Yesterday I emailed Don Siegelman, as I had a few matters to discuss with him.
Here's the crucial part:
The other, more important thing is this: As you may or may not know, the one aspect of your long ordeal that the press has stubbornly refused to mention--or, I think, even to perceive--is the theft of that election in 2002. Like you, I believe that that was crucial; but the press, quite typically, won't mention it. Frankly, I believe that they, and most leading Democrats, are in denial about it, as its implications are too frightening.
Just as they've looked away from all the evidence of vast election fraud throughout Bush/Cheney's reign, therefore, they've also looked away from the subversion of that gubernatorial race in Alabama. And so that chapter of your story is unknown to most Americans, even those who've lately heard the rest of it.
Here is his reply:
Mark, I mention the vote stealing in every interview. 60 Minutes cut it out. Don Abrams didn't want to go there either. I have told the story to the Washington Post and LA Times.
The hook is Rove's fingerprints are found there too. First, in that Rove's friend Jack Abramoff hires Dan Gans, who was in charge of " electronic ballot security" in Baldwin County, Alabama, where the votes were stolen. Gans, working for the Alexander Strategies Group, claims credit for the win on his website, which he then takes down when Abramoff gets arrested. The second is Rove's business partner, Kitty Mc Cullough (a/k/a Kelly Kimbrough) is given credit for the electronic vote switch by the state Republican Party.
I asked Don if I could send that out, and he said yes ("Have at it"). So now I offer it to you.
If you're an election reform activist, please start your (search) engines. If you're a journalist, please do your job. And if you're just another patriotic citizen, please do whatever you can do to get the press, and/or the Democratic Party, to pay heed.
For starters, how about asking "60 Minutes" why they "cut it out," and asking Dan Abrams why he "didn't want to go there either"? And since Don also told the Washington Post and LA Times about the theft of that election, how about we ask them, too?
This stuff will just keep on happening, until we make it dangerous to do such things.
MCM
***
Editor's note: Mark Crispin Miller's new book is just out now. It's entitled
Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008.
It's a collection of 14 essays on election fraud, etc., with contributions by the
heavy hitters in the movement, including Bobby Kennedy, Brad Friedman,
Nancy Tobi, Bob Fitrakis, Jonathan Simon, Bruce O'Dell, Paul Lehto and
others. Also includes Miller's substantial preface, and "12 Steps to Save US
Democracy." Published by Ig Publishing.
Mark's new book, Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008, a collection 14 essays on Bush/Cheney's election fraud since (and including) 2000, is just out, from Ig Publishing.
He is also the author of Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform,
which is now out in paperback from Basic Books, with over 100 pages of new material.
He may be reached through his blog at markcrispinmiller.com. A movie based on his
off-Broadway show, A Patriot Act, is available on DCD at www.patriotnation.com.
Stop kvetching already! What's a few discarded votes! It's not as though the presidency of the United States were hanging in the balance? Oy! Vey.
On a more serious note, nice work.
We the people have quite a problem on our hands, our election process is a farce. And who would know more about this very important issue than yourself? You compiled a brilliant book on this very subject which I recommend everyone read.
Have you contacted Mary Ann Gould? Perhaps she would be able to discuss your correspondence with Don Siegelman next week on her radio program? http://www.voiceofthevoters.org/
It would be nice Mark if you could find the time before the November election to venture down the pike a bit to Bucks County, Pa. and further enlighten the populous about these rampant election improprieties? You're an excellent speaker.
by
Munich (0 articles, 64 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 809 comments)
on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 11:26:05 PM
instead of chiding the hundreds of readers that asked them to cover the story, how different might these last four years have been.
Instead, the torture president and his handlers have had four more years to subvert the Constitution. And still people like John Burns are delusionally claiming that the Times reporting is better than ever and that the American press "gets it right"!
by
Elizabeth Ferrari (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 72 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 7:57:35 AM
They pointed out correctly that the claims by Miller and Wasserman and others were totally bogus. Bush won. Kerry lost. Tinfoil hat sales have been skyrocketing ever since.
The only possible "massive election fraud" that might have occurred did so in Washington State.
by
Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 481 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 9:16:21 AM
No, the Public Editor, then Okrent, said the Times would
report the story when their ace investigators found one. He mailed that letter to hundreds of readers. I kept my copy because it was clear that some day, someone would be interested in it as an artefact of what passed for journalism in 2004.
Should you care to read through the evidence, Scott, there is plenty of it, from first hand accounts of Ohio voters, to the GAO report, the Conyers report, the trail transcripts of the two election workers convicted in Ohio, there is independent reporting as well as academic works.
But that would require effort on your part.
by
Elizabeth Ferrari (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 72 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 11:02:44 AM
Scott is either lying, or engaged in wishful thinking: because the media consortium that counted all the votes in Florida—i.e., The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CBS News, et al.—determined that Gore won. Period.
little ole wolfie thought the airwaves are public and leased to the media. turning the tide means to stop the corporate voice. take out the stations as they are the tongues of the devil. bring down their towers for they are the throat of the devil. take out the media owners for they are the mind of the devil.
but do it with silent prayer and whisper it to the masses and divine the spiritual aid by calling the representatives, we have, of the devil.
even the wave vibrations from these perpertors of filth pollute our air. flood the airwaves with waves of love emitted by our conscious thought wave patterns.
wolfie the emancipator
by
Wolfie (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 1176 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 1:04:08 PM
That consortium report was a hand grenade that blew up in lefties' hands, because they misread the thing. Just ask Paul Krugman: He wrote a column based on this much-vaunted report.
Bad move. Several bloggers pointed out that a) not all of the scenarios pointed to Gore winning Florida, and b) Krugman totally misrepresented the data from the report. Krugman's column was shredded so badly that he did some serious back-pedaling on his next column. And then he had to issue two other corrections on top of that. And then one of the Times' editors printed an Emily Litella statement regarding Krugman's first column.
So take that "period" and spread it on a cracker. Or a corn flake.
by
Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 481 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 4:34:25 PM
Did you look at the data there, or not? It says what it says—and it is neither "left" nor "right." (FYI, most "lefties" won't go near the issue of election fraud.)
For those out there who aren't blind partisans, this is what it says:
REVIEW OF ALL BALLOTS NATIONWIDE (NEVER UNDERTAKEN)
Review Method
Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey:
WINNER: GORE
MARGIN OF VICTORY: 171 VOTES
Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots:
WINNER: GORE
MARGIN OF VICTORY: 115 VOTES
Any dimples or optical mark:
WINNER: GORE
MARGIN OF VICTORY: 107 VOTES
One corner of chad detached or optical mark:
WINNER: GORE
MARGIN OF VICTORY: 60 VOTES
The report then lays out the totals for various _partial_ recounts, all of which Bush won. But partial recounts are, of course, irrelevant, since all that matters is the total count—and Gore won that, whichever way you slice it. The report puts it succinctly:
"Rather than dimples or not-dimples, the deciding factor in the recount was inclusion of all ballots or only a subset of ballots. And the deciding line was very simple—if all of the ballots were counted there were enough potential Al Gore votes to give him a victory, but any smaller subset of ballots would retain or even enlarge George W. Bush's margin."
That's it, Scott. You can try to cloud the issue all you like, but you can't change the truth (or handle it, apparently).
by
Mark Crispin Miller (41 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 4:54:58 PM
10 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
