Corruption as an issue in the 2006 US elections

Really? Do you have a link? I heard the Abramoff flap was off the front pages.

0 Replies

Abramoff-linked Rep. withdraws from re-election bid

RAW STORY
Published: Monday August 7, 2006

Print This | Email This

A Congressman from Ohio linked to convicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff has withdrawn from his bid for re-election, RAW STORY has learned.

In a statement issued by his campaign office, Bob Ney, Representative from Ohio's 18th district, said "Ultimately this decision came down to my family. I must think of them first, and I can no longer put them through this ordeal."

Although Ney has not yet been charged with any crime, a story from this morning's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review showed Ney facing financial ruin as his legal defense consumed funds to be used in his campaign for re-election. Ney's former chief of staff Neil Volz pleaded guilty in May on corruption charges.

The congressman will be replaced on November's ticket by Ohio State Senator Joy Padgett.

Ney's statement from his campaign website is provided below.

#
Statement By Congressman Bob Ney

Ohio, Aug 7 -

Congressman Bob Ney (OH-18) made the following statement today that he is withdrawing from the 18th Congressional race:

"After much consideration and thought I have decided today to no longer seek re-election in Ohio's 18th Congressional District. I am extremely proud of my 25 years serving the people of Ohio. We've accomplished many things to make this state better and I will always be grateful for the trust my constituents put in me. Ultimately this decision came down to my family. I must think of them first, and I can no longer put them through this ordeal."

"I am deeply grateful for all of the trust and support my family, friends and constituents have given me over the past two years. I look forward to serving out the rest of my term and serving the constituents of the 18th District."

0 Replies

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia ruled that Mr DeLays' name must stay on the ballot in Texas. As I understand it, each justice is assigned a region of the country where he/she can make quick decisions on behalf of the court. That is what Scalia did today. The GOP can try to find another Supreme Court member to appeal to. But that option doesn't look too promising.

0 Replies

It only makes sense that once the Texas GOP under DeLay disenfranchised a large portion of the Democrats and Hispanic voters by gerrymandering that the same Supreme Court that ruled it was legal here but illegal in Colorado would also stop his name from being removed to further muddy the waters come the November elections. Maybe the Supremes have been enjoying their 'off' days a little to much. Drunk

0 Replies

Welcome reddragon

Well, DeLay has stated that Scalia's decision was "stupid".

Three states now are pushing for voter ID cards. All sorts of legal maneuvering going on to stop or to forward such policies. In none of these jurisdictions is there any substantial or compelling evidence of significant fraud (more to be found in absentee balloting, which doesn't gain such legislative effort). In all cases, this push comes from Republicans. In all cases, the people who will be disenfranchised are mainly poor and black and likely to vote Dem. Voter suppression tricks will not be uncommon this election.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Welcome reddragon

Well, DeLay has stated that Scalia's decision was "stupid".

Three states now are pushing for voter ID cards. All sorts of legal maneuvering going on to stop or to forward such policies. In none of these jurisdictions is there any substantial or compelling evidence of significant fraud (more to be found in absentee balloting, which doesn't gain such legislative effort). In all cases, this push comes from Republicans. In all cases, the people who will be disenfranchised are mainly poor and black and likely to vote Dem. Voter suppression tricks will not be uncommon this election.

Exactly how will the "poor and black" be disenfranchised if everyone is required to have ID to vote?

Are you saying that the "poor and black" dont have ID?
Several people keep saying that the "poor and black" will be disenfranchised,but I have yet to see anyone explain how that will happen.

0 Replies

What really worries me is the usage of hackable electronic voting machines that do not have a paper trail.
The latest article I read has now found that Diebold {the most popular of the electronic voting machines} machines final vote results can now be changed by the insertion of a USB Flash Drive, after flipping an easily reached internal toggle switch, without leaving any trace whats-so-ever that the original results have been changed.
It really makes one wonder if this was not the whole reason why the GOP controlled Congress passed the law requiring that all precincts be converted to electronic voting by 2008.
Even the U.N. has publicly stated that the 2000 and 2004 elections were probably rigged based upon the vast differences between the exit polls and the final tally of votes.
Most of the discrepancies occurred in either precincts that utilized electronic voting machines without paper trails or ones that were in heavily democratic districts.

0 Replies

Quote:

Even the U.N. has publicly stated that the 2000 and 2004 elections were probably rigged based upon the vast differences between the exit polls and the final tally of votes.

Do you have even one link to a UN website that states this?
I have never heard this claim made by anyone before.

0 Replies

The ruling concerning voter ID cards was not suggesting that poor people and minorities did not have Identification but that the price the Government wanted to charge to require a specific voter ID card amounted to an unconstitutional Poll Tax similar to the one that stopped Blacks and other minorities from voting in the past when it was legal to charge someone a fee to vote and by doing so it would disenfrancise poor people who would have a difficult time coming up with the needed funds to purchase the ID

0 Replies

reddragon696 wrote:

The ruling concerning voter ID cards was not suggesting that poor people and minorities did not have Identification but that the price the Government wanted to charge to require a specific voter ID card amounted to an unconstitutional Poll Tax similar to the one that stopped Blacks and other minorities from voting in the past when it was legal to charge someone a fee to vote and by doing so it would disenfrancise poor people who would have a difficult time coming up with the needed funds to purchase the ID

How much did the govt want to charge?
How is it unconstitutional if the law affects EVERYONE,not just a specific group?

Since most states issue state ID cards or drivers licenses for only a few dollars,and since many states accept those cards as ID for voters,is that unconstitutional?

If the law requires everyone to have photo ID to vote,then there is no way that any group can say they are being targeted by an unfair poll tax.
Nobody is charging someone a fee to vote,since most states require you to have some form of photo ID anyway.

0 Replies

Hey Mysteryman:
I will temporarily withdraw my statement concerning the United Nations public announcement about rigged elections until I can find the link to the article that I read stating this as I should have had a link ready before making it.
Bear with me, I will find it eventually but I have to go back through all the articles I have saved for the past couple of years.
Thanxs,
Reddragon696

0 Replies

Most states do except a Driver License or equivalent ID for voting such as here in Texas but some states tried to pass laws requiring that only a state issued voter ID card be used.
I personally have no problem with providing at least some form of picture ID for voting purposes but I can see where someone who makes minimum wage would have a problem coming up with the funds to purchase additional identification, regardless of the price, in order to vote especially in view of their annual salary being just a little less than $11,000.00.
It is next to impossible for one person to live off of this amount in today's world much less if they were married or had children.

0 Replies

reddragon696 wrote:

Hey Mysteryman:
I will temporarily withdraw my statement concerning the United Nations public announcement about rigged elections until I can find the link to the article that I read stating this as I should have had a link ready before making it.
Bear with me, I will find it eventually but I have to go back through all the articles I have saved for the past couple of years.
Thanxs,
Reddragon696

Thats acceptable by me.
I have never heard the claim made,and you are the first person to mention it.

Quote:

Most states do except a Driver License or equivalent ID for voting such as here in Texas but some states tried to pass laws requiring that only a state issued voter ID card be used.
I personally have no problem with providing at least some form of picture ID for voting purposes but I can see where someone who makes minimum wage would have a problem coming up with the funds to purchase additional identification, regardless of the price, in order to vote especially in view of their annual salary being just a little less than $11,000.00.
It is next to impossible for one person to live off of this amount in today's world much less if they were married or had children.

Most people making minimum wage are just entering the workforce (teenagers).
There are very few people trying to live on and support families on minimum wage,and many of those are getting income from another source.

0 Replies

MM, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Half the people making the minimum wage are adults.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

MM, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Half the people making the minimum wage are adults.

And you are also ignoring facts that put some serious holes in your statement.

I refer you to...
http://www.epionline.org/mw_statistics.cfm

And just to pick a state at random,lets look at the minimum wage and Mass,ok.

Quote:

The average family income of Massachusetts employees who would 'benefit' from Senator Kennedy's proposed minimum wage hike: $ 52,609.

According to U.S. Census Bureau data, fully 97% of employees in Massachusetts whose wages would be increased by the proposed minimum wage hike either live with their parents or another relative, live alone, or have a working spouse. Just 3% are sole earners in families with children, and each of these sole earners has access to supplemental income through Earned Income Tax Credit.

And so you dont think I am using old data,here is the website...
http://www.epionline.org/mw_statistics_state.cfm?state=MA

On that page you will see this statement...

Quote:

Data source is January 2005-December 2005 Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group files. Calculations based on proposed increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour. Wages are indexed by monthly CPI and inflated at an annual rate of 2.5% from December 2005 CPI to July 2008.

So,the claim that so many people are trying to support their families strictly on minimum wage is totally bogus.
Those that are can also get various tax breaks and other govt help.

0 Replies

Your stats don't back your contention. They don't say that the vast majority of recipients are children. Most are single or living with someone because even one person can't live on a minimum wage. Still, half are adults.

0 Replies

The people most likely to not have id cards are little old ladies.

0 Replies

Nothing Bernard quotes contradicts my statements.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Your stats don't back your contention. They don't say that the vast majority of recipients are children. Most are single or living with someone because even one person can't live on a minimum wage. Still, half are adults.

"Half of the people on minimum wage are adults" is an extremely misleading statement.
While it is technically true,it relies on the readers ignorance of the workforce.
Since most people in the workforce are adults,then the statement is true.

But,I can also say that half the people in public schools are adults,and that would be a true statement,if you count colleges and universities.
However,if we are talking about elementary schools,then the statement is false.

0 Replies

Corruption as an issue in the 2006 US elections

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know