Yesterday, July 18th, 2013, may go down in history for the number of stupid quotes by liberals that could qualify as THE most stupid of the stupid. I honestly don't know where to begin. And since this is not quotes- as in plural- of the day, I unfortunately have to name one, although I reserve the right to use more from July 18th in a future entry. This one comes from Chris Matthews:
"I think the hearings this week up in Pennsylvania tell a huge story. They show how Republicans view voter suppression as their ticket to success... Forty-one states had voter suppression bills introduced by Republicans last year. Do you think people are going to forget which party wanted them to be shut out of their democratic rights?...Well, this effort by the Republican Party across the country...is an assault on black America that is historic, that's deliberate, that's unforgettable, and you can say, that's unforgivable."
OK, so Chris Matthews channeled his best Jeff Daniels character on HBO's mindless liberal drivel series, "Newsroom." But, Matthews leaves out some important details much like liberals left out important details with respect to the recent debate over the newly passed abortion law in Texas while elevating state senator Wendy Davis to liberal sainthood. In that instance, if anyone on the Left actually read the Texas abortion law, they would see that it is so riddled with exceptions that one would think a liberal wrote it. But, I digress...
Pennsylvania passed a voter identification law prior to the 2012 election which was immediately challenged in the courts. An injunction was issued against enforcement of the law before the 2012 general election until the current case being heard in Pennsylvania to determine if the law is constitutional is heard and decided. As voter ID laws go, Pennsylvania's is rather liberal. Even if a person cannot produce photo ID when casting a ballot, they can cast a provisional ballot that can then be counted if and when the person shows the requisite proof. To cast the provisional ballot, one need only show up with a bank statement or utility bill.
According to the civil rights community, Barack Obama's decreased margin of victory compared to 2008 in Pennsylvania is attributable to this new law, which, remember, was not enforced. But, they say, the mere mention of the law scared away potential minority voters. Of course, many of these civil rights leaders are, in the words of Al Sharpton, "ignent." First, overall voter turnout in Pennsylvania was down across all ethnic groups in 2012 compared to 2008. In fact, about 300,000 less voters cast a ballot in 2012. The proportion of those casting a ballot who were black was 13% in 2008 and 13% in 2008. The difference in the margin of victory in 2012 compared to 2008 is attributable to three facts: (1) Barack Obama was not "new" or "unique in 2012; (2) there was no financial crisis dominating the news which seriously hurt McCain's chances in 2008, and (3) in 2008, 95% of black Pennsylvanians voted for Obama compared to 93% in 2012. Hence, his support within the black community itself weakened. So, Matthews' assertions in his tirade, which I edited out, about the decreased margin of victory in Pennsylvania was not due to the law scaring away black voters. In fact, the difference in the number of black voters between 2008 and 2012 was about 47,000 less in 2012. If an UNENFORCED law scares away 47,000 people, then perhaps those 47,000 lack the intelligence to pull a lever in the first place.
Living in New Jersey and largely dependent on Philadelphia news stations, I distinctly remember almost nightly stories telling the public that the law was NOT being enforced. There were even public service announcements from the state stating such. Additionally, community activist groups were on the streets informing people that the law was not being enforced in 2012. But all this was ignored by Matthews because the mere mention of the law scared away 47,000 people. And if those 47,000 people did show up and did vote for Obama, the percentage margin of victory would still be 52-47 rather than the slightly better 55-45 split in 2008. Did it ever occur to Matthews that maybe, just perhaps the 2% less black voters who cast a ballot for Romney instead actually used their brains when casting a ballot rather than walking like little Democratic lemmings off the cliff?
Just once when liberals talk about voter ID laws, I wish they would cite the results from Indiana. Their law passed amid controversy also with the same complaints we hear today with respect to laws in other states. It was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court which decided it was constitutional. Subsequent studies have indicated that black voter turnout and registration in Indiana INCREASED after the law was passed. Just once I would like them to cite the results from Georgia which has a larger black population than Indiana. They too discovered that black voter registration and turnout increased. Most importantly, compared to a comparable state like Mississippi with a large black population, Georgia blacks far outperform Mississippi blacks in registration and turnout.
It is somewhat perverse that one needs a photo transit identification card in some major cities to get on a bus or subway for reduced or no fare. It is perverse that a person can find it in their budget to purchase a cell phone, but not get a $5 state-issued photo ID. It is perverse that the civil rights community would rather spend their money fighting commonsense, proven laws in court rather than getting potential voters to the place to get the photo ID and/or paying for it. Perhaps Chris Matthews can start a tax-exempt fund for this purpose. Of course, it would be silly to advertise it on MSNBC since no one really watches that channel to begin with.
I fully realize the First Amendment gives someone the right to speak their mind and for a free and unfettered press. I think the country is all the greater for it. I just wish people wouldn't be so stupid when they exercise those rights.