Maybe this wouldn't be so bad if the signs they post say:

"The previous candidate, Republican Mark Foley, was discovered to be a sexual predator, having preyed on 16 year old male pages, and resigned in humiliation and shame from the office. This is the party's substitute candidate, who we know little about."

Better now?

Come now, what kind of ridiculous democracy do we have where we can't even compromise in order to make sure the public is informed as to who and what they are voting for.

The War Room is advocating Good the Gander politicking when as honest liberals we should be advocating free and open elections, not endorsing the system that disenfranchises millions. That means allowing people who are confused by the voting system to see who they are voting for-Even if they are republicans.

This is in every way a fair and proper reaction to an ugly situation. It in no way resembles Harris' despicable actions in 2000.

...Tim. It sure would be nice to see such signs around right where we need them. I know I'm pointing out the obvious here...but that is also the job of the goddamn media...

For as dodgy as it seems to have Brother Jeb's Sec. of State fiddling with elections yet again, IF the Division of Elections wants to put an announcement (that is, not a front page article) in the local paper, and IF the Republicans in that district follow the 100-foot rule, I don't see what the problem is.

Then again, if it's all the Division of Elections time, effort and money and the signage breaks the 100-foot rule, that's a different story.

Oh c'mon -- I'm just as amped by the political prospects of this whole scandal as anyone (even though the particular circumstances that kicked it off leave me feeling ill), but I have no problem allowing people to know who their vote is for. It's the right thing to do, and I can't see how it would benefit the Republicans, anyway. The nasty specter of Foley's name will just be amplified, and there only seems to be a potential drawback in the unlikely event that those few people ignorantly voting for him would rather NOT have their votes counted for Negron.

So I'm standing in line at my Florida 16th Congressional District polling place, and the woman behind me, who gets all her "news" from Faux because they're fair and balanced, sees the sign and says, "The Democrats are running somebody in Foley's place?" Do I explain to her that Foley is a republican but now out of office, and that Negron is also a republican running in his place? Or do I just say, "Yes, isn't that ridiculous?" and let her confusion lead her to vote for the actual Democrat?

In 29 years of voting in every single election - general, primary and special - since I turned 18, I have witnessed even more appalling instances of monumental ignorance at the polls many times. The potential for the Foley-Negron (Negron? Doesn't that sound a little like ....?) confusion to blow up in the republicans' face is enormous and multi-faceted. I think the more they try to fix it, the worse it's going to get.

Seriously now -- is posting that sign that bad? It is an unusual circumstance.

Democrats should watch what they do here. Crassly exploiting this ugly mess for their own gain is almost as slimy as Foley's IMs. I have already received a pre-recorded campaign phone call citing the Foley problem. And I live in Pennsylvania, not Florida.

Besides, Democrats should just stand back and let the Republicans handle it. They seem to be doing enough damage to their party all by themselves.

http://meanbob.blogspot.com/

Thursday, October 05, 2006

GOP Staffer Source of E-Mails

Hastert's claims notwithstanding, it seems a life long GOP activist was the source of the e-mails being made public (See Here):

That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim.

The same source, who acted as an intermediary between the aide-turned-whistleblower and several news outlets, says the person who shared the documents is no longer employed in the House.

So where exactly do you start or stop when it comes to "educating" the voters? As someone who has worked as an election judge in the past, I can tell you that this is clearly a case of the state of Florida electioneering for the Republican party.

Jeez, why doesn't Jeb just get it over with and have election workers cast a Republican vote for eveyone who enters the booth? That's obviously what he'd like to do....

Here in Ohio, whenever a state-wide issue appears on the ballot (referendum, amendment to the constitution, etc.), text is prepared to explain the pro and con positions. It's approved and made available well before the election, and is provided at the polling place, right with the ballot.

I assume something similar takes place in Florida -- so if state elections officials want to prepare a statement explaining why Negron's name doesn't appear on the ballot, but that any vote for Foley will go to Negron by default, fine. Why, then, should Mahoney and the Democrats not be permitted to prepare parallel text detailing exactly WHY this "special circumstance" arose? Again, if an informed electorate is the goal, why arbitrarily limit it?

Anyone else detect the smell of several state and federal lawsuits brewing?

I think it's fair for there to be a sign - it's good to inform the voters on the mechanics of the election.

But the way to do it is not to let this 'exception' happen in a way outside the rules, leaving them welcome to not do it for a democrat - the way to do it is to require the rules be updated to cover this so it's done for both parties.

Discounting the motives, the problem isn't whether this move is reasonable. The problem is that it's a special adjustment made for a special case at the last minute, and those exceptions are counter to the whole point of having election rules. Fairness only exists in a system as large as a statewide or national election if the rules are applied dispassionately and evenly. Once exceptions start to be made, even if they sound reasonable, the system loses credibility.