« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Watch: Part 3

Just when I thought I would get a break from comments from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she did not let me down.  While the rest of the country was watching the Weinergate scandal unfold with the DNC Chairman saying it was “a private matter between him and his wife,” she unloaded with another highly partisan comment.  When taken in the context of who Debbie Wasserman Schultz is- a woman in need of a dye job and new perm- it comes as no surprise that she would preemptively resort to race baiting to get a leg up in the 2012 elections.

This time, the esteemed leader of the DNC equated voter registration and identification laws with Jim Crow laws.  While the left was pointing the fingers at and declaring racist intent on the part of Newt Gingrich for saying the 2012 election would be the most important since 1860, DWS has invoked the specter of Jim Crow laws (ironically, enacted in the South after the Civil War by Democratic Party leaders).  It would appear that Republicans cannot, in the logic-challenged perverted mind of liberals, say the year “1860″ lest it conjure up images of slavery and such, yet they can overtly say “Jim Crow laws” with impunity and it is not racist in their mind.

So what has Wasserman Schultz’s hair all twisted up more?  Voting laws.  That’s right- Republican state legislatures that are tightening up registration laws and voter identification laws are somehow racist.  According to her, these laws are directly targeting traditional Democratic constituencies.  If by that she means the dead people or animated characters that live on vacant lots in Chicago or the Florida based football team that lives in Nevada, then she would be correct.  If she means these laws are targeting those ineligible to vote, then she is right, but then she is dissing “traditional Democratic constituencies.”

While she, the DNC, Democrats and liberals cite numerous studies indicating that actual, indictable cases of voter fraud are rare, it begs the question: “So what?”  Are we to wait for the first murder before enacting homicide laws?   The liberal mantra that the absence of widespread voter fraud does not justify voter integrity laws is actually not true.  During the Bush Administration, there were 360 investigations resulting in 140 prosecutions and 100 convictions.  But whether there are 360 or 36 or 3 investigations in an eight year period is inconsequential; the fact they happen at all creates a lack of confidence in the electoral system.

It was Donna Brazile who first broached this subject when she was interim head of the DNC before Debs was appointed to the position.  I understand that DNC chairmen have to be the attack dogs for the party, but does she have to be to damn stupid?  Does she have to resort to such race baiting tactics and comments?  Actually, Debs and Brazile and others are simply laying down the racial gauntlet, the expected preemptive shot over the bow that they will use race and whatever else they have at their disposal to make sure their man stays in the White House.  In Brazile’s case, one would naturally expect a certain degree of sour grapes being on the losing side in 2000 being involved Al Gore’s campaign.  You would think that she would support laws that sought to prevent the events of Florida that year.

When the Supreme Court decided the Citizen’s Unitedcase, Barack Obama had a hissy fit and derided the decision stating that it would invite foreign corporations to influence the outcome of our elections.  Besides being false and somewhat histrionic and over the top, it illustrates the hypocrisy of the DNC, Debs and Brazile.  The Democratic Party would rather pass laws to keep mythical foreign money out of the system while allowing individuals ineligible to vote to actually cast ballots.  Which has a greater effect on the outcome of elections: Obama’s mythical money influence OR ineligible voters casting ballots?

Republicans need to continue their efforts to strengthen voter laws and ignore the race baiting by Obama’s cronies.  And should they insist, just remind the voters that (1) it was the New Black Panther Party standing menacingly outside polling places, (2) it was Democrats who wrote and enforced the Jim Crow laws and (3) Lester Maddox who stood with axe handle defending segregation was a Democrat.  The Democrats need to cease the projection of intentions in some feeble purge of collective guilt over their racist past.

Get Alerts