Salon.Com TRASHES DU...responding to NEGATIVE energy.

I read some insuts to DU and election fraud researchers in Salon.Com. The article was a critique of RFK Jr.s piece in Rolling Stone.

Here's what Salon.Com thinks of DU:

I scoured his Rolling Stone article for some novel story or statistic or theory that would prove, finally, that George W. Bush was not the true victor. But nothing here is new. If you've spent time on Democratic Underground or have read Mark Crispin Miller's "Fooled Again," you're already familiar with everything Kennedy has to say.

Then there are the legions of activists, academics, bloggers and others who've devoted their post-Nov. 2 lives to unearthing every morsel of data that might suggest the vote was rigged; their theories, factoids, and mountains of purportedly conclusive data likely take up several buildings' worth of hard-drive space in Google's server farms.

Talk about disrespect - we're "legions" of people who do noting else but election fraud/integrity work. We're those, you know, internet losers;) What a load.

Salon ran an article, very weak in my opinion, trying to take down Kennedy's arguments on a stolen election in 2004. Quite frankly, nothing is more important since that was the predicate for our current state of affairs, a relatively recent crime, and one with ample evidence to warrant an investigation.

of the tragic result of a stolen election.

Like bush did yesterday, like Salon just did.

How do you know you are hitting nerves and making them nervous? They try to denigrate you, make fun of you, paint you as nothing important.

Funny thing is, it shows how important you are when they try to tear you down. If you are really ineffectual, unimportant, not a threat, they don't bother trying to paint you at all.

I thought they were liberal, not that I ever read it.

and by all means, pop over and read the site. You can't let other folks tell you one way of the other.

Salon has just pissed some folks off for daring to have an opinion different than their own on the 2004 election. I don't entirely agree with Manjoo's conclusions, but then I don't entire agree with Kennedy's either.

As always, the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle. But, we are talking about matters of religous dogma here, so talking sense to people is pretty hard.

at the expense of some very creditable reporting by RFK Jr. (Salon hasn't offer as much in a while)...It's a big field out there for the blog dollars. It seems Salon WILL sell their souls to survive...Salon used to be the standard of a somewhat objective and even liberal Internet reporting...Now, they are, it appears, searching for the corporate bucks...So whats to make of them trying to simply survive while trashing exactly what they use to be and on the same page with, legitimate progressive reporting...Just more whores?

I think so...But judge for yourself. However, how can one have respect for or even consider Salon's new-found "validity"?

Certainly they are no, (and never have been) the wonderful Mother Jones magazine from the same city...

to claim they will "sell their souls to survive".

I don't agree with every article they write, but I do with most of them. Then again I don't agree with everything Mother Jones or any other publication writes, and bless 'em all anyway.

Why are they "whores" for having a dissenting opinion on this issue?

Everybody loves Barbara Boxer around here but some people got downright PO'ed that she endorsed Joe Lieberman at YearlyKos. So, to use the conventional wisdom I see around here, we are to toss Boxer on the scrap pile for this heresy. Or we could try to educate her about why we are upset with Holy Joe and perhaps engage her to talk to him about why we are mad at him. See, she actually KNOWS the man, and likes him. When we like people, we are sometimes blind to their sins and shortcomings.

I have read and like both Kennedy and Manjoo. They disagree with each other about the 2004 election. I disagree with both of them about the 2004 election. I will continue to like them, even though I diagree with them. If I ever have a chance to talk with them, I will praise their work and engage them in a discussion where maybe, just maybe, I can educate them, or they can educate me.

I agree that Salon often offers insight and somewhat provocative progressive reading at times...But to me this is personal (so take it it for only what I feel). NOTHING is more important to me than electronic voting and I see nothing in Salon's article that convinces me otherwise what RFK's essay proposed, I, being slanted, only see detrimental ego and notice me type opposition in Salon's critique and rebuttal.

Salon allowed the article to be fully rebutted, so I don't see how anyone can complain. You can read the article, read the rebuttal, do your research and make a conclusion as to what you believe.

WaPo, the NYT et all, rarely allow this kind of dissent with the word of its holy reporters and editors.

I too feel the e-voting issue is VERY important and have spent almost four years working on it. I have gotten serious grief from folks for my viewpoints as well.

All I am saying is that throwing folks under a bus for a disagreement on one issue is pretty counter-productive. Salon is one of the most liberal pubs online, but they will never please all liberals. For some they are TOO liberal, for others not liberal enough.

as the accusatory writers statements. Are they even acknowledged?

Come on, you don't want to parallel the Times as a reference point or voice of reason...

I do agree with you on this though, "For some they are TOO liberal, for others not liberal enough." I being extremely liberal...In so much as I'm in that "TOO" category... But we do agree, (does Salon?)... That nothing, nothing is more important as our sacred vote, that is being absolutely being distorted, manipulated and deemed unacceptable if some vote a certain way.

Cheers to your caring...I believe neither of us will ever stop...I guess sometimes I'm overly-protective & sensitive about electronic voting machines & fraud?

But, Salon, in this instance, and I really wonder why, offered non-creditable evidence to the problems of real existing fraud, they offered only a vehicle for the the right-wing to say, SEE even a "liberal" web site (like Salon) disagrees that electronic voting machines are able to be hacked to any extensive degree, and all the fraudulent claims are unfounded.

Clearly, I'm not offering my best arguements to reininforce my position about republican fraud...But I do know. Truly I do!!

Some are pointing at the Salon article as tearing RFK's work to shreds. Kind of like a Hitchens style tear down of Michael Moore.
If they are such a liberal site they should be trumpetting RFK's piece.
I didn't read it and would prefer to see some work done on saving our votes.
I am losing faith in that happening.
With diebold in question, how can so many places be putting in a machine with such a aketchy past. The answer is the republicans own us.

Go RFK Jr! :yourock:

it was carried on Salon's front page.

I don't see that Salon claims voting machines can't be hacked. I believe the dispute is over evidence that they have.

I think 2004 was stolen. But I also believe that the theft was low tech, not high tech. For this view point I have had my intelligence and integrity called into question by folks who view the issue in very dogmatic terms.

specious, I have to tell you, you're not very discriminating. It's really not a grey area. There's truth and falsehood, and the purpose fo an open mind is to close on the truth.

If you weren't disgusted by the arrant tripe written by Manjoo in that article, I can't understand how you got interested in politics. That's all I'm going to say to you

be hacked and controlled by political party/precinct operatives-it's a high risk production-nevertheless-it can be done. If Salon simply disagrees with this they have every right to do so, but WHY do they NEED to engage in bashing liberals or liberal sites as well? Why? What do they really gain from that tactic?

If there is anything worthy on any website, someone usually posts it here. I really don't have the time to add another website to my protocal

* with this sort of nonsense. Unbelievable...CANCEL SALON.

A writer disagrees with your viewpoint. They gave your viewpoint space to rebut the article. They were fair. I grow weary of the demonization of anyone who doesn't agree with this this viewpoint.

"If only. Whatever his aim, RFK Jr. does not appear intent on fixing the problem. He's more content to take us through a hit parade of the most popular, and the most dismissible, theories purporting to show that John Kerry won Ohio, theories that have been swirling about the blogosphere ever since the race was called. I scoured his Rolling Stone article for some novel story or statistic or theory that would prove, finally, that George W. Bush was not the true victor. But nothing here is new. If you've spent time on Democratic Underground or have read Mark Crispin Miller's "Fooled Again," you're already familiar with everything Kennedy has to say. "


the whole article is dismissive and riddled with errors, as Autorank so elegantly replied. :)

I would have been more specific and said "some posters on Democratic Underground..."

But, some folks see disagreement as disoyalty or insult.

Tihs is dangerously similar to certain politicians who stifle ALL dissent and deal vindictively with those who disagree with them.

The author is explicity referring to folks OTHER than DUers - at least in concept.

DUers an sich are NOT referred to as "legions..." - that's purely MADE UP by the OP.

Digby also had a post up talking about a very strong (intellectually) rebuttal to the RFK case. Do "we" also hate Digby now?

Or can we IMAGINE that there MIGHT be another side to the issue worth exploring?

Evidence folks, reason.

I'm not taking a stand on who is ultimately correct or incorrect - just trying to get folks to care about the actual rationales, insofar as they are justifiable, that are in play.

in my opinion.

Logic and reason are weak tools against "truthiness".

Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.

I worked with an activist group in NC that passed the toughest voting machine law in the land. So tough, Diebold fled the state.

Despite this, I and other members of the group have been accused of "working for Diebold" because we dare differ from one of their gods on the matter of e-voting.

This is one reason I no longer post in the EF forum.

His headline created an illusory context.
Du wasn't trashed.

so it counts as "trashed". ;-)

First the thiomersal in vaccines, and now this?

His dad is doing some serious grave-spinning.

:cry:

He says RFK is wrong on the stolen election argument AND LINKS THAT TO the fact that is nothing new and even if it were, it comes from either an internet forum filled with people who gave up their lives since the election (read "fanatics") or a professor. The case is made that RFK Jr. is incapable of independent thought. It's a slam on him for falling under our influence and on us, as in the Election Forum folks, for being fanatics who do nothing else but election reform work. Cheap shots...

but I choose to react to the positive energy of a link to the Democratic Underground from Salon.com in the same sentence as a reference to Mark Crispin Miller.

Fact is, Salon.com did not "TRASH" the DU.

edit: The focus should be on any errors in the article, not your misleading headline. Misleading headlines suck, imo.

This is misleading, I don't see the "trashing" there. I'm just gonna hide this thread.

Without a real vote, there is no real election.

but you will never have an election of any real size without some skullduggery. You can't make voting "tamper-proof", only "tamper-resistant". Some folks consider this view heresy, but such has been reality down through the ages.

It is a general purpose watering hole for (mostly) progressive liberals to meet, talk, discuss, and dissect news. We did have a very thriving group that did real work on e-voting, but certain people (who shall remain nameless) destroyed it with her shennaingans.

Salon, a pretty good liberal site, is now being trashed for having a dissenting point of view on this issue.

This is just sad.

Work is being done, real work, but not at DU, not at Salon, and not at certain other places which claim this is their bread and butter. It is being done by the county and state groups, where real work can be accomplished.

salon is pissed cause du is attracting more "brand name" writers and have several quality writers of our own. this is a forum to express our ideas about the democratic party and our thoughts on where it should be headed in the future. salon can criticize all they want but it doesn`t change the fact that we really don`t give a shit what they think about us..that`s their problem not ours

DU has writers from the liberal version of the Weekly World News aka Truthout.org... I think Salon wins.

You've got it.

Though I don't believe the WWN actually believes what they write.

Not to mention Garrison Keillor and Tom Tomorrow (and others).

I also don't see anywhere where Salon "trashed" DU.

I don't see any outright slams on DU. If you're a longtime DUer, even one who doesn't believe that 2004 was stolen, you will know most of the stuff in Kennedy's article--how is that a slam?

I guess we're adding our own sensationalism to MSM headlines now? ;)

some folk's dogma about the 2004 election.

And Salon is SO unfair, that they allowed this rebuttal to Majoo's article:

http://salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/12/freeman/

Can you imagine that? Allowing people who disagree with something a reporter writes to be given EQUAL time to refute the story. What a whoring bunch of money-grubbers :sarcasm:

things to do with our time than endlessly dramatize a two week old conflict.

I agree with that. :)

"Salon trashes DU", which I took as him main point. :)

lol

:hi:

C'mon.
He got the headline wrong.
I'll stand down now.

:)

:kick:

"Then there are the legions of activists, academics, bloggers and others who've devoted their post-Nov. 2 lives to unearthing every morsel of data that might suggest the vote was rigged; their theories, factoids, and mountains of purportedly conclusive data likely take up several buildings' worth of hard-drive space in Google's server farms."

The transition "then" implies a movement to a different subject, leaving the previous subject behind. The previous subject concerned those who had read Miller's book or had been on DU for any length of time. There's nothing to connect the passage you cite directly to DU, except their being in the same artile.

that I missed? Or does the graph I quoted follow? I may be reading badly.

I appreciate a healthy debate, but this sounds like waving a hand at the "mountains" of "purportedly conclusive" work and assigning it with a sigh to the recycle bin.

away from us, to others.

further that he relies on an internet political forum or a solo NYU professor. The other implication is that the DU elections folks are a bunch of compouter geeks without a life, just focusing on generating all thse bits and bytes for the google "server farms." It's a cheap shot.

:D :boring:

:shrug:

as a topic.

There are some things we know for a fact to be true... too long line ups in Ohio for dem districts... phone jamming elsewhere... intimidation at the polls... putting scandals on hold (coingate, plamegate, no WMD) till after the election. Much, much more.

But the topic is still open on how (if) votes were stolen by machine. RFK says speculates one way, Salon sees it some other way.

That is how discussion takes place.

If better proof comes along one way or another.. then I'm sure the discussion will move forward.

First:



And THEN:




You obviously see something there that isn't; he doesn't say DU is those 'legions of (etc)'. THe comment re DU is only peripherally related to the second comment, which is as you can see i a totally different paragraph (topic shift and all that, you know...basic reading comprehension skills a little rusty there, it seems).

and getting outraged for something that was inferred rather than something that was actually said is much more fun for some folks. :)

Nomination Number 5.
:dem:

In fact, I kinda see it as a compliment, albeit unintended. Our Election Reform forum is being recognized as an important source of information on this issue. That's cool.

:thumbsup:

gathering "mountains of purportedly conclusive data". That particular Salon writer doesn't seem to think the issue of Election Fraud is to be taken seriously.

In a backhanded way, Salon has complimented DU on its work in the area and elevated us as a news/opinion source. Have read Salon off and on for a long time (was still free and had forums that weren't too different from what we have here) and will continue to look for the nuggets they often have.

The major slam seems to be directed at RFK, Jr. for not bringing anything original to the argument. To me, that is the equivalent of saying MM's F911 had nothing original to add. The fact that a major name in a major publication pulled together the many threads on the subject is important. RFK's willingness to put his name on this to make the charges in public takes his contribution well beyond the "me too" status that Salon is implying.

(See the forum letters following the article).

Apparently enough unhappy letter-writers to lead to Salon posting both a defensive editorial and an invited rebuttal from RFKJr.

It's not the first right-leaning (or DLC-leaning) hit piece Salon has seen fit to publish, but let's hope they understand how much of their subscriber base they're going to lose with this kind of crap. In the past it's been a good liberal-left source and I wouldn't dismiss it yet.

(I call the article a "hit piece" because of its tone and obvious agenda, not because it questions the "election was stolen" theory).

So let's all watch the ad first and then we can find out more, shall we??

.

from many DU's... I had noticed it too and wondered? And I am still wondering?

.

post? I really would like to know why?

I really would like to know....

.... about RFKs article or the ensuing brouhaha. Because it is not going to accomplish jack shit. There will always be the rebutters, and nobody without 3 days to spend trying to figure out who is lying or misinterpreting the facts will simply go nuts spinning their wheels.

The only way that this issue is going to get resolved is in a court of law. Finally, someone will make an egregious mistake in election theft and a politician will have the BALLS to call them on it.

Until then, get used to it, it is here to stay.

However it looks like they might be doing something about it by inviting a rebuttal from Kennedy.

and they simply have a different opinion on the issue.

For daring to have a different opinion they are being tarred and feathered by people twisting Manjoo's words to claim that DU was trashed.

Salon's not supposed to be a Neocon/Democrat 'equal time' site, anyway.

You get enough of that faux impartiality with the MSM, don't you? They need to make up their minds whether they want to run with the hare or hunt with the hounds. Or rather, needed to.

I think that DU over the years has drained some of Salon's potential subscribers, and perhaps that's why they take the occasional snipe.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who, prior to 2001, participated in their TT forums. Prior to their forums becoming subsciption-only it was a large, vibrant community and a fun place to hang out. Many came to DU after Salon started charging - yes, you got the content, but the forum technology wasn't good enough to pay for.

I miss those old Salon days, but I'll take the superior format of DU any day.

TT helped me to find Media Whores Online (the Horse) and democrats.com during the late 90's.

that's the saying, anyways.

"Then there are the legions of activists, academics, bloggers and others who've devoted their post-Nov. 2 lives to unearthing every morsel of data that might suggest the vote was rigged; their theories, factoids, and mountains of purportedly conclusive data likely take up several buildings' worth of hard-drive space in Google's server farms."

This is not directly referring to DU and there are "legions" of people who are devoting at least a portion of their lives to this. Its a bit hyperbolic but you look silly later when you reference this directly connected to DU here

" Here is the predicate for the association of Kennedy’s ideas with those of the internet forum. Legions are not defined. Does the author mean 100, 500, 1000? There is no estimate on the number of election fraud researchers and activists on Democratic Underground (DU) but 100 would certainly be pushing the number. There are certainly thousands of internet users who review the material on election fraud at DU and elsewhere (and produce such information elsewhere) but Manjoo is talking about DUers “who’ve devoted their post-Nov. 2 lives” to this work; you know - internet addicts who have no life – his implication"

And your quibbling over semantics dealing with how DU was mentioned is a bit overwraught

What part of "If you've spent time on DU or read Miller's book means you would not be familiar with everything Kennedy had to say" is so untrue as to be insulting?

I would think DUers and readers of Miller's book would know exactly what the article is talking about. And the argument about guilt by association is wrong unless you think DU and Miller have ill reputation among the likely readers and/or commentators.

Now if the author had said "the kinds of things you find at DU, a discussion forum full of conspiracy theories" you would have a point.

and that we're wasting our time.

I see it as dismissive. I did the very first time I read it.

It's a socially acceptable insult.

Thank you, you darling Salon folks. :hug:

Bless you, you thoughtful charmers! I'll remember y'all in my prayers and send you some brownies on baking day! ;-)

Hey, autorank! :hi: