Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rebuttal Letter to Mother Jones Article Dismissing Election Fraud

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 07:33 PM
Original message
Rebuttal Letter to Mother Jones Article Dismissing Election Fraud
Here is the article that I am referring to. It is an abbreviated version of a longer article, which I had access to because I subscribed to the magazine. My letter was written with the assistance of KaliTracy, who called the article to my attention.


Dear Editor:

I would like to express my displeasure at your recent article, “Recounting Ohio”, by Mark Hertzgaard. His dismissal of arguments for election fraud in Ohio were quite sloppy at best, and were meant to sweep the issue under the rug at worst. This is an issue that is of crucial importance to our country. Without fair elections we don’t have a democracy. And as long as U.S. citizens don’t understand the extent to which our elections are not fair, our chances to garner the political support necessary to ensure that we have a democracy are diminished.

In “Recounting Ohio”, Mr. Hertzgaard repeatedly dismissed well supported claims of fraud simply by quoting individuals who wished to dismiss those claims. I don’t consider that practice to constitute serious journalism. Therefore, I challenge you to address the following issues:


Fraud relating to the Ohio recount

In the section of his article titled “The Case of the Dead Computer”, Hertzgaard rightly notes that the Hocking County incident which was called to our attention by Sherole Eaton, is part of a much bigger issue, but then he ignores the bigger issue to concentrate solely on the one incident in Hocking County.

The bigger issue is that there was no fair recount in Ohio. As documented started on page 36 of this article, when it all ended, only one county in the whole state had been recounted. In order to accomplish this, numerous violations of Ohio law were perpetrated, including: At least 17 counties where the recount was chosen by Ohio election officials rather than randomly; at least 6 counties of confirmed tampering with the tabulating machines by voting machine company technicians; and, at least 6 counties for which, even when it turned out that the vote totals didn’t match, election officials still refused to do the required recount. That is the issue – not Hocking County alone.

And with regard to the Hocking County incident, the Triad technician, after taking the machine apart, explained to the election officials how to make sure that the recount matched the original count so that a full recount wouldn’t have to be done. Hertzgaard dismisses this whole incident by noting that: 1) The document that the technician gave to the election officials to enable them to avoid a recount was not referred to by the technician himself as a “cheat sheet”; 2) There were probably other reasons for the firing of Sherole Eaton; and, 3) Triad’s president said that “no tampering whatsoever took place”. The first reason for dismissing this incident is like excusing a man for murdering his wife because the man didn’t refer to his act as “murder”. The other two reasons are not worth commenting on.


The Warren County Lockdown

The salient facts of this episode are that Warren County election officials claimed that a national security alert was issued by the FBI (which the FBI denied), and they used this excuse to lock the doors during their counting of the vote, thereby preventing access to the vote counting by several reporters (not one reporter, as claimed by Hertzgaard). Hertzgaard dismisses this by quoting the Warren County BOE Director as saying that three Democratic election officials were present during the count. I don’t know if that’s true or not. But does that excuse or take suspicion off the fact that a false national security alert was issued by election officials as an excuse to prevent access to the vote count by reporters? Hertzgaard didn’t even attempt to offer an explanation for this bizarre behavior.


Late Miami County surge of 13,000 votes

Actually this was 19,000 votes, not 13,000 as noted by Hertzgaard. Again, Hertzgaard takes the word of a single contract employee to dismiss this issue. The employee claims that a precinct in Miami County is considered to be reporting its votes as soon as a single vote is received. Well, since apparently no other county in Ohio (or any other county as far as I know) does business that way, wouldn’t have it made sense for Hertzgaard to get some additional verification that this is indeed standard practice for Miami County?

And with regard to the 98.55% turnout in one of Miami County’s precincts, Hertzgaard again quotes the BOE Director to dismiss this problem. The BOE Director claims that the error was caught and corrected before the official count was announced. Really? My understanding is that the current official count still includes that 98.55% figure. Did Hertzgaard check that out? Will you check that out, please?


Electronic vote switching in Mahoning County

To explain away this issue, Hertzgaard obtains a quote from a BOE tech specialist, who says that there was a “calibration problem” that affected only 18 machines, and that it was quickly corrected. Were you aware that this phenomenon was part of a nation-wide problem, and that the number of reported incidents that favored Bush (e.g., a voter attempted to vote for Kerry but the machine registered a vote for Bush) outnumbered those that favored Kerry by a 12:1 ratio (and every reported incident in Mahoning County favored Bush)? And, were you aware that this nation-wide phenomenon occurred at nine times the rate in swing states as in other states? Why do you think that almost all of the “calibration problems” favored Bush?


Purge of registered voters

Hertzgaard mentions the purging of 133,000 registered voters, which he rightly notes were mostly Democrats. But then he later claims that this was legal. He doesn’t even bother to quote an election official to make this point (though I’m sure he could have found one without too much trouble.) Are you aware of the great discrepancy between reports of massive increases in new voter registration in Democratic Ohio precincts, compared to Republican precincts, reported by the New York Times? And are you aware that by the time of the November election, all evidence of this massive Democratic registration drive was gone? Why does Hertzgaard simply assume that this massive voter purge was legal, without presenting a shred of evidence to that effect?


In conclusion

There are several other similar examples that I could mention from Hertzgaard’s article, but I don’t want to make this letter any longer than it already is. Dismissing important concerns about our democracy simply by quoting government officials is the worst kind of journalism, and I thought that you knew better than that. You can be certain that I am going to publicize this to an audience who would otherwise be most likely to subscribe to your magazine, and that they will be very interested in your response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. I hope this is responded to..
Mother Jones isn't usually this lazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. That would be very nice, and I'm hoping that they will
If they do, and especially if it is a good response, I will have an obligation to post it here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. You
RULE! *high five*

Excellent reubuttal and I really hope it gets published. If it doesn't, PM me and I'll put it on my site. (Although I will confess that it doesn't get a lot of traffic, but a few intrepid googlers find it every so often.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. I certainly will do that -- thank you
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. :^D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bettyellen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. what irresponsible "journalism" good god.
that was a good rag, way back. it's slipped horribly, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. I couldn't say, because I'm not that familiar with it
I don't know that it has slipped in general.

It seems that so many people have a blind spot when it comes to election fraud -- See what I have to say about it in post # 11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Helga Scow Stern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. Excellent response. I am appalled that MJ printed such a lame article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Thank you Ojai -- Actually, there were some semi-good parts to the article
I believe that there are a lot of well intentioned and liberal people out there who just can't seem to open their eyes to the possibility that our "democracy" isn't what it seems to be. So many people just have a huge blind spot when it comes to this one issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
23. I agree. Thank you "TfC."
Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robeson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. Great letter. Thanks for posting....
...if this is representative of the quality of journalism in MJ these days, then I certainly want have to worry about subscribing to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Hopefully the editor will come back with a good response
that will change our minds. If s/he does I'll post it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. A lot of people are in denial because they think citizens will not vote
Edited on Fri Oct-21-05 08:32 PM by glitch
and we'll lose even more ground. It's fallacious reasoning, the distrust isn't going to go away with these shallow denials.

If they want to solve the problem of citizens not voting they need to make the system trustworthy and show that it is so. The only way they can do that is by taking our distrust seriously and do thorough investigations.

And then of course following through by getting the corrupt corporations out of our election process.

These lame denials convince no one who is looking at this issue seriously. MJ is much better than this, I join the other posters in wondering what the hell is going on with them.

Turns out Harpers may be the only American magazine worth subscribing to. That is a shame.

Edit to add: Great letter, thanks for posting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
18. I agree with everything you say here
"These lame denials convince no one who is looking at this issue seriously".

True, but the sad fact is that relatively few people in this country are looking at it seriously. That's why IMO this kind of writing is so destructive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #18
33. I agree - the casual news consumer is the usual target audience for this.
Edited on Sat Oct-22-05 11:56 AM by glitch
And to give the true believers some defense. I agree their intent is destructive.

Which is why MJ is the wrong venue for this type of article. Their readers tend not to be casual consumers of news. Disappointed in MJ.

But I do not think it will work for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
39. My guess as to what's going on with them is pressure from the Dem...
...Party and its corrupt leaders and election officials, who were lured into silence about Bushite corporations tabulating our votes with SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, by the $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle and the extraordinarly corrupt lavish lobbying and "revolving door" employment scene that has accompanied it. Dem representatives are now beholden to these corrupt officials and their highly obscure voting systems, and get bonked on the head if they object (as happened in the scandalous CA Dem Party when our good Sec of State Kevin Shelly, who had sued Diebold and demanded to see their source code, was unfairly slandered and removed from office).

It's kind of like WMDs in Iraq. They set up Judith Miller to "find" WMDs they all knew weren't there, with a special "embed" contract signed by Donald Rumsfeld--which seems to have given her powers to push US commanders around (they complained); and they elaborately primed the public for a "find" of these non-existent WMDs. And then they all just sat around HOPING she would find some, by chance?

Uh-huh. (Treasongate was the coverup of their failed plot to plant WMDs in Iraq--likely foiled by Plame/Brewster Jennings--in my theory of Treasongate.)

They set up an egregiously non-transparent election system, with Bush "Pioneers" and rightwing fanatics OWNING and controlling the "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming for vote tabulation (80% of the votes); fought and prevented even a meager "paper trail" wherever they could get away with it (one third of the country); and counted on wholly inadequate audit/recount procedures elsewhere; permitted the states to purchase highly insecure, unreliable and hackable electronic systems, and funded it with $4 billions in taxpayer money (going right into the pockets of major Bush supporters), and then...?

Sat back and didn't USE that capability to hack these insecure, privately controlled, electronic systems--the ability to change millions of votes, in nanoseconds, away from all human eyes, at a few strokes of the keyboard, leaving no trace--to re-select their boy Bush?

Smarten up, people! Non-transparent elections = tyranny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robeson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. Excellent post. You are exactly right....
...I couldn't have said it better...:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #39
44. I think it's a mixture of corruption and ignorance at the Dem Party level.
Whatever their reasons, denying the fraud will not make the trust problem go away. The only way to make voters trust the system is to make the system trustworthy and prove it is so.

Anything else feeds the illusion, which fewer and fewer are buying. This particular illusion is absolutely no-win, and plays right into the scam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saged52 Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
9. excellent rebuttal letter -
we also subscribe to Mother Jones and I will be looking forward to reading your published letter!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #9
25. Do you really think they'll publish it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
10. Hertzgaard is not like that usually.
He's totally on our side.
I have enjoyed many of his interviews.

I'd suggest contacting him directly to get his comments on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #10
26. That's an interesting thought
I thought for sure that he would see a letter that was sent to the editor. If so, what would be the added advantage of sending it to him directly? I'll think about it -- maybe I'll wait a while to see what if any response I get from the editor first.

But you make an important point. Here's a reporter and a magazine who are generally on our side, but who writes an article that (as I said in the OP) is sloppy journalism at best and which IMO is destructive to our efforts to obtain much needed election reform in our failing country. It has me and probably thousands of other DUers mystified. (See my post # 11, where I speculate about this.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
12. Hard hitting journalism? Why is rebuttal always printed before the charge?
Er, the rebuttal has been printed (extremely weak) but the charge has not been given the time of day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
30. Well, he did talk about the charge some
But in far less depth than it needed.

And then, the last word was always had by some election official who came up with some lame excuse, and that was the end of it. Very strange indeed.

And as one of the other posters has said, Hertsgaard is on our side. I can believe that. But why is it that so many people who are on our side don't give this crucial problem much credence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoBushSpokenHere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
16. It is obvious to me that Hertzgaard did not do adequate
research into the election fraud. There is pending litigation regarding much of what I read in his article, so I will decline to go into it.

It appears to me that perhaps he should have interviewed people such as Sherole Eaton or some of the recount observers or perhaps even asked some investigative questions in order to obtain the truth. Perhaps he could have explained that the Hocking BOE fired Sherole Eaton without giving reason. When pressed for a reason, their answer was, "It (the reason) depends on if there is litigation or not." It seems to me if there is a reason, it shouldn't change depending on litigation.

Thank you Time for Change for writing a letter to Mother Jones regarding this article. We all need to do so. I am glad I didn't keep my subscription to this magazine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #16
31. Thank you for the insights regarding Sherole Eaton
It's hard to imagine why he Hertsgaard would repeatedly give the last word to either government officials or even a Triad official. I wonder how many people would read something like this and be convinced by it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
farmbo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
17. MoJo's Recount article: Insufficient, Inadequate, and Insulting
Hertzgaard's journalism was an embarrassment to MoJo's normally top flight standards. It was slip-shod, result- orient and one-sided; the natural result of a lazy and cowardly effort on his part. I for one will not renew my subscription to MoJo.

As an Ohio voter, I am insulted by this ham-fisted effort to undercut the fledgling Ohio voter fraud movement. Hertzgaard put forth phony premises and straw man arguments which would have made Rush Limbaugh blush, then phoned up the usual suspects (local BOE officials mostly)to breezily dismiss various components of the vote fraud case.

TFC has effectively countered the thrust of Hertzgaard's hit piece: 1) Triad illegally manipulated computers in at least ten counties we know of, not just Hocking, 2) the Warren County lockdown gave a elite group unfettered access via computer to other counties' tabulators as well as the state's central mainframe--at precisely the time that the exit poll results went south, and 3)the vote flipping in Mahoning was not "corrected"...it caused havoc the whole day long. And his article didn't even begin to evaluate the vote suppression in Franklin county caused by mis-allocation of machines.

God forbid he could have traveled to Ohio and talked to ACTUAL VOTERS instead of BUREAUCRATS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
36. Maybe this was an abarrancy that won't be repeated
I'm eager to see how they respond to my letter.

Actually, he did begin to talk about the vote suppression in Franklin County (in the complete version of the article) and he did acknowledge that it cost Kerry lots of votes, though the discussion was not adequate IMO, especially considering the damage that had already been done with the dismissal of all the other issues.

I'm interested in your statement about the Warren County lockdown. I had heard rumors of obtaining access to other counties' tabulators, etc., but I've never seen verification for that. It's also of interest that this happened towards the very end, when all but Cuyahoga County had reported. Do you know of a source that could verify the business about access to other counties' central tabulators, or how this might have affected the overall outcome?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. Yes, there seems to be little doubt that something sinister took place in
Warren County on election night.

One more question: In your quote from Conyers, he asks if remote access was used to influence the recount so as to ensure that only 3% of a non-random sample of precincts would be used. What about election night? Does he ask a similar question regarding election night?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
19. Excellent job. Nobody acknowledges the '04 election fraud. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #19
32. "Nobody" is overstating it a bit -- but not much
Mark Crispin Miller had an article in Harpers about it, and Keith Oberman on MSNBC has been terrific with his coverage of it. Barbara Boxer objected to the election on the floor of the Senate, along with 30 some U.S. Representatives, and that was covered on C-SPAN. But you're right that coverage has been woefully inadequate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
20. Kudos. I am disappointed in MJ. Is it possible that there is a mental
block on the part of journalists regarding voting? I am starting to believe that the various elements, equipment and technology utilized in counties across the nation is too cumbersome to delve into and hence the sloppy conclusion in most of the past articles ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. I believe that the mental block has to do with
something other than complexity.

The MSM doesn't even give this the time of day. I think it has to do with the fact that most people just will not let themselves believe that our democracy is being seriously threatened. We have had it drummed into our heads since we were little children that we live in the greatest democracy on earth. It's a given. Once people believe that something is God-given to them, they begin to take it for granted. Then they don't feel that they have to work hard to keep it. When we get to the point where we take our democracy for granted and don't think we have to do much in order to hang onto it, it will begin to slip away. Or rather, I believe that it is already slipping away. And if enough people don't wake up to that fact it will be gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nvliberal Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
21. Not to be picky, but if you are going to write a letter,
you should at least spell the article's author's name correctly.

It's Mark Hertsgaard. There's no "z" in his last name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Not to be picky, but many of us typically use the "PM" feature ...
... to inform our colleagues at DU of typographical errors.


Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #22
37. Actually, it was more of a seeing error
I looked at his name and thought I saw a z instead of an s.

Anyhow, thanks for sticking up for me. I don't like to make errors like that, but if that's the worst thing that can be said about my post, then I'll settle for that any day. And, it's good that s/he pointed it out at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio_liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
27. I was purged from Ohio's list of registered voters
I still have no idea why. I found out on the last day of registration, 1 hour before the county election office was to close. I'm lucky I called--one of my neighbors told me she and her husband were gone from the list and I thought it might be a good idea for me to check on my status. I drove 20 minutes to the office and had to register again at the last minute. Nobody in the office knows why I was purged. I've lived at the same address for more than 10 years and have voted in every single election.

In my county there were hundreds of voters who never received their absentee ballots and had to vote with provisional ballots. Almost 40% of Belmont County's provisional ballots were disallowed. You see, they changed/closed precincts before the election and never told anyone. No letters in the mail, no notices in the newspapers, nothing. And the ones they allowed--Bush 314, Kerry 318- almost 50% in a county where Kerry won at nearly 53%. I would bet money that the overwhelming majority of those 400 provisionals were Kerry votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Very interesting and useful information
This is the kind of information that, IMO, if a full investigation was made of this whole mess there would be numerous indictments and probably proof that Kerry won Ohio.

You might be interested in the other thread that I have up now, which talks about a recent book that IMO provides very misleading information and recommendations that are meant precisely to encourage the kind of thing that you talk about here. I would be interested if you had an opinion on that:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x397919
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sadiesworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
28. I recently subscribed to Mother Jones and have been disappointed
thus far. They are far more neo-liberal than I had expected. I hadn't really read a lot of their stuff in the past so I'm not sure whether there has been a recent shift or if they have never been particularly progressive.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. I just subscribed to them in order to get access to the full article
So I couldn't tell you for sure.

But given what a lot of people have said, it seems like this article is an aberation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
35. Standing ovation!
Bravo!! :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Wouldn't it be great if
they write back with something resembling a retraction?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. ah a dream come true!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
40. !
great letter.

mojo's lost their mojo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC