Thursday, October 26, 2006

Surveying the Poll Results

The N&O poll on the D.A.’s race offers three points of interest. The poll shows Mike Nifong with 46% of the vote, to 28% for Lewis Cheek, 24% undecided, and 2% for write-in spoiler Steve Monks.

The items of note:

1.) While Nifong remains the favorite, he is beatable—especially if the N&O editorial board finally gives a sign of reading its own newspaper and endorses Cheek.

Nifong’s 46% is likely overstated by 2-3%: the actual tally is probably closer to 43-31. Cell-phone users and college students tend to be undercounted in polls; in a poll like this, where the group is one and the same—the 1000+ newly registered Duke students, among support for Nifong is minimal if non-existent—the undercounting probably had some marginal effect on the poll.

Undecideds at this stage of the race usually break against the incumbent, even more so in a contest such as this one, with an extraordinarily polarizing figure as the candidate.

Nifong isn’t even bothering to reach out to Durham County voters; he actually refused an interview request on the race from one local TV station—an extraordinary action for a candidate seeking any elective office.

2.) Nifong’s base is solid—even if by supporting him, it has compromised its principles.

The N&O poll found Nifong’s support from black voters at 62%, to 9% for Cheek, with the rest undecided. Nifong might have, as James Coleman told 60 Minutes, pandered to the black community—but the N&O numbers suggest his pandering found a receptive audience.

The district attorney has the support of two Durham-area PACs. Last week, he got the nod from the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People—marking the first time I can recall in any high-profile race where a minority PAC had endorsed a candidate best known for prosecutorial misconduct and eroding civil liberties. These two issues are normally of considerable concern to the black community.

Meanwhile, among the white left, Nifong retained the support of the People’s Alliance, despite having said he’s “very pleased” to have homophobe Victoria Peterson as his citizens’ committee co-chair. The People’s Alliance purports to favor gay rights, but apparently does so only when it's ideologically convenient for them They could be deemed the Triangle's fair-weather leftists.

Obviously, for Nifong’s backers, some issues are more important than civil liberties, prosecutorial misconduct, and gay rights.

3.) Steve Monks is the Ralph Nader of this race.

The Monks case was laid out recently by advisor Cliff Brandt in a passionately argued Chronicle essay. The appeal most reminds me of the Ralph Nader 2000 campaign. Nader reached out to voters on the left wing of the political spectrum, contending that no difference existed between Al Gore and George Bush, so they should search for the perfect candidate for their ideological principles and vote for him. Enough did, siphoning votes away from Gore, for Bush to become president.

I don’t know too many Nader voters who still maintain there’s no difference between George Bush and Al Gore.

In this campaign, Monks argues he would be a better DA than anyone appointed by Mike Easley. That’s probably true. But as his 2% showing in the N&O poll suggests, he has no chance of becoming DA, at least in 2006. Since Nifong’s base is rock-solid at just under 50%, if Monks secures even 5% of the vote, his total would be enough to ensure a Nifong win.

Monks’ effect is most evident among Republicans. Cheek leads among Republicans with 44% to 4% for Nifong (and 3% for Monks). But half of Durham County Republicans (or 10% of the electorate overall) are undecided. Nifong has almost no GOP support; with Monks out of the race, that bloc of undecided Republican voters would shift almost entirely to Cheek. Such a move would shrink a roughly 43-31 Nifong lead into a 43-41 barnburner.

So, there would seem to be three options:

1.) Durham voters can cast a ballot for continued prosecutorial misconduct by electing the figure labeled:

  • a “petty-tyrant” prosecutor who should “be under criminal investigation” by Stuart Taylor in National Journal;
  • “despicable . . . a disgrace” who “deserves to be pilloried every day the rest of his life” by San Diego Union editorialist Chris Reed;
  • the modern-day equivalent of the unethical prosecutors who oversaw the Scottsboro Boys trial by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times.

2.) Durham voters can cast their ballots for a spoiler write-in candidate, and thus ensure Nifong’s re-election. It's hard to win, at any time, for a write-in candidate. But there's little evidence that Monks backers, while sincere, have the organization necessary; and I'm unaware of any instance in American political history in the last 20 years where a candidate polling 2% two weeks out has won the election. There should be no doubt, especially for Duke students: for those interested in justice for the three students targeted by Nifong, given the dynamics of this race as they now stand, a vote for Monks is the equivalent of a vote for Nifong.

3.) Durham voters can elect to recall Nifong by voting for Lewis Cheek. This conclusion, it's worth noting, has been reached by several of the most important voices in this case:

  • Duke Basketball Report, which noted as "we've become deeply skeptical about . . . the fairness of the D.A.'s office. If you live in Durham, one of your choices is to get shed of Mike Nifong, and if you think that's the right course of action, then you should visit And a special note to Duke students . . . not only do you have to take a serious look at Nifong's management of the case (and his ethics as well), but if the article about Sgt. Gottlieb is to be believed (and why not ask the students quoted? They'll surely tell you what you need to know), then Duke students are not being treated the same as everyone else is. You are, in fact, being accorded a harsher brand of 'justice.'"
  • Liestoppers, which contended that the Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek campaign "deserves support, not only from those whose votes will make a difference in this referendum, but also from those beyond, whose voices and actions might help to stop this menace to justice everywhere."
  • Ruth Sheehan and Michael Gaynor, on the left and right two of the most passionate critics of Nifong, both of whom have endorsed RN-VC and called on Monks to withdraw.

We’ve learned over the past seven months that the county has a healthy constituency in favor of prosecutorial misconduct and the politics of revenge. But the N&O poll proves that anyone who is serious about ousting Nifong has only one choice.


Anonymous said...

What is keeping lawyers for the unindicted players, who were smeared in the local press and by Duke professors, from filing libel and defamation suits immediately? Wouldn't this begin to shift the dynamic of the hoax case?

Michael said...

My guess is, given the "dynamic nature" of the story of what happened, if one of those unindicted players or their lawyer spoke out, that player might suddenly find himself in a new powerpoint presentation surrounded by seven pictures of himself in different outfits for a whole new "lineup," since someone may have told Mr. Nifong that young Mr. Finnerty mentioned having evidence he's elected, wisely, not to give the DA the opportunity to work around.

Anonymous said...

kc, what you do not take into account is that of the people you mention as " the most important voices in this case" who support Cheek, that only one who has any mass media impact in the durham area and that is Ruth Sheehan. Gaynor, the duke basketball report,liestoppers. etc are not widely read by the people of durham. the 60 minutes story also had poorer ratings here than nationwide. while this poll shows nifong has weaknesses, only 5 percent of those undecideds have to come over to him and the race is over. you need to ask what the recall Cheek forces are doing down here. i have said on here, before you delete my posts, that most of your posters are not from here and that you yourself are in ny and therefore do not know what is going on here and this poll's results are proof of that. i also said people down here are not comfortable voting for an unknown and this is also proved by the poll. many of the undecideds are republicans and have supported Cheek, a conservative democrat, in the past but are not commiting in the poll for some reason. i have also posted that nifong had local comunity support in both black and white communitites and the poll comfirms this as well. Nifong also has a lot of hispanic support(they mirror the black percentages for some reason) according to a breakdown of the poll on the news and observer website. this election is far from over but looks like i was right in my analysis and you were spectacularly wrong. feel free to delete me now.

Anonymous said...

If the voters of Durham, knowing what they know about Nifong's lack of ethics, go ahead and vote this despicable man into the DA's office, then the people of Durham will have exactly the kind of DA they deserve. And I, for one, won't be willing to listen to any Durhamite complaining about Nifong the next time he decides to railroad somebody -- and I have no doubt that there will be a next time.

Anonymous said...

When and where did Ruth Sheehan endorse Cheek? I wish she would, but I am unaware of any endorsement.

joan foster said...

"I believe that, with Lewis Cheek running as the main "Anybody But Nifong" candidate, protest votes for Nifong will only serve to strengthen the sitting D.A.'s position in the county." Ruth Sheehan.

That is an observation, not an endorsement...a comment, not a column. It can be obfuscated if necessary, and twisted with ease.

If Ruth Sheehan supports Cheek, she needs to use her widely read column to announce that, not hide in the posts on her blog. She needs to employ the passion of her early Hoax columns to the cause of removing Nifong.She needs to do that NOW.
She who led the mob last Spring, hides behind flippancy..and seems to have lost her voice and her moral courage.

I still hope, KC...but it's awfully quiet out there.

Anonymous said...

Shit, it sucks that Nifong is still leading by a large margin, despite the concerted efforts of KC Johnson, Liestoppers, John in Carolina, etc.

I guess part of the reason is that most people aren't educated enough, or concerned enough, to visit these blogs on a regular basis in order to learn the cold hard facts and truth.

If they did visit the blogs, Nifong would be the one in Monk's position (2% vote). The 2% Nifong would still get even if everyone knew the facts would consist of votes from blacks who want whites to be convicted no matter what, and leftist whites who want whites convicted no matter what. It's sickening.

Anonymous said...

I think that Nifong's support reflects the unwillingness of many to vote for the unknown person that would be appointed to replace him if Cheek won. In reality, however, the odds are considerable that a new DA will be appointed in the next 4 years even if Nifong wins, given the possibilities of disbarment or criminal or civil fallout from his handling of the Duke case. The N&O needs to point this out, but it appears that no one is willing to rock the boat before the election. That only assures, though, that it will keep rocking long after the election.

Anonymous said...

When I read this I just became convinced Durham is a pathetic little town and Duke is a pathetic university.

What does it say when the voice of reason comes from a professor at a New York City university. The best we get out of Duke is greatly outweighed by the worst of the Duke faculty. Their also seems to be a lot of worst to go around at Duke. Still why does the brightest voice in this scandal come from CUNY/Brooklyn College rather than from Duke.

It is my understanding that the student body of the CUNY schools is a diverse group that includes some of the best and brightest of the New York City area.

It had been my understanding that the student body of Duke included some of the best and brightest of this country.

How wrong I was about Duke. You have students there who think they should support Monk and another one who writes that they shouldn't even vote. They deserve to be targets of the Durham's finest for their stupidity. How they could not have registered to vote in the order of 90% or more is beyond me but then again so is how could they support a police force and a district attorney that targets them.

Joan Foster said...

7:57...Duke students sit in the Classes of the Gang of 88 every day. For your $40,000, your child gets daily indoctrination from the mindset we have seen so aptly displayed in the past months. For your $40,000, your child is taught to despise you, himself, this country and our values.

Why ever would they vote? Why ever would they care about victimization of these three boys?

These boys are lab rats, meaningless expendable fodder, that can be destroyed in furtherance of "necessary" social "advancements." Truth is an unimportant and disposable. Agenda trumps it every time.

Maybe it's time for "Nannycams" in Duke parents can peek in now and then..and actually see the intellectual environment they are PAYING FOR ...for their child

Anonymous said...

In this Durhamite's fantasy, Gov. Easley would announce pre-election whom he would name if voters decide on Cheek for DA, spurring the we-don't-know-who-we'll-get whiners to do the right thing.

So many aspects of my community's behavior are distressing, from the Potbangers to the Chans (NCCU student who wants prosecution regardless) but I have to say the worst may be people backing a man who has shown his overriding principle is arrogance but won't vote him out on the principle that they want to know who they're voting for...well, when they vote for Nifong, they do and it ain't pretty.

Great work, KC. Thanks for shining your light.

Durham Mommy

LearnedHand said...

5:49 a.m. anon (wow - do YOU need to get some sleep or what?):

you continue this ridiculous assault on people who disagree with your point of view by claiming "bias" or that they aren't from around these parts and don't know how we do thangs here.

this an incredibly myopic and narrow-minded point of view. do you honestly believe that YOU know how many people that post on this blog are FROM the area? what if they aren't? does that mean that they have NO idea what is going on "down here"?

i do not live in durham, either. does that make me like these people you chastise unfairly? nope - i have relatives in durham, so i have spent a considerable amount of time there over my life; i went to school there (twice) for a total of seven years; and i am in town numerous times a year. but, i guess i wouldn't know about "the people of durham" of which you have such an inside knowledge.

hmmmmm - could it also be that the n&o polled ONLY 600 people? my goodness - what a HUGE sample! for further evidence that this means little - i worked on harvey gantt's campaign in the early '90's. there were polls RIGHT before the election showing gantt winning durham county by a landslide and in a dead heat with helms statewide! we were so excited and hopeful! i don't think i need to tell you how that turned out, do i?

Anonymous said...

the poll started the same day Nifong announced an arrest in the city's year old quadruple unsolved murder. Making headlines and him a popular candidate for a few days, which we all know it was designed to one-up the 60 minutes airing the night before. How convenient to come up with a suspect already in federal custody.

KC Johnson said...

To the 5.49:

It is not my practice to delete comments. I have, since the blog began, deleted only 5 or 6. Most of these were multiple posts; two contained unfounded personal attacks against the accuser; and the final was a one-line statement claiming that lacrosse players must be guilty.

Your comment that "the 60 minutes story also had poorer ratings here than nationwide" is entirely untrue--60 Mins' ratings in the Triangle for the broadcast were close to double the (high) nationwide total.

I don't believe I've ever predicted that Cheek would win; or ever expected that Nifong wouldn't enjoy the level of support he has. I have commented, sadly, on this fact, but it certainly doesn't surprise me.

Anonymous said...

I'm curious about the continued sound of silence issuing from Duke Law and for that matter Carolina Law. The cowardice of the legal community causes Professor Coleman to appear ever more heroic. Let's cashier Broadhead-- maybe get him a copy editing job at Chronicle of Higher Education-- someplace where he can't do much damage. Install Professor Coleman as President. Eventually, when Nifong pleads out and goes to live in the halfway house with the other pathetic criminals, can we ship him to Chapel Hill? I mean, he's your problem, you all, when all is said and done. Proud UNC undergraduate and law school. You guys have a place where the other Carolina Law criminals get sent to work after they get disbarred? Something not too mentally strenuous-- like a Sunshine Workshop. 2009-- There's the Fongster now, walking down Franklin Street in his powder blue sweatshirt bearing the fearsome image of a pugnacious ram, on his way to a busy day making lightbulbs for the Lions Club. Hey Mikey, What's up? Hey, he flipped me the bird!

kbp said...

Thanks KC

I am curious if the poll results actually reflect what voters would do. We know that only 28.5% of the registered Democrats showed up to cast votes in the Primary and that there was quite a stir to get out and vote just prior to it. How many of those Dem’s that are active enough to answer the phone would actually get off the couch to vote? We know 62,164 (71.5%), an overwhelming majority, were too lazy to vote in the primary.

Another thing to consider is the fact that 10,000+ signed mailers originated at the Cheek camp. Though I cannot say with certainty which registered voters these mailers were addressed to, I’d think they would have been Democrats since Cheek is actually from that party. Would that tell us that a larger portion of that 22% of the Dem’s that selected Cheek in the poll would get out and cast a vote than the 61% that selected Nifong, the man representing their party?

This poll may tell us who would be elected if they took votes over the phone, but I’m not convinced it can be relied upon to reflect what the outcome actually would be if all those surveyed had to go further than their phone to be a part of the process. This election has many factors involved here that may alter those poll numbers when the dust settles.

Cliff said...


With all due respect, can you tell me how it is that you consider LieStoppers (a/k/a LieStarters) to be among "the most important [emphasis added] voices in this case" when they are willing to deliberately lie, by way of an absolutely false quotation, about the content of an editorial with which they disagree. This is exactly what they did in connection with my Chronicle piece.

While they may be a voice, I do not see how, given the astonishing lack of integrity they've displayed here, they can be considered an "important" one, unless one has absolutely no concern for the truth, which clearly you do.


LearnedHand said...


Please educate the rest of us about this "absolute lie" they told over at LieStoppers. I have read the entry and your guest article in the Chronicle. I see no such thing - but, again, I may be missing what you are talking about as you have simply continued your verbal assault on this blog and others without any support.

Please do us a favor and help us understand what the heck you are talking about.

Anonymous said...

The Duke students need to get out and vote. The pathetic people of Durham can have Nifong if they wish. The students at Duke should be smarter than this. I have 2 daughters at Duke. The 22 year old doaughter just got arrested by the good ole police department for buying a bottle of wine. We still are not sure why a 22 year old could get arrested for buying a bottle of wine. There were 2 other Duke students, they were harrassed, pushed up by their car and the DPD kept yelling at the students that they knew they had this 22 year old buying the wine. People in our part of the country have never heard of such abuse. A car load of gang members actually drove by shooting a gun, my daughters laid on the ground bc they were so scared. The Durham police were laughing at the gang incident. The same night that happened to my daughters (homecoming weekend) I was told there were 7 other arrests of Duke students walking down a sidewalk. They can't get out of there fast enough. It will happen to them next. Duke students- Vote Cheek now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Cliff, this is so peculiar that you would attack blogs that has been supportive of the lacrosse players, while claiming how much you care about the lacrosse players. It is also peculiar that you would attack Cheek's campaign while claiming how much you care about the lacrosse players. Cliff, even you would have to admit that with 2% polling just 2 weeks prior to the election, Mr. Monks can not possibly hope to win this election. Even if you have the best intentions, what is the point of trying to get Cheek's voters to vote for Mr. Monks? Clearly Cheek appears to be behind Nifong, so even if you switch some voters from Cheek to Monks, there is absolutely no chance Mr. Monks can win the election. Mr. Monks had his chance to convince voters to vote for him. It did not work. Even within republican party, Mr. Monks does not have much support, according to the recent poll. Even if this poll is not totally accurate, 2 % is 2 %. It's within margin of error. What do you hope to accomplish now by attacking the pro-lacrosse blogs and Cheek's campaign? So, what is it you are trying to do NOW, given the situation, and considering Mr. Monks does not have any realistic hope at all of winning this election?
At least Mr. Cheeks has a shot at beating Nifong, as he is polling much better than Mr. Monks. Yet you persist. Why? What are your intentions now?

Anonymous said...

Cliff - You are polling 2%. It's time to get off the stage. I'm really beginning to question your motivation in this. You seem to be spending alot more time attacking Cheek and RN-VC than you do attacking Nifong and his misconduct. As another poster noted, you also seem to spend alot of time attacking blogs that support the players. What are you trying to accomplish?

Anonymous said...

1. Monks must get OUT!

2. Undecideds will vote for Cheeks, as they have enough information about Nifong, and they are still undecided.

3. The November "surprise" that will undoubtedly trash Nifong even further (if possible).

That is the road to victory. VOTE CHEEKS!

P.S. It seems pretty pathetic for an incumbant to have less than a majority poll result against:

A. A guy who doesn't want the job, and

B. A write-in candidate.

Chin and CHEEKS up! There is still a lot of time before the polls close. Vote CHEEK! Recall Nifong!

Anonymous said...

Cliff you seem pretty alone in your disdain for liestoppers. Have you ever even read their blog? All we've gotten from you is whiney drivel about how we're all stupid and even that didn't start until last week. Here's what some other's have said about liestoppers.

But its flaws are so glaring that it was shredded by bloggers within hours after it hit my doorstep. They were led by a Durham group called Liestoppers and by KC Johnson, an obscure but brilliant New York City history professor of centrist political views.
- Stuart Taylor

Hi. My name is Robin Sanders, and I work at CBS News. I wanted to let you know about the piece on the Duke lacrosse rape case that will be airing this Sunday, Oct. 15, 7PM ET on CBS. Below is a note from our editorial director, who has been following your blog coverage:
First, I apologize for this slightly impersonal note. I'm Dick Meyer, the editorial director at I'm writing because you've written about the Duke lacrosse case in the past so I think you'll be very interested in the stories that will be running on 60 Minutes this weekend and the extra material that will be posted on them on Whatever your take on the story, whatever your take on us here at CBS News, this story is the first time you'll be able to hear some the principals speak for themselves. The section for 60 Minutes is:
If we can help, let us know. Thanks much.

That said, those who mock justice expose themselves to mockery in turn; and no website has demonstrated a more piercing wit than Liestoppers. Some of the site's best parodies:
Nifonging your way to success!
The Adventures of Baldo
Coalition of Durham Animals United against Nifong
My personal favorite came when Liestoppers "Nifonged" the Group of 88.

This case is so depressing that it's good to occasionally view events in Durham through a light-hearted lens. - KC Johnson

Earlier today LieStoppers may have written their finest column to date. That column is titled “A Conspiracy of Truth.” It goes directly to the heart of events leading up to and following your Mar 27 column.

LieStoppers published a very good article today reflecting the feelings and ...
LieStoppers published a very good article today reflecting the feelings and ...

Liestoppers offered a fair and balanced review of Mr. Michaels' article on the "60 Minutes" expose and explanation of it:

Thank God for the creation of Liestoppers who will…

If you doubt that , go to the website of Professor Robert K.C. Johnson (, or Liestoppers (,

The National Review:
The following blogs are excellent and have been following the case in great detail for months:

Wilson and Glater's errors of comission and omission were savaged by Stuart Taylor in, K.C. Johnson, and blogs such as Liestoppers

You can also see the in-depth reporting of Liestoppers here, and a post that provides a rather detailed and exhaustive look at the contradictions

It has been a while since I updated the Duke rape hoax. But Liestoppers is too good to miss. Cartoons, poetry, links, discussion and some impressive prose.

You'll find several hundred more here:,GGLR:2006-37,GGLR:en&q=liestoppers

Other than your own, I've yet to read a complimentary word about you. Other than your own, I've yet to read an unkund word written about them. Seems your just sore at them cuz they didn't agree with you. It's the same way you've acted towards everyone else who has not agreed with you too. liestoppers has been tireless warriors against Nifong and the Hoax. What have you done besides work to help Nifong get elected by trying to take votes from Cheek and create confusion?

Cliff said...

5:31 PM

It's "Cheek", not "Cheeks". Always helpful to know the real name of the candidate you're supporting. BTW, if I thought that "Cheeks" was just a typo, I wouldn't have said a word, but if Monks had a vote for every time I've heard the name "Cheeks" used as the last name of Lewis Cheek by his own supporters, Monks would be leading by a landslide.

Anonymous said...

Well, that's the beauty of being on the ballot, Cliff. Lewis Cheek supporters don't have to worry about spelling his name exactly right.

Anonymous said...

I hope the 2% doesn't confuse people and they start spelling it Milk or Milks.

Here's a few more liestoppers references for Cliff:

LieStoppers has also been cookin' with gas. Its piece entitled Occam's Razor and the publishing of defense counsels' new omnibus discovery motion are exemplars of the enormous worth of this very talented team of researchers and writers. ...

In keeping with my policy of sharing all points
of view fairly on this site, I wanted to link this article from the Liestoppers blog ( I think it is insightful, sincere, and very well written.

Comments on the LieStoppers blog and KC Johnson/Wonderland blog have become a fascinating way to understand some of the issues surrounding the case.

A (very) thorough rundown of reactions to the 60 Minutes profile
Provided by a website called “Liestoppers.”

Liestoppers presents an interesting challenge: if you believe that a rape occurred at the lacrosse party, explain these 91 contradictions.

Finally, I close with a piece that is not to be missed from the Liestoppers blog, "A Conspiracy of Truth." Read the whole thing: it lays the case out and makes a persuasive case for what this whole event is premised upon.

Cliff said...

Learnedhand (at 2:19 PM):

As I matter of principle I refuse to visit LieStarters any longer. However, to provide you with the information you've requested, take a look at "Defeating Mike Nifong - Where Does Our Real Victory Lie" and then take a look at the second paragraph at item 1).

What I wrote was "what has come to be known as the 'Duke Lacrosse Rape Case'", writing which, of course, accurately reflects how the mainstream media frequently describes the matter with which we are all concerned here.

Now pay a visit to Liestarters and see what they reported I'd said in this regard. It is, as I said, an absolute lie.

So that there's is no confusion as to the close of my post to KC at 1:32 PM, which I now see was somewhat ambiguous, the last sentence, in order to be entirely unambiguous as to my meaning, would much better have been:

While they may be a voice, I do not see how, given the astonishing lack of integrity they've displayed here, they can be considered an "important" one, unless one has absolutely no concern for the truth, a category which I know does not include you.

It is my hope that my actual meaning, as just addressed, was understood by all readers, especially in view of my beginning my post with "With all due respect...", but if it was not, I do apologize for my somewhat inattentive and inexact choice of words in my original post.

Cliff said...


An amusing rejoinder, I'll concede, but one that reflects an ignorance of at least one very important aspect of North Carolina election law. Steve Monks' supporters don't have to worry about spelling his name exactly right either, because the Board of Elections will, in accordance with North Carolina law, accept as a vote for Monks any writing that reasonably resembles his name.

Another problem for the "Cheeks" supporters is, of course, that some of them may get in the voting booth, not see the name "Lewis Cheeks" anywhere, think that their candidate is no longer running, and then decide to write-in, let's say, "Steve Monk" (which will certainly do the trick, even if it isn't his real name), because he too is not Nifong. I say this with some facetiousness, of course, but with the level of thought reflected in the support that some folks are offering Cheek, one really can't help but wonder.

Anonymous said...

Oh please, Cliff. Who are you kidding?
Mr. Monks supporters spelling his name either Monk or Monks is fine with you, it's only Lewis Cheek supporters you have a problem with?
Again, I must ask, what gives? What are your intentions?
Don't tell me you are still trying to hold on to an illusion that Mr. Monks can somehow win this election? Like KC says, name one instance in American history when a write-in candidate polling 2% two weeks before the election went on and won that election? It just can't happen.

Anonymous said...

It is difficult to believe if you sincerely want to remove Nifong, why you only attack Cheek. I happen to be Republican, but it is obvious that a Rep. will not win this election in such a predominantly Democratic county. I am sure Monks is also viewed as an "outsider" by Durhamites. My family lived in the area for several years and were always considered "yankees" by the natives. (Funny, because we were from the Midwest, but nonetheless called Yankees on numerous occasions. Some seem to think the civil war is still going on down there.) While much of the Triangle area is extremely progressive and well educated, Durham is a corrupt, backward, dangerous city. Durham's corrupt, evil, and/or incompetent DA has been on display to the entire nation for months - yet you attack Cheek, not Nifong. Why do you bother to post on sites intended to support the lax players only to attack those who post? I sincerely don't understand what it is you are attempting to accomplish.

Anonymous said...

I don't know what Cliff is trying to accomplish, but clearly the things he is accomplishing can only help Nifong.

Anonymous said...

I think they'll accept the actual spelling for Monks: Nifong Bootlick. Sic Semper Tyrannus

Cliff said...

7:25 PM

While I respect KC, I do not regard him as an Oracle. As Justice Louis D. Brandeis observed...

"Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done".

And getting Mike Nifong out of office is surely worth doing, don't you think?

If anyone here is interested in examining the overarching realities of this race, take a look at my post at If You Really Don't Want Nifong, Tell Cheek to Withdraw at 6:31 AM. You may not like the name of the link, but it's time to wake up: a candidate with 28% of the vote is hardly in a position to ask anyone to withdraw, particularly when the only hope for the mess he's led his followers into (look at the polls: Nifong Polls With 64% More Votes Than Cheek!) is for him to get out of the race and support the only anti-Nifong candidate, Steve Monks, who actually wants to serve.

Well, now fancy that, a candidate who actually wants to serve—gosh, what a novel idea, why didn't we think of that? You know, I'm really not sure, but, don't worry about it, it's never too late to start...

And now would be a real good time, because you know what, not enough people in Durham County are going to surrender a centuries-old right to choose their own representatives so that a candidate who has no interest in serving can say he saved the day.

If Steve Monks had one vote for every person who's told just me, "I'd vote for him, but he can't win," this election would be over right now but for the counting and 'ol Mike Nifong, he'd be headed out the door. So what I'd suggest: turn your "he can't wins" into votes and watch the fun begin...

And, if you're still having trouble with the whole concept of a write-in candidacy (and the only reason you think they can't work is that someone who didn't know what the heck they were talking about told you so), check out Write-In Candidates Can and Do Win!

It's really simple, fill in an oval on the ballot (you're going to have to do this no matter who you vote for) and write down two words: "Steve Monks". Think you can handle it? That's what I thought...

And, if Lewis really wants to save the day, tell him to send that link to everyone of his supporters with a real simple set of intructions:

1) Fill in the oval next to the Write-in line, and

2) Write the following two words: "Steve Monks"

To see what the ballot looks like after you've done this, go to This Is What Victory Looks Like.

Looks pretty sweet to me.

Anonymous said...

Yep, that makes sense. Candidate with 28% of the vote can't tell anyone to withdraw, but candidate with 2 % of the votes can? There has got to be something in the water in Durham.

Cliff said...

2:00 AM

If you were down here in Durham, it would make a lot more sense, but read the first link, think about it, and I'm pretty sure you'll be able to figure it out...

Clue: There are plenty of people in Durham County who won't vote for Cheek and will vote for Nifong unless they accept the viability of Monks' campaign, which the backing of Cheek's arsenal of supporters guarantees...

Anonymous said...

Ignore the troll folks. Cliff is no different than the haters who come on here. Notice he answers no questions, supports none of his arguments and tries only to annoy and confuse. His goal is close folks. All he needs to do to ensure Nifong's victory is up that 2% to 5% and Mike will pat him on the back for a job well done.

Cliff said...

4:34 AM

You wouldn't know what support of an argument looked like if it walked into your house naked and wearing a name tag.

Anonymous said...

Cliff...this is the "lie" you've been refering to?

"of the Duke Hoax (which Brandt prefers to refer to as the “Lacrosse Rape”)."

You say:"what has come to be known as the 'Duke Lacrosse Rape Case'",

Even the mainstream media has the courtesy to insert alleged into the phrase, yet you call it a rape and when someone points that out it is an absolute lie? Obviously calling it a rape is your preference. You used the damn word with no qualifier as nearly all of the msm has come to do. Given your activities to ensure Nifong's election, one might think it is also your belief. It's a hoax Cliff not a rape. It's a false accusation and a false prosecution, calling it a rape lends credence to the charge.

Some might have thought the "lie" you spoke of was:

"Mr. Monks appears intent on manipulation designed to simply split the anti-Nifong vote to the benefit of the candidate, DA Nifong, that he pretends to campaign against."


"manipulative overtures made by both Monks and Brandt in late night stalking of Duke Lacrosse players at campus bars and manipulative emails that followed."


"The introduction to Brandt’s editorial gives away the apparent true nature of the Monks’ Campaign."


"Despite the fact that Monks and Brandt know full well that attaching oneself to the prosecution of the Hoax is political suicide, they prey on the fears and emotions of the Duke students at large, just as they had done directly with the lacrosse teammates of the accused."


"Mr. Monks must realize that his withdrawal from the District Attorney’s race provides the best opportunity for the removal of Nifong from office, yet he pretends that voting for him affords the only possibility to save the Duke Three."


"By invoking the names of the wrongfully persecuted Duke Three in this manipulative effort, Nifong's allies attempt to turn the sympathy of those concerned for the fate of the three innocent young men into votes than would ultimately serve their persecutor. Stooping to this political low reveals the moral deficiency of the Monks campaign which can only serve to help Nifong's retain his office."

Thanks for letting us know that the rest is true.

Anonymous said...

Brandt, Does Monks know you've gotten out of your cage? NBC-17 just reported Steve will announce his withdrawl from the race at the BOE today. I can't wait for the johnsville or lie stoppers headline:

"Monks Withdraws, Brandt Fights On For Fong"

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Mr. Monks, Nifong personally didn't have to say one bad word about Cheek's campaign.
And for what?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I think I heard somewhere that before he became a DA, Mike Nifong had published some works of fiction under the pseudonym "Cliff Brandt"!

Anonymous said...

Cliff's reward for helping Monks hand the election to Nifong will be a job as Nifong's gofer. "Can I get you another soft drink, Mr. Nifong?" "Yes sir!" "Here's your Wendys triple burger-- extra mayo just the way you like it." "Can I rub your feet for you Mr. Nifong, or do anything at all to make you more comfortable?" If you need anything else, just buzz my electric collar-- I'll be curled up on the dog bed waiting for you, sir."

Cliff said...

4:54 AM

Yes, it is exactly the lie I'm referring to.

The phrase "has come to be known as" is employed universally to indicate that others (not the user of the phrase) have used a specified term—in this case, "Duke Lacrosse Rape Case" (which is something very different from "'Lacrosse Rape'", as you can see) frequently enough to describe a given set of circumstances that the term—properly placed within quotations, as I do—has entered the common language of discourse on those circumstances as an abbreviated way to describe them. Here the circumstances are, of course, the allegations that three persons who were members of the Duke University Men's Lacrosse Team at the time the allegations arose participated in an alleged rape of the complaining witness in this case.

Contrary to LieStarters claim, I never refer to the set of circumstances just described, or any other set of circumstances, as the "'Lacrosse Rape'" in my editorial “Defeating Nifong - Where Does Our Real Victory Lie?”, nor have I ever used or thought about using this term to refer to the circumstances of the case in question. The claim that I refer to anything in my editorial as the "'Lacrosse Rape'" is a lie. While LieStarters is certainly entitled to disagree with my editorial, it is not entitled to lie about it. That it has chosen to do so in order to discredit my editorial is highly instructive.

The fact that whoever's running that site thinks that lying is acceptable conduct ought to speak volumes, to anyone paying attention, on the issue of the legitimacy of any claim they may make and on their general credibility in the world of ideas. Might some of their reporting be legitimate? Yes. Can it be assumed to be legitimate? Absolutely not.

In consequence, their credibility shot, LieStarters cannot be trusted as a reliable reporter of the world they cover unless and until they implement whatever changes are necessary to ensure that their reporting is accurate and truthful. When any organization disseminating "information" is prepared to lie about that "information", it loses it's legitimacy entirely, as any person—academic, journalist, or otherwise—worth his or her salt will know.

Given the conduct in which they have engaged here and as referenced below, it seems to me that they can just as well be called LieStarters as LieStoppers and I've chosen the former as more appropriate to the facts of my experience with them.

Wrapping this part up, your claim on the use of "alleged," which admittedly I do not use, is simply mistaken. There is absolutely nothing "alleged" about what has come to be known as the "Duke Lacrosse Rape Case"; this case is, in fact, very real. And, if you're attempting to assert that I should have said "what has come to be known as the 'Duke Lacrosse Alleged Rape Case'", that is NOT what it "has come to be known as" for what I would have hoped would have been the obvious reason that of course it's alleged—it is, as we all know, an active case, pending disposition, that consists only of what's been alleged.

(continued below)

Cliff said...

(continued from above,as due to a site malfunction, the following paragraph was being truncated when I attempted to post it above)

As to LieStarters' lie that Steve Monks and I have engaged in the "stalking of Duke Lacrosse Players"—which in North Carolina would be a crime had it occurred—well, that appears to be a good deal more than just the lie that it is, and somehow libel comes to mind. But, gosh, it's Sunday, so I suppose that we'll just have to leave that for another day...

Anonymous said...

Did anyone see Duff Wilson's begrudgingly tepid article (see last paragraph) in today's NY Times?

The article was on A20 (as buried way in the back), I believe.