Ten Liberals To Watch In 2005 (BEWARE...)

Human Events ^ | February 11, 2005

[AmishDude]

I don't know much about Allen except that there is a good contingent of freepers who like him. As a Republican, I want to see it be Allen, because I don't want to lose the PA senate seat, but the primary season is a long time, and Allen will have to sell himself from scratch. Hillary, for example, will not. She's a known quantity.

[Bernard]

Tina Fey is on this list for the same reason Al Franken is considered a prominent liberal spokesman - both were/are writers for SNL who aren't funny when they perform their own material. But as long as there is money to be made and egos to be stroked, this will continue.

[srm913]

I'm guessing this list was compiled to offer a glimpse of lesser-known threats with a lower profile. Maybe that's why Michael Moore was also excluded.

[MattinNJ]

Please. Voter fraud makes a difference, but not that much. Santorum won comfortably when Gore won the state in 2000.

Bush lost Pa. because of voter fraud. Instead of making snide remarks to me why don't you do your homework and look at the 100% turnout in Philly and other urban areas.

Unless those of us on the right crack down on voter fraud we will continue to lose close elections-or is what happened in the Washington Governor's race also to be brushed asided by people like you.

[AmishDude]

There was voter fraud in PA. It may or may not have made the difference for Bush. It made the difference in Wisconsin, but very unlikely in Pennsylvania. It certainly made the difference in Washington's Governor's race. Do not overestimate the effect of fraud. Also, the way these things are counted, it is possible to have more votes than voters in one particular precinct if, say, a housing project opened since the census. The problem with Pennsylvania is the extreme sloppiness of the registration and voting process.