Last Friday, during my regular weekly appearance on The Peter B. Collins Show, Susannah Goodman of Common Cause was invited to join us for a discussion of the Holt Election Reform Bill (HR811).

Common Cause is one of the groups which currently supports the bill as is, and doesn't believe it's necessary to amend it to require a full ban on DRE (Direct Recording Electronic, usually touch-screen) voting systems. As we've discussed here in some detail, a number of these large public advocacy groups, such as Common Cause, People for the American Way (PFAW), MoveOn, and VoteTrustUSA have been not only supporting the Holt bill, but using disingenuous and/or very weak and/or very naive talking points to back up their support for the bill.

Susannah used most of those talking points in our discussion/debate from last Friday. I take no particular joy in pointing this out, or the similar behavior of the other groups, or Holt's office themselves, in regard to all of this. I believe them to essentially be "good guys" on these matters, but on this point, they are dangerously and irresponsibly wrong, in my opinion. Heading into another Presidential Election, still using disenfranchising DRE systems is a recipe for potential disaster that America simply cannot afford after two previously questionable (putting it kindly) elections.

The entire text transcript may be read online, along with the full audio, posted here...

Here's a quick sampling of our discussion...

Full transcript here...

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

California Representative (and mine) Henry Waxman, the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, answers questions about Iraq last night with Tavis Smiley on PBS. After Waxman explains how at least $12 billion allocated for Iraqi reconstruction went missing, an incredulous Smiley states:

Waxman lays most of the blame on the Republican-led Congress which failed in its oversight responsibilities. Similarly deplorable is what the reconstruction effort accomplished, considering Iraq's billions and our own additional $20 billion. According to Waxman:

But while "Iraqis and the American people are not better off" for the war, Waxman does identify one group that has made out extraordinarily well:

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

75% of al-Qaeda's leadership have been killed or captured according to George W. (October 2004) and John McConnell (February 27, 2007), the new Director of National Intelligence. Not that it really matters since McConnell also states that al-Qaeda has had little problem replacing captured or killed leadership. The only difference being that the new leadership lacks the experience of the old guard (does experience really play a role in suicide bombings?).

McConnell also testified that he felt Pakistan posed a greater threat to US security than Iraq. Which, in itself, is reason enough to get out of Iraq in order to concentrate on Afghanistan/Pakistan.

AlterNet's front page today is featuring a fresh version of my story from last week on the false dichotomies being forwarded by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and the supporters of his Election Reform bill, HR 811 [PDF], as written. It outlines the unsupported talking points and disingenuous arguments being made to prop up the failings of the bill (most notably, its failure to ban DREs) by Holt's office as well as his public-advocacy group supporters like PFAW, Common Cause, MoveOn, VoteTrustUSA, etc...

The original BRAD BLOG version was here. The updated Alternet version (including a bit more background on the brouhaha for newbies is here: "False Choices in the Debate on Voting Technology"

I've also now set up a new "Special Coverage" page for the Holt Bill Debate here: www.BradBlog.com/Holt. It includes the most notable BRAD BLOG stories since the bill dropped, as well as essential articles and calls to action elsewhere. I hope it'll be a useful source. It's also always available from the red "Special Coverage" box in the right sidebar.

Also related...A new "Anti-DRE Talking Points" document from VotersUnite.org (HTML version with links & grafs..., 2-Page PDF version...) features simple bullet-points on why DRE/touch-screen voting systems must be banned and the urgent need to reform the Holt bill to ensure it. Both versions of that doc are also linked from the new Holt Special Coverage page.

Two media statements released from members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee indicate that subpoenas will soon be issued in the matter of the allegedly coerced firings of U.S. Attorneys in the Department of Justice. A vote will take place tomorrow in the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law on whether to issue the subpoenas to Justice Dept. officials Carol Lam, David Iglesias, H.E. Cummins, III, and John McKay to compel them to appear before a subcommittee hearing next week.

As well, The BRAD BLOG has learned the Judiciary Committee will also hold hearings next week on matters related to "Election Reform and Irregularities."

According to a Committee staffer, "subpoenas will be issued" tomorrow in the U.S. Attorney matter. If so, it would be the first time the Democrats have exercised their newly-gained subpoena power since wresting control of Congress from Republicans...

*** Special to The BRAD BLOG
*** by Libby/CIA Leak Trial Correspondent Margie Burns

With the jury still out, here in D.C., I had time to look through some court documents in the Libby case and came across an aspect of the "yellowcake" saga which has not yet been reported to my knowledge. I have emailed the Office of the Vice President (OVP) for a comment on this matter and will report back when, and if, I hear from them.

The documents filed in USA v. Libby reveal an arresting short chronology within that longer saga of the bogus Iraq-Niger uranium item, the Wilson trip to Niger and the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson.

An apparently related document may shed new light on the publicly-known points reported so far...

Please feel free to 'splain your vote in Comments below...

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

Wolf Blitzer asks Florida's new Republican Governor Charlie Crist if there could be a replay in 2008 of the "2000 election fiasco?" Crist believes that his budget recommendation, which calls for $32 million to be spent implementing a "paper trail" system (in actuality, he's called for the replacement of touch-screen systems with paper ballot-based optical-scan systems) will cure Florida's election problems. He also offers up this gem:

However, when Wolf questions Crist about the 18,000 missing votes in "Orlando" from the 2006 election (he meant Sarasota in the still-contested FL-13 U.S. House race), Crist answers that his concern is "going forward." Thus, it seems Florida has felt very strongly about democracy for about three months now (who was running the place before Crist?). Not to be outdone, Wolf "presses" by holding his feet to the fire... asking a softball question...unrelated to Orlando Sarasota, about whether Florida will be "ready" by 2008.

Meanwhile, one would think that Americans would be a little more concerned about getting Florida elections right after experiencing the last six years of Bush. Yet, despite statistical evidence that all but guaranteed her victory in FL-13, Christine Jennings remains on the outside looking in. At least with Al Gore the mountains of evidence that he won Florida did not surface until after the Supreme Court gifted the election to Bush. With Jennings we do not have the luxury of such an excuse and it is inexcusable.

ADDENDUM BY BRAD: Wolf Blitzer is a complete and utter, unmitigated moron of indescribable proportions. Rivaled only in his utter and embarrassing cluelessness by Chris Wallace...And meanwhile, I have to beg for milk money. Amazing.

Apropos of our earlier article today concerning the fake Fox "News" Channel "comedy" show 1/2 Hour News Hour, Darrin Bell, the creator of Candorville dropped us a note to point to today's strip (see below), which touches on same.

He wrote: "I had to admit to feeling a bit guilty when I read the closing line of today's entry. I am guilty of helping draw more attention to that crap."

Don't worry, Darrin. Even though we wrote that last line, we're still guilty of same. We did write that article, after all. Oh, how we do loves the paradoxes and ironies here at The BRAD BLOG.

We're also happy to see attention drawn to the propagandistic garbage that is the Fox "News" Channel in MSM papers all over the country. Even if it's "only" on the comics page. So, thank you, sir, and keep up the good work!

NOTE: Bell links back to our story from this morning, in his daily blog which he now runs along with each of his strips over at his website. We're happy to return the favor...

BRAD BLOG Guest Blogger Alan Breslauer had a thing or two to say last week about Fox "News'" phony new comedy show and how closely their phony comedy seemed to resemble their phony news.

Elsewhere in the 'sphere and beyond, since the premier of the 1/2 Hour News Hour, others have rung in with their own picks and pans (not suprisingly, mostly 'pans' from the Left and 'picks' from the Right.)

Setting aside the show's lack of, um, funniness (of course, being one of those wacko "Hollywood Liberals" they hamfistedly attempted to skew, I would say that, wouldn't I?) or the shamefully over-"sweetened" laugh track or the predictably stale "Liberal" bashing, what jumped out at me was how the show seemed once and for all to be an out-and-out admission by Fox "News" that they're not really a news outlet at all.

Of course, any intellectually honest observer has recognized that for some time. If they called themselves, more honestly, the Republican News Channel, at least they'd be nearer to telling the truth and Americans could take 'em or leave 'em. At least there would be little pretense that they are anything other than what they are: a crackerjack GOP Propaganda Machine.

But by programming a "comedy" show on their pretend "News" channel, they seem to be admitting, finally, out loud, that they aren't actually about news at all. It wouldn't be the first time, of course. Over Christmas they ran some Texas Baptist Church service nearly wall-to-wall for much of the weekend. Not that that's not "news," of course --- in Fox's world, anyway.

It's been amusing, if painful, to watch FNC's increasingly tortured attempts over the last several years as they try to find something --- anything --- to report on other than the actual news, since any honest reporting thereof would be so devastatingly counter to their own hard right political bias.

An endless war launched without reason and built on lies from the Oval Office itself? Yawn...what happened to that chick in Aruba?! The White House itself, for the first time in history, outting and destroying a major covert CIA intellegence operation monitoring WMD in the Middle East? Not interested...But did ya hear the latest on Anna Nicole?!

So now, with FNC even beginning to run dry on phony outrage, in the latest desperate Fox "News" Hail Mary attempt to fill 30 more minutes of their 24 hour broadcast day with anything but actual news, they've shamelessly set aside all pretense by choosing to fill those 30 minutes with attempts at satirical comedy. Sort of. Not even CNN or MSNBC has crossed that rubicon. Yet. But give 'em time.

While I rather enjoyed the cold opening with Rush and the unusually deer-in-the-headlighted Ann Coulter (both of whom sorta, kinda, almost actually succeeded in making fun of themselves a bit...something wholly lacking from the rest of the show), the rest of it went quickly downhill from there.

Imagine my surprise then, when halfway through the thing, an old acting colleague of mine showed up in one of the mid-show sketches. The first question that popped to mind when I saw Jonathan was, "What the hell must he have been thinking?!"

I gave him a call last week to find out...

California's new Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, has flatly rejected a request from Riverside County, CA County Supervisor Jeff Stone to participate in a "hack test" challenge originally proposed to Election Integrity Advocates in response to their concerns about security and accuracy for the county's electronic touch-screen voting machines, The BRAD BLOG has learned.

In a letter sent to Stone last week obtained by The BRAD BLOG (posted in full at the end of this article), Secretary Bowen found that though there was no state law to prohibit such a test, her office would not participate, in part due to the narrow restrictions initially insisted upon by Supervisor Stone.

In her reply to a letter sent in early January to outgoing Secretary of State Bruce McPherson just days before he would leave office, Bowen wrote, "I am not aware of any state law that would prohibit the type of security test that you described in your letter." Unlike Bowen, the former SoS had been seen as far more favorable towards relaxed security issues for electronic voting.

As The BRAD BLOG originally reported last December, Stone had initially challenged local Election Integrity advocates "a thousand to one," during a public hearing, that a programmer would be unable to "manipulate" the county's voting system.

In her letter to McPherson Bowen joined other computer security professionals who had previously rejected Stone's unilateral suggestions for ground rules, calling them "overly narrow," potentially giving voters a "false sense of security." Stone had written to the former SoS that just "15 minutes would be allotted" for the test and the programmer who accepted the challenge --- noted computer security expert Harri Hursti --- would be prohibited from using any tools or reaching around the back of the machine. "In every sense," Stone wrote, "he would be like any voter on Election Day approaching a voting unit at the polls."

Bowen, however, balked at Stone's unilateral ground rules, writing in response...

As well, Bowen also highlighted the point made by Election Integrity Advocates, computer security professionals, and even the Baker/Carter "Blue Ribbon" National Election Reform Commission that made the point that the greatest threat to e-voting security likely comes from election insiders, such as officials or poll workers who have been allowed to take pre-programmed, election-ready systems home with them in the days prior to the election as allowed by Riverside County.

Such insider access is seen as a far greater threat to security than that from voters on Election Day. As Bowen wrote in reply...

"We were looking for any impact the change to paper ballots may have had on New Mexico's historically high undervote rate. When we found the dramatic drop in Native American precincts, we were shocked," says New Mexico's Theron Horton. The Election Defense Alliance (EDA) activist added, "something was going on with the DREs in those precincts in 2004."

Something indeed.

Details now out from New Mexico reveal that undervote rates dropped precipitously in both Native American and Hispanic areas after the state moved from DRE (Direct Recording Electronic touch-screen) voting systems in 2004 to paper-based optical-scan systems in 2006. In Native American areas, undervote rates plummeted some 85%. In Hispanic communities, the rate dropped by 69% according to the precinct data reviewed by EDA, VotersUnite.org and VoteTrustUSA.org.

Ellen Theisen, then-Executive Director of VotersUnite.org, reviewed the original high undervote rates in the state after the 2004 elections, but hadn't broken it down to compare DRE/touch-screen vs. Op-Scan precincts. "When I heard of Theron's work," Theisen says in today's press release, "I performed the comparison, and found that it's the paper ballots that made the difference in the minority precincts."

New Mexico banned the use of DREs across the state after their disastrous experience with Sequoia touch-screen voting machines during the 2004 Presidential Election. They now require a paper ballot for every vote cast statewide.

As he signed the bill which banned DREs into law in early 2006, New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson wrote a letter to Election Officials in all 50 states, warning that while "some believe that computer touch screen machines are the future of electoral systems...the technology simply fails to pass the test of reliability."

"One person, one vote is in jeopardy if we do not act boldly and immediately," Richardson implored, while decrying the failures of DREs in his state and supporting paper ballots. "When a vote is cast, a vote should be counted," he wrote.

The BRAD BLOG has reported on the urgent need to ban disenfranchising DRE voting systems --- with or without a so-called "paper trail" --- from all American elections.

Here's an easy to understand graph from the short, two-page report [PDF] published on the New Mexico data over the weekend along with the raw data at VotersUnite.org:

Any questions?

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

*** Special to The BRAD BLOG
*** by Libby/CIA Leak Trial Correspondent Margie Burns

In today's Washington Post ombudsman column, "Covert Question, Open Controversy," Deborah Howell says, "Wilson's New York Times op-ed piece, critical of the Bush administration's use of intelligence, set off a chain of events that led to the disclosure of Plame's job."

But information and testimony revealed during the course of the Libby Trial indicates that it wasn't Wilson's op-ed piece that set the off the chain of events leading to their disclosure of the CIA WMD analyst and her covert network. The Bush administration began its campaign to discredit Valerie Plame/Wilson at least a month prior to the release of her husband's article.

I can't criticize Howell for her focus on the op-ed as the ball that got the campaign rolling. I, and most of the media, having been basically taking the same line in previous postings on this topic. Most of the writers on the CIA leak have been doing the same. Joseph Wilson's book, The Politics of Truth: A Diplomat's Memoir: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity, takes the same tack: that the outing of CIA analyst Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, was retaliation for Wilson's July 6, 2003, op-ed column, "What I Didn't Find in Africa."

But when Wilson wrote his book, he did not have access to behind-the-scenes discussions about his wife now revealed through the perjury and obstruction trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff. Retaliation there was, in spades, but testimony and documents in the Libby trial demonstrate, unrefuted, that administration discussion of Mrs. Wilson began several weeks before Wilson's column appeared.

The reasons why are still unclear, and the prosecution was not permitted to delve into ramifications of the leak. But that the administration was already targeting both Wilson and his wife, Valerie --- overseeing a crucial intelligence network monitoring WMD activity in the middle east --- is now beyond question.

So why, beyond Wilson's op-ed, was the Bush Administration previously so intent on discrediting one of its own CIA assets?...

Both Doonesebury and our friend Darrin Bell's Candorville take on the "DemocRAT" issue in today's Sunday strips.

In addition, Bell has turned blogger at his www.Candorville.com site and has been providing additional commentary about his various strips. Today he writes, in part, as a companion to his Sunday toon that though George W. Bush refers to it as the "Democrat Party"...

Both strips follow in full...