Letters to the Editor
-
Democrats Stol Elections in Chicago for Decades?
Someone patting Manjoo on the back a few letters back invokes the point that democrats stole elections in Chicago for decades.
Is this person nuts? That simply cannot be possible? Can you not imagine the level of coordination and the number of people that would have had to remain silent in order for that to have taken place? I do. I read about how impossible this is in Manjoo's article.
-
Not this same article again!
Farhood Manjoo thinks the 2004 election was fairly won by George Bush. We know this, because we've read it before. Whatever. Salon will assign this story to him again, when the next round of evidence comes up. They will assign the peace march story to Michele Goldberg. This is what they do. Assign the same reporters to the same story over and over. I won't cancel my subscription to Salon because of this, it's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I still read it daily and like it quite a lot. But I won't read Mr. Manjoo's stories anymore than I read Michelle Goldbergs. I get it! Not stolen! Hippielike and ineffective! Okay!
For the record, my husband worked the polls in Ohio during the 2004 election. He wants you to know that in Ohio, douchebaggery won the day. Bush only won, if at all, because of the full time job done by Republican party keeping people from voting. Election stolen. End of story.
-
You can thank Farhod, now I am out of here.
I have been with Salon since the earliest days and I am sure I was one of your first subscribers. However, I will not be renewing and this is why.
Farhod Majoo's "rebuttal" of the Rolling Stone article got my blood boiling. I was willing to keep an open mind until I got to the issue of exit polling. I did not know enough about other claims to refute them but I am somewhat of a polling buff and I know a little about polling and the science of statistics.
Farhod claims that exit polls are not all that accurate. Then there should be plenty of examples of them failing in Modern Western Democracies right! Naw, he doesn't provide any and maybe because he can't. Recent election in Italy, exit polls hit it on the nail - very close election too.
Recent election in UK. Exit polls were precise to the fraction of a percentage. However somehow in the US and only in States at play every single result breaks to Bush. Statistically it would be easy to under stand if this happened 10 or 20% of the time but 100% - every
State broke for Bush. No.
The claim the Bush voters were somehow more reluctant to declare their preference? Balderdash. I was an election worker and those people were positively smirking on their way to the polls. I could tell who they were voting for by the dirty look they gave me with my Kerry poster. Anyway statistically you would expect to see a reluctance to comment higher in predominantly GOP districts you see the opposite. Farhod gives a numerically inaccurate and far fetched explanation for this. Yes Farhod it could have happened and pigs could learn to fly but not bloody likely. I bet you loose a lot of subscribers because of this. If we wanted garbage like this we could just tune into Fox for free. Make my day - fire Farhod Bush and issue an apology or KMA.
Antojr
Florida
-
Kerry not so Shitty. Wanting for money.
One writer here says Kerry was a shitty candidate who never challenged the Swift Boat Liars from down in Texas. I understand that. I've heard it an awful lot, but how many remember Kerry saying if he accepted the nomination in July he would be short of money in August?
He should not have accepted the nomination in July and I don't know why he did, yet few have discussed this. Bill O'Reilly said he should. O'Reilly did his best to make it sound like a silly idea and that makes it a good one.
Kerry didn't have the money to challenge the Swift Boat Liars.
As for this article, I think too many left leaning publications go far out of their way to look fair. In doing so though, they discourage those who most often read them. My own local newspaper is like that. They must have George Will speak to the issues, and Thomas Sowell and so we get less Thomas Krugman or Molly Ivins. Their political cartoon is almost always leaning republican.
And yet, there are those who remain true, like Democracy Now!, a television news program on LINK TV. There were many there after the election absolutely adamant that the election had been stolen. I would like to see Mr. Manjoo tell them it isn't so.
-
Response to some letters
First, I'd like to clarify my earlier comments that Farhad focused too much on the question of whether Kennedy proved the election was stolen, and not enough on the vote fraud that did occur. Upon reflection, I maintain that those are the right priorities, but it's Kennedy who chose to frame the issue on a stolen election rather than vote fraud.
It's understandable that Farhad answered Kennedy's article on its own terms.
I hope Salon will do more to report the fraud that did occur, however.
Now for the letters:
"The inherent hypocrisy highlighted by the differing responses to these two articles by Mr. Kennedy [the other on mercury in a vaccination - Craig234] is symptomatic of the overall decline in quality here at Salon. After subscribing since the inception of memberships, I have allowed mine to lapse and I won't be renewing it."
Salon went to great lengths to publish the 'other side' of the debate on the issue when criticism arose of the Kennedy article it co-published. In fact, I have never seen any publisher, in print or online, go to nearly the lengths that Salon did on that story to supply the readers with resources to see both sides and reach their own conclusion.
That is the model I'd use for any publication to do the most it can to provide both sides.
So clearly, I think that the letter writer's claim that Salon went easy on RFK, Jr. in the earlier article is the opposite of what happened. On this issue, I think the last is yet to be heard, though, on the issue of election fraud, not only for the historical accuracy of 2004, but because the threat remains for future elections.
"Mark Crispin Miller says the election was stolen, and seems to document it; Manjoo says Nuh Uh.
Kennedy says the election was stolen, and seems to document it; Manjoo says Nuh Uh.
Surely you have another voice we can hear from? I tend to skip Manjoo's writings as not much different from what I can find in the mainstream. Can you not find another viewpoint than this apparently reflexive naysayer?"
To the first point, I had the benefit of seeing Mark Crispin Miller speak on his views at the time. I have to say, I went looking for substance to back up the claims, and found nothing but pathos and no substance. He could talk about proof, and talk about how he offered proof, and talk about critics saying he didn't offer proof.
And then he said thanks for coming, without having offered the substance I think was needed.
Form your own opinion; his speech is available online at www.commonwealthclub.com archives, free.
As for the comment that Farhad's comments are the same as in mainstream media - I disagree. The conclusion may be the same, but the way it was reached and explained is vastly different. I do not see any substantive coverage, much less analysis and rebuttal, of RFK's piece.
If I want a quality analysis of RFK's article, and I do, I know nowhere else to go BUT Salon and Farhad.
"You criticize this by pointing out that Republicans as well as Democrats were turned away in equal numbers. Seriously, do you really not understand this one? In 2004, Democrats in Ohio were out-registering Republicans by an astonishing ratio, so turning away *all newly registered voters* (regardless of party) greatly advantaged the Republican candidate."
Farhad quoted the Conyers report's own claim that the impact was equal to both parties. And he appropriately criticizes RFK, Jr. for not pointing that out in his article.
You are arguing here against the accuracy of the claim - which is something you should take up with its source, the Conyers investigators; you are missing the point, that if RFK, Jr. is going to cite the Conyers report on this issue, it's wrong for him to use the info to imply the impact was mostly against democrats and fail to mention his source's conclusion that the impact was actually equal to the parties. Farhad is critiquing Kennedy's writing there, for cherry picking its quotes.
"A case in point is this current article by Farhad Manjoo, which is something I'd expect to read over at National Review Online or Townhall.com. Manjoo is a known quantity at Salon, and his apparent biases on this particular issue make him more suited to, say, Fox News than Salon...
Will Walsh do the right thing here? ...a website that seems to be morphing into another hollow neocon-validating parody, yet another formerly liberal voice now echoing the latest Karl Rove-approved talking points. You may find your takers for such a product, Ms. Walsh, but don't ask me to continue to pay for it."
This is absurd. Let's get it straight - the truth comes before partisanship. If the facts supported the right wing's views, the right thing would be for us to become right-wingers. (They don't.)
The question is, are Farhad's arguments correct? You are judging them only by the measure of whether they agree with your politics, and demanding that he be sentenced to publish in right-wing rags for violating your politics whether or not his statements are true. That's not good, nor American, nor progressive, nor rational.
You ask, will Walsh do the right thing here? By which you mean listen to the subscribers who are complaining about the conclusion Farhad reaches, and get someone else to say something different.
The right thing is what Walsh did: to follow the pursuit of the truth, courageously, even against the 'easy way out' of pandering to readers' politics - a short term gain and a long term corruption and loss to everyone.
Even if Farhad turned out to be wrong, the pursuit of the truth above the desired result is the 'right' thing.