Thanks for Commenting
Hey Mario - great post. It reminded me of another thing that has bugged me so much about this discussion of voter fraud. Why is it that Iglesias thinks it's OK because he THINKS the volume is low...or because he THINKS it doesn't change the outcome of an election? (Both of which are garbage statements anyway because he never investigated - so how does he know either the volume or the affect?)
Isn't breaking the law once, still breaking the law?
It would be a bit like Rudy G. saying "well, there's only 10 broken windows on this block, so what's the big deal?"
Hey Mario and Whitney: I've been an attorney in several lawsuits where Republicans could have unloaded all the evidence they have of the "massive" voter fraud in NM. We won all those cases because, to translate the judges' legalese into English, the evidence of voter fraud, such as impersonation of someone else at the polls, was pathetic to non-existent. I saw what passed for the GOP's "evidence" of fraud in 2004. None of it amounted to a federal crime (e.g., the ACORN misconduct), and much of it was bogus. That's why FBI Director Mueller said in his Congressional testimony yesterday that there wasn't one allegation of election fraud the FBI thought should be prosecuted that wasn't.
No doubt the attempt by the republican party to gain the list of drivers liscenses in NM was a way to purge the voter rolls of Hispanic voters. Just look at what was done in Ohio and Florida. Hispanics in this state vote Democratic over republicans by a huge margin. Any legit Hispanic voter you can purge is one less vote for a Democrat.
The FBI director testified yesterday that he was not consultated about the perfomances of the fired USA's. He also said that in reference to election fraud investigations that any investigation that resulted in the need for an indictment but did not get one.
Marion, thanks for allowing comments.
As a white man, I see Navarette's paranoia, given that up until recently, Hispanics were not courted by our party. It is only when they became a more significant voting block that efforts were made to recruit them as candidates so that we could cut into their growing political strength and the great preponderance of them voting Democratic. Navarette obvioulsy believes that our cries of voter fraud unfairly targeted Hispanic (Mexican)immigrants. Voter ID laws have been likened to poll taxes however unfair that analogy may be.
We have a problem in the Hispanic community and this issue of David Iglesias isn't going to help. When and if AG Gonzales is forced to resign it isn't going to help either. He is going to be seen as being thrown to the wolves as the sacrificial lamb to absolve white politicians who were perceived to be manipulating US DAs into playing politics with the law.
I like Bush and I really think has done a good job reaching out to Hispanics as his tenure in Texas proved but this issue is a disaster for him and our party.
Gus
The mere idea of ethnicity determining political opinion is offensive.
What about being Hispanic determines a person's views about the economy? What about being Hispanic determines a person's views about security?
What about being Hispanic determines a person's views about social issues?
Are more Hispanics Democrat than Republican? Sure. But a whole lot of them are Republican too. As are black voters, and women, and people from any other "oppressed minority" out there that the Democrats claim as their own private property. Even something like 25% or more of homosexuals who voted voted Republican during the last presidential election because they chose to vote for the party that seemed most in line with their concerns.
If a third of Hispanics vote Republican that's not piddling, as an article I just googled said, it means that one in three Hispanic voters vote Republican.
Republicans worried about vote fraud aren't worried that any minority vote is going to be a vote for a Democrat. They're worried that any *fake* vote is going to be a vote for a Democrat. Legal Hispanic votes or other minority votes have a decent chance of being for the Republican candidate.
The idea that "Hispanics vote Democrat" is part of the myth involved with "Democrats support minorities."
Neither is very accurate.
Synova:
I guess we would have to be Hispanic or Afro American, etc. to be able to answer the question you pose. The facts of those two groups supporting Democrats isn't a myth it's a fact. And whatever leads to do so isn't a myth either.
We have to be able to see beyond our own limited experience, whether its' raising chickens in Minnesota and being raised a Lutheran or being Hispanic and Catholic in New Mexico and Afro American and Baptist in Alabama. American is a large and diverse Country and some of us are just waking up to that fact. Unless, we become more inclusive we will be driven by our own paranoia because we don't understand that experience and all those illegals are going to be registered and they are going to vote Democrat.
Right wing radio is filled with that kind of crapola and alot of us believe it. Unfortunately, we then have this reactive response and it furhter drives us one way and those people the other way.
Wake up Synova and smell the tortillas.
Gus
...er. Could we make an agreement here to drop the term "Afro-American," like the rest of nation did twenty years ago?
Well, gus. If we're supposed to see past our own limited experience then why do I have to be black or hispanic to answer the question?
Huh?
Democrats present themselves as representing groups. Republicans are a little bit better at presenting themselves as representing individuals.
I didn't dispute that. I dispute that group membership is a reasonable way to determine one's view of policy. In fact, Democratic efforts to claim to represent different groups as groups leads to some odd pairings... like homosexuals and steel workers or those Alabama baptists. Hispanic people have a tremendous history of service in the military and that is paired with support for the anti-recruiters who claim those young men aren't men at all but pitiful victims.
Yet, when it's said and done, while a minority, each of the groups that Democrats claim dominion over have significant percentages who vote Republican.
It's not accurate or even very honest to say that Hispanics vote Democrat when a third of them do not. You may accurately say that a majority of Hispanics vote Democrat.
And what *exactly* is inclusive about separating people into separate groups and insisting that without that particular experience a person can have no opinions about them? This isn't *inclusive*. This is a policy and attitude that keeps us separate. It keeps us apart and in conflict.
Lutheran from Minnesota or no, I can identify with people very different from myself because we're all human. I can find the humor expressed by an Iraqi blogger, male Islamic couldn't be more different than me, entirely in line with my sense of humor. I can understand the motivation of an immigrant because my family came only a short time ago, so that I feel the pain of losing a native language and can get belly laughs from the dead-pan observation from someone who went back to visit that "in Norway even the children speak Norwegian."
You think I can't understand someone with experiences different from myself?
Bull.
If we considered what we have in common rather than what keeps us apart we wouldn't *be* so far apart anymore.
It also would mean that group politics would die... and I can see how that might not seem like a good idea to some.
Because, dear synova, we are what we are and Hispanics and Afro Americans vote in significanly greater numbers for Democrats than for Republicans. That doesn't necessaryily mean the "Democrats have dominion" over them but maybe they have a better idea of what is important to those groups. Just your use of the word dominion attempts to imply some lord/master/slave relationship. I would guess if you asked why these groups voted in greater numbers for that party the answer would be they represent their ideas, hopes or dreams better.
Parsing your words doesn't prove anything other than to make the point that we should always use statistics or numerics when discussing politics.
As for being able understand someone elses experiences, I am sure you can. I am sure we all can but that doesn't mean that we still don't continue on with narrow self interests and use those exeriences to pit one group againsts another. Politics 101. Both parties practice it and the electorate is pretty sick of it and thus we have such pathetic voter turnouts.
My point is and was, Republicans have not done a good job of attracting the diversity of culutures that America has become. The future of America is more diverse than our current mindset seems to grasp. An Irish guy from Boston and a Norwegian gal from Minnesota can't necessarily represent that diversity no matter how much we may want to fool ourselves into thinking we can know and understand those other life experiences.
Gus
How does a *group* have a *group* determined preference for, say, socialism over capitalism?
Now, see, I'm a girl.
And I've been told several things that I'm supposed to think because I'm a girl.
I'm supposed to prefer a government who will take care of me... because I'm a girl. I'm supposed to be for gun control... because I'm a girl who happens to be a mother. I'm supposed to prefer Bill Clinton because he's got sex appeal... because I'm a girl. I've listened to all the things that I'm supposed to be "for" because I'm female and it pisses me off.
I chose to respect individuals for their own choices and resist, mightily, any suggestion that people are defined, and their *interests* are defined, by their gender or race or ethnicity.
All the confused cries of "but they are voting against their interests" after the 2004 elections were a good indication that certain people are addicted to making judgments about what is proper for people in various economic strata to care about. Stupid voters, voting for who they want instead of who we think they ought to want!
So... are Republicans actually worse at representing diversity? Or are they just worse at selling themselves as advocates for identity politics? A majority of various groups vote Democrat but a significant minority of each and every one of those groups votes Republican. Could it be that Republicans actually do represent diversity or is it just that those voters don't know what's good for them?
More importantly, though, is the reaction of people, supposedly liberal people, to those who "stray off the reservation." Talk to conservative black bloggers or gay Republicans or anyone from one of these groups that is "supposed" to vote Democrat and ask them how often their race or gender or orientation is the central objection to their conservative "self-hating" politics.
A voting "majority" does not honestly represent that the group identity determines how any individual thinks or how they *should* think.
Perpetuating the lie is simply wrong.
Oh how we get tangled up in our own words to the point of obtuseness. You have made my argument exactly. We turn ourselves into knots by overlooking the obvious. Do we think these groups are stupid and don't vote our way because they don't know better and we do? We aren't explaining ourselves well enough for them to get it? We aren't hiring the right PR firms?
Maybe, these large numbers (read large majority) do get it and don't vote for our party because of our own myopia.
What's wrong with questioning ourselves and learning from that or learning from our mistakes? Defending what may be indefensible is the definition of obstinate.
Just because the thought is rattling around in your head doesn't necessarily make it right. Listening and learning leads to progression of thought and life. Let's not stay stuck in our own spoor.
Gus
Communicate and make sure that Republicans are seen as being welcoming to anyone. It's only the truth after all.
Appeal to groups? No.
Commenting by HaloScan
