For a brief moment there, when I saw the headline on the release, I had the light of battle in my eye and was calling for my sword… but then I realized it was just more hyperbolic, apocalyptic silliness from the South Carolina GOP:
South Carolina is Under Attack
Over the past few months we have endured the full effects of the federal government’s war against South Carolina. While we try to deal with problems on a state level, they federal government has tried to block our actions multiple times.
For example, the federal government has trampled over our right to hold fair and free elections by striking down Voter ID, taken away our ability to secure our state from illegal immigration while leaving Americas borders unsecured, and nearly derailed the ability of Boeing to create jobs in Charleston thanks to the NLRB.
As our state attempts to monitor our borders, recruit industry, and secure our elections, the federal government’s efforts cripple our ability to improve our state.
Ultimately, the federal government is putting our state’s future in jeopardy, and we have tried to limit ourselves on relying on Washington and the 16 trillion dollars of debt Congress has accrued.
And we will not give up the fight. The federal government will continue to suggest that we can’t secure our own future but the S.C. Senate Republican Caucus will continue the fight against this every step of the way.
-Wesley Donehue
[Senate Republican] Caucus Spokesman
Maybe the folks who make those excruciatingly boring ads — such as this one and this one — for the presidential candidates should get my Pub Politics friend Wesley to write some stuff for them, spice things up a bit. Maybe we’ll see some real fire in a Bachmann ad, since Wesley’s working with her…
I don’t blame Wesley for the nonsense in that message; I have little doubt that his assertions reflect well the views of many of the Republican state senators he works for. They believe this stuff.
The irony here is that, with the exception of the completely uncalled-for (and recently abandoned) outrage of the NLRB business, none of these are cases of the federal government getting aggressive with the state of South Carolina. Quite the opposite. Voter ID was a completely uncalled-for attempt to address a largely imaginary problem in a way that invited invocation of the Voting Rights Act. As for South Carolina’s attempt to completely usurp one of the few functions that is clearly federal, the control of the nation’s borders, well I should smile, as Mark Twain would have said.
And the NLRB thing didn’t turn out to be much of an “attack,” did it?
As satirists viewing us from afar well know, the only entity “crippling” South Carolina’s ability to improve itself is South Carolina. Most of our wounds are self-inflicted.
Related Posts
“1861” much, Wesley?
Meanwhile, SC Governot Nikki Haley scams $1M in federal grant money from the federal government to set up a Health Care Exchange that she never, ever, wanted to provide to South Carolina citizens in the first place.
If I were the federal government, I’d demand the return of the grant money!
“Voter ID was a completely uncalled-for attempt to address a largely imaginary problem in a way that invited invocation of the Voting Rights Act. ” – Brad
Readers may wish to acquaint themselves with recent, relevant and underreported news. It seems that indictments and convictions for absentee voter fraud are laid at the feet of the very party which calls has always termed it “largely imaginary problem”.
Four NY Democrats Plead Guilty to Voter Fraud Felony Charges.
and, Indiana Democratic Party Head Resigns as Fraud Probe Heats Up
and, closer to home 12 former officials indicted for voter fraud
S.C.’s voters, who wait in long lines to cast single, legitimate votes, do not consider organized attempts at “grand theft election” to be minor nuisances the way its actual perpetrators apparently do:
“It is difficult to make a man understand a thing when his salary depends on him not understanding it.”
(Upton Sinclair)
I don’t know him at all, but still really, it doesn’t seem like Wesley. He’s a much better writer than this. And he’s also more conscientious.
“While we try to deal with problems on a state level, they federal government….” What is “they federal government”?
And then at the end: “The federal government will continue to suggest that we …”
Really?! All that business about how we’re under attack, and then, what is it really that the federal government is going to do to us next? They’re going to “suggest” things? They’re going to give us unsolicited advice?
Go, Senate Republicans, go! Fight against unsolicited advice from the federal government! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Here you go, Wesley. Try this next time.
The Federal Government is Destroying South Carolina’s Future
Over the past few months, the federal government has blocked South Carolina from taking action to improve our voting process, our public safety, and our economy.
Attorney General Eric Holder trampled over our ability to hold free and fair elections by blocking South Carolina’s Voter ID Law. U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel took away our ability to secure our state from illegal immigrants by granting a federal injunction against South Carolina’s Illegal Immigration Law. NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon nearly derailed our ability to create jobs in South Carolina by filing a lawsuit, that he later withdrew, against Boeing’s decision to build their 787 here.
While our state has been taking action to secure our elections, improve our public safety, and recruit industry to our state, the federal government has been working against us, crippling our ability to improve our state. Meanwhile, the federal government has taken no action to improve our country’s economy and no action to secure our country’s borders. What they have done is increased spending so that now our country has a debt of 16 trillion dollars.
In all these ways, the federal government is putting South Carolina’s future in jeopardy. In 2012, the federal government will continue their assault on our future, but we will not give up the fight. The S.C. Senate Republican Caucus will fight against the destructive actions of our federal government every step of the way.
@ Michael Rodgers– Not the comfy chair!
@Juan Caruso, All “Voter ID” does is negatively impact registered voters who go to the polls to lawfully vote. “Voter ID” has nothing to do with voter registration, fradulent or not. “Voter ID” has nothing to do with absentee voting, fraudulent or not.
“All “Voter ID” does is negatively impact registered voters who go to the polls to lawfully vote.” – Michael Rodgers
Balderdash! Since absentee ballots are the vehicle of choice for organized vote fraud and felony, mandating voter IDs is necessary first step to stem the corruption of the current process. Long dead folks, out-of-state union thugs and ACORN’s cartoon favorites, for instance, will not have SC voter IDs, will they? One Georgia county caught 12 election and school board officials (now removed from office) in such frauds. Trouble has been the detection process before voter IDs has taken too long, and the election damage has already been done. Aren’t lawyers a crafty bunch!
@Juan Caruso,
You’re saying that there are potential — or actual! — problems about voter registration and absentee balloting. You’re also saying that South Carolina’s Voter ID bill addresses those problems.
I am saying that, contrary to your second assertion, South Carolina’s Voter ID bill does not address those problems.
In South Carolina, every person who votes at the polls (1) must have already registered beforehand and (2) must show proof that he is the person (a) he says he is and (b) on the voter list. This is the current system for people who vote at the polls.
What Voter ID does is limit the ways that the person can show proof that he is who he says he is when he goes to the polls. Whether this limitation is crucially important for the security of our elections or a new Jim Crow style of disenfranchisement or something in between is the question to talk about when talking about Voter ID.
Whether Voter ID can stop registration fraud or absentee balloting fraud is not the question to talk about. It can’t.
@Juan — absentee ballots are the vehicle of choice
Have you reviewed the requirements at scvotes.org?
Please be aware that 26.2% of SC registered voters (the 356,215 who are 65+) readily qualify for an absentee ballot under these conditions
Persons qualified to vote by absentee ballot:
•Persons who will be on vacation outside their county of residence on Election Day
•Members of the Uniformed Services or Merchant Marine, and their spouses and dependents residing with them
•Persons who, for reasons of employment, will not be able to vote on election day
•Physically disabled persons
•Persons sixty-five years of age or older
•Persons serving as a juror in state or federal court on Election Day
•Persons admitted to the hospital as emergency patients on day of election or within a four-day period before the election
•Persons with a death or funeral in the family within three days before the election
•Persons confined to a jail or pre-trial facility pending disposition of arrest or trial
•Persons attending sick or physically disabled persons
•Certified poll watchers, poll managers, and county election officials working on Election Day
——————————————————————————–
Procedures for voting by absentee ballot:
Qualified voters may vote absentee in person or by mail.
In Person – Visit your county voter registration office , complete an application, and cast your ballot. You may vote absentee in person up until 5:00 p.m. on the day before the election.
By Mail – Step 1: Request an absentee application. You can request the application online or by calling, emailing, mailing, or faxing your county voter registration office.
Step 2: You will be mailed an application.
Step 3: Return the completed application to your county voter registration office by 5:00 p.m. on the 4th day prior to the election (the 4th day is Friday for all Tuesday elections). You may return the application in person or by mail, email, or fax.
Step 4: You will be mailed an absentee ballot.
Step 5: Vote the ballot following ballot instructions and return it to your county voter registration office by 7:00 p.m. on the day of the election. You may return the ballot personally or by mail. You may also have another person return the ballot for you, but you must first complete an authorization to return absentee ballot form, available from your county voter registration office.
So, to sum up tired old man’s helpful post, absentee ballots are still as ripe as ever for manipulation—not to say they ever were. It’s just the face-to-face, in-person voting, where purporting to be Mickey Mouse might be expected to raise eyebrows, that is subject to the Voter ID requirements.
@ Michael Rodgers
“You’re also saying that South Carolina’s Voter ID bill addresses those problems.”
Please never put words in my mouth!
What I did say, however, was, “Trouble [with absentee balloting] has been the detection process before voter IDs has taken too long, and the election damage has already been done.”
For instance, the recent indictments of 12 Georgia officials (Democrats) for absentee ballot frauds dates to an election two years ago. Whoever their frauds helped could still be in office. The case of U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-Minnesota) clearly attests that delayed detection of ballot irregularities (even when sufficient to swing the vote the other way), does not impact winners previously certified, justifiably or not.
@ Tired old man
“[A]bsentee ballots are the vehicle of choice “for organized vote fraud and felony, mandating voter IDs is necessary first step to stem the corruption of the current process. Long dead folks, out-of-state union thugs and ACORN’s cartoon favorites, for instance, will not have SC voter IDs, will they?”
In response you said, “Please be aware that 26.2% of SC registered voters (the 356,215 who are 65+) readily qualify for an absentee ballot under these conditions”
Well, doesn’t that hefty percentage, which by reports in SC newspapers includes the dead and other illegitimate voters, indicate to you exactly why ORGANIZED VOTE FRAUD is the vehicle of choice?
And, for readers with short memories, can we guess which political party (hint: the one represented by the most trial lawyers) pushed for the voter ID law compromise that expanded absentee voter qualifications to its current dimensions? Before anyone gets testy, I approve of said expansions, and had reviewed the provisions. Mark these words, SC will have its own indictments for organized voting fraud in the next few years, now that the dead, non-resident, and fictitious have been well documented.
Those who clamor for transparency in government would do well to demand the transparency of votes that place elected officials in that institution. I include not only Brad and many of his readers, but Gov. Nikki Haley in the collection of “those who clamor”.
Considering how easy it is to get a handicapped window hangy thing, I assume it’s just as easy to manipulate the absentee ballot. If that’s not enough, and Obama is on the ballot, your local AME church will run their buses to make sure you go out and vote for the candidates selected by the minister solely on race. Wait, didn’t I just describe ACORN?
Voter ID was a completely uncalled-for attempt to address a largely imaginary problem in a way that invited invocation of the Voting Rights Act.
-Brad
Actually the problem is quite real. With a rapidly growing black and Hispanic voting population the GOP is afraid of losing control of the political agenda in this state. So what is a good reactionary party to do? Disenfranchise, that’s what.
For every successful incident of voter fraud in this country by Democrats or liberals there are at least 50 illegal, yet successful incidents of voter disenfranchisement by conservatives and Republicans.
“bud says:
“For every successful incident of voter fraud in this country by Democrats or liberals there are at least 50 illegal, yet successful incidents of voter disenfranchisement by conservatives and Republicans.”
Interesting, Bud, but you know what other of Brad’s readers seem to do that you do not? Give us the source for such choice stats. You are not dealing with dummies here, bud.
@Juan Caruso
What you specifically said was “Since absentee ballots are the vehicle of choice for organized vote fraud and felony, mandating voter IDs is necessary first step to stem the corruption of the current process.”
@Steven Davis–What is the possible problem with a church running buses to ensure that legitimate voters have adequate transportation to the polling places? Everyone doesn’t have a vintage SUV gassed up and ready to go.
Simply an observation, I didn’t notice this happening prior to a black man (well half, black… the half that ran out on him and his mother) running for president. Can you give ONE example of it happening in any other election?
bud – Please state your source for that information.
@ Michael Rodgers
Now you have it right; that is what I said and anyone giving it thought will understand why voter ID is a necessary first step to stemming absentee voter fraud.
EXAMPLE:
Since the ID act passed the number of SC voters Democrat opponents had claimed might be disenfranchised has DECREASED by more than 100,000 “voters” according to state newspapers. The decrease is attributed to dead, non-resident, and nondescript (phantom) voters. The reduction of eligible voters makes investigations quicker (see why speed matters), as well as easier to flag spurious and duplicate absentee voters when they get their IDs.
What is your source, Juan?
You did understand what Michael posted about how no ID is required, even now, for absentee voting. The only change is to in-person voting.
“For every successful incident of voter fraud in this country by Democrats or liberals there are at least 50 illegal, yet successful incidents of voter disenfranchisement by conservatives and Republicans.”
-bud
Yes bud, I too must join in by asking you to verify your source, please, we are waiting.
@KF
This was an earlier source (by 3 months), but although the interpretation is implausible (even a good lawyer cannot defend an interpretation adding the dead and non-resident to the legitimate voter poll). So I ask, can you?
http://www.chron.com/news/article/APNewsBreak-SC-voter-ID-count-excluded-thousands-2197187.php
I’m confused. The story is about how the allegedly excluded voters were counted, and said they counted as excluded dead people and non-residents. It doesn’t say such people actually “voted.” You seemed to be saying that these people actually voted.
@JC
Look, here is the law that was passed.
The law has the word “absentee” in it only one time, in the voter education program. The State Elections Commission must notify every voter who does not have a driver’s license. Such people must be told about how they can vote absentee. Thus the law is not limiting absentee balloting at all.
Now, to the chron.com article. The State Elections Commission is required to notify these voters who are without driver’s licenses. That means the State Elections Commission must compare their voter list with the DMV’s driver list. What the chron.com article exposes is the neglect of the State Elections Commission to use their entire list.
Finally, again to the chron.com article. It quotes Gov. Haley’s spokesperson saying that the governor has “made it abundantly clear that we want more South Carolinians voting, not less — we just think it’s good policy for them to show a photo ID. Most South Carolinians agree with us and we’re not entirely concerned that chairman of the Democrat Party doesn’t.”
This is yet another example of the ridiculous disinformation spewed around from the right. First, it’s the “Democratic Party”, not the “Democrat Party”. You are guilty of this too, calling people “Democrat opponents” instead of “Democratic opponents”. Second, the issue the Democrats have with the law isn’t the photo ID, it’s the disenfranchisement. What Democrats want is also more South Carolinians voting, not less. And furthermore, Democrats are also NOT OPPOSED to requiring a photo ID. What Democrats are opposed to is the disenfranchisement.
The photo ID system the South Carolina Republicans enacted into law (remember that it was a party-line vote in both houses) is a disenfranchisement system. It disenfranchises too many people.
Is there a way to have a photo ID without disenfranchising people? Yes, there is and it’s wonderful. Look again at the law. There’s a part I really like. It says “The State Elections Commission shall implement a system in order to issue voter registration cards with a photograph of the elector. This voter registration card may be used for voting purposes only.”
This system, however, is completely unspecified and thus the implementation of the system is a vague mystery. I think that the system could be implemented easily to work fairly so that it doesn’t disenfranchise people and so that it could achieve the governor’s objective of having more people voting, not less. But until some more details are worked out and specified, there’s not a lot to go on, to really know.
“What Democrats are opposed to is the disenfranchisement.”- M Rodgers
The facts of military voter disenfranchisement (absentee ballots not counted) after recent elections does not make Democrats champions of enfranchisement, on the contrary (e.g. Al Franken in Minnesota) the facts clearly unmask Democrat hypocrisy.