This is a surprising story...

[devilsadvocate]

I'm more worried about this

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us...hp&oref=slogin

I absolutely oppose anyone not entitled to vote from casting a vote. But removing even one eligible vote is unacceptable.

[j2k4]

http://michiganmessenger.com/4076/lo...lose-your-vote

http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/09...s-from-voting/

(Sorry, not on my PC ATM and this one is acting wonky re:links).

I'll be back for more, later, but in response to your Michigan Messenger link, how about this?

http://migop.blogs.com/blog/2008/09/...l-blog-re.html

And this?

http://www.outsidelansing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=283

There's much, much more...

[devilsadvocate]

Probably better to post a link from a non partisan source

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...g_to_keep.html

[j2k4]

Would it be partisan of me to point out that the investigation in Nevada has been instigated by the Democrat Attorney General, whom, I will add, is demonstrating a forthrightness and integrity seldom witnessed in such matters.

[devilsadvocate]

Would it be partisan of me to point out that the investigation in Nevada has been instigated by the Democrat Attorney General, whom, I will add, is demonstrating a forthrightness and integrity seldom witnessed in such matters.

Wasn't that in the original story?

What's your point?

I would argue that he is a little on the late side given that ACORN had reported and supplied evidence some time ago.


I posted the factcheck link because it removes any accusation of bias.

[j2k4]

Would it be partisan of me to point out that the investigation in Nevada has been instigated by the Democrat Attorney General, whom, I will add, is demonstrating a forthrightness and integrity seldom witnessed in such matters.

Wasn't that in the original story?

What's your point?

I would argue that he is a little on the late side given that ACORN had reported and supplied evidence some time ago.

The fact of party affiliation has bearing on the question of bias, I think you are bound to agree(though perhaps not, considering it's you).

BTW-

The AG is a she, not a he.

[devilsadvocate]

Okay I was talking about non partisan reporting of facts in the story as being more reliable when it came to the foreclosed home list story. It appears you jumped back and are talking about partisan led investigations. BTW as it stands ACORN is not accused of any wrongdoing, they are investigating the canvassers.

But I'm still wondering where you are going with the partisan thing when it's a democrat Ag investigating what you call a democrat orginisation.


I think the AG may be engaging in a bit of grandstanding with the raid method. Considering ACORN was not only cooperating, they were the ones pushing for an investigation, I can't see any reason why they couldn't have just asked for access to the records.

[j2k4]

Okay I was talking about non partisan reporting of facts in the story as being more reliable when it came to the foreclosed home list story. It appears you jumped back and are talking about partisan led investigations. BTW as it stands ACORN is not accused of any wrongdoing, they are investigating the canvassers.

I am participating in a thread in the fashion I please; if you wish to direct the flow of a thread, start one of your own, or keep up.

I mentioned the Nevada/dem AG, factoid because I find it interesting - am I to ask permission before doing so?

BTW-

How do you divorce the actions of ACORN's canvassers from ACORN proper?

But I'm still wondering where you are going with the partisan thing when it's a democrat Ag investigating what you call a democrat orginisation.

Individual integrity allows this dem AG to investigate ACORN, the dem organization.

It's just that easy.

I think the AG may be engaging in a bit of grandstanding with the raid method. Considering ACORN was not only cooperating, they were the ones pushing for an investigation, I can't see any reason why they couldn't have just asked for access to the records.

ACORN is being investigated in a number of states.

Asking to be investigated in one state is not a "blanket" arrangement.

BTW-

If a court disallows some/all of ACORN's registrations for suspicion of fraud, would you call that disenfranchisement?

If so, tell me why.

[devilsadvocate]

I am participating in a thread in the fashion I please; if you wish to direct the flow of a thread, start one of your own, or keep up.
Order forgive following for me, woman like conversation it's with yesterdays up brings subject the having a a who from conversation context without discussion in today
I mentioned the Nevada/dem AG, factoid because I find it interesting - am I to ask permission before doing so?
All you had to do is say that, no you don't have to ask but do I have to ask if I wish to ask a question about it?
BTW-

How do you divorce the actions of ACORN's canvassers from ACORN proper?
I thought I had already answered that

I've already laid blame with their applicant processing. Other than that they appear to be at the same mercy from the behavior of employees as any other employer

But I'm still wondering where you are going with the partisan thing when it's a democrat Ag investigating what you call a democrat orginisation.

Individual integrity allows this dem AG to investigate ACORN, the dem organization.

It's just that easy.
I'm not asking about integrity of the AG, the question came from you asking if it would be partisan of you to point out the AG is a democrat.

I think the AG may be engaging in a bit of grandstanding with the raid method. Considering ACORN was not only cooperating, they were the ones pushing for an investigation, I can't see any reason why they couldn't have just asked for access to the records.

ACORN is being investigated in a number of states.

Asking to be investigated in one state is not a "blanket" arrangement.
Thus far I've only been posting about the original article, at this time I have no information about any other investigations. I will point out again that being investigated doesn't mean anything wrong was actually done. There are many investigations going on.
BTW-

If a court disallows some/all of ACORN's registrations for suspicion of fraud, would you call that disenfranchisement?

If so, tell me why.

First off I wouldn't be happy about a court arbitrarily disallowing registrations no matter who collected them. County elections departments should be verifying registrations, not a judge en mass.

In answer

If a court disallows all then yes, the investigation is into a tiny problem compared to the bulk of the work.

If a court disallows even one eligible citizen from voting then yes. It may just be a single disenfranchisement but it still counts

If it only disqualifies phony registrations and the ruling allows for any eligible voter lumped in wrongly to have their vote counted then no.

Do you think this close to the election all the registrations should be disqualified by a court?

[j2k4]

I am participating in a thread in the fashion I please; if you wish to direct the flow of a thread, start one of your own, or keep up.
Order forgive following for me, woman like conversation it's with yesterdays up brings subject the having a a who from conversation context without discussion in today
I mentioned the Nevada/dem AG, factoid because I find it interesting - am I to ask permission before doing so?
All you had to do is say that, no you don't have to ask but do I have to ask if I wish to ask a question about it?
BTW-

How do you divorce the actions of ACORN's canvassers from ACORN proper?
I thought I had already answered that

But I'm still wondering where you are going with the partisan thing when it's a democrat Ag investigating what you call a democrat orginisation.

Individual integrity allows this dem AG to investigate ACORN, the dem organization.

It's just that easy.
I'm not asking about integrity of the AG, the question came from you asking if it would be partisan of you to point out the AG is a democrat.

I think the AG may be engaging in a bit of grandstanding with the raid method. Considering ACORN was not only cooperating, they were the ones pushing for an investigation, I can't see any reason why they couldn't have just asked for access to the records.

ACORN is being investigated in a number of states.

Asking to be investigated in one state is not a "blanket" arrangement.
Thus far I've only been posting about the original article, at this time I have no information about any other investigations. I will point out again that being investigated doesn't mean anything wrong was actually done. There are many investigations going on.
BTW-

If a court disallows some/all of ACORN's registrations for suspicion of fraud, would you call that disenfranchisement?

If so, tell me why.

First off I wouldn't be happy about a court arbitrarily disallowing registrations no matter who collected them. County elections departments should be verifying registrations, not a judge en mass.

In answer

If a court disallows all then yes, the investigation is into a tiny problem compared to the bulk of the work.

If a court disallows even one eligible citizen from voting then yes. It may just be a single disenfranchisement but it still counts

If it only disqualifies phony registrations and the ruling allows for any eligible voter lumped in wrongly to have their vote counted then no.

Do you think this close to the election all the registrations should be disqualified by a court?

Problem is, we're up against it, time-wise, which I think was part of ACORN's strategy.

Do you think it better to allow several thousand bogus registrations rather than disallow a single one?

Sure seems that way.