Voter Reform: Why Are Democrats Opposed To A Photo ID to Vote?
Ernie Logman
I am certain you all remember that night, that very, very long night in
November 2000 when the presidential election stood in the balance in Gore
versus Bush. And certainly we all will never forget the ensuing 36-day
Florida election debacle involving the Supreme Court. It was the closest
general election in history, and it involved voter fraud on an unimaginable
scale.
Well, guess what? That's nothing new. Voter fraud has been alive and well
in America for decades. It took an event like the 2000 Florida disaster to
shed enough light on the subject that something is finally being done
(hopefully).
The House has already passed a $2.6 billion elections bill, sponsored by
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky that seeks to:
standardize voting machines;
create a national voting holiday; and
reduce or eliminate voter fraud.
The Senate has recently taken up the bill, which has now grown to $3.4
billion, but it has met with opposition from the Democrats. Now, you might
think that is strange. Why would Democrats oppose a bill to clean up
elections and prevent a repeat of the Florida morass? After all, it was
their guy, Gore, who got the most popular votes, but still lost the
election. You'd think they would be leading the charge!
The problem for the Democrats is the bill calls for voters to produce a
photo ID in order to vote. We're NOT talking about a National ID Card here.
Just a simple photo ID like your drivers license or anything that can
identify you with a photo. The Democrats, at least many of them, are for a
National ID Card, so what's the problem with a photo ID to vote?
We hate to say it, but a photo ID makes fraud extremely difficult.
Democrats want to keep the current antiquated "signature verification"
system, which makes fraud fairly simple. Why? Because the Democrats have
benefitted greatly from voter fraud in the past.
A few of you may be thinking: Spencer is just spewing more ultra-right,
biased rhetoric, but let's look at some historical examples.
Election 2000: In Wisconsin, local DNC operatives were bribing the homeless
with cigarettes and beer to vote for Al Gore. In Missouri, a local
Democratic judge forced the polls to remain open longer than allowed, a
direct violation of federal election laws. In Florida, all of the voting
counties in question were major Democratic strongholds. There were other
examples, but you get the point.
Lets look at another notorious election, 1960. Kennedy won by carrying
Illinois and Texas. It is widely known that Chicago mayor Bill Daley, Sr.,
with the help of Sam Giancana, delivered the state for Kennedy. While in
Texas, "Landslide Lyndon" and Duval County did the rest. You know LBJ was
fond of saying, "Hell, the dead have a right to vote too." And they did,
every hour on the hour and in alphabetical order. But that's all history.
Let's not be bitter.
The Democrats argue that the current voter reform bill will "disenfranchise"
countless numbers of voters. How does requiring a simple photo ID
disenfranchise someone? Perhaps because it prevents illegal aliens and dead
people from voting!
Civil rights groups complain that these new measures will disenfranchise
voters who don't have the proper documentation with them, and that it will
effect poor and minority voters in a disproportionate manner. They
conveniently fail to point out that these groups are big Democrat
strongholds.
How do we respond? First of all voting is a sacred event that is not even
allowed in over half the world. If you don't care enough to have the proper
documents, like a drivers license, student ID, etc. when you go to the
polls, too bad, in my opinion. And do you really believe that the poor and
minorities don't already have some type of photo ID? Please! Have we
already forgotten the Clinton-era motor-voter bill?
Another Democrat argument says that the bill is burdensome on states that
vote by mail, such as Oregon and Washington. Hmm... Washington and Oregon
almost always cast their combined 19 electoral votes for, you guessed it,
the Democrats. Mail-in voting is riddled with fraud in a big way. Here is a
great example. You may recall that Ms. Mabel Mackall Briscoe signed-up her
three year-old Jack Russell Terrier, Holly, to vote through motor-voter
registration. Thanks to motor-voter type programs, Mabel and her dog have
been voting for years. So have untold numbers of fictitious voters. Folks,
this has to stop! Let's respect and protect this precious right to vote.
On March 1st, it seemed that the voter reform bill was dead. The Democrats
would not budge on signature verification. But on March 5th, Senator Ron
Wyden, Democrat-Oregon no less, had some back bone and declared that the
bill was not dead. Momentum resumed.
The Democrats have since come around, sort of. They have (as this is
written) agreed to back-off on signature verification and to allow the photo
ID, but not until 2004. Voters in Washington and Oregon will still be able
to vote by mail, but they will have to provide a photo ID when registering.
The Republicans appear to be ready to go along. Nice break for the Dems!
With their poll numbers looking as bad as they do today, and with a
president who still has an 80% approval rating, the Dems are going to need
all the votes they can get come November.
Is it too much to ask in this, the greatest of all democracies, the bastion
of freedom and opportunity, that we have a fraud-free election process? I
think not! America is an emblem of justice and our voting system needs to
reflect that.
DemsRDesperate
to play by the rules, Ernie.
"Ernie Logman" <turnpike_ch...@yahooREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:De_o9.338$q07...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
John H. Fisher
Logman" <turnpike_ch...@yahooREMOVE.com> writes:
>
>Voter Reform: Why Are Democrats Opposed To A Photo ID to Vote?
>
Basically, for the same reason we were repulsed by the tattooing of
jews in concentration camps, and for the purposes of identification!!!!
It also appears to be a rollback to the old poll tax days where payment
must be made and other qualifiers are imposed!!! 'nuff sed????
]
"Jack"
Certainly, a fraud-free election process is not too much to look for.
We champion that, for ALL people, as much as we do all other freedoms.
Basically, the objections raised are for the same reasons we were repulsed by
the tattooing of jews in concentration camps, and for the purposes of
identification!!!!
It also appears to be a rollback to the old poll tax days where payment must be
made and other qualifiers are imposed!!! 'nuff sed????
"Jack" - John H. Fisher - TaxSe...@aol.com
Philadelphia, Pa - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
My Newsgroups & Boards at: http://members.aol.com/TaxService/index.html
Where Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!=:)
DemsRDesperate
"John H. Fisher" <taxse...@aol.compliance> wrote in message
news:20021009183403...@mb-ft.aol.com...
> In article <De_o9.338$q07...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Ernie
> Logman" <turnpike_ch...@yahooREMOVE.com> writes:
>
> >
> >Voter Reform: Why Are Democrats Opposed To A Photo ID to Vote?
> >
> Basically, for the same reason we were repulsed by the tattooing of
> jews in concentration camps, and for the purposes of identification!!!!
In a sense, John is being honest with us here.
The Democrats fully support the idea of illegal aliens being allowed to
vote, and they also support the idea of registered Democrats being able to
vote 2, 3, 4, or even more times in a single election.
Dems recognize that unless they are allowed to stuff the ballot box their
Demmie candidates CANNOT win, and John knows it.
John H. Fisher
"DemsRDesperate" <DemsRDi...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>The Dems couldn't win ANY elections if they and their sick Party were forced
>to play by the rules, Ernie.
>
If they hadn't played by the rules, there would have been a revolution instead
of
a sElection!!!!=:) Come back after election day to claim victory!!! In the
meantime, try not to gloat!!!! It is so unbecoming!!!==:)
ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-aha-ha-ha
"Jack"
John H. Fisher
"DemsRDesperate" <DemsRDi...@hotmail.com> writes:
I can understand people being childlike, DemsRD, but you become more
childish with each offering!!!! Accusations galore accumulate in that petty,
imaginative mind of yours!!! When are you going to start to make contributions
of substance??? Still ROFLMAO!!!=:)