Are Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis (election fraud activists) considered credible by DU?

[Syrinx]

Harvey Franklin Wasserman is the author and co-author of a dozen books, and a safe energy activist and journalist/historian, fighting for a renewable green future and the restoration of democracy to the United States of America. He has been a featured speaker on Today, Nightline, National Public Radio, CNN Lou Dobbs Tonight and other major media. Wasserman is senior adviser to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an investigative reporter, and senior editor of The Columbus Free Press and www.freepress.org, where his freepress.org coverage, with Bob Fitrakis, has prompted Rev. Jesse Jackson to call them "the Woodward and Bernstein of the 2004 election."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Wasserman

Bob Fitrakis (born November 29, 1955) is a Professor of Political Science in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department at Columbus State Community College, as well as the Editor of The Free Press (freepress.org).

He has a Ph.D in political science from Wayne State University and a J.D. from the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. An investigative journalist, he is the author of eleven books, through which he has won eleven major investigative journalism awards including "Best Coverage of Politics in Ohio" from the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists. He served as an international election observer in the 1994 presidential elections in El Salvador and was the co-author and editor of the report to the United Nations.

Fitrakis rose to national prominence during the U.S. presidential election, 2004 and related 2004 U.S. election voting controversies by calling the first public hearings on election irregularities in Ohio and by filing a challenge in the Ohio Supreme Court to Ohio's presidential election results in the cases Moss v. Bush and Moss v. Moyer with three other attorneys.

Fitrakis ran for governor of Ohio in 2006 on the Green Party ticket with his running mate, Anita Rios. Together they garnered 40,965 votes for 1.02 percent of the vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Fitrakis

I ask this question, after reading this recent article that they posted at freepress.org.

It is time to think about the "unthinkable."

The Bush Administration has both the inclination and the power to cancel the 2008 election.

The GOP strategy for another electoral theft in 2008 has taken clear shape, though we must assume there is much more we don't know.

But we must also assume that if it appears to Team Bush/Cheney/Rove that the GOP will lose the 2008 election anyway (as it lost in Ohio 2006) we cannot ignore the possibility that they would simply cancel the election. Those who think this crew will quietly walk away from power are simply not paying attention.

The real question is not how or when they might do it. It's how, realistically, we can stop them.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2722

[aquart]

1. Again: How would they enforce it?

Ain't got no army.

[Syrinx]

2. other than the largest military on earth, led by generals hand-picked

Generals hand-picked because they are YES-MEN.

But my question was about the credibility of Wasserman and Fitrakis.

[ima_sinnic]

4. there has never been any doubt about their credibility (nt)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. The army is in Iraq.

And the army isn't going to enforce that sort of bullshit, no matter what the joint chiefs say. Do you really have that low an opinion of the average enlistee in the American military?

[Syrinx]

17. Sort of

I think it's about a five percent chance, right now, that the Bushies will try it. If they do, I think it's a slightly better than a fifty-fifty chance it will succeed. At least for awhile.

[aquart]

22. "Largest military on earth..."

Seen it lately?

[Syrinx]

23. I see it everyday

They have been systematically replacing the truth-tellers with the butt kissers for the last six years.

They have repealed posse comitatus and habeas corpus.

Why would they do that?

[aquart]

27. Doesn't matter. THEY HAVE NO ARMY.

The military is a: broken and b: hates their guts. You cannot have martial law on that basis.

[Richard Steele]

9. ...

[annabanana]

26. private, blackwater army. . . . n/t

[aquart]

28. Funded how?

Right now, taxpayers are shelling out for Blackwater contracts. Republicans won't dig into their own pockets to pay those bills.

Our entire army cannot control one crappy city, and you think Bush can afford enough mercenaries to police the UNITED STATES? I can hear the laughter from the Crips and Bloods right now.

[Richard Steele]

33. However B*sh feels like funding it. He's the Decider, you know.

We're running the biggest deficit now- what's a few Trillion
more to a man who WANTS to destroy the nation?

[Syrinx]

41. have you not noticed the trillions of dollars stolen from the treasury?

[orleans]

3. ? as far as i know--they are. why? n/t

[Syrinx]

15. because if they are credible in general...

Maybe they are credible on this too.

So many people seem to close out any suggestion that Bush and Cheney are truly capable of doing what the data points are beginning to not suggest, but scream.

[librechik]

30. they are credible

but they don't know any more than you or I what the crazed Dimson will do as the hounds get closer and closer to his tail.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Please explain how any president

has the power to cancel elections.

The federal government doesn't run any elections. Elections are run by states or local governments.

What possible action could Bush take to cancel nationwide elections? He has control over none of them.

[dailykoff]

6. Didn't they postpone an election in NYC scheduled for 9/11?

The one that uber-PNACer Bloombag eventually won? Just sayin'.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. The feds did?

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. The state of New York did

Who is Governor of New York now?

[Richard Steele]

8. No worries- because B*sh has never done anything he wasn't legally authorized to do, right?

:eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

12. It's like saying Bush is going to cancel

the Mexican elections.

Yes, bush has done many things he's not authorized to do - but those areas were all areas over which he had authority.

So, without the snark, tell me how a US President cancels state elections.

[Syrinx]

14. Bush, or so it seems, has the supreme authority that Bush, himself, says he has

That's true. Until Congress asserts that the administration is wrong, and that the administration can be held to account.

Perhaps the scenario is that Bush won't CANCEL elections, but just refuse to bow to their will.

Ultimately, it's the same thing.

They just ignore laws they don't like, and invent new ones they do.

I still think the scenario is unlikely to unfold, but the probability that it will is, in my mind anyway, increasing everyday. I guess it's only about five percent currently. Still, I don't like the odds.

These are officials that, if they leave office, are candidates to be treated via the very laws and policies they helped to put through. And the penalties are steep, indeed.

What violent irony that would be.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. but you haven't explained

what mechanism he has at his disposal to cancel the elections.

[Syrinx]

24. what is it about martial law that you don't understand?

Bush has the power to declare himself dictator. Or do you trust him to not use it?

The United States has been under a "declared state of national emergency" since 9/11. And if we weren't, he could declare one at any time.

Have you not paid attention to his fatwas?

A combination of his "signing statements," and executive orders, along with actual legislation that has passed in the last half dozen years (PATRIOT Acts, one and two, the Military Commissions Act, etc.) gives the president the power to declare himself dictator.

Secret arrests and torture and the loss of habeas corpus and of posse commitatus.

Have you not noticed that Congress has ceded to him the powers of all branches of government -- the powers to make laws, to enforce them at his discretion, and to ignore those that he deems "harmful to national security?"

Did you not get the memo? Have you been asleep under a rock?

I'm not saying the situation is completely hopeless. But it will be if we don't do something to get Congress off their asses and put a stop to it NOW.

[Richard Steele]

32. You can't awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep.

KnowhutImean?

[Syrinx]

40. I know what you mean, Vern :)

I don't know to laugh or cry.

[davekriss]

35. Executive Order, Marshal Law (n/t)

[Wiley50]

7. They are ABSOLUTELY CREDIBLE, in my experience re: OHIO 2004

No two people have done more to get to the truth of the fraud that happened in Ohio in Nov 2004.

They were both attendees and speakers at the Election Reform Convention we had here in Nashville in April 2005
I was fortunate to be seated next to Fitrakis at lunch on one of those days and was very impressed on a personal level, as well.

Get your hands on a copy of the book they wrote about Ohio 04 and you will have no doubts

[aquart]

29. They didn't need an army for that.

People who are willing to steal and cheat for what they believe are not necessarily willing to die for it.

[tom_paine]

10. I cannot speak for DU, but I find them very credible

That does not necessarily mean they are correct about things 100% of the time, and the Busheviks may yet get to keep control of the Imperial Throne and, subsequently, our nation, without doing what they suggest.

And never forget, while tyrants usually are not known for patience, a Ceasar-style Imperium such as took decades to institute in Rome, could in fact be in store for us, rather than the swifter-moving Hitler-Stalin model.

As with all samizdat in the American Empire and other tyrannized (although for the moment American Tyranny is the nicest, kindest tyranny yet invented) nations, it is impossible to know for sure because there are no legitimate authorities to investigate or look into such matters. No authorities independent or unbowed enough to trust what they say.

So, in our current disinformation-rich tyrannized nation ruled by the worst people possible, as it was in the old Soviet Union, we are left with samizdat and no way to confirm if what samizdat says is true.

A dilemna for all subject of Tyrannies everywhere, not just Amerika.

[Blue State Bandit]

13. I'll give Bob a big thumbs up.

He was all over the Downing Street Minutes thing with Dave Swanson, John Bonifaz, and later, Ray McGovern. They helped force the "Basement Hearing's" held by Conyers that put the first real crack in the dam.

He's a fire-brand, but he's earned my respect. Though we may differ on the fine details, he put up, and didn't shut up, when most of America needed a stern talkin' to.

You should include in his bio, afterdowningstreet.org, democrats.com, and impeachpac.org.

Give him a read.

[ck4829]

18. Wasserman was my professor in college

He is 100% credible.

[L. Coyote]

20. Their rhetoric has gone over the top several times. Think facts versus opinion.

Ask the question twice, about facts versus opinion.

Are Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis FACTS considered credible?
Are Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis OPINIONS considered credible?

I thought there was a need to reign in a bit after this article was released:

FITRAKIS: Ohio, the DOJ scandal and "Thor" - the god of voter suppression
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1159656

[Kip Humphrey]

21. Agree their rhetoric can sometimes be tin-foil-hatish, but they know the facts

of our stolen elections and their warnings should be heeded.

[Kolesar]

31. Fitrakis is surely credible but he overstates his case and pads his writing

His 2006 thesis, "What really happened in Ohio" about the 2004 election was pared down to the essential verbiage, though.

[L. Coyote]

34. NOT ANY MORE!

Criminal cover-up of Ohio's stolen 2004 election sinks to the fraudulent, the absurd, the pathetic
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1497353

[mod mom]

37. sour grapes

[L. Coyote]

38. Perhaps, they should try to get it right.

Credibility depends on correctly stating the facts.
Failure on that front is just that, nothing more.

[tom_paine]

42. "Credibility depends on correctly stating the facts. "

Just curious, why is that only the case for those opposing Royal and Loyal Bushies, but not the Royals and Loyals themselves.

[L. Coyote]

43. Says who? Everyone's credibility depends on their own statements.

And, do you want DU to adopt the R loyalist ways? No way, right?

We preserve our own credibility by treating everyone equally, judging what the say on the known facts, not their political color.

We enhance our effectiveness by openly discussing what others write and say, and by calling false statements just what they are.

[tom_paine]

44. I agree. Becoming like them was not the point I was trying to make

The point I was trying to make, and not doing a very good job of it, was that issue, the Double Standard, lies at the heart of the destruction of our once great Republic.

It is impossible for people to be completely unbiased or completely impartial, but when one side propagandizes in such a way to program everyone within reach that:

A) If a Republic or Loyal Bushies is saying or doing something, it is ALWAYS from the purest of motive and principled.

B) If a Democrat is saying or doing something, it is ALWAYS from the basest of motive and with an unprincipled ulterior motive.

This is bit one of their multi-pronged "Gestalt-based Propaganda" points...and if not opposed in the beginning, which the Democrats didn't do for almost two decades, and still don't understand what they/we are up against...when unopposed such propaganda points quickly set in cement and become "conventional wisdom".

I am not suggesting becoming like them or doing it ourselves, I am suggesting EXPOSING it, for one of the bedrock laws of advertising, PR, and propaganda (they are all the same business nowadays) is that people are much more difficult to manipulate if they know they are being manipulated.

As I said, my last post didn't say that very well, did it?

[L. Coyote]

45. I would suggest that the war of propaganda must be fought on an equal plane.

Why not do to "Conservative" what was done to "liberal" and other terms, like "socialism." Has anyone looked up the meaning of "social" since the fifties?

It is necessary to respond in kind on some fronts. On the facts and intellectual honesty, I will not budge. There are ways to wage the rebuttal without fudging the truth. Just ask Colbert!

[tom_paine]

46. Yes, but can we get the condition which allowed the rise of the Bush Party-Loyal Sub-Media?

The Bushies built their infrastructure, concretized and entreched it precisely because the Dem Leadership had no idea of what was going on, or if they did, failed to notice how important it was to counter it before the infrastructure of lies before it set into stone.

I might add, this is exactly the issue at the heart of the "Attorney's Scandal" which is in actuality a window onto perhaps the largest Bushevik Op of all, which is the Full Sovietization of the Executive Branch and the chasing out of the Capable Class to be replaced by Loyal Bushies.

Same thing Hitler did in Germany with HIS Executive Branch, too, and that is an indisputable fact.

If the Repugs would just lay down and remain silent and unoppositional to what we are trying to do for a decade or two, as the Dems did as the Bushies built their Axis of Propaganda, then I am SURE we could demonize the word "conservative".

Har har, as if!

You see, the Lying Propogandistic nature of the Bush-Party-Loyal Sub-Media has now set into stone, and has basically transformed the non-Bushie-media into transmitters of Bush party propaganda maquerading as "he said, she said" "news".

Why not do that to the word Conservative? Because we do not have a $2,000,000,000+ highly coordinated propaganda center which can actiate each of our hundreds of well-paid propagandists to repeat like the sheep in "Animals Farm" whatever words the Royal busheis choose to put into their mouths and shout down everyone else, squiritng ink like squids until nobody can tell up from down and just throw up their hands.

And at this point, even if we wanted to build such a structure (which I would definitely NOT want to do if there was any choice), we could not.

[L. Coyote]

48. Unraveling the truth vs. lies conundrum. Taking control of our own dialogue.

There are two massive disadvantages in this conundrum.

1. The media is owned by conservatives.
2. The media is willing to lie, even about themselves (like, saying the media is liberal).

The team that will not plagiarize is at a disadvantage when the other team does.

What the left fails to do is take ownership of the dialogue.
Using combinations like "lying conservatives" ad nauseum might help.
Unfortunately, such terms are not an abandonment of sticking to the truth. More unfortunate if we do not call liars just that!

[mod mom]

36. They are credible and are the ones who have gone into the individual BOEs and

looked at ballots, signature books and internal reports.

Bob ran as a green candidate beacause we could not get an assurance from Strickland that he would not concede until every vote was counted. They (rightfully so) did not trust Blackwell and Bob did not want another quick concession like we saw in '04 and which gave us *. By being a candidate, he had the legal right to challenge an election if need be.

Bob & Harvey have worked closely w Conyers ("Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio") and RFK Jr + Papantonio (much of the info in the Rollingstone article came from them). Why are they credible enough for these guys but not for some of the DUers?

I think it's wise to ask the tough questions ahead of time. We've had several stolen elections and have seen little to remedy the situation. We all assumed that Dem Leadership was working behind the scenes after '04 and all we got was 4 more years of an election stealing thug.

[L. Coyote]

39. Are you saying 60% of the ballots have disappeared?

The write, "But what makes the situation downright pathetic is that Ohio's new Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, has publicly stated she sees "no evidence" of intentional destruction in the disappearance in more than 60% of the state's counties of the ballots from the 2004 presidential election."

Either this is credible or not.

[emlev]

47. I know Bob Fitrakis and have a lot of respect for him n/t

[L. Coyote]

49. Ask him to try to stick to the facts and not exaggerate the truth beyond recognition.

That's a polite way of saying, "Cut out the blatant lies, dammit."