2006 GOP Dirty Tricks

Mark Crispin Miller Live Online Tonight Taking Your Questions

davidswanson — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:08:30 -0400

Tonight from 8 - 9 p.m. ET I'll be interviewing Mark Crispin Miller and he'll be taking your questions at http://www.thepeoplespeakradio.net

Mark Crispin Miller is professor of media studies at New York University and the author of the book: Fooled Again, How the Right Stole the 2004 Elections. He is known for his writing on American media and for his activism on behalf of democratic media reform. His books include Boxed In: The Culture of TV, Seeing Through Movies, and Mad Scientists, a study of war propaganda.

Miller writes in his book, Fooled Again, that the 2000 U.S. Presidential election and 2004 U.S. Presidential election were “stolen”. Miller presents extensive documentation, backed by 56 pages of notes, supporting his contention that the outcome of both elections was altered and controlled by a small minority. He states that the American voting populace can no longer assume that their votes will be accurately assessed, and that the installation of electronic voting machines in state after state is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. electoral system. He appeared in the 2004 documentary Orwell Rolls in His Grave, which focuses on the hidden mechanics of the media, its role as it should be and what it actually is, and how it shapes (to the point of almost controlling) U.S. politics.

Mark’s new book is: Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008.

Video: David Earnhardt on Stolen Elections

davidswanson — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:29:56 -0500

On Thursday, February 21st, David Earnhardt, the writer, director, and producer of the best film yet released on election fraud, "Uncounted," showed the film and spoke about it in Charlottesville, Va., at an event hosted by the Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice (CCPJ). The week of the event, Charlottesville's daily newspaper and its two weekly newspapers wrote about the movie and the issue of election fraud: Daily Progress, The Hook, and C'ville Weekly.

CCPJ recorded a 50-minute video that includes Earnhardt's opening remarks prior to the screening of the film, and his remarks and question-and-answer session at the end. During the Q&A, Earnhardt is joined on stage by CCPJ board member David Swanson.

Small faster-loading 3gp video.
Large higher quality m4v video.

Voting on Faith

davidswanson — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 04:24:51 -0500

Machines can’t be trusted to get elections right
By David Swanson, C'ville Weekly

How can we be sure our votes in the February 12 primaries were properly counted? We can trust and hope, but we cannot be certain. Charlottesville uses DRE voting machines (Directly Recording Electronic voting machines). While the city brags that these are not touch-screen machines, because we turn a dial instead of touching a screen, the problems are the same. The machines we use have produced noticeable errors in some places around the country, such as displaying on the final page for confirmation different selections from those the voter had made. But the major danger lies in the unnoticeable.

They use the same machines in Houston, where a Rice University professor asked half his class to hack into one and leave no trace, and the other half to try to detect the hacking. About half the time the changes to the software were able to shift the results without being detected. And there’s no way for any precinct that uses these machines to know that they haven’t been hacked. The count at the end is what it is, and it may be right or wrong, but there’s no way to check it. Yes, election workers can be the best-intentioned and most diligent souls on the face of the earth (and most of them are), and they can keep the machines under constant surveillance, but—given the secret nature of the counting—how can they expect to convince losing candidates that they lost and suspicious voters that their votes were counted?

The Virginia State Constitution bans secret vote counting, but Virginia’s legislature allows the use of DREs. This is a problem that should be addressed in court. If there is a case underway, I haven’t heard about it.

Instead, voting rights activists in Virginia can celebrate that the legislature has banned the purchase of any more DREs by localities. And advocacy groups are pushing new legislation that would permit and mandate recounts of paper ballots counted by optical scan machines. Clearly this is a step in the right direction. However, the notion that optical scan machines are the way to go is likely to lead to many localities, including Albemarle and Charlottesville, trying to use their existing supply of DREs as long as possible, due to the financial cost of the optical scan machines. Those machines have had as many problems as DREs, and they are not a real solution.

The real answer is hand-counted paper ballots. This answer is not cost-free. Workers need to be hired and trained to properly handle the paper ballots, to count them publicly and immediately on site, and to properly record and store them. Until then, here is where the City of Charlottesville’s website asks us to place our faith:

“Q: How do I know that my vote has been cast and counted?

“A: Whenever a voter presses the CAST BALLOT button and the waving American flag appears, the vote is cast and counted.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if it were really that easy? In the past few elections and in recent primaries around the country, we’ve seen such problems as: precincts turning out more voters than exist (is 110 percent voter turnout an achievement in some people’s minds?), huge percentages of people voting in minor races but supposedly failing to vote at all in key contests, results that vary from unadjusted exit polls by unheard of margins, people forced to wait 12 hours to vote, people turned away in the general election who voted in the same location in the primaries, flyers advising Democrats to vote the day after the election, and dozens of other problems, most of them based in electronic voting machines, most—but definitely not all—of them swinging votes in favor of Republicans. How can we be sure Charlottesville is immune from fraud or error?

The new film, Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections, by David Earnhardt, tells the story of the 2004 and 2006 elections powerfully and convincingly. A free screening of the film with a discussion led by the filmmaker is planned for 7pm on February 21 at Sojourner’s Church in Charlottesville. Viewers will, I think, leave the screening with a very different view of recent history from the orthodox. The film presents evidence suggesting that the Democratic Party landslide in 2006 fell far short of what voters actually voted for, that George Bush has never once been elected president, and that the solution to the 2000 Florida debacle (the solution of buying electronic voting machines) took a relatively small problem and made it enormous. Uncounted is a nonpartisan take on the issue and presents evidence of Democratic fraud as well as Republican. Advocacy groups are pushing new legislation that would permit and mandate recounts of paper ballots counted by optical scan machines. Clearly this is a step in the right direction. It also suggests some solutions.

David Swanson is a Charlottesville resident and a board member of several organizations, including Voters for Peace.

Join Us for a Live Interview With "Uncounted" Director David Earnhardt

davidswanson — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:33:38 -0500

By David Swanson

As we muddle our way through primary elections fraught with errors, fraud, and suppression, it's useful to look back at the elections of 2004 and 2006. So, on Wednesday February 20th, from 8 to 9 p.m. ET I'll be interviewing David Earnhardt live online, and you can phone in with your questions.

In the past few elections, and in the recent primaries, we've seen such probems as: precincts turning out more voters than exist (is 110% voter turnout an achievement in some people's minds?), huge percentages of people voting in minor races but supposedly failing to vote at all in key contests, results that vary from unadjusted exit polls by unheard of margins, people forced to wait 12 hours to vote, people turned away in the general election who voted in the same location in the primaries, flyers advising Democrats to vote the day after the election, and dozens of other problems, most of them based in electronic voting machines, most - but definitely not all - of them swinging votes in favor of Republicans.

David Earnhardt's new film "Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections," tells this story powerfully and convincingly. If I were a reporter outside the United States and able to publish the story, I'd watch this film and report on the complete breakdown of credible democratic elections in the U.S.A. I'd report on it in the way we can expect international media to report on an election in Pakistan. If I were an American of any political persuasion I'd have a hard time watching this film and not asking what I could do about this crisis. I'd leave a theater that showed this movie with a very different view of recent history from the orthodox. I'd come away understanding that the Democratic Party landslide in 2006 fell far short of what voters actually voted for, that George Bush has never once been elected president, and that the solution to the 2000 Florida debacle (the solution of buying electronic voting machines) took a relatively small problem and made it enormous.

You can watch a trailer for the movie and buy a copy of it HERE.

You can listen to a promotion of the upcoming interview HERE.

The interview on Wednesday will be at The People Speak Radio, where you can listen live, or find the file later in the archives.

Here are details on the interview from The People Speak Radio Network:

David Earnhardt, Producer/Director/Writer

Showtime: Wednesday, February 20th - 8:00pm-9:00pm Eastern
Listen Live on BBSRadio or you may also join us live in our virtual auditorium!

An Emmy-winning producer/director of 31 years, David has produced a wide range of television and video productions including documentaries, entertainment programs, and educational videos. His work has been recognized with numerous Emmy, Iris and Telly national awards. A national documentary on children’s rights, a biographical documentary about jazz legend Helen Humes, and a comedy special featuring an up-and-coming Jay Leno are among Earnhardt’s many credits.

After seventeen years in television, Earnhardt started a new phase of his career in 1993 with Earnhardt & Co., which has grown to be one of Nashville’s most prestigious production companies. Originally co-founded by David and Patricia Earnhardt in 1993, the company specializes in high quality video presentations for a variety of nonprofit organizations. Longtime creative professional Mac Pirkle joined the firm as a partner in 2002 - and the company was soon after renamed Earnhardt Pirkle, Inc., acknowledging the strength of their partnership. Earnhardt Pirkle has produced projects for more than 250 clients and has won more than 60 national awards in its 14-year history. Mac Pirkle and Patricia Earnhardt are executive producers of UNCOUNTED.

David Earnhardt is a graduate of the University of North Carolina, where he majored in film studies. He was born in Alexandria, Virginia – and grew up in Greensboro, North Carolina. UNCOUNTED is Earnhardt’s first full-length documentary film.

UNCOUNTED is an explosive new documentary that shows how the election fraud that changed the outcome of the 2004 election led to even greater fraud in 2006 - and now looms as an unbridled threat to the outcome of the 2008 election. This controversial feature length film by Emmy award-winning director David Earnhardt examines in factual, logical, and yet startling terms how easy it is to change election outcomes and undermine election integrity across the U.S. Noted computer programmers, statisticians, journalists, and experienced election officials provide the irrefutable proof.

UNCOUNTED shares well documented stories about the spine-chilling disregard for the right to vote in America. In Florida, computer programmer Clint Curtis is directed by his boss to create software that will “flip” votes from one candidate to another. In Utah, County Clerk Bruce Funk is locked out of his office for raising questions about security flaws in electronic voting machines. Californian Steve Heller gets convicted of a felony after he leaks secret documents detailing illegal activities committed by a major voting machine company. And Tennessee entrepreneur, Athan Gibbs, finds verifiable voting a hard sell in America and dies before his dream of honest elections can be realized.

UNCOUNTED is a wakeup call to all Americans. Beyond increasing the public’s awareness, the film inspires greater citizen involvement in fixing a broken electoral system. As we approach the decisive election of 2008, UNCOUNTED will change how you feel about the way votes are counted in America.

Please visit: http://www.uncountedthemovie.com

If you can make it to Charlottesville, Va., on Thursday, February 21st, you can discuss the film with the director in person:

February 21st in Charlottesville: Free Screening of "Uncounted" With Remarks and Discussion Led By the Filmmaker

Click for larger image:
On Thursday evening, February 21st, CCPJ will screen a new film in Charlottesville on a very timely topic: the verifiability of U.S. elections. We'll bring the writer, director, and producer of "Uncounted," David Earnhardt, to town to show his film and then speak about it and lead a discussion.

There will be no charge for admission, and we encourage you to join us and bring along anyone who cares about how (and whether) votes are counted. The event begins at 7 p.m. at Sojourner's Church at 1017 Elliott Avenue and will include the screening of an 80-minute film.

"Uncounted" is a nonpartisan look at election fraud and error, with a focus on the elections of 2004 and 2006 and the problems created by the expanded use of DRE (directly recording electronic) voting machines. Both Charlottesville and Albemarle residents vote on DREs.

The film trailer can be viewed at http://www.uncountedthemovie.com

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, AGENDA 21 AND PRINCE CHARLES

Impeachthemall — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:20:10 -0400

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, AGENDA 21 AND PRINCE CHARLES

By Joan Veon
August 13, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

It has been ten years since I have been writing and studying the now established environmental philosophy of sustainable development. I was first confronted with it at the United Nations Conference on Population and Development-UNCED in Cairo, Egypt in 1994. Sustainable development was a core philosophy behind the Programme of Action called "Agenda 21" at the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development-UNCED, now dubbed the "Rio Earth Summit."

In Rio, conference Secretary-General Maurice Strong stated,

Agenda 21 - still stands as the most comprehensive, most far-reaching and, if implemented, the most effective programme of international action ever sanctioned by the international community. It is not a final and complete action programme, but one which must continue to evolve.
Sustainable development has continued to evolve as that of protecting the world's resources while its true agenda is to control the world's resources. Communism also has control at its core and it also is evolving. I remember asking former UN Secretary-General Boutros-Boutros Ghali what he meant by "change" and he told me that he was introducing "constant change" as a way to continue the evolutionary processes begun in Rio.

Under the evolutionary process which Agenda 21 set in motion, sustainable development has become like a prism. Every time you turn it, you get a different "color." The sustainable development prism includes the social, political, economic and environmental factors. Until Rio, the phrase sustainable development had not appeared in any prior UN documents, papers or reference books.

It should be noted that Agenda 21 sets up the global infrastructure needed to manage, count, and control all of the world's assets. Included are the forests, fresh water, agricultural lands, deserts, pastures, rangelands, farmers' fields, oceans and inland waterways, marine environment, marine life, cities, housing, sewer and solid wastes, methods of production, air, pollution, biotechnology-every aspect of living-farming, production and manufacturing, research and medicine, etc., along with you and I. Today everything is sustainable: sustainable water, sustainable forests, sustainable markets, sustainable agriculture, etc.

Through advanced technology such as the Geographic Information System (GIS), the control, count and management of the earth's assets is being implemented. Scientists have told me that the GIS satellites can measure the quality of soil anywhere in the earth to a depth of three inches. Furthermore, it can tell you what kind of birds and insects are in which kind of tree. It can also see you and me sleeping in our beds and living in our houses-ever wonder why leaded paint was such a problem? The UN calls this transparency while you and I call it invasion of privacy.

http://www.womensgroup.org/

Treasury Secretary John Snow

Impeachthemall — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:14:31 -0400

Comments by Joan Veon: Usually at the end of a G7 press briefing, the room is packed full. This one had more security than reporters. It was very unusual. Furthermore, they did not ask for press names and the person with the microphone did not get close enough to the reporter asking the question so everyone could hear. This is NOT how U.S. Treasury press briefing are and all of the key people were there to set it up. Snow appeared very unsettled and appeared to want to go through the motions and “get it done.” Where was the rest of the press? Good question. The Reform of the IMF is pretty major. Phrases of interest are highlighted.

In January, the Bank for International Settlements chief economist, William White wrote a white paper of his own calling for a return to the gold standard or global or regional currencies to help with global imbalances and for the IMF to have the power of surveillance over a country’s finances even if it means losing part of their national sovereignty.

This IMF/World Bank meeting was extremely historic because it, in essence, gave the IMF more power than ever before in its history. Part of the crescendo in this opera was the fact that everyone was calling for a greater supervisory role for the IMF. The white papers, the discussion, the agenda, the objective of the meeting was simply to use “global imbalances” to take more financial sovereignty that ever before. The chief economist of the IMF said this, “People tend to dismiss these [role of various actors today] as minor frictions, sand in the gears of the globalization juggernaut. History, however, suggests there is a short distance from economic patriotism to unbridled nationalism. This is why the multilateral discussions in meetings like this are so important. They help ensure we continue to benefit from globalization in an atmosphere of mutual responsibility and shared destiny.”

Rush must still be on drugs!

dinamic — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:15:25 -0400

Rush Lintballs has really out done himself on this one. You will have to see it to believe it. Watch the video here http://www.alternet.org/stories/50998/ After what Imus did and the way that it was received it is hard to understand why the MSM isn't jumping all over this one.

Tearing Heads Off

Chip — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:51:13 -0400

Humor is a funny thing. Show the same thing to various people, and some will think it's funny, others, not. I can only wonder why, out of the universe of possibilities, Karl Rove, noted as "Bush’s Brain," would choose to say, even "jokingly," that his hobby is "tearing the tops off small animals...headless"

It was only a joke, ya know, made by a man facing the pressures of increasing scrutiny.

But we do know that there's a correlation between cruelty to animals and sociopathic behavior.

The sociopath may lack empathy, but he (or she) is an expert at exploiting it in others. Any domestic violence professional knows of women who remained with abusers because of threats to harm a beloved pet. Any CPS caseworker can tell you about cases in which a child abuser also hurt—or killed—the victim's pet. Any sex crimes detective can tell you that child molesters know a puppy or a kitten is a far more effective lure than candy.

...interactions between children and animals tell us about ourselves...we have a window of opportunity — childhood — within which to redirect the production of sociopaths. The antidote is the development of empathy. And observation and analysis of children's interaction with animals is the key to that door."

"Sociopathy is chiefly characterized by something wrong with the person's conscience. They either don't have one, it's full of holes like Swiss cheese, or they are somehow able to completely neutralize or negate any sense of conscience or future time perspective. Sociopaths only care about fulfilling their own needs and desires - selfishness and egocentricity to the extreme. Everything and everybody else is mentally twisted around in their minds as objects to be used in fulfilling their own needs and desires. They often believe they are doing something good for society, or at least nothing that bad."

What are the ramifications if sociopaths control government? If whole groups of people become followers, deluded by nationalistic tendencies, religious doctrines and ethnocentricities? Whole studies have been done about Bush, but we as a nation are only beginning to critically evaluate the impact of our foreign policy's imperial adventurism on our status as a global superpower.

As we watched Congress debate continuing funds for an immoral, illegal, "preemptive" war upon another sovereign nation to pillage their black gold under the appealing guise of "bringing democracy to the Middle East" we wonder why terrorism, especially youthful terrorism, is taking hold and growing.

CNN’s Christian Amanpour reported in her documentary "The War Within" that young Muslims in Britain "are angry about the war, angry that their country so devotedly follows U.S. foreign policy, angry at what they see as a worldwide war against Muslims and Islam. A London youth worker, Hanif Qadir, explained that 'the message of extremism preys on many kids who see no way out of their ethnic ghettos. Those youth,' he said, 'have always had vices - - street crime, drugs, car thefts. But then now you've got another threat,' Hanif Qadir told Amanpour. 'The new threat is radicalism. It's a cause. Every young man wants a cause...What struck us most was how deeply the Iraq war has radicalized today's generation of young Muslims in Britain.'"

For empathetic people, it's not too hard to understand how the dynamics of terrorism radicalize youth. Youth, in their zeal and inexperience, are vulnerable to exploitation by political forces. Show Muslim youth the beauty and culture that was Iraq and contrast it with the (WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC CONTENT) diabolical horrors our American public foreign policy inflicts on the Iraqi civilians, and it’s not hard to understand their radicalism.

Figuring the way out isn’t hard. "Just do it!" the old Nike commercial encouraged; it's still valid advice. But that doesn’t address the long-term threats we, and our children for generations to come, face. America the superpower has demonstrated for all the world to see the weakness and vulnerabilities of its military might. We are part of the global community, and as such, we need to demonstrate true world leadership: “We owe it to ourselves, and the country that we will pass off to our children to relearn and teach the tools of reason, logic, clarity, dissent, civility and debate.”

Stephen Crockett: Democratic Activists Harassed by Republican Lunatics

Chip — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:56:09 -0500

In the wake of Ann Coulter's meltdown, Steven Crockett, co-host of Democratic Talk Radio wrote about other typical forms of harassment against Democratic activists from his own experience in "Democratic Activists Harassed by Republican Lunatics."

The idea seems to be to make political activism personally unpleasant and nasty. The Republican Right has routinely acted in this manner to keep voters from the polls. New activists and writers are often discouraged by these tactics. Many veterans of Democratic Internet activism are encouraged. I certainly am emboldened and delighted by the harassment. It means I am being effective and the opposition would like to silence me.

When I first started writing the Democratic Voices column and airing Democratic Talk Radio, the Republican Right lunatic fringe tried to harass us out of business with a tidal wave, frontal assault of insults, venom, profanities, obscenities, occasional death threats, anthrax hoax letters, etc. Once I wrote about how delighted these Republican attacks made me, they slowed to a mere trickle.

We restricted open posting on the Democratic message board and screened-out those members of the lunatic fringe Republicans engaging in the tactics mentioned. The message board was always meant to be a place for Democratic activists to exchange ideas, opinions and information and not a place for debate between activists of different Parties. There are plenty of places for that kind of dialogue other than my site. Our mission statement always made the purpose of the message board clear.

Since only Democratic activists were meant to use the site, Democratic Talk Radio instituted a screening process to keep disrupters from posting disinformation, profanity and insults on our site. We found that Republicans from the lunatic fringe had no problem lying to gain temporary access. They falsely claimed to be Democratic activists, thereby stealing use of private property against the wishes of the owner. So much for respect of property rights by the lunatic fringe of the Republican Right.

A few of them were successful at infiltration for a few months and created a degree of havoc. For many years, the Republican disrupters have pretended to be Libertarians while actually making statements taking positions that are Republican talking points and completely in opposition of real Libertarian ideology. They claimed to be Independents as often as they claimed to be Libertarians. The claims were equally false.

The verbal venom usually gives the imposters away. They have a strong tendency to revert to name-calling and intentional distortion of verbal statements or writings by Democrats. They frequently switch topics when supposedly commenting on topics or articles on various websites just to launch unrelated attacks on things Democratic. Readers should be wary of the motives of anti-Democratic critics using these tactics. They may be agents of the Republican Right.

Infiltration by the Republican Right of opposition groups goes back at least to the Nixon era. The current Republican Right is still closely wedded to the corrupt political tactics of the Nixon era. The 2000 Republican Presidential Primary in South Carolina saw the Bush Republicans absolutely smear their opponent, John McCain. Karl Rove used and is using Nixonian tactics everyday while running the political operations of the Bush White House.

The Scooter Libby trial has shown that dirty politics in Republican Party reaches the very top. We all understand that Tom Delay is not outside the mainstream of Republican politics. Bush and Cheney lied to the American public in order to get us into a disastrous war in Iraq, undermine the Constitutional Separation of Church and State, tilt the tax code heavily in favor of the wealthiest of the wealthy, etc. The Republican Right has a very serious political ethics problem. Honesty is not their strong point. Dirty politics is!

It is not surprising to find them now pretending to be supporters of the anti-Democratic Left. Besides making political involvement nasty, they appear to be trying to divide the opposition to Republican Right policies. The only viable electoral opposition to the Republican Right is the populist base of the Democratic Party.

Frankly, I have very good relations with many real Populists, Libertarians and Greens. We often agree on issues and work together to promote specific positions or policies. Democratic populists have a great deal in common with many third party supporters. In time, many of these third party supporters will find it comfortable to become either Democrats or Democratic-leaning Independents if populism in Democratic circles continue to grow.

Populist Democrats do often struggle against "Republican-lite" elements inside our Party. I believe that the populist Democratic approach now dominates in Democratic circles. The populist control is increasing in strength day by day in community after community. Certainly, Howard Dean, as the national leader of the Democratic Party, is a great example of the rising national ascendancy of Democratic populism.

Major Swift Boat Donor To Kerry: "You're A Hero"

Bob Geiger — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:44:19 -0500

There are some things that you just don’t want to read about or watch on a full stomach -- this is one of those.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Tuesday to consider the nomination of Sam Fox, a wealthy St. Louis businessman, to be the new U.S. Ambassador to Belgium. While it is not unusual for big political donors to be rewarded with ambassadorships -- and Fox is a huge donor to all things Republican -- what made everyone take note of this guy is that Fox gave a whopping $50,000 to help fund the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign against John Kerry in 2004.

And in being questioned by the Senate panel yesterday, Fox had to face one of the senior members of that committee in… Senator John Kerry.

What followed was riveting theater, with Kerry coldly staring down a clearly-nervous Fox and Bush's nominee withstanding a barrage of questions from Kerry that the Massachusetts Senator nicely referred to as questions of Fox's "judgment" while many of us would have just flat-out called him a scumbag.

It all started out nicely, with glowing introductions, including one nauseating passage from Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) who said that "professionally and morally, Sam is eminently qualified to hold the post for which he's been nominated."

But it gets far worse than just hearing someone rave about the high morals of a guy who gave 50 grand to the Swift Boat Liars.

Kerry got his turn to question Fox and started out politely enough, praising Fox's up-by-the-bootstraps life story and his generosity with non-political charities, while also asking him about American foreign policy vis-à-vis the European community.

The tone then changed sharply when Kerry switched gears and, indicating he had concerns about Fox's judgment, said "I assume that you believe the truth in public life is important."

"Yes, sir," answered Fox.

"And might I ask you what your opinion is with respect to the state of American politics, as regards the politics of personal destruction?" said Kerry.

This started a lengthy monologue from Fox in which Bush's nominee railed against how campaigns are funded in the United States, saving most of his bile for 527 groups, saying " I'm against 527s, I've always been against 527s. I think, again, they're mean and destructive, I think they've hurt a lot of good, decent people."

I'm sure some people in the hearing room must have been stifling laughs hearing something like that coming from a man who was a major contributor to the scummiest 527 group ever, but the worst was to come in the next few sentences.

"Senator Kerry, I very much respect your dedicated service to this country," said Fox. "I know that you were not drafted -- you volunteered. You went to Vietnam. You were wounded. Highly decorated. Senator, you're a hero. And there isn’t anybody or anything that's going to take that away from you. But yet 527s tried to."

Here's the exchange that followed:

Kerry: I certainly appreciate the comments you just made, Mr. Fox, and I'm not looking for anyone to call me a hero. I think that most heroes died, and do die, and those of us who are lucky enough to get out of there are lucky.

But notwithstanding the comments you made, you did see fit to contribute a very significant amount of money in October to a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, correct?

Fox: Correct.

Kerry: Why would you do that given what you just said about how bad they are?

Fox: Well, Senator, I have to put it in the proper context and bear with me. Marilyn and I have lived the American dream -- there's no question about it. My father came here with the clothes on his back and the Fox family and the Woodman family have truly lived the American dream that's been very, very good to us.

I heard someone mention here that we gave to 250 charities. I also went back and had my staff count in '05 and '06, we've made more than 1,000 contributions. More than 100 of those were political, 900 and some odd were charitable and to institutions of learning and so forth. A great deal of those had to do with basic human needs. I think it was Senator Danforth who mentioned every time he got a letter that had Harbour Group on it, he shuddered because it was going to cost him money. Marilyn and I both raise a lot of money from a lot of people.

The point I'm making is this: We ask a lot of people for money and people ask us for money. And very fortunately, we've been blessed with being successful financially and when we're asked, we generally give -- particularly if we know who gave it.

Kerry: So, well, who asked you to give to the SBVT?

Fox: I can't tell you specifically who did because, you know, I don’t remember. As a matter of fact, if I…

Kerry: You have no recollection of why you gave away $50,000?

Fox: I gave away $50,000 because I was asked to.

Kerry: But you have no recollection of who asked you to give away $50,000?

Fox: No, sir. I've given away sums much larger than that to a lot of other places and I can't tell you specifically who asked me, no.

Kerry: Well, you don’t think that's it's important as a citizen, who doesn’t like 527s to know where your money is going and how it’s going to be spent?

Fox: Well, I think with most contributors and if you go to the other side of the political campaigns and we give to individual candidates, we don’t know how they’re going to use that money and what…

Kerry: Well at least it's accountable to an individual candidate for whom people have to vote or not vote. 527s as you said are mean, ugly and not accountable.

Fox: I agree with that. I absolutely agree with that.

As Kerry pressed Fox to explain why he would give $50,000 to a 527 group when he claims to despise them so much -- and that he now knows spewed lies at Kerry that were quickly discredited -- the Swift Boat Sugar Daddy repeated a theme he used several times in his testimony, which is essentially that he did it to level the playing field with the attacks coming from liberal 527 groups.

In other words, he all but said Kerry was simply collateral damage in a political fight.

Kerry: Why would you give $50,000 to a group you have no sense of accountability for?

Fox: Well, because if 527s were banned, then it's banned for both parties. And so long as they’re not banned…

Kerry: So two wrongs make a right?

Fox: Well, I don’t know, but if one side is contributing then the other side…

Kerry: But is that your judgment? Is that your judgment that you would bring to the ambassadorship? That two wrongs make a right?

Fox: No, I didn’t say that two wrongs make a right, sir.

Kerry: Why would you do it then?

Fox: Well, I did it because politically, it's necessary if the other side is doing it.

And no matter what Kerry asked, Fox played dumb, saying he forgot who asked him for the $50,000 and that he had no clue that the Swift Boat Liars were doing such dirty deeds with his money.

Kerry: My question to you is why? When you say you couldn’t have known -- these were people very publicly condemning it. How could you not have known?

Fox: I guess, Mr. Senator, when I'm asked I just generally give.

Kerry: So, again, I ask you the question, do you think now that you and others bear responsibility for thinking about where we put money in American politics? What we're saying, what we present to the American people -- is truth important or isn’t it?

Fox: Senator, if I had reason to believe and if I were convinced that the money was going to be used to, in any untruthful or false way, knowingly, I would not give.

Kerry: Well, sir, let me ask you this question: Did you or did you not in any of the public comments being made at the time, which I assume you were following, hear or read of any of the public statements at that point in time, with respect to the legitimacy of these charges and these smears?

Fox: Mr. Senator, I can say this…

Kerry: Did you miss this: In September of 2004, Vice Admiral Ruth, with the Navy Inspector General, wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Navy that was made public -- the New York Times, the Washington Post, every major newspaper in the country carried, saying their examination found that the existing documentation regarding my medals was legitimate.

Did you miss that too?

Fox: I don’t remember those, but I'm certain at the time I must have read them.

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), who was chairing the meeting, told Fox that he found his answers to Kerry "somewhat unsatisfying" and said that "The swift boat ads were of a different degree, even in the ugly arena of politics. They were extraordinarily well publicized, that there was essentially a fraud being perpetrated on the American people. It had a profound impact on the election."

And Obama tied a nice bow around the whole afternoon by basically calling Fox, who spent the entire time disavowing any knowledge of the Swift Boaters' mission or methods, a liar.

"To say that you gave because it's ugly out there and somebody asked you to give. I mean, it sounds to me like you were aware of it -- that this was not the best of political practices -- and you thought it was OK to go ahead and contribute to that," said Obama. "By the time you contributed, it was pretty widely noted -- it would have been hard for you to miss the fact that there was something particularly nasty and insidious about these ads. It had been well publicized at this point."

"I don’t think you necessarily crafted the message but you certainly knew at that point what the message was."

I have a lengthy, partial transcript here of Kerry questioning Fox about his involvement with the Swift Boat Liars and how that lack of ethics and judgment should disqualify Fox from representing our country at a cocktail mixer, much less with an important ally abroad.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.