Monday, February 25, 2008
|
|
Obama's Chicago-style Politics
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
3:53 PM
|
Howard Dean is upset that John McCain wants out from public matching funds for the primary. So much so that's he's filed a complaint with the FEC.
Very well. If that's how he really feels about it, he'll tell Senate Democrats to give up their extraordinary block against the President's FEC nominees -- a block that is preventing the FEC from holding a pro-forma vote to allow McCain out of the system.
And who put the hold on Hans Von Spakovsky, one of the FEC nominees in limbo?
Barack Obama.
(In fact, this left-wing blogger asserts that Obama is THE key reason there is no working FEC right now.)
This is extraordinary. Obama is using his Senate office to limit his likely November opponent's spending to $9 million between now and the convention. Incidentally, Obama's actions would have been responsible for cutting John Edwards off at the knees had he stayed in the race and required an infusion of federal funds.
The FEC must vote to approve any such transfers, and partly because of the Obama-led block, it can't. That also means John McCain hasn't seen any Federal money yet. I don't see how you can be in a federal matching funds system and not receive any matching funds.
Is this "change we can believe in" or just Chicago-style politics?
|
|
The Great Satan said:
"Don't flatter yourself, cupcake; you can't refute anything from that column."
Of course I can, dear girl. Just about every graf of it. But since I've already shown you via a previous link that when every vote in FL was counted that Gore won by every conceivable counting standard, I suspect you'd rather desperately cling to propaganda of phony "news" sites such as Newsmax and the unsubstantiated propaganda they offer, rather than anything that might confuse you, like, say, reality.
But for kicks, I'll help you out by refuting the shortest section offered in that silly screed. It's obviously shortest for a reason. Here it is:
===
• Military Absentee Ballots
Meanwhile, on Friday, Nov. 17, Gore lawyers were dispatched throughout Florida to challenge every single military absentee ballot to prevent U.S. service personnel from casting their votes! And they were able to intimidate local canvassing boards and did in fact get nearly 1,000 of these ballots disqualified!
===
What Mr. Frisa seems to have forgotten to tell you, before you took the bait, hook line and sinker:
+ The military absentee ballots challenged by Gore were the ones that were postmarked AFTER the election. Some of them more than a week!
+ To Gore's eternal shame he rolled in fear of the obnoxious bullies (much like yourself) and allowed those ballots to be counted anyway. Rule of Law be damned. Apparently, such things are only of note to Republicans when it's useful to them.
The rest of Frisa's screed is as easily discredited. Have a swell day! |
|
----Sorry to rock your world........
BradBlog------
Don't flatter yourself, cupcake; you can't refute anything from that column. |
|
SEEHAWK asked:
"So do you promote the dieinfranchisement of Fl and Mi Dem voters.?"
Presuming your talking about the FL and MI primaries, the Dem party can make whatever rules they wish. Though I find it foolish of them to keep voters ANYWHERE out of the system, ostensibly, parties may set the rules for how they determine their own nominees.
Once the rules are set, however, the right thing to do is NOT change them. In anycase, it doesn't seem to me to be a disenfranchisement issue, it seems to be an idiotic Democratic Party issue.
As to Jess' comment, thanks for the informative and impressive input.
|
|
|
So do you promote the dieinfranchisement of Fl and Mi Dem voters.? |
|
The Great Satan -
Of course, Pat Buchanan disagrees with you, and doesn't believe those votes were meant for him. That said, it doesn't matter. Of the votes cast in Florida, as seen in the study I linked to above where they actually counted them all, Gore won by every conceivable counting standard. Sorry to rock your world.
Since you're such a keen investigator by the way (and quoting the reliable NewsMax is very impressive), you might want to go find out why NEGATIVE 16,022 votes were recorded for Al Gore on a Diebold tabulator in Volusia County on election night. Get back to me with your findings (presuming NewsMax bothered to report it for ya).
NeoConScum -
Of course you don't find showing your ID to be discriminatory. You have one. I vote in CA, btw, and have never been asked for my ID, as it's not required by law here. Neither are the Photo ID restrictions I referred to, in effect in VA to my knowledge. ID is not a problem. The extremely narrow forms of ID excepted in states with the most draconian (and usually Unconstitutional laws) are. Eg. the ones that disallow troops from voting even with a Military ID.
Finally, from Miriam - Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchisemen t
Main Entry:
dis·en·fran·chise
Pronunciation:
\?dis-in-'fran-?chiz\
Function:
transitive verb
: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote
— dis·en·fran·chise·ment
...Sorry to demonstrate that you're wrong yet again (not really). |
|
I've NEVER voted in California or(now)Florida without showing my ballot permit(mailed)and photo ID. Millions being--HORRORS--diswhatchamacallit, my Aunt Lena's Pampers! Never once thought it was a pain or discriminatory. A 93-year old retired army, non-driver friend of mine, uses his VA-ID. He's never groused about it!
By the by: The word is DisFRANchisement...No EN. But, hell, tell that to the Media...except Michael Medved. |
|
"As reported here at that time, however, this was an outright lie, because the chief and most visible plaintiff was one Andre Fladell, a longtime Democratic Party hack and dirty-trickster who took direction from the Gore campaign, while Gore "officially" denied knowledge of this legal action.
Of course, even the Florida Supreme Court saw the fallacy in this case and has now dismissed it emphatically, saying that the butterfly ballot was completely legal. But this smoke screen served its purpose by attracting massive public attention early on, while keeping focus away from the real goal: stalling for time without bringing up a statewide issue that would necessitate raising claims throughout Florida, thus allowing Gore to maintain focus exclusively on Democrat-rich Palm Beach County."
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/5/1341 53.shtml |
|
"Here, then, is a rendition of Junior Gore’s Swan Song, "Hail to the Cheat" – a litany of the outright lies, falsehoods, and half-truths employed by Gore’s Goons to try to steal the election over the course of the past four weeks, including – for the first time in U.S. history – an attempt to overturn an election for president.
• Butterfly Ballot Claims
Even before polls closed on election night in Florida, Gore-paid telemarketers made thousands of phone calls to Palm Beach Democrats suggesting and encouraging ‘complaints’ of voter confusion. Remember the ‘outrage’ claimed about ‘inadvertent’ votes for Pat Buchanan? This included both direct and reverse claims of racism: 1) blacks would never vote for Buchanan (except that his running mate was, in fact, black, and 2) Jewish voters would never vote for Buchanan; after all, they claimed, he’s an anti-Semite!
This was the opening diversion employed by Gore to in essence stop the clock, politically, as left-wing partisans in the mainstream media took up this specious charge. Then, after several days, a lawsuit was filed by several "average" Palm Beach residents, we were informed.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/5/1341 53.shtml |
|
Rowly writes:
"Bush won and several independent counts have been done since,and they all came to the same conclusion.George W,Bush won; fair and square."
Not sure which "indepedent counts" you're referring to. But the one in which they actually counted all of the ballots across the state found that Gore received more votes across the state by any conceivable counting standard:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
The irony is that if only the counties Gore (legally) as to be recounted had been counted, he would have lost. Had the entire state been counted, as Bush wanted, Gore would have won.
As to "we won and you lost". What gives you the impression that you have any clue who I actually voted for?
When you guys realize this is about country and democracy over party, the entire country will be far better off. I fight as hard for Repubs who have been screwed as a do for Dems.
Figure it out boys.
|
|
NeoConScum asked:
"States have ID's for non-drivers that are issued like drivers licenses. If ya gotta have them to buy booze, why not for voting, arguably a tad more important?"
For a start, I can't think of the last time I had to have an ID to buy booze, so the premise is inaccurate for the get-go.
That said, once you assure that every legal voter has such an ID, I'll be more than happy to revisit the topic with you. Until then, voters have but one chance each Election Day to cast their vote. Risking the disenfranchisement of millions of voters in order to hold off a theoretical problem which -- by the Bush DoJ's own numbers -- is almost miniscule, is not something that any American ought to countenance.
For those who think my reasons come from being a Democrat, I assure you it doesn't, and I haven't voted for a Democrat for President in lord knows how long.
Remember, a military ID will likely get you a bottle of booze, if you appear to be underage. In the states now imposing draconian Photo ID poll restrictions, the good troop would not be able to vote with such an ID.
|
|
There is nothing to overcome ... John McCain will win in November despite his outrageous temper, arrogant attitude towards US Citizens, and poor performance in debates. How can he win? John McCain has no soul; John McCain is worst than Benedict Arnold; John McCain hates the average US Citizen; and John McCain lies with every breath he takes. John McCain's words are like love-songs to the GOP die-hards who hear what they want to hear and disregard the truth. The GOP spin on John McCain's words is unbelievable. John McCain says turn left and the GOP Analysts say John McCain meant to say turn right. The arrogance of GOP Analysts is simply unmatched - except by the arrogance of the RNC's leadership and John McCain himself.
I hope the RNC leadership is listening. The vast majority of GOP members I talk with day-in and day-out agree that both Jo Ann Davidson & Mike Duncan need to be fired immediately (before March 1st 2008). Their recent performance, like Mel Martinez's performance in 2006, is a dismal failure at obeying citizens and warrants their immediate removal.
|
|
"Democraps want to perpetuate vote fraud. Stunning!"
Fixed that for you. |
|
Democraps want to institutionalize vote fraud. Stunning!
|
|
Al Gore demanded a recount when he came up short in Florida.Trouble is; he didn't want a fair count.An entire state count would have been fair.But no,he wanted CERTAIN precincts to be counted.Only the ones he knew would favor him.After all the confusion with hanging chads,pregnant chads,etc.,the courts said "enough" and stopped the foolishness.Bush won and several independent counts have been done since,and they all came to the same conclusion.George W,Bush won; fair and square.
I realize you will have a thousand instances that you can cite.They are all moot.You lost.We won.Fair and square.Deal with it. |
|
to protect the status quo, vis-a-vis the unmentionable constituency of the dimocrat party:
Dead Guys
House Pets
Convicted Felons
People Who Don't exist
That 2006 study by New York media of the voter rolls in that state showed that when dead people, house pets, convicted felons and the non-existent registered to vote, and in fact voted, they voted dimocrat 9-1.
I know that requiring voters to identify themselves with legal ID is hurtful to the AFL-CIO, SEIU, etc. ad nauseum, but Babakazama is talking about meaningful change.
Requiring ID at the polls is CHANGE.
Lets have a group hug now and sing 'We Shall Overcome.' |
|
|
Liberals don't fight fair because you advertise a fight. You set the rules. Only knives allowed. Any other weapon will be confiscated.Then YOU show up with a Bazooka .Then you say the rules have chamged.Again I say,you are not familiar with fair. |
|
Thanks for setting the record straight.
What Patrick is really trying to do here by dragging Obama into this is obscure the very real question as to whether McCain may lawfully drop out of the public financing system. The issue turns on whether McCain utilized his committment to seek public financing as leverage/collateral for $4 million in loans given to his campaign late last year. The loans were obtained precisely when McCain was floundering in the money chase; he probably would not have won the nomination without them. McCain's people say he didn't, but the Republican head of the FEC says not so fast:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/mccain.fec.ap/
Legal or not, it seems McCain was for public financing of his campaign before he was against it. Remind you of someone? |
|
|
States have ID's for non-drivers that are issued like drivers licenses. If ya gotta have them to buy booze, why not for voting, arguably a tad more important? |
|
"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.
Learn: http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
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:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4960
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.
|
|
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:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5722
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.)
|
|
"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 - First, thank you for noting that I did NOT close the comments. They close automatically after 30 days or so and the item you were commenting on is still open as you noted.
That said, 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.
...
The dead."
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? |
|
To Mr. Ruffini, there has been similar articles regarding Senator Obama's Finance ploy and how he's sandbagging McCain in the Senate, in The Wall Street Journal.
Latest, in Opinion section, Monday Feb., 25th. which concluded:
We dislike these campaign laws, in part bacause they allow the likes of Mr. Obama to claim to be reformers while working the rules to their own advantage. But if Senators want to be President are going to pass their rules, the least they can do is give the FEC the ability to enforce them.
P.S. Mr. Ruffini, is a real gentleman, allowing you to use this post. |
|
|
Just so Brad doesn't go ballistic, Brad did not close off comments on the post in question; I was looking at another one. |
|
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 Dems!)
Remember chads?Chads were useful for challenging (Repub) 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 Dems 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 “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 Pa(Philly,I think.)Nixon decided against a recount.
So,for Dems,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 Dem Machine because of efficiency;it’s really about manufacturing votes and destroying votes.
Lenin said something like "It's not the votes that count,it's who counts the votes.” |
|
Part 2 of 3
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!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html?_r=1 &pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
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. |
|
(Brad closed the remarks on his blog before I could finish posting this. It says it's on his blog, but I suppose it could disappear.) Part 1 of 3.
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.) |
|
"your assault on my democracy is not appreciated."
Your democracy's assault on my constitutional republic isn't appreciated either. |
|
|
They're at war. Conservatives know this. Somebody better tell McCain and the GOP. |
|
Rowly wrote:
"Gov.Perdue of Georgia offered to have a vahicle sent to the homes,etc. of persons with no picture Id,if they were unable to go get one.That was insufficent for some liberals."
I don't know about "some liberals", but it the GA program was a failure. Once you assure that every voter in America who is legally entitled to vote has such an ID (remember, they disallowed Military ID's as valid forms), then let me know. Until then, your assault on my democracy is not appreciated.
"They just want an excuse.Their motto is 'vote early and vote often'."
Really? Yet oddly enough it's Republicans who, time after time, are found guilty of election fraud. Of course, they're usually far more liberal than most Dems, so perhaps that's who you were referring to.
"After reading many posts,I have come to this conclusion; it is impossible to win an argument with a liberal.They are not honest.Even when they KNOW they are wrong,they won't admit it."
Again, don't know who you're referring to, but since you don't know anything about me and whether I am "liberal" or not (I could almost guarantee you I'm far more conservative than you), if you're having trouble "winning" this argument it's because you've decided to bring a knife to a gunfight and in are way over your head.
Prove me wrong, of course, and call for the immediate arrest of Ann Coulter for her proven voter fraud felonies (http://www.bradblog.com/CoulterFraud), and perhaps I'll become impressed.
Until then, the folks calling for Photo ID restrictions are either anti-American phonies, are they haven't a clue what they're talking about. Which one are you, chief?
|
|
Well, the fact is McCain is trying to outmaneuver his own policy on financing!
And it would seem, apparently, that rather than hold him to his word - as one would expect of our prospective leaders - there seems to be a partisan urge here to blindly back him right or wrong. Just where did this kind of logic get us lo these past 7 years? |
|
Gov.Perdue of Georgia offered to have a vahicle sent to the homes,etc. of persons with no picture Id,if they were unable to go get one.That was insufficent for some liberals.They just want an excuse.Their motto is "vote early and vote often".
After reading many posts,I have come to this conclusion; it is impossible to win an argument with a liberal.They are not honest.Even when they KNOW they are wrong,they won't admit it. |
|
I just think it's funny that McCain is trapped up in a campaign finance loophole that might cause big problems with his campaign.
Poor, poor fellow.
|
|
McCain Campaign Banked on Taxpayer-Funded Bailout
Mr.Clean not so clean?
TPM-As The Washington Post reported on Saturday, John McCain’s campaign struck a canny deal with a bank in December. If his campaign tanked, public funds would be there to bail him out. But if he emerged as the nominee, there’d be no need for public financing, since the contributions would come flowing.
It’s an arrangement that no one has ever tried before. And it appears that McCain, who has built his reputation on campaign finance reform, was gaming the system. Or as a campaign finance expert who preferred to remain anonymous told me, referring to the prominent role that lobbyists have as advisers to his campaign, “This places McCain’s grandstanding on public financing in a new light. True reformers believe public financing is a way to replace the lobbyists’ influence, not a slush fund that the lobbyists use to pay off campaign debts.”
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/mccain-campaign-ba nked-on-taxpayer-funded-bailout |
|
Patrick Ruffini said:
"Obama blocked Von Spakovsky to curry favor with the liberal vote in the primaries (judging by your post, he succeeded)."
Your presuming I represent "the liberal vote". That's up to you if you wish to be that presumptuous. But you are welcome to speculate however you wish, about Obama or about me. The problem is not your speculation, it's your dishonesty in omitting a huge part of the story. On purpose, clearly.
"His interference has also had the effect of a player trying to keep the refs off the field."
Funny, so has the Republican Leadership in the Senate and George W. Bush. Both of whom have the means to see a quorum occur on the FEC immediately. Though you forgot to mention that part of the issue to your readers.
"Your own post said that without Obama's intervention, Von Spakovsky would be on the FEC today and it would have a quorum."
That's correct, due to the failure of the Democratic Party to stand up for themselves, as I also pointed out in the post.
You can twist the issue any way that you wish (and your post began doing exactly that, so I'm not surprised that instead of correcting, you continue to use torturous explanations to avoid doing the right thing), but the fact remains, you dishonestly covered the issue for your readers.
"For someone who holds himself up as Mr. Clean, Obama going out of his way to mess with the oversight process that governed his own campaign smells more like Daley-style dirty tricks than 'hope.'"
That's an extraordinarily speculative leap that you make, but one that, as a strong partisan apparently, you are welcome to make as you like.
However, I'd think you'd owe it to your readers to offer them the full facts before adding your speculative interpretation to it. Apparently, you feel otherwise.
|
|
Virginia Patriot asked:
"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?"
ID is not the problem. Specific Photo ID restrictions, as instituted (and found unconstitutional) in a number of states are the problem. Eg. Some states used to allow a number of different types of ID before changing to even disallow Military ID as a valid form of voter ID!
The point is not to protect integrity of the vote, it is to keep those who don't have such ID's (largely Democratic-leaning minorities, elderly and urban dwellers who never had a drivers license) from casting their vote at all.
I gave AL several links to several reports, even from the Bush Admin's own federal agencies, in the comment left in reply to him at:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5739#comment-322177
I hope you will go read them, and help to fight back against the insidious ANTI-democratic (small "d") efforts by a small, but well-funded and rabid of cynical Republicans to use any means necessary to win elections. The seem to have forgotten, or never understood, what the American value known as democracy is actually about. |
|
Your argument is getting more incoherent by the second.
Obama blocked Von Spakovsky to curry favor with the liberal vote in the primaries (judging by your post, he succeeded).
His interference has also had the effect of a player trying to keep the refs off the field. The lack of a quorum at the FEC could easily have had the effect of denying his main liberal rival John Edwards matching funds, and now, denying McCain's request to withdraw from the system.
Your own post said that without Obama's intervention, Von Spakovsky would be on the FEC today and it would have a quorum.
For someone who holds himself up as Mr. Clean, Obama going out of his way to mess with the oversight process that governed his own campaign smells more like Daley-style dirty tricks than "hope." |
|
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?
|
|
AL -
Your comment at BRAD BLOG is there, just as you posted it, as is my reply to it, with a number of helpful links and actual information for you (stuff like FACTS, which you may enjoy) to counter what is obviously the...um...limited understanding you seem to have on the issues you write about.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5739#comment-322177
For the record, when I discussed some of these issues with Hugh over the summer when we spoke together on a panel in Vegas, he said he disagreed with me, naturally. So I let him know I'd be happy to come on the air and discuss them/debate them whenever he saw fit.
He's yet to bother to call. I hope he does. Democracy would be well served by such a discussion. It is ill-served by the extraordinary amount of disinformation being put out there in order to limit access -- by legal voters -- to the polling place.
|
|
...and we'll see if it is accidentally deleted from there:
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. |
|
Patrick writes:
"No Obama hold on Von Spakovsky, no Republican hold on the other nominees, no FEC shutdown. Obama's actions triggered the current FEC standstill"
As I said, dishonest. Shall we use the same criteria to say "No nomination of von Spakovsky, who had already been turned down by the Senate once and thus recessed-appointed by Bush, no Obama hold, no Republican hold, no FEC shutdown"?
Using your conveniently selective choice of facts you chose to report, I suppose you can make any argument you WISH to use, versus the facts of what actually happened. Had you given those to your readers, instead of the propaganda version, they would have been treated intelligently and could have come to whatever conclusion they wished about the business.
But you didn't bother to inform them about the Republican hold. Only Obama's.
"Obama ought to at a minimum recuse himself because of this egregious conflict of interest"
And the Republican minority has no "conflict of interest" here? Now you're making silly arguments instead of just copping to the fact that you conveniently left out information in order to mislead your readers.
"And, btw, FEC nominees ARE traditionally confirmed as a package."
Yes, I am familiar with the talking points. And no, they are not always "confirmed as a package".
As you also know, nominees to federal posts are also "traditionally" blocked by Senators, and traditionally, when that occurs (as you know, given all of the Democratic appointments blocked by Republicans), replacement nominees are submitted.
Not here, however, since Bush and the Republicans are choosing to use this situation, as they traditionally do, for Election Year politicking. And, apparently, you're all too willing to help them.
|
|
The "anti-Democracy, anti-voter villain Hans von Spakovsky," whom Obama loaves, is "pushing to curb minor instances of election fraud by imposing sweeping restrictions that would make it harder, not easier, for Democratic-leaning poor and minority voters to cast ballots. Some of the examples cited were his pushing for approval of the Georgia ID voter law, over the objections of career staff."
He's trying to do something about voter fraud and Obama blocked the vote on his nomination as an unacceptable candidate.
Sounds like the usual political BS in other words, or "No change" in other, other words. Hit it NEO!. |
|
Sir,
It is interesting to note that, when faced with uncomfortable facts, those of you on the left side of the blogosphere can't seem to make a point without slinging names and whooping readers up into a frenzy. Mr. Rufini posted a factual piece, and gave you credit for your original post on the issue. The difference is in the interpretation of the same set of facts. Some would call that advocacy of a position based on a set of facts. A more educated and sophisticated approach may have been to simply make your assertions about the Republican minority following the same set of Senate rules that you tout Senator Obama for, without the mudslinging. Your approach confirms that you are simply a whiny idiot. |
|
No Obama hold on Von Spakovsky, no Republican hold on the other nominees, no FEC shutdown. Obama's actions triggered the current FEC standstill, which has conveniently had the impact of throwing his opponents' matching fund status in limbo.
Obama ought to at a minimum recuse himself because of this egregious conflict of interest, and allow the deal Reid and McConnell had before his intervention to go forward.
And, btw, FEC nominees ARE traditionally confirmed as a package. There are 3 R's and 3 D's, and no party in their right mind is going to allow the other to have a 3-2 majority going into an election year. |
|
....and all you'll have in the bank is....
...change.
Up Barack! |
|
"For pete's sake, asking questions like the above are generally asked daily to every Pub or conserv."
Watch out! There's a liberal under your bed! No wait, he's in your closet! Eeek! (Adjust tin foil hat...now)
"As to socialist platforms..."
I gotta stop you right there. I feel bad mocking someone who uses scare tactics that are approaching 60 years of age. Do you know what socialism is? If BO's a socialist, then, I hate to break it to you smart guy, you're living a socialist state. |
|
I am the "left wing blogger" that Mr. Ruffini links to in the above article, and he has dishonestly represented both it, and the reason for the holdup of votes on the FEC nominees.
It is the Republican leadership in the Senate, not Barack Obama, who is holding up the business of the FEC by disallowing a vote that would give the commission the quorum it needs to do it's work.
Details on what's *really* going on, now posted here:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5739
A retraction, and/or correction should be posted by Mr. Ruffini and/or Mr. Hewitt. |
|
|
in the race. But it doesn't surprise me that Obama is a crook... |
|
I liked the comment today (I forget who said it) that Obama is like the Tech Stock Bubble. It will eventually pop, it is only a question of whether it pops before or after November.
|
|
Our Bazama! Makes me...lapse into...SONG...
Change, Change, Chaaaaaaange..Change of Hoooope! Yes...Hope, Hope, Hooooope...Hope of Chaaaange ! Oh, Yeah, Bay-Beeee!
I feel better now. :-) |
|
Are you being intellectually dishonest here or is this just a spin?
The Democrats have been calling for an up-or-down vote on voter-fraud von Spakovsky, but it has been the Republicans who have refused to do so and have insisted instead that all four nominees be voted on as a package. Both parties have been at fault over this FEC nomination standstill.
|
|
Just happened across an old Mahatma Ghandi bromide ("You must be the change you want in the world.") and immediately thought of Mr. Change Himself ("We are the ones we've been waiting for.") I realize the attaction in modern American culture of electing someone with six-pack abs and, to boot, that super-duper coolest of all cool attributes, blackness, and the deep craving that all of us must have for a president -- any president -- that can actually pronounce the word "nuclear" and link multiple sentences. Its nice to see that Barry may actually be capable of something tactical and substantial, as opposed to the merely theatrical. I'd been thinking "empty suit pretty boy with typical lazy-lefty politics," and may need to think more "sloganeering craftier-than-you'd think- Bolshevik."
|
|
|
Have you changed your handle? Oh well, perhaps you should read the Messiah's own platform, the material already out on his church, pastor and radical chic agenda? Or don't you liberals read your own malarky? For pete's sake, asking questions like the above are generally asked daily to every Pub or conserv. As to socialist platforms, just list each of his statements and see where individuals, free enterprise captialism, and decision making othr than government comes into his Change? You won't do it because you probably wouldn't want to defend it. If you do defend it, then the questions are fair, are they not? |
|
Great questions.
"Can you explain the black racism of your own pastor?"
Next, you should ask him when he ceased being a homosexual. Then, ask him why he is a socialist/facsist/nazi. Finally, ask him what he thinks of ridiculous questions posed by hacks.
|
|
|
1. Have you ever met with Calypso Louis Farr.? 2. Can you explain the black racism of your own pastor? 3. Can you explain how you would defend the USA against Islamofascists? What type of military superiority do you wish? Who do you think are the enemies of the USA right now? How will you deal with Red China and Russia now that they are raising their militaristic heads again? 4. What is the total cost of all your new programs and who and how will it be costed and supplied from America's citizens? The little trivia that some pundits and bloggers deal with will not nail this Messiah. Hit him with real specific questions and demand answers now. |
|
From "Yes We Can" to "No You Can't" ... the con artist must be careful to tread lightly for a while ...
Someone may realize his soaring rhetoric is actually gassy emmisions rising from the load of BS he has been shoveling ... |
|
|
|