home

Republicans: Lose Your House, Lose Your Vote

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:20:22 PM EST
Tags: John McCain, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Republicans are leaving no dirty stone unturned in their attempt to win in November.

The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP’s effort to challenge some voters on Election Day.

“We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger in a telephone interview earlier this week. He said the local party wanted to make sure that proper electoral procedures were followed.

There are no words for how low they will sink.

< Late Night: Matt Damon on President Palin | Thursday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Republicans: Lose Your House, Lose Your Vote | 45 comments (45 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This should be an ad (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by dailygrind on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:24:02 PM EST


    G Davis (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by G Davis on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:33:47 PM EST
    What surprises me most is I'm not surprised by this at all.  My dad is flipping in his grave at what they've done to his Grand Old Party.

    These sorts of things should also ensure that anyone who's not wholly or even partly behind Obama should muster their anger to work against this party.

    Parent

    I doubt it (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by dailygrind on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:51:45 PM EST
    There is a lot of rationaliztion going on regarding McCain/Palin. I talked to a friend tonight , and he has some friends considering voting for them. Basically they are saying to themselves, like some voters did in 2000, "they really aren't all that bad. They are just trying to win the race."

    I pointed out to this friend (sorry to go OT) that what this is again folks not understanding the national GOP. Whatever McCain maybe in their projection of "maverick" that person isn't the person who will govern. THe modern GOP campaigns on character, and governs as if we are in a parlimentary system of Eur in that they get their entire party to act lock step in narrow interests set up by the party, not just the candidate.

    Here's my thing- I tell people to look at who is bringing McCain to the game. Why did he have to pick Palin (on the Christian right side)? That tells us to whom McCain must serve and which interests he must serve in the GOP.

    I also tell them to look at his advisors. Of the 100 plus advisors- only 6 are women or at least that was the case a week or two ago.

    Anyway there are other things I can say. The main thrust that I am getting at is that given all this, Palin's extremist which people also rationalize, etc-- I doubt it will be easy even knowing this. They will simply rationalize it. YOu can see thathere with some of the posters.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#7)
    by G Davis on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:19:01 AM EST
    Certainly it won't be a cakewalk, but none of it has been so far.  Did you convince your friends?  That's how this race will be won.

    Parent
    It was another frined conveying what his friends (none / 0) (#8)
    by dailygrind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:25:45 AM EST
    said. I provided him with arguments. I mentioned the women's rights stuff- ie, Palin saying she's against choice even inthe case of rape or incest, her not providing funding for rape kits, McCain's position on abortion, his position on equal pay for women, etc. Then I told him to frame it as a character issue rather than a discussion of issues- ie, can you trust them with hyour rights? do you want to take that chance after the last  8 years? I tried to frame it as playing a game of russian roulette.

    Parent
    ha (none / 0) (#43)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:31:20 PM EST
    If Americans overwhelmingly dislike the current course and yet vote for a 72 yo man who supported that course 90% of the time, who refuses to engage on the issues and who admits he doesnt understand much about economics...

    They will deserve the government they elect.

    Parent

    IMO, maybe Obama should not be the first (none / 0) (#21)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:10:51 AM EST
    to go after this. I think it's SO BIG that it needs to be approached with exquisite care.

    The issue needs to be addressed first by an authoritative entity that deals with public policy: like NYU Law School's BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE. They've addressed voting issues in recent elections. The Center's mission states that it is:

    "dedicated to strengthening democracy and securing justice, through law, scholarship, education and advocacy."
     

    Of course, it would help if the issue also went VIRAL in the blogosphere.

    In the meantime, it would be unseemly to look like we view this obscenely unseemly thing as any kind of gift. In terms of how it gets perceived, this must be presented as an effort to strike a great blow for socio-political justice rather than a blow for our own political gain.

    That being said, the Dems should absolutely seize the issue once it has been properly framed by non-politicians.

    I'm taking care to temper my own terms and tone (speaking for me only).  

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#35)
    by dailygrind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:18:24 AM EST
    This needs to be an ad,a nd Obama and DNC needs to put it out now. IMO, you are intellectualizing this. I am speaking of viscerally this is wrong. It doesn't need to be studied or understood. It hurts the GOP. It's  like the lip stick on a pig debate- I maybe wrong, but I think that discussion ultimately makes the GOP look foolish the longer it goes on. Likewise here, there are somethings that are just so simple that the American people will understand it almost instantly. That's the problem the GOp faces here. Keep it simple.

    Parent
    I'm not suggesting that we (none / 0) (#48)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:11:21 PM EST
    complicate the issue. Just that it be rolled out by a reputable non-political entity that operates in the public interest. It has to be done in a formal and thoughtful manner.

    We DON'T want a repeat of the lipstick/pig/stinking fish fiasco. So, let Obama hold off until the issue builds critical mass and gravitas.

    Parent

    If I'm Barack Obama (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:32:32 PM EST
    I tear up the stump speech tomorrow and just talk about this scummy Republican plan over and over again.  It needs to be stopped, and it's political dynamite.

    yup (none / 0) (#45)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:34:02 PM EST
    Its a case of silver bullets being offered to Obama.  If only he picks it up.

    He needs to be "Mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore" on this and some select other issues. It will resonate.

    Parent

    It is a "case of silver bullets"... (none / 0) (#49)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:17:59 PM EST
    But, the guns and ammo shouldn't be primarily entrusted to Obama. AND, it's way too late for him to assume a whole different "mad as hell" political persona. The whole campaign strategy has been for him to AVOID coming across as an angry black man (their words not mine).

    Parent
    This is an utter(sp) disgrace. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jbradshaw4hillary on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:33:28 PM EST
    This is just wrong, and should be illegal.  This is pure an simple voter discrimination based on fincial situation, that can effect how one votes.  This is just utter disgusting.

    on a purley political point this would make a great add for the whole US this is real and should be brought up not this bs about lipstick and pigs.  

    This is the reason we don't invite the (none / 0) (#9)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:39:19 AM EST
    thugs into our party until the rats are cleaned out. As John Dean has said, don't vote Republican for at least 10 years.  This bunch must be crushed.

    Parent
    Change of address is required in (none / 0) (#38)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:37:06 AM EST
    my state. It doesn't mean you are no longer registered to vote, it just means you need to vote from inside the correct district with your current address.

    Is the entire story being told here? The risk of not checking those addresses is that some people could vote twice, I would think.


    Parent

    Holy (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:34:47 PM EST
    Fing, Shiiii.

    You can't make this stuff up. And people still don't get when I say I'm not a democrat. I'm an anti-republican.

    Ugh (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by chrisvee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:25:02 AM EST
    This is absolutely terrible. First create the conditions in which people lose their homes, then take away their voice to address those conditions.

    Disgusting. This is the stuff that we should be hearing about tomorrow, not lipstick.

    Well, I'm not surprised (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:44:38 AM EST
    that the Republican Party is taking these steps due to all of the reported shenanigans that the Obama camp pulled during the primary.   I am really concerned about voter fraud - and I hope the Republicans stay on top of things.

    Troll. (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:12:14 AM EST


    Parent
    I agree with you Drewski. (none / 0) (#13)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:54:30 AM EST
    The sooner that people stop operating from the Republicans are evil or the Democrats are evil standpoint the sooner we can move forward and actually solve problems.  I don't know why anybody would want to think that only one party or the other has elements of corruption when we know that is simply not true.

    Heh (none / 0) (#47)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:57:02 PM EST
    I'm sure both sides have been corrupt in the past, but the GOP is so much better at it now.  (Ohio, FL in 2004)

    I hope they have to resort to electronic election fraud this year because many people might actually revolt over it.  (Non-violent protests and legal challenges would be best, of course.)

    Parent

    Hillary was a teen in Chicago (none / 0) (#14)
    by Prabhata on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:56:16 AM EST
    and volunteered to audit the vote in Chicago in  the 1960 JFK win.  She found people had voted with addresses that were empty lots. The Republicans must have learned from the Democrats or maybe both parties engage in fraud.  After witnessing the roll call at the DNC convention, I can't get excited about fraud. It's the way politics is played.

    If I remember correctly, Kennedy didn't need (none / 0) (#28)
    by magnetics on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:44:52 AM EST
    Illinois to win.

    Republicans have screamed about voter fraud for years, but not shown it convincingly.  I lived in Chicago for 6 years, and have no doubt that the elections were flaky there, as reported here and elsewhere -- but, the accumulated evidence of stolen elections weighs much more heavily on Rethugs than on Dems.  Florida was stolen in 2000; the recounts (when finally accomplished after the fact) proved it.  But that was post 9-11 and no one paid attention.

    Just sayin'.

    Parent

    Whether Kennedy Needed Illinois... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Strick on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:32:42 AM EST
    wasn't known before the election.  Why take chances?  Remember, Kennedy only won by 113,000 votes nationwide.

    Conventional wisdom is that the Daley machine stole Illinois and LBJ rigged Texas.  It wouldn't have been the first time in either case.

    Parent

    Is this really new? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Grace on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:57:12 AM EST
    As far as I know, you aren't allowed to vote if you don't live in a specific area.  They usually check this by mailing the voting materials to your house and, if you don't get them there, they do not forward them.  In fact, the postal workers won't drop them off at empty houses and they do not forward them to P.O. Boxes.  (You cannot register to vote using a P.O. Box as your address.)

    We had this problem the last time we moved.  Even though we were still in the area and had a P.O. Box, we never got the voting materials.

    If you lose your house to foreclosure, you simply have to reregister wherever it is you end up living.  If you move to an apartment or another house, you register there.  If you move to a homeless shelter, you register there.    

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:03:23 AM EST
    I am unaware of any prior instances of voters being challenged en masse based merely on their having received a foreclosure notice.

    If you think the GOP is doing this because they are civic-minded and simply want to make sure people correctly vote in the next town over, I disagree with you.  This is an attempt to stop people from voting.

    Parent

    Do they still have time to register? (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:06:11 AM EST
    If so, seems to me the Republicans jumped the gun. Here, an ad like that wouldn't be effective until 24 days before the election. But if the people still have time to register, Obama should jump on it. He has a ground team there, right?

    Parent
    The story doesn't say (none / 0) (#22)
    by Grace on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:27:30 AM EST
    "received a foreclosure notice."  It says "foreclosed homes."  

    Your home hasn't actually been foreclosed on until it is officially taken over by the bank.  In 99.999999999% of the cases, you are forced to move once your house is foreclosed on because you no longer own it.    

    Some people receive foreclosure notices a zillion times without the home ever going through foreclosure.  You can stop a foreclosure right up to the minute they auction it off (if they auction it) or the sheriff evicts you simply by paying up what you owe.  

    Parent

    Just to clarify (none / 0) (#23)
    by Grace on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:29:22 AM EST
    once you receive a foreclosure notice, you are in pre-forecosure.  There is a long process after that before the home actually becomes "foreclosed property."  

    Parent
    That's incorrect (none / 0) (#24)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:44:15 AM EST
    "You can't challenge people without a factual basis for doing so," said J. Gerald Hebert, a former voting rights litigator for the U.S. Justice Department who now runs the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington D.C.-based public-interest law firm. "I don't think a foreclosure notice is sufficient basis for a challenge, because people often remain in their homes after foreclosure begins and sometimes are able to negotiate and refinance."

    We are not talking about challenging people who have moved.  We are talking about challenging people who have received a foreclosure notice because that means they might have ended up moving.

    And you know what, if the Republicans really want to try and knock out the votes of legally registered voters because they failed to reregister at a new address following a foreclosure on the eve of the election, then they can face the political consequences for that cold-hearted practice, as far as I'm concerned.  Maybe you'll be standing there cheering them on as they strive to enforce every last detail of the voting regulations against people who have lost their homes, but I doubt the majority of voters will be right there with you.

    Parent

    I just Googled (none / 0) (#25)
    by Grace on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:58:47 AM EST
    "voters" and "foreclosures" and found a lot of stories that have been run in the past about this, especially in Ohio.  

    In my business, I deal with foreclosures and abandoned property and until someone is formally foreclosed on (through the courts) and evicted (also done through the courts) it's possible they could still live in the house.  

    I'm sure the Foreclosure lists they are using are the ones of bank owned homes where everything has gone through the courts -- Otherwise, it just doesn't make sense.  It would be like withholding a ballot from a renter who didn't pay on the first of the month.

    A mere "foreclosure notice" is not enough to deny someone the right to vote.  There is a long process that comes after receiving your first foreclosure notice and most people stay in the home for six months to a year.        

    Parent

    Not the point (none / 0) (#27)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:25:04 AM EST
    No bit it might be enough to challenge and intimdate-- actually pushing the voter off the rolls isn't really the point

    Parent
    Fun property scam (none / 0) (#29)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:58:36 AM EST
    In order to avoid actually being responsible for a property, financial institutions will delay filing the paperwork for transfer of ownership UNTIL they have a buyer for the property.

    So instead of the ownership/responsibility for the property going:

    Previous Owner => Financial Institution => Next Owner

    It goes something like this

    Previous Owner => No Owner On File => Next Owner

    How long can no owner be on file?  Years.  Years while the property taxes go unpaid.  Years while the property is neglected.

    It's a legal dodge in that there's nothing technically illegal about it, but it screws over cities and neighborhoods when it happens.

    Just goes to show you that doing something like buying or selling a property isn't as simple as it seems.  

    Parent

    Question (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:00:44 AM EST
    Since I've been voting at the same location with the same address for the past 16yrs, what are the rules on adresses and registration? Do they need to re-register from their new location if they are in the same district? If so, shouldn't Obama put together a quickie ad and get some people on the ground to reg those voters?

    Registration Rules In Macomb County Michigan (none / 0) (#53)
    by daring grace on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:11:29 PM EST
    Taken from Macomb County, Michigan County Clerk's Election Department web site

    "Is my voter registration permanent?

    Yes, however, you must reregister if you move from one community to another."

    I wonder if that's misleading. In my upstate New York community, you need to notify them if you move, because it could mean your voting site will change.

    Every year before primaries and the GE, the Board of Elections sends out postcards which the Post Office is supposed to return to them if you're no longer at the address.

    But the deadline for registering for the GE is Oct. 6 so if there is going to be something funny going on here perhaps the Obama campaign and local Dems can find and alert anyone affected by this and make sure they're properly registered.

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:04:34 AM EST
    you could cite us to a few of these "reported" instances of voter fraud.  Preferably something that happened more recently than 50 years ago, if I may be so bold.

    The primaries? (none / 0) (#20)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:07:52 AM EST
    /snark

    sorry, couldn't resist!

    Parent

    Right on. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:20:53 AM EST
    Exactly  every single study I've ever read on the phenomena states that these sorts of measures take out far more legit voters tahn they catch in fraudulent ones.

    Parent
    yeah, the idea (none / 0) (#30)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:18:26 AM EST
    here isn't to actually dump people off the rolls, but convince them they might be committing a criminal act, punishable by jail, if they vote. i suspect that, for the average person, that would be sufficient to keep them home on nov. 4th.

    sorry hilaryisbest, republicans are evil, proven on a daily basis.

    The sooner that people stop operating from the Republicans are evil or the Democrats are evil standpoint the sooner we can move forward and actually solve problems.

    the only way to solve problems is to get rid of every single republican, in the world, starting at the top. send them all to the dry tortugas. tell them it's a private, exclusive, white christian tropical resort. they'll flock to it.

    it's the only way to be sure.

    What I find interesting (none / 0) (#34)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:22:36 AM EST
    Is that none of the Michigan papers are reporting it.  Even the liberal Detroit Free Press.  And The Macomb Daily has nothing in it as well.

    Well (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:54:36 AM EST
    This website seems to have done some original reporting on the story, so I think we should wait a couple days to see if the larger papers do anything with it.

    Parent
    "This" meaning TL? How do you know that? (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    This website seems to have done some original reporting on the story


    Parent
    "This website" (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:34:43 PM EST
    meaning the Michigan Messenger, not TL.

    The MM is certainly not an impartial "news" organization

    As a coalition of long-time progressive bloggers, freelance writers and professional journalists, our aim is to enhance and expand the political dialog in Michigan.
    but if the story's real and accurate, it's real and accurate.

    Parent
    Mr. Carabelli is listed as having two addresses* (none / 0) (#36)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:42:00 AM EST
    One wonders which he'll try to vote from, or maybe he'll go for both.

    * Per public databases, searching for people in Michigan with his name.  The two listings are in the same town.

    well (none / 0) (#46)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:39:43 PM EST
    Obama needs to stand up and say, "John McCain has become everything he hated about George Bush and Karl Rove in the 2000 election. George Bush beat the pants off him with dirty politics and so John McCain learned a thing or two.  He dismantled his old "straight talk express", hired the Bush team, and started slinging mud.  John McCain has completed his journey to become George Bush. He's changed alright, he's changed into George Bush."

    Republicans: Lose Your House, Lose Your Vote | 45 comments (45 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment