Filed under: Breaking, Conservatives, Government, IOKIYAR, International, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights | Tags: Arrogance, Barack Obama, Democrats, Elections, Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, Iran, Neoconservatives, Republicans, Revolution, Violence
Conservatives are hitting President Obama over Iran, arguing that he should be doing more to support the opposition there. I bristle at the politicization of the situation in Iran because, ultimately, what the Iranian people are going through isn’t about us, it isn’t about American politics and we shouldn’t be making it about us.
First off, I find it pretty disingenuous for conservatives–who spent years calling for the United States to bomb Iran–to suddenly show so much concern for the Iranian people. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out a few days ago:
During the presidential campaign, John McCain infamously sang about Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-ing Iran. The Wall St. Journal published a war screed from Commentary’s Norman Podhoretz entitled “The Case for Bombing Iran,” and following that, Podhoretz said in an interview that he “hopes and prays” that the U.S. “bombs the Iranians.” John Bolton and Joe Lieberman advocated the same bombing campaign, while Bill Kristol — with typical prescience — hopefully suggested that Bush might bomb Iran if Obama were elected. Rudy Giuliani actually said he would be open to a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program.
[…]
Advocating a so-called “attack on Iran” or “bombing Iran” in fact means slaughtering huge numbers of the very same people who are on the streets of Tehran inspiring so many — obliterating their homes and workplaces, destroying their communities, shattering the infrastructure of their society and their lives.
Second, like I said, this isn’t about us. It’s about Iran and the Iranian people. The uprising in Iran is really two simultaneous conflicts–the fist is pro-democracy demonstrators facing off against an oppressive government. To that extent, Obama has done what should be expected of a President of the United States—he spoke out in favor of democracy, in favor of free speech and free assembly, and denounced the Iranian government for their violent, brutal crackdown against their own people.
But there’s another conflict here that conservatives are not seeing or not acknowledging–the political conflict over the disputed election. The major players in Iran’s unrest are the ruling party and the opposition party. That’s partially why Obama hasn’t done what conservatives want and side with the demonstrators—that would, in effect, be telling the Iranian people who their next president should be.
One of the basic tenets of democracy is that sovereign states should be able to hold elections without interference. The Iranian people have a right to decide—as much as they are allowed to—who should govern them; it’s not the job of the United States (or anyone else) to declare winner.
Iran’s election occurred, was stolen, and resulted in violence. But, in the end, this is still an Iranian political dispute, though a decidedly violent one. Iran–and only Iran–should determine the course their country takes. They have that right, and Obama has said from the start he isn’t going to take that right away from them.
Honestly, if Iran’s conflict didn’t involve a disputed election, I too would be criticizing Obama for not doing more. But the fact that the core of this fight is about who will run Iran makes it infinitely more complex.
Third, if Iran’s opposition wanted America to get involved they would ask us to. Mousavi and his movement are the center of the world’s attention at the moment; they have a large microphone at their disposal. Yet, we’re not hearing the opposition call for the United States to get involved. As the National Iranian American Council says,
People in Iran have told NIAC’s Iranian-American membership that they don’t want the US to get itself involved in the conflict, but they do want to see the government’s use of violence condemned
[...]
If America’s posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism
I trust the opposition to understand more than anyone how American involvement would affect their movement. The the fact that they haven’t called on Obama to do what conservatives say he should do is telling.
Fourth, it’s funny how conservatives–who like to dismiss Barack Obama as nothing but lofty rhetoric–are now suddenly believers in the power of a speech. But even if Obama did what conservatives wanted and spoke out in favor of the opposition, nothing would change. The opposition would still demonstrate; the government would still crack down; the situation would be as bloody and violent as it currently is if not moreso. As it is, the Iranian government is trying to portray the protesters as puppets for America and the West; if Obama came out fully on the side of the opposition, it would vindicate those paranoid, conspiratorial fantasies and justify even more violence and murder. Obama taking the opposition’s side would do little to help but a lot to hurt; the opposition knows this and that’s why they aren’t asking for Obama’s support.
As an additional note, conservatives are outraged that the administration is going ahead with a planned diplomatic meeting with Iranian representatives on July 4th. But that shouldn’t be surprising or controversial—Obama has always said that America shouldn’t talk only to its friends and that diplomacy shouldn’t be a reward for good behavior. And Obama’s foreign policy was the one chosen by the American people last November.
And how idiotic is it that conservatives are calling for Obama to make a speech, which would accomplish very little, yet they attack him for wanting to engage iwth Iranian diplomats, even though that would actually give us a chance to affect Iran’s polity. And for anyone who would claim that a despotic, terrorism-supporting nation cannot be changed through diplomacy, all I have to say is: Libya.
The arrogant conservatives who would have America further meddle in Iranian affairs don’t know what they’re talking about; they’re the same arrogant conservatives who engineered the Bush administration’s failed, disastrous foreign policy. Iran isn’t about us. It isn’t about Barack Obama or the Democrats or the Republicans; it’s about Iran and the Iranian people. If you truly believe in democracy, then you must believe that the Iranians should decide their own fate instead of having America decide it for them.
UPDATE: Super special note to Sen. John McCain: you lost the election. Get over it.
Filed under: 2012 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, IOKIYAR, Rights, Scandal, Senate | Tags: Affair, Hypocrisy, John Ensign, Nevada, NRSC, Republicans, Same-Sex Marriage, Senate
See those Republican family values in action:
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) has acknowledged an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer in a statement released by his office. “I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions,” said Ensign.
[...]
The affair, which was with a woman who worked for both Ensign’s re-election campaign and his Battle Born leadership political action committee, began in December 2007 and ended in August 2008.
Of course, Ensign opposes same-sex marriage–in 2006, he voted for a constitutional amendment that would have banned it. In 2004, Ensign took to the Senate floor and said:
Marriage recognizes the ideal of a father and mother living together to raise their children. Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded.
[...]
I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation. Marriage, as a social institution, predates every other institution on which ordered society in America has relied.
So John Ensign believes in the “sanctity of marriage” enough to want to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, but not so much that he won’t have an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer. Hypocrite, much?
And keep in mind that John Ensign isn’t just another Republican Senator–he’s the former Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and serves as the 4th highest-ranking Republican in the United States Senate.
I wonder what Ensign’s Republican colleagues think of his interpretation of the “sanctity of marriage”?
UPDATED: And the sanctimony and hypocrisy continue:
During the height of the scandal surrounding Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, the Nevada Republican denounced the president’s conduct as “an embarrassing moment for the country.”
‘I think we have to feel very sad for the American people and Hillary and Chelsea,’ he said.
Weeks later, Ensign would call on Clinton to resign. “I came to that conclusion recently, and frankly it’s because of what he put his whole Cabinet through and what he has put the country through,” he was quoted saying at the time. “He has no credibility left,” he added.
[...]
In fact, not only did Ensign envision the Lewinksy affair as a political boon for Republicans, he actively made it an issue in his campaign against Reid. At one point during the campaign, Ensign accused his opponent of having a double standard when it came to politicians and sexual dalliances. Reid, he argued, had been much tougher on former Sen. Robert Packwood — who resigned from the Senate under allegations of sexual harassment — than he was with Clinton.
[Emphasis mine]
So, according to John Ensign himself:
- This is an embarrassing moment for the country.
- John Ensign has no credibility left.
- John Ensign has to resign.
You heard it from the horse’s mouth, folks.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Progressives, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights | Tags: Constitution, Democrats, Judge Sotomayor, Judiciary, Pappas v Giuliani, Racism, Republicans, Sonia Sotomayor
One of the prevalent anti-Sotomayor talking points on the right is that Judge Sotomayor uses race–not the letter of the law–to decide certain cases. This is the basis of the right’s ‘racism’ and ‘racialist’ attacks on Sotomayor–the assumption that she substitutes her background for the rule of law.
Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that Judge Sotomayor actually does that. Conservatives will point to the Ricci case, where Judge Sotomayor–along with two other justices–agreed with a lower court ruling that the city of New Haven could throw out an aptitude test for promoting firefighters on the grounds that the test they were used was racially biased. But their decision was hardly controversial–they upheld a lower court’s decision that the city of New Haven could correct systematic racial bias.
A more revealing case to look at here is Judge Sotomayor’s dissent in Pappas v. Giuliani. Thomas Pappas was fired from the NYPD when they discovered he was sending racist and anti-Semitic literature through the mail while off-duty. Sotomayor’s colleagues upheld the firing, claiming that Pappas’ racist speech was of public concern and, therefore, interfered with the operations of the NYPD.
But Judge Sotomayor dissented, claiming that the NYPD infringed on Pappas’ freedom of speech by firing him for what he did while off-duty. That’s right–Judge Sonia Sotomayor sided with a white racist on 1st amendment grounds, which hardly sounds like the actions of a ‘racislist’ judge to me.
Of course, we all know that the right’s talking points aren’t grounded in reality. But Pappas v. Giuliani blows a huge hole in conservatives’ attempts to portray Judge Sotomayor as some kind of racist radical or Latino supremecist. Judge Sotomayor is a fair-minded justice who puts the law ahead of everything else. In one case, she sided with a group of minorities; in another, she sided with a white racist. To me, that’s a pattern not of racialism, but of respect for the rule of law.
Filed under: Conservatives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights, Terrorism | Tags: Barack Obama, Choice, Daniel James Murray, Democrats, George Tiller, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City Bombing, Radicalism, Republicans, Waco
Authorities have arrested a man who allegedly told bank tellers while cleaning out his savings account in Utah that he was on a mission to kill President Barack Obama.
The Secret Service said Daniel James Murray, 36, was arrested Friday outside a casino in Laughlin, Nev., a gambling town 100 miles from Las Vegas on the Nevada-Arizona line.
[...]
On May 27, as a teller counted out bills no larger than $50, Murray delivered a rambling discourse on the probability of economic and social disorder, ending with “We are on a mission to kill the president of the United States,” a bank employee told the Secret Service.
Very dangerous times:
George Tiller Funeral Attended By Hundreds
[...]
[D]emonstrators showed up from Westboro Baptist Chursh, known for picketing soldiers’ funerals to present its message that their deaths are God’s punishment for Americans’ tolerance of homosexuality.
They held signs such as “God sent the shooter” and “Abortion is bloody murder.”
[All emphasis mine]
The last time we had a Democratic President, the right-wing culture of paranoia gave us Waco, the Oklahoma City Bombing and three dead abortion doctors. Now that we have another Democratic President, it looks like the right-wing culture of paranoia is making a comeback.
People are dying, yet conservatives seem all too content to stoke the fires of right-wing paranoia. My question is, how many people have to die before conservatives reign in their radical wing and tone down their radical rhetoric? How long until we have another tragic event carried out by a conservative activist who took their rhetoric to heart and went just one step too far?
Filed under: Breaking, Governors, Progressives, Rights | Tags: Connecticut, Democrats, Gay Marriage, Iowa, John Lynch, LGBT, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont
New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed legislation today that will legalize same-sex marriage in that state, making NH the sixth state (after CT, ME, VT, MA, and IA) to legalize same-sex marriage:
Lynch, a Democrat, had promised a veto if the law didn’t clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes.
“Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities–and respect–under New Hampshire law,” Lynch said.
[...]
Lynch said it is now time for the federal government to extend full equal rights to same-sex couples.
This means that every state in New England–save for Rhode Island–now recognizes the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Toward a more perfect union…
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Progressives, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights | Tags: Courts, Democrats, Judiciary, Racism, Republicans, Sandra Day O'Connor, SCOTUS, Sexism, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court
Let’s debunk some right-wing talking points on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, shall we?
Judge Sotomayor said that the appeals courts make policy! That proves she’s an activist judge!
While it’s true that Judge Sotomayor said:
All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made
She did follow that up with:
I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it.
“She’s not wrong,” said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. “Of course they make policy… You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy.”
[...]
Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, was equally dismissive of this emerging conservative talking point. “She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals… It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue.”
[Emphasis mine]
Sotomayor said that Latina judges are better than white male judges! That’s racist!
It’s true that Judge Sotomayor said:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Actually, the full sentence is:
Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Looks like we’re missing some context here; keep in mind that Judge Sotomayor was discussing race and sex discrimination cases when she made these remarks:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [Benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
[Emphasis mine]
Sounds a lot less controversial when you put everything in context, huh?
Many of Sotomayor’s rulings have been overturned upon appeal, which proves that she’s an inferior judge.
Actually, Judge Sotomayor’s record on reversals is far above average:
Over each of the last several terms, the [Supreme Court] has reversed 75% of the cases that have come before it.
[...]
Sotomayor’s decisions were upheld far more frequently than the norm. Apparently, out of the 380-odd opinions she penned while on the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court granted cert on just six. And of those six, Sotomayor was reversed on only three. That’s a .500 batting average
[Emphasis mine]
So while the Supreme Court reverses 75% of the rulings they review, they have reversed only 50% of Sotomayor’s rulings they reviewed.
Filed under: Conservatives, Media, Polls, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights | Tags: Civil Unions, Gay Marriage, Michael Steele, Mike Gallagher, Newsweek, Numbers, Republicans, Rights
[RADIO HOST MIKE] GALLAGHER: Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?
[RNC CHAIRMAN MICHAEL] STEELE: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No.
But I thought this was supposed to be the new “beyond cutting-edge” youth-friendly hip-GOP?
NEWSWEEK
Now I have a few questions about the situation for gay men and women in this country and the issue of gay rights…Do you think there should or should NOT be Legally-sanctioned gay and lesbian unions or partnerships?
Age 18-34 58% SHOULD BE / 31% SHOULD NOT BE
Don’t worry, though–the GOP will always have their TEA PARTAY:
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Polls, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights | Tags: 1980, 2nd Amendment, Congress, Elections, Republicans, Ronald Reagan
Charlie Cook writes:
At a time when Republicans should be starting to think about how they can expand their party to reclaim those who abandoned it, the party is instead lurching ever more to the right, exacerbating its problems. Many people who watched the recent debate between contenders for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee came away thinking that the only memorable moments were when each candidate expressed love and devotion for Ronald Reagan and when all but one bragged about how many guns they own. Not to belittle the importance of Reagan’s iconic status or the Second Amendment, but when the only takeaways are about the importance of a political figure who last won an election a quarter-century ago and how big a person’s arsenal is, these guys are not hot prospects to chair the GOP’s Welcome Wagon, much less to lead the party out of its wilderness.
[Emphasis mine]
And TPM reports:
The Politico reports that South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson has publicly traced his political coming of age to the civil rights movement — that is, opposition to 1960’s busing policies. “Government reached into my life and grabbed me and shook me at the age of 15,” Dawson told a University of South Carolina audience in 2003.
The star of this particular show has been Chip Saltsman, who sent out a CD to committee members containing a song called “Barack the Magic Negro.”
[Emphasis added]
The GOP isn’t a big tent–they’re a pup tent, and they’re shrinking by the day.
In recent decades, the Republican Party has won by catering strongly to a certain demographic of voters–mostly lower-income, less-educated whites. They have become the Republican base and the GOP had electoral success by turning out huge numbers of those voters.
Now the GOP’s base is shrinking while the population of people maligned by the GOP in order to appeal to their base is growing. Therein lies the paradox–the GOP narrowed their focus to appeal to their base, but their base has become so small it no wins them elections (you can read more about that here).
The Republican Party’s problems aren’t cosmetic, they’re structural. The GOP will need to make major changes in order to make an electoral comeback; band-aids won’t work.
But almost no Republicans currently in office see this; they think hollow sloganeering and a facelift are all their party need. How many elections will the GOP effectively cede to the Democrats before they realize they, too, need to embrace change? Or will it take an entirely new generation of Republicans to get elected before the GOP realizes that the tactics which got them elected 29 years ago don’t work anymore?
Filed under: Governors, Progressives, Rights, Senate | Tags: Congress, Danny O'Donnell, David Paterson, Equal Rights, Gay Marriage, LGBT, New York, New York State Assembly
New York Governor David Paterson is still interviewing candidates to replace incoming Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Senate.
One of the people he’s spoken to is Danny O’Donnell, an openly gay New York State Assemblyman:
Mr. O’Donnell met with Mr. Paterson for about 45 minutes on Monday afternoon in the governor’s Midtown office for what Mr. O’Donnell said was his formal interview for the Senate seat.
To say Mr. O’Donnell, known for his active support of gay rights issues, including same-sex marriage, was overly optimistic about his chances would be a stretch. He put his odds of getting the seat at about one in 10, or “about the same as the population of gay people in the world.” But Mr. O’Donnell did offer that he believes the governor has yet to settle on a final choice.
“I didn’t get the impression that a decision was coming anytime soon,” Mr. O’Donnell said. “I have the sense that he was really weighing what people were saying. I can tell when people are listening to me and actually listening, and listening to me just because they’re supposed to listen. He seemed to be very intent on focusing on and absorbing what I think my strengths might be.”
If O’Donnell is chosen, he would be the first LGBT American in the United States Senate. Of course, he shouldn’t be chosen just because of that. But if Paterson decides he’s the best person for the job and appoints him to the Senate, it would represent a major step forward for equal rights.
Filed under: Conservatives, Economics, Government, Health Care, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights, Senate | Tags: Congress, Democrats, EFCA, Employee Free Choice Act, Labor, National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, Republicans, UAW, Unions
The recent fight over the auto industry rescue package wasn’t what it seemed; there was an undercurrent to the conflict that represented a major political fight to come.
The Republicans turned the fight over the rescue legislation into a proxy war with the UAW. They blamed the UAW for the collapse of the auto industry, ignoring the role of rich executives in driving the big three into the ground. Conservatives used creative math to claim auto workers were overpaid, and they demanded U.S. auto workers accept parity with foreign auto companies (even though those same foreign auto companies are also struggling). Plus, Republicans weren’t demanding pay cuts when it was wealthy Wall Street bankers being bailed out.
Why go after the UAW, though? Why try to portray the problems of the industry–and the big price tag for bailing them out–as the fault of unionized workers?
Because this isn’t about reigning in government spending or preserving free markets. It’s not even about the auto industry. The Republican attack on the UAW was the first shot in a coming fight between Republicans, Democrats and unionized labor over the Employee Free Choice Act.
EFCA is somewhat complicated, and you can read all about it here. Basically, it’s a package of regulations that will make it easier for employees to form unions. Right now, a certain number of employees indicate they want to join a union. Usually, then, the management demands an election, and–if the election is successful–the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certifies the union.
Unfortunately, the election part of that process allows management to intimidate, threaten, and coerce employees trying to unionize. And even if a union is created, there’s no requirement that a new contract be negotiated between management and the union, allowing management to continue compensating employees in accord with the contract passed before a union was formed.
Basically, if necessary, EFCA removes the management as a middleman. If a certain percentage of employees sign cards saying they want to form a union, the NLRB is required to certify that union’s existence without an election (but employees can still hold an election if they choose to). EFCA allows the union to call for new contract negotiations and provides for federal arbitration if a new contract can’t be agreed upon. It also contains new regulations that will penalize companies who engage in intimidation and union-busting.
In other words, EFCA will allow millions of Americans the opportunity to form a union without having to face intimidation, threats or coercion by their employers.
That would be very bad for Republicans, because unionized workers tend to become Democratic voters. Democrats and labor tend to find themselves on the same side of many battless–fighting for better wages, better benefits, safer and cleaner workplaces, etc.
Plus, Republicans often find themselves on the side of management, weakening the regulation and regulatory agencies that ensure employees get paid fair wages, get decent benefits, have the right to safe, clean workplaces, uphold workplace safety laws, etc. Basically, Republicans want to kill EFCA because it could very well convert millions of working Americans into Democrats.
Remember, labor used to be the backbone of the Democratic Party, similar to how Christian conservatives are the backbone of the Republican Party now. The GOP spent decades trying to weaken unions in order to eliminate the Democratic Party’s middle-class power base; once there was little economic incentive left to be Democrats, Republicans used divisive social issues to drive those low-income voters into the GOP.
So that’s what the attacks on the UAW are about–Republicans want to foster hostility toward unions which will stop the EFCA, thus preventing the GOP from losing working-class voters to the Democratic Party. For Republicans, this is a war for power, and Republicans will allow millions of American workers to suffer in order to desperately cling to whatever political power they have left.
Filed under: 2008 Election, 2010 Election, Conservatives, Government, Governors, Polls, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights | Tags: California, California Attorney General, California Suprme Court, Gay Marriage, Jerry Brown, New Jersey, New York, Numbers, Prop 8, Proposition 8
The fight over California’s Prop 8 is escalating this weekend.
On one hand, the sponsors of Prop 8 are trying to use the language of the proposition to nullify existing same-sex marriages:
The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.
Meanwhile, CA Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief with the state Supreme Court urging them to overturn Prop 8 entirely:
Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right.
[...]
“It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative,” he said in an interview Friday night. “Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote.”
No matter what, Prop 8’s days are numbered. It’s only a matter of time until either the courts or the voters enshrine same-sex marriage into law.
Whether it happens next year or the year after, same-sex marriages will once again become legal in California; in addition, it’s likely to become law in other states like New York and New Jersey.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Economics, Environment, Government, Health Care, Immigration, Media, Polls, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights, Senate | Tags: Republicans, Democrats, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, 2008, Barack Obama, John McCain, Ronald Reagan, Global Warming, Newt Gingrich, Numbers, Gay Marriage, Jimmy Carter, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, David Frum, AEI, Great Depression, Alternative Energy
The Republican Party is in trouble.
Going into 2009, they find themselves in an electoral purgatory they won’t leave anytime soon. As AEI’s David Frum says,
College-educated Americans have come to believe that their money is safe with Democrats–but that their values are under threat from Republicans. And there are more and more of these college-educated Americans all the time.
So the question for the GOP is: will it pursue them? To do so will involve painful change, on issues ranging from the environment to abortion. And it will potentially involve even more painful changes of style and tone: toward a future that is less overtly religious, less negligent with policy, and less polarizing on social issues. That is a future that leaves little room for Palin–but it is the only hope for a Republican recovery.
Frum strikes at the heart of the GOP’s problem–they perform terribly among younger voters who, as time goes on, will start to make up more and more of the electorate.
The Generation Gap
In fact, if you look at where Americans stand on the issues, you find that there is a significant generation gap between younger voters and older voters.
Take, for instance, the environment:
Most young Americans age 13 to 24 are at least somewhat concerned about global warming – and the more they know about it, the more concerned about it they are.
Large majorities say the time to do something about global warming is right NOW. And many pick the environment as the biggest problem that their generation will need to solve.
And look at gay marriage: in May, 2008, Pew Research found that 52% of 18-29 year olds support gay marriage. Compare that to just 40% of 30-49 year-olds, 34% of 50-64 year-olds and 24% of voters 65 and older who support it.
And the same holds true on other issues like the war and immigration. There is a generational gap and, unfortunately for them, Republicans are on the wrong side of the divide.
Modern History
And it’s not just the parties’ stances on the issues; part of the problem is recent history.
Most of my generation only remembers two Presidents: Bill Clinton, successful but personally flawed, and George W. Bush, a failure.
We only know the political parties as they exist now, not as they once existed; from our limited perspective, Democrats are better governors than Republicans. We lack the perspective that older Americans have, where they can look back towards Reagan or Carter or Kennedy or Eisenhower.
That isn’t to say young voters are stupid or short-sighted, but different generations have different experiences–you couldn’t blame young people for not remembering Reagan any more than you could blame a 50 year old is for remembering the great depression. But that doesn’t change the fact that the GOP’s modern history has been spotty; they haven’t given my generation any reason to believe in them.
To look at 2008, Barack Obama ran a great campaign and John McCain ran a poor campaign. 2008 was, essentially, a microcosm of where the two political parties stand–one is innovative and effective and the other is incompetent and out-of-touch.
Obama’s ideas were new—how many presidential candidates have run unabashedly on alternative energy and universal health care? Not only were those policies new, but that were relevant solutions to the issues our country faces.
McCain, on the other hand, ran a backwards-looking campaign. How much of his campaign was based on what he did in Vietnam? And how many of his policies were based on the same Reaganite/Gingrichean ideas we’ve heard a thousand times before?
There used to be an old canard that the GOP was the party of ideas. Well, in short time the Democrats have turned that around and emerged as the party of idea, leaving the GOP in the dust.
Aiding And Abetting The Enemy
So, what advice do I have for the GOP to win over young voters again?
First, it’s about competence. Young people only know the GOP as the incompetent Bushean party that can’t be trusted with power; proving to us that Republicans can do a good job when trusted with power will go a long way.
To do that, it’s time to abandon the Reaganite idea that government is always bad. That’s a nearly 30-year-old talking point that came about when our country was in a very different place. The truth is, the government can do a lot of good for people and, in some respects–such as disaster relief–we need a strong, well-funded and well-prepared government. If the GOP is bent on indiscriminately dismantling government at every opportunity then we have no reason to trust them with it.
Second, I agree with Frum–the GOP has to start rethinking it’s positions on a lot of the issues, particularly the highly-divisive social issues.
There was a time when the GOP was very skilled at winning support by using divisive wedge issues. But now a massive backlash has developed–people are tired of being divided and fighting the same battles year after year. That dissatisfaction was an intrinsic part of Obama’s victory.
When it comes to the social issues Republicans used to win votes, young voters just aren’t interested; my generation is more open-minded and tolerant than any ever before it, even among young conservatives. By pursuing rigid conservative ideological purity, the GOP may end up losing an entire generation of voters forever.
Filed under: Economics, Environment, Government, Health Care, House, Progressives, Race, Rights, Senate | Tags: Andrew Jackson, Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, Democrats, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, James Monroe, James Polk, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Ted Kennedy, USSR, Woodrow Wilson
In honor of the holiday I’m reposting one of my most popular posts, entitled Thank A Democrat:
If you’re not a wealthy landowner and you vote, thank a Democrat: Andrew Jackson got rid of laws that discriminated against working-class Americans by restricting voting to wealthy landholders.
If you’re a woman and you vote, thank a Democrat: Woodrow Wilson supported the 19th Amendment, which was passed and ratified during his Presidency.
If you have ever voted while between the ages of 18 and 21, thank a Democrat: Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed the 26th Amendment, lowering the voting age to 18.
If you never experienced racial segregation, thank a Democrat: Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which outlawed racial segregation in public schools and public places.
If you never had to take a literacy test or pay a poll tax to vote, thank a Democrat: Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, which outlawed literacy tests as a requirement for voting, as well as the 24th Amendment, which outlawed poll taxes.
If you earn a fair wage, get paid overtime and/or was never subjected to child labor, thank a Democrat: Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress passed the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, which set the first national minimum wage, created requirements for overtime compensation and outlawed child labor.
If you have ever received benefits through Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, thank a Democrat: Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress passed the Social Security Act, while Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid.
If you or your child has ever benefited from Head Start or SCHIP, thank a Democrat: Head Start was passed by Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress, while SCHIP was championed by Ted Kennedy and signed into law by Bill Clinton.
If you have ever worked in a clean, safe workplace, thank a Democrat: in 1970, the Democratic Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which created national standards for workplace cleanliness and safety.
If you or anyone in your family has taken time off work due to a serious illness, accident, or birth of a child, thank a Democrat: Chris Dodd championed the Family and Medical Leave Act, which required employers to provide paid time off for their employees due to sickness, injury or to care for a newborn child. The Democratic Congress passed FMLA, which was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
If you, your parents or your grandparents were helped by the G.I. Bill, thank a Democrat: the G.I. Bill granted veterans loans to pursue higher education and purchase houses, as well as providing unemployment benefits. It was one of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal initiatives, and it was passed by a Democratic Congress.
If you’re a woman who is paid as much as your male coworkers, thank a Democrat: Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, guaranteeing equal pay for workers regardless of their gender.
If you’ve never been discriminated against due to your age or physical disability, thank a Democrat: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act was passed by Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress, while the Americans with Disabilities Act was also passed by a Democratic Congress.
If you enjoy clean air and water, thank a Democrat: the Clean Air Act was passed by the Democratic Congress in 1963 and signed into law by Lyndon Johnson; the Clean Water Act was passed by the Democratic Congress in 1977 and signed into law by Jimmy Carter.
If you enjoy freedom and security, thank a Democrat: James Monroe established the Monroe Doctrine, which kept Europe interfering with the free Western Hemisphere. Andrew Jackson fought against the British in the War of 1812, engineering the American victory at New Orleans. James K. Polk rebuffed an invasion from Mexico and acquired the entire American southwest in the Mexican-American War. Franklin Roosevelt mobilized America to defeat fascism, turning the U.S. into a world superpower in the process. Harry Truman created the Marshall Plan–which stopped the spread of Communism in Europe– and he took the initiative in establishing NATO. John Kennedy stood up to the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis and in Southeast Asia. Bill Clinton negotiated the historic Oslo Accords between Israel and Palestine, and he helped to both end the violence in Northern Ireland and the genocide in Kosovo.
Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg. And, of course, this isn’t to say that other political parties haven’t helped people or made this country better. But I doubt there is anyone in this country who can reasonably claim that the Democratic Party has not made their lives better in some way, and I wanted to take some time to point that out.
UPDATED: Happy Thanksgiving from President-Elect Barack Obama:
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Government, Governors, House, Polls, Progressives, Rights, Scandal, Senate | Tags: 2008, Betsy Markey, Bob Schaffer, Democrats, Elwyn Tinklenberg, Marilyn Musgrave, Mark Udall, McCain-Palin, Numbers, Republicans
Yesterday, I wrote about John McCain retreating from a number of states that are leaning strongly toward Barack Obama.
But retreat has become endemic in the Republican Party–they abandoned Minnesota McCarthyite Michele Bachmann a few days ago; now she’s trailing her Democratic challenger, Elwyn Tinklenberg, 44% to 47%.
The GOP is also abandoning Colorado’s Marilyn Musgrave (who once claimed that gay marriage was the most important issue America faced); now Musgrave is trailing her Democratic challenger, Betsy Markey, by anywhere from 7% to 9%.
In addition, the National Republican Senatorial Committee is giving up on Bob Schaffer, the Colorado Congressman running to replace retiring Republican Sen. Wayne Allard. Pollster shows his Democratic opponent, Rep. Mark Udall, beating Schaffer 47.3% to 39.5%.
The number of battlegrounds are narrowing rapidly, and the Republican Party no longer has the resources to be competitive anymore. At this point, they’re just trying to stop the bleeding.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, IOKIYAR, Rights, Scandal | Tags: 2008, ACORN, California, Mark Jacoby, Voter Suppression, YPM
First read this:
Voters say they were duped into registering as Republicans
Dozens of newly minted Republican voters say they were duped into joining the party by a GOP contractor with a trail of fraud complaints stretching across the country.
Voters contacted by The Times said they were tricked into switching parties while signing what they believed were petitions for tougher penalties against child molesters. Some said they were told that they had to become Republicans to sign the petition, contrary to California initiative law. Others had no idea their registration was being changed.
[...]
It is a bait-and-switch scheme familiar to election experts. The firm hired by the California Republican Party — a small company called Young Political Majors, or YPM, which operates in several states — has been accused of using the tactic across the country.
Election officials and lawmakers have launched investigations into the activities of YPM workers in Florida and Massachusetts. In Arizona, the firm was recently a defendant in a civil rights lawsuit. Prosecutors in Los Angeles and Ventura counties say they are investigating complaints about the company.
[...]
Some also report having their registration status changed to absentee without their permission; if they show up at the polls without a ballot they may be unable to vote.
Then read this:
Ontario police arrest man in voter fraud case
The owner of a firm that the California Republican Party hired to register tens of thousands of voters this year was arrested in Ontario over the weekend on suspicion of voter registration fraud.
State and local investigators allege that Mark Jacoby fraudulently registered himself to vote at a childhood California address where he no longer lives so he would appear to meet the legal requirement that all signature gatherers be eligible to vote in California. His firm, Young Political Majors, or YPM, collects petition signatures and registers voters in California and other states.
Jacoby’s arrest by state investigators and the Ontario Police Department late Saturday came after dozens of voters said they were duped into registering as Republicans by people employed by YPM. The voters said YPM workers tricked them by saying they were signing a petition to toughen penalties against child molesters.
[...]
After complaints by voters and Democratic Party officials, several agencies launched investigations into Jacoby’s activities. They included the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, which issued the warrant for his arrest earlier this month on felony charges of voter registration fraud and perjury.
[All emphasis mine]
So Republican operatives lied to voters, illegally changed their party affiliation against their will and without their knowledge, prevented an unknown number of people from voting by listing them as ‘absentee,’ which resulted in the arrest of the ringleader on felony charges of voter registration fraud and perjury.
But ACORN, an underfunded group of community organizers, is the real threat to Democracy.
Right.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Government, Progressives, Rights, Scandal | Tags: 2008, Democrats, Jennifer Brunner, Ohio, Republicans, Supreme Court, Voter Suppression
The U.S. Supreme Court sides with Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and rules against the Ohio GOP:
The Supreme Court sided Friday with Ohio’s top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.
The justices overruled a federal appeals court that had ordered Ohio’s top elections official to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility.
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, faced a deadline of Friday to set up a system to provide local officials with names of newly registered voters whose driver’s license numbers or Social Security numbers on voter registration forms don’t match records in other government databases.
Ohio Republicans contended the information for counties would help prevent fraud. Brunner said the GOP is trying to disenfranchise voters.
[...]
About 200,000 of 666,000 voters who have registered in Ohio since Jan. 1 have records that don’t match. Brunner has said the discrepancies most likely stem from innocent clerical errors rather than fraud but has set up a verification plan.
So the Supreme Court rejected the Ohio GOP’s case, leaving Secretary of State Brunner to do her job free of partisan meddling and Republican attempts to suppress votes.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Government, Governors, Progressives, Rights, Scandal | Tags: 2008, Charlie Crist, Democrats, Florida, Jennifer Brunner, Ohio, Republicans, Shame, Voter Suppression
In Ohio, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner vows to fight GOP voter suppression:
Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told the Huffington Post on Thursday that she is ready not only to fight the state’s current election law battle in front of the Supreme Court, but is also willing to wage a new fight, if necessary, to make sure hundreds of thousands of new voters are not “forced” onto provisional ballots on election day.
Spurred by revelations that the community organizing group ACORN has submitted many thousands of ineligible voter registration cards in battleground states, Ohio Republicans have been calling for a wholesale comparison of the state’s nearly 666,000 new active voters against data collected by the local DMV.
Brunner charged that Republican demands are meant to create confusion at the polls and keep all the ballots from being counted.
[...]
Brunner revealed this week that state data for approximately 200,000 of the new voters shows at least one discrepancy out of nearly two dozen categories that can be compared between the Secretary of State’s office and the DMV.
(Indeed, even Ohio’s Joe ‘The Plumber’ Wurzelbacher appears on voter registration rolls with a slight name misspelling, and thus would be subject to what a representative of the Brennan Center for Justice calls “disenfranchisement by typo.”)
[...]
By taking this position, Brunner appears ready to force another showdown with Republicans in Ohio. She believes that the present court challenge is, in fact, simply a prelude to making tens of thousands of new voters undergo provisional balloting, which she claims will cause havoc on election day.
[...]
Brunner said Ohio Republicans were seeking that kind of chaos. “The added confusion and problems that this creates — the plaintiffs understand that. They also understand these ballots are not counted on election night. And that they’ll be able to litigate and fight over individual ballots for a 10-day period after the election to tamp down the number of ballots that will actually be counted. This isn’t democracy,” Brunner said.
The secretary also expressed some muted displeasure with ACORN for helping cause alarm over potential voter fraud due to the apparent registration fraud in its ranks. “I think non-profit organizations like ACORN are specifically fighting the fight for middle to low income people,” she said. “In carrying out that kind of responsibility, they need to do it in such a way [so that] low income people won’t be further ostracized by the community. I think they have to do a better job, yes. From a pure election law standpoint, [this all] makes a lot of unnecessary work.”
The same article also notes:
Brunner says that, according to the League of Women Voters, there were only four instances of “illegal voting,” or the actual casting of an illegitimate ballot, between 2002 and 2006 — when just under 8 million ballots were cast. As such, she said, ACORN’s registration problems are being improperly lumped in with the casting of bad ballots, something she says is not likely to occur no matter how many fraudulent registrations are turned in. “Unfortunately, despite the messaging of certain political parties … when they bring ACORN into it, they’re talking about false voter registration. Seldom does that lead to illegal voting. Mickey Mouse and Jive Turkey don’t vote.”
[Emphasis mine]
What the Republican Party is doing is downright unamerican–they’re trying to keep American citizens from exercising their right to vote.
And over what? Over fears of ‘voter fraud,’ which isn’t an issue–if only 4 out of 8 million ballots are fraudulent, does that warrant disenfranchising 200,000–or more–American voters?
Florida’s Republican Governor Charlie Crist tells it like it is:
Florida’s governor says his fellow Republicans may be exaggerating claims of voter fraud
[...]
Crist said in the closing days of any campaign “there are some who sort of enjoy chaos.” There may be more of that going on than fraud, he said.
The Republican National Committee and GOP presidential candidate John McCain have accused an activist group of fraudulently registering people in Florida and other states. It has focused on young people, minorities and others seen as more likely to support Democrat Barack Obama.
UPDATED: Dave Johnson gives us a modern history lesson:
This in the news today: Officials: FBI investigates ACORN for voter fraud,
The FBI is investigating whether the community activist group ACORN helped foster voter registration fraud around the nation before the presidential election. A senior law enforcement official confirmed the investigation to The Associated Press on Thursday.
A second senior law enforcement official says the FBI was looking at results of recent raids on ACORN offices in several states for any evidence of a coordinated national scam.
First, it is ILLEGAL for anyone in the government to leak news of an FBI investigation. That by itself should be a tipoff to what is going on here.
Second, this is what the Justice Department politicization scandal was about: prosecutors fired for refusing to involve themselves in phony pre-election investigations of vote fraud, and others who were not fired because they played along. Those prosecutors are still on the job. Get it yet?
I am seeing 24.7 hysteria in the media that ACORN is engaged in a conspiracy to steal the election. But once you look into it there is not a single fact behind the charges. In fact, there were a total of 26 cases of voter fraud in the United States in a 5-year period studied.
Meanwhile the Republicans are fighting to purge millions of citizens from the voting rolls before the election.
[Emphasis mine]
UPDATE II: Don’t forget the eventual results of those partisan, politics-driven investigations. Then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias concluded in January, 2007:
Most of the complaints were completely without basis. At the end of the day we decided we did not have any cases we could prove beyond a reasonable doubt … we cannot prosecute rumor and innuendo.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Government, Progressives, Rights, Scandal | Tags: 2008, Brad Johnson, Courts, Democrats, Montana, Republicans, Rights, Scandal, Shame, Voter Suppression
Justice in Big Sky Country.
More GOP voter suppression shenanigans crash and burn, this time in Montana:
In an unusual move three weeks before the election and after a failed attempt to challenge voter registrations in some Democratic strongholds, the Montana Republican Party said Tuesday night it was changing executive directors.
Former state Rep. Larry Grinde of Lewistown was named the party’s executive director after Jake Eaton resigned “to pursue other interests,” the news release said.
[...]
Last week, rumors were running rampant in political circles that Eaton would be pushed out because of the much-criticized effort to challenge voter registrations in seven heavily Democratic counties.
[...]
Montana Democrats, charging it was an attempt to suppress voter turnout, went to federal court to block the effort.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula didn’t rule in the case, but issued a strongly worded order blasting the Republicans.
“The timing of these challenges is so transparent that it defies common sense to believe the purpose is anything but political chicanery,” Molloy wrote.
On Friday, Democrats dropped the lawsuit after Secretary of State Brad Johnson, a Republican, filed court documents saying similar voter challenges should be rejected in the future. The Republicans had withdrawn their challenges earlier last week.
[h/t TPM]
Remember, whenever conservatives go off on ACORN they’re just trying to draw attention away from their illegal voter intimidation programs.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Government, Race, Rights, Scandal | Tags: 2008, ACLU, ACORN, Courts, Hypocrisy, Michigan, Race, Republicans, Rights
Only in Republican America
Now, on the one hand, Republicans are whining about ACORN’s non-existent ‘voter fraud’.
On the other hand, the GOP’s voter suppression program was just determined to be illegal by a U.S. District Judge in Michigan:
The American Civil Liberties Union is trumpeting a judge’s decision in Michigan which brings to a halt the practice of eliminating voters from rolls if their mailing address is found to be invalid.
[...]
The suit, filed by ACLU national and ACLU of Michigan, along with the Advancement Project, aimed to protect voters whose registration cards were returned to government offices by post as ‘undeliverable.’ Judge Stephen J. Murphy of the U.S. District Court of Michigan’s Eastern District concluded that the program of eliminating these voters from rolls is in violation of federal law.
The voter purge program, better known to elections integrity experts as ‘voter caging,’ is a long-storied GOP tactic employed against minority, student and low-income voters. In September, the Obama campaign filed a lawsuit in Michigan challenging the illegal tactic.
[...]
“More than 1,400 voters in that category have been disqualified so far in 2008,” reports the Associated Press. “The judge says it’s unclear how many cancellations actually are wrong but it’s a violation of federal law. Murphy says those people shouldn’t be prevented from voting if they can produce more proof of residency at the polls.”
“This program has a very detrimental impact in minority, low-income and student communities across Michigan,” claims an ACLU advisory. “These communities tend to be more transient and to live in multi-family housing.”
[Emphasis added]
And don’t forget these examples of typical GOP voter suppression:
- States’ Actions to Block Voters Appear Illegal
- Voter Intimidation at Drexel
- Vote-scam fliers target black neighborhoods
So Republicans are foaming-at-the-mouth over ACORN’s ‘voter fraud,’ even though not one fraudulent vote has been cast and it’s unlikely that any will be (for reasons explained here).
But at the same time, those same Republicans are using illegal tactics to purge thousands of duly-registered voters from the rolls. They’re also intimidating potential voters to keep them away from the polls on election day.
That’s the Republican Party for you–if they’re complaining about something, they’re probably doing that something themselves.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights, Senate | Tags: 2008, ACORN, McCain-Palin, Obama-Biden, Rights, Stupidity, Voting
[Updated & Bumped]
So the right wing is in a tizzy over ACORN, a group of community organizers who have registered more than a million new voters this election cycle. There have apparently been some problems with some of the voter registration forms ACORN has collected and–as expected–the right has taken the issue and run off the deep end with it.
They’re accusing ACORN of perpetuating voter fraud in order to swing the election toward Democrats. What are some of the ridiculous arguments conservatives are making?
“ACORN is filing duplicate voter registration forms–they even registered this one guy 72 times!”
But, see, it doesn’t matter how many times someone registers—people are only allowed to vote once. It doesn’t matter if you submit 7 or 70 or 700 applications—they only register you once. If you’re already registered then the registrar’s office looks you up, sees that you’re already registered with that information, and they (obviously) don’t register you again.
And on election day, when you show up to vote you give them your ID and they only let you cast one vote.
Now, it’s possible you could register with a bunch of different addresses and try to cast different votes in different precincts. But on voter registration forms you have to provide your Social Security Number, which kinda makes it hard for you do file a bunch of different forms with different information on them. At some point, someone notices.
Plus, when you show up to vote, they’re gonna ask you for ID with your address on it. ID that’s impossible for you to get for an address you don’t actually live at.
Is the GOP so tinfoil-hatted they think that, on November 4th, roving bands of Democrats will travel from polling place to polling place with stacks of forged IDs, casting enough fraudulent votes to swing the election?
“But they’re also filing fake registration forms with fake names and addresses!!”
Again—when you show up to vote they’re going to ask you for ID, complete with your name and address on it.
So it doesn’t matter if you file voter registration forms for Donald Duck or John Wayne or John Hancock, living at address 123 Fake Street, Social Security Number 123-45-6789. If you’re a newly-registered voter, federal law mandates that you show ID at your polling place on election day. ID that, again, is impossible for you to get for an address you don’t actually live at or for a name that isn’t yours.
So, again, is the GOP so tinfoil-hatted they think Democrats are filing registration forms with fake names and addresses and intending to forge millions of IDs, so that on election day they can roam from precinct to precinct casting enough fraudulent votes to swing the election?
[New Addition] “But ACORN registered a 7-year-old to vote!”
Well, actually, the registration card was forged and submitted to ACORN by a relative of the girl who has a history of drug abuse. And, as is said below, ACORN is required by law to turn in every voter registration card they collect.
But, again, unless that 7-year-old shows up and tries to cast a vote on election day, this isn’t voter fraud.
And I can’t imagine that any poll worker, anywhere, would let a 7-year-old vote, even if they’re on the rolls and even if she somehow showed up and demanded to vote. So why is this being portrayed as a scandal instead of just a clerical oversight?
[New Addition] “In Lake County, Indiana, every single voter registration form filed by ACORN was forged!”
Exactly. The forms were collected and then submitted to the county registrar. It’s the registrar’s job to sort through them and determine their veracity. And that’s exactly what happened here–that’s how they found out that the voter registration cards were fraudulent. And as a result of their findings, none of those voters were subsequently registered.
So, what’s the problem? Doesn’t this just prove that the system works? Even if fraudulent registrations are submitted, the registrar catches them and keeps those registrations from being processed. Isn’t that how it’s all supposed to work?
In fact, that’s partially the reason why organizations like ACORN are required by law to submit every voter registration form they collect to the registrar–because sorting the real forms from the fake ones is the registrar’s duty, not the duty of outside organizations (who might have a political interest in throwing certain voter registration forms out).
In fact, if ACORN did go through the registrations they collected and started throwing out the forms they thought were fraudulent, how much would you bet that the conservative talking point would be something along the lines of ‘Democrat-leaning group ACORN is committing voter fraud, preventing American citizens from voting by throwing out thousands of voter registrations!!“
It’s the same old ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ trap Republicans love to build around Democrats at every opportunity.
I mean, on its face this story sounds scandalous—duplicate registrations! Fake names!! 7-year-olds registered to vote!!!
But when you try to figure out how it’ll affect the election, well, it’s hard to see how this will make any difference.
But we all know why the right is in hysterics over ACORN—when the Republicans lose the election, this story will give them enough cover to cry that they didn’t actually lose, that it was big bad ACORN who stole the election!!
Of course, when we accused the Republicans of stealing an election back in 2004—when the CEO of the company that made the touch-screen voting machines promised “to [help] Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President”—these same right-wingers couldn’t call us tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorists fast enough. And now that they’re going to legitimately lose the election, they can’t point the finger and yell “stolen election” fast enough. But that’s how it goes when you’re dealing with Republicans.
Just be ready for a lot more of this garbage after the election, because the hysteria over ACORN is the first shot in the right’s first post-election anti-Obama offensive. Because come November 5th, Republicans are going to be on the TV 24-7 whining that ACORN stole the election and Barack Obama is an illegitimate President. You could bet your life on it.
UPDATE: Some good points:
- Fraudulent registration forms do not constitute voter fraud.
Voter fraud only occurs if someone tries to improperly cast a vote. “It’s not voter fraud unless someone shows up at the voting booth on election day and tries to pass himself off as ‘Tony Romo.’ And who would try to do that?” wrote Rep. Jesse Jackson (D-IL). The Brennan Center for Justice noted that “there are no reports that we have discovered of votes actually cast in the names of [false] registrants.”
- In many states, organizations like ACORN are required by law to turn in every registration card they receive.
As the Wall Street Journal reported, “New Mexico law requires Acorn to turn in all applications, no matter how suspicious-looking, within 48 hours. Elections officials do their own quality control on registrations.” In fact, “under most state laws, voter registration organizations are required to turn in all the forms they receive.” Furthermore, ACORN explained in a statement that “for the past 10 months, any time ACORN has identified a potentially fraudulent application, we turn that application into election officials separately and offer to provide election officials with the information they would need to pursue an investigation or prosecution of the individual.”
UPDATE II: Of course, if the right is complaining about something, you can be pretty sure they’re doing exactly what they’re complaining about. And as it turns out, they are:
Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.
[...]
Still, because Democrats have been more aggressive at registering new voters this year, according to state election officials, any heightened screening of new applications may affect their party’s supporters disproportionately. The screening or trimming of voter registration lists in the six states — Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina — could also result in problems at the polls on Election Day: people who have been removed from the rolls are likely to show up only to be challenged by political party officials or election workers, resulting in confusion, long lines and heated tempers.
Some states allow such voters to cast provisional ballots. But they are often not counted because they require added verification.
And don’t forget this:
There was still one taped to a table, and I was pretty shocked to read it. It was clearly an attempt at voter intimidation targeted at members of the Drexel community.
[...]
It is written as a friendly letter relaying how an “Obama supporter” explained to the author that at the polls this year, police will be checking IDs and license plates to “catch criminals” in and around the polls, including “traffic ticket offenders.” This is a disgusting and offensive attempt to provide false information to citizens to keep them from voting. People aren’t arrested in this country for voting, no matter how many traffic tickets they get. In fact, in PA, police officers arne’t allowed within 100 feet of a polling place on election day, except when they vote as private citizens, or when required to protect the peace.
Or this old standby:
An anonymous flier circulating in African-American neighborhoods in North and West Philadelphia states that voters who are facing outstanding arrest warrants or who have unpaid traffic tickets may be arrested at the polls on Election Day.
Deputy Mayor for Public Safety Everett Gillison, who learned of the flier last week, said that the message is completely false.
“The only thing that police officers are going to do that we’ll be encouraging that day is that they’ll be exercising their own individual right to vote,” Gillison said.
If anyone needs me, I’ll be (patiently) waiting for screams of outrage coming from the right over this voter intimidation (what with their sudden, newfound respect for democracy and all).
UPDATE III: Ben Smith brings a big bowl of common sense to the party:
The key distinction here is between voter fraud and voter registration fraud, one of which is truly dangerous, the other a petty crime.
The former would be, say, voting the cemeteries or stuffing the ballot boxes. This has happened occasionally in American history, though I can think of recent instances only in rare local races. Practically speaking, this can most easily be done by whoever is actually administering the election, which is why partisan observers carefully oversee the vote-counting process.
The latter is putting the names of fake voters on the rolls, something that happens primarily when organizations, like Acorn, pay contractors for new voter registrations. That can be a crime, and it messes up the voter files, but there’s virtually no evidence these imaginary people then vote in November. The current stories about Acorn don’t even allege a plan to affect the November vote.
[Emphasis mine]
I’ll make you a deal, conservatives–if Mickey Mouse shows up and votes on November 4th, or that guy who submitted 72 registrations is allowed to cast 72 votes, or that 7-year-old girl ends up voting, I’ll cede this issue to you guys.
UPDATE IV: Ben Smith brings us a photograph of John McCain attending an ACORN-sponsored event in March, 2006.
Actually, John McCain didn’t just attend the ACORN event–he was the headliner.
So I guess you could say John McCain was for ACORN before he was against them, huh?
UPDATE V: Actually, it turns out that a lot of Republicans used to love ACORN–Mike Bloomberg, Rick Perry, Arnold Schwarzenegger. I guess they all were for ACORN before they were against them.
FINAL UPDATE: I’ll let Josh Marshall have the last word on this post:
Let’s be clear about what this is. These are random stories about fake vote registrations. The Drudges and Fox scoundrels of the world seem to think that if someone fills out a voter registration card for Mickey Mouse, that Mickey Mouse might show up and cast a vote they’re not entitled to cast. It doesn’t and there is zero evidence of any voter fraud or anything that would make voter fraud more likely. The level of lying, bad faith or at best ignorance of the people making these claims is really beyond imagining. This isn’t vote fraud. There’s no evidence of vote fraud. Nothing. This is an effort of a losing political party to a) lay the groundwork for challenging their defeat at the polls b) lay the groundwork to pass laws to make it harder for poor people and minorities to vote.
Filed under: Breaking, Government, Media, Rights | Tags: Breaking, Connecticut, Courts, Media, Rights
Smells like equality. And nutmeg.
Here’s the headline from MSNBC:
BREAKING NEWS: Connecticut Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples have the right to marry
More as it comes…
UPDATE: MSNBC reports:
The Connecticut Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriage Friday in a victory for gay-rights advocates that will allow couples to marry in the New England state.
The court found that the state’s law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry
