(In which we subtly bite the very Huff Po hand that feeds us...)
w/ Brad & Desi
w/ Brad & Desi
NATIONWIDE STUDY FINDS ALMOST NO VOTER FRAUD
Just 10 cases of in-person impersonation in all 50 states since 2000...
VIDEO: 'Rise of the Tea Bags'
Brad interviews American patriots...
'Democracy's Gold Standard'
Hand-marked, hand-counted ballots...
GOP Voter Registration Fraud Scandal 2012...
The Secret Koch Brothers Tapes...
|U.S. Chamber of Commerce 'Terror Tools' Spy Plot...|
|Wisconsin 2011 Supreme Court Election Debacle...|
|Japan Quake/Tsunami/Nuke Emergency...|
|WikiLeaks / Julian Assange...|
|More Special Coverages Pages...|
(In which we subtly bite the very Huff Po hand that feeds us...)
READER COMMENTS ON
"My Latest Piece on E-Voting at Huffington Post..."
(47 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
... cc said on 5/12/2006 @ 5:54 pm PT...
I'd post a comment congratulating you on their site....but I kinda despise them and the gossip sheet they've turned themselves into. But that being said...good job calling them out on their spectacular lack of coverage!!
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
... agent99 said on 5/12/2006 @ 6:15 pm PT...
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
... Bluebear2 said on 5/12/2006 @ 6:31 pm PT...
I left a plug for BradBlog there - maybe some will come over.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
... The Old Turk said on 5/12/2006 @ 6:43 pm PT...
Oh Brad,... turn the spigot on,.. let it flow,...
your reaching fire-hose blast proportions,..
get these issues out there before Nov. 2006.
He's here,.. he's there,.. he's everywhere,...
single handily saving Democracy.
Where do you get your energy ?
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
... Brad said on 5/12/2006 @ 7:01 pm PT...
Beats me, Turk. Don't know how much more I have left, for that matter.
I could use a nap.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
... big dan said on 5/12/2006 @ 7:49 pm PT...
There's something very strange, about the way the Dems, Al Franken, HuffPo, and other "liberal" people and blogs avoid talking about electronic voting machines. I haven't pinpointed it. Anyone have any ideas?
If you take it a step at a time, has anyone actually asked Al Franken why he won't talk about e-vote fraud? Or, has anyone asked a Democrat why they won't talk about it? I mean, an interviewer who has one of these people on their show or was interviewing them for a blog or a newspaper. Has anyone asked them, and if they did, what was their answer? Did they start sweating and freak out and run away???
These supposed "liberals" are hurting us very badly, by keeping quiet about e-vote. I guess that includes Al Gore, whom I like a lot.
Here's the deal with Al Gore. He's extremely intelligent and insightful. He was a decade ahead of global warming. He DEFINITELY knows about e-vote fraud. Why hasn't he said anything???
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
... barryg said on 5/12/2006 @ 8:29 pm PT...
The previous articles can not acept comments, after about 10 minutes a white screen pops up with cgi error deleted from server.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
... Brad said on 5/12/2006 @ 8:55 pm PT...
We seem to be under some kind of hack attack BarryG. Keep trying...Hopefully the hackers will take their toys and go home shortly.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
... sally said on 5/12/2006 @ 9:55 pm PT...
The right wing government in Ireland tried to introduce these paperless electronic voting machines.
They paid out millions of dollars for enough machines for the whole country. The Irish people went mad about it as the media were not silent. The government had to mothball the machines and use the tried and true paper ballot.
I am not from America so I hope you don't mind the advice but I see this beginning in other countries under the right wing and I fear for my own country if we unwittingly ever elect the right.
What you need to do now is to get your state to reject the Help America Vote Money which gives them election money conditional on using electronic voting machines.
Pay for your own states paper elections and reap the rewards with the ousting of The Repbulicans and the return of democracy.
Tell your state officials paper ballots are what you demand. That you don't want the help america Vote money.
The democrats should be pushing this. They should be promising to reimberse states after the elections if they win and take control of congress.
They should be pushing voters to push states to turn down the Help America Vote Money and fund their own paper statewide elections.
You must do this now before Bush has tightened the noose too tightly.
With electronic surveylance and new technology he could become the safest dictator in the world.
Don't let these elections be compromised or you may never get another chance to stop this.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
... Joan said on 5/12/2006 @ 10:23 pm PT...
Your comments are most welcome! I'm glad that in Ireland the media had not lost their voice, and spoke up for paper ballots. Here they HAVE lost it & it's a huge part of the problem.
It is getting very frightening here. It's a sin & a crime what they've done to this country.
But, glad you're here! Thanks for the advice & the kind words.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
... Joan said on 5/12/2006 @ 10:30 pm PT...
When I read Sally's comment I forgot all about saying... Great piece on the Huff Post, Brad! God, you are a real treasure. You do give me hope.
Wish we had DOZENS more like you out there!! (didn't somebody mention cloning?) But we sure do thank the gods for YOU, my dear.
Hope you get that nap.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
... agent99 said on 5/12/2006 @ 10:34 pm PT...
Well said, Joan.
Did the democrats steal the '00 and the '04 election?
Wow, and I thought it was the republicans from all the threads I read here ... learn something everyday ...
So ... are "we" trying to keep the republicans in ... cause ... they are doing a heckuva job? Or what?
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
... big dan said on 5/13/2006 @ 5:15 am PT...
Yes, but why are Democrats, Al Gore, Al Franken, even Conyers, silent about e-vote fraud? No one seems to answer that question. That is the $64,000.00 question!!!
The reason I say this, is that people like that have the $$$ and means to do something about this, and the media attention. And they remain silent. Why???
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
... Floridiot said on 5/13/2006 @ 5:32 am PT...
I think they're all afraid of the "conspiracy nut" moniker
If and when the Nightly News? picks up on this, you will see a scramble to be first to "fight for our Democracy"
I just think its bad politically to fight for something that isn't quite mainstream (YET) in their eyes
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
... Floridiot said on 5/13/2006 @ 5:50 am PT...
When everyone quits saying that "this" (election fraud) has "happened before", and start saying "this" "could happen", there will be more coverage of "this"
(the MSM has to be shamed into "this" by baby steps)
Kinda like reverse psycology we sometimes use on our kids to get them to do something they don't want to
Well done, Brad. If support from your friends will keep you awake, you've got it. But I'd still take a nap if I were you.
Several hours ago I made a long posting at HuffPo in support of your blog, focusing on discrepancies between exit poll data and tabulated votes in 2004.
HuffPo declined to print it. They really do have a blind spot on the 2004 election. Their radar picks up everything else; I don't get it.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
... Joan said on 5/13/2006 @ 6:11 am PT...
Conyers has hardly been SILENT about election fraud! He's the one who held hearings (ok, "forums") in Washinton & in Ohio soon after election '04 where numerous people, including Clint Curtis, testified!
Please don't lump him in with people like Al Franken & Bill Maher--who SHOULD BY NOW, goddammit--have taken a look at the truckload of evidence supporting these "conspiracy theories", which is how Maher characterized it as recently as LAST NIGHT.
He really needs to be bombarded with 6 or 7 emails.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
... lildoggy said on 5/13/2006 @ 7:53 am PT...
Its amazing that I'd just looked at Huffington post, admittingly fleeting glance, but nowhere on the front page of that site did I see Brad's post.
Just like Brad said, it should be up and remain up for weeks, just like Brad and Angelina's baby does.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
... agent99 said on 5/13/2006 @ 10:56 am PT...
#18 and #20
HuffPo moderates all comments before they put them up, and if they are long, it can take days. If you commented there in the early months, you are "trusted" and your comments go up right away, and I don't know how or if you become trusted nowadays.
SO many people post at Arianna's blog that one would literally have to park at her site to catch everything before it was bumped off the blog's front page. Indeed, posts can fly to the second page and back into the archives in a day very easily. She usually keeps good ones up on the whole site's front page for longer.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
... GWN said on 5/13/2006 @ 11:04 am PT...
# 15 Big Dan. Conyers has been looking into the election fraud since 04. Have a look at his site under "Every Vote Counts". (I believe he even wrote a book about the Ohio vote.)
He is the hardest working Democrat you have IMHO.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
... agent99 said on 5/13/2006 @ 11:07 am PT...
Aww, geeze, Brad! Your beautiful piece has been bumped by Mothers Day! You're already at the very bottom of the blog's front page. I'm so bummed HuffPo has turned into such a circus.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
... Joan said on 5/13/2006 @ 12:20 pm PT...
Well well. There's an interesting little headline up on RawStory:
"Frank Rich: White House committed treason; Developing..."
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
... Joan said on 5/13/2006 @ 12:30 pm PT...
Well, RawStory has already changed that headline...guess I jumped the gun...
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
... Sally said on 5/13/2006 @ 12:32 pm PT...
Thanks Joan and 99
I admire Brad immensley. I could not do what he is doing.
Cloning me might be quite scary, Im not keen on that but appreciate the sentiment. You do need more people to speak up.
A direct strategy though right now is needed before your next elections.
It must be enacted quickly.
As you know The Republicans have been moving strategically now for quite some time.
From what I can gather most people even many Republicans are suspisious of electronic voting. ( not all republicans are like the ones that post and their numbers are declining)
The strategy I would suggest would be
1. To make a map of the US and where all the electronic voting machines are placed.
2. Look at each identified area to see if a Democratic win was possible there.
3. Do surveys in the area to see what percentage of people in the area would prefer to use paper ballots. I could be wrong but I think you will find it to be the majority.
4. Also survey people as to whether they are prepared for the state to fund the paper election and reject the money from the Help America Vote Act which only supports touch screen voting.
4. Upon finding a majority of people want to use paper Ballots in an area and reject the HAVA MONEY you can present the results of your surveys to the state government.
You may have other strategies. The men in the republican party do have strategies so to fight this you will need specific strategies aimed at this next election.
The Democrats should be making this an election issue. They should refuse to go to election unless results can be verified on paper.
If through surveys it can be shown that a majority of Americans would prefer paper ballots and that they would like this to be an election issue then the Democrats would be able to pick it up.
Find out through surveys if people would support a strike on the election until paper ballots are provided. Then with public approval enact it and demand it.
In areas that show the Majority of people want to reject the HAVA mony and provide paper ballots you could present your survey results to the democrats and ask them to promise reimbersement post election if they control congress etc.
Tell people that the Irish didn't accept these machines and they had to mothball millions of dollars worth. This may give them courage to support you.
The democrats need to find out whether the public will support them. I think the public would be right there on this issue.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
... lildoggy said on 5/13/2006 @ 1:15 pm PT...
Dear Brad and friends,
Caught this little tidbit in Ft. Lauderdale's Sun-Sentinel today. The article is attributed to the Associated Press and alerts us to another little slip by Diebold, notice that Tom Feeney's Volusia County's voting machines apparently have been delivered but they are not the "Certified" ones that were ordered. The ones that were delivered have a new motherboard as well as new "modem" and other non-specified features! I think its time for a slew of phone calls with questions and a little BBV attention thrown in for good measure.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
... Laura said on 5/13/2006 @ 2:37 pm PT...
RLM# 18 Your comment is now up on Huff post. Very well stated i might add.
Thanks, Laura. I'd given up.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
... agent99 said on 5/13/2006 @ 4:03 pm PT...
Yay! They fixed the problem at HuffPo. There's a link to the blog entry on their front page now. This way more people will get a chance to see it.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
... Hidden Hand said on 5/13/2006 @ 4:05 pm PT...
Just wanted to give a heads-up for Greg Palast on C-SPAN's Washington Journal tomorrow a.m.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
... Charlene said on 5/13/2006 @ 4:29 pm PT...
On the subject of the touch screen voting machines, does this new discovery mean that even a voter, himself, could change the results of an election--hack the machine--without being discovered?
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
... Peg C said on 5/13/2006 @ 5:11 pm PT...
Great article, Brad, and about time, too! Get some rest...there's certain to be plenty more coming and the nation needs you, not exhausted but full of energetically dogged determination (as always).
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
... Sally said on 5/13/2006 @ 8:02 pm PT...
On George Bushes Plumetting Popularity.
Ofcourse George can manage low popularity all by himself, however I think maybe the Finegould speech did quite a bit for it. The Dems need to take a leaf out of Finegould's speech and stand up to George. They should be saying thankyou and supporting Feingold him to the hilt.
The Leopold article at truthout.org says Rove has already been notified of at least two indictments against him, and will resign as soon as Fitzgerald makes the public announcement. For some reason Leopold's sources weren't sure about a third charge of obstruction of justice (the most serious one). But he's a credible reporter; it's hard to imagine he got this wrong.
Assuming Leopold is right, this will be Topic A in the media for weeks. E-voting problems will take a back seat from a publicity standpoint, because all the flak about Rove will center on the Plame case and about the political impact to Bush from Rove's resignation. So while we celebrate Fitzmas Day, we should also keep our noses to the grindstone on election fraud; after six years the Republicans know just how to do it, and Rove's absence won't mean the 2006 elections will be honest.
I am embarrased to say that some in the MSM supports the theory that the republican dictatorship should be held accountable, not the minority party dems in congress nor the American people (Raw Story here).
Does that invalidate the argument?
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
... alpha said on 5/14/2006 @ 8:58 am PT...
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
... colleenmilitarymom said on 5/14/2006 @ 9:28 am PT...
That article in Huffpo was awesome, Brad. I found it by a link. Then I couldn't find it on site. It seems to be buried.
Thanks for never giving up.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
... big dan said on 5/14/2006 @ 10:25 am PT...
Maybe I didn't know Conyers was fighting e-vote fraud, because the MSM isn't covering Conyers.
Joan, I agree with you on Bill Maher. He said he was FOR the Iraq War (I don't know if he recently changed his mind, but I'm sure he said that on Real Time last year).
Bill Maher also said he is FOR the NSA wiretapping. I really don't count him on "our side". I lump him in with Huffington Post. Lots of pretty good stuff, no really great stuff, like covering vote fraud.
Bill Maher did recently have a panel of 3 progressive on, including Richard Clarke. And Maher did bring ups 9/11, and they all dismissed the "inside job" theory as a conspiracy theory. Of course, they did not mention the scientific proof of demolition, naturally. No one on TV does, except for the INN Report on FSTV.
I can't think of the others on the panel, but they all believe the 9/11 government bullshit story, where 19 hijackers with box cutters outfoxed the Bush administration, and the greatest security systems that our tax money could buy. They never mention the scientists and engineers who are 100% positive, it was controlled demolition, and they never mention, let alone dispute, their scientific facts, like professor Steve Jones of BYU.
But, I apologize for thinking Conyers wasn't saying anything about e-vote fraud. How did I miss that? Was it on here?
OK, but now that you got me on ONE: Conyers...name another democrat that has spoken out about e-vote fraud. Keep in mind, there's thousands of Democrat politicians. You named ONE!
And Dredd, of course the GOP is in on vote fraud, and the Dems are not to blame.
But the Dems keeping quiet on e-vote fraud is a seperate issue than blaming the Dems for our problems. Yes, the Republicans put us in this mess, and screwed over their conservative base, lied to them, just to get their votes. Let's call that "issue #1".
Now, Dredd, "issue #2", a totally seperate issue, is "why are the Dems silent about e-vote fraud???
Stop lumping the 2 issues together!
The blame and the silence: 2 DIFFERENT ISSUES!
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
... Bluebear2 said on 5/14/2006 @ 12:35 pm PT...
"...does this new discovery mean that even a voter, himself, could change the results of an election..."
That seems to be the tone of this - the report publicly released was redacted - probably for this exact reason. IMHO
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
... Bluebear2 said on 5/14/2006 @ 1:21 pm PT...
Big Dan #38
Here's a link to something about Conyers and his hearings on election fraud.
Do a search for - John Conyers Election Fraud - in Brad's search bar just below the Bush/Nixon countdown clock at the top of the right hand column. You will find pages of links to John's activities in regards to election fraud as well as Downing street and impeachment hearings. You will also find other Dems who have signed on to his efforts such as Boxer and Waters to mention a few.
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
... Joan said on 5/14/2006 @ 8:22 pm PT...
I will say this for Bill Maher:
He did say right at the end of his last show that he hopes when the show returns we'll be starting impeachment hearings.
At least that's SOMETHING.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
... GWN said on 5/14/2006 @ 8:47 pm PT...
Big Dan # 38 Unfortunately, I believe Rep. Conyers has been the only Democrat who speaks and writes about e-vote fraud. What the others are afraid of I haven't a clue.
I believe Brad did have a Conyers article on here but I don't recall when.
Big Dan #38
The term "fraud" is a term of art in the legal world, where you are treading. It is a very difficult case to prove, even when there is probative evidence.
Conyers is the front man of the dems on that issue. And it is not raised or talked about by the others.
But you should understand that the type of fraud you are talking about is criminal fraud, not tort fraud.
Based upon what we have seen evidence of, there is no sound prosecutor at this time who would bring an indictment and could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the factual basis necessary to prove criminal fraud.
It would take an inside informer, and a very credible one at that. And it would be limited in scope to an area smaller than the nation.
On the other hand we have ample evidence that there is good reason to suspect the official results. We have scientific exit poll evidence to support investigations and lawsuits.
But to go out on a limb and spout off about criminal e-vote fraud as a national platform would be politically suicidal, and in court it is a looser.
They don't talk about criminal fraud in e-vote land because they are too smart to get caught with their pants down like that.
Please tell me what criminal fraud statute you think a prosecution should take place under, and what evidence would prove it, and who would be the defendants.
It isn't necessary to reduce the question of election misconduct (we won't say "fraud") to a legal debate.
In fact, it's counter-productive, because it puts the burden on the accuser to prove a crime, when the people who probably committed it are in charge of the criminal justice process.
Here's a better way to look at the 2004 election. From statistical anomalies (exit polls vs. tabulated votes, impossible tallies for third-party candidates in minority districts, reports of flipped votes that favored Bush in nearly every instance), and also from recent tests that demonstrate clearly the susceptibility of electronic voting machines to hacking, the following statement can be made:
"The voting public has been given strong reason to believe the 2004 election was dishonest on a large scale, the wrong candidate was declared the winner, and the burden of proof falls on those who ran the election to prove that it was honest, not on the public to prove otherwise."
You say "it puts the burden on the accuser to prove a crime".
This is as it has always been, and should always be.
If you are going to accuse someone, you better have the evidence for what you say, or otherwise you are in the land of defamation.
And if you are a prosecutor, you get up in the morning with that burden, and go to bed with that burden ... if you are talking American jurisprudence.
The issue is not framed by who has the burden in a criminl or civil court case, which is always the accuser, but on credibility.
It is the same in the e-vote arena. An accuser has to make sure that the evidence supports exactly what the accuser is saying.
So to go out on a limb spouting about e-vote fraud is very ill advised.
To talk about what the science of exit polls show (something does not pass the smell test), and about the defects in election machine hardware and software is more credible and circumspect.
For Dredd: If I were criticizing Bush over Iraq, would I have to make a legal case out of it first?
To oppose torture of prisoners and extraordinary rendition, must I demonstrate to the satisfaction of a grand jury who gave the orders?
To be against illegal spying on Americans, must I produce the document that first authorized it?
Political argument doesn't have to meet a courtroom standard. I can call Kenneth Blackwell a crook without a tape recording of his phone conversations with the White House. I can say that votes were flipped without knowing precisely who did the flipping. I can accuse election officials in Florida (where I saw it happen) and Ohio (where others saw it happen) of deliberately shorting voting machinery in minority districts.
I'm not a lawyer, and I resist the idea that I have to act like one in order to advance political arguments. No actual lawyer has said I must do so, by the way.
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
... Larry Bergan said on 5/16/2006 @ 3:06 pm PT...
Spot on, Robert!
The Democrats shouldn't be allowed to hide behind the law in their silence on the voting fraud.
Clinton never got that courtesy from the day he ran for office!
A Few Great Blogs
· Baghdad Burning
· Brilliant at Breakfast
· Crooks and Liars
· Dan Froomkin
· Fired Up! Missouri
· Freedom's Phoenix
· Freeway Blogger
· Glenn Greenwald
· Huffington Post
· Jesus' General
· Juan Cole
· Washington Monthly
· Media Matters
· Nashua Advocate
· Oliver Willis
· RAW STORY
· Sanoma State's
Project Censored Sites:
· Daily Censored
· Media Freedom
· Project Censored
· Scholars & Rogues
· Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
· Talking Points Memo
· Think Progress
· Tom Tomorrow
· TV Newser
· Ben Sargent
· Bill Deore
· Bob Gorrell
· Cagle's Index
· Chan Lowe
· Don Wright
· Doug Marlette
· Glenn McCoy
· Jeff Danziger
· Joel Pett
· Mike Luckovich
· Non Sequitur
· Not Banned Yet
· Pat Oliphant
· Paul Conrad
· Ted Rall
· This Modern World
· Thomas Burns
· Tom Toles
· Tony Auth
· Stuart Carlson
Or by Snail Mail
Make check out to...
7095 Hollywood Blvd., #594
Los Angeles, CA 90028