Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditMy friend and Nation writer Roberto Lovato has an important post today on his Of America blog. He outlines what to do before the election to safeguard against any possible dirty tricks and, if necessary, what would be an appropriate response to the unlikely instance of a repeat of the chaos and eventual theft of Election 2000.
If current polls and trends remain, it'll be extremely difficult for any possible fraud to affect the outcome of the presidential race. Moreover, the Obama campaign seems up to the task of protecting the vote and effectively pushing back against any GOP-inspired shenanigans
Yet you need not be a conspiracy theorist to worry about a stolen election, especially in countless down-ticket races that may still remain hotly contested. A recent report in the New York Times found that in some battleground states, for every new voter registered two other voters have been removed. Colorado, a state experiencing rapid population increases, has seen more than 100,000 voters erased from its rolls. Reports from other states of suppression and fraud involving computerized voting systems, voter purges, unreasonable demands for voter documentation and other methods show that the GOP's Rovian bag of tricks is still being put to use, as Andrew Gumble argues in a new Nation article this week.
The alarming fact is that these dirty tricks could still be decisive according to voting experts at NoVoterLeftBehind.net, a group founded by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to fight GOP efforts at voter suppression, who argue that Obama's leads are so slim in five out of nine key toss-up states that Republican vote suppression efforts could still tip the outcome of the presidential election.
Where could GOP vote suppression tactics flip the outcome on Election Day? Based on the state-level "poll of poll" survey averages reported at RealClearPolitics, Florida, Ohio and Colorado are particularly vulnerable.
Lovato outlines a few basic measures we can take to head-off fraud before it occurs, including voting early; helping document and monitor the election on November 2; immediately calling 1-866-OUR-VOTE, the country's largest election monitoring operation, to report irregularities, and, most importantly, pushing for a massive turnout to create a significant margin of victory for Obama. He also points to a general strike as the most effective protest vehicle in the face of a repeat of the selection of the president in Election 2000. ("In the event of a stolen election, local and national work stoppages, school walkouts, protests, and other actions communicate to the government, to corporate interests, and to the world that we will fight the decimation of democracy....Even without a strong labor movement, the immigrant rights mobilization of 2006 – the largest simultaneous marches in U.S. history – proved that you can make a powerful statement simply by not showing up to work and marching instead.")
No Voter Left Behind's Voter Guide, meanwhile, offers a useful primer on voting rights in the US and NVLB's compendium of each state's various election rules, regulations and deadlines answer many basic questions. Watch this space in the final week before the election for further ides on how to safeguard the franchise next Tuesday.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Sorry Peter, but repeating the mantra that Bush "stole" the 2000 is not going to work. The votes were tallied and Al Gore lost fair and square. You know as well as I do, that the SC ruled against the Supreme Court of FL because...
"The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State's electors to "participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process," as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court's order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed."
Posted by ACook at 10/28/2008 @ 2:22pm
Now is a terrible time to look backward, but imagine a Gore presidency beginning in January 2001: September 11th might have been averted (although Gore could have missed the warning signs), we certainly wouldn't be bogged down in Iraq, and we would have had an 8-year head start in combatting global warming. Maybe a Bush presidency was necessary to illustrate the failings of the Republican party, but we could have made a lot of progress and avoided a number of tragedies with competent leadership during those 8 years. As it is, let's stay focused on the job ahead and elect Barack Obama!
Posted by Be Good at 10/28/2008 @ 2:40pm
Republicans stole the elections of 2000 and 2004. They've ignored God's commandment "thou shalt not steal". And look what a mess they've made, in America and the whole world. God help America, and the world, if they steal this election too.
Posted by beth128 at 10/28/2008 @ 2:51pm
Posted by Be Good at 10/28/2008 @ 2:40pm
Actually, I think a truly honest conservative/Republican (like a David Frum) would admit that if Gore had become President...
it would have DELAYED the GOP collapse from power significantly, given it would have given them something to fight against and they would have been more frugal on spending and on any Medicare drug plan.
Also it would have set up a situation where the "unthinkable" would have occurred in the Democratic Primaries of 2008.....that being Hillary or even Obama defeating an INCUMBENT VICE-PRESIDENT (named Joe Lieberman) for the nomination.
Lieberman, less right-wing if by some, in that universe would have still had SOME support in the DNC and you'd have an in-fight along the lines of 1968 (that never really occured with the Hillary vs Obama people).
Palin could have energized McCain's base (as she did in our timeline) and Lieberman's would have been de-moralized....or Obama or Hillary would be so wounded that they would have lost.
I don't ascribe to "Providence" or "destiny"...but Gore's loss might have done more good for Democrats than a victory.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 2:58pm
sounds like mexico to me.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 2:59pm
one would think that FEDERAL elections would be run by a FEDERAL institution.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 3:00pm
But as I've told you before, there is no constitutional right to vote for president of the US.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 3:04pm
and how do you feel about that?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 3:08pm
i keep telling you guys, a pencil and a piece of paper.
why don't you folks try the purple finger?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 3:11pm
Hmm. Of course the thought of the GOP commiting voter suppression is patently ridiculous to conservatives. But the idea of a liberal group stealing and election is completely plausible. Stupid people.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/28/2008 @ 3:21pm
Posted by ACook at 10/28/2008 @ 2:22pm
Funny AC as the quote you use for support actually says the votes were not tallied (well, not re-tallied) so we will never know who actually won. POTUS 2000 was an appointment by the SC which may also have been unconstitutional.
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/28/2008 @ 3:34pm
Did you make a typo error and intend to write Nov. 4 instead of Nov. 2?
Posted by MarryAnn at 10/28/2008 @ 3:38pm
I am still uneasy about the statement by the president of Dibold (sp?) makers of the paperless voting machines used in Ohio, that "we will win this election for Bush" in 2004.
I don't know if there was fraud or not in 04 but I would not be surprised.
As for the SCOTUS decision in 2000, they made the conscious decision to disenfranchise voters based on the ineptitude of a state to count votes and then use a date, as a reason to let that happen. The December date is relatively arbitrary, when the ramifications are so great, they ignored the will of the people and compromised the democratic process.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2008 @ 3:46pm
To the AUTHOR or anyone who is EDUCATED in election [laws]: Can you comment on "Help America Vote Act" aka "HAVA"?
The Superlobbyist Jack Abramoff (yes THAT Jack) & former Rep. Bob Ney (R), crammed the HAVA bill full of favors (according to the article Block the Vote in this months issue of Rolling Stone) for the GOP.
Was HAVA bill created out of a false promulgation by the GOP about voter fraud to thwart this years election? If so I give them credit for looking ahead, in what appears to be a typically myopic party.
It looks as an outsider looking in that the GOP is so fraught with fraud and deception, that the entire fabric of the GOP may be at risk of crumbling before our eyes. The entire [GOP] platform appears that it is so bulked up by people who rather "WIN" than let democracy run its course.
My 6 year old recited the first few paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence; I had a chill go down my spine at the resemblance of the GOP party and the RED COATS we were declaring ourselves independent FROM.
Is this the reason that the GOP is RED?
Posted by iwatchpaintdry at 10/28/2008 @ 4:05pm
Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2008 @ 3:46pm
No they didn't. You forget the equal protection clause came into play as well. This wasn't about ignoring the will of the people.
Posted by ACook at 10/28/2008 @ 4:14pm
"Funny AC as the quote you use for support actually says the votes were not tallied (well, not re-tallied) so we will never know who actually won. POTUS 2000 was an appointment by the SC which may also have been unconstitutional."
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/28/2008 @ 3:34pm
Yes, LOC, we do know who won. Whether you agree with it or not. The SC interpreted the law correctly as put forth by the founding fathers. There was nothing unconstitutional about it. The FL state law was ambiguous in it's interpretation of it's own election process and was in violation of the equal protection clause. Nobody stole anything from Al Gore but Al Gore himself.
If anything, you should hope the FL legislature fixed that problem to make sure something like this never happens again.
Posted by ACook at 10/28/2008 @ 5:27pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 3:08pm
I have no problem with it. That is why we have the electoral college which serves to prevent a few highly populated states from dictating or controlling our nations direction.
So much for democracy. Sounds like the philosophies of one of those, "Palin Real Americans."
Posted by cleve at 10/28/2008 @ 5:37pm
Posted by ACook at 10/28/2008 @ 5:27pm
So I take it you don't really have a problem with voter list purging by partisan members of elected office, be they democrat or republican?
You believe in leaving no paper trail of a voting record, and the entire electoral process being handed over to a partisan logistics company?
You support disenfranchising American citizens?!?!
Because that's what I'm hearing.
Errrr....
I'd say that sounds downright unAmerican.
You must live in New York or one of those other unAmerican states.
Posted by TexasFlood at 10/28/2008 @ 6:41pm
How many of you would STILL have your panties in a great big twist if the Democratic governor of Florida were directly responsible for intentionally fucking up voter registration...
Have you people no souls?
Posted by TexasFlood at 10/28/2008 @ 6:42pm
I don't care what your party affiliation is, how does that not make your skin absolutely crawl?
Posted by TexasFlood at 10/28/2008 @ 6:50pm
I've recently moved from the fake America to the REAL America.
Man I am so relieved to be surrounded by working class meth-heads with fifth grade reading levels, and pregnant teens, instead of those elitist "big city" crack heads!
Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147175,00.html
METHAMPHETAMINES: The drug of choice for REAL Americans!
LOL!
For more reading material on the REAL American drug: http://www.uky.edu/CommInfoStudies/IRJCI/reports/reportsmeth.htm
Posted by TexasFlood at 10/28/2008 @ 6:59pm
Sarah Palin, former mayor of Alaska's meth capital...
42 meth labs discovered last year in a town of only 10,000! Holy shit!
NOW it all makes sense!
Real americans = meth heads = republicans!
Damn you Fake Americans for sticking to marijuana and cocaine!
Posted by TexasFlood at 10/28/2008 @ 7:05pm
75,000 Voter Registration Forms Found in the Trash, Georgia:
http://tinyurl.com/2slz87
Posted by Lazaro Vega at 10/28/2008 @ 9:08pm
The Republicans have stolen our elections thus undermining the very fabric of our democracy and liberty. ACORN is non-consequential, after all how can Mickey Mouse show up at the voting booth if he never existed in the first place even if he is registered 10,000 times.
However, what these two-faced Republicans will do is suppress your vote. They take people off voter rolls by the 10,000s. You may find that your name is not in the voter roll on Nov. 4. Should that be the case: make a lot of noise. Talk to the lawyers that were dispatched nearby, call the party headquarters. Insist that you be allowed to vote. DO NOT SETTLE FOR A PROVISIONAL BALLOT. If the machine malfunctions and it tends to switch your vote let the election staff know and inform those in line about a bad machine. DO NOT BE DISCOURAGED by the long lines.
We have waited this long to end this NeoConservative Republican Regime. Although there are still some Republicans holding office in our local, state and congress we will deal with them later for now let us focus on voting on November 4th. DO NOT FAIL AND DO NOT COMPROMISE.
Good luck and may God bless the United States of America!!
Posted by TKDuff at 10/29/2008 @ 12:35am
What ACOOK and Liver ignore is that thousands of voters did not get their chance to vote due to illegal actions by the Sec of State.
THAT is what this blog is about. It also happened in Ohio, New Mexico and other states in 2004. In NH a republican went to jail for phone blocking. Does it matter to you cons that laws were broken and that resulted in people being denied their vote?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 03:32am
Stop voter suppression? You mean they're trying to stop Mickey Mouse from voting? For shame!
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 08:43am
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 03:32am
"Does it matter to you cons that laws were broken and that resulted in people being denied their vote?"
Well, gee, I don't know. Does it matter to you that Obama's campaign has disabled the most fundamental anti-fraud checks with regard to online credit card donations, as documented in today's Washington Post, thus opening the floodgates to widespread online donation fraud?
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 08:44am
Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations Contributions Reviewed After Deposits
By Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 29, 2008; A02
Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.
Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.
The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.
In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 08:54am
"Does it matter to you cons that laws were broken and that resulted in people being denied their vote?"
Well, gee, I don't know.---Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 08:44am
"Gee, you don't know"?!?!??!?
Thought you guys were the "law & order" types?!?!???!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 09:32am
Sorry Peter, but repeating the mantra that Bush "stole" the 2000 is not going to work. The votes were tallied and Al Gore lost fair and square. You know as well as I do, that the SC ruled against the Supreme Court of FL because...
Posted by ACook
Gore won the election by over 500,000 votes. Which I am certain yokel's like you already know. You just hate to admit it. So your illusions are way off the mark. The point is the Republican's can't win without pulling dirty tricks and suppressing the vote. Because most American's are fed up with them. Which is why most of we Democrats have already voted. We know Bush lost the 2004 election to with the dirty dealing in Ohio and Florida. I am certain people like you are extremely proud of both endeavors and chuckle among yourselves. After all it takes a real American to steal an election!
Posted by ganddw42 at 10/29/2008 @ 10:08am
Those of you on the left are absolutely phobic about this (the "stolen elections").
One does not realize unitl one comes to a website such as this how messed up you really are.
The last two elections were won fair and square acording to election law put into place by the will of the people.
Yet, no matter how many times it is explained to you, in detail, how these elections were NOT stolen, you are fixated that they were.
You just can not accept anymore a result that is not what you want.
And you are scared beyond belief that it will "happen" again to you.
I want John McCain to win, the country will veer sharply leftward if Obama wins, along with destruction of the economy due to taxation of the job creators, weakining of the military through decreased defense spending, America becoming more like the utopias in Europe that the left adores, change in our health care system to allow it to become more like Canada or the UK, where people wait forever for second level treatment/tests and suffer in the meantime with worsening of their conditions, America allowing some amount of world opinion to govern what we should do, etc etc etc.
But if John McCain makes a comeback and wins this election, you on the Left will go utterly beserk. You will come unglued, and there may well be some of the walkouts, protests, work stoppages, etc that Mr. Rothberg discusses above.
It is a sad day when people of a political belief system turn to phobia that they are being shafted rather than putting forth their ideas, and then if they are rejected through the will of the people, accepting the result.
Are there enough psychiatrists in this country to handle all the leftists who are afflicted with phobia about elections? It seems there is an epidemic now. You need help.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 10:36am
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 10:36am
The real problem with the left in America and elsewhere, SJ, is not that they disagree with the right on the issues. It's that they no longer even THINK about the issues. They believe what they are told to believe on any given day. If you try discussing actual issues with many Obama supporters, all you get is a blank stare. It's quite scary.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 11:30am
one would think that FEDERAL elections would be run by a FEDERAL institution.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 3:00pm
Frosty, That's very Canadian/socialistic of you to say. I just thought I'd throw in the McIdiot Rethug GOP non-thinking response.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/29/2008 @ 11:36am
Frosty Zoom,
Since most elections (not all but most, not counting primaries) occur on election day in November, and depending on the given year when one walks into the voting booth there may be federal candidates (President, members of Congress), state candidates (Governor, state senate, assembly, house of delagates, state issues), county (or parish in Lousiana, or borough in New York City) candidates (county executive, county legislature, county issues), town or city candidates (town supervisors, city councilors or alderpeople, mayor, city or town issues, etc), then what are you saying?
Are we supposed to waste money and resources by having it all separate? Because if Federal elections must be run separately, then I would think that a State election must be run separately also, from any county/parish/borough election, and any town or city elections must be separate from those of the county/parish/borough.
It should all be separate, I guess, and it is wrong since it is not.
Let's just do nothing in this country but hold elections. All separate. Every entity running it's own, with it's own people to administer, polling places, dates, etc. Federal elections will be run by Federal workers, and the voting machines will be Federally approved, and the Federal workers will set dates and arrange for polling places, etc. And all the other subdivisions will do the same.
Nobody in this country will have time to do anything else. People will be busy 24/7 either preparing for, administrating, voting, or reporting on elections!
Phew!!
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 12:13pm
It is a sad day when people of a political belief system turn to phobia that they are being shafted rather than putting forth their ideas, and then if they are rejected through the will of the people, accepting the result.
Are there enough psychiatrists in this country to handle all the leftists who are afflicted with phobia about elections? It seems there is an epidemic now. You need help.----Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 10:36am
Okay, SJ....have it your way.
Just remember, I got this saved for any "McCain didn't lose, ACORN stole it for Obama" posts you or PONTI might come up with!
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 12:13pm
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 11:30am
Don't tell me about scary mr. extremist. I don't see demos coming up with draconian domestic spying programs, military units trained & ready for mass detention & concentration camp imprisonment of people suspected of "anti-government" activity. If you want to see scary, look into the mirror.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/29/2008 @ 12:14pm
They believe what they are told to believe on any given day.-----Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 11:30am
Hey PONTI, who are you listening to on the radio?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 12:15pm
Maskdelta,
The reality is that if Obama wins there will not be the firestorm of angst and obsession by the Right about a stolen election.
I AM NOT SAYING that there will be NO comment or posting or news article anywhere about any chicanery that may have occurred by the Left to deliver votes to Obama.
But - there simply will not be the phobia among the Right that is possessed by the Left about "stolen elections".
I illustrate this 2 ways:
1. This is 2008, not 2004 or 2000, with Obama in the lead according to polls, yet there has been article after article on this website alone about "election fraud" with advice to leftists on how to "prevent it". It is obvious the left can not let go of the past, has mischaracterized it, and is scared silly it will "happen" to them again.
2. In the year 1960, the election was close, with Illinois being the crucial state that year. Once Illinois was decided, then the election was over with JFK having won. But - I have read that the results were close enough in Illinois that Richard Nixon would have had a legal basis to ask for a recount. He did not - he decided that it would not be right to put the country through that. (This is Richard Nixon I am talking about, who of course has been villified beyond belief in so many ways - yet he put the country first, before his own ambitions). Richard Nixon decided not to do what Algore did in 2000. And there has been discussion about chicanery that may have occurred in Chicago in that election (such as dead people voting, etc.). Yet the Republicans did not contest the result, nor carp and whine for the rest of eternity about the possibility of a stolen election in 1960.
OK? (Rhetorical question - I know it won't be, in your opinion!)
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 12:29pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 12:29pm
Actually SJ, I don't care about anybody else on the Right "commenting or posting or news article anywhere about any chicanery"....
just you and PONTI, given your above comments.
I hope you have a long memory....like me.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 12:35pm
Maskdelta,
There will be no postings from me about any stolen election should Obama win.
(and I know you will save this so you can post back if somehow I do)
There will be no point to it because I will be enough to worry about with the Obama win, figuring out how to live life in Socialist Utopia.
1. I will not know when I may lose my job because there are fewer jobs due to Obama tax policy.
2. I will not know what basic freedom may be taken away from me in the future because some leftist politician or bureaucrat has decided it is for "the greater good".
3. I will wonder how many more unborn children will go to their deaths with no say in the matter, due to Obama abortion policy.
4. I will wonder how many more kids in school will receive indoctrination, rather than education.
5. I will wonder who is running the country, will it be the Stroger machine in Cook County, or the Daley Machine in Chicago, or will it be the president of Sweden, or the secretary-general of the U.N., or who?
6. I will wonder when some Democrat will figure out a way to arrest George W. Bush, after the fact, for some kind of "crime".
7. I will wonder what will become of Iraq after we abandon it.
8. I will wonder when the next September 11 will occur, after we cut military spending and spend more concern on appeasing both our enemies and really, doing whatever anybody else in the world wants. And I will wonder if I will be killed when the next attack occurs.
9. I will wonder what happened to free speech in this country, after conservative speech on radio is defined as "hate speech" and removed.
10. I will wonder whatever other kind of unnecessary government bureaucracy I will have to wade through just to live my life.
So, there will be plenty to think about.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 12:59pm
And if I save THIS post...
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 12:59pm
until November 2012, with little or none of it coming true...
You'll vote for Obama's re-election?
Yeah, it's a bet...with me voting for WHOEVER the Repubs put up (even PALIN!) if they do come true...
deal?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 1:08pm
With ten days to go until the election, its possible theft via the White House invading Syria just in time to jigger voter focus towards the national security issue that favors McCain should not be taken lightly. For the conservatives' success with this October surprise or other skullduggery to steal the election would leave Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from having her finger on the button that launches our nuclear missiles. This is to put the media on notice that not repudiating the likes of this smiling hatemonger will not be tolerated, even if I have to send this message out to every last person in America myself. She has been just what her boss, John McCain, needed, her practiced-in-the-mirror smile the perfect accessory for this inanely dumb broad who would distract us from all the important issues of the election and from the conservatives' efforts to steal the election by race baiting and any other means they feel necessary. They will stop at nothing.
Palin is a Caribou Barbie robo-doll with the brain function removed. The thought of her with her finger on the button about to launch a nuclear attack to satisfy the divine will of God should be disturbing enough to make us work that much more furiously to get out the vote for Obama on Election Day and to protect against every form of deceptive ballot disqualification the conservatives will employ. A stolen election for McCain-Palin is not that farfetched. Nor is the prospect of McCain dying, given that melanoma is such a powerfully recurring and deadly cancer. Nor is nuclear Armageddon at the hands of an evangelical Palin to whom God whispers direction and commands.
We can nip this not so farfetched scenario in the bud by making sure that the Republican power coming ultimately from Crawford, Texas, does no
Posted by RuthCalabria at 10/29/2008 @ 1:29pm
Posted by Sorelish at 10/29/2008 @ 12:14pm
"Don't tell me about scary mr. extremist. I don't see demos coming up with draconian domestic spying programs, military units trained & ready for mass detention & concentration camp imprisonment of people suspected of "anti-government" activity. If you want to see scary, look into the mirror."
Wow, that does sound scary. Can you tell me how many American citizens have been swept up in this web of police state tactics?
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 1:30pm
Maskdelta,
It will come true, bit by bit with no fanfare or publicity from the media, in most cases.
The effects of some of this will not be apparent immediately. The next terror attack may not come until there is a Republican president. Then the Dems will blame the GOP president, rather than Obama for weakening the military. (Sound familiar? Gee, it happened in 2001, we will probably be in for it again, some day)
Besides, why are YOU saying that little or none of it will come true? Most of what I said would happen under Obama very cleary is what most bloggers on this website and the staff of The Nation want to happen!
Do you have other opinions about this? Either you are not a hard leftist yourself or you are pessimistic that Obama can deliver on what I was assuming you probably want to have happen.
The only positive thing that would come from an Obama presidency is the removal of the threat of Hill and Bill ever being back in the White House.
The next president after Obama will be Republican, put in office to fix the socialist mess Obama created. By the time the next presidency comes around after that, Hillary will probably be too old to run for president, or will have given up on the dream of doing so.
As far as Bill Clinton, it is possible he will play his hand once too often, and wind up being arrested and in jail for some kind of attack on an intern. Who knows, he may run out of his ability to slick his way out of things.
But condemning the country to socialist utopia may be too steep a price to pay to stop Hill and Bill.
I hate to say this, but I would rather have had her as President than Obama. She gave the right answer on Iran, saying there would be no more Iran if Iran attacks Israel, instead of the appeasement Obama offered.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 1:46pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 1:46pm
Tell ya what, SJ....clean up the "vague" ones ..."I will wonder whatever other kind of unnecessary government bureaucracy I will have to wade through just to live my life." for instance.
and let's make a bet. Clear, provable points....unemployment rate, tax rate on the non-rich, up-tick in terrorist attacks, stability of a "abandoned" Iraq, abortion rates, prosecution of Dubya, etc. Confirmable, VERIFIBLE "disaster scenarios" under an Obama Presidency.
Say 10.....and if 8 of 10 come true....I vote for WHOEVER the GOP nominee is, even Caribou Barbie or an 85 year old Pat Robertson on a come-back...
less than 8...you promise on this blog to vote for Obama's re-election?
Or...are not as sure as you (and Rush no doubt) sound?????
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 3:30pm
BTW, the abortion rate dropped under Bill Clinton....but pick it if you TRULY believe in your Point # 3.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 3:51pm
lvliberty1,
In regard to the 2000 election, Florida law and Florida judicial precedent going back decades supported the Florida SC's decision to order the recounts, whether or not the recount extended beyond the arbitrary administrative deadline of Dec. 12. The US SC, by a 7-2 majority, concluded that the Florida SC's ruling was unconstitutional because the recount was being done in an ad hoc, precinct-by-precinct manner that did not guarantee that a statewide standard was being used. (For what it's worth, I happen to agree with the majority there, though by the same logic pretty much every state or national election held in the US is equally unconstitutional.) The obvious remedy in such a case would be to remand the case back to Florida for a constitutional ruling, and proceed with a legally defensible recount. However, by a bizarre contortion of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Supremes ruled (5-4, along strictly partisan lines) that adherence to an arbitrary administrative deadline trumped the right of every voter to have their vote counted. It was a shockingly bad, and manifestly partisan, decision. Can you honestly tell me that, regardless of your political beliefs, this decision is consistent with your (or most Americans') idea of democracy?
Posted by richcarl at 10/29/2008 @ 4:00pm
Nobody in this country will have time to do anything else. People will be busy 24/7 either preparing for, administrating, voting, or reporting on elections!
Phew!!
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 12:13pm
are u f-ing retarded?!? this is what they already do. a two year campaign. seriously. open ur eyes.
and by the way, many many many election watchdog org's have compliled very very long lists of voter suppression/machine irregularities/etc. all favoring republicans in the 04 elections. lists of irregularities favoring the dems? (that have been investigated and proven, as the repub-favoring irregularities were) goose egg. none. zero. and before you question the 'investigated' part, lets not forget the 'hearings' requested by dems that were illegally (yes, it was actually illegal what these slimebags did) shut down by repubs.
also, 2000 was not within federal election laws or whatever the hell ur claiming. it went to court. repeatedly, and the ONLY thing the SC could come up with to stop the recount was a date.
how willfully ignorant are you? even if none of the above were true, what do the last 8 years say about your side of the aisle?
yes, everyone, i know im rising to the flame-bait, but crap, how disgustingly reprehensible can a human be?
whew. i feel a little bit better now. thank god almighty the true moral majority will finally be heard in this nation.
Posted by skawtee at 10/29/2008 @ 4:27pm
Maskdelta,
Less than 8? 5 is bad enough. 1 item is bad enough.
When Carter was president, and then when Clinton was president, policy was followed in many different venues (domestic and foreign) that negatively impacted the country. Some manifested themselves immediately (Gas lines and high unemployment, malaise, revolution in Iran under Carter) and some not until later (the wall created by the Clinton justice department that made sharing intelligence info more difficult which likely contributed to September 11 happening).
There is no reason to believe that Obama will govern any differently than the last two Democrat presidents, at the very least. He seems to be further left then either of them, so it will probably be worse, but even just standard Democrat policy is bad enough.
By virtue of your making a bet, you seem to imply that standard Democrat behavior will not occur. How do you defend this argument.
Your very words show that you are not even looking at the right benchmarks, because you cite "tax rates for the non-rich". A change in tax rates for the "non-rich" is not what would impact the economy, since the rich pay most of the taxes (www.irs.gov) and Obama has already said he is going to "spread the wealth".
So all Obama has to do is do what he says he is going to do, and there would be 0% possibility of me voting for an Obama re-election.
Are you implying Obama will not do what he says he is going to do?
There is no basis for a bet here. There is no way Obama is going to turn around and govern as a Conservative. And you know that. Your premise is ridiculous.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 4:41pm
Wow, that does sound scary. Can you tell me how many American citizens have been swept up in this web of police state tactics?
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 1:30pm
i believe Sorelish said "units trained & ready for mass detention & concentration camp imprisonment" notice the word 'ready'. nowhere did he say it had already happened. at least not in this country. one could argue that gitmo is an example...
as for spying and such, we wouldn't really know who was caught up now would we? the administration is not exactly forthcoming about any non-incriminating information plucked illegally from our citizens' communications.
and let me just add, the dems aren't being phobic. we have history on our side. i submit that the 'socialist/palls-around-with-terrorists/anti-american rhetoric from YOUR side is the very definition of phobic.
Posted by skawtee at 10/29/2008 @ 4:44pm
She gave the right answer on Iran, saying there would be no more Iran if Iran attacks Israel, instead of the appeasement Obama offered.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 1:46pm
SJ, Why are you so worried about Israel? Is it written somewhere that we are responsible for Israel's defense and protection? Does Israel pay for our national defense? Do they protect one of our borders? Nope. Screw Israel. If they wish to stir the pot up in the ME, then they should deal with the pot they've stirred up. There are more people of Irish background living in the U.S. than from Israel, and the U.S. hasn't been involved in Ireland's skirmishes with G.B.
Israel is a country in and of itself. As you rethugs like to point out, it's survival of the fittest. This ain't no charity game for Israel. Let them sink or swim on their own. We've got bigger fish to fry at present.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/29/2008 @ 5:16pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/29/2008 @ 4:51pm
You're stating the obvious but not addressing my point. The State of Florida had a system in place to choose electors, and that system involved votes cast by the electorate. How is the right of the voters to have their votes counted equally--something paid lip service to in the majority opinion--consistent with the denial of that very right for a portion of the electorate by treating an arbitrary administrative deadline as sacrosanct?
Posted by richcarl at 10/29/2008 @ 5:25pm
The effects of some of this will not be apparent immediately. The next terror attack may not come until there is a Republican president. Then the Dems will blame the GOP president, rather than Obama for weakening the military. (Sound familiar?
SJ, That has to be one of the most lame brained things said here lately. If anything, the military readiness is at an all time low due to W's stupid ass senseless war in Iraq.
9/11 happened because W sat on his ass and was more concerned about his vacationing beforehand than listening to the intelligence folks warning him of a possible attack. The Clinton administration tried to warn W and Cheney and they just blew them off. The GOP isn't tough, nor are the stewards of national defense. You guys like to think you are tough, but most of you are blow hards that like to wave the flag and send others off to do your fighting for you.
All the neocons in the Bush administration sat out the Vietnam war because they had more important things to do, but now they are trying to prove their manliness by starting wars and letting others to do their fighting for them....all the while their buddies are making money hand over fist off the whole fiasco.
The GOP and the neocons have so much innocent blood on your hands that you'll never come clean.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/29/2008 @ 5:26pm
Posted by skawtee at 10/29/2008 @ 4:44pm
"i believe Sorelish said "units trained & ready for mass detention & concentration camp imprisonment" notice the word 'ready'. nowhere did he say it had already happened. "
Ah, so you and SORELISH are not saying anybody's rights have been impinged upon, merely that you imagine it might happen at some indefinite time in the future. Glad we got that straight. As to these concentration camp units, how do these differ from regular police units, and how does Bush plan to use them after he leaves office? Through McCain, or through the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?
"at least not in this country. one could argue that gitmo is an example..."
An example of what? None of those prisoners are American citizens, and in fact if the reports are true, most of those prisoners are happy to admit that if they are set free, their first order of business will be to kill infidels. And true to their word, a number of those released have actually been caught again in Iraq or Afghanistan, trying to kill people. So exactly what is your objection to holding them in prison again?
"as for spying and such, we wouldn't really know who was caught up now would we? the administration is not exactly forthcoming about any non-incriminating information plucked illegally from our citizens' communications."
Ah, so this is one of those 'of course we don't know about it, if we could it wouldn't be a secret' theories?
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 6:20pm
Posted by skawtee at 10/29/2008 @ 4:44pm
"and let me just add, the dems aren't being phobic. we have history on our side. i submit that the 'socialist/palls-around-with-terrorists/anti-american rhetoric from YOUR side is the very definition of phobic."
But it's a known fact that Obama has many associations with Bill Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist. Hardly phobic to have concerns about that. Then as to the question about whether or not Obama is a socialist, well he certainly talks the talk and certainly many if not all of his supporters here were busy supporting the idea of socialism on this site just a few days ago, at the urging of Mr. Nichols. Again, calling Obama a socialist, or simply discussing the fact that he he has connections to known domestic terrorists, or that he spent 20 years listening to and thereby tacitly approving of the most absurd and rabid America hating pastors is certainly all too real.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 6:23pm
Posted by skawtee at 10/29/2008 @ 4:44pm
You know, there's people who say that the very fact that there's no proof that JFK was killed by a conspiracy is proof that one exists, because otherwise there could not possibly be such a successful coverup. Is it your contention that Bush must have a hugely successful conspiracy to intercept citizens communications, because otherwise how could there be no proof of it?
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 6:27pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/29/2008 @ 5:53pm
Florida did indeed have a law in place. It stated clearly "no vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter." To the extent that this law conflicted with other state laws, it was the responsibility of the Florida Supreme Court to weigh the arguments and make a decision. But SCOTUS said, in effect, "This is really a states rights issue, but you know what, we'll just make that decision for you. But thanks for playing!"
(Your tangent on what "the left" would have done is irrelevant; once statewide recount standards were in place, they would have been carried out regardless of either side's wishes. And Article 12 of the Constitution--by which I assume you mean Article 20, Article 3, which is the relevant one here--would only have come into effect on January 20.)
Posted by richcarl at 10/29/2008 @ 6:31pm
Socialism will be different in this country.
There are guns here.
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/29/2008 @ 6:36pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 12:59pm
Are you plain nuts, or nuts with fudge? Where does a sane person start to address such overwhelming ignorance?
The comment about the Dems prosecuting George Bush and his crimes. I mean, even Republicans are lining up trying to publish tell-all books about this crazy administration. It's gone on for eight years. You've had your chance to make things better. It never happened. You had no voice with those guys, but you thought that you did, somehow.
But what do the Repubs do in the face of losing? They invent new names to call people, they rant about socialism which they never really know a damn thing about. You seem to support the crazies on wall street by omission. Never say bad things about Bush, don't vilify Wall Street 'cause you wanna be there yourselves in some strange dream.
Give up. Let the Dems screw things up for a while. They've just about earned that right. And who knows, maybe they'll even get something done.
Posted by ficheye at 10/29/2008 @ 6:39pm
There is no basis for a bet here. There is no way Obama is going to turn around and govern as a Conservative. And you know that. Your premise is ridiculous. ------Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 4:41pm
Then why not accept my bet, SJCHER? If you're so confident.
Again, create 10 "nightmare scenarios" under an Obama Presidency (Provable, indisputable, non-vague)....and put your VOTE where your mouth is.
8 of 10 happen...I vote Republican. Less than that (a near-impossibility according to you)...you vote Democratic.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 7:58pm
..that he spent 20 years listening to & thereby tacitly approving of the most absurd & rabid America hating pastors is certainly all too real. Posted by pontificus 10/29/08 at 6:23pm
..YOUR side is the very definition of phobic. Posted by Skawtee at 10/29/08 @4:44 pm
Case in pont. Let this stand for all the world to see.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/29/2008 @ 9:10pm
Wolfgang1,
You said "9/11 happened because W sat on his ass and was more concerned about his vacationing beforehand than listening to the intelligence folks warning him of a possible attack. The Clinton administration tried to warn W and Cheney and they just blew them off. The GOP isn't tough, nor are the stewards of national defense. You guys like to think you are tough, but most of you are blow hards that like to wave the flag and send others off to do your fighting for you."
Comment 1 - You embellish the extent to which the Clinton administration was supposedly concerned about attacks and the extent of these warnings. One of the things you are talking about is a memo that Condoleeza Rice saw. You act like these were big glaring warnings rather than the fact that they were just pieces of information amongst much information that any administration comes across every day, regarding threats in the world. AND - you totally ignore (probably on purpose) the fact that there could have been intelligence or information that may have indicated the seriousness or impending nature of an attack, that was not able to be shared or seen by the people that needed it because of the "wall" the CLINTON justice department put into place, to prevent agencies from sharing information.
Comment 2- Kind of sloppy on your part, using the works "Clinton", "blow", and "blew" in the same paragraph.
You said, on another subject "the U.S. hasn't been involved in Ireland's skirmishes with G.B."
WRONG!!!!
Congressman Jim Walsh helped bring about peace in Northern Ireland.
http://www.wtvh.com/ home/related/14300832.html
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 9:23pm
Congressman Jim Walsh helped bring about peace in Northern Ireland.---Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 9:23pm
WHAT AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE....It wasn't Bill Clinton and George Mitchell who brought peace to Northern Ireland. It was Jim Walsh.
And here's the amazing part, that I'm sure SJCHER wasn't even aware of...
Clinton and Mitchell....are Democrats!
and Walsh who "really did it"...is a Republican!!!!
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 9:46pm
Maskdelta,
My comment in response to Wolfgang1 was because Wolfgang1 implied the U.S. had no involvement in that issue.
If you read my post, I did not imply that Congressman Walsh did the whole thing himself, or that nobody else was involved.
I simply mentioned that the U.S. was involved, by mentioning that a U.S. Congressman helped bring about peace.
I did not set out to discuss the entirety of the peace process, or all the players involved. I did not concern myself with who else may have been involved. My intent was not to get into detail about the peace process.
Wolfgang1 was wrong, and I simply wanted to point that out. The United States did have involvement.
Mentioning Jim Walsh was the means by which I pointed out that Wolfgang1 was wrong. The important point, with regard to this blog, is that Wolfgang1 was wrong.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 10:05pm
http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf
you all should check this out before making any claims about detainees. lemme direct you to a portion:
1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% -- are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.
4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.
5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants - mostly Uighers - are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.
Posted by skawtee at 10/29/2008 @ 10:06pm
oh and about that voter suppression 'phobia':
www.sourcewatch.org/ index.php?title=U.S._election_irregularities_in_2004
note: i have now realized the futility of arguing with neo-cons or extremists of any type. none will change their mind. i could show the mountains of researched, verified and cited evidence of corruption, deception and wanton destruction perpetrated by this administration, (oh, don't forget Reagan, Bush I, and Nixon) however i am not an encyclopedia and gathering and posting all of that info would take me all of my waking hours for at least a few weeks. not gonna happen - i've got bills to pay, and thanks to your buddy W and his economic advisers/policies, i just lost my job due to massive budget cuts. way to vote, guys. by the way, you get nowhere with me by bashing Bill Clinton. i don't think he was perfect either. but seriously, getting a BJ in the oval office is hardly = to getting hundreds of thousands killed for profit. anyhoo, its all out there if you look somewhere other than 'the national review', 'the weekly standard', fox news, and rush f-ing limbaugh. you don't want to look? you want to live in willful ignorance, wallowing in the misery of self delusion and fear, go right ahead. just know that there are more than enough good people out there to counter your negativity, who will work damn hard to create a world where you are A) free to believe your own delusions and B) secure, healthy and well enough taken care of that your family and friends won't have to spend all they have to keep you fed and clothed. this is called civilization, or, if you wish, society.
Posted by skawtee at 10/29/2008 @ 10:49pm
Give up. Let the Dems screw things up for a while. They've just about earned that right. And who knows, maybe they'll even get something done.
Posted by ficheye at 10/29/2008 @ 6:39pm
lolz! now that is fair and balanced. amen brother.
Posted by skawtee at 10/29/2008 @ 10:53pm
http://www.economist.com/Vote2008/
hmm...
Posted by skawtee at 10/29/2008 @ 10:57pm
why don't you folks try the purple finger? Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 3:11pm
They're more used to the purple crayon
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/30/2008 @ 01:02am
Hey Acook you are such a liar about ALL the votes being counted. They were not all counted in 2000 in the states of OH and FL. There were some 400,000 votes from 3 heavily democratic counties in florida that were never counted because Miss Priss Harris didn't allow them to be counted because she knew that if they were Bushy would have lost the election. Also that part about the US supreme court ending the recounting before it begun. Well if you remember your constitution history which you probably don't. It says simply that no one branch of government should have any control over any other branch of government. If the US supreme court knew what the hell they were doing they would have never even heard the case and left the State ruling as is and then Harris would have had to count those 400,00o votes that were never counted. But I guess with Bush and the money he has as an oil man along with Cheney probably bought out the court justices to side on their favor. Anyways i am voting for OBAMA and he will win in the end.
Posted by nudist30 at 10/30/2008 @ 04:24am
Hey Acook you are such a liar about ALL the votes being counted. They were not all counted in 2000 in the states of OH and FL. There were some 400,000 votes from 3 heavily democratic counties in florida that were never counted because Miss Priss Harris didn't allow them to be counted because she knew that if they were Bushy would have lost the election. Also that part about the US supreme court ending the recounting before it begun. Well if you remember your constitution history which you probably don't. It says simply that no one branch of government should have any control over any other branch of government. If the US supreme court knew what the hell they were doing they would have never even heard the case and left the State ruling as is and then Harris would have had to count those 400,00o votes that were never counted. But I guess with Bush and the money he has as an oil man along with Cheney probably bought out the court justices to side on their favor. Anyways i am voting for OBAMA and he will win in the end.
Posted by nudist30 at 10/30/2008 @ 04:25am
To pontificus and sjchermak
Well first to sjchermak, LMAO are you serious about the garbage that comes out of your mouth. Our economy would not be in the shape it is in right now if McCain hadn't forced through those DEREGULATIONS that he did on the financial industry between 2000 and 2003. BUSHY went right along with him and signed those bills into law. Ya know it's amazing to hear how the last 8 years of government is all the democrats fault when we weren't in power in some form of government until 2006. So think about that before you go off channelling Rush Limbaugh.
And to you pontificus you want a real debate about the issues with a Obama supporter. Come on here or come to minnesota and i will debate you right into the ground on the issues.
To all the other BUSHY lovers and McSame lovers well the republicans did steal the election in 2000 but it won't happen this year. I am voting for OBAMA because all McCain will do is drive us into a deeper hole than the one the mass murderer BUSH has dug us into.
Posted by nudist30 at 10/30/2008 @ 04:39am
So treaty agreements mean nothing to you?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/29/2008 @ 5:21pm
What, you are now going to bring up treaties Mr Crap all over the rules put forth by the Geneva Convention?
General George Washington warned against being too friendly with any nation to the point of jeopordizing the U.S., and also against not dealing at all with our enemies. In both cases, the Bush administration has erred on the wrong side of the issues. Israel continues to antagonize the ME countries and expects us to back up their obnoxious play. To hell with them.
It's a little late for you neocon war mongers to start talking about treaties you think. Hell, you think it's perfectly dandy to piss all over the constitution of the U.S. If our well being doesn't matter to you, why the hell are you so worried about Israel?!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/30/2008 @ 08:30am
WRONG!!!!
Congressman Jim Walsh helped bring about peace in Northern Ireland.
http://www.wtvh.com/ home/related/14300832.html
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 9:23pm
No, I'm not wrong. The U.S. wasn't selling weapons to Ireland to support the IRA. Brokering a peace deal is one thing. Supplying money, weapons and intelligence is quite another don't you think?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/30/2008 @ 08:37am
No, I'm not wrong. The U.S. wasn't selling weapons to Ireland to support the IRA. Brokering a peace deal is one thing. Supplying money, weapons and intelligence is quite another don't you think?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/30/2008 @ 08:37am
Let me add to that comment. The U.S. government wasn't involved with the IRA, but many U.S. arms dealers were selling weapons to the terrorist IRA organization. Anything to make a buck, right?!
SJ, If the U.S. put some serious pressure on Israel and the Palestinians to come to the table and negotiate peace deals, and put some teeth into the deals, we would probably be successful. Arming Israel and saying over and over that they have the right to protect themselves while Israel rolls tanks into the west bank and wipes out neighborhoods will not end with peace, but rather inflame all parties involved
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/30/2008 @ 08:44am
Article 20, Article 3
Posted by richcarl at 10/29/2008 @ 6:31pm
That's what I get for dashing this off right before dinner. What I meant, of course, was the 20th Amendment, Section 3.
Posted by richcarl at 10/30/2008 @ 10:26am
If anyone feels you have GOP voter suppression in your area go ahead and vote that FOURTH voter you've registered.
That'll show 'em.
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/30/2008 @ 10:51pm
See! No problemo!
Check this out..
"Dead People Voting Throughout Florida Thursday, October 30, 2008 – updated: 3:41 pm EDT October 30, 2008
VOLUSIA COUNTY, Fla. -- Thousands of dead Floridians are registered to vote and some in Central Florida had ballots cast in their names long after their deaths."
Central FL - OBAMA country!!!
We're going LEFT baby!
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/30/2008 @ 11:54pm
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/30/2008 @ 11:54pm
i just read that article, and it mentions nothing of fraud or deceitful intent. it just states that dead people are somewhat difficult to get off the rolls. who enacted the relevant regulations i wonder? nearly all evidence collected over the last 8 years has pointed directly to fraud/suppression/shenanigans perpetrated by, not just republican/conservative individuals, but higher-ups, party officials, and gov't office holders. i say 'nearly all' because of the few instances reported that favored dems. however, further digging will show that nearly all of these were debunked after official investigation.
oh, and that article isn't exactly specific about numbers. " some" could be two, or two hundred. if it was such a big thing you'd think they would say how many dead people have voted, even if it is just an educated guess. but when they leave numbers out and use one or two examples to prop up the whole argument (which im not sure there even is in this article, it seems to simply state that dead people are still on the rolls) you have to wonder.
in closing, (ive always wanted to use that line) i find it fascinating, but expected, that the right only brings up the isolated, not always verifiable, examples of 'fraud' perpetrated supposedly by the left, or dems, or whoever isn't expressly conservative. never anything about proven/verified/even prosecuted for that matter instances perpetrated by neo-con/repub/conservative people or organizations or gov'ts. the only reason i don't generally bring up anything legitimately pinned to dems is because i have such trouble finding anything. shenanigans pulled by the left are somewhere around 1% of the total shenanigans reported.
Posted by skawtee at 10/31/2008 @ 11:03am
The Election Is About To Be Stolen
"Based on?"
"These phony polls that the Republicans are talking about that supposedly show Obama's lead narrowing."
"How is this a sign of an impending election theft?"
"It plants the seed of doubt as to whether Obama already has the election wrapped up."
"Why is this necessary?"
"That way, when they steal the vote, they'll be able to say, 'See, we told you so.'"
"But what if there's a huge discrepancy between the exit polls and the official tally?"
"There's always the Brzdley effect to fall back on?"
"And who can forget that, what with MSM having mentionit umpty-ump times over the the past week?"
"How convenient for John McCain."
"Anything else indicating that the fix is on?"
"What happened in Florida on the night of the 2000 election."
"Which was?"
"After most of the networks had declared for Al Gore, the cameras suddenly switch to George W. Bush, together with his family, gathered around the TV. We see Bush telephoning his Florida campaign chairman, supposedly to find out what's gone wrong. Seemingly he can't believe that Florida is going for Al Gore. Then, a few moments, later, Fox (fixed) News declares Florida for Bush."
"And guess who the announcer was who called Florida for Bush?"
"George Bush's cousin."
"Coincidence?"
"Yeh, right!"
"But if the fix is on what can we do to about it?"
"Get the word out."
"Where?'
"Online."
"Why there?"
"That's where everyv=body is."
"How will this prevent them from stealing the election?"
"Would a team of bank robbers go ahead with a planned heist if they knew that their plans were being circulated all over the Internet?"
Posted by yourstruly at 11/01/2008 @ 1:58pm
How can anyone sane still resist the fact that George Bush and Co. stole the Florida election? There have been books written about it, even conservatives who concede the point, but the denial goes on and on.
One thing is being made more clear than ever this election cycle: Conservatives and Republicans do not use the 'logical' process to come to a conclusion. You cannot have a fair discourse about any sort of policy when you have an angry person who's mind has already been made up. Then they call you a name to throw you off. Then they find out something distasteful about your mother. This is 'our' american democracy at work... it will always struggle to keep it's head above the cesspool.
And this is the most troubling thing about the conservatives: They do not want a democracy. They want a dictatorship first, a theocracy second. Amen.
Posted by ficheye at 11/01/2008 @ 4:24pm
Open right-wing voter suppression in Minnesota:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/01/2008 @ 7:33pm