My Sunday edition of the Daily Herald carried an opinion piece by liberal chuckle head, Eugene Robinson. This rabid lefty is safe bet to vomit the typical lefty nonsense and falsehoods put forth laughably as logic and reason.
In this piece he states "The Republican-led crusade for voter ID laws is revealed as a cynical ploy to disenfranchise as many likely Democratic voters as possible, with poor people and minorities the main targets." This is the stock line lefties use to demonize the logical implementation of ID laws intended to shore up the integrity of the voting process. From the fallacious column, he writes:
"Recent developments in Pennsylvania---one of more than a dozen states where voting right are under siege---should be enough to erase any lingering doubt: The GOP us trying to pull off an unconscionable crime."
Can you say "Hate-mongering rhetoric"? He goes on to speak of PA House majority leader Mike Turzai as he addressed a meeting of the Republican State Committee...
"Ticking off a list of recent accomplishments by the GOP-controlled legislature, he mentioned the new law forcing voters to show a photo ID at the polls. Said Turzai,with more than a hint of triumph, 'Voter ID, which going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania---done."
Robinson states that the Dem candidate for president has carried PA since 1992.
"...the top Republican in the Pennsylvania House is boasting that because of the new voter ID law, Mitt Romney will defy history and capture the state's 20 electoral votes in November."
And why does this give Robinson the vapors? Because as he claims in his article, state officials presented figures recently that 758,939 registered voters of that state do not have a state driver's license. Oh. The. Horror.
We've been through this before, but I guess Robinson feels it his duty to rehash the lame arguments in opposition to this simple and logical policy. His whine is that most of these people live in urban areas that are places where the poor and minorities tend to live. Like lefties everywhere, he apparently believes that the poor and minorities are people incapable of obtaining a photo ID. Here's the funny part: On June 11, as reported in Human Events, Eric Holder addressed an NAACP convention in Houston and referred to these laws as "poll taxes". Yet, one had to show a photo ID to get in to hear him say it.
Now of course, one who claims to be a serious journalist might want to check out the death defying and brain numbing requirements for obtaining these state IDs. Listing the incredible difficulties the oppressively impoverished and minorities of Pennsylvania must endure to do so might lend some weight to the argument Robinson makes and tug mightily at our heartstrings. So I went on-line and found just how impossible it is. According to the PA DOT, getting a state ID will cost a bank breaking $13.50! OH. THE. HORROR!
How bad do lefties think the poor have it in this country that they can't get up so little in two years time, assuming any of them care to vote in the mid-term elections? Even between now and the deadline to register to vote in November (and many of these people ARE already registered) how many truly couldn't get up that small amount in time to vote? There's about fifteen weeks between now and November. That's less than a dollar per week to save assuming there's not a dime in the cooky jar right now.
Of course, is he assuming that all the minorities are too poor to pop for the fee? Is Robinson suffering from a bad perception of minorities? And he a black man?
Like Jim has tried to put forth here, Robinson believes there is no fraud. But going back to that Human Events article, claims that fraud is rare is itself a fraud the left tries to perpetrate on the public in order to maintain their voting levels. It isn't that it is rare, but that it isn't easy to detect without safeguards that an ID policy can provide. The articles states...
"The controversial purge of illegal immigrant voters carried out by the state of Florida challenged a mere 2,600 names, and swiftly found more than a hundred illegal voters, with half of them on record as having actually cast illegal votes in previous elections. Many of these people were found by the simple expedient of reviewing a list of illegal immigrants who swore they were not U.S. citizens to get out of jury duty, and checking to see if the same people were registered to vote. For an allegedly "rare" problem, voter fraud is incredibly easy to find, for anyone who actually bothers to look."
Robinson plays the race card by suggesting the problem "seems to be that too many of the wrong kind of voters---low income, urban, African-American, Hispanic---are showing up at the polls." He's either a blithering idiot or an abject bearer of false witness.
The GOP does not have a problem with losing elections fairly (except
that the wrong guy won), and to suggest that this initiative has
anything to do with restraining the groups of people that Robinson
lists, especially when some of them could vote GOP, is reprehensible and
all too typical of the leftists in our country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Isn't it ironic how Liberals accuse Conservatives of being raaaacist! But it is they who argue so fervently that minorities are too poor, too stoopid, too unmovated, or a host of other reasons which prevent them from obtaining a photo ID to vote?
Not only that, being poor is no longer an excuse:
From the text of the Bill:
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1510(b) (relating to issuance and content of driver's license) to the contrary, the Department of Transportation shall issue an identification card described in 75 Pa.C.S. § 1510(b) at no cost to any registered elector who has made application therefor and has included with the completed application a statement signed by the elector declaring under oath or affirmation that the elector does not possess proof of identification as defined in section 102(z.5)(2) and requires proof of identification for voting purposes.
So now money isn't an issue, they don't have to forgo two packs of smokes, or a 12 pack. The only hinderance is self-imposed. I.e., too lazy.
Isn't it ironic how Liberals accuse Conservatives of being raaaacist!
So now money isn't an issue, they don't have to forgo two packs of smokes, or a 12 pack. The only hinderance is self-imposed. I.e., too lazy.
Now of course, one who claims to be a serious journalist
I don't know if Mr. Robinson has ever actually claimed that, but the Pulitzer committee apparently thinks he is. You jerk.
Can you say "Hate-mongering rhetoric"? Not in Robinson's case, but see John B's last paragraph.
ID laws intended to shore up the integrity of the voting process.
How will this stop fraud in the absentee ballot process? Oh yeah, more often it's Republican's who vote absentee. Never mind.
758,939 registered voters of that state do not have a state driver's license. Oh. The. Horror.
So three quarters of a million otherwise eligible people being ineligible to vote at the polls is a joke?
According to the PA DOT, getting a state ID will cost a bank breaking $13.50! OH. THE. HORROR!
Charging for the document you need to be able to vote at the polls is a poll tax, and that's illegal.
how many truly couldn't get up that small amount in time to vote?
Doesn't matter if it's 10 cents. Furthermore, many of these people don't have some of the required documentation and some live miles from the nearest DMV office.
Like Jim has tried to put forth here, Robinson believes there is no fraud.
Nobody claims there is no fraud. But the amount of fraud does not justify the "solution".
safeguards that an ID policy can provide.
What safeguards? The only thing a photo ID prevents is voter impersonation. It doesn't stop felons, it doesn't stop non-citizens. Neither fact is indicated on a photo ID.
As I've cited before, there have been 9 convictions of voter impersonation in 10 years in 50 states. 50 states. And for 9 cases of fraud, you want to make three quarters of a million qualified voters go get an ID.
If the numbers of eligible voters without IDs was basically split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, there might be some doubt as to the actual purpose of these laws. But the number of typically Democratic-voting people without IDs is far greater that Republican-voting people.
The purpose of these laws is clear.
Parkie,
Where was I making fun of poor people? Feel free to try and find a quote you can twist and I'll show you why you're an idiot.
Jim,
If Robinson doesn't consider himself a serious journalist, that would account for the idiotic opinions he puts forth in his columns.
Robinson's not a hate-mongerer? You've got to be kidding. Is it love for Republicans that moves a man to accuse criminal behavior? And John's not saying anything that isn't true. Why don't you ask him if he believes ALL poor are lazy. But even if we eliminate the lazy, it is equally true that many of the poor do not practice habits of the wealthy, as do most people who aren't wealthy. It is not difficult to gather the price of a state ID, something that has value in our society far beyond merely identifying one's self at the polling place, and few, if any are Bangladesh-type poor. What's more, as John points out, PA, like most states, provide means by which the cost can be either reduced or eliminated. So what John is really doing is showing how the "those poor impoverished urbanites are being denied their right to vote" line is crap.
ID laws aren't meant to prevent all types of voter fraud, so why bring up absentee voting? However, if you have a method of tightening the integrity of absentee voting procedures, by all means, speak up. If it makes sense, I'll support it. Personally, I don't like the concept of absentee voting, though I do see legitimate exceptions. But if IDs are required to cast a ballot, then it is conceivable that a ballot could be cast in any state of the union and sent by overnight delivery to the home precinct or state of the voter. How it might work in practice is another matter.
3/4 of a million people would not be ineligible to vote if they got photo ID's. Aren't you paying attention? The joke is that jokers like you and Robinson believe they are incapable of acquiring an ID. It isn't true.
Charging for an ID might be regarded as a poll tax if the sole purpose of a state ID was for voting. It is not. It is for identification and it is an official document for the purpose, as opposed to a home made crayon drawing of yourself with you name scrawled beneath it. What's more, it's been ruled constitutional because the rule applies equally to everyone. And as you so often argue, if the SCOTUS says it, it's law, damn it! But even better, states that have these requirements have the means of acquiring the ID without paying for it, though I totally disagree with that. So as John suggests, there is nothing to be given up by those the left pretends to defend except the time and effort to do their duty.
Oh, yeah, and distance problems is another crock. Few people are stranded in their homes for two to four years at a pop.
more...
Jim,
You and other less than honorable people insist there isn't enough fraud to justify voter ID laws. But the privilege of participating in this very important civic activity does justify it. Voting is important and everyone should take it as important. You don't. You voted for Obama. But for those who believe they are taking it as important, making the effort to do it this way should not change their mind about voting. That would show they don't take it as an important civic duty, and thus they don't understand the privilege in the first place.
Voter impersonation is a worthy reason for ID's. As far as whether or not one is a criminal or non-citizen, that's easy to rectify. Anyone with a criminal record that denies them the right to vote should have that info in a database that pops up any time that criminal applies for a state ID. And one's citizenship could be noted as well. My driver's license lists all the endorsements I carry as a CDL holder. So it's nice you brought up those issues. Thanks. That's the spirit!
You deceitfully point to a stat that isn't likely the be all and end all of voter fraud. Those are only those that have been found out. It doesn't account for the many that take place. You've likely seen the video by the same guy who busted ACORN who tried to vote in Eric Holder's name. He would have been allowed to cast that fraudulent vote because he was not required to prove he was Holder, even when he asked if he needed to do so. And how are people long dead still able to vote? How do you know how many of these aren't being fraudulently cast at the polling place? Voter ID laws block one avenue of fraud and regardless of frequency, we're talking about a very serious process that needs safeguards like this and should have had it already.
It doesn't matter if all the fraudulent votes are cast by one party alone. It doesn't matter if all those "disenfranchised" (which they aren't being unless they refuse to acquire an ID---then it's self-imposed "disenfranchisement") are of one party alone. Frankly, I want all those who cast fraudulent votes of any kind to stop or be exposed and arrested. More so, I want all those who would be "disenfranchised" by voter ID laws to get a freakin' ID, wise up and vote Republican. So it's very important to me that all voters get an ID, be required to present it, and when they close the curtain, they vote for the most conservative Christian on the ballot because they make the best public servants.
Any questions?
Blogger Jim said...(with his childish use of profanity removed---MA)
If Robinson doesn't consider himself a serious journalist, that would account for the idiotic opinions he puts forth in his columns.
What a dishonest nut ball you are! I made no mention of what Robinson considers himself, nor did he. As for idiotic opinions, I read your blog every day, mostly for entertainment purposes.
Robinson's not a hate-mongerer?
What a joke! The entire post in which this sentence appears is filled with hate. You accuse Democrats of crimes in many of your posts. This whole subject is about accusing Democrats of crimes for which there is little if any proof.
As to Pennsylvania specifically, let me offer you this document from the lawsuit against the state and the Voter ID law. In it the State stipulates among other things:
There have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.
The parties are not aware of any incidents of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania and do not direct personal knowledge of in-person voter fraud elsewhere.
Respondents will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania or elsewhere.
Respondents will not offer any evidence or argument that in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of the Photo ID law.
why bring up absentee voting?
Simple. It is at least if not more vulnerable to fraud as in-person voting and yet there seems to be little concern about that because the Republican-targeted demographic of these laws is less likely to vote absentee.
I might support stricter requirements for absentee voting if there was any evidence that there was enough fraud to warrant the expense to the states and the voters. There is not.
The joke is that jokers like you and Robinson believe they are incapable of acquiring an ID.
Incapable? Not at all. Burdened? In many cases, absolutely.
Charging for an ID might be regarded as a poll tax if the sole purpose of a state ID was for voting. It is not. It is for identification and it is an official document for the purpose
Wow, you can prove yourself a liar within three sentences!
No, the "joke" is that you think that because YOU have a photo ID to carry on the business of your life, that somehow 3/4 of a million people simply must live a similar life that requires them to have photo ID. Obviously they do not. Somehow or another they manage to live their lives without having to present a photo ID. Imagine that! Not all people write checks. Not all people drive. Not all people fly.
BTW, can you explain why in some states a CCP constitutes a valid photo ID but a student ID card does not?
Voter impersonation is a worthy reason for ID's.
It would be if it was rampant.
As far as whether or not one is a criminal or non-citizen, that's easy to rectify.
Show me one state voter ID law that does so.
the same guy who busted ACORN
O'keefe is a proven criminal and fraud himself.
Parkie the troll,
Your last was deleted because it was already addressed. By trying to second the sentiment Jim was trying to make only confirms what a foolish attempt it was.
Jim,
"I made no mention of what Robinson considers himself, nor did he."
Never said you did, but it isn't a stretch to assume HE thinks of himself that way. I would also assume (with a snicker to say the least) that you consider YOUR commentary to be serious, or else I've fallen for the joke. Tough call.
Apparently you don't understand what it means when the terms hate-or fear-mongering are used. It refers to the feelings it generates in others and when Robinson accuses the GOP of perpetrating a crime by seeking to have instituted a policy that strengthens the integrity of the voting process, it instills bad feelings toward the GOP (as if loons like yourself need any more help). In my case, I'm stating facts. Fraud happens and this is one way to reduce/prevent it. To state that it is to prevent eligible voters from their privilege of voting is a lie since it doesn't prevent anything.
You like to think that there is no proof of fraud, but then say you never said it doesn't exist. So apart from this talking out both sides of your mouth, the real question is how much fraud is there. One needn't spend time hunting down what isn't easy to find, but instead put in place means of thwarting the attempts. As to who is perpetuating the fraud, I don't think it is news that the bulk of it, if not all of it, is perpetuated by those voting Democrat. Deal with it.
Your excuse for bringing up absentee voting is deceitful. You, and people like Robinson, bring it up to distract from the issue. Injecting irrelevant points is a common tactic, and one of which you're most particularly fond. ID policies aren't meant to deal with absentee voting, so bringing it up is crap.
"Incapable? Not at all. Burdened? In many cases, absolutely."
What a contradiction! If they are burdened and then disenfranchised, then the result is that they are incapable. The fact is that they are no more burdened then anyone else. For whatever reason, they have chosen not to possess a state ID. Who likes to shell out time and money to have a state ID or driver's license? Does a license prove I'm a capable driver? Only officially, but not in reality. I can still drive safely without the burden of having to acquire a driver's license. There is no burden that isn't imposed on everyone else and that is why your arguments are nonsense.
"No, the "joke" is that you think that because YOU have a photo ID to carry on the business of your life, that somehow 3/4 of a million people simply must live a similar life that requires them to have photo ID."
Not at all. My point was only that it is not a poll tax simply because you say it is. In order for it to be a poll tax, it must be solely and directly directed at the process of voting. There are other requirements for voting and each of them carries a cost of some kind. Being able to identify one's self with a photo ID does not a poll tax make no matter how hard you try to make it.
I'm not going to explain why any state sets up its requirements as they do. That's not the point of my position, especially since I think photo ID's should be mandatory for all voting across the nation and for federal positions especially.
Voter impersonation is a worthy justification for photo ID policies even if impersonation NEVER happens, because it could and no one would ever know it.
"As far as whether or not one is a criminal or non-citizen, that's easy to rectify."
Show me one state voter ID law that does so.
Read more closely, Parkie-wanna-be, I didn't say any states are doing this. I said it could be rectified.
"O'keefe is a proven criminal and fraud himself."
Weak.
Thats a lot of blah.
"Your last was deleted because it was already addressed. By trying to second the sentiment Jim was trying to make only confirms what a foolish attempt it was."
Marsha.. I was agreeing with Jim... Try not being a douche all the time. While youre at it, try some reading AND comprehension. I believe there may be an ESL course you can take in your area.
"Blah" little worm-boy? When have you ever brought more than "blah"?
Do you know why women douche, Benny? For reasons of hygiene. If I'm a douche, it must be because there is something tainting my blog, making it unclean and smelly. That would be you. When the source of the unhygienic staining disappears, no further douching will be necessary.
And you continue to accuse me of comprehension problems. Yet, by agreeing with Jim (that's where I said you were trying to second his sentiment---get it, little one? To "second" is to agree), you prove his comment was really stupid. It would have been better for him had you not agreed. Get it now? Or is your comprehension "skill" really that lame? It must be the big words I use. Sorry.
Here's a thought: try having one. A thought, that is. Instead of agreeing with the lefties who visit and demonstrating your idiocy by trying to mock the better people of the right, present your very own opinion and why it should be taken as valid. When you cease posting nothing but crap, you will see just how nice I am. When crap is all you have to offer, and that's certainly all you've ever offered in all the eons you've visited (it feels longer), then you can't expect to be treated like anything but the crap you insist on being. Don't blame me for giving you what you want.
My view is that of someone is poor it is because of a lack of motivation on their part at some essential point in their life. Whether it was giving up in high school, becoming parents too early, drugs and alcohol, or any other number of poor life decisions. Poor decisions early in life lead to poverty. Poverty can ONLY be overcome by a strong drive to lift oneself out of it. If one is poor, it is because they have decided it is tolerable.
But that aside, many poor people have ID. In fact, my occupation brings me into one of the poorer parts of a large city. I can't remember the last time I asked someone for ID and they said they don't have ID or don't have one because they aren't capable of getting one.
My state required photo ID to vote and has for at least the last 15 years since I turned 18 and could vote. I have never heard anyone complain of voter suppression because a photo ID was required. In fact the first time I heard there were places which didn't require ID was startling.
The point is that photo IDs are made available for the purposes of voting at no charge. The only obstacle for getting photo ID is motivation. If one is too unmotivated to get ID to vote, then I conclude they are too lazy and prefer the comfort of their own couch from which to complain.
These are what the Democrats fear most. They likely believe there are a significant number of Democrat voters who will not be motivated enough to get a photo ID so that they can vote Democrat. Since Democrats believe the vast majority of those who are effected by photo ID laws are minorities, they must believe minorities, more than other demographics, are too lazy to want to vote bad enough to get an ID.
John,
I don't know if the rap that most "disenfranchised" people are Dem voters is true or not. I don't really care how they vote. If requiring an ID from them is a burden, then they don't see voting as the duty and privilege I do, and as most other Americans who vote do. I don't think it serves us as a nation to cater to people who aren't concerned about their country enough to make the small effort acquiring a state ID requires.
Post a Comment