READER COMMENTS ON
"'Daily Voting News' For April 30, 2008"
(9 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 4/30/2008 @ 10:57 pm PT...
This sort of thing is simply too common. Go beyond content, for I suspect that the people behind these calls have a constitutional right to say what they say. MAKE THE ROBO CALLS ILLEGAL. That does not violate anyone's First Amendment rights, and it gets rid of one of the most annoying parts of modern campaigning. One year I called every campaign that made robo calls and told them I was not going to vote for their candidate because of the calls. Let a lot of "little ladies" (no men answered any of the calls) gasping. Truly. I was very polite and respectful but they just didn't perceive it as a vote losing process.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 5/1/2008 @ 6:23 am PT...
The GOP chair in San Diego is a world class hacker, RIGHT NOW, out in the open, in your face.
While he was hacking hundreds of computers in the late 80's, while our own EI ancestor, and the soooo yesterday government was saying it maybe could be done.
All this in 1988 while the GOP chairman was then hacking major commerical butt. The evoting machines then had this reputation:
4.13 Summary Of Problem Types
4.13.1 Insufficient Pre-election Testing
4.13.2 Failure to Implement an Adequate Audit Trail
4.13.3 Failure to Provide for a Partial Manual Recount
4.13.4 Inadequate Ballots or Ballot-Reader Operation
4.13.5 Inadequate Security and Management Control
4.13.6 Inadequate Contingency Planning
4.13.7 Inadequate System Acceptance Procedures
Concern had been heightened by a series of articles published in the summer of 1985 in the New York Times.
(The NIST of it, emphasis added).
Ancient articles cited statements by two computer experts reporting that a computer program widely used for vote-tallying was vulnerable to tampering. Sound familiar even today, two decades later?
Several elections circa 1988 were identified in which losing candidates claimed that it would be possible to fraudulently alter the computer programs that were used in their contests.
Just like these doods, Darb, Hohj, and Veb's Incredible Journey into themselves while looking for America in Amurka?
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 5/1/2008 @ 6:23 am PT...
SHAME ON BRADBLOG for --- in effect --- joining forces with Thor Hearne.
WVWV has been in existence since 2003. In the past, they have worked with the NAACP and the 2004 Obama campaign. They are using proven techniques to register voters for the GENERAL ELECTION. Their primary focus is on women.
They conduct voter registration drives during primary elections because those are the times when interest in politics runs high.
For the truth of the matter, see here and here and here.
Here's a key excerpt:
Occasionally Republicans will harass voter registration organizations with legal actions in an attempt to force them to waste resources on legal bills rather than spending them registering new voters. This is a tactic often used against organizations like the NAACP and ACORN. It was one of the key components of the U.S. Attorney scandal, where U.S. Attorneys who refused to pursue politically motivated legal action against voter registration groups were fired.
So what's next, Brad? Thinking of growing long red hair and weilding a hammer called Mjolnir?
A few more bits from the linked stories above:
Barack Obama and his lawyer Bob Bauer know all of this. Obama knows that WVWV was critical to registering new voters for him in Illinois in 2004, Bob Bauer knows the Bush administration's history of punishing groups like WVWV with frivolous lawsuits, they know that WVWV works closely with the NAACP and ACORN, they know that it is illegal for non-partisan (501(c)(3)s) to coordinate with candidates. And yet Barack Obama has decided that his political skin is more important than all of that work expanding the franchise, and if he can score some points against Hillary Clinton by characterizing a group that registers women as racist, then he will.
It is too early to tell how much Obama's attack will set back voter registration efforts by progressive groups, the political damage and legal costs to WVWV could lose us a million new voters, and the set-back to their efforts will impact the efforts of the NAACP, ACORN and the unions. The loss will not only impact competitive presidential states, but also critical House, Senate and Gubernatorial races. But one thing is certain, Barack Obama just made John McCain's job a little easier.
I just want to add that if one of the main goals of WVWV is on registering unmarried voters of all types, then WVWV is actually registering a slightly pro-Obama demographic. The composite primary season exit poll, which was compiled just before March 4th, lists umarried voters breaking 50%-45% in favor of Obama. Either Obama still holds a slight lead among this group, or it is basically a tie.
Basically, the pro-Obama blogs are now doing the work previously done by Thor and comapny --- attacking an ACORN-like group involved in a voting registration drive.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 5/1/2008 @ 6:49 am PT...
The following was also sent via email to
I don't normally respond to comments to my posts on BradBlog except to add additional information on occasion. I felt that, because of my respect for you and Brad, that I should respond directly to you.
Please understand that Brad does not post "Daily Voting News". He also does not edit what I post there. My ramblings in the lede graf of "DVN" are my work product and not Brad's so he should not be blamed for what I write.
Now, on the subject of the statements I made, until yesterday I had not heard of "WVWV". I read a few articles critical of the work they were doing in NC including the fact that their Board of Directors is heavily weighted with ex-Clinton people.
Right or wrong and in an attempt to be non-partisan I crafted my lede to not name names or point fingers at anyone except the organization itself. In this case, the organization seems to be at fault and they seem to have acknowledged the fact that they are at fault by stopping the mailing of their 'packets'. Clearly their actions will lead to some confusion to some voters and confusion leads to those voters not going to the polls. WVWV may not have intended to disenfranchise voters but, from all I have read in the media, their actions will lead to that.
[NOTE: At the time I sent out DVN and posted to BradBlog the links provided by Mr. Cannon in his comment were not available to me. I will speak to this in my lede graf this evening]
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 5/1/2008 @ 10:42 am PT...
Thanks for this clarification of your position, John.
I should clarify further: As far as I can determine, the WVWV seems to have violated North Carolina law by not providing any contact info. I do not know of any other charge leveled against them by the NC state AG. (In the interest of fairness, I should point out that he is a Democrat.)
The WVWV is not accused of handing out misleading information. And I just don't see how the mistake (accidental, I am sure) of not giving contact info can benefit any candidate. It's like arguing that using green felt tip markers will melt the icecaps. It's a total non-sequitur.
Kos and other pro-Obama blogs have gleefully pointed out that WVWV has come under harsh legal scrutiny in other states. What those writers don't mention is that all of those other states are RED RED RED. Redder than the fade-outs in "Cries and Whispers."
To the best of my awareness, no blue state has used legalistic maneuvers to go after WVWV.
In other words, the so-called "progressive" community is now applauding the efforts of pro-GOP forces to shut down a group with a history of registering millions of females, blacks and Hispanics. Subverting the justice system to partisan purposes is now considered a GOOD thing.
Suddenly, the left has switched sides on one of the key issues underlying the U.S. Attorney scandal!
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 5/1/2008 @ 10:51 am PT...
Robo-calling should be illegal. I don't care who uses it and I don't care if they put contact information into their calls. It should be illegal. When people receive phone calls about something as important as their elections they MUST be afforded the opportunity to ask questions of the person placing the call. If they cannot ask questions, confusion becomes the norm and that leads to disenfranchisement. Robo-calls should be illegal.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 5/1/2008 @ 11:34 am PT...
Admittedly, I don't know as much about this particular issue as either of my friends John or Cannon here. Though I did get a quick listen to the call itself yesterday, from a "Lamont Williams", which is very strange in it's lack of identification at all.
Further, since the registration deadline has apparently long-passed in NC, it still remains a mystery (at least to me, as I'm admittedly underinformed on this) why they were making the calls in the first place, encouraging folks to register.
I have no position on this, or on (well-meaning) robo-calls in general, of course. Thanks for sending the clarifying note to Cannon, John. But it was certainly an odd robo-call at an odd time. FWIW. The good Mr. Cannon, as he likely knows, is always welcome to Guest Blog at BRAD BLOG on such topics as he deems helpful (whether I, personally, may share his point of view on any particularly thing or not.)
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 5/2/2008 @ 11:47 am PT...
Joseph Cannon -
Given your post over at CannonFire, I am requesting that you allow the two comments I left at your site to be posted over there. Not sure why you've not let them go through. The first posted last night. Both speaking to your original error in coverage, which requires the courtesy of a correction over there on your part.
Your readers, of course, deserve to hear differing points of view and/or additional information, much as you've always been allowed to post here, as above, etc. I'm suprised you've yet to allow those comments I left through moderation over there. Hopefully it's just an oversight.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 5/2/2008 @ 12:20 pm PT...
Mydd are supporters of Ms Rodham Clinton.
Say no more, say no more, wink wink nod nod.
She used the Rodham name until she needed the Clinton name. She stayed with the cheating W Clinton so that she could run to be President someday. (IMO of course) How can she condemn Rev. Wright when she has stayed with a cheating husband? If they have an open marriage so be it...but a "supposed feminist" would not stay with a "straying" husband. Jeezee I dislike her!!!