Dirty Tricksters Caught on Video: CBS Evening News Edition
By Nicole Belle Monday Dec 03, 2007 5:16pmGuest post by Julia Rosen. Julia is the Online Political Director for the Courage Campaign and an editor at Calitics.
It is not every day that something from a blog post ends up in the CBS Evening News, but then again using children with cancer to try and steal the White House is pretty egregious. A diarist at Daily Kos noticed that the dirty tricksters, who are advancing an initiative that would switch 20 of California's electoral college votes to the Republicans were using children's cancer as a bait-and-switch to get people to sign the initiative and place it on the ballot. The Courage Campaign sent a film crew led by Erik Love to go tape http://www.ballot.org/vertical/Sites/%7B26C6ABED-7A22-4B17-A84A-CB72F7D1... ">Arno's signature gatherers (pdf) and we caught them red-handed.
That video was featured in the weekend edition of the CBS Evening news. Watch the clip. It is a particularly good segment on the initiative. And special thanks to John for grabbing that clip for us.
The Courage Campaign has turned over the full-uncut video and documentation by Courage Campaign members that this is part of a pattern by these dirty tricksters. We have officially request a formal investigation into their apparently illegal signature gathering methods by the Secretary of State. Please help us keep the heat on these dirty tricksters by contributing on our ActBlue page (don't forget to tip!).
Login or Register to post comments.
Content here? Can't wait! Heehee!
something is missing
Uh, hullo? Is this Candid Camera or sumpin? Where's the video? Hidden under Dick Cheny's burqha?
Developing.....???
amgriffin @ 2:
...can't put my finger on it...
Where's the beef?
Bonkers @ 5:
Integrity in the white house?
amgriffin @ 7:
...Professionals in the WH press corps...?
I know! I know!
George's brian, Cheney's heart, and Gonzo's courage?
Is this one of the dirty tricks?
Looks like the tricksters stole the video/content of this thread.
Bonkers @ 8:
Those+content in this article
Cheney's hiding it from Bush till next December.
CD @ 12:
Ahhhh! And here I thought I had developed selective blindness!
Whew!
;)
is it this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3556684n
Dr. Matt @ 11:
Plus, they killed Kenny, the bastiches.
Not bad, Nicole. You got 14 comments without posting anything. :-D
Oopth. I mean 17.
BDM @ 17:
LOL
How much longer do we get to "bust her balls" before it gets posted? Let's go for a record!
Bonkers @ 19:
20
So...
[tapping fingers]
Did Winston throw this content down the memory hole?
I like the above Cheney Theory, too...
Bonkers @ 19:
It's the ghost of nixon!
he's playing dirty trick on da internets!
I know, I know....
It' this one....
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/01/eveningnews/main3562455.shtml
LMAO
impacting now
My comment submissions keep disappearing.... I'll try it again. Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exdQ5mWaOLY
LMAO!!!
everyone is a critic
:D :D :D
Randy G @ 26:
Pelosi said the effort would be a good thing if it was being done Nationaly to all states including Texas and Florida.
To attempt to do it just to California screams Partison dirty tricks.
WHOOPS!
Ha Ha! I love it!!
I think the first one was the best, but they were all pretty good.
...
Huh? What do you mean there's nothing there?
CD @ 30:
Divide and conquer, dontcha know.
If these scumbags were interested in "a level playing field" they'd leave the Republican party.
Awwwww she fixed it.
CD @ 34:
Damn noob bloggers. :)
Randy G @ 26:
I'm betting this is it - what isn't mentioned, however, is the connection this campaign has to the Guiliani campaign.
CD @ 30:
Pretty unlikely that anything requiring a change to the U.S. Constitution is going to happen. The Constitution now gives each state legislature the right to decide how electors are chosen. It's not necessarily a slum dunk constitutionally (given our esteemed Supreme Court), but this California initiative probably runs afoul of that clause in the U.S. Constitution.
Don't count on those "Constitutional challenges" providing so much as a speed bump to an effort like this. The Supreme Court has been thoroughly packed.
UnEasyOne @ 36:
In an era of lowered expectations, I'm amazed that CBS News even picked up the story as they did. For anybody who wants more on the current state and history of these initiatives, check out the No Dirty Tricks web site, put together by the great folks at the Courage Campaign.
The Party of Steal...
Steal votes, steal taxpayers' money, steal oil...
Damn, they don't seem to feel any guilt at all about using children with cancer in order to get what they want politically. Par for the course with most republicans. They know there is only a slim chance that the next president will be republican so they are pulling out the stops and that includes putting little kids up as political shields in order to have a fighting chance.
Yes, but...
even though what these Republican operatives in CA are trying to do is unconstitutional, and most courts would throw it out, by the time all that happens, there would be another Republican administration sworn into the WH. It's essential that this initiative be stopped BEFORE it gets on the June ballot.
Ask SoS Debra Bowen to investigate the signature-gathering methods used in this instance. The stakes are just too darn high for her to let this go.
Cat Atomic @ 38:
No, I'd say that these Constitutional challenges are way more than speed bumps. However, I certainly agree that at the Supreme Court level -- and if necessary, this will go to the SC -- the outcome is far from certain. The key is to at least keep it off the June, 2008 ballot in California, which if so means that it won't affect the 2008 election.
The good side of all of this is that recent polls have shown that the initiative is trailing badly. This has gotten a fair amount of press in California... and the more the people know about it, the less support it has.
I wonder if Limbaugh and Malkin are going to get in an uproar about the GOP using sick children for a political ploy? I'm not going to hold my breath.
You heard of "Le Creme de le Creme"
Well these guys are "Le Scum de la Scum"
TimV @ 44:
Doutbful. They didn't care much when they Rethuglicans used Terri Schaivo as a prop for their bankrupt philosophy. They only cared when it backfired.
There's no there there Nicole. Where's the vid?
Look on CBSNEWS.com/type California Ballot Initiative into their search box, and when results are returned, click on #2 - "Fight over California Votes".
It now looks like the initiative backers are having trouble getting their petitions filed in time for the June ballot, already having missed the suggested filing date. (Meaning that the Secy of State and county registrars will lower their priority in verifying signatures, and given that these officials have a ton of work to do getting ready for the February presidential primary, that could put the kibosh on the initiative for June.) Writeup at Calitics, based on Sacramento Bee article.
Actually what the Republicans are proposing is IMO pretty much what should be done in all states, but it doesn't make sense for one state to do it this way without the others going along.
Okay, you can see the news video at http://calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4525.
You're welcome.
thank you,thank you,thank you....I thought they were going to get away with this.Nobody seemed to catch it.I SAY....FRY EM!
Bill Norton @ 50:
If it is to be done.......the whole nation has to do it at the same time...I see what your saying....but this was Bullsh!t,underhanded,sneaky,criminal,.....your typical repug behavior
Copyright issue?
TimV @ 44:
Pfft! Too right.
Letsee. Fuckin Greedy Old Pthug sez "We're Californians and we're tired of being ignored."
Since Eisenhower, 4 presidential terms have been served by members of the Democratic Party, 9 have been served by Thugs. What does this greedy motherfucker think would be an indication of the California Thugs not having enough of a voice in the elections?
These GDCSers are getting on my last nerve.
pissed off patricia @ 41:
I presume this is a HIRED outfit, paid by the signature.
If you didn't know that signature collectors use this kind of flim-flam to get people to sign petitions, you must have been born under a cabbage.
The SecState will throw out those collection efforts, and possibly bar that collection company from further collection. However, if those are legal California voters' signatures, they will be allowed -- since btw you aren't supposed to sign something you haven't read.
I support this Courage Campaign, but you cannot simply make initiatives go away by pretending that the initiative AUTHORS are trying to make children's cancer their cover, unless you have evidence of such.
You caught, and outed, a signature collection firm, or at least one collector. If that collector is making, say, minimum wage plus ten cents a signature, then wow, they are in big trouble to the tune of maybe losing a $10 an hour gig.
miss_kitty @ 56:
miss_kitty....you and I are sharing the same feelings right now.The Pugs are never going to give up on the crooked antics.They have a small foot hold in Calif....So Cal........never gonna happen....fuck em!
Randy G @ 49 "the Secy of State and county registrars will lower their priority in verifying signatures"
The RoVs, most of whom are still crooked, will be working their fingers to the bone trying to get this on the ballot. If the SecState takes action against the signature collector, that might well blow the initiative filing, depending on how many of the signatures can be tied to that one company.
Absent that, they'll probably make the ballot, with help from the crooked RoVs. ARE those legal signatures is the main question.
Bill Norton @ 50:
The reverse should happen. We should achieve a Constitutional amendment which requires the Electoral College delegates to cast ALL their votes for the winner of the statewide popular vote.
That solves the problem of the EC, and it removes Bush v. Gore moments from ever happening again.
CD @ 30 "Pelosi said the effort would be a good thing if it was being done Nationaly to all states including Texas and Florida."
Where is your link for such a comment from the Speaker?
Would someone please look into the possibility of similar electoral vote allocation in all the "Red" states?
I found this, "Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked, if California were to go to a vote per district system, "Should we revisit the Electoral College?", supposedly from the Oakland Tribune, but without attribution otherwise.
Not much of a quotation. So the claim that she approved of it is still unsubstantiated (and hard to imagine). Speaker Pelosi and Senator Boxer are very similar in their views, here's Boxer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-barbara-boxer/stop-the-gop-electoral-c...
I live in San Francisco and I have yet to see any signature gathering. I'm sure their efforts are largely in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. One thing that CBS piece didn't mention was that people tied to Rudy Guiliani are providing the money and logistical support for this initiative.
Paul in LA @ 61:
Sorry, I saw it on TV about a months ago.
bradblog.com has a wonderful expose on the entire election fraud fiasco funded by the guiliani campaign coffers.
I guess some people who call themselves Americans will lie cheat and steal just to win and at what cost. Americans lives don't mean a thing to some Republicans.
I can tell you that in the Florida 2000 and 2004 elections, there is no low they will not stoop to in order to get votes, even if illegal.
The laws that are supposed to protect us from voter fraud have absolutely no relevance to those who think the way these criminals do. Believe it, California voters.
This happened to me in San Diego. I noticed the switch and didn't sign but was too stunned to confront the signature gatherer at the time and just walked away. Next time I will take the clipboard and leave with it.
Paul in LA @ 60:
There is actually a movement to do this, and it doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It involves states passing a law which goes into effect if enough other states, forming a majority of electoral college votes, also pass the same law. Those states agree to have their delegates vote for the winner of the popular vote. I believe a couple states have already passed laws like this.
facta non verba @ 64:
I live in Oakland, commute to SF and I haven't seen any signature gathering either. But I have, on other occasions, seen these kinds of sneaky signature gathering practices. Nasty initiatives will sometimes be bundled with decent ones. It seems to me like the people gathering the signatures don't necessarily know much about the initiatives they're working for. They're paid by the number of signatures they get, I think about $1 a signature.
CD @ 65:
I believe you have either mischaracterized her statement, or taken as serious a barbed sarcasm rebuffing the suggestion by pointing out that sauce for the goose is also good for the gander.
Gabriel @ 70 "There is actually a movement to do this, and it doesn't require a constitutional amendment."
Actually, while the EC might be adjusted as you say, we do need a Constitutional amendment explicitly giving all eligible voters the right to choose the President, without the EC in the way, and without Bush v. Gore bullshit ever happening again.
We need a new voting rights amendment specifically granting the right to vote to all Americans without antiquated maneuvers like the one the Gorey Old Perverts are trying here in California.
Direct Elections, anyone?
This is a good reason why the Electoral College system of voting needs to be abolished. Maybe more people would actually vote.
JerryO, it does not need to be abolished. It needs to be defanged, by Constitutionally (or otherwise) requiring the electors to vote in line with the popular vote in the state.
That retains the system of weighting the low population states with some regard to their actual governmental rights as states, the purpose of the EC to begin with. That's not broken. What's broken is having TWO votes per state, and not counting the popular vote as binding (as was done in Bush v Gore).
What pressure from the White House was exerted to make the video unavailable?
Login or Register to post comments.