They call Karl Rove a “master strategist” on Fox News Sunday, where the unpaid adviser to John McCain appears to give election analysis on a race involving John McCain. But before we laugh about how Fox is so biased, maybe we should consider this: George W. Bush is pretty much the same A-hole he’s always been, but Rove managed to get him nearly through an entire eight years in the White House before most people stood up and took notice.

Alas, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, which is why Rove is starting to worry. He reported on Sunday that formerly undecided states such as Michigan, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico and Minnesota have gone for Barack Obama in recent days, and voter registration in states such as Pennsylvania and Florida was swinging Obama’s way, too.

It’s a trend we’ve seen in Nevada, too: Currently, there are 93,727 more Democrats than Republicans in Nevada, with Democrats outnumbering Republicans in Clark County by 125,581. (Those are total voters, mind you. Active voters are another story.)

But according to Rove, those numbers are somewhat deceiving. “The other thing is, is that we do know in Clark County, Nevada, there are a lot of fraudulent registrations of people who simply do not exist,” he told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace.

Again, you could be excused if you dismiss this as a lie, since Rove is to political manipulation what Hugh Hefner is to porn. But again, he’s not entirely wrong.

Larry Lomax, Clark County’s registrar of voters and a veteran of many elections, says his office has been inundated with “thousands” of voter registration forms that are false, usually submitted by groups which pay workers to sign people up to vote. Those signature collectors are not always concerned about the law, and because they have quotas, fraud does take place.

“It is a scam on their bosses,” Lomax says. “I think it’s people ripping off their bosses, not as a result of some nefarious scheme.”

Even if it was, he says, there are procedures in place to prevent it. Each voter must write the last four digits of his Social Security number (or his drivers license number) on the registration form. The county sends that information to the state, which checks it against the Social Security or DMV database.

If there’s any discrepancy whatsoever on the form — the wrong birthday, a misspelling of a name, the wrong Social Security or drivers license number — a letter is sent to the potential voter, alerting him to the mistake. If the county doesn’t get a reply, the file is tagged, and that voter must show photo identification at the polls. (That’s in addition to the usual safeguards, such as matching a voter’s signature to the one on file with the county.)

Thus far this year, Lomax says his department has processed 331,836 forms, everything from new registrations to changes of address, name, political party, etc. And the department has mailed 39,520 letters concerning discrepancies to voters, or about 12 percent of the total. Only some of those are likely fraudulent, Lomax says.And, he adds, the problem of phony registrations was worse in 2004 than it is this year.

So has voter fraud ever occurred? “It’s never translated to phony voting at the polling places,” he says. How does he know? “Because I have no evidence to the contrary.”

No matter what Rove may want to imply, it seems the problem of fraudulent voter registrations has more to do with workers paid by the registration eking out a bit more cash than it does with an attempt to sway the election. And even if somebody tried, there are procedures in place to prevent it.

By the way, the last day to register to vote in the November election is Oct. 14 (you must go into a government office to do so). Early voting starts Oct. 18. And, as of today, there are just 29 days until Election Day, Nov. 4.

No wonder Rove is worried…

UPDATE: The secretary of state raided the offices of ACORN — Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now — on Tuesday, looking for evidence of falsifying voter registration forms.

Though it’s not usually my policy to comment on my own writing because the writing itself is the comment, I do feel compelled to respond to the blog commentary of “Christina” on my column (Socrates In Sodom) this week.

First, the question is raised about what propelled me to attend “The New African American Teachers’ (NAAT) Cultural Connection Program And Reception,” at the Texas Station’s Dallas Ballroom on Friday, Sept 26. At a school board meeting the night before this Equity and Diversity soiree, a question of political impropriety regarding the election for Trustee Shirley Barber’s seat was heatedly raised. Given the often-brutal nature of school district politics, the accusation was not far-fetched. In spite of the fact I was exhausted following my full week of teaching in an at-risk school, I forced myself to drive across town that night to see how the event played out. “Christina” rhetorically has implied I was sent to investigate by someone who had “a dog in the fight” regarding this election. But actually I was sent by many who have a “dog in the fight.” Because Shirley Barber has been the only voice for teachers on the school board in the past decade, most, if not all, teachers have a “dog” in this District C school board race. I wanted to see whose public pronouncements were on the higher moral ground here — those of candidate Linda Young and Trustee Carolyn Edwards, both of whom vowed the event would remain apolitical; or of candidate Ronan Matthew, who felt the festivities were being misused politically by district officials. A matter about which the public has a right to know. (more…)

Literally. Here’s what the jury read the verdict from:

OK, we understand Democrats are trying really hard to win control of the state Senate. We understand that they’ve all pledged not to raise taxes, in order to blunt the timeworn Republican attack that all Democrats are tax-and-spenders. We get that, by and large, Democrats are afraid of the big, bad Review-Journal editorial page. And we understand that, in the quest for victory, one tactic is total unconditional surrender.

It makes us sad, angry and nauseous, all at the same time, but we understand it.

But could somebody please explain to us the point of having town hall meetings around the state to ask voters and constituents for their ideas in solving the state budget crisis when you’ve already ruled out one obvious (and, as it turns out, totally necessary) solution: Taxes? Isn’t that a little like asking people for their ideas on how to build a house, provided they don’t use concrete, wood or nails?

What if, for example, these town hall meetings were to produce a really good tax plan, one that seemed to have widespread public support? What if these meetings directed heretofore timid Democrats to take on their bullying Republican opponents, with the promise of support at the polls? And what if that support could actually lead to majorities of sufficient strength to challenge the mindlessly facile veto threat of Gov. Notax McHeaduphisass? What then?

Oh, sorry, we already said “no new taxes”? What else you got? How about a bake sale?

We’re all for getting the voters involved. But why not hear them out before you wave what Sarah Palin might call the white flag of surrender?

Just wondering.

It takes some doing to penetrate the mind of Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and regular commentator on Fox News Sunday. This is, after all, the guy who unapologetically pushed for two of the biggest disasters in recent American history, the Iraq War and Sarah Palin. And he’s yet to apologize for either.

So when Kristol complains on Fox that Barack “Obama is a weak candidate. He is inexperienced and obviously not suited to be commander in chief when you’re fighting two wars,” you have to put things in context. It turns out that Kristol means that since Obama is unwilling to continue the failed neocon Middle East experiment and continue the occupation of a sovereign nation without end, he’s unsuited to be commander in chief. John McCain — who says he hates war but promises “more wars, my friends, more wars,” and is willing to stay in Iraq for 10,000 years — is suited.

If you’re completely fucked in the head, that is. And Kristol definitely is.

But give him credit where it’s due: When people follow his bad advice, as President George W. Bush did in invading Iraq, Kristol stands behind them, no matter how bad reality gets. And he’s doing the same with Palin.

“I think they [the McCain campaign] need to use Plain more,” he said. “You can’t look at Palin and says it’s the third term of Bush, which remains the strongest Democratic talking point.”

Funny, but when we look at Palin, we think she’s exactly the third term of Bush. In fact, she and Bush have more in common than do Bush and McCain. Let’s do the quick list:

• Incurious. Check. (Palin couldn’t name even a single magazine or newspaper she’d read before being picked as McCain’s running mate; she’s ill-traveled; and she shows no facility whatsoever with issues beyond those raised in her narrow sphere of experience. And even on those, she’s not exactly up on all the facts.)
• Facile. Check. (Both Palin and Bush spout cliches and rehearsed talking points during long bouts of usually incomprehensible logorrhea on the campaign trail and once in office. Their leadership style seems to rely more on gut instincts than facts and evidence.)
• Falsely certain. Check. (Bush once told an aide that if he decides to do something, it’s by definition good policy. Palin, despite lacking requisite experience, says she’s nonetheless certain she’s ready to do the job of vice president.)
• Liars. (Bush’s lies about the Iraq War are well documented. Palin’s bridge to nowhere and Troopergate lies, while not resulting in anyone’s death or dismemberment, are still troubling.)
• Global warming. Check. (Neither understands the role of humans in creating it, and thus both are handicapped when it comes to dealing with it.)
• Evangelical. Check. (Both mix church and state inappropriately, with Bush naming Jesus Christ as his favorite “political philosopher” and Palin recounting a story of how her (literally) witch-hunting pastor prayed her way to the governor’s mansion. Both believe in an apocalyptic view of the end times and, frighteningly, both are perilously close to being in a position to make it happen.)
• Wrong on war. Check. (They both think of the Iraq War as a good thing, rather than one of the worst and most lethal abuses of presidential power in history.)
• Scoundrels. Check. (Both have no problem using “patriotism” to denigrate their political opponents, although neither seems to understand what the word really means.)

Far from being different from Bush, Palin is almost Bush in drag. And Kristol, once again, gleefully sticks with his mistakes to the bitter end.