Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Felons should never be given the right to vote!

Posted by destiny (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama's fighting hard to get these kind of votes. Really shows just what he will do to become America's first dictator!!!!!!!

Posted by harjedalen (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

depends on what the felony is! Some of them are rehabilitated and pay taxes too(no taxation without representation) and even some convicted felons have been Mississippi Sheriffs! read this article http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Martha Stewart should be allowed to vote. Her wrongdoing pales in light of recent wall street shenanagins!

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think the felon vote matters for Mississippi at present.

The only way it would really matter is if one would like to rehabilitate these people and have them become productive members of society, and who is going to try to make that happen? Mississippi government and it's citizens could NEVER do that.

Anyway, the majority of people in Mississippi will not be able to vote for anyone other than a Republican for president -- whoever he is -- probably for another 30 or 40 years. They physically cannot do it.

Polling places in this state are actually required to keep first aid supplies around in case anyone white and of southern heritage accidentally hits the Democratic candidate's button and their finger breaks off. Just kidding -- but not by much!

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe those who were convicted, served time and were later exonerated by DNA testing should be allowed to vote several times as a way of representing those who were falsely convicted and killed in the electric chair prior to availability of DNA testing.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh yeahwhatever, I have voted Democratic in recent elections, simply because I vote for the person rather than the party - as do many people I know. People in Mississippi have a lot more intelligence than you give us credit for, but I have to look at your level of understanding others, and it is very low indeed.

Posted by rattlesnake (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yeanono I have voted democrat in the past, but if I did it in this election I would cut my own fingers off.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Awwww. Gee whiz guys. What could I do to make up saying something so stupid. I could write lines.

We MUST vote for nothing but Republicans no matter what they do.

We MUST vote for nothing but Republicans no matter what they do.

We MUST vote for nothing but Republicans no matter what they do.

We MUST vote for nothing but Republicans no matter what they do.

Posted by rattlesnake (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, now you got it, finally seeing things right. Vote Mccain / palin.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's just hope they don't cause a collapse of the economy, then try to scare us about the other side to hide it.

That would be awful, and since we had to vote for them there would be nothing we could do but vote them in again.

It would be like the movie, Groundhog Day.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 7:53 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 8:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Senator Stevens "may" still be able to "serve" in the Senate according to this from the NPR website:

"A federal jury on Monday found Stevens, the Senate's longest-serving Republican, guilty of seven felony charges of lying on financial disclosure forms about gifts he received. Stevens is also trying to get re-elected to an eighth term on Nov. 4. If he wins, can Stevens stay in the Senate?

The answer, it seems, is a definite "maybe." U.S. Senate Associate Historian Donald Ritchie says that besides Stevens, only 10 other senators have been indicted while in office. Six were convicted; only one had the conviction overturned. None of the 10 was expelled by fellow senators."

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Southernwoman...do you actually think that in a Democratically controlled Congress that Senator Stevens would be able to avoid being expelled? Particularly since it would throw the race to a Democrat? Stevens should be expelled since he was found guilty, but the appellate process isn't over...they'll wait until all his appeals are exhausted...they're all thinking, "There, but for the grace of other Senators, go I"...people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd!

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see gnats flying and buzzing around this blog...anyone have any Raid?

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sam, I don't know what the required vote would be to oust him? Do you? Also, if he won re-election and was expelled, would another republican be appointed to complete the term?

I also notice that the senate has not expelled any of the other 10 convicted senators and I know the senate is bound to tradition in many ways, no doubt in large part to protect themselves.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sam, before you start talking about raid, see red's dingleberry comment above.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe, and we could probably be less lazy and Google it, that it is a required 2/3rds of the Senate...which the Dems may well have when it comes before them, but I'm like you...I don't see it happening unless he actually goes to prison because of the prevailing angst of possible retribution to themselves.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman...I've called redusmfan and other conservatives on untruthful or unseemly language several times before, but as I've pointed out before, I've never seen a liberal chasise another liberal in these blogs for the same infractions...on the contrary, there seems to be a dog pack viciousness that seems to get hold of liberals when confronted non-personally by conservatives, they can't help but attack with personal invective...have you ever been judicious and fair enough to call someone on your own side down for unfairness? I'll not continue to be unilaterally fair...I'll simply remain silent and allow their own comments to speak.

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whatever happened to Oldhippie?

He got caught in a lie and disappeared.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who caught him?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Still looks like we will have a strong showing for Democrats this election.

Ya know since I have lived longer than some dirt, I have noticed that when it comes to problem solving, southern voters seem to be in a very conservative rut.

Like when it is time for them to apply THEIR solution they do fine, but any other time we have to listen to constant grumbling and tired one-line wisdoms, because adjusting THEIR solution to the moment, or to different circumstances is out of the question. They will just wait until another circumstance comes around that fits their solution, before they lift a finger to vary. Doesn't matter if the enemy of the moment is foreign, liberals or betrayal by their own side. Doesn't matter how long they have to wait -- in the meantime they will repeat their simple one-line truths to bond with other conservatives.

I have long wondered why the ideological firmness -- even though I have come to accept that is what conservatism is all about -- never having to change what you think in the moment.

When I realized about 15 years ago that ideological laziness is the main attraction for political conservatism I really started to do better at understanding both sides. And realized that both sides are completley legitimate ways of seeing -- except one is less likely than the other to notice or want change.

Why worry with understanding how Akmadenijad thinks when you can just dismiss him as a fanatic? Why bother to hold Israel to nuclear non-proliferation when you can make an industry out of trying to hold others in the region to a different standard? Why bother to understand Obama's,or Kerry's, or Clinton's vision when you can just dismiss him as a socialist and a terrorist? Why call anyone who opposes you anything other than a socialist if that will work to get what you want?

I realized that the real slackers, the real welfare crowd in the commerce of ideas -- are political conservatives. Constantly pretending they own old ideas that everyone created but conservatives want to sell them back to us all as if they owned them -- all we have to do is give them a vote and they will let us have those ideas back. But they still want to retain proprietary rights.

Everybody who does well lives by "conservative" standards in significant ways. But not everyone feels the entitlement to pretend that one party owns those ideas -- it takes a special kind of villain to do that, and a special kind of dupe to help him.

So now we have conservatives trying to take Sarah and John, put lipstick on her and brand him a maverick -- sell her to us as a foreign policy expert -- and John as a leader maverick -- just so they will be able to sell us something to go with their constant offering that their opposition are socialists. Our reaction to the offer this time looks like -- change.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Southern woman,

I was furious when I read you comment that a former felon should be able to vote numerous times in an election to be able to represent "All those innocent people" ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE, regardless...ACORN wants many people to vote numerous times as long as it is for their candidate. THAT is why I am 100% behind voter ID at all polls no matter what the election is...I believe they need to make everyone give fingerprints on ID cards so they can be checked to make sure they are not voting in different polls all around town.

This is why I called you that name last night. Get your head out of the darkness and make sure people only vote 1 time....regardless...and convicted felons follow the rules that apply in Mississippi, period......

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Redusmfan has done it again and shown how low a bar he sets for himself.

Everyone who has looked knows that the ACORN flap is a pretend problem. ACORN registers voters and MUST BY LAW turn in every single application -- the voter agnecies determine who is real and who is bogus -- they demand to be the only ones to determine that. That DOES NOT amount to "wanting people to vote numerous times".

In fact ACORN has helped to weed out registration fraud and reported people engaged in it -- I bet redusmfan has never found a way to help that much himself.

The real voting problem -- unfairly purging voters who are still residents but may have moved to another address or otherwise cannot answer the mail queries -- THAT appears to disenfranchise thousands of people FOR REAL. He is silent on that while the GOP pushes it as a practice to reduce fraud -- yet it provably disenfranchises people far more than the situation it purports to remedy.

Something has made him whine about a pretend threat but not whine about a real one. I think if you look at who creates the respective problems and which side he supports, the truth of why he does what he does is obvious. The only question is if he realizes why he takes the position he does and is silent when he is silent.

Southernwoman's suggestion that someone should vote multiple times to make up for the disenfranchised is a fair and reasonable -- though unworkable -- idea for anyone who cares about those disenfranchised. I think she offered it as a rhetorical statement, unworkable as suggested, but entirely justified in it's sentiment. Evidently redusmfan missed that, too.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

yeah duh huh,

You need to turn on your TV today and see the latest investigation into ACORN. They are being investigated AGAIN for voter fraud. Open your eyes, as soon as you get them out of your rectum......

The reason I am silent when I have been lately is simple I HAVE BEEN OUT ON THE JOBSITES MAKING SURE EVERYTHING IS DONE PROPERLY AND BY THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SO I CAN PAY MY HELP. Today I am here doing the paperwork that is necessary to get monthly bills paid in a few days.

What about you? Been to work lately? Try making sure everything is done properly and taxes are paid and equipment is working and ....on and on when you own your own business......try it a==hole.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't take issue with you being away red. I take issue with what you complain about. And FYI, I work every day at this computer and the shop across the street.

There is significant proof that voter purges disenfranchise -- yet actual voting fraud from ACORN's registration effort not only has not been proved, it is not economically feasible. Unless you can get Mickey Mouse to go to the polls for that one super-valuable vote, or figure you can have the same person running around town all day long to the same or different voting places -- and it is almost never worth that -- and someone could not choose which districts that would work in until late in the election -- that sort of fraud is impractical in almost every precinct.

However, making sure there are application irregularities then screaming foul at ACORN would be a very easy fraud to perpetrate-- and entirely worth doing as long as people like you exist to parrot the charge -- think about what you are saying on this one. The only practical fraud to try is the one YOU are involved in on ACORN -- a public relations fraud to make voters prejudiced against the organization for partisan reasons.

What have they got on ACORN, today? Spell it out. Just like you work and pay attention to specifics on your job, the folks at ACORN do the same. But you want to slur them with no real point -- the reason ACORN is a talking point is that it is pushed by people who know folks like you will assume guilt -- and repeat the charge-- but will not look into it yourself.

I own my own business, red. Chill your pottymouth.

Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, Why do you defend ACORN so much? Do you work for them?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The ACORN flap is essentially a lie that is used by a political party to subvert the political process through innuendo.

This is enacted by folks who have been paid employees of the GOP for many years, with ties to Abramoff and Rove, and they have for years pushed the ACORN flap as a way to confuse people and help turn votes based on misinformation and to justify purging of the voter rolls that actually is far worse for the voting process than anything ACORN ever did.

If you look up the history of ACORN and actions against them you will find it is used in a Karl Rove style misinformation campaign, promoted by Republican officials and operatives posing as non-partisan civic groups.

The type of fraud accused makes no sense at all as a means to actual voting fraud, when you examine the charges, but putting in the energy to slur the organization and try to tie politicians to it is easy and efficient as a means of confusing voters and slurring Democrats. The perpetrators of this fraud know that many people would rather believe a simple lie than check out the story and see who is really perpetrating a fraud. It is the votes of these voters that the GOP seeks through this effort.

I challenge all of you to examine the record on ACORN and see how easily people can be misled. If you are the type of person who dislikes signing up poor people to vote, then you are 10 times more likely to believe the untruths spread about ACORN and not check out the record. Rove and the bunch at the GOP know this and use this calculated method to give you something to complain about during elections and a reason to mistrust Democrats.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So those FBI raids in all those states in all those ACORN offices are just part of some Republican conspiracy. As the polls tighten, you keep telling yourself that. The liberal propensity for self-delusion is alive and well.

Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't understand why we poor people need someone like ACORN to get us off our rumps and register to vote. Your not very civic minded if you are of voting age and haven't figured out how to register. It is made very simple. The circuit clerk will assist you and walk you through it if you do not understand something.
When an organization starts pushing something as apparently as they have in the 11th hour it does make you suspect. If they had done this two years ago where the officials had more time to examine the applications then us poor folks may have more confidence that it is being done above board. When you flood any system in a very short period of time it is more dificult to cull the dishonest. I do not believe anyone wants to deny an American citizen their right to vote we just don't want to grant that right to illegals or figure out a way to allow someone more than one vote.
Before you get upset, I am not accusing ACORN of anything. I am just pointing out my views as to why I would not trust what they are doing because of their actions.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spell it out kmbjd. I'm going to show you how misinformation is created.

Googling your claim, nearly all the sites that mention the raids in Nevada (where FBI was not present) and NC action (cited as a fishing expedition) -- are blog sites, user generated talk sites, or outright GOP hack sites.

AP claims they were only ..."looking for evidence of voter fraud"..... and that in Nevada it was not the FBI that raided, and no charges were filed.

Washington Post says......ACORN officials said they were stunned by the search because they had unilaterally identified and flagged suspicious voter registration cards to the county elections board starting in July and had been cooperating with authorities to cull bad information and fire workers who collected that information, said Brian Mellor, senior counsel for Project Vote......

......ACORN's internal checks, Mellor said, included tracking forms assigned to canvassers using serial numbers and worker sign-offs on each form and following up with listed voters by phone to verify they had taken part in the registration drive. The search warrant mentions those procedures.....

...."The federal agents were not part of Tuesday's search, Walsh said."

The only place where a suit has been brought alleges that ACORN should have violated the law that says they must submit all of the forms they receive in order to satisfy a general law against fraud by reporting the violation directly to police instead of submitting them to the voter board and letting the board report it to the police. In other words -- Bull Hockey. A stupid matter of opinion not recommended as proper procedure by counsel -- but that Republicans want to bring up just before the election.

You find something more substantial if it is out there.

This is the sort of thing that Republicans fired the US attorneys for -- making complaints that were to be executed before the election last time in order to look bad -- then firing them when they did not comply. That is from the TOP sport, not some low-level GOP nut like the folks on this board.

Nothing to it so far with ACORN -- but listening to folks like you -- you are convinced. The primary charge in Nevada is they (ACORN) attempted to overwhelm voter registration personnel so that -- well the actual dynamics of how the actual vote fraud was to work are not very clear -- they were ostensibly going to get Mickey Mouse and friends to go around to a bunch of places to vote one vote at a time-- yet there is no evidence of that at all. Zip.

Posted by rattlesnake (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yeanono I am glad to see that you are stuck in the twilight zone with odamy, or is it the land of OZ.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spanky, ACORN has been operating like this for years. This is not a new situation at all. The history of ACORN and the things Republicans did last election relative to ACORN are important to see if you want to understand what is happening in this election.

The GOP forces are the ones that intensify the attacks at the 11th hour just as much as ACORN wants to get those applications that are good in before the elections deadline. If the GOP didn't like what they were doing they should have stopped them long before the election -- but ACORN is too valuable as a link to Democrats for them to do that at any other than election time.

Are you suggesting that voter registration drives should not be intensified close to election time, when people rightly are keen on such matters? It would be much better for voter boards to go to WORKFORCE so they can satisfy the law.

If I was a GOP operative I would intentionally make sure ACORN had a bunch of bad applications I knew they would have to submit -- then I would make a national fuss about it. That would be far more affordable and effective at fraudulent manipulation than any possible vote fraud ACORN could use these registrations for.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is from the AP, part of the public relations department of the Obama campaign, along with CNN, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, USA today, Reuters... There's too many to list.

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition...

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry,

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition...

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah duh huh,

From now on, I will call you scarecrow. Your new name is Scarecrow, because you remind me of the scarecrow dancing around in the wizard of oz saying.....

" If I only had a brain"....

Have a great evening Scarecrow.

Posted by marinefrmntz (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Palin!!! with her education?? hahahha what a joke.. Palin a joke.. yall seen the folks at the rallies on Youtube.. i coulda swore they were in natchez/

you cant tell me they not in Ntachez in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXC...

Posted by ProNatchez (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Senator Stevens was found guilty and should not be allowed to run for re-election. This is my opinion. I don't care what party he was with.

As far as felons being allowed to vote, I say "NEVER!" I don't care what color, creed, nationality, or political party they belong to. I don't care if they are male, female, skinny, fat, working, non-working, literate, illiterate, live, dead, enabled or disabled. If you are a felon, you should not be allowed to vote. Period. No ifs, and or buts.

And when it come to pets, I don't care whether they have been spayed or neutered, or not.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's just a slur kndjb -- I know it's hard for you to accept what lies it takes to get a 38% party elected and that you could cheer them on and be such a parrot.

Even the link you cited has Justice Department agents breaking procedure -- and perhaps the law -- in order to pass innuendo and cast suspicion on ACORN:

"A senior law enforcement official confirmed the investigation to The Associated Press. A second senior law enforcement official says the FBI was looking at results of inquiries in several states, including a raid on ACORN's office in Las Vegas, for any evidence of a coordinated national effort.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Justice Department regulations forbid discussing ongoing investigations particularly so close to an election."

Like I said -- they are looking over Republican complaints and do not have a case. That is all your article said and it confirms my message.

Even the witnesses said they should not be talking about it this close to an election -- aka the Good Cop/Bad Cop mentality giving us that "secret" information. I know you are smart enough to notice even that is EXACTLY what I said it was.

Watch -- there will be no prosecutions of ACORN just as there have never been every time an election comes around and their work is questioned.

ACORN is too valuable as a slur machine for the GOP to use to intimidate voters and cause a doubt in people's minds. They don't want ACORN to stop what they are doing.

Mark my words. Good ol Yeahuhuh -- more honest than you, your party's standard bearer, and the entire GOP-- more honest than political conservatism. That's your next lesson -- even your ideology has few spokespeople who can be honest about anything other than what they wish was true -- but they leave out the part where it is just their wishes they describe.

And Sarah Palin is the new voice of conservatism and the GOP. A new era of honesty and competence. Hahahahahahah! I love it.

Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We've all read a lot about the "politicization" of the Justice Department in recent years, and that political pounding is having an ironic effect. The prosecutors who are supposed to guard against voter fraud don't seem very interested in running the political risk of doing their job.
If voter fraud would ever be ripe for investigation, this would seem to be the year with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) having been caught filing thousands of bogus voter registrations in at least 14 states. Acorn's history of deceit and the national sweep of today's scandal demand a federal probe. Safeguarding the integrity of the vote is every bit as important as protecting access to the polls, yet Democrats want Justice to pay attention only to the latter.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers recently sent two letters to Attorney General Michael Mukasey deploring a news leak that the FBI is investigating Acorn, and warning Justice to focus instead on "voter suppression." Barack Obama has also joined in this political intimidation, demanding in two letters that Mr. Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Justice staff who he claims are engaged in "unlawful coordination" with John McCain's campaign to pursue "so-called 'election fraud.'" There is zero evidence that such coordination exists, but it is remarkable that a Presidential nominee would dismiss election fraud as a myth.

Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The lawyers at the Civil Rights Division are already falling into line. Justice recently decided to reverse a policy in place since 2002 to send criminal attorneys and other federal employees to monitor polling places. The decision came two weeks after a September meeting to which the Civil Rights Division invited dozens of left-wing activist groups to discuss voter "access" to the polls.
Justice has also failed to enter the fray in Ohio. As many as 200,000 new voter registrations in that state are suspect, yet Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is refusing to follow the 2002 Help America Vote Act that requires her to verify these registrations. The Ohio Republican Party sued Mrs. Brunner, but the Supreme Court said the GOP lacked standing. Justice does have standing -- it is charged with upholding that law -- but has ignored the fight. The Justice excuse is that it isn't appropriate to file litigation so close to Election Day.
Yet that hasn't stopped the Civil Rights Division this month from filing a lawsuit against Waller County, Texas, to correct alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act; a lawsuit against Vermont for failing to report accurately on overseas ballots; and an amicus brief in a case filed by a civil-rights group that is suing to stop the Georgia Secretary of State from complying with voter verification rules. Justice's election suits always seem to side with liberal priorities.
It doesn't help Justice's credibility that attorneys charged with supervising voting issues are avowed Barack Obama supporters. According to Federal Election Commission data, James Walsh, an attorney in the Civil Rights Division, has donated at least $300 to Mr. Obama. His boss, Mark Kappelhoff, has given $2,250 -- nearly the maximum. John Russ, also in Civil Rights, gave at least $600 to Mr. Obama.

Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to make these attorneys available to us, though she didn't deny that the contributions were made. She noted that the Hatch Act does not forbid federal employees from donating to candidates, and that Justice's internal "standards for recusal" on prosecutions depend on any "given situation." Apparently so.
Vote fraud is real and can affect elections. In 2001, the Palm Beach Post reported that more than 5,600 people who voted in Florida in the 2000 Presidential election had names and data that perfectly matched a statewide list of suspected felons who were barred from voting. Florida was decided by about 500 votes.
In 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court overturned the result of a mayor's race because of absentee ballot fraud -- a case that led to a stricter Indiana ID law recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. A 2005 Tennessee state Senate race was voided after evidence of voting by felons, nonresidents and the deceased. A Washington State Superior Court judge found that the state's 2004 gubernatorial race, which Democrat Christine Gregoire won by 133 votes, had included at least 1,678 illegal votes.
Voter access does need to be protected, but Democrats are using that principle as a political weapon, suggesting that any serious look at fraud is intended to "disenfranchise" voters. This is a naked attempt to protect their friends at Acorn, who have been registering thousands of phony voters. Congress put the voter fraud statutes on the books, and Justice is obliged to enforce them.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

spanky, are those your words in the post above - are you writing for the WSJ now?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The first thing people should not do is allow themselves to restrict their reading to sites they know are hopelessly biased.

That is one thing that constantly amazes me -- with a big fine internet to choose from people just seem to like to read what their buddies say to each other and treat that as fact.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/...

Further, most of the voter fraud efforts laid down by the GOP have provably eliminated more good voters than bad voters.

As far as duplicate registrations, Mickey Mouse registrations, dead people, etc -- there are very few cases where those have been part of voter fraud, rather they are usually either bad bookkeeping or bad apples being paid to register voters that will never vote.

If our rolls were purged right now I would probably be purged because my voter registration is not at my current address. There are many millions in my situation -- just haven't corrected the situation -- but I am still a legal voter.

The real voter fraud is voter list purging based on address currentness -- a GOP favorite. The other vote fraud accusations are minimal.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's an excerpt from an news report in the Houston Chronicle about the Waller County, TX voter registration rejections - the consent decree sounds fair to me.

By CINDY GEORGE
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Oct. 23, 2008, 11:06PM
For the next four years, Waller County officials must justify all rejected voter registrations to the U.S. Justice Department and report every voter application received during registration drives at Prairie View A&M University, a three-judge panel has ruled.

The order also means that the county must submit twice-yearly reports about its voter registration process.

Waller County has been criticized for thwarting registration efforts by students at PVAMU, a historically black college, and has faced numerous lawsuits over the last 30 years related to student voting rights.

The county also had been under investigation by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's office.

The judges ordered county officials to reprocess voter registrations rejected since 2007.

Under the order, any rejected applicant who meets state elections requirements and is not registered elsewhere will be eligible to vote in the Nov. 4 general election. The county also must work with the Texas elections director to develop a voluntary deputy registrar training program and coordinate with the PVAMU president to hold twice-yearly training sessions for students.

The panel also told the county to hold voter registration drives at the campus student center.

Earlier this month, Justice Department officials sued Waller County in Houston federal court in an effort to enforce anti-discrimination provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The case alleged multiple voting and civil rights violations.

The suit against the county and Waller County Registrar Ellen C. Shelburne was settled with a consent decree.

In the court-approved agreement, Waller County officials acknowledged rejecting voter registration applications — mostly from PVAMU students — through new practices instituted in 2007 without permission from federal authorities. According to the consent decree, county officials rejected applications without a ZIP code and applications that weren't filed on the most current voter registration form.

Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To southernwoman:
No I do not wright for the WSJ but that is where that came from. In my haste I forgot to give them credit.
Thanks

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

spanky, I believe you and I have more in common with the justice department officials and the people whose voting rights they are working to protect than we do with the people who work for the WSJ and Fox news, who have the same ownership.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WAS CAMPAIGNING AGAINST VOTER FRAUD A REPUBLICAN PLOY?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/130/story/175...

Decent article that mentions how suits were filed against ACORN a few days before the 2006 elections and other elements of Karl Rove's plan to mimimize minority voting through slur and innunedo.

Don't just believe what they say -- check it out.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I see scarecrow is still at it....lol...

Posted by fatherof4 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 12:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What is real silly, is they (felonies) can run for senators job. The ones who makes these laws.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Great point fatherof4.

I am amazed at law-and-order conservatives.

They hate government and say it screws up everything it touches, yet when the legislature deems some thing against the law, conservatives are ready to nail folks to the wall for being lawbreakers. Now Ted Stevens, after making people criminals with a variety of "bad" laws, can still be a senator. Go figure.

If someone has paid their debt to society they should get to vote -- I am sorry, but that is only right. While they are in jail maybe not.

Posted by Swapmeet (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I understand that most people believe there is a right to vote. I thought the same thing for years. If you look at Gore v. Bush (2000), the majority of the Supreme Court ruled that "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States" (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000). It kind of floored me at first, but if you really look at it objectively, the constitution only states that a voter can not be discrimated against because of gender, race, and age.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good point swapmeet....

Posted by Swapmeet (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks red.