READER COMMENTS ON
"Hugh Hewitt Blog Slimes Obama, Lies About FEC Shutdown"
(37 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 2/25/2008 @ 3:42 pm PT...
I guess the bottom line, then, is that Obama is three times more powerful than Saint McCain.
Even without all the lobbyists embedded with Saint McCain on the Strait 100-Year War Talk Express.
The Strait-Jacket Express is more like it. These guys are nuttier than a 100-Year fruitcake.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 2/25/2008 @ 4:16 pm PT...
So the beef against Von Spakovsky is that he wants photo ids when voting? Sorry, that is a great idea.
It's a great idea to people who want to minimize voter fraud. It's a bad idea to those who apparently like voter fraud. Look up +acorn +"voter fraud" in Google and you'll learn a bit about this stuff.
I'm from Chicago and they don't call it the Democratic Machine because of efficiency - it's about manufacturing votes and invalidating other people's votes.
I think if you dig, you'll find that Obama actually worked with the fraudsters at Acorn.
ID's are a great idea. If you don't have an ID (and how many people don't?), it's sure a great incentive to get one.
So the onus is on Obama and the Ruffini is correct to point out that the FEC issue is Obama's fault. So much for the audacity of hope.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 2/25/2008 @ 4:27 pm PT...
I'll take my ID with a RF chip please! But you better make sure it syncs up with the chip in my BUTT.
Thats the one that solved ALL my problems.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 2/25/2008 @ 4:28 pm PT...
ALZ fell off the turnip truck just in time to say:
So the beef against Von Spakovsky is that he wants photo ids when voting? Sorry, that is a great idea.
Funny, not according to virtually every published study that looks into the matter and found that it would potentially disenfranchise millions of legal American voters. Even studies by the Bush's own federal EAC. Go figure. The facts are somewhat different than the propaganda, but you'd have to actually READ the studies, instead of the bullshit by the phone GOP "voter fraudsters" to know that, of course.
Here's a few to help get you started...
+ "The Politics of Voter Fraud", Lorraine Minnite
+ Original, Unaltered EAC "Voter Fraud" Report
+ NYTIMES: "In 5-Year DOJ Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud"
It's a great idea to people who want to minimize voter fraud.
It doesn't need "minimizing", it's already minimal. According to the Bush DoJ's own numbers. Sorry. Go read 'em.
It's a bad idea to those who apparently like voter fraud. Look up +acorn +"voter fraud" in Google and you'll learn a bit about this stuff.
Lemme know when you've Googled yourself into a single instance of Acorn's "voter fraud". If you bother to look beyond the nonsense you'll find insinuating Acorn, you'll find that it's all bullshit, and, in fact, it's Acorn who reports the majority of voter registration fraud used against them (cynically, and inaccurately.)
If you don't have an ID (and how many people don't?), it's sure a great incentive to get one.
How many don't? Anywhere from 10 to 30 million, largely Democratic-leaning legal American voters. That's how many don't.
When you decide to join with the team of Americans who actually support democracy, let us know.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 2/25/2008 @ 5:03 pm PT...
What Brad said will bring you up to speed. Then you can ask for a raise from .10 a post to .15 a post.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 2/25/2008 @ 5:11 pm PT...
Oh, come on, Brad, surely you are aware that great minds like ALZ don't need facts, history, evidence, academic peer-reviewed studies, or anything that might offer a whiff of contradiction to the Hugh Hewitt World View. Knowledge is wasted on such people.
Science doesn't matter; studies and statistics don't matter; actual human beings don't matter in the pursuit of winning at all costs. Don't pollute their pure minds with the reality of experience lived by hundreds of thousands of Americans, because in the HHWV, some Americans are simply more important than others. (But they'll never say it out loud! If unimportant Americans truly want to vote and have their votes counted, they would become Republicans, silly!)
Seriously, it's too much to ask any for any wingnutter showing up over here to actually know anything about, well, anything.
Facts and analysis would require them to abandon their world view for one in which equal protection under the law, equal rights for all American citizens --- basically the entire Bill of Rights that exists beyond the 2nd amendment --- is important for all Americans, regardless of political party and economic class. The Bill of Rights is fine in principal but never in practice.
Shorter version for ALZ: You are pathetically uninformed if you really believe that you understand this issue. Your Republican masters are lying to you. The facts are available to you, but only if you are able to analyze for yourself outside of the partisan dissembling they've been spoonfeeding you. But then, of course, you'd actually have to give a damn.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 2/25/2008 @ 5:46 pm PT...
oooh, another funny one over at HH World Headquarters!
Virginia Patriot writes: Monday, February, 25, 2008 7:57 PM
Voting, The Chicago Way
You can't go about disenfranchising those voters who have been unfortunate enough to assume room temperature before election day. The dead have a right to vote, too. At least in Chicago.
I have to show I.D. when I vote. Why doesn't everyone? Why would anyone who cared about the integrity of the vote object?
Gee, Virginia Patriot, if you really give a damn, why don't you read all of the evidence and see if maybe that answer becomes clearer for you?
The fact that they don't even try over there to learn any facts would be funny if it weren't so pathetic and damaging to so many legal voters. I guess they'll only care when it actually happens to them.
To them, disenfranchising voters through photo i.d. is vitally important so that other voters won't be disenfranchised! That's Republican Logic in action.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 2/25/2008 @ 9:27 pm PT...
Brad, thanks for listing the links. I looked at them and did some searching. They don’t really deal with the issue, however.
Election fraud is not huge, but it is targeted. It isn’t used to make a landslide, just a win. There are many methods used to commit fraud. Here are some that I know of in Chicago. An ID would be helpful in some of these cases.
The dead. Yes, it happens and it has been happening for many years. An ID would be a useful deterrent.
Absentee ballots. Ballots can be changed.
Who runs the elections in the precincts? Party people! Isn’t it nice that these very busy people can take so much of their valuable time to run the operation on election day? In heavily Democratic precincts, there isn’t much of a Republic presence. So what they would do is find someone to act like a Republican and become the precinct captain. So there would be two Democrats running the precinct! Lots of things can happen.
Then, look at the ballots themselves. Since they can’t manufacture too many votes, they go at it from the other side: they challenge ballots. And what better way to increase the odds than to “help” out the process. The easiest way is for someone to put a small rip in a ballot. Later, either through a recount or whatever, these ballots can be challenged. If the challenge succeeds, the ballot is considered spoiled and then it is tossed out. If the Republicans put up too much of a stink, then the “disenfranchisement industry” takes over and then the media is alerted. (You can hear the little reports on election night. Something like “Abnormalities have been reported in ...” The news people find out about these things sometimes because party people make the calls themselves to the media. Again, it’s just another nice service from these very busy people.)
All of these tactics were probably used on Obama in New York City.
Here is a NYTs story about Obama’s amazing zero votes in 80 election districts – even in Harlem!
“Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.
That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city’s 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.”
Why wasn’t this reported much? Why didn’t people cry foul? Why didn’t Obama cry foul? Why didn’t Acorn cry foul? The reason the Dems didn’t want this issue to surface much is even though Obama was screwed, it’s more important to be able to keep committing fraud. So this fraud was just pushed under the table. As I said, read up on Acorn and voter fraud.
Why do you think Gore picked Bill Daley to take the lead in 2000. The Daley’s and their people are experts at vote fraud. If you remember, Daley only wanted to recount votes in certain areas – the most “disenfranchised” areas of course! (No one bothered to question why the most disenfranchised areas were also the ones most heavily run by Democrats!)
Remember chads? Chads were useful for challenging (Republican) votes. Daley wanted recount after recount so the ballots could be handled more and more. For each time a Republican ballot was handled, it was another chance to disqualify it. I’m sure they had boxes of “uncounted” ballots ready to pull out too. All of these methods are useful for winning, in which case the election is fair or, for in the case of losing, the methods are used as a basis for throwing the whole election into question. (These are some of the reasons Democrats use to claim the election was tainted.)
In the 1960 election, the Dems running the elections waited for the downstate Illinois votes to come in so they could figure out how many votes they needed. The “Back of the Yards” neighborhood (near the old Stock Yards and near Daley’s home) was where some of this took place. The “turnout” was (somehow) 89% in Chicago and Kennedy won by 450,000 votes! Old man Daley (Bill’s Dad and the current mayor’s Dad) and his wife, Sis, were the first people to stay in the Kennedy White House. I got into this with Taylor Marsh some time back and she pointed out there were similar problems in Pennsylvania (Philly, I think.) Nixon was urged by his aides to demand a recount, but Nixon decided not o.
So, for Democrats, requiring an ID for voting is a no-no. In reality, it isn’t too much of a burden as people need them all the time for various activities. Banks sometimes require them. Currency exchanges require them. There are lots of examples where they are needed and the states make them easy to get.
As I said, they don’t call it the Democratic Machine because of efficiency, it’s really about manufacturing votes and destroying votes. Didn’t Lenin say something like "It's not the votes that count, it's who counts the votes"?
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 2/25/2008 @ 9:27 pm PT...
Just to be clear, Ruffini ain't just 'some blogger at Townhall' he's part of the machine (guess that's redundant since Townhall is part of the machine!):
Webmaster and Blogger Patrick Ruffini
(started June 2003. Managed content on the site, wrote original content and managed author submitted content for the blog). Ruffini ran a political blog which launched in July 2001. He served as Deputy Director of Online Communications at the RNC, July 2002-June 2003. Staff assistant at American Enterprise Institute, March 2001-June 2002. May 2000 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania with B.A. in Diplomatic History and Political Science; was chairman of Penn College Republicans, 1998-99.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 2/25/2008 @ 9:28 pm PT...
...though Obama blocked the Rebublican "voter fraud" zealot, von Spakovsky, (correctly, in our opinion) from inappropriately serving on the FEC, he did so long before he knew that he might well be the Democratic nominee. So? Obama was already a candidate by the time he blocked the von Spakovsky nomination. Not only that, he blocked von Spakovsky 10 days after John Edwards announced he would have to dip into public funds to continue his campaign.
In other words, the Republican leadership in the Senate is actively blocking votes on nominees which would give the FEC the quorum they need to do business in this election year. Wrong again. Senate Rules Committee Chairman Diane Feinstein and Vice-Chairman Bob Bennett had an agreement to move all four FEC nominees, including von Spakovsky, to the full Senate without recommendation, and that all four would be voted on en banc (FEC nominees are nominated in sets of pairs, one Democrat, one Republican, to make sure the required number of FEC board members is no more than three from each party). Two others are on the Rules Committee: Senate Majority Leader Reid and Senate Minority Leader McConnell, and both knew of the deal. Then Obama blocked all four nominations. But Reid, as Majority Leader, still controls when confirmation votes occur, and he has reneged on the deal of the Rules Committee deal. It is Reid and Obama who have done the blocking, not Republicans.
Maybe it's time the left-wing bloggers start actually looking at the facts before conservatives like Ruffini and myself catch you looking foolish.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 2/25/2008 @ 9:30 pm PT...
By the way, that deal between Feinstein and Bennett was reported here by The Hill.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 2/25/2008 @ 11:32 pm PT...
Feinstein can make any "deals" she wants. It's up to each Senator to exercise his/her right to block nominees as they see fit. Which is what Obama and Feingold did when they blocked von Spakovsky.
Obama did not "block all four nominations", but if it helps you out with your partisan agenda to make that assertion, contrary to the actual facts of the case, that's up to you.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 2/25/2008 @ 11:36 pm PT...
Since ALZ posted his reply both here and at Townhall, I'll do the same. Here's what I wrote over there in reply to him:
...As I mentioned previously, you shouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight. Since I report on this stuff for a living, I know the facts. And can quote them to you by rote, as well as offer you supporting links for anything I bother reporting, or saying here.
To a few of your comments then...
"Election fraud is not huge, but it is targeted."
Actually, Election fraud IS a huge concern. Voter fraud, on the other hand, is not. You were talking about voter fraud originally, not election fraud. Photo ID restrictions at the polling place are meant to deal only with Voter fraud, not Election fraud. And if you bother to check places like GA for example, even the backers of their Photo ID law (found unconstitutional) could not site an instance of voter fraud in GA history that would have been stopped by their bad new law.
"An ID would be helpful in some of these cases.
What instance of "the dead" voting in Chicago in recent times (since a great measure of ballot security has been enacted) can you point to? Any single instance? Much less enough to throw an election one way or another?
"Absentee ballots. Ballots can be changed."
Photo ID restrictions at the polling place have nothing to do with that. Indeed, where there is Voter fraud, it's overwhelmingly done via absentee ballot (and by Ann Coulter).
"In heavily Democratic precincts, there isn’t much of a Republic presence. So what they would do is find someone to act like a Republican and become the precinct captain. So there would be two Democrats running the precinct! Lots of things can happen."
Correct. Same is true of two Republicans running the place. Either way, Photo ID does not keep two such criminals from gaming the system. It only keeps legal voters from being able to cast a ballot.
"Since they can’t manufacture too many votes, they go at it from the other side: they challenge ballots."
You might want to take a look at who is out there actually challenging ballots (hints, it's not Dems). That said, a Photo ID does nothing to change that. Other than make it easier to challenge voters, force them to vote provisionally, and then not count them, even though they are legal voters.
"The easiest way is for someone to put a small rip in a ballot."
Actually, that doesn't spoil a ballot. It only makes it unreadable by the machines. Nonetheless, a Photo ID restriction doesn't change that issue, and where paper ballots are used, the poll worker is not able to touch the ballot after it's dropped in the box. If he/she is, then the procedure is terrible and should be changed.
You have pointed to no instances where Photo ID restrictions at the polling place would decrease voter fraud.
Al asked, about the NYC issue with zero votes for Obama:
"Why wasn’t this reported much? Why didn’t people cry foul? Why didn’t Obama cry foul? Why didn’t Acorn cry foul? The reason the Dems didn’t want this issue to surface much is even though Obama was screwed, it’s more important to be able to keep committing fraud. So this fraud was just pushed under the table. As I said, read up on Acorn and voter fraud."
Actually, The BRAD BLOG reported it a great deal. So far, there is no evidence of fraud, even though Bloomberg has charged that their was fraud, even while he refused to launch an investigation despite controlling the NYC Police Dept.
More details here:
Nonetheless, there have been no allegations of VOTER fraud by anyone, and Photo ID restrictions at the polling place would have made no difference, even IF there was fraud by pollworkers or insider election officials or the police to explain the reasons why Obama received zero votes in the unofficial original count in as many as 80 precincts (Clinton also received zero votes in a number of them as well, FYI.)
"Remember chads? Chads were useful for challenging (Repub) votes."
Actually, it was Republicans who challenged those votes when Gore, incidentally, received more votes than Bush in the FL 2000 election by all conceivable counting standards.
That said, Photo ID restrictions would have had nothing to do with that one way or another.
And if you REALLY want to learn, you'll go check out the 7 on-camera whistleblowers from the Sequoia factory where those paper ballots were made, explaining how they were ordered to use faulty paper only on the Florida ballots, and to specifically misalign those chads (so they'd hang) only in Palm Beach County.
See Part 3 of this video report from last Summer:
Again, Photo ID had nothing to do with it.
Neither would it have had anything to do with the -16,022 (that's NEGATIVE 16,022) votes registered for Al Gore on a Diebold tabulator in Volusia County, FL. Unexplained by the company, or anybody else to this day.
"So,for Dems,requiring an ID for voting is a no-no."
Because it disenfranchise voters and nothing more. As you've proven in your comments.
"As I said, they don’t call it the Dem Machine because of efficiency;it’s really about manufacturing votes and destroying votes."
Wrong. That said, I don't give a damn who games our elections. If its Dems, Repubs or anybody else, I will bust them (including Ann Coulter).
I'm supporting the voters. Period. Hope you'll join me some day.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 1:11 am PT...
Wow! We've seen some uninformed trolls come a calling at this site but it's hard to remember one who was as clueless as ALZ. He/she doesn't even appear to understand the difference between voter fraud and election fraud yet thinks he/she can spout this nonsense on a blog and before an audience that deals on a daily basis with these issues. It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic and so potentially dangerous to our democracy to have people like ALZ and those with the HHWV (as DES calls them) trying to promote their disingenuous, vote suppressing message on blogs, at the local government level and before our highest courts.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 8:11 am PT...
I DO support the voters. That's why I want to know that the people voting are who they say they are. An ID would chip away at the problems.
Whether you want to call it voter fraud or election fraud, it doesn't matter: fraud is being committed and a simple ID could discourage some of it and thwart other parts of it.
Concerning someone voting using the name of a dead person, an ID is a deterrence to this type of fraud. (I figured this would be obvious.)
As for up to 30 million people not having any form of identification, I find that hard to believe. How do they cash a check? How do they get a bank account? I did some quick searching and you need photo id's for food stamps (in the states that I looked at). So I think your numbers are either wrong or you are just misinformed.
In 2008, it's very easy to get an ID and it's required for many everyday activities. No one should be disenfranchised from voting because they can't show an ID that proves who they are and where they live. It's not like you need a special ID that can be construed to be a poll tax or something.
I've read quite about the issue and, as you can see, I have some knowledge on how certain frauds are committed in Chicago. You can link to as many articles as you want that show one side.
In order to form an informed opinion, you have to look at more than one side. What I have found is ID's would help in some cases and they don't really put much of a burden on people.
You guys are on the wrong side of this.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 8:33 am PT...
Don't be too hard on ALZ (beyond educating on facts)
Remember, I was brainwashed by all the right wing talk hosts too at one time. I used to hang on every word for all of em...
Michael Savage (feedback is one directional)
Dr Laura (cost me a girlfriend by taking her advice once, she has no uncensored feedback and HATES pagans, ran or runs some kind of broken JAVA chat thing that's worthless)
I can't even remember them all now. I used to listen to them ALL every day all day. I voted for Bush in 2000, but by 2004 I had finally learned what was up. I don't know everything. But I learned enough.
The main problem with every one of these talk hosts is that they DO NOT UNDERSTAND ELECTRONICS OR PROGRAMMING (Okay okay there's other problems too, but we'll focus on Election Integrity here)
Anyway, the other thing here to remember is that there are MORE of those AM stations than there are of the Nova-M / Air America stations . Go pick up an emergency radio from radio shack and slide the tuner through the dial (Forget the digital tuners)
You will be lucky to FIND a progressive station! And if you do it will be CLOSE to a noisy ass religious channel or just a weak station. Not the 50KW Monsters.
I used to really like Michael Savage (on some things he actually made sense), but found out real quick that he doesn't give a crap about Electronic Voting Machine failures. (which is my Number #1 pet peeve) I wrote him several times and then gave up. He is affiliated with some kind of funky demented Paul Revere Society (I bet Paul Revere would roll in his grave) that doesn't like gays, or the poor, and completely ignores ELECTION FRAUD, while claiming bus loads of illegals (non American Citizens) are bussed in to vote. It's all based on fear really. Gays will destroy marriage.. gimme a break, the state has the power to marry and the church has the choice to not perform ceremony / ritual.
Each of these hosts is quite compelling if all you get your news from is fascist sources. They can quickly make you believe the world is coming to an end. So say you only have ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX on your rabbit ears, and an AM Radio your gonna be really confused about things. And if you been listening for years, it's probably going to take you some years to get straightened out on the truth.
That's why I say don't be too hard on ALZ, if he's genuinely patriotic he's got a tough road ahead to learn how to filter out the fascism, and get to the truth. And if he isn't patriotic, then he still has a right to say whatever he wants, but that also give us the right to point out the parroted lies, the brainwashed propaganda and confusion and point him to the truth. What he does with that is up to him, not us.
Look where truth finally brought me.
To BradBlog .
This is the ONLY place I could find out of the whole web where I ran into people that finally get it. (Well that's not true, Blackboxvoting.org was my first but at the time their website was under DDoS attacks and I never was able to get a proper account going over there--Love to Bev either way on that...)
What we all need is for TRUTH to have a louder microphone than the propaganda and lies currently do. My personal belief on that is that it is going to have to be by getting at the public file's of the stations and to hit the FCC hard. Maybe have the house and senate FORCE the FCC.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 8:52 am PT...
I want to know that the people voting are who they say they are
When they register they are identified by the Registar of Voters, otherwise they wouldn't have a sample ballot
Whether you want to call it voter fraud or election fraud, it doesn't matter (Snip)
Wait a minute, the two TERMS mean different things.
Voter Fraud is someone voting illegally.
Election Fraud however, the registered voters have no control over and it's far far more damaging.
So really the first thing your going to need to do is understand like we do here, that the two terms mean different things. You DO need to learn the terminology if you want to be taken seriously or understood.
using the name of a dead person, an ID is a deterrence to this type of fraud.
First off, hopefully there are not that many dead people, second off, finding them on the voter rolls is going to take an insider at the ROV level, or a family relative or friend, third this can also be controlled by the ROV auditing the registered voter rolls before an election. Unless your like machine gunning down millions of people in one district this is a NON-ISSUE! Don't get me wrong it's illegal and if you get caught you should pay the price. It still doesn't JUSTIFY disenfranchising someone who doesn't have a current valid identification.
As for up to 30 million people not having any form of identification, I find that hard to believe.
I didn't have a valid ID from 1991 to 2007!!!
How do they cash a check?
You can have someone else cash it for you
How do they get a bank account?
I didn't have a bank account!
I did some quick searching and you need photo id's for food stamps (in the states that I looked at).
I can's say shit about this, I never had food stamps
So I think your numbers are either wrong or you are just misinformed.
you thought wrong.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 9:07 am PT...
Voting is a Constitutional Right
ELECTION FRAUD is not
also, iirc, There was a time that I was on public assistance and tried to get food stamps, but because I wasn't on welfare I did not qualify for food stamp program, I think only the folks that are on welfare qualify for them, and if they are on welfare they are going to have more money to be able to GET an ID in the first place. (this was in Sacramento County, California I don't know about other states)
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 9:18 am PT...
by the way in 2008 it is still a pain in the ass to get an ID card.
It's an all day process, it costs money, and requires a valid post office box/residence.
Don't make me go take a camera down to the local DMV and interview some people and show you the lines!! Nobody likes it, it's slow and sucks and is a pain in the ass, there's not enough chairs for waiting, and there's not enough people staffing the counters. They have to keep a sheriff there to keep the peace. I could have bought DRUGS out in the DMV parking lot. I'd guess 80% of the people resent the treatment they have to go through, some get their ID renewed in the mail --- bless them Some make appointments --- bless them
If you don't have no money, your not going to go through this shit.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 9:24 am PT...
One of the interesting things about me being a veteran is that I have worked on multi-million dollar aircraft, then I was homeless, then I did some college, I have done a lot of weird things and I do have first hand knowledge of. Being poor, and homeless I know about.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 10:26 am PT...
Brad Friedman said:
Feinstein can make any "deals" she wants. It's up to each Senator to exercise his/her right to block nominees as they see fit.
Not according to Senate rules for handling FEC nominations they don't. Block one, all are blocked. Being in denial of Senate rules is no excuse in not reporting the facts.
And as long as there are a spate of rants on this thread, allow me to add a further set of items.
Obama said the following last September, before blocking the four nominees:
“I strongly oppose the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky to serve a full term at the Federal Election Commission. His record of poor management, divisiveness, and inappropriate partisanship makes him an unacceptable nominee to the FEC. I am particularly concerned with his efforts to undermine voting rights at the Civil Rights Division during his tenure at the Department of Justice. The FEC needs strong, impartial leadership that will promote integrity in our election system. Hans von Spakovsky is not the right person for the job, and I call on President Bush to send Congress a new nominee.”
Where could he have possibly figured von Spakovsky was unacceptable? Probably from this heavily-linked letter sent to the Rules Committee a few months earlier, the one everyone seems to be basing much of their opinions of von Spakovsky on. Who wrote it? Six bureaucrats within the DoJ, including the now-former Chief of the Voting Section of the aforementioned Civil Rights Division, Joseph Rich. But why, you may ask, would Joseph Rich inject himself into this? After all, lifetime government bureaucrats are reported to be agenda-free. Or are they? As it turns out, the agenda-free bureaucratic lifer Joseph Rich donated money to America Coming Together (hyperlink didn't work; FEC info is linked at http://images.nictusa.co...-bin/fecimg/?24962494490, item C, where it lists Joseph Rich, living in D.C, employed at the Department of Justice, as an attorney). America Coming Together is a now-defunct 527 started by the anti-America Bush-hating George Soros. How interesting. What's worse for Rich is that the FEC recently fined the now-defunct ACT $775,000 for campaign funding violations, something an attorney that is an "expert" on election law at the DoJ should have been wary of before donating money to them.
Now does this prove Mr. Rich had an agenda or did something illegal? Not even I think so. With this information, however, it does render that entire letter, along with the premise of how "evil" von Spakovsky is according to certain people, suspect, and it should be withdrawn as a factor in the consideration of confirming all four FEC nominees.
Of course, this isn't the first time Obama has engaged in dirty Chicago-style political tricks to get elected to office, even by disenfranchising voters, something he is good at accusing others of doing, and only with "evidence" from a questionable source. He seems at peace being a thug.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 10:57 am PT...
I LOVE FOR HOLES TO BE PUNCHED IN MY IDEAS!
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 11:02 am PT...
Obama fscked up on myspace.
I remember that. Anyone remember that?
That wasn't fair. He could make good on it right now and I would change my opinion.
I don't like any of the choices left.
We all know there are problems in government.
We all know there's problem in media
and electronic vote tabulation, stealth election fraud tactics.
All this SHIT needs to be stopped.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 11:03 am PT...
If I had to vote right now it would be for . . .
No need to send money. I don't use money anymore.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 11:08 am PT...
I don't like that stuff and I HOPE he gets out of it. But since everyone DROP running and there's no more AIPAC/PNAC/CFR p3wd candidates
obama the lesser evil
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 11:10 am PT...
But okay you have my opinion.
It don't make me right.
I want you to vote for whoever you want.
I could do a write in, but what's the point now. I don't know who will be on the write in list
I could vote for RON PAUL
I voted for BUSH
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 11:12 am PT...
I probably should vote for RON PAUL
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 11:14 am PT...
Mind you that's "Right Now"
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 12:36 pm PT...
Not according to Senate rules for handling FEC nominations they don't. Block one, all are blocked. Being in denial of Senate rules is no excuse in not reporting the facts.
Really? Please show me those "Senate rules". Until then, you're pulling stuff outta your ass. If you need me to go show you the cases where FEC nominees were NOT confirmed en masse, lemme know. But I'm sure you and Mr. Ruffini could find that. PRESUMING you actually wanted to (and given your now on-record statements, I'm guessing you wouldn't want to.)
As to Rich's comments, why don't you go back and search The BRAD BLOG and elsewhere for Von Spakovsky. I assure you, our coverage pre-dates Rich saying anything about this, and had absolutely nothing to do with him, despite your silly, unsubstantiated, O'Reilly-esque Soros smear.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 12:41 pm PT...
ALZ foolishly added to his public record of uninformed posts by saying:
As for up to 30 million people not having any form of identification, I find that hard to believe. How do they cash a check? How do they get a bank account?
First off, I know you'd find it hard to believe that ANYBODY would not have a bank account, yet that's the case.
That said, having "an ID" is not the issue. Having the specifically required STATE ID in states where once having any of 6 or more different forms of ID was sufficient (eg. a Military ID) is a different matter.
If you bothered to learn about these new insidious voter suppression laws, you'll see they are occurring in many places where states already required ID to vote, but they are specifically REMOVING certain types of ID from being valid forms of ID at the polls, like Military ID's.
And it's as pathetic as it is unAmerican. Period.
But if you want to risk keeping millions of legal voters from being able to cast their legal vote (many of them troops!) in order to keep some 20 or so voters across the entire United States in the past 6 years from committing voter fraud (one of them being Ann Coulter, of course, have you called for her arrest yet?) that's on your head.
I'll stand with America instead.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 2:11 pm PT...
Really? Please show me those "Senate rules". Until then, you're pulling stuff outta your ass.
Not exactly. But you are correct that the Senate rules don't indicate requirements for moving and voting on FEC nominees. However, from the article I linked to earlier in The Hill:
During the Rule Committee’s executive meeting Wednesday, Feinstein originally said she wanted to vote on each nominee separately, as opposed to considering all four nominees together in one vote, as the committee has done in the past. Republicans on the panel objected, arguing that the move breaks all known committee precedent on moving FEC nominations.
“The precedent is very clear,” said Sen. Bob Bennett (Utah), the ranking Republican on the panel. “Nominations to the FEC have always been reported en bloc and in pairs.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who was on hand to back up Bennett’s assertions about Senate precedent, said he would not tolerate any attempt to separate von Spakovsky’s nomination from the three other FEC nominations on the Senate floor.
“None of these nominees will move across the Senate unless they move together,” he said. “The view has always been that the Democrats pick the Democrat candidates and Republicans pick the Republicans.”
As with everything else, Democrats are attempting to have it both ways, even on agencies that require a Republican on it. They only want "good" Republicans.
I've viewed your site a few times in the past. You're one of those whose been trying to show how the 2004 election was stolen, a conspiracy theory of unfounded nothings. As far as how you base your von Spakovsky beliefs, I think your acceptance of what could easily be interpreted as a political smear masquerading as "legal analysis", the letter from Rich and other DoJ bureaucrats, your own "analysis" is probably of the level of those who said Piltdown man was legitimate. No sir, I don't think anything you've said about von Spakovsky would be any more credible.
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 4:27 pm PT...
Careful, Steve, your intellectually dishonest partisan bias is showing:
Of course, this isn't the first time Obama has engaged in dirty Chicago-style political tricks to get elected to office, even by disenfranchising voters, something he is good at accusing others of doing, and only with "evidence" from a questionable source.
Since you've focused on what you believe is Obama's alleged 'disenfranchising' of voters, then you must actually give a damn about disenfranchisement of perfectly legal voters, yes?
IF you really, truly care that voters NOT be disenfranchised, you will read through the copious evidence of Von Spakovsky's illegal and unethical activities, and will support Obama's choice to block his appointment, because there really is no other logical conclusion for anyone who values truth and fairness, who places country over party.
Hansie Von Spakovsky has been turned down for confirmation twice. So why do you think Bush nominated him again?
Could it be that it's really BUSH [gasp!] who is the one playing politics here?
Now, why would Bush want to install a known dirty, unethical pol in a position to disenfranchise voters and muck with candidates at will? What, are they running out of Republicans? (how about David Iglesias, or James Comey, both known for their honesty and ethics)
Apparently you'd rather have a partisan hack that has been instrumental in destroying the "justice" part of the Dept. of Justice, and you hold procedure as more important than competence, fairness and honesty in crucial positions charged with protecting all of the people. Does that accurately describe your position on this subject?
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 4:55 pm PT...
Frnakly, Steve, you're the one who has zero credibility here, since we're all far more educated on these subjects than you are.
This is just funny:
You're one of those whose been trying to show how the 2004 election was stolen,
You should try reading before you make stupid assumptions. If you'd actually bothered to look, you'd know that this site has never claimed the 2004 election was 'stolen'. And you'd also know that this site supports the election challenges of Republicans, too.
As far as how you base your von Spakovsky beliefs, I think your acceptance of what could easily be interpreted as a political smear masquerading as "legal analysis", the letter from Rich and other DoJ bureaucrats,
First off, these are not "beliefs", but conclusions based on facts. Tellingly, the first-hand knowledge of career employees of the Dept. of Justice isn't good enough for you. I suppose only partisans could "easily interpret" as "political smear" the evidence staring you in the face, perhaps because they haven't actually researched the evidence, and perhaps because they are so blinded by loyalty to party over country that they would sell their fellow Americans down the river to install Hansie.
your own "analysis" is probably of the level of those who said Piltdown man was legitimate.
And since you don't really have anything to back up your fact-free opinions, you just make sh*t up.
Dude, that is just so pathetic.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 5:59 pm PT...
"The Politics of Voter Fraud", Lorraine Minnite
Is a joke...using persecution rates to claim 'minimal numbers' is like saying current stolen car convictions are the only cars stolen in the state.
Fraud today is voting in multiple precincts...multiple cites by mail..and it happens all the time...it is caught..and the votes are thrown out...not persecuted.
Her denial of this fact and her lack of ROV data makes the claims AA level fare...not PHD. She uses news reports, and her only personal filters to 'decide the results'
It's not that photo Id's are a bad Idea....but in California they break rule number of voting:
VOTING IS FREE
until ID's are...the topic is moot.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 6:05 pm PT...
Sorry...breaking my 1 post per topic rule but....
How is the post on townhall a 'LIE' when he references your entire unedited blog post?
Was it a lie then? ...have you retracted something that was not referenced?
(OMSMedia is the brother of former San Diego-ROV)
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 7:03 pm PT...
Glad to see you admit you were wrong about "Senate Rules". I accept your apologies.
As to what Republican Senators assert are the traditions of the Senate, you should have been dubious of those claims, as I suggestion you should have been dubious of whoever told you that "Senate Rules" required FEC commissioners be confirmed as a package.
If you bother to read what has actually happened in the past, versus what you've been told has happened in the past, you'd find you are wrong. Again.
I accept your apology in advance for that also.
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2008 @ 7:06 pm PT...
OMS Media (Don Haas, brother of failed San Diego Registrar, Mikel Haas) -
Apparently you didn't bother to read Minnite's report. She asserts that where voter fraud does exists, it is a far larger problem via absentee voting. The debate about Photo ID restrictions at the polling place does nothing in regard to absentee voter fraud.
As to how the original Ruffini post was dishonest, as I mentioned in my original article above, he lied about the reasons for the lack of an FEC quorum. It is because Republicans have refused to allow a vote on the commissioners that would give a quorum to the commission, and George W. Bush has refused to nominate a replacement for the twice-denied Hans von Spakovsky.
The Republicans could immediately see a quorum on the FEC. If they wanted to do so, instead of attempt to use it as a political bludgeon.