Gene,

Do you honestly think the Democratic Party would ever publicly state that an election was stolen? Whatever they think privately, they're never going to say "stolen" in public. That would be election suicide. Look at how much flak Gore took simply for contesting the outcome in 2000 (cries of Sore/Loserman). And Gore just wanted to count all the votes in Florida! (God forbid democracy should take a few weeks.)

So, Manjoo's use of the conclusions from the Democratic Party's farce of a report (and Kennedy's omission of said conclusions) is meaningless. Consider the source.

If you want truth, you're not going to find it in a political party. They have to (or, choose to) play the game.

Manjoo writes:

"One has to wonder what, after all of this, Kennedy might have brought to the debate. There could have been an earnest exploration of the issues in order to finally shed some light on the problems we face in elections, and a call to urgently begin repairing our electoral machinery. Voting reforms are forever on the backburner in Congress; even the 2000 election did little to prompt improvements. If only someone with Kennedy's stature would outline this need."

Subsitute Manjoo for Kennedy and it sounds about right, don't you think?

The deluge of letters on Manjoo's pat dismissal shows the very real consternation out here, unreported, unexamined by any MSM, and now Salon too.

That's quality disservice.

If the dwindling minority of the country who support Bush and the Republican stranglehold on our government - including back-burning voting reforms - manage to sweep Congress again and beat another of the "sorry" Democratic presidential candidates, we'll just have to chalk it up to faith-based miracles, won't we? Because we will have strolled right past the moutain of small smoking guns, and consigned ourselves to the hall of mirrors that is, rightly or wrongly, the blogosphere.

It's the candidate's fault. It's the polls' fault. It's our fault for not trying harder. We'll get it right next time, or the next, or the next. No one can control the voting machines. Can't happen here. Just the Ukraine.

Nice job, Salon, if only.

Thanks for delivering a choice tidbit to the right-wing dream machine. And if you cynically think the article is a success because it's generated so much response - mission accomplished.

Think back to the OJ Simpson trial. You will remember that he was acquitted because of lack of sufficient evidence to convict him, not because there was sufficient evidence that he was innocent. That makes a difference.

It's exactly the same thing here. The Republican party is being let off the hook for voter fraud because of lack of sufficient evidence to prove it, not because there is sufficient evidence that they are innocent of the charges. If it could be proven that the Republicans were without a doubt innocent of these charges, I would be disappointed that Bush won but I would accept it and work harder for my chosen candidate next time. But there are too many irregularities this time that haven't yet been explained for me to let it go so easily.

In this case, we are talking about an issue that directly affects all of us. We need to know that our democratic process can still be trusted. Which party a person votes for is irrelevant here, as being unable to trust in one of the core rights of American citizenship is a very serious matter. As long as we continue to say that nothing can be done about even the suspicion of voter fraud, our democracy is threatened. When it comes to knowing that my vote counts, I don't want to feel like someone's getting away with murder on a technicality.

As is my habit with the Euphemedia, I started reading this article at the end and worked backwards.

(Try it. It makes for some very entertaining headlines and opening salvos when you've already read the stuff they try to hide under the rug of the well-trained short attention span of the audience.)

First (for me), Manjoo attacks this: "Claim: Tens of thousands of people were disenfranchised due to voter registration errors."

He labels this claim "non-reality," but then goes on to "slam dunk" it thusly: "In fact, the coalition reports the number as an estimate of about 42,500 votes that were "lost," and 30,000 votes it says were "at risk" of being lost; it is not clear how many of those that were "at risk" were actually lost."

Uh huh. I see. Over 40,000 is not "tens of thousands." Therefore the election was not stolen.

Pardon me if my math's too rusty to add Manjoo to the list of people to be listened to on this topic.

And BTW, they're VOTERS, not votes. Those are fellow Americans Manjoo's writing off so casually. (Hint: That is the essence of our stolen elections crisis.)

--

Impeachment IS Our Positve Agenda

Farhad Manjoo goes to great length to attack Robert Kennedy's arguments surrounding the theft of the 2004 election, but he utterly fails to show cause why anyone should trust an election process in which the unverifiable count is done in secret by unauditable machines supplied by political partisans who have pledged to bring victory to one of the candidates. Golly, guess who "won"!

The only surprise should be that Americans have not rioted in the streets. (Maybe the French aren't so lame after all. They are not afraid to take a visible stand or to make demands of their government.) Such a small thing to demand: verifiable elections. Why should anyone be branded a nut case for questioning results that cannot be verified? It's not like politicians or their partisans are above reproach; they've amply demonstrated that they are not.

Manjoo would have us take it on some twisted faith that our elections are completely honest and calls us conspiracy theorists if we dare ask for proof. That's a typical right-wing smear tactic, and by using it Manjoo shows his true colors as well as his total lack of interest in real democracy. What if the evidence suggested that Democrats had stolen the election? Would Manjoo accept the results on faith? Would he label angry Republicans as conspiracy theorists?

And just because the evidence "isn't new" doesn't mean it isn't true. Exit polls may not lie, but politicians and their partisan supporters surely do, and if Manjoo cannot point to verifiable proof that Bush won the election - which indeed he cannot do - then there is just as much reason to listen to him as there is to believe the election "results": none at all.

One question remains in my mind: When will the US again enjoy truly transparent and verifiable elections? The people demand to know.

Oh, and one more: Why, exactly, did Salon run with Manjoo's screed?