Getty Images
Tom Edsall, whose work I've enjoyed for years, made an unfortunate mistake this morning. In a New York Times piece on President Obama's re-election strategy, Edsall makes the case that both sides are trying to "suppress" the 2012 vote -- Democrats are doing it by discouraging likely GOP voters, and Republicans are doing it through voter-ID laws.
Ed Kilgore did a nice job highlighting the deeply flawed false equivalency.
Even if you buy Edsall's assumption that the Obama campaign's anti-Romney ads are designed to convince non-college educated white voters who won't support the incumbent to give Romney a pass as well, it is fundamentally wrong to treat such efforts as equivalent to utilizing the power of government to bar voters from the polls altogether.
Voters hypothetically convinced by the Obama ads to "stay home" in the presidential contest are perfectly free to skip that ballot line and vote their preferences for other offices, just as they are perfectly free to ignore both presidential campaigns' attack ads and make a "hard choice" between two candidates they aren't crazy about. Lumping negative ads together with voter disenfranchisement under the rubric of "vote suppression" legitimizes the latter as a campaign tactic rather than what it actually is: an assault on the exercise of fundamental democratic rights.
Quite right. The Republican tactics of the last year and a half have been the most outrageous assault of voting rights since Jim Crow. It is a systematic effort to rig the election by targeting likely Democratic constituencies and putting new hurdles between them and their democracy. The "war on voting" label is admittedly a trite cliche, but it's also a real phenomenon.
On the other side, we see Democrats ... running attack ads? One party is engaged in voter suppression through legal disenfranchisement, while the other party is carefully shaping its message to maximize the electoral impact?
There is simply no comparison between the two. One is actual voter suppression; the other is a political campaign.
Leave a Comment:
I really hope everybody goes to that article and comments to the author just how ridiculous his analogy was. Seriously, there is just absolutely no excuse for this kind of shhit.
For convenience:
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/the-politics-of-anything-goes/?smid=tw-share
If they were equivalent, then Romney campaign ads would be sufficient and voter purges/suppression would be even less necessary.
You need a photo ID to live your life.
Next in 1941 congress passed a law and FDR signed it, that requires all US citizens age 18 and over to have a state or federal identification card.
So no need to show ID to vote, so no need to show ID when buying booze and smokes.
Cashing checks.
Driving a car.
Can't even exchange a cable TV box without a photo ID.
Exactly!!! Because driving a car, cashing a check, exchanging a cable TV box, etc. are rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Not necessarily.
And all of those actions you describe have nothing to do with the right to vote.
I'll explain what ho-lee-cow was saying since you libs must only have a 3rd grade comprehension level. The only people that can function is the US with out a form of ID are drug dealers and whores ( because the deal only in cash). Even-though none of those actions describe above have anything to do with the right to vote, they are all indicators that you need an ID to live in the US.
Now this might be the hard part for you libs to grasp. The same ID, that you used to do all of the above named action, can also be used to vote. The only people that will have their vote suppressed are those that shouldn't be voting. IE dead people illegals, so forth.
Except that's not true. I don't drink, so no ID needed there. I don't use plastic, due to issues in the past with fees and overdrafts. I even got away with several years of no driver's licence by simply driving carefully and maintaining my car. I was born in Washington DC, so I'm a citizen, and I'm not a drug dealer or a whore. So, you're full of @!$%#, as usual.
chimp,
That's like saying all conservatards like yourself are all inbred hillbilly trolls. Sweeping idiotic generalizations just don't work.
There are millions of people who do not have government ID's who are living in the US. So, once again, your breathtakingly idiotic and uninformed statement not only makes no sense, but is factually incorrect.
Since you are so smart, why don't you find the part in the Constitution that requires everyone to have a government issued ID to vote.
It cost money to get a copy of your birth certificate. Many elderly people will have great difficulty in even getting their birth certificates, and will face an even greater expenses in trying to get a copy of their birth certificates.
It cost money to get a government ID.
There are many who cannot afford this, cannot afford to take a day off work to stand in line to get an ID, and there are many people who cannot stand in line at all, or have means to get to the DMV. And not all of those people are "whores and drug dealers."
Requiring a government ID is a poll tax, and disenfranchises not only the poor, and the elderly as well.
As you can see(and I do hope that I have explained this to someone as mentally challenged as you are) your ignorance and sweeping generalizations have been shown to be idiotic and false as well.
And driving a car = living life. All those people without ID must therefore be dead!
chemnothardlyamd,
HOW DARE you call my 90 year old mother a drug dealer or a whore!!! She was born at home and doesn't have a birth certificate. She never drove. She worked all her life in a small town and is still as sharp as a tack! She has her social security card which she didn't need an ID to get back in the day. She has no ID and doesn't see the need to get one now. She is OBVIOUSLY smarter than YOU and she VOTES!!
@ho-lee-cow
I think everyone should have a Photo ID, so that they can have the security of knowing that their citizenship will not be questioned and so they can obtain as many of the services, benefits and - yes responsibilities - that go with being a citizen.
We currently have a BROKEN SYSTEM, where too many CITIZENS fall through the cracks, are marginalized and are vulnerable to having their citizenship questioned with no way to prove otherwise. This does not make them any less CITIZENS.
What needs to happen FIRST!!!!! is to fix the system and ONLY THEN!!! require the Photo IDs for voting.
-----------------------
You stated the following:
The only thing I could find that you might be referring to is the Smith Act (Alien Registration Act) 1940.
From Wikipedia (take with grain of salt as always, but appears to be backed up by following links to actual text of the Act):
From Hines v. Davidowitz page:
If you have other information that backs up your statement, please provide. At the moment I think you are just flat out wrong.
You are correct when you list the things that you typically need a photo ID to do.
You also listed a number of other things - like open bank accounts and, as I understand it, test government assistance which you might otherwise qualify for.
HOWEVER - the fact is that many people do not have Photo IDs and do not need them to live their lives!!
It's the difference between changing how someone chooses to use their franchise by changing their mind and changing whether they can use their franchise at all based on monetary issues. One denies the franchise to the poor and unfortunate, the other does not, and even a Republican can tell the difference.
Beautifully written, grumpy.
Thanks. I wish it didn't have to be on such a lame, Jim-Crow-imitating, GOP-can't-win-without-cheating subject, but such is life.
So how do we keep illegals & non-citizens from voting?
Let's take a cue from the NRA: The NRA solution to gun violence, a problem which actually is real, is to make sure *everyone* has at least one gun at all times. Implying that more guns equals less gun violence. Owning & using guns is a God-given right (according to the NRA).
Apply that same tactic to voting: Make sure EVERYONE votes. If you're near a voting booth and can prove you're alive, you get to vote. As many times as you like. Bring the whole family and friends.
Can dead people still own guns? If yes, then all dead people get to vote too.
Voting is a God-given right. ANYTHING and ANYONE that would possibly interfere with that right is un-American and needs to be killed immediately (see NRA note above).
Voting is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Driving a car is a privilege. Voting is a right. Having a checking account is a privilege. Voting is a right. "Voter fraud" is an imaginary problem; the "solution" of requiring an ID to vote disenfranchises some eligible voters, and hence infringes on their Constitutional rights. Conveniently (for modern Republicans), voter ID laws disproportionately affect poor and minority voters.
See http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/the_challenge_of_obtaining_voter_identification/
(Note especially the "fifth Wednesday of any month" part.)
From now on I will approach Edsall's work with extreme caution and skepticism, if I approach it at all.
The Texas map is stunning. If a county is non-hispanic majority it has a crapload of DMVs. If it's majority hispanic, there are either none or the one is open fewer than 8 hours a week. In West Texas there's a span of counties larger than Vermont and New Hampshire combined that has no DMV.
Good old ancient politics, alive and well. .. .
As long as you don't trivialize voter depression! (/snark)
Voting is not necessarily a guarantee this year and maybe for years to come!!! The republicans part of the goverment has gone crazy this year with all their new voter ID laws and laws in some states so that you can not help people get ID's and get registered to vote(Fla). And all the laws against women. How can you fight the law and all the millions of dollars funding all these people(gop). I will fight them if I can find a way!!!! Any suggestions?