Reflections on January 6

January 6 was a day that the Democratic party was saved to fight another day.

Senator Barbara Boxer saved the Democratic party today from losing one of its core constituencies, African-Americans. It's no accident that several black Representatives mentioned Michael Moore today. They told us that everyone---the media and their own party---ignored their concerns in 2000, and not until Michael Moore put their objections in his movie did many of us even realize they had made them.

If it had happened again, the rift would have been fatal. Some would abandon the party completely, others would lose enthusiasm, and some would find the right moment for payback.

In this connection, it is relevant to suggest that the media largely ignoring the substance of what happened today in Congress, and completely ignoring the Selma 1965 to Washington 2005 march and rally, was not only acting in Republican interests, it was de facto racism.

On the day this took place, George Bush was formally declared the winner of the 2004 election, with the lowest approval rate for a newly reelected president in memory, and under the cloud of a contested election outcome.

On the day this took place, John Kerry was in Iraq, being cheered by U.S. troops. Maybe they didn't get the memo about his "mixed messages." Maybe they didn't appreciate the Swift Boat liars attempting to question the medals and reputation of one of their own.

It was on this day that the Cameron Kerry oped appeared (see link below) which was interesting timing. It did not appear when it could have disrupted the efforts to get a Senator to make the objections in Congress. But it appeared in time to make Kerry's position---and the reasons for his absence-clearer.

Many believe that Kerry did win the election, but those in public office must maintain a standard of proof to preserve their integrity. So in the debate today Barack Obama and even Bernie Sanders announced they believed Kerry lost, though they also believed the election system needs to be fixed. They may suspect otherwise on the real outcome, but they can't say so.

We all have our parts to play. Those of us not in public office can act on preponderance of evidence, or even our intuitions. We can take to the streets, and make our case, and urge real investigation. That's what we must continue to do.

The seeds of a progressive coalition were planted in Ohio during this process. It largely went unnoticed, but organized labor joined the protest, and sent buses from Columbus to Washington for the march and rally today. Those seeds were given some nourishment today, thanks to Barbara Boxer. We will see if they grow and bear fruit.

What happens now? The people alive to this moment must continue to pay attention to the progress of court cases in Ohio and elsewhere, because frankly not many others will. We need to support these court cases to force investigations, and eventually get indictments and put some folks in jail. Then there will be reform.

We must support reform bills as proposed by Kerry, Boxer and others, assuming we agree with them. We don't have any illusions that they will become law. We should use them to continue to build coalitions for the future, and rebuild trust.

We can hope that out there somewhere is a news organization or more likely a foundation or two with deep pockets willing to finance a dozen or so ambitious reporters to dig into the election story, and produce a book or a documentary or both.

But basically this issue now gets folded into the attempts of the Democratic party to revive itself, and become again a truly progressive party. It may take a very long time. The Republicans may very well be able to cheat their way to victories in the next few elections. But we can hope that Americans are made of stuff as stern as Ukrainians, Czechs and Slovaks, and don't forget Poland---if any of you out there are old enough to remember Solidarity. Or, for that matter, Selma.

Senator Barbara Boxer objected to the counting of Ohio's electoral votes because of irregularities, forcing an historic debate in the U.S. Congress, reported around the world.

Senator Barbara Boxer's Statement On Her Objection To The Certification Of Ohio's Electoral Votes
January 6, 2005
"For most of us in the Senate and the House, we have spent our lives fighting for things we believe in - always fighting to make our nation better.

We have fought for social justice. We have fought for economic justice. We have fought for environmental justice. We have fought for criminal justice.

Now we must add a new fight - the fight for electoral justice.

Every citizen of this country who is registered to vote should be guaranteed that their vote matters, that their vote is counted, and that in the voting booth of their community, their vote has as much weight as the vote of any Senator, any Congressperson, any President, any cabinet member, or any CEO of any Fortune 500 Corporation.

I am sure that every one of my colleagues - Democrat, Republican, and Independent - agrees with that statement. That in the voting booth, every one is equal.

So now it seems to me that under the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees the right to vote, we must ask:

Why did voters in Ohio wait hours in the rain to vote? Why were voters at Kenyan College, for example, made to wait in line until nearly 4 a.m. to vote because there were only two machines for 1300 voters?

Why did poor and predominantly African-American communities have disproportionately long waits?

Why in Franklin County did election officials only use 2,798 machines when they said they needed 5,000? Why did they hold back 68 machines in warehouses? Why were 42 of those machines in predominantly African-American districts?

Why did, in Columbus area alone, an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 voters leave polling places, out of frustration, without having voted? How many more never bothered to vote after they heard about this?

Why is it when 638 people voted at a precinct in Franklin County, a voting machine awarded 4,258 extra votes to George Bush. Thankfully, they fixed it - but how many other votes did the computers get wrong?

Why did Franklin County officials reduce the number of electronic voting machines in downtown precincts, while adding them in the suburbs? This also led to long lines.

In Cleveland, why were there thousands of provisional ballots disqualified after poll workers gave faulty instructions to voters?

Because of this, and voting irregularities in so many other places, I am joining with Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones to cast the light of truth on a flawed system which must be fixed now.

Our democracy is the centerpiece of who we are as a nation. And it is the fondest hope of all Americans that we can help bring democracy to every corner of the world.

As we try to do that, and as we are shedding the blood of our military to this end, we must realize that we lose so much credibility when our own electoral system needs so much improvement.

Yet, in the past four years, this Congress has not done everything it should to give confidence to all of our people their votes matter.

After passing the Help America Vote Act, nothing more was done.

A year ago, Senators Graham, Clinton and I introduced legislation that would have required that electronic voting systems provide a paper record to verify a vote. That paper trail would be stored in a secure ballot box and invaluable in case of a recount.

There is no reason why the Senate should not have taken up and passed that bill. At the very least, a hearing should have been held. But it never happened.

Before I close, I want to thank my colleague from the House, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

Her letter to me asking for my intervention was substantive and compelling.

As I wrote to her, I was particularly moved by her point that it is virtually impossible to get official House consideration of the whole issue of election reform, including these irregularities.
The Congresswoman has tremendous respect in her state of Ohio, which is at the center of this fight.

Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a judge for 10 years. She was a prosecutor for 8 years. She was inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame in 2002.

I am proud to stand with her in filing this objection. "

Debating the Vote

A few quick comments on today's historic debate:

Senator Barbara Boxer stood alone among Senators in objecting to the Ohio vote, which was sufficent to force this debate. A handful of other Senators, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, spoke in support of those who are deeply troubled by the chicanery, the cheating that has been established and that is suspected with cause in the 2004 presidential election. These Senators had their reasons for not joining Boxer in voting against the validation of the Ohio electors, but once again Democrats leave themselves open to the charge of trying to have it both ways.

The speeches in the House and even the calls on C-Span demonstrated the deep, deep feeling among voters that there was cheating in this election, and that it may have been rigged.

The U.S.media, that institution of shame and sham, continued to ignore this crucial issue. The media failed to report fully the outrages on election day, and they remain complicit with Republicans in covering up what happened, so that whatever evidence remains will disappear. Only when ANY threat to the integrity of voting, and every voters right to vote and have it counted, is given prominence and reported as a major story, will the sanctity of elections be more than a sanctimonious if not cynical lie.

If people around the world, and even their fellow Democrats, didn't understand what voting rights mean to African Americans, perhaps today will leave a more accurate impression.

The challenge gave the White House the opportunity to support efforts to correct deficiencies in the electoral process, even as it denied there was grounds for contesting the election. To no one's surprise, they passed on that opportunity to be conciliatory and recognize that elections are at the core of American democracy. Clearly, among the things that Republicans hold sacred, voting does not qualify.

Finally, this observation: can't anyone pronounce "electoral"? There is no "i" in it. It doesn't rhyme with editorial. Somebody should do a study on GOPer mispronunciation patterns and their psycho-social significance.

Keep On Objecting

John Nichols column in The Nation

The Online Beat

Every Vote

Cameron Kerry, John Kerry's brother, has a commentary in the Boston Globe which for the first time lays out the reasons that the Kerry campaign did not more aggressively challenge the outcome of the election, especially in Ohio.

The commentary ends with a strong endorsement of electoral reform, and ends with this specific proposal:

"It is time to make vote suppression a violation of civil rights laws and adopt national standards that ensure that all voters have equal access to voting machines and ballots without the kinds of technical obstacles that call to mind Jim Crow laws. And trust in the system requires that it be transparent; whether inside local election board offices or inside the code of electronic voting machines, the counting of votes has to be public and nonpartisan."

Next time the electoral votes are tallied, every American citizen should be able to know that his or vote has counted."

Boston.com / News / Politics / Presidential candidates / Counting every vote

To which we add, it is past time to make vote suppression a violation of civil rights laws. We assume that this will be part of the legislation Senator Kerry will introduce.

Selma March 1965 

Challenge Supported by Organized Labor

Link to a message in support of Congressional challenge to the 2004 vote. Several unions are participating in the Selma to Washington march, including buses from Columbus, Ohio. This is the 40th anniversary year of the Selma, Alabama march that was instrumental in gaining support for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963 was organized by a coalition of black Civil Rights groups, organized labor, churches and political organizations.

In 1965 African Americans marching to get voting rights were met with billy clubs and tear gas. In 2005, African Americans marching to protest violation of their voting rights are so far being ignored.

Why the Vote Count Challenge Matters :: ILCA Online :: Making Labor Media a Force to Be Reckoned With

Challenge the Vote

march poster

How It’s Shaping Up: Congress January 6

A little more than twelve hours before Congress convenes to accept or reject the presidential electors, here’s how it looks:

Keith Olberman has reported that up to six Senators may object to accepting the Ohio electors, joining at least several House members who have announced that they will do so. It takes just one member of each house to force debates. The debate may only be for two hours, but it could be a crucial two hours to the credibility of democracy in America.

A diary on Daily Kos by a woman who called 45 Senators on Wednesday---all the Democrats plus Jeffords the independent and a sympathetic Republican--reports that several of them have received tens of thousands of phone calls on Ohio, and their staff members were on the verge of nervous breakdowns. Among those whose staff told callers were actively considering objecting were Barbara Boxer of CA, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, who had lawyers going over the evidence. Others report after-hours message boxes full for a number of other Senators.

John Kerry emailed the 3 million supporters on his lists to urge them to support election reform and investigation, saying he will introduce legislation, but to say he would not join those contesting the 04 results. He is currently on a fact-finding tour of the Middle East.

So what do the Dash brothers make of this?

1. If one Senator objects, more than one will. And it may be that only if more than one will, any will. Either this is being coordinated right now, or staff for several senators are preparing remarks in case some other Senator objects, and their boss decides to join.

2. If no Senator objects, Kerry's absense will hurt him politically. If at least one Senator objects, and even better the six that are rumored, Kerry's absense will help him politically. So it's possible he knows what's going to happen. Note that his email said he wasn't going to join the objectors---this could mean the House members who've announced they will object, or it could mean that he knows someone will in the Senate. The fact of his email can be read either way: being with them without being there, or making the best of a bad situation.

It is even possible that Kerry was told that other Senators would not object unless he didn’t, because they don’t want to be seen as simply sore losers.

In any case, if other Senators do object, his absence will actually help keep the focus where it should be: on the credibility and integrity of the vote, and on the need to hold accountable those who violate it.

At this point, the moment is bound to get some air time even on our timid befuddled news media (currently exploring whether the tsunami is evidence that God is angry---we’re not kidding, it’s on Scarborough right now), and it will get a more serious airing if it is an historic moment, when the debate is mandated by objections from both houses of Congress.

Up until now the demonstrations in various cities haven’t gotten any coverage to speak of. Perhaps if there are Senators objecting and the debate happens, larger and more visible demonstrations will occur afterwards. It's one thing--and a very dramatic thing---for members of congress to engage, but also very important for ordinary people to do so, VISIBLY. TV can't show people writing emails and making phone calls, as crucial as these are. And make no mistake---if any Senators object, it won't be primarily because of the evidence but because voters are upset.

photo by Pgh independent media center: Save the Vote demonstration, downtown Pittsburgh, PA

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."

The Morality is Save the Most Powerful

What is the operative definition of morality for this Bushie administration? Be santimonious about issues which seem to protect the innocent, but come down hard on the powerless without knowing or caring if they are innocent or not. It is a morality of exquisite cynicism, designed to appeal to the worst in everyone: selfishness masked by denial.

There is so much that is basically immoral about the Iraqnam debacle that to single out the worst is difficult. But high on the list must be the utter disregard for people whose only crime might well be that they are powerless. Not only has the Bushie government indiscriminately swept up people into prisons in Iraq and Cuba (along with suspects who might be legitimate if they worked a little to prove it), and kept them imprisoned without trial or even charges, but now they apparently want to make permnanent incarceration without charge a policy. There hasn't been a greater threat to basic human rights in the democratic West for more than a century.

The idea that you keep some bad guys from doing harm while the odds are you are unjustly imprisoning a lot of innocent but powerless people is the mark of cowardice, as well as the injustice of totalitarianism. All for dubious political insurance, and out of sheer arrogance, fear, contempt and laziness.

In effect you are declaring war against your own people in order to protect them. But of equal importance, you are affirming the terrorist analysis that in America only the powerful matter, and the way to challenge American power is to go after it with equally effective violence. That's the inevitable effect of a policy that says that justice and rules of conduct come a distant second to naked power of the most powerful and arrogant but apparently most cowardly.

With a policy like this, stated or unstated, it's time to call Guantanamo by its correct name: an American concentration camp.

Top News Article Reuters.com

For those with a Washington Post subscription, the original article is here.

New blogifying:

our friend at Blue Voice has posted a couple of year end pieces. Nice pictures, too.