 |
|
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Major Tom on "Actionable Fraud" and More!
by Einsteinia
Tue Nov 30th, 2004 at 15:55:32 PST
Hello Kossacks:
What are our post-mortem election rights? Specifically, what constitutes "actionable fraud"?
Also, did you know there is a fascinating historical parallel to our recent election madness?
This and more I found in a comment posted by Major Tom just before the pre-Thanksgiving bustle.
I think the free legal opinion here is worthy of the several minutes you'll need to thoroughly read this enjoyably written mini-treatise by Major Tom.
BTW, I suggested to Major Tom that he re-post this as a diary because it was far too dense and difficult to read--not to mention easily missed--as a mere comment. Major Tom graciously declined, but gave me permission to post it and make formatting changes. And changes I did make. You can blame the annoying italics, bolding, subject headers, etc., all on me. My intention was to make it easier to read on the computer--forgive me if you find it distracting.
Enjoy and Learn:
If History is always good prologue when it comes to politics. Back in 2000, nearly all of America (Republicans as well as Democrats) became uncomfortably aware that that our election system was severely broken in numerous places around the country. Of course, nowhere was that more clear than in Florida with its hanging chads and butterfly ballots. In fact, it was so terribly broken in Florida that the election was actually handed over to the loser, GW Bush. Months following the election, and after an exhaustive review of all the state's voting precincts, a number of reputable news organizations, including the Wall Street Journal (hardly a bastion of liberalism), concluded that Al Gore had in fact won Florida and should have taken all its electoral college votes and been elected President of the United States, if all the votes would have been counted based upon the intent of the electorate.
But heck, we knew that by just considering all the lost votes due to the infamous "butterfly ballot." Remember, Bush ended up winning the state by less than 600 total votes, while the votes lost by Gore by reason of the "butterfly ballot" exceeded 10,000 in number (all those Jewish people in Palm Beach certainly weren't voting for Buchanan, a candidate who loudly proposed giving less financial and military support to the State of Israeli). By the way, the irony is that Gore would have picked up thousands of votes in central and northern Florida (including the Panhandle) had he been sage enough to request a hand count in all of Florida's counties when he first requested a recount.
Well, when the outrageous U.S. Supreme Court (using incredibly spurious logic and reasoning, breaking many well established legal precedents, and smashing entirely the seminal concept of "res judicata"), subsequently pulled the plug on the statewide recount that was well in progress, it seemed everyone sought of just went home and completely forgot about the outrageous miscarriage of justice that had just occurred in our nation. For me, I can tell you, the resulting silence was disturbingly deafening.
Justice in the Supreme Court?
By the way, if the U.S. Supreme Court had orally informed the attorneys for Gore and Bush of their vote count deadline at the end of their oral vote, and not have waited the few days for the official opinion to be written up, the Florida statewide recount could have been hastened and might have been fully completed in time for the false, statutory imposed deadline of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thus, following the U.S. Supreme Court's incredibly partisan ruling in a case of such national enormity, I began asking myself: Where is the OUTRAGE? Where is the righteous indignation of the American people!!! When are they going to rise up, even if it's only half of them. Of course, there was none; or should I say, there was very little, considering the very high stakes involved. I know, Al Gore had a lot to do with the lack of deep concern and wide public discontentment as well as clarion calls for instant change. Yep, he simply moseyed off into the sunset, and the Democratic powers that be at the time simply followed in his steps. And, of course, we sheepishly followed them. For me, that is when I lost all respect for Al Gore and when the silence became even more deafening to me.
Historical Precedent for the Taking
Yet there was precedent for Al Gore not to give up so easily and scream "foul" to the top of his lungs. Back in the Presidential Election 1876, there was close election where vote fraud had been claimed and which involved no less, the State of Florida. That election was between Samuel Tilden (Dem) and Rutherford Hayes (Rep). Tilden had received 250,000 more votes than Hayes, and he needed just one (1) electoral vote from the four disputed states of Florida, Louisiana, Alabama and Oregon to win office. On the other hand, the very determined Rutherford B. Hayes needed to take the electoral votes from all four of those states in order to win the Presidency. Because the Constitution did not give the U.S. Supreme Court the relegated power to decide the election controversy, the dispute eventually fell to the Republican Congress which swiftly voted along party lines and awarded the election to their brethren, Rutherford Hayes. At that point in time, Tilden and his brethren could have sheepishly walked away like Al Gore had done in 2000, as appears Kerry is doing now; however, they didn't.
The Democrats were so outraged and DETERMINED not to be defrauded, they fostered nationwide threats of civil war. With the country in such grave turmoil, the two parties subsequently entered into negotiations and finally reached the famous "Compromise of 1877" by which the Republicans acceded to several hard demands of the Tilden forces which included guaranteed appointments of Democrats to certain Federal offices and posts as well as a promise that Hayes would not seek a second term of office as President. Gosh, if only Gore had been more like Tilden.
The main point of the above history lesson is that Democrats should not be afraid to stand up at any cost and declare they will not be hoodwinked by Republicans fraudsters. Incidentally, Rutherford B. Hayes kept his promise and did not run for re-election in 1880.
What is the Legal Concept of "Reasonable Suspicion"?
There is something else of import that all of us should keep in mind. It is the concept of "reasonable suspicion." In brief, it's a standard that law enforcement authorities need to meet in order to stop and search a citizen, a car and so on; and it can be the valid basis of an eventual arrest. Indeed, it is less than a "probable cause" or "more likely than not" legal standard. Thus, a twenty or thirty percent likelihood of a given event or fact would meet the "reasonable suspicion standard."
Furthermore, hearsay can be the basis of a "reasonable suspicion" threshold finding, while an actual warrant issued by a judge or magistrate is not necessarily required. Certainly, it is a much less stringent minimal bench mark than "actual proof." Unquestionably, if actual proof were always required, there would be very few legitimate searches conducted across the country on the part of law enforcement authorities.
The point that should be garnered from the brief recital of law set forth in the previous paragraph is that absolute guarantees of proof are never required in the law before a search of anything can be conducted. Furthermore, under our legal system, this basal or minimum standard of "reasonable suspicion" is quite sufficient in the criminal law arena where rights are more greatly coveted and protected than in the civil law arena in which considerations of recounts would more generally apply. Therefore, a suspicion legitimately based upon any facts and inferences, including hearsay, are enough to base a civil or quasi-civil case (which a recount case is), even if those facts represent only a small percent of actual likelihood or probability, so long and on the condition that it is made in good faith.
Do We Have Sufficient Grounds?
So to all those who are screaming "where is the indisputable facts or truth, because I haven't heard any yet," I say to them, "that at this point in the proceedings, indisputable proof is not required whatsoever."
In fact, because we are not suggesting that a criminal action be brought, the standard of proof is even less than "a reasonable suspicion." Don't we at least have some of that from what we have thus far heard? OF COURSE, WE DO. Just think about what we now know to have occurred in Volusia County, Florida; or what has occurred in South Carolina; or what has occurred in Ohio, and so on and so on. Even the enormous
improbabilities regarding the discrepancies between the exit polls and the actual poll results should raise within all reasonable people a "reasonable suspicion" that something is definitely awry concerning many of the 2004 poll results. Wasn't the odds 250,000,000 to 1?
Actually, with regard to some of the reports we have been hearing from here and there, I would respectfully suggest that the criminal law, "reasonable suspicion standard" has also been met concerning some of the activities that we have been informed about - destroying original polling tapes. At least, that is my view. Again, however, we are not suggesting that someone bring a criminal action at this point in the continuing controversy. We're talking about a "quasi-civil action" here.
What "Civil Discovery" Would Allow:
There is also the matter of "civil discovery." When someone begins a civil action, the parties then have a corresponding right to request an inspection of documents and or other evidence, including equipment, admissions, and answers to specific questions under oath (interrogatories or depositions) from the other party or parties to a civil action. All of these rights are set forth to assist and aid each party in proving their base allegations as set forth in their complaint or petition.
In our particular situation, we would greatly appreciate a look into the brains and guts of some of the voting machines and voting tabulators, wouldn't we? Yet, unless and until we request a formal recount, or we challenge an election outcome itself, we will never be allowed that right and opportunity to analyze what these machines actually do and don't do.
"Res Ipsa Loquitor," What It Means:
There is something else that I should discuss at this point. There is an old legal doctrine on the books known as "Res Ipsa Loquitor." It is a Latin phrase which basically means, "Let the object speak for itself."
Where's the Burden of Proof?
How is Res Ipsa Loquitor applicable here? Well, in theory, when something goes awry concerning an object or instrumentality which is in the exclusive control of a person or persons, be it equipment or the like, and that failure does not normally occur without fault or without negligence, then the burden to prove that the object or the machine did not malfunction in a certain way then legally shifts to the owner or exclusive possessor of that very object or machine.
Respectfully, under the principles of this specific, time-tested legal doctrine, I would contend that Diebold, et al., should be required to prove how any of its vote machines malfunctioned in any given instance, or put another way, they should have the burden of proof to demonstrate that all of its machines functioned properly, just as they were intended to function. You know, when you really think about the fact that our democracy itself happens to be at stake, that isn't asking a whole lot.
About "Trade Secrets"
Finally, I should discuss the semi-privileges of "proprietary interests" and "trade secret" holders. Friends, they are not absolute. Everyday within our courts throughout the land, trade secrets and proprietary rights cases are litigated. Famous cases involving KFC, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Disney and IBM are just a few examples from many thousands I could mention. Indeed, I could go on and on. Furthermore, parties are frequently ordered by the courts to give up trade secrets and make them known to the court and the opposing party's experts, if justice cannot be served otherwise.
In the case of proprietary interest companies like Diebold, I would predict that a judge would likely order that the secret codes underlying all functions of these voting machines or tabulators, as well as some the voting machines and tabulators themselves, be given over to a candidate's experts, so that they might have a reasonable opportunity to test for themselves whether or not these machines do exactly what they are legally supposed to do and nothing else.
Likely, the court would safeguard the limited release of those trade secret codes by swearing an expert to strict confidentiality. That same court would also likely require the candidate to pay Diebold whatever its reasonable costs might be incurred in order to recode the voting machines and tabulators. That's right, my friends, these voting contraptions simply need to be recoded in order for them to be fully functional and operational again. And I suspect we're not talking about an enormous recoding expense. Really, it's not like Diebold would have to throw all their machines away and start all over again.
Absolute Proof--Nonsense!
So to all those who demand absolute proof, I once again state that absolute proof of fraud (or a smoking gun) is not needed at this point in the proceedings. However, for those who still want to hear about some quite definitive fraud, please consider the following:
(1) That when voting officials tell the voting public that they have counted all ballots, when they have in fact tossed huge batches of ballots in the trash canisters, then that is actionable fraud.
(2) That when voting officials tell the voting public that they have counted all ballots, when they have in fact loaded huge batches of ballots in the back of a pickup truck that just happens to have a pro-Bush sticker on it, then that is actionable fraud.
(3) That when voting officials tell the voting public that they have turned over all official voting tallies, when they have in fact tossed some official vote tallies that they said didn't exist into trash containers, then that is actionable fraud.
(4) That when voting officials state that they have turned over all official records pursuant to an appropriate Freedom of Information Request (FOIR), when they have in fact not done so, then that is actionable fraud.
(5) That when voting officials secret or destroy public voting records in order to conceal it from the public, then that is actionable fraud.
(6) That when voting officials dissemble anything of significant import concerning an election, then that is actionable fraud.
(7) That when voting officials intentionally give the voting public wrong information about who can or cannot vote in an election, then that is actionable fraud.
(8) That when voting officials intentionally give the voting public wrong information concerning where a person can or cannot vote, then that is actionable fraud.
(9) That when voting officials intentionally give the voting public wrong information about who can or cannot register to vote in an election, then that is actionable fraud.
(10) That when individuals, under the color of authority, accept voter registrations from members of the voting public and promise to bring them to the Registrar of Voters, but instead tear them up or throw them away, then that is actionable fraud.
(11) That when members of the opposing party give the voting public wrong information about who can or cannot vote in an election, then that is actionable fraud.
(12) That when members of the opposing party give the voting public wrong information about where a person can or cannot vote in an election, then that is actionable fraud.
(13) That when members of the opposing party give the voting public wrong information about when a person can or cannot vote in an election, then that is actionable fraud.
(14) That when members of the opposing party tell the voting public that they will be arrested for overdue parking tickets at the polling site when they vote, then that is actionable fraud.
(15) That when voting officials tell the voting public that they do not have any additional machines to put on site, when they know there are another 87 of them sitting in their warehouse, then that is actionable fraud.
(16) That when Blackwell states in a media interview that there were only a few minor problems during the Ohio election, when he knows the statement to be completely false and untrue, then that is actionable fraud.
(17) That when voting officials tell the voting public that they have enough voting machines on site, when they know that they do not, then that is actionable fraud.
(18) That when voting officials tell the voting public that they have sent out by mail, as per individual request, 50,000 absentee ballots, when in fact they did not, then that is actionable fraud.
(19) That when voting officials hide from the voting public the fact that they have thrown out thousands of provisional ballots, then that is actionable fraud.
(20) When voting machine manufacturers actively hide the fact that their key people who generate the secrets codes for their voting machines and tabulators are convicted embezzlers, hackers and felons, then that is ACTIONABLE FRAUD.
I could go on and on, depending upon which particular state or jurisdiction I happened to be talking about. Friends, it is important to remember that an election does not begin and end with a vote being cast on election day; instead it begins when one registers to vote and ends when all legitimate votes cast in a specific election are counted in full.
Perhaps the word "fraud" scares too many people? Well, if that is the case, then simply do not use the word "fraud" in any civil complaint, or any recount justification, or in any news article or internet post. Instead, use the term irregularity, impropriety, dysfunction and even error or mistake. In the twenty listed statements above relating to fraud, simply insert in lieu of the word "fraud" whatever word you happen to prefer, i.e. irregularity, impropriety, etc.
However, my advice to you is to scream out as loud as you can whatever word you choose to use, if you wish to have any reasonable expectation that the right people are going to listen and do something about your grave concerns.
A Few Other Important Considerations:
While I'm discussing improprieties, I should also mention a few other actionable grounds which can be used to base a recount or a election challenge upon. How about: voter suppression, voter intimidation, and voter disinformation. Or how about the fact that minority precincts and college precincts have half the operational voting machines in like precincts that happen to be located in Republican districts?
Do you think there is a legitimate case there?
Sure there is. And perhaps a Civil Rights Voting Act Case. You know, the problem is that there has been far too few legal cases authorized by Democratic leaders and filed in America over the last decade to correct these rampant voter inequities that seem to reoccur without fail each and every election cycle.
Do you realize that perhaps the votes of 60 people PER Ohio PRECINCT, who simply didn't have their vote counted because of intimidation, misinformation, long lines, hanging chads, undervotes, and overvotes or whatever, could mean the difference between Bush or Kerry being in the White House for the next four years.
Too Little, Too Late?
Within the next year or two, I fully expect some newspaper to come along, and after studying the Ohio vote in depth, write an illuminating and riveting column stating that if all the votes of the people who had intended to vote for Kerry in Ohio had been counted in full, then Kerry would have been duly elected President of the United States in the election of 2004. Isn't this more Deja Vu All Over Again? Just how much more of this can we all take or be expected to take?
Listen, I know I've gone on far too long already. I didn't mean to; but I felt I needed set forth some legal precedent and history. I say this because I fully agree with Tocque DeVille that the media as well as the blog masters have been so deafeningly silent when they should be our rally leaders.
Frankly, I don't understand the silence; but it is there. And I don't really know the exact reasons why. However, I do know that if we do not make this cause the most preeminent issue of the day right now, then we are going to have the same situation repeat itself in 2006 and 2008, and God only knows how long after that. Yep, it'll be that Deja Vu Stuff All Over Again.
You know, because seemingly passive Democrats and the National Media did NOT scream to high heavens about the Florida election irregularities right up until the time of the passage of "The Help America Vote Act" (HAVA), what we actually got was something even worse than what we already had.
Help America Vote Act Madness:
For those who do not know, the act actually financially rewards companies like Diebold that introduce "Direct Electronic Voting Machines Without Paper Trails" to new voting districts that formerly utilized a different voting system or operational format, including the OP-Scan System. Beyond that, HAVA has not changed much of anything else of any significant import or improvement. Yep, the Democrats simply got hoodwinked again. Hell, haven't we all figured that out by now? What else is new? "But damn the torpedoes, and full steam ahead," shouldn't WE bloody well now change OUR Modus Operandi before it's way too late?
Some Laughs?
You know, it's so painfully hilarious to think about it. In 2000 we have Bush in reality losing not only the total national vote count but also losing the real Electoral College Vote count; and yet he has the unmitigated gall to claim a mandate (through none other than Mr. Cheney) from that catastrophic election. And yet he gets completely away with it. Where the hell was the Democratic outrage when Bush claimed that phony mandate back in 2000? Also, just look what we got as a result of the fraudulently claimed mandate. Finally, what are we to be served up as a result of Bush's newest mandate proclamation? Is it too unbearable to even think about it? Only time will tell.
Now matter how you view it, the inescapable fact is absolutely clear: Whether or not Kerry can actually pull out this election is suddenly irrelevant to whether or not an exhaustive, post-mortem examination of the 2004 election should now be conducted post haste.
You know, friends, if the shoe were on the other foot, do you really believe the Republicans would have faded away so conveniently and so quietly? I think not. Perhaps, the Republicans are right about something: Because Democrats are not fighters, "they would constitute a great risk to our national defense, if they happened to be in power in a time of war."
Doctor in the House?
Finally, if you are a medical person or technologically oriented, then please think of this election as a suspicious poisoning death. In that case, don't you think an autopsy might be in order and like pronto.
Huh, no matter how it cuts, I guess it's just Deja Vu All over Again. Great song, isn't it?
However, it gets more than a bit stale after a while, doesn't it?
Posted at 10:45 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
DNC chair ongoings
by kos
Tue Nov 30th, 2004 at 16:49:17 PST
So Michigan's Democratic Party chief says the following Democrats have been making calls to DNC members gauging support for a run: ousted Rep. Martin Frost, former Clark campaign manager Donnie Fowler, businessman Leo Hindery, and Howard Dean. Donnie Fowler is looking to run from the Reform wing of the Democratic Party.
Democrats must stand up for our beliefs and take risks. Democrats must be defiant in defeat. When we lie down, we get run over [...]
Democrats must remember that voters don't live in Washington. Conventional wisdom and an aristocracy of consultants have created a national party that has lost the handle on what is truly important to voters and what is really happening in their lives. Local people know better. Let them lead.
The Democratic Party must increase its communications capability. Democrats must communicate year round with voters where they live, through their local news outlets, and by using trusted local opinion leaders. Regional political and communications offices plus a true understanding of new media and new technologies are essential.
We must form a shadow government. The DNC should coordinate the Party's leadership, not just our congressional members but also our governors, party chairs, DNC members, and leading thinkers. The Democratic Party needs a single entity, acting as a clearinghouse, so that the resources and message of the progressive movement do not duplicate each other or directly conflict. "Aristocracy of consultants"? Be still my beating heart!
Meanwhile, Trippi argues that the netroots are the vehicle to a new Democratic majority in this powerful WSJ op-ed.
The staggering defeat of the Democratic Party, and its ever-accelerating death spiral weren't obvious from the election results. Two factors masked the extent of the party's trouble. Without the innovation of Internet-driven small-donor fund-raising and a corresponding surge in support from the nation's youngest voters, John Kerry would have suffered a dramatically larger electoral defeat. And the true magnitude of the Democrats abject failure at the polls in 2004 would have been more clearly revealed.
Mr. Kerry raised nearly half of his campaign war chest over the Internet. He was so successful at online fund-raising that he actually outspent the Bush campaign in this election. But it was the outsider campaign of Howard Dean, reviled by most of the Democratic establishment, which pioneered the use of the Internet to raise millions in small contributions; Mr. Kerry was just the beneficiary as the party nominee.
And it was the risk-taking and aggressive Dean Campaign that forced the risk-averse Kerry campaign to opt out of the public financing system. Had that decision not been forced on Mr. Kerry, he would have been badly outspent by George Bush; he would not have been competitive at all throughout the long summer of 2004. Is that a Trippi endorsement for Dean's candidacy? Remember, those two aren't exactly best friends these days.
While I am a fan of Frost -- a tough Dem in red Texas -- he's status quo. As for businessman Leo whatever, he's an unknown with no chance in hell.
Simon Rosenberg isn't actively campaigning for the job. If I had to guess, I'd say he's laying low, ready to emerge as a concensus candidate if the DNC battle gets ugly between Dean and the anti-Dean consensus candidate.
Kerry, after being spurned by a Vilsack who suddenly lost his taste for a brawl (was he promised an easy ride by the presumptive leader of the Democratic Party?), looks to be boosting his old NH ally, Jeanne Shaheen.
Posted at 08:04 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Chris Bowers on Electability - MUST READ
|
What Electability Has Wrought
by Chris Bowers
Electability is the most pernicious of all lies to penetrate the Democratic psyche. Electability, as frequenter commenter JollyBuddah termed it, is "a fairy tale told by bloviating pundits." It is the sort of mendacity used by swindlers and tyrants: a few simple gimmicks can solve all your problems. Find the right person, from the right state, in the right region, with the right resume, and presto, that is all you need. Simple falsehoods of this sort can appeal to desperate people who, like Democrats, seek immediate relief to crushing problems. We want to believe that all it takes are a few simple tricks, especially when times are at their worst. We want to believe this because we need hope.
What has electability wrought? What do we have now that John Kerry has been defeated?
Do we have a network of volunteers who, now that the election is over, are available to work on projects other than the 2004 election? Not really, as our massive volunteer efforts were geared toward a single purpose that has now passed, and many were not even from the areas where they were volunteering.
Do we have down-ticket Congressional and gubernatorial success to celebrate apart from the Presidential race? No, as the current congressional makeup is very similar to 1994 and 1996.
Do we have stronger local organizations anywhere outside of Montana and Democratic areas of swing states? Not really, as we have no new grassroots structures from the campaign.
Do we have any new issues raised during the campaign that we can seize on as part of a developing national message that can be used to raise the level of debate and bring more people to our side in the future? Not really, unless you count Edwards and Obama. For the majority of the campaign, Kerry's message was his bio. We do not have a single ideological narrative with any national resonance.
No, no, no and no. Kerry's campaign, and subsequent defeat, left us with few improved outlooks on the future. We do have improved netroots, massively improved small donor fundraising, much better voter registration in important Democratic areas and our most favorable partisan index map in decades. There were some long-term victories, but not many. Further, what we did gain, long-term, was entirely as a side-effect of our all-out effort to win at any cost. We improved in swing states because we saw swing states as the key to defeating Bush in 2004. We improved in small donor fundraising because the campaign needed the money. We registered more voters in swing states purely in an attempt to win in 2004. If there was a long-term project we ignored, it was ignored because it was not seen as central toward victory in 2004.
In other words, because we are a party in the death-grip of electability, we consistently fail to work on engaging in the long-term structural organization needed in order to improve our fortunes, long-term. More after the jump.
|
Last week I got into a pretty heated argument with my roommate (commenter Spartacus) over my Evolving Partisan Strength series. Near the end of the argument, he said something along these lines:
I can't believe that in an article that long your entire point was that Southerners cannot improve on Democratic chances in the South in Presidential elections just by virtue of their very southern-ness. That is a pretty small point to make for an essay of that length. I was trying to make a few other points in the essay, but he was correct in identifying my central argument. My response was that that was not a small point at all, and the notion that the South can still swing to Democrats if and only if we nominate a Southerner is was one of the central misconceptions fueling the electability argument. Like many other "electability" misconceptions, it is so hard-wired into our national psyche and repeatedly reified by bloviating pundits. When the lie runs deep, it takes a lot of work to demonstrate that it is, in fact, a lie.
There are several other electability myths that I would like to work to debunk, because from what I can tell over two years of blogosphere bickering surrounding the term, every aspect of the electability argument is untenable. Here are a few more:
- A line on a resume will compensate for a person's ideological and/or popularity weakness on a given policy issue (veterans will help us on the military, doctors will help us on health care, ministers will help us on religion, teachers will help us on education, etc). I don't buy this. Quite frankly, it assumes that people are idiots and blank slates dazzled by resumes and bright shiny things more than ideas.
- A moderate will increase our appeal among moderates, or a liberal will increase our appeal among liberals.
- Winning "this election" as all that matters. This is the big one, and it need to be discussed in full.
Winning "this election" is never all that matters. What we do, or do not do, in any given election alters our chances in future elections. If we do not build local grassroots structures in all fifty states during a Presidential election because everything is sacrificed at the alter of swing states, then we will have serious problems in congressional, state legislature, gubernatorial, and senatorial elections outside of swing states in future elections. If we do not work on a national message, and seek instead only to appeal on the given potluck of issues in a single cycle, we will still be lacking a national message in future elections. If we believe that a line on a resume, even if that line is a place of birth, can swing people more than message, we will be lacking in message altogether, which spells permanent electoral doom. If we think that simply being "moderate" will swing people, without ever explaining to people what "moderate" is, then we will be actively working to push more people into the conservative camp, and participating in our own destruction.
What do we have now that the election is over? Why should we be optimistic about our future? What has electability wrought? Trippi has one answer:
Mr. Kerry was a weaker candidate than Mr. Gore. He lost so much ground among women, Hispanics, and other key groups, that the millions in Internet money, the most Herculean get-out-the-vote effort in party history, and the largest turnout of young voters in over a decade, couldn't save him. Had the young stayed home, the sea of red on the map would have grown to include at least Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Hampshire--perhaps one or two more.(...)
Since the Democratic Leadership Council, with its mantra of "moderate, moderate, moderate," took hold in D.C., the party has been in decline at just about every level of government. Forget the Kerry loss. Today the number of Democrats in the House is the lowest it's been since 1948. Democrats are on the brink of becoming a permanent minority party. What do we have in return? Pretty much, just money:
A Republican sweep of the White House and control of Congress hasn't stopped the Democratic National Committee's fund raising.
The DNC announced Tuesday that it had raised at least $13 million in November. The total includes $10 million collected after the Nov. 2 election in which President Bush won a second term and Republicans strengthened their House and Senate majorities.
Due in part to growth in fund raising over the Internet, the DNC raised more this election cycle than it did before corporate, union and big individual donations known as soft money were outlawed by a 2002 law.
The committee raised at least $400 million in the 2003-04 election cycle, compared to $210 million in 1999-2000, the last presidential election cycle in which it could collect unlimited donations. The party's fortunes are crashing, and we are still controlled by the electability mindset, and the sychophantic mendacity of the chattering classes currently manifested in an Anyone But Dean movement for DNC chair. It might as well be phrased as an Anything But a Fifty-State Strategy movement, an Anything But A National Message or Ideological Narrative movement, or an Anything But Change and Grassroots Movement. The electability mindset has almost single-handedly ripped our party to shreds, but unfortunately for us, many Democrats out there seem unwilling to try something new, something difficult, and something long-term.
Any reality based community would properly reject "electability" as the lie that it is. To bad more of us are not doing the same. Howard Dean for DNC chair. |
http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/11/30/143728/70
Posted at 07:34 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
by Chris Bowers
Names, names and more names:
Defeated Texas Congressman Martin Frost is among potential candidates for chairman of the Democratic National Committee who are telephoning members about the situation, a leading Democrat said Monday.
"The following candidates are making phone calls to DNC members -- Howard Dean, Donnie Fowler, Martin Frost and Leo Hindery," said Mark Brewer, party chairman in Michigan and president of the Association of State Democratic Chairs.
Frost, a member of the House Democratic leadership team before Texas redistricting cost him his job in the November, would add a high-profile name to the mix of potential candidates. Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman have said they will not try for the job. Frost challenged Pelosi for minority leader post-2002, as a "centrist" alternative. I like the guy, but man would that have been embarrassing had he won. Losing Daschle was bad enough.
Posted at 07:32 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Donnie Fowler DNC Chair ideas
Trippi today writes a Wall Street Journal Column on the Future of the Democratic Party, Only the Grassroots Can Save The Democratic Party today. Does it signal that Joe is backing Howard Dean's candidacy for the DNC Chair?
Donnie Fowler is a candidate for the DNC position. Want to see his position paper? I'll include it in the extended entry. Maybe this will awake the mighty Stirling Newberry to write something about those Clark days last Fall.
From Vilsack on CNN via NJ's Hotline: I was asked to consider it. And out of respect for those who were making that request, I gave it some consideration. That was Kerry, whom it now appears is turning to his NH backer, as the ABD candidate. Says Vilsack:
"There are a lot of people that would be able to do a good job as the DNC chair. But, you know, at the end of the day, it's really not as much about the chair as it is about the rest of us willing to help the chair. This party has some significant challenges ahead. We've got to rebuild the grassroots. We've got to make sure that neighbor to neighbor are talking about Democratic ideals and policies and programs and politicians. That's going to take a lot of effort on the part of a lot of people. Not just the chair. Howard [Dean] is certainly someone who energized the grassroots. There's other folks, Jeanne Shaheen, a variety of other people that have been mentioned that I know could do the job. So I'm confident we're going to have a good chair. But I want to make sure that the rest of us help carry this rather significant heavy load that we face" Finally, I'll head down to Orlando for the Exec. Directors DNC meeting in mid-Dec, not that I'm invited...
The Democratic National Committee
Embracing the New Politics and Perfecting the Old
Donnie Fowler, Candidate for DNC Chairman / November 2004
In a time where America's progressive movement and the Democratic Party feel the pain of defeat, Democrats must reaffirm our soul and commit ourselves to the new politics while perfecting the old. Today's Democratic Party is the legacy of our nation's greatest accomplishments - the American Revolution, abolition of slavery, giving women the vote, the right to organize, winning two world wars, and the civil rights movement. Standing up for this tradition is the charge of the DNC and progressives everywhere.
Democrats must stand up for our beliefs and take risks. Democrats must be defiant in defeat. When we lie down, we get run over.
Democrats must cross the values threshold. Democrats love issues, but we must remind voters we have a soul before we convince them that our policies make sense.
Democrats must find new voters. To return to power, Democrats must maintain the loyalty of traditional Democrats and recognize that huge parts of the electorate have arrived, changed, or shifted in our country over the last forty years.
Democrats must remember that voters don't live in Washington. Conventional wisdom and an aristocracy of consultants have created a national party that has lost the handle on what is truly important to voters and what is really happening in their lives. Local people know better. Let them lead.
The Democratic Party must increase its communications capability. Democrats must communicate year round with voters where they live, through their local news outlets, and by using trusted local opinion leaders. Regional political and communications offices plus a true understanding of new media and new technologies are essential.
We must form a shadow government. The DNC should coordinate the Party's leadership, not just our congressional members but also our governors, party chairs, DNC members, and leading thinkers. The Democratic Party needs a single entity, acting as a clearinghouse, so that the resources and message of the progressive movement do not duplicate each other or directly conflict.
We must raise money. Continued fundraising success requires a message that attracts donations and proof that the money produces real results.
We must measure what we do, hold ourselves accountable, and review our progress. The DNC must perform more like a business by setting measurable goals, quantifying its progress, holding staff accountable, and reviewing its activities on a semi-annual basis.
- - -
Donnie Fowler has achieved a leading role in political and high technology circles through his work in Silicon Valley and at the Federal Communications Commission, service in the Clinton White House, and work on six presidential campaigns. He has advised dozens of companies, policymakers, public advocacy groups, and political campaigns on how to manage their media, policy, business development, & technology agendas.
Six Presidential Campaigns / Four Presidential Cycles
o Gephardt '87-'88, Jackson '88, Clinton/Gore '96, Gore/Lieberman '00 (National Field Director), Wesley Clark '03 (Campaign Manager), and Kerry/Edwards '04 (Michigan State Director)
Political and Campaign Work in Fourteen States on the Ground
o S.Carolina, Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wyoming, California, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Virginia
Technology & Telecommunications Background
o Federal Communications Commission ('97-'99)
o TechNet, Silicon Valley ('01-'03)
Posted at 07:29 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Reforming Democratic Party
Only the Grassroots Can Save The Democratic Party
By Joe Trippi
The staggering defeat of the Democratic Party, and its ever-accelerating death spiral weren't obvious from the election results. Two factors masked the extent of the party's trouble. Without the innovation of Internet-driven small-donor fund-raising and a corresponding surge in support from the nation's youngest voters, John Kerry would have suffered a dramatically larger electoral defeat. And the true magnitude of the Democrats abject failure at the polls in 2004 would have been more clearly revealed.
Mr. Kerry raised nearly half of his campaign war chest over the Internet. He was so successful at online fund-raising that he actually outspent the Bush campaign in this election. But it was the outsider campaign of Howard Dean, reviled by most of the Democratic establishment, which pioneered the use of the Internet to raise millions in small contributions; Mr. Kerry was just the beneficiary as the party nominee.
And it was the risk-taking and aggressive Dean Campaign that forced the risk-averse Kerry campaign to opt out of the public financing system. Had that decision not been forced on Mr. Kerry, he would have been badly outspent by George Bush; he would not have been competitive at all throughout the long summer of 2004.
Mr. Kerry's lead among young voters hid just how bad Election Day really was for Democrats. In the 2000 election, voters between the ages of 18 and 29 split their votes evenly; nine million each for Mr. Bush and Al Gore. But in 2004, two million more voters in this age group turned out to vote. And while Mr. Bush won the same nine million votes, 11 million voted for Mr. Kerry. But when we set aside his two million new younger voters, the true disaster of 2004 is revealed. In 2000, Mr. Gore and Ralph Nader won a combined total of 54 million votes. This year Mr. Kerry and Mr. Nader got 53 million (ignoring the two million new young voters).
It turns out that Mr. Kerry was a weaker candidate than Mr. Gore. Mr. Kerry lost so much ground among women, Hispanics, and other key groups, that the millions in Internet money, the most Herculean get-out-the-vote effort in party history, and the largest turnout of young voters in over a decade, could not save him. Had the young voters stayed home, the sea of red on the electoral map would have grown to include at least Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Hampshire-perhaps one or two more.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush, received 50 million votes in 2000, and 59 million in 2004. He added nine million votes. That is because Karl Rove had a plan and the Bush campaign stuck to it. There is no doubt that they executed it brilliantly. But the problem for Democrats is not Mr. Rove; it is that they're doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. That's the definition of insanity.
* Since the Democratic Leadership Council, with its mantra of "moderate, moderate, moderate," took hold in Washington, the Democratic Party has been in decline at just about every level of government. Forget the Kerry loss. Today the number of Democrats in the House is the lowest it's been since 1928. Democrats are on the brink of becoming a permanent minority party. Can the oldest democratic institution on earth wake from its stupor? Here are some steps to pull out of the nose-dive:
* Democrats can't keep ignoring their base. Running to the middle and then asking our base at the end of the campaign to make sure to vote is not a plan. It sure hasn't worked. And to those who say talking to your base doesn't work-Read the Rove 2004 playbook!
* Democrats must reconnect with the energy of our grass roots. One of the failures of the DLC was that its ideas never helped us build a grass-roots donor base. As a result Democrats held a lead over Republicans in only one fundraising category before this election cycle: contributions over one million dollars. That shows how far the party had strayed from grassroots fundraising before the Dean campaign. We must build a base of at least seven million small donors by 2006. With the Internet it's possible. But it can't just be about the money, it also has to be about ideas.
* The one thing we learned in the Dean campaign was that the 30 or so people in Burlington, Vt., were not as smart as the 650,000 Americans who were part of our campaign. Instead of a DLC in Washington, Democrats should be holding Democratic Grassroots Councils in every county. Democratic National Committee members in each state, along with the state party, should host and moderate these meetings to help develop ideas that come from the people, instead of the experts in Washington.
* A party that ignores the needs of state and local parties is doomed. We must begin to invest aggressively in states we continually write off in national elections. If we don't, the decline of the Democratic Party in these states will continue until we are non-existent. It's already occurring in many southern states.
* In a world in which companies like Wal-Mart pay substandard wages with no real benefits, our party has got to find innovative ways to support organized labor's growth. A declining union membership is not good for the country, it's not good for working people, and it certainly is not good for the Democratic Party.
* The Democratic Party has to be the vehicle that empowers the American people to change our failed political system. We all know the damn thing is broken. Democrats should lead the way by placing stricter money restrictions on candidates than the toothless Federal Election Commission does. A party funded by contributions from the people can do this. A corrupted and corroded party cannot. The Democratic Party shouldn't wait for campaign-finance reform-it should be campaign-finance reform.
* Finally, What is the purpose the Democratic Party strives for today? What are our goals for the nation? You couldn't tell from the 2004 election. The fact is, very few good ideas come from the middle. Ideas in the middle tend to be mediocre. Political consultants have become adept at keeping their candidates in that safe zone. But the time has come to develop bold ideas and to challenge people to sacrifice for the common good. Experts will tell you that you can't ask the American people to sacrifice individually for the common good. Those experts are wrong-it's just been so long since anyone has asked them.
Mr. Trippi, who managed Howard Dean's presidential campaign, is a fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School and an MSNBC commentator.
Posted at 07:25 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Center for Constitutional Rights
Center For Constitutional Rights Seeks Criminal Investigation in Germany into Culpability of U.S. Officials in Abu Ghraib Torture
German Prosecutor Asked to Meet Obligations under Law Requiring Investigation into Torture and War Crimes. Doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction Permits Prosecution of Suspected War Criminals Wherever They May Be Found
Synopsis
In a historic effort to hold high-ranking U.S. officials accountable for brutal acts of torture including the widely publicized abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib, on Tuesday November 30, 2004, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and four Iraqi citizens filed a criminal complaint with the German Federal Prosecutor’s Office at the Karlsruhe Court, Karlsruhe, Germany. Under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, suspected war criminals may be prosecuted irrespective of where they are located.
The four Iraqis were victims of gruesome crimes including severe beatings, sleep and food deprivation, hooding and sexual abuse. (Further details of the treatment of the complainants are attached.)
CCR President Michael Ratner, who traveled to Berlin to file the complaint, said “From Donald Rumsfeld on down, the political and military leaders in charge of Iraq policy must be investigated and held accountable. It is shameful that the United States of America, a nation that purports to set moral and legal standards for world, refuses to seriously investigate the role of those at the top of the chain of command in these horrible crimes.” “Indeed,” Ratner added “the existence of ‘torture memos’ drafted by administration officials and the authorization of techniques that violated humanitarian law by Secretary Rumsfeld, Lt. General Sanchez and others make clear that responsibility for Abu Ghraib and other violations of law reaches all the way to the top.”
The U.S. officials charged include Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Former CIA Director George Tenet, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Dr. Stephen Cambone, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, Major General Walter Wojdakowski, Major General Geoffrey Miller, Brigadier General Janis L. Karpinski, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry L. Phillabaum, Colonel Thomas Pappas, and Lieutenant Colonel Stephen L. Jordan.
The criminal complaint was brought under the German Code of Crimes against International Law (CCIL) and seeks an investigation into war crimes allegedly carried out by high ranking United States civilian and military officials, including the incidents which occurred in Iraq.
[Please join our effort! The German Prosecutor has discretion to decide whether to initiate an investigation. It is critical that he hear from you so he knows that people around the world support this effort.Send a letter here]
CCR is represented in Germany by Wolfgang Kaleck, a Berlin-based lawyer who has been involved in similar efforts on behalf of victims of the Argentine “dirty war.”
The charges include violations of the German Code, “War Crimes against Persons,” which outlaws killing, torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, sexual coercion and forcible transfers. The Code makes criminally responsible those who carry out the above acts as well as those who induce, condone or order the acts. It also makes commanders liable, whether civilian or military, who fail to prevent their subordinates from committing such acts.
The German Code of Crimes against International Law grants German Courts what is called Universal Jurisdiction for the above-described crimes. Article 1, Part 1, Section 1 states: "This Act shall apply to all criminal offenses against international law designated under this Act, to serious criminal offences designated therein even when the offence was committed abroad and bears no relation to Germany.” This means that those who commit such crimes can be prosecuted wherever found: they, like pirates of old, are considered enemies of all humankind.
The German CCIL places a prosecuting duty on the German prosecutor for all crimes that constitute violations of the CCIL, irrespective of the location of the person, the crime, or the nationality of the persons involved. Complaints can be filed with the German prosecutor to seek an investigation of specific crimes, as was done here. While outside parties can bring complaints to the attention of a prosecutor in the U.S., there is no duty to prosecute such complaints and they do not become part of an official court procedure. In Germany, the prosecutor is under a duty to determine if an investigation and indictments are warranted; if he fails to do so, the complainants can appeal to the court.
According to CCR lawyers, in this case there are particularly compelling reasons the prosecutor should exercise his duty. Three of the defendants are present in Germany: Lt. General Sanchez and Major General Wodjakoski are stationed in Heidelberg, and Colonel Pappas is in Wiesbaden. Others, such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, often travel to Germany. In addition, the military units that engaged in the illegal conduct are stationed in Germany. Although such links to Germany are unnecessary for the prosecutor to fulfill his duty, when the alleged perpetrators are actually on German soil the duty to investigate is even stronger. Their presence in Germany gives the prosecutor an important avenue to investigate these cases. Last, since the complainants are also victims, this places an additional duty on the prosecutor to investigate.
“We view Germany as a court of last resort,” said CCR Vice President Peter Weiss, “We file these cases here because there is simply no other place to go. It is clear that the U.S. government is not willing to open an investigation into these allegations against these officials.” Weiss also pointed out that Congress has failed to seriously investigate the abuses and none of the various commissions appointed by the military and the Bush administration has been willing to look unflinchingly up the chain of command to consider what criminal responsibility lies with the military and political leadership. Instead, they asserted that the abuses and torture were the exclusive responsibility of rogue lower-level military personnel.
There are no international courts or courts in Iraq that can carry out investigations and prosecutions of the U.S. role, either: the United States has refused to join the International Criminal Court, thereby foreclosing the option of pursuing a prosecution in international courts; Iraq has no authority to prosecute; and the U.S. gave immunity to all its personnel in Iraq from Iraqi prosecution. Says Weiss, “We are doing what is necessary and expected when other systems of justice have failed: we are asking the German prosecutors, who have available one of the most advanced universal jurisdiction laws in the world, to begin an investigation that is required under its law.”
List of Defendants:
1. Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez
2. Major General Walter Wojdakowski
3. Brigadier General Janis L. Karpinski
4. Lieutenant Colonel Jerry L. Phillabaum
5. Colonel Thomas Pappas
6. Lieutenant Colonel Stephen L. Jordan
7. George Tenet
8. Major General Geoffrey Miller
9. Dr. Stephen Cambone
10. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Posted at 07:04 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Compelling: Ohio recount: Stealing votes in Columbus-- INVESTIGATE DAMSCHRODER
by concernedamerican
Tue Nov 30th, 2004 at 04:19:35 PST
I am on an Ohio recount update listserve, and this was sent around to the list recently. It's compiled by Richard Hayes Phillips, of New York; he has done an exacting and fascinating series of calculations analyzing wards, precincts and voting machines with various ratios and runnings of the data. The calculations indicate that the refusal to supply adequate voting machines to democratic and minority areas was a deliberate strategy. The information is worth reading in its entirety.
Something of interest at the bottom of the calculations is the call for the investigation of Mr. Damschroder, who is a bigwig Republican in Columbus who worked closely with Kenneth Blackwell in vote suppression on election day.
*****************
OHIO RECOUNT
STEALING VOTES IN COLUMBUS
The Free Press on Election Day posted a disturbing
story, later confirmed by the Columbus Dispatch.
The Free Press reported that Franklin County Board of Elections Director Matt Damschroder deliberately withheld voting machines from predominantly black Democratic wards in Columbus, and dispersed some of the machines to affluent suburbs in Franklin County.
Damschroder is the former Executive Director of the Franklin County Republican Party. Sources close to the Board of Elections told the Free Press that Damschroder and Ohio’s Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell met with President George W. Bush in Columbus on Election Day.
The idea was to discourage turnout in Democratic wards by forcing voters to wait in long lines at the polling places. Such a strategy would be far more effective than encouraging turnout in Republican wards.
Elections are all about margins. There are 74 wards in Columbus. George W. Bush won 12 wards, with a margin of 7.35%. John F. Kerry won 62 wards, with a margin of 37.62%. Affecting Kerry’s turnout would greatly reduce his margin of victory in Columbus, giving the Republicans a much better chance of overtaking Kerry given a strong enough showing in suburban and small town Republican strongholds.
COLUMBUS POPULAR VOTE (EXCLUDING PROVISIONAL BALLOTS)
Location Kerry Bush Others
Kerry Wards 141520 68.40% 63693 30.78% 1704 0.82%
Bush Wards 36228 46.01% 42015 53.36% 496 0.63%
Grand Total 177748 62.22% 105708 37.01% 2200 0.77%
In order to investigate this matter, I obtained from the Franklin County Board of Elections all the data I needed in order to calculate, ward by ward, and precinct by precinct: (1) The ratio of registered voters per voting machine. (2) Percent turnout, calculated as total ballots cast divided by the number of registered voters. (3) Percent for Kerry, calculated as votes cast for Kerry divided by votes cast for president. (4) Margin of victory or defeat for Kerry, calculated as the difference between the vote totals for Kerry and Bush.
The first thing I noticed was the distribution of turnout. There is a statistically significant difference between the turnout in the Bush precincts and the turnout in the Kerry precincts.
DISTRIBUTION OF TURNOUT
Percent Bush Kerry
Turnout Precincts Precincts
> 60 68 57
55-60 32 55
50-55 17 73
45-50 7 78
40-45 1 49
< 40 0 34
Total 125 346
Median Bush Precinct: 60.56%
Median Kerry Precinct: 50.78%
Best Bush Precinct: Ward 57, Precinct F
Bush 64.97% Kerry 34.82% Margin 30.05%
Best Kerry Precinct: Ward 17, Precinct D
Kerry 97.66% Bush 1.98% Margin 95.68%
Note: Ward 22, Precinct H was a tie.
As the above table shows, turnout was over 60% in 68 of 125 Bush precincts (54.4%), and over 50% in 117 of 125 Bush precincts (93.6%). By contrast, turnout was over 60% in only 57 of 346 Kerry precincts (16.5%), over 50% in only 185 of 346 Kerry precincts (53.5%), and under 40% in 34 of 346 Kerry precincts (9.8%).
Was the uneven distribution of turnout due to a lack of enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate? Or was it due to an uneven distribution of voting machines? To answer this question, I arranged the data, ward by ward, according to the ratio of registered voters per voting machine.
DISTRIBUTION OF VOTING MACHINES, TOP OF THE LIST
Ward Voters/ Percent Kerry Kerry
Machine Turnout Percent Margin
WARD 19 261.2 67.99 63.33 + 1491
WARD 65 265.1 60.10 44.33 - 496
WARD 30 266.4 56.25 52.50 + 147
WARD 72 267.4 62.33 39.42 - 774
WARD 22 274.1 60.21 54.89 + 465
WARD 28 276.2 58.48 82.04 + 2371
WARD 63 278.7 56.10 47.37 - 242
WARD 48 278.9 52.84 82.37 + 1909
WARD 46 279.8 58.22 55.19 + 981
WARD 70 285.5 61.17 50.95 + 79
WARD 06 292.9 47.44 91.29 + 2494
WARD 21 293.9 57.92 58.45 + 719
WARD 34 295.8 55.85 65.05 + 1051
WARD 69 296.4 57.97 41.98 - 1030
WARD 60 296.7 55.97 44.27 - 478
WARD 66 300.0 53.01 52.32 + 203
WARD 05 302.9 46.24 94.34 + 1854
WARD 62 303.2 57.96 55.68 + 760
WARD 45 303.8 57.89 55.47 + 1208
WARD 47 304.8 52.85 73.83 + 1534
WARD 20 306.2 61.96 71.46 + 1077
WARD 53 307.2 53.66 55.01 + 499
WARD 15 308.4 51.88 60.71 + 291
WARD 27 308.4 53.06 68.63 + 1283
WARD 56 308.6 55.71 82.75 + 4065
WARD 52 308.7 53.68 68.52 + 1610
WARD 10 311.5 57.18 47.58 - 560
WARD 67 313.1 54.17 48.03 - 221
WARD 64 313.6 52.73 47.88 - 153
WARD 57 314.2 56.81 48.74 - 155
WARD 50 316.4 59.54 77.14 + 1447
WARD 58 317.6 55.04 49.82 + 41
WARD 07 318.1 44.24 94.21 + 2332
WARD 36 318.7 53.31 50.57 + 91
WARD 43 319.9 56.27 58.53 + 475
WARD 73 320.6 58.23 44.18 - 1032
WARD 71 322.2 53.93 47.58 - 307
WARD 74 322.8 55.02 46.19 - 339
As the above table shows, the 38 wards in which the number of registered voters per voting machine was the lowest enjoyed high voter turnout. All but 3 of the 38 wards at the top of Damschroder’s list had a turnout above 50%, and 6 of the 38 wards at the top of the list had a turnout above 60%. All 12 of the Bush wards are included in the top of the list. The 26 Kerry wards in the top of the list are not his biggest strongholds. In only 13 of the 26 wards did Kerry exceed his city wide share of 62.22% of the vote, which makes 13 of 38 wards altogether. However, these Kerry wards did enjoy a high voter turnout. In 23 of the 26 wards, Kerry’s turnout exceeded that of his median precinct, 50.78%. Turnout exceeded 55% in 14 Kerry wards, and exceeded 60% in 3 Kerry wards. Clearly, Kerry enjoyed a higher turnout where the polling places had enough voting machines. What about the bottom of the list?
DISTRIBUTION OF VOTING MACHINES, BOTTOM OF THE LIST
Ward Voters/ Percent Kerry Kerry
Machine Turnout Percent Margin
WARD 38 324.4 48.15 67.32 + 546
WARD 35 327.5 50.90 92.36 + 2104
WARD 17 330.6 48.67 93.12 + 2465
WARD 42 330.6 46.34 70.77 + 966
WARD 14 333.4 49.37 81.31 + 2068
WARD 13 338.6 44.91 93.36 + 1702
WARD 44 340.7 48.87 72.98 + 3212
WARD 18 342.4 55.15 76.84 + 2043
WARD 51 343.6 46.93 88.59 + 1857
WARD 61 345.6 49.28 62.35 + 594
WARD 68 347.3 44.61 75.43 + 950
WARD 04 348.6 37.69 91.75 + 1643
WARD 32 348.7 55.11 58.82 + 456
WARD 26 349.3 41.34 89.69 + 1692
WARD 33 350.1 52.64 69.19 + 1803
WARD 54 350.6 52.77 59.82 + 668
WARD 49 353.9 50.76 54.45 + 370
WARD 25 354.6 52.90 91.57 + 3872
WARD 24 356.9 48.99 68.47 + 991
WARD 37 356.9 44.37 58.99 + 441
WARD 02 357.1 52.56 69.94 + 1517
WARD 11 365.4 49.14 58.80 + 531
WARD 31 367.0 45.05 69.86 + 1000
WARD 29 369.2 45.65 61.09 + 417
WARD 16 369.5 44.61 75.98 + 1732
WARD 09 373.4 35.06 68.71 + 497
WARD 39 374.4 46.29 70.06 + 711
WARD 55 377.3 43.55 88.64 + 1644
WARD 59 381.2 48.32 54.16 + 288
WARD 08 381.8 41.52 68.99 + 974
WARD 40 381.8 42.41 78.15 + 1205
WARD 03 396.9 44.69 84.66 + 1728
WARD 41 400.5 40.22 65.95 + 1110
WARD 23 400.9 47.57 73.47 + 1252
WARD 01 407.1 44.37 68.50 + 744
WARD 12 423.9 41.81 86.47 + 1557
As the above table shows, the 36 wards in which the number of registered voters per voting machine was the highest suffered low voter turnout. All but 8 of the 36 wards at the bottom of Damschroder’s list had a turnout below 50%, and 2 of the 36 wards at the bottom of the list had a turnout below 40%. All 36 of the wards at the bottom of the list were won by Kerry, and they include most of his strongholds. In 29 of the 36 wards, Kerry exceeded his city wide share of 62.22% of the vote. However, these wards suffered a low voter turnout. In only 7 of the 36 wards did Kerry’s turnout exceed that of his median precinct, 50.78%. Turnout was below 45% in 14 of the 36 wards, and was below 40% in 2 Kerry wards. Clearly, Kerry suffered a lower turnout where the polling places did not have enough voting machines.
A similar pattern is evident when examining the data for individual precincts. I have arranged the data in the same manner as above, precinct by precinct, according to the ratio of registered voters per voting machine. The 61 precincts with the lowest ratio of registered voters per voting machine are shown below:
PRECINCTS WITH THE MOST VOTING MACHINES
Ward & Voters/ Percent Kerry Kerry
Precinct Machine Turnout Percent Margin
60-G 166.0 65.06 40.99 - 56
22-H 176.3 63.52 49.23 0
63-I 180.0 53.52 52.10 + 14
28-G 185.7 57.99 76.34 + 170
69-G 190.0 53.16 48.33 - 10
63-E 192.3 62.05 43.75 - 41
52-H 192.7 52.08 70.76 + 133
70-C 199.5 63.73 50.47 + 12
67-K 212.7 64.58 42.16 - 61
65-G 213.8 61.57 40.15 - 153
46-F 215.7 65.84 39.71 - 85
30-C 216.7 66.00 50.95 + 10
65-D 219.3 65.65 44.08 - 50
33-H 221.7 52.48 78.03 + 195
72-D 228.0 67.21 38.30 - 136
46-I 228.2 64.68 54.96 + 76
69-D 228.6 64.48 47.81 - 29
28-E 229.0 69.98 88.23 + 488
21-E 231.0 68.57 58.93 + 142
19-D 232.0 66.55 58.87 + 142
64-D 235.3 58.50 47.33 - 20
46-A 235.7 61.53 48.85 - 10
71-A 236.3 67.14 42.19 - 69
10-E 238.6 67.73 36.63 - 211
56-C 239.3 63.51 74.67 + 224
57-D 240.0 67.33 43.50 - 102
19-G 241.0 68.36 58.66 + 117
21-F 242.0 66.63 57.98 + 105
57-H 242.3 63.82 50.22 + 6
15-B 242.5 62.47 54.62 + 68
34-E 242.7 63.32 59.04 + 90
60-F 242.8 64.37 37.18 - 155
10-H 244.0 64.07 49.46 - 2
66-F 244.3 66.85 46.42 - 32
57-K 245.0 68.42 46.31 - 75
18-D 246.7 67.97 71.49 + 217
72-A 247.0 64.68 40.13 - 122
18-E 247.3 62.89 75.84 + 308
65-H 247.3 50.27 54.86 + 40
48-D 247.5 56.67 83.70 + 380
14-D 249.7 56.88 79.48 + 252
19-C 250.0 72.00 59.55 + 139
70-E 250.0 51.11 65.83 + 167
46-B 250.8 58.13 51.94 + 27
60-D 251.5 63.62 45.02 - 61
45-I 251.6 52.31 56.31 + 85
64-H 252.8 54.70 52.28 + 26
48-E 253.0 58.50 62.33 + 78
73-E 253.1 60.78 49.67 - 1
06-E 254.0 50.49 94.43 + 453
70-D 255.3 66.41 50.30 + 11
66-D 255.6 55.79 48.52 - 18
69-C 255.8 54.50 36.10 - 186
42-C 256.0 61.98 57.14 + 74
46-L 256.0 66.54 57.84 + 162
10-P 256.5 65.30 35.33 - 190
47-F 257.7 50.84 76.96 + 211
45-H 259.8 60.59 44.03 - 183
19-B 261.0 70.11 60.80 + 164
52-B 261.5 62.43 62.21 + 159
69-I 261.5 68.36 37.80 - 169
As the table above shows, of the 61 precincts with the most voting machines per registered voter, 26 were won by Bush, 34 were won by Kerry, and one was a tie. Again, Bush enjoys disproportional favoritism. Bush won 125 precincts and 26 of them (20.80%) are represented here. Kerry won 346 precincts, only 34 (9.8%) are represented here, and they are not his major strongholds. In only 12 of the 34 Kerry precincts did he exceed his city wide share of 62.22% of the vote, which makes 12 of 61 precincts altogether. Most of these precincts enjoyed high voter turnout. In all 61 precincts, turnout was above 50%. In 42 of the 61 precincts, turnout was above that of Bush’s median precinct, 60.56%. Of these 42 precincts, 22 were won by Bush, and 20 were won by Kerry. This proves once and for all that the Kerry precincts could have enjoyed a voter turnout similar to that of the Bush precincts, if only they had been supplied with enough voting machines.
And what of the precincts with not enough voting machines? The 60 precincts with the highest ratio of registered voters per voting machine are shown below:
PRECINCTS WITH THE FEWEST VOTING MACHINES
Ward & Voters/ Percent Kerry Kerry
Precinct Machine Turnout Percent Margin
12-A 551.7 34.50 84.96 + 407
01-B 540.0 34.57 68.41 + 211
25-B 507.7 41.56 91.33 + 522
23-B 501.0 41.38 79.13 + 363
41-C 490.0 38.91 60.53 + 127
60-E 481.0 40.47 51.05 + 15
11-A 476.7 35.24 74.80 + 252
18-A 475.0 48.77 80.46 + 430
59-D 464.3 45.51 59.46 + 123
03-D 462.3 46.21 79.15 + 374
03-A 461.0 37.09 92.37 + 442
54-C 459.7 40.54 63.82 + 159
40-A 458.0 40.90 77.10 + 312
10-U 455.0 52.00 53.15 + 85
12-B 453.3 38.60 92.31 + 445
61-C 449.7 43.66 70.31 + 234
49-E 447.3 38.75 52.70 + 30
55-B 446.0 42.38 91.80 + 473
23-A 444.0 45.12 81.76 + 381
09-B 439.8 28.82 68.66 + 195
02-A 439.7 38.06 80.32 + 308
57-A 437.3 42.91 65.41 + 176
31-C 437.0 39.97 65.07 + 160
16-E 436.7 41.98 68.50 + 205
32-C 436.3 43.54 60.99 + 128
74-F 436.3 45.23 51.86 + 25
54-A 435.7 46.82 67.77 + 218
11-D 435.0 47.28 55.67 + 81
69-H 433.8 54.76 40.93 - 167
53-G 432.7 45.30 68.49 + 219
10-C 431.0 39.68 81.80 + 321
69-J 428.8 47.00 47.44 - 38
67-A 427.3 54.37 41.99 - 108
16-C 427.0 40.28 77.13 + 475
29-A 426.0 36.85 70.81 + 196
04-C 423.3 32.44 89.46 + 332
41-D 423.0 42.47 64.75 + 165
36-G 421.0 37.29 66.52 + 156
08-D 419.7 51.55 69.47 + 253
42-A 417.7 40.30 81.64 + 321
57-B 417.0 48.28 57.87 + 97
73-B 415.0 41.69 46.41 - 29
26-A 413.0 41.81 89.88 + 403
02-B 412.3 53.27 69.54 + 263
52-E 412.0 46.60 87.39 + 431
08-A 411.6 30.95 79.75 + 381
73-J 411.6 63.56 42.62 - 189
44-A 409.7 48.90 86.36 + 434
57-G 409.0 43.60 50.00 + 7
33-C 407.0 47.42 64.11 + 170
46-J 405.7 47.99 66.38 + 197
44-B 405.3 45.97 81.37 + 348
44-G 405.0 37.22 79.02 + 348
71-B 404.3 42.04 49.80 + 1
49-D 403.7 45.33 51.58 + 22
24-B 402.7 45.45 65.50 + 174
39-A 401.0 46.05 67.51 + 398
55-D 400.7 42.43 87.38 + 382
10-A 400.3 39.72 55.91 + 60
45-J 398.8 57.30 58.77 + 165
As the table above shows, of the 60 precincts with the fewest voting machines per registered voter, only 5 were won by Bush, and 55 were won by Kerry. Again, Bush enjoys disproportional favoritism. Bush won 125 precincts, and only 5 of them (4.00%) are represented here. Kerry won 346 precincts, 55 (15.9%) are represented here, and they include his major strongholds. In 41 of the 55 Kerry precincts, he exceeded his city wide share of 62.22% of the vote. None of these precincts enjoyed high voter turnout. In only 7 of the precincts was turnout was above 50%. Of these, 4 were won by Kerry, and 3 were won by Bush. Turnout was below 45% in 34 precincts, below 40% in 16 precincts, below 35% in 5 precincts, and below 30% in one precinct.
It is important to understand what these numbers mean. The polls in Ohio were open from 6:30 A.M. to 7:30 P.M. That is 13 hours, or 780 minutes. If there are 400 registered voters per voting machine, and turnout is 60%, each voter has less than 3.5 minutes to vote, and that is assuming a steady stream of voters, with no rushes at certain hours. It also assumes no challenges to voters at the polls. If there are 550 registered voters per voting machine, and the turnout is 60%, each voter has 2.4 minutes.
All of this amounts to theft of votes. It has been shown above that the Kerry precincts enjoyed a voter turnout similar to that of the Bush precincts when supplied with enough voting machines.
It is an easy matter to calculate, assuming the same vote percentages for each ward, how many more votes John Kerry would have gotten with a 60% voter turnout. This is not an unreasonable number. The median Bush precinct enjoyed a turnout of 60.56%. The turnout was 66.31% for Cincinnati, city wide.
I am aware that because the Franklin County Board of Elections did not purge its voter rolls, there are more registered voters than adults listed as living in Franklin County by the United States Census. There are many “registered” voters who are dead or have moved away. One might expect, therefore, a lower percentage of voter turnout in Columbus than in Cincinnati. However, 60% of the voting age population is a reasonable figure. Presidential elections have surpassed this figure four times in my lifetime: 1952 (61.6%), 1960 (62.8%), 1964 (61.9%), and 1968 (60.9%). In 1992 the figure was 55.9%, and the 2004 election was probably more hotly contested. PROJECTED COLUMBUS RETURNS WITH 60% TURNOUT
Ward or Percent Kerry With 60% Gain or
Precinct Turnout Margin Turnout Loss
WARD 01 44.37 + 744 + 1006 + 262
WARD 02 52.56 + 1517 + 1732 + 215
WARD 03 44.69 + 1728 + 2320 + 592
WARD 04 37.69 + 1643 + 2616 + 973
WARD 05 46.24 + 1854 + 2406 + 552
WARD 06 47.44 + 2494 + 3154 + 660
WARD 07 44.24 + 2332 + 3163 + 831
WARD 08 41.52 + 974 + 1408 + 434
WARD 09 35.06 + 497 + 851 + 354
WARD 10 57.18 - 560 - 588 - 28
WARD 11 49.14 + 531 + 648 + 117
WARD 12 41.81 + 1557 + 2234 + 677
WARD 13 44.91 + 1702 + 2274 + 572
WARD 14 49.37 + 2068 + 2513 + 445
WARD 15 51.88 + 291 + 337 + 46
WARD 16 44.61 + 1732 + 2330 + 598
WARD 17 48.67 + 2465 + 3039 + 574
WARD 18 55.15 + 2043 + 2223 + 180
WARD 19 67.99 + 1491
WARD 20 61.96 + 1077
WARD 21 57.92 + 719 + 745 + 26
WARD 22 60.21 + 465
WARD 23 47.57 + 1252 + 1579 + 327
WARD 24 48.99 + 991 + 1214 + 223
WARD 25 52.90 + 3872 + 4392 + 520
WARD 26 41.34 + 1692 + 2456 + 764
WARD 27 53.06 + 1283 + 1451 + 168
WARD 28 58.48 + 2371 + 2433 + 62
WARD 29 45.65 + 417 + 548 + 131
WARD 30 56.25 + 147 + 157 + 10
WARD 31 45.05 + 1000 + 1332 + 332
WARD 32 55.11 + 456 + 496 + 40
WARD 33 52.64 + 1803 + 2055 + 252
WARD 34 55.85 + 1051 + 1129 + 78
WARD 35 50.90 + 2104 + 2480 + 376
WARD 36 53.31 + 91 + 102 + 11
WARD 37 44.37 + 441 + 596 + 155
WARD 38 48.15 + 546 + 680 + 134
WARD 39 46.29 + 711 + 922 + 211
WARD 40 42.41 + 1205 + 1705 + 500
WARD 41 40.22 + 1110 + 1656 + 546
WARD 42 46.34 + 966 + 1251 + 285
WARD 43 56.27 + 475 + 506 + 31
WARD 44 48.87 + 3212 + 3944 + 732
WARD 45 57.89 + 1208 + 1252 + 44
WARD 46 58.22 + 981 + 1011 + 30
WARD 47 52.85 + 1534 + 1742 + 208
WARD 48 52.84 + 1909 + 2168 + 259
WARD 49 50.76 + 370 + 437 + 67
WARD 50 59.54 + 1447 + 1458 + 11
WARD 51 46.93 + 1857 + 2374 + 517
WARD 52 53.68 + 1610 + 1800 + 190
WARD 53 53.66 + 499 + 558 + 59
WARD 54 52.77 + 668 + 760 + 92
WARD 55 43.55 + 1644 + 2265 + 621
WARD 56 55.71 + 4065 + 4378 + 313
WARD 57 56.81 - 155 - 164 - 9
WARD 58 55.04 + 41 + 45 + 4
WARD 59 48.32 + 288 + 358 + 70
WARD 60 55.97 - 478 - 512 - 34
WARD 61 49.28 + 594 + 723 + 129
WARD 62 57.96 + 760 + 787 + 27
WARD 63 56.10 - 242 - 259 - 17
WARD 64 52.73 - 153 - 174 - 21
WARD 65 60.10 - 496
WARD 66 53.01 + 203 + 230 + 27
WARD 67 54.17 - 221 - 245 - 24
WARD 68 44.61 + 950 + 1278 + 328
WARD 69 57.97 - 1030 - 1066 - 36
WARD 70 61.17 + 79
WARD 71 53.93 - 307 - 342 - 35
WARD 72 62.33 - 774
WARD 73 58.23 - 1032 - 1063 - 31
WARD 74 55.02 - 339 - 370 - 31
GRAND TOTAL +16788
Thus I conclude that the withholding of voting machines from predominantly Democratic wards in the City of Columbus cost John Kerry upwards of 17,000 votes. A more detailed calculation could be done on a precinct by precinct basis, but that is not necessary here. The purpose is to illustrate the magnitude of the conspiracy.
Matt Damschroder did not act alone. There are 74 wards and 472 precincts in Columbus, Ohio. It is not possible for one person to have delivered all the voting machines, and it is unlikely that nobody else was involved in planning where to deliver them. Anyone who associated with Mr. Damschroder on or shortly before Election Day should be investigated for possible complicity.
Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
4 Fisher Street
Canton, New York 13617
Posted at 11:17 am by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Suppression of Black Vote in Ohio
Wow:These Ohio Maps Show Supression...
by pronin2
Mon Nov 29th, 2004 at 22:13:02 PST
Hi
Got this today from the caseohio group. these two maps really help bring home visually of where the long lines were, gives percentages of blacks etc.. it correlates and possibly confirms that there was real voter supression. look at the heaviest blackprecincts. and who reported long lines? mostly all black precincts, maybe one bush pct. I think this should go to the black caucus etc.. what do you think? If the party fails to act then its betrayl of the black vote. we cannot allow our african-american brothers and sisters to be treated in this. Im sending this to kerry, dean, and whoever else may be of use....
Here are a couple of charts showing how the distribution of voting problems
(machine problems and long lines) reported to voteprotect.org tends to
concentrate in black areas of Franklin and Cuyahoga Counties:
http://www.copperas.com/fcweb/fcprobs.gif
http://www.copperas.com/cuyahoga/cuyprobrace.gif
Certainly could help use visually back up our allegations of intimidation!
Posted at 11:14 am by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
10 Ideas for 2008
by Pericles
Mon Nov 29th, 2004 at 19:24:45 PST
[ Elevated from the Diaries - MB]
By the time a campaign starts, it's too late to put a completely new idea into the heads of a majority of the electorate -- especially a broad new theme or a major reframing of an issue voters think they already understand. At that stage, a candidate can do little more than agree or disagree with ideas that the public already knows. President Bush, for example, didn't invent the family-values theme or the strength-makes-you-safe theme or the tax-cuts-create-jobs theme. He just aligned himself with them; that's why his campaign seemed so simple.
So what ideas will liberal candidates be able to campaign on in 2008? The ones we start developing and promoting now. I have ten suggestions.
None of the ideas in my list is original, and in some sense that's the point: These ideas are already gestating somewhere in the community, but they need your help if they're going to become part of a majority platform. Some of them are floating freely in the zeitgeist, but I've tried to reference the ones that I stole from particular places.
The ten ideas fall into three groups. The first three ideas are defensive: The Right has been making some dubious claims that we need to start challenging. Ideas 4-6 reclaim major ideological assets that that we have let the Right own without a fight - Christianity, globalization, and capitalism. The final four ideas align the Democratic Party with democracy and the common good.
Fighting Back
We fought the 2004 campaign with one hand tied, because we let the Right get away with a few sweeping assumptions that just aren't true. Some of those assumptions are explicit and some are subliminal. We need to make them all explicit and deny them.
1. 9/11 didn't change everything. A few years ago we kept hearing that the Internet had changed everything. All the rules were different in the New Economy. You didn't have to sell products any more, and you could make money by giving away services for free. We know how that worked out. As big and important as the Internet has turned out to be, it didn't change everything. Nothing changes everything.
For three years now we've been letting the Right get away with ignoring common sense by saying "9/11 changed everything." Kerry was afraid to challenge this assertion in 2004 because he didn't want to appear to be soft on terrorism. We can't let that happen in 2008.
What didn't 9/11 change? Lots of things. The United States still needs allies. The Geneva Convention still makes sense. Imprisoning people without trials is still tyranny. Torture is still wrong. You still need to double-check your intelligence before you start shooting people. Stuff like that. If we take those issues one by one, and let the Right respond with "9/11 changed everything"-- we're going to lose.
2. Morality is not sex. Practice this line: "You keep saying 'morality' but really you're just talking about sex." Homosexuality, promiscuity, and obscenity are just sexual issues. Even abortion turns into a sexual issue if your real goal is punishing promiscuity rather than saving fetuses.
Sex barely scratches the surface of morality. If your moral code instructs you to bring honesty, integrity, and compassion into all your human relationships, it's not clear that you need any special rules about sex at all. When Jesus listed the admission standards for Christians to get into Heaven (Matthew 25), not one of them concerned sex. The key idea was "Who did you help?" not "Who did you sleep with?"
We shouldn't abandon the word morality to the neo-Puritans. Letting the working poor get priced out of the health care system is immoral. Trumping up bogus charges about WMD and terrorism in order to start a war is immoral. The way we treat prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is immoral. We can't be shy about using the language of morality. The Left is the true home of moral values, once you understand that morality is more than sex.
Al Sharpton, for one, gets this. On the November 28 Meet the Press he said:
Many of us have limited this argument to just sex-based arguments: gay marriage, abortion. ... I think that the broad issues of poverty, of disease, of health care -- those are moral issues, too. We're not entering into a values discussion broadly enough.
3. America can't rule the world. The community of nations needs a leader, not a ruler -- and America is the only viable candidate. At this point in history, the world spins its wheels if the US doesn't lead. (Global warming is a prime example.) But we get into trouble when we forget about leadership and try to rule.
After 9/11, when we announced the goal of making the world a less hospitable place for international terrorist organizations, other nations responded with overwhelming support and cooperation. But the world was horrified when we went on to set ourselves up as the ultimate judge of other nations, empowered to decide which governments shall and shall not survive. (Mugabe, pass. Saddam, fail. House of Saud, pass. Kim Jong Il, incomplete.)
As de facto world leader, America has a responsibility promote a vision of global progress. If we do our job well, if our vision really does benefit the world (and not just ourselves), then other nations will line up behind us and good things will happen. But if we try to rule, if we put forward a self-serving vision and strong-arm other countries into supporting it, then ultimately the world will unite against us just as it united against Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
Reclaiming the Winners
The Republicans have become the party of Christianity, globalization, and capitalism -- three victorious historical forces. If we can't reclaim those forces for the Left, we lose. The question is how.
The move-to-the-right faction says that we should adopt some or all of the Republican positions, as Clinton adopted welfare reform. In other words, liberalism by its nature is anti-Christian, anti-globalization, and anti-capitalist, so we need to abandon it if we want to start winning elections again. Others take the John-Kerry's-hunting-trip approach: keep our liberal values, but change our imagery and rhetoric so that we look and sound more like Republicans. A southern good-old-boy, they claim, could have won in 2004 without changing any of Kerry's positions on abortion, gay rights, health care, environmental protection, and outsourcing.
Both strategies are short-term fixes to a long-term problem. We don't need to move either the Democratic Party or its rhetoric to the right. We need to move Christianity, globalization, and capitalism to the left. None of the three is conservative by its nature. We need to understand each of them deeply, so that we can present the public with authentically liberal Christianity, liberal capitalism, and liberal globalization.
Sound impossible? A century ago, the idea that conservatives could own Christianity sounded impossible. At the turn of the 20th century, the political face of Christianity was the Social Gospel: help the poor, heal the sick, lift up the working man. Conservatives were greedy Wall Street types, the kind of people that Jesus said would get into Heaven at about the same time that a camel walked through the eye of a needle. How did the conservatives turn that around? Well, they didn't move to the left, and they didn't fiddle with their image and rhetoric. They moved Christianity.
4. The Religious Right are Pharisees. Christianity belongs to us. During the 20th century, the Right took Christianity away from us. They recast the religion of Jesus to stand for aggressive militarism, closed-minded prejudice, and doing everything within your power to make the rich richer. (When did Jesus say, "Blessed are the war-makers" or "Screw Caesar; it's your money"?) By the time Pat Robertson ran for president in 1988, the conquest was complete. He could style himself as "the Christian candidate" without any significant objection.
It was the Pharisees' revenge. For those liberals who don't read the Bible -- that's part of the problem, by the way -- I'll explain. All through the gospels, Jesus is being heckled by the Pharisees, a group that promoted a strict interpretation of Mosaic Law. Again and again, Jesus sides with the spirit of the law against the Pharisees' loyalty to the letter of the law. (For what it's worth, the Pharisees look much more reasonable in Jewish versions of history, where they are not foils for someone else.) The law, Jesus argues, needs to be tempered by compassion and common sense. In the Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10), for example, the priest and the Levite who cross to the other side of the road (rather than help the injured man) aren't just being jerks. They're obeying the letter of the law. They're maintaining their ritual purity by not coming into contact with blood or possibly a corpse. But the Good Samaritan ignores all that in favor of a higher law: Love your neighbor as yourself.
See where I'm headed? When Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and their ilk get going, you don't hear much about compassion and common sense; but you hear a lot about the letter of the law. As the bumper sticker puts it: "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." That's the Pharisee position; it's not Christian. Jesus would have had no part of it. We need to point that out, again and again. Christianity belongs to us; we shouldn't surrender it to the Pharisees of the Right.
This will be easier than it sounds, because Christianity has never been as uniformly conservative as the media portrays it. A Soujourners community statement of faith, for example, contains numerous liberal statements like this one:
We believe in binding up the divisions that the world often creates, especially those based on race, class, gender, or culture. We are called to combat racism in all its forms and to build a more just and pluralistic society where diversity is respected, freedom is secured, and power is shared. We refuse to accept structures and assumptions that normalize poverty and segregate the world by class. We are committed to resisting sexism in all its forms and affirming the integrity and equality of women and men both in the church and in the world.
When he's not talking about sex, the Pope is actually a flaming liberal. In Laborem exercens he writes:
Christian tradition has never upheld this right [to own property] as absolute and untouchable. On the contrary, it has always un | | |
