drational is a piece-of-crap scumbag blogger who should be banned from blogging for a few years. His after-the-fact article does nothing to alter his initial response.

Greg Palast has shown himself to be credible in everything he's ever published should not have been supported. Let's not forget that DailyKOS has an agenda, and it has NEVER been in support of honest elections.

DailyKOS was shutting down discussion of the theft of the 2000 and 2004 elections for years. At a time when they could have been mobilizing tens of thousands of activists to get to Ohio and make a difference and when they had the ear of many mainstream Democrats who stil believed that elections were somewhat honest, they sold out. They have bought into the "mainstreaming" of the blogosphere and are an example of a "co-opted" site.

For honest reporting and discussion of the issues of electoral integrity, there is only one site on the web that can be trusted: THE PRIME SITE FOR DISCUSSION OF ELECTORAL INTEGRITY ON THE WEB. The site that has been here from the beginning. The site has broken more stories about the theft of elections by the corrupt and repugnant Rethuglican Party:

That site is www.bradblog.com.

Thanks for seeing my research worthwhile despite the issue over how I handled my problems with Palast's reporting.

In my original blog piece, I suggested errors in reporting can be dangerous to people who repeat errors without asking to see the facts. I saw some apparent errors in a brief look at the data and Palast's work. I asked his spokesperson during liveblogging at Kos to clear the air, and he didn't. I emailed Palast several times with no response. I felt I was getting the brushoff. So when power brushes you off, I think most of us in the pajama class would think something was wrong with the picture. Maybe I was brushed off because my style was overly-aggressive? Respect for power or institutions never stopped Palast from aggressiveness. In essence Palast is power and an institution in the progressive world. Some argue that deserves special respect. I argue that progressives should be able to take scrutiny as well as we dish it out.

Palast was critical in exposing caging. His persistence on the issue is admirable. He got a lot of people interested, and he deserves credit. I got interested in caging because of Armed Madhouse. He was very right about racial bias in the lists. However, he was also apparently very wrong about several things, things central to his analysis that could have been figured out in the 2 and a half years he has been working on this. These errors can potentially hurt progressives when Congressmen are conducting inquiries. In the end, I hope he will take the time to explain how he arrived at his reporting on the GWB.org emails, and I also hope he keeps digging, but that he will be challenged to source his reporting better and dig deeper. Finally, I also hope he will not take the blogger class for granted. We are not simply people who buy his books.

I apologize to Palast and others who were offended for making it appear that I did not respect his lifetime commitment to progressive causes. But I don't apologize for asking him questions, asking him to prove his claims, and asking him to explain inconsistencies in his reporting and data. Everyone should be doing this whenever anyone in the media tells us something. Is there anyone here who doubts for a minute if it were Palast in my pajamas, he would have been every bit as aggressive and indignant as I was with him when I was getting a brush-off?

I hope we can all focus on the real problem now, voter suppression. I, and others, have done work on caging issues that I hope will help refine Palast’s reporting. I hope we can all continue to fight together against those who are the real enemies of Democracy.

drational said:

In essence Palast is power and an institution in the progressive world. Some argue that deserves special respect. I argue that progressives should be able to take scrutiny as well as we dish it out.

I would agree with you. Yet I don't believe "scrutiny" was/is the issue. You didn't offer simply "scrutiny", you offered a broadside attack --- describing him as "dangerous", and casting other unsupported aspersions on his work --- before bothering to do your research.

As I instruct folks all the time, they should be skeptical of my reporting, and anyone else's. Thus, I try to provide independently verifiable info whenever possible along with my reports.

But that's not the question here. You did not challenge, you attacked.

And btw, you also never bothered to link to his response from your original item where you said (paraphrasing) "Gotta run, but I hear he's preparing a response". You never linked up to that response in any of your myriad Updates. (As well, you never bothered to link to it at at it's original source, when you finally did link to it. That original source was here at The BRAD BLOG, but that's a minor point.)

Where you find/found discrepancies in his work, you do all of us a service to report it. To hide behind some silly claim that you are doing god's work in protecting Congressional investigators by scaring the shit out of them in calling him "dangerous" is patently absurd.

While I'm sure they appreciate your diligence in your latest reporting, they have a responsibility to authenticate any such reporting before using it in an inquiry (and they have done so, btw.)

You were out of line, and you should apologize. Unqualified. Beyond that, I appreciate the due dilligence you have put into your subsequent follow-ups, as mentioned.

I, too, read drational's "dangerous" piece on dKOS (not a site I frequent). That piece did not question Greg Palast. It attacked, and it attacked hard. IIRC, Palast was called an "entertainer" and panned for wearing a fedora. The above comment by drational in no way qualifies as the kind of apology that is needed.

Can't give more than I have.
Initial review suggested overstatement.
I pointed this out, attacking or not, and was not given a straight answer.
too many lists claimed, too many names.
This I knew when I first "attacked".
He could not be straight about the numbers.
I understand the defense, but attacking my style in no way addresses the points I raised.

I am neither defending Palast, nor "attacking" you. I am, responsibly, holding your feet to the fire for what I see as irresponsible behavior akin to the type you initially suggested Palast was guilty of.

Note I didn't not post an article headlined "Why drational is dangerous" though using your logic, I certainly would have been justified.

Also, please note, I have addressed the "points [you] raised" by pointing folks to them and letting them decide for themselves, along with noting that your criticism, where you have evidence that Palast is wrong on any particular item (versus where you were critical simply because you were unable to independently verify, and thus took the opportunity to insinuate Palast was wrong) is fully appropriate.

As mentioned originally, an unqualified apology is appropriate. Whether you wish to avoid same, by continuing to justify your inappropriate attacks, will be up to you, of course.

"Drational" should not come out of the closet behind their on-line moniker and reveal who he or she is by name and occupation and where he/she earns their livelihood. Greg Palast is out in the open and everyone knows who he is, and thus, is open to have cheap shots taken at him by scoundrels like Drat. So who are you really, Drat?

Oops. I meant "Drational" SHOULD come out of the closet, not the opposite.

at the end of the day you guys are all angry with me because of the opinions I have of Palast's work, and how I expressed those opinions. You want me to apologize.

At the end of the day, I have problems with the truth of the number of caging lists at GWB.org (2 not 50); the number of names caged 1833 + 21 in nevada, not 1886 or thousands or tens of thousands or 70,000; where the lists are. duval, not Plantation or Ghettos of Lauderdale or Palm Beach; Buffalo soldiers (23 of 43 white); Prausa Black (Prausa White); Duval= example how elections stolen (no one in duval challenged at polls). Majority African American ZIPs- No. Zip Targeted mailings- no.
His researchers missed a critical doc= template for nationwide caging= "State_Template" at GWB.

You want me to apologize. Because i was out of line in how I asked for the truth. Because I expressed opinions? Did I claim my opinions were fact? did I say anything wrong about caging?

And this is a site devoted to voter suppression issues?

drational said:

You want me to apologize. Because i was out of line in how I asked for the truth. Because I expressed opinions? Did I claim my opinions were fact? did I say anything wrong about caging?

So if I say my opinion is "drational is a jerk", that's okay because it's just expressing an opinion? I'd have no reason to apologize for that? Simply because I didn't claim it was a fact?

Cross-checking facts = good. Correcting errors = good. Making irresponsible knee-jerk attacks = not good.

Inability to apologize when wrong = terrible.

And this is a site devoted to voter suppression issues?

Nope. Devoting to telling the truth, restoring democracy and our country and world along with it.

combating voter suppression is surely a key element in the above. As is making sure voters have their votes counted accurately. As is holding officials and the media accountable. Including the good guy media. Which I'd like to include both you and Palast in.

Please make that easier, instead of harder to do, by doing the right thing and apologizing. Beyond that, correct any and all facts, including mine, including his, as you see fit.

I may be seeing things that are not there. However, because of the aggressiveness and the appearance of organization in the attack on Greg Palast, I tend to doubt that Drational is just a lone discreditor spewing out his/her venom. Drat's attacks were seen in a number of different blogs about the same time and seemed to have accomplices --- other commenters who stuck around repeating Drat's line. I saw these posts on Balkinization and TPM, as well as this one. But I believe Palast indicated there were a number of others, too. This is why I call for Drational to make a full disclosure about he or she is up to, and whether anyone else is behind the Palast hate campaign, financially, politically, or in any other way.

I may be paranoid, but I am beginning to suspect that some intel agencies (CIA, FBI, or military) have trolls engage in psy-ops campaigns on blogs such as this one to misinform, demoralize, or confuse their target group. Intel agencies operations seem to have a track record of having a fascist mentality. People with "leftist" views tend to be their targets. Witness the information disclosed yesterday in the so-called "family jewels" from the CIA about their past activities.

Well I have to join in, because I had been working behind the scenes to figure out the Drational - Greg Palast fracas.

This is what I found, learned, etc:

1. In Drational's original "Dangerous" diary, it was clear he didn't even know that Palast had reported on the caging emails back in 2004, because he never mentioned it. It was I who emailed him about this. He never responded to my email, but in his second diary, he reported it as if he had known it all along.

Here's my email to him:

Hiya,

John Dean

2. I proceeded to investigate further. I discovered that a poster by the name of Drational had been a member of Free Republic, prior to Daily Kos' Drational appearing at Daily Kos. The poster at Free Republic had been banned...which could mean anything...maybe legit, maybe resume' padding before trolling lefty sites, but regardless, I found it odd that a lefty appears to have been posting at FR prior to becoming known at Daily Kos.

3. I have exchanged a series of emails with John Wooden, the owner of the georgewbush.org site. That exchange leaves no doubt that Drational did not contact John Wooden before writing his "Dangerous" diary - and believe me, it wasn't hard to contact John Wooden. The fact that Drational did not contact John Wooden in advance to try to find out if there were a lot more spreadsheets with names or not, was and is totally irresponsible reporting.

4. Up above, Drational posted "too many lists claimed, too many names. This I knew when I first "attacked"."

Yet it is clear to me, since I've exchanged several emails with John Wooden, that Drational didn't know a damn thing when it came to the number of emails, number of spreadsheets, etc.

5. Drational posted his diaries as if he was entitled to other people's personal information! Yes, that's right...let's not forget that these caging emails contained names and addresses of real people. I myself had asked John Wooden for the emails so I could investigate them further, and he declined...and I respected his reasons why. To his credit, John did exactly what he said he would...he sought an independent investigation.

I suspected that Drational might be what I call a Trojan-Horse troll...the kind that appears to be a lefty, gains recognition and trust, and infiltrates. Today, I'm still not sure one way or another, but I do know that Drational failed to research properly, did not contact John Wooden in advance, did not know that Palast had reported back in 2004, and did not know how many emails and spreadsheets there were.

Now then, I do agree that there continues to be some doubt as to the numbers that Greg Palast reported, the actual amount of names on caging lists, etc. It's also evident that some of the research that was reported could have been better.

However, I would like to remind everyone that Palast is probably a very busy man, and he relies on volunteer researchers in some cases, and perhaps those volunteers made mistakes, or embellished, or even trollishly falsified research. The bottom line is, we don't know. I myself would like to see Palast release a caging spreadsheet other than ones publicly released at georgewbush.org, but I would never hound him for the release, and am wise enough to know that people's personal information should be protected.

And I'm a real person.
Drational is "somebody."

One last try to get you guys and gals to see my point of view.

Palast appears to have played fast and loose with facts, which no one on this blog seems very concerned about. I documented at least 10 different topics in which Palast's statements on Jacksonville caging appear to be incorrect. Whether errors of omission, or commission, they were claims central to the facts and substance of voter suppression.

John Dean, I never got your email. I am drational@yahoo and @gmail.

I was a lurker on many political sites for several years. DKos was the site I found views similar to my own. I posted a few dumb diaries, but mostly lurked. I got interested in the USA scandal. I started to read the doc dump and saw it needed organization. I tried to do that, recruited help, and helped to make a publicly available search tool for people to use to search the docs, www.trainingdb.com. In april, I read the Palast article "Buffalo Soldiers" in the doc dump. It seemed important, but since I am a novice, I didn't know exactly what it meant. So I started paying more attention. People were talking about Palast's 500 emails and 50 caging lists. I thought those emails would be critical for the doc database we made. I bought Armed Madhouse. This was mid May. GWB.org had 2 lists from Jacksonville, but only 1800~ caged names. I wondered where the others were. May 23, Palast posted a press release on dkos. I asked where the lists could be found. I was directed to a Flickr image. Not really an informative answer. I got mad for getting the runaround.

So then I went back to gwb.org and downloaded all the attachments and counted the emails. Not 50 caging lists and not 500 emails; not Lauderdale or Plantation or Pompano Beach. I thought gee, something funny. I emailed Palast several times. No response. I posted "dangerous", because I thought his nonresponse and Zach's prior misdirection indicated funny business. My opinion was based on intuition and a scratch at the surface of Palast's reporting. Basically in investigating something, you have to start somewhere. Ask Palast or yourself what you would have done if you were in my shoes. I shook some trees with preliminary information and hunch, and it later turned out that in every instance regarding Palast's reporting on the caging issues, my hunches proved correct. But more importantly, Palast, although wrong on many details, was generally correct that Caging was biased and probably a scheme prohibited by Consent Decrees, and this needed accurate description.

So I did more research. I analyzed the ZIP codes from census data and precincts from the Duval website. Problems with Palast's claims about the Duval list, but neat finding that the letters were sent diffusely- this meant that RNC was not targeting the mailings to black ZIPs- they were avoiding Consent Decree violations (so far). I got the voter rolls from Duval. I loaded them into a database tool and matched the caging names. More problems with Palast's claims, but WOW fact: caging was racially biased. Not to the extent touted and not in the way described by Palast, but real, and backed up by good analysis that could be shared publicly. Now I knew RNC caging in Duval was biased, so a violation of Consent Decrees. In the midst of this work was an ability to do more analysis. Palast's test case for black voter suppression, Prausa, was listed on the voter rolls as White, along with over half of the identifible servicemen living at Naval Air Station. I contacted Prausa and yep, White. I thought, geez, Palast (or a researcher) has really exaggerated/distorted this list. At the least it seemed careless. Working with ePluribusmedia, who were vetting what I was doing, we got the entire email set from Wooden. Turns out that, according to Wooden, Palast did not have the entire set until March 2007. He talked to Wooden in October 2004 and not again until 2007. Wooden didn't release those private files to anyone till march, 2007. So anyone faulting me for not getting the entire set until after raising questions, take note. I was not reporting, blogging, making public speeches or writing books for 2 and a half years on the MECHANISM of caging without the full gwb.org email set. But others were.

But more importantly the racial bias- that Palast and others since 2004 should have been able to document with a call to Duval elections supervisor and 40 person-hours of work- was definitive proof of Consent Decree violation. The Nevada caging list was in the public GWB files- more RNC caging. The "State Template" document showing plans to cage in Washington and Oregon and probably across the nation- it was in the public GWB.org files. It showed Bush-Cheney '04 running the caging show- WOW, this is how the RNC is trying to skirt consent decree= farming them out to campaigns and state parties so they don't have RNC fingerprints. We got the Ohio caging case court documents. The emails there showed clear direction of caging in Ohio and elsewhere by the RNC and Bush Cheney '04, farmed out to state parties.

So here is all this dirt on caging, publicly available since 2004. Almost all of this research and analysis I discuss was done by me, in the hours before my day job, with the incredible help of standingup at ePluribus. Others at ePluribus saw my drafts and helped direct our thoughts and analysis. I spoke to election experts, Dan Tokaji and Phil Klinkner, and others.

So what you have from me is truth about caging. I am not a caging pioneer in the sense that I had no clue what it was or meant until recently. The DOJ docs and Palast's work helped spark my interest. I just applied my research skills to the publicly available data.

Brad, You write:
As I instruct folks all the time, they should be skeptical of my reporting, and anyone else's. Thus, I try to provide independently verifiable info whenever possible along with my reports.

What did you do to independently verify the work by Palast that you published on this site? What about your readers, did they do anything? Is that reporting somehow exempt from the standards to which you are holding me?

Why am I being asked publicly to apologize in accord with your specifications? If you can cite one single point on caging that, based on public evidence, I got wrong and Palast got right I will apologize. But I will not apologize for being skeptical and calling for Palast to document or provide sourcing. Is my criticism of your friend more important than the truth about caging?

As a final note to the conspiracists. The caging lists were described incorrectly before now. Since they were quite a bit off the mark in many specific points, prior reportingwas not threatening to the RNC. As long as people accepted that the lists had been fully described, accurately, by Palast, and MSM wasn't picking the story up, it was unlikely that the truth contained therein would be revealed. I'd guess the RNC has no interest in pointing out Palast's errors- it would just encourage people like me to dig and maybe get at the truth. I am just a blogger like many of you here, and I am dedicated to the truth. I am not RNC or CIA or FBI or Rove or Griffin. They want caging buried. With Palast as the Sole Source of caging investigation, the trusted journalist who had covered the GWB.org emails in excruciating detail, with no one questioning his reporting, the truth about caging was essentially buried.
I really don't think it legitimate to accuse me of acting on behalf of the RNC.

I can tell that I am not welcome here. I will not bug you guys anymore by posting, but will be back to read any comments, and will be on Kos. I am not going to investigate any more of Palast's work. My focus has and will remain on USAGate.

Yes there was much behind the scenes to DR's laughable 'dangerous' diary. Like Palast is going to bring down poor Congressional dems and the world really needs more concern trolls trying to discredit research for the simple fact that so-and-so won't share their lists.

I trust John Dean a million times more than this DR, and you gotta wonder how someone goes from zero to sixty in the dkos citizen researcher arena. Where were they before this?

But I welcome all new voices and research. It is one thing to have questions and doubts, and then you go dig the evidence. Heck, your original diary would have been devastating to Palast if you had waited and instead published the same diary with all this new errors you found. But instead, DR posted a vapid diary of accusations and labeling Palast as a danger (to whom?) using the EXACT same tactics as the swifties. I don't think DR realizes to this day the methods in the diary are the same attacks your would expect from VRCW-type folks we have all been researching.

drational -

You are, of course, welcome here. If you don't wish to stay, of course, that's up to you.

I must get out of this hotel room and will be gone for the day. So only the quickest of replies:

My opinion was based on intuition and a scratch at the surface of Palast's reporting. Basically in investigating something, you have to start somewhere. Ask Palast or yourself what you would have done if you were in my shoes.

As you describe your shoes, I would have been equally skeptical in them. If so, I likely would have done the report you ended up doing, instead of the half-cocked version ("Why Greg Palast is dangerous") that you did in the first place, for which I believe you still owe an unqualified apology.

Why am I being asked publicly to apologize in accord with your specifications? If you can cite one single point on caging that, based on public evidence, I got wrong and Palast got right I will apologize. But I will not apologize for being skeptical and calling for Palast to document or provide sourcing. Is my criticism of your friend more important than the truth about caging?

You are being asked to apologize because it's the right thing to do. You're original attack was unnecessarily inflammatory and based on unsubstantiated, often incorrect presumptions.

Nobody is asking you to "apologize for being skeptical or calling for Palast to document or provide sourcing", no matter how many times you try and create that strawman argument.

While I don't have any reason to believe you're "working for the RNC" as you suggest others have insinuated, it is true that you hide behind a pseudonym --- unlike folks like myself and Palast who put both our names and reputations on the line each time we post/write anything --- and I might suggest that using your real name would help avoid many inappropriate questions/concerns about your background.

Both Palast, who can speak for his own work, and myself, feel that we can put our name behind our work, and answer to it as needed. There is no "drational" outside of the cyberworld, and no matter what you write, you can change your pseudonym tomorrow and disappear to start over.

We cannot and do not.

So when you attack (not question, but attack) someone like either him or me, etc. it matters. When you attack in appropriately, as you did, from behind the convenient shadow of anonymity, it wreaks of cowardice.

When you are later found to have been in error about the central charge "Palast is Dangerous", and refuse to admit that charge was inappropriate, then you yourself become the "dangerous" one.

You owe it to your own credibility to set things right. As you hide behind a psuedonym, however, there will be no penalty to you if you don't. Unlike the rest of us.

Again, I urge you to consider doing the right thing.

One thing not to forget is that those fascists Palast exposed would be guilty of a felony whether or not there were 1800 on the list or 18,000. One is enough.

The danger, drational, is that your calling someone dangerous for exposing felonious unamerican behavior is patently a neoCon pattern.

When Palast should have been called a great investigative reporter for pointing out the dangerous felonies, you called him dangerous, because you surmised that his numbers were not perfect. Minutia prevailing over substance is a neoCon trait.

That is why I severly criticised you and defended Palast in the thread we are now in reference to.

I withdraw that criticism only to the extent that you get it.

Brad you say:
As you describe your shoes, I would have been equally skeptical in them. If so, I likely would have done the report you ended up doing, instead of the half-cocked version ("Why Greg Palast is dangerous") that you did in the first place, for which I believe you still owe an unqualified apology.

That you have published over and again Palast's reporting without apparent vetting, I wonder if you are being sincere when you say you would have done the whole job up front. But Okay.

Part of the defense of Palast has been the he was allowed to be wrong on caging because he was "shaking the trees" when he initially reported. Is Palast, like me, expected to be "appropriate" in how he handles the "targets" of his investigation? From Armed Madhouse:

Back in Florida, we thought we'd ask Brett Doster, supreme commander of the Bush campaign in that state, straight up, "Brett, did you lose something? Is this your list? Do you and the RNC intend to block a few hundred thousand Black folk from voting on November 2?
In Tallahassee, the path to Doster's door was blocked by a thick-armed blonde, slurping on a supersize coca-cola: Mindy Tucker Fletcher...

Palast is pretty snarky when shaking the trees with preliminary information, which is why I think your concerns (and those of many of your readers) about my initial style and opinions seem disingenous. People were mad because I mentioned his "Sam Spade" style, (which he himself touts in his bio), and called him an entertainer (he gets paid money for public engagements).

You seem to expect me to have the whole story about Palast up front, when to this day, ~1000 days after his initial reporting, Palast has not corrected errors about a far more important issue, caging, that could have been corrected with research. He knew I had questions at the same time I did. Why not redig and correct?

I am a coward, by your definition. I really would prefer to remain anonymous, because I have a wife and kids, and when I say things online that make people angry, I get emails that threaten me, and by extension, my children. I am to the core afraid of that, so yes, I am a coward by choice. I admire you and Palast for the guts it takes to be public personae. With that comes rewards, but also more scrutiny that your statements, if you claim them to be truth rather than fiction, be based on facts. You guys get your book deals and speaking engagements and public fame, and I get, hopefully, security for myself and family. I am fine with the compromises I have made, and hope you and your readers will repsect my wishes to remain anonymous online.

I am really sorry I did not wait til the end of the road to publish. In retrospect, although I know I would have reached the same conclusions about the errors in the reporting, I certainly would have gotten less grief and alienated fewer readers had I put the sum total of the evidence up front. However, honestly, had Palast told me up front exactly where he got his info or corrected his misreporting, I would never have diaried raising questions about his work. There would have been no challenges to better source my allegations. I almost certainly would not have dug as I did. And the truth about caging, as revealed by our work, would have perhaps remained unknown. So my "inappropriateness" and Palast's response to that did end up advancing what we know about caging, a net gain for everyone interested in Democracy.

I still think Palast is dangerous- for both my reasons (inaccuracy) and his (persistent investigations of Power). So I accept that my opinion about danger detracts from my credibility in your eyes, and the eyes of many others, and regret that I can't change that tenet. Based on your linking my work, despite my shortcomings you still feel I have something to offer, and I respect you for that.

Dredd you say:

One thing not to forget is that those fascists Palast exposed would be guilty of a felony whether or not there were 1800 on the list or 18,000. One is enough.

My analysis (as published at ePm and Kos) revealed that while the caging by RNC was biased and almost certainly violated consent decrees, there is no "felony". There are no federal laws preventing anyone from caging. In fact NVRA 1993 requires 43 states to essentially "cage" by sending official letters to voters- if they are returned, federal law requires the voting lists to be purged. This practice, based on our analysis, needs to be evaluated for bias. Since it is not intentionally biased, it is probably not unconstitutional, but may need to be changed. However, based on Consent decrees, only RNC, but not state parties or campaigns, is prevented from caging when they use it to challenge voters. Finally, there isn't any documented proof that anyone was disenfranchised by caging. Rather than evidence that 2004 was stolen, Palast Reporting in 2004 apparently contributed to stopping caging use.
Consent decree violations can be prevented in court (as they were in Ohio), but only if we know about them, and only if we find out exactly how they work, so that we can mount effective challenges. RNC is shipping caging out to political parties and campaigns and using other tactics to skirt the decrees. If we expose this and get our congressmen interested, perhaps we can fight even the efforts outside the RNC. The fight requires accurate reporting, which was the basis of why I started this mess.

I hope you readers can forgive my sins against Palast and against your sensibilities, and accept that I am on the same side of the aisle. Keep up the good fight.
Peace.

Brad, really the "response" from Palast that you link to is at this point extremely embarassing to Palast. Not only was it a temper tantrum insult of bloggers, it actually repeated what are now known to be factually inaccurate, unsupportable claims.

Palast did great work on caging in 2004. He has done some great work since on other issues. Unfortunately, he got himself caught up in an exaggeration. Whether or not you think it is 'dangerous" to have people believing his newer, bigger claims, those statements are extremely embarassing and damaging to the cause of voter protection because they are just grist for the frame that all of the reporting on this is done by people who are not interested in accuracy. Just as with the TANG memo, the story becomes Prausa is white, therefore Palast is untrustworthy.

You are Palast's friend. You need to get a new response from him, including a promise to make corrections in his book.

DRATIONAL...

You just don't get it. There is no "our side of the aisle"! People like Brad and Palast are in it for the sake of the country not to keep your party from possibly looking bad because the media doesn't research or report anything.

Who gives a rat's ass about 'party' or how dangerous Palast is to "your" reputation. Look, if Palast has mistakes or exaggerations then it is on his reputation. You have jack shit zero reputation other than being a johnny-come-lately to ePM and online investigative journalism. I applaud your work, but your first crack at this was clearly NOT JOURNALISM or up to these faux hauty standards you keep hiding behind.

How dare you attack Palast and claim he is dangerous for the simple fact that he won't share his toys. You are sad in that regard. So, no answers or sharing or giving you damn near anything and you decide, he must be making it all up. He is dangerous.

Look how freaking easy it was for you to just independently verify his work. Did you need emails from Palast to do it? Did Palast have to share any spreadsheets with you? Re-read your first diary and see how "accurate reporting" that measures up to.

You plain out used swift boat techniques to smear Palast, question his work, and call him and his research dangerous. All because 'some people say' and 'it doesn't seem to add up'.

That is not journalism, that is pathetic tactics used by neocon IT hatchetmen. So you can take all your claims on some shining ideals of truth over everything else, and shove it.

Just realize that you need to apologize for your initial uncalled for attacks which are more a cry for attention than anything else. I can tell it is all about attention for you because now I see you keep throwing around the ePM name as if that makes your research more trustworthy and poor old Palast doesn't have any fact checkers.

I personally think Palast and Fitrakis can be a little too dramatic and oversimplified explanations at the expense of accuracy, but that is what it takes to reach people. Who cares if you have the most researched, fact-checked expose the world has ever seen if no one ever reads it. I think people factor in Palast's image and style when the read his stuff, and use it as a starting point to find out more. It's not like Moore's movies are the most factually accurate, and you could spend tons of time picking apart omissions and half-truths, but the core of the story is true and as you found, maybe Palast left out some info, or got some of it wrong... but what he was saying is true. People can always come along 1,000 days afterwards and find errors, but the story that has been told by Palast is 100% true and you wouldn't know jack about it to this day if he didn't report it.

Look, it's not like you were strengthing the existing research and correcting errors. You are saying, this is wrong and this is wrong, so let's not listen to anything he says. He is dangerous. He should be labeled as inaccurate. He shouldn't be listened to. Sure his story about caging was true, but one name he listed as black was white, so.. ergo..

And now it's my turn again...

Drational,

I'm now more suspicious of you than before. You know why? Because you completely glossed over my previous post. One well-known troll tactic when confronted with facts, is to simply ignore them. And that's exactly what you did...you simply "never got" my email. I was and am well aware of what your email address was.

I needed to get that on the table.

Once again...

You did not contact John Wooden prior to your "Dangerous" diary.

You did not know how many emails and spreadsheets there were - contrary to your lie (let's call it what it is) up above where you stated "too many lists claimed, too many names. This I knew when I first "attacked". " You knew no such thing, because you had not contacted John Wooden to find out if there were more emails and spreadsheets.

You did not know that Greg Palast himself reported on the 1800+ names when you wrote the "Dangerous" diary.

And here's the bottom line - you STILL do not know how many emails and spreadsheets Palast has.

Let's use a little common sense here:

5. Therefore, nobody has any frickin idea how many spreadsheets Palast has been able to obtain - spreadsheets that were not sent to John Wooden by mistake.

Now, you cannot "win," successfully argue against, or whatever you would like to call it, against this logic. Does this mean that I believe 100% that Palast obtained emails from lots of other states, and has 60-70,000 names? No, it does not...I too had some doubts, and I continue to have some doubts.

But I don't go around swiftboating people without doing my homework.

You did. And you need to apologize, admit that you really have no idea what Palast has, and let's all move forward.

John

john dean
sorry didn't respond adequately before.
i didn't get your email. yahoo mail is bad. sometimes good stuff gets filtered, and sometimes it just doesn't come thru.
I can't argue with you because you are correct. I didn't and don't know what palast has.
i was basing my analysis on how he presented the data- emails from gwb.org.
trolls usually don't take the time to explain themselves.

anyway, sorry i pissed you off by insulting palast. if you want to email me questions or more insults, i will respond. otherwise we seem to be at an impasse here.

Thanks for responding Drational, and I'll email you shortly. I hope we all move forward from this, and perhaps a Kos update from you would be appropriate as well.

I was never pissed off that you insulted Palast...I was concerned, as you appear to be, about the issue of caging, the accuracy of the reporting, and about the issue of trolls.

Fact is, your recent diaries about the issue are truly outstanding.

John

John.
I think if someone is a troll, they have to be seriously committed to an antagonistic cause. In my case, I have been seriously committed to progressive issues since I was in college, a long time ago. I am not sure what exactly you would like to see in a Kos update from me. In my 2 most recent diaries on caging, I have tried my best to give Palast the respect he deserves. I have now gone back to the original offensive diary and made some changes and updated. http://www.dailykos.com/...ory/2007/5/26/83915/0129
I am unsure this will satisfy many, but it should help?

Update #6
This update is from June 29, 2007. It includes a relook at this diary based on the ensuing investigation and comments from many bloggers throughout the blogosphere. I deleted some passages that were opinions presented in a way that was clearly disrespectful to Mr. Palast. This disrespect was childishly responsive to the perceived insult of the "brushoff" I felt I was given by Palast and his spokesman, but is not relevant to the central issues I presented.

http://www.dailykos.com/...ory/2007/6/26/113923/608 More research has confirmed initial suspicions and revealed other inaccuracies in prior Palast reporting on caging, but importantly, that caging is indeed biased. Although he appears to be incorrect about many details, several of which were preliminarily outlined above, independent research has confirmed that Mr. Palast was generally correct that caging is biased against minorities. I'd like to restate that my effort was not undertaken with the purpose of discrediting or otherwise damaging Mr. Palast's reputation as an award-winning journalist on many issues important to Democratic principles and justice. Nor was it intended to minimize the importance of his primacy in bringing the issue of caging to public attention or to discredit the role he may have played in thwarting caging efforts in 2004. Greg Palast’s focus on the issue of caging indeed may help prevent unethical or illegal voter suppression in future elections-it certainly helped to get me interested in the issues. Because of his tenacity, http://gregpalast.dailykos.com/ Greg Palast is dangerous to the powers that be. However, because efforts to suppress voters by caging are serious and possibly illegal, and because the interest in the caging controversy extends to the highest levels of government, reporting on caging should be restricted to the facts, the truth, and be free of exaggeration or misinformation.
So In summary, I apologize for being disrespectful to Palast where it was unwarranted. I also apologize to readers that were offended by the aggressive tone of this post. But I do not retract my opinion that when reporting is not correct, and if the reporter making errors does not address or correct them, then the reporting and reporter are, in my opinion, dangerous.

This might fit your definition of an apology.

http://www.dailykos.com/...ory/2007/6/29/8574/44543

For the record:

John Dean was kind to me in the email he sent with his research, and noted that he did not intend to share his research into my identity with anyone else but Brad Friedman. This is why I say in the above linked diary, that although he is a Palast supporter, I don't think John intends to harm me other than outing me personally and for Brad. But that he is researching means others will be as well, and based on prior email threats, I can't handle the reality of non-anonymity. Today will be the last of drational, and altho I'll still continue to research voter suppression issues, I think it will be some time before I get the nerve up to post again.
I'm in effect, silenced.

Crap. What an ugly world! We're already under the thumb of dictatorship if we can't even argue without fear of snitches, afraid to use our real names to begin with. THIS SUCKS!

John Dean, aka Bozo for Bush. Banned 5 times at Kos for general insanity and irrational behavior.

John stalks people that disagree with his chosen hero of the day, going as far as calling random phone numbers in the middle of the night looking for any link back to the poster that offended him.

Dr. Rational pay him no mind. It will only cause you headaches.

Bradflog, well you did it again huh? Making grand claims with zero proof is you stock in trade.

Remember that dod/dia employee you said you had proof worked in cahoots with, and was paid by, Diebold?

Whatever happened to that guy? Did you ever present your proof? That was an awesome scoop surely to bring the Government down.

Oh that's right, you made it up. With the help of your lunatic in chief John 'Bozo' Dean.

{Ed Note: I am aware of no such "dod/dia employee" that I said "had proof worked in cahoots with, and was paid by, Diebold". If this poster has information to back up such a claim, he/she is welcome to let us know where that proof is. Short of that, to use his/her words, he/she has made it up. If this poster continues to posting knowing disinformation he/she will be banned from posting here, as it violates our rules. Short of evidence, consider this poster warned. --- Brad}

I agree sometimes John Dean takes stalking / online research a little too far. But in general, if not him, then it could have been someone else, so you are better off knowing your identity is not really that secret.

For the record, DR, you were not silenced. Part of collaborative research is having to trust names and be vetted yourself.. So it's a weird balance and I think you have to be willing to either pass all info through others (firewall approach) or else take the risk that someone may forward and email, or IP address or etc.

Anyways, DR, thanks for the diary. I have much more respect and will be willing to work with you now that I see you can recognize the issues and what raised our hackles (and it isn't just pro-Palast sentiment).

I am addressing NONE and JOHN DEAN.

You are both completely wrong about insinuations that drational is an operative. You can write me and discuss it if you like. Until then, please stop with all your baseless conjecture. In the case of NONE, you are really over the line, and in my view reckless. For someone so quick to denounce another, you don't even provide email contact information.

And John while I agree with you re vigilance against operatives, I think your speculations are completely unfounded in this case. I have no delusion that by someone posting anonymously here (me), you would accept what I say at face value. And you would be wise not to.

I also tried to find an email contact for you, John, and maybe I have not looked closely enough, but your blog has no contact form or email link. Nor do your posts here. So, if you'd like, feel free to contact me.

ALSO: Because I am annoyed by this cross-site bashing,
I have written to Brad to give him my full identity details including phone #. I know he is in Atlanta. But if he gets a chance to read his emails, he'll see it, and if he wants, he can contact me by phone. If he does, then if he chooses to, he can post here and end this speculation.

I don't know either of you, as I do not frequent BradBlog, but I know it's been here since the start, and was one of first blogs to innovate with the integration of video clips inot posts long before invention of YouTube.

Thank you kindly,

rhfactor at DailyKos

I never said DR was an operative. I said the original diary read like many swifty-type attacks. And "I won't apologize" for what I believe is the truth. (or whatever the sentiment is)

you are really over the line, and in my view reckless

Huh.. could it be that my inflamatory approach is completely in response to the type of diary DR originally posted? Could it be that DR was over the line and reckless? Or maybe I am just 'dangerous'.

Look, DRATIONAL did some great research and fact checking. It may lead to real investigations and maybe even some jail time for Griffin. Possibly Palast could have followed up on his story and provided more hard facts, but such is the age of living with no real fourth estate (except for Cheney's).

It is sad that Dean's efforts to connect RL identity probably means DR is lost from the world of CJ, but again, if you can't afford the risk, you need to be more careful. Maybe Dean helped in the long run in case some nutjobs did followup down the road. The flip side is that blogger 'X' doesn't hold much weight in Congressional testimony, so I'd rather have this research out there in real names.

I suffer from the same concerns as DR and understand about publishing under real name. I think Palast, any anyone who discredits anonymous journalism is lame. Journalist have been writing under pen names forever. Why is it a big deal online. I can't tell you how many times I've seen stupid statements like "posting anonymously". Who cares? Why should my words mean more if I was Dan Rather or blogger skidboots.

I could probably even post to here pretending to be rhfactor or anyone else. And I could care less about your "full identity" like it gives more weight to anything. We need more DRATIONALs as longer as they can acknowledge their attacks were uncalled for and based on an internet concept of 'all data should be free' and at least acknowledge (a little) their approach came off in the same manner as all swifty-attacks.

Let's all relax a little...

LOL - you appear to be AnonymousArmy. Anyone can google on you and find out what you're up to, so I won't waste further time with you. The only number I ever called late at night (around midnight), ever, ever, ever, was your supposed ex-girlfriend's - don't blame me, you didn't cover your tracks very well with your three anonymousarmy sites all having different versions on WHOIS. Also, that was back when "AA" and FrankSolich and others at Free Republic were going after Andy Stephenson while he had cancer. A lot of folks wondered who these people were...I was the one who actually connected with AA's supposed ex-girlfriend, and also discovered FrankSolich's real identity. As for being banned at Kos, when trolls gang up on you, and you lose all your mojo, you get banned...it's that simple.

Now then...

Drational is clearly a good guy, who wrote a series of tough-love diaries. Could they have been better early on? Yes. Did he get better and better as he went along? Absolutely. His research was and is, outstanding. Some of the best research I have ever seen, about a very important issue.

Two posters at Daily Kos are posting some lies over there in Drat's GBCW diary, and I'd like to address their lies:

1. I most certainly have not spun a massive conspiracy about Greg Palast.

2. No one here has threatened to out Drational.

When people who have a following post bullshit like this, it helps make other people believe crap...and that's what both of those guys at Kos are posting...crap.

Once upon a time, a personna by the name of Wally O'Diebold was trolling BradBlog. If nobody tried to figure out who he was, none of us would know today that Wally was in fact Robert Pelletier of Diebold, aka therealrobp, NC Beach Girl at DU, TinFoilHatProgrammer at DU, and various other names. Was it wrong to research who this troll was? Absolutely not. Was it wrong to out him? In this case, absolutely not.

No one has threatened to out Drational here, and I certainly have no desire or intention to out a good guy. The good guys have to stick together, even if we don't always agree.

Now I suggest we all relax, get some brew and drink away, or whatever, enjoy life a little, and resume our battles against this evil administration next week. We need to bring these treasonous bastards down, once and for all. We don't need to bring each other down.

Sincerely,

John

I second the motion from John Dean for a beer. in doing your due diligence you gave me a reality check, and it's too much to handle. Gonna take some time off for a while, see if i can gather some cojones, and learn about firewalls. Maybe you can help me there, John. RH, you are a true friend and I appreciate your vouching for me, but I think the air is a bit clearer now. I apologized for insulting palast and generally being too harsh in my dangerous diary. I learned. we shouldn't have different standards for lefties than we do for righties with respect to truth, but I still wish i hadn't been as rude and insolent.

But seriously, Greg Palast would have titled the diary "drational is dangerous and thick-armed" if the role was reversed. and he would have done it at the first whiff of stonewalling. does anyone doubt that?

If anyone here will be at ykos, i will buy you a beer for helping me get through this.

Just recently read the palast/drat posts in question- while i'm interested in seeing if Palast's claims of additional lists are verified by others at BBC, and would like to see them used to prosectute anyone involved in stealing elections, i'm even more interested in an accounting for the following points raised by drat

where the lists are. duval, not Plantation or Ghettos of Lauderdale or Palm Beach; Buffalo soldiers (23 of 43 white); Prausa Black (Prausa White); Duval= example how elections stolen (no one in duval challenged at polls). Majority African American ZIPs- No. Zip Targeted mailings- no.
His researchers missed a critical doc= template for nationwide caging= "State_Template" at GWB.

Is the evidence of racist caging and/or consent decree violations in Palast's observations or Drat's, or both or neither?

This will be my last post for a bit:
Palast was right that there was bias in the list, but he appears not to have described it accurately in several ways. He identified the RNC involvement, so he discovered potential consent decree violations in 2004. But there was a lot more research to be done to shore up the claims, which is what I did with standingup and others at epm in the link above. and it wasn't only Duval from the GWB emails. there was a small list from nevada (not analyzed by race), and plans for caging in WA, and OR and a doc that implicated caging nationwide. we also got court docs from Ohio, more caging, but no lists to review- however the consent decree judge did find intent to use them in a biased way.
RNC was in on FL, OH and NV. no footprints in WA or OR, run there by the Bush campaign. Bush campaign and state parties involved everywhere. Read the epm piece and my followup post.
So the potential decree violaions are FL, and definitely Ohio, tho the challenge was stayed at the last minute, and the appeal was rejected as moot after the election. The ohio case never got resolved as a definite violation. The repubs wanted it resolved in the appeals court to get it out of the NJ court overseeing the decree, but nope, so the decrees still stand and bar RNC, but not campaigns or state parties from caging.

Can guarantee the RNC will not be so careless again. caging will be done by parties and campaigns exclusively ( and maybe private foundations?- needs research). stopping that can't be done in the courts without the RNC involvement.

Now pure speculation. I wonder if ACVR or other present day private foundations were set up to do the caging and provide the lists to state parties???? This cleans the RNC (illegal) and campaigns (risky politically if caging ever becomes important to the MSM) from being involved and makes it look like the voting rights concerns are "helping states clean up local fraud issues".... At least this is how I would do it if I were in charge of the RNC.

drational,

I also apologize for coming across too critical. it was mostly motivated by other rabid anti-Palast and also your clinging to ideals and purity of journalism. Much of journalism, including online is a balance of getting out a story (and timely) and cramming enough facts in there (and fact checked). I agree that all Palast claims should be checked, but I worry that your message (or at least the one that resonated) was that a few exaggerations and wrong facts discredits the whole body of work.

So I think that explains my response and other people who have been reading these stories for years now.

I think your instincts and digging are right on. You're probably right about AC4VR and I wonder if these is a criminal angle to that.

I also understand why you don't like people connecting to real world persona. I hope you do keep contrib, even if by passing stuff on through ePM or others. You should be able to go more anon if you want to come back at it. First start from scratch, dedicate one portable FF install just for research and posting. You can even set that one FF to go through anon proxies (free or paid) or even TOR or torpark. All emails only from new acct from that browser.. or just be very good at logging out and in again. Don't use IM except through gmail from proxied FF browser. Technically you can get a to-go phone for $20 for calling some investigation targets.

I wouldn't worry too much about IP address or gmail tracking you, cause if the gov't wants to, they can already figure you out. But from the average online folks, you should be safe. Be careful about visiting favorite sites you usually post to unless you are using TOR or proxy. (also watch overlap of visit times to those favorite sites if you have a secret persona and non-secret) If you have cable modem, try leaving off for 30 mins and turn on with new MAC address plugged in. If you are DSL.. or some cable modems, you might have to work at getting new IP address. But in general it's good idea to do periodically. But that IP will always get within a few miles or tens of miles from your physical location. That isn't bad for Boston, but may tag you uniquely in Podunk, IA. (Ironicaly, I don't do these things)

drational -

Thank you for posting your apology. I believe it was the right thing to do.

Before offering my props for doing that, I had planned to point out just one point you made in a pre-apology comment above. Namely, your attempt at morally equivalency in comparing a perceived attack on some RNC folks he believed to have been attempting to keep legal voters from casting their votes.

Don't know the full context of the quote from Armed Madhouse that the passage you quote comes from, but taking it at face value, it seems he was going after some folks who were attempting to undermine our democracy, which I consider to be a repugnant (and, frankly, evil) act.

Again, don't know the specific context for the passage, but presuming the context you offer is accurate, he seems to have been attempting to there to hold power accountable and feet to the fire in light of said repugnant, evil act.

In comparing that to what you did to him, suggesting it was the same, would be suggesting that he was doing something repugnant and/or evil.

That would be an inaccurate equivalance, by what I suspect are even your own standards.

It's a minorish point, worth only pointing out quickly in comments, but when you added your second update to your apology post, you again made the same false moral equivalence. That's unfortunate, given your previous unqualified apology. It's a small point, but one which I hope you'll consider.

Beyond that, I see know reason that you should stop blogging, and would be sorry to see you do so at this time. Even though I understand your reasons for doing so, and fear (as unfortunate as it is).

Please remember though, that these things do matter, which is why I called for your apology in the first place. If you don't think they matter, see "LOL's" comment above. He is most truly a troll. The very definition thereof.

Yet, as I agree with John Dean, that he is likely dKos' "Anonymous Army", he spent years --- quite deliberately --- planting doubt about many folks who were doing good work.

He plied his deceptive, and effective, trade at dKos, where I believe he's finally been banned. But his damage lives on, and his ability to plant seeds of doubt continue (as you can see in that comment of his I linked to above).

As well, while John Dean does not work for me, and posts here as a commenter like anyone else, he has been very instrumental in outing some very bad guys, who were very well connected (Rob Pelletier at Diebold, for example, who, due to Dean's diligence was found to have been working out of the former CA SoS' office.)

I believe he handled this situation responsibly and respectful.

If you have any other doubts about the damage that irresponsible behavior can cause, and the notion that "nobody wants to harm Palast", take a look at some of the comments on your apology thread concerning him (and, as well, me, for that matter.)

This shit matters. So thank you again for doing the right thing, and I hope you'll consider your plans to stop blogging. I hope you'll also consider doing so not anonymously, as doing so --- even for the reasons that I understand that you have --- means the terrorists have truly won.

I get truly threatening emails (which I don't believe you did) with some regularity. I'd presume Palast does as well. It's creepy as shit, but so it goes. Ultimately, I've found that I feel much safer in the sunshine, than I would in the shadows.

Something to ponder in this ridiculous world we all find ourselves now living in.

I'm sorry I could neither read your apology, or update this item until now, as I've been U.S. Social Forum(ing) all day in Atlanta, and not online for my usual 24/7. The original post has been updated to note your apology as well.

where the lists are. duval, not Plantation or Ghettos of Lauderdale or Palm Beach; Buffalo soldiers (23 of 43 white); Prausa Black (Prausa White); Duval= example how elections stolen (no one in duval challenged at polls). Majority African American ZIPs- No. Zip Targeted mailings- no. His researchers missed a critical doc= template for nationwide caging= "State_Template" at GWB.

other than drat, no one has commented on the above points, either corroborating or debunking them.

These should be easy enough to verify, and if drat is correct, Palast should never have made the claims he did, as the real story is elsewhere in the data, as drat has pointed out. Is Prausa Black or White? That one right there is enough to cast doubt on Palast's research and credibility, and that other such no-brainer "errors" have been found, i'm very concerned.

As no one here has even addressed them, let alone refuted them, i'm going to assume drat's correct.

DR,

The above comment proves my point. one "black" white guy and it's time to "cast doubt on Palast's research and credibility"... That's what I saw your first diary as accomplishing and even if that wasn't your goal.. mission accomplished.

None-
so i'll just say it's important for Palast to fix the errors. If I hadn't asked questions, the misstatements might have come out in a far more important venue- like someone in a HJC hearing quoting the buffalo soldiers piece and a hostile witness like Tim Griffin making the Prausa point. RNC must have actually done some research to counter the claims in case the Dems ever got around to ask. Me bringing this up from the left gives Greg a chance to clean things up before he is sent to the real frontlines with a misfiring gun. This and other errors probably have explanations and his credibility is salvageable by making needed corrections.
I absolutely should have given him the benefit of the doubt that these were innocent errors, that was a screw up for which i am sorry. but regardless, I think he needs to fix them so that it's clear he sticks to the truth in fighting the good fight.
Agree?

Drational #39
"This and other errors probably have explanations and his credibility is salvageable"
Jeeessuusss, move on will you. You apologized, Brad has given you a forum but you keep nit-picking. Go, do something positive!

GWN, whoever you are, I must point out that Drational has done a lot of positive things, while you?...well, who knows.

Time to move on folks. It's trollish to keep this going any further.