Sunday, October 12, 2014

Walker and J.B. Van Hollen try keeping voters confused and wary of ID's impossible return before election.

Scott Walker could not explain away his continued attempts to suppress voter turnout, except to say in the most contradictory way:
Walker: "The law in the state of Wisconsin is simple, it's easy to vote, and hard to cheat." 
As casual observers know, elections are getting overly complicated and regulated by the party of
ACLU voter regulation chart.
deregulation. Voter photo ID is just one of many restrictions.

Even the press was quick to notice how Walker and J.B. Van Hollen were oddly trying to keep the idea of complication and intimidation alive in the voters minds, by suggesting some magical way to "reinstate the law" sometime with the remaining 3 weeks. That would contradict the Supreme Courts reason to block the law, which is crazy, and the media sensed it.

From WPR, guest John Nichols found the ploy curiously obvious as well. In reaction to a reading of Van Hollen's statement, former Republican state senator Dan Kapanke said "I didn't see that quote...!" Ah, like the show host would have made it up?

Walker thinks voting, the backbone of our democratic republic, is a distraction that takes time away from more important issues? Mary Burke counters, by pointing out how Walker is willing to block 300,000 people from voting to save us all from one fictitious instance of fraud. Pretty simple stuff:

If we're worried about one instance of voter fraud, creating a complicated system along the way, then why aren't we just as cautious with another constitutional guarantee; gun ownership. Walker's tired old line "if just one vote is stolen," could just as easily be "if just one life is taken." And yet, gun regulation is bad, voting regulation is good.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Fantastic post!
I liked the points Burke made in the debate about this, but felt she still could have been more direct/clear. (Oratory skill was the one thing Walker had going for him.)
Burke's staff needs to read this post, and have her hammer home your last paragraph... why so much feigned concern over "just one vote" when there's not similar urgency over "just one life" vis-a-vis guns?