OJR article: Letters Editors Flummoxed Over Weed-Like 'Astroturf' Growth: "The practice of creating a fake grassroots campaign is known as 'astroturf,' and it has been employed by groups on all sides of political debate, mainly to create an organized groundswell of support for an issue or candidate with the hope that the organizational apparatus won't show through. But Republicans struck astroturf gold in 2003, with a letter on Bush 'demonstrating genuine leadership' running in more than 100 newspapers including The Boston Globe and USA Today. That was one of many form letters generated by the GOPTeamLeader.com site, where volunteers earn 'points' (redeemed for merchandise) for getting letters printed. While that instance and others led to many media reports on the practice, that didn't stop a recent outbreak of astroturf ("America's economy is strong and getting stronger") generated by the GeorgeWBush.com campaign site's letter-generating tool, this time hitting 29 smaller newspapers and counting." http://ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1093396596.php

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Feel the Hate: "For many months we've been warned by tut-tutting commentators about the evils of irrational 'Bush hatred.' Pundits eagerly scanned the Democratic convention for the disease; some invented examples when they failed to find it. Then they waited eagerly for outrageous behavior by demonstrators in New York, only to be disappointed again. There was plenty of hatred in Manhattan, but it was inside, not outside, Madison Square Garden. Barack Obama, who gave the Democratic keynote address, delivered a message of uplift and hope. Zell Miller, who gave the Republican keynote, declared that political opposition is treason: 'Now, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.' And the crowd roared its approval. Why are the Republicans so angry? One reason is that they have nothing positive to run on (during the first three days, Mr. Bush was mentioned far less often than John Kerry). The promised economic boom hasn't materialized, Iraq is a bloody quagmire, and Osama bin Laden has gone from 'dead or alive' to he-who-must-not-be-named."… "I don't know where George Soros gets his money," one man said. "I don't know where - if it comes from overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from." George Soros, another declared, "wants to spend $75 million defeating George W. Bush because Soros wants to legalize heroin." After all, a third said, Mr. Soros "is a self-admitted atheist; he was a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust." They aren't LaRouchies - they're Republicans. The suggestion that Mr. Soros, who has spent billions promoting democracy around the world, is in the pay of drug cartels came from Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, whom the Constitution puts two heartbeats from the presidency. After standing by his remarks for several days, Mr. Hastert finally claimed that he was talking about how Mr. Soros spends his money, not where he gets it. The claim that Mr. Soros's political spending is driven by his desire to legalize heroin came from Newt Gingrich. And the bit about the Holocaust came from Tony Blankley, editorial page editor of The Washington Times, which has become the administration's de facto house organ. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/03/opinion/03krugman.html

Who's FlipFlopping Now!

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > In Retreat, Bush Says U.S. Will Win War on Terrorism: "President Bush moved to put out a political brush fire on Tuesday with a forceful declaration to the nation's largest veterans group that the United States will win the war on terrorism and that the country will never show 'weakness or uncertainty' on his watch. A day after NBC broadcast an interview with Mr. Bush in which he said he did not think the United States could win the war against terrorism, which has become the focus of his presidency and his re-election campaign, he raced back to his optimistic statements that America will prevail.…" http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/01/politics/campaign/01bush.html

The New York Times > Washington > Census Policy on Providing Sensitive Data Is Revised: "The Census Bureau announced on Monday that it would no longer assist law enforcement or intelligence agencies with special tabulations on ethnic groups and other 'sensitive populations' without the approval of senior bureau officials. The policy shift comes in response to weeks of criticism after the recent disclosure that the bureau had compiled detailed demographic data on Arab-Americans for the Department of Homeland Security. " Findings of a Freedom of Information Act request disclosed in July showed that the Census Bureau had produced two specially tabulated demographic tables on Arab-Americans for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, a division of the Department of Homeland Security. One table provided ZIP code-level breakdowns of Arab-Americans of various national origins. The cooperation was legal and the statistics used to compile the tables were publicly available. But the assistance sparked complaints from ethnic, privacy and civil rights groups that the Census Bureau was using its powers to aid law enforcement. "We recognize that simply making sure we obey the law may not always be enough to ensure that people trust us," said C. Louis Kincannon, the census director. "Perception also affects how people view and cooperate with the census. This is an interim step to restore trust." The Census Bureau already has rules requiring senior-level approval of special tabulation requests for which the agency is paid. The new procedure, to take effect immediately, extends that rule to informal, nonreimbursable requests from government agencies, private organizations and individuals. The expanded policy will cover the data on a wide variety of demographic groups including racial and ethnic minorities, the disabled and noncitizens. "Over all, the policy change is welcomed as a positive step," said Helen Hatab Samhan, the executive director of the Arab American Institute Foundation, which this month sent the Census Bureau a letter of complaint signed by more than 50 organizations and individuals. Ms. Samhan and others said questions remained about how the new policy would be carried out.… http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/politics/31census.html

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > The President: Bush Cites Doubt America Can Win War on Terror: …"In the interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC News program 'Today,' conducted on Saturday but shown on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, Mr. Bush was asked if the United States could win the war against terrorism, which he has made the focus of his administration and the central thrust of his re-election campaign. 'I don't think you can win it,' Mr. Bush replied. 'But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.' As recently as July 14, Mr. Bush had drawn a far sunnier picture. 'I have a clear vision and a strategy to win the war on terror,' he said. At a prime-time news conference in the East Room of the White House on April 13, Mr. Bush said: 'One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we are asking questions, is, 'Can you ever win the war on terror?' Of course you can.'…" http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/politics/campaign/31bush.html?pagewanted=all&position=

News: E-Voting Reform in the U.S. - Aug 30 2004 04:00AM: "These ten steps, while no replacement for the voter-verified paper trail, will, if implemented help reduce real and perceived paperless e-voting risks. 1) 'Paper or Plastic?' option Give voters in electronic voting jurisdictions the choice of casting a paper ballot in their polling place if they prefer to do so. Every polling place should have an ample supply of paper ballots available in case the voting equipment fails. An 'ample supply' would be a supply of paper ballots equivalent to at least 25 percent of a jurisdiction's registered voters. 2) Paper, not electronic provisional voting Federal law now requires pollworkers to allow voters whose names don't appear on the voter list to cast a provisional ballot. Provisional ballots are counted after the polls close. To protect a voter's ballot secrecy, a paper provisional ballot is placed inside an envelope that bears the provisional voter's name on the outside of the envelope. After election officials determine whether the voter's ballot should be counted, the paper ballot is separated from the envelope and is counted. In this way, a provisional voter's status can be verified without violating that voter's right to cast a secret ballot." Electronic provisional balloting, which has already been implemented in some jurisdictions, places the voter's right to ballot secrecy at risk, since adequate privacy or security measures typically have not yet been developed to ensure that the voter's right to cast a secret ballot is protected in an electronic environment. For both security and voter privacy reasons, electronic provisional balloting should be prohibited. 3) Access to source code by election officials Election officials should have the right to inspect any source code being used in their voting system. This reform has been endorsed by DeForest Soaries, chairman of the federal Election Assistance Commission. 4) Paper audit trail summary results Many voting machines can print a paper summary at the close of polls of all the votes cast throughout the voting day. These paper audit trails should be used to verify that the results reported at polling places are accurately reflected in the final election results. These audit trails should also be posted outside of polling places at the close of polls. In places using machines that cannot produce a printed report, pollworkers should be given charts of the races and measures on the ballot in that precinct to be filled in, with one returned to the election office and another posted outside the polling place at the close of polls. 5) Public reconciliation of results The verification process described above should be performed in public. The number of voters checking in at each polling place should also be publicly compared to the number of ballots recorded and counted from each polling place. Such proceedings should be open to videotaping and properly noticed to the public. 6) Public posting of equipment and procedures The security procedures that will be followed before, during and after the election should be publicly posted, on the Internet and/or in local election offices. Procedures should be set and published no less than 45 days in advance of Election Day. All jurisdictions should disclose the vendor, equipment name and model number, and all software and firmware version numbers of their voting equipment to the public online and/or in election offices and at polling places. Contracts with voting equipment vendors should also be made readily accessible to the public. 7) Federal and state equipment approval All voting equipment used should be fully tested and certified by state and federal authorities. All states should conduct an inventory of their equipment hardware and software to verify that what they are using has been approved by the proper oversight authorities. All equipment should be approved at least 45 days prior to Election Day. In addition, as recommended in the EAC's Best Practices, last-minute changes and software patches that have not been tested, qualified and certified should be prohibited. 8) Chain of custody of equipment and software It is up to states and local jurisdictions to ensure that the versions of software and firmware used in electronic voting machines, peripheral devices (such as smart card encoders) and vote tabulation servers are the versions that have been state certified and/or federally qualified. Election officials must also ensure that any voting equipment or device that stores electronic ballots is protected at all times. Voting equipment left in insecure locations before and after the election undermines voter confidence in election security. Voting equipment should be sealed in a secure manner before and after the election. The seal used for this purpose should be one that is less easily tampered with than the typical plastic "seals" used on voting machines. Election officials must develop procedures that describe how equipment will be securely delivered and retrieved from polling places in a timely fashion, as well as how machines will be warehoused and protected before and after the election. 9) Security plan for every jurisdiction Security plans for all aspects of the voting process should be drawn up and published at least 45 days prior to the election. These security plans should include a communications plan for polling places to ensure pollworkers have access to a phone, and an environmental plan to ensure polling places are equipped with ample electricity and lighting and are wheelchair-accessible. All tasks associated with administering electronic voting equipment should be overseen by election officials. Critical tasks such as training pollworkers, programming machines, delivering equipment, and tabulating results on Election Night should be managed by the elections department and not outsourced to the vendor. 10) Truly "stand-alone" systems Any electronic voting equipment that is used in polling places or at the local election office to tabulate results must truly be "stand-alone" devices. No modems, modem ports, wireless devices, or wireless ports should be available for use with any electronic voting equipment. Any communication ports on voting devices should be disabled. Computer equipment used to tabulate results should not be connected to the Internet.… http://www.govtech.net/news/news.php?id=91298

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Bush Takes On Direct Role in Shaping Election Tactics: "President Bush will accept his party's nomination in New York this week on the crest of a campaign that aides say reflects an unusual level of involvement from the president himself, particularly in driving attacks on Senator John Kerry that have characterized his re-election effort since the spring. Several aides said Mr. Bush viewed this as the campaign of his life and had intervened on matters as large as the themes it should strike and as small as particular shots of him in his television advertisements. While making sure Mr. Kerry is challenged at every opening, they said, the single most consuming concern for Mr. Bush is that there is an elaborate get-out-the-vote operation in November in anticipation of a contest as tight as the one in 2000. " Mr. Bush, in an interview in New Mexico last week, was careful to present himself as above his campaign, saying he was busy dealing with the problems of the country.… Still, aides say that while Karl Rove continues to dominate the campaign as the top White House political adviser, the president's involvement and interest is far deeper than is widely known. [Page 24.] Mixed in with the updates on national security by Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and Vice President Dick Cheney that Mr. Bush receives in his daily Oval Office morning briefings is a quick campaign overview from Mr. Rove. Mr. Bush's role in his own campaign was described in extensive interviews with aides and party leaders as Republicans gathered in New York to nominate Mr. Bush for a second term. They arrived buoyed by three new polls suggesting Mr. Bush's standing had improved at least somewhat against Mr. Kerry. Democrats contend that any damage to Mr. Kerry's popularity was caused by unsubstantiated claims by veterans disputing his Vietnam combat medals and that Mr. Bush will ultimately be hurt by their accusation that his campaign was secretly orchestrating the veterans' attacks. Beyond the involvement of the president himself, aides say the strategy that has brought Mr. Bush to this point is quietly being directed not from the Oval Office, or even his campaign headquarters, but by what his inner circle privately calls the Breakfast Club: a small group of advisers who gather on weekends at Mr. Rove's home in northwest Washington, where, over eggs and bacon cooked by Mr. Rove, they measure the campaign's progress against a detailed plan devised 18 months ago.… http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/politics/campaign/29elect.html?pagewanted=all&position=