This from Alan Colmes in it's entirety.....
Republican New Hampshire House Speaker William O’Brien is part of a nationwide effort to deny voting rights to students, the disabled, and the elderly. In O’Brien’s case, it’s because
He said that Plymouth, a college town, experiences 900 same-day voter registrations.
“They are kids voting liberal, voting their feelings, with no life experience,” he said.
So, “life experience” must mean you’re a conservative. Right,
NORTH
CAROLINA: Republican legislators have introduced a photo ID bill that
the Institute for Southern Studies estimates will cost taxpayers more
than $20 million…the legislation’s target is phantom “voter fraud” —
even though in 2008 authorities reported only 40 voting irregularities
out of 4.3 million votes cast.
SOUTH
CAROLINA: Despite dying in the state senate last year, a bill requiring
voters to present a photo ID has passed both legislative houses in
contentious party-line votes. The two houses will now have to resolve
their two different versions. One local NAACP official called the
legislation “Jim Crow Jr.”
TEXAS:
Despite facing a $10-11 billion budget shortfall, Gov. Rick Perry
prioritized a voter ID bill as an “emergency item” last month — forcing
the Texas legislature to act on the bill before dealing with the state’s
budget crisis. Since then the Senate has passed a voter ID law that
would be the most restrictive in the nation…
KANSAS:
Monday the State Senate approved legislation, originally proposed by
Secretary of State Kris Kobach, that would require proof of citizenship
upon registering to vote…
TENNESSEE
Two weeks a go, the State Senate passed a bill requiring voters to
present a driver’s license before voting. The bill would create a
significant burden to voting for the state’s more than 500,000 adults
without a driver’s license.
Funny that with states crying poverty
and the need for budget cuts that they are promoting voter ID plans that
would cost millions of dollars.OKAY, I know some will boo hoo this post, they will say this is liberal hysterics. But no, it is about conservatives realizing they can not win elections fair and square, there is just not enough Americans who vote republican, so they MUST suppress the vote! They do it every fuckin' time! This NH House Speaker is saying what he truly believes, young voters vote Democrat in hoards, and for 2012 this will destroy the GOP's plans to take the White House back from the evil liberals.
From a Yahoo news article..
Targeting students is nothing new: The "arguments against student voting" have been around for decades, says Susan Milligan in U.S. News & World Report. And they're still bunk. If students spend at least three-quarters of the year living, often working, and even paying taxes in their college town, they deserve the right to vote there. And that "lack of life experience" complaint? Funny you don't hear it when the GOP wants to send 18-year-olds off to war.
"New Hampshire Republicans wrong to attack college student voting"
Who's next... older voters? The GOP is right that "college students tend to be liberal and not think about consequences," says Alexandra Petri in The Washington Post. But so what? That's better than conservative elderly voters, who have "no incentive to make any sacrifices or enact any reforms, well, ever." So "where are the campaigns that scream, 'Don't let old people vote! They're conservative!'"
"Before limiting college students' voting rights, stop old people!"
27 comments:
This is, of course, why Republicans want to bust unions. To supress liberal voters.
The same reason they do not want to renew the voting rights act of the 1960's.
Republicans know, the greater the vote turnout, the greater the number of votes for Democratic candidates.
Republican ideology cannot win the majority, so cut the number of voters and their margin to win increases.
A little help from the Supreme Court helps them also.
One can make the argument that 18 year to 20 year old voters lack the maturity {not intelligence} to make voting decisions given their lack of life experiences. This is certainly a valid observation in some albeit not all cases.
Additionally it can be argued that there are 25, 30, 35... year old voters that may lack the maturity to make voting decision based on reason, rather than emotion. Nonetheless it is what it is.
I personally believe {at this stage in my life} the voting age ought to be 21. Although in my youthful immature days I thought 18 was the right age.
Having said this I for one am not particularly concerned over the youth vote. In fact the likely hood they will vote like their parents is probably lust as good as they will vote like their college profs. tell them to vote.
Additionally their are conservative youth organizations on campuses working for the conservative cause. And my son who works in education tell me there are still conservative profs, although fewer than liberal ones.
I am an independent conservative, and I for one {there are many more like me} am not at all concerned. The youth vote of 2012 is unlikely to end up screwing the results up any worse than the youth group of any past election cycle.
Society has been bemoaning the the youth and their ways since Socrates time. Yet we are still here, we continue to pretty much repeat the mistakes of the past because we ignore history. And at the end of the day life will continue.
You are right Sue, at least to me this is a bit of pandering to the liberal cause. Because I believe the republicans that support this are overstating the problem (issue), and 2) I don't care. It is a non starter.
JMHO.
If it were up to the Rushpubliscums, Lisa, they'd let 10 year olds be married off.
"Old enough to pee, old enough for me" is the Rushpubliscum fundie motto.
Perhaps the comments of Lisa and Jolly Roger point up the problem.
Both ridiculous statements that most would agree serve no valid purpose.
Other than to intentionally inflame the "other side."
Bullseye, RN.
RN said,
"Both ridiculous statements that most would agree serve no valid purpose.
Other than to intentionally inflame the "other side"
RN should know, he's a pro at inflaming people with ridiculous statements.
you're right Tom. The GOP needs all the outside help it can get. The country is left of center but they refuse to admit it, it just makes them more extreme. It isn't secret anymore how they suppress the vote, they do it all out in broad daylight.
RN, you fear college professors influence over their students? I fear evangelical preachers influence over the masses! This goes on in ALMOST every church in our country, the preacher talks politics and tells his congregation in a roundabout way to do "the right thing"! They bus them hypnotized old geezers to the polls to make sure they are doing their duty under the watchful eye of God.
JR ya know I have to delete lisa, but your comment made me laugh out loud! Thanks for the morning chuckle!
Sue - You misread my comments.
I did not say I fear college professors influence over their students. Please read again.
There is to much influence being exerted by SOME professors on their students as to what to think rather than just teaching them how to think for themselves.
As to what goes on in every church in America. Well, I am glad you know. Since I don't attend church nor watch services on TV I actually can not comment. Although I suspect my father, who is 78, attends church for spiritual reasons, might take umbrage with your generalization as he is damn independent and would likely tell the reverend where to get off if he even tried to influence his political decisions.
Come to think of it my grandparents would have as well.
RN said: "One can make the argument that 18 year to 20 year old voters lack the maturity {not intelligence} to make voting decisions given their lack of life experiences. This is certainly a valid observation in some albeit not all cases."
Whether you have a threshold of life experience will not be influenced by the mere difference between being 18 and 21, and ultimately that assertion assumes that people over 21 vote out of some deep philosophical consideration anyway, when a great many plainly do not.
The minimum age for enlistment in the United States military is 17 with parental consent and 18 without it. Is the assertion here that an 18 year old has the maturity to choose a career that carries the risk of being blown to bits or maimed for life in the service of their country, but has not the maturity to have a political opinion of any value or a say in how the country is run?
On the other end, should people who are old, disconnected from contemporary life, possibly senile, be similarly deemed unsuitable for voting?
If we say "of course not", then clarity of voting decision per se is revealed as an irrelevance.
The right to vote is not a qualification, it is acknowledgment that you, the citizen, have a right to be heard... because even if you're dumb as dogshit or never been further afield than the local Walmart, you're still a human being and what matters to you is not intrinsically less important than what matters to me.
fine RN, fear was a little extreme, lets just say you think profs. have influence over the students. Much like preachers have over their congregations. I do not attend church in a building either but I have many friends who do, I always ask them(usually during an election yr) if politics is discussed in their church and they say yes, their pastor/preacher always recommends they follow their heart(and vote republican)
But no, it is about conservatives realizing they can not win elections fair and square, there is just not enough Americans who vote republican, so they MUST suppress the vote!
Well, they have good reason to think that, don't they? They only won in 2010 because voter turn-out fell (38.2% in 2010 vs. 62.2% in 2008). The only way they can hope to win again is if it stays low.
There have always been arguments for disenfranchising this or that group, but the specific arguments were always just a smoke-screen to justify excluding people likely to vote the "wrong" way. Remember the literacy tests back in the Jim Crow days? A person could make logical-sounding arguments for why people who can't read well are less qualified to vote, but that was never the real point -- the real point was to create a pretext for excluding blacks. This is no different.
yes Magpie, Americas young are treated like plastic GI Joe, we let them go to battle, but don't trust them to vote with maturity? America, the greatest nation on earth...
The young voters put Obama in the White House, conservatives FEAR them.
Infidel you remind us of a dark time in our history, I hope we aren't going back there. But when conservatives feel threatened and cornered they will do anything to win.
magpie - Points well stated.
As I ended my comments earlier,
"Because I believe the republicans that support this are overstating the problem (issue), and 2) I don't care. It is a non starter."
What about the bill that passed in MI where the Republican governor can declare a state of fisal emergency in any town or school district with nothing but his word, get rid of the elected officials and put an individual or company in charge wihout the voters having any say. It passed! We don't need no stinking voters.
http://michiganmessenger.com/47158/emergency-financial-manager-bill-on-the-verge-of-passage
As little as my faith may be in youth, they are not likely to be as ignorant as the large percentage of Republican voters who believe Obama is a Muslim Marxist.
Voter suppression is a favorite tool of the Right in their war on democracy.
Make no mistake, opposition to democracy is the Right's strategy.
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”– Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich
I have to agree... it is about voter suppression. Simple. And, now get this.... they are trying a similar thing in Wisconsin.... and they have not documented any abuses in the current system. None. But the new rules would severely hinder voting by students, newer residents (with all voter residency requirements satisfied) and those who currently do not have drivers licenses (mostly minorities)
So if this is the party of less government, fiscal conservatism... why are they trying to fix something that is not broke... that would entail un-needed cost?
The GOP never misses a dirty trick do they? Talk about desperation. President Obama is getting stronger in the polls and the GOP doesn't even have a clear front-runner who can challenge him. I would speculate on some other ways the Republicans might try to supress the liberal vote, but I don't want to give them any ideas.
wow ligtstar, thanks for the link!
hey guys! Yup it's so true, this voter suppression. And yet the right claimed falsely that ACORN was involved in voter fraud. Maybe we could put the whole wingnut party up in front of Congress and get rid of them! Never underestimate the capabilities of the rethuglican party.
Yes Sue, put the whole right wing republican party up in front of congress and get rid of them.
Great idea, For those who actually want one party rule I suppose.
We have rule by two corporatist parties owned by Big Money, leading us in the same direction, albeit at different speeds. They own the moderate right party and the radical right party. Now if only we had a progressive party for a little balance...
Imagine if we had a party against the Patriot Act, corporate personhood, and "free speech" defined by wealth. Too bad America is averse to democracy. We will all pay the price for it. By 'all" I mean everybody except the top one percent. They will continue to pay lower tax rates and buy more politicians.
Dave - you said...
"We have rule by two corporatist parties owned by Big Money, leading us in the same direction, albeit at different speeds."
Money greases the machine and both parties {dems and repubs) like their grease. On that we can agree.
Imagine just one party to grease. A few locales come to mind.
I like what Magpie had to say regarding age and agree. Also along those lines is that an 18-20 yr old in the Military cannot legally drink. It used to be you could drink under the age of 21 as long as you met the requirements for age of the host country, thats no longer true.
So all men and women in uniform 20 and younger can die for their country but they can't even have a beer.
Les,
As we see, more than a few states come to mind...
Where will all the "grease" come from after unions are destroyed and workers' rights crushed and the middle class disappears?
It will come from where MOST of it already does, won't it?
They are killing democracy and leading us to totalitarianism.
Post a Comment