Why We Need Voter ID Laws Before 2012

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about the dead people who attempted to vote in the New Hampshire primary. Yes, you read that correctly. None of them actually did vote (that would be a felony), but in most cases they would have been able to vote.

Here is the story. James O’Keefe of Project Veritas wanted to show that voter fraud is easy:

On January 10th, Project Veritas reporters walked into New Hampshire Polling Locations during the Presidential Primaries, saying dead people’s names. We stated the name of a dead person we got from the NH obituaries. The names of the deceased were both Registered Republican and Democrats And in almost every case, saying a dead person’s name, we were handed a ballot to cast a vote. We used no misrepresentation and no false pretenses. in fact, in almost every case, we insisted we show ID and they insisted that we vote without showing ID.

There is a video at Power Line showing a number of these encounters.

John Hinderaker concludes at the end of his article:

How much does this kind of fraud go on for real? I think the best evidence that it is widespread is the Democrats’ hysterical reaction to every effort to protect ballot integrity–including, now, threats by Obama’s Department of Justice to persecute states that try to prevent voter fraud.

It sounds as if we need to demand voter ID if we want an honest election in 2012. Otherwise we are taking another step in the direction of becoming a banana republic.

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Experts Talk About New Hampshire

 

Congressman Poe and Governor Mitt Romney

Image via Wikipedia

National Review Online posted an article today by a number of its political pundits on the meaning of the results of the New Hampshire Primary. I will try to summarize, but please follow the link to the article–it is very informative.

Hunter Baker stated that Mitt Romney benefited by the winner in New Hampshire being declared early–more people saw him give his victory speech, and the speech was very effective.

Mona Charen pointed out that both Iowa and New Hampshire chose Romney. She also noted that the attacks on capitalism from Newt Gingrich may have helped shore up Mitt Romney’s conservative credentials. Regardless of how you feel about Mitt Romney, you have to admit that he is a capitalist!

Jim Geraghty points out that after the Romney win in New Hampshire, the only viable opponent to Mitt Romney is Rick Santorum. Mr. Geraghty wonders if Senator Sentorum will be able to overcome the Romney momentum.

Hugh Hewitt also agrees that Santorum is the only other candidate who could possibly beat Mitt Romney. He states that Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich ended their campaigns when they went after Romney and Bain Capital. Mr. Hewitt ends his comments with the question, “So who does Jim DeMint endorse?” Interesting question.

Kathryn Jean Lopez also comments that the attacks by Newt Gingrich helped Mitt Romney from his candidacy as a defense of capitalism. This is the beginning of the narrative Mitt Romney will use in his run against President Obama.

Grover Norquist takes a different approach. He has three suggestions for Mitt Romney–who to choose for a running mate, who to choose for a chief-of-staff, and to convince Ron Paul to speak at the Republican convention. He believes the Romney needs to include Ron Paul in order to insure that Ron Paul does not run as a third-party candidate.

Henry Olsen stated that the strong victory in New Hampshire almost assures that Mitt Romney will be the candidate. He makes an interesting observation though:

Jon Huntsman? He carried only four groups — those who consider themselves Democrats, those who strongly oppose the Tea Party, those who are satisfied with Obama, and those who are dissatisfied with the GOP candidates. ’Nuff said.

Great comment.

John J. Pitney commented on the morphing of Newt Gingrich into Michael Moore. Mr. Pitney states that he hopes Newt will go back to being the Newt we saw early in the campaign–focusing more on attacking President Obama than attacking fellow Republicans.

Cal Thomas notes that Mitt Romney is well on his way to being the Republican nominee for President. Although he is not universally loved, the other candidates will be running out of money and organization soon. Mr. Thomas notes that it is still a long way to the White House.

Now, my comments. I live in Massachusetts. Governor Romney was a good governor. He did not move the state in a conservative direction (it’s Massachusetts, I am not sure that is possible, we are one of two states that voted for George McGovern for President!) He is an honest, hard-working man. If he is elected, I am sure he will do everything in his power to rescue the American economy, and I believe that he has the knowledge and work ethic to do that. He is not my first choice, but I believe that he is a good choice.

Enhanced by Zemanta

America’s Political Sage Sums Up The Debate

Late last night, Michael Barone posted an article at the Washington Examiner analyzing the night’s debate in New Hampshire. Michael Barone is the main author of The Almanac of American Politics, which is published every two years. He a very knowledgeable political observer and very accurate predictor of future political events.

Mr. Barone states in the article:

At about 10:28pm tonight, as Mitt Romney pivoted from a question on tax loopholes and started in with, “the real issue is vision,” I had recorded this thought in my notes, “He just clinched the nomination.”

Romney said, as he often has, that Barack Obama has put America on the road to decline and is trying to make America more like Europe. He made reference to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as he often has—which helps to explain why he polls about as well with supporters of the tea party movement, who revered and often reference the Founding documents, as with non-supporters—and proclaimed that the question in this election was whether America was going to remain “a unique nation”and whether it would “return to the principles on which it was founded.” To which Newt Gingrich then meekly concurred, adding some caveats.

The article goes on to detail the performance of each of the candidates in the debate. According to Mr. Barone, Mitt Romney moved forward in the debate, and Rick Perry positioned himself for the race in South Carolina. The other candidates pretty much stayed where they were before the debate.

I live in Massachusetts. I lived here when Mitt Romney was Governor. He did a good job considering the legislature he had to work with. I think Romneycare would have been a lot worse without Romney as Governor. I could easily vote for him in the 2012 election, although frankly he is not my first choice. I think his success in running against Barack Obama will largely depend on his choice of a running mate. There are a lot of very good options for him out there.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Fact Checking The Associated Press

"The Honorable Rick Perry (front right), ...

Image via Wikipedia

Rick Perry was in New Hampshire on Saturday. He spoke at an event at the home of Chuck Stephen co-hosted by John Stephen, the former Republican gubernatorial nominee. Human Events reported on Sunday that the coverage of the event by the Associated Press left out some significant information.

This is an excerpt from the Associated Press article:

Speaking to hundreds of Granite State voters at a private reception, the Texas governor was asked whether he supported a fence along the Mexican border. “No, I don’t support a fence on the border,” he said.

“The fact is, it’s 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good.”

The answer produced an angry shout from at least one audience member.

Channel 7 (WHIOTV) in Ohio did a slightly better job of reporting the speech:

“No, I don’t support a fence on the border,” he said, while referring to the long border in Texas alone. “The fact is, it’s 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good.”

Instead, Perry said he supported “strategic fencing” and National Guard troops to prevent illegal immigration and violence from Mexican drug cartels.

The answer produced an angry shout from at least one audience member. And it exposed an ongoing rift with some conservative voters over Perry’s immigration record.

That’s a little better. However, a website called Instapundit posted a first-hand account:

A BLOG REPORT FROM RICK PERRY’S SPEECH IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: “I attended that event, stood about 15 feet from where he delivered those remarks and never heard an ‘angry shout’. Either the AP is making it up or it wasn’t much of a shout. Perhaps they can supply the audio.”

Maybe it was a reporter in the back who was doing the shouting. But after the 2004 bogus-boos incident, I encourage bloggers and others attending these events to record audio and video. You never know what’ll happen — or what people will report happened, even if it didn’t.

This election season every voter will need to be careful when gathering news and deciding on candidates. Unfortunately much of the major media is no longer objective and is reporting things that didn’t happen or not reporting important facts. There are many places on the internet (hopefully this is one of them) where a voter can go to fact check and get the whole story. Be careful what you read, and stay informed. That is the only way to preserve our freedom.



Enhanced by Zemanta