Letters to the Editor
-
Clarification for Irish Guy
Irish Guy,
The four challengers were subpoena'ed. Those challenged were asked to report to a hearing at a specified date on a Thursday morning at the Board of Elections in order to respond to the challenges and secure their right to vote. Those challenged were sworn in before their testimony was accepted. What would you call that?
Go read the transcript - http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2004/oct/ohio/boardofelections281004.pdf
-
Leave the Electoral College out of it
Unlike rtanner, [We could have been hoisted on our own petard], I do not believe that the “notion of the popular will being thwarted” in 2000 is what still most bothers a majority of Gore voters (I include myself among these, though I voted absentee); though it does make the Bush usurpation an all the more bitter pill to take. When some pre-election polls indicated Kerry might win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote (which would have been the outcome with a narrow Kerry win in Ohio), I did not think it would be “our due,” but I did suggest it would be a delicious irony – much to the horror of some of my fellow Democrats Abroad who saw the need for an unambiguous victory. They were right, of course, but I have always been a sucker for irony.
The pros and cons of the Electoral College are a fascinating discussion but totally irrelevant to the Kennedy and Manjoo articles, which deal only with the conduct of an election in a single state. As for rtanner’s hunch that “we” would be less concerned about dirty elections in Ohio if Kerry had won, that no doubt would be true of some people, but I would like to believe that many of “us” would be concerned about dirty elections regardess of who wins, and of who is dishing out the dirt. Surely in the long term the health of a democracy depends more on the integrity of the system and those who administer it, than on who does or does not win one given race, be it by means fair or foul. But I surely would be a lot less concerned about the country if Kerry had won.
PS: Thanks to T. Middleton for the kind words
-
Voted for Kerry, but glad he didn't win
In my opinion, Kerry was a terrible candidate for our party, who never won the hearts and trust of the American people. If he had won an electoral college victory, it would still have been without a popular mandate, and with both houses of Congress firmly in Republican control.
As far as I'm concerned, Kerry's campaign performance demonstrated phenomenal political ineptitude. Much of the misery the nation is reaping now was sown in Bush's first term. If Kerry had taken office, he would have been a convenient and unwitting scapegoat for our current plight, especially since the majority of Americans didn't vote for him. As it stands now, the Repugs have nobody they can convincingly blame, and the resultant shitstorm is falling squarely on their shoulders. Furthermore, the Kerry debacle has thoroughly discredited the K Street consultants, Howard Dean is in control of the DNC, and the Party is well on its way to political reform and eventual success.
I don't really believe Ohio was stolen, but even if the Repugs did it I'm glad they succeeded. I wonder if THEY still are....
-
nobody has mentioned ...
No one has mentioned the fact that Manjoo amply lays out all his sources with connecting links (he even warns you when the file is huge) so that you can verify his sources, and at the same time Kennedy does no such thing. More to the point, Manjoo points out mitigating facts that Kennedy conveniently leaves out of his analysis--from the very studies that Kennedy reports as authoritative. That right there calls into question Kennedy's credibility: selective use of facts with no easy opportunity for the reader to check up on him.
Thanks Manjoo, for your diligent work in calling Kennedy's bluff.
-
the issues or not
okay: one, i agree that Manjoo is so not the election expert and is such an obvious sort of San Francisco Dotcom Libertarian that it sometimes makes my brain hurt when i think how i pay for salon and have my time spit on by him writing virtually the same article over and over. and, as demonstrated by Lori showing that Manjoo partially quoted the Ohio statue on voters not voting in two previous fed elections, why should i take seriously articles written with such obvious distain and sloth?
and for you guys who keep saying that 2004 wasn't stolen or that it doesn't matter if it was BECAUSE we should have just killed at the polls and our guys keep running bad campaigns... both things are important and have minimal to do with each other. For you to say that it didn't happen but if it did it doesn't matter is quite convenient for you. Fuck the minorities. Fuck the people unlucky to live in places like Ohio or Florida. This is just a game and the only way to win is by super winning? Last time I checked EVERY vote was supposed to count. And it takes a majority of those votes to win... not a super majority. it takes 50.01% to win. Not 55% or 60%. Also, since the repothugs didn't win in 2000 and only got 52 or 53 in 2004 (i forget the exact number) you are basically saying that republicans diserve to win with less than democrats... you're arguing a rather juvenile line of reasoning: if i can't have it all look how i thought it would, fuck it all i'm going home.
seriously? dumbest point in the world. either there were irregularities or there weren't, either republicans were involved with any irregularities they weren't, either these irregularities were effective or they weren't. But don't tell me that it doesn't matter one way or the other.
And Farhad, I'm semi-convinced i knew at least three clones of you in high school. perhaps it's adorable to be this naive, and selective in one's use of "logic" but just because you say it again and again and again, doesn't mean that you got it right the first time. the thing about the debate team is that they were never proving there point with facts and logic--they were bullying with rhetoric by selectively quoting and citing. i thought journalists weren't supposed to be on a debate team arguing for an opinion designated to them ahead of time.
your blog writing is better as it's shorter.