Polling Place Story of the Day

I love it. Turning away a 98 year old nun who wants to vote. That's the solution to a non-existent problem.

...but at least the country can be totally certain that none of the Sisters voted for a Democrat fraudulently.

Super.

Thank you Roberts Court. This is that pesky "fraud" you were so afraid of.

Do we know that that they were really nuns and not just liberal activists impersonating nuns in order to prove a point?

KT,

You should pass this along to the reporter who covers the Supreme Court for Time, if they haven't already seen it.

Have that person ask staunch Catholic Justice Antonin Scalia what he has against elderly nuns voting.

Just because the were in their 80s and 90s doesn't mean they weren't illegal. They could have entered years ago and flew under the radar. You know. Like Alberto Gonzalez.

Bottom line, the system works.

Sorry. Meant Abu G's grandparents.

I don't see a problem with the State of Indiana requiring identification of citizenship. The Democrats are of course upset because their illegal immigrants and under aged voter base is not permitted to vote.

With over 12 million illegals in the US, it is time that a universal identification system IS put into place.

Have that person ask staunch Catholic Justice Antonin Scalia what he has against elderly nuns voting.

We already know what he thinks:

The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not “even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.” [...] And the State's interests [...] are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden. That should end the matter. That the State accommodates some voters by permitting (not requiring) the casting of absentee or provisional ballots, is an indulgence-not a constitutional imperative that falls short of what is required.

Those freaking, lazy nuns didn't even take the state up on its overly generous offer to provide provisional ballots! How ungrateful can you get?

KT here--

Space: We Catholics are always counting on "indulgences." :)

The Democrats are of course upset because their illegal immigrants and under aged voter base is not permitted to vote.

Sheesh! Those conniving Democrats. Trying to let 98-year-olds vote before they've paid their dues.

In all seriousness, I'm not actually against ID requirements. Not because I think it addresses an actual problem, but because I want the GOP to shut up already and I am perfectly willing to throw some old nuns under the proverbial bus if it means taking a serious look at actual electoral problems (e.g. electronic voting, etc.)

With 3% of the early returns in:

Hillary Clinton - 61%
Obama - 39%

Go Hillary GO!!!!!

Also on the Nun fiasco, it is simply the Catholic Church's continued support of illegal immigrants as well. Showing the liberals how "unfair" it is here in the United States.

Get in line, get your application and then you can vote once you are a citizen.

The part that was left out was how the nuns left muttering about how they wanted to vote "for that nice young McCain boy."

Finally an answer to the question of what is older than McCain: Disenfranchised voters!

I think, actually, many, many people expected the elderly to be disenfranchised. What a lot of ballot bollix.

A real reporter, when faced with this story, would immediately think, "who's pushing this story in order to push their agenda?"

Unfortunately, no one else seems to have read through the rest of the article, and no one else appears to be intellectually honest enough to wonder what exactly those pushing this story could be getting at.

Here's a question. It is not required to be a U.S. citizen to obtain an Indiana driver's license. The card is just proof of who you are, not of your citizenship. A legal alien could (fraudulently) register to vote and then presumably show a duly issued driver's license as proof of identification.

Does an Indiana license or i.d. card that is issued to a non-citizen have any indication to that effect on the card? If not, how does the drivers license requirement stop voter fraud other than (possibly) that by illegal aliens?

They sound like a bunch of wine drinking elitists who've never had a real job, I bet they've never even been bowling before...f@ck em.

> Have that person ask staunch Catholic Justice Antonin Scalia what he has against elderly nuns voting.

Maybe the nuns should be grateful that Scalia, himself, wasn't out there at the polls whacking people upside the head, which, of course, is neither torture nor punishment. Or maybe he was - but he just couldn't make it to this polling place in time. Tsk...

So, someone tell me how this _doesn't_ paint as bad as a third-world country with gun-toting thugs hanging around the voting booths, making sure the citizenry votes "properly."

Hey, Rusty - are you adequately papered? Maybe you'd like it if we all had to wear yellow stars on our tunics... Are tattoos on our forearms next?

Hey, Rusty - are you adequately papered? Maybe you'd like it if we all had to wear yellow stars on our tunics... Are tattoos on our forearms next? Posted by Mr. Nice Guy | May 6, 2008 7:21 PM

Only people with something to hide are against any type of Federal ID.

Are you afraid that your sexual predator status will be found out, "Nice Guy"???

> Only people with something to hide are against any type of Federal ID.

Tsk. This is one of the lamest - and most dangerous - rationales ever. Why not put surveillance cameras in every nook and cranny of our homes, too, and let the government watch? If we have nothing to hide...

What's next, Rusty? Lock us all up for our own good?

I hate to say it - maybe not - but you're not deserving of the Liberty for which our Founding Fathers, and all of the veterans since, fought and died for. Or maybe you're afraid of it. Whatsamatta, Rusty? Can't handle not being told what to do and what to think? Thinking for yourself is scary, isn't it?

Sorry to disappoint you, Nice. But, freedom and liberty is what our founding fathers based our constitution upon. I am a veteran, serving my country and those values and ideals. What I see is a small "elitist" group of people, who are attempting to push their set of values on the rest of America. I fought very hard to preserve anyone's ability to speak out. But the base ideals, are in jeapordy, and I will fight just as hard to protect them from those on the liberal extreme not to devalue them.

But come November we shall see who the majority of Americans feel have their best interests at heart. Once Obama is completely exposed, which I believe without a shadow of a doubt there is still much more controversy yet to come, he will go down in the fashion of Dukakis and Kerry.

Only people with something to hide are against any type of Federal ID.

Because after all, J Edgar Hoover was entitled to know everything about everyone.

How a Republican like Rusty develop such faith in the infalability if Federal officials? It boggles the mind how poorly Conservatives understand Conservatism.

Once Obama is completely exposed? Hmmm.

> he will go down in the fashion of Dukakis and Kerry.

Oh, so you're going to "Swift Boat" 'im, then? Is that the plan? Yeah, that's always honorable.

> But, freedom and liberty is what our founding fathers based our constitution upon.

It may be - but you Repugs are doing your damndest to totally eradicate and destroy all three: Freedom, Liberty and the Constitution. Just curious, but why are you guys fighting so hard to give the telcos immunity for spying ON YOUR OWN COUNTRYMEN? Of course, we shouldn't have anything to hide, right? So what does it matter if uncles George and Dick listen in on our phone calls? We can't afford Freedom, when there's a war going on. But isn't there always?

> I am a veteran, serving my country and those values and ideals.

Veteran, maybe. Serving those values and ideals? The Repugs don't respect or acknowledge them. They fear them, just like they fear a free people. You'd have us licking your jackboots, if only we'd comply. You keep hoping the next imperial president will get the job done for you.

Say, tell me something: when you GOPs get together, after fondling the pages or diddling in the airport bathrooms, what language do you guys use amongst yourselves: "Baah," or "Mooo"?

It's a shame that true Americans have to fight destructive forces from not only outside the country, but also within, such as you Repugs. Well, as they say: eternal vigilance...

This crap makes me really angry.

Karen, did you know that the Lt. Gov here in Texas is pushing for the same thing?

They seem to have a bee in their bonnet that there's massive voter fraud in Texas.

Makes me kind of crazy.

Uh, Karen, nothing personal, but this is exactly what those fighting this stupid law were expecting.

Off-topic but juicy fun...if you elitist scum can put down the Cristal and Fois Gras for a second you just might enjoy it almost as much as you enjoy destroying the hopes and dreams of decent Americans.

My Maureen Dowd story

"...But there's another problem with the opening sentence of the Dowd column. "I'm not bitter." Oh Maureen -- who the hell do you think you're kidding? The woman positively soaks in bitterness. Marinates in it. It oozes out of her pen and pours into just about every damn word she writes. Her bitterness has utterly corroded her soul. It's turned her into a twisted freak whose chief pleasure in life seems lie in vicious, barking-mad attacks on the only people capable of ending our long national nightmare -- the Democrats. Seriously, if there is any other single person in the media who's been a more powerful enabler of Republican high crimes and misdemeanors than Modo, I don't know who it is."

but I don't think anyone expected this:

I have to second johnr. I am uterly unsurprised. OT...Have you heard back on the scope of the Ashcroft and Yoo testimony?

"but I don't think anyone expected this"

I think what KT means is, she didn't expect that to happen to white people. Honestly, I didn't either.

Here's the thing. We can argue about this crap all day, but it just isn't that hard to come up with a system that will eliminate/discourage 95% of any voter fraud while still allowing people to vote.

For instance, you could let someone vote as long as someone else who does have photo i.d. and knows the voter and reasonably believes the voter to be a U.S. citizen signs an affidavit that they know the voter.

Obviously this wouldn't prevent all voter fraud and it wouldn't allow someone who knows nobody in their voting precinct to still vote, but it seems like would eliminate any possibility of orchestrated voting fraud on any significant scale. You could even limit the number of affidavits any one person could sign.

Well, that's just a few less votes for Hillary anyway, considering as how she has the Catholic vote all locked up.

Good! Sounds like a bunch of no good fraudsters to me. I'm glad the good people of Indiana have come down on these so-called "nuns" with both boots!

Should probably send the cops around to pat them down and make sure they weren't going to blow up the polling place. Darn commie islamofascist nun con artists, if you ask me.

Not just Catholics - they're elderly women, too. Her ideal voting demographic!

"but I don't think anyone expected this"

I too am unclear what "this" refers to. Nuns?

The law was clear. You need photo i.d. to vote.

Even if you expected the impact to be minimal, wouldn't you expect some impact? And if there was any impact, presumably the impact would be on people who, despite the relative ease of obtaining photo i.d., still had problems getting one. Now, who would you think would fall into that category if not people in their 80s and 90s who "don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts"?

Even if the law is working, isn't this EXACTLY the class of people on whom the burden would unfairly fall?

KT here--

Space, PD, JohnR et al: Sometimes you guys are just looking for something to pick on. By "this," I meant very specifically "this."

After all this conspiracy talk on the part of the Justice Department, and the nefarious plots they have attributed to groups like ACORN ... who would have thought that the first people to get busted under this law would be a dozen elderly nuns, or that the person who would bust them would be ... yet another nun? No one else sees any cosmic irony here? (Not to imply that disenfranchised nuns are funny.).

only elitists indulge in irony Karen.

Sometimes you guys are just looking for something to pick on...

I'm just offering my comment on the post.

I find the nuns getting turned away ironic, not in a cosmic way but in an ordinary "if you write a law that targets a non-existent problem the likelyhood that innocent people will be affected approaches certainty" way.

Karen:

If Republicans engineer and support it, it is entirely to be expected that it will be a miserable, unfair cluster****.

Yes, the specifics in each case will vary.

What remains to be discovered is if Time will ever internalize this notion.

KT here--

PD: Also, I will try to get an answer from the committee. I'll be pretty busy tomorrow with the post-IN/NC story, but will call as soon as I'm finished.

The harder it is to vote, the less people who will vote against Republicans.

who would have thought that the first people to get busted under this law would be a dozen elderly nuns, or that the person who would bust them would be ... yet another nun? No one else sees any cosmic irony here? (Not to imply that disenfranchised nuns are funny.).

There is always something intrinsically funny about penguins... er, nuns.

there was nothing wrong with the pre-voter ID system. There are virtually no instances of 'voter fraud' of the kind Republican propagandists claim justify these ridiculous laws. Even its proponents can't find any; they merely argue that if one were to do enough research, one would find quite a few instances of it.

Undocumented migrant workers do not vote because they are afraid of being deported; they avoid all contact with government entities to the greatest extent possible. They won't even report to the police crimes committed against them. The notion that hordes of brown-skinned people are part of a massive conspiracy to throw elections through fraud is as absurd and, frankly, racist as notions that there is a worldwide Jewish cabal conspiring to enslave mankind.

It would seem that the burden of proof is on those advocating the change in laws to find the proof; they can't. Or won't, because if they did the research it would prove they are full of BS.

These laws are part of the larger effort of the GOP to target Democratic-friendly demographic groups for disenfranchisement; of this, there is abundant proof. The GOP's survival as a viable political party depends on disenfranchising/discouraging from voting the poor and minorities, especially in close elections. They have successfully lost the votes of nearly all African-Americans pretty much forever; their courting of the anti-brown-people racist/bigot/xenophobe voting bloc is losing them the votes of an entire generation of Hispanic-Americans, the fastest-growing minority in America.

Time after time, the GOP reminds me why I wouldn't vote for anyone with the Republican label, not under any circumstances whatsoever. In a race between the most honest Republican and the most dishonest Democrat, I wouldn't have to think about it; the latter would get my vote. The GOP needs to be humiliated, disempowered, and sent to spend a generation in the political wilderness considering its sins and how to become a decent, principled political party once again.

I wasn't "picking on" anything. I asked if "this" meant "nuns". Apparently the answer was "yes".

Trust me. I get the humor.

But [cue music swell] I also get the touching patriotism of this poll worker, this nun, who knew these women and understood how much voting meant to them -- and how difficult it was -- but still turned them away for no other reason than the law said so. If integrity is doing the right thing when nobody is watching then this nun certainly has that.

It also reminds me that while the fiasco in Florida in 2000 had many disgusting elements, among the worst was the smearing of the average poll worker. These generally unpaid or minimally paid workers, who strive for nothing more than to uphold our democratic principles and institutions, were routinely smeared by the GOP and media as cynical political operatives who wouldn't hesitate to punch out a chad to help Gore if a lawyer wasn't present to keep an eye on them.

The notion that hordes of brown-skinned people are part of a massive conspiracy to throw elections through fraud is as absurd and, frankly, racist as notions that there is a worldwide Jewish cabal conspiring to enslave mankind.

So you admit it is true then!

Seriously, you are absolutely right that the GOP concocts this nonsense to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning demographics. However, I also believe that large numbers of rank-and-file Republicans have convinced themselves that this is a real problem. They support reform not for ill motives but because they believe that Democrats are deliberately encouraging voter fraud.

My feeling has always been that it is in the best interest of Democrats to at least ADDRESS this issue and agree to good-faith policy changes that would alleviate the concerns of average Republicans. Democrats who want real reforms, like paper trails, open source code of any e-machines, and the like, should agree to minimally-invasive voter i.d. requirements in order to pass bipartisan legislation.

KT here--

Anyone else watching these results? It's really tight in Indiana. Is this going to be Missouri all over again, with Lake County playing St. Louis?

> the touching patriotism of this poll worker, this nun

You're being sarcastic, right? Without intentionally insulting her, I'd say Automaton, yes. Patriot, no. One undisputed attribute of a patriot, at least the American variety, is non-conformity; to be defiant in the face of tyranny.

If the purpose of the law was to prevent voter fraud, and she knew these people to be legitimate voters, then the "patriotic" thing to do would have been to say, "Screw the law; it's wrong. You guys can vote." To blindly follow a bad law is not in any way patriotic. Except in GOP's Bizzaro-world. To prevent these legitimate voters from casting their vote - the single most powerful thing they can do as free Americans - is criminal.

And these anti-fraud initiatives are just one prong in the GOP pitch-fork. While we're thinking about it, can we do something about gerrymandering, too? That is just as bad, if not worse.

sorry space, but today's GOP cannot be counted upon to play fair. Their survival depends upon voter disenfranchisement. What you are suggesting, is like those who suggest that Hillary and Obama just split MI/FL delegations. That sounds fair, but it doesn't help Hillary at all so she'll never agree to it.

I'm curious how many total voters are in Lake county. It has to be small relative to Indy. I imagine the results will be amazingly close once they report.

Ah, what the hell... Can I have a purple unicorn, too?

Karen - the narrative has changed; Hillary's lost whatever momentum she had, even if she wins Indiana.

With only 40,000 or so as a lead for Hillary, he could easily make that up. Have you heard a good reason for their counting the absentee ballots before they report?

I've heard conflicting rationales for Lake County today, though. Apparently the Wright story (AAAGH. I said that word!) has been getting more negative coverage (is that possible?) in Gary because it's so close to Chicago. So Barack may not have as much of an advantage there as seems likely at first. On the other hand, people know him there, and it could be that the late deciders won't shy away from him.

Mr. Nice Guy, the answer isn't individual cases of disobedience to unfair laws; the answer is to get rid of these laws. If we get more cases of plainly unfair disenfranchisement, we have hope of getting these laws overturned.

Of course, if we don't get a Democratic president, we are looking at a generation or more of far-right-wing Roberts SC rulings like the one that upheld these absurd, baseless laws. Anyone who contemplates crossing over to the GOP in the general because their candidate didn't win the nomination, should think about the fact that the next president is going to replace at least two aging, left-leaning justices.

the "patriotic" thing to do would have been to say, "Screw the law; it's wrong. You guys can vote.

Just like John Yoo and David Addington?. I'm afraid I can't follow you down that particular path!

Karen- did you notice this over at Pollster, where they do live blogging (and live modeling) of the elections?

"10:11 -- Just posted by Poblano, who is doing his own modeling of the vote count:

I'm now showing Clinton winning Indiana by 1.8 percent, or about 23,000 votes. And one thing to remember about Indiana is the provisional ballot issue -- people who were rejected at the polls because they did not meet the state's ID requirements could still cast provisional ballots and prove their identity later. It's possible that we'll still have a hanging chads type of situation."

can we do something about gerrymandering, too? That is just as bad, if not worse.

yeah, good luck with that. It's not gerrymandering if your team does it ;-)

In Arizona, we approved a ballot initiative to appoint an 'independent' commission to take the drawing of legislative/congressional districts out of the hands of the Legislature. Guess what? Nothing much changed; the maps have bounced back and forth between the courts and the commission.

Gerrymandering is usually in the eye of the beholder.

> Just like John Yoo and David Addington?. I'm afraid I can't follow you down that particular path

I see what you're saying, but I don't think they're equal. Civil disobedience with the object of allowing people to vote isn't quite the same as rationalizing torture to provide a "get out of jail free card" for your masters, while they try to wash blood off of their hands.

How much longer would we have had to wait for Civil Rights if the resistance had followed the rules, and just taken their case through the courts? Thank God for Rosa Parks, and other brave souls like her.

And, what kind of impact would it have had if that nun had done just that, and allowed these legitimate voters to vote, in spite of the GOP's concocted rules?

The point was - still is - that she'd have been more "patriotic" if she'd taken more of a stand, rather than just followed along.

I'm curious how many total voters are in Lake county. It has to be small relative to Indy. I imagine the results will be amazingly close once they report.

Everything is small in comparison to Indy in Indiana. But after a quick trip to Wikipedia...Lake County is the second most populated county in Indiana, after Marion/Indianapolis I'm assuming. With Gary up there and Chicago right on the other line, Lake County could go either way I'm imagining.

As a former Hoosier I have to say that I'm relishing all the attention my old home state is getting. I guess it just goes to show how wacky this primary has been.

but I don't think they're equal. Civil disobedience with the object of allowing people to vote isn't quite the same.

Needless to say, they aren't the same but civil disobedience usually involves submitting to the penalties that the unjust law provides.

I don't think I have to mention that the crack BushCo law team won't be voluntarily submitting to much of anything too soon (And no, Congressional Commitee testimony doesn't count!)

When pressed for comment, Justice Antonin Scalia said, "So what? Oh just get OVER it."

Of interest:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/06/gary_mayor_predicts_possible_i.html

> I don't think I have to mention that the crack BushCo law team won't be voluntarily submitting to much of anything too soon

That's another big separation between the two: Rosa Parks, and others, were willing to take a stand and pay the price for their actions. Bush and the effin' scum that comprise the Repugs either arrange for immunity, or hide things behind "executive privilege," like the cowardly skunks they are - and that's insulting skunks.

"Hey, Scooter! How bad was jail after committing perjury? Whazat? No jail? Righteous! Man, I want your friends."

More seriously, this is what happens when you legislate problems that don't exist, and then grant cert and litigate on issue that aren't ripe.

The saddest part of this Supreme Court is not its political leanings--it's its utter disdain for intellectual reasoning and anything approaching respect for the nobel ideas of our founding fathers regarding democracy.

Instead of them representing the better angels of our nature, they are the murder of sapprophytic crows, hungrily chowing down on whatever meat is left on the skeletal remains of our Consitutional bones.

Jesus, they are a shameful lot, compared with the oft quoted wisdom of the supreme Court justices of my youth. when was the last time you heard one of the current members of the Supreme Court quoted for their intellectual thinking or legal reasoning? Maybe Souter perhaps, but that's about it. The rest are appalling.

Side note to Bush and the FBI, who I'm sure are monitoring my posts and have traced back my IP, without a warrant, courtesy of the telcos:

Suck. On. This.

I'll be waiting for you back at the apartment. Just don't tase me, bro!

Here's a phrase any regular guy or gal can understand.....turn out the lights, the party's over. You'll always have New Hampshire Hill, you'll always have New Hampshire.

Thank you, Comrade Rustydog, for embracing the fullness of life provided by the gentle gaze of the Heroes of the Fatherland! Selflessly true we shall always stand!

When you meet these conservative dudes in real life you understand w/ they're so in favor of torture...they desperately need someone to protect them by any means necessary.

Hillary Cancels Morning Show Appearances:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/hillary_cancels_her_morning_sh.php

Posted by karen tumulty | May 6, 2008 9:14 PM:

(Not to imply that disenfranchised nuns are funny.)

Yes, they are.

Christ Jesus, just the phrase "disenfranchised nuns" is chock-full of uproarious, Dionysian humor.

Can I name my next band Disenfranchised Nuns (no "The"), or do you have copyright applications in to the office on that one already, Karen?

A rancid fudge of sneering, frothing, credibility-flushing partisanship that exemplifies the reason why I rarely read Andrew Sullivan anymore:

As her speech staggers on, after the gas tax holiday gambit, and a plea for Burma, she eventually turns to Florida and Michigan. You almost want to look away. But it's fascinating in a way. She cannot concede; she cannot give an inch; she cannot acknowledge reality. Observing sociopaths in close detail as their world collapses around them and they cannot absorb the truth is always fascinating. And yet some sliver of humanity is discernible: her tone is altered. Even she cannot fake enthusiasm or confidence any more. And Bill seems grim. Chelsea seemed close to breaking into tears.

If you want another president whose own grip on reality has little relationship to the outside world, then you know who to vote for.

Nice.
Andrew Sullivan apparently knows with empirical certainty that the face of evil today belongs to Hillary Clinton. He's seriously calling her a "sociopath" --with a certain sick glee at her potential political demise, I would argue.

How can he expect any serious person to take his rants on any subject to be the work of a rational, objective observer after this display?

For a change, instead of HRC outperforming the pre-election polls we saw the opposite: She won by 2% instead of 5. Must've been a lot of disenfranchised nuns.

The point was - still is - that she'd have been more "patriotic" if she'd taken more of a stand, rather than just followed along.

I think the more effective course was turning them down and talking to reporters about it.

Mr. Nice Guy:

I wasn't being sarcastic in the least.

One of the requirements of a functioning Democracy is that people accept political outcomes, even if the outcome is not what they desired. A duly elected legislative body enacted a law. A duly appointed judiciary reviewed the law and found it constitutional. The nun followed the law because that is what good citizens do in a civil society: abide by laws they don't necessarily agree with.

Unfortunately, yes, arguments can be made for the illegitimacy of our government. But, as Paul Dirks points suggests, let us not kid ourselves about where that path leads. We should not be so quick to cast off the last vestiges of our democratic ideals in a tit-for-tat with nutjobs like Yoo and Addison.

Our political leaders may change the rules and "move the goalposts" every five seconds, but the nun's instinct -- to follow the rules -- is something that should be cherished as much as the franchise itself. And, no, I am not being sarcastic.

And good news, Stuart, you can't copyright a band's name. Here's to Disenfranchised Nuns' first album, "You Can't Do This Like School Kids On A Bus."

And good news, Stuart, you can't copyright a band's name...

I know.

If Republicans engineer and support it, it is entirely to be expected that it will be a miserable, unfair cluster****. Posted by SFBear | May 6, 2008 9:46 PM

And, what kind of impact would it have had if that nun had done just that, and allowed these legitimate voters to vote, in spite of the GOP's concocted rules? Posted by Mr. Nice Guy | May 6, 2008 11:10 PM

Time after time, the GOP reminds me why I wouldn't vote for anyone with the Republican label, not under any circumstances whatsoever.
In a race between the most honest Republican and the most dishonest Democrat, I wouldn't have to think about it; the latter would get my vote. The GOP needs to be humiliated, disempowered, and sent to spend a generation in the political wilderness considering its sins and how to become a decent, principled political party once again. Posted by firenze_italia | May 6, 2008 10:20 PM

More seriously, this is what happens when you legislate problems that don't exist, and then grant cert and litigate on issue that aren't ripe. Posted by Casey Morris | May 6, 2008 11:38 PM

On and on they rant and rave about how diabolical the Republicans are who do not agree with their Liberal extremists ideas.

Do you people actually read what you write on here? Amazing. Hate to break it to you all, but this is America with a democracy that permits people to have views that differ from yours.

Voter fraud has been a major component of just about every election since the revolution.

Shall I remind you all of the "street money" in Philadelphia???

Maybe the Democrat strong arm tactics of the Dailey political machine in Chicago that continues to threaten equal and fair elections.

How about the new Democrat bill that will allow Unions to not have secret balloting???

Yes, the Republicans have cornered the market when it comes to all unfair and diabolical political practices. Not to mention MoveOnOrgys mass influx of their minions to the Democrat caucasus in all of those States that permit this insane political practice.

But blog on, and we shall see in November who will prevail.

REV WRIGHT / OBAMA '08, WRONG FOR AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!

Liberal extremists ideas.

Like having citizens vote in elections.

I always found it a bit weird how the GOP was always so big on voter ID laws. Their base seems very much to be the type of person who wants the government to "leave them alone". The act of having to present themselves to the government for identification so they can exercise the right to vote sounds like the sort of imposed regulation they would very much hate. (I wonder how much gun regulation could get passed if couched in terms of preventing illegal immigrants from having firearms.)

rusty..well said!! you are absolutely right. this is a country where differing views is possible. here is my own view; Please take your computer and throw it in the trash and sit down and shut your pie hole you fascist, hate spewing, homophobic, rascist, ethnocentric pri&*

SpotWeld

They lie. They don't actually believe in any of their "principles." It's only about tribalism and power.

Jayackroyd> Sounds about right. I would also note that, that is not an attitude that any party is particularly immune to, but the GOP seems to have mastered the act of telling people the right way to "think independently". Take Rustydog for example; he acts as if he is fighting “against the herd”, when all he is doing is just repeating the exact talking points that the upper levels of his party have passed down.

I fully expect that a Dem president's 1st year will be full of criticism from their own party (perhaps justified, perhaps not), but it'll be a stark contrast to the lockstep agreement that W's Presidency saw.

RustyDog is a perfect example of their mindless, racist tribalism.

if only it were trivialism jay...

Let's not absolve ourselves of mindless, counter-productive tribalism whilst issuing condemnations...

No kidding Stuart. See the thread directly below for examples.

That's all they have Stuart. We have lotsa other stuff.

And I should add that many of us are embarrassed and disturbed by it showing up. The fact you point it out is an indication that it is not an SOP.

We have lotsa other stuff.

In theory, Jay, in theory.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Let's see some hardcore results instead of symbolism--New Deal kind of results--and I'll cheer wildly for our side.

Until then, I think that there's a lot of beam-removing in order for the Democratic party, liberals and the now-nearly-irrelevant netroots.

The fact you point it out is an indication that it is not an SOP.

Pointing it out means that it used to not be SOP (like netroots-endorsed Democrats not showing up on Fox News Channel).

I don't think it's semantics to point out that Senator Obama was not on Fox News Channel he was on their broadcast network.
Still gettiug withing 100 feet of that putz Wallace is foolish.

I'm not sure how to break this to you stuart.

You yourself are a card carrying member of the netroots...

What you're talking about is not tribalism, but betrayal. Yes, it is true that I do not expect Obama (or Clinton) to be the president I would like to have. But it is also true that they have won votes. Dodd's agenda was not the winning agenda.

The relevance of the netroots is not at the presidentials. Pachacutec posted a very weird thing at FDL, some time ago, about holding the president accountable. You can't hold the president accountable.

But we can change the composition of the House and Senate. As Markos has said, repeatedly, this is not a short term project. More BETTER Democrats is the program.

that was for stuart. Sorry. I started typing then got all distracted with the frickin' email.

In addition to jayackroyd's point about the House and Senate, there's also state-level races. Brian Schweitzer leaps to mind. It's true, the netroots can't just name a guy and therefore make him the nominee. But hell, neither can AFSCME or United Steelworkers or United Mine Workers. That doesn't mean that unions are "nearly irrelevant."

Schweitzer would be an interesting VP choice.

And it only takes a few Donna Edwardses to put the fear of primary into these people.

And still more, while Obama can treat the netroots the way the party has treated their black voters--taking them for granted, his fundraising model is advancing our cause of more citizen, less corporate influence.

Clinton loaned her campaign another $6 million.

Maybe we're imputing too much to Rusty. I think he's just run out of Summer's Eve, and he's feeling a little irritable.

Also, by saying the nun was perfectly right in following along with a bad law - even if ratified and vetted by all sorts of elected or appointed folk, Plessy vs. Ferguson and "separate but equal," anyone? - you invalidate the efforts and accomplishments of people like, again, Rosa Parks. The original patriots - Patrick Henry and the like - should've just abided by King George's rules, as they were properly established for their time? Ol' Georgy-boy would've changed his mind, sooner or later, you think?

Yes, certainly take steps to have bad laws repealed through custom legal channels. But we should also never forget that it's our _right_ to protest against onerous laws. If that means civil disobedience, I don't have a problem with that. Even T. Jefferson advocated revolt at least once every 20 years, to keep the government honest.

A good VP would be John Edwards IMO. He will get enough of the Clinton supporters and the best health care plan may be adopted but who knows.

jayackroyd, your ability to keep your eyes on the big picture, and not get caught up in the squabbling over the presidential nominee, is to be admired.

It's disturbing at how quickly we Democrats have been able to fall into partisan, my-side-is-truth thinking-- with each other as the Enemy. Obviously supporting one side in a primary isn't anywhere near supporting senseless and eternal occupations of foreign countries. But the defensive style of argumentation defintely left something to be desired. This primary showed that that partisan evil lurks in all of us.

Except jayackroyd.

Honeychile... For the Scalito set, disenfranchising the poor and elderly was EXACTLY the result they were going for. After all, there have been exactly zero cases of large-scale voter fraud that have been successfully prosecuted, so this was a law designed to fix a nonexistent problem in the first place. It's a fictitious issue ginned up by the flailing GOP (who can't win legitimately anymore... if they ever really could). When it comes to this Supreme decision, lowering the number of poor people and the elderly at the polls is not a "bug," it's a "feature" (as so many have noted before).

Elvis....I think thats why we like the Dem party. We are never afraid to voice our opinion or criticism which prevents Bush-isms, if you will.

Btw, if anybody can point me to a gleaming example of large-scale (or even small-scale) voter fraud that has been caught and prosecuted in the U.S. in the last 20 years (aside from the GOP shenanigans in Florida in 2000), please post citations. I'm just not seeing it after many (many) Google searches, that's all... wonder why not.

jayackroyd, your ability to keep your eyes on the big picture, and not get caught up in the squabbling over the presidential nominee, is to be admired.

I second Elvis -- reading Jay's posts this morning put me in a less fretful frame of mind. Also a grape_crush comment yesterday reminding us this was simply a family squabble and when it's over we will all be together. I really believe that.

I found this entry by Will Bunch (sorry my hiding link directions are on my other computer) very interesting with regard to the percentages of votes McCain received. That also helped to bouy my spirits.

Consider this: Indiana is a crossover state, and polling suggests that roughly one-in-10 of the 1.2 million voters in the Democratic primary was actually a Republican -- or 120,000 people. If that's correct, then in rough numbers a total of 530,000 Republican Hoosiers voted yesterday -- 320,000 who backed their party's candidate, John McCain, and 210,000 who voted for someone else. How many of those 210,000 will back McCain in six months?

More numbers at the link, including some Mittmentum.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Feel_the_Mittmentum_in_Indiana.html

thanks for the kind words, but my view is pretty widely held. When I had McJoan by at Virtually Speaking, the weekly interview thing I do, she said the same thing. We talked about FISA and the Mountain west senate campaigns.

It would be different, I expect, if one of the candidates were a strong progressive. Or a people powered candidate. The embrace of Obama seems to be tied to his people-poweredness--and the general netroots dislike for Clinton.

She was good at YKos though. No fear of the dirty effin' hippies. She's tough, and has a great sense of humor.

Thanks for your commentary, jayackroyd.

It's great to read reasonable arguments like yours, even if I have come to some different conclusions.

I believe one of the SCOTUS arguments was that it didn't impose an undue burden on people and did not impose a potentially racist issue.

The nuns have made a comment that is hard to rebut and they didn't have to say a word.

"I don't think anyone expected this."

It's all right, Karen. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

(Sorry, had to be said).

KT here--

Ha! Will soon be posting an update: ACORN informs me they are now "reaching out" to nuns in Missouri. Am waiting for more details.

Seriously, you really don't think anyone expected this? Maybe not nuns specifically, but people arguing against this law were saying all along that the very old were one of the sub-groups who were going to be hard hit by this unconstitutional republican scheme.

The very old, the very young, minorities, and the poor are the groups most likely to be disenfranchised by this voter id law. And here we have the proof.

If they didn't expect it --they should have. Welcome to America, soon to be poor, unless its gives up its self-indulgent and lazy ways of thinling.

The fact that this didn't occur to the Supreme Court is pathetic.