In a way they have a point. They shouldn't have to have any bilingual poll workers. If you can't understand the English language, you really have no right to vote. If you come to this country 'legally' and want to live and work here, you'd better learn the language that we use here.

Taken to the extreme, shouldn't we have poll workers and materials in Korean, Chinese, Mandarian, Arabic, Italian and every other language available at the polls? If not, we might discriminate against somebody.

By the way, only people who are doing something against the law would worry about monitors.

Not going to comment on the monitors, cause I'm not familiar enough with all the details, but your last comment is so far from correct...

When you're driving the speed limit, and a cop is tailing you, don't you get nervous/uneasy? Even if you're doing nothing wrong? Of course--everyone does.

No, I don't.

Even if I did, it wouldn't keep me from driving.

Of course, if I were guilty of something else, then maybe I would get nervous.

Here's what I posted about the monitors:

Philly leaders object to voting monitors

TRANSLATION: How can we commit enough voter fraud to push Corrupt Eddie over the top if you're gonna be watching? That isn't fair.

City officials and Hispanic community leaders objected Thursday to the federal government's plans to put monitors at city polling places on Election Day, saying those efforts could discourage people from voting.

That's utter nonsense. People in Iraq ignore terrorist attacks to vote but election fraud monitors will drive American voters away?

Jeremy's argument just doesn't make good common sense. If police cars make you so nervous that you can't drive correctly, or cause you to not want to drive at all, then you probably shouldn't be driving anyway. The roads would be safer.

If you distrust the government so much that you have a problem having government officials watching your elections, then maybe you shouldn't be participating in government elections?

Gary--you may think Dems would commit fraud, and clearly there's no way I'm going to convince you otherwise, so I won't bother, but do you actually think even 3% (which would be MASSIVE MASSIVE fraud--normally even accusations of fraud affect less than 1%) would push swann over the top? Saying that Rendell will win because of fraud...why don't you say that Schumer only won in '04 because of fraud--it's an outrage, it should be Senator Howard Mills right now!! So what if he pulled 20%--we know that Schumer engineered fraud giving him an extra 40% of the vote!! You people need help. The gop intimidates voters, posts messages in Spanish in Hispanic neighborhoods saying the election in Nov 8, etc., and you dare to accuse the Dems of fraud??

Bama--I'm not saying that you're incorrect about how things SHOULD be, but they are the way they are. Ask people around your office or the next gathering you're at--are they nervous with cops driving behind them even if they're not speeding, drunk, etc.? Most people will say yes. You never know what could accidentally happen.

As a conservative, aren't you supposed to have a natural distrust of government???

I think Dems commit vote fraud because, well, they actually do committ vote fraud.

PIMF

commit

Democrats don't want federal officials at the polls for the same reason they object to police license checks in the area: so many of their voters have warrants out for their arrest, they might be scared away by the presence of officials.

Also, it does make voter fraud a bit more difficult.

So, Democrats scream "voter intimidation" whenever a cop or federal election official comes anywhere near a polling place.

No, we more scream "voter intimidation" when LEGAL IMMIGRANTS receive mail from a GOP CANDIDATE telling them that if they go to vote w/o properly accepted ID, they could be arrested and jailed!!

YES, I think that's voter intimidation!!

Gee, what does that have to do with federal officials being at the polls?

Adult Attention Deficit Disorder is treatable nowadays, ya know . . .