Update: Will SC Dems pull a Lautenberg?

The Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in SC has been indicted (as forecast), but I'm wondering if anti-democratic (and moral relativist) Democrats will try to pull a Lautenburg to get a candidate they like on the ballot. I don't know what SC law is, but that didn't matter in NJ.

Aside: ol' Jim McGreevey makes an appearance in this story!

UPDATE: I like how CNN "Wire Staff" continue to look askance at Greene's candidacy (in particular, whether or not he is a stooge who didn't even pay his own filing fee):

The obscenity issue is one of several controversies swirling around Greene's long shot candidacy. Observers have also questioned how the 32-year-old nominee, who is believed to have very little personal wealth, was able to afford the $10,440 filing fee required to get his name on the Democratic Senate primary ballot.
South Carolina's top law enforcement agency said it determined that Greene used his own money to pay the fee, though the state attorney general's office said it did not receive a request from the agency to subpoena Greene's bank records.

Well, it appears (here) that a pretty thorough (and transparent) investigation disproves CNN's thesis. Great reporting CNN!!

BeauBiden has higher priorities; yeah, right

Beau Biden, VP's son, won't seek US Senate seat - washingtonpost.com:

Biden vowed while campaigning for attorney general in 2006 that he would crack down on child predators, and he made the creation of a separate child predator unit within the state Justice Department his top priority after winning office. Had he turned his attention from the Bradley prosecution to running for Senate, he likely would have faced criticism from some voters.

. . . read: not a good time to be running as the heir to Joe Biden's throne.

In other news, another Congressional Democrat announces he won't seek reelection.

MA Dems show their principle after Kennedy's death

Well, Sen. Ted Kennedy has passed away, and his loved ones deserve our condolences, but his passing has exposed some of those deep-seated democratic principles of Mass. Democrats clawing to keep control of his Senate seat:

Last week, Kennedy asked Massachusetts leaders to change state law to give Patrick the power to appoint an interim replacement to Kennedy's seat should Kennedy be unable to continue serving.

"It is vital for this commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election," Kennedy wrote in a letter to Patrick.

Lawmakers are weighing a bill now that honors Kennedy's request. Lawmakers are expected to hold a public hearing next month on the proposal, moving up the consideration date from October, and allowing legislation to be passed and signed into law before the deadline for a special election.

But a change in the law isn't a sure bet. Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Robert DeLeo, all Democrats, have stayed mum on whether they would support the change.

But Patrick told a local radio station Wednesday that he believes the proposal was "entirely reasonable" and said he would sign the bill if it reached his desk.

The state last changed its succession law in 2004 to require the special election. Before that the governor was allowed to name a successor. At the time, Democrats were worried that then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney would be able to fill any vacancy created if Democratic Sen. John Kerry was elected president.

Rove and US Atty firings: where's the injustice?

The first line of this story is tantalizing, but where's the beef? Where's the injustice? From the story:

White House e-mails and transcripts of closed-door interviews with former Bush aides Karl Rove and Harriet Miers reveal involvement as early as May 2005 by Rove's office in the 2006 firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

Voter fraud (which is of the certifiable and Democratic Party variety) may not be important to certain DOJ attorneys, but it is to me and to most Republicans.

Ann Coulter on Minnesota's recount

Ann Coulter's op/ed on the latest Democrat election shenanigans is a must read: ("Minnesota Ballots: Land of 10,000 Fakes") From the article:

What is the point of having a hand recount of ballots in the Minnesota Senate race if the Democratic secretary of state is going to use the election night totals in precincts where it will benefit Democrat Al Franken?

Either the hand recount produces a better, more accurate count, or there was no point to the state spending roughly $100,000 to conduct the hand recount in the first place.

But that is exactly what the George Soros-supported secretary of state has agreed to do in the case of a Dinkytown precinct near the University of Minnesota. The hand recount of the liberal precinct produced 133 fewer ballots than the original count on election night and, more important, 46 fewer votes for Franken.

Wanna do your part in the MN Senate race?

Here's a cool time-waster, game sort of thing, that'll make you feel like you're doing your part to end the U.S. Senate race between Senator Norm Coleman and comedian Al Franken ;)

Hope, and some change, between those couch potato cushions

Obama's operation was impressive, and I've heard rumblings that the Dems are contemplating a perpetual campaign that will consist of a skeletal organization from now until 2011 to keep the fires burning among those-who-are-less-motivated-to-vote in his daunting database. Personally, I hope at least while a Democrat is in office the Dems will postpone the war room mentality for a couple years.

That being said, it appears that Obama's database might not be as unprecedented as some had thought: REALITY CHECK: Obama Received About the Same Percentage from Small Donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004:

"It turns out that Barack Obama's donors may not have been quite as different as we had thought. Throughout the election season, this organization and others have been reporting that Obama received about half of his discrete contributions in amounts of $200 or less. The Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) noted in past releases that donations are not the same as donors, since many people give more than once. After a more thorough analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), it has become clear that repeaters and large donors were even more important for Obama than we or other analysts had fully appreciated.

'The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances,' said CFI's executive director Michael J. Malbin. 'The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth.'"

Hat tip, ACK.

Go vote, dang it.

I was immersed in the campaign of a friend over the past few days, and my blogging time was limited. As a result, I missed some really good stuff.

Here's a charming GOTV video--maybe I can utilize it in two years.

Betting on elections . . .

Lately I've heard several Libs wanting to bet on the Presidential election. It is an interesting Liberal tick--very adolescent, as if politics is a big game or as if a Conservative's unwillingness to enter a bet with a blustery bonehead proves something . . . I guess they think they're calling our bluff (after all, EVERYone knows this election is in_the_bag!) or that they can dispirit us.

Well, not that Libs will care, but while looking over Tennessee election law this evening, I came across this statute which prohibits betting on an election.

§ 2-19-129. Betting; on election

A person commits a Class C misdemeanor if such person makes any bet or wager of money or other valuable thing upon any election.

Caught on Tape: ACORN and Democrat GOTV efforts

Here's some disturbing video of GOTV efforts by ACORN and the Obama campaign.

Election "fraud" fog in Nashville

Mark at "Dork Nation" (Republicans Allege Vote Fraud in Nashville) is sifting through a report (here) of a report about a recent dust up at a Davidson County early voting site (via A.C. Kleinheider). It should go without saying that the organic, real time, unedited, entertainment-focused medium of talk radio is a messy venue for sorting out the facts in such a situation, but here goes . . .

Actually, the problem (based on my conversations with Election Commission insiders) was that a person (an interpreter) was claiming authority to accompany voters into the polling booth to assist them with voting . . . that's not legal, unless the Officer of Elections concludes the voter is unable to vote without assistance and unless the voter requests that the person accompanying him/her be allowed to assist him/her. And the law only contemplates illiterate or some other physical disability, but I guess illiteracy can reasonably be construed to include persons "illiterate in English." T. C. A. § 2-7-116. That's a debate for another day.

Also, though Mark (and ACK) imply that the statute summarily dispenses with claims that ID is required to cast a ballot, completing an affidavit of identity (in lieu of proper ID) is only one step in the process of determining if the person can vote. The code further requires that the information on the affidavit be compared with the information on file (his/her signature and other info collected when a person registers). If everything is perceived to be on the up and up, they're given a normal ballot; if not, they're allowed to vote with a provisional ballot. T. C. A. § 2-7-112

But something that needs to be pointed out in this whole debate is that one means of undermining ballot integrity is by flooding a polling place with potential voters who require special treatment. Given the histrionics about voter suppression and other forms of "disenfranchisement," poll workers are often motivated to give the demanding party (e.g., the ACORN or La Raza rep. or the friendly ACLU lawyer-on-loan) whatever they demand rather than wait for confirmation from Election Comm. HQ or rather than go through all the steps that are required for determining the person's eligibility to vote. One clever trick I've heard of (I think in PA in 2006) is to swamp a polling place (which invariably has a limited number of provisional ballots) with "ineligible" voters who ultimately are allowed to cast normal, untraceable ballots rather than be turned away because of a shortage of provisional ballots.

Complicated and rife with technicalities, you say? No doubt; but it is difficult to conduct a fair ballot (actually, it is almost impossible, especially if you expect it to be simple and easy) when determined persons have concluded that the end of winning an election justifies even immoral means.

Election fraud(s) in TN!!!

You'd think the computer whizzes brilliant enough to hack computers and thereby steal (Presidential) elections from (only) Democrats would be smart enough to have the software do it without making a big show of the whole scheme. ("The BRAD BLOG : Election Integrity Filmmaker Sees Own Vote Flipped on ESS Touch-Screens in TN"). And how cool is it that someone who tries to make documentaries on this stuff actually has a first-hand experience of it and that this happened in little ol' (navy blue) Nashville!?!?

Voter Purging and hand wringing

It's election time, and that means Democrats are cuing up crazed accusations of voter disenfranchisement. Well, today I came across this article, Protecting Voter Rights | The American Prospect, profiling the Lefty bogey man of "voter purging." The article defines the term as "the process by which states remove ineligible voters from the rolls." But the phrase "voter purging" connotes voters, people, being treated poorly. Merriam-Webster online defines "purge" as,

to cause evacuation from (as the bowels) b (1): to make free of something unwanted (2): to free (as a boiler) of sediment or relieve (as a steam pipe) of trapped air by bleeding c (1): to rid (as a nation or party) by a purge (2): to get rid of

It would be more accurate (though less powerful as a political club) to use phrases like database purging or election roll purging or ineligible voter purging. Indeed, you will find little resistance from me about most of the Brennan Center's suggestions for purging best-practices. But I have to cry foul when Lefties claim that the Republican Party "stole" the 2000 election, or persists in trying to steal elections, by means of "voter purging."

So, did "voter purging" affect the results of the 2000 election, and is it likely that it will affect future elections? Let's consider those questions.

Did "voter purging" (particularly efforts to remove felons--who are not eligible to vote in Florida, from the voter rolls) affect the 2000 presidential election?

No. This article, in one nice little journalistic package (and from a neutral source--The Palm Beach Post), demonstrates that thousands of felons voted illegally, and thousands of persons on the suspected felon list were allowed to vote illegally in counties that ignored the procedures instituted prior to the election (hmmm, which Florida counties do you think made that unilateral decision?). I do not want to pooh-pooh assertions that some persons may have been unfairly denied the opportunity to vote, but there is no, I repeat no, evidence that the felon purge in Florida2000 determined the election. (Indeed, the subject of the article was a man unfairly denied the opportunity to vote for Bush).

Is "voter purging" something to worry about in the 2008 presidential election?

No. Following the 2000 election fiasco, Congress instituted election polices that include what is termed "provisional voting." In sum, provisional voting or voting with a provisional ballot allows for recording a vote when there is a question about the person's eligibility to vote. After the election, appropriate election officials determine--through review of voting records, state databases and information provided by the voter, whether the ballot should be counted. So, short of recruiting God to work the polls on election day, there is no more efficient and effective means of preventing illegal ballots from being cast while ensuring that qualified voters will have the opportunity to vote.

Lastly, accusations of "voter purging"--like most Democrat accusations of electoral shenanigans, have little credibility in light of Democratic Party electoral policy. As long as Democrats push their agenda of laissez-faire election policy, there will be plenty of honest, legal (and Republican) voters being "disenfranchised," because every illegal ballot cast negates a legal ballot cast for the opposing candidate. So, I might lose some sleep of "voter purging" and its cousin "voter caging" when the Left starts taking ballot integrity seriously.

Dem marketing

If marketing's objective is making a product a household name, nobody's better at political marketing--the negative kind, than the Dems. You can't spell demonize without D-E-M, as I was reminded in The Center for Public Integrity | PaperTrail Blog - ELECTION ’08: Scoring Secretary of State Seats for Dems">this email alert today blaming Democrat losses in 2000 and 2004 on Republican Secretaries of State (and promoting a 527 devoted to continued demagoguery of same).

Evolving definitions of "election fraud"?

Tennessee Democrat leaders' weekend vote to punt on the Kurita/Barnes election controversy ("On Politics: Kurita was robbed on Nashville City Paper") has multiple "levels." Incidentally, none of the reports (e.g., Tennessean or the City Paper), provide any details about Barnes' basis for challenging his losing tally so it is difficult to know the validity of his claims (personally, I want the MSM to be my eyes and ears, not my brain).

But I have my suspicions. One thing that Barnes appears to have camped on is that some Republicans may have voted for Kurita in the primary . . . for the record, Dems, is cross-over voting in an open primary now a legitimate basis to void an election?

I can sympathize with Tennessee Lefties' spite for a maverick party member and bi-partisan Wilder votes, but this is just how these folks work . . . whatever it takes to win, right?

Gearing up for "election fraud" fraud

Since Democrats are (now) facing some pretty ugly polling data, it would be wise to gear up for the inevitable, Left-wing "election fraud" stories to come, because Liberals don't ever lose elections.

Well this is an example of how some Democrats--in this case it is the Democratic Governor of Montana,* work to influence elections: hindering transparency of the process (I wonder why that is?). Such Dem tactics happen even in little ol' Nashville, as I observed while poll watching a number of precincts for Corker . . . various officials in these Democrat-heavy precincts weren't interested in anybody making sure that things were done according to the law. Hey, whatever it takes to win, right?



*Of course we now know that being a governor is not that big of a deal for Democrats.

Election fraud in Connecticut?

There's a story on FoxNews (online) today that reports votes being cast in the name of dead persons in the state of Connecticut. Here's the original article from the Hartford Courant. The Courant article is worth reading in its entirety.

The FoxNews report is already causing a buzz (among Republicans) and inspiring rebuzzals (from Dems), for example the CT Sec. of State Susan Bysiewicz is raising clucks by adamantly asserting that no evidence of election fraud has surfaced. But I suspect most stories/commentaries on the issue will miss the important point: some very simple changes in our system would greatly reduce the electoral system's vulnerability to fraud.

First, it is significant to remember that this investigation only involved a SAMPLING of databases in Connecticut, so don't draw too many conclusions from the relatively low numbers. The actual data supporting sloppiness are very likely higher, and as demonstrated in a recent news story (my friends at People for ("the American Way") inform me that one of their candidates--unfortunately named Kevin Killer, won his SD primary race by only 5 votes) races are often won by small margins.

Second, the angle of this story is that Connecticut's electoral system is so sloppy. In reality, every state's electoral system is sloppy, but that doesn't mean that we can't take common sense steps to make the system less vulnerable to fraud.

From the Courant article:

The potential for fraud is most serious in municipal elections, when officials are not required to check photo identification at the polls and voters need only sign a statement attesting to their identity.

. . . .

Registrars tend to rely on newspaper obituaries, relatives, or word of mouth to learn of someone's death, many officials said.

Even then, registrars are advised to be extremely cautious about purging dead people from voter rolls, said George Cody, president of the Registrar of Voters Association of Connecticut and New Canaan's Democratic registrar.

In sum:

[Asst. Prof] Dufresne said there is no evidence of any election fraud, but the number of dead voters “shows the system is vulnerable and it shows that people who are clever and have a little cooperation in the town level, you could use this and get people to vote for people who died.”

(The prof said something similar in the Norwich Bulletin: "The investigation was not about fraud,” [Journalism Prof] Dufresne said. “It was about a lot of flaws in the system in town halls and at the state level. It is an inaccurate system.”)

So, it's not news (to most people) that bureaucracies, in general, are inefficient or that election systems, in particular, are vulnerable to abuse . . . so what is the simplest way to avert election fraud?

Dems have for a couple of years been alleging that elections are being stolen (as opposed to lost) because the CEO of Diebold once raised money for a Republican . . . or because some Berkeley Computer whiz was able to break into a poll machine in under 3 minutes and tamper with voting tallies. On the other hand, Liberals weep and gnash their teeth about attempts to purge databases of felons or dead people, when the truth is that "provisional ballots" make certain that all persons are allowed to cast a ballot and will have their vote counted--if upon post-election investigation the ballot is found to be legitimate and if including such contested ballots is necessary for determining a winner.

But all the while, Liberals and Democrat officials oppose--tooth and nail, merely requiring proof that a person is who s/he claims to be when showing up to cast a ballot?

One final point about the Courant article is that digging deeper into the facts on this report--like digging deep into a lot of such reports, appears to have turned up . . . nothing. Too bad Liberal election conspiracy theorists rarely if ever take the time to do the necessary investigation before demagoguing the vote fraud issue.

A couple things . . .

. . . about the Democratic Presidential Primary.

I was just reading a Robert Novak article on the Dem race, and several things came to mind:
--Though I disagree that Hillary's WV trouncing of Obama reflects any "momentum" for her campaign, it certainly reflects Obama's general election weaknesses.
--Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ) has just announced that he is switching his super delegate vote from Hillary to Obama. Call me old-fashioned, but it seems like majorly bad form for someone to pull that maneuver.
--Obama seems prepared (according to a story in Politico and reported by Novak) to proclaim the nomination his after he reaches "the pledged delegate majority not counting Florida or Michigan." It's not clear how Obama will handle such an announcement, but it seems a bit disingenuous for Obama to--in any way, diminish the significance of super delegates in deciding this race. There's no denying that the Democrats have a blatantly elitist system of selecting a candidate for president.

Winning the war, losing a battle

In light of the GOP's loss of a House seat in Mississippi yesterday, Mark Rose points out, Conservatives may be winning the war (of ideas) but losing the battle.

Disenfranchising Democrats

While I am rather pleased to see the Democrats take their nomination fight all the way to Denver, here's a little moral support for keeping out the Florida and Michigan primary results. As a Conservative, I listen half-believingly to Democrat cries of "voter disenfranchisement" as we're hearing from the Clinton camp.

That being said, this situation might fit the category of "disenfranchisement" as the voters of these two states had no other choice in the matter and--because of foolish, knowing decisions of their state legislatures, will be denied a vote in the Democratic primary if the DNC stands by its prior pronouncements.

Which highlights another strength of the Clintons' argument, that this is merely a dispute over the internal rules of a political party. As a result, the situation is a little bit different than in Florida2000 and NJ2002 where Dems expediently ignored state statutes to reach a desired end.

Oh well, I guess this post isn't all that supportive of the Obama position . . . Fight on Democrats!!