With voter registration fraud alone no guarantee of Democrat wins, far-left elements are working to elect sympathetic secretaries of state across the nation. So contends Matthew Vadum, senior editor at Washington's Capital Research Center.
On the American Spectator's Web site ( spectator.org ), he describes the Secretary of State Project as a "below-the-radar non-federal '527' group" with funding from anti-capitalist billionaire George Soros and a co-founder from MoveOn.org. It already has proven effective.
In 2006, for example, the group endorsed ACORN favorite Mark Ritchie. Elected Minnesota secretary of state, he helped Democrat Al Franken prevail over Republican Norm Coleman in last year's battle for a U.S. Senate seat.
Mr. Ritchie has Secretary of State Project support for his 2010 re-election bid. So does California's Debra Bowen, another ACORN favorite. But Mr. Vadum says the group's biggest goal is "to steal the 2012 election for President Obama and congressional Democrats."
It's an insidiously clever strategy -- positioning far-left sympathizers to wield for Democrats' benefit the ordinarily little-noticed powers exercised by secretaries of state over voting rules and procedures. Fortunately, Americans have been warned.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.