1. Put soldiers in schools as teachers without requiring certification and Desert Storm was about protecting the oil.
2. Americans are innocent victims of greed and excess on Wall Street and as well as Washington, D.C.
3. Palin is a role model to women.
4. McCain rallies harbor few fringe peoples.

Here are McCain’s statements:

1. McCain’s solutions to education and why we had Desert Storm.

During the third debate, when asked about the state of education in the US, McCain had this, among other things, to say:

McCain: “We need to encourage programs such as Teach for America and Troops to Teachers where people, after having served in the military, can go right to teaching and not have to take these examinations or have the certification that  are are required in many states.”

My Reaction (Incredulous) : Returning soldiers should go straight into teaching?

Soldiers coming back from the war are all, every one of them, suffering from PTSD, according to local psychologists in Montgomery County.  Here, at the home of Fort Campbell army base, agencies that deal with child abuse issues are spending a lot, if not most, of their time with military families.  Soldiers are gone so long from their growing families that they come back out of touch with their children and how to react and interact with them.

Many soldiers came back from the first deployment with sex addictions that befuddled local psychologist, Mary Coe.  News of rape within the armed forces continues to escalate at an alarming rate.  Now McCain suggests that we should put these soldiers in a room with our young, attractive, hormonal young women and men? Or the youngest of our children?

No certification required of soldiers to teach our children?  Well then, what are they going to teach, and how?  Am I jumping off a limb to say that soldiers know how to be good soldiers, how to obey orders without question?  Will classrooms be organized in a military atmosphere, where you listen when told to do so and speak only when spoken to?  Where the teacher’s job is to break down the students and rebuild them as one unit?  People I know, with kids and without, will tell me this is a great idea.  Teach kids how to respect, obey, and have discipline.  To force feed information without question? Without critical thinking and questioning? That works fine if you’re not trying to work with kids who love to learn, who are creative and who can find and express their own personalities.  And the kids who don’t fit in?  How does the military deal with that?  A group is only as strong as its weakest person.

Meticulously programmed Robby the Robot (Forbidden Planet/1956)

Personally, I can’t imagine that making kids into bigger better robots than they are now is the best thing for them or our future.  Or that making them hate school more than many do now is a solution.

No Child Left Behind is teaching kids to memorize data for tests, but we can and should do so much better than that, move beyond that.  We can make kids really hate learning and resist school, essentially pulling them to a place where their choice for the future is narrowed down to the military.

Or, worse yet, it will produce kids who love the discipline so much that they’ll be ready to choose the military as their future.  These kids will be so dedicated that they would turn in even their parents as traitors. Ok, let’s just say there’s something to that idea.  Why does McCain want or need to make larger armies?

McCain: (from the 3rd debate script)

Kuwait

“He (Obama) voted against the first Gulf War. He voted against it and, obviously, we had to take Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait or it would’ve threatened the Middle Eastern world supply.

He said (the war) threatened world supply, not oppressed people.  Kuwait sits on 10 percent of the world oil reserves, so fighting the terrorist Saddam was about protecting our source of oil and now our largest trading partner. This fact has been confirmed to me by a Vet of that and two other wars.

McCain needs armies to conquer oil-rich countries.  Let the Christian extremists believe that Muslims are evil and tell the rest of us that we are defending ourselves against terror.  What happened to the “spreading Democracy” thing?  We bought that for awhile.  Election time arrives: bring terror back into the picture.

If we keep using oil, we burn up the planet, even if we could justify our barbaric invasion into Iraq and Iran for oil.

2.  The Maverick has experience in an economic collapse.

McCain: “Americans are hurting right now, and they’re angry. They’re hurting, and they’re angry. They’re innocent victims of greed and excess on Wall Street and as well as Washington, D.C. And they’re angry, and they have every reason to be angry.”

My Reaction: Both Democrats and Republicans can be blamed for the current economic crisis.  But we should consider who has more “experience” in the world of high finance fraud.  When McCain says American’s are angry, does he know what it is like to lose your life’s savings and your future well-being?

From Wikipedia

“Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989, at a cost of over $3 billion to the federal government. Some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded and many elderly investors lost their life savings. The accompanying slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 1990-1991 economic recession.

“Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association made substantial political contributions to 5 senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH),John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), totalling $1.3 million. Keating said, “One question …had to do with whether my financial support in any way influenced several political figures to take up my cause. I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so.”

“After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings, with Cranston receiving a formal reprimand. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised “poor judgment.”

McCain admitted that was the worst mistake in his life. Thank goodness that hand slap worked; now the Maverick is running for president and I can’t image him being bought out by private interests. (sarcasm, Miss Betty, sarcasm)

So far I see a man with big bucks in his pocket and his hands in the poop when the last recession (so similar to this one!) hit.

3. Palin is a role model to women (in men’s fantasies).

McCain (From the third debate): “Well, Americans have gotten to know Sarah Palin. They know that she’s a role model to women and others — and reformers all over America. She’s a reformer”.

My Reaction: She’s a role model alright. We don’t want a Hillary running things because she stands on her own integrity. Hillary doesn’t support a man because he’s a man. We want a woman who agrees with and defends the man. Palin can take it and turn around and defend it. That’s a role model in the man’s sexual fantasy.

Palin’s a reformer alright. In a YouTube video she greets the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaska to secede from the Union.

From their website:

Q: What is the Alaskan Independence Party?

A: An Alaskan political party whose members advocate a range of solutions to the conflicts between federal and local authority; from advocacy for state’s rights, through a return to territorial status, all the way to complete independence and nationhood status for Alaska.

4. Why the negative campaigning, McCain?

So far, I see a man with big bucks in his pocket and his hands in the poop when the last recession (so similar to this one!) hit. And a woman who holds down the victim while developers rape the land; later she and Joe Six Pack threw around their power by shooting down protected wolves from a helicopter. Oh, she’s a role model alright. She can take it and turn around and defend it. A man’s fantasy role model. She even charges rape victims for their medical examination (that is a fact).

How are you going to keep us from knowing about this stuff, McCain?

The best thing for you to do, McCain, is keep us from looking at you, any way that you can. You better find things wrong with your opponent and pounce on it. Even if it’s a complete lie, just say it over and over until people believe it. Keep your opponent busy clearing himself of all the crap you are saying. Remember, it doesn’t have to be true, you just need to say it a lot, and get people scared.

Say something like 9/11 and get people scared about that again. Then make-up doubts about Obama. People will make the connection. Terror = scared = Obama.

The first lie I saw was “the no hand over the heart” affair, in which Obama was accused of not crossing his heart while saying the Pledge of Allegiance.The truth to that image is that he was listening to the National Anthem. That picture of Obama not crossing his heart hangs at our local Republican headquarters today; they’re not keeping up with the rest of the world and perpetuating a blatant lie.

Then there was the no-pin problem, when Obama did not wear an American flag lapel pin. Obama rhymes with Osama. What more proof do we need that he himself is a terrorist? Obama is a Muslim. A co-worker said that to me recently. Or suggested he has a Muslim background. Geez, girl. That was so last spring. Catch up. That’s been disproved and the party has moved on to bigger, better things. Recently I saw a short movie with out-of-context slides of Muslim terrorists. Lots of blood and guts too. IS THAT WHAT WE WANT? (vote McCain)

I’ve been doing a little study of the Neo-Conservative party and their efforts to control the population. They seek to convince people that we are in terrible trouble from terrorists. (The Power of Nightmares). They use control by fear of terror.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Edvard Munch - "The Scream" (1893)

I’ve been to England when people were afraid of bombs in fast food restaurants and airport lockers. But these people did not walk around in fear every minute; they would not buy into fear.

In the last debate, McCain put himself on the line as supporting accusations that Obama is connected to terrorists. Although his campaign had been pushing that subject for weeks, McCain said “I don’t care about an old washed-up terrorist. We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama’s relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.” As Saturday Night Live puts it, he also believes there is a unicorn under his bed.

It’s desperate, McCain, but you know you have to get people scared because when they get scared they get mad and fired up enough to get out there and vote. And anyone who opposes you, well, you have to discredit them, as quick as you can. Liberal, hippie, washed up: use those words.

McCain’s supporters have been recorded calling Obama a traitor and saying things like “kill him.”

McCain (from third debate):

“Let me just say categorically I’m proud of the people that come to our rallies. Whenever you get a large rally of 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 people, you’re going to have some fringe peoples. You know that. And I’ve — and we’ve always said that that’s not appropriate. I’m not going to stand for people saying that the people that come to my rallies are anything but the most dedicated, patriotic men and women that are in this nation and they’re great citizens.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Colin Powell is upset enough with McCain’s campaign to reprimand him in a press release.

The next thing McCain will do is insist on election fraud by ACORN. McCain will tell his lies and then it becomes our job to disprove it. Visit the ACORN website. Might as well get versed up in it ahead of time.

To my fellow people on this Earth who believe in McCain:

Our founding fathers gave us a Bill of Rights that has undermined our freedom

You refuse to watch the films, you refuse to question the stuff that is thrown at you.  We knew that Bush would not kill Osama, he is best friends with the Bin Laden family (see Farenheit 9/11).  He flew the Bin Laden family out of the U.S. directly after 9/11.  We, liberals, freethinkers, decent and creative people, were right. We were right about a lot of stuff: the war, Bush, torture, oil, violations to the constitution, our rights to free speech, and our rights to privacy. When we told you about it, you bullied us to get us to shut up. You are a long way from admitting that you were being bullies, just as you are a long way from admitting that fear lay beneath that. But know that it was all cleverly controlled. Being a bully is a way you were shown (by Fox News icon Bill O’Reilly and others) that gives you a sense of power when in reality you felt powerless. Now you need to WAKE UP. See the beautiful things around you that you have the power to destroy as you sleep.

You have been controlled through images of fear and terror. You react to it by hating and bullying and believing bullshit. Having to be “right” is a very low form of emotion for Democrats and Republicans alike. It’s barely above apathy. This is not the future we want for our United States. We are all in this together. Come back to us in this uphill battle to regain our freedoms and our prosperity and our health.

We miss you and miss America. We miss decency and fun. This is our most important choice.

Click here for a CNN transcript of the third debate.

The following video is the full 90-minute 3rd presidential debate.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I thought she’d somehow pull off the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. Soon I’ll need to embrace the other democratic candidate but today I’m just disappointed that Senator Clinton does not have enough delegates.

The USA has had 43 presidents and it goes without saying that zero were female.

Americans lament that Muslim-majority countries and others treat women badly – which is true. However, my 16-year-old daughter is amazed when I tell her that I remember my maternal grandmother wore ONLY dresses. Pants were for men. I’m 47 years old and my Grandmother Robinson could not vote when she turned 18 because women were not allowed to vote. Women have only been able to vote here is the USA since 1920! This is not ancient history; instead it is people I knew personally.

I know that we’ve never had a African-American President either but statistically speaking HE represents less than 15% of the US population and SHE represents over 50% of us. How much longer will we have to wait for another viable female presidential candidate in the US?

In the two weeks leading up to this event, I found myself bombarded with emails, resumes, political bio’s, as well as campaign novelties from potential candidates supporting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They were trying to get myself and the other 141 delegates from across the district to select them to serve as a delegates for the state of Tennessee at the National Democratic Convention which will be held later this year in Denver Colorado.

I personally support Barack Obama. However, this did not stop delegates and supporters of Hillary Clinton from attempting to get me to lobby on her behalf. Whew! For a little while the action was like my being in the middle of the New York stock exchange. However, when I got the hang of it, I found the rules to be quite simple.

Because Senator Clinton had won the state of Tennessee she was allowed 3 delegates and those selected were: Barbara Brown from Montgomery County; Randall Rice from Hardeman County; Paul Simpson from McNairy County; and 1 alternate Andrieene Pakis-Gillon from Shelby County.

Senator Barack Obama was allowed two delegates a male and a female. The lucky winners were Maggie Faill from Williamson County, and Keith Norman from Shelby County (at left).

Local attorney Muriel Bullock Neal was selected to serve on the rules committees for both the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton caucuses and delegate elections.

There were Congressional District Democratic Conventions taking place simultaneously across the state of Tennessee, each adopted and agreed to abide by the following representation goals set forth by the Tennessee Democratic Party with approval of the Democratic National Committee. Out of the 85 member Tennessee delegation to the national convention they wanted to have representated 24 African Americans, 3 Hispanics or other ethnic minorities, 2 GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgender), and 9 younger Democrats (35 or younger).

With over 20 delegates and non voting guests, the Montgomery County Democratic Party was well represented at the 7th Congressional District Convention. It was a great learning experience and it reaffirmed my beliefs that if most Americans would just take a little time to attend these events they would understand the political process a lot better and fully understand that their vote really does count!

On the Democratic side: Hillary Clinton took Tennessee with 54% of the vote, followed by Barack Obama with 41%. Even though he had already dropped out, John Edwards still took 4%.

On the Republican side: Mike Huckabee won with 34% of the vote, followed by John McCain with 32%. Mitt Romney garnered 24%, and Ron Paul, who has a vocal group of local followers, took 6%.

Choices like do you get the prescriptions you need to have a decent quality of life, or do you eat? Do you get regular medical checkups, or do you because you can’t afford the price of a doctor’s visit skip them until a health condition forces you to the doctor, often after it’s too late to treat the condition? Do you look after your dental health, or do you have to let your teeth basically rot in your mouth?

I have personally been forced to make some of these choices, and I have friends and relatives who have been forced to as well. Choices no American should ever have to face.

Lets be realistic. The problem with health care in America is the private for-profit companies currently running it. In order to fix our broken system, we must take the profit motive out of it.

Private companies are required by law to return the largest possible profits to the shareholders of the company. There is no requirement that a company look after the public good, or to act in a moral manner. In order to get positive recommendations from financial analysts, they must increase the profits dramatically from previous years, every year.

We see a quick example of this with petroleum companies, as year after year they post increasingly large record profits — every dime of which was taken from our already strained pocketbooks.

There are several ways for a company to do this: they can improve delivery of services they offer, they can find cheaper suppliers, or they can raise the rates charged for their services. Since raising the rates they charge is the simplest way to accomplish their goal, this is what most commonly happens, and prices increase every year.

Let’s not even get into the complex issues of overly generous executive compensation, huge bonuses, and murder by spreadsheet (denying legitimate medical care to the insured).

So it’s easy to see why I have a major issue when I see candidates such as Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton advocating forcing people to buy health insurance from private insurers.

Here’s one example from the Associated Press via Yahoo.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC’s “This Week,” she said: “I think there are a number of mechanisms” that are possible, including “going after people’s wages, automatic enrollment.”

Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. With her proposals for subsidies, she said, “it will be affordable for everyone.”

In the 1990s Hillary Clinton while pushing her national health plan stated, that her plan would cost the “average family of four” who makes $ 24,000 a year ONLY $4,000. Of course this would cost much more today.

So lets take a look at the the budget for someone getting paid weekly, and making a total of $24,000 a year, and with no state income tax.

$24,000 divided by 52 weeks comes out to $461.53 a week. Using a tax calculator and 3 exemptions we come up with the following amounts for withholdings.

$10.58 federal income tax
$28.61 FICA
$6.69 Medicare
————————-
$45.88 Total

That leaves $415.65 a week after taxes, or $1662.60 per month.

In our city three bedroom homes go for between $550 and $1,100 a month. Lets take $600 as an average rent. That leaves $1062.60.

In this day and age we must have electricity; $100 a month by time heating, cooling, and laundry and heating the water for baths is reasonable. We are down to $962.60.

Lets figure $50 for our gas and water bill, $912.60.

Telephone service will likely run us $30. This bring us to a total of $882.60.

Now we have to feed our family and ourselves, so lets low ball that at $350 a month. We now have $532.60.

Gotta get to work, take the kids to school, band practice, football practice and such so we need a car. $200 a month for a car payment is reasonable. We are now down to $332.60.

Car Insurance $70 (mandatory insurance for everyone really lowered the cost of that, didn’t it). We are now down to $262.60.

Gotta fuel the beast, and with gas prices constantly going up, we will likely spend at least $35 per week or $140 per month. Ouch! Only $122.60 left.

Gotta have some kind of entertainment, news source, and educational resource for the kids, so we should figure on TV service and Internet access. Most people currently get it from their cable company. Lets say $70 for expanded basic and broadband Internet service. This leaves us with $52.60.

Last but not least, if you are living this close to paycheck to paycheck, you can bet that you have a credit card for emergency use only. Lets say it has a $25 minimum payment so we end up with $27.60.

I didn’t figure on clothing, school supplies, medical and dental care, insurance copays, going out to eat or a movie now and then. Basically the stuff that makes life worth living.

Now lets take a look at 1990’s Hillary’s $4,000 a year for health insurance. That works out to $307.69 a month. I am forced to ask, where exactly is it supposed to come from!

Hillary has never in her life had to worry about an amount so small and so she doesn’t really understand the magnitude that taking three hundred additional dollars a month out of already strained budgets really is to low income people. So of course she wants to make it mandatory!

Let me make this clear, I personally WILL NOT vote for any candidate Republican or Democrat who intends to force people to pay a for-profit private insurance company for their insurance coverage. We have seen how well that has worked in Tennessee with car insurance.

Mandatory insurance, either health or auto, lets the insurance companies gouge everyone. They know that with mandatory insurance that you realistically have no place to go. Yes, they might lose your business to another company, but they will likely gain just as many back with the dissatisfied people coming to them from other companies.

If you really want to know how screwed up America’s for-profit health insurance system is; go rent a copy of Michael Moore’s Sicko from your local video store: you will be shocked!

Click here to view the embedded video.

There is only one real solution for fixing our health care system and that is national single payer health care.

Yes, it took LBJ’s arm-twisting political talents to get the Civil Rights Act passed. Yes, it also took MLK’s tireless, dedicated leadership and oratorical skills to focus the nation’s attention on the heinous injustice of segregation.

That being said, Hillary and the other pundits and political operatives, have missed the point.

Here in America, we love the Great Man (and the occasional Great Woman.) Because of our persistent belief in individualism, we think that it is the Great Ones who make history. This belief keeps people stuck in the status quo, complacent, cynical, and inactive. It keeps them stuck in what Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun calls surplus powerlessness: people think they have less power than they actually do have. They think they can’t make history because they aren’t “great.”

Actually, people are great. They are the real movers and shakers.

The successful battle for civil rights was really fought by the people themselves, who organized, took to the streets and churches, taught themselves how to read at late age so they could pass Voter’s Tests, endured water hoses, bully clubs, taunts, arrest and jail. It was the Nashville sit-ins, the Freedom Riders, and finally, the police induced attacks on the Pettus Bridge in Selma that was the nail in the coffin of the old order. It was the dedication, vision and persistence of these courageous people that forced Americans to open up their hearts and come down on the side of justice.

Rosa Parks was a brave woman, but Rosa Parks did not just decide to go to the back of the bus on her own. She attended the Highlander School in East Tennessee where she was trained in the tactics of non-violence. She was part of an active civil rights community.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great leader who inspired and moved people to action and who helped the American people connect with their higher angels. But he derived his power from the 200,000 people who joined him at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC on August 28, 1963 where he made his historic I Have A Dream speech. If he had shown up with just a few hundred people on that day, it is unlikely that LBJ would have invited him to the White House to broker the deal that finally resulted in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Photos from the 1963 March on Washington

Unfortunately, this means Tennesseans often have to rely on news media sound bytes to obtain information about the candidates. However, since news media are businesses and therefore have as their proper goal the making of money, this often leaves viewers with precious little information about how the candidates would actually go about running the county and a disturbing amount about their private lives.

Let’s be honest, does it really matter than Barrack Obama has an Islamic heritage, that Hillary didn’t leave Bill, that Mitt Romney is Mormon or that John McCain allows his adult children to live their own lives?

With this in mind, the author has put together a series of articles about how the candidates stand on some of the hottest issues of today, from abortion to the Iraq war. With that in mind, there are a few necessary disclaimers. First, the author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to OnTheIssues for doing most of the leg work for these articles. Despite their sometimes apparent bias, their repository includes sources for its statements that allowed for easy backtracking to the original source to produce the truth. Secondly, the author wishes to note that the opinions and interpretations of the candidates and their stances on the issues are his own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Clarksville Online, its publisher, or any other member of its staff. Further, the author realizes that he has not included analysis on every possible candidate and at no point intends to do so.

An issue that has become recurring throughout recent political cycles has been that of abortion, with people holding positions from outright bans in all circumstances to completely unregulated abortion. Most politicians do not hold such extreme positions as a matter of political necessity, but there is a wide range in positions among the candidates in this election cycle. Generally Democrats are painted as supporting abortion while Republicans are stereotyped as being staunchly anti-abortion. However, the truth is that these labels are not entirely correct in the current field.

Barrack Obama surprised many with his victory in the Iowa caucuses. How does he feel about abortion, though? Obama believes very strongly in the woman’s right to choose. As the junior senator from Illinois, Obama voted against the partial birth abortion ban. Senator Obama also voted against the bill that would require parental notification for minors seeking abortions outside their home state. Obama advocates age appropriate sex education that includes information about family planning and contraceptive use. Senator Obama says he believes that women should be trusted to make their own decisions regarding abortion, but he also says that he extends the presumption of good faith to abortion protestors. Overall then, Barrack Obama has a very permissive attitude towards abortion in line with the hardcore liberal stance.

Hillary Clinton was the front-runner up until the first primary but had a very disappointing finish there. Mrs. Clinton has a somewhat more centrist view of abortion than Senator Obama that has changed somewhat over the years. Clinton’s failed 1993 national health care plan included the legality and widespread availability of RU-486 and traditional abortion procedures. She has also labored strongly to have the Contraceptive Plan B (the so-called “Morning After Pill”) placed on the market.

Clinton, however, has some consistency problems. Senator Clinton indicates that she supports the banning of late term abortion, but she voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that included provisions for the life of the mother. Clinton also claims to support parental notification for minors seeking abortion, but she voted against that bill too. The Senator did, however, vote for a bill that would fund sex education including information on family planning. Clinton says she believes abortion should be safe, legal and rare. She supports the Cairo document, which claims abortion is a right but not a tool for family planning. Overall, Senator Clinton’s words would suggest someone with a more populist view of abortion supporting reasonable restrictions. However, her voting record is somewhat at odds with this and suggests that in practice she adheres more closely to the liberal line.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee kicks off the Republican side of the issue. Huckabee staunchly opposes abortion in any form. He says that states rights do not exist for moral issues such as abortion. The Governor says that he would ban all abortion if able and that no consensus with pro-choice advocates is possible as he believes that they want a fundamentally different world from pro-life advocates. Huckabee was part of the leadership that led Arkansas to passing a Human Life amendment to the state constitution expressly stating that life begins at conception.

Huckabee believes that it will be a good day for America when (not if) Roe v. Wade is overturned and until then, he has stated there should be no tax dollars for organizations that fund abortion. Governor Huckabee is also a staunch supporter of Woman’s Right to Know legislation. Governor Huckabee has criticized other Republicans for their stances claiming that hating but allowing abortion, stating that it’s like saying “I hate slavery, but people can go ahead and practice it.” Overall, Governor Huckabee is very consistently against abortion, in all circumstances. Mr. Huckabee takes the hardcore conservative line on abortion.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani takes a more populist view on abortion. Giuliani has stated that he would not sign a Federal ban on abortions. He believes that the government should not be involved and that the ultimate choice should be made by a woman and her health care providers. However, the former Mayor does support the Partial Birth Abortion Ban despite opposing parental notification requirements.

Mr. Giuliani, as Mayor, supported adoption and other alternatives to abortion in an effort to decrease the abortion rate by providing other suitable alternatives to having an abortion. As President, he says he would leave individual states to decide whether or not to fund abortion. He claims he would appoint constructionist judges, but that there would be no litmus test for any nominee he put forward. Overall, Giuliani takes the stand that abortion should remain legal, but that it can be reasonably regulated. His stance fits well with the populist line, although his stance on parental notification bucks that trend.

Senator McCain is the moderate conservative on abortion. Senator McCain said he was concerned about women undergoing dangerous and illegal procedures if the culture and views surrounding abortion were not changed before it was outlawed. Senator McCain believes that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape, incest or medical necessity as determined by a medical professional, and that the benefit of the doubt should be extended to a person claiming rape or incestuous pregnancy. Senator McCain claims that he wishes for Americans to work together to make Roe v. Wade and abortions irrelevant.

Senator McCain’s voting record supports this philosophy for the most part. McCain voted to strip tax money from organizations that support or perform abortions. Senator McCain also voted in favor of the Parental Notification bill and in favor of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. He also voted yes on attaching a criminal penalty to harming an unborn fetus while committing a crime. Despite his claim of supporting alternative to abortion and seeking to make it irrelevant, however, Senator McCain did vote against funding for sex education that includes information on other family planning options as well as contraceptives. Overall Senator McCain has a mdoerate conservative view of abortion, which is fundamentally a view against abortion.

Other candidates generally fall into camp with one of those positions. John Edwards toes the Obama Clinton line. Mitt Romney professes to being roughly in line with Huckabee, although his sincerity on that point could be legitimately questioned given his pro-choice stance as Governor. Fred Thompson is very similar to Senator McCain in his views of abortion, although he opposed the parental notification bill and does include a litmus test for judges. Representative Ron Paul is the odd-man out for both parties, in keeping with his more libertarian mindset and his voting record could reasonably place him on both sides of the fence. However, Ron Paul appears to consistently take decisions that remove the Government from the realm of sex in general, including abortion, at any point in any fashion (he voted against both abstinence only AND comprehesive sex ed, for example) although he did support the partial birth abortion ban.

From my cozy corner in a computer lab, far from radio and completely without television’s frenetic coverage, I watched the Iowa caucus results unfold on the web: a few surprises, a lot of predictability. Today I keep checking in on the New Hampshire vote.

One of the more interesting quirks in snow-bound New England is the midnight in two of New Hampshire’s smallest communities, Dixville Notch and Hart’s Location.

Notch voters turned up at the midnight hour to toss seven votes to Barrack Obama, three for Hillary Clinton and one for John Edwards. On the Republican side, Dixville gave John McCain six votes, Romney two and Rudy Giulliani one.

Hart’s Location voters put nine votes on Obama’s tally sheet, three for Clinton and one for Edwards. As for the Republicans in Hart’s location, John McCarn took six votes over Mike Huckabee’s five, with Ron Paul taking 4 and Mitt Romney matching Edward’s single vote. Reportedly, voters are turning out in significant numbers, and a spate of winter thaw and 50 degree temperatures won’t hurt that turnout one bit.

We will be watching as the vote unfolds in the Granite State, though the BBC reported today that a poor showing in New Hampshire may see Clinton pulling out of the race. I’m not sure she’ll cave that easily, but she will have to rethink her strategy. McCain wasn’t a factor in Iowa but a strong push from voters in his favor could have the same effect on the future campaigns of candidates like Romney and Huckabee.

As for the election so far, there’s been little question in my mind that Republican Mike Huckabee’s bid for the state of Iowa was a given; his “cross” ad, his bible-based political views and staunch conservative positions would serve that Midwest Christian base well. Mitt Romney, well, Romney didn’t have a prayer. Not that he’s out of the running. There’s still the rest of the country, and that’s where Huckabee may not play as well.

Giulliani continues to work other key primary states but lags behind in most polls. Fred Thompson’s flagging war chest is placing limits on his visibility and viability.

Barrack Obama’s strong Democratic showing over the Hillary Clinton (3rd in Iowa) and John Edwards (2nd in Iowa) challenge was a bit of surprise; I thought Obama would do well, and he certainly did, but he took even my expectations a bit further. Interesting surprise, and one which — in this conservative Midwestern state — puts the focus on one key word: “Change!”

Obama’s hefty margin has forced his competitors to rethink strategy and intensify their campaigning as they carry this contest to New Hampshire. Hilary Clinton’s base of over-60 women couldn’t compete with Obama’s energized 25-59 age bracket appeal. With Clinton now a lagging third in this trio, the battle for the Democratic nomination hurls forward.

Romney’s not out of the game; McCain’s the new NH player

Romney (right) has a much better shot at good numbers in New Hampshire, but John McCain has been making strong inroads there. At 71, McCain admits he might be a one-term President and that could be a concern to the political powers-that-be of his party, but New Hampshire voters seem to like him. Romney’s riding on issues such as the state-mandated health insurance program he implemented in Massachusetts, a program for which the success quotient has not yet been tabulated.

As a sideline to that issue, my conversations with Massachusetts residents while On the Road in America suggest that for “Joe average,” the cost of the mandatory Massachusetts premiums is a burden, and the cost and bureaucracy of enforcing non-compliance will become increasingly challenging. One health care “consumer” I spoke with said the $300 a month premium on his “second from the lowest” medical plan is eating a hole in his monthly income, and with a higher deductible and larger co-pays on top of soaring energy and fuel costs, he’s hoping that even with insurance, he doesn’t get sick. He’s not planning on wellness care either.

While the religious base seems to be anchoring point for the Huckabee in Middle America, it may play less well in the less Christian-centric and more open-minded New Hampshire. Tennessee’s own Fred Thompson is not even campaigning there.

Though shunted aside in the bulk of media coverage (perhaps he’s too normal and too non-controversial for modern media’s papparazzi-like coverage), Edwards may be the steadiest and most consistent of the candidates: not at the top, but not at the bottom, simply accruing a steady base and a slow surge of support. He lacks the controversy of Clinton and the flash and rhetoric of Obama, but he plots a steady and fairly unwavering course that may ultimately be the winner in the race for the Democratic nomination. The consistency may be the stability factor American Democrats are looking for.

It’s still a horse race. On both sides. I’ll be keeping an eye on New Hampshire on Tuesday night.

No kidding. It’s obvious that whoever is elected to succeed Bush is being handed a mess, a quagmire that some members of the administration say could require U.S. presence in Iraq for ten years or more. It’s not an idea drawing popular support.

~~ 5,700 troops home for Christmas ~~

In his speech to the nation tonight, President Bush said he will continue to stay the course without actually saying the words “stay the course.” Despite the fact that he has pledged to return 5,700 troops stateside by Christmas, that still leaves approximately 155,000 troops in Iraq, including 25,000 of the “surge” troops. These troops were already scheduled to return home. The only difference is that they will not be replaced. Do the math.

Augmenting troops by 30,000 may have made a difference in some areas, but the country remains a powder keg with matches allegedly being put the fuse by neighboring countries Iran and Syria. On Monday and Tuesday, before Congressional hearings, General David Petraeus said he wanted to bring home 30,000 troops by July of next year. That’s still just the “surge troops,” not a meaningful decrease in the base number of 130,000.

Bush had slightly different numbers on the table: he expected to bring 23,000 troops home by next summer, leaving 137,000 still in Iraq, 7,000 more than before the “surge.”

“The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is ‘return on success’. The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home…I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.” – President Bush

With presidential popularity at a meager 36%, not much different from the January ‘07 numbers, Bush cited successes in Iraq as the reason these troops can come home. But is it enough, even “for now?” What about 2008?

Addressing a public increasingly disenchanted with the war and questioning its cost in dollars and dying, Bush said Iraq “is fighting for its survival,” and noted that the “surge” of US troops has quelled violence by 50% in Iraq and 80% in Baghdad. The “surge” is the 30,000 additional troops the President last January said were required to make a difference in the level of sectarian violence across the country. Bush said:

“In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home.”

Bush cited Iraqi gains in job creation and recruitment of Iraqi for police and military forces, but had to concede that the Iraqi government has fallen substantially short of its goals. Bush Continued:

“Americans want our country to be safe, and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe that success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can seeing our troops come home.”

Bush said he has made it clear to Iraq’s leaders that they must step up to the plate and meet the highly-touted legislative benchmarks.

“The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is “return on success”. The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

In responding to the Presidential address, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said:

“You can’t continue to feed troops into Iraq, break our Army, break our Marines, undermine our influence in the Middle East, and especially in Iraq, and think that you are somehow going to come out at the other end with a so-called victory.”

Armed Services Committee member Jack Reed, Democrat, responded by saying the President failed to provide a plan for successfully ending the war and “failed to provide a rationale” for continuing it.

On Tuesday, Gen. Petraeus told Senators on Capitol Hill that if the situation in Iraq did not see significant improvement, particularly in terms of the Iraqi government taking control, he would be hard pressed to see victory in Iraq and would have to review whether or not it would be advisable or justifiable to continue. Even as he went down that path, those supporting the ongoing effort in Iraq were prodding for possible tie-ins to Iranian backing of the Iraq insurgency, feeding into the growing suspicion that Iran could be the next target of the Bush administration, with weapons as the justification.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Senator and presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton said the President’s announcement of the return of 5,700 troops to the U.S. within three months is “too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress.”

Earlier today, Ohio Senator Barack Obama, another presidential candidate, announced his own strategic plan to return all troops from Iraq by Spring, 2008.

The President’s speech was his eighth prime time address since the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

When Democrats from five Tennessee counties gather at the Charles Hand farm, Ben Johnson is sure to be there with his campaign buttons, lapel pins, and bumper stickers. Johnson, who lives in Lebanon, Tennessee, was quick to point out that he makes his wares “for democrats only,” and will use only Union vendors to print his products.

In fact, the theme of the day was a strong support of Unions throughout the area. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), which represents Trane workers locally, was a major sponsor of today’s event.  The strong Union presence was in honor of the Labor Day event.

According to the Department of Labor, Labor Day was first celebrated in New York City on Tuesday, September 5, 1882. By 1894, the US Congress had passed its recognition of Labor Day as a national holiday to be celebrated on the first Monday of September of every year.

The Ballistic Pintos of Old Hickory, TN performs at the Charles Hand Farm. Photo by David W. Shelton

The strong Union presence was matched by a sincere excitement of area Democrats who had a single mission in mind for next November’s election, as voiced by Kim McMillan, senior advisor to Governor Phil Bredesen: “Tennessee is and will be a blue state.” This was a message that was voiced by nearly everyone who spoke at the event.

Speakers were quick to point out that their mission wasn’t to put an end to the Bush regime, but rather send home those who they say “empowered” him. One target is the US Senate seat currently occupied by former governor Lamar Alexander. McMillan introduced Mike McWhorter, the son of another former governor—Ned McWhorter—as a possible candidate. His mission, McMillan said, would be to “send Lamar and that plaid shirt back home.”

McWhorter has not officially announced his candidacy, but said that he was seriously considering the option. He pointed out several issues that he would address, including the war in Iraq, which came up often throughout the night. Republican policies in Iraq, he said, “are wrong.” He also said that the current administration is “mortgaging our country’s future” with an “out-of-control” national debt.

Tennessee’s Democratic party president Gray Sasser addressed a general excitement for the future for the party in the state, and said that the party’s primary goal is “to make darn sure that no red pickup truck will ever get anywhere near the White House next November.” The reference was to the popular “red pickup truck” senatorial campaign led by former Republican US Senator Fred Thompson, who announced his candidacy for the Presidency this week.

Other speakers for the event were 5th District Congressman Jim Cooper, TN AFL/CIO president Jerry Lee, and the keynote address was provided by the R. Thomas Buffenbarger, International President of the IAM union. Buffenbarger has served as president of that union since 1997.

The day wasn’t all speeches and rhetoric, though. Music was provided by the Ballistic Pintos, a country group out of Old Hickory, Tennessee. The group featured drummer Richie Albright who often played with Waylon Jennings, and vocals by Bobby Keel.

State Senator Rosalind Kurita talks with attendees at the Labor Day Celebration. Photo by David W. Shelton

There was a dart competition between unions, for which a trophy was awarded to the United Auto Workers, who apparently “played only slightly less badly that everyone else.”

Attendees had an opportunity to vote for their nominee for the President of the United States of America. In an informal (and unofficial) straw poll, Hillary Clinton was the clear favorite, with John Edwards coming in second.

The day wasn’t without its lighter moments, which featured “the world’s smallest horse,” as described by his owner, local attorney Kevin Kennedy. He said that the miniature dwarf horse, “Twinkie the Wonder Horse,” is only 46 pounds and 16 1/2” tall. The equine miniature was a star attraction, drawing children from all over to pet a horse that was far smaller than they were.

Clarksville electrician Bill Edmonson provided democratic spirit by donning a donkey mask, which he kept on throughout the speeches. Edmonson offered plenty of applause and “thumbs ups” for the speakers.

Citizens have until 5:00 PM Tuesday, July 24th, to fax / email their testimony to the Senate Rules Committee on S1487, Senator Diane Feinstein’s weak election reform bill, which threatens to eliminate the ban on paperless electronic voting contained in Rep Rush Holt’s bill, HR 811. Georgia election officials oppose HR 811 because it threatens our system of paperless electronic voting in Georgia; Defenders of Democracy supports HR 811 for the same reason. Take These Actions NOW

1. Submit your public testimony to Senator Feinstein for the Wednesday, July 25th, Rules and Administration Committee Hearing on S 1487. Testimony MUST be received by Tuesday 5PM and it will be included in official record. Send email to: .gov or fax to: Sue Wright 202 224 5400. State BEFORE your comments that you are providing testimony or comments for submission into the record of S1487 hearings. Include your name, organization, address, and other pertinent contact information, and be sure that it is submitted by 5 p.m. Eastern time Tuesday. Please include this list of recommendations for amendments to S1487.

Remember that the MOST CRUCIAL thing for 2008 will be the independent audits – sufficient manual counts of voter verifiable paper ballot records. Items 6-14 will be crucial in providing secure, fair, and auditable elections procedures now completely unavailable in Georgia, though items one through six are necessary as well. Email and fax these recommendations to the Rules Committee Members and to your own Senators:

http://electionmathematics.org/em-legislation/S1487Amendments.pdf

2. Contact Senator Feinstein’s office now regarding the shortage of credible participants with the appropriate expertise in math and computers science testifying in the hearing panels. Senator Feinstein’s number is 202/224-3841. The above information is a short list of a detailed set of actions items suggested to amend the bill with meaningful standards. The complete action list, together with a list of Senators and their live contact links can be found at: http://www.defendersofdemocracy.com/drupal/node/188 as well as below. Contact information for key Senators, including Georgia’s Saxby Chambliss, who is on the rules committee, are included.

Action Alert: Please Act Now to Save Our Democracy! What is Happening in the US Senate?

Wednesday July 25th S1487 Senate Hearing – Tuesday Deadline to Submit Testimony The National Election Data Archive is sending out this first in a two-part alert, to let people know that election reform is endangered in both the US House and US Senate; and to ask everyone to make a small effort this week and next week to achieve integrity in the 2008 election. According to The New York Times, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and the chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, said she has decided against seeking any major changes in voting equipment before 2010.

“My sense is there’s no way to get this thing in place by the election of 2008,” Ms. Feinstein said. “Without adequate time, we could cause real problems in the election.”

On July 25th, 2007, at 10:00 AM, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration will hold hearings on S. 1487, the Ballot Integrity Act.

The Senate Rules Committee hearing scheduled for July 25 has a very unbalanced list of participants. The list is heavily weighted with unapologetic opponents of voter verified paper ballots. They selected Michael Shamos to give testimony while ignoring more respected experts in computer science and mathematics. Shamos is noted for saying, “…I believe I and the republic will survive if a president is elected who was not entitled to the office.”

The Senate hearings fail to include any recognized experts who support a tangible record of the vote. For the hearing to have any balance at all, recognized electronic voting experts should be included. Creditable voting system experts who should be included in this panel: Dr. David Dill of Stanford, the founder of the Verified Voting Foundation and VerifiedVoting.org, and Dr Barbara Simons, former President of the Association for Computing Machinery, the world’s largest association of computing professionals.

Wednesday witnesses for Senate Hearing

The hearing will consist of 2 panels, with the following witnesses testifying:

Panel 1:

• The Honorable Deborah L. Markowitz, Vermont Secretary of State, Montpelier, VT (Representing National Association of Secretaries of State)
• Mr. George N. Gilbert, Director, Guilford County Board of Elections, Greensboro, NC
• Ms. Wendy Noren, Boone County Clerk, Columbia, MO
• (Representing National Association of Counties)
• Dr. Michael I. Shamos, Professor, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
• Mr. Ray Martinez, Policy Adviser, The Pew Center on the States, Former Member, Election Assistance Commission, Austin, TX

Panel 2:

• Ms. Mary Wilson, President, League of Women Voters, Washington, DC
• Mr. Doug Lewis, Executive Director, The Election Center, Houston, TX
• Ms. Tanya Clay House, Director of Public Policy, People for the American Way, Washington, DC

Talking Points

According to the NY Times, Congress is considering postponing the replacement of any existing flawed DRE equipment (even paperless DREs) until 2012 which means that no manual counts of Voter verifiable paper ballots can be required to check machine counts until 2012.

The MOST CRUCIAL thing for 2008 is to require independent audits – manual counts of voter verifiable paper ballot records. Without 2008 deadlines for replacing paperless DREs and requiring valid manual audits, New Mexico would be the only state which conducts independent manual checks of unofficial machine outcomes in 2008. A few other states, like California and North Carolina, would conduct some publicly held hand counts to check the accuracy of their machine vote counts. A few other states conduct election audits after the outcomes are certified or conduct internal sham audits which do not verify the accuracy of the unofficial tallies.

Moving all HR811’s deadlines to 2012 would leave us wide-open to vote fraud and miscount switching who wins office in 2008. Software disclosure is complex and takes many years to accomplish in any meaningful way and could be properly addressed in federal legislation in 2009 and beyond if election results in 2008 are accurate.

DRE voting machines

1. Are more expensive to use than opti-scan machines. Some the DRE paper-printers come at a price tag of some $2000 apiece. DREs w/ printers cost much more than paper ballot opscan systems. The costs for adding cash-register receipts to current DRE voting systems exceeds the costs of replacing DRE voting systems with opti-scan paper ballot voting systems within 4 years.
2. Do not provide accessibility for as many disabled voters as ballot marking devices like the AutoMARK,
3. Do not provide the ability to verify the accuracy of paper ballot records for disabled voters
4. Create longer lines
5. Violate all voters’ privacy by storing ballot records in sequential order, the same order as voters enter each polling booth. It particularly violates the privacy of voters with disabilities who must all vote on the same DRE machine outfitted for voters with disabilities and have all their ballots stored on the same DRE paper roll.
6. Subject voters to Denial of Service attacks
7. Make elections vulnerable to touch-screen calibration and touch-screen delay problems which switch votes to the wrong candidates
8. Can be used by hackers to subvert election audits
9. Make elections vulnerable to electronic failures, power outages, and hacking
10. Have been shown in every independent audit so far to inaccurately record votes
11. Paper-roll ballot records fail to accurately record votes according to recent tests in New Jersey, “Tests Find Flaws in Printer Performance, Could Jeopardize Election Accuracy”. “If a mechanical error or malfunction occurs (such as a paper jam, running out of paper, paper torn in half, or paper inserted improperly), the DRE displays an error message on the screen to the voter, but no warning signals are sent to notify the election officials at the polling place. The DRE does not suspend voting operations. The voter has the opportunity to continue voting and cast the vote but the paper record is not printed. The vote is, however, electronically recorded…. “print-and-disappear-from-view” feature. E-voting systems can print erroneous paper records to match erroneous electronic records, despite every effort of voters to ensure that it does not. Here is how it works in practice on New Jersey: When you are just about ready to cast your vote after marking your choices on the electronic voting machine, the system prints a voter-verifiable paper record — so that you can review it, and affirm that your choices were accurately recorded. If you felt it was incorrect, you can “cancel” that record and go back to any of the contests on the ballot using the electronic machine, and re-select. Ready again to cast your ballot? Checking the paper record, you see it still doesn’t reflect what you want. You cancel a second time. Now you’re on your last try, so you mark your choices carefully. You’re ready to cast, but the voter-verified paper record prints — and then quickly drops into the locked receptacle, too quickly for you to have the opportunity to review it.” https://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6488
12. Are susceptible to malicious undetectable subversion of elections in ways even audits cannot detect, and 12. inaccurately record votes as shown in every independent election audit so far Just why do our election officials want us to pay for a computer for doing what takes able-bodied voters 10 minutes perhaps once/year. Not requiring paper ballots because some voters have disabilities that prevent them from seeing and verifying paper ballots, would be like banning fire hydrants because fire hydrants are not accessible for persons with disabilities. We need YOU to ACT NOW to ask that there are 2008 deadlines for replacing paperless DRE voting machines and for requiring independent manual audits.

Talking Points

Elections must:

• Be publicly verifiably accurate, and
• Allow all legally registered voters a convenient opportunity to vote

We need election reform that requires:

1. Pre-printed paper ballots and paper sign-in systems for all voters at polling locations in case of electronic failures
2. Independent manual counts of voter-verified paper ballots sufficiently to ensure correct machine counts of election outcomes
3. Public scrutiny of ballot security procedures
4. Public access to election records necessary to verify the integrity of independent manual counts

It is JULY 2007. The November 2008 election is 16 months away. It takes from 6 months to one year to replace voting systems. Almost every jurisdiction already uses opti-scan paper ballots for mail-in absentee ballot and overseas voting, so training requirements would be minimal. (1) there is enough time and (2) there is enough equipment.

Take These Actions NOW

1. Submit your public testimony to Senator Feinstein for the Wednesday, July 25 Rules and Administration Committee Hearing on S 1487 – MUST be received by Tuesday 5PM and it will be included in official record -

fax Sue Wright 202 224 5400 or send email to: .gov

stating before your comments this is for the record and including your name, organization, address, and other pertinent contact information, and that it should be submitted by 5 p.m. Eastern time Tuesday.

Indicate that you are providing testimony or comments for submission into the record of S1487 hearings.

Please include this list of recommendations for amendments to S1487. These are ordered from the most widely supported election reform measures beginning on page one. So simply print and fax as many pages as you agree with, to the Rules Committee Members and to your own Senators: http://electionmathematics.org/em-legislation/S1487Amendments.pdf

and these arguments against some of S1487’s current provisions: http://electionmathematics.org/em-legislation/BallotIntegrityActAnalysis.pdf

2. Contact Senator Feinstein’s office now regarding the shortage of credible participants with the appropriate expertise in math and computers science testifying in the hearing panels. Senator Feinstein’s number is (202) 224-3841.

http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2007/072507hrg.htm

3. Attend the Hearing to receive testimony on S. 1487, the Ballot Integrity Act (Sen. Feinstein) if you can make it to Washington DC, 10 am EDT on Wednesday, July 25th 2007. Travel to Washington DC to speak with your
Senators and with the Senators on the Rules Committee.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. Hearing to receive testimony on S. 1487, the Ballot Integrity Act of 2007

http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2007/072507hrg.htm

http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/

“….Hearings are held in Room 301, Russell Senate Office Building (unless otherwise noted), 1st Street and Constitution Avenues, North East, Washington, DC 20510. Seating is available on a first come, first serve basis. Eastern Time Zone listed. Times and location are subject to change.

Map of Russell Senate Office Building surrounding area http://rules.senate.gov/exit.php?eurl=http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=1st+St+NE+%26+Constitution+Ave+NE,+Washington,+DC+20002&t=h&ll=38.891985,-t+St+NE+77.005899&spn=0.011958,0.027122&t=h

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=1st+St+NE+%26+Constitution+Ave+NE,+Washington,+DC+20002&t=h&ll=38.891985,-77.005899&spn=0.011958,0.027122&t=h

4. View Wednesday’s Hearing Live “TODAY’S http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/live.ram hearing. (available on July 25th at approximately 9:50 a.m. ET) ….”

If you want any shield against election fraud that could put the wrong persons in control of Congress and in the President’s office in 2009, now is the time to call your US Representative to support HR811 with 2008 deadlines for replacing all paperless DREs and conducting independent checks of election results;

5. Contact your Senators, the Bill Sponsors, and the Senate Rules committee members and tell them what you want or tell them that you want these amendments to S1487:

http://electionmathematics.org/em-legislation/S1487Amendments.pdf

Ask your US Senators now to require 2008 deadlines for replacing paperless DREs and implementing independent valid manual election audits are preserved in HR811 and that S1487 is amended to match HR811.

Call one of these free numbers and urge both your Senators to support meaningful election reform: 1 (800) 828 – 0498 or (800) 614-2803 or (866) 338-1015 or (877) 851-6437 for the Capitol Switchboard Operator Ask for your senator, for ex., Senator Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama, or Diane Feinstein, etc. Ask to speak to or leave a message for your Senators’ legislative staffers who handle election reform legislation issues; and please mail, email, or fax copies of “21 Suggested Amendments” to their legislative staffers who handle election reform legislation, hopefully after speaking with them. Tell the office staff that you are a constituent of the Congressperson – give them your name, address and phone number – then urge them to work for meaningful election reform in 2008.

If you are not sure who your senators are, go to http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

If you want to citizen control over U.S. elections and have honest, accurate elections – ACT NOW. If you do not act soon, it could be too late for the 2008 federal election, and perhaps for restoring our democracy and control of Congress in 2009 could revert to those who want to preserve paperless un-audited elections where insiders have utter freedom to undetectably tamper in the most states.

Please make this small effort to preserve our US democracy.

Thank you for this small effort on your part. They need to hear from all of us. Please call and write today, then send this email to all the people you know who care about democracy. Thanks again.

Whom to Contact

Contact the Co-sponsors

• Boxer, Barbara D-CA, http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.Home
• Brown, Sherrod, D-OH, http://brown.senate.gov/contact.cfm
• Clinton, Hillary Rodham D-NY, http://clinton.senate.gov/contact/
• Dodd, Christopher J. D-CT, http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130
• Inouye, Daniel K. D-HI, http://inouye.senate.gov/
• Kennedy, Edward M. D-MA, http://kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm
• Leahy, Patrick J. D-VT, http://leahy.senate.gov/
• Menendez, Robert D-NJ, http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
• Obama, Barack D-IL, http://obama.senate.gov/contact/
• Sanders, Bernard, I-VT, http://sanders.senate.gov/comments/

Contact the Senate Rules Committee Members

Committee members can make the recommended amendments while the S1487 is
being considered in committee

• Robert C. Byrd, D-WV, http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html
• Daniel K. Inouye, D-HI, 202-224-3934 or http://inouye.senate.gov/
• Christopher J. Dodd, D-CT, http://dodd.senate.gov/
• Charles E. Schumer, D-NY, http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/contact.html
• Richard J. Durbin, D-IL, http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm
• E. Benjamin Nelson, D-NE, http://bennelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
• Harry Reid, D-NV, http://reid.senate.gov/contact/
• Patty Murray, D-WA, http://murray.senate.gov/contact/
• Mark L. Pryor, D-AR, http://pryor.senate.gov/contact/
• Ted Stevens, R-AK, http://stevens.senate.gov/public/
• Mitch McConnell, R-KY, http://mcconnell.senate.gov/contact.cfm
• Thad Cochran, R-MS, http://cochran.senate.gov/contact.htm
• Trent Lott, R-MS, http://lott.senate.gov/public/
• Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-TX, http://hutchison.senate.gov/contact.html
• C. Saxby Chambliss, R- GA, http://chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm
• Chuck Hagel, R-NE, http://hagel.senate.gov/
• Lamar Alexander, R-TN, http://alexander.senate.gov/

More Information

• Shamos Rebuttal by the Open Voting Consortium
• The Ballot Integrity Act of 2007
• A reliable, verifiable vote in 2008, Governor Bill Richardson
• HR 811: Separating Truth from Fiction in E-voting Reform, Electronic Frontier Foundation, June 13, 2007
• The Campaign for Secure Elections (HR811), Lawrence Norden, June 13, 2007
• The “Ballot Integrity Act” Sponsor is Feinstein, Dianne, D-CA,
• S1487 Text
• National: Hearing to receive testimony on S. 1487, the Ballot Integrity Act by David Kibrick
• Costs Comparison for Maryland: The costs for adding cash-register receipts to current DRE voting systems exceeds the costs of replacing DRE voting systems with opti-scan paper ballot voting systems within 4 years. See: http://electionmathematics.org/em-voting-systems/cost-DRE-vs-OpScan/CumulativeCostscolor11_27_05.pdf
• Letter to Congress asking for publicly verifiably accurate election outcomes that is signed by over 200 citizens
• Experts who can provide details and answer questions regarding “Recommendations for Federal Legislation to Ensure the Integrity of our Democracy“
• Concept Proposal for Federal Election Reform
• Disability advocacy leaders co-signed this pro-paper statement on Voter Action.
• How Long Does it Take to Change a Voting System? By Verified Voting
• Accessibility Isn’t Only Hurdle in Voting System Overhaul By Christopher Drew, The New York Times Saturday 21 July 2007
• Overhaul Plan for Vote System Will Be Delayed By Christopher Drew The New York Times, Friday 20 July 2007
• Congress puts off fixing touch-screen voting, Salon.com blog by Farhad Manjoo
• ESI Audit Shows 10% of cash-register-receipt type ballot records compromised “The Coming Paper-Trail Debacle?” by Dan Seligson, electionline.org August 18th, 2006
• First U.S. Scientific Election Audit Reveals Voting System Flaws But Questions Remain Unanswered – Critique of the Collaborative Public Audit” of Cuyahoga County Ohio’s November 2006 Election. May 7, 2007 by Kathy Dopp
• New Jersey: Tests find flaws in printer performance, could jeopardize election accuracy by Pamela Smith, Verified Voting Foundation, July 22nd, 2007

KtJEywrgNKQ

The below quotes are attributed to Donald Rumsfeld by Think Progress

‘I Have Never Painted A Rosy Picture’ About Iraq – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

What he actually said:

Dec. 18, 2002: Lary King : What’s the current situation in Afghanistan? Donald Rumsfeld: It is encouraging. They have elected a government through the Loya Jirga process. The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.

Feb. 7, 2003: “It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

Feb. 20 2003: “‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,’ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.”

Mar. 30, 2003: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

What the General Abizaid, the Commander of the U.S. Central Command in Iraq is saying:

I believe that the sectarian violence is probably is as bad as I’ve seen it in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war. – Commander of the U.S. Central Command, General Abizaid

Think Progress also reports that:

It will be the first time Rumsfeld has testified publicly about the war before the committee since February 2006. Here’s what’s happened in Iraq since then:

– Approximately 300 U.S. troops have died in Iraq
– Approximately 2,530 U.S. troops have been wounded
– Well over 10,000 Iraq civilians have been killed
– Insurgents have conducted an average of 620 attacks per week
– In March there were 7.8 hours of electricity per day in Baghdad (down from 16-24 hours before the war), last month there were 7.6 hours.
– In March there were 133,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Today there are 132,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and plans to raise that number to 135,000.

That’s Rumsfeld’s record. Now he has to explain why it shows that we should “stay the course.”

Senator Clinton says that Donald Rumsfeld should resign:

“The secretary has lost credibility with the Congress and with the people. It’s time for him to step down and be replaced by someone who can develop an effective strategy and communicate it effectively to the American people and to the world.” – The Associated Press

What is the plan for victory in Iraq and Afghanistan? Where is the timetable to bring our troops home out of harms way? Why are our soldiers really still fighting and dying in Iraq? Is it for a new neocon version of the cold war? To enrich Haliburton and the military industrial complex? Forget the sound bites! I want, no I demand a honest and truthful answer in plain and clear english!

If Donald Rumsfeld can not provide a straight answer to my questions, then I must agree with Senator Clinton on this issue.