Recent posts by
kos and by
Georgia10 have opened wounds here on the site, with conflicting groups each claiming the mantle of the "reality-based community". The reaction to both those entries has got me to understand that there is a misunderstanding between what the Ohio Fraud enthusiasts say they believe and what those who do not share their concerns think that they believe.
In his main-page entry, kos describes the Ohio Fraud enthusiasts as people who
are claiming that Kerry won with no hard evidence to the contrary.
In her recommended diary of January 3, Georgia10 attempts to rebut Kos' characterisation of the Fruadsters by saying that
none of us has focused on putting Kerry in the White House
She further puts the Ohio Fraud enthusiasts into three groups:
(1)the vast majority of people believe this was a dirty election, that widespread intimidation/suppression/irregularities occurred, but the numbers are just not there to put Kerry in the White House. So when you see an "Ohio" or "Election" diary, if you bothered to click on the link, you would realize that almost all the people discussing the issues there are doing it to seek justice and the truth, NOT for a Kerry presidency. (2) the second type of people following the election, a smaller percentage, are those who honestly don't know if there was fraud, and that if there was, and it's uncovered, it might put Kerry in the White House. This is a very very small percentage, and they are usually skeptical but holding out hope. (3) the final group, the one which apparently too many people think represents ALL of the people following the election, is a very very very small handful of people who honestly think there is enough evidence to date to prove Kerry won the election.
I see a disconnect here. We are collectively conflating separate issues.
ISSUE #1: CAN WE PUT KERRY IN THE WHITE HOUSE (prior to 2008)?
a) Yes.
b) No.
ISSUE #2: IS THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM IN NEED OF REPAIR?
a) Yes.
b) No.
ISSUE #3: DID FRAUD IN OHIO RISE TO THE LEVEL THAT IT CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION IN THAT STATE?
a) No. Bush Won.
b) Yes. Kerry Won.
c) It is impossible to know due to fraud.
ISSUE #4: IS FOCUSSING ON OHIO 2004 PRODUCTIVE IN ACHIEVING ELECTORAL REFORM?
a) Yes.
b) No.
It seems that Georgia10 is accusing kos and many non-Fraudsters of claiming that the Ohio Fraud enthusiasts are actually focussing on Issue #1. Although I can only speak for myself, I certainly agree with Georgia10 that most of those who have been focussing on the Ohio Fraud allegations do not have any delusions about installing John Kerry in the White House. Indeed, if Georgia10 is correct, most people here agree that the answer to Issue #1 is "No.".
We all agree on Issue #2. The electoral system needs reform. However, there have been times where I have thought that the Ohio Fraud enthusiasts have been accusing those who do not share their zeal on Ohio with not being concerned with the electoral system at all. Update [2005-1-4 14:51:12 by DaveOinSF]: Here is a perfect illustration of this.
Which brings us to Issue #3. This is where some non-Fraudsters believe they are justified in viewing the "Fraudsters" as conspiracy theorists or "liberal wackos". I believe that the majority of the Ohio Fraud enthusiasts would answer B or C to Issue #3. I would like to be enlightened if I am wrong. I would also like to know if Georgia10 honestly thinks that Bush won Ohio, because in her own category system, she dismisses those who think otherwise as "small" factions of the Fraudster community.
Finally, we have Issue #4, which is likely a major point of disagreement. I personally think focussing on Ohio is counterproductive to the goal of electoral reform. It is my belief that those whom I would characterize as "Fraudsters" share a different view.
