Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - republican thugs will not be allowed to harass voters at the polls in ohio

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - republican thugs will not be allowed to harass voters at the polls in ohio (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/74538-republican-thugs-will-not-allowed-harass-voters-polls-ohio.html)

republican thugs will not be allowed to harass voters at the polls in ohio

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...s/10069015.htm

Note: Registration required, but I have posted it in its entirety. For those pesky websites, I highly recommend http://www.bugmenot.com

Quote:

Two federal judges deny voter challenges at polls

TERRY KINNEY

Associated Press

CINCINNATI - Two federal judges on Monday barred political party representatives from challenging voters at polling places throughout Ohio. State Republicans planned to appeal.

An order by U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott of Cincinnati found that the application of Ohio's statute allowing challengers at polling places was unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge John Adams of Akron said poll workers are the ones to determine if voters are eligible.

"In light of these extraordinary circumstances, and the contentious nature of the imminent election, the court cannot and must not turn a blind eye to the substantial likelihood that significant harm will result not only to voters, but also to the voting process itself, if appointed challengers are permitted at the polls," Adams said.

The ruling says people appointed as challengers cannot be at the polls for the sole purpose of challenging voters' qualifications.

Republicans said Adams' ruling would allow them to still be in the polling places. In that case, challengers would plan "to observe, to be vigilant, to take notes," Weaver said.

But Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell's office sent a memo to county election boards Monday telling them to bar all challengers from polling places, based on the two rulings. Adams' office refused to clarify the ruling.

Dlott said the presence of challengers inexperienced in the electoral process questioning voters about their eligibility would impede voting.

Mark Weaver, lawyer for the Ohio Republican Party, said the party would appeal Dlott's ruling to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. If the appeals court agrees to keep challengers out of the polls, the party was prepared to appeal Adams' ruling.

"The law is clearly in our favor," Weaver said. "The 6th Circuit has already had to correct some of the bad decisions made by district court judges and we think they'll do it again."

Dlott ruled on a lawsuit by a black Cincinnati couple who said Republican plans to deploy challengers to largely black precincts in Hamilton County was meant to intimidate and block black voters.

In Akron, the Summit County Democratic Party sued the state to try to block the witnesses, claiming the law allowing registration challenges is unconstitutional because it does not give a disqualified voter a chance to appeal in time to cast a ballot.

Republicans wanted to put challengers in polling places because of concerns about fraud with hundreds of thousands of newly registered voters in a state President Bush and Sen. John Kerry both say they need to win.

Dlott said in her order that the evidence "does not indicate that the presence of additional challengers would serve Ohio's interest in preventing voter fraud better than would the system of election judges."

The rulings apply to all 88 counties, said Carlo LoParo, a spokesman for Blackwell.

If the challengers appointed by political parties, issue campaigns and candidates are barred from polling places Tuesday, the only people under state law who could then issue challenges would be four election officials at each precinct, who are divided between political parties, or another voter.

Andy Padrutt, executive director of the Democratic Party in Summit County, said Adam's ruling was a victory.

The Republican challenges would cause "havoc and chaos in the polls on Election Day," Padrutt said. "It would really serve no purpose. All it would do is disenfranchise voters without recourse."

In a separate case last week, Dlott had temporarily halted election board hearings on challenges. The state GOP had challenged 35,000 registrations because mail to those addresses came back undelivered. Democrats said the GOP was trying to keep poor and minorities, who move more often, from voting, and was targeting new voters registered by political groups supporting Kerry.

I'm always surprised at the number of Republicans who are unaware that their party is doing this in several swing states. Although they have a legitimate concern in that a small number of people might vote unlawfully, their "efforts" will do little to solve that problem, and they will create even greater problems for everyone else who wants to vote. Anybody familiar with politics in general and with Karl Rove in particular will tell you that it's the slowdown they're after. Their goal is to decrease turnout, and I'm relieved that the courts have stood up for what's right.

Is it really any worse than the Democrats suing to keep Nader off the ballot and challenging the signitures on his petitions?

This is the other side of the same coin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Is it really any worse than the Democrats suing to keep Nader off the ballot and challenging the signitures on his petitions?

This is the other side of the same coin.

I've always thought this as well. The Democrats are always saying they want everyone's vote to count. Apparently that is only if that is a vote for a Democrat candidate. Also, there have been documented cases of Democrats hassling Bush voters at polling places.

Personally, I don't even know if I care who wins at this point. They both suck, so let's pick one and get this stupid election over with. It seems more a joke than anything else.

No kidding... this would really help those thousands of people who live and are registered Flordia who were found to also be registered to vote in Ohio. Or those unknown thousands who have criminal records and it's illegal to vote who managed to in 2000

No we cant have people who challenge others to uphold the law.

Please. This prevents the intentional harassment of voters at polls for nothing more than the fact that they are living in traditionally democratic districts. The Republicans were forcing each person to essentially stand impromptu trial as they line up to vote, placing the burden of proof on their right to vote entirely on them.

This is essentially a reprise of Republican efforts in the 1960s to disenfranchise black voters in "Operation Eagle Eye."

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Dammit, you're right. People shouldn't be made to undergo the indignity of showing their ID and voter card to poll workers. Think of all the dead people and felons such a requirement would disenfranchise!!!

What the heck is the big deal here? If someone other than the election officials approaches you at the polls, just tell them to get lost. What enforcement powers would these citizens have? Can they keep you from voting, let them challange away.

Um, daswig - you are already forced to show your ID and voter registration card when you vote. Republicans aren't enforcing that. They ARE individually challenging the legality of the registrations of each person, in order to slow down the line and disenfranchise as many traditionally democratic voters as humanly possible.

In certain states, flstf, people have the right to challenge voter's registrations at the polls. This is why it is a big deal - these Republican thugs CAN slow things down and cannot just be brushed off. At least, that is how it used to be before this decision.

Should democrats also be banned from contesting military ballots? It looks like some of us are only happy if Republican efforts to contest certain votes are barred.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Um, daswig - you are already forced to show your ID and voter registration card when you vote.

Not here...here, you give them your name, they check their record, then you give them your address, and if it's correct, you are registered, and you haven't yet voted, you vote.

I can't remember the last time I saw my voter registration card....

Some of you truly need to be educated on what this was really in Ohio.

What these "republican" challengers were going to be allowed to do.

Here's the deal.

I go in and SHOW my ID and get my ballot. The GOP challengers then could look at my name and what I am registered as and decide I was not valid. (EVEN THOUGH I HAD SHOWN MY ID AND PROVEN I WAS WHO I AM AND AT THE RIGHT PRECINCT).

Now the GOP challenges my name (they can do so for ANY REASON), when I turn in my ballot it is taken, my name put on it and put into a pile. Then the person in charge of that precinct goes down the challenged list and decides with 2 witnesses 1 from each party and decides whose ballot is legit and whose isn't.

Those voters that were in doubt or had their ballots discarded through this process, WOULD NEVER KNOW THEIR VOTE WAS NOT COUNTED AS THE CHALLENGES REMAIN TOTALLY PRIVATE.

That's basically the gist. You can read the whole article in Friday's Plain Dealer.

Sorry, but to me that's fixing an election. The Dems were not allowed to do it, why just the GOP?????? Talk about election fixing bullshit.

So some of you GOP'ers who think this was funny and truly believe that Ohio should do this think what you would do if this happened where you lived and it was the Dems. being able to challenge.

This is just one of the many voter's issues that the GOP government in Columbus has sponsered and tried to get through. But even on the challengers issues Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R) and other state GOP'ers were against. And Blackwell is the man that threw out 1000's of registrations simply because they were on the wrong paper. (And ooo btw he changed the paper requirement AFTER recieving the registrations.)

The DNC and the RNC should be dismembered, disbanded, banned, outlawed, and finally put before the inquisition. Maybe THEN, we could get on with making the country greater.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

The DNC and the RNC should be dismembered, disbanded, banned, outlawed, and finally put before the inquisition. Maybe THEN, we could get on with making the country greater.

If we did that, then my Rabid Gerbil Party(tm) would reign supreme!!!

There's only one party I'd really support, but they too keep picking BAD candidates. I'm almost ready to vote for anarchy.

Thanks for the first-person report, pan6467. Do you have a link to that Plain Dealer writeup? And, I couldn't quite tell from your writeup; is your vote going to be counted or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Is it really any worse than the Democrats suing to keep Nader off the ballot and challenging the signitures on his petitions?

This is the other side of the same coin.

It certainly is different. Challenging the signatures on a completed petition doesn't impede a one day (and unrepeatable) process and prevent people who want to sign the petition legally from doing so. Petitions for all sorts of things are ALWAYS challenged. Petitions never have a 100% signature validity rate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aliali

Should democrats also be banned from contesting military ballots? It looks like some of us are only happy if Republican efforts to contest certain votes are barred.

Again, my gripe with the Republican efforts is not that I want illegal voters to put my guy in office. The essential problem with having republican party bosses looking over voters shoulders on election day is that it will slow down and inhibit the ability of legal voters to cast their vote.

Remember, the Republicans are doing this to decrease turnout, not to weed out the unlawful votes.

Finally, I challenge someone to find an instance of Democrats doing anything like this. Challenging petitions doesn't count. I'm talking about having people go to the polls and challenge voters with the intention of slowing down the process and decreasing turnout. I won't put up with arguments of "well your side does it too" until I see some evidence.

For every Republican dick, there is a Democrat asshole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Now the GOP challenges my name (they can do so for ANY REASON), when I turn in my ballot it is taken, my name put on it and put into a pile. Then the person in charge of that precinct goes down the challenged list and decides with 2 witnesses 1 from each party and decides whose ballot is legit and whose isn't.

I still don't understand what the big deal is. What are the chances your ballot will be tossed if you are legit? Let them challenge all they want.
Now I would be upset if they actually were tossing out valid votes.

Heaven forbid anyone challanges democrat voter fraud.

please, ustwo: that is really beneath contempt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scipio

Finally, I challenge someone to find an instance of Democrats doing anything like this. Challenging petitions doesn't count. I'm talking about having people go to the polls and challenge voters with the intention of slowing down the process and decreasing turnout. I won't put up with arguments of "well your side does it too" until I see some evidence.

So is your argument that it is objectionable because the Republicans do it worse than the Democrats?

In any event, there have been well documented cases of voter fraud and ballot box stuffing by the democrats, a major example being the Zombies for Daley campaign in Chicago.

If you don't think the Democrats are as bad, then your eyes are intentionally closed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by redlemon

Thanks for the first-person report, pan6467. Do you have a link to that Plain Dealer writeup? And, I couldn't quite tell from your writeup; is your vote going to be counted or not?

According to reports once challenged it is then up to the officials to determine your eligibility if they cannot your vote will not count.

For the article try http:www.cleveland.com

If you can't get it (since the PD is very choosy about what they put o/l) I can scan and send you the article, just let me know. I didn't want to scan and put on here as it is a very long article.

As for Nader not being on the ballot, it was brought about by GOP Sec. of State Blackwell. He questioned the authenticity of some registrations in Akron (HEAVY DEM. yet would not challenge any near Cincy.) It was Blackwell a GOP that chose to challenge Nader not the Dems.

Also, Blackwell refused to challenge ANY signatures on the petition regarding gay marriage even AFTER people claimed that they had gotten GOP thank yous and never signed the petition.

There is also the fact as i have repeatedly told on here that I recieved numerous GOP voter registration cards to mail in. Of the 5 only 2 had my name already on them.... the other 3 I could have made up names, addresses and used. Yet, they did not challenge any of these even though there were more GOP replies than the Dem. AFL/CIO that were challenged.

No, Ohio is very corrupt in heavy favor of the GOP.

If anyone cares to call me on it I will provide the newspaper articles dates, and pages. And if you truly want me top do all the work I'll scan them for you and mail them to ya.

Yay! The truth comes out, now the democrat thugs will have no competition! I swear to god, the majority of people that believe this "the other party are evil" bullshit are nothing but tools. Both parties are evil, manipulative whining babies who want nothing more than 4 years of candy and regular diaper changings. The sooner we can add more parties to the ballot with a chance of winning, the better.

Yay! The dead can vote! This is important, because Democrats know better than you who should be president, and they should get more votes than they're entitled to, and to hell with the democratic process.

fox news just reported 5 minutes ago that republican representatives will be allowed to supervise polling places.

So if repubs can do it, demos can do it too. Fox is just Republican. Stop bitching. People who claim that one party cheats and another doesn't is just looking for something to complain about.

how exactly is the american system is not a farce?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tspikes51

So if repubs can do it, demos can do it too. Fox is just Republican. Stop bitching. People who claim that one party cheats and another doesn't is just looking for something to complain about.

Wrong answer in Ohio the only challengers that were ALLOWED to be at polling places were Republicans Dems are not allowed to have more than 2 people there (the 2 that by law have to work there, with the 2 GOP.) That's what the hoopla was about they weren't allowing Dems to have challengers.

How fair is that in supposed free and fair elections? To allow someone the right to stand there and challenge your vote and you have no idea so that you cannot even justify who you are?

Why don't we just do away with the charade of a vote and give Ohio outright to Bush?

And those of you who think this is whining ...... what you do? Because trust me if it works in Ohio it's coming to the rest of the country.

I just find it pathetic and a sad statement of where the USA is headed when our country has become so divided that one side feels this is an ok thing to do. It's supposed to be secret ballot anyway. For God's sake is there not one GOP person on this board that sees the hypocrasy of the party that claims to want less government and yet is treating Ohio like we're fucking some 3rd world nation?

Sad people very sad.

The point isn't whether or not Democrats can do it as well as Republicans. The point is that it contributes to the breakdown of the election system and is completely amoral. Also, only Republicans do this because it is a stalling tactic: the goal isn't really to throw these votes out, or have certain people banned from voting. The goal is to slow down the lines at polling places to such an extent that voters who tend Democratic will give up and not vote because it takes too long. Since Republican voters tend to be wealthier and less likely to have to get back to work, get back to tend to kids who don't have a babysitter, etc., Democrats find this tactic relatively useless. That is the real point.

I do not see how this slows the process down and keeps people from voting.

It seems that everyone votes, and those that look fishy are looked at a lot closer and then it is decided if they are legit or not. No big deal. The system works.

I wouldn't mind if someone wanted to make sure my vote was legit. Because i know that I can vote. The only problem here is if you shouldn't be voting.

What do you mean "I do not see how this slows the process down"?

If there is a long long line, and each person is being challenged, then by definition the process has been slowed down.

What's there not to see?!

Mr Mephisto

It's not just the slow down, which I don't think will be that great. To me it's the afct that your ballot can be considered invalid without any true discrepancies, at the opposing party's discretion and you have no right or knowledge that your vote was taken away.

Using GOP representatives means that pretty much GOP areas will be the ones watched, so I guess if they have to that's better than ALL precincts.

The Democrats have the right to do it too, not that it's right anyway, but it's still equal. Your vote WILL NOT be "blocked" or discounted legally by any party. That's just what you are led to believe. I'm kind of tired of hearing all the conspiracy theories surrounding this election, and I know that they will only intensify if Bush wins. I'm in a no-win situation here.

I think I'll wait and see what the actual end result is before I complain.

I will say however that I think that all parties who have a candidate on the ballot should be allowed to have an "observer".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Actually, my eyes are quite open, and I'm not seeing any Democratic voter fraud going on. My argument is that the Republicans are doing something un-American, and that nobody has shown me anything done by Democrats that can compare.

I googled for Zombies for Daley, and couldn't find anything. Perhaps you could direct me to some actual information about all the voter fraud my party is doing, cause I'd sure like to know about it.

Granted, it's not like Republican voter fraud, where you can read about it in most major newspapers, CNN, and the like.

This was second from the top of a Google on "Chicago Daley Voter Fraud"

http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-6.htm

Seemed to give a nice overview of some famous Dem election frauds, certainly on par of worse than this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Thanks for the link. However, it doesn't change my assertions about this election. The things that the Republicans are trying to do in Ohio simply aren't comparable to whatever it is the Democrats are doing. I suppose it's logical to assume that people in my party are bending the rules in some places, but like I said, nothing like what the Republicans seem to be doing on a national scale.

Besides, there's a moral issue here. Just because my side is doing, uh, something doesn't mean that what the Republicans are doing is ok.

I just think it pathetic that people think this is ok. I mean it's bullshit. There are people in this thread who claim there is too much government in things and yet they seem to be ok with this. And there are others who say don't worry about it.

Makes no sense. I mean we have both sides with lawyers ready to challenge the election. We have people ready to go postal against the other party. When and where does it end?

Every single one of the professors I deal with (GOP AND Dem) say this is the worst they have ever seen this country split. And we're talking Profs that were around during the 60's and they say that the 60's were nothing compared to this. What is frightening is we see it and know that this country is on the verge of SERIOUS political problems and noone wants to do anything but demand their side to be right.

I admit I am partisan and I am worried about Bush being reelected, but I am more worried about the outcome of this election. I seriously think we could see some riots and hostilities from the side that loses.

Both sides have set this election up so that no matter who wins and by what margin there is going to be problems. Both sides are ready to scream election fraud, the election was fixed and blah blah blah.

Whatever happened to doing what is best for the country and trying to keep it together? The partisanship has got to be controlled and compromises need to be reached, or we are going to have civil war or a massive loss of freedoms to prevent one.

Aw well you'll attack me and say I'm full of crap like you always do when I try to say we need to end partisan politics by saying I am too onesided and can't be taken seriously and nothing will be achieved because instead of looking for ways to compromise and bring the nation back together you'd rather be right and fuck anyone who disagrees with your opinions. You'd rather do what's best in your opinion and for yourself than what is best for the nation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Whatever happened to doing what is best for the country and trying to keep it together? The partisanship has got to be controlled and compromises need to be reached, or we are going to have civil war or a massive loss of freedoms to prevent one.

The Democrats threw it away in the Senate when they voted right along party lines not to remove Clinton from office for committing perjury. He was guilty. Everybody knew it. His actions in lying to the grand jury and the american people were unequivocally criminal. The level of proof (a positive DNA match, along with testimony of one of the two participants, including a massive amount of verifiable detail) was high enough to get a conviction in virtually EVERY court in the country that didn't have a bias issue. If it had been anybody but President Bill Clinton, he'd have been convicted.

Nixon resigned because he knew that his party wouldn't back him when the truth came out. Clinton didn't even have THAT shred of decency in him, to resign for the good of both his party and the country.

I hope the Democrats think it was worth it to save his ass...because it sundered this country as surely as Secession in 1861 did. I truly believe that we're either going to see a dissolution of this country, or outright civil war. There's no other real option at this point. And it's going to be bloody when it comes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

I hope the Democrats think it was worth it to save his ass...because it sundered this country as surely as Secession in 1861 did. I truly believe that we're either going to see a dissolution of this country, or outright civil war. There's no other real option at this point. And it's going to be bloody when it comes.

I've had the same thoughts for a long time, though my time frame was 50 years before it comes to blood.

Socialism in the US will have to fail first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I've had the same thoughts for a long time, though my time frame was 50 years before it comes to blood.

Socialism in the US will have to fail first.

I dunno...the vibe I'm getting is "we've got to act now, before we're in the gulag." And socialism in the US has ALREADY failed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Hey share that LSD don't be greedy.

If you think Clinton's lie to protect himself and his family is any worse than Bush's lie to the american people which resulted in the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent people then you sir are on crack.

If I was standing before God and he was judging me i'd much rather tell him I cheated on my wife and then lied about it then tell him I lied so that I could kill thousands of innocent people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

If you think Clinton's lie to protect himself and his family is any worse than Bush's lie to the american people which resulted in the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent people then you sir are on crack.

Which Bush lie? The "lie" that Saddam still had WMDs? He did. I've yet to see any serious rebuttal on that. They are in their bunker, still under UN seal. See http://www.foia.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol3.pdf , page 78, top paragraph, right hand side of the page.

Clinton lied UNDER OATH. That's a criminal act, and it doesn't really matter what it was about. He swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he didn't, and he got busted for it.

You think the witch-hunt by Republicans on Clinton created [EDIT] as much dissension as the Civil War?

What planet are you on Daswing?! LOL

Mr Mephisto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Appeals court has "stayed" both Federal Judges orders that barred Republican
poll monitors who challenge voter's eligibility, and, the Ohio Supreme Court
ruled that one monitor from each party may be present at each polling place:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/ohio/2004-11-02-ohio-challengers_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/ohio/2004-11-02-ohio-challengers_x.htm</a>
Posted 11/2/2004 1:45 AM Updated 11/2/2004 2:31 AM

Court clears way GOP reps to challenge voters' eligibility in Ohio
CINCINNATI (AP) — A federal appeals court has cleared the way for challengers to be present at polling places throughout Ohio, ruling early Tuesday that their presence on Election Day was allowed under state law.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to grant emergency stays of two federal judges' orders Monday that barred voter challengers from political parties. The judges also consolidated the two appeals, which stemmed from separate lawsuits in Cincinnati and Akron.

Alphonse Gerhardstein, attorney for the plaintiffs in the Cincinnati case, said early Tuesday that he appealed the 6th Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The federal appeals court said that while it's in the public interest that registered voters cast ballots freely, there is also "strong public interest in permitting legitimate statutory processes to operate to preclude voting by those who are not entitled to vote."

The judges also said that smooth and effective administration of the voting laws means that the rules can't be changed in the hours immediately preceding the election.

The dissent by Judge R. Guy Cole said the citizens of Ohio have the right to vote without the "threat of suppression, intimidation or chaos sown by partisan political operatives."

Cole said that partisan challengers are seeking to target precincts that have a majority black population, and that when "the fundamental right to vote without intimidation or undue burden is pitted against the rights of those seeking to prevent voter fraud ..." the court must err on the side of voters. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
.......................Also Monday, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified that political parties are allowed one challenger apiece for each precinct.

The GOP registered about 3,500 challengers, and Democrats say they've registered thousands but won't give a specific number.

Under state law, voters may be challenged on their citizenship, age or residency. Poll workers generally would challenge someone if his or her signature didn't match the one in the poll book, or if the poll worker recognized the individual as someone who didn't belong in that precinct.

Republicans have said they plan to check names of voters against lists of absentee ballots and of people who have died recently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

If it had been anybody but a democrat, Scaife would not have orchestrated
the harassment and manipulation in the first place.........
(Remember the "shove it" sound bite against Teresa H. Kerry last summer?
Just a preview of the war Scaife has planned against the Kerrys if John wins.)

Quote:

More About Pittsburgh Editor in Dustup with Heinz Kerry
<a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000585871">http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000585871</a>
Heinz Kerry and McNickle had a verbal confrontation at a campaign event on Sunday night, with the wife of Sen. John Kerry disputing something McNickle said or wrote, and telling him to "shove it."

In a column on July 17, McNickle wrote: "John Kerry and John Edwards, two Johns pimping for a populism that can only perpetuate poverty, haven't a clue. Now there's a campaign theme, eh?" In the same column he observed: "Liberals and socialists (is there a difference?) probably are nodding their heads vigorously about now. 'Yeah, that's the ticket! Go, Johnny, Go!'"

Quote:

Published: August 02, 2004 12:01 AM EST
<a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000590838">http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000590838</a>
NEW YORK Colin McNickle, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review staffer asked by Teresa Heinz Kerry to "shove it" last Sunday, now contends that in the aftermath of that widely-reported incident liberals "did their best to demonize not only me but the Trib." ......
........<h3>
The Tribune-Review, owned by Richard Mellon Scaife, was often accused last week of being a right-wing "rag,".......
...As editorial page editor and columnist at his newspaper, McNickle has often harshly criticized the Kerrys.</h3>

Quote:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm</a>
<h4>Scaife: Funding Father of the Right</h4>
By Robert G. Kaiser and Ira Chinoy
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, May 2, 1999; Page A1

First of two articles

One August day in 1994, while gossiping about politics over lunch on Nantucket, Richard Mellon Scaife, the Pittsburgh billionaire and patron of conservative causes, made a prediction. "We're going to get Clinton," Joan Bingham, a New York publisher present at the lunch, remembers him saying. "And you'll be much happier," he said to Bingham and another Democrat at the table, "because Al Gore will be president."

Bingham was startled at the time, but in the years since – as Clinton has struggled with an onslaught from political enemies – Scaife's assertion came to seem less and less far-fetched.

Scaife did get involved in numerous anti-Clinton activities. He gave $2.3 million to the American Spectator magazine to dig up dirt on Clinton and supported other conservative groups that harassed the president and his administration. The White House and its allies responded by fingering Scaife as the central figure in "a vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president," as Hillary Rodham Clinton described it. James Carville, Clinton's former campaign aide and rabid defender, called Scaife "the archconservative godfather in [a] heavily funded war against the president."

But people who know him well say that although Scaife is fond of conspiracy theories of many kinds, he is incapable of managing any sort of grand conspiracy himself. And months of reporting produced no evidence of his orchestrating any effort to "get" Clinton beyond his financial support. Indeed, focusing on his role in the crusade against Clinton can obscure the 66-year-old philanthropist's real importance, which is not based on his opposition or support for any individual politicians (though he once gave Richard M. Nixon $1 million). His biggest contribution has been to help fund the creation of the modern conservative movement in America.

By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions – about $620 million in current dollars, adjusted for inflation. The total of Scaife's giving – to conservatives as well as many other beneficiaries – exceeds $600 million, or $1.4 billion in current dollars, much more than any previous estimate. ..........

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299b.htm">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299b.htm</a>
It is tempting to speculate that the routinization of Scaife's role might have prompted him – or his key aide, Larry – to get involved in more adventuresome anti-Clinton activities. Their involvement in what became known as "the Arkansas Project" – an aggressive and ultimately fruitless attempt to discredit a sitting president – marked a clear departure from years of relatively anonymous philanthropy, and Scaife could not have foreseen the consequences: He became a celebrity.

The full realization of the trouble he had made for himself probably came one day last September when he appeared, under subpoena, before a federal grand jury in Fort Smith, Ark., that was investigating possible tampering with a federal witness. On that day, Scaife could have felt he was being treated like a suspect – not the status a Mellon from Pittsburgh worth perhaps a billion dollars expects. According to several associates, Scaife was furious.

The Arkansas Project was apparently cooked up largely by Larry, 63, who has worked for Scaife for 30 years. A former Marine with a deeply ideological view of the world, Larry had developed a powerful dislike for Clinton. "I noticed a change in Dick Larry – at the mention of Clinton he became almost hyperthyroid," said one prominent figure in the conservative world who knows Larry well. A second prominent conservative close to him said: "I never saw Dick Larry do anything like this before. The only thing I can figure is that Larry dislikes Clinton intensely."

As the chief administrative officer of Scaife's philanthropies for many years and the main contact for anyone seeking a grant, Larry has long been a controversial figure among conservatives. They discuss him with the same reluctance to go on the record that many demonstrate when Scaife is the subject. "Sometimes [Larry] makes you wonder if it is the Richard Scaife foundations, or the Richard Larry foundations," said one source who worked with both men.

In his written answers to questions from The Post, Scaife attributed his support for the project to his doubts that "The Washington Post and other major newspapers would fully investigate the disturbing scandals of the Clinton White House." He explained those doubts: "I am not alone in feeling that the press has a bias in favor of Democratic administrations." That is why, he continued, "I provided some money to independent journalists investigating these scandals."

The Arkansas Project itself relied on several private detectives, a former Arkansas state police officer and other unlikely schemers, including a bait shop owner in Hot Springs, Ark. The two men running the project were a lawyer and a public relations man. Scaife's role became the subject of a special federal investigation because of accusations that the money he donated ended up in the pocket of David Hale, a former Clinton associate and convicted defrauder of the Small Business Administration who had become a witness for Starr's investigation of the president.

Sources at the American Spectator say it was Larry who played an instrumental role in the project. But there is no doubt that Clinton had gotten under Scaife's skin.

Scaife's penchant for conspiracy theories – a bent of mind he has been drawn to for years, according to many associates – was stimulated by the death of Vincent W. Foster Jr., Hillary Clinton's former law partner and a deputy White House counsel. He has repeatedly called Foster's death "the Rosetta stone to the Clinton administration" (a reference to the stone found in Egypt that allowed scholars to decipher ancient hieroglyphics).

Last fall Scaife told John F. Kennedy Jr. of George magazine, "Once you solve that one mystery, you'll know everything that's going on or went on – I think there's been a massive coverup about what Bill Clinton's administration has been doing, and what he was doing when he was governor of Arkansas." And he had ominous specifics in mind: "Listen, [Clinton] can order people done away with at his will. He's got the entire federal government behind him." And: "God, there must be 60 people [associated with Bill Clinton] – who have died mysteriously."

Even before the Arkansas Project had gotten underway, Scaife personally hired a former New York Post reporter named Christopher Ruddy to write about Foster's death for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the daily newspaper Scaife has owned since 1969. Ruddy's stories about Foster's death – most of them challenging the suicide theory, without offering an alternative explanation – began to appear in January 1995.

Scaife has funded other Clinton efforts as well: Two zealous and resourceful (and rival) public interest law firms that have pursued Clinton and his administration relentlessly, the Landmark Legal Foundation and Judicial Watch, have received more than $4 million from Scaife. Judicial Watch, which is aggressively suing several branches of the government and has questioned numerous White House officials under oath, has received $1.35 million from Scaife sources in the last two years, a large fraction of its budget.
<b>
The Fund for Living American Government (FLAG), a one-man philanthropy run by William Lehrfeld, a Washington tax lawyer who has represented Scaife in the past, gave $59,000 to Paula Jones's sexual harassment suit against Clinton. FLAG has received at least $160,000 in Scaife donations. And lawyers who belong to the conservative Federalist Society, which has enjoyed Scaife support for 15 years (at least $1.5 million), were members of a secretive group who provided important legal advice to Paula Jones and who may have pulled off the key legal maneuver in the Clinton case by connecting the Jones suit and the Starr investigation.</b>

Officers of the Scaife-supported Independent Women's Forum have appeared on many television programs as Clinton critics. William J. Bennett, author of "Death of Outrage: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals," is on the board of the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and has received Scaife support as a fellow of the Heritage Foundation and other enterprises.
<b>
One of the most publicized allegations of a tie between Scaife and Clinton's enemies was the suggestion that Scaife was trying to set up independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr in a posh deanship at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. Starr briefly toyed with accepting the job early in 1997.

Scaife has been a generous supporter of Pepperdine, donating more than $13 million since 1962 (in personal gifts as well as foundation grants), according to the school. But Scaife and the current president of Pepperdine, David Davenport, both have said that Scaife played no role whatsoever in the offer to Starr. Scaife and Starr have said they don't know each other, and have never met.</b>

Only the Arkansas Project has caused Scaife serious trouble. The possibility that money from the project had tainted Hale, a federal witness, led to the appointment of Michael J. Shaheen, a former senior Justice Department official, as a special investigator. It was Shaheen who summoned Scaife to the Fort Smith grand jury.

Shaheen's investigation apparently is complete. Lawyers involved said they don't expect any indictments.

One result of the enterprise was to strain Scaife's relationship with Larry almost to the breaking point. "He almost fired Larry," said one friend.

The other result has been the emergence of Scaife as a public figure and punching bag for liberals.

"I'm a very private person – I think I'm essentially shy," Scaife told Kennedy last fall. But now, he acknowledged, he is recognized by passersby on the street – "thanks to CNN."

And......in April, 2004, guess who showed up in Malibu ???

Quote:

<a href="http://www.abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/040604ap_nw_starr_pepperdine.html">http://www.abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/040604ap_nw_starr_pepperdine.html</a>
Kenneth Starr Named Dean Of Pepperdine Law School
Apr. 6 (AP) — Kenneth W. Starr, who led the investigation into President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, has been named dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law, an official said Monday.

Starr first accepted the position seven years ago but changed his mind after he was criticized for abandoning the Whitewater investigation into the Clintons' real estate dealings.

..........Starr's appointment was embroiled in controversy because of financial assistance the school got from Richard Mellon Scaife, a persistent critic of Clinton. Democrats charged that Starr had a financial and political conflict with the dean's chair. The university said that Scaife had no part in the dean selection.

Look

Repub. or Dem. it dont matter.

I just hope that ONLY legal voters can vote.

LEGAL is the word missing too often from democratic pundits on TV.

" We want every vote counted"

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

I hope you are wrong, but if a split does come, I don't think the gun-controlled city folks have much of a chance against the heartland. Hopefully the split will be peaceful (at least as peaceful as Russia's was recently). Probably will break up into two different countries, the free America of the heartland and the socialist America of the populous coasts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Hopefully the split will be peaceful (at least as peaceful as Russia's was recently). Probably will break up into two different countries, the free America of the heartland and the socialist America of the populous coasts.

Soviet Union, you surely mean. Wouldn't the socialist America of the populous coasts have immense economical advantage in the moment of this separation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by oktjabr

Soviet Union, you surely mean. Wouldn't the socialist America of the populous coasts have immense economical advantage in the moment of this separation?

Of course this is just idle speculation, probably. Yes, just like the North had it over the South in our last civil war. I just don't believe the city folks have the will to fight like the rural areas. If they do it could get bloody, but hopefully they would throw in the towell early on. Also it would take an economic collapse or great depression to bring this on, and the folks on the farm will have food, LOL.

Quote:

Overturning the orders of two federal judges, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 early Tuesday that the presence of Election Day challengers was allowed under state law. It granted emergency stays that will allow Republicans and Democrats one challenger per precinct each.

So amazingly the state law is upheld and the judges are not allowed to re-write it based on biased political whim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So amazingly the state law is upheld and the judges are not allowed to re-write it based on biased political whim.

Yeah.....states rights upheld.....too bad the 5 SCOTUS justices ignored
that principle when they overruleed the Florida Supreme Court by interfering
with its recount order in Gore v Bush !

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Yeah.....states rights upheld.....too bad the 5 SCOTUS justices ignored
that principle when they overruleed the Florida Supreme Court by interfering
with its recount order in Gore v Bush !

Four years later and we're STILL on this??

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Yeah.....states rights upheld.....too bad the 5 SCOTUS justices ignored
that principle when they overruleed the Florida Supreme Court by interfering
with its recount order in Gore v Bush !

The chief justice of the Florida supreme court said they would be over ruled because he could see that the court was acting in a non-constitutional manner.

He was a democrat too.

Fancy that.