The Impostor
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 30th, 2008 at 9:17 am by Matt Davies.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
| 
Loading ...
Leave a Reply
It is a condition of your use of the comment features associated with the blogs that you do not: Use the site to post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane or indecent information of any kind, including without limitation any transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any local, state, national or international law. You alone are responsible for the material you post or send. Refer to the
Terms of Service.
(9 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Why not have a photo ID for voters Matt? We have one for licenses and other things. I think it's a good idea.
Hi Bulldog. At first blush, you're right…it does seem like a good idea – Except for the fact that a LOT of legislative effort by Republicans has gone into the non-issue of "voter fraud" because, according to their own research, insisting on Govt. issued photo IDs will negatively affect poorer urban citizens (who for obvious reasons are less likely to have a passport or driver's license.)
And (all together now) who do poor urban citizens tend to vote for?
Hard to imagine, but this might represent a new low for the GOP.
Matt,
Terrific cartoon. While I agree with Bulldog, (that there needs to be safeguards against voter fraud), this goes very far beyond that. And, as you point out, is a Republican reaction to a non-issue. Colorado Republicans are trying the same thing with the same failed and unsupported argument. Same for my home state of Alabama as well as numerous other Republican legislators around the country. The end result is politicizing an issue that is a bedrock of our democracy; clean and fair elections.
As for your comment "Hard to imagine, but this might represent a new low for the GOP." I would remind you that the history of election fraud in America is pregnant with games Democrats play.
"I would remind you that the history of election fraud in America is pregnant with games Democrats play." – Scott.
Touche! But I meant it in context with, you know, a party that now has torture, wiretapping US citizens and "preemptive war" as part of its election platform. This is (sadly) not your grandfather's GOP.
Well think about this. NY State requires all persons over the age of 18 to have identification on them when in public. Is that wrong to?
Yep. that would be wrong…However I am unaware of such a law in NY state.
A poll tax by any other name is still a poll tax.
State-issued IDs cost time and money, two things that many poor people simply don't have. Although, according to a news report that I heard the other day, in Indiana you can travel (how?) to your county seat and submit an affidavit declaring that you are too poor to afford the fee, and then they will give you a waiver that you then take to the DMV to get your ID without paying the fee. All during your lunch break, supposedly.
When I go in to vote, they check my signature against the one on file. Seems reasonable to me, especially considering the incidence of voter ID fraud in the country (at last report, somewhere between zero and nil).
-jp
No voter fraud in this country. In California there were people having homeless register to vote in change for a hot meal. During the Kennedy election, cemetaries were full of people were voting in droves.
Sorry Matt i disagree. Everyone should have some sort of ID
even poor people. Even if they don't get drivers licenses it
doesn't take much to go down to your town hall,show who you
are and get a picture taken free of charge. Why do poor people or lazy people vote for Dems? Because Dems tax the crap out of me to give them programs that i pay for that i
don't even get. Yea, that's real fair!!
You're not paying attention to reality again, Bulldog. Under Republican leadership since 2001, taxes were lowered and the result is what you see out your window today, a steaming pile of dung. Under Democratic leadership in the 1990s, taxes were raised and unemployment went from around 8% to 4%, the national debt was turned into a surplus and violent crime that plagued every major city fell to 30-year lows. We all benefited. Everything had turned bad in the '80s and had to be corrected in the '90s because of another Republican regime.
Republican policies only work in theory, not reality. When you gear the entire country to benefit the top 3 percent, it doesn't trickle down. You get a very happy 3% and a struggling 97%. Taxes are patriotic. If you want to live in the world's greatest country, you have to pay your your dues. You wouldn't buy a mansion and then just let it go to hell over time; you would pay for repairs and upkeep. A country is the same thing. You have to pay your share to keep it strong. You can't get something great by putting nothing into it.
As far as voter IDs: the right to vote can't be compared to driving or anything else in this country. One person, one vote is the very backbone of our Constitution. Barriers need to be eased, not put up when it comes to the sacred right of voting.
Fordman—So, homeless people shouldn't be allowed to vote??? Oh, that's right—voting should be reserved for only property owners!
The fraud in the 1960 election was not voter-ID fraud—it was systematic fraud at the precinct level, having D ballots magically appear in large numbers, and R ballots disappear in large numbers. Not unlike what happened in Florida in 2000, or in Ohio in 2004. None of these shenanigans would have been stopped by requiring voter IDs.
Think about it: If you wanted to commit fraud, how many fraudulent votes could you cast in a day? Let's see—you have to go from precinct to precinct so you won't be recognized as a repeat, pull a legitimate voter's name out of thin air of someone who hasn't voted yet that day, and then forge his signature in order to get into the booth. So, WHY do we need voter ID cards?
What I find amazing (or pathetic…) is that so many citizens are taken in by this voter-ID issue, rather than seeing it for what it is. Unfortunately, I was not at all surprised by the Supreme Court decision.
-jp
I believe homeless have a right to vote just like everyone else. But giving people hot food in turn for a vote is wrong. And Florida?? Get over it.
And get your facts straight about about nation debt. We were never on the plus side. National debt has existed since WW2. And as far unemployment goes you are again wrong. Look up statistics before repeating the Democrat play book and you might try another angle. The Clinton years were as high as 6.91 percent.
I can imagine that he meant to refer to the budget Deficit turning Surplus under Clinton.
With regard to unemployment—isn't 5% considered "full employment"? 6.91 doesn't sound very bad, if that were the high-water mark.
As to voter IDs—if it's going to happen I think the 2 big political parties should be required to cough up the cash to fund a photo-ID cards for the poor. Split the cost 50/50.
Thank you Dan for correcting me. I did mean to say budget deficit. And I'm sure Fordman knew what I meant, but is parsing and spinning my words. I'm not getting my ideas from any Democratic playbook. Just cold, hard facts. Here's some more for you to consider.
Unemployment rates according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor:
1992: 7.5% (the end of 12 years of Republican leadership)
1993: 6.9% (Clinton's first year)
1994: 6.1%
1995: 5.6%
1996: 5.4%
1997: 4.9%
1998: 4.5%
1999: 4.2%
2000: 4.0% (Clinton's final year)
2001: 4.7% (Bush's first year)
2002: 5.8%
2003: 6.0%
2004: 5.5%
2005: 5.1%
So, yes Fordman, you are technically right because unemployment was 6.9 percent under Clinton, but it was during the first year of his presidency. What you fail to mention is that the 6.9 percent was a 0.6 percent drop from the year before. And as you can see, the unemployment rates fell consistently through his eight years.
Looking at job creation from another way, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bloomberg Financial Markets, five of the top six job-creating terms since 1928 come from Democratic presidents:
Clinton 1993-1996: 11.6 million
Clinton 1997-2000: 11.4 million
Reagan 1985-1988: 10.8 million
Carter 1977-1980: 10.5 million
Johnson 1965-1968: 9.8 million
Roosevelt 1941-1944: 7.7 million
The bottom five are all Republicans:
Hoover 1929-1932: negative 6.4 million
George W. Bush 2000-2004: negative 1.2 million
Eisenhower 1957-1960: 0.8 million
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 2.5 million
Eisenhower 1953-1956: 2.8 million
Just looking at cold numbers is not completely fair without considering other world events happening concurrently with each term, but you have to admit, there is a distinct trend here.