Type to search

Chris Christie And His Control Of Voting Regulations

Memo Pad National News Politics

Chris Christie And His Control Of Voting Regulations


Chris Christie appeared before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington on Tuesday, and emphasized his eagerness to keep Republican governors in power before the 2016 presidential election. Specifically, he stressed the importance of letting Republicans control voting regulations.

“Would you rather have Rick Scott in Florida overseeing the voting mechanism, or Charlie Crist? Would you rather have Scott Walker in Wisconsin overseeing the voting mechanism, or would you rather have Mary Burke? Who would you rather have in Ohio, John Kasich or Ed FitzGerald?” Christie rhetorically asked.

In the past four years, Republicans have waged a highly partisan battle over voting rights. The Brennan Center for Justice tracks how conservative politicians began “passing laws and executive actions that would make it harder for many citizens to vote.” This trend began after the 2010 midterm elections brought new state legislative majorities, which “pushed a wave of laws cracking down on voting,” according to Wendy R. Weiser, the center’s director.

As the map below illustrates, a number of states moved forward with controversial voting changes in 2013, after the Supreme Court invalidated section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This effectively made it possible for nine states, mostly in the South, to adjust their election laws without prior federal approval.

The map shows the 21 states which will have new voting restrictions in place for November’s elections. Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin — the governors of which Christie specifically name-checked — are among the states with restrictive new laws.

Map from the Brennan Center for Justice

Map: Brennan Center for Justice

An October report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found that voter identification laws, one of the most common restrictions, affected people aged 18 to 23 more than those from 44 to 53. The drop in voter turnout was also more pronounced among blacks than other ethnicities, and was greater among newly registered voters than those registered at least 20 years. Each of these constituencies is disproportionately likely to support Democratic candidates.

Along with stricter voter identification requirements, Governor Christie is also in favor of restricting early voting.

As Christie was initiating his own re-election bid last May, he vetoed a bill that would have allowed in-person early voting in New Jersey during the two weeks before elections. Christie claimed that the costs incurred would have been too great.

He has also gone on the record to vehemently oppose same-day registration for voting. In an August visit to Illinois, Christie referred to same-day voting as part of Democrats’ attempts to use “every trick in the book” to help their candidates win.

In his speech on Tuesday, Christie stressed that the party affiliation of governors will be especially significant for the 2016 presidential race.

“If you don’t really care what happens in these states, you’re going to care about who is running the state in November of 2016, what kind of political apparatus they’ve set up and what kind of governmental apparatus they’ve set up to ensure a full and fair election in 2016,” he said.

Christie points to the three gubernatorial candidates of Crist, Burke, and FitzGerald as cautionary tales of what will happen if Democrats take over the statehouses in question. All three of these candidates have campaigned on the importance of protecting voting rights.

AFP Photo/Eric Thayer

Want more political news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!



  1. Sand_Cat October 22, 2014

    Yes, restrictng early voting is all about combatting voter fraud, right?
    How so many Democrats in New Jersey and elsewhere fell for this thuggish bully in the first place is a mystery.

    1. Independent1 October 22, 2014

      You really have to wonder how a blue state like NJ let themselves get so hoodwinked by a quasi gangster. And like Perry, Christie isn’t out of the woods yet. He’s still being investigated for securities laws violations.

      Here are some excerpts from an NYTimes article from June 2014:

      Investigations into the Christie administration and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have zeroed in on possible securities law violations stemming from a $1.8 billion road repair agreement in 2011, according to people briefed on the matter.

      While the inquiries were prompted by the apparently politically motivated lane closings at the George Washington Bridge last year, these investigations center on another crossing: the Pulaski Skyway, the crumbling elevated roadway connecting Newark and Jersey City. They are being conducted by the Manhattan district attorney and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

      The inquiries into securities law violations focus on a period of 2010 and 2011 when Gov. Chris Christie’s administration pressed the Port Authority to pay for extensive repairs to the Skyway and related road projects, diverting money that was to be used on a new Hudson River rail tunnel that Mr. Christie canceled in October 2010.

      Again and again, Port Authority lawyers warned against the move: The Pulaski Skyway, they noted, is owned and operated by the state, putting it outside the agency’s purview, according to dozens of memos and emails reviewed by investigators and obtained by The New York Times.


      1. stcroixcarp October 23, 2014

        Didn’t Christie replace a democratic gangster? Maybe New Jersey just likes gangsters.

        1. Independent1 October 23, 2014

          Quite possibly. Neither party is free from having bad guys getting elected. By pointing out Christie’s nefarious ways, like blatantly lying his way into his first political office, and running an administration where virtually every governmental department operates with the attitude of, if you don’t come around to our way of thinking and do our bidding, there’ll be retribution;he was also a member of the ‘Party of No’.
          Which in my mind, is a double whammy!!

          1. Allan Richardson October 23, 2014

            Generally, Democrats are tempted, and occasionally give in to it, to steal a little on the road to doing something good. Republicans are tempted, and usually give in, to steal a LOT on the road to doing something BAD to America.

        2. Sand_Cat October 23, 2014

          Corzine wasn’t a good governor. Don’t recall his being a gangster, except in the sense that before becoming a Senator, he was CEO of some Wall Street firm.

  2. FT66 October 22, 2014

    Has Chris Christie decided to go rogue? What he talks nowadays sound horrible in many ears of Dems, of whom he touted once he had their backing!

    1. Independent1 October 23, 2014

      He couldn’t keep up the charade forever. His true colors had to come out at some point.

  3. Michael Ross October 23, 2014

    Chris Christie, like many Republicans have in recent years, apparently forgot that he was not addressing a room full of nothing other but corrupt wannabe plutocrats who are likewise trying to pull the same con on America.

    No, no Mr. Christie, you are not a master manipulator. Even the tea-baggers cheering for you know what kind of crap you’re trying to pull — they’re just cheering for you because they all secretly hate freedom and democracy too.

  4. cosliberal October 23, 2014

    Sure would have been nice if the Democrats had run a real race against this guy last year. Had they brought his real policies and real attitudes to light rather than listening to the Joe Scarboroughs and Chuck Todds of the media, Christie might have been but a bad memory by now…..

  5. FireBaron October 23, 2014

    Yeah, God only knows what would happen if everyone who had a legitimate right to vote was able to go to the polls and cast a ballot! I mean, that could actually lead to free and fair elections. Not the Banana Republic version the current GOP leadership endorses.

    1. Independent1 October 23, 2014

      Yes, and what’s even worse, is that so many Americans don’t even try to vote. I think we’d be amazed at what would happen in America, if millions of Americans weren’t so nonchalant/lazy about voting.

      Even before the Repubs started all this voter suppression nonsense, almost 1/2 the voters didn’t vote even in presidential election years. When Gore lost the election to Bush in 2000, over 100 million voting age Americans didn’t make the effort to vote. Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, but had even another couple million Americans bothered to vote, the past 15 years of American history could have turned out very different; as in those extra couple million votes would most likely have been even more people voting for Gore which may have made it clear that he clearly won the electoral vote and Bush wouldn’t have gotten the presidency via a SCOTUS giveaway.

      Without that giveaway by SCOTUS there wouldn’t have been an Iraq war, meaning the middle east problems we’re experiencing today wouldn’t have been there. Gore would never have pushed through two unwarranted tax cuts, so without them and no Iraq war, our country’s debt would be far lower than it is today. There may well not have been the housing/financial debacle and therefore no Great Recession, maybe no need for an auto bailout, and America certainly would have become far more involved in working to counter global warming. I’m sure we can’t even really comprehend just how different the world would be today – if George Bush had never been given the White House by a right-wing biased Supreme Court.

      1. FireBaron October 23, 2014

        Yeah, but here’s a scary thought – Vice President Joe Lieberman! The way I see it, Lieberman would have been as productive a VP for Al Gore as Thomas Jefferson was for John Adams!

        1. Independent1 October 23, 2014

          Yeah! Given the way Lieberman has shown himself to be since 2000, all we could hope is that Gore would have kept him out of too much that was important to the country. But I still believe, a lot of very negative things that have happened to our country since 2000 may well not have happened; and that today, America and the world would be in a very different situation.

          That’s not to say we still wouldn’t be dealing with terrorists, but there are just so many things that the Bush with irresponsible GOP congresses not only created, but refused to even deal with, which are coming back to haunt us today. Even the Ebola crises may not be a crises if the GOP hadn’t cut Ebola research monies from over 520 mil per year to 255 mil this year. A cure for it may have been found years ago. I realize it’s really not fair to play Monday Morning quarterback, but I seriously believe these days would much better had George Bush and Dick Cheney never governed our country.

      2. clcman October 23, 2014

        Yeah, some stuff would have been different, but it’s foolish to think that everything would have automatically been better.
        The housing bubble and Recession probably would have happened regardless, because we’re Americans and we’re dumb like that. And September 11th would have been worse, because the Republicans would have said “well, a Democrat has been president for the past ~10 years, and they made our national security weaker” so they’d probably have been harder to deal with, and might have even used that platform to win in 2004. And it’s not unreasonable to think that Iraq would have eventually unraveled into sectarian on its own, whether from the Arab Spring or Saddam Hussein dying, though we would be less in the thick of it.
        But you never know with these sorts of things. It’s true that 2000 was one of those big turning points where a little bit of action changed history in a big way.

        1. Independent1 October 23, 2014

          I realize I don’t have a crystal ball, or even the ability to look back into the past – but I’m not convinced that even 9/11 would have happened the way it did had Bush and Cheney never been elected.

          One main reason the 9/11 terrorists were able to get away with as much as they did, is because Bush and Cheney refused 7 times to allow the CIA and FBI to focus their efforts on trying to stop the attack.

          By the end of April 2001, the CIA and FBI had intelligence that told them that bin Laden was planning an air attack on America – they didn’t know when or where it was going to happen, but they knew terrorists were preparing for it. They briefed Bush and Cheney on that attack 7 times and asked for them to allow them to put the time and money into stopping the attack, and for over 4 months time, plenty of time for the CIA and FBI to have gotten a much better idea of what bin Laden was planning, Bush and Cheney SAID NO!!! That sure didn’t help all the clues that were brought to light about the impending attack were not heeded in time.

          And I’ve not so sure about the housing bubble melt down either – that happened because Bush and Cheney were determined to keep “hands off” everything our financial/banking crooks were doing to defraud investors and the public.

          Again, there’s no guarantees, but I feel very confident that we’d be seeing a much better America today if Bush and Cheney had never governed our country.

          1. iowasteve October 24, 2014

            Also, remember that it was Cheney that decided that we were not going to sent the air force to stop those planes after the first attack – which directly resulted in the trade center attacks, which I still believe Bush set that up for his benefit in several ways and reasons. I’m not saying he was responsible for the attacks, I’m saying he helped to make sure they did as much damage as they could when they did attack, meaning he DID hear what the CIA and FBI were saying, but decided he could really take advantage of those attacks. He surely didn’t seem at all surprised when the news was given to him at the school in Florida.

          2. clcman October 24, 2014

            No one realized that it was a planned, intentional attack until after the South Tower was hit, and Cheney DID give a shoot-down order at 10:20, which was about 20 minutes after the last plane crashed. All the planes were down within two hours of the first hijacking, and no one heard anything about the initial hijacking until half an hour after it began. Furthermore, no one had ever hijacked a plane with the intent to use it as a weapon before, so it’s not too unreasonable to think that the attack succeeded because of it was unexpected, original and well-executed on an incredibly short timeline.
            It’s pretty ridiculous to think that Bush had any idea that something like this was going to happen. Bin Laden had been ranting about attacking America for years, so there really wasn’t anything new there. The Bush administration grossly underestimated his capabilities, but that doesn’t mean the President intentionally allowed something. I’m not saying he didn’t use the attacks for political reasons, but only after they occurred.
            And I recall Bush being mocked for his “stupid-looking” surprised face when he learned about it.
            Might Gore have focused a little more on on Al Qaeda then Bush? Possibly. But no one realized they were that good until the attacks.

          3. iowasteve October 24, 2014

            Hmm – well if I remember right, the CIA and FBI had warned there was imminent danger of an attack soon using commercial aircraft. I am still convinced that not only should Bush had known about, but he did and prepared to let it happen to cover up some other tracks. And from day one he wasn’t after Bin Laden, but was only after Hussein. A building was hit with a plane up near the top of the building – and there was absolutely nothing in that attack that would have caused it to collapse like it did and there was evidence that there was other explosives that actually caused the demolition of that building – and since most of the paper trail and proof was in the shorter building, it had to be brought down as well, and it was. There is nothing to say this is not what happened. Unless you have some kind of proof it didn’t happen that way. There were two reasons for this, to get back into Iraq, and to give Bush a reason to take away your personal freedoms by law.

          4. clcman October 25, 2014

            I suppose I don’t have proof other than a combination of Occam’s and Hanlon’s Razors (“if you can’t prove which of several theories is correct, pick the simpler one” and “don’t attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity”, respectively). For your theory to be true requires a conspiracy bigger than Watergate with a significantly less logical motive. To say that the U.S. government not only allowed a terrorist attack to happen but also blew up two skyscrapers all so that they could invade another country without supplying proof beyond “Bush should have known about it” is insane. For the Twin Towers to be detonated, the government had to know EXACTLY what the plan was, which goes far beyond the previous claim of negligence. By comparison, my theory merely requires that a government that had been in a post-Cold War peace for ten years underestimated the capability of some angry third-worlders to destroy buildings. “Imminent danger of an attack using commercial aircraft” could mean a bombing or a traditional hijacking. No one had EVER done anything like this. And even if they knew what the plan was, the government would need names, dates, targets, SOMETHING specific to counter it. What exactly could Bush have done differently that would have stopped it?
            As for the towers themselves, there were at least ten floors of steel, tile and combustable materials above the points of impact. A building like that is not designed to take a hit from a 747 fully stocked with jet fuel going at 500-600 miles an hour. The burning jet fuel was hot enough to weaken the steel that wasn’t completely smashed that it could not longer hold ten stories worth of building. Once the top began falling, there was nothing on earth that could stop it. I believe the “other explosives” you referred to was evidence of a thermite explosion which could have been a bomb, but also could have been the result of superheated and compressed iron oxides (the basis of many thermite compounds) from a bunch of flaming steel being crushed.
            And why, why, WHY would they put evidence of their activities inside a building ON THE PREMISES!? For a conspiracy that somehow learned the plans of an Islamic terrorist group precisely enough to put this scheme into action, planted enough bombs to bring down two occupied skyscrapers without anyone working there noticing and has successfully evaded detection for 13 years, that’s pretty damn sloppy. 7 World Trade Center collapsed because it got clipped by a falling 110-floor skyscraper. Trust me, that’ll do it.
            In summary, no, there is not specifically proof that the Bush administration both allowed Al Qaeda to attack the Twin Towers but also blew the buildings up. There are, however, reasonable explanations for everything that happened. In order to claim such a diabolical conspiracy, YOU need to provide some proof (“innocent until proven guilty” and all that jazz). Who were the bombers and how did they plant the bombs without anyone noticing? Why was destroying the towers necessary at all, when the attack as is would have done just as well? Was the Pentagon also supposed to be bombed? What about whatever Flight 93 was aimed at? Were there more bombs at the Capitol building or White House and they were covertly removed after 93 crashed? Again, these questions aren’t proof that you are wrong, but you’ll need to answer them to have something that actually explains the events in any detail beyond paranoid “it must have happened this way” claims.
            (By the way, this is a debate that I NEVER expected to get into on an article about Chris Christie and voter suppression. Just saying.)

          5. iowasteve October 25, 2014

            I believe it was the weekend before or two weekends prior, the buildings were closed and everyone including security were removed from the buildings under the guise of some new security system going in . This could very well have been HOW without anyone noticing anything. And as for the Pentagon – I saw many of the pictures and videos and I actually never seen a plane or plane parts. Where is this picture? Something is still definitely wrong in this situation – but one thing for sure, in the end Bush got what he wanted – to eliminate the head of a country that wasn’t doing us any harm at all.

          6. clcman October 25, 2014

            I can’t say whether or not the alleged security update happened or why, but using that to plant bombs over a week in advanced would still be a massive and incredibly risky undertaking. And, if the update occurred, who order it? Building owners? Port Authority of New York? To make any sustained claim of this sort, you need names, details, facts and evidence, not “maybes.”
            There actually IS a video of the strike at the Pentagon, but it’s a security camera with a low frame rate, so whatever hit only appears in a blur in one frame, but the plane flew very low over a highway, so numerous witnesses saw it, one even seeing the American Airlines logo. The plane slammed into a pretty think building at 500+ miles an hour, causing it to splinter completely, hence why you can’t see any recognizable pieces. There were, however, many pieces of scrap metal matching those of a plane, as well as a black box and flight recorder and remains which could be DNA matched to most of the victims.
            If what struck the Pentagon wasn’t Flight 77, then what was it and where did the real Flight 77 go? For that matter, how did the government know so many details of Al Qaeda’s plan? Once again, your claims cause more questions than answers. Saying “something is definitely wrong” is not enough to accuse the President of the United States of mass-murdering his own citizens.
            And I agree that Saddam Hussein wasn’t a significant threat to the United States and deposing him probably cause a bigger mess than leaving him alone, but he WAS a brutal tyrant, hardly an innocent victim of the President’s schemes. Just saying.

          7. iowasteve October 25, 2014

            It’s really admirable that we can’t fathom that Bush could come up with this plan, but that Obama could fake the mass school shooting in CT…. So, you are saying Obama is actually much smarter and more capable than Bush?? in this instance, I may agree with you, but unfortunately, Bush had way too much advanced warning this was going to happen and a pretty good idea of how, including the prior knowledge that AlQueda members were taking flying lessons in the US prior to this happening. Why would you not think something needed to be done in advance? Like at least get the air force involved before this got to the twin towers? There had already been a hijacking and downed plane before this happened. There is an air force base within minutes of NYC which could have been put on alert and in the air watching. They could have seen planes entering DC as well as NYC if they were up there patrolling the skys and could have stopped both that one as well as the supposed pentagon incident as well. This didn’t happen. There was a stand down order issued. Hmmm – how could that happen without billions of dollars of investigations? Sounds much worse than Bengahzi doesn’t it? Oh wait, it WAS!!! Anyway – I believe that Obama is getting much worse treatment than Bush ever did and in many cases Bush was excused for stupidity probably because he actually was stupid. We need to impeach Obama because he lied – we already tried to impeach Clinton because he lied – but Bush lied and costs up trillions with his lies and yet conservatives call him a hero still! Something is desperately wrong with this picture folks.

          8. clcman October 25, 2014

            First of all, what on earth did I say before that made you think I believed that Obama was behind the Newtown shooting? That’s even dumber than saying 9/11 was an inside job, which is itself on par with “The Moon Landings were Faked.” Yes, the Bengahzi investigation is a massive campaign by desperate Republicans to try and find something that they can call a legitimate scandal. Yes, irrational idiocy and accusations are more common about Obama and Bush. Yes, “Impeach the Leech” people don’t understand how impeachment, the democratic process or the U.S. government works. Whether the Bush administration was aware of the actual state of Iraq’s WMD program and manipulated intelligence to make it seem a threat or legitimately believed it existed and got a bad case of tunnel vision is up for debate. Personally I think President Bush DID think Iraq was dangerous and greatly underestimated how big of a mess taking out Saddam would be (see “Mission Accomplished”).

            Incidentally, I think a lot of conservatives just try to avoid talking about Bush because he’s embarrassing and his “big government conservatism” ticks off all the Tea Party people. They like Reagan, because he’s dead so they can say whatever they want about his beliefs and he can’t tell them when they’re wrong.
            As for the topic at hand, Bush did not have very good advanced warning. Like I said, Osama Bin Laden had been ranting about doing something like this for years. The amount of potential threats that intelligence and law enforcement agencies dig up that turns out to be nothing is staggering and, once again, Bush underestimated them. Should he have? WE in the future know he shouldn’t have, but given the state of the world at the time it’s not unreasonable to think that he did. Perhaps he simply believed that the FBI and CIA had it under control. Again, they didn’t, but people fail at stuff for a lot of reasons, not just intentional plans. And, once again, no one had ever hijacked planes to use them as missiles before. Normal hijackers would benefit from pilot training as well.

            There WERE actually fighters deployed on 9/11, but none of them were able to find any of the planes. Was it conspiracy? Maybe. Or maybe it was the fact that there were thousands of civilian planes in the air, the hijacked flights had their transponders off and were flying on different courses than their flight plans, no one knew which flights were hijacked or how many there were and it was a grand total of 2 hours from first hijacking to final crash. Oh, yeah, and no one doing any of this (flight controllers, Air Force personnel) had any advanced warning that the day was going to be different than any other day. Personally, I think that had the Air Force been able to successfully counter all of the planes, THEN I would be suspicious. And also, shooting down a civilian plane full of Americans over American soil is not something the Air Force is built for, and screwing up even once (shooting down the wrong plane) would be a catastrophic PR blunder. The only “do not shoot” order that I know of came around 10:10 NORAD (after all the planes had already crashed) and was countermanded by Cheney and Bush ten minutes later, authorizing the shoot-down of any plan that they could confirm was under hijacker control.
            Oh, yeah, and there WERE millions (not sure if billions or not) of dollars worth of investigations, called the 9/11 Commission.
            In short, everything can be explained by the enemy striking in a way no one had thought of before at a time no one knew about in advanced and the government underestimating them. And terrible airport security. I mean seriously, box cutters?

          9. iowasteve October 25, 2014

            You continue to say this is every even thought of before so how could you be prepared for this is just wrong.

            A 2004 USA Today
            article, “NORAD had drills of jets as weapons”, describes pre-9/11
            NORAD drills that suggest they were prepared for such an attack as
            happened on 9/11:

            “In the two years before the September 11 attacks, the North American
            Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White
            House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as
            weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the
            imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets
            performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly
            laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States.
            In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was
            not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic.

            This is a cut and paste – but it makes it clear that the government DID think this was possible even thought the pentagon and Bush administration opted to decide it was “unrealistic”. It was thought of and what happened? It actually did happen. Also, some of the FBI and CIA intelligence showed they may be using aircraft to carry out their threatened attack, which was also ignored. I believe that closing airspace in the area and then putting the air force in the air WOULD have allowed them to spot planes that were not supposed to be in the area – do you honestly believe that the hijackers would have paid attention to the orders to clear the airspace? Probably not. I just believe that we may have been able to divert this disaster – and y es, there may have been some American casualties anyway – but not nearly as many as what there ended up being. I didn’t say that you personally blamed Obama for the Newtown shootings, but the republicans have in general by starting a lot of conspiracy theories about it being a drill by DHS. We may have to agree to disagree on the 9/11 thing though.

          10. clcman October 25, 2014

            The ideal way to divert the attack would have been to either identify and arrest the hijackers before they started or to have good enough security (i.e. metal detectors) to keep them from getting their knives on board. Flight 11 (the North Tower plane) went from hijack to impact in half an hour, and it had its transponder off, making it a pain to find. As nice as it is to think that the Air Force could do something about it, the attacks were too quick and well-executed to be countered by anything other than passenger resistance once they began.
            As for the actual issue here, yeah, I think we’re done. I personally believe that all of the pieces were on the table but they weren’t put together in time. There is no hard evidence for a direct government hand (and there WOULD be if the scheme was as big as many “truthers” say it was) and not a lot for deliberate negligence. Sometimes things just slip through the cracks, especially when everything has been calm for so long and you underestimate your enemy. I personally find nothing especially suspicious about the government’s actions in immediate response to the attacks, and they seem in line with dealing with a rapid surprise attack coming out of nowhere. If you think differently, then I guess we have differing views of the competency level of the U.S. government.
            That said, I have to say that this was a much more civil conversation than I would have expected from the Internet. Thank you.

          11. iowasteve October 26, 2014

            Thanks, and I agree with you – but I’m not one to go off the deep end as long as the conversation contains some form of back and forth civility, as this did. Generally, the only reply to something I say is “another ignorant liberal who doesn’t know facts from fiction” or some kind of other name calling situation. I’m all for listening to the other side as long as it isn’t a bunch of talking points that have been burned out for some time now – like the normal trivial crap about the Obama scandals which are really not scandals or wouldn’t be if they were done by the other side at least. I enjoy speaking in facts and providing evidence for those facts, which I try to do myself as well, hence the report on the training drill which was finally cancelled concerning plane attacks. I think it was also in error to have not performed that training – but as you said, it is still possible that we wouldn’t have had time to deal with it at the time it actually happened. Too many questions from your point of view as well so, no real reason to continue with that part of the discussion without the legitimate answers all the way around. But, I also believe it is quite possible the same thing could be said about Bengahzi then as well. But the conservatives have already been proven Obama didn’t do anything wrong there via congressional hearings. Although it still comes up frequently when they lose at other arguments. Funny how that happens. Well, it’s been interesting and actually educational – thanks to you as well.

  6. dana becker October 23, 2014

    “He has also gone on the record to vehemently oppose same-day registration for voting. In anAugust visit to Illinois, Christie referred to same-day voting as part of Democrats’ attempts to use “every trick in the book” to help their candidates win.”

    At least the Democrats are doing it right while the Republicans will lie, cheat and steal elections.

    1. Independent1 October 23, 2014

      It’s interesting how convoluted the mind set is of Low IQ conservatives: Doing everything you can to allow as many Americans to vote their conscience, is in their devious minds “Democrats attempts to use ‘every trick in the book'”. Deviousness is just another Conservative sickness!!! On top of selfishness, egotism, narcissism, pathological lying and more.

      1. Allan Richardson October 23, 2014

        Not to mention Afrophobia, as shown by their reaction to the threat of Ebola coming from Belgium … or rather from Africa. If there were outbreaks in Europe, where the folks “look like us” (even if they talk funny and like liberal foods), who would be yelling “close the borders?”

    2. iowasteve October 24, 2014

      I’m curious exactly how same day registration is doing any harm – especially since you now need a special ID to register. How ignorant do the republicans honestly believe we are anyway?

  7. clcman October 23, 2014

    Is it just me, or is the Republican Party (between this sort of nonsense and widespread gerrymandering for the House) rapidly becoming an enemy of democracy itself, and not just the Democrats?

    1. SmittyPA October 23, 2014

      The Republican Party in the modern era has been steadfastly against democracy. The only difference is they’ve stopped trying to hide it.

  8. Whatmeworry October 23, 2014

    As we are seeing in CO after voting by mail started this week its already rife with fraud. Digging thru garbage and picking up ballots and looking to see how they voted

    1. iowasteve October 24, 2014

      I am curious about what kind of fraud re you referring to and if someone is voting by mail – why would their ballot be in the garbage someplace??? I think you are listening to the wrong party again!

      1. clcman October 25, 2014

        Also, voter ID laws don’t cover absentee ballots, which are, in fact, more prone to some form of fraud or manipulation. Further proof that the intent of these laws is not to prevent fraud, but rather to help a certain party with a bad record of gerrymandering continue to when elections without the majority of voters voting for them.

        1. Whatmeworry October 26, 2014

          Where voter ID laws are inplace they MUST show 1 to be provided a ballot via mail

          1. iowasteve October 27, 2014

            So, which is it? However, I have to give you credit for showing exactly why we don’t trust “red” people. You just posted two responses and each of the was 180 degrees apart from the other one. In my reading of the voter ID laws it says nothing about IDs for absentee ballots. Show your work, as they used to say at school.

          2. Whatmeworry October 30, 2014

            I have a Minnie me that follows me every where. Its a disgruntled USPS employee that was fired after they found ton’s of mail in her garage

          3. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter October 30, 2014

            Dannnny Ketter

          4. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter October 30, 2014

            Daniel Max Ketter wore a dunce cap in school!

        2. Whatmeworry October 26, 2014

          Where voter ID laws are not in place they MUST show 1 to be provided a ballot via mail

      2. Whatmeworry October 26, 2014

        Your unaware of what is going on CO?? Dem operatives are digging in the garbage in black neighborhoods looking for discarded ballots and then filling them out

        1. iowasteve October 27, 2014

          would you care to elaborate on this by providing some kind of non-biased proof of this statement?? And keep in mind, the last time a republican was asked to provide proof of voter fraud, what we got was a republican arrested for voter fraud.

          1. Whatmeworry October 27, 2014

            Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the Drudge Report. All unbiased news sources. I’m always one step ahead of you mary

          2. iowasteve October 30, 2014

            Rush Limbaugh and Fox news are not news sources, let alone unbiased. Fox has stated many times on trial under oath that they are NOT a news service in order to get away with telling lies on the air – and I can prove this if you don’t believe me. And Rush has also stated repeatedly that he is not a news show and is nothing more than a high paid entertainer when he gets cornered on some of the things he says as well. They spread their BS and lies to their faithful audiences in the guise that they are actually learning something and when they get backed into a corner about it, they come out screaming they are not news services so tehy don’t have to tell the truth. And then stick their tongue out at you.

          3. Whatmeworry October 30, 2014

            Lets see a new poll that was don with Hispanics came out last week asking them about their voting intentions. Of the sample 32% of illegals said they were registered to vote or have voted in the past.
            In Atlanta 1 PO Box at a UPS location received over 20,000 tax returns and they receive a similar number of absentee ballots. In WI your allowed to take handfuls of absentee ballots no questions asked

          4. iowasteve October 30, 2014

            Hmmm – once again I must ask you for proof – and giving proof is not making yet another wild statement with nothing to back it up. Ya know, I found on facebook another GOP supporter is spreading around the Obama voted early in IL because by now his vote has been counted over 27 times and will continue. I researched this because it didn’t even make sense. Funny every single link on google pointed the the exact same video – a comedy video which has not a shred of truth to it. You would think I was watching Fox News. Stop spreading lies and trying to make them appear as true when you know damn well they are not true and there is no substantial proof of what is being spread.

          5. Whatmeworry October 31, 2014

            No the only one sitting there look like a fool is you. All the evidence you need is available on google but folks like you that are intellectually lazy won’t do a thing to educate your self

          6. iowasteve November 1, 2014

            About the only thing on google is articles or statements made by conservatives or sources owned by conservatives or biased in favor of the right. It would be nice to see something of solid proof – if you are making the statement, you should be the one providing the source of your information, but, of course you can’t do this or refuse to. But that doesn’t surprise me. Fox says a lot of things they can’t prove either and whenever they tried to bring in proof, it is either false or they just made it up to look good – and I can prove this as well.

          7. Whatmeworry November 1, 2014

            Sorry as former educator I never did my students work for them. And unfortunately I have to treat you like a student since you know so little

          8. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter November 1, 2014

            Really? Ole Dan was never an educator, nor does he even have a college degree! Just a retired desk clerk from Ford Motors, and 2-year stint in the air national guard. He’s disgruntled because the union boys on the assembly line made more $$ than he did:)

          9. iowasteve November 2, 2014

            That’s funny you would say that. However, let’s be honest here. I never asked you to do my work, I asked you to show YOUR work. And I have many many teachers tell me to “show your work”. If you are going to make stupid statements, show me where you got that information – if not, stop talking.

          10. Whatmeworry November 2, 2014

            Read our post above You admitted that you were incapable of doing a modicum research to improve your IQ

          11. iowasteve November 3, 2014

            Just like a republican, won’t answer a simple question or show some proof of what you say – just constantly keep blaming the other guy. I’m not the one making outlandish claims. I speak facts, and you want to say I’m wrong – so prove it to me. I’m not going to ask you any longer for proof of your statements.

          12. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter November 3, 2014

            Whatmeworry is actually Dan M Ketter, a 67-year old forum troll, a coward who hides behind various pen names. Aside from being overweight, far sighted, impotent, loose dentures, and wearing adult
            diapers, you can see he’s pretty much a mess!

          13. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter November 1, 2014

            Dannnnygirl Ketter is the fool!

      3. Whatmeworry October 26, 2014

        You should read more newspapers like I do, and educate yourself

        1. iowasteve October 27, 2014

          I have read papers – I have read also where the main voter fraud in the last election was committed by those exact groups claiming to be against it and passing laws which are supposed to stop it – funny how that works. Might as well hire a fox to guard the chicken coup.

          1. Whatmeworry October 27, 2014

            That’s liberal propaganda pulp, and not in the newspapers I read

          2. iowasteve October 28, 2014

            What you read? I thought you just parroted Fox News and the radio gang of liars and jerks.

  9. Joker Davis October 27, 2014

    After drooling over Obama’s coronation, here’s what it’s like to be a media personality left with zero credibility: http://bit.ly/1sQo9FU


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.