Obama Campaign Slams McCain, Bush For Voter Suppression Scheme

Shameless voter suppression and intimidation efforts by Republicans might finally gain widespread public notice -- further cementing the view that John McCain will do anything to win. The Obama campaign aggressively called out the McCain campaign and the Bush administration today.

The Obama campaign charged Friday that John McCain, in concert with the Bush administration, has embarked on a studied effort to disrupt Election Day in many states and suppress the vote. In a conference call with reporters Friday, Robert Bauer, chief counsel for the Obama campaign, suggested that a flurry of fraudulent registration complaints recently, and a subsequent leak by FBI officials that the agency was investigating the incidents, were part of a coordinated attempt by McCain and the administration of President Bush to intimidate voters.

Bauer said the timing of the comments and the leak suggested a “partisan plot” to suppress the vote on Election Day.

[more ...]

In a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey released Friday by the Obama campaign, Bauer called the “current bogus claims of vote fraud" and the McCain campaign’s attempts to breathe life into the allegations by urging Justice Department investigations was “history repeating itself."

The Republicans used similar tactics to suppress the vote in 2000 and 2004, Bauer wrote. The Democrats say the Acorn incidents are overblown. Moreover, they say fraudulent registrations don’t necessarily lead to fraudulent votes, since other controls are in place to prevent that.

The leaks that the FBI recently began investigating hark back to an on-going inquiry into whether the Justice Department was improperly involved in voter suppression activities in 2004, Bauer said. In his letter, he said the “Department has yet to recover its credibility’’ following the events of 2004.

Justice Department officials promised to review the letter. Wow thanks!

Go here for more information about voter suppression and disenfranchisement.

< Wealth and Politics | Denver Post Endorses Barack Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Good. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by TomStewart on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:04:10 PM EST
    Glad to see a national campaign calling the repubs on this crap before it costs them an election.

    There's more to it (none / 0) (#47)
    by 1980Ford on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 09:31:46 PM EST
    Voters may have been duped into GOP registration

    By Evan Halper, Michael Rothfeld, LA Times

    Dozens of voters say they were tricked into joining the party by YPM, a GOP-hired firm already facing a trail of fraud complaints.


    But remember, regardless of registration (none / 0) (#57)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 08:44:17 AM EST
    affiliation, the voter goes into the voting booth and does what the voter wants. Registration in the wrong party is still registration, and, for the general election, the ballot is the same for everyone. This won't become an issue until the next closed primary.

    Vote flipping is happening AGAIN... (none / 0) (#62)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    This election cycle, the bogus focus on so-called voter fraud is obfuscating the very real GOP practice of voter suppression. This has also created a smokescreen whereby it becomes much easier to entirely overlook the GOP's penchant for tampering with voting equipment.

    Touch screen voting machines are flipping votes as we speak. LINK: Some early W.Va. voters angry over switched votes.

    Virginia Matheney and Calvin Thomas said touch-screen machines in the county clerk's office in Ripley kept switching their votes from Democratic to Republican candidates.

    "When I touched the screen for Barack Obama, the check mark moved from his box to the box indicating a vote for John McCain," said Matheney, who lives in Kenna.

    When she reported the problem, she said, the poll worker in charge "responded that everything was all right. It was just that the screen was sensitive and I was touching the screen too hard. She instructed me to use only my fingernail."

    Even after she began using her fingernail, Matheney said, the problem persisted.

    I was wondering what (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by scribe on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:08:21 PM EST
    was taking so long on this issue.

    There have been entirely too many admin moves which, to my suspicious eyes, seemed to dovetail entirely too nicely with what the McCain campaign was pitching on any given day, and with the noise coming from Faux.

    The Rethugs have been entirely too coordinated in using government to further their agenda, and it took the Obama camp entirely too long to call them on it.

    IMHO, anyway.

    ya (none / 0) (#40)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:10:53 PM EST
    Yeah, this was setting off my spidey sense as well.

    It's about time (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by McKinless on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:13:58 PM EST
    a prominent Democrat--and Obama is the best--calls out the Republican conspiracy. Good, good, good.

    I knew you couldn't (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:33:12 PM EST
    Registrations don't equal votes. QED.

    Duh (none / 0) (#13)
    by patriotgames on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:35:56 PM EST
    No elections for a Month.....

    Any evidence in recent memory? (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:40:01 PM EST
    You're being intentionally obtuse, like most trolls.

    Honestly... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Brillo on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:52:48 PM EST
    You think 200,000 people are going to what, manufacture fake ID's with the name Mickey Mouse on them and then spend the day voting multiple places?  Please.

    Incredible (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:05:01 PM EST
    voter registrations for people who don't exist;

    I suppose you're claiming that people who don't exist will vote.

    The problem with phony names, etc. on voter registration forms is not a matter of voter fraud. One of the non-existant people would have to actually attempt to vote.

    The problem is that some workers are scamming the organization they're working for by padding the list.  They get paid for each registration.

    That is NOT voter fraud that is employee fraud.


    Better late than never (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:54:33 PM EST
    This should have been a consistent Democratic talking point for years now. Voter suppression has been a consistent and well-documented part of the overall Republican election strategy at least since 2004.

    And am I the only one who thinks ACORN's actions are perfectly defensible? I was astonished that BTD was advocating the idea that Obama should have taken on ACORN during the debate.

    Voter suppression (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:27:34 PM EST
    was a major part of GOP activity in Florida in the 2000 election.

    Katherine Harris deliberately asked for a loosened list of ex-convicts by name. This purged many thousands of legitimate registered voters from the poll lists.

    The GOP understood very well that in loosening up the name searches that they would be eliminating many legitimate African American voters. An indidious way of preventing many Democrats from voting.


    Think of it this way..... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:57:21 PM EST
    which is worse...an American citizen with the right to vote beig denied that right because of a typo or they didn't tell the freakin' DMV they moved?

    Or an ex-con, an undocumented resident, or a 17 year old votes?

    Disenfranchisement is serious business, a serious crime...it is the only voice most of us have.  An ex-con voting, while technically wrong and a crime, isn't the end of the world to me. In my book, if you live here you should have a voice and a say in how we do things...not to mention some of the laws that legally disenfranchise are pretty f&cked up, imo.  Up in Maine every citizen gets to vote,  all ex-cons, even all convicts.  I think that is awesome.  

    Ex-convicts (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 07:51:36 PM EST
    can vote in most states.  Most of the states that refuse or require a tedious process to restore voting rights are several states of the old Confederacy. There are a couple of northern states with similar laws.

    I personally don't believe that it's in any way justified to prevent a former convict from voting.  

    Unfortunately there would seem to be little chance for a Constitutional amendment to remedy this matter.


    As I understand it (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 06:39:12 PM EST
    Whatever registrations are turned in to them they are required to give to the secretary of state.   They put marks on the registration forms saying Good, questionable, etc..  I guess there could be a question on how they mark them?

    It makes sense that they would have to turn all regitrations in, because if they didn't there could be a lot of questions of throwing out cards based on likely party affiliation.  

    This could all be fixed by requiring voter ID + allowing same day registration.  Stops the "fraud" and helps more peolpe vote.  Swipe your card and vote-done and done.  I don't understand the value of registration in our day in age, except to limit the number of people that can vote.

    They are trying to go after the people who did (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by sallywally on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 07:01:40 PM EST
    register and vote the same day here in Ohio. The GOP didn't like this at all. More Democratic registrations, almost certainly, and Repubs want to cast doubt on their validity.

    I just think that when Republicans (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 07:04:05 PM EST
    Try to pass voter ID stuff, Democrats need to jump on that and throw in same day registration.  Either have neither or both.  

    Anyone from Minnesota know how they got same day registriation passed there?  Republicans might not care there since such a large percentage of the population votes it doesn't matter???


    Sam (none / 0) (#49)
    by DFLer on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 09:52:06 PM EST
    Same-day registration had been in effect in MN for over 33 years. My review of ancient history reveals that it was enacted in 1973 by a DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party) controlled legislature and a DFL Governor, Wendell Anderson. The DFL had taken control of both house for the first time, in 1972.

    So I guess the answer to your question of "how to?" is: Elect Democrats!

    United States voter turnout has been lower than 55 percent since 1972. During that same time frame, Minnesota's average voter turnout has been more than 70 percent.

    Approximately ('cause I don't know exactly) 6 other states now have same day reg.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#60)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 11:00:32 AM EST
    I didn't realize they have had same day registrtion for 30 years.  I thought it was a recent thing.  

    And Wisconsin turnout is right behind you (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 03:43:34 PM EST
    almost every time, because of same-day registration for decades, too.  But it's been under the gun here from the GOP -- again, a reason why all the headlines in the major paper in the state about the registration problems are worrisome.  It's ammo to reopen that battle again in the new biennium, and in a swing state, our state GOP is much better organized and has a lot of power in the legislature.

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by TomStewart on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:25:27 PM EST
    but so freakin' what? My Driver's license had the wrong middle initial for a couple years until I could get the DMV to change it (seemed it was too much of a pain for them) they still have my height wrong and refused to change it last time I was there.

    DMV records often don't match and are incredibly error pron. That why they were fighting in Ohio NOT to use them, as it would throw off many eligible and innocent voters who did nothing wrong. Which is just what the repubs want.

    Really, if the repubs can't get decent candidates who can win on their own merits and not have to spout nonsense to get attention, they deserve to loose.

    So glad to see Obama (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Iris on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:08:43 PM EST
    calling the GOP out on this.  It's about time, and give credit where credit is due, his campaign is  trying to get out in front of this.  Exposing the illegal vote suppression tactics of the Republicans now could very well send a dramatic message to the electorate, and they can't be allowed to get away with this stuff again.  Jennifer Brunner, by the way, is doing a heroic job in Ohio and it just goes to show what a difference governorships and positions like Secretary of State make.

    IT HAS BEEN THIS WAY SINCE... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by stevea66 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 12:43:23 AM EST
    The republicans put armed cops in front of voting stations to intimidate poor black voters.  Since then, it has been the Republican's intention...knowing that the fewer the voters the better their chances.

    Let's just hope they can't pull it off again as they have in the last two elections.  Greed is an amazing motivator.  They see the election of Barack Obama as the end of their glory, their freedom to suck the worker dry of every last drop of blood they can get out of them for their own personal gain.  It's absolutely despicable what greed will do.

    I can attest, though, that there are some of us out here who will pay a bit more in taxes under Barack's plan, but I'm all for it.  Anyone making 250k or more can handle it.  If they can't then they're living beyond their means and need to reign it in, just as middle-income voters are doing right now.  It's amazing to me that someone making 10 times what a teacher makes would complain about paying 2-3% more.  For example, if someone makes 500k/year, they'll pay somewhere around $10,000 more in taxes, possibly only $5,000 if the tax is placed only on the additional amount of earnings over 250.  This is nothing for someone who can live wherever they want in the world, eat whatever they want when they want it, more than likely have tons of assets out there, etc.  Shame on all of you for that.  Who do you think actually put in the foundation on your new $10 million dollar home in Brentwood?  Pay your share - period.

    Sorry for rambling.


    I wonder what this means for Dems (3.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:34:57 PM EST
    like the AG in Nevada or the DA in Milwaukee who have been out in front on attacking ACORN, etc., too.  Are they out of line, out in the cold now?

    If they're spreading nonsense (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by TomStewart on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:53:29 PM EST
    they should be out in the cold, looking in at the warm, warm fire of truth, and getting no marshmallows of justice in their coco of democracy.

    That would be bad for Milwaukee (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 06:55:41 PM EST
    as he's a good guy, after decades of a Dem-but-Catholic DA who put his religion ahead of the law here.  And it's only the new guy's first term, and the GOP is enjoying taking away offices here, one by one.

    And the election office also is in trouble, which could hurt our Dem mayor, too -- with services in other offices cut to send staff to the election office to cope with the overwhelming number of problematic registration cards, all having to be checked even if flagged.  So the lists may be late to the polling places again, and a second time of such troubles again could cost us the Dem mayor, too, as we've already lost the county offices.  So the Dem mayor had to battle with the GOP county exec, who's in charge of getting ballots printed, to get enough to city polls, too.

    But okay, if you think this is the wise thing to do -- let the GOP get more footholds in the Dem stronghold in the state.  Probably won't need it to stay blue, anyway.


    You are totally unbelievable (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 07:09:16 PM EST
    No, you are forgetting (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 07:15:24 PM EST
    that we ought to think globally but act locally.  Ignore local politics for these Dems on the line all you want, but then deal with consequences.

    You really have no sense of anything west of the Alleghanies, do you?  Your problem, not mine.


    You have subverted your sense of politics (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 07:20:00 PM EST
    to a deranged hatred of Barack Obama.

    Your ODS is not allowing you to see (2.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 07:54:05 PM EST
    that some of us are not transients.

    We actually live where we are, have had roots for some time, and have devoted ourselves to battling the GOP at close quarters in close states, in what Easterners dismiss as flyover country.  But on the ground, local efforts can be torn apart by national/Eastern DNC perspectives and actions.

    I would rather have a real Dem DA and mayor -- and Dem state legislators, my focus now -- where I live, if it comes down to that, because down here on the ground is where we live.  You wouldn't understand, I know, as you're not even voting where you live!



    Seriously, CC, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:07:11 PM EST
    I would have thought that throwing around red herrings about the fact that I don't vote in person to somehow suggest that I can't possibly understand politics where you live would be beneath you. Apparently I would have been wrong.

    A "real" Democrat does not support GOP tactics against the Democratic Presidential nominee--especially when those tactics could serve to intimidate and disenfranchise real voters.


    Then CC, they need to be shown (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by TomStewart on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 07:55:48 PM EST
    the light. Right now they're jumping not only on a rickety GOP bandwagon, but throwing their names and offices behind a lie. Should we reward that behavior? Is that a 'good guy'?. No.

    Now, I don't think they should be towing some 'Dem line' (just in case you ask), but should recognize crap for the brown, smelly, lumpy fertilizer that it is, and stop pushing it and punishing groups who are only trying to do the right thing and support new voters.


    Also,I'm sure you read here about our USAA (none / 0) (#24)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 07:03:09 PM EST
    in Milwaukee, who has been capitalizing on all of this -- he's one of the ones angling to move up, when he's out of a job as one of the Gonzalez gang.  I really, really don't want to give him ammo with this mess.

    So I was glad that the Dem DA saw the wisdom of keeping the Dems looking good here, working with the AG in a coordinated effort on the voter registration cases -- a couple already away, a couple more indicted.  But he won't look good if he's supposed to pull back now, and then we could get the USAA as DA or whoknowswhat.  I really can't see why making a Bushie guy look good is good for us, if he moves into the county spot.  It's only the city that's really blue, not the county. . . .  


    We'll find out Thursday when Obama (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 07:23:04 PM EST
    comes to Madison, it turns out -- the very day that the court there rules on the AG's ACORN case.

    Unless it turns out that the Obama campaign's internals tell them something different from all the polls that make Wisconsin solid blue.  Of course, much of less populated Wisconsin is red -- but Madison?!


    The polls show Obama (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by TomStewart on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:16:58 PM EST
    with at least a ten point lead in WI. Not sure what your point is here...

    My point is (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 03:39:57 PM EST
    exactly yours.  With so little time left, why come to Madison?  And on that day?  Just trying to figure it out, and your thoughts are welcome.

    And the Ohio SoS (none / 0) (#2)
    by patriotgames on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:04:46 PM EST
    who is leting 200 THOUSAND fraudulent registrations stand is what?

    Meaningless (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:07:17 PM EST
    Show me one example of a person voting on a fraudulent registration. Just one.

    I did hear David Iglesias, the fired US attorney (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 06:02:01 PM EST
    from New Mexico, on NPR saying that he was pushed to investigate voter fraud.  It was bizarre, he said because there had only been 3-4 sucessfully prosecuted cases over the few years he had been there.  So there you have it, voter fraud on a massive scale.

    In other words, (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 06:04:36 PM EST
    the phantom problem that Republicans blame when they lose.

    Ah yes (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:10:05 PM EST
    A typo consisting of a misspelled name or a misplaced digit in a Social Security number means we have a "fraudulent registration."  God, I love stupid GOP arguments and the stupid, stupid people who believe them.

    I will defer to Digby and her way with words:

    I love the theory of this conspiracy. People are registering voters with names, addresses, ages, drivers' license numbers or last four digits of their Social Security numbers, which are very close to real voter's information. (So close they appear to be data entry typos.) And then these 200,000 fraudulent voters, all of whom are in on the secret plan, vote under their own names and later come back and vote again under the closely matched phony information. (Either that or they all have an elaborate second identity which includes phony ID and social security numbers.)

    If the Democrats can pull this off, I think it's clear they should win the election just for their supernatural ability to get hundreds of thousands of people to keep such a secret.

    typos? 'stupid GOP arguments' ? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andrys on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 07:14:11 PM EST
    Alice Palmer and 4 other opponents of Obama in his first run were all thrown off the ballot by Obama for invalid registrations, using newer lists while the workers had used the list just before.

      CNN who reported on this, after many Chicago newspapers had (and the New Yorker article by Lizza), said that some of the invalid registrations were when the would-be-voters printed their names instead of writing them.

      In other cases, the people were real and had valid addresses but the person registering them wasn't considered qualified to register them.  Obama had each one analyzed.

      Nowadays Acorn pays the workers and gives them a quota which leads to bad methods (today's tv news has a disabled guy whose helper took him to the polls and refused to help him vote for McCain and instead chose Obama despite his protests).  That is as long videoclip.  Link later if wanted as I have to leave right now.

      We've had many stories of quota-anxious paid registration helpers chasing down the same person to have them register over and over again even if they said they had registered already.  One guy did it 72 times.  But Acorn is paying by the number of registrations.  No links right now but it's all easily googled.  If wanted, I can get them up later when I get back.  This kind of thing is much featured on current drudgereport.com though and if you do http://news.google.com you'll see many stories about such things in about 11 states.

      Today a tv-station in Ohio did a story on a young Obama staffer from out of state who used the residence of someone he stayed with in Ohio to register as a resident and vote while that was allowed to be on the same day.   The homeowner said he didn't know if the young guy would be back.  Ohio residency rules for voting are for longer than the 30-days quoted by an Obama staffer.  So that investigation is going on, since it was probably a strategy.

    From both ends of voting, a lot of tricks are being played because of the high stakes.

      In other words, it's not just a GOP technique.  Obama says he sometimes regrets what he had to do when knocking his opponents off the ballot so he could run unopposed, but it was his decision and it resulted in what we see today.  Alinsky, of whom Hillary was also a disciple of sorts, would approve.  Ya gotta be 'tough' -- but not only GOP folks.


    Please (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 07:33:35 PM EST
    In the context of this election, referring to Ohio voters who have a typo on their registration form as "fraudulent registrations" is a GOP argument.

    Yes, just the same as (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andrys on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 07:54:17 PM EST
    those considered invalid registrations (typos, printing) was just a way not to have 5 other people on the ballot.  That is pretty serious stuff - and just another way to make voters' registrations 'not count'  - they were 'invalidated'...

      It was perfectly valid to object to those registrations, by the way, since the law is the law and sometimes it benefits us to follow the letter of it.  But each side can be cut-throat because in all cases stakes are high, including just getting the foot in the door.


    And what (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:20:38 PM EST
    does that have to do with the GOP claim of widespread fraud?

    No, no, no (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 09:31:53 PM EST
    You're mixing apples and oranges.  What Obama did was invalidate ballot petitions, not voter registrations.

    There are detailed rules for ballot petitions in all states, and they include not allowing people to print their names, not allowing people to write other people's names, having to sign the petition with the same form of the name you're registered with, and obviously, needing to be signing with the same address you're registered at.

    Petty fraud on ballot petitions where they're required is quite common and basically pretty meaningless.  But in Chicago, apparently, as in Massachusetts where I did a lot of political work way back when, it's absolutely routine for candidates to look carefully at opponents' ballot petitions and challenge them if they don't look right.

    One tip-off is finding the name of one of your campaign staffers on an opponent's petition, or you notice the signatures on many pages are in pairs or groups of identical handwriting, where one person was encouraged to sign both for himself and other household members, etc.

    The voters don't know they're doing it wrong, but either the campaign's signature collectors haven't been told the right way to do it or they're too lazy to take the time to do it right and figure nobody will ever know.

    Challenging ballot petitions is a petty way of disposing of your less well organized opponents, whose workers take shortcuts and even sometimes just copy down names in their own handwriting from the registration lists to avoid having to actually go out and collect signatures, but it's entirely legitimate.

    Although I never heard before of somebody wiping out his entire slate of opponents that way.


    Exactly right. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by andrys on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:25:39 PM EST
    Most people wouldn't have the 'audacity' to wipe out a slate of 5 people, but since he was new, why not.

      Sorry, ballot petition signatures, yes - thanks for clarifying that.  Those were signed to indicate those voters were BACKING and WANTING someone specific to run and represent them.  

       Invalidating those sigantures for typos or printing instead of writing or a myriad of reasons is the same dynamic.  People care in either direction, and the impulse to invalidate the signatures of those who might help your opponents to actually run against you is keen in this case.  And comes from the same center -- wanting those signatures NOT to count and making sure they don't.  Wanting the other persons not to get enough -- or any -- votes...

       As I said, it's legal and it's just tough politics.  Both parties do it.  While it was often done in Chicago, it was also often NOT done, challenges like this.  It was unusual even at that time.  But it worked.  And if one wants to get ahead, it was a smart move.



    Almost (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 09:43:29 AM EST
    Ballot petition signatures do not indicate the signers want the person to represent them. Votes indicate that.  Petition signatures only indicate that the signers think the candidate should be on the ballot.

    I've signed many, many petitions for candidates I would never vote for.  A petition signature is absolutely not a pledge to vote.

    And again, if the signatures are not real signatures and are fraudulently made, they should not count.  Copying names out of the phone book or registration lists is not legitimate and does not represent actual voters.  Enticing voters to sign for their family members is not legitimate and does not represent actual voters.

    I agree that Obama's wholesale wiping out of his opponents this way is disgusting, but putting it in the same category as wholesale culling of voter lists is a false equivalence.


    Interesting. I've never signed a (none / 0) (#65)
    by andrys on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 07:05:57 AM EST
    petition for something unless I thought it was something or someone I wanted to back...

      100% true.


    Enough (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 09:58:06 PM EST
    You're just trying to change the subject.

    Sher, I realize you disagree (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andrys on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 07:50:53 PM EST
    but it's all verifiable.  The trick for living together in what Obama calls a post-partisan way which I think he hopes to focus on after winning  :-), is to not just blame "The Other" (in this case the GOP) for being the ones who would use such tactics, etc.   We're all in this, and we're all guilty.

    Not to recognize it in our own grouping is, to me, dangerous to us.


    Well, SCOTUS unanimously (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by sallywally on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:17:07 PM EST
    threw the GOP's case out today.

    The GOP is apparently now planning a state lawsuit about this.

    No, they were not fraudulent voters. Anyone who gave you that "information" was either lying or ignorant.

    Yes, the GOP, if unable to suppress these voters before the election, will certainly try to have their votes disqualified later.


    Why these really aren't fraudulent (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by SharonOhio on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:30:43 PM EST
    A real example from working at an Obama office in OH.  Young man enters office and was concerned about his registration because he married a japanese woman and took her last name.  None of his prior registration, drivers license etc match his current registration because he's in the process of changing his name.  I proposed that he walk to the board of elections (2 blocks away), reregister following their suggestions and vote at the same time so there wouldn't be any confusion.  Guaranteed, this would fall out and be considered a mismatch but he was a legitimate voter who just happened to be going through some paperwork changes.  I can imagine this happening to women who marry a lot as well.

    Second example was a student who moved from one apartment to another.  Of course his drivers license etc were all still at the old address.  Again, suggested a two block walk to sort out his registration and to vote.  

    These two people both voted during the week where you were allowed to register and vote at the same time.  Had they just showed up at the polling location, they would have been handed a provisional ballot and most likely their votes would not have counted.  This is NOT voter fraud or voter registration fraud.  These people were entitled to vote.


    And who says (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by TomStewart on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:43:14 PM EST
    they are fraudulent? Really, under what standards are you calling 200 thousand voters frauds? That's quite the thing to say (type) and maybe a little too easy for you. Smearing 200,000 people should never come easy for anybody, politics or not.

    Listen, I know you're only setting up an excuse for McCain's royal Nov 4th spanking, and I can understand you wanting to try to give the repubs whining the semblance of reality, but muddying the waters of an election and calling 200 thousand people frauds is beyond the pale. Take your political nonsense and put it where they can keep the rest of the McCain campaign company, in the nearest trash can.


    Actually, what should have been said was (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by andrys on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:28:13 PM EST
    that they were 'questionable' and needed resolving.

      They were certainly not shown to be fraudulent, just
    having mismatches.


    Throwing them off the voter rolls (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by TomStewart on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 12:19:56 AM EST
    is not resolving them, but punishing people for what is probably a DMV problem. It can't be reliably resolved before the election, and forcing a 'resolution' before the election will just be a disaster for democracy.

    Please remember that last night when someone (none / 0) (#58)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 08:49:39 AM EST
    tooted the number of voter registration frauds found, they found 28 over several hundred thousand registrations. The overwhelming ethical question is whether it is right to mess up the voting rights of the hundreds of thousands and possibly disenfranchise all or many of them to find and get the 28. Face it, Mickey Mouse, the Greenbay Packers and Darth Vader will not show up at the polls to vote. Its the others who will who are at risk.

    It's the checking that's the problem here. It can't be done on time when the Republs made sure it started as late as possible.Can the Republs get the lists of no match and send out challengers to the polls to challenge all 200,000. They will surely try.


    I wonder what Bush really thinks. Does he (none / 0) (#8)
    by Teresa on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:22:17 PM EST
    still hate McCain or does he want him to win. Would he prefer Obama winning so that they can then blame him for the coming bad times? Why do I even care what Bush thinks?

    So... (none / 0) (#32)
    by jarober on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 07:49:43 PM EST
    So if you allege registration fraud, and it amounts to a "he said/she said" thing - which is at best what the ACORN crap is - then that's intimidation?

    What color is the sky over there?

    It's not only about making sure that (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:28:11 PM EST
    voter suppression and intimidation schemes don't work on election day. Equally important is simply meeting the Republican narrative of massive Democratic voter fraud head on, so that after Obama drubs McCain by 15% or so, his victory will be accepted as untainted.

    More importantly, if the GOP commits (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 11:26:04 AM EST
    massive election fraud through electronic means, it'll be harder to prove they broke the law if people are thinking the Democrats are cheating as well.  The right wing is putting the Dem/Chicago politics voter fraud meme out there in advance, so when the election occurs the public is already confused and wary and thinking both sides might be cheating.  Public perception is key to stopping the GOP's electronic voter fraud, and it's harder to generate indignation in the electorate if people's eyes have already glazed over with previous finger pointing at our side.  

    And not just about the Presidency (none / 0) (#51)
    by Frank Burns on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 09:58:39 PM EST
    Dems have the chance of getting very close to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. It's these downticket races that can be affected, too.