60 Mins. Interviewed Dr. Pastor. Chk it out.

[Bill Bored]

Now that we've blasted this guy, see what he actually had to say!

<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/03/60II/main653590.shtml>

American University professor Robert Pastor helps third world countries set up their elections. He says most of them do it better than the United States.

Should we be cutting him some slack ???

Naaaaah!

[Alizaryn]

1. I don't think that sending him

an email or letter sensibly expressing our fears and concerns is a bad idea, however, I don't think ranting to him will be of any help to the cause. My guess is he probably really does not have an idea of how many people are really involved, educated and concerned about the subject.
I was sorry to hear about his reaction to the Velvet Underground campaign. http://www.bradblog.com/ I think we just need to be careful. As frustrated as we may get we need to avoid representing ourselves like the radical right angry mob does, it will only hurt us...IMO

[Wilms]

2. Granted, we've been overlooked, if not excluded.

But, an opponent isn't necessarily someone you must vanquish.

Sometimes the task is to win them over.

Glad you brought that up.

[tommcintyre]

8. "Sometimes the task is to win them over" Absolutely!

My Grandma used to say: You can usually get more results with a teaspoon of honey, than a gallon of vinegar."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=360077#360105

[marions ghost]

13. Sorry, I have run out of honey...

--have NOT found that any amount of honey brings results--have found that it leads to dismissal --or at worst exploitation, in the current climate. We are NOT living in nice polite times. Our opponents are playing hardball. Democrats have been too nice, too agreeable, and it has gotten us into trouble. Of course we must still stop short of scathing diatribes or abusive remarks, because they are also dismissed (and gives them the chance to play the victim). But there is a huge need for people to make strong, heartfelt statements of opinion about the election crisis. We DO need to be heard by this committee. We DO need opportunities to demonstrate that we are paying attention and we care where it's going. So I was glad to see the reaction to the nasty "Why don't you get back in your box" phone call from Pastor to Bradblog.

I have been following the election issues closely, and contributing to the reform movement in every way possible. Watched the C-Span coverage of the commission presentations this past week. They made me feel queasy, depressed, insulted. I couldn't believe Conyers was not even represented and Baker was handed a key role. The rest were generally disapointing or predictable, and several were outright shills for the opposition. David Dill was an exception--he was effective esp as he is a computer expert lobbying for paper ballots, but it remains to be seen whether they will choose to listen to him or neutralize his message. He's outnumbered.

I read all the entries on the Bradblog website last night, and also the DU threads on the subject. With the exception of only a couple, I thought the letters to the committee that were posted there were intelligent, strong, to the point, and they did NOT step over the line of civility. None of them would hurt our cause--our cause is hurt far worse by silence. It's time to forget about mincing words and pussyfooting around. It's time to channel our anger and frustration in exactly this way, and use our collective power. We are NOT buying this sham of an election system, nor do we trust this committee that's been set up to reform it. The committee needs to KNOW this, in no uncertain terms.

So I was inspired and rejuvenated to read these courageous letters from so many concerned citizens, and will be sending out my own today. We deserve a voice in this debate. Pastor is caught between a rock and a hard place, and his schizy statements indicate that. Sometimes people who are stuck in the middle have a way of pointing up the absurdities of the whole situation. So in that sense, watching him tangle himself in knots is productive. Given the difficulty of Pastor's position, he has certainly misunderestimated public opinion.

NGU :toast: to all those drawing a line in the sand

[Alizaryn]

18. I agree with you and have written my own letter.

My point was that to cross the line of sensibility and degenerate into abusive speech will only hurt our cause. The reason I even mentioned it was to communicate the battle I waged with my own self in an attempt to remain civil while writting my letter....I am so angry and disgusted, its hard to remain vocal and strong and not get downright nasty.

[tommcintyre]

20. "...must still stop short of scathing diatribes or abusive remarks..."

That was my only point. It would be nice if we could all ask ourselves before we sent a letter (or even a post): Are we mostly venting, or really trying to communicate?

What seems like a long time ago (November), when I made my first blaster, there was a lot of anger in it. Some more experienced people politely posted a list of do's and don'ts in communicating. First among them was "be civil". I realized they were right, and rewrote the blaster, and have made sure they all pass the civility test since then.

Besides venting, I think we think that by expressing our anger toward the person(s) we are writing to, we will show them just how important, and how much we care about an issue. (I know I did.) But what we forget (when we write angrily) is, that since we are taking the time to write at all, automatically implies our commitment to the issue. Of course, our letters SHOULD convey the urgency and importance of the issue - just NOT through personal attacks.

Impugning someone's integrity (calling them unethical), intelligence, or competence may feel good in our moments of anger and frustration - but it is very unlikely to advance our cause (and may even set it back).

When I write an angry email or post, I try (hope) I remember this Mark Twain story: Twain was famous (infamous?) for his vitriolic temper. Often, when he read or heard something he didn't like, he would dash off a letter letting the "guilty" party know just what he thought of them (and the issue).

But instead of sending the letter immediately, he would put it in a drawer, and re-read it the next day. Seldom, if ever, did he send that original letter as is.

Unfortunately for us, it's a lot easier to hit the "send" button, than it was for him to send the letter. Also, because of the absolute seriousness of the election fraud situation, we are likely to still be very angry tomorrow. Still, I have found it useful to wait a day before sending an angry post/email. There are a few on my desktop right now. ;)

[marions ghost]

25. good advice...

esp for those who tend to discharge too much anger in emails. I have a poster that says --Think Before You Quack-- w a baby duck on it over my Puter. Yes, taking some time before hitting "send" is a good practice. I'm with you. My point in support of yours--is that it's not so much that it's "not nice" or makes us liberals look bad, or any of that image concern thing. Excessive verbal abuse is just not effective and gets immediately dismissed. (Can even fan up a puffed-up righteous victim response -- "I have been hereby slandered!" which is seriously unproductive). Most editors, politicians, public servants of any kind will cheerfully delete such an email and feel good about doing that. It doesn't get through.

However I'm also concerned about those who feel it is necessary to sugar-coat everything they say. It's fine to give the positives if you really feel them, but too much of that can make a letter seem disingenuous and pandering, especially if the REAL point is to convey a serious complaint or criticism. This will lead to a subtle form of dismissal also--the writer appears to be a fencesitter talking out of both sides of the mouth. Personally, I don't ever go as far as "honey"--while at the same time I don't heap dirt.

The letters that were posted on Bradblog and DU to the Nat'l Election Reform Commission--I thought were very good at finding that middle ground. Not many strayed over the line, (but maybe some did not post their really fiery blasting ones for all to see--hard to quantify that). Still, I worry about people engaging in too much self-censorship these days. To me, curbing the anger is not as much of a problem as finding ways to channel the anger productively. So many people choose to just simmer in silence, instead of directing their thoughts and concerns where they night make a difference. Bradblog did a good service in urging readers to respond to the political maneuverings of this rather questionable "Reform Commission" -- an appropriate way to give feedback in a situation where the leaders are so sadly out of touch with the people and often neutralize any sort of negative response to their agenda.

So we're on the same wave--I'm just adding a footnote here --as a writer, can't help it--had a knee jerk response to your word "honey." I say No Honey to professional...uh...manipulators. This is Serious Bidness. Bidnesslike, factual, informative. And yes, of course, polite. But not concerned with playing nicey nice. Granny's world is gone.

[tommcintyre]

26. I think we just have a little different definition of "honey".

If someone can write a strong, compelling communication, and at the same time avoid the temptation to lash out, they have the best chance of success. You are right, they have done their best to avoid getting "immediately dismissed".

For me, where the "drop of honey" comes in is just extending common courtesy (not so common these days ;) ). For example, adding something as simple as: "Thank you in advance, I'm looking forward to your answer(s) to my question(s)" - often works wonders. It not only extends courtesy to them; but puts them under obligation to do the same to you. (Partly, I think it is effective since such consideration IS becoming more rare.) And, a big part of their reciprocal courtesy is to answer your questions. Besides getting potentially valuable information, you know they not only read your message - but they had to think about it to, in order to answer your questions.

Dale Carnegie put it well in his classic book, How To Win Friends and Influence People: "Give a dog a good name, and often you will find that they will work hard to live up to it".

[rumpel]

3. I agree. but I have a strange feeling, that he and possibly others are

threatened or have some carrot hanging in front of them....

:think:

the comments he has made on C-Span and his resume don't seem to match

[Alizaryn]

4. You could be right as to his reasoning/motivation.

If stooping to their level would help I'd say hell yeah. I just don't think it will. Silence won't help either...all we can do is try.

[tommcintyre]

7. Totally agree, see link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=360077#360105

[Chi]

5. How amazingly insightful

"Pastor helps third world countries set up their elections, and he says most of them do it better than we do. "With regard to the administration of elections, the U.S. election system is one of the worst of 118 democracies in the world," says Pastor.

The problems, however, weren't enough to affect the outcome of the election -- perhaps only because of the sheer perseverance of average voters."

How amazingly insightful!!!
I wonder how he counted all those who had to leave lines, without voting, to go back to family or work. Hmmm.

[Amaryllis]

10. Not enough to change the outcome of the election--it's their bloody mantra

[tommcintyre]

6. I get the feeling he is just spouting the Dem party line

In his half hour follow-up interview on C-Span (link below) he said both of the following (paraphrased):

Bad: Exit poll discrepancy has been refuted, Bush really won. <So is this really any different than Kerry, almost ALL the Dem leadership (even Dean now) are, at minimum, implying by their silence?

Good: He called for inspection of the source code by qualified third parties; and I believe he made positive statements about paper ballots for audit purposes also.

Of course, I do NOT agree with his overall position (as I don't with the official Dem party's either). But to be blasting him now with scathing email (which I expect is occurring since the phone call), possibly accusing him of being even a Bushco operative, is NOT productive. In fact, instead of moving us closer to our goal, it is very likely moving us away from it.

For the record, I too am very unhappy with how the commission was set up, etc. But to attack "our own" may very well move us further away from our goal, and possibly wind up helping Bushco with theirs. Another example: I've seen posts implying Carter may be one of "them" since he said Baker is his "second favorite Republican". Yes, I cringed too, but this was Jimmy's diplomatic attempt to demonstrate bipartisan cooperation. (I don't agree with it, but I don't think it helps to expand it into something which it was NOT either.)
-----------
In summary, after researching Pastor last week (link also below), I concluded he is one of the "good guys" (as Carter is). An overwhelmed (by Bushco) good guy, and NOT supporting a most important goal - election fraud investigation - but, overall, a good guy nonetheless.

Since the hearing, I have been urging that we push for Conyers to get a "seat at the table", and they include our fraud investigation contingent (USCV, etc.) as panalists/public testifyers; and the removal (stepping down) of Baker and Munro for conflict of interest reasons (link also below). And, if these things do NOT transpire before the June 30th hearing, we should urge Carter and Daschle to resign and reconvene a new TRUE bipartisan commission. I don't think this "phone call affair" is moving us closer to ANY of these goals.
-----------
Links:
- Pastor follow-up interview (along with the link to the first hearing):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=359815&mesg_id=359815

- Pastor info:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=351775#351946

- Potential Baker/Munro conflict of interest link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3499443

[Alizaryn]

9. I agree totally.

There is nothing wrong with continuing to let them know how we feel but tact and rationalism is called for and will be more effective. IMO

[Amaryllis]

11. Great post, Tom. With you 100%. Screaming at them never helps.

[LatePeriduct]

12. I don't see how he can claim to be for democracy....

He dismissed the exit polls and other irregularities without a second's notice, and continually repeats the same line.

None of his background matters to me but rather his attitude.....and the feeling I get about him overall...

In the whole epidemic I have gotten a very disgruntled feeling about him.....A feeling of "I'm not going to tell you that because they don't want me to" kind of feeling....that he is in truth a shill, that used to be a democrat.

I will await to see how he responds to the long PHD report I sent....now more than before, I question his loyalties.

[rigel99]

14. SEND Emails to [email protected]

and even if you get a form letter like this one, it shows they are trying ...

I too am outraged my emails get a form letter.. but somewhere some staff flunkie will eventually get to my email and say "OH MY GOD" there are over 70 organizations nationwide who give a crap and this movement is much bigger than we all thought...

so keep blasting emails about your view of the world to these guys... eventually the volume alone will speak for us..

**** HERE IS FORM LETTER RETURN TO MY EMAIL *****
Dear Ms. Huster:

On behalf of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, let me thank you for writing to us and sharing your views on the critical issues facing our country’s election system. We greatly appreciate your interest in the Commission's work and your suggestions for citizen participation in future Commission hearings.

Please note that at the Commission's first hearing on April 18th, 3 of the 12 panelists represented election reform groups in your list, and several more of those groups are involved in the Commission's work through the Academic Advisory Committee.

We will share your views and suggestions with Commission Members. The Commission Members are eager to hear the views of interested citizens and to receive copies of insightful comments sent to us in writing.

In the weeks ahead, you may follow the progress of the Commission through our website at http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/. As the Commission’s work moves forward, please feel free to write to us again to let us know what you think. We always appreciate the feedback and the suggestions we receive.

Dr. Daniel Calingaert
Associate Director
-------------------------------------------------------------
Center for Democracy & Election Management
3201 New Mexico Avenue, NW Suite 265
Washington, DC 20016-8026
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.american.edu/internationalaffairs/cdem/

[marions ghost]

15. ???? know anything about this--

re. this line from the form letter:

"several more of those groups are involved in the Commission's work through the Academic Advisory Committee"

wondering specifically who they are referring to....

[rigel99]

19. That's how folks like Thor Hearne

and folks like Jamie Raskin become special consultants to the commission.

When I spoke with Kay Simpson the press secretary for the commission, she assured me not a single person is getting paid yet. That it is a loose association of individuals right now and no one is officially getting paid to participate in the commission...

[tommcintyre]

22. Hmm... This makes me wonder about their level of funding

I have been hoping all along that a commission would come along, and investigate the accumulated evidence. Your comment, plus the feeling I've gotten of their "limited scope" (especially from the press conference - link below), makes me wonder if they got the resources to adequately investigate election fraud anyway. I've seen their high-level list of backers, but that doesn't tell us how much they are giving them.

It took $80 million to "prove" that Clinton was over-sexed. ;) I wonder how much it would take to prove enough election fraud to have turned the election?
-------------
Press conference link here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x360617

[rigel99]

27. Ford Foundation / Carnegie and Knight Foundation Have money

but if they are like most companies they are 'cash poor'.

I WILL SAY THIS NOW and history can prove me right or wrong.

This is battle of the rich families.. the Bin Ladens and the Bilderberg families versus the 'less rich' top US families (Ford, etc.).

I think we are caught in a war of 2 very wealthy factions , it's hatfields vs. mccoys and they play for keeps.

I have seen in my career over and over, that rich people and rich companies talk about giving you money or buying your product all day long and never deliver.. it's part of how they stay rich... manipulation and deception.

It's all going to end the very second citizens realize we have Trillions more cash than any of them when combined and we have millions more people and capacity to disrupt and harrass than they can even imagine....

just look at how a few silly emails pissed off Dr. Robert Pastor...

let's keep up with the disrupting of anything that does not support our Goals 100%.. anything less is really not worth fighting for....

[Bill Bored]

16. Next meeting isn't until end of June.

Perhaps we have that long to get our voices heard.

Conyers is supposed to be meeting with them. I'm sure he'll write a report. Maybe the next meeting will be more balanced or actually in our favor. I agree that Baker and some of the others should be asked to resign.

I also think that this thing could be a huge diversion!!!

There are election bills in Congress as we speak, and many at the state level. They are not perfect, but there is no reason to wait until this Commission concludes its business before they can be passed. That could be their plan!

I'm sure the Republicans have their voting machine companies writing new laws as we speak in anticipation of the outcome of this commission being in their favor.

So if we see a bill we like, we should support it NOW and not wait for anything to come out of this commission. Let's not get diverted. Keep your eye on the ball! Get some laws on the books to help voters NOW!

Work at the state level especially.

File lawsuits to prove all votes were counted as cast.

Ban DREs in your town, county or state!

Mandate proper testing and auditing of Op Scans or and other systems that can be tested.

Push for hand marked paper ballots.

This commission could be their way of slowing us down. Commissions don't make laws, legislatures do and courts can interpret them.

Keep up the pressure on ALL fronts!

[rigel99]

17. DITTO Bill Bored's comments

I could not agree more..

lawsuits

county based returning to paper ballots

and not waiting for the commission... it's clear to me they know they have no sway with congress anyway..

but educating them is a good thing... the more people on our side the better..

NOW THAT THE CARTER CENTER IS OFFICIALLY part of the commission, we have a right as citizens to ask them to break their 'mission statement' of monitoring intl' elections, we should ask them to monitor (by way of precinct level audits) the US election from November 2004....

[LatePeriduct]

21. This is what we sure better do.

Starting the states with the most fraud bar none, like Florida and California.

[rigel99]

28. Please Add Georgia to the list

Georgia has more fraud than anybody and I"m on a warpath to proving it..

Stay tuned for a URL to the Diebold contract.. should be on my website before weekend is up and boy is it juicy.....

[Peace Patriot]

23. It's a PRIVATE "commission," that seemed to spring out of nowhere,

and was heavily stacked against real election reform, from the get-go, and co-chaired by James Baker, for godssakes! The public has no rights in this venue, and had no input into its membership or procedures, yet this private "commission" is acting all official (preparing a "report to Congress") and trying to create an illusion of officialdom and non-partisanship.

I'm fairly certain that it's very well planned out, and that its purpose is to nationalize elections under federal (Bush Cartel) control, removing control as far away as possible from the people, and grabbing control of election systems, procedures and rules from the states and counties, where real reform is still possible and where the battle is currently being waged. At the very least, it has the purpose of a pre-emptive strike on emerging election fraud 2004 evidence. But I think it's more than this--I greatly fear nationalization.

They have so far treated the public, and real voting rights groups, with utter contempt--with Robert Pastor in the lead on indisguised contempt for the public. There is no reason at all to give him, or anyone on this utter sham of a "commission," a break. None. Hit them hard, take no prisoners. They are up to no good.

[Peace Patriot]

24. Us trawling for some sign of hope in this private "commission" is what...

...they want. Maybe (according to Carter)...MAYBE they'll recommend a paper trail. And we'll have to say, "Okay, a paper trail is headed in the right direciton, isn't it?"

Jeez.

Wake up, folks! WHATEVER they recommend, it is very likely to be in the context of nationalizing elections, and taking away any hope of state/local reform, and, once they have control, they can do anything they want. Congress needed political cover to do this. It was too brazen even for the BushCon pod people. The "commission" is cover. That's my read on it.

But even if it's just a preemptive strike on emerging election fraud evidence, they are up to no good, and we should not trust them for one second.

One of the reasons I think it's nationalization is that the Cartel is permitting some limited news and opinion on election fraud into the news monopoly press. They can use this--and other evidence of election fraud--to bolster the case for nationalization.

I'm not saying don't give them evidence, or don't try to pressure them. I'm just saying, beware! I don't think this "commission" really sprang out of nowhere. I think it's very well planned. And, since they know that the BushCon Congress will never act against Bush/Cheney, no matter what has come to light already, or what may come to light in the future, and since they control the news monopolies, why have this "commission" at all? Why?

We should stress enforcement of the Voting Rights Act on Ohio and other such violations. We don't need to nationalize elections to stop discriminatory acts by Republican state election officials. We need proper enforcement of existing law. Nationalization is extremely dangerous. Our only hope, and our only strength, for real election reform, is in state/local venues. And if they deprive us those venues, all hope for election reform will be gone. They will have all the power.

[rigel99]

29. RIGHT ON... start suing county election officials

for misdemeanors (for pollworkers from DRE vendors not signing oaths)
and for felonies (for vote tampering).. this is 1-10 years jail time..

when the judge sees the evidence first hand it does not matter if he's dem. or republican, he'll get a sick feeling in his stomach like the first time I counted thousands of phantom votes or saw that 14,000 voter counties had 0 provisionals.

bottom line, we have to fight this bottom up, get the county officials on the hot seat and plea bargain back to paper ballots. period.

This 53.9M we spent in Georgia and over time it will end up being 500M with all maintenance, etc. over time. this is enough to completely redo schools, police dept. hospitals, free college for state residents, etc... this is a whole lotta money..