The Michigan Messenger - Latest Comments in House Judiciary Committee asks attorney general for investigation of MI GOP vote suppression

Re: House Judiciary Committee asks attorney general for investigation of MI GOP vote suppression

Publiuuus — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:04:05 -0000

...and d*cks like you insult people's names.

News sources are the so-called "fourth estate." Their function is to inform and defend the rights of the citizens. Shenanigans by political parties that attempt to fraudulently manipulate the vote are certainly newsworthy.

O'Reilly starts in 5 minutes, so you better go run and make the popcorn.

Re: House Judiciary Committee asks attorney general for investigation of MI GOP vote suppression

cheneygun — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:33:20 -0000

News sources report news...activists find a new angle to hurt an opponent (on a single issue) over and over again...which are you?

still old...

Go sit in Flint and watch polls...you can come up with a laundry list of violations of actual law.

Re: House Judiciary Committee asks attorney general for investigation of MI GOP vote suppression

Publiuuus — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:41:19 -0000

Yeah, this whole thing about how the Republicans are strategizing to manipulate voter turnout, and systematically disenfranchise voters is soooo boring. Let's talk about something else. Like Palin's glasses. She's a hockey mom!

Re: House Judiciary Committee asks attorney general for investigation of MI GOP vote suppression

Rayne1 — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:00:22 -0000

It's a far less common name than John. Or Joe.

Re: House Judiciary Committee asks attorney general for investigation of MI GOP vote suppression

cheneygun — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:11:56 -0000

Blah blah...old news...what kind of name is Eartha??

Re: House Judiciary Committee asks attorney general for investigation of MI GOP vote suppression

chetlyzarko — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 03:54:58 -0000

You say:

"... though Eric Doster, attorney for the Michigan GOP did acknowledge the use of challenge lists based on returned mail."

That is not my reading of the quote. The actual quote (that you claim) was:

“I think so. I know this has been done in years past … both parties may be doing this.”

First, I don't know what was in the ellipsed portion. Second, he says "I think so", meaning he's not "acknowledged" anything but merely expressly a tenuous belief of possibility. Secondarily, and more importantly, he states he knew it was done in the past, by both parties, and doesn't say anything about when that past was which means its very possible it was done before the "consent decree" was signed. Finally, he tells you the only person with ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of challenge procedures was Kelly Harrigan, and that he didn't have those details, so he COULDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE anything.