Sunday, May 03, 2009
Illogic from Cynthia Tucker on 1965 Voting Rights Act
During one of my interviews for the conservative columnist position at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (I was one of the top three finalists), I was asked whether I'd be willing to debate Cynthia Tucker. Well, since I didn't get the job and since she's headed to Washington, I'll take issue with her column yesterday. (Oh, it would have been so much FUN to debate her.)
According to Cynthia Tucker, even though we now have a black president (and black control of Southern urban areas), racism exists still--especially in the South, and that's why we need an extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act:
"the growing political power of black Southerners is not the only evidence of change in the Deep South. So are the racially charged strategies of the Republican Party, which has abandoned its roots as the party of the unfettered franchise. . . . now the GOP is the party of voter suppression."
Ever heard of ACORN, Ms. Tucker? They weren't engaged in voter fraud on behalf of Republican candidates.
Ms. Tucker gives no evidence of GOP voter suppression...other than the fact that state legislatures have passed "harsh voter ID laws."
It's hard to imagine conducting everyday affairs without a photo ID--unless you happen to be here illegally. Then you operate in the shadows.
Claiming that fraud at the polling booth is "virtually nonexistent," Tucker says that those who do not have drivers licenses would be presented with a "hardship" in getting a state-sponsored voter ID. Okay, I will give her that--the possibility that a miniscule number of citizens do not have drivers licenses. Maybe there are some very elderly black women who used to work as maids and nannies (I used to ride the bus with them in the 1980s as they came home from their shifts in Buckhead). But unless one is completely housebound, he or she must get out, even if just to do grocery shopping or visit the doctor. If they can make those visits, why can't they get to a government office?
And what about taxpayer-supported ACORN that is so eager to see that the disenfranchised are registered and then get to the voting booth on election day? Why can't they offer rides to the ID office? Or maybe the do-gooders at the League of Women Voters.
I also would like to see such apologists for Democrat voter rigging (which is what the 1965 law is used for), produce a few such citizens who do have a "hardship" such as Ms. Tucker describes.
According to Cynthia Tucker, even though we now have a black president (and black control of Southern urban areas), racism exists still--especially in the South, and that's why we need an extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act:
"the growing political power of black Southerners is not the only evidence of change in the Deep South. So are the racially charged strategies of the Republican Party, which has abandoned its roots as the party of the unfettered franchise. . . . now the GOP is the party of voter suppression."
Ever heard of ACORN, Ms. Tucker? They weren't engaged in voter fraud on behalf of Republican candidates.
Ms. Tucker gives no evidence of GOP voter suppression...other than the fact that state legislatures have passed "harsh voter ID laws."
It's hard to imagine conducting everyday affairs without a photo ID--unless you happen to be here illegally. Then you operate in the shadows.
Claiming that fraud at the polling booth is "virtually nonexistent," Tucker says that those who do not have drivers licenses would be presented with a "hardship" in getting a state-sponsored voter ID. Okay, I will give her that--the possibility that a miniscule number of citizens do not have drivers licenses. Maybe there are some very elderly black women who used to work as maids and nannies (I used to ride the bus with them in the 1980s as they came home from their shifts in Buckhead). But unless one is completely housebound, he or she must get out, even if just to do grocery shopping or visit the doctor. If they can make those visits, why can't they get to a government office?
And what about taxpayer-supported ACORN that is so eager to see that the disenfranchised are registered and then get to the voting booth on election day? Why can't they offer rides to the ID office? Or maybe the do-gooders at the League of Women Voters.
I also would like to see such apologists for Democrat voter rigging (which is what the 1965 law is used for), produce a few such citizens who do have a "hardship" such as Ms. Tucker describes.
Labels: 1965 Voting Rights Act, Cynthia Tucker, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, voter ID
