April 26-28, 2008
Apr 26 09:37 Steny Hoyer In Full Spin Mode Apr 26 13:50 Critiquing the AP's Electoral Map Apr 26 17:28 Vikes Fans: Jared Allen Was a Bargain (Comparatively) Apr 27 13:12 What's So Hard To Believe? Apr 27 20:16 Obama's FNS Interview Apr 28 02:15 Invest In Minnesota: Yet Another Socialist Coalition Apr 28 11:56 SCOTUS: Voter ID Legislation Constitutional Apr 28 16:36 Keeping the Banaians In Your Prayers
Steny Hoyer In Full Spin Mode
When Kimberly Strassel sat down for an interview with Steny Hoyer , it was apparent that Rep. Hoyer was in full spin mode. To be fair, though, I wasn't surprised. Let's reme,ber that the Democratic House didn't live up to expectations, especially on their highest priorities. Here's a great example of Rep. Hoyer's election spin:
He's counting on a Democratic president and a greater majority in the Senate to make his life easier. "The election of '06 was a change election, but what became clear last year was that [the voters] only elected one-third of the policymakers, the House of Representatives," he says. "Two-thirds of the Senate was not elected in '06; the president was not elected in '06...So I think this is the big change election. The American public is going to have to decide whether they want to stay the course or whether they want to change the course...If they want to change the course, they'll vote for Democrats in the Congress and a Democrat for the presidency, and then they can hold us accountable for what we do."Hoyer will likely be disappointed in terms of electing a Democrat as president. At this point, it looks like Barack Obama is the second coming of George McGovern . It isn't a stretch to think that Obama's disconnect with blue collar Democrats will put additional House seats in play, especially in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio.
I'd further suggest that we can still hold this House leadership accountable because they bungled a number of things so badly on their own. They singlehandedly ended the NSA's surveillance program by letting the Protect America Act lapse. That won't play well with voters. If the NRCC plays it smart, they'll run campaign commercials highlighting the Senate's bipartisan support for making the Patriot Act permanent, causing Democrats in swing districts to defend the decision to let this key legislation lapse.
We also don't need to wait for Democrats to control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to note that their biggest accomplishment, passing the minimum wage bill, only passed because they caved on their highest priority, ending the Iraq War. Their defeat on the minimum wage bill was so complete that they had to include small business tax cuts to get it approved. Even then, they had to include the bill in the first Iraq supplemental bill to get it signed.
Nowhere is Rep. Hoyer's spin more obvious than in this paragraph:
Mr. Hoyer credits this approach with the Democrats' successes. He brings up the famous "Six" initiatives House Democrats campaigned on in 2006, several of which made it to a signing ceremony: a hike in the minimum wage, a bill implementing 9/11 recommendations, more money for student loans and modest energy legislation. He boasts Democrats passed their 2007 appropriations bills and imposed "ethics reform" on lobbyists. Despite the continued uproar over pork, he gamely argues his party made "substantial progress" on reforming earmarks. (Mr. Hoyer, one of the House's top recipients of earmark money, prefers to call them "congressional initiatives.")What malarkey. In Hoyer's world, earmarks aren't pathways to corruption, they're simply congressional initiatives. In Hoyer's world, the Democrats passing "their 2007 appropriations bills" ignores the fact that they didn't even debate the individual appropriation bills until several months into the new fiscal year. In Hoyer's world, David Obey's ignoring key provisions in the toothless ethics reform bill are of no consequence. Hoyer didn't care that Obey didn't read the thousands of earmark requests.
The 'reforms' that congress passed were so insignificant that I'd argue that the acronym RINO now means Reform In Name Only in addition to Republicans In Name Only. Democrats didn't push for elimination of airdropped earmarks, one of the biggest corruption devices available to Congress.
The thing that Steny Hoyer wants to avoid is talking about this Do Almost Nothing Congress's meager list of accomplishments and their extensive list of failures. That's why he didn't have an option but to spin things in this interview.
Posted Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:38 AM
No comments.
Critiquing the AP's Electoral Map
Liz Sidoti's latest article paints a picture that's rosier for Democrats than I think is warranted. It's titled "Democrats Favored in Electoral Map." Three months ago, I could've bought into a number of things that Ms. Sidoti says. That's long before the Democratic nomination process turned into a bloodbath. Here's Ms. Sidoti's picks for potential Democratic opportunities:
Three Western states-Colorado (9), Nevada (5) and New Mexico (5)-appear obvious targets for Democrats given their gains in the region, sharp population growth and large numbers of swing-voting Hispanics. But McCain, a four-term senator from Arizona, does well among those voters, too; his Senate support for an eventual path to citizenship for illegal immigrants could help.What Ms. Sidoti isn't taking into account is Obama's weakness with blue collar Democrats. When this process started, he held his own with these voters. Following the revelations about Pastor Wright, Bill Ayers and his San Fransisco fundraiser speech, he's gone from golden boy to full toxicity with these blue collar workers. That puts Ohio off-limits. It doesn't help Obama in Florida that the head of Hamas in America is endorsing him. Whether Obama wants that endorsement or not, that turns Florida's Jewish population against him. Without that, Florida is off-limits, too.
To the east, Iowa (7) holds promise for the Democrats; Republicans narrowly put it into their column in 2004 after years of Democratic dominance. Both Obama and Clinton competed here during the primary. McCain's opposition to ethanol subsidies complicate his chances, nor is he a favorite of evangelicals. Though less likely to change hands, Missouri (11) is a perennial battleground.
McCain also must defend the two vote-rich prizes that decided the past two elections.
Ohio (20), a bellwether that tipped the race to Bush in 2004, may be poised for a switch, with a rash of job losses, high numbers of Iraq casualties and a series of Republican statewide political defeats in including the governor.
Florida (27), which put Bush in the White House in 2000 and voted for him again in 2004, will certainly be hard-fought, given its electoral treasure chest. Its demographics are tilting more Republican, though, and Obama has fared poorly in the primaries among Jewish and Hispanic voters. Clinton may have a better shot.
Virginia (13) is a case where Obama, who is black, might play stronger than Clinton because of the state's large black population. The state moves into the competitive category given Democratic gains fueled by the growing Washington suburbs. Virginia also is home to large communities of military veterans who may have an affinity for McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
Ms. Sidoti is right in identifying "Wisconsin (10) and Michigan (17)" as having "high numbers of Reagan Democrats that McCain could attract." She's wrong, though about this:
But voters in all three states are reeling from economic woes, and that works in the Democrats' favor.Michigan's economy tanked because of Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm's policies, especially her tax increases. That certainly doesn't work in Obama's favore. Whatever he'll gain in strong Muslim voting, he'll lose with Reagan Democrats. If Obama can't erase his elitist image, this state will flip into the McCain column. Here's another observation I don't totally agree with:
It's been 20 years since Pennsylvania (21) voted Republican. Further complicating McCain's chances: The state's economy is bad and many Pennsylvanians have died in Iraq, the war he staunchly supports. Still, conservative swaths that are home to right-leaning Democrats could give McCain an opening. As usual, the Philadelphia suburbs figure to be pivotal.Again, the state's been run by a Democrat since 2002. Ed Rendell is popular, which should help Sen. Obama. The problem is that 23 of the 68 counties in Pennsylvania gave Obama 35-45% of the vote. Twenty-nine other counties gave him 25-35% of their vote. That isn't the base that I'd want to start from. That's alot of catching up to do and I'm not certain that it's possible.
The bottom line is that Democrats are in trouble if Obama is their nominee. According to several maps I've seen, McCain starts with a big base, something in the 260 electoral vote range. That doesn't leave much room for error for Obama. He'd have to run a near-perfect campaign, something that I can't picture. That also means that a perfect storm of Jeremiah Wright disappearing, his elitism vanishing and his gaining strength with Reagan Democrats would have to happen.
That's possible but I'm not betting the ranch on that happening.
Posted Saturday, April 26, 2008 1:51 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 26-Apr-08 03:45 PM
Well what do you expect the reporter to say? The states the reporter picked are technically states that should be in play
* Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, and Ohio were all narrow margin victories. Missiouri was a Bush victory, but the Democrats elected a US Senator in their Senate sweep of 2006.
What looks great from my prespective:
* Just two southern states!!!! Think about this. In 1976 and in Clinton's two victories what helped them both win was large number of southern state wins. Gore never became President because Arkansas and Tennessee voted Republican. One of my fears with Obama was that he would sweep in such a large black vote states that Mccain could've easily won could be lost (Georgia, Alabama, etc). Those aren't in play. Despite the big wins in Florida and South Carolina the south was a Mccain weak point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there atleast one senate race in every Southern state (and only two are Democrats).
* Michigan is a danger zone for the Democrats since Michigan went to hell before the rest of the country. John Mccain can point out it was the Democrats fault. But New Jersey can be on the list because of how it's governed. I've heard Massachusetts is on the list. The fact is Mccain should have a nonexistent list while Obama's list should be bigger.
* You're right that the Democrat primary process has weakened Obama. States Obama will need to fight for Ohio and Florida he lost big. He did win Missiouri, but that was when he was a cool person.
Still it's going to be a hard fought race. I'll take a Mccain victory with no state changing right now!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Vikes Fans: Jared Allen Was a Bargain (Comparatively)
I've watched the NFL Draft for at least a decade & I've seen some truly boneheaded picks in my time. I'm not even going to talk about the clock expiring in 2003 before the Vikings picked because we got Kevin Williams, a stud defensive lineman all his career.
That year, the New Orleans Saints needed defensive line help so they trade up to pick Terrell Suggs, who led the nation in sacks that year. At least, that's what twe thought when they traded up. Instead, they traded up to pick Johnathan Sullivan.
A number of draft experts said that the Vikings giving up the 17th pick and their third round picks and swapping their 6th round pick to the Chiefs for Jared Allen and their 6th round pick was paying a little too much. I didn't disagree with the experts on paying too much. Until today.
This afternoon, the Jacksonville Jaguars traded their first round pick, the 26th pick overall, plus both of their third round picks plus their 4th round pick to Baltimore. With that pick, they took Derrick Harvey, defensive end that the Vikings were thinking about before they traded for All Pro defensive end Jared Allen.
Think about it, Vikes fans. We gave up less to get a Pro Bowl passrushing defensive end, a proven commodity who's entering the prime of his career, than Jacksonville paid for an untested rookie. I still think we paid a little much for Jared Allen but that trade's looking better by the minute.
There were a couple other bonehead picks in the first round. Jerry Jones picked Felix Jones of Arkansas with the 22nd pick even though Rashard Mendenhall was still on the board. There's no convincing me that Felix Jones is a better runner than Mendenhall. Mendenhall is a stout 5'10, 225 lbs. who ripped the USC defense in the Rose Bowl. He averaged 9.1 yards per carry. The minute that Jerry Jones picked Felix Jones, Pittsburgh picked Mendenhall.
Mendenhall is the perfect complement to speedy Willie Parker.
Check back later for more updates on the draft.
UPDATE: The first day is in the books. The Packers picking Brian Brohm with the 56th pick is pretty strange. This essentially tells Aaron Rodgers that he's on the hot seat even before he's started a game. This essentially tells Rodgers that they don't see him as anything more than a stopgap starter.
I loved the Vikings getting Tyrell Johnson. This offseason, the Vikings have dramatically upgraded their pass defense. Jared Allen will put alot of pressure on QB's. Madieu Williams is a great hybrid S/CB who can cover. Several mock drafts had Tyrell Johnson rated as the top safety in this draft.
Atlanta made a major reach when they picked Sam Baker with the 21st pick. I didn't think he was worthy of a first round pick, much less trading up from the top of the second round to get him.
As I said earlier, Dallas screwed up when they picked Felix Jones instead of Rashard Mendenhall. They redeemed themselves somwhat in picking Mike Jenkins with the 25the pick overall. The bad part about that pick is that they traded up from 28 to get Jennkins. If they keep drafting like they're drafting, they'll be a middle-of-the-pack team within 3 years.
During the second round, Steve Young said that they've got the weapons of a championship team but that they don't have the heart of a championship team. I totally agree. I also think their having 13 Pro Bowlers is a joke, too. Their defense isn't a championship level defense. Roy Williams got exposed when he actually had to cover receivers.
I'm giving Pittsburgh a passing first day grade, mostly because they picked Mendehall with the 23rd pick before picking Limas Sweed with the 53rd pick overall. Mendenhall was considered the 2nd best RB in this draft while Sweed had a solid first round grade.
Posted Saturday, April 26, 2008 11:57 PM
Comment 1 by Phid at 27-Apr-08 10:37 AM
True, the price was high, but...we could have ended up with another player who fizzles out within two years, or we could have ended up with someone who plays well and then demands an Allen-esque type of contract five years from now. So we essentially cut out those years of waiting. For as much as we appreciate knowing there's "hope" in the sports future, it really is about the here-and-now.
What's So Hard To Believe?
Dick Pollman's column in the Philadelphia Inquirer talks about how hard it is to imagine that the Democrats won't win the White House. My question for him is why he hasn't noticed that Democrats have a habit of blowing opportunities.
Here's an old saying about the Arafat-led Palestinian Authority that's almost as applicable to the Democrats as it is to the Palestinians: The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. In 2004, Democrats like Susan Estrich and Bob Beckel appeared on TV saying that it was John Kerry's race to lose, that President Bush would be a one term wonder just like his dad.
There's a reason why Democrats frequently blow opportunities. They often equate resumes with qualifications. They picked John Kerry because he had military experience, which they considered important because we're at war. What they didn't take into account was that Sen. Kerry was an elitist snob that couldn't connect with a blue collar worker if his life depended on it. They also didn't take into consideration that he'd been wrong on the major foreign policy issues of his generation.
This year, they've settled on Barack Obama as their candidate. He's considerably more likeable than Sen. Kerry but his associations with Jerremiah Wright, William Ayers and Tony Rezko have raised questions about how much he shares the American people's values. When Michelle Obama told Wisconsin voters that she was finally proud to call herself an American because people were supporting her husband, people scratched their heads. Here's Ed Koch's reaction to Michelle Obama's statement:
This is a woman who has had a good life, with opportunities few whites or blacks have been given. When she entered Princeton and Harvard and later became a partner in a prestigious law firm, didn't she feel proud to be an American? When she and the Senator bought their new home, was there no feeling of accomplishment and pride in being a U.S. citizen? When her husband was elected to the state legislature and subsequently to the United States Senate, didn't she feel proud of her country?Couple Michelle Obama's anti-American perspective with Barack Obama's fundraising comments and his associations with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. It isn't surprising that people are left wondering if the Obamas aren't out of touch with their values. In fact, I'd flip that on its head. Why should the American people think that Sen. Obama shares their perspective of America?
Pollman's column deserves closer scrutiny, partially because of this paragraph:
Presumably, once the Democrats are training their fire at McCain rather than at each other, they can drive down his poll numbers by reminding swing voters that he's not just a war hero, that, in fact, he has supported the privatization of Social Security (a Bush fiasco that was scrapped in 2005); that he's a free-trader with little concern for protecting domestic workers; that he now wants to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the affluent, the same tax cuts he once voted against; that he opposes universal health care; that he wants to cut corporate taxes, a move that would cost the U.S. Treasury an estimated $100 billion a year; that he has been wearing rose-colored glasses on Iraq ever since 2002, when the Bush team started beating the drums for war.The American people are free traders by nature. The Democrats' pushing of a protectionist agenda isn't appealing. I'd further suggest that Pollman's characterization of McCain wearing rose-colored glasses on the Iraq War is, politely stated, hogwash. he's frequently criticized former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld about troop levels needed to put down the various trouble spots. Suggesting that Sen. McCain drank the Bush administration Kool-Aid might be a DNC talking point but people know better than to think that a McCain administration will have the same policies as the Bush administration has.
I'd further suggest that the American people don't care as much about universal health care as they care about simply fixing the health insurance system. It's arrogance for Democrats to assume that the American people trust government with something as important as their health. Despite what some skewed polls say, there simply isn't any proof that universal health care is popular.
The bottom line is that Democrats are perfectly capable of blowing this otherwise golden opportunity because their solutions aren't appealing to a majority of Americans.
Technnorati: Obama , Michelle Obama , Elitism , Anti-Americanism , William Ayers , Terrorism , Jeremiah Wright , Racism , DNC , John McCain , Bush Administration , Iraq , Election 2008
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Sunday, April 27, 2008 1:14 PM
No comments.
Obama's FNS Interview
Barack Obama's interview with Chris Wallace wasn't a particularly convincing performance. Here's a particularly noteworthy Wallace-Obama exchange:
WALLACE: Let's take a look at the numbers. Among white union households, Clinton beat you 72 percent to 28 percent. Among white Catholics, again, same margin, 72 percent to 28 percent. Senator, why are you having such trouble convincing white working class voters that you're their guy?Good luck selling that after being tied to Jeremiah Wright's racism, William Ayers' terrorism and Tony Rezko's corruption. The times that Sen. Obama won blue collar voters were before Pastor Wright's anti-American diatribes and Sen. Obama's elitist fundraising speech.
OBAMA: Well, keep in mind that Senator Clinton was well regarded in the state of Pennsylvania, just as she was well regarded in the state of Ohio. The fact that they voted for her shouldn't come as a huge surprise. We started out 20 points down in that race, just like we started 20 points down in Ohio. And we actually made significant progress there.
And when you look at the polling that's now being done post- Pennsylvania, about how we match up in a general election, I think Senator Clinton maybe does a couple of points better than I do, but it's not substantial.
Most of the voters will vote for me. But you know, they are more familiar with her. She's from a bordering state. On the other hand, in Wisconsin, I won those same voters over Senator Clinton. In Virginia, I won those voters over Senator Clinton. In Iowa, I won the voters over Senator Clinton.
So I think that, you know, I am confident that when you come to a general election, and we are having a debate about the future of this country, how are we going to lower gas prices, how are we going to deal with job losses, how are we going to focus on energy independence, that those are voters who I will be able to appeal to.
As I've told others, the bloom is off that rose. After all that, they aren't buying into his 'I share your values' schtick anymore.
The reactions are starting to filter in on Sen. Obama's interview with Chris Wallace. Here's the most absurd review I've seen yet:
Greg Sargent's blog post 'Obama Doesn't "Take Fox On," After All' kind of says it all. Obama is sucking up to Fox News, and beyond that, the campaign operative who said he would just out and out gave false information.The lefties are attacking Sen. Obama for being a liar? If the Kossacks are attacking him, Sen. Obama's got big trouble in Indiana. Here's what one of the KosKids said :
You can't trust the Obama campaign, they will lie to you to promote right-wing institutions .
I have been quiet on the presidential campaign. I'm not much of a political writer in the first place and am firmly of the opinion that you should only write to your strengths. However, Obama's appearance on Fox news was a tactical mistake of massive proportions. In addition, it legitimized the greatest threat to our country, fact free debate. As such, Obama has lost my vote.WOW!!! That's pretty harsh. Here's a reaction from Democratic Underground :
Big mistake to go on Fox and reward the smarmy WallaceBarack isn't a progressive? Chris Wallace "smarmy"? P-L-E-A-S-E.
and let him frame the issues. But, in a sense, it DOES show progressive that Obama really isn't one...lesser of two evils, at best, and all too willing to "accomodate" and sell us out on issue after issue, and procedure after procedure in the Senate.
Sad, but not unexpected, or anything that those of us who've been paying attention over the past several years haven't seen and heard before...
Posted Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:17 PM
No comments.
Invest In Minnesota: Yet Another Socialist Coalition
A coalition of liberal special interest groups have 'come together' to form a new campaign initiative. It's called Invest in Minnesota (IIM). There's nothing good that can come from it. the organizations that came together are Growth & Justice, the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits, the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition & the AFL-CIO.
This morning, IIM had a Your Turn editorial in the St. Cloud Times. The opening paragraph will scare Minnesota's taxpayers. Here's that opening paragraph:
Think of Minnesota as suffering from a vitamin deficiency, growing weaker and unhealthy, and still resisting a balanced diet. And think of taxes as spinach, broccoli and peas. It's not exactly everybody's first choice on the buffet table, but the stuff we need to reinvigorate our state.Socialism, thy name is IIM. At least, that's one of its names in Minnesota. Minnesotans shouldn't worry that they aren't taxed enough. The reality is that revenues increase when taxes are kept at a lower, more stable marginal rate.
I'd further argue that Minnesota isn't suffering from a revenue deficiency. I'd argue that we're suffering from liberals like IIM imposing unsustainable spending increases. How many families think that they're not paying enough in taxes? Oddly enough, the families from Growth & Justice think that they aren't taxed enough. Here's a headline from their homepage:
Growth & Justice puts 'we' over 'me' in tax debateIn this column , Growth & Justice President Dane Smith makes this absurd argument:
The portion of our incomes that we allocate as a democracy to pay for public benefits and improvements does not represent a lack of "freedom," or bondage in any form. Our roles as taxpayers should not be separated from our roles as equal partners in communities that derive enormous economic and social benefits from the great work that government does, with investments in education, transportation, public health, environmental protection and hundreds of other valuable public products."Equal partners in communities that derive enormous economic and social benefits from the great work that government does"? If that isn't a perfect description of socialism, then a perfect description of socialism doesn't exist. That isn't the only whiff of socialism that we hear from this coalition:
Growth & Justice Research & Policy Director Angie Eilers says protesters are a vocal minority who are putting "me" over "we" in this piece by The UpTake!Here's Angie Eilers' sickening YouTube on the subject of "me" over "we":
Here's more from the Your Turn Editorial:
One month from legislative adjournment, all indications are that election-year pressures will deny Minnesota the state revenue "vegetables" and the responsible, long-term budget solutions it needs. Time is running out in the face of projected chronic shortfalls, as much as $1.7 billion in the red a year from now, and so are the accounting gimmicks and the reserves.My response to this band of idiots is simple: Get your grubby fingers off my money. The last time I looked, the preamble of the US Constitution started with the words "We The People..." Likewise, the Declaration of Independance puts special significance in this phrase:
So voters choosing leaders this fall for 2009 and beyond need to ask them to face up to a glaring fiscal reality: We can't go on like this. Our experiment with tax cuts and short changing vital public-sector investment is not working.
More than a decade of tax rebates and tax cuts during good times, and the no-new-(state)-taxes straitjacket of the past six years have left our communities and our economy in worse shape than they have been in decades.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,This section of the Declaration clearly states that government gets its power in limited quantities from We The People, who originally get it from "their Creator." That stands in stark contrast to this part of the editorial:
all indications are that election-year pressures will deny Minnesota the state revenue "vegetables" and the responsible, long-term budget solutions it needs.Nowhere in that phrase are the concerns of the governed taken into consideration. It's all about what the government needs. It's of little consequence to me that people like Dane Smith or Angie Eilers will argue that the path to prosperity is through government.
I'm not arguing against the proper funding of government. I'm against funding governmnment so that it can be all things for all people.
In Smith's and Eilers' world, government is the giver of all good things. In the real world, it's the taker of each individual's money. That isn't a good thing. That's why it's laughable to hear it said "The portion of our incomes that we allocate as a democracy to pay for public benefits and improvements" (i.e. tax increases) doesn't "represent a lack of "freedom," or bondage in any form." That's insulting to thinking adults and it shouldn't be tolerated.
That's why each conservative must work their backsides off this summer and fall to put Republicans back into the majority next January. We owe that much to each other.
Posted Monday, April 28, 2008 2:16 AM
No comments.
SCOTUS: Voter ID Legislation Constitutional
This morning, the Supreme Court ruled that Inidana can require voters show a government-issued photo ID . Here's what they're saying:
In one of the most closely watched cases of the term, the US Supreme Court has upheld Indiana's requirement that voters show government-issued photo IDs at the polls. At least 17 other states were awaiting this decision before going ahead with similar laws of their own.Here's what USA Today's Joan Biskupic wrote about the ruling:
The vote was 6-3, with Justice John Paul Stevens joining the mostly conservative majority.
Democrats had attacked the law, saying it created a burden for poor, minority, and handicapped voters, who would have a harder time getting government-issued IDs. They accused Indiana officials of passing the law to suppress the minority vote.
Indiana's statute, adopted in 2005, bars people from casting a ballot unless they present certain photo identification issued by the state or federal government, such as a driver's license or passport. If a person does not have such an ID, he or she can get an alternative but generally needs a birth certificate to proceed.Here's part of Justice Stevens' opinion:
The decision by Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the most liberal members of the court, emphasized that the challengers had not presented sufficient evidence that voters were kept from the polls or otherwise hurt by the law Indiana says prevents fraud.
The court did not shut the door to other lawsuits against ID laws that have proliferated since 2001 and have been adopted largely by Republican legislatures over complaints from Democrats. The ruling endorses the procedures in Indiana, which will hold its presidential primary May 6.
Stevens was joined by the more conservative members of the bench , although the six in the majority varied in their reasoning and produced two separate opinions.
Dissenting were Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. They said the law puts an unconstitutional burden on voters.
"Indiana's own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago mayor, though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud, demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."Translation: There's abundant proof that voter fraud exists. There isn't proof that requiring photo ID creates a real burden on anyone. Here's a portion of Antonin Scalia's concurring opinion:
"The record says virtually nothing about the difficulties faced by either indigent voters or voters with religious objections to being photographed....In sum, on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation, we cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters."
"The lead opinion assumes petitioners' premise that the voter-identification law 'may have imposed a special burden on' some voters, but holds that petitioners have not assembled evidence to show that the special burden is severe enough to warrant strict scrutiny. That is true enough, but for the sake of clarity and finality as well as adherence to precedent, I prefer to decide these cases on the grounds that petitioners' premise is irrelevant and that the burden at issue is minimal and justified. "This undoubtedly will spur more states to pass similar legislation. The Supreme Court essentially said that they weighed the possible disenfranchisement of voters against possible voter fraud. They essentially said that there isn't proof that this disenfranchises voters but there is proof of voter fraud.
"This calls for application of a deferential 'important regulatory interests' standard for nonsecure, nondiscriminatory restrictions, reserving strict scrutiny for laws that severely restrict the right to vote."
The good news is that voter fraud is being taken seriously and that the states have just been given a great tool in fighting voter fraud.
Posted Monday, April 28, 2008 12:00 PM
No comments.
Keeping the Banaians In Your Prayers
I just got an email update from Barbara Banaian, the wife of my good friend King Banaian. King went into the St. Cloud Hospital Saturday night and has been in there ever since. Yesterday, they ran some tests. Unfortunately, they weren't able to diagnose the problem with those tests. Today, they ran more tests which helped them diagnose the problem. Here's the important part of Barb's email update:
King was scheduled to have his gall bladder removed tomorrow morning at 8:15 a.m., but is currently running a high fever and having heart palpitations .Earlier this afternoon, I sent this update out to several of King's many friends. I just now looked in my inbox & I find that Andy Aplikowski's posted something on it here. Andy, I'm sure that the Banaians appreciate your thoughts & concerns.
He didn't want me in the room, so I had to leave........... (although it was hard to leave)......
Please keep him in your prayers. Thanks so much and I'll keep you posted,
Barbara
This is just another reminder of how close the ties are between MOBsters.
Please feel free to drop a note in my comments section wishing King a speedy return to health or to pray for King, Barb & their family. At the end of the day, I'll forward those thoughts, prayers & wishes to Barb.
In conclusion, thanks for rallying to King's cause. The people in the MOB are impressive in my eyes.
Posted Monday, April 28, 2008 4:38 PM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 28-Apr-08 04:57 PM
I am already getting emails from my prayer chain and let me tell you the Banaian family is going to be covered in prayer.
We've got your back King. Get well soon.
LL and the whole Logical Household.
Comment 2 by Matt Abe at 28-Apr-08 05:06 PM
Hang in there, King! Get well and back to blogging soon!
Comment 3 by R-Five at 28-Apr-08 05:46 PM
I've been there, know the drill. Mine was acute, had to do it the hard way, incision scar and all. But recovery was quick and easy and no after effects, 15 years and counting.
Comment 4 by Iron Matron from Kool Aid Report at 28-Apr-08 06:05 PM
KAR sends up prayers and get-well wishes. In order to keep King's stitches from popping after the surgery, he should refrain from visiting our site or any liberal site containing their solutions to the current economy.
Comment 5 by Jim W at 28-Apr-08 07:16 PM
My wife and I send our best to you King. Get well VERY soon.
Comment 6 by Sue Jeffers at 28-Apr-08 11:08 PM
Our thoughts and prayers are with the entire Banaian family. Get well soon!
Comment 7 by Drew Emmer at 29-Apr-08 10:18 AM
On behalf of the whole Emmer family our prayers are with the Banaian Family.
Get well King, and right soon! We desperately need your voice in the battle against the nincompoops!
