With the election only a few months away and Florida expected to play an important role again in 2004 it is not surprising that a state that couldn't count votes right is still having problems. Despite spending millions to improve the process, voters may still go to the polls in November without confidence that their vote will count, or be counted.
As the New York Times said in an editorial today - "Millions of Florida voters will cast ballots this November on electronic voting machines that do not produce paper records. State election officials have insisted that the machines have safeguards to ensure that votes are accurately recorded and counted, including a computerized audit function. Recently, however, Miami-Dade County officials admitted that almost all of the audit records from a disputed 2002 primary had been accidentally destroyed. This is disturbing news and casts serious doubt on Florida's ability to run a fair election this fall."
Much like the pundits and GOP told the public to "get over it" regarding the 2000 voting count disaster, state officials are saying the problems are no big deal. Perhaps they should listen to the Times.
"Florida's secretary of state, Glenda Hood, has insisted that the voting technology is thoroughly reliable and that the critics are simply stirring up trouble. Ms. Hood should drop this head-in-the-sand approach and quickly provide the protections the voters need. The most urgent would be a review by a team that includes independent computer experts. Florida's election system was a national disgrace in 2000, and it is well on its way to becoming one again."
Perhaps Florida voters will actually get to tell the nation who they voted for this year rather than having the Supreme Court and the GOP tell them who they voted for. But for too many people there is a concern that Florida will return to the days of 2000 where, as a one comedian commentator put it, "for a brief shining moment we were Guatemala."
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
The Real "Extreme Makeover"
After methodically planning a convention that hides the voices of the true nature of the Republican party, a GOP hit squad, led by Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, has the gall to accuse the Democrats of "going through an extreme makeover."
Um, Mr. Gillespie, what about the GOP convention where traditional Republicans are few and far between?
Even conservative Kate O'Beirne noted that "The decision to showcase rogue elephants as representatives of the modern Republican party is not the mark of a self-confident party establishment. If the lineup is intended to make an overwhelmingly conservative party attractive to swing voters, it does so by pretending to be something it's not."
Now that's an Extreme Makeover. But Boston Globe Columnist Alex Beam has an even better example.
"The most astonishing transformation of recent times is George Bush's journey from Yalie drunk to the leadership of what still passes for the free world. That is an extreme makeover."
Gillespie and the GOP are in Boston to fill gullible reporters with GOP talking points, which many are only too willing to use. Brit Hume of FOX News went straight to his computer after Ron Reagan's talk for the latest GOP talking points last night in order to rebut the speech.
The GOP has tried to hide its presence in Boston but CNN said that "Democrats had discovered the location and sent a costumed character named "Enron Ed" to poke fun at Gillespie's past work as a lobbyist for the troubled energy trading company."
I'm sure "Enron Ed" is more than willing to question Kerry's values. Maybe someone should questions his and the GOP's, "pre-extreme makeover."
Um, Mr. Gillespie, what about the GOP convention where traditional Republicans are few and far between?
Even conservative Kate O'Beirne noted that "The decision to showcase rogue elephants as representatives of the modern Republican party is not the mark of a self-confident party establishment. If the lineup is intended to make an overwhelmingly conservative party attractive to swing voters, it does so by pretending to be something it's not."
Now that's an Extreme Makeover. But Boston Globe Columnist Alex Beam has an even better example.
"The most astonishing transformation of recent times is George Bush's journey from Yalie drunk to the leadership of what still passes for the free world. That is an extreme makeover."
Gillespie and the GOP are in Boston to fill gullible reporters with GOP talking points, which many are only too willing to use. Brit Hume of FOX News went straight to his computer after Ron Reagan's talk for the latest GOP talking points last night in order to rebut the speech.
The GOP has tried to hide its presence in Boston but CNN said that "Democrats had discovered the location and sent a costumed character named "Enron Ed" to poke fun at Gillespie's past work as a lobbyist for the troubled energy trading company."
I'm sure "Enron Ed" is more than willing to question Kerry's values. Maybe someone should questions his and the GOP's, "pre-extreme makeover."
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Much ado about nothing
Republicans and conservative media are in full attack mode over Teresa Heinz Kerry telling a "journalist" to "shove it" and the media is buying it, hook, line and sinker.
Considering “Vice President” Dick Cheney recently told a senator to ”GFY” this is much ado about anything, unless the Republicans are successful with their chant “Act like an American, not like a Republican.”
The person who asked the question was NOT a reporter but the editorial page editor of the conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review which has a mean-spirited editorial page which has attacked the Heinz family in the past.
Mrs. Heinz Kerry in her speech said -"We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics." The “writer” repeatedly pressed her about what she meant by "un-American activity."
"You said something I didn't say, now shove it," Heinz Kerry said.
So Heinz Kerry said “un-American traits.” The writer claimed she said “un-American activity.”
Is that the same thing? Was she right in pointing out he changed her quote and then refused to answer for a quote she didn’t make?
The New York Daily News pointed out that the paper - which in the mid-1990s notoriously promoted the theory that Clinton White House lawyer Vince Foster's suicide was really a sinister murder plot to protect the political interests of Bill and Hillary - is owned by reclusive right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Richard Mellon Scaife is behind the “newspaper,” and James Carville in 1999 called him "the archconservative godfather in [a] heavily funded war against [Clinton]."
As one web site wrote In his 2003 book Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them), Al Franken said that the abusive tone of rightwing zealots like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter can be traced back to Scaife, and in particular to one episode in 1981 when Scaife verbally assaulted a reporter. When the reporter, Karen Rothmeyer of the Columbia Journalism Review, asked Scaife about his funding of conservative groups, he replied, "You fucking communist cunt, get out of here." Franken writes that Scaife "went on to tell her that she was ugly and that her teeth were 'terrible.' Of Ms. Rothmeyer's mother, who was not present, he said, 'She's ugly, too.'"
I suppose Mrs. Kerry should be nice to everyone, including those who hate and unfairly attack her. The key to whether this incident hurt the Kerry’s is whether most people will learn the truth of the incident. Unfortunately, based on how the media acted in 2000 during their “War on Gore,” I expect only a few people will know the full story.
Considering “Vice President” Dick Cheney recently told a senator to ”GFY” this is much ado about anything, unless the Republicans are successful with their chant “Act like an American, not like a Republican.”
The person who asked the question was NOT a reporter but the editorial page editor of the conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review which has a mean-spirited editorial page which has attacked the Heinz family in the past.
Mrs. Heinz Kerry in her speech said -"We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics." The “writer” repeatedly pressed her about what she meant by "un-American activity."
"You said something I didn't say, now shove it," Heinz Kerry said.
So Heinz Kerry said “un-American traits.” The writer claimed she said “un-American activity.”
Is that the same thing? Was she right in pointing out he changed her quote and then refused to answer for a quote she didn’t make?
The New York Daily News pointed out that the paper - which in the mid-1990s notoriously promoted the theory that Clinton White House lawyer Vince Foster's suicide was really a sinister murder plot to protect the political interests of Bill and Hillary - is owned by reclusive right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Richard Mellon Scaife is behind the “newspaper,” and James Carville in 1999 called him "the archconservative godfather in [a] heavily funded war against [Clinton]."
As one web site wrote In his 2003 book Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them), Al Franken said that the abusive tone of rightwing zealots like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter can be traced back to Scaife, and in particular to one episode in 1981 when Scaife verbally assaulted a reporter. When the reporter, Karen Rothmeyer of the Columbia Journalism Review, asked Scaife about his funding of conservative groups, he replied, "You fucking communist cunt, get out of here." Franken writes that Scaife "went on to tell her that she was ugly and that her teeth were 'terrible.' Of Ms. Rothmeyer's mother, who was not present, he said, 'She's ugly, too.'"
I suppose Mrs. Kerry should be nice to everyone, including those who hate and unfairly attack her. The key to whether this incident hurt the Kerry’s is whether most people will learn the truth of the incident. Unfortunately, based on how the media acted in 2000 during their “War on Gore,” I expect only a few people will know the full story.
Friday, July 23, 2004
Lack of imagination
Among the areas of fault the 9/11 Commission found, as pointed out by Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, was that those in government had "a lack of imagination" and that "was the most important failing."
However, the Commission also had a failure of lack of imagination. One of the most important questions theCommission considered was whether anything could have been done to prevent the terrorist's attacks on 9/11. However one of the major events that might have played a part in allowing the 9/11 attacks was barely mentioned in the report.
In November 2000 the American people selected Al Gore as the 43rd president, however thanks to the efforts of Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, numerous Republicans, and a politically motivated group of US Supreme Court justices, Gore was denied the presidency.
As the 9/11 report states on page 198...The dispute over the election and the 36-day delay cut in half the normal transition period. Given that a presidential election in the United States brings wholesale change in personnel, this loss of time hampered the new administration in identifying, recruiting, clearing, and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees.
The thing was, there didn't need to be a major transition. If allowed to win, Vice President Al Gore probably would have kept a number of Clinton appointees. In addition, as the one who lead the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security (also known as the Gore Commission) which investigated terrorism in the 1990s, Gore had a greater understanding of the importance of the issue and undoubtedly would have placed a higher level of importance on the topic.
Unfortunately, the GOP and Supreme Court thought they knew what was best for the country and denied Gore the Presidency. As attorney Mark H. Levine explained in A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN BUSH V. GORE, the Surpreme Court stopped the counting of the votes in Florida because "if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory."
This was an important issue but one no one was willing to discuss. Some may find it distasteful to ask if a Gore Presidency could have prevented 9/11 but in reality not asking that question showed a lack of imagination.
However, the Commission also had a failure of lack of imagination. One of the most important questions theCommission considered was whether anything could have been done to prevent the terrorist's attacks on 9/11. However one of the major events that might have played a part in allowing the 9/11 attacks was barely mentioned in the report.
In November 2000 the American people selected Al Gore as the 43rd president, however thanks to the efforts of Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, numerous Republicans, and a politically motivated group of US Supreme Court justices, Gore was denied the presidency.
As the 9/11 report states on page 198...The dispute over the election and the 36-day delay cut in half the normal transition period. Given that a presidential election in the United States brings wholesale change in personnel, this loss of time hampered the new administration in identifying, recruiting, clearing, and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees.
The thing was, there didn't need to be a major transition. If allowed to win, Vice President Al Gore probably would have kept a number of Clinton appointees. In addition, as the one who lead the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security (also known as the Gore Commission) which investigated terrorism in the 1990s, Gore had a greater understanding of the importance of the issue and undoubtedly would have placed a higher level of importance on the topic.
Unfortunately, the GOP and Supreme Court thought they knew what was best for the country and denied Gore the Presidency. As attorney Mark H. Levine explained in A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN BUSH V. GORE, the Surpreme Court stopped the counting of the votes in Florida because "if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory."
This was an important issue but one no one was willing to discuss. Some may find it distasteful to ask if a Gore Presidency could have prevented 9/11 but in reality not asking that question showed a lack of imagination.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Second thoughts
One of the keys to the GOP "winning" the 2000 presidential election were overseas ballots from military personnel. Bush was able to "gain" enough of a margin through those ballots that Florida called the state for him.
However, close to 700 of the military ballots were improper, according to the New York Times. Military ballots are viewed as favoring Republicans so they were probably responsible for the 500-plus "win" by Bush.
"Citing the Florida Department of State's web site, the Times reports that without the overseas ballots counted after election day, Gore would have won Florida, and thus the White House, by 202 votes."
So four years later one has to wonder how many of those soldiers are having second thoughts
In a Knight Ridder story (registration required) one soldier put it "I don't have any idea of what we're trying to do out here. I don't know what the (goal) is, and I don't think our commanders do, either. I feel deceived personally," Staff Sgt. A.J. Dean.
Another added "A lot of times I look at this place and wonder what have we really done. When we first got here, we all wanted to change it and make it better, but now I don't (care)," he said. "What am I here for?"
Sounds like Democrats should do better at the polls in 2004. In 2000 the Bushies "won" on military ballots (well actually the Times found that it was more like Republican military ballots, a number of which shouldn't have been counted) so you have to wonder this time whether the Bushies will decide to limit the number by saying "only legal ballots should be counted"?
However, close to 700 of the military ballots were improper, according to the New York Times. Military ballots are viewed as favoring Republicans so they were probably responsible for the 500-plus "win" by Bush.
"Citing the Florida Department of State's web site, the Times reports that without the overseas ballots counted after election day, Gore would have won Florida, and thus the White House, by 202 votes."
So four years later one has to wonder how many of those soldiers are having second thoughts
In a Knight Ridder story (registration required) one soldier put it "I don't have any idea of what we're trying to do out here. I don't know what the (goal) is, and I don't think our commanders do, either. I feel deceived personally," Staff Sgt. A.J. Dean.
Another added "A lot of times I look at this place and wonder what have we really done. When we first got here, we all wanted to change it and make it better, but now I don't (care)," he said. "What am I here for?"
Sounds like Democrats should do better at the polls in 2004. In 2000 the Bushies "won" on military ballots (well actually the Times found that it was more like Republican military ballots, a number of which shouldn't have been counted) so you have to wonder this time whether the Bushies will decide to limit the number by saying "only legal ballots should be counted"?
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Lies, lies and more lies
After seeing the GOP parade their officials out on Thursday in an effort to divert attention from the 9/11 commission report one has to wonder if they believe what they are saying or do they know they are lying and don't care.
GOP officials said the the investigation of Samuel R. Berger regarding missing document raised questions about whether Berger was trying to keep information from the 9/11 commission. That was flatly denied by both Berger and one of the commission members, who called the charge ''ridiculous."
"Berger's allies rallied behind him, questioning whether the Bush administration leaked news of the 10-month-old probe to deflect attention just days before the commission is set to publish its findings from its inquiry into the suicide jet attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."
''None of our work is affected in any way," said the panel member, who spoke on condition of anonymity. ''We have many copies of it. He did not have access to anything that wasn't in duplicate. It can't have been to deprive us of information."
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Hidden Agenda
What do you do when you are afraid of being called to task for mistakes. Blame someone else of course. With the release of the 9/11 commission set for this week, a months old investigation into whether Samuel Berger, the former White House national security adviser removed inadvertently took copies of several versions of an after-action memo on the millennium bombing plot from the Archives last fall.
Note the important word - Copies. Got that. Copies. Not originals.
The vein-bulging wild eyed groupies on the right immediately went into full "throttle" mode.
Tom DeLay, the House Republican leader, called it "a third-rate burglary", a reference to the Watergate scandal. "Berger's theft and destruction of classified documents is not 'sloppy', it's gravely serious," he said. "It is a national security crisis right now."
Un huh. Copies of copies are missing and it's a national security crisis. Makes you wonder what he would think if say a "president" didn't pay attention to security memos. I'm sure that's ok, but misplacing copies, now that's something to be concerned about.
If this is a "third-rate burglary" does that make what happened in Florida a FIRST RATE FELONY?
Democrats questioned the timing of the leak, which came months after the investigation began, on the eve of the Democratic convention and the final report of the September 11 commission.
"I do think the timing is very curious, given this has been under way now for this long," said Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader. "Somebody leaked it, obviously, with an intent, I think, to do damage to Mr Berger, and I think that's unfortunate."
Note the important word - Copies. Got that. Copies. Not originals.
The vein-bulging wild eyed groupies on the right immediately went into full "throttle" mode.
Tom DeLay, the House Republican leader, called it "a third-rate burglary", a reference to the Watergate scandal. "Berger's theft and destruction of classified documents is not 'sloppy', it's gravely serious," he said. "It is a national security crisis right now."
Un huh. Copies of copies are missing and it's a national security crisis. Makes you wonder what he would think if say a "president" didn't pay attention to security memos. I'm sure that's ok, but misplacing copies, now that's something to be concerned about.
If this is a "third-rate burglary" does that make what happened in Florida a FIRST RATE FELONY?
Democrats questioned the timing of the leak, which came months after the investigation began, on the eve of the Democratic convention and the final report of the September 11 commission.
"I do think the timing is very curious, given this has been under way now for this long," said Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader. "Somebody leaked it, obviously, with an intent, I think, to do damage to Mr Berger, and I think that's unfortunate."
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Second Choice
The Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign team (notice they don't use the word re-election) recently announced the release of a television advertisement ("First Choice") which "features John Kerry’s first choice for a vice presidential running mate, United States Senator John McCain. In the new ad, John McCain discusses his support for the President and the leadership President Bush has provided in the War on Terror. "
Two questions - One - how come the ad doesn't reference that Al Gore was America's FIRST CHOICE in 2000 for President. "Gore Got More," votes that is, winning the election by a half million votes. Bush was only able to get his way into the White House thanks to his father's friends on the Supreme Court and nifty moves in Florida to throw out thousands and thousands of votes.
Second how come the ad didn't mention that McCain disagrees with a lot of Bush's policies? Also, wasn't Dick Cheney was Bush's SECOND CHOICE for Vice President, McCain being his first?
So since Bush likes nicknames so much, how about calling him George "Second Choice" Bush?
Two questions - One - how come the ad doesn't reference that Al Gore was America's FIRST CHOICE in 2000 for President. "Gore Got More," votes that is, winning the election by a half million votes. Bush was only able to get his way into the White House thanks to his father's friends on the Supreme Court and nifty moves in Florida to throw out thousands and thousands of votes.
Second how come the ad didn't mention that McCain disagrees with a lot of Bush's policies? Also, wasn't Dick Cheney was Bush's SECOND CHOICE for Vice President, McCain being his first?
So since Bush likes nicknames so much, how about calling him George "Second Choice" Bush?
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
GOP admits Gore won Florida
In planning strategy for the 2004 election both parties look at the results of the 2000 election to give them idea of where they stand. For Republicans, Iowa, New Mexico and Wisconsin are states they lost narrowly and they are working hard to overcome those losses.
Apparently the GOP has added Florida to the list of states that they lost in 2000 and must to more to win this year
Robert Novak, best known for outing a CIA operative, recently wrote "Florida Republicans also are worried that the new voting machines may give Sen. John Kerry some 15,000 votes that Al Gore lost in 2000 because of ''overvotes.''
So there you have it. The GOP views Florida as a state they lost by 15,000 (yes, thousand) votes in 2000. The GOP will try to argue that the votes were properly thrown out and that they won. That's kinda like a convicted felon freed on a technicality claiming innocence.
Apparently the GOP has added Florida to the list of states that they lost in 2000 and must to more to win this year
Robert Novak, best known for outing a CIA operative, recently wrote "Florida Republicans also are worried that the new voting machines may give Sen. John Kerry some 15,000 votes that Al Gore lost in 2000 because of ''overvotes.''
So there you have it. The GOP views Florida as a state they lost by 15,000 (yes, thousand) votes in 2000. The GOP will try to argue that the votes were properly thrown out and that they won. That's kinda like a convicted felon freed on a technicality claiming innocence.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Don't blame us - we didn't elect him
Apparently the White House has lodged a complaint with the Irish Embassy in Washington over RTE journalist Carole Coleman's interview with George Bush. The reason - as John Nichols of the Madison Capitol Times put it, "Bush had an unpleasant run-in with a species of creature he had not previously encountered often: a journalist. He did not react well to the experience..."
"Apparently under the mistaken assumption that reporters in the rest of the world are as ill-informed and pliable as the stenographers who "cover" the White House, Bush's aides scheduled a sit-down interview with Carole Coleman, Washington correspondent for RTE, the Irish public television network...Unfortunately, it appears that Coleman failed to receive the memo informing reporters that they are supposed to treat this president with kid gloves. Instead, she confronted him as any serious journalist would a world leader."
In evaluating the complaint, the Irish government must understand that Mr. Bush is not representative of the United States and was NOT elected president, rather installed through the actions of his brother in Florida and his father's appointees on the Supreme Court. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and was behind in the electoral vote when he and his brother's actions allowed him to ignore the wishes of the American people and take the presidency.
Unfortunately, the American press has too often stood by and not questioned his actions and it has taken the foreign press to ask him tough questions. To that end the American people owe a debt of gratitude to Ms. Coleman and possibly an apology for the administration's reaction.
"Apparently under the mistaken assumption that reporters in the rest of the world are as ill-informed and pliable as the stenographers who "cover" the White House, Bush's aides scheduled a sit-down interview with Carole Coleman, Washington correspondent for RTE, the Irish public television network...Unfortunately, it appears that Coleman failed to receive the memo informing reporters that they are supposed to treat this president with kid gloves. Instead, she confronted him as any serious journalist would a world leader."
In evaluating the complaint, the Irish government must understand that Mr. Bush is not representative of the United States and was NOT elected president, rather installed through the actions of his brother in Florida and his father's appointees on the Supreme Court. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and was behind in the electoral vote when he and his brother's actions allowed him to ignore the wishes of the American people and take the presidency.
Unfortunately, the American press has too often stood by and not questioned his actions and it has taken the foreign press to ask him tough questions. To that end the American people owe a debt of gratitude to Ms. Coleman and possibly an apology for the administration's reaction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)