READER COMMENTS ON
"Sacramento Bee on Busby/Bilbray Mess: 'The Threat to Democracy is Very Real'"
(41 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 7/5/2006 @ 7:10 pm PT...
It figures you would catch this on the one day that my paper came late and it is still laying unread on the table!
Ya scooped me!
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 7/5/2006 @ 7:11 pm PT...
Off to read the paper I go!
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 7/5/2006 @ 9:31 pm PT...
It would be helpful to declare what is not doubted: there is no doubt that Haas practices elections in an illegal manner. That is, the chain of custody was broken on machines that were so insecure that new security rules had to be made concerning those very machines.
With only a 7,000 vote margin (which could be managed by a hacker without even raising a sweat), and in such an important race, a count is compelled.
A first hand count.
Where the doubt comes in is doubting the veracity of any election war lords who do not automatically conduct a hand count when that is all that can be done to remove the taint of illegality and lack of security.
What is forming is a faith based election system. We are required to have faith in this system that everyone knows is insecure.
It is not what we expected in a quasi state religion I suppose, nevertheless it smacks of a religion where the electioneers are the high priests who administer the sacraments, and a laity who have faith in that priesthood.
Sorry, that does not work for me.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 7/5/2006 @ 10:43 pm PT...
I've heard the John Gideon of John Gideon fame is going to be on the Thom Hartmann show tomarrow July 6 at 12:00 noon EST at his website and at "Radiopower.org". Radiopower also has a rebroadcast at 1:00 a.m. EST.
Don't get mad if this is miss-info, It's just what I heard and I can't seem to verify it.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 7/5/2006 @ 11:27 pm PT...
John Gideon of John Gideon fame is set to appear as himself on tomorrow morning's Thom Hartmann. Though my understanding was that it would be 11am PT (2pm ET).
Not that I understand things so well all the time...
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 7/6/2006 @ 3:10 am PT...
"Bilbray almost certainly won the election." That one statement undermines the entire article. If readers think the end result was correct (in such a heavily Republican district, they would assume so), then the larger question of security is rendered abstract.
Brad says the media trust election officials. I do, too, but no election official is ever around when somebody sticks false software code into a machine. So this article really doesn't address the intrinsic danger.
Saying Bilbray almost certainly won the election is like saying "Lee Harvey Oswald almost certainly acted alone in Kennedy's assassination." It's a status quo statement that makes people feel better. The media are part of the establishment, remember, and if people think an election was rigged, or a president was murdered by secret cabal, it makes the United States seem like a banana republic.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 3:42 am PT...
I live in Sacramento.
Question is will the article be followed up in Sunday (Or even Saturday's) paper with some kind of correction to the specific point about bla most assuridly won? And not buried in the paper. If the author knows that the "threat to democracy is very real" then you have to ask yourself how they came to the conclusion that anything counted could be trusted at all. It makes me wonder if they fully understand the issue at all. Perhaps the author does not understand electronics, and software. I can not say, since I do not have that copy of the bee article to read. But I do know with The Sacramento Bee that it needs to be front page if it's a threat to democracy (sic) our Constitutional Republic. --- OH never mind.
Otherwise, Take it with a grain of salt, don't think they are all up on our side just yet.
Personally, I would take them out of context just the same as they done us in the past. (bee editors hint: It's one of the reasons I stopped subscription to the bee.) Hell I only buy it for the frys adds now.
It's perhaps a good sign The Sacramento Bee has perked it's little ears up at this issue, I will give em that. They ought to investigate further though if they belive the threat is real. For what issue could possibly be more important above democracy itself?
And don't forget how long this issue has been supressed by the same. I have a LOT of anger over that. You should too.
I still don't see the issue being tackled by abc, cbs, nbc, fox. (Rabbit Ears Reception 3,10,13,40)
Until then, the public en masse is not going to be feasic.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 4:09 am PT...
Maybe both Brad #5 and Larry #4 are correct, Thom does a morning show out of Portland locally, before he does his national show, maybe he put John on both
Thom does six hours of radio a day (thats gotta be tough)
Both Brad and Thom are going to go down in history as the "heroes of Democracy", at least with me anyways
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 4:34 am PT...
RLM, at least the "election fraud" seed is planted
But I keep thinking, why are they (the press) talking now ?
Especially after that previous post regarding the Puke challenges to come in November
And why did the paid trolls suddenly disappear?
All the clues are there, it just leaves me with one big hmmm...
The only thing I can gather up (in my mind) is this issue was getting too big for them to handle in any other way, other than to take the loss in November and show that the hack boxes are "Fair and Balanced"tm in court to shut us down permanently
Once the court thing is taken care of, they can go on their merry way once again
Any thoughts on this ?, or does that seem too wild
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 5:04 am PT...
Oh... and I think they did this once before, when the punch card counters first came out
I think I got this notion from the 1988 Ronnie Dugger article, or the NIST.org one Dredd had up, I'll have to go back and check
We have to keep going back in time to check things out
What was old before and worked for them, they are going to use again today with new methodology
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 5:26 am PT...
Them and they = Fascists (my code for this post was 66601)
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 7/6/2006 @ 6:04 am PT...
For Phil and Floridiot: I suspect the Sacramento Bee realizes the issue will be important to the Bowen vs. McPherson race, and it wants to appear as if it's on top of it. Sacramento is the state capitol, after all.
Debra Bowen has been quiet lately. I agree with others that the Bilbray-Busby election mess is a perfect opportunity for her. She doesn't have to say, "Busby was cheated," because Bilbray might in fact have won legitimately. But she can say, "The process must be valid, and this election wasn't conducted accordingly."
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 6:19 am PT...
"Brad says the media trust election officials. I do, too"
I do not know how you present that as logical in the sense we know Haas violated the rules, and admitted as much.
He should be trusted because he is open and flagrant is his rule breaking? And only those we do not know about should be not trusted? Or what?
The sane approach, in an even keel world, is to trust them when they earn that trust. The reason for that is that true democracy has the component of accountability. Remove that and you have removed an essential component, and the result is no longer true democracy.
But our forefathers realized this arena is not an even keel world. Power corrupts, so we must always harbor suspicion when it comes to government, because those in government are being exposed to an essence (power) which corrupts.
Therefore trusting without a valid reason can be a sign of not having the right stuff when it comes to the proper analysis of government performance.
And to trust them after they admit sending thousands of machines out of the chain of custody zone is the antithesis of a sound watchdog mentality.
PS: Saying someone "almost certainly won" when it can not be known without a hand count, is a fallacy, as you say.
There are seveal logical fallacies at work, appeal to Authority, appeal to Belief, appeal to Common Practice, and appeal to Consequences, to name a few.
That is why I liken it to a religion in my post #3, latter half, above. And why I liken these officials to warlords who feel they can flaunt the law without consequence.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 6:34 am PT...
The judges ruling on the 1980 electronic rigging case
""I find," Judge Haden ruled, "that the only evidence that the 1980 election was rigged is purely speculative in nature; it was mere suspicion; and it does not form the basis for the Court ... to infer that a conspiracy may be present.... The plaintiffs have never proven the existence of a conspiracy or these defendants' membership in a conspiracy." The ruling continued, "Consequently, all we have in this case are a series of unrelated acts that have been proven, most of which have a reasonable and an innocent appearance as easily as they would have a culpable appearance, none of which ... are attributable to more than one individual or to more than one entity...."
Oh, and good morning to you both, you gotta read this about the evidence that should have been admissible, but the judge didn't let in
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 6:44 am PT...
You bring up the Dugger Article and the Saltman Article, both from 1988.
I would remind RLM that these articles address the exact same issues we address today in this thread.
Yet today is some two decades later.
Therefore I would think that these articles from the past are part of an argument that should encourage RLM to rethink the notion that election warlords can be trusted.
I do not trust them, and I hope RLM meant something else and that the text in his post for some reason did not convey what he intended to disclose.
Nor do I trust the MSM, which for some reason after 1985, dropped the ball on the subject of the insecurity of electronic voting machines.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 6:44 am PT...
If any "team of Lawyers" doesn't study up on that case before they go into the courtroom and figure out what the Pukes offense is going to be, we are done... it is a catch 22 scenario in the making
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 7:03 am PT...
This is too weird, the more I think about it
Where are the trolls, ACVR, Baker/Carter, etc. on this
the media is starting to pipe up
where is the good spin we have come to enjoy so much ?
The silence is telling
Something is up
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 7:27 am PT...
Robert Lockwood Mills #6
That is the same impression I got upon reading the whole article in the paper. In general it was weak and that closing statement made it seem irrelevent.
It was on the top of the last page of Metro, opposite the letters to the editor.
(Don't ya just love the Friday edition with the 8 page Fry's ad?)
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 7:28 am PT...
I am trying to find the case. However, if it was not published it will be difficult.
Will post results later ... unless you have a link ...
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 7:31 am PT...
In the future I can hear it now, its going to be like, (the judge speaking) 'How can you say that they were the ones cheating, when you guys won'
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 7:33 am PT...
No link Dredd, I just read what Dugger had
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 7:40 am PT...
Floridaidiot: I said that a couple of weeks ago. The silence from the MSM Republican Noise Machine is deafening...there's something up. They did not line up their Republican Noise Machine in the media, not even on FOX News. There's something definitely up. We have to think of questions like this.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 7:42 am PT...
Any theories on why the RNM (Republican Noise Machine) is silent on the MSM now reporting on e-vote fraud???
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 7:50 am PT...
Dan, My #9 on down to here is the only theory I can come up with so far, read them and see what u think
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 7/6/2006 @ 7:51 am PT...
For Dredd: Election officials include everyone from the secretary of state down to the local volunteer at the polls. I believe most are trustworthy. That's all I meant when I said I trust election officials. I wouldn't use the word "warlords," except to describe a Blackwell or a Harris, both of whom are palpably dishonest.
I certainly don't trust anyone with a conflict between selfish and public interests, like those two. I don't know about Haak's trustworthiness. I have some sympathy (not a lot) for state officials like him, McPherson, and others who have been put in a bind by HAVA. Either they certify machines that don't deserve certification in order to meet HAVA's deadlines, or they flout HAVA and cost their states federal funding, adding to the local tax burden. If they happen to be Democrats and flout HAVA, they give Republicans a tax argument to use against them.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 7:59 am PT...
How can you trust anyone with an orwellian name like that ?
I'm just looking at the whole problem as trust no one until proven otherwise
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 8:08 am PT...
As the links in my post #15 show the Electronic Election Machine debacle, a "very real" threat to democracy in the United States, and therefore a matter of national security, has been going on for at least two decades ... yet the press went silent, it seems, sometime in 1985.
The only election officials to be trusted are those like Ion Sancho and Bruce Funk, who have been tested under fire.
Deb Bowen has not been tested yet in the saddle, yet I hope she gets in the saddle because her understanding is excellent.
Floridiot, I found out some more about judge Haden, which Dugger mentioned in his article (link here).
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 8:15 am PT...
Big Dan #23
It could be as Brad has indicated. The GOP is planning to make noise about the machines in November.
I don't care about that, because if there is doubt about machine performance, I really do not care who causes hand counts of paper ballots.
All I want is confidence in the election system, and that it is fair to all by being open and certain.
It would be better for the GOP to jump in now and advocate hand counts of paper ballots so the machine uncertainty goes no further.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 8:20 am PT...
Okay Dan, here is what I think is going to happen
They don't need to spin this any longer, because the Republicans are going to challenge the machines in November and lose the case in court
The Democrats are going to win the majority one last time in '06 to prove that the EVMS are an equal opportunity hack box
Anyone who challenges the reliability of the machines at this time will be marginalized in the MSM by this:"how can you say that they are stealing the elections, when your guys won ?".
with the case closed forever, they will march on to future victories in '08 and beyond IMO
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 8:27 am PT...
Brad quotes Peter Schrag as saying "The threat to democracy is very real", and here is some backup:
"A government consultant, using computer programs easily found on the Internet, managed to crack the FBI's classified computer system and gain the passwords of 38,000 employees, including that of FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III," Eric M. Weiss will report in Thursday editions of The Washington Post, RAW STORY has learned.
(link here). Yep, it would seem that if all the FBI agent's passwords, access to counter-spy data, and anything else in a secure system can be easily hacked, these rinky dink election machines can be too.
In 20 years of dealing with the issues, the election warlords have managed to protect their own turf and do CYA work and corporate propaganda quite well, but have not protected the turf of the people (demonstrable democracy via valid elections).
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 8:37 am PT...
Where are Florida Dave and Honest Repiglican to talk about how this is a "non issue" and how "half of all the articles out there are from Brad, the MSM doesn't care"?
Oh.. wait.. 67,000 hits must put a dent in their little disenfranchisement agenda..
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 8:44 am PT...
march=goosestep in my #29
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 9:30 am PT...
Floridiot and others...
You are wondering why the trolls and RWMSM are not trying to kill the election fraud issue dead?
The answer is here: http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1409
The Republicans have no sense of IRONY at all. They intend to claim election fraud on the part of DEMOCRATS in November. (Are we sure this isn't 1984?)
They practice this by explaining how they were trying to PREVENT the theft of the 2000 election when they rioted in Palm Beach, or how the Washington Governorship was "stolen" in 2004 by the Democrats when there is a lot of evidence of as many as 45,000 flopped votes in Squahomish (sic) County. (OT, but I really resent the Gov not going after that issue after she won --- it would have made her look more legitimate and might have helped with '06 and '08!)
Giving the election fraud issue some legs will help to suppress the anti-Republican vote and will give them fallback if they can't steal enough votes.
The strategy is set. Our ONLY hope is to do as Greg Palast has suggested, and MAKE THE MARGIN SO BIG THAT THEY CAN'T STEAL IT. I don't know if that is actually possible. After all, the ONLY thing stopping them from vote-switching an 80%-20% Dem win into a 51%-49$ Rep win is the exit polls [if reported on] and the people's willingness to FIGHT AGAINST an obviously stolen election, and our history on this is poor at best. We are not the Ukraine, nor even Mexico, and too many Americans (both Republicans and Democrats) seem to be willing to put up with stolen elections quite easily.
We shall see.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 9:47 am PT...
O.T. but fyi...
Sam Seder just announced that Ned Lamont will be debating joe lieberman tonight at 7:00 pm Eastern on CSPAN
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 7/6/2006 @ 10:05 am PT...
For Charlie L.: Don't forget the rationale Feeney gave Clint Curtis for designing the vote-rigging software.
"We want to prevent Democratic fraud in South Florida."
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 7/6/2006 @ 2:44 pm PT...
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 7/7/2006 @ 5:37 am PT...
How can they certify the results, if they made such huge violations of the procedures? If it were old fashioned paper voting, they wouldn't send 6000 ballot boxes home for overnights?
Damnit! I'm OK with Bilbray winning if he actually got the most votes. But we just don't fucking know. Flipping 3,500 votes from one to the other wouldn't be tooo hard...
I'm thinking that at some point in an election, one of the "good guys" is going to have to go in with a wireless PDA and infect an election machine with an election virus, and then after the election, come forward (after the results are counted and presumably no one makes a fuss, initially), to demonstrate it too the public.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 7/7/2006 @ 11:58 am PT...
beenjammin075, if someone did that PDA thing, they would be "Lemmied" so fast they wouldn't know what hit them
Remember what Ray said "this goes all the way to the top"
I think if we get too close to the nexus, suicide will be the popular mode of extinction
But what the hell, I say bring em on
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 7/7/2006 @ 4:19 pm PT...
"All the way to the top," to Ray Lemme, probably meant Jeb Bush's office. But I suspect the hit was ordered by Yang Enterprises, then was covered up by Jeb when he reliazed what had happened.
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 7/8/2006 @ 5:58 am PT...
RLM #39, while I agree, I will argue that the "top" is higher than Jeb the Hutt.
Probably the most absolutely hilarious talking point fostered by Diebold, or perhaps fostered by the GOP directly, is this:
Yes, the electronic election machines are insecure, however, it takes a bad person to misuse the machines and commit fraud, and that is a felony. We do not believe that such people exist.
Yes, that hilarious statement was made by a Diebold warlord.
The fact of the matter is that election felonies are being directed from the White House itself:
The fourth man indicted in a New Hampshire phone-jamming scheme --- in which Republican operatives jammed the phone lines of Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts in a 2002 Senate race --- will argue at trial that the Bush Administration and the national Republican Party gave their approval to the plan, according to a motion filed by his attorney Thursday.
(link here, bold added).
The election fraud reality is so blatant in America today that it is hard for honest people to believe. That is what the crooks are counting on ... the disbelief of the people.
But the people show in the polls that they think this republican dictatorship is a ship of liars. And they want that ship to sink during the November storm.
Hand counts are the only safe harbor for America ... and if the republican dictatorship gets its way, even that harbor is going to be sold to Dubai/UAE.
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 7/9/2006 @ 4:15 am PT...
If you ask any election official why we can't just hand count paper ballots, they immediately start talking about all of the terrible fraud they've seen.
But of course when you introduce a voting machine into the polling place, of course, nobody would ever think of trying to commit fraud there! If that ever happened, pigs would start to fly, you silly wabbit!