Mark Crispin Miller's Reply to Salon >>>

http://letters.salon.com/books/review/2005/11/14/miller/permalink/8a51ed5b12d00fb8b06bf100969480f8.html

Mark Crispin Miller replies

It should come as no surprise that I was not much pleased by Farhad Manjoo's attack on Fooled Again. Manjoo charges that my book presents "no proof" that Bush & Co. committed vast election fraud last year. In fact, the evidence in Fooled Again is both abundant and precise; whereas Manjoo's review itself presents no evidence to back its central accusation. "Miller's many suggestions of fraud dissolve under close scrutiny," writes Manjoo--who then comes up with just one trivial and dubious example: my passing reference to a certain fishy bloc of pro-Bush ballots cast (or not) in Ohio's Miami County on Election Day. Manjoo treats this mere aside as if it were the basis of my argument, devoting two whole paragraphs to a laborious rebuttal. Meanwhile, he cites none of the extensive evidence that Fooled Again includes.

Indeed, Manjoo himself admits the comprehensiveness of my research: "To make his case, Miller cites hundreds of news accounts, online reports and videos, and postings from sites like Democratic Underground." And yet your readers could not know that Fooled Again includes, along with such a careful overview, much new information on Bush/Cheney's global frauds, from the computerized purge of Democratic voters from the rolls in Summit and Stark Counties in Ohio, to the pre-election break-ins at Democratic offices in Akron and Toledo (the thieves stole only those computers that contained election data), to the myriad statewide drives to disenfranchise black, Hispanic and Native American voters, to the stealthy criminal shenanigans of Sproul and Associates, which deftly disenfranchised countless would-be Kerry voters in at least half a dozen states across the country (a ploy that cost the RNC over 8 million dollars), to Bush/Cheney's grand subversion of the huge vote cast, or intended, by Americans abroad (a stroke that likely disappeared at least two million Kerry votes). The evidence of all such perfidy, and plenty more, is solid, copious and easily available, despite Manjoo's bizarre insistence that there's nothing there. (Indeed, I found some of that evidence in his own pre-election writings, which is why I thank him warmly on p. 349 of Fooled Again.)

Manjoo tries to build his case by lauding Mark Hertsgaard's attempt, in the latest issue of Mother Jones, to cast doubt on the "theory" that Bush/Cheney stole the election in Ohio. (Manjoo repeats Hertsgaard's canard that Fooled Again deals mainly with the fraud committed in that state.) I take no pleasure in reporting it, as Hertsgaard is an old friend of mine, but that piece too is full of holes. Those points of his that Manjoo finds especially compelling are in fact untenable.

First, Hertsgaard avers that Sherole Eaton, a Democratic whistle-blower in Ohio's Hocking County, told him that she really "{doesn't} know if there was fraud" committed there--a claim that Eaton has indignantly denied. (Her words were taken out of context, she complained to Mother Jones: "I suggest that you assign someone else to write an article on the same subject without any slant.") Manjoo also seconds Hertsgaard's argument that there was certainly no fraud in Warren County--where a sudden "terrorist alert" allowed officials to eject reporters from the premises before the votes were counted. (Warren was among the last Ohio counties to report their tallies on Election Night.) Hertsgaard bases his contention on the say-so of "a Democrat" who told him that that "terrorist alert" was not suspicious. But Hertsgaard fails to note the FBI's denial, on Nov. 3, that there had really been a terrorist alert, nor does he tell us that the plan to sound that false alarm had been in place for some nine days. (Both stories were reported in the Cincinatti Enquirer.) Hertsgaard also fails to mention two eyewitnesses who claim that, after the "alert," ballots were improperly diverted to an unofficial storage site managed by a GOP operative. (Hertsgaard was told about those witnesses by attorney Bob Fitrakis, but evidently did not try to reach them.)

Both Manjoo and Hertsgaard have dismissed my book as an extended exercise in wishful thinking by a diehard partisan, portraying themselves as skeptical, hard-headed journalists, devoted only to "the facts." But it is they who are the partisans; for in their staunch refusal to perceive the glaring evidence of fraud, they are merely echoing the tense accommodationism of the over-cautious Democratic Party. In other words, they claim to see "no story" in last year's race because the Democrats (with all too few exceptions) claim there isn't one--a sort of faith-based journalism every bit as dangerous as the kind that has us fighting in Iraq. Surely we must base our civic conduct on reality itself, and not on what the stars of either party claim "reality" to be.

This brings me, finally, to John Kerry's role in the far right's ongoing struggle for dominion. Manjoo begins his rant with a sarcastic take on the brief controversy over my exchange with Kerry, in Manhattan on Oct. 28, on the theft of the 2004 election. Manjoo hints that I was lying about Kerry's claim that he believes the race was stolen, as Kerry's office had denied we ever had that conversation (and, of course, whatever Kerry says is true). If Manjoo were a less partisan reporter, he would have noted Robert Parry's article, posted on Consortiumnews.com on Oct. 29, revealing that Jonathan Winer, a longtime adviser to the senator, confirms that Kerry has suspected all along that last year's race was stolen, but never said so, fearing general ridicule. "'The powers in place would have smashed him,' Winer said."

But this is not about John Kerry's image, any more than it's about the sales of Fooled Again, or about Salon's political position, or Farhad Manjoo's or Mark Hertsgaard's career. It's about the mammoth threat confronting this republic, which will not last if we continue to ignore the scandal of last year's election. If anyone should be attacked, it's those extremists who conspire against American democracy, and not those citizens who try totalk about it.

-Mark Crispin Miller

Mark Crispin Miller: My exchange with Kerry

Fri Nov-04-05 12:07 PM

Kerry's statement was not planned. He did not expect to see me.
His sister, Peggy Kerry, purposely invited me to that fundraiser so
that I could hand the senator a copy of my book. (She too understands
the urgency of getting the top Democrats to push the issue of
electoral reform.)

So I spoke briefly with him just as he arrived, and handed him the
book, saying, "You were robbed, Senator." He said, "I know!" with
a clear gesture of extreme frustration, and then said that he can't get
any of his colleagues on the Hill to face the issue. Said that he had
lately had an argument about it with Chris Dodd, who didn't want to
hear about it. Kerry tried to tell him about all the problems with the
electronic touch-screen machines, but Dodd refused to listen, saying
that he had looked into it, and that "there's nothing there."
(In bringing the subject up with Dodd, Kerry was not influenced by
the GAO report, which he didn't even know about until I mentioned
it to him. Indeed, he seemed mightily impressed that the GAO had
come out with a strong report.)

I urged him to spearhead a major senatorial investigation into what
went down last year, in the spirit of his best work in that chamber,
when he led inquiries into Iran/contra and BCCI. He said that, given
his position, he doubts that he can be the one to go out front about
the issue, because of the "sour grapes" factor. I appreciate his
dilemma, but still think that he must embrace the issue of electoral
reform, for the country's sake. (I also think that it would be the only
way in which he might redeem himself for his deplorable concession just
a year ago.)

Believe me, I understand, and share, your feelings of impatience
at the senator's long silence (which, again, he certainly would not
have broken if I hadn't happened to bump into him). But if he'll
champion the issue of electoral reform, we stand to gain much more
than we can get from merely cursing him for his timidity. I therefore
would advise you all to shower him with strong encouragement ASAP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5264692

Challenger to Seek Detroit Mayor Recount

By DAVID RUNK, Associated Press Writer Tue Nov 22,10:29 PM ET

DETROIT - Challenger Freman Hendrix on Tuesday announced he will ask for a hand recount of votes from the Detroit mayoral election, which he lost earlier this month to incumbent Kwame Kilpatrick.

Hendrix said he wants the recount partly because of problems in getting results from some precincts after the polls closed and changes between initial and final vote totals.

***

Following the vote, officials reported that at 17 of the city's 720 precincts test votes weren't cleared from tabulating machines before actual votes were cast, leading to some changes in the totals.

And eight precincts weren't included in the initial vote counts because information from computer data packs containing voting results wasn't properly delivered to the Detroit city clerk's office, state elections officials have said.

In one example given Tuesday, Hendrix said that when information from the missing data packs — containing about 2,300 votes in the mayor's race — was added to overall results, the vote totals jumped by more than 8,500 votes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051123/ap_on_re_us/detroit_mayor_4