FNC - Peggy Noonan on Hannity & Colmes talking about massive fraud in the Battleground States

[TBBT]

Peggy says it's happening in all the key battleground states and it largely being perpetrated by the Democrats (negating Colmes argument that "well the republican are doing it to, and the Republicans are just trying to suppress the vote.)

She says that the 1996 election may be the last one where we go to be on election night and wake up the next morning knowing who the next president will be.

[underbyte]

The republicans did drop the 'ball". If the scale of this pans out what you have is the attempted overthrow of a duly elected goverment. Pretty desperate act on the democrat side

[Dog Gone]

If you take any disagreement with your position as rudeness, remind me to never disagree with you again. Heaven forbid, I don't want to be rude.

If I may so bold, can I please ask you where all the lawsuits promoting your position might be? Why, pretty please, isn't anyone joining your cause?

[NewLand]

[Vision]

By Article 2 Section 1 Clause 4: "The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

Early voting seems to violate this.

[Dog Gone]

The Electors are chosen after the election occurs. Nothing in the Constitution says how many days the state may hold open the election.

Please give it up. Your argument is not a winning argument. If it were, absentee ballots would be illegal.

[Edit35]

(It (early voting)makes no sense to me, keeps people aroused too long, and seems to only encourage fraud.

Absolutely correct.

How did we (the GOP) not see this coming??

I can understand trying to aleviate long lines at the polls, but two weeks is just asking for fraud.

Two days is the longest that should be allowed. Or maybe just increase voting day to 24 hours instead of 12.

I will bet my right arm that the Democrats are out there right now trying to game the system by whatever it takes.

And I am just sick to death over this, considering all the money and effort that I and others have put into keeping Kerry from getting anywhere near having the military and political reigns of this great country.

[Vision]

OK

[Iwo Jima]

Just what is "my cause"? Oh, you must mean the Constitution! Yes, that is my cause, and I don't know why more people aren't joining it. Why don't you enlighten me since you apparently are one who has not joined the Constitutional cause.

The Constitution is clear that there shall be one election date, the exact date to be set by Congress. Congress has set the date as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. (3 U.S.C. Sec. 5, IIRC.) No state can change this date, and if they try it is contrary to both the Constitution and the federal statute. (There is a safe harbor provision for resolving contests to election results within a certain amount of time before the electors meet, but that's another matter.)

Why are you making such a big deal about this? This is really not susceptible to reasonable dispute.

All that I am saying is what the Constitution says, and something which I see a great deal of wisdom in. You on the other hand seem to have some sort of agenda which the Constitutional requirement that we vote on the same day would defeat. Would you mind telling me what that is so that we can discuss what is really bugging you?

[razorback-bert]

The Constitution does not permit a state to secede once it is a part of the Union. However, it does not prevent it either. It could be argued either way. The Supreme Court added its opinion in Texas v White (74 US 700 [1869]). It said that the entry of Texas into the United States was its entry into "an indissoluble relation." It said that only through revolution or mutual consent of the state and the United States could a state leave the Union (it is interesting to note that Texas benefitted from the decision that it had unconstitutionally attempted to leave the Union).

[Edit35]

Please, why can't we start showing IDs to vote?

I believe we should insist on an encrypted voter ID card, something issued by each state for the sole purpose of voting.

Any other usage by law enforcement or whatever would be outlawed with severe penalties.

In order to vote, one would have to swipe the card at the voting precinct.

Unfortunately, this is the only way I can envision to stop the Democrats from having ghetto-party voting, or dead people votes, or any number of fraudulent means they are currently using to game the system.

[dougherty]

Al Bore started a dangerous precedent when he fought the election that he lost. Never again will we have a simple election.

Yep, I expect our presidential elections to resemble Haiti's more and more from now on. Thanks Al!

[Iwo Jima]

Dog Gone is just wrong about the date on which elections can be held. Whether absentee ballots violate this clear Constitutional requirement is an matter of opinion. I think that it does, but I doubt that there has been any case on this point.

Perhaps if we could get Dog to agree that there is only one election date, then we might have an interesting discussion about whether absentee or early voting can comply with that requirement. And whether early/absentee voting furthers liberty by allowing more people to vote or restricts liberty by making fraud so easy.

[Hildy]

I'm glad you said that...that woman can write, but on TV she comes off as an elitist snob and her physical idiosyncracies annoy the crap out of me!

[Danno]

I have been waiting for someone to say, flat out, that the democrats are overwhelmingly behind voter fraud and intimidation. Fox has pussy-footed around with it and they should be ashamed of that. Peggy was indiganant and gave no quarter aobut the issue (like Fox has done in numerous reports of AFLCIO thugery at Republican campaign offices - Fox has actually said that they both are guilty - their proof? - One lone report of a graffiti'd sign at a democrat campaign HQ in Cleveland)

[Iwo Jima]

The Electors are chosen after the election occurs.

You are incorrect. The electors are chosen on the election date -- that's what we are actually eleccting, not a president. Of course, there may be recounts, contests, etc., but the voting is over.

What I think has you confused is that after the election date, each state's slate of electors is certified by some state official (usually Secretary of State) and then those electors meet ALL ON THE SAME DATE AS SET BY CONGRESS to vote for president and vice-president.

Just a friendly correction. Hope it's taken as such.

[Edit35]

In presidential elections, the big city machines wait until the other votes are in from the rest of the state and then manufacture the votes they need to win.

In big cities, the voting process is controlled and handled entirely by the Democratic machine.

If Carl Rove and the GOP is not on the scene as we speak, scrutinizing each and every single voter registration, then the GOP not only will lose, it will deserve to lose. (not really)

But anyway, that is how the Democrats magically manufactured five percentage points in the last day during Election 2000. No one will ever convince me that that 30 year old stupid drunk driving thing is what swung the voters to Gore, even though GWB was up around 5 percent at the time.

I believe the same thing will occur this election, if the GOP does not get serious on cracking down on fraud.

[intolerancewillNOTbetolerated]

"May Al Gore bark in Hell for starting this precedent!"

Gore tied up the transition from getting started for 2 months. In the best of circumstances it is generally felt that it takes about a year for a new adminsitration to get settled in. Yet when Sept. 11 occurred the Democrats want people to blame President Bush that it happened "on his watch".

Typical distorted liberal reasoning that exonorates them from all blame in all matters.

[intolerancewillNOTbetolerated]

"Hate to say it, but I am starting to tune Hannity out. I just can't take the format much longer. The screaming and the willful obtuseness is getting to me. "

I get soooo tired of the liberal guests getting away with rudeness of a sort a child should be smacked for. They regularly talk over the Republican guest, often without saying anything other than the person's name or anything else in a fashion reminiscent of a little kid who puts his hands over his ears and yells "lalalalalalalalala I'm not listening to you".

What brat behavior they consistently demonstrate. And I agree...it does get tiresome to be "tolerant" of, to borrow one of the words the liberals have re-defined for themselves.

[intolerancewillNOTbetolerated]

"I do hope for an obvious blow out, but unfortunataly that may not happen, the dems have said that even if Bush wins decisivly, they will protest and sue."

Since the only definition of "fair" liberals accept regarding their expectations is for them to get their way completely, they will protest even if the President were to win all 50 states and D.C. I hope when they do challenge the results the Republcans are not as nice as in the past and make every bit of their fraud public.

[backhoe]

Click the picture & goto "last" for the latest on Vote Fraud: