Empty Chair

Empty Chair: "If I were Rush Holt, I'd be damned if I would subject myself to the kind of abuse hurled at him from voting integrity advocates ... to say nothing of all of the attacks coming from election officials," said a board member of one of the national election reform groups.  

Jonathan Simon

Jonathan Simon of Election Defense Alliance supported the idea of a debate. "Bev Harris constructively calls for a public debate on the core of the critical issue we are all facing, a debate which might possibly help resolve the confusions of highly informed people such as myself, let alone bring some much needed awareness to the less informed."  

Paul Lehto

Paul Lehto repeated his challenge: "I think we both benefit from an informed and aroused citizenry, so at an important level a debate would be a win-win situation for democracy. Do you accept?"  

No dice.  

Empty Chair

Empty Chair: "My side won this debate before it started, because the anti-HR 811 forces have never presented a feasible alternative." This came from one of the most academically decorated supporters of the HR 811 legislation.

Overriding Lehto's curiosity about how those votes on the debate were counted, high profile political blogger Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com weighed in: 

Brad Friedman 

Brad Friedman: "That is simply untrue. Many of us offered very specific and very feasible alternatives."  

An aggressive proponent of the new legislation who first opposed it but now supports it, stepped into the fray:  

Empty Chair

Empty Chair: "I would recommend strongly not to give Paul Lehto any credibility by debating him."  

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8