With the focus at the beginning of the film on the situation in Ohio, just out of curiosity, were there actual workers at those polling places who were interviewed, as well as just the people who were affected in line?
I actually wasn't in Ohio. What you saw in our film were basically citizen journalists who were taking pictures. They knew ahead of time there was going to be problems, or they suspected ahead of time. So there was a massive grassroots [effort].
At the hearings as well?
Yes. And those were open hearings, so workers were encouraged to come. There wasn't a great showing of that, although there was some. You saw the one guy, I don't know if he was a poll worker or not, but talking about how many machines there were supposed to be in the different areas. But we didn't interview them, because we were not physically up there during that time.
I was back in Nashville, and at that point I didn't know I was going to do a documentary. I was a citizen who felt like this was really important, and I just started doing my homework. If it wasn't going to be in the mainstream media, I was gonna do what I could to find what was out there, and I just developed my files at that point. Really, it was only when [the Nashville conference] came that I realized, Oh my God, all these people that I've been reading about and following were going to be here. So at that point, I just wanted to do something on that conference. I had never done a documentary before. We have a [film] company, but I've never done a full-length documentary. I'm a lover of documentaries, but never had the right opportunity to give to myself or had it offered to me. So once they came here and that conference was over, I had thirty hours of some pretty amazing footage. I realized, with my partners' encouragement, I needed to keep going.
This is just your speculation or your opinion... how involved do you think Bush was in the apparent tampering in the '04 election, or do you think some of that was outside his realm of knowledge?
I think probably there were people high up [among] Bush strategists, and... I appreciate you framing this as opinion or speculation, because that's what it is. I don't know Bush himself, but I do think in the strategic part of the Bush campaign, there was likely knowledge and discussions, there were probably discussions with Blackwell out of Ohio, the Secretary of State there... and I guess I would just answer your question by saying this: it's likely.
What are your thoughts, in general, on the electoral college?
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Your interview would be a lot more interesting if you hadn't stuck to nothing but softball questions and fawning on your subject.
I'd have liked to see you ask him if he had any evidence at all that any voting machines had ever been hacked during an election (there is none) and perhaps hit him with some questions about the hundreds of thousands of bogus registrations from ACORN and other leftist groups, or perhaps the cash for votes practices of Democrats in a number of southern states.
But I guess that wouldn't suit your agenda, just as the media avoids reporting on election fraud in general because they know that any unbiased and halfway thorough investigation will reveal so much more fraud from the left than the right that it would be embarassing.
Think about it. All this furor about voting machines, yet it is the city and county and state electoral bureaucracies which are dominated by Democrats which have been the main supporters of the use of these machines.
Partisans like the people who made this film have identified a legitimate problem, but they need to come to grips at some point with the reality that if there is fraud going on, it's much more likely to be their political allies who are doing it.
Dave
2 - David R. Perry
Dave,
I'm assuming that you haven't actually watched said movie. I would recommend it (it's available via Netflix, by the way; in case anyone here subscribes), as I found it very interesting, and many of the criticisms you mention are dealt with in more detail there. I was not attempting to rehash every point or claim of the film.
Granted, the film has an admittedly obvious leftist bent to it, but I think it's ridiculous to criticize the main thrust of the film, which deals with the need for more accountability and checks and balances in the voting process. That is something that only benefits a real democracy. Your quibble seems to be with "why" they're looking into it in the first place, which is less important.
If you'd like to ask your own questions, the production company seems fairly open to media inquiries. Perhaps you can help fill in the blanks of the discussion.
By the way, your critique would be more interesting if you didn't exhibit an obviously equal, but opposite, agenda. (Agendas come from both sides, you know.)
- DRP
3 - Dave Nalle
Well, I'd normally take a middle course, but when dealing with a partisan position I'm naturally inclined to take the opposite one.
I've done a lot of reading on the voting security issue == things like actual academic studies -- but there's so much propaganda out there that I'm reluctant to watch a film. The format is much easier to use for propaganda and distortion in the grand Michael Moore tradition.
These things are getting on cable, though. So when it does I'll be all over it.
Dave
4 - John
The bias is so overwhelmingly against Republicans that the film is self- discrediting.