Cruize

Tea Party groups purge Ohio voter rolls - Salon.com

Another example of Republicans trying to steal the election any way they can.

SmashMouth

These do seem small potatoes... however, Al Franken DID steal the election. He won by 230 votes or so. All of those winning votes were fraudulent as has been reported numeorus times now. So in the end, ANY effort to clean up voter registrations is welcomed.

Al Franken May Have Won His Senate Seat Through Voter Fraud - Peter Roff (usnews.com)

ScottF

I agree, but Smash, this is a totally slanted article discussing a very biased groups' findings. Furthermore, it does not even say that the illegal votes were cast for Franken:

… At least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis's Hennepin County, the state's largest, and another 52 voted illegally in St. Paul's Ramsey County, the state's second largest. Dan McGrath, head of Minnesota Majority, says that only conclusive matches were included in the group's totals. The number of felons voting in those two counties alone exceeds Mr. Franken's victory margin.

It says they voted, not that they voted for Franken.

James Harrison: "If that man was on fire and I had to piss on him to put it out, I wouldn't do it."

saintfan

Wasn't the Franken seat the one that gave the Democrats the Super Majority? I'm asking. I honestly don't recall, but I believe that was the case.

I can only say that they voted is the real issue - not who they voted for.

SmashMouth

Yes it was....

an update here...
York: When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots | WashingtonExaminer.com

Sen. Al Franken Voter Fraud Revelations Call For Ways To Reduce It - Forbes

btw.. there was a follow up by one of the TV networks... I don't recall which one... but they actually went out and interviewed all of the folks who were ineligible, it turns out it was an 80/20 ratio in favor of the Democrats...

They are convicting those voters...but a little too late for that race to matter. Perhaps Al will have a tougher time on reelection.

ScottF

Wow, can't we just have one discussion here where everyone actually reads the articles and truly draws a logical conclusion? The Examiner piece, by a conservative, about a book by a conservative, states:

Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.

Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn't require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.

So one article states fraudulent 341 cases, the other 1099, but NEITHER say how many voted for Coleman or Franken. Why is this key piece of data left out, I wonder?
Both articles insinuate that ALL felons voted for Franken.
Believe what you want-- it's beyond preposterous, and truly indicative that the media has no boundaries when 'reporting' the news (left or right)

James Harrison: "If that man was on fire and I had to piss on him to put it out, I wouldn't do it."