Bush Asks Justice Department to Look at New Ohio Voters

The Washington Post and the Cleveland Plain Dealer are both reporting that President Bush asked Attorney General Mukasey to review concerns raised by the GOP over approximately 200,000 new voter registrations. This action was taken as a result of a letter that Bush received from the House Minority Leader, John Boehner. Boehner first asked Attorney General Mukasey to take action, but didn't receive a response to that request. He then sent his letter to Bush.

This action may explain why a GOP donor dismissed his lawsuit against Brunner that he had filed in the Ohio Supreme Court. That lawsuit was subject to possible dismissal because he wouldn't have standing to bring such an action against Brunner.
One of the arguments that Secretary of State Brunner raised in Federal Court is that a private person or entity doesn't have standing to raise claims under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The U.S. Supreme Court apparently agreed with her since it cited cases in its opinion that deal with that issue and since it voted 9-0 not to hear the case. The same argument wouldn't apply to a lawsuit brought against Brunner by the Federal Government.

The issue between Brunner and the GOP deals with the approximately 200,000 voter registrations where the information in the voter database doesn't match the information in databases maintained by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles or the Social Security Administration. The GOP sees this as evidence of voter fraud. It cites as evidence reports of problems with registrations obtained by ACORN workers. Brunner counters that most discrepancies are caused by typographical errors and other errors made by clerical workers at local Boards of Elections.

Brunner's attorneys point out that the HAVA mandates that no voter can be removed from the voting rolls within 60 days of an election due to computer database mismatches. They could, however, be required to vote provisional ballots. Brunner believes that requiring provisional ballots in such cases carries the potential of such votes not being counted. Additionally, there is the possibility that many Ohioans who registered this year may not vote if they think that their votes won't be counted. One suspects that depressing the turnout is what is behind Bo

Given the track record of Bush's Department of Justice on supposed voter fraud issues, this is not a good thing. One of the many scandals that has rocked the Bush Administration is the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys because they wouldn't bring bogus criminal prosecutions for supposed voter fraud. We don't know whether any of the political appointees who were behind the firing of the U.S. Attorneys are still in office under Mukasey.

On the other hand, we don't know if Mukasey is as much of a political partisan as Gonzales. We don't know if he wants to further sully the reputation of the Department of Justice by ordering the possible disenfranchisment of up to 200,000 voters. We don't know if he wants to be preceived as a partisan hack on his way out the door.

Bush's Veto Complicates Ohio's Plans to Cover More Uninsured Children

The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an article dated October 19, 2007 pointing out that Bubble-Boy's veto of the S-CHIP will complicate Ohio's attempt to cover more uninsured children. The article points out that Ohio's program is supported by both Governor Ted Strickland and the GOP leadership in the General Assembly. While it is possible that the Bush Administration could approve the changes that Ohio wants to make to its program, the article claims that this not likely to happen.

Below is a quote from the article explaining how this program would work:

Ohio currently offers coverage to children whose families earn up to twice the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four. The state plans to raise that in January to triple the poverty level, about $62,000 for a family of four.

The future of Ohio's plan has been uncertain since the Bush administration announced in August that it will oppose state efforts to extend coverage to children in families whose income is above 2.5 times the federal poverty rate unless states meet various conditions that Ohio does not expect to meet. The bill Bush vetoed would have prevented the administration from imposing those conditions.

Ohio officials, uncertain how the battle between Congress and Bush would play out, are now seeking permission from the administration to use money from the Medicaid program to cover children at higher income levels. In an interview with The Plain Dealer this week, however, an administration official who oversees state children's health programs sounded doubtful that the administration would approve such a plan

The article also notes that all six Democratic Congressional Representatives voted to override Bush's veto as did six out of 10 Republicans. It is interesting that Minority Leader John Bohner of Ohio, aka "Bonehead", couldn't get a majority of Ohio's 10 Republicans to vote his way.

Congressman Mark Udall to Introduce Resolution Condemning Limbaugh's Remarks About "Phony Soldiers"

Talking Points Memo is reporting that Congressman Mark Udall, D-CO, will introduce a resolution on Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh's remarks about soldiers who oppose the Iraq War being "phony soldiers." He is seeking co-sponsors for the resolution.

It will be interesting to see how the Republican and Democratic House members who voted to condemn the Move On ad about General Petreaus will respond to this resolution. Our guess is that Minority Leader John Bohner, aka Bonehead, will find some bs explanation on why when a right-wing hack denounces soldiers for being against the war it is okay. It will, of course, be ridiculous, but what else can he do?

John "Bonehead" Bohner Wants Never-Ending War in Iraq

If you click on the link in the title for this entry, you can read an article about the Iraq funding resolution. This article contains the following quote from John Boehner, Minority Leader of the House, (R-OH):Democrats have finally conceded defeat in their effort to include mandatory surrender dates in a funding bill for the troops, so forward progress has been made for the first time in this four-month process.

Okay, so now we know Boehner's position: a bill that sets a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq is setting a "surrender date." Now, here's the question that every Democrat and progressive who supports setting a timetable should be asking Bonehead and his kind: how much longer should the U.S. stay in Iraq? One year? Two years? Four years? A decade? How much longer should Americans expect to see their sons and daughters killed or wounded in Iraq and their tax dollars spent? And, if you are unwilling to answer that question, then aren't you for a never-ending Iraqi War by the United States?

If the Democrats bill set "surrender dates" then the Republican version of Iraq funding is a bill for unlimited war, a war with no recognized goals, no way to measure success, and no end in sight. Democrats need to make this point over and over: Republicans supporting Bush are supporting never-ending war in Iraq.