ComputerWorld blogs (nervously) on Connell’s death

thanks for the link. but I’m afraid you misinterpreted a few things about my post.

first, “nervous”? I’d use “cautious,” or at least, unwilling to jump to conclusions without a few more facts to break my fall.

second, “fabricating tales”? where exactly did I do that? I did suggest that one of the things Connell might have testified was the 2004 election rigging theory was a liberal fantasy (but that’s not what I would say, personally). it’s one of three possible results from testimony we will now never get, beyond the man’s deposition.

I also said I hadn’t seen any reports on this story that weren’t in the left-leaning blogosphere. actually, I did find one on cbsnews.com, though it was mostly about Connell and the speculation about his role, without really diving into the plane accident or what might have caused it. but nearly everything I’ve seen on this (emphasis on “I’ve seen”) is from rawstory.com, huffington, brads blog, epluribus, etc. if those aren’t left-leaning, I don’t know what is.

really, I’d love to see much broader (and deeper) coverage of both connell’s death and what happened in ohio in 2004. I’m dying for it. if you know of some, please tell me. but I’m unwilling to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon until we have more facts.

you may call that nervous. I call it trying to be responsible.

peace,

dt

Well, I got your attention!

The point is that you spend a lot more time belaboring your skepticism
than you do reporting on the facts, which happen to be very troubling,
whether one is on the “left” or “right.” I cannot see that as “responsible,”
since it deprives your readership of highly pertinent information.

That Karl Rove threatened Connell, for example, is a matter of public record, since attorney Cliff Arnebeck has publicized his letters to Mukasey et al. (Those threats came up in the deposition, although that part of it is sealed.) And Stephen Spoonamore’s affidavits——which named Connell in the first place, and thoroughly describe the GOP’s election-rigging measures——cannot be dismissed as “liberal fantasy,” since Spoonamore is, first of all, a conservative Republican, and, second, someone who knew Connell well, and worked with him (and who can document his claims).

These are points you might have mentioned, rather than play up, and goof on, the supposed lunacy of those who have been looking into this whole matter. The coverage on the sites you mention has been very sane and careful, and fact-based. (See Raw Story’s latest, on the NTSB report.) They
don’t comprise a “conspiracy bandwagon”——and, again, to write them all off as a bunch of “liberals” is misleading.

Left of Bush they are for sure. (Offhand I can’t think of any journalists who aren’t to Bush’s left.) But Democrats and liberals have _ignored_ the Connell story, and the problem of election fraud in general, as pointedly as anybody on the right, or anybody in the mainstream press (which, as you note indirectly, just won’t go there). Those concerned about election integrity are mostly independents, some are libertarians, and there are also some——like Spoonamore, Clint Curtis, Paul Craig Roberts and Chuck Herrin——who are staunch conservatives.

In short, the claim that this is just a “liberal” fixation is, indeed, a fabrication.

In any case, I thank you for responding.

MCM