The Cost of Free Speech

Oh goody! When you ain't spewing racist remarks about the Native Americans and Muslims, you turn your gaze to the blacks.. What a piece of work you are.

Troll. I can always tell - they get caught up on a long word and start accusing everyone else of ignorance!

Wait, didn't Janice Joplin say that first?

For the record, Tanner is a Democrat. Just so's ya know. And the concerns is/was not about the "insensitivity" of the statements, it's about the fact that they are wrong, not based on data available to him from the state of Georgia, and led to his approval of a law on behalf of the DOJ against the advise of his staffers. The law was eventually found unconstitutional by two federal courts who likened it to a modern day Jim Crow-era poll tax.

Chris: This is I can say for sure. Joplin said it after Kristoferson wrote it and Gordon LIghtfoot and Roger MIller had already sung it.

Brad: Really, I think you make my point. This discussion, which is a good discussion to have, has nothing to do with the circus created by Tanner's comments. And thank you for telling me Tanner is a Democrat. Just so's ya know: most of the MSM stories and the Democratic members of the House Committee neglected to mention that. To hear them talk, you would have thought he was a Bushie. Lighten up a bit, Brad, and read the post again.

Well, ultimately, he has been a Loyal Bushie. He was appointed to the position by the Bushie's and has acted like one since taking the job (previously he had rejected an almost identical Photo ID law for N. Carolina…when he was working under Clinton). Ultimately, his party affiliation — at least as far as I'm concerned - has nothing to do with anything. It's the god awful job he's done, fighting for the disenfranchisement of voters, and others disasters he's created within the DoJ CIVIL RIGHTS Voting Section, that he must be held accountable for. Comments in your original post such as "Minorities are just as healthy as whites and enjoy similar life expectancies? This is good news. It certainly makes nationalized healthcare less urgent." are simply ridiculous, certainly disingenous and make you look foolish. Davis made no such argument. "Lighten up?" I'll lighten up when the right to vote, the one that Americans have fought and died for over the century (and the one supposedly being fought for with American blood overseas today) stops being impeded by those who would rather win elections by keeping people from voting, rather than succeeding in the arena of ideas. I can think of nothing more unAmerican than the people of the folks who would do what the Bush administration has done to our democracy. And that too, has *nothing* to do with anybody's party affiliation as far as I'm concerned.

Brad: Lighten up. Voting ID restrictions are not extraordinary measures. Scores of democracies require voter ID. To suggest that Republicans are out dreaming up schemes to disfranchise legitimate voters is "disingenuous and foolish." Americans (and by that I mean ALL Americans) have more access to the franchise today than at any time in our history. Just for kicks: let me just give you one more nail in my fascist coffin. I think a national ID card is a good idea. National ID would help in terms of fraudulent voting, proving eligibility for work, and solve a host of problems at the airport. As for the quote you reference, let me say what I wanted to say in a more straightforward way: there are a whole set of statistics and assumptions that have been in use for a generation. Generally, they benefit one side of the partisan divide. However, if you turn those stats around to make a counter-point, all Hell breaks lose. One more thing: don't kid yourself. Tanner was a national page-one story over his remarks and the reaction to them–not about anything he did at DOJ.

"Voting ID restrictions are not extraordinary measures. Scores of democracies require voter ID. To suggest that Republicans are out dreaming up schemes to disfranchise legitimate voters is "disingenuous and foolish."" Apparently you are content on continuing to write about things about which you haven't a clue. For some three years of my reporting on the Republican out that was, in fact, very specifically, and with a great deal of (still-mysterious) funding doing exactly that, please peruse http://www.BradBlog.com/ACVR If you are unaware of the specific strategy that has, yes, been dreamt up by the GOP <i>solely</i> to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning voters, than you are writing about stuff you are wholly unfamiliar with. Your next comment, would further suggest exactly that: "National ID would help in terms of fraudulent voting, proving eligibility for work, and solve a host of problems at the airport." Let me know any bit of "fraudulent voting" that you feel such an ID would prevent. Feel free to cite any instance of such voting, when and where it occurred, what election it effected, and how such an ID (or a required Photo ID, such as the one that was found unconstitutional in GA and other states) would prevent the "fraudulent voting" you refer to. BTW, the bit of state-supplied data that Tanner ignored in his overturned 2005 decision (which was recommended AGAINST by all but one of the DoJ Civil Rights Voting Section staffers that reviewed it under the VRA) was that some 600,000 legal Georgia voters did not have such ID and would likely be disenfranchised by the law. As well, the creators of the unconstitutional law were unable to cite a single case of fraudulent voting in the state of GA (ever!) that would have been prevented by their law. Good luck to you on all!

Sorry for the dupes. The blog kept reporting "Connection timed out" for some reason, despite apparently posting the comment anyway.

Brad: lighten up. By that I mean turn the melodrama down just a notch. The good news for you: the nasty Texas fascists are going home soon, and, more than likely, the pure-hearted Democrats, who only want truth, justice, and the American way, are on their way back to total control of the Federal City. Seriously, a rational Democratic president will be good for the country, as Democrats on the edge will have an opportunity to reinvest in the system–which is something we desperately need. Every dark cloud has its silver lining. Brad, Brad, Brad. You seem like a nice fellow. Your blog is impressive. I will make it a point to read more and deeper in the days to come, and I will interact with you. However, you are parroting a recent Demo talking point in re voter fraud. "Show me a case." See Hugh Hewitt's book, for starters. Regardless, can you really say seriously, that there is not one case of fraudulent voting out there? That is, there is a massive, systemic, Rovian GOP conspiracy to disfranchise Democrats on the one hand, but, on the other, there is not one case of Demo voter shenanigans? Anyhow, this is a worthy dialogue–and I compliment you on your argument. I take seriously your challenge to produce evidence. I pledge to dig some, investigate further your charges and your "evidence" of GOP conspiracy, and continue ASAP. One last thing: you mentioned a few posts back that Tanner was a Democrat. What is your speculation as to why he decided to turn to the dark side?

I didn't know that about the origin of the quote. Glad I posed it as a question As for a national ID card, it won't happen, even if it is for just voting. The states will sue because it is a breach of their states rights. I know it is a patchwork system of rules when anything is governed by the states themselves, but at least at the state level there is more of a chance to change it. The citizens have more power the more local government is. Instead of thinking national perhaps we should be looking more local. We should give more power to the states. Just throwing that out there…

Chris: It is a good point and a good suggestion. I think a locally based system of ID is more workable. The problem is getting the cooperation of 50 states in re high standards. Of course, that is not an insurmountable challenge. States working together makes more sense philosophically. But, bottom line, a standardized, nation-wide system (albeit locally controlled) helps us on a number of fronts. Back to voting: it is not unreasonable to make voters prove they are who they say they are, as long as there is a reasonable and accessible system to obtain ID.

I feel your pain.

Yeah its okay Guys, IntenseDebate seems to be having a bit of slowness issues causing the timeout errors.

"Brad: lighten up. By that I mean turn the melodrama down just a notch." When your "President" turns down his, I'll turn down mine. Deal? Until then, as he pretends to be fighting for "freedom and democracy" around the world, I'm actually *doing* so here in "the homeland" while he and his well-funded supporters are doing all that they can to undermine same here. Sorry. But this shit isn't a game to me. Not given the Americans (troops and civilians) who have given their life for this shit. Want to support the troops? Fight for your democracy in your own home, rather than enable those who would, and are, undermining it. That'd be a swell start. "The good news for you: the nasty Texas fascists are going home soon, and, more than likely, the pure-hearted Democrats, who only want truth, justice, and the American way, are on their way back to total control of the Federal City." While I realize your kidding, I'm less than amused by the condescending tone, as well as the content which has absolutely no relevance to my opinions on *anything*. Sorry. I realize that shadowboxing phony arguments is what Sean and Rush and Hugh et al do best, but I'm not particularly interesting in playing that game. Thanks anyway. "Regardless, can you really say seriously, that there is not one case of fraudulent voting out there? That is, there is a massive, systemic, Rovian GOP conspiracy to disfranchise Democrats on the one hand, but, on the other, there is not one case of Demo voter shenanigans?" Of course not. Here's one undeniable, dead-to-rights case of voter fraud that I have a feeling Hewitt hasn't discussed, and that your not particularly concerned about. Ann Coulter committed voter fraud (for a total of 2 third degree felonies and 1 first degree misdemeanor). All of the evidence — ALL OF IT — is available right here: http://www.BradBlog.com/CoulterFraud Let me know when you call for her arrest and conviction on your blog and I'll be sure to point to it. Beyond that, this comment system has gotten so impossible slow for me to type, I can't give you much more. But you can begin educating yourself here by reviewing how much "voter fraud" the Bush DoJ has found in the last five years: "In 5-year Effort, Scan Evidence of Voter Fraud" http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nyti...

Couldn't respond to this previously, as typing becomes impossibly slow when comments get long here, apparently. (Thus, you've been spared, for now, of many more links to help disprove the bunk that you've bought into from folks like Hewitt, et all). But on your last questions: "One last thing: you mentioned a few posts back that Tanner was a Democrat. What is your speculation as to why he decided to turn to the dark side?" My speculation doesn't mean much, so I try to stay away from it when reporting anything. Even when replying in comments. My *reporting* however, as based on interviews with current and former DoJ officials and colleagues of his (then and now) is that he knows whose buttering his bread. And while he rejected an almost identical Photo ID restriction several years ago in N.C. while Clinton was in office, for violating the VRA, he approved the measure in Georgia in 2005 under Bush (and against the advice of the career civil rights works who reviewed the matter and said it would violate VRA as well as being unconstitutional, as it was eventually found). Sorry again, as comment system seems to bog down if I type any further.

I think that if some states have low standards, it does not necessarily invalidate a state-by-state system. It is easier for citizens to change states (either in the sense of moving between states or in the sense of changing the nature of their state government) than it is for citizens to change the federal government. If some states have particularly low or particularly high standards, we can examine them from a distance and see what effects the differences make. The national solution has advantages, but the heightened chance of innovation from the decentralized solution is lost entirely. Just like we're nowhere near to the limits of communications technology (as I pointed out in another post on this blog), we're nowhere near the limits to knowledge in political science.