Voter ID fraud: The Al Franken example

I think that we should employ the phrase "voter ID fraud"  -- rather than "voter fraud" -- when we talk about the right-wing myth that large numbers of ineligible Democrats misrepresent themselves at the polls. You've probably already read a great deal about these allegations, but The New Yorker just published what may be the very best single piece on the topic. The investigation centers on the chief author of this mythos, the nerdy Republican lawyer Hans von Spakovsky.

The one instance of voter ID fraud that right-wingers love to point to occurred during the hotly contested vote that brought Al Franken into office. Writer Jane Mayer dispatches the legend handily:

Von Spakovsky said, “The idea that there’s some deep conspiracy is just laughable.” His own work, however, has suggested that liberals engage in conspiracies. “Who’s Counting?” opens with an insinuating account of how Al Franken, the Minnesota Democrat, was elected to the Senate in 2008. According to the book, there is “compelling” evidence, compiled by a citizens’ watchdog group, that “1,099 ineligible felons voted illegally” in the contest—“more than three times” Franken’s victory margin. The subhead of the chapter is “Would Obamacare have passed without voter fraud?”

Fox News and other conservative media outlets have promoted this argument. However, Mike Freeman, the Hennepin County Attorney, who oversees Minneapolis, told me, “Those numbers are fraudulent. We investigated, and at the end of the day, out of over four hundred allegations in the county, we charged thirty-eight people. Their research was bad, sloppy, incredible. They are just liars.” Some of the targeted voters weren’t actually felons; others were on probation and hadn’t realized that they remained ineligible to vote. To be convicted of voter fraud, a suspect needs to have criminal intent.

I've always wondered why all the Fox news-watchers presume that a felon would necessarily vote for Al Franken. The United States Senate is not a place where issues involving state-level crime and punishment are usually decided. Franken's voting record on crime-related issues has been indistinguishable from that of most Republicans. (Did you know that he voted to extend the Patriot Act? Disturbing.) Franken supported the stimulus, which gave Minnesota an extra billion dollars to hire more cops.

Besides, who says former crooks trend Democratic? I know Fox News says so, but I don't trust Fox.

Read More

Best poll news I've seen in days. Plus: What will Mitt do?

Obama up 5 among likely voters in Ohio, says Quinnipiac. This is outside the margin of error. This poll is the first indicator I've seen that the second debate had a pro-O impact. Or maybe it indicates that Obama's numbers tick upward when people start to forget the debates. (There's an argument to be made for that proposition.)

By the way, I hope you caught Taibbi's latest, which is both wise and hilarious:

Romney has all of America right now running head-scratching analyses of his tax and jobs plans, trying to figure out if there's any way the numbers fit. But my guess is, independent voters are not reading those dense commentaries, and instead are responding more to the general vibe surrounding Romney's campaign, which is clearly benefiting from the fact that he's being so aggressive that the whole world is left scrambling to react to his bullshit.

I think the new strategy, rather than try to swim down into the deep waters of Romney's bogus plans, should be to stay on the surface and simply ask him simple questions. For instance, on his convoluted tax plan, just ask these two questions:

1) You've talked a lot about who's getting a tax break under your plan. But who's paying more? Where's the pain coming from?

2) If there is no pain, and the whole thing really is "revenue neutral," WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT?

Now, cynically, we know what the "point" is. The point is to win an election by promising a 20% tax cut with one hand while promising that nobody will have to pay for it with the other. It's brilliant stuff – the ecstasy of pure bull.

When dealing with a man determined to lie his way into office, one can do little else but call him a liar. Repeatedly.

What will Mitt do? So what is the reality of Romney's plan for governance? I think the most revealing "tell" occurred during the VP debate, when Ryan began spewing nonsense about our allegedly undernourished Navy. Apparently, it has shrunk to the point that it can barely match a flotilla of rubber duckies and newspaper boats.

That fib reminded me of a long-ago Cannonfire post...

The only ideologically permissible jobs program will involve military Keynesianism, funded by yet more massive debt. That's how Reagan did it.

Of course, the right will need to prepare the way for that course of action with a propaganda barrage designed to portray America as militarily weak. A similar barrage flooded the media starting in 1977-1978.

If my suspicions are correct, then you should expect the new barrage to hit at some point during 2010 and 2011. The propaganda blitz will start with a flurry of alarming reports from the Army War College and similar institutions. These reports will pretend that the American infantry is still using muskets, the Air Force is still flying King Kong-style bi-planes, and the Navy is still sailing three-masted frigates. "And that's why we need to double our investment in weapons development now now now."

I predicted that the propaganda barrage would begin in 2010. Okay, so my timing was wrong. We're seeing the first salvos now. If Mitt wins, we'll probably see reports claiming that our soldiers still wear tri-corner hats while carrying powder in sacks.

Ryan more or less admitted that he thinks that his proposed tax cuts will pay for themselves through expanded growth. In other words, he's an unrepentant Laffer-er. But the only precedent he could cite was when Johnson implemented tax cuts proposed by JFK.

What Ryan doesn't tell you -- what nobody on the right will ever tell you -- is that those tax cuts did not "pay for themselves." Increased growth matched only one third of the cuts. JFK accepted the idea of deficits; having inherited more-or-less balanced books, he had room to play.

Romney doesn't have that luxury. Yet his likely course of action -- massive tax cuts, massive weapons spending on the credit card -- will inevitably make the deficit much worse.

Most people on the right won't mind. They never carp about the debt unless a Democrat is in office. But taxpayers ought to mind, because they pay for the interest on that debt.

As I demonstrated in my video on Debate 1, those in the 100k-200k bracket will pay about $1200 more per year if the Bush tax cuts are maintained, as Romney promises to do. If the deficit increases dramatically, people in that bracket will be forking over -- well, I can only guess what the amount will be. Maybe 5k a year, maybe more. Just to service the interest on the debt.

Yes, that's conjecture on my part, but I think it's reasonable conjecture. If you think I'm wrong, tell me why.

Read More

Is Carrel Hilton Sheldon the surprise?

I had suspected that the target of Gloria Allred's alleged upcoming revelation would be someone on Team Obama. One of these days, I may tell you why I thought that way. Right now, though, the growing common belief is that Allred will represent a woman named Carrel Hilton Sheldon, whose name will already be familiar to some.

Basically, the story holds that in 1981, when Mitt was a young-ish Mormon bishop in Boston, Carrel Sheldon was pregnant. Her doctor told her that bringing the child to term would endanger her life. Mormon doctrine permits abortion in such cases, and her "stake president" approved the procedure.

Mitt Romney did not.

There was no empathy forthcoming from Romney, according to Sheldon, no warmth or sympathy. Moreover, Sheldon contends, Romney cast doubt on her story about the stake president's approval. He simply didn't believe her. He threatened to call him and track him down. He didn't seem to care a lick about her personal well-being.

"At a time when I would have appreciated nurturing and support from spiritual leaders and friends," Sheldon wrote, "I got judgment, criticism, prejudicial advice, and rejection."

According to R.B. Scott, author of the insightful Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics, Romney's only concern was for the unborn fetus. Last year, Scott, who is also a Mormon, interviewed Sheldon's 90-year-old father, Phil Hilton, who remembered the incident quite vividly.

"I have never been so upset about anything in my life," he told Scott. "[Romney] is an authoritative type fellow who thinks he is in charge of the world."

Hilton was so offended by Romney's single-mindedness and absolute lack of sensitivity to his daughter's health that he ordered the young bishop out of his home. Hilton told Scott that he was fully prepared to "throw [Romney] off the porch if he paused for even a second." Romney kept moving.

Back at the hospital, a distraught Carrel Hilton Sheldon assented to her doctor's advice and terminated her life-threatening pregnancy. She recovered from her medical crisis, moved to the West Coast, and continued to raise her four children.

And because of her ward bishop, Mitt Romney, Sheldon eventually left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, never to return.

Is this woman the figure behind Allred's putative "surprise"? I have my doubts. Allred referred to a potential client. Infuriating as the above story may be, I just don't see a triable case. Insensitivity is not a crime. And even if such a case existed, surely the statute of limitations would have passed by now.

The case was discussed earlier, in a piece that quotes Judith Dushku, a close friend of Sheldon's. These words may not shed light on the Allred mystery, but they so offer insight into Romney's character:

"Romney just doesn't have any sensitivity to women's issues in general," says Dushku. "But even more than that, he genuinely believes he's always right, that he's never made a mistake. He can never say, 'I might have made a mistake, I didn't understand that.' In Mitt's view, no one else has anything else to offer. He's always right."

When Romney uttered his now-immortal comments at a Republican fundraiser in Boca Raton, Florida, about 47 percent of Americans being "victims" who think "that government has the responsibility to care for them," Dushku says that we were seeing the "real Romney."

"He sees other people in need as lazy and slackers," Dushku notes. "He doesn't acknowledge that the path he took was a privileged path, from his parents, that gave him distinct advantages."

Last week, as Dushku watched the first of the presidential debates, she saw a competent, even "slick" politician sparring with President Obama, but she also witnessed someone who is a political chameleon.

"He's not a man who has anything like a moral core," she says. "He's very loyal to the Mormon church, pays his tithing, is faithful to his wife, and so on, but he doesn't have a set of core values you can count on. I've known him for nearly 40 years. He may have a different suit on, but he hasn't changed. His experience hasn't changed. His performance was very consistent with the Mitt I knew back then. He can't relate to average working women--teachers and nurses and care givers. He's still coming from a place of privilege and entitlement."

Read More

The new October surprise (update)

Supposedly, Gloria Allred has a game-changing October Surprise ready to go.

Ms Allred has refused to comment on the rumours, which first surfaced in a tweet by the Drudge Report's Matt Drudge on Thursday.

'Here she comes. Hearing Gloria Allred out there again, about to make a move. After all, it's her time of the campaign. Team O at the ready!!' Mr Drudge wrote on Twitter.

According to RadarOnline.com, Ms Allred launched a last minute strike on GOP Meg Whitman's campaign for governor of California by representing a disgruntled former housekeeper.

In the pivotal moments of the campaign, the lawyer wheeled out Nicky Diaz who alleged that she was fired by the Whitman family because she was an illegal immigrant.
Whitman went on to lose the election to Democrat Jerry Brown.

Personally, I think Whitman would have lost to Brown anyways. Nevertheless, the right is going absolutely batshit insane at this news. This is good. Instapundit, for example, writes:

If I were Romney, I’d have lawyers quietly informing outlets that false stories before the election will be met with libel suits — and expensive, embarrassing discovery — after the election. Whether I win or lose, guys, you’ll have my lawyers trolling through your emails for years. And we both know there’s a lot of stuff there you don’t want anyone to see.

What an absurd, cheap threat. Gloria Allred knows the law as well as anyone, and I don't think she would ever commit libel. Any "win or lose" threat of that sort is itself illegal. Here's a collection of further reaction:

The Red Side of Life, Conservative Musings from New York says on their website, "Gloria Allred Prepares Anti-Mitt Strike. You Can STOP Her Now! (action!) Don't underestimate Gloria Allred's ability to inflict damage. The media will 'eat up' anything she feeds them and turn it into an endless scandal. Recall she took down Cain and RINO Whitman with NO EVIDENCE. We're doing too well to risk 'an Allred.' She can be stopped, but it will take action on our behalf."

The blog asks supporters to "please make these two calls. We will only get their attention if we bombard them. If you get VM, leave a message," to the Republican National Committee and Mitt Romney's national presidential campaign headquarters.

The media will not "eat up" anything Allred hands them if it is valueless. And rallying the troops is pointless. She either has something or she doesn't.

The only clue, so far, can be gleaned from her response:

Allred, an outspoken supporter of President Barack Obama refused to confirm, or deny, Drudge's prediction, telling RadarOnline.com: "I have no comment at this time about Mr. Drudge's Tweet. I don't discuss meetings with potential clients."

Obviously, her sources is someone who thinks she -- Allred's clients are usually female -- has an actionable complaint against Romney. This is not to say that I've always agreed with Allred, or that every case she has championed has turned out to be a winner. At one point, she tried to mount a case against Sacha Baron Cohen for committing "fraud" while filming Borat. Cohen was, I think, guilty of several offenses against good taste, but that's a very different matter.

Republicans should note that her cases are not always partisan. For example, she represented porn actress Ginger Lee who said that she was coached by Anthony Weiner.

Why did Drudge presume that Allred had something on Team Romney? Maybe she's targeting a Dem. I've been hinting for four years that...

Update: I'm going to offer a wild (and, I hope, wrong) prediction that Allred's surprise actually targets a Democrat. I didn't say which one.

Read More

Can Obama win?

Obama's lead in Ohio is down to one point in the latest PPP poll, which means he will lose the state, since Mitt Romney's son is part-owner of the company that made the voting machines and Secretary of State Jon Husted is not trustworthy. The fraudsters will have no moral problem with putting their thumb on the scale, just as they did in 2004, but they are constrained by the limits of reasonableness. They can shave off a point or two -- or maybe even three. Beyond that, they wouldn't dare.

Is Ohio necessary? Not really. According to the PollTracker, Obama has a fairly solid 259 electoral votes. That puts him within eleven points of a win. A single state such as Arizona could do the trick.

Yes, Arizona -- Romney's lead there is slight, thanks in large measure to the Libertarian factor. But the Arizona Secretary of State, Ken Bennett, is not just a Republican but an extremist wacko. How wacky is he? Well, he's the guy who insisted on seeing Obama's birth certificate. He also co-chairs the Romney campaign in that state, even though he previously had argued that a Secretary of State shouldn't take such a position. So he's as bad as Husted.

Is it possible for Obama to win this thing, if we factor in the biases of the Secretaries of State? That's a question no other blogger seems to be thinking about.

In Florida, Polltracker has Romney ahead by 1.2 points. But why even talk about Florida? Secretary of State Ken Detzner is worse than either Husted or Bennett. He had led a voter purge designed to weed out as many Democrats as he possibly can. See here.

Colorado, where the president has a lead thinner than an eyelash, has only 9 electoral votes, so a win there won't mean victory overall. The Secretary of State there, Scott Gessler, is another Republican activist who, until recently, was spearheading a voter purge.

The only other state in play is Virginia.

Some polls have Obama ahead by an onionskin-thin margin in Virginia. Of the recent (post second debate) polls there, PPP has Obama up 2 and Rasmussen has Romney up three. I trust PPP more than I trust Rasmussen.

The Secretary of the Commonwealth (not State) there is Janet Vestal Polarek, whose name now seems to be Janet Vestal Kelly. (I presume that she recently married.)

As Secretary of the Commonwealth, she has implemented sweeping reforms in efficiency by utilizing technology to eliminate paper-based systems.

Uh oh.

Even though her enthusiasm for non-paper-trail voting systems bugs the hell out of me, she seems to be the least Machiavellian of the Secretaries of State we've seen so far. Consider:

She serves on the Virginia Victims of Human Trafficking Steering Committee, which seeks to curb one of the most disturbing and fast-growing criminal enterprises in the world; on the No Kid Hungry Campaign’s Collaborating Group, which fights childhood hunger in Virginia; and on the Planning Committee for the Richmond Women’s Healing Place, a sister treatment center to the Healing Place, which has a 70% success rate in helping men overcome addiction. 

Now that sounds like someone with a conscience.

Arguably, Obama should put everything into Virginia and hope that Janet Vestal Polarek/Kelly is a woman whose honesty outweighs her partisanship. I bet the party hacks are really giving her a harsh workover right now.

Of course, it may well be possible for some Rovian malefactor to game the vote tabulators without letting the Secretary of State in on the scheme. At any rate, I see little chance for Obama.

The best outcome would be for Obama to lose the popular vote while winning in the electoral college. Both parties would then feel motivated to get rid of our antique and unfair system.

Read More

Election integrity note...

There's a lot to be said about election integrity this season (Brad Friedman has been doing remarkable work) but there's one problem in particular that deserves wider attention: Mitt's son Tagg owns -- well, part-owns -- the company that supplies voting machines to Ohio.

Given the proven duplicity of Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, this news bodes ill. Frankly, I don't see how Obama can win this election unless, on election day, the polls have him carrying Ohio by at least three or four points.

Read More

I have to think about something else...

This happens to me in every election cycle: I reach a point where the only news stories I can bear to look at contain the word "poll." All other information is meaningless. Even stories about the latest antics of Obama and Romney have value only insofar as they may or may not move the numbers; the antics have no interest in and of themselves. If a nuke took out a small town in Arizona, the first thought to enter my brain (after "Oh my God!" and "Those poor people!") would be "How will this affect the polls?"

2008 was easier on me, since I sort of, kind of, vaguely, provisionally wanted McCain to win, even though his loss was inevitable. This year is different. As noted in earlier posts, I haven't grown to love Obama. But I loathe Mitt Romney. He is, by far, the oiliest liar ever to get this close to the highest office within my lifetime -- and I'm old enough to recall Nixon.

I probably should do a video about the second debate, but that task may be pointless. Right now, I'm looking for a way not to think about polls. Any suggestions?

Read More