Interesting Daschle Tidbit

[Guest MikeSC]

In April 2003, Sen. Daschle declared his Washington DC home as his "primary place of residence" in order to get a tax credit to help DC residents deal with the skyrocketing housing costs.

 

This, of course, might be a problem --- since Daschle STILL lists that home as his primary residence, which means he is NOT a resident of SD (you only get one primary residence).

 

Thus, according to SD law, he is not actually eligible to run for a SD Senate seat. So, even if Daschle manages to win --- this will become a major issue.

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

Well, someone didn't read the fine print.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

People sorta made a stink (for all the good it did) about Hilary in NY and Mitt Romney in Mass. Not sure people really care that much if out-of-staters win elections. Of course they SHOULD! Yay politics.

[Guest CronoT]

In April 2003, Sen. Daschle declared his Washington DC home as his "primary place of residence" in order to get a tax credit to help DC residents deal with the skyrocketing housing costs.

 

This, of course, might be a problem --- since Daschle STILL lists that home as his primary residence, which means he is NOT a resident of SD (you only get one primary residence).

 

Thus, according to SD law, he is not actually eligible to run for a SD Senate seat. So, even if Daschle manages to win --- this will become a major issue.

-=Mike

Only Mike could take something good someone did, and turn it into a politcal backstab point. Way to go, champ.

[Guest MikeSC]

In April 2003, Sen. Daschle declared his Washington DC home as his "primary place of residence" in order to get a tax credit to help DC residents deal with the skyrocketing housing costs.

 

This, of course, might be a problem --- since Daschle STILL lists that home as his primary residence, which means he is NOT a resident of SD (you only get one primary residence).

 

Thus, according to SD law, he is not actually eligible to run for a SD Senate seat. So, even if Daschle manages to win --- this will become a major issue.

              -=Mike

Only Mike could take something good someone did, and turn it into a politcal backstab point. Way to go, champ.

Declaring your residence as being in Washington for a tax credit is a "good thing"?

 

Only you could confuse a self-interest move with a good thing.

 

Way to go, slugger!

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

People sorta made a stink (for all the good it did) about Hilary in NY and Mitt Romney in Mass. Not sure people really care that much if out-of-staters win elections. Of course they SHOULD! Yay politics.

It can lead to major lawsuits if Daschle wins.

-=Mike

[Guest CronoT]

In April 2003, Sen. Daschle declared his Washington DC home as his "primary place of residence" in order to get a tax credit to help DC residents deal with the skyrocketing housing costs.

 

This, of course, might be a problem --- since Daschle STILL lists that home as his primary residence, which means he is NOT a resident of SD (you only get one primary residence).

 

Thus, according to SD law, he is not actually eligible to run for a SD Senate seat. So, even if Daschle manages to win --- this will become a major issue.

              -=Mike

Only Mike could take something good someone did, and turn it into a politcal backstab point. Way to go, champ.

Declaring your residence as being in Washington for a tax credit is a "good thing"?

 

Only you could confuse a self-interest move with a good thing.

 

Way to go, slugger!

-=Mike

Well, I'll be damned. I thought you were saying he did it to get other people the tax credit. But, if he did it to get himself the tax credit, then yes, that's rather self-serving.

[St. Gabe 0]

Tom Daschle is an assclown. He makes me sick.

 

EDIT: And I'm a Liberal

[treble 0]

Who cares? Do you really have nothing better to do all day than sit around and look for 'damning' things about Democrats and Liberals?

[Guest MikeSC]

Who cares? Do you really have nothing better to do all day than sit around and look for 'damning' things about Democrats and Liberals?

Your contribution is very much appreciated.

-=Mike

[Vern Gagne 0]

Let's see the Minority Leader of the Senate whose not even assured re-election, may know be ineligble to serve even if he does win. Considering how close the makup of the Senate is this could be a big story.

[Guest MikeSC]

Let's see the Minority Leader of the Senate whose not even assured re-election, may know be ineligble to serve even if he does win. Considering how close the makup of the Senate is this could be a big story.

Not according to treble.

-=Mike

[treble 0]

My point is more that you seem to scour the internet, looking for something that may possibly be bad for someone on the left who's high profile.

 

I'm not even saying that this won't be an issue, just that it's getting old.

[Vern Gagne 0]

This story was on the news today. Fox mentioned it and i assume CNN did has well.

[Guest MikeSC]

My point is more that you seem to scour the internet, looking for something that may possibly be bad for someone on the left who's high profile.

 

I'm not even saying that this won't be an issue, just that it's getting old.

Hardly scour. The stories I find are actually REALLY easy to find. That story took me less than 3 minutes to find.

 

And bitching about a story that is actually QUITE relevant to the political scene is ridiculous.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Yeah.. I found it on 2 sites on a Google news search (both are the same Talon news story). But it was posted on NRO in September of 2003.

 

For something proclaimed relevant. It's not really going anywhere.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah.. I found it on 2 sites on a Google news search (both are the same Talon news story). But it was posted on NRO in September of 2003.

 

For something proclaimed relevant. It's not really going anywhere.

It doesn't need to go anywhere yet. Thune wants to defeat Daschle outright. If Daschle wins, THEN it becomesan issue.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

So, if Daschle wins, Thune will try to claim that he's no longer a resident of the state..

 

So, if he can't win with the voters, he'll try to win on a technicality?

 

Why not bring it up now?

 

It's relevant, and it matters, right?

 

if it's relevant, then wouldn't the voters not like Daschle for doing that? wouldn't they be more inclined not to vote for him?

 

But.. I guess that in a horserace. John Thune is going to hold back, which is always a winning tactic, especially when dealing with a relevant issue

[snuffbox 0]

Doesnt Cheney live in Texas? And isnt there a law barring President/VicePresident from being from the state?...

 

Do I even care?...

[teke184 0]

So, if Daschle wins, Thune will try to claim that he's no longer a resident of the state..

 

So, if he can't win with the voters, he'll try to win on a technicality?

 

Why not bring it up now?

 

It's relevant, and it matters, right?

 

if it's relevant, then wouldn't the voters not like Daschle for doing that? wouldn't they be more inclined not to vote for him?

 

But.. I guess that in a horserace. John Thune is going to hold back, which is always a winning tactic, especially when dealing with a relevant issue

If Thune loses and Daschle is DQed, the spot would be filled by a person chosen by the Governor of South Dakota.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

So, if Daschle wins, Thune will try to claim that he's no longer a resident of the state..

 

So, if he can't win with the voters, he'll try to win on a technicality?

 

Why not bring it up now?

 

It's relevant, and it matters, right?

 

if it's relevant, then wouldn't the voters not like Daschle for doing that? wouldn't they be more inclined not to vote for him?

 

But.. I guess that in a horserace. John Thune is going to hold back, which is always a winning tactic, especially when dealing with a relevant issue

If Thune loses and Daschle is DQed, the spot would be filled by a person chosen by the Governor of South Dakota.

who is a Republican, who would probably appoint Thune

[Guest MikeSC]

So, if Daschle wins, Thune will try to claim that he's no longer a resident of the state..

 

So, if he can't win with the voters, he'll try to win on a technicality?

 

Why not bring it up now?

 

It's relevant, and it matters, right?

 

if it's relevant, then wouldn't the voters not like Daschle for doing that? wouldn't they be more inclined not to vote for him?

 

But.. I guess that in a horserace. John Thune is going to hold back, which is always a winning tactic, especially when dealing with a relevant issue

If Thune loses and Daschle is DQed, the spot would be filled by a person chosen by the Governor of South Dakota.

who is a Republican, who would probably appoint Thune

Such is the curse of labelling your primary residence in Washington DC.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Thune's blowing his load.

 

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/9976074.htm

 

Daschle's state of residency questioned

 

Senator, wife, daughter file absentee ballots

 

By Scott Waltman

 

American News Writer

 

Amid an allegation South Dakota isn't his true home, Sen. Tom Daschle voted in Aberdeen Wednesday.

 

Daschle, a Democrat and Aberdeen native, took advantage of a new state law that allows residents to vote early without giving a reason. He cast his ballot shortly after 11 a.m. at the Brown County Auditor's Office in the courthouse annex.

 

Asked in jest if he'd reveal who he voted for, Daschle said, "I voted for the most-qualified man - Tom Daschle."

 

His Republican opponent, meanwhile, noted that it's odd Daschle voted absentee.

 

"It's terribly ironic that Senator Daschle would vote by absentee in South Dakota when he has declared his 'principal place of residence' as Washington, D.C.," Thune said in a press release. "Tom Daschle apparently thinks the $228 tax break he received by declaring Washington his principal residence was worth it."

 

But Daschle's campaign said the senator isn't doing anything wrong.

 

"John Thune has crossed the line of what is decent by suggesting that Tom and Linda Daschle shouldn't vote here in South Dakota," said Steve Hildenbrand, who manages Daschle's campaign. "(Thune) is desperate and is making crazy charges."

 

The Daschle's Washington, D.C., home has been given what is called a Homestead Exemption. It's a tax break for people who pay Washington, D.C., income tax. Linda Daschle, the senator's wife, does. That's why, Hildenbrand said, the house qualifies for an exemption.

 

A line on the exemption form reads that Washington is the applicant's "principal place of residence." The Daschles also own and pay property taxes on a home in Aberdeen, although they do not live in it.

 

Other members of Congress and even former Sen. Larry Pressler, R-S.D., get the exemption, Hildenbrand said.

 

Hildenbrand said there is no question the Daschles are residents of South Dakota. Linda Daschle has been registered to vote in the state since the 1970s, although she's never lived in the state.

 

Linda Daschle and one of the Daschles' daughters, Lindsay, voted in Aberdeen Wednesday.

 

Sen. Daschle said he voted early to increase awareness of the early voting law, which allows people to vote absentee for any reason. He said voters - not he or Thune - will benefit most from the change in law. It makes things easier for South Dakotans, Daschle said.

 

Recently, about 200 Brown County residents have been voting early each day. Daschle said he was happy to hear those numbers are so high.

 

I don't know how to explain South Dakota voting laws. Especially in relation to Linda Daschle.

 

But Early Voting is not the same as voting absentee. Absentee voting is if you have to be gone on election day. Early voting is for when you want to vote early and avoid the rush

[Guest MikeSC]

Early voting SHOULD be ruled as unconstitutional, since the Constitution is pretty darned clear on when the vote should take place.

 

But, hey, the Dems want a backup plan for when they lose in 2 weeks to demand a re-vote.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Early voting SHOULD be ruled as unconstitutional, since the Constitution is pretty darned clear on when the vote should take place.

 

But, hey, the Dems want a backup plan for when they lose in 2 weeks to demand a re-vote.

    -=Mike

Care to point out where the Constitution mentions specific days for votes?

 

Here one part of the Constitution

 

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

 

Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1:

 

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

 

(..)

 

Article. II, Section. 1, Clause 4:

 

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

 

The elector portions involve the actual electors voting. The first quotation shows that Congress or State Legislatures can make decisions on when elections are held for the House or Senate

 

The second quotation shows that Congress can determine the period of time that electors can be determined. (It seems to have been passed to the states, but Congress has been intrepreted as the US Congress and State legislatures, if I recall correctly. Unless this means that the states can't make their individual laws on the period of time which polls are open)

 

The second part of that quotation says the day the electors vote will be the same thoughout the US.

 

In fact, unless i'm missing something, states could choose to not even hold an election to determine Presidential electors and it would be legal. (They would then pick electors in the legislature. South Carolina did that until 1860. Colorado did it in 1876)