BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 11:22 AM

IF it is correct that ACORN pays its temp force by the hour; and
If it is correct that ACORN carefully flags dubious cards before turning them in to the Voter Registration office; and
If it correct they are required by law to turn in every card; then
The entire flap about ACORN is a storm in a dmaned stupid wee teacup, generated solely for the purposes of manufacturing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt of the sort that are almost a proprietary product line for the Rovian Madmen.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 11:22 AM

THE Peter, Paul, and Mary???? or the singers? ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 11:25 AM

(☺ hi Bill)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 11:46 AM

That stuff about losing your vote if you change party affiliation, unless you re-register, is astonishing. In fact is more reminiscent of a totalitarian voting system than anything.

Is it really legal to have rules like that in a democracy? Does a State have the constitutional right to have a law like that?

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 11:49 AM

(hi, Susan ☺)

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 11:54 AM

Kevin... it is simply an attempt to keep folks from doing things like BUYING extra votes by getting groups to switch at the last moment. There are reasons for declaring a party affiliation, and more reasons for setting rules for switching.... like overloading the system at the last moment before an election and requiring new printouts for polling places.

It is not really a serious constraint on democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 12:04 PM

People keep telling us that we are not a democracy. They tell us we are a constitutional republic. And they insist there is a big difference. So if that's true, maybe it's legal to have a relatively totalitarian voting system in a constitutional republic. There certainly was a time in our past when everyone did not have the right to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Alice
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 12:11 PM

I don't think voters in this country should be required to declare membership in a political party when they register to vote. I hope some day that practice will stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Alice
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 12:15 PM

BB, your intention in starting this thread to blame ACORN for some kind of voter fraud has actually brought out more information about ACORN's innocence and the documented evidence that the Republicans HAVE HAD a history of causing voter suppression.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 12:37 PM

Instant karma.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 12:42 PM

Kevin, there is nothing stopping one from voting 'across the aisle' in a General Election no matter what your officially designated party preference is. (In the Primary Elections, it's a different thing. Some years back, the Republican Party won the right to restrict access to their their ballot to only Republican-registered and/or Independent voters. The Democratic ballot is available to all.)

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: SINSULL
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 01:01 PM

BB - the Republicans do do it. It is common for both parties to offer rides to polling places in the hope of getting votes for their respective candidates. So YES. It would be fine if the Republicans did this. I wish they would. The more people voting, the better the representation of the will of the people.

Voter fraud? Arrest anyone engaging in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 01:25 PM

Is there any other democratic country where people are expected to declare their political affiliation when they register to vote?

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 01:47 PM

Some years back, the Republican Party won the right to restrict access to their their ballot to only Republican-registered and/or Independent voters. The Democratic ballot is available to all.)

This like all else (or ALMOST all else) regarding voting procedures, is a matter of state law, and varies.

Frankly, I like the idea of the primaries being limited to those declaring themselves in advance as allied to the particular party. It seems to me that, since no public office is being decided, but only the anointment of a private organization, it is inappropriate for "spoilers" from the contrary organization(s) (or no organization at all) to have a hand in deciding who shall receive the party's blessing.

If, hypothetically, the Masons wanted to act politically as a party, and a primary were run to decide who the Masonic candidate was to be, it would be unthinkable that a Knight of Columbus should vote in the Masonic primary. And vice versa.

I know many will disagree with me on closed and open primaries, but them's me thoughts.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 01:50 PM

Alice,

"your intention in starting this thread to blame ACORN for some kind of voter fraud"


MY intent in starting this thread was to discuss issues that are fine when done by those that a person supports, but high crimes when done by those that a person opposes.

Like buying an election by spending 6- 7 times as much as one's opponent- fine when Obama does it, and horrible when a Republican dares to have better funding.

If ACORN was a conservative organization, they would be castigated here as unfair and subject to summary execution.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Alice
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 02:23 PM

There is nothing wrong with any political party giving people rides to the polls, Democrats or Republicans or Independents or Greens... You seem to think there is something wrong with it from the discussion you started. I'm not the only one posting here who thinks there is nothing wrong with Republicans giving people rides to the polls or helping them to legally register to vote. Your point is muddled.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 02:29 PM

BB told us:

but high crimes when done by those that a person opposes.

Like buying an election by spending 6- 7 times as much as one's opponent- fine when Obama does it, and horrible when a Republican dares to have better funding.

Four years ago and eight years ago, when the Shrub had the supernal advantage in financing, I don't recall any objection here on that ground. Worried about it, yes. Complained on other grounds, assuredly, but not that one. If I'm wrong someone will point it out, I'm sure.

And in this case Obama has followed a legal course; he's not required by law to limit himself to public financing. McCain chose to, and that's fine, I suppose, but his surrogates should not then complain, BB.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 05:21 PM

awww. you beat me to that one, Uncle Dave...

The Republians used to have MUCH more money available than Democrats...especially when contributions by corporations were not regulated! Suddenly, it is a big issue when a Democratic candidate has such support that he gets millions in donations in even small amounts..(I think $86 average was mentioned?)

The Republicans seem to define a 'fair' system as whatever works out best for THEM.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Alice
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 10:35 PM

A follow up on the California case:

"LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The owner of a company hired by the California Republican Party to register voters was arrested over the weekend on charges of voter registration fraud and perjury, officials said on Monday.

Mark Jacoby is accused of fraudulently registering himself to vote at a Los Angeles address where he no longer resides -- his boyhood home -- to meet a state law requiring all signature gatherers to register or be eligible to vote in California.

He did this twice, in 2006 and 2007, according to a statement issued by the California secretary of state, Debra Bowen. A spokeswoman for Bowen said investigators found the home at the address where he registered was no longer owned by Jacoby's family.

Authorities also are investigating complaints that Jacoby's company, Young Political Majors, or YPM, improperly registered voters as Republicans, said Ed Miller, a deputy district attorney for Los Angeles County."

read the rest HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 10:53 PM

Amos- You are dead on. It is positively Rovian. See my 16 Oct 08 - 05:16 PM. And the Obama people get it. They are now asking for a special prosecutor to investigate this pronto. Collusion between the McCain-Palin-RNC team and the Bush Justice Department. McCain was correct that this scandal threatens the very fabric of Democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 02:38 AM

That article about the guy working for the California Republican Party who tricked people into changing their party affiliation said that the Republican party in that state pays that guy's company $7 to $12 dollars for each registration it secures.

What's interesting is that ACORN hasn't been doing what Republicans are accusing them of doing, but some Republicans have been doing what Republicans are accusing ACORN of doing. But that's what I've come to expect. Republicans try to hide their wrongdoing and divert people's attention away from it by accusing Democrats of doing the very thing the Republicans themselves are doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 07:01 AM

It strikes me that having any association between registering people as voters and registering them as party supporters is just inviting trouble.

And so is having a system where party elections are a matter for governments rather than for the parties themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Alice
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 09:45 AM

Spread The Truth About ACORN

Watch the video and pass it on!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdNgMKPV9xQ

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 10:17 AM

For some reason the Republicans, between 2000 and 2008, have garnered a reputation for ruthless, tooth-and-claw tactics with no regard for law, propriety, or COnsittutional requirements, in their efforts to win elections. Scandals of vote-rigging, disenfranchisement, influence-buying, illegal gerrymanders, and more have been associated with the party over and over again.

The ACORN flap is a classic example of a Rpeublican "scheme" intended to spread FUD and scare voters, or suppress their votes altogether.

What justification is there for this kind of ruthless, bloody-minded dirty tricks?

I would offer there is none; there is only a lizard-brained ravaging lust for power and domination.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 03:52 PM

"...a lizard-brained ravaging lust for power and domination."

It's a lot more than THAT... a lot of is about money. The conservative mantra is "get big government off our backs", which can be made to sound perfectly reasonable and can even be presented as support of free enterprise and against foolishly bloated bureaucracy.
   Sadly, that mantra has often become a cover-up for "let business pursue any means it wishes to rake in as much profit as possible, and damn the moral & equitable dissenters."
Does 'deregulation' ring any bells? Here in Maryland we were promised a few years ago the deregulation in power generation would 'allow utilities to negotiate with different suppliers, get the best rates, and lower the cost to the consumer',....HA!.... Seems that after deregulation was passed, no 'suppliers' were found that WISHED to negotiate! With no ceiling, companies just gradually raised prices.

   In any financial system, there are regular paths where the money flows. Big business, lobbyists, lawmaker, politicians, stock manipulators, banks...etc., etc., determined that IF they could control certain access points and rules in the money flow, they could divert large amounts to suit themselves. When challenged or sued, they had lawyers & courts in place to justify & approve their activities.

Now...such chicanery by itself won't get you enough votes (even though it plays well in various rural areas where folks "just don't like being told what to do"), so they linked their "get government off our (financial) backs" with other single-issue platforms (much as pork-barrel add-ons are slipped into legislation that is needed) and co-opted the gun lobby, the serious supporters of preemptive war, the anti-abortion forces, the anti-immigration groups...etc. into supporting their platform. Many big corporations couldn't care less whether abortions were legal or not, or who could own a gun...but they needed those votes!

The result is this weird coalition which, if well-coordinated, can...and has.. gotten a lot of clout in ways which mostly serves to keep power in the hands of those who can make LOTS of money by having it there!

The Democrats, while they are not adverse to making money or 'keeping us safe from terrorism', and who may even be ambivalent about guns or immigration, don't have the same overriding goals, preferring to just try to represent more of the middle class and the 'best interests' of the country and the enviornment...etc.
   Thus, they have gotten the reputation of 'not being organized' and shooting themselves in the foot in elections, largely because they DIDN'T use lies and distortion to play to fear and hate and ignorance.
It has become common 'wisdom' that negative campaigning does work, if presented carefully...it's just that his time, the entrenched idiots got TOO greedy and careless and got us into this war at the same time they were allowing unchecked greed on Wall Street and in business.

Boy, I hope they don't figure out how to re-group very soon!

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 08:19 PM

The reason they use those tactics is because they can't get elected without them.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 10:01 PM

...but they sure do think that they can get REelected with them, if the latest reports of voter registration purging BY Republican officials is accurate! NEW registrations in Colorado are being purged, along with many OLD ones ...and the largest % of those new ones are...Democrats.

The former Republican Sec. of State of Colorado who did a lot of this purging in the past is now tasked with 'helping' advise other states on how to manage registrations...as Rachael Maddow said tonight... "Fox, meet henhouse"

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 08 - 09:15 PM

Those fascist Republicans in Colorado hate democracy.

My son moved recently, and he changed his registration to reflect the change of address, and someone in the voter registration place spelled his name wrong. He got a mail-in ballot and it has his name spelled wrong, so now he has to go down there and try to get it fixed. Fortunately, his girlfriend used to work at the place where they register people, so she knows the ropes.

This question of would we be happy if a Republican did something is contemptible under the circumstances. The Democrats have never committed the massive election fraud and wide spread voter disenfranchisement that has been committed by the Republicans (fascists) for the last three elections. Not ever. So I think Republicans ought to spare us this phony shock and horror over made up offenses allegedly committed by Democrats. Bunch of fascists.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Oct 08 - 10:12 PM

BB--

"buying an election"

1) There is no proof that money alone is enough in a presidential election. You must have something else--even if it's despicable propaganda--as it was in 2004.

If you disagree, please tell me exactly which presidential election was bought and exactly how.

And there are plenty of examples of huge amounts of money which did not get the donor anywhere---as for example Romney this year.

2) If McCain could raise anywhere near the amount Obama has from small donors, and the--unprecedented-- number of them--including quite a few who have never given to a campaign before--you might start to have an argument.


As it is, your attitude is perfect sour grapes.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 10:07 PM

Still waiting. Looks like it may be a long wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 10:18 PM

Ron,

You appear to have missed both the point of this thread and the point of my post in regards to large amounts of money being spent by Obama.

In previous threads, the actions that I have noted were criticised and treated as criminal offenses when done by Repbulicans. Now that the Democrats are doinf the same type of things, it has become acceptable and just normal politics.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH OBAMA BUYING THIS ELECTION!!!!

I **** DO **** have a problem with people who told me how wrong it was when Republicans spent large amounts now tellin me it is ok- when done by a Democrat.



THAT is a double standard, and this entire thread was to demonstrate that actions done by Republicans are no MORE wrong OR right than the same actions done by Democrats.

Capishe?

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: TIA
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 10:28 PM

"Now that the Democrats are doinf the same type of things"

No Bruce, that is just the point; they are **not**.

I am sorry you do not see any difference.

It is there, plain to see, if you care to let up on the cerebral clutch.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 10:16 PM

BB--

Neither Obama nor anybody else has "bought" an election. That's our first basic disagreement. Money has always been involved--but that is not "buying" an election.

If you think somebody has done so, again I request specifics.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 10:52 PM

well...to be fair, Ron... Joe Kennedy 'may' have bought the 1960 election by enlisting the MOB in Chicago (in one form of coin or another)... we don't know...there was no proof.

But just as we can't prove that, we can't 'prove' the 2000 election was stolen..... but we do know which election turned out better.

I want a country where NO ONE EVEN TRIES to cheat....

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 04:44 AM

Ron,

Let me 'splain something:


I **** DO **** have a problem with people who told me how wrong it was when Republicans spent large amounts now tellin me it is ok- when done by a Democrat.



THAT is a double standard, and this entire thread was to demonstrate that actions done by Republicans are no MORE wrong OR right than the same actions done by Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 06:58 AM

I get what you mean, bruce - the thing is the time to change the rules would have been when the Republicans were on top, with majorities in the two houses and with the White House.

We've got a saying about moving the goalposts in the middle of a game.

Maybe after the elections there will be a fresh look at all this, which would make sense, because there's no reason for Democrats to assume that the present imbalance in their favour will always be there.

Getting rid of paid political advertisements on TV might be seen as a radical proposal in the States, but it'd make an awful lot of sense. It seems to work pretty well for us in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 08:30 AM

Still patiently waiting for your examples of exactly which presidential elections have been "bought", Bruce. Bill brought up a possible example--but, as you know, there is no clinching evidence.   And I would reject the 1960 election as an example--since, as I said, my point is that money alone is not enough to "buy" an election. You must have arguments to convince voters. I think even you would admit JFK did have such arguments--based on reality or not--as in the case of the "missile gap" which he himself knew did not exist.

And the necessity of arguments to voters should be obvious to anybody not a prisoner of yet another stupid conspiracy theory--on either the Left or the Right.

Both of which we are blessed with on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 03:29 PM

Ron,

You still miss the point. Tryt reading my previous post.

From Washington Post:

"Don't expect those misguided efforts to change the system to end here, though. While Obama is benefiting from a fundraising advantage this year, in most elections since the 1960s, Republicans have held a spending advantage. Democrats always complained that that was unfair. Where are they now? Meanwhile, don't be surprised if some Republicans suddenly become champions of "reform" after this election."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302077.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: DougR
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 04:57 PM

One disadvantage to voting early: if information that would have influenced your vote surfaces in the final days of the campaign, and you have already voted, TS.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 05:34 PM

"Democrats always complained that that was unfair."

Not all Democrats...many merely pointed out HOW the Republicans got all that money in the past and 'suggested' that certain types of contributions should be restricted. *smile*

If the Republicans had seen any hope of getting over $200,000,000 in grassroots contributions this election, they would have seen nothing at all wrong with it. They got enough money & air-time to make whatever points they wanted, anyway. $83 million does get you noticed.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 05:37 PM

"over $200,000,000 in grassroots contributions "

And the numbers I have seen indicate a TOTAL funding of over $600,000,000...

So the other $400,000,000 or so is from which lobbies and special interest groups?


Something over the less than $100,000,000 that McCain got- even if all of it was from lobbies and special interest groups, it would be 1/4 of what Obama got.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 07:38 PM

"Something over the less than $100,000,000 that McCain got- even if all of it was from lobbies and special interest groups, it would be 1/4 of what Obama got." bb

Although their total doesn't match what Obama collected, McCain had more money than that available - the RNC added a great deal more.

And DougR says: "One disadvantage to voting early: if information that would have influenced your vote surfaces in the final days of the campaign, and you have already voted, TS."

Doug, not to worry. As little justification that anyone can bring to voting for the Republicans this season, there's evidently not a heck of a lot that could come out that could possibly dissuade you or the other diehards.

Looking at the current mess and those who made it I wonder how anyone can declare their loyalty with a straight face.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 09:01 PM

"Although their total doesn't match what Obama collected,"

I think it can be agreed that Obama collected a LOT more than $200,000,000 MORE than McCain. So Obama has MORE from lobbies and special interests.


Simple fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:43 PM

I was trying to note the amounts collected AFTER the conventions.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Genie
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 01:52 AM

Several states in the US allow same-day registration, up to and including election day. Why is this objectionable?

As long as people have to "prove" eligibility the same way as they would with a longer wait time -- e.g., by showing proof of citizenship, residence, identity, etc. -- what's the problem.

Is it better, or "more American," to deny thousands and thousands of adult US citizens the right to vote because they don't have a permanent residence than to risk a few people maybe voting in the wrong precinct or (shudder!) the wrong state?   

To answer the original Q, sure. I'd be fine with it if a Republican did it.

Heck, I'm even fine with tax-exempt right-wing, fundamentalist Christian churches holding voter registration drives, helping their members register, and even driving them to the polls on election day. As long as they don't misuse their tax-exempt status by campaigning for candidates on church grounds or (especially) spreading distorted propaganda, I'm fine with them trying to make sure "their own" are registered and get out to vote.

G

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 02:03 AM

"As long as they don't misuse their tax-exempt status by campaigning for candidates on church grounds"

Agreed.- For ALL tax-exempt groups, on either side.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 11:05 AM

Tuesday, November 04, 2008
A Repeat of 2004 Philly Voter Chaos, Fraud
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 7:46 AM
GOP Election Board members have been tossed out of polling stations in at least half a dozen polling stations in Philadelphia because of their party status.

A Pennsylvania judge previously ruled that court-appointed poll watchers could be NOT removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, but that is exactly what is happening, according to sources on the ground.

It is the duty of election board workers to monitor and guard the integrity of the voting process.

Denying access to the minority (in this case Republican) poll watchers and inspectors is a violation of Pennsylvania state law. Those who violate the law can be punished with a misdemeanor and subjected to a fine of $1,000 and sent to prison between one month and two years.

Those on site are describing the situation as "pandemonium" and there may be video coming of the chaos.

Some of the precincts where Republicans have been removed are: the 44th Ward, 12th and 13th divisions; 6th Ward, 12th division; 32nd Ward, Division 28.

"Election board officials guard the legitimacy of the election process and the idea that Republicans are being intimidated and banned for partisan purposes does not allow for an honest and open election process," said McCain-Palin spokesman Ben Porritt in a statement to Townhall.

The City of Brotherly Love was roiled in controversy during the 2004 election because of rigged voting machines that showed nearly 2,000 votes for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry before the polls had opened. A man also used a gun to intimidate poll workers at Ward 30, division 11 in 2004.

Update: Fox News just did a report about the controversy. The Democrats are saying that the polling station is crowded and election board members need to cycle through the areas intermittently.

Update 10:53am: Pennsylvania Secretary of State Pedro Cortes says this matter is already being heard in court and should be resolved soon. He says there was a dispute of the names of the poll watchers on record. This is a different story than the Democratic officials told Fox News earlier this morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 11:14 AM

Time to lobby Congress to get partisan politics out of the voting process, I'd say.

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 11:14 AM

One would hope that these Republican poll watchers were not unruly. If they were, then the poll officials would be justified in having them removed. If not, then the poll officials are wrong.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Would YOU be happy if Rep. did this?
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 11:21 AM

I would be well to get the FULL story before posting loaded stories insinuating that illegal stuff is happening. As Charley Noble indicates, there 'could' be reasons not reported for the furor.