- ‹ previous
- 2294 of 8922
- next ›
The "Voter Fraud" Fraud: The GOP's Last-Ditch Strategy for Winning an Unwinnable Election
Make no mistake: At this point, it's clear that the voter fraud chimera, and its potential to keep thousands or millions of Obama voters out of the final count, is becoming the central Republican strategy for winning this election. The party doubts it can win if every legitimate vote is counted, so they aim to make sure that some of them aren't. False allegations of voter fraud, which can serve to both intimidate voters and challenge ballots, is their means to this end.
As David Corn wrote last week, the right's "desperation is showing" as they scramble to reverse John McCain's free-fall by smearing Barack Obama with every scary label they can find. (As David summarized it: "Obama is a Black Muslim, Anti-Christian Socialist Plotting with an Evil Jewish Billionaire.") But in case this fails to frighten off enough voters to close Obama's lead, vote suppression is the Republicans' last-ditch tactic for snatching a tainted victory from the jaws of defeat.
This is a strategy that's been developing for years within the Republican Party. But it's really taken off during the Bush administration—maybe because W (or, more likely, Dick Cheney) remained conscious that he only got into the White House through vote suppression, and could only stay there through more vote suppression. The administration's zeal to advance the myth of voter fraud was key to what has become one of its biggest scandals: the politically motivated firings of nine U.S. attorneys by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2006.
Clearest of all is the case of David Igelsias, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico. It has since been revealed—and confirmed by the Justice Department's own Inspector General—that the primary reason for Iglesias's dismissal was his failure to aggressively pursue alledged cases of voter fraud after the 2004 election--including a case involving the current GOP target, ACORN, which registered a couple of underaged boys. Iglesias (a Republican himself) found insufficient evidence in that case, and no grounds for any others, so he resisted the urging of Republican politicians and party activists in the state--and was fired.
An especially good—and concise—take on this case comes from an Albuquerque elections lawyer, John Boyd, via Brad Friedman (who blogs about "electile dysfunction" at BradBlog.com). Boyd describes what he calls the "three-pronged scandal" of the attorney firings and the "'voter fraud' fraud":
First, there is the scandal of the "voter fraud" fraud which the Republicans have been trying to use to help promote restrictive, disenfranchising voter i.d. legislation. Second, there is the scandal of the Republicans attempting to enlist the US Atty's office in their voter fraud fraud by getting him, at taxpayer expense and contrary to the most elemental ethics, to use his office to generate headlines about "voter fraud" when none was occurring, for the sole purpose of shaving Democratic party margins. Third, there is the scandal of firing Iglesias for refusing to go along with this fraudulent manipulation.
The Obama campaign is now seeking to highlight all of these connections, by urging the Justice Department to have the same special prosecutor who is handling the attorney firings, Nora Dannehy, investigate whether the F.B.I.'s current investigations of ACORN are politically motivated as well. It's a shrewd move, and it positions the Democrats to fight the legal battles that are sure to follow the election if the vote count in swing states is close. But at this point, it won't do much to fight abuses on election day. That will depend in large part on the perseverance of the voters.
It's already clear just what they will up against. New reports document the obstacle course that many voters—especially first-time voters—will have to run simply to exercise their most basic democratic right. I got a first glimpse of their determination in New Mexico, which I traveled through on my cross-country trip with a Guardian Films team.
While there may have been few signs of voter fraud in David Iglesias's former jurisdiction, there has been rampant evidence of vote suppression. In the 2004 election, the state became notorious for its sky-high rate of "undervotes"—ballots that have been cast but do not include a vote in a particular contest. Records show an astonishing 1 in 36 ballots in New Mexico missing a vote for president that year. The total undervotes came to over 21,000—more than five times the margin of victory in the state, which George W. Bush won by fewer than 4,000 votes. About 80 percent of those undervote ballots were cast on electronic voting machines with no verifiable paper trails. The machines have since been banned and paper ballots mandated (though now there are concerns about the machines that tally up those paper ballots). But once burned, New Mexicans are still worried about their votes being counted.
On Saturday we stopped at a rally in Santa Fe with state Democratic politicians, meant to draw locals to the in-person early voting that's just begun in New Mexico. When we got there the place looked dead, and we decided it was a bust. But then we rounded the corner of a building, and there were the voters: not 10 or 20, but a good 75 or more, prepared to wait in the blazing sun for as long as two hours, with more people joining the line all the time.
Emerging from the voting booth in his wheelchair, Joe Parker, a state employee, told me that he had been turned away from voting at the primary and wasn't going to have that happen again. "I want to be sure there are no problems," he said with a tight smile. Ballots in New Mexico, he explained, had a way of "getting lost."
Portions of this post originally appeared on the Guardian's "On the Road to the White House" blog.
The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as more Democratic leaders voiced support for civil rights, upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats and Catholics in Northern cities. After Harry Truman's platform gave strong support to civil rights and anti-segregation laws during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "Dixiecrats," led by South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "Solid South" drifted away from the party. On the other hand, African Americans, who had traditionally given strong support to the Republican Party since its inception as the "anti-slavery party," continued to shift to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal economic opportunities and support for civil rights?largely due to New Deal relief programs, patronage offers, and the advocacy of civil rights by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Although Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower carried half the South in 1952 and 1956, and Senator Barry Goldwater also carried five Southern states in 1964, Democrat Jimmy Carter carried all of the South except Virginia, and there was no long-term realignment until Ronald Reagan's sweeping victories in the South in 1980 and 1984.
The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On doing so he commented, "We [the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation." Meanwhile, the Republicans, led again by Richard Nixon, were beginning to implement their Southern strategy, which aimed to resist federal encroachment on the states, while appealing to conservative and moderate white Southerners in the rapidly growing cities and suburbs of the South. Southern Democrats took notice of the fact that 1964 Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater had voted against the Civil Rights Act, and in the presidential election of 1964, Goldwater's only electoral victories outside his home state of Arizona were in the states of the Deep South.
Courtesy: Wikipedia
The Republican Party today in no way resembles the Republican Party prior to 1965. Anyone with a brain would recognize that African Americans today are better aligned with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.
By the way, I am white and voting for Obama. OMG! How could that be? Why, I should be supporting the white guy, not because of his policies but his skin color, right?
The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as more Democratic leaders voiced support for civil rights, upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats and Catholics in Northern cities. After Harry Truman's platform gave strong support to civil rights and anti-segregation laws during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "Dixiecrats," led by South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "Solid South" drifted away from the party. On the other hand, African Americans, who had traditionally given strong support to the Republican Party since its inception as the "anti-slavery party," continued to shift to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal economic opportunities and support for civil rights?largely due to New Deal relief programs, patronage offers, and the advocacy of civil rights by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Although Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower carried half the South in 1952 and 1956, and Senator Barry Goldwater also carried five Southern states in 1964, Democrat Jimmy Carter carried all of the South except Virginia, and there was no long-term realignment until Ronald Reagan's sweeping victories in the South in 1980 and 1984.
The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On doing so he commented, "We [the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation." Meanwhile, the Republicans, led again by Richard Nixon, were beginning to implement their Southern strategy, which aimed to resist federal encroachment on the states, while appealing to conservative and moderate white Southerners in the rapidly growing cities and suburbs of the South. Southern Democrats took notice of the fact that 1964 Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater had voted against the Civil Rights Act, and in the presidential election of 1964, Goldwater's only electoral victories outside his home state of Arizona were in the states of the Deep South.
Courtesy: Wikipedia
The Republican Party today in no way resembles the Republican Party prior to 1965. Anyone with a brain would recognize that African Americans today are better aligned with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.
By the way, I am white and voting for Obama. OMG! How could that be? Why, I should be supporting the white guy, not because of his policies but his skin color, right?
For more info on this topic, you'll want to check out the free election film streaming online:
www.freeforall.tv
ACORN is associated with Obama and is up to its neck in illegal registration of voters.
Obama wants voters, illegal or not....
Another question: why are 90-95% of Blacks supporting Obama. Is it his policies or his color, I wonder?
William...the answer to why 90-95% of blacks support Obama has much to do with the fact that historically 90-95% of blacks support democratic candidates. It makes sense if you think about it...Black voters would have voted for the democratic candidate and the only difference is that the candidate is also partially black. I hope I answered your question.
...historically 90-95% of blacks support democratic candidates.
Pretty short "historical" view there, Tom.
The fact is, for over 2/3 of the period following the UnCivil War, for a full century, in fact, black folks overwhelmingly supported the Republican party.
Every African-American in Congress was a Republican through 1935.
1954 marked the beginning of the modern Civil Rights movement with the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court Decision. The decision was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, 3-term Republican Governor of California and appointee of Republican Dwight Eisenhower.
Republican President Eisenhower then passed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. This was followed by the 1960 Civil Rights Act authored by Republican Everett Dirksen. And, Republicans overwhelmingly supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act only became law after Republican votes broke a Democrat filibuster that sought to never allow the act to be voted on.
In 1965, Republican appointed judge Frank Johnson over rules Democrat Governor George Wallace allowing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s protest march from Selma to Montgomery to proceed.
Courtesy: Yahoo Answers
On one of the "conspiracy
theory " web sites they
have Obama as the next best
thing to Hitler. They even
had some young people dressed
in camoflage and it wasn't
FDR's CCC corps either. So
I don't know who to belive
on Obama. I am not to please
with McCain either.
Both parties try and suppress votes of the other. Getting paid to vote is another thing that is widely used.
The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as more Democratic leaders voiced support for civil rights, upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats and Catholics in Northern cities. After Harry Truman's platform gave strong support to civil rights and anti-segregation laws during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "Dixiecrats," led by South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "Solid South" drifted away from the party. On the other hand, African Americans, who had traditionally given strong support to the Republican Party since its inception as the "anti-slavery party," continued to shift to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal economic opportunities and support for civil rightslargely due to New Deal relief programs, patronage offers, and the advocacy of civil rights by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Although Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower carried half the South in 1952 and 1956, and Senator Barry Goldwater also carried five Southern states in 1964, Democrat Jimmy Carter carried all of the South except Virginia, and there was no long-term realignment until Ronald Reagan's sweeping victories in the South in 1980 and 1984.
The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On doing so he commented, "We [the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation." Meanwhile, the Republicans, led again by Richard Nixon, were beginning to implement their Southern strategy, which aimed to resist federal encroachment on the states, while appealing to conservative and moderate white Southerners in the rapidly growing cities and suburbs of the South. Southern Democrats took notice of the fact that 1964 Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater had voted against the Civil Rights Act, and in the presidential election of 1964, Goldwater's only electoral victories outside his home state of Arizona were in the states of the Deep South.
Courtesy: Wikipedia
The Republican Party today in no way resembles the Republican Party prior to 1965. Anyone with a brain would recognize that African Americans today are better aligned with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.
By the way, I am white and voting for Obama. OMG! How could that be? Why, I should be supporting the white guy, not because of his policies but his skin color, right?
How about the citizenship question against Barry Soetoro a.k.a. Barack Obama?
Michael-
Barack Obama was born in Hawaii-after it had been admitted to statehood. John McCain was not born in the United States-but in a foreign (Panama) country. It has not been clear if he was born in a US Military Base Hospital, or in a cab-off base.
Misinformation about ACORN, questions about Obama's citizenship? C'mon. For once, I'd like to hear from a conservative who's actually done his research - one who has the FACTS and can debate a real argument related to the story instead of trolling about. I've done my homework - why can't the trolls do theirs?
And though I agree with Don that both parties play a role in voter fraud/supression, the Republican party is notoriously better at it. If they put the same effort into getting apathetic Reps to vote (historically lower voter turnout) as they put into supressing the Dem votes, they might actually win an honest race without having to steal it.
I am a republican, but not the type that represents the neocon christofascist of today. When I got out of the Army during Vietnam I heard a report on the radio that the christians were going to take over a political party and get what they wanted. They did. In the meantime the right wing neocons were developing their plans to get rid of the entitlement society. Thus the beginnings of what we have today. The democrats of old were racist southerners who controlled the white racist votes and most of congress. Then civilc rights started by Ike and followed by Kennedy. The real republicans were Ike and he was for a large middle class, union protections and a small working government not controlled by a military industrial complex. Look what we have today. Christians, whose leader, geesus, was a socialist, are completely against helping others and those less fortunate. Republicans are against government of any kind and when in power do everything to make it less efficient, thereby creating a rational for their base. I am ready to start a new republican party, one that wants lower taxes for the middle class, none for those less fortunate, higher for those who make more. lots of taxes for greedy bastards, and excessive taxes for those corporate raiders who destroy jobs. Taxing churches who engage in Mega Churchs and all those who broadcast so called news programs. Medical care, care for the needy, housing, transportation, nutrition and lots of states rigths. Everyone will be required to vote and voting will occur in the last two weeks of October until the first Tuesday in November which would be a voting holiday, maybe switching Presidents day to that Tuesday. Who will join me? I got lots more about being green.
BTW William, I know you know the answers to the questions you are asking and you still are a neocon idiot. If you knew anything about what is going on with ACORN then you would not post such lunacy, yu ditto heads can't help urself. Turn off Rush and open a book unless you like being ignorant.
INTENTION is a Key to Democrat Victory:
Many of you know of meditation, visualization, and of making intentions and know how very powerful they are. It is my intention that Barak Obama is our next president, and I believe that he has made that intention as well. If the millions of American voters who want Barak Obama to be our president not only vote (early, for vote-security purposes) AND also make the same intention...how can we fail?
VISUALIZE AND MEDITATE FOR OBAMA.
INTEND THAT BARAK OBAMA IS OUR PRESIDENT.
There is now a solution to the hanging-chad, software glitch and electronic shenangans of the Republicans: http://www.scantegrity.org/washington/
No, I don't work for them -- "I heard it on NPR"...!
Disocunt
Disocunt Handbags
Handbag
Fake Handbags
Cheap Handbags
Gucci Jewelry
The fashion Wholesale Shoes On Sale
Best Cheap Discount Designer Replica Handbags On Sale
Cheap Discount UGG Boots
cheap deisgner replica handbags
Fashion Wholesale Replica Handbags
Cheap Handbags
Leather Wallet
Marni Handbags
Hermes Handbags
Givenchy Handbags
Juicy Couture Handbags
Christian Louboutin Sandals
louboutin 2009
Burberry Handbags
Gucci Handbags
UGG Women's Gissella
UGG Classic Argyle Knit