Fox News' Colmes pressed Freddoso over voting "technicality" claim
SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, Alan Colmes questioned David Freddoso's assertion in his new book that Sen. Barack Obama "thr[e]w all of his opponents off the ballot on a technicality, so that those voters have no choice but to elect him. This is precisely how he first won his state Senate seat in 1996." But Colmes pointed out that the "technicality" that Freddoso described included allegedly forged petitions and signatures reportedly from people who did not live within the district that the Senate seat represented.
In the introduction of his new book The Case Against Barack Obama (Regnery), author David Freddoso asserts that Sen. Barack Obama "thr[e]w all of his opponents off the ballot on a technicality, so that those voters have no choice but to elect him. This is precisely how he first won his state Senate seat in 1996." But on the August 4 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Alan Colmes questioned Freddoso's assertion, pointing out that the "technicality" that Freddoso described included allegedly forged petitions and signatures reportedly from people who did not live within the district that the Senate seat represented, as Media Matters for America has noted.
As Media Matters further documented -- and which Colmes also mentioned as an example of a "contradiction" in the book -- on Page 2, Freddoso undermines his own claim of a "technicality" by quoting a 1996 Chicago Weekend article explaining that some of incumbent Sen. Alice Palmer's signatures were disqualified because some voters who signed lived outside the 13th district represented by the Senate seat -- something more than a mere "technicality." From Page 2 of Freddoso's book:
With that justification, he approved the project, and he checked up on its progress nightly. One by one, Obama's "petitions guru" disqualified Palmer's signatures for one reason or another. According to one local newspaper at the time: "Some of the problems include printing registered voters name [sic] instead of writing, a female voter got married after she registered to vote and signed her maiden name, registered voters signed the petitions but don't live in the 13th district."
Additionally, the Chicago Tribune reported on April 4, 2007, that one of Obama's opponents, Gha-Is Askia, "now suspects" some of the signatures his campaign collected were forged. Tribune reporter David Mendell wrote in his book Obama: From Promise to Power (Amistad, 2007), that Palmer acknowledged at the time that her signatures had not been properly collected. From Pages 109-110 of Obama: From Promise to Power:
So a volunteer for Obama challenged the legality of her petitions, as well as the legality of petitions from several other candidates in the race. As an elections board hearing on the petitions neared, Palmer realized that Obama had called her hand, and she acknowledged that she had not properly acquired the necessary number of signatures. Many of the voters had printed their names, rather than signing them as the law required.
Freddoso is presumably aware of these facts, as he cites both the April 4, 2007, Chicago Tribune article and Page 109 of Obama: From Promise to Power in the first chapter of his book. On Page 3, Freddoso reproduces a quotation from Askia in the Tribune article:
One of them was Gha-is Askia. He never had much of a chance of winning anyway, but he had gathered 1,899 signatures, and Team Obama took the time to challenge them as well.6 Askia spoke to the Chicago Tribune in 2007 about it:
"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"7
From the August 4 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: Hey, David, let me -- there are some of the issues I have with your book. First of all, in the introduction to the book, and I put up on the screen, you talk about him basically getting everybody else off the ballot when he's running for local office.
FREDDOSO: That's right.
COLMES: You say, "Obama will throw all of his opponents off the ballot on a technicality so that these voters have no choice but to elect him."
FREDDOSO: That's right.
COLMES: But then you quote, on Page 2 of the book, Chicago Tribune that you mentioned earlier, "Some of the problems include ... registered voters signed the petitions but don't live in the 13th District."
FREDDOSO: That's true.
COLMES: That would be breaking the law. Another thing from the same Chicago Tribune article that you quote, you talk about Gha-Is Askia, and you quote the Chicago Tribune, that refers to him as "a perennially unsuccessful candidate, acknowledging he paid the Democratic Party workers $5 a sheet, and that they forged signatures."
And so, on one hand, you're accusing him of forcing people off the ballot, but the Chicago Tribune story that you referenced basically says these people were breaking the law
FREDDOSO: They weren't breaking the law. What --
COLMES: Forging signatures?
FREDDOSO: Well, OK. The signature gatherers who forged signatures were breaking the law. The candidates who were trying to be on the ballot and appear and give the voters the choice weren't breaking the law. And when Senator Obama had them thrown out, he actually went and had his volunteers --
[crosstalk]
COLMES: Wait a minute. The elections commission did it based on the fact that he was -- that he didn't follow the law.
FREDDOSO: They challenged all the petitions.
COLMES: Sure.
FREDDOSO: And what happened was they actually took the time, Obama's volunteers took the time to take -- I think it's fascinating. They took a perennial candidate, a hopeless, no-chance candidate, and they actually took the time to challenge more than a thousand signatures from him.
COLMES: But they also challenged Alice Palmer, who I quoted earlier that you, yourself, according to your own contradiction of the book on Page 2 --
FREDDOSO: How is that a contradiction?
COLMES: Because you say first that he was basically forcing people off the ballot. Then you say -- suggest that he was doing it illegally or underhandedly.
FREDDOSO: I didn't suggest that he did it illegally, Alan, or underhandedly. What I said was --
[crosstalk]
FREDDOSO: What I said was that the man who campaigns on hope and change and tries to make us less cynical about politics, Alan, is -- is the same guy who won his first election by denying the voters a choice.
COLMES: But it turns out, according to your --
FREDDOSO: It was perfectly legal. He had every right to do what he did, Alan.
COLMES: David, according to your own reporting, they didn't live in the district, these people.
FREDDOSO: Some of them didn't. In some cases there was a woman who -- who signed the petition with her married name, but she was registered to vote under her maiden name. There were a lot of cases where people printed their name instead of signing it. There were a lot of different cases. The petitions may very well have been -- may well have been bad signatures. That's all -- that's all true.
COMES: Which wouldd be illegal.
FREDDOSO: But if you read The Audacity of Hope by Senator Obama, he portrays this election as if he told people you should be less cynical about politics and they loved his speech and they elected him.
COLMES: Anyway, we've got to -- we've got to run, David. Thank you very much for being here tonight.















If conservatives didn't spend their time thinking up lies...
What else would they do?
I'm sure he will show up eventually... they all do.
You'll be able to find Larry Craig at Faux News in his usual haunt - in the mens' room, practicing his "wide stance". :-)
Think I'll buy up all the 'Clearance - 99% Off!' copies and use them for kindling.
That would cause air pollution..... :-)
Good point Ewe...
Obama should have kicked Grampah's ass over this recent onslaught of filth. He could have crushed him right now.
He missed his opportunity. Let Grampah slip away. All he had to do was run a Robert Greenwald type 30 second slot in all the swing states.
Sen. George McCain would have been finished.
Here's Obama with a good, strong response to the car maintenance mockery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akjXqfvLu28
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."
Nice one Clams...
Yeah, that's what we need more of from Obama.
When you're running against conservatives, you've gotta get in the gutter. Mud and filth are all the cons have left, and they're gonna fling it.
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."
I like that he said that, I think Obama's got to quit being so polite. I realize part of the wingnuts feeble plan is to pile on the BS to bring out the "aggressive Black guy" to fire up the pants-pissing-huckleberries, but as long as Obama can handle these ridiculous tactics with humor, as he did here, it's going to be very effective at showing how empty the attacks are.
Ignorance as debating tactic, of course, is nothing new here.I've lost count of the conservative posters here claiming victory by the process of refusing to acknowledge or understand facts. These are usually the same ones crying later that you're not engaging in a discussion with them.
Two of the lamest attempts at playing on the tire inflation theme that I've seen;
On the comment board of a website- one wingnut warning everybody how dangerous Obama's suggestion to "overinflate" our tires is, with respect to handling and safety. "Inflating to the proper pressure" translating into "overinflating", this may have worked on a handful of people.
Hugh Hewitt "riffing" with a caller, variations of "next it'll be how much to inflate our bicycle tires" and "watch out for the tire inflation police, they'll put you in the pokey for having underinflated tires". I guess in the reptilian authoritarian mind that makes a wingnut, sensible, helpful suggestions sound like oppression.
Don't give up hope yet...
A new poll finds Barack Obama is leading John McCain nationally by 6 percentage points thanks to big leads he is enjoying among women, minorities and younger voters.
Snoop, I've been seeing those new stats in Obama's suposed "problem areas". If you get back here, I'd like your take on something (or anybody else's).
Some posters here, and people I know, seem pretty sure that Obama will win in a landslide, despite the close polls. I'm more cautious, having learned never to underestimate the Stoopid-American vote.
A point that's made pretty often regarding the polls is that they're done on "land lines", which skews heavily to the older Grampy vote. It's a good point, as many of the people I know under 35 or so don't even have home phones.
On the other hand, the younger voters are notorious for not showing up on election day, current support for Obama notwithstanding.
You think this might be a wash, or could there be a silent cell-phone-only factor that might make it a blowout? Just looking for different views of this.
Col., let me give you hope on part of what you're questioning.
This line of "young people are traditionally an unreliable demographic" is a load of BS.
Look at the primaries. I didn't see any shortage of young people coming out to vote. Even in my state where we had caucuses there were many, many young people. And if they'll come out in the dead of winter to sit in a caucus for hours, I'm pretty sure they'll go out on election day.
The other point on this is that all sociological study of the current generation of youngsters shows they are more wordly than any previous up and coming generations. They grew up with the internet and new media and generally have a much wider view of the world. They understand voting is important, and I think a large number of them realize that the only chance for change and restoring our country's image (which they actually understand is important) is to elect Obama.
I just got done talking a friend of mine off the ledge earlier this week who had the same concerns as you do. In some ways, I think the MSM is doing us all a favor by making this race seem close - that way more people will go out and realize their vote for Obama will actually count.
Yeah. The fact that Obama made sure the law was followed is a very bad thing. Hey, Faux Noise told us so, so it must be true. What will probably happen to this book is what they do for Ann "the Man" Coulter's books. They repubs will buy in copies of the book so they can claim "Best Seller"! Lotsa comedy there, I tell ya...
Peebs,
Yep. Obama is guilty of good ol' fashioned politics. Good for him getting all his opponents kicked off the ballot.
I do believe that other Democratic candidate hoodwinked Obama into not being on the ballot in Michigan, (or was it Florida?) and then kept herself in. Later trying to make the case she had more votes.
Gotta love that old fashioned politics!
"Obama is guilty of good ol' fashioned politics. Good for him getting all his opponents kicked off the ballot."
Just curious... did you even read the MM piece?
"Obama is guilty of good ol' fashioned politics. Good for him getting all his opponents kicked off the ballot."
His opponents got themselves kicked off the ballot by not meeting the legal requirements. So was Obama "playing politics" or playing by the rules?
I know, AA, isn't Obama just awful? He actually challenged an opponent whose campaign broke the law. That's some dirty politics! How underhanded can you get -- demanding a legal election! That Obama is so grandiose and egotistical, demanding that his opponent obey the law. Who does he think he is, the Messiah?
He clearly doesn't know his place. He should have just shut up like a good boy instead of complaining that the playing field wasn't level. Right, AA?
Yep. Obama is guilty of good ol' fashioned politics. Good for him getting all his opponents kicked off the ballot.
AA, I pray, one day you'll discover Google to do your own research. I pray, one day you'll master reading comprehension. With both of those in hand, I pray you'll finally use that brain God gave you instead of constantly playing "follow the Republican leader". It might save you from falling off a cliff.
In your world following the law is only praised if you're a Republican or a conservative. Oh yeah, you're real objective.
"He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"
Because the democracy already decided that campaigns should be conducted honorably and according to the law.
FREDDOSO: Well, OK. The signature gatherers who forged signatures were breaking the law. The candidates who were trying to be on the ballot and appear and give the voters the choice weren't breaking the law. And when Senator Obama had them thrown out, he actually went and had his volunteers --
FREDDOSO: What I said was that the man who campaigns on hope and change and tries to make us less cynical about politics, Alan, is -- is the same guy who won his first election by denying the voters a choice.
LOL. Neither of these statements make any sense. So as long as voters are given a choice, it doesn't matter how the signatures are acquired?
Also, notice how Freddoso cleverly frames the issue: Obama is "denying" the voters a choice, as if that was his intended goal. While it's technically true that the voters were not able to pick the other candidates since their names weren't on the ballots, it's incredibly misleading.
It leaves the impression that the Obama team used dirty, underhanded tactics to invalidate signatures when in reality there were instances of the law being broken.
I don't watch the show. Does that often happen?
H&C format: Hannity, Colmes, Conservative Guest, Progressive Guest.
Alternative 1: Hannity introduces show, topics, guests. Asks Prog Guest questions. Asks for response from Cons Guest. After set time, Colmes asks Cons guest questions, Asks for response from Prog guest. Colmes intros commercial break. Colmes comes back from break, asks both guests questions for set time. Then Hannity asks questions for set time.
Alternative 2, the next weeknight: Colmes introduces show, topics, guests. Asks Cons guest questions..... (inverse of Alternative 1)
Next weeknight: Alternative 1 format. The following: Alternative 2 format, and so on.
Very fair, balanced format.
Exception: When either Hannity or Colmes secures an exclusive, taped interview with a VIP, that is aired without participation of the counter person.
Progressives complain about Colmes' lack of passion.
MN senator wannabe Al Franken pummeled Colmes in one of his books, putting his name in microtype whenever mentioned. Colmes survived and in fact has thrived.
Oh please. What show have you been watching?
What's "fair" or "balanced" about giving a platform to a pair of hacks who have just tossed off a couple of smear books?
Here's their real format. Conservative guests are tossed softball questions by Vanity. Colmes attempts to counter with something of substance, but is mocked and ridiculed. Progessive guests attempt to make a point, but immediately get sandbagged.
Try selling their trademarked "fair and balanced" line to someone who has never watched the show because no one who has seen it, with the exception of those who have suffered some severe head trauma, is going to buy it.
Progessive guests attempt to make a point, but immediately get sandbagged.
Apparently YOU are not watching very closely. The Progs get softballs from Colmes. It is balanced. Have you ever watched Countdown and thought it was balanced?
Say hello to daddy Dino.
YAPYAPYAPYAP!!!