« Republican Leadership Results | Main | Breaking: Former Michigan Football Coach Bo Schembechler Dies »

From Moderate to Moonbat

In my Townhall column today I look at what has happened to the Democrats' public face since winning the Congress.

In just one week's time, I have witnessed the transformation of the Congress won by Democrat moderates to the Congress run by Democrat moonbats.

When the Democrats won back control of the House and Senate last week, they did so not in a massive blowout devastating every opponent they faced, but as Hugh Hewitt put it, as a result of "a long series of bitter fights most of which were lost by very thin margins."

The recipe for success consisted of recruiting a slate of moderate to conservative Democrats to run for open and vulnerable seats. In some cases those Democrats actually ran to the right of their Republican opponents. Another element of their strategy was to hide their liberal leaders. In the final days of the campaign the only place speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi could be found was on a Photoshopped milk carton on a few dozen conservative blogs...Within a week of their winning election, Democrats shed their moderate masks.


Comments (46)

"Another element of thei... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

"Another element of their strategy was to hide their liberal leaders."

Where was Dennis Hastert during the mid-term race?

-Still playing journalist, Lorie?

He was being hounded about ... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

He was being hounded about Foley, you idiot!

The Dems' strategy to pose ... (Below threshold)

The Dems' strategy to pose as moderates while keeping the major moonbats Pelosi, Dean, etc. in someone's basement until after the smoke cleared worked perfectly.

That gasping sound you now hear is America realizing they just put a bunch of Godless commies at the helm, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.

So because she pushed for M... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

So because she pushed for Murtha to be House Majority leader and because trusty ol Jack Abramoff says he knows of some crooked democrats that makes the Democrats Moonbats?

Our you all ever interested in discussing issues over name calling?

How about we talk abouit a Republican congress that served hundreds of subpeonas to to the Clinton administration while not serve one, NOT ONE to the current administration and for the first time ever took away the ability of the minority party's right to do so. Something Pelosi claims she will reverse upon becoming speaker.


Lori all I have todo to beat you in this debate is lokk at the action of what our leaders have done.

Over the last 6 years Democrats have forwarded tons of responsible legislation only to be shut down in the republican comittes. And almost every piece of legislation passed by the republicans in the last 6 years has been pork laden and directed at the interest of their donors and against the interest of the people.

You are a clueless shill uninterested in honest discussion and more interested in smearing and name calling.

I think you've got a case of PDS.

Pelosi Derangement Syndrome. And you have it bad....

And the Repugs choose to go... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

And the Repugs choose to go with the more of the same.


Newly elected House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said he opposed efforts to ban privately funded travel for members of Congress and provisions in spending bills that fund lawmakers' pet projects.

Boehner had said that "we need to reduce the number" of spending earmarks, but "I don't know that it's appropriate to eliminate all of them." As for banning privately funded travel, an idea floated by Hastert, Boehner said on "Meet the Press," "I've got my doubts about that."


In late June of 1995 then-GOP Conference Chairman John Boehner handed out "about a half-dozen" checks from the political action committee of tobacco company Brown & Williamson Corp. to fellow Republicans on the floor of the House.

Boehner's chief of staff Barry Jackson stated, "We were trying to help guys who needed to get their June 30th numbers up, their cash-on-hand numbers up. All leadership does this. We have to raise money for people and help them raise money."

Boehner was forced to stop handed out the checks when two freshmen Republicans, "appalled by it," confronted him and voiced their displeasure. Boehner's reaction was one of tempered apology, "I thought, 'Yeah, I can imagine why somebody would be upset. It sure doesn't look good.' It's not an excuse, but the floor is the only place you get to see your colleagues. It was a matter of convenience. You make a mistake, admit it and go on. I just feel bad about it."

Despite high scrutiny on congressional trip-taking, Boehner flew to a golf resort in Boca Raton, Florida in March 2006 for a convention of commodities traders, who have contributed more than $100,000 to his campaigns and are currently lobbying against a proposed tax on futures transactions.

Following the announcement, Boehner contradicted himself several times regarding his previous knowledge of the emails, as well as if and when he contacted House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) regarding the matter.

Typical Lorie Byrd stinkbom... (Below threshold)
John:

Typical Lorie Byrd stinkbomb. Light a bag of flaming poo on the doorstep, ring the bell and run away.

The first sentence isn't even true, and the rest of the article based on this false statement is no better.

You should know (and you should be honest with your readers) that the newly elected congress does not begin until after the new year. The congress currently in session, including it's leadership, are the same old guys that were there two weeks ago.

This kind of misleading blogging gets the base all worked up, and then they have to take extra medication.

The rest of your article is fluff. We get one qoute from some guy we don't know, which has nothing to do with your lead in. Then no facts - not one name, place, or date to back up the entire article.

Light the bag, ring the bell, run away, and laugh...

John

And then there's the charmi... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

And then there's the charming Roy Blunt....


Maybe Lori you should focus on your own parties issues.

Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO)
Roy Blunt is a fifth-term member of Congress, representing the 7th district of Missouri. His ethics issues stem from his misuse of his position for the benefit of his family.

Benefitting Family Members

In 2003, Rep. Blunt divorced his wife of 31 years to marry Philip Morris (now Altria) lobbyist Abigail Perlman. Before it was known publicly that Rep. Blunt and Ms. Perlman were dating - and only hours after Rep. Blunt assumed the role of Majority Whip - he tried to secretly insert a provision into Homeland Security legislation that would have benefitted Philip Morris, at the expense of competitors. Notably, Altria is Rep. Blunt's largest campaign contributor, having donated more than $270,000 to political committees tied to him.

they did so not in a mas... (Below threshold)
Brian:

they did so not in a massive blowout devastating every opponent they faced, but as Hugh Hewitt put it, as a result of "a long series of bitter fights most of which were lost by very thin margins."

All but a handful being larger margins than that with which Bush won.

Bush won by 3.5 million votes. Democrats received 7 million more votes than Republicans. In addition...

In House races, Democrats received about 53 percent of the two-party vote, giving them a margin more than twice as large as the 2.5-percentage-point lead that Mr. Bush claimed as a "mandate" two years ago -- and the margin would have been even bigger if many Democrats hadn't been running unopposed.

Do you even read what you come up with, Lorie? Or are you just blindly copy from others?

Good job Brian. 7 million i... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Good job Brian. 7 million in a midterm no less compared to 3.5 in the biggest turn out ever.

Nice SMACKDOWN!!

When are these guys/gals ever gonna stop blaming everything on the Democrats and start holding their own leaders to account.

Leaders will follow the parade of their constiuents...but when their own constituents ignore and make excuses for all their leaders corruptness then they will carry on.

Bush won by 3.5 million ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Bush won by 3.5 million votes. Democrats received 7 million more votes than Republicans. In addition...

Clinton, Kennedy, and Feinstein alone accounted for the vast majority of that total. Using gerrymandered districts as anything resembling a popular mandate --- ignoring that those three win by multi-million totals in their district no matter what --- is just a desperate attempt to create a mandate where none exists.

Switch just 1,500 votes in Montana and the Dems don't control the Senate.

So, please remind us of this massive mandate they have.

Newly elected House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said he opposed efforts to ban privately funded travel for members of Congress and provisions in spending bills that fund lawmakers' pet projects.

You ARE aware that the GOP isn't going to be in power and their spending desires are utterly immaterial. We now have Robert Byrd in the Senate in charge of money --- and I'm not sure there is much left in West Virginia he hasn't had named after himself --- and such Dem stalwarts as Kucinich, Conyers, and Murtha who aren't exactly known for their fiscal responsibility.

You wanted the authority to make the changes, muir. Don't bitch when people point out that your side is failing, miserably, to do it.

Over the last 6 years Democrats have forwarded tons of responsible legislation only to be shut down in the republican comittes. And almost every piece of legislation passed by the republicans in the last 6 years has been pork laden and directed at the interest of their donors and against the interest of the people.

Feel free to provide links to this "responsible legislation". You are a Dem sychophant to a comical level.
-=Mike

"When the Democrats won bac... (Below threshold)

"When the Democrats won back control of the House and Senate last week, they did so not in a massive blowout."

When Reagan beat Carter in 1980 by 10% people called that a landslide.

The Dems beat the Reps 55% to 42% in the generic Senate vote. They won 72% of the contested Senate seats (24-9). Governorships they control 56% to 44%. State legislatures they control 57% to 41% (remainder still undecided). In terms of state legislatives seats they lead 54% to 45%.

Anyway you cut it, this election was a landslide.

Swap 1,500 in Montana and t... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Swap 1,500 in Montana and the Dems don't control Congress.

Hate to break it to you, but no, it was not a landslide.

The Dems had numerous incredibly safe Senate seats to run the numbers up in.
-=Mike

MikeCNice slapdown... (Below threshold)
Jo:

MikeC

Nice slapdown! I think they're realizing there is no mandate and it hurts. Bad.

Anyone read the NYT Editorial about Ms. Nancy?
OUCH!!

You ARE aware that the GOP ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

You ARE aware that the GOP isn't going to be in power and their spending desires are utterly immaterial.

Posted by: MikeSC


Yes me and the 7 million more people then you realize it! And we're damm glad about it too.

Gee, I always thought this ... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Gee, I always thought this was a conservative site, not a liberal echo chamber!

Wow, you'd think this was a... (Below threshold)

Wow, you'd think this was a Kos thread. 8 out of the thirteen comments I've seen are the lefties. Wassa matter, guys? Too lazy to start your own blog?

Dang, JFNotK. You beat me ... (Below threshold)

Dang, JFNotK. You beat me to it. Honestly, I had to check my address bar to see where I was at.

Oyster/ John F,Wha... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Oyster/ John F,

What too lazy to defend your position? You find us inconvenient? You want us to go away? Are you crying to have us banned? Lames asses. Maybe YOU all should cut and run.

Most conservative sights I've blogged on ban people like me to protect sissies like you. May I suggest, Right Wing News, Sean Hannity, Red State....truly these blogs are full of sissies who only want to hear own their pitiful positions reinforced.

Switch just 1,500 votes ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Switch just 1,500 votes in Montana and the Dems don't control the Senate.

Now that's funny!

Hey, what happens if you switch just a few hundred votes in Florida or Ohio in 2004?

Wassa matter, guys? Too ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Wassa matter, guys? Too lazy to start your own blog?

No, it's just more entertaining to play pinball with the desperate and farcical arguments that you guys seem to come up with here.

Brian,Another good... (Below threshold)
John:

Brian,

Another good one I saw here about two weeks back was that if George W. Bush HAD found weapons of mass distruction in Iraq, then he'd be really popular and all the democrats would be wrong.

Well, yeah... IF.

If magical ponies flew out of my butt, I'd be really popular with the neighbor kids...

Reality gets stretched pretty thin here.

Brian,You don't ev... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Brian,

You don't even have to switch. Just count them and the total comes up for Kerry.

But of course the Supreme Court decided to over-ride the states court and give the election to Bush so it wouldn't cause him "irreparable harm".


If they just counted the votes 9-11 wouldn't have happened, we'd have paid off the debt and we'd be driving in hydrogen cars, everybody would have health insurance and we'd be taking 6 weeks of vacation a year....oh and Bush would be in rehab....course he'll eventually end up there if he doesn't first end it all himself.....I mean with Nancy having him collared and squeezing down slowly it don't look good for him and his cronies.
He'll be wishing they counted the Florida votes so he could've just gone back to his drinking and cocaine.

Total comes up for Gore...b... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Total comes up for Gore...but Kerry probably won as well.

You know, if I was a leftie... (Below threshold)
Jo:

You know, if I was a leftie and not feeling confident about any sort of mandate, I too would be trolling the rightwing sites trying to convince everyone.

That doth protest too much thing, ya know. lol.

That might be so, if we wer... (Below threshold)
Brian:

That might be so, if we were the ones doing the protesting. Ya know?

"NYT Editorial: Speaker Pel... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

"NYT Editorial: Speaker Pelosi Tempts Disaster..."

When the NY Slimes prints this you know someone is in trouble. They're all left wing but they reconize it when the dim's are inviting terrorists in for an attack on the NYT's building.

We don't have PDS, we're laughing at her and you. I haven't heard anyone screaming how much they hate her, yet. We love her, she'll destroy the dim party for us. Hate is reserved for the dim's, we'll just have fun pointing out how stupid all of you are, and when the money starts leaking out of your pocket from voting yourself a massive tax increase, it will be even funnier. I almost busted a gut when I read about KOS collecting money (which will disappear) to sue Diebold in Fl. when it wasn't even Diebold voting machines.

The entire election has became the greatest comedy of the century.

That doth protest too much ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

That doth protest too much thing, ya know. lol.

Posted by: Jo at


Hey I take my country and it's protection from scum like the current admin and its complicit congress serious. Our country will not be destroyed from outsider but from insiders like these. When I see such mismanagement of my countries affairs all for personal gain and at the expense of our soldiers I get real irate.

You all ,apparently 33% of the country, want to back these scum bags and make excuses for them.

You're darn right I want to come to conservative blogs to try to figure out just WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE THINKING AND BASED ON WHAT RATIONALE. Unfortunately the answers seems to be "your not" and "none" cus I see liberals all over the media on the blogs and in DC smashing the crap out of the republicans, their illogic and their farcical dead end ideas.

We've seen what 6 years of Republican control does...it sets you back 20. Why can't you fools learn from history?

Why do you want to repeat the 1930's and not the 1960's?

"You ARE aware that the GOP... (Below threshold)
John S:

"You ARE aware that the GOP isn't going to be in power and their spending desires are utterly immaterial."

You obviously don't have a clue how Congress works. Let's look at the numbers: Democrats hold about 230 House seats. Of those 44 are conservative Blue Dog (Reagan) Democrats. They are claiming the mandate for this election. There are also 66 "New" (Bill Clinton) Democrats. They also say this election was a mandate for moderate rule. So that's 110 votes that certainly won't follow Nancy off the moonbat cliff, which they amply demonstrated this week when they rejected Murtha.

As far as "spending desires," the Bush Administration still submits the budget and if Bush works with the 110 Blue Dogs and New Democrats, the Republicans could easily pass it.

As for the Democrat's "Progressive Caucus," they number about 70, and they claim a moonbat mandate for themselves, but the numbers clearly show that's wrong. The left is the new face of Congress, but they certainly don't control it.

Slightly off topic I know, ... (Below threshold)

Slightly off topic I know, but last week when I suggested that although the Dems won the election the Repubs still hacked votes using the Diebold machines, I was called a moon bat.

In other words if the Diebold machines would have counted the votes properly the Dem's margin of victory would have been even larger. It seems that the Repubs miscalculated the margins needed to squeak out a win and did not program the memory cards correctly to steal the right percentages.

Remember, Diebold is a privatively owned company with many political and financial ties to the GOP and still will not release its source codes to any governmental bodies.

I have a couple of questions for the conservatives on this sight.

Check out the link and tell me if you can find any factual errors in the report. I'm serious, I would like to know what you guys think about this issue. I'm not interested in name calling, I just want to see if this is a legitimate concern of conservatives. Would you think differently about the article if it were the Dems who were hacking the vote? I'm also well aware of past transgressions in vote manipulation by the Dems (JFK comes to mind) and the tactics they still use today, I just want to know what you think of this vote hacking issue.

Another couple of things I'm curious about. Would you and your political party support legislation requiring a paper trail for all elections even if it meant less victories at the ballot box? Should vote manipulation crimes be elevated to a crime of treason?

I'll check back in a few hours to see if anyone has some views on this.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rob_kall_061117_clear_evidence_2006_.htm

[email protected],I'm Progres... (Below threshold)
John:

[email protected],

I'm Progressive, but to answer your question;

It is never in the interest of democracy to corrupt the voting process. I'd rather lose a fair fight than rig on in my favor just to win.

I DO believe that certain types of vote rigging should be elevated to a crime of treason.

John

Hey, what happens if you... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Hey, what happens if you switch just a few hundred votes in Florida or Ohio in 2004?

Nobody claimed Bush had a big mandate in 2000.

As for 2004, swap 1500 votes and Bush keeps OH.

Swap 1500 votes and Bush picks up PA.

Funny how that works.

If they just counted the votes 9-11 wouldn't have happened

Yes. The plan years in the making would have been foiled if only Gore was in office.

Using that logic, the first WTC attack would not have occurred had Clinton not been elected.

we'd have paid off the debt and we'd be driving in hydrogen cars, everybody would have health insurance and we'd be taking 6 weeks of vacation a year

Out of curiosity, what color is the sky in the alternate universe in which you reside?

As far as "spending desires," the Bush Administration still submits the budget and if Bush works with the 110 Blue Dogs and New Democrats, the Republicans could easily pass it.

The Dems have the power.

No dime gets spent without their permission.

Hey, you wanted the power. Responsibility comes with it. You can't blame Bush for the spending since YOUR party has to do it. Bush cannot actually spend a dime.

And, Live, the networks tossed out their exit polling because all said the polls were completely wrong. Why is it REALLY that hard to fathom? It's bizarre that your side skews polls and then are stunned --- STUNNED, I tell you --- that the results they tried to rig aren't reality.

Unless they can prove that the exit polls were accurate --- which they cannot as the networks refused to say there were accurate --- they are basing ASSUMPTIONS on incorrect data.

Which makes the assumptions useless.

Some ACTUAL evidence of tampering would be nice. This paper is the usual mind-numbed gibberish from the "Diebold is der evil" crowd.
-=Mike

We've seen what 6 years... (Below threshold)
Marc:

We've seen what 6 years of Republican control does...it sets you back 20. Why can't you fools learn from history?

Why do you want to repeat the 1930's and not the 1960's?
Posted by: muirgeo at November 17, 2006 06:12 PM

Repeat the 30's? Hmmm didn't know we were in a re-do of the Great Depression!

Repeat the sixties? No, sorry it's the dimmest of the [Dim]ocrats that want to do that in Iraq by pulling out.

1986 saw an unemployment rate of 7%, what is it now muirgeo?

The Song and Record of the Year was "We Are the World." but I'm sure with your acute case of BDS you firmly believe it was written by Bush and not Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie

MikeSC -If someone... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

MikeSC -

If someone were to grab me after voting and ask who I voted for, I'd either tell them to mind their own business or I'd lie through my teeth and tell them the candidate I'd least likely vote for.

But what the hell. I voted for Sharpton in the 2004 primaries. The poor bastard was either too stupid to realize he didn't have a chance in hell, or cunning enough to get on the gravy train and ride it as far as he could. Kucinich would have been a close second there - anyone who has to run for President to get a date almost deserves a few sympathy votes.

So who DID I vote for?

Heh. MYOB.

MikeSC,You are corre... (Below threshold)

MikeSC,
You are correct in that an exit poll will never be 100% accurate. However when elections are held fairly they are within 1 or 2 percentage points plus or minus the actual vote count. Exit polls are the gold standard of determining if an election is fair or not when we or the U.N. (don't freak out because I said U.N., the US state department uses the same methodology) are observing elections in 3rd world countries. That's how we knew the results of the Iraqi election just before we invaded in 2003 was complete BS. The same holds true in Venezuela.

I can see by your response that you really didn't read the article, or I can assume you read it, and just couldn't find any factual errors in it. So you decided to bash away with out backing up your statements. The neat thing about electronic vote counting is that there is no way to determine ACTUAL tampering since there is no paper trial.

As far as the Networks are concerned you are confusing two different issues. The Networks quarantined the exit polling data until after all the polls had closed ( something the political right has been screaming about for years) and by then enough actual election results had already started rolling in that the exit polls became meaningless. I wasn't until after the election did people start the compare the exit to the actual.

Do you support legislation requiring a paper trail and should vote manipulation be considered a treasonous crime? I would like to get your thoughts on these.

Y kant libruls spel?... (Below threshold)

Y kant libruls spel?

The reason that so few try ... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

The reason that so few try to argue with lefties around here is that we just can't keep up with all the bullshit you guys throw around. And no, I will not be specific. Your idea of a debate is to link to a clearly liberal/democrat partisan website and state its editorial content as fact. And you know what? Just because people don't answer your "arguments" doesn't mean you have won any debate.

I'm even willing to bet that you guys make sure you are notified when another comment is posted here just so you can always get in your precious last word. You have a pathological need to be seen as the smartest and the rightest. Well go ahead! I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage you, because you are tiresome bores. Even when someone cites facts to you here, you will not accept them. I don't even enjoy it when others obviously tear apart your words, because it has no impact on you.

Please enjoy your echo chamber. At least I don't have to live or work with you.

It's hard to get a good con... (Below threshold)
Jesus:

It's hard to get a good conversation here when you CAN'T be specific.

For someone that hasn't the time nor inclination to engage us, you sure do go on at great length.

You are correct in that ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

You are correct in that an exit poll will never be 100% accurate. However when elections are held fairly they are within 1 or 2 percentage points plus or minus the actual vote count.

Seeing as how NO poll has EVER been that accurate, you are more than a moderately mistaken. And an exit poll is just a poll, hampered by such things as how the questioner poses the question and the selection of participants.

Exit polls are the gold standard of determining if an election is fair or not when we or the U.N. (don't freak out because I said U.N., the US state department uses the same methodology) are observing elections in 3rd world countries.

But we were told Venezuela was clean, even though the exit polls were off by, roughly, 20 points.

That's how we knew the results of the Iraqi election just before we invaded in 2003 was complete BS. The same holds true in Venezuela.

That Saddam would get 90% of the vote is how we knew it was BS.

I can see by your response that you really didn't read the article, or I can assume you read it, and just couldn't find any factual errors in it.

I actually did read it. And since they lacked evidence behind their theory, disputing the "Factual errors" is impossible until factual errors are presented.

So you decided to bash away with out backing up your statements. The neat thing about electronic vote counting is that there is no way to determine ACTUAL tampering since there is no paper trial.

Or, in simple terms, you can't prove electronic tampering. But it MIGHT have happened, so I should just scream and yell.

Gore's people could have used a long pin to invalidate Bush votes left and right during the recount. Since I can't prove they did, I don't really stress it.

As far as the Networks are concerned you are confusing two different issues. The Networks quarantined the exit polling data until after all the polls had closed ( something the political right has been screaming about for years) and by then enough actual election results had already started rolling in that the exit polls became meaningless. I wasn't until after the election did people start the compare the exit to the actual.

Since apparently you didn't WATCH the news that night, I'll fill you in:

Exit polls had results that were dramatically more favorable to Dems than existed in reality. 6 or 7 points on average. So, the exit polls were, you know, WRONG.

Do you support legislation requiring a paper trail and should vote manipulation be considered a treasonous crime? I would like to get your thoughts on these.

I'd support a paper trail if we also have a photo ID requirement. Why the problem of blatantly fraudulent voter lists isn't a concern for the left is hardly stunning, since the dead, amazingly, vote about 3-to-1 for Democrats.

And I'd love to see vote manipulation punished harshly. Dems have a long history of doing it.
-=Mike

MikeSC,I'm glad to s... (Below threshold)

MikeSC,
I'm glad to see at least one conservative here is concerned enough about voting integrity to support a paper trail for vote counting.

I also support a photo ID requirement but only if there is no fee involved in obtaining the ID. Otherwise it becomes nothing more than a poll tax to keep the poor from voting. If we can afford 2 or 3 billion a week to help Iraq form a democracy I think we could afford a free photo ID for all eligible American voters.

I did more than watch the news election night I worked it until 3:00am when our governors race was called.

The 6 or 7 points on average you claim the exit polls were off could very well be to vote hacking.
Again if there is no way to audit the certified results both you and I could yell back and forth at each other until the next election and neither one of us would be able to prove which percentages are correct. Since there is no paper trial to prove our numbers are accurate. Look at the problems Florida is facing right now with Mrs Harris's former 13th district house seat. 18,000 votes just went missing. There is now talk of doing a re-vote since no Judge could fairly call the election.

Here's a bit of info for you that you can look up if you want. In the states were electronic vote counting was done the exit polls were off by a bunch, in the states like Minnesota that have a paper trial the results were within the margin of error. I don't have the state by state breakdown but I'm sure you can find a reputable source that you and your right wing friends can trust. Anything I post will be immediately slammed for being to liberal.

One last thing, I am far from being a liberal and have and do support Rep. candidates that I feel are best for the job. I would rather have the candidate I support lose in a fair election than have my choice win due to vote tampering. I know the Dems have a very long and bad reputation for voting irregularity, but I see what they have done in the past as childs play compared to what can be done with hacking the vote electronically.

Unless we as Americans can figure out this vote counting issue any other issue we discuss just becomes a mute point. That's my rant for today thanks for listening.

"I also support a photo ID ... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

"I also support a photo ID requirement but only if there is no fee involved in obtaining the ID. Otherwise it becomes nothing more than a poll tax to keep the poor from voting."

Posted by: [email protected]

Paying for an ID to vote is a poll tax? That's outrageous! Do the poor not pay sales tax on applicable items? Isn't that discrimination? What you are really masking with your statement, veiled with altruism, is that you think it would keep poor blacks from voting. After all, nobody ever seems to show concern for the voting rights of the poor whites in Appalachia. Shouldn't I have to pay for a driver's license? Photo ID's are needed to cash checks, certainly a more common occurence than voting. Citizenship has its costs.

"It's hard to get a good co... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

"It's hard to get a good conversation here when you CAN'T be specific."

Posted by: Jesus

Good conversation stems from people who actually have an interest in obtaining a common ground, if even just a little. Unfortunately I don't see that from the liberals who regularly comment here. It does stand to reason that I, a conservative, would seek out those who are like-minded for conversation about poltical subjects. Also, I don't visit sites like KOS because I don't expect to find agreement there on much of anything. Which is why I posted this earlier:

"You have a pathological need to be seen as the smartest and the rightest."

I did not write that about you, Jesus, because I haven't seen you comment here before. But there are many who come here, it seems, only to try to engage others in a rhetorical pissing match. What I was getting to in my earlier post is that I don't see the value in responding in kind to someone with that goal in mind, and I don't enjoy it when it happens from either (or any) side of any debate. I have known liberals and conservatives like this, and have never liked being around them.

Ultimately, it seems like civility has become a casualty in America, and not just in political discussions. I hope for that to change, but I can only do my part. Good day to you!

John F Not Kerry,Yes... (Below threshold)

John F Not Kerry,
Yes, asking someone to pay for ANY reason as a prerequisite to vote is by definition a poll tax. If a state wants you to pay for a drivers license that is well within a states right to do so. But to then require a drivers license to vote is wrong. Citizenship is a right not a privilege. Driving a car is a privilege not a right. I'm sure you learned that in civics class in high school. What is wrong with giving free photo IDs so that all eligible Americans rich or poor and of every ethnic background can vote? Unless you want to keep the poor from the polls.

Sorry that I didn't make it... (Below threshold)
Lorie:

Sorry that I didn't make it through all the comments above. I have been busy visiting out of town family most of the day and am getting ready to feed the kiddies. I did skim above though and have one comment. A question, really. Someone above said it was good to see one Republican or conservative or whatever in favor of a paper trail for voting machines. I was not aware that anyone opposed paper trails for voting machines. That commenter above must not read me much because I have on many occasions made it clear that I think there should ALWAYS be a paper trail for machines -- be they voting machines or ATMs.

There may be politicians opposing bills that include paper trail requirements when thrown in with lots of other stuff in some huge everything but the kitchen sink bill, but I don't know of any politician that has come out against paper trails for voting machines. I am curious to know which politicians have come out against paper trails.

If anyone has I think that is as bizarre as opposing photo ID for voting. I am in favor, by the way, of making free ID available to those wanting it where photo ID is required to vote. That removes the claim of the requirement being biased against the poor. Of course, if you follow the "poor" argument though I guess you could just get carried away. What about the person who is too poor to afford gas to get to the polls? Should they all get reimbursed for their gas or bus or cab fare? What about the person who cannot afford an umbrella to go vote in the rain? Should they be reimbursed for the cost of an umbrella? What about the person who is too sick to go vote because they cannot afford adequate health care? What about the person too poor to afford a pair of shoes? The possibilities are endless. Making free ID available so that there is no basis for the poll tax accusation is fine with me. I do draw the line at free umbrellas, though.

[email protected],I will amen... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

[email protected],

I will amend my comments above to agree with Lorie's just above this one. In my ignorance, I've only experienced having a photo ID with a Driver's License and college ID (when I already had the DL). Here in Minnesota I have seen people with non-DL state-issued picture ID cards, but I am unaware of any costs associated with getting it. I would say that people need to make some sort of effort to get one, even if it is free.

John F Not Kerry,The... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

John F Not Kerry,
The cost of a non driver ID varies from state to state. Some states are no charge, some aren't, and some have no charge for "charity cases" (my sister cannot drive due to blindness, and her non-driver card was free in NJ, but if I wanted one I'd have to pay.)

In Georgia they're offering... (Below threshold)

In Georgia they're offering to go to your house to "give" you an ID and they're STILL complaining. This flies in the face of the "too poor to afford an ID" or "poll tax" and implies that it's being used as a clever disguise for "we need the ex-felon, illegal alien and dead vote".




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy