I really wish this was some new trick that someone had thought up but the reality is its been around since at least JFK. I have heard of it being done occasionally by Dems, but far more often by the elephant side. Regardless, it is an ugly tactic.
__________________________________________________ _________________------

REWITCH..thanks for at least recognizing this is a TWO PARTY SYSTEM BOTH parties do this stuff and will continue to do so. I will not contest your statement on "I have heard of it being done occasionally by Dems, but far more often by the elephant side."

Was not keeping score and I am sure you can validate that statment but having lived here through the 2000 and 2004 elections I saw BOTH parties doing things !

To simply validate my earlier comments....there is an article in the Wilton, CT newspaper dated August 28th where the Republicans are charging the Democrats with PUSH POLLING. I cannot imagine using such a story (which I will post on request) because I cannot see what purpose it would serve at all. Does it mean the Democrats are mean and nasty ? NO.....maybe just those in CT.....NO. Does it mean the Republican party is saintly to bring this up...NO so what purpose would it serve.

It happens and BOTH parties do it. What purpose does this kind of posting serve?

What is so nasty as to expect people to actually reside at the address they have for voter's registration? There's more to almost every election than "President," and voting for state/loca/ US Representative, etc is based on regional location. So, if I no longer live in my MD address, and instead live in TV, I still should be able to vote in MD for governor, state rep, etc.?

Let me see....I am losing my house because I can't make my payments....so I move in with my parents, or friends or one of the new tent cities. Pretty much the first thing I would think to do would be to run down and change my voter registration address. But come to think of it if I was living in a car or a tent city what address would I use.

Originally Posted by Bucco

To simply validate my earlier comments....there is an article in the Wilton, CT newspaper dated August 28th where the Republicans are charging the Democrats with PUSH POLLING. I cannot imagine using such a story (which I will post on request) because I cannot see what purpose it would serve at all. Does it mean the Democrats are mean and nasty ? NO.....maybe just those in CT.....NO. Does it mean the Republican party is saintly to bring this up...NO so what purpose would it serve.

It happens and BOTH parties do it. What purpose does this kind of posting serve?

Where is the link you are so fond of asking for.....

I wouldn't use a quote from any CT repubs....wasn't that the state where the Repub used jammers to shut down the Dem's telephone banks on Election Day...if I remember correctly 3 people went to jail over that.

And my original post was in NO WAY partisan....I didn't look what these dirty Repubs are doing...I just said protect your rights.

You doth protest to much....

Originally Posted by Bucco

1. The source, AND ONLY SOURCE, for this is the Michigan Messenger who today has a headline "Michigan Jewish Voters Targeted in "push poll" ...same folks who run the Messenger run the Washington Independent and just one look at either of these BLOGS will validate where they are coming from. In addition they share consulting firms with the Democratic party.

2. It, of course, was denied by the Republican party of Michigan and part of their statement said....
"I quite agree that IF the various Democratic Party committees were truly interested in ensuring that Michigan voters were not challenged based on foreclosure lists, then "best practices" would have included reaching out and suggesting a non-partisan approach to ensure such challenges are not made by either party (especially as the MI GOP had already publicly stated it will not engage in the practice). INSTEAD, the Democratic lawyers called a nationwide press conference to publicize a tactic they admit the Republicans have disclaimed, and filed a suit in Michigan and a letter with the Attorney General of the United States--all based entirely on a blog-reported statement by a single Michigan County chair who denied making it.."

3. That "Olberman" would pick this up and interview a man who actually knew not one thing about this specific incident is of course NO SURPRISE and I suspect that since you even mentioned it, you know his lack of credibility.

4. You mention Steve's "spin" yet you post a story from ONE BLOG....however should anyone post a story from other more mainstream blogs about your candidate you would yell loud and clear and there are many many of them, more serious and more credible than this one, therefore I find your "crtiticism" of Steve somewhat laughable. I dont know if it is true or not..if it is...shame on whomever did it, but your credibility is surely in doubt when you post a story like this from ONE SINGLE BLOGGER with questionable motives and credentials.

5. I am curious what the motivation to post such a story might be ? It has not validation...it is from ONE SINGLE BLOG on the internet....is this just to try make a point that the party that opposes your candidate is evil and your party is saintly. I just wonder what point was to be made ?????

6. I never once, but could be wrong, ever saw Steve say he was voting for Sen McCain because he was a POW nor do I recall him saying he was voting for Gov Palin because she is a woman, and I surely do not understand your remark to Steve "Time to start worrying about the rest of this country." From what I have read, Steve has served this country well and continues to do so and does not deserve this kind of rhetoric.

Again, if this report is true, it is wrong and should be stopped. I still dont get the purpose of posting this as you would rebuff any negative blog reports on Sen Obama and enjoy lampooning them !

Again no links to anything....and like you would believe an Democratic denial.....NOT.

It was quite a bit more than one blog...

COLOGAL...ok, here is the link for the CT story that I said I would be glad to post

http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15...cal&Itemid=123

I cant imagine what kind of links you are demanding for my opinions posted....

You anger tells me you dont get the point at all...first that if ANYONE posted a blog and presented the way you did, which by the way I can do on Sen Obama's associations with radicals you would be one of the first to call the blog a name and debunk it ...

Secondly, you also seem to feel that the Democratics dont do anything wrong..as you say the "dirty Repubs "....well, hope all is well in your world and I really wish the Democrats were that saintly and right and wrong had a party name !

Here is a quote as to why voter caging is wrong:

Voters targeted by caging are often the most vulnerable: soldiers deployed overseas, those who are unfamiliar with their rights under the law, and those who cannot spare the time, effort, and expense of proving that their registration is valid. On the day of the election, when the voter arrives at the poll and requests a ballot, an operative of the party challenges the validity of their registration. Ultimately, caging works by dissuading a voter from casting a ballot, or by ensuring that they cast a provisional ballot, which is less likely to be counted.

While the challenge process is prescribed by law, the use of broad, partisan challenges is controversial. For example, in the United States Presidential Election of 2004, the Republican Party employed this process to challenge the validity of tens of thousands of voter registrations in contested states like Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The Republican Party argued that the challenges were necessary to combat widespread voter fraud. The Democratic Party countered that the challenges were tantamount to voter suppression, and further argued that the Republican Party had targeted voter registrations on the basis of the race of the voter, in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act law.

Monica Goodling cited the existence and concern about "vote caging" in her written and oral testimony to the United States House Judiciary Committee on May 23, 2007, mentioning that Tim Griffin, who was appointed as interim United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, would have allegations of vote caging arise if ever presented to be confirmed by the Senate to the office, and that the Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty "failed to disclose that he had some knowledge of allegations that Tim Griffin had been involved in vote-caging during his work on the president's 2004 campaign."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_caging

Yes, it's a blog, but the basic facts are there and documented, albeit I wouldn't quite believe every source given. I quoted it mainly because it does do a very good job of explaining why caging is wrong. To me, it describes why caging is used quite well. Caging is not done to confirm that someone lives where they say they do, it is done to stop someone from voting by making it difficult for them to prove they live where they say they do. HUGE difference to my mind.

And, Bucco, since when is the St. Petersburg Times a blog? cologal's original post used that as her quote, not a blog. It is a legitimate article about a legitimate issue.

Originally Posted by Bucco

COLOGAL...ok, here is the link for the CT story that I said I would be glad to post

http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15...cal&Itemid=123

I cant imagine what kind of links you are demanding for my opinions posted....

You anger tells me you dont get the point at all...first that if ANYONE posted a blog and presented the way you did, which by the way I can do on Sen Obama's associations with radicals you would be one of the first to call the blog a name and debunk it ...

Secondly, you also seem to feel that the Democratics dont do anything wrong..as you say the "dirty Repubs "....well, hope all is well in your world and I really wish the Democrats were that saintly and right and wrong had a party name !

Pull Polling is no where equal to vote caging....here is my orgainal post. Why don't you point out anything in my post that seems partisan. Please let me know where the dirty Repub verbiage is....You're the one that made it partisan.

Originally Posted by Bucco

COLOGAL...ok, here is the link for the CT story that I said I would be glad to post

http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15...cal&Itemid=123

I cant imagine what kind of links you are demanding for my opinions posted....

You anger tells me you dont get the point at all...first that if ANYONE posted a blog and presented the way you did, which by the way I can do on Sen Obama's associations with radicals you would be one of the first to call the blog a name and debunk it ...

Secondly, you also seem to feel that the Democratics dont do anything wrong..as you say the "dirty Repubs "....well, hope all is well in your world and I really wish the Democrats were that saintly and right and wrong had a party name !

Bucco... I have to go out tonight so I don't have time to look. So could you please show me where I might have said "dirty Repubs".

REDWITCH...COLOGAL...lets get one thing straight here. I post articles from legimate sources including the Chicago newspaper on links that Sen Obama has with radicals and am ridiculed about weak sources, etc......you post this and expect instant validation....that is great !

Secondly, I never said that any of these practices are right or legal or anything...I simply could not understand how you get such validation from blogs and local stories and you debunk anyone else with much more validation.

COLOGAL....I just reread the post where I quoted you...and I misread it and apologix=ze for that part of the post. ALSO..note that my post was in response to the Michigan link !

Here you go Bucco:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...voter-caging-a

http://www.michiganmessenger.com/tag/voter-caging

http://progressillinois.com/2008/09/...n-voter-caging

http://pubrecord.org/nationworld/326.html?task=view

http://www.projectvote.org/

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/1...asting-of-vote

Want more? There are literally hundreds.

Bucco, I basically like and respect you but you do have a tendency to get on some very high horses sometimes. I did say that my quote was from a blog. I just felt it explained voter caging well, especially why it is morally wrong IMO.

I don't think I've ever ridiculed you for weak sources. I do know I have made comments about some sources and whether they were yours or others, I don't remember. Regardless, I sincerely doubt I have ever ridiculed anyone's sources. If I felt the source was biased, I said so and why. So far as I know that is not ridicule.

As I have told you previously, I respect your belief that Obama is a radical. I don't happen to totally agree with it but I do see where your fears are coming from. Actually, my biggest issue against Obama is the simple fact that he comes from the Chicago Dem machine (sorry Chels!). That is not a great selling point in my mind and, let's face it, our candidates are sold to us left, right and center. I just wish I were convinced none were bought (boy, do I hate lobbyists).

Anyway, back to point -- if you have an issue with a source, great. I thought you were calling the St. Petersburg paper a blog. I don't object to newspaper articles (editorials, yes) -- I do believe most reporters do their best to get their facts straight when reporting and I do understand that most papers are slanted one way or another and I usually factor that into my considerations. One thing to remember about this article was that it stated the voter caging was not just a concern of the Dems but also Florida state voting officials.

When it comes to dirty politics, there are no innocent sides nowadays. The elephants are using voter caging, among other tactics. The donkeys are using push polling (which is extremely offensive to my mind but at least doesn't disenfranchise a legitimate voter).

BTW -- Why do you have to shout someone's name when you are speaking directly to them? Personally, I don't need my name to be emphasized to see it and find it rude.

Except for the Crooks and Liars they ALL quote the same single source !!!!

But you have missed the point of my post.....my fault I am sure.....I said, I thought clearly that you use ONE source, a blog but reject other links because you dont agree.

That was my point..pure and simple !

BTW -- Why do you have to shout someone's name when you are speaking directly to them? Personally, I don't need my name to be emphasized to see it and find it rude
__________________________________________________ __________________--

Well, I sure wouldnt want to be rude. I apologize in that I do that so you know it is addressed to you...wont happen again..I apologize !

Amazing how you find CAPS rude but other things on here just plain dont bother you...differents views on things I suppose !

Again, I apologize

Originally Posted by Bucco

Except for the Crooks and Liars they ALL quote the same single source !!!!

But you have missed the point of my post.....my fault I am sure.....I said, I thought clearly that you use ONE source, a blog but reject other links because you dont agree.

That was my point..pure and simple !

Here's another.

http://www.truthout.org/article/near...le-caging-ohio

I guess I don't get your point. Clearly you think everyone is in collusion here. And what would be the difference if it was one source? Does that mean it's a lie? Do you think The Bible is a lie, Bucco? Because, after all, it's only one source.