Veteran's Day


I'm as happy as can be about the election. But it was mainly a response to so much that has gone so wrong in and with this country.

Against that, we can set those who were, are, and will be what is right with this country. Alyssa Peterson served with the utmost honor in Iraq, refusing to participate in immoral interrogation methods ordered from on high by people like the unlamented former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Let's never forget her fortitude, and let's always remember and honor her service.

I know that countless other soldiers -- indeed the overwhelming majority -- deserve the same praise, but today I want to single her out especially. Thank you, Alyssa. I wish I could have told her in person. posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:26:00 PM -- |    

 
Oddly enough, "Ehrlich" means "honest"
(...in German). Via Steve Benen ("Carpetbagger"), a Philadelphia Daily News report (Ronnie Polaneczky) on the fake voter guides claiming Ehrlich and Steele were Democrats endorsed by real Democrats like Kweisi Mfume -- and about the homeless Philly men asked to hand them out in PG County. Turns out a lot of the Philly men are mad about it, too:

"People started screaming, at us, 'Do you think we're that stupid? What are you trying to pull?' " said El-Bedawi. "I said, 'I didn't know it was a lie! I'm from Philly!' And they said, 'Then go back to Philly!'

When the voters left, he said, he was so shaken and angry, he tossed his remaining literature in the trash. On the bus back home that evening, he said, others were as upset as he was. They were told, "Don't worry about it. People don't care."

"That's some dirty, sneaky, underhanded stuff," said El-Bedawi, shaking his head. "Voting is the most important thing we do. To mess with it is wrong."

There's some kind of "Trading Places" movie in this (how'd that end again? Oh, yeah.) Benen, who's researching the Maryland Republican Party for a writing project (he'd better hurry while there's still one left), points out that Ehrlich and Steele pulled a very similar stunt back in 2002.

Lest there be any confusion here that this was somebody else's brainstorm: the Philly buses were reportedly met and greeted by Ehrlich's wife Kendel, the glossy guides were paid for by the Ehrlich and Steele campaigns -- and Ehrlich went on record with a "what's all the fuss?" reaction.* And lest there still be any confusion that this is in the Republican DNA, past, present, and future: Michael Steele's name is now being bandied about for either the RNC or a Bush cabinet position. I guess he would fit right in.

Final thought: smooth move, Wayne Curry. You and your genius pals took the side of a guy who tried to play Prince George's County for a bunch of ignorant fools. Looks like you were the only ones who fell for it.


=====
* "That's what the Democrats have always done," Ehrlich said. "It's legal, and it's what the Democrats have done forever. This is a story?" Maybe not. It's not a chapter in the "Book of Virtues" either, that's for sure.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:58:00 PM -- |    

 
Howard Dean, the 50-State Strategy, and Democracy Bonds
Yesterday I got a message from the DNC inviting me and other supporters to a victory party at a brew pub* near Union Station. As a "Democracy Bond" donor, I would also have the opportunity for a brief meeting with Howard Dean before he spoke to the crowd.

So I went. I wish I'd brought a notepad, but I did bring a camera and a Cardin/O'Malley/Brown doorhanger left over from get out the vote work the day before for Dean to sign.

Dean was ebullient, as you'd expect. He jokingly thanked Rahm Emmanuel of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) , which came as a bit of a surprise given the reported fights over strategy between the two Democrats. Dean explained that the the dispute -- Emmanuel wanted to spend Democratic resources on a few races, while Dean wants to build the party in "red" states and areas -- helped publicize and explain Dean's "50 State Strategy" to a wider public. ("Our web site would light up every time.") Dean singled out Senator Charles Schumer (head of the Senate counterpart DSCC) for more unstinting praise, crediting him with key support for Jim Webb in Virginia.

One of the winners Dean was especially pleased about was Carol Shea-Porter in New Hampshire, who won against incumbent Jeb Bradley -- after beating the DCCC's candidate Jim Craig in the primaries, and then getting no help from the DCCC in the general election. (I should say that it's possible Craig might not have got much help, either.) By contrast, the DNC's "50-State" program set up operations in New Hampshire that benefited not only Shea-Porter, but also helped retake that supposedly conservative state's legislature. There and elsewhere, the idea is to no longer write off any part of the country. For some other examples of the "50 State Strategy" at work, see Dean's November 8 message and the "50 State Strategy" web site.

This kind of strategy is the opposite of what political donors usually want -- a candidate, a timeline, a specific win to look forward to. Instead, it takes steady, patient support. So Governor Dean also specifically thanked us in the room for being Democracy Bond supporters -- we give a small monthly donation by credit card. Dean said he appreciated that small donors like us "don't want anything in return but good government" so that he didn't need to "kiss part of anyone's anatomy." (Thereupon one lady said he could always kiss her.)

Later on, in his remarks to the crowd, Dean counseled patience about Iraq in the short term, urging that Democrats first work on and pass legislation like the higher minimum wage, and either take the win or the veto and a 2008 campaign issue. He felt that it would be unwise to fall to squabbling about whether an Iraq pullout should be immediate, or in 6 months, or 8 months; the president still controls foreign and military policy.

Meanwhile, Dean argued, Democrats should be about redefining "moral values"; he pointed out that fully 30% of white evangelicals voted Democratic this election, the highest that's been in a while. He went on to name issues like health care and poverty that also have to do with moral values; I was rude enough to add a loud "no to torture!" from the back of the room. I think Dean was getting there himself; he closed with saying that the United States should return to full support** for the Geneva Conventions, which earned him some of the longest applause of the evening.

I don't mean to weigh in too much on the inside baseball of DNC vs. DCCC; as Thomas Schaller has argued, there's room for both approaches to work together, even in campaign mode, as the two camps seem to have agreed back in September. The one wants to build the party over the long run, the other wants to win races right now, and people can feel strongly about that in the heat of a campaign.

But for my money, the place I'm giving the most is Democracy Bonds. We need a Democratic Party that's respected and competitive everywhere, and that stands ready to help its grassroots supporters wherever they are.

I'm supporting that via Democracy Bonds -- and I feel like I'm getting a very, very good return on my investment.



=====
* Capitol City Brewing Company, great place, good beer.
** While I think I'm accurate about the gist of Dean's remarks, these aren't verbatim quotes; as I mentioned above, I didn't bring a notepad. I was mainly there to celebrate.
EDIT, 11/9: ("Our web site...") added.
UPDATE, 11/10: Via digby, word from TNR's Ryan Lizza that James "I'm an idiot" Carville is floating the idea that Dean ought to be replaced -- and to top it off, by Harold Ford. Steve Benen is also appalled.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:44:00 PM -- |    

 
We will, we will ROCK YOU
Let no one say this Democrat doesn't have a post-election plan: in the first 100 hours after this election, I pledge to each and every one of you that I will be gloating non-stop. Speaker of the House Nancyyyyy Pelosiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and here in Maryland: Bob Ehrlich? Michael Steele? Don't let the door hit you on the way out, scumbags.

I'm proud to have been a small part of the combined O'Malley/Cardin get out the vote work here in Montgomery County, canvassing in Germantown, Bethesda, Silver Spring, and Takoma Park over and over again, and I'm a lot more familiar with this home of mine than I was before. Monday evening and Tuesday alone I must have knocked on a couple of hundred doors. Volunteers like myself swamped the District 20 office yesterday, and it's my sense that we knew we were part of a national election: hold the line in Maryland, keep that U.S. Senate seat, return a Democrat to the governor's mansion in Annapolis. At least at our own headquarters, we were ahead of schedule all day long, and at the end of the day I wound up getting sent over with a couple of other volunteers to P.G. County to help out there.

In the process, I was able to let at least one DSCC staffer know how little I think of Joe Lieberman, and I hope she carries that message back to her bosses. There's a lot of loose talk about how this election signals some kind of return to the center, and that moderates hold new sway in the Democratic Party. I've got nothing against moderates or the center, really. By historical definitions of either notion, that's where I am, too.

But not by today's definitions. I think the energy Democrats got yesterday wasn't from people who wanted "bipartisanship" for its own sake to prevail, it was from people who wanted the Democratic Party to prevail, and who want it to give Bush the first real fights of his presidency. The same rising tide that's lifting all hopeful DC interns today can ebb right back out to sea if their bosses flinch from that mandate. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:30:00 PM -- |    

 
Vote Democratic





=====
NOTE: graphic by Oliver Willis. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:00:00 PM -- |    

 
Had enough?
That's FEMA ace Michael Brown, presidential carrier pilot ace George W. Bush (shirtsleeves rolled up! he's gonna clear some brush!), and Ace of Pages Mark Foley back before Iraq, Katrina and DisgustingGate really messed things up for them. Hard to pick the dumbest of the bunch, but compared to the other guys, Michael Brown's looking relatively good these days.

Subsequent posts will appear below this one until Election Day; I'll also be adding more "had enough?" headlines to those below between now and then. Stay tuned! Submit your own! Had enough?

• Baghdad Blast Kills 26, U.S. October Toll hits 100 (10/30, Washington Post)
• Cheney confirms that detainees were subjected to waterboarding (10/25, McClatchy News Services)* -- "It's a no-brainer for me," Cheney added. What else could it be? But relax: "We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in."
• Tempest brews in weather think tank (10/1, New Jersey Star Ledger) -- "Scientists at a world-renowned climate research lab in New Jersey say their discoveries are being hidden from public view because their conclusions on global warming differ from those in the Bush administration."
• Boehner: 'Rumsfeld is the best thing that's happened to the Pentagon in 25 years' (10/29, ThinkProgress) -- Majority leader John Boehner (R-OH): "Let’s not take the problems in Iraq, the tough fight that we’re in there and blame it on anyone." No, let's.
• Worst Congress Ever (10/19, Rolling Stone) "The 109th Congress is so bad that it makes you wonder if democracy is a failed experiment," says Jonathan Turley, a noted constitutional scholar [...] Congress has arranged things now so that the typical workweek on the Hill begins late on Tuesday and ends just after noon on Thursday, to give members time to go home for the four-day weekend."
• Rumsfeld tells war critics to 'back off' (10/27, AP) -- "You ought to just back off, take a look at it, relax, understand that it's complicated, it's difficult," Rumsfeld said regarding deadlines." Making Secretary "Einstein" just who we want in charge, I suppose.
• Bush Says 'America Loses' Under Democrats (10/31, Washington Post) -- "President Bush said terrorists will win if Democrats win and impose their policies on Iraq, as he and Vice President Cheney escalated their rhetoric Monday..." Terrorists appear to disagree.
• Protester wrestled to ground at Allen campaign stop (10/31, WVEC) -- should read "assaulted by pro-Allen thugs at". Video at the link or here. Today's Republicans do this kind of thing all the time. Too many news outlets played along, headlining this as "Heckler subdued at George Allen event." More here.
• Military Charts Movement of Conflict in Iraq Toward Chaos (11/1, New York Times) -- "A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United States Central Command portrays Iraq as edging toward chaos, in a chart that the military is using as a barometer of civil conflict." But that's not the real concern...
  
• "The Pentagon is looking into how classified information indicating Iraq is moving closer to chaos wound up on the front page of Wednesday's New York Times, and is not ruling out an investigation that could lead to criminal charges." (11/2, FOX) -- So of course the real problem is that we found out. Now terrorists, insurgents, and Peoria, Illinois all know Iraq is somewhere between burgundy and scarlet on the top-secret Pentagon green-to-red scale.
  
• Bush plans post-election push on Social Security (11/1, Reuters) -- "A bad idea that just won't die," writes Barbara Kennelly.
• Bush Laments ‘Tone’ In Washington, Says His Opponents Want Terrorists To Win (11/2, ThinkProgress)
• U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer (11/3, New York Times) -- Hoping to "leverage the Internet", Republicans released documents captured in Iraq to a public web site - including details of Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear weapons program: "The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb. Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials."
• "In fact, when it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush's understanding of the presidency, the President's team has been planning for what one strategist describes as "a cataclysmic fight to the death" over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is "going to assert that power, and they're going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation." (10/29, TIME Magazine) Bring it on.
• U.S. Seeks Silence on CIA Prisons (11/4, Washington Post) -- "The Bush administration has told a federal judge that terrorism suspects held in secret CIA prisons should not be allowed to reveal details of the "alternative interrogation methods" that their captors used to get them to talk." And not "just" in the courtroom, but to their lawyers -- for any reason.
  
  
• And finally:
  "Who cares what you think?" (2004, Salon) -- Bush's answer to citizen Bill Hangley in 2001 when told "Mr. President, I hope you only serve one term. I'm very disappointed in your work so far."
  

=====
NOTES: Actual post date 10/30/06. Photo via Josh Marshall; "Cheney confirms" via Nell Lancaster; "Tempest brews" via Climate Crisis Coalition; "Einstein" link to Eugene Robinson op-ed; "Pentagon is looking into" via Glenn Greenwald; "Bush laments tone" via Steve Benen, "Nuclear Primer" via Will Bunch; "Executive Power" via Kagro X; "CIA prisons" via Kevin Drum. * For the Cheney link, see also the handy "What is water-boarding?" graphic -- accompanied by a link to "Drop by drop: forgetting the history of water torture in U.S. Courts", by Evan Wallach.

EDIT, 11/1: this post will be held as the final post of the day for now, and will be redated to 11/7 on Election Day. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:55:00 AM -- |    

 
No on Question 4: the Election Central Command and Control Act
This post concludes a series arguing against Maryland's Question 4, a referendum on election law revisions that I christened the "Linda Lamone Lifetime Appointment Act" and the "Election Technology Boondoggle Act" in prior posts in the "Free State Politics" blog.

This time I focus on another troubling aspect of Question 4: the way it allows the Maryland State Board of Elections to assume control of local election processes. When HB 1368 -- the basis of Question 4 -- is closely examined, it's quickly clear that the measure also gives the state of Maryland a great deal of power over local election officials:

[2-103.]
[(b) The State Administrator shall:]
(4) supervise the operations of the local boards AND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION, INITIATE A LEGAL ACTION TO ENJOIN THE ACTIONS OF A LOCAL BOARD OR THE ELECTION DIRECTOR OF A LOCAL BOARD

In said subsection C, it develops that the State Administrator may be initiating legal actions not just under the specific authority of HB 1368, but on behalf of regulations promulgated by the Board of Elections later on:

[2-103.]
(C) (1) THE STATE ADMINISTRATOR MAY FILE SUIT IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN A LOCAL BOARD OR ITS ELECTION DIRECTOR FROM VIOLATING ANY PROVISIONOF THIS ARTICLE OR OF A REGULATION, GUIDELINE, OR PROCEDURE ADOPTED UNDER THIS ARTICLE.

(Emphasis added.) Thus, even were you in full agreement with everything else in HB 1368, you'd still be unwise to vote for Question 4 because of the sweeping powers it grants to the State Administrator to enforce future Board of Elections regulations -- however unwise, arbitrary, or unfair they might be.

As elections activist Robert Lanza has pointed out, one direction this could take is the simple removal of local elections judges in favor of contractors like Diebold favored by the State Board and/or Administrator. There's little I see in HB 1368 to prevent it, and more to suggest it. Specifically, when the powers of local election directors and the local election board are enumerated, the word "MAY" precedes powers such as appointing employees, training election judges, and processing absentee ballot applications, while the word "SHALL" precedes duties such as getting State Administrator approval of precinct boundary changes or Board approval of locally adopted election regulations. If Linda Lamone got it into her head that hired election "judges" would outperform the local volunteer variety, there might be less standing in her way than we'd like.

With greater control comes correspondingly greater power to manipulate elections. The manipulation need not take the form of actual vote-changing -- the valid "black box" worry about electronic voting -- but may instead be bureaucratic, aggregate election suppression. A local precinct chair has noted,

Montgomery County has traditionally run very efficient elections. Under Lamone's direction, both materials and equipment were very late in coming. Three-fourths of judges had been trained when new directives came from the state. There is a fear that this will happen again in November. Training on e-poll-books was too late. ... Yes, there was human error, but there was gross mismanagement from the State Administrator.

(Emphasis added.) While it's always been possible that a given county elections board might encounter difficulties, HB 1368 and Question 4 would make it more likely than ever that the State Board of Elections or State Elections Administrator could set it up for failure -- whether intentionally or not.

Conclusion
In previous posts I've argued that passage of Question 4 would make it too difficult to remove the election administrator from office, and that it places too much trust and emphasis on "technology" per se without similar emphasis on safeguards and feasibility. Here I assert something that seems to be a different topic -- local versus centralized authority and control over the election process.

But it's all connected. Whether or not it's the intent of Linda Lamone and her Diebold suppliers, the fact remains that the system they envision allows the central, networked command and control of elections. After all, that's the flip side of electronic voting: programmable voting machines electronically tallying their results and uploading them to central election computers.

The situation is reminiscent of the famous mutually beneficial relationship between algae and fungus that creates lichen. In this case, the symbiosis is between a technology supplier and a new political power center. The supplier of electronic voting and registration-checking equipment gets a lucrative and -- thanks to the "technology boondoggle" clause -- never-ending relationship with the State Board of Elections and its administrator. For their part, that board and especially its administrator become a new and all but invulnerable under-the-radar force in Maryland politics.

Screwups like the recent September 12 election meltdown in Montgomery County, or the suspicious inability to squeeze James Webb's last name onto Virginia voting machine screens, might be accidental at first. But they might not be so the second time -- and the system we're creating in Maryland, with its NASA-like pre-election checklists and proprietary black box voting machines, is riddled with opportunities for mischief.

Luckily, this Tuesday Maryland can vote for the first step back to common sense, voter-verified balloting and elections and away from unaccountable, excessive bureaucratic power over those elections: vote "No" on Question 4.


=====
CROSSPOSTED to "Free State Politics."

UPDATE, 11/5: The full 2003 SAIC report on Maryland's voting machines -- a.k.a. "the Pentagon Papers of e-voting" -- has been leaked by a "a patriotic high-level state official," and has been made available at "The BRAD BLOG". Rebecca Abrahams first obtained the document. She writes that "the report is considered to be a serious "smoking gun" by the very few computer experts who have seen it. It is evidence, they say, of a very purposeful plan by Diebold to hide the operational and security flaws on the machines that count all of the votes in Maryland and Georgia and many of the votes in states across the country." posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:10:00 AM -- |