| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/13 |
| 2004/10/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33888 Activity:nil |
10/1 Registration tops estimates of eligibility, officials say
Moveon, keep up the good work!
http://csua.org/u/9av
\_ Did you actually read this article?
"There are 200,000 people on Franklin County's voter rolls who
currently are classified as 'inactive,' Damschroder said, but it
takes five years or more of non-voting to remove their names. No
one is purged from the voter lists in federal election years, so
the list won't be pared down until mid-2005."
So like, try really hard to think of all the things that might
have happened to some of those 200,000 in the last five years.
I know you can do it.
\_ A lot of them died or moved but we'll make sure someone votes
Kerry for them anyway. We have interpreted their desires from
the grave and marked a ballot for them.
\_ Republicans are starting to get nervous. Are you trying to
build a case for contesting the election after you lose it?
\_ Which side has 6,000 lawyers at the ready in all the swing
states? Pot, kettle, black? Some Republicans are disappointed
with GWB's performance in the debate. Those are the ones who
saw style over substance. Flash doesn't last. We now have a
new "global test" for defending ourselves. We have Kerry saying
we should have gone multi-lateral in Iraq, which we did, yet
unilateral in North Korea. The man is a gibbering fool and it
shows in the transcripts and post analysis. Your own guys are
saying it was a tie. Talk to the weed smoking guy at the top
and you'll feel better.
\_ "gibbering fool"??? Uh huh. Your partisanship has taken
leave of your sanity. Every poll has Kerry smoking Bush
in those debates, usually by a 2:1 ratio. Keep clinging
to your fantasy, it will come crashing down soon
enough.
\_ Both sides have an army of lawyers at the ready:
http://csua.org/u/9b2
\_ Bwahahahaha. I love it. Leave it to Bush apologists to
compare multi-lateral MILITARY ACTION and bilateral
NEGOTIATIONS. But of course, there's no nuance in the
Bush vocabulary. Stay strong, especially when wrong!
\_ And what was Kerry's vote for Persian Gulf War? Hmm???
When there was a huge Coalition for MILITARY ACTION with
even Syrians taking orders from the West?
\_ Read his speech.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/2/4/171330/6192
This time around was after 9/11. The president said
he was asking for force authorization in order to
press a diplomatic solution, then flipped a big ol'
bird to that and started bombing.
\_ This text of the speech just shows me how wrong
Kerry was back then. Does not change how he harp
on the small Coalition, but 12 years earlier
voted against authorizing a bigger one into action.
\_ Obviously you never read the behind the scenes
during GW1 between Powell and Aziz.
\_ The bill Kerry voted for was the "Authorization to
use force in Iraq". How much clearer can it be? If
he wasn't in favor of that, he should have voted
against it, before or maybe after he voted for it,
well until the polls said he should do the opposite
until his numbers slipped with his base but then it
was time to firm up his decisions by making a new
decision and consistently being consistent about his
nuanced consistency, maybe. |
| 7/13 |
|
| csua.org/u/9av -> www.columbusdispatch.com/election/election-local.php?story=dispatch/2004/10/01/20041001-D1-00.html Election Number of new voters soaring Registration tops estimates of eligibility, officials say Friday, October 01, 2004 Robert Vitale THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH After nine months of intense voter-registration efforts focused on Franklin County, the number of people signed up to cast ballots in the Nov. There are about 815,000 Franklin County residents older than 18, according to the most recent census estimates, for 2003. As of yesterday, Franklin County Board of Elections officials counted more than 817,000 registered voters, and forms are still coming in at the rate of 8,000 per day as Mondays registration deadline approaches. Although voter-registration numbers in some Ohio counties have reached 90 percent or more of population estimates, surpassing the number is highly unusual. One county official in Ohio called the Franklin County figures "bizarre." Franklin County election officials called them easily explainable. "Its not a cause for alarm," said Board of Elections Director Matthew Damschroder. A 1993 federal law often called Motor Voter made it easier for Americans to register to vote, including when they renew their drivers licenses. But the law also made it more difficult for elections officials to purge their lists of those who dont follow through and cast ballots. There are 200,000 people on Franklin Countys voter rolls who currently are classified as "inactive," Damschroder said, but it takes five years or more of non-voting to remove their names. No one is purged from the voter lists in federal election years, so the list wont be pared down until mid-2005. But voter registration is as controversial in this election year as any issue debated by candidates, and with Ohios standing as one of the presidential elections major battlegrounds has come scrutiny of every step in the process. In Lake and Summit counties, a criminal investigation is under way into thousands of registration forms turned in with fake names or forged signatures. In Franklin County, dozens of falsified forms discovered in May resulted in the indictment of one voter-registration worker. "This election year, election officials must be particularly vigilant," said Carlo LoParo, a spokesman for Ohio Secretary of State J Kenneth Blackwell. "And individuals need to be reminded election fraud and false registration is a felony." Damschroder, however, said double-checks started by registration-drive organizers since the May incident have virtually eliminated problems with fraudulent registrations in Franklin County. Board of Elections workers also check when processing forms. "I dont know how much more vigilant we can be," he said. In Cuyahoga County, registration figures from earlier this month showed 91 percent of residents 18 or older have registered to vote. In Lucas County, totals from noon yesterday show 84 percent of eligible residents have registered. Eric Worthen, supervisor of registration for the Montgomery County Board of Elections, said he did the calculation for his county on Wednesday because he thought totals there were getting awfully close. "Its pretty apparent the sheer volume has increased," he said. But of numbers surpassing eligible-voter totals, he said: "That would be a very odd occurrence. Checks with other central Ohio boards of elections, though, show Delaware County in the same statistical boat as Franklin County. There, the census estimates 95,348 residents are older than 18. As of 3 pm yesterday, the Delaware County Board of Elections listed 96,509 registered voters. Director Janet Brenneman said the countys growing population it has added about 7,500 residents a year since 2000 coupled with safeguards against purging voters account for the difference. "We just dont drop people off the roll for nothing," she said. Franklin County has added about 6,500 residents a year since 2000. More than 90,000 new voter registrations have been processed by the Board of Elections so far this year. Complete local/state coverage from The Dispatch Prep Sports Prep Sports Prep Sports Great photos from prep winter sports including wrestling, swimming, hockey and more! |
| csua.org/u/9b2 -> www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/09/20/politics1400EDT0567.DTL Come Election Day, at least five "SWAT teams" of Democratic lawyers will have their bags packed, ready to go to whichever battleground state might turn into the next Florida. Republicans have created an extensive network of lawyers in key states, and are flying in reinforcements now, weeks before the election. In Florida itself, Republicans have set up a command post in Tallahassee, the capital where hundreds of outside lawyers descended for the 2000 recount. Once again, courts and lawyers may play a decisive role in picking the president. Republican and Democratic lawyers both say at least one court challenge seems inevitable. Both sides are far more ready for the fight this year, and unlikely to let any viable challenge slip through their fingers. Instead of one Florida, the country could wake up on Nov. "There's no perfect process, and there are always creative lawyers who can come up with something to complain about if the election is close," said Bobby Burchfield, a Republican election lawyer who represented President Bush in the 2000 fight. Although the list of battleground states numbers 17, there are fewer where a postelection court fight could occur. Florida is a candidate to be the next Florida, but Ohio and Pennsylvania are better bets, lawyers said. Missouri could also be the scene of a major court fight if Sen. All those states have large numbers of Electoral College votes at stake, potentially making even small numbers of disputed ballots worth fighting over. Other factors in those states that could produce lawsuits include problematic voting machinery, allegations or a recent history of troubled election procedures, and state election laws that allow postelection challenges. More than 5 million voters in Ohio, roughly three out of four registered voters, will use the same punch card ballots that produced the pregnant and hanging chads in Florida. Other states to watch for litigation include New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin and perhaps Arizona and Oregon. The reasons include potentially balky equipment, voter registration problems and recent changes in state laws and procedures. Other battleground states are less likely to yield court fights, either because election laws in those states make challenges too difficult, or because historically smooth election procedures mean few problems on which to pin a court case. Such states include New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota and Iowa. The Bush-Cheney campaign says it is targeting 30,000 precincts in 17 states seen as key to victory or the scene of past election problems, and Democrats cite a similar number. Lawyers will be in many of those precincts and on call for others. Both sides have more lawyers working on this election than on any before, numbering well in the thousands when paid advisers, volunteers and outside organizations are counted. will have done nothing but prepare through the fall," said Bob Bauer, counsel to the Democratic National Committee. "We want to be able to send teams out to fight these wars simultaneously." The teams of top Democratic lawyers, some in Washington and others scattered around the country, are learning the intricacies of election law and studying the voting histories of a handful of crucial states where polls indicate Bush and Kerry running roughly even. Republicans in Ohio will have about two dozen lawyers on call in contested Columbus alone, Republican election lawyer Richard Siehl said. They'll know the local election procedures and the local judges. "You want people who have been before that judge before. They can bring with them their experts from Washington DC or wherever, but typically you have local lawyers shepherding the case." In July, the Republican National Lawyers Association ran a "Florida school" for about 200 Republican lawyers from around the country. Lawyers on both sides have already filed suit over election procedures and equipment in a handful of key states, although it is unclear whether any of the litigation will affect the election. The planning is an important measure of the high stakes this time around and the lessons of Florida in 2000. Then, 36 days of uncertainty and court fights ended with a Supreme Court ruling that effectively called the election for Bush. "Democrats feel like they really just got out-hustled four years ago," said Daniel Bromberg, a Washington lawyer who is helping the Democrats' recruiting effort. On Election Day, partisan lawyers will be at polling places that one side, or both, sees as especially important or prone to trouble. Lawyers will be ready to intervene on the spot if they see problems such as the confusing "butterfly ballot" in Florida. Democratic lawyer Mitchell Berger said Palm Beach County election supervisor Theresa LePore didn't return his frantic phone calls about the butterfly ballot on Election Day 2000. Berger, who is advising Kerry in Florida and elsewhere this year, said he will dispatch a lawyer to sit in the lobby of LePore's office on Nov. For all their planning, lawyers on both sides say they didn't see Florida coming and might be similarly blindsided this year. "The reality is that it's impossible to predict where you're going to have a problem," said Benjamin Ginsberg, a longtime Republican election lawyer. The Florida debacle was a historical freak -- a confluence of a near tie at the ballot box, technical voting problems severe enough to cast doubt on large numbers of votes, state law that allowed some kinds of postelection challenges and, most importantly, the potential for the disputed ballots to determine the winner. The best-remembered controversies in Florida grew from technical problems with voting itself, and many of those problems still exist. An estimated 32 million voters in 19 states will use punch cards. An American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit pending in Ohio claims punch card and some newer optical scan voting systems disenfranchise some voters, especially blacks. For example, lawyers foresee problems with large numbers of absentee and overseas or military ballots in several states, including Ohio. Litigation could also focus on the hodgepodge of state laws and procedures over who must show identification at the polls and why. In New Mexico, a Republican state senator and others have already gone to court claiming first-time voters who don't register with a county clerk must show ID, but a judge ruled this month that changing the rules now would disrupt the election. As in most elections, there will also be new technical and polling place problems this year, and any of them could mean a lawsuit. Court fights could arise from "provisional" ballots, a backup system required nationally for the first time in 2004. Rather than be turned away, voters can cast a provisional ballot if they come to a polling place on Election Day to find their names are not on the rolls because of bureaucratic error or other problems. "I could easily envision a situation where Republicans and Democrats are there, watching, while election officials decide whether to count the provisional ballots the same way they watched the hanging chads" in Florida, said Elliot Mincberg, legal director of People for the American Way. The liberal advocacy group is trying to help recruit 6,000 lawyers to volunteer as poll watchers and advisers on Election Day. Democrats have already filed suit in Missouri over handling of provisional ballots in the August primary. Of 5,914 provisional ballots cast in a Chicago primary in March, only 416 were ever counted. After Florida, election officials spent millions on new voting equipment. Electronic voting machines that resemble ATMs were supposed to be far more accurate and reliable than the old punch card or lever systems, and about twice as many voters will use them in 2004 as in 2000. Because they are new, however, the touchscreen voting machines make litigation more likely this year, rather than less. The machines performed well in the Florida primary last month, but lawyers still say the machines could be vulnerable to computer hackers, power failures or other glitches. With Florida in mind, lawyers also say the electronic machi... |
| www.dailykos.com/story/2004/2/4/171330/6192 Mr President, I do not believe our Nation is prepared for war. But I am absolutely convinced our Nation does not believe that war is necessary. Nevertheless, this body may vote momentarily to permit it. When I returned from Vietnam, I wrote then I was willing personally, in the future, to fight and possibly die for my country. But I said then it must be when the Nation as a whole has decided that there is a real threat and that the Nation as a whole has decided that we all must go. There is no consensus in America for war and, therefore, the Congress should not vote to authorize war. If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years--even while we armed him and refused to hold him accountable for using some of them. As we know, those who have been in war, there is no artificial wound, no artificial consequence of war. Most important, we must balance that against the fact that we have an alternative, an alternative that would allow us to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, an accomplishment that we all want to achieve. I still believe that notwithstanding the outcome of this vote, we can have a peaceful resolution. If we do, for a long time, people will argue in America about whether this vote made it possible. Many of us will always remain convinced that a similar result could have come about without such a high-risk high-stakes throw away of our constitutional power. If not, if we do go to war, for years people will ask why Congress gave in. They will ask why there was such a rush to so much death and destruction when it did not have to happen. So I ask my colleagues if we are really once again so willing to have our young and our innocent bear the price of our impatience. I personally believe, and I have heard countless of my colleagues say, that they think the President made a mistake to unilaterally increase troops, set a date and make war so probable. I ask my colleagues if we are once again so willing to risk people dying from a mistake. none / 0) It was 13 years ago, and a lot has changed since then. And we've all read Dean's comments in support of the current war that he made just a year ago. "It is a common delusion that you make things better by talking about them." none / 0) People want to forget that the Gulf War II: The Return vote was after 9/11, a time when many people, liberals among them, felt entirely different about security, safety and threat levels. the least one can do in debating this is accept the prevailing mood of the country at the time. Dean was always against the war, but it's a lot easier to do that when you aren't being asked to vote on it. Wed Feb 4th, 2004 at 21:21:43 GMT What a Crock ( 333 / 3) Invading Iraq did nothing to make us safer. In fact we are now less safe as 1) resources were diverted from pursuing the real terrorists, and 2) we've increased the number of angry young men joining terrorist organizations. Any liberal who felt that invading Iraq was even close to a good idea is either stupid or a knave. Neither quality makes for a good President (See Exhibit 1: GWB). Of course some of those in office knew it wasn't a good idea, but voted for it anyway. But if he insists that he was merely stupid or a knave, I'll accept his word. Parent Bullshit ( 350 / 4) The prevailing mood of the time is that folks had a LOT of questions about going to war. We were looking to our representatives for answers and folks like Kerry didn't even make an effort to get the answers, let alone ask the questions. At any rate, don't give me this bullshit about the prevailing tone of the nation. Why was it that Senator Robert Byrd, who hardly hails from a liberal state, was able to ask the tough questions despite the "prevailing mood of the country at the time?" The reason is that he had the courage to stand up and defend our country from insanity. He had the courage to take the hits in this political battlefield. none / 0) Byrd was able to ask questions from such a state because he traditionally does that in defense of Congressional authority in an absolutist way-- he was one of the fiercest voices in the Gulf War I resolution debate too-- and because, due to his demigod status back home and knack for getting pork projects funnelled to West Virginia, he can do anything he damn well pleases. none / 0) No, the prevailing mood at the time is that SOME folks had a lot of questions about the need to go to war, myself included. Remember, we are not talking about December and January, we're talking about October and November. If you choose to pretend the blogsphere is the prevailing mood, you're living in la-la land. I can give you plenty of my non-NYC/NoCal family and friends who, though reluctant to go to war, felt a wave of uncertainty. You're basic assumption is that Kerry's decision was purely political, which it may or may not be. But in the rush to ABK, a lot of people seem to have very selective memory about who knew what and when. Three in 4 said Bush should seek authorization from Congress before launching any attack, about the same proportion that expressed this view in the months before the Persian Gulf War in 1991. By the way, I live in Texas, and I can tell you that there were people out here as well who wanted to slow down and take a deep breath. none / 0) Another important tidbit below emphasized that Congress, of which Kerry was a member, should have had the last word on whether or not we should have gone to war. Significantly, the perceived need for congressional oversight crossed party lines: 66 percent of Republicans and 82 percent of Democrats said Bush should seek congressional consent before attacking Iraq. Nearly 6 in 10 survey respondents -- 59 percent -- said Congress should make the final decision if Bush and lawmakers disagreed on whether to use military force. But here, the two parties differed: 68 percent of Democrats and nearly as many independents said Congress should have the last word. Republicans were torn: Slightly more than half said the final decision should be the president's, while about 4 in 10 said Congress should have the last word. Any which way you look at it, Kerry abdicated HIS responsibility. none / 0) knowing what we now know of Dean, is there any doubt in anyone's mind that he would have voted no, if for nothing else to stick a finger in Bush's eye? none / 1) What struck me in Kerry's comments was the observation that the nation was divided on whether or not to go to war. Please remember that up until the first shots were fired, support for invasion without our major allies got only around 50% in polling. polling report Even the generic "do you support going to war" questions never seem to get above 60% and the "do you support without major US allies" seems to hover just over 50%. Clearly there are some major divisions reflected in the polling. Checkout that over 50% believed Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 (which can account for a lot of the hostility). Imagine if Senator Kerry had waged a crusade against the bogus Saddam-9/11 link instead of just rolling over and supporting the war. none / 0) the millions of people around the world who took to the streets in the largest single-cause protest in history. That in itself should have given congress pause, but political expedience and self-preservation overcame them. Will the same happen to Mr Kerry as president with a Repug house and senate? Just think, if Kerry had won, we might have avoided the first Gulf War. That might have meant no troops in Saudi Arabia, which in turn might have meant no Osama bin Laden, or at least a far less significant one than we know today. We'll never know if September 11 would have happened anyway, but there's a reasonably good chance that it would not have. Makes me wonder what the future consequences of our current course are going to be. Dennis Kucinich says, The current administration clearly believes that international terrorism can be defeated solely thr... |