RSS

Tweet Of The Day

04 Nov

Among the “older, white Democrats” is 90-year old Jim Wright, former Speaker of the House. I wonder if they checked his ID before they let him into the capital building.

Former Speaker of the House Jim Wright has voted in every election since 1944 and represented Texas in Congress for thirty-four years. But when he went to his local Department of Public Safety office to obtain the new voter ID required to vote—which he never needed in any previous election—the 90-year-old Wright was denied. His driver’s license is expired and his Texas Christian University faculty ID is not accepted as a valid form of voter ID.

To be able to vote in Texas, including in Tuesday’s election for statewide constitutional amendments, Wright’s assistant will have to get a certified copy of his birth certificate, which costs $22. According to the state of Texas, 600,000 to 800,000 registered voters in Texas don’t have a valid form of government-issued photo ID. Wright is evidently one of them. But unlike Wright, most of these voters will not have an assistant or the political connections of a former Speaker of the House to help them obtain a birth certificate to prove their identify, nor can they necessarily make two trips to the DMV office or afford a birth certificate.

The devil is in the details when it comes to voter ID. And the rollout of the new law in Texas is off to a very bad start. “I earnestly hope these unduly stringent requirements on voters won’t dramatically reduce the number of people who vote,” Wright told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. “I think they will reduce the number to some extent.”

You’re missing the point, Speaker Wright. The sole purpose is to reduce the number of people who vote!

By the way, there’s been only one voter impersonation conviction in Texas since 2000.

Advertisements
 
36 Comments

Posted by on November 4, 2013 in Current Events, Politics

 

Tags: , , , , ,

36 responses to “Tweet Of The Day

  1. Cluster

    November 5, 2013 at 5:31 am

    This would make for a great story, full of all the usual liberal angst and faux concern but sadly, common sense and history just don’t support the drama. Let’s walk through this:

    First, in current voter ID states, minority voting has increased:

    http://www.ajc.com/news/news/despite-voter-id-law-minority-turnout-up-in-georgi/nR2bx/

    Secondly, Texas DPS is offering FREE voter ID’s

    http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/25/dps-begin-offering-free-voter-id-cards-week/

    And finally two additional thoughts. If liberals can expect millions of Americans to pay more for their healthcare, then why can’t we expect thousands of Americans to pay a few dollars for proper ID? ID that is used in everyday life, like seeking admission to an abortion clinic or a liberal educational institution. And if liberals are not concerned with the millions of Americans losing their healthcare insurance – the “5%” as they callously say, then knowing that the percentage of folks in Texas lacking ID is a smaller percentage, the question is, why should we be concerned about them?

    Just some thoughts from a right wing extremist.

     
    • mitchethekid

      November 5, 2013 at 7:34 am

      Voter fraud is not a problem. The process to get an ID is unreasonable. And what Texas is doing is insane. Catch 22 has more logic.

       
      • Cluster

        November 5, 2013 at 8:00 am

        Is it unreasonable to demand that healthy 27 – 30 year olds who are having trouble finding employment pay $200/mo for health insurance that they really don’t need? That my friend is an unreasonable process.

         
      • kmgtwo

        November 5, 2013 at 7:22 pm

        If they’re having trouble finding employment, wouldn’t they qualify for Medicaid and pay nothing?

         
      • Cluster

        November 6, 2013 at 6:12 am

        I think everyone should be on Medicaid. Do you see any possible problem with that? Oh wait, you’re the one that wanted everyone on Tri Care. Never mind.

         
      • kmgtwo

        November 6, 2013 at 6:44 am

        So, you are admitting that your claim of young people who can’t find a job having to pay $200/month for health insurance is false? Thanks for that.

         
    • watsonthethird

      November 5, 2013 at 10:39 am

      I think voting is a right. Given that, before enacting new rules and regulations that have the potential to obstruct people’s right to vote, you need to demonstrate a compelling need for those rules and regulations. That is, the bar needs to be mighty high. One documented case of voter impersonation fraud hardly qualifies.

      That said, we all know why these voter laws are being passed in red states. Even Cluster knows.

       
      • Cluster

        November 5, 2013 at 10:58 am

        Well many liberals and Democrats consider healthcare to be a right to, so why is it ok to charge for that? Why is it ok to mandate minimum requirements on what you consider to be a right in terms of healthcare? Shouldn’t there be minimum requirements then with the voting right?

        And I do know why laws are being passed. To prevent irregularities Democrats rely on the win elections. Think: Al Franken. But of course Watson is alluding to racism – the card liberals always play to win the argument. Very tedious

         
      • Cluster

        November 5, 2013 at 11:07 am

        And Watson, if racism and voter suppression is the underlying reason for voter ID laws, then those efforts have failed miserably in states like Georgia.

         
      • Cluster

        November 5, 2013 at 11:35 am

        Excellent example

         
      • watsonthethird

        November 5, 2013 at 11:48 am

        I said, before enacting new rules and regulations that have the potential to obstruct people’s right to vote, you need to demonstrate a compelling need for those rules and regulations.

        Did you not understand? That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any rules and regulations.

         
      • Cluster

        November 5, 2013 at 1:41 pm

        See: Al Franken. Or are ballots “found” in the trunk of a car legitimate. Or this:

        Research commissioned by the Pew Center on the States highlights the extent of the challenge:

        – Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
        – More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
        – Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.
        – Meanwhile, researchers estimate at least 51 million eligible U.S. citizens are unregistered, or more than 24 percent of the eligible population

        http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=85899370677#sthash.yw7bBdv3.dpuf

        Is that enough?

         
      • watsonthethird

        November 5, 2013 at 1:56 pm

        How many documented cases of voter impersonation fraud have there been?

         
      • Cluster

        November 5, 2013 at 2:50 pm

        So that wasn’t enough. That’s all you had to say.

         
      • watsonthethird

        November 5, 2013 at 3:21 pm

        Yup. That’s it. You still haven’t identified even one case of documented voter impersonation fraud. At least I gave you one. 🙂

         
      • Cluster

        November 5, 2013 at 4:08 pm

        Well your first assertion was this:

        you need to demonstrate a compelling need for those rules and regulations

        I then gave you some compelling reasons, but then you move the goal posts:

        How many documented cases of voter impersonation fraud have there been?

        So it really doesn’t matter what I present, you will be against it, because you do not want voter integrity. You want a system that can be manipulated to benefit liberals. The ends justify the means. That’s what this is all about.

         
      • mitchethekid

        November 5, 2013 at 4:49 pm

        There have been ` .003% out of 3 million votes cast that were prosecuted for fraud. It is fundamentally dishonest for anyone to claim that fraud is rampant. It isn’t. All it is is an attempt to prevent people who will not vote for conservatives/Republicans from voting at all. Instead of realizing that they are turning people off in droves and changing, they would rather game the system to make it more difficult for certain groups to vote. And it’s not the ID per se, it’s what is required to get the ID.
        Now lets look at Virgina. Bob McDonald, a social conservative (who is now involved in a scandal) was smart enough to run on jobs. Cuccinelli ran on banning oral sex, criminalizing same sex relationships and freaking out about abortion. Maybe if he spent sometime between a woman’s legs he might change his focus.
        In spite of the disastrous roll out of AHC, people are sick of these Teahadists. They are more concerned about what happens in a bedroom than in actually doing something to make things better. So much for smaller government. They hate the President and modern culture so much that they were willing to destroy the economy. Their overall approval is in the 20 percentile and the Republican Party has a 57% disapproval rating. 57%! It’s a race to the bottom. In the past when conservatives lost, they would rationalize it by saying “we weren’t conservative enough”. This time maybe they will realize that they lost because they are. Maybe they will realize that continuing to question the Presidents place of birth is a loser. As is the nullification of federal laws and the suggestion of secession. Maybe Lincoln was wrong and Kay Adams Corleone correct when she said “All of this has got to end”.

        On another subject, give it up Tired. You have proven that you are not the sort of person who is in the least bit tolerable. No matter how many ISP addresses you come up with, your intolerable mean-spiritedness and faux superiority will not be published on this blog. Look at this way, I am doing you a favor because you are intellectually incapable of presenting a cogent argument and I am sparing you the humiliation of trying to compete. For years you treated me (and others) like shit and now you are obsessed. What goes around comes around.

         
      • Cluster

        November 5, 2013 at 5:54 pm

        This is Ken Cuccinelli’s platform:

        http://www.cuccinelli.com/issues/

        I think you’re being just a tad sensational in your spin of it. Obama is currently at 39% approval and falling. And I am not sure you have much room to call Tired intolerant when you have admitted that you want to line Tea Partiers up against a wall and shoot them. Just saying.

         
      • mitchethekid

        November 5, 2013 at 8:32 pm

        That wasn’t me. It was the one-armed man. Did I really say that?? And no, there is no spin. His own statements are sensational because that’s what he actually believes! As well as wanting to make law any woman who has a miscarriage to report it to the local Sheriff so he can investigate for any “wrong doing”.

         
      • watsonthethird

        November 5, 2013 at 4:16 pm

        No, I guess I didn’t state my point very clearly. The potential for infringing upon people’s voting rights needs to be balanced against the potential for voter impersonation fraud. Since you haven’t given me even one example of voter impersonation fraud, then I say the potential for voter impersonation fraud is exceptionally low. So low that it is nearly non-existent.

        You can cite studies about voter roles with dead people on them and so on, but that doesn’t mean voter impersonation fraud exists. If it did, then those studies would say that as well.

        It is clear from the evidence so far that there is a very high likelihood of infringing on a lot of people’s voting rights in order to combat non-existent fraud. Sorry, that’s just not acceptable.

        But this is all really beside the point. The purpose of voter ID laws and other laws recently enacted in red states is to curb the number of Democratic voters, plain and simple.

         
      • Cluster

        November 5, 2013 at 4:27 pm

        Oh give me a break. Liberals have no problem infringing on rights. Gun controls, healthcare, ban on the size of soda pops, etc.. Liberals don’t want voter ID laws because it would stop them from manipulating elections when needed. It would stop them from busing in voters on Election Day to tilt the election pure and simple. Mimority voting has increased in voter ID states and you have no answer for that, because it completely contradicts your narrative.

        Again, liberals trample rights every day but want us to think that voter rights are sacrosanct?
        Puhleeeease.

         
      • mitchethekid

        November 5, 2013 at 5:08 pm

        No, give us a break. Manipulating elections? Like voter ID laws whose sole purpose is to prevent certain groups from voting since they won’t vote for Republicans? If conservative Republicans were the true blue Americans they claim they are (or rather, would deceive us into believing) then they would make it easier to vote, not more difficult. Wacked out conservatives still are skeptical of the birth place of Obama, well I’m skeptical of the Diebold Company and Ohio in 2004.
        As far as minority voting increasing, one I’d challenge you on that but more importantly, minorities are becoming the majority.

         
      • Cluster

        November 5, 2013 at 5:50 pm

        Would you guys quit ignoring the fact that minority voter participation has increased in voter ID states? As it is, you’re coming off very foolish with this tired old, debunked argument.

         
      • watsonthethird

        November 5, 2013 at 4:50 pm

        Still not even one documented case of voter impersonation fraud, eh Cluster? Just deflection after deflection.

         
      • Cluster

        November 5, 2013 at 5:55 pm

        Nope, just pointing out how disingenuous and inconsistent you are. That’s all.

         
      • watsonthethird

        November 5, 2013 at 5:22 pm

        I then gave you some compelling reasons, but then you move the goal posts

        No, Cluster, you didn’t. That’s the point. You didn’t identify even a single example of voter impersonation fraud. Not one. Therefore, on the face of it, there are no compelling reasons to institute new regulations that will disenfranchise legitimate voters in order to guard against imaginary voter impersonation fraud.

         
      • kmgtwo

        November 5, 2013 at 7:20 pm

        See: Al Franken. Or are ballots “found” in the trunk of a car legitimate.

        Still fucking that football, Cluster?

        1. The ballots were never in her car.

        2. The ballots were never in anyone’s car for several days.

        3. The ballots were never lost or forgotten, and spent Election Night until counting day in secure city facilities.

         
  2. meursault1942

    November 5, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    “You’re missing the point, Speaker Wright. The sole purpose is to reduce the number of people who vote!”

    And every so often, they come right out and say so–that NC GOPer recently, for example, or the Texas Teabagger who stated, “I’m going to be real honest with you, the Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they’re going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats.”

    Also, while we’re all aware of the great realignment that happened during the Civil Rights era (when the GOP became the party of the Confederacy), it’s interesting to note that as far back as 1892, the Republican Party believed “that every citizen of the United States shall be allowed to cast one free and unrestricted ballot in all public elections.” Of course, the party has changed quite a bit since then, political reality being what it is and increased voting being a very serious problem for the GOP that it is choosing to address by trying to cut down on voting:

    The Party of Lincoln has become the Party of Calhoun. And hence this Orwellian language is familiar to anyone who’s spent any time listening to a national Republican politician recently. Protecting civil rights is the source of racial antagonism. People who point out racism are the real racists. The party that represents racial minorities is “subjugating” them. The non-existent “rights” of states should be used to trump the actual federal rights of individuals.

     
    • Cluster

      November 5, 2013 at 4:11 pm

      How do you explain the fact that minority voting has increased in voter ID states? You really need to awaken to reality and change your tired old narrative. 1892? Really?

       
      • meursault1942

        November 5, 2013 at 4:41 pm

        Yeah, that whole “trying to prevent minorities from voting” thing really pissed minorities off. In the short term, the strategy has backfired on the GOP, but I’m sure they’re working hard to remedy that (as the Confederacy does).

        So why do you think that the Republican Party was for unrestricted voting before it was extremely against it? Why does the GOP fear the ballot box so much?

         
  3. mitchethekid

    November 5, 2013 at 5:48 pm

     
    • Cluster

      November 5, 2013 at 5:59 pm

      I will post this again since you all seem to be learning impaired:

      The actual turnout of Democratic and minority voters went up, not down, in Georgia and Indiana after their voter-ID laws went into effect, and those increases were larger than in many states without voter-ID laws.

      Furthermore, in lawsuits filed by liberal groups against both states, none of the plaintiffs, including organizations such as the NAACP and the ACLU, could come up with a single witness who was unable to vote because of the voter-ID laws. That is why their cases were eventually thrown out and the Supreme Court upheld the Indiana statute.

       
      • kmgtwo

        November 5, 2013 at 7:15 pm

        Perhaps you should seek some learning, Cluster. Specifically in statistics.

        Georgia has a unique situation in terms of its voter ID law, which was put into effect in 2007. As is often cited by photo voter ID law proponents, voter turnout did in fact increase between the 2004 presidential elections, which did not feature a photo voter ID mandate, and the 2008 presidential elections, which did. The numbers on this cannot be refuted, and Heritage Foundation’s Hans Von Spakovsky often excitedly refers to the Georgia case when making his pro-voter ID arguments and did so in a recent blog.

        […]

        These are specious conclusions to draw at best because it relies on a non-existent causation or correlation between the implementation of the state’s voter ID law and voter turnout without controlling for other factors such as the growth in voting age population and the growth in the number of people registered to vote during the same period.

        I spoke with Charles S. Bullock III, the Richard B. Russell Professor of Political Science at the University of Georgia who said that the state’s voter ID law “is not a cause” for the increase in minority voter turnout and “that you can’t build a case for a causal link” between the implementation of the voter ID law and the increase in minority voter turnout. In fact, voter turnout would have increased in Georgia in the 2008 presidential election with or without the voter ID law for a number of other factors, says Lubbock, including a “gradual increase” in the voting-age population of African Americans, and also the excitement around the possible election of the nation’s first black president. But this does not mean that everyone was able to “easily” get an ID card.

        […]

        The Increase in Georgia’s minority voter turnout was due to large increases in voter registration and the excitement around the Obama campaign, despite the voter ID law, but not because of it. [Colorlines, 3/23/12]

         
      • Cluster

        November 6, 2013 at 6:10 am

        Thank you for proving my point that voter ID laws do not equal voter suppression. Excellent.

         
      • kmgtwo

        November 6, 2013 at 6:41 am

        I proved your point? Really? So you are claiming that minority voter participation would have stayed the same without the voter ID laws? Please provide your analysis proving that point.

         
  4. kmgtwo

    November 5, 2013 at 7:26 pm

    You can divide voter ID law proponents into one of two camps: The liars and the suckers. The liars (Lott, Van Sparkofsky, Republican lawmakers) know that there is no voter fraud problem and push these laws for the sole purpose of depressing Democratic voter turnout (minorities, poor, students). They lie in their public statements to provide themselves some degree of cover for their true intent. The second group are those rubes who blindly accept anything told them by one of their Party as the indisputable truth and are too lazy or too stupid to seek out the truth for themselves.

     
 
%d bloggers like this: