It won't be enough because ACORN and the like are flooding election supervisors with BS Dem registrations?

I'd like to know what that strategy is and why it hasn't been documented in previous elections with indictments. There was an article here in my local paper where ACORN (heh..ha...hahahah) was claiming that Hispanic or Asian voters without valid IDs could be disenfranchised if their provisional ballot had the name spelled wrong.

I mean, c'mon Mike, this is all total BS. Voters should have to prove who they are, right? How else do you get rid of voter fraud? Proof of ID should be a responsibility of a voter for God's sake. Personally, I summarily reject any arguments against proof of ID because AFAIAC they are all very suspicious rationales.

The audacity!

>I think there are two separate issues. I agree with you that the Democrats are recruiting voters who would be unlikely to vote otherwise, and that it isn't necessarily an expression of the will of the people. (Stop the presses! -- I criticized the Democrats). But I think voter suppression is a very real issue, and we know which party is doing that. The Republicans have very specific, very targeted strategies for minimizing turnout in some areas. Fortunately, it isn't going to be enough to save them this time (evil cackle).
>
>>>An editorial about Acorn:
>>>
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17fri1.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=acorn&st=cse&oref=slogin
>>
>>"The answer is for government to do a better job of registering people to vote."
>>
>>Or a more Hamiltonian arguement could be made that those who have an opinion about how the nation should be governed that they would like to express with a vote should not be impeded in their effort to register - the operative concept here being "effort to register" This "reaching out" is not an effort at empowerment, it is an effort to recruit pre-selected sympathetic voters.
>>
>>I understand the idea of making registration as accessible as possible, but "recruiting" voters with workers who are filling quotas is political action more geared to Democratic goals than democratic goals.
>>
>>Don't blame them for that - just the hypocrisy of claiming those who cry foul are seeking "voter supression".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>Tracy,
>>>>
>>>>Nothing occurs in a vacuum, especially during the presidential race. You can bet the EC is connected to the Obama camp and this is just more dirty tricks. It's right up there with those nutty ACORNs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>The location I voted at is on CNN right now for a McCain Rally (spurred by the Republican party I understand) incident...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What vote is that ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>and what incident.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nick
>>>>>
>>>>>Presidential Election. We have early voting. There was a rally at the voting place today by McCain supporters. I wouldn't have known if I hadn't had CNN on in the background while I'm working. The republic party was protesting the cumberland county board of elections because we had voting on a Sunday for the first time ever this time and it was not publicized. The only place they publicized the Sunday voting was on stage at Obama's speech so no one except those who attended or watched the speech online knew about Sunday voting. I looked online for voting places for early voting (and instructions) and saw the schedule. They added the sunday (only one sunday and it was last sunday) on the Monday following. Interesting. Trying to cover their butts obviously. I think it wasn't done specifically for Dems but rather to keep the turnout lower than it would be otherwise. Lazy folks. They could state they had Sunday voting and there was a low turnout so no reason to ever have it again. (Just my opinion) Problem was that it was busy because it was announced on stage right before Obama's speech here.