Someone Finally Comes out and Says It

[paft.livejournal.com]

Pennsylvania Republican House leader Mike Turzai:

Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.

It was bound to happen sooner or later. The right wing has been edging closer and closer to the overt rejection of our open political system. Now at last one of them has come out and said it. To applause.

Voter ID is not about eliminating fraud. It’s about preventing Democratic voters from voting.

How else can his comments be interpreted?

Crossposted from Thought Crimes

*

Comments

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

He's not implying what you think he's implying. He's saying that without voter ID laws, Democrats would rig the election by using unregistered voters. It's outrageous, but not for the reasons you think.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Yep. As far as he's concerned, Democratic voters=fraudulent voters.

All those minorities, dontchaknow.

You are aware, right, that actual voter fraud is extremely rare?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This is the GOP that brought the USA Rick Santorum? Well, no surprise here. It's just like Bobby Jindal shoving a particular part of his reforms of Elderly service down the throat of the people of Louisiana after they said "Aw Hell Naw." The state sections of the GOP can often be much worse than the unpleasant national movement. Unfortunately.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

He's acknowledging that Philadelphia is a rigged town where voter fraud is common place but never pursued because Democrats benefit from it.

As we've seen in regards to immigration,Fast and Furious, and near any issue, Democrats don't care about the law.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Oh c'mon, this is as bad as paft's demonization of Republicans. Shall we trot out Iran-Contra, or Guantanamo, or the torture memos to demonstrate that Republicans also don't seem to care about the law?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And as we've seen from GWB the GOP doesn't give a damn about American terrorists killing Americans, only foreign terrorists killing Americans, when they stand to loot other countries in the process.

here, this fell out of your butthole.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Philadelphia is a rigged town where voter fraud is common place but never pursued because Democrats benefit from it.

I'll need an unbiased source that proves that assertion, if you don't mind.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Got any evidence that voter fraud is endemic in Philadelphia?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Philadelphia is a rigged town where voter fraud is common place

[citation needed]

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Why does it seem that everyone (on both sides) thinks that only democrats are too poor, too infirm, too old, too ignorant, or too dark, to be able to get a voter ID?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

It couldn't possibly be prohibitively expensive to provide free photo id's to people who don't have one.
It is my contention, at this point, that it is completely sensible to require photo id's but democrats are against it because

a) they can act like protectors of minorities, and
b) cast republicans as racists every time the issue comes up.

Why would they want to give that up?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

This is just your assumption that Democrats have a sinister plan and aren't doing it because they don't believe in disenfranchising people.

You have to remember that immigrants from central america are actually often fairly conservative and religious. If republicans weren't actively engaged in discriminating against them, they would probably vote conservative. Once democrats drag republicans kicking and screaming in to the modern era yet again for republicans to claim it was their idea all along, its highly likely these immigrants will be voting conservative.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Given that the GOP happens to represent the wealthier section of the country, and the older portion that happens to be the filthy stinking rich part, perhaps that has something to do with it?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

why does it seem that when the GOP is in charge of voter rolls, the vast majority of the ones who are stripped off those rolls are democrats, frequently those who are poor, inform, old, uneducated or minority?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Because the demographics of voting indicate that this kind of voter suppression tends to impact Democratic voters more than Republican. Which is why the GOP keeps doing it.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

What if I'm poor, infirm, old, ignorant, AND dark?

[acethepug.livejournal.com]

“How else can his comments be interpreted?”

Seriously? Are you asking because you want a discussion, or because you want to (again) harp on how the Republicans are evil?

There are definitely other ways to interpret his comments, and I think you know that.

He could be saying that, without the crutch of voter fraud, Mitt Romney would win. He could be (and likely is, for good or ill) very strongly implying that Democrats benefit from voter fraud and cannot win without it. But again, I think you know that, or at least could conceive of the idea.

He could be saying that voter fraud has been rampant (and presumably pro-Democrat, since Turzai is pro-Voter ID and pro-Romney), and that now that Voter ID will be in place, that fraud will disappear.

He could also be saying that he believes that Voter ID will block Democratic voters. I think that's a stretch, but it is POSSIBLE to interpret such a statement that way.

Now, Voter ID has its own major issues (it’s hardly as foolproof as it sounds), but the concept behind it, the idea of doing something to combat voter fraud, should be applauded, not misrepresented and demonized.

It’s also funny that Democrats, those self-proclaimed bastions of personal freedom, those who rail against the tyranny of, say, photo ID for voting, seem to think the idea of photo ID is more than acceptable for their own convention, or for attending fundraisers for the President.

You know, if the Democrats opposed something like a photo ID (if it weren’t free) because it smacked of being a poll tax, they would at least have some ground to stand on. As it is, they come off as massive hypocrites. Oh, it’s bad for voting, but A-OK for the DNC …

Why do you say this:

“Voter ID is not about eliminating fraud. It’s about preventing Democratic voters from voting.”

How, specifically, does it prevent Democratic (and presumably ONLY Democratic) voters from voting? Your video says absolutely nothing about this, and you offer nothing else to provide support for it. Am I just to take your word? Are Democratic voters unable to carry out the same instructions as Republican ones? Are Republican voters automatically granted some kind of advantage with Voter ID?

You also write:

“The right wing has been edging closer and closer to the overt rejection of our open political system.”

I find that jaw-dropping, with President Obama simply deciding that he won’t enforce (or allow others to enforce) certain laws regarding immigration – that he will basically create his own version of the DREAM act, even when it flies in the face of his own words only a year ago. Disregarding the entire idea behind checks and balances ISN’T the overt rejection of our open political system?

At the end of the day, though? It’s all immaterial.

Given what you’ve actually provided in your post, there is nothing to support your interpretation of Turzai’s words any more (or any less) than any other interpretation. It’s a few seconds of him talking, with no explanation of Voter ID at all. There isn’t even a link to any counter to his proposal. Maybe if you had provided the entire speech, and some links explaining what Voter ID is, how it works, the pros and cons, it might have been a valid post. As it stands, it’s devoid of any context at all – unless you automatically assume that, because a Republican is speaking, the idea is evil.

So I’m going to stand behind the idea that his words could be interpreted any number of ways, not just the way you have chosen to interpret them.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

As a rule, context for the OP is like kryptonite to superman.

But hey, this is the internet and even-handed/rational/reasonable discussions don't lend themselves to 100+ comment threads ;-)

[paft.livejournal.com]

atp: He could be saying that, without the crutch of voter fraud, Mitt Romney would win. He could be (and likely is, for good or ill) very strongly implying that Democrats benefit from voter fraud and cannot win without it. But again, I think you know that, or at least could conceive of the idea.

in other words, he's wildly exaggerating the prevalence of voter fraud and nastily implying that it's a specifically Democratic tactic -- thus putting the lie to the common Republican claim that it's all about fighting fraud rather than a partisan attempt to suppress the Democratic vote.

atp: He could be saying that voter fraud has been rampant (and presumably pro-Democrat, since Turzai is pro-Voter ID and pro-Romney), and that now that Voter ID will be in place, that fraud will disappear.

Which, again, puts the lie to Republican claims that voter fraud is a nonpartisan issue.

atp: He could also be saying that he believes that Voter ID will block Democratic voters. I think that's a stretch, but it is POSSIBLE to interpret such a statement that way.

Are you familiar with the GOP's history of voter suppression in the past three decades? They even had to sign a consent decree back in the 80s, they'd gotten so blatant about it. A consent decree, which, of course, they repeatedly violated.

atp: Now, Voter ID has its own major issues (it’s hardly as foolproof as it sounds), but the concept behind it, the idea of doing something to combat voter fraud, should be applauded, not misrepresented and demonized.

In what manner do you feel I've "misrepresented" it?

atp: It’s also funny that Democrats, those self-proclaimed bastions of personal freedom, those who rail against the tyranny of, say, photo ID for voting, seem to think the idea of photo ID is more than acceptable for their own convention, or for attending fundraisers for the President.

Do you honestly not see the difference between attending a convention or fundraiser and casting a ballot?

atp: How, specifically, does it prevent Democratic (and presumably ONLY Democratic) voters from voting?

It doesn't need to prevent "ONLY Democratic voters" from voting. All it has to do is disproportionally impact Democratic voters. The people most likely to have problems with the voter id issue are low income and minority voters, both groups that tend to vote Democratic.

How familiar are you with how voter suppression works?

atp: I find that jaw-dropping, with President Obama simply deciding that he won’t enforce (or allow others to enforce) certain laws regarding immigration – that he will basically create his own version of the DREAM act, even when it flies in the face of his own words only a year ago. Disregarding the entire idea behind checks and balances ISN’T the overt rejection of our open political system?

If invoking an executive order qualifies as an "overt rejection of our open political system," then pretty much every president before Obama has been rejecting that political system -- in GB Bush's case, to a far greater extent.

What context do you imagine would alter the meaning of what this guy is saying?

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

"It’s about preventing Democratic voters from voting."

Exactly. The Republicans don't want dead people, fictional characters, illegal aliens and other non-citizens voting (and voting more than once). Any attempt to prevent Democrats from cheating in elections should be viewed as a War on Democracy.

[paft.livejournal.com]

There is not a shred of evidence that "dead people, fictional characters, illegal aliens and other non-citizens" have been voting in enough numbers to make voter IDs necessary.

And it's interesting that you frame this as an attempt to prevent DEMOCRATS from cheating in elections. Do you have some evidence that voter fraud is a specificially Democratic vice?

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't mind the Republican take on Citizen's United so much if they actually were genuine in their righteous goal of maximized political voice for all.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Really. Imagine a Koch Bros bus tour in Florida picking up African Americans to vote, or offer to pay for their voter ID cards!

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

All the "Your side is worse than mine" -- "no, U!" stuff that's being witnessed, is morbidly fascinating and somewhat amusing.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

It is so interesting that about a decade ago conservatives railed against a national ID system as being a liberal conspiracy to take away privacy rights. Now Republicans want one in the form of voter IDs. Does that mean that Republicans have now become part of the liberal conspiracy, or does it mean that conservatives have admitted they were wrong? Inquiring minds want to know...

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Assuming your mind is really inquiring...

Some did some didn't, I knew liberals that were agin it; me personally? as long as I don't have to tattoo 666 in my forehead I'm ok with it ;)

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Conservatives keep misinterpreting the liberal position.

It's not "We don't want Voter IDs," it's "Make it free and accessible."

Apparently the latter part is a concept too hard to grasp for the GOP.

Also:

Leach said that explanation does “not pass the laugh test.” He noted voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in Pennsylvania and the United States and ended his opening statements with this burn: “If you have to stop people voting to win elections, your ideas suck.”

During debate on the issue in March, Leach noted Americans are more likely to be hit by lightning than misrepresent themselves at the polls.

http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/phillynow/2012/06/26/pa-democrats-ridicule-turzai-gop-over-voter-id-say-%E2%80%98your-ideas-suck%E2%80%99/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=pa-democrats-ridicule-turzai-gop-over-voter-id-say-%25e2%2580%2598your-ideas-suck%25e2%2580%2599

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Perhaps the overall liberal position is as you say, but there are an awful lot of liberals (including some in this very thread) that appear to be against voter ids period.

[737-700.livejournal.com]

Its not that hard to get an ID, poor or not. I am dirt poor and I managed to get an ID. Other countries require some form of ID why is it so bad if the US does as well?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

because in the US it's been historically used to repress minority votes.