A McClatchy investigation reveals that the Bush administration has aggressively sought to reduce voter turnout in battleground states to favor Republican candidates. While falsely citing systemic Democratic voter fraud (which the administration now admits doesn’t exist), they deliberately suppressed the vote of hundreds of thousands of poor, minority voters.
Comments are closed.
and it worked.
You gotta have an ID to rent a video. What’s the big deal if some states wanna require one to vote? The left’s caterwauling over such simple, easy-to-fulfill requirements along with shrieks of “Jim Crow!” and comparisons to poll taxes lend credence to the notion that they’re in favor of fraud at the ballot box.
As for suing states for having “too many people on their voter rolls,” uh, what’s wrong with that? The left’s been great at turning out 110% of precints since before LBJ, but you’ll have to excuse the rest of us if we’re not exactly thrilled by it.
Understand, though that the Bush administration has been unable to find a lick of evidence of voter fraud on the part of Democrats. They’ve looked high and low for six years and nothing. It’s enormously embarrassing to them. There’s simply nothing to back up that claim. It’s looking more and more like, at best, a relic that died with the Byrd Machine in the 70s and, at worst, an urban legend.
You want to try talking facts instead of right-wing canards, “Judge”? There are “too many people on voter rolls” because people don’t have to report when they move away, so as people move around (as they have in increasing numbers over the years), you wind up with more people on the rolls. Do you actually think suing states over that is a sensible use of government resources?
It’s not “the left” that decided that voter ID laws such as Georgia’s were onerous because they required fees and required voters with no cars to travel to a limited number of locations across the state, it was the Georgia Supreme Court.
The Bush Administration turned a considerable portion of the Justice Department to the task of finding voter fraud that they’d convinced conservatives like you must exist, and didn’t find it. So your wild claims about what “the left” is doing (got any links to actual facts?) are just lame excuses for a lack of success.
I can remember a time when conservatives claimed to be against new government programs to “solve” nonexistent problems.
Conservatives will do whatever they need to with facts or theory to serve their own party line interests. See, e.g., our boy Smails.
Jim,
Didn’t you know it is the “left”‘s fault? Like for instance, the wars.
Not many Democrats voted for it, but that won’t stop the 2008 campaign machines of Republicans from trying to place blame on the ‘left’ for not stopping the wars, or from wanting to stop the wars, or whatever it is that is their agenda to blame with. Whatever suits the idealogical and power structure agenda. Or in just handing them over to the Democrats because the current administration has no solutions.
The ‘left’ is the bogeyman. It is a convenient excuse for all those cheerleading this administration in all its failures, instead of, you know, actually fixing the problems.
Not many Democrats in relative terms, before I get jumped on.
Who’s talkin’ about Iraq, Mark? I was simply pointing out how the broad left-half of the political spectrum, eg, “the left,” believes it’s way too onerous to ask people to bring a friggin ID with them to vote.
Nice straw man though.
That friggin’ ID brought to vote was once used as a means to disenfranchise American citizens from voting at all.
As for Iraq, it was used as an example of how over the last 6 years I have heard that ‘clear skies’ actually meant more pollution, that we would be under a ‘mushroom cloud’ if we didn’t invade Iraq.
Iraq is the biggest symbol of the fraud and mismanagement of this country. That symbolism is what I was trying to do with my comment, equating divisiveness, in this case, ‘the left’ being the cause of so many of our problems in this country.
I didn’t mean to conflate the two seperate issues. I might be a little sensitive about labels, though.
The “left” might be up in arms about requiring ID’s, but it is the right that is cynically trying to impose a restriction that happens to affect more Democratic voting constituencies. It is disenfranchisement, it is classist and it is racist. My magisterial district includes a few retirement communities. Do you really think we should require people on assisted living who haven’t driven in years to go all the way across town to get an ID card? That’s just cruel.
As far as too many people on the rolls… I am a precinct captain in the Georgetown Precinct in Albemarle (borders are 29, Barracks, Georgetown, Hydraulic, Whitewood and Greenbrier). There are a high number of very large apartment complexes, as well as a fair number of townhouse/duplex units. In other words, people move around a lot. I live in a duplex, and at one point, before they were marked as invalid in our database, we had 6 registered voters at my address who no longer lived there. I’m sure most if not all of them are still on the voter rolls. You can see it in the turnout numbers. We had record turnout nationwide in 2006, as well as in precincts like Georgetown or University Hall, but the turnout percentages were much lower than other more stable precincts in the county. Why, because people like those six at my address obviously weren’t voting.