Conspiracy to steal the vote again in 2008 [Archive]

skeptigirl

16th May 2007, 03:12 AM

Monday, May 14th, 2007; Investigative Journalist Greg Palast Reports on the Firing of New Mexico Attorney David Iglesias (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/14/1426254)GREG PALAST: Iglesias believes the real reasons for the firings are in what are called the missing emails, emails sent by the Rove team using Republican Party campaign computers, which Rove claims can't be retrieved. But not all the missing emails are missing. We have 500 of them. Apparently the Rove team misaddressed their emails, and late one night they all ended up in our inboxes in our offices in New York City....

...GREG PALAST: What is it that was so obviously illegal that law professor Kennedy thought they deserved prison time? The evidence that shook him was attached to fifty of the secret emails, something that GOP party chiefs called caging lists, thousands of names of voters. Notably, the majority were African American. Kennedy explained how caging worked.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: Caging is an illegal way of getting rid of black votes. You get a list of all the black voters. Then you send a letter to their homes. And if the person doesn't sign it at the homes, the letter then is returned to the Republican National Committee. They then direct the state attorney general, who is friendly to them, who’s Republican, to remove that voter from the list on the alleged basis that that voter does not live in the address that they designated as their address on the voting application form.

GREG PALAST: In all, the Republican Party challenged nearly three million voters, a mass attack on minority voting rights virtually unreported in the US press.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: So they disenfranchised millions of black voters who don't even know that they’ve been disenfranchised.

GREG PALAST: Page after page of voters with this address, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, hundreds, thousands of soldiers and sailors targeted to lose their vote. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote.

And what does this have to do with the prosecutor firings? Take a look at the name at the top of the secret missing email: Tim Griffin. This is the man in charge of the allegedly illegal caging operation. He is research director for the Republican National Committee, special assistant to Karl Rove, and as of December 7 Karl Rove's personal pick for US attorney for the state of Arkansas. Is this a case of the perpetrator becomes the prosecutor? For Democracy Now! this is Greg Palast. So here's the conspiracy, some or all of the federal attorney firings Attorney General Gonzales can't explain and the relevant emails are supposedly missing (like the infamous Nixon tape 18 minutes), are all tied to a plot to disinfranchise large numbers of Democratic voters in key states in 2008.

Democracy Now is not inclined to put unconfirmed nonsense on as news. But 500 emails seems like a lot to be mis-mailed.

In this state (WA), McKay, the attorney fired, reported he felt pressured to go after small time voter fraud or people who had errors on their voter registration. We had a governor who won by less than 200 votes. The thing was, there was no evidence for any single conspiracy that McKay felt should be investigated. So wasting time on a few voters who registered when they shouldn't have didn't make sense to McKay. Remember, McKay is a Republican, appointed by Bush in the first place. So if he thought there was a case, you would think he would have pursued it.

Prosecuting individuals who either voted when they shouldn't have or cheated in some other way would be important if there was evidence such things were truly widespread.GREG PALAST: What happened is that the Republican Party was running a massive campaign directed by Karl Rove and, we know, Tim Griffin, from the written emails, to block voters' votes or to challenge their votes. One way to challenge voters was to say that they were stealing someone else's identity. Someone is voting for Amy Goodman. Well, they say, the solution is to create ID cards. The problem is we can't find anyone anywhere who has committed this crime of stealing Amy Goodman's name to vote. People are not willing to go to jail to vote in some school board election or even for the presidency.

What Griffin, Rove's assistant, wanted Iglesias to do -- they gave them 110 names. They wanted them, for example, to arrest some guy named, say, roughly, if I remember, like Juan Gonzalez, and say he voted twice, stealing someone’s ID. Well, in New Mexico there may be two guys named Juan Gonzalez. So Iglesias just thought this was absolute junk, absolute junk stuff, and he wouldn't do it. So it’s all about trying to create a hysteria about fraudulent voting.

There are 120 million people that voted, and I can't find an actual case out of 120 of a prosecution that -- a real prosecution of any single voter for voter identity theft. There is like five cases in the country involving some minor offices. That’s it. So it’s a complete false prosecution set-up, kind of like the Soviet Union: just grab people, put them on show trials, maybe let them go later, maybe they languish in jail.

-

In addition to the attorney firing scandal, there are these other efforts to disenfranchise millions of voters who are likely to vote Democratic.GREG PALAST: There was more than failing to help the Wilson campaign. In the 2004 presidential election, Republican operatives blocked a quarter-million new voters nationwide from voting on grounds they brought the wrong IDs to the poles. To justify this massive blockade, Republican officials wanted Iglesias to arrest some voters to create a high publicity show trial. Iglesias went along with the game. Just before the 2004 election, he held a press conference announcing the creation of a vote fraud task force. But the prosecutor drew the line at arresting innocent voters.

I'm interested in a serious look at this conspiracy. So what better place to put it under scrutiny than here*. What do you all think?

*I also posted this on SFN (http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=4).

WildCat

16th May 2007, 06:33 AM

pomeroo

16th May 2007, 07:05 AM

So there's a conspiracy to prevent vote fraud? The horror!

A lot of speculation, little substance in that story. I'd like to see someone here in Chicago ask for ID at the polls, I've never seen it here, ever.

It's fascinating that with millions of disfranchised voters, actually producing a real live person to whom this has happened seems impossible.

Greg Palast has told many lies about Republican efforts in Florida in 2000. What is known for certain is that Black voter turnout in that state was up by over 300,000 compared with 1996, and at least 6,000 felons of all races voted illegally.

Newtons Bit

16th May 2007, 07:14 AM

I voted in a small rural town in the 2004 election. The clerk handed us a checklist, we were to find our own name and check it off. I can't even imagine how easy it would be to commit wide-spread fraud.

Overman

16th May 2007, 07:27 AM

Doesnt sound impossible, but I dont see this happening...

Brainster

16th May 2007, 09:24 AM

Palast is to left-wing journalism what Christopher Bollyn is to right-wing journalism, with the exception that no responsible right-wing publication would pick up Bollyn's work. And RFK Jr blew any credibility he might have had with me by publishing in Rolling Stone his ridiculous claims (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen) about 80,000 votes switched from Kerry to Bush in twelve rural Ohio counties.

VIII. Rural Counties
Despite the well-documented effort that prevented hundreds of thousands of voters in urban and minority precincts from casting ballots, the worst theft in Ohio may have quietly taken place in rural counties. An examination of election data suggests widespread fraud -- and even good old-fashioned stuffing of ballot boxes -- in twelve sparsely populated counties scattered across southern and western Ohio: Auglaize, Brown, Butler, Clermont, Darke, Highland, Mercer, Miami, Putnam, Shelby, Van Wert and Warren. (See The Twelve Suspect Counties) One key indicator of fraud is to look at counties where the presidential vote departs radically from other races on the ballot. By this measure, John Kerry's numbers were suspiciously low in each of the twelve counties -- and George Bush's were unusually high.

If Kerry had maintained his statewide margin over Connally in the twelve suspect counties, as he almost assuredly would have done in a clean election, he would have bested her by 81,260 ballots. That's a swing of 162,520 votes from Kerry to Bush -- more than enough to alter the outcome. (183)

But of course, a real world analysis (http://brainster.blogspot.com/2006_05_28_archive.html#114923122885760990) shows the ridiculousness of Kennedy's claim:

Let's take a look at the 12 "suspect" counties. First, in 2000, those counties voted for Bush by a large margin. Ignoring the third party candidates, Bush got 67.4% of the vote while Gore only managed 32.6%. In 2004, Bush upped that to 69.5% to Kerry's 30.5%. Very suspicious indeed. But looking at the big picture, what would it take to swing 80,000 votes to Kerry in those twelve "suspect" counties?

And that's where Kennedy's claim is exposed for the nonsense that it is. You see, these really are rural counties so the idea of shaking an 80,000 vote swing out of them is contrived. Bush got 382,000 votes in those counties, so we reduce that to 302,000. And we up Kerry's 168,000 to 248,000. So Bush got 54.9% in those twelve counties, as compared to his 67.4% the prior election a 12.5 percentage point decline in Bush's share of the major party vote in those twelve counties between 2000 and 2004. How does that stack up with the rest of Ohio? Well, actually Bush didn't lose 12.5 percentage points compared to 2000 in any other county. His worst performance was about a 5 percentage point drop.

This does fit in well with the 9-11 conspiracy theories in that the media are in on it. Kennedy griped:

Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

Because, you know, the New York Times carries the Republicans' water. Salon, another cog in the vast right wing media machine, carried an excellent debunking (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kennedy/index_np.html) of the "stolen Ohio" claims.

David Wong

16th May 2007, 10:22 AM

Darth Rotor

16th May 2007, 01:17 PM

Conspiracy to steal the vote again in 2008
How is "again" anything other than standard agitprop?

This caging discussion ignores the small problem of voter registration cards, and ID, but I admit my frame of reference to that is my own county.

For all that, I found the article interesting.

ETA: do you understand how risible this tidbit is?
Page after page of voters with this address, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, hundreds, thousands of soldiers and sailors targeted to lose their vote. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote.

DR

T.A.M.

16th May 2007, 01:25 PM

500 mis-mailed is alot if the total "mailed" was 600, but not so much if the total mailed was, lets say, 3-4 Million.

TAM:)

Darth Rotor

16th May 2007, 01:30 PM

500 mis-mailed is alot if the total "mailed" was 600, but not so much if the total mailed was, lets say, 3-4 Million.

TAM:)
I would love to see all 500 of these emails that the reporter has his hands on. I am skeptical of reporters, given their profession is to craft a story, so we rarely get to see what was left out. I suppose a FOIA request to the paper would go unanswered.

DR

Triterope

16th May 2007, 03:15 PM

Last election, I had to drive to three polling locations before I found the right one. It was nothing more than ordinary bureaucratic ineffeciency; every piece of information I got about the election directed me to a different polling site.

But I wondered how many people in my situation gave up after one or two tries, and ascribed it all to some conspiracy against them. The victim culture in America being what it is, I bet some people get "disenfranchised" pretty easily.

Pardalis

16th May 2007, 03:26 PM

What do you mean by "steal the vote again"?

tacodaemon

16th May 2007, 03:37 PM

What do you mean by "steal the vote again"?

:alc: Steal the vote again
I can't wait to go steal the vote again
the life I love is robbin' 'lections with my friends
I can't wait to go steal the vote agaaaaiiiin :g1:

Darth Rotor

16th May 2007, 03:42 PM

:alc: Steal the vote again
I can't wait to go steal the vote again
the life I love is robbin' 'lections with my friends
I can't wait to go steal the vote agaaaaiiiin :g1:

To the tune of "On the Road Again" by any chance? :D

I chortled.

DR

Civilized Worm

16th May 2007, 04:23 PM

People need to distinguish between voting manipulation and voting error. The recent scottish elections had an estimated 142,000 rejected ballots thanks to a new voting system that many found confusing.

skeptigirl

16th May 2007, 08:13 PM

I can see the right wing, "produce no evidence, just call the left wing liars" are out in force. Only Brainster posted anything substantial. While Brainster's blog is not to my liking, (too much vitriol, not enough analysis) I am interested in the link to the Salon article critiquing the Rolling Stone article on voter fraud. RFK.Jr is not my favorite reliable source anyway, but more importantly, I'm really interested in the ties here to the federal attorney firings and Rove's involvement no one in the admin wants to talk about, than I'm interested in RFK.Jr's discussion of the voter disenfranchisement.

I didn't intend to post about and I don't have time to provide the research about the 00 and 04 voter disenfranchisement for all you rightwing ad homers who ignore half the evidence anyway. I might post more on 00 and 04 after reading the Salon critique if I find anything worth rehashing. In the meantime, I'll duly note your comments you object to my statement, I don't believe Bush won either 00 or 04. I'll refrain from additional comments on the past elections unless there is something specific to the 08 election because it's obviously too distracting for the Bush babies. :rolleyes:

Getting back OT, I want to honestly look at this information. If you have nothing to support your automatic dismissal of the presented facts other than to whine, "Palast is a left wing journalist", then you are just wasting time and thread space.

How about commenting on the topic? Does anyone know anything about these emails? If they are legit, they will make their way to the Oversight Committee. It isn't like there is no way to know for sure. Why would even a left wing journalist be so stupid as to fake 500 emails? One or two maybe, but why 500? Could turn out Palast was duped but allow me to request in advance, don' t waste our time with Dan Rather distractions either. What does anyone know about these emails? It could also be they are really from a whistle blower source. Monica Goodling's testimony should also shed some more light on this.

Cylinder

16th May 2007, 08:23 PM

I can see the right wing, "produce no evidence, just call the left wing liars" are out in force.

Which "right wing" claim is unsupported? Since you brought up the sticky point of supporting one's claims, can you provide the evidence for this:

In addition to the attorney firing scandal, there are these other efforts to disenfranchise millions of voters who are likely to vote Democratic.

skeptigirl

16th May 2007, 08:54 PM

ConspiRaider

16th May 2007, 09:39 PM

No, Cylinder, I will not. I posted a topic and your request is off topic. If you see a personal insult addressed to you, point it out.

There is a bunch of crap here when I posted a serious subject for discussion. I see no reason why I shouldn't point out the fact there is no substance in most of the replies.
I think you and I can forget all about voter fraud making any kind of a diff in 2008. The Dems are going to win, and win big. My being a liberal Democrat finds me grinning profusely in anticipation. On the off chance that I'm wrong, I have already graciously requested that the rest of the world invade us in November 2008 if we elect Giuliani, and depose him.

In 2000, I'd tend to agree that vigorous efforts by the Repubs in Florida - every stop pulled out, by any means, whatever they could get away with - threw it for Stupid-Boy. With Katharine Harris and more importantly brudder Jebby overseeing the proceedings - yeah. I'd say just enough desperate action was successful to allow Stupid-Boy to have his wife pick out the drape and rug color in the Oval Office. But I wouldn't stake anything on it. And besides, you and I both know that it never should have been that close to begin with.

In 2004 - much more skeptical that the Repubs were able to significantly affect the outcome by voter fraud. I'm sure some went on. But that is not the reason I descended into a mild stupor of shock after The November Outrage was pulled off by the Rethuglicans - I mean Republicans. The reason was the horrible candidate the Dems produced, that I had to hold my nose while voting for. The reason was the blatant endorsement of Stupid-Boy by thousands of churches across the nation. The reason was the purple bandaids worn as "purple hearts" by conventioneers to mock Kerry's military service and swiftboat his days under enemy fire. The reason was the terror scare tactics used so skillfully by Rove and Company to frighten the populace into not changing horses in midstream. The reason was how many popular votes Stupid-Boy received, and I definitely believe it was more than were received by Kerry. For whatever reason, being slapped in the face by the cold fish of Stupid-Boy's first four years wasn't enough. Now all of us were going to be forced to eat that cold, dead fish for the next four years.

We'll be fine in 2008. It's why the Repubs are running Keystone Kops for the center seat, because even they know a Dem has a lock on the Presidency. Enough people in the USA are awake now. They're getting out their best brooms, salivating at the thought of sweeping the Feddie Fiends out of Washington in just about 18 months.

skepticalcriticalguy

16th May 2007, 09:47 PM

It's fascinating that with millions of disfranchised voters, actually producing a real live person to whom this has happened seems impossible.

Greg Palast has told many lies about Republican efforts in Florida in 2000. What is known for certain is that Black voter turnout in that state was up by over 300,000 compared with 1996, and at least 6,000 felons of all races voted illegally.

Can you provide documentation for this?

skepticalcriticalguy

16th May 2007, 09:49 PM

It's fascinating that with millions of disfranchised voters, actually producing a real live person to whom this has happened seems impossible.

Apparently, you missed the Conyers hearings in 2004. (Like most Americans).

skepticalcriticalguy

16th May 2007, 09:51 PM

In 2004 - much more skeptical that the Repubs were able to significantly affect the outcome by fraud. I'm sure some went on.

Seriously? 2004 was more obvious than 2000. In the words of the loathsome Dick Morris: "Exit polls don't lie."

skepticalcriticalguy

16th May 2007, 10:01 PM

Not that there wasn't fraud and inaccuracy in voting in 2000 and 2004. And 1992. And 1984. And 1980. And 1968. And 1964...

And in every election ever held in the history of democracy. If you want to point to screwed up votes in 2000 and declare Bush to thus be illegitimate, then you can say the same about every elected leader in every democratic nation across all times and places.

2000 is more rancid because of the Supreme Court intervention. Justice Scalia's son got a nice job with Greenburg-Traurig Law Firm, starting on election day. I've read over a million a year in pay. Corruption? I say yes.

gumboot

16th May 2007, 10:15 PM

I'm so glad I'm not an American.

-Gumboot

ConspiRaider

16th May 2007, 10:25 PM

I'm so glad I'm not an American.

-Gumboot
We are too :)

ConspiRaider

16th May 2007, 10:33 PM

Seriously? 2004 was more obvious than 2000. In the words of the loathsome Dick Morris: "Exit polls don't lie."
A complete, painstaking recount of my original home state's votes (Ohio) probably overseen by the military is about the only way this could have been proven one way or the other.

Quoted from a Wiki article on the 2004 Presidential Election:
Even if Congress had voted to reject Ohio's 20 electoral votes, the outcome would have been the same. With 518 valid votes cast (instead of 538), the majority necessary for election by the Electoral College under the Twelfth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutio n) would have been 260 votes, which Bush and Cheney, each with 266, would have reached. If Ohio's votes had been deemed to have been cast, but not counted, so that no candidate had a majority, Bush and Cheney would have almost certainly been chosen by the House and Senate, respectively, under the Twelfth Amendment's procedures. Only a complete reversal of Ohio's vote count and a new certification for Kerry could have changed the result.

The fact is, too many Americans were complacent. If enough of us would have been paying attention - as we finally did in 2006 - then Stupid-Boy would have been a one-termer. After all the hubbub - the blame for 2004 rests squarely on the shoulders of the American electorate.

gumboot

16th May 2007, 10:34 PM

We are too :)

Ouch. :p

-Gumboot

ConspiRaider

16th May 2007, 10:39 PM

Ouch. :p

-Gumboot
You know I'm only being a royal pain in the butt :)

You ever change your mind, c'mon over. I'll even call in my markers in the federal government and see if I can have 'em install a Queen, to make ya feel more at home. We got a Queen Latifah but she's just a figurehead...

Pardalis

16th May 2007, 10:40 PM

Shouldn't this be in the politics forum?

Slayhamlet

16th May 2007, 10:50 PM

Shouldn't this be in the politics forum?

It seems the subforums here tend to bleed together quite often.

Pardalis

16th May 2007, 11:37 PM

skeptigirl

17th May 2007, 01:23 AM

Shouldn't this be in the politics forum?
I debated but wanted to go with the conspiracy angle. The charge is Rove has a number of irons in the fire aimed at swinging a few key states in 08. It worked for them before.

And so far, Alberto Gonzales has refused to say why the 8 federal attorneys were chosen for replacement. In this state, we had a governor's race decided by a very small number of votes. We have a Democratic West Coast and an interior that is very Republican. WA State could be one of those swing states and it makes sense targeting McKay could have something to do with swinging in 08.

skeptigirl

17th May 2007, 01:36 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du9QWpCWbbY

at about 06 minutes, according to Palast, Rove instead of sending the emails to georgewbush.com, he sent it to georgewbush.org, a satirical site owned by Palast.

http://www.gregpalast.com/amy-goodman-and-greg-palast-moms-day-broadcast/

I don't get it, shouldn't journalists be objective and unaffiliated?Thanks for the additional links.

Well, georgewbush.org (http://www.georgewbush.org/) is "A chicken head production parody web site". Take a look. Click on "contact us".

While, "GOP.com | Republican National Committee :: Home
GOP.com. WEDNESDAY | MAY 09, 2007. Sign up for news and information, Submit · Issues · Social Security · Nominations · Jobs & Economy · Safety & Security ...
www.georgebush.com/ -" , the Google listing, actually forwards you to GOP.com (https://www.gop.com/Secure/Splash.aspx) when you try to go to the latter address.

This part of the story checks out when you consider it has been revealed these guys were sending a lot of emails via the Republican Party website to avoid the requirement official emails be saved for review. Both of those web pages have "contact us" options. I'd like to see just how these emails were addressed that they would have been going through a web site instead of to a specific email address.

But it is plausible.

Pardalis

17th May 2007, 11:13 AM

Well, georgewbush.org (http://www.georgewbush.org/) is "A chicken head production parody web site". Take a look. Click on "contact us".

There's something I'm not comfortable with here. A journalist shouldn't be doing such a site. Everything he says is tarnished with political partisanship. Shouldn't a journalist be objective? How is one supposed to take him seriously when he so obviously has made up his mind?

Brainster

17th May 2007, 11:50 AM

Stellafane

17th May 2007, 12:10 PM

Brainster

17th May 2007, 12:15 PM

And on the issue of vote suppression, there is a fundamental problem. In 2004, John Kerry got a little over 59 million votes. That's 8 million more votes than Gore received in 2000, or about a 16% increase in the number of people voting for the Democrat. If we look at the critical battleground states of Ohio and Florida, things are even more extreme. In Ohio, 2.74 million people voted for Kerry in 2004 as compared to 2.18 million who voted for Gore in 2000, a 25.8% increase for the Democrats. In Florida, 3.58 million people voted for Kerry in 2004 as compared to 2.91 million who voted for Gore in 2000, a 23.0% increase for the Democrats. If Rove's objective was to suppress voter turnout for the Democrats, he did an awfully poor job of it.

Brainster

17th May 2007, 12:27 PM

Don't know about the federal level. But the Republicans certainly weren't shy about stealing the Senate race in New Hampshire in 2002 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_New_Hampshire_Senate_election_phone_jamming_s candal ). Some of those allegedly involved had White House connections. Now I know that just because they're willing to steal elections in NH doesn't necessarily prove they'd do this on a national level. But I tend to believe that if you'd stoop to such tactics on one instance, and they work, there's every reason to suspect you'd use them again in other situations.

And the Wisconsin tire-slashing scandal (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=386498), which involved the son of a US Congresswoman:

After a two-week felony trial culminating with notes from a conflicted jury, four Kerry-Edwards campaign workers - including the sons of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) and former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt - had their charges in the Election Day 2004 tire-slashing reduced to misdemeanors and accepted the deal.

All five defendants had been charged with damaging 40 tires on 25 rented vans parked outside Republican Party offices on W. Capitol Drive, hours before they were to be deployed for electioneering. The repair costs easily exceeded the felony threshold of $2,500, yet there was little evidence about what each man had allegedly done.

Kudos to the Democrats who turned these guys in:

Prosecutors built most of their case on testimony from out-of-state Democratic operatives who had come to work on the Wisconsin campaign alongside the defendants - Michael Pratt, 33, Lewis G. Caldwell, 29, Lavelle Mohammad, 36, Justin Howell, 21, and Sowande Omokunde, 26. The witnesses said the local men boasted about their crippling attack on the Republican vehicles.

Do both sides do everything they legally can to suppress the turnout of the other side? Yes. Do people sometimes go over the line? Yes, and I am pleased when they are prosecuted for that.

Stellafane

17th May 2007, 12:32 PM

And the Wisconsin tire-slashing scandal (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=386498), which involved the son of a US Congresswoman:

Kudos to the Democrats who turned these guys in:

Do both sides do everything they legally can to suppress the turnout of the other side? Yes. Do people sometimes go over the line? Yes, and I am pleased when they are prosecuted for that.

Ya gotta be kidding me. Are you implying they all do it, so it's OK? That's the weakest argument in the world. The fact is, Phonegate proved an organized Republican conspiracy stole a Senate race. Thus it is completely legitimate to question whether they would do this again, on a federal level. Pointing at Democrats and shouting "You, too!" lets no one off the hook. And I'm kind of surprised anyone here would argue along those lines.

Triterope

17th May 2007, 12:58 PM

If you ask me, everybody misses the point about the 2000 election fiasco. Which is:

What Americans should have been outraged about in 2000 was the laughable imprecision of such an important process.

During the 2000 recount fiasco, there was an unacceptably large margin of error. Depending on how ballots were "interpreted" -- a phrase I had only heard of as a form of cheating in a computer game where you run a banana republic -- the wishes of hundreds of people were voided. People piss and moan about disenfranchisement all the time, but nobody said a peep when hundreds of votes were being thrown out of the tally live on CNN.

And don't talk to me about margin of error. Your bank balance doesn't have a margin of error. Your police record doesn't have a margin of error. Your GPA and SAT scores don't have a margin of error. Americans are at the mercy of many official records and statistical processes that are assumed to be 100% accurate, and can destroy your life when they're not. So why the hell should your wishes about the direction of the republic be treated so casually?

I realize this thread is about corruption in elections, but that's only part of the problem. A person denied the vote by bureaucratic incompetence is just as disenfranchised as a person denied the vote by overt chicanery.

Besides, what's to stop corruption if you can't get the vote tally right when there isn't any?

If I seem a bit testy about this subject, it's because I voted in Palm Beach County in 2000. Well, I TRIED to vote, anyway.

Darth Rotor

17th May 2007, 01:40 PM

Thanks for the additional links.

SG: Fruit of the poison tree, regarding only the article, not your "again" bit, which you are correct in assessing as a road to nowhere.

Consider the problem with the claim made about Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida, (http://www.nasjax.navy.mil/) and the words used, sorry, the hyperbole used.

To recap:
Page after page of voters with this address, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, hundreds, thousands of soldiers and sailors targeted to lose their vote. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote.
Sorry, that dog does not hunt.

1. The assumption that Rove considers persons living at NAS Jax a threat in the next election, or in past elections. Think about that, for just a moment. Which way do active duty members tend to vote, according to "conventional wisdom?" Also, how is Rove going after blacks on NAS Jax, if they live in the barracks? By name? Maybe he has people providing him data via a DoD data base, complete with ethnic classification. (That is a privacy act violation, but of course, that consideration probably would not stop many politicians if they were up to no good.)

Some military members change state voting affiliation when moving to Florida, and maintain that address for years to take advantage of no state income tax in FL. (I have quite a few friends who did that.) Some of these sailors may be stationed in CA now, or WA, or VA, but vote absentee, and are legal residents of FL, and have FL driver licenses, FL residence, and so on. Screening for race? By voter record? I don't see it, and maybe that is not what is implied. Most of us have absentee ballots in hand at least a month before voting day, from my own experiences with a lot of absentee voting, and detect problems months ahead of the election.

Screening to remove from FL rolls, when that district voted more Rep than not in 2000 and 2004? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap2000.htm)

Is Rove assumed to be an idiot, but also a brilliant conspiracist?

Note the red up there by the Georgia Border? That is where NAS Jax is. (If I can find a better map, I will.) The blue county in the Middle of Texas? Where Austin is. :)

ETA: Better map (http://www.floridacountiesmap.com/northeast.shtml). COmpare it to the USA map, and note that Navy folk tend to live in Duval, Clay, and St John's County when are assigned to NAS Jax and NS Mayport.

The assertion does not stand up, as most of these sailors get massive encouragement to register to vote from the chain of command, and to fill out the absentee ballot forms months in advance to allow for the vagaries of mail. When they run into trouble, the chain of command, and the legal office, are there for help. I've done this before. I ran more than one squadron level program to make sure everyone registered, and had their absentee balloting paperwork completed no less than 60 days out. (Whether or not they voted was their problem.) Funnily enough, about one in seven would truculently refuse to even register, in my experience, which used to exasperate me to no end.

Using an NAS Jax address as a way to get people off of the roles is a weird way to stifle uniformed voters who tend to vote your way, don't you think?.

But it goes beyond that. Quite a few sailors there are not Florida residents. (The inverse of what I discussed above.)

Let's move on to all of the contractor and GS people at NAS Jax, in their multitudes. They do not live on the base, so their addresses would be in whichever county or town where they live. Non issue for purposes of this discussion.

NAS Jax is home to aircraft squadrons, rework facilities, (see the tab local commands at the NAS Jax link). No soldiers, (or perhaps a dozen Army Liaison folks), yes medical facilities, and virtually no Marines. At most, you could expect up to 300-500 (max) Navy personnel from NAS Jax to be in Iraq at a given time. The bulk of them being:
(I ETA'd my number up a bit, 300-500) to account for a fair share of Jax Seabee assignment, based on some info from the Navy to Congress on how many SeaBees total are deployed to Iraq, which is around 1000, and estimating a fair share contribution from Jax. Hundreds of naval medical personnel were deployed to Iraq in support of Marine forces, as well as over 1,000 active and reserve Navy Seabees responsible for construction support.) Page 3 of this document, which includes 2006 FY accounting for Iraq operations. http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/07pres/highbook/SECTION_II.pdf)

Civil Engineers (see the Seabee links at NAS Jax site.)

A few HQ sorts for Air Command and Control HQ's in the Mid East, most of whom are not in Iraq, and in a variety of Naval HQ's in the PG, not in Iraq.

Medics and docs. That number might raise the number higher, if a max med effort were coupled with a max seabee effort, but most would be IA's anyway. So much for the Navy people in Iraq from NAS Jax.

The Jax based P-3 squadrons in the Mid East are deployed in their sailor and aircrew hundreds, either as squadrons or dets. They don't base out of Iraq, but out of Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Digeo Garcia, and even out of the Med or Pac airfields to support Iran and Afghanistan operations.

No "lose your vote in Iraq" for them.

The Helicopter Squadrons at NAS Jax deploy on CV's, in the Gulf, and are not in Iraq. No soldiers, no Marines, sailors. The combat SAR role is, at the moment, in the hands of USAF, Marines, and Army in Iraq. The over the shore combat SAR from CV's is not a factor as of this writing. (Time, fuel, distance.)

So, where are these thousands of soldiers disenfranchised voters in Iraq?
Quite simply, they don't exist, from that zip code, and are in a zip code that tends to vote GOP.

How about you reconsider the hyperbole, in the presented article? A load of factual innacuracy, at the very best, and complete bollocks from my jaundiced perspective, and experience.

Since many, hell most, of the people who work on NAS Jax live elsewhere, in the counties surrounding NAS Jax, that zip code reflects strangely on what this tactic allegedly is trying to do. Click to the NAS Jax web site, but this time go to services and housing to get a sense of housing, and the 2-24 month waiting list for married quarters. It is sparse.

To recap: these counties voted more for Bush than against in 2000 and 2004. (There was quite a bit of talk about votes in the area not counted in 2000, but no need to derail.)

Furthermore, I am of the opinion, from your article, that the reporter may have misinterpreted the intent. What I expect was going on, legal or otherwise, in that Zip Code, was a "get out the vote" effort since a valid assumption would be that more, not less, of the sailors (young, in the barracks or in scarce base housing) needed encouragement to vote, given the young being less likely to vote (the barracks sailors tend to be young, older ones live off base) and in need of "reaching" to energize on election day.

So, there you have it, either your author is right, and Rove an idiot trying to cut off at the knees people who are shown to be likely to vote for his boys, or the author doesn't know what he is talking about on that point, but is trying to raise a "he hates the troops" spectre with his hyberbole.

My two cents.

ETA: Maybe he only got that part wrong, and everything else right. Given the slant, I am skeptical.

DR

skepticalcriticalguy

17th May 2007, 02:10 PM

I don't get it, shouldn't journalists be objective and unaffiliated?

That would require shutting Fox News down. And most of the other networks.

T.A.M.

17th May 2007, 02:19 PM

That would require shutting Fox News down. And most of the other networks.

You know what...That is an awefully broad brush you are painting people with.

I admit, Fox News is, compared to other stations, Right Wing, but to say that everyone who works there is not objective is a bit extreme.

TAM:)

David Wong

17th May 2007, 02:20 PM

In 2000, I'd tend to agree that vigorous efforts by the Repubs in Florida - every stop pulled out, by any means, whatever they could get away with - threw it for Stupid-Boy.

If you're older than 13, you should be ashamed of that post.

pomeroo

17th May 2007, 02:31 PM

I think you and I can forget all about voter fraud making any kind of a diff in 2008. The Dems are going to win, and win big. My being a liberal Democrat finds me grinning profusely in anticipation. On the off chance that I'm wrong, I have already graciously requested that the rest of the world invade us in November 2008 if we elect Giuliani, and depose him.

In 2000, I'd tend to agree that vigorous efforts by the Repubs in Florida - every stop pulled out, by any means, whatever they could get away with - threw it for Stupid-Boy. With Katharine Harris and more importantly brudder Jebby overseeing the proceedings - yeah. I'd say just enough desperate action was successful to allow Stupid-Boy to have his wife pick out the drape and rug color in the Oval Office. But I wouldn't stake anything on it. And besides, you and I both know that it never should have been that close to begin with.

In 2004 - much more skeptical that the Repubs were able to significantly affect the outcome by voter fraud. I'm sure some went on. But that is not the reason I descended into a mild stupor of shock after The November Outrage was pulled off by the Rethuglicans - I mean Republicans. The reason was the horrible candidate the Dems produced, that I had to hold my nose while voting for. The reason was the blatant endorsement of Stupid-Boy by thousands of churches across the nation. The reason was the purple bandaids worn as "purple hearts" by conventioneers to mock Kerry's military service and swiftboat his days under enemy fire. The reason was the terror scare tactics used so skillfully by Rove and Company to frighten the populace into not changing horses in midstream. The reason was how many popular votes Stupid-Boy received, and I definitely believe it was more than were received by Kerry. For whatever reason, being slapped in the face by the cold fish of Stupid-Boy's first four years wasn't enough. Now all of us were going to be forced to eat that cold, dead fish for the next four years.

We'll be fine in 2008. It's why the Repubs are running Keystone Kops for the center seat, because even they know a Dem has a lock on the Presidency. Enough people in the USA are awake now. They're getting out their best brooms, salivating at the thought of sweeping the Feddie Fiends out of Washington in just about 18 months.

You post these unsubstantiated claims about Florida 2000 without addressing the issues raised by John Fund in Stealing Elections. It is a fact that the turnout of black voters, an increase of over 300,000, was up sharply from 1996. It is a fact that 6,000 felons voted illegally (overhwelmingly for Gore). It is a fact that the percentage of overvotes in Palm Beach County was more than ten times higher than the rate for the rest of the state. It is a fact that in Palm Beach County Bush ran behind the losing Republican Senatorial candidate and the Republicans running for seats in the House. According to Fund, Democratic poll workers in that county were observed inserting a long metal object through stacks of paper ballots. If you insert such an object through the "Gore" hole, you leave actual Gore votes untouched while creating overvotes elsewhere.

The networks announced repeatedly that polls had closed in the heavily-Republican Panhandle region an hour before they were scheduled to close. Republican strategists estimate that the "mistake" cost Bush 15-20,000 votes; Democratic strategist Bob Beckel estimates the net loss to Bush at only 7-10,000 votes.

Bush won the state of Florida by 25-30,000 votes. Democratic vote fraud made the official result much closer. Anyone remaining unconvinced might try explaining why recounts always seem to favor the Democrat, the blatant theft of the Washington State gubernatorial election being a particularly egregious example.

pomeroo

17th May 2007, 02:38 PM

That would require shutting Fox News down. And most of the other networks.

It is fascinating that liberals howl about Fox news. It is one cable station, and its rightward tilt is far less pronounced than the leftward tilt of the major networks. In 2004, CBS admitted that it had devoted five years of work to a partisan hit-piece on George Bush. That is breathtaking. A news outlet has no business doing the work of the Democratic National Committee. The charges Mapes and Rather aired were the same claims made by Bush's opponents every time he runs for office. The Clintons engaged in outright vote-buying in 2000, the notorious New Square scandal, and no network would dream of running an in-depth investigation.

Stellafane

17th May 2007, 02:42 PM

T.A.M.

17th May 2007, 02:48 PM

Forget it...this is a OP about the 2008 elections being stolen....politics yes, but a CT around it...oh well...let the mud slinging begin...lol

TAM:)

ConspiRaider

17th May 2007, 03:37 PM

If you're older than 13, you should be ashamed of that post.
You should be ashamed of voting for Stupid-Boy, David. Why did you do that? Are you so bad at reading people's intent - are you so uncaring of your fellow human beings - that you broke a thumb pulling the red lever for this slobbering excuse of a chief executive?

Be thankful there are enough decent folks in this country to clean up the mess your idiots left, and are still leaving. Lot to be proud of, eh David? Have you switched parties yet? Do it before it's too late. We liberals will forgive you, and accept you.

ConspiRaider

17th May 2007, 03:44 PM

You post these unsubstantiated claims about Florida 2000 without addressing the issues raised by John Fund in Stealing Elections. It is a fact that the turnout of black voters, an increase of over 300,000, was up sharply from 1996. It is a fact that 6,000 felons voted illegally (overhwelmingly for Gore). It is a fact that the percentage of overvotes in Palm Beach County was more than ten times higher than the rate for the rest of the state. It is a fact that in Palm Beach County Bush ran behind the losing Republican Senatorial candidate and the Republicans running for seats in the House. According to Fund, Democratic poll workers in that county were observed inserting a long metal object through stacks of paper ballots. If you insert such an object through the "Gore" hole, you leave actual Gore votes untouched while creating overvotes elsewhere.

The networks announced repeatedly that polls had closed in the heavily-Republican Panhandle region an hour before they were scheduled to close. Republican strategists estimate that the "mistake" cost Bush 15-20,000 votes; Democratic strategist Bob Beckel estimates the net loss to Bush at only 7-10,000 votes.

Bush won the state of Florida by 25-30,000 votes. Democratic vote fraud made the official result much closer. Anyone remaining unconvinced might try explaining why recounts always seem to favor the Democrat, the blatant theft of the Washington State gubernatorial election being a particularly egregious example.
In your opinion, and in Fund's. Let me guess: Fund is a Repukelican.

Typical tactics: Falsely accuse the opposition of what your party is guilty of. Swiftboaters glommed onto that real good, eh Ron? Question: Were you one of the people wearing purple bandaids to mock Kerry's action under fire, and his Purple Hearts?

Ready for the Democratic sweep in 2008? Here it comes...

ConspiRaider

17th May 2007, 03:53 PM

It is fascinating that liberals howl about Fox news. It is one cable station, and its rightward tilt is far less pronounced than the leftward tilt of the major networks. In 2004, CBS admitted that it had devoted five years of work to a partisan hit-piece on George Bush. That is breathtaking. A news outlet has no business doing the work of the Democratic National Committee. The charges Mapes and Rather aired were the same claims made by Bush's opponents every time he runs for office. The Clintons engaged in outright vote-buying in 2000, the notorious New Square scandal, and no network would dream of running an in-depth investigation.
Pathetic.

Still, despite the right-wing hammerlock on U.S. mainstream media - you'll still lose, and lose big, in 2008. Americans, after a time, generally don't appreciate thugs running their federal government. Americans can be fooled - for awhile. That time is now up.

Suggestion: Start campaigning for Hillary, she's right there in your state. You'll feel better about yourself in the long run.

Better yet: Have a Hardfire debate between Hillary, and any 3 of your guys from the GOP, plus you. Bring an extra pair of pants, as she'll be handing all of you your butts.

pomeroo

17th May 2007, 03:54 PM

Seriously? 2004 was more obvious than 2000. In the words of the loathsome Dick Morris: "Exit polls don't lie."

Yes, it was even more obvious that Bush won fairly in 2004. Yes, Dick Morris is an expert on exit polls who understands that the 2004 results were badly flawed. As RFK, Jr. put it, the exits had Kerry running neck-and-neck in several Bush blowout states in the South. Kerry wasn't running anywhere close to even; nobody thinks he was. The exits were obviously wrong.

For a comprehensive treatment of this subject, visit pollster.com and read Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal's four-part series, "Was RFK, Jr. Right about the Exit Polls?" Farhad Manjoo has also dealt effectively with this canard on Salon.

pomeroo

17th May 2007, 04:05 PM

Pathetic.

Still, despite the right-wing hammerlock on U.S. mainstream media - you'll still lose, and lose big, in 2008. Americans, after a time, generally don't appreciate thugs running their federal government. Americans can be fooled - for awhile. That time is now up.

Stop the propaganda and be serious. The major networks are embarrassingly liberal. They've dropped any pretense to neutrality. You're a patriotic vet who voted for a far-left guy who made his name by dishonestly branding American troops as war criminals. Despite a relentless assault by Bush's unprincipled, demagogic opponents and the irresponsibly partisan major media, Republican losses were below average for a midterm election. Americans feel that the Iraq campaign has been bungled, but they don't trust the Democrats (for good reason) on national security issues.

Suggestion: Start campaigning for Hillary, she's right there in your state. You'll feel better about yourself in the long run.

She and her husband are liars and crooks. Demonstrably.

Better yet: Have a Hardfire debate between Hillary, and any 3 of your guys from the GOP, plus you. Bring an extra pair of pants, as she'll be handing all of you your butts.

And your confidence is grounded in what, exactly? What is her position on Iraq? I mean, this week's position. Oh, wait--she wants to leave some troops "embedded." To do what? What if the Daily Kos disapproves? Using the same intelliegnce Bush relied on, her husband bombed hell out of Iraq for four days in 1998. Was he right to do so? Why not?

Drysdale

17th May 2007, 04:13 PM

ConspiRaider

17th May 2007, 04:17 PM

And your confidence is grounded in what, exactly? What is her position on Iraq? I mean, this week's position. Oh, wait--she wants to leave some troops "embedded." To do what? What if the Daily Kos disapproves? Using the same intelliegnce Bush relied on, her husband bombed hell out of Iraq for four days in 1998. Was he right to do so? Why not?
Your boy Bushie, as cheerleader and instigator for the Iraq War - who somehow forgot that it was a majority of Saudi Arabians that attacked us on 9/11 and did NOT invade that country - is now responsible for ordering the deaths of more Americans than the disgusting rogue Osama bin Laden. We just passed the 3,400 mark for killed American troops in Iraq.

How do you feel about that?

Don't even try to compare Clinton's actions in Iraq with Stupid-Boy's and expect to maintain any semblance of credibility. Oh wait - standard GOP refrain: "It was all CLINTON'S fault!!!111one!!!11"

pomeroo

17th May 2007, 04:19 PM

In your opinion, and in Fund's. Let me guess: Fund is a Repukelican.

Fund, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, calls himself a libertarian. Nobody should read his book, right? The data he presents must be false.

Typical tactics: Falsely accuse the opposition of what your party is guilty of.

Democratic vote fraud is very real and has been extensively documented. Charges of Republican vote fraud in the last two presidential elections are fabrications lacking any basis in reality.

Swiftboaters glommed onto that real good, eh Ron? Question: Were you one of the people wearing purple bandaids to mock Kerry's action under fire, and his Purple Hearts?

Haven't we been through this before. A handful of men, well-paid Kerry supporters, call themselves his "Band of Brothers." A much larger group of men who served with Kerry, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, regard him as a braggart and a phony. It is a fact that Kerry's three purple hearts cost him a grand total of ONE day in the field. One wound was self-inflicted, and the others were scratches treated with bandaids. He literally demanded that he be awarded a medal over the objections of a superior officer.

Remember, in the single instance that is not a matter of opinion, the mission into Cambodia under "President" Nixon that was "seared" into Kerry's memory, Kerry lied and the Swift Boat Vets told the truth.

Ready for the Democratic sweep in 2008? Here it comes...

It could happen, but those of us who live in cities targetted by the jihadists will not rest comfortably. I know that al Qaeda doesn't exist and everything, but those guys are salivating to get a crack at us with a weak pacifist President at the helm.

pomeroo

17th May 2007, 04:22 PM

pomeroo

17th May 2007, 04:26 PM

Your boy Bushie, as cheerleader and instigator for the Iraq War - who somehow forgot that it was a majority of Saudi Arabians that attacked us on 9/11 and did NOT invade that country - is now responsible for ordering the deaths of more Americans than the disgusting rogue Osama bin Laden. We just passed the 3,400 mark for killed American troops in Iraq.

How do you feel about that?

Don't even try to compare Clinton's actions in Iraq with Stupid-Boy's and expect to maintain any semblance of credibility. Oh wait - standard GOP refrain: "It was all CLINTON'S fault!!!111one!!!11"

Conspi, have you taken Perry Logan pills? I mean, such fanatic, mindless zeal for a bunch of mediocre, unprincipled hacks?

Let me repeat: Clinton bombed Iraq intensively, claiming that he was targetting WMD facilities and Republican Guard barracks. Was killing sleeping soldiers who had no idea they were at war a war crime? Why wasn't it? This, incidentally, is the question, that caused Perry to flee.

Darth Rotor

17th May 2007, 04:36 PM

Conspi, have you taken Perry Logan pills? I mean, such fanatic, mindless zeal for a bunch of mediocre, unprincipled hacks?

Let me repeat: Clinton bombed Iraq intensively, claiming that he was targetting WMD facilities and Republican Guard barracks. Was killing sleeping soldiers who had no idea they were at war a war crime? Why wasn't it? This, incidentally, is the question, that caused Perry to flee.
Guys, which is Ron and Conpsi, we seem to have derailed a bit from the story about 500 emails run astray, and an alleged conspiracy to disenfranchise voters by challenging their names and places on voting roles.

Could we get back to that? The story may be thin, the OP didn't inspire confidence, but that's the conspiracy here.

So here's the conspiracy, some or all of the federal attorney firings Attorney General Gonzales can't explain and the relevant emails are supposedly missing (like the infamous Nixon tape 18 minutes), are all tied to a plot to disinfranchise large numbers of Democratic voters in key states in 2008.

The rest is standard Politics Forum stuff, which we have ample time and place to cover there.

Yes, I too derail now and again, but I find this topic of some interest due to Gonzo's current fight to keep his head above water.

DR

Darth Rotor

17th May 2007, 04:41 PM

If you ask me, everybody misses the point about the 2000 election fiasco. Which is:
What Americans should have been outraged about in 2000 was the laughable imprecision of such an important process.

During the 2000 recount fiasco, there was an unacceptably large margin of error. Depending on how ballots were "interpreted" -- a phrase I had only heard of as a form of cheating in a computer game where you run a banana republic -- the wishes of hundreds of people were voided. People piss and moan about disenfranchisement all the time, but nobody said a peep when hundreds of votes were being thrown out of the tally live on CNN.

==========

So why the hell should your wishes about the direction of the republic be treated so casually?

I realize this thread is about corruption in elections, but that's only part of the problem. A person denied the vote by bureaucratic incompetence is just as disenfranchised as a person denied the vote by overt chicanery.
I am with you. I would like to add my own irritation with that election. The FL election exposed how many ballots are simply NOT counted, in what seems to be the aim of getting the word out faster, rather than achieving as accurate and precise a count as possible. That makes me mad.

Besides, what's to stop corruption if you can't get the vote tally right when there isn't any?
Yep.
If I seem a bit testy about this subject, it's because I voted in Palm Beach County in 2000. Well, I TRIED to vote, anyway.
How, explicitly, were you denied a place and time to vote? Stuff like this bugs me.

DR

Brainster

17th May 2007, 04:42 PM

Ya gotta be kidding me. Are you implying they all do it, so it's OK? That's the weakest argument in the world. The fact is, Phonegate proved an organized Republican conspiracy stole a Senate race. Thus it is completely legitimate to question whether they would do this again, on a federal level. Pointing at Democrats and shouting "You, too!" lets no one off the hook. And I'm kind of surprised anyone here would argue along those lines.

I am not making that argument. But your claim is that if the Republicans were willing to do it one case they might be willing to do it in another:

Now I know that just because they're willing to steal elections in NH doesn't necessarily prove they'd do this on a national level. But I tend to believe that if you'd stoop to such tactics on one instance, and they work, there's every reason to suspect you'd use them again in other situations.

My example points out that by this reasoning either party can be counted on to cheat.

JimBenArm

17th May 2007, 04:46 PM

Hmm. Who could have predicted that this would cause strong feelings from anyone?

Triterope

17th May 2007, 07:42 PM

I am with you. I would like to add my own irritation with that election.

Good, I'm glad someone's riding with me on this one.

How, explicitly, were you denied a place and time to vote? Stuff like this bugs me.

I meant "I tried to vote" in the sense that "I submitted my ballot, but with all the recounting rigormarole in Palm Beach County I have no way of knowing if my vote was counted or thrown out." I wasn't denied the opportunity to push the lever. (Actually, I voted absentee.)

The FL election exposed how many ballots are simply NOT counted, in what seems to be the aim of getting the word out faster, rather than achieving as accurate and precise a count as possible. That makes me mad.

That's another good point. They seem more interested in producing election-night TV drama than they are in getting the count right.

I understand math well enough to know that if 60% of the votes are in and 60% of them went for Candidate A, they can safely award the state's electoral votes to Candidate A. But isn't that kinda deflating to people who haven't voted yet? I wonder how many people don't bother voting because the thing is decided before they can get to the polls. No election results should be announced until all the polls are closed. I would even ban exit polls.

The whole thing was pretty disillusioning. They say Every Vote Counts, but the 2000 election taught me that any close race will be decided by chicanery and random error. And that's just un-American.

Stellafane

17th May 2007, 09:18 PM

...My example points out that by this reasoning either party can be counted on to cheat.

He's not someone I'm in the habit of quoting very often, but Pat Buchanan hit the nail on the head when he said "Tu quoque is the weakest of all arguments."

Sword_Of_Truth

17th May 2007, 10:29 PM

Do stolen election CTs even count as "real" CTs?

Do you notice that even the 9-11 whack-jobs almost never mention election fraud? They talk about JFK, fake moon landings and holocaust denial more than they discuss Florida 2000.

jhunter1163

17th May 2007, 11:33 PM

I understand math well enough to know that if 60% of the votes are in and 60% of them went for Candidate A, they can safely award the state's electoral votes to Candidate A. But isn't that kinda deflating to people who haven't voted yet? I wonder how many people don't bother voting because the thing is decided before they can get to the polls. No election results should be announced until all the polls are closed. I would even ban exit polls.

The whole thing was pretty disillusioning. They say Every Vote Counts, but the 2000 election taught me that any close race will be decided by chicanery and random error. And that's just un-American.

To be fair, the networks do try to withhold their projections till after the polls have closed in the states they are projecting. This has been practice since 1984, when all three major networks projected Reagan as the winner before the polls had closed on the West Coast. I remember, because it was the first presidential election I voted in and I was severely bummed that my vote was going to make no difference whatsoever.

I'd agree with banning exit polls, but waiting till all the polls are closed nationwide to announce results ain't gonna happen. It'd be 2 am in New York when the polls closed in Hawaii. Not very good ratings there.

Brainster

17th May 2007, 11:35 PM

He's not someone I'm in the habit of quoting very often, but Pat Buchanan hit the nail on the head when he said "Tu quoque is the weakest of all arguments."

So what, the first person to bring up that the other side cheats wins?

Triterope

18th May 2007, 09:14 AM

To be fair, the networks do try to withhold their projections till after the polls have closed in the states they are projecting.

Maybe, but not good enough for me. It's not right that the presidential race is decided before a huge chunk of the country gets a chance to vote.

It'd be interesting to chart voter turnout in west coast states against how close the early returns were. I bet it's impacted.

I'd agree with banning exit polls, but waiting till all the polls are closed nationwide to announce results ain't gonna happen. It'd be 2 am in New York when the polls closed in Hawaii. Not very good ratings there.

One night of TV ratings every two years is not a compelling justification for rushed, inaccurate vote tallies.

The networks can still keep themselves busy with Congress and other state-level ballot measures. These would only be required to wait until all polls in the state are closed. So results from Congressional elections in Eastern Time Zone states could start right at 8 PM.

Furthermore, making the ballot counters wait until 2 AM Eastern time gives them more time to do an accurate count, and alleviates pressure to keep up with news demands. Once the Hawaii polls close, most of the United States precincts should have 100% reporting, and the winner can probably be determined in a few minutes. You'd still get election-night drama, but it would happen a lot faster. And you'd have to sit up late if you're an Easterner. But come on, this isn't American Idol, this is about the fate of the free world.

Eleciton-night TV is fun to watch. I love it too. But it's more important that everyone's vote counts.

Pardalis

18th May 2007, 12:30 PM

Has Greg Palast released the emails yet?

No?

Darn, I'll check again later...

Darth Rotor

18th May 2007, 02:01 PM

Has Greg Palast released the emails yet?

No?

Darn, I'll check again later...
This guys methodology smells of Dylan Avery's documentary methods, though I think he's generally a bit more honest, or the BBC would not pay him.

Notice the spin, here.
On the other side, they’re covering up their own program, programmatic challenge of voters, which is not covered in the US press. Three million people were challenged. By the way, this isn't, you know, from the Democracy Now! black helicopter. This is from the raw data of the United States Election Assistance Commission: three million challenges. These votes were basically lost. Over a million votes were lost. Half a million absentee ballots were thrown out, and many, many of those were votes of African American and Hispanic soldiers that went to Iraq, got their ballots challenged under this Karl Rove-Tim Griffin scheme, and they lost their vote. And they didn't even know that they lost their vote. So all of this is being covered up.
Note how he doesn't bother to discuss how non black, non Hispanic military members may or may not have lost their vote.

This guy has agenda written all over him. Also, the article is a sloppy mix of art, speculation, and fact, with little hard evidence to back up the detailed claims he makes, such as the one above.

I would like to see how Palast backs up his assertion about how he was able to parse, from half a million discarded absentee votes, which were from Hispanic, Black, Military, Female, Pacific Islander, Caucasian, and so on, or if he's making this up.

If he can show how, step by step, he was able to build from a general report to this detailed conclusion, I'd have a lot more confidence is his story.

As it is, he is all flash, not much boom.

Like you, I'd love to see these 500 emails, and I hope for Palast's sake that they are not of the same quality as Joe McCarthy's "lists of names."

And so, they cannot now -- they don't want to open up the whole story of Tim Griffin, how he became US attorney, what his role was, because it goes all the way back. And what David Iglesias was saying, US attorney, now captain -- by the way, he’s back in the military -- Captain Iglesias was saying, if you can show this chain of intent, that it’s all about the voting and he’s being punished for not bringing these false prosecutions, he says, that’s an obstruction of justice charge that can be brought against Karl Rove.

And, by the way, one little sidelight on that is that Captain Iglesias, one of the excuses that they try to give for firing him, Amy, was that he was absent for too many days from office. They didn't mention that he was absent because he was on active duty in the US Naval Reserve. He is now, by the way, bringing the very first claim ever. You cannot fire someone for doing their duty in the US Naval Reserve. He’s now filing a charge against the commander-in-chief, George Bush, for attempting to fire him for simply showing up for active duty.
If this is true, and not more of Palast's overstatement, then I say:

You go, Captain Iglesias! Payback is a bitch! :)

DR

ConspiRaider

18th May 2007, 03:01 PM

You post these unsubstantiated claims about Florida 2000 without addressing the issues raised by John Fund in Stealing Elections. It is a fact that the turnout of black voters, an increase of over 300,000, was up sharply from 1996. It is a fact that 6,000 felons voted illegally (overhwelmingly for Gore). It is a fact that the percentage of overvotes in Palm Beach County was more than ten times higher than the rate for the rest of the state. It is a fact that in Palm Beach County Bush ran behind the losing Republican Senatorial candidate and the Republicans running for seats in the House. According to Fund, Democratic poll workers in that county were observed inserting a long metal object through stacks of paper ballots. If you insert such an object through the "Gore" hole, you leave actual Gore votes untouched while creating overvotes elsewhere.
You know what I'd never do, Ron? Write a book about voter fraud in Florida in the 2000 Prez election. I'm a liberal Democrat, and rather passionate about it. That would definitely tend to color my objectivity, regardless of how hard I attempted to shunt aside such a bias.

At least I admit it. This rabid right-winger Fund (what a name. Fund = Fundie, get it?) thinks he can write such a book and be taken seriously? You'll take him seriously, because you are also a rabid right-winger. Along with Malkin and other rightie funsters.

Wanna see another viewpoint? You don't? I understand. But others might like to:

...the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (NORC) studied Florida's disputed ballots and concluded that Gore emerged the winner in at least four recount scenarios.

Full article:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200411010001

And check out some of those "Related Items" at the top right. Your boy Fund is a mouth-breathing, frothing right-winger who adores his champion leader, Stupid-Boy.

pomeroo

18th May 2007, 03:31 PM

You know what I'd never do, Ron? Write a book about voter fraud in Florida in the 2000 Prez election. I'm a liberal Democrat, and rather passionate about it.

Why be passionate about a bunch of unprincipled demagogues who despise the military, are clueless about national security, have contempt for the concept of private property, and are in bed with all sorts of racialist hucksters and corrupt unions? I tend to vote Republican because the Democrats are so appalling, but if I ever felt passionate about the likes of Bush and Cheney, I'd take a long rest and rethink my priorities very hard.

That would definitely tend to color my objectivity, regardless of how hard I attempted to shunt aside such a bias.

At least I admit it. This rabid right-winger Fund (what a name. Fund = Fundie, get it?) thinks he can write such a book and be taken seriously? You'll take him seriously, because you are also a rabid right-winger. Along with Malkin and other rightie funsters.

So, if you're reduced to pretending that a libertarian--no sort of rightwinger whatever--is not merely a rightwinger, but a rabid one, your argument crumbles to dust.

Wanna see another viewpoint? You don't? I understand. But others might like to:

Full article:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200411010001

I wrote two articles about this subject for The American Thinker after studying it for months. I don't claim to be the foremost authority on the Democrats' false charges of voter fraud, but having read many studies conducted by pollsters, political scientists, and a member of the Civil Rights Commission, Peter Kirsanow, I feel that I have a pretty good idea of what the Democrats attempted in Florida. Bush got screwed out of 25-30,000 votes. If some leftist academics want to endlessly recount the massaged ballots to "prove" that Gore eked out a margin of a hundred votes or so, who cares? The Dems cheated in Florida. They are very angry that they didn't cheat quite enough.

And check out some of those "Related Items" at the top right. Your boy Fund is a mouth-breathing, frothing right-winger who adores his champion leader, Stupid-Boy.

You are completely incorrect about Fund. Astonishingly, you seem totally unfamiliar with a regular columnist for one of the nation's premier newspapers.

And don't forget: Bush is smarter than Kerry, as shown by their college records and the IQ tests administered by the military.

Pardalis

18th May 2007, 03:43 PM

And don't forget: Bush is smarter than Kerry, as shown by their college records and the IQ tests administered by the military.

There are no such things as sub-zero IQs. :p

pomeroo

18th May 2007, 03:51 PM

There are no such things as sub-zero IQs. :p

Seriously, none of these clowns are mental giants, but based on their records, Bush is smarter than Gore and Kerry. Larry Ellison said in his Playboy interview that he's spent plenty of social time with both Bush and Gore, and Bush is the sharper of the two.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 03:54 PM

...
This caging discussion ignores the small problem of voter registration cards, and ID, ....

DR
If you mail in your absentee ballot, how does a voter ID card work?

The issue is not individuals voting who shouldn't, it isn't voter ID theft, and it isn't individuals voting twice. The issue is voter disenfranchisement.

Why are the Republicans so keen on voter ID? That's what preregistration is for and that's why you sign in when you go to vote. If there is significant fraud, there should be significant numbers of signatures that don't match registrations. In addition, you register a minimum time period before voting which is supposed to leave time to verify you are a legitimate voter. If the Republicans wanted to make sure people voting were supposed to and only voted once, then why not address that through the voter registration system?

Where is the evidence a significant number of voters voted who shouldn't have? I'm sure there are many but does it come close to being significant and significantly one sided?

On the other hand, there is a much greater chance if you can disenfranchise a large numbers of voters in key districts that are heavily Democratic districts, you can actually change the election outcome. And that is the difference.

ConspiRaider

18th May 2007, 04:09 PM

And don't forget: Bush is smarter than Kerry, as shown by their college records and the IQ tests administered by the military.
Well, how about that. Actually, in context, we were discussing Gore (2000) more than Kerry.

I think this displays the desperation of the right-wing (that means you) when you start touting the intelligence of Stupid-Boy. Remember Ron - people from other countries are looking in on this. They can't believe it either.

George Bush. Smart. I see. Well, since yesterday, 5 more American families are being introduced to the horror and heartbreak of losing one of their own. The Iraq War, that Stupid-Boy brilliantly maneuvered our country into because of ... what was it again?

Please circle the correct answer:

1. Yellowcake
2. WMDs
3. Curveball
4. Niger
5. Al Qaeda
6. 9/11
7. Oil
8. Terrists
9. Freedom
10. Some, most, all or none of the above

I should go to Yale and Harvard so's I can be smart just like Stupid-Boy!!!111one!!11

pomeroo

18th May 2007, 04:35 PM

Well, how about that. Actually, in context, we were discussing Gore (2000) more than Kerry.

I think this displays the desperation of the right-wing (that means you) when you start touting the intelligence of Stupid-Boy. Remember Ron - people from other countries are looking in on this. They can't believe it either.

You insist on using an insulting slur to characterize George Bush. I merely pointed out that denigrating his intelligence seems counterproductive, given your admiration for men who aren't as smart as Bush. If R. Mackey regards Bush as dumb, well, compared to Mackey, Bush is dumb. Dim bulbs like Kerry and Gore do not exactly shine in comparison with Bush.

George Bush. Smart. I see. Well, since yesterday, 5 more American families are being introduced to the horror and heartbreak of losing one of their own.

You disagree with Bush's policies. Period. You keep pretending that his foreign policy is the product of his mental deficiencies. Isn't this a shabby and downright silly approach for a straightforward guy like yourself?

The Iraq War, that Stupid-Boy brilliantly maneuvered our country into because of ... what was it again?

Please circle the correct answer:

1. Yellowcake
2. WMDs
3. Curveball
4. Niger
5. Al Qaeda
6. 9/11
7. Oil
8. Terrists
9. Freedom
10. Some, most, all or none of the above

In 1998, when Clinton bombed Iraq intensively, you probably cheered. You constantly ignore my question about the targeting of Republican Guard barracks: was it a war crime to kill soldiers who had no idea they were fighting anyone? Wouldn't you scream for Bush's impeachment if he had authorized such an action?

Under Clinton, the Congress voted to endorse a policy of regime change in Iraq. Did the Democrats support it because it was nothing more than empty rhetoric, or did they have something substantive in mind?

The strongest case for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam was made by Kenneth Pollack, a Clinton appointee. Some people felt that when Saddam reflected on his experience in Kuwait and concluded that his big mistake was not waiting until he had nuclear weapons, he just might have been serious.

You are extremely proud of the cornerstone of your moral vision--that a murderous tyrant should have been allowed to remain in power to continue oppressing his long-suffering people and to free himself of the constraints imposed by the largely-ignored U.N. sanctions. Having achieved that goal, he could have set about reconstituting his weapons programs. Why are you proud? What am I missing?

I should go to Yale and Harvard so's I can be smart just like Stupid-Boy!!!111one!!11

Jimmy Carter was a horrifically bad, wrong-headed President. He wasn't stupid. Why do you pretend that your ideological opposition to Bush has anything to do with his intelligence?

Slayhamlet

18th May 2007, 04:38 PM

This thread seems about 10% conspiracy theory and about 90% politics.

Civilized Worm

18th May 2007, 04:45 PM

If you ask me, everybody misses the point about the 2000 election fiasco. Which is:<snip>

I agree, the whole voting system is a mess. And I guarantee you that had the Democrats won the election the Republicans would have accused them of stealing it.

There's something I'm not comfortable with here. A journalist shouldn't be doing such a site. Everything he says is tarnished with political partisanship. Shouldn't a journalist be objective? How is one supposed to take him seriously when he so obviously has made up his mind?

It would be lovely if journalists could be objective and factual, unfortunately this is the real world and very few of them can.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 04:47 PM

I am waiting for the emails to be verified as well. But I don't put it past Rove to have sent something like them. Another possibility is they were leaked or hacked by someone then ended up in Palast's hands and the mis-mailed story is to cover the trail.

On Palast's web site (http://www.gregpalast.com/amy-goodman-and-greg-palast-moms-day-broadcast/) (same link from Pardalis above) he covers the email topic in an interview with Dollars and Sense. On their web site, (http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2007/0507palast.html) they published part of the interview but left out the part on the emails, unless it is on a page I didn't find.

Despite the validity of the emails, the voter fraud prosecution theme is emerging without them. U.S. Attorneys Investigation; Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301106.html)By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 14, 2007; Page A04

Nearly half the U.S. attorneys slated for removal by the administration last year were targets of Republican complaints that they were lax on voter fraud, including efforts by presidential adviser Karl Rove to encourage more prosecutions of election- law violations, according to new documents and interviews.

Of the 12 U.S. attorneys known to have been dismissed or considered for removal last year, five were identified by Rove or other administration officials as working in districts that were trouble spots for voter fraud -- Kansas City, Mo.; Milwaukee; New Mexico; Nevada; and Washington state. Four of the five prosecutors in those districts were dismissed.

It has been clear for months that the administration's eagerness to launch voter-fraud prosecutions played a role in some of the firings, but recent testimony, documents and interviews show the issue was more central than previously known. The new details include the names of additional prosecutors who were targeted and other districts that were of concern, as well as previously unknown information about the White House's role....
Source Watch, Congresspedia on the fired attorney matter (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_ firings_controversy)Shifting explanations by White House and Gonzales

On March 14, the White House responded to increasing criticism by offering an additional reason for the forced resignations, namely, "Lax Voter-Fraud Investigations". Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett, cited complaints about U.S. Attorneys in New Mexico, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. [6]

[snip]

Voter-fraud complaints

According to a May 14, 2007, report by the Washington Post based off of newly released Department of Justice documents and interviews, nearly half of the attorneys who were slated for removal were targets of Republican complaints that they were lax on voter fraud, including efforts by presidential adviser Karl Rove to encourage more prosecutions of election. [76]

It's obvious there is more than meets the eye here.

Justice Official Says He Was Directed To Call Fired Prosecutors (http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070503nj1.htm)By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, May 3, 2007

The chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty has told congressional investigators that phone calls he placed to four fired U.S. attorneys -- calls that three of the prosecutors say involved threats about testifying before Congress -- were made at McNulty's direction.

Michael Elston, the chief of staff, told congressional investigators in a closed-door session on March 30 that McNulty specifically instructed him to make the phone calls after the Justice Department's No. 2 official learned that the fired prosecutors might testify before Congress about their dismissals.

A transcript of Elston's confidential interview with the congressional investigators was made available to National Journal.

The U.S. attorneys have said that Elston, in effect, told them that if they kept quiet about their dismissals, the Justice Department would not suggest that they had been forced to resign because of poor performance.

At least one member of Congress has questioned whether the phone calls might constitute obstruction of justice. So on the one hand there are specious emails, on the other, there's clearly obstruction of 'coming clean' about the reason for wanting to fire the attorneys and who was involved.

So if not the Rove '08 election influence plan, what other possibilities make more sense? And I am keeping in mind there could have been different reasons for each or some of the firings.

Gonzales hearing long on theatrics (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070510-115456-5995r_page2.htm)Miss Sanchez asked Mr. Gonzales why Debra Yang resigned from her U.S. attorney post in Los Angeles while her office reportedly was investigating Mr. Lewis on reports of political corruption. Miss Yang reportedly took a $1.5 million signing bonus to join Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, the same private law firm that is representing Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Gonzales said nothing untoward happened, as cases do not end when a U.S. attorney resigns. He added that he "is not confirming that Mr. Lewis is a target," a formal legal term for a person who has been officially notified that prosecutors are investigating him.
But that wasn't enough for Rep. Dan Lungren, California Republican, who talked heatedly with four other Republicans and then objected to Miss Sanchez's words, which he said "besmirched" Mr. Lewis.
"As anybody knows, there's a huge difference between an investigation and a target," said Mr. Lungren, a former attorney general of California.
Miss Sanchez withdrew her use of the word "target" to apply to Mr. Lewis.
Less than an hour later, Rep. Chris Cannon, Utah Republican, approached Mr. Lewis in a hallway, put his arm around his shoulder and informed him of what had happened.
"Thank you," Mr. Lewis said repeatedly, before declining to speak about the matter with The Washington Times.

There's some kind of conspiracy going on here. How can anyone not think that?

_______________

Glory hallelujah! (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/gonzales.hearing/)"I will be the first to admit I am not perfect and I make mistakes," Gonzales told the committee after being asked if any mistakes involving him were made in the war on terror.
Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the committee, then exclaimed, "Glory hallelujah, you're the first one in the administration that's said that."I couldn't resist. ;) This is from the 2005 confirmation hearing, BTW.

Brainster

18th May 2007, 04:48 PM

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 04:52 PM

This thread seems about 10% conspiracy theory and about 90% politics.I'm trying to get it back on track. It's the Rove conspiracy I wanted to discuss.

pomeroo

18th May 2007, 04:52 PM

"Page after page of voters with this address, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, hundreds, thousands of soldiers and sailors targeted to lose their vote. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote."

What would happen if we put aside our prejudices and viewed this matter purely from a critical-thinking standpoint?

Karl Rove has hatched an evil scheme to disfranchise a heavily-Republican constituency. Soldiers and sailors tend to vote Republican, which is why the Gore campaign worked so hard to disqualify their ballots in Florida in 2000.
Can anyone see a problem with Greg Palast's latest fabrication?

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 04:59 PM

500 mis-mailed is alot if the total "mailed" was 600, but not so much if the total mailed was, lets say, 3-4 Million.

TAM:)This made me think because I can't see Rove sending a million posts, but is there anywhere Palast says all 500 are Rove emails? Or are they just Republican Party emails? I'll have to read back through the citations. If it were 500 Republican Party emails of which a handful had to do with Rove, that would be more plausible.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 05:00 PM

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 05:12 PM

Why is it that whenever voter ID's are brought up in congress it's those honest democrats who scream foul loudest?

Think about that. Since the democrat voters are the ones supposedly being disenfranchised the most then does'nt it make more sense for the democrats to be the ones pushing voter ID legislation?You must be watching too much Fox News.

09/21/06 (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060921-123316-5086r.htm)The House yesterday passed legislation that would require voters to show a valid photo identification in federal elections over the overwhelming objections of Democrats who compared the bill to segregation-era measures aimed at disenfranchising Southern blacks.
The Federal Election Integrity Act was approved on a nearly party-line 228-196 vote. Republicans backed the bill 224-3, with three nonvoters; Democrats opposed it 192-4, with five nonvoters. They were joined in opposition by the House's one independent member.

HB29 in Alabama (http://alisdb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/ACASLogin.asp) is for statewide voter ID and is sponsored by Republican State Senator Allen.

uk_dave

18th May 2007, 05:16 PM

On the off chance that I'm wrong, I have already graciously requested that the rest of the world invade us in November 2008 if we elect Giuliani, and depose him.

OK, your tanks are ***** anyways

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 05:17 PM

SG: Fruit of the poison tree, regarding only the article, not your "again" bit, which you are correct in assessing as a road to nowhere. No, I didn't assess it as a road to nowhere, just one off this topic. Don't try to make it look like I agree with you where I don't. I'm still looking at the rest of your post before responding.

Pardalis

18th May 2007, 05:18 PM

But I think Drysdale had a good point. Shouldn't the Democratics want the ID card so that they wouldn't be victims of disenfranchising?

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 05:23 PM

...
Consider the problem with the claim made about Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida, (http://www.nasjax.navy.mil/) and the words used, sorry, the hyperbole used.

To recap: [snip] Sorry, that dog does not hunt.

1. The assumption that Rove considers persons living at NAS Jax a threat in the next election, or in past elections. Think about that, for just a moment. Which way do active duty members tend to vote, according to "conventional wisdom?" Also, how is Rove going after blacks on NAS Jax, if they live in the barracks? By name? Maybe he has people providing him data via a DoD data base, complete with ethnic classification. (That is a privacy act violation, but of course, that consideration probably would not stop many politicians if they were up to no good.)
....

DR
Did you miss the actual story here? (http://kmareka.com/?p=1186)They did this by an illegal process called “caging” — they sent address verification letters to primarily African-American voters, many of them soldiers serving in Iraq. Because they were in Iraq and planning to vote by absentee ballot, they were not home to reply to the verification letters. Then, when they sent in their absentee ballots, their votes were challenged and disqualified.The soldiers weren't the target, the neighborhoods were. And the absentee ballots were targeted for rejection, not targeted to not be sent out. Surely all soldiers don't uniformly vote Republican. Apparently those dogs do hunt, but Palast just got the details wrong in the interview.

uk_dave

18th May 2007, 05:26 PM

So, do something.

This isn't a conspiracy, it's politics.

It's out there, in the open

Do something to counter it

ConspiRaider

18th May 2007, 05:27 PM

You are extremely proud of the cornerstone of your moral vision--that a murderous tyrant should have been allowed to remain in power to continue oppressing his long-suffering people and to free himself of the constraints imposed by the largely-ignored U.N. sanctions. Having achieved that goal, he could have set about reconstituting his weapons programs. Why are you proud? What am I missing?
What you are missing would fill a canyon.

You haven't been in the military, Ron, and so therefore it becomes terribly easy for you to think in terms of using unique human beings as pawns in military adventures. I've been in, and so have many, many, many Democrats. Does it affect one's perspective on war? Yes it does.

What you are missing is this: Starting an offensive war against a nation that did not attack us is always the LAST option to be considered. Regardless of political bent. Once the dogs of war are loosed - anything follows. As we've seen. Babies are going to be turned into red mist. Women are going to be burned to cinders. Men are going to be blown to pieces. Families - perhaps complete family lines, front to back - are going to be wiped out of existence. Entire villages, towns, destroyed. Unexploded ordnance in the fields, waters, cities for decades. Depleted uranium expelling its remaining radioactivity for years. It is the greatest sin of mankind, as General Douglas MacArthur so eloquently stated.

Stupid-Boy, Quick-Draw Dick and Der Oberfuhrer Rove came through the door after the disputed election of 2000 - spoiling for war with Iraq! They WANTED it! They sought it every way they could. If they had to lie, steal, cheat to begin the slaughter - so be it. Just so long as they got their way.

And this bit about putting a murderous tyrant out of business? Freeing an oppressed people? Hogwash. Why don't you go over to Saudi Arabia, Ron, and get educated on the concept of oppression. We didn't invade them. Nor North Korea. Nor Russia. Nor China. Nor a hundred other countries or more in the world that suffer from an overdose of oppression, meted out by a greedy, gluttonous government.

We had a Civil War. And the Brits did a bit to intervene with their Confederate shipbuilding operations. We really did not like that at all, angrily demanded reparations after war. It's a no-win situation for the country butting into a nation's civil war. And that is what your boy - Stupid-Boy Extraordinaire - got us into. We got involved in a civil war in Vietnam, didn't we? And that turned out how?

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 05:35 PM

So, do something.

This isn't a conspiracy, it's politics.

It's out there, in the open

Do something to counter itNo it isn't in the open. Where do you see the evidence for Rove's indictment and the Bush/Cheney Impeachment for voter fraud?

Except there are a few OT posts. Just address those individually. I want to discuss the conspiracy here. Or all all the conspiracies in this forum supposed to be false?

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 05:42 PM

But I think Drysdale had a good point. Shouldn't the Democratics want the ID card so that they wouldn't be victims of disenfranchising?That isn't how disenfranchisement works.

Less machines for many more Democrats vs more voting machines for less Republicans. Have you ever had to wait 8 or more hours to vote like Democrats did in Ohio? Dumping of legit names from voter roles by various means. Moving polling places so voters go to the wrong place to vote. Sending out false notices or making phone calls telling people they have an extra day to send in absentee ballots. Those are some of the means of voter disenfranchisement.

Requiring voter ID with pictures is one way to discourage low income, minority and elderly voters.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 05:47 PM

Here are voter ID laws by state (http://www.electionline.org/Default.aspx?tabid=364) as of 10/06 for anyone interested.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 05:50 PM

Some objections to the federal voter ID law:

Vote Trust USA (http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1796&Itemid=26)The American Association of Retired People has actively opposed voter identification legislation in several states wrote in a letter submitted into the record at last week's mark-up "On behalf of older Americans who have largely shaped the values of our democracy, we urge great care to ensure that the basic right to vote is not rrampled in an effort to address unproven allegations of voting issues."

Similarly, the League of Women Voters has argued against photo ID legislation stating in the field hearing held in Phoenix, "any proposal that restricts voter registration or raises barriers to voting in order to deal with the supposed problem of non-citizen voting is a fear-based approach instead of a fact-based solution. We simply have not seen the facts that would justify restricting the franchise." These sentiments are echoed in statements from dozens of public interest and civil rights organizations.

WildCat

18th May 2007, 05:55 PM

Here are voter ID laws by state (http://www.electionline.org/Default.aspx?tabid=364) as of 10/06 for anyone interested.
Illinois First-time voters who register by mail and do not provide ID verification with registration application - photo and non-photo ID acceptedA copy of a current and valid photo identification; or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter. Source: State election Web site (http://www.elections.state.il.us/VoteInfo/Pages/IlVoterInfo.htm)
I'm an Illinois voter, and have never been asked to show an ID of any sort. And, of course, no one ever checks to see if you're actually a citizen of this country. One would almost think the Dems who run Cook County want illegal aliens to vote, because they vote Democrat? Maybe that's why they printed my polling place info in 4 languages? (English, Spanish, Polish, and Korean)

Oops, forgot we're only here to discuss the ways Republicans manipulate the vote.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 06:13 PM

I'm an Illinois voter, and have never been asked to show an ID of any sort. And, of course, no one ever checks to see if you're actually a citizen of this country. One would almost think the Dems who run Cook County want illegal aliens to vote, because they vote Democrat? Maybe that's why they printed my polling place info in 4 languages? (English, Spanish, Polish, and Korean)

Oops, forgot we're only here to discuss the ways Republicans manipulate the vote.I put this information in because it has to do with the voter disenfranchisement which is part of the conspiracy charge.

I believe the federal law only passed after the last national election and before the lame duck Congress retired. However, in WA state, I had to show ID for the first time, the last time I voted. State voting laws are separate. A lot of the legislation is very recent.

Bob Klase

18th May 2007, 06:17 PM

Requiring voter ID with pictures is one way to discourage low income, minority and elderly voters.

Here are voter ID laws by state as of 10/06 for anyone interested.

According to the link you provided, 21 states require voters to show ID every time they vote. (Only 2 require photo ID):

Is there evidence that the ID requirement has discouraged low income, minority or elderly voters from voting in any of those 21 states? If there is evidence, I've never seen it.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 06:17 PM

... And, of course, no one ever checks to see if you're actually a citizen of this country.....How do you know that? You have to register. Illegal registrations can be challenged. Otherwise I do not know what each state checks with voter registration but they are checked since that is one of the means Republicans like Black and Harris in Ohio and Florida respectively were able to dump people from voting roles before.

WildCat

18th May 2007, 06:18 PM

I put this information in because it has to do with the voter disenfranchisement which is part of the conspiracy charge.
Do you think that proof of citizenship should be required to be able to register to vote? And by "proof" I don't mean you check a box that says you're a citizen, which is all they do here. I mean show a birth certificate, or an official state ID (drivers license or ID card) that is verifiably legitimate.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 06:18 PM

According to the link you provided, 21 states require voters to show ID every time they vote. (Only 2 require photo ID):

Is there evidence that the ID requirement has discouraged low income, minority or elderly voters from voting in any of those 21 states? If there is evidence, I've never seen it.Right, the federal law only affect federal elections. Time will tell whether the fear is legit or not. All this ID stuff is new. But in the past, poll taxes were used to disenfranchise voters.

Triterope

18th May 2007, 06:18 PM

I agree, the whole voting system is a mess. And I guarantee you that had the Democrats won the election the Republicans would have accused them of stealing it.

Yup. And shouldn't we, as a nation, be embrassed about that? Our voting system should be so robust and corruption-free that a close defeat should not fall into question.

To be fair, not every close race is challenged. But the 2000 election betrayed a really ugly side of our supposedly representative government.

WildCat

18th May 2007, 06:19 PM

How do you know that? You have to register. Illegal registrations can be challenged.
Here you simply check a box saying you're a citizen.

There shouldn't be any need to print ballots or polling place information in any language but English, since proficiency in English is a requirement for citizenship.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 06:32 PM

Wiki on poll taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax)Tax on Voting

A poll tax, on the sense of a discriminatory tax which was a pre-condition of the exercise of the right to vote, emerged in some US states between the mid-19th to mid-20th centuries. After the right to vote was extended to all races by the enactment of the 15th Amendment, many Southern states enacted poll tax laws which often included a grandfather clause that allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather had voted in a specific year prior to the abolition of slavery to vote without paying the tax. These laws achieved the desired effect of disenfranchising African and Native Americans, as well as poor whites who immigrated after the year specified.

Wiki on voter suppression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression), (a neutrality disputed entry, what a surprise :rolleyes:)Voter suppression by governmental power

In the United States, voter suppression was used extensively in some Southern states until the Voting Rights Act (1965) made most disenfranchisement and voting qualifications illegal. Traditional voter suppression tactics included the institution of poll taxes and literacy tests, aimed at suppressing the votes of African Americans and working class white voters.

Measures in place in seven U.S. states ban released felons from voting; some allege that this is a tactic aimed at suppressing voter turnout. Occasionally, as in Florida in the 2000 presidential election, some non-felons are banned due to record-keeping errors and are not warned of their disqualification before they have the right to contest it.

In the U.S. presidential election of 2004, Ohio officials allegedly mis-allocated voting machines to reduce Democratic turnout. (With too few voting machines per registered voter, in areas heavily populated by African Americans who were Democratic, had to wait in line for hours. Republican districts received many more voting machines per capita.) [1]

Regarding the voter ID and conspiracies, here's an interesting link (http://truthaboutfraud.org/) from the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law.Much of the hue and cry about voter fraud is accompanied by calls for restrictive ID requirements. Some of this may be a sincere, if mistaken, belief in the need for restrictive ID measures. But this clip from a May 17, 2007, Houston Chronicle article suggests another rationale:

Among Republicans it is an 'article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections,' [Royal] Masset[, former political director of the Republican Party of Texas,] said. He doesn't agree with that, but does believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote.

The political cartoon on the page comments on the claims of voter fraud by the people pushing the voter ID legislation.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 06:47 PM

Here you simply check a box saying you're a citizen.

There shouldn't be any need to print ballots or polling place information in any language but English, since proficiency in English is a requirement for citizenship.I meant how do you know what the voter registration office checks? Maybe they do random audits, maybe they check registrations that are challenged.

Re the language, reading is different from speaking.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 06:52 PM

... I guarantee you that had the Democrats won the election the Republicans would have accused them of stealing it.....They did and they did here in WA over the governor's election.

WildCat

18th May 2007, 06:58 PM

I meant how do you know what the voter registration office checks? Maybe they do random audits, maybe they check registrations that are challenged.
I eagerly await for you to present the hundreds of prosecutions for illegally registering to vote in Cook County that must exist if these audits take place.

Re the language, reading is different from speaking.
Anecdotal I know, but the folks I've seen at my polling place didn't speak it either.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 07:00 PM

Do you think that proof of citizenship should be required to be able to register to vote? And by "proof" I don't mean you check a box that says you're a citizen, which is all they do here. I mean show a birth certificate, or an official state ID (drivers license or ID card) that is verifiably legitimate.I have no problem with some system of verifying voter registrations. How much you verify and what states spend doing it should be based on the actual need. If there was evidence those X million illegal workers were voting, then proof of citizenship should be checked in some way. Showing ID at the polls is silly. Proving you are legit when you register is not. Doing it through registration allows time to check, challenge, provide missing proof and so on. Signing your name when you vote allows one vote per registrant and a way to check for fraud if challenged. And if I wanted to cheat and didn't have ID, I could just mail in my ballot. Not to mention fake ID doesn't seem to be too hard for all these illegal workers.

Bob Klase

18th May 2007, 07:05 PM

Right, the federal law only affect federal elections.

In the absence of evidence I think it's reasonable to assume that if any voters are going to be discouraged from voting by an ID requirement then very few of those people will discriminate between federal and local elections.

Time will tell whether the fear is legit or not. All this ID stuff is new.

My mistake. I interpreted it as a statement of fact earlier when you wrote:

Requiring voter ID with pictures is one way to discourage low income, minority and elderly voters.

But in the past, poll taxes were used to disenfranchise voters.

Are you equating poll taxes with ID requirements? Should we also do away with registration altogether and just let anyone who shows up vote because poll taxes were used to disenfranchise voters?

And when we get right down to it- if requiring ID does disenfranchise voters, shouldn't we (the federal government) prohibit states from requiring ID just like we prohibited poll taxes?

ETA: I doubt that massive voter fraud exists due to the lack of ID. But I also fail to see why an ID requirement is such a problem for so many people.

WildCat

18th May 2007, 07:06 PM

Showing ID at the polls is silly.
How so? What's to prevent me from walking into a polling place, look down at the voter list and tell the judge that I'm whatever name I choose that isn't crossed off yet?

WildCat

18th May 2007, 07:09 PM

Not to mention fake ID doesn't seem to be too hard for all these illegal workers.
That's why I said a "verifiable". An employer has no way to verify, say, a driver's license. But a cop can find out in a few seconds whether or not the DL you presented to him is not legitimate.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 07:09 PM

I eagerly await for you to present the hundreds of prosecutions for illegally registering to vote in Cook County that must exist if these audits take place.

Anecdotal I know, but the folks I've seen at my polling place didn't speak it either.Have you looked for the actual evidence large numbers of non-citizens voted where you live?

The Republican Bush appointed attorney here in WA State was on that firing list and had been asked by one of our Republican Congressman to investigate and charge fraudulent voters. Our Democratic governor only won by ~120 votes and it was on the third count. But McCay did not believe there was evidence that there was anything significant to pursue. Why? I have to assume he would have if there had been.

This is all part of this alleged conspiracy. Why go after a handful of fraudulent voters? According to Palast and others the reason isn't because there was any widespread voter fraud. The reason is to eliminate a small but decisive number of Democratic voters in 08 by intimidation.

gumboot

18th May 2007, 07:10 PM

Democracy is so overrated.

-Gumboot

WildCat

18th May 2007, 07:15 PM

Have you looked for the actual evidence large numbers of non-citizens voted where you live?
Since there seems to be no effort at all made to prevent it I'm assuming it is happening.

The Republican Bush appointed attorney here in WA State was on that firing list and had been asked by one of our Republican Congressman to investigate and charge fraudulent voters. Our Democratic governor only won by ~120 votes and it was on the third count. But McCay did not believe there was evidence that there was anything significant to pursue. Why? I have to assume he would have if there had been.
There's a world of difference between verifying the voter during the registration process and fishing for the fraudulent applications after the fact. The latter is expensive, time consuming, and inefficient.

This is all part of this alleged conspiracy. Why go after a handful of fraudulent voters? According to Palast and others the reason isn't because there was any widespread voter fraud. The reason is to eliminate a small but decisive number of Democratic voters in 08 by intimidation.
I really don't see how anyone is intimidated by the ID requirement. It certainly doesn't seem to keep customers out of the bars on Saturday nights...

pomeroo

18th May 2007, 07:21 PM

What you are missing would fill a canyon.

You haven't been in the military, Ron, and so therefore it becomes terribly easy for you to think in terms of using unique human beings as pawns in military adventures. I've been in, and so have many, many, many Democrats. Does it affect one's perspective on war? Yes it does.

Who likes war? It was the judgment of many analysts, most prominently Kenneth Pollack, that we would have to fight Saddam at some point. We had the option of waiting until he was stronger. Why that was necessarily the better choice remains unclear to me.

What you are missing is this: Starting an offensive war against a nation that did not attack us is always the LAST option to be considered.

What is the relevance of this platitude to the geopolitical reality? We were attacked by jihadists on 9/11/01. Osama's appeal to the oppressed and backward peoples of the Middle East lay in his identification of the cause of all their misery: the Great Satan--the United States. He offered a vision, one that could only be countered by a competing vision. The neocons thought that dangling the promise of political freedom would defuse the hatred and resentment of the downtrodden for the prosperous West. Was that a bad idea?

Regardless of political bent. Once the dogs of war are loosed - anything follows. As we've seen. Babies are going to be turned into red mist. Women are going to be burned to cinders. Men are going to be blown to pieces. Families - perhaps complete family lines, front to back - are going to be wiped out of existence. Entire villages, towns, destroyed. Unexploded ordnance in the fields, waters, cities for decades. Depleted uranium expelling its remaining radioactivity for years. It is the greatest sin of mankind, as General Douglas MacArthur so eloquently stated.

The U.S. didn't provoke Saddam to attack three of his neighbors. When we've suffered a devastating blow from terrorists, should we ignore an implacable enemy who seeks WMD? If Bush had done nothing about Saddam, and America was dealt another crippling blow in, say, 2006, by weapons that were traced back to Iraq, what would the consequences have been? Conceivably 100,000 of our fellow citizens would be dead; congressional Democrats would be demanding Bush's impeachment for criminal negligence of his duty to protect us (I would agree with them); and the lunatic-left would be screaming that we had attacked ourselves.
If I had been elected President in 2000, I would have regarded my term as a failure if I allowed Saddam to remain in power.

Stupid-Boy, Quick-Draw Dick and Der Oberfuhrer Rove came through the door after the disputed election of 2000 - spoiling for war with Iraq! They WANTED it! They sought it every way they could. If they had to lie, steal, cheat to begin the slaughter - so be it. Just so long as they got their way.

Bubba wanted the credit for removing Saddam, but he called off the invasion when polling data failed to show overwhelming support for the venture. Some cans shouldn't be kicked down the road indefinitely.

And this bit about putting a murderous tyrant out of business? Freeing an oppressed people? Hogwash. Why don't you go over to Saudi Arabia, Ron, and get educated on the concept of oppression. We didn't invade them. Nor North Korea. Nor Russia. Nor China. Nor a hundred other countries or more in the world that suffer from an overdose of oppression, meted out by a greedy, gluttonous government.

You keep pretending that it's hogwash because you must besmirch everything Bush attempts. You are completely wrong, however. Setting up a democratic Iraq was the whole idea--the long-term alternative to the vision of radical Islam. The status quo that Democrats support so fervently hasn't worked out too well for us.

We had a Civil War. And the Brits did a bit to intervene with their Confederate shipbuilding operations. We really did not like that at all, angrily demanded reparations after war. It's a no-win situation for the country butting into a nation's civil war. And that is what your boy - Stupid-Boy Extraordinaire - got us into. We got involved in a civil war in Vietnam, didn't we? And that turned out how?

It's no longer the seventies. We now know that North Vietnam's war of conquest was no civil war. Some of us understood that all along. The insurgent and terrorist violence in Iraq is no civil war, either.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 07:24 PM

That's why I said a "verifiable". An employer has no way to verify, say, a driver's license. But a cop can find out in a few seconds whether or not the DL you presented to him is not legitimate.I don't want this thread derailed too far here so keep that in mind if/when you reply. My son's SSN doesn't match his name because his name was changed a few years ago. So his passport and his license have one name and his SSN has another. He got a job, no trouble. But he couldn't get a bank account. The bank had an instant SSN check as he sat there filling out the forms. So it isn't just cops who can easily check and the mechanics of an instant check is obviously not a barrier.

To tie this back to the thread, it was clear to me when that happened that politics, and not simple legitimacy in the voting public is the rule here. If there were a lot of non-citizens voting, and the Republicans thought such votes went more heavily Democratic, show me the evidence, I'll be on your side for requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Hearing a foreign language spoken at the voting booth is not evidence. Being unhappy about immigrants being granted citizenship is not relevant to this issue. Why, given the obvious benefit to Republicans disclosing widespread non-citizens voting would have, have the Republicans only been able to produce rumors of such illegal voting? Why are the Republicans pursuing voter ID when to check citizenship all they need to do is ask for that SSN and run the same instant check the bank ran on my son? Is the voter ID proof of citizenship?

pomeroo

18th May 2007, 07:29 PM

Richard Baehr wrote an excellent piece on the Democrats' ham-fisted theft of the Washington State gubernatorial election:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/12/the_sound_of_stealing.html

WildCat

18th May 2007, 07:40 PM

I don't want this thread derailed too far here so keep that in mind if/when you reply. My son's SSN doesn't match his name because his name was changed a few years ago. So his passport and his license have one name and his SSN has another. He got a job, no trouble. But he couldn't get a bank account. The bank had an instant SSN check as he sat there filling out the forms. So it isn't just cops who can easily check and the mechanics of an instant check is obviously not a barrier.

To tie this back to the thread, it was clear to me when that happened that politics, and not simple legitimacy in the voting public is the rule here. If there were a lot of non-citizens voting, and the Republicans thought such votes went more heavily Democratic, show me the evidence, I'll be on your side for requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Hearing a foreign language spoken at the voting booth is not evidence. Being unhappy about immigrants being granted citizenship is not relevant to this issue. Why, given the obvious benefit to Republicans disclosing widespread non-citizens voting would have, have the Republicans only been able to produce rumors of such illegal voting? Why are the Republicans pursuing voter ID when to check citizenship all they need to do is ask for that SSN and run the same instant check the bank ran on my son? Is the voter ID proof of citizenship?
First off, there are no Republicans in my area*.
Secondly, I'm dumbfounded by the list of requirements that must be true before you'll accept proof of citizenship in the registration process.

*Actually, there are a few. Kerry only carried 97.47% of the vote here (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Albany%20Park,%20Chicago) in 2004.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 07:48 PM

...I really don't see how anyone is intimidated by the ID requirement. It certainly doesn't seem to keep customers out of the bars on Saturday nights...Why do you want an ID check if illegal voters can simply mail in ballots or have fake IDs?

As a Democrat, I plan to campaign for any voter without an ID to mail in their ballot.

Whether or not voter ID requirements actually do disenfranchise low income, minority, and elderly voters and whether or not such a requirement keeps 3% of Democratic voters from the polls may be speculation. Or the evidence may be stronger if to a social scientist, I don't know. What I do see evidence of, however, is that voter ID doesn't prevent non-citizen voters, nor voter fraud, nor is there any evidence either of those problems contributed to actual election outcomes being changed in past national elections.

But there is evidence the Republicans are pursuing voter ID requirements, and some Republicans have suggested they believe voter IDs will disenfranchise some Democratic voters. I believe there was evidence of voter disenfranchisement in 00, some purposeful (by Harris' actions), some accidental (the chads), that might have been a lucky break for the Republicans. I think in 04 the Republicans made a more sophisticated effort to disenfranchise Democratic voters both in Ohio and Florida. It's my belief based on the evidence I have seen.

I have no desire to convince anyone here in this thread that my conclusions are correct, that stuff has been hashed and rehashed in previous threads. I doubt many of us are going to change our conclusions at this point. But I would like to know what these attorney firings were all about, and if there is any evidence Rove is involved with plans to systematically disenfranchise voters in 08 in key states that are possibly going to be close calls between Red and Blue.

Drysdale

18th May 2007, 07:48 PM

That isn't how disenfranchisement works.

Less machines for many more Democrats vs more voting machines for less Republicans. Have you ever had to wait 8 or more hours to vote like Democrats did in Ohio? Dumping of legit names from voter roles by various means. Moving polling places so voters go to the wrong place to vote. Sending out false notices or making phone calls telling people they have an extra day to send in absentee ballots. Those are some of the means of voter disenfranchisement.

Requiring voter ID with pictures is one way to discourage low income, minority and elderly voters.[/QUOTE]

I've never understood this argument. This is an argument of contradictions.
I've never been a minority or old(yet) but I have been low income.
I lived for the most part then around those groups cited in that statement that I've heard numerous times from dems. What I dont get is this.

Most people that I knew including myself lived very much week to week,even day to day. Most of the business transactions,rent,utilities etc were paid with money orders. They use cash much more than bank cards or checks from my experience with the exception of the elderly people maybe who I dont really know why they get throw in there except scaring the elderly people is a long used democrat talking point.

So most of those people need to carry ID's more than lets say the middle class much less the upper class because most get paid with checks they have to cash.Whether it's social security,welfare,unemployment,pay checks etc.

And when they say minority what they must mean is illegals who are'nt supposed to vote anyway right?

I mean if they mean all black folks or legal mexican americans, and other legal immigrants etc dont carry ID's thats such a slap to those people. Just because someone is black or mexican or pick a minority race here and to assume they are poor and dont carry ID's is to me a much more racist remark than other topics going on this board right now involving racism. If you think about that statement for a minute how does that really sound?

How do the democrats get away with this crap?

[QUOTE=skeptigirl;2614507]You must be watching too much Fox News.

09/21/06 (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060921-123316-5086r.htm)

HB29 in Alabama (http://alisdb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/ACASLogin.asp) is for statewide voter ID and is sponsored by Republican State Senator Allen.

Not being facetious here, I rarely watch TV news period, it's much too tabloid oriented for me. I get most of my news off the internet.
So just curious, what does Fox news have to do with what I said?

Edited for spelling

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 07:51 PM

First off, there are no Republicans in my area*.
Secondly, I'm dumbfounded by the list of requirements that must be true before you'll accept proof of citizenship in the registration process.

*Actually, there are a few. Kerry only carried 97.47% of the vote here (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Albany%20Park,%20Chicago) in 2004.You lost me here? I said proving citizenship was reasonable.

If you want to waste time and money on doing it there should be evidence it is needed.

And ID at the polls would do nothing to prevent non-citizen voters from voting.

pomeroo

18th May 2007, 07:58 PM

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 08:02 PM

Your [/b] mucked with the quote function there Drys.That isn't how disenfranchisement works.

Less machines for many more Democrats vs more voting machines for less Republicans. Have you ever had to wait 8 or more hours to vote like Democrats did in Ohio? Dumping of legit names from voter roles by various means. Moving polling places so voters go to the wrong place to vote. Sending out false notices or making phone calls telling people they have an extra day to send in absentee ballots. Those are some of the means of voter disenfranchisement.

Requiring voter ID with pictures is one way to discourage low income, minority and elderly voters.

I've never understood this argument. This is an argument of contradictions.
I've never been a minority or old(yet) but I have been low income.
I lived for the most part then around those groups cited in that statement that I've heard numerous times from dems. What I dont get is this.

Most people that I knew including myself lived very much week to week,even day to day. Most of the business transactions,rent,utilities etc were paid with money orders. They use cash much more than bank cards or checks from my experience with the exception of the elderly people maybe who I dont really know why they get throw in there except scaring the elderly people is a long used democrat talking point.

So most of those people need to carry ID's more than lets say the middle class much less the upper class because most get paid with checks they have to cash.Whether it's social security,welfare,unemployment,pay checks etc.

And when they say minority what they must mean is illegals who are'nt supposed to vote anyway right?

I mean if they mean all black folks or legal mexican americans, and other legal immigrants etc dont carry ID's thats such a slap to those people. Just because someone is black or mexican or pick a minority race here and to assume they are poor and dont carry ID's is to me a much more racist remark than other topics going on this board right now involving racism. If you think about that statement for a minute how does that really sound?

How do the democrats get away with this crap? Get away with what? Believing voter ID requirements prevent some people from voting? Or believing some minority voters are affected equals the claim all minority voters are and they are therefore racist?

You are also quite confused about why Republican leaders want voter ID requirements. You are buying the reason they are selling, but that isn't the reason they are discussing in top Party meetings as I noted in at least one link above.

Why don't you read the links discussing why voter ID intimidates some voters if you don't understand the rationale?

Not being facetious here, I rarely watch TV news period, it's much too tabloid oriented for me. I get most of my news off the internet.
So just curious, what does Fox news have to do with what I said?...Because you posted your facts backward. Republicans want ID, Dems don't and you insisted the opposite was true. People who watch Fox News are statistically more likely to believe falsehoods like that.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 08:05 PM

This whole issue is extremely simple.

Republicans want to diminish vote fraud because they get hurt by it.

Democrats resist any attempt to reform the voting system because they profit from illegally-cast votes.

If the effects were reversed, the parties' positions would be reversed.

Neither side gives a damn about clean elections, per se.Is that the vote fraud the Republicans can't seem to find any evidence of, pommy? And with the correction that won't correct the concocted vote fraud?

WildCat

18th May 2007, 08:06 PM

You lost me here? I said proving citizenship was reasonable.
But then you said:
If there were a lot of non-citizens voting, and the Republicans thought such votes went more heavily Democratic, show me the evidence, I'll be on your side for requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.
Which makes me think you're hedging quite a bit.

If you want to waste time and money on doing it there should be evidence it is needed.
It would be a waste of time and money to check for this after the fact, far easier and cheaper to do it at the application stage - could be as simple as swiping a DL.

And ID at the polls would do nothing to prevent non-citizen voters from voting.
ID at the polls is to make sure the person voting is who they say they are in order to keep people from voting "early and often", not to keep non-citizens from voting.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 08:13 PM

But then you said:

Which makes me think you're hedging quite a bit.I'm not hedging, but I am not supporting correcting a problem that there is no evidence occurred or is occurring.

It would be a waste of time and money to check for this after the fact, far easier and cheaper to do it at the application stage - could be as simple as swiping a DL.I'm saying is there evidence this occurred? Because for something so important to the Republicans, they haven't found evidence of any more than a handful of cases of illegal voting.

ID at the polls is to make sure the person voting is who they say they are in order to keep people from voting "early and often", not to keep non-citizens from voting.How do you vote early and often if you aren't registered in multiple places? And so what if John Smith has an ID. What stops him from registering in multiple addresses and still voting more than once?

More importantly here is how do you coordinate enough people doing this to affect an election outcome? How do you conspire to manipulate the vote using individuals voting more than once?

pomeroo

18th May 2007, 08:16 PM

Is that the vote fraud the Republicans can't seem to find any evidence of, pommy? And with the correction that won't correct the concocted vote fraud?

Do you think there was no evidence of fraud in the Washington State election? Or in Palm Beach County in 2000?

Read Baehr's article and the relevant chapter in John Fund's book.

The Dems have a good scam going. The Republicans scream and the Dems call them racists. Works like a charm.

One of my favorite Al Sharpton moments came on Election night 1993, after David Dinkins had conceded defeat to Rudy. The rotund Rev seized the mike and thundered about Republican attempts to intimidate illegal immigrants at the polls. He demanded that Janet Reno get involved. An aide whispered in his ear. Reno did not get involved. Like that old ad said, You can't make this stuff up.

ShowMe

18th May 2007, 08:18 PM

I didn't intend to post about and I don't have time to provide the research about the 00 and 04 voter disenfranchisement for all you rightwing ad homers who ignore half the evidence anyway.

Like the fact that Bush won Florida in 2000. Including the recounts, and the recounts of the recounts, and the media recounts of the recounts?

The Democrats lost because they ran a poor campaign. Get over it already.

Getting back OT, I want to honestly look at this information. If you have nothing to support your automatic dismissal of the presented facts other than to whine, "Palast is a left wing journalist", then you are just wasting time and thread space.

Um....no. Questioning the source is certainly something a skeptic should do. If Sylvia Browne were to come out with email evidence that Randi had awarded her the prize we would all certainly put her through the ringer.

If they are legit

And that's the sticky part, isn't it? If you can get the original emails you might be able to trace the headers back to a point of origin. But in this electronic age you need more than X number of emails to launch an investigation. I could whip up 500 emails with people in my city (using publicly available records) in a very short amount of time.

What is needed is a bit of computer forensics, something to say "these may be legitimate". As opposed to someone with an obvious bias saying "Oh, look, I just happen to have come across these incredibly incriminating emails...."

I'm not going to dismiss anything out of hand. By the same token I'm not going to accept it, unquestioningly, at face value. No free rides.

Why would even a left wing journalist be so stupid as to fake 500 emails? One or two maybe, but why 500? Could turn out Palast was duped but allow me to request in advance, don' t waste our time with Dan Rather distractions either.

Request all you want. As I said, no free rides. Scrutiny of these emails should most certainly include the possibility they have been faked.

Why would a journalist (left or right) fake 500 emails? Perhaps we could ask Jayson Blair.

What does anyone know about these emails? It could also be they are really from a whistle blower source. Monica Goodling's testimony should also shed some more light on this.

What do we know about the emails? That a journalist claims they exist. That the journalist claims they were sent by Rove. That the journalist claims they came to him by mistake.

In short, we know absolutely nothing about these emails other than what an obviously biased source has decided to tell us. We have no data.

If these emails are real, once they're released I'm certain the folks on the forum will be able to dissect them rather quickly and efficiently. But at this point we have our choice of two conspiracies to debate: The firings & voter disenfranchisement spoken of in the emails...or the faking of 500 emails and the involvement / deception of the reporter.

Drysdale

18th May 2007, 08:24 PM

Get away with what? Believing voter ID requirements prevent some people from voting? Or believing some minority voters are affected equals the claim all minority voters are and they are therefore racist?

You are also quite confused about why Republican leaders want voter ID requirements. You are buying the reason they are selling, but that isn't the reason they are discussing in top Party meetings as I noted in at least one link above.

Why don't you read the links discussing why voter ID intimidates some voters if you don't understand the rationale?

Because you posted your facts backward. Republicans want ID, Dems don't and you insisted the opposite was true. People who watch Fox News are statistically more likely to believe falsehoods like that.

No, thats exactly what I said if you'll reread it. I said the dems cry about voter fraud the loudest yet try and stop any attempt at voter ID's.

And directly from that link it says minority not some minorities. If they meant some why did'nt they say some?

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 09:15 PM

Will you guys making the claim voter ID will prevent the voter fraud we disagree there is evidence for address the question, How will requiring voter ID stop illegal voters from mailing in their ballots?

Will you guys making the claim voter ID will prevent the voter fraud we disagree there is evidence for address the question, How will requiring voter ID stop illegal aliens from voting?

Will you guys making the claim voter ID will prevent the voter fraud we disagree there is evidence for address the question, How will requiring voter ID stop illegal voters from registering in multiple voter districts and voting multiple times or registering and using fake IDs?

Will you guys making the claim voter ID will prevent the voter fraud we disagree there is evidence for address the question, How many illegal voters does it take to swing an election and how does one Party conspire to get enough cheaters to make a difference?

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 09:21 PM

No, thats exactly what I said if you'll reread it. I said the dems cry about voter fraud the loudest yet try and stop any attempt at voter ID's.

And directly from that link it says minority not some minorities. If they meant some why did'nt they say some?You are confusing two types of voter fraud.

Voter disenfranchisement.

Illegal individual voting.

The attorney firings and Karl Rove conspiracy theory involves only voter disenfranchisement.

To facilitate getting this thread back on topic, I'll support your desire to prevent illegal individual voting if you suggest a method other than voter ID which won't prevent individual voter fraud anyway.

Bob Klase

18th May 2007, 09:29 PM

Why would even a left wing journalist be so stupid as to fake 500 emails? One or two maybe, but why 500?

I have no idea if they're fake or not. Neither does anyone else since apparently no one has been allowed to see enough of them to even make a guess as to the authenticity. But even a left wing journalist might be smart enough to know that if they only fake one or two then many people would say "those could be fake", while if they fake 500 then there will be many people who will say "why would he be stupid enough to fake 500 emails?". So to many people, faking 500 hundred would make it believable.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 09:32 PM

Like the fact that Bush won Florida in 2000. Including the recounts, and the recounts of the recounts, and the media recounts of the recounts?

The Democrats lost because they ran a poor campaign. Get over it already.Since the thread is about the 08 campaign, I suggest you take your own cliche' advice.

Um....no. Questioning the source is certainly something a skeptic should do. If Sylvia Browne were to come out with email evidence that Randi had awarded her the prize we would all certainly put her through the ringer.Questioning the source is legit, just throwing out an ad hom or unsupported personal opinion is not. I have no issue if someone wants to provide evidence that Palast has made up stories in the past.

We have enough evidence in his parody web page he probably has a liberal bias, though he could have other parody web pages of the Democratic Party site or he could be like some comedians and simply be parodying the party in office. But I think it's been established Palast and Robert Kennedy Jr run in the same circles.

And that's the sticky part, isn't it? If you can get the original emails you might be able to trace the headers back to a point of origin. .....Validity of the emails aside, the evidence is mounting that the attorney firings did have an 08 election motive for some of them. But even if you don't accept that evidence, what is your explanation or possible explanations for Gonzales being unable or more likely unwilling to explain the reason behind the 8 attorney firings? It's obvious they couldn't prove any real performance deficits. A couple might have had something to do with prosecuting an individual influential Republican. But then what about the rest?

Bob Klase

18th May 2007, 09:44 PM

Will you guys making the claim voter ID will prevent the voter fraud we disagree there is evidence for address the question, How will requiring voter ID stop illegal voters from mailing in their ballots?

I didn't claim it would prevent it. I'm not convinced that it would eliminate any fraud although it would certainly eliminate one avenue of voter fraud I'm not convinced it would disenfranchise anyone either. And I'm not convinced that those who oppose it aren't doing so only because they think they benefit from illegal voters ballots.

But to answer the question- it won't. Just like requiring a driver's license doesn't keep illegal aliens from driving without a license. Would you suggest we stop requiring driver's licenses too since it doesn't stop every violator?

How will requiring voter ID stop illegal aliens from voting?

You're right- just requiring an ID isn't enough. Proof of citizenship should be required when you register to vote and photo ID required when you actually vote.

b]How will requiring voter ID stop illegal voters from registering in multiple voter districts and voting multiple times or registering and using fake IDs?[/b]

The same way that requirements for a drivers license stop illegal drivers from getting multiple fake licenses. So again, I suppose we should eliminate the require to have a driver license with you when you drive because it's easy to get a fake license and the requirement doesn't stop all forms of driving violations.

How many illegal voters does it take to swing an election and how does one Party conspire to get enough cheaters to make a difference?[/b]

Maybe just one if the election is close enough.

And if you're that worried about voters being disenfranchised, one illegal vote could wipe out the effect of my legal vote. Am I not disenfranchised by that?

Drysdale

18th May 2007, 09:56 PM

You are confusing two types of voter fraud.

Voter disenfranchisement.

Illegal individual voting.

The attorney firings and Karl Rove conspiracy theory involves only voter disenfranchisement.

To facilitate getting this thread back on topic, I'll support your desire to prevent illegal individual voting if you suggest a method other than voter ID which won't prevent individual voter fraud anyway.

I'll need to do some research in order to answer this completely. But for now isnt that what registering to vote is supposed to prevent? I dont know the exact protocol state to state and I'm not a polling expert by no means
so if I'm wrong correct me here. .

You are allowed to vote in only one polling location correct?

If you cant vote in that polling place then you need to vote absentee in which case you cant vote there after absentee vote?

So for now though the picture voter ID system isnt perfect should'nt it at least make a flawed system better anyway?

What are you talking about specifically being disenfranchised?
I know the military angle in 2000 but Gore was primarily the candidate fighting to keep those out not Bush. What other types of disenfranchisement are you talking about?

What other sources are you using for the 8 attorney firings being connected to the 08 election? I haven't heard that one.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 10:05 PM

...although it would certainly eliminate one avenue of voter fraudWHAT AVENUE????????? you say it won't help here several times then throw that in.

...But to answer the question- it won't. Just like requiring a driver's license doesn't keep illegal aliens from driving without a license. Would you suggest we stop requiring driver's licenses too since it doesn't stop every violator?Could you find a more irrelevant straw man? Driver's test!! D'uh. And people do have more than one license. Change states and just claim you lost your old one and you have two.

...You're right- just requiring an ID isn't enough. Proof of citizenship should be required when you register to vote.....Which is not what the voter ID law is all about now is it?

...and photo ID required when you actually voteWhy? to prevent someone from stealing your vote? Did hundreds of people go to vote and find someone had already signed in as them?

...The same way that requirements for a drivers license stop illegal drivers from getting multiple fake licenses. So again, I suppose we should eliminate the require to have a driver license with you when you drive because it's easy to get a fake license and the requirement doesn't stop all forms of driving violations.Have you guys actually ever voted? Because you have to wonder why it is you don't know that you go in, someone finds your registration on a page, you sign next to the line and you get a ballot. How does an ID matter if your name is not on the list? You don't just walk in and vote.

...
Maybe just one if the election is close enough.

And if you're that worried about voters being disenfranchised, one illegal vote could wipe out the effect of my legal vote. Am I not disenfranchised by that?Depends, have you ever actually voted?

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 10:08 PM

I'll need to do some research in order to answer this completely. But for now isnt that what registering to vote is supposed to prevent? I dont know the exact protocol state to state and I'm not a polling expert by no means
so if I'm wrong correct me here. .

You are allowed to vote in only one polling location correct?

If you cant vote in that polling place then you need to vote absentee in which case you cant vote there after absentee vote?

So for now though the picture voter ID system isnt perfect should'nt it at least make a flawed system better anyway?

What are you talking about specifically being disenfranchised?
I know the military angle in 2000 but Gore was primarily the candidate fighting to keep those out not Bush. What other types of disenfranchisement are you talking about?

What other sources are you using for the 8 attorney firings being connected to the 08 election? I haven't heard that one.
I'l tell you what is going on and what this thread is about if you make an effort to read what I post? First, say you will.

Cylinder

18th May 2007, 10:18 PM

Or all all the conspiracies in this forum supposed to be false?

No - they are either supported by evidence or they are not. Got some?

Drysdale

18th May 2007, 10:22 PM

I'l tell you what is going on and what this thread is about if you make an effort to read what I post? First, say you will.

You being sarcastic or serious?

If you post links to sources I'll read it. I hope it's more than just Palast though.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 10:22 PM

No - they are either supported by evidence or they are not. Got some?Evidence or a conspiracy?

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 10:35 PM

You being sarcastic or serious?

If you post links to sources I'll read it. I hope it's more than just Palast though.I'm sorry, Drys but I was being serious. After posting several tidbits you reveal you don't know what voter disenfranchisement is and that's what the thread is about.

Voter disenfranchisement is when you prevent large (or small, but usually large) groups of people from voting by various means.

You require picture ID knowing some people don't have picture IDs and that will cause some of them to not vote.

You require a "poll tax" or a fee to vote, knowing some voters can't pay the fee and won't vote.

You require a literacy test knowing people who can't read then can't vote.

You send out letters to some people and if they don't return the request, you erase them from the voter roles but you don't send the letters to everyone.

You erase all the people from the voter registration in some districts that have the same name as any convicted felon. But you don't do that in every district.

You make sure there aren't enough voting machines in some districts and make sure there are more than enough in others.

Those are examples of voter disenfranchisement. There are many more ways to do it. If the election is close you only have to prevent a few % of people from voting and you can change the winner.

Illegal voting by individuals who weren't legally allowed to vote or who supposedly voted twice is what the Republicans hope you believe when you hear the words, "voter fraud". So when the news reports of voter disenfranchisement come out, people who aren't paying close attention think they are news reports of individual voters cheating.

The conspiracy is to distract people with this red herring of voter ID, make it sound like the news reports are about individual voters cheating and pull it off again in 08.

Drysdale

18th May 2007, 10:54 PM

I'm sorry, Drys but I was being serious. After posting several tidbits you reveal you don't know what voter disenfranchisement is and that's what the thread is about.

Voter disenfranchisement is when you prevent large (or small, but usually large) groups of people from voting by various means.

You require picture ID knowing some people don't have picture IDs and that will cause some of them to not vote.

You require a "poll tax" or a fee to vote, knowing some voters can't pay the fee and won't vote.

You require a literacy test knowing people who can't read then can't vote.

You send out letters to some people and if they don't return the request, you erase them from the voter roles but you don't send the letters to everyone.

You erase all the people from the voter registration in some districts that have the same name as any convicted felon. But you don't do that in every district.

You make sure there aren't enough voting machines in some districts and make sure there are more than enough in others.

Those are examples of voter disenfranchisement. There are many more ways to do it. If the election is close you only have to prevent a few % of people from voting and you can change the winner.

Illegal voting by individuals who weren't legally allowed to vote or who supposedly voted twice is what the Republicans hope you believe when you hear the words, "voter fraud". So when the news reports of voter disenfranchisement come out, people who aren't paying close attention think they are news reports of individual voters cheating.

The conspiracy is to distract people with this red herring of voter ID, make it sound like the news reports are about individual voters cheating and pull it off again in 08.

No, I know what the term is and what it implies. I just wanted to hear some specifics of your definition of
disenfranchisement.

And only the republicans are guilty of these?
Thats your belief?

Is there any proof of any of this stuff are is it just a bunch of accusations thrown against the wall hoping some will stick?

One thing though. I know you are aware that it's not just republicans in charge of voting correct?

What makes you so sure they are the only ones attempting to disenfranchise voters?

You cannot be that naive surely?

Sword_Of_Truth

18th May 2007, 10:54 PM

I'm sorry, Drys but I was being serious. After posting several tidbits you reveal you don't know what voter disenfranchisement is and that's what the thread is about.

Voter disenfranchisement is when you prevent large (or small, but usually large) groups of people from voting by various means.

You require picture ID knowing some people don't have picture IDs and that will cause some of them to not vote.

You require a "poll tax" or a fee to vote, knowing some voters can't pay the fee and won't vote.

You require a literacy test knowing people who can't read then can't vote.

You send out letters to some people and if they don't return the request, you erase them from the voter roles but you don't send the letters to everyone.

You erase all the people from the voter registration in some districts that have the same name as any convicted felon. But you don't do that in every district.

You make sure there aren't enough voting machines in some districts and make sure there are more than enough in others.

Those are examples of voter disenfranchisement. There are many more ways to do it. If the election is close you only have to prevent a few % of people from voting and you can change the winner.

Illegal voting by individuals who weren't legally allowed to vote or who supposedly voted twice is what the Republicans hope you believe when you hear the words, "voter fraud". So when the news reports of voter disenfranchisement come out, people who aren't paying close attention think they are news reports of individual voters cheating.

The conspiracy is to distract people with this red herring of voter ID, make it sound like the news reports are about individual voters cheating and pull it off again in 08.

Can I ask how you came by this knowledge of what the republicans intend to do and their motivations for it?

Brainster

18th May 2007, 11:01 PM

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 11:05 PM

Can I ask how you came by this knowledge of what the republicans intend to do and their motivations for it?Should I start the thread over?

Those were examples, not what Republicans are trying to do. And while I'm at it let me address this nonsense,And only the republicans are guilty of these?
Thats your belief?

Is there any proof of any of this stuff are is it just a bunch of accusations thrown against the wall hoping some will stick?

One thing though. I know you are aware that it's not just republicans in charge of voting correct?

What makes you so sure they are the only ones attempting to disenfranchise voters?

You cannot be that naive surely?

I have made no claims the Democrats are without sin. Why is it when the discussion is about a specific event: the federal attorney firings, why was it done, what's Rove's involvement, is there a connection to the 08 election, does someone get his/her (mostly his in this thread I think) feelings hurt and insist on making the discussion either about, "Well nayh nayh you did it too" or "I know you are but what am I?"

Who cares who else did what? Start a thread about the evil Dems, I'll take a look. This thread is about a very specific conspiracy by one political party: the federal attorney firings, why was it done, what's Rove's involvement, is there a connection to the 08 election.

skeptigirl

18th May 2007, 11:09 PM

And once again, the part you have to deal with is the enormous increases in people voting for the Democratic candidates in 2000 and 2004. You may claim this thread is about 2008, but your sources and you have already claimed the Republicans did this in the prior elections.

However, in 1996, 47.4 million people voted for Bill Clinton. In 2000, 51 million voted for Al Gore. And in 2004, an incredible 59 million voted for John Kerry. So in the course of two elections, the Democrats got almost 25% more votes. It seems abundantly obvious that the problem is not that the Republicans are preventing the Democrats from getting new voters, it is that Republicans thus far have gotten more of the benefit of new voters.For Pete's sake, Brainst, I was giving examples after Drys posted he didn't know the difference between voter disenfranchisement and individual voter fraud. Read the post.

Sword_Of_Truth

18th May 2007, 11:21 PM

This thread is about a very specific conspiracy by one political party: the federal attorney firings, why was it done, what's Rove's involvement, is there a connection to the 08 election.

Can I ask how you came by this knowledge of what was done by the republicans and why they did it?

Drysdale

18th May 2007, 11:22 PM

Should I start the thread over?

Those were examples, not what Republicans are trying to do. And while I'm at it let me address this nonsense,

I have made no claims the Democrats are without sin. Why is it when the discussion is about a specific event: the federal attorney firings, why was it done, what's Rove's involvement, is there a connection to the 08 election, does someone get his/her (mostly his in this thread I think) feelings hurt and insist on making the discussion either about, "Well nayh nayh you did it too" or "I know you are but what am I?"

Who cares who else did what? Start a thread about the evil Dems, I'll take a look. This thread is about a very specific conspiracy by one political party: the federal attorney firings, why was it done, what's Rove's involvement, is there a connection to the 08 election.

OK, I'll bite.

Is there anything more substantiative than that interview
with palast? The court case numbers of the cases he referenced? Are there any other sources for this?

valis

18th May 2007, 11:59 PM

I think you and I can forget all about voter fraud making any kind of a diff in 2008. The Dems are going to win, and win big. My being a liberal Democrat finds me grinning profusely in anticipation.

I don't understand why you care who is President? Since you use a term like 'stupid boy' to describe the current President you obviously have no respect for the office. I think J.Carter was the worst President of my lifetime, but I never call him by anything other than his proper name or title.

valis

19th May 2007, 12:05 AM

You require a literacy test knowing people who can't read then can't vote.

Now there is a good idea. I don't think people that can't read have any business voting. (And that would of course be read and write in English, since you have to be a citizen to vote.)

skeptigirl

19th May 2007, 12:24 AM

Can I ask how you came by this knowledge of what was done by the republicans and why they did it?Here's a shortened version of the stuff I have already posted:

...georgewbush.org (http://www.georgewbush.org/) is "A chicken head production parody web site". Take a look. Click on "contact us".

While, "GOP.com | Republican National Committee :: Home
GOP.com. WEDNESDAY | MAY 09, 2007. Sign up for news and information, Submit · Issues · Social Security · Nominations · Jobs & Economy · Safety & Security ...
www.georgebush.com/ -" , the Google listing, actually forwards you to GOP.com (https://www.gop.com/Secure/Splash.aspx) when you try to go to the latter address.

This part of the story checks out when you consider it has been revealed these guys were sending a lot of emails via the Republican Party website to avoid the requirement official emails be saved for review. Both of those web pages have "contact us" options. I'd like to see just how these emails were addressed that they would have been going through a web site instead of to a specific email address.

But it is plausible.
I am waiting for the emails to be verified as well. But I don't put it past Rove to have sent something like them. Another possibility is they were leaked or hacked by someone then ended up in Palast's hands and the mis-mailed story is to cover the trail.

On Palast's web site (http://www.gregpalast.com/amy-goodman-and-greg-palast-moms-day-broadcast/) (same link from Pardalis above) he covers the email topic in an interview with Dollars and Sense. On their web site, (http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2007/0507palast.html) they published part of the interview but left out the part on the emails, unless it is on a page I didn't find.

Despite the validity of the emails, the voter fraud prosecution theme is emerging without them. U.S. Attorneys Investigation; Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301106.html)By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 14, 2007; Page A04

Nearly half the U.S. attorneys slated for removal by the administration last year were targets of Republican complaints that they were lax on voter fraud, including efforts by presidential adviser Karl Rove to encourage more prosecutions of election- law violations, according to new documents and interviews.

Of the 12 U.S. attorneys known to have been dismissed or considered for removal last year, five were identified by Rove or other administration officials as working in districts that were trouble spots for voter fraud -- Kansas City, Mo.; Milwaukee; New Mexico; Nevada; and Washington state. Four of the five prosecutors in those districts were dismissed.

It has been clear for months that the administration's eagerness to launch voter-fraud prosecutions played a role in some of the firings, but recent testimony, documents and interviews show the issue was more central than previously known. The new details include the names of additional prosecutors who were targeted and other districts that were of concern, as well as previously unknown information about the White House's role....
Source Watch, Congresspedia on the fired attorney matter (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_ firings_controversy)Shifting explanations by White House and Gonzales

On March 14, the White House responded to increasing criticism by offering an additional reason for the forced resignations, namely, "Lax Voter-Fraud Investigations". Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett, cited complaints about U.S. Attorneys in New Mexico, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. [6]

[snip]

Voter-fraud complaints

According to a May 14, 2007, report by the Washington Post based off of newly released Department of Justice documents and interviews, nearly half of the attorneys who were slated for removal were targets of Republican complaints that they were lax on voter fraud, including efforts by presidential adviser Karl Rove to encourage more prosecutions of election. [76]

It's obvious there is more than meets the eye here.

Justice Official Says He Was Directed To Call Fired Prosecutors (http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070503nj1.htm)By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, May 3, 2007

The chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty has told congressional investigators that phone calls he placed to four fired U.S. attorneys -- calls that three of the prosecutors say involved threats about testifying before Congress -- were made at McNulty's direction.

Michael Elston, the chief of staff, told congressional investigators in a closed-door session on March 30 that McNulty specifically instructed him to make the phone calls after the Justice Department's No. 2 official learned that the fired prosecutors might testify before Congress about their dismissals.

A transcript of Elston's confidential interview with the congressional investigators was made available to National Journal.

The U.S. attorneys have said that Elston, in effect, told them that if they kept quiet about their dismissals, the Justice Department would not suggest that they had been forced to resign because of poor performance.

At least one member of Congress has questioned whether the phone calls might constitute obstruction of justice.So on the one hand there are specious emails, on the other, there's clearly obstruction of 'coming clean' about the reason for wanting to fire the attorneys and who was involved.

So if not the Rove '08 election influence plan, what other possibilities make more sense? And I am keeping in mind there could have been different reasons for each or some of the firings.

Gonzales hearing long on theatrics (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070510-115456-5995r_page2.htm)Miss Sanchez asked Mr. Gonzales why Debra Yang resigned from her U.S. attorney post in Los Angeles while her office reportedly was investigating Mr. Lewis on reports of political corruption. Miss Yang reportedly took a $1.5 million signing bonus to join Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, the same private law firm that is representing Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Gonzales said nothing untoward happened, as cases do not end when a U.S. attorney resigns. He added that he "is not confirming that Mr. Lewis is a target," a formal legal term for a person who has been officially notified that prosecutors are investigating him.
But that wasn't enough for Rep. Dan Lungren, California Republican, who talked heatedly with four other Republicans and then objected to Miss Sanchez's words, which he said "besmirched" Mr. Lewis.
"As anybody knows, there's a huge difference between an investigation and a target," said Mr. Lungren, a former attorney general of California.
Miss Sanchez withdrew her use of the word "target" to apply to Mr. Lewis.
Less than an hour later, Rep. Chris Cannon, Utah Republican, approached Mr. Lewis in a hallway, put his arm around his shoulder and informed him of what had happened.
"Thank you," Mr. Lewis said repeatedly, before declining to speak about the matter with The Washington Times.

There's some kind of conspiracy going on here. How can anyone not think that?
Did you miss the actual story here? (http://kmareka.com/?p=1186)They did this by an illegal process called “caging” — they sent address verification letters to primarily African-American voters, many of them soldiers serving in Iraq. Because they were in Iraq and planning to vote by absentee ballot, they were not home to reply to the verification letters. Then, when they sent in their absentee ballots, their votes were challenged and disqualified.The soldiers weren't the target, the neighborhoods were. And the absentee ballots were targeted for rejection, not targeted to not be sent out. Surely all soldiers don't uniformly vote Republican. Apparently those dogs do hunt, but Palast just got the details wrong in the interview.
Regarding the voter ID and conspiracies, here's an interesting link (http://truthaboutfraud.org/) from the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law.Much of the hue and cry about voter fraud is accompanied by calls for restrictive ID requirements. Some of this may be a sincere, if mistaken, belief in the need for restrictive ID measures. But this clip from a May 17, 2007, Houston Chronicle article suggests another rationale:

Among Republicans it is an 'article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections,' [Royal] Masset[, former political director of the Republican Party of Texas,] said. He doesn't agree with that, but does believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote.
Some objections to the federal voter ID law:

Vote Trust USA (http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1796&Itemid=26)The American Association of Retired People has actively opposed voter identification legislation in several states wrote in a letter submitted into the record at last week's mark-up "On behalf of older Americans who have largely shaped the values of our democracy, we urge great care to ensure that the basic right to vote is not trampled in an effort to address unproven allegations of voting issues."

Similarly, the League of Women Voters has argued against photo ID legislation stating in the field hearing held in Phoenix, "any proposal that restricts voter registration or raises barriers to voting in order to deal with the supposed problem of non-citizen voting is a fear-based approach instead of a fact-based solution. We simply have not seen the facts that would justify restricting the franchise." These sentiments are echoed in statements from dozens of public interest and civil rights organizations.

-
-
And here's new stuff:

Then there is the Tim Griffin affair I haven't posted much about yet. Here's an NPR story (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9966115) on him and this particular case. ...Their scathing chorus of opinion is especially striking when one considers that all of the federal prosecutors were appointed by President Bush.

Some of the most vivid stories come from Bud Cummins of Arkansas. Cummins describes his replacement, former White House aide Tim Griffin, bragging, "They are going to use the Patriot Act to appoint me."

Cummins wrote, "He said that there was a provision in the Patriot Act that nobody knew about that would enable them to appoint him in a way he could stay in place throughout President Bush's administration with or without Senate confirmation." ...

...To the question "Did you ever receive a warning from the Justice Department that your office's priorities would result in your being asked to resign?" all of the six replied, "No."

The correspondence came out from the House Judiciary Committee, which asked the fired prosecutors written questions after their live testimony earlier this year.

Also Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy sent out a subpoena demanding that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales hand over any e-mails from White House political adviser Karl Rove about the U.S. attorney firings.

The White House says some of those e-mails may have been deleted, but the Justice Department might have them from an earlier investigation of White House aide Lewis "scooter" Libby.

The subpoena, the first that Leahy has issued in the controversy, gives the attorney general two weeks to deliver the documents.That was May 2nd and they haven't been turned over. Here are some emails (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9003390) that were turned over in March. They don't help the Bush admin case.

Scroll down to "The Email Trail" for links to all of the ones which were released. You have to read them to believe them, they are that incriminating. And these are mostly the ones talking about what excuses can they make up for the firings. The missing emails are the ones that were illegally routed through the Republican Party website (another scandal also well documented.)

I watched the Gonzales hearings both before the Congress and before the Senate. I watched the other parts of the hearings in the Congress where they are investigating the attorney firings. The focus was on the attorneys not Kowtowing to various pressures from certain Republicans and it seemed to be over recent past election manipulation like indicting a Democratic candidate before an election, looking for voter fraud in WA to overturn the governor's election, and the usual corruption charges like stopping the investigation of a powerful Republican.

But now the focus is shifting as the connection to Harriet Miers and Karl Rove is being more closely looked at. Gonzales can give no explanation for the attorney firings, he won't turn over emails that could explain the case. There is obviously something very rotten here since there certainly isn't any national security issue going on and since Bush has the legal authority to fire these attorneys why is it necessary to hide the reason?

So I am in the process of looking at this. I didn't say I had the proof. I'm asking what other people think. It's unfortunate the discussion can't just be a normal examination of the facts. There is no reason for this crap about who is insulting who and who did what or didn't in 04 and 00. It takes time to get past that crap.

These attorneys were fired for some reason the Bush admin won't come clean about. I'd like to know what the reason was. Palast's explanation, like it or not, believe the email story or not, is still plausible and there really aren't many other, if any, explanations being offered.

Of course on May 23rd, we get to hear Monica Goodling testify. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/11/monica-goodling-must-testify-on-usa-purge-scandal/) She's the born again lawyer from Pat Robertson's Regent School of Law who plead the 5th when asked what she knew about everything. She was then given immunity from prosecution and required to testify. She was one of the 150 attorneys from Robertson's law school with less than stellar qualifications who replaced career prosecutors in Gonzales' department. That all came to light when Goodling was called to testify. Not many had heard of Pat's lawyers for God until then.

skeptigirl

19th May 2007, 12:49 AM

I don't understand why you care who is President? Since you use a term like 'stupid boy' to describe the current President you obviously have no respect for the office. I think J.Carter was the worst President of my lifetime, but I never call him by anything other than his proper name or title.Bush is stupid, and there's no way Carter is worse than this bunch of crooks and liars, (to borrow a quote).

Darn, hijacked my own thread....nevermind.

jhunter1163

19th May 2007, 01:20 AM

Sword_Of_Truth

19th May 2007, 01:23 AM

Apparently I wasn't specific enough so I need to ask again; Where did you find the sinister secret republican plan to steal the '08 election? Where and in wich documents do the ebil republicans clearly state their knowledge that they are engaging in illegal activities?

EDIT: Having read and re-read your post and the accompanying links again, I still see no proof of some vast conspiracy to hijack elections.

The only thing approaching proof I saw was Palasts claim of having 500 e-mails. Except he doesn't appear interested in posting them.

I find it hypocritical that there are good people bleeding for American democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan but Mr. Palast can't be bothered to reveal his evidence of the biggest threat to american democracy since Al Gore tried to steal the 2000 election.

Whiplash

19th May 2007, 04:29 AM

*deleted* I have to keep myself out of these disucssions, I hate arguing politics. My apologies.

Stellafane

19th May 2007, 09:55 AM

This whole issue is extremely simple.

Republicans want to diminish vote fraud because they get hurt by it.

Democrats resist any attempt to reform the voting system because they profit from illegally-cast votes.

If the effects were reversed, the parties' positions would be reversed.

Neither side gives a damn about clean elections, per se.

Hmm...yeah, that's about it in a nutshell.

Although I might add that Republicans probably only want to dimish voter fraud they can't control (Phonegate proves they don't mind it if it helps them), and Democrats resist reform that doesn't work in their favor, but would likely welcome reform that did.

Pardalis

19th May 2007, 10:00 AM

Had Palast released the emails yet?

No?

Maybe it's because it's saturday, usually journalists don't reveal earth shattering evidence on weekends.

I'll check back again on monday.

skeptigirl

19th May 2007, 05:41 PM

One thing I don't understand about this attorney-firing hubbub..

What laws allegedly were broken? As I understand it, these attorneys can be (and are) frequently fired when the administration changes for no other reason than that they were appointed by the new President's predecessor.

Patronage is deeply ingrained in American political life. Always has been, always will be. You may not like it (I certainly don't) but that's the way it is. I can only take comfort in the fact that Bush only has a year and a half to go.You forget these were all Republican Bush appointed attorneys. So now you aren't talking political philosophy, it is more likely you are talking professional integrity. If it were merely sentiments, why would the attorneys in question not be amenable to shifting positions?

If the attorneys were fired to obstruct the prosecution of someone, say a powerful Republican, then it is illegal. Which is why Monica Gooding pleading the 5th is so interesting. She's an attorney and should know at least whether or not a crime was possibly committed.

skeptigirl

19th May 2007, 06:14 PM

skeptigirl

19th May 2007, 06:19 PM

*deleted* I have to keep myself out of these disucssions, I hate arguing politics. My apologies.No worries, it's understandable.

I'd like to be able to discuss the conspiracy without all the clutter of trying to downplay the significance by claiming everyone else is just as bad. Hey, if they haven't done anything bad here, then why worry about trying to make it look like politics as usual?

How do you know if it is politics as usual if we don't what it is?

skeptigirl

19th May 2007, 06:23 PM

Hmm...yeah, that's about it in a nutshell.

Although I might add that Republicans probably only want to dimish voter fraud they can't control (Phonegate proves they don't mind it if it helps them), and Democrats resist reform that doesn't work in their favor, but would likely welcome reform that did.
So besides all this "I'm OK you're OK" stuff, what is your take on the attorney firings and why such efforts to cover up the real reason? Or do you really believe Gonzales' total ignorance of and inability to find out why these guys were fired?

skeptigirl

19th May 2007, 06:24 PM

Had Palast released the emails yet?

No?

Maybe it's because it's saturday, usually journalists don't reveal earth shattering evidence on weekends.

I'll check back again on monday.
In the meantime, why do you think the attorneys were fired and why do you think it?

Oliver #2

19th May 2007, 08:14 PM

skeptigirl

19th May 2007, 08:39 PM

I may be a little late but I simply have to throw in my 5 cents: Over here (in Germany, that is) you get a postcard telling you when and where to go to vote. You go there. On/in time. On the proper day, mind you :-). You present a photo ID. Then you vote, with a pen, on paper, on a ballot(?) in the national language. It's not that hard ;-) Or so I thought. Jeez ...Our system is not more complicated. Instead of a notice to vote, we get a voters pamphlet with the candidates and initiatives. You go to the polls and they look your name up, you sign next to your name (your sig is on file when you registered). It's also very simple. Unless people in charge of running the election are corrupt.

What do you think the attorney firings were all about?

Oliver #2

19th May 2007, 08:44 PM

O. Err.. hello, by the way... I'm not associated with Oliver other than coming from from the same area of Germany and being called, well, Oliver :-)

Foolmewunz

19th May 2007, 08:54 PM

Welcome, Oliver #2. You might want to think of asking the mods to allow you a change of name. Two Olivers from the same area of Germany is bound to cause confusion.

The mods accept reasonable requests, and this qualifies as reasonable. (Who'd want to be confused with The Energizer Bunny of CT World!)

Oh, and you've got some posting to do!!! I think Oliver 1 has a few more posts than you do in roughly the same period.

Here's the link to the section of the forum where those nice friendly mods address these issues. (Sucking up in preparation for my next mod action.)

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=16

Oliver #2

19th May 2007, 08:56 PM

Our system is not more complicated. Instead of a notice to vote, we get a voters pamphlet with the candidates and initiatives. You go to the polls and they look your name up, you sign next to your name (your sig is on file when you registered). It's also very simple. Unless people in charge of running the election are corrupt.

What do you think the attorney firings were all about?

To me it seems as if IT IS indeed more complicated. Every adult citizen in Germany is a voter, registration is automatic. Period. Every adult citizen gets notified/invited. On the other hand, Germans have to register their place of residence, it is mandatory - unlike in the US - which greatly simplifies finding EVERY voter :-)
I honestly cannot comment on the attorney firings, sorry.

skeptigirl

19th May 2007, 10:10 PM

Here's the Political Angle (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82360) on this topic for anyone wishing to discuss more politics than conspiracy. :D

jhunter1163

20th May 2007, 04:31 AM

You forget these were all Republican Bush appointed attorneys. So now you aren't talking political philosophy, it is more likely you are talking professional integrity. If it were merely sentiments, why would the attorneys in question not be amenable to shifting positions?

If the attorneys were fired to obstruct the prosecution of someone, say a powerful Republican, then it is illegal. Which is why Monica Gooding pleading the 5th is so interesting. She's an attorney and should know at least whether or not a crime was possibly committed.

OK, fair enough. Which powerful Republicans are being prosecuted?

Pardalis

20th May 2007, 11:59 AM

In the meantime, why do you think the attorneys were fired and why do you think it?

I think it's being debated right now, so I don't know for sure. My guess is political corruption.

ConspiRaider

20th May 2007, 07:32 PM

Speaking of the U.S. Attorney firings and Alberto Gonzales and James Comey, has everybody (excluding right-wingers) seen this on Jon Stewart? Fun-ny stuff...

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Jon_Stewart_Comey_intrigue_retold_as_0518.html

Stellafane

20th May 2007, 08:22 PM

So besides all this "I'm OK you're OK" stuff, what is your take on the attorney firings and why such efforts to cover up the real reason? Or do you really believe Gonzales' total ignorance of and inability to find out why these guys were fired?

My take is that it was politics as usual. From what I understand (admittedly I'm not super well versed on the topic), Clinton fired attorneys about as often as he changed socks -- it's kind of a presidential tradition. Only Gonzales sort of tried to cover it up (damn, don't these fools ever learn?). So it wasn't the firings that bothered me so much, it was the coverup. And as we all know, coverups can turn a two-bit burglaries into the downfall of a president. But overall, I didn't really think it was all that big a deal.

And for what it's worth, I think Clinton was the best president in my lifetime, and GWB is probably the worst.

Stellafane

20th May 2007, 08:24 PM

O. Err.. hello, by the way... I'm not associated with Oliver other than coming from from the same area of Germany and being called, well, Oliver :-)

I'm sorry, but that's going to cause too much confusion. Mind if we call you Bruce?

skeptigirl

21st May 2007, 01:45 AM

My take is that it was politics as usual. From what I understand (admittedly I'm not super well versed on the topic), Clinton fired attorneys about as often as he changed socks -- it's kind of a presidential tradition. Only Gonzales sort of tried to cover it up (damn, don't these fools ever learn?). So it wasn't the firings that bothered me so much, it was the coverup. And as we all know, coverups can turn a two-bit burglaries into the downfall of a president. But overall, I didn't really think it was all that big a deal.

And for what it's worth, I think Clinton was the best president in my lifetime, and GWB is probably the worst.It's unfortunate that a skeptic would believe that red herring. It's been thrown out there by the Bush team to try to cover up what is going on here.

The actions are not in any way equivalent. In one case you have a changing of the guard. Bush and Clinton both changed all the federal attorneys under the Attorney General, just like they changed Attorney Generals. But once you appoint those attorneys, they are independent. They are not, as I said in another post, the President's henchmen. If it were merely more normal staff changes, business as usual, then Gonzales should have been able to explain. The only reason he cannot explain why these attorneys were fired is the explanation isn't good. And these guys are going to great lengths to cover up the reason. So the reason must really not be good.

kevin

21st May 2007, 06:02 AM

I don't think the US Attorney filings were an attempt to steal the 08 elections, i think they were intended to influence voter turnout in the '06 elections.

To use the example of the US Attorney in my home state. Todd Graves claims he was pressured to resign because he refused to bring a voter fraud case in Missouri. Graves' resignation was on March 10, 2006.

http://www.kansascity.com/153/story/99713.html
(it's kind of buried in this initial report, it starts out with the various stories of why he resigned being rejected, and then speculates on the voter fraud issue.)

Graves was replaced, without Senate confirmation, by Brad Schlozman. Schlozman brings a voter fraud case against 4 voter registration workers from liberal voter registration organization, ACORN, 5 days before the '06 elections.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/columnists/steve_kraske/story/95985.html

In the past DOJ has delayed bringing such cases so close to an election because of worry they would influence voter turn out.

The reason this type of discouragement of voter turnout for particular parties works in current elections, vs past elections, is the closeness of the elections. Even shifts of 1% or 2% can affect the turn of an election.

Claire McCaskill's election as senator in Missouri ousted Republican Jim Talent, adding another seat to the Democratic majority in the Senate. She won by just over 2% (49.6% to 47.3%).
http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/statewideresults.asp?eid=189

The reason I think these attempts to reduce liberal voter turnouts failed is because the voters really didn't want things to keep going the way they were and were bound and determined to vote no matter what.

Bob Klase

21st May 2007, 06:19 AM

WHAT AVENUE????????? you say it won't help here several times then throw that in.

Where did I say it "won't" help? If you're going to misquote me to disagree then it makes no difference what I write.

Could you find a more irrelevant straw man? Driver's test!! D'uh.

Where did I say anything about a "test"?

And people do have more than one license. Change states and just claim you lost your old one and you have two.

Exactly! Driver license requirements don't stop people from having 2 licenses, don't stop people from driving without one. If you apply your reasoning about a voting ID requirement to driver licenses then we shouldn't require driver licenses either.

You're right- just requiring an ID isn't enough. Proof of citizenship should be required when you register to vote.....

Which is not what the voter ID law is all about now is it?

No. That should be added to the voter ID law, or passed as a separate law.

Why? to prevent someone from stealing your vote? Did hundreds of people go to vote and find someone had already signed in as them?

[B]Depends, have you ever actually voted?

Yes, And for that last 10 years I've been required to show a photo ID every time I vote. As far as I know, the requirement to show an ID has not disfranchised anyone in Florida.

kevin

21st May 2007, 08:56 AM

In the original message this tactic is presented:
Caging is an illegal way of getting rid of black votes. You get a list of all the black voters. Then you send a letter to their homes. And if the person doesn't sign it at the homes, the letter then is returned to the Republican National Committee. They then direct the state attorney general, who is friendly to them, who’s Republican, to remove that voter from the list on the alleged basis that that voter does not live in the address that they designated as their address on the voting application form.

I've seen a less complicated version of this used to try and influence a local election. I used to live in a small town of Missouri, when river boat casino's were first allowed by the state each town could vote to allow them. Most of the town's elected politicians were all for it, the local business owners were (stupidly) for it. Most of the populace was against it.

After the first vote failed, these mysterious cards showed up claiming to be a voter verification form or some such. You were supposed to sign the form and drop it back in the mail (they were postage paid). Although not published on the form, the group that sent them out would request the voter for any form not returned dropped from the voter rolls.

I didn't send my in, just to see what would happen. I guess someone in the voter registration board rejected the requests for removal because I was still on to rolls.

One case of voter fraud did show up. A local restaurant owner who didn't live in town had rented an apartment in town and claimed residency.

Drysdale

21st May 2007, 12:47 PM

You know, I have to wonder. Is this just a very early start on the voter fraud groundwork the democrats usually pull? I remember hearing numerous stories from the democrats before last midterms stating their worries of voter intimidation and fraud etc.

Funny how since the democrats won I dont think I heard one story on it. If the republicans had held the majority would we have?

You better believe it. This is ridiculous really when you get right down to it.

The idea that the poor,minorities and elderly dont have ID's is a bunch of crap. How do they cash their checks if they dont have checking accounts?
Which is the point some of those articles you referenced were harping on. They dont have ID's and checking accounts etc. so dont have ID's boo hoo.

Then how are they cashing their checks? Can you just answer that for me?
And for all the talk about disenfranchisement for every voter that's not entitled to vote that does IE.. felons, illegals, noncitizens.
Their vote disenfranchises a legal voters vote.

Give me a break.

This is much ado about nothing but politics as usual.

Darth Rotor

21st May 2007, 02:08 PM

Did you miss the actual story here? (http://kmareka.com/?p=1186)The soldiers weren't the target, the neighborhoods were. And the absentee ballots were targeted for rejection, not targeted to not be sent out. Surely all soldiers don't uniformly vote Republican. Apparently those dogs do hunt, but Palast just got the details wrong in the interview.
I read the entire wheeze on Democracy Now.

Note: The road to nowhere was regarding this thread. Also, I addressed only the NAS Jax matter, not the rest as the rest is filled with assertion, little supporting evidence, until I can see what is in those 500 emails. I'll await until I see how that plays out before I consider futher, but when I see how badly he gets NAS JAX wrong, I am skeptical about the claims. Not dismissive of, skeptical of.

Soldiers and NAS Jax DO NOT FIT. Did you see my post on who gets deployed from NAS Jax?

Also, yes, soldiers and sailors do not uniformly vote Republican. It may be that the 2008 election is being looked at, and the discontent of a lot of those who have been deployed (with the civilian leadership) is being measured and a backlash is being planned against. THAT might be a motive for Rove to try and hijack the military vote, and would actually fit the scenario Palast is trying to paint. What Palast doesn't do, however, is tie that together with any coherence. He appeals to spin and anxiety. If he has facts to back this up, in his emails, I would love to see them.

On the other bit, for clarity: if you are in Iraq, you aren't in nor from the barracks on the NAS, in your thousands and multitudes, given how most of the folk there don't live on the NAS Jacksonville base, nor use its zip code, as I pointed out. The people on and in NAS don't tend to be in Iraq. If I have to underline that yet again, I will.

If you live on base housing, with your family, and are deployed, guess who gets your mail? Your wife/husband. Contact is an email/letter away to unscrew it. So, caging game exposed, in the micro, but in deference to Palast, only if someone cares enough to pursue it.

I understand what you mean by caging, and I am glad to see this being discussed. I would love to see the emails, since Palast does not inspire confidence, nor does the format of that link.

As to the mechanics of what is being tried, and this "he must hate the troops," he put together two disparate thoughts that don't fit very well. If you note the spin, where 1/2 million of absentee ballots are targeted, and the focus of the piece is all of a sudden "Blacks and Hispanic" votes when the demographics of the military are not skewed that way. Sorry, can't shake the suspiscion of the man's grasp of fact versus fantasy. That does not kill his story, no, but it costs it credibility.

What is clear is that not enough facts are used to support the number of claims he was making, but what also seems clear is that Rove was (hell, is) up to something. Something seamy.

Yes.

Given the zip code targeted, there is more to support "get out the vote" than "stifle the vote," the latter of which is a self-inflicted wound based on the small amount of facts. However, if the projections within RNC are as I noted above, a backlash from the ranks, then it makes far more sense, with this caveat:

Illegally supressing the vote is more difficult than getting out the vote, in that you have to cover more stuff up. What I sense in your theme, and in Palasts, is that the effort is being targeted in a few critical states, which tactically (conservation of finite resources) sound if one is trying to swing an election.

"Neighborhoods" and "NAS Jacksonville" is a non-sequitur.

SG, if the caging is in fact being applied to anyone, and this can be shown rather than asserted, it is indeed an egregious foul, and someone needs to go to jail for a good long time.

DR

Darth Rotor

21st May 2007, 02:14 PM

Requiring voter ID with pictures is one way to discourage low income, minority and elderly voters.
Why do you claim that? How is having to have an ID discouraging voting? How is proving that you are who you say you are discouraging lawful voting?

ETA: Yes, things can be faked, and multiple voting identities are possible to the motivated crook. How widespread do you think this is?

Elderly people are discouraged by having to show an ID? Where do you come up with this?

Anyone poor and "minority" with an ID is discouraged from voting by having an ID?

ETA

Some months ago, I raised a question that I still don't have an answer to: how the hell do homeless people vote? My experience with voting is based on one having an address in a district/precinct, which puts you on the rolls. How does someone homeless deal with that? I have no idea.

Do you agree that an ID check is a good way to shore up the validity of a vote, of an election, if not 100% foolproof? (See above)

I show my ID each time, with my voter reg card, and the local officials (in this predominantly Democratic and Hispanic district) check to make sure I am who I claim I am, and that I am registered. I am a minority in this town: Anglo and not a Democrat.

How does any of this discourage the vote?

DR

skeptigirl

21st May 2007, 03:07 PM

Where did I say it "won't" help? If you're going to misquote me to disagree then it makes no difference what I write.You wrote:I didn't claim it would prevent it. I'm not convinced that it would eliminate any fraud although it would certainly eliminate one avenue of voter fraud ...I asked what Avenue? You say right there, "it won't prevent it". By it I assume you mean voter fraud since that is what we are discussing. Then you go on to say the voter ID will prevent something. What specifically would voter ID accomplish that the current system of registering and going to vote and signing in on the line listing your registration doesn't? And I don't see where you think I misquoted you.

Where did I say anything about a "test"?What I'm saying is you are comparing a simple ID card with a card that represents having at least passed a test.

Exactly! Driver license requirements don't stop people from having 2 licenses, don't stop people from driving without one. If you apply your reasoning about a voting ID requirement to driver licenses then we shouldn't require driver licenses either.But the driver's license means you at least passed a test. Are you just ignoring that fact?

... As far as I know, the requirement to show an ID has not disfranchised anyone in Florida.It would be a good place to do a study of the effect then. I'm for a study to see if it does or doesn't disenfranchise voters. I only present the arguments being made. I am not making the arguments. Show me the research any time.

But I am making the argument voter ID is a waste of time, money, and is meant to distract from the real issues interfering with valid elections.

skeptigirl

21st May 2007, 03:34 PM

Provided requiring voter ID accomplishes something, then some of these arguments may have merit. But I haven't seen much evidence validating that ID at the polls will have the desired effect. So I ask you all for that evidence, rather than just complaints of what's the big deal.

In the mean time, the waste of resources on this issue is one thing, heres a bit more. We have these reports on who doesn't have these documents for those of you who think everyone in the country must be just like you, there is the legal costs of all the lawsuits, and there are the unintended consequences.

Missouri Voter ID Requirement Burdens the Elderly; by Bill Beene (http://www.blackpressusa.com/news/Article.asp?SID=3&Title=National+News&NewsID=10454)

These individuals are less likely to have a car, therefore a driver's license, not to mention affording the fees for the necessary "feeder documents" required to get a license, such as a birth certificate or a passport. (http://www.blackcommentator.com/161/161_beverly_voter_id_legislators_look_leap.html)

September 19, 2005; Voting Rights Advocates Challenge Georgia Photo ID Law in Federal Court; Measure Decried as "New Poll Tax," Violates State, Federal Constitutions (http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=684)The $20 fee that is required to obtain a five year state ID card is an unconstitutional poll tax that violates the Twenty-Fourth Amendment," said Neil Bradley, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project in Atlanta. In addition, lawyers for the plaintiffs say H.B. 244:

Are you a citizen? Prove it; By Kavan Peterson, Stateline.org Staff Writer (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=168723) When Colorado state Sen. Andy McElhany (R) championed adoption of the strictest identification requirements in the country, his aim was to keep illegal immigrants off state welfare rolls. He didn’t anticipate making it harder for his 15-year-old daughter to get a learner’s permit.

But that’s what happened when his wife and daughter showed up at the Division of Motor Vehicles office in Colorado Springs in September. They brought the teen’s passport, only to discover DMV had changed the rules and a passport was no longer a sufficient form of identification.

“There's no reason to believe a 15-year-old girl is going to be running around with a fake passport just to get a driver's permit," a chagrined McElhany said.
Going to the DMV never has been a walk in the park, but it’s likely to get even more difficult as states across the country begin to comply with stringent federal identification rules required by the 2005 Real ID Act.

Americans by the tens of millions will have to dig out documents such as Social Security cards and birth certificates, or go to the expense of getting new ones, to renew their driver’s licenses. Fears of terrorism and the uproar over illegal immigration are behind the new rules. The Real ID Act is a response to the fact that four of the 19 foreign hijackers on Sept. 11 had obtained valid U.S. driver’s licenses.

Again, I'll go with the evidence here. I'm not ranting about any cause. So far my son has been unable to correct his name with the Social Security Administration even though he took in his passport, original birth certificate, and a signed original court order showing his name was changed. They wanted a corrected birth certificate along with the original one. We are waiting for that document.

But as I said in another thread, he had no trouble getting a job even though his SSN and name don't match. But he couldn't get a bank account, they had an instant check at the bank. Even there with the signed court order they didn't care. The SSN had to match the name. So he can get an account in the wrong name.

Needless to say, none of this makes me feel any safer, it's obvious the rich and powerful don't want to discourage illegal workers, there is no evidence large numbers of illegal aliens voted, nor is there evidence voter ID will impact that anyway.

kevin

21st May 2007, 04:20 PM

Most photo ID's are not free. Requiring a photo ID frequently amounts to a poll tax. This is why Georgia's voter id law was overturned. Note that many of the lawyers in the US Attorney's voter fraud office said the law would be overturned and recommended the US Attorney not support Georgia's law. He did anyway.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702171.html

Some states have setup systems where voter id cards can be obtained for free. I believe the argument against these is that the mere requirement of being forced to stand before a person, not a member of the voter board, and be denied the right to vote (by refusing to issue a card) is illegal. Not sure this has been tested in court yet.

Note, most poor people do not have photo id's. They live on a cash basis, they cash pay checks (if not paid in cash) at check cashing places (usually no photo id required for a pay check), and don't have bank accounts. I got my bank account when I started High School. I had no photo id to when I got the account and in the years since I've never presented them with a photo id.

BTW, here is an analysis of the New Jersey state Attorney General to purge voting rolls in 2005.
The analysts found serious methodological problems with the report, echoing the problems with the notoriously flawed “suspected felon” purge lists in Florida in 2000 and 2004. They cautioned election officials not to rely on the flawed report and urged the Attorney General to follow the normal statutory procedures for maintaining the state’s voter registration rolls.

http://www.brennancenter.org/press_detail.asp?key=100&subkey=35619

ShowMe

21st May 2007, 04:46 PM

It's unfortunate that a skeptic would believe that red herring. It's been thrown out there by the Bush team to try to cover up what is going on here.

The actions are not in any way equivalent. In one case you have a changing of the guard. Bush and Clinton both changed all the federal attorneys under the Attorney General, just like they changed Attorney Generals. But once you appoint those attorneys, they are independent. They are not, as I said in another post, the President's henchmen. If it were merely more normal staff changes, business as usual, then Gonzales should have been able to explain. The only reason he cannot explain why these attorneys were fired is the explanation isn't good. And these guys are going to great lengths to cover up the reason. So the reason must really not be good.

It's a red herring to you because...why? The federal attorneys are an appointed position and can be released at any time by the President. If they're not doing what he wants them to do he can let them go. Is it unusual, odd...possibly a bit slimy? Yup. It's politics. But until we get some actual evidence (and not trying to extrapolate that "the reason must really not be good" because they haven;t come up with a reason viable to you) we've got nothing to go on.

Right now there's no evidence of any conspiracy. Just the 500 phantom emails that you want us to take at face value until they're proven false...which is backwards. It's unfortunate that a skeptic would forget that "Extraordinary claims require extraoprdinary evidence", and this certainly falls into the realm of "extraordinary claim".

Drysdale

21st May 2007, 04:55 PM

Note, most poor people do not have photo id's. They live on a cash basis, they cash pay checks (if not paid in cash) at check cashing places (usually no photo id required for a pay check), and don't have bank accounts.

Where do you live? I've lived in a few different states and never have I seen a check cashing place cash paychecks when you dont have an ID.

At least not legally.

kevin

21st May 2007, 05:14 PM

why would be illegal to cash a check without a photo id?

Drysdale

21st May 2007, 06:09 PM

why would be illegal to cash a check without a photo id?

To prevent theft?

If it's that easy to cash checks I think there'd be a lot more paycheck fraud than there is. There's a reason thugs watch people coming out of check cashing establishments and banks and follow them instead of mugging them after work or mail is delivered on paydays or days when they get their welfare or social security checks.

I cant say it's impossible that there's a check cashing business that does'nt require some type of ID, but I've never heard of one if there is.

Bob Klase

21st May 2007, 06:11 PM

You wrote:I asked what Avenue? You say right there, "it won't prevent it". By it I assume you mean voter fraud since that is what we are discussing. Then you go on to say the voter ID will prevent something.

So you're saying that in your understanding of the english language that if action #1 prevents action #2- that means that doing action #1 would keep action #2 from ever happening. In other words, speed limits don't "prevent" accidents because we have speed limits yet accidents still happen. Or having laws against bank robbery don't prevent people from robbing banks because we have those laws and people still rob banks?

Or is it maybe possible to take steps to prevent something and yet still have that something happen although possibly with less frequency?

What I did say was:

I'm not convinced that it would eliminate any fraud although it would certainly eliminate one avenue of voter fraud ...

That avenue would be eliminated whether it's currently being used or not. If it's not happening then it will continue to not happen with one difference- it will be prevented in the future should people decide to do that.

What I'm saying is you are comparing a simple ID card with a card that represents having at least passed a test.

Only because we can't require people to pass a test before letting them vote. Personally I think that might not be a bad idea either- make everyone pass a test on the constitution, current events and a few other subjects before allowing them to vote.

But the driver's license means you at least passed a test. Are you just ignoring that fact?

Yes, I'm ignoring that fact because it's not relevant to this topic (although if someone gets a fake license they probably didn't pass a test). And there are many 85 year old drivers who haven't passed a test in 65 years- making the passing of a test even less relevant.

I only present the arguments being made. I am not making the arguments. Show me the research any time.

But I am making the argument voter ID is a waste of time, money, and is meant to distract from the real issues interfering with valid elections.

In one paragraph you claim that you're not making any arguments and ask for research (evidence). In the very next paragraph you contradict yourself and you do make an argument. So do you agree with the arguments you're presenting? I assume that if you didn't you wouldn't present them. Therefore (unless my assumption is wrong) you are "presenting" them rather than "making" them simply because using the term "present" absolves you of having to support them.

Bob Klase

21st May 2007, 06:22 PM

Right now there's no evidence of any conspiracy. Just the 500 phantom emails that you want us to take at face value until they're proven false...which is backwards.

There's no evidence of conspiracy- but Gonzalez alone (his varying testimony) are evidence that either something is being covered up and/or that he's the most incompetent AG in history.

I think it's up to congress to find out what is being covered up and Gonzalez should resign because he's either incompetent and/or involved in a cover-up.

I don't buy the 500 phantom emails though.

Stellafane

21st May 2007, 06:42 PM

It's unfortunate that a skeptic would believe that red herring...

Well, I did admit that I'm not particularly well-versed in the subject, so I hope a bit of slack-cutting might be in order.

skeptigirl

22nd May 2007, 02:00 AM

It's a red herring to you because...why? The federal attorneys are an appointed position and can be released at any time by the President. If they're not doing what he wants them to do he can let them go. Is it unusual, odd...possibly a bit slimy? Yup. It's politics. But until we get some actual evidence (and not trying to extrapolate that "the reason must really not be good" because they haven;t come up with a reason viable to you) we've got nothing to go on.

Right now there's no evidence of any conspiracy. Just the 500 phantom emails that you want us to take at face value until they're proven false...which is backwards. It's unfortunate that a skeptic would forget that "Extraordinary claims require extraoprdinary evidence", and this certainly falls into the realm of "extraordinary claim".
So the obvious cover up going on isn't evidence? Is that your position? Is your head in the sand? Seriously.

I am assuming you didn't watch the pitiful Gonzales on the witness stand making statements like, "I don't know who put the attorney's names on the list." "I don't know why they were fired." "I don't know who to ask to find out." "I can't give you the rest of the emails because I recused myself from involvement since I'm being investigated." I kid you not on the last one. Gonzales told the committee he couldn't release the emails, not he wouldn't. Did he put someone else in charge of that decision after recusing himself? Nope.

The reason firing all attorneys when taking office and appointing new ones is a red herring is because it clearly isn't the same thing going on here. When you change attorneys normally, you don't have to cover up the reason. You don't have staff PLEADING the 5th.

You can believe your fairy tale a few more days. At least until Ms 'plead the 5th' Goodling testifies with her granted immunity on the 23rd.

skeptigirl

22nd May 2007, 02:33 AM

So you're saying that in your understanding of the english language that if action #1 prevents action #2- that means that doing action #1 would keep action #2 from ever happening. In other words, speed limits don't "prevent" accidents because we have speed limits yet accidents still happen. Or having laws against bank robbery don't prevent people from robbing banks because we have those laws and people still rob banks?

Or is it maybe possible to take steps to prevent something and yet still have that something happen although possibly with less frequency?

What I did say was:

That avenue would be eliminated whether it's currently being used or not. If it's not happening then it will continue to not happen with one difference- it will be prevented in the future should people decide to do that.Bob, are you dense or what? I am simply asking you what avenue are you talking about? You say the ID's will accomplish something. WHAT will they accomplish? I'm just asking you to clarify what you mean by the following sentence you said, "although it would certainly eliminate one avenue of voter fraud". What avenue of voter fraud????????????? This is the third time I am asking you to just clarify what you mean. All that other stuff about action #1 and 2, good grief! "That avenue" 'That' is a pronoun. What do you mean when you say, "That avenue"????

Only because we can't require people to pass a test before letting them vote. Personally I think that might not be a bad idea either- make everyone pass a test on the constitution, current events and a few other subjects before allowing them to vote.You are completely off on a tangent here. This has nothing to do with your statement, "If you apply your reasoning about a voting ID requirement to driver licenses then we shouldn't require driver licenses either." We require drivers to prove they can drive. Your statement about applying my reasoning is wrong because voter ID and driver's licenses are not equal examples.

In one paragraph you claim that you're not making any arguments and ask for research (evidence). In the very next paragraph you contradict yourself and you do make an argument. So do you agree with the arguments you're presenting? I assume that if you didn't you wouldn't present them. Therefore (unless my assumption is wrong) you are "presenting" them rather than "making" them simply because using the term "present" absolves you of having to support them.It's really hard to discuss this with you because you don't understand what I've said. I don't see how else to explain it to you right now. I'll try again tomorrow.

skeptigirl

22nd May 2007, 02:36 AM

Well, I did admit that I'm not particularly well-versed in the subject, so I hope a bit of slack-cutting might be in order.Consider it cut. :) But add it to your media literacy fact file: beware of red herrings.

Drysdale

22nd May 2007, 10:14 AM

You know, if you just want to get rid of Gonzales because of your political ideology just say so.

I dont like the guy either but for a different reason. He's letting the border patrol agents get shot at from drug dealers crossing borders and if they return fire they're prosecuted. They basically have to run away .
He's not letting them do their jobs. He stinks!!

But quit with the steal the vote conspiracy BS. Not one of those links have anything substantial to them.

And you bring up the point well Clinton fired them all so that was'nt political rhetoric. There is a train of thought that Clinton fired them all in order to not be accused of firing the one investigating Whitewater.

Was he sneakier yea. But dont throw him out there as an example.

Rika

22nd May 2007, 10:15 AM

It is however, true. Attorneys in the Justice Department may be fired or hired at will. As others have said, it is really the possible coverup that Gonzales is in hot water for.

(Incidently, while ID does cost some money, I believe there are ways to get one without any money being required. I'm not quite sure about that, though.)

skeptigirl

22nd May 2007, 03:34 PM

Drysdale, you continue to ignore the cover-up here. What is being covered up?

Changing attorneys for political philosophy is the current way the Dept of Justice is set up and currently legal. Firing attorneys to manipulate their actions, which are independent for critical reasons, (you know, that little balance of powers thing in the Constitution, :rolleyes: ), is not legal.

skeptigirl

22nd May 2007, 03:47 PM

It is however, true. Attorneys in the Justice Department may be fired or hired at will. As others have said, it is really the possible coverup that Gonzales is in hot water for.The cover up, the reason for the cover up and who else is involved in the reason for the cover up are indeed what is at issue here.

(Incidently, while ID does cost some money, I believe there are ways to get one without any money being required. I'm not quite sure about that, though.)

The skeptical steps here are, first, is there a problem that the IDs are intended to address; second, will the IDs effectively address the problem and are they the best way to address it; and third, are there unintended consequences the ID solution will create?

I see no evidence there was massive voter impersonation (IDs would address that). If there were significant numbers of non-citizens voting (no evidence but assuming there was), then picture ID is not an efficient way of confirming citizenship. Citizenship is best confirmed during the registration process because there is time to verify address and citizenship. So send out registration confirmation and require the person bring it or vote with a provisional ballot. If your confirmation is lost or stolen, you can report that and the thief would be caught when they went in to vote. That alone would discourage voter impersonation.

Seems more logical to me to actually identify the problem and connect the solution to it rather than drumming the sound bite that illegal immigrants are voting and implying voter ID would somehow prevent that travesty.

Darth Rotor

22nd May 2007, 03:49 PM

Provided requiring voter ID accomplishes something, then some of these arguments may have merit. But I haven't seen much evidence validating that ID at the polls will have the desired effect. So I ask you all for that evidence, rather than just complaints of what's the big deal.

In the mean time, the waste of resources on this issue is one thing, heres a bit more. We have these reports on who doesn't have these documents for those of you who think everyone in the country must be just like you, there is the legal costs of all the lawsuits, and there are the unintended consequences.

Missouri Voter ID Requirement Burdens the Elderly; by Bill Beene (http://www.blackpressusa.com/news/Article.asp?SID=3&Title=National+News&NewsID=10454)

These individuals are less likely to have a car, therefore a driver's license, not to mention affording the fees for the necessary "feeder documents" required to get a license, such as a birth certificate or a passport. (http://www.blackcommentator.com/161/161_beverly_voter_id_legislators_look_leap.html)

September 19, 2005; Voting Rights Advocates Challenge Georgia Photo ID Law in Federal Court; Measure Decried as "New Poll Tax," Violates State, Federal Constitutions (http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=684)

Are you a citizen? Prove it; By Kavan Peterson, Stateline.org Staff Writer (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=168723)

Again, I'll go with the evidence here. I'm not ranting about any cause. So far my son has been unable to correct his name with the Social Security Administration even though he took in his passport, original birth certificate, and a signed original court order showing his name was changed. They wanted a corrected birth certificate along with the original one. We are waiting for that document.

But as I said in another thread, he had no trouble getting a job even though his SSN and name don't match. But he couldn't get a bank account, they had an instant check at the bank. Even there with the signed court order they didn't care. The SSN had to match the name. So he can get an account in the wrong name.

Needless to say, none of this makes me feel any safer, it's obvious the rich and powerful don't want to discourage illegal workers, there is no evidence large numbers of illegal aliens voted, nor is there evidence voter ID will impact that anyway.
Your links are evidence of some strong opinions, and the interesting problem of how you can show proof of who you are. The problem of fraud, and its spread, is that the need to prove who you are increases over time in order to reign in abuse of loopholes.

To equate proving who you are equivalent to poll tax about stretches my patience. Twenty dollars over five years is a burden? The appeal to victim status is noted, as is the problem of the small group of people who fit into the odd category the lady in Mr Beene's article are.

What is the magnitude of this population, among citizens? Compare that to the magnitude of this among illegal residents?

Problem is, even with better ID and control and the registration end, that does not address skullduggery with how votes are handled, "sampled" and tabulated. It isn't a matter of fixing one problem, or the other, it is of fixing them all.

Put another way, why should a state ID cost anything for those without a DL? It is to the state's benefit that you have one, why should it cost anything at all for the lady in Beene's article? Has anyone addressed that?

DR

Bob Klase

22nd May 2007, 04:25 PM

Bob, are you dense or what? I am simply asking you what avenue are you talking about? You say the ID's will accomplish something. WHAT will they accomplish? I'm just asking you to clarify what you mean by the following sentence you said, "although it would certainly eliminate one avenue of voter fraud". What avenue of voter fraud?????????????

Are I dense? The avenue of walking into a polling place and claiming to be someone you're not so you can vote. That avenue. The avenue about which I also said "That avenue would be eliminated whether it's currently being used or not." Considering that's the topic of discussion I assumed that would be clear several posts ago.

That's as clear as I can make it.

"That avenue" 'That' is a pronoun. What do you mean when you say, "That avenue"????

I didn't realize your attention span was so short that the topic of the discussion had to be re-explained with every post.

You are completely off on a tangent here. This has nothing to do with your statement, "If you apply your reasoning about a voting ID requirement to driver licenses then we shouldn't require driver licenses either." We require drivers to prove they can drive.

No, we use driver's licenses to show that the state has determined that you meet the legal requirements to drive. Just as a photo ID could show that you meet (at least one) of the legal requirements to vote.

Your statement about applying my reasoning is wrong because voter ID and driver's licenses are not equal examples.

Analogies are never exactly equal examples. That doesn't automatically invalidate them.

It's really hard to discuss this with you because you don't understand what I've said. I don't see how else to explain it to you right now. I'll try again tomorrow.

Apparently I don't understand what you've said- except for the part of what you said that I addressed in my last post- the paragraph you didn't answer.

In one paragraph you claim that you're not making any arguments and ask for research (evidence). In the very next paragraph you contradict yourself and you do make an argument. So do you agree with the arguments you're presenting? I assume that if you didn't you wouldn't present them. Therefore (unless my assumption is wrong) you are "presenting" them rather than "making" them simply because using the term "present" absolves you of having to support them.

skeptigirl

22nd May 2007, 04:33 PM

Your links are evidence of some strong opinions, and the interesting problem of how you can show proof of who you are. The problem of fraud, and its spread, is that the need to prove who you are increases over time in order to reign in abuse of loopholes.

To equate proving who you are equivalent to poll tax about stretches my patience. Twenty dollars over five years is a burden? The appeal to victim status is noted, as is the problem of the small group of people who fit into the odd category the lady in Mr Beene's article are.

What is the magnitude of this population, among citizens? Compare that to the magnitude of this among illegal residents?

Problem is, even with better ID and control and the registration end, that does not address skullduggery with how votes are handled, "sampled" and tabulated. It isn't a matter of fixing one problem, or the other, it is of fixing them all.

Put another way, why should a state ID cost anything for those without a DL? It is to the state's benefit that you have one, why should it cost anything at all for the lady in Beene's article? Has anyone addressed that?

DR

My strongest opinion is that a false claim is being made that significant numbers of illegal aliens voted. Where is the evidence this happened? So far all that's been posted is the dislike of the fact ballots are printed in more than one language and foreign language speakers were overheard at the voting polls. That smacks more of prejudice than evidence.

In addition, I think those who believe $20 is not a burden for some to vote need to take a trip to the rural south and Appalachia and maybe a few Indian reservations that don't have casinos. You might also visit some of the poorest elderly among us. You may just find you've been living in a sheltered world.

As I said above, I'd agree with the IDs if there was evidence of a problem that the IDs are intended to address, if the IDs will effectively address the problem and if they are the best way to address it, and if there are unintended consequences the ID solution will create, then those should be addressed with the ID requirement laws.

Where's the evidence for the problem and this solution?

Bob Klase

22nd May 2007, 04:34 PM

Citizenship is best confirmed during the registration process because there is time to verify address and citizenship. So send out registration confirmation and require the person bring it or vote with a provisional ballot. If your confirmation is lost or stolen, you can report that and the thief would be caught when they went in to vote. That alone would discourage voter impersonation.

I would support that also- perhaps even in place of an ID requirement, provided that it was not a one- time requirement that could be open to abuse (say- after some died). But aside from you and me, it would be interesting to see how many of the people currently against ID's would also be against that plan (just so you're not confused "that plan" being the plan covered in your quote above).

Because my theory is that many of the people who are against ID requirements for voters are against it because they think it's an avenue of illegal extra votes that support that side. Naturally I could be wrong, but I've shown as much evidence for that as you have for the opposing view.

skeptigirl

22nd May 2007, 04:49 PM

Are I dense? The avenue of walking into a polling place and claiming to be someone you're not so you can vote. That avenue. The avenue about which I also said "That avenue would be eliminated whether it's currently being used or not." Considering that's the topic of discussion I assumed that would be clear several posts ago.

That's as clear as I can make it.

I didn't realize your attention span was so short that the topic of the discussion had to be re-explained with every post.Finally! It has nothing to do with attention span. It has to do with you assuming a problem when there is no evidence it exists.

What evidence do you have people voted in significant numbers (in other words more than a handful of cases) pretending to be someone else?

And if they did, is the problem that they registered under false names or that they stole someone else's vote? Wouldn't that person whose vote was stolen have noticed when they went to vote, someone had already voted for them? How would the vote stealer know they were going to get to the polls before the voter?

This is just not a logical way to cheat at the polls.

A few people could be voting for a deceased relative. So make sure death certificates result in voter registration cancellation. That makes more sense than requiring ID at the polls.

No, we use driver's licenses to show that the state has determined that you meet the legal requirements to drive. Just as a photo ID could show that you meet (at least one) of the legal requirements to vote. Except if you have an ID that doesn't require being a citizen. You can also have more than one address on different IDs.

You take a test to get your driver's license. Are you claiming that my son, for example, has to prove he is a citizen to get his college photo ID? He's 18, did he need to prove he was a citizen to get his school picture ASB card? My Costco card has my picture on it. Our season passes to Wild Waves had our pictures on them.

As to your claim I have opinions while claiming I don't care... You don't understand, if there is evidence the IDs are needed, I don't object to the IDs. But there is no evidence they solve anything, let alone evidence there were significant numbers of people impersonating other voters.

Darth Rotor

22nd May 2007, 09:58 PM

My strongest opinion is that a false claim is being made that significant numbers of illegal aliens voted. Where is the evidence this happened? So far all that's been posted is the dislike of the fact ballots are printed in more than one language and foreign language speakers were overheard at the voting polls. That smacks more of prejudice than evidence.

In addition, I think those who believe $20 is not a burden for some to vote need to take a trip to the rural south and Appalachia and maybe a few Indian reservations that don't have casinos. You might also visit some of the poorest elderly among us. You may just find you've been living in a sheltered world.

As I said above, I'd agree with the IDs if there was evidence of a problem that the IDs are intended to address, if the IDs will effectively address the problem and if they are the best way to address it, and if there are unintended consequences the ID solution will create, then those should be addressed with the ID requirement laws.

Where's the evidence for the problem and this solution?

Let's apply a modicum of reason, SG.

Jim Wells county is not too far from where I live. It is the infamous site of Lyndon Johnson's well told tale of success in getting ballot boxes stuffed, dead people voting, etc.

An ID check mitigates the risk of that recurring. Risk management. That voting fraud happened is reason enough to believe that it can, and will, happen again.

So, prudent steps can and should be taken to reduce the risk.

If you find that other than rational, how can we have a conversation?

Twenty dollars over four years, a burden? Nope. Not in 2007.

However, I contend that it is in the state's interest to provide the ID and process of verification for the rare persons in the "don't drive/have a license" category without charge, as it is in the State's interest for all to be verifiable as legal and registered voters.

Mitigate/reduce risk of voting fraud. It is that important, a hell of a lot more important than crap like CPS.

DR

Bob Klase

23rd May 2007, 10:03 AM

Finally! It has nothing to do with attention span. It has to do with you assuming a problem when there is no evidence it exists.

I haven't assumed there's a problem. I've said there is the potential for one.

What evidence do you have people voted in significant numbers (in other words more than a handful of cases) pretending to be someone else?

That assumes I've made a claim I didn't make. It also fails to define "significant numbers". How many phony votes are required to make it significant? In 2000, 300 to 500 votes in Florida would have been pretty significant since that's the number it would have taken to put Gore the White House.

And if they did, is the problem that they registered under false names or that they stole someone else's vote?

Makes no difference- there should be measures in place to prevent both.

Wouldn't that person whose vote was stolen have noticed when they went to vote, someone had already voted for them? How would the vote stealer know they were going to get to the polls before the voter?

In most elections there's less than a 50-50 chance that the person whose vote was stolen would know since it's rare for even a 50% turnout in an election. And if the stolen vote was in place of a dead person it's unlikely the dead person would show up and find out.

A few people could be voting for a deceased relative. So make sure death certificates result in voter registration cancellation. That makes more sense than requiring ID at the polls.

Or do both.

Except if you have an ID that doesn't require being a citizen.

Which is why proof of citizenship should be required at registration.

You take a test to get your driver's license. Are you claiming that my son, for example, has to prove he is a citizen to get his college photo ID? He's 18, did he need to prove he was a citizen to get his school picture ASB card? My Costco card has my picture on it. Our season passes to Wild Waves had our pictures on them.

Photo ID is not proof of citizenship. Photo ID is proof (or evidence since fake IDs do exist) that you are really you and not someone else pretending to be you. Citizenship is not shown by photo ID which is why that should be shown when registering.

As to your claim I have opinions while claiming I don't care...

I don't recall making that claim and can't seem to find it in any of my posts.

Pardalis

23rd May 2007, 10:45 AM

Have the emails been released yet? What are they waiting for?

skeptigirl

23rd May 2007, 01:52 PM

So far, the Goodling testimony does not have the revelations the committee is looking for, but some additional ones nonetheless.

Goodling admits violating civil service laws in her role firing career prosecutors and putting the 150 inexperienced lawyers from Pat Robertson's law school in their place. She admitted it was "against the rules" (her wording when asked twice if she knew it was "illegal").

But oh what a tangled web is weaved..... Goodling claims to have been less involved in the federal attorney firings, which is interesting for a couple other things she said. One, apparently McNulty (guy under Gonzales who resigned and has become Gonzales' scape goat {after contradictory statements, of course by Gonzales earlier}) blamed Goodling in his testimony for not being properly briefed by Goodling (http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2007/05/goodlings_contr.html). So Goodling refuted that and we have a, 'he said she said' now. Apparently not everyone believes Ms Goodling is too Christian to be above lying. OTOH, it's seems to me more like everyone has a version of reality where they are the good guy. Goodling was likely steamed hearing what sounded like McNulty blaming her for his actions.

The second issue here besides all these Christians blaming each other (someone has to be "bearing false witness"), is the thing Goodling says McNulty falsely testified about. That is, the White House involvement in the attorney firings. So I await more details about this area of inquiry. I haven't seen a clear picture arise yet just what Goodling briefed McNulty on that he claimed to be ignorant of. Now I need to go back and look at McNulty's testimony where he speaks about Goodling.

As usual, of course, the Bush supporters (you'd think they would be getting a clue by now) are spewing the talking point, there is nothing here but some politics as usual in the attorney firings. In other words, because Goodling's testimony has failed to reveal what the federal attorneys were fired for, there is no evidence anything bad happened. Of course that position continues to ignore the fact no one is saying really why these attorneys were fired. If it isn't a big deal, what's with the cover up?

skeptigirl

23rd May 2007, 02:01 PM

Let's apply a modicum of reason, SG.

Jim Wells county is not too far from where I live. It is the infamous site of Lyndon Johnson's well told tale of success in getting ballot boxes stuffed, dead people voting, etc.

An ID check mitigates the risk of that recurring. Risk management. That voting fraud happened is reason enough to believe that it can, and will, happen again.

So, prudent steps can and should be taken to reduce the risk.

If you find that other than rational, how can we have a conversation?

Twenty dollars over four years, a burden? Nope. Not in 2007.

However, I contend that it is in the state's interest to provide the ID and process of verification for the rare persons in the "don't drive/have a license" category without charge, as it is in the State's interest for all to be verifiable as legal and registered voters.

Mitigate/reduce risk of voting fraud. It is that important, a hell of a lot more important than crap like CPS.

DRIf you define "burden" as one which causes someone not to vote, it is unconstitutional.
24th Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment24/)Amendment Text | Annotations

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Calling it a fee doesn't negate the violation of this amendment.

I understand you are of the opinion, if it isn't worth $5/yr to you to vote, tough luck. But the reality is, the 24th amendment says you should be able to vote without having any fee be part of your decision.

As to the dead people impersonations, doesn't it make more sense to use death certificate files to purge voter registration rolls? Wouldn't most votes by the deceased have come in via absentee ballot anyway? Not to mention if ID is required, absentee ballot is an easy way around the problem?

I still say voter ID accomplishes nothing.

skeptigirl

23rd May 2007, 02:27 PM

I haven't assumed there's a problem. I've said there is the potential for one.

That assumes I've made a claim I didn't make. It also fails to define "significant numbers". How many phony votes are required to make it significant? In 2000, 300 to 500 votes in Florida would have been pretty significant since that's the number it would have taken to put Gore the White House.

Makes no difference- there should be measures in place to prevent both.So we should enact legislation and pay for implementing the law and any legal challenges that are sure to follow when there is no actual problem, only a possible problem, and absentee ballots are an easy way around the ID requirement?

You really want your tax dollars wasted on this?

In most elections there's less than a 50-50 chance that the person whose vote was stolen would know since it's rare for even a 50% turnout in an election. And if the stolen vote was in place of a dead person it's unlikely the dead person would show up and find out.Bob, show me this actually happens and I'll be more sympathetic to your view. I can imagine all sorts of problems and solutions to spend money on.

If wide scale voter impersonation were going to actually take place, then someone is going to used the names of people that didn't show up to vote to stuff the ballot box some place in the vote procedure. How many people are going to say, "Gee, my neighbor didn't vote, I think I'll go vote for them?" There can't be more than a handful of cases! If I want to vote for my Mom who is registered and not going out to vote, I'm not going to go to the polls where in my case my neighbors who know me are working anyway. I'm going to mail in an absentee ballot.

This idea of all these people out there voting multiple times and voter ID is going to change that is ludicrous. I still think people who think IDs are needed have an inaccurate view of how you vote. You don't just saunter into the voting booth and vote. You register ahead of time and when you vote your name is there, OR YOU CAN'T VOTE! If you want to cheat, you'd just need to register fake names and send in absentee ballots.

What is wrong here is people seem to think I'm advocating no one should have to prove anything to vote. That's nonsense, of course they should. But voter IDs addresses one problem there is no evidence occurs in any significant way, and is easily avoided with absentee ballots. In other words all voter ID does is stop people physically claiming to be someone else who is registered to vote at the polls. There is no evidence people show up at the polls impersonating voters. If they did, the 50 50 chance as you say still means a lot of people would go to vote and find someone already voted under the real voter's name. THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST SOME, IF NOT LOTS OF CASES. Where are the cases? Anyone voting for dead people would mail in their ballots.

I don't recall making that claim and can't seem to find it in any of my posts.This is what you said, post 189:In one paragraph you claim that you're not making any arguments and ask for research (evidence). In the very next paragraph you contradict yourself and you do make an argument. So do you agree with the arguments you're presenting? I assume that if you didn't you wouldn't present them. Therefore (unless my assumption is wrong) you are "presenting" them rather than "making" them simply because using the term "present" absolves you of having to support them.
I don't agree or disagree. I would need evidence before drawing a conclusion.

Bob Klase

24th May 2007, 09:10 AM

So we should enact legislation and pay for implementing the law and any legal challenges that are sure to follow when there is no actual problem, only a possible problem, and absentee ballots are an easy way around the ID requirement?

You really want your tax dollars wasted on this?

I don't like my tax dollars wasted on anything. But with the billions that are wasted to accomplish absolutely nothing (such as bridges to nowhere), this would be an insignificant speck of money that might actually accomplish something.

And if the stolen vote was in place of a dead person it's unlikely the dead person would show up and find out.

Bob, show me this actually happens and I'll be more sympathetic to your view. I can imagine all sorts of problems and solutions to spend money on.

It may (or may not) have happened last year or in 2000, I don't think there's much dispute that it has happened in the past. And you can pick any spending bill in congress and find items where the money would be better spent on other problems and solutions. The first problem is that even if you eliminate the waste the money is likely to be spent on other waste.

And even if voter ID is a complete waste of money, if that's your biggest argument against it then your time would be better spent fighting some of the waste that actually costs a significant amount.

This idea of all these people out there voting multiple times and voter ID is going to change that is ludicrous.

I don't know how ludicrous it is- I don't know how often it happens. But it's like other crimes- just because it doesn't happen a lot doesn't mean it should be ignored.

As to your claim I have opinions while claiming I don't care...

This is what you said, post 189:

I didn't say you "didn't care" there.

skeptigirl

24th May 2007, 02:35 PM

I don't like my tax dollars wasted on anything. But with the billions that are wasted to accomplish absolutely nothing (such as bridges to nowhere), this would be an insignificant speck of money that might actually accomplish something.

It may (or may not) have happened last year or in 2000, I don't think there's much dispute that it has happened in the past. And you can pick any spending bill in congress and find items where the money would be better spent on other problems and solutions. The first problem is that even if you eliminate the waste the money is likely to be spent on other waste.

And even if voter ID is a complete waste of money, if that's your biggest argument against it then your time would be better spent fighting some of the waste that actually costs a significant amount.

I don't know how ludicrous it is- I don't know how often it happens. But it's like other crimes- just because it doesn't happen a lot doesn't mean it should be ignored.So let's spend money on a problem that may not exist and let's spend it on a solution that is not the best solution if the problem did exist. How hard is it to understand my position here?

Where are your critical thinking skills. Look for evidence of the problem. Determine if the solution is the best one. Then invest in the solution. That's how intelligent people deal with problems.

What do manipulators do? They stir up fear and loathing and distract you from the real cheating that is benefiting them currently. Much better to cry, "illegal immigrants are stealing the vote. The vote cheating you are hearing about, that is people voting more than once, we care too. We need voter ID, we need voter ID." And without thinking about the "evidence" both for the problem actually existing, and for the solution actually working, the masses follow the piper.

What does the evidence show? More people were unable to vote because the availability of voting machines were manipulated. That was well documented in Ohio. People were purged from voter roles that shouldn't have been and it was done by Republicans in official positions where they had charge over the voting process. That was well documented. "Caging" occurred by Republicans in official positions sending out letters which if they weren't replied to resulted in more voter purging from the registration roles, again purging more Democratic Party voters than Republicans. That was well documented.

Did other cheating go on? Yes. Tires were slashed by Democrats to stop vans from driving Republicans to the polls. Phone systems were jammed by Republicans to stop get out the vote calling by Democrats on election day. Republicans also called Democratic voters telling them to go to the wrong polling place or that they could vote Tuesday and Wednesday. Those actions were well documented.

None of those well documented voter problems are the least bit corrected by implementing voter ID requirements. So why are you letting the Republicans who don't want cheating corrected to distract you with voter ID issues?

I didn't say you "didn't care" there.You said I contradicted myself. I didn't. I don't care specifically about the ID requirement. I care about using evidence to identify problems, to identify the best solutions and to identify unintended consequences that the solutions might result in.

I posted the evidence of those unintended consequences. If you or anyone has any contradictory evidence about the unintended consequences, produce it. I have only seen so far, opinions the unintended consequences are not significant.

Obviously many people have opinions about the significance the cost of voter ID will be. Those opinions differ. I have no reason to accept the opinions here that the cost of the ID is insignificant, because no evidence has been presented actually evaluating the impact voter ID has on impeding certain voters.

There is evidence poll taxes, even small ones disenfranchise certain voters. That evidence led to a Constitutional Amendment. I'd say that was pretty significant.

I have followed the voting issues from both the 00 and 04 elections. I have seen no evidence people impersonated voters nor that illegal aliens voted in significant numbers. A few cases were documented, especially voting for deceased relatives. I saw no evidence that occurred more by one party over the other, nor that it affected any election outcome.

There were allegations such illegal votes affected the outcome of the governor's election in WA State, my state. The Republican, Christian, Bush appointed federal attorney, McCay, elected not to pursue the issue because the Republicans sought out such illegal votes only in King County, a Democratic leaning county. Those same Republicans did not look at the illegal votes in any other part of the state. The Republican, Christian, Bush appointed, federal prosecutor after weighing all the evidence in this important matter, determined there was not sufficient evidence to pursue a case.

McCay also testified before the Oversight Committee on these attorney firings that he received a call from one Republican Congressman which McCay interpreted as an illegal attempt to influence the investigation and possible prosecution over the WA State election.

That is what the evidence shows. I have seen no evidence that problems occurred which voter ID will address.

Skeptics should be asking about the evidence, not about which party is at fault or which will benefit. I do not take the position, they all do it. I don't care. That is a red herring. I care about the evidence. And I care about political manipulation of the masses of people who are suckered by the unsupported claims that we should focus on voter IDs.

"How fortunate for leaders that men do not think." Adolf Hitler. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/adolfhitle109950.html)

-

Bob Klase

24th May 2007, 09:34 PM

Where are your critical thinking skills. Look for evidence of the problem. Determine if the solution is the best one. Then invest in the solution. That's how intelligent people deal with problems.

Well that's a whole different ball game. I thought w were talking about how congress should deal with the problem. I'd say the intelligent thing is to pass a voter ID act, make the ID free and move on to the real problems.

That was well documented. "Caging" occurred by Republicans in official positions sending out letters which if they weren't replied to resulted in more voter purging from the registration roles, again purging more Democratic Party voters than Republicans. That was well documented.

If you're talking about the claims in those 500 unverified emails, that's hardly "well documented". And (as Darth has pointed out several times- as stated it's a fairly stupid method of attempting to purge the votes you want to purge).

You said I contradicted myself. I didn't.

You said:
I only present the arguments being made. I am not making the arguments.
And then:
But I am making the argument voter ID is a waste of time

You said you were not making the arguments. Then you made an argument. That stuck me as a contradiction. (But I still see nothing I wrote claiming that you "don't care", and that's what you said that I claimed).

I don't care specifically about the ID requirement.

Neither do I really. I'd much rather see proof of citizenship required before registering to vote. But for the piddling cost of providing free ID to all voters who don't have ID, I'd rather just do it and then spend the time on fixing bigger problems. The democrats (and anti-ID supporters like you) will spent all your time and energy fighting the ID requirement and when it's all done the other problems will be forgotten.

There is evidence poll taxes, even small ones disenfranchise certain voters. That evidence led to a Constitutional Amendment. I'd say that was pretty significant.

Not significant if the ID is provided at no cost.

And I care about political manipulation of the masses of people who are suckered by the unsupported claims that we should focus on voter IDs.

I think it's just as much about political manipulation to spend all your time focused against voter IDs while bigger problems continue to be ignored by both sides.

"How fortunate for leaders that men do not think." Adolf Hitler. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/adolfhitle109950.html)-

Strength lies not in defence but in attack.

Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice. Adolf Hitler

"Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong." Adolf Hitler

The day of individual happiness has passed.

Sometimes Hitler is like the bible- you can cherry pick quotes to support all kinds of things you like.

Pardalis

24th May 2007, 10:18 PM

So, what about those emails?

Brainster

24th May 2007, 11:47 PM

Is there anything new in this post over at Bradblog (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4594)? They're making it out as some kind of Greg Palast exclusive, but from what I can see, it's much of the same stuff that's been rehashed in this thread. Not entirely relevant, but I felt I should mention that Bradblog is one of the very few major lefty/liberal blogs that has promoted the 9-11 Denier nonsense.

skeptigirl

25th May 2007, 01:54 AM

There's no free lunch, Bob Klase. If the voter IDs are productive, then they should be free to the voters. But someone is still paying, IE the taxpayer. Do voter ID requirements actually serve any purpose? Not as far as the evidence presented so far indicates.

We both agree on citizenship verification. It's better done during the registration process. Voter ID is adequate when the voter signs in as registered. If people are voting for dead people then purge the registration roles with death certificates. If people are impersonating voters, then show me the evidence before using my tax dollars to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

I, for one, think the voter ID issue is a purposeful distraction and I'd like skeptics to expect to see the evidence before being distracted by marketing talking points.

Bob Klase

30th May 2007, 04:29 PM

I, for one, think the voter ID issue is a purposeful distraction and I'd like skeptics to expect to see the evidence before being distracted by marketing talking points.

Maybe- pretty muc all politics (at least by politicians trying to get elected) are purposeful distraction. Why do you suppose so few of those against vote ID are trying to get proof of citizenship required when registering to vote?

skeptigirl

31st May 2007, 04:20 AM

Maybe- pretty muc all politics (at least by politicians trying to get elected) are purposeful distraction. Why do you suppose so few of those against vote ID are trying to get proof of citizenship required when registering to vote?Who says they are or aren't? The problem is the news media along with the talking points being inserted in the news are controlling the dialog.

pomeroo

13th June 2007, 10:00 PM

Well, are they?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010204

skeptigirl

14th June 2007, 02:02 AM

Pomeroo, the issue is not verifying only citizens vote. The issue is what is the best way to do so, how many cases of non-citizens voting have actually been detected so how much time and money should we invest in the solutions, and is this all just a distraction from the real voting problems?

I see nothing in that opinion piece addressing those issues.

pomeroo

14th June 2007, 06:45 AM

skeptigirl

14th June 2007, 02:26 PM

Well, let's see...guilt by association, albeit a weak argument, Fund 'graduated' from the National Journalism Center (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Journalism_Center) which includes other 'reporters' if that's what you want to call the likes of Ann Coulter. Then there is this little jewel about the principles of integrity one might expect from a 'graduate' of the NJC, from Sourcewatch: (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_National_Journalism_Center_and _Philip_Morris)The National Journalism Center and Philip Morris

An internal memo from Philip Morris(PM), the world's largest private tobacco company, explained the role and benefits to the company of working with the National Journalism Center (NJC). “The group was developed to train budding journalists in free market political and economic principles. As a direct result of our support we have been able to work with alumni of this program … about 15 years worth of journalists at print and visual media throughout the country … to get across our side of the story … which has resulted in numerous pieces consistent with our point of view,” the strategy paper stated....

In a 1993 memo, Philip Morris discussed an NJC symposium on Clinton's health care plan. While the symposium was “going to highlight the numerous problems of the administration’s plan including funding (FET)”, Philip Morris canvassed the possibility of additional spin-off from the event. (FET is the acronym for the Federal Excise Tax on tobacco).

“Generate additional publicity on the symposia by issuing a special edition of Consumers' Research magazine on health care. The magazine could serve as a credible lobbying material and be distributed to grassroots organizations opposed to the administration’s plan. The magazine would be a means to document the highlights of the conference for those who were unable to attend the forum”, the PM memo stated.

PM was willing to help with funding too, though not overtly from the tobacco industry. “Consumers’ Research could be supported from food and beer product advertising in the magazine or by purchase of copies of the magazine,” the memo stated. [1] ...Nothing like a little cover for those conflict of interest dollars you need to use.

From University of California, San Francisco, Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, is an example of how the marketers and framers (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page;jsessionid=91996E2FFAAA8A1BDE8909ABBF93D5C0?t id=neu27d00&page=2) of a specific message (as opposed to actual research or news investigation) see themselves manipulating information including a reference to NJC's 'students' to be established as contacts from which to recruit allied reporters from:PROACTIVE MEDIA RELATIONS : THE BORELLI FORMULA
Overview:
An examination of Dr. Tom Borelli's successful formula for proactive media relations within the conservative community shows several key elements that may be used for broader application. The Borelli method focuses on: development of a core network of allies and media relationships; research devoted to matching specific issues with characteristics of targeted press; enhancement of current social topics of interest to introduce Company relevant issues; and the use of industry experts as spokespeople and background sources. [Nothing like an industry expert for a neutral point of view.]... [snip]

...An example on point here is Dr. Borelli's relationship with the National Journalism Center. A small organization devoted to cultivating conservative, professional journalists from students and young writers, the NJC publishes "Consumers Research Magazine," a conservative publication with limited circulation. The relationship with this organization has given.

• Dr. Borelli entree to a number of the NJC's graduates, many of whom have become part of his network of conservative media contacts .
• Reporters at small, specialized publications . Publications like "Consumers Research", "Reason" and "Science" serve as resources for story ideas for the mainstream media; therefore, the ability to influence journalists at these more targeted outlets is often as important as contact with more prominent publications..... [snip]

Deliver spokespeople who know more about the topic than the journalist. This means that more should be available than a previously-approved list of message points....Often these may be third-party allies; however, some investigation should be made into the development of an "experts team,"... [snip]

Example: The EPA case.
Dr. Borelli broadened the Company's issue of concern over increasing regulations regarding air quality to include a topic relevant to the general public, particularly corporate America: is a heightening of the Clean Air Act standards a real benefit to Americans, or is it just more big government and an improper use of taxpayers' money? [That is an example of framing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences))] He then identified a short list of conservative and libertarian media who find the efforts of the EPA intrusive and overreaching, and posed the question to them for debate . Creating a tangible illustration of his point (the changes in the particulate matter standards, if passed, will mean the worst asthma sufferers will need one less inhaler), he set about convincing his targets that government initiatives such as these were misguided at best, invasive at worst.

The result: an oped in The Wall Street Journal. This is just one small illustration of the power of Dr. Borelli's formula: network development, professional credibility and broadening a Company concern to fit a current events issue....

So integrity in reporting or information manipulation?

But that is Fund's background. What about the book itself? See the next post. I'm splitting them for more ease in reading.

David Wong

14th June 2007, 02:59 PM

But that is Fund's background. What about the book itself? See the next post. I'm splitting them for more ease in reading.

I also heard he's Michael Chertoff's cousin.

Darth Rotor

14th June 2007, 02:59 PM

If you define "burden" as one which causes someone not to vote, it is unconstitutional.
24th Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment24/)Calling it a fee doesn't negate the violation of this amendment.
Which is why I posit that for those who don't drive, the state should provide voter's ID cards without charge. Did you choose not to read that part of my post?

Do you recall who championed voter registration concurrent with DL acquisition?

As to the dead people impersonations, doesn't it make more sense to use death certificate files to purge voter registration rolls? Wouldn't most votes by the deceased have come in via absentee ballot anyway?
Nope. There is ballot box stuffing, and there is people assuming the ID of someone who has died.

Not to mention if ID is required, absentee ballot is an easy way around the problem?
There is a notary requirement with every absentee ballot process I have worked with, which was over 30 states when I was voting officer in the Navy. Absent other info, I presume that is a universal requirement.
I still say voter ID accomplishes nothing.
It acts as a filter and a risk reducer for one level of voter fraud, but does not prevent all fraud.

That isn't "nothing," but you are free to believe otherwise.

Critical thinker? You don't score well on that one today.

DR

skeptigirl

14th June 2007, 03:27 PM

Fund's book: Stealing Elections (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1594030618/ref=dp_proddesc_0/103-6407982-4397468?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books) Editorial Reviews
Book Description
This book gives us a chilling portrait of our electoral vulnerability. Written with urgency and authority.

Description
Hanging chads, butterfly ballots, voting felons, and Supreme Court intervention. How bad is the U.S. election system? Bad enough that at least eight of the 19 hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had registered to vote while they made their deadly preparations for 9/11! John Fund explores the way "vote brokers" stole a mayoral election in Miami in 1998 by tampering with 4700 absentee ballots. He shows how the "Motor Voter Law" allowed Californians to use mail-in forms to get absentee ballots for fictitious people and pets. He discusses the fears of Internet activists that unscrupulous "Manchurian Programmers" could manipulate new computerized voting machines to alter the outcome in 2004. After reading Stealing Elections, Dr. Larry Sabato, Director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said, "Unless we do some of the things Fund recommends, sooner or later we're headed for more disasters as bad or worse than what we saw in Florida in 2000."

About the Author
John Fund is a member of the "Wall Street Journal"’s editorial board and writes the paper’s daily 'Political Diary.' He has written on voter fraud and election irregularities for the last decade in the "Wall Street Journal," "New Republic," "American Spectator" and other publications. In the past year, Fund has made over 90 appearances on Fox News, MSNBC, C-Span, and CNBC.

The opposite view can be found in Mark Crispin Miller's book, Fooled Again (http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Again-Mark-Crispin-Miller/dp/0465045790/ref=sid_dp_dp/103-6407982-4397468).Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
In this belated exposé—and clarion call for electoral reform—Miller (The Bush Dyslexicon) accuses George W. Bush and his "theocratic militants" of orchestrating electoral fraud to "hijack" the 2004 presidential race. Miller relies on original reporting, secondary sources and unadulterated outrage to make his case, marshaling evidence (much of it circumstantial) of Democratic voter disenfranchisement, mysterious computer snafus and discrepancies between exit poll results and official vote counts. He is especially critical of the press for what he describes as silence in the face of Bush's and Cheney's denials of fraud. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is another target of Miller's ire, for ignoring warnings of coordinated Republican plans to cheat and for doing nothing to contest the vote counts, especially in swing states Ohio and Florida. "Election-stealing" in Florida in particular presages a dark future for the entire nation: "a system built specifically to disenfranchise an aroused and even militant majority, and to do so without leaving any traces." Though Miller's sometimes unclear sourcing puts the burden on readers to separate fact from hearsay, he gathers enough well-documented evidence that anyone who cares about fair play should find this book revelatory. (Nov.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Book Description
For Republicans, the 2004 presidential election was little short of miraculous: Behind in the Electoral College tally in the days leading up to the election, behind even on the very afternoon of the vote, the Bush ticket staged a stunning comeback. The exit polls, usually so reliable, turned out to be wrong by an unprecedented 5 percent in the swing states. Conservatives argued-and the media agreed-that "moral values" had made the difference.

In his new book renowned critic and political commentator Mark Crispin Miller argues that it wasn't moral values that swung the election-it was theft. While the greatest body of evidence comes from the key state of Ohio-where the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee found an extraordinary onslaught of Republican-engineered vote suppression, election-day irregularities, old-fashioned intimidation tactics, and illegal counting procedures-similar practices (and occasionally worse ones) were applied in Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and even New York. A huge array of anomalies, improper practices, and blatant violations of the law all, by a truly remarkable coincidence, happened to swing in the Bush ticket's favor.

This pattern-not one overwhelming fraud but thousands of little ones-is, in Miller's view, the new Republican electoral strategy. This incendiary new book presents massive documentation that the election was stolen and describes the mind-set, among both the major parties and the media, that could permit it to happen again.

About the Author
Mark Crispin Miller is a professor of media studies at New York University and a well-known public intellectual. His writings on film, television, propaganda, advertising, and the culture industries have appeared in numerous journals and newspapers, including The Nation and the New York Times. He is the author of The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder (2001) and Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney's New World Order (2004). A frequent commentator on TV, radio, and the Internet, Miller has appeared on "Frontline," "The PBS Newshour," "The O'Reilly Factor," "Washington Journal," and Bill Moyers's "The Public Mind," as well as many other television shows, and has been a guest on countless radio programs. He is a regular commentator on Air America, appearing often on "Morning Sedition" and "The Al Franken Show." He lives in New York City.

So the review of Fund's book doesn't mention the massive documentation that Miller's book review does. And while reporters can certainly be good at investigative journalism, Fund's credentials are being schooled by the NJC I discussed in the last post, while Miller is a professor of media studies.

What else is in Fund's book? Well from a review in The National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund200409130633.asp), a conservative weekly, the intro to the book is published and there is a claim of balance in Fund's investigation.A note about partisanship: Since Democrats figure prominently in the vast majority of examples of election fraud described in Stealing Elections, some readers will jump to the conclusion that this is a one-sided attack on a single party. I do not believe Republicans are inherently more virtuous or honest than anyone else in politics, and I myself often vote Libertarian or independent. Voter fraud occurs in both Republican strongholds such as Kentucky hollows and Democratic bastions such as New Orleans. When Republicans operated political machines such as Philadelphia's Meehan dynasty up until 1951 or the patronage mill pf Nassau County, New York, until the 1990s, they were fully capable of bending — and breaking — the rules. Earl Mazo, the journalist who exhaustively documented the election fraud in Richard Daley's Chicago that may have handed Illinois to John F. Kennedy in the photo-finish 1960 election, says there was also "definitely fraud" in downstate Republican counties "but they didn't have the votes to counterbalance Chicago."

While they have not had the control of local and administrative offices necessary to tilt the rules improperly in their favor, Republicans have at times been guilty of intimidation tactics designed to discourage voting. In the 1980s, the Republican National Committee hired off-duty policemen to monitor polling places in New Jersey and Louisiana in the neighborhoods of minority voters, until the outcry forced them to sign a consent decree forswearing all such "ballot security" programs in the future.

In their book Dirty Little Secrets, Larry Sabato and co-author Glenn Simpson of the Wall Street Journal noted another factor in why Republican election fraud is less common. Republican base voters are middle-class and not easily induced to commit fraud, while "the pool of people who appear to be available and more vulnerable to an invitation to participate in vote fraud tend to lean Democratic."So we have a claim of being [fair and] balanced while Fund admits he found mostly fraud on the Democratic Party side. As he briefly notes a Republican fraud or two, he conveniently cites the instance of ballot stuffing suspected in JFK's election in the same sentence. Not to mention that case was decades old. This is not a casual insertion, it is clearly a specifically calculated one given Fund's training.

Fund claims the Republicans didn't have control of local and administrative offices necessary to tilt the rules improperly in their favor? Is he kidding? So Kathryn Harris and Ken Blackwell were what? Democrats?

Fund says Republicans have at times been guilty of intimidation tactics designed to discourage voting and notes a 1980 case in New Jersey while failing to mention the cases in Florida in 2000 of the very same thing.

Fund claims to not believe Democrats are more dishonest than Republicans then cites this economically racist bit, "Republican base voters are middle-class and not easily induced to commit fraud, while "the pool of people who appear to be available and more vulnerable to an invitation to participate in vote fraud tend to lean Democratic." Gee, Fund didn't say it, he quotes someone else who did.

And I'm not so sure what I think about giving homeless and street people small amounts of money, food or cigarettes to entice them to the polls. Given the envelope pushing of skirting campaign finance laws, (For example Tom DeLay is charged with laundering campaign money in a scheme to get around Texas campaign laws), and the envelope pushing of all the other means of intimidating voters not to show up at the polls, I question whether getting the poor and homeless to the polls and requesting they vote a certain way is envelope pushing or cheating. Just because Fund doesn't like the way these people might vote, or that they are poor and perhaps uneducated, doesn't mean they don't have a right to vote! And if I hold a big campaign rally and offer free lunch to get people to attend and listen to my candidate's pitch, that surely isn't illegal or unethical. Driving people to the polls isn't unethical. And face it, the Democratic Party is a vote in their interest. Of course there is the glaring fact Fund himself said, "the pool of people who appear to be available and more vulnerable to an invitation to participate in vote fraud tend to lean Democratic." How the he!! is it fraud if these people are voting they way they lean?

Fund cites the usual discredited cases. People were paid to register voters by the number of people they registered. So a number of people put fake names on the registration roles. While there's no excuse, that simply doesn't translate to anyone actually voting under those fake names.

Then there is this piece of $h!+ from Mr. 'Claims to be Fair and Balanced':Democrats are far more skilled at encouraging poor people — who need money — to participate in shady vote-buying schemes. "I had no choice. I was hungry that day," Thomas Felder told the Miami Herald in explaining why he illegally voted in a mayoral election. "You wanted the money, you were told who to vote for." Sometimes it's not just food that vote stealers are hungry for. A former Democratic congressman gave me this explanation of why voting irregularities more often crop up in his party's back yard: "When many Republicans lose an election, they go back into what they call the private sector. When many Democrats lose an election, they lose power and money. They need to eat, and people will do an awful lot in order to eat."

So from the introduction, and the background of Fund with information manipulation rather than investigative journalism, his obvious bias in that introduction, I don't see anything there suggesting I'll find some credible revelation in that book revealing massive voter fraud other than the Republican strategy of disenfranchisement.

skeptigirl

14th June 2007, 03:40 PM

.....

Nope. There is ballot box stuffing, and there is people assuming the ID of someone who has died.

There is a notary requirement with every absentee ballot process I have worked with, which was over 30 states when I was voting officer in the Navy. Absent other info, I presume that is a universal requirement. ...
DR
Are you trying to say people need to get their absentee ballots notarized? What?

As far as the other claims, cheating occurs. The question isn't if it occurs. The questions are, 1) to what extent, therefore how much should we invest in correcting it; 2) is voter ID at the polls the best way to correct the problem, and 3) will voter ID have unintended consequences which need to be addressed?

Not much has been posted in this thread addressing either of those two questions. Do you want a federal law and to spend a couple million taxpayer dollars on a problem that had no impact on federal elections?

And where is the evidence voter ID at the polls will do anything? Organizations have presented evidence it will disenfranchise voters. Whether that evidence is convincing or not is one thing, but where the heck is there any evidence cited in this thread that voter ID will have the desired result?

So far pomeroo presented his book as evidence. And I replied. Where's yours?

pomeroo

14th June 2007, 05:43 PM

Fund's book: Stealing Elections (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1594030618/ref=dp_proddesc_0/103-6407982-4397468?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books)

The opposite view can be found in Mark Crispin Miller's book, Fooled Again (http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Again-Mark-Crispin-Miller/dp/0465045790/ref=sid_dp_dp/103-6407982-4397468).

So the review of Fund's book doesn't mention the massive documentation that Miller's book review does. And while reporters can certainly be good at investigative journalism, Fund's credentials are being schooled by the NJC I discussed in the last post, while Miller is a professor of media studies.

What else is in Fund's book? Well from a review in The National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund200409130633.asp), a conservative weekly, the intro to the book is published and there is a claim of balance in Fund's investigation.So we have a claim of being [fair and] balanced while Fund admits he found mostly fraud on the Democratic Party side. As he briefly notes a Republican fraud or two, he conveniently cites the instance of ballot stuffing suspected in JFK's election in the same sentence. Not to mention that case was decades old. This is not a casual insertion, it is clearly a specifically calculated one given Fund's training.

Fund claims the Republicans didn't have control of local and administrative offices necessary to tilt the rules improperly in their favor? Is he kidding? So Kathryn Harris and Ken Blackwell were what? Democrats?

Fund says Republicans have at times been guilty of intimidation tactics designed to discourage voting and notes a 1980 case in New Jersey while failing to mention the cases in Florida in 2000 of the very same thing.

Fund claims to not believe Democrats are more dishonest than Republicans then cites this economically racist bit, "Republican base voters are middle-class and not easily induced to commit fraud, while "the pool of people who appear to be available and more vulnerable to an invitation to participate in vote fraud tend to lean Democratic." Gee, Fund didn't say it, he quotes someone else who did.

And I'm not so sure what I think about giving homeless and street people small amounts of money, food or cigarettes to entice them to the polls. Given the envelope pushing of skirting campaign finance laws, (For example Tom DeLay is charged with laundering campaign money in a scheme to get around Texas campaign laws), and the envelope pushing of all the other means of intimidating voters not to show up at the polls, I question whether getting the poor and homeless to the polls and requesting they vote a certain way is envelope pushing or cheating. Just because Fund doesn't like the way these people might vote, or that they are poor and perhaps uneducated, doesn't mean they don't have a right to vote! And if I hold a big campaign rally and offer free lunch to get people to attend and listen to my candidate's pitch, that surely isn't illegal or unethical. Driving people to the polls isn't unethical. And face it, the Democratic Party is a vote in their interest. Of course there is the glaring fact Fund himself said, "the pool of people who appear to be available and more vulnerable to an invitation to participate in vote fraud tend to lean Democratic." How the he!! is it fraud if these people are voting they way they lean?

Fund cites the usual discredited cases. People were paid to register voters by the number of people they registered. So a number of people put fake names on the registration roles. While there's no excuse, that simply doesn't translate to anyone actually voting under those fake names.

Then there is this piece of $h!+ from Mr. 'Claims to be Fair and Balanced':

So from the introduction, and the background of Fund with information manipulation rather than investigative journalism, his obvious bias in that introduction, I don't see anything there suggesting I'll find some credible revelation in that book revealing massive voter fraud other than the Republican strategy of disenfranchisement.

Mark Crispin Miller's book is such god-awful drivel that even the Kerry campaign kept him at a safe distance. See Farhad Manjoo's review on Salon: http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2005/11/14/miller/index.html

Your refusal to read Fund's meticulously-researched book suggests that you lack intellectual curiosity about this important issue. Vote fraud is a huge problem in America, one that Greg Palast's agenda-driven lies won't solve.

skeptigirl

15th June 2007, 03:31 AM

Bob Klase

15th June 2007, 10:08 AM

There is a notary requirement with every absentee ballot process I have worked with, which was over 30 states when I was voting officer in the Navy. Absent other info, I presume that is a universal requirement.

Not according to http://www.uselections.com/faq_absentee.htm#2-
only 16 states required notarization, and many of those only require it in certain conditions.

And http://www.fvap.gov/pubs/faq.html

Generally, election materials may be required to be witnessed or sworn to before a notary, U.S. Commissioned Officer, embassy or consular officer, or other officials authorized to administer oaths. Most states and territories do not require notarization of the FPCA [Federal Post Card Application] or ballot;

pomeroo

15th June 2007, 06:11 PM

I didn't refuse to read Fund's book, pomer. I read enough of it and about it to size it up. So if I give you a list of books I think you should read, you will? What nonsense.

Why not address what I wrote rather than giving some cop out excuse that I didn't look deep enough for you? Meticulously researched? Not according to the review I cited.

I've read the Manjoo article before. I tried to find out more about him but there wasn't much on the Net. (Which means he doesn't have much of a reputation for excellence in journalism.) Then I found this. (http://fraudbusterbob.com/blog/2006/06/13/who-the-hell-is-farhad-manjoo/) How about finding some sources that aren't simply right wing hacks?

You apparently either like being fooled by fake news or don't realize that's what you are reading. If that book was so meticulously researched, prove it. Cite some of the sources of information and let's see.

Farhad Manjoo is a Democrat. The loony-left blog you linked to just happened to overlook that point. He doesn't like Bush very much, but he likes the bogus pseudo-science peddled by leftist cranks even less. It would be convenient if every objective researcher who rejects the comforting myths of the left were tools of the evil genius Karl Rove (he is neither), but people like Mark Blumenthal (who thoroughly refuted the exit poll nonsense fabricated by Steven Freeman and Bob Fitrakis, parroted by RFK, Jr.) are capable of being liberals and rationalists simultaneously.

You display your lack of seriousness and intellectual curiosity. Fund's book, which you refuse (no, I'm afraid we all get the idea that you haven't read a word of it) to look at, contains his sources (but, then, you would know that if you had ever picked up a copy) and details his findings.

You have no real interest in this issue.

skeptigirl

16th June 2007, 04:19 PM

Farhad Manjoo is a Democrat. The loony-left blog you linked to just happened to overlook that point. He doesn't like Bush very much, but he likes the bogus pseudo-science peddled by leftist cranks even less. It would be convenient if every objective researcher who rejects the comforting myths of the left were tools of the evil genius Karl Rove (he is neither), but people like Mark Blumenthal (who thoroughly refuted the exit poll nonsense fabricated by Steven Freeman and Bob Fitrakis, parroted by RFK, Jr.) are capable of being liberals and rationalists simultaneously.

You display your lack of seriousness and intellectual curiosity. Fund's book, which you refuse (no, I'm afraid we all get the idea that you haven't read a word of it) to look at, contains his sources (but, then, you would know that if you had ever picked up a copy) and details his findings.

You have no real interest in this issue.This is what Farhad Manjoo believes is important enough about himself (http://www.blogger.com/profile/13591780847707355141) to point it out on his .

* Age: 28
* Gender: Male
* Astrological Sign: Leo
* Zodiac Year: Horse
* Occupation: Writer
* Location: San Francisco : CaliforniaThe rest of his blog is equally unimpressive.

Now check out [url=http://dir.salon.com/topics/farhad_manjoo/index.html]Manjoo's 257 articles written for Salon. (]blog[/url) The vast majority are short tech blurbs and other tripe. There is nothing on this guy whatsoever indicating he has an investigative reporting background, skills, or education.

So it looks to me like instead of validating these two sources of information, expertise, &/or the quality of the investigative reporting, you prefer your sources simply spit out the world view as you fantasize it to be.

You are whining I haven't read a book when I did investigate the facts in the book. You, on the other hand, apparently (we can't be sure, after all you haven't cited any supportable facts from the book) read the book, liked what it said, so didn't bother to investigate the validity of the information or how the author might have purposefully distorted the facts in order to frame the message in a particular way. That was the training Fund had at the NJC which I cited.

You need to address what I said in post 224, pomey. Continuing to ignore those issues while claiming I haven't looked into something is getting tiring.

pomeroo

16th June 2007, 06:31 PM

This is what Farhad Manjoo believes is important enough about himself (http://www.blogger.com/profile/13591780847707355141) to point it out on his blog (http://blog/).The rest of his blog is equally unimpressive.

You are wasting our time, skeptigirl. Obviously, your ad hominem attacks on Manjoo are necessary to disguise your inability to cope with his arguments.

Now check out Manjoo's 257 articles written for Salon. (http://dir.salon.com/topics/farhad_manjoo/index.html) The vast majority are short tech blurbs and other tripe. There is nothing on this guy whatsoever indicating he has an investigative reporting background, skills, or education.

So it looks to me like instead of validating these two sources of information, expertise, &/or the quality of the investigative reporting, you prefer your sources simply spit out the world view as you fantasize it to be.

Drivel. What did Manjoo get wrong in his scathing review of Miller's book?

You are whining I haven't read a book when I did investigate the facts in the book.

You are complaining about a highly detailed, well-researched book that you refuse to read. You have no real interest in the issue.

You, on the other hand, apparently (we can't be sure, after all you haven't cited any supportable facts from the book) read the book, liked what it said, so didn't bother to investigate the validity of the information or how the author might have purposefully distorted the facts in order to frame the message in a particular way. That was the training Fund had at the NJC which I cited.

Yawn. Lefties are intellectually bankrupt. They rely heavily on personal attacks and pure fabrications. Mark Blumenthal, a DEMOCRATIC pollster, has refuted all of the pseudo-science behind Steven Freeman's bogus thesis that exit polls are infallible. Bob Fitrakis and Mark Crispin Miller are far-left screamers who make no pretense at objectivity. No one has challenged Fund's allegations: he doesn't hide his sources.

You need to address what I said in post 224, pomey. Continuing to ignore those issues while claiming I haven't looked into something is getting tiring.

You need to read a book to discuss it. You need to address the specific points an article makes to refute them.

skeptigirl

17th June 2007, 03:04 PM

You can't address the real issues then, duly noted.

pomeroo

17th June 2007, 11:21 PM

You can't address the real issues then, duly noted.

The real issues involve the Democrats' broad-daylight thefts of a Senate seat in South Dakota (2002), a governorship in Washington (2004), and blatant vote fraud in Palm Beach County, Florida (2000) that came within a whisker of subverting a presidential election.

It's easy to make unsubstantiated allegations of vote suppression. It's difficult to reconcile those allegations with a huge increase in turnout of the voters who are supposedly being suppressed.

Pardalis

17th June 2007, 11:37 PM

When is Palast going to publish the emails?

skeptigirl

18th June 2007, 02:00 AM

When is Palast going to publish the emails?

The first of the emails (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=413062748&size=o) and the results of revealing the information in them, US Attorney Resigns Following Conyers’ Request for BBC Documents (http://www.gregpalast.com/rove-pick-for-us-attorney-resigns-following-conyers%e2%80%99-request-for-bbc-documents/)

Sword_Of_Truth

18th June 2007, 02:48 AM

The first of the emails (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=413062748&size=o) and the results of revealing the information in them

That's not an e-mail. It's a jpeg of an e-mail header.

So when is Mr. Palast releasing those 500 e-mails?

Kevin_Lowe

18th June 2007, 08:22 AM

It's easy to make unsubstantiated allegations of vote suppression. It's difficult to reconcile those allegations with a huge increase in turnout of the voters who are supposedly being suppressed.

This is a very silly argument. It is perfectly possible that attempts were made to suppress the Democratic party vote, but that increased turnout was a greater effect.

pomeroo

18th June 2007, 10:35 AM

This is a very silly argument. It is perfectly possible that attempts were made to suppress the Democratic party vote, but that increased turnout was a greater effect.

There is nothing silly about it. If someone alleges, without a shred of evidence, that the black vote is being "suppressed," pointing to a huge increase in black voter turnout calls the allegation into question. Is it reasonable to infer the existence of a program if the effect is exactly the opposite of what the program is designed to accomplish?

The whole argument about voter suppression is a cynical ploy by Democrats to allow them to employ their time-tested techniques of vote fraud unhindered. Disenfranchisement not a difficult concept: a person attempts to register in the district where he or she resides and is prevented from doing so. That's all there is to it.

It's interesting that Greg Palast can continually shriek about the "millions" of voters who have had their voting rights stolen by the monstrous, racist Republicans without ever being able to produce even one such voter. Peter Kirsanow, a member of the Civil Rights Commission, has written extensively on this subject, thoroughly refuting Palast's fabrications.

Pardalis

18th June 2007, 11:24 AM

The first of the emails (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=413062748&size=o)

Yikes, that's pretty incriminating. Where did you get it from? Has it been released to the media?

ETA: If I get this right, not only did Palast receive the emails, but also the Excel files too?

Darth Rotor

18th June 2007, 12:18 PM

There is nothing silly about it. If someone alleges, without a shred of evidence, that the black vote is being "suppressed," pointing to a huge increase in black voter turnout calls the allegation into question. Is it reasonable to infer the existence of a program if the effect is exactly the opposite of what the program is designed to accomplish?
How one identifies by address and zip code "black" voters is of interest, I'd like to see those emails to find out more about this.
The whole argument about voter suppression is a cynical ploy by Democrats to allow them to employ their time-tested techniques of vote fraud unhindered. Disenfranchisement not a difficult concept: a person attempts to register in the district where he or she resides and is prevented from doing so. That's all there is to it.
Yes.
It's interesting that Greg Palast can continually shriek about the "millions" of voters who have had their voting rights stolen by the monstrous, racist Republicans without ever being able to produce even one such voter. Peter Kirsanow, a member of the Civil Rights Commission, has written extensively on this subject, thoroughly refuting Palast's fabrications.
Palast's article, SG links, seems to show contradicting versions of what happened, and why. My cynical side says "this helps him hawk his book" while my more skeptical side says "I wanna see those emails."
Last Wednesday, Goodling testified under a grant of immunity before the House Judiciary Committee that Gonzales’ Deputy Paul McNulty, “failed to disclose that he had some knowledge of allegations that Tim Griffin had been involved in vote ‘caging’ during his work on the President’s 2004 campaign.”

Goodling’s testimony prompted Conyers’ request to the BBC for the Griffin emails.
Hearsay. So far. I'd like to see the emails.
Last night Palast showed Conyers a Griffin email from August 2004 indicating that Griffin not only knew of ‘caging,’ but directed the operation.
What does this have to do with stealing the 2008 election, one might well ask?
Conyers indicated to the BBC that he thought it unlikely that Griffin could carry out this massive ‘caging’ operation without the knowledge of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rove.
Hmm. Argument through incredulity?
Griffin has not responded to requests by BBC to explain this ‘caging’ operation. However, in emails subpoenaed by Conyers’ committee, Griffin complains to Monica Goodling, an assistant to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, about the BBC reporter’s reproduction of caging lists in Palast’s book, “Armed Madhouse.”
Given Palast makes some not substantially supported/backed up assertions, is this a surprise?
In the email dated February 5 of this year, Griffin stated that the purpose of ‘caging’ was to identify “fraudulent” voters. This contradicts one explanation of the Bush campaign to BBC that the lists were of potential donors and not in any way created to challenge voters.
Like a good Truther, the conclusion derived from this contradiction means, to Palast, "steal the 2008 vote."
Griffin confidentially wrote: “The real story is this: There were thousands of reported illegal/fake voter registrations around the country, so some of the Republican State Parties mailed letters welcoming new voters to the newly registered voters. … The Republican State Parties ultimately wanted to show that thousands of fraudulent registrations had been completed.”
This is a different motive, in Griffin's own words, than "stealing the 2008 vote." Now, is Griffin a witness we can believe without reservation?

No.

FWIW: Did you note that Palast refers to himself in the third person in this article?

DR

Kevin_Lowe

18th June 2007, 07:27 PM

There is nothing silly about it. If someone alleges, without a shred of evidence, that the black vote is being "suppressed," pointing to a huge increase in black voter turnout calls the allegation into question. Is it reasonable to infer the existence of a program if the effect is exactly the opposite of what the program is designed to accomplish?

Are you asking whether it's reasonable to take the alleged incident of vote suppression as fact (which nobody has done)? Or are you asking whether it's reasonable to take the alleged incident of vote suppression as plausible?

I'll be charitable and assume you are asking the second question, because the first question would be a foolish one to ask. It seems to me to be plausible firstly because organised vote suppression in Democratic-leaning areas within Republican-controlled electorates was proven elsewhere in the 2004 elections, and because a place where a major turnout increase in the Democratic party's favour was likely is exactly the kind of place where you would want to suppress the Democratic vote.

The mere fact that turnout increased compared to the previous year is not proof that no suppression occurred, any more than it would be proof that nobody was embezzling money if a company's profits went up in a given year.

The whole argument about voter suppression is a cynical ploy by Democrats to allow them to employ their time-tested techniques of vote fraud unhindered. Disenfranchisement not a difficult concept: a person attempts to register in the district where he or she resides and is prevented from doing so. That's all there is to it.

There's not a lot of non-partisan discussion of this issue, so you can be forigven for thinking that if most of your media exposure comes from pro-Republican sources.

The fact is in recent political history the number of proven pro-Republican incidents of vote suppression, and highly suspicious incidents circumstantially evidencing outright pro-Republican vote fraud, dwarf the number and scope of pro-Democratic incidents.

The pro-Democratic wrongdoing boils down to the tire-slashing incident (promptly reported by Demorcatic party members themselves and appropriately dealt with), and stories about zombie voters which despite a lot of talk always come to nothing, despite orders from the top for prosecutors to ferret out any such activity.

I just can't see how "zombie voting" can be used as an efficient way to steal an election anyway. The best payoff you ccould get would be a few votes per active conspirator, it would take a lot of organising and travel, everyone involved risks a criminal charge at every step, and assembling thousands (or tens of thousands) of known-good identities to assume and distributing them to the faithful would be a Herculean task. You seem to think it is plausible that this inefficient form of fraud could be incredibly widespread yet Republican prosecutors could never pin it on anyone, and I find that hard to believe.

Before you get started on party political talk, bear in mind I'm an Australian and in terms of policy I don't care for either of your two parties nor do I see a great deal of difference between them.

It's interesting that Greg Palast can continually shriek about the "millions" of voters who have had their voting rights stolen by the monstrous, racist Republicans without ever being able to produce even one such voter. Peter Kirsanow, a member of the Civil Rights Commission, has written extensively on this subject, thoroughly refuting Palast's fabrications.

I seem to recall that footage of people walking away from the long lines at certain Ohio polling stations was available at the time. At the same time, producing one or two people who claimed to have been disenfranchised would prove little with regard to a charge of millions being disenfranchised anyway.

skeptigirl

18th June 2007, 08:06 PM

...If someone alleges, without a shred of evidence, that the black vote is being "suppressed," pointing to a huge increase in black voter turnout calls the allegation into question. Where do you get off claiming there isn't a shred of evidence? Your denial blinders must be awful thick.

I hadn't read there were increased numbers of black voters. If you post a link maybe we can resolve the issue. For example if certain voters were "caged" in one area but increased numbers voted in a completely different area, then your argument fails.

...The whole argument about voter suppression is a cynical ploy by Democrats to allow them to employ their time-tested techniques of vote fraud unhindered. Disenfranchisement not a difficult concept: a person attempts to register in the district where he or she resides and is prevented from doing so. That's all there is to it.Your grasp of the disenfranchisement issue is certainly limited. And your conspiracy theory credits the wrong party. The Republicans have been exposed in the "caging" incident and the activity is linked to the party leadership. Where is your evidence the Democratic Party leaders have been involved in any of the 2000 or 2004 election fraud events? Chicago in the '60s, maybe. But again, no one is claiming there has always been only one party involved in corruption. The issue is stopping today's corruption.

...It's interesting that Greg Palast can continually shriek about the "millions" of voters who have had their voting rights stolen by the monstrous, racist Republicans without ever being able to produce even one such voter. Peter Kirsanow, a member of the Civil Rights Commission, has written extensively on this subject, thoroughly refuting Palast's fabrications.If it's anything like your last citation, then you have again presented unreliable evidence which apparently supports your view in lieu of reliable evidence which you can't seem to com up with. And before you whine about Palast, no one is presenting his claims as fact until more evidence is forthcoming. So address the other evidence please, such as the admission of caging by Monica Goodling in the Senate hearings under oath, and the the subsequent resignation of Attorney Griffin after being implicated in the scheme.

skeptigirl

18th June 2007, 08:14 PM

pomeroo

18th June 2007, 08:56 PM

Are you asking whether it's reasonable to take the alleged incident of vote suppression as fact (which nobody has done)? Or are you asking whether it's reasonable to take the alleged incident of vote suppression as plausible?

I'll be charitable and assume you are asking the second question, because the first question would be a foolish one to ask. It seems to me to be plausible firstly because organised vote suppression in Democratic-leaning areas within Republican-controlled electorates was proven elsewhere in the 2004 elections,

No, the allegations were not proved. All available evidence showed them to be bogus.

and because a place where a major turnout increase in the Democratic party's favour was likely is exactly the kind of place where you would want to suppress the Democratic vote.

The mere fact that turnout increased compared to the previous year is not proof that no suppression occurred, any more than it would be proof that nobody was embezzling money if a company's profits went up in a given year.

There's not a lot of non-partisan discussion of this issue, so you can be forigven for thinking that if most of your media exposure comes from pro-Republican sources.

I have followed this issue closely for several years. I can tell you that the reason it remains the exclusive province of far-left internet denizens is that there is no substance to it. If the Democratic Party had any sort of evidence, legal action would follow. The Dems sent thousands of lawyers to Ohio in 2004. There was nothing to litigate.

The fact is in recent political history the number of proven pro-Republican incidents of vote suppression, and highly suspicious incidents circumstantially evidencing outright pro-Republican vote fraud, dwarf the number and scope of pro-Democratic incidents.

A total falsehood--you could not be more wrong.

The pro-Democratic wrongdoing boils down to the tire-slashing incident (promptly reported by Demorcatic party members themselves and appropriately dealt with), and stories about zombie voters which despite a lot of talk always come to nothing, despite orders from the top for prosecutors to ferret out any such activity.

I just can't see how "zombie voting" can be used as an efficient way to steal an election anyway. The best payoff you ccould get would be a few votes per active conspirator, it would take a lot of organising and travel, everyone involved risks a criminal charge at every step, and assembling thousands (or tens of thousands) of known-good identities to assume and distributing them to the faithful would be a Herculean task. You seem to think it is plausible that this inefficient form of fraud could be incredibly widespread yet Republican prosecutors could never pin it on anyone, and I find that hard to believe.

You are misinformed. I suggest reading John Fund's book Stealing Elections.

Before you get started on party political talk, bear in mind I'm an Australian and in terms of policy I don't care for either of your two parties nor do I see a great deal of difference between them.

I don't care for either of them either, but the Dems are worse.

I seem to recall that footage of people walking away from the long lines at certain Ohio polling stations was available at the time. At the same time, producing one or two people who claimed to have been disenfranchised would prove little with regard to a charge of millions being disenfranchised anyway.

Voting machines are requisitioned by county commissioners. In Ohio, the man responsible for the most conspicuous shortages was a Democrat.

pomeroo

18th June 2007, 09:02 PM

Hunting for my own links since you didn't provide them, pomey, I find Mr Kirsanow (http://www.usccr.gov/cos/bio/kirsanow.htm) is a Bush 'recess' appointment. In other words, Bush put him in a job that is supposed to be confirmed by Congress during a recess specifically so he wouldn't have to be confirmed. We know what that means, he's a party pimp.

As usual, your "research" is something considerably less than that. The actions of Mary Frances Berry to refuse to vacate her expired seat on the commission and to block Kirsanow's appointment were illegal. Several newspapers, most of them liberal-leaning, editorialized about her outrageous behavior.
Naturally, you refuse to read any of the relevant material. Your insistence on pontificating about subjects on which you are poorly informed confirms my suspicion that you lack real interest in the issue.

I touched on a few of these points in my article for The American Thinker a couple of years ago: http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/10/the_biggest_story_unfit_to_pri.html

David Wong

18th June 2007, 09:05 PM

ConspiRaider

18th June 2007, 09:39 PM

And yet, it's silence from all but fringe conspiracy types. Why? Why, when the democracy itself is supposedly at stake?
Why indeed.

But at least you and Ron can take comfort in the fact that no Republican is going to win the presidency in 2008. Finally, eh? Just in time to save the country. Doesn't even matter if the Repubs try to cheat. The numbers are way against 'em.

In 2000, confused Americans voted for Bush.

In 2004, mis-led Americans voted for Bush.

In 2008, only incredibly-stupid Americans will vote for the Republican candidate.

Kevin_Lowe

18th June 2007, 09:44 PM

That's a good point, and important even for people who just casually follow this issue from the outside:

The Democratic party spent hundreds of millions of dollars, and months and months and millions and millions of hours of frantic labor to get their man into office.

Isn't it logical to say that if there was even a whiff of real evidence of vote suppression/vote fraud, that they'd have screamed bloody murder?

It would be an important point if we couldn't access actual facts about what went on. Lacking any actual facts we might have to try to divine what went on from the behaviour of the Democratic party organisation. That is not the case however.

My take on the matter is that the Democratic party as a whole has not demonstrated any great interest in electoral reform for its own sake. I think they are interested mostly in gaining office. So in the 2004 situation they folded because their lawyers could not see any legal avenue that seemed likely to flip the election result.

In the specific case of Ohio that Pomeroo brought up, for example, while it was proven that vote suppression was widespread and that the recounts were subverted, at the same time even with fairly generous assumptions about the number of voters disenfranchised the Republican party carried the state anyway. Therefore the Democratic party machine packed up their bags and waited for the next election.

Think of John Kerry. He worked 20-hour days and had his reputation dragged through the mud for months just so he could be president. When presented with evidence that fraud and/or suppression kept him out of the White House, you think he'd shrug his shoulders and say, "oh, well."

No such good evidence exists, so I don't think Kerry was presented with such evidence.

We have proof the election was tainted, but nothing resembling proof that the degree of taint swung the election.

The only remotely plausible story that would have Kerry "really" winning the election is the story that the exit poll anomaly was mostly caused by grass-roots Republican electoral fraud, and proving that story to be true would have taken investigating every single dodgy-looking precinct in the USA for evidence that in many cases simply would not exist. Since electronic voting machines can be corrupted without leaving traces if you know what you are doing, once such tampering has occurred there's not much you can do except fix the system so they can't do it again next time.

And yet, it's silence from all but fringe conspiracy types. Why? Why, when the democracy itself is supposedly at stake?

Because in US political discourse, you can call anything that isn't a major policy plank of one of your two virtually indistinguishable parties "fringe" and get away with it. Conyers has been chasing up serious irregularities ever since 2004, and the GAO reported that there were serious questions about the integrity of the 2004 election, but nonetheless people can still report their concerns as the domain of "fringe conspiracy types".

skeptigirl

18th June 2007, 11:33 PM

Voting machines are requisitioned by county commissioners. In Ohio, the man responsible for the most conspicuous shortages was a Democrat.Does it ever dawn on you that your sources of information are lacking? No link to this BS claim whatsoever. I have to conclude it is a BS claim since when I looked for information on the specific reasons for the voting machine shortages in heavily Democratic areas in Ohio, I found plenty of discussion how Blackwell was responsible and not one thing about any Democrats who failed to order machines.

First there is this information about Blackwell on Wiki: Ken Blackwell, Ohio Secretary of State; Involvement in the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Blackwell#Involvement_in_the_2004_U.S._pre sidential_election_controversy)Blackwell also announced he would enforce an Ohio State election law decreeing that any person who appeared at a polling place to vote but whose registration could not be confirmed would be given only a provisional ballot; if it were later determined that the person had attempted to vote in the wrong precinct, yet still in the correct city, or the correct building, (some buildings were authorized polling places for more than one precinct), or even the correct room of said building, but had unwittingly waited in line at the wrong table, then their provisional ballot would not be counted in any election totals. The Democratic party promptly filed a lawsuit claiming that the policy was "intended to disenfranchise minority voters" and in violation of federal election law, HAVA (Sec. 302). [32]

On October 21, 2004, U.S. District Court Judge James G. Carr issued an order rejecting Blackwell's policy, indicating that "Blackwell apparently seeks to accomplish the same result in Ohio in 2004 that occurred in Florida in 2000." [33]

Blackwell appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Joining him in the appeal as a citizen intervener was Thomas Noe, who would become the key figure in Coingate. The Appeals Court reversed the District Court decision on October 26, 2004. (pdf)(pdf) In accordance with the Appeals Court ruling, provisional ballots cast in the wrong precincts were not counted in Ohio's 2004 elections....

...Diebold controversies

Ohio State Senator Jeff Jacobson asked Blackwell in July 2003 to disqualify Diebold Election Systems' bid to supply voting machines for the state, after security problems were discovered in its software,[57] but was refused. Blackwell had ordered Diebold touch screen voting machines, reversing an earlier decision by the state to purchase only optical scan voting machines which, unlike the touch screen devices, would leave a "paper trail" for recount purposes.[citation needed] The controversy was inflamed the next month when Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold, sent a fund-raising letter to Ohio Republicans, stating that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." [58] Although he clarified his statement as merely a poor choice of words, critics of Diebold and/or the Republican party interpreted this as at minimum an indication of a conflict of interest, at worst implying that those newly purchased electronic voting machines which did not leave any verifiable paper trail represented a risk to the fair counting of ballots....

And on this well referenced website (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007103.php) there is a detailed account of how the voting machine shortage came about and who it affected. Testimony By William Anthony, Chairman, Franklin County Board of Elections [N]early one hundred thousand more people voted on Election Day 2004 than during 2000 – this is almost a 25% percent increase over the previous presidential election.

In 2000, the Board of Elections owned an inventory of 2,904 voting machines for 680,000 registered voters in 759 precincts. Four years later, in 2004, the Board of Elections owned an inventory of 2,904 voting machines – the exact same number of voting machines as in 2000 – a static resource that had to be spread even thinner to meet the increased demand of voting machines for 847,000 registered voters in 788 precincts.

Could we have purchased or leased more machines? No. With the passage of HAVA [PDF] by Congress and Ohio’s House Bill 262 requiring a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail, all previously discussed plans to purchase additional machines were cancelled for implementation in 2004.

Would a 'good cause' include 'cancelling plans to purchase additional machines' by the GOP dominated Ohio State legislature? Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is known to have been aware of this well in advance of the election....

...Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell helped draft a 2002 federal law giving states millions for more accurate voting machines.

So he knew well what the law would allow - and what he could get away with. You can read the law for yourself, just like Blackwell did:

According to HAVA:

PUBLIC LAW 107–252—OCT. 29, 2002 Page 6-7

42 USC 15302.

SEC. 102. REPLACEMENT OF PUNCH CARD OR LEVER VOTING MACHINES.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM DEADLINE
(3) Deadline.

(A) IN GENERAL Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a State receiving a payment under the program under this section shall ensure that all of the punch card voting systems or lever voting systems in the qualifying precincts within that State have been replaced in time for the regularly scheduled general election for Federal office to be held in November 2004.

This is how the Ohio GOP made sure that HAVA wasn't going to benefit Franklin County voters:

(B) WAIVER If a State certifies to the Administrator not later than January 1, 2004, that the State will not meet the deadline described in subparagraph (A) for good cause and includes in the certification the reasons for the failure to meet such deadline, the State shall ensure that all of the punch card voting systems or lever voting systems in the qualifying precincts within that State will be replaced in time for the first election for Federal office held after January 1, 2006....

...So how did this bribery aid and abet the GOP theft of the election in Ohio?

The Democratic National Committee's study of the 2004 election in Ohio (Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio) finds that throughout the state, failures in election administration caused racial disparities in voters' election day experiences. The least one can say is there was shamefully negligent administrative failure that deprived thousands of voters of their right to vote.

African-American voters reported waiting an average of 52 minutes before voting, while white voters reported waiting an average of 18 minutes. Three percent of voters who went to the polls left their polling places and did not return due to the long lines. Throughout Ohio, reductions in voter turnout are associated with inadequate provision of voting machines. The DNC study finds that turnout is typically two to three percent lower in precincts that were allocated fewer machines.

And that is a generous assessment of the situation. Why did Black voters have to wait so long? They had fewer machines to work with:

Walter Mebane (Cornell University) had done [an] analysis of data from Franklin County.

If one uses the November 2004 electorate as the standard, the allocation of voting machines clearly and disproportionately reduced turnout among African American voters. Franklin County apparently used a measure of the active voter electorate computed as of mid-June, 2004.

Further research, dated February 11, 2006, indicated:
... an inadequate number of voting machines in precincts in Franklin County, Ohio, in 2004 produced long lines and caused voter turnout to decrease.

The allocation of voting machines in Franklin County was clearly biased against voters in precincts with high proportions of African Americans when measured using the standard of the November, 2004, electorate. In precincts with high proportions of African American voters there were 13.6 percent more active voters per voting machine than in precincts having low proportions of African American voters.

Using plans made in "mid-summer" meant that Franklin county officials ignored information during the late summer and fall that should have showed them that the November electorate would be substantially larger.

Between April [when Ken Blackwell 'certified' Diebold as the only authorized vendor] and November, the active voter population in the county increased by more than 15 percent. If nothing else, the surge of new registrants should have indicated that their plans made in mid-summer would prove woefully insufficient.

There are many testimonials on the record about these delays in voting. This lack of sufficient numbers of voting machines led to this observation:
Ohio's new poll tax: if you can't afford to wait four hours in line, you don't vote.

The shortage of voting machines was particularly acute in high-Democratic precincts. New registrations and GOTV efforts by 527 organizations were also largely concentrated in these shortchanged Democratic precincts. The lines thus created by the unequal machine allocation throttled the effect of registration and GOTV efforts of ACT, MoveOn and other 527 groups in Franklin County.

With the servers (polling booths) operating at maximum capacity, queuing theory predicts long queues - and that was observed all over Franklin County.

There were even additional voting machines that were available - and weren't used:

Document reveals Columbus, Ohio voters waited hours as election officials held back machines

The Board of Elections’ own document records that, while voters waited in lines ranging from 2-7 hours at polling places, 68 electronic voting machines remained in storage and were never used on Election Day.

An analysis of the Franklin County Board of Elections’ allocation of machines reveals a consistent pattern of providing fewer machines to the Democratic city of Columbus, with its Democratic mayor and uniformly Democratic city council, despite increased voter registration in the city.

The result was an obvious disparity in machine allocations compared to the primarily Republican white affluent suburbs.

The legendary affluent Republican enclave of Upper Arlington has 34 precincts. No voting machines in this area cast more than 200 votes per machine. Only one, ward 6F, was over 190 votes at 194 on one machine. By contrast, 39 Columbus city polling machines had more than 200 votes per machine and 42 were over 190 votes per machine. This means 17% of Columbus’ machines were operating at 90-100% over optimum capacity while in Upper Arlington the figure was 3%.

Of course, there’s a direct correlation between affluence and votes for Bush and below medium income areas and votes for Kerry. Franklin County, Ohio’s formula served to disenfranchise disproportionately poor, minority and Democratic voters under the guise of rewarding the “likely” voter or active registered voters.

A clear pattern and practice of voter disenfranchisement is emerging:You can go to the link to read the rest and what the reference to the bribe was all about. So where's the evidence for your BS claim, pomey? Where's the evidence some Democratic precinct chair or whoever failed to order enough voting machines? You sound like those Creation believers repeating some woo they heard from their local pastor after liking what they heard so they make no effort whatsoever to see if the information was the least bit credible.