William Clark

Ohio's Supreme Court and a Federal judge today threw out a law suit
filed by the Ohio Republican party that sought to change a law that the
Republicans themselves wrote, and which established Ohio's "One-Stop
Early Voting" period. Under this law, a new voter can register and vote
at the same time, between September 30 and October 6. Remember, Dubya
only won Ohio by 118,601 votes in 2004, about 9 votes per precinct.

New voters in Ohio are currently running about 20 to 1 Democrat in
traditionally Democratic areas, hence the GoP's panic. However the
Federal judge identified this suit as such a brazen attempt at voter
suppression that he wrote, ""Candidly, the underlying merits of issues
are not even close," and that the Republican position "would lead to
illogical results, potentially disenfranchising large numbers of voters."

Better luck next time.

MNMikeW

"William Clark" <> wrote in message
news:wclark2-...

Picture this: Hard-left activists busing thousands of the homeless and
shelter residents to the polls for same-day registration and voting.

What could possibly go wrong? The mind reels: identity fraud, multiple
votes, improper influence, bought votes, non-citizen voting, and on and on.

Unfortunately, that may be what's in store for the State of Ohio.

The problem is an ill-conceived Ohio law allowing "no-fault" absentee
balloting. This means that voters don't need to provide any justification
whatsoever for casting absentee ballots in advance of election day,
beginning on September 30. No doubt the law's backers had good
intentions-hitting the polling place and waiting in line on election day can
really be an inconvenience-but it throws open the election to massive
opportunities for fraud.

If wide-open absentee voting weren't bad enough, the state's Democrat
Secretary of State, Jennifer Bruner, has combined that law with another
already on the books-requiring voters to register 30 days before voting-to
create a massive loophole for would-be fraudsters. Bruner says that ballots
don't become "votes" until election day, which means that anyone can
register up until October 6. That leaves a one-week window, from September
30 until the 6th, for one-stop voting.

That strained interpretation is being challenged in Ohio's Supreme Court in
a suit brought by two (legal) state voters.

And that's got left-wing activists in a tizzy, accusing those fighting
Bruner's strange legal handiwork and protecting the security of the election
of trying to disenfranchise legitimate voters. These same activists are
similarly criticizing efforts to knock off the registration rolls voters who
have moved away from their listed addresses, as evidenced by returned
certified mail and foreclosure lists.

This overheated response is predictable and sad. Predictable, because many
left-leaning activist groups cry "racism" and "disenfranchisement" in the
face of any kind of common-sense effort to ensure that voting is secure and
untainted by fraud-efforts such as voter identification that are supported
by a majority of Americans. It is sad because wide-open absentee voting
really does risk stolen elections, as has happened before. The result is
that illegal votes are able to cancel out legitimate ones.

Thanks to the Secretary of State and a few of these activist groups,
absentee voting in Ohio will be more wide-open, and more at risk of fraud,
than ever before.

Alan Baker

In article <>,
"MNMikeW" <> wrote:

> "William Clark" <> wrote in message
> news:wclark2-...
>
> Picture this:

Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
attribution...

Let me help:

<http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...election-at-ri
sk/>

So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently
unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
rightwing website blog post.

Wow.

> Hard-left activists busing thousands of the homeless and
> shelter residents to the polls for same-day registration and voting.
>
> What could possibly go wrong? The mind reels: identity fraud, multiple
> votes, improper influence, bought votes, non-citizen voting, and on and on.
>
> Unfortunately, that may be what's in store for the State of Ohio.
>
> The problem is an ill-conceived Ohio law allowing "no-fault" absentee
> balloting. This means that voters don't need to provide any justification
> whatsoever for casting absentee ballots in advance of election day,
> beginning on September 30. No doubt the law's backers had good
> intentions-hitting the polling place and waiting in line on election day can
> really be an inconvenience-but it throws open the election to massive
> opportunities for fraud.
>
> If wide-open absentee voting weren't bad enough, the state's Democrat
> Secretary of State, Jennifer Bruner, has combined that law with another
> already on the books-requiring voters to register 30 days before voting-to
> create a massive loophole for would-be fraudsters. Bruner says that ballots
> don't become "votes" until election day, which means that anyone can
> register up until October 6. That leaves a one-week window, from September
> 30 until the 6th, for one-stop voting.
>
> That strained interpretation is being challenged in Ohio's Supreme Court in
> a suit brought by two (legal) state voters.
>
> And that's got left-wing activists in a tizzy, accusing those fighting
> Bruner's strange legal handiwork and protecting the security of the election
> of trying to disenfranchise legitimate voters. These same activists are
> similarly criticizing efforts to knock off the registration rolls voters who
> have moved away from their listed addresses, as evidenced by returned
> certified mail and foreclosure lists.
>
> This overheated response is predictable and sad. Predictable, because many
> left-leaning activist groups cry "racism" and "disenfranchisement" in the
> face of any kind of common-sense effort to ensure that voting is secure and
> untainted by fraud-efforts such as voter identification that are supported
> by a majority of Americans. It is sad because wide-open absentee voting
> really does risk stolen elections, as has happened before. The result is
> that illegal votes are able to cancel out legitimate ones.
>
> Thanks to the Secretary of State and a few of these activist groups,
> absentee voting in Ohio will be more wide-open, and more at risk of fraud,
> than ever before.

Alan Baker

In article
<alangbaker->,
Alan Baker <> wrote:

> In article <>,
> "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
>
> > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
> > news:wclark2-...
> >
> > Picture this:
>
> Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
> attribution...
>
> Let me help:
>
> <http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...election-at-ri
> sk/>
>
> So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently

Correction: the Huffington Post is an internet only "newspaper" and
while it apparently leans to the left, when I've used it for a
reference, its facts have been correct.

> unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
> rightwing website blog post.
>
> Wow.
>
> > Hard-left activists busing thousands of the homeless and
> > shelter residents to the polls for same-day registration and voting.
> >
> > What could possibly go wrong? The mind reels: identity fraud, multiple
> > votes, improper influence, bought votes, non-citizen voting, and on and on.
> >
> > Unfortunately, that may be what's in store for the State of Ohio.
> >
> > The problem is an ill-conceived Ohio law allowing "no-fault" absentee
> > balloting. This means that voters don't need to provide any justification
> > whatsoever for casting absentee ballots in advance of election day,
> > beginning on September 30. No doubt the law's backers had good
> > intentions-hitting the polling place and waiting in line on election day
> > can
> > really be an inconvenience-but it throws open the election to massive
> > opportunities for fraud.
> >
> > If wide-open absentee voting weren't bad enough, the state's Democrat
> > Secretary of State, Jennifer Bruner, has combined that law with another
> > already on the books-requiring voters to register 30 days before voting-to
> > create a massive loophole for would-be fraudsters. Bruner says that ballots
> > don't become "votes" until election day, which means that anyone can
> > register up until October 6. That leaves a one-week window, from September
> > 30 until the 6th, for one-stop voting.
> >
> > That strained interpretation is being challenged in Ohio's Supreme Court in
> > a suit brought by two (legal) state voters.
> >
> > And that's got left-wing activists in a tizzy, accusing those fighting
> > Bruner's strange legal handiwork and protecting the security of the
> > election
> > of trying to disenfranchise legitimate voters. These same activists are
> > similarly criticizing efforts to knock off the registration rolls voters
> > who
> > have moved away from their listed addresses, as evidenced by returned
> > certified mail and foreclosure lists.
> >
> > This overheated response is predictable and sad. Predictable, because many
> > left-leaning activist groups cry "racism" and "disenfranchisement" in the
> > face of any kind of common-sense effort to ensure that voting is secure and
> > untainted by fraud-efforts such as voter identification that are supported
> > by a majority of Americans. It is sad because wide-open absentee voting
> > really does risk stolen elections, as has happened before. The result is
> > that illegal votes are able to cancel out legitimate ones.
> >
> > Thanks to the Secretary of State and a few of these activist groups,
> > absentee voting in Ohio will be more wide-open, and more at risk of fraud,
> > than ever before.

William Clark

In article <>,
"MNMikeW" <> wrote:

> "William Clark" <> wrote in message
> news:wclark2-...
>
> Picture this: Hard-left activists busing thousands of the homeless and
> shelter residents to the polls for same-day registration and voting.
>
> What could possibly go wrong? The mind reels: identity fraud, multiple
> votes, improper influence, bought votes, non-citizen voting, and on and on.
>
> Unfortunately, that may be what's in store for the State of Ohio.
>
> The problem is an ill-conceived Ohio law allowing "no-fault" absentee
> balloting. This means that voters don't need to provide any justification
> whatsoever for casting absentee ballots in advance of election day,
> beginning on September 30. No doubt the law's backers had good
> intentions-hitting the polling place and waiting in line on election day can
> really be an inconvenience-but it throws open the election to massive
> opportunities for fraud.
>
> If wide-open absentee voting weren't bad enough, the state's Democrat
> Secretary of State, Jennifer Bruner, has combined that law with another
> already on the books-requiring voters to register 30 days before voting-to
> create a massive loophole for would-be fraudsters. Bruner says that ballots
> don't become "votes" until election day, which means that anyone can
> register up until October 6. That leaves a one-week window, from September
> 30 until the 6th, for one-stop voting.
>
> That strained interpretation is being challenged in Ohio's Supreme Court in
> a suit brought by two (legal) state voters.
>
> And that's got left-wing activists in a tizzy, accusing those fighting
> Bruner's strange legal handiwork and protecting the security of the election
> of trying to disenfranchise legitimate voters. These same activists are
> similarly criticizing efforts to knock off the registration rolls voters who
> have moved away from their listed addresses, as evidenced by returned
> certified mail and foreclosure lists.
>
> This overheated response is predictable and sad. Predictable, because many
> left-leaning activist groups cry "racism" and "disenfranchisement" in the
> face of any kind of common-sense effort to ensure that voting is secure and
> untainted by fraud-efforts such as voter identification that are supported
> by a majority of Americans. It is sad because wide-open absentee voting
> really does risk stolen elections, as has happened before. The result is
> that illegal votes are able to cancel out legitimate ones.
>
> Thanks to the Secretary of State and a few of these activist groups,
> absentee voting in Ohio will be more wide-open, and more at risk of fraud,
> than ever before.

You have a cite for this? You certainly didn't write it yourself. And
please don;t put this drivel under my name next time.

Too bad Republicans got hoisted by a law they wrote and enacted
themselves.

William Clark

In article
<alangbaker->,
Alan Baker <> wrote:

> In article <>,
> "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
>
> > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
> > news:wclark2-...
> >
> > Picture this:
>
> Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
> attribution...
>
> Let me help:
>
> <http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...election-at-ri
> sk/>
>
> So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently
> unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
> rightwing website blog post.
>
> Wow.
>
Yup, I thought so. And he even tried to make it look like I posted it.

MNMikeW

"William Clark" <> wrote in message
news:wclark2-...
> In article
> <alangbaker->,
> Alan Baker <> wrote:
>
>> In article <>,
>> "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
>>
>> > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
>> > news:wclark2-...
>> >
>> > Picture this:
>>
>> Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
>> attribution...
>>
>> Let me help:
>>
>> <http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...election-at-ri
>> sk/>
>>
>> So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently
>> unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
>> rightwing website blog post.
>>
>> Wow.
>>
> Yup, I thought so. And he even tried to make it look like I posted it.

I simply cut too much of your blather, no conspiracy, take a breath. Simply
a little right wing spin on your left wing spin. I'm sure the folks from
ACORN will be taking up residence on Ohio soon.

William A. T. Clark

In article <>,
"MNMikeW" <> wrote:

> "William Clark" <> wrote in message
> news:wclark2-...
> > In article
> > <alangbaker->,
> > Alan Baker <> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <>,
> >> "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
> >> > news:wclark2-...
> >> >
> >> > Picture this:
> >>
> >> Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
> >> attribution...
> >>
> >> Let me help:
> >>
> >> <http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...election-at-ri
> >> sk/>
> >>
> >> So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently
> >> unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
> >> rightwing website blog post.
> >>
> >> Wow.
> >>
> > Yup, I thought so. And he even tried to make it look like I posted it.
>
> I simply cut too much of your blather, no conspiracy, take a breath. Simply
> a little right wing spin on your left wing spin. I'm sure the folks from
> ACORN will be taking up residence on Ohio soon.

Well, at least you made three sentences there. That's progress. The
content was gibberish, but the syntax quite reasonable.

MNMikeW

"William A. T. Clark" <> wrote in message
news:clark-...
> In article <>,
> "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
>
>> "William Clark" <> wrote in message
>> news:wclark2-...
>> > In article
>> > <alangbaker->,
>> > Alan Baker <> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <>,
>> >> "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
>> >> > news:wclark2-...
>> >> >
>> >> > Picture this:
>> >>
>> >> Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
>> >> attribution...
>> >>
>> >> Let me help:
>> >>
>> >> <http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...election-at-ri
>> >> sk/>
>> >>
>> >> So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently
>> >> unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
>> >> rightwing website blog post.
>> >>
>> >> Wow.
>> >>
>> > Yup, I thought so. And he even tried to make it look like I posted it.
>>
>> I simply cut too much of your blather, no conspiracy, take a breath.
>> Simply
>> a little right wing spin on your left wing spin. I'm sure the folks from
>> ACORN will be taking up residence on Ohio soon.
>
> Well, at least you made three sentences there. That's progress. The
> content was gibberish, but the syntax quite reasonable.

Your typical Clark condensending gibberish is duely noted.

Alan Baker

In article
<wclark2->,
William Clark <> wrote:

> In article
> <alangbaker->,
> Alan Baker <> wrote:
>
> > In article <>,
> > "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
> >
> > > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
> > > news:wclark2-...
> > >
> > > Picture this:
> >
> > Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
> > attribution...
> >
> > Let me help:
> >
> > <http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...election-at-ri
> > sk/>
> >
> > So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently
> > unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
> > rightwing website blog post.
> >
> > Wow.
> >
> Yup, I thought so. And he even tried to make it look like I posted it.

No. That he didn't do.

His line:

'"William Clark" <> wrote in message
news:wclark2-...'

Would be followed by your text preceded by the quoting characters.

If each line of the text that followed had been preceded by "> ", then
he would have been trying to make it look like you posted it.