Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Should Salon be the Left's Fox News?
[Read the article: Was the 2004 election stolen? No.]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So many of the replies seem to indicate that's the direction they'd like Salon to take, to ignore veracity and instead stick to the Fox like news script.
"Salon, don't DARE print anything that goes against what I believe or I'll BOYCOTT you"
This is hardly a comforting thought. I don't watch Fox news because it can't be trusted to show anything other than Republican talking points. I read Salon because I want objective analysis that includes looking at both sides of the issues.
Do I always agree with Salon? No, but any news organization or body that attempts to have objectivity will by nature sometimes cause disagreement with with its viewers.
I'd much rather Salon continue to publish objective truth than try to feed me what I may feel is truth.
-
Either is fine by me
[Read the article: Which way to the White House?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Both are great candidates, both are fine people and I would enjoy working to get eiter elected.
The problem with too many Democrats is they believe that a candidate has to be a messiah. They need to be moved in an almost religious manner in order to back a candidate.
Look at all the posts about how people want a candidate they can feel for or want another JFK.
I don't need a religous experience from my Democratic candidate. I want someone to run a good campaign and have a good track record at governing.
-
Looks like Nader has some more democratic voters in 2008
[Read the article: Which way to the White House?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, he'll run, and yes fools will vote for him and help elect another Republican and then they'll complain for the next 4 years how anyone could vote for the incumbent.
-
Lack of insight
[Read the article: Was the 2004 election stolen? No.]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So many people are arguing over this article and many who are against it seem to not understand a simple fact.
There were errors in the Ohio election, but fixing all these errors would have still equalled a Bush victory in the state.
Imagine a Basketball game where there were 20 fouls on scored basktes that were not called, then imagine one team winning by 18 points. Now add in tons of people arguing that the losing team actually won because there were more uncalled fouls than the margin of victory. Of course, nothing stated means the winning team didn't get all the non calls, or that the losing team would have made better than 18 out of 20 baskets even if they should have shot the free throws.
Add to this the losing team only averaging 48% of free throws.
That's what some people are doing. You are trying to say an election was stolen based on very faulty logic.
Ohio was rife with errors, but every election has the same errors. If you only started paying attention to how elections work and exit polls in 2000 you have a distorted view. Every election I've ever followed has these errors and I've been involved in elections since before I could vote. Only twice has I personally seen the errors change the outcome of a race, one was Florida in 2000 where the ballot confusion certainly gave the State to Bush.
Ohio in 2004 does not fall into this case. I have no interest in defending a Bush victory, because I worked against him in both his national elections, but trying to argue that the election in Ohio was stolen falls into the wacky column and it detracts from 2008.
Already you have people in this thread saying they don't think the Dems will win in 2008 because Bush will steal the election as was done in 2004. That kind of defeatist attitude must be challenged.
-
It's a TV show
[Read the article: Much ado about nothing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Really, how can people possibly get this worked up over a television show?
The mid season pre-hiatus episode wasn't thrilling enough for you, it must be the end of the World.
-
Simple Test
[Read the article: Which way to the White House?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What Red States will the Democratic nominee have a chance to win that Kerry lost.
The problem with Feingold isn't that he's Jewish or divorced or liberal, it's that his State was already won by Kerry, and thus starts off at the same base level that isn't quite enough to win.
Could Feingold capture Ohio or Florida or another swing State? Yes he could, but this whole threading the needle strategy is very hard to pull off, and it's why we've lost the last two elections.
Warner's main attraction is that he'd bring Virginia with its 13 electoral votes, though that's still not enough to win, it closes the gap considerably. 264 to 273 is a better position than 251 to 286.
Also, Warner would probably have an easier time competing in Southern States, where even if he doesn't win them, forces the Republicans to defend Red territory, which makes a win in Ohio more likely.
That's why I supported Dean as head of the DNC, because he understands that the party needs to compete in all the States.
-
Back to reality
[Read the article: Salon answers its critics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The real point of Kennedy's article is that there is enough proof of wrongdoing in Ohio for a reasonable person to conclude that the election was most likely stolen.
-----------------------------------------------------------
No, the RFK article does not make a reasonable case the 2004 election was most likely stolen, in fact, it is so poorly done that it detracts from the very issues it could raise, such as voter suppression.
There is wrong doing in every election, there is voter fraud in every election, there are people turned away in every election, there are lost absentee ballots, officials who misuse their power for their own party, and a host of other issues.
Nobody who works elections is going to argue against the above, because we've all seen it. People are right to be upset over it, and how we run elections needs to be improved.
That said, we facts are distorted in the manner that RFK distorts them, it provides cover to those who try and manipulate the system, because they can so easily refute the articles contentions, and in doing so taint the underlying truth that election fraud occurs. What rarely happens and what did not happen in Ohio in 2004 is that the fraud changed the outcome.
Fraud and election violations did change the outcome in 2000 in Florida.
Voter fraud that changes an election is detectable, despite what many conspiracy theory adherents think.