Monday, 10 October 2011


Ken Berwitz

The New York Times is outraged over the fact that state after state is expecting voters to present valid ID's before casting their ballots - so much so that its lead editorial today is on this subject.

Here is the lead editorial, in rust - with my comments about it in blue.  Please read them both and see which you think is more mythical:  the claims of voter fraud or the claim that The New York Times is still a great newspaper:

The Myth of Voter Fraud Nah, no such thing as voter fraud.  Or illegal aliens with drivers licenses.  Or people collecting social security checks for dead relatives.  Or people cheating on their income tax.  You can make an excellent argument that the title of this editorial is the single most ridiculous thing about it.

It has been a record year for new legislation designed to make it harder for Democrats to vote 19 laws and two executive actions in 14 states dominated by Republicans, according to a new study by the Brennan Center for Justice. As a result, more than five million eligible voters will have a harder time participating in the 2012 election. Isn't that the identical "harder time" they have getting out library books, buying a bottle of wine, using a check at the supermarket, and all the other countless activities for which an ID is required?  Oh, the horror!!

Of course the Republicans passing these laws never acknowledge their real purpose, which is to turn away from the polls people who are more likely to vote Democratic, particularly the young, the poor, the elderly and minorities. Er, poll after poll shows that most democrats support Voter ID laws too.  How come you didn't mention that?  Well, at least you only hit us with "minorities" in general, rather than tossing in the specific charge of "racism" you use to define pretty much everything Republicans think or do.  (Oh wait, never mind, the "racism" charge comes later in the editorial.)  They insist that laws requiring government identification cards to vote are only to protect the sanctity of the ballot from unscrupulous voters. Cutting back on early voting, which has been popular among working people who often cannot afford to take off from their jobs on Election Day, will save money, they claim. Evidently, giving voters a week to vote instead of two weeks is a horrible miscarriage of justice to the brainiacs at The Times.  Hey, why stop there?  Maybe you should also demand the end of sporting events, like baseball and football games, being started and finished in just a few hours' time.  Why not demand that games last two or three weeks so it will be easier for working people to watch them.  Same with movies and plays.  Can this be more idiotic?

None of these explanations are true. There is almost no voting fraud in America. And none of the lawmakers who claim there is have ever been able to document any but the most isolated cases. The only reason Republicans are passing these laws is to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes.  Expecting voters to demonstrate they are who they say they are before casting their ballots is voter suppression?  Of WHO?  Certainly not legal voters.  Lets seewhat kind of voter does that leave us with?  Hmmmmm.

The most widespread hurdle has been the demand for photo identification at the polls, a departure from the longstanding practice of using voters signatures or household identification like a utility bill. Seven states this year have passed laws requiring strict photo ID to vote, and similar measures were introduced in 27 other states. More than 21 million citizens 11 percent of the population do not have government ID cards. Many of them are poor, or elderly, or black and Hispanic and could have a hard time navigating the bureaucracy to get a card.  Ahh, theres that racism charge we all knew was coming. 

According to the New York Times, Blacks and Hispanics along with poor and elderly people could have a hard time navigating the bureaucracy to get a card.  In other words, the editorial board of the Times believes these people are so limited that they would struggle with showing documentation of who they are, then having their picture taken.  And the Times is calling other people racist?  

Using this logic how dare anyone expect poor, elderly, Black or Hispanic people to get drivers licenses either?  After all, thats one helluva lot more bureaucracy to wade through than a photo ID.  

Hey, heres an idea for the Times editorial board:  why not demand that their home towns just let people drive without licenses.  Since they are of lesser intelligence and capability, it will make their lives much easier.  And it will prove that Times people are great humanitarians, ever willing to help out the limited folks who are so much in need of their assistance. (sorry for the sarcasm dripping from your monitor). 

In Kansas, the secretary of state, Kris Kobach (who also wrote Arizonas notorious anti-immigrant law), pushed for an ID law on the basis of a list of 221 reported instances of voter fraud in Kansas since 1997. Even if that were true, it would be an infinitesimal percentage of the votes cast during that period, but it is not true.  How can anyone possibly know how much voter fraud takes place?  By definition, all successful voter fraud is undetected.  Thats another little something which is left out of this editorial. 

When The Wichita Eagle looked into the local cases on the list, the newspaper found that almost all were honest mistakes: a parent trying to vote for a student away at college, or signatures on mail-in ballots that didnt precisely match those on file. In one case of supposed fraud, a confused non-citizen was asked at the motor vehicles bureau whether she wanted to fill out a voter registration form, and did so not realizing she was ineligible to vote.  Wow.  No one ever commits voter fraud in the entire state of Kansas or the other states as well.  Refer, please, to what I wrote about the title of this editorial.

Some of the desperate Republican attempts to keep college students from voting are almost comical in their transparent partisanship. No college ID card in Wisconsin meets the states new stringent requirements (as lawmakers knew full well), so the elections board proposed that colleges add stickers to the cards with expiration dates and signatures. Republican lawmakers protested that the stickers would lead to yes, voter fraud.  How awful of those dirty Wisconsin Republicans.  Everyone knows that the political profile of college faculties is a true microcosm of the overall voting public almost as many Republicans as Democrats so they could never fudge student IDs to give one party an edge over the other.  Not with all those Republican faculty members watching their every move.  Right? 

Other states are beginning to require documentary proof of citizenship to vote, or are finding other ways to make it harder to register. Some are cutting back on programs allowing early voting, or imposing new restrictions on absentee ballots, alarmed that early voting was popular among black voters supporting Barack Obama in 2008. In all cases, they are abusing the trust placed in them by twisting democracys machinery to partisan ends.  Ending with the race card again?  What a shock.   

Remember when the New York Times wasn't a ridiculous propaganda rag for the left?  Maybe's been quite a while since that was true.

And, sadly, editorials like this, which whine that IDing voters before they cast their ballots is some kind of partisan plot - strongly suggest that the Times is unlikely to reverse field and become a serious newspaper again any time soon. 

Maybe never.

Zeke ..... ...... Don't "the deserving poor" have Medicaid cards, driver's licenses, welfare cards ? .... .... NJ requires a bunch of ID (I recall submitting birth certificate, passport, utility bill, etc) to get a driver's license. SEIU, ACORN (or whatever those nuts call themselves now), various Sorosistas grab such soft targets in our society for their own ends. Soros has funded a "Secretary of State Project", so his minions will not be challenged in vote counts. .... .... .... The New York Times (a couple of generations ago) sold for a nickel. .... It's worth has declined over time. .... .... (10/10/11)

Loryn Whoever edits and publishes these articles raelly knows what they're doing. (10/29/11)

Zeke s/b: Its ..... <--- grammar police (10/10/11)

free Where in this editorial do they show that it will hurt D's more than other parties? (10/10/11)


Ken Berwitz

I don't know if that title is a direct quote from President Obama.  But it might as well be.

Excerpted from a Reuters article I pulled from

Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundations Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.

In 2008, Wall Streets largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obamas total take, according to Reuters.

When asked by The Daily Caller to comment about President Obamas credibility when it comes to criticizing Wall Street, the White House declined to reply.

Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says the distance between the presidents rhetoric and actions makes him look hypocritical.

Its almost as if President Obama wont cross across a Wall Street picket line except to get inside with [his] hand out, so he can raise money, Fleischer told TheDC, referring to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators who the president has been encouraging over the past week. That sort of support causes him to look hypocritical.

Fleischer continued by saying that President Obama and Democrats, such as New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who has received approximately $8.7 million from Wall Street since 1989, should stop taking campaign donations from Wall Street banks if they are so offended by their actions.

In fact, the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks lobbyist spending and influence in both parties, found that President Obama has received more money from Bank of America than any other candidate dating back to 1991.

What frauds President Obama and his fellow Democrats are, as they endorse the "Occupy Wall Street" movement while raking in big money from the Wall Streeters they pretend to condemn.

What contempt they have for their supporters, to pull this kind of a dishonest two-faced routine on them.

How disgusting that the only way they can accomplish this is if our "accomplice media" withhold the facts you have just read from their readers/viewers/listeners - which Obama & Co. obviously are counting on them to do (why not?  Doesn't experience mean something?)

And how terribly disheartening that so many of their supporters, kept ignorant of what is really going on, will fall for this fraudulent two-timing scam.  Hook, line and sinker.

Zeke .... .... The "Occupy" banzai charge, launched simultaneously in so many cities is a significant undertaking. ..... Just feeding that many people, providing legal muscle to not get thrown out, avoiding disorderly arrests (relieving oneself in public) --- and all at once. ..... ..... Now, Unions are joining in. .... .... WHO is behind this ? .... What is the next step ? ? .... Violence ? .... ..... (10/10/11)

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!