This American Moment

Listen to this "Talk of Nation' topic

Today, we conclude "This American Moment: The Conventions Edition." John Fund, a columnist for The Wall Street Journal, will join us from our headquarters at the Republican National Convention in Saint Paul. We'll talk with him about energy policy, which he thinks is particularly important. If energy issues matter to you — at this American moment, tell us why.

We're aiming to continue this series of interviews. You probably won't hear it every day, but we'll keep our invitations to artists, writers, musicians, politicians, theologians, and thinkers open. Tell us who you'd like to hear from.

Comments

 

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

On the point about voting fraud: If an election official asks an African American or any type of brown person for a state issued ID in order to prevent voter fraud; civil rights organizations call that "voter intimidation." Watch and see, It happens every Presidential election.

Sent by Sue | 2:54 PM | 9-4-2008

It was a very biased interview, with JOhn Fund pretending to say that "both sides" were at fault, but clearly impugning Barack Obama only. In addition, when NK asked specifically of John McCain had condemned the same kind of deceipt, he slimed out without answering. Pls. do not even bring such folks on, if they cannot be balanced!

Sent by John Evans | 3:01 PM | 9-4-2008

African Americans are America's most patriotic citizens and John Fund just disparaged these citizens for stating that ACORN is attempting to allow people to vote who should not exercise that right.

Voting is a patriotic duty and the Republicans are constantly attempting to put barriers in place so real Americans cannot exercise their cherished freedoms.

When my (5-greats) grandfather fought in the Revolutionary War, there were African Americans fighting with him. There were no Jews, no Italians, no Irish Catholics, no Asians fighting for our independence. Over 5,000 African Americans fought for the Continental Army and Navy.

It was reported a few years ago that those casting two votes were the Jew who had homes in New York and Florida.

The visceral, divisive ranting of John Fund is an insult to real Americans!

Chagrined,

M. Delphia Block

Sent by M. Delphia Block | 3:02 PM | 9-4-2008

Having John Fund on as though he was a respectable journalist instead of a stooge of the Rupert Murdock Wall Street Journal and giving him a forum to talk to the nation is very disappointing of you. I assume you all know what is going on here. If this is your idea of responsible journalism, why don't you just lie down and let Karl Rove roll over you all?
I'm sorry, but this is simply ridiculous. Please wake up. The fate of the whole world may be at stake.

Sent by Michael Rosenberg | 3:14 PM | 9-4-2008

Apparently Mr. Fund either ignores, or is unaware of, this countries history of suppressing minority votes. For him to make unfounded accusations about important groups like ACORN, is both cynical and disingenuous. After 2000 Florida we are supposed to buy his lies? For NPR to continue providing an unchallenged platform for this brand of thinly veiled hate speech is inexcusable.

Sent by J Brody | 3:17 PM | 9-4-2008

This was a clearly biased interview. John Fund was allowed to spew a series of unproven allegations unchallenged for any proof. NPR can and should do better than put this kind of garbage on the air.

Sent by Thomas Cook | 3:23 PM | 9-4-2008

Neal Conan really showed his true colors today by allowing the WSJ's John Fund to imply Barack Obama is involved in voter fraud.

I googled "Acorn" and "voter fraud" and stragely was only able to find links leading to the WSJ and all the usual right wing suspects.

I expect Fund to spew his RW nonsense, but I don't expect the host of TOTN to just allow him to do it without challenging such an outrageous charge.

When is TOTN going to have Stephen Spoonamore or Cliff Arnebeck on to discuss the the Justice Department investigation into Diebold machines dumping votes in Georgia in 2002 and in Ohio in 2004?

What's the deal? Where's NPR's vaunted "objectivity? Have your corporate sponsors given your election marching orders?

"Liberal Media" my ass!

Sent by Mark Feehan | 3:35 PM | 9-4-2008

Since it is so much a part of this election, I would like to hear at This American Moment a dicussion on racism from an anthpological perspective. As to whether racism is an inate survival tool from the past designed to protect our offspring and resources from others who do not have the same family genes and whether it evolved from what we call being territorial in other animals. Would it not be much easier to forgive each other for being racists if we understood that we were wired that way? And would it not be easier to let go of racism if we understood that it is no longer a necessary tool in a culture that lives by the rule of law and that has enough resources for everyone? I would like to hear racism discussed from this perspective because I believe it could help some of us become more tolerant.

Sent by Oliver Mayfield | 3:48 PM | 9-4-2008

I'd like to hear from Colin Powell

Sent by Patricia Kohlmeier | 4:54 PM | 9-4-2008

NPR professes to be the place where Americans can get unbiased political news. That was certainly not the case with Wall Street (Journalist? or Rupert Murdoch's fake news asset?) I was appalled at how he slimed the Acorn group & tied it to Obama. Then, when called on it & (along with NC) did not allow the caller to even finish, but continued the disingenuous tirade on Acorn, Obama & what he called the Daly/Chicago machine. Most Americans know that we've had two stolen elections, FL-2000 & 2004 in OH & NM, well documented & on record, VOTING FRAUD, not VOTER FRAUD. Well documented studies have shown there has very little VOTER FRAUD, but rather that it is a myth perpetrated by right-wing radio hacks & the RNC. In fact, the US attorneys that were fired were the ones that refused to bow to pressure to pursue cases of VOTER FRAUD that had no merit. Please do not have Fund on again.

Sent by Sharon Crane | 8:01 PM | 9-4-2008

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Hi, this is Marc Ginsburg continuing with my essays on the latest political events. I appreciate deeply anyone's help in either passing on these essays to as many people and places as possible as well as let me know where I can find the largest audience. My email address is m_ginsburg@hotmail.com.
Yesterday, Sarah Palin gave her much anticipated speech, her introduction of herself to the American people. It was a huge success. Her performance was excellent and her style of presenting herself both orally and visually are impeccable. "A breath of fresh air" is exactly what I was feeling when she started into her speech and is no understatement to describe what I think most people felt on hearing her regardless of what they were thinking with their minds. She is definitely a captivating speaker. The only answer to John McCain's question at the end of the night is a resounding "Yes!"
Of course, a great part of what made her feel like a "breath of fresh air" was that she followed right on the heels of Mayor Giuliani, which I am sure was very carefully planned. His speech itself was tremendously effective and accomplished exactly what it's aim was--to wake everyone up, get the blood flowing and enhance how refreshingly new and different Governor Palin felt taking command of that stage. While perhaps the substance and messages of both speeches were, if not the same, aimed at stirring at the same heartstrings and emotions, I think Mayor Giuliani's contrast with Governor Palin's in-control and tough but level-headed demeanor demonstrate d that there is a lot more than the "lipstick" Governor Palin humorously referred to that differentiates a hockey mom from a pitbull.
Now Governor Palin had me throughout most of her speech. I felt that this was someone with whom I and my fellow Democrats could agree to disagree and have civil discourse. That was up until she started talking about taxes. I don't mind a position stated with passion. But Governor Palin betrayed the warm feelings of trust she had just gained from the independents, the undecided voters, the Hillary holdouts and others either not ready to trust Obama or simply disgusted with Washington altogether, now for many years, by lying straight out about Obama's stated decision to cut the taxes of middle class and working people by saying shamelessly that he stated his intent to raise them. Nor did she stop there. She went through a whole litany of different types of taxes he was planning raise, without bothering to mention that most of them apply only to the wealthiest 10% of Americans and have nothing to do with the taxes of the middle and working class people who are currently suffering tremendously without an iota of help from the current Republican administration nor even the slightest promise of any from either McCain or from Palin that Senator Obama hasn't already matched in his proposal. In fact, someone among the PBS pundits raised the fact earlier that McCain's tax proposal, embarrassingly for him, offers less in the way of tax cuts than does Obama. So the fact recognized by at least one journalist and tacitly accepted by his colleagues is that Obama's plan will actually cut your and my taxes more than McCain's! This is because McCain, like Palin, is a "fiscal conservative", so they have to keep at least as close to the appearance of a balanced budget as will support their image of doing something about the huge deficit George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have wastefully created. And since the largest budget outlay--defense spending--is not even on their table since they advocate staying in Iraq for "as long as it takes" to achieve "victory"--by their definition--to say nothing of other countries we are not even invested in either financially or in terms of manpower, they are forced to scale back the tax cuts they are promising to modest amounts or risk being financially "irresponsible".
Yet despite all this firm evidence to the contrary, Sarah Palin had the audacity to tell a boldfaced lie and say that not only that Barack Obama intends to raise our taxes--which would be bad enough--but that he actually said he intended to raise our taxes, and in so doing, all respect she had gained from me immediately flew right out the window. Unfortunately, however, I know that the same is not true for close to 80% of all Americans who heard those words of hers. That, my friends, is the Republicans' first "SWIFT BOAT" of this campaign. By "SWIFT BOAT", I mean, telling a lie about the Democratic candidate in such a forum and in so many ways over and over again that it becomes believed by enough people to turn the election. Such was the case when John Kerry's heroic efforts as one the members of a "swift boat" crew during the Vietnam War to return back to the danger zone to rescue his comrades instead of escaping to safety were called in the infamous ad campaign that slandered and defamed him, a lie, and it worked and succeeded in turning the poll numbers from his being ahead of George W. Bush to behind. George W. Bush was able to become President for a second term on the power of a lie. These words of Sarah Palin's during her convention acceptance speech, with John McCain not even the official Republican nominee, as the first "SWIFT BOAT" lie of this campaign against Barack Obama that has the odds of ensuring McCain's election by giving him the poll number boost he needs, show me clearly exactly what we are dealing with and how unfair and unlevel the playing field is. With the exception of limited comments the media aired today as rebuttals from Obama and Biden and their campaign, the magnitude of this lie and the magnitude of the audacity of this lie right in the middle of a very attractive and inspiring speech is something the clearly right-wing corporate-owned media has every interest in ignoring, fully knowingly.
The reality is that our chances--i.e. the chances of 99% of us--excuse me, 100% of us if you throw in the severe dangers both from global warming which Palin is clearly ignoring despite the sharp warnings of Al Gore and 4 successive hurricanes now in the past week, to say nothing of what lies beyond that continental shelf that Palin boasts of knowing so well--the reality is that our chances of winning this election and everyone's life becoming better, not worse is something marked by the worst odds imaginable. There is simply no way the Democrats and the people of America and the world can win against the corporate media and their slick Republican conventions and slick Republican ads. 80% of Americans have absolutely no option in media with the exception of the internet to receive anything but very polarizing, false and right-wing only programming from Fox News to EIB, with the major corporate networks all careful not to "upset the apple cart" by presenting anything that would enable a real debate of real issues to take place such as I am doing now. There is only one way Democrats and the human race have any hope at all--that is for anyone who realizes what I am saying and what Barack Obama is saying to drop everything between now and November and get out in those streets and register, register, register, canvass, canvass, canvass and dialogue, dialogue, dialogue. It means listening to people. It means meeting with people and talking with them one on one. Most people are completely disgusted with politics and you can easily see with the low approval rating of both elected branches of government how they feel. Both parties have failed to win the hearts of most people.
What we have seen in Barack Obama, John McCain and Sarah Palin are 3 different ways 3 different politicians with 3 very different backgrounds are all trying to fight the "Washington elite". They are all using the same rhetoric practically because they all know it is what Americans are hurting about. The task all 4 of the current candidates have is to convince Americans that they really have something to offer that makes a real difference and is not the same old rhetoric. Both parties' conventions had much of the same nonpartisan rhetoric, praising the ordinary, small-town working folk who are hurting nowadays. At the same time, both conventions indulged in the clear partisan rhetoric of past years that differentiates them. That would definitely quickly extinguish any flame of hope or excitement for change, or "reform" as the Republicans prefer to label their brand of change, on the part of people observing these spectacles.
Still and all, Sarah Palin touched a cord in all of us. If she could touch a cord in me, a Democrat through and through, it is easy to see why only she could effectively SWIFT-BOAT Barack Obama and get away with it. Barack Obama has a lot of star power but even that will only go so far in turning the tide here. But what does have greater power than Sarah Palin or any of the other Republicans can imagine is for Democrats to converge en masse in the places that are most crucial in this election and have one on one dialogues with one person after another patiently, winning their hearts through love, warmth and compassion--through just listening to their stories. Through patiently correcting the false impressions the Republican media is portraying about what's important in this election and bringing it back to the truth. The sometimes inconvenient truth, the at other times audacious truth, the truth which is a relief to hear and inspires hope, the truth that is only real when spoken to power, and the truth that refutes lies as soon as they begin--such as the lie that Barack Obama said he was going to raise your taxes. That's an easy one for all reading this to refute--just fact check it for yourself by going to his acceptance speech from a week ago. The lines "Listen carefully...I will cut taxes" will clearly stand out in refutation to Palin's boldfaced lie. This is what those millions of Americans desperately need to hear who have only FOX and EIB assaulting their ears and their intelligence day in, day out. That is why you and I have to go to these places and meet with these people one on one, one after another. That is the only way. But if we do it, we will definitely win. And the human race will be saved from all the destruction that the fear-mongering scary war-creating rhetoric of the Bush-Cheney-McCain-Palin agenda.
Lastly, I think it's time we stop this stupid "experience" game. If you are a Democrat or you believe in Barack Obama, you are doing him and all of us a disservice by taking the Republicans and their media's bait by getting into this issue. The moment I learned that Sarah Palin was McCain's pick, my immediate reaction was, "Thank goodness. McCain finally recognizes that this election is not about who has the most experience but about who brings the freshest voice for change/reform to Washington." From that moment, it should have become a dead issue. Yet stupidly, either some Democrats are simply real dumb or they are moles posing as Democrats who keep harping on this issue. I think they should either stop it or the rest of us should immediately fire them and get rid of them from our team. The fact is that all 4 of these people have unique experiences that only they have. They each have something invaluable that none of the other 3 have that will definitely be an asset to any administration. Were they to come together in the true nonpartisan spirit they all, especially Obama and McCain call for, the things such an administration could achieve would be remarkable and astounding!
Yet the Republicans could not get enough of harping on that issue, this time touting the "experience" card in terms of "executive experience". Putting aside that the ability to work with others is the primary quality necessary for any executive--which I know Sarah Palin is fully aware of, as is Rudy Giuliani, though he, like his counterpart in stubbornness in the White House, George W. Bush, did everything they could to avoid this necessary cooperative quality--and this is I believe why the framers of the Constitution made the Legislative Branch the focus of Article I and the Executive Branch the focus of Article II--putting this aside, it was amazing how everyone just jumped on that bandwagon about Sarah Palin having more experience than both Obama and Biden combined because she's the only one who held an executive position for any length of time. Well that would be fine and great! Were it not for one thing they all seem to have forgotten! The sum total of John McCain's executive experience is the exact same as both Biden's and Obama's-a big fat ZERO! How 'bout that! The Republicans themselves just said--not once, but over and over again--that John McCain doesn't have one iota of experience that counts for this position they are both running for and that therefore you have to elect him because--get this, now--because his running mate is the one with the experience! Does that sound like the kind of picture you want to highlight on your resume or job interview with a prospective employer?
Oh, but John McCain was a prisoner of war in an enemy camp for years and didn't once give in. Yes, that to me sounds like you're getting closer to the stuff of what a qualified candidate for our nation's top office is made of. Now we're getting to what the Republicans have been pushing about John McCain but what Barack Obama has been arguing for ever since he stood eye to eye with Hillary--it's character that's your most essential and most defining quality a prospective employer will be most interested in. "Don't have the experience? We'll train the right candidate." How many times have you seen that in a job ad? I've seen it thousands of times especially when the economy was good before the Republicans between Newt Gingrich and his "Republican revolution" and George W. Bush ruined it and employers didn't have their pick of candidates. People want a good person who is a person of character. And that is central to the words we remember our greatest leaders with, especially our greatest Presidents. Both Lincoln and Kennedy were legislators, not executives, and we know what they accomplished, including standing down Khrushchev in what were the world's 11 most tense days, thus saving the planet from what clearly looms closer and closer to annihilating us once again if we do not have in the White House a person who really knows how to defuse not ignite tensions. To John McCain's credit, even with his compromising with big money way too often, he is certainly light years closer to the kind of wisdom and good sense we need than are these two madmen who, in the pocket of big oil, have led us to danger which has never been more real and more present in the last 8 years. But at a time like this do you want someone who is even remotely associated this evil, pernicious side of human nature and which has robbed us of so much that we once enjoyed, especially our safety and security? Doesn't it make a whole lot more sense to make a clean break once and for all with those who have been in the driver's seat while our situation has gone down and down and further down?
In talking about the silly character vs. lack of experience issue and the real, more sinister issue of power vs. truth, I'd like to share the story of a young man who lived a long time ago in a land that then, as today, was racked with a lot of instability and danger. The name of that land, then as now, was called Israel. It was in danger of attack by another people, called the Philistines. The king of Israel, named Saul, had 100% of the executive experience of governing this young at the time kingdom which had just come together from a band of disparate and often disunited tribes. It is sometimes said that rather than any great capacity this man with executive experience had, it was rather the great threat posed by those people to the north, the Philistines, that quickly brought the tribes of Israel together into one kingdom. Whatever the reason, Saul had full intention, as is the way of kings, to pass his executive power of king onto his son, Jonathan. Which makes perfect sense considering that he was his son. But Jonathan had a friend named David. And Jonathan recognized in David something which turned out to be a point of contention between himself and his father. He recognized that David was a truly gifted individual with great promise. But that was all David had--great promise. He was no resume. He had no executive experience. At least Jonathan had the birthright. But from the point of view of people who see things only in terms of what's the official definition of entitlement, David had nothing. But I'm sure all of you reading this no that what David had dwarfed greatly anything Saul in his wildest dreams could imagine. Nothing the laws of the land or the customs of class and power could prepare Israel for the danger it was about to face nor for what and who would save them. As you all know, in Israel's most dire moment, it was David, a youth, not a man of many years' experience, not a general who commanded an army and not a man of royal blood, who displayed true human greatness and ingenuity and saved Israel. All he had was a tiny little device called a slingshot that he had devised that enabled him to take a giant unawares and bring him down. Because his friend and heir to Saul's kingdom, Jonathan, was not blinded by the power that surrounded him and understood what true power was made of, he refused to become king and gave his birthright to the man he knew could use it more effectively than anyone.
Together, in both action and word, but mostly in action, Jonathan and David spoke truth to power. They showed how feeble and useless the external trappings of power are at a crucial moment. John Fitzgerald Kennedy demonstrated the exact same thing when he used diplomacy and not guns to avert nuclear catastrophe.
So folks, though I don't know what John McCain will have said tonight since this writing precedes it, I want you to take David and Jonathan's story into the poll with you in your heart before you make your decision as to who you feel is most qualified to be our country's next leader. I want you to look hard into the face of reality and without flinching or getting scared ask yourself, "Which of these two men has the real character and ability to speak truth to power at all times, not just the menacing power of a Philistine giant or a North Vietnamese captor but the friendly and bewitching power of a king or a politician tied to a multibillion dollar industry blinded by the trappings of this same type power which afflicts all human beings universally?" And I want you to think hard about the right and honest answer to this question. We have already seen the boldface lies that people of such nature will go to do defend their political position--something Barack Obama will never do, despite the smears his opponents make up every day. That is the crucial difference.
John McCain is a big refreshing change from George W. Bush. But the great news is we don't have to settle for a little change. We can settle for a real and big change, the kind of "once and for all" change I know you all yearn for desperately in your hearts.
Sincerely,

Marc Ginsburg

Sent by Marc Ginsburg | 8:16 PM | 9-4-2008

As an objective listener, I did not hear Mr Fund make any outright accusations. In the program I was listening to, he backed up what he said. Is this not an important part of journalism?

To me, if there are people who are charged and convicted and/or plead guilty then these are largely true statements. Granted I don't know the background about this fellow, and granted he largely gave examples against Mr Obama's affiliation, and only suggested that it was possible that Mr McCain's party could possibly have been involved in similar such activities in the past. I felt that he did represent both sides, if not equally. Sometimes both sides can't be represented equally. If there are more examples for one side than the other should we simply brush some of them under the rug to make things equal?

I heard nothing unfairly biased this afternoon and I heard no outright attack against anyone, and I feel that the uproar is largely hype that everyone is creating. As I said in the beginning, I don't know any background and I'm purely giving my objective views. If there is more to the story that I'm unaware of then I apologize for my ignorance. But please don't make a mountain out of a molehill if that indeed is the case.

Sent by Jeffrey B. | 8:38 PM | 9-4-2008

I would like to hear from Ralf Nader

Sent by Isabelle | 8:41 PM | 9-4-2008

Talk of the Nation, yesterday you allowed John Fund from the Wash. Post to have his say about supposed voter fraud, it is your duty to give the other side and all those he impugned a chance for rebuttal!!!!!!!
You must have someone on from Acorn, it is my understanding that they have NOT had so many convictions on voter fraud but a lot of politically motivated indictments and investigations. You must have someone from Obama's camp on for rebuttal, it is only fair! Also I would have someone from Daley's office and David Orr's office, the Cook County Clerk in charge of the largest election jurisdiction in America on as well. Also and this is very important, there is very minuscule voter fraud in America, where voter's try to commit fraud but there is serious and widespread election fraud in America where the election systems are manipulated by entrenched powers! You must have a rebuttal from Bev Harris of Black Box Voting or Robert F Kennedy!
You allowed one side of of this story to be aired now it is your duty to allow the other sides to have their say too! I will be listening for your decisions on this matter very carefully! You have an obligation to America to air the whole story on the status of our elections at this crucial time in history!
Dr. Lora Chamberlain
Chicago

Sent by Dr. Lora Chamberlain | 10:43 AM | 9-5-2008

Why exactly is there no limit to the space a commenter, like Ginsburg, can take up? Does he have a blog of his own?

By the way, there's nothing wrong with having a right wing shill on the show, so long as he isn't presented as an objective observer. And sure, there are objective conservative observers, and sure, their comments are worth listening to. It's just that Fund isn't one of them. This was a farce.

Sent by Mike Corrado | 5:55 PM | 9-6-2008

Fund accuses ACORN of having a "tradition and a history of manipulating the election process and trying to sneak people in who shouldn't be voting." Americans must determine fact versus fiction when entertaining Fund.

The fact is ACORN has NEVER been for voter fraud, violating election laws, or encouraging ineligible voters. But what the organization has done is challenged the status quo by helping more than 3 million minority and low-income Americans register to vote as well as it has won wage increases for 1.5 million low-income workers by combining voter registration drives with ballot initiatives in 2006 to pass laws in AZ, CO, MI, and Ohio, also key battleground states for this election.

But Fund fails to report these facts because they are opposed to the right-winged agenda: to suppress the minority vote. Instead, he opts to fantasize about "voter fraud." So pathetic.

Sent by Marli Guyton | 1:50 PM | 9-11-2008

Statement from ACORN President Maude Hurd:

"On NPR last week at the Republican National Convention, Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund continued his tirades against ACORN's successful voter registration work, which added more than 1.1 million minority and low-income Americans to the rolls this election season."

Fund accuses ACORN of having "a tradition and a history of manipulating the election process and trying to sneak people in who shouldn't be voting."

Americans must determine fact versus fiction when entertaining John Fund.

Fact: ACORN has NEVER been indicted for voter fraud, violating elections laws or encouraging ineligible citizens to vote.

Fact: ACORN has challenged the status quo by helping more than 3 million minority and low-income Americans register to vote since 2004.

Fact: ACORN has won wage increases for 1.5 million low-income workers by combining voter registration drives with ballot initiatives in 2006 to pass laws in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Ohio, also key battleground states for this election.

Fund fails to report these facts, because they are opposed to the right-wing agenda: to suppress the minority vote. Instead, he chooses to fantasize about "voter fraud."

Studies suggest there is no evidence that voters are intentionally corrupting the electoral process, let alone in numbers that dilute and "cancel" votes of other Americans as Fund contends, according to the Project Votes report, "The Politics of Voter Fraud," citing U.S. Department of Justice reports.

"Government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year," according to the Project Vote report.

On the other hand, there is substantial evidence that Republicans continue to engage in "election fraud," using "caging lists" of unforwarded mail to registered voters to challenge their eligibility at the polls. The 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which Fund calls "a machine for corruption," prohibits political parties from using caging lists. The U.S. Justice Department issued a consent decree against the National GOP from operating illegal caging lists, but state chapters continued the practice.

"In 2004, political operatives targeted more than half a million voters in voter caging campaigns in nine states. At least 77,000 voters had their eligibility challenged between 2004 and 2006," according to a September 2007 Project Vote report, "Caging Democracy: a 50-year history of partisan challenges to minority voters."

The Republican caging machine is already operating in high gear this election season, putting in harm's way nearly 600,000 unsuspecting Ohio registered voters. On Sept. 5, Ohio elections officials sent out a mass mailer stamped "do not forward" to all registered voters with an absentee ballot and other information for Nov. 4.

After being pressed by a persistent NPR caller, Fund admitted to Republicans committing election fraud.

"Intimidation at the polls, blocking people from voting, sending out mailings to people that target them on the basis of race, has been part of Republican activities," Fund said on NPR. "Not recently that I've discovered in the research for my book, 'Stealing Elections.' But it has to be condemned, and it has been condemned. I condemned it."

With the country facing perhaps the most important election of this century, Fund should practice what he preaches in "condemning" voter suppression by focusing on the facts of empowering Americans to participate in our great democracy, rather than propagating fiction that further disparages voters from exercising their rights.

Sent by Maude Hurd | 8:24 PM | 9-12-2008