Bill Clinton was in Los Angeles on Friday to promote Proposition 87, which would force oil producers (not consumers) to pay taxes on oil at the wellhead in order to fund renewable energies. 

California Progress Report has posted his full speech.

Clinton on what 87 will do for California:

Prop 87 will move California toward energy independence with cleaner fuels, with wind and solar power. There are people who don't believe you can do it. I do. Look at Brazil. Don't you think you can do it if they did it? They run their cars on ethanol.

Clinton on the myth that 87 is a tax on consumers:

Now, I know the oil companies have trotted out some economists in their ads. But let me ask you something: If they really thought you were going to pay for this, would they be spending all that money trying to convince you to vote against it? You need to know that California is the only state in America without any kind of extraction fee on its natural resources on oil.

Clinton on the larger picture of Prop 87:

California is being given an opportunity and an obligation to do something remarkable to save the planet and improve our national security and create the next generation of good jobs for the American people. That's what Prop 87 represents to me.

It's interesting, I was talking with someone recently about how extraordinary it was that a former president was campaigning for a state's ballot initiative and it struck me that there must be something larger at stake here politically than merely the passage of Prop 87. I hypothesized that this was about defining the Democratic Party as the party of renewable energy and alternative fuels. Thomas Friedman's latest column in The New York Times suggests I may be partly right. 

Friedman tells of a conversation he had recently with James Carville, Bill Clinton's famed advisor, who has been overwhelmed by polling suggesting the importance of energy independence to voters these days. But it's about more than energy. As Clinton himself frames it above, energy independence is about national security. According to Carville:

“Energy independence…is now the No. 1 national security issue. … It’s become kind of a joke with us, because no matter how we ask the question, that’s what comes up.”

Carville, as the Democratic strategist that he is, sees its implications for the Democratic Party brand.

What this means for Democratic Party candidates, argues Mr. Carville, is that it’s no longer enough to have “energy security” as part of a 12-step plan for American renewal. No, it needs to become a defining issue of what Democrats are all about.

Furthermore:

The best way for a party that is often viewed as weak on national security to overcome that deficit is to be for energy independence, he noted. Indeed, nothing would be more potent for Democrats now than to capture energy security and all the issues that surround it — from improving our trade deficit by not importing more oil to improving the climate to improving U.S. competitiveness by making us leaders in alternative fuels.

At a time when Democrats are just starting to beat Republicans on the issue of national security, this is the perfect time for the party to reframe the national security debate altogether. It's what Carville is clearly doing behind closed doors and it's what Bill Clinton was doing at UCLA on Friday. It's also what Al Gore did in his ad for Prop 87. Just look at how his ad ends:

Prop 87 is the one thing Californians can do now to clean up the air, help stop the climate crisis and free us from foreign oil. The sooner we do it, the safer we'll be.

This debate goes well beyond Prop 87. For the future health and potency of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement as a whole, it's about the energy security, stupid. 

(Some edits – promoted by SFBrianCL)

(Cross-posted from The Courage Campaign)

Bill Clinton is coming to town tomorrow to campaign for Proposition 87. He'll be appearing at the Murphy Sculpture Garden at UCLA at 9:15am for a rally.

Get your ticket HERE.

Clinton is very supportive of prop 87:

“[The Clinton Global Initiative] was designed to tackle big global challenges in bite size pieces,” President Clinton said. “This is a very, very good thing to do and, since California is our biggest state, it pumps 190 million tons of pollution into the air from cars, trucks and buses that run on gasoline and diesel every single year. This is a big deal. I’m very grateful to them.” (Prop 87 Blog)

(It’s been said that McPherson, the former newspaper mogul, would garner every newspaper endorsement. I guess some papers chose their interest in a well-functioning democracy over industry loyalty. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

(Cross-posted from The California Courage Campaign)

On a blogger conference call recently, Debra Bowen warned us that since McPherson had been a "newspaper man" in a former career, she's been advised not to expect any newspaper endorsements in her race against him for Secretary of State. The Sacramento Bee seemed to confirm this warning when it endorsed, barely, McPherson.

While the case for McPherson is strong, this race is a close call. McPherson's Democratic opponent, state Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, is smart and articulate. She successfully authored legislation to place state bill information and committee analyses on the Internet.

What tipped the Bee in favor of McPherson? She's a reformer and that’s baaaaaad.

Unfortunately, county registrars complain that her aggressive demeanor as chair of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendment Committee has created tensions rather than building the collaboration and trust that are essential between state and county elections officials. 

Today, The San Jose Mercury News has endorsed Debra Bowen for Secretary of State for this very reason. They get that Bowen's toughness with the county registrars is exactly what is required.

McPherson is less likely to challenge county officials. But if county registrars had their way, none of California's landmark electronic voting reforms, like a paper trail, would be in effect today. A secretary of state must be willing to lead the registrars on issues of voting integrity and accountability. Bowen would do this.

They also get that Debra's long career as a legislator fighting for open government perfectly prepares her for the office of Secretary of State.

Bowen…is far more skeptical of electronic systems than McPherson. Throughout her 14 years in the Legislature, Bowen has been a leading advocate for open government. Using technology on behalf of democracy has been her passion. She sponsored legislation that put bills and committee reports on the Internet; she served on a committee that brought the court system into the electronic age. As secretary of state, she would require tighter rules on electronic voting and encourage the creation of open-source software to guarantee security and accuracy.

In addition, the Mercury News's endorsement draws a crucial point of distinction between the two candidates on SB370, the law that Bowen carried through the legislature and Schwarzenegger signed last year that requires a voter-verified paper receipt for all electronic voting machines. McPherson opposed it.

Their disagreement over SB 370, which Bowen sponsored last year, perhaps best illustrates the differences in philosophy and approach between her and McPherson. Now law, the bill required that counties use the voter-verified paper receipt, which touch-screen machines are now required to produce, for recounts and for random audits. McPherson opposed the bill, in large part because county registrars didn't want it. But SB 370 provides a critical check against fraud and machine malfunctioning, which Schwarzenegger recognized in signing the bill.

The San Jose Mercury News thanks Bruce McPherson for his service as a transitional figure in the wake of the chaos that Kevin Shelley left behind. But in the end, they make the correct choice.

McPherson restored stability to the office. Bowen would bring dynamism and skepticism that the position needs. She is our choice.

(cross-posted from The California Courage Campaign)

A new Yes on 87 ad campaign launched today featuring Al Gore. Watch it below.

 

Al Gore and Prop 87 are a perfect fit, of course, as the initiative would raise money toward research and development of alternative fuels by making oil companies pay their fair share at the oil well-head.

More over the flip.

This is great that Al has entered the fray considering the success of An Inconvenient Truth and his widely held passion for and credibility on this issue. But he is hardly the only high profile name backing 87. The ad campaign was launched in simultaneous events throughout California today by celebrities including James Caan and Jamie Lee Curtis as well as hole in the ozone layer Nobel prize winner Dr. Sherwood Rowland.

In addition, check out this list of notables who support the initiative:

President Bill Clinton leads a growing coalition backing Proposition 87 that includes Senator Dianne Feinstein, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, the American Lung Association of California, the Coalition for Clean Air, Americans for Energy Independence, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, businesses, Nobel Prize laureates and other leading environmental, local government and public health organizations. 

Learn more about Yes on 87.

The California Courage Campaign has launched our fall campaign to oppose the Bush agenda on the ballot in California this November in the form of several propositions.

Our Stop Bush in CA page is an excellent resource for information regarding the initiatives on which we’re taking stands:

No on 85

Yes on 86

Yes on 87

Yes on 89

No on 90.

We’ve also just launched a letter to the editor writing campaign to get the word out in the media that Proposition 90 is unacceptable and needs to be opposed. Please join the effort by going HERE and using our user-friendly webtools, complete with talking points, to send an LTE today.

I’m also going to be keeping tabs on all the proposition news in my weekly (or perhaps more frequent, as needed) “Prop Watch.”

Join me for all the latest proposition news over the flip.

Proposition 85

The OC Register has an article reminding us that this year’s Prop 85 is essentially a re-write of last year’s parental notification bill, Prop 73. The bills are nearly identical except for some strategic changes that have been made to the wording of this year’s model:

Proponents have adjusted the wording of the measure in an effort to weaken some arguments against it. One change is removing the definition of a fetus as "a child conceived but not yet born." Opponents last year pointed to that as an indication of the philosophy and ultimate intent of the backers…

Another change is stating explicitly that a parent can sign a standing waiver for their daughter, which would allow her to get an abortion any time without special notification. This is designed to defuse the argument of the parent who says, "I just want my daughter to be safe if she's going to have an abortion, I don't care if I know," said Albin Rhomberg of "Yes on 85."

Proponents are confident that even if the original wording remained intact, 85 would pass this year. They attribute the 53-47% defeat of 73 to the "vote No on everything" anti-Arnold wave of the 2005 special election.

While The L.A. Times acknowledges the changes to the newer bill, it says Prop 85 "still contains the same troubling provisions" and "remains part of a broader campaign to chisel away at a woman’s right to privacy."

More over the flip.

They lay out the case against Prop 85 in a recent OpEd:

By requiring doctors to notify a girl’s parents (or seek court permission) before she can end her pregnancy, Proposition 85 interferes with the doctor-patient relationship. The measure would almost invariably delay abortions, and because teens are more likely to find out later rather than sooner that they are pregnant, it could lead to more later-term procedures, which are riskier and more complicated.

For girls who are afraid to report molestation by a family member, the proposition would create an almost insurmountable obstacle. Similar laws in other states have not appreciably changed teen pregnancy or abortion rates.

Let’s make sure Prop 85 doesn’t pass. VOTE NO ON 85

Proposition 89

In their ongoing quest to make the case for clean money, The Yes on 89 folks have compiled a list of the special interest money that has flowed into California from out of state in the last 5 years. Remarkably, Middlesex County, New Jersey is responsible for more donations to California campaigns ($10.2 million) than Kern County, California is ($7.5 million.) Why?

Middlesex County is the home of Johnson & Johnson and other pharmaceutical companies involved in last fall's high-priced ballot battle over discounts for prescription drugs.

Big Pharma isn’t the only special interest investing in California campaigns. This year, add big tobacco to the list.

Since the June election, there have been at least nine new contributions of more than $5 million, led by a $13.8 million donation from Philip Morris and $10 million from R.J. Reynolds, of out-of-state tobacco companies that have each put up more than $20 million to fight Prop. 86, which would boost the state tax on cigarettes by $2.60 a pack.

That fact alone makes you want to support Prop 86, doesn’t it? We are. Learn more at Yes on 86.

Meanwhile, a new poll shows that while Californians are critical of the role of big money in our elections, Prop 89 has not yet made its case with voters.

A poll released today by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that 61 percent of likely voters are convinced the current system that allows politicians to collect millions of dollars in special interest campaign contributions is hurting the state, while only 6 percent think it's good for California.

But when asked whether they backed Prop. 89, which is designed to take almost all private money out of California campaigns, only 25 percent of those surveyed said yes, compared with 61 percent who said they would vote against the initiative. 

Proposition 90

The City Council of Pasadena has joined the California League of Cities in formally opposing Proposition 90, the so-called “Protect Our Homes Act.” You almost have to admire how perfectly Rovian its title is considering what a far cry it is from describing what the measure would actually do.

While acknowledging some reform is necessary, opponents said a provision requiring the government to pay property owners for substantial economic loss resulting from regulations on use of private property would end up costing taxpayers billions in lawsuits. "This goes way, way too far," said Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the No on 90 campaign. "Now, when a developer wants to build 50 houses and the city tells him he can only build 25 – he can sue for compensation for the others."

While Prop 90 would

prohibit local governments from using eminent domain to acquire private property unless the government itself plans on using it.

The Pasadena City Council took issue with the fact that 90

would prevent cities from acquiring blighted areas, eliminating slum lords, building affordable housing and providing public facilities by private for-profit agencies.

In other words it would prevent the government from doing what’s best for its citizens. 

Help us fight Prop 90 by writing a letter to the editor today. 

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

(cross-posted at The California Courage Campaign)

On Saturday I attended an amazing election protection event here in Los Angeles. Co-sponsored by SoCal Grassroots, Velvet Revolution, and Progressive Democrats of America, the event brought together a veritable who’s who of the nationwide fight to make sure the votes we cast are the votes that are counted. The fact that it was held in the Immanuel Presbyterian Church seemed only appropriate considering the passion activists have for this topic, especially here in California.

More on the event over the flip.

It was only this past February that our Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, a Republican appointed by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, re-certified Diebold machines for use in California’s 2006 elections despite having just released a report that cited serious flaws in the Diebold software. And it was this past June 6, primary day here in California, that this re-certification got its first real world application…and failed miserably. Not only were poll workers sent home with Diebold machines for days prior to the election in San Diego County (the now famous “sleep-overs,” ) which should have nullified the votes by definition of McPherson’s own “conditions for recertification,” but up in Kern County, the machines just plain didn’t work, leading to mass dis-enfranchisement. So yes, the timing of these events has made us quite sensitive to the issue. Luckily, we have a champion, a savior, if you will, in State Senator (and netroots all-star) Debra Bowen, who is challenging McPherson for his job. This is by far the most important statewide election Californians will be deciding this November and should be on all of our minds as we head into November.

As I walked through the nave of the church to find a seat, I was happy to see the Princeton University study video projected onto a small screen for our viewing pleasure (or horror) as we waited.

The event’s prime mover, Michael Jay of SoCal Grassroots, introduced the forum’s moderator, Brad Friedman of Brad Blog, who promptly took his place at the podium. He immediately brought up the Princeton study, which showed all too simply how a Diebold machine may be hacked and votes switched from one candidate to another without anyone knowing. Friedman spoke of The Washington Post article that actually deigned to report on the study, which said that “nobody knew” who’d sent the Princeton professors the Diebold machine they used in their test.

Freidman quipped with a smirk:

"Well, clearly they never checked with me."

The place erupted in applause.

"These machines do not work, they are not accurate, we need to do something about it. The media and politicians don’t seem to care. It is my job to be the media."

If you haven’t been to BradBlog, it’s the number one resource on the web for election protection issues and news. Check it out, he's doing great work.

Friedman spoke of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which provided funds to states to transition to electronic voting so that we wouldn’t have a repeat of 2000. The main architect of HAVA: Bob Ney, who recently pleaded guilty in Ohio. Friedman laughed that it is truly poetic justice that as an incarcerated felon in Ohio, which hopefully Ney will be very soon, the Congressman (yes, he still is one!) will have the right to vote stripped from him.

It wasn’t long before the marquee speaker at the event, State Senator Debra Bowen, California’s next Secretary of State, was introduced.

As her name was spoken, all of us in that church were on our feet. She always brings the house down at these events, her mere presence giving us the assurance that someone cares, someone understands how important this issue is to us. And the thing is, she truly does.

She spoke passionately of her mission on our behalf. 

“My campaign is about defending the simple idea of self-governance. By the people, of the people, for the people.”

The way we exercise this right, of course, is through elections, and it is only by ensuring the integrity of those elections that we can truly fulfill this most basic tenet of our democracy.

"I welcome you all to join me in an event on Nov 7. It’s called an election."

She was, of course, calling on us to vote, but that’s not all. She urged us to be poll workers on election day; to go to the registrar of voters office and learn the system. In her role as State Senator, she is fighting to make the election process in California as transparent as possible.

"So simple but so important."

She also spoke about an unconscionable deal struck by our current Secretary of State that required an exact match between ones voter registration on file and an alternate form of state identification, such as a driver’s license. Millions of people were purged from the rolls in L.A. County because of discrepancies in their information, whether it was the inverting of numbers in an address, a maiden name on one form of identification and married name on another or a mis-placed dash or period. This classic method of right wing disenfranchisement was clearly meant to target the working poor (who move more often) and new citizens, both Democratic voter constituencies. Debra Bowen fought successfully to lower the bar for what constituted a match, which put most of those stricken from the rolls back on.

"We are fighting to allow people to cast ballots."

Again, so simple, but so important.

She also spoke of changing the auditing procedures when a recount is called for. She carried  SB370 through the Senate, which demands that a paper trail will be used to audit electronic voting machines. McPherson opposed it. He also opposed that absentee ballots be part of the 1% audit during a recount.

"When I become Secretary of State…"

Applause.

"We will not use voting systems that are not secure. We will be able to look at the software. It will be a matter of public record."

Applause.

"This is not for me. This is all for you, this is your election, this is your state, this is your country."

Huge applause, standing O.

Bowen is such a class act. She is so sincere, so smart and so attractive as a candidate. She doesn’t come across as extreme yet still manages to tap into the conspiracy theorist within us all.

The next marquee name of the event is a hero to everyone in that church, a true darling of all Los Angeles activists: Congresswoman Maxine Waters. She is one of those rare speakers who you just can’t take your eyes off. She is so compelling a visual and aural force, she just captivates you. Add to that her genuine progressive credentials and you can imagine the response she got in that church.

She began by thanking us.

"Thank you for standing up and making mealy-mouthed Democrats speak up and say and do what we need to be doing."

She spoke of being up in Minnesota last week, where Keith Ellison won the primary in Minnesota’s 5th, which means he will be going to Congress in January. She was struck by the fact that Minnesota has same-day registration.

 "We should have same day registration in every state in the country. California needs same day registration."

She spoke of the re-authorization of the voting rights act and the remarkable fact that it’s being contested by conservatives.

 "I thought we’d already fought this fight."

And she spoke passionately about the need for us to take over the voting process from the government.

"We need a delegation to go to every county registrar of voters office to walk us through the system. Scrutinize every aspect of the system so that we can get corrections and file suits if we must to make sure these are systems we can count on."

We need to take over the polling places on election day.

 "Recruit polling workers. In the churches, labor unions, bars, social clubs. Let’s get these polling places manned."

She also spoke of consolidations whereby polling places in certain precincts are consolidated, making fewer and fewer polling places requiring people to go further and further from their homes to vote. She called on Debra Bowen to outlaw these consolidations when she is Secretary of State.

"When."

Huge applause.

Then something surprising happened. It seemed to surprise even Congresswoman Waters. Michael Jay, of SoCal Grassroots, got a woman manning the assignment desk at Fox News on the phone and began to tell her about the event. Jay then gave Maxine Waters the phone. We could hear both sides of the conversation. It went so quickly I didn’t get it all but this is how it began.

Waters: Are you going to help us get the word out?

Fox News: This is the assignment desk and we have a lot of things going on.

Waters: Is there anyone you can assign to this story?

Fox News: No, all reporters are out reporting on stories.

Laughter. Some boos.

There was then a sort of confusion where the woman on the other end of the line was like “I don’t know what this event is.” So Waters explained it to her in her inimitable way and asked her several questions with growing volume and passion, which culminated in: 

Waters: Are you going to help us get the word out on this important issue!?

Fox News: (beat) Yes.

Which of course led to huge applause. They videotaped it so hopefully it will be up on You Tube soon. It was classic.

Michael Jay then took the podium again and drew our attention to flyers that had been placed on all of our seats. They included phone numbers to members of the media and we took 5 minutes to make phone calls to the numbers on the sheet to inform them of what we were doing there and the importance of securing the integrity of our elections. It was such an ingenious grassroots thing to spring on us. In a flash, people were on their phones calling the media without even blinking. Offline grassroots activism at its purest.

Friedman returned to the podium and spoke a bit about the primary election in Maryland last week and urged all Democrats to do what Donna Edwards is doing:

 "Do not concede until every vote is counted."

He then spoke of the bi-partisan support we have on the issue of election protection.

 "It’s not about right and left, it’s about right and wrong."

He said that even Lou Dobbs said these machines be removed completely until their security can be guaranteed. Friedman then played a clip of Southern California wingnut radio personality Roger Hedgecock ("he makes Ann Coulter sound like Cindy Sheehan." ) expressing solidarity woth Friedman on the issue of election protection.

Friedman then introduced Holly Jacobson of VoterAction.org. She is fighting to reverse the trend toward election privatization all over the country. Voteraction.org has filed law suits to halt the purchase and certification of Diebold machines. In fact on Thursday, a judge here in California refused to grant an injunction against the use of Diebold machines for use in our November elections.

Voteraction.org’s hope is that states all over the country will follow the example of New Mexico. Governor Bill Richardson was so outraged by what happened with Sequoia voting machines in the 2002 mid-term elections there that he introduced a bill requiring the state to use nothing but paper ballots in their elections. The legislature passed it and it is currently in effect.

Friedman then introduced Mimi Kennedy of Progressive Democrats of America and Nosleepovers.org (you know her better as Dharma’s mom on Dharma and Greg.) She spoke eloquently on the current reality of the state of electronic voting here in Los Angeles. We currently still use “InkaVote,” where we place an ink spot on a card. But early voting is via Diebold machines.

Kennedy then introduced Connie McCormack, the L.A. County Registrar of Voters. She had in her arms a stack of poll worker applications. She urged us all to become poll workers. She also invited us to come to her office. She said it’s open to the public, we should all feel free to come and learn the election process so that it’s open and transparent.

McCormack was aparently an early adopter of Diebold machines. She now is a believer that more security precautions need to be taken. She assured us that she is on our side.

She also gave us a good piece of advice:

"If you vote absentee, Xerox the outside envelope where you have the number and signature. They might need to audit that."

Kennedy then introduced Marcy Winograd: "the woman who kept Jane Harman honest."

She urged us to all demand that our candidates have an election protection platform and to put it on their website. She also urged support for making election day a holiday and same-day registration.

"When I was a candidate, I was in touch with county registrar of voters office. I wanted to make sure that working class communities are given equal access, make sure there were no problems, make sure there are no modems connected."

She then adamantly urged us:

 "DON’T VOTE EARLY."

She called on us to hold our candidates accountable, demand that they

"pledge that if there are irregularities arise that you will not concede the vote."

Huge applause.

The final speaker of the event was the inimitable Gore Vidal. I can’t express how amazing it was to be in the presence of such quiet confident brilliance. Despite hobbling in on a cane and with the help of a young man, once he sat and began to answer questions from members of the audience, he exuded such a strong sense of quiet rebellion against the status quo, against the current administration, he was definitely heroic.

Before he began speaking, you could hear a pin drop. Some highlights of his responses:

"The media simply recreates the president’s view of the world."

"When 2 elections in a row are stolen, you no longer have a republic."

"I’ve never had this feeling before…that there’s nowhere to turn. You’d go to the press, the politicians."

"You are not a wartime president because there is no war. You can’t have a war without a declaration or a country that we’ve waged war against."

"I’d be tempted to support the death penalty for white collar criminals but no I wouldn’t because I’m opposed to the death penalty."

"This president's lack of judgment is majestic."

"I have a dream that Dick Cheney is sitting in a grandstand and I’m passing by in my car with a giant magnet. And since he’s half metal anyway…Is there a problem officer? I was just passing by with my magnet."

 

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

(cross-posted at The Courage Campaign)

On Wednesday, the Center For Information Technology Policy at Princeton University released a report that proves that the Diebold Accuvote-TS voting machines can be easily infected with an untraceable malicious virus that steals votes and gives a result different than the true vote tally:

This paper presents a fully independent security study of a Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine, including its hardware and software. We obtained the machine from a private party. Analysis of the machine, in light of real election procedures, shows that it is vulnerable to extremely serious attacks. For example, an attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates. An attacker could also create malicious code that spreads automatically and silently from machine to machine during normal election activities — a voting-machine virus.

Go here for the full paper.

UPDATE: The video that accompanies the study is below:

I contacted Chuck Hahn, Assistant Secretary of State Policy & Planning to get Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's response to this latest indictment of the very technology that he himself certified for use in California's elections. Remember that McPherson certified Diebold even after a study that his very own office conducted found "serious flaws" in the Diebold software. His certification was "conditional" apparently on their insistence that they would fix the vulnerabilities.

At the CA GOP summer convention, I asked McPherson directly what reassurances Diebold had given him that these flaws would be fixed. He simply said "I wouldn't have certified them if I didn't think they were secure." And when I asked if there's anything online or in the public record that can reassure voters of Diebold's good faith efforts, he told me that they held public hearings that anyone could attend. That's when Hahn stepped in, gave me his card and asked me to give him a call and he swept McPherson away.

So in the wake of this new revelation I did call him and e-mailed him to make sure they were aware of the report and to get the Secretary's response. I received a return e-mail from Hahn not long after that, which, while swift, was still quite dismissive UPDATE:he prefers not to be on the record so I’ve taken down the text of the e-mail. He’s been helpful and responsive so far. Hopefully we’ll get a swift response from McPherson soon. This is about keeping pressure on him to answer for his decision to re-certify these machines. As I say in the comments, it appears from his certification announcement that CA may not even be using the machine tested. But that’s not the end of the story, nor is it the end of the explaining we must demand from McPherson.