Conyer's Ohio Vote Forum Redux

Keith Olbermann pretty much hits the nail on the head with his analysis of Michigan's John Conyer Jr's "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio" forum's probable outcome (which sadly - was a forum, not as we'd hoped - an actual hearing) yesterday. He expands on one of the two most important points I heard, that being:

Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Illinois, turned to the chair of the ad hoc committee, John Conyers, of Michigan, and said “if the votes are not tallied in the state of Ohio by the appropriate time, is there any thought being given that the committee might consider an objection to the proceeding of the Ohio Electors until such time (as they are tallied)?”

Conyers replied, extending each word to about eleven syllables: “We are now.”

An after-forum point made in an interview (I missed) is:

These were deep waters, and in an interview with Countdown’s Monica Novotny right after the forum closed, Conyers backed quite a bit away from the river’s edge. He said “We will wait for someone else,” in preference to drawing congress into a legal battle.

which leaves me less than hopeful Conyer's forum will result in any action before the elector slates meet, except as an act of protest, as Olbermann points out:

"If, in Ohio, or in the calculations of the academics, or in subsequent developments, they conclude there is reasonable evidence that the vote there was rotten - merely accidentally so - one of them in the House and one of them in the Senate should stand up and produce that written challenge to the Ohio electors’ credibility."

hmmm...

The next most important exchange for me and which Olbermann's summary skips, was an interchange between North Carolina's Mel Watt and Conyer (spurred by an ad hoc question from an audience member that echoed for about the hundredth time the plea 'What are you going to do about Ohio election results NOW and how are you going to guarantee our votes and the voting process is protected in the future') that ended with Watts stating to the audience in general: "It's hard to legislate unless you make an official record. It would help us if we found an increasing amount of pressure applied on the formal process of hearing a formal hearing of the events in Ohio."

If that wasn't a specific appeal to those who want results from congress to put their actions where their mouths are, what is? A gathering of opportunities for you to act on this appeal will be the subject of a post tomorrow...

But to wrap up, there were a number of interesting points from panel witnesses:

• In Conyer's introductory statement he thanked the media for "making sure we heard about this" (say what)? Fortuntaely in Ralph Neas (People for the American Way) statement he got it correct with his observation that the media and administration had whitewashed things with an 'over-all ease' of the election nationwide (a point I make in my November 12 blog post). In the end he applauded Conyer for the forthcoming GAO report on election irregularities. Great quotable words from Neas were: "We should be the model of democracy, not hypocrisy".

• Cliff Arneback, attorney from Common Cause Ohio made a fine point that there were two categories of fraud (yea, he used the "f" word) in Ohio. The open one, and the hidden fraud seen in statistical anomolies accomplished through computer manipulation and of which there was "considerable evidence". To this Conyers responded that hacking was a "serious consideration".

• Robert Fitrakis, Free Press Editor who'd covered El Salvadoran election fraud, ended his statement with a moving explanation of how his commitment to outing voter supression in Ohio was ignited when a chemotherapy patient fainted in line after 2&1/2 hours of waiting and was still denied a provisional ballot even after he demanded one on her behalf as prescribed by law.

• Susan Truitt, Ohio cofunder of Citizen Alliance for Secure Elections added several accounts of the hardships voters endured to exercise their rights including that of a hospitalized man who, after being denied an absentee ballot in the hospital, stood on line with an IV in his arm. Others included a job lost for absence and cars towed for their owner's too-lengthy stays in line.

• John Bonifaz, National Voting Institute's general counsel's testimony was fascinating as he ticked off a list of dates and incidences illustrating the convolutions Kenneth Blackwell and the Ohio County Board of Elections were illing to go through as stalling tactics and outright illegal efforts to thwart Green-party presidential candidate's Cobb and Libertarian candidate's Badnarek's legal suit for a vote recount in the state. My favorite quote from Bonifaz referenced a saying from Ghandi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. They are fighting us now and we are going to win."

Hell yea...