And this group that ran it, “Latinos for Reform,” is headed by a GOP operative.
See also SourceWatch.
Trivializing voter suppression is a cute rhetorical move. So is bringing in fabricated arguments to mock people who do have concern about historically disenfranchised groups being… disenfranchised.
But if voter suppression really does have no effect on electoral results, why does the Republican Party and affiliated groups spend six or seven figures on it every election cycle? Surely a half million dollars would be better spent in Alaska, Kentucky, or Illinois to assure a Senate seat? Or are you arguing that Republicans hate minorities so much that they’re willing to give up a Senate seat or two just for the pleasure of depriving black people the right to vote?
It’s frankly offensive that you think so lowly of Republicans and conservatives.
The targets of my mockery are those who consider requiring someone to show identification or proof of residence as “intimidation”. Every time Republicans have the gall to suggest that some steps be taken to prevent people from voting more than once or moving from one precinct (or city) to another to vote, Democrats howl “intimidation”. Requiring someone to identify themselves with a picture ID is not “disenfranchisement” or “intimidation”. Neither is asking them to verify their address. Steps like that prevent voter fraud.
It amuses me that some people are so wedded to their ideology that they cannot accept the fact that their political philosophy is not embraced by the majority of voters. Blaming a loss on “dirty tricks” is certainly easier on the emotions than accepting the fact that your side lost.
Get ready. Those vote-stealing, disenfranching dirty tricksters will be working overtime on November 2. That’ll be the real explanation, won’t it…
Actually, those who are bound and determined to turn away ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more people falsely as they do justly, who “just happen” to be outside their demographic, are the ones afraid of what the masses think.
Blocking one or two voters here and there is for chumps. The real vote suppression isn’t about chickenfeed like hassling one voter or another, its about slowing the process down to a point where people give up. Its about clogging the front of the line while you bicker endlessly over whether or not somebody is properly identified.
Most every time a voter in the poor part of town goes to the polls and sees a line four-five hours long and says “Man, I just don’t have time for this”, thats another Dem vote gone, eight times out of ten. You think they don’t know that?
Just imagine, they pass the elucidator Fair Voting Bill, spend bucks to register as many people as possible, and make it mandatory that polling places be equipped to make access equitable, so that a poor man spends no more time waiting to vote than a richer one. Of course, this means its likely a hell of a lot more poor people are going to vote. This has not escaped my attention.
But hey! Republicans will love it, it will cut down on voter fraud! And its all about the voter fraud, right?
I agree that having to wait in line for hours is de facto disenfranchisement. I think the number of polling places should be tied to population and staffed accordingly.
People should be required to show ID to cut down on fraud and they should be able to vote in a timely manner regardless of social status or zip code. Republican run areas should do this first. It would cut down on the accusations of unfairness.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michigan_foreclosure_vote_suppression_scheme Not enough to foreclose on peoples homes, but the Repubs in Michigan tried to also take away their voter rights. Gotta love the Repubs, they play to win. You don’t have a right to vote if it might go against them.
It’s not about making sure everyone has IDs. If it were, why do they target only urban areas and areas with a high minority presence?
If they were so concerned about IDs, why couldn’t they just as well spend their time at lily white suburbs challenging people to provide utility bills, birth certificates, and signed affidavits from their mortgage lenders?
Saying “well, I think no one should have to stand in line” gives you an implausible deniability, but isn’t particularly convincing when you’re defending targeted attempts to increase the lengths of lines and suppress minority turnout.
It’s not a matter of thinking improperly identified voters shouldn’t be challenged–I think it should be easier to register and identify yourself, but the law’s the law. The issues are the effects the challenges have on everyone else, the increase in length of lines, and making election day FUBAR at heavily minority areas.
Since by and large it is the job of the opposition party to keep a particular party honest (among other things) you surely won’t mind that I point out examples of Democratic candidates and operatives helping set up “Tea Party” spoiler candidates?
Now, the PA-7 news could easily be dismissed if the other cases showing more direct involvement weren’t cropping up. And this is starting to look like a pattern, frankly.
Speaking personally, I wish those Spanish-language ads hadn’t aired, as that will backfire badly. Likewise this kind of trickery could easily backfire on the Democrats. I won’t make any moral claims for either side’s behavior since I don’t have expectations that two large parties seeking power will act morally well, even if I may have a belief that it is for the better that one or the other wins.
:rolleyes: Think about where you are posting. On that basis alone, one would expect there to be a larger proportion of GOP slamming threads.
Funny…I thought that, according to Tea Party supporters on here, that Tea Partiers weren’t all conservative or Republican. You’d think when they get PROOF that registered Democrats actually support a Tea Party candidate, they’d rejoice…
I remember in 2000 and 2004, several states’ Republican Parties were collecting ballot-access petition signatures for Ralph Nader . . .
'Bout time the Dems learned something from that! 
The National Republican Senatorial Committee is convinced Democrats will try to steal the election:
Um… 
It says the houses in question were forclosed on, not that they were being forclosed on, so that indicates that they’ve been evicted because the forclosures were finalized. If they don’t live there any more, then they shouldn’t be voting there any more (unless they’ve stayed in the same town, obviously). What’s the problem?
Does “accidentally” listing someone as “Rich Whitey” instead of “Rich Whitney” in areas with a lot of black voters count as an attempt to surpress votes? It seems like an offense against a candidate rather than voters to me.
Meanwhile, in the Nevada Senate race between Harry Reid and Sharon Angle, allegations of voter fraud/voter intimidation are flying back and forth.
And now McDonald’s weighs in. (Officer Big Mac is a strikebreaker?)
Here’s a Washington Post story about voter suppression in MD. There were robo-calls to Dem voters, telling them to relax an not bother going to vote, because the Dem governor was winning comfortably.
Oddly enough, they know who did it, and they know he is employed by the Repub candidate, but so far at least it’s not being pinned on the candidate himself. And it’s pretty explicitly illegal under Maryland law.
I’d like to see someone spend some time in pound in the ass prison for shit like this, but it never seems to happen. Other than cases where people actually falsify registration or voting documents does anyone ever seem to get punished, and even then hardly ever.