Posts Tagged ‘elections’


Vote and be deported

One reader wrote in to complain about today’s strip, which he’s absolutely, positively, “150% sure” is an example of Candorville “makeing up stuff all thu time!” (Since he was so creative with the spelling, I figured I’d leave it as it was). I was very surprised to learn that Mr. “Fuk off looser” (well, that’s how he signed his letter) hadn’t been paying attention to the news. Sadly there’s no need to “make stuff up” when real life has become stranger than fiction.


October Surprise: the Saddam Death Sentence

October Surprises happen in November these days. After being delayed for nebulous reasons, the Iraqi court trying Saddam Hussein (a court whose logistics are largely controlled by agents of the United States) has decided to announce its verdict this Sunday, two days before the U.S. Congressional elections.

As President Bush faces mounting criticism over the war, a guilty verdict announced two days ahead of tight U.S. congressional elections on November 7 could reflect positively on him as a vindication of his policy to overthrow Saddam. U.S. officials deny Washington had any say over the timing of the verdict or the court’s decisions, saying the American role was limited to logistics and security.More…

Of course Washington had nothing to do with this timing. They’d never politicize something as important as this. Not this White House.•••


Hispanic voters targeted AGAIN?

In honor of the repeated attempt to disenfranchise Hispanic voters, I’ll re-post that last cartoon:Bradblog has posted a note from a Democratic voter in New Mexico. The voter’s complaint prompted a judge to issue an injunction preventing the Republican Party of New Mexico from calling non-Republicans with precinct information. It seems voters with Hispanic surnames may have been specifically targeted:

Yesterday (11/04), about 1pm MST, I rec’d a phone message from the Republican Party of NM telling me that my polling location was John Adams Middle School. My polling place is usually Longfellow Elementary about 1 block away. John Adams is about 7 1/2 miles away. In my horror and disgust I quickly deleted the message. Thinking that maybe my polling place changed, I then called the **Republican Party** here and simply asked if they could tell me my polling place. They asked my address only, I told them, and they said, “You vote at Longfellow.” This is correct and I hung up.About 5pm MST, the Republican Party of NM called AGAIN and left a message telling me that my election day polling place was West Mesa High School, even further away than John Adams. They gave the full address and zip code. My Caller ID shows “REPUBLICAN PART.” I DID NOT DELETE THIS MESSAGE.Then around 7pm MST, the same thing happened. The Republican Party of NM called and left a message telling me that my election day polling place was back to John Adams Middle School. My Caller ID shows “NEW MEXICO VICT.” I did a Google search on the phone number and this entry came up:New Mexico Republican Party :: CalendarSummary:, Contact your local county party or call the Victory Officeat (505) XXX-XXXX to find out what you can do to help our 2006 Republican candidates. …I DID NOT DELETE THIS MESSAGE.If you want the actual phone numbers, I can give them to you…-Read more at Bradblog.com

So far this is the only complaint about this, but it certainly fits the pattern that’s plagued our elections since 2000. There’s something seriously wrong with your party if you have to keep people from voting in order to win elections.•••


Desperate to Vote

At our precinct, voting was standing-room only. Or, more accurately, sitting-room only. Turnout was so much higher than expected that people were sitting on chairs (as I did) and on the floor to vote, because there weren’t enough booths. People sure were desperate to vote yesterday:

READING, Pa. – Anna Urban has been voting since Franklin D. Roosevelt was president and wasn’t about to miss an election. When the 95-year-old Reading resident didn’t have a ride to the polls Tuesday, she didn’t hesitate. She dialed 911.Dispatchers forwarded the call to the Berks County Election Services office, where it was considered a compliment.”To call 911 and ask for help to vote really says a lot,” said Deborah M. Olivieri, election services director. “It meant a lot to everyone in this office; it made us feel what we do is worthwhile.”County Commissioner Judith L. Schwank immediately picked up Urban, and Urban walked to the voting booth at Millmont Elementary School on her arm.”All my life I voted,” said Urban, a Democrat, who cast her first ballot in the 1930s. “You need to vote to be a good citizen.”-Philadelphia Inquirer

└ Tags: ,

Clinton spins the war vote

Oh, please…

From The Hill:Former President Bill Clinton yesterday complained that “it’s just not fair” the way his wife, presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is being depicted for her controversial Iraq war vote.Speaking to hundreds of supporters on conference call, the former president said, “I don’t have a problem with anything Barack Obama [has] said on this,” but “to characterize Hillary and Obama’s positions on the war as polar opposites is ludicrous.“This dichotomy that’s been set up to allow him to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate.”The ex-president’s aggressive defense of his wife’s position revealed frustration in the Clinton camp over how the issue is playing into the already-overheated presidential campaign.On a conference call with Hillraisers, Sen. Clinton’s biggest donors, which The Hill listened to after being provided the call-in information, the former president said there was a stark difference between those who voted for the Iraq resolution and those who wanted to go to war.In response to a question from one of the supporters on the phone about explaining Hillary Clinton’s Iraq vote to undecided voters, the former president jumped in front of former Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe, saying, “Let me answer this.”He said he had re-read the Iraq resolution last week, and that his wife had voted only for “coercive inspections.” Clinton justified his wife’s refusal to apologize for her vote by explaining that she was acting out of concern that future presidents might need similar language authorizing “coercive inspections to avoid conflict.”“It’s just not fair to say that people who voted for the resolution wanted war,” Clinton said.

Does he think anyone’s going to buy that? Technically, he’s right. Congress voted to authorize “coercive inspections,” and for the President to return to the UN Security Council for approval before launching his invasion, and the President did neither. He pulled the inspectors out (and then claimed Hussein expelled them) and did not return to the UN until after he’d invaded to demand the UN retroactively give him authorization. Nobody would’ve expected the President to do that, right? Nobody except the millions of Americans who were sure he was going to war no matter the evidence or excuse. If the Democrats in Congress who voted for that resolution were among the segment of our population who didn’t accurately assess Bush’s intentions (which couldn’t have been more obvious), that casts serious doubt on their judgement.Either Bill Clinton is wrong and Senator Clinton did suspect this was a vote for war, or he’s right and she was too naive to realize it was a vote for war. There’s no way to put a good spin on this, so please, Mr. Clinton, stop trying.


Image Over Substance

Perusing the conservative blogosphere this morning, this caught my eye. To an extent, all candidates are chosen based on their image. It’s why Barack Obama or Rudy Giuliani may someday be President, and Dennis Kucinich never will. What I found interesting is that these people at one of the leading Conservative blogs apparently see nothing wrong with that, and are in fact downright giddy about it:

In a sense, then, [Fred] Thompson looks like the perfect blend of the Allen/Frist/Romney/Gingrich and McCain/Giuliani “factions.” He seems to combine the conservatism of the former cluster with at least some of the popularity and stature of the latter pairing. This is not to suggest that Thompson is a national hero like McCain and Giuliani. But in addition to a long and distinguished record of public service, he has the good fortune to play a distinguished public servant on television. Millions of Americans see Thompson exercise sound judgment every week as the district attorney on “Law and Order.” I’m reliably informed that the show’s creator, Dick Wolf, developed the persona of this fictional D.A. specifically for Thompson, and that the actor/politician protects his image by pushing back when he thinks his lines don’t portray him in the proper light. But the point isn’t whether we’re seeing the real Fred Thompson on the show; the point is that, if Thompson runs, millions of America will see the character when they see the candidate, and to that extent will like what they see. 


McCain jokes about bombing Iran

“Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb [Iran]…”-John McCain

All I have to say about that is:

Thank God this guy has little chance of winning the primary, let alone the election.


Obama’s odd reason for opposing impeachment

Barack Obama on the incompetence and secrecy of the Bush administration, and on why impeaching them is unacceptable:

“There’s a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out,” the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. “That’s how our system is designed.”-USA Today 

Well, no. Our system was actually designed so that we can remove criminal officials through impeachment.He goes on:

“I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president’s authority,” he said. 

Illegally spying on millions of Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment, holding American citizens without providing access to counsel for years, torturing captives, evidence of felonious vote caging (aimed at denying Blacks their right to vote), etc., don’t constitute “grave breeches”? Exactly what would constitute a “grave breech” in Obama’s mind? And what does he mean “intentional breeches”? Does he think Bush spied on Americans by accident?