I haven't listened to the debate yet but I sure hope Senator Bowen responded with some of the same points and rejoinders as you did here, Brad. Just from reading this blog I could have responded with many or most of these same points. Did the format allow her to counter McPherson's lies? Also, did you catch the LA Times article today about this race. Apparently, McPherson has a lot more money than Bowen in his campaign war chest to spend in the final weeks of this very close election. Amazingly, he has also gotten the endorsement of the traditionally Democratic leaning California Teachers Assn. What's up with that!

Bruce McPherson,.. the Secretary of State of California purged massive numbers of Democratic voters off the voting rolls,.. just like Blackwell in Ohio.

The HAVA voting reform act allowed them to do so,.. suppress the progressive and liberal voters by doing a massive purge from the voting rolls. If court action is not immediately taken to reverse this voter purge the Republicans will retain control of both the House and the Senate. Too many voters from the Democratic Party have been purged from the voting rolls for any hope to regain majority control of either the House or Senate. Two more years of exclusive Fascist Republican control over all branches of government. Something must be done - PRONTO.

Brad the link to "drafting documents for your office on your stationery." says NOT FOUND.

The fix is in.

The Republicans have successfully disenfranchised enough Democratic voters to hold power.

Now, they need a few things to happen for the criminal plan of the REPUBLICAN Party to work:

1. The Republicans will need a good "excuse" to explain their surprise wins. (Maybe a little tension in the middle east? Maybe a little tension in North Korea? Maybe a small attack on the USA? Can you say "false flag operation?")

2. The Republicans will need the mainstream media to buy into the excuse and claim the election was "fair and honest, with just a few smatterings of inconsequential problems." That's a no-brainer --- the corporate media has been doing that since 1998 without interruption every time the Republicans somehow secure a statistically or scientifically impossible win.

3. The Dems will have to sit back and not throw a hundred thousand lawyers and ten million dollars at this disgusting crime against Representative Democracy by the Republican Party and Republican operatives at the local level in every state.

4. The individual voters who have had taken away from them the franchise that previous generations DIED to give them will have to just walk off quietly and without complaint when told them are not allowed to vote. They will have to care more about what happens on LOST or AMERICAN IDOL than 230 years of history.

That's all that has to happen, and I suspect that is EXACTLY what will happen.

To quote a thousand sources (but not Edmund Burke, who apparently never said it): All that has to happen for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

Charlie L
Portland, OR

P.S. I live in Oregon, but since we vote by mail (and, unfortunately, all the votes are counted by ES&S or Sequoia), so my wife and I will spend November 7 helping voters in Washington State (across the border) vote or find lawyers to help them vote.

Has anyone else had problem getting into Raw Story? I was just there, reading a story on the upcoming election, and when I tried to go back to the main page I recieved an error report..I was "forbidden" to use that website. I understyand this is off topic, but wasnt sure where else to post this

I'm with ya Charlie on the fix is in

Mike,.. Comment # 5

Your not allow with problems at Raw Story web site.

This was just posted at the very top to explain/notify.

http://www.rawstory.com/...cent_technical_1019.html

Seems to be working ok now.

I just e-mailed this letter to the California Teacher's Association:

SUBJECT: Questioning Your Endorsement of Bruce McPherson for CA SOS

To Whom It May Concern-

I read in the LA Times today, with absolute incredulity, that the CTA had endorsed Bruce McPherson for California Secretary of State. How such an endorsement could have come to pass is absolutely beyond me. McPherson is absolutely nothing more than a Schwarzenegger and Diebold shill. I say this with absolute confidence that I am far more informed about this man's performance and credentials than those of you who made the decision to endorse him. Otherwise, you simply wouldn't have made such an endorsement if it was strictly based on what it should have been- his qualifications and reliability to perform his duties as Sec. of State in the best interest of those he represents (the people of California, not Diebold and the Republican Party). Given how poorly informed the general voting public generally is about the character and qualifications of candidates, especially for less publicized offices, it is the absolute responsibility of organizations like yours to make decisions that reflect true integrity and an honest effort to truly investigate the candidates they endorse. These are, after all, the people who will be expected to represent not only your interests, but the interests of the population of this state and, indeed, given the importance of this position (CA Sec. of State) in the grander scheme, to set a true example of how our sacrosanct but badly damaged voting system should be run in the US.

I truly hope you and your endorsement board will check out the video of the debate between Senator Bowen and Mr. McPherson (http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_291163808.html) that took place yesterday. The difference between these candidates couldn't be more obvious. You might also check out the comments at Bradblog (https://bradblog.com/?p=3640) about this race and the debate. Brad Friedman is an election integrity advocate and has well-chronicled the shenanigans of McPherson since he was installed by Schwarzenegger. If, after watching that debate and reading the information I have pointed you to your association is not willing to at least withdraw your endorsement of Mr. McPherson, it will be obvious to me, and hopefully others, that the credibility of any and all of your positions and endorsements should be strongly questioned.

I am cross posting this letter at BradBlog.com.

Sincerely,

my name
(Pediatrician and Parent)

Any Bowen supporters interested in fact-checking this claim of hers:

"According to a recent Pew Research Study, 52 percent of Americans do not have confidence that their vote will be counted as it was cast.”

If, as it appears, she refers to a PRS done in the wake of the 2004 election, there are some serious problems with her claim.
In fact, Brad Friedman would unquestionably call it a lie if it came from a Republican.
Look into it.

Just as a note: I am a registered Republican (going back to Barry Goldwater). I and other Republicans in the Silcon Valley fully support Brad and his work.

Going back on topic. Google this from RAW STORY Aug, 21 2006.

"A new Zogby poll to be released on Tuesday will reveal that 92% of Americans, spanning every party and democraphic group, believe that the public has the right to view and verify the counting of votes, RAW STORY has learned."

http://www.rawstory.com/...Americans_want_0821.html

And its getting worse. Why does Bruce do this? Its his job! That is why Arnold will NEVER fire him!
The takeover of California has been planned for some time. Why do you think Arnold was elected mid term? Ann Richards from Texas warned us about it. To put Bruce in power!

Moving forward, my guess is the evoting viruses are tested and ready to go. They may infect our voting systems when the machine's have their unsafe, unprotected sleepovers (I feel sorry for these machines). From ES&S to Diebold to Sequoia the unprotected machines are vulnerable to infection and NO ONE will check or give an exam.

BTW, my prediction only, the fun will begin after the election! The "elected party" will use every corrupt tactic known to man to push their pre-programmed results through (legal delays, demonstrations, maybe even preemptive swearing in, just to keep power. It will make Florida 2000 look like a picnic.

Time for a shot of whiskey. This is depressing.

Here is the quote from the 2004 Pew Study:

The vast majority of voters say they are very confident that their vote was accurately counted in the election, but voters express less confidence in the accuracy of the overall vote count nationwide. While 68% are very confident their own vote was counted accurately, just 48% express the same level of confidence that the votes across the country were accurately counted.

Although I cant say if this was the study Ms. Bowan cited, it is unbelievable that ony 48% of americans believe that votes were/are accurately counted in the US!!!!

For the teacher's association, that's strike 2 (the first was their rejection of prop 89). One more strike and I have NO sympathy for those people!

California nurses on the other hand rock!

Just as a note: I am a registered Republican (going back to Barry Goldwater). I and other Republicans in the Silcon Valley fully support Brad and his work.

Going back on topic.

Is it really fair to have a discussion dedicated to just one side of a debate? Bowen was there. She opened her mouth. How can you not be concerned with the accuracy of the information she presented?

Here is the quote from the 2004 Pew Study:

Although I cant say if this was the study Ms. Bowan cited, it is unbelievable that ony 48% of americans believe that votes were/are accurately counted in the US!!!!

You're correct: It is unbelievable. So unbelievable that it isn't true.
Have a closer look at the numbers:
closer look at report numbers

Look at them closely enough and you'll see that people were pretty confident nationwide in the vote count, that Bowen was almost certainly referring to this poll (add up some figures and you end up with her magic 52% figure), and you'll see that her statement badly misrepresented the facts.

That was from her opening statement. She can't even get that right and you want her for SoS?
She's either gullible (believing what her staff gave her to report) or a liar.

Ok Bryan, your two year old polls show many positive comments by on the 2004 election process. However, the year is 2006 and the American people have learned alot regarding our electorial processes. And they don't like what they have learned.

Lets go back to your posting. Your are clearly trying to derail the discussion by picking nits and hunting for bear when the bears are not there. Look at the Zogbey poll, it more than supports Ms Bowen's position. Your comment is clearly just another futile attempt to derail Ms Bowen's attempt win the election and give Californians back their right to have their vote counted.

MCP has major issues. He illegally certified the Diebold TSx machines and allowed ES&S M-100 machines to go home for sleep overs. Additionally, in the debate, he pushed Jim Crow voter ID cards. His electorial processes have multiple chain of custoday problems. As you may remember, MCP has been involved in a recent lawsuit per his illegal certification of Diebold machines. MCP is clearly not qualified to occupy his present position.

In terms of honesty, energy, management skills and intellectual horsepower, Bowen is the clear winner.

The fundamental issue in this election is: "Will we get a strong audit progam, meaning HAND COUNT ONLY?". With all of the questions with our process, most voters would not mind waiting a week or two for a real, human hand count. If not, then the county registar is hiding something.

Unfortunately, if I am correct, there will be alot of hiding going on in this election.

Back to my whiskey.

To Charlie L:
Glad to see you talking lawyers and not files this time.

Ok Bryan, your two year old polls show many positive comments by on the 2004 election process.

What matter is the poll Bowen cited. It's not my poll, it's the one she elected to twist (either willfully, or by hiring inept or dishonest staffers).

Lets go back to your posting. Your are clearly trying to derail the discussion by picking nits and hunting for bear when the bears are not there.

She told a whopper of a tale about the survey. Her abuse of the truth is worse than anything I've seen Friedman document on McPherson's part--and I've assessed a number of his claims by now.

In terms of honesty, energy, management skills and intellectual horsepower, Bowen is the clear winner.

Bowen's debate intro brings three out of four of those supposed strengths into question.

I live in Florida. It's not a huge concern for me who wins the SoS job in that state. California voters deserve to know that Bowen gave the Pew Research study a mighty twist, however, and you're not getting that from Friedman.
That should enter into Californians' decisionmaking along with anything solid (not much, from what I can see) that Friedman produces on McPherson.

Guess we're getting the straight story from you Bryan. Not! You're apparently not even capable of seeing how pitiful and nit-picking your argument is compared to the multitude of lies and deceptions that have been pointed out here regarding McPherson. You comment in your "blog", which you linked to in your Comment #9 above (the link has since been removed), "'Cause being a progressive is all about free speech, open-mindedness, and (above all) avoiding debate by whatever means necessary." skeptic94514 debated your desperate little argument quite well above and all you do is just come back with your same strawman "debate" points. Perhaps it's not that progressives want to avoid debate but that they have better things to do than engage in false debate with puffed up trolls like you.
Since you don't live in California and "it's not a huge concern for (you) who wins the SoS job in that state" why don't you go lurk somewhere else.

There was a poll done here in Alameda County, CA about a year ago, where our registrar's office is pretty good for the most part. It found that 48% of voters HERE did not trust that their votes will be fairly counted. I don't have a link, but it was reported front page in the Oakland Tribune at the time.

Also, CALL YOUR REGISTRAR'S OFFICE NOW to make sure you are registered. If you aren't you haave until next Tuesday to register (in California). In Alameda County there will be enough paper ballots at the polls for everybody who wants one, according to the ROV office.

48 % are very confidence that the vote is counted properly. That means 52 % (100 minus 48) are not very confident (or do not have confidence, to put it another way) that the vote is counted accurately.

I don't think that's remotely close to accurate now. It's far too conservative, since so many of voters have FINALLY awakened to the major flaws and "glitches" with e-voting around the country. Iowa, where in a race on op scan, every ballot was counted wrong due to a callibration problem. Court challenges in Texas, in a Republican primary. Controversies, mistrust, lawsuits,demands for recounts. Not a picture of confidence.

Gee Brad, you don't have to kick a man when he's down like that. McPherson came out naked and you went ahead and skinned him alive!

You are a mean, mean man!

I watched a C-SPAN debate between a top elections guy from the GOP and Rahm Emanuel, (who got sick and didn't show up). The reason the republicans are going to give for how they won is an old standby.

Everybody was fed up with the incumbents all across the nation, but they went ahead and voter for "their guy" anyway!

Get over it!

NEVER!

One thing that ticked me off was when the Republican accused the Democrats of wanting to impeach Bush when they got in power. The Democrat fell all over himself to say how ridiculous that was. God, I'm getting tired of these DCCC democrats playing right into the hands of the GOP.

Larry,
You are missing the point. Its not a matter of right vs. left, its a matter of right vs. wrong.
After this joke of an election, after our votes have been taken away, our rights have are gone and the detention camps are in place, its going to get nasty, real nasty.
MCP has done his assignment very well. Delivering the necessary votes to make it happen in 2006 for the party in power.
Just to remind you, I am a registered Republican, but go read one of Barry Goldwater's books. This ain't the Republican party.

Guess we're getting the straight story from you Bryan. Not!

Where have I steered you wrong regarding Bowen?

You're apparently not even capable of seeing how pitiful and nit-picking your argument is compared to the multitude of lies and deceptions that have been pointed out here regarding McPherson.

That may be. I've admitted that my interest in this race is primarily from the reporting standpoint. I only just took notice of it. Maybe McPherson is satan in human form--but one thing's for sure: Brad Friedman plays to those who have already judged McPherson, and he's ignoring problems with Bowen. Where he sources stories outside his own blog, his reports tend to distort the information.
If that's what you're here for, great.

You comment in your "blog", which you linked to in your Comment #9 above (the link has since been removed), "'Cause being a progressive is all about free speech, open-mindedness, and (above all) avoiding debate by whatever means necessary."

Huh. You left out the winking emoticon at the end.
That was written to a person who used the nickname "liberalprogressive" and she had taken down the comments I made on three different posts at her site.
I wasn't generalizing about liberals/progressives, I was cracking on one particular (apparent) coward.
If you went there once, you can visit again to verify what I said, even if "Investigative Blogger" Brad doesn't want his visitors investigating my blog(s).

skeptic94514 debated your desperate little argument quite well above and all you do is just come back with your same strawman "debate" points.

Get real. skeptic94514 said that the poll data was my two-year-old poll when it is almost certainly the survey cited by Bowen, then he proceded to attack McPherson as though McPherson could be so bad that Bowen becomes good on account of it.

There's no refuting the evidence against Bowen, whatever the truth is about McPherson.
The only thing that could help Bowen is a Pew Research Study more recent than 2004 that agrees with the claims she made. That would surprise me no end.

Thanks to all the Republicans with the conscience and backbone to speak out against these criminals. They don't represent you is right! They use every and anybody as cover for their PNAC agenda, which is well under way.

There was a poll done here in Alameda County, CA about a year ago, where our registrar's office is pretty good for the most part. It found that 48% of voters HERE did not trust that their votes will be fairly counted. I don't have a link, but it was reported front page in the Oakland Tribune at the time.

I can't find what you're talking about using a variety of search parameters. You want to try?
Oakland Tribune archive page

If that's the survey Bowen looks no better since she emphasized the confidence of "Americans" not Alameda County residents (not that Alameda County doesn't contain Americans!), and she called it a Pew Research Poll (which probably isn't going to happen just in Alameda County).
If you're correct, Bowen is still inept (or a liar).

48 % are very confidence that the vote is counted properly. That means 52 % (100 minus 48) are not very confident (or do not have confidence, to put it another way) that the vote is counted accurately.

No it doesn't mean that 52% "are not very confident," it means that 52% "are not 'very confident.'" The difference is semantics makes a big difference (see concept of "spin").
The poll question offered a scale for respondents to grade their answeres.

In the first place, there were two poll questions. One asked how people felt about their own vote being counted accurately. 92 percent said they were "very confident" or "somewhat confident" that their vote was accurately counted. "Not too confident" and "Not at all confident" registered a combined 7% while 1% was "unsure." Bowen's phrasing suggested that this was her topic (people's confidence in their own vote being counted accurately).
In the second place, the poll question concerning the nationawide tally had 37% "somewhat confident" that the vote tabulation would be accurate in America.
The "somewhat confident" category after the spin cycle, becomes "not very confident" in the hands of McFear Survey Group and the bulk of the people who "do not have confidence" as Bowen phrased it.

Whatever you think of McPherson, what Bowen did was disgraceful.

I don't think that's remotely close to accurate now. It's far too conservative, since so many of voters have FINALLY awakened to the major flaws and "glitches" with e-voting around the country. Iowa, where in a race on op scan, every ballot was counted wrong due to a callibration problem. Court challenges in Texas, in a Republican primary. Controversies, mistrust, lawsuits,demands for recounts. Not a picture of confidence.

Bowen should have cited McFear Survey Group instead of Pew Research, clearly.

OT,..

Look at this despicable campaign commercial by Vernon Robinson running for a US House of Representatives from North Carolina.

Hannity and Robinson defend this Fascist/Nazi political ad that was to run on TV.

Here is the video clip of the Fox interview,.. where Robinson attempts to defend allowing this trash to pollute the airwaves.

McPherson has abdicated his constitutional DUTY of representing the interests of the citizens of California in upholding the California Constitution and our Election Code. Instead he has chosen to represent the interests of the local election officials and the vendors. The documentation supporting that conclusion is voluminous.

For example:
The legislature passed a law mandating that every DRE voting unit provide a "voter verified paper AUDIT trail". The key word being AUDIT. Yet when citizens expected and wanted that "audit trail" to actually be used to audit the electronic reported results McPHerson opposed that and took the position that the "paper audit trail" should not, and did not have to be, used for conducting our mandatory MANUAL audit. The legislature was forced to clarify what they meant (as if it wasn't already clear enough. McPherson joined the local election officials in opposing th bill, even writing a dishonest and misleading OpEd that appeared in the San Jose Mercury News. The law passed and was signed into law despite his opposition. Even with passage of that law, some counties such as San Diego, still subverted the intent of the law and conducted the mandatory audit in such a way as to make it impossible for citizens to confirm the accuracy of the electronic count. San Diego County compared the election night report totals, without any of the absentee ballots, and used that as the database by which to make comparisons.

Example:
Riverside County asked the McpHerson for a waiver from the requirement to post the voting machine results outside every polling location. He refused but they did not do it anyway. He did nothing to enforce the requirement.

Example:
The California Election Code requires him to make written "findings" incorporated in his certified approval of a voting system that the voting system DOES comply with all laws, standards, and regulations. The Election Code contains no language allowing a "conditional" approval (an approval based upon certain condition being met). Yet in every certified approval McPHerson has made this year he has made NO "findings" in the certified approval he has signed that among other requiremetns that the the voting system is safe from fraud or manipulation, and complies with all laws,etc. Instead he has made it one of the CONDITIONS that the voting system SHALL comply with all laws, etc. Placing the burden upon voting activists to prove that the voting system in question does not comply. That is a greivious abdication of his duty and a direct violation of the Election Code. That is why Holder v McPherson was filed, because he failed to do his job. Holder v McPherson is alive and well and proceeding. It is a deliberate misrepresentation that the court "agreed with his processes". Not only has there not been an opportunity to present evidence and testimony about the appropriateness of the "processes" (the term is actually procedures), it ignores the fact that even his inadequate mitigating procedures were not followed by many local election officials, and he did nothing to force compliance.

Example:
For many years, including during the time Republican Jones was the Secretary, Procedures were established and used that all vendors followed in seeking approval of voting systems. Among those Procedures was the establishment of a Voting Systems and Procedures Panel made up of individuals appointed by the Secretary. Normally there were 6-8 members who conducted the required "public hearing". At the hearings the Election Division staff would present their reports concerniing the application and subsequent examination of a proposed voting system. The panel was able to ask them questions concerning the reports. The vendors were also present and the panel also asked them questions. At the end of that time the public was then invited to offer expert testimony, raise questions, or make comments about the proposed voting system. Then the panel would make a motion and vote whether they would make a recommendation to the Secretary to approve the voting system. This process allowed the voting public to be involved, and made the process, including the staff and vendors publicly accountable. June 2005 was the last such conducted hearing, it occuring shortly after McPherson took over as Secretary. He then disbanded the panel and abandoned that process. Now the public "hearings" consist of the public being allowed to state the comments into the record. No more questions and answers between panel members and the staff and vendors. No more expert testimony. No more panel discussing what they learned, raising issues publicly, and conducting a public vote.
He made these changes arbitrarily, unilaterally, with no public hearing that is required before making such major changes in the Procedures. The Secretary of States office used these established Procedures (28 pages long) for many years as the process by which voting systems were approved. All vendors were required to comply with the Procedures as well as the Elections Division and its staff. As such they became de-facto "regulations". Regulations cannot be changed except through due process and public participation.

The list of McPherson's failures as Secretary of State is long, and documented. He not only has violated the law, he has egregiously violated the spirit of the law. He has made the entire electoral process more secretive, failed to require local election officals to comply with the law, and has shown himself to be not only ignorant of the law, but also incompetent. I have personally seen him answer questions with incorrect information. I have seen him in videos and in writing make misleading statements or twist the facts to support his position.

I would be willing to bet that "Bryan" has never attended a Voting Systems and Procedures Panel public hearing, has not read our Election Code, the Procedures for Use for the voting systems that have been certified by McPherson, nor even read the Certification of Approval with Conditions issued by McPherson this year. Nor has he obtained thousands of pages of "public documents" through any public records requests showing what has been going on in California. His only argument is based upon a number cited during a debate that he takes out of context, then has siezed upon like an obsession. His imposition of his ignorant opinion into our election is loathsome, both because it is an intentional "red herring", and more importantly it is a threat to the sanctity of my and millions of other Californian's votes.

Debra Bowen supports "open government", McPherson does not.
She supports the idea that the elections should be completely visible in all aspects to the voter, McPherson does not.
Senator Bowen would uphold the law and the spirit of the law, McPherson has not and does not.
Senator Bowen understands the inherent vulnerabilities of electronic methods of voting or counting of votes, McPherson does not.
Debra Bowen wants the reality of voter confidence based upon election proof that the voting systems are trustworthy, McPherson takes the position of too many local election officials that the perception of trustworthiness is more important.

McPherson has failed to do his Constitutional duty as Secretary of State. He does not deserve to be elected to the post.

Senator Debra Bowen has shown she is knowledgeable, capable, and has taken action to make sure the way we vote is secure and accurate.

Who cares if voters are confident that they will be counted? What they don't know won't hurt them, right?

So what do we do NOW to take the offensive and fight Voter Fraud.

We are 2 weeks away, and we need options before we vote, not after.

Jody Holder:
I would be willing to bet that "Bryan" has never attended a Voting Systems and Procedures Panel public hearing, has not read our Election Code, the Procedures for Use for the voting systems that have been certified by McPherson, nor even read the Certification of Approval with Conditions issued by McPherson this year.

Correct on every point, not that it matters.
OTOH, I'm probably more familiar with the Florida Statutes than is Holder.
I haven't made any secret that I don't know much about the particulars of this issue.
I do know that Bowen misled somewhat spectacularly in her opening statement.

His only argument is based upon a number cited during a debate that he takes out of context,

You don't appear to know what it means to take something out of context.
Bowen specifically stated that her decision to run for this office came about from the crisis of voter confidence, and her evidence of that crisis stemmed from a completely misleading citation of a Pew Research survey. I most certainly have not abused the context of her statement.

then has siezed upon like an obsession.

You can cure me of the obsession by forming a big group that acknowledges the fact that Bowen put big-time spin on the data.
Make excuses, deny, or falsely suggest that I took something "out of context" and you simply give me a reason to argue my position.

His imposition of his ignorant opinion into our election is loathsome, both because it is an intentional "red herring", and more importantly it is a threat to the sanctity of my and millions of other Californian's votes.

lol
Right.
If I tell you the truth about the stats Bowen cited, it threatens the sanctity of your vote.
You're joking, right?

Allocations for this OrgID serve Road Runner residential customers out of the Austin, TX and Tampa Bay, FL RDCs.

So, Bryan, does this mean that you are sitting at home in Tampa Bay, spending all this energy, just to come off like a flying monkey? What is your interest in harping on the Bowen/McPherson question? Got someone near and dear whose livelihood depends on killing democracy? Or are you just trying to get back at Brad for butting-in to Florida politics?

You made your point. What's the payoff for sticking around to be antagonistic? I mean, knock yourself out. Keep it up, but every time you heap another post upon the stuff you've already posted, you look stupider and more evil. I'm the only one who has to read this drivel, and I've got plenty of ibuprofen, but it strikes me as completely wasteful to spend so much time making yourself look so bad.

skeptic94514 #21

Barry Goldwater was a little before my political time, but I watched most of the HBO special about him. I thought it was very interesting that John Dean went to ask him what to do the night before he went into testify against his boss, (Nixon). Goldwater told him to go ahead and take him down.

You certainly don't see that kind of countryman anymore. It's everything for the party and to stay in power. Goldwater would be giving the same advise today about Bush. Take him down!

I hope John Conyers goes after the Democrats who deserve it too! I'm sure there will be a bipartisan effort, and will be healthy for America!

All I can say for today's Republican party is "I like Ron Paul". I can name many Democrats I like, but I wish they would just stand up and let their voices be heard more. I don't like trickery, and would much rather they just said what they think. Barry Goldwater would probably agree.

Excellent article Brad. No stone left unturned. A very thorough roasting of BMC's incomprehensible spin. BMC is childlike in his disrespect of truth and fellow beings.

"So, Bryan, does this mean that you are sitting at home in Tampa Bay, spending all this energy, just to come off like a flying monkey? What is your interest in harping on the Bowen/McPherson question?"

You mean the Bowen question?
I've offered that I don't have much of an opinion formed on McPherson (other than the fact that Friedman does a poor job of making the case against him).

"Got someone near and dear whose livelihood depends on killing democracy?"

Are you some type of semantic vampire who cannot live without hyperbole?

"Or are you just trying to get back at Brad for butting-in to Florida politics?"

I've explained my interest in this blog at my own site. Look it up if you're truly interested. Meanwhile, suffice it to say you're off the mark.

"You made your point."

Thanks. Do you acknowledge the point?

"What's the payoff for sticking around to be antagonistic?"

Why is it antagonistic to stick around defending my POV from flawed attacks?
Or did you have something else in mind?

"I mean, knock yourself out. Keep it up, but every time you heap another post upon the stuff you've already posted, you look stupider and more evil."

With each post I look stupider and more evil? Based on what aspect of the content?
And if it's not based on content, would you say that others who post here repeatedly suffer the same effect?

"I'm the only one who has to read this drivel, and I've got plenty of ibuprofen, but it strikes me as completely wasteful to spend so much time making yourself look so bad."

Look bad in what way?
Did I make a mistake in my assessment of Bowen's opening statement?

Are you quite certain you're not substituting personal attacks for your inability to defend Bowen on the point I've introduced?

Think about it. You have plenty of time. Check your hit counter/s.

Agent 99:

This guy's too easy. Don't fall asleep while rebuking him! The freepers must be scraping the bottom of the barrel!

Agent 99 wrote:
Think about it. You have plenty of time. Check your hit counter/s.

Think about what?
I left off with a question, and you gave me a question in return (not one that appeared particularly related to the one I asked).
Plenty of time for what? To think about what you haven't/won't specify?
Check my hit counter?
Why? How is that relevant?

You popped in, made a bunch of nonsense statements that I treated in excess detail, and now you have no answer, it appears.
Am I supposed to be surprised?

"Larry" wrote:
This guy's too easy.

In what way, Larry? You think that the lib/prog commenters win when I allow the truth of statements they make as diversionary tactics, or what?
Some victory, if that's what you're suggesting.

Don't fall asleep while rebuking him!

Now there's some good advice. Some of the attempts to defend Bowen could believeably have come from unconscious persons.

The freepers must be scraping the bottom of the barrel!

There's a hint of conspiracy theory in your words. What evidence have you got to connect me with the The Free Republic?

Bowen is guilty of making an extremely misleading statement in her introductory comments.
There's no condemnation here, however, unless we count shooting the messenger.

Aren't you just a tiny bit ashamed of yourself?

Yawn.

Bryan
You must be getting paid to do this. There is no other rational reason for someone to dedicate so much energy to making one insignificant point. Bowen quoted a two year old poll. Big deal. She blew McPherson out of the water on every issue, every topic. You just can't get past this one little thing, as if it's the key to overturning the whole debate. You lost, get over it. Move on.

You must be getting paid to do this.

Who would care about the truth for free?

There is no other rational reason for someone to dedicate so much energy to making one insignificant point.

I think you somehow missed the point, judging from what follows.

Bowen quoted a two year old poll. Big deal.

It's the not age of the poll that is the point (though a nitpicker might find fault with Bowen calling it "recent").
The problem is that she grossly misreported the data.

No big deal that a canditate grossly misreports data?
Again, even if McPherson is one of Satan's minions, you should be concerned.

She blew McPherson out of the water on every issue, every topic. You just can't get past this one little thing, as if it's the key to overturning the whole debate. You lost, get over it. Move on.

What did I lose, exactly?
The only sense in which it might be said that I failed is in getting you liberal/progressives to understand what Bowen did.

And, FWIW, I don't trust the partisan assessment of the debate outcome. Friedman appears to have no talent for putting together a good critical assessment; the rest of you seem to be little more than cheerleaders.

Bowen's trying to sell you lot on the notion of a tamper-proof election.
It's very unlikely that such a thing exists. Legislating a guarantee for such an election seems like a litigator's dream. You might want to check the position of California trial lawyers on that one.
Follow the money.

Welp, here's what McPherson had to say to me today, responding to my concerns about the integrity of the California election system.

Now I can relax in complete confidence, comforted by his clarifications.

RE: Emergency Ballot Supply

Elections Web Mail
to me
1:46 pm (24 minutes ago)

Thank you for your recent email regarding the use of paper ballots in
the upcoming November 7, 2006 election.

As Secretary of State, I believe that there is no right more fundamental
and vital than the right to vote. Democracy depends on it.

I would like to clarify a few points so you can have confidence in how
elections are conducted in California.

First, all electronic voting machines used in California elections have
a paper trail that is used for the voter to verify the vote cast and as
the official ballot record. In fact, a 2006 California law, which I
sponsored in the Legislature, permanently requires that all electronic
voting machines used in California elections, must have a voter-verified
paper audit trail of each ballot cast. Further I have implemented the
most rigorous voting systems testing standards and security precautions
in the nation to insure the accuracy and integrity of the each vote
cast. These include:

1. The toughest voting systems testing standards in the nation
(10-step process).
2. Three-tiered testing --- federal, state and local --- with
thorough checks and balances.
3. Each machine has a strict set of use procedures to ensure proper
implementation including custody logs, proper storing, and serialized
security seals.
4. 1% manual recount tally to audit the results to make sure they
are accurate.
5. New paper trail requirement that allows a voter to see how they
voted and to correct any errors prior to casting their ballot.
6. Systems that allow disabled voters to vote independently and
privately statewide for the first time.

In addition, I have directed all county election officials to have an
adequate supply of paper ballots, as determined by the election
official, available at the voting locations on election day for use in
the event of a power failure, temporary loss of the ability to use
electronic equipment, or if a voter chooses not to vote on electronic
equipment. These ballots may be cast on sample or provisional ballots or
other reasonable, available supplies of ballots. If a voter who is
otherwise entitled to cast a regular ballot does so on a paper
provisional ballot, that ballot shall be handled as a regular ballot -
not as a provisional ballot. This directive has been in effect for each
election I have overseen - the 2005 Special Election and for both the
2006 Primary and the upcoming General Election.

Please be assured that I am dedicated to ensuring that all Californians
are able to vote and have their vote counted accurately. No voter
should ever be turned away or told to come back later because a voting
system is not available when the voter appears.

For additional information on voting systems, please visit my web site
at http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_vs.htm

Sincerely,

BRUCE McPHERSON
Secretary of State

Pat Duff #41

And all this time, we've been worried. Now we can get back to our lives and rest easy.

Bryan,
So you ARE being paid to post on this blog. By whom, I wonder?

getplaning

He's just hypnotized and trying to see how obnoxious he can be. He came in with a point... or part of one... nothing as damning as he clearly wishes it would be, but --- look --- the rest is completely worthless bandwidth waste. He has not got the remotest clue that this level of Floridian interest in a California State office hasn't got enough foundation for his little crusade. He's doing field work for Troll University, and, as we all should know by now, feeding trolls just keeps them alive. If we just leave him hungry, he'll starve before he graduates.

Agent 99 wrote:
He came in with a point… or part of one… nothing as damning as he clearly wishes it would be

Congratulations to Agent 99 for offering the closest thing so far to an admission from a liberal that Bowen did anything questionable in the very least.

Oh, and thanks for feeding the thread some added momentum.
;)