Guest blogged by Winter Patriot
Word just in! Francine Busby will be on the radio with Peter B. Collins beginning at 8:15pm Eastern time. That’s 7:15 Central, 6:15 Mountain and 5:15 Pacific, of course.
If you’re in (or near) Monterey, Sacramento, Eureka or Phoenix, you can listen via broadcast radio.Otherwise your only option is a streaming webcast.
Either way, click here for more details.
UPDATE: A recording of Francine Busby’s interview with Peter B. Collins is now available. Click here to download it (MP3).
We now have a transcript, courtesy of Emily Levy. That’s below the fold.
We’re also trying to get the audio for Busby’s appearance on The Stacy Taylor Show on KLSD this morning, too. Will post it when/if we get it.
PBC: If somebody steals your purse, your car, or breaks into your house, you call the cops, right? But when somebody steals your election, who ya gonna call? (Music) That’s a tune from 1970, the Temptations, called Ball of Confusion. That’s what we’ve had this summer in San Diego. We’ve covered this case quite a bit since the June 6 special election which was intended to select the replacement for Randy Duke Cunningham, who can’t continue to serve ‘cuz he’s doing time in a federal penitentiary.
With us today is Francine Busby, the Democrat who, in my view, had that election taken away from her. Or at least we haven’t had a fair process to evaluate the validity of the outcome. Ms. Busby, thanks for joining us on the program today.
FB: It’s a pleasure.
PBC: Well, tell me your reaction to the judge’s ruling on Tuesday which dismissed the underlying challenge to the election on various issues which I consider to be substantive, because Mr. Bilbray, your opponent then and in November, has already been sworn in to complete the term of Duke Cunningham. I consider it undemocratic, unprincipled and just another example of the Republican power grabs.
FB: Well, two things happened, and I was quite shocked at both of ’em. First of all, the people who brought this suit in here, true, all they wanted to do was have access to information so they could have a recount, hand recount, of the votes. Because they wanted to recount the votes to see if it matched the machine totals, because of course you know those machines were taken out of the chain of custody and taken home.
PBC: Right.
FB: That was their original goal. And the judge denied that. Which means that he’s denying the people in this district the right to access the public information that is their right to have and if they could pay for it they should have a right to recount the vote. They were not contesting the results of the election. They were concerned about the process. But since the Registrar of Voters put the cost at $150,000 they had to go to court to reduce the cost. So the first shock is they threw that out completely. And I don’t know why. I mean I don’t know why. Number two, I don’t know why Mr. Bilbray has such a problem with a hand recount that he had to go to court to fight this. Why not just say, “Fine, let ’em have the recount.” But what you’re talkin’ about is the atom bomb they dropped on the Constitution. Basically, when the judge said he does not have jurisdiction any longer in California over that election once Congress swore him in. And you’re right, he was sworn in before the votes were counted in San Diego, before…
PBC: And before the election was certified! And that is crucial! If you can swear people in without certification this opens up the door to all kinds of havoc that would be wreaked by either party who happens to be in power.
FB: Well, absolutely, because what he said was once it was certifi — once he was sworn in, even if there had been an issue, if there had been reason to question the outcome, what this judge said was the State of California, the voters of California, the voters of this district no longer have the right to even challenge the outcome because once Congress–it became a federal issue. This is clearly a state of, you know, Congress and the Republican party, with a letter from their counsel, trumping states’ rights and turning this into a federal issue. And I think this is bigger than me, it’s bigger than this election. This means anybody who gets sworn into Congress is no longer under anybody’s jurisdiction but Congress and they can swear people in early if they want, even before the votes are counted, and get away with it.
PBC: Francine Busby, I agree it’s bigger than you, but also I believe that it is your obligation to defend the voting rights of the people in your district. And frankly, I’ve been disappointed that you haven’t spoken up ’til now.
FB: The reason I didn’t speak up is because, two things: I’m running again in just a few–in two months, I’m running again. And I knew that if I got involved, the press here–even when it first came up they kept trying to turn this into “Francine Busby’s behind this.” I knew if they turned it into a Busby issue it would be turning into, “Oh, she’s sour grapes. Oh, the Democrats are poor losers.” And nobody would–they wouldn’t be able to maintain the integrity of their argument that it wasn’t about me and the election.
PBC: Okay, but Gore took that “out” in 2000 and I am still upset about that!
FB: Well, now I’m going to say something. Because it was never about me and my election but I thought, I respected their right to have the recount. I supported their, their, their mission to have this recount. I agreed with the issue that the voting machines are vulnerable and that this is an opportunity to see if anything had happened with these voting machines. So, first of all, I’m shocked they threw it out. I thought if they could just get through this process and do it without me, they could keep it separate. They could keep it clean and not have me involved and my name and people muddying the waters. But this, now, is an issue where Brian Bilbray has told them they don’t even have a right to do this, which I think they do, and they’re using this now Congressional, you know, this Congressional issue of Congress now has the right to swear in people even before they’re elected.
PBC: Mm-hmm.
FB: So now I will make a statement. And now I will stand up for the people of this district.
PBC: Well, I applaud you. And anything I can do to help amplify your remarks, please let me know.
FB: Okay.
PBC: Because I think this is crucial to the future of democracy and to any hopes of the Democrats getting a level playing field and being able to win back control of either house. And if we continue, you know, to not protest, to concede prematurely, to not insist that every vote be counted, we’re going to get hosed again and again.
FB: Well, the concession issue is–when you’re a candidate, you run and it looks like there’s a clear majority, if we contested every single race people would then become–they would discredit the party. They would discredit those challenging. You have to be sure when you’re challenging, you’re challenging. And we had no, no reports, no issues that people had problems voting or that there was problems with the machines that weren’t working or an inappropriate number of machines. So we had really no reason to go back and say, “Look, this happened so we’re questioning it.”
PBC: Mm-hmm. Francine, we’ve gotta take a break here and I can’t stop it. Do you have an extra couple of minutes?
FB: Uh, yeah.
PBC: Okay, well, hold on through the break and I’ll just hold you for five more minutes if you’ll indulge me.
FB: Okay.
PBC: Francine Busby, live from San Francis–uh, San Diego. We’re talking about District 50 and the way Republicans grabbed that seat, at least short-term. More coming up in a moment here on the Peter B. Collins Show.
[commercial break]PBC: And the Peter B. Collins Show continues. Thirty-three minutes past the hour. We’re talking with Francine Busby, the Democratic candidate in district 50 in southern California. Gets a little confusing. She was contesting, or competing with Brian Bilbray, the Republican in the special election on June 6 and at the same time they held a primary in which Francine Busby won the Democratic nomination to face Brian Bilbray this November for the full two-year term that has been vacated by the inconvenient conviction of Randy Duke Cunningham. Francine Busby, as you look at the picture, we understand that by November in your district in San Diego County, all of the votes will be handled on DRE machines, the touch-screen machines that so many people are concerned about because of their vulnerability to hacking and manipulation. And given the backdrop here that we just discussed about what occurred over the summer in cementing what I consider to be a purloined victory for Mr. Bilbray, do you have any confidence that this election will be properly conducted in November?
FB: Well, let me start by saying that the election in June, we just don’t have reason to question the outcome of it. You know, it was such a close race and we saw the polls changing towards the end, so you know, some people may think that I won this and it was stolen, others may not, but you know we really don’t have a strong case for that. However, I am very concerned about the use of the touch-screen machines. But again, this has been recertified by the Secretary of State. These machines, I am assuming, are going to be used throughout the state at this point. And everybody should be concerned about this. But the best thing I can do is raise a red flag for the process that just occurred that denied the voters the right to have a recount so that they could satisfy themselves and others that we could have full trust and confidence in our system, in our process. And now that that’s been shut down I think, you know, I will speak out on this and see what we can do about it.
PBC: Mm-hmm. Francine, we’ve just gotten a call from attorney Paul Lehto, who has represented those challenging the election. Do you mind if we conference him in?
FB: Absolutely. I’d love to talk to him.
PBC: Okay, great. Paul, welcome back to the Peter B. Collins Show.
PL: Thank you.
PBC: Tell me your comments, I guess you’ve been on hold a couple of minutes and you heard what Ms. Busby and I just discussed. Do you have any reaction?
PL: Well, I think, as I said about John Kerry and every other political candidate, I think there are so many pressures put on candidates that they’re amongst the last people, because they’re going to be made to pay a very high price if they challenge an election. But, you know, that being said, I think we also have to look at what is the nature of the evidence here when you’re processing votes electronically and it’s all done invisibly and secretly. I mean, at this point there’s still not a single human being that has actually counted these votes. So, you know, when we don’t have–to the extent there’s any missing evidence it’s because it’s never been produced, it’s been withheld at $150,000 or because it’s invisible or computerized to begin with and we haven’t even started to get production on that kind of stuff.
PBC: Mm-hmm. And Francine, the morning after the election the unofficial tally showed Bilbray ahead by, if I recall correctly, 4,732 votes. And at that time there were still 60,000 ballots in San Diego County–not all in district 50, but in the county–that had not been counted. So at what point did you become persuaded that at least based on the tallies presented that you did not have a cause of action?
FB: Well, first of all, when I, when I did the concession the next day we knew that that was a courtesy. It’s something that we weren’t going to wait three or four days, but we were watching the polls, we were watching the numbers coming in, very closely. We were watching–and when the precinct information came back a few weeks later we scanned those very carefully to look for anomalies, to look for anything that leapt out at us as being unusual or where there was a–you know, something that told us that something didn’t smell right. And we didn’t find it. So we were watching…
PBC: Okay, but, but can you understand from my perspective–and I’m not in your district and I don’t want to presume to know more than you, the candidate–however, when I look at this picture and the fast and loose way that the Republicans have played this race, the way they misrepresented the sound bite that they–that you coughed up and that they blasted all over the media in San Diego during the final week of the election–it mischaracterized your position on immigration and it misconstrued comments that you had made about the voting process for, you know, American citizens of Latino extraction.
FB: Mm-hmm.
PBC: So, when you look at the big picture and how they’re willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that that seat stayed in Republican hands, don’t you believe that the chain of custody issue is sufficient to reopen this case because if the chain of custody issues were violated that means there was the potential for the machines to be manipulated and therefore the results presented could never be trusted.
FB: Looking at it, it looks like it’s something that would make sense, but remember, I was, I was, I’d just come through a very difficult election. We had observers here from both the Republican and Democratic national parties and the Registrar of Voters that night. Neither one of them felt that there was anything that they felt that they should challenge. We had people calling us and asking us about challenging and I just felt like I didn’t have the means, I didn’t have the resources–people said, “Say something,” but I didn’t have the party ba–I mean, maybe they would have come, if we had said, “Look, there’s something here. We need to pursue this,” they would have come in, but at that time there was–except for, you know, BradBlog, you know, Brad Friedman on the blog…
PBC: Mm-hmm.
FB: …there was no other entity or official person calling me and saying, “This is an issue. We’re going to back you up. Go out, make the statement, let’s challenge this.” It was just saying, “Francine do this. Francine do this. Francine do this.” And, to be honest, I’m–I wasn’t in a mental position…
PBC: [laughs]
FB: …or physical or financial position to put myself there and do this without somebody saying, “We’re with you and here’s what we’re gonna do, and…”
PBC: Understood.
FB: It’s a personal thing.
PBC: Paul Lehto, given your immersion into the facts of the case and the dismissal on Tuesday, do you feel that if you’d been able to pursue this to the limit that it would have produced something substantive?
PL: Well, we already have some substantive things. I mean, if you just look at the election results themselves on their face, you have the absentee voter precincts which have turnout percentages of thousands of percent higher than registered voters. Now, they try to explain that by saying, ‘Well, we just lumped them all together and that’s why we have the high numbers,’ but that’s not really an excuse because it prevents–when you don’t assign all the voters to their proper precinct it prevents a proper reconciliation between votes and voters which is your basic check and balance against a stuffed ballot box. So that’s a sign right there that things are being obscured and the high turnout percentages are certainly anomalous.
PBC: Mm-hmm. Okay. Any other issues of note?
PL: Well, I think that we ought to move forward also with the Zogby poll that we commissioned recently that came out with 92% support for transparency, specifically the right of public members to watch vote counting and specifically the right of public members to get–obtain–information. So that shows that in San Diego and in a lot of other places around the country the election officials are out of touch with every political group in the country. Ultraconservatives, it doesn’t matter what race, color, creed, religion you are, whether you’re a Walmart shopper or a NASCAR fan, 92% plus or minus 4% of every single group support transparency. So here what we really have is this intense contrast. Our government is completely out of touch. And they’re trying to eliminate the public from their proper role in supervising elections. You know, the government, er, the public has a proper role of sitting on a jury. We decide in the judicial system. In the legislative system they’ve got to publish all the roll-call votes so we can decide who we’re going to vote for. But the revolution against democracy that’s happening in the United States is that in the executive branch, which runs elections, we don’t have a role anymore.
PBC: Mm-hmm. Francine Busby, I’m just curious about this. Given the way the Republicans rushed to have Brian Bilbray sworn in only a week after the election and a full 16 days before the expected date of certification of the results, did you smell a rat at that point? Did you say, “Why are they doing this so quickly?”
FB: You know, people were contacting me but again, and I, again, you have to put yourself back in my frame of mind a week after this election. I’d been running for three years. It was a bruising experience. I had staff coming, I had staff going. We had to run again. People were saying, “Are you going to bother?” I mean, we were really–this was just one more layer onto the things that we were dealing with. So, looking at it from hindsight, perhaps we should have gotten more involved. Perhaps we should have asked more questions, we should have gotten higher powers involved that did have the means to–and the resources to–push this thing forward.
PBC: Mm-hmm.
FB: I didn’t pursue it personally but if I had, or if I had reached out, maybe we could have taken it farther.
PBC: Mm-hmm. Let me just offer this as free advice and you can use it as you see fit: Jan Schakowsky is a Congresswoman from Evanston, Illinois, on the north shore of Chicago. She understands the election issues. And we interviewed her in Washington in June and at that point she was on fire about Ohio ’04. I told her about California 50 ’06 and she promised to investigate. And I would just encourage you to reach out to Jan Schakowsky because I think she could be a strong ally in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. And she has the ear of Rahm Emanuel, who is in the district adjacent to her in Chicago and they ride on the plane back and forth to Washington a lot and she forced him to read Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s article about Ohio ’04.
FB: Mm-hmm.
PBC: And so that’s somebody who I think might be able to help you. And I personally would like to see you gear up to protect the integrity of the November election in district 50 and to bring in outside observers and put the heat on the Republicans to make sure that this kind of fast and loose play cannot happen again.
FB: Well, you know what? I’m going to maybe have some–a few minutes–to talk with Mr. Lehto over there, get some advice and information from him and see where we can take it from here.
PBC: Okay. Paul Lehto, another comment? It’s about time to wrap up here.
PL: Well, I think that the real key is that contrast between the Zogby poll and this. And I know that Francine’s goin’ around the district now talking about–and I hope she goes around the district talking about how Bilbray was happy to terminate this election before the game was over. There was ten minutes left on the clock except this isn’t a game, this is democracy.
PBC: Well, and obviously the Republicans didn’t trust the potential outcome of a real count of every vote or the challenge that you represented. And so they went for a quick fix which is a kind of “gotcha” approach under the law, and I for one am steaming about it. I think it is so undemocratic, we cannot let it stand without comment. A final question for you, Francine, Busby, what kind of news coverage has there been about the dismissal of this case? I have not read a story in the New York Times or in northern California papers about this. Is it getting covered in San Diego and L.A.?
FB: That’s not the problem. It was in the newspapers, I think it was in TV. People do not understand the dimensions of this. They don’t understand the issue. It was portrayed, I think Mr. Lehto can confirm, that every time it was talked about in the paper it was, ‘these voters are questioning it but there’s really no story here.’ So if it’s going to be a story we’re going to have to make it a story. And again, I am going to put out a statement on this. People have suggested that I make other phone calls and try to raise the awareness of this and I will try to do what I can to do that.
PBC: Well, I sure appreciate that, and I offer again our assistance in any way we can.
FB: Great. Thank you.
PBC: Thank you, Francine Busby. Paul Lehto, thanks for joining us today.
PL: Thank you.
PBC: All right, we’ll talk to both of you again before November the seventh. Well, that’s a fascinating look at the situation in district 50 in southern California. Kudos to our producer, Matt Renner, for getting us Francine Busby, and then Paul Lehto decided to call in. I think that’s terrific.
[End of transcript]
A bear-hug,..
and a big juicy kiss on the forehead,..
for Francine Busby. Come on everybody form a line and
pucker up. Let’s show some enthusiasm here.
Somebody,.. Please,.. post something to this thread.
I listened. Paul Lehto called in. Peter B. gave her some good advice and some good connections and encouraged her to talk with Lehto.
Winter Patriot set his recorder for it, but can’t get back to post it until tomorrow. I’m trying to find archive of the Stacy Taylor appearance, but may have to wait for them to get it up on mp3.
She says she felt it would muddy things to speak up while the contest was pending — poor sport, whiner, all that sort of stuff from the right. Now that the despicable ruling has come down, she feels she should speak because it isn’t about her, but about our rights now.
Why does the faux “advertise liberally” circle-jerk of links TOTALLY REFUSE TO COVER THIS! Of course, to people that have been watching politics for a while, it is obvious that kos, atrios, c&l, fdl, greenwald, digby and the usual gang of morons do not stand for anything liberal. Not only that, but they are just an alternative version of the 101st keyboard brigade – they refuse to discuss the larger crimes of the administration – vote fraud and destroying the democratic process should be on the top of anyone’s agenda
Does anyone know why they refuse to stand up for voters rights? Why does brad have an “advertise liberally” logo – can’t possibly be making any real money off that and they NEVER link to this blog nor discuss the issues that blackboxvoting and bradblog work so hard to cover.
I understand why the lying liars in the MSM ignore these issues – but why the superblogs that proclaim to be the voice of “liberals.” They have shown me that they are just another version of the lying liars.
How can we possibly create a demand for free, open, and verifiable elections when most of the democratic party, the blogosphere, and the MSM refuse to report simple, basic facts?
Any ideas??????
Anonymous
Thank you for trying to keep your attacks on other blogs looking more like a matter of your own opinion, but you seem to have an axe to grind against “advertise liberally”, when clearly they have nothing to do with what blogs post and do not post, other than that they have some claim to liberal views.
You are making blanket statements that are not strictly true. Some of those blogs have covered this issue, or made mention of it, and do you think your little campaign against them here is a service to democracy? Wouldn’t it be better to compose even-tempered emails or comments to those bloggers, expressing your concerns?
I’m no big proponent of catching flies with honey, but your vinegar only looks like a twisted form of self-promotion and sets people against you from the git. It really doesn’t help that you seem to have etched the “name” “Anonymous” for yourself, either. It isn’t going to be well-received, and you seem to like that angle.
There are rules against spreading disinformation at Brad Blog. I have SEEN some of the blogs you mention on this subject you say they refuse to cover. If they’re not left enough for you, or whatever, contribute positively to the ones that are, and/or continue taking it up with the blogs that offend you.
DON’T keep using Brad for your megaphone against them.
And, here, I just copied this from Crooks and Liars. It’s a transcript of the words of the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Rocky Anderson:
Seems to me they’re in our corner if they post this stuff. The bad guys are not the bloggers who don’t see eye to eye with you. The bad guys are running this country. Those are the people creating this misery. THAT is where you direct your venom.
bwaahahahahahah. No fitzmas for brad-i-kins. All your base are belong to karl rove
There can now be no doubt that the sleepovers in San Diego irretrievably destroyed chain of custody over the memory cards.
I don’t get shocked very often anymore, but the pseudo-security on the Diebold optical scan memory card “seal” astonished me.
Black Box Voting bought a Diebold optical scan machine in a bankruptcy sale. We obtained seals for the memory card bay from King County Washington, where they were discarded.
We figured out how to bypass the memory card “seal” security in less than a minute and a couple of us middle-aged women performed the task of removing the memory card from its “sealed” compartment, replacing it, and re-“sealing” it so that our ownership of the election would be undetectable.
See the picture essay here:
Photos & captions: Removing the Diebold optical scan security seal
to see how absolutely pointless, what a complete and total sham, the purported “seal” over the memory card bay really is. To remove the seal in order to replace or re-program the memory card, all you need is $12 and 4 minutes time.
King County, Washington said on Tuesday this week that nevertheless they are going to use the (NOT!) seal method of protecting the memory card, and they’re going to send the machines home with poll workers for this fall’s elections.
Anonyous is correct when he states that Daily KO’s (one of the biggest liberal blogs)will not cover election fraud. They will print nothing derogatory about Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, etc. and have threatened to ban anyone who tries to post about the corruption associated with these companies. Forgot where I read it, but it was stated somewhere on a blog that DKO’s was receiving a substantial monetary amount from Diebold under the guise of advertising.
#3 I know how you feel. Anger at the other party and anger in the dem. party for being so compromising. One thing that helped me to get over it a little…Firedoglake worked hard to defeat Lieberman. I didn’t realize what an important political statement that it was. It says,”We in the democratic party want to be the opposition. Not go along to get along.” Let’s use all our talents, experiences and interests to be a big tent again. I’ve been banned from 2 websites and another is pretty iffy. They are doing some good things which help all of us. Let’s face it…some people are just scared..some more conformist….but bradbloggers don’t seem to be in either category. I learn from you guys…not just about politics..but good manners.
Umm. Wheres the outrage over the outing of plame? Im waiting to read the apologies from you libs with you TOTAL BS theories. But nothing. Its just ignored.
I got news for you all. All you thoeries are LIES and when they disproven, they just get ignored.
Your worldview is based on lies.
Someone was baned here for saying AAR was failing. They were baned for disinformation. Have you apologized to that person yet?
Did I just hear some knuckledraggin ?
Go here for the poop on Plame
Link (means you click here, caveman)
Bev Harris
Don’t you know anybody voting in Tuesday election in Florida who could manage to give an underdog 99% of the vote? That might draw someone’s attention in the MSM!
Robert Fisher
DailyKos posted my diary about the qui tam suits against these companies, and I got some enthusiastic responses, though few. I very rarely go there, but I bet if people came in with real information, real news, there wouldn’t be any problem.
Crooks and Liars posted a story about this CA-50 mess, about it being one of the biggest threats to democracy going, and nobody in the MSM covering it, but one newspaper in New Zealand. They didn’t take down any of the comments about the blogs covering it, and RIGHTFULLY corrected me when I asked why we weren’t mentioned. We’re not MSM.
Why are these blogs so popular? Because people want what they offer. Most people don’t want to, or know how to, jump in on the difficult issues, and that’s always how it’s been forever. It does NOT mean the other blogs are bad guys. And spreading rumors about them taking bribes is spreading disinformation, not allowed here, because it almost certainly is UNTRUE.
If you don’t like them, don’t visit them. If you want to change them, try to take it up with them. The Brad Blog is NOT about disharmony in the citizenry, of any political party… even Republican citizenry, if they’re still real Americans.
Well, AND, FireDogLake was all over the “Plame” debacle, and all over the Lieberman/Lamont thing, working their butts off. How can you people diss them for leaving the election fraud stuff to others?
Hey CAVEMAN #10
Here is a short summary of the link provided by #11.
I fully realize the link provided is much more than you could possibly digest.
“Armitage’s role aside, the public record is without question: senior White House aides wanted to use Valerie Wilson’s CIA employment against her husband. Rove leaked the information to Cooper, and Libby confirmed Rove’s leak to Cooper. Libby also disclosed information on Wilson’s wife to New York Times reporter Judith Miller.”
CAVEMAN #10
Just in case you were not aware of where Armitage just happened get the information he leaked.
“The Armitage leak was not directly a part of the White House’s fierce anti-Wilson crusade. But as Hubris notes, it was, in a way, linked to the White House effort, for Amitage [sic] had been sent a key memo about Wilson’s trip that referred to his wife and her CIA connection, and this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald [who was appointed to investigate the Plame leak], at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff”
Anonymous
And, HERE’S another!
No more of this liberal blog trashing!
i’ve written the busby campaign several times on an issue related subject, which they’re free to ignore, like anything thrown over the transom.
the absence of certification, the jurisdictional issue, is why i linked to this, when writing about the mexican presidential election, and of course, bush v gore comes to mind.
i’m glad paul lehto is counsel, but ballot protection simply isn’t getting the resources required.
Nice to hear Busby coming out and saying something. It must have been hard for her, knowing how mad everybody is . Peter B. grilled her pretty good about it, now hopefully we can move ahead together and get this fixed!
#3
The mainstream media is NOT going to cover unvalidatable electronics and electronic election fraud.
You can however start your own show on Public Access in your own city. Since your anonymous I don’t know what city that might be or where their operating procedures are located.
If you decide to do it, I am sure you can get some ideas on blackboxvoting.org for material to present.
If you decide NOT to do it, I hope you at least support Public Access (The only TV media outlet that ISN’T corporate)
You could donate to bradblog.com
You could donate to your local public access.
You could oppose the telco’s (Mostly AT&T and Verision) war against public access. http://savepublicaccess.com
(note: AB-2987 will Kill Public Access unless YOU act NOW!)
You can sign up for the hand count registry at BlackBoxVoting.org
I don’t know what else to say, you can send nasty emails to the director[s] of corporate MSM networks, but the email never get’s answered and just goes to /dev/null
I guess freeway bloging is another possibility
You can also infiltrate the media on the street with signs; steal a part of the idea from freeway blogging, but use it at your local “Good Morning” show live segments. But if the MSM can get your comments and your signs into post-edit, your toast, your time is wasted.
Phil,Thanks for that link on public access. Since this thread is a couple of days old maybe you could put this comment on the open thread so more people will see it and act on it. I didn’t even know about this til I read it here.
Does this mean what I think it means? Can Congress effectively eliminate the next election by “determining the qualification of its own members”? According to this judge, Congress could simply ignore the voters completely. I’m boggled.