“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.

November 3rd

You may have seen this already; if not, the below are points that we, Democrats, should be thinking about very seriously — especially as the party’s leadership is apparently considering doing more of the same, that is, being “more moderate”.

——————————————————

Insanity is continuing to do the same things over and over again and expecting a different result.

—
XI
—
Conservatives have spent the last 40 years getting clear about the values they represent. They have even developed a “family values” brand to represent a framework that coheres traditional prejudices around prayer in school, gun rights, restricting abortion, and restricting gay rights.

—-
XII
—-
By contrast, liberal or “progressive” groups and Democrats have spent the same period of time defining themselves against conservative values, even “morality” in general.

—-
XV
—-
Candidates who intend to win should no longer hire consultants who repeatedly lose. Those who counsel caution when dealing with the indifferent, the disaffected, and the undecided do not understand American history. Consultants who advise their clients against offering a clear and compelling vision in fear that it will be attacked should find themselves without a home in the Democratic Party. The sooner they retire, the better.

—-
XV
—-
Democrats serious about returning to majority status must:

• Retire any leader who believes that we are currently on a winning path that simply needs more money and effort.
• Define and articulate a coherent set of values of our base, and be willing to lose those allies who do not share these values.
• Fight battles, win or lose, that define and advance our values and expand our political base.

——————————————————

See the complete list of articles here:
http://www.3nov.com/images/november3-big.gif

No Wonder We’ve Got Bush(ed)

Some just refuse to accept modernity. Given the following, it appears that any candidate (read: Bush) willing to pander and wear his religion on his sleeve, starts off with a about a third of the popular vote faithfully built in:

———————————————————————

*Gallup has been asking the following for many years, here are this year’s results*

EVOLUTION

Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is � [ROTATED: a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, (or) just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence], or don’t you know enough about it to say?

- Supported by evidence: 35%
- Not supported by evidence: 35%
- Don’t know enough to say: 29%
- No opinion: 1%

[...]

Yet, [evolution] is not just any theory. It is one of the most basic theories in science today, and most biologists and other scientists believe that the theory is so well supported by data that it is a basic part of the scientific firmament. As National Geographic stated in its November cover story: “The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

CREATIONISM

The poll shows that almost half of the U.S. population believes that human beings did not evolve, but instead were created by God — as stated in the Bible — essentially in their current form about 10,000 years ago:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings — [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?

- Man developed, with God guiding: 38%
- Man developed, but God had no part in process: 13%
- God created man in present form: 45%
- Other/No opinion: 4%

BIBLICAL LITERACY

Although 45% of Americans believe that humans were created by God pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago — a view that corresponds to the account of creation as presented in the Bible — only 34% of Americans believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word:

Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible — the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man]?

- Actual: 34%
- Inspired: 48%
- Fables: 15%
- No opinion: 3%

BELIEF IN A LITERAL BIBLE AND IN CREATIONISM

A segmentation of Americans based on their responses to the questions about creationism and biblical literacy finds that a quarter of Americans can be considered to be true literalists — believing not only in the literal interpretation of the Bible, but also in the creationist view of the origin of humans.

25% of U.S. population is considered to be biblical literalists and believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago. (These are the group’s major characteristics):

- Women
- Age 30 and older
- No college degree
- Conservative
- Republicans
- Weekly church attendees
- Protestant

20% of U.S. population is considered to believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago, but not biblical literalists. (These are the group’s major characteristics):

- 18- to 29-year-olds

9% of U.S. population are considered biblical literalists but do not believe humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago. (These are the group’s major characteristics):

- High school or less

46% of U.S. population are not biblical literalists and also do not believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago. (These are the group’s major characteristics):

- Men
- East and West Coasts
- Urban
- College graduates
- Higher income
- Liberal
- Independents
- Seldom, never attend church
- Catholics

THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF SUPPORT FOR DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION

% Who Believe that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Is a Scientific Theory Well Supported by the Evidence

*Subgroup*
————————
- Postgraduate education: 65%
- Liberal: 56%
- College graduate: 52%
- West: 47%
- Seldom, never attend church: 46%
- Catholics: 46%
- 50- to 64-year-olds: 44%
- Men: 42%
- East: 42%
- 18- to 29-year-olds: 41%
- Independent: 40%
- Democrat: 38%
- Moderate: 36%

———————————————————————

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14107