I agree with you
Kos, and I agree with you,
Georgia10 et al. Kos is right in that an absurdly large percentage of this board has become a single-issue constituency: Before any other fight, Ohio! On the other hand, I would classify myself as someone who is genuinely uncertain as to the validity, and still hold out hope that Kerry, in reality, won this election. I hold out hope that a Senator will come forward and debates will be held.
However, I do not hold out hope that the time being devoted to this issue on this site will produce any meaningful results, and I think that it's only fueling a bizarre flame war between two groups of people who disagree about something else entirely.
I am a practical Democrat above all else. There are a few possible outcomes, none of them leading to any sort of real reform. Why? Because, and I forget whether it was you or another competent election-issue commentator who said this, there is no smoking gun. Either this stays in the blogs, or it goes mainstream. If it goes mainstream, without definitive proof, nobody will believe a word of it, because it insults the vast majority of Americans basic beliefs. It will bounce off their perceived frame of an American Election like rubber.
Now, here I'd like to stop and classify the two types of fraud I've been reading about.
A) General electoral problems. Namely, the long lines, the lack of machinery, the voter intimidation, and the possibility of manipulation of vote totals on electronic voting machines.
and
B) Systemic fraud. Ranging anywhere from actual manipulation in widespread locals to the installation of election-theft programs nationwide.
When I said above the fraud investigations are an affront to peoples values/frames, I was referring to the second type of fraud. The first type, mere electoral SNAFUs, absolutely need to be pushed. These are quite believable, and there is documented evidence of each allegation. Fixing this is what many people are referring to when they say to get off the fraud issue, and move on to other election issues. However, all of the type A fraud was known on within the first week after the election.
Now, don't get me wrong. Investigations into the type B fraud were absolutely necessary in my mind because of the exit poll discrepancies. However, aside from one chart showing black precincts with the highest amount of electoral problems (which could be classified as type A fraud), there has not been any progress made here. I think Kos, myself, and many people here feel that the search for type B fraud is like the search for Saddam's WMD's. It's getting defensive, political, and more desperate by the day. It's become a movement of it's own. Consider me an Iraqi war supporter who's since grown tired of the endless hunt for something that day by day looks more and more likely to not be there. The search was meaningful, but it's time to move on. There are other things to do.
As for Kos's tone, I agree in principle, I just wouldn't have used his words. I don't think the hunt for type B fraud was embarrassing. Initially. I think it was a valiant, necessary search. However, after about a month, when it became clear to me at least that no really serious allegation was sticking, and some of the leaders of the search (Bev Harris, for example) were revealed to be a bit wacky, that those who continued to look for type B fraud became a danger to the cause at large. Because, as I said above, it became clear that there would be no smoking gun, and without a smoking gun, there was no way the public would believe anything. Even a teensiest bit. Nor would the public like having their values affronted. The definition of a conspiracy theory is: A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act (source: American Heritage Dictionary). And I think most of the type B theories could be classified as that.
However, Type A fraud is not a conspiracy theory at all. But that's where the shooting-of-foot part comes in. Without a smoking gun, if say, the Conyers hearings made the mainstream media, and they were advancing type B theories (and I don't think they are), then they would be most likely labeled crazy to dare to suggest such a thing. And then we would see what's sadly happening here, where anyone suggesting any kind of fraud occurred, either type A or type B, is grouped with the type B people. Anyone suggesting that the possibility of fraud in this election requires reforms to be made for future elections is lumped with those who advance type B, widescale fraud ideas, ideas that will (rightly or wrongly) be ridiculed in the media. And that would be a terrible thing.
It's actually quite interesting; on Daily Kos, we're seeing a mini, far less grave version of what I've predicted. People have seen a single-issue, very vocal minority constantly pound away at their issue. Most agree with the type A fraud theories, but they see a few type B theories, and see the same vociferous, (now) defensive passion in the type A theories, and they connect the two. They (and I) slowly realize B doesn't have anything, and so they think A people are crazy too. I know in my mind, I originally made the link because there are certain, irrelevant similarities between the two groups of people. Both have supporters that are generally new to the community (read: no real weight among the community leaders yet), both are very vocal (some read as: obsessed) and both are (generally) anti-authoritarian, angry and lean to the far left. In tone, the two are very similar. Let me put it this way: among all fraud essays, A or B, I've seen many people demanding LOOK AT THIS! URGENT! RECOMMEND! BREAKING! REFORM NOW! GET THE BASTARDS!! I haven't seen more than 5 thought out essays explaining what evidence has been compiled. And so people glance at an article which looks like this, thinks, "Oh, another one of them," maybe glances over what they have to say, and go back to the main page. When they may just be quite sane, passionate, type Aers.
Some people might say that what I've said here does not preclude us from researching it here, on Daily Kos. I agree that there's nothing wrong with continuing the research. But, and Kos's strongest point was this, this is not the place. It happened with Sinclair, and it happened here, and I was annoyed both times. Less with Sinclair, because that had the possibility of succeeding. But both times, at least the recommended diaries became single-issue places. And this is not a single-issue blog. Now, I think it would be extremely healthy for both the fraud movement and the Kos community if someone created a single issue blog devoted to this issue, and Kos linked to it on the front page, referenced to it every now and again. Because the issue, especially type B, is important, but it is not vastly more important than, say, the Social Security debate. It is one of many issues. If you want to devote your efforts solely to election reform, Kos is not the vehicle to do it through. If you want a discussion of current politics, Kos is your place. Sinclair was moved off site, and that movement still succeeded quite well. And don't bitch about Kos. Yes, it's hardly true that everyone's been doing it. But a very vocal, mostly type B minority has been, and remember what I said about people lumping people together. I think Kos explained why one shouldn't well enough. Remember, it's a general site.
Finally, everyone chill. I think the only people here who are in disagreement are the type B people and everyone else. Kos, I, and the majority of the site agree with you type A people, and the way some people have been acting, you have a right to feel hurt. But we do agree with you. Just, maybe take it outside. Some of us don't want to deal with it 24/7. Kos, and everyone else who's doing this, try not to lump type A people with type B people. You have a point w/ type B, but it's just fueling this growing flame war. I hope I've cleared up some of my perceived misconceptions, and I'm now open to cross-examination.