Brad Appearing on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight! & More Dobbs E-Voting Outrage!

I'm in San Diego for last night's Busby/Bilbray events, but was just called from CNN to rush back up to LA to be interviewed for this evening's Lou Dobbs show. Presuming I make it back on time, I should be on tonight (Thursday) and possibly tomorrow night as well (6pm ET, 3pm PT).

I'll also be on Mike Malloy's Air America program, guest hosted by Laura Flanders tonight at 10:45pm ET (7:45pm PT).

Hope to get folks caught up on the latest Busby/Bilbray stuff as soon as I can catch my breath! In the meantime, speaking of Dobbs, his show on Tuesday was fantastic. See below... - Brad

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lou Dobbs on E-Voting Security: 'Elections Can be Outright Stolen and No One Would Ever Know…It's Incredible'
CNN Notices That Wireless Personal Digital Assistants Could Wreak Havoc on Voting Machines…

And Lou is really getting angry about all of this!...



VIDEO, TEXT-TRANSCRIPT and a BIT MORE:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3011

---
Brad Friedman
THE BRAD BLOG - The uprising continues...
http://www.BradBlog.com
VELVET REVOLUTION - The revolution begins...
http://www.VelvetRevolution.us

BE the patriot.

I'd much rather he focus on election fraud, then immigration. EF is much more important.

2006 Election - BYOB - Bring Your Own Ballot.

for all your hard work and courage on this MOST important issue
:kick:

:hi:

:hi: Break a leg and make us proud. :patriot:

using these forums to advertise if you refuse to answer any questions.

It is ridiculous.

I've asked you several pertinent and reasonable questions and you ignore them.

Why do think Busby is running as far away from you as possible?
Why don't you tell people the Democratic poll workers took machines home?
What evidence do you have that Busby's campaign thinks they received a single vote less than they were expecting?
What financial relationship do you have with Clint Curtis?
Do you think it is a coincidence that Dobbs is taking on e-voting now that Dem's are WAY ahead in the polls?
Are you going to correct Dobbs misconception that the machines can be remotely hacked?
Do you think charging $10 to get in to your 'town hall' events will discourage the most vulnerable to vote fraud from attending even though your flyer said they wouldn't be turned away?


These are just some of the questions I have asked you in your multiple rules violating GD posts.

Busby knew about your 'sleep overs' before the election. Busby had people at each and every polling station and saw NOTHING irregular. In fact here is what Busby had to say about the matter...



Have you ever considered that you are helping the Pukes discredit Dem victories this fall?

you made the claim it's your job to back it up.

transcripts of Dobbs asking and complaining about e-voting that didn't have a paper trail well before the election in 2004.

The reason I was surprised was he has been on such a roll over it during the last month. He started in May just complaining about Sequoia being sold to a company connected to Venezuela, not so helpful. But he was quickly on the rest of it in later days so I assumed he was just looking into it and learning about it.

I was looking for a recent quote when I ran across his 2004 transcripts. We were talking about it then but we didn't hear many pundits concerned about it.

This time I hope he will not let go of it, stir people up, get more people and shows talking and looking until politicians demand change or whatever it takes.

"Are you afraid of paperless voting machines".

And the results were always that people wanted them. So in 04 (at least up until around May) they were doing that. I stopped watching CNN after the Democratic Convention because I actually heard Candi Crawley say something like, "You think what we want you to think...or what we tell you..." it was something along those lines. I got so angry at the way they were smearing him and then linked to that statement, it was the last straw for me.


In the meantime, I'm doing my share to spread the word. Check out the surprise Britney fans will get when they click on this link.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Brad, it was great to meet you.

Techno Dog and others that are looking to jump on Busby for her comments here.

Yes, I too wish she could be more supportive of Brad's cause than she is currently. All of you that call her names and try to push her into some "DLC corner" or the like are as much a part of her avoiding being seen with Brad as anything else. It really isn't constructive to go after people and call them names when they are trying to unseat Republicans in this Fall campaign. It's not just Busby, but many other potential Democratic congressmen/women are faced with the same challenge Busby is facing though with less current scrutiny.

> I've asked you several pertinent and reasonable questions and you ignore them.

Let me try to answer a few here for you...

> Why do think Busby is running as far away from you as possible?

Francine Busby isn't a technical geek or a technical expert, and relies on others (DCCC and their consultants) to help advise her on what she should say (especially after her getting in trouble with the immigration comment right before the election). Ultimately she has to take responsibility for her own statements, but a better question would be "Why did the DCCC and other Democratic organization consultants advise her to say the things she did and make like nothing was wrong, when it can be clearly shown that State laws regarding custody and security of our voting machines here was violated?" And that is a larger question that applies not only to this race, but up and coming Dems in many other races coming this fall who aren't seasoned politicians but who are trying to unseat Republicans in our quest to take over congress. The same DCCC and organizations that are also guiding our existing congress people to be non-committal on many other issues before them and counting on a "self destruction" of Republicans to help them get seats.

> Why don't you tell people the Democratic poll workers took machines home?

He is. And he's had agreement with Right wing talk show host here that the sanctity of our voting machines are being violated. Noted last night that one of the machine companies, Sequoia I believe, (and this has been noted before on his blog) is owned and run by people here in Venezuela, and noted that the right should wonder if Chavez is trying to affect the elections here too without proper scrutiny and policies in place.

> What evidence do you have that Busby's campaign thinks they received a single vote less than they were expecting?

First of all, they aren't claiming they've received less votes than they expected. They probably wouldn't have felt that way had they won either. The problem Brad is dealing with is outside whether there was a "fraud" or not. He's not claiming that. He's claiming that the election was run illegally, and that if it's allowed to stand without question, it sets us up in the fall for a big fall if we don't make sure proper laws and policies are put in place before then. The Busby/Bilbray race is the place to start to make sure these policies are being followed.

> What financial relationship do you have with Clint Curtis?

I'll let him answer that, and I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

> Do you think it is a coincidence that Dobbs is taking on e-voting now that Dem's are WAY ahead in the polls?

Hmm... "WAY ahead in the polls?" I think I heard on election day that John Kerry was "way ahead in the polls" too. What relevance does that have?

> Are you going to correct Dobbs misconception that the machines can be remotely hacked?

There are many ways these machines can be hacked, either through wireless ports on machines or through internet connections. Laws have been in place to prevent this, but even here locally they've been "ignored" too, like the special election for mayor, where the central tabulator WAS illegally connected to the internet too.

> Do you think charging $10 to get in to your 'town hall' events will discourage the most vulnerable to vote fraud from attending even though your flyer said they wouldn't be turned away?

He was "asking" for money donations, not REQUIRING it. I don't see anything wrong with that. We live in a time where money buys influence to get things solved. $10 isn't a lot to ask to help out with these efforts.

> Busby knew about your 'sleep overs' before the election. Busby had people at each
> and every polling station and saw NOTHING irregular. In fact here is what Busby
> had to say about the matter...

Brad is taking issue with the concept that you have to "see anything" go wrong on whether to be able to conclude that nothing was going wrong. If in a sleepover, someone had reprogrammed the cards in those machines, it could compromise the whole election, and no observors would "see" anything to help them know something was going wrong.

Just yesterday there were reports that ONE person working in this fashion could potentially change the results of a whole state's votes.

I'm not sure why you are going after Brad. He's trying to work hard from his heart to make sure we have a fair voting system to work with, which not many others have tried to do to this point. I say thank god that folks like Lou Dobb, Jim Lampley (who was there last night), RFK Jr., and others are picking up his lead on this too.

What would YOU like to see happen for this fall's elections. What would YOU think should be in place to make sure our elections are fair?

I talked to Francine Busby on this too on Tuesday night when she was at a club meeting of ours then. She is very sympathetic to voting rights issues. The problem I feel is that she's being ultra cautious about not saying anything that the right wing media will twist into something that sounds like she's a "sore loser" for protesting the election results. I don't think she's questioning Brad's efforts to ensure voting machine reliability at all. She's just trying not to be a target to be taken down by opportunists like they did with the way they exagerated comments she made about immigration right before the June vote.

Again, I think the DCCC can help her and other Dems do a better job in having a "talking points" line or something like that to indicate that they care very much to ensure that our voting systems are secure and accurate, but that they aren't trying to clog the system with "sore loser" lawsuits that those on the right will try to position them as doing. If there's a clear strategy that can help avoid the right twisting Busby and other candidates' words around, then we can have many more reps run on voter machine integrity as an issue and not something they want to stay away from.

Jeeni Crescenzo by the way is a very good progressive candidate, and has studied this issue locally very heavily, and I put money into her coffers last night for her efforts. Really hope she can give the boot to Issa.

I'm working on my reply.

Techno Dog and others that are looking to jump on Busby for her comments here.


No you missed my point all together. I'm not jumping on Busby at all. I know three people that work for Busby, they think Brad's efforts are poorly thought out as do I.

Busby thinks she did well keeping her opponent to under 50% and thinks with a concerted effort to convince moderate repubs to vote for her in November as well as a huge GOTV campaign she will take the GOP stronghold, as do I.


"Why did the DCCC and other Democratic organization consultants advise her to say the things she did and make like nothing was wrong, when it can be clearly shown that State laws regarding custody and security of our voting machines here was violated?"


It is nothing short of slander to say Busby's statement was forced or anything other than her true feelings. The DCCC had nothing to do with her concession or her feelings that the vote count was fair an accurate.

Has Brad ever considered that the NEW rules for handling the machines weren't enforceable or practical given the time between codification and implementation?


And he's had agreement with Right wing talk show host here that the sanctity of our voting machines are being violated. Noted last night that one of the machine companies, Sequoia I believe, (and this has been noted before on his blog) is owned and run by people here in Venezuela, and noted that the right should wonder if Chavez is trying to affect the elections here too without proper scrutiny and policies in place.


And this unsubstantiated smear and innuendo helps address legitimate concerns about the integrity of our vote how?


He's claiming that the election was run illegally, and that if it's allowed to stand without question, it sets us up in the fall for a big fall if we don't make sure proper laws and policies are put in place before then. The Busby/Bilbray race is the place to start to make sure these policies are being followed.


Are you sure about that? I've received over 50+ sensational headlines in my rss reader from brad and other election reformers that imply Busby MIGHT have won. does this image look like Brad is talking about generic rule violations?



Hmm... "WAY ahead in the polls?" I think I heard on election day that John Kerry was "way ahead in the polls" too. What relevance does that have?


If you can show me national polls that had kerry in a double digit lead leading up to the 04 election I'll retract that statement. But without it I'll just add that when Chris Mathews is predicting a Dem sweep you know the GOP is in trouble.


There are many ways these machines can be hacked, either through wireless ports on machines or through internet connections. Laws have been in place to prevent this, but even here locally they've been "ignored" too, like the special election for mayor, where the central tabulator WAS illegally connected to the internet too.


Again, if you can point me to a single successful "hack" of a voting machine from a remote device I'll retract that statement as well.


He was "asking" for money donations, not REQUIRING it. I don't see anything wrong with that. We live in a time where money buys influence to get things solved. $10 isn't a lot to ask to help out with these efforts.


As I said in an unanswered post to Brad already, poor people feel stigmatized having to explain to door staff that they don't have the money asked for, even if there would be no resistance from said staff. This fear in most cases deters them from attending such events. IMO it would have been better to pass a hat or ask for a donation AT the event instead of on flyers promoting it.


Brad is taking issue with the concept that you have to "see anything" go wrong on whether to be able to conclude that nothing was going wrong. If in a sleepover, someone had reprogrammed the cards in those machines, it could compromise the whole election, and no observers would "see" anything to help them know something was going wrong.


If you spoke to Busby did she not explain how campaigns audit results? How internal projections along with lists of expected supporters turning up to vote are cross referenced with the vote tallies?


Just yesterday there were reports that ONE person working in this fashion could potentially change the results of a whole state's votes.


Those 'reports' were based on a fallacious idea that machines are remotely hackable, and that all safeguards are ignored by both election officials and candidate operatives working the polling place. None of which was present in the CA 50 special election. It would only be possible if the machines are centrally secured by a corrupt SoS with acsess to the machines, something it seems Brad wants.


I'm not sure why you are going after Brad. He's trying to work hard from his heart to make sure we have a fair voting system to work with, which not many others have tried to do to this point. I say thank god that folks like Lou Dobb, Jim Lampley (who was there last night), RFK Jr., and others are picking up his lead on this too.


This site is called DEMOCRATIC Underground, I was under the impression our goals here were to elect DEMOCRATS. If I think someone is acting in a fashion that will hurt the chances of electing a Democrat you can bet your last dollar I will speak up.

I don't trust Lou 'pump and Dump, I hate mexicans' Dobbs as far as I could throw him. Have you seen me once criticize RFK's motives or strategy?


What would YOU like to see happen for this fall's elections. What would YOU think should be in place to make sure our elections are fair?


I would like to see protocols put in place that dilute the risks associated with electronic voting, and educated Democratic poll watchers. EXACTLY what happened in the CA 50 special election.


She is very sympathetic to voting rights issues. The problem I feel is that she's being ultra cautious about not saying anything that the right wing media will twist into something that sounds like she's a "sore loser" for protesting the election results. I don't think she's questioning Brad's efforts to ensure voting machine reliability at all.


Twice now you've mentioned talking to Busby without quoting her, that's probably because she told you that EVERY SINGLE EXPERT she had working for her on election night told her the election results were as they expected, a HUGE SUCCESS.


If there's a clear strategy that can help avoid the right twisting Busby and other candidates' words around, then we can have many more reps run on voter machine integrity as an issue and not something they want to stay away from.


Running on vote integrity is a LOSING strategy IMO. Because there is no proof there is a nefarious plot to steal elections, any discussion of the issue that trumps issues the MAJORITY of Americans feel are important will marginalize the candidate. Is it an important issue? Of course.But to make it a campaign issue implies to the electorate that their vote might not count this time, which even if a tiny percentage are persuaded to stay home, hurts our chances.


Brad wants the machines stored and secured centrally, he isn't quite clear on who he wants to have control over access to all the machines but if you read argument on other progressive sites the thought of having the security of ALL the machines left to a very few concentrates the risk of tampering with a huge number of votes. A single poll worker with a machine on a "sleep over" has access to far fewer votes and would therefore require many more people to swing a significant number of votes.

Once again thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I didn't say she was forced to say anything did I? Now you are putting words into my mouth. I was repeating what she said that she was *told* by other experts, etc. that things were OK and no problems existed. How is that slander? I said the DCCC or other Democratic organizations that she trusted were telling her this info. I would expect her to consult the Democratic Party before conceding or before believing fully that she had lost. She's not a voting machine expert, nor do I expect her to be. I expect her to have people advise her well what she should do in these areas. I feel they let her (AND us) down.



This is the wrong question to ask. If these rules weren't enforceable or practical then they SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED!!! Understand that? That's what we are saying. I'm not saying we shouldn't ever use voting machines. I'm just saying that we should be using older processes that are less prone to error than these if we can't ensure these machines' validity. We don't OWE these companies ANYTHING! They OWE us a working solution to get our business, if they should even get our business at all!



It's a fair question when anyone owns a "rights" to have secret code and machines count our votes when they've been shown to be hacked on multiple occasions by different people. I thought you were asking if we were being fair to ask if should also be questioning on whether Dems might also hack these machines as well as those wanting Republicans to win. I mentioned that both a Right wing Talk show host was concerned, as well as mentioned that we had foreign interests owning one of the voting machine companies' machines here (the largest group of machines here in California) where these owners come from Venezuela. They were also concerned about Abu Dubhai owning our ports too. Don't you think some Republicans are concerned about this as well? Votes were counted incorrectly almost costing two Republicans their seats incorrectly in Iowa primary last week too. This isn't a "partisan" issue. But it IS a potential criminal one.



Am I sure about what? That he said he didn't know if Busby won? YES that is true! It is also true that he's said HE DOESN'T KNOW WHO WON! That is the problem he's noting. With us not having reliable machinery in place, you can't know. I challenge you to find a quote where he said that Busby WAS "robbed" of this election. Getting a recount so that she could win is NOT his issue! Questioning the process we are falsely believing without ways to ensure it is what he's concerned about.



So are you saying that Chris Matthews is saying that Dems have double digit leads everyplace now? Why do you believe that? Both parties in congress have pretty low approval ratings now. The exit polls were showed Kerry having significantly more support than Bush (especially early on before they were "corrected"), and to the point that legal experts have said the difference was statistically EXTREMELY unlikely. That's why I'm saying that you can't count on polls to tell you if you're going to win the election.



The wireless port is illegal in California (but perhaps not in other states), that were found on a number of Diebold machines. The seals that were supposed to seal the removable cards on the machines in this election were:

a) Seals that could be reapplied without determining if they'd been broken as they were just pieces of paper with stickiness on one side.
b) Seals being in place were NOT being enforced at precincts.

It really depends on what you mean by "remotely hackable". As I noted before it WAS documented that the remote central tabulator machine counting votes for the mayoral special election WAS connected to the internet, opening it up to be accessed and hacked. The question is WHY was it on the internet, contrary to laws that said it wasn't supposed to be. If you have TSX machines sitting over in people's houses and their cards get hacked, then when they contact the central tabulator, they are able to transmit any "virus" then to the central tabulator, and for that matter other machines in contact with that central tabulator. By not following rules of chain of custody, there's no way they can guarantee that the cards on these machines weren't hacked.



Do you really think he just came down here to collect donations and make money that way? That's just plain silly! We weren't asked for any money donations until we were already sitting down, and even then it was just asking for donations. They do so on PBS, Link TV, and Free Speech TV. That's how folks like that survive and provide us a service. If you don't like that, stay away and don't give them money.



Look, I worked on election day and was one of those poll workers that gathered stats from a polling station. You have no way of knowing with any fine grained margin of error what the results really were. There wasn't any significant exit polling done at these elections. There certainly could have been a 6000 vote swing to her, and that would probably have also been consistent with their guesses too. Of course if you have a hacker that's monitoring results at a central tabulator, or has access to it somehow, they might see those 6000 votes as a way to make sure that Busby doesn't eek out a close win. The point is, with our machines compromised the way they were we have no way of knowing.



Your opinion. Others, and there are many published reports now, feel that a machine getting hacked at a precinct by a less than honest poll worker, or a less than honest visitor to a sloppy poll worker's house, could infect the central tabulator it communicates to. Do you have a link showing that that's not possible?



Don't be surprised to see RFK joing Brad shortly on this effort. And I think both Brad and I personally want to see Democrats getting elected too. In this case though, it's about having fair and valid processes counting our votes. It is not a partisan issue. We're not trying to complain about an election because we didn't like who won. If they'd followed the rules and there were no questions about the processes and equipment used to run the election, then we'd be accepting this and moving on to helping Francine in November (at least I would be and also am doing).

It is not working against the Democratic Party to ask them to protect our vote. That is a fundamental right we have as American citizens and is essential to our system of Democracy.



It really depends on what you are talking about in saying it was a "HUGE SUCCESS". I do appreciate that it was a great success that she pulled off getting as many votes that she did, but ultimately success is winning. As the saying goes, being close only counts in horse shoes.

But we really talking about two separate issues here. One is how did Busby do in the election and how will she do in November (which she did well considering the circumstances) and could still do well in November. The other is making sure that the process for us voting for her and in November is a fair one and that the right person wins. The second one is what Brad is concerned about, and I'm concerned about BOTH of these issues. And from her responses, it appears that either she (or she as echoed by many she's talking to as consultants) are more concerned about the first issue and not as concerned about the second.

I would argue that the second issue is essential to ensure if she wants to have a chance at winning in November, not only from the perspective of preventing the possibility of election fraud that might happen then, but also to energize those who might not vote for her if she doesn't show that she cares about this issue. Brad is arguing that she is giving the impression to others that she doesn't. I know her enough to know that isn't the case, but I do feel that she feels she can't afford to confront it with her election situation she's in. I think that's a mistake, and I blame the party for not helping her with that. And I'm concerned they might be hurting other Democrats in the same situation around the country in the same way too.



One shouldn't run on vote integrity as one's SOLE issue. Unlike folks like Bilbray who successfully ran on the single issue of immigration, I agree that Busby doesn't have that luxury. But I think she and the Democratic Party do need to be concerned that the laws are followed both in the previous election and in the coming elections that are there to prevent abuse.

The concern of driving away voters because of their fears of their vote not being counted was actually talked about last night by the Votergate filmmaker who spoke to us, and he's very conscious of that in his new feature length film that should be out in September on this, but I think he still feels it is an essential issue to be dealt with to ensure that we have time to put in proper protections for our votes before November. If we wait until then, and then the alarm goes off (perhaps even by the likes of Roger Hedgecock looking to persuade some voters that it's hopeless nefariously), waiting until then will be too late to deal with this issue to make sure that we have proper protection in place at that time.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Wow ~ it's difficult not to think that thou doth protest too much, Bradblogperson.

Frankly, it would have been much more impressive if you had answered the questions asked way upthread in a straightforward manner. Strange that you haven't done that.

Oh well, I'm just wandering through the thread - much like many other DUers - and I don't find your post at all convincing, especially since you resort to numerous amd repetitious name calling antics rather than facts. As far as I can tell, the guy or girl you're responding to didn't resort to name calling to make his/her points.... but you sure have.

We thought the Dems would do their jobs after 2000 in protecting our votes. Then comes '04 and many of us thought they were wrking behind the scenes. Our democracy can wait no longer. I am thankful that Brad, MCM, RFK Jr, Fitakis and others have stepped up to the plate. We need transparent, fair and verifiable elections. Nothing else will suffice.

You list four people out of 300 million, and only ONE of the four doesn't make his living preaching about fraud.

Needing transparent elections and screaming that fraud took place are two different things, and IMO and a large majority of Democrats one the later makes the former much more difficult.

coming in from Soros, the Left wing cororation or the like. You are laughingly incorrect. This is a self funded movement. Not only do we not make money but we pay for the investigations, and we funded the recount without help from the Demcratic Party or any big sugar daddies.

:rofl: 'MAKES HIS LIVING PREACHING ABOUT FRAUD"

How am I incorrect?

Does Brad not make his living reporting on fraud? What about Marc Crispin Miller, does he not make his living writing, and wasn't his last book about fraud? How about Bob?

You act like we haven't just found out Bev Harris raised a MILLION dollars.

Howard Dean has proved we can raise millions through people powered politics. How would you feel if the DNC told everyone to fuck off that asked them questions about their strategy, or tactics?

We funded the recount ourselves that's true, but what were the results? Do you think had people like Bev not been lying her way to a million dollars we would have asked for the recounts that didn't alter the outcome one bit?

Do you think had we known Bev had a million dollars we would have sat back and let her contribute NOTHING to those efforts?

You can laugh all you want but your argument don't hold water.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you're going to argue with him no matter what, it doesn't make sense.

Don't you realize that democratic candidates are scared of this issue because it might suppress turnout. OTOH, turnout is not important if the votes are flipped, so this reasoning is really bad.

Don't you know that lots of people post here to promote their other sites and interests?

Is it possible that the pugs use both vote stealing and voter suppression tactics in key districts?

Have you read Ernest Partridge's essay about Gulliberals and Election Fraud?

the idea I would argue with him no matter what?

I think Dem's are RIGHTLY worried this issue might suppress turnout. IMO that's why people like Howard Dean are working behind the scenes with activists, lawyers, and election workers to mitigate the known risks, explore unknown possibilities, and put in place protocols to address real time issues that arise on the ground on election day. There is a key quote from Dean down thread.


"Don't you know that lots of people post here to promote their other sites and interests?"

Yes I am away of that but I've yet to see another that willfully ignores the rules, refuses to answer questions, or becomes hostile and belligerent if and when s/he finally does respond.

"Is it possible that the pugs use both vote stealing and voter suppression tactics in key districts?"

Yes it IS possible, but I don't think I've ever argued otherwise. I have only said we should allot the resources proportionately to risks that have been proved.

How do any of your questions pertain to the lack of integrity involved with E-Voting?

If we let people without integrity champion the cause of protecting the integrity of the vote we are done for.

If we overstate the threats to the integrity of the vote we won't be taken seriously.

If we scare away voters because they think their vote won't count we will be left with an ever shrinking base of support to challenge results in legitimately questionable races.

1. I didn't realize the integrity of "Brad" was in question?

2. I don't think you can overstate a threat to the integrity of our elections. It's a very serious matter. Point number three illustrates that fact. Voters in this country should have faith in the system, and the system we have now does not merit that.

until the responses he finally offered that have all been deleted (for some insight see jazz' post above).

Because we are dealing with issues of transparency and integrity, and have already suffered through Bev Harris, it is vitally important we vet our own spokespeople so as to avoid our issues being dismissed by people who need only highlight the credibility problems of those touting the threats.

2. I can simple say crying wolf never helps. A good analogy is a fire alarm that malfunctions so regularly that when there actually is a fire people are trapped because they didn't believe the alarm was real.

Thanks for your reply.

:toast:

Points all well taken.

;)

Good luck! Give 'em hell! :hi:

:bounce:

I am glad to see someone bringing this up finally!!! :thumbsup:

I'll be tuned in for sure!

you go, Brad!
may the force be with you!

I've heard you were a honey -- now I can see for myself!!

:hi:

He is a "honey" and much younger than I expected! You go Brad! (and someone please alert on this "transparent freeper") How blatent can you get on DU before you're tombstoned????

If you are going to constantly refer to yourself in the third person, please do so throughout your post. It reminds of the "Jimmy" episode on Seinfeld.

Also, what about those questions that TechnoDog posed about Busby's comments etc.? Care to answer?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's a real shame you don't think rules of civility apply to you.

in your opinion? Is he willing to admit/explore the fact that this is a REPUG conspiracy to steal elections or is he only willing to talk about generic "problems" with the machines? Sorry if this question seems uninformed, but I don't watch CNN. I've boycotted them since 2004. I'll be anxious to read the reports of your appearance,however, and good luck!

With little or no time to "correct' the problem, it's safe to yak-yak about it, and feign righteous indignation.

Truth be told...We have KNOWN we had a "counting" problem for AGES..Y2K election shone a big ole spotlight on it, and all that happened was the repubes called our bluff and pushed HAVA through. HAVA probably would never have made it without all the democratic RAGE...but underneath the fancy-schmantzy legislation, we just ended up with MORE dicey, republican-owned/operated machines to help them in future elections. The more we screamed and yelled, the more they patted themselves on the back and reminded us that this was what WE wanted..

We threw ourselves into the briar patch...without any protective clothing...

We have had FIVE LONG YEARS to :

simplify the election process
standardize a PAPER ballot
put funding in place to HIRE REAL HUMANS (lots of 'em) to count ballots
buy lots of Sharpie Pens
buy a camcorder for every polling place to record the whole day's event..start to finish

That's all we really need...or ever needed..

Machines are NOT the solution... they are the PROBLEM..

.......................................................................
my easy-peasy solution... 1-1-1............


SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-16-06 01:49 PM
Original message

Founding Fathers and the Vote




In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

But how would Americans "consent" to be governed? Who should vote? How should they vote? The founding fathers wrestled with these questions. They wondered about the rights of minorities. In their day, that meant worrying if the rights of property owners would be overrun by the votes of those who did not own land. James Madison described the problem this way:

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property , and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property ...may be overruled by a majority without property....

Eventually, framers of the Constitution left the vote question to the states. In Article I Section 4, the Constitution says:

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations... .

Unfortunately, leaving election control to individual states led to unfair voting practices in the U.S. At first, white men with property were the only Americans routinely permitted to vote. President Andrew Jackson, champion of frontiersmen, helped advance the political rights of those who did not own property. By about 1860, most white men without property were enfranchised. But African Americans, women, Native Americans, non-English speakers and citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 had to fight for the right to vote in this country.
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/election/voters.ht...
______________________________________________________________________________________

It seems to me that in order to achieve a truly FAIR voting system, CONGRESS needs to seriously address the whole issue, anew..

they HAVE the constitutional RIGHT,...and actually it's an OBLIGATION. Anyone who has survived recent elections must surely agree that the patchwork quilt we have in place now is hopelessly tattered and coming apart at the very seams..

While it makes sense to keep a national governing body OUT of local and state affairs, there IS a vested interest at stake when it comes to the NATIONALLY HELD OFFICES of each individual state.. The time has COME to separate the state issues from the FEDERAL issues. The ONLY way to do this effectively is to get people USED to voting. Voting separately could get them to start paying attention to issues and candidates, and might empower them to learn more. People who show up every 4 years to choose who has the cutest hair, just isn't cutting it anymore.

We don't need diamond-studded, high-falutin' electronic devices to vote.. we NEVER DID. People who "run" the elections would have us believe that elections are the hardest thing to do in the universe.. They are NOT. 3rd graders have elections, Brownie Scout troops have elections, bowling leagues have elections, Boards of Directors have elections. Elections are EASY. Counting is easy too. It just takes having ENOUGH people; people of ALL political persuasions participating in the verification.

Many would have us believe that MOST people would cheat during an election, but I think very FEW people cheat ...or even think about it. People who are citizens HAVE a right to vote, and should NEVER be refused. (felons being the exception, unless they have been reinstated as voters.) The whole idea of registration, automatically eliminates lots of people from voting. Registration should not be an impediment to voting. There are millions of people who really have little interest in local affairs, but DO want to vote in national elections...that's why the presidential election years have significantly higher turnouts. I think the whole registration process is more about identifying people who CAN be excluded, and for mailiing lists for political literature, than it is about ensuring voting rights.

I know there are many people who loathe the idea of a "national ID card", but it appears we are going to have one anyway, so why not just make THAT card a "voter ID" as well.. We are assured that it will be 'tamper-proof', so why not just make it a double-duty card that one never has to be "re-registered". To vote in local-state elections, the states would be in charge of whatever requirements had to be met, but for NATIONAL OFFICE elections, that card should suffice, as identification AND a simple slide through a card reader should preclude more than one vote per person.
If you slide your card at and ATM and your money supply is "used up", they don't dispense cash...same for voting..one vote per customer..when it's "used up", you're done for that election cycle... easy-peasy.. I'm sure that once the ID is mandatory, it will be used to identify you for any number of things....an avenue to your credit history, for identification when applying for schools, social services, etc., so why not make it our voter ID as well?

I know there are many here who hate the idea of it, but that has never stopped the congress before, and it won;t this time. The US is apparently lurching to join the rest of the modern world, where they already HAVE national ID cards. We admire those same countries for their national health care services and for their school systems, so maybe we should not trash them when it comes to their identification systems which just MAY make those other services POSSIBLE.

But...back to elections..

State/local elections should be just that..STATE and LOCAL. Right now they piggyback on the national elections to get a high turnout, but perhaps the issues, propositions and other things voted on are so uninspiring and unnecessary that a low turnout is the "voice of the people". Maybe their legislatures need to be doing a better job to GET a decent turnout.

The sheer SIZE of lots of ballots turns people off and may prevent them from voting, especially if the local/state issues have to compete for space and attention, with national ad campaigns for senate/congress/president. perhaps those issues deserve their own time and attention. Large complicated, multi-page ballots are also a convenient excuse for the NEED of complicated computerized ballots. The powers-that-be have conveniently couched the explanation for these machines as a "handicapped issue", but I really think that handicapped people would prefer FAIR and ACCURATE over "ease". I have known handicapped people all my life and NEVER has one of them complained to me about voting. Their problems tend to be more along the lines of ACCESS to bathrooms, jobs, buildings, and health care. No one I have ever met complained about voting.

Smaller ballots for national office would mean smaller lines, and more participation. If you only had THREE (the most at any given election) choices to make, you could easily slip in, slide your card, make your 2 or 3 choices, and deposit your PAPER ballot into the locked collection box.

State/local elections should be during ODD years and National elections in EVEN years. Most states already have special elections in off-years, so why not just switch completely, and devote the proper attention needed to their state-local issues?..

There would be NO need for "machines" for nationally-held office elections. An easily counted/re-counted CARD could accommodate an election with a maximum of 3 choices.

Our constitution GIVES congress the opportunity/duty to address election issues, and they have seriously screwed the whole process up. Taking control of the nationally held office procedures and unifying them would NOT interfere with state's rights since the states would still administer the elections, count the ballots and maintain records, BUT there would be in place a unified PROCEDURE, and that would make things a whole lot easier to everyone.

The actual ballots could even be scanned into computers, if storage space was an issue.

We have plenty of people able and willing to count ballots, we have phones to phone in the tallies, we have camcorders/cameras to record every polling place and we have ways to store the records for recounts if necessary.

Any person showing up with the valid voter ID card (with a photo) and a bill proving their address (for state/local) should never be turned away. Each card should be "loaded" with ONE state/local election, and ONE National election. if 7-11's can master the art of "slide the card please", surely our highly paid elections officials can as well,.

expansive reply.:) You have obviously done your research. But please understand, I was in no way questioning whether there is a real problem, or what is causing the problem. I lived in the elections results forum after the debacle of 2004 and am well aware of the very valid concerns that exist. I am one hundred percent behind all the steps you outlined. I was only wondering if Dobbs is open to the idea that the repugs are stealing elections. Or is he just leaving that part open? I'll read what everyone says about the show later.

The point is very simple. We do not have a democracy for the very simple reason that the vote counting is un-democratic, and any 5th grader could figure it out.

When the counting is done in total secrecy by partisans of one side (or the other) without any auditing of hand-counted paper ballots to verify the vote count, THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY WHEREVER IT'S FOUND.

If this same method of vote counting were used in a so-called 3rd world country, we would have no problem at all identifying this as a ruse designed to steal democracy and pretend that it exists. But this is what is happening here in the US right now.

I am convinced that if the vote is counted fairly, the Dems would do much better than the Repubs overall. I don't care who wins nearly as much as I care that we have a democracy. If we have a democracy, there will always be a rough balance preserved and the will of the people will begin to determine policy and the parties will begin to find a TRUE CENTER. Right now, because the Repubs don't have to worry about getting re-elected, they can hold whatever idiotic or insane polices they want and never suffer for it.

Give me democracy and I'll take my chances on the outcome.

Thank you for all your hard work. Andy will be so proud of you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

with the machines?

Do caging lists and vote suppression have anything to do with machines?

Here is the link to the press release with a link to the report. Pages 30-47 deal with how easy it is to change the votes on the machines and the numerous ways that they can be done by anyone who has simple knowledge. The whole report is very interesting, though long and in depth.

http://brennancenter.org/presscenter/releases_2006/pressrelease_2006_0627.html

And as with other threats they are all mitigable. Nothing in that report suggests votes were stolen using machines. The title of the report confirms my argument.

BRENNAN CENTER TASK FORCE SAYS SOFTWARE ATTACKS
POSE REAL DANGER TO ALL ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES


The real theft of votes in Florida and elsewhere occurred as I stated above, and THAT is where the majority of our attention should be directed IMO

Those methods are the overt ways to suppress votes, which most Americans can quickly dismiss, felony lists etc.

The ability to change the votes electronically is the covert means, which most Americans cannot put their minds around.

Both I think are equally important.

what Brad and Lou are implying AFAIK there hasn't ever been a successful wireless, remote hack of any of these machines.

I have asked for evidence to suggest otherwise in this thread but so far no responses.

Caging lists and voter suppression have been proved. Positive.

The machine people want us to spend our money and time fixing what ifs that can be mitigated quite simply. Every time it looks like we have addressed another threat these same people make up new and unproven ways votes can magically disappear.

Color me skeptical.

It worked for 200 years and it works in other countries today. I always believed that all of our votes counted. I believed that for 1 day, I was equal to everyone else.

I understand your skepticism. But I have been screaming about this since 2000, I am not coming up with anything new since then.

But, we are SO far away from that right now that mitigating risks right now should be our top priority for November and beyond.

There in no chance in hell we will get paper by November. 2000 was a huge wake up call and the hanging chads show that all voting systems, even simple x marked paper, contain risks of tampering that must be mitigated and watched carefully by campaign staff.

Google ...Florida laptop voting machine....and take your pick. If you want even more specifics, add Leon County.

in no way verifies your contention.

"BRENNAN CENTER TASK FORCE SAYS SOFTWARE ATTACKS
POSE REAL DANGER TO ALL ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES"

is fuzzy to you? Nuclear bombs pose a great threat to air quality. I believe that means not good.

I don't know what your angle is but you're trying awfully hard to do a Criss Angel on controlled video poker elections.

But to give you an even more concise description....... http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html

Join the fight, not the crooks.

isn't good for THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Period.

I'm not doing anything other than correcting the massive disinformation circulating this thread and others.

If you want to spend your time on phantom vote stealing rather than proved methods the GOP steals DEMOCRATIC votes go for it but don't you DARE say I'm working for the crooks.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I was on a information campaign when I came here to scold TO editors, their fans, and leopold for threatening and helping out Armando from Kos? Ok I'll cop to that.

I was on an info campaign when I posted questions about Bev Harris' tax return? Ok I'll cop to that too.

I was on an info campaign when I posted questions about Brad and CA 50, and countered the one sided propaganda being peddled here that insinuates Busby and those working with her and for her are rubes? I'll cop to that too.

Who do I work for?

What's my name?

What is this bbv.org?

Accusing critics of hidden motives is the last refuge of the scoundrel. And it's a tactic employed by people that can't justify their claims or arguments.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Hope you've got your points forged like .50 cal rounds.

You rock Brad.

It'll be nice to get Dobbs' anti-immigrant followers pissed over this... and not difficult either.

Break a leg.

Being a self-proclaimed "populist" it makes sense that Dobbs would wait so long to really take up the election fraud issue, but this should be one that he can really sink his teeth into. All of the hard work that Brad and others have put into fighting election fraud may finally get the attention it deserves.

Waiting for Brad.. :yourock:

Just how easy is it to get into the voting machines????

machines!:woohoo: Go Brad!

Wireless voting machines can be tampered with as well as the lack of security of voting machines in general.

he seemed to be focused on the issue of wireless connections of the evoting machines at the voting booth, when the problem of the security of electronic voting systems in general is far more encompassing. Centralized tabulation systems can be hacked in any number of ways. Even if the voting machine itself is perfectly accurate and secure, the process of transferring the results to the tabulator has been demonstrated to be easily hacked.

also, we all must remember it's not only the machines. It's the civil rights violations that allowed Harris and Blackwell to succeed!

Join the fight. Help in your state or Ohio or Florida in 06!

Central tabulation vote switching is mitigated by campaign poll watchers at each poll station sending precinct results to the campaigns. If, once all the precincts report, the totals spit out by the central tabulators don't jive the campaign throws up the red flags.

Remotely hacking a single machine, while still unsuccessfully attempted, would change a few hundred votes tops.

Republicans must be thanking their god for overriding homeland security issues and FBI lockdowns, as happened in Ohio. And what do you mean by "don't jive"? Flipping votes the right way can still make them jibe.

If a local machine gives a result and then that result is sent to a central tabulator, the results spit out at the end must match the results seen locally be campaign poll watchers.

I never mentioned the shady ass shit that occurred in Ohio, but you would have to agree with me that PEOPLE were responsible for that, and, if vote flipping was as easy as some would like us to believe such blatantly crooked behavior like what occurred in Ohio and Florida wouldn't have been necessary.

we know how accurate campaign polls (exit polls) were (not) in the last election. Campaign poll watchers are not always the most qualified to judge what's going on even with the local tabulation, and who watches the watchers? Also, blatantly crooked behavior was mostly necessary in the poorer polling locations where evoting was not present.

I would agree that election fraud is ultimately the result of PEOPLE's actions, not machines, but we all know how resourceful Karl Rove can be when it comes to defeating democracy. Faulty machines only provided him with more resources to draw upon.

"On the contrary...

we know how accurate campaign polls (exit polls) were (not) in the last election."

Can you link to any Kerry or other Democratic campaign exit polls that had significantly different results than the official counts?

"nd who watches the watchers?"

Again, that implies moles working inside Democratic candidate campaigns, I'm not disputing the possibility but it's not my objection with the premise of this and other phantom vote stealing threads.

I would never argue that the GOP hasn't used illegal and immoral vote stealing methods in the past. I'm objecting to fear mongering that take precious resources away from fighting the proved methods of vote stealing you and I both agree on.

DUer TruthIsAll's body of work:

http://www.truthisall.net/

Now, if you would be so kind, please link to any Democratic sites agreeing with the election results. Maybe I could dig up some neocon associations.

not party exit polls.

I haven't once argued with his results but DU'er Febble has, as well as several Kossaks of good standing.

I asked for Kerry exit polls or any Democratic candidate's.

I'm not saying the election wasn't stolen, I'm saying traditional voter suppression and machine access stole the votes.

Kerry and other candidates have kowtowed to the accepted mass media results of the election. They probably don't want to follow in Gore's "sore loser" footsteps...although maybe Gore is due for a comeback?

At any rate, there is also the issue of electronic election fraud possibly occuring in largely Republican areas of California and other states, giving Bush his overall "mandate" of several million votes and further legitimizing the results of 2004. From what I have seen about this issue, fraud may have occured via the central tabulators and in these polling areas Democratic poll watchers may have been non-existant or unqualified.

Voter suppression and machine access, particularly in affecting the results of the 2000 election in Florida as well as 2004 in Ohio, are also extremely important issues and I don't want to downplay their importance, but if we don't stress the importance of potential electronic election fraud then nothing may get done about it. You seem to be arguing that nothing needs to be done about it?

and there is no disrespect intended.

"They probably", might seem reasonable to someone convinced the machines stole millions of votes, but as there is no evidence, and the Kerry campaign, the DNC, DCCC, and DSCC have all clearly stated their beliefs on this issue "probably" doesn't cut it.

There is no evidence Howard Dean gives a rats ass about the mass media you say is controlling the message from all four camps I listed, Howard HAS addressed this issue and has set up ways and means to mitigate the risks posed by the machines.

"lection fraud possibly occurring in largely Republican areas of California"

Can you name a single elected Californian that has publicly said that? Federal, State, or Local?

"From what I have seen about this issue, fraud may have occurred"

Which precincts didn't have poll Democratic poll watchers in 04, and even if there were, Republican strong holds are the LAST place vote flipping would go unnoticed. There aren't any significant reports of more voters having cast votes than registered at the precinct on election day. And there isn't a single losing candidate in such a district claiming the possibility.

"but if we don't stress the importance of potential electronic election fraud then nothing may get done about it. You seem to be arguing that nothing needs to be done about it?"

Can you please list the discovered threats that the DNC, DCCC, DSCC have ignored? And I don't mean threats that can not be proved, ie remote access hacks.

Where have I ever suggest nothing should be done about the risks associated with voting devices?

The Democratic party if FULL of the BRIGHTEST minds in our country. One of the biggest contributers to the Democratic party are lawyers. I think you and the rest of the people interested in winning this november should support Howard Dean's efforts to mitigate the risks until we are in a position to actual pass legislation that addresses the concerns once and for all.

Governor Dean also praised the efforts of the National Democratic Lawyers Council and the work that they have done. The Lawyers Council is a national organization which is working to recruit local attorneys who can assist in election protection efforts – one example the Governor gave, “During the Virginia elections in 2005 we had an irregularity and we were able to get to the clerks who were running the election and fix the problem on the spot. We have that capability and it matters.”

I also think all of the fraudsters need to realizes threats to the integrity of our voting process have been around since we started voting, and we need to be cautious accepting the news of new threats coming from people making a living from election fraud. Once the threats have been fully addressed these people will need to find a new line of work. But, because threats have always existed they will always have work. Our job as Democrats, and educated voters is to asses those threats and give them the priority and attention they deserve.

has set up "ways and means to mitigate the risks posed by the machines", but I am a bit distressed that it takes organizations or media personalities not affiliated with the Democratic party to really draw attention to the issue, such as the Brennan Center or Lou Dobbs. One can only guess what motivates the Dem party leadership to keep this issue at a low profile, but I would assume it is something similar to what motivated Dean to appear on a religious program and stress that the Democrats also do not support gay marriage; in other words, they are playing to the middle and are afraid to touch on issues that will set off conservatives.

I seem to recall Riverside or San Bernadino county where vote tampering likely occured, but I would need to search more to refresh my memory. (Vote flipping would probably not be the issue in largely Republican areas.)

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t6567.html

Here is a report by the California Secretary of State indicating specific methods that a well-planned attack could occur on the Diebold AV-OS:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/security_analysis_of_the_diebold_accubasic_interpreter.pdf

"An attacker could change vote totals, modify reports, change the names of candidates, change the races being voted on, or insert his own code into the running firmware of the machine."

It's nice to know that "while strategies do not completely eliminate all risk, we expect they should be capable of reducing the risk to a level that is manageable"; however keep in mind that, in this report, they did not "look at a broad range of security issues" having focused on "potential security vulnerabilities associated with the memory cards."

You are indeed someone I'd be interested in carrying on this discussion with.

I will respond to your post tomorrow as I spent far too much time above responding to the op who doesn't seem to think rules here, or even rules of common decency, apply to him.

I wish I had seen this post earlier.

:toast:

What procedure would you suggest I follow to find them? It seems specious to expect proof that fraud has occurred rather than that security is inadequate. As far as the elections being close at hand goes, when would be an appripriate time for us to address the fact that paperless voting has been decried by a majority of computer security experts who are not employed by the purveyers? Before the 2000 election? Prior to the Max Cleland upset loss in 2002? And I'm sorry, but I feel I was defrauded by John Kerry. He said he would insure that my vote was counted. I wish I could get all those donations back. They would not go to the DNC, DCCC, or DSCC this time. I'd as soon spend my "good citizenship money" on security fencing and personal armament at this point in history....

In the first place, Brad doesn't and I don't have to prove that the election was stolen. You and/or the elections officials have to prove the totals are valid. There has to be a way to do a real, hand recount or the process is invalid on it's face.

To be credible, the machines have to provide a paper trail that is verified by the voters. There has to be an audit process that will verify the totals. As it stands now, the whole process is bogus on its face, since the DRE's, punch cards and some central tabulators are so easy to hack and the process is not transparent.

I'm not just some blowhard on the internet. I have a BS computer science and I've been doing data processing for 20 years.

I couldn't build the kind of system we use for electronic voting and expect a bank to use it. Why trust it to select our leaders? IMO, the only reason to make the security so lax is so that technicians from Diebold, et al, can hack it easily and steal elections. Nobody would let such a bad system get implemented otherwise.

If both candidates in 2004 benefited from the disparity in the exit polling, I'd concede that there may be a problem with polling methodology, but given the size of the sample and the fact that Bush always benefited from the disparity, I have to believe that the polls were right and the vote totals were wrong.

Prove that the election wasn't stolen. Show me an audit trail that verifies the totals. Until then, I believe the exit polls.

Will you say the same about all the Dem diebold victories?

You claim the ONLY reason you can think of for such crap machines is a nefarious plot to steal election, but have you ever considered the capitalism angle?

"Make it only as good as required, and as cheaply as possible"

I've never said paperless machines are ok, but I tend to agree with Howard Dean and the activists that realize that we won't get the system WE want until WE have legislative authority.

Until then we need to SWAMP the polls and mitigate the risks.

Yes it is much harder to do that than screaming fraud and sulking in the corner claiming voting is pointless, but if we are ever going to take back the country we need to roll up our sleeves and do the work.

The mid terms are FOUR months away. THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO to get rid of the machines currently in use, and ostracizing election officials, the way Brad is, make people like Dean's job much harder trying to convince officials to let monitors help craft solutions that mitigate the issues before the November vote.

forum for this discission but every little bit helps and Lou has a large viewing public.

Lou seems to be open minded.

:kick:

My eyes are watering. Did he present the E-Voting corruptibility?

Please, say it's so!

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3015

They only played a small part of the interview. More may be on tomorrow's show, I hear.

Trying to find it for about 10 minutes now on Brad's site and Dobbs' site with no luck. . .

Click on it.

Well-spoken.

You're getting more attention from both sides. It's a good sign.

All bright and lucid.

As for the report- pfffft! Votes could be altered.

That came across as almost trivial. No true hint of the outrage that has already been committed. Or so I gather from that video link that was posted above.

It's great to see a bright face from our forum. But infuriating to see the lack of concern for the full effect of what has happened. Better than nothing, no doubt.

I think Lou Dobbs has been getting quite an education the past year or so. Every time he has a progressive or left wing talk show host on his show, he learns new things about how corrupt BushCo really is. That's quite a feat considering he's a very conservative Republican. Or was. yipee

:smile:

mitigate the dem vote, right? That would be stupid!

Thanks Brad and Lou!

Edit: RFK Jr. ROCKS!