Voting Problems? Call Us
Adam Levine
CNN Supervising Producer
This election, CNN is running a voter hotline. We are already getting calls from around the country about problems and concerns that voters are having as they try to register, vote absentee, early vote or get information.
The hotline has generated over 10,000 calls so far and we’ve reported on some of those problems both on CNN and on the CNN Political Ticker
Of the top issues, a third of all of the problems called are about registration issues. After that, the next highest category is integrity issues which pertains to concerns people have about making sure their votes count. Absentee ballot issues make up 15% of the calls, problems with voting machines 9.5% and accessing poll locations have generated 9% of the calls.
We are hearing problems from around the country.
One of the more interesting confusions has arisen in Knoxville, TN where we got a number of calls from Barack Obama voters who were confused when they went to vote.
Apparently the summary screen that allows you to doublecheck your choices before you cast your ballot only lists the first three letters of the presidential candidate you voted for. If you voted for John McCain you would see ‘Elector for Joh’. If you voted for Barack Obama, it would say “Elector for Bar”.
The problem is that some voters were not sure if BAR stood for Barack Obama or the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. Knox County election officials tell us that they regret the confusion but assure voters that ‘Bar’ means that you voted for Barack Obama. The problem is the font size and screen size crowding out the rest of the name.
So, if you have an issue voting or see a problem, give the CNN Voter Hotline a call at 1-866-GOCNN08 (1-866-462-6608.)
Sept Finance #’s
Obama is socking it away and has a lead, a big one. A huge turnabout of the combined monies and a stunning financial advantage in the last month of the campaign.
McCain May June July August Sept Raised 21 22 27 53 84(PF) Spent 12 27 33 47 37 COH 32 27 21 27(T) 47 Obama May June July August Sept Raised 22 52 51 67 145 Spent 27 23 57 56 88 COH 43 72 66 77 134
Obama had a better than 2:1 spending advantage, and already for Oct, without any fundraising, would have nearly a 3:1 advantage over McCain. Leaving aside the RNC/DNC for a moment, this means that Obama’s spending advantage over McCain for October could be as great as 5:1, possibly even 6:1 (assuming another $150M month). You have to go back 100 years to William Jennings Bryan’s under-funded candidacy against McKinley to find a bigger disparity between the Presidential candidates.
The RNC and the DNC fundraising looks like this (COH) through the end of Sept:
RNC April May June July August Sept Raised 20 23 26 26 Spent 10 10 12 19 COH 41 54 68 75 76 77 DNC April May June July August Sept Raised 5 5 22 28 Spent 6 5 6 19 COH 4 4 20 29 17 27
This lessens the Democratic/Obama advantage, at the beginning of Oct, a bit. $161M for Democratic/Obama and $124 for Republican/McCain. Given that McCain can fundraise all he wants for the RNC, I would expect the overall spending for Oct winds up being about a 3:2 advantage for Obama/DNC over McCain/RNC.
If Obama raises another $150M and the DNC another $50M, that would mean Obama/DNC has $334M to spend in October. If McCain is able to raise $85M for the RNC, that would mean McCain/RNC has $210M for October. It’s an extra $100M+ of an advantage that Obama has in spending for the month of October.
Petition Smackdown: Shaming John Mccain Into Facing His Doom
178,000 people signed that petition, and hey, it worked. Although, given the way the debate turned out, going pretty much was McCain’s doom. Maybe he should have chickened out entirely rather than endure his self-inflicted thrashing. The more I look at it, the more I think McCain mostly destroyed himself. Obama gave him some assists, looked presidential, and let McCain make the case that he was cranky, old, irritable and just a downright unpleasant old coot you wouldn’t want running the local corner store, let alone the free world.
Newspaper Headline Today: “obama Wins!”
Just slightly premature, a left-leaning bi-monthly paper, whose next edition won’t be printed until after the election, has fixed that problem by reporting a week before the election that Obama won the election:SANTA FE, New Mexico (CNN) – For The New Mexico Sun News it is either a major scoop …
More On The Importance Of Advise And Consent
When asked recently what her biggest lapse of judgment has been as a senator, Susan Collins said it was her initial support to the blockade of Cuba. She has softened her stand on CUba, and for that I commend her.
But the supporting the blockade is hardly her greatest lapse. Her vote to confirm Sam Alito to the Supreme Court will surely rank as one of her greatest. Here is another example as to why.
When writing about issues like the one that I am embarking upon, it is difficult, because detractors will try to skew things to make it look like one group is being disparaged when it is not, so as to change the focus away from the real target.
This is going to be one of those times.
As Wikipedia describes it:
World Vision, founded in the United States in 1951, is an international Christian relief and development organization whose stated goal is “working for the well being of all people, especially children.” Working on six continents, World Vision is one of the largest Christian relief and development organisations in the world with a $200.6 billion budget (2007).
As the rest of the citing states, this group does an amazing amount of work, and actually uses over 85% of monies donated for direct aid - amazing.
But I would also note the size of their overall budget - over two hundred billion dollars. This ain’t no mom and pop.
Last week, the Bush/Cheney administration issued a new memorandum that concerns World Vision, in that it grants the group a special exemption from Federal disrimination laws regarding the hiring of employees.
It seems that World Vision wants to be able to only hire Christians, so as to:
“maintain [its] identity and strength, which [are] at the core of [its] success,” id. at 3, and because it “can only remain true to [its] vision if [it] ha[s] the freedom to select like-minded staff, which includes staffing on a religious basis.”
Now if this religious group wanted to only hire like minded Christians, I could really give a rat’s ass. But the reason that Bush/Cheney are involved is because World Vision is to receive one and a half million dollars in Federal money. The administration is going to bat for an organization whose budget is less than one ten thousandth of what the direct Federal aid would be.
Law is often confusing, but it generally is based on precedent. The memorandum in question wants to set aside this (taken from the memo):
“[n]o person in any State shall on the ground of . . . religion . . . be subjected to discrimination under or denied employment in connection with any programs or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)(1).
You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand the language - if World Vision accepts U.S. aid and refuses to hire someone because they are a Jew, or a Muslim, or an atheist, then they would be violating U.S. law. It’s pretty straightforward, and this is in keeping with the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
But what the Bush administration is arguing is that by not being allowed to hire ONLY Christians, World Service - while accepting Fed money - is being discriminated against under the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment that mandates that every American can freely express their religious beliefs.
I’ll remind everyone of what the 1st Amendment to our Constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So immediately we enter a tricky area here. I don’t think that any of us would have the State get in the way of an individual practicing their religion, nor even of that of a family.
Nor can I envision anyone advocating that the State engage a group, which would be a congregation of like minded adults. None of us would think it the State’s role to say who can be hired to teach Sunday School at a church. It is only where the State has reason to believe that children may be in danger that the State must sometimes act.
But what the Bush/Cheney administration is trying to do is stretch that exclusion to groups that receive Federal money. Houses of Worship enjoy a special place in our society in that they are exempt from taxation, and generally do not receive tax dollars.
But when they do, then they ought to comply with applicable Federal laws.
Unfortunately, some on the Supreme Court don’t see it this way. They argue that even when religious groups receive Federal monies derived from taxes paid by all of us, that these religious groups should maintain their special exemptions.
Sam Alito is one of those justices.
Before he joined the SCOTUS, Alito joined the dissenting opinion to ACLU of New Jersey v. Black Horse Pike Regional Board of Education. From the report from People for the American Way (PFAW) that we have mentioned before (here; pdf warning), there is this:
Prior to adopting the prayer policy in question, the school district had a
longstanding tradition of including prayers delivered by local clergy at high school
graduations. After the Supreme Court struck down such practices in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), the school district adopted the policy at issue in Black Horse Pike in an effort to preserve its prior practice of having prayer at graduations. The majority of the full Third Circuit held that the new policy was unconstitutional under Lee v. Weisman as well as under the Supreme Court’s traditional Establishment Clause analysis expressed in
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). As the majority recognized, the fact of a student vote did not cure the constitutional problem: “An impermissible practice cannot be transformed into a constitutionally acceptable one by putting a democratic process to an improper use.” 84
F.3d at 1477. The student vote likewise “does not erase the state’s imprint from this graduation prayer,” and graduation remained “a school sponsored event.” 84 F.3d at 1479. The majority further explained that “[t]he First Amendment is a shield that prohibits the state from interfering with a person’s right to worship as he or she pleases. It is not a sword that can be used to compel others to join in a religious observance at a state sponsored event.” 84 F.3d at 1481.Judge Alito joined a dissent written by Judge Mansmann, which would have upheld the prayer policy as a matter of free exercise and free speech. The dissent evinced a troubling disregard for the rights of the students who were opposed to having a prayer at their graduation. Claiming that the policy “cannot be deemed to cause” these students “to feel that they are not fully incorporated into the community,” the dissent asserted that it was sufficient for them to have been “fully invited to partake in the community via the right to vote on the issue of school prayer . . .” F.3d at 1494. The dissent gave short shrift to the school district’s authorization of the student vote and sponsorship of the graduation ceremonies, and effectively would have allowed the Free Exercise Clause to trump the Establishment Clause.
THe PFAW provide further evidence of the radical mindset of that Sam Alito displayed as an appeals judge, one that all senators asked to confirm him would have known beforehand.
Beginning on page 125 of the PFAW report, the case ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 1999), and then others demonstrate the temperament of a judge that does not understand the importance of the Establishment Clause, and the religious minorities it is meant to protect.
And yet despite this evidence, and the evidence of other reactionary opinions, senators like Susan Collins voted to confirm Sam Alito to the Supreme Court.
That is a lapse of judgment, Ms. Collins.
Mccain-palin 2008 Launches New Television Ad: “compare”
MCCAIN-PALIN 2008 LAUNCHES NEW TELEVISION AD: “COMPARE” ARLINGTON, VA — Today, McCain-Palin 2008 released its latest television ad, entitled “Compare.” The ad highlights the clear choice Americans have at the polls this year. For higher taxes, policies that spread the…
Square Feet
Witold Rybczynski makes the case for smaller homes:
Smaller houses on smaller lots are the logical solution to the problem of affordability, yet density— and less affluent neighbors— are precisely what most communities fear most. In the name of fighting sprawl, local zoning boards enact regulations that either require larger lots or restrict development, or both. These strategies decrease the supply— hence, increase the cost— of developable land. Since builders pass the cost of lots on to buyers, they justify the higher land prices by building larger and more expensive houses—McMansions. This produces more community resistance, and calls for yet more restrictive regulations. In the process, housing affordability becomes an even more distant chimera.
The Early Word: The Week Ahead
With seven days to go before the election, the candidates have little time left to make their final pitches to voters.
Sarah Palin Speaks To Reporters About Obama
Continuing to question Barack Obama’s judgment and lack of forthright answers about his connection with William Ayers, Palin spoke to reporters from her traveling press corps.
Palin repeatedly defended her connection in recent days of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to former ‘60s radical William Ayers, calling the issue “fair and relevant,” while saying that Obama’s lack of clarity on his relationship with Ayers called into question his “truthfulness” and whether he could be trusted on his policy plans.
“It is pertinent, it’s important because when you consider Barack Obama’s reaction to and explanation to his association there, and without him being clear at all on what he knew and when he knew it, that I think kinda peaks into his ability to tell us the truth on, not only on association but perhaps other things also,” Palin said.
“I think it just makes us ask the question that, if there’s not forthrightness there, with that association and what was known and when it was known, does that lead us to ask, is there forthrightness with the plans Barack Obama has on say tax cuts, or spending increases?” Palin added. “It makes you wonder about the forthrightness, the truthfulness of the plans that he is telling America in regards to the economic recovery because that is first and foremost on American’s minds.”
When questioned directly whether she thought Obama was being dishonest, Palin denied the charge, while raising more questions about whether Obama has associated with Ayers recently.
“I’m not saying that he’s dishonest, but in terms of judgment, in terms of being able to answer a question forthrightly, it has two different parts to this. The judgment and the truthfulness…” Palin said. “Is there still — has there been an association with him since ‘02 and ’05. We’ve heard a couple of different stories. I think it is relevant.”
She is right.
It is relevant and it is a topic Barack Obama has done his best to avoid, with the help of the media until Sarah Palin and the John McCain campaign forced the media to start talking about it.
Should they have spoken about it this forcefully before now?
There are two ways to look at that question, had they brought it up in the manner they are talking about it now a month ago or two months ago, then by now other issues might have taken the focus off of these important issues about Obama’s lack of judgment.
Waiting until the last month before the November 4, 2008 election, while risky to wait that long, guarantees this issue will be in the minds of voters when they go to the voting booths to cast their ballot.
From recent polling, it seems the voters are finally becoming aware of these issues and are starting to wonder why Obama has been less than honest about his questionable associations and his lack of good judgment in who he has chosen to work with, hang out with and associate with in any manner.
Personally I think had the issue come up before the financial crisis, it would have been harder to restart the conversation, so they chose well in waiting until the final month to assure that the public either demand answers or feel they do not know enough about Obama and his stalling tactics as well as his campaign’s “excuse” that he just “didn’t know” that his associate, William Ayers, was formerly a Domestic terrorist that planted bombs on US soil.
This is information the American people needed to know.
.
Official Admits Plumbing For Dirt On Joe
Filed under: Democrats, Barack Obama, 2008 President
The Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Helen Jones-Kelly, said yesterday that she authorized a check of state computer records on Joe Wurzelbacher, Joe the Plumber, after the Holland, OH citizen became the focus of national attention after the third presidential debate. Jones-Kelley, a Democrat and supporter of Sen. Barack Obama, she donated the maximum $2,300 to his presidential campaign, denied any political motivation in ordering the search of Wurzelbacher’s child-support payment records. “Our practice is when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight we often take a look at them,” she said.
Wurzelbacher has had the national press and Ohio local and state governments checking into his background ever since Sen. John McCain seized on comments Sen. Obama made in an impromptu meeting with Wurzelbacher two weeks ago. Wurzelbacher asked Obama about his tax plans and Obama responded that his tax policy was intended to “spread the wealth around.” McCain has used the remark to great affect on the campaign trail and mentioned the remarks and Wurzelbacher more than a dozen times in the third debate. Obama’s comments have served to inject energy into the McCain camp and have caused the Obama campaign to stumble a little in the homestretch, as questions about his tax policy and desire to redistribute wealth have become the focus of voter attention.
Jones-Kelly’s admission marks at least the fourth occasion in which Wurzelbacher’s records were accessed through state computer systems since McCain mentioned his conversation with Sen. Obama. The Ohio Inspector General, State Highway Patrol, and Attorney General’s office are all investigating various potential breaches of Wurzelbacher’s private records to determine if there was any political motivation to the inquiries. But it is clear that no one would have been looking into Wurzelbacher had he not questioned Sen. Obama and if his story was not potentially damaging to Obama’s campaign. The Obama campaign has a history of attempting to silence it’s criics, twice ordering supporters to call a Chicago radio station and protest segements discussing Obama’s work with unrepentant terrorist William Ayers. The Obama campaign’s belief in the power of the people apparently stops at a private citizen’s right to ask probing questions about Sen. Obama’s policies and history.
Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
keep looking »
-
Custom Search Translator
By N2H