To everyone still making up their minds on Seattle City Council races, or some of the initiatives. Here's my quick cheat sheet.
Seattle City Council:
Position 1: Vote for Joe Szwaja, an amazing progressive, a personal friend, and someone who has taken exactly zero dollars from special interests. Jean Godden is a fool who is not qualified for dog catcher. She panders to special interests, takes money from the likes of Nucor Steel, and Martin Selig, and has run some of the sleaziest and most dishonest campaigns I've ever seen in Seattle. Her campaign manager, Carlo Davis, is a total creep as well. Vote for Joe!
Positon 3: Vote for Bruce Harrell. Venus Velasquez would have had my vote until getting that DUI, and subsequently pleading not guilty when she blew a .115 while driving 50 through Ballard. Her insistence that she only had two glasses of wine is a joke. Show Venus the door.
Position 9: Vote for Sally Clark. Judy Fenton is a nutjob who thinks naked statues of fathers and sons are going to confuse children. She's a nice enough nutjob, but Sally Clark is wayyyyyy more qualified.
____________________
Ok now on to initiatives.
EHJR 4204, Vote Yes. The world is run by people that show up, let's let the schools win election levies with a simple majority. Everyone should support this bill.
Initiative 960, Vote No. Tim Eyman should not be encouraged.
Referendum 67, Vote Hell Yes! Insurance companies will be forced to cover claims, because this referendum triples their losses if they don't cover legit claims. Watch Sicko if you need to have a crash course in why this needs to happen.
Senate Joint Resolution 8212
Vote No! Prison Labor was outlawed long ago for many, many reasons. For profit corporate prisons are bad enough, prison labor hired out to private companies will make things much, much worse. How this comes out of a Democratically controlled Senate is basically an incrimination of Washington State's Democrats.
King County Initiative 25 provides for an Elected Director of Elections for King County. Vote Yes as many times as you can... which is pretty easy in King County! Know anyone not voting, just ask them to sign their ballot and hand it over. Make it a contest to see just how many times you can vote for this initiative. I would guess if you tried hard, you could probably vote 20 times between now and Tuesday. (I kid of course, just because they've made it ridiculously easy to vote multiple times should not be a reason to break the law)
Anyway, on everything else you are going to have to make up your own mind.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Summary of SEEC Violations Complaint Against Jean Godden
DAVID M. COONS
Seattle WA 98103
To whom it may concern:
On October 12th, 2007 a complaint was filed with the Seattle Ethics and Election Commission against council member Jean Godden. The complaint describes how Jean Godden has violated election law by using her city calendar and city staff to coordinate her campaign. The Ethics and Elections Executive Director , quickly moved to dismiss the complaint based on a letter he crafted in early 2005. The complainant immediately moved for an appeal. By law an appeal stays any opinion and subsequent dismissal until review by the full commission.
The appeal contends that city staff exceeded the scope of the 2005 letter by repeatedly arranging specific details relating to the campaign including fundraising and scheduling events. This is a serious election violation.
According to legal council sought by the complainant this appeal will hold up in a court of law. Further, the 2005 letter of opinion sent out to all elected officials may in itself be unlawful.
The Seattle Times erroneously reported the matter dismissed when in fact it is under appeal even though they were provided the necessary information to get the reporting correct.
Seattle WA 98103
To whom it may concern:
On October 12th, 2007 a complaint was filed with the Seattle Ethics and Election Commission against council member Jean Godden. The complaint describes how Jean Godden has violated election law by using her city calendar and city staff to coordinate her campaign. The Ethics and Elections Executive Director , quickly moved to dismiss the complaint based on a letter he crafted in early 2005. The complainant immediately moved for an appeal. By law an appeal stays any opinion and subsequent dismissal until review by the full commission.
The appeal contends that city staff exceeded the scope of the 2005 letter by repeatedly arranging specific details relating to the campaign including fundraising and scheduling events. This is a serious election violation.
According to legal council sought by the complainant this appeal will hold up in a court of law. Further, the 2005 letter of opinion sent out to all elected officials may in itself be unlawful.
The Seattle Times erroneously reported the matter dismissed when in fact it is under appeal even though they were provided the necessary information to get the reporting correct.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Is Jean Godden Breaking the Law in Her Bid for Seattle City Council?
This election season has been a real roller coaster. From Tim Burgess and David Della fighting it out in the papers, to Venus Velasquez and Jane Hague having their personal driving records smeared all over the news, we've seen more than a few headlines about people's personal lives crop up almost weekly. Even Richard McIver is in on the action, er... so to speak.
Personally, I think that people's personal lives are mostly their own business. Because to me it's what a person does in his or her professional life that really counts, especially when they are seeking political office. Now of course, driving under the influence when you are leaving a campaign event or while on the campaign trail clearly blurs the lines. And not taking clear accountability for one's actions also speaks volumes. But to me what one does in office is of paramount importance.
And just what has Jean Godden been doing in office? Well clearly her own calendar shows that she's been violating the law.
Over at The Paper Noose Blog, they've posted quite an interesting series of articles on Jean Godden's questionable ethics. But as the author points out, it is really up to the people of Seattle to decide whether or not Jean's ethics are "Black and White" as she has claimed in campaign fliers in the past.
So to that end I've obtained a copy of the complaint and scanned it for your perusal here:
Jean's Calendar Part 1
Jean's Calendar Part 2
Jean's Calendar Part 3
And since those are kinda lengthy reads, I'll post quick highlights of events and coordinating activities that appear on her Official City Calendar below. Pay particular attention to February 7th where she actually blows off a city council finance and budget meeting to attend a campaign event, as well as the amount of coordination that appears between her and Carlo Davis her campaign manager, to the point of even posting his cell number. Also, just what official city purpose could there possibly be for keeping track of where Cathy Allen is? I mean really...
Now all of this information is public record, so it's not like Joe Szwaja's campaign had to go out and hire a private investigator to dig into Jean's background. In fact if you look at her calendar most of the entries appear with a notation that says "per campaign request". Um.... that's about as clear of a violation of the law as one could possibly ever hope to find. But hey, with Mr. Carlo "I post under multiple identies all from the same IP address" Davis running her campaign, I can't imagine what else they carelessly have been up to?
Personally, I think that people's personal lives are mostly their own business. Because to me it's what a person does in his or her professional life that really counts, especially when they are seeking political office. Now of course, driving under the influence when you are leaving a campaign event or while on the campaign trail clearly blurs the lines. And not taking clear accountability for one's actions also speaks volumes. But to me what one does in office is of paramount importance.
And just what has Jean Godden been doing in office? Well clearly her own calendar shows that she's been violating the law.
Over at The Paper Noose Blog, they've posted quite an interesting series of articles on Jean Godden's questionable ethics. But as the author points out, it is really up to the people of Seattle to decide whether or not Jean's ethics are "Black and White" as she has claimed in campaign fliers in the past.
So to that end I've obtained a copy of the complaint and scanned it for your perusal here:
Jean's Calendar Part 1
Jean's Calendar Part 2
Jean's Calendar Part 3
And since those are kinda lengthy reads, I'll post quick highlights of events and coordinating activities that appear on her Official City Calendar below. Pay particular attention to February 7th where she actually blows off a city council finance and budget meeting to attend a campaign event, as well as the amount of coordination that appears between her and Carlo Davis her campaign manager, to the point of even posting his cell number. Also, just what official city purpose could there possibly be for keeping track of where Cathy Allen is? I mean really...
1/23 Mckenna (fundraiser) knows you may be a few minutes late
1/25 Oyster shuck and baby kissing
2/1 Marty Yellam will attend this event-per campaign
2/7 McIvars office and Drago’s office have been notified that jean is unable to attend budget meeting
2/8 Mckenna ill(fundraiser)
2/16 Thank donor
2/16 Cathy Allen leaving for Lummi
2/22 need to make up four hours with Mckenna-(fundraiser) fundraising calls
2/24 Gian Carlo (campaign manager) will meet you at amandas, and I told him to bring cards
2/24 Nickels BBQ-per campaign-they have envelope to make donation
2/26 Rosanne is contact person-per campaign
2/27 Mckenna(fundraiser) will meet you on the 61st floor of the Columbia tower
2/27 Talk to Carlo(campaign manager) about evening events-Marianas? RVD?
Talk to Mckenna(fundraiser) about april(staffer)
2/28 Gian carlo (campaign manager) will accompany you. I made donation of $40 on their website (campaign event coordinated by scheduler)
3/7 Cathys place (political advisor)
3/13 Amanda says it only takes half an hour(Amanda is hair dresser)
3/15 Call Mckenna (fundraiser) to cancel march 22nd if appropriate
3/29 Schedule with Amanda (hair dresser)for april 4th a.m.
4/3 It’s an hour and a half only Mckenna
4/9 six and a half hour behind on phone calling (Fundraising)
4/10 Carlo (campaign manager)is not going
4/16 8 1/2 hours behind with calling (Fundraising)
4/16 Mckenna gone this week Colby will call with Jean (Colby underwood is
Mckenna hartmens boss)
4/18 Amandas as early as you can (hair dresser)
4/19 with Colby
4/23 Phone bank
4/25 Campaign event
Carlo Davis 206-383-XXXX cell [CELL NUMBER REMOVED BY GENTRY]
Mckenna says its 5:30-7:30 at the palace ballroom
5/3 Carlo will come at 9:30 (a.m.)and drive
11:15 a.m. COPE interview-if possible they would like the questionnaire back ahead of time-they are going to email it (campaign event coordinated by scheduler)
5/4 only 6 1/2 hours behind in calling time ,cancelled april 12th (fundraising)
5/11 Carlos RSVP’d
5/12 Carlos gone through may21st
5/14 contact carlo
5/17 Candidates forum- notes: contact gary poulet
Format: all city council,port and school board considered. 2min statement followed by Q and A with brief answers of yes or no answers. (godden staff took this call for the campaign)
5/21 36th dist dems endorsment meeting- notes; format 2min opening comments followed by Q and A for 25 min. (godden staff took this call for the campaign)
5/22 Carlo will drive/Carlo has returned
5/30 Campaign event- notes; opening statement, two questions, closing statement,rapid fire rounds
5/30 more details to come from carlo
6/2 Carlo will be there
6/6 WCV Interview-note Questionnaire submitted
6/7 RHA PAC Interview-Note; fill out,e-mail back questionnaire
6/7 Tell carlo if Jean goes to bike thing
6/11 SEA WILL CONTACT THE OFFICE WITH A TIME FOR JEAN TO BE THERE
(godden staff took this call for the campaign)
6/20 each candidate will have about two minutes to speak and the time to answer questions
6/26 speak and be considered for endorsement
7/12 Carlo will appear
7/13 Carlo will meet you there
Cathy will meet you at your house and you will drive together to lummi
7/18 pick up carlo at 5:50 at usual parking space
7/31 Carlo will come to office
endorsement interview-questionnaire already filled out- friends of seattle contact person sean sean@sean howell .com 206-372-5979
8/1 Jean Godden fundraiser-NOTES; PICK UP CARLO AT LITTLE PARKING SPOT THOMAS HAS 25 RSVPS EXPECTS 20 TO 30 PEOPLE. TOMIO WILL DO A QUICK INTRO THEN ASK
8/10 festive bites, wine,entertainment carlos’s dad
rsvp’d yes (this is a campaign related event set up by staff)
8/15 campaign event- Notes; $25 suggested donation contact number:206-632-5100—carlo will contact, parking suggestions on invitation
8/16 carlos coming
campaign event-notes Contact Margret Irvine, Informal BBQ 2min speech
8/23 stop by with carlo
Now all of this information is public record, so it's not like Joe Szwaja's campaign had to go out and hire a private investigator to dig into Jean's background. In fact if you look at her calendar most of the entries appear with a notation that says "per campaign request". Um.... that's about as clear of a violation of the law as one could possibly ever hope to find. But hey, with Mr. Carlo "I post under multiple identies all from the same IP address" Davis running her campaign, I can't imagine what else they carelessly have been up to?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Jean Godden's Campaign Manager Carlo Davis Trolling Against Joe Szwaja
Carlo Davis, the campaign manager for Jean Godden, has spent a significant amount of time trolling the blogs distorting the facts, and posting under a list of fake names. Until recently this was simply a suspicion that I had no way to actually confirm, but recently The Paper Noose Blog traced his IP address and Carlo Davis then admitted to at least one of his blog pseudonyms.
In the comment thread, The Paper Noose writes:
Carlo Davis, posting under the name landsfarthereast, has a lengthy track record of distorting the truth on wikipedia as well. So much so that he was eventually banned from further edits, as he pushed Joe Szwaja to the level of wikirage.
His livejournal account confirms this identity as "landsfarthereast" at http://psshutthefuckup.livejournal.com/profile, where he also lists his name as "CD"... the same as the name he posts under at The Paper Noose. The AIM name listed: Landsfarthereast, the same name he posts under on Wikipedia. This IP address is linked to a defunct Bellingham IP address. Carlo used to go to school in Bellingham and has that location listed on his livejournal. So it's fairly clear who CD and Landsfarthereast is.... Carlo Davis, Jean Godden's campaign manager.
Now, I don't know about you, but I find the name "PS Shut the Fuck Up" to be quite charming.
Carlo Davis listed as Godden campaign manager: http://www.jeangodden.com/contact.php
List of all of his edits on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Landsfarthereast
The discussion page on Joe Szwaja's wikipedia page highlights many of the attempts by the Godden campaign to distort the facts.
Carlo on the Seattle PI sound off uses the Landsfarthereast name and calls Joe, "joe "i put women in the hospital" szwaja": http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=328576
If Jean Godden's campaign manager is spending all this time on wikipedia, and other blogs, using fake names, why is it such a stretch to consider that Xiu Xiu is also Carlo Davis?
In fact, Goldy over at Horsesass.org has stated that the Godden campaign shopped the DV story to several news outlets before it finally came out in the PI. Goldy states:
So from lies and factual distortions, to handing out stories that they've spoon fed to their media friends, Jean Godden's campaign manager has clearly been trolling the blogs, wikipedia, and regular media with negative campaigning against Joe Szwaja. Rather than running on issues, or Jean's track record, Carlo Davis believes that destroying the opponent is his job. Obviously Jean Godden agrees.
Seattle deserves better than Jean Godden and Carlo Davis. Vote for Joe Szwaja for Seattle City Council Position 1.
In the comment thread, The Paper Noose writes:
Why is it that Godden supporters don't sign their posts with their real names, while Szwaja supporters do? Please don't avoid the question. The fact that the Godden campaign seems to spend a lot of time trolling on blogs speaks volumes to the fact that the campaign is deathly afraid of where some actual information about your candidate will come out; because sure as hell, the PI or Times aren't going to do it.Why indeed? One of the most frequent commentators in the blogs has been a poster calling themselves "Xiu Xiu". The Paper Noose:
"CD" in the thread above, is posting from the same (obscure independent) ISP server, and the same IP number as the numerous posts on past Szwaja posts (labeled "xiu xiu"). It is also the same obscure ISP that hosts the Connections Group website, headed up by Cathy Allen.Of course Carlo Davis then denies that he could possibly be Xiu Xiu, however, from the type of posts Xiu Xiu makes consistently, it's not a far stretch to assume that they are one and the same, especially when the IP address is the same.
Carlo Davis, posting under the name landsfarthereast, has a lengthy track record of distorting the truth on wikipedia as well. So much so that he was eventually banned from further edits, as he pushed Joe Szwaja to the level of wikirage.
His livejournal account confirms this identity as "landsfarthereast" at http://psshutthefuckup.livejournal.com/profile, where he also lists his name as "CD"... the same as the name he posts under at The Paper Noose. The AIM name listed: Landsfarthereast, the same name he posts under on Wikipedia. This IP address is linked to a defunct Bellingham IP address. Carlo used to go to school in Bellingham and has that location listed on his livejournal. So it's fairly clear who CD and Landsfarthereast is.... Carlo Davis, Jean Godden's campaign manager.
Now, I don't know about you, but I find the name "PS Shut the Fuck Up" to be quite charming.
Carlo Davis listed as Godden campaign manager: http://www.jeangodden.com/contact.php
List of all of his edits on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Landsfarthereast
The discussion page on Joe Szwaja's wikipedia page highlights many of the attempts by the Godden campaign to distort the facts.
Carlo on the Seattle PI sound off uses the Landsfarthereast name and calls Joe, "joe "i put women in the hospital" szwaja": http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=328576
If Jean Godden's campaign manager is spending all this time on wikipedia, and other blogs, using fake names, why is it such a stretch to consider that Xiu Xiu is also Carlo Davis?
In fact, Goldy over at Horsesass.org has stated that the Godden campaign shopped the DV story to several news outlets before it finally came out in the PI. Goldy states:
Just to back up Geov here on his explanation of the process, the story on Szwaja was fed to me a few days ago, so it was clearly being pushed to reporters and bloggers. Though I was a bit surprised to see it appear so quickly in the P-I.And the Seattle PI states that the Godden campaign was handing out the article on Joe at events: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/327973_godden17.html
So from lies and factual distortions, to handing out stories that they've spoon fed to their media friends, Jean Godden's campaign manager has clearly been trolling the blogs, wikipedia, and regular media with negative campaigning against Joe Szwaja. Rather than running on issues, or Jean's track record, Carlo Davis believes that destroying the opponent is his job. Obviously Jean Godden agrees.
Seattle deserves better than Jean Godden and Carlo Davis. Vote for Joe Szwaja for Seattle City Council Position 1.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Impeachment
In a previous post I discussed Impeachment. Now I'm no fan of George Bush, and I'd love to see him impeached. But pragmatically speaking unless 10 or more Republicans get behind the idea, the Democrats simply don't have the votes. So if you support impeachment, I say the only way to go is to start harrassing Republicans in the House and Senate. Because until there's some swing votes in play, the Democrats are not going to play ball.
There are examples in my mind of Conservatives who may be able to still hear the ringing warning of Dwight Eisenhower. There's people like Chalmers Johnson, who were hard core cold warriors who expected more of a "peace dividend" when the Berlin Wall came down, and now spend their time exposing the facts. The problem is identifying those lonely voices. So my question then is which Republicans are going to figure out that tying their political futures to George Bush is no longer a wise move? But to get a couple swing state Republicans to understand this is going to require their constituents to lobby them, to put pressure where pressure is needed.
My question is not one about which Democrats are needed. Because that is obvious, it's gotta be ALL the Democrats, but even ALL of the Democrats still get us nowhere on Impeachment.
So which Republicans, if any, are in play?
Anyone who is currently calling for Maria Cantwell, or any other Democrat, to support Impeachment care to tell me who those Republicans are? The crimes are obvious, the impeachable offenses, again... OBVIOUS. But the road map to impeachment leads to the Repbulicans doorstep, and this isn't the 60s and Bush is not Nixon. In Nixon's days there were far greater numbers of Eisenhower Republicans still around that gave a damn. Today I don't know who those Senators with an R in their title are, do you?
There are examples in my mind of Conservatives who may be able to still hear the ringing warning of Dwight Eisenhower. There's people like Chalmers Johnson, who were hard core cold warriors who expected more of a "peace dividend" when the Berlin Wall came down, and now spend their time exposing the facts. The problem is identifying those lonely voices. So my question then is which Republicans are going to figure out that tying their political futures to George Bush is no longer a wise move? But to get a couple swing state Republicans to understand this is going to require their constituents to lobby them, to put pressure where pressure is needed.
My question is not one about which Democrats are needed. Because that is obvious, it's gotta be ALL the Democrats, but even ALL of the Democrats still get us nowhere on Impeachment.
So which Republicans, if any, are in play?
Anyone who is currently calling for Maria Cantwell, or any other Democrat, to support Impeachment care to tell me who those Republicans are? The crimes are obvious, the impeachable offenses, again... OBVIOUS. But the road map to impeachment leads to the Repbulicans doorstep, and this isn't the 60s and Bush is not Nixon. In Nixon's days there were far greater numbers of Eisenhower Republicans still around that gave a damn. Today I don't know who those Senators with an R in their title are, do you?
Blog Comments
Apparently I had blog comments set to moderation approval before posting, and I haven't looked in on the blog lately. So I didn't notice Bruce Guthrie, or others who tried to post. Sorry about that... back during the campaign I checked in on this blog more often.
Several new blogs are eating up a lot of my time, mainly the site about the problems inherent in voting by mail systems:
No Vote By Mail
http:/www.novbm.com
But I will be keeping this blog alive over time as well. I plan on doing some new traffic media soon. But alas, everything in it's own time.
Several new blogs are eating up a lot of my time, mainly the site about the problems inherent in voting by mail systems:
No Vote By Mail
http:/www.novbm.com
But I will be keeping this blog alive over time as well. I plan on doing some new traffic media soon. But alas, everything in it's own time.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Federal Way School Board Bans Al Gore's Movie
So, a quick heads up. Federal Way has banned "An Inconvenient Truth" the Al Gore, global warming movie.
I'm off to track down links, and send some emails. Seems like the Northwest blog community has missed this one so far. But I'm sure they won't for long.
I'm off to track down links, and send some emails. Seems like the Northwest blog community has missed this one so far. But I'm sure they won't for long.
Monday, November 13, 2006
The Washington State Midterm Election Wrap-up
So as a Green, I was very pleased with the results in the northwest.
Many of you may think that the Greens took a pounding in this election in Washington State, however, I am not of this opinion. This was the first state-wide race for the Green Party, and the Aaron Dixon Campaign ran a statewide race. I am proud of the Greens and the Aaron Dixon Campaign for going boldy where no Washington State Green campaign has gone before. Only a statewide party since 2000, a statewide race was a big undertaking, but it was done well.
From my perspective, Aaron Dixon proved he was the right man for the job. He stood up in public and spoke the truth as he sees it. One may not agree with everything that Mr. Dixon said or did during the race, but that's inevitable in any campaign. The important thing in any Green campaign is to stick it out until the end. Because if you are not willing to stand up for your beliefs in the face of overwhelming negative attacks as a spoiler, on your person, your past, your family, your character, and your motivations, don't even think about running as a Green.
But Aaron Dixon took the inevitable personal attacks in stride, and even when Mark Wilson took the money and dropped out before the primaries, Aaron stood firm.
Aaron also bridged a gap that has existed in the northwest progressive community for a long time, and brought together different groups in a way that rarely happens. What grows from this is yet to be seen. But one thing is certain, as we grow the Green Party in Washington State we will need more candidates like Aaron Dixon. Candidates who when facing a system with the odds firmly stacked against them, are willing to get into the ring and fight until the last bell rings.
The Dixon campaign made national news several times, from the announcement of his candidacy to the day of the protest and arrest, the former Panther never once backed down. And the Green Party of Washington State held firm as well. We stood by the campaign attack after attack. So while every campaign has a rough road to walk, in the end I am personally proud of the Party and the Dixon Campaign.
Last Tuesday marked the end of the beginning for the Green Party of Washington State. We've run races from the local to the state level, and even won some along the way. We've planted the seeds of the party from Spokane to Tacoma. We are the fastest growing political party around, and though the winds may blow from Democrat to Republican year after year, the Green Party continues to grow in the face of overwhelming odds and negative attack. But as we stand firm, the campaigns we run and lose today will become the seeds of the campaigns that we will run and win in the years to come.
On this note, it's important to mention that IRV passed in Pierce county. This is a big win for the people of Pierce County. I hope everyone who supports IRV and who worked hard to pass this initiative gets all the help they need moving forward towards implementation.
Ok now, the 2006 election season is over. Congratulations to everyone who worked hard this year. There's more work to be done. Be sure to check out what the Green's up in San Juan County are doing, they are fighting the County over bar codes on the Ballots. Made by the local company VoteHere, this group has ties to the CIA, most notably the new Donald Rumsfeld replacement, Robert Gates.
The Green Party San Juan County Link
Island Guardian
The Black Box Story on Robert Gates:
Blackbox Report
More about VoteHere:
Free Press Report
As always... there's more work to be done.
Many of you may think that the Greens took a pounding in this election in Washington State, however, I am not of this opinion. This was the first state-wide race for the Green Party, and the Aaron Dixon Campaign ran a statewide race. I am proud of the Greens and the Aaron Dixon Campaign for going boldy where no Washington State Green campaign has gone before. Only a statewide party since 2000, a statewide race was a big undertaking, but it was done well.
From my perspective, Aaron Dixon proved he was the right man for the job. He stood up in public and spoke the truth as he sees it. One may not agree with everything that Mr. Dixon said or did during the race, but that's inevitable in any campaign. The important thing in any Green campaign is to stick it out until the end. Because if you are not willing to stand up for your beliefs in the face of overwhelming negative attacks as a spoiler, on your person, your past, your family, your character, and your motivations, don't even think about running as a Green.
But Aaron Dixon took the inevitable personal attacks in stride, and even when Mark Wilson took the money and dropped out before the primaries, Aaron stood firm.
Aaron also bridged a gap that has existed in the northwest progressive community for a long time, and brought together different groups in a way that rarely happens. What grows from this is yet to be seen. But one thing is certain, as we grow the Green Party in Washington State we will need more candidates like Aaron Dixon. Candidates who when facing a system with the odds firmly stacked against them, are willing to get into the ring and fight until the last bell rings.
The Dixon campaign made national news several times, from the announcement of his candidacy to the day of the protest and arrest, the former Panther never once backed down. And the Green Party of Washington State held firm as well. We stood by the campaign attack after attack. So while every campaign has a rough road to walk, in the end I am personally proud of the Party and the Dixon Campaign.
Last Tuesday marked the end of the beginning for the Green Party of Washington State. We've run races from the local to the state level, and even won some along the way. We've planted the seeds of the party from Spokane to Tacoma. We are the fastest growing political party around, and though the winds may blow from Democrat to Republican year after year, the Green Party continues to grow in the face of overwhelming odds and negative attack. But as we stand firm, the campaigns we run and lose today will become the seeds of the campaigns that we will run and win in the years to come.
On this note, it's important to mention that IRV passed in Pierce county. This is a big win for the people of Pierce County. I hope everyone who supports IRV and who worked hard to pass this initiative gets all the help they need moving forward towards implementation.
Ok now, the 2006 election season is over. Congratulations to everyone who worked hard this year. There's more work to be done. Be sure to check out what the Green's up in San Juan County are doing, they are fighting the County over bar codes on the Ballots. Made by the local company VoteHere, this group has ties to the CIA, most notably the new Donald Rumsfeld replacement, Robert Gates.
The Green Party San Juan County Link
Island Guardian
The Black Box Story on Robert Gates:
Blackbox Report
More about VoteHere:
Free Press Report
As always... there's more work to be done.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Lame Duck - Quack Quack
Wow, that was quite an election. The Bush Administration is on the rails, and the Democrats are dancing in the streets.
Me, I'm quietly hopeful. Hopeful that Nancy Pelosi, the most powerful women ever elected in this country, will open up some serious investigations into the Bush administration's corruption and cruelties. If the Democrats are smart, they'll bide their time exposing the Bush Administration's myriad crimes, and instead of impeaching the bastard, they'll leave him there, a lame duck, for all to see. But to pull it off, they'll have to start governing again. Figure out a plan on Iraq, and get working undoing the damage done by this drunken frat boy at the helm for the past 6 years.
And that's where I am quietly hopeful. Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats can walk the tightrope they must. And instead of wasting their time trying to impeach W with a razor thin majority in the Senate, they will instead expose this President for what he is, a corporate good old boy and the most corrupt President this country has ever seen.
The Democrats, firmly in control of the House, should work now until 2008, simply and methodically exposing the facts. The facts about Katrina, the facts about Iraq, the facts about Enron, the facts about Global Warming. They could figure out a plan for the country and lead us out of this nightmare that has been the Bush Presidency, by simply exposing the truth. Billions for war, trillions in Debt. The largest federal government ever seen. Billions and billions lost in Iraq, billions lost by his buddies at Enron, and billions lost on all the other corruption tied to these crooks.
Congratulations to to the Democrats. Thanks for winning and not screwing up too badly. Don't let John Kerry tell any more jokes. Now if you can get us out of Iraq, and win the 2008 election you'll have the hat trick. Nothing will erase the memory of your votes as a party for the war, for the Patriot Act, for Nafta and Cafta and all the rest, but still, this was a victory over the Bush Administration. The enemy of my enemy is sometimes my friend.
The Democrats either engineered their best election in decades yesterday, or rode the wave of anger towards Bush to victory. Either way, Bush is lame duck. And I'll drink to that!
Now hopefully the new Democratically controlled House and possibly Senate will get busy and prove my skepticism about the Democratic Party wrong.
Me, I'm quietly hopeful. Hopeful that Nancy Pelosi, the most powerful women ever elected in this country, will open up some serious investigations into the Bush administration's corruption and cruelties. If the Democrats are smart, they'll bide their time exposing the Bush Administration's myriad crimes, and instead of impeaching the bastard, they'll leave him there, a lame duck, for all to see. But to pull it off, they'll have to start governing again. Figure out a plan on Iraq, and get working undoing the damage done by this drunken frat boy at the helm for the past 6 years.
And that's where I am quietly hopeful. Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats can walk the tightrope they must. And instead of wasting their time trying to impeach W with a razor thin majority in the Senate, they will instead expose this President for what he is, a corporate good old boy and the most corrupt President this country has ever seen.
The Democrats, firmly in control of the House, should work now until 2008, simply and methodically exposing the facts. The facts about Katrina, the facts about Iraq, the facts about Enron, the facts about Global Warming. They could figure out a plan for the country and lead us out of this nightmare that has been the Bush Presidency, by simply exposing the truth. Billions for war, trillions in Debt. The largest federal government ever seen. Billions and billions lost in Iraq, billions lost by his buddies at Enron, and billions lost on all the other corruption tied to these crooks.
Congratulations to to the Democrats. Thanks for winning and not screwing up too badly. Don't let John Kerry tell any more jokes. Now if you can get us out of Iraq, and win the 2008 election you'll have the hat trick. Nothing will erase the memory of your votes as a party for the war, for the Patriot Act, for Nafta and Cafta and all the rest, but still, this was a victory over the Bush Administration. The enemy of my enemy is sometimes my friend.
The Democrats either engineered their best election in decades yesterday, or rode the wave of anger towards Bush to victory. Either way, Bush is lame duck. And I'll drink to that!
Now hopefully the new Democratically controlled House and possibly Senate will get busy and prove my skepticism about the Democratic Party wrong.
Friday, November 03, 2006
King County's Optical Scan Machines Part of New HBO Documentary
For all those Ron Sims synchophants out there, and specfically to Goldie, over at Horsesass.org, I would like to point out the key element in the new "Hacking Democracy" film that just debuted on HBO, is very well summarized by Brad Blog:
Yep, as I've said all along. King County's Opt Scan's with central tabulators are no better than Touch Screens.... Ron Sims bought into both.
Finnish computer security expert Harri Hursti discovered that Diebold stored an executable program on the same removable memory card used to store the tabulated votes on each Diebold voting machine. "If someone had told me there was a modifiable, executable program in the same place where the most secured data was stored, I'd say you'd have to be misunderstanding something, crazy or lying," Hursti declares.The attempted Hursti hack, as allowed by Sancho, moves forward throughout the film. By the time it was completed (in pitifully short order), the e-voting world would be turned on its head. Hursti succeeding in exposing that both optical-scan systems and touch-screen voting systems manufactured by Diebold -- and apparently tested by no one -- could be hacked, an election result completely flipped, and no trace would be left behind. All that was needed was a $100 memory card reader bought off the Internet and about 60 seconds of access to the machine's memory card. RadioShack or Best Buy has all the necessary tools, in fact.
To repeat: It's not just Diebold's DREs that can be hacked. The Hursti hack targeted the memory card. Not only DREs but optical-scan units can record their information to memory cards. In either case, they're vulnerable. The ability to have an election flipped, and to do so with a small number of people involved, was no longer a "theory."
Yep, as I've said all along. King County's Opt Scan's with central tabulators are no better than Touch Screens.... Ron Sims bought into both.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
About That Spoiler Myth
From the PI:
Veteran Seattle Democratic political consultant Blair Butterworth said most votes for third-party candidates "aren't being taken from anybody (else). They're being taken from the I-don't-vote-for-anybody file. They're non-participants." But he said especially in Eastern Washington, Libertarians probably take more votes from Republicans than Democrats.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/
Veteran Seattle Democratic political consultant Blair Butterworth said most votes for third-party candidates "aren't being taken from anybody (else). They're being taken from the I-don't-vote-for-anybody file. They're non-participants." But he said especially in Eastern Washington, Libertarians probably take more votes from Republicans than Democrats.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/
Friday, October 20, 2006
Greg Palast Reports on Absentee
From Greg Palasts new article:
"-Absentee Ballots Uncounted. The number of absentee ballots has quintupled in many states, with the number rejected on picayune technical grounds rising to over half a million (526,420) in 2004. In swing states, absentee ballot shredding was pandemic. "
Now I don't know yet where he got his numbers from, but it certainly is an interesting read. And published right here in the Northwest.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=1511
"-Absentee Ballots Uncounted. The number of absentee ballots has quintupled in many states, with the number rejected on picayune technical grounds rising to over half a million (526,420) in 2004. In swing states, absentee ballot shredding was pandemic. "
Now I don't know yet where he got his numbers from, but it certainly is an interesting read. And published right here in the Northwest.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=1511
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Forcing Your Way In The Door
Yesterday I received a phone call from a reporter at Western Washington University. He was working on a story about third party campaigns, and asked me a particularly poignant question, “What's the biggest hurdle standing in the way of third party candidates?”
My response, “Exclusion.”
It was an apropos question because at the time I was downtown with the Green Party Candidate for Senate, Aaron Dixon, and his supporters, protesting King 5 TV's exclusion of Mr. Dixon from the one and only televised Senatorial debate. Aaron Dixon was excluded from the debates because as King TV's President summarized:
“We invited all the Senate candidates to participate in the debate under the condition that they met any one of a number of criteria to establish their viability. These criteria were based on the guidelines established by the Debate Advisory Standards Project. It is unfortunate that Mr. Dixon did not meet any of those criteria. It is also unfortunate that he refused to leave the premises when asked to do so."
These are the same standards King 5 pointed to when they excluded my campaign for King County Executive from last year's televised debates. These standards basically consist of an eight point list of criteria that a candidate must meet in order to be included in debates. I'm not going to belabor the entire list of rules, as you can read them for yourself online, here:
The Debate Project Report
But I will highlight this particular section of Debate Project's report:
"It is fair and reasonable that inclusion criteria during the pre-election period may be more difficult to meet than during the out-period. If a nonmajor or third-party candidate who is given an opportunity to participate in public debates during the out-period does not earn significant public support going into the final 30 days of an election campaign, debate sponsoring organizations that wish to limit participation have an acceptable rationale to tighten the inclusion criteria.
1.Out-period test. The test for including a candidate during the out-period should be seriousness of purpose. All candidates who have a serious purpose should be included in debates. Candidates who do not have a serious purpose include "joke" candidates; candidates who do not campaign in a meaningful way; and candidates who admit that their candidacies have only symbolic or trivial intentions. It is important that nonmajor and third-party candidates who begin their candidacies with little public support or name recognition are nonetheless equitably provided reasonable opportunities to present their credentials and their positions on the issues during the early stages of an election campaign.
2. Pre-election period test. The test for including a candidate during this period should be twofold: seriousness of purpose plus demonstration of significant public support. All candidates who demonstrate seriousness of purpose and significant support going into the final 30 days of an election should be included in debates."
These rules then state that in the “out-period,” 30 days or more before the election, polls should be conducted to see if candidates are viable. If a candidate polls at 5% or more during the “out-period,” he or she is to be included in any debates among candidates for that office.
But most pollsters freely admit they don't typically poll on 3rd party candidates. So this rule is simply ignored and these news organizations conduct biased polls from the outset. A fact recently pointed out by a local Washington newspaper, The Herald:
“Polling shows Cantwell leading McGavick by 8 to 10 points. These polls usually exclude the three other candidates: Bruce Guthrie, a Libertarian, Aaron Dixon, a Green, and Robin Adair, an Independent. None are invited to today's event.”
The Herald Story
The typical poll in the out-period that is actually conducted asks if you are going to vote for the front-runner Republican or the front-runner Democrat. At best they include Democrat and Republican primary candidates. They rarely, if ever, poll on 3rd party candidates.
Most of the polls in the 2005 race for King County Executive, a race in which there were only three candidates, asked only about the Democratic or Republican candidate, and if 5% actually responded with “Gentry Lange” it must have been recorded as “other” or even less honestly as “undecided.” I only know this because at least five of my own supporters were polled and told me about their experiences. Two reported being presented the “Democrat, Republican, or other” options, and two others reported being given only the “Republican” or “Democrat” choice. Only one person who reported back to me said that my name was specifically offered as an option during the poll, 1 poll out of 5, and even that amount of direct inclusion in a poll is highly unusual for a 3rd party candidate.
So in a race in which there were only 3 candidates, the third candidate was excluded the vast majority of the time. Ralph Nader calls this the “No chance to have a chance” phenomenon.
The standards cited by King 5, say the same thing as Ralph Nader. All candidates for office must be included in events during the “out-period.” This includes community forums, radio interviews, and any and all debates. Otherwise the excluded candidate will not have been provided a fair playing field from which to compete with the other candidates in the race. So due to the media's continued use of polling that excludes third party candidates during the out-period, according to their own rules these debate sponsoring organizations do not have an any, “acceptable rationale to tighten the inclusion criteria” during the in-period.
Interestingly, in the 2005 race for King County Executive, there was an initial poll conducted during the out period that found I was polling at 5%. But this was an internal poll in one of the other campaigns, that was shown to me, but never provided to the media. I think it's safe to say that since I got almost 5% of the vote during the general election, that it was a fairly accurate poll, and therefore never saw the light of day. So even though most of the polls excluded me, by the rules King 5 purports to play by, they should have included me in any debate or discussion with my Democratic and Republican opponents during the initial out-period.
So King 5 was actually breaking two of their own rules:
1. They never conducted a poll during the out-period that included “Gentry Lange” as an option.
2. King 5 television never allowed me to participate in a single media event, debate or discussion during the out-period.
Nor did any other major news organization bother to include my campaign, that is until I learned how to force my way in the door. A tactic effectively employed by Aaron Dixon yesterday at the front door of King 5 studios. And until media outlets, and all the other debate sponsoring organizations start playing by their own rules, it is one of the few tactics that forces the issue of exclusion onto the front page and into the lead story on television.
It wasn't until the in-period that I was even interviewed by Robert Mak, the political news reporter for King 5 News, for a 3 minute segment in which the edited segment badly summarized my political views for half of the interview. And the best explanation I have for this minor coverage they gave the campaign is that I was polling at 7 % in the final weeks of October and threatening to upset the race. In short, I became newsworthy. But from June to October, a period in which numerous polls were conducted featuring my opponents, the only other poll to include me that I ever saw would come out on October 17th, when the race was nearly over.
Survey USA Poll
By excluding me in the out-period against the rules they feign to play by, King 5 as well as several other news outlets, affectively colluded to limit my chances to gain traction in the out-period by excluding me from television coverage. After all, in politics nothing is as important as free time on television.
In the end, after battling tooth and nail for every column inch in the media, the same media coverage that is handed on a silver platter to the “chosen two” major party candidates, I still ended up getting over 24,000 votes in the general election. A number greater than most statewide 3rd party candidates ever receive, and almost the same percentage of votes that Ralph Nader got in 2000, the year he received the most votes he ever received in King County. So by their own rules it was obvious that my campaign was “serious.”
It should be equally obvious that Aaron Dixon is a candidate with serious intent, and does not fall into the Mike “The Mover” category. But with the exclusion of Aaron Dixon from the debates, the question that is remaining is this, “Why is any legally qualified candidate allowed to be excluded from the debate?” And why is it that this Debate Advisory Standards Project gets to choose the criteria of inclusion or exclusion in these debates?
The Debate Advisory Standards Project is funded by the PEW Charitable Trusts. I don't know much about the PEW Charitable Trusts, but I do know this, they were never elected to decide who is or is not a viable candidate. And most polls show an overwhelming number of Americans would prefer more candidates included in political debates, not less.
Furthermore, if King 5 is going to act as if they are following the rules outlined by the PEW Charitable Trusts, then they should at least follow these rules. Any polls conducted during the out-period should include all candidates in the race, and serious effort should be extended to make the system as fair as possible. In fact, as I read and re-read the PEW's rules on debate exclusion, it occurs to me that if King 5 and the other major media organizations actually followed the rules they purport to play by, the debates would be far more inclusive then they are today. Instead, King 5 simply hides behind the rules they like when challenged, while ignoring the rules and recommendations they dislike.
In the end, the fact that Bruce Guthrie was smart enough and wealthy enough to play by these rules, though heavily weighted against him, and force his way into the debates, was little more than a fluke. Guthrie, in a stroke of pure political genius, bought his way into the televised debate, and in the end doesn't even have to spend the money.
It will be interesting to see the final numbers from this race come November, because prior to the TV debates Guthrie was polling at just barely 1%. Televised debates have launched third party candidates to victory before, most notably Jesse Ventura who was polling under 10% until his televised debate appearance. Mr. Ventura then went on to win the Governor's race in Minnesota.
But I'm not predicting Guthrie will win. No, his inclusion in the debates was a fluke, because up until air time, it wasn't even certain that Bruce Guthrie would be allowed to debate, regardless of the rules he had figured out to play by. And he obviously didn't hit a home run... but he did get his point across, and it's likely he'll pick up a few percentage points along the way. Thanks to a spot at the podium. In fact, if he gains 5% the Libertarians will win big on this gamble, because they will become an official “major” party in Washington State once again, and many of the barriers to inclusion will be eliminated with the achievement of major party status.
While we may not be able to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, killed by President Reagan, the next coarse of action should certainly be to sue King 5 for unregulated campaign contributions. Because free air time is the equivalent of giving away millions in paid advertising to these campaigns. The final vote totals that Bruce Guthrie receives will offer a glimpse of the increase in votes a television appearance can give to 3rd party candidates. But until networks like King 5 are confronted, harassed and sued repeatedly for what should be prosecuted as illegal campaign contributions, they will continue to silence dissent and exclude the voices that they alone decide should not be heard on the public airwaves. Regardless of the rules they choose for themselves, this is not Democracy, hell it's not even a fair way to run debates in a Republic.
What it is, is unacceptable. So regardless of your political persuasion I urge you to contact King 5 news, the Seattle Times, Mike McGavick's Campaign, and Maria Cantwell's office, to register your disgust with this type of blatant electioneering. And if you are a lawyer, feel free to give me a call.
Regards,
Gentry Lange
Former Green Party Candidate for King County Executive
My response, “Exclusion.”
It was an apropos question because at the time I was downtown with the Green Party Candidate for Senate, Aaron Dixon, and his supporters, protesting King 5 TV's exclusion of Mr. Dixon from the one and only televised Senatorial debate. Aaron Dixon was excluded from the debates because as King TV's President summarized:
“We invited all the Senate candidates to participate in the debate under the condition that they met any one of a number of criteria to establish their viability. These criteria were based on the guidelines established by the Debate Advisory Standards Project. It is unfortunate that Mr. Dixon did not meet any of those criteria. It is also unfortunate that he refused to leave the premises when asked to do so."
These are the same standards King 5 pointed to when they excluded my campaign for King County Executive from last year's televised debates. These standards basically consist of an eight point list of criteria that a candidate must meet in order to be included in debates. I'm not going to belabor the entire list of rules, as you can read them for yourself online, here:
The Debate Project Report
But I will highlight this particular section of Debate Project's report:
"It is fair and reasonable that inclusion criteria during the pre-election period may be more difficult to meet than during the out-period. If a nonmajor or third-party candidate who is given an opportunity to participate in public debates during the out-period does not earn significant public support going into the final 30 days of an election campaign, debate sponsoring organizations that wish to limit participation have an acceptable rationale to tighten the inclusion criteria.
1.Out-period test. The test for including a candidate during the out-period should be seriousness of purpose. All candidates who have a serious purpose should be included in debates. Candidates who do not have a serious purpose include "joke" candidates; candidates who do not campaign in a meaningful way; and candidates who admit that their candidacies have only symbolic or trivial intentions. It is important that nonmajor and third-party candidates who begin their candidacies with little public support or name recognition are nonetheless equitably provided reasonable opportunities to present their credentials and their positions on the issues during the early stages of an election campaign.
2. Pre-election period test. The test for including a candidate during this period should be twofold: seriousness of purpose plus demonstration of significant public support. All candidates who demonstrate seriousness of purpose and significant support going into the final 30 days of an election should be included in debates."
These rules then state that in the “out-period,” 30 days or more before the election, polls should be conducted to see if candidates are viable. If a candidate polls at 5% or more during the “out-period,” he or she is to be included in any debates among candidates for that office.
But most pollsters freely admit they don't typically poll on 3rd party candidates. So this rule is simply ignored and these news organizations conduct biased polls from the outset. A fact recently pointed out by a local Washington newspaper, The Herald:
“Polling shows Cantwell leading McGavick by 8 to 10 points. These polls usually exclude the three other candidates: Bruce Guthrie, a Libertarian, Aaron Dixon, a Green, and Robin Adair, an Independent. None are invited to today's event.”
The Herald Story
The typical poll in the out-period that is actually conducted asks if you are going to vote for the front-runner Republican or the front-runner Democrat. At best they include Democrat and Republican primary candidates. They rarely, if ever, poll on 3rd party candidates.
Most of the polls in the 2005 race for King County Executive, a race in which there were only three candidates, asked only about the Democratic or Republican candidate, and if 5% actually responded with “Gentry Lange” it must have been recorded as “other” or even less honestly as “undecided.” I only know this because at least five of my own supporters were polled and told me about their experiences. Two reported being presented the “Democrat, Republican, or other” options, and two others reported being given only the “Republican” or “Democrat” choice. Only one person who reported back to me said that my name was specifically offered as an option during the poll, 1 poll out of 5, and even that amount of direct inclusion in a poll is highly unusual for a 3rd party candidate.
So in a race in which there were only 3 candidates, the third candidate was excluded the vast majority of the time. Ralph Nader calls this the “No chance to have a chance” phenomenon.
The standards cited by King 5, say the same thing as Ralph Nader. All candidates for office must be included in events during the “out-period.” This includes community forums, radio interviews, and any and all debates. Otherwise the excluded candidate will not have been provided a fair playing field from which to compete with the other candidates in the race. So due to the media's continued use of polling that excludes third party candidates during the out-period, according to their own rules these debate sponsoring organizations do not have an any, “acceptable rationale to tighten the inclusion criteria” during the in-period.
Interestingly, in the 2005 race for King County Executive, there was an initial poll conducted during the out period that found I was polling at 5%. But this was an internal poll in one of the other campaigns, that was shown to me, but never provided to the media. I think it's safe to say that since I got almost 5% of the vote during the general election, that it was a fairly accurate poll, and therefore never saw the light of day. So even though most of the polls excluded me, by the rules King 5 purports to play by, they should have included me in any debate or discussion with my Democratic and Republican opponents during the initial out-period.
So King 5 was actually breaking two of their own rules:
1. They never conducted a poll during the out-period that included “Gentry Lange” as an option.
2. King 5 television never allowed me to participate in a single media event, debate or discussion during the out-period.
Nor did any other major news organization bother to include my campaign, that is until I learned how to force my way in the door. A tactic effectively employed by Aaron Dixon yesterday at the front door of King 5 studios. And until media outlets, and all the other debate sponsoring organizations start playing by their own rules, it is one of the few tactics that forces the issue of exclusion onto the front page and into the lead story on television.
It wasn't until the in-period that I was even interviewed by Robert Mak, the political news reporter for King 5 News, for a 3 minute segment in which the edited segment badly summarized my political views for half of the interview. And the best explanation I have for this minor coverage they gave the campaign is that I was polling at 7 % in the final weeks of October and threatening to upset the race. In short, I became newsworthy. But from June to October, a period in which numerous polls were conducted featuring my opponents, the only other poll to include me that I ever saw would come out on October 17th, when the race was nearly over.
Survey USA Poll
By excluding me in the out-period against the rules they feign to play by, King 5 as well as several other news outlets, affectively colluded to limit my chances to gain traction in the out-period by excluding me from television coverage. After all, in politics nothing is as important as free time on television.
In the end, after battling tooth and nail for every column inch in the media, the same media coverage that is handed on a silver platter to the “chosen two” major party candidates, I still ended up getting over 24,000 votes in the general election. A number greater than most statewide 3rd party candidates ever receive, and almost the same percentage of votes that Ralph Nader got in 2000, the year he received the most votes he ever received in King County. So by their own rules it was obvious that my campaign was “serious.”
It should be equally obvious that Aaron Dixon is a candidate with serious intent, and does not fall into the Mike “The Mover” category. But with the exclusion of Aaron Dixon from the debates, the question that is remaining is this, “Why is any legally qualified candidate allowed to be excluded from the debate?” And why is it that this Debate Advisory Standards Project gets to choose the criteria of inclusion or exclusion in these debates?
The Debate Advisory Standards Project is funded by the PEW Charitable Trusts. I don't know much about the PEW Charitable Trusts, but I do know this, they were never elected to decide who is or is not a viable candidate. And most polls show an overwhelming number of Americans would prefer more candidates included in political debates, not less.
Furthermore, if King 5 is going to act as if they are following the rules outlined by the PEW Charitable Trusts, then they should at least follow these rules. Any polls conducted during the out-period should include all candidates in the race, and serious effort should be extended to make the system as fair as possible. In fact, as I read and re-read the PEW's rules on debate exclusion, it occurs to me that if King 5 and the other major media organizations actually followed the rules they purport to play by, the debates would be far more inclusive then they are today. Instead, King 5 simply hides behind the rules they like when challenged, while ignoring the rules and recommendations they dislike.
In the end, the fact that Bruce Guthrie was smart enough and wealthy enough to play by these rules, though heavily weighted against him, and force his way into the debates, was little more than a fluke. Guthrie, in a stroke of pure political genius, bought his way into the televised debate, and in the end doesn't even have to spend the money.
It will be interesting to see the final numbers from this race come November, because prior to the TV debates Guthrie was polling at just barely 1%. Televised debates have launched third party candidates to victory before, most notably Jesse Ventura who was polling under 10% until his televised debate appearance. Mr. Ventura then went on to win the Governor's race in Minnesota.
But I'm not predicting Guthrie will win. No, his inclusion in the debates was a fluke, because up until air time, it wasn't even certain that Bruce Guthrie would be allowed to debate, regardless of the rules he had figured out to play by. And he obviously didn't hit a home run... but he did get his point across, and it's likely he'll pick up a few percentage points along the way. Thanks to a spot at the podium. In fact, if he gains 5% the Libertarians will win big on this gamble, because they will become an official “major” party in Washington State once again, and many of the barriers to inclusion will be eliminated with the achievement of major party status.
While we may not be able to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, killed by President Reagan, the next coarse of action should certainly be to sue King 5 for unregulated campaign contributions. Because free air time is the equivalent of giving away millions in paid advertising to these campaigns. The final vote totals that Bruce Guthrie receives will offer a glimpse of the increase in votes a television appearance can give to 3rd party candidates. But until networks like King 5 are confronted, harassed and sued repeatedly for what should be prosecuted as illegal campaign contributions, they will continue to silence dissent and exclude the voices that they alone decide should not be heard on the public airwaves. Regardless of the rules they choose for themselves, this is not Democracy, hell it's not even a fair way to run debates in a Republic.
What it is, is unacceptable. So regardless of your political persuasion I urge you to contact King 5 news, the Seattle Times, Mike McGavick's Campaign, and Maria Cantwell's office, to register your disgust with this type of blatant electioneering. And if you are a lawyer, feel free to give me a call.
Regards,
Gentry Lange
Former Green Party Candidate for King County Executive
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Sam Reed Promotes Vote By Mail as the Solution to Problematic Voting Machines
Doing a little research over the weekend on Vote By Mail, I came across the pro-VBM website, called "The Vote By Mail Project".
Now, this website is interesting, it makes itself look like a homegrown Oregon based grassroots type organization. A bunch of voters in Oregon just got together and decided to support Vote-By Mail. Why just look at what their website copy says:
"The Vote By Mail Project was launched in 2005 by a group of people in Oregon who looked around the country in 2000 and 2004 and realized just how well our Vote By Mail system works. No lines, no touch screen voting machines, no intimidation or voter suppression at the polls, a guaranteed paper trail, the nation’s highest turnout (87% in ’04) plenty of time for individual voters to make informed voting decisions, more convenient for working people and families with children, and voters love it."
"Across the country, an increasing number of cities, counties and states are making it easier for citizens to vote without standing in long lines or using potentially flawed electronic voting equipment. Whether by allowing no-excuse absentee balloting, enabling voters to permanently choose absentee balloting, or adopting vote by mail, election officials, particularly those in the West, are embracing this trend."
http://www.votebymailproject.org/
Long lines, polling place intimidation and potentially flawed electronic voting equipment got you down, well we've got the answer.... Vote By Mail. Gosh we won't even need to train poll workers anymore.
So obviously, I want to know more about this organization, so I click around and find the advisers page....
The Advisers Page
Oddly the second name on the list Sam Reed is Washington's very own Secretary of State, Sam Reed.
I'm shocked. Isn't this the same Sam Reed that went around the state touting Electronic Voting Machines to kids in highschools?
"We hope hands-on experience with touch screen machines will motivate students to get involved and actually prepare them to vote," said Reed. "Traditionally, young voters have not been represented well at the polls. They deserve a say in their future and they ought to exercise their rights to get it."
Yep it's still on the Washington State's SOS website
So now which is it, are the voting machines faulty? Or are they the best thing since sliced bread? I hope someone besides me decides to ask Sam Reed this question.
And to everyone who thinks Touch Screen Voting Machines are the problem, why is it that the same people who bought the Touch Screens are now trying to sell you the cure?
This is pretty amazing to me considering Sam Reed is the President of NASS, the National Association of the Secretaries of State. Sam Reed is supporting a group that's attacking voting machines as faulty while simultaneously promoting the adoption of touch screen voting machine statewide and nationally.
Now, this website is interesting, it makes itself look like a homegrown Oregon based grassroots type organization. A bunch of voters in Oregon just got together and decided to support Vote-By Mail. Why just look at what their website copy says:
"The Vote By Mail Project was launched in 2005 by a group of people in Oregon who looked around the country in 2000 and 2004 and realized just how well our Vote By Mail system works. No lines, no touch screen voting machines, no intimidation or voter suppression at the polls, a guaranteed paper trail, the nation’s highest turnout (87% in ’04) plenty of time for individual voters to make informed voting decisions, more convenient for working people and families with children, and voters love it."
"Across the country, an increasing number of cities, counties and states are making it easier for citizens to vote without standing in long lines or using potentially flawed electronic voting equipment. Whether by allowing no-excuse absentee balloting, enabling voters to permanently choose absentee balloting, or adopting vote by mail, election officials, particularly those in the West, are embracing this trend."
http://www.votebymailproject.org/
Long lines, polling place intimidation and potentially flawed electronic voting equipment got you down, well we've got the answer.... Vote By Mail. Gosh we won't even need to train poll workers anymore.
So obviously, I want to know more about this organization, so I click around and find the advisers page....
The Advisers Page
Oddly the second name on the list Sam Reed is Washington's very own Secretary of State, Sam Reed.
I'm shocked. Isn't this the same Sam Reed that went around the state touting Electronic Voting Machines to kids in highschools?
"We hope hands-on experience with touch screen machines will motivate students to get involved and actually prepare them to vote," said Reed. "Traditionally, young voters have not been represented well at the polls. They deserve a say in their future and they ought to exercise their rights to get it."
Yep it's still on the Washington State's SOS website
So now which is it, are the voting machines faulty? Or are they the best thing since sliced bread? I hope someone besides me decides to ask Sam Reed this question.
And to everyone who thinks Touch Screen Voting Machines are the problem, why is it that the same people who bought the Touch Screens are now trying to sell you the cure?
This is pretty amazing to me considering Sam Reed is the President of NASS, the National Association of the Secretaries of State. Sam Reed is supporting a group that's attacking voting machines as faulty while simultaneously promoting the adoption of touch screen voting machine statewide and nationally.
Hawaii Reports of Union Review of Absentee
This comes from the, "I told you so" file:
______________________________________________
"There were complaints in 1998 and 2000 by union employees reported to the Hawaii Republican and Democratic Parties, Lagareta says, that union employees were being forced to vote by absentee ballot at work, submitting the ballot to a supervisor for review before being returned to the county clerk for tally."
http://tinyurl.com/y6ngg2
______________________________________________
"There were complaints in 1998 and 2000 by union employees reported to the Hawaii Republican and Democratic Parties, Lagareta says, that union employees were being forced to vote by absentee ballot at work, submitting the ballot to a supervisor for review before being returned to the county clerk for tally."
http://tinyurl.com/y6ngg2
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Let Aaron Dixon Debate!!!!!!
Here's part of an email from Mike Gillis, of the Aaron Dixon for Senate Campaign:
_____________________________________________________
Everyone,
I don't know if you've heard, but Libertarian candidate, Bruce Guthrie has
given his campaign for U.S. Senate $1.2 million of his own money. And
because of that donation, he will be allowed in the U.S. Senate debates on
KING-5, because large sums of money is a crtieria of the debate.
Even though Guthrie isn't polling as well as Green Party nominee Aaron Dixon
(3% in the last poll to Guthrie's 1%) and that Aaron has RAISED more money
than Guthrie (Aaron raised over $50,000 to Guthrie's $33,000), it is
disgusting and hypocritical that he be allowed to debate and Aaron is
barred.
AARON DIXON CLEARLY HAS MORE SUPPORT THAN BRUCE GUTHRIE, HE SHOULD BE
ALLOWED TO DEBATE!
-- The criteria for this debate is unfair to third parties and
non-millionaires. The money criteria is stated to be a judge of popular
support, but all of Guthrie's money is self-donated. Aaron Dixon has RAISED
more money than Guthrie has ($50,000 all from individual donors, while
Guthrie has raised $33,000 and written himself a big check)
-- Aaron Dixon currently polls THREE TIMES AS WELL as Bruce Guthrie does.
From a September 27th SurveyUSA poll, Aaron Dixon is at 3%, Bruce Guthrie is
at 1%
-- Aaron has consistently gotten more media coverage than Guthrie, who never
got an article in a mainstream media source until he gave himself a million
dollars.
Mike Gillis
Press Secretary,
Aaron Dixon for U.S. Senate
www.dixon4senate.com
___________________________________________________________________________
WHAT I NEED YOU TO DO:
IMMEDIATELY CALL THE TWO FOLLOWING PEOPLE AND LET THEM KNOW THAT AARON
DESERVES TO DEBATE!
Pat Costello, Executive News Director, KING 5 News: (206) 448-4516
David Boardman, Executive Editor, the Seattle Times: (206) 464-2205
_____________________________________________________
Everyone,
I don't know if you've heard, but Libertarian candidate, Bruce Guthrie has
given his campaign for U.S. Senate $1.2 million of his own money. And
because of that donation, he will be allowed in the U.S. Senate debates on
KING-5, because large sums of money is a crtieria of the debate.
Even though Guthrie isn't polling as well as Green Party nominee Aaron Dixon
(3% in the last poll to Guthrie's 1%) and that Aaron has RAISED more money
than Guthrie (Aaron raised over $50,000 to Guthrie's $33,000), it is
disgusting and hypocritical that he be allowed to debate and Aaron is
barred.
AARON DIXON CLEARLY HAS MORE SUPPORT THAN BRUCE GUTHRIE, HE SHOULD BE
ALLOWED TO DEBATE!
-- The criteria for this debate is unfair to third parties and
non-millionaires. The money criteria is stated to be a judge of popular
support, but all of Guthrie's money is self-donated. Aaron Dixon has RAISED
more money than Guthrie has ($50,000 all from individual donors, while
Guthrie has raised $33,000 and written himself a big check)
-- Aaron Dixon currently polls THREE TIMES AS WELL as Bruce Guthrie does.
From a September 27th SurveyUSA poll, Aaron Dixon is at 3%, Bruce Guthrie is
at 1%
-- Aaron has consistently gotten more media coverage than Guthrie, who never
got an article in a mainstream media source until he gave himself a million
dollars.
Mike Gillis
Press Secretary,
Aaron Dixon for U.S. Senate
www.dixon4senate.com
___________________________________________________________________________
WHAT I NEED YOU TO DO:
IMMEDIATELY CALL THE TWO FOLLOWING PEOPLE AND LET THEM KNOW THAT AARON
DESERVES TO DEBATE!
Pat Costello, Executive News Director, KING 5 News: (206) 448-4516
David Boardman, Executive Editor, the Seattle Times: (206) 464-2205
Broken Computer, New Computer
So I accidentally destroyed my laptop. And after a couple months in between, shuffling files from portable drive to external, then onto a new laptop, I think it's time I started blogging again.
More to come...
More to come...
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
What's that Smell?
While I live in Shoreline, I keep an apartment in the Eastlake district, and last night, after the fireworks display, apparently the Pier at 1801 Fairview Ave East caught on fire. Now I'm no big fan of what I like to call drunks with explosives day, and yesterday's fire was a pretty good indication of why celebrating freedom by getting drunk and illegally setting off fireworks is a very bad idea. How is getting drunk and blowing things up an appropriate celebration for Independence Day?
Now my neighborhood smells toxic, and I woke up with a pretty bad headache, a probably result of the fumes aggravating the sinus infection I am fighting. And while the fire department won't say it yet, I am pretty darn sure that drunks with explosives day was the cause.
Happy Fourth of July everyone! Hopefully you survived and kept all your fingers! National health statistics report almost 9,000 emergency room visits for injuries due to fireworks in 2002... mostly kids!
Now my neighborhood smells toxic, and I woke up with a pretty bad headache, a probably result of the fumes aggravating the sinus infection I am fighting. And while the fire department won't say it yet, I am pretty darn sure that drunks with explosives day was the cause.
Happy Fourth of July everyone! Hopefully you survived and kept all your fingers! National health statistics report almost 9,000 emergency room visits for injuries due to fireworks in 2002... mostly kids!
Health Care IS Emergency Preperation
Recently I came down with a sinus infection. Actually, it wasn't that recently, it has actually been months. But I until recently I didn't have health insurance or a regular doctor, so I have developed a bad habit of ignoring my health problems to see if they'll just go away on their own. This one didn't, and by this morning, it was pretty bad (and kinda gross). So I went down to the Country Doctor Health Clinic on Capitol Hill, and luckily they got me in quick and prescribed a bottle of antibiotics.
On the campaign trail for County Executive last year, I was asked quite frequently about things like pandemic flu, SARS, and other infectious diseases that could be considered security risks to the region. Now I have to admit that Eric Holdeman, director of the King County Office of Emergency Management, is by all accounts doing a bang-up job on preparing the King County Region for possible disasters, but there's a deeper problem here. With so many uninsured Americans, if a flu pandemic were to arise, how many of the uninsured would do like me and wait days, weeks, perhaps months to see a doctor, or go to the emergency room? How many more people will be infected with some deadly disease because of this?
Countries with universal health care are far more prepared for pandemics than the US will ever be until we can figure out how to cover the uninsured. All the money pouring into disaster preparation in the post 911 word will do nothing to counter this problem. Universal Health care is about more than helping the poor, it's about security for the Nation.
On the campaign trail for County Executive last year, I was asked quite frequently about things like pandemic flu, SARS, and other infectious diseases that could be considered security risks to the region. Now I have to admit that Eric Holdeman, director of the King County Office of Emergency Management, is by all accounts doing a bang-up job on preparing the King County Region for possible disasters, but there's a deeper problem here. With so many uninsured Americans, if a flu pandemic were to arise, how many of the uninsured would do like me and wait days, weeks, perhaps months to see a doctor, or go to the emergency room? How many more people will be infected with some deadly disease because of this?
Countries with universal health care are far more prepared for pandemics than the US will ever be until we can figure out how to cover the uninsured. All the money pouring into disaster preparation in the post 911 word will do nothing to counter this problem. Universal Health care is about more than helping the poor, it's about security for the Nation.
Friday, June 30, 2006
The Brennan Center Report
Another report confirms what voting activists have been saying all along. Check it out here (pdf summary).
It's called the Kathy Dopp Analyses The Brennan Center Report on Electronic Voting in the U.S. And it's a fairly detailed report. With the previous GAO report, and numberous books, and thousands of activists nationwide, we might just reach the tipping point yet. Here's a quick breakdown for those who don't want to read the full summary as a PDF.
The report recommends random audits, and several other procedures championed by voting activists for years. It also questions systems like Washington State's in which paper ballots exist, but are not routinely used for hand auditing. Machine recounts are not enough, apparently... something that should have been made clear by the hand recount in Washington of 2004.
It's called the Kathy Dopp Analyses The Brennan Center Report on Electronic Voting in the U.S. And it's a fairly detailed report. With the previous GAO report, and numberous books, and thousands of activists nationwide, we might just reach the tipping point yet. Here's a quick breakdown for those who don't want to read the full summary as a PDF.
The report recommends random audits, and several other procedures championed by voting activists for years. It also questions systems like Washington State's in which paper ballots exist, but are not routinely used for hand auditing. Machine recounts are not enough, apparently... something that should have been made clear by the hand recount in Washington of 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)