John Conyers Interview At The Blue Lemur

Or, why John Conyers is to be admired and John Kerry is a hypocrite opportunist

‘The Battle goes on’: An exclusive interview with Congressman Conyers and Raw Story

From the interview:

Larisa: You mentioned in your letter to your supporters that you have gotten some negative feedback and opposition. Why do you think there has been such resistance to your investigation among some elements of the Democratic Party?

Conyers: I think some of our Democrats feel it is a hopeless task and it will not accomplish much. They don’t realize that all of the people who were deeply hurt or angered or disgusted by the way they were treated are looking for someone to help them remedy the situation. Otherwise we run the risk of having fewer people participate in the next presidential election.

Larisa: Because they are discouraged.

Conyers: Right, they are discouraged and there are a number of people, sad to say, they are not even going to come forward to me or my committee. They have just given up, they feel the process is hopeless, how many of them are there I don’t know.

Conyers is very clear that one essential purpose for his public stand on the 2004 election is to send the appropriate message to voters who were disenfranchised. One of the ways that institutional racism works is by sending the message to African American voters that they don't count: not their votes, not their rights, not their hurt and anger. Racism in all its forms, whether structural or the grossest personal, violent attacks is meant to subdue its targets, to discourage them, as Larisa and Conyers put it. Our lawmakers and our law enforcement agencies ought to see it as their duty to validate the feelings of the voters who were disenfranchised and make a very clear show of pursuing justice for them. Sadly, Conyers is rare in his willingness to do this.

Now let's take John Kerry. John Kerry has yet to speak up for disenfranchised voters. He mentions them, but his expressed commitment to reform is empty without an expressed commitment to justice. Why hasn't he made public overtures to John Conyers and the House Judiciary Democrats? Why hasn't he made public overtures to Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., who has been one of the most visible advocates of election reform that explicitly addresses civil rights issues? Why hasn't he called on Republican House Judiciary Chair F. James Sensenbrenner to support official hearings, which would give House investigators the power to issue subpoenas? And, as I've already asked, why hasn't Kerry given real support to the lawsuits on behalf of Ohio voters? Even an endorsement without legal participation would make a great difference.

You may have read here, or elsewhere, that Ohio's Republican Attorney General, James Petro, has moved for sanctions against Robert Fitrakis, Susan Truitt, Cliff Arnebeck and Peter Peckarsky, the four attorneys who sued George W. Bush et. al in an attempt to further investigate the election. Kerry has been silent about this, of course. John Conyers, on the other hand, has issued a formal letter to Attorney General Petro, expressing concern

that by seeking official censure and fines, you are engaged in a selective and partisan misuse of your legal authority. As eager as many disgruntled voters are to have a court of law finally assess the merits of the challenge actions, I have serious doubts about the validity of the sanctions case your office is pursuing.

As an initial matter, one would be hard pressed to see how the legal challenges brought under the Ohio election challenge statute were "frivolous." First off, it is widely known that the Ohio presidential election was literally riddled with irregularities and improprieties, many of which are set forth in the 102 page report issued by the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff. (http://www.house.gov) As a matter of fact, the problems were so great that Congress was forced to debate the first challenge to an entire state's slate of electors since the federal Electoral Count law was enacted in 1877. In short, there is more than an abundant record raising serious, substantive questions about the Ohio presidential election.

John Kerry has a lot to learn from John Conyers. Kerry's "commitment" to election reform with no demonstrated commitment to justice for the voters who turned out on his behalf, and waited on lines in the rain for hours, is a slimy sales pitch to a base that would do well to shop elsewhere.