Monday, November 15, 2004


A frightful admission (updated)

Ian Solomon, associate dean of the Yale Law School, writes in the Nashua (N.H.) Telegraph—
Like every other Democrat, I had prepared to avoid the problems of 2000 only to be blindsided by new problems in 2004. We had been so worried about the safekeeping of paper ballots that we neglected the security of digital memory devices.

We had been so worried about voting law that we neglected voting technology. Most important, we had been so worried about voter suppression in poor and minority areas that we didn’t pay attention to voter inflation in Republican areas.

Can this be true? That after all the work done by Bev Harris and many others demonstrating the risks inherent in electronic voting, the Kerry campaign, through its lawyers, simply ignored them? Can the Democrats not find people who are tough and competent at the same time? Or even one or the other?

So now he says—

We should have had trained observers - computer scientists, not lawyers! - verifying the integrity of polling data from machine upload through the tabulation of countywide and statewide results.

Somehow we neglected the most vulnerable step in the vote-counting process, leaving a gaping hole for error and fraud, casting in doubt the validity of election results in many states.

And he concludes—

My client conceded the race on the belief that the results were clear. The results are anything but clear, however, and American democratic legitimacy requires an honest reappraisal of the events in Florida and around the country.

The mainstream media must immediately realize that this issue rises above partisanship and demands attention.

The time is now for voters from all states that used electronic voting machines to request an audit of results and a manual recount of ballots if possible.

I don't know about you, but I find this absolutely disgusting. Was it ignorance? Did no one apprise them of what everyone in the blogosphere already knew? Was it arrogance? Did they simply dismiss the warnings of all the people who have been working so hard on these issues, including computer scientists? Jeesh!

Now comes Betsy Vasquez at a site called "The Moderate Independent" who argues that Kerry is hard at work behind the scenes. Ignoring such information as presented by one of Kerry's lawyers above, she insists that Kerry is "fighting smart."

There are several problems with her rosy scenario—

This time, John Kerry had made clear he was prepared to fight 100 times as hard and long as Gore did if necessary. In fact, he had solicited fund just for that eventuality so he could battle all over the nation if necessary to ensure that every vote was properly counted.

So why isn't he dispensing any of these funds? Why are internet appeals going out for the pitifully small sums of money needed to support Ralph Nader and Michael Badnerik in their efforts to get recounts? (And by the way, where is Republicans were supporting Nader's filings to be a candidate. Kerry and the Democratic Party can't support his efforts for a recount?

It is the prosecutor, also one of Kerry’s previous jobs, who knows well enough to thoroughly prepare and investigate his case be leveling charges. You may have a real hunch that someone is responsible for a murder, but until you believe you can win that case in court, you do not make the allegation.

This is not a court case. But in any case the "statute of limitations" is about to become effective.

Vasquez says that Kerry didn't want to "put the nation into a media frenzied limbo." Well, he certainly succeeded in that. We can't get the media to pay attention, as Ian Solomon above is urging.

Vasquez' only evidence that Kerry is "on the case" is an email from Kerry's brother Cam. You probably received one yourself. It says—

If you have specific factual information about voting problems that could be helpful to the lawyers doing their job, please send it to (e-mail removed for the story)1 rather than to me.

Notice that he chose to have his brother, who is not well-known to the public, sign the letter. As far as the public is concerned, John Kerry has conceded....

Hmm. Send a memo to the public. I guess that takes care of that. And it was so behind-the-scenes that a flap broke out on the internet as to whether the email was actually from Kerry's brother!

[R]emember, Watergate didn’t break the week after the election.

No. Watergate broke well past Nixon's second inauguration and resulted in the ascension of Gerald Ford to the Presidency and the pardoning of Richard Nixon. How would you like Dick Cheney for President, Ms. Gonsalez?

Vasquez' motto is "Not left, not right, just right." How about "Not left, not right, just wrong"?

Related posts
John Kerry's last flip-flop


1 Why would Vasquez remove an email address that was offered to further the investigation? The email is to a Democratic National Committee address— [back]


Post a Comment

<< Simply Appalling Home

Atom feed

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by
Blogarama - The Blog Directory

Blog Search Engine

Blog Top Sites

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?