November 2-3, 2009
Nov 02 05:59 Brett's Triumphant Return (And Percy Harvin's Exciting Returns) Nov 02 11:45 Kaiser Asks The Right Questions Nov 03 10:46 It's Election Day...Do You Know Where Your cop Killers Are? Nov 03 02:23 Ritchie's Whiney Fundraising Letter Nov 03 14:56 Voter Fraud Video
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Brett's Triumphant Return (And Percy Harvin's Exciting Returns)
Thanks to Brett Favre's spectacular play, No. 4's return to legendary Lambeau Field was a triumphant return. Rookie Percy Harvin's kickoff returns and his 51 yard catch & run TD played a big part in helping his legendary teammate win an important NFC North game against the hated Packers.
Simply put, the Vikings just had too many weapons for the Packers to defend against.
With the day's focus clearly on Mr. Favre, the speculation was about whether he'd be too emotional. Favre dispatched with that speculation on the Vikings' third drive, leading them down the field before letting superstar runningback Adrian Peterson vault over the line of scrimmage and into the end zone for the game's first touchdown.
That drive effectively answered the Pack's field goal. It was set up by Mr. Harvin's 77-yard kickoff return. By the day's end, Harvin accounted for 261 yards in total offense, with 2 yards rushing, 84 yards receiving and 175 yards in kickoff returns.
After a Packers 3-and-out, Favre took the Vikings offense down the field again. When Favre capped this drive off with a lasershot to TE Visanthe Shiancoe for a 12-yard TD reception, thoughts must've been running through Vikings fans' heads over whether this would turn into a blowout.
To their credit, Green Bay didn't quit, even after Favre hooked up with rookie Harvin on an improbable 51-yard catch in triple coverage that included Charles Woodson. After making a great catch, Harvin gathered himself, made a great move before prancing into the end zone.
Trailing 24-3 at that point, the Packers scored the next 17 points to trim the lead to 24-20. Favre again asserted himself, directing the Vikings down the field, culminating with a 2-yard TD pass to H-back Jeff Dugan.
After Green Bay scored again to make it 31-26, Green Bay coach Mike McCarthy went for a 2 point conversion. The 2-point attempt failed when Vikings All Pro DT Kevin Williams deflected the ball with his bicep.
It didn't take long for Favre to throw his 4th TD pass of the day, hitting Bernard Berrian with a 16-yard laser to complete the scoring.
The Vikings defense played outstanding football in the first half, holding Green Bay's offense to a mere 47 yards.
The victory gives the Vikings a 3 game lead over the Packers thanks to their sweeping the season series with them. The Packers and Bears are tied with 4-3 records. Meanwhile, the Vikings have a bye before opening the second half of the season with home games against Detroit, Seattle and Da Bears. It's understatement to say that the Vikings are in a commanding position to win this division.
That's due in large part to Favre's inspirational play against his former team and to Percy Harvin's electrifying performance. (It's telling that Adrian Peterson's 'quiet' 97 yard rushing performance barely gets a mention.)
Posted Monday, November 2, 2009 5:59 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 02-Nov-09 06:59 AM
It is too bad the defense permitted scoring at the end of the third and into the fourth periods. In an ideal world Jackson would have gotten more game experience and a chance to put up points to show he is ready to step in at any moment.
Three games so far against quality teams, San Francisco, Baltimore and Pittsburgh. They played largely even with each, winning two of the three games but playing again, who's to say.
Bottom line, expect Pittsburgh to repeat a super bowl appearance until something suggests otherwise. Yes there are the Colts, but wait and see. And the Patriots.
I see Colts or Steelers - Against what team.
Vikings, New Orleans, Atlanta and Philadelphia all have an NFC shot, along with others.
And Drew Brees has in his career owned Minnesota teams in face to face play, but that was Purdue mainly owning the Mason - Gophers.
The Vikings defense has had trouble with good quarterbacks. Atlanta and New Orleans offer challenge at that position and McNabb still has it going similar to but younger than Favre.
If Childress gets the team beyond the first round playoff hurdle, anything is possible.
What if Favre gets hurt? Peterson? Harvin. Peterson, for all his talent has the most proven back-up. There are other wide-outs and slot options if Harvin is hurt and on kickoff returns that's true.
Jackson has potential and may learn from Favre how to read what defenses give and how to get the ball out quickly but safely. If he does, his mobility will be similar to Rogers being flushed from the pocket but able to gain yardage.
Long term, Jackson needs game experience without pressure, meaning the defense needs to hold opponent scores down.
If Favre can sit more late in games, and late in the schedule as is looking likely, things could turn out very favorably.
Kaiser Asks The Right Questions
The Bemidji Pioneer's Kent Kaiser asks all the right questions about photo ID and voter fraud in this article in Sunday's edition . Frankly, the DFL's argument that fraud hasn't been found is a flimsy argument. That shouldn't be the threshold that has to be met before photo ID's become Minnesota law.
Instituting a photo ID requirement for accessing a ballot in Minnesota is an obviously needed election reform. In poll after poll, the overwhelming majority of people support this measure, including 78 percent of people polled by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in 2006 and 75 percent of people polled at the Minnesota State Fair by the state Legislature in 2001.Why won't the DFL insist on people who vote meet the state's voting requirements? This isn't a theoretical question. Why did the legislature write vouching into law? The DFL's defense that vouches can be contested is irrelevant. It shouldn't be law in the first place. What happens when there isn't someone at a polling place to question a person's residence?
Furthermore, support for this measure is bipartisan: In the Pew poll, 71 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of Independents, and 86 percent of Republicans supported this measure.
I believe election fraud is probably rare in Minnesota. Yet my belief is not enough. Whether fraud is rare or commonplace in our state is, in fact, unknowable. It is highly suspicious that liberals resist injecting this modest measure of integrity into our election system. It is especially suspicious that they are reluctant to alter our state's system of allowing people to register by showing up at the polls with no proof of identity or residence at all and using only another person to vouch for them.
Most Minnesotans are unaware that the vouching system does not even require that the people doing the vouching actually know the identity of the persons for whom they are vouching; the system requires the people doing the vouching to attest only to the registrant's residence in the precinct.
Mandating a photo ID passes constitutional muster and it makes perfect sense, especially considering the illegal immigrant population. Isn't it possible that someone could vouch for an illegal immigrant? If that's possible, why don't we slam that door shut tight?
I'd further argue that there's ample justification for adding another identifier to the Minnesota drivers license, namely a field where a legal immigrant who is in the United States legally but isn't a resident would be required to identify themselves as not being a legal citizen of the United States.
This point by Mr. Kaiser is impeccable in its logic:
Ballot access should have the same degree of integrity and accuracy that ballot counting does. A simple count is not enough to prove that integrity and accuracy exist in the ballot counting system, so we have a recount procedure to prove it. Similarly, there should be safeguards in the system to prove that there is integrity and accuracy in our ballot access procedures. Indeed, the accuracy and integrity of the count and recount procedures are valid only if the first step in the process, distributing ballots, has accuracy and integrity, as well.This isn't rocket science. It's common sense, which apparently is in short supply in the DFL legislative caucus. Until the process includes the appropriate safeguards at each step of the registration/voting process, we won't have election integrity.
There's an old fishing maxim that says the strength of your fishing line is only as strong as its weakest link. In other words, if your fishing reel is filled with 8 lb. test but there's a nick in the line that will snap with 2 lbs. of pressure, then you're fishing with 2 lb. test line.
That maxim is applicable to our voting system in the sense that our electoral system's integrity is only as strong as its weakest point.
If any part of the process is flawed, then it's highly possible that that flaw can corrupt the entire process, no matter how tight the rest of the system is.
I'd be remiss if I didn't highlight this point from Kaiser's op-ed:
Election technology now exists, and is being used in other states, that allows for swift and accurate election registration, Election Day check-in, and post-election administration. Such technology relies on interface with driver's license or state-issued photo ID. (Some of this technology is even made by Minnesota-based companies; see, for example, http://www.datacard.com/). It is similar to technology that Minnesotans are accustomed to seeing when they go to purchase fishing and hunting licenses. Just as card readers have eliminated the need for bait shop clerks to write out paper fishing licenses, a card reader installed at a polling place could be employed in voter registration and check-in on Election Day.There's just alot to gain from implementing a photo ID provision into Minnesota election law. Because we'd improve the integrity of the voting system while streamlining the voting process, there isn't a serious argument for why this isn't implemented during the early weeks of the upcoming legislative session.
A quick swipe of a photo ID through a card reader could fill in the data fields in the state's voter registration system, thereby eliminating common data-entry mistakes that take place with the current pen-and-paper registration system. A quick swipe of such ID at the sign-in table in the polling place on Election Day would eliminate the need to line up by parts of the alphabet, would conserve thousands of pounds of paper currently used to print voter rosters in every election, and would greatly speed up the lines in the polling places.
There are ideological and political reasons for not implementing photo ID requirements. Still, those are the weakest, least defensible positions to hold. What's worst for the DFL legislature is that photo ID attracts dominant multipartisan support, with 71 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of Independents, and 86 percent of Republicans supporting photo ID legislation.
If the DFL wants to stand in opposition to legislation that receives multipartisan support, that streamlines Election Day voting and that restores integrity to the voting process, that's their choice. It just wouldn't be a wise choice.
Posted Monday, November 2, 2009 11:46 AM
Comment 1 by apathyboy at 02-Nov-09 02:09 PM
"Frankly, the DFL's argument that fraud hasn't been found is a flimsy argument."
You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Furthermore your only argument that voter fraud may have taken place is that there was a loophole that may have allowed fraud to happen.
Establishing means and motive is pointless if there hasn't been a crime.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 03-Nov-09 07:24 AM
AB, We've found proof that blatant mistakes were made in counting absentee ballots. It's difficult to see how these were innocent mistakes. Minnesota election law is exceptionally clearly written.
I know that you & other liberals will argue that it isn't fraud. Whatever. Minnesota's voters won't be picky. They just want the law followed & their votes counted properly.
That loophole you refer to isn't a loophole. It's called the law & it's clearly written.
Comment 3 by Stacey Peacock at 04-Nov-09 12:43 PM
Mr. Kaiser does not address the obvious and most important issue - that requiring a photo I.D. will disenfranchise many voters. Specifically, those who lack mobility due to physical or economic reasons. In fact I believe that economic discrimination is the motive of those favoring a photo I.D. Mr. Kaiser also fails to mention that every time a Minnesota resident votes or registers to vote they sign an oath that states that they will suffer a $10,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison if they are not qualified voters and the oath lists clearly all of Minnesota's qualification requirements.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Nov-09 02:09 PM
Stacey, There's a reason why Mr. Kaiser didn't "address the obvious and most important issue - that requiring a photo I.D. will disenfranchise many voters." It's because it wouldn't "disenfranchise many voters." The Supreme Court ruled that it wasn't a form of economic discrimination. If photo ID's were economic discrimination, they'd rule it unconstitutional because that would be considered a poll tax, something that's been unconstitutional for half a century.
Georgia's photo ID law is what Minnesota's photo ID law was mirror. Georgia's law mandates that people who don't have a drivers license & who can't afford a photo ID get their photo ID free of charge. In fact, Georgia's law takes it a step further. Their law mandates that people who can't make it to the county office to get their photo ID will have county workers come to them to take their picture, process the card, then have their photo ID mailed to them.
Let's review: People who can't afford a photo ID & who can't reach the county offices would (a) get their card for free & (b) have county workers come to them to get their card.
Stacey, perhaps I'm ignorant but could you tell me exactly where does this alleged economic discriminiation happen???
It's Election Day...Do You Know Where Your cop Killers Are?
It's Election Day across the nation. Increased traffic is a certainty while people make their decisions. Lost in all this activity is the answer to this important question: Do you know where your local street thugs are today? If you're living in Camden, NJ, the CPD has your answer: it's possible that they're part of the Democrats' GOTV operation :
How would you like to be a New Jersey police officer and look out your window and see several known criminals, including a man you arrested several weeks ago and another who had just been released from prison for shooting a cop? And then find out that the men were sent into the neighborhood by the Democratic Party for GOTV operations, complete with lists of voters names, addresses and phones numbers!I'm betting that John Q. Public wouldn't be pleased to hearing that the Democrats are giving people's personal information to convicted cop killers. In fact, I'd bet the proverbial ranch on that.
That is what happened Sunday on a quiet street in Morris Township. The officer, who's name we are with holding, specifically heard the men discussing that he was a police officer and that they now know where he lives. The officer confronted the men and they took off. He contacted the local police who responded and caught up with them and about a dozen other men a few blocks away. According to the police report, the men were known criminals and when asked why they were in the neighborhood they stated they were"campaigning for the Democratic Party."
My prediction is that NJ tips into the GOP pickup column if they can keep voter fraud relatively low and if independents keep flocking to Chris Christie. If NJ's voters keep reporting incidents to ElectionJournal.org , they'll get the word out to law enforcement ASAP.
It's obvious that the Democrats won't hesitate in winning by using whatever tool is available. It's our job to prevent that from happening. As Glenn Beck says, it's time to "stand up and fight" against corruption. Unfortunately, it's most important that we fight corruption on election day. The first sure sign that a political party has sold its soul to the devil is when they unhesitatingly sell their soul to the devil in its thirst for power.
Posted Tuesday, November 3, 2009 10:54 AM
No comments.
Ritchie's Whiney Fundraising Letter
Last night, a loyal reader of this blog forwarded a Mark Ritchie fundraising email in which Ritchie whines about how unfairly conservatives are treating him. Here's a copy of Ritchie's email:
With all due respect to DFL SecState Ritchie, the acclaim he's talking about regarding the recount process is rather one-sided and related mostly to the counting of ballots cast on Election Day. That acclaim certainly didn't extend to counting absentee ballots.Dear Friend,
Over the last 3 years, I have worked hard to keep partisan politics out of the Office of the Secretary of State, the way so many of my predecessors have done.
The 2008 recount, the largest in our nation's history, has been acclaimed across the state and the nation as a model of how to handle a very close and very emotional election in a fair and transparent manner.
Unfortunately not everyone likes this non-partisan approach. Starting last July the Minnesota GOP has been attacking me in radio ads, press conferences and through affiliated organizations. Last week they launched a new round of negative attacks, hoping to convince Minnesotans that the recount process was somehow flawed-despite the unanimous decision of 12 Supreme Court Justices and district court judges.While I have learned to ignore personal attacks, it is important to get the facts out to the public. To do this I need your help.
Will you support my campaign to keep partisan politics out of the administration of Minnesota's elections by making a $100, $50, or $25 donation?
I thank you for your continued support of elections that are fair, efficient, and free of fraud or manipulation.
Sincerely,
I wrote here about KSTP's investigation into multiple irregularities in accepting or rejecting absentee ballots that shouldn't have gotten counted. When KSTP's reporter showed DFL SecState Ritchie ballots that didn't have any signatures on them, DFLer Ritchie said that if he was going to show him physical ballots, the reporter should've told him to bring his glasses.
If Mr. Ritchie needs glasses to detect that these ballots weren't signed, then he's ill-prepared for fulfilling his responsibilities as Minnesota's chief election officer.
The thing that Mr. Ritchie isn't telling people is the incompetence displayed in posting the various school bonding and levy votes in 2007. The SecState's website didn't accurately reflect the vote totals in a number of school districts until a week after the election, long after local newspapers wrote articles about whether bonding or levy issues had passed or failed.
Now DFLer Ritchie is suggesting that we're supposed to forget about the incompetence his staff showed in posting the school district elections AND the mishandling of counting absentee ballots in the Coleman-Franken recount. NO THANKS.
DFL SecState Ritchie says that he's kept partisan politics out of the SecState's office. How does he explain his partisan attack on blogger Michael Brodkorb during an interview with Air America? Here's a portion of what Ritchie said in his interview:
"some employee of the Republican Party, Michael Brodkorb, in particular, um,you know are constantly, almost on a daily basis, um, you know, looking for things to attack any Democrat on the street about." Source: Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, Minnesota Matters, Air America, February 26, 2007I'd be willing to cut Ritchie some slack if he knew what he was talking about. At the time, Michael wasn't an employee of the Republican Party, though he certainly had numerous connections to people inside the Republican Party. (For the record, those of us who know him would be a little surprised if Michael doesn't know everyone on Minnesota's political landscape but that's another post for another day.) It's certainly accurate to say that Michael highlighted things where Ritchie made mistakes or didn't live up to his constitutional responsibilities.
If Ritchie is whining about getting criticized for mistakes he's made, then there's a simple solution: he should stop making mistakes that give ammunition to his opponents.
I'd further suggest that the District Court judges didn't do their jobs if they overlooked absentee ballots that weren't filled out properly. There's no reason for those absentee ballots to get counted. PERIOD!!! END OF SENTENCE!!! The judges that failed to rule those ballots out failed Minnesota voters. For Ritchie to suggest that everything is right because some judges failed Minnesota voters is testament to how desperately he needs their political cover.
The only benchmark that matters is whether all of the absentee ballots were correctly accepted or rejected and whether the accepted ballots were counted accurately. In his attempt to obfuscate, Ritchie tries distracting us from that central thing upon which he should be judged.
That might work with the Fringe Media who are easily distracted by 'shiny object' arguments but it doesn't work with bloggers who are paying attention. The benchmark on which Ritchie will be graded is whether his election judges followed clearly written Minnesota election laws in accepting or rejecting absentee ballots in the Coleman-Franken recount and the other recounts.
If Mr. Ritchie failed to ensure that, then he's a failure who needs to be 'fired' from his job. No amount of whining on Mr. Ritchie's behalf will change that.
Posted Tuesday, November 3, 2009 2:23 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 03-Nov-09 07:08 AM
He can probably explain being critical of Brodkorb for the reasons you a day or two ago blogged - Brodkorb was making unreasonable attacks and suggestions. Ritchie was responding.
Your suggestion is the First Amendment forestalls that, if is forestalled by something else, requiring a sagacious demeanor?
For officials? They are constrained to stay in state to do their job and not go wandering for no good purpose to upstate New York for mischief?
That's your idea, Gary?
There are parts of that I could possibly agree with.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 03-Nov-09 07:11 AM
Brodkorb is no longer blogging.
Your characterizing him as anything other than GOP head honcho number two is in error.
Or do you know something we do not?
That Brodkorb really has not turned over the reins to others?
Educate us on the details, please, of current activity of the guy you call "blogger Michael Brodkorb."
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 03-Nov-09 07:54 AM
Michael hasn't made unreasonable attacks or suggestions, though he's highlighted irregularities that Ritchie is ultimately responsible for.
Your characterizing him as anything other than GOP head honcho number two is in error. Or do you know something we do not?I've known Michael for years. People calling him an employee of the state party didn't know what they were talking about. He worked for the state Senate GOP during the last redistricting in 1991 & one other time prior to his getting elected but that's it. He's just been an effective advocate of Republican causes.
Voter Fraud Video
It's pretty obvious that the Democrats/ACORN are pulling out all the stops in their drive to re-elect Gov. Corzine. This isn't the first information that ElectionJournal.com has gotten on voters showing up at their precincts to vote, only to have the election judges tell them that they've already cast absentee ballots. Here's EJ's post :
Throughout the morning, EJ has received tips regarding voters who have shown up to the polls today, to find that someone has already cast their ballot through the absentee process.The law in Minnesota should be the national benchmark. No, I'm not suggesting that a federal law be passed making it the law of the land. Rather, I'm suggesting that each state read Minnesota's laws, then each state pass legislation mirroring Minnesota's election laws.
Meet Mark Allen, a voter from Atlantic, who showed up at the poll this morning to cast a ballot, only to find out someone already has requested and sent in an absentee ballot in his name.
As reported earlier , Democrats have requested the Secretary of State "to instruct County Clerks not to deny (vote by mail) applications on the basis of signature comparison alone."
If Democrats have their wishes granted, there may be actual disenfranchisement; those provisional ballots cast by the real voters will be discarded in favor of forged absentee ballots.
In Minnesota, absentee ballots aren't counted until after the polls close on Election Day. The absentee ballots are cross-checked against whether the voter voted on Election Day. If a person votes on Election Day and has filled out an absentee ballot, the Election Day vote is the vote that's counted.
If Mr. Allen's testimony is allowed and the judge finds his testimony credible, the Democrats' attorneys will have some explaining to do:
Citing concerns people would be disenfranchised, Democratic Party lawyer Paul Josephson wrote New Jersey's secretary of state asking her "to instruct County Clerks not to deny (vote by mail) applications on the basis of signature comparison alone." He wrote that county clerks "may be overworked and are likely not trained in handwriting analysis," in asking that voters with suspect applications be given provisional ballots.I suspect that Mr. Josephson's application might get rejected if the judge takes judicial note of Mr. Allen's testimony. To do otherwise would mean that the judge is knowingly ruling in favor of voter fraud.
Posted Tuesday, November 3, 2009 2:59 PM
No comments.
