Welcome back Brad!

Speaking of election reform...

I've received another response from our good friend Dr Robert Pastor. For those who want to play along, here's my first letter to him:

Letter

This was my latest letter, and his response, since I said I would pass it along with his permission and he didn't ask me not to (name removed for privacy)

*****Dear Dr. Pastor:

Thank you for so promptly and courteously responding to my email re: James Baker and the ACVR.

I would, however, like for you to clarify something you said, if you don't mind.

You said, " The blog that you read unfairly and inaccurately characterized my views."

Do you mean that what you said was misconstrued, or that you really didn't say it? Would you like to make a statement that you feel would better characterize your views?

I am aware you were bombarded with emails - passion runs high on this topic. I'm sure you're already aware of the power of any statements made by a person in your position to either still the waters or stoke the fire. The statement regarding "only 6 or 7 sending all of the emails" as reported definitely fell into the latter category.

Make no mistake, those who presume to tackle the issue of election reform in this country do so within a fishbowl, and information travels through the network at an amazing speed. Don't be fooled by the stereotypes put forth in the media for so long - we are well informed and independent thinkers.

The majority of us who are actively involved in the issue of election reform are not blind followers - we listen to all sides and carefully weigh what is said or not said (and, more importantly, what is done or not done) before we make judgement.

We want to hear what you have to say.

With your permission, I'd like to pass on any statements you would like to make regarding your conversation with Brad Freidman regarding this topic, or any other statements you would like to say regarding this topic.

Sincerely,

(snip)

"People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote - a very different thing." Walter H Judd

*****

His response:

Dear Ms. (snip),

Thank you for taking the time to write another thoughtful and substantive email. Your interest is much appreciated. We do not care to re-open the BradBlog issue, because we feel that constructive dialogue is needed to address election reform. Public views on this are welcome, but the best method is probably not to flood the email addresses of all involved; some of our academic advisors resigned as a result. We respond to all our mail and ensure that suggestions are passed on to support the Commission's work. Below is an explanation of how the Commission came to be formed, if you are interested.

Common Cause (www.commoncause.org) and the Election Protection Coalition (www.electionprotection2004.com) registered hundreds of thousands of complaints related to the 2004 presidential election. Public confidence in the electoral process is low, and reform is needed. This was underscored by a meeting convened by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and other groups in December 2004. I was invited to testify and remained for the entire day. The audience was deeply concerned about the state of the electoral process, and many advocated change.

After the hearing, I spoke with President Carter, who said he would favor establishing a panel to examine U.S. election reform. As you may know, he co-chaired a Commission with President Gerald Ford in 2001 that made recommendations that led to the Help American Vote Act (HAVA). I worked with both of them on that Commission and, indeed, worked with President Carter on election-monitoring projects for seventeen years at The Carter Center. As President Gerald Ford was not able to Co-Chair this panel, we consulted with Republican leaders who spoke with President Bush. They proposed former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III. President Carter has worked with Mr. Baker many times and is extremely pleased to work with him again. With such highly-respected Co-Chairs, we expect that Congress will take our recommendations seriously.

We solicited suggestions for other members of the Commission from a wide range of groups, and the Co-Chairs selected the members. It is comprised in roughly equal numbers among people who have served or were elected as Republicans and Democrats (though none are incumbents), and roughly one-third as non-partisan leaders. We understand the objections that some people have regarding individuals on the Commission, but we believe that the best way to promote real reform is to do so through a group that has broad credibility in Congress. You can read the bios of the members at www.american.edu/Carter-Baker. The Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University is organizing the Commission with the support of the Carnegie Corporation, the Ford Foundation, and the Knight Foundation.

Our current challenge is to look beyond the partisan perspectives and fashion proposals that address the problems in a practical, democratic, and effective manner. We would greatly appreciate your ideas as we carry out this work. Please send them to cdem@american.edu, or mail them to 3201 New Mexico Avenue, Suite 265, Washington, DC, 20016.

Sincerely,

Dr. Robert Pastor

Executive Director,
Commission on Federal Election Reform
-------------------------------------------------------------
Center for Democracy & Election Management
3201 New Mexico Avenue, NW Suite 265
Washington, DC 20016-8026
Telephone: (202) 885-2728
Fax: (202) 885-1366
Email: cdem@american.edu
Website: http://www.american.edu/...ternationalaffairs/cdem/

*****

If anyone would like for me to pass along any ideas, I'd be happy to do so. (I don't mind being a liason, my former job entailed quite a bit of diplomacy and I've been told I could sell ice to an eskimo)

If anyone would like to send their own ideas, please be diplomatic and respectful - no matter how angry we are, I believe there is more to be won by tactful insistence than by antagonizing (and trust me, I'm still pissed, and no I don't trust him, but I don't burn bridges either).

However long it takes, hang in there. The truth will come out in the end, our diligence and focus will pay off - and that's not naivete' speaking, that's experience.

Heard you on The Tony Show today. Eagerly waiting for the show Saturday

KestrelBrighteyes
Great work.

Kestrel that was a great letter. I could not have said it any better.

I wonder what "his" position is on the difference between "voter" fraud and "election fraud". And why a newly formed group ACVR was created and produced a report about democrat voter fraud, with no mention of fraud on the republicans part. If they are so Non-partisan, why does the fair and balanced ACVR name the democratic party in their report, yet they are blameless.

Again excellent letter. I've been feeling really angry of late on this stuff. I loved your very diplomatic letter.

Regards,
JPentz

Excellent letter(s) to Pastor. I'm afraid his response to you was imho a dance around the issues.

Pastor says "We do not care to re-open the BradBlog issue, because we feel that constructive dialogue is needed to address election reform" --- hmmm. A dialogue with Brad might be very constructive, so I wonder what exactly he meant.

The fact that he & Carter have worked on election monitoring projects for 17 years doesn't mean a whole lot because we are in a brand new situation since 2000 with the electronic machines that afford massive fraud with no trace. They need to study the implications. Why is it I feel so certain they are clueless? And, James Baker III is a total stranger to election integrity.

All in all, that letter he wrote you is (excuse the slang) crap. I'd like to hear one of them answer some of our REAL questions.

Kes - I'm sorry - I thought I addressed you in my post #5. :blush:

Anyhoo......

The turtle, as you probably know , is one of the most successful creatures that ever walked the earth. If you call that walking.
I've often marveled at this and wondered what its secret was. It's known for its slow metabolism and movement and sometimes I think this is a key. I am also seriously wondering could we be slowly inching toward a resolution of this election dilemma?

I like this guy Lampley's take on it. It really is exactly like a sporting event. A contest. I'm anxious to hear more of him.

You can draw all the frikken' maps you want, paint them red, blue, whatever, and plaster all the little numbers you want on them, but you still will never come up with the odds as well as one who places bets professionally.

great line-up.

Brad, you also want to talk to Chris Farrell(Judicial Watch) about the FOIA-request re: Osama bin Laden, where the FBI is withholding information because of his "privacy rights"
see:
Press Release from Judicial Watch

great line-up.

Brad, you also want to talk to Chris Farrell(Judicial Watch) about the FOIA-request re: Osama bin Laden, where the FBI is withholding information because of his "privacy rights"
see:
Press Release from Judicial Watch

I apologize for being wildly OT, but I was just listening to NPR and the report on the fighting near Syria stated that the "allied forces" had killed or captured 100 "insurgents" and that 9 Marines had been killed. Am I mistaken, or were we told at the outset of this ultracriminal faisco, "We don't do body counts."?

Sorry, fiasco - and Teresa - nice analogy in #7. re my #11 squawk, just how long have they been, in fact, doing them? I'd like to see the figures and documentation for, say, Falluja...

They claim they don't count civilian casualties.

Thanks, Catherine, but that's a jump from "not doing body counts" - they're clearly running scared now

Finisher - Thanks for stopping by! Let us know how you enjoy the show!

Peter - Had indeed planned to ask Farrell about that as well! Hoping we'll have time!

See you all tonight on the Radio! Please stop by the Open Thread here tonight to play along at home (should be open about 10 minutes before air time) and feel free to call-in with your questions...if the phone lines work!

Brad at 'Gathering to Save Our Democracy' - 47 minute Mp3, featuring Brad and some dude from the Chicago Tribune - now online at A-Infos.

Haven't listened to it myself yet.

Brad #15 - I can't WAIT to hear from Jim Lampley!I hope he's enjoying his verbal jousting match as much as the rest of us are, he's GOOD! I'd call in to the show but I'm not good without a backspace key, and afraid I'd just be a cheerleader for the show anyway. I'll save the air time for those who have something more to contribute than a "YAY BRAD!!" *L*

Kira #5 - Oh I know Pastor's response was nothing more than a song and dance - but why not take the chance to give him what he asked for - over and over and over and..? After all, how could he gracefully ignore letters now, since he requested ideas? Even if we can't force him to answer, we can wear him down with questions and suggestions, we can keep him on his toes and make him work for it. I want to make the point to him that we are NOT going away, that we ARE watching, and that we DO know what the hell we are talking about.

To paraphrase Norman Mailer, we now know we don't have to storm the fortress - we just have to surround it and make faces and watch the people inside have a nervous breakdown!

And to everyone - sorry for the OT regarding the letter to Pastor, just following through on my word to share the response to my request for a clarification of his statement about Bradblog. I didn't expect him to clarify what he said, but I wanted to put it out there anyway, to see if he'd be honest about it, or just tapdance around it - and he did exactly as expected.

The best way to uncover a liar is to provide an opportunity for him to tell the truth - or not.

I think it's obvious to most of us that Dr. Pastor isn't about to debate us on here, and is not ABOUT to be interviewed by Brad. We are too knowledgeable, we can't be baffled with bullshit. My guess is that he really did think we were only "6 or 7" people when he talked with Brad, and that made us insignificant. Now we've become an irritation. At this point he probably wishes we'd just go away.

Hi, Kira #1 - thanks for providing yours and Mr. P's letter. My reaction to Mr. P. is that he is an arrogant so and so. I take issue with at least two of his statements:

(1) "Public views on this are welcome, but the best method is probably not to flood the email addresses of all involved; some of our academic advisors resigned as a result." If they don't want to receive e-mail from the public, then don't publish the e-mail address. But the snail mail address is then to be provided. Academic advisors "resigned" because they receive a lot of e-mail???? What kind of nonsense explanation is this????

(2) "...but we believe that the best way to promote real reform is to do so through a group that has broad credibility in Congress." More B.S. He and the "elite" (a) only want to listen to each other and themselves (b) hear what they want to hear and (c) do what they want to do. The point is that Congress has no credibility with the people, and what he should be impressed with is the numbers and content of the e-mail from the American people. Instead, mail from the people is considered to be a major inconvenience, while Congress is to be cow-towed to.

My assessment of Mr. P. and the current "powers that be" is that they have nothing but contempt for the American people, who are there to be used and abused at the whim of the likes of Mr. P., and the "in" crowd with Congress. In short he and all like him make me sick.

One of the most effective ways of dealing with the likes of Mr. P. and those like him is to do exactly what annoys, baffles, and creates confusion and upsets their applecarts. In this case, more letters, e-mails, criticism, and complaints. Finally, an ultimate rejection of their little contrived "act" of democracy, when it finally produces more "hot air", more of the same old, and no real reform.

Oops, sorry Kestrelbrighteyes #1 - guess I was blinded by my annoyance with Mr. P. (Also, left my reading glass at a friend's house).

Hi again, Krestrel #17 - Yes, I compeltely agree with everything you said. Are you taking him on then as a short-term assignment? Keep writing him letters? His smarminess will soon turn to frustration and annoyance. Maybe he'll quit like some of his fellow academics. (They probably voted for Kerry and decided to finally dump Mr. P. and his con-artist friends.)

Greetings from Raw Story: Tech issues on the Brad Show --- it will be online shortly, hopefully by 730 pm --- we apologize for the delay!

Posted here, keep kicked please:
http://www.democraticund...7665&mesg_id=3657665

Is this the open thread?

Don't worry about the tech. problems Brad, lol. It happens to the best of us. Great show!

This source and the other source did not discuss the footage, but there was footage taken by one source and that footage was sent in with the witness accounts.

Here is the article. And Eric (who was unanamed in my article) did hand off the footage to me and I, in turn, did hand it off with all of the records to authorities.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=7

========================
Whaddaya want with yer jugged fish?
========================

=========
'Alibut??
=========

Kes & Peggy - Love your dead-on comments. I really like the Norman Mailer quote! Let's keep making faces (and writing emails.)

Kes - have you received a reply from the 2nd email address Pastor gave us to use? I still envision that computer down in a dark, dank cellar where nobody ever goes. It's programmed to send out one of three or four replies. Nobody has to see any of the dissident mail. (Sorry - my cynicism is acting up.)

Brad,
Being one of the, oh, 17 or so who persvered through the feedback to hear part one of your interview with JIM LAMPLEY:

This interview is an important piece and should be played on every election justice activist web site on the Internet. Pleas consider providing and distributing the audio files and a link to them to be distributed to the 100+ activist orgs for inclusion on their web sites. Every American needs to hear what JIM LAMPLEY has to say!

Hi Brad.

Over the past several months (that I have been monitoring your blog), you have worked your butt off proving the corruption in the highest levels of government. That is totally commendable.

However, do you think it is now time to take the next step... action? The momentum is building and we should start discussing what to do about the corruption that you have tirelessly exposed.

What should the next step or next level be?

Please kindly help to advise.

MrBlueSky