Opinion

Opinion

South Carolina should fight voter ID ruling

December 31, 2011

Advertisement

Is there, or should there ever be, a point at which a state is no longer penalized for its discriminatory past?

Not according to the Department of Justice, which recently rejected a South Carolina law that would have required voters to show a valid photo ID before casting their ballots.

Justice says the law discriminates against minorities. The Obama administration said, “South Carolina’s law didn’t meet the burden under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which outlawed discriminatory practices preventing blacks from voting.” Why South Carolina? Because, the Justice Department contends, it’s tasked with approving voting changes in states that have failed in the past to protect the rights of blacks.

Are they serious?

There are two African Americans representing South Carolina in the U.S. House of Representatives, One is Tim Scott, a freshman Republican. The other is 10-term Rep. James Clyburn, the current assistant Democratic leader. There are numerous minority members of the S.C. state legislature and Gov. Nikki Haley who is Indian-American.

This is not your grandfather’s South Carolina. This is not the South Carolina of the then-segregationist and Dixiecrat presidential candidate Strom Thurmond. Yesterday’s South Carolina had segregated schools, lunch counters, restrooms and buses and a dominant Democratic Party. Today’s South Carolina is a modern, integrated, forward-looking, dual-party state.

If Justice thinks proving who one is by showing valid photo ID discriminates against minorities, how does it explain the election of so many minority legislators? Are only whites voting for them?

Democrats, especially, should be sensitive to states and people who have demonstrated that they have changed. It was the Democratic Party of the late 19th century that resisted integration throughout the South, passing Jim Crow laws that frustrated blacks who wanted to vote. Today, many members of that same party refuse to allow poor minority students to leave failing government schools as part of the school voucher system because they, apparently, value political contributions from teachers unions more than they value educational achievement.

The South Carolina law that offends the Justice Department anticipated objections that some poor minorities might not have driver’s licenses (and certainly not a passport) because they might not own cars. So the state will provide free voter ID cards with a picture of the voter on it. All someone has to do is prove who they claim to be. A birth certificate will do nicely. A utility bill can be used to prove residency.

Not requiring a voter to prove his or her citizenship and residence is a recipe for voter fraud. Democrats like to accuse Republicans of trying to keep minorities from voting because they know most will vote for Democrats. Even if that were true (and it’s debatable) the reverse is probably truer. Some Democrats have allegedly encouraged people to vote who were not eligible, some more than once. Without a valid ID, how can we stop this?

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law has compiled a list of new voter identification laws passed this year. In addition to the one in South Carolina, all require some form of photo identification. Will Justice go after all of them, as well?

According to the Brennan Center, a new law in Kansas, effective Jan. 1, 2012, requires a photo ID, with certain exceptions such as a physical disability that makes it impossible for the person to travel to a government office to acquire one, though they must have “qualified for permanent advance voting status...”

A new Texas law, which took effect on Sept. 1, requires a photo ID in order to vote, or another form of personal ID card issued by the Department of Public Safety.

Gov. Haley and South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson vow to fight the Justice Department ruling. They should. Photo IDs are required when flying on commercial aircraft or cashing a check. That discriminates against no one. Neither does requiring people to prove who they are before voting, unless, of course, there’s another agenda, like “stuffing” the ballot box.

— Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services. His email is tmseditors@tribune.com.

Comments

Neomarxist123 3 years, 4 months ago

You're right. The Supreme Court also already has ruled on this:

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008)

"In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence."

Eric Holder and the Justice Department will lose this - and they know it. But Holder has politicized the Justice Department =/

ivalueamerica 3 years, 4 months ago

the ignorance in your comment is that you are actually telling a bold faced lie.

It is not a FEELING or a THOUGHT, but a documented fact that low income, especially low income minorities and the elderly are more likely disenfranchised by voter ID laws.

It is a fact and you choose not to believe it, it is your failure.

appleaday 3 years, 4 months ago

Voting is a right in this country even for people in poverty. Those who do not drive because they cannot afford a car also have difficulty getting to places where photo IDs can be obtained. No one says they can't get them, but in order to get them, they have to produce a birth certificate (which costs money), get to the place where the photo ID is obtained, and then wait for the photo ID to be mailed to them. The concern is that these are all roadblocks to voting and, for some people become insurmountable. There are many elderly people who cannot get out and about easily who have voted in elections since before most of us were even born who suddenly have to jump through hoops to exercise their right to vote.

Tom Huyser 3 years, 4 months ago

If they cant get out to go get the ID, how do they get out to vote?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

"Is there, or should there ever be, a point at which a state is no longer penalized for its discriminatory past?"

Moot question, given that the whole point of the voter ID laws is to suppress voter turnout.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

You love the smell of anyhing to do with Obama any time of day or night. You live for your hatred of this man. His being President now defines who you now are. How sad.

jayhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

A question I have is does the voter bear any responsibility in ensuring that their vote is counted. As examples, could a voter show up at his/her polling place on the first Wednesday in November and claim they got their dates mixed up and could they then still vote? And if denied, could they then claim they were unduly denied their right to vote? Or could a person living on State Line Road in Kansas go to his/her nearest polling place just across the road, claiming it's the nearest place to vote? The point is that whatever requirements are being made upon the voter, there is ample time and opportunity for the voter to do what is necessary for that person's vote to be counted. We all must register to vote and either get to our place of voting or make arraignments to vote absentee. Voter suppression can only happen with a substantial amount of cooperation on the part of the person making that claim.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

What does any of this have to do with erecting pointless hurdles to voting for the sole purpose of suppressing voter turnout?

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

You're assuming facts not in evidence. "The sole purpose of suppressing voter turnout". The backers of this measure would disagree with your statement. It may be your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to. But you may not make a statement of fact when it is your opinion.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

Since their stated purposes have been proven to be wholly bogus, logic would dictate that the real result of these laws must also be the real purpose.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

Logic tells me that holding elections on the first Tuesday in November is a plot to suppress the vote in regions susceptible to bad weather.
There may be an element of truth in the statement that the weather may play a part in lower turnout, but I'm not at all convinced that it was then intention of those who determined that date.
Logic tells me that holding elections on a typical work day is a plot to suppress the vote of working people, to the benefit of both those who can afford to take the day off and the unemployed who would see a Tuesday much like I would see a Sunday. Again, having the election on a work day might suppress the vote of working people, yet again, I doubt that that was the intention of those who established that day. I think you have a ways to go from your statement about bogus intents to your obvious conclusion.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

Expanding voting beyond the traditional Tuesday has been adopted widely across the country with the express intent to increase voter participation-- and guess what-- it's worked.

And guess what else-- Republicans have not only been pushing the voter ID laws, but also reversing the trend towards expanded voting opportunities.

Just because you accept the lies and denial about why Republicans are doing this doesn't mean that the rest of us have to, no matter how hard you spin it.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

But you failed to answer my question, does the voter bear responsibility for being aware of the time and place of voting? Does the voter bear responsibility for making sure they are qualified to vote, either through registration or providing proof of identity?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

Obviously these questions are just setups to whatever point it is you want to make, so why not just say it and get it over with?

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

You're right. It is obvious that I believe the voter bears responsibility in knowing when an election is, where it is, and making himself eligible. Do you not agree? Add to that my wish that the voter was aware of who was running for office, what the major issues of the election are, what propositions were on the ballot, if any. And I can add a wish list a mile long. Knowing I cannot impose that on a voter, I have little problem imposing just the bare minimum of who you are, when the election is and where you need to go to vote.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

Of course voters bear some responsibility. But that doesn't mean that laws that have no other result than vote suppression are in any way justified.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

You've come full circle to you "opinion" that voter suppression is the issue. The issue is voter I.D.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

"He changed from intent to result."

They are one and the same.

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

If so, then the intent of welfare programs is to create dependency on the government and stifle individual initiative and responsibility, as those on the right argue.

I think that various actions by government often have different intents and results.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. In this instance, they are indeed one and the same.

jayhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

Gosh Bozo, if you simply added the words "in my opinion", you'd actually make sense. But when you present your opinions as fact, and you do it repeatedly, and you do it even when challenged, and you do it without apology, you sound like a whining child.
For the sake of us all, make a new year's resolution to present facts as facts and opinions as opinions.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

Being a patronizing scold won't change facts you don't like into opinions.

jayhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

Whether or not I'm a "patronizing scold" is a matter of opinion. See how that works.

Scott Morgan 3 years, 4 months ago

Do we really want somebody voting who can't find a way to obtain a picture I.D.?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

I think we should require that anyone wishing to vote should be able to juggle with knives. We can't trust anyone who is incapable of doing that with the vote.

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

How about IQ tests?

Why should stupid people be able to vote, after all?

Or requiring that all voters take and pass the citizenship tests given to new immigrants?

appleaday 3 years, 4 months ago

Most of our high school graduates wouldn't be able to pass that test.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Many of those currently serving in Washington wouldn't be able to pass the test.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

IQ tests, interesting. I recall a number of years ago telling someone who I was going to vote for. The person seemed genuinely surprised, since they did not think that person was someone I would vote for. It came to pass that they were assuming I would vote for a politician with the same last name, but they were thinking of a person who died two decades earlier. Imagine if I said today that I intended to vote for "Kennedy" and someone thought I was voting for John F. Kennedy. And that person will vote and perhaps cancel my vote out. Maybe a test like: Can you name the three branches of government? Who is your representative and your two senators? Or maybe put them to a simpler test like: Can you get your act together enough to get an I.D.?

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Kennedy? You are voting for that woman who used to be on MTV?

Put simply, the ID issue is an intended limitation on the right to vote. The smoke screen of preventing illegals from voting is a fabrication intended to stir up a certain segment of the population who appear too willing to give up their rights if told it is in their best interest.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

Let me pose this problem to you. We now have voting machines that tabulate and count the votes. With each election, they are becoming more common and with that, comes the potential for tampering. Should we wait until there is a well documented case of voter fraud by someone tampering with the machines, perhaps by hackers, perhaps by hackers outside the country, before we put safeguards in place to prevent that? Or should we be more proactive in guarding against that possibility?
Should the same rationale be used when discussing the possibility of future instances of illegal immigrants voting? Given the fact that several communities have at least posed the possibility of allowing illegal immigrants voting rights in local elections, it doesn't seem to far fetched that there will be some attempt on their part to vote in elections that they are not eligible to vote in. Should our caution be proactive in one, both, neither scenario?

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Voting machines are tools that help process votes. They should run efficiently and without error. They are not, however, voters, and their running correctly will not turn citizens away from voting. Making sure they are safe and accurate do not limit anyone's rights. Putting requirements on voters limits rights.

What other rights should we put limits on in order to be proactive? Should you need an ID to use your right to free speech? If you say something slanderous, shouldn't we know who you are up front?

This ID law, as you note by indicating it being proactive against potential abuse, is actually unnecessary. It is putting the cart before the horse. It will also slow down the voting process, causing longer lines, which is another way of turning people away. We have been voting for a couple hundred years now without needing to show IDs. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

In the second comment on this thread, neomarxist123 quoted (I assume the Supreme Court) where it stated that preventing fraud was a legitimate state interest. Isn't that the exact opposite of what you are arguing?

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Perhaps I am arguing against what the Supreme Court has ruled is legal. Does this stop the anti-choice people from arguing against legal abortions? Also, while it might be "legal," it isn't automatically the right thing to do. No matter how pragmatic you might see it, it is putting a limitation on a right in the cause of preventing fraud, which nobody has proven is being committed. Limiting rights to prevent something that isn't happening. Again, what other rights shall we limit, and to what degree?

Elsewhere you questioned my use of "American." To clarify, I used it to indicate a citizen (not pending citizen) of the United States with full voting rights. I recognize that people of North and South America also consider themselves "American." That isn't how I intended it.

Believe it or not, this bothers me more than people voting for Hitler -- because Hitler is dead, and anyone wanting to throw a vote away on a dead guy, I think they should have that right. And they shouldn't have to show their ID to do so.

Besides, how do we have people show their ID who use mail in votes? Why put limits only on a portion of the voting public? Why are we giving preferential treatment to a certain portion of voters? Is this because a large percentage of mail-in voters own their homes? Isn't that preferential treatment for the landed gentry? Only asking a certain class of Americans to show their papers is not the American way. Now we get to the true heart of the matter.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

The thing is this, all of our rights are constantly undergoing reviews and revisions. That's a good thing. It's what makes the Constitution a living, breathing document.
As you mentioned abortion, remember, abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. It was the living, breathing nature of the document itself that allowed that right to be found. This notion of I.D.'s being good or bad can and should be played out. Let's see if it hinders people from voting. Perhaps a spike in the number of abortions done for the purposes of gender selection will cause us as a society to revisit that part of the debate. Women dancing naked was found in freedom of speech, but that speech can be limited. Animal sacrifice may be parts of some religions yet is illegal as far as I know. So is polygamy. Not a single right we have is absolute, nor should it be. You may disagree with a certain interpretation of the Constitution, others will disagree in other ways.
I'd be careful, if I were you trying to define the American way. Radicals on both sides shout the loudest and vote in greater numbers. I'd be more comfortable deferring to a Supreme Court, even if I disagree than leaving definition to zealous voters.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Good points. I do believe that the ID requirement has been shown to limit access by otherwise qualified voters in places where it is already in place. I'll agree that as rights go, the limitations seem rather minor, but it somehow seems to scream loudly to me about the rights we are willing to give up for the sake of security / convienence. Knowing that it also can't be enforced across the board to those who mail in their ballots also is troublesome. Of course, mine is just one voice. It is an opinion, nothing more. I've enjoyed the discussion.

progressive_thinker 3 years, 4 months ago

What law is it that you are suggesting that might have been violated? People with disabilities are not necessarily barred from voting.

In Minnesota, a person judged "mentally incompetent" or "incapacitated" by a court is disqualified from voting, as is any person under guardianship for mental disability or involuntarily confined in an institution, but simply having some form of a mental illness or disability does not disqualify one from voting.

The allegations of illegal felon voting and other irregularities in the 2008 Minnesota election that were made by the republican party were investigated at length mainly by local officials, and were found largely to be Fox media hype. The allegations that were made were based on incomplete information. Only a handful of cases were found to be any form of voter fraud, and there was no evidence that the outcome of the election was impacted in any way.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 4 months ago

The Department of (no) Justice will be busy for the coming year maximizing the likelihood of voter fraud in America. They figure it's the only way for the Mope to win.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Who is "the Mope"? Is that Romney? Is it Paul?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

"How did anyone vote in the 17 and 18 hundreds."

If you weren't white, male and wealthy, you didn't.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

BTW, no photo ID will be required to vote in the Iowa Republican caucuses.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Actually, the "source" is the Republican party. It is a talking point for them, hence the exact copy being found on numerous "hotair" type conservative websites. Way to go, putting party over country.

Now, shut up and show me your papers! This is America after all.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

I don't agree with you on what counts for transparency of this administration, but will agree that it hasn't lived up to the transparency it promised. Not by a long shot. However, you should seriously think about Obama's re-election given the Republicans currently running. There are some front runners who seem like extreme long shots given a national election. Also, running against someone most likely isn't going to win an election. Not Obama will get the base excited, but it won't win over the middle. Who do you think should be President, and then why? Convince people of that and you just might get what you want in 2012, in my opinion.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

You are the hardcore base. Most people aren't. Most people see serious flaws in the Republicans running. You don't. Okay.

Congress and the President need to work together to lower the deficit. He couldn't do it on his own. I just wonder where you were when presidents back to Reagan were asking for the same exact thing, to raise the debt ceiling.

And, the President is not a Socialist.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

Perhaps coupled with orgasmatron technology, as well? (a whole new twist to pavlovian response.)

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Republicans aren't already training people how to pick people's pockets and steal wallets, so when they show up to the polls and don't have their ID they won't be able to vote.

Think this far fetched? Well they are planning to do just this, and I will prove so as soon as Republicans prove that people without the right to vote are now doing so. Show me the apparent rash of illegal voters out there casting ballots, and then we can talk.

Seriously (and no, I'm not serious about the pick pockets) these ID rules are about putting limitations on a right, which is something Republicans should be against. How does new voting rules indicate limited government? What other rights do you care to limit? "Show me your papers!" is not the American way.

Armstrong 3 years, 4 months ago

Try to convince any major retail operation of that when trying to pay by check, or rent a car, or fly, or.... Lots of smoke and mirrors

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

So we should ignore the Constitution and from now on base our laws on the requirements of a rental car company? In that case, people might not be able to vote until they are 25 or over 80. You will also overpay for insurance.

Cashing a check is not a requirement of citizenship.

Can anyone prove that there are people voting illegally? If not, then this law is not necessary. Let Americans vote, without limitations. That is all.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

And the question is one of undue burden. Is registration an undue burden? Is an I.D. requirement an undue burden? Has the Supreme Court taken up these issues and if so, how have they ruled? I was chastised the other day in this very forum for my use of the word "American", the person claiming all sorts of implied racism and xenophobia involved. Bea, you just used the same word. Are you saying permanent residents who are not yet citizens should be allowed to vote? Immigrants, legal or not? Canadians? All residents of the "Americas", North and South? I've known people who would vote for Hitler if he were the only pro-choice candidate. I've known people who would vote for Hitler if he were the only pro-life candidate. They trouble me. An I.D, troubles me far, far, less. Far less.

Linda Endicott 3 years, 4 months ago

Not all businesses require ID to pay by check...and of the ones that do, ask around and see how many of them have found out later that they accepted a check passed with a fake ID...

If they think it's so damned easy to vote more than once without showing ID, how are they planning on getting around that little problem of fake IDs, which has been around forever?

However, if you go to a business that won't accept a check without ID, you are perfectly free to go to a different business and try again...and eventually you may find one willing to take that check without ID...

Where else can you go to vote? You've only got one choice there...

lunacydetector 3 years, 4 months ago

the only election frauds that's out there has been orchestrated by the democrats....of course they don't want people to prove who they are when they vote. notice all the liberals on this website against showing id's to vote?

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

And what do you make of his inclusion of it being a responsibility?

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

I look at it a little different. I think rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. One does not exist without the other.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

I didn't and don't hate President Bush. I hated his policies. Prove otherwise. It isn't the first time you have made that accusation. If you can't prove it, then you need to stop repeating it. You see, I never resorted to the non-stop name calling and total dismissal of the office of the President as you do with Obama. You and I aren't anything alike. Don't even pretend we are.

Besides, if you didn't like it when others were hating on Bush, why do you turn around and do the exact same thing now? Why become the thing you despise? As you are someone who has ... um ... read posts on here for some time, I'm sure you have seem me ask this question before.

appleaday 3 years, 4 months ago

You're asking him to be self aware. Won't happen.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Hatred over party is wrong, no matter who is doing it.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

You are wrong. I would much rather have rational discussions without any of the hating.

And Happy New Year to you and yours as well.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

How exactly does Agnostick get rid of conservatives on here? Are you accusing him of having an insider in the LJWorld who does his bidding? Or are you saying he uses the "suggest removal" button, something you claim to do with regularity. Unless he has an in and you can prove it, I would imagine the conservatives who have been removed were so because of their own actions. If they didn't submit items that break the LJWorld rules, they would still be here (or still here and using their original logon names). BAA, it is time you quit blaming others and ask people to take responsibility for their own actions. Playing the victim card is so unbecoming.

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

This is the peculiar part of BAA's posts on this subject - he seems to ignore what behavior gets people banned.

The simple way not to get banned, and have extremely few posts removed is to post in accordance with the tos.

It's rather surprising that a conservative can't see this very clear example of personal responsibility.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

You are responsible for your own actions. Only a person's posts can get someone removed, even when everyone, including you, recognize when a banned user has returned. Being banned from this site no longer has meaning, so I wouldn't sweat it if I were you. If it happens, just come back under a new name as so many others have done.

RoeDapple 3 years, 4 months ago

I like the idea of voter ID. I intend to ask the officials handing out ballots for picture ID to prove who they are.

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 4 months ago

The right to vote was limted to a select few for much of our early history. Today, the right to vote is one of the most precious privileges for an American citizen for it allows us to call ourselves a free people in a land of liberty. We should not be so easily swayed to give up that right by first denying it to our poorest and our elderly.

"At its birth, the United States was not a democratic nation—far from it. The very word "democracy" had pejorative overtones, summoning up images of disorder, government by the unfit, even mob rule. In practice, moreover, relatively few of the nation's inhabitants were able to participate in elections: among the excluded were most African Americans, Native Americans, women, men who had not attained their majority, and white males who did not own land."

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm

Unfortunately, the nationwide effort promoted by the Republicans to put restrictions on voting that would decrease the number of Democratic votes has nothing to do with voter fraud and everything to do with dirty politics.

...and Cal Powers is not at all interested in what is fair and ethical as he pretends but interested only in collecting a fat paycheck as a writer of propaganda.

camper 3 years, 4 months ago

Can we count on one hand, the entire # of people who have been proven in a court of law to have commited voter fraud?

The real threat posed to election fraud would come from election officials and/or politicians if it were to happen.,....not from an individual stupid enough to fraudulently vote. What would be the motive?

Instead, all we get are politicians creating a smoke screen to attack non-existent problems and create us masses into fear and reaction. Thats what it is...playing on our fears.

Tom Huyser 3 years, 4 months ago

How can it ever be proven when we are not allowed any means of determining that the person voting is actually allowed to vote? If we made it so that the police were not allowed to ask for a persons drivers licsense, then we could say no one has ever been proven in a court of law to have driven a car without one.

camper 3 years, 4 months ago

There are ways of detecting voter fraud when the person signs in (even without showing ID), and when the precint tallies these votes and turns them in. There would be other measures from there, but someone with more knowledge of the IT control measures would have to comment (if there is one following this thread).

You would think that by these measures there would be atleast a few barons caught? Wouldn't you? Let me tell ya, the 1st place an illegal alien is going to want to go, is to the voting booth. There is no motive or incentive for one to do this.

Tom Huyser 3 years, 4 months ago

except maybe to help the canidate that wants to make sure no one gets deported. You say there are measures in place when a person signs in......what are they? If you dont have to prove who you are, then whats to keep you from going back and voting again at another polling place? Whats to keep you from using anothers name, one that you know is registered

Scott Morgan 3 years, 4 months ago

If the nation has not had a belly full of Nanny Pelosi, Obama, liberal agenda, and the fact the greatest nation in the last 200 years is self-imploding in a matter of just a few years then?

If the nation does not take a hard right in Novemember 12, then we are Greece.

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

To be fair, you should probably add up the numbers from both sides if you do it for one.

That would make it 60.2% to 33.6% - still a strong argument.

Of course, I wonder where the other 6.4% (100-93.6) came from.

progressive_thinker 3 years, 4 months ago

Both Pelosi's chart and the Politifact analysis have flaws.

One big problem is where the "start" and "end" points are calculated from. While it is true that Obama was inaugurated in January, 2009, he did not have an opportunity to submit his first budget until February 2009, and it did not become effective until October 1, 2010. Up until that date, he was still working under the Bush FY 2009 budget.

Bottom line is that the primary contributors to the deficit and the debt are still the recession; two wars, unpaid for; tax cuts for wealthy people, unpaid for; and medicare part "D", unpaid for.

camper 3 years, 4 months ago

That would be a wrong turn. The austerity measures in Greece backfired. More austerity = less employment = less tax revenues = greater monetary problems for Greece. Europe and the US do not want to do what Greece did, yet this is exactly the Conservatives on both sides of the pond are calling for.

kansanbygrace 3 years, 4 months ago

Wiss, were you doing a Rip-Van-Winkle while the Patriot Act, the invention of TSA, of HSA,, the globalized banking policies were put into place? O had nothing to do with establishing those. He did, though re-sign the PA. I see very, very little difference between the current bunch and those of CheneyBush. All power hungry. There's no reason to believe any of those Republicans have changed their stripes, any more than the incumbant Democrats. All the same. All the same.
"If voting really changed anything, it'd be made illegal." Still one of the wisest bumper stickers ever.

Scott Morgan 3 years, 4 months ago

I agree, although the current bunch was "throttled" in the 10 elections. Meaning the real agenda never saw the light, but people did see what was in store with unchecked liberalism.

Like it or not we are a freedom loving nation. We are unique, we have unique ways.

I would love to see the real gains we made in health care, and at what cost.

I would love to see a total on this bunch's cost per job created.

I would love to know the real cost in having a president apologize for every error we made in foreign policy over the years. I have read where other nations citizens wondered what in the h e double hockey sticks Obama was doing.

I'd take Bill Clinton back in a heartbeat.

williegreen 3 years, 4 months ago

Cal Thomas is being intellectually disingenuous to suggest that discriminatory political practices and attitudes have been eradicated south of the Mason-Dixon line.

The landmark Civil Rights and Voter Rights legislation of the mid-'60s was enacted (with bipartisan support) by a Democratic Administration and a Democrat controlled Congress. The vote was largely split along regional lines, not partisan, with the former Confederate states of the deep South being overwhelmingly outvoted by the rest of the nation.

In the wake of this legislation, minorities registered to vote in support of the party that sponsored this legislation, and politicians in the "Solid South" (which had been Democratic in opposition to the Party of Lincoln) abandoned their allegiance to the Democrats and migrated their segregationist views to the Republican and "Libertarian" parties.

Forty-five years later, these southern Republican and Libertarian legislators, whose worldviews and "values" were formed during the highly divisive period of the Civil Rights struggle, have highly polished and refined their segregationist rhetoric. No longer blatantly racist, their legislative agenda is carefully crafted to circumvent Civil Rights legislation. Yet these policies remain deeply rooted in the Jim Crow laws from which they are derived. This is evidenced not only by the current coordinated attack on voters' rights, but also by the "plantation economic policies" emphasizing "privatization", dismantling federal regulatory agencies, and repealing labor laws to spread Jim Crow "right to work" legislation throughout our nation.

The GOP is no longer the Party of Lincoln. It has morphed into something that is very ugly and rife with bigotry.

Scott Morgan 3 years, 4 months ago

williegreen, I see racism everyday. Open ugly racism. I hear it blast from worn out old cars owned by hopeless American youth. I see it when the N word is argued over ownership and use. Good men were jailed because they fought labels like boy and N. Now we glorify it.

Don't give me this muledung answer some can use it, some can't, it's not the same thing. I know at least a dozen fine men I call friends who take huge offense to this awful word.

I see it in the eyes of older men who quietly shake heads in disbelief of what's become of a generation.

I feel it when I see a youth who can not put a sentence together, or understand why the person doing the hiring cringes when the F word is spouted. Least of all the lack of work ethic to dig a ditch, man a cash register, sweep a floor while gaining secondary education.

I see it when an entire generation looks at degenerate artists as role models, never knowing there are thousands who should be.

I see racism when a young person interviews for a job with smoke on his breath, pants dangling around his knees, who can not fill out a simple job application.

I see it in a culture, black, white, green, believing being a good father is having the government give the mother an apartment and welfare money.

Maybe the saddest of all folks like me witnessed the brave men and women who fought real racism in the 50s-70s and see the open disregard for the true gains.

willie, mi amigo, you have it wrong. Time to begin putting the blame of racism where it belongs, then progress can be made again.

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Racism is the belief that somebody of a certain race is inferior simply by virtue of belonging to that race.

That's all.

Many, many things that are discussed under the term are simply incorrect uses of it.

Scott Morgan 3 years, 4 months ago

Never dug a ditch, but cleared brush in a mountain area for surveyors. Hard tough work, and looking back the company owner was not Mr. Rogers either. You worked for respect. Not the mantra of today, my feeling got hurt, my nose is running, is that a tick bite, I quit because "they didn't respect me."

Lesson learned, the checks cashed fine, and 70 hours was better than 30.

The big boys and I chatted though. From them and others I learned to find a good career which in my case made college essential. There are more outstanding paying jobs nowadays not needing a college education, than do in my opinion.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.