Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kerry, Miller & Dodd--Oh My! On Election Fraud

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 01:34 AM
Original message
Kerry, Miller & Dodd--Oh My! On Election Fraud
i saw mark crispin miller this past saturday, i've read his book "fooled again", i looked up a copy of the speech/talk he has been giving on this book tour, and thought i'd point out a part of it:

mark to kerry after the 2004 election: "I said, "You were robbed, senator!" And he said "I know" (and held his hands up to his head like he had a headache, as Kerry would do) just like that. "I know! (Miller makes the same hand gesture.) And he started to say, "I can't find the evidence." I can't persuade my colleagues to take this seriously. I certainly knew what he was talking about. But I had to say, it was more than refreshing to hear him say this. I was delighted. He said he just had a big argument the week before with Christopher Dodd from Connecticut trying to tell Dodd that these voting machines are really not reliable. And Dodd just got mad. He didn't want to hear about it. Dodd said: "We looked into this. There's no story there!" He (Kerry) said, "Well is there evidence in your book?" I said, "Well, yeah, you know, there is really quite a lot of evidence." I told him what the Government Accountability Office Report said, the GAO Report. People in here have heard of it. Most people in this country have not, because this ground breaking report on the flaws and dangers of touch screen voting, by a very, very establishment government body, has gone almost completely unreported in this country. In fact, Kerry had not heard about it. : "Oh really, the GAO report?"

a week or so later miller is on the show democracy now and says: "“Well as a matter of fact, Kerry thinks the race was stolen.” And I told the story."

then:
"Well in fact that day, Democracy Now sent out a press release. "Breaking: Kerry Believes the Race was Stolen." So there was a lot of stuff on the internet. It was all over the place. And sites like Democratic Underground, long threads about it. Raw Story, in a website in D.C., called Kerry's office to get a response. And a staffer of Kerry's office made a statement that categorically denied that he had ever had this conversation with me. (Audience says "Whoa") "The only true thing in Mr. Miller's account is that he gave the senator the book" "

and:
"This was....the most galling thing to me personally was the fact that this implied that I had made this up to sell the book. "We know that Mr. Miller is trying to sell the book," they said. This really pissed me off. So I gave Raw Story my response. And the next day Robert Perry, a great reporter who has the website Consortium News, ran a piece based on what he was told by a guy named John Weiner, who was an old Kerry associate, who said to Perry: "John thinks the race was stolen, he said that to me too." "


http://www.oregonvrc.org/node/1071/print

you can also get a copy of one of his lectures where he tells this story off the c-span store website (from march 31, 2006)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. What is with Kerry? How could he not have known about the GAO report?
And why is he being such a weenie?

What a disappointment he's been.

Thanks for the post, Orleans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. What WAS with Kerry. This story is several months old.
And as I said at the time. "You wuz robbed" and "I know" do not equal "Senator Kerry is now saying that he believes the election was stolen." Miller trumped up a casual conversation and showed contempt for Kerry in the process.

I hope he sold as many books as he was hoping to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. The story is an old story being retold - Kerry has spoken about the GAO
report since that time and spoken on the floor of the senate about the problems with electronic voting machines. I'm surprised you missed all this - it certainly was discussed alot here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. Been there, done that, got the tshirt, thanks anyway.
This was beaten to death when it happened with much flamage all around. What is the purpose of resurrecting it now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. um...i just saw miller speak...um...the election is 3 months away
and i guess i get a little puky over the cheerleading for kerry when i think he has sidestepped the most important issue of all: come on, if our votes don't count and we can't elect the people we want to represent us then nothing else matters.

and *i* don't remember this whole story--i heard the first part where he talked to him before the election, but i never heard this follow up, and how kerry's office denied the conversation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. On edit, oh I see.
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 02:59 AM by LittleClarkie
Miller's the one bringing back the flamage. Thrillsville.

Anyway, sorry. I see why you brought it up now, having just seen the man speak. I didn't realize it was such a big part of his talk.

But why feel puky over the other threads? Surely there is room for both the "attaboy" and the "what the fuck" in every man's life. They are not mutually exclusive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. "I know" is hardly a major conversation
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 09:26 AM by karynnj
Kerry's office denied the fact that Miller took an informal, non-specific response to mean something Kerry did not say. It was not by chance that Miller was promoting a book at time then????

Read Kerry's Senate speech posted (post 9 -it's long so I won't repost it here). Kerry can not prove he won, so he won't say that. Unlike MCM, Kerry is an excellent lawyer and a former prosecutor - he will state what he knows to be facts. MCM's book repeats stories about the election's problems, but it does not PROVE Kerry got more of the votes CAST in Ohio than Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
6. It's jonathan WINER and Robert PARRY - you might want to edit so people
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 09:08 AM by blm
get the import of who they are.

My take is that it DID happen, with Miller tweaking the story a bit, and the staffer downplaying it awkwardly - no, she actually did it BADLY. She was wrong, but I do know that people almost always tweak their stories to make them sound more compelling in the retelling, especially in radio interviews. It's human nature.

It also stands to reason that Kerry would direct his staff to downplay what was said because they have been in hopes of a whistleblower to come forward. If the story broke big at that time it would have directed all attention on Kerry, paranoia, and Kerry's mental health more than on machine fraud. A whistleblower would be less likely to come forward and BushInc would be actively making CERTAIN no whistleblower was to be found. RFKs article had not yet come out.

That said, I will reiterate that the staffer who spoke to downplay Miller's version did so POORLY. Fortunately, I haven't seen her speaking for the senator's office lately.

What you also aren't recognizing is the import in the fact that KERRY DOES KNOW NOW about the machines, and the importance of securing the machines and the votes BEFORE the election. You want to attack him for what he cannot do, while many of us WANT him to do what he can and more with the information he has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
8. This is old and it is hearsay
The Miller story seems very unathentic to me. Kerry has PUBLICLY spoken out about voting problems since the election. Miller supposedly after telling Kerry he was robbed, takes an "I know" as proof Kerry thinks the election was stolen - which goes further than that conversation does. Kerry has said publicly that there was a lot of voter suppression and dirty tricks in Ohio, where he narrowly lost. RFKjr has estimated the number of net Kerry votes lost due to this and that could have flipped the election. Kerry's I know could have referred to the known Republican dirty tricks or even the unfair media bias.

Miller, though takes this very non-specific conversation and assumes that Kerry said the election was stolen. Had Kerry specificly said, "I know, they stold the election", you would expect the person he was speaking to (who incidently had just written a book on this) To show some interest and to ask how ?, when did you find this out ?, Are you on the record with this ?, Can we talk about this issue? .... Instead, the conversation ended. Ask yourself how you would have responded or not responded. To me, it's very fishy.

By the way, MCM's "proof" in his book is not very convincing unless you already believe it. I do think the Republicans used legal cheating (long lines and using registration rules) and some dirty tricks to win - but I don't believe MCM.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
9. Here's the real Kerry position
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 09:16 AM by karynnj
From the Senate floor. This is a very strong, public, on the record statement of the problems in the election process. I challange you to find ON THE RECORD statements - in the Senate, a transcript from a speech, or an on the record interview from other candidates that is as strong.

From Thomas, the online Congressional record:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his discussion of an important way of having accountability in voting . I must say that I saw how that works out in Oregon. It works well. It works brilliantly, as a matter of fact. People have a lot of time to be able to vote. They don't have to struggle with work issues or being sick or other things. They have plenty of time to be able to have the kind of transparency and accountability that makes the system work. There are other States where you are allowed to start voting early--in New Mexico and elsewhere.
It is amazing that in the United States we have this patchwork of the way our citizens work in Federal elections. It is different almost everywhere. I had the privilege of giving the graduation address this year at Kenyan College in Ohio, and there the kids at Kenyan College wound up being the last people to vote in America in the Presidential race in 2004 in Gambier, at 4:30 in the morning. We had to go to court to get permission for them to keep the polls open so they could vote at 4:30 in the morning.

Why did it take until 4:30 in the morning for people to be able to vote? They didn't have enough voting machines in America. These people were lined up not just there but in all of Ohio and in other parts of the country. An honest appraisal requires one to point out that where there were Republican secretaries of state, the lines were invariably longer in Democratic precincts, sometimes with as many as one machine only in the Democratic precinct and several in the Republican precinct; so it would take 5 or 10 minutes for someone of the other party to be able to vote, and it would take literally hours for the people in the longer lines. If that is not a form of intimidation and suppression, I don't know what is.

So I thank the Senator from Oregon for talking about the larger issue here. He is absolutely correct. The example of his State is one that the rest of the country ought to take serious and think seriously about embracing.
This is part of a larger issue, obviously, Mr. President. All over the world, our country has always stood out as the great exporter of democratic values. In the years that I have been privileged to serve in the Senate, I have had some extraordinary opportunities to see that happen in a firsthand way.

Back in 1986, I was part of a delegation that went to the Philippines. We took part in the peaceful revolution that took place at the ballot box when the dictator, President Marcos, was kicked out and ``Cory'' Aquino became President. I will never forget flying in on a helicopter to the island of Mindanao and landing where some people have literally not seen a helicopter before, and 5,000 people would surround it as you swooped out of the sky, to go to a polling place where the entire community turned out waiting in the hot sun in long lines to have their thumbs stamped in ink and to walk out having exercised their right to vote.

I could not help but think how much more energy and commitment people were showing for the privilege of voting in this far-off place than a lot of Americans show on too many occasions. The fact is that in South Africa we fought for years--we did--through the boycotts and other efforts, in order to break the back of apartheid and empower all citizens to vote. Most recently, obviously, in Afghanistan and Iraq, notwithstanding the disagreement of many of us about the management of the war and the evidence and other issues that we have all debated here. This has never been debated about the desire for democracy and the thrill that everyone in the Senate felt in watching citizens be able to exercise those rights .

In the Ukraine, the world turned to the United States to monitor elections and ensure that the right to vote was protected. All of us have been proud of what President Carter has done in traveling the world to guarantee that fair elections take place. But the truth is, all of our attempts to spread freedom around the world will be hollow and lose impact over the years in the future if we don't deliver at home. The fact is that we are having this debate today in the Senate about the bedrock right to vote, with the understanding that this is not a right that was afforded to everyone in our country automatically or at the very beginning. For a long time, a century or more, women were not allowed to vote in America. We all know the record with respect to African Americans. The fact is that the right to vote in our country was earned in blood in many cases and in civic sweat in a whole bunch of cases. Courageous citizens literally risked their lives. I remember in the course of the campaign 2 years ago, traveling to Alabama--Montgomery--and visiting the Southern Poverty Law Center, the memorial to Martin Luther King, and the fountain. There is a round stone fountain with water spilling out over the sides. From the center of the fountain there is a compass rose coming back and it marks the full circle. At the end of every one of those lines is the name of an American with the description, ``killed trying to register to vote,'' or ``murdered trying to register.'' Time after time, that entire compass rose is filled with people who lost their lives in order to exercise a fundamental right in our country.

None of us will forget the courage of people who marched and faced Bull Connor's police dogs and faced the threat of lynchings, some being dragged out of their homes in the dark of night to be hung. The fact is that we are having this debate today because their work and that effort is not over yet. Too many Americans in too many parts of our country still face serious obstacles when they are trying to vote in our own country.
By reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we are taking an important step, but, Mr. President, it is only a step. Nobody should pretend that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act solves the problems of being able to vote in our own country. It doesn't. In recent elections, we have seen too many times how outcomes change when votes that have been cast are not counted or when voters themselves are prevented from voting or intimidated from even registering or when they register, as we found in a couple of States, their registration forms are put in the wastebasket instead of into the computers.

This has to end. Every eligible voter in the United States ought to be able to cast his or her ballot without fear, without intimidation, and with the knowledge that their voice will be heard. These are the foundations of our democracy, and we have to pay more attention to it.

For a lot of folks in the Congress, this is a very personal fight. Some of our colleagues in the House and Senate were here when this fight first took place or they took part in this fight out in the streets. Without the courage of someone such as Congressman JOHN LEWIS who almost lost his life marching across that bridge in Selma, whose actions are seared in our minds, who remembers what it was like to march to move a nation to a better place, who knows what it meant to put his life on the line for voting rights , this is personal.
For somebody like my colleague, Senator TED KENNEDY, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who was here in the great fight on this Senate floor in 1965 when they broke the back of resistance, this is personal.
We wouldn't even have this landmark legislation today if it weren't for their efforts to try to make certain that it passed.

But despite the great strides we have taken since this bill was originally enacted, we have a lot of work to do.
Mr. President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on this particular component of the bill, there is agreement. Republicans and Democrats can agree. I was really pleased that every attempt in the House of Representatives to weaken the Voting Rights Act was rejected.
We need to reauthorize these three critical components especially: The section 5 preclearance provisions that get the Justice Department to oversee an area that has a historical pattern of discrimination that they can't change how people vote without clearance. That seems reasonable.
There are bilingual assistance requirements. Why? Because people need it and it makes sense. They are American citizens, but they still may have difficulties in understanding the ballot, and we ought to provide that assistance so they have a fully informed vote. This is supposed to be an informed democracy, a democracy based on the real consent of the American people.
And finally, authorization for poll watching. Regrettably, we have seen in place after place in America why we need to have poll watching.
A simple question could be asked: Where would the citizens of Georgia be, particularly low-income and minority citizens, if they were required to produce a government-issued identification or pay $20 every 5 years in order to vote? That is what would have happened without section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Georgia would have successfully imposed what the judge in the case called ``a Jim Crow-era like poll tax.'' I don't think anybody here
wants to go back and flirt with the possibility of returning to a time when States charged people money to exercise their right to vote. That is not our America.
This morning, President Bush addressed the 97th Annual Convention of the NAACP after a 5-year absence. I am pleased that the President, as we all are, ended his boycott of the NAACP and announced his intention to sign the Voting Rights Act into law.

But we need to complete the job. There are too many stories all across this country of people who say they registered duly, they reported to vote, and they were made to stand in one line or another line and get an excuse why, when they get to the end of the line, they can't vote. So they take out a provisional ballot, and then there are fights over provisional ballots. There are ways for us to avoid that. Some States allow same-day registration. In some parts of America, you can just walk up the day of an election, register, and vote, as long as you can prove your residence.
We have this incredible patchwork of laws and rules, and in the process, it is even more confusing for Americans.
We need to fully fund the Help America Vote Act so that we have the machines in place, so that people are informed, so that there is no one in America who waits an undue amount of time in order to be able to cast a vote.
We have to pass the Count Every Vote Act that Senator Clinton, Senator Boxer, and I have introduced which ensures exactly what the Senator from Oregon was talking about: that every voter in America has a verifiable paper trail for their vote.
How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?
How can we have a system where the voting machines are proprietary to a private business so that the public sector has no way of verifying what the computer code is and whether or not it is accountable and fair? Just accounting for it.


Congress has to ensure that every vote cast in America is counted, that every precinct in America has a fair distribution of voting machines, that voter suppression and intimidation are un-American and must cease.
We had examples in the last election of people who were sent notices--obviously fake, but they were sent them and they confused them enough. They were told that if you have an outstanding parking ticket, you can't vote. They were told: Democrats vote on Wednesday and Republicans vote on Tuesday and various different things.
It is important for us to guarantee that in the United States of America, this right that was fought for so hard through so much of the difficult history of our country, we finally make real the full measure of that right.
I yield the floor. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague for her forbearance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. time for contesting the election was in 2004-addressing future elections
is the proper focus
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Actually, the time for talking about this was after the 2000 election
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 02:31 PM by politicasista
But I guess people forgot about that instead focused on doing something that the Democratic Party wouldn't back up. (I think they cheated too), but without solid proof, what can you do?


What we can do is target those Dem senators or Congressmen that have been silent on this issues instead of throwing stones at those Dems that are speaking out on election fraud. I think that would be more productive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Which is what Kerry is doing here
He is using what happened in 2004 ONLY to make the case that major problems exist and they need fixing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
12. What's with posting old news?Kerry has be vindicated on this IMO.
If you must bash, please find some new material.
Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. if you read the op you'll see i'm not "bash"ing
i don't state any opinion at all in the op

you're assuming i'm bashing due to the content of the lecture i've cited

you said: "kerry has been vindicated on this imo"

but if you read post 9 kerry says: "Congress has to ensure that every vote cast in America is counted, that every precinct in America has a fair distribution of voting machines"

go ahead and vindicate him if you have to. i say he still doesn't get it or he's still in denial -- as long as he's talking about us using DREs -- he's not addressing the heart of the problem (imo)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. What Miller does is not helpful
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 12:44 PM by TayTay
He is divisive in all the wrong ways. That is my main problem with him. He claims that he wants to fight for reform and for honesty and transparency in American elections. Agreed. It is wrong and unethical and even, arguably, immoral that Americans have even one doubt that their votes might not be counted.

Yet Miller scores his points by calling out and then discrediting people who have the power to help him. He fosters his own framing as a 'conspiracy nut,' by being unwilling to sit down and talk about anything that isn't in line with his own point of view. His story about Kerry is a prime example. I saw a hearing of the Senate Rules Committee that dealt with electronic voting machines. I heard Sen. Dodd voice deep distrust over the notion that the elections could be stolen because the machines could be hacked. (This was a hearing that C-Span might still have, btw. It took place in mid-2005.) Sen. Dodd is not, publicly and on-the-record btw, convinced about the argument that the machines were a problem in the '02 and '04 elections.

If Miller's conversation with Kerry is to be accepted at face value, then Kerry related something that is already a matter of public record. (Sen. Dodd is the Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee which has Senatorial oversight of this issue. He is the Democrats 'point man' on dealing with this in that legislative body. He doesn't believe in the fraud possibility of these machiens.) Miller says that he sensed that Kerry was open to Miller's argument that the election was stolen. He also stated that Kerry had not dropped the conversation about it with colleagues. So far so good.

Miller tells his tale on TV. Kerry issued a denial, or someone in his office issues a partial denial. Miller then goes ballistic, attacks Kerry as a Repub enabler and a fraud and burns an ally. Tell me again why I should trust this guy as a spokesman for reform? He made the argument personal and not about the issue at hand. The story you reference states that Miller got mad and defensive at being challenged in his view of events. (Which is, btw, the only view that he says could be truthful. That is a warning sign right there. There are always, always other points of view on a conversation such as the one Miller relayed.)

I have watched MCM on this issue. I wonder if he is concerned more with the liberal obsession with 'being right' than with being effective. If he truly wants to be effective then he shouldn't be framing this argument as 'us against them' (He is a crappy politician in an advocacy job for which he needs some basic political skills.) Miller should be soliciting help from the people who could help. He should have taken what he says he heard, disregarded the denial by Kerry's people and gone after what Dodd said, both in this off-the-record way and in Dodd's on the record opinions as part of the official record of the Senate Rules Committee hearing.

Miller is driving people away at the very time we need to unite in order to change the way elections are held. This is becoming an 'us against them' argument when it should be 'Dems united to assure Americans the Right to Vote' argument. He doesn't help himself with people who are inclined to help him. That is a real shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. just a couple points
you said "If Miller's conversation with Kerry is to be accepted at face value, then Kerry related something that is already a matter of public record."

i don't think it was a matter of public record that dodd & kerry had an argument & dodd got mad at kerry for broaching the subject (miller on kerry: "He said he just had a big argument the week before with Christopher Dodd from Connecticut trying to tell Dodd that these voting machines are really not reliable. And Dodd just got mad. He didn't want to hear about it. Dodd said: "We looked into this. There's no story there!"")where is that on public record?

also, you mentioned, "Miller tells his tale on TV. Kerry issued a denial, or someone in his office issues a partial denial. Miller then goes ballistic, attacks Kerry as a Repub enabler and a fraud "

i haven't heard/read miller calling kerry a republican enabler--kerry being concerned or worried he might be thought of as "sour grapes" yes, being in denial, yes. and i wouldn't call this part of his 1 hour plus lecture as going "ballistic". mark doesn't seem like a ballistic kind of guy--he's very mild mannered, unassuming, rather woody allen-ish. he's a scholar, he's done a ton of research on this subject, and he's concerned about the future of this country because he has concluded that the dre's--through manipulation--are taking away our right to choose our representatives. my guess is he's pissed kerry's office called him a liar.

i don't think he's trying to drive anyone away--i think he's trying to wake us up, shake us up, snap us out of the idea that although the gop pulls a lot of crap (from iraq, to signing statements, to wiretapping) they wouldn't rig an election.

miller also said, on the cspan show, that they're going to get rid of the exit polls (because they were so "inaccurate") and he was talking about how we're going to need a grassroots bipartisan movement to conduct exit polling in november.

i wonder if kerry has changed his mind since july 20, 2006 when he said "Congress has to ensure that every vote cast in America is counted, that every precinct in America has a fair distribution of voting machines". as recently as one month ago and he still doesn't get it? http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2006_record&page=S7993&position=all

these machines are totally hackable. american people shouldn't have to get ANY type of distribution of these voting machines. instead, the dres should be outlawed!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. where is that on public record? (Dodd's views on the machines.)
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 02:28 PM by TayTay
In the records of the United States Senate Rules Committee. You could look them up. The Rules Committee has jurisdiction over elections and voting in federal elections. Sen. Dodd is Ranking Democratic member of this committee. The hearings were held in public and are a matter or public record. Sen. Dodd has been at these hearings and has publicly, for the record, stated that he doesn't believe the machine fraud was a big issue.

(This is better confirmation than any third-hand citing of a conversation that is in dispute between the parties who had the conversation.)

Sigh! We still prefer to deal with the shady accusations that are made 'at parties' or ' over heard in the halls' than deal with actual, on-the-record conversations. These hearings reveal where the blockage is in Congress and why the issue of fraud in the use of electronic voting isn't gaining traction there. Sigh!

Why is this stuff ignored in favor of divisive arguments that turn allies against each other. You accurately cited KErry's support for this issue in your post. Now, who is Congress is against it? Shouldn't we be 'going after' them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Look at post 9 for the ENTIRE speech
Kerry addresses problems with the machines as well:

"We have to pass the Count Every Vote Act that Senator Clinton, Senator Boxer, and I have introduced which ensures exactly what the Senator from Oregon was talking about: that every voter in America has a verifiable paper trail for their vote.
How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?
{b}How can we have a system where the voting machines are proprietary to a private business so that the public sector has no way of verifying what the computer code is and whether or not it is accountable and fair? Just accounting for it. "

Even then I doubt a 15 minute Senate speech - which was the time he had could address the significance of the voting rights act renewal and the fact that there was significat work to be done. Senator Boxer commended Kerry on his comments as she spoke after him. She continued with the same issue -

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. i did look at post nine for entire speech.
"How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?"

i don't know how we can have a system like that! if this is happening (and i know it is) why push for more machines rather than banning them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. There are better machines
I voted on machines since 1972 - when I first voted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Kerry also speaks of needing the machines to
have a verifiable paper trail - it is also important to have an adequate number of machines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
18. The latest Clarkcast has an interview with Mark Crispin
He's great. Actually the last two clarkcasts have featured interviews with him and Debrah Bowen and Prefessor Dill, together it makes an excelling overview of the threat to our Democracy posed by security flaws in e-voting that can allow elections to be stolen. Check them out:

Part One: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7992

Part Two: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8075

Partial transcripts:

Mark Crispin Miller on Elections --Transcript: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7997

Senator Debra Bowen on Elections- ClarkCast Transcript: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8043

Dr. David Dill on Elections - ClarkCast Transcript: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8023

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC