Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Chris Matthews' Rant on Voter Suppression, White Men and Other Nonsense

Hat tip The Blaze

The mad hatters at MSNBC are in full anarchist mode as Chris Matthews leads a panel discussing how the dwindling population of white males is trying to suppress minority voter turnout because they so hate Barack Obama because he is black and is not an American and, and, and.....

Voter suppression? Here is some voter suppression.

Chris need not worry. He may not realize it, but he has the whole government apparatus on Obama's side  including Eric Holder's Justice Department on the scene making sure all the illegal aliens, dead people, convicted felons and anybody else can all vote-whether registered or not.


elwood p suggins said...

Funny (actually not so funny) how the MSM and libs/Dems always manage to refer to voter-ID laws as “voter supression” laws, and also usually work race into the equation. This creates the impression that such laws “disenfranchise” great numbers of people, primarily among minorities. They are partially, but only partially, correct in that voter-ID laws are in fact intended to suppress voting by ineligible voters, whatever their race/ethnicity, to include those Gary mentioned as well as those who lie/fudge about residency and other eligibility issues.

The problem, of course, is that illegitimate votes kill legal votes by voters of either/any party, depending on who is perpetrating the fraud (yes, I know that at least both major parties engage in voter fraud, but my take is that is a much more common Democratic phenomenon), and this can, and sometimes does, de-legitimize elections.

As noted previously, Siarlys, et al tend to consistently deny/dismiss/minimize the extent of voter fraud. Voter fraud is not totally unlike dope, prostitution, gambling, etc., which are often referred to, accurately or otherwise, as “victimless” crimes. Since the people involved in these crimes normally do not snitch theirselves off, there is no way to actually determine their true extent. It is possible to estimate that extent, but those estimates sometimes/often vary widely. The same holds for voter fraud, and it a safe bet that as with the other crimes, what we know, or what we think we know, about it is only the tip of the iceberg, as it were.

A couple of recent examples. I believe the Pew Research Center, which I understand to be “nonpartisan”, did a study which identified some 46,000 (yes, 46,000!!!) people who were dual-registered to vote in both New York (City, I believe) and Florida. The study further identified 1000-plus (at least) of these individuals who had actually voted in both states in recent election(s). For those who think voter fraud of even 1000 votes does not matter, I would remind them that the 2000 presidential election was decided in Florida by only about 537 votes or so, as I recall.

Further, the Colorado Secretary of State identified some 12,000 people who were non-citizens but who nevertheless were in fact registered to vote in that state. These people obviously have absolutely no right to vote anywhere in the U.S., but it was determined that some 5000 of them had actually voted in the Colorado 2010 election.

Not to mention the Moran boondoggle in Virginia. Etc., etc., etc.

Finally, I am not sure that I get the race component of this. There are numerous white people who live under much the same conditions as minorities (yes, Virginia, there are still significant numbers of hillbillies/rednecks/white trash out there in various parts of the country). When it comes to lack of records, births at home, or whatever it is, seems that there would be virtual equal opportunity for similar problems among and between the races. As far as being able to travel to get the required documentation/ID, I know for sure that at least some states have indicated that Mohammed will go to the mountain (again, as it were) and take the ID to the people wherever they are. Should solve it.

Anonymous said...

Awfully quiet around here today.

Gary Fouse said...


I was attending an early morning event in Norwalk, so just getting back into action. Patience.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Governor Romney offered a truly gracious concession speech. President Obama was equally gracious in responding to it. With those examples before us, it would be churlish to indulge in snubbing those who preferred one of these gracious candidates over the other.

Hopefully, we can now set aside the campaign-induced fever for snipping and sniping at every conceivable weak spot, and pay attention to the fact that there are some important decisions our government needs to make, and those actually elected to the House, the Senate, and the White House, are going to have to make those decisions, not our respective fantasies of overwhelming majorities for my/your fondly desired extreme makeover of our nation.

Anonymous said...

I trust you've gotten all your Fox News and National Review talking points in order then.

Gary Fouse said...


Well said.

Anonymous: Not well said.