Democrats Should Do Well In 2012 – If Republicans Let Them Vote

Is 2012 the year that Democrats can recover their own after the debilitating Republican wave of 2010 that flipped the House and almost lost them the senate?

Democrats say “of course,” at least, if the GOP continues pushing unpopular plans like ending Medicare and gutting social services to keep the wealthy even wealthier.  As one Democratic strategist told Politico, “I definitely feel the conversation has shifted,” said Ali Lapp, executive director of House Majority PAC, a Democratic-allied outside group that plans to be involved in the 2012 races. “Before, people thought of the House as an afterthought to the races for the White House and the Senate. Now, there’s talk that we can take this thing back.”

So how will Republicans make sure they don’t lose the upper hand?  No, it’s not about a change in course to promote legislation that might benefit more Americans.  Instead, they’ll use their massive wins in the states to do something better — help disenfranchise voters, primarily those likely to vote Democrat, to ensure they don’t give up their gains.

From voter ID laws meant to stop same day registration, college students, new voters and seniors, all of whom tend to favor Democrats, to ballot initiatives meant to stir up their base like abortion and gay marriage bans, Republicans are working hard on the theory that the less people who can vote, and the more red meat they provide for their GOP loyals, the more likely it is that things will turn out in their favor.

Their initiatives come in many forms. The most common, requiring voters to show identification, has been proposed this year in more than 35 states; some such measures also require proof of citizenship. Other bills would restrict voting by college students or felons, limit voter registration or cut back early voting — all typically Democratic voting blocs.

The arguments are conducted in a type of code, with Democrats fretting about voter suppression and Republicans stressing the integrity of the voting process. But the party-line debates and votes over such bills indicate what they’re really about: Getting more votes in the high-stakes presidential election on the horizon.

Is it any wonder that with all of the new initiatives meant to discourage voting, from demanding IDs, something that could adversely affect the elderly or the poor, or demanding citizenship proof, a clear case of race-based targeting, that Democrats are crying out that the Jim Crow laws are coming back in force?  As new DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz complained: “[I]f you go back to the year 2000, when we had an obvious disaster and — and saw that our voting process needed refinement, and we did that in the America Votes Act and made sure that we could iron out those kinks, now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally — and very transparently — block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it’s nothing short of that blatant.”

How can you ensure Republican victory in 2012 without them being forced to give up their draconian system for balancing the budget on the back of the poor?  Let the Republicans be the only ones to easily cast a vote, of course.


Photo from wikimedia commons


Shawn S.
Shawn S5 years ago

Obama has the ability to Follow in the Footsteps of Roosevelt!
I just hope he has the courage to take action !!!

Kathleen D.
Kathleen D5 years ago

Let's face it; Obama has tried to work across the aisles. That's something in his run for president, he promised he would do. He's upheld that promise (much to the disdain of his base), and we conveniently forget this has always been his position. Having said that; I hope he gets it, and stops. It's time to simply put aside the desire to negotiate, and stand by and with his base, because he won with an overwhelming majority. As long as he stands now for the middle class, fires some of the assholes in his administration, and moves forward, he will be re-elected. That's a lot to put on the plate (plus all the other things he's got to deal with), but he cannot let the Koch Brothers, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, win at their attempts in destroying the middle class of this country.
As far as socialist is concerned; I'm 80% socialist/20% democrat and all that defines me as is; giving a shit about my country and fellowmen and women!

Jerry t.
Jerold t5 years ago

They wall the borders, they wall the minds.
John C. is just another twig hanging from a limp bough.
Always accusing caring people of being socialist. Yep, I am just that, and a liberty bell ringer to boot.
I'll bet you can't even define socialist. I'll bet you are unaware that socialist does not apply in today's America. But if it did, wouldn't it be the wall party? The private prison party? The private toll roads party? Why not? You might say because it's in private, not government hands. But I tell you this: He who owns and controls something is the governor.
We need to control and govern ourselves, and let loose of this inflaming rhetoric of who's president sucks the most.

Maria Amos
Past Member 5 years ago

These childish party plays are so disappointing. As a rational adult I have lost all faith in the government "... of the people, by the people and for the people...".

Den S.
Dennis Sweitzer5 years ago

John C.: *** ahem *** the famous "Dewey beats Truman" headline was not because of exit poll. It was based on telephone polls done in the months preceding the election, which neglected the fact that people with telephones were wealthier and tended to vote republican. There were no exit polls at that election, and the fact of the matter is that exit polls are a valuable tool for detecting vote tampering (especially in foreign countries with blatant election problems)

In Wisconsin's recent electoral dramas, it was one voting district that "found" uncounted boxes of votes that determined the outcome. In FL 2000, the newspaper investigations found that the outcome of the recount solely depended on the rules used to count ambiguous votes (eg, "hanging chads"): about half of the ways would have elected Gore, half Bush. Your fatuous claim of "Gore would have lost the recount if done properly" is solely based on your biases that the end justifies the means (the recount was a tie, and the outcome effectively a coin-toss). Funny how you neglect to mention the infamous butterfly ballot which effectively gave 1000s of Gore votes to the anti-semite Pat Buchanan in a predominately Jewish voting district--more than enough to throw the election. (In this case, the exit polls were more accurate than the vote). Not to mention the Republican operatives who were bussed in from other states to harass the poll workers conducting the recount.
Time after the time, it is the Republicans who

jane richmond
jane richmond5 years ago

ID? WHY? After all this time. I thought we were making progress now we're going backwards.

Kathleen D.
Kathleen D5 years ago

John C; I would suggest instead of casting aspersions, you pay attention to fact. While it is difficult to find the Washington Archives declaration of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld being legally determined war criminals, it's there. I would suggest, instead of calling my information as koo, koo, you take a look at your own narrow view, and inability to incorporate anything in your own small mind as viable. Also, if Bush was 1/10th of the President Obama has been in his 3.5 years in office, he would have left office with accolades instead of the 32 percent approval rating he received. He was such a stupid, stupid man who has put this country exactly where it sits now; in a deplorable mess!

John Coleman
John Coleman5 years ago

Kathleen D: I’m not sure what “progressive” planet you live on in some alternative left wing universe but apparently you missed the news story last week where 10 members of congress sued Obumbler over the Libyan operation for not following the War Powers Act. That happened on June 15th and the story mentioned that the last time that was done was when Clinton got involved in the Balkans. It needs to be pointed out that two of the leaders of both initiatives are KooKoo Kucinich and Ron Paul so the seriousness of some of the opposition is questionable, but neither operation passed either the national security or smell tests. Before we get the usual “Bush did it crap”, Bush2 got permission from Congress for both the Iraq and Afghan operations and the Senate was controlled by your Dems at the time 51-49. They actually asked for a second vote on Iraq to show their “support” since it was around election time in 2002 when the vote took place. For someone who’s so confident about her erroneous beliefs you’re seriously clueless on what’s happened or is happening in the real world in our universe. Your “war crimes” nonsense shows you’re no better than KooKoo or Paul in your grasp of reality.

Kathleen D.
Kathleen D5 years ago

John Coleman; you are not only a wingnut but nuts. Your fabrication of events and b.s. about Congress suing Clinton and Obama is bullshit. If you can't tell the truth don't bother to post. Bush left office being declared the worst president in U.S. history and he, along with Cheney and Rumsfeld have been archived, after intensive war crime investigations been archived as war criminal. You can't come in with a broad brush an try to white wash what a freakin obismal 'president' Bush was. Give it up! I won't bother to respond to you again because you are a total moron and I have no patience with your bumbling attempts to change past and present facts.

John Coleman
John Coleman5 years ago

Apparently my one comment got posted twice due to some browser problems, but Kathleen D you are so much in the bag for the left and the current poor excuse for a POTUS that you cannot grasp reality or truth. It wasn’t Bush2 that was sued by Congress for violating the War Powers Act but both Clinton and Obumbler. Both Bushes went out of their way to get support for their actions but neither of the Donkey poor excuses for Presidents ever did. Your poll “results” are leftwing spin since in most areas actually polled he does poorly including the economy, health care, energy, and most areas of substance. The only are he does marginally well is “likeability” which is a crock also since he is a rather nasty person if you listen to him and look at some of his actions like giving Hillary the finger during debates. Far from being “brilliant” he continues to show being a dunce with his comments, actions, and stumbles. He is even proving to be a lousy politician despite his fawning media supporters. Perhaps you need to get your “news” from some source other than the Daily Worker or its radio clone, National Progressive Radio. That must be your "sources" for the 2004 election fraud "hearing".