Salon's Tim Grieve Interviews John Conyers

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/12/21/conyers/print.html

Investigating Ohio
Rep. John Conyers isn't ready to declare the election stolen, but he'll continue to dig into the droves of complaints -- and fight to fix the broken U.S. election system

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Tim Grieve

Dec. 21, 2004  |  For those who believe that the 2004 election was stolen by George W. Bush, Karl Rove and an unholy alliance of party operatives and voting-machine impresarios, a 75-year-old Democratic congressman from Detroit has emerged as the last best hope for American democracy. Almost alone in official Washington, Rep. John Conyers has insisted that the nation understand -- and then correct -- the problems that plagued the 2004 vote.

With little attention from the media and little support even from members of his own party, Conyers has launched his own probe of the 2004 election. His early conclusion: There may not have been an active conspiracy to suppress the vote and steal the election, but all those problems in Ohio -- the long lines in Democratic precincts, the voting machines that may have switched votes, the suspicious actions of a voting-machine company representative, the trumped-up concerns about terrorism in Warren County, the Republican-friendly rulings by the state election official who also happened to chair the Bush-Cheney campaign -- well, those things didn't all happen by accident, either.

"You know, orchestrated attempts don't always require a conspiracy," Conyers told Salon on Monday. Conyers said that Bush's supporters in Ohio may have worked to suppress the vote based on cues rather than orders from party officials. "People get the drift from other elections and the way talk about how they're going to win the election."

Conyers isn't looking to overturn the election, and he won't say that the Republicans stole it; coming from a member of Congress, such an allegation would be "reckless," he said. But neither is he willing to put the election of 2004 behind him yet. This is the second presidential election in a row in which Republicans have succeeded in suppressing the vote, Conyers said, and he wants to ensure that the system is changed so that it won't happen again. He'll continue his investigation, he'll join the Rev. Jesse Jackson in a protest rally in Ohio on Jan. 3, and when the new Congress meets in January he'll push for further investigation and reform.

Conyers spoke with Salon by phone from Detroit. (Date of interview not mentioned)

more...requires subscription or free day pass

[New Earth]

1. is Conyers a flip flopper?

wtf, listen to what he said yesterday on Ed Shultz show and it is NOT what he is saying here.

[SueZhope]

2. I wonder when he did the Salon interview? n/t

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

4. WTF alright. Someone posted this earlier and I said then

that I thought he said he had at least two Senators. He did say "absolutely" when asked if any Senators would be joining his protest? And Now he says he hasn't even talked to any? Why not?????

[New Earth]

5. that article might be posted today, but the interview might be old

Ed Shultz just played it AGAIN on his show, the clip from yesterday of Conyers saying he thinks more than one Senator will contest the election.

[SueZhope]

8. Faye

I just heard it also......

[SueZhope]

6. what might have happened

is he did the salon interview before the ES radio show?:shrug:

[New Earth]

7. that's what i think

he sounded pretty sure of himself yesterday.

[George W. Hayduke]

9. yes

i just heard again on the Ed Schultz radio show. Ed just played the clip from the interview again today:

paraphrasing, but 99% accurate, especially the last part:

Ed: Do you think they'll be a senator that will contest the election?

Conyers: Absolutely.

Ed: Really?

Conyers: Oh, they'll be number of them I predict.

[flpoljunkie]

10. Read Conyer's response re Congress certifying election in January...

Q. Four years ago, when it came time for Congress to certify the election results, a number of House members rose to protest the certification of the Bush electors from Florida. Not a single member of the Senate joined them. Do you expect the same thing to happen this time around?

A. No, I think the Senate is going to go along with an inquiry this time. I don't think they would embarrass themselves to let this happen two times in a row.

Q. Has any senator said to you that he or she will call for an inquiry?

A. No, I haven't talked with a single one. I'm not citing somebody who I know is going to do it. I'm not aware of anyone. I just don't think the Senate would get caught in that position.

[George W. Hayduke]

11. He's not flip-flopping...

You have to understand that he has to be careful how he responds to these interview questions.

read this part again:

Conyers isn't looking to overturn the election, and he won't say that the Republicans stole it; coming from a member of Congress, such an allegation would be "reckless," he said.

[CoffeeCat]

12. I totally agree...a Congressman has to choose words carefully...

I read the entire article, and at first I was dismayed.

Conyers appeared to be contradicting many things: It sounded like he was saying widespread, organized fraud didn't happen. It appeared that he was saying that the election should not be overturned--or at least that wasn't his goal. He seems to say that Bush didn't "steal the election."

However--as you read on--it's apparent (and Conyers even says it) that the way a citizen speaks and the way a lawmaker speaks are two different things.

If Conyers did interviews in which he insisted that the election was stolen and should be overturned--he'd have little credibility. He'd sound like a wacko to those who know little or nothing about what's going on (that's 85 percent of America). His very deliberate approach of vetting the facts and exposing the truth are very clever. He presents the truth as a professional lawmaker and then the citizens take it to the next levels.

Here are the few paragraphs that quelled my concerns:
------------------------------
Reporter: Do you think you'll ever be able to prove that there was a coordinated effort to steal the election?

Conyers: We're not trying to prove that. This is what we're discussing: We're trying to improve the situation wherever we can to make a better voting system in the states.

Reporter: But a lot of the people who support your efforts desperately want you to prove that there was a conspiracy. If the e-mails we get are any indication, a lot of them believe that the existence of a conspiracy has already been proven.

Conyers: Well, you know, a citizen's point of view may be different from a federal lawmaker's point of view. The citizens are entitled to form their own opinions. They can assert that easily. A member of Congress, the ranking member of Judiciary ... I can't make those assertions without proof. That would be reckless.

So you don't make them.

No, I don't.
-------------------

See, he can't say those things--as a high-level lawmaker. But we surely will. John, you do your part and present your case. We'll be there with our signs and our voices screaming very boldly about what those thugs did to America.

We've all got each others' backs!

[mdb]

13. ILCA Online also has this interview in full.

http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1309&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

[skids]

14. "based on cues rather than orders"

Precisely what I've been saying. This was not a "massive operation that would have required the cooperation of thousands of BOEs."

This was just a manifestation of a culture of corruption inside the Republican party, and a culture of acquiescence and negligence inside the Democratic party.

Noone needed to be told to steal or suppress votes. They just picked up on the "vibe" around them. If I were one of the paleo-cons I would be extremely ashamed that activities like this have become part of the culture of the party (and we've seen some, even here on DU, that are.)

The question is, how do you fight such a monster? This cannot be a new problem and a historical perspective might be well timed. How do you deflate a culture of bullying, dishonesty, and political graft? And, who, among established politicians and weilders of power, given the sordid past of American politics, is so "without sin" as to be able to do something about it?

[mdb]

15. Excerpt from article

Question to Conyers: "Four years ago, when it came time for Congress to certify the election results, a number of House members rose to protest the certification of the Bush electors from Florida. Not a single member of the Senate joined them. Do you expect the same thing to happen this time around?

No, I think the Senate is going to go along with an inquiry this time. I don't think they would embarrass themselves to let this happen two times in a row.

Has any senator said to you that he or she will call for an inquiry?

No, I haven't talked with a single one. I'm not citing somebody who I know is going to do it. I'm not aware of anyone. I just don't think the Senate would get caught in that position".

http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1309&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0