Al Franken Debunks ELECTION Fraud

[GrapplerHK]

OK, not really, but yesterday, Thanksgiving (I know it was a replay), he had on the Cal Tech/MIT guy who claims to have debunked the voter fraud allegations.

Al didnt really ask the guy any tough questions, he just let him go on and quote his brief study.

Why didnt Al have the Berkely guys on?

The U Penn professor Freeman?

They've both done much more extensive studies than CalTech/MIT, as weve already detailed here.

What's the deal with Mr. Franken?

[VivaKerry]

1. election fraud. It's election fraud.

voter fraud means the VOTER is committing the fraud.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine. ELECTION fraud is the way to term it.

words are important and it's so easy to use the word rove wants us to use: Voter.

anyways...Al isn't one to incite an insurrection amongst the masses. Safest liberal talkshow host we could have gotten. Oh well.

[jamboi]

22. That was a replay. Al isn't convinced yet. Wants more solid proof.

I don't blame him. He doesn't want progressives to be discredited.

[Banazir]

60. I don't trust his thinking if that's it.

It'd be better to worry about finding out the truth, not about whether or not you'll be discredited for looking for the truth. There's enough evidence that voter fraud is probable that it should be looked into, and whether or not people will be made to look silly shouldn't enter into it. Especially because we will be portrayed as silly no matter how much evidence we amass from the current data until we do the real investigations.

[stellanoir]

2. heard that interview when it first aired.

I think it was in early November prior to the publication of Freeman's or Berkeley's info.

The only interview he's done that I've heard with anyone who was well versed in the widespread incidents of fraud was with Mark Crisp Miller. Al kept saying, "well we'll look into it."

[gordianot]

3. Mr. Franken resembles his good friend Bill O'Rielly.

More so every day. Wonder if he is stocking up on vibrators?

[Ranec]

4. How was this a debunking?

Mostly the interview kept saying, "Boy, it seems like we should look into it."

I came away from the interview thinking that we should be doing spot check hand recounts.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. Franken is a Republican Light Democrat.

I can't stand to listen to him, and I don't trust him.

[IndyOp]

8. Al has made some serious mistakes...

and he has admitted them. In "Lying Liars" he talks about having done a radio special before the Iraq War in which he criticized Hans Blix (who said there weren't any WMDs) and the Dixie Chicks. He was caught up in the lies being told by the administration about Hussein and the WMD's. Al hasn't stepped up to plate to demand a recount yet (like Randi has) -- but he hasn't ever ridiculed anyone for bringing up the subject of vote fraud. If you are open to it "Lying Liars" is a good read -- he absolutely destroys Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, he courageously avenges Paul Wellstone's family and the service they held after the plane crash and Jeremy Glick (the kid whose father was killed on 9/11 and who spoke out against the attack on Iraq). "Lying Liars" also has a set of comics that illustrate the hypocrisy of the religious right (and their "Supply Side Jesus"). As for recounts - Franken is coming around - perhaps under the influence of one of the guys (Drobny) who co-founded Air America and who has been on this vote fraud issue since the week after the election. :eyes:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. Yes, Franken has made serious mistakes.

He did replay his little speech about Hans Blix and the Dixie Chicks the other day, and when listening I was sick to my stomach. He did appologize for it. Yet here he was disparaging them then. A proper little cheerleader. At the same time, here I was, just little old me, without any political connections, knowing that the war in Iraq was based on lies.

What bothers me now about him is that number one, he really hasn't gone into the case of voter fraud and disenfranchisement. He had Joe Conason on about a week ago, and Conason brought it up, but it was too late, his slot was over. Franken seemed nervous to discuss it. Secondly, he for all intensive purposes has moved on, trying to intellectualize how the Dems lost it, and how they can make a come back in the future. Thirdly, he has political aspirations, and if he perceives that anything he says now gets in the way of that later down the road, he just might not one to say it in the first place.

To me quite frankly, if Kerry doesn't pull it out at the 11th hour, there will be no tomorrow. Everything is in place to make America, Amerika.

[jamboi]

26. I think he's had an epiphany. I think its good he can change and admit he

was wrong. Flexibility = strength. Who is perfect? Not I.

[zann725]

13. He's changed since the Election. I don't listen to him anymore either.

n/t

[nashville_brook]

6. i heard that yesterday

and i think he said something about wanting to take the allegations very seriously and that that's why he's waited so long to address them.

the Cal Tech guy actually said that he thought there was enough "irregularities" with optical scan voting to warrent more of a look-see.

it sounded to me like Franken was ready to start dealing with vote fraud, but wanted to position himself as above the tin foil hat crowd.

the fact that jesse jackson is calling for protests was also a good sign yesterday.

[autorank]

7. Franklin has always made me comfortable.

Like a weekend night when you were a teenager...the friend you were always worried would start a fight with the toughest guy at the game or do something strange. Well now he's just an asshole media jerk. No more books Al, no more ratings. Exact question that leads me to this conclusion "Why didn't Al have the Berkly guy on?" Indeed, why not him or several others who are readily identifiable. To be honest (I have Sirius Satellite), even before he showed his true colors, I would always listen to "Talk Left" instead of Al just based on the quality o of the show and Al's edginess (for no real purpose).

[signmike]

12. Uncomfortable with Franklin

Ben gave me the willies when he flew the kite in the storm. And when he built that monster = Franklin Stein

[autorank]

35. Welcome to DU. Franklin is actually my favorite President.

Whenever I see his face commemorated on our currency, it brings a smile to my face. Actually I just heard his heir, Al, say that we're in 'crony capitalism fascism'. He followed up and said, ironically, that he didn't mean fascism in the 'pejorative sense.' Droll.

You are fitting in the the hallowed DU tradition of mocking users for careless spelling. I like it! Happy Commercial Shopping Festival!

N.B. I do know that Franklin wasn't a President. Should have been, though!

[signmike]

38. Dead Presidents

I get a kick out those who refer to $100 bills, specifically, as Dead Presidents. As the "Portraits of President Franklin in the back of the book" in "Midnight Express".
Recently a customer assured me that I would be paid in "Franklins" -- I said "What? You're bringing me a sack of half-dollars?"
to which he said, and I quote ; "Huh?"


Oh, well...

[Benhurst]

9. Al 's OK I guess; but I think the show would be better if

his co-host took over. She could then have Fraken on once or twice a week for comic relief. She is more knowledgeable and is better suited for a serious talk show. And these are damn serious times.

As it is, I've pretty well stopped listening.

[tngledwebb]

10. You getting the picture?

The immense scale of the problems we face...

[pat_k]

11. Joe Conason and Franken both need our attention

The failure of Franken to join the fight for the integrity of this election has been very damaging. Joe Conason too seems to subscribe to the "there's no there, there" position too. There are many others who should be in the forefront who are not. I think we can bring them on board tho.

Targeting MSM is all well and good, but we need to get out the http://dfa.meetup.com/553/boards/view/viewthread?thread=889714">clue-sticks and use them on our side.

[tngledwebb]

14. And when the Nation's David Corn poo-poos fraud

we get an idea of the scale of the problems we face.

[GayGuyinCalifornia]

28. If David Corn is saying there wasn't fraud...

then that really gives me pause. I just don't get it. Am I living in an alternate reality?

[tinanator]

58. only if you listen to what david corn has to say

screw him and his fraternal buds.

[JaneEyrez]

15. My problem with Al Franken...

who I used to just LOVE, is that he rambles... and he says things that seem to indicate that his listeners know what he's talking about when he's being way TOO OBSCURE for more people to follow. He's also bad about cutting people off when they're making really interesting points, so he can go back to muttering and rambling about obscure issues. His biggest crime is that he's just not an effective talk show host. I'm a liberal and I can't stand to listen to him... after I thought I would just love him hosting a talk show.

Very strange.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. One more thing about Franken!

His schticks are annoying!

Here is a good example. He had on Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, who was discussing the utmost important fact that we are in serious danger due to global warming. It's getting quite dire. Well Franken cuts in with a guest from the North Pole to discuss it, Santa Claus. I was listening to it on my car radio and while driving I was screaming at him to stop this garbage! lol!

[jamboi]

24. well, he is making the awful truth more palatable w/ humor. I like it.n/t

[GuvWurld]

18. Air America is NOT Our Friend

From even before they went on the air it was clear that we could not and should not expect Air America to be a revolutionary force, despite their marketing position as such. Everything about their business is set up with the long-term goal of being profitable. This in itself is not the problem. However, this aim is paramount, ahead of an agenda of specific, tangible change. Therefore, they are working for money more than they are working for change. This is another great example of the false alternative. If you wonder who to trust, or how you can distinguish real from false alternatives, start by examining the premise of the stated goals. Here's a hint: aspiring to fight a more effective war on a tactic also made Kerry a false alternative from day one.

[mzmolly]

20. Sorry, Kerry was the ONLY alternative after the primaries. And, he

was an excellent alternative at that.

[GuvWurld]

23. Please support your argument

I've shown why Kerry and the democratic party and the two-party system and doing a re-count are all false alternatives. How do you support your claim?

[mzmolly]

31. LOL. You've shown what?

:eyes:

I've heard your tired diatribe before. It's not very original - nor is it worth my time, frankly.

[carl_pwccaman]

43. Alternative.... to what menace?

As for Kerry andthe Democratic party being false alternatives....

Doesn't that depend on what you are seeking an alternative from, as your primary concern?

My primary concern is that the religious right impulses and culture of reaction and scapegoating and police abuses, has gone too far, and really needs to stop. Utilizing whatever tools are available, to counteract it, so that instead of scapegoating and such rampant recklessness and abuse, we have more hope of politics as usual, and focusing on issues and having dialog and discussions, is crucial in our country, culturally. Democrats of all stripes, can help do that, as can Moderates and Radicals and Anarchists and Greens, and even discontented Conservatives. But Democrats, as a whole, could be a large player in that, don't you think? Especially on the member/grass roots level, but hopefully at the top, too.

If these sorts of issues are not dire enough for you, I question your sense of proportion, your judgment, your assessment of the dangers.

As for a recount, it may or may not be a good thing, tactically, strategically, politically, or in terms of reaching out to people, politically, and making gains for progressive politics.

As for limiting ourselves to the Democratic party, or limiting ourselves to top-down strategy, that would be foolish, in my view.

Is the Democratic party an alternative to the general corporate politics problems America faces? Not unless it is seized by the membership from the grass roots on up, and lots of changes happen. There is too much top down and money-driven lobbying and corporate influence in the Democratic Party, to be sure.

But a coalition party that includes a diversity of views and accepts a plural america, and discussion of issues, that has issues with corporatism, can at least do politics as usual. The Republicans can't even do that, but have strayed into radical territory, and have corroded the discussion in America way beyond anything Democrats have done.

The kitchen is on fire, so before remodeling, let's put out the fire. (Refering to something Arianna Huffington said...)

[GuvWurld]

54. Determining False Alternatives

carl_pwccaman - you ask a fair question:

"As for Kerry and the Democratic party being false alternatives....

Doesn't that depend on what you are seeking an alternative from, as your primary concern?"

This dovetails with this thread, where my response below is also posted...

No, it does not depend. These false alternatives exist against the static determination of whether democracy in America is reality or myth. Both parties openly work very hard to preserve and perpetuate the two-party system. The two-party system stifles competition of ideas and defiles the premise of democracy. For Kerry and the Dems as a whole to NOT be false alternatives, they would have to succeed at ending the two-party system, the war, the 9/11 cover-up, and corporate control of media, government, and election administration (just for starters). Kerry and the Dems do not even consider these changes among their goals.

We are no longer in the era of Anybody But Bush. That was always a snake oil medicine pitch anyway. We're now in the era of fascism and our big picture goal has to be peaceful revolution. Smaller, more immediate steps must first emerge, of course, in order for such talk to mean anything. And this is why I encourage you all to get involved with the No Confidence Movement.

[madozone]

59. Are you involved?

You're criticizing the Democratic party, but I wonder if you have ever tried to become involved in it? There is a tremendous lack of interest for folks to get involved at the grass roots level, which only perpetuates a system where the party is run in a top-down fashion. If 10% of the people who voted for Kerry actually joined their county Democratic parties the face of the national party would change dramatically.

It's easy to say that we need more parties. It's easier to bring a handful of like minded individuals together than it is to affect change in a larger, established group. But the structure is there and the opportunity is there to do so. I've been stunned by what I can do in my home state, and that is all due to the low membership numbers.

Parties exist to consolidate and focus the power of the people. The Democratic party is able to count on a consistent voter base that is otherwise uninvolved in the party (and does not even try), and thus the disconnect between the party and the people grows. Why not work to change that?

[GuvWurld]

61. Why not...?

The reason why not is a leopard doesn't change its spots. For some perspective on the history of the Dems, read this (I did not write it).

I am not down on the Dems for its own sake - I'm not looking for anyone to kick. I am very much involved in framing positive, forward looking ideas ("what would be better?") that differentiate between false alternatives and genuine, ruthlessly honest descriptions of the elements in our society responsible for preserving and perpetuating myths.

As Thom Hartmann says, we have to start telling different stories - and for me, this starts with the No Confidence Movement: there will be no BASIS for confidence in the legitimacy of US elections until we have realized at least the eight significant changes called for in the No Confidence Resolution.

[GuvWurld]

62. Essential Reading on False Alternatives

Please see the latest entry in the GuvWurld blog for some additional perspective on "ruthless honesty," debunking doublespeak, and the track record of progressives.

[jamboi]

25. AA is not revolutionary, no, but as moderates they are great friends.

To be credible I wouldn't want them to be too wild eyed. But you know it has been AA's Randi Rhodes and Laura Flanders who have really propelled this forward, so I don't see how we can say they are not our friends. Also, just as with FNC you have to see each host as individual and taking their own approach. Randi and Laura are certain enough to push on election fraud, and Al is still waiting. Each are being true to themselves and their own sense of what is true. How can we fault them for that? They are not clones.

[googly]

27. Excuse me? Is there a corporation out there who does not want profits?

Air America is no different! And to Al Franken, his income is much much more important than ideology. Same thing for all others. Take their profits away and see how long they will continue writing books or making movies. Wake up to reality folks!

[jamboi]

40. Of course they want profits. Profits are the only way we are going to have

a voice. Fortunately there are lots of us and progressive entities can be profitable too. We can't rule out for-profits just for idealogical reasons or we'll never get anywhere.

[GuvWurld]

56. Profits are fine, but prioritize

I'm not against AA for their pursuit of profit. That is fine. In fact, I'm not against AA at all. I'm just saying that until they make leading the way towards change their overt goal, they are not really our friends, they are just another false alternative.

Ask yourself, what is advocacy journalism? Is it AA, prioritizing profit over a lead role in using their resources to do the organizing actually needed to create large scale change? Or is it the NYTimes dismissing calls for election fraud investigation, 9/11 investigation, or truthful reporting about threats to our country? If you compare these examples, AA softly defines a safe set of dissenting parameters, hardly advocacy of anyone. On the other hand, The Times actually manipulates what the public accepts as reality. Their advocacy of the official line works to organize the masses into accepting what we would otherwise have opposed if the truth were known.

If AA is really on our side, they should become the voice of the revolution.

[Ronbrynaert]

45. Don't Diss The Air America Network

Most of the jockeys barely even get paychecks.

Listen to Randi Rhodes and Janeane Garafolo and you'll see they're our friends.

[Ladyhawk]

55. Interesting quote from the site you linked.

"The bottom line, for now: This 'election' has broken the bank on what passes for reality. If you were in the Anybody But Bush camp, you may feel like Kerry sold you out. Let it go. The entire government has been pissing in your ear while picking your pocket and mortgaging your future. Getting to the bottom of what happened this week must be connected with the long-term and systemic changes described throughout the GuvWurld blog for the past seven months."

I've gone from angry to suspicious.

[mzmolly]

19. Al Franken felt that Colin Powel was truthful when he testified before the

UN too. I don't hold it against him though. If there was fraud we'll get to the bottom of it and he'll come around again.

[GoSolar]

21. It's surprising that Franken

did not know that the reasons for going to war were false, when that information was so widespread, at least in the progressive media, such as Pacifica. Even at the protests, there were so many speakers who raised all the issues that have since come to light in the mainstream media.

He was wrong about Iraq, and he is wrong not to more seriously raise issues of election fraud.

[malatesta1137]

29. Franken is sucking up to red states nutbags

He wants to run for the Senate, he's just another corrupt self-serving politician.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

32. I agree.

[jamboi]

41. No way! That's silly. I've never heard him suck up. He's just moderate

compared to some others. I'm moderate too. If we fragment idealogically we'll never get anywhere. Let's be practical and make a difference. Getting something is much better than getting nothing. progress is progress.

[malatesta1137]

52. this moderate talk is pure bullshit

it gets you nowhere, look at Bush, he's an extremist and for standing for what he believes, as disgusting as it may be, he's conquered all ALL all the power. Moderates like Franken are a waste of everybody's fucking time.

[RaulVB]

53. Amen! (n/t)

[Minstrel Boy]

30. The thing about Franken is he is hardwired to dismiss "conspiracy"

A not uncommon failing in the mainstream, even on the "respectable" left.

Anything that could be popularly described as a "conspiracy theory" is immediately tainted. David Corn does this, too. It's in their nature. The merits of the particular charges are irrelevent. If it's "conspiracy," they are predisposed to hysterical blindness.

They don't really study the evidence. They don't give a fair hearing to the case. When the word "conspiracy" is whispered, their eyes glaze over and their brain switches off.

Consider what Jeffrey Bale writes in "'Conspiracy Theories' and Clandestine Politics":

"Very few notions generate as much intellectual resistance, hostility, and derision within academic circles as a belief in the historical importance or efficacy of political conspiracies.... The idea that particular groups of people meet together secretly or in private to plan various courses of action, and that some of these plans actually exert a significant influence on particular historical developments, is typically rejected out of hand and assumed to be the figment of a paranoid imagination.

"The mere mention of the word 'conspiracy' seems to set off an internal alarm bell which causes scholars to close their minds in order to avoid cognitive dissonance and possible unpleasantness."

[mzmolly]

33. Exactly. He doesn't want to be labeled a "conspiracy theorist"

:eyes:

I think he has more faith in the system than many do. But, we need to accept that disagreement is ok around here. He's not a villan because he doesn't agree with everything many here do.

[Minstrel Boy]

34. Yup. I think it's a particular issue for the left because

the left is already considered dubious in the American marketplace of ideas.

For spokespersons of the left to get mainstream hearings is rare enough. Those would be jeopardized by the individuals making themselves vulnerable to the ridicule and accusations of mental illness that are inevitably hurled towards "conspiracy theorists."

I agree, they're not villains for this. It's a matter of choosing one's battles, and also of paradigms.

[mzmolly]

37. Exactly. Sometimes in order to remain "credible" one has to

tread carefully. I think AF believes Bush won fair n square. I remain openminded and hope if there was fraud we find out about it.

However, one of the MOST important things all of us can focus on in the coming years is a standardized our national election process with a verifiable paper trail. Voter confidence is key.

I was encouraged by the recent statement by John Kerry to this effect.

[carl_pwccaman]

39. Building a reasonable and demonstratable case against opponents

There are issues besides mere PR and 'credibility'.

Proof is a good thing to look for. Repeated patterns of lack of accountability, opportunity, and a demonstrated mechanism to manipulate, are helpful in showing how something inappropriate could have been pulled off. But with proof you can sidestep the dubious game of trying to guess/assess someone's real motivations and secret thoughts/agenda.

It isn't just about credibility. What is the nature of your political movement or agenda? Is it one that involves many educated people coming to wise decisions? Then in that case, getting as many people educated and to encourage them to make wise decisions, has to be what you prefer, as far as your methodology goes. Just saying you don't trust something, or that you know someone's secret motivations/character/thoughts, is not sufficient in that case (though that may work for authoritarians in leading the faithful who are swayed by authoritarian political agendas), I mean any group of people can have suspicions and fears and assumptions about others, and then bluster about, but it only makes for a lot of reaction, typically.

Ours is not a reactionary cause.

It is important to us, for example, that pockets of Democrats in the sea of Republicans in the South and Mid-West, are supported, assisted, and encouraged and empowered. It is important to us, to help neighboring Republicans understand our concerns, the basic understanding of the constitution and civil/human rights that we have (and I also believe, to show them that these are grave moral issues of far more dire importance than issues of personal consenting sexuality)

So how do we reach out and educate people about facts, and how they fit together, in a way that can really be conveyed, to work for our movement, and bring us together, on what we can reason about together, among a plurality of viewpoints?

Whether someone accepts a given theory or faith or wide-ranging conspiracy, is another facet of that plurality, but it cannot really unite across divides.

But when you can prove widespread corruption, opportunity, and examples of abuse, and specific facts that are clearcut and ominous, people can appreciate that, across a diversity of opinions on other wider-ranging issues. Some connections behind the scenes can be demonstrated beyond the wider ranging conspiracy theories, and perhaps can serve to motivate people to oppose tyranny or corruption on larger scales, that can finally come to the light of day for all to see. In that sense a conspiracy could be brought to light in a way that helps our cause, and yet our movement would not be based merely in reaction.

We have to sort those kinds of things out.

[mzmolly]

49. I agree that it's not just about credibility - certainly hope I didn't

give the impression that it was?

Though I do think that "credibility" is important in the larger goal which you pose here:

So how do we reach out and educate people about facts, and how they fit together, in a way that can really be conveyed, to work for our movement, and bring us together, on what we can reason about together, among a plurality of viewpoints?

One needs a certain amount of credibility to reach out as you suggest ...

[bleever]

36. Al will come around once enough info and action has seeped

into the national conversation to inoculate people who discuss it against the conspiracy-rejection reflex mentioned above.

BTW, some wiley character might just use that reflex to his own advantage... ;)

[jamboi]

42. Definitely! n/t

[understandinglife]

44. Agree and here's something else...

....to bring, persistently, to Al's attention and others, TIA's analysis at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=79760&mesg_id=79760&page=

Al should press M&E to come onto his show, and use the numbers they have to either refute or corroborate TIA, Freeman, and others' analysis. Al could place the request squarely in the frame of "USA vs Ukraine: Exit poll paradox."

Best to push the issue not only with Al but with Randi Rhodes, Olbermann, Okrent at the NYTimes, etc.

And, I suggest you include "Prove My Vote Counts, Now", since anyone who gives that phrase a moment's thought realizes just how broken our franchise is.

Peace.

p.s. by the way, for anyone to claim they've 'debunked Freeman, TIA, the Berkeley group, et al, would have to have the information M&E are refusing to release and THEY would have to prove to US that no tampering occurred at central tabulating centers in at least 16 States (not just in OH, FL and PN).

[Ronbrynaert]

46. Al's been nice about it at least

He hasn't thrown the tin foil label at anyone...the truth is his politics are more centrist than his satire...which is as lefty as you can get.

[understandinglife]

50. We definitely want to thank him and urge him to keep...

...questioning; keep the issue alive.

Thank you.

[Carolab]

47. Al is being a REAL WIMP

He thinks he'll run for office so he's protecting his "potential political capital".

OH REALLY, AL? Well, I for one won't vote for YOUR CHICKENSHIT BUTT--and I happen to LIVE in MINNESOTA!

Oh, and by the way, Al, since the machines/elections are rigged in favor of Repugs, what do you think your chances would be of beating Coleman, anyway?

[RaulVB]

48. Business as usual

Franken is just following his own personal game plan.

He believes he'll be a senator "one day", so why would you care to risk your "political capital", he thinks.

One more mainstream Democrat without spine.

[Dr Fate]

51. Lets have an OFFICIAL investigation of nationwde "glitches" anyway.

Elections are too close these days to shrug this off- AL is on the worng side of this.

[Green Clover]

57. He's right

Move ON PEOPLE!! Man this is frustrating. This is why we continue to lose!

He's right

http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4038

or

http://elections.gmu.edu/Berkeley.html


or


http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~jasonl/vote_note.html

or


http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/more_on_the_ber.html


or


http://newmarksdoor.typepad.com/mainblog/2004/11/still_more_on_t.html