Two birds with one stone.

You establish an organization that helps register women voters who will support your candidate. You make sure they are called before the Primary and are given correct information so they can vote.

This establishes credibility for your organization and will provide cover should the whole thing blow up.

Then, after the registration deadline, you begin calling African-American voters and providing them with misleading information telling them that if they want to vote (In the Primary? Or in the General?) they'll need to submit some paperwork. But when the voter receives it (if they receive it) the deadline has passed, so obviously they can't vote. Unless, of course, they were already registered, in which case, it was all a mistake.

Karl Rove would be proud.

Posted at May 1, 2008 1:15 PM in response to Board Members from Robo Calling Nonprofit Criticize Effort, But Vouch for Group

every person that did not want hillary to win... or wanted obama to win....or wanted edwards to win, voted uncommitted

Not so.

Remember, back on January 15th, there was no reason to believe that Michigan votes would count for anything.

The delegates were not going to be seated, and besides, many people expected that the whole thing would be over after one candidate (presumably Hillary Clinton) took an insurmountable lead on Super Tuesday.

So many voters (thousands, tens of thousands?) stayed home that night.

In terms of "fairness," the January 15 popular vote means very little.

Posted at April 21, 2008 11:24 AM in response to Report: Popular Vote Win For Hillary Is All But Impossible

So Saddam Hussein was within his legal rights to use torture (stemming from necessity and self-defense of his country). I guess by Bush standards, he wasn't so evil after all.

Posted at April 2, 2008 12:00 PM in response to Today's Must Read

While the ACLU is naturally focused on protecting religious freedom, and while Madison eloquently supports protecting religion from the influences of government, it’s worth considering the inverse argument, that government works best when it is not tied to religion.

The liberal democratic tradition was founded on a belief that people could best govern by resorting to reason. Law would be derived, not from ancient religious texts, but from legislative bodies of learned representatives who would use reason as their guide.

Justice would be administered, not by the Church, but by juries of men [and women] who would examine the evidence rationally, and thus render a reasonable verdict without blindly submitting to religious dogma.

Our nation’s founders believed in Reason as the basis of a sound government.

And while the liberal democratic experiment is still respected by many, for some people, the laws and verdicts rendered by a religious-neutral government leave much to be desired.

Our country’s current stand on abortion, contraception, sex education, and pornography, do not align well with the beliefs of many conservatives. And for some, this misalignment is evidence that Reason alone is not a sufficient guide for government.

In their view, it has become necessary to rely on religious sources as a guide to our governance. An erosion of faith in Reason has lead conservatives to challenge the legitimacy of liberal democracy, and to attempt a marriage of goverment and religion.

Posted at October 11, 2005 8:58 AM in response to Madison Under Fire