Dick
Amory, former House Republican Leader announced yesterday on CNN’s State of the Union his groups aim to elect
tea party-minded conservatives to Congress to force the White House on a
far-right path. “We’ll build a legislative wall…We’ll either be walling
a Republican in or walling a Democratic president out.” This falls under his
aegis as high mucky muck of the FreedomWorks astroturfnetwork . FreedomWorks
is focused on electing far right-Republicans for the Senate and has super-PAC
for that purpose. He then went on to list his five picks so far. (See
Truthout.org for the list.)
Now isn’t
that what we want to hear from public policy makers; my way or no way. As
public servants we will only represent those few who support our far out ideas;
and we’ll do it by hook or by crook. After all, the ends justify the means,
right?
With all
the doublespeak that goes on in politicking it amazes me Amery and pick out who
are extreme enough for him. Maybe there's a secret organization with a secret
handshake and hazing and all that good stuff.
I wonder
who little Dickey let play with him when he was a little boy?
Similar to Grover Norquist's promise to make it 'impossible for a democrat to govern as a democrat' and Karl Rove's prior promise of a 'permanent republican majority'.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the goal is to create a de facto one-party system. No longer shy about it, they are pretty much proclaiming it openly with statements like this. With most republican goals fully accomplished, the one-party system is the final victory, the Holy Grail.
We're down to about a 1.5-party system right now. There's the Republicans, who are republicans, and then there's the Democrats, who are just 'lite' republicans.
With the rise of superPACs, in concert with voter-ID measures meant to put up more barriers between the poor and the ballot box, the one-party system is now getting on a fast track.
I expect more barriers to voting will slowwwwly be introduced for certain demographics, in a piecemeal fashion, until it's a troublesome enough process that they can just do away with elections altogether. The excuse will be that elections are too "bureaucratic" or "inefficient" or that it's just "big government" or something like that. ;-)
"With the rise of superPACs, in concert with voter-ID measures meant to put up more barriers between the poor and the ballot box, the one-party system is now getting on a fast track."
DeleteThis is completely untrue. The voter fraud elimination acts make it easy to get valid voter IDs. For actual voters. Of any ace.
SuperPACs have nothing to do with these either. They are merely expressions of free speech. If you don't like what their commercials say, turn off the TV or ignore them. I do readily.
"I expect more barriers to voting will slowwwwly be introduced..."
Yet, none have been introduced yet.
I'm still waiting for you to tell us more about yourself. Curious
DeleteHD
Getting a voter ID is not a trivial exercise if you don't already have a photo ID. Depending on the state requirements, you may well have to chase down copies of birth certs or other documentation (and pay the relevant fees to get that stuff together) - and in many places getting THIS documentation already requires submitting a photo ID, creating a catch-22: you need the paperwork to get a photo ID, but you need a photo ID to prove who you are to request the paperwork.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, it's going to take weeks, and some money, to get all this accomplished. Which of course is the goal, to put as many bureaucratic and procedural barriers between certain groups and the ballot box as possible. A simpler method would be simply fingerprinting people signing in at the polls, but that wouldn't have the desired effect of creating procedural hurdles to voting.
In short, this is big-brother over-regulation and bureaucracy run amok. And again, it's a solution in search of a problem. I can't believe our state is spending $20+ million on this with all the other problems going on. If there is ONE problem America does NOT have, it's having people who vote too much!!!
Voter fraud by duplicate voting would be a labor-intensive, low-return means to effect an election fraud today anyway. Election fraud risk today lies primarily in the ease with which voting machines can still be hacked and their vote counts manipulated - this is the real election risk, which of course you won't see addressed. The voter ID thing is just a head-fake strategy to keep people focused on the wrong thing.
PK said: "In any case, it's going to take weeks, and some money, to get all this accomplished. Which of course is the goal"
DeleteDo you have anything to support, any link or anything, to say that the goal is to do this. As opposed to getting rid of the real problem of voter fraud?
All evidence I have ever seen is that the voter ID proposals are a straightforward way to deal with a real problem. Are there problems with proposals? Yes. And efforts can be made to make it easier for real citizens to get IDs. But that is no reason to toss out a great idea in a reactionary fashion.
"If there is ONE problem America does NOT have, it's having people who vote too much!!!"
If one person votes more than once, it is "too much". If a convicted felon who threw his or her right to vote away in a place where it is illegal for them to vote votes, it is "too much". If an illegal alien votes, it is "too much". Every fake vote disenfranchises an actual voter.
Also, the reactionary claims that this is targetted at, and will reduce minority voters, are too much "chicken little"
"Election data in Georgia demonstrate that concern about a negative effect on the Democratic or minority vote is baseless. Turnout there increased more dramatically in 2008 — the first presidential election held after the state’s photo-ID law went into effect — than it did in states without photo ID. Georgia had a record turnout in 2008, the largest in its history — nearly 4 million voters. And Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points from the 2004 election, the fourth-largest increase of any state. The black share of the statewide vote increased from 25 percent in 2004 to 30 percent in 2008, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. According to Census Bureau surveys, 65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points." (from this link.
"In short, this is big-brother over-regulation and bureaucracy run amok. And again, it's a solution in search of a problem."
I strongly disagree. Election integrity is one of the bedrocks of our democracy.
"A simpler method would be simply fingerprinting people signing in at the polls"
This is an interesting proposal. Is anyone seriously putting it forth?
dmarks, I recommend you check out www.bradblog.com 2-9-2012 4.23 p.m. which debunks much of your concern and false information being put out on the internet. We have voter registration laws and they work fine.
ReplyDeleteThey don't work when ACORN is caught in actual voter fraud crimes (for which people were arrested) in which they padded the voter rolls with fake names. A voter ID would take care of this at the polls when it happens.
DeleteSouth Carolina has the best effort on this I think, with the most active proposals to make sure anyone has an ID.
While the % of votes from voter fraud is small, it should be realized that so many elections turn on very few votes. A 2005 GAO report revealed that 3% of voters on the registration rolls did not belong on them: either fakes or illegal aliens or double voters.
Is 3% small? Sure. But enough to have made a difference in the past three Presidential elections. It's a very real problem.
(I tried to find the Feb 9 Brad link you mentioned. I found something on Santorum, green matters, and Prop 8. Nothing on the voter fraud issue. The Feb. 7 story DOES cover voter fraud, but does not refute anything. It also contains the curious "...absentee Vote-by-Mail is a terrible idea, unless it's really necessary..." opinion, which is FAR more anti-democratic than requiring a valid ID at the voting place. Vote by mail is actually very popular on both sides of the aisle and increases involvement in the democratic process.