Maybe you should stick to agreeing with our newby that a tongue in cheek “attack” against someone who calls you a traitor is a failure of tollerance. :rolleyes:
Or, just follow Newt’s playbook.
It’s not just persecution to objectively apply a valid law to someone who happens to be a Republican attack dog.
It’s an intollerant abuse of power by bizarre and corrupt bosses. It is a corrupt and disgraceful act which aims at destroying and devouring American jurisprudence based on ideological Liberalism.
Ah yes, the well known conservative love for law and order and upstanding morality. Unless it’s one of them, then reasonable efforts to enforce the law amount to persecution.
Hey, this strawman points both ways!
I don’t know, offhand. An election worker? (That would be my first guess.) An acquaintance of Coulter who heard the woman describing her day and recognized the impropriety of her actions? A neighbor who noted her temper tantrum at the polls in the February municipal election and complained that her public statements at that time did not match her actual residence? I’m not sure that the point is relevant unless you have information that the elections official is making up the charge out of whole cloth.
And you have the audit trail showing that the elections officer actually made a public declaration of the topic before any journalist approached him with a question?
Red herring, but if an election worker (or neighbor) noticed that Coulter voted in the wrong precinct, it would be the responsibility of that person to report it. Once it is reported, it is probably a matter of public record.
No. You are asserting a bad thing–persecution–so you should demonstrate that this has occurred in a manner different than all the other exposures of public persons for minor crimes that are pickled off police blotters and incident reports across the country. For all I know, it may have been a matter of persecution, but that it your positive assertion for which you have provided no evidence. Given Coulter’s behavior in February, I suspect that Anderson has had any number of queries from reporters. If you want to dig up information that he issued a press release prior to being queried by a reporter, that might bolster your spurious claim that it appears to be “persecution.”
I have not been sufficiently interested to look up all the details on this case. I simply noted that there was a rather simple explanation for how this story became public that did not require “persecution” and pointed that out to you. While it was hardly a major issue, Coulter’s tantrum at the polls in February was reported locally and if the complaint is a matter of public record, a reporter following up the tantrum story would be able to get information without Anderson improperly “revealing” information. For that matter, Coulter presumably lives among “her kind,” so why would a presumably Republican elections official try to make Republican spokesperson look bad?
My guess (for which I am not going to waste any more of my life trying to support) is that either a newsperson has followed the story through public access reports (perhaps supported by leaks from Anderson’s office) ever since Coulter’s February outburst or that when Anderson brought the matter to the attention of the Florida Attorney General (as he would be required to do, since Anderson has no authority to prosecute crimes and the story, thus far, indicates that Coulter has refused to cooperate in the investigation), someone in the AG’s office leaked the story.
If you want to holler “Persecution!” then let’s see some evidence from your side that Florida elections officials do not routinely attempt to deal with issues of persons voting in wrong precints or that a strictly private matter of law came to the attention of the media only after Anderson issued a press release.
Indeed! If only the Dems would undertake the same calm reasoning and polite discourse that Ms Coulter so exemplifys.
And another thing! Those Dalmation puppies were *adopted * to prevent them from being forced into gay marriages!
. . . And, it took exactly one post before a tranny joke was made. Surprise, surprise.
[shrug] You knew that when you saw Coulter’s name in the title. I defy you to find one SDMB thread on Coulter that doesn’t touch on the subject of her notorious Adam’s apple.
I would call it “karmic justice.” 
I withdraw this question as, apparently, Anderson is, indeed, a Democrat.
The rest of my post stands.
Just guessing, but I bet she prefers a solid, no-nonsense four-on-the-floor Hurst tranny…
Just how old are you? I haven’t heard “four on the floor” since I was a youth.
Coulter tried to vote in the wrong precinct on Feb. 7th. The story hit the Palm Beach Post on Feb 15th.
The obvious person to have given the story to the press was the local polling official mentioned in all the stories, Jim Whited. Whether he is a Democrat or Republican I don’t know.
Coulter tried to vote in the precinct, “Bethesda-by-the-Sea, the right place for a Seabreeze resident.” Except that Coulter was a Seabreeze resident only in the sense that she had just bought a house there.
Ms. Coulter had on file with the Board of Elections an address on Indian Road. Trouble is, she NEVER lived at that address. The address was that of her real estate agent. Coulter was using it as a mail drop until she found a place to live in FL. She just never got around to changing her voter address. And that’s where she ultimately fled and voted. Illegally.
Now, given that Ms. Coulter is a lawyer, would you assume she should have had more consideration for breaking the law, even if something as minor as election fraud?
Dunno perzackly. Fell asleep under this tree and woke up all grey and…hey! Where’s my GTO?
I’m not a greybeard, nor a youth, but that phrase wasn’t alien to me. I’ve heard it in various rock songs, (Hot Rod Lincoln, IIRC, would be an example).
Since it seems necessary to belabor the obvious, I’ll point out that nobody has provided another example of a private individual being pursued in such a manner (the untimely filling out of change of address card, being assumed as voter fraud with speculation of lengthy jail sentences by public officials)
Such uncommon overzealous zeal applied selectively is persecution.
Aha: Little Deuce Coupe:
What zeal? You have not proven your assertion (of “overzealous zeal”).
You don’t get it, do you?
Please tell me that you are just funnin’ us and that you are not really putting this forward as a serious claim.
You have provided no evidence that there has been any reason to pursue an individual for such an action (since it happens either rarely or never). Based on your logic, the attempts to impeach President Nixon were merely persecution, since such action was incredibly rare.
The only reason that this has gone any farther than a voter simply filling out the address card as requested has been that Ms. Coulter has consistently refused to cooperate with the election board. No one has provided an example of a private individual being “pursued” because no other private individual has previously made it a matter of public record (her lawyer’s press releases) to refuse to fill out a change of address card (after lying multiple times regarding where she lived).
In fact, that is one of the key points in the various threads regarding the voter machines and voter registrations–such actions (against which politicos such as Ohio’s Blackwell have taken draconian steps to prevent) actually do not occur (except in the case of Ms. Coulter). It is almost as though she deliberately flouted the law simply to make a case that someone somewhere might actually be flouting the law, despite the fact that no one prior to her had done so.
That doesn’t follow. What Nixon did was uncommon. Therefore one would not expect it to prosecuted every day.
We can surmise that voting in the wrong place is somewhat more common, as is failing to fill out a change of addres card.
Yet, I have Never heard of such being prosecuted as voter fraud. Have you?
I suppose if they shoot her for fleeing the scene after failing to feed a parking meter you would find it similarly unremarkable.
I don’t recall as they sent her a change of address card. I recall that they sent her an official investigatory letter of inquiry after it was splashed across the media that she had failed to fill out a change of address card prior to voting.
Can you cite where they sent her a change of address card? One of us has this part wrong. They sent her letters of inquiry about the matter, not change of address cards.
Hell, I had a jeep with three on the tree, and I’m not that old.