Blogswarm - Online Political News Magazine



Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Donnie Fowler for DNC Chair?

DNC CHAIR DONNIE FOWLER
More than twenty-four hours ago, DNC Chair candidate Donnie Fowler posted a diary on MyDD and then fled without answering any of the dozens of questions that people asked.

Over on Kos, ttagaris referred to this as A Flaming Bag of Dog Poop, noting:

Remember when you were teenager and you used to play ding-dong-ditch with your friends?  Maybe some of us took it to the next level and would leave a flaming bag of poop on a doorstep?
[...]
Would a candidate, when going door to door, ring the doorbell, drop a piece of literature on the front step, and then run away to the next house? The same should be asked about on-line outreach.
He continues:

You see, the Internet is the ONLY medium of two-way mass communication available.  One of the things I dread is that the Democratic Party will see this wonderful blogosphere and think in terms of pre-modern campaign communications.

I don't want to see them stuck in the mindset of television, radio, and print advertising.  Just talking at you in a 30 second spot, or a full-page advertisment.  NO! NO! NO!  If that is the way you want to use the net in 2005/2006 -- then you will get left behind in the netroots.  For many, that will be just fine.  To you, I wish the best of luck -- but I am uninterested in your campaign.

To the candidates who recongize the value of this two-way dialogue, the spoils shall go.  And I am not just talking about fundraising.  Cause if fundraising dollars are the only reason your are willing to "put up" with us, then you are not welcome in the netroots vision for the future of the Democratic Party.

In the comments, wanderindiana notes, "I salute you for your connection of two-way communication with reform."

Which I think is a very important concept. Reform requires responsiveness and accountability, not flaming bags of dog poop. We don't need leaders who use the internet like an ad, we need leaders who use the internet to interact.

Absent interaction, Fowler's post is nothing more than an ad "talking at" us by another politician who doesn't get it. To paraphrase Plato, Fowler has come out of the cave and realized there is more to see than the shadows on the wall. But he hasn't realized that he can interact with this new world.

An entire 24 hour media-cycle later, the questions people posted appear to have been in vain. This was a major missed opportunity. I don't want our Chair to miss opportunities...we've done enough of that.

I figure it is time to forget about Fowler and talk amongst ourselves. Thus, I have attempted to answer some of the questions about Fowler from comments that have ended up in the blogosphere.

QUESTION: MySteve:

What about minority outreach?"

ANSWER: Maxwell:

I have a little trouble fully committing to someone like Fowler who make such gross errors of fact as this:

Whether marching under the banner of the Tories (Revolutionary War), the Democrats (Civil War), or the Republicans (civil rights movement), conservatives have consistently resisted progress that we now consider obvious and natural:

The Republicans were the natural allies of the Civil Rights Act, and voted 27-6 to pass it through the Senate. It was Southern Democrats who resisted it...22 in the Senate and 96 in the House. This was the seminal event that restructured political affiliations along demographic lines among Democrats, and resulted in the exodous of many party members over the next decades.

If Fowler misunderstands one of the most fundamental events in modern Democratic Party history, I'm worried about him becoming the operational and very public voice of the party.

***

QUESTION: Josh Koenig:

I'm curious how you'd see the National party working (if at all) to revitalize state-level organizations.

ANSWER: Emptywheel:

In short, if the MI campaign is an example of what Donnie Fowler's DNC would be like, I want out. Here are some gripes:

I was the precinct/ward organizer for one of the medium-large counties in MI. You'd think, as a grassroots organizer for one of the must-win areas in MI, I'd have heard from you, or at least known that you valued my work and that you were listening to my good ideas.

But you see, the volunteers who ran our grassroots never attended one of the state meetings. Nor did we see you locally (suffice it to say we're accessible to both Lansing and Detroit). The people who attended meetings were the paid people--some might call them consultants, part of that aristocracy you claim to want to get rid of.

I don't really care that I wasn't invited to meetings--I was spending 10-60 hours a week volunteering, I didn't need more meetings (although I think it belies your claim for inclusion at every level).

But I do care that every time we tried to do something at a local level because IT MADE SENSE, we either had to lie, subject our paid staffers to berating in those weekly meetings, or just try to fudge the numbers. That is, not only did the MI coordinated campaign NOT listen to local leaders, it forced local leaders to manipulate the system in order to do what we knew to be right.

Now I'm willing to see you provide proof that you can change--that your leadership of the DNC would be different from what I saw in MI. But barring that I really can't see throwing you a lot of support. You talk a good talk. But your proven record doesn't match that talk, at least not from the perspective of this local grassroots leader.

***

QUESTION: desmoulins:

I'm all for reforming the party nationally and at state level but I wonder what the new reformed party will look like that is different from how it functions today.

ANSWER: BigDog04:

Fowler is trouble not for any obvious policy or reform reasons, in my judgment, but because he's incompetent in my opinion. All he succeeded in the Clark Campaign was to insure chaos and an unprepared candidate with astoundingly weak staffing...which just compounded the errors.
Imagine a nascent, last minute Presidential Campaign with an inexperienced political candidate, (who has the ENTIRE Media Spotlight, a compelling history with substantive viewpoints, significant strategic strengths against the Republican Machince) yet the first non-pro Press Secretary and Campaign Manager Fowler don't prepare the candidate for the most obvious of questions about Iraq?

I'm not a highly paid professional political operative...but I guarantee that conversation and role-play would have taken place where I or any other of hundreds of experienced politcal types in charge.

Why do you think he was on the Clark Campaign such a short period of time? Let's see....Wes Clark madee his decision late in the afternoon on September 15, 2003, announced on Sept 17, 2003 and Fowler resigned October 8, 2003. Why is his presidential campaign chairmanship even mentioned?

Leaving while publicly claiming to have been championing the 'rights' of the Draft Movement participants, the reality is that he was asked to take a secondary role...and he petulantly picked up his toys...went home AND TALKED TO THE PRESS ABOUT IT!

That wasn't loyal professional political technique then or now.

****

QUESTION: Norm:

You were the National Field Director for Gore 2000. You state you worked in both Iowa and New Hampshire that year. In Donna Brazile's recent book she has a story about election day for the New Hampshire primary. Basically, she writes that after the Gore campaign discovered that Senator Bill Bradley was leading in the exit polls, the Gore campaign helped cause a traffic jam during rush hour in areas of New Hampshire that were trending heavily for Bradley. Essentially, she wrote this off as something like "alls fair in love and war." Michael Whouley I think has also told similar stories. Vice President Gore ended up barely defeating Senator Bradlay in NH. My question to you, Mr. Fowler, is this: what role did you play in any discussions about causing a traffic jam to block Bardley voters from getting to the polls? Were you involved in any such discussions, and if so, how do you explain this attempt to block voters getting to the polls with all of the Democratic rhetoric is 2000 about voting in Florida and 2004 in Ohio?

ANSWER: wmtriallawyer:

He was national field director for Gore/Liberman. In other words, he was the guy in charge of ensuring all D voters in the U.S. were targeted, called, cajoled, and brought to the polls.

If he did his job in Tennessee (Gore's home state), Arkansas (Big Dog's home state), West Virginia (traditional D state before Rove got to it), Ohio, Florida, etc., etc., we wouldn't be here moaning over W.

Some field director. And now he wants to run the party? Mmmm, no thanks...

****

QUESTION: Rayne:

I'll be real blunt here: I saw more organization in my county here in Michigan from MoveOn and from the Sierra Club than I did the Democratic Party.

Frankly, I can't see what the impediments were towards making any of the so-called "innovative programs" work in Michigan during this last campaign. If MoveOn could do them, why weren't they already implemented?

If this didn't get done at state level, what's to say they'll get done at national?

ANSWER: BigDog04:

This is vintage Donnie F. He makes a great sales job to GET the job..then blows it because of a lack of real skill.

This interchange says a lot more about a lack of ability to work with people than it does anything else.

Whatever else the new DNC Chair does...he/she must be able to work with people who really disagree with them...and still make progress towards a greater goal. Fowler has NEVER shown a bit of success at a high level in his work.

*****

QUESTION: Andrew C White:

I also wonder about your statement here...

"raise money through traditional means and recognize value of new donors"

What do you mean by that? "traditional means"? Is this a poorly worded statement or are you sending an anti-internet and small-donor message? That's the way it sounds but I doubt you really meant it that way. Care to take a moment to clarify?

ANSWER: BigDog04:

And I have, after hearing a participant in a DFA training tell me how Fowler said "he" knew the secrets of the online campaign revolution, even less respect. Bah. Lots of Dean people should have stood up and stoned him in that meeting...much less the Draft Movement folks that took the online campaign to a new place too and worked it as hard as they could.

As one activist has already told me:
"If Fowler become DNC Chair...I'm gone. The Party is hopeless."


Posted at 06:39 pm by blog swarm
Make a comment  

Denounce Torture

An Open Letter to Alberto R. Gonzales

January 4, 2005

Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales

Counsel to the President

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC   20500

Dear Judge Gonzales:

We, the undersigned religious leaders, greet your nomination to be Attorney General of the United States with grave concern.

As a self-professed evangelical Christian, you surely know that all people are created in the image of God. You see it as a moral imperative to treat each human being with reverence and dignity. We invite you to affirm with us that we are all are made in the image of God – every human being. We invite you to acknowledge that no legal category created by mere mortals can revoke that status. You understand that torture – the deliberate effort to undermine human dignity – is a grave sin and affront to God. You would not deny that the systemic use of torture on prisoners at Abu Ghraib was fundamentally immoral, as is the deliberate rendering of any detainee to authorities likely to commit torture.

We urge you to declare that any attempt to undermine international standards on torture, renditions, or habeas corpus is not only wrong but sinful. We are concerned that as White House counsel you have shown a troubling disregard for international laws against torture, for the legal rights of suspected "enemy combatants," and for the adverse consequences your decisions have had at home and abroad.

How could you have written a series of legal memos that disrespected international law and invited these abuses? How could you have justified the use of torture and disavowed protections for prisoners of war? How could you have referred to the Geneva Conventions as “quaint” and “obsolete.” We fear that your legal judgments have paved the way to torture and abuse.

We therefore call upon you

•  To denounce the use of torture under any circumstances;

•  To affirm, with the Supreme Court, that it is unconstitutional to imprison anyone designated as an "enemy combatant" for months without access to lawyers or the right to challenge their detentions in court;

•  To affirm the binding legality of the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war;

•  And to reject the practice of "extraordinary rendition," at home and abroad, by which terrorist suspects are sent to countries that practice torture for interrogation.

We believe, as you do, that the United States must be an example of moral leadership in the world community. However, the events at Abu Ghraib have gravely compromised America's moral authority. We ask that you commit yourself as Attorney General to repairing that damage by articulating and enforcing legal policies that reject the use of torture, embrace and advance standards of international law, and honor the dignity of all of God's creation.

With prayers for wisdom and grace,

   Over 225 Religious Leaders

  (Affiliations listed for identification only)

Initial Endorsers:

Rev. Dr. George Hunsinger, Princeton Theological Seminary 

       Coordinator: Church Folks for a Better America

Dr. C. René Padilla, General Secretary for Latin America, IFES

Sr. Dianna Ortiz, director, Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International

Rabbi Arthur Waskow, The Shalom Center

Sr. Joan Chittister, OSB

Dr. Susan Thistlethwaite, President, Chicago Theological Seminary

Mr. Jim Wallis, Editor, Sojourners

Dr. Ron Sider,   President,   Evangelicals for Social Action

Dr. Anthony Campolo, Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education

Dr. Rubén Rosario Rodríguez, St. Louis University

Dr. Juanita Jartu Jolly, Agape Christian Tabernacle

Rev. Victor Aloyo, Jr., Director of Vocations, Princeton Theological Seminary

Rev. Alexia Salvatierra, Executive Director, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice

Pastor Amaury Tañón-Santos, American Baptist Churches

The Rev. John E. Denaro, Episcopal Migration Ministries

Rabbi Michael Lerner, The TIKKUN Community

Dr. Stanley Hauerwas, The Divinity School of Duke University

Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton, Aux. Bishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit

Bishop James H. Burch, Catholic Diocese of One Spirit

Rev. Dr. Joseph C. Hough, Jr., President, Union Theological Seminary

Rabbi Mordechai Liebling, The Shefa Fund

Rev. Dr. James H. Cone, Union Theological Seminary

Dr. Teresa Whitehurst, Jesus on the Family Institute

Dr. Glen Stassen, Fuller Theological Seminary

Rabbi Brian Walt, Rabbis for Human Rights North America

Rev. Romal Tune, African American Ministers Council

Rev. Dr. Therese M. Becker, Department of Spiritual Care, University of Chicago Hospitals

Rabbi Shirley Idelson, Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion

Rev. Theophlus Caviness, Greater Abyssinia, Cleveland, OH

Rev. Violete Dease, Abyssinian Baptist, Harlem, NY

Dr. Paul H. Sherry, National Council of Churches of Christ
Iftekhar Hussain, Secretary General, American Muslim Society of the Tristate Area

Rev. Victoria J. Furio

The Rev. Julio Torres

Rev. Timothy McDonald, African Amer. Ministers Council & First Iconium Baptist

Dr. Tarunjit Singh, Secretary General World Sikh Council - America Region

Dr. William Werpehowski, Center for Peace and Justice Education, Villanova University

Mr. Dave Robinson, Executive Director, Pax Christi USA

Mahdi Bray, Executive Director Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation

Sheila Musaji, Editor, The American Muslim Magazine

Mohammed Kaiseruddin, President, Muslim Community Center, Chicago

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

Dr. A.S. Mahdi Ibn-Ziyad, Africana Islamic Institute

Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, Sound Vision Foundation

Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs

Rev. Meg Riley, Unitarian Universalist Association

The Rev. Frank Morales, St. Marks Church

Rabbi Gerry Serotta, Temple Shalom

Rabbi Nancy Fuchs-Kreimer, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Assoc. (Past President)

Dr. E. Glenn Hinson, Professor Emeritus, Baptist Theological Seminary

The Rev. Robert Moore, Coalition for Peace Action & Peace Action Education Fund

Rev. Dr. Donald W. Shriver, President Emeritus, Union Theological Seminary, NYC

Sr. Betty Obal, SL, UN NGO Representative, Loretto Community

Rev. Dr.  Frederick R. Trost, Wisconsin Conference of the United Church of Christ

Bishop Charles Wesley Jordan

Mr. Jason Byassee, Assistant Editor, Christian Century

David W. Reid, Publisher, Vital Theology

Richard V. Pierard, Stephen Phillips Professor of History, Gordon College

Dr. Barbara DeConcini, Executive Director, American Academy of Religion

Rev. Steven C. Baines, People For the American Way Foundation

Dr. Tarunjit Singh, Secretary General World Sikh Council - America Region

Bishop Marshall L. Meadors, Jr. Bishop in Residence Candler School of Theology Emory

The Very Rev. Tracey Lind, Dean Trinity Episcopal Cathedral

The Very Rev. Dr. Ann J. Broomell, Dean Trinity Episcopal Cathedral

Rev. Dr. Albert M. Pennybacker, Chair/CEO, Clergy and Laity Network

Rev. Vicky A. Fleming

The Reverend K. Dennis Winslow, St. Peter's Episcopal Church

Rev. Dr. James E. Fitzgerald, Minister for Mission and Social Justice, The Riverside Church

Dr. Sondra Wheeler, Martha Ashby Carr Professor of Christian Ethics, Wesley Theological Seminary

Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson

Dr. George F. Regas, The Regas Institute

Dr. Charles Hunter, Presbyterian Minister, Parish Associate at the Oak Cliff Presbyterian Church in Dallas, Texas

Rev. Dr. Charles Raynal, Director of Advanced Studies, Columbia Theological Seminary

Mark A. Chancey, Religious Studies, Southern Methodist University

The Rev. Gary R. Weaver

Julie M. Hill

Scott R. Gansl, president, World Congress of GLBT Jewish Organisations: Keshet Ga'ava

Dr. S.M. Ghazanfar, Professor of Economics University of Idaho

Dana Regan, First Unitarian Church of Portland, OR

Rev. Dr. William G. Brockman

Bob Morris

Helga Scow Stern

Chuck Currie, United Church of Christ Seminarian, Central Pacific Conference UCC

Rev. Jay R. Newlin, OSL, Pastor Jenkintown United Methodist Church

Rev. Melody C. Porter, First United Methodist Church of Germantown

Ruth Messinger

Anne Ewing

The Rev. Meg A. Riley, Unitarian Universalist Association

Rabbi Nancy Flam, Institute for Jewish Spirituality

Rabbi Alana Suskin, Congregation Adas Israel

Rabbi Dr. Andrew Vogel Ettin, Wake Forest University and Temple Israel

Rev. David Wesley Brown

Dr. S. Huw Anwyl, Senior Minister & CEO Shepherd of the Hills Church

Rev. Dexter Lanctot

Rabbi Suzanne Griffel

Rabbi Laura Geller, Los Angeles

Rabbi Douglas E. Krantz

Rabbi Neil Kominsky, Temple Emanuel of the Merrimack Valley

The Rev. James F. McIntire, MDiv, JD, The United Methodist Church of Bala Cynwyd

Eric Mount, Centre College (Rodes Professor Religion Emeritus)

Rev. Robert G. Coombe Pastor:   Union United Methodist Church

Elizabeth Memel, Ojai, CA

Haim Dov Beliak

Rev. Susan Cole

Rev. Michael Kinnamon The Allen and Dottie Miller Professor of Mission and Peace, Eden Theological Seminary

Rev. Charlene F. Gaspar, Gladwyne United Methodist Church

Rev. Al Krass, Philadelphia Area Interfaith Peace Network

Rev. Kaye Edwards Director of Family and Children's Ministries, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

The Rev. Patricia Pearce Tabernacle United Church, Philadelphia, PA

Rev. Linda M. Maloney, St. Matthew's Episcopal Church, Enosburg Falls, VT

Dr. Alicia Ostriker, Professor of English, Rutgers University

Rev. Dr. F. Mark Mealing, Kaslo, B.C., Canada

Wil Gafney, Assistant Professor of Hebrew Scripture and Homiletics, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia

Phyllis T. Albritton, Blacksburg VA

Sidney Callahan, Ph.D

Gaile M. Pohlhaus, Ph.D., Villanova University

Dr. Malcolm Nazareth and Ms. Mariani Nazareth, St. Cloud, MN

Rabbi Avi Winokur, Society Hill Synagogue

Dr. Nan Gefen, President, Chochmat HaLev

Rabbi Jonathan Omer-Man, Berkeley, CA

Rabbi Ellen Lippmann, Kolot Chayeinu/Voices of Our Lives

Dorothea Dorenz

Rev. Peter Laarman, Progressive Christians Uniting

Dr. Mary E. Hunt, Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual

Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock, Director, Faith Voices Institute and Lift Every Voice!

Charles Rooney, Catholics for the Common Good

Rev. Dr. Elsie McKee, Ph.D., Archibald Alexander Professor of Reformation Studies and the History of Worship, Princeton Theological Seminary

Rev. Dr. Daniel Meeter, Pastor, Old First Reformed Church, Brooklyn, NY

Marilyn Chandler McEntyre, Westmont College

Reb ZalmanSchachter-Shalomi Rabbinic Chair, ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal;

Rabbi Hillel Cohn

Rabbi Zev-Hayyim Feyer, Claremont, California

Rabbi Howard A. Cohen, Congregation Beth El

Rabbi Dennis Beck-Berman Past President, OHALAH:Association of Rabbis for

Jewish Renewal

Dr. M. Douglas Meeks, The Divinity School, Vanderbilt University

The Rev. Dr. Christian T. Iosso, Scarborough Presbyterian Church

Rev. Kenneth Samual, Victory Church, Atlanta, GA

Rev. A.W. Howard, Baltimore, MD

Rabbi Roberto D. Graetz Temple Isaiah Lafayette, Ca

Rabbi Laurence L. Edwards Congregation Or Chadash

Rabbi Phyllis Berman, Riverside Language Center

Rabbi David Greenstein, The Academy for Jewish Religion, NY

Rev. Robert Shine, Baracha Baptist, Philadelphia, PA

Rev. Clarence Pemberton, New Hope Baptist, Philadelphia, PA

Rev. James Sampson, First Mount Zion, Jacksonville, FL

Rev. Michael Harrison, Union Baptist, Youngstown, OH

Rev. Michael Pfleger, St. Sabina, Chicago, IL

Rev. Olen Arrington, Second Baptist, Kenosha, WI

J. Ross Wagner, Princeton Theological Seminary

Mark Lewis Taylor, Princeton Theological Seminary

The Rev. Dr. John McEntyre, PCUSA

The Rev. C. Clifton Black, Dept. of Biblical Studies, Princeton Theological Seminary

Barbara Levatich

Dr. Geffrey B. Kelly, La Salle University

Dr. Robert DeFina, Villanova University

Prof. Ellen Charry Princeton Theological Seminary

Rev. Bryan Langlands, St. Luke UMC, Sanford, NC

Rev. Muriel Burrows, Witherspoon Street Presbyterian Church

Anne Gibbons, Associate Chaplain and Director of SERVE, Lynchburg College

The Rev. Robert L. Livingston. United Church of Christ

Rev. Patricia Daley

William Stacy Johnson, Princeton Theological Seminary

Rev. Douglas King

Dr. Alexander J. McKelway

Rev. James M. Collie, Presbytery of Santa Fe

Rev. Theresa F. Latini

The Rev. Fleming Rutledge

Rev. Todd Cioffi, Princeton Seminary

Dr. Jacqueline Lapsley, Princeton Seminary

Dr. Brian K. Blount, Princeton Theological Seminary

Rev. Dr. Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger, Princeton Theological Seminary

The Rev. Dr. Laura Delaplain (UMC)

Dr. Catherine Keller, Theological School of Drew University

The Rev. Dr. Gary Wehrwein

Ftr. Lawrence H. Kaiser

Rev. Gloria H. Albrecht, Ph.D. (Presbyterian Church, USA)

Rev. Sally Osmer, Director at The Crisis Ministry of Princeton and Trenton

Dr. Cherith Fee Nordling, Director of Christian Formation, Calvin College

Rev. Richard Broderick

Rev. Ann Marie Coleman, Co-Senior Minister of University Church

Rev. Don Coleman, Co-Senior Minister of University Church

The Rev. Lisa Keppeler

The Rev. Geo. Anthony Hoeltzel

The Rev. Dr. Frank J. Alagna

The Rev. Dr. Peregrine L. Murphy

The Rev. Elizabeth G. Maxwell, Church of the Holy Apostles

The Rev. Ralph E Fogg

The Rev. Carol R. Fox

Rabbi Chaim Leib Schneider, Santa Cruz, CA

Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs, Temple Kol Tikvah, Woodland Hills, CA

Rabbi Patricia Karlin-Neumann, Stanford University

Rabbi Neil Comess-Daniels, Beth Shir Sholom, Santa Monica, CA

The Rev. Chloe Breyer, St. Mary's Manhattanville

Rev. Dr. Lois Malcolm, Luther Seminary

The Reverend Canon Brady J. Vardemann, Episcopal Diocese of Montana

Dr. Mark S. Burrows, Andover Newton Theological School

Rev. Dr. Betty Jane Bailey

Rev. Dr. J. Martin Bailey

Dr. Kathryn L. Johnson, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Rev. Joan LaLiberté, St. Andrew's Episcopal Church

The Rev. Barbara J. Haddon, Pastor First Presbyterian Church

Rev. Donald F. Hanchon

Rev. Paul Feuerstein

The Rev. Dr. Rebecca Parker, Starr King School for the Ministry

Dr. John Cobb, Claremont School of Theology (Emeritus)

Rev. Matthew Freeman, Assistant Minister, Asbury United Methodist Church

Rev. Jophn Soderberg

Rev. Dave Weissbard, Senior Minister, The Unitarian Universalist Church

Dr. Walter Lowe, Candler School of Theology, Emory University

Rev. Sarah Craig Freeman, Assistant Minister at Asbury United Methodist Church

Bonnie Jones Shinneman

The Rev. Prof. Harold R. Bronk, Jr., Grace Episcopal Church

The Rev. Chuck Kramer

Rev. Dawson Tunnell

Frank Kromkowski

Rabbi Michael Feinberg, Executive Director, Greater New York Labor-Religion

Coalition

Rabbi Sheila Peltz Weinberg, Institute for Jewish Spirituality

Rev. Bill Wylie-Kellermann, Graduate Theological Urban Studies, Seminary Consortium for Urban Pastoral Education

Rev. Dr. Daniel L. Migliore, Princeton Theological Seminary

Suzie Armstrong, Vice President, The Interfaith Alliance

Rev. Dr. Amy Laura Hall, Professor, Duke University Divinity School

Dr. Creston Davis, Fellow of Arts and Sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Scott Bader-Saye, Dept. of Theology/Religious Studies, University of Scranton

Dr. Brigid Curtin Frein, Department of Theology, University of Scranton

Dr. Joel James Shuman, Department of Theology, King's College

Dr. R. David Kaylor, Davidson College (emeritus)

Dr. Deanna A. Thompson, Ph.D., Chair & Associate Professor of Religion, Hamline University

Re. Dr. Richard Fenn, Princeton Theological Seminary

The Rev. Joicy Becker-Richards, Director of Educational Media, Princeton Theological Seminary


Posted at 09:59 am by blog swarm
Make a comment  

Left in the West

I just noticed the new Montana Democrat Blog now has a pagerank of 5! Go Left in the West.

Posted at 01:59 am by blog swarm
Make a comment  




Monday, January 03, 2005
Kerry Shrum Curse

In Game 6 of the 2002 World Series, the San Francisco Gaints looked like they had the game -- and the Series -- wrapped up. It looked like Barry Bonds would finally get his Championship. That is why everyone was shocked when Willie Mays opened Champagne in the dugout while the game was still going. Mays tempted fate...and the Giants lost.

If you think that is shocking, wait to you hear the latest story about the Shrum Curse and John Kerry...

From the January 10th Newsweek:

It was a little after 7 p.m. on election night 2004. The network exit polls showed John Kerry leading George Bush in both Florida and Ohio by three points. Kerry's aides were confident that the Democratic candidate would carry these key swings states; Bush had not broken 48 percent in Kerry's recent tracking polls. The aides were a little hesitant to interrupt Kerry as he was fielding satellite TV interviews in a last get-out-the-vote push. Still, the 7 o'clock exit polls were considered to be reasonably reliable. Time to tell the candidate the good news.

Kerry had slept only two hours the night before. He was sitting in a small hotel room at the Westin Copley (in a small irony of history, next door to the hotel where his grandfather, a boom-and-bust businessman, shot himself some 80 years ago). Bob Shrum, Kerry's friend and close adviser, couldn't resist the moment. "May I be the first to say 'Mr. President'?" said Shrum.

First Kerry tempted fate by hiring Shrum and then Shrum went and did something like that while the polls were still open? WTF???

Oh, it gets better:

In the heady days before the election, Kerry's top aides sat around picking a cabinet...

I'm not making this shit up. Even worse, it appears Kerry thinks he is still a candidate:

He never quite came out and said it, but Kerry sounded very much like a man who was running for president again. He has a mailing list with 2.9 million names and an organization in every state. His moneymen have not backed away.

Uh, maybe his big moneymen, but the netroots only supported him because he wasn't Bush -- in fact, I've already unsubscribed from his email list.

The problem with Kerry is that he knows better but for some reason will never say it. Do you think this character flaw has been remedied since the election?

Though Kerry did not directly criticize his friend Shrum, it's clear he did not feel well served by his message makers and speechwriters.

No shit?

Jose Ferreira, Kerry's nephew, told his uncle, "Some people are saying that your candidacy was driven by ABB [Anything But Bush]." Kerry replied: "Do you think so?"

Yeah.

And now you're cursed too.


Posted at 01:25 am by blog swarm
Comment (1)  




Sunday, January 02, 2005
Open-source message development

There is a great debate about Social Security on Kos. Check it out.

Posted at 06:33 pm by blog swarm
Comments (2)  




Saturday, January 01, 2005
Proposed Republican Resolutions for the New Year

This past year, Republicans in Congress made a mockery of the democratic process and the intelligence of the American people. They followed the Administration's lead in ignoring important issues like poverty, health care, social security and education. Instead, they focused on special favors for wealthy corporate interests and pursued divisive policies for political gain while abusing the House procedures meant to ensure fair debate.

Republican leaders spent so much time ignoring their Congressional duties they were forced to rush a several thousand page spending bill through at the end of the year just to keep the country running. With only a few hours to review the massive bill, controversial provisions were snuck in, provisions that violated the privacy rights of taxpayers everywhere. Luckily, Democrats caught the 'error' and were able to reverse it.

We hope that Republicans are able to remember middle-class Americans in their 2005 plans. To ensure this, we would like to suggest a few New Year resolutions for them to keep in mind while they pursue their disingenuous agenda which protects multinational corporations that outsource American jobs and cuts taxes for millionaires at the expense of working families.

Proposed Republican Resolutions for the New Year

We are not professional arm wrestlers and thus we will not hold votes open for 3 hours for the sole purpose of twisting arms to get our way.

We will lead by example and not change our own ethics rules to protect the Leader of our Caucus, no matter how many times they are indicted or rebuked by the Ethics Committee.

We will not allow the chairman of a key committee to negotiate a private deal with the pharmaceutical industry while considering legislation that benefits that industry.

We will respect House rules that require three days before legislation that has been through a committee is voted on.

We will admit that incompetence is not cool: not in our Defense Secretary, not when engaging in war, and not in our fiscal policies.

We will agree that middle-class families are bearing the burden of economic mismanagement.

We will engage in diplomatic efforts with countries that pose a real threat to our country and will always present sound intelligence to the American people before using military force.

We will agree that money does not grow on trees and contrary to popular belief, there is no prize for running record surpluses into record deficits.

We will remember that children are our future. Slashing Pell Grants and partially funding the No Child Left Behind Act does not demonstrate a commitment to our future.

We will leave no soldier or veteran behind in our budget.

We will not dismantle the environmental protections that keep our air clean and preserve our public lands and then name the initiatives "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests."

If these common sense resolutions are adopted and kept, perhaps 2005 will be a better year for the American people and the Representatives in Congress who actually want to get things done. Democrats cross their fingers in hope that Republicans are not holding theirs behind their back.


Posted at 11:38 pm by blog swarm
Make a comment  




Friday, December 31, 2004
Ethical Government

ALERT: GOP congress to eviscerate congressional ethics laws on Tuesday 

by John in DC - 12/31/2004 02:38:44 PM

READ THIS AND TAKE ACTION

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of
reading this article on the front page of today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37521-2004Dec30.html?sub=AR

In a nutshell, Republican leaders in the House are planning on GUTTING the ethics rules governing their own members, for the most part because one of their own, Rep. Tom Delay, got caught doing a lot of nasty stuff. So in retaliation, they're changing the rules to make it next to impossible to file an ethics complaint in the future. Any complaint will be dropped, period, unless a majority of members on the committee in favor of it. Like that will ever happen.

But oh, it gets better. They also plan to change the rules so family members of congressmen can more easily accept gifts from lobbyists trying to influence the congressman in question. AND, they even want to permit congressmen to BRING A PARENT ON A CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION. Yes, now we're giving them perks for mom and dad. Wouldn't it be nice if all of our companies let us bring the folks on business trips to Europe, at the taxpayers' expense, no less.

This is absolutely outrageously disgusting what they are planning on doing. All the more so because this is the "values" party, and they're now trying to railroad new rules that will permit them to be less ethical. What a way to cast your first vote of the new Congress, and in the case of new members of Congress their first vote ever.

There are a few clear action steps that are needed:

1. I hear from good sources that the Dems in the House are terrified of taking on this issue full-blast as they don't want Tom Delay to get mad at them. Well, I'm through with playing nice, hoping the Republicans will throw us a few scraps while they lead us to the slaughterhouse.

Call Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer
, both Democratic leaders who need to grow a set of balls (or vaginas) and finally throw down the gauntlet on this outrageous behavior by the Republicans. What more do the Democrats need handed to them than this proposed vote on Tuesday? If this were the Dems planning this kind of vote, what do you think Newt Gingrich would do? He certainly wouldn't be sitting back issuing press releases and having the occasional press conference. He'd be plotting all out war to embarrass the hell out of the Democrats. It's time the Dems did the same. Call Pelosi and Hoyer and tell them it's about time the democrats started fighting back - demand that they go nuclear over this proposed change to the ethics rules this coming Tuesday. And it is irrelevant if you're from their state or not - they are the leaders of the Democratic party, tell them you're one angry Democrat and demand that your voice be heard, or we should throw them all out.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Phone (415) 556-4862, (202) 225-4965
Email:
sf.nancy@mail.house.gov

Rep. Steny Hoyer(D-MD)
Phone (202) 225-4131 - Fax(202) 225-4300
Phone (301) 474-0119 - Fax (301) 474-4697
Phone (301) 843-1577 - Fax (301) 843-1331
Web form for email:
http://www.hoyer.house.gov/feedback.cfm?campaign=hoyers&type=Let%27s%20Talk

2. Then contact your own House member, Democrat or Republican, and let them have it. I'm serious, the only thing these people understand is pissed off constituents - I worked there, trust me, it gets their attention.

Use this
zip-code locator to find your member of Congress. Call and email them today through Tuesday - fill their voice mail with messages over the weekend. Blast them over this issue. http://www.house.gov/htbin/zipfind

3. Call and email your local newspapers IMMEDIATELY over this issue, especially if you have a new member of Congress elected from your district. Will your congressman's first vote of the new congress, and possibly their career, be in favor of lowering their ethical standards? Make sure your local papers cover this issue - call the paper and ask for a reporter or editor covering the US Congress and talk to them about this issue. Trust me, if they get 20 or so calls from people, they'll write about the issue. Find some friends and have them call too (just look your papers up online for email and phone contact info, letters to the editor, etc.)

You can read more on this issue here:
http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/20041216/

Feel free to copy this post and put it on your site, or to email this message to your friends. It's high time the Democrats fought back and stopped this outright theft of our government.


Posted at 04:49 pm by blog swarm
Comment (1)  

Proof: 2004 Election Stolen

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/30/223723/91

The 2004 Election Was Stolen


by TocqueDeville
Thu Dec 30th, 2004 at 19:37:23 PST

This is my first post regarding the possibility that the 2004 election was rigged. Some may be surprised by that since I've had a few post advocating severe scrutiny and focused attention by the blogging community.

But through all this time I've waited before reaching a conclusion. This is because I've always believed that if there was foul play in this election it would be accomplished through electronic means and the only way to know would be through exit polling.

So I've been waiting patiently for a comprehensive analysis of exit poll data by qualified analysts. That moment has slowly, but finally, arrived. The latest is the analysis posted below in its entirety (converted from PDF for convenience and posterity) by Jonathan D. Simon, J.D. and Ron P. Baiman, Ph.D. from Institute of Government and Public Affairs - University of Illinois at Chicago. This paper, combined with others, namely Freeman, is as close to a "smoking gun" as you will ever find.

I've watched with amusement as people have tried to prop up theories about why the exit polls were so "wrong": Bush supporters are more reluctant to discuss their vote, or Democrats vote early. Meanwhile the same proponents of such theories chide the suspicious for reaching beyond the bounds of credibility. And in the background, on someone's TV, CNN is chattering about Ukraine and Dioxin.

Also, some fail to appreciate the significance of exit polls for proving election theft. The power of statistical evidence should be well known. DNA or fingerprint analysis is actually statistical in nature. The veracity of such evidence is derived from a statistical probability that no one else shares those traits.  By the same token, if the election outcome is statistically improbable, by a factor of 1000 or more, you can pretty much take it to the bank that the outcome is wrong.

`Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', I heard recently. This assertion is built on the false premise that rigging an election in the United States is somehow extraordinary. Considering the history of US elections, and the stakes involved, and the fact that 80% of all votes in the US were either cast on, or counted by two private corporations owned by Republicans, this and all elections should be suspect from the start.

History will judge us harshly for this election. Not just the Bush administration, but the media, the Democrats, and the online community as well. Future historians will no doubt get a chuckle for the providence of the Ukraine fiasco falling so closely behind our own. But mostly, when they examine the American response to the exit poll discrepancies of the 2004 election, they will be saddened by the blaring naiveté, maliciousness, and cowardice.

There is indeed a norm that permeates American culture, propagated mostly in the media, that some things are just too ugly to talk about.  Some believe the consequences of rocking the boat are too risky. Perhaps, in some cases, they are. Despite its age, history has proven a fragility in our country that we often care not to admit.  

But not talking about it isn't going to make it go away. And the consequences for rocking the boat pale in comparison to the consequences of allowing our democracy to be stolen away.

The 2004 Presidential Election: Who Won The Popular Vote?
An Examination of the Comparative Validity of Exit Poll and Vote Count Data

December 28, 2004

Jonathan D. Simon, J.D.
Verified Vote 2004
verifiedvote2004@aol.com

Ron P. Baiman, Ph.D.
Institute of Government and Public Affairs
University of Illinois at Chicago
rbaiman@uic.edu

Published by the Free Press (http://freepress.org)

The views expressed are the authors' own and are not necessarily representative of the
views of their respective institutions. Comments or questions directed to the authors
are welcome.

Executive Summary

  • There is a substantial discrepancy--well outside the margin of error and outcomedeterminative--
    between the national exit poll and the popular vote count.

  • The possible causes of the discrepancy would be random error, a skewed exit poll, or
    breakdown in the fairness of the voting process and accuracy of the vote count.

  • Analysis shows that the discrepancy cannot reasonably be accounted for by chance or
    random error.

  • Evidence does not support hypotheses that the discrepancy was produced by problems
    with the exit poll.

  • Widespread breakdown in the fairness of the voting process and accuracy of the vote
    count are the most likely explanations for the discrepancy.

  • In an accurate count of a free and fair election, the strong likelihood is that Kerry
    would have been the winner of the popular vote.

    The Significance of a Popular Vote Victory

    Although it is the Electoral College and not the popular vote that legally elects the
    president, winning the popular vote does have considerable psychological and practical
    significance. It is fair to say, to take a recent example, that had Al Gore not enjoyed a
    popular vote margin in 2000, he would not have had standing in the court of public
    opinion to maintain his post-election challenge for more than a month up until its
    ultimate foreclosure by the Supreme Court.

    In the 2004 election now under scrutiny, the popular vote again has played a
    critical role. George Bush's apparent margin of 3.3 million votes clearly influenced the
    timing of John Kerry's concession. Although the election was once again close enough
    that yet-to-be-counted votes offered at least the mathematical possibility of a Kerry
    electoral college victory--and although, once again, concerns about vote counting were
    beginning to emerge from early post-election reports and analyses--Kerry apparently
    believed that, unlike popular vote-winner Gore, he did not have effective standing to
    prolong the race.

    As ongoing inquiries continue to raise serious vote counting issues, Bush's
    apparent popular vote margin has loomed large as a rationale for minimizing these issues,
    at least as far as their impact on the outcome of the race. While much concern has been
    expressed about "counting every vote," even the Kerry camp has issued disclaimers to
    the effect that their candidate does not expect that so doing will alter the outcome.

    With the results in Ohio currently subject to both recount proceedings and legal
    contest, dramatic developments compelling a reversal of the Ohio result cannot be ruled
    out at this time. Yet to overturn the Ohio result, giving Kerry an electoral college victory
    (or even to disqualify the Ohio electors via challenge in Congress, which would deprive
    Bush of an electoral college majority and throw the election to the House of
    Representatives), would likely be regarded as unjust and insupportable by a populace
    convinced that Bush was, by some 3.3 million votes, the people's choice.

    Thus, although the popular vote does not legally determine the presidency, its
    significance is such that we must give due consideration to any evidence which puts the
    popular vote count itself at issue.

    Sources of the Exit Poll and Vote Count Numbers

    As the analysis which we undertake below is based upon the conflict between two
    sets of numbers, one generated by the exit polls for the presidential race and the other
    generated by the vote counting equipment, it is necessary to review the nature of the two
    sources of results. Exit polling, since its invention several decades ago, has performed
    reliably in the projection of thousands of races, both here at home and, more recently,
    abroad.1 The record of exit polling from the 1970s through the 1990s was essentially free
    of controversy, except for the complaint that publication of exit poll results prior to poll
    closings dampened voter turnout by discouraging late-in-day voters from bothering to
    vote, the race having already been "called."2 Voters could be so influenced because they
    had come, indeed, to regard exit poll projections as all but infallible. Significant exit
    polling problems began to appear along with the development and spread of
    computerized vote counting equipment, since which time exit polls have had a notably
    poorer track record in spite of improvements in polling methodology.

    Compared to standard pre-election polling, exit polling has certain advantages
    and disadvantages. On the plus side, exit polls sample actual rather than just "likely"
    voters and do not fail to include voters who are not attached to a conventional phone line
    or who screen their calls.3 This results in significantly greater accuracy. On the minus
    side, exit polls employ a cluster sampling technique, grouping respondents by precinct,
    rather than a fully homogenized random sample of the target venue. This results in
    somewhat less accuracy. On the whole, the advantages in accuracy an exit poll enjoys
    over a pre-election poll of the same sample size tend to outweigh the disadvantages.
    The exit polling in Election 2004 was performed by the combined firms of
    Mitofsky International and Edison Media Research, under exclusive contract as "official
    provider" of exit poll data to six major media organizations (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox
    News Channel, and the Associated Press), which collectively formed the National
    Election Pool. 4 Exit polling operations were under the principal direction of Warren
    Mitofsky, credited as the inventor of exit polling and recognized throughout the world as
    the leading expert in the field. With over 35 years of exit polling experience,
    encompassing nearly 3,000 electoral contests in the United States and abroad, Mitofsky
    has achieved consistent success in the field and has continued throughout his career to
    refine and improve the methodologies and protocols of exit polling.5 In 1999 Mitofsky
    received the Award for Lifetime Achievement from the American Association for Public
    Opinion Research.

    Election 2004 presented a particular challenge and opportunity for Mr. Mitofsky,
    whose exit polling operation was hampered in 2002 by a massive computer breakdown.6
    It has been reported that preparations for Election 2004 were especially thorough,
    entailing increased staff numbers and training, upgraded computer hardware and
    software, expanded surveys of absentee and early voters, and dry runs beginning in July
    to prepare analysts for the full spectrum of possible election night scenarios.7 It may
    fairly be said that the exit polling for Election 2004 was a more advanced, sophisticated,
    and meticulous operation than any previously undertaken.

    In contrast to the uniform methodology of the exit polls, a variety of methods are
    employed to record votes on election day, including optical scan devices, direct
    electronic recording (DREs or "touchscreens"), punch cards, paper ballots, lever
    machines, and data-point devices, in that order of prevalence. An additional variety of
    methods are then employed to transmit these votes to central locations and tally them at
    the county and state levels. Ownership and operation of this mosaic of machinery is fully
    privatized and is concentrated predominantly in the hands of four corporations: Diebold,
    ES&S, Sequoia, and Hart Intercivic. The partisan proclivities and activities of each of
    these corporations are a matter of public record. 8 Because of the proprietary nature of
    the election system throughout the United States, these vendors of the voting equipment
    design, program, operate, maintain, and repair it at every level, most often without
    outside or public scrutiny, and with at best a minimal process of testing and certification.9
    Boards of Election and state level authorities over election protocols have often accepted
    financial support from the equipment vendors10 and have also been seen at times to act
    under the influence of partisanship, appearing to elevate outcomes over fairness of
    process.11 Such systemic conflicts of interest do little to enhance the integrity or
    credibility of the vote counting system.

    Computer experts have documented the susceptibility of both the recording and
    tabulating equipment to undetected errors, hacking, and deliberate fraud.12 A substantial
    component of the system (DREs, which are responsible for recording approximately 30%
    of the vote) generates no paper record and is effectively immune to meaningful recount.
    Central tabulators responsible for compiling over 50% of the vote employ an operating
    system that has been demonstrated to be vulnerable to entry and manipulation through a
    standard laptop PC.13 In spite of these vulnerabilities of the counting system, few if any
    questions about the accuracy of the numbers it produced were raised on election night.14

    Election Night 2004: The Exit Poll/Vote Count Differential

    On election night 2004, the exit polls and the vote counting equipment generated
    results that differed significantly. In the early morning of November 3, 2004, a
    CNN.com website screenshot entitled "U.S. PRESIDENT/NATIONAL/EXIT POLL"
    posted national exit poll results updated to 12:23 A.M., broken down by gender as well as
    a variety of other categories.15 The time of the update indicates that these results
    comprised substantially the full set of respondents polled on election day, but were free
    from the effects of a subsequent input of tabulated data used to bring about ultimate
    congruence between the exit poll and vote count results.16

    The CNN posting indicates the number of respondents (13,047), the gender
    breakdown of the sample (male 46%, female 54%), and the candidate preferences by
    gender (males: 52% Bush, 47% Kerry; females: 45% Bush, 54% Kerry). For the national
    exit poll taken as a whole, therefore, the result was 48.2% Bush, 50.8% Kerry.17 The vote
    counting equipment produced a markedly different result: 50.9% Bush, 48.1% Kerry.18

    The differential between the two counts, which were virtually mirror images of each
    other, was 5.4% overall, or about 3.3 million votes (see Chart 1).

    The reaction of election night analysts interpreting this differential was
    immediately to query what had "gone wrong" with the exit polls. This was a curious
    approach both in light of standard accounting practice, which compels independent
    examination of both sets of numbers that are found to be in conflict, and in light of muchvoiced
    pre-election concerns about the accuracy and security of the computerized vote
    counting systems. We offer an alternate approach to the conflicting data, based on
    fundamental statistical and accounting principles.

    Statistical Analysis Of Exit Poll Results

    Steven F. Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania has analyzed Election 2004
    exit poll results for battleground states,19 and has drawn certain conclusions regarding the
    significant discrepancies between exit poll results and vote counts for several critical
    states. In particular, the odds against the discrepancies in Ohio, Florida, and
    Pennsylvania occurring together are computed at 662,000-to-one, or a virtual statistical
    impossibility that they could have been due to chance or random error. Receiving
    somewhat less emphasis is the overall pattern of discrepancy in the state polls--again
    with the vote counts turning in Bush's favor, though less dramatically in the
    nonbattleground states, as will be discussed below. The national popular vote is not
    addressed in that paper, but the same statistical principles are applicable, and will be
    employed in this analysis.

    While the individual state samples totaled 73,678 reported respondents,20 a
    national sub-sampling was undertaken by Edison/Mitofsky, which comprised 13,047
    reported respondents, chosen as a representative random sample of the nation as a whole.
    This sample was drawn from 250 targeted polling places and from 500 individual
    telephone interviews with absentee and early voters.21

    What is remarkable about this national sample of 13,047 is its size. When
    compared with more familiar pre-election poll samples of about 2000 - 2200 respondents,
    it is approximately six times as large. Such augmentation of sample size reduces a poll's
    margin of error (MOE) from the ±3% to which we have become accustomed, down to
    ±1.1%.22
    The ±1.1% MOE tells us that, barring specific flaws in the design or
    administration of the poll and in the absence of significant mistabulation of the vote
    count itself, the exit poll result for the selected candidate will fall within ±1.1% of his
    vote count 95% of the time. In this case it tells us that we can be 95% certain that
    Kerry's popular vote percentage would fall in the range 49.7% to 51.9%; that is, it would
    fall outside that range only once in 20 times. Kerry's reported vote count of 48.1% falls
    dramatically outside this range.23

    To carry our analysis further, we can employ a normal distribution curve (see
    Figure 1) to determine--again assuming proper poll methodology, no discriminatory
    voter suppression 24, and an accurate and honest popular vote count--that the probability
    that Kerry would have received his reported popular vote total of 48.1%, or less is one in
    959,000--a virtual statistical impossibility.25

    The Popular Vote Winner

    We can proceed one helpful step further and calculate the likelihood, based on the
    exit poll results, that Kerry would receive more popular votes than Bush. The break-even
    point would be 59,024,629 votes, or 49.54% of the total.26 This percentage lies,
    significantly, outside the MOE of the national exit poll and in fact we find that Kerry
    would receive fewer votes than Bush only 1.3% of the time. Put another way--given the
    exit poll results, proper poll methodology, and an accurate and fair voting process--
    Kerry would be the popular vote winner of Election 2004 98.7% of the time.

    Is Something Wrong With The Exit Poll Results?

    The clear implication of our analysis is that neither chance nor random error is
    responsible for the significant incongruence of exit poll and tabulated vote results, and
    that we must look either to significant failings in the exit poll design and/or
    administration or to
    equally significant failings in the accuracy and/or fairness of the voting process itself to
    explain the results. Given the dramatic implications of our analysis, we of course must
    consider carefully any argument that has been put forward suggesting that the exit polls
    failed as an accurate measure of voter intent. We examine the two least implausible
    hypotheses that have been put forward.

    The first deals with the proportion of respondents by gender. The composition of
    the national sample by gender was 46% male, 54% female, which prompted a claim that
    females were over-represented, skewing the results towards Kerry. While it is not proven
    that this is in fact the case, if it is taken as stipulated and the sample is reweighted to
    reflect a "normal" gender breakdown of 52% female, 48% male, the effect is to increase
    Bush's exit poll percentage by 0.2% to 48.4% and decrease Kerry's to 50.6%. The effect
    on the bottom line is minimal: Kerry would be the popular vote victor 96.9% of the
    time.27

    The second hypothesis put forward is the "reluctant Bush responder" hypothesis.
    It suggests that Bush voters were for some reason less willing to fill out an exit poll
    questionnaire, and therefore were undercounted in the poll results. If such a phenomenon
    could be proven, it would be a source of significant skewing and effectively invalidate
    the polls. The proponents of this hypothesis, however, have yet to offer any supportive
    evidence for their theory.28 The hypothesis also does not explain the nonuniformity of
    the pattern of state-by-state discrepancies.29 In fact, one could equally well imagine that
    a "reluctant Kerry responder" phenomenon was at work, and that the exit polls
    systematically underrepresented Kerry's vote.30

    Conclusion

    In light of the history of exit polling and the particular care that was taken to
    achieve an unprecedented degree of accuracy in the exit polls for Election 2004, there is
    little to suggest significant flaws in the design or administration of the official exit polls.

    Until supportive evidence can be presented for any hypothesis to the contrary, it must be
    concluded that the exit polls, including the national mega-sample within its ±1.1%
    margin of error, present us with an accurate measure of the intent of the voters in the
    presidential election of 2004.

    According to this measure, an honest and fair voting process would have been
    more likely than not--at least 95% likely, in fact--to have determined John Kerry to be
    the national popular vote winner of Election 2004.31 Should ongoing or new
    investigations continue to produce evidence that, to an extent determinative of the
    electoral college outcome, votes have not been counted accurately and honestly or
    discriminatory vote suppression has occurred, the re-examined popular vote outcome
    may well be deemed relevant to the question of what remedies are warranted.

    1 See Polling and Presidential Election Coverage, Lavrakas,
     Paul J, and Holley, Jack K., eds., Newbury Park, CA: Sage; pp. 83-99.

    2 This problem was theoretically resolved by a gentleman's agreement to withhold release
    of exit poll calls until the polls had closed.

    3 Because only actual voters are included, these might more accurately be referred to as "exit samples"
    rather than "exit polls."

    4 As described in the National Election Pool Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International homepage:
    www.exit-poll.net/index.html .

    5 Exit polling has been relied upon as a check mechanism for the vote counting processes in
    numerous foreign elections. Indeed Mitofsky himself received public commendation from Mexican
    President Carlos Salinas for his contribution to the credibility of that nation's 1994 election. Most
    recently, exit polling hasbeen instrumental in the overturning of election results and the ordering
    of a new election in the Ukraine.

    6 As a result exit polls were not employed in the projection of election outcomes in 2002.

    7 Newark Star-Ledger, 10/28/2004, page 1, "Networks Will Look to Somerville of Tuesday." See also,
    Bauder, D., "TV Networks to Test New Exit Polling System," The Associated Press, Oct. 13, 2004,
    reprinted at
    http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.adp?/id=20041013122209990005&_ccc=6&cid=946. The
    specific methodologies and protocols employed are detailed on the websites for Mitofsky International
    (www.mitofskyinternational.com), Edison Media Research (www.edisonresearch.com), and the National
    Election Pool (www.exit-poll.net).

    8 See, e.g., Smyth, J., Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 28, 2003, reprinted at:
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm ; see also http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/ .

    9 See Zeller, T., "Ready or Not, Electronic Voting Goes National," The New York Times, Sept. 19, 2004
    (reprinted at http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.adp?id=20040918145609990001&cid=842).

    10 See "On the Voting Machine Makers' Tab," The New York Times, Sept. 12, 2004, Editorial Page.

    11 See, e.g., Welsh-Huggins, A.. "The Next Katherine Harris?" Associated Press Report Oct. 27, 2004,
    reprinted at http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20041027161309990012 (detailing actions
    taken by Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell).

    12 See, e.g., Rubin, A., "An Insider's View of Vote Vulnerability," Baltimore Sun, March 10, 2004
    (reprinted at www.commondreams.org/views04/0310-02.htm); Levy, S., "Black Box Voting Blues,"
    Newsweek, Nov. 3, 2004 (reprinted at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3339650/)

    13 The GEMS system, employed by Diebold in central tabulators serving about half the venues, is
    particularly susceptible to entry and manipulation (hacking or preprogramming) as was dramatically
    demonstrated on national television (CNBC: "Topic A With Tina Brown") when critic Bev Harris led
    Howard Dean through the necessary steps in less than two minutes (see Hartmann, T., "Evidence Mounts
    That The Vote May Have Been Hacked," at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm).

    14 Such unquestioning acceptance may be portrayed in a positive light. As Warren Mitofsky himself has
    said: "In a democracy, it's the orderly transfer of power that keeps the democracy accepting the results of
    elections. If it drags on too long, there's always a suspicion of fraud." The perils of unquestioning
    acceptance of what may, given the vulnerabilities of our vote counting system, be falsified results should,
    however, be self-evident.

    15 The time-stamped screenshot was printed out by Simon at 1:29 A.M. on Nov. 3, 2004, and is attached
    for reference as Appendix A. The data derived from the CNN screenshots printed by Simon for the
    individual states may also be referenced at http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00142.htm.

    16 This practice is referenced in "Methods Statement: National Election Pool Exit Polls Nov. 2, 2004,"
    (.pdf) at http://www.exit-poll.net/.

    17 The totals for the full sample are computed by combining the candidate preferences of male and female
    respondents: Bush = [(males)46% x 52%] + [(females)54% x 45%] = 48.2%; Kerry = [(males)46% x 47%]
    + [(females)54% x 54%] = 50.8%
    18 Approximately 1% of the total vote went to minor candidates. Therefore a vote percentage of 49.54%
    rather than 50.0% constitutes a winning margin for either Bush or Kerry. It is important to bear this in
    mind in reading the analysis below.

    19 Freeman, S., "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Honest? An Examination of Uncorrected Exit Poll
    Data," Working Paper #04-10, rev. Nov. 23, 2004;
    http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/Expldiscrpv00oPt1.pdf .
    Bush % Kerry %
    Bush
    Margin%
    National Exit 48.2% 50.8% -2.6%
    Popular Vote Count 50.9% 48.1% 2.8%
    Difference 2.7% -2.7% 5.4%

    20 For the 47 states and District of Columbia for which data was captured by Simon, see:
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00142.htm

    21 See "Methods Statement: National Election Pool Exit Polls: National/Regional Exit Poll," available
    from the National Election Pool in .pdf format at www.exit-poll.net/index.html

    22 Ibid, p. 2, Table. Calculation of the margin of error may be checked as follows: Calculate the standard
    error of a random sample using the formula , where p = Kerry percentage of the
    vote (0.481) and N = the sample size (13,047). The fact that an exit poll is a cluster sample, grouping
    respondents by precinct, rather than a fully homogenized random sample of the target venue, increases the
    standard error by 30% to 0.00568 (see Merkle, D. and Edelman, M. "A Review of the 1996 Voter News
    Service Exit Polls from a Total Survey Error Perspective," in Election Polls, the News Media and
    Democracy, ed. P.J. Lavrakas, M.W. Traugott, New York: Chatham House, pp. 68 - 72). Ninety-five
    percent of the time, a result predicted on the basis of a random sample will be within 1.96 standard errors,
    or ±0.011 (1.1%) for a sample of this size.

    23 It is dramatic because a 2.7% "miss" at these levels of precision is extremely unlikely to occur. The
    statistician's measure of such likelihood is known as a "standard deviation." A result which is off, as in
    this case, by 4.7 standard deviations is without question "dramatic:" the odds against its occurrence are
    enormous.

    24"Discriminatory voter suppression" refers to methods that disproportionately reduce voter turnout in
    precincts that favor one candidate, for example through disproportionate allocation of voting machines.
    Because state level exit polls are weighted sums of precinct voting shares, disproportionate changes in
    turnout can contribute to a discrepancy in state exit polls relative to the actual vote.

    25 Probability of a 48.1% vote share assuming an exit poll vote share of 50.8%: P(0.481) = 1 -
    NORMDIST(0.481, 0.508, 0.005686, True) = 0.0000010424 (where NORMDIST is an Excel spreadsheet
    function that gives the probability of obtaining 0.481 for a normal distribution with a mean of 0.508 and a
    standard deviation of 0.005686). 1/0.0000010424 = 959,336.

    26 Based on final election numbers from the Washington Post, Nov. 24, 2004.

    27 For reference, even a clearly "male-skewed" 50% male, 50% female sample would have resulted in a
    Kerry victory 93.5% of the time.

    28 There is some intriguing evidence to the contrary, drawn from an analysis performed by William
    Kaminsky, a graduate student at MIT. Kaminsky finds that in 22 of the 23 states which break down their
    voter registrations by party ID the ratio of registered Republicans to registered Democrats in the final,
    adjusted exit poll was larger than the ratio of registered Republicans to registered Democrats on the official
    registration rolls. In other words, the adjustments performed on the exit polls in order to get them to agree
    with the official tallies would, if valid, require Republicans to have won the get-out-the-vote battle in
    essentially every state. We find this requirement implausible, and indeed observational evidence pointed to
    just the opposite: massive new voter turnout, which virtually always cuts in favor of the challenger; huge
    lines in Democratic precincts; unadjusted exit poll data showing apparently greater Democratic turnout;
    etc. Exit polls appropriately stratified to official party ID percentages, which would effectively neutralize
    any suspected "reluctant Bush responder" phenomenon by including the expected proportions of
    Republican and Democratic voters, would on the basis of Kaminsky's analysis have yielded results at least
    as favorable to Kerry as those upon which we have relied in our calculations.

    29 A complete analysis of all 45 states and the District of Columbia for which comparable exit poll data is
    available shows that four out of the 11 battleground states had exit poll/vote count discrepancies that were
    outside of a standard 5% (one-tail) margin of error, whereas this was the case for only one of the 35 nonbattleground
    states. Moreover, all of these statistically significant discrepancies were in favor of Bush. This
    data is at odds with claims of "systemic" pro-Kerry exit poll skew. See Baiman, R. Dec. 19, 2004 at:
    http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/997 (some figures have been updated by the author
    to reflect more recent data).

    30 It is by no means self-evident that either candidate's supporters were systemically more likely to be
    intimidating or more easily intimidated. While it might be more reasonably argued that voters finding
    themselves in a dwarfed minority in their communities might have been less willing to be exit poll
    respondents, in light of the even division of the national electorate, any such tendencies would have
    resulted in a wash, with no net effect on the validity of the national exit poll. We would of course welcome
    the release by Edison/Mitofsky and/or the National Election Pool of the data which would facilitate further
    analysis of these and other factors.

    31 It should be clear that more is at stake than the presidency itself. Use of computerized vote counting
    will only increase, as mandated by law. Vote counting is the bedrock protocol of a democracy and
    meaningful reform of a broken counting system is dependent on an expression of public will ultimately
    exercised at the ballot box and fairly, accurately, and honestly tabulated. If the system has broken down
    and is no longer counting accurately and honestly, there is no effective democratic mechanism to bring
    pressure upon a governing majority to reform a vote counting status quo which is seen to work in its favor.
    This is, as may be seen, a potentially crippling catch-22 for a democracy.

    Figure 1:

    Appendix A See PDF


  • Posted at 12:51 am by blog swarm
    Comments (4)  




    Wednesday, December 29, 2004
    Help Out


    Posted at 10:34 pm by blog swarm
    Make a comment  




    Tuesday, December 28, 2004
    Kid Oakland on DNC Chair and Bloggers

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/28/20200/060

    bloggers and citizens
    by kid oakland
    Tue Dec 28th, 2004 at 17:20:00 PST

    Reading ttagaris and blogswarms's diaries regarding the controversy over the Pelosi/Reid nod to Tim Roemer for DNC chair just made me angry at first...kind of like I suppose you all feel.

    Which is also how Chris Bowers and Jerome Armstrong (who are doing an excellent job covering the ins and outs of this story at MyDD) feel....

    But let me say something here, all Democratic party politics aside, all debate of the horserace pushed off the table, this just brings something home in a crystal clear manner:  

    They don't even know who we are.

    I remember thinking after Al Gore conceded the 2000 Presidential race..."hey, maybe Al will actually have time to come meet with some of us little people who fought for him as he gathers strength and reformulates for 2004." Needless to say....that vision of sitting at an environmentalist conference and looking at the folding chair next to mine and seeing the former Vice President on a "listening" campaign never materialized.  

    In part, that's due to Al Gore being a busy man...ahem...and in part...that was due to Al Gore not realizing that...like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tim Roemer, and, yes, John Kerry and John Edwards...he was bound to be an "old school" DC Democrat with no idea what the grassroots and the netroots are actually up to...so long as he stayed within his comfortable corridors of power.

    They don't even know who we are, much less what we think and who we are fighting for.  

    And worse, they are so caught up in their inside the beltway, high-stakes power games that even if we screamed our lungs out over here in our little corner of the universe....we'd still appear as this tiny fraction of the equation.  Be a dear and weight the pro-Dean, blog-driven dissent by any extra factor or two, would you, Harry....

    We are bloggers and citizens, and our politics should no longer be about them....our politics should reflect who we are and who we fight for.  In fact, the question I have tonight is not who will be chair of the DNC, but, with all due respect, if all we're doing is shoring up a "business-as-usual party" why should I care?  

    When I walk the streets and see my brothers and sisters..I know exactly who I'm fighting for.  When I hold a newborn in my arms and think of my own life half over, I know who I'm fighting for.  When I think of the rainbow of citizens every election day going to and from work at the West Oakland BART station, I realize how hollow the rhetoric coming from our Democratic leadership has been.  When I think of Paul Wellstone, and all that his political life stood for, what direction that life was pointed in, I know the answer to my question.

    It's not simply that the heads of Democratic Congressional delegations have seen fit to nominate an anti-choice, "concede before we've begun to fight" on Social Security Democrat...it's that in doing so they've proven to me that they have nothing whatsoever to do with our lives.

    And when I say our lives I don't mean some kind of cheesy media version of us netizens.  Anyone who did GOTV this fall knows who we are....we're the folks who give a shit...the ones with extra coffee cups rolling around in the back of our cars...the ones getting up in the early AM to bus to PA or NV or Ohio...the ones who show up...and there's something in each of our personal stories that makes us politically active, that makes us fight.  

    And you can't really get much more taken for granted than we are.  It's as if the 500,000 strong march in protest of the Republican National Convention was made up of ghosts...a ghost march of families, the old and the young...of voices peacefully raised up against Bush and his war...marching through the center of our largest city as if we didn't exist.

    We are bloggers and citizens.  We stand not just for ourselves, but for those we fight for.  For our ideals, and for a future that we are committed to building and sharing, by fits and starts....not always perfectly or in harmony...but with a core commitment that we share:  our generation will leave an impact on this nation and this world.

    We aren't going anywhere.  And our job tonight is different than it was in 2004 in the lead up to the election.  We are reforming and fighting for our collective future.  We are gathering steam for our next move....we're putting the folding chairs in a circle.

    If Nancy and Harry don't realize that.....it's time to get a couple userid's and join the conversation.  That conversation will go on with or without them....but that conversation will not be about them.  

    Time is short, and we've just begun to fight.


    Posted at 09:45 am by blog swarm
    Make a comment  




    Next Page

    Blog Swarm

    The online news magazine "Democrat Blog Swarm" is your insider's guide to political news
    If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:














    Contact Me

    << January 2005 >>
    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
     01
    02 03 04 05 06 07 08
    09 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 20 21 22
    23 24 25 26 27 28 29
    30 31




    rss feed

    Blogdrive