For Dems only.

[southsider2k5]

Robocalling you say?

 

Candidates, stop hiding behind push-poll curtain

 

Dennis Byrne, a Chicago-area writer and consultant

Published November 6, 2006

 

Happily, Election Day will end not just those maddening campaign commercials but also a more intrusive annoyance: the push poll.

 

It starts out as a typical poll. "Would you care to answer a few questions about the elections," the voice on your phone asks. "Whom do you plan to vote for?"

 

Then it gets weird. As in: "Candidate A beats his wife; does that make you think of him more or less favorably?" Or as my daughter Kati heard when she was called: "Does the fact that Congressman Mark Kirk accepts special-interest money make you think of him more favorably or less favorably?"

 

So, if you are a supporter of Kirk--the Republican from the north suburban 10th Congressional District who is seeking re-election against Democrat Dan Seals--how are you supposed to answer? Oh, sure, I want my congressman to take special-interest money, so it makes me think more favorably of him.

 

Which is exactly how Kati, being Kati, answered. Then came four more questions of the same nature, each trying to make Kirk look like he was doing something wrong. And each time, Kati answered that she thinks more favorably of him. She even had the interviewer chuckling. But actually, it wasn't so funny.

 

"It's like Mark Kirk went out and shot 100 people," she said. "What kind of poll is this anyway?"

 

The answer is: dirty, low-down and negative.

 

Kati later told me the caller ID number was 509-765-4321, which turned out to be "disconnected." But she did get the company's name, Communications Center Inc. in Spokane, Wash., which had a real number and a real person answering. She was Judy Goodrich, director of operations, who explained that they don't make up the questions, they just make the calls. She said she could only identify the client if the person agreed, which the person apparently didn't because Goodrich didn't call me back as I asked.

 

Considering the nastiness of the questions, slinking around is to be expected. I couldn't find anyone who filed a report indicating that the push poll about Kirk was a campaign expense, which probably means that no one is fessing up. The Mellman Group, a well-known Democratic polling firm representing such political clients as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, recently completed a poll showing Kirk's "favorability and job performance rating have [sic] deteriorated significantly," but that was taken before Kati's phone call. Besides, who would be stupid enough to actually use those fabricated push-poll "results," especially since push polls are condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants.

 

Still, it would be nice if the origins of these scummy attacks were as "transparent" as, say, sponsors of those repulsive televised campaign ads. Take Communications Center, which often is mentioned by visitors to the whocalled.us Web site, which accepts complaints about perceived violations of the National Do Not Call Registry. One from Illinois described how "the questions turned to negative statements about a Republican senator in our state up for re-election. After the third negative statement ... I finally asked why the questions seemed more like Democratic talking points and the caller confirmed that the Democrats had sanctioned the survey. I then hung up as this was just a cheap ploy to get their agenda out."

 

(Here, I'll stipulate that both parties probably use such polls.)

 

Said another: "I received a call from this [number] asking for my 92-year-old mother by first name only. They would not say who they were! ... I tried the number back also and got the same message that it had been disconnected." Some reported receiving calls at 2 a.m., or "up to 20 a day." Almost all said they were on the "do-not-call" list prohibiting solicitations by telemarketers.

 

Goodrich said Communications Center is acting legally because "market research" is exempt from the list. She referred me to donotcall.gov, which backed her up. The Web site also explains that calls "on behalf of political organizations" are permitted.

 

As always, politicians have themselves covered. The laws don't apply equally to them, or to their friends in the survey business. Ask the politicians why, and they'll say political speech can't be constitutionally prohibited, even when it's an intrusive call into your home.

 

Blah, blah. At least they should have the courage to require that when they commission a push poll, they must crawl out from under their rocks so we can see their disgusting selves in the full light of day.

 

----------

 

Comment: http://dennisbyrne.blogspot.com

[Texsox]

As always, politicians have themselves covered. The laws don't apply equally to them, or to their friends in the survey business. Ask the politicians why, and they'll say political speech can't be constitutionally prohibited, even when it's an intrusive call into your home.

 

BTW, Bush probably owes his Presidency to a Push Poll that wiped out McCain.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think that political solicitations are exempt from that list.

 

Yep, you are correct on that. An NPR story this morning confirmed it.

 

BTW, Bush probably owes his Presidency to a Push Poll that wiped out McCain.

 

I lay the blame squarely at the imaginary feet of his imaginary illigitimate black daughter.

[Balta1701]

Wow. So there's in your eyes no difference between push-polling, which is being actively done by both sides, and a legitimate effort at voter harassment?

 

I can't say I'm a fan of the push-polling, but i'm amazed you're actually trying to draw that parallel...especially given that you're voting for people who are doing exactly the same sort of push-polling. The best pro-Repub one I've heard about is the one they're run in something like 5 states asking "do you believe in medical experimentation on unborn babies?"

 

The thing I'm complaining about here though is a fundamentally different beast from push-polling, and I think it's remarkable you'd try to defend it with that excuse.

[southsider2k5]

Wow. So there's in your eyes no difference between push-polling, which is being actively done by both sides, and a legitimate effort at voter harassment?

 

I can't say I'm a fan of the push-polling, but i'm amazed you're actually trying to draw that parallel...especially given that you're voting for people who are doing exactly the same sort of push-polling. The best pro-Repub one I've heard about is the one they're run in something like 5 states asking "do you believe in medical experimentation on unborn babies?"

 

The thing I'm complaining about here though is a fundamentally different beast from push-polling, and I think it's remarkable you'd try to defend it with that excuse.

 

Did you read the whole thing? Almost all of the same issues you brought up, showed up in that same article.

[Balta1701]

Worth-your-time article in Salon actually looking at the people who are being disenfranchised by Arizona's voter-ID law. Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands...native americans, virtually all students (do you get a new drivers license every time you switch dorm rooms? If not, the address is incorrect and it can't be used)

[FlaSoxxJim]

Did you read the whole thing? Almost all of the same issues you brought up, showed up in that same article.

 

That's not true. The key issue with the robocalls is that the callers don't say they are conducting an independent survey. They falsely claim they are calling on behalf of a candidate and then they make a point of being a jerk, and then to call back over and over to try to pizz the call receivver off so much as to not vote for the candidate they are pretending to represent.

[AbeFroman]

I'm nervous about the results tonight. Most of the prognosticators are predicting that we take the house, but come up short in the senate.

 

I think thats still a pretty huge victory in light of everything. One thing's for sure though, no matter what happens, both parties will be declaring it a victory for their side tomorrow.

[southsider2k5]

That's not true. The key issue with the robocalls is that the callers don't say they are conducting an independent survey. They falsely claim they are calling on behalf of a candidate and then they make a point of being a jerk, and then to call back over and over to try to pizz the call receivver off so much as to not vote for the candidate they are pretending to represent.

 

So this group called from a number that showed up as disconnected, and when they somehow got the name of the company involved in this, they refused to allow the information to be released.

 

This article also sites getting upto 20 calls a day of the same variety, including calls at 2 am.

[FlaSoxxJim]

In Nebraska the robocallers are actually using Dem candidate Kleeb's voice. His campaign has nothing to do with the annoying calls, but they are the ones getting the voter backlash.

 

Now the Republicans are actually using Democrat Scott Kleeb's voice and calling people several times an hour in order to harass" them, and tick them off against Kleeb. This has been happening across the country simultaneously. It's been happening in states where the Republican party hired a specific company that makes these kind of calls. This is a coordinated nationwide effort by the Republican party to suppress voting through fraud.

 

.....

 

From Nebraska's "The Independent":

 

Just because it's Scott Kleeb's prerecorded voice on the other line, doesn't mean his campaign is behind the phone call, according to his communications director.

 

Prerecorded telephone messages supposedly from Kleeb, a Third Congressional District candidate, have been repeatedly calling people in Central Nebraska, and Ben Lumpkin, Kleeb's communications director, is concerned about the effects.

 

The messages, known as robocalls, are designed to inform voters about certain candidates. However, Lumpkin said he has received numerous complaints about the prerecorded messages calling repeatedly -- as many as six times an hour....

 

"We've had a couple of people who said they were tired of the harassing phone calls and wanted us to stop calling," she said. Some of them said they weren't going to vote for Kleeb, or at all, as a result, she said. "It's creating a bad environment for our volunteers," she said. "The point is to depress voter turnout."

 

Quirk said Kleeb's campaign isn't behind the repeated calls and she worries about the robocalls' impact. "They'll probably find out who's doing this, but it won't be today or tomorrow, and by then it will be too late," she said Monday....

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think that political solicitations are exempt from that list.

 

Here's an update on that, at least as far as the NH case:

(AP) The National Republican Congressional Committee agreed to stop placing automated telephone calls to New Hampshire residents on the federal do-not-call list, a state official said.

 

The committee voluntarily agreed Sunday to stop calling homes on the registry after a citizen complained to the state attorney general's office, which then spoke with the GOP group's lawyer in Washington.

 

Under state statute, political campaigns are allowed to contact people on the do-not-call list, but cannot use automated recordings.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/06/...D8L7NC080.shtml

 

I expect this will vary by state though.

Edited November 7, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[EvilMonkey]

Worth-your-time article in Salon actually looking at the people who are being disenfranchised by Arizona's voter-ID law. Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands...native americans, virtually all students (do you get a new drivers license every time you switch dorm rooms? If not, the address is incorrect and it can't be used)

Balta, unless you change your voter registration to your college address, you still live at home. If you can't get home to vote, thats what absentee ballots are for. If you do change your registration to your college address, then it is your responsibility to keep the info current. If voting is so precious, why can't people exercise at least a little diligence in maintaining their records?

If only a dozen voters are rejected or leave in frustration in each precinct, it could mean a difference of more than 13,000 votes.

And if those dozen voters had to reason to be voting in the first place, then the results are that much closer to being correct.

In some of the state's sparsely settled and sprawling counties, voters would have to make a 200-mile round trip to visit an election office.

Yeah, and just how many of the people with 200 mile commutes will be forgetting thier id cards when they vote? 2? 10? 10,000? This makes it seem lke an epidemic.

Sure enough, on Sept. 12 an elderly Navajo woman from rural Chilchinbeto was barred by a poll worker from casting any ballot -- even a provisional one -- in the September primary. Agnes Laughter, who speaks only Navajo, lacked the proper I.D. "From just this one example, it is obvious that the ID requirement creates an undue burden on our citizens who are attempting to participate in the democratic process," one Navajo official, Speaker Lawrence Morgan, told the Gallup (New Mexico) Independent

Don't they get tv on the reservation? Are these people so f@cking stupid that they don't have a clue? If she can't speak english, she probably can't rwad it either. How did she get to the polls? Someone drive her? Does that person have a clue?

 

A nice sample letter to the editor about this story.

can't believe the strictness of this voter ID law. I have changed the address on my Driver's License exactly once since it was first issued, yet I have lived in probably 15 different places.

 

Was I really supposed to wait in line at the DMV each time for a new DL, just so that I could vote??

 

And those secondary forms of ID are very hard for a college student to provide, especially when they are subletting "off the books".

 

I am a solid upstanding citizen who makes it a point to vote in every election. The fact that I could have been disenfranchised for going to school in Arizona makes me furious.

Well, lets see, You need the ID to be correct when pulled over for a traffic stop, or an arrest. Most places the address on your ID better match the one on your checks if you write one. And if you are subletting 'off the books', then you are breaking the law. What a fine, solid upstanding citizen you are.

Will there be mistakes made there? Oh, I am sure of it. Just as there are mistakes with the new voter machines, or any other new method they try for a while. This story offered zero proof that there could be "Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands..." turned away. If that many people in that state are that stupid to not follow the law.........

[Texsox]

We are a much more mobile society, the laws should reflect that.

[EvilMonkey]

We are a much more mobile society, the laws should reflect that.

I agree. Then change the laws.

[NorthSideSox72]

Don't they get tv on the reservation? Are these people so f@cking stupid that they don't have a clue? If she can't speak english, she probably can't rwad it either. How did she get to the polls? Someone drive her? Does that person have a clue?

Was this really necessary?

 

And by the way, the reading part is an important thing to keep in mind here with regard to American Indians. Many people may not realize this, but, almost none of the American Indian tribes' languages have a written component. Some, like the Cherokee and I believe maybe the Navajo, developed one after European contact simply as a method of translation. The languages are entirely oral in nature.

 

So, since AmerInds do have the right to vote in federal elections, how do we ensure they can vote? Do they have someone at their polling places to enter their votes for them? Sort of a connundrum.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, so it's a little early...but in terms of solidifying...it's important.

 

Class II - Senators Whose Terms of Service Expire in 2009

 

Senators in Class II were elected to office in the November 2002 general election. Their terms run from the beginning of the 108th Congress on January 3, 2003 to the end of the 110th Congress in January 2009.

 

Democrats

 

Baucus, Max

Biden, Joseph

Durbin, Richard

Harkin, Tom

Johnson, Tim

Kerry, John

Landrieu, Mary

Lautenberg, Frank

Levin, Carl

Pryor, Mark

Reed, Jack

Rockefeller, John

 

 

Republicans

 

Alexander, Lamar

Allard, Wayne

Chambliss, Saxby

Cochran, Thad

Coleman, Norm

Collins, Susan

Cornyn, John

Craig, Larry

Dole, Elizabeth

Domenici, Pete

Enzi, Michael

Graham, Lindsey

Hagel, Chuck

Inhofe, James

McConnell, Mitch

Roberts, Pat

Sessions, Jeff

Smith, Gordon

Stevens, Ted

Sununu, John

Warner, John

 

In 2008, the Republicans have 21 Senators up for reelection, and the Democrats have 12. The Democrats have a few possible retirees, including Biden and Kerry (depending on the 08 Pres race), and probably Lautenberg.

 

The Repubs have a few more likely retirees; Stevens, Domenici, Warner are all good candidates. And they have several people who will be running in states where Democrats will have a good shot at knocking them off: Minnesota (Franken v. Coleman), etc. And the Dems have a bunch of governors right now who may just be waiting to challenge for a few of those seats.

[Rex Kickass]

Lautenberg is going to run again in two years.

[Balta1701]

Misleading caption of the day:

 

[Rex Kickass]

It's technically true though. There is no "Minority Speaker".

[Balta1701]

Ah, the ol' Uniter not Divider comes back.

 

The White House said today that it would seek Senate confirmation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s successor in the lame duck Congress that is about to reconvene, and that it would seek confirmation of United Nations Ambassador John R. Bolton as well.

 

Confirmation of Robert M. Gates to replace Mr. Rumsfeld and of Mr. Bolton, who was installed in the United Nations post under temporary status by President Bush, were two priorities cited by Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, on a day when Democrats flexed their new political muscle while exchanging conciliatory words with the president. Before having lunch with Democrats, Mr. Bush met with Senators Bill Frist of Tennessee, the retiring majority leader; Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican whip, and House Republican leaders, Mr. Snow said.

Yup, there's a way to create amity between the White House and its new working partners...ram through 2 nominations, one

possibly controversial and one ungodly controversial, before the new working partners have a chance.

 

Good to know that the Presidential "Middle Finger" still works quite well...because that's what this is to the Democrats. Especially the re-nomination of Bolton.

Edited November 9, 2006 by Balta1701

[Chisoxfn]

Ah, the ol' Uniter not Divider comes back.

 

Yup, there's a way to create amity between the White House and its new working partners...ram through 2 nominations, one

possibly controversial and one ungodly controversial, before the new working partners have a chance.

 

Good to know that the Presidential "Middle Finger" still works quite well...because that's what this is to the Democrats. Especially the re-nomination of Bolton.

I just want to point out that Bolton is not going to get another hearing. Of course if it were up to my party he probably would have, but Chaffey (a moderate repub) is completely against the Bolton hearing and because of that they will not have it.

 

Members of the current Senate coming together next week in a lame duck session to vote on remaining spending bills left unfinished before the October campaign season, but they are not going to vote on Bolton, staff members for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told FOX News on Thursday.

 

I'll take the direct words from Bill Frist over the NY Times. Oh and this is my first post over in these parts.

[jackie hayes]

I just want to point out that Bolton is not going to get another hearing, so I don't know where the heck the NY Times is getting there info.

I'll take the direct words from Bill Frist over the NY Times. Oh and this is my first post over in these parts.

It's pretty obvious where the info comes from, since they quote Tony Snow. And they're 100% right: the WH did nominate Bolton today and did want him to be confirmed by this congress. Since then, a number of senators (including Frist, apparently) have agreed that it would make no sense to move on that nomination.

[Balta1701]

I just want to point out that Bolton is not going to get another hearing. Of course if it were up to my party he probably would have, but Chaffey (a moderate repub) is completely against the Bolton hearing and because of that they will not have it.

I'll take the direct words from Bill Frist over the NY Times. Oh and this is my first post over in these parts.

Which is a good and valid point, and which I think only makes my point stronger. There's absolutely no reason to nominate Bolton again at this point. His confirmation was already dead months ago...if Chaffee wasn't going to change his mind after losing then his nomination wasn't even going to hit the floor, which means that the chances of success are zero...which basically, as far as I can tell, means that the nomination is a giant middle finger tossed in the direction of the new majority.

[Balta1701]

So, for those like me watching the whole "power corrupts" meme before it even really starts...here's a good rundown of the non-Jefferson (hopefully he loses) people in the House facing potential ethics problems.

 

Rep. Alan Mollohan (WV): He's set to take the chair of the very appropriations panel in whose purse strings he has already entangled himself. (He has helped steer nearly $500 million in taxpayer money to his rural district, half of which has gone to five organizations Mollohan created with friends.) As a result, he's under FBI investigation. Enough said.

 

Rep. John Murtha (PA): Likely to chair the Defense Appropriations subcommittee. Murtha's been tagged as a shameless earmarker, spending tens of millions on projects nobody wants to benefit his friends and his district. He's already been caught on tape by the FBI explaining how he works scams, so at least if the Feds pick up his trail again, they'll know what to look for. With massive classified budgets and a long history of wasteful spending, this post is ripe for abuse. The FBI probe into its former chairman, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), attests to that. Murtha's also making a play for Majority Leader.

 

Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL): Tapped to chair the House Permanent Standing Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). Without a serious intel/national security background, Hastings is said to have gotten up to speed on the material since joining the committee. Still, there's a congressional impeachment in his background, and charges of a $150,000 bribe from his days as a judge. In the wake of major corruption scandals in the intel world, is it so hard to find a little less complicated candidate to oversee them?

 

Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): Hoyer, an appropriator, hopes to be House Majority Leader. Unfortunately, he has an addiction to special interest money, and eagerly courts K Street donors. Does that matter? He broke ranks with his party last year to vote in favor of a draconian bankruptcy bill that would bar many Americans from getting out from under debt, regardless of the circumstances which landed them there. Hoyer has taken around $120,000 from lending institutions this cycle. It's okay to slow-dance with 'em, Steny; but don't let them take you home.

[KipWellsFan]

Bush Approval: 31%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15667442/site/newsweek/