Crossing The Line
The New York Times reaches yet another low. This time, I suspect that they may well have crossed a line as well. This editorial might just be actionable for libel - some smart lawyers should be looking real hard at this.
One of the cornerstones of the Republican Party’s strategy for winning elections these days is voter suppression, intentionally putting up barriers between eligible voters and the ballot box. The House of Representatives took a shameful step in this direction yesterday, voting largely along party lines for onerous new voter ID requirements. Laws of this kind are unconstitutional, as an array of courts have already held, and profoundly undemocratic. The Senate should not go along with this cynical, un-American electoral strategy. (Emphasis added).
That one sweeping statement is unbelievable for an American newspaper, even in this day of rabid partisanship. There is a huge difference between wanting to keep fraud out of elections and suppressing votes. I can't even stomach the task of fisking the rest of their tortured falsehoods. Read it yourself. Bring an airsick bag.
UPDATE: A Blog For All is thrilled with the NYT, too. Ditto Don Surber.
By Dan, Thursday, 21 September , 2006 @ 9:54 am
< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
Over the line, Dan and you know it.
By Santay, Thursday, 21 September , 2006 @ 10:07 am
Well the Dems have a point. Now all the dead people they have voting for them are going to have to drag along their death certificates, not easy when you’re a corpse.
By Jim, Thursday, 21 September , 2006 @ 10:59 am
I was going to say, “What an idiotic statement”, but I have to admit that I agree with the first part of the highlighted sentence. I am all for voter suppresion. We need to supress the votes of illegal aliens, dead people, ficticious people, and anyone else who won’t follow the election statutes.
By Matthew, Thursday, 21 September , 2006 @ 11:04 am
Even with the Sulfur Detector’s wingnut speech at the United Nations and the cockroach eating story above, this is the most jaw-dropping thing I’ve read all day. The NYT has moved from liberal-leaning rag to spokespaper for the Lemont wing of the Democratic Party.
By Fersboo, Thursday, 21 September , 2006 @ 11:17 am
I am not a lawyer, though I play one on TV, but I do think that an individual may bring charges of libel, but not a group of individuals, even if they form some sort of association. Otherwise, I agree that the NYSlimes is a joke of a newspaper.
By Ed, Thursday, 21 September , 2006 @ 11:31 am
So where’s the evidence of this vast army of illegal voters? There is none, intensive investigation has shown the number of fraudulent voters is miniscule, maybe double digits in an entire state, yet there is ample evidence that requiring a Driver’s License will suppress thousands of elderly and poor voters.
Of course it’s a GOP strategy.
By BubbaB, Thursday, 21 September , 2006 @ 12:12 pm
Hey, Ed, could you point me in the direction of your “research”? Without identification, how do you “prove” fraud?
When a major candidate for Congress implies that all of the illegal aliens should go vote for her, I think there might be a problem…
A better solution (since I live in New Mexico, where there is a DOCUMENTED problem with illegal aliens voting in elections) is to have people wear “ICE” t-shirts outside of the polling area, to scare off the illegals (no, not “undocumented workers”, ILLEGAL ALIENS!!)
—BubbaB
By Matthew, Thursday, 21 September , 2006 @ 1:11 pm
“So where’s the evidence of this vast army of illegal voters?There is none, intensive investigation has shown the number of fraudulent voters is miniscule…”
There is evidence that there are illegal voters and further, there is evidence that these illegal voters have had a major impact on elections. Take for example, the two most recent presidential elections in Wisconsin, including 2004, where ballots cast in Milwaukee County alone exceeded voters by 4,609. This in a state where the Democratic Governor has repeatedly vetoed bills that would require identification prior to voting and where Kerrey won by less than 11,000 votes statewide.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=324933
By Daniel DiRito, Thursday, 21 September , 2006 @ 1:27 pm
In general, I don’t have a problem with voter ID’s. I do think they should be enacted in such a way to insure that they don’t create any unwarranted voter suppression. The thing that puzzles me is that this bill doesn’t address other voter fraud issues…like the lack of a paper trail for votes cast in numerous precincts across the country. That makes me suspicious.
The problem I have with this voter ID legislation is the fact that it purports to be intended to prevent voter fraud, yet it completely ignores the voter paper trail issue. Unfortunately, that leads me to conclude that those supporting this voter ID bill are simply pushing legislation that they feel would be beneficial to Republican candidates on two fronts. One, it may suppress Democratic voter turnout and it is also being spun as a means to “strengthen border security and crack down on illegal immigration”…a position the GOP feels will benefit them in November.
Here’s my problem. There is little doubt that the GOP has not been motivated to provide effective border security or the means to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants. The failure to enact and enforce measures and methods to combat illegal immigration has been a concession to the business community, which has been the beneficiary of hard working, low wage employees. The system in place for employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the U.S. is a virtual joke and it is so by choice…which makes the current voter ID legislation all the more disingenuous and wholly political.
Sadly, it appears that the GOP doesn’t see any advantage to including these paper trail provisions. It is situations of this nature that lead to voter cynicism in their elected officials as well as the entire political process. Ironically, while we are in the process of exporting democracy to other regions of the world, we have U.S. politicians that prefer to manipulate our democracy for partisan advantage. This and other inconsistencies in the application of democracy simply undermine the potential for other nations to believe that the United States is actually an agent for democratic principles.
Read more here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
By BubbaB, Thursday, 21 September , 2006 @ 4:36 pm
Well, “back in the day”, when I first registered to vote, I was taken aback to find out that I did not need an ID to vote. 18 years old, still fairly liberal-leaning, and I thought it was ASININE to not require identification!!
I still do. I don’t care about the supposed “politics” behind it - eh, maybe I should, but I don’t. I think it is an idea whose time had come 50 years ago.
This bill we are debating has provisions to ensure that “no voter is left behind”, unless, of course, they are dead or a non-citizen. Poor folk get a free ID, rich folk have to pay (aren’t the Democrats happy about that?)
I am concerned, however, with the Constitutionality of this law. I don’t know that the federal government has that kind of authority to tell the states how to run elections - unless, of course, they are including the “carrot” of federal money as extortion, er, motivation. Anybody have any opinions on the Constitutionality of this law?
—BubbaB