Comments (18)

Political Animal 2008 wrote on January 17, 2008 6:03 PM:

Interesting that when Republicans work to ensure only legal voting takes place, it is called "supression." Yet, Hillary's people have announced that they will do ID checks in Las Vegas to make sure that only employees near the strip can participate in the Nevada caucusus.

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/13793942.html

Is the Clinton engaged in "voter supression? Where is the outrage??

Oh the hypocrisy..........

phil james wrote on January 17, 2008 6:13 PM:

Whenever the Rove playbook outlines a strategy that might prove effective, Hillary will use it if she thinks she can get away with it. She is a pragmatist. The end justifies the means. She has no conscience. You expected maybe she did?

Eric Ferguson wrote on January 17, 2008 6:16 PM:

Political Animal 2008, beware of believing that editorial you linked to without checking the claims. Remember that's an editorial from a right-wing publication. Almost surely there are important omissions of fact.

Regarding the thrust of the post, there is already a restraining order against the Republicans, so caging has been illegal all this time, even though they ignore the law. Obviously penalties are necessary, but it needs stating that they've been breaking the law already, not merely acting unethically.

Roberta wrote on January 17, 2008 7:02 PM:

Political Animal, there has been outrage. And there was a hearing about it. And the Clinton challenge was denied.

But these are very, very different situations. Caging is a highly organized, systematic tactic that has been used for a long time with the express purpose of denying many people the right to vote.

It's a vile practice that unfortunately requires legislation to stop it. If it could simply be pointed out to the cagers that this is counter to what this country's supposed to be about, those who allowed their partisan zeal to override their ethics would stop participating in the large labor force that must be required to implement caging.

But caging is part of the greater plan bragged about by Karl Rove to create a permanent Republican majority for this government. The plan has hit some snags recently (the 2006 election, for one), but undoing this tactic might help it unravel altogether and maybe lead to our having the free and fair elections we chide other countries for not allowing.

nofltwlt wrote on January 17, 2008 7:29 PM:

Why has Tim Griffin not been prosecuted for his admitted voter caging?

rylly wrote on January 17, 2008 8:35 PM:

Lets hope Mr. Conyers will include the New Indiana Voter ID scheme that will essentially
deny the right to vote to many long time citizens in his list of things needing immediate attention.
If the Supreme Court can't see the illegality in it, Congress should act.

Jim H wrote on January 18, 2008 3:36 AM:

Oh, for freak's sake, some people here have limited imaginations and consciences. If Obama does something, he's Simba, the wise leader. He's also a street-wise Chicago pol, and that goes doubly for his advisers. He has sharp elbows. So does Obama.

And you know what? Caucuses blow. They deal with small percentages of the population, only the ones rich enough or connected enough to unions who have the time to vote in a caucus, in public. You want to be a union member caucusing for a candidate your union president didn't endorse? I don't suspect intimidation, but I do know there's going to be a ton of social pressure. So not every sharp elbow in politics is "Rove," oh pure ones. Democracy is, in a polite way, smashmouth, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But why did Nevada go to an elitist, easily-manipulable caucus anyway?

bob h wrote on January 18, 2008 8:06 AM:

With Obama likely to be on the ticket, this is absolutely essential because the flood of black voters is going to collide with these Republican dirty vote suppression tactics. And they will not be in a mood to take this stuff sitting down.

audit the polls wrote on January 18, 2008 9:30 AM:

This is the most important story so far about the elections. Haven't seen it on CNN. Of course I watch a lot less MSM nowadays.

3reddogs wrote on January 18, 2008 9:42 AM:

What a shame Conyers' legislation (assuming it passes) won't offset the number of people who won't be allowed to vote because of the kinds of state-mandated voter ID laws that the Republicans are rolling out and that the Supreme Court is about to uphold. Apparently voting in this country has gone from being a right to a "privilege" that will be denied to the elderly and the poor.

moondancer wrote on January 18, 2008 10:10 AM:

They're already hard at work keeping the voters down. By the time you get that passed it will be too late. Without theft and vote suppression, the GOP would probably be a fringe party.

wayne wrote on January 18, 2008 10:49 AM:

Such bills are sorely needed but unfortunately have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming law. I would shocked if it got through the Senate, where Repubs only need threaten a filibuster and Dems give up. If by some bizarre chance it passed the Senate, Bush would veto it and there's no way Dems can find the override votes.

Nothing the Repubs are not wild about will become law until this situation changes.

bnb wrote on January 18, 2008 11:34 AM:

"If by some bizarre chance it passed the Senate, Bush would veto it and there's no way Dems can find the override votes."

That's OK, make them filibuster and veto for this denial of the right to vote.

bill wrote on January 18, 2008 2:59 PM:

I think you should probably tell the full truth, such as the democRATS doing the same thing, the dead voters for democRAT politicians, illegal immigrants voting for democRAT politicians. If you told the full truth then people would listen.

Eric Ferguson wrote on January 18, 2008 3:16 PM:

Hey bill, I'd ask you for evidence, but given that your allegations have all been debunked --- even the Bush DOJ can't find any despite firing USAs whow wouldn't prosecute it --- I know you don't have it.

For the sake of information about banning the photo ID laws, Rep. Keith Ellison has already proposed a bill to do that. I don't know how far it's gotten, but he sits on Conyer's committee, so I'm hopeful. Maybe letters asking the committee to take up the bill would be a good idea.

melior wrote on January 18, 2008 7:21 PM:

Instead of vetoing it, Bush will just issue a signing statement reserving his DOJ's right to refuse to prosecute caging by his own party, consistent with his powers as Supreme Omnipotent Executive.

bnb wrote on January 19, 2008 12:49 PM:

Signing statements are unconstitutional. Arrest that man.

USPS in Chicago wrote on January 20, 2008 1:11 PM:

Vote caging should be illegal, if for no other reason, than the fact that the USPS is not perfect. Do a google search on USPS and problems restricted to the Chicago Sun Times web site, and you will come up with multiple stories about how properly addressed letters to real people don't get delivered, and are returned as "undeliverable" - which to Karl Rove means there is voting fraud going on ... .