"Farhad Manjoo of Salon" is cited in the Acknowledgments as one of the people to whom Mark Crispin Miller "owe[s] an incalculable debt of thanks".

So maybe Joan Walsh didn't know this when she assigned the book review to Manjoo; Manjoo should have seen it and should have refused the assignment.

That he took the assignment anyway shows that his journalistic ethics are, shall we say, thinner than a butterfly ballot.

A poster here accuses Manjoo of being "deeply lazy." I don't think Manjoo is lazy. I think he's looking for some hard proof. And in the absence of some, he's asking tough, but fair questions about this entire issue.

As for being deeply lazy, one of Manjoo's points more than makes the case that Mark Crispin Miller is guilty of that which the poster accuses Manjoo. Miller could not even get one of the basic facts about Ohio correct; one that concerned the 19,000 votes in Miami County. He stated they all went to Bush. Well, oops, those votes actually went to Bush AND KERRY. And their distribution was in line with the final percentages for that county. It's a heluva mistake to make. One that sounds deeply lazy to me.

And Miller is also guilty of the sin of omission. As Manjoo points out, he fails to tell us in his description of the incident in Warren County that the press is always barred from voter tallies in that county. Makes the 'reporters thrown out' claim seem a bit specious, doesn't it?

And Miller complains of "pedantic over-analysis of specific claims." Well, excuse me. If Karl Rove made that statement about his role in the Valerie Plame affair, everyone here roasting Manjoo would be up in arms. And rightly so. Specific claims -- and their so-called 'over-analysis' -- are the backbone of any honest investigation which seeks the truth.

This is my third post on this subject (and hopefully my last) and I still have yet to hear anyone give credible evidence as to the election being stolen in Ohio. All I have ever read on this subject is based on conjecture and what boils down to, in many cases, dubious claims. And I wish some people here would hold people like Mark Crispin Miller to the same standards of accuracy with which they would hold many folks in the Bush administration. Because, quite frankly, it's deeply lazy not to.

That reference was made to Manjoo citing, without criticism, the Hertsgaard Mother Jones article, apparently on the basis of the claimed title for Hertsgaard of "investigative journalist". A link was provided in my letter below of some of the discrediting of Hertsgaard's "investigation". Manjoo could have cited investigative reporter Greg Palast, who early on concluded Ohio was stolen by vote "spoilage", a phenomenon that does not show up in recounts (nor does voter suppression, vote alterion, etc) because it occurs prior to the initial count.

I see now that page 349 seems to explain Manjoo's motivation: to distance himself from what he fears might not contain enough evidence or proof but the book thanks Manjoo explicitly. I now feel both more disappointed in, and also sympathetic to, Manjoo. Disappointed because he does not honestly admit that he's afraid to even attempt to make the case that irregularities impacted the election result, becfause of the built-in reality that half of the country is seriously at risk to be opposed to him NO MATTER HOW STRONG THE EVIDENCE. Well, not half, maybe 37%, and dropping....

If Manjoo thinks he can help push along election integrity without the fuel of injustice caused by distortion in results from those irregularities (because that will trigger partisan backlash from the other side) he is seriously mistaken. The truth should not be suppressed: the results as reported have no basis for confidence, and were distorted to an extent that is subject to debate since most of the data and so forth is deliberately kept secret. However, keeping our heads stuck in the sand when it comes to disproportionate impact against Democrats while simultaneously calling for reform is a very difficult acrobatic act to pull off.

It would be better, if one lives in fear of partisan backlash, to talk about the shenanigans but simply leave out the name of the state and the parties involved. To say up front that if I tell you which party benefited up to half of you will stop listening, but we all tend to agree that a fair system is needed. i.e. not one which is perfect but one with checks and balances and a low reward for cheaters. The present electronic systems feature very high rewards for cheaters able to move a few electrons.

If manjoo remains serious about election reform, he should resign from the circular firing squad, and concentrate his efforts elsewhere. he can civilly and professionally distinguish himself from those that believe the facts show the election was altered in outcome, but still admit as to how we just don't know what the margin was, and that not knowing, together with the secret vote counting, is intolerable in a democracy "of the people, by the people and for the people" which can not possibly or logically feature hiding the election "ball" from the people themselves.

The Conyers report is in turn also largely inspired by a single source -- the Free Press

Nice. When you don't like the evidence, attack the witness. I'm sure Rush is very proud.

As I've written to Farhad Manjoo before, it's the job of the government to demonstrate that our elections are open, fair, and verifiable. To everyone's satisfaction. We skeptics do not need to prove anything.

It's like Elliot Spitzer says: the appearance of a conflict of interest is sufficient to cause alarm. Similarly, conducting the vote count in secret is sufficient to cause alarm. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, is it?

It's noteworthy that Manjoo says nothing about the widespread, well-documented voter disenfranchisement and other "dirty tricks". I didn't realize that denying another person the right to vote is now fair game. My bad.