When the going gets tough, progressives stack the deck.

[boomerang]

States' Secretaries of State Are Tipping Balance of Power

According to Professor Robert Pastor of the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University, the situation has gotten so bad that the partisan roles of the secretaries of states in the election process are undermining the faith of Americans in the election process.
"After the 2000 election, partisanship in the office accelerated. It has skewed enough elections since then that a sufficient number of Americans should be concerned," he said. "We are worse than many third world countries" in holding fair and nonpartisan elections.

And now there is a quiet, below-the-radar but major effort to target secretary of state offices in order to influence the outcome of upcoming elections.
Since 2006 the Democracy Alliance, a left leaning influence group funded by George Soros among others, has had remarkable success in targeting and claiming Secretary of State's offices in 11 of 13 critical states they targeted, including Ohio, Minnesota and Iowa.

Perhaps nowhere is the impact of the new influence of the Secretary of State had a more profound than in Minnesota, where Mark Richie defeated incumbent Republican Secretary of Sate Mary Kiffmeyer in 2006.

Ritchie, a former community organizer, said at his inauguration that he owed his upset victory to the Secretary of State project.

According to Kiffmeyer, as soon as Ritchie took office he began dismantling much of the framework that had been assembled to ensure honest voting in the state. It was that loosening of election controls, she argues, that lead to the eight month standoff between incumbent Senator Norm Coleman and challenger Al Franken in what was one of the closest Senate race ever.

In a telephone interview from Minneapolis, Dan McGrath and Jeff Davis, who have formed a small research-watchdog group called the Minnesota Majority, say that their computer assisted-examination of the voting records from the 2008 election show that Al Franken's 312 vote margin of victory can be attributed to Ritchie's dismantling election rules. Specifically they charge that Franken's victory can be attributed entirely to illegally cast votes by convicted felons.

A ringside seat for the "fundamental transformation of the United States of America". Funded by none other than George Soros.

What is the answer to this? How is this perverted corruption of our voting process to be thwarted?

"We are worse than many third world countries" in holding fair and nonpartisan elections.

Think about that statement.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's for your own good.

 

[boomerang]

It's for your own good.

Craig, is that you?

 

[Ozoned]

States' Secretaries of State Are Tipping Balance of Power







A ringside seat for the "fundamental transformation of the United States of America". Funded by none other than George Soros.

What is the answer to this? How is this perverted corruption of our voting process to be thwarted?

Think about that statement.

George Soros can't compete with corporate advertising. Checks and balance come in many forms.....

 

[Ozoned]

Craig, is that you?

When I saw the title, I almost expected there would be a callout in the OP. Heh.

 

[CaptnKirk]

In this corner, George Soros, Liberal Demigod

and in the other corner, Rupert Murdoc, Conservative Text-spewer.

Let's get ready to Ruuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmbbbbbblllle !

Let the Cage-Match begin !

Sofa Kingdom Theatrics.

 

[theeedude]

Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell were models of objectivity and non-partisanship.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

It's for your own good.

Shad'up, Drink the kool-aid and don't ask questions.

 

[ayabe]

Oh noes, teh ACORNS!!!

*spittle*

 

[werepossum]

Liberals believe that people are stupid and government is enlightened. Why on Earth would they want to allow stupid people to honestly elect their leaders? Minnesota showed us the brave new liberal world, just keep running Democrat votes back through until you have all the votes you need to declare victory.

 

[Craig234]

Fox news - not reading. Winning elections fairly (secretary of state) isn't wrong. If anything, it's a defensivbe move because the right has been known to abuse the office - criminallly IMO.

Got credible links?

Remember Kenneth blackwell in Ohio in 2004? I don't think the whole story has come out, but this is where the Secretary of State was a rabid Republican promising victory ffor Bush - and trying to throw out huge numbers of newly registered mostly Democratic voters ' registration forms by using an arcane law abuot the thickness of the paper they were on. Apparently the secretary of state was using computer in the election process contracted to a shady Republican firm - the election reported from the company's hosting. Exit polls consistently predicting a Kerry victory were inaccurate to levels rarely if ever seen.

Remember Florida in 2000? When the nutty Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, the state's Bush campaign chair under Governor Bush, was involved in a number of measures to help Bush win?

For example, illegal measures were taken to disqualify legitimate Democratic voters, while the office released for the public a verion of their instructions saying the opposite of the real instructions.

(Investigative journalist Greg Palast, by posing as a precint and calling the office, had a copy of the real instructions faxed).

But hey, the best defense of corruption and criminality is a good offense, so the left is attacked with lies.

 

[daishi5]

Fox news - not reading. Winning elections fairly (secretary of state) isn't wrong. If anything, it's a defensivbe move because the right has been known to abuse the office - criminallly IMO.

Got credible links?

Remember Kenneth blackwell in Ohio in 2004? I don't think the whole story has come out, but this is where the Secretary of State was a rabid Republican promising victory ffor Bush - and trying to throw out huge numbers of newly registered mostly Democratic voters ' registration forms by using an arcane law abuot the thickness of the paper they were on. Apparently the secretary of state was using computer in the election process contracted to a shady Republican firm - the election reported from the company's hosting. Exit polls consistently predicting a Kerry victory were inaccurate to levels rarely if ever seen.

Remember Florida in 2000? When the nutty Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, the state's Bush campaign chair under Governor Bush, was involved in a number of measures to help Bush win?

For example, illegal measures were taken to disqualify legitimate Democratic voters, while the office released for the public a verion of their instructions saying the opposite of the real instructions.

(Investigative journalist Greg Palast, by posing as a precint and calling the office, had a copy of the real instructions faxed).

But hey, the best defense of corruption and criminality is a good offense, so the left is attacked with lies.

Is it fair if it is won because of one very rich man donating a lot of money? Would this be a case where concentration of money (soros) is bad for the nation? Or would this be an exception because the concentration went to progressives.

 

[TruePaige]

Huh? Repuglicans stole the biggest election in America. The presidential election.

Remember all the uncounted votes and the ones that were "lost" and how they didn't accept all of the absentee votes, just enough to make sure Gore "lost".

Yeah, we could have been saved from one of the worst presidents in history if you repuglicans hadn't rigged an election.

 

[lothar]

SOSP is currently targeting three states in the 2010 election: California, Michigan and Minnesota. In total they count for 82 electoral votes.

Why would a liberal leftwing organization be worried about a state like California that they would be targeting it?
California isn't likely to vote for Republican Senators or President anytime soon. All candidates there have been winning by at least double digits with almost a 20+% margin for the past 2 decades.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Huh? Repuglicans stole the biggest election in America. The presidential election.

Remember all the uncounted votes and the ones that were "lost" and how they didn't accept all of the absentee votes, just enough to make sure Gore "lost".

Yeah, we could have been saved from one of the worst presidents in history if you repuglicans hadn't rigged an election.

if Gore had
1) not attempted to cherry pick the recount
OR
2) been a better candidate that actuuly could win his home state. If so, FLA would not have been an excuse for the lefties to cry about for the next 20 years.

Either shows concerns about his political savy

 

[cubby1223]

Fox news - not reading.

"Progressives" and their open minds

If anything, it's a defensivbe move

Is this like Ed Schultz advocating "progressives" stuff the ballot box 10 times each in the MA Senate election? And when called out on it, Ed "apologized" by saying he was wrong in his words, and called for "progressives" to stuff the ballot box 20 times each.

It is interesting you are the one who says these shenanigans are okay. I don't. Neither, really, does anyone else here, Republican or Democrat.

 

[Craig234]

"Progressives" and their open minds

That comes before the review of their content as to whether their a propaganda newtork. The evidence leads to a conclusion that they are.

 

[EagleKeeper]

SOSP is currently targeting three states in the 2010 election: California, Michigan and Minnesota. In total they count for 82 electoral votes.

Why would a liberal leftwing organization be worried about a state like California that they would be targeting it?
California isn't likely to vote for Republican Senators or President anytime soon. All candidates there have been winning by at least double digits with almost a 20+% margin for the past 2 decades.

Given the problems that CA is having with their budget - voters may be getting concerned about their politicians.

Stack the deck just in case

 

[Craig234]

if Gore had
1) not attempted to cherry pick the recount

That's a lie that Gore was legally wrong. Gore followed the correct legal process in selecting the counties.

OR
2) been a better candidate that actuuly could win his home state. If so, FLA would not have been an excuse for the lefties to cry about for the next 20 years.

Either shows concerns about his political savy

You are making excuses for the theft of a presidential election.

How lame is it you excuse the theft with the argument 'well the theft wouldn't have changed the outcome if he won his home state'?

If a man wins an electoral majority, as Gore did, and loses his home state, he won the presidency.

If someone had shot Bush, would you posting 'if he had better reflexes, he would not have been shot, so it's his fault'?

Then there's another excuse for stealing the election, your opinion about 'political savvy'.

You not liking the political savvy doesn't make the election ok to decide on that instead of the votes.

You make it clear - the presidential election is ok to steal if the guy you prefer steals it.

 

[cubby1223]

That comes before the review of their content as to whether their a propaganda newtork. The evidence leads to a conclusion that they are.

Even if you wanted to insist that Fox News is propaganda, that still doesn't mean they are wrong.

Either way, what is your excuse for loving your "progressive" blog sites, specifically Media Matters? The sites you like to reference, are far more of a propaganda network than Fox News is.

 

[Craig234]

Is it fair if it is won because of one very rich man donating a lot of money? Would this be a case where concentration of money (soros) is bad for the nation? Or would this be an exception because the concentration went to progressives.

Depeneds what you mean fair.

Do you mean 'fair under the rules'? Or do you mean a broader sense of fair?

If you mean the broader sense, do you mean 'one side should follow fair, while the other does not, so that the side following fair loses more elections while the side who does not wins more'?

Do you mean the fairness of the system, of the fairness of the policies that result?

In short, the same rules for fairness of the system apply whether it's a right-wing or left-wing 'rich guy' buying the outcome.

While the rules allow it, it's fair to use them for 'your side' and not let the other side only use them for theirs.

 

[Zargon]

Huh? Repuglicans stole the biggest election in America. The presidential election.

Remember all the uncounted votes and the ones that were "lost" and how they didn't accept all of the absentee votes, just enough to make sure Gore "lost".

Yeah, we could have been saved from one of the worst presidents in history if you repuglicans hadn't rigged an election.

whats that about Kennedys presidential win?

 

[Craig234]

Even if you wanted to insist that Fox News is propaganda, that still doesn't mean they are wrong.

Either way, what is your excuse for loving your "progressive" blog sites, specifically Media Matters? The sites you like to reference, are far more of a propaganda network than Fox News is.

No, some things pretty much any site publishes are correct. Some have such a bad record that I consider them not worht giving them any time or support. Fox News is generally on that list.

You don't understand what propaganda is. Propaganda is a variety of techniquest which are for persuading people to certain conclusions for reason other than the truth (even if some are sometimes correct).

For example, propaganda might be a lie (the Iraqis took Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, go to war!) or it might not (pictures of the troops with flag waving and patriotic music making you feel patriotism, go to war!).

Propaganda is NOT supporting one side accurately. If an organization puts out information to argue against myths exaggerating the dangers of vaccines, that's not 'propaganda'.

Media Matters is targetted at exposing the bad behavior of the right-wig media. That's not propaganda, if it's accurate. If it's dishonest, then it's propaganda.

They don't claim to be a non-partisan site for errors by both sides, If they did, they'd be proaganda. They're a site for accurately poinitng out the bad behavior of one side. That's not propaganda.

A right-wing site pointing out the bad behavior of left-wing media, accurately, if one existed, wouldn't be propaganda. If it's not accurate - or using techniques to push a pre-determined agenda that the left is making mistakes by propaganda techniques - it's propaganda. Remember, most good propaganda is based on the truth - but exaggerates, distorts, etc. to push an agenda.

Remember the invasion of Panama?

THe military put out releases such as 'he used hookers' and 'he called his mistress when the invasion happend and did not call his wife'. THis was propaganda to build support for the war.

Had they said "Noriega has chosen to end his support for US-friendly corporate policies, with these several examples, and that's why we invaded to put a US-aligned government in place", that's not propaganda.

 

[Craig234]

whats that about Kennedys presidential win?

There was evidence of irregularities on both sides, and no strong evidence Kennedy won the election by fraud. This is based on very vague memory but I don't recall Illinois changed the election outcome.

 

[CPA]

Fox news - not reading. Winning elections fairly (secretary of state) isn't wrong. If anything, it's a defensivbe move because the right has been known to abuse the office - criminallly IMO.

Got credible links?

Remember Kenneth blackwell in Ohio in 2004? I don't think the whole story has come out, but this is where the Secretary of State was a rabid Republican promising victory ffor Bush - and trying to throw out huge numbers of newly registered mostly Democratic voters ' registration forms by using an arcane law abuot the thickness of the paper they were on. Apparently the secretary of state was using computer in the election process contracted to a shady Republican firm - the election reported from the company's hosting. Exit polls consistently predicting a Kerry victory were inaccurate to levels rarely if ever seen.

Remember Florida in 2000? When the nutty Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, the state's Bush campaign chair under Governor Bush, was involved in a number of measures to help Bush win?

For example, illegal measures were taken to disqualify legitimate Democratic voters, while the office released for the public a verion of their instructions saying the opposite of the real instructions.

(Investigative journalist Greg Palast, by posing as a precint and calling the office, had a copy of the real instructions faxed).

But hey, the best defense of corruption and criminality is a good offense, so the left is attacked with lies.

All this blathering and not one comment about Soros? How is he different than your pet lament - corporaticity or whatever you call it?