Naturally, they have a great horror of unreconstructed neanderthals like me. Until you get a few drinks into them: then they’ll throw their political scruples to the wind, and you can spend some very pleasant time with them. They’re actually very smart and interesting once you get past the indoctrination they got in college.

Hat tip: Tim Blair, Jim Treacher

Earlier this week the world changed with the election of Senator Obama to be the next President of the United States. The people of Korea were quite mixed in terms of an Obama presidency with the younger Korean people gravitating towards the Senator for the same reasons that most young Americans do. However the older Korean people were not so happy due to Senator Obama’s stated intention to renegotiate the FTA between Korea and the USA. I was happy off course and spent the entire lunch break and then some extra time until Senator Obama achieved the required 270 electoral votes to clinch the presidency.

That entire day was a little extraordinary because I was watching the election with one liberal Canadian and one conservative from the state of Washington. I also work with another conservative from Arizona and both of my co-workers were not happy at all when Senator Obama won. I was simply over the moon and every time on that day, I thought about “President Obama” I couldn’t help but smile. At the same time I felt a little sad for some of my conservative co-workers who started to mutter statements like:

I am just so sad to see the United States of America become the United Socialist States of America.

I think that is a bit overstated, I don’t beleive the USA will ever become socialist regardless of the policies implemented by the Obama administration. I have argued on this blog that certain policies that lean towards socialism would not be so bad especially when it comes to healthcare. For example, I was quite astounded to pay $17 to visit a Doctor and purchase antibiotics here in Korea (My health insurance doesn’t start until December). Anyway this is not meant to be an argumentative post but merely a statement of hope that some conservatives/republicans will slowly stop feeling bitter with regards to the Obama presidency.

MediaScout Canada has a good (abbreviated here) rundown of potential problems:

The potential for voting irregularities, if you believe Olivia Ward and Peter Goodspeed, is frightening: electronic voting machines in West Virginia, Missouri, Nevada, Georgia and Colorado “flipping” votes; accusations of illegal voter-roll purges in Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Nevada and Michigan; Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin residents rendered ineligible to vote due to state database inconsistencies; official-looking pamphlets in Virginia instructing Democrats to vote the day after the election; Alabama residents incorrectly listed as felons, who are not allowed to vote; out-of-state students running into voting problems; Republican threats to challenge the eligibility of voters who lost their homes in the mortgage meltdown (now that’s sympathy).

I’d add to that the possibility, however slight, of voter fraud that could come from so many new registrations. And this just in: Oprah Winfrey reported trouble early voting.

One of the main culprits to safe, secure voting may not be the bulging voter rolls, but the voting machines themselves. The Independent in London published a story last week investigating the unreliability of voting machines, cataloging a series of technical problems facing this new technology, including:

- Potentially hacking into Diebold machines through a modem;
- Testimony from a computer programmer who wrote an undetectable script to switch peoples’ votes from one candidate to another;
- Complaints against the idea that private, often “partisan” companies, market and sell the machines;
- The lack of a truly “independent” election commission in the U.S.

After wards, a commentator Frank B. had this to offer:

The more I see of these electronic machines , the more I think we in the U.K. should stick to the old low-tech system.Making a cross on the ballot paper with a small pencil and putting in the ballot box.It's virtually foolproof and tamper-proof.They tried electronic machines in the last Scottish elections and they malfunctioned badly.There is no need to change to a new system.

Commentator Graham Bell at the Ambit Gambit blog at Australia’s National Forum wonders with the possible hurdles standing in the way of a clean and fair election, why aren’t international election observers scrutinizing the U.S. polls:

As for vote-rigging: the hanging chads of Florida, the deregistration of thousands of lawfully registered voters and all the other electoral tomfoolery should have been enough to get United Nations observers involved in all future U.S. elections; wonder why they are not supervising this election?

Chuck G, who commented on the Maclean’s blog in Canada predicts voting irregularities could spell another long wait for declaring a winner in this election.

I don’t think this election will be decided for weeks to come.

Judging from poll data it looks like Obama’s support has scattered around the country. With the record number of voters and all this talk about technical problems at the voting booths, I’m fearful of a long and painful legal process following the election results.

Some bloggers looked at some of the many solutions to fix voting procedures in the United States.

From Paris, Jack of Spades in Wonderland debates whether e-Voting or electronic voting is as safe as online banking, which a lot of Americans already engage in and trust.

When someone steals an election, he or she has to do it by manipulating relatively large numbers. We are talking about thousands, or millions, of votes. Why bother with individual votes then? Let’s do the “half cent trick”. If very small amounts of data are manipulated at a local level, they may amount to huge shifts when added up together. The weakness of every system is the alert threshold. If I am a local (and honest) watchdog at a poll, will I trigger a general alert for a dozen miscast votes out of 3000? I should. But who would, honestly? If every local poll has a dozen miscast votes, that’s 0.4% error margin. If memory serves right, this could have tipped several elections in the past.

And the mistrust is right there : e-Voting leaves precious little trails. Who knows what someone with access to the central computer with enough skill to cover his tracks could do? Would we notice these 0.4%? Locally, most certainly not. It would mean that every one of these miscast votes would have to be traced back.

The alert threshold has to be lowered and trust has to be earned. What if I (as a local watchdog) asked random (truly random) people to watch me perform my duties? At the very least, even if everyone in the group agrees to drop the case on the 0.4% error margin, someone would know. At best, I can’t be slack anymore, since these people can voice this fact to the world

In Ireland, the blog Tech Central reports on a test to allow U.S. soldiers based in England cast their votes via computer. The results were mixed:

The test has posed unique problems for the companies taking part. Laptops used to cast the ballots have had their hard drives removed to lessen the chance of virus infection, and the voting software is loaded directly from a CD.

Users will also have to print out a paper version of the ballot paper so that the final results can be checked.

However, the move is being questioned by many in Florida. “Taxpayers are still reeling from the costly mistake of allowing DRE [direct recording electronic] touch-screen voting before that technology was secure,” said Dan McCrea, president of the Florida Voters Coalition.

From Kenya, What an African Woman Thinks is astonished to find out that Election Day is not a public holiday in the United States:

That strikes me as very odd.

In Kenya, not only is it a public holiday, but the day is timed so that people can have ample time to travel significant distances just in case they need to do so in order to cast their vote. That is why it’s usually at the end of the year, after Christmas.

Frankly, it never occurred to me that election day anywhere in the world would not be a public holiday.

Doesn’t that make it harder for some people to vote than others? What if you’re a student and you have an exam on election day and you’re in one of those states where voting only takes place on election day? Or what if you’re working a twelve hour shift that day?

• Paris, France - La nuit Obama
• London, UK - ObamaWatch Election Results Party (+events in other UK cities)
• Rome, Italy - all night pancake party on 4-5th Nov
• Moneygall, Ireland - Hardy Drew & the Nancy Boys gig in the hometown of Obama's great-grandfather
  

Click here to view the embedded video.

Charming that he has links on how to vote!

Then there’s this:

Such a fine example of reality-based political discourse, don’t you think?

And this:

Of course, this one may have damaged Jill Greenberg’s career. But then again, maybe not.

It’s not difficult to find stuff like this. It’s everywhere.

Can you feel the love tonight?

Click here to view the embedded video.

There have been a few news articles scattered around the web this past week talking about the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in terms of enthusiasm. I don’t remember the specifics but I remember seeing double digit differences between the interest factor of the respective parties. This interest was thought to have disappeared after the “Big Media” played up the division between the Hillary and the Obama supporters however as expected, those rumors are false.

A further point, that the Left Anchor made quite astutely is that people are much more civil in the Obama rallies. No one shouts “McCain…..terrorist….” It really escapes me how people are so afraid of one man and what he could do for America. I am reminded at this point of what Gordon/The Griper once mentioned, I am not sure who because both of them are quite knowledgeable:

Even if Obama wins, America can survive one Obama term if not two.

I know I got that quote wrong so I hope the parties involved will forgive me but I am imploring conservatives to tone it down because some people actually really do believe Senator Obama is a muslim and a terrorist.

Al Jazeera had its crew at a small town in Ohio and here are some reactions:

Palestinian/Jordanian Hala, writing on Soul Blossom, reacts to this video as follows:

Other than WOW, I have nothing to say. I am almost sure Obama will get assassinated if he becomes president. What gets to me is that what people think is simply untrue. Oh Gosh. Stupid
people, at least know what you are talking about; he is not Muslim neither Arab. Also, being black does not mean he will oppress whites. Even though it is sarcastic to think that many years ago, whites had the right to discriminate against blacks
openly … So there you have it, the most powerful nation in the world is still full of hatred, injustice, and racism. It was
hidden, but now it slowly is coming out. Scary.

Writing at No Longer at Ease, in Doha, Qatar, Abdurahman sheds more light on the video:

A report on the role of race (and racism) in the US election by Al Jazeera English's Casey Kaufman received more than a million views, and was written about in Washington post. Casey speaks to people attending a Sarah Palin rally and most of them have clearly racist feelings Obama, here is some of what they've said:

From an older white woman: “I'm afraid if he wins, the black [sic] will take over. He's not a Christian. This is a Christian nation! What is our country gonna end up like?”

An older white man: “When you got a Negro running for president, you need a first-stringer. He's definitely a second-stringer.”

A young white man holding a child: “He seems like a sheep — or a wolf in sheep's clothing to be honest with you. And I believe Palin — she's filled with the Holy Spirit, and I believe she's gonna bring honesty and integrity to the White House.”

An older white man: “He's related to a known terrorist, for one.”

An older white man: “He is friends with a terrorist of this country!”

An older white man: “He must support terrorists! You know, uh, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. And that to me is Obama.”

A young white woman: “Just the whole, Muslim thing, and everything, and everybody's still kinda — a lot of people have forgotten about 9/11, but . . . I dunno, it's just kinda . . . a little unnerving.”

A white woman: “Obama and his wife, I'm concerned that they could be anti-white. That he might hide that.”

An older white woman: “I don't like the fact that he thinks us white people are trash . . . because we're not!”

A Political Glimpse from Ireland, meanwhile, posts this shocking video showing supporters at a Sarah Palin rally in Johnstown, PA:

Tune in to listen to people calling Obama a Muslim, terrorist and a baby killer, among other descriptive cliches. Did I hear someone yell ‘Barak Mohammed Obama?'

On racism in the campaign, Malcolm Clark from the UK, who blogs at SixFifty notes after watching the final presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain:

Firstly, was McCain failing to directly and unequivocally “repudiate” (that his word for what he wanted Obama to do on several other matters) the worst excesses of the racism and threats of violence made by Republican supporters at some rallies.  Instead, McCain was happy to “say, categorically, I’m proud of the people that come to our rallies.”   McCain should rightly take a lot of stick on that.  And it is why the perversion of the McCain campaign slogan is so apt: The Hate Talk Express.

In conclusion, Eatbees from Morocco says:

Obama is pretty well immunized by now against attacks on his character, because the American people have seen him respond calmly under pressure, while McCain is the one who seems erratic and radical; and most Americans are sick of manipulation based on fear, having seen where it leads, to war and economic collapse, so they are eager to reject it on election day. It didn’t work in 2006 against Congressional Democrats, and it won’t work against Obama unless he does something completely out of character between now and November 4 to destroy people’s trust.
If that is all McCain has to hope for, he has lost the election.

What do a 29-year-old “strong conservative” Canadian, a 22-year-old “Sudanese thinker,” and an Irish-American poet from New Jersey have in common?

In the wake of the third and final U.S. presidential debate, the triumvirate form an unlikely bond and agree that Republican candidate John McCain has a lot going for him and that the election will ultimately come down to ideology.

Let's start in Ontario, Canada with the opening sentence from The Strong Conservative indicating Barack Obama is a socialist and ought to be compared to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and German revolutionary Karl Marx.

Obama's health care plan was as complicated as nuclear fusion, I have no idea who gets what or how much, except the government basically runs it. That's all I need to know.

Most important, Obama can now be known as America's Robin Hood. Taxpayers can sleep peacefully knowing that Obamessiah will happily redistribute wealth in America in an unbiased and benevolent fashion. First on the list: Acorn, followed by the now unemployed former works from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Jaime Gorelick and Frank Raines.

Skipping ahead, we read:

The more I see Obama however, the more nervous he makes me. This guy has no clue about the economy, no clue about foreign policy, and a history that no one really knows about. His entire life is veiled in secrecy and misdirection and he can't point to one single accomplishment in his life. It is frightening to think that Obama is so close to the Presidency, a man who wants to gut the military, retreat in the face of terrorists, and impose a socialistic ideology on America.

Powerful stuff from America's northern neighbor. If you're reading along, what do you think so far? This commentary goes contrary to the heart of most of Voices without Votes‘ bloggers, right? Post a comment below.

But first, we fly across the pond to sub-Saharan Africa and catch up with Drima, an Afro-Arab Sudanese Muslim and millennial blogger who states up front in The Sudanese Thinker that until recently, he never heard of Obama who he called “a no name.”

Drima backed McCain from day one and elaborates about Obama at the debate:

I liked how he sailed through McCain’s attack and question about Ayers calmly and rather eloquently like it was no big deal. On the other hand, I loved how McCain looked into the camera and started talking directly to “Joe.”

It was kinda funny, but I liked his emphasis on the importance of smaller government. His performance in this debate was better than the previous one which is ironic, since the format of the previous debate is supposed to be McCain’s favorite - town halls. During the first debate, he was the winner though.

Hmm. Drima admits a love for McCain but thinks Obama had a better start. Keep reading:

…after watching the two candidates hit each other back and forth, I’m coming out in favor of Obama but with my nose squeezed tightly.

Thing is, when the race began, I was backing McCain. I wanted to see him win. Moreover, I wanted to see Hillary [Clinton] and Rudy [Giuliani] lose, lose, lose.

Like the Canadian blogger above, you won't find many non-Americans in the blogosphere indicating a favoritism toward the Republican candidate. But here's where Drima, if presented the opportunity, wouldn't vote for McCain:

I like McCain, and I don’t have the kind of hatred many on the left have towards him, but ultimately, I believe his choice for VP was terrible. It served him well but only in the short-term. Moreover, I’m tired of seeing the lack of pressure being exerted by Elephants on Sudan to implement the CPA and settle the Darfur conflict.

If you click the above link for “The Sudanese Thinker,” you can read more of Drima's thoughts about Obama and Darfur and how McCain lacks the ideological perspective.

Which brings us back to the United States and to Michael Lally, an Irish-American blogger who agrees Obama won the debate but my focus in this summary is on the third thought of a political diatribe where Lally portrays the different sides of the U.S. political scene.

He begins:

Liberals, by definition, are humanists. They believe in equal rights, solving problems with reason and compromise, intellectual curiosity and openness, etc.

Moderates, by definition, believe in a balance, a middle way, a repudiation of ideology in favor of practicality and, obviously, moderation.

Independents can have varied beliefs, but again, they do not succumb to the ideology of either major party, though they may adhere to another ideology (libertarianism e.g.), and have never had the power of controlling any branch of our government so have no history of schemes and tactics to maintain power.

True conservatives, of which there are few these days, believe in fiscal responsibility, smaller government, personal responsibility, and generally in ideals that have been better represented by Democrats in the past several decades than Republicans (e.g. the most fiscally responsible administration in most of our lifetimes was Clinton’s, the least fiscally responsible were Reagan’s and the present one).

Rightwing Republicans, so-called neo-conservatives, the ones who have been dominant in the Republican Party since Reagan, and on the rise since Nixon, and entrenched in the past eight years in all branches of government (it continues to be one of their big lies that the Congress is controlled by Democrats for the past two years, when they know that because of the almost even split in the Senate, the Democrats cannot override Republicans in Congress to get bills passed the Bush administration objects to, etc.) have demonstrated clearly they are only interested in power.

Lally continues on a rant about Roe v. Wade, former Presidents Jimmy Carter and John F. Kennedy, and brings the conversation back to Obama:

While the most thoughtful Republicans lately have been saying they intend to vote for Obama, or at least accept that an Obama victory might be for the best and they’ll regroup and come back in four years or in the mid term Congressional elections, the more strident rightwing Republicans have been making it clear an Obama victory will be a victory for terrorism, socialism, communism and gangsterism, all legitimate targets, in their minds, for vigilantism.

Let’s hope they’re too busy dealing with their own financial problems to actually do anything extreme. But I do not put it past them.

You've read a variety of ideas here. Can you see why I picked these out as my favorites of the day? Ultimately, blogging is about ideologies and these blog posts speak to the heart of the matter. Thoughts? Post a comment below!

Not always, not necessarily consistently, but in general, they are. They did last night. Obama more than McCain, but that’s partly because McCain’s proposals are less detailed in general, and he’s changed his positions on major issues a few times since the campaign began.

But anyone who has paid attention to the campaigns, or even just to the debates, or even just the debate last night should have come away with several specific differences in the candidates’ proposals for how they will handle tax policy, health care, the issue of abortion, and Supreme Court nominations, as well as energy policy, jobs creation, and the federal budget. Among other issues.

And in previous debates their foreign policy proposals, especially concerning the two wars the USA is fighting, but other foreign policy issues as well, were made clear and are distinctly different (they were briefly referred to last night as well).

This is a stark choice between two very different approaches to governing and to the policies the executive branch has any power over, even if just the power of persuasion.

2. Which leads me to the obvious superiority of Obama’s policy proposals, unless you are a major corporation or big business and are more interested in tax cuts than in sustaining your business’s viability and profitability.

Under a McCain presidency, it is clear there will be some minor changes from Junior’s administration, but not many. Under an Obama presidency, there will be major changes. So it is perfectly fair to portray McCain/Palin as representing more of the same (especially in the case of Palin whose handlers are all from the Bush/Cheney circle of advisors).

Obama has won every debate because his ideas are better for the country and the average citizen, and he has stated them more clearly and specifically. And because he has displayed the temperament, the intellect and the resolve we need in a president, now more than ever, while McCain has appeared temperamental, often intellectually at a loss, and more sarcastic than resolved.

3. Which leads me to renewed fears.

Liberals, by definition, are humanists. They believe in equal rights, solving problems with reason and compromise, intellectual curiosity and openness, etc.

Moderates, by definition, believe in a balance, a middle way, a repudiation of ideology in favor of practicality and, obviously, moderation.

Independents can have varied beliefs, but again, they do not succumb to the ideology of either major party, though they may adhere to another ideology (libertarianism e.g.), and have never had the power of controlling any branch of our government so have no history of schemes and tactics to maintain power.

True conservatives, of which there are few these days, believe in fiscal responsibility, smaller government, personal responsibility, and generally in ideals that have been better represented by Democrats in the past several decades than Republicans (e.g. the most fiscally responsible administration in most of our lifetimes was Clinton’s, the least fiscally responsible were Reagan’s and the present one).

Rightwing Republicans, so-called neo-conservatives, the ones who have been dominant in the Republican Party since Reagan, and on the rise since Nixon, and entrenched in the past eight years in all branches of government (it continues to be one of their big lies that the Congress is controlled by Democrats for the past two years, when they know that because of the almost even split in the Senate, the Democrats cannot override Republicans in Congress to get bills passed the Bush administration objects to, etc.) have demonstrated clearly they are only interested in power.

If it was the ideology they profess to believe in, then why didn’t they move to overturn Roe v. Wade in the first six years of this administration when they controlled the Supreme Court (witness the stealing of the 2000 election), the White House and the Congress. Especially after Roberts became the Chief Justice, a man who is anti-abortion.

They didn’t even attempt it, because they are not interested in that, they are interested only in getting and keeping power. Which is where the fear comes in for me.

When LBJ was faced with the possible loss of power, he chose not to run again. When JFK was faced with the rightwing faction of the federal government wanting to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro as well as escalate the war in Viet Nam, he was assassinated (no, I’m not defending conspiracy theories, I’m just stating the circumstances).

When Carter told the country the truth about our dependence on foreign oil and the measures needed to detach from that dependence, and for the first time brokered peace between Israel and one of its Arab state neighbors, and healed the rifts in this country caused by the Viet Nam war and by a corrupt administration (Nixon’s) bent on gaining and maintaining power by any means necessary (i.e. their “dirty tricks” team, Watergate, et. al.), the rightwing elements in the CIA in conjunction with the ones Carter had purged (the so-called “shadow” CIA and other rogue elements of the various intelligence agencies) sabotaged Carter’s policy initiatives through various secret and often illegal methods, while the rightwing propaganda machine ridiculed Carter’s seeming powerlessness in the face of these rogue elements (leading to the hostage crisis becoming a negative—despite the fact that the Carter administration managed to keep them alive etc.—and only being resolved when Reagan was inaugurated because of the eventually exposed secret deal these rogue elements made, Iran-Contra, etc.)

What I am saying is, just because it looks like Obama may indeed be elected president, rightwing Republicans will not just accept that reality. As we have seen in every election since 2000, despite the scientifically proven accuracy of exit polls as conducted up to that time, in cases, and only in cases where Republicans have lost in key districts, have those exit polls proved inaccurate because voting machines have failed or been suddenly faulty or polling places have delayed opening or not had enough machines etc. etc.

And when the rightwing “dirty tricks” fail to accomplish their goal of getting and keeping power, they will stoop to any means necessary, (e.g. attempted impeachment even after the most expensive government investigation in history turned up no crime on Clinton’s part, other than keeping an affair secret, the original investigation about Whitewater cleared the Clintons of any involvement in any crime involving that minor investment).

There will be many voting irregularities. The rightwing push against ACORN already shows their strategy, questioning the registration of voters only in those districts that seem liable to swing from Republican to Democratic.

The reality is that many more cases of voters being disenfranchised at the polls have been recorded in the past several elections than cases of “voter fraud” i.e. voters not being who they say they are. The disenfranchisement has always been, historically and more recently, cases of probable Democratic constituents being turned away and kept from voting or their votes not being counted, ala Florida 2000, Ohio 2004. Cases bought against “fraudulent” votes cast over the past decades add up to so few you can count them on two hands, while cases of disenfranchisement, the rightwing preference for keeping Democratic votes from being cast or counted, have numbered in the hundreds.

If Obama wins and the vote count is so overwhelming they cannot turn the election results around through voting irregularities or a close decision being decided by the Supreme Court again, etc. I do not put it past them to try some other means of maintaining power.

While the most thoughtful Republicans lately have been saying they intend to vote for Obama, or at least accept that an Obama victory might be for the best and they’ll regroup and come back in four years or in the mid term Congressional elections, the more strident rightwing Republicans have been making it clear an Obama victory will be a victory for terrorism, socialism, communism and gangsterism, all legitimate targets, in their minds, for vigilantism.

Let’s hope they’re too busy dealing with their own financial problems to actually do anything extreme. But I do not put it past them.

Criticism began to mount last week after federal authorities with search warrants raided ACORN's state office in Nevada under the assumption that it “submitted nearly 300 apparently fraudulent voter cards as part of its drive.” According to Nevada’s Secretary of State, some registration cards included names were of people who did not live in state, along with names of members of the Dallas Cowboy football team.

Members of the Republican National Committee argue the group’s aggressive tactics has created faulty registration in other parts of the country.

By its own admission, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN has attempted to help low-income, minority and young people register to vote across the country. This year, the group has staked a goal of registering 1.3 million people, which it hoped to meet by paying people to canvass neighborhoods searching for unregistered voters. Nevada authorities claim canvassers must meet a strict daily quota of 20 new registrations or face probation.

This is not the first time since ACORN has raised the ire of Republicans. In 2004, the RNC complained the group participated in voter fraud during the Presidential election. A former U.S. Attorney for New Mexico appointed by President Bush contends one of the reasons he was fired was after an investigation he argued that complaints of alleged voter fraud against ACORN during the 2004 election were “not criminally prosecutable.”

Republican Presidential nominee John McCain has joined the attacks, telling a rally in Wiconsin:

“You've seen the allegations, the multiple registrations under the same name, the more registered voters than the population. These are serious allegations, my friends, and they must be investigated, and they must be investigated immediately and they must be stopped before November the fourth.”

McCain’s campaign has pointed out that as a lawyer in 1995 Barack Obama represented ACORN in a federal suit to force the State of Illinois to make it easier to vote.

Even with the alleged fraud, it will be hard for the McCain camp to prove it, argues Alberto de la Cruz, in the Cuban Babalu blog:

With all of the outright fraud going on right now and more of it surely to come, one would think that it would all eventually catch up to Obama and derail his presidential bid. Under normal circumstances, that would be the case. But these are not normal circumstances, and the Obama campaign knows it. In fact, they are counting on it. Regardless of how many instances of voter fraud in favor of Obama are uncovered between here and Election Day, McCain and the Republicans will be powerless to do anything about it. If Obama wins the election, any denouncement of voter fraud by the McCain campaign or the Republicans will be condemned as racism; old, gun toting, Bible thumping, white males trying to steal the election from a black man. The media would gladly jump all over a story like that. Just as they have done up until now, they would quickly cover up the fraud and destroy those that dare challenge the election outcome.

Moxyfilms in Dublin twittered this point:

Obama's no fraud just because ACORN's business model has a flaw. There's no voter fraud until the voters vote. Full stop.

One can make the argument that two different kinds of voter fraud exist: As in this case, we could have corrupt voter registration, a type of chicanery that attempts to place more people than possible on the voting rolls; Secondly, and arguably much more serious, is tampering with the vote by getting people to cast more than one ballot by using fake names or by stuffing ballots boxes.

According to a commentator at Babalu named Cigar Mike Pancier, the best way to counter true voter fraud is:

…Volunteer as a poll watcher for the election.

I've done it for several elections now. Unless we have people in the polls, the risk of fraud at the polls will be greater.

From Dissecting Left an Australian blog whose tagline reads “American Liberals Don’t Love America. They despise it,” wonders whether ACORN could really tip the election to Obama.

Is it really possible that the presidency could be stolen for Obama by virtue of a massive voter fraud here in Pennsylvania? And elsewhere? ACORN seems to think so. One so-called “non-partisan” ACORN member, Gleason pointed out, has been captured on video tape saying the group's objective was to “beat McCain down.” Not exactly “non-partisan” sounding, is it?Newman, the retired Supreme Court Justice, was blunt on the evidence: “I don't want a president who does this.” ACORN clearly does. Makes you wonder: why?

I can’t wait until Senator Obama wins the election…

I must admit, that statement is a fair bit arrogant but I was feeling pretty good given that the current economic situation heavily favors Senator Obama. Today I spoke to my older brother who works within the London financial sector, he told me the scariest aspect of the next few months as far as the global economy is concerned is that we are heading into the realm of theoretical economics.

What this means is that no one knows what is going to happen next, not Bernanke or any other egghead employed by any company in the world. This lack of knowledge heavily favors Senator Obama despite him knowing about as much about the situation as anyone else. The problem is that Senator McCain knows he would lose an Obama/McCain economic fight therefore he is stirring up all this trouble with regards to Senator Obama and terrorism.

This strategy is disgusting if not despicable and I cannot wait until Senator McCain gets what he deserves. Therefore at this juncture, I will call the election as a slim victory for Senator Obama and Senator Biden.

It’s the shoes.

Apparently the announcement shoes are Naughty Monkey Double Dares. Sorry, boys, but they’ve sold out in red since the announcement! There’s some controversy about the debate models, but they might be by Payless.

Plus this tidbit from a recent New Yorker article:

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

This is not a post Crian would have started; it’s from a conservative point of view.   It’s about where conservatives are, and where they could be.

McCain’s pick of Palin has the potential to be transformational, IMHO.

The party faithful, especially women, were pretty much resigned to being in the wilderness for the next few years. We saw the party dragged down by folks like Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham, who valued power and money over fiscal responsibility and principle. Of course, the Democrats do it as well, routinely, but Republicans expect that. Our appeal is based on prudence and responsibility, and when that goes out the window, we’re screwed. We can’t compete with the Democrats on promising manna; they’re the professionals, and the voters know it.

Republicans tend to view the war as a serious enterprise, vital to the future of freedom and to public safety. We have a president who understands that, but his limited political capital led him to spend it on the war effort. He didn’t have the means to fight for fiscal responsibility.

McCain is a party contrarian. He’s stuck his thumb in the eyes of the faithful on many occasions, and that lowered his standing among them. But he’s also strongly opposed to the sort of soft, casual corruption that wrecked the GOP. He’s strong on fighting Islamofacism. That made him acceptable, barely. Conservatives would have preferred someone younger, and less contrarian, but most would hold their nose and pull the lever for McCain.

The choice of Palin changed that, and changed it in a big way. Here was a woman politician who was smart, tough, and family oriented. She has a record of fighting the in-dealing that has tainted the party brand. She’s inexperienced, but her record so far shows achivement and talent. She’s not a lawyerly wonk, and has the ability to talk directly to the public.

The energy and enthusiasm she has generated in the party is stunning. Women have always been the heart and soul of the GOP; they have always been the foot soldiers who made the calls, organized the schedule, knocked on doors and made things happen. The GOP has always relied on volunteers, and most of them were women.

Now those women have a candidate who thinks like they do. She talks like they do. She likes men, and likes it when they act like men. She’s proud of herself, her husband and her kids.

And when the left erupted in an orgy of vituperative attacks, conservative, middle-American women saw it for what it was. They’ve seen, and felt, the contempt that lefty elites have for them and what they value.

Palin has the potential to be the vanguard of the new conservative movement. It’s not based in evangelical Christianity, although it respects that. It values hard work, ethical choices and practical solutions. It’s anchored in the middle class, and middle America.

This movement makes the intellectual right uneasy. Conservatism is supposed to be about making the hard choices. There’s a whole canon of philosophy. Palin doesn’t come from that world. She’s not interested in debating Burkean ideas.

But she could hold her own in a debate with Buckley, and will wipe the floor with Joe Biden. She’s not a lawyer. Like most of us, she distrusts lawyers and lawyerly ways. She’d rather go fishing with her husband and kids.

She’s one of us. And she has the potential to inspire a lot more like her.