Credibility, Integrity and January 6

This is a version of something I posted on the daily kos site. Partisans of this blog are familiar with the sentiments but maybe I’ve got a new point or two in here somewhere.

The debate at kos, while mostly of sociological interest (or blogological) does reflect a larger issue bearing on the question of why more prominent Democrats, and more of the media, aren’t paying much attention to the questions of the integrity of the 2004 election, and the possibility that the Bushies self-selected the president yet again. The issue is credibility. Just as Marcos, the owner of Daily Kos, doesn’t want to associate himself or his site with weirdos making wild accusations, establishment Democrats are loathe to do so for the same reason---the people whose opinions they care about will laugh at them and roll their eyes. Here is my rejoinder:

Is one's credibility damaged by being associated with incorrect assertions, and the people making them? Maybe. But in the case of questioning the integrity of the 2004 presidential election, I believe there is a more important credibility issue.

No one wants to be associated with the pathological and dishonest. But what of excessive assertions weak on proof and wild in speculation, perhaps clouded by feeling? Where do they cause damage? Who are the keepers of credibility we are worried about? The major media, eager to single out weirdness in the threatening blogosphere? Political professionals and others who make a tidy living off the Zeitgeist?

In certain arenas, this kind of credibility matters. But in the larger arena of America, there is a question of credibility that trumps these concerns: the credibility of the integrity of the voting process.

What the past two months have shown is that many people---many voters--- have found enough reason to seriously question the integrity of the 2004 election.

The overwhelming majority of them are Democrats and those who voted for Kerry, although there are Republicans actively asserting that the integrity of the vote was seriously violated, and something should be done about it.

While this partisanship weakens their claim to national attention in an objective sense, it is unavoidable. Partisans of the declared losers are just more likely to be upset than partisans of the declared winner, be it in the Ukraine or the U.S. People upset about the credibility of the vote are upset about the integrity of their vote, not just in general, but because of who they voted for.

Those of us who talked to voters before the election know how passionate many were about its importance. We saw them stand in line for hours in the rain in Florida in the week before November 2, and for many hours in Ohio and elsewhere.

Those of us who have talked to voters since the election know how passionately they believe the election was not conducted fairly, that it was manipulated beyond the bounds of the law by Bush partisans.

The integrity of the vote is the most basic element of not only our form of government and our whole political life, but our identity as a society.

I won't repeat the issues, except to say that in my view there is pretty solid evidence of voter intimidation and vote suppression, enough evidence to investigate fraud in particular places and enough circumstantial evidence to investigate the possibility of fraud and conspiracy on a larger scale.

There are a number of scholars who don't wear tin hats who have raised significant questions about the integrity of the 04 vote, including the count.

The control of voting machines by partisans of the party in power is itself such an obvious threat to that integrity and credibility that few in major media or politics would consider an election in another country as legitimate under the same circumstances.

The credibility of the vote comes down to this: what kind of dummy is going to stand for hours in the rain to vote in 2008?

Of course, evangelical Rabid Right Republicans will.

There is another level of credibility to consider. The strongest voices calling the integrity of the election into question are those of African Americans and their leaders. They consider this a voting rights and Civil Rights issue. This will be symbolized in many ways in the coming days, from Columbus to Washington, D.C.

They have the right to define it as such, and there is enough evidence, especially from black precincts, that their definition is credible. The question is, does the Democratic party have any credibility with this community, with other minority communities, and with its own conscience, if it does not support them?

Black members of Congress protested the 2000 vote and no Senator joined them, as we all saw in Michael Moore's film (many of us for the first time.) This shameful lack of support repeated in 2004 would be devastating to the Democratic party.

The Senator who objects will instantly become a party leader.

Credibility of the vote for everyone requires investigation. It is also a matter of justice. When wrongdoing goes uninvestigated and with no trial or accountability, credibility in the system is undermined, if not overtly shattered.

I believe we also need to be aware of the dangers of factionalizing. It's one thing to want to distinguish oneself from apocalyptic evangelicals and professional liars, but perhaps more care is in order in purging those who vote the reality based ticket but have beliefs and points of view that seem odd or threatening.

At a certain point, timidity in making the assertions mostly for the reason of appearances may suggest vanity, in being afraid to be seen to be excessive, or wrong. We are all plagued by self-importance and vanity. We all need to keep an eye on ourselves.

But instead of factionalizing and purging people with excessive views, or choosing up which front page leaders we are going to call our daddy or mommy, shouldn't we be supporting the people who are outraged by attacks on the integrity of their votes?

Besides, we aren't talking just about ourselves. People questioning the vote include members of Congress and electors from several states. There have been or will be demonstrations in Pittsburgh, Nashville, Columbus, San Diego,Boston, San Francisco, and a symbolic march from outside Baltimore to Washington, D.C.

I should not be spending time on this. I don't make a living from politics and I'm neglecting other work. I will post this tonight and by the time I check in sometime tomorrow, it will have disappeared. But I am writing this now for one reason: January 6.

Like it or not, the only significant opportunity for voters to express their outrage at any credible suggestion that the integrity of the vote---which means their votes---will be today, tomorrow and January 6. In this particularly, I endorse the points made in the latest diary by boo: the integrity of the vote must be addressed in the 2004 election, and people held accountable for violating it; and January 6 is crucial to this.

I differ in that for me and I suspect for a lot of voters, the issue does includes voter intimidation, suppression and local fraud. It all bears on the credibility of this election, and the integrity of future elections.

A strong challenge must be made to the outcome of the 2004 election in Congress, and in the streets. In the streets, the issue of who should be there and who shouldn't becomes one of behavior, not credibility. Nobody cares or should care that the crowd includes people who think local Republicans cheated, and those who think there was a national conspiracy, and those who believe that Kerry really won, or in a fair election, had the votes to win.

The issue is focused on the credibility of the vote, based on the lack of integrity in the 2004 election.

For the reality based, let me remind you of the reality of passion, and of pain, and of the uses of intuition along with arguments based on facts, statistics and precedents.

I speak as, in a small way, a veteran of the Civil Rights and antiwar movements. I remember the Chicago Seven: the intellectual Tom Hayden, the Black Panther Bobby Seale, the Yippie leaders Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, among the young lawyers and veteran activists. It was a remarkable crosssection of the times, especially since it was selected by hostile prosecutors. But it represented the kind of coalition that was needed, and in fact reflected reality: they were all really against the war and racism.

For what they are worth in this debate, I recall the words, many years later, of Abbie Hoffman: "We were reckless, we were headstrong, we were impatient, we were excessive. But goddammit we were right."