Typically, Kucinich was ahead of the curve on an important issue. In
November, he seized on concerns about the reliability of electronic
voting machines produced by Diebold Inc., one of the nation's
largest voting equipment manufacturers. Those concerns were stirred
by the revelation that Diebold employees had expressed concerns in e-
mails about the security of machines produced by the company.
Diebold sought to shut down any debate about its machines by
threatening legal actions against operators of Web sites that were
publishing or linking to corporate documents that detailed flaws in
Diebold equipment and irregularities in the certifying of the
company's systems for elections.
When he learned of the legal threats, Kucinich took on the
politically potent corporation. The Ohio congressman asked House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Menomonee Falls,
and the ranking Democrat on that committee, Rep. John Conyers of
Michigan, to investigate whether the company's actions were
potential abuses of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. He also
posted the controversial documents on his congressional Web site.
Diebold quickly backed down. And Kucinich used the development to
declare, "In a democracy where half the people don't vote and where
the last presidential election was decided by the Supreme Court, we
cannot tolerate flawed voting equipment or intimidation of those who
point out the flaws. Diebold backing down from its intimidation
campaign is a positive step. An open and honest examination of the
flaws in electronic voting will lead us to only one possible
conclusion: electronic voting machines are dangerous to democracy
because there is no way of ensuring their accuracy. We have to have
a voter-verified paper trail for every election so that any errors
and irregularities caused by the voting machines can be recovered."
John Nichols
John Nichols: Go-along media ignoring Kucinich
By John Nichols
December 9, 2003
About John
John Nichols is a native Wisconsinite, who has written for The
Capital Times for the past decade.
Dennis Kucinich cannot get a break from big media.
The co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is running a
vigorous, intellectually adventurous, policy-based campaign for the
Democratic presidential nomination. He is leaping on issues before
the other candidates recognize them, bringing broader perspectives
to the debates and building a base of supporters nationwide that
could play a significant role in debates about the direction of the
Democratic Party. Yet, the political punditocracy steadfastly
refuses to treat his candidacy with even a measure of the
seriousness that is accorded the other members of the House and
Senate who are seeking the party's nod.
But isn't Kucinich, who trails in the polls, simply getting the
coverage he deserves? While it is fair to say that Kucinich falls
short of front-runner status, the griping by his supporters about
media bias against his candidacy has a ring of legitimacy, says John
Green, director of the University of Akron's Ray C. Bliss Institute.
"It's a legitimate complaint," Green, a veteran observer of the
media's impact on political races, told the Akron Beacon-Journal
recently. "The media, particularly television, cover elections like
horse races," he added, noting that in this horse race television
reporters frequently dismiss Kucinich as the "fringe candidate" or
the "long-shot candidate."
The absurdity, and the irresponsibility, of most media's approach to
Kucinich's candidacy has been particularly evident in recent weeks.
The original article is at:
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/nichols/62912.php