“What Went Wrong in Ohio?”
Harper’s Magazine asks, “What Went Wrong in Ohio?” At the heart of the question is this:
The principal evidence for voting irregularities in Ohio is contained in the Conyers Report on the 2004 Presidential Election, prepared by the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee, and now published as this book, also entitled What Went Wrong in Ohio. This investigation was initiated and supervised by Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary committee. The Republican majority on the Judiciary Committee declined to participate in the Conyers inquiry, so we do not have the benefit of their insights. This is unfortunate, given that one of the principal subjects of the Conyers investigation is an Ohio Republican, Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who was also co-chairman of the Ohio Bush re-election campaign. Nevertheless, even lacking Republican input, the Conyers report is an altogether remarkable document. It is by far the best and most complete dossier on voter disenfranchisement and possible vote fraud in Ohio, and it has more than enough hard information to justify a public conversation.
[A]s remarkable as the information in the Conyers report may be, the near total media silence that greeted it when it first appeared—as well as the scant coverage of the formal objection to the Ohio electoral vote count filed by Representative Stephanie Tubb Jones—is, to my mind, just as remarkable.
This is Kerry’s responsibility to his supporters; that is, all of us that voted for him, should expect him to “fight for us.” Kerry owes it to democracy, America and his supporters to pursue any allegation of wrong doing; and if there’s any evidence to support fraud, Kerry should have the valor to pursuit. What do they say is the first rule of winning, You gotta want it more than the other guy. Frankly, after 2000, I don’t believe Democrats (and the Left/Progressives by extension) want it MORE than the other guys. Billmon had a great post on a related subject last week, The Liberal Disease:
[This disease] is the classically liberal approach to politics, in which the struggle for power is treated like some kind of glorified courtroom debate, with strict rules of evidence, an impartial umpire (the judge) and 12 jurors, straight and true, to render a verdict.
[...]
That’s pretty much the last ten years of American political history in a nutshell. While liberals sift and weigh the evidence, debate alternative points of view, and reach for that ever elusive “fairness,” the conservative machine sifts and weighs alternative propaganda points, debates the best way to manipulate public opinion, and reaches for power — first, last and always.
The modern conservative movement understands that fair and balanced is a marketing slogan: an Orwellian label for its exact opposite. Or, as David Horowitz wrote in his Art of Political Warfare — a totalitarian how-to manual for GOP candidates and conservative activists:
You cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate. You can do it only by following Lenin’s injunction: “In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent’s argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth.”
Until we get a candidate and a Progressive Movement that want power, and that understand that to do good, you gotta want to win, we’ll continue to be bullied, ignored and pushed aside by the opposition.
