READER COMMENTS ON
"EXCLUSIVE: Q&A With Vote-Rigging Whistleblower Turned Candidate Clint Curtis..."
(30 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
Doug Eldritch
said on 2/15/2006 @ 2:18 pm PT...
Well Ann Coulter finally did something to be prosecuted....She committed Voter Fraud, so that's the fucking end of that.
Throw away the key...
I encourage all americans to go to CSPAN.org and actually follow what is happening in this country....
National security whistleblowers allege massive treason, coverup in hearings yesterday.
Colonel Schaffer, Michael German, and other americans have witnessed categorical treason on both sides. I swear to you if Sibel told what she knows right now, it would stretch across both aisles. That is why they want her shut up so desperately....
All the whistle blower laws have been destroyed. So the congress in that room called for new protections, and a permanent ban to the abuse of congress on whistleblowers as well as the executive branch of Richard Bruce Cheney.
This is going to end with a thunderclash.....not a tilt swoon.
Doug E.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
Jeff
said on 2/15/2006 @ 2:36 pm PT...
Psst! Brad!
That headline kinda makes him sound like a vote-rigging whistleblower...and if that's true, then he's in big trouble! He can just forget about that run at Capital Hill! And dessert for the next week! You've got to assert some discipline with young whistleblowers or they walk all over ya...
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
big dan
said on 2/15/2006 @ 5:00 pm PT...
Reading the above, their strategy just hit me. They will try to defeat Clint in the Democratic primary, because if Clint goes against Feeney, it will blow the lid off everything. This is where it will happen: they will hack the Democratic primary and make sure Clint's Democrat opponent wins. It is THE only way to dodge Clint.
And while we're at it, let's check the exit polls vs. the final count in the 2004 Dem primaries. Anyone ever do that? I think they may have pulled this strategy to have Kerry go against Bush, and not Howard Dean. Exactly who in their right mind thinks whoever's doing this only hacks Rep. vs. Dem. elections???
We must all keep an eye on the exit polls vs. the "final count" (wink wink) in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY!!! I think I beat them to the punch this time. I'm trying to think like they do. Know how they're always a step ahead of us? Not this time!
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
big dan
said on 2/15/2006 @ 5:18 pm PT...
If the Dems were smart, and they aren't, they'd run Clint unopposed in the primary, and FORCE a Clint vs. Feeney showdown. Let's check out the guy who's running against Clint. (see Sheehan/Hackett for more info on Dem's inept strategied)
We should bombard the DNC & Clint's opponent with emails not to run. There's a 100% chance Clint's Dem opponent will win, and then they will say, "Even their own party doesn't want him"...with a hacked primary.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 2/15/2006 @ 6:16 pm PT...
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
Doug Eldritch
said on 2/15/2006 @ 6:33 pm PT...
The primary will be hacked if the DLC has anything to say about it....
Clint Curtis should be warned and encouraged to expose their bullshit quickly...
Doug E
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/15/2006 @ 7:07 pm PT...
Clint should be preparing to run as an Independent in case he loses the Democratic primary. He just needs a certain number of signatures (don't know what Florida requires). As long as he's on the ballot, he can talk about election fraud, demand Feeney take a polygraph, call for the Ray Lemme case to be reopened, ask why Henry Nee got away with probation and a $100 fine...the whole nine yards.
Winning the Democratic primary would be better, obviously, because the media would take him more seriously.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
american woman
said on 2/15/2006 @ 11:17 pm PT...
Nice Q & A, guys. Now that I know Clint Curtis is running as a Dem, I'm going to send him a donation.
Wish I could send him my vote too. But it's a long walk from So. Cal.
And thanks, Brad, for encouraging him. Nice candidate pic, too.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Emma
said on 2/16/2006 @ 3:31 am PT...
I used to live in the area....not to worry...the newpapers will cover the primary just as extensively and when they do the background on both candidates they will cover Clint's charges which throws Feeney in the thick of it early!
E
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/16/2006 @ 3:39 am PT...
Clint: I hereby volunteer my services as a speech writer for you. As many as you need...gratis, and no favors expected after you're elected.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 2/16/2006 @ 6:07 am PT...
Doug E #1
Seems you post at position #1 all the time and hit the minority party all the time.
With all the evidence against the republican (majority) party out in the open, a thread with a candidate who changed from republican to democrat, you want to blame the democrats?
You are exhibiting the republican talking points at almost every post you do here. Was Jim March correct about where you are really coming from?
I will take you on at each and every post I find where you want to make accountability confused. It is simple, the majority party which Clint Curtis is fighting, has all the power in congress and the presidency, and they have done the wrong.
For you to start the crap of "both sides of the isle" you have to ignore so much stench, corruption, lies, and grevious spying, to pick on those out of power.
You are so very wrong to keep this up and so I will continue to point this out until November.
Vote out the republicans, vote for Clint Curtis!
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 2/16/2006 @ 6:17 am PT...
Republicans blocked the NSA probe (link here).
Republicans have become a homogeneous blob of sycophantic lemmings.
They are suffering from the corruption of power because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
They did not resist the neoCon hijacking of their party, but instead allowed the infection to reach all corners of their party.
They have qualified for the accountability which elections afford. Hold them accountable by voting them out ... and start by voting Clint Curtis in!
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/16/2006 @ 8:06 am PT...
For Dredd: The Republicans are the bad guys, no question. But I don't think it's wrong to point out that Democrats have failed to bring their crookedness to light, having had ample opportunity to do so.
What's wrong with hitting the Republicans hard, and at the same time demanding that Democrats do so?
The Democrats, as a party, have failed to expose frauds that led to their candidate being denied the White House twice in a row. They have enabled the Iraq debacle through their failure to stand up to Bush and the neo-cons in 2002-2003. They've failed to take a strong stand against prisoner abuse, extraordinary rendition, the outing of Valerie Plame, and Halliburton's no-bid contracts (hardly a complete list).
I'm not sure I get your point here. Why aren't both parties subject to condemnation? Why must we pick favorites between two pathetic organizations, one crooked and inept and the other inept?
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
big dan
said on 2/16/2006 @ 9:58 am PT...
Republicans are the ones ruining this country, no doubt. But, I bash the Democrats because I'm sick of the "lesser of 2 evils" cliche. I don't want the "lesser of 2 evils", I want something "good"! And the Dems are surely the lesser of 2 evils, but they aren't good...
Dredd, why do we have to settle for the "lesser of 2 evils"? I don't want to settle for that. And I'm sick of Dems saying "you're throwing away your vote, if you vote for Nader (or a 3rd party)". Dredd we're all throwing our votes away when we voted for Kerry, because the GOP hacked the election!
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 2/16/2006 @ 10:50 am PT...
RLM #14 & Big Dan #15
The "lesser of 2 evils" is something Bush considers before invading a nation, it is not what I use to describe american political parties. Comparing political parties is a naive exercise in that context.
Under our current system only one party is the majority party. And the minority is powerless even when they have moral strength.
Conyers was once powerful as the head of committees, and could subpoena and hold hearings. He could "get r done".
But while in the minority Conyers can't even get a meeting room, but instead must meet in the basement to try to get election fraud, domestic spying, and other issues to the surface. He can only write letters while he is in the minority.
Haven't you guys seen this over and over in the blog stories Brad has posted here all along?
Along with being in the majority in congress comes incredible power. Power to allow or deny subpoenas, schedule hearings, determine which subjects get a hearing, assign hearing rooms, crush the filibuster, and on and on.
The voters are confused when both the majority and the minority are blamed, and that is why the republican talking points emphasize "the dems do it too" ad nauseum. There is no way to correct the huge power bloc effects, in our system today, except thru not allowing it to exist. By voting the majority party out of congressional existence.
We are not anywhere close to the Nirvana and heavenly political party system whimsical wishings hope for in vain. It is a pipe dream at this point in our national history. Even tho it would be a better system.
We are at a brutal point in the politics of power, and would-be sophistry that would make it all perfectly nicey nice is undoubtably misplaced for the upcoming election.
Our system has only accountability to offer at the November election time. Brutal as it is, it is all we have ... vote out the majority party for the majority wrongs. Brutal but just. Rough but fair.
Then the congress will be split with the republicans still holding the senate, and dems the House. It evens the playing field a bit.
Then the dems will have some power. They govern better than republicans do, but they campaign worse than the republicans do.
Lets give the democrats a chance to show their governing prowess. The republicans have already shown us their incompetence at governing. If we leave them in we will have more unjust wars, unjust responses to Katrina like disasters, unjust tax relief, unjust financial benefits to the oil barons, unjust energy policy, and unjust courts.
Vote the republicans out this November. Then imagine Conyers as a committee chairman who has written a lot of letters for the past few years. Unanswered. Imagine him writing lots of subpoenas. Answered!
Its the American thing to do.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
emma
said on 2/16/2006 @ 11:02 am PT...
Dredd,
I understand what you say but it's hard to forget that we (dems) had both the House and Senate for nearly nearly 4 decades and treated the Republicans the same way they treat us. I think that's why things changed ...our abuse of power had Americans as upset as they are right now with the Republicans and it's why I think it will change again. I hope we learned something this time. I don't know how many times we can keep doing this with our country intact!
E
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
epppie
said on 2/16/2006 @ 12:38 pm PT...
I agree, #7. Same for Hackett. i think we need a new party in this country, or at least more independents.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/16/2006 @ 3:23 pm PT...
If we give Democrats a little more time to get their acts together, at what point do we say, "O.K., you didn't get it done."??? I'm there now.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
...
Laura
said on 2/16/2006 @ 5:31 pm PT...
RLM#18 Dems could have hung themselves ten times over with all the time we have given them. Every time I think they are going to stand up,they disappoint.Take the Patriot Act as an example. It got stopped last year and now all of a sudden everybody is voting for it even tho changes were not made to it. Russ Feingold got very little back up yesterday in the senate to help block it.Everybody is kisssing the White house's butt about it,after the mysterious gas found in the senate last week. Smoke and Mirrors all over again.So sick of it!
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
...
Laura
said on 2/16/2006 @ 5:32 pm PT...
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
...
Clint Curtis
said on 2/17/2006 @ 5:09 pm PT...
#11 Robert your help in my speeches will be welcomed since I am a programmer and I tend to think in code I'm told my writing is not at its best.
Speech writing, volunteer work and contributions will be greatly appreciated.
We will need $300,000.00 and 300 volunteers by the end of March 2006 to be able to make this a race.
Any donation whether $3 or $300 will help us bring the vote fraud issue to national attention and challenge Mr. Feeney where he lives.
I we do not get enough participation and are forced to withdraw all remaining contributions will be returned.
Thank you all again for your support.
Clint
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
...
emma
said on 2/17/2006 @ 6:26 pm PT...
Clint,
This can work if we all pull together and e-mail everyone in our address books! I have children that live in that district so I'll have them help...they'd love to take out Feeney!!! I will also send a contribution .
Emma
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/18/2006 @ 5:45 am PT...
Actually, Feeney is right about technology companies in general. Remember Scott McNeely of Sun Microsystems' comment? "You have no privacy. Get over it." Bill Gates, Jeffrey Bezos, and Michael Dell are basically the same, entrepreneurs who see the Internet has a vast empire of unlimited profit, with ethical considerations always in the astract world.
But a guy with no ethics like Feeney, talking about limited freedom as a virtue when he knows that open and free discussion of ethical questions will reveal his own sins, comes over as nothing more or less than a hypocrite. Let's all support Clint Curtis' campaign to the max.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
...
american woman
said on 2/18/2006 @ 12:01 pm PT...
I was also thinking about Feeney's former relationship with a certain amoral technology company. Remember, he was lobbiest and counsel for Yang Enterprises. Pot, kettle and such... Not to mention said technology company's former employee's involvement (and guilty plea) with illegal technology exports to China.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
...
american woman
said on 2/18/2006 @ 12:17 pm PT...
Tom Feeney Watch: One hardly knows where to begin with this revealing quote today, from Tom Feeney, defending the recent behavior of US firms in China:
"A person who gets a censored version of Google is more free than he was before" he had any Google access, says Rep. Tom Feeney (R) of Florida. But that toehold for freedom could vanish if Congress adds new rules because "technology companies, like most companies, are amoral. They're going to go where there's economic opportunity," he adds.
Take it away ... Brad & Clint!
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/18/2006 @ 4:01 pm PT...
For Clint Curtis: My e-mail address is as follows:
rmills6126@earthlink.net.
Contact me any time and I'll send you writing samples and a hypothetical speech for you to look at. Godspeed your candidacy...Bob Mills
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
...
american woman
said on 2/20/2006 @ 1:37 am PT...
St. Petersberg Times delivers gift to "our" Clint:
Feeney faces more scrutiny
They even mention this at the end of the article:
Feeney did not face opposition in 2004 but this year already has two opponents, veterinarian Andy Michaud, a Democrat, and computer programmer Clint Curtis, a lifelong Republican turned Democrat. Both Curtis and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee question Feeney's ethics.
Go Clint Go!
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 2/22/2006 @ 8:03 am PT...
Emma #17
The legal structure of our congress does not support a multi-party system, and is designed really for a two party system. This is not good.
Under the law of the House and Senate, "the Senate divides its tasks among 20 committees, 68 subcommittees, and 4 joint committees" ... "The chair of each committee and a majority of its members represent the majority party. The chair primarily controls a committee’s business" (link here).
Take an example where republicans win 30 seats, independents win 28 seats, greens win 29 seats, and democrats win 13 seats. We can now easily see that this will not work well.
The republicans with 30 seats end up as the majority party. Remember that the majority party and the majority are not the same thing in our example. The majority is 70 votes (greens, indys, and dems), but the majority party is 30 republican seats.
Therefore, they get the committee chair on each committee, and they get the majority number of members in each committee.
So, in our system, the majority of seats would be governed by the minority 30 seats.
See any way to improve this?
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/22/2006 @ 10:24 am PT...
For Dredd: Where is it written in law that the majority (or plurality) party gets all the committee chairmanships? I know that's how it works, but is there any reason why it should?
If, in the current framework, Republicans own 54% of the House seats and Democrats 46% (I think that's close to being right), wouldn't it make sense to apportion committee chairmanships on the same percentage basis? In truth, the 54% doesn't represent a share of the electorate, because House Democrats actually represent more citizens with their 46% than Republicans do with 54% (because blue states have bigger populations and because Republicans rigged the districts in their favor).
If we had three or four parties (like Britain and Canada), it's likely no party would have a majority, as you outlined. No party with a 40% plurality would dare claim control of Parliament simply because nobody else has more. Our system is broken, let's face it.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 2/23/2006 @ 5:37 am PT...
RLM #29 The answer is ...
The legal structure of our congress does not support a multi-party system, and is designed for a two party system. It is a winner take all affair.
This is not good, but it is reality.
Under the law of the House and Senate, "the Senate divides its tasks among 20 committees, 68 subcommittees, and 4 joint committees" ... "The chair of each committee and a majority of its members represent the majority party. The chair primarily controls a committee’s business" (link here).
Take an example where republicans win 30 seats, independents win 28 seats, greens win 29 seats, and democrats win 13 seats. We can now easily see that this will not work well.
The republicans with 30 seats end up as the majority party. Remember that the majority party and the majority are not the same thing in our system. The majority, in this example, is 70 votes (greens, indys, and dems), but the majority party is the republicans because they got those 30 seats.
Therefore, they get the committee chair on each and every committee, and they get the majority number of members in each and every committee of congress.
So, in our system, the majority of seats would be governed by the minority republican 30 seats.
Anyone see any way to improve this?
I do. The polls show that the body politic favors democrats in the upcoming election, and voting democrats into the majority is the public will.
We would have an easier time prevailing upon them to change the rules.
It should be pro rata based upon percentage of seats.
Committees should be distributed to all parties based upon percentage of seats in a pro rata configuration.
Otherwise, when independents, greens, democrats, and other parties fight each other the republicans always remain the majority party and therefore always control the congress.
So ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Click Here and Support Clint Curtis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~