archived: 22 - 28 Feb, 2004 Back Next
JUNKIE EDITOR MICHAEL
CARMICHAEL
(“The Metamorphosis of John Kerry”)
One week ago, John Kerry was assailed by rumors about an affair
with an intern. He denied the rumor, flatly, succinctly and tersely. His denial
came during a radio interview, and due to its brevity, it did nothing to dispel
the suspicions which were building in the minds of millions of Americans.
International news organizations covered the story, and the parents of the
intern in question were quoted defaming Kerry. On Monday, the intern denied the
rumor herself. On Tuesday, Wisconsin voted and John Kerry's popularity had taken
a precipitous fall to the great satisfaction of the supporters of his last major
opponent, Senator John Edwards.
John Kerry comes from a relatively minor family of Boston
Brahmins. As a youth, he and members of his family were entertained on the yacht
of JFK. He attended a posh private school and Yale, where he was inducted into
Skull & Bones, a secret society that has an unsavory reputation for chauvinism:
masculine and racial. While attending Yale, he was persuaded of the
righteousness of the American cause in Vietnam, and he volunteered to serve in
the US military. He joined the Navy, where he served with great distinction
earning a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts. When he returned
from Vietnam, he became a leader in the antiwar movement. He testified against
US policy in Vietnam before Congressional committees, and he appeared on the
podium of a broad variety of antiwar demonstrations. The metamorphosis of John
Kerry from callow youth to concerned social revolutionary had begun.
In later years, John Kerry was elected to public office in
Massachusetts, and he entered the Senate during the Reagan era. In the Senate,
he has supported the liberal side of the American political equation on most
occasions. For example, he chaired a subcommittee that investigated the clouded
and murky relationship between the CIA and the DEA. He has monitored the US
intelligence community with a notable degree of diligence, and he has advocated
a series of measures to reform the now Byzantine and prone-to-failure system.
Upon the seizure of power by the Bush-Cheney consortium, Senator
Kerry found himself perplexed. He was persuaded to support and to vote for
several of the landmark neoconservative bills: No Child Left Behind, Tax Cut for
the Rich-Recession for the Poor; the Patriot Act and the War Powers Act. In so
doing, Senator Kerry has done no more and no less than his sole remaining rival
for the Democratic nomination, Senator John Edwards.
In late 2002, Senator Kerry took the counsel of many people,
prominently his senior Senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy, and he
decided to offer his services to the Democratic Party as its presidential
nominee. In late 2002 and early 2003, Senator Kerry was lumped together with
several other opponents for the same distinction: Senator John Edwards,
Congressman Richard Gephardt and Senator Joe Lieberman, all of whom were
acceptable nominees to the right-wing center of gravity in the Democratic Party,
the Democratic Leadership Council. These candidates had voted for the same
neoconservative legislation, and they were offering themselves to the Party and
the nation as Democratic versions of the neoconservative strain of Americana
that had surged to nearly universal popularity in the wake of 9/11. In the early
months, Senator Kerry was the leader in the polls, and he was bestowed with the
mantle of frontrunner. Then, something happened.
The other candidates in the field: Governor Howard Dean,
Congressman Dennis Kucinich; the Reverend Al Sharpton and Carol Mosely-Braun
became a chorus of rebellion. They all called for a short and sharp period of
reform, revision and reformation for the Democratic Party. The most strident
voice among this group was that of Governor Dean, who soon swept past Senator
Kerry and all the others to take the lead in the opinion polls. In doing so,
Governor Dean not only delivered a strikingly effective message of stern
opposition to all of the policies of Bush, he also organized his campaign more
brilliantly than any previous Democratic candidate. He used the internet to
organize over 600,000 supporters and to raise record levels of funding, while
his opponents were gasping for air and support and money.
The Dean campaign finally unraveled in Iowa, when he and
Congressman Gephardt entered a murder-suicide pact, and Senator Kerry swept
through on the inside rail to take the majority. From that date, Senator Kerry
has been enjoying the benefit of a fluffy cloud of momentum. That was, until one
week ago, when rumors of an illicit affair broke his stride and allowed Senator
Edwards to move up threateningly on the outside rail to challenge him for the
lead on Super Tuesday.
Soon, we will enter a period of time when there will be
microscopic comparisons of the two Senators. Senator Edwards opposes NAFTA, and
Senator Kerry voted for it. Senator Kerry supports the medicinal use of
marijuana, and Senator Edwards is appalled at the thought of it - and so on, ad
infinitum.
Much more importantly, we shall see both men clash in a
face-to-face debate sans the presence of Governor Dean.
Now it must be said, that while Senator Kerry is
characteristically bold, he is also relatively phlegmatic in his public
performances. Terse, taciturn and wooden as the proverbial cigar store Indian,
Senator Kerry's performance in the previous 18 debates has never been described
as sparkling. In an earlier day, Senator Kerry would have great difficulty in
appealing to any large number of voters from his stump. This year he is aided by
the wonders of television, and he has a sterling crew of television producers
who have served him admirably. But the campaign is about to enter a new phase,
the one where the people gaze into the pupils of the candidates and give them a
probing inspection.
Given that Senator Kerry and his team of campaign officials failed
to deflect the baseless rumors of an illicit affair only one week ago, I suspect
that he has been undergoing some additional briefing designed to sharpen his
performance in front of the television cameras. Proof of that surmise came
yesterday, in the form of an interview between Senator Kerry and Judy Woodruff
of CNN.
In his interview, Senator Kerry demonstrated a hitherto undetected
degree of naturalism in his personal appearances. He was fluent, engaged,
personable and absolutely brilliant. This appearance was in sharp contrast with
his all of his previous public appearances.
In recent days, pundits have written much about Senator Edwards'
challenge to Senator Kerry to debate four times in the run-up to Super Tuesday.
Senator Edwards is an extremely successful trial lawyer, who has - apparently -
an attractive manner of persuading voters that he is their type of candidate.
Senator Edwards has been pointing out that Senator Kerry has agreed to only one
debate in this two week interim and insinuating that he is somewhat shy of
debate. This sort of tactic is perfectly predictable. Senator Edwards is not the
frontrunner. He is coming from way back, and he is now the only survivor with
any chance of challenging Senator Kerry for the nomination.
America has seen John Kerry metamorphose from a callow youth, into
War Hero, Cultural Revolutionary, US Senator and leading candidate for the
presidency. What they need to see is a man who embodies a vision of America's
destiny with absolute integrity - and he needs to be more than an actor playing
the part of a president, he must live it and breathe it and be it with every
fiber of his being.
Americans are a nation accustomed to the nuances of Hollywood,
television, radio and the internet. Many of them can still tell the difference
between fantasy and reality. Senator Kerry is undergoing - at this very moment -
a metamorphosis into what I hope will result in transforming him into a man who
is relaxed within himself with the leadership of a counter-revolution, one that
will oust the radical neoconservatives from power and result in a new era of
American responsibility to its citizens and to the global community.
To do this effectively and convincingly, Senator Kerry must relax,
lighten up and brighten up. He must never again clam up in the face of serious
allegations about his background. He must tell it exactly like it is, and he
must do it without appearing to be reading from a script.
His last standing competitor is a master of delivering knock-out
punch-lines to juries. Kerry must now engage in the battle for the hearts and
minds of the people of his nation. This will be his final metamorphosis, and the
greatest challenge of his life. I predict a newly focused John Kerry will emerge
in his final pre-Super Tuesday debate next week with Senator Edwards. He has no
choice. The stakes are too high.
Stay tuned.
ARKHIPOV VAN AEKEN
(“Paul Revere or John Brown”)
The Democratic primary race is already reaching
its end-game. Soon it will be summer and the conventions, and then, around the
next corner... the elections.
The Bush Clan is looking more vulnerable; one senses a growing
popular awareness that the Emperor is indeed (morally, programmatically,
politically) naked. However, the populace is extremely dependent on a media that
will rally around the president at any moment's notice.
Howard Dean, in spite of present denials, may be announcing his
retirement from the race next week, after his likely
Wisconsin defeat. Whenever that
speech is delivered, millions of people will be tuning-in to watch the final
soliloquy of this classical American tragedy. Howard Dean can go out with a Bang
or a Whimper. He can use it to deliver an Oscar-list of platitudes, or to warn
millions of voters to BEWARE.
Let him warn us - more bluntly, more directly than any other popular
voice can:
A government that has used the most outrageous
fabrications to justify flaunting international law, and that continues to risk
young American lives until every sweet-heart contract in Iraq is sealed and
delivered, will pull out all the stops to guarantee its reelection.
OSAMA BIN-LADIN WILL BE CAPTURED BEFORE THE ELECTION. Wherever he has been
hiding, the administration will pull him out of a hole like that in which Saddam
was found. SOME WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WILL BE FOUND. They will, no doubt,
be discovered in another overlooked hole.
May Dean remind us of Bobby Kennedy's assassination (and Wellstone's
disappearance), and suggest that we watch over Kerry or Edwards carefully ...
AND OVER BUSH TOO (!!!). WE MUST BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR LESS OBVIOUS, BUT
POTENTIALLY MAJOR EVENTS, THAT MAY BE USED TO JUSTIFY THE REGIME'S STAYING IN
POWER.
Let Governor Dean encourage us to MOBILIZE NOW AGAINST ELECTRONIC VOTING
MACHINES THAT DON'T PROVIDE A BACK-UP (paper/ hardcopy). Let him reveal to those
sleepy Americans who only tuned in for their last laugh, or last sob, that
Diebold is intimately linked to Bush and the Republican Party.
Perhaps he should warn his party publicly of the
Reverend Sharpton's organizational reliance on Bush's plumbers. And, while he's
at it, why not wish John Kerry well, and throw this bit of fraternal advice his
way: denial of past sexual adventures IS A ONE-WAY TICKET TO THE PITS OF
QUICKSAND. The only answer to this typically Republican tactic is "MY SEXUAL
LIFE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE FUTURE OF AMERICA!"
MAY HOWARD DEAN GET BACK UP ON HIS HORSE TO SHOUT OUT A WARNING TO US;
and in so doing, be remembered and honored as a latter-day Paul Revere.
Junkie: ARKHIPOV VAN AEKEN piece was obviously written before Dean’s withdrawal from active campaigning. He wrote this post script.
Howard Dean has retired from active pursuit of the Democratic
nomination. His farewell speech was a sad disappointment. The fire that he tried
too hard to dampen eventually went out. However, there are more than embers
left; there is a bed of charcoal glowing.....ghostly. The after-glow of Howard
Dean will not die quickly.
One hopes that the challenge by Dean to the New Dems, and the DLC,
has created sufficient heat among the minions of Deaniacs to keep those coals
burning till November.
The fact that Dean was not able, or willing, to ride the ride of
Paul Revere at a moment of intense national coverage does not preclude him, or
somebody of equal stature, from saddling up in the future. But, for the
above message of warning to be effective, it must be delivered soon.
Until then; let's hope that "his soul goes marching on."
GARY PELPHREY
(“Edwards”)
In [Michael] Carmichael [last posting], the source of the assertion, " Edwards, the somewhat less progressive of the two men", is not very clear. And I'm not sure I agree with it. Maybe in Free Trade Agreements, but nothing else that I'm aware of.
I don't at all understand why North Carolina junkies aren't beating down the electronic door with comments with the prospect of a native son nominee for a major party. Are NC Dems upset about Edwards' Senate performance? or his waiting until recently to release his seat for filling by another Democrat?
...or is there something the rest of us should know?
My take right now is that, in a head-to-head race between Bush and Kerry, the Dems give away Bush's special interest contributions, because it seems to me that Kerry is as dirty as Bush, if not as prolific. On the other hand, Edwards is a successful trial lawyer, and I can hear child-of-privilege Bush asking over and over whether or not Edwards is proud of making his millions by taking insurance premiums from poor, defenseless companies.
For my money, Edwards' "Two Americas" approach is a winner. If he can get Dean's email list of the "Second America" contributors, we might have a swinging combination.
Did you see Dick Morris' speculation about how, now that Bush is dropping in the polls, and there is a valid possibility of a Bush defeat, that Hillary might make herself available as a VP candidate?
Junkie: Sen. Edwards is a great guy – obviously committed to the Democratic Party – and committed to defeating Bush. North Carolinians are proud of Edwards’ growing national reputation. We think Edwards is a “winner” too, even if he should not ultimately successful in securing the nomination.
Several readers have commented that TPJ has not run sufficient information on Edwards. Despite the fact that TPJ is based in North Carolina, TPJ, as a web site is strictly neutral. Readers are encouraged to write about the candidate of their choice.
JERRY LOBDILL
(“Staying With Dean”)
As a committed Deaniac I must say that if Dean is to have any real impact on the Democratic Party--instead of just the lip service that all candidates have been giving in recent months to the issues that Dean has strongly articulated from the beginning--it will be necessary for Dean supporters in all states to support Dean all the way to the National Convention. At this time (Feb 19) Dean still has more committed delegates than Edwards, and there is a real possibility that we could see a brokered National Convention with Dean delegates having a real impact on the Party platform. If Deaniacs do as the DNC and DLC would prefer, our issues will be swept away by the pro NAFTA, pro-corporation New Democrats.
JUNKIE
(“Electronic Voting)
This is the second installment in a multiple part series on computerized voting. If you have not read PART I, please click on this link before reading today’s installment – TPJ, “Computer Voting: Been There – Done That”)
Before reading today’s installment, please recall again these principles of the electoral process:
The most reliable count of votes in any election is by human hand and eye. To this principle there is NO exception.
Any voting machine; pull-level, optical reader, computer, etc, is a machine. Any voting machine that can be made by man has inherent strengths and weaknesses. Any machine can be “hacked,” the only question is who could “hack” and on what scale.
Absolute transparency in the election process is required at every stage and in every single thing associated with the election. “Absolute” means absolute. Anything else threatens public confidence in the election process. If there is a failure of confidence in election results, the election result, even if true, is meaningless.
The election process throughout the United States is the last great function of government that remains controlled by “ordinary” citizens. No one comes to exercise political power in this nation except as certified by these citizens. The absence of citizen control and delivery of elections would be the greatest threat to democracy.
The election process has been finely engineered over a period of 200 years. Everything that is done on Election Day has a reason even if one does not understand the reason and no matter how “quaint” the practice may seem. The election process has in many instances been designed to overcome its occasional failures. Those who desire to change the system bear the burden of demonstrating that the change is needed.
The counter principle to the one stated above is that no matter how good a change may be in the election process, even small ones, citizens will protest – usually voraciously – that is a good thing.
PART II – VOTING MACHINES
a. The Big Picture
Voting machines are manufactured using a number of technologies. Essentially, they fall into three distinct categories:
Mechanical & Hybrids
Optical Read
Computer
Within each major group, manufacturers offer a number of different options. It is critical to understand that any voting machine, other than a computer, has a margin of error. That margin of error may be small, but in a close election, small margins of error can have significant ramifications. The 2000 election in Florida is the poster child for that proposition.
Using any voting machine requires election officials to understand exactly where errors may occur and be able to verify that no errors have, in fact, occurred. Any voting machine that can not be tested for error following an election is not acceptable under any circumstances – no exceptions.
The best example of a mechanical voting machine is the old “pull lever.” Now considered obsolete, the voter simply pulls a lever or flips a switch to record their choices. Florida in 2000 used a hybrid, “punch card.” A voter uses a small tool to “punch” holes in a card to record their choice. The card is counted by putting it into a reader that tallies the votes.
Optical read voting machines are akin to the standardized tests that most of us remember from school. A voter records their choices by filling in a circle or connecting two arrows. The ballot is subsequently read by a reader that employs either optical technology.
Computer voting uses a touch screen. Using your ATM bank machine is analogous to that extent. The voters choices are recorded on computer mediums, a floppy disk, a file on a hard drive or a memory chip. Votes are tallied by computer program.
b. Any Voting Machine Can Be Rigged
Going back to the basic principles above, it bears repeating that any voting machine can be rigged.
The old pull lever machines could be rigged if you simply connected the lever to be pulled by voters for Candidate A to actually record a vote for Candidate B. The optical reader could be programmed to do the same; filling in the circle for Candidate A would be recorded by the optical reader as a vote for Candidate B. Computer voting machines will be discussed in greater detail later, but as everyone is pointing out, they could be rigged too.
What prevents rigging by unscrupulous election officials? It is always a matter of having chickens and foxes at every step of the election process.
In North Carolina, state law requires that a certain percentage of voting machines be tested prior to use. This is the statute:
§ 163-33.2. Chairman and county board to examine voting machines.
Prior to each primary and general election the chairman
and members of the county board of elections, in counties where
voting machines are used, shall test vote, in a reasonable
number of combinations, no less than ten percent (10%) of all
voting machines programmed for each primary or election, such
machines to be selected at random by the board after programming
has been completed, and further, the board shall record the
serial numbers of the machines test voted in the official
minutes of the board. In the alternative, the board may cause
the test voting required herein to be performed by persons
qualified to program and test voting equipment. (1981, c. 303.)
In Gaston County, the Board tested. Using optical scan equipment, the Board members (two chickens, Democrats, and one fox, Republican) marked up a number of ballots to a predetermined result and ran them through the machines. We then asked the optical reader to count the votes and compared the machine result to the predetermined result. If there was an error (there never was) something was amiss. We then reset the voting machine to zero and actually locked the machine to prevent it from being capable of reprogramming. The keys to the access the programming portion of the machines were literally sealed; meaning that anyone who accessed the programming area would have to cut a wire seal bearing a unique serial number.
Could the foxes and chickens decide to rig the machine? Yes. But as a further check, the Director of Elections (professional staff) was always present. In addition, the test of the machines was done in public. Any citizen could come and watch the machines being tested; and, occasionally, a citizen or newspaper reporter would come by to watch the process.
When the machines were returned after the election, Board members checked every seal to ensure they were intact. Only after the election results were officially certified by the State would the seals be removed and the machines readied for the next election.
Hopefully, readers now understand that voting machines do not stand alone, they are used within the context of a process that ensures, to the extent possible, they produce accurate results.
b. Gaston County – Why Switch
During the author’s tenure on the Board of Elections in Gaston County, EVERY election cycle was the subject of one or more recounts of a local or statewide race.
The recounts were reflecting differences between the election results announced on election night and the recount. It should be EXACTLY the same. The question was why the differences.
The Board began investigating the reasons why. The answers were rather revealing.
First, optical readers do not read every ballot. If a voter makes an inadvertent mark on the ballot, the reader cannot interpret the mark. The ballot machine put the ballot into a special bin of the ballot box to be counted later by hand. Each optical reader had six lights that counted the marks on the ballot. Sometimes during the day a light would simply burn out, producing a number of ballots that had to be counted by hand. Sometimes there simply appeared to be no reason why a ballot had to be hand counted.
Second, the Board’s initial response was to have a qualified technician break down and refurbish every machine. Subsequent elections revealed that process was of little value.
Third, hand counting ballots that have been rejected by an optical reader require interpretation. Essentially, the optical reader may read all of the races on a ballot save one. The ballot is “marked” that not all races have been read, and precinct officials have to figure out which race(s) that was. In a number of recounts, precinct officials generally could not come up with the same results twice. While the results between election night and a recount were often small, as the political parties became more competitive, “small” differences could make a BIG difference.
NEXT WEEK: PART III: GASTON COUNTY’S TOUCH SCREEN VOTING MACHINE
Last Update: 03/23/2006