Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

March 13, 2013 four Democrat campaign workers sentenced for election fraud in upstate NY.

June 17, 2013 four Democrat campaign workers sentenced for election fraud in Indiana.

May 1, 2013 Democrat campaign worker sentenced for voter fraud.

September 9, 2012 four Democrats including a state representative plead guilty to conspiracy to commit election fraud in Arkansas.

I wonder why bradblog doesn't cover these stories? Even a search of the archives turns up nothing

In fact, the four just sentenced two days ago in Indiana were guilty of forging signatures in order to place Obama on the primary ballot. Sounds kinda familiar huh......

The difference here is that the Republicans are the ones using election fraud to deceptively discourage voting with voter ID laws. Almost all of these fraud cases involve petition fraud and absentee ballot fraud, both of which voter ID laws would do nothing to resolve.

Steve Snyder asked:

I wonder why bradblog doesn't cover these stories? Even a search of the archives turns up nothing

I'm on the road heading up to a conference right now (responding here by iPhone) so I can't look up the cases you mention to see which ones they are, but you might also be shocked to look around and notice how many election-fraud related cases I don't cover that involve Republicans too. In other words it's not just "Democrat" (sic) cases I don't have time or resources or interest in covering.

Election fraud happens. When there is nothing particularly interesting or enlightening or systematic about it, I don't tend to cover it. When it involves an enormous case of hypocrisy, as in Gingrich's case and the other high-profile Republicans I cite above, I find it worth covering.

Why? Not because it involves election fraud, but because it involves fraud and hypocrisy by those who are working hard to disenfranchise perfectly legal voters for (unAmerican, undemocratic) political advantage.

I find that appalling and, therefore, newsworthy and BRAD BLOG-worthy.

In fact, the four just sentenced two days ago in Indiana were guilty of forging signatures in order to place Obama on the primary ballot. Sounds kinda familiar huh......

Um, yes and no. Since I happen to know the case you mention there, would you like me or you to mention here the hugely important aspect of that case that you managed to leave out?

Exactly what I expected to hear. Two officials connected to the failed Gingrich campaign commit fraud and that's big news. Complete with a misleading side bar picture of Gingrich and the bold red headline "2ND FRAUD CONVICTION" giving the impression that Gingrich himself was convicted to those who just peruse the headlines. All the Democrat convictions, including those who committed fraud in the Indiana for the sitting President, including a Arkansas State Rep and a New York council member just has no interest for fiercely independent Brad!

Resorting to his partisan bias, Steve Snyder aka "Wingnut Steve" bitterly complains that even a search of our sites archives.

Time to sharpen your research skills my blinded=by-the-right friend.

Try reading False Residency: Epidemic Form of Elite Voter Fraud That Cannot Be Prevented by Photo ID, an article which was written by me and edited by Brad Friedman.

The only one who has exposed their bias is you, Steve.

I made a very valid point Ernie and nothing I said even hints at "partisan bias". I'm not going to get into an ad hominum battle with you...

I'm not even sure what your link (which doesn't work btw) is supposed to prove Ernie. One of your six Republicans has actually been found guilty, nevertheless all six have their picture prominently displayed and are found guilty by you:

Here are just a few recent cases of false residency voter fraud by some faces you will be very familiar with. Only one of them, to date, has faced any sort of actual accountability for their election crimes...

Meanwhile the democrat, whom a judge has actually determined should stand trial for his crimes, gets a mere sentence in your piece.

Steve Snyder -

So you're really not going to mention "the hugely important aspect of that case that you managed to leave out", as I asked you previously?

Is there a reason for that? You'd rather not point it out here? Or you don't actually know what it is, and you are just knee-jerking again from inside your increasingly angry wingnutedness?

Steve wrote @9 wrote:

I'm not even sure what your link (which doesn't work btw) is supposed to prove Ernie.

Steve, you are FOS! The link works perfectly fine. But you knew that. Otherwise, you wouldn't have been able to comment on the "six Republicans" depicted in the photo.

I'd like to think that you are simply so blinded by the right that you can't see your own bias. But the fact is that, time-and-again, you've demonstrated that you are a shameless, dishonest, partisan propagandist.

Copy and paste into the search engine isn't that difficult.

I'm not going to beg you Brad. If you have some "hugely important aspect" to justify felony election fraud and why the story about the Republican convicted of the same thing is so interesting, whilst the Democrats conviction deserves nary a mention on the fiercely independent bradblog I'm sure you'll share...

Steve wrote @9 wrote:

I'm not even sure what your link (which doesn't work btw) is supposed to prove Ernie.

It proves that your complaint that The BRAD BLOG doesn't cover Democrats who have been accused of false residency voter fraud is utter BS!

It also reveals that your "complaint" amounts to an absurd, Fox 'News"-like demand for "fair and balanced" in which we must somehow search the archives of the Internet to find each and every case involving a Democrat who was convicted of election fraud before we ever mention a Republican who is connected to either voter or election fraud.

It proves that your worldview is obscured by a partisan lens.

Oh, btw, if we applied the same standards that Newt Gingrich and Fox applied to ACORN, Brad could have said that Gingrich was guilty of voter registration fraud. He did not say anything of the sort!

Second btw, I have not altered the link. I invite other readers to try it. They'll find it works perfectly fine. I don't "believe" your claim @12 that you had to cut and past the title to find the article.

Steve Snyder @6 wrote:

Complete with a misleading side bar picture of Gingrich and the bold red headline "2ND FRAUD CONVICTION" giving the impression that Gingrich himself was convicted...

Great to see a partisan trying to make up a controversy where none exists.

The title of the article reads [emphasis added]:

2nd Gingrich Campaign Worker Pleads Guilty to Election Fraud Felonies in VA

The caption beneath the photo reads:

A second campaign worker pleads guilty to election fraud and perjury...

The sidebar caption reads [emphasis added]:

2d ELECTION FRAUD CONVICTION FOR TEAM NEWT

This is followed by:

Another campaign worker pleads guilty to election fraud in failed conspiracy to place Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on the GOP's Primary ballot in Virginia

We are left with two unassailable facts:

1) No reasonable person who reads or even glosses over this article can arrive at the conclusion that Brad gave "the impression that Gingrich himself was convicted," and

2) Steve Snyder is not a reasonable person.

The side bar headline has been changed as you're well aware.

No, Steve, I wasn't aware of that, but I've no doubt that you left out the subheading of that sidebar that makes it clear, as does every other word in the body of the article that Brad was referring to the conviction of a second Gingrich campaign worker.

Your comments throughout this thread only serve to demonstrate an effort to make up a controversy that does not exist.

Have you no sense of shame?

Steve Snyder said foolishly:

I'm not going to beg you Brad. If you have some "hugely important aspect" to justify felony election fraud and why the story about the Republican convicted of the same thing is so interesting, whilst the Democrats conviction deserves nary a mention on the fiercely independent bradblog I'm sure you'll share...

Well, gosh. Given your righteous indignation at my not covering such an "important" story, I'd think you'd have pointed out one of the most important aspects of that story! But, guess I have to do it.

The hugely important aspect of the story that you forgot to mention while criticizing our "story about the Republican convicted of the same thing...whilst the Democrats conviction deserves nary a mention", is that the story of the Democratic Party operatives convicted of ballot petition fraud in Indiana submitted fraudulent signatures for BOTH Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary. Yes, they were hoping to put both of them on the primary ballot to face each other.

In other words, it was members of a local county Democratic Party apparently taking the lazy way out to ensure that both candidates made it onto the ballot, rather than trying to give one an advantage over someone else, as in the case of Gingrich's private hired operatives in VA.

Moreover, while they found approximately 200 faked signatures in the Obama/Clinton Indian case (appx 90 faked sigs for Obama and some 200 for Clinton), there were reportedly 4,000 faked signatures in VA for Gingrich by the private operatives he hired.

So, other than that, of course --- and the fact that neither Obama, Clinton or the Democratic party has been on a years-long jihad baselessly claiming others are committing "voter fraud" --- the stories are exactly "the same thing". Sigh...

Or, as you deceptively offered it above: Democrats "in Indiana were guilty of forging signatures in order to place Obama on the primary ballot. Sounds kinda familiar huh......"

Yeah, not really. Unless you add the very important details above which underscore how the cases are kinda not really familiar at all. But I'm sure you just forgot to mention that part.

(I apologies if I can't reply immediately, or even at all, to your almost-certain next swing-and-a-miss, as I'm off-line a lot over the next several days. But thanks in advance!)

Please point out anything partisan I've said on this thread Ernie. Just one thing, please...

I've pointed out that there are several recent cases of elections fraud criminal convictions and wondered aloud why Brad rarely seems to have interest in any of them if it involves democrats. I haven't asked this question of you, as you dont make the claims of being fiercely independent or the right vs. left / right vs. wrong thing.

I am glad you cited your ridiculous Romney et al hit piece however Ernie. While lamely trying to prove that somehow you are not a partisan hack because of a small mention of a democrat, you expose the rest of the piece once again for what it is: a lie. Which makes you a liar. Five of those six republicans have never been convicted of any election crime of any sort. Four of them have never been charged with any election crime. And yet you ignore that, write a garbage piece based on a lie, which once again makes you a liar. Its quite obvious you have no sense of shame or journalistic integrity.

I thought maybe once you would pretend to actually give a shit about the right vs. wrong thing Brad. My bad about the convicted felon in Indiana, I guess there are certain felony election crimes that are okay huh... IOKIYAD, that's how it goes right?

Comparing Brad @18 with Steve @21 reveals, again, that Steve is incapable of appreciating subtle but fundamental distinctions, as his mumblings about how unfair Brad and I are to right-wing Republicans continue ad nauseum.

I didn't mention you Ernie. I've known you for several years to be a left wing hack who will, as shown again right here on this thread, blatantly lie to support your views. My point was made to Brad who claims fierce independence and that its not about right vs left, and yet rarely puts anything on his blog to support those claims. As yet you still have nothing to back up your claims of my display of partisanship on this thread either. Don't like the question or the point, attack the person right? There's a term for that... And your ridiculous Romney hit piece is still a lie which makes you still a liar. That point is not an ad hominum (the term I referred to earlier, you could look it up). It's a valid, and excellent observation in reply to your comment about your hit piece. Which is a lie. Which, as a lawyer you know for a fact that I'm correct. That's satisfying.......

Steve @24 wrote:

As a lawyer you know for a fact that I'm correct

What I know Steve is that this entire thread demonstrates what I've been saying for quite some time: That you are an utterly dishonest right wing partisan, whose rants are both devoid of fact and reason, period!

Normally, it takes double the number of signatures to net those required. They were far short, fraud or not.

Steve,
One of the amazing things about you(and I for one believe you are sincere in your nonsense here)is that you ask questions like--why isn't Brad covering something? or show me where I've been a partisan?--and then when repeatedly given answers to those very questions, continue right on asking them. Occasionally throwing in a little added indignation at never being answered for flavor. Except that you were. Repeatedly. Truly weird. Very strange disconnect from easily observable reality and your responses.

It appears that when an answer doesn't fit your preconceptions, it just doesn't register with you. You either actually can't see it or simply don't understand it though it's right there for the rest of the world to see.

So why should anyone continue to answer your questions when you can't see or respond to the answers? It's an exercise in futility.

Also, the link you said doesn't work, works just fine.

Nixon was a lawyer and took bribes from the the heroine dealer selling (the guy the movie "The French Connection" was about to US troops in Vietnam but had a war on drugs. It just came out from the mafioso that Carlos Marcello his bribe was a year before watergate and he had 2 people on the watergate crew to get the dirt about Nixon from the democratic headquarters.
Not to mention he paid his conservative thugs G Gordon Liddy (a lawyer and astill conservative talk show host) and E Howard Hunt to kill the Daniel Ellsberg but eventually settled on the watergate.
Nixon also had LBJ's peace accord in Vietnam bombed to become president.
Besides the one guy who beat Nixon JFK assassinated while the next guy RFK would have beaten Nixon assassinated.
Other than that all conservative lawyers are perfect.

David, I wouldn't expect anything other than blind acquiescence to whatever Brad or Ernie says from you. I wouldn't expect you to be able to or even care about pointing out anywhere on this thread in which I have stated a partisan view. I have not defended in any way the Gingrich people, if they've broken the law they should pay for it. I wouldnt expect you to understand that every time Brad ignores these democrat crimes while focusing only on the republican crimes his ridiculous claim of its not about right vs left becomes even more ridiculous. I wouldn't expect anything other than agreement with Brad to whatever excuse he makes to defend the democrat criminals. But guess what? Election fraud is election fraud, just like armed robbery is armed robbery. Doesn't matter if you steal 10,000 or 10,000,000. But I wouldn't expect someone so blinded by their world view to understand that or care. What I would expect from you is the day after the dust settles to come in and defend the liar Ernie with your chest thrown out yelling "YEAH!"

Brads clever little "swing and a miss" statement does not a point make. Except to the myopic such as you... good day.

David, I'm not one who likes to quote Ronald Reagan, but reading Steve calls to mind his famous quip: "There you go again."

He comes into this thread unable to point to a single, factual error in the article. Instead he makes up shit about how the right hand column says something that it does not, and uses Brad's factual reporting about this event to complain about Brad's never reporting about occasions where a Democrat is charged with voter fraud.

When I provide a link to an article, written by me and edited by Brad, that did just that, he ignores that key point so that he can bitterly complain that my article included other Republicans.

Failing to acknowledge that his entire propaganda stunt in this instance reflects an horrific example of partisan bias, he demands that you demonstrate how his comments reflect "a partisan view."

Frankly, you were too kind in extending Steve the benefit of the doubt in suggesting that he actually believes the BS he consistently dumps onto the comment section of this blog.

That's where you and I differ. Steve can't be as blind as he pretends to be. What we have in Steve is an dishonest, right wing propagandist, period!

Lol! You don't have to sell your lies or anything else to David, he's hooked on the same kool aid as you!

Sorry, you've got democrats all over the place getting convicted for election fraud. I hardly think a slight mention of one, eight months ago, supports your crazy fantasy of being unbiased. In fact, given that it was in a story that is a right vs left lie I'd say it makes my point.

Classic Steve @30. Incapable of disputing any of the substantive observations @29, he projects his own dishonesty onto others.

Steve Snyder continued grasping with...

My point was made to Brad who claims fierce independence and that its not about right vs left, and yet rarely puts anything on his blog to support those claims.

Your selective reading of this site, my Twitter feed, my hours of weekly radio/TV appearances et al, would be stunning, had you not proven years ago your ability to see only what is convenient for you to see, only believe what is convenient for you to believe, and only understand what is convenient for you to understand.

I'm happy, for example, you haven't seen or heard any of my last several weeks of slamming the Obama and admin and it's Democratic apologists in regard to the NSA, the rule of law, their war on journalism, etc. That might make you an out and out liar. So, happily, you just didn't notice it, and are able to simply "hold my feet to the fire", rather than what would otherwise be a preposterous collection of continuingly more and more absurd, angry, sadly desperate, partisan-based crazytown comments on this site.

I thought maybe once you would pretend to actually give a shit about the right vs. wrong thing Brad. My bad about the convicted felon in Indiana, I guess there are certain felony election crimes that are okay huh... IOKIYAD, that's how it goes right?

This is a rhetorical question, because the answer is pretty obvious: Do you have any idea how many election fraud-related crimes there are in this nation each year? And how many of them have to do with Republicans which I don't bother mentioning here at all, for the reasons I patiently described to you above in another comment? As mentioned, it's a rhetorical question, because you don't care to answer it or understand it honestly. As usual. Please continue to pretend I am doing someone's partisan bidding, for some reason that makes absolutely no sense to anyway who actually bothers to notice what I actually do on this site, on Twitter, in my media appearances, etc.

In case you have any continuing confusion about this: No, it is not "OK" when anybody commits any crime. That goes for the Gingrich campaign's conspiracy to commit massive petition signature fraud in VA, as well as the county Democratic Party in IN who did similar on behalf of both Obama and Clinton at the same time (for, obviously, more benign, but still criminal reasons). That is also true for the hundreds of cases of election fraud related crimes committed by partisans of both parties each year which I simply don't have time, resources (or, often, interest, because there is little interesting or enlightening about them) in covering here.

While it's bewildering that you can read this site as regularly as you do, (presumably) read my detailed and extensive coverage on things like RW loon Allen West getting screwed by the electoral system, and still imply that I am somehow shilling for Dems here, your selective outrage (pretend or otherwise) has long become your trademark. Why you'd want such a reputation for daftness, is beyond me.

I have been kind enough to explain to you over and over again, very frankly, why we cover what we cover here. Despite the time I've take to offer those thoughtful explanations, you continue to simply imagine your own reality. As always, you are welcome to do so. But you continue to make an ass out of yourself. The reasons you'd want to keep doing that to yourself is far beyond my pay grade. (Or, it would be, if I was paid to do what I do here.)

Now back to more important things, like the conference I am currently at in San Jose.

Good luck. Try not to commit any mass shootings as your partisan insanity sadly grows more twisted by the day.

Daftness = accusing someone of being partisan because they asked you why you are so partisan.

No, I haven't missed your writings about the administrations overreach and shredding of the constitution. I just commented that you have been doing a great job in that regard on a recent thread.

I don't recall anything about Allen West on this board, I guess I missed that one.

Yes, I'm aware there are quite a few election related crimes that have occurred recently. In fact I pointed out four of them to you. I also understand that you are not paid for this job, so you have to be selective in what you print because of a lack of resources. But hey, as much as I enjoy reading your pieces, and many times agree with them, I do enjoy pointing out these little things. Four democrats in Indiana convicted of election fraud, a Gingrich stooge convicted of election fraud: I's a given which one you will cover and which one you'll ignore. I like to point out that it's a two way street, this shit happens to both sides. One wouldn't know that from reading your typical blogs.

I think the person you need to worry about with mass shootings is your boy Ernie, he is the definition of bitterness and anger. I actually tried twice on this thread to avoid getting into the mudslinging contests which is his trademark for anyone who disagrees with anything at this site. Even you had to correct him when he personally attacked a persons comment a month or so ago, you of course were correct on that, Ernie didn't understand what the guy was saying so he just attacked. That guy is a stroke waiting to happen....

One can demonstrate the absurdity of Steve's entire attack on Brad by stepping away from the R/D divide.

Suppose I wrote an article about the impact of global climate change on penguins.

Steve then posts a comment in which he points to four articles on the impact of climate change on polar bears. Steve complains that Ernie made no mention of polar bears in his article. In fact, he's searched the entire Internet and can't find any article where Ernie wrote about polar bears. Ernie, Steve complains, is biased against polar bears.

Dave Lasanga responds, WTF?

Steve dismisses Dave, who, Steve insists, will believe anything Brad or Ernie say.

As an addendum to my comment @34: In all his rants, Steve could not point to a single, factual error in this article. Steve demonstrated that it is factually impossible to defend Newt, and the entire right wing echo chamber, against the charge of hypocrisy.

As Brad so aptly pointed out in the body of this article:

That is, and always was, the core point of this article --- a point whose accuracy Steve cannot possibly dispute.

Hence the transparent attempt to divert attention by bringing in wholly unrelated cases of fraud committed by "Democrat campaign workers" --- a sort of childish, "Well, Johnnie did it too" defense, when mom catches him crapping on the front porch.

Steve @ 28,

Frankly, Steve, I could give a fuck about your expectations, offense intended. They, like your opinions and arguments, are merely self-reflections of your own deep pool of ignorance, fear, and denial.

note to Steve re: my comment @31--

Before you get all ad hominemy on me, I'd like to point out that my comment above is NOT an ad hominem attack. It's merely two simple declarative statements.

There's a difference between baseless ad hominem attacks and simple declarative statements based on repetitive experience.

As you're so fond of saying, look it up.

(To make it ad hominem I'd have to add--"...while blowing dead bears." Or something. As far as I know there is absolutely no evidence, to date, that you do in fact blow dead bears. And I am certainly not suggesting that you do.)

clarification re:comment #37--what I referred to as my comment@31 has now become #36 after Brad restored the "lost comments".

Steve Snyder whiffed (as expected) @ 33:

I don't recall anything about Allen West on this board, I guess I missed that one.

No, Steve. It wasn't "one". It was an entire series of stories and coverage over several weeks here on the blog, on Twitter and on many radio and TV programs. Here's just a few from that recent series on the blog...

Rep. Allen West Refuses to Concede, Seeks Hand-Count, Impounding of Ballots and Voting Systems in FL-18 U.S. House Race
Tea Party-backed Repub reportedly trails challenger Murphy by less than 2,500 votes as tallied by FL's flawed, failed voting systems

Hundreds of Votes Disappear After 'Partial Recount' on Faulty Tabulation Systems in FL-18 U.S. House Race Between West and Murphy
Republican West gains 500 votes after memory card 'issue' on Diebold op-scan systems prompts partial re-tally in St. Lucie County

Allen West Files For 'Recount' in FL-18, But Only for Early Ballots and Only in St. Lucie County
Supporters of controversial Repub and Dem opponent Patrick Murphy deserve full hand-count of all ballots in all FL-18 counties...

Florida Court Denies Allen West's Motion for Broader Partial Re-Tally of Ballots in FL-18 Race
GOP Congressman likely to contest results after final certification

Wild Weekend Update in the Allen West, Patrick Murphy FL-18 U.S. House Election Debacle
PLUS: Whose Ox Got 'Gored'? Republicans and Democrats switch sides in the fight for election integrity...

Allen West Concedes: 'I Congratulate Patrick Murphy as New Congressman from Florida's 18th'
GOP Rep's incompetent attorneys won't contest mistabulated race...

Do I need to go back and post the links to all of my stories in support of Tea Party Republican Joe Miller's attempt to have a transparent count of his U.S. Senate election too? Cuz there were even more stories about that. How many other similar stories do I need cite for you to help you understand that a) You seem to only see what you want to see and b) You continue to miss the point entirely of why I cover what I cover, no matter how times I patiently, and thoughtfully attempt to explain it to you (and, as noted many times, it has nothing to do with your absurd assertion that I am trying to protect Democrats, or whatever nonsense is at the heart of your baseless and increasingly stupid one-man jihad here in comments.)