Republican Lies category archive

Two stories about the hollow hypocrisy of the Republican gut out the vote movement. Two nuggets.

First the facts: it’s all hypocritical hype:

A new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the last dozen years shows that in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, was virtually nonexistent.

The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000.

Monica Yant Kinney writes of lawyer and ex-prosector Tia Sutter, who is has never driven a car and is now disabled:

“I know I could convince a jury of 12 peers beyond a reasonable doubt that I am who I am,” Sutter tells me from her home in East Falls. But so far, neither PennDot nor the Social Security Administration (SSA) agrees about her identity.

“They tell me I don’t exist.”

At the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Timothy Nolan takes a detailed look at the tactics of the Republican gut out the vote movement. A nugget; follow the link for the details:

Since at least 2008, when minority voters gave Barack Obama his victory margin — the president won only 43 percent of the white vote — Republicans have increasingly relied on voter suppression to counterbalance the steady shrinkage of America’s white majority.

Former Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer (currently under indictment for stealing party funds) stated in a deposition released in July that a 2009 party meeting included discussion of “voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting.”

In December, Paul Schurick, a top aide to former Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich, was convicted of election fraud for using automated phone calls to suppress the African-American vote during Mr. Ehrlich’s unsuccessful 2010 bid. “The first and most desired outcome is voter suppression,” stated one consultant’s memo entered into evidence. It described a “Schurick Doctrine” to “promote confusion, emotionalism and frustration among African-American Democrats.”

What the BooMan said.

It’s awfully early in the campaign to start shouting “welfare queens,” now, isn’t it?

About four minutes in, Mike discusses the formula for fomenting hate. If you listen to nothing else, listen to minutes four to six and ask yourself who it calls to mind.

It’s a Republican thing:

At Philly dot com, two law professors conclude that Republican “gut out the vote” laws violate the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, which states succintly:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

A nugget from the column:

The 24th Amendment forbids the imposition of “any poll tax or other tax” in federal elections. Texas’ law flatly violates this provision in dealing with would-be voters who don’t have a state-issued photo ID. To obtain an acceptable substitute, they must travel to a driver licensing office and submit appropriate documents, along with their fingerprints, to establish their qualifications. If they don’t have the required papers, they must pay $22 for a copy of their birth certificate.

If they can’t come up with the money for the qualifying documents, they can’t vote. The 24th Amendment denies states the power to create such a financial barrier to the ballot box.

There’s no there there. TPM:

. . . They’ve (the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania–ed.) formally acknowledged that there’s been no reported in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania and there isn’t likely to be in November.

The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

It’s all hype and hypocrisy.

Senator Nelson of Florida speaks out:

Addendum, Later That Same Day:

Dick Polman considers the reaction. A nugget:

But the prize goes to lobbyist Jeffrey Taylor, who told Politico: “As a conservative Republican, I’m finished with Michele Bachmann…her unquenched need and lust to get on the Sean Hannity show and in front of any TV camera seems to know no ends.” We do need to track the Muslim Brotherhood, he rightfully pointed out, “but it must proceed without innuendo or hint that an American citizen is somehow disqualified from serving her country.“

Keeping old folks from the polls:

Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law appears to impact Philadelphia’s elderly citizens more severely than other age groups – especially those over 80, who will likely find it harder than younger voters to obtain the photo identification they will need at the polls in November.

Out of 44,861 active Philadelphia voters 80 or older, more than one in four, a total of 12,313, do not have photo ID from the state Department of Transportation – either a driver’s license or a nondriver ID. Those figures are based on an Inquirer analysis using computer data developed by PennDot and the Pennsylvania Department of State, which is responsible for state elections.

Among active Philadelphia voters – those who have voted at least once in the last four years – the state counted about 136,000 whose names and birth dates did not match those with PennDot IDs. Overall, that number is 15.6 percent of the city’s active registered voters, about 874,000.

But among older voters, the percentage without PennDot ID increases – to 19.5 percent among voters aged 65 to 79, and 27.4 percent among voters 80 and older.

Much more at the link.

Remember that these laws are not about protecting the integrity of elections.

They are about protecting the incumbency of Republicans, who know that a healthy voter turnout is inimical to them and to the interests of their corporate masters.

In other news, Field considers “retroactive retirement” and “self-deportation” and is inspired to suggest more neologisms.

Out of the mouths of Bains. TPM:

When the it comes to the contentious topic of Mitt Romney’s tax returns, the Romney campaign has invoked precedent, defending their decision to release just two years worth of returns as the standard set by the campaigns of John McCain and John Kerry. The Romney campaign renewed this argument on Sunday.

In fact. Sen. Kerry (D-MA) had released 20 years of tax returns when he ran for president in 2004.

Details at the link.

Door number one? Or door number two?

Noz nails it.

the term (“job creators”–ed.) drives me crazy because it’s wrong. wealthy people are not the same as “employers”. most jobs in this country are created by businesses, not individuals. you could argue that cutting the taxes that a business pays would give that business more money to hire people. but other than domestic servants, wealthy people don’t hire a lot of people using money out of their personal income. and yet when republicans trot out the “job creators” line in response to the president’s proposal to let a personal income tax cut expire, they are not talking about getting america back to work by turning the unemployed into butlers and house cleaners. it’s just a line they use to fool people by blurring the line between wealthy people and the corporations they own.

Whenever I hear a member of the punditocracy use the phrase “job creators” (with Capital Letters in the Pronunciation, awe and reverence in the tone), I can tell you exactly what will come next, word for word before I hear it.

I can, but I don’t. Because you also have heard it all before.

What Glomarization said.

Dick Polman dissects the falsehoods of the Republican “mandate is a tax” mantra. A nugget:

Politicians have been lying since the dawn of the republic. Calling them out is an exercise in futility, roughly akin to handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

But, every so often, a lie is so shamelessly brazen that it behooves us to bemoan it. Witness the Republican talking point du jour, about how President Obama has supposedly slapped a humongous tax hike on the middle class, thanks to his health-reform provision that requires most Americans to buy health coverage.

Follow the link for the post mortem.

Stray attack of the rational(e):

Upholding something under the “taxing power” does not ipso facto make it a tax. Apparently it does make it a talking point.