Dean's Statement on Resignation of Chairman of Voting Reform Panel

Apr 25, 2005
Gov. Dean Statement on Resignation of Chairman of Voting Reform Panel

Washington, DC - Gov. Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), issued the following statement in response to the resignation of Republican DeForest Soaries, the first Chairman of the Election Assistance Commission, the federal voting agency created after the 2000 election debacle.

"The resignation of Chairman Soaries underscores the need for true electoral reform in our country. The election disaster in 2000 should never have happened. But it did, and the solemn responsibility of our government was to do everything in its power to make sure it never happened again, and to safeguard the right of every single American to cast their vote.

"Every American should be concerned about Chairman Soaries' assertions that the commission was underfunded and neglected, and that its four members had to work without staff, without offices and without resources. More disturbing, perhaps, is the arrogance with which the Republican majorities in the House and Senate have pursued agendas of the far right while ignoring true electoral reform.

"Bill Frist's Nuclear Option and Tom DeLay's gutting of the ethics committee are coming at the expense of our democracy. Republicans should put the same effort into electoral reform as they have into seeking absolute power. To do anything less would be un-American."

http://www.democrats.org/news/200504250004.html

"Bill Frist's Nuclear Option and Tom DeLay's gutting of the ethics committee are coming at the expense of our democracy. Republicans should put the same effort into electoral reform as they have into seeking absolute power. To do anything less would be un-American."

Keep giving 'em Hell, Howard!!!

Dean said that Reeps would be UN-AMERICAN if they continue pushing the nuclear option instead of election reform!

Go Dean!


Sue

I wish that he had said, "The election disasters in 2000 and 2004..."

Other than that, go Howard! Speak the truth!

They'll be saying 2004 soon - remember it was unpopular to talk about 2000 for awhile there too.

After the 2004 election, * and his cabal rammed that "mandate" crap down our throats so everyone was scared to mention it.

Hopefully that won't be the case much longer. There are so many leaks - death by a thousand paper cuts.

We may be missing something there. Obviously the guy is an honest man. Was the game plan to underfund as a clear signal to the workers that money could be coming from "private" sources? Soaries was likely too dense even to see a bribe situation and instead kept bothering Congress for the legal funds.

Which leads me to other speculations.

What other underfunded critical commission work is being done by officials NOT feeling the pain and where is that relief coming from? Are his fellow commissioners as pure?

If I were a journalist, though I am not as cynical according to the myth,
the story dropped into my lap would lead me directly to find point B on my own.

One of many investigations I would love to see is following all the money or underfunded trails. They all lead to Crawford.

This from Mike Swinford's article "Voter Perception and Political Deception: Federal, Ohio, Knox" posted on The Free Press:

At Fed level, an oversight commission, "EAC", was to be established within 120 days of HAVA in 2002. That sounded great. But Bush prevented it for the 2004 election. Bush blocked appointment of commissioners until January 2004, and withheld about 90 % of the funding.
Thus, the new federal agency to scrutinize how to safeguard electronic polling from fraud, hackers and faulty software was made ineffective. By law, the EAC can only make suggested guidelines to states, has no power to enforce any laws.

And Soaries is a Baptist Minister too. (Has he been excommunicated yet?)

Get him on those frickin' TALK SHOWS NOW! If he's still in the church, he is UNIMPEACHABLE! How about a media blast?

:D

and it list over 80 media sources picking the "DeForest Soaries" story. I think it is good to let the MSM know what Dean said too through a limited number of contacts (not full-out blast since it's a back-story - not the front-end).

FYI: You can use the blaster ANY time you want to send a letter to all the media it contains. Just launch it and paste your own message (and subject line) into your email client and send. Several people are doing it regularly.

What I should have said is we should blast the TV talk shows specifically to have him on. Radio too. I think he'd make a good guest, along with a guy like Conyers perhaps???

and talk about the; "possible" fraud (and the need to adequately/fairly investigate it), reform, and the Carter/Baker sham commission and I think we would have a runaway hit!

If they will do it, I will sure as hell promote 'em. <This may be achievable.>

He would have ripped Bush a new one!!

but no one would have beat Bush with the evote machines switching the votes.

But, I would not like to be placing bets on the chances of the Corporate Media's giving this announcment prominent coverage. Somebody prove me wrong, please...

Carter election reform "commission" that seemed to spring out of nowhere?

Shelley: The EAC was breathing down his neck, threatening to investigate him. As I understand it, that's one of the reasons he resigned (he didn't have sufficient legal funds to defend himself). With cowardly or corrupt CA Dems abandoning him (or piling on), with Schwarzenegger freezing his HAVA funds just prior to 11/2/04, and Schwarz wanting a patsy appointee as CA Sec of State (beholden to Schwarz and not to the voters), and with a vile smear campaign led by the SF Chronicle, add in the EAC and its threats, and the result was we lost the best, most vigilant Sec of State in the country.

I don't know much about the EAC's doings. What role did Soaries play in bringing Shelley down, or was it the others on the Commission? But I suspect that underfunding isn't the worst charge Soaries could have made against the Bush regime.

-----

Baker-Carter: It's my read on this PRIVATE "commission" that its real mission is to nationalize elections under Bush Cartel control--that is, take total control over election systems, procedures and rules (granted by the Constitution to the states) away from those state/local venues, where the election reform movement is active (because national election reform has been blockaded), and where ordinary people have more influence. (Calif is a good example--Shelley was responsive to citizen concerns about electronic voting.)

In order to mess with the Constitution in this way, Bush's "pod people" in Congress need political cover (state/county officials won't like it--it's naked power grab). Thus, this entirely PRIVATE "commission," with an official sounding name--"The Commission on National Election Reform"--and a stated intention of issuing a "report to Congress" this fall. Whatever this PRIVATE "commission" recommends, as to voting systems, I think it will contain the "Trojan horse" of federalization of elections (to stop the real reform movement).

Once the Bush Cartel gets direct control over election systems, it's all over. We will have no avenue for reform and no one to appeal to.

I wouldn't want alarm over such a scheme to in any way lessen our pressure on the private Baker-Carter "commission" for a real election fraud investigation and real reform. But I think we need to be aware of what may be this less visible purpose of the "commission"--and I think its primary purpose--federal (Bush Cartel) control over elections.

If I'm right, after this PRIVATE "commission" does its "report to Congress," what the "pod people" in Congress will likely do is convert the EAC into a commission with teeth (and funding) or create some new election commission (with Bush probably appointing to it some of these characters currently on the private "commission")--and this new entity will decide how we vote and enforce it on all states. And it will all be done in response to this PRIVATE Baker-Carter "commission"'s recommendations. Not the Bush Cartel proposing it--but this non-partisan-seeming, official-looking PRIVATE "commission."

How does the Soaries resignation fit into this picture? I'm not sure. I don't know enough about him. But I have a feeling that it's not a coincidence.

There may be other purposes of the PRIVATE "commission," such as a pre-emptive strike on emerging election fraud evidence, or further pressuring the states to purchase insecure, hackable, fraud-prone electronic voting systems. But I think this private BIG BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION, concerning which the public has no rights whatsoever, has something more in mind.

James Baker as co-chair. I mean, come on...

The Bush Cartel used 2000 election fraud (for which James Baker was their lawyer) to foist HAVA upon us--the precipitous rush to insecure electronic voting--which then facilitated their manufacture of a Bush "re-election" victory in 2004. But there are cracks in the edifice that we have exposed. Numbers that don't add up. Big anomalies in electronic vs. other methods of voting. Astronomical odds against the Bush win, on several sets of data. Not to mention massive violations of the Voting Rights Act by Republican election officials in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere.

So, now I think they've going to use 2004 election fraud to foist nationalization and total Bush Cartel control of elections upon us. No more controversies. No more numbers that don't add up. No more Secretaries of State going 'off the reservation" and responding to public concerns (like Shelley in CA). The Bush Cartel will decide who votes (national voter ID database), how they vote, and all auditing, verification and recount measures (but there won't be any recounts). Only hand-picked Democrats will get elected (to maintain the illusion of democracy). Democrats will become an ever-shrinking minority. And Bush Cartelists will be in total control forevermore--or for as long as they have something here to loot.

It's a fascist's dream. And we know that making fascists' dreams come true is the order of the day. So it's not so outlandish to think of. And they have it all very cleverly set up.

All evidence of 2004 election fraud can be used to fuel a "mandate" for nationalization of elections. Anything that gets too hot can be blamed on scapegoats (Kenneth Blackwell, for instance, a made to order sacrificial wolf). And the private "commission" issuing a "report to Congress" will make it look like the upper-up's in the Bush Cartel are doing something and care about election reform. (Har, har...)

If they remain clever, they will nationalize elections by increments, and not by an obvious naked power grab of the states' Constitutional rights. (HAVA is tending that way--toward incremental nationalization--but does it more by bribery than by dictating election systems and procedures.) But I would put nothing past these people. The Bush "pod people" in Congress have the power right now to do almost anything they want. But I do think they need political cover for this one (direct Bush Cartel control over election systems), and that's the "why" --or the main "why"--of this PRIVATE Baker-Carter "commission." They've got BIG plans--something they need this official-sounding, non-partisan-seeming, completely phony "commission" for.

What this PRIVATE "commission" recommends may even look kind of okay on the surface (to the uninformed)--say (wonder of wonders!), they recommend a "paper trail." Most likely it will be a weak paper trail, and quite useless. But the "Trojan horse" will be a uniform standard imposed by the Federal government (the Bush Cartel), which the Feds can then change at their will. (--or a weak standard, imposed from above, that the states and counties are not permitted to strengthen.)

The states and counties--and all of us citizens--will have nothing to say about it. We will have no more influence on an OFFICIAL election "commission" created by the Bush Cartel, than we do on this PRIVATE "commission." Pressuring our state/local officials will be useless, because they won't have any power either. State/local power over elections will be gone.

If it were anything less diabolical than nationalization, why form a PRIVATE "commission" with big names like Carter on it? Why doesn't Congress just amend HAVA to accomplish more paperless electronic voting? They've been pretty successful at bribing and bullying the states (and corrupting local officials) so far. Why do they need a PRIVATE "commission" to further this (their obvious, long standing) purpose--especially a PRIVATE "commission" that isn't just studying this matter, and isn't just going to issue a public report, but is going to issue a "report to Congress"?

I'm also thinking, why stir things up? The 2004 election fraud is still way below the radar of most Americans, and we have hardly any power in the news monopoly press to change that. Yeah, it's getting around. But still...why stir things up? What reason do they have to NEED to whitewash it? To silence a gaggle of leftist, "tinfoil hat" bloggers and other disgruntled citizens who have already been blackholed by the news monopolies, and whom the Democratic Party is also ignoring?

From what I can see, they don't have any need to whitewash the election. And even if they did--say the story makes some headlines some way or another--their best strategy would be to continue ignoring it. Congress is the only legal entity that can do anything about it, at this point (via impeachment), and there is no evidence on earth that would move Bush's "pod people" to impeach.

I suppose it could slow the Bush Cartel down a bit, if the evidence really got out there and well-known. But I don't think it matters to them what people think of them, as long as they have the reins of power. Bush Commander in Chief. A strong majority of Bush "pod people" in Congress. Control over the Supreme Court and increasing control over the lower courts. A scoured intelligence establishment. Lapdog news monopolies. And GEMS.

So, what's the REAL GOAL of this PRIVATE "commission"?

They had no difficulty tweaking the electronic voting system in 2004, nor conniving with the TV networks to hide the real exit poll numbers. And there they sit, as lords of the earth, on the White House throne, controlling everything in sight (and much that is out of sight). What do they want with this PRIVATE election "commission"? Why do it?

I think they DID have some difficulties in the election, because it was a Kerry landslide. They had to use some nasty tactics--and highly visible crimes--in Ohio and Florida, and almost every fraud backup plan they had in place, to secure the election (the only exception being the "terrorist alert" scam that they went to some trouble to set up in the weeks before the election--although local officials did use a phony "terrorist alert" in Ohio, to remove public monitors from the vote count in one the main Democratic counties).

What more could they want in an election system than Bush "Pioneers" owning and controlling the secret programming that counts all the votes? What more could they want than a second stolen election that only us nobodies are questioning? What more could they want that the Bush Cartel Congress can't deliver on its own (without a "commission")?

Well, I think they just want MORE, that's all. And I think that the MORE that they want now--with this PRIVATE "commission" seeming to spring up, suddenly--is total federal control over elections.

They want elections to be even slicker than 2004, and more comprehensive--to reach into all Senate and Congressional seats, and state and local offices (that they haven't already reached into)--with no wildcard Secs of State in the way, nor local political machines interfering, and having to be mollified, and no uppity citizens sniffing around their polling places and checking signup sheets and adding up numbers. They want no power sharing of any kind. They want all the power--and a centralized electronic system in which who votes and how they vote is controlled in Washington DC (or in an underground bunker in the Arizona desert, or in private corporate offices in Saudi Arabia--who knows?)

One of the biggest differences between this country and Germany 1933-34 is our vastness, complexity and variety. This "federation" of states, with its extraordinary mix of peoples and cultures, over an immense landscape, each state with its own set of laws, its own Constitution and its own ways of doing things, is much more difficult to control than Germany was. One good way to overcome the difficulties of controlling this vast and complex country is to centralize elections under one authority (theirs) as far removed from the people as possible. And electronics makes that easy.

Grabbing the states' power over elections is a big chunk to bite off. Probably too big. They are going to overreach at some point--it's inevitable--and this may be it. Still, I am very, very worried about this.

And I can't help but note that former CA Sec of State Kevin Shelley would have been the leader against any nationalization scheme, as he was the leader among Secs of State on election integrity and the perils of electronic voting. He was a very smart and courageous Sec of State, and took no crap from Diebold or from corrupt county election officials.

Curious that we would lose such a good Sec of State just before this PRIVATE "commission" announced its existence.

Election processes are being stripped from the states for "federally centralized" control by the fascists in power. The Baker-Carter Commission was formed to provide a legal means to centrally consolidate "control of the vote" in ALL future elections. Listen to the archived C-Span coverage again and you'll hear the statements made supporting what you've just outlined. The EAC wasn't funded because it didn't serve the long-term goals of the fascists. The EAC was MEANT to be a temporary commission and it is dead on purpose. Put a fork in it, it's done.

Remember, there are as many Democrat fascists in Washington as there are Republican fascists. This Carter-Baker Commission fix WILL succeed as planned. This is what we all must accept and deal with now and in 2006-2008.

John Kerry isn't one of them (and he has the goods on them) but most everyone else in Congress today are fascists, including the Bush family, Bill & Hillary Clinton and those on the Carter-Baker Commission. See the membership rolls (someone published a book detailing membership, can't remember who) of The Council on Foreign Relations and The Trilateral Commission for the current crop of Democrats and Republicans who ARE FASCISTS. Don't take my word for it, google away and buy the books!

They are fascists, almost all of them. However, there is a group of them which are defecting including Jimmy Carter, George Soros, and Harry Reid.

There is alot of Democrats who are not going to have anything to do with them, leaving the likes of Lieberman and Nancy Pelosi to wallow in their own corruption.

We can stop the federal reform takeover though, all that is needed is public events and speaking out on this outrage so that we stand with Conyers and everyone else for real electoral reform.

It can be done at the state by state level, and that will ensure nobody commits the massive destruction of democracy. If the states control the voting, there will be a hailstorm war if the government ever tries to over throw the states. Its good to stand firm and not buck, the truth is coming out.

he gone the route of MoveOn; that is, ignoring election fraud?

I thought the same thing when I heard about the underfunding/no staffing.

well documented:
http://www.flcv.com/summary.html
has no one shown him the evidence of problems in 2004?

When I saw him speak on behalf of the ACLU last week here in Minnesota he said he didn't have the "hard evidence" and hadn't read Conyers' report.

Several people, including me, decided we needed to make sure he gets the documentation, and contacted the DNC.

Why don't you personally see that the summary of evidence gets to his attention?

had some items about Kerry votes switching to Bush, etc. but as I recall the 102 page report doesn't have any of that. Does it? It's great for all the documentation of the other issues.

What would you recommend for proof of fraud that covers the e-voting issue? Arnebeck felt he had prima facie evidence of 65,000 Kerry votes being switched to Bush, but if you can't get it into the courts, it can't go anywhere.

I like Bernie's documentation (above) and the reports from Ohio from "minstrelboy" Dr. Richard Hayes Phillips:

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2005/02/summary-and-list-of-richard-hayes.html

:yourock: