We’ve been discussing the pros and cons of Rep. Rush Holt’s Election Reform bill (HR 811 [PDF]) since it dropped two weeks ago in the House.
There is, no doubt, much more to say about the specific pros and cons in detail here as we move forward. For the moment, allow me to first address three false dichotomies opportunistically and/or disingenuously and/or naively being used by supporters of Holt’s legislation in order to help see it passed by Congress.
In doing so, I’ll share some of what I’ve learned over the past several weeks via my personal investigations into why the Democrats who support the bill, along with their closely-allied public advocacy groups, are currently unable or unwilling to show the necessary courage to insist upon the banning of disenfranchising, failed DRE/touch-screen voting system technology from all American elections.
The inability, or unwillingness, of such groups to stand up and call for what most know to be the right thing is occurring despite the fact that most of those groups actually agree — and will admit privately, if not always publicly — that DRE technology has no place in our electoral system and is a grave menace to true Electoral Integrity.
Collectively, these three arguments are being used to shore up support for a bill which offers much good (DISCLOSURE: I participated in the drafting of the bill myself, and did what I could — sometimes successfully, sometimes not — to improve its language and provisions), yet ultimately may prove to be as dangerous as the disastrous Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and risks becoming known as HAVA 2 by 2008. And, as I’ve pointed out before, this time the Democrats won’t have the Republicans or Bob Ney to blame.
FALSE DICHOTOMY #1:
It’s Either Holt or Hand-Counted Paper Ballots…
The first of the three false dichotomies being forwarded by some of the bill’s supporters is to suggest that there are only two choices: Pass the Holt bill ‘as is,’ or continue an unwinnable campaign for all hand-counted paper ballots (HCPB).
The now oft-repeated intimation is the very definition of a strawman, a canard, and a truly disingenuous false dichotomy. …
While Hand-Counted Paper Ballots might be swell and offer maximum transparency and citizen oversight — as well as not being nearly as difficult or unwieldy to accomplish as many under-informed folks may believe — the majority of Holt detractors, including myself, are not fighting for hand-counted paper ballots at this time. Rather, we are fighting for a necessary ban on the failed and disenfranchising technology of DRE/touch-screen systems, which succeeded spectacularly in 2006 in ensuring that thousands (or perhaps millions) of legally registered voters were unable to cast a vote at all, much less have that vote counted either accurately or transparently.
Banning DREs does not mean all votes must be counted by hand. Most supporters of the Holt Bill know that — or should, if they don’t — yet seem to be using the false argument when convenient to distract from the real shortcomings and concerns of the Holt legislation.
Optical-scan systems, while also presenting their own security and accuracy concerns, could easily and (fairly) safely be used with publicly-disclosed source code and a mandatory random hand-audit protocol of a sufficient number of ballots to achieve 99% scientific certainty that the reported results of any optically-scanned election are correct.
I say this knowing that those who support nothing less than 100% HCPB would likely disagree.
In either case, suggesting that those who understand the need for a complete ban on failed DRE technology are actually demanding HCPB is a cheap and unsubstantiated political tactic, unworthy of this necessary debate. It serves only to confuse at a time when all well-meaning Election Integrity advocates (and I include Holt in that group) ought to be having a legitimate discussion/debate about these most important matters.
FALSE DICHOTOMY #2:
Take Holt or Get Nothing (or Something Even Worse)…
The other false dichotomy being used either disingenuously or naively by Holt supporters is the notion that “if we don’t accept this legislation ‘as is’ we’ll get either nothing or something far worse.”
Nonsense.
If all of the Democrats and their public-advocacy group supporters stood up today and demanded a ban on all DRE technology in elections — since it has both the potential for and track-record of disenfranchising millions of legally registered voters of all stripes — it would be a done deal. The only thing keeping such a provision from being included currently in a Federal Election Reform bill is the will to do so, as fostered by the trademark fear that Democrats seem to display when it comes to leading the American People who put them into office in the hopes of such leadership.
As with Iraq Policy, the Democrats continue to legislate from within their “foxholes,” as Sen. Russ Feingold described it to me last spring. Instead of leading the way and helping to educate the American electorate about what is right, they continue to try to legislate what they believe is already popular among Americans. Yet “what is popular among Americans” is based on what those Americans have been told by the Republican-based corporate media. If Democrats learned to speak up for themselves and set the agenda instead of following it, they’d easily be able to make their case to the American people and help them understand that a DRE/touch-screen voting machine that fails equates to hundreds or even thousands of lost votes in each precinct where such a failure occurs.
At its heart, the argument instead comes down to the wishes of the Voting Machine Companies and the nation’s Elections Officials, many of whom have sold their souls and our democracy to those same companies. Neither of those groups wishes to ban DREs. The former because they stand to make far more money from the sale of DREs (dozens of systems per precinct, instead of a single op-scan machine per polling place) and the latter because replacing their recently-purchased systems would be too expensive, or force them to admit they were in error in the first place, or otherwise make their jobs more difficult on a number of levels. For example, they’d actually have to tabulate the ballots of voters and make sure the tabulation was correct…astoundingly, such a chore seems anathema to some of the Elections Officials I’ve seen in operation out there.
FALSE DICHOTOMY #3:
We Must Allow for DREs or ‘Language Minority’ Voters Will Be Disenfranchised…
This one is, perhaps, the most disturbing and currently the toughest to overcome, for reasons you’ll discover shortly.
My investigation into the surprising willingness of “foxholed” Democrats and their public-advocacy group supporters such as Common Cause, PFAW, MoveOn, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, VoteTrustUSA, and the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition to support the Holt legislation ‘as is’ has revealed a stunning point at its core.
Despite the Holt bill’s dangerous institutionalization of DRE voting systems, it seems that several of the above groups (and others like them), for whatever reason, have conveniently been hypnotized into believing that the continued use of DREs is actually a civil rights issue!
The tortured, backwards logic at work here is remarkable. But you’ll not find any Voting Machine Companies or many Elections Officials willing to challenge it out loud.
The once-very-popular “disabilities voter” canard has been back-benched for the moment, as it’s become clear that even in a worst-case scenario the Holt bill could easily be amended to allow for a single DRE system in each polling place as an optional voting device for disabled voters who wish to use it. (And even that would be unnecessary, since there are many alternate options for disabled voters that wouldn’t require the use of such failed, inaccurate technology.)
The latest public canard then is the notion that “language minority” voters — those whose first language is not English — are somehow better served by disenfranchising DRE technology than by paper ballots, printed in their own language, and counted either by optical-scan or by hand. The Voting Machine Companies and Elections Officials, at least the ones concerned only about keeping their jobs, don’t want any legislation. Yet, they are sitting pretty and smiling in the background as the Democrats and Democratic-based groups are doing their dirty work for them under the wholly misguided, unsubstantiated, and, in fact, counter-intuitive pretense that banning DREs would somehow disenfranchise minorities.
The argument is utter hogwash. I welcome any actual evidence that shows I’m wrong, and will happily retract this editorial in the bargain if anyone can do so.
Even if one accepts the dubious argument that somehow a computerized touch-screen interface is better than a printed paper ballot for “language minority” voters, there are better alternatives to DREs, such as the AutoMARK system, a computerized ballot marking device. It includes the same touch-screen computer interface as a DRE, but simply prints out the voter’s ballot to be counted by another method, such as optical-scan or by hand. I am aware of no legitimate reasons to use DRE technology in American democracy.
Despite those facts, and in apparent fear of offending any small piece of their constituency — no matter how misinformed or misled (or dare I say, disingenuous?) such a constituency may be — the Democrats and their support groups seem to be willing to gamble with our democracy, that all will hopefully be well enough and gosh, it’s better than leading and educating and standing up for what they know is the right thing to do. Better to stay in the “foxholes” than to risk incurring the wrath of any segment of the civil rights community.
At least that’s where the advocacy groups seem to sit. Democratic legislators who support the bill seem more interested in not pissing off their state officials back home. It doesn’t hurt that they’re getting political cover from the public-advocacy groups.
THE DEMONSTRABLE, SUBSTANTIATED TRUTH:
DREs Are a Menace to both Democracy and Civil Rights,
And It’s time to be Honest About That…
DREs disenfranchise Left and Right, Black and White, and everything in between and to either side. Those of us paying very close attention learned that much, week after week, during the 2006 Election Cycle. The result is that many supporters of the previous Holt Legislation (HR 550), as written during the last Congress, have now withheld their support from the ‘new and improved’ bill since it does not close the door on the failed DRE technology once and for all.
America cannot afford another questionable Presidential Election. Even if Holt’s overly-optimistic supporters turn out to be correct and everything in his bill works as designed, the fact is that confidence in our election system is as important to its ongoing viability as anything else.
As long as Americans are unable to ensure for themselves that any given election result is accurate and correctly reflects the will of the voters, the value of democracy will continue to erode in this country. The simple task of any election, at its heart, is a not-at-all-complicated process of adding one plus one plus one. Only full transparency in all stages of that simple task will begin to bring American democracy back from the precipice over which it now dangerously hangs.
There are many fights ahead in the battle for Electoral Integrity, but none, for the moment, is more important than a full ban on DREs in order to begin the process of restoring both transparency and confidence in American elections.
The sooner we can dispense with the unhelpful false dichotomies and phony and/or opportunistic and/or unsubstantiated arguments, the sooner we can reach the goal that I believe most Democrats, and Democratic-leaning public interest groups, are truly aiming for: Electoral Integrity in America.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmen BROTHER!
So, Brad, who is there in of the 435 in the house of Representatives who can be called upon to offer up the necessary Amendments to fix this?
Who wants to be known for having stood up and presented the solution. Let’s call them “The Blumenauer Amendments” (for want of a better option, I’ll offer up my own Rep., though I have no reason to believe he’s far-sighted enough or sufficiently educated on election reform to actually DO it) that would FIX Holt?
If nothing else, how each and every congressperson votes on “The Blumenauer Amendments” would make it clear where they stood on election reform?
So, who do we go after? Brad, you were in there helping with “the drafting” so you must have figured out who among those beltway boys actually GETS it and who is just going along for the ride. GIVE US SOMEBODY TO PUSH! Tell us who might take up the mantle.
And while everybody is standing on the train tracks watching the big white light come towards them and hoping to stop this train (a lose/lose either way) is anybody actually WRITING what needs to be fixed? You know what’s MISSING from the draft, that’s where we start with the amendments. If the current draft doesn’t work to make elections better, LET’S MAKE IT WORK. Nothing in Congress is final until the ink is dry — it’s not too late to repair this bill, we just need a champion who is willing to go out there and be the “election reform candidate.”
Let’s fix Holt, because I really don’t believe we can STOP it, and if we do, what have we got then? NOTHING but the already broken system. It’s a lose/lose, and personally, I’m getting real sick of losing battles that had no winning side.
Let’s FIX Holt and have a win/win.
CharlieL
Portland, OR
Well said, Brad. Thanks for laying it out so clearly.
Joan B, OpEdNews
Before beginning my shill-based heresy, I agree there are no legitimate reasons to use DRE technology in American democracy. They should not be reviewed or upgraded or yet another adapter added to their printer.
Now, I wonder where False Dichotomy number 3 came from? In California, the strangest language state in the Union, Santa Clara County, for example, prints multiple languages including three different symbol-based languages for absentee ballots. Who sends out only English absentee ballots if they are required by the Voting Rights Act to provide additional languages? Whoever it is needs some quality time with the US DOJ. (I know some States don’t have as liberal an absentee voting as CA but they may soon)
Does BRAD BLOG get money from AutoMARK? AutoMARK does not verify and it does not guarantee a secret ballot. It’s a good start but just not legal.
As to the spin on Elections Officials, why not get rid of them? They seem to be the root of all the problems in the first place. I question here again why promote the hate? Why “rabble-rouse”? It turns the whole dialog into a Faux News Debate with everyone shouting. To say that all workers have “sold their souls and our democracy to those same companies.” is to quote you again, “…misinformed or misled (or dare I say, disingenuous?)”
{Ed. Note: For the record, neither Brad, nor anyone associated with BRAD BLOG, has ever received any compensation or consideration of any kind from any voting machine company or elections entity. BRAD BLOG is supported by online advertising and the kindness and generosity of individual donors. — DES}
Howdy misquoted me with:
As a Santa Clara election official, surely you know the difference between an election official and a poll worker. I did not say “all” officials, and certainly didn’t refer to “workers”.
Speaking of “misinforming and misleading”.
As to Elections Officials, however, the ones who are far more interested in expedience, versus democracy, I’m happy to call them out.
That does NOT, of course, include ALL Elections Officials. There are a number of great ones. Ion Sancho in Florida and Freddie Oakley in Yolo County, CA come to mind to name just a couple. I wish there were many many more.
Charlie L — Yes, there are those that are actually writing what needs to be fixed — and already have — see the concise and precisely written set of Essential Revisions to the Holt Bill at VotersUnite, which has been signed off on by many of the major election reform groups, including my own, Black Box Voting.
And there will be more.
The story Brad has done here — and the brilliant report Nancy Tobi has written which currently is the lead story at Black Box Voting, which exposes the EAC certification system — and the procurement requirements in the Holt Bill — as a Ponzi fraud scheme — well these are important stories.
Somehow, when people think carefully and research diligently, as Brad has done here and as Nancy has done, instead of saying “thank you for helping us understand how to avoid pitfalls and reach a better solution” they are being immediately hit with “so what are YOU doing?”
That assumes, first of all, that every journalist must be a lobbyist — try asking Zachary Goldfarb from the Washington Post if he writes a critical article “So what legislation have YOU passed?”
This confuses the role of a journalist with the role of a lobbyist.
It also assumes that the first one out of the gate with legislative proposals — no matter how flawed — somehow has a claim to the high ground here. In fact, “something” is not better than “nothing” (even if that were the case, as Brad points out it is NOT) — well something is NOT better than nothing if it’s dangerous to democratic elections.
So yes, there are many working on both amendments and more appropriate legislation. And yes, it is entirely appropriate to challenge the “foxhole mentality” that apparently blocks some legislators from doing anything meaningful about election reform.
Bev Harris
Founder – Black Box Voting
I will make one more observation here, as I just noticed in re-reading that Charlie L believes that it is inevitable that this legislation will pass.
I will be astounded if this passes.
Two words: Unfunded mandate.
{Ed Note: Post deleted. Disinformation. “Mort,” while you are welcome to use an alias here, you are not welcome to offer disinformation about who you are and what your agenda is here. Consider this a warning, and that I’m being very kind in not naming who you are. Suffice to say, knock it off. Misleading folks is no better when done by someone on “our side” than it is when it’s done by Voting Machine Companies or “bad guy” Election Officials. That is one of the (very few) rules for commenting here at BRAD BLOG. Thank you. And you’re welcome. — BF}
Welcome to the new way in 2007 Bushit Fascist Amerikka.
Nice work Brad. This piece may not awaken those people who seriously need a good kick in the ace, however your investigative insite is a most valuable contribution on this issue. Exposing the desperate state of elections defines you as a modern American Patriot. So cool.
Unfortunately it becomes more and more obvious now that Corporate Team Republidem DOES NOT have the inclination or soul to fix the system..only the vote in the next one:)
Fine clear piece, Brad. Hope it is circulated widely and to the right places. I think we are seeing a form of “triangulation” again. How many votes are we willing to sacrifice for something that will “satisfy” as many constituencies as possible? Well, that’s not the question..It’s a matter of principle (and the one constituency that matters)- that the voter knows as well as can be known that his or her vote was accurately counted. (Can anyone say DRE’s provide that accurate knowledge?) It’s not something that can be negotiated, compromised.
As you accurately state, going beyond triangualtion, beyond “legislating from the foxhole”, demands leadership. Leadership is derived from principles. Who has them?
Thanks Brad for the excellent post on this most important issue and continuing danger to our nation.
Charlie L asked:
Sorry, I didn’t have time to answer this question until now, Charlie. Hope you’ll catch it.
For the moment, short of an announced, specific campaign (and one may be coming), it’s important to get these details and these stories and the need to ban DRE’s in favor of paper ballots which are actually counted to ALL members of Congress.
More specifically, however, I’d point you — in addition to the article above (for which the URL is: https://bradblog.com/?p=4163) to two different documents to share with them for now.
One is the Paper Ballot Campaign open letter to Congress members. It’s here:
http://www.VelvetRevolution.us/...s/PaperBallots
As well, and as you asked for specific amendment language, please see this document, “Essential Revisions to HR 811,” for some of the most needed changes:
http://www.votersunite.org/info...lRevisions.htm
And to specific Congress members right now, I’d suggest Dianne Feinstein (who will oversee Election Reform legislation in the Senate Admin Comm. which she chairs, and who can file a bill to fix Holt’s).
And on the House side, I’d focus on getting the message to Juanita Millender-McDonald who now chairs the House Admin Comm. (Bob Ney’s old job), as she will be overseeing Holt’s legislation in committee, and has also be talking about filing her own bill. But she needs HELP, big time to understand what’s at stake here! I’d recommend sending her the three docs mentioned above.
And again, ALL members. Including in the House: Conyers, Waters, Tubbs-Jones. And in the Senate: Boxer, Feingold, Dodd and the rest of ’em who are running for President!
I hate to even comment on such a great summation of the current race toward epic buyers remorse, (again), but I have been one who advocates hand counted paper ballots out of the fear that technical computer language would be used as a tool to purposefully confuse what should be a simple plan to count our votes.
Even grandma and grandpa understand paper ballots counted by hand.
I would throw any personal arrogance or argument that “I was always right” to the dogs if we were allowed to use…
…whether grandma and grandpa understand it or not.
However, a fight over publicly disclosed source code would delve into a fight, (albeit, a very interesting one), over whether corporations could retain their person-hood, making it even more “unwinnable” then a fight for HCPB.
Might as well shove another useless bill through congress and “MoveOn”, Huh Democrats.
Will voting be an issue after this law passed by the republican dictatorship is used:
(link to article, emphasis added). Some of you will feel or think inside “that can never happen”. That is how the majority of Americans look at the notion of worrying about electronic voting machines (“that can never happen”). Which of the two does not have the right to an opinion?
There is nothing wrong with proving that in 1985 the New York Times was printing panic stories about electronic voting machines:
(Official U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1988 Report, emphasis added), or that voting machine activists were very well aware of the problem too:
(Dugger 1988, emphasis added). If these articles and reports are not shown to be false, then the premise of my logic is valid.
No less than Bev Harris informs us that things in some contexts have even gotten worse in the past two years:
(Bev Harris Post, emphasis added). My premise is considerable, seeing as how it is both up to date and goes back over 40 years to 19 freakin 64 people.
Now since my premise on the substance is valid, I feel safe within the realm of valid deduction in saying that we need a different strategy in the electronic voting machine movement.
We need to work with the movers and shakers in a way they will recognize as valid, and develop a working relationship with them, not with ourselves.
The first order of business would be to identify the current electronic voting machine activist’s strategy … which is 40 years old and failing.
BTW the definition of a “bill” includes its final version, after having gone thru the amendment process and the bi-cameral morph where and when the senate and house versions fuse together.
Charlie L #2
Well said … see … insurrections aren’t always bad. 🙂
Brad #12
Do you target “the democrats” (a hundred million people or so), some of which haven’t had the time to update all the congressional websites to the 110th from the 109th congress yet, and not “the republicans” (a hundred million people or so), some of which just filibustered the people’s will against escalation in Iraq?
Those democrats now in the majority in congress have effectively had about a month in the saddle up to now, and have begun to tackle the Iraq debacle, held 52+ oversite hearings, and introduced a host of bills to repeal the fascism of the 109th republican led congress.
Tom Hayden has a good idea that I think will work for election machine activists:
(No More Crusades).
My post #14 shows that in the 40 years of election machine history and activism against it, the case only gets worse.
I feel that the movement is a Crusade masking as a political movement. If it were political it would have always dealt with those who have the political power and would have done so effectively. After all, your rhetoric is not much different than those saying not being for the Iraq escalation are unpatriotic. You say:
A crusade is like a fire and is never satisfied with anything other than obliterating something … which in this case has failed to remove bad voting practices even tho it has exposed those bad voting practices with scientific, rather than crusader, precision.
Time to replace crusader anti-voting machine wars with diplomatic outreaches to those who can fix it, by not first condemning them then asking them then condemning them some more.
What I want to see is the hard data on COSTS!
That information alone I believe is enough reason to DUMP DRE’S IN THE RECYCLE BIN and sue to get our money back! I don’t believe they have lived up to their accuracy claims.
How much does it cost to count votes on all the existing systems, INCLUDING MAINTENANCE COSTS and the cost of HAND COUNTING WITH PUBLIC OVERSIGHT. This of coarse isn’t my bottom line on what system should be used, but it sure as hell is one of the best reasons for dumping DRE’S if I’m not mistaken. And everyone knows how much politicians love to tell us how much money they are saving us!
As far as I have been able to tell the AutoMark system is the securest when it comes to electronic counting, but can we PLEASE estimate hand counting costs too!!!!!!!!!!
ISN’T THAT PART OF WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN A REASONED DECISION???????????????????????????????????????
Yes Dredd, victory is sweeter when you can pull the blacksheep back into the herd!
Sorry off topic, but important too!
FCC HEARINGS IN HARRISBURG ON FRIDAY WITH PUBLIC COMMENT TIME!!!!!!!!!
I’ve got to write a 2 minute speech and practice the old public speaking skills so I can ask Mr. FCC Kevin Martin face to face how putting our PUBLIC AIRWAVES and MEDIA OWNERSHIP into fewer and fewer hands is in any way, shape, or form making democracy healthier!
Wish me luck folks, its a first come first serve public comment basis.
And yes Brad, I’m taking a video camera with me to the hearings in Harrisburg on Friday 9-1 o’clock. Info here.
I guess its time to put my BE THE MEDIA bumpersticker on my car. I have gotten beeps and thumbs up on my WHO IS CLINT CURTIS one!
Jeez I’ve gotten active since I’ve been coming here! Thanks for the inspiration !
Brad — I hope the poor delicate Democratic souls will be able to deal with some strong and honest language because otherwise they are not likely to be of the mettle to handle the real problems facing our nation.
But I think many of them will be able to engage in a spirited dialogue without throwing away democracy in a snit.
My statement “The autoMark is the securest when it comes to electronic counting” is incorrect in so far as they don’t actually do the counting. They just mark a ballot to be counted by some other means. Sorry, I did’t mean to be confusing.
In response to Dredd’s criticism of my criticism of the Dems and their supporters here…
My comments in the article above are based on deliberate and painstaking research and discussion with the players involved. I point to the Dems (and, perhaps more significantly) their publicly-advocacy groups because it’s become quite clear to me that they are the reason the Dems have, currently, settled on the indefensible position they have.
There is a palpable fear of coming out against minority-supportive positions (even with those positions don’t hold up to scrutiny). Break down those unsubstantiated positions, and maybe — just maybe — the rest of the mountain will move with it.
Unfortunately, the Republicans did not write this bill. Nor is their position one that seems to be key to the way in which it was written. Infact, at least one or two Republicans (Crist and Browning in FL, along with the Dem Wexler) are ahead of the curve, in front of the Dems on this one.
As to the call here for Hand Counted Paper Ballots, this note is long already, but I’ll speak more to it in the future. Suffice for now to say that you can’t hand count paper ballots until and unless you actually have paper ballots to hand count. Nothing in the Holt bill (if we were to be able to see it changed to REQUIRE a real paper ballot) keeps any locality from going to all HCPB if that’s what they, or folks on the ground, wanted to try and accomplish.
If Congress has the guts to ban DRE voting machines, optical-scan ballot-readers operated with the vendor’s proprietary software is the most likely alternative to get approval. However, it would be imperative that the votes counted by these machines be independently audited by hand-counting a random sample of ballots of sufficient size to have a 99% chance of detecting errors or fraudulent manipulation. Then it wouldn’t matter if the software were secret because an adequate audit would expose programming errors or programming introduced to change the vote count.
Since cost will be a key issue, it must be emphasized that each polling place would require only one optical-scan machine instead of many DRE’s. And op-scans are much less costly to maintain. Op-scans are a proven technology going back 10-15 years and are much less likely to fail in service.
Brad’s co-post with Emily Levy today about Maxine Waters shows that there is an open ear in the democratic party to our concerns about Holt’s bill. Thanks for that good news Brad.
Brad and Emily Levy pointed out that Maxine Waters is willing to withdraw her co-sponsorship of the Holt bill … I hope she will withhold withdrawing co-sponsorship until she first tells the others her reasoning.
Possibly that will allow the filing of amendments early on in the process, and then she could be an advocate for the paper ballot and other changes we seek as a conditional co-sponsor. We would have a sympathetic insider where we could confidently voice our observations. There is time to do this properly.
Anyway, after 40 years of a bad machine system getting even worse, we have a platform to debate the issues we are all familiar with.
I just want success for us … 40 years is long enough to wait … and I feel that with the dems we have a better chance … and I do not want to blow it by challenging their patriotism because they don’t see it our way.
That is too much like Cheney:
(link here, emphasis added).
The dems are a little tired of being called terrorist sympathizers, etc. for wanting to correct the Iraq debacle.
Democrats Conyers, Clint Curtis, Pelosi, and Maxine Waters are not anti-democracy simply because they are technically not as saavy as some in the movement are, or are of a different understanding of the civil rights issues in the bill.
We can educate them about our concerns, but we should not denigrate them at this point of the process. It is only the beginning of the bill, not the final version.
Somewhat OT. The strategy of the dems a la Iraq escalation has been called traitorous by Cheney in post #24. However, note this:
(Sun Tsu, recognized as one of the greatest military tacticians of all times), emphasis added.
As the incompetent fascist Bush regime, like Hitler invading Russia in winter, plans to now invade the suburbs of Baghdad, Sun Tsu is getting louder.
Maybe the same can be used in electronic voting machine strategies … peace not war.
Dredd is the Sun Tsu quote from “The Art of War?” My copy is in storage right now.
And speaking of war anybody see this!
Ancient, #26
Yes. That is from The Art of War, just not a very elegant translation…. And, in an effort to prove it to you, I just now realize that Agent 86 stole my copy of Cleary’s translation…. Shit.
Anyone who wishes to help peace prevail would do well to memorize The Art of War and Thomas Cleary’s translation is far and away the best.
Thanks 99. I do believe that is the translation I have somewhere also. But did you check out the next post? YIKES STRIKES!
Ancient… Maybe this will counter the horror somewhat. We really can always hope our military will refuse to start World War Three.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh…….. Thank you again 99! I’m still workin on my 2 public minutes for saving democracy from more korporatization/monoply (why aren’t there antitrust suits already?) Oh yeah, Kevin Martin following in Collin Powell’s son footsteps.
That article really helps to enfuse one with true patriotism! Seems like there is more of it around in the unimaginably tuff spots those guys are in these days!!!!!!!!!
Ancient:
Try and let us know if C-span is covering the public testimony in front of the FCC. The last one I saw was dynamite.
Hey Larry someone, possibly the FCC itself was streaming it live so it should be documented somewhere. Sorry but someone asked me a question when they said who, so i missed it. I did how ever video tape the whole thing and will have my daughter help me down load/edit it. I only got 2 hours sleep yesterday, drove though a snow storm, then did the dreaded public speaking thing. I need a break from everything to go hug my boyfriend for a while. Later.
Darn this dial-up! It’s unlikely I’ll be able to see it unless it’s on C-span. Good for you for taping it though.