The Republican administration
Re: “Time for Congress to call off the dogs”, 31 Aug 2007 Editorial You write, “It’s hard to see what more can be gained by continuing to go after the U.S. attorney firings” now that Alberto Gonzales has finally slinked away into the night. It’s really not that hard to understand. It’s called truth. It’s called justice. And it’s sad that you don’t care about either.
This Republican administration fired attorneys who dared investigate Republicans and others who failed to press bogus charges against Democrats.
Alberto Gonzales lied to Congress and the American people repeatedly and pathetically. That the Republican shills at the Rocky Mountain News don’t get it is hardly surprising. But there are plenty of us out here who are tired of the lies and corruption that the Republicans have brought us. If you lack the common sense and integrity to be outraged by the crooks and liars in this Republican administration I am, quite frankly, embarrassed for you.
This letter has not been edited.
Larry, larry, larry. If you cared for the truth, you would know that nothing that was done in the firing of the US attorneys was illegal or even unethical. These jobs are political appointments. And how would you know why these attorneys were fired? You say the truth hasn't come out, yet you seem to have a truth already in your mind that would evidently trump any facts.
Larry, we are really embarassed for you.
Posted by JIm on September 6, 2007 01:53 PMThey were fired for not harrassing democrats aggressively enough.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 02:02 PMMr. Jones,
What part of "serving at the privilege of the President," do you not understand? As Jim pointed out above, US Attorney's are political appointments. They could be dismissed or asked to resign because the President didn't like the suit they wore, or the way they cut their hair. Makes no difference at all. They are political appointments that serve at the privilege of the President. This is a non issue.
President Clinton, when he took office, replaced all 93 US Attorney's. President Carter replaced 79. President Reagan replaced 89, and the first President Bush, 81.
Please, SOMEONE tell me why this is an issue at all?
Posted by Dan2 on September 6, 2007 02:47 PMW. fired ALL of them when he began his "Presidency". THEN, after getting Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) the U.S. Attorney responsible was fired.
Republicans are liars!
I am not gay! LOL
Posted by rick on September 6, 2007 03:14 PMActually, President Bush retained more US Attorney's than his 4 predecessors. President Bush accepted the staggered resignations of the Clinton Administrations US Attorney's during his first two years. According to a LA Times article, President Bush appointed 78 new attorney's in his first two years of his first term.
Posted by Dan2 on September 6, 2007 03:56 PM"Republicans are liars!"
"I am not gay! LOL"
Posted by rick on September 6, 2007 03:14 PM
Rick, your homophobic and bigoted persona is showing beneath your liberal slip covering.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 03:59 PMDan2,
You say it was ethical to fire the attorneys. Was it ethical to lie about why they were fired?
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 04:03 PMCharles B,
Gonzalez, et al, did not necessarily lie about the reasons for requesting the resignations of the attorneys. They just couldn't recall. No proof, no crime.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 6, 2007 04:13 PMCharles, you have me confused with someone. I never once mentioned that it was ethical, just that they serve at the privilege of the President.
As this President has demonstrated on many occasions, his ethics may absolutely be called into question. But, after reading his statement regarding these particular US Attorney's, this is nothing more than a partisan issue for the Democrats. This sets a precedent for sure, but not a new one, per se. There is nothing wrong with changing a political appointment if they are not doing what the appointer wants them to do.
The whole controversy over former AG Gonzales is an entirely different matter all together. While it is now pointless to review if this man committed Congressional perjury (as he would most likely be pardoned should it EVER go to a trial and conviction), the way in which the firings and investigation into those firings was committed, is appalling, but not illegal by any stretch of the imagination.
A good way to look at this is what would the Democratic outcry have been if Sen. Clinton was President and did the EXACT same thing? Democratic partisans would now be saying this is no big deal and is WELL within her rights as President, and partisan Republicans would be going ape $hit. Those of us not beholden to partisan mantra would still be saying the exact same thing. What's all the hubbub bub?
Posted by Dan2 on September 6, 2007 04:23 PMDan2,
Sorry, my mistake, it was Jim who said it wasn't unethical.
Stan,
The reason that this story blew up is because the Justice Department lied about the reasons for the firings, saying the attorney's were incompetent. That is the reason Iglesias and others came forward in protest- because their reputations were besmirched.
The Justice Department then changed it's reasons for the firings from "incompetence", to "I don't know".
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 06:04 PMStan Broyles has high standards indeed. No, Alberto Greaseballez didn't "lie", unless you are a sane individual who considers a gutless sack of turds denying recollection of all of his actions lying. You're a fool and a piece of crap, Broyles, like your chimp master and his criminal consigliere.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 06:08 PMlarry,You are another total village idiot.You are proof that we need to fix our education program.How do people like yourself get so F-in stuped?
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 06:37 PMOnce again I am holding a telethon to raise money for voice activated tape recorders. All of them will go to members of the Bush administration with our heartfelt wishes they use them from now on.
Folks, how do you feel that our country is run by such memory deficient members of the good `ol boys, and girls, network?
I`m starting to like outright liars better.
larry,You are another total village idiot.You are proof that we need to fix our education program.How do people like yourself get so F-in stuped?
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 06:45 PMSharon B
"...memory deficient members of...like outright liars better..."
Unfortunately, over the last 20 or so years, at least, we've been shown that' these are the only two types of politicians in office regardless of party affiliation.
Talk about having to pick the lessor of two evils...
Posted by mongoose on September 6, 2007 08:01 PMi do agreein wth me idull KEITH the pubic edjakation sistim is bad if we ceep getin pepul like larry not like KEITH an me
Posted by KEITH!FAN! on September 6, 2007 09:08 PMNew rally cheer for the Democrats:
"We can't wait for 2008!"
Posted by Old Grouch on September 6, 2007 09:34 PMHey Old Grouch. Hope you had a good weekend and holiday.
Oh my what is to be gained from further investigation of this matter. Why I can`t think of a single thing, can you?
Now if this was about White Water or sex we could throw money and time at it for years.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 6, 2007 10:09 PMi missed this whole debate when clinton did the same thing. no reason just got rid of them
Posted by on September 7, 2007 05:57 AMCull the herd of GOP felons, draft dodgers, liars, Arab exterminators/vaporizers, and perverts.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on September 7, 2007 07:31 AMNo one will ever know the truth of what went on or the reasons why. Remember you are talking about politicians soooo, you must take what they say with a two ton bag of salt and even then you will find many words , that when carefully analyized, don't mean what they say and, in most cases, say nothing at all about what the subject matter they are trying very hard not to talk about.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 7, 2007 10:20 AMDan2 Constitutional scholar (non-partisan, non-Bush-lover):
Do you deny that there is value in resolving the constitutional issue of whether the President can prevent the Justice Department from prosecuting contempt of congress charges against executive branch employees? Or should these exagerated executive priviledge (a phrase found nowhere in the constitution) powers be extended to the next President Clinton as well?
If there was a criminal conspiracy to use the Justice Department to further Republican electoral goals, isn't that something we should know?
Posted by on September 7, 2007 11:07 AMAnon.
I would agree with your implication that it would be indeed a travesty to to not resolve an issue of executive misconduct. However, as Alberto Gonzales is no longer AG, that if he did commit perjury to congress, which is an impeachable offense, what would be the resolution of this?
My question back to you would be, what is the criminal conspiracy? As we are directly inferring the request of resignation of PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS, that serve at the PRIVILEGE of the PRESIDENT, by the PRESIDENT!!! What part of that is a criminal conspiracy? Maybe I am missing you point?
Now, if Congress wants to begin an investigation into the actions of Vice President Cheney and his refusal under both executive and as President of the Senate to avoid over-sight, by all means we should begin an investigation into that impropriety. But as far as political appointees being dismissed, within the constitutional scope of the President's authority, this is, and remains nothing but a partisan issue.
Maybe the anon poster would care to actually review the history over the last 40 years of the US Attorney's. Do your due diligence and see, once you actually know of which you write, if you still disagree with me, or feel that I am off-base on this assessment that this is nothing more than the same old boring partisan bull$hit we have had to put up with over the last 16 years.
Posted by Dan2 on September 7, 2007 12:10 PMDan2:
The history of the US attorneys is that there have never been mass firings of appointees by the president who appointed them.
The potential criminal conspiracy the investigation of which is being impeded by executive stonewalling is that maybe to perpetuate Republican hegemony Rove and his minions in the West Wing concocted a plan to get US attorneys to vigorously prosecute (invent) electoral fraud cases embarassing to Dems and when some wouldn't, fire them and others who prosecuted Rs for real crimes. Maybe this is documented in emails that they illegally made on Republican Party email servers instead of US govt email as the law demands they must. They would also be in violation of the Hatch act. What's partisan abouit investigating the breaking of actual laws?
I don't know if this happened, but there's enough evidence to suggest it could have. Claiming executive priviledge looks like a coverup.
You ignored my question about the issue of executive priviledge, not "executive misconduct." Can crimes be comitted in the White House and Congressional investigations stymied simply by claiming priviledge? Does Congress have no oversight role of the executive branch? Isn't that worth resolving
Posted by on September 7, 2007 12:29 PMAnon,
Well, your first comment is just not true. What is true is that this is the first time 8 (of 93 mind you) US Attorney's have been asked to resign not at the beginning of an administrations new term. Mass firings was actually done by President Clinton for the first time, all at once, in 1993.
I have not heard, nor read, nor am aware of a criminal conspiracy charge involving members of the administration ordering US Attorney's to prosecute democrats for election fraud. Of these 8, not one of them had any involvement in any oversight of election cases (you can look up their docket responsibilities). Help me out on this one and give me an idea where to look for the criminal conspiracy please.
Thank you for clarifying your question. Congress, has no oversight over the executive branch, other than to approve or disapprove the actions requested by the executive and other than to bring forth charges of impeachment and to try those charges. So, a short answer would be yes, the executive branch does indeed have privileges not under the over-sight of the Congress. HOWEVER, your specific question regarding crimes committed, is beyond my scope of understanding, and most likely a great many attorney as well, as their seems to be differing opinion on this matter, hence it being discussed in this forum. Even shorter answer for your specific question. I don't know.
My OPINION on this, is that I would imagine the executive branch does enjoy privilege to conduct their business, similar in scope to what would be considered attorney client privilege and that it would cease assuming the commission of a crime. That is my best guess.
Posted by Dan2 on September 7, 2007 01:23 PMSorry, missed your comment about "by the President who appointed them." I would hardly call 9.6% any kind of "mass firing" though. PIcking nits, I know, but still...
Posted by Dan2 on September 7, 2007 01:25 PMHi Dan2,
I think people are firmly on board that there was nothing illegal with the actual firing of these U.S. Attorneys. The scandals revolving around those firings, from the famous Ashcroft hospitable visit to voter caging allegations in Ohio and Florida-- those items truly need investigating. The Rocky was very irresponsible with its editorial, and I have lost a great deal of respect toward its editorial board because of this opinion.
I would rather our representatives overreact than underreact in protecting our Constitution and laws. If these investigations turn up nothing, then we can at least rest assured that our public servants acted responsibly.
Also, one more point to add: it IS inappropriate, and in fact illegal, to lie about the performance records of these attorneys, which this administration has done.
Posted by Dan on September 7, 2007 01:51 PMInteresting... The hand wringing of the left and yet, where was this same whining when Hildabeast "I don't recall" Clinton was giving testimony? Hmmmm, seems some have short memories and a hypocritical streak a mile wide.
Or, perhaps, they don't recall everything.......
Posted by Dravur on September 7, 2007 02:18 PMDan,
I will agree wholeheartedly that it is inappropriate to lie about performance records, but only illegal to lie under oath. The law is the law. To lie, is not illegal, unless under sworn oath.
If the reaction was directly focused on constitutional issues, I would be right on board with you. SInce NONE of the fired US Attorney's were in Florida or Ohio, I don't know how this is tied in or appropriate. These 8 were responsible for the following districts:
Seattle, San Francisco, Albuquerque, Phoenix, San Diego, Grand Rapids, Little Rock, and Las Vegas. How would these 8 have any control or influence over voting irregularities in Ohio and Florida? To the best of my knowledge there were no accusations of any impropriety in any of these locales? I would think the US Attorney in Denver would have been fired if this is the case? Don't you? With all the irregularities we had last November.
Again, this is nothing more than partisanship at it's ugliest. Don't you think the Congress has a heck of a lot more important, constiutionally obligated duties to perform than a witch hunt (btw this is the same opinion I had when Congress impeached President Clinton for perjury about a BJ).
Posted by Dan2 on September 7, 2007 02:26 PMDravur,
How often will you continue to use the "But Clinton Did It" excuse? By your reasoning, because Clinton "got away with it", every politician from this point on should be free and clear of any sort of accountability for wrongdoing, simply because "Clinton did it". This argument lacks credibility.
EVERY politician, be they Democrat OR Republican, needs to follow the law. If they do not, they need to suffer the consequences required by the law. Why is it Republicans these days have no standards for their representatives?
Posted by Dan on September 7, 2007 02:31 PMDarvur,
I would say the same thing, but just because one partisan does something, does not mean it's ok if the other partisan does it. In this instance there is no merit, and it is the unfortunate ignorance of our citizens that doesn't understand it, because of the blinding partisanship that is rampant in our country. I am hopefull the RMN will publish my rather lengthy letter regarding this exact topic. I hope anyway.
Posted by Dan2 on September 7, 2007 02:32 PMDan2:
"I have not heard, nor read, nor am aware of a criminal conspiracy charge involving members of the administration ordering US Attorney's to prosecute democrats for election fraud. Of these 8, not one of them had any involvement in any oversight of election cases (you can look up their docket responsibilities). Help me out on this one and give me an idea where to look for the criminal conspiracy please."
This is either more carefully parsed than Fredo's claim that the Ashcroft sickbed confrontation was not about the warrantless wiiretapping program, or willfull ignorance.
"Of all the efforts in the crosshairs of the Karl Rove-led “vote fraud” fraud, one stands out. It’s the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, which has run the nation’s largest and most effective voter registration drive focusing on the urban poor—which is to say principally Blacks and Hispanics. Truthdig reports:
What angers the Republicans are ACORN’s voter registration efforts, mostly in poor African-American and Latino neighborhoods. In the last few years, it has registered about 500,000 voters in poor communities.
ACORN members tend to be tough and focused. They organize poor families ignored by the politicians, the big contributors and the reporters and pundits who dominate today’s political dialogue. While political writers report on the so-called money primary—the contribution competition among the top contenders—ACORN is signing up voters in neighborhoods where the major candidates and journalists seldom venture.
So what, exactly, is the criminal offense that led to multiple criminal investigations against ACORN across the country? That’s simple. “They are registering voters who are likely to be Democrats.” But they did have some sloppy practices.
ACORN’s success woke up New Mexico State Republican Chairman Allen Weh and other state party officials. They accused ACORN of fraud in the 2004 drive that registered 35,000 potential voters, according to The Albuquerque Tribune.
U.S. Attorney Iglesias investigated the complaints. He formed a task force that took a close look at more than 300 of them. In fact, some ACORN workers, who were paid for each person they registered, weren’t too fussy about whom they signed up. ACORN fired a worker for registering a 13-year-old boy.
Iglesias concluded there was no basis for criminal prosecutions against ACORN. It appears to have cost him his job. An almost identical story played out in Seattle, justifying the sacking of John McKay."
harpers.org/archive/2007/05/horton-20070502pvar
"The GOP voter-fraud vendetta might have remained exactly where Bush loyalists wanted it—below the radar of the press—had it not been for the scandal surrounding the firing of eight U. S. attorneys, including David C. Iglesias of New Mexico. Iglesias lost his job in December 2005 after he declined to prosecute a voter-fraud case against ACORN, which had been registering large numbers of voters in the state's low-income and largely minority neighborhoods in 2004. Prominent New Mexico Republicans, including U.S. Senator Pete Domenici, had repeatedly complained to chief White House political strategist Karl Rove about Iglesias' failure to bring voter-fraud indictments. Once Iglesias said he couldn't prove a case against ACORN, his days were numbered."
tompaine.com/articles/2007/06/11/out_to_get_acorn.php?bcsi_scan_5B3950586B6A2B67=0&bcsi_scan_filename=out_to_get_acorn.php
Congress has no oversight over the executive branch? Care to rephrase that? If government isn't the congress or the courts it's the executive branch. Perhaps you mean over the White House? Why all those hearings involving any number of regulatory agencies? Why does Congress have subpoena power?
The potential criminal conspiracy would be running the Justice Deparment to overtly further Republican interests, using Republican party email and destroying the evidence. If that happened that's a violation of the Hatch Act, and criminal conspiracy to destroy evidence. If executive priviledge ends when a crime has occurred, how is one to determine when that has happened if the White House can claim executive priviledge and refuse testimony when subpoenaed?
How do you suggest remedying the fact that claiming executive priviledge to cover up a crime is not covered by executive priviledge? I suggest following the contempt of congress charges against the White House staffers who refuse to discuss their roles in these firings be taken as far as the Supreme Court to determine when executive priviledge ends, so that the claim of EP cannot be used to cover up crimes in the future.
Hi Dan2,
In regards to the voter caging, I am just relaying some of the testimony Monica Goodling gave during the hearings. I also have concerns about revelations that the RNC server was used for official White House business (a distinct violation of law). What happened to those emails, and why are they not a matter of public record as is required?
And yes... besmirching the professional reputation of an individual without any factual basis (if not conflicting documentation to that individual's performance) is indeed unlawful. What you might have meant to say is that lying while not under oath is not "criminal".
My overall point though, Dan2, is that neither you, nor I, nor Dravur, nor the editorial staff of the Rocky, are privy to all of the details of these investigations. If any of you have concrete evidence that the entire motivation by the Judiciary Committee is political evisceration, and there is absolutely no merit in these investigations or any threat to our civil liberties by the Bush administration, then I will gladly never comment on this topic again.
However, if none of you can offer this evidence, then I'd rather allow the appropriate individuals to continue their investigations, in hopes that the American public will be protected from the next A.G. with a faulty memory.
Posted by Dan on September 7, 2007 03:20 PMKeith Fan,I'm sorry I dictate to my secretary,office girl,etc.She tries.But also she has a nice rack.
Posted by Keith on September 7, 2007 11:58 PMDan II,clinton fired two attourneys investigating his corruption in Whitewater.They two could of put that guity son of a bitch in jail.Just think no 9/11.
Posted by Keith on September 8, 2007 10:12 AMWhat happened to Dan2?
Did he just learn something new about a Justice Department effort to disenfranchise the poor and minorities that may have been directed from the White House and led to the US Attorney firings? If you haven't read enough, Google the partisan career of DOJ politcal operative Bradley Schlozman.
Is Dan2's whole world view collapsing in a smoldering heap? Does his claim of hyper-partisanship crumble when faced with the knowledge that almost EVERY action of the current administration has been for political gain?
"How Rove Directed Federal Assets for GOP Gains"
washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/08/18/AR2007081801182.html
Has he realised that many of his previous statments were wrong?
Will he admit it?
Will we read him addressing any of the direct questions posed to him?
Posted by on September 8, 2007 01:16 PMCharles B,
My posting was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Sorry, I didn't make that more clear.
6:08,
You needn't resort to name calling. I think W is a disaster, a liar and criminal.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 8, 2007 02:37 PMCharles B. are there any forums like this one. Easy to get on? Others keep rejecting my password attempts.
Let me know if you have time.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 05:19 PMSorry, went on vacation for the weekend, and actually enjoyed not being locked on-line.
Anon,
To answer your direct question, Congress has over-sight over BUDGETARY issues, and as such, may subpoena members of the executive branch. But constitutionally, Congress has no authority over the executive branch constitutionally, which is why the President may indeed claim executive privilege.
You asked:
"The potential criminal conspiracy would be running the Justice Deparment to overtly further Republican interests, using Republican party email and destroying the evidence. If that happened that's a violation of the Hatch Act, and criminal conspiracy to destroy evidence. If executive priviledge ends when a crime has occurred, how is one to determine when that has happened if the White House can claim executive priviledge and refuse testimony when subpoenaed?
How do you suggest remedying the fact that claiming executive priviledge to cover up a crime is not covered by executive priviledge? I suggest following the contempt of congress charges against the White House staffers who refuse to discuss their roles in these firings be taken as far as the Supreme Court to determine when executive priviledge ends, so that the claim of EP cannot be used to cover up crimes in the future."
I don't know the answer to these questions, and it is PRIVILEGE, no D in that word. As I stated earlier, I was not aware of a criminal conspiracy, and I typically don't look for fringe theorists on the latest conspiracy of government.
Your partisanship is as transparent as Truth's. You cite an article in Harper's magazine. And tom paine, "The best progressive insight and action. All day" I would rather get my information from the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal, or index from govtracks or the Thomas Library of Congress, and review actual testimony and bills (as well as the debates and votes, and introduced amendments).
What do you think professional politicians try to do? Gain as much as they possibly can, which is why I call on we the people to vote out the professional politicians, and move away from partisanship. You made not only my case, but my point. Thanks!
Posted by Dan2 on September 10, 2007 11:15 AMHere you go:
nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08fri1.html?ex=1189569600&en=7b66d4bb595eafab&ei=5070
That's quite a racket. Impugn my sources without addressing their substance. You're a partisan hack, Dan.
Posted by on September 10, 2007 01:10 PMOf course you neglected the Washpost story too, but those liberal hacks can't be trusted.
Posted by on September 10, 2007 01:12 PMHere's more.
I know, the Chrisitan Science Monitor and US News and World Report aren't trustworthy either. Well known fringe theorists on the latest conspiracy of government and purveyors of partisanship at its ugliest..
csmonitor.com/2007/0405/p02s01-uspo.html
msnbc.msn.com/id/17552880/site/newsweek/
cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/14/eveningnews/main2571355.shtml
nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?ei=5088&en=277feccfa099c7d0&ex=1334030400&pagewanted=print
usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2007/3/14/old-allegations-of-voter-fraud-resurface-in-us.html
nytimes.com/2007/03/16/opinion/16fri1.html?ex=1331697600&en=bd15d012d5745c4d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301725.html
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003615329_mckay13m.html
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801077.html
nytimes.com/2007/03/18/washington/18attorneys.html?ex=1331870400&en=827fbb66fb3575a8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/21/us_attorneys/index_np.html
pbs.org/now/shows/330/david-iglesias.html
slate.com/id/2166469/
mcclatchydc.com/200/story/17532.html
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_8_124/ai_n19328383/pg_1
Posted by on September 10, 2007 01:44 PMAnon,
Thank you for that information. As I stated, I was unaware of the failure to investigate voter fraud. I appreciate the enlightenment.
That, however, doesn't change the fact that these US Attorney's SERVE AT THE PRIVILEGE OF THE PRESIDENT!. You had asked me directly about "the potential criminal conspiracy would be running the Justice Deparment to overtly further Republican interests, using Republican party email and destroying the evidence. If that happened that's a violation of the Hatch Act, and criminal conspiracy to destroy evidence"
Not one of your links addresses that issue. They all address the fact these these US Attorney's were indeed asked to resign for political reasons, which is, within the right of the President to do. And from your Washington Post link:
"Iglesias and another U.S. attorney fired in December, John McKay of Seattle, said they were surprised by the White House's explanation because they had coordinated closely with Justice attorneys in handling allegations of fraudulent voting in recent elections. Justice officials had never expressed disagreement with their judgment, the two said."
I have to ask you, what is your point again? Obviously, this has nothing to do with voter irregularities, a criminal conspiracy, or anything thing else, even according to two of the eight that were asked to resign. And since, according to your links, there were only 3 states that had this issue of voter fraud investigations (seems the other was actually in Wisconsin), what criminal conspiracy were you attempting to demonstrate? I apologize, but I am not able to answer your round about question regarding this issue.
What I can comment intelligently and with factual knowledge is the voter fraud case in the city of Milwaukee, as I was there during that time in 2000. It may be referred to as "votes for smokes" where members of Project Vote registered homeless individuals for packs of cigarettes. According to the Racine County Clerk’s office, approximately 20% of Project Votes’ submissions were problematic as scores of applications contained bogus addresses, and in some cases, applications were signed by people who had never been contacted. And the city of Milwaukee elections commission investigated 21 incidences of voter registration fraud.
When the term disenfranchisement is thrown out, there damn well better be concrete evidence to support that kind of racist claim. It is the responsibility of every eligible citizen in the US to register and vote, which is why I honestly don't understand these voter registration drives. I believe it leads to coercion, when Democrats or Republicans organize these drives. These people that don't have the capacity to understand how to register to vote, may have a tendency to vote out of obligation for the candidate representing the party that has assisted them in registering. In fact, I may attest to personal experience during college when I registered to vote on campus at a "get out the vote" drive, and was provided "non-partisan" literature about then Gov. Clinton, and not Pres. Bush.
Right now, there is no more of a conspiracy to disenfranchise, as their may be to illegally register voters that are not eligible to vote. Just as Mr. Iglesias and Mr. McKay would not bring charges before a grand jury because of lack of provable evidence, I still maintain my position, that the evidence of a criminal conspiracy is week at best, and loaded in partisanship.
Also, I challenge you to cite one instance where the appearance of partisanship is demonstrated by me. You calling me a partisan hack lacks merit. If you wanted to call me a Libertarian hack, that would be factual, as I have stated numerous times on this board my party affiliation. But I do not believe in every philosophical point of the Libertarian party either.
However, if you would care to continue this debate, may I suggest quid pro quo. You ask me one direct question, and I will answer and then ask you one direct question that you will answer. Sound agreeable?
Posted by Dan2 on September 10, 2007 04:44 PM