Community Page
- michiganmessenger.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Tea bag protests, LOL. I like that. I think we should do a straight up <a href="http://www.oceanoftea.com">tea</a> party with real tea!
- I keep re-reading this in hopes of coming to a different conclusion, but I keep going back to my first verdict: This group is using evil outsiders and their dastardly wiles to deflect criticism of...
- Unfortunately, the <a href=http://cynicalsynapse.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/michigans-troopergate/>trooper layoffs are a political grandstanding</a> move by the Governor and the <a...
- How has nobody raised concern when people are losing their houses, and McCains headquarters are being funded by the people taking them away. I blame this housing crisis on McCain. I am so glad he...
- I agree up to some extent on this.
Jump to original thread »
Michigan Republicans plan to foreclose African American voters
... Continue reading »
9 months ago
First, this whole "Republicans are trying to intimidate black or poor voters" is part of a 30-year old "script" we hear in every election. Does that mean the author, Ms. Melzer, is part of a "conspiracy"? No, absolutely not. She's investigating leads based on a script she's been conditioned to accept. Does it mean that Republicans are completely guiltless throughout time and space? No, certainly there have been "incidents" where overactive individual partisans thought they were helping the cause and probably became too zealous (I'd note that those incidents occur on the left too, with different types of "voter fraud," as the historically-infamous political machines of Chicago, LBJ, and even here in Detroit often prove). Here, we know part of Ms. Melzer's "script" came from the July 6 Columbus Dispatch, which she misquotes. That's a human error, as would be asking "leading questions" (Carabelli in his Beckman interview claims), so Carabelli's story that he didn't say it the way Melzer said he did is plausible. I have a hard time believing Melzer would "fabricate" the quote out of whole cloth a la Jayson Blair, but its not a hard step to take to believe that she'd ask a leading question, get an ambiguous answer, and take the notes down wrong in some way.
Ms. Melzer interviewed me twice on this subject while I was in Arizona (by phone) during the course of this story, trying to find out if I knew of some "foreclosure list". I told her I was unaware of such a list, although I wasn't in "the loop" for such things, I do deal with voter information regularly and that it struck me as unlikely, and frankly not very valuable if it was the plan, that Republicans would use foreclosure lists. Not valuable because such lists aren't accurate as to whether the voter is in the home, or even if not in the home legally entitled to vote (a recent foreclosure would not necessarily change the residence as Hebert points out). We agreed that "returned mail" would be more valuable and easier to list, although I don't know that the Party uses it since I don't the Republican Party. I spoke of Democrat list broker Mark Grebner, and some of the tricks he's (and accurate points) he's been involved with, and suggested that both sides were likely to use sophisticated mail lists for their purposes in challenges (indeed, Grebner actively sought to disenfranchise petition signers in 2006's Proposal 2, and Drolet's 2008 Dillon recall (on the basis of residency)). She asked if an inefficient tactic might be used just to delay voters and decrease turnout - I disagreed because deploying such a tactic is time and resource consuming to have any meaningful numerical effect, and that it was unlikely to be a good way to change an election outcome (traditional message is just plain more efficient), if it didn't in fact backfire. I told Melzer my experience with the relevant players lead me to disbelieve the foreclosure idea would be used as a tactic. In a second interview, she asked why Carabelli would lie and retract his quote - I told her at that early time (there was no lawsuit by the DNC and the story just broke) I didn't necessarily believe anyone was lying, that I couldn't speak for Carabelli, and that it was possible there was a mis-communication and that she should place herself in the shoes of her interviewee. This perspective was not quoted in the article, and while I understand that to be within reasonable editorial discretion particularly given the length of the article as is, it might have given the article some perspective.
Some stories are so good they penetrate through the "script". There's a "smoking gun," or chain of logic that is impenetrable. Here, you have one quote stretched to the conclusion with one of the supporting background quotes being retracted. This story doesn't have either, unless there is some future break that breaks the log-jam of "he-said, she said." Certainly, if proven true this story would be important, but the more sensational the truth, the higher the burden in proving it. If this story proved its case, I'd stand behind the author in a bi-partisan way, but I just don't see it. The truth is likely somewhere in between - I suspect Carabelli answered a question about foreclosures, and it was either leading and he wasn't precise or the answer misunderstood or notated. I doubt Melzer intended to fabricate a quote, but to make this one stick she's needs more.
9 months ago
You've left another comment here without disclosing that you, as owner and operator of Zarko Research and Consulting, provide multiple services for conservatives and their political campaigns. You have a vested interest in making a case against progressives, and the mere act of leaving a comment here in thread may be part of your paid services. Our readers have a right to know that they may be reading commercial services provided on behalf of your conservative clients.
We are a progressive website; we are not partisans, running a broad spectrum in our philosophies from Green to Libertarian and everything in between, which includes fiscal conservatives/social liberals to social conservatives/fiscal liberals. We often don't agree, and we have to find common ground in our work. We have a perspective colored by this range of philosophies, and it's ultimately progressive.
What I want to know is why is this different and unacceptable when mainstream, corporate-owned media outlets actively use their bias as product differentiation. FOX News, for example, is hardly a neutral outlet, and they make no bones about being conservative. They make of point of targeting a conservative audience as part of their marketing strategy.
I also want to know why you have such doubts about this one piece of Melzer's work in particular, that you've had to invest more than 800 words in this thread alone; you have not been commenting at this site for quite some time, and it's only now since publication of Melzer's investigative work on "voter foreclosure" that you've returned. Are you investing similar amounts of effort elsewhere in the blogosphere?
Or only on issues that impact Republicans in Macomb and Oakland County, Michigan?
9 months ago
But I'll entertain you somewhat. I openly admit to running a business focused on "conservative and moderate" clients (when the clients are political), although at least one of my political clients was liberal (Christine Barry, FOIA) and I'm sure some of my business clients are or have been liberal. My comments here are, however, unsolicited and do not have any direct bearing to my business, and indeed, in expressing my belief Ms. Melzer wouldn't wholly "fabricate" the quotes could theoretically damage my business (at least, its not the "Party-line", literally). Regardless, no one is compensating me for commenting here - my primary motive for commenting was that I am actually part of the story in that I was interviewed and had some insight into the story as such. While "designing literature" or building a website may make candidates "look good", I'd hardly call it justification for me to waste time here, particularly when none of my active clients have any direct stake in this story (and by the way, I've never had a client from Macomb County, and don't ever recall meeting Mr. Carabelli, although I'm sure we've crossed paths). My lack of commenting MM over the last many months has more to do with being busy (primarily during Primary season) and the obvious nature of MM's product compared to my interests. You'll note my comments in other parts of blogosphere are quite sporadic and haphazard - similar I'd say to here. When a topic interests me, involves me, or simply floats my boat, I invest similar amounts of time -- but on the whole, including even my own sites (which are a priority), its between a few minutes a day and less than an hour. Here, I was called twice by your reporter - I have a somewhat different motivation than almost all your readers for being involved.
I have no problem with you admitting that you are a progressive source. Indeed, that's (part of) what I ask for and hold myself to (just as Frank Beckman's point drives home). But the crux of the contradiction is that you criticize me for being a conservative source, and say that it invalidates a priori the credibility of my **arguments.** On the flip side, you expect your arguments to be taken seriously when you admit to being "progressively" biased but simultaneously attack others solely for being allegedly conservatively biased. The bottom line has to do with our arguments and their quality - and you make no effort to address the substance of my argument that this story isn't persuasive because 1) it miss-paraphrased a key second-example from Ohio, calling into question the accuracy of the whole article 2) there is no pattern beyond Carabelli, and the "script" of the story is an ongoing "progressive script" where even subconscious bias could have lead to "leading questions," and a misinterpretation somehow of his words.
I've posted a well-thought out, moderate interpretation of events, and all I get is you trying to shut-down debate with irrelevant points outside of the merits of my argument. Conservatives and progressive/liberals can actually reasonably debate, but it can only be measured (perhaps by moderates persuaded) without regard to anything but the argument itself. The labels are quite irrelevant. In that sense, its ironic the Republicans are pointing out your progressive biases, but it hoists you on your own petard and is an unfortunate part of any "he-said, she-said" type of battle.
9 months ago
1) This isn't your first internet rodeo; you know that the majority of readers do not run checks on usernames, especially if they believe they may have been spoofed. Just because you sign in here with what you know to be your real name does not mean that our readers do.
2) The problem is not that you are conservative. It's that your comments here may constitute work product, not merely somebody throwing out an opinion, and you regularly fail to disclose your conflict of interest.
3) I note that you did not answer the question as to whether you now or in the past have represented anybody in Oakland County.
4) Based on the estimated 1500 words you've written in this thread, you can hardly say anybody here has shut down debate. We should take bets on how many words you'll use in your next missive here.
5) You want to avoid labels? Here it is, the crux of this entire sitution: Did Carabelli disclose to Melzer the use of foreclosure lists? Did he disclose there was more being done besides the use of foreclosure lists? You've already got Melzer's reporting on this. And you can listen to Carabelli's reply on Frank Beckman's program, just as other readers can.
We hope and trust the readers can sort their way through the static that began once the lawyers and PR firms began defensive moves. That includes reading carefully the clarification regarding Priesse's comments.
9 months ago
Every good lie (and every good joke) has SOME truth in it and most of what I read (from both sides of the coin) are lies . This nation is polarized and it is not Bush's, Clinton's, Obama's, or McCain's fault... it is our fault. To take one source and ignore any opposing views is narrow-minded and short-sighted. Democrats read and observe liberal news and Republicans do the same with conservative views. As I read the comments in this thread, I mostly hear hatred and blame.
There is some truth in all the points listed. I'm sure there is some truth (maybe a lot of truth) in the article being discussed. What is our individual responsibility to ensure everyone with the right to vote has opportunity to excercise that right? What is our responsibility to ensure those who do not have the right to vote do not cast a vote? That would be a more productive discussion. We can't just start fighting for everyone to vote (regardless of legality) and we can't start fighting for no one to vote.
I believe with all my heart we should look for the balance and then excercise our right to vote for others looking for balance. Both parties have good and bad but neither party seems to accept the good in the other and both parties ignore the bad within their group.
As (admittedly) difficult as it is for me at times, I'm going to research the possibilities of voter disenfranchisment and voter fraud... and I will go and vote for the person I believe has the best plan.
Peace...
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
By the way it is not a tactic, it is application of the rules of election. A notice of foreclosure, which everyone against is assuming, is not the same as a foreclosure. A forclosed property belongs to the lending institution.
9 months ago
On your question of whether one is required to have an address, you are only partly correct. You must provide your city or township or residence, but not necessarily a street address, to vote. Otherwise, the homeless would not be not allowed to vote. The MI voter registration specifically allows for this by making the address optional: "If no house or street address" is a subsection under "Identifying the township you live in."
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MIVoterRegist...
You might try knowing something or at least using the googly tubes before talking out your ass. It makes your arguments so much more credible.
9 months ago
That gives the impression that you think the Democrats do not have a similar goal. As refutation just consider the Democrat actions regarding one of the VP candidate!
"The Republican party has enough challenges running on their record of EPIC FAIL,"
Just what might that "EPIC FAIL" be?
"They feel that this tactic of challenging voters will help them elect republicans."
Well if this tactic of making sure that every vote is a legitimate vote elects Republican candidate then that is the will of the people. You do realize that a challenge does not prevent an individual from voting? Many people are of the opinion that the Democrats will invent votes in any manner they can. Note I said some people!
"On your question of whether one is required to have an address, you are only partly correct. You must provide you city or township, but not an address, to vote."
I am a bit more than partly correct! There are 11 instances in the Michigan Compiled laws that require an elector to have a residence. There is a difference between being a person qualified to be an elector and being registered to be an elector. "
MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW
(EXCERPT) Act 116 of 1954
Section 168.495 Registration affidavit; contents.
(b) The residence address of the elector, including the street and
number or rural route and box number and the apartment number, if
any." So clearly an address is required!As to your assertion that "The MI voter registration specifically allows for this by making the address optional: 'If no house or street address' is a subsection under 'Identifying the township you live in.'." The reference you provide is not part of the Michigan law. The form to which you refer does not have the force of law. The actual state law does ask for an address as cited above.
"You might try knowing something or at least using the googly tubes before talking out your ass"
First of all an educated person does not always need to use "the googly tubes" in order to carry on a conversation. Second it appears that, since the issue of the requirements of the law have come up, I have done a better job of researching the Michigan law that have you. And since you refer to a document of the great State of Michigan I must presume that you are a resident of that state. That makes the discrepancy in our separate knowledge bases even that more disquieting, as I do not. At least your state requires a photo ID on election day!
Duncan
9 months ago
Also, as in 168.507:
"(1) A registered elector who has removed from 1 election precinct of a township, city, or village to another election precinct of the same township, city, or village and has not recorded the removal with the local clerk shall execute a transfer of registration request, ..."
-essentially, you have to process the change of address.
HOWEVER, as of
(2) "....It is not necessary for the elector to change his or her registration to reflect the change in order to be eligible to vote."
In essence, while it does state that you must file a change of address, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH BEFORE THE ELECTION in order for the person to be eligible.
9 months ago
The section you cite, 507 applies to "
9 months ago
9 months ago
True! But being in foreclosure does not mean that you have been foreclosed. Foreclosure is
a process, being foreclosed is the process completed.
"But more than that, they are attempting to suppress turnout by making long lines to discourage voters in these heavilly (sic) Democratic neighborhoods."
First you are assuming the location without evidence. You completely ignore the fact that foreclosures are usually vacant and as such are potential sources of fraudulant voting by anyone.
9 months ago
First of all, not many people who get foreclosed on have somewhere else to go. Second, if they are foreclosed on after the registration deadline, what are they supposed to do? Their vote is stolen from them. While I don't truly believe that this is an insidious plot to disenfranchise black voters, specifically, I do believe this practice will unfairly and probably illegally prevent some legitimately registered voters from having a say in this election.
9 months ago
The GOP is not interested in the sanctity of the polls. It Is interested in preventing likely Democratic voters from excercising their rights.
9 months ago
Blacks have to start being more aware of the voting process and what they have to do. The youngsters have to be educated about voting, and not have to be told to register and vote. There are several organization who council and encourage people to register to vote, but probably fewer than half end up voting, and some of those are not aware of what or whom they are voting for. Many talk a good game, but some don't know the difference of positions on issues between Obama and McCain.
leart
9 months ago
9 months ago
You just have to go to your original polling location to vote!
This is ethically wrong. If you registered to vote in the county that you lost your home in you should be able to go back to that county to vote. PERIOD
9 months ago
Trott and Trott is a firm that acts as a middleman between loan agencies (banks) and consumers (home owners) in the most advance moments of foreclosure, right before the loan agencies (banks) take possession of the home. I find it obscene that a company (Trott and Trott) that should remain neutral in foreclosure situations would cross the lines with having a specific political operation in the same building, give to the cause of the same political operation AND THAT SAME political operation would impair those operations that the company (Trott and Trott) posses as a middleman to protect.
Rule #1 for foreclosures and voting, bring the most recent mail that you have. This is a GOP ticktack that I will expose.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
The point of the article, though, is that under the schema described, anyone whose house has been in foreclosure -- whether they lose their house or not -- could be on a list that is used to contest their vote at the polls. During an election with an expected record turnout, in a state where monies may not have been available to increase polling places or equipment, a larger number of contested voters could obstruct more than the contested resident's vote. Imagine the bottleneck this could cause in some counties with record high foreclosures, if every individual whose house had been in foreclosure (no matter the outcome, debt settled or evicted) has their vote contested.
In other words, you may not lose your right to vote -- but you could be a means by which voting at your precinct is impeded, if you were foreclosed upon this year.
9 months ago
people often remain in their homes after foreclosure begins
and sometimes are able to negotiate and refinance.
A foreclosure filing does not mean that the people living at that address have moved out. It means that a loan is not being paid. Residents may be renters (who sometimes stay in place through a landlord's foreclosure) or they may be one of the lucky ones who manage to pull out of foreclosure before they are evicted, or they may be one of the many people who have technically lost their homes from a legal standpoint but who remain in them because the lenders are in such bad shape themselves that they have a months-long backlog of evictions of people who are still living in the homes they could not continue to pay for.
As the article points out, some of the scumbags doing this have personal vested interests in disenfranchising people who have lot or been close to losing their homes: lawyers whose practice focuses on foreclosure. If the electorate ever really wakes up and starts voting in their concrete interest rather than in reaction to lies about things that don't really matter, those lawyers might find their business drying up.
And beyond that, it is useful to understand 2 facts:
1. A fixed residence is not a prerequisite to the right to vote. People who move in the period between the registration cutoff and election day are supposed to vote where they were already registered. A homeless person technically has voting rights wherever they live, although it's very hard for someone living on the street to get registered...
2. To have a factual basis for challenging a registration, one would need evidence that the registration was false to begin with (i.e. that the voter didn't reside where registered at the time of registration) or that the voter is currently living somewhere other than the precinct in which they are registered.
Unfortunately, the GOP nationally has adopted a strategy of using illegitimate challenges to voters and baseless charges of voting fraud. It doesn't really matter in the end that they almost always fail to make their cases, because just the processes of harassment get them some of the results they are seeking: challenged voters often don't bother fighting for their right to vote and in many places any sort of challenge lands a ballot in "provisional" status which may never be resolved one way or another and may mean the ballot is never counted. That is the goal. The GOP doesn't really care about vote fraud, they care about keeping people who don't vote for them from voting and maintaining the myth of widespread fraud to justify their vote suppression tactics.
9 months ago
The article says no such thing!
9 months ago
Then why is only that side of the political spectrum that is able to find instances of Fraud and for
the other side it always is a simple oops I made a typo?
In Wisconsin, in complying with the Federal law regarding voter roles, an error rate of 20%
was found. The State board tasked with managing elections ordered every clerk in the State
to not take any action to ensure that the voter roles were accurate, as required by Federal
law. Does serious potential for fraud exist? Yes! Is the Democrat run State going to fix it? No!
Who is not taking voting serious?
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
The Michigan Republicans’ planned use of foreclosure lists is apparently an attempt to challenge ineligible voters as not being “true residents.”
It flat out says that aren't eligible to begin with. And whether you're living at that address or a new one, you should be able to prove where you're living. If you're still living at that address, you should be able to prove it. If you're not still living at that address, and have moved, you would effectively be able to vote in two places, and that is illegal. Challenging a voter does not mean that they can't vote, it just means how they vote is different and subject to proving that the voter lives where they claim to. And in the event of foreclosed homes, it is difficult to take the stance that, "well, they might still be living in that house, even though they could be living in the next county with a friend or family while they sort out the problem with their house."
So, before you go claiming that something is illegal, or criminal, or shameful, you should accept that fact that proving you still live somewhere which is reasonably expected to be cleared out is fair. Taking on faith that someone lives there is criminal in the event they don't still reside at that residence because it is allowing someone to vote in a place that they legally cannot vote. Have you thought of that? Its simple to have something from the bank stating you are still living in the house and working out your debt issue with them.
9 months ago
Using foreclosure lists to contest one's right to vote relies on status of property ownership and not residency.
9 months ago
Being registered to vote means having a current address. If your current address is not the one you are registered with, where you vote can change. And you're still ignoring the fact that challenging a voter does not prevent them from voting. It just means they need to prove residency before their vote is counted.
9 months ago
9 months ago
I don't even know what you're saying I'm wrong about, but don't you dare go calling me, or anyone else names.
Let me quote the Michigan.gov web site where it talks about voting:
"Remember to bring an acceptable form of photo identification to the polls on Election Day."
"If you do not have photo ID, you can still cast a ballot simply by signing an affidavit. The affidavit can be used by:
* Voters who do not have acceptable photo ID
* Voters who have photo ID but didn't bring it to the polls
Once you sign the affidavit, you may cast your ballot. It will be counted with all other ballots on Election Day. "
"Moving: Whenever you move to a new city or township, you must re-register to vote. If you move within a city or township, you must update your address. This can be handled through your local clerk, at a Secretary of State branch office, or by mail. Michigan voters must use the same residential address for voter registration and driver's license purposes. Consequently, if you submit a driver's license address change, it will be applied to your voter registration. Similarly, if you submit a voter registration address change, it will be applied to your driver's license."
And for the issue of the foreclosure lists, they are public information, which anyone can access. As a result, people wishing to cast fraudulent ballots are capable of registering to vote via those addresses, and I'm sure that you would like to ensure those people do not get to vote multiple times throughout the city. Anyone who is living in a foreclosed home should be very easily able to prove they are still living there, and thus they should not have any problems.
What is more interesting, is that I haven't seen anything on boards by people who are actually suffering from this problem, instead just people who are attacking the process of insuring voter integrity. I would rather have the process slightly slower and know that the votes actually represent my area. And I still insist that people pay attention to this one other thing I've been saying, and not just ignore it when they respond to me: BEING CHALLENGED DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN'T VOTE.
9 months ago
webdoctor did not make an ad hominem attack in his reply. You're going to have to expect people to disagree with you, and on the internet, they're blunt about it.
As for the point webdoctor was trying to make, you may be right that a person retains their right to vote regardless of being challenged, but using status of property ownership to challenge voters is a suppressive tactic that may discourage not only the voter challenged, but suppress other voters by bottlenecking the precinct.
And as for people suffering from foreclosure: most folks I know in these straits aren't spending their time on line. One friend is too busy trying working to try and pay debts to hang around threads.
If you don't mind, I'm going back to work.
9 months ago
Don't what?
"You are 100% wrong."
Concerning?
9 months ago
everything.
9 months ago
hurt by the conditions of the down economy is not the "family values" that I would want to teach my children. Shame on you!
9 months ago
If you say you want your vote to count twice, then shame on you. It is not kicking a man when they are down. And personally, I think that everyone should have to show at least a state ID, with an accurate and current address. The plan that got shot down for that to be a national requirement proposed to provide free IDs for that purpose. But that wasn't good enough. The people who are opposed to this idea are opposed to the idea of showing you have the right to vote where you are trying to vote, which should be something everyone is willing to do. If you believe in the democratic process, then you should want it to be as transparent as possible, and that means making sure anyone challenged is willing to provide the required proof of residence. It is in fact a requirement in Michigan to show photo ID when you go to vote, and it is a requirement in Michigan to notify the county clerk, or the DMV whenever you move. How many people don't do that?
When I go to the polling place to vote, I don't even say my name when they ask, I hand them my driver's license to prove who I am. We just had a local election where I live, and my father was told he had already voted when he arrived, even though he hadn't. Someone came by and said that it was a different person from a few houses down, and they were going to make the corrections in the ledger. He made a mistake on his ballot and went back for another, and they had yet to make the corrections, so there was no record of this other person having voted, and thus anyone could come in claiming to be that person and vote, and there would be at least one extra vote. After casting his ballot and on his way out, he looked at the ledger, and saw that there was still no correction made. These kinds of things need to be stopped from happening, and challenging voters, as well as checking IDs is the only way to make sure this is the case.
I currently live in a state where more than 1/5 of registered voters don't exist, and while the election commission knows this, they are refusing to do anything to fix it. And as a result the state attorney general has filed a federal lawsuit against them in an attempt to get them to do their job.
In the given case, it may seem like singling out, but it really isn't. And beyond that, I still stand by my own opinion, that singling out shouldn't happen because everyone should be required to prove they live where they claim. Anyone who argues against that does not want to ensure the integrity of the democratic process. One person, one vote; that is the creedo that our government has been built on, and people seem to lose sight of that. It certainly is lost with the Democrat's Super-delegates, who get to control thousands upon thousands of votes, regardless of what their representee's want.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
I have no problem with requiring everyone to show id when they go to vote. My problem is with challenging someone's right to vote because their property address might appear on a list of homes in forclosure proceedings. There are very legally technical reasons why a person whose address appears on the list might still, legally be considered a resident of the voting district even if they are not physically present at the property. Further, there are instances where an address might appear on the list and the occupant is still residing in the home. As I said in my original post, a person has the right and ability to work out payment arrangements with their lendor upto and even after a sheriff's sell of the property.
The ultimate question is whether or not someone can produce id that shows that they are who they say they are and that they can demonstrate that they live where they say they live. That is done by producing state issued id. Once a person has done that, that should be the end of the voluntary action by the voter. If there is credible evidence that a person is intentionally attempting to commit voter fraud, then there is reason to act based on the evidence. An address appearing on a list of foreclosed houses is not evidence of anything other than a person who fell behind in paying their mortgage. It is not probable cause to conclude that the person is attempting to commit voter fraud.
Having to face down some stranger at the voting booth who accosts you based on the fact that you live in a house that is on a foreclosure list is abhorrent. It would be humiliating to the accosted person and only serve to intimidate would be voters. Which, I would submit, is the purpose behind the action. Considering the law surrounding bankruptcy and foreclosure, and the ability of a person to continue to live in their house even if it is in foreclosure, there is no justification for singling out such voters. However, if there is a system to verify the legitimate identity claim of every voter, treating each voter equally, then I have no objection. If there is system to challenge voters based on legitimate concerns regarding their claims of residency, I have no objection. The foreclosure list approach is neither legitimate nor legal. In fact, it may violate not only the voting rights laws but the bankruptcy laws designed to protect
debtors from harassment.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the legal challenge to the plans annouced to launch this foreclosure list initiative. I am willing to gamble that my interpretation is shared by the judges who will opine on this issue.
9 months ago
168.727 Challenge; duty of election inspector; indiscriminate challenge; penalty.
Sec. 727.
(1) An election inspector shall challenge an applicant applying for a ballot if the inspector knows or has good reason to suspect that the applicant is not a qualified and registered elector of the precinct, or if a challenge appears in connection with the applicant's name in the registration book. A registered elector of the precinct present in the polling place may challenge the right of anyone attempting to vote if the elector knows or has good reason to suspect that individual is not a registered elector in that precinct. An election inspector or other qualified challenger may challenge the right of an individual attempting to vote who has previously applied for an absent voter ballot and who on election day is claiming to have never received the absent voter ballot or to have lost or destroyed the absent voter ballot.
(2) Upon a challenge being made under subsection (1), an election inspector shall immediately do all of the following:
(a) Identify as provided in sections 745 and 746 a ballot voted by the challenged individual, if any.
(b) Make a written report including all of the following information:
(i) All election disparities or infractions complained of or believed to have occurred.
(ii) The name of the individual making the challenge.
(iii) The time of the challenge.
(iv) The name, telephone number, and address of the challenged individual.
(v) Other information considered appropriate by the election inspector.
(c) Retain the written report created under subdivision (b) and make it a part of the election record.
(d) Inform a challenged elector of his or her rights under section 729.
(3) A challenger shall not make a challenge indiscriminately and without good cause. A challenger shall not handle the poll books while observing election procedures or the ballots during the counting of the ballots. A challenger shall not interfere with or unduly delay the work of the election inspectors. An individual who challenges a qualified and registered elector of a voting precinct for the purpose of annoying or delaying voters is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Tell me how it is then, that challenging a voter's right to vote IN THAT PRECINCT, based on reasonable information saying they are no longer a registered elector OF THAT PRECINCT. You keep making it out to be that they are not going to be allowed to vote if they don't do it in that place. That is wrong. You claim that what is being done is illegal, and I have yet to see you make any attempt to support that with evidence. You are spouting the word illegal because you think it is wrong. Before you come back saying AGAIN that what is being done is illegal, find something that supports your claim. I have cited law of the State that shows anyone can challenge the right of an elector to vote in that precinct. It does not give them the right to challenge that elector's right to vote elsewhere, just in the one precinct. And it hardly counts as harassment as defined in bankruptcy laws, either. One cannot be harassed regarding their debt, and that is not the case. And since the voting rights laws are what have been cited above, I would like to know how they are being violated, because it seems to be clearly in line with the law.
9 months ago
The statute that you provided specifically states that the challenge must be based on specific knowledge or "good reason to suspect that the applicant is not a qualified and registered elector of the precinct." Just because someone's declared address appears on a foreclosure list does not give someone good reason to suspect anything other than the fact that the person is claiming to live in a house that is in foreclosure. Evidence that someone is not qualified and registered to vote would be something like documents showing that the house they claim to live in no longer exists or that the person they claim to be is deceased. It is not that the person may or may not be in the middle of bankruptcy proceedings and at somepoint in time they may no longer be living at the address listed on the forclosure list.
I have been practicing law for the past 14, years. I am not going to participate in a debate with you about what is or is not illegal, citing statutes, regulations and case law. There is no financial incentive for me to do so. A judge will ultimately decide if your foreclosure lists provide sufficient basis for challenging someone's right to vote in a particular precinct. Given the proper circumstances, a judge will ultimately determine whether targeting people who are in financial distress falls within the definition of harassment under the bankruptcy code. A judge will ultimately decide the actions of the GOP who choose to engage in this despicable behavior have violated the law. You and I don't have to solve this problem because the matter is in the hands of the court, where it should be.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
The GOP are actively contributing to the suck of the world with this one.
9 months ago
9 months ago
Michigan Messenger: Send the reporter back to find out. And at the very least, send a reporter to follow up after the election to verify that African Americans (or Democrats in general) weren't disproportionally targeted by this list. At least do that.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
Check it out:
http://www.gregpalast.com/bill-to-oulaw-voter-c...
9 months ago
9 months ago
The one that happened to a neighbor of mine in Baltimore was that I moved away, her name was similar to my wife's, and the post office started forwarding her bills to me. But the letters from the registrar are sent with instructions not to forward.
Then, there are the stupid blunders by the post office.
Then, there are the people without fixed mailing address. For example, in New York, where I had occasion to research the law on residence for voting purposes, a man had registered to vote with a particular hotel as residence, where he lived most of the year, but did not keep a room while he was away. As far as I know, this particular man always went to the same hotel, but he might well have found no vacancy on one of his trips, and used another. Or stayed with a friend, family member, or business associate.
I bet there are a *lot* more possibilities.
The point is that a well functioning democracy finds ways to make it reasonably feasible for everyone to vote, not ways to filter out all the unusual people.
9 months ago
9 months ago
The problem here is that even if the person lives elsewhere within the city, this is used as a means of disqualifying that person, and they CAN NOT VOTE.
For example, the letters are given a specific (short) period of time. If they aren't retrieved in that time, say a week, they're returned. So, go on vacation, a long business trip, or GO TO SERVE YOUR COUNTRY IN IRAQ - and guess what? You can't vote any more, because your right to vote is challenged, and there's nothing you can do about it at the time you want to vote.
9 months ago
9 months ago
Thanks!
Brian
9 months ago
9 months ago
One side calls it 'suppression', the other calls it 'fraud'. I don't see what is wrong with checking the registers and crossing out people who no longer live in a certain area. If they don't do this, people could theoretically vote in two places, their old district and the new one where they live now.
9 months ago
And no, it does not mean that people could potentially vote twice. If they change their address with the SOS office, they come off the old voter list and won't be allowed to vote where they used to vote. If they neglect to change their address in the middle of such a terrible time in their lives, they should at least be able to vote somewhere.
9 months ago
To me, this is another "hanging chad." How anyone could vote Republican in this election truly bewilders me.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
The 1st amendment is the closest. It guarantees the right to free speech which voting is a form or and it also guarantees the right to redress of grievance which voting most definitely is.
So the idea that the states can impose arbitrary limitations on the vote is to me nullified by the right to redress of grievances which can NOT be arbitrarily limited.
No where in the constitution does it say you must have an "address" in order to vote. You only need to be a United States Citizen.
9 months ago
There is no attempt impose a limitation ON voting, only to ensure WHERE you are voting.
Without an address the only vote you would actually have a RIGHT to cast would be for the only
National offices.
9 months ago
The GOP's sinister plan won't pass muster (from Frank Kelley's opinion #6930):
In Dunn v Blumstein, 405 US 330, 336; 92 S Ct 995; 31 L Ed 2d 274 (1972), the Court recognized that any restriction on the right to vote is subject to close constitutional scrutiny:
In decision after decision, this Court has made clear that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction. This "equal right to vote," is not absolute; the States have the power to impose voter qualifications, and to regulate access to the franchise in other ways. But, as a general matter, "before that right [to vote] can be restricted, the purpose of the restriction and the assertedly overriding interests served by it must meet close constitutional scrutiny."
(Emphasis added) (citations omitted).
The Dunn court then, in the context of a durational residency voting requirement, set forth the strict scrutiny test to be applied whenever the fundamental right to vote is at stake.
In sum, durational residence laws must be measured by a strict equal protection test: they are unconstitutional unless the State can demonstrate that such laws are "necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest." Thus phrased, the constitutional question may sound like a mathematical formula. But legal "tests" do not have the precision of mathematical formulas. The key words emphasize a matter of degree: that a heavy burden of justification is on the State, and that the statute will be closely scrutinized in light of its asserted purposes.
It is not sufficient for the State to show that durational residence requirements further a very substantial state interest. In pursuing that important interest, the State cannot choose means that unnecessarily burden or restrict constitutionally protected activity. Statutes affecting constitutional rights must be drawn with "precision," and must be "tailored" to serve their legitimate objectives. And if there are other, reasonable ways to achieve those goals with a lesser burden on constitutionally protected activity, a State may not choose the way of greater interference. If it acts at all, it must choose "less drastic means."
Anyone facing such a challenge should demand to be given an affidavit of residency to sign. That'll ensure that they are given the opportunity to vote.
9 months ago
First of all, if what I wrote "may be the singularly most ignorant thing I've ever seen posted on the internet" then you don't have been around the internet much...
Secondly, you claim that you don't want to waste everybody else's time, and then you go into a lengthy statement...
There is no written right to vote in the USA. Some states do have that right written down in their constitutions. In Belgium, citizens have the DUTY to vote. Fail to participate in the election and you face a fine.
Here in America, you are not automatically registered to vote. European states handle it differently. In Germany, e.g., you have to register in the city where you live. Come election time, the city sends out letters with voting cards, reminding you of the election and that you can vote absentee and that you get the ballot, if you return your voting card.
If you have houses in different parts of the country, you have to decide on one as your place of residence (usually where you live, work, where your kids go to school) and that is the city and state where you have the right to vote. Since the federal goivernment has to pay money to the city for every regular citizen, the state has an interest not to pay twice or more often for a citizen. So, they check the lists for double entries, because, one man/woman, one vote.
In America, we have stories of voting fraud every two years, stories that would make a banana republic proud! Votes were offered on Ebay, felons tried to vote, dead people apply for ballots from the grave, absentee ballots stolen from the mail, faulty registers, machine meltdown, software problems, make your pick.
There is voting fraud every single election and there are dozens of stories about fraud at the caucuses of the Democratic party, favoring a certain candidate...
Now, every state has a certain set of rules concerning who is allowed to vote. Most common are the following:
You have to be an American citizen.
You have to be able to read a ballot written in English, no Spanish or Chinese ballots allowed
You have to register to vote.
You lose your right to vote, if you are a felon in prison, in some cases even if you have served your time.
You have to have a certain age.
And, fresh of this year, the Supreme Court ruled that in order to deter voter fraud, voters have to provide a Photo ID.
If a state passes regulation that disenfranchises voters because of race, religion or gender, then the Court will come down on them with all their might.
Requiring voters to prove that they are residents? In my book, this is absolutely okay. If you read the article correctly, the GOP plans to QUESTION the elegibility of voters whose homes are on a foreclosure list. It will then be the duty of the voting officials or the courts to find out, if the voter is/was still a resident. So, if they foreclose your house, but you still live there, then there should be no problem. If you moved in with your family, but failed to change your registration (because, correct me if I am wrong, the registration is still required), then you are not correctly registered to vote. If you don't have a home, because you live on the street, do you have the right to vote?
Besides, I don't understand the whole fuss. If they said "we only cross out registered Democrats from the list and turn a blind eye on Republicans and Independents" then you would have a case. But their action goes against all groups whose residence status is questionable. You might point out that some groups are more likely to be affected by that ruling, but who tells you how these people would vote in November?
To make a long story short: There are rules to every election and EVERY party should see to it that the rules are obeyed.
9 months ago
It's bad enough that Michigan's secretary of state may have violated state law with a recent voter ID directive:
(Source: http://www.michiganmessenger.com/3542/michigan-...)
Did you gain or lose weight? did you change your hairstyle, get new glasses, anytime since you last got your driver's license? Then you're already a potential target -- and the secretary of state here, a known Republican Party operative, is not obeying the rules.
9 months ago
I won't take the time to respond to your rambling uninformed opinion other than to ask for a citation for your "Supreme Court ruled that in order to deter voter fraud, voters have to provide a Photo ID".
Please explain to me how challenging people over foreclosures will do ANYTHING to address the many concerns you have over voter fraud.
And, no matter how impressed you are with your opinions, you are wrong as a matter of law. I'm an attorney (in academia). I research these things.
9 months ago
You want a citation: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/nation/...
If you are an attorney, then I am really surprised that this ruling failed to capture your attention.
i wonder what kind of an attorney you are...
9 months ago
No one has placed a restriction on an indiviuals right to vote!
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
No joy!
9 months ago
9 months ago
The last two Presidential ones? Ring a bell?
9 months ago
The Dems lost!
In spite of ...
9 months ago
9 months ago
Duncan
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
You all are soo nice, that is why our country is in one of the biggest deficits it has ever been, that is why we are in the recession and depression we are in. I will vote and I will encourage those who surround me to do the same, if Obama doesn't win he can walk away with his head held high understanding that he has not used any federal funded money is primarily why he does not have a stupid commercial coming on every two minutes. Like Obama said a pig is a pig. Names against forclosed homes is not fair considering it is the stupid republican George Bush who has created this non-sense. Do you realize how many soldiers wife's and husbands who have lost their spouse over in Irag fighting that wore and to top it off have lost their homes. Do you all not have any heart? People's homes go into forclosure for various reasons and using this to stop black americans from voting is cowardly act. And you my friend should have a problem with that.
9 months ago
The economy is still in positive territory.
Since we have not entered a recession a depression is impossible.
9 months ago
Like Nouriel Roubini -- especially after the failure of Lehman Brothers and the shotgun wedding of Merrill Lynch to Bank of American this weekend.
Secondly, you have left at least 6 comments inside a one-hour span on this thread, most of which were confrontational to other commenters. Any further hostile comments will be removed as spam-trolling.
If I were you, I'd spend less time harassing people and more time minding your money -- you obviously need some work on understanding finance and economics.
9 months ago
2008 has for the first two quarters produced a positive growth of the economy.
So now you are telling me that I am to be enjoined from exercising my rights. When I first found this there were some 168 messages. Many of them merely engendered a response. Why is that wrong?
I am not harassing but attempting to enter into a discussion. Understanding finance? Based on the results in the major financial companies today - they don't seem to have a very good handle on finance either. But finance is not the issue. The definition of a recession is the issue and all I need for that is to be able to read.
9 months ago
Secondly, your understanding of a recession is shallow, textbook.
GDP is a construct, frequently gamed and therefore a poor measure.
Now move along.
9 months ago
Really? What does this sound like to you? "(Y)ou have left at least 6 comments inside a one-hour span on this thread, most of which were confrontational to other commenters. Any further hostile comments will be removed as spam-trolling." Sounds like an attempt to silence to me!
As for defining a recession, you would prefer a fluid definition? Sounds a little like situational ethics to me. Since I never said the economy is robust and going gangbusters. All that can be said with certainty is that the country is not, repeat not, in recession. Changing the definitions of a given word to fit a situation does no one a service. You mention unemployment. Well unemployment is a two edged sword. I had always been taught that full employment was CONSIDERED to be 5% unemployed. Further study have revealed that full employment encompasses a range of between 2% and 10%. Further a low unemployment rate creates inflationary pressure. Now if we accept the rate that in the US has been considered full employment, 5%, the current rate of 6.1% statistically means very little. Now, yes it is terrible to involuntarily lose ones job. It can be traumatic and hard on the parties involved, but it also can be overcome. But what are we really talking about here, an increase of 1.1%? Still well within the range of what many economists consider full employment. A review of the GDP shows that it appears on a roller coaster. The first quarter of the year had a positive rate of 1% and the second a rate of growth of 3%. Now yes the first quarter did grow but the second quarter rate is that rate that economists believe is a healthy rate of growth to move the country forward and avoiding inflation.
Perhaps "other forces on the consumer are more persistent and negative." because people are no longer putting money aside for a rainy day. Before you jump on that I have been just as guilty, until recently.
9 months ago
_________________________________________________________________
See how Windows Mobile brings your life togetherat home, work, or on the go.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093182m...
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
IE McCain and party are attempting to manipulate this election by targeting in this manner.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
The Olympian
OLYMPIA, Wash. — Prosecutors in King County are looking at possible criminal charges related to a voter-registration drive held in 2006, echoing the suspicions of impropriety raised during the razor-close gubernatorial election of 2004.
King County's acting prosecutor, Dan Satterberg, is reviewing 1,829 questioned voter-registration forms turned in last year by people working for the national activist group ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. A decision on whether to file criminal charges is expected in late July, Satterberg's spokesman, Dan Donohoe, said Friday.
"We're dealing with possible criminal charges with regard to fraudulent registrations. "
(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews...)
"CLEVELAND -- A national organization that conducts voter registration drives for low-income people has curtailed its push in Cuyahoga County after the Board of Elections accused its workers of submitting fraudulent registration cards.
The board is investigating the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Results of the inquiry could be turned over to the county prosecutor. "
(http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/08/cuyahog...)
THE UNION NEWS
"A national organization that registers low-income people to vote has cut back its push in Cuyahoga County after workers were accused of registering phantom voters. The Cuyahoga County elections board is investigating ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which has submitted about 75,000 voter registration cards to the Cuyahoga board this year.
No one knows how many registrations were faked, but the voter registration department received so many suspicious cards that it began compiling a binder with evidence. The binder grew to be an inch thick.
Board employees said multiple ACORN workers often handed in registration cards listing the same people but showing them living at different addresses. Other times, multiple workers submitted cards with identical voter names but showing different dates of birth.
"I'm obviously very concerned," Board Chairman Jeff Hastings said. "This goes to the essence of our democracy."
ACORN had a part-time staff of 30 who worked five days a week to find unregistered people.
The workers were paid $8 an hour and had to sign up 20 voters per five-hour shift.
The elections board said in a report that ACORN's quota contributed to the possible fraud."
(http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/08/acorn-...)
EMPLOYMENT POLICIES INSTITUTE
"New report shows ACORN has been linked to voter fraud in 12 states including Ohio
8/11/06, Washington, DC –ACORN’s recent run-in with the Franklin County elections board for allegedly turning in falsified voter registration cards is only the latest in a long-standing pattern of dubious elections practices. ACORN employees have been accused of submitting bogus voter registration cards and forging signatures on ballot initiatives in 12 states since 2004.
In addition to Ohio, ACORN employees have been accused of illegal elections practices in New Mexico, Florida, Colorado, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia among others. Here are just a few examples of ACORN’s pattern and practice of fraud associated with their campaigns: "
(http://www.epionline.org/news_detail.cfm?rid=171)
Since the words alone are not enough for you I supplied both. The last one has additional info available. If that is not enough for you try a search on "Rotten ACORN"
PAY ATTENTION HERE! I am not accusing anyone other than those I may name.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
Here's a suggestion to the GOP who seem to think they can prey upon people who they deem as not knowing any better: let the rest of the campaigns play themselves out and then registered voters will have their say. If you feel threatened because you're the opponent of a smart highly educated, highly motivated ambitious candidate who is more than fit to lead - than you should have come up with a more formidable candidate instead of unleashing illegal racist threats.
How pathetic.
9 months ago
This is more than a mean-spirited attack....it's a pattern with the Republican to fly under the radar.. What country do I live in? Well, I know I will stand firm for my vote being counted.
Remember this is INTENDED to fluster the Poll Workers.... any dispute, whether founded or not, can cause one vote to be lost.
9 months ago
Unbeliveable
Anthony
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
Since your response, "By all means, don't let me stop you." says nothing regarding the second part of my comment I can only assume that what it says is true and correct. You desire to aid only a specific subset of voters. That would make you guilty of the very thing many people are posting vitriolic comments about. In case that does not ring any bells, the position that this attempt to ensure the voting process is an attack against an identifiable segment of the population.
9 months ago
However we can't be the only driver; readers can help by demanding the news outlets you use cover this story. Send them a link to this story. You can tell them we're an independently-produced nonprofit daily online news outlet, and that this is just one of the many stories we've done that are important to readers like you; maybe they'll pay more attention and catch our next big stories like this one since we aren't beholden to anybody else and we do the heavy lifting for them.
Thanks for your readership. Stay tuned, there's more in the pipeline.
9 months ago
Good luck getting this out.
9 months ago
9 months ago
This is typical of the so-called 'Maverick' Senator from Arizona! He is the ultimate DC Beltway insider, has ties to (and cash from!) all the big corporate, military and banking interests that are bleeding the average American dry, and will say or do anything to further his acquisition of power and influence- even if it is the WRONG thing for America! McCain is a political opportunist, and is one of the most unscrupulous politicians ever to run for President. If you disagree, just GOOGLE 'Keating Five' and see how sleazy McCain was, is and will be as President.
xtrabiggg
++++++++++++++++++
9 months ago
9 months ago
anyone can believe! Unfortunately, the 'powers that be' know that, and have
used this fact to manipulate McCain throughout his career!
xtrabiggg
+++++++++++++++++++++++
9 months ago
9 months ago
It is not as if we were not expecting this from the Repubs- they want to win by fair means or foul & this is foul. But here is how to fight it:
When you go to the polls- bring a recent (October) bill & the envelope it came in- showing it was delivered to your name (registered voter) at that address-
These people are evil - they could care less about "proper electoral proceedures" - no - it is an attempt to steal this election - after all they have been successful doing so twice already.
9 months ago
As an organized strategy, there is the risk of unlimited personal liability from everyone to the local challenger up through the top organizer of this campaign (party chairman)
There's also the risk of having to look over your shoulder for federal charges until the 5 year (more than one presidential administration) statute of limitations runs out.
9 months ago
9 months ago
James Carabelli works for United Lawnscape.
http://www.unitedlawnscape.com/team-com.php
Here is his professional profile and information:
http://center.spoke.com/info/pFa265a/JamesCarab...
Here is his professional profile:
James Carabelli
Director of Landscape Sales
United Lawnscape
26215 Delwal Drive
Novi, MI 48375-1225
http://www.unitedlawnscape.com
9 months ago
GO JIM CROW GO JIM CROW GO JIM CROW GO JIM CROW
GO JIM CROW GO JIM CROW GO JIM CROW GO JIM CROW
9 months ago
9 months ago
Enough is Enough! We need to take America back from the sleazy GOP. We deserve better than this as Americans!!!
http://www.cafepress.com/geofftoons
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
It brings the GOP's methods out into the steriliizing lamp of sunlight and makes it "personal".
And what does THIS mean? "Republican Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, voter challenges need only be “based on information obtained through a reliable source or means.” “But poll workers are not allowed to ask the reason” for the challenges, Rozell said. In other words, Republican vote challengers are free to use foreclosure lists as a basis for disqualifying otherwise eligible voters."
All they need is SOMEONE who they believe is a "reliable source" and they will accept the challenge...and the poll workers can't even ask for the evidence? And if the evidence turns out to be an illigitimate foreclosure listing (since a person might still be resident, or have renegotiated payment, or be renting from their foreclosed residence under a new owner)....they will still be prevented from voting.
This is vote THEFT...a disenfranchisement of legal voters. We are no longer a Democracy, apparently!
9 months ago
We are or were a Constitutional Republic. Trust me MUCH better than democracy.
Democratic (not democrat) is good PURE democracy is as bad as communism or anarchy etc..
9 months ago
Is USA a THIRD WORLD country?
certainly NOT a democracy and its citizens are not free to vote obviously
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
There were over 3 million votes that weren't counted in the 2004 presidential election. Buying an election is easier (and cheaper) than you might think.
9 months ago
9 months ago
Thanks!
Brian
9 months ago
Just put the word out and broadly advertise it in all mediums of information that this will happen. Be sure to be planned and ready for this to happen on election day. Lets make this an all day activity. If they try to prevent us from voting we will do the same. Lets have a very exciting election day.
9 months ago
9 months ago
Voter fraud exists, it is perpetrated mostly by Democrats, and if it has influenced one election, that's one too many. Life is difficult; you don't change the rules because people have a lot going on in their lives. If you think that's overly harsh, consider that you might be overly soft.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
Jonn Mcain can never be President he was not born on American soil or the United States of America.
John MCCain does not have an Address to Citizenship to be the President of USA.
History can not be changed with John MCCain. The Republicans will have the surprise of their life.
Sarah Palin is a Native American Indian born on a Idaho Reservation. She maybe not be able to
be a Vice-President base on American Indian Affaird Dept. and the USA Constituton Legal Laws.
The Facts will come out. Both are Fake and can not be in the White House.
Vote Democrat, They will win , It is written let it be done!
9 months ago
9 months ago
And tell them to have their babies in mangers.
This is insane. We gave up on property-owning requirements for voting and then poll taxes. Let's see how fast we can move backward. Can we get there before November 4th?
9 months ago
Does the insanity of this Election ever stop?
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
If this is true, the GOP is trying this, I find it very interesting their initial target - the black population... Golly, think they're worried?
9 months ago
Felons can vote in MI only after they serve their time.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
It's only going to get worse, the more desperate the Republicans become.
If your state has electronic only, no paper, insist on a provisional. We must be diligent, don't let them steal our votes again.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
This is should be taken to the national press. This should be taken to the Federal Election Commission...oh no...don't do that Bush runs that Department...and we all know his track record of following the letter of the law and not using the government against the people. There must be legal organizations that would offer counsel to assist in building the Cease and Desist orders. This should be taken to all concerned parties, legal entities, courts etc, but mostly this should be outted to the voting public at large so the rest of the country knows what tactics McCain is using in the northeast to attempt to win these electoral colleges.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
300,000 or so voters dumped from the rolls because they had a name that sounded like a felons or might be a relative of a felon or you might be a felon in the future, then there was the ballot shredding.
When you register to vote at your new address the Election office sends a notice to your old precinct.
If you have not registered a new address your registration should not change unless you are declared dead, or the county coroner sends a notice of your death or you move again and reregister at your new address.. If you are in foreclosure and have not left your registered address they have no legal ground to stand on other than they are corporate rnc shills, and unlawful to make your private and confidential business public by farming this out to some RNC hired firm...
9 months ago
9 months ago
1) Make sure YOU are still registered to vote, and then urge your friends to do the same. Go to www.michigan.gov/vote or call your local clerk. The SOS undertook a purge project in 2006 that may have affected over 400,000 voters, violating numerous provisions of federal law.
2) Call your local clerk (city, village, or township) and ask how they plan to respond to challenges based on foreclosure notices. Note that under Michigan law, a person has the right to vote at their old address one more election even if they have moved in the past 60 days. Moreover, a person has the right to make an election day change of address within the jurisdiction, which can be "nontraditional," that is, homeless. The clerk by law must allow registration at the nearest freeway underpass or street intersection, with a POB mailing address.
3) Volunteer to serve as a challenger yourself, for the Michigan Campaign for Change. Democratic Party challengers work to provide voter protection and help voters vote at the right location. Go to National Voter Protection Center Home to volunteer:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/vpchome
http://my.barackobama.com/counselforchange
4) Volunteer to serve as an election integrity monitor to keep this election from being stolen via tampering with the tabulating machines. Go to www.michiganelectionreformalliance.org to see how to sign up and receive training. Keep Michigan from becoming another "Ohio."
9 months ago
ABC News
77 W. 66 St., New York, NY 10023
Phone: 212-456-7777
General e-mail: netaudr@abc.com
Nightline: nightline@abcnews.com
20/20: 2020@abc.com
CBS News
524 W. 57 St., New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-975-4321
Fax: 212-975-1893
Email forms for all CBS news programs
CBS Evening News: evening@cbsnews.com
The Early Show: earlyshow@cbs.com
60 Minutes II: 60minutes@cbsnews.com
48 Hours: 48hours@cbsnews.com
Face The Nation: ftn@cbsnews.com
CNBC
900 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
Phone: (201) 735-2622
Fax: (201) 583-5453
Email: info@cnbc.com
CNN
One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366
Phone: 404-827-1500
Fax: 404-827-1784
Email forms for all CNN news programs
Fox News Channel
1211 Ave. of the Americas, New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 301-3000
Fax: (212) 301-4229
comments@foxnews.com
List of Email addresses for all Fox News Channel programs
Special Report with Brit Hume: Special@foxnews.com
FOX Report with Shepard Smith: Foxreport@foxnews.com
The O'Reilly Factor: Oreilly@foxnews.com
Hannity & Colmes: Hannity@foxnews.com, Colmes@foxnews.com
On the Record with Greta: Ontherecord@foxnews.com
MSNBC/NBC
30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112
Phone: (212) 664-4444
Fax: (212) 664-4426
List of Email addresses for all MSNBC/NBC news programs
Dateline NBC: dateline@nbc.com
Hardball with Chris Matthews: hardball@msnbc.com
MSNBC Reports with Joe Scarborough: joe@msnbc.com
NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: nightly@nbc.com
NBC News Today: today@nbc.com
PBS
2100 Crystal Drive, Arlington VA 22202
Phone: 703-739-5000
Fax: 703-739-8458
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: newshour@pbs.org
National Radio Programs
National Public Radio
635 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001-3753
Phone: 202-513-3232
Fax: 202-513-3329
E-mail: Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, Ombudsman ombudsman@npr.org
List of Email addresses for all NPR news programs
The Rush Limbaugh Show
1270 Avenue of the Americas, NY 10020
Phone (on air): 800-282-2882
Fax: 212-445-3963
E-mail: ElRushbo@eibnet.com
Sean Hannity Show
Phone (on air): 800-941-7326
Sean Hannity: 212-613-3800
James Grisham, Producer: 212-613-3807
E-mail: Phil Boyce, Program Director phil.boyce@citcomm.com
National Newspapers
The Los Angeles Times
202 West First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: 800-528-4637 or 213-237-5000
Fax: 213-237-4712
L.A. Times Contact Information by Department
Letters to the Editor: letters@latimes.com
Readers' Representative: readers.rep@latimes.com
The New York Times
620 8th Ave., New York, NY 10018
Phone: 212-556-1234
D.C. Bureau phone: 202-862-0300
Fax: 212-556-3690
Letters to the Editor (for publication): letters@nytimes.com
Write to the news editors: news-tips@nytimes.com
Corrections: senioreditor@nytimes.com
New York Times Contact Information by Department
How to Contact New York Times Reporters and Editors
USA Today
7950 Jones Branch Dr., McLean, VA 22108
Phone: 703-854-3400
Fax: 703-854-2078
Letters to the Editor: editor@usatoday.com
Give feedback to USA Today
The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty St., New York, NY 10281
Phone: 212-416-2000
Fax: 212-416-2658
Letters to the Editor: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
Comment on News Articles: wsjcontact@dowjones.com
The Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20071
Phone: 202-334-6000
Fax: 202-334-5269
Letters to the Editor: letters@washpost.com
Ombudsman: ombudsman@washpost.com
Contact Washington Post Writers and Editors
Magazines
Newsweek
251 W 57th Street, New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-445-4000
Fax: 212-445-5068
Letters to the Editor: letters@newsweek.com
Time
Time & Life Bldg., Rockefeller Center, 1271 6th Ave., New York, NY 10020
Phone: 212-522-1212
Fax: 212-522-0003
Letters to the Editor letters@time.com
U.S. News & World Report
1050 Thomas Jefferson St., Washington, DC 20007
Phone: 202-955-2000
Fax: 202-955-2049
Letters to the Editor letters@usnews.com
News Services / Wires
Associated Press
450 West 33rd St., New York, NY 10001
Phone: 212-621-1500
Fax: 212-621-7523
General Questions and Comments: info@ap.org
Partial Contact Information for the Associated Press by Department and Bureau
Reuters
Three Times Square, New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 646-223-4000
Reuters Editorial Feedback
United Press International
1133 19th Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: 202-898-8000
FAX: 202-898-8048
Comments and Tips: tips@upi.com
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
To some on this blog who claim people shouold be able to vote anywhere as long as they are registered, That is not permitted for two reasons. One, it eliminates (or tries to) people from voting multiple times...another fine Chicago tradition. Two, there are more items on the ballot than the Presidency. How would you like outsiders voting on your school levies, congressmen and local issues? That would also happen if you lose control of the system.
Follow the friggin rules, it's not that tough. My kids went off to college and voted absentee ballot every time. If it is that important to you, quit bitchin and make the effort to follow the rules and vote.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
Of course, republicans have to do all they can to rig this election, it's the only chance they got. Unfortunately for them, it ain't gonna work this time. Sorry assholes.
9 months ago
9 months ago
Bill Nowling
Director of Communication
Michigan Republican Party
9 months ago
That's Germanic/Polish country up there, Bill. Is that name pronounced 'kneeling'?
9 months ago
“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.
and:
Carabelli is not the only Republican Party official to suggest the targeting of foreclosed voters. In Ohio, Doug Preisse, director of elections in Franklin County (around the city of Columbus) and the chair of the local GOP, told The Columbus Dispatch that he has not ruled out challenging voters before the election due to foreclosure-related address issues.
No - maybe not the 'state' Republican Party - but sure looks like at least a few locals (Mich and otherwise) find it a 'fun' idea. And local is where the action is...right - the votes happen right here at home....
and...I don't hear the state or national Republican office getting all outraged at the behavior. Not like I'm hearing any comments from the state office - you - directed toward the local office instructing them to stop this behavior and act more conscionably.
9 months ago
9 months ago
When a person receivies notice of being foreclosed they usually are given time to pay the default or they can file for bankruptcy or the administration is currently considering a freeze on foreclosures by Freddy Mac and Fanny May. All of these things allow a person to remain in their homes - and current resoidences. Besides, if your house burned down and you moved to a motel, it would not mean that your residence was not your address. What is Michigan's law on residency for voting? Generally one establishes residency when physicall coming to a location and intending it to be their residence. Foreclosure doesnot mean you have given up your fight to remain at the voting address.
9 months ago
9 months ago
Sure, but taxes are based on where you work and where you live, but voting rights are based only on where you live., I know people who are NJ residents who work in NYC, pay NYC taxes, but don't get to vote there.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
Oh, by the way; some foreclosed homes have no resident. It has been used by defrauders in the past to sneak in fraudulent votes. In fact, there are quite a few democratic campaign employees in jail for it. Don't be fooled; Gore vs. Bush proved that the Dems couldn't even win a campaign they tried to fix for themselves. (Dumpsters full of legitimate republican votes were found that were never counted)
Don't read much into the article, it is more editorial opinion than factual reporting; just garbage.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
Why do you lie? You know that what you wrote is completely false. In fact the Michigan Messenger is nothing but a completely leftist blog and is not at all independent.
As you know, voter fraud is very much a concern, especially here in the Detroit area. In past elections, the dead vote, residents of vacant lots and burned out homes vote, and many imaginary friends of the democrats vote too. Voter fraud in Detroit is very high and a common practice.
I would be very happy to see anyone making an effort to eliminate voter fraud. In fact if someone has had their home taken from them via foreclosure, then they no longer live at that address and do have the right to vote. Hence they are voting illegally. The entire "Foreclosure and Voting" issue can be avoided if those people would pay the bills and debt obligations. They should live within their means.
So, Eartha Jane Melzer, please stop the lies. The truth shall set you free.
Sincerely,
Heywood Yablome
9 months ago
Note this article for Michigan Messenger's and the Center for Independent Media's position on demands by MIGOP for retraction of the story.
The truth indeed can set us free; ask yourself why the MIGOP has not filed a defamation suit.
9 months ago
9 months ago
The truth is the absolute defense.
9 months ago
9 months ago
Also, by the way, just in case you missed this in your Government class, being a homeowner is not a requirement to vote. There may be voter fraud out there, but it's on both sides. We should be cracking down on all fraud, not just picking on people who lose their jobs and homes due to a bad economy.
9 months ago
Who is guilty of voter fraud and trying to "fix" this election in their favor? And say again why the GOP should not be allowed to verify that EVERY voter is legally registered to vote, are able to provide identification, and are not felons and non-US citizens illegally registered using a deceased person's identity & vacant foreclosed homes as their address???
Wake up people....you are being fooled and used by Obama & the Democratic Party and they fuel you by making you believe it is about "racial discrimination"!!!! Please take a little time to learn the facts & find the truth. You are about to put yourself, your children, your friends, neighbors, & the entire United States in grave danger if you don't!
9 months ago
9 months ago
If you agree with all of the above, then by all means, vote for McCain. Both of them support renewable energy and both of them support reform in Washington. Obama wants the government to be less involved in personal lives and more involved our financial lives. He wants the government to stand up and help those less fortunate, give tax breaks to the middle-class and raise taxes for the wealthy.
Both of them are great men, one a war-hero and the other a community activist. They both have shown how they genuinely care about others and their country and both want to make the world a better place. It's just up to the voters to decide what kind of better place they want. What is so scary about Obama wanting to be President? He's just as qualified at McCain yet better educated.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
By all means, the GOP can verify voter registration all they want, but a home forclosure is not the way to do it. There are way too many ways that the forclosure listings can give a false view of reality. I do think that there should be more verification of voters, but not this way.
9 months ago
9 months ago
THE ONLY REASON WHY A REPORTER NOW ADAYS USES NOTES INSTEAD OF A VOICE RECORDER IS SO THEY CAN MISQUOTE THE SUBJECT IN THE ARTICLE. MELZER HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE AND WILL NOT USE ELECTRONICS TO RECORD AN INTERVIEW BECAUSE IT INTERFERS WITH HER INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS!!
9 months ago
Michigan Messenger stands behind Eartha Jane Melzer and her reporting.
9 months ago
www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200809...
GOP won't use foreclosure list to block voters
Macomb County party chair says blog is wrong
BY KATHLEEN GRAY AND AMBER HUNT • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS • SEPTEMBER 12, 2008
Read Comments(20) RecommendPrint this pageE-mail this articleShare this article:
Michigan Republicans will send thousands of challengers to polling places on Election Day, but party officials said they won't be using foreclosed home lists to contest voters.
Their comments followed allegations in a liberal blog, "The Michigan Messenger," that the Macomb County Republican Party would use foreclosure lists to challenge voters who no longer live in their foreclosed homes.
Rumors that Republicans were trying to keep people who had lost their homes from voting went viral on the Internet on Thursday as activists announced plans to rally outside Republican presidential candidate John McCain's Farmington Hills campaign office today to demand the resignation of James Carabelli, the Macomb County GOP chairman.
Carabelli flatly denied quotes attributed to him, saying he told a staffer for the blog that volunteers only would check to make sure that an address in a poll book matches the one the voter gives.
The GOP is "absolutely not" gathering foreclosed home addresses for poll challenges, Carabelli said. He said the blog was "actually kind of shocking. It's completely untrue."
The Michigan Republican Party also won't allow its challengers to use foreclosure lists, spokesman Bill Nowling said.
"What does a name on a foreclosure list tell us? Nothing," Nowling said. "We go into the polling place with the qualified voter file and that is all."
A person's name and address on a foreclosure list doesn't mean he or she has left the home, Nowling said.
Eartha Jane Melzer, who talked to Carabelli for the blog, said she stands by her story but didn't tape her interview.
"It could be that they're embarrassed at having such a cynical tactic exposed," she said.
Under a new state law requiring voters to produce photo identification, poll challengers may check to see that the person voting matches the ID.
In 2004, 4,276 Republican volunteers were challengers in 1,800 Michigan precincts. A similar effort will occur this year, Nowling said.
Democrats and other organizations say the GOP challengers aim to intimidate and suppress the vote.
Contact KATHLEEN GRAY at 313-223-4407 or kgray99@freepress.com.
9 months ago
Second, the rebuttal itself is questionable. Michigan Messenger nor its parent organization, nor the reporter Eartha Melzer received any request to retract the article; the MIGOP instead issued a press release with its rebuttal. Had they actually planned to sue Michigan Messenger, they would have taken the first step of asking directly for a retraction as a prelude to a lawsuit. Such a lawsuit would make all notes, phone and other records subject to subpoena as evidence. You might want to ask yourself why the Detroit Free Press and other mainstream media outlets didn't press this issue with the MIGOP.
Thirdly, you have posted in its entirety a complete article by the Detroit Free Press, which is likely a violation of their copyright and not Fair Use. Any further re-posting of complete articles will be removed.
9 months ago
9 months ago
Spoken like a man without an email account!
9 months ago
9 months ago
This country is falling apart right in front of our eyes and we're allowing it. Because we'd rather BLOG and sit on our behinds rather than doing what are parents did and voice our opinions, collectively!!
9 months ago
9 months ago
In the future, please avoid the use of similar rhetorical devices, although we can understand your frustration and anger about this situation.
9 months ago
http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t...
Monks in '08 muthafuckaz!!1one.
9 months ago
9 months ago
For the unbright: if you target a demographic that's likely to vote for your opponent, that's vote suppression. If you target foreclosed homes in a specific area in which that demographic tends to live, that's vote suppression. Also, 2 + 2 = 4.
9 months ago
Americans for Democratic Action in Washington, DC has formed a Voter Suppression Task Force to publicize dirty tricks like this, take legal action if necessary, etc.
9 months ago
9 months ago
We must fight back. Progressive Future has a great action page posted where you can write to Michigan's Secretary of State, Terri Lynne Land, and tell her that this kind of interference with the basic right to vote is unacceptable, and that you expect her to say so—publicly. Just click here.
9 months ago
We are citizens of the United States of America first.
We are residents of Michigan, Florida etc. second.
Why is there no National Election laws covering who can vote and who can't in national Elections?
Why is the determination of the qualification to voter left in the hands of Elected Partisan Officals?
In the day of computers and databases why is their no national Voters Registration?
I can understand why the US has the lowest voter turn out of any industrial nation because we make the system so hard and unfair. The people who think there is no use voting because their vote want count anywayare probably correct.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
> We are citizens of the United States of America first.
> We are residents of Michigan, Florida etc. second.
> Why is there no National Election laws covering who can vote and who can't in national Elections?
The Constitution says states can't discriminate against voters on the basis of race, color, or sex.
It also says that it is up to the states to choose electors for President. They don't even have to let the public vote. Obviously, all the states nowadays let the public vote, and choose electors based on that (either proportionally or winner-take-all).
If you want to change things, a Constitutional Amendment is the way to go.
9 months ago
No one no where has said that they want to prevent people from voting.
People are confusing a notice of foreclosure with a foreclosure.
"Foreclosure Defined
A foreclosure occurs when a property owner cannot make principal and/or interest payments on his/her loan, typically leading to the property being seized and sold.
Stages of Foreclosure
The foreclosure process is not very difficult to understand. There are several stages during which the homeowner has an opportunity to bring the loan current and avoid foreclosure.
After about three to six months of missed payments, the lender orders a trustee to record a Notice of Default (NOD). At the County Recorder’s Office. This puts the borrower on notice that he or she is facing foreclosure and starts a reinstatement period that typically runs until five days before the home is auctioned off. It is at this time that the property is foreclosed. Of course after the sale there is a new owner.
All of this does not take away a person's right to vote but does affect where they vote from. Therefore a challenge of the person's status is legitimate!
Talk about politics of fear!
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
Speaking of debating the issues -- this one being the issue of voter rights -- you've left 3 comments in this thread inside eight minutes, none of them actually furthering discussion of the topic and merely being confrontational. Any further comments of that nature will be removed as spam-trolling.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
Because you refuse to admit the truth does not obviate the truth.
The Iraq war is the perfect example of the failure of "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war. Each and every excuse given for going to war was proven to be false and it has cost the US over 4,000 lives, over 2 trillion dollars, the respect and trust of the world and the opportunity to turn all of the good will of 9-11 into a world changing event.
John McCain with all of his military experience, with all of his training, with all of his political experince could have stopped this war. Single handedly. He could have said "NO" and the congress would have gone with him but for all of his military experience, for all of his training, for all of his "foreign relations" experience, he blew the call. Absolutely blew it. He does not deserve the chance to blow it again.
"It is
9 months ago
Funny, the Iraq Study Group disagrees with you. "Regarding Iraq, the Commission concluded that the Intelligence Community was "dead wrong" in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and that this constituted a major intelligence failure. The Commission's report described in great detail the systemic analytical, collection, and dissemination flaws that led to the Community's erroneous assessments about Iraq's alleged WMD programs. Chief among these flaws were failures by certain agencies to gather all relevant information and analyze fully information on purported centrifuge tubes, insufficient vetting of key sources, particularly the source "Curveball," and somewhat overheated presentation of data to policymakers"
In other words, Bush lied, servicemen died now McCain wants those same lies to make him president. I'd call that more of the same.
"(C)ost the US over 4,000 lives"
Under no circumstances can this be deemed a policy failure. Heck people in the country do not really care about military deaths."
That is a typical Bushist line. The military serve. They promise to give their lives, if need be in the defense of their country. To dishonor that sacrifice by using under false pretenses, using lies and deceit, to achieve purely political goals stains the memory of every serviceman killed or wounded in Bush' Iraqi adventure. Military people are expected to die. That means the commander in chief carries a special responsiblity to exercise wisdom and caution with their sacrifice. Bush didn't, McCain won't.
"2 trillion dollars"
Is also a poor standard to measure policy success or
failure. Are you standing in line to get a loaf of bread?
Is you daily needs rationed?
More to the point where is the money going?"
Gee, let's see. 2 trillion dollars, Let's see. $7,000 for every man, woman, and child in the US. Let's see, where is it going? In the toilet, that's where it went. Not to our defensee. not toward achiving energy independence, not to rebuilding our infrastructure. Just in the toilet. And McCain wants more of the same.
"(R)espect and trust of the world and the opportunity
to turn all of the good will of 9-11 into a world changing
event."
Respect and trust are by their nature very amorphous."
No, respect and trust are why we're supposed to vote for John McCain aren't they? Isn't that what his leadership is supposed to be all about? We respect his leadership and trust his jusgement? Money, power, and governments can be lost. Respect, honor and dignity can only be given away. George Bush with his dishonesty, with his boorishness, with his arrogance, with his ignorance, gave away our honor, took away our respect, and threw away our dignity. John McCain was there, helping, every step of the way.
"Single handedly. He could have said "NO"
and the congress would
have gone with him"
Bit arrogant don't you think? "
No, I don't think. There were two men in the congress who could have done this. John Warner and John McCain such was the respect they carried inside and outside congress and across party lines. If either of them had gone to the floor of the Senate and said, "NO" Bush' AUF would have evaporated. But, they didn't. Take your pick, McCain put his party before his country or he's too incompetent to be president. There is no middle ground.
President is not earned because you've been in a POW camp or spent the last quarter century pandering to lobbyists in DC. Dumping your first wife for a younger, prettier, richer model who can help your political ambitions is not the stuff of presidents. Crashing 4 navy jets is not the judgement of presidents. Pulling strings with federal regulators to stop an investigation of a banker with whom your wife is involved in several questionable real estate deals is not the stuff of presidents. Failure to recognize the real threats facing this nation and placing the desires of your party over the needs of your nation is not the stuff of presidents but, it is the stuff of McCain.
Turning down high six figure jobs so you can work to help people make their lives better, working to convince people they can be better, inspriring people to work for a better America, inspring people to believe in themselves and their nation, that is the stiff of presidents and that is the stuff of Obama.
9 months ago
THIS
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/u/uraniumy...
Is your source to "prove" Bush' justification for his stupid war?
THIS
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/u/uraniumy...
Trumps
The Iraq Study Group
Wall St. Journal
LA Times
Atlanta JC
Washington times
NY Times
Newsweek
Time
NBC
CBS
ABC
CNN
and the dozens of books written on the subject
THIS
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/u/uraniumy...
And I suppose you think Fox news really is "Fair and Balanced"?
I have rational discussions with rational people. The proof of Bush-McCain's failures are there for those who care to open their eyes and look.
More?
September 2002 to January 2003 Bush declares on many occassions Iraq to be an "Imminent" threat and yet, for six months did nothing. If he really thought Iraq was a threat he would have attacked immediately. He knew there was no threat and the only threat to his plans were the UN Weapons Inspectors.
October 2004 debate. The moderator asked Bush "given what we know now, ..." would he still have invaded Iraq. Bush said yes. He did not try to correct the moderator. Just said yes, even given perfect knowledge he would still have invaded. This, whether you admit it or not, is an acknowledgement that the reasons given for the invasion were false. I knew this in 2002, Russ Fiengold knew this in 2002, Ron Paul knew it in 2002.
McCain either didn't know it or chose, like you, to make believe. In either case, when the time came to lead, McCain failed. He does not deserve the chance to fail again.
9 months ago
From YOUR article....
Did you read the AP article?
Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddams nuclear efforts.
Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
A child molester "justifes his crime by saying "the child wanted me to".
A thief rationalizes his crime by saying "they didn't need it anyway."
Don't try to rationalize Bush's crime in Iraq or McCain's complicity in it.
9 months ago
Turned out to be weather research stations
"Sarin artillery shellsFound Mustard Gas Artillery"
Over 20 years old and rusted out and unusable
Found MIGS preserved and buried
Not preserved, buried in the sand in the desert by Iraq's military to keep the US from bombing
Found SCUDS trailered and hidden in civilian locations
Perfectly permissable under the UN cease fire agreement
And on and on and on......
In every instance the "proof" claimed by the Bushists turned out to be more lies.
None of the "justifications" you present, even if they were true and even if Bush had knowledge of them before the war, meet the criteria laid out by Bush for his decision to go to war and justify his deception of the American people.
Remember "Imminent Threat", "Clear and Present Danger"
None of what you present meet that test, while most of if, like 20 year old artillery shells rusted out and buried in the desert, were both unkown at the time of the invasion and presented no danger at all except to the poor unfortunates who found them, that would be US soldiers. Even using what Bush did not know to justify his actions, even in the face of the undeniable fact that what he claimed to know was lies, STILL fails to meet any reasoned test of "imminent threat" or "clear and present danger."
The story you referenced as your ULTIMATE proof was true. Your interpretation on the lies you and the rest of the Bushists add are what is false. It took about 90 seconds to disprove your lie. But, as always, these lies are not aimed at me, a person willing to look and understand and research. These lies are aimed at the ignorant, at those who are afraid, at the lazy.
If you are not a liar you are then ignorant, afraid, or lazy. There is no middle ground.
9 months ago
they need to know right this instant."
Tell that to the parents of the 4100 US service personnel who've died in Bush's war.
I understand. I've understood from day 1 that this war was never about WMD. This war was never about terrorists. This war was never about Iraqi freedom. This war was always about one thing and one thing only. Projecting American military power in the oil producing regions of the Middle East.
The single object of Bush's war in Iraq was the overthrowing of the legitimate government of Iraq and the insertion of a puppet government obedient to current US desires. The objective was faulty, the execution flawed, and the goals will never be met.
Occam's Razor. To accept yours, and Bush's explanation I have to believe that all of the intelligence was just wrong, that all of the nations advising the US of the folly of the war were just wrong, that all of the reasons given for the war were true, despite all of the information to the contrary. Sorry, the pieces of your puzzle do not fit properly and the simplest answer is almost always the correct answer. The simplest answer? Bush lied and McCain helped.
9 months ago
If you are going to kill an American serviceman he, and his family, have the right to know that the cause is just. That the cause is honorable. That the justifications are true. None of those things can be said of Bush' s war.
"The Brits, Italians, French, and Russians, to name a few, all were of the opinion that WMD programs in Iraq were viable and extent."
And yet none of them supported Bush's war. Actions speak louder than words. OBVIOUSLY, the French, Germans, Russians, countries with an active presence did not consider Iraq a threat.
"Just which nations were those, prior to 2003?"
Germany, France, Russia, to name a few.
"All the so-called info to the contrary came out after the
fact. That sounds a bit like hindsight (always 20/20)"
Yet another Bushist lie. The Weapons Inspectors found no justification for the Bush allegations. Joe Wilson spoke to the lie about purchasing uranium. Yes, there was intel supporting Bush' s position. There was at least as much intel opposing his position. If you're going to kill a US Serviceman, be right because he won't get another chance.
"June 2000 Saddam gave a speech in where he said Iraq would
not disarm..."
In 2002 Saddam released a report to the UN detailing the absence of WMD and weapons programs. What? Was he honest and believable in 2000 but a liar in 2002? The CIA's own evaluation said that Iraq was unlikely to use WMD unless they were attacked. Was Bush trying to get Iraq to use WMD? No, he didn't believe they existed. The lies he told were for people like you.
"That reconstitution is why I believe those "weather stations" were hidden."
Belief is not truth. Belief is not fact. The facts are that absolutely none of the reasons given for Bush' s war in Iraq were true. The facts are that had Bush not intended to invade and overthrow the legitimate government of Iraq so that he could then, with the agreement of Iraq's new government, use Iraq as a military base, he would not have cherry picked that information to produce a false threat. A threat that never existed. And, most important,
It is a fact that John McCain had access to all of that information and either failed to realize the truth or was complicent in the lies. In either case, McCain does not deserve another chance to fail his nation.
9 months ago
9 months ago
Rather than take a quote from a third party, an inspiring quote I might add, and try to use it as "proof" against Obama, try actually reading his books. Try educating yourself.
I will not change your mind. You are the type of voter the Bush-Mccain people depend on. Afraid. Ignorant. Angry. Hateful. They prey on your weaknesses, your fears, to get you to vote against your own self interest and in theirs.
I was a McCain supporter in 2000. In 2002 when he climbed on Bush's war bandwagon he lost my vote. In 2008 when the "Straight Talk Express" turned into the "Can't Lie Fast Enough Express", when he not only embraced Karl Rove's campaign tactics but the people who executed them against him in 2000, as he and Palin rail against earmarks while Alaska and Arizona split nearly 3/4 billion dollars in earmarks, while he talks about financial reforms while Phil Graham, the architect of the deregulation that made it all possible is his top economic advisor. He proved my misgivings correct.
There are no good reasons to vote for McCain. You can vote for him because you're a Republican and no matter how stupid the choice is you will vote Republican. You can vote for him because you're a victim of his campaign tactics. But, on the issues, the only sane vote is for Obama.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
You're misinterpreting Michigan election laws. Either you're Michiganders who are ignorant of them or you're from out-of-state and don't understand them is irrelevant. Read the election laws and then come back.
Michigan election laws place priority on where people are REGISTERED, not property titles. It doesn't matter if your home is foreclosed, not foreclosed, foreclosed and you still live there or you don't. If you're registered to vote there, the respective precinct is where you vote. Michigan law places an importance when someone moves on where they were LAST REGISTERED. If you move and haven't registered at your new address, you're eligible to vote at your last residence.
This, of course, puts the onus on the voter to register in the correct place. If you vote in one place and live in another, you are robbing yourself of the right to vote for the people who directly represent you.
This usage of foreclosure lists as a means to prevent people from voting is simply voter suppression by the GOP. Plain and simple. When your house is foreclosed, many simply don't know what they're going to do. Am I going to move? Negotiate with my lender? As such, by the time the election comes, even if you are in foreclosure you haven't re-registered if you have moved.
Someone needs to remind the GOP that this tactic won't stand up in court. And I fail to see if someone has moved that they can vote in two places. You can only register in one place and vote in the place. So-called "voter fraud" is a myth concocted by the Republicans in order to justify passing voter-suppressing legislation like voter ID laws.
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
9 months ago
Your newspaper is pathetic, and I imagine what's left of the paper's credibility will be destroyed when this saga is over.
9 months ago
Please point to where the Detroit Free Press debunked this article; to the best of my knowledge they have only noted the inconsistencies between what our reporter was told and what the Macomb County Republican Party chair said in rebuttal. If you check across the different media outlets that have featured the same party chair, there are many inconsistencies in his statements from outlet to outlet.
9 months ago
That being said, I do not trust any politician, regardless of party affiliation. The best I can do is look up their voting records and vote for whichever candidate most closely lines up with what I believe on the issues.
9 months ago
Bill Clinton would undertsnad the issue in Michigan, “Its the economy stupid”. Michigan’s economic problems begin with the Democratic Michigan Governor. Over the last 6 years Governor Granholm’s “Big Government” & “Tax and Spend” polices have destroyed Michigan’s economy. Granholm and Obama are tied at the hip. Their Campaign Promises concerning Taxes are identical. Ask Michigan’s residents about taxes Granholm has proved that Obama’s Policies are wrong for America.
Contrast Michigan with Ohio. The Democratic Governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland has pursued policies to reduce the tax burden and shrink the size of Government. Governor Strickland, and the Ohio Legislature, have taken action to reduce Individual and Business Taxes.
Ohio is on the road to recovery while Michigan continues in a downward spiral.
The election isn’t about Parties - It is about Policies.
http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/m...
http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/o...
9 months ago
Since Granholm first took office, the automotive industry has continued to flounder, unable to compete with offshore competitors due to rapidly rising health care costs and commodity costs. Since the state remained locked in a macabre death spiral with the auto industry, and since it was unable to afford to build a way out, the deficits have continued to thwart any chance for improvement in Michigan's economic climate.
The deficit represents debts that the people of the state of Michigan incurred; they have to pay them down. There's no way around it. You may see this as increased taxes, but paying down debts worked under the Clinton administration when it was saddled with Reagan/Bush deficits.
Just as one can obtain better credit ratings by paying all debts on time and on schedule, so can Michigan improve its situation if it takes care of obligations. Michiganders need to