2012.02.15
Editorial: Midway through the General Assembly
A conservative crossover
If the lawmakers fail, only the governor can block some terrible bills.
In his state of the commonwealth address, Gov. Bob McDonnell urged his fellow Republicans in the General Assembly, “Don’t be arrogant. Don’t overreach.”
They did not listen. Rather than focus on the pressing challenges that confront Virginia, Republicans, who this year took control of both chambers of the legislature, have pursued a radically conservative wish list.
“… Republicans, who this year took control of both chambers of the legislature, have pursued a radically conservative wish list.”
To quote Obama in “08 “elections have consequences”!
Isn’t this the exact same thing that has been taking place in Washington with the Dem controlled WH and Congress for the past several years?
A recent Pew Research report on the states is exacly why Virginia needs a positive voter photo ID system. The report found that nationwide more than 1.8 million dead people are currently registered to vote and 24 million registrations are either invalid or inaccurate. That’s probably on the low side!
Voting in America should not resemble that of a banana republic!
Comment by John R — February 15, 2012 @ 10:32 am
1. John R – just because the registrar has not removed the deceased, does not mean they vote.
Comment by Richard J Beason, CPA — February 15, 2012 @ 10:52 am
Where does the call to arms of the Republicans for “smaller government” come into play here? Mandating women pay for ultrasounds they neither need nor want, making the already stretched to the brink schools fund extracurricular activities for students that don’t even attend their school, and defining “personhood” as beginning from conception thereby taking any rights of the woman carrying the fetus out of the equation, should seem like big government agenda to anyone with a brainstem.
But I guess as long as we’re allowed to buy more than one gun a month everything else will take care of itself.
Comment by KWK — February 15, 2012 @ 11:42 am
#1 Please show us your evidence of the overwhelming vote by dead people, John R. Your post makes it sound like folks using their names are swarming to the polls, which, of course, is not true.
Comment by gdad — February 15, 2012 @ 12:14 pm
To #3 (gdad): It may satisfy not your definition of “overwhelming”, but “voting by the dead” definitely has happened:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/21/south-carolina-attorney-general-informs-justice-department-dead-voters/
In a close election, such votes could make a difference.
Comment by Brian Lindholm — February 15, 2012 @ 12:41 pm
#2 Richard and #2 gdad, and a photo ID would make sure it didn’t happen!
Comment by John R — February 15, 2012 @ 1:29 pm
I’m sorry, but anything by Fox News is on the same level as the Huffington Post. Highly biased and questionable information.
Comment by KWK — February 15, 2012 @ 1:42 pm
6. And a photo id would deny eligible voters their right to vote. For instance, I recently helped a 90 year old women vote in the Republican Primary since she no longer drives. She had no picture id. Had one been required, she could not have voted even though everyone at the poll knew her and had known her for years. The chance that eligible voters not getting the opportunity to vote completely outweighs the obscure chance that a dead person votes. At most polls, the people voting are known. The registrars work hard to identify the voter and make sure they are correctly registered. A picture ID is simply a farce to stop eligible voters from voting.
Comment by Richard J Beason, CPA — February 15, 2012 @ 2:10 pm
#8 – “A picture ID is simply a farce to stop eligible voters from voting.”
What a bunch of hooey.
Why is it that whenever an effort is made to make sure voting is legitimate, the Dems are the first to scream about it?
In the same vein as your comment, Richard, it can also be said that not requiring a picture ID is an effort to ensure voter fraud, can it not?
Comment by Michael — February 15, 2012 @ 2:33 pm
Interestingly enough…”A top state election official disputes a recent claim that more than 950 people who voted in recent elections could actually be dead. Of the six names her office was allowed to examine, all were eligible to vote.”
http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992209084141467&act=post&pid=11862501123771274
This is NOT about voter fraud and everyone knows it.
If it is, have registrars go into the poor, immigrant, elderly and whatever other community it is that is massively voting with ID that does not suit you and offer free voter ID photos and criteria people can actually meet. I dare ya!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 15, 2012 @ 3:10 pm
Why is it that whenever someone insists voting is not legitimate they cannot produce evidence to back up their claim? There are far more mistakes made than ineligible voters casting ballots. Prove me wrong.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 15, 2012 @ 3:12 pm
9. Michael – show me any evidence that voter fraud from lack of identification has ever affected the outcome of any election.
Comment by Richard J Beason, CPA — February 15, 2012 @ 3:34 pm
Not hard to find events of voter fraud:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44573
Especially with absentee ballots, thought to be nationwide.
Comment by BUD — February 15, 2012 @ 3:34 pm
Hmmm…even more examples of dead people voting:
http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2008/10/dead-voters-still-registered-in-harris-county/
#10 – I have absolutely no problem with issuing free ID cards, Sandi. I’m all for whatever it takes to ensure honest elections.
Comment by Michael — February 15, 2012 @ 3:58 pm
Funny how the blogs have all the “information” and the media, even in the area has….nothing.
IF you folks had any such “proof” this would be a federal case, literally and figuratively and we all know it. I am not sure who you are trying to kid, but like I said, I will believe voter fraud is your concern when you support free voter ID drives from the registrars PAID to ensure voter rolls and voters are up to date and accurate. AND when the media or the courts actually have some real information to share. So far, nothing on either front. Telling.
Oh and now you want to refuse absentee ballots too? Wow, are you really that afraid of an election?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 15, 2012 @ 6:12 pm
Since sources don’t matter, I found voter fraud…no picture ID will fix this one though.
http://iowavoters.org/2012/02/05/schultz-vindicated-voter-fraud-proven/
And here is some more…
http://lezgetreal.com/2012/01/okeefe-co-ordinated-voter-fraud-in-new-hampshire/
I see what you mean, maybe we should just bar Republicans from voting and solve this massive problem.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 15, 2012 @ 6:17 pm
To #7 (KWK): Fox News is quite biased, but that doesn’t mean they’re presenting outright falsehoods. [And indeed, all they did in my link in #5 was publish an AP article. Or did you fail to notice the "Associated Press" underneath the headline? Is the AP "highly biased and questionable"?]
When a news organization is biased, they don’t present falsehoods. What they do is emphasize the data that supports their position, while emphasizing less (or even omitting entirely) the data that doesn’t. From what I’ve seen, ALL news organizations do this.
If you’re a liberal, you should be regularly reading Fox News and the Drudge Report to ensure that you learn about things that the more liberal news outlets failed to cover. And if you’re a conservative, you should be regularly reading MSNBC and the Daily Kos to learn about things that the more conservative news outlets failed to cover. If you don’t, you’ll be spouting off opinions based on incomplete data, which greatly increases your chances of saying something stupid.
I read news from a broad spectrum of sites in an effort to see the complete picture. Do you?
Comment by Brian Lindholm — February 15, 2012 @ 6:23 pm
Well, there’s presenting and there’s “presenting” IMO.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201201120014
“Fox Suggests Hundreds Of Votes Were Fraudulently Cast In The Names Of Dead SC Residents”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 15, 2012 @ 6:52 pm
Your absolutely correct, Richard, requiring an ID does keep people from voting.
Those not eligible to vote and those who already did are two groups that come to mind.
Comment by Michael — February 15, 2012 @ 7:04 pm
I am sorry but I disagree vehemently with your idea of “being informed” meaning “regularly reading Fox News and the Drudge Report…regularly reading MSNBC and the Daily Kos”. Getting both “sides” only makes for more angry, resentful, and frankly since most people will not do it, less informed people. There are those who have the time to ingest all that “information” but this nation survived centuries without such “outlets” feeding the masses and in many ways they have made things worse, not better. The time gap and “natural selection” are what they rely on.
I think the reception that liberals get from conservatives here and elsewhere (and vice-versa) when they present information, facts, truth or opinion from their POV tells you how open most are to listening or understanding “the other side”. You imply there is something valuable in listening to people you do not consider to be honest and I just think that is time no one can ever get back.
Better advice would be to question everything you hear and verify from more than one source when possible. That, everyone can make time for. FOX viewers and listeners will tell you that no one has “proved them wrong”, even as an entire business is built around just that.
The Google is your friend. When you search for a topic or point presented and you see blog, after blog, after blog that has the same story and even the exact same words, but few if any actual media outlets, it is a red, angry flag that means you cannot rely on it and at best, it needs verification. The “voter fraud” meme is a perfect case in point.
Just as you assured me the other day that some opinions did not deserve to be heard, same goes for some blogs and media outlets. Credibility matters. You either have it and display it, or you don’t. Facts have a way of showing their own bias, but they can at least be verified.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 15, 2012 @ 7:18 pm
RE: Photo ID. Republicans only favor things that directly benefit them. What’s funny is the number of wannabes who shill so loudly in defense of the the 1%. They are either misguided or on the payroll.
Comment by Art Hill — February 15, 2012 @ 8:19 pm
13, 14, & 19 – BUD and Michael – your cites do not show any damage to voting. Michael’s only shows people registered and BUD’s shows that the system works as is because the perps were caught and tried.
Michael, we do not agree as your ID is just a method to keep the elderly, poor, and minorities from voting. Nothing more. You have not been able to show where fraud has affected one election. Until it has, you have no case.
Comment by Richard J Beason, CPA — February 15, 2012 @ 8:33 pm
To #20 (Sandi): If you find that “listening to people you do not consider to be honest” is just “time no one can ever get back” (and believe that nobody is open to “listening or understanding” your side), then why are you here?
Comment by Brian Lindholm — February 15, 2012 @ 8:35 pm
Oh Brian, I did not see you recommend Roanoke.com, sorry I missed that one.
You asked people to accept and spend time getting “information” from places that are not only biased, but biased in polar opposite ways. People are simply not going to do that. The lack of time to get the in depth info we need is already a big part of every problem (even here) and asking people to spread their attention even thinner will only make it worse. I said it, I believe it and I stand by it.
Now, if you had actually said, that people should read and investigate the blow back or challenge their parroted points from any of those biased sources meet, or that they should not accept everything they read or hear that they agree with as fact, I would have cheered you on. THAT would be constructive and would enhance the discussion here and in the rest of the community.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 15, 2012 @ 9:33 pm
To #24 (Sandi): Um, if I thought roanoke.com was a bad news source, would I be participating in the RoundTable blog? That doesn’t make sense. Good grief.
And I’m certainly not opposed to doing more research and investigating. My comment in #17 was meant to encourage people to be more complete in their awareness of what’s going on around them. I stand by that recommendation, but it wasn’t a total recommendation. There often is need to dig further, but I’d thought that was obvious.
And I’ll admit, I didn’t dig into the report on “voting by the dead” very much. Did a quick Google search and grabbed the first report by the Associated Press that I found. However, I’ve dug into other subjects such as uranium mining and global warming much more thoroughly. Hopefully you remember those efforts.
Comment by Brian Lindholm — February 15, 2012 @ 10:37 pm
Interesting, here we have people/groups deliberately and fraudulently registering people to vote and obtaining absentee ballots. And then raising heck about IDs being necessary to vote. You’re a bright boy Richard. Go connect those dots. Think there’s a reason for the wiff of smoke in the air?
Oh I see…people are going through these machinations throughout the country so they can get caught, fined and/or jailed.
Nothing to see here..move along!
Comment by BUD — February 16, 2012 @ 7:05 am
Same people are calling for an end to that archaic electoral college method of voting. I’m sure there’s no connection.
Comment by BUD — February 16, 2012 @ 7:12 am
#22 – Do you think people go through the effort of registering dead people and others who are ineligible to vote for the fun of it Richard? Of course they are trying to sway an election!
Comment by Michael — February 16, 2012 @ 8:00 am
NOTHING about being on a register or list means you get to or have voted.
NOTHING about a picture ID means that people will not still be on the list.
NOTHING about this “hue and cry” is about illegal votes being cast.
NOTHING about disenfranchising older, minority or isolated voters is right.
NOTHING about this is grounded in anything except discrimination.
Until these bills are presented with the caveat that registrars are to go out and make real, sincere and demonstrable effort to identify and process the photo requirements to remain eligible to vote before the change can take effect it will, like so many other right wing ideas, not pass the smell test. Dogs get credit cards, it does not mean they get to use them. You are not fooling anyone.
If you are sincere in wanting this to become the law and the norm, make sure the registrars accommodate those voters we feel will be at a disadvantage and you can have all the requirements your heart’s desire.
Oddly enough, you will still not have actual voter fraud.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 16, 2012 @ 8:32 am
Who is this “same people” BUD? I believe I have seen you in here posting about “the will of the people”. How does that ideology square with the Electoral College. (Other than the obvious fact that the Founders did not much trust “the will of the people” either, that is.)
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 16, 2012 @ 8:34 am
28. Michael, dead people are registered before they die. The registrar has to remove them after they die. As I said before, show me an election that has been affected by dead people voting.
Comment by Richard J Beason, CPA — February 16, 2012 @ 9:23 am
What I see happening Sandi, is an election winning philosophy permeating the electorate. Overwhelm the system with votes- get a result–declare a winner ASAP and to hell with the integrity of the system. Just get as many votes cast, any way a vote can be cast and sweat the small stuff later or the next election.
You a non citizen, you want to vote absentee, both…eeeehhhhhh who cares. Vote absentee in NY..snowbird to Floriduh and vote again- how clever.
Will of the people? Has the will of the people been definitely stated with an election result of 51%-49% and 35% didn’t vote? Maybe. But I like the Electoral College. If there’s been considerable voter fraud in PHILLY, it effects PA and not a simple nationwide majority vote which is what the left wants.
Comment by BUD — February 16, 2012 @ 11:05 am
As a follow up to the whole vote ID/election fraud debate, this seems interesting. The whole article is worth a read I think.
http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/all-quiet-on-the-voter-fraud-front/?ref=opinion
The Minnesota ACLU has offered a $1000 reward for an example of voter impersonation, which a proposed amendment requiring ID at the Minnesota polls would have prevented. Anyone looking to compete for the cash should know the following restriction: the case must have been prosecuted in Minnesota within the last 10 years.
More….
Comment by Scott M. — February 16, 2012 @ 12:22 pm
Making things up will not help the issue BUD. Until you prove a non-citizen has voted, a Florida snow bird has voted twice or that the system has no integrity, you are just an old man yelling “get off my lawn you dirty hippies!”.
My point was that you cannot decry “the will of the people” on the Electoral College issue and then proclaim it when it suits your purpose (gay marriage, abortion, guns).
That enough people participate to negate the mistakes, tricks and fraud you believe to be rampant is our only recourse and turning voters off will make it worse, not better. Do you REALLY believe that all of the people w/o the “proper” ID are Dems? You are going to be surprised, I promise!
As soon as the supporters agree that registrars have to make the effort to accommodate and switch registered voters to whatever ID it is you demand, make it free and reasonably accessible, I have no problem with a photo ID to vote. As is? Hell no!
Look at the debacle of switching from “rabbit ears” to digital TV. PLENTY of people in this nation are “off the grid” and should not be punished for that.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 16, 2012 @ 12:56 pm
Makings things up??
http://www.fortreport.com/floridavoting/info/twice/
sorry for the long link…
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2004/10/people_who_vote_twice.html
get off my lawn Sandi…after you offer your apology
Comment by BUD — February 16, 2012 @ 1:48 pm
Sorry BUD, obviously some stupid people did vote twice in 2004. And a picture ID will fix those problems exactly how? You all keep bringing up systemic failures (and people’s stupidity) but no true “voter fraud”. Seems to me a better use of money would be to educate and network registrars offices and mainline voter databases. You tell me how a Picture ID to vote fixes the double dippers?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 16, 2012 @ 2:04 pm
“As I said before, show me an election that has been affected by dead people voting.”
Nixon vs. Kennedy The state of Illinois.
Comment by Phil Chitwood — February 16, 2012 @ 3:06 pm
#17 Brian Lindholm – I actually prefer to get the facts about a particular issue or story and then form my own opinion based on said facts. But if you have the time and inclination to read, watch, listen to all of the various media outlets to form your stance, then more power to you. Just because people have different processes doesn’t necessarily mean that one is right and one is wrong.
Comment by KWK — February 16, 2012 @ 3:54 pm
#37 – Don’t forget Minnesota’s 2008 General Election, Phil.
http://www.minnesotamajority.org/TheIssues/ElectionIntegrity/tabid/188/Default.aspx
Comment by Michael — February 16, 2012 @ 4:25 pm
Sure this can be fixed with a picture ID, even if someone is brave enough to vote fraudulently and commit that felony, they are darn sure gonna be afraid to do it with a fraudulent picture ID. You folks are such good problem solvers. Have I mentioned that lately? I think it should be acknowledged.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 16, 2012 @ 4:28 pm
Do you notice the sources linked to all have a distinct identity? Wonder what is up with that? Of course…the mainstream media must support fraudulent elections. Thanks be to God for those intrepid blog “warriors”.
I am going out on a thin limb here but, seriously? Maybe if the State AG and “30 county attorneys and 30 county auditors”, ALL virtually ignore your “evidence” and investigate nothing, you might be an idiot.
Anyone come up with the way that the Photo ID law you want would stop those duplicate votes the blogs are finding that you keep linking to?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 16, 2012 @ 6:44 pm
I see a delicious irony in the idea that Nixon “was robbed”. I simply do. Is there a credible study on that very close (and yes, dirty) election that ever came close to proving that amounted to enough to sway the election? If nothing else it gave us decades of folklore and political punch lines.
Again, this is all fun and games, but seriously folks, what about a photo ID fixes all those problems? Is it one crime too many? What?
That you are so willing to disenfranchise eligible voters in pursuit of your white whale is just sad IMO. I feel you will eventually prevail and no fair effort will be made for those voters who will have to expend extra effort just to vote, but you know what, winning does not make you right. I think you know that.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 16, 2012 @ 7:01 pm