Meltdown

Yes, we are in the middle of a heavy campaign. Everyone's emotions are a bit high, but one shows signs of serious problems with comments like these:

I've never had a problem with Wes. But I think it's funny that he'll sit in his room and write this on his blog, but cannot even confront me with it when I see him at events. Wes, you can be tough behind your computer screen, but can you be tough in person??

Steve Fritsch just might want to reconsider running for office. When you try and steal Zell Miller's act you not only look foolish, you come across like a schoolyard thug. You know the episode...bully is made to look bad...comes looking for the smart kid...lunch money tends to change hands. I guess Steve wants to rumble behind the monkey bars.

What to Do If You Are Challenged at the Polls

The Dayton Daily News, the best newspaper in Southwest Ohio, does something practical and a public service to the community. They give advice about what to do if you are challenged at the polls, presumable by a Republican operative.

1. The challenger will have to state why your right to vote is being challenged. The four reasons they can challenge are that they believe you are either not 18 or older, not a U.S. citizen, not a Ohio resident for the past 30 days or not a resident of the county and precinct in which you are trying to vote.

2. One of the poll workers and you will move no less than 10 feet from the challenger.

3. You will be asked to take this oath: "Do you swear or affirm that you will fully and truly answer all of the following questions put to you, touching your place of residence and your qualifications as an elector at this election?"

3. You will be asked a series of questions about one of the four areas in which you are being challenged.

4. If you refuse to answer fully all questions or are unable to answer them fully, or your answers indicate you are too young, not a resident or a citizen, you will not be able to vote.

5. If you answer the questions to the satisfaction of the poll worker, you will be given a ballot and will be allowed to vote.

What if you want to appeal? The decisions of the poll workers are final.

What if the challenger appears to be attempting to cause delays or intimidate voters? The chief poll worker, the presiding judge, can expel them from the polling place.

Source: Oct. 20 memorandum, "Challenger and Witness Guidelines," Ohio Secretary of State's Office and the Ohio Association of Elections Officials.

I looked for a copy of this memo online at Secretary of State's website, but could not find it. I would have thought this would have been part of their PR, but I guess they might hope people are fearful and don't vote? I can find no other links or even mention of this memo but in the DDN.

Mixing Politics

For some reason I feel this article had me in mind. Now, I know they didn't. I am read by a handful at the Enquirer, but not most, but I guess I don't mind speculating about some conspiratorial jab telling me that I guess I had better stick to my own kind.

I would honestly find it impossible to marry a conservative. I have dated a conservative before and my opinions were not a boon to the relationship, neither were hers. What is missing from these examples are how they feel on social issues. I think that is mostly where people can find common ground. I could handle differences on economic policy and foreign issues, but on big social issues like Church-State, abortion, free speech, freedom of the press, I really could not put with a hard right-winger. I guess I want a woman who has a brain, and is not afraid to use it on the same level I am. I see the hard right-winger females as one who thinks her role in life is to be a modern June Cleaver.

I am sure I have just disappointed a great many conservative women out there, but oh well.

Rucker TV and Radio Ads

Hamilton County Prosecutor write in candidate Fanon Rucker has produced a television and a radio ad.

Oh, and he got the Enquirer Endorsement.

Vote Challengers; Poll Watchers

It is an outrage that people would stoop to such a thing here in Cincinnati. Dayton was to be free of it, at least organized by the GOP, but now they will. There is nothing stopping some idiot from doing trying this on their own, even though people are supposed to be registered before hand. I would not be surprised if we don't see this kind of thing from some crackpot around the city. The Observer reports on the trouble Ohio is going to be having. That trouble will not be from people trying to double vote, but instead from those trying to suppress the vote in the name of prevent double voters.

What I want to know, are the GOP putting poll watchers in every location? Will be asking in my precinct who the watchers are. I may wander by some other locations and see if there are watchers stationed out in Anderson Township.

The GOP has dropped some challenges to registrations, but the headline is misleading, of course.

Jesse Taylor of Pandagon chimes in with a lament on the disenfranchisement the GOP is angling towards.

Culture of Fear Rules Editorial Pages Too

The Toxic Twins of the Cincinnati media landscape have put out their endorsements for President and wouldn't you know it, but they backed Bush. Yes, shocking I know. (cough, cough)

What is not so laughable is that both newspapers base their endorsements on fear. They don't come out and say it directly, but their motivation is quite clear. They have fallen into Bush's plan. Bush has perpetuated the fear of terrorism on the entire country. He has shown us no way to ever defeat it and his actions have helped solidify a future with an increased number of groups and countries out to do the USA harm. For a reason I can't fathom both editorial boards (or just publishers) think that the guy who knows how to make more terrorists want to kill Americans can somehow defeat them. If this attitude exists on a wide enough scale, which it does in most Bush supporters, then we as a nation are doomed to a new Cold War. Islamism (the war blogger term for Muslim terrorists or all stripes) will be or is the new Communism. A new enemy has been created to fear, and Bush has succeeded in making the Enquirer and Post fear it like a child fears the bogeyman. No wonder they fear OTR. Here is a critique of both.

The Cincinnati Post
I really am perplexed by the poorly written (on a contextual basis) editorial in the Post. It felt like a bad casserole, with chunks of really rotten meat stinking up rather bland pasta. They praise Bush, but somehow find him blameless for Iraq:

In his first major execution of that policy, the war in Iraq, we believe Bush was led astray. It is deeply troubling that, having won the battle we were unprepared to win the peace.

...

He is an honorable man who, without precedent to guide him, made a difficult decision to invade Iraq as one early step in a struggle with terrorists that, sadly, may last for decades.

So, let me get this straight, they believe in Bush's leadership, but think he led us astray in the war on Iraq. Now, they do for some unknown reason say Bush was led astray. I thought the President was the leader. If he is not the leader, then who is and why are they not President? I thought the President was the person who they praised for his leadership, but now they say he FAILED by letting someone else lead us? Their logic here is confusing doubletalk at best, and well, just plain crap at worst. Their last line should read "With George W. Bush we choose stability, continuity and decisive leadership (well except on that Iraq thingy)."

What was most disappointing is that they filled it with propaganda. They used anti-Kerry talking points right from the GOP as crib notes for their writing session. Are they really are fooled by the Bush/Cheney line about Kerry's position on Iraq? It is one thing for a politician to say them or one of their flunkies or even for a Bush worshiper, but for professional journalists? They even trout out the bullshit comparing Bush's "legislative" record to Kerry's. It was as if they just reworded Bush's debate prep. Why not just put a picture of Flipper in there in be done with trying to appeal to a literate crowd. Did Portman write this?

The Cincinnati Enquirer
In their editorial today I just don't grasp what the hell they are saying:

The next four years will require a president who has the fortitude not to waver in the face of terror. George W. Bush and John Kerry are both strong and patriotic men, but we believe the times call for America to be consistent. For that reason we support Bush.

Consistency? That's the reason for wanting Bush? They don't want to change? So more of the same, as Kerry puts it, is just what they want? I hate to whip out my favorite quote from RWE but:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

They then put forth lies

We wish the president were willing to acknowledge the mistakes that were made, and to hold accountable those in his administration who made them. But other nations and past administrations all believed Saddam had the weapons and was willing to use them.

It is true that most countries agreed that Iraq had failed to account for all of his WMD after the first Gulf War, but not that he still had them in any volume to harm us or that he had any significant programs to build more. Bush said all of that was true, but like the Post, they put the blame on someone else in the Administration, not on the man at the top. Why? Why allow Bush to dodge responsibility? Again like the Post the Enquirer can't seem to be consistent itself in praising real leadership, instead of Bush's brand of walking in front of driverless bus.

On homeland security they don't say why Bush is good, they say that Kerry can't pay for anything he wants to do. WHAT ABOUT YOUR CANDIDATE? What the hell? It is as if Bush just did everything wrong but we can't fix it, and neither can Kerry, so lets stick with the bad President we have just because he gave us a false sense of security 3 years ago and that can sell us more newspapers.

On economics they just lie:

He's wrong. The over-$200,000 category isn't just "the rich." It's also the bulk of the small and independent business owners in America - a segment of the economy that creates many of the new jobs we need.

A small business man who has revenue over $200,000 does not have taxable income over $200,000. They will not be effected by this. If you have taxable income over $200,000 then you are fucking rich. 99% of Enquirer staffers, if not a higher percentage, do not have taxable income over $200,000, so don't play games here. If the publisher can't make the payment on her third home, well don't spend more than you earn. I don't shed tears for the rich paying a little more than I do.

On Social Security the Enquirer is just ignorant. I have a 401K plan. I don't need another one, as Bush wants me to have. I need an insurance program to help provide me a guaranteed base income when I retire. I need it to be there when I retire. I don't need to put money into stock brokers and Wall Street Banker's pockets.

Neither paper was willing to touch on the social issues. They value money and killing more Muslims over freedom from theocracy, reproductive freedom, and equal citizenship for homosexuals. I guess they don't value those freedoms because they don't fear things that don't personally affect them. Now, to be fair the Enquirer does support the repeal of Article XII and they oppose Issue 1, but both issues conflict with Bush's positions. Not to mention they don't address Bush's future Supreme Court picks which will put this country back in a pre-bellum mindset.

I was not shocked by either editorial. Both papers have conservative editorial boards, all be it not extreme right-wing ones, but more importantly they fear pissing off the West Chester person who sees Bush as a deity, with no flaws. That means they have to back Bush to avoid local flack and a drop in circulation. I wish these newspapers could learn something from the glowing coverage they give the President, be "bold" and don't fear the burbs. Instead, fear your own conscience when you don't tell yourself and your readers the truth.

Wes Flinn and Nick Spencer also comment.

Provisional Ballots

In comments someone brought up the Enquirer's editoral on the "provisional ballot mess." The ruling of a Federal Court has been overturned by 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The relevant text of the Help America Vote Act is Title III Section 302(a) as follows:

(a) Provisional Voting Requirements.--If an individual declares that such individual is a registered voter in the jurisdiction in which the individual desires to vote and that the individual is eligible to vote in an election for Federal office, but the name of the individual does not appear on the official list of eligible voters for the polling place or an election official asserts that the individual is not eligible to vote, such individual shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot as follows:

(1) An election official at the polling place shall notify the individual that the individual may cast a provisional ballot in that election.
(2) The individual shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot at that polling place upon the execution of a written affirmation by the individual before an election official at the polling place stating that the individual is

(A) a registered voter in the jurisdiction in which the individual desires to vote; and
(B) eligible to vote in that election.

(3) An election official at the polling place shall transmit the ballot cast by the individual or the voter information contained in the written affirmation executed by the individual under paragraph (2) to an appropriate State or local election official for prompt verification under paragraph (4).
(4) If the appropriate State or local election official to whom the ballot or voter information is transmitted under paragraph(3) determines that the individual is eligible under State law to vote, the individual's provisional ballot shall be counted as a vote in that election in accordance with State law.
(5)(A) At the time that an individual casts a provisional ballot, the appropriate State or local election official shall give the individual written information that states that any individual who casts a provisional ballot will be able to ascertain under the system established under subparagraph (B)whether the vote was counted, and, if the vote was not counted, the reason that the vote was not counted.
(B) The appropriate State or local election official shall establish a free access system (such as a toll-free telephone number or an Internet website) that any individual who casts a provisional ballot may access to discover whether the vote of
that individual was counted, and, if the vote was not counted, the reason that the vote was not counted.

The crux of the issue with the law depends on how you define Jurisdiction. From my viewpoint I see the county as the definition of Jurisdiction for the State of Ohio. The county is where voter registration is controlled. It can't be voting precinct, which I don't think can quality as any type of jurisdiction. There is no foundation to claim any control or jurisdiction over a precinct, other than by the county. It could be the local jurisdiction (city, village, township), but that would actually be much more complicated than county. I could live in the city of Cincinnati, but fall among multiple state office boundaries. I would still have to have some variable type of ballot including all offices and issues for everyone in the city. The county would then have to have provisional ballots for precincts with the same races and issues.

The remedy is rather simple. All you need, which is what I think the Judge advised, is that each county create a standard county wide ballot. It would include all offices and issues, which are listed in every precinct in the county. That becomes the provisional ballot used for the person who thinks they should be registered in the county. As long as they are registered in the county, that ballot then counts. They do miss out on voting for many local races and issues, but they still can vote.

An additional solution that should happen before provisional ballots are brought up would a system (which partially exists, but needs to be improved) to help people find and then get to the correct precinct. We have a system now to help people fine the right voting location, but no way to get them there if they can't get there on their own. If they can't make it to the other location they will just not vote, making the provisional ballot a good second choice for that person, allowing their vote to count at least on some level. This is not rocket science. This would not cause confusion. This would not increase fraud. A person could commit as much fraud with Blackwell's restrictive provisional ballot as with this fair version. So claims of such are false and just cover for the real desire, suppressing the vote of poor and minority voters.

As of this morning I can't find a copy of the 6th circuit ruling online, I would guess it might hit tomorrow. I do not know their rationale for reversing the ruling. At this late date we are facing a mess because we have people following different guidelines and Blackwell lost his credibility and thus any real authority by his push to suppress the vote. We will have a mess.