski, the pollsters who oversaw the 2004 exit polls, concluded that one source of their incorrect forecast was an apparent tendency for some pro-Bush voters to shun exit pollsters questions. Preposterous, claims Mark Crispin Miller, who also sees trickery in the adjusting of exit polls after the election, though that is utterly routine. And is it really so strange to imagine that Bush supporterswho tend to distrust the supposedly liberal news mediamight not answer questions from pollsters bearing the logos of CBS, CNN, and the other news organizations financing the polling operation?

Besides, how do skeptics explain New Hampshire? The state conducted a hand recount of precincts that critics found suspicious; the recount confirmed the official tally, as Ralph Naders campaign, which paid for the exercise, admitted. Apparently one reason Bush did better than expected in those precincts was an influx of conservative Catholics who relocated from neighboring Massachusettsthe kind of anomaly that can confound even persuasive-sounding assumptions about voters.

Who Moved My Voting Machine?

But the skeptics have plenty of solid claims as wellstarting with the long lines that plagued voters in Franklin County and elsewhere. As the Post reported, voting-machine shortages were the exception in strongly pro-Bush areas but the rule in strongly pro-Kerry districts. The Conyers report calls that an apparent violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitutions equal protection safeguards.

Matt Damschroder, Franklin Countys Republican elections director, admits he didnt have enough machines in the field; he says he told his staff to deploy more, and I believed it had been done, but I heard night that it hadnt. The Free Press Fitrakis doesnt buy that honest-mistake argument, and he points out that the law doesnt care either. It doesnt matter if those machines were held back by design or not, the effect is the same, he says.

Also indisputable is the fact that Damschroder accepted a $10,000 check for the Ohio Republican Party from Diebold, one of the nations largest voting-machine manufacturers. Skeptics have distrusted Diebold ever since Walden ODell, the companys CEO and a major donor to the Bush/Cheney campaign, pledged in a 2003 fundraising letter to help Ohio deliver its electoral votes to Bush. Damschroder admits the wrongdoing. I did something unethical, and Im paying an appropriate penance for it, he says, referring to the Board of Elections ruling in July 2005 that he work without pay for a month. He says he has not recommended Diebold for any product purchased by Franklin County. Indeed, Diebold machines were used in only 2 of Ohios 88 counties.

The Great Blackwell Purge

But Damschroders transgressions pale beside those of his boss, Secretary of State Blackwell. Now a candidate for Ohios governorship, Blackwell made national news before the election by trying to disqualify any voter registrations not written on 80-pound stock paper. It was a directive so ludicrous, and so obviously intended to lower turnout, that an anonymous state official alerted newspapers that Blackwells own office was supplying forms on lighter paper stock. The bad publicity forced him to back down.

Even prominent Ohio Republicans distanced themselves from other manifestly unfair Blackwell directives. Take provisional ballots, which by law must be offered to any voter turned away at the polls (say, because the voters name doesnt appear on registration rolls). Blackwell directed that a provisional ballot would count only if cast in the proper precinctnot just the proper county, as before. It was a recipe for chaos, given that some polling places included numerous different precincts, not to mention the fact that Blackwell had reorganized precincts throughout the state, leaving many voters confused about where to appear on Election Day. Some election officials made it clear they would disregard the ruling, including Robert Bennett, who chaired both the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections and the Ohio Republican Party. Blackwell threatened to remove Bennett from the board and his directive stood. In the end, an estimated 46,000 provisional ballots went uncounted. (Blackwell did not respond to numerous requests for an interview.)

Blackwells two most potent acts of disenfranchisement, skeptics say, were the purging of 133,000 mostly Democratic voters from the rolls and the non-counting of 92,000 ballots rejected by voting machines as unreadable. Its clear to me that somebody thought long and hard back in 2001 about how to win this thing, says Fitrakis. Somebody had the foresight to check an obscure statute that allows you to cancel peoples voter registrations if they havent voted in two presidential elections. Fitrakis notes that newspapers reported the purging of 105,000 voters in Cincinnati and another 28,000 in Toledo. But because the purging was conducted gradually between 2001 and 2004, no one saw the big picture until the Free Press connected the dots.

OGrady, the Democrats general counsel, agrees that Blackwell purged voter rolls, especially in large urban counties that figured to lean Democratic. But he points out that the purging was done legally, and he says it wasnt necessarily underhanded. The Democratic base, he says, is more transient, so a voter may accumulate three different addresses on state voting rollsa perfectly sound reason for a purge. As for the larger argument that Ohio was stolen, OGrady says, That point of view relies on the assumption that the entire Republican Party is conspiratorial and the entire Democratic Party is as dumb as rocks. And I dont buy that.

Why Was It Even Close?

In the end, reasonable people may differ about the strength of the skeptics case. Personally I came away persuaded there was indeed something rotten in the state of Ohio in 2004. Whether by intent or negligence, authorities took actions that prevented many thousands of citizens from casting votes and having them counted. The irregularities were sufficiently widespread to call into question Bushs margin of victory. This was not a fair election, and it deserves the scrutiny skeptics have brought to it. They shouldered a task that mainstream media and the government should have assumedand still should take on, especially since some key questions can only be settled by invoking subpoena power.

Yet it remains far from clear that Bush stole the election, and I say that as someone who has written that Bush did steal Florida and the White House in 2000 (and whofull disclosureis friendly with skeptics Miller and Wasserman). First, some of the most far-reaching acts of potential disenfranchisement, such as the purging of voter rolls, were legalwhich is why one lesson of Ohio 2004 is that voting systems throughout the nation need fundamental reform. Second, even if Kerry had won Ohio, the national vote went to Bush by 3 million votes. Ohio would have given Kerry the presidency by the same unholy route that Bush traveled in 2000 and that led so many Democrats to urge, rightly, the abolishment of the Electoral College. Third, the skeptics position is weakened by the one-sidedness of their arguments and their know-it-all tone. They have a plausible case to make, but they act like its a slam dunk and imply that anyone who doesnt agree with them is either stupid, bought, or on the other sidenot the best way to win people over.

Meanwhile, the focus on vote rigging distracts from other explanations for the 2004 outcome and, more importantly, from what Democrats need to do differently in the future. Paul Hackett, the Iraq combat veteran whose congressional bid is covered elsewhere in this issue, suggests an answer. Hackett, who made no bones about his disdain for Bush and the war, nearly won a district that in 2004 chose Bush over Kerry 64 to 36 percent. Lesson: Democrats can do well, even in staunchly Republican areas, if they give people a reason to vote for theman unapologetic alternative. Do that in 2008, and the election wont be close enough to steal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Thanks for posting this
I especially liked this summary - which just states what both Cam and John Kerry stated in their statements and in both cases should lead to a call to reform and clean things up.

Quote:
In the end, reasonable people may differ about the strength of the skeptics case. Personally I came away persuaded there was indeed something rotten in the state of Ohio in 2004. Whether by intent or negligence, authorities took actions that prevented many thousands of citizens from casting votes and having them counted. The irregularities were sufficiently widespread to call into question Bushs margin of victory. This was not a fair election, and it deserves the scrutiny skeptics have brought to it. They shouldered a task that mainstream media and the government should have assumedand still should take on, especially since some key questions can only be settled by invoking subpoena power.


The last paragraph does bother me though. The conclusion that a Paul Hackett type clarity would have won ignores many realities. Hackett ran this summer, after Fallujah and after the media started to come alive. The summer special election by being a small stand alone elction might be more like a primary in that only the most involved people voted and the Democrats (in the Republican area) were more fired up. Also, Kerry had the task of showing he was Presidential and likeable enough to be our President - Hackett didn't have to meet this standard. If, an in your face attacker were wanted, Dean would have beaten Kerry in the primaries. Kerry calling Bush a "chickenhawk" would have led to weeks of calls for apologies - possibly by Laura claiming Kerry dissed all people in the National guard. (similar comments were made even though Kerry never directly called Bush's service.) The scrutiny for Hackett was different and the threshold much lower.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I'm glad you read it.
The way I look at Hackett vs Kerry is that ALOT has changed since the election. Before the election, we were all frustrated, but hopeful dems. Now we are pissed - "Mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore" dems.

Kerry had to walk on eggshells or else be labelled as un-American by the rovian attack machine. Can you imagine what would have happened if he spoke like Hackett did.

Hackett, just coming back from Iraq after the election, came into play at a time when a voice like his was desperately needed. Besides he is not a politician.

To me, it looks like the only thing that Kerry could really go after is the discrepancy in # of voting machines. This article made everything else look questionable, but legal. Nothing can be proven. Something did happen, but no one is going to be able to put their finger on it. Kerry was right, as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Another Hackett - Kerry difference
When Hackett's war record was attacked, the entire blogosphere slammed the guy who was doing it. If they'd done that for Kerry, instead of whimpering around and adding fuel by trying to debate whether there was veracity to the claims, the swift boaters would have been silenced and the Rove Machine would have known it's tactics weren't going to work.

This is a good overview of Ohio, as far as I can tell. There are suspicions, there are marginal actions, but whether there's anything illegal and whether any illegality can be traced directly back to Bush is another question entirely. The excuse that Kerry conceded and so the media couldn't investigate is just ridiculous though. That's the way it works in this country, the loser concedes. That doesn't have anything to do with the media's job to inform the public. I think they've gotten fat and lazy, maybe this whole Plame investigation will make them all realize they've got to check sources and report facts, not just be "a transmission belt". If I were a journalist, I would be so insulted to have my job described that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yo, pirhana
Check your inbox. Could I have that access code please? Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Reportedly, it sounds like Camp Kerry is more interested in going
after the suppression issue than the fraud issue. They are aware that the fraud lawsuit is probably unwinnable. So apparently there are two more lawsuits out there, one involving the League of Women Voters. I don't know too much about them, but ray of light quoted someone a few months ago who seemed to know what they were talking about re: such things.

Even so, there is a certain contingent on the left who will get near hysterical if Kerry ever really does try to pull out of the Glib case. I didn't appreciate the Cobb-initiated attack on Kerry the last time it was even rumored that Kerry might be thinking of leaving it.

Good article pirana. Thanks. Now if we could just get the "he abandoned us!" people to read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. If they were truely left wing, Mother Jones would be a trusted source
Edited on Thu Oct-20-05 06:44 AM by karynnj
It's been a very good source for detailed articles with a LW POV for decades.

The Green party has been a mystery to me. I initially assumed it had to do with the environment - but in 2000 and 2004, if that were the case they should have just endorsed the Democrat - both had impeccable credentials. Nader seemed to be running around telling us there was no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats - but the Green party was bigger in 2000 and 2004 than when Clinton ran.

What bothers me at DU is that Cobb is given a free ride and treated as a true liberal. I know next to nothing about him and I would (very egotistically) assume that many people accepting his word without question probably know little more. My concern is that at some point, if Kerry feels the suit is without merit, he will let it drop.

For Cobb and the Greens, the suit regardless of merit, is good PR. So far though, everything backs Kerry's decision to gracefully concede and to do what he can to work to clean up the process for the future. The lunatic fringe ignores the fact that even if Dean would have been the candidate and ended up in the same position - he would have had to do the same thing. No amount of screaming would have led the Ohio courts of the Supreme Court to suddenly say - ok, we believe you - we'll arrest Bush and install you as President.

As expected, people instead are adding MJ to the list of people and organizations that abandoned them. I THINK it's valid to link to this because it's an issue.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. It would have happened to Dean as well.
Dean probably would have gotten it worse than Kerry.

When it comes to Dean - Kerry may have lost the Presidency, but Dean lost the nomination. Wake up Dean people. Americans believed Kerry was the cream of the crop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Well what I'm hoping to do with this article is to help us be more
knowledgeable why Kerry did what he did.
All of the voting fraud, the lockdowns, everything except for the number of machines in districts cannot be argued, can not be proved.

Maybe one day Cobb, Conyers, Nader will have to come out with a report to say the same. We were screwed, but the repugs covered their butts so well, nothing can be done.
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 Tue Oct 21st 2014, 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group 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