Wampum

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I think this helps more than anything I've seen yet, because it's constructive, and it makes me think. When we think, and plan, there is hope. When we organize and focus on our goals, we will be about the business of making our country better. That is constructive.
I feel almost like a doctor who has been trying to treat an illness in people who don't believe in doctors. They believe in belief, I believe in medicine, science, reason, AND belief.
There will come a time when the illness gets so bad or affects so many that people will be open once again to hearing from a doctor, however much they hold one in contempt now.
(I'm NOT a doctor!)

I wouldn't dare speak for Teresa, but I took her point to be that so much of the Republican strategy was predicated on voter suppression that a result thus obtained could not be considered the result of a democratic election.

Julia, it is easy to read TNH post the way that you do. I have no doubt that voter intimidation occurred and I, of course condemn it.

I do not see how to fix it now. A cfriminal investigation and prosecution may be appropriate, but I think it would be a mistake to focus a lot of political time and energy to the issue.

We need to decide on a set of issues and a way to present them. Anything that does not promote that objective is misguided, in my view.

Speaking about illegitimacy, a comment (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005075.php#321544) at Political Animal, reposting a Democratic Underground post, said the raw exit polls tracked the results closely in states with paper trails and uniformly showed results better for Kerry than the actual totals in the states without. Not sufficiently convincing evidence in and of itself, I grant.

But yeah, voter intimidation too. I think the thing is, the way to steal an election isn't _a_ way. You use every trick you can and hope the aggregate effect swings it. But that makes a difficult narrative to tell for the losing side.

I've been talking to a couple of "jury members" in the comments section of my blog, and I simply don't get it. I'm trying to be polite, they're spewing at me then calling ME and by extension all liberals "hate-filled" (in MY blog comments!). It seems like an exercise in frustration.

Sorry, 51% of the voters just said that homosexuality is bad but torture is OK by them. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt when I assume they're morons.

I can sort of understand some people voting for Bush because his position lined up with their primary issue and then holding their nose about everything else he stands for: those who are against abortion and the amoral super-rich. That's what? 35 or 40%? At most? That leaves 10% of the population, or more, that bought the lies and felt scared that Kerry wouldn't protect them and what have you. So, I don't think that everyone who voted for Bush is stupid. Just some of his supporters.

Accept the results? Had you been German at the time, would you have joined the rest of your countrymen in welcoming the rise of the Third Reich? Only time will tell if in 2004, the U.S. electorate acted in its best interests.

Plato (in The Statesman) said democracy is the best form of government when leaders are corrupt, because it limits their powers. Churchill (or someone of that era) said democracy wasn't all that great, but it's better than the alternatives. The purpose of democracy isn't to express "the wisdom of a people," it's to limit the abuses of power that occur in non-democratic regimes.

Human beings often, both individually and collectively, act stupidly. This is one of the principal reasons we laugh so often, at the stupidities of others and, hopefully, of ourselves. To deny the widespread occurrence of stupidity is to deny your humanity, to pretend you are something better than you are. Wisdom comes from recognizing the situation one is in, not from romanticizing it.

I will look for the best in someone, no matter how tiny it may be. But all the people who voted to support Bushco are either guilty of the murder of untold numbers of people, or are accessories to it. I can't even lift my head in public anymore, knowing half of the country are like that. Look for ways to protest this situation.

I'm a former trial lawyer (now an appellate lawyer). Sadly, I don't share your optimistic view of the "collective wisdom" of the jury, or, in this case, of the electorate. I often found jurors based their decisions on their immediate gut impulses, born out of deep-rooted prejudices, and not on thoughtful and rational reviews of the evidence. I'm afraid that's what happened with this election. Rather than giving the Bush record the careful evaluation it was due, the voters went with their gut-feelings and chose the man who assured them it was OK to love Jesus and hate fags.

In my book, willful ignorance is every bit as bad as stupidity. The results are typically the same, so yes, I CAN blame the "jury" for their willful ignorance.

In a democracy (or whatever American variation of a democratic-republic you want to refer to) the electorate has a moral responsibility to inform themselves of the facts and make their political decisions based on these facts. This administration's reputation is "If policy doesn't agree with the facts, then change the facts." The Republican electorate has taken the same approach. These ditto-heads have exhibited NO ability nor inclination to apply basic critical thinking skills to the daily BS spoon-fed to them by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al. To them "Bush said it. I believe it. That settles it" is their mantra. In today's society, there is NO EXCUSE for such intellectual laziness.

I've talked with dozens of Bush supporters since the summer of 2003 (in my "take a Republican to lunch" program) and not a single one of them had read the Constitution since grade school. Most had never read it at all. There is no excuse for an American who can read, to have not read the foundation of our country, the US Constitution.

I won't call them stupid, but I also won't turn a blind eye to the reality that there are stupid and gullible people in the electorate. (Maybe Jim Jones was just a precursor.)

BTW the idea that "To think otherwise is a form of elitism that is inconsistent with the idea of democracy." is itself inconsistent with the thoughts of the founding fathers who created this republic with an electoral college system of electing the President precisely because they felt the population as a whole was, for lack of a better phrase, "too stupid and gullible" to allow direct elections in a truly democratic sense.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government."
- Thomas Jefferson

I'm sorry. There is evidence that this vote was fixed, not merely by voter suppression or intimidation (old stories and old tactics), but by actual hacking of the vote tabulation system. Until Beverly Harris and the blackboxvoting organization complete their audit, I will withhold acceptance of the election results. They are currently involved with the largest Freedom of Information Act request involving the audit trail of 3000 county systems. (They need help if anyone is inclined. Visit BlackBoxVoting.org to learn more.)This is a REAL issue, people! Regardless of where we stand on candidates and issues, we must be assured that our voting is not tampered with and the outcome not fixed. That should be something that all Americans agree on!

Larry Dean:

I can undderstand your position with regard to willful ignorance but I just do not see how we are helped by blaming the voters. We need to persuade them. It is hard to persuade people if you begin by insulting them.

CD:

I think that the black box voting issue is well worth a look and I am open to evidence to be presented. Regardless of what that evidence shows, we should promote the idea of paper ballots so that any question is removed.

Nonetheless, the results of the last election will not be overturned regardless of what the investigation shows. It seems to me that we should focus on winning the next election.

Dwight:

Agreed. I wasn't suggesting insults as a means of persuasion, but recognizing ignorance when you see it is important. You have to gear your message to the audience and when someone is coming from an ignorant ideological perspective (typicaly based on some combination of theology, fear, and hate), rational thought and logical arguments simply do not enter into the picture.

If someone is voting for Bush because they're afraid that frothing Muslims are lurking around every corner, trying to dispel their fear through rational arguments and logic is a waste of time. By definition, you cannot argue rationally with someone who is irrational. In such a situation you have to address the issue through fear, since THAT is what is that particular person's "first responder" so to speak. Instead of merely using logic, the argument should show why the individual should be more fearful of a Bush Presidency because it will make them LESS safe than a Kerry Presidency.

Recognition of a person's intelligence (or lack thereof) is critical in determining the best approach to persuading that person. Not to determine how to best hurl an insult.

Having said that, the talk-radio heads have done a good job of using insults against Democrats & liberals to dissuade any of their listeners to link outside their own tiny neo-conservative box. Perhaps there is a place for insults in the political landscape.

yes, we need a plan and a candidate with vision.
had kerry had more, he would have won more votes.
the majority of the responsibility was his.

however the thoughtful citizens and the naive too
have some degree of responsibility.
perhaps: leaders-70%
thoughtful citizens-25%
naive citizens-5%

and although, yes, we need to be mindful of the future, the integrity of our voting process is
essential in providing a foundation upon
which almost all other plans need to stand.

without that foundation, every traitional and even the somewhat above average political structure will collapse. only the most incredible, and not yet existant political structure will remain stable on its own without
election integrity.

furthermore, a month before the election or during the election, or 3 years after the election
is not the best possible time for addressing the
issue of corruption--Now is the time. Exactly, precisely NOW.

this arguement of reconciliation v. hostility
is a false dilemna. They won, we are simply going to confirm it
for them
for all of us.
that should upset no rational person.
We dont have to accuse anybody of anything that has not been factually found. nor do we have to be jerks. Yet still we can, and must, insure the integrity of our electoral process. if doing that honorably unravels reconciliation, then it
was all hollow anyways. that is reality too.

yes we need vision, plans, and star candidates.
we need kind cooperation. yet we also need
honest, accountable elections.

one more thing.

Third, even if this election had some voter intimidation, some dirty tricks, and perhaps some ballot manipulation, those are not the reason we lost.

its one thing to say a star candidate could have won considerably more votes and the election. However to say that in no way the eliminates the possiblity that dirty tricks are the reason we lost the election.

this is my country, and i want some answers
about the controversies surrounding the election.

for an attorney your pretty loose with your choice of words:

We did not lose the election because of paperless voting machines

you just do not know this to be the case.
For some unknown reason you may trust floridas
process, or personally you wish to move on to
the plans for future candidates and organizing-which is all good--however that does not address the issue of electoral integrity rather it changes the subject.

In response to: "I have never found blaming the jury for my losses to be productive. We did not lose because the American people are stupid, blind, or gullible. I believe in the democratic process. Ground zero of that belief is that the collective wisdom of the American people is generally deeper and more profound than any one person or any small group of people. To think otherwise is a form of elitism that is inconsistent with the idea of democracy."

Interviewing juries after trials may give you a sense of their PERCEPTION, and a means to investigate effective PERSUASION, but having successful persuasion validated by agreement does not portend wisdow; rather, it means merely that persuasion was effective. Certainly, progressives in this country will need to find more effective means to persuade people to their points of view.

The utility of democracy is not that the electorate makes good decisions, right decisions, or wise decisions. It is absurd to posit that there is some "deeper wisdom" to a large group of people, simply because they are grouped.

The utility of having a democratic form of government, is that it provides a brake on the excesses of power. In a goverment with democratic features, the theory is that there is a limit to how far tyranny can go, before the people as a mass have an ability to put an end to that tyranny, if they recognize it as such.

Bear in mind that such revered principles as those enummerated in the U.S. Bill of Rights are there precisely to prevent a majority from inflicting its will upon numerical minorities, in violation of human rights (or "natural rights").

It's very important to bear in mind that democracy, and freedom are TWO DIFFERENT, AND SOMETIMES MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE THINGS. Democracy has to do with majority rule; freedom has to do with individual liberties, and the unencumbered exercise thereof.

An important part of the reason that this election went as it did, is that people have been willfully ignorant. The vast majority of Bush voters still think that Saddam Hussien had weapons of mass destruction, and was materially supporting Al Qaeda. Both of these opinions have been thoroughly, factually debunked. The real truth about these issues, and many others, has been out there for quite some time, but people choose not to carefully investigate this, and fulfill their democratic potential by voting as thinking, informed citizens.

Of course, many of the Bush voters made their decisions simply based on what they BELIEVE, rather than what they do, or do not, KNOW. In a democracy, they have every right to make the choice to vote based on beliefs, rather than facts. But to suggest that this represents some profoundly WISE decision-making, is ridiculous.

OK. Several responses here, which are somewhat unrelated. First, I agree with Tim about "moral values" of people who condone torture. I call that hypocrisy. Second, with all due respect, some of the responses I see here, including your comment, Wampum, is one reason why liberals get their asses kicked all the time. I'm sorry, but I think some events and people are outright evil and I know liberals think you have to see good in everyone, etc., etc., but I'm a liberal who doesn't buy it. Liberals will NOT call a spade a spade but keep thinking they have to take a spiritually or morally superior position by "accepting" other people's crap or positions. What happened at Abu Ghraib is evil. The people who condoned it are evil. The fact this country didn't rise up and scream about it is evil. We need moral outrage, and I think liberals tend to be too much in their heads. Third, I think this country deserves George Bush and the pain 4 more years will bring. We'll see how important moral values are when the children of Bush supporters get their draft notice.

First, if we refuse to accept the results, there is really no reason to think carefully about the result of the election or to learn any lessons from it.

jeez, wrong again.

Checking the results does not require that
we completely reject the bush administration.
They are there. they apparently won. we are just going to check the details. its ok. its not a bad thing.

separates us from the American people

um, actually, not so much. first, we ARE the american people. all of us. Secondly: Americans believes in the integrity of elections. Any shenanigans certainly deserve the light of day. Good americans will not be part of any shenanigans found.

its a basic arguement of decency which all americans can understand.

lastly, if this is done honestly and kindly,
even if there are hotheads, whom attack this
simple pursuit of american integrity, what exactly is it that your concerned will happen?

re: my above 3 posts:
my italics tags didnt work for the quotes
i opened each post with. So 1st there is
a quoted sentence and the rest should be my response.

""First, if we refuse to accept the results, there is really no reason to think carefully about the result of the election or to learn any lessons from it.""

jeez, wrong again.

Checking the results does not require that
we completely reject the bush administration.
They are there. they apparently won. we are just going to check the details. its ok. its not a bad thing.

""separates us from the American people""

um, actually, not so much. first, we ARE the american people. all of us. Secondly: Americans believes in the integrity of elections. Any shenanigans certainly deserve the light of day. Good americans will not be part of any shenanigans found.

its a basic arguement of decency which all americans can understand.

lastly, if this is done honestly and kindly,
even if there are hotheads, whom attack this
simple pursuit of american integrity, what exactly is it that your concerned will happen?

one more thing.

""Third, even if this election had some voter intimidation, some dirty tricks, and perhaps some ballot manipulation, those are not the reason we lost.""

its one thing to say a star candidate could have won considerably more votes and the election. However to say that in no way the eliminates the possiblity that dirty tricks are the reason we lost the election.

this is my country, and i want some answers
about the controversies surrounding the election.

Posted by: J2 at November 4, 2004 02:53 PM

for an attorney your pretty loose with your choice of words:

""We did not lose the election because of paperless voting machines""

you just do not know this to be the case.
For some unknown reason you may trust floridas
process, or personally you wish to move on to
the plans for future candidates and organizing-which is all good--however that does not address the issue of electoral integrity rather it changes the subject.

Posted by: J2 at November 4, 2004 02:58 PM

It seems to me the best evidence available at this time about the mendacity of the voting machines is the fact that there's resistance to having an easily-auditable system in place.

What possible valid counter-argument to "we want an audit trail" is there besides "you can't have one, because then you'd be able to see my manipulations."

That's what worries me. It may not be an argument which stands up in court (I donno, I'm not a lawyer), but it is very convincing to me at the gut level, especially when combined with the "I will deliver Ohio's electoral votes to the president" statement.

j2:

You are right that I do not know for a fact that paperless touchscreens were not rigged, but...

When I was a prosecutor, one of the best defense lawyers used an interesting tactic during jury selection. He would simlply ask the potential jurors whether or not his client was innocent or guilty.

He would then explain that his client, at that moment, was innocent. His client had not yet been proved guilty and was cloaked in the presumtion of innocence. It was a very effective tactic.

The presumption is that the results of the election are accurate. I am open to evidence rebutting that presumption and the begining of such evidence seems to be circulating on various blogs.

When that evidence become mature, we should all take a good hard look at it. Until then, the presumtion remains that the results are valid.

That is why I wrote that "we did not lose the election" as a result of voting machine fraud.

ok

Let me add my dissent.
(1)In terms of beliefs, I see no reason to observe a presumption that the process was fair. There is a legal presumption. So if I'm a judge, I'm stuck with that. But if you're just deciding for yourself and you're reality-based and there's no clear or convincing evidence either way, you say, we don't know. I think there's a convincing case that Kerry won the total vote in Ohio that was never counted. Same with New Mexico. I think Florida is pretty unclear. I don't give Bush the benefit of the doubt.
(2) I don't see how W winning the popular vote in 2004 legitimizes his assuming the presidency in 2000, or retaining it now. Legally, it's irrelevant. Having sneered at it in 2000, it would be hypocritcal for him to rely on it in 2004. A majority of the country feels W has taken us in the wrong direction. Those who spend more than occasional time on Earth feel so much more widely and strongly. With a lot of money to spread lies and play on irrationalities, W manufactured a popular vote, but that was an accidental by-product of trying to win the electoral vote, or a strategy to trick Kerry into conceding. Bush has no argument to me that he's legitimate. You can't say most of America believes in his accomplishments. You can't say the election was above boards and produced a clear electoral victory. Assuming office by taking the margin of victory through systematic denials of the right to vote concentrated among minority voters is something we may be powerless to stop, but we should not accept it. If our democracy worked as intended on either level, W would not be in office.
(3)I may want to talk to the "jury," but I don't let it tell me what's real and what's not. I'm a lawyer too, and if my client loses, I may learn something from the finder of fact about its individual or collective thought process, but I don't adopt its conclusions that my client should not have won. I stick with my client and if possible, appeal. As I see it, a majority of the jury probably voted for Kerry. Some of them wanted their appeal, and they should have had it. As for the minority that opposed Kerry, some are worth talking to, possibly swayable, others are really just not, due to deficiencies in their ability to perceive reality: too complex, too painful. Would looking for a recount have alienated some people. Yeah. But among those who would ever vote for you, it's a split. I guarantee that a lot of people are pissed off at having worked so hard to get Kerry a majority of the electoral vote and then have him go back on his pledge to make sure every vote was counted. Had he stuck to his pledge, he could say, that's what the law is, that's what I've promised all along, that's how democracy works, it's right and moral that we should count the votes. His decision to let it go is the ultimate flip flop. He "reported for duty" but when the chips were down and the chads were hanging, he went AWOL.

Dwight:

I agree with Gary. Giving Bush a presumption of legitimacy is not rational.

I also agree with the poster above who pointed out that the anti-audit crowd just acts guilty as hell.

Basically, I think you are looking at this the wrong way. Instead of comparing the election to a criminal defendant who is entitled to a presumption of innocence, think of the election results as evidence that the opposition is trying to introduce. Is there a presumption that this evidence is valid? Or should Bush have to prove a metaphorical chain of custody? I suggest it is the latter.

Personally, I presume that someone did not win an election unless they can show two things:

First, that the election itself was conducted with integrity and that the results are likely to be accurate.

Second, that the results indicate the person won.

Unfortunately, the intergity of the voting process has been undermined. I simply do not trust the results.

Bush's election 'victory' is the fruit of widespread election misconduct in 2000.

Thousands of Americans were deprived of their right to vote and to have their ballots counted, and the election was flawed to the point of invalidation.

Had the election in Florida been conducted properly, Bush would not have occupied the Oval Office for the past four years, and would not have been running for 're-election' this year.

I'm not about to 'let the healing begin' anymore than I will 'wipe the slate clean' or any of the other nonsense being promoted this week by the GOP.