...quietly. I'm really happy Obama won in SC, but is there a way the Clintons could be told that they did instead? Just a little white lie you understand, to throw them off his scent, steer them away from the great racial divide they are trying to widen in this country (just as Obama is trying to narrow it), and force THEM (and likewise their media puppets, witting and unwitting alike) to pay attention to HillBilly and not to whether or not Barack will weather the next onslaught of attacks they launch against him as punishment to him (and the voters who support him) for making the (ahem) wrong choice...this time.
The sad thing is, Bill Clinton said one true thing last week while smearing speaking in SC. He said the press loves the fighting, they love it, they "live for it" in fact. Of course while the words were true, the intent behind them was anything but. The bogus rage was a projection of what he thinks the rest of us would feel towards the press if we had the good sense to realize that they were being used as pawns in his (and her) carefully crafted, almost "Rovian" scheme to get the press to do exactly that which they ARE DOING!
The translated version of his comment would sound something like this: "How dare you do exactly what I want you to do by focusing exclusively on the bickering going on between me and Obama, and my wife and Obama, instead of on my wife (who, for all her supposed "experience" really is a hollow shell of a woman whose record, particularly in the areas of character, ethics and integrity, could not possibly withstand the more appropriate, but obviously less exciting comparisons with Barack Obama's past demonstration of those same traits)."
"How dare you put the focus squarely on him in such a way as to call into question his electability in the general election, either by calling attention to his race (as we are obviously steering you to do) by covering the dismissive way my wife talked about MLKs achievements, or by stressing the (vaguely racist) comments I've recently made regarding how she can't win SC because, well, she's not black and Obama surely has the lock on those voters...How dare you take my comments out of the context of this mind game we're playing with the American people and attempting to make it a real issue in the campaign! You're doing a perfect job of providing cover for Hillary's loss in South Carolina, while simultaneously engendering support for her from the white community in other states with older, mostly white, probably latently racist, or at least easily scared (because after all, they still carry that chip on their shoulders about losing in 2000 and like me and my wife, just want to WIN no matter what it takes this time (yeah, I'm talking about you Florida). HOW DARE YOU! Now run along and keep doing it. Did you get all that?"
Seriously! What the media should be doing is point-blank asking the former "President" about those issues he pretends to care about. Go ahead, call his bluff. He's pitching a purple fit that you're not asking about healthcare, GO AHEAD! Ask about it! Ask about how she plans to PAY for that single payer system she's so sure Barack supported at one time, but now opposes (to his detriment she says). Please do! The voters want to and need to hear the answer. Go ahead and ask Mr. Prospective First Lady why he doesn't stand out there at his gatherings and speeches and talk about those issues instead of taking on Barack.
You say: "Mr. President, if you're so fired up to talk to the voters about Hillary's stand on this or that issue, why don't you? Why are you spending so much time talking about Obama and not her? Are you afraid he might defeat her and you want to take the focus off her and put it on him? What gives dude?"
But no, you just stand there, like a bunch of carp, mouths agape, asking things like "How do you feeeeeeeel about the 'slugfest' between your wife and Senator Obama?" or "Do you think this distracts from the campaign in any way?" or "What do you have to say to those who say you were wrong about his record here or there or wherever."
STOP LETTING HIM MAKE OBAMA THE ISSUE. You want to talk to Obama about his issues, GO AHEAD, but talk to the Clintons about THEIRS dammit!
Until then, do me a favor will ya? Let's keep Barack's win on the down low, mmmkay? Just our little secret.
Oh, who am I kidding? These are the CLINTONS! And everyone knows, they are the only people in America who are allowed to keep secrets anymore. I bet Chelsea still believes in Santa Claus, that's how good they are at it.
Just in case I was alone in maintaining that the NYT is fiercely biased to the left, I just want to point out that they're wearing their hearts on their sleeves today with their ,a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/editorials/" target="_blank">endorsements for the Presidential nominations:
We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.
Wow. Why not just say "We are in strong agreement with all the Democrat candidates running for President (in which case, our endorsement can be seen as little more than wanting to back the most likely winner, who also happens to be our NY Senator and who has worked hard to bring 261 pork-barrel earmark programs to our state, most of them right here in our city)."
And they also say this about McCain:
n 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.That doesn’t make him a moderate....
Ummmmm...Compared to WHOM??? Teddy Kennedy himself? How far from the right does one have to go to be considered "moderate" by the left? Jeezum-crow! In my book, he's a LIBERAL, and the only reason I supports Obama more than him are that
a) I've never liked him, precisely for the same reasons the dittoheads don't
b) Obama isn't Hillary, in fact, he's the ANTI-Hillary (anti-Clinton in pretty much every way actually) and since I predict a Dem. win no matter what, I'll cut my losses with him thank you very much. If I'm stuck with a liberal Dem. let it be a guy who isn't a calculating, conniving, evil BITCH, hell-bent on punishing everyone to the right of John McCain for the next four years (scuze me, EIGHT years if she has her way, which you can bet she will if she gets the office in the first place).
I realize editorial pages aren't objective, but it's rare to see one come so clean with regard to its bias on specific matters of policy about which its news sections do so much coverage. Is it then any wonder that those allegedly objective "news" sections of the paper contain NO good news from Iraq, or about the economy, rarely if ever run bad news about Hillary (or any liberal Dem), and routinely blame America first for everything wrong in the world?
I read the paper for David Brooks and that's about it. Beyond that, I might use it to wipe my ass on a camping trip, or to house-train a puppy. Just don't tell me it's "the paper of record" ever again. Whose record? The broken record that plays in the mind of every liberal out there? The one that says "Bush is dead, Bush is dead" (and that's if you play it forward, you don't even want to know what it plays BACKWARD).
Rush Limbaugh is indignant. He is angry. He says people should stop telling him and other die-hard conservatives to "shut-up" about how much they don't like McCain. He cites McCain's less-than-perfect record as a conservative, as well as his cozy relationships with certain loathesome Dems (Kennedy and Feingold in particular). There is some truth to the particulars of what he says, I mean, I've long been less than McCain's biggest fan...
But people like Rush are living in a dream, and that dream involves the GOP winning in November any other way BUT with McCain (and even McCain is a long-shot in my opinion). The likelihood that the next President will be a Democrat is SO great that, to me anyway, what Rush and his ilk should be focusing on is not how to be the most loyal die-hard pure conservative, but how to KEEP HILLARY OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!
That is....If Rush and his ilk in the "making money off this whole mess" business actually WANT her to lose, which, to be honest, I'm beginning to seriously doubt. Rush is a smart man, he's not blind to the polls--however flawed they might be, they're not THAT wrong that they've missed some great potential the electorate has to overcome the abysmal negatives of the GOP as a whole--he can't possibly be blind to the hatred of Bush and the party that he leads. He's made a living covering it for the past eight years!
So if he's as smart as I think he is, I can only wonder if he has a death wish for the GOP in this election. And if not, if he genuinely believes the GOP can win this thing with Mitt-freakin'-Romney on the ticket, he may be back ON those meds again, or maybe he's switched to something with a slightly more hallucinogenic affect, I dunno, shrooms perhaps?
Yes, I know Mrs. Clinton has very high negatives, but have you noticed the turnout on the Dem. side vs. the turnout on the GOP side so far in the primaries? Is he seriously counting on every independent and every Republican voting for Romney OVER Hillary? Not gonna happen buddy, it's just not. People will stay home if they hate her, and no one--and I mean NO ONE--is going to love him so much by the end of his negative, bitter, full-of-shit, ass-kissing, bull-shit-full-of-lies campaign either!
I realize I'm not the greatest at math, but by my calculations, if you figure the majority of the people are pissed off at Republicans period, and are prepared to listen to a Dem, and maybe even vote for one, and that the die-hard GOP faithful are not the majority of the party, and the independents who are a larger group this cycle than EVER (and upon whom the evetual winner from either side will depend) tend to lean towards middle *at best,* the ONLY Republican who stands a chance against either Hillary or Obama is McCain. As old as he is, he's not the poster-boy for everything the average Republican hating voter *hates* (i.e., rich, white, arrogant, lying, calculating, misrepresenting, business-focused, soulless, etc...) like Romney is, and not for nothing, he's also *not a mormon!*
Yes, it does matter. Stop pretending it doesn't Rush, you KNOW it does. It would matter TO YOU if he were a Dem and you know it, don't pretend it wouldn't. You'd be giving us daily reminders of how we don't really know that much about that faith, and how a lot of people really aren't comfortable with Mormons period, never mind in charge of our country, and you know it.
The other thing I don't get is how Rush isn't looking at Romney's record as Governor! He's all over McCain b/c he's too much of a RINO, but not Romney?? This is nothing more than evidence that Rush has a chip on his shoulder about McCain, and is picking the lesser of the evils solely to preserve that chip, to retain his credibility after tearing McCain to shreds on immigration so recently. He's never talked about Romney, so he can get away with liking him, he knows most of his listeners aren't in Massachusetts anyway--blue state that it is--so there are few people to contradict him if he appears to be backing Romney instead of McCain.
And really, who else could he be trying to get conservatives to support? Rudy??? COME ON, seriously? Odd thing is, from a business perspective, that would make more sense to me than backing Romney, but even Rush doesn't want to back a SURE loser, and Rudy has sunk way too far in the polling and has put all his eggs in a citrus basket, and it's just so unlikely that he could still win the nomination. Besides, if Romney has issues with the religious right, Rudy is the anti-christ for them! That plus his personal problems (which the Clinton campaign for sure would trot out on gorey detail for all to see) would leave even the most die-hard conservatives unable to hold their noses in the voting booth for Rudy, even if it means a Hillary victory.
Rush has two choices: Push people in open primary states who still can, to vote as independents for Obama so at least, if the GOP candidate doesn't win, it won't be Hillary OR support McCain and hope like hell he's running against Hillary because he can't beat Obama, no way. The narrative of Obama's candidacy is too compelling to coalesce conservatives against him. And independents who hang in the middle will probably vote for youth and change over age and experience. It has happened before and Rush knows it.
So shut up, or don't, it's your call Dittoheads, but if you don't, remember...You made your bed, and you may have to lie in it with Hillary for the next four years. How does that sound?
Here's one we all ought to read...
I'm up and down about Kristol. He's a neo-con and has usually been too quick to defend the war, even when everyone was saying it was going nowhere fast, but I have to say--even though he correctly points out that Obama is also wrong on the war *right at this moment in time,* and I like Obama in all other ways--what he says here is noteworthy.
The fact is, the surge is working very well, so well the new tune is "It's the economy stupid!" And the other way you can tell it's working is that there's a dearth of coverage of the war lately (Gee, wonder why???).
I *still* want to better understand why the Dem. party is sooo wedded to our failure there. I mean, it IS true that had we pulled out way back when they wanted us to, the good things we're seeing now would not have happened, Al Qaeda would be more entrenched than ever there, and poised to attack elsewhere. Iran could have come in and filled that power vacuum too, and there could have been a REAL civil war between the factions. I just don't get why no one will step up and say "OK, things are looking up, and that's a good thing."
This is one reason I might be able to overlook McCain's failings (and age), he was the one who pushed this through from the git-go, and has courageously stood up against critics of it from the day one. Hillary on the other hand, has not only opposed it, she has gone out of her way to deny it's working. Obama just seems to me to be stuck in yesterday's news, not a great thing, but I guess my hope is that his good character and desire to unite the nation --coupled with what I see as a deep patriotism and lack of emotional attachment to our failure there (or Bush's)--lead me to hope that he either has started to, or will shortly, see the light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq.
Op-Ed Columnist The Democrats’ Fairy Tale By WILLIAM KRISTOL Published: January 14, 2008“Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” Thus spoke Bill Clinton last Monday night, exasperated by Barack Obama’s claim that he — unlike Hillary Clinton — had been consistently right (or wrong, depending on your point of view) on the Iraq war.
Now in fact, Obama has been pretty consistent in his opposition to the war. But Bill Clinton is right in this respect: Obama’s view of the current situation in Iraq is out of touch with reality. In this, however, Obama is at one with Hillary Clinton and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party.
When President Bush announced the surge of troops in support of a new counterinsurgency strategy a year ago, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Democratic Congressional leaders predicted failure. Obama, for example, told Larry King that he didn’t believe additional U.S. troops would “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” Then in April, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, asserted that “this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything.” In September, Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus that his claims of progress in Iraq required a “willing suspension of disbelief.”
The Democrats were wrong in their assessments of the surge. Attacks per week on American troops are now down about 60 percent from June. Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent from a year ago. December 2007 saw the second-lowest number of U.S. troops killed in action since March 2003. And according to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of day-to-day military operations in Iraq, last month’s overall number of deaths, which includes Iraqi security forces and civilian casualties as well as U.S. and coalition losses, may well have been the lowest since the war began.
Do Obama and Clinton and Reid now acknowledge that they were wrong? Are they willing to say the surge worked?
No. It’s apparently impermissible for leading Democrats to acknowledge — let alone celebrate — progress in Iraq. When asked recently whether she stood behind her “willing suspension of disbelief” insult to General Petraeus, Clinton said, “That’s right.”
When Obama was asked in the most recent Democratic presidential debate, “Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?” he didn’t directly address the question. But he volunteered that “much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar Province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what? — the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now.”
But Sunni tribes in Anbar announced in September 2006 that they would join to fight Al Qaeda. That was two months before the Democrats won control of Congress. The Sunni tribes turned not primarily because of fear of the Shiites, but because of their horror at Al Qaeda’s atrocities in Anbar. And the improvements in Anbar could never have been sustained without aggressive American military efforts — efforts that were more effective in 2007 than they had been in 2006, due in part to the addition of the surge forces.
Last year’s success, in Anbar and elsewhere, was made possible by confidence among Iraqis that U.S. troops would stay and help protect them, that the U.S. would not abandon them to their enemies. Because the U.S. sent more troops instead of withdrawing — because, in other words, President Bush won his battles in 2007 with the Democratic Congress — we have been able to turn around the situation in Iraq.
And now Iraq’s Parliament has passed a de-Baathification law — one of the so-called benchmarks Congress established for political reconciliation. For much of 2007, Democrats were able to deprecate the military progress and political reconciliation taking place on the ground by harping on the failure of the Iraqi government to pass the benchmark legislation. They are being deprived of even that talking point.
Yesterday, on “Meet the Press,” Hillary Clinton claimed that the Iraqis are changing their ways in part because of the Democratic candidates’ “commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009.” So the Democratic Party, having proclaimed that the war is lost and having sought to withdraw U.S. troops, deserves credit for any progress that may have been achieved in Iraq.
That is truly a fairy tale. And it is driven by a refusal to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of ... George W. Bush. The horror!
I agree with him 100%. I think it is the height of hubris to think that they are changing b/c we are threatening to leave! I agree that the OPPOSITE is true, and anyone who has studied the tribal ways over there, and who's read Michael Totten's independent reports from Anbar would know that they are TELLING us that the opposite is true! They only started allying with some of the terrorists at first b/c they thought they'd have to to survive b/c we'd leave them as we did in Gulf 1 (and in truth, the terrorist propaganda warns them hourly that we will abandon them, it's all over the Internet how "weak" we are and how they should not trust us to stay). Once they saw that we were staying, and adding MORE troops, DESPITE unpopularity at home, they felt more secure and started coming over to our side.
What we fail to grasp in this country is that not all cultures or people's will automatically fight for what is "Right" by our definition. Sometimes they will simply fight for what is "might," and that's what they respect the most, it is, no way around it. I find it ironic that the same people who said Bush didn't understand the scene over there (and he didn't, not at all, not at first, but he LEARNED and allowed the military to use this knowledge to our advantage, which is more than I can say for the Dem. naysayers) and was a cultural ignoramus, are now saying the only reason Iraqis are doing things the way we want them to is because we are PRESSURING them and THREATENING them.
So let me get this straight...It's OK to be hegemonic pigs when it suits our political purposes, but not when it doesn't?
I'm so confused....
Sardonically, trust me (and no, I didn't really pee all over myself either, this time anyway...I am pregnant if you recall, it's not that far from the realm of possibility, especially reading shit as funny as this).
As you read the following remember that Robert Rubin is *right now as I type this* one of Hillary's chief Economic advisers. It was obviously a (heavy sarcasm coming) great choice to pick him because he was such a good economist and businessman that after he became Vice Chairman of Citicorp, it lost its shirt and is now laying off up to 30,000 people and cutting its dividend--even the Chinese wont invest their sovereign funds in it! (and of course she got all that vicarious "experience" sitting by Bill's side as Rubin--Bill's Secretary of Treasury--discussed economic policy with Bill. The only lesson bill learned--apparently since he hasn't told his wife to pick someone else, even AFTER the Citicorp debacle-- was charge a lot for each speech when you get out of office! Maybe THAT's why she wants the job, b/c her rates will go up! [Deb rolls her eyes] )
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Rubinomics R.I.P.
January 15, 2008; Page A12If our Washington, D.C., readers noticed a cortege of blue suits carrying a casket in front of the Brookings Institution last week, be not mournful. You were merely watching the leading economists of the Democratic Party burying the faith once known as Rubinomics. May it rest in peace.
Rubinomics is the concept of "deficit reduction" as growth policy: Lower the federal budget deficit and, as dawn follows night, interest rates will fall and prosperity will break upon the land. Named for former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and much celebrated in the 1990s, the concept was embraced as gospel by nearly all Democrats as recently as a few weeks ago. But last week it officially expired, as those same Democrats reconverted to Keynesian deficit spending in the name of "economic stimulus."
Mr. Rubin's successor at Treasury, Larry Summers, started the bidding with a $65 billion tax rebate and spending plan. Hillary Clinton saw that and raised, and now wants $40 billion in tax rebates and $70 billion in new spending for unemployment insurance, housing assistance, home heating subsidies and green technologies. Barack Obama joined the fray Sunday, proposing a $75 billion "stimulus" that would have the government send millions of Americans a check for $250, plus another $250 in bonus Social Security payments.
But wait, what about those evil Bush deficits? Only weeks ago, Democrats claimed those were the road to perdition, even if the deficit had shrunk to 1.2% of GDP last year thanks to booming revenue growth. Remember the imperative of "pay as you go" budgeting? Ah, that was all before Iraq faded as a political winner and the economy became their favorite issue for regaining the White House. Now, all of a sudden, their motto is tax cut and spend.
"Stimulus shouldn't be paid for," declared Mrs. Clinton on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "The stimulus, by the very nature of the economic problems we're facing, is going to require an injection of federal funding." And no less than the oracle himself, Mr. Rubin, appeared at Brookings last week to declare that a deficit-padding stimulus "can give the economy a timely boost in the face of great uncertainty and concern with the short-term economic outlook." The coroner will note that the cause of death here is suicide.
As a matter of policy, this passing is just as well. Rubinomics never did have much economic basis, and even casual observation over the last 25 years has exposed its illogic. As deficits rose in the 1980s, interest rates fell. In the current decade, deficits rose and interest rates fell for a time, then later deficits fell but interest rates rose.
Even in the 1990s, the facts never matched the theory. The rate on the 30-year Treasury bond did fall in 1993 amid the Clinton tax increases, but it slowly climbed again throughout 1994. The historic market turn -- in stocks and bonds -- came exactly on the day in 1994 that Republicans won the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Interest rates move up or down based on multiple variables, such as monetary policy and global capital flows. Deficits within reasonable bounds are a bit player.
Another benefit of this Democratic disavowal of deficits is that we can now have a debate about what really "stimulates" an economy. The born-again Keynesians want to send checks to voters, who will spend or save the cash. Even if they spend it, however, any stimulus will be temporary, and in any case even a $100 billion "injection" will count for little in a $13 trillion economy.
But these Demogrants might be politically useful as part of a negotiation to pass some genuine stimulus. We're referring to a tax cut that increased individual or business incentives to work and invest. Our preference is for an immediate and permanent across the board cut in marginal income tax rates. Unlike the $250 rebate -- inflated upwards from Jimmy Carter's famous $50 version -- marginal rate cuts would help the economy enough that they'd "cost" the Treasury far less in lost revenue. This is the kind of political trade the White House should be working on if it really wants to pass a "stimulus" this year.
Yes, many will fret that these tax cuts would only increase the deficit. But now we have even Robert Rubin and Hillary Clinton instructing us that deficits don't matter. Somewhere, Dick Cheney is smiling.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!
Yeah, remember this next time you hear the words "STIMULUS PACKAGE." It's just code for "spending money we don't have so YOU WILL TOO!"
Who needs the Hollywood writers? You can't "invent" shit this funny!
For example, the old biddie in this piece on the case under consideration by the SCOTUS right now regarding Voter ID laws in Indiana:
Supreme Court to hear Indiana voter ID lawShow them to me? Where are these "disenfranchised" masses? Not feeling like getting an ID is NOT disenfranchisement by SOMEONE ELSE! The government doesn't have an obligation to make it *easy* for you to vote, just not to go out of its way to actively prevent you from voting. If this is unclear to you, here's a little analogy to help you understand: If there's a blizzard on election day, it's not their job to plow your driveway so you can get out and drive to the polls. It IS their job to plow the roads, and it IS their job not to dump the snow they plow in front of your garage purposely blocking your car from exiting.By Grace Schneider
Louisville Courier-JournalThe U.S. Supreme Court is to hear arguments today on the constitutionality of an Indiana law that requires Hoosiers to show government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license, before voting.
The law, passed in 2005, has fueled a partisan debate over voting rights and access to the ballot. And it has angered some voters.
Phyllis Beyl, a Sellersburg retiree who doesn't drive and has no substitute photo ID, said she'll vote by absentee ballot -- which is exempt from the ID rule -- to avoid having to conform to something she views as making it more difficult for people like her to vote.
"I've got people who'll take me to the license branch" to get a photo ID, said Beyl, a Democrat. "But I don't want to. Why should I have to?" [Deb: BECAUSE IT'S YOUR CIVIC DUTY! Why SHOULDN'T you do it?]
Conservative groups that support the law say it helps combat voter fraud and maintain the integrity of the electoral process. But civil-rights organizations, five current and former secretaries of state who are Democrats, and advocates for senior citizens have called the measure a veiled effort to reduce turnout among poor, elderly and minority voters.
Got it?
Your picture ID is the equivalent of you plowing your own driveway, get over it.
"Unfortunately, this thing has gotten bogged down in partisanship," said Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a Republican who backs the law. "I think Republicans and Democrats agree that we want to ensure fair elections, and we don't want to disenfranchise voters."This is political, and a thinly veiled way to UP voter turnout for the Democrats by allowing illegal aliens and others who are not allowed to vote LEGALLY to vote, most likely for their party. It's so obvious, I can't believe I bothered typing this sentence. Might as well have just typed "The sun will rise in the East tomorrow."
Under the law, Indiana voters must present a photo ID with an expiration date, such as a driver's license or passport. Voters who can't produce an ID can cast a provisional ballot that will count if the voter returns to the county clerk with an ID in 10 days.This sounds completely FAIR. What seems to be the problem?
While other states have enacted voter-ID rules based on recommendations from the 2002 Help America Vote Act, Indiana's law is one of the most strict. Georgia and Florida also require a photo ID; four other states request photo IDs but also accept a signed affidavit from the voter as to his or her identity.Well this is a joke! A signed affidavit by someone who is OK with fraud is wortheless, especially at the polling place. By the time you figure out the affidavit was bogus (if you even bother to try) the vote is cast and counted, the damage done.
Indiana's law was challenged in two lawsuits, one brought by the state Democratic Party and the other by state Rep. William Crawford, D-Indianapolis, even before it took effect. But the law was upheld by the federal trial court and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.So what's the problem? I mean seriously! Sounds like the bigger problem might be that this Rokita guy has too much faith in the people casting absentee ballots, but as to the allegation of the plaintiffs, I'm failing to see how this "disenfranchises" people. If anything, it just doens't do much to protect against fraud, but that's not a reason to scrap the idea either (baby's awfully cold without that nice warm bathwater...)Todd Rokita, Indiana's Republican secretary of state who crafted the legislation and was the defendant in the Democrats' lawsuit, argued in a brief last year that toughening ID requirements will lessen the chance of voter fraud and ensure confidence in elections.
The law doesn't prevent seniors, the disabled and other groups from voting because they can cast votes by mailing in absentee ballots, Rokita wrote.
He also cited a University of Missouri study that said that Indiana's law hasn't depressed voter turnout, and actually increased the numbers of those who voted in the state during the 2006 election.Does it need to be "widespread" to matter? In close elections, if 10 people vote who shouldn't, it can make a big difference! Just ask some counties in Florida!But voting-rights advocates at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law argued that claims of widespread voter fraud are exaggerated.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Indiana and other states adopt strict ID requirements, the center estimated that 20 million citizens could be prevented from voting in this year's presidential election.Please tell me they're kidding. WHAT??? 20 MIL? Prove it! That is OBSCENELY HIGH, I don't believe it, not for a second! You need photo ID to get social services, open a bank account, cash your stupid social security check for crying out loud! 20 MIL? Please! Are we saying there are 20Mil indegent people in Indiana who won't be able to vote? Frankly, if there are that many of them in Indiana, they have bigger problems--much bigger problems--than not being able to VOTE! Who are these people walking around with no means of proving who they are? I have to show a picture ID when using a credit card, to reassure the store I am the owner of that card. If I have to use one when buying a sweater at the Gap, I sure as hell don't have a problem using one to cast a ballot!
Indiana critics insist that Rokita and others are ignoring the realities that ID laws impose on the average citizen."It's more or less the old poll tax," said Lettie Oliver, political action director with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 62. The Indianapolis-based union represents workers in Indiana and Kentucky.
Oliver said that while many people who don't drive can get the free state-issued ID card, they still must pay to get their birth certificates and other underlying documents needed to apply for the ID.
So sue the dept. of records too while you're at it! I don't like having to pay for a Birth Certificate, but paper and administrative costs COST MONEY, get over it! It's not big money, please!
"What people don't realize is (that) there is a cost" to obtain the photo ID, Oliver said.
And you know what? If you can't afford the damn ID, chances are you don't even vote! Only 30% of our population bothers to show up at all, and you want me to believe that it's all b/c they can't afford their ID? Please! There's a cost for a pack of ciggies and I've seen some pretty poor (and old) people manage to come up with that fee, they can't come up with enough for a license? Spare me.
Robin Winston, a former Indiana Democratic Party chairman and Indianapolis-based political consultant, said critics have focused on how the law disenfranchises urban voters, but it also poses obstacles for rural residents.If a rural voter has to submit a provisional ballot, he or she will have to return to the county seat during working hours to show an ID for the ballot to count. That often isn't an option, Winston said.
"It puts a hardship on rural voters, and it's wrong," he said.Winston said Rokita spearheaded the ID law only after Republicans gained majorities in both chambers of the legislature in 2004. "Ask Todd why he waited until then," Winston said.
Rokita brushed aside the critics, saying in an interview that the law is genuinely aimed at rooting out imposters. He said the voting alternatives offered by the law make it fair.
"The fact is, there's identity theft in every facet of our lives today. It doesn't stop at the voting booth," Rokita said.I've had my identity stolen, by multiple people it turns out, should I feel confident none of them voted? And they manufactured fake IDs using my info!! Imagine if that weren't even required!
Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, an associate professor of law at Indiana University, said he and other legal scholars he has spoken with were surprised that the Supreme Court would consider the Indiana law in the face of other pressing constitutional matters.Good point, this is frivolous, and political, and designed to deal with an outcome in '08 that is not to the liking of the Democrats, shoring up the "THEY STOLE THE ELECTION BY DISENFRANCHISING VOTERS!!!" argument.
Yawn.
How many different kinds of disgusting is this?
I've been arguing about this for the past day and a half with women on the community discussion site I started, and the majority seem to have no trouble with it. Is something wrong with me, or is renting out the womb of some impoverished woman half a world away, precisely BECAUSE she's too impoverished to challenge the paltry sum you are paying for her "services," just plain WRONG?
It's alarming how much I'm starting to LIKE Mo Dowd! I mean, I'm sure you could search her name on this very blog and find vicious diatribes written by yours truly, attacking her for being the liberal icon she is.
And yet, increasingly, she is writing things that make me stand up and cheer. Maybe I need to seek professional help before whatever condition I have that's making it easier lately to read her than to listen to Rush gets worse (EEK!).
“I want to go before the world and say, America’s back,” he told cheering Democrats in Milford, N.H., adding: “We are one nation. We are one people. And our time for change has come.”Even though Obama was wooing the young demographic so coveted by Hollywood, he took a page from J.F.K. and avoided the casual look last week. There were no jeans or snow boots. Just dark suits, stylish ties and dress shoes.
By the time she got to New Hampshire, Hillary was reduced to urging voters not to buy into “false hopes.”
At a hangar in Nashua, with chatty Bill and chatless Chelsea, Hillary tried to purloin more of the Obama message. Besides saying the word “change” as often as possible, she said she was particularly reaching out to young people to help them “reclaim the future.” She claimed that she disliked the red state, blue state terminology — “We are one country,” she said, echoing Obama — even as she added that she should be the nominee because she’s the best one “to withstand the Republican attack machine.”
What she doesn’t mention is that she knows how to fight off the Republican attack machine because she and her husband were so adept at revving it up.
Listening to Hillary and Obama evokes the famous scene in the classic “The Night of the Hunter,” when Robert Mitchum, whose fingers are tattooed with “LOVE” on his right hand and “HATE” on his left, has a wrestling match with his hands to see which emotion triumphs.
In the movie, love does, but it’s a close call.