This is from the January 20, 2005 program.

In this segment, we get to learn lots of fun facts about Wal-Mart. Like how they call a 28 hour week "full time." And how the company has recently launched a huge PR campaign to try to combat the numerous lawsuits and bad press its been getting lately.

Daily Show On Wal-Mart (Small - 6 MB)

Audio - Daily Show On Wal-Mart (MP3 - 3 MB)

Update 1:55 pm: A reader suggested I turn my machine off for a minute, then restarted holding down the "C" key so it would try to boot from the disc, when it didn't find the system disc it was looking for, it asked me if I wanted to eject it.

Thanks again for being such great readers that always seem to be willing to help me out when I get stuck. What would I do without ya :-)

Hey guys, Tech support question here.

I put in a DVD and was trying to use utilities to burn an image and make a copy, when (all of a sudden...pow!) no seriously, it wasn't quite that exciting, but it is holding me up on a number of projects now: my dual G4 can't see the Superdrive.

How do I reinstall the drivers? I tried to eject it from the firmware and reboot holding down the mouse and all the stuff that "help" suggests. I googled till I was blue in the face, and now I ask for your wisdom to save the day.

Thanks in advance for emailing me at lisarein@finetuning.com with a possible solution.

lisa

So let's see how many of these suckers I can link to today.

They are all already available here, by date, in my archive (where you can always look for them in general). (The new ones are from late November and all of December.)

But, as you know, I like to include metadata with them in my posts here, so you can find them later when you're looking for a specific clip. (And so I can find them later when I'm looking for a specific clip.)

These all have mirrors too, but only for a month or so, so if it's after February 2005 and the mirrors don't work anymore, that's why.

Try to use the mirrors while they're there though, because I imagine bandwidth will get pretty scarce over the next few days as this stuff gets accessed all at once.

Thanks in advance for letting me know if any of this stuff isn't working properly, or if I have any bad links. I'll leave these clips on my hard drive for a couple days, to make sure everything made it. Then I gotta start clearing off my hard drives to get ready to install my home recording studio. (I got a Digi 001 and I'm quite excited about it!)

I also have a few tech issues that have been plaguing me that I'm going to need your help with.

Anyway, major catch up day today.

peace,

lisa

I've written a second letter that I'm sending now to all of the members on the judiciary committee. (Hopefully I'll have a better list by email of them soon...)

Here's a link to the first letter, in case you haven't sent that one yet.

Subject header: Protect Our Troops - Oppose Gonzales Nomination

Dear Senator,

I'm writing you to a second time to request that you vote against the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as US Attorney General because I feel it is so vitally important.

We must protect the Geneva Conventions, the War Crimes Act, and our diplomatic credibility throughout the rest of the free world. Now more than ever, with an unprecedented number of our armed forces and National Guard forces on active duty all over the world.

Send a message of strength and a clear signal that the abuses of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are being taken seriously, and that those days are over. Otherwise, you will send our troops, our country and the rest of the world in a very dangerous direction.

Sincerely,

Lisa Rein

All the senators on the
judiciary committee.

Senator Dick Durbin, (202) 224-2152,

http://durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.htm

Senator Patrick Leahy, (202) 224-4242, senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

Senator Barbara Boxer, (202) 224-3553,

http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

Senator Russ Feingold, (202) 224-5323, russ_feingold@feingold.senate.gov

Senator Edward Kennedy, 202/224-4543, senator@kennedy.senate.gov

Senator Tom Harkin, (202) 224-3254, tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov

Senator Jim Jeffords, (202) 224-5141, Vermont@jeffords.senate.gov

I'm posting this to provide background for you to inspire you to write your senators about opposing the Gonzales confirmation for US Attorney General.

Here's
part one of two of these clips.

In this clip, Gonzales confirms that he believes that President Bush can take it upon himself to not to follow the Geneva Convention, the War Crimes Act, or any other law, if he feels it is unconstitutional, as long as he thinks about it a lot first.

Gonzales manages to reduce this very specific question about what's going now in the current world (re: Bush and Gonzales' advice that geneva conventions don't need to be followed) to a hypothetical about whether it's theoretically possible for "a president" to not adhere to a law if he felt it was unconstitutional. (Which of course it is.)

But this isn't about anything hypothetical at all. This is about some real legal advice that Gonzales gave to President Bush in August of 2002 while he was his legal counsel. We're talking about a specific, deliberate legal justification for why a specific, really important law, the Geneva Conventions, doesn't necessarily have to be adhered to, and under what specific scenario it might be legal to do so.

Then Gonzales either lies (if he is aware of the facts) or makes a mistake (if is is ill informed of the facts, which I highly doubt), when he states that the courts have decided both ways as to whether or not it is OK for a President to knowingly break a law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Truman tried to do this fifty-two years ago, and the Supreme Court decided he was wrong in doing so. The Supreme Court has never sided with a president on this issue. So again -- Gonzales is either lying or misinformed. Neither is appropriate for a U.S. Attorney General. He needs to be both honest and well informed as to the legal status of such important questions.

Video of Gonzales Questioned By Dick Durbin (Part Two of Two)
(Small - 13 MB)

Audio of Gonzales Questioned By Dick Durbin (Part Two of Two)
(MP3 - 8 MB)

Senator Durbin:

"But you believe he has that authority. He could ignore a law passed by this Congress, signed by this President or another one, and decide that it is unconstitutional and refuse to comply with that law?"

Alberto Gonzales:

"Senator, again, your asking me, hypothetically, does that authority exist? I guess I would have to say that, hypothetically, that authority may exist. But let me also just say that we certainly understand and recognize the role of the courts in our system of government. We have to deal with some very difficult issues here. Very, very complicated. Sometimes the answers are not so clear. The President's position on this is, ultimately the judges, courts, will make the decision as to whether or not we've drawn the right balance here. And, and, in certain circumstances, the courts have agreed with the Administrations position, and, in certain circumstances, the courts have disagreed, and we will respect those decisions."

Senator Durbin:

"Fifty-two years ago, a president named Harry Truman decided to test that premise. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co Et. Al vs. Sawyer in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, as you know, "President Truman, you're wrong. You don't have the authority to decide whats constitutional - what laws you like and don't like. I'm troubled that you would think, as our incoming Attorney General, that a president can pick and choose the laws that he thinks are constitutional, and ultimately wait for that test in court to decide whether or not he's going to comply with the law."

Part Two

Senator Durbin:

"In your August memo, you created the possiblity that the President could invoke his authority as Commander In Chief to not only suspend the Geneva Convention, but the application of other laws. Do you stand by that position?"

Alberto Gonzales:

"I believe that I said in response to an earlier question that I do believe it is possible, theoretically possible, for the Congress to pass a law that could be viewed as unconstitutional by a President of the United States. And that's not just the position of this President. That's been the position of Presidents on both sides of the aisle. In my judgement, making that kind of conclusion is one that requires a great deal of care and consideration. But if you're asking me if it's theoretically possible that Congress could pass a statute that we view as unconstitutional. I'd have to conceed sir that that's theoretically possible."

Senator Durbin:

"Has this president ever invoked that authority as Commander In Chief or otherwise, to conclude that a law was unconstitutional and refuse to comply with it?"

Alberto Gonzales:

"I believe that I stated in my June briefing about these memos that the President has not exercised that authority."

Senator Durbin:

"But you believe he has that authority. He could ignore a law passed by this Congress, signed by this President or another one, and decide that it is unconstitutional and refuse to comply with that law?"

Alberto Gonzales:

"Senator, again, your asking me, hypothetically, does that authority exist? I guess I would have to say that, hypothetically, that authority may exist. But let me also just say that we certainly understand and recognize the role of the courts in our system of government. We have to deal with some very difficult issues here. Very, very complicated. Sometimes the answers are not so clear. The President's position on this is, ultimately the judges, courts, will make the decision as to whether or not we've drawn the right balance here. And, and, in certain circumstances, the courts have agreed with the Administrations position, and, in certain circumstances, the courts have disagreed, and we will respect those decisions."

Senator Durbin:

"Fifty-two years ago, a president named Harry Truman decided to test that premise. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co Et. Al vs. Sawyer in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, as you know, "President Truman, you're wrong. You don't have the authority to decide whats constitutional - what laws you like and don't like. I'm troubled that you would think, as our incoming Attorney General, that a president can pick and choose the laws that he thinks are constitutional, and ultimately wait for that test in court to decide whether or not he's going to comply with the law."

Alberto Gonzales:

"Senator, you asked me whether or not it was theoretically possible that the congress could pass a law that we would view as unconstitutional. My response is that, obviously we would take that very, very seriously, look at that carefully, but I suppose that it is theoretically possible that that would happen."

"Let me just add one final point. We in the Executive Branch of course understand that there are limits upon Presidential Power, very very mindful of Justice O'Connors statement in the Hamdi decision that a state of war is "not a blank check" for the President of the United states with respect to the rights of American citizens. I understand that, and I agree with that."

Senator Durbin:

"Well let me say in conclusion - I'm glad to hear that. I'm troubled by the introduction. The "hypothetical" is one that you raised in the memo relative to torture. As to whether the President has the authority as Commander In Chief to ignore the Geneva Conventions or certain other laws. This is not something that comes from our side of the table of our own creation. It is your creation. The hypothetical you created."

"My concern is this; I do not believe that this government should become a symbol for a departure from time honored traditions where we have said that we will not engage in torture, directly or indirectly by rendition, which I hope to ask you about in the next round. That we will stand by the same standards of Geneva Conventions since World War II and, frankly, dating back to Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War in terms of the treatment of prisoners. I am concerned that that round of memos that went through the Department of Justice, Mr. Baibi (sp?), into the Department of Defense, into Guantanamo, and then migrated somehow to interrogation techniques in Abu Ghraib has stained our world reputation. I want to win this war on terrorism, but I don't want to do it at the expense of our soldiers, who may some day become prisoners themselves. Thank you Mr. Gonzales."

This story is from January 8, 2005. I'm posting it to provide background for you to inspire you to write your senators about opposing the Gonzales confirmation for US Attorney General.

Tortured Answers
An Editorial By The St. Petersburg Times.

After seven hours of testimony and pointed questions, it seemed clear that he doesn't understand the difference at all. Gonzales' time before the Senate Judiciary Committee was spent refusing to answer direct questions, being evasive, conveniently losing his memory regarding key events, averting responsibility for controversial legal judgments that he had sought and supported, and generally failing to demonstrate any independence from the White House.

If confirmed as attorney general, which he no doubt will be, Gonzales will bear close watching. He may not be as ideologically driven as John Ashcroft, but his lapdog loyalty to the president offers little reason to believe he will disturb business as usual in this administration. That means the government will continue to hold foreign prisoners without due process, distort the reading of the Geneva Conventions, and justify the use of abusive (but ostensibly not torturous) interrogation methods - all actions that already have eroded this country's moral authority and put our own soldiers' safety at risk.

Both Republican and Democratic senators seemed frustrated at Gonzales' lack of candor and cooperation. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., bluntly told Gonzales: "We're looking for you, when we ask you questions, to give us an answer, which you haven't done yet."

Citing faulty memory, Gonzales refused to lay out the events that led to the development of a 2002 Justice Department memorandum interpreting a federal statute barring torture. The memorandum was the centerpiece of the hearing. Reports are that it had been solicited by Gonzales after the CIA sought a legal analysis on whether their agents faced criminal liability for utilizing abusive interrogation techniques. The memorandum, which was repudiated by the administration on the eve of Gonzales' hearing, said that the president could approve of torture and override any law or treaty as part of his warmaking powers. It also defined torture very narrowly and said there could be a necessity defense for its use...

The Republican leadership in Congress, and particularly the judiciary committee chairmen, should recommit themselves to asserting oversight over the policy direction and operations of the Justice Department. Gonzales is someone who will need to be watched, not trusted.

Gonzales, like Ashcroft, seems willing to advance any position preferred by the White House - an impulse that has helped undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. This country deserves better in its chief law enforcement officer.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/08/Opinion/Tortured_answers.shtml

Tortured Answers
The St. Petersburg Times | Editorial

Saturday 08 January 2005

Alberto Gonzales' performance this week didn't inspire confidence that he might break from White House ideology as attorney general.

At his Senate confirmation hearing this week, Alberto Gonzales assured senators that he understood the difference between the role he has played as White House counsel and the one he would play as U.S. attorney general. "I will no longer represent only the White House," Gonzales said. "I will represent the United States of America and its people."

After seven hours of testimony and pointed questions, it seemed clear that he doesn't understand the difference at all. Gonzales' time before the Senate Judiciary Committee was spent refusing to answer direct questions, being evasive, conveniently losing his memory regarding key events, averting responsibility for controversial legal judgments that he had sought and supported, and generally failing to demonstrate any independence from the White House.

If confirmed as attorney general, which he no doubt will be, Gonzales will bear close watching. He may not be as ideologically driven as John Ashcroft, but his lapdog loyalty to the president offers little reason to believe he will disturb business as usual in this administration. That means the government will continue to hold foreign prisoners without due process, distort the reading of the Geneva Conventions, and justify the use of abusive (but ostensibly not torturous) interrogation methods - all actions that already have eroded this country's moral authority and put our own soldiers' safety at risk.

Both Republican and Democratic senators seemed frustrated at Gonzales' lack of candor and cooperation. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., bluntly told Gonzales: "We're looking for you, when we ask you questions, to give us an answer, which you haven't done yet."

Citing faulty memory, Gonzales refused to lay out the events that led to the development of a 2002 Justice Department memorandum interpreting a federal statute barring torture. The memorandum was the centerpiece of the hearing. Reports are that it had been solicited by Gonzales after the CIA sought a legal analysis on whether their agents faced criminal liability for utilizing abusive interrogation techniques. The memorandum, which was repudiated by the administration on the eve of Gonzales' hearing, said that the president could approve of torture and override any law or treaty as part of his warmaking powers. It also defined torture very narrowly and said there could be a necessity defense for its use.

While Gonzales declared that he opposed the use of torture, he refused to say whether he thought the president would be bound by a law barring it.

To other important subjects such as how a department under his leadership would handle government openness, mandatory minimum sentencing, and the death penalty, Gonzales gave pat, noncommittal responses.

All in all it was not a reassuring performance by a man who knew he would be confirmed as long as he didn't say anything outrageous. So he chose not to say anything illuminating at all.

The only encouraging sign came when Gonzales promised that, if confirmed, he would be more accessible and accountable than his predecessor. During his four years in office, Ashcroft appeared before the judiciary committee only five times and frequently refused to answer senators' questions or letters. Gonzales should be held to that commitment.

The Republican leadership in Congress, and particularly the judiciary committee chairmen, should recommit themselves to asserting oversight over the policy direction and operations of the Justice Department. Gonzales is someone who will need to be watched, not trusted.

Gonzales, like Ashcroft, seems willing to advance any position preferred by the White House - an impulse that has helped undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. This country deserves better in its chief law enforcement officer.

This story is from January 7, 2005. I'm posting it to provide background for you to inspire you to write your senators about opposing the Gonzales confirmation for US Attorney General.

Mr. Gonzales's Testimony
A Washington Post Editorial.

The message Mr. Gonzales left with senators was unmistakable: As attorney general, he will seek no change in practices that have led to the torture and killing of scores of detainees and to the blackening of U.S. moral authority around the world. Instead, the Bush administration will continue to issue public declarations such as those Mr. Gonzales repeated yesterday - "that torture and abuse will not be tolerated by this administration" - while in practice sanctioning procedures that the International Red Cross and many lawyers inside the government consider to be illegal and improper...

Alberto R. Gonzales missed an important opportunity yesterday to rectify his position, and that of President Bush, on the imprisonment and interrogation of foreign detainees. At the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on his nomination to be attorney general, Mr. Gonzales repeatedly was offered the chance to repudiate a legal judgment that the president is empowered to order torture in violation of U.S. law and immunize torturers from punishment. He declined to do so. He was invited to reject a 2002 ruling made under his direction that the infliction of pain short of serious physical injury, organ failure or death did not constitute torture. He answered: "I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached." Nor did he condemn torture techniques, such as simulated drowning, that were discussed and approved during meetings in his office. "It is not my job," he said, to decide if they were proper. He was prompted to reflect on whether departing from the Geneva Conventions had been a mistake, in light of the shocking human rights abuses that have since been reported in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Guantánamo Bay prison and that continue even now. Mr. Gonzales demurred. The error, he answered, was not of administration policy but of "a failure of training and oversight."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54854-2005Jan6.html

Mr. Gonzales's Testimony
The Washington Post | Editorial

Friday 07 January 2005

Alberto R. Gonzales missed an important opportunity yesterday to rectify his position, and that of President Bush, on the imprisonment and interrogation of foreign detainees. At the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on his nomination to be attorney general, Mr. Gonzales repeatedly was offered the chance to repudiate a legal judgment that the president is empowered to order torture in violation of U.S. law and immunize torturers from punishment. He declined to do so. He was invited to reject a 2002 ruling made under his direction that the infliction of pain short of serious physical injury, organ failure or death did not constitute torture. He answered: "I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached." Nor did he condemn torture techniques, such as simulated drowning, that were discussed and approved during meetings in his office. "It is not my job," he said, to decide if they were proper. He was prompted to reflect on whether departing from the Geneva Conventions had been a mistake, in light of the shocking human rights abuses that have since been reported in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Guantánamo Bay prison and that continue even now. Mr. Gonzales demurred. The error, he answered, was not of administration policy but of "a failure of training and oversight."

The message Mr. Gonzales left with senators was unmistakable: As attorney general, he will seek no change in practices that have led to the torture and killing of scores of detainees and to the blackening of U.S. moral authority around the world. Instead, the Bush administration will continue to issue public declarations such as those Mr. Gonzales repeated yesterday - "that torture and abuse will not be tolerated by this administration" - while in practice sanctioning procedures that the International Red Cross and many lawyers inside the government consider to be illegal and improper.

Mr. Gonzales doesn't have the manner of a stonewaller; in his appearance yesterday he frequently demonstrated the modesty and good nature for which he is known. Senators from both parties rightly celebrated his rise from a childhood in poverty to high national office. The priorities he listed for himself as attorney general sounded like the right ones: "the protection of civil rights, the protection of our voting rights, the protection of our civil liberties." Mr. Gonzales said he is concerned about the spread of pornography and violent crime, as well as "the use of certain kinds of weapons in connection with those crimes." In significant respects, he probably would be a less ideological, less confrontational and less polarizing figure than the outgoing attorney general, John D. Ashcroft.

Yet Mr. Gonzales appeared willfully obtuse about the consequences of his most important judgments as White House counsel. He repeatedly misrepresented the war crimes that have occurred, suggesting they were limited to those shown in the photographs taken by the "night shift" at Abu Ghraib, when it is now documented that abuses occurred throughout Iraq, in Afghanistan and at Guantánamo and that they continued even after the photos became public. He again derided and mischaracterized the Geneva Conventions, claiming that they "limit our ability to solicit information from detainees" and prevent their prosecution for war crimes - an interpretation at odds with that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military's legal corps, the Red Cross, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and decades of U.S. experience in war.

He was asked if he believed that other world leaders could legitimately torture U.S. citizens. He replied, "I don't know what laws other world leaders would be bound by." (The Geneva Conventions would be among them.) He was asked whether "U.S. personnel [can] legally engage in torture under any circumstances." He answered, "I don't believe so, but I'd want to get back to you on that." He was asked whether he agreed, at least, with Mr. Ashcroft, who said he didn't believe in torture because it produced nothing of value. "I don't have a way of reaching a conclusion on that," he said. Those senators who are able to reach clear conclusions about torture and whether the United States should engage in it have reason for grave reservations about Mr. Gonzales.

This footage is from January 6, 2005. I'm posting this to provide background for you to inspire you to write your senators about opposing the Gonzales confirmation for US Attorney General.

Here's a link to part 2 of 2.

In this first of two clips of Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) questioning Gonzales, Durbin asks if Gonzales feels it's permissible to torture prisoners, second guess the Geneva Convention under certain circumstances, or knowingly violate the War Crimes Act under certain circumstances.

Although Gonzales states for the record that "our policy is that we do not engage in torture," he skirts the War Crimes Act question completely and continues to deny that his memo had any part in helping to create a "permissive environment" at Abu Ghraib.

I've also included a link to the complete clip that this smaller clip was taken from, for your reference below.

Video of Gonzales Questioned By Dick Durbin (Part One of Two)
(Small - 14 MB)

Audio of Gonzales Questioned By Dick Durbin (Part One of Two)
(MP3 - 9 MB)

Senator Durbin:

"Do you believe that there are circumstances where other legal restrictions, like the War Crimes Act, would not apply to U.S. personnel?"

Alberto Gonzales:

(7 second pause)

"Sir, I don't believe that that would be the case, but I would like the opportunity to, I don't, I want to be very candid with you, and obviously thorough in my response to that question. Uh. It is sort of a legal conclusion and I would like to have the opportunity to get back to you on that."

Senator Durbin:

"I'll give you that chance."

Here is the full text of this part one of two clips of Durbin questioning Gonzales on January 6, 2005:

Senator Dick Durbin:

"I'm sorry that there has been some breakdowns between this committee and the white house about the production of documents. As I told you in our White House meeting, it is very difficult for us to sit on this site of the table and believe that we have the whole story, when the White House refuses to produce documents to tell us what happened about many of the issues we are raising. But, based on what we do have, I want to try to get into a few specific questions on the issue of torture."

"The images of Abu Ghraib are likely to be with us for a lifetime, as many images of War can be. The tragedy of Abu Ghraib, and the embarrassment and scandal to the United States are likely to be with us for decades and beyond.

"Yesterday, we paid tribute to our collegue Congressman Robert Matsui. Not only a great congressman, but particularly great in light of the fact that, as a Japanese American, he was sent to an internment camp by his government that did not trust his patriotism or the patriotism of his family. That shameful chapter in American history is recounted even today, more than fifty years later as we think about it. I'm afraid that the torture that occurred in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo will similarly be viewed fifty years from now as a shameful chapter in American history."

"When you answered Senator Cole, you said "we're gonna divide what happened at Abu Ghraib into two areas: physical and sexual torture, never acceptable, some idea of fun by depraved people, and you condemned it. Then a second area, interrogation techniques that went to far, and you conceeded that those interrogation techniques might have migrated or started at Guantanamo and somehow made it to Iraq. My question to you is: 'Would you not also conceed that your decision and the decision of the President to call into question the definition of 'torture,' the need to comply with the Geneva Conventions, at least open up a permissive environment for conduct which had been ruled as totally unacceptable by presidents of both parties for decades?'"

Alberto Gonzales:

"Thank you Senator for the question. Perhaps I did misspeak and I thought I was clear that I wasn't dividing up the categories of abuse into two categories, that really, that division had been done within these reports themselves. Those reports did indicate that there was some migration as to the second category [ed note: interrogation]. But the reports and the briefings were fairly clear in my judgement, and others may disagree, that the reasons for the migration was because there was inadequate training and supervision. That, if there had been adequate training and supervision, if there had been adherence to doctrine, then the abuses would not have occurred. And that's what I see in the reports and what I see in the briefings."

"As to whether or not there was a permissive environment -- you and I spoke about this in our meeting. The findings in these eight reports universally were a great majority, overwhelming majority, of our detention operations have been conducted consistent with American values and consistent with our legal obligations. What we saw happen on that cell block in the night shift was limited to the night shift on that cell block, with respect to that first category: the more offensive, the intentional severe physical and sexual abuse, the subject of those pictures, and this isn't just Al Gonzales speaking, this is what, if you look at the Schlessinger (sp?) Report concludes, and so, what you see is that you have this kind of contact occurring at the night shift, but the day shift, they don't engage in that conduct, because they understand what the rules were. And so, I respectfully disagree with the characterization there was some sort of permissive environment. That's just not the case. The facts don't bear that out sir."

Senator Durbin:

"Let's go to specific questions. Can U.S. personnel, legally engage in torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under any circumstances?"

Alberto Gonzales:

"Absolutely not. I mean, our policy is that we do not engage in torture."

Senator Durbin:

"Good. I'm glad you stated that for the record."

"Do you believe that there are circumstances where other legal restrictions, like the War Crimes Act, would not apply to U.S. personnel?"

Alberto Gonzales:

(7 second pause)

"Sir, I don't believe that that would be the case, but I would like the opportunity to, I don't, I want to be very candid with you, and obviously thorough in my response to that question. Uh. It is sort of a legal conclusion and I would like to have the opportunity to get back to you on that."

Senator Durbin:

"I'll give you that chance."

This story is from January 7, 2005. I'm posting it to provide background for you to inspire you to write your senators about opposing the Gonzales confirmation for US Attorney General.


By Dan Eggen and R. Jeffrey Smith for The Washington Post.

Attorney general nominee Alberto R. Gonzales strongly defended his tenure as White House counsel yesterday, including his conclusion that the protections of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to alleged terrorists, and he suggested that the United States should consider renegotiating the international treaties to better wage its war on terrorism...

But under often tough questioning from Democrats and some Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales said he could not recall key details of his involvement in the production of an August 2002 memo that narrowly defined the tactics that constitute torture. He also declined repeated invitations to repudiate a past administration assertion that the president has the authority to ignore anti-torture statutes on national security grounds...

Gonzales said he could not remember who had requested the legal guidance on permissible interrogation tactics - many officials have said it was the CIA - but he acknowledged under questioning that high-pressure interrogation techniques were discussed in White House meetings at which he was present. Others have said the tactics included mock burials and simulated drownings...

But many Democrats and at least one Republican argued that Gonzales had participated in formulating policy that laid the foundation for the abuse scandals in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba, which have generated global outrage. Gonzales declined to answer many questions and said he could not recall details in relation to many others, prompting complaints from some Democrats on the committee.

"We're looking for you, when we ask you questions, to give us an answer, which you haven't done yet," Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) told Gonzales. "I love you, but you're not very candid so far."

Gonzales said "it is appropriate to revisit" the Geneva Conventions, which provide an international standard of conduct for handling detainees during military conflicts. Gonzales disclosed that White House officials, including some lawyers, had held "some very preliminary discussion" about the idea, but he said "it's not been a systematic project or effort."...

Four different senators tried to pin down Gonzales on the August 2002 memo's controversial assertion that a president had the power to authorize torture in unusual circumstances, but Gonzales deflected that, saying it was a "hypothetical question." A new memo issued by the Justice Department last month also avoided the question of presidential power.

At the same time, Gonzales did not rule out reaching such a conclusion in the future. "I would have to know what . . . is the national interest that the president may have to consider," he told Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.).

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54607-2005Jan6.html

Gonzales Defends His White House Record
By Dan Eggen and R. Jeffrey Smith
The Washington Post

Friday 07 January 2005

Nominee questioned on detainee policies.

Attorney general nominee Alberto R. Gonzales strongly defended his tenure as White House counsel yesterday, including his conclusion that the protections of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to alleged terrorists, and he suggested that the United States should consider renegotiating the international treaties to better wage its war on terrorism.

During a day-long hearing dominated by a debate over the Bush administration's detention and interrogation policies, Gonzales pledged to pursue any allegations of prisoner abuse in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that fall within the Justice Department's jurisdiction. He said he would honor the obligations of the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements on the treatment of detainees.

"Torture and abuse will not be tolerated by this administration," Gonzales said. "I will ensure the Department of Justice aggressively pursues those responsible for such abhorrent actions."

But under often tough questioning from Democrats and some Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales said he could not recall key details of his involvement in the production of an August 2002 memo that narrowly defined the tactics that constitute torture. He also declined repeated invitations to repudiate a past administration assertion that the president has the authority to ignore anti-torture statutes on national security grounds.

Gonzales testified that while he disagreed with portions of the Justice Department memo, he could not recall whether he conveyed those objections to other government lawyers at the time. He said he did not quarrel with its general findings.

Gonzales said he could not remember who had requested the legal guidance on permissible interrogation tactics - many officials have said it was the CIA - but he acknowledged under questioning that high-pressure interrogation techniques were discussed in White House meetings at which he was present. Others have said the tactics included mock burials and simulated drownings.

The memo - which was used to formulate permissive Defense Department rules on interrogations - was withdrawn by the Justice Department after it was revealed publicly in 2004 and has since been rewritten, reaching starkly different conclusions.

"There was discussion between the White House and the Department of Justice as well as other agencies about what does this statute mean," Gonzales said, referring to a 1994 anti-torture law. "I don't recall today whether I was in agreement with all the analysis, but I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the [Justice] department. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the department to tell us what the law means."

Republicans and many Democrats have said that they expect the GOP-controlled Senate to easily approve the appointment of Gonzales, 49, a longtime confidant of President Bush whose inspirational rise from poverty to Harvard Law School and the White House was cited by supporters yesterday.

His exchanges with senators touched on a wide variety of issues, from Gonzales's defense of the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law, to his acknowledgment that the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion "is the law of the land." Several Democratic senators, who have had increasingly sour relations with Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, said they were hopeful that their relationship with Gonzales would be more productive.

But many Democrats and at least one Republican argued that Gonzales had participated in formulating policy that laid the foundation for the abuse scandals in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba, which have generated global outrage. Gonzales declined to answer many questions and said he could not recall details in relation to many others, prompting complaints from some Democrats on the committee.

"We're looking for you, when we ask you questions, to give us an answer, which you haven't done yet," Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) told Gonzales. "I love you, but you're not very candid so far."

Gonzales said "it is appropriate to revisit" the Geneva Conventions, which provide an international standard of conduct for handling detainees during military conflicts. Gonzales disclosed that White House officials, including some lawyers, had held "some very preliminary discussion" about the idea, but he said "it's not been a systematic project or effort."

Gonzales did not say what revisions are under consideration, but he said they would not affect provisions requiring "basic, decent treatment of human beings."

An August report by a panel of experts appointed by the Defense Department endorsed the idea of adapting the 1949 conventions "to the realities of the nature of conflict in the 21st century." It particularly urged the creation of a legal category for detainees from terrorist groups, who presumably would not be afforded the same protections as other detainees. The International Committee of the Red Cross immediately condemned the idea of changing the Geneva Conventions.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who is a judge advocate in the Air Force Reserve, joined Democrats in criticizing some of the administration's conclusions on detention and interrogation policies. He said policymakers ignored the advice of seasoned military professionals.

"When you start looking at torture statutes and you look at ways around the spirit of the law . . . you're losing the moral high ground," Graham said. "Once you start down this road, it is very hard to come back. So I do believe we have lost our way, and my challenge to you as a leader of this nation is to help us find our way without giving up our obligation and right to fight our enemy."

Other Republicans on the committee strongly defended Gonzales, a counsel to then-Gov. George W. Bush and a former Texas Supreme Court judge, saying he was being unfairly used as a scapegoat by critics of the administration's anti-terrorism policies. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said Gonzales's conclusion that al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are not protected under the Geneva Conventions is supported by other legal opinions. Cornyn characterized the 2002 memo on torture as "a memo he [Gonzales] didn't write, interpreting a law he didn't draft." The memo was written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

"President Bush and Judge Gonzales have both unequivocally, clearly and repeatedly rejected the use of torture," Cornyn said. "But is there anyone here today who would fail to use every legal means to collect intelligence from terrorists in order to protect American lives? I certainly hope not."

Four different senators tried to pin down Gonzales on the August 2002 memo's controversial assertion that a president had the power to authorize torture in unusual circumstances, but Gonzales deflected that, saying it was a "hypothetical question." A new memo issued by the Justice Department last month also avoided the question of presidential power.

At the same time, Gonzales did not rule out reaching such a conclusion in the future. "I would have to know what . . . is the national interest that the president may have to consider," he told Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.).

Gonzales acknowledged under questioning from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) that he took part in discussions about the legality of high-pressure interrogation techniques. But he said it was not his "job to decide which methods of obtaining information from terrorists would be most effective" or whether such methods are prohibited by a 1994 law barring torture.

"That would be a job for the Department of Justice, and I never . . . influenced or pressured the department to bless any of those techniques," he said.

Kennedy responded that "just as an attorney, as a human being, I would have thought that . . . if there were recommendations that were so blatantly and flagrantly over the line in terms of torture, that you would have recognized them."

In response to a question from Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) about whether U.S. personnel could legally engage in torture under any circumstances, Gonzales said: "I don't believe so, but I'd want to get back to you on that and make sure I don't provide a misleading answer."

Gonzales expressed skepticism about the reliability of documents obtained in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union indicating that as many as 26 FBI agents had reported seeing the mistreatment of detainees at the Guantánamo Bay prison. He said that one FBI agent had asserted erroneously that a presidential order authorized aggressive interrogation techniques, and that "if something like that is wrong in these e-mails, there may be other facts that are wrong."

This story is from January 6, 2005. I'm posting it to provide background for you to inspire you to write your senators about opposing the Gonzales confirmation for US Attorney General.

White House Won't Release Gonzales Papers
By Mark Sherman for the Associated Press.

The White House refused Thursday to provide senators additional documents on attorney general nominee Alberto Gonzales' role in the decision to allow aggressive interrogations of terrorism detainees. The top Democrat at Gonzales' Senate confirmation hearing said that questioning was "tantamount to torture."...

"The road you traveled....all the way to the White House is a tribute to you and your family," Leahy said.

Nevertheless, the Vermont Democrat had harsh criticism for administration officials, including Gonzales' predecessor, John Ashcroft.

"Senior officials in the Bush White House, the Ashcroft Justice Department, the Rumsfeld Pentagon set in motion a systematic effort to minimize, distort and even ignore our laws, our policies and international agreements on torture and treatment of prisoners," he said...

Senate Democrats say the White House has refused to give them all of the memos and documents they need to trace how that decision was made so they can review Gonzales' role and how it would affect him as the nation's top law enforcement official.

"It appears that legal positions that you have supported have been used by the administration, the military and the CIA to justify torture and Geneva Convention violations by military and civilian personnel," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., in a statement prepared for the hearing.

"Memos you solicited, endorsed, approved or acquiesced in undermined longstanding traditions in our military and weakened important protections for our own troops serving abroad by violating the military's golden rule: that we treat captured enemy forces as we would want our own prisoners of war to be treated," Kennedy's statement said.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4715334,00.html

White House Won't Release Gonzales Papers
By Mark Sherman
The Associated Press

Thursday 06 January 2006

Washington - The White House refused Thursday to provide senators additional documents on attorney general nominee Alberto Gonzales' role in the decision to allow aggressive interrogations of terrorism detainees. The top Democrat at Gonzales' Senate confirmation hearing said that questioning was "tantamount to torture."

"I hope things will be different if you are confirmed, Judge Gonzales," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told the former Texas Supreme Court justice.

Gonzales, who served as President Bush's White House counsel, pledged to abide by treaties that ban torture of prisoners, if he is confirmed by the Senate as the first Hispanic attorney general, while saying the foremost duty of the Justice Department is to protect the nation from terror attacks.

He faced questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee about his role in Bush's 2002 decision that the president had the authority to bypass international anti-torture accords.

Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., portrayed Gonzales as a rags-to-riches success story, and said his committee would closely scrutinize his involvement in the crafting of a January 2002 memo he wrote on the treatment of enemy prisoners and his role in crafting presidential orders on detainee policy.

"You know there are going to be times when the attorney general of the United States has to enforce the law of the United States. He can't be worried about friends or colleagues at the White House. His duty is to all Americans," Leahy said as Gonzales watched impassively.

With Republicans controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress, "I worry that our system of checks and balances may become short-circuited by too few checks on the executive branch," Leahy said.

Still, Leahy told the son of Mexican immigrants: "I want to make clear how inspiring your life story is."

"The road you traveled....all the way to the White House is a tribute to you and your family," Leahy said.

Nevertheless, the Vermont Democrat had harsh criticism for administration officials, including Gonzales' predecessor, John Ashcroft.

"Senior officials in the Bush White House, the Ashcroft Justice Department, the Rumsfeld Pentagon set in motion a systematic effort to minimize, distort and even ignore our laws, our policies and international agreements on torture and treatment of prisoners," he said.

He said the hearing provides an "opportunity for some accountability for the meltdown on longstanding U.S. policy on torture."

"Harsh treatment is tantamount to torture," Leahy said.

Despite the contentious statements by Leahy and other committee Democrats, Gonzales' nomination was expected to be confirmed by the GOP-led Senate.

Senate Democrats say the White House has refused to give them all of the memos and documents they need to trace how that decision was made so they can review Gonzales' role and how it would affect him as the nation's top law enforcement official.

"It appears that legal positions that you have supported have been used by the administration, the military and the CIA to justify torture and Geneva Convention violations by military and civilian personnel," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., in a statement prepared for the hearing.

"Memos you solicited, endorsed, approved or acquiesced in undermined longstanding traditions in our military and weakened important protections for our own troops serving abroad by violating the military's golden rule: that we treat captured enemy forces as we would want our own prisoners of war to be treated," Kennedy's statement said.

David Leitch, the White House's deputy counsel, told ranking Judiciary Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont in a letter released Thursday that the administration has already turned over all of the documents it plans to.

Gonzales faces criticism from Democrats concerning a January 2002 memo he wrote arguing that the war on terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

A month later, Bush signed an order declaring he had the authority to bypass the accords "in this or future conflicts." Bush's order also said the Geneva treaty's references to prisoners of war did not apply to al-Qaida or "unlawful combatants" from the Taliban.

Some Gonzales critics say that decision and his memo justifying it helped lead to the torture scandal at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and prisoner abuses in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

About a dozen people showed up to the hearing wearing T-shirts that said "Investigate Gonzales" on the front and "No To Torture" on the back.

Last June, the Justice Department withdrew its 2002 memos arguing that the president's wartime authority supersedes laws and treaties governing treatment of prisoners.

Gonzales has repudiated torture before. "The president has stated that this administration does not condone torture. If anyone engages in such conduct, he or she will be held accountable," Gonzales said in a White House online discussion on July 7.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Democratic criticism is partisan, and that it is settled law that Taliban and al-Qaida prisoners are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. "Now, I hate to ruin a good story for the President's political opponents. But there is one important problem with this criticism: Judge Gonzales is right," Cornyn said in remarks prepared for his introduction of Gonzales.

John Yoo, who helped write the key memo at Justice's Office of Legal Counsel that critics said appeared to condone torture, said Gonzales and top Justice officials did not attempt to influence or interfere with the content, although they were briefed on drafts.

Even Democrats say they expect Gonzales to be confirmed. Republicans control a Senate split between 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent.

Please do this today! Every second counts on this one guys-lr

Learn more via Video, Audio, Transcripts and Analysis of the Confirmation Hearings.

I just realized today that we've found our first bi-partisan issue of this administration: opposing Gonzales as US Attorney General.

Republican and Democrats should be able to join together in opposition to Gonzales for many reasons.

(In case you're not familiar with this situation, Gonzales is the legal counsel that wrote the "torture memo" that declared that the geneva convention was "quaint" in the context of the war on terror. And basically said that torture was OK.)

It's just bad politics to place a man who openly condones torture and provides a legal justification for it as head of our Federal Justice system.

As a Republican, one should be concerned about how an extremist such as Gonzales places the entire Republican party in a bad light. Surely not all Republican's condone torture, but if the Republican-appointed Attorney General condones it, it sure looks like that way.

We have enough bad faith across nations without the man who wrote the infamous "Torture Memo" as head of our Justice Department. Plus, it sends a skewered message to the rest of the world that could put our troops at risk, by suggesting that the Geneva convention is somehow outdated.

Now, more than ever, with our troops spreading out all over the world, we need the Geneva convention to help protect them from being mistreated as POWs in other countries. (Let's not get into whether they should be fighting there or not. The point is they're there, and we need to protect them by keeping the Geneva convention in full force.)

I think that most Democrats would agree with the above reasoning as well.

Basically, anyone against torture and in favor of the Geneva Convention should be in agreement with this objective.

That means, for once, we might be all be on the same page.

Let's take advantage of this opportunity to work together to send a strong message to Congress opposing Gonzales as Attorney General.

With Gonzales on hold, there are a few days to get the word out to our Senators.

Here's a little letter that you can cut and paste and modify for your own letter.

Write as many letters to as many Senators as you can. (Time count: 6 minutes to email/fill out forms for everyone below.)

I'll be posting clips from the confirmation hearings over the course of the day to try to clarify some of the more complex issues.

In the subject header, write "Please Oppose Gonzales And Protect Our Troops."

Dear Senator,

I'm writing you to request that you vote against the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as US Attorney General. I feel that placing a man with such questionable values as head of our Justice Department will send a very damaging message to the rest of the world and place our troops abroad in unnecessary danger.

We must protect the Geneva convention and our diplomatic credibility abroad by voting against Alberto Gonzales as US Attorney General.

Sincerely,

Lisa Rein

Here's a list of senators to start with. I'm trying to put together a list of particularly relevant senators, like the one's on the panel asking the questions.

Update 1/24/05 - send letters to these senators on the Judiciary committee.

I know that Dick Durbin and Patrick Leahy are on it, because I saw them during the hearings, so I'm putting them at the top of the list.

Senator Dick Durbin, (202) 224-2152,
http://durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.htm

Senator Patrick Leahy, (202) 224-4242, senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

Senator Barbara Boxer, (202) 224-3553,
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

Senator Russ Feingold, (202) 224-5323, russ_feingold@feingold.senate.gov

Senator Edward Kennedy, 202/224-4543, senator@kennedy.senate.gov

Senator Tom Harkin, (202) 224-3254, tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov

Senator Jim Jeffords, (202) 224-5141, Vermont@jeffords.senate.gov

Alright, back in a bit with some clips and discussion from the hearings...

The senate put Gonzales' confirmation on hold last Wednesday. That means we have two more days to get the word out to our senators that we oppose his confirmation.

This article is just a little thing, so I've republished the whole thing below.

Democrats put hold on Gonzales vote
By the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General designate Alberto Gonzales will have to wait at least another week before getting a Senate committee vote on his nomination to be the nation's top law enforcement officer.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee decided Wednesday to ask for a one-week hold on Gonzales' nomination.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said the committee should not vote on Gonzales yet because the nominee has not yet answered all of the Democrats' questions. Democrats have complained that Gonzales has been evasive with his answers to their questions about White House policies on the war on terror.

''If we are to meet our constitutional responsibility in the confirmation process, we must insist that Mr. Gonzales provide responsive answers to these fundamental questions,'' Kennedy said. ''He should not be listed on the agenda for a committee vote on his nomination until he does so.''

This is from the January 20, 2005 program.

These guys are starting to cover real news in a timely manner.

Jon calls out the fact that, in his acceptance speech, the shrub uses the word "freedom" 27 times and "liberty" 15 times.

Daily Show On The Shrub's Inauguration Speech
(Small - 9 MB)

Daily Show On The Shrub's Inauguration Speech
(MP3 - 6 MB)

This is from the January 6, 2004 program of the Daily Show.

Hey Podcaster peeps, let me know that my feedburner feed is working out for ya.

Video of The Daily Show On The Gonzales Confirmation Hearings
(Small - 13 MB)

Audio of The Daily Show On The Gonzales Confirmation Hearings
(MP3 - 9 MB)

Hi gang.

I hope I'm not boring you guys with this latest onslaught of personal updates. I'm in the process of reorganizing my life and my focus as of late.

I've been getting ready for my last semester of graduate school, moving forward with a bunch of projects in my capacity as President of Operations at Wide Hive Records, moving forward with making my blog entries available as podcasts, setting up my home protools studio so I can start making my music available again, catching up on my Daily Show clips, rewriting my sadly outdated bio, and getting ready for a new year of fighting the horrible Shrub et al.

It is my hope that this will be the last year or two of the Shrub, not the first of four more years. I truly believe that there is enough criminal activity going on for something or other to turn into a watergate of sorts and enable us to impeach this group. (Or have enough stacked against them so they will step down before an impeachment occurs, although I don't seriously anticipate such an honorable move from such a dishonorable bunch.)

That said, I did want to let you know that I haven't forgotton about the video of Senator Barbara Boxer, Rep. John Conyers, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, and the other notables that stood up last week for every American's right to have their vote counted. I spent most of the weekend dubbing those clips and getting prepared to put them up. It's just that this "Gonzales the lunatic becoming Attorney General" thing is pretty important and I've decided to make trying to stop that from happening my first priority this week.

We need to do another letter writing campaign like we just pulled off for the Electoral Challenge. Gonzales is enemy of the people of the world #1. It's hard to imagine anyone worse than
John Ashcroft in the position of Attorney General of the US of A, but there it is: a man who recommends torture and offers a legal justification for doing so, potentially in charge of the criminal justice branch of our country. (Update 1/23/05 - write your senators asking them to oppose Gonzales.)

Yikes!

So there it is. Gotta run. Goodies to follow...

The Election's Last Gasp
A NY Times Editorial.

Congressional Democrats staged an unusual protest yesterday when Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio objected to certifying the results of the 2004 election. Supporters of the defeated (and absent) John Kerry then spent two hours making speeches, most of which began with the declaration that George W. Bush had definitely won.

It could not have been a totally satisfactory afternoon for the president's angry supporters or for the conspiracy theorists who still believe that Bush operatives managed to steal Ohio's electoral votes. The final count showed that Mr. Bush had won the state by more than 100,000 votes, and the Democrats who rose to complain about the process prefaced their remarks by saying things like "the irregularities in Ohio would not have overturned the results."

But the Democrats were right to call attention to the defects in the system. Our elections need to do more than produce a legitimate winner. They need to do it through a process that seems fair to all reasonable citizens. On that count, the United States has a way to go.

Electronic voting machines that do not produce a paper trail that can be rechecked in contested elections create worries that a contest could be stolen by computer hacking or by tampering with the machine software. Those concerns seem to have been unfounded in the last election, but it did not require paranoia to think that such things might happen.

It is not illegal to require voters to stand in lines so long that they wind up being forced to give up or to skip work, but it is unfair - particularly when such delays happen mainly in poor and minority neighborhoods. It is not illegal to leave election operations in the hands of a partisan elected official, but such a situation will make the system seem biased to voters from the other side of the political divide. That is what happened in Ohio, where the secretary of state was also a co-chairman of the Bush campaign in that state.

Democrats were obviously most vocal about the sloppy and highhanded way the election was run in many places, but the Republicans should also object. Mr. Bush won the most votes, but he has been deprived of universal confidence in the way they were counted.

Hi gang.

I'm in the process of figuring out what actually got accomplished yesterday. I'll let you know whatever I can figure out as soon as I've done enough homework to be sure I'm correct. But here's a couple of things that happened, for starters:

1. History was made in that a challenge hasn't happened since 1877. So that's something.

2. Looks like the house and senate each spent two hours debating the issues surrounding the Ohio election and recount, and that there is supposed to be some kind of congressional investigation. So that's something.

3. The House Judiciary Democratic Staff has published a report saying some pretty strong things about Blackwell's involvement, including, but not limited to:

With regards to our factual finding, in brief, we find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.

I think this is the lead that needs following up on. (Via the congressional investigation and the other pending lawsuits.)

Like I said earlier -- I will publish my results in a similiar fashion to the last report for easy reference, once the facts manifest themselves.

Just wanted to touch base. That and many Daily Show clips on the way.

thanks!

Senate, House Reject Challenge To Ohio Electoral Votes

Challenge Mounted By U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer

President George W. Bush has been declared the winner of the electoral vote, with 286 votes. Democrat John Kerry got 251 votes, and his running mate, John Edwards, received one.

The declaration came after the House and the Senate have overwhelmingly rejected a Democratic challenge to awarding Ohio's 20 electoral votes to President George W. Bush.

The Senate vote was 74-1, with only Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., voting to support it. The vote in the House was 267-31.

Boxer and U.S. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, lodged a formal protest to the Ohio results, prompting several hours of debate. If a senator hadn't signed on, the protest wouldn't have been heard.

They and others cited a lack of voting machines, unusually long lines and other problems that plagued some Ohio districts, many in minority neighborhoods...

By law, any such challenge that's signed by members of both houses compels each chamber to meet for up to two hours to consider the complaint.

As a result of the move, House and Senate members went into separate meetings for a debate focusing on alleged voting irregularities in Ohio on Election Day.

The challenge, which was expected, disrupted the mostly ceremonial reading of the electoral vote count of each state...

The delay didn't jeopardize Bush's win. The outcome of the race is not in doubt, since Republicans have majorities in both the House and Senate. After the debate, lawmakers reconvened and finished hearing the reading of the electoral votes.

Democratic leaders -- including Sen. John Kerry -- distanced themselves from the challenge. Some said they feared it would make them look like sore losers.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4053934/detail.html

Senate, House Reject Challenge To Ohio Electoral Votes
Challenge Mounted By U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer

POSTED: 7:41 am EST January 6, 2005
UPDATED: 6:14 pm EST January 6, 2005

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush has been declared the winner of the electoral vote, with 286 votes. Democrat John Kerry got 251 votes, and his running mate, John Edwards, received one.

The declaration came after the House and the Senate have overwhelmingly rejected a Democratic challenge to awarding Ohio's 20 electoral votes to President George W. Bush.

The Senate vote was 74-1, with only Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., voting to support it. The vote in the House was 267-31.

Boxer and U.S. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, lodged a formal protest to the Ohio results, prompting several hours of debate. If a senator hadn't signed on, the protest wouldn't have been heard.

They and others cited a lack of voting machines, unusually long lines and other problems that plagued some Ohio districts, many in minority neighborhoods.

Rep. Rik Keller, R-Fla., told Democrats simply to "Get over it."

But Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, insisted the issue was about "protecting voting rights," not who won or lost.

By law, any such challenge that's signed by members of both houses compels each chamber to meet for up to two hours to consider the complaint.

As a result of the move, House and Senate members went into separate meetings for a debate focusing on alleged voting irregularities in Ohio on Election Day.

The challenge, which was expected, disrupted the mostly ceremonial reading of the electoral vote count of each state.

Each state has held its electoral college vote, and Thursday is the day Congress is supposed to certify the results. Bush won the election by 286 to 252 electoral votes, with 270 required for victory.

Congressional leaders, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, had been reading the vote count of each state, alphabetically, until they got to Ohio. It was only the second time since 1877 the count has been disrupted.

The delay didn't jeopardize Bush's win. The outcome of the race is not in doubt, since Republicans have majorities in both the House and Senate. After the debate, lawmakers reconvened and finished hearing the reading of the electoral votes.

Democratic leaders -- including Sen. John Kerry -- distanced themselves from the challenge. Some said they feared it would make them look like sore losers.

Earlier, the White House dismissed the move. Spokesman Scott McClellan said the Democrats are "engaging in consipiracy theories and rehashing issues that were settled long ago."

Bush won an Ohio recount by more than 118,000 votes.

Bush carries Electoral College after delay
Democrats challenge Ohio vote, push back official certification
On the CNN website.

President Bush officially won a second term in the White House after electoral votes from all 50 states were counted Thursday during a joint session of Congress.

The normally perfunctory ceremony of counting and certifying Electoral College votes was delayed for about four hours as Democrats unsuccessfully challenged Ohio's votes for Bush...

The challenge was defeated 267-31 by the House and 74-1 by the Senate, clearing the way for the joint session to count the votes from the remaining states...

The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.

In a letter to congressional leaders Wednesday, members of the group said they would take the action because a new report by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee found "numerous, serious election irregularities," particularly in Ohio, that led to "a significant disenfranchisement of voters."

"How can we possibly tell millions of Americans who registered to vote, who came to the polls in record numbers, particularly our young people ... to simply get over it and move on?" Tubbs Jones said at a press conference with Boxer...

It was only the second such challenge since the current rules for counting electoral votes were established in 1877. The last was in 1969 and concerned a so-called "faithless elector," according to congressional researchers.

Four years ago, after the disputed election results in Florida, members of the Congressional Black Caucus attempted to block Florida's electoral votes from being counted.

In a scene recalled in Michael Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," lawmaker after lawmaker was gaveled down by Vice President Al Gore because no senator would support the objections, as the rules require.

House Democrats involved in this year's protest worked for weeks to enlist the support of a senator in their party, and Boxer agreed to join the effort Wednesday.

"This is my opening shot to be able to focus the light of truth on these terrible problems in the electoral system," Boxer told the joint press conference with Tubbs Jones.

"While we have men and women dying to bring democracy abroad, we've got to make it the best it can be here at home, and that's why I'm doing this."...

Kerry released a letter Wednesday saying he would not take part in the protest.

"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.

Bush carried Ohio by more than 118,000 votes -- the Buckeye State win providing the margin of victory in the Electoral College race. The president received 286 to Kerry's 252 electoral votes.

"There are very troubling questions that have not yet been answered by Ohio election officials," the senator said.

"In the coming months I will present a national proposal to ensure transparency and accountability in our voting process."

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/index.html

Bush carries Electoral College after delay
Democrats challenge Ohio vote, push back official certification

Thursday, January 6, 2005 Posted: 6:55 PM EST (2355 GMT)

Sen. Barbara Boxer, right, joined Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones in objecting to the vote count.



Don't Blame Me - I Voted Kerry
"51% is not a Mandate," "Proud 48%," "Don't Blame Me - I voted for Kerry" and...
www.cafepress.com


VIDEO
Congress debates an objection challenging presidential vote in Ohio.
PLAY VIDEO
QUICKVOTE
Should Congress look into the validity of the presidential election results in Ohio?
Yes
No
VIEW RESULTS
SPECIAL REPORT
• Bush's economic agenda
• Homeland security nominee withdraws
• Leavitt nominated for HHS
• Gallery: The Bush Cabinet
• Special Report
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Ohio
Senate
Judiciary (system of justice)
House of Representatives
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush officially won a second term in the White House after electoral votes from all 50 states were counted Thursday during a joint session of Congress.

The normally perfunctory ceremony of counting and certifying Electoral College votes was delayed for about four hours as Democrats unsuccessfully challenged Ohio's votes for Bush.

Bush received 286 electoral votes, 16 more than the 270 he needed to win re-election. Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, received 251 votes. One Democratic elector cast a vote not for Kerry but for former Sen. John Edwards, his vice presidential running mate.

In the vice presidential race, Vice President Dick Cheney received 286 electoral votes and Edwards received 252.

Alleging widespread "irregularities" on Election Day, a group of Democrats in Congress objected earlier Thursday to the counting of Ohio's 20 electoral votes.

The challenge was defeated 267-31 by the House and 74-1 by the Senate, clearing the way for the joint session to count the votes from the remaining states.

The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.

The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.

In a letter to congressional leaders Wednesday, members of the group said they would take the action because a new report by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee found "numerous, serious election irregularities," particularly in Ohio, that led to "a significant disenfranchisement of voters."

"How can we possibly tell millions of Americans who registered to vote, who came to the polls in record numbers, particularly our young people ... to simply get over it and move on?" Tubbs Jones said at a press conference with Boxer.

Thursday's joint session of the House of Representatives and the Senate to count electoral votes is specified in the U.S. Constitution. Cheney, in his role as president of the Senate, presided over the session.

The results from each state, read in alphabetical order, were ticked through quickly until Ohio was called, and a clerk read the objection filed by Boxer and Tubbs Jones.

Then, as required by congressional rules in the event that at least one member of each house objects to the vote, Cheney ordered the lawmakers back to their respective chambers for two hours of debate on the merits of the challenge and to vote on it.

It was only the second such challenge since the current rules for counting electoral votes were established in 1877. The last was in 1969 and concerned a so-called "faithless elector," according to congressional researchers.

Four years ago, after the disputed election results in Florida, members of the Congressional Black Caucus attempted to block Florida's electoral votes from being counted.

In a scene recalled in Michael Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," lawmaker after lawmaker was gaveled down by Vice President Al Gore because no senator would support the objections, as the rules require.

House Democrats involved in this year's protest worked for weeks to enlist the support of a senator in their party, and Boxer agreed to join the effort Wednesday.

"This is my opening shot to be able to focus the light of truth on these terrible problems in the electoral system," Boxer told the joint press conference with Tubbs Jones.

"While we have men and women dying to bring democracy abroad, we've got to make it the best it can be here at home, and that's why I'm doing this."

Republicans dismissed the effort as a stunt, noting that specific allegations of voting problems in Ohio have been investigated by journalists and, the Republicans said, found to be untrue.

"But apparently, some Democrats only want to gripe about counts, recounts, and recounts of recounts," said Rep. Deborah Pryce, an Ohio Republican.

"So eager are they to abandon their job as public servants, they have cast themselves in the role of Michael Moore, concocting wild conspiracy theories to distract the American public."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan dismissed the challenge as "partisan politics."

"The election is behind us," he said. "The American people now expect their leaders in Washington to focus on the big priorities facing this country."

Kerry released a letter Wednesday saying he would not take part in the protest.

"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.

Bush carried Ohio by more than 118,000 votes -- the Buckeye State win providing the margin of victory in the Electoral College race. The president received 286 to Kerry's 252 electoral votes.

"There are very troubling questions that have not yet been answered by Ohio election officials," the senator said.

"In the coming months I will present a national proposal to ensure transparency and accountability in our voting process."

Kerry was not on hand Thursday. He is in Iraq to thank U.S. troops for their service.

CNN's Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

This is not from today - Jan 6, 2005, this is from December 8, 2004.
(The Jan 6 stuff goes up this weekend -- I'm just catching up.)

I haven't even had a chance to look at these yet, but I wanted to make sure you knew they were up. It's several hours of hearings split up into 20 MB chunks.

Enjoy!

December 8, 2004 Hearings At DC On Ohio Voting Irregularities

This is from the December 30, 2004 program of ABC's World News Tonight.

Sorry for the hold up, better late than never :-)

Boingboing's Xeni Jardin is in this piece too.

Thanks to the Pete for his help with this.

Bloggers As Person Of The Year On ABC World News Tonight (5 MB)

Executive Summary: House Judiciary Dems’ final report on Ohio election problems (PDF Original)
By The House Judiciary Democratic Staff.

We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in the Ohio presidential election, which resulted in a significant disenfranchisement of voters. Cumulatively, these irregularities, which affected hundreds of thousand of votes and voters in Ohio, raise grave doubts regarding whether it can be said the Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, let alone federal requirements and constitutional standards.

This report, therefore, makes three recommendations: (1) consistent with the requirements of the United States Constitution concerning the counting of electoral votes by Congress and Federal law implementing these requirements, there are ample grounds for challenging the electors from the State of Ohio; (2) Congress should engage in further hearings into the widespread irregularities reported in Ohio; we believe the problems are serious enough to warrant the appointment of a joint select Committee of the House and Senate to investigate and report back to the Members; and (3) Congress needs to enact election reform to restore our people’s trust in our democracy. These changes should include putting in place more specific federal protections for federal elections, particularly in the areas of audit capability for electronic voting machines and casting and counting of provisional ballots, as well as other needed changes to federal and state election laws.

With regards to our factual finding, in brief, we find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.

Here is the full text of the entire document in case the link goes bad:

http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=529

1/5/2005
Executive Summary: House Judiciary Dems’ final report on Ohio election problems
Filed under:

* General

— site admin @ 12:43 pm Email This

Text: Executive Summary of Conyers’ Ohio election report

The following is the text of the Executive Summary written by the House Judiciary Democratic staff about election problems in Ohio’s November presidential election, and is the crux upon which Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) is seeking to contest Ohio electoral votes and open a discussion of the election on the Senate floor Jan. 6. The report was published Wednesday, and the text released to RAW STORY by the Judiciary staff.

The full document in PDF format can be found here.

Executive Summary

Representative John Conyers, Jr., the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked the Democratic staff to conduct an investigation into irregularities reported in the Ohio presidential election and to prepare a Status Report concerning the same prior to the Joint Meeting of Congress scheduled for January 6, 2005, to receive and consider the votes of the electoral college for president. The following Report includes a brief chronology of the events; summarizes the relevant background law; provides detailed findings (including factual findings and legal analysis); and describes various recommendations for acting on this Report going forward.

We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in the Ohio presidential election, which resulted in a significant disenfranchisement of voters. Cumulatively, these irregularities, which affected hundreds of thousand of votes and voters in Ohio, raise grave doubts regarding whether it can be said the Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, let alone federal requirements and constitutional standards.

This report, therefore, makes three recommendations: (1) consistent with the requirements of the United States Constitution concerning the counting of electoral votes by Congress and Federal law implementing these requirements, there are ample grounds for challenging the electors from the State of Ohio; (2) Congress should engage in further hearings into the widespread irregularities reported in Ohio; we believe the problems are serious enough to warrant the appointment of a joint select Committee of the House and Senate to investigate and report back to the Members; and (3) Congress needs to enact election reform to restore our people’s trust in our democracy. These changes should include putting in place more specific federal protections for federal elections, particularly in the areas of audit capability for electronic voting machines and casting and counting of provisional ballots, as well as other needed changes to federal and state election laws.

With regards to our factual finding, in brief, we find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.

First, in the run up to election day, the following actions by Mr. Blackwell, the Republican Party and election officials disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens, predominantly minority and Democratic voters:

• The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters. This was illustrated by the fact that the Washington Post reported that in Franklin County, “27 of the 30 wards with the most machines per registered voter showed majorities for Bush. At the other end of the spectrum, six of the seven wards with the fewest machines delivered large margins for Kerry.” Among other things, the conscious failure to provide sufficient voting machinery violates the Ohio Revised Code which requires the Boards of Elections to “provide adequate facilities at each polling place for conducting the election.”

• Mr. Blackwell’s decision to restrict provisional ballots resulted in the disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of voters, again predominantly minority and Democratic voters. Mr. Blackwell’s decision departed from past Ohio law on provisional ballots, and there is no evidence that a broader construction would have led to any significant disruption at the polling places, and did not do so in other states.

• Mr. Blackwell’s widely reviled decision to reject voter registration applications based on paper weight may have resulted in thousands of new voters not being registered in time for the 2004 election.

• The Ohio Republican Party’s decision to engage in preelection “caging” tactics, selectively targeting 35,000 predominantly minority voters for intimidation had a negative impact on voter turnout. The Third Circuit found these activities to be illegal and in direct violation of consent decrees barring the Republican Party from targeting minority voters for poll challenges.

• The Ohio Republican Party’s decision to utilize thousands of partisan challengers concentrated in minority and Democratic areas likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of legal voters, who were not only intimidated, but became discouraged by the long lines. Shockingly, these disruptions were publicly predicted and acknowledged by Republican officials: Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the Ohio Republican Party, admitted the challenges “can’t help but create chaos, longer lines and frustration.”

• Mr. Blackwell’s decision to prevent voters who requested absentee ballots but did not receive them on a timely basis from being able to receive provisional ballots likely disenfranchised thousands, if not tens of thousands, of voters, particularly seniors. A federal court found Mr. Blackwell’s order to be illegal and in violation of HAVA.

Second, on election day, there were numerous unexplained anomalies and irregularities involving hundreds of thousands of votes that have yet to be accounted for:

• There were widespread instances of intimidation and misinformation in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal Protection, Due Process and the Ohio right to vote. Mr. Blackwell’s apparent failure to institute a single investigation into these many serious allegations represents a violation of his statutory duty under Ohio law to investigate election irregularities.

• We learned of improper purging and other registration errors by election officials that likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters statewide. The Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition projects that in Cuyahoga County alone over 10,000 Ohio citizens lost their right to vote as a result of official registration errors.

• There were 93,000 spoiled ballots where no vote was cast for president, the vast majority of which have yet to be inspected. The problem was particularly acute in two precincts in Montgomery County which had an undervote rate of over 25% each – accounting for nearly 6,000 voters who stood in line to vote, but purportedly declined to vote for president.

• There were numerous, significant unexplained irregularities in other counties throughout the state: (i) in Mahoning county at least 25 electronic machines transferred an unknown number of Kerry votes to the Bush column; (ii) Warren County locked out public observers from vote counting citing an FBI warning about a potential terrorist threat, yet the FBI states that it issued no such warning; (iii) the voting records of Perry county show significantly more votes than voters in some precincts, significantly less ballots than voters in other precincts, and voters casting more than one ballot; (iv) in Butler county a down ballot and underfunded Democratic State Supreme Court candidate implausibly received more votes than the best funded Democratic Presidential candidate in history; (v) in Cuyahoga county, poll worker error may have led to little known third-party candidates receiving twenty times more votes than such candidates had ever received in otherwise reliably Democratic leaning areas; (vi) in Miami county, voter turnout was an improbable and highly suspect 98.55 percent, and after 100 percent of the precincts were reported, an additional 19,000 extra votes were recorded for President Bush.

Third, in the post-election period we learned of numerous irregularities in tallying provisional ballots and conducting and completing the recount that disenfanchised thousands of voters and call the entire recount procedure into question (as of this date the recount is still not complete) :

• Mr. Blackwell’s failure to articulate clear and consistent standards for the counting of provisional ballots resulted in the loss of thousands of predominantly minority votes. In Cuyahoga County alone, the lack of guidance and the ultimate narrow and arbitrary review standards significantly contributed to the fact that 8,099 out of 24,472 provisional ballots were ruled invalid, the highest proportion in the state.

• Mr. Blackwell’s failure to issue specific standards for the recount contributed to a lack of uniformity in violation of both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clauses. We found innumerable irregularities in the recount in violation of Ohio law, including (i) counties which did not randomly select the precinct samples; (ii) counties which did not conduct a full hand court after the 3% hand and machine counts did not match; (iii) counties which allowed for irregular marking of ballots and failed
to secure and store ballots and machinery; and (iv) counties which prevented witnesses for candidates from observing the various aspects of the recount.

• The voting computer company Triad has essentially admitted that it engaged in a course of behavior during the recount in numerous counties to provide “cheat sheets” to those counting the ballots. The cheat sheets informed election officials how many votes they should find for each candidate, and how many over and under votes they should calculate to match the machine count. In that way, they could avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law.

I'm just reading this stuff today myself guys, but I've got a lot of information to post, and the Pete recorded 8 hours of CSPAN today that I'll be receiving Fed Ex on Saturday. I'll figure out the highlights and try to have them ready for you over the weekend sometime.

For now, read William Rivers Pitt's excellent notes from his new blog. I've cut and pasted the whole thing below. (click on "more")

Here's a quote from Pitt's blog:

Today was a good day
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 06:05
I can't recall a day in the last several years when the efforts of citizens yielded fruit in the Senate. Didn't work with the Patriot Act vote. Didn't work with the Homeland Security Act vote. Sure as hell didn't work with the Iraq war vote.

It worked today. Voices were heard, and something we haven't seen since 1877 took place today. This is what Congress exists for, and for once, they responded.

Here are some highlights from Boxer's statement:

We have fought for social justice. We have fought for economic justice. We have fought for environmental justice. We have fought for criminal justice.

Now we must add a new fight – the fight for electoral justice.

Every citizen of this country who is registered to vote should be guaranteed that their vote matters, that their vote is counted, and that in the voting booth of their community, their vote has as much weight as the vote of any Senator, any Congressperson, any President, any cabinet member, or any CEO of any Fortune 500 Corporation.

I am sure that every one of my colleagues – Democrat, Republican, and Independent – agrees with that statement. That in the voting booth, every one is equal.

So now it seems to me that under the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees the right to vote, we must ask:

Why did voters in Ohio wait hours in the rain to vote? Why were voters at Kenyan College, for example, made to wait in line until nearly 4 a.m. to vote because there were only two machines for 1300 voters?

Why did poor and predominantly African-American communities have disproportionately long waits?

Why in Franklin County did election officials only use 2,798 machines when they said they needed 5,000? Why did they hold back 68 machines in warehouses? Why were 42 of those machines in predominantly African-American districts?

Why did, in Columbus area alone, an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 voters leave polling places, out of frustration, without having voted? How many more never bothered to vote after they heard about this?

Why is it when 638 people voted at a precinct in Franklin County, a voting machine awarded 4,258 extra votes to George Bush. Thankfully, they fixed it – but how many other votes did the computers get wrong?

Why did Franklin County officials reduce the number of electronic voting machines in downtown precincts, while adding them in the suburbs? This also led to long lines.

In Cleveland, why were there thousands of provisional ballots disqualified after poll workers gave faulty instructions to voters?

Because of this, and voting irregularities in so many other places, I am joining with Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones to cast the light of truth on a flawed system which must be fixed now.

Our democracy is the centerpiece of who we are as a nation. And it is the fondest hope of all Americans that we can help bring democracy to every corner of the world.

As we try to do that, and as we are shedding the blood of our military to this end, we must realize that we lose so much credibility when our own electoral system needs so much improvement.

Yet, in the past four years, this Congress has not done everything it should to give confidence to all of our people their votes matter.

After passing the Help America Vote Act, nothing more was done.

A year ago, Senators Graham, Clinton and I introduced legislation that would have required that electronic voting systems provide a paper record to verify a vote.
That paper trail would be stored in a secure ballot box and invaluable in case of a recount.

There is no reason why the Senate should not have taken up and passed that bill. At the very least, a hearing should have been held. But it never happened.

Before I close, I want to thank my colleague from the House, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

Her letter to me asking for my intervention was substantive and compelling.

As I wrote to her, I was particularly moved by her point that it is virtually impossible to get official House consideration of the whole issue of election reform, including these irregularities.

The Congresswoman has tremendous respect in her state of Ohio, which is at the center of this fight.

Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a judge for 10 years. She was a prosecutor for 8 years. She was inducted into the Women’s Hall of Fame in 2002.

I am proud to stand with her in filing this objection.

No perma link yet, so here's the full text of Williams Rivers Pitt's blog for today:

Today was a good day
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 06:05
I can't recall a day in the last several years when the efforts of citizens yielded fruit in the Senate. Didn't work with the Patriot Act vote. Didn't work with the Homeland Security Act vote. Sure as hell didn't work with the Iraq war vote.

It worked today. Voices were heard, and something we haven't seen since 1877 took place today. This is what Congress exists for, and for once, they responded.

The rest is up to the same people who got this ball rolling. Today was a beginning, an introduction into the national dialogue of the fact that lots and lots and lots and lots of Americans get jobbed out of their right to vote every election.

We can fix that. We should fix that. Today, the task was well begun.
List of House members who voted 'Yea'
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 06:02
Revised down to 31:

Brown, Corrine
Carson
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Davis (IL)
Evans
Farr
Filner
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Markey
McKinney
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne
Schakowsky
Thompson (MS)
Waters
Watson
Woolsey
I interviewed Rep. Conyers just before the hearings
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 05:00
PITT: How are you feeling about what is happening today?

CONYERS: We have come a mighty long way. It seems to me, as we began this adventure, to make the ballot as important as it is, and that it be counted, and that it be available to every single qualified American voter, that I had always suspected that it would be hard for the United States Senate to do, again, what they did in 2000. To close down any possibility of any debate, of any investigation, of any recount, and it turns out that my hunch was correct.

The fact of the matter is that we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing this. This isn't like there is a down-side to this. It is all up, because as everybody knows, all the phones are jammed, emails are coming in, faxes. People are coming in from all over. This is a test of American democracy, just as in 1878. They passed the law to deal with the presidential election of 1877. We have to, in 2005, pass some more election reform laws to deal with what happened in 2004.

Read the rest here.......
Now it's 32
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 04:31
Feh.
33 votes in the House
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 04:04
to support the objection.

I interviewed Rep. Conyers just before the hearing. I will have the transcript up as soon as I can.
Here comes the House vote
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 03:51
Republicans have trouble pushing buttons, it seems. Two times a vote to uphold the challenge came from the GOP side, and then got switched back after they realized they pushed the wrong button.

There is a GOP vote to uphold the challenge now, and it appears to be sticking.

Nope. Gone now. Learn to push buttons, folks.
Oh, here we go
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 03:45
Mr. I-don't-need-ethics-rules-in-my-face DeLay is up pretending to have any kind of moral standing on anything.

Lying his face off. Bush engineered electronic vote fraud, DeLay says is one theory.

I feel another terrorism quip coming. Yup, there it is.

No voter disenfranchisement in 2000 and 2004, saith DeLay. Everyone knows this.

This guy is a wonder of nature.
The House goes on
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 03:37
I have a feeling that the House vote will be a bit more satisfying to the Democratic base than the Senate vote.
Lock step
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 03:11
It took an incredible amount of effort to get several Democrats to get up and say basically the same thing in support of each other. It was a war to get that done.

The GOP sticks to their message with ease, almost automatically, preternatuarally.

That's a trick the Democrats need to learn.

The vote in the Senate is 74-1. The motion is not approved.
The debate continues in the House
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 03:05
Jackson-Lee blows the doors off, and the GOP Reps. march out accusing Democrats of aiding terrorists...and then complain about bitterness and partisanship.
Boxer votes 'Aye'
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 02:52
GOP Rep. Drier in the House says the people questioning the Ohio vote are aiding terrorists.

Typical.
Lott is trying to shut it down
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 02:42
"Hopes it does not have a lasting impact."

"Merits no further response."

The roll is being called. Here come the votes. Boxer votes 'aye' and the gallery erupts in applause.
Voinovich (R-OH) is up
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 02:37
defending the vote in his state. Bunch of Ohioans in the gallery started bellowing and had to be removed.

Voinovich, like DeWine, is using editorials to prove there were no problems in Ohio. Dizzyingly hilarious.
Text of Boxer's statement today
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 02:33
Statement On Her Objection To The Certification Of Ohio’s Electoral Votes

January 6, 2005

For most of us in the Senate and the House, we have spent our lives fighting for things we believe in – always fighting to make our nation better.

We have fought for social justice. We have fought for economic justice. We have fought for environmental justice. We have fought for criminal justice.

Now we must add a new fight – the fight for electoral justice.

Every citizen of this country who is registered to vote should be guaranteed that their vote matters, that their vote is counted, and that in the voting booth of their community, their vote has as much weight as the vote of any Senator, any Congressperson, any President, any cabinet member, or any CEO of any Fortune 500 Corporation.

I am sure that every one of my colleagues – Democrat, Republican, and Independent – agrees with that statement. That in the voting booth, every one is equal.

So now it seems to me that under the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees the right to vote, we must ask:

Why did voters in Ohio wait hours in the rain to vote? Why were voters at Kenyan College, for example, made to wait in line until nearly 4 a.m. to vote because there were only two machines for 1300 voters?

Why did poor and predominantly African-American communities have disproportionately long waits?

Why in Franklin County did election officials only use 2,798 machines when they said they needed 5,000? Why did they hold back 68 machines in warehouses? Why were 42 of those machines in predominantly African-American districts?

Why did, in Columbus area alone, an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 voters leave polling places, out of frustration, without having voted? How many more never bothered to vote after they heard about this?

Why is it when 638 people voted at a precinct in Franklin County, a voting machine awarded 4,258 extra votes to George Bush. Thankfully, they fixed it – but how many other votes did the computers get wrong?

Why did Franklin County officials reduce the number of electronic voting machines in downtown precincts, while adding them in the suburbs? This also led to long lines.

In Cleveland, why were there thousands of provisional ballots disqualified after poll workers gave faulty instructions to voters?

Because of this, and voting irregularities in so many other places, I am joining with Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones to cast the light of truth on a flawed system which must be fixed now.

Our democracy is the centerpiece of who we are as a nation. And it is the fondest hope of all Americans that we can help bring democracy to every corner of the world.

As we try to do that, and as we are shedding the blood of our military to this end, we must realize that we lose so much credibility when our own electoral system needs so much improvement.

Yet, in the past four years, this Congress has not done everything it should to give confidence to all of our people their votes matter.

After passing the Help America Vote Act, nothing more was done.

A year ago, Senators Graham, Clinton and I introduced legislation that would have required that electronic voting systems provide a paper record to verify a vote.
That paper trail would be stored in a secure ballot box and invaluable in case of a recount.

There is no reason why the Senate should not have taken up and passed that bill. At the very least, a hearing should have been held. But it never happened.

Before I close, I want to thank my colleague from the House, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

Her letter to me asking for my intervention was substantive and compelling.

As I wrote to her, I was particularly moved by her point that it is virtually impossible to get official House consideration of the whole issue of election reform, including these irregularities.

The Congresswoman has tremendous respect in her state of Ohio, which is at the center of this fight.

Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a judge for 10 years. She was a prosecutor for 8 years. She was inducted into the Women’s Hall of Fame in 2002.

I am proud to stand with her in filing this objection.
Barack Obama is up
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 02:26
and giving his first-ever speech to the Senate in support of Boxer and Tubbs-Jones.

Hot damn.

Tells a touching story of a supporter who was concerned about her right to vote. Obama does not doubt that Bush won. We are not challenging the outcome of the election.

Demands reform in the election system.
Harkin is up
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 02:22
and stands in support.

"The debate is short today, and I hope it will continue."

Not questioning the 2004 outcome. On message.

"I thank Senator Boxer, and Rep. Tubbs-Jones."

Zaps DeWine, says this isn't about removing Bush, but about how we can make elections better in America.

(How can that be a bad thing to stand on as a politician?)

(It isn't)

(For those who might have been worried about this)
Reid is up
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 02:16
I knew someone would bring up the troops, but I expected the GOP to do it in order to cry "Unpatriotic!" Yet here is Reid, saying we owe it to our soldiers to check these allegations out, and to reform the system.
Here comes Hillary
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 02:12
"I commend the Senator from California."

It permits us to air these issues, which protects the integrity of our most precious right. There are many questions about the integrity of this election, and not just in Ohio.

We stood with and admired the people of the Ukraine a few weeks ago when they fought for their rights. Our moral authority is in danger.

Some blivet in the House is telling stories about soldiers. I knew it.
Lautenberg is up
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 02:06
"We have to take a very hard look at this."

Talks about advertising democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, but we have these flaws here.

Not challenging the result, but "we would be derelict in our duty if we failed to investigate."
Pelosi is up in the House
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 02:03
"The right to vote is sacred."

The House will accept Bush and Cheney's victory, this isn't about rjecting that, so let's be respectful. There are problems with the electoral system. It is about election reform.

(Crazy, when you think about it. Pelosi and the others accept the results but discuss a busted system. In other words, the election system in America is broken...but it also worked.)
Wydwen (D-OR) demands a paper trail
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 02:01
for all votes cast on electronic machines.

Oregon, where voting works.
Kennedy is up
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:57
We do not question the outcome, but we gave deep concerns.

They are lining up behind Boxer here.

Hillary just walked in, and we haven't heard from Obama yet.

"The voting process did not live up to the standards we require," said Kennedy. "We must admit the election was flawed...I commend the many thousands of citizens who asked us to register our protest. We hope this issue is firmly planted on our agenda. No democracy worth the name can allow such a flawed process to stand."
You are watching Senators
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:55
speaking the words of the activists. You are watching Senators deliver the goods activists delivered to them.

Impressive.
Stabenow (D) stands in support
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:53
of Boxer, and repeats the stories related in the Conyers report.
Durbin (D-IL)
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:49
The outcome is not being challenged. The nature of this debate auger towards an analysis of the electoral system.

We have the opportunity to have a bipartisan discussion on the disparate election practices across the states.

"I do not challenge the legitimacy of the 2004 election outcome...but we can and should do better."

Durbin touting the Jackson proposal for a constitutional amendment cementing the right to vote. Puts the Conyers report into the Senate record. Gives examples of irregularities in Illinois.

Durbin was on message.
Bernie Sanders in the House
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:45
is en fuego.

This isn't about replacing Bush. "Today is about every American feeling confident in the vote. That is what democracy is about."
Senator Dayton (D-MN)
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:43
rises to object to Boxer's challenge. Calls it "seriously misguided."

This fellow is going to get some nasty emails today.
Reid is telling Senators to get down to the well
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:42
so they can speak. The time is now.
Conyers stands in the House
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:41
"We are here not as partisans for one party or the other, but to protect our democracy."
Senator DeWine is up
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:37
He can't believe they are debating whether Bush won Ohio, thus completely missing the point.

You knew this was coming. I'll bet you a dollar he brings up the troops in Iraq somehow. This is betraying them. Bet he says it.

My favorite bit is how he dismisses all the proof offered of fraud contained in the Conyers report, and proves there was no fraud...by reading editorials. Hm.
Worth a couple of hours
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:36
"I think it is worth a couple of hours to discuss these issues."

She gave a good speech.
Boxer speaking in the Senate
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:34
We now fight for electoral justice. Everyone's vote must matter and be counted. Their votre must have as much weight as any Senator, House member, President, CEO.

"In the voting booth, everyone is equal."

"We must ask certain questions."

Why did voters have to wait in line for hours to vote because there were only two machines?

Why did voters in poor and African-American districts not have enough machines?

Why were machines held back from use in these communities?

Why did thousands leave polling places out of frustration, or because they ran out of time?

Boxer's voice is raw.

The gavel comes down again in the House
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:31
The Senate has not yet gotten together.

Tubbs-Jones stands forth.

"I thank God I have a Senator joining me...joining thousands of Ohio voters denied the right to vote."

Objecting to the electors is the only immediate avenue for raising these issues.

"We, a House member and a Senator...
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:23
...object."

Signed, Boxer and Tubbs-Jones.

The Houses withdraw for debate. The Senate retires.

Hot damn.
Here we go...
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:22
Tubbs-Jones objects to the electoral votes for Ohio.

"I do have a Senator."

Boom.
It will come when they get to Ohio
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:14
I am given to understand that the objection will come when they get to Ohio.

They are on Kentucky.
Idaho is "regular in form"
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:13
Thank goodness.

Observing the marvel that is Trent Lott's hair is more than worth the price of admission.

The gavel comes down
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:07
The joint session has come to order.

Cheney is reading the boilerplate ceremonial language. The man never, ever, ever looks happy.

They will run through every state. Will the bump come when they get to Ohio, or after all the states are read? To be seen. Alabama, Alaska and Arizona just read by Lott.
A mob of pre-teens just carried in the votes
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:02
Egads.

Cheney has arrived, and there is a general milling about. Hastert is yukking it up with Cheney at the podium.
The hearing is about to begin
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 01:01
Stay tuned...
Harry Reid is on board
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 12:15
Announced by Rev. Jackson at the rally about 10 minutes ago.
The Boxer Rebellion
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 11:06
A wee bit of history to start with.

The last time Congress was forced to interrupt the joint session to certify the Electors was in 1969, when a "faithless" Nixon elector broke ranks and threw his vote to George Wallace. After about twelve seconds of discussion, the vote was allowed to go for Wallace. Before that, we have to go all the way back to 1877, during the disputed election between Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden. Hayes eventually won.

In short, what is happening here in Washington today has almost never been seen in the history of the republic.

This is the latest as I have it: Senator Boxer made the decision to stand and support the challenge to the Ohio electors. She transmitted a letter to Rep. Tubbs-Jones this morning which stated, "I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light by allowing you to have a two-hour debate to let the American people know the facts surrounding Ohio's election."

Right now, several other Senators are preparing statements of Support for the Boxer/Tubbs-Jones challenge, and a number of House members will also rise in support. There is every expectation that Senators Clinton, Obama and Dodd will be among those offering statements of support.

Reps. Waters, Conyers and Kucinich will be among the House members who stand. Though Rep. Conyers was the main impetus behind this process, it was decided that Rep. Tubbs-Jones should be the one to make the official challenge, as she is a representative from Ohio, where the dispute is centered.

There is a rumor floating around that one of the Senators to rise in support will be a Republican. That is not in any way confirmed.

The process will begin to unfold at 1:00pm EST. Cheney, in his role as President of the Senate, will rise and ask if there are any objections. Tubbs-Jones will then announce her objection, and state that a Senator has signed her objection. The joint session will then adjourn, and there will be two hours (perhaps less) of debate on the issue. At the conclusion a straight up-and-down vote will take place on whether or not to support the objection. Almost certainly, the objections will be defeated along party lines.

This is an incredibly important day for this country, for two reasons.

First, this will initiate a national dialogue on how we run elections, and push forward the process of reform that is so desperately needed.

Second, this was a people's movement. None of this would have taken place without the grassroots effort. Look at the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the beach. That is how many phone calls, emails, faxes, letters and telegrams were sent by ordinary people to the Capitol building in support of what Boxer has done. Jesse Jackson, David Cobb, Progressive Democrats of America and others were involved in getting this done, along with Rep. Conyers.

But it was the folks who got this done. If nothing else, this proves that concentrated activism and advocacy works. It works. It worked. Make sure it keeps working.

Tune in at 1pm EST. I will be blogging the hearing as it happens.

Today is history.

---

Our Voting System Needs A New Constitutional Foundation

Floor Statement

By Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.

Thursday, January 6, 2005

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)

"In the eyes of the [Supreme] Court, democracy is rooted not in the right of the American people to vote and govern but in a set of state-based institutional arrangements for selecting leaders." ( Overruling Democracy - The Supreme Court v. The American People, By Jamin B. Raskin, p. 7)

"Amazingly, the government of the United States conducts and provides no official count of the vote for president." (Overruling democracy - The Supreme Court vs. The American People, by Jamin B. Raskin, p. 66)

"Thanks to the long and peculiar way in which suffrage evolved in the United States, the U.S. Constitution contains no affirmative right to vote for American citizens. That is likely the most important single gap in our Constitution, and it ought to be remedied as soon as possible." (Alexander Keyssar, Matthew W. Stirling, Jr., Professor of History and Social Policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. His books include The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States.)

Don't be confused or misled. Today's objection is not about an ELECTION RESULT, it's about an ELECTION SYSTEM that's broken and needs fixing.

Today you're hearing the facts about voter irregularities in Ohio. In 2000 you saw a similar mess in Florida. There were serious voting problems in other states - for example, New Mexico, Nevada and Florida again.

As we try to spread democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, it might be wise, first, to look in the mirror; to take a serious look at our own house; and to analyze our own democracy.

What's wrong with our democracy? What's wrong with our voting system? State-after-state, year-after-year, why do we keep on having these problems?

The fundamental reason is this: most Americans and many in this body will find it shocking and hard to believe, but we have these problems because AMERICANS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THEIR CONSTITUTION!

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore said in very plain language, "the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."

You say, "Congressman, I'm a registered voter and every time there's an election I'm entitled to vote - and I vote. What do you mean I don't have a `right to vote'?"

I mean as an American you don't have a citizenship right to vote. Voting in the United States is a "state right" not "citizenship right."

We keep on having these problems because our voting system is built on the constitutional foundation of "states' rights" - 50 states, 3,067 counties and 13,000 different election jurisdictions, ALL SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL.

If you're an ex-felon in Illinois you can register and vote. If you're an ex-felon in eleven states, mostly in the South, you're barred from voting for life. There are nearly 5 million ex-felons who have paid their debt to society but are prohibited from ever voting again - including 1.5 million African American males. But in Maine and Vermont you can vote even if you're in jail. Like I said, we have a "states rights" separate and unequal voting system.

You ask, "What's the difference between a citizenship right and a state right?"

The First Amendment contains individual citizenship rights that go with you from state to state (that is, they are the same wherever you are in the U.S.); and they are protected and enforced by the federal government. You have equal protection under the law by the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. Therefore, as a result of the First Amendment, every American citizen has an individual right to free speech, freedom of assembly, and religious freedom (or to choose no religion at all), regardless of which state you're in - individual rights that are protected by the federal government. You don't have such a right when it comes to voting!

A state right is NOT an American citizenship right, but a right defined and protected by each state - and limited to that state. Therefore, when it comes to voting, each state, county and election jurisdiction is different.

One-hundred-and-eight of the 119 nations in the world that elect their public officials in some democratic manner have the right to vote in their Constitution - including the Afghan Constitution and the interim document in Iraq. The United States is one of the 11 that don't!

The Bible says if you build a house on sand, when it rains, the winds blow and the storms come it will not stand. Our voting system is built on the sand of "states' rights."

That's why every four years when the entire nation is focused on a presidential election, and the rain of politics, the winds of partisanship, and the storms of campaigning come, our democratic house cannot stand the unitary test of voting fairness - and it has come close to collapsing in 2000 and 2004.

The American people are gradually losing confidence in the credibility, fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of our voting system.

We cannot export our current voting system or our form of democracy to other nations because our "separate and unequal" voting system, and our concept of an Electoral College, do not reflect the best of a representative democracy.

We need to build our democracy and our voting system on a rock, the rock of adding a Voting Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that applies to all states and all citizens.

We need to provide the American people with a citizenship right to vote and provide Congress with the authority to craft a unitary voting system that is inclusive of all Americans and guarantees that all votes will be counted in a complete, fair and efficient manner.

It's the only foundation upon which we can build a more perfect Union.

Every two, four or six years every member of Congress wants the people in their district or state to stand up and vote for them. Today it's time for every member of Congress to stand up and vote for the right of the people to vote, and to have their vote fairly and fully counted.
Meanwhile, in Bizarro World
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 10:23
Heard in the Gonzales hearing just now:

SENATOR: Mr. Gonzales, do you approve of torture?

GONZALES: No, I do not.

SENATOR: Do you condemn torture?

GONZALES: Yes, I do.

Case closed, I guess. I hope someone asks him if he still thinks Bush is not subject to the rule of law.
Boxer is in
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 09:58
I just got confirmation from several sources: Senator Barbara Boxer will stand with House members to challenge the Ohio Electors. There will be a debate on what happened in Ohio, in all likelihood followed by a vote to accept those Ohio Electors.

But the messed-up way we run elections in this country is about to become part of a national dialogue, and you know what? It was the people who got this done. The calls, the emails, the faxes, the letters, the protests compelled this action. This is a big day in the history of citizen action.

More Senators may be coming later. Stay tuned.

Further confirmation has come in from the Associated Press.
To the Hill
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 08:25
I am heading up to Capitol Hill in a few minutes, where I will camp out and wait for the show. The Gonzales hearings are this morning and very much worth tuning in to; we will see if there is bipartisan support for torture in Congress.

Be sure to reserve some TV time for around 1pm. If you are in DC and looking for something to do, head down to Lafayette Park at Pennsylvania and H around 10am.

It is going to be an interesting day.
And the tearing of the hair
Wednesday 05 January 2005 @ 07:58
OK. Looks like even Keith Olbermann is running headlong towards reporting as fact the same unconfirmed situation. In his most recent blog entry, he says, "Challengers are go" in his title.

Read down a bit, and he actually says that challengers are "All but certain" and "not yet formalized." That's a bit different than your headline, Keith.

Scroll down to my entry just below this one, and note the time. Olbermann has posted the same stuff MSNBC sorta-kinda reported on earlier today. In other words, nothing is confirmed yet, again.
Regarding Senator Boxer
Wednesday 05 January 2005 @ 03:54
I made it to DC in time for a bunch of hell to break loose. Apparently, MSNBC advertised a report that Senator Boxer would definitely stand up with Conyers tomorrow. Then, when the actual report came along, the story was that "people are saying" Boxer would stand up, maybe definitely sorta kinda who knows for sure.

General Electric reporting. Grr.

Boxer replied with nothing definite, that she was still considering all the options. Everything is in the wind at this point, nobody knows anything for sure, and a lot of what is being reported in the mainstream media is hooey.

So basically, keep an eye here. Not to sound like a gomer, but if you don't see it here, it isn't true yet. When I know, you'll know.