"Voter ID" rollcall in House: Issue for new campaign ads against ...

[ProgressiveEconomist]

virtually all Republicans?

One of the winning strategies for Republicans six years ago was "chilling" the African-American and anti-racist vote by posing as smiling, not-so-bad alternatives to Big Government. "Faith-based" federal money for church programs was as much as promised to Black ministers who held off from condemning Republicans in sermons. Republican candidates such as Jim Talent in Missouri refrained from pushing any issues that would especially excite African-American voters into a massive turnout against Republicans.

Has yesterday's House vote to pass "Voter ID" vote suppression changed all that? Thousands of still-living African-Americans can attest personally to having spilled blood to get the right to vote. Millions of Americans--though perhaps smaller proportions of Gen Xers and Gen Yers than of Boomers-- remember vivid TV footage of the struggle for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Yesterday's HR4844 vote was a direct affront to all of them. Its cynical title, "The Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006", is a strong selling point against virtually ALL Republicans running for any statewide or national office in two months.

Is it time to break out footage from the sixties, of Bull Connor turning firehoses on people demanding the right to vote, and of Rep. John Lewis (D-GA getting his skull split open by a racist?

Will yesterday's roll-call in the House be useful in key Senate races in VA, NJ, MO, OH, FL, MD, and elsewhere?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incredibly, yesterday's vote to suppress the franchise for disproportionately minority, poor, elderly, and disabled REGISTERED voters was a rare kind of vote, almost strictly along party lines.

Among those who voted, only SEVEN representatives departed from the position of the majority of their party.

From http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2006&rollnumber=459 :

"FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 459

H R 4844 YEA-AND-NAY 20-Sep-2006 4:00 PM QUESTION: On Passage

BILL TITLE: Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006

Party ............ Yeas ...... Nays .......... Not Voting

Republican ...... 224 ......... 3 ............ 3

Democratic ........ 4 ...... 192 ............ 5

Independent ... --- ......... 1"

For details about the "Voter ID" law, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2184544

[RethugAssKicker]

1. Who are the 4 dems ?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

3. Bean (IL), Marshall (GA), Peterson (MN), and

Taylor (MS) were the four Democrats who voted FOR vote suppression. Bass (NH), Bradley (NH), and Young (AK) were the three Republicans who voted AGAINST. Sanders (VT) was the independent. (Click through the link to the H of R in the post).

Sanders is the only name I really recognize. Know anything about the others? For all seven, this might be a case of, "I voted for WHAT??!!"

[ProgressiveEconomist]

5. .

[KamaAina]

7. No, Gene, no! Nooooo!

...Taylor (MS) were the four Democrats who voted FOR vote suppression.

Now who am I going to hold up as an example of a moderate Dem who isn't just a repuke in slight disguise?!

[liberal N proud]

2. I would think there should be an add telling how the Democrat candidate

Voted to protect your right to vote.

The only problem is the right is spinning this as protecting them from illegal votes and keeping the Mexicans from voting and any other spin they and the media can put on it.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

4. This is now an issue of SURVIVAL for the Democratic Party

Ads on this issue would have to be great at explaining there's no evidence of impersonation or of noncitizens somehow registering to vote under existing election law, and that at a minimum HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of legitimate, registered voters would lose their franchise for ABSOLUTELY NO prevention of already-unlawful votes.

And ads would have to build on a media campaign that takes advantage of newspaper editorials like the one in the NY Times today.

But it seems to me this issue is well worth the risk that voters won't understand. If this bill passes the Senate, and the USSC does not overturn it, there will be one-party national rule by Republicans for the foreseeable future.

[galloglas]

6. SURVIVAL for the Democratic Party ??

I'm seriously afraid it's not.

I believe that "thud" we heard, while reading posts in the ERD, was the corpse toppling over.

Go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=450127&mesg_id=450127

Then to :"Reply #9: What if it passes the Senate?? and go from there.

If the three "gutsy Gop Senators", as I read, totally caved in to Bush about torture, it's over.


Watch for the Voter ID bill to get fast-tracked through the Senate!


If anyone wants me, I will be heading for the Bastille.


PS. I should have known! Senator Lindsey Graham co-sponsoed the Constitutional Restoration Act.

Democracy (and Democrats are history). We are now a de facto Theocracy. It's over.

So how/when will we cause it to be "Born Again"? (the freaking pun is optional)