Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

What does the term “astroturf” mean to you?

Astroturf (verb): to create a grassroots or supposedly neutral organization artificially, usually done by a political party in order to spread propaganda without direct observable links to a party.

There’s a reason why people didn’t pick it up- the folks who run it have unmistakeable links to the Republican party, despite claiming to be non-partisan. When somebody claims to be one thing, and turns out to be another, they aren’t to be trusted as a source.

This is what made the SwiftVets such an easy target for charges of political hackery. Despite their claims of non-partisanship, one of the authors of their book Unfit For Command, Jerome Corsi, turned out to be a regular Free Republic poster whose comments on that site were incredibly (not using that word lightly) racist, sexist, and vitriolic, even by non-PC standards.

One leader, John O’Neill was the leader of an anti-antiwar group that Nixon astroturfed to oppose John Kerry’s Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Another is Kerry’s commanding officer, Admiral Hoffman, whose interests are just a bit conflicted, as he sent many Swiftboats downriver to “Show the Flag”, exposing his men to ambushes that took Swiftboats from being a relatively low casualty group to having one of the bloodiest casualty records around, all with little progress to show for it.

The people funding this little venture were not only Republicans but known supporters of Tom DeLay. Is it any wonder that Democrats and Journalists became suspicious of these folks? The Republicans trust their sources too well. Too much of the GOP leadership’s efforts go into deceiving their own people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2005 07:22 AM

Hey, look! The mainstream media is finally moving on this story, OttO: ‘Study’ is Political Fraud’.

The ACVR is tied directly to the Republican Party. It’s about as “non-partisan” as Karl Rove.

Here’s some more info, if anyone’s interested.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 22, 2005 07:22 AM

What should be looked at is the information contained in the report. To ignore the report simply based on its authorship would be incorrect.

For instance, If a former member of a political party is involved in a report, does this make the report slanted. Certainly not, though the report could still be slanted.

If we take such a shallow view, then we end up negating most reports, since at some point we will find that someone involved is actively involved in politics.

If I comes out that the GOP tried to “plant” this study, then shame on them. Bt if it turns out that the GOP merely funded the study, then that doesnt immediately invalidate it. It can raise the level of skepticism, but doesnt invalidate it.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at August 22, 2005 07:59 AM

AP-

OK, I looked at your links. The first is an opinion piece attacking the messengers as partisan hacks but not addressing ANY the of the points in the report. Not very good for me. The second was another Blog from the left that again attacked the authors as republican hacks but again didn’t address the issues raised in the report. Not helpful either. I haven’t seen the democrat’s equivalent of this report but wouuld like to compare the two for my own edification. Is there a link to the DNC’s report? Most of the ACVR report is obviously partisan and any report that claims to be non-partisan is automatically suspect IMO so there is no surprise there but there are pending court cases here. What answer do you have for demonstrable evidence of democrat operatives doing what they have accused republicans of. That would be helpful. If there is similar evidence, link to it. Bear in mind that the cases I saw were still pending and might be thrown out at the next appearance. What resolution has the DNC come to on it’s accusations?

Posted by: Tony at August 22, 2005 08:35 AM

Joe-
Look, it’s obvious that these charges are meant to be an absolute reversal of the CW concerning the Ohio Elections. The fact that it’s headed up by Republicans with close ties to the party leadership raises red flags about the character of this group, especially since these folks are claiming neutrality.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2005 08:39 AM

Stephen:

The fact that it’s headed up by Republicans with close ties to the party leadership raises red flags about the character of this group, especially since these folks are claiming neutrality.

That’s pretty much what I said in my post, so it looks as if we are in agreement. Let’s all remember though, that red flags do not equate to tossing out the report. Not having read it, I don’t know if its absolute B.S. or whether it has merit.

When I read articles by avowed haters of Bush, the red flags come up for me. But I still read the article to determine whether the red flags hold true.

It’s important to not jump to the conclusions that so many in our country jump to. Remember the furor over Dan Rather’s memo’s discrediting Bush—-they turned out to be patently false and discredited Rather’s and CBS’s journalistic integrity instead. But….many people immediately believed them simply because they said what some people wanted to hear. Let’s not have a repeat of that.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 22, 2005 09:24 AM

Gee Attacking the report not addressing the issues therin. I wonder where you guys learned that?

Posted by: Fred at August 22, 2005 09:25 AM

Why Fred!

You picked up on the left’s hypocrisy without my pointing it out. I’m both impressed and pleased.

Posted by: Tony at August 22, 2005 09:41 AM

Joe-
Those avowed Bush-Bashers are at least honest about their intentions, honest about who pays their bills, and any other information that could shape perception. In short, they allowed you the information necessary to assess them at face value. They allow you to fly your red flags. These people were trying to bypass that. If they are not honest about who they are beholden to, and they have not declared their proximity to the GOP leadership, then I must take those two facts to their logical conclusion.

That is:
1)That they intended to deceive Republicans and independents into believing they had independent support for widespread allegations of Democrat hypocrisy.

2)They wanted to plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of moderates concerning the Democrat’s intentions, without risking the inevitable dismissal of this report as a partisan document.

3)They wanted to put Democrats on the defensive with (and therefore hard to dismiss) allegations of voter irregularites among our own people, blindsiding them with the supposed neutrality of the source, so there was no dismissing this report for what it was: a document from a Republican front.

If they are going to present such information on false pretenses, then I cannot assume that they would be honest about the real character of the events. If they were willing to lie about their own context of operation, what principles are in place to inhibit such dishonest behavior in their reporting, or in their sampling? These could all be true incidents, but the overall picture be false because they excluded and discounted their own incidents. Can I trust them not to distort the information? No. They’ve already done it once by not being forthright about their politics.

As for Memogate, understand this: Dan Rather’s mistake was not concealing a political motive, but trusting bad evidence. It’s very unlikely he’d be so stupid as to move with forgeries and give credit to the conspiracy theories of the very people who though he was boutht-and-paid-for Blue Column.

Also understand this: forms including those released by the White House confirm that Bush failed to attend the required number of drills. These documents have not been discredited. I’ve linked to these forms before- simply google U.S. News and World Report and Texas Air National Guard, and you’ll likely get the story on that.

This is the problem: your people hunger so much to discredit us, that they will pass by good evidence to attack the bad, and let their assumptions color their assessments.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2005 10:30 AM

Every single one of the incidents listed in this report could be accurate, and it would still be worthless. This organization is clearly trying to deceive by calling itself “non-partisan” and putting a supposed democrat in the Chairman’s chair. But that chairman is a self-admitted “sounding board” for Karl Rove and head of “Democrats for Bush”. Not exactly non-partisan.

I don’t have evidence to attack the reports assertion of Democratic fraud. But I do have evidence to attack the lack of their reporting of Republican fraud.

A partisan document on either side is at least being honest about the source and allows the reader to judge it on its merits. A document that begins by lying about the intent of its authors does indeed deserve to be discounted or dismissed.

A lack of critical thinking. I wonder where you guys learned that?

Posted by: Burt at August 22, 2005 10:37 AM

joebagodonuts,

“Remember the furor over Dan Rather’s memo’s discrediting Bush—-they turned out to be patently false and discredited Rather’s and CBS’s journalistic integrity instead.”

The documents were not originals but did raise questions about G.W.s service record that to this day remain unanswered.

Otto,

If you use a questionable(Partisan) source you open the door for debate that centers on “Left” vs. “Right” that ends up not focusing on the importance of the issue.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 22, 2005 10:47 AM

The whole Ohio deception thing is an urban legend. There is a lot of talk about fraud and intimidation, but when you get close to it, you can’t find much. The same was true of Florida in 2000. Some Dems have convinced themselves there was widespread cheating because they just can’t accept that “the people” are not on their side.

Bush won Ohio. That is just true. I have seen no good evidence to the contrary anywhere. Lefties and lawyers have looked hard and all they can find are people who claim they were made uncomfortable or that they couldn’t find the polling places because they had moved since last time.

This study is good to have, but it is unnecessary. Bush won Ohio. No evidence exists that he didn’t. He won by a large margin. It was not close. We should not even have to talk about it anymore.

Dems win on rhetoric; Republicans win on votes. Both are doing what they are good at.

Posted by: jack at August 22, 2005 10:52 AM

Otto,

Good article, it should spark a good debate.

Any debate on voter frawd should adress the problem of cross-over votes in primarys.
Something needs to be done about that, and it gets abused by both sides of the isle.

Any national office (Congress or President), should have National standards for primary voting.
Even if congressmen and Senators are elected in a Statewide vote, their votes (if elected) effect everyone.
The rules for primary voting seem to vary from state to state, that is just plain wrong IMHO.

I would propose that to be elidgeable to vote in any primary; you must register as R-D-I no less than 1 year before the primary, or, become of voting age (18) and register as R-D-I at that time when you register to vote.
That rule should only apply to primary voting, and be nationwide.
Once registered as such, you may vote in the primary of the party you chose.

The cross-over voting is as much frawd as voting twice.

Posted by: Beagle at August 22, 2005 10:56 AM

I have the solution. Let’s do what they do in sports when records have been broken but the conditions are slightly different than when the records were established.

Since Bush was elected by some accounts by devious means in both of his elections, let’s put an asterisk next to his name in the Presidential listing.

* Deception, fraud, lies, voting irregularities and smear tactics.

But then again, how would that be different than the majority of elections for either party in the past 50 years or so.

Posted by: steve smith at August 22, 2005 11:25 AM

Jack,

The problems in my home state of Ohio were not urban legends. Requiring someone to stand in the rain for 10 hours in the middle of the night to vote is not merely “making them uncomfortable”.

Some of us also think that using voting machines from a company that states they are “committed to delivering Bush’s electoral votes from Ohio” is a problem. Especially when those machines don’t work properly.

Posted by: Burt at August 22, 2005 11:36 AM

Both parties have a history of election fraud. The Democrats are by far the worst and have been for many decades. It is almost a synonym for Democrats.Nevertheless, the Republicans smear themselves from time to time-even within the party.

So, this shouldn’t be a party isue. It should be a national issue with strict oversight sufficient to precude the worst and most obvious of it.

Posted by: Dee Lee at August 22, 2005 11:36 AM

Jack:
“The whole Ohio deception thing is an urban legend. There is a lot of talk about fraud and intimidation, but when you get close to it, you can’t find much. The same was true of Florida in 2000. Some Dems have convinced themselves there was widespread cheating because they just can’t accept that �the people� are not on their side.”

Jack, why do you continue to be so completely dishonest about the voting irregularites in Florida during the 2000 election? Twice on this blog I have given you solid proof with a government document that the election was indeed stolen in that state during that election, and yet you still continue to lie about it.

Here is the link once again to the governments findings that irrefutably prove that the 2000 election was illegally fixed in numerous ways in that state. I suggest that anyone who might be foolishly tempted to agree with Jack should really try taking a look at the facts first:
Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election: June 2001

Posted by: Adrienne at August 22, 2005 11:42 AM

In a few weeks this article will be available online, for now, here is an exerpt:

None Dare Call It Stolen - Ohio, The Election, and America’s Servile Press, by Mark Crispin Miller

A summary of Miller’s article by Mary Anne Saucier, Columbus, Ohio July 24, 2005

Posted by: Adrienne at August 22, 2005 12:16 PM

Stephen, American Pundit etc:

Instead of reading and responding to a dozen posts pointing out what I’ve already addressed (which shows that a) you aren’t reading what you are responding to and b) you haven’t actually read the report), I’ll sum it up like this:

For the sake of this debate, I’ll concede the idea that the ACVR is the most right-wing, fanatical, partisan, agenda-driven organization ever created. Karl Rove is behind it, okay?

It really doesn’t matter unless you can point out why it does. Partisanship is a part of politics. But there is a difference between honest partisanship and dishonest partisanship and I have no problem at all with honesty, regardless of how partisan it may be.

The only real effective way you can discredit this report…is to discredit it! And picking on the players (some of whom also have Democratic ties) simply doesn’t do it. That is a tactic used by those who can’t pick on the report itself. I don’t care if Thor Hearne is involved as long as Thor Hearne is accurate. You can read about their board of directors on their website that I linked - it’s not some cover-up.

The report is either mostly wrong or mostly right, regardless of who authored it. If you think it to be mostly wrong, tell me why.

Posted by: OttO at August 22, 2005 12:25 PM

There is only one reason to suggest fraud favoring democrats in Ohio. That is there are or will be substantial findings of fraud favoring Republicans.

Lay the groundwork for the ‘He said’ - ‘She said’ politics as usual mindset. Works everytime.

Posted by: Ms Schwamp at August 22, 2005 12:53 PM

OttO,
The problem with ACVR is that it was created with Talon News-like convienience only a few days before the U.S. House Administrative Committee hearings on Ohio’s election irregularities that were held in Columbus. And during those hearings Hearne (who made no mention of his affiliation or work for Bush/Cheney in 2000, or in 2004, or for many other Republicans) was allowed to give featured testimony of his “non-partisan” ACVR group even though it turned out to be nothing but front group for Republican operatives who have absolutely no interest in actual Voting Rights at all.
Please do us the favor of not taking us for idiots, okay?

Posted by: Adrienne at August 22, 2005 12:59 PM

Partisanship is a part of politics. But there is a difference between honest partisanship and dishonest partisanship and I have no problem at all with honesty, regardless of how partisan it may be.

I agree. But I’m not sure how you can consider an organization that calls itself non-partisan as honest, when it clearly has a pro-Republican agenda. Do you consider it honest that the website does not list the chairman as head of the “Democrats for Bush” campaign? This is honesty?

Every single incident against Democrats written about this report may be accurate, but the report itself is not. We know that there were numerous instances of wrong doing by the GOP, yet they get absolutely no reporting here?

This is similar to the right’s arguments regarding Iraq pre-war intelligence. Yes, there was in fact intelligence that Iraq had WMDs. But there was also intelligence that indicated otherwise. Repeating one side of the intelligence without the other just gets you into a bucket full of crap.

Posted by: Burt at August 22, 2005 01:03 PM

BTW, Watchblog readers who are actually interested in studying this subject may want to check out John Conyer’s report Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong In Ohio. It’s there on his website as a link to a pdf.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 22, 2005 01:07 PM

First off, ACVR states in it’s mission statement that when one vote is tampered with, not only does that incorrect vote in itself affect the election, but it’s mere existence disenfranchises another voter.

I dont know who gets to claim this group but the illogic of their mission statement seems to indicate the average IQ of the members may be quite low.

Posted by: Ms Schwamp at August 22, 2005 01:29 PM

Burt -

Again, read the report before you comment on it. Of course there are incidents by Republicans listed in the report, I mention this in my original entry.

Just like with the claims against Dems, every investigated claim against a Republican is in the report including the outcome of the investigations and did the investigating (often it was by Democrats).

I’m simply challenging people here to put their money where their mouths are and highlight the innacurate or dishonest claims in the report. If it is so obvious that this report is some partisan hack job, then it shouldn’t be that difficult to do.

Otherwise you are just demonstrating your own intellectual dishonesty.

Adrienne -

I don’t take anyone here for an idiot - I’ll leave it up to you as far as what kind of impression you want to leave with readers here.

Let me say this again: I understand that many people here think that the ACVR is a part of some Republican machine, and for the sake of discussion, I’ve acknowledged that. I don’t care. What I want to know is why that discredits what is in the report. What’s in the report is either right or it’s wrong and all of the labeling and conspiracy theories in the world won’t change that. The fact that NOT ONE SINGLE liberal/Democrat can come up with something substantive to criticize in the report, but still insist that it is to flawed to even entertain, shows that those people are afraid of this report.

I have spent probably hundreds of hours debating people and I have never, ever, ever debated someone on a topic where I spent more (or all of my) time and energy critiquing the players in the topic rather than the substance of the topic.

Does John Conyer provide direct links as sources for every single inch of claim in his findings? ACVR does.

Ms Schwamp -

If 50 people vote for candidate x and 100 people for candidate y, and of those 100 who voted for y, let’s say 20 of them were fraudulent votes, that means that only 30 people who voted for x are actually having their votes represented fairly, because the other 20 have been canceled out by the fraudulent votes. It’s quite obvious. If you vote fraudently for Sen. Pork and I vote honestly against Sen. Pork, then there is no reason for me to even show up to the polls, unless I can come up with a way of voting twice!

——-

Again people, if you want to sit here and dismiss the report, not based on whats in it, but based on who is behind it, then more power to you.

I actually wrote this entry about two weeks ago, and after debating it with liberals for about a week, I decided to repost it here, not necessarily to get a substantive critique on the report (I gave up on that), but to demonstrate the tactics used to dismiss the report. And posters here are compounding my point quite effectively, with interest.

I’ll continue to wait for a real reason why what is in this report shouldn’t be taken seriously, or at least explored and debated.

Posted by: OttO at August 22, 2005 02:47 PM

red flags do not equate to tossing out the report.

if you want to sit here and dismiss the report, not based on whats in it, but based on who is behind it, then more power to you.

Wait a minute here. Don’t the wrong-wingers use EXACTLY the SAME tactics to discredit news reports that they don’t like? Wrong-wingers constantly whine about “the liberal media”, and wrong-wingers screamed bloody murder about “forged documents” to discredit the CBS report that cast doubt on Dubya’s military “service”. And now you have the gall to say that this tactic is WRONG?

This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 22, 2005 03:02 PM

OttO:
OttO:
“I’ll leave it up to you as far as what kind of impression you want to leave with readers here.”

Right back at you. Especially when you’ve written an article trying to make ACVR out as a “non partisan” source without even searching to see whether they’ve already been caught out in their deception by the left.

“The fact that NOT ONE SINGLE liberal/Democrat can come up with something substantive to criticize in the report, but still insist that it is to flawed to even entertain, shows that those people are afraid of this report.”

Let’s just put it this way… Since ACVR lied from the very beginning about who they were, it stands to reason that their statistics are most likely about as factually accurate as, for example, the president’s were on the cost of his Medicare Drug Prescription Bill. Or in other words, not at all.
See, that’s the trouble with lies and deceit. Once the first bit is uncovered, no one is likely to believe anything else they’ve said.

Besides, if we are to study what really happened in Ohio’s presidential election, we could still be debating this next year — because there are actually that many factors to consider if we really want to know exactly what went wrong in Ohio.

The truth is, practically every state in America needs serious election reform — but the Republican’s have chosen to completely ignore that fact and have blocked all who have been demanding it. I wonder why?

Posted by: Adrienne at August 22, 2005 03:38 PM

I would be very interested in hearing from our friends on the left what was the last election for President that was LOST by a Democratic candidate that would be considered FAIR.

Then, when was the last election for President that was WON by a Republican that would be considered FAIR.

FAIR for purposes of these questions is with the least amount of fraud.

Posted by: steve smith at August 22, 2005 03:52 PM

Adrienne

Welcome back.

Mary Frances Berry - the head of the commission, was very much credibility challenged and her report never actually was accepted even by all the memmbers of her commission.

I found this by quick google. It is not the only report about it.

“The House Judiciary Committee has accused the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights of deliberately withholding key documents and data used in its “investigations” of the 2000 presidential election in Florida. It called the commission’s actions a “flagrant disregard” of Congress’s authority to oversee the embattled agency.
“The irregularities associated with the Florida report and the commission’s failure to respond fully to the subcommittee’s requests do not give the subcommittee a sufficient basis to conclude that the work of the commission warrants the confidence of the public,” wrote Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.”

This was a good example of the inuendo. They talked about lots of things, but had no single instance of anyone being charged with fraud or abuse. If there was that much trouble, you think they could identify somebody.

Posted by: jack at August 22, 2005 03:58 PM

What I don’t understand is why election reform is so difficult.

All Bush would have to do is give Diebold a tax cut to produce machines that produce both an electronic vote and a paper reciept that can be verified before being submitted. Standard machines all across the US.
Bush would like that, tax cuts for major (faux)republican contributors.

Hey, how about this, Scan Tron. They are in all the schools and we all know how to use them. Just remember to use a #2 pencil.

Posted by: MyPetGoat at August 22, 2005 04:21 PM

Let’s vote 3 consecutive days each person voting at a different polling place each time. Then we take the result of the best 2 out of 3 in each state to determine the winning candidate. This way the entire process will take 4-5 days. In most cases it’s taking longer than that now with not much better of a clear cut result.

Posted by: steve smith at August 22, 2005 04:37 PM

Adrienne -

I simply quoted ACVR on their non-partisan claim. I never stated my own opinion on it, in fact, for the third time now, I said I was willing to call them partisan hacks for the sack of getting beyond this and moving to the meat and potatoes of the report.

What I don’t understand is that you come here to tell me that you are unwilling to accept my challenge because you don’t like or trust the ACVR. Fine. You’ve made your point. I’m reiterating my challenge to you and you can feel free to engage it or ignore it, but you are repeatedly making my point for me.

Elliot -

I’m not exactly sure what ‘wrong-wingers’ do, all I can defend here is what I do. If you come up to me and make a point about how correct and accurate Maureen Dowds latest column is and challenge me to dispute it, I’m not going to respond by saying that Dowd is a partisan hack who writes for NYTimes so there is no point. I’m going to read it and tell you point-by-point what is wrong with the column and then maybe I will point out what a dishonest and rabid liberal she is, based on her own words.

No one has done that once with the findings in the report.

And the idea that you would compare this to a hard news report based on conjured up military records is asinine! Then you might as well say that Maureen Dowd proved that Saddam Hussein was a sweet and affectionate guy based on an Valentines Day e-card found on the net signed ‘Saddam’!

Unlike ‘Rather-gate’, this report backs up its discoveries. Dan Rather could not then and still to this day defend those documents.

I may ‘whine’ about the liberal media, but not just to hear my voice. I will back it up every time with substance, as hopefully readers will come to find in the coming months.

Thanks for the responses.

Posted by: OttO at August 22, 2005 04:43 PM

Ms Schwamp -

If 50 people vote for candidate x and 100 people for candidate y, and of those 100 who voted for y, let’s say 20 of them were fraudulent votes, that means that only 30 people who voted for x are actually having their votes represented fairly, because the other 20 have been canceled out by the fraudulent votes. It’s quite obvious. If you vote fraudently for Sen. Pork and I vote honestly against Sen. Pork, then there is no reason for me to even show up to the polls, unless I can come up with a way of voting twice!

Otto, when you say things like ‘not only does a fraudulent vote effect the election but it’s mere existence disenfranchises a voter’ you are exaggerating the effect of one vote by discussing it’s impact in two ways. Either that or they are going to extra lengths to explain why a fraudulent vote is a bad thing as if their target audience is pre-schoolers. And it was in their mission statement for crying out loud.

It’s as bad as the people who said voting for Ralph Nader has the same effect as voting for Bush. Quite incorrect.

Posted by: Ms Schwamp at August 22, 2005 04:58 PM

OttO-
The Organization discredits itself by not being honest about it’s politics, especially in the light of its politically charged output.

Let me return to the example of the SwiftVets. In researching their charges, I found they were highly selective in their accounts and often contradictory to other eyewitnesses. Citations and contemporary accounts clash with SwiftVet stories, and their only explanations are further allegations levelled at Kerry (based on initials that couldn’t be his) and mudslinging at those veterans who dared to contradict them.

Might there be a grain of truth in what they say, given their intent of beating the crap out of Kerry’s reputation as a soldier? I don’t doubt it. But their other deceptions and discrepancies mean that I can’t be sure that their information has been presented in a way that preserves big picture character of what really happened. And yes, the details matter. As a follower of current events, and a storyteller myself, I can attest to how much the small things that people tell us can matter.

An example there: The armor controversy. After Rumsfeld faced the difficult question, somebody came out with a report that said the officer’s unit was now fully armored. They neglected to say that 55% of that armor was the exact kind of “hillbilly” armor that he was complaining. A small bit of information, but an important one. Without it, some might assume a problem had been solved. With it, the problem is obviously not. If these folks would lie to me to keep me from learning they are GOP partisans, why wouldn’t they lie to give me desired false impressions on other fronts?

And yes, It is important how information is organized in report because all the information could be true, but the logic may not be valid. In my college logic class, they made a distinction between a valid argument, one whose logic would make necessary a certain conclusion, if the premises were true, and a sound argument, where the basis of all the argument is factually correct. The armor argument, for example, would be valid under any circumstances, but only sound if the armor were indeed all the good kind.

Nobody gets the whole story with these things. The question is how and why the information is incomplete. Right here, we have somebody willfully keeping information incomplete, for what can only be manipulative purposes. Do I read any further, if I’m not planning to take this stuff seriously? No. If you wanted somebody to take the content at face value, you should have been more informed about your source. There are different kinds of wrong, and this report includes many of those mistakes.

If your point was that people would get offended at this kind of deceptive practice, then you’ve made your point. If your point is that we are just disregarders of non-liberal information, you’re wrong. You’ll find few people who argue against Dan Rather’s documents being forgeries. Partisan politics enters into it, but it doesn’t dominate our perspective the way it does yours. We just don’t take kindly to gross deceptions of this kind.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2005 05:10 PM

Jack:
“Mary Frances Berry - the head of the commission, was very much credibility challenged and her report never actually was accepted even by all the memmbers of her commission.”

The only people who couldn’t accept that report was the far right, Jack. And this past February they forced Mary Frances Berry out of her position at the U.S. Civil Rights Commision after nearly 25 years of exemplary service to replace her with conservative black attorney Gerald Reynolds. The choice of Reynolds was and is a complete insult to everyone who actually cares about Civil Rights laws.

Here is what the woman herself has to say about being forced to resign her post as well as what we can only expect from an administration that doesn’t give a rats ass about enforcing the laws:

Ousted Civil Rights Leader Speaks Out
Feb. 9, 2005 — In an exclusive interview with Tolerance.org, Mary Frances Berry, former chairperson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, forecasts an ongoing rollback of civil rights.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 22, 2005 05:10 PM

496 Republicans were charged last year with beating their wives.

“Of the several people I have debated this with, not one came up with a single example of innacuracy [sic] or dishonesty in the [statement]. I challenge anyone to do so.”

The inaccuracy or dishonesty is not in the content of the statement, but in its intended purpose of misleading someone. It does so by not saying some things that put this into context and by not mentioning the Democrats, Greens, and independents who also were charged with beating their wives. Otto’s challenge to find something erroneous in the report is similarly misguided.

Winding up the base isn’t hard, but fair analysis of our national problems is. I wish more people on this blog were interested in the latter.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at August 22, 2005 05:25 PM

Otto,

Once again, I’m not currently disputing what is IN the report. I’m disputing what is NOT in the report. There are dozens and dozens of highly publicized alleged wrongdoings that was not even mentioned in the report, let alone investigated.

This speaks directly to the content of the report, not the individuals involved in it - although they too are obviously suspect.

Posted by: Burt at August 22, 2005 05:40 PM

Adrienne

Let’s start with the credibility “forced to resign”. She wasn’t forced to resign. Her term was up. She was not reappointed. She served well into the Bush Administration. She was on the commission for 25 years and was 66 years old. That is probably long enough to stay in an appointed post. It was time for her to go. I don’t doubt that she thought she was fighting the good fight. Others disagreed with her.

The article says she was forced out a month before. Well - her term expired on December 5. She decided for no reason other than her own desire that she could stay on until January 21. It took a court order to get her to leave. She was like one of those house guests who just sits in the bathroom and won’t come out.

In 1997, (Clinton time you will recall) a Government Accountability Office report noted that management is in disarray, projects are poorly managed and take years to complete, spending data isn’t maintained by office, program, or function and the agency’s policies and procedures are unclear. GAO couldn’t even verify project spending because of the commission’s indecipherable record keeping. It was never corrected.

During her tenure, the commission became a partisan body that issued reports with no authorization or review by anyone outside and Berry ignored any criticism even from anyone inside the commission.

I still go to the bottom line. If abuses were so widespread, why could not all those lawyers and journalists crawling all over the Sunshine State find actual, concrete cases that could stand up to real investigation and legal scrutiny?

Wimp

Otto doesn’t need to defend the report. There is no evidence of significant fraud. The other side has to prove its case. As with Florida, if there was so much going on, why can’t we find at least a couple people responsible.

I guess it is like ghosts of flying saucers. You can’t find (sane) people who can describe an unambigious encouter, but everybody knows someone who claims he has.

Posted by: jack at August 22, 2005 05:53 PM

Was there fraud? That’s laughable. Of course there was fraud. Whenever the profitability and predictability of 100’s of billions of dollars are at stake, there will be fraud. Whenever careers and livlihoods are at stake, there will be fraud. Anyone not recognizing this simple fact, prima facia, knows nothing of human nature and fails to understand why we have laws and police to enforce them and prisons for those who refuse to abide.

The only question is, why hasn’t America moved to the most fraud proof election system possible and why hasn’t the Constitutional Amendment been passed that would create the same elective procedures and rules the nation over? FAIR Elections? Scares the hell out of the powers that be, that’s why.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 22, 2005 06:11 PM

David:

You used to have a shred of optimism in you. From your writings, I’ve seen that shred diminish. You see fraud as an inevitability. You see America in rapid and constant decline. You see US stocks falling precipitously.

It must be hard to so consistently write about the negatives in life. Surely somewhere there are positives to write about. Surely there are silver linings without dark clouds behind them.

If not, I’d imagine it must be hard to ever put your fingers to the keyboard. Although, psychologists do say that some members of society embrace pessimism. I’m sure you will claim to not be a pessimist, but rather a realist, but your writings betray this.

I hope you find the rainbow again. I used to see a brightly colored rainbow in your writings, even when we disagreed. The only rainbow I see from your writings now is one color—-grey grey grey grey.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 22, 2005 06:35 PM

OttO
What’s also interesting is the fact that two, almost three weeks later, a report highlighting and carefully documenting election fraud, which was so important in the media a few months ago, is not anywhere to be seen in the mainstream press. Would anyone disagree that if this report showed that Republicans were behind most of the voter fraud in 2004, that this would be on the front page of every newspaper in America?

Not only would it be on the front page of every news paper, but it would be the lead story on every news cast for the next six months.
Also, the liberials would be demanding that Bush be removed form office and Kerry put in

Posted by: Ron Brown at August 22, 2005 07:31 PM

Jack-
re: Mary Frances Berry:
“She was on the commission for 25 years and was 66 years old. That is probably long enough to stay in an appointed post.”

66 years old is young these days. You are grabbing at straws.

“It was time for her to go.”

According to the far right.

“I don’t doubt that she thought she was fighting the good fight.”

Yeah, so did Reagan, Bush I and Clinton. When she reached Shrub’s second term and she gave him a report entitled: “Redefining Rights in America: The Civil Rights Record of the George W. Bush Administration.” suddenly she just wasn’t good enough.

“Others disagreed with her.”

Only the Neocon’s. And you’ll note that no report similar to the 2000 study looking at Voter Irregularities in Ohio has been produced by their new replacement to the post. Coincidence? I think not.

“I still go to the bottom line. If abuses were so widespread, why could not all those lawyers and journalists crawling all over the Sunshine State find actual, concrete cases that could stand up to real investigation and legal scrutiny?”

Jack, all I can say is that at some point, you’re going to have to go read Conyer’s report because you honestly don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. It’s always “See no Evil, Hear no Evil, Speak no Evil” with you, and therefore, there is really no point in my trying to engage you in a discussion.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 22, 2005 07:47 PM

jbod, yes, I have much to be happy about to include having been born and raised during America’s zenith. It makes watching her decline all the more painful. But, I have a private life with wife and daughter and home I built myself, that are fulfilling, and when this society encroaches on those, I will leave it. For it will no longer be the America I was born and raised in, or the America I served in the Army, except in geography.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 22, 2005 07:56 PM

A quick in and out:

Stephen -

I’ve repeatedly acknowledged for the sake of argument that some have a problem with the organization and those who are behind it. I’m not asking you to discredit the organization, I’m asking you to explain what is in the report that is dishonest or innacurate. Everyone keeps repeating the same side arguments over and over and no one will still attack the report directly.

Tell me that if this report was actually riddled with Republican distortions, you guys wouldn’t be all over it, throwing them in my face. I know some of you would. And frankly, I don’t know how you can know anything about the report if you don’t bother to read it (assumption on my part).

Burt -

I’ve already responded to this. What is in the report are things that have been investigated by various justice departments or by election officials, including Democrats. Some were found to be legitimate complaints, many were found to be simply hot air. If you know of something that has been officially investigated and is not in the report (not just some empty internet conspiracies or extremist accusations) then please let me know what they are and I will be happy to contact ACVR and ask them about those incident(s).

Honestly, I have my doubts that you have explored this report that thoroughly. It’s pretty in-depth (if you include the footnotes) and covers a lot of ground and would take some time and dedication to figure out exactly what legitimate complaints are or aren’t in there. If you did explore it, you would find Republican wrong doings listed.

And why is it that I can only find one source on the web that takes the ACVR to task? It happens to be someone’s blog. Where is Air America on this? Or the NYTimes? Only one article on a news search comes up with an opinion piece on it. And if partisanship is the basis of being discredited, then no complaints or accusations from liberal groups can be taken seriously either.

So I understand anyway.

I’ll try and respond to a couple of other juicy posts later, but right now I have prior obligations.

Posted by: OttO at August 22, 2005 09:04 PM

Burt, you continually talk about honesty.
where’s yours?

ten hours in the rain?
If he got in line at 5p he voted at 3A?

Posted by: George at August 22, 2005 09:33 PM

Did Bush still the elections?Duh! Of course he did.Using fear as a tool of mass hypnosis.And a dirty campaign that included a bunch of publicity seeking stooges known as the Swifties some of whose only claim to fame is the fact they were 200 miles downriver when Kerry was laying down fire to cover his men something that they conveniently forgot for 30 years until they couldnt resist the lure of lights camera action anymore.
Did Bush steal the election? Think about it.How about the war he started under what has now been been proven to be false pretenses and then using people like that shameless apologist Sean Hannity to convice a lot of us that he is the only one capable of finishing what he thought would be a walk in the park?
The qustion should not be did he steal but by how much?

Posted by: John Doe at August 22, 2005 10:14 PM

David:

I hope it never comes to a point where you feel the need to leave this once and still great country of ours. I have high hopes for the future—not a future without problems, mistakes or difficulties, but a future in which we continue to meet those conditions and rise above them.

This country has faced hard times and has come through them. But I fear most that what we consider hard times today would have been laughed at by our predecessors.

Where our generations have cried over a stock market dropping from 11,000 to 7500 due to the tech bubble bursting, our parents and grandparents survived the Great Depression.

Where we complain about the ravages of this current war, our parents and grandparents lived through WWII, Korea and Viet Nam, where hundreds of thousands died. The griefs they faced were far more numerous, yet they did so with much more character than I see today.

David, I have hopes for our nation. But these hopes depend on people not allowing themselves to be polarized, not allowing themselves to fall into the trap of looking more for blame than for solutions, and not looking out solely for themselves.

It has been accomplished before; I believe it can be accomplished again.

With respect for you,

JBOD

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 22, 2005 10:23 PM

Thank you JBOD. I appreciate and admire your hope and optimism. McCullough has written a new book called 1776. In it, he demonstrates that the absolute worst time Americans ever had over any issue in its history, was the Revolutionary War. More died as a percentage of the population in that war than in any other save the Civil War. And the very fact that the United States ever existed, was as much serendipity due to the direction of winds as determination and unity amongst colonists. In Washington’s first large battle, the winds changed to allow his army to escape across the river, and a fog settled in the morning hiding their daylit retreat. Had the winds not changed direction against the British ships, Washington’s Army would have been crushed in the first big battle, and the war would have been over, and we would likely be subjects of Great Britain today.

We could get lucky again. For my daughter I hope so. But the more I learn and understand about human behavior, national behavior, and political/social group behavior and the directions they are taking, I see secessionist motives behind damn near every corner.

So many groups acting as if getting rid of the other groups would solve anything, is so contradictory to American ideals, and direction of American history, I can’t find optimism until I see something powerful coming to end this trend. And so far, the horizon is void of rescuing figures that I can recognize.

I read recently that we have become more segregated as races in this country than before the Civil Rights legislation became enforced. It is hard to find optimism in a reality that continues to contradict perception.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 22, 2005 10:42 PM

OttO-
I’m not going to examine them because I know that with groups that have been astroturfed like this, their conclusions are as artificial as their public image. We’re not dealing with a study here, we’re dealing with organized spin. Find something more reliable, OttO. It’s the dishonesty that bothers me, not the Party from which I’m getting it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2005 12:12 AM

Otto, Their obsessive rationalization of an election loss will NEVER be cured by facts…in my opinion, it’s a more deeply seated emotional thing. Hearing news/facts that throws their needed fantasy into disrepute, it looks like many just become tangential or temporarily withdraw, only to begin repeating their discredited belief again later, after the effects to the truth wear off. Of course, in the history of elections in the U.S., some hanky panky by both parties is a reality. But this report dealing with 2004 reveals some particularly serious stuff. And yes, one can only imagine the difference in media coverage if Bush/Republican supporters had been discovered doing it. The paradox is that it was the Dems who started reving up “election fraud” hysteria(10,000 lawyers, Michael Moore’s cameras, that memo saying “raise charges of fraud, even if none is yet discovered”, etc). Maybe that noted Republican, William Shakespear, had something when he declared, “They doth protesteth too much.”

Posted by: Sal7 at August 23, 2005 02:12 AM

Otto, I left something out of my posting above. I’ve lived in Chicago, anybody want to discuss election fraud with me? Especially the 1960/Kennedy election…where it is well-known that the Dems managed to steal more votes in the Chicago area for Kennedy than the Republicans were able to steal downstate for Nixon. The late mayor Daley was not treated as an honored personnage by the Kennedy family simply because he was Irish. Kennedy owed being President to Illinois and The Mayor.

Posted by: Sal7 at August 23, 2005 03:09 AM

Did anybody else see this story? The Republican Party is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend James Tobin - President Bush’s 2004 campaign chairman in New England - who faces four federal charges for conspiring with a state GOP official and a GOP consultant in Virginia to deprive Democrats of their right to vote in 2002.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 23, 2005 08:54 AM

Did anybody else see this story? The Republican Party is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend James Tobin - President Bush’s 2004 campaign chairman in New England - who faces four federal charges for conspiring with a state GOP official and a GOP consultant in Virginia to deprive Democrats of their right to vote in 2002.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 23, 2005 08:55 AM

Google “convicted election fraud” and you find some of the bottom line cases. Many are real cases, not the kinds of things we read in the various reports. Republicans and Democrats are both represented – looks like rather more Democrats, but I didn’t make a scientific count. Most seem to be local matters.

David is right to say that cheating occurs in every election because a lot is at stake. I don’t share his pessimisms about the system, however. It is a constant battle to keep elections reasonably fair. The job will never be completed to everyone’s satisfaction. It is like health. Nobody I know is in perfect health condition. Even among the healthiest people, everyone could stand to lose a couple of pounds or give up a bad habit. But most people, most of the time, are healthy enough.

Elections are a statistical process. The contention that we can flawlessly determine the metaphysical desire of every voter is credulous or nefarious. All we have is what they do on election day. We can just do a good job (or not) of counting, but that is it. When the votes are very close, we will have cause for concern. Usually the winner is clear. Not always. In the case of Florida 2000, the “real” winner was not determinable. We fell back on legal procedures and courts. I understand why Dems feel aggrieved, but neither outcome would have been “fair”. Bush won all the recounts. You can’t count forever until your guy wins. This is what happened in the Washington governor’s race. Nobody thinks these are good things, but in the case of a statistical tie, you have to go with the rules for determining a winner.

Ohio 2004 wasn’t that close. Dems chose to focus on Ohio because it was the last of the dominoes to fall, not because of particularly egregious violations. Had Kerry won, I expect Republicans would be examining Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin very closely.

I volunteered to drive voters to the polls last November. When I was interviewed in our very local paper, the reporter asked if I would also drive Democrats. I said that I would, but that all the way I would be telling them why they should vote Bush. It was a joke. No Democrats called me. But was that suppression? I clearly discouraged Democrats from riding with me. I don’t doubt my public statement would appear in the Dem’s suppression pantheon if Virginia had been a close race.

Posted by: jack at August 23, 2005 09:42 AM

George,

Are you really disputing that there were 10 hour lines in Ohio? Actually, you’re right. The polls didn’t close at 3am. That would be ridiculous. They closed at 4am.

Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 09:54 AM

Otto,

How about asking ACVR about this incident in Oregon? A quick view of their report indicates no investigations in Oregon.

When you ask, keep in mind that Jim Dyke, the ACVR spokesman is the former RNC Communications Director. And furthermore, he is quoted as having defended the charges against the group in question. No conflict on interest there, eh?

Dyke Defended RNC Funded Group Accused of Election Tampering. “RNC comm dir Jim Dyke said Democratic “charges that thousands of Democratic voters were disenfranchised have proved ‘baseless.’ DNC chair Terry McAuliffe said last week that thousands of Democratic voters could lose their right to vote because of Voters Outreach of America, a group funded by the RNC. An ex-VOA employee accused the group of tearing up Democratic registration forms. Dyke: “We have a zero tolerance policy . We expressed that to any firm that helped . [Las Vegas Sun, 10/21; National Journal Hotline, 10/22/04.

Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 10:34 AM

Otto,

How about asking ACVR about this incident in Oregon? A quick view of their report indicates no investigations in Oregon.

When you ask, keep in mind that Jim Dyke, the ACVR spokesman is the former RNC Communications Director. And furthermore, he is quoted as having defended the charges against the group in question. No conflict of interest there, eh?

Dyke Defended RNC Funded Group Accused of Election Tampering. “RNC comm dir Jim Dyke said Democratic “charges that thousands of Democratic voters were disenfranchised have proved ‘baseless.’ DNC chair Terry McAuliffe said last week that thousands of Democratic voters could lose their right to vote because of Voters Outreach of America, a group funded by the RNC. An ex-VOA employee accused the group of tearing up Democratic registration forms. Dyke: “We have a zero tolerance policy . We expressed that to any firm that helped . [Las Vegas Sun, 10/21; National Journal Hotline, 10/22/04.

Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 10:35 AM

Here we go again. Left attacking Right on something that is a year and a half in the past. Get a life already would you people. If you on the left would spend half as much time trying to build up this country and Mr. Bush as you do tearing them down we all would be so much better off and there would be so much more accomplished. But, alas, that will probaly never happen. :-(

Posted by: William Morris at August 23, 2005 12:31 PM

Sal7-
I’m not going to deny machine politics were involved in Illinois anymore than you’re going to deny that the Nixon White House was running illegal slush funds, interfering with other candidate’s election efforts illegally, and paying those same operatives to burglarize private offices, including the DNC’s.

That said, you should know something that gets neglected in Republican circles: Kennedy had the electoral votes to win even without Illinois.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2005 12:41 PM

Burt

Look for convictions, not investigations. Very often when all the smoke clears, we actually don’t find any fire.

Fraud occurs in most elections. It is a crime and a serious problem. We need to take steps so that anyone eligible to vote can vote, but only once and that anyone who is ineligible can’t vote at all. We should start by asking all voters for picture identification – or at least as much identification as it would take to cash a check at Seven-Eleven. Like all crimes we try to stop it, but sometimes cannot. My google search (see above) indicates that the problem is bipartisan, but that it has not decided a national election in recent times.

We all can find interesting anecdotes of people paying for votes or deceiving voters. My personal favorite is from my original hometown of Milwaukee. Suppression could not have been much a problem there, since 4,609 more people voted than were living people registered to vote. Long lines must not have been a problem for these guys. Milwaukee voted solidly Democrat. Subtract Milwaukee County and Bush would have won the state. You see, our anecdotes are at least as amusing.

Posted by: jack at August 23, 2005 12:54 PM

Jack and William Morris,

Please do us all a favor and figure out a way to stay with the thread.

Otto asked why Democrats don’t take the report at face value. I stated it was because a) the authors of the report have tried to deceive people about their motivations and b) although the content in the report may or may not be accurate, there is clearly a large amount of content that is ignored in the report.

Otto asked me to provide an example. Specifically, he asked me to show him an incident that had been subject to an official investigation.

If you know of something that has been officially investigated and is not in the report (not just some empty internet conspiracies or extremist accusations) then please let me know what they are and I will be happy to contact ACVR and ask them about those incident(s).

I provided evidence of such. Do you really have a problem with that?

BTW, Jack, thank you for pointing out that voter fraud occurs by both parties, and in doing so make my point that the report that this whole thread is based on is bogus.

Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 01:10 PM

If were seeking neutrality in any report done about Washington politics, Then it will have to be done with “NO” Republicans/conservatives or Democrats/librals on the panel, otherwise whomever feels slighted is going to call foul, and will end up debating the messenger instead of the message: POLITICS. Throw the whole lot of them out: democrats and Republicans, replace them with people who are economicaly conservative and socially libral, we get the goverment out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms and maybe real freedom will be found.
Stop arguing of these two messaegers who have perverted the political process and listen to there message, You’ll find GREED hidden all through it, thus fraud.WE need a reawakening

Posted by: Dan Arthur at August 23, 2005 01:30 PM

oTTo:

And why is it that I can only find one source on the web that takes the ACVR to task? It happens to be someone’s blog. Where is Air America on this?

You really should listen to Air America more. The ACVR has been discussed on many different Air America shows, and on more than one occasion. Even Brad blog reports this fact here.
I’m sorry if you missed their coverage, but you can’t expect Air America to continuously discuss something that was so quickly and thoroughly discredited.

Posted by: Charles Wager at August 23, 2005 03:11 PM

Burt

Some fraud. Not enough in this case to change the election. Not particularly by Republicans and not to the extent Dems are saying. When we check the facts in places like Florida or Ohio, we just find alot of urban legends made up by the usual suspects.

Posted by: jack at August 23, 2005 08:56 PM

Burt, show me 4A or even 2A.
• November 3, 2004 | 1:46 a.m. ET

Manager Mary Beth Cahill issuing the statement at 1:27 AM EST and to quote it in full: “The vote count in Ohio has not been completed. There are more than 250,000 remaining votes to be counted. We believe when they are, John Kerry will win Ohio.”

(Bert, Are you saying that Mary Beth Cahill didn’t know the voting was still going on, or that she didn’t think it important?)

The Kerry campaign announcing at 2:45 a.m. ET, a “full lid” — political news terminology for no further comment for the night.

(Bert, Are you saying that The Kerry campaign didn’t know the voting was still going on, or that they didn’t think it important?)

The Warren results, delayed for hours because of long lines that extended voting past the scheduled close of polls, were part of the last tallies that helped clinch President Bush’s re-election.

AP) Hundreds of people waited in lines more than three hours after polls closed Tuesday night in hotly contested Ohio, where elections officials took extra voting machines to some precincts to try to speed things up and volunteers passed out hot chocolate to warm voters waiting in cold rain.

Many elections officials said people still in line at the poll closing time of 7:30 p.m. would be allowed to vote.

The Lorain County Board of Elections took extra voting equipment to two precincts near Oberlin College, where the wait was up to five hours at one point.

Though outside groups and the political parties had worried that chaos would be created by a high number of new voters and the potential for registration challenges, most problems were minor in one of the most anticipated elections in the nation’s history.

Jonathan Mead was the last person allowed through the door at First Church in Oberlin. The 18-year-old freshman from Chestnut Ridge, N.Y., had come and gone twice before deciding to stick it out so he could vote for Sen. John Kerry.

When the polls closed, there were about 400 people ahead of him.

“I’m very glad that so many people came and that I had to wait,” said Mead, who brought his developmental psychology homework to pass the time until he finally cast his ballot at 10 p.m.

Volunteers handed out hot chocolate, and voters were festive

At Kenyon College about 55 miles northeast of Columbus, voting was predicted to continue until at least 11 p.m. because of high turnout in a precinct with just two electronic voting machines, said Bill Moody, a member of the Knox County elections board.

Paper ballots were delivered to speed things up.

The Medina County elections board took absentee ballot supplies to move things along in Montville for about 100 people still waiting 90 minutes after the polls closed, said board director Susan Strasser.

The rest here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/02/politics/main653166.shtml

Posted by: George at August 23, 2005 09:05 PM

Hey, I finally found Mark Crispin Miller’s full article on online:
None Dare Call It Stolen: Ohio, the Election, and America’s Servile Press

Posted by: Adrienne at August 23, 2005 09:50 PM

Jack, you’re right. The voter registrations that were torn up would not have changed the outcome of the election. Hell, for all we know, a million more votes for Kerry in Ohio may not have changed the outcome of the election. I’m sorry that the evidence of voter fraud I presented wasn’t serious enough for you to raise an eyebrow.

But is that the best you can do with regards to Ohio and Florida. Show me where this collective “we” that you are involved with have checked the facts and found the claims to be urban legends.

Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 10:19 PM

George,

How lazy does one have to be to not even click on the link I provided for evidence? Heck, you even reference Kenyon college in your own article.

For your edification, here’s 4AM. Happy now?:

It was a fierce campaign, an election watched intently all over the world. On Election Day, the key battleground was Ohio, whose twenty electoral votes would decide the outcome.

And in Ohio, the most extraordinary place on Tuesday, November 2, 2004, turned out to be a tiny college town where the students, many of them first-time voters, waited up to eleven hours to cast their ballots, cheerful, patient, determined, and increasingly aware, as night dragged into morning, that they were writing a small chapter in political history.

The place, of course, was Gambier, where the Kenyon student turnout overwhelmed the two available voting machines, so that the polls couldn’t close until nearly 4:00 a.m. on Wednesday, the last voting precinct in the Eastern time zone to shut its doors. The national media, meanwhile, which were closely watching the presidential race in Ohio, had picked up the Kenyon story, thanks in part to students with cell phones. Just as Ohio was becoming not only the climactic story of the night but also a metaphor for the intensity of the campaign, so was Kenyon emerging as not only a newsworthy part of the drama but also a symbol of civic commitment.

Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 10:22 PM

Still waiting on Otto and a response from ACVR.

Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 10:24 PM

Everyone here -

I appreciate the exchange and would like to thank pretty much every critic here for emphasizing the point I was trying to make. I’m going to wrap this up and let the rest of you have the final say.

As I indicated earlier, the purpose of this exercise was to demonstrate and create an on-line record of the absolute denials by Democrats and liberals of the mere possibility that Democrat supporters could possibly be capable of bad behavior in an election. No one is willing to even entertain a discussion about offical and proven activities in the 2004 election. And that’s okay. Your refusal to acknowledge or disprove anything doesn’t alter the facts that most investigated claims against Republicans were false and most investigated claims against Democrats were true. The records are there to back this up and beating your chest and sticking your head in the sand will not change that.

There are a couple of points that needed highlighting, points that seem undeniable to me:

Nearly every single visitor here has used ACVR ties to Republicans as a means to discredit or ignore the report. That somehow, even if the board of directors at ACVR leaned Democrat, and the results of the research was the same, that it would legitimize the findings and then you folks would acknowledge them. I find that highly unlikely.

One poster even suggested that a group like this should find people who aren’t Republican or Democrat. Are there people out there who are interested in voter rights and fairness who don’t have stakes in politics? I mean, there must be dozens of those people, right?

Also, this notion that because a group may have people who lean one way or the other and that automatically discredits their writings or releases seems incredible unrealistic to me. That’s like saying that women’s rights is bogus because N.O.W. leans almost entirely to the left and always endorses Democrats and that the topic is moot! It also doesn’t seem to matter to anyone that many of these findings have been endorsed by Democrats!

Finally, I just find the whole mentality interesting. Frankly, I can’t think of a time in my life when I responded to people in a debate by repeatedly announcing I wasn’t willing to debate the issue. If this report scorned Republicans the same way it does scorn Democrats, it would be all over the media and people like my friends here wouldn’t let it go away. It would be grounds for another four years of ‘Bush stole the election!’.

If the NYTimes or some other outfit came up with a half a dozen items in this report that could be debunked, or labeled as ‘lies’, American Pundit and Burt and others would be eagerly shoving them down my throat, despite the fact that Thor Hearn is on the B of D.

I end my involvement on this thread with yet another documented record that not one person can or is willing to try and discredit this report based on it’s own merit. The best that anyone can come up with is the notion that somewhere out there is some voter conspiracy that didn’t even lack enough substance to warrant an investigation (BTW Burt, your repeated example of Gambier seems to indicate a lack of preparedness, but doesn’t really indicate some sort of fraud or intimidation - if so, where were the Democratic election officials or county officials on November 2nd? Aren’t they technically responsible for looking out for the Democrat voters in their precincts?).

Again, I thank you for the exchange and I thank you for unwittingly making my point. If anyone comes up with something in or out of the report that you feel warrants attention, feel free to let me know at http://theottoshow.blog-city.com/.

Posted by: OttO at August 24, 2005 09:39 AM

Otto,

Amazing! You refuse to acknowledge any criticisms.

It isn’t being looked at suspiciously because it is partisan, it is being looked at suspiciously because the organization involved has lied about its partisanship.

We aren’t necessarily denying that the issues in this report are true. It’s a little unrealistic to ask people on a blog to investigate every claim in a long running report. We are denouncing the report because it clearly fails to mention incidents from the Republican side.

When you asked for evidence of this, I provided it to you. And you completely ignored it. How typical.

Shame on me for thinking you might actually be looking for an honest discussion.

Posted by: Burt at August 24, 2005 10:08 AM

Burt -

From the ACVR report:

(D) McAuliffe Letter Alleging RNC-Funded Disenfranchisement

On October 13, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe sent a letter to RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie accusing Republicans of “systematic efforts to disenfranchise voters – to impose unlawful ID requirements in New Mexico, to throw eligible voters off the rolls in Clark County Nevada and to deprive voters of their rights to vote a provisional ballot in Ohio, among other examples.‎ The letter argued that while Republicans claimed to combat vote fraud, “it is actually the Republicans who are engaging in vote fraud in Nevada, Oregon and potentially other states.‎ McAuliffe cited the example of a voter registration organization paid by the RNC that was accused of “ripping up Democratic voter registration forms‎ in Nevada. (31)

McAuliffe’s reference to “ripping up Democrat voter registration forms‎ was a reference to the charges leveled by a former employee of the voter registration firm Sproul & Associates. These charges were, however, later found to be without merit. In October 2004, former Sproul & Associates employee Eric Russell claimed to have witnessed his supervisors tearing up Democrat registration forms. Russell, who admitted to being a disgruntled employee upset about not being paid for work he claimed to have done, said he witnessed his supervisor shred eight to ten Democratic registration forms from prospective voters. (32)

On the basis of these allegations, the Nevada Democratic Party sued the state of Nevada to reopen voter registration only in Clark County. A state court judge rejected the suit, saying that Democrats’ thin evidence of registration forms actually being destroyed did not justify reopening the registration process. (33)

In late October, Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller announced that a state investigation of Eric Russell’s claims against Sproul found “no evidence of an organized or concerted effort which would influence or impact the result of the elections in Clark County based on these allegations.‎ (34) [emphasis added]

Allegations were also made that Sproul & Associates was registering Republicans exclusively and tearing up registration cards in Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. (35) While the Secretary of State and Attorney General launched investigations of Sproul’s activities in Oregon, there are no reports indicating any indictments or other legal actions taken against Sproul or its workers in these states. (36) The mere fact of these allegations and the other documented abuses of the voter registration process and incidents of voter registration fraud detailed in this report support reforming the process by which third-party groups participate in voter registration efforts and call for more accountability and oversight of third party voter registration efforts by election officials. [emphasis added]

Unlike you Burt, I condemn this kind of action from any party, as would any like-minded Republican. Any wrongdoing on anyone’s part, and I would go so far as to say especially by Republicans should be investigated and any convictions should be to the full extent of the law.

Ignoring the fact that you have yet another unsubstantiated accusation, by a disgruntled employee and amounting to possibly ten registrations, I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge that ACVR, in their blind partisan agenda, addressed your issue. Now if you feel that they have misrepresented the findings, let me know.

I know I said I was done with this thread, but two things brought me back. Accusing me of dishonest discussion (I have no reason to come here just to be dishonest) and yes, I failed to notice your example while skimming through the posts. I apologize.

As far as your notion that the ACVR is partisan and not upfront about it, you haven’t really made that case clear (i.e. there are many examples of Republican wrongdoing in the report, if again, you would bother to read it). Even worse, you haven’t addressed this one simple fact: BEING PARTISAN DOES NOT MAKE ONE WRONG!

You are partisan. Does that make everything that comes out of your head illegitimate or dishonest? I hope not. If so, then why should I be talking to you?

Posted by: OttO at August 24, 2005 01:14 PM

OttO:

Even worse, you haven’t addressed this one simple fact: BEING PARTISAN DOES NOT MAKE ONE WRONG!

I think your fact has been addressed—if nobody responded to explicitly agree with you it’s because it was so obviously true it didn’t require a response. Now, you haven’t addressed this one simple fact: DECEIVING THE PUBLIC BY CLAIMING YOU ARE NONPARTISAN DESTROYS ALL CREDIBILITY.

In addition to their inaccurate claims of being non-partisan, there is plenty of other evidence leading one to suspect the credibility of this organization. The ‘office’ of the ACVR is a UPS mail box. They claim to be a 501(c)(3) public charity, but there has been no documentation made available to prove this. In fact, the ACVR has not responded to multiple requests by multiple parties to disclose information about their organization and their application for 501(c)(3) status even though they are required by law to provide this information prompty to anyone who asks.

Information is only as good as it’s source, and thus it is a very valid argument that this organization (and its study) should not be given any credibility until they start obeying the law and answering the public’s requests. I do not personally consider this an honest discussion if you continue to insist that we respond to the findings of a dishonest organization. If their findings are so true and so obvious, then why hasn’t a similar study been done by a credible source? If you do know another source, then if you link to it I guarantee you’ll have more luck getting us to respond to their actual findings.

Posted by: Charles Wager at August 24, 2005 03:57 PM

Burt
Are you really disputing that there were 10 hour lines in Ohio? Actually, you’re right. The polls didn’t close at 3am. That would be ridiculous. They closed at 4am.

If this is true, and I’m not saying it isn’t, then this would tell me that Ohio election officals screwed up and not the Republicans or Democrats.

Posted by: Ron Brown at August 24, 2005 06:38 PM

Otto,

Thank you for posting that part of the report that I hadn’t seen. As I indicated, I was referencing the Oregon case in particular.

One thing I find interesting in the way they dismiss the incident is by saying there are no “reports” indicating indictments of Sproul. So the extent of their investigation is to do a Google search or Lexis Nexis and see if there is a newspaper article following up on the incident? Why not contact the attorney generals in question to find out what the actual result of their investigations were. What were their actual “investigative” methods?

Anyway, this is nitpicking, as you know.

Posted by: Burt at August 24, 2005 08:04 PM

Ron,

What an interesting point you make. We can agree that the election officials “messed up”. But it just so happens that the chief election official in Ohio - the Secretary of State - also happened to be head of the Bush campaign in Ohio. That may ring a bell. Remember Katherine Harris, the Secretary of State of Florida in 2000, was Bush’s campaign head then.

So what you have is a situation where the head of a presidential campaign is in charge of counting the votes. And we have a situation where all the “screw ups” occured in predominately Democratic areas, whereas heavily Republican areas, like where I live, ran smooth as silk.

Interesting huh?

Perhaps we can all agree that we should eliminate these conflicts of interest.

Posted by: Burt at August 24, 2005 08:10 PM

Burt -

>>DECEIVING THE PUBLIC BY CLAIMING YOU ARE NONPARTISAN DESTROYS ALL CREDIBILITY.nonpartisan agenda. You haven’t made the case yet that this report isn’t nonpartisan, or at least attempting to be. And you can’t make that point until you study the actual work that they claim is nonpartisan. Only then can you fairly judge them, and that goes for any organization.

I don’t dislike PETA because they are a left-wing group with their own partisan agenda, therefore discredited (I highly doubt there are any conservative Republicans in their leadership!). I dislike them because I have seen examples of their hypocrisy, their near-terroristic tactics and fringe views on animals and humans.

But if they turned out a report detailing how chickens are used as slave labor in my home state by GOP officials, I’ll certainly read their report and comment on it directly instead of just complain about PETA.

Seriously, I’m a little bewildered by how many people chose to come back here to tell me that they weren’t willing to debate me on the report. Some repeatedly.

As far as Sproul, they indicate via their sources that the investigations are still ongoing. They are. The most recent thing I could find on it was from almost a month ago and reaffirms it - the investigations are still ongoing and they are getting a lot of attention from the DOJ and the AG.

Like I said, if Sproull and others are convicted, throw away the key. But the ACVR in no way misrepresents what happened. If anything, they don’t underscore enough the lack of credibility of the witness and his girlfriend. Did you know that Sproull’s org, responsible for registering Republicans, turned in 500 Democrat registrations in as well? Since it’s hard to imagine that Dems swarmed this outfit by the thousands, isn’t it a little odd and pointless for them to tear up ‘eight to ten’ registrations, even occasionally?

The ACVR as far as I know didn’t investigate anything. They relied on press releases, court records, arrest records, election official documents, campaign documents, voter organization materials etc. They didn’t investigate, they researched. Which is why I’m stressing the rational notion that you can’t dismiss the report IF what is in the report is factual based solely on the fact that you just don’t like the people involved or think somehow that they are trying to fool you….whew!

Posted by: OttO at August 25, 2005 02:38 AM

Otto,

Enough of the back and forth.

You haven’t made the case yet that this report isn’t nonpartisan, or at least attempting to be.

Yes, I and many others have exactly made that case. They claim to be non-partisan, yet don’t have a legitimate Democrat anywhere in the organization. The head of Democrats for Bush doesn’t count.

For the hundreth time - this isn’t about the organization being partisan. It’s about them lying about it. And that has been clearly illustrated.

Posted by: Burt at August 25, 2005 09:48 AM

Sorry Burt, convincing yourself isn’t making a case for anything.

For the hundredth time, you haven’t demonstrated that the ACVR IS partisan (thus I’m not sure what the *lie* is) and you haven’t done that because you haven’t fairly critiqued the only example they have so far that could demonstrate their intentions - read the damn report! And then explain how it is partisan.

You seem to be mixing ‘non-partisan’ with ‘bi-partisan’, and they are two distincly different things. No one in ACVR that I’m aware of ever suggested that they had a 50/50 balance of political affiliations and were trying to reach a conclusion that was fair to both sides (that itself by definition would discredit the report).

The ‘Gang of Fourteen’ was bi-partisan, but they weren’t non-partisan.

If you insist on portraying yourself as close-minded and intellectually dishonest, I certainly won’t stop you. But it baffles me that you return here over and over and over again in order to do so! I welcome the discussion, but not if the extent of your discussion is that you aren’t willing to discuss anything!

??

Posted by: OttO at August 25, 2005 01:29 PM

The ACVR as far as I know didn’t investigate anything. They relied on press releases, court records, arrest records, election official documents, campaign documents, voter organization materials etc. They didn’t investigate, they researched.

Yes, they researched their cherry-picked facts and published a conclusion. It’s the conclusion of this suspect and deceitful organization which you want to debate—and which we refuse to discuss. If (as you claim) the facts they researched are valid, then present the sources without the ACVR filter and perhaps we can have an honest discussion about them. If these facts can stand on their own without the ACVR conclusions then why do you persist in trying to get us to address their discredited report? Posted by: Charles Wager at August 25, 2005 01:33 PM

Yawn.

How pathetic!

What, we are to never discuss anything again unless it meets some sort of invisible standard? That pretty much dismisses just about every election/voter organizattion out there, along with every other political group and platform. I mean, what - we shouldn’t discuss funding for stem cell research because obviously supporters of this are by and large Democrats and thus it’s a partisan issue?

You say they cherry-picked, then I repeat my challenge - present something that was investigated that was left out of this report. I challenged someone else here to do it, and after he went rather hysterical because I didn’t respond to his example, I showed him that it was indeed in the report and it was fairly documented. Can you do better?

Or is this just some sort of weird cowardice you people are displaying?

What is the ‘ACVR filter’? The ACVR merely collected the information. Sure, you can go out and research the dozens and dozens of examples of election wrongdoings, but to suggest that that is somehow more productive than finding them all collected in one place is puzzling. Not to mention, no one denies that anything in the report is innacurate, they just imply that it is less accurate because there are Republicans involved. And this highlights the lefts subjective attitude towards facts. It’s not the facts that matter, it’s who is behind them.

By your mentality (along with Burt and others) it doesn’t matter if the ACVR presents them, or if you present them or if I present them. We all have some sort of bias or partisan views, so why is your ‘filter’ any better? Or mine? And then at what point do we decide that it can be discussed?

I don’t mean to ruffle any feathers, but this cheesey means of avoiding factual and very real examples of something as important as vote fraud and intimidations because you don’t like the results (and let’s be real - that’s what it boils down to) is incredibly short-sighted and just plain asinine!

I think that some of you must then have no credibility based on your own perspective that suspected partisanship automatically dismisses ALL credibility.

Posted by: OttO at August 25, 2005 02:09 PM