Posted on 10/01/2004 1:05:08 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
In recent weeks, we have witnessed a once trusted news anchor tarnish his reputation, and that of a once proud network, by airing, and then inexplicably defending, almost certainly fake and partisan documents. With his latest opinion essay, which appears above on this page, we see former President Jimmy Carter tarnish his once sterling reputation as well.
In his essay, which has received widespread coverage since being published in The Washington Post earlier this week, Carter questions the integrity of not only the voting system in Florida, but the integrity of the state's Republican elected officials. With regard to Florida and the chance of more voting irregularities during the upcoming presidential election, Carter says, "The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair."
That Carter can even make such a statement is not only laughable but a slap in the face to the millions of Venezuelans who feel Carter himself just robbed them of a "transparent, honest and fair" election. Last month, the people of Venezuela went to the polls in a historic recall election against President Hugo Chavez — a man who many believe is a dictator in everything but name. Chavez is a "leader" who has threatened the United States, used the most vile language to
criticize President Bush, openly courted almost every terrorist state in the world, has thousands of Cuban intelligence agents spying on his own people, and controls the spigot to our third-largest supplier of oil and gasoline.
Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center were among the international observers on hand to certify the results of the recall referendum. To say the "election" was controversial would be an understatement. The opposition and its American exit polling company (which has done work for John Kerry and other Democrats) confidently stated that their exit polls showed the vote against Chavez running about 2-to-1 in favor of recalling him. When the votes were "counted," however, it was the opposition that lost by that same 2-to-1 margin. How?
Shockingly, Carter almost immediately blessed the results that would keep Chavez in power, and then headed out of the country. It seems the former president has a different definition of "transparent, honest and fair" depending on which country he is in, or who might be running for office in our country.
Let us look at the criteria Carter used to certify Chavez as the winner of the recall.
First of all, the electronic voting machines used in the recall election were operated by a company that had connections to Chavez and his government. Next, the National Electoral Council, which would determine the sanctity of the votes, was controlled by Chavez. On the day of the referendum, there was no open audit at the polling stations to reconcile the paper ballots to the electronic voting machines. After the election, there was no inspection of the voting machines. Nor was there an impounding of the election data. The paper ballots that could have proved the results were mysteriously lost or destroyed. And on and on.
In the face of all of that, Carter found the election to be transparent, honest and fair.
After this international disgrace, in which Chavez praised Carter for his help, Carter has the nerve to say that Florida now needs "a nonpartisan electoral commission ... " and "uniformity in voting procedures ... "
Carter closes his column by saying, "With reforms unlikely at this late stage ... perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida."
"Suspicious?" Does he have no shame?
Carter finds nothing "suspicious" about the outcome of what many independent observers feel was a stolen election in Venezuela — an election Carter certified to the horror of millions of Venezuelans desperate for the rule of law — but thinks nothing of questioning the integrity of Gov. Jeb Bush or the hard-working officials who will oversee the vote in Florida come Nov. 2.
While certain network anchors may endorse such thinking, I suspect most Americans will be troubled by the double standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MacKinnon was press secretary to former Senator Bob Dole. He is also a former White House and Pentagon official and an author.
After the debacle in Florida four years ago, former president Gerald Ford and I were asked to lead a blue-ribbon commission to recommend changes in the American electoral process. After months of concerted effort by a dedicated and bipartisan group of experts, we presented unanimous recommendations to the president and Congress. The government responded with the Help America Vote Act of October 2002. Unfortunately, however, many of the act's key provisions have not been implemented because of inadequate funding or political disputes.
The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair.
The Carter Center has monitored more than 50 elections, all of them held under contentious, troubled or dangerous conditions. When I describe these activities, either in the United States or in foreign forums, the almost inevitable questions are: "Why don't you observe the election in Florida?" and "How do you explain the serious problems with elections there?"
The answer to the first question is that we can monitor only about five elections each year, and meeting crucial needs in other nations is our top priority. (Our most recent ones were in Venezuela and Indonesia, and the next will be in Mozambique.) A partial answer to the other question is that some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida.
The most significant of these requirements are:
• A nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process before, during and after the actual voting takes place. Although rarely perfect in their objectivity, such top administrators are at least subject to public scrutiny and responsible for the integrity of their decisions. Florida voting officials have proved to be highly partisan, brazenly violating a basic need for an unbiased and universally trusted authority to manage all elements of the electoral process.
• Uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy. Modern technology is already in use that makes electronic voting possible, with accurate and almost immediate tabulation and with paper ballot printouts so all voters can have confidence in the integrity of the process. There is no reason these proven techniques, used overseas and in some U.S. states, could not be used in Florida.
It was obvious that in 2000 these basic standards were not met in Florida, and there are disturbing signs that once again, as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms.
Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000. Several thousand ballots of African-Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African-Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as allegedfelons.
The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore. She ordered Nader's name be included on absentee ballots even before the state Supreme Court ruled on the controversial issue.
Florida's governor, Jeb Bush, naturally a strong supporter of his brother, has taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future.
It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation. It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy. With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida. [End Text]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former president Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta.
Carter continues to be more of a joke as a former president than he was as a sitting president. Perhaps next week he'll regale us with his views on how to give away more of our country's property?
The MSM will slobber all over this "Nobel Peace Prize" communist sympathizer.
I'll take "He's a Communist." for a thousand Alex"
Carter never met a communist he couldn't support.
"Correct!"
Yes, he is a Communist sympathizer, and the most impotent president in history. He thinks that there is some good in all bad people, and that fighting isn't the way. There is a word for that, and it isn't polite.
The answer to the title question is simple: He ran the Venezuelan election. He doesn't run the Florida election. It's all a matter of control.
LOL I can think of several.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.