Rendell: Democrats Did “Piss-Poor Job of Giving Voters a Message”

RendellGov. Rendell, never shy about his opinions, delivered a tough message to his party.

In an interview on Sunday, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell said Democrats did a “piss-poor job of giving voters a message” in the midterms last week.

On Election Day, the Democratic Party struggled not only on the national level, but also in the Pennsylvania House and Senate.

“We tried to run against the Republicans, run against the do-nothing Congress, run against individual governors to say the things they had done poorly”, Rendell exclaimed on a New York radio show. “But we didn’t have a good national brand. And there is no reason for that.”

Rendell served as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1999 until 2001.

The former Governor continued, “We need to develop a brand and fight back. Too often our campaigns are all about – ‘they want to take away women’s rights; they want to take away voting rights’.”

The interview came one day after current Chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz released a video stating the Democrats had a problem connecting with voters on Tuesday, and that they would fix it in future elections.

“We are going to look at where we fell short”, Wasserman-Schultz said.

“It is more than just a message problem,” Rendell concluded. “We also have what I would call a coverage gap. We are not proud of the things that we do and the things that we stand for.”

November 10th, 2014 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Governor, Top Stories | 22 Comments

22 thoughts on “Rendell: Democrats Did “Piss-Poor Job of Giving Voters a Message””

  1. David Diano says:

    I think I said that his remarks seemed or appeared racist, and I questioned his motivations.

    You, on the other hand, completely deny the huge racist basis behind much of the attacks on Obama and Holder.

    Can you admit that there are millions of racists in this country who simply do not like Obama because he is black?

  2. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    Thus, you have admitted that your threshold for calling someone else a “racist” is when “remarks seemed out of place and [strike you as] racially-motivated” based on “a subjective impression, not objective.” Thus, your criteria mirror those of BHO [recalling the beer-summit, for example] and those routinely employed by Dems; indeed, this reflects the vacuity of the charges of homophobia, islamophobia, sexism, and xenophobia that routinely arise from your ranks.

    Perhaps you should reconsider how loosely you employ this explosive term, particularly when you subtly retain this accusation against me with regard to my view of BHO/AG-Holder; I assess their policies as problematic, notwithstanding the color of their skin [ref. MLK, Jr.].

    This is how you rationalize your decision not to refute the specific citations provided [after having articulated specific observations that refute your superficial condemnation thereof]; indeed, you feel attacks on voter-ID are racist, despite the fact that I have documented fraud on multiple levels that stems from the absence of this simple confirmation; your accusation that I tend to “cherry pick unreliable sources and pretend they are credible” hasn’t been borne-out, nor has your blanket-rejection of anything cited via Breitbart [even when the primary-source lies elsewhere].

    I can better appreciate your lackidaisical approach to blogging, an observation that you can anticipate will live-on, long after this page fades from being on-top of PoliticsPA.

    *

    Your admission that you have the capacity [a la Vonnegut] to become “unstuck in time” is tangential, even as it should prompt you to recognize the unfair condemnation of Scooter Libby; in the case of sworn-testimony from the level of an AG, such remembrances carry far greater gravitas, both in the commission of the perjury and in weighing its implications. Simply put, you cannot rationalize-away his deceit, and you will be hard-pressed to maintain that posture when more data emerge; there will be no exculpatory exit for his pattern of misconduct [and you will have nowhere to hide when the entire F&F scandal unravels].

    BTW, perhaps you’ll want to meet Sharyl Attkisson @ Newtown on Thursday-p.m. [$30 for book and admission] c/o 1210-a.m. radio; you can test-run your latest yarns when confronted with the truth-telling capacity of the journalist who broke F&F [and who was praised by your-gal Maddow for having maintained the highest investigative standards].

    If you show-up [@ 7 p.m.], look for the guy who is 5’6″ tall with gray hair….

  3. David Diano says:

    Robert
    I’ve documented everything I care to. Bob’s remarks seemed out of place and struck me a racially motivated. It’s a subjective impression, not objective. You are ignorant of all racial motivations (ie the REAL motivation behind voterID laws, and the animosity toward Obama and Holder), and come up with alternate non-racial explanations that don’t hold water, and are used as cover. Therefore, you are the perfect dupe for the racists. Though, personally I think you know voterID is racially motivated and just don’t care because it gives you an outcome that helps the right wing, so you are intellectually dishonest and cherry pick unreliable sources and pretend they are credible.

    The F&F with Holder is that I don’t think he had the first f*cking clue when he saw which documents, and just picked a time. I feel this way because I myself have very poor sense of how long ago things I’ve done/experienced occurred. I frequently mistake events from weeks ago to months ago and visa-versa. Therefore, I consider it reasonable when others get times confused as well, and then correct their statements based on documents. I often come across an old movie stub for movies that I would have sworn came out a different year than the stub says. So, I’m not going to hold Holder to a higher standard for the same mistake I honestly make all the time.

  4. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    I would add that my problems with the website [conveyed to SS] included problems after having used four browsers but, nevertheless, it seems you aren’t interested in any type of rapproachement; you will instead allow me the “last word” while globally rejecting its import.

    That won’t work.

    You have outstanding charges of racism [against “Bob” if not myself] to withdraw, based upon your “feelings” that you never documented, and you have F&F charges against AG-Holder that you haven’t rectified [beyond advising I interview him, facetiously].

    You also have a series of retorts to your dismissive approach to my hyperlinks that, for example, cited specific examples of voter-fraud due to the absence of photo-ID; again, you ignore by rejecting them in-toto.

    Thus, MY last word [which will continue to be referenced, now, on this page as you are stalked in the future] is that you are a dishonest blogger who refuses to document [old and new] claims [including those in the immediate-prior entry].

  5. David Diano says:

    Robert
    I’ve been posting a lot from my phone (so spelling/typos occur). If don’t respond, it means that I feel your rebuttal does not beat my latest arguments, so I’m giving you the last word, and letting it rest with you in a losing position.

    I’ve been able to see my post for the last 4 weeks from 4 different computers, so I do not accept your claim that you did not see it (even less than you accept Holder’s testimony). Maybe, he confused the times with the time of other documents, or relied upon inaccurate briefings. I don’t know. Ask him yourself. I can’t read his mind, and you refuse to accept any alternate explanations. So, short of a actual conviction, he hasn’t committed a crime as far as I’m concerned.

    I accept your latest point by points as your final rebuttals. I find them insufficient to overcome my earlier arguments, so I rest my case on ALL those topics.

  6. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    Consider noting the hyperlinks and the video:

    –she will continue to sue states in the “Deep South” for instituting the horrible of horribles of requiring individuals to show identification before voting, and even tied the issue to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela

    –Nelson Mandela didn’t exactly buy the Democrat Party’s meme that showing ID to vote is somehow racist

    –70 percent of Americans support voter ID laws, and that even 55% of Democrats support voter ID laws

    –This Map DESTROYS the Left’s ‘Voter ID Laws are Racist’ Myth

    –Voter ID Racist? Not So Fast, Says Majority of Black Americans

    http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/10/new-video-reveals-obama-attorney-general-nominee-to-be-as-big-a-race-baiter-as-eric-holder/?utm_source=Newsletter+11%2F11%2F14+3am&utm_campaign=Newsletter+11%2F11%2F14+3am&utm_medium=email

  7. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    Please ID the “independent” individual[s] who concur with AG-Kane regarding the weakness of the case [a view that, apparently, you feel is apt] and, in the process, explain why the tape is lying [without invoking “racism”].

    You failed to address each of the eight points made/refuted, instead applying a broad-brush claim that the R’s are more responsible than the Dems–for example–to purge the registration lists; documentation of this wild assertion is, of course, requested. {BTW, you presumably refer to “polls” instead of to “poles.”

    Again attempting to divert attention, you indeed still haven’t replied to the points made during the past month [and, in contrast with AG-Holder, I wasn’t under-oath]; thus, you now claim he has “mis-remembered,” failing to explain why so many of the e-mails provided last week were conveniently redacted [as he continues to violate the mandate of full-disclosure].

    sharylattkisson.com/election-eve-fast-furious-document-dump-by-justice-dept

    In the process, note that MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Praised Attkisson’s Investigative Reporting.

    sharylattkisson.com/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-praises-attkissons-investigative-reporting

    Also, you may wish to explain why what was revealed demonstrated [1]–the administration had no legitimate reasons for withholding them in the first place consistent with the purposes behind executive privilege [and their withholding was part of a continued effort to avoid disclosures “that embarrass or otherwise implicate senior Obama Administration officials”], and [2]–redactions were previously initiated by State [potentially implicating Hillary].

    http://www.examiner.com/article/document-dump-shows-state-had-a-hand-fast-and-furious-redactions

    Let’s make a deal. I indeed have had problems with PoliticsPa [repeatedly shared with Sy Snyder] regarding the website [and he has replied that problems I’ve raised are being reviewed]; nevertheless, if I were to withdraw the created-claim of “contempt of blogging”…would you please withdraw the baseless claim of racism on these pages?

    […Proffered in the spirit of seeking common-ground, rather than capitulating to the desire for compromise.]

  8. David Diano says:

    Robert
    You have no evidence (independent or otherwise) for your declaration that her motivation was because they were Dems. Also, there has been independent reporting that the case was a loser and the outgoing administration tried to saddle her with it.

    You keep going after Holder for misremebering when he saw documents, yet YOU have spent the past 4 weeks “testifying” that I didn’t respond to your ridiculous links. You haven’t apologized, but came back with some weak-ass excuses about your browser. I hold you in contempt of blogging.

    You have conflated registration with voting for photo IDs. Registration is based on residency and citizenship. People aren’t signing up impersonating other people. The PA law didn’t address registration, but was specifically designed to disenfranchise legitimate voters who didn’t have driver licenses.
    Your scheme would require every voter to re-register.

    The reason the roles in Philly aren’t purged is budgetary. They don’t want to spend money cleaning up a non-problem. In GOP controlled Delaware county there are 50,000 voters they have failed to purge. This is roughly 1/3 the number Philly needs to purge.

    There are over 1 million records that need to be purged, and most of them are in REPUBLICAN controlled counties. So, please direct your fake outrage to the GOP for creating such potential fraud.

  9. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD [Part V]:

    In response to an unrefuted claim [“Undercover agents were able to vote as dead people, but election officials are attacking the agents”], you ignore the obvious conclusion that must be drawn by attacking the people who documented error [“So, them choosing to break the law as a stunt is NOT evidence that anyone else is doing so for real”] as having performing a “stunt”; perhaps you should confront the import of what has been consistently documented.

    You accepted AG-Kane’s explanation that the cases are tainted [adopting by reference] without providing an independent assessment of the available data; do you also subscribe to her “racism”-based rationalization?

  10. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD [Part IV]:

    I will refute your dismissiveness in two ways; first, a set of arguments is re-cited and refuted en-masse and, second, a more in-depth discussion appears apt [pending your (in-)ability to refute the prior posting.

    *

    The larger issue–although it’s doubtful Wolf would sign any Photo-ID bill and it’s doubtful AG-Kane would defend anything adopted during any lame-duck session–is framed by the individual who, on 9/17/2014, I argued-down @ an event sponsored by the Committee-of-Seventy @ which Neil Oxman spoke.

    He simply claimed that the parties will never agree because of perceived political motives; he refused to accept the view that anyone–such as myself–to seek a process that would even emulate the rudimentary “purple-stained thumb” approach of Iraq/Afghanistan.

    As I explained, you can get past the filter by leaving out “http” and slashes.

    {Will test your suggestion.}

    You don’t seem to even understand your own arguments. The ONLY type of fraud that IDs can potentially stop is VOTER IMPERSONATION FRAUD: that is one person voting as someone else.

    {Actually, you hit a problematic nerve, for the need to show a Photo-ID is obviated when people vote either “absentee” [in PA] or via other means such as ‘puters [in Oregon, Colorado, etc.].}

    {“Melowese Richardson admitted in 2013 to voting six times for Obama’s re-election while working as a poll worker in Hamilton County, Ohio. Initially convicted on state voter fraud charges and sentenced to five years in prison, Richardson served eight months before the George Soros-funded Ohio Justice and Policy Center helped lessen her sentence to probation. Richardson appeared last week at a rally with some Ohio Democrats and Al Sharpton, who publicly gave her a hug.”}

    {dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/six-time-obama-voters-group-received-obama-administration-grant/}

    Non-citizens, ex-felons, and non-voters (like 17 year olds) have photo driver licenses. Non-eligible voters (voting as themselves) is NOT a type of “fraud” that is solved by VoterID laws. The voter and their ID match the record in the voter registration list.

    {Such problems would be undermined if photo-ID’s were required for registration, etc.}

    The voter registration board/dept has the responsibility to determine voter eligibility. So, you keep bringing up a type of case that VoterID laws (like the one in PA that was struck down) do not address.

    {As noted by Al in Philly, fraud must be attacked wherever it has been ID’ed.}

    You act like the dead on the Philly rolls vote. They don’t and there isn’t a single case of them voting. No one is impersonating dead people to vote. We can barely get the living to vote.

    {All sarcasm aside, once you have accepted the need to purge the polls (which you did, earlier), then let’s see you advocate this be done among the Dems who oppose doing so…for whatever reason(s).}

    There is ZERO evidence of voter impersonation fraud occurring. Even it if did occur (which it doesn’t), the guiding legal principle is: “do the least harm”. Any law that disenfranchises more voters than prevents fraud is inherently unfounded on principle. There is no shortage of examples of disenfranchisement.

    {You want to preclude any effort to stop people to vote even if ineligible so as to ensure maximal turnout, regardless of eligibility; I want to do something to stop the fraud (such as by the lady in Ohio, vide supra).}

    The argument you make also doesn’t recognize the existence of voter impersonation fraud, but rather the theoretical belief that a single case exists.

    {I provided one; thus, you are now dubbed the “theoretician.”}

    As far as O’Keefe, it’s not killing the messenger, because he has no actual message that he’s delivering. He’s making up stuff, which is different.

    {He is data-driven–as is Breitbart–and you have failed to acknowledge that heads rolled due to his revelations.}

  11. David Diano says:

    “Undercover agents were able to vote as dead people, but election officials are attacking the agents”

    So, them choosing to break the law as a stunt is NOT evidence that anyone else is doing so for real.

    I’m not “evasive” on Kane. I accept her explanation that the cases are tainted.

  12. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD [Part III]:

    Your conclusion: “If you had made a 9th point, you could have struck out for an entire inning by yourself. All you’ve done is illustrate your illiteracy and lack of reading comprehension by misstating and misinterpreting every reference you made, all the while failing to show a single example of voter impersonation fraud.
    Bravo. A truly stunning example of blind ignorance and stupidity.

    I regret the need to pile-on {excerpt: “The New York Times would have found a story from 1984, “Boss Tweed Is Gone, But Not His Vote,” that detailed the find­ings of the grand jury.[7] As that article reported, the grand jury report “disclosed that cemetery voting and other forms of stuffing the ballot box were not buried with Tammany Hall.”[8]}.

    ht
    tp://ww
    w.google.co
    m/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEEQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heritage.org%2Fresearch%2Freports%2F2008%2F03%2Fstolen-identities-stolen-votes-a-case-study-in-voter-impersonation&ei=AWRiVN_-Ooq5yQSByoLYBw&usg=AFQjCNELFjivTOv3I7ahkjvu8mV_BfyFTw&bvm=bv.79189006,d.aWw&cad=rja

    h
    ttp://w
    ww.heritage.o
    rg/research/reports/2008/03/stolen-identities-stolen-votes-a-case-study-in-voter-impersonation

    John Fund has written a book on this issue; here is an offshoot thereof:

    “Voter Fraud: We’ve Got Proof It’s Easy – Undercover agents were able to vote as dead people, but election officials are attacking the agents.”

    htt
    p://ww
    w.nationalreview.co
    m/article/368234/voter-fraud-weve-got-proof-its-easy-john-fund

    Right backatcha: “Bravo. A truly stunning example of blind ignorance and stupidity.”

    *

    Regarding AG-Kane’s decision not to prosecute the Dems in the House, you have remained as evasive as you have been regarding predicting the Dem-primary in the 13th and the results of last week tsunami; oblige your reading-public long enough to weigh-in regarding whether the taped-evidence would suffice to pursue these cases.

    You claim “You’ve been lying about my lack of reply for 4 weeks now”; but you continue to evade providing any defense regarding your other [false] claims, re-cited [in summary fashion]:

    htt
    p://ww
    w.politicspa.c
    om/pa-gov-yougov-poll-wolf-50-corbett-41/60976/#comments

    IGNORED MANDATED-DOCUMENTATION [EXCERPTED]:

    Your effort to tie BHO’s F&F to Bush-’43 fails, noting the nexus-point around which the current problem arose occurred in 2/2009.

    “But starting in fall 2009, instead of stopping the transactions or questioning the customers, ATF often encouraged select gun dealers to go ahead and complete suspicious sales.”

    Htt
    p://ww
    w.cbsnews.co
    m/news/a-primer-on-the-fast-and-furious-scandal/
    [presumably, you don’t reject CBS as a news-source]

    Regarding the cover-up, try to wiggle-your-way out of this quote:

    “In May Holder testified before Congress — under oath — that he had learned about the gun-running scheme only “in the last few weeks.” But last week, he changed his story after it became well known via the Justice Department’s own documents that his claim was completely false.”

    Ht
    tp://ww
    w.thenewamerican.co
    m/usnews/crime/item/7560-holder-admits-lies-in-fast-and-furious-refuses-to-resign

    No wonder the vote in favor of the unprecedented “Contempt of Congress” motion was bipartisan.

    {Also, the data-dump that occurred on Election-Day contained extensive redactions; one recalls Rosemary Woods’ 17 1/2 minute gap….]

    THEREFORE, your defense of AG-Holder [again] falls flat, and you have failed even to address the fact that “Eric Holder Signed Off On Search Warrant For James Rosen Emails: NBC News.” This directly contradicted your effort to distance him from what had transpired [“You’ve yet to demonstrate that Holder signed off and KNEW that there were false representations. Signing off doesn’t prove/imply he knew of false statements.”].

    Finally, you have failed to ID any evidence that either “Bob” or myself demonstrated a racist motivation for attacking AG-Holder.

  13. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD [Part II]:

    5) This EXACT same thing happened in PA with votes for Obama being recorded for Romney. It was a problem with the touch screen not handling the full x or y range correct. This is a random problem with computerized systems, particularly touch screens, and there are equal examples of votes Dem-to-Rep and Rep-to-Dem across the country. And again… not VoterID problem.
    Strike 5

    Please document your claim of [predictable] egalitarianism and, specifically, apply it to the multiple examples of what happened last week.

    Again, a set-up for Voter Fraud; Ball 5.

    6) First of all, you have to stop reading just the headlines, and read the articles. Second, Breitbart is not a valid news source. But, in the piece, it refers to an article that hasn’t even come out yet. It does NOT say that non-citizens cast the deciding votes (as YOU wrote in all caps). Non-citizen votes, they say, could quite easily have been the reason for Franken’s win.” This is based on an UNPROVEN assumption that non-citizens voted for Franken as well as another UNPROVEN estimate about the number of non-citizens that MAY have voted. Also, the authors point out: “Richman and Earnest add that voter ID is “strikingly ineffective” in deterring non-citizens from voting.”
    Strike 6.

    Perhaps you should remove your ideological “glasses” and confront the $-‘graph [“The estimated percentage of non-citizens voting is small, especially in midterms: “Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010,” Richman and Earnest wrote in the Washington Post. Yet that small percentage “was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.”]; thus, this is not a “de-minimus” issue.

    Again, a set-up for Voter Fraud; Ball 6.

    7) I read Al Schmidt’s full report. When read in detail, it actually demonstrated a complete lack of voter fraud and just examples of simple clerical errors. The report was touted as showing voter fraud, but it didn’t show any. It was such an amateurish report that it wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. But, Al gave a press conference and was soon after appointed to the GOP controlled parking authority.
    Strike 7

    You sink every aberration into the black-hole of “clerical error”; you prefer to miss the forest due to the ability to ID a set of trees. In the process, you ignore Al’s measured characterization of what he unearthed [“Some are fraud; some are clearly mistakes,” Schmidt said. “But they are all voting irregularities, and they all impact the results of elections equally.”] It is regrettable that you lack the capacity to budge from your absolutist rejectionism of what is intuitive.

    Again, a set-up for Voter Fraud; Ball 7.

    8) You really need to stop using Breitbart (and actually read the article first). This is an opinion piece that refers to a limited 2008 study that thought “only about 1.2 percent of registered voters had no photo ID.”
    But, that belies the point. MANY of the voters in Philly have photo IDs. However, the PA law was constructed to invalidate many of those forms of ID for purposes of voting and would not allow the county board of elections to issue photo IDs that could be used solely for voting.

    So, again you miss the point by claiming that people have photo IDs so there isn’t a problem. But, the problem is that the voterID laws are constructed to ignore the types of photoIDs that poor people are less likely to have, like a drivers license, if they live in a city and use public transportation. When PA state dept ran the voter file against the driver license database, there were tens of thousands of cases of registered voters without drivers licenses (a disproportionally large percentage in Philly compared to the rest of the state).
    But again, the VoterID laws inhibit registered voters to go through additional NEW hurdles to vote, despite them having adequate identification for banking, employment, etc., and no cases of voter impersonation fraud. NONE.
    Strike 8.

    You really have to stop impugning Breitbart because you don’t like the info conveyed on this fact-laden website.

    You falsely claim [by ascribing an impugning motive] that “the PA law was constructed to invalidate many of those forms of ID for purposes of voting and would not allow the county board of elections to issue photo IDs that could be used solely for voting”; the ability to get the Photo-ID via Penn-DOT allowed for standardization of the process in a no-cost fashion.

    You falsely claim [by ascribing an impugning motive] that “the voter-ID laws are constructed to ignore the types of photo-IDs that poor people are less likely to have, like a drivers license, if they live in a city and use public transportation” because [as you seem not to appreciate] Penn-DOT is providing the necessary documentation that transcend the ability to drive a car.

    You falsely claim [by ascribing an impugning motive] that “Voter-ID laws inhibit registered voters to go through additional NEW hurdles to vote, despite them having adequate identification for banking, employment, etc., and no cases of voter impersonation fraud” [sic], despite the fact that registered voters who need “adequate ID” are routinely using the same Photo-ID that would satisfy Voter-ID.

    Again, a set-up for Voter Fraud; Ball 8.

    You have therefore pitched two bases-on-balls to me….

    [to be continued]

  14. David Diano says:

    Robert-

    As I explained, you can get past the filter by leaving out “http” and slashes.

    You don’t seem to even understand your own arguments. The ONLY type of fraud that IDs can potentially stop is VOTER IMPERSONATION FRAUD: that is one person voting as someone else.

    Non-citizens, ex-felons, and non-voters (like 17 year olds) have photo driver licenses. Non-eligible voters (voting as themselves) is NOT a type of “fraud” that is solved by VoterID laws. The voter and their ID match the record in the voter registration list.

    The voter registration board/dept has the responsibility to determine voter eligibility. So, you keep bringing up a type of case that VoterID laws (like the one in PA that was struck down) do not address.

    You act like the dead on the Philly rolls vote. They don’t and there isn’t a single case of them voting. No one is impersonating dead people to vote. We can barely get the living to vote.

    There is ZERO evidence of voter impersonation fraud occurring. Even it if did occur (which it doesn’t), the guiding legal principle is: “do the least harm”. Any law that disenfranchises more voters than prevents fraud is inherently unfounded on principle. There is no shortage of examples of disenfranchisement.

    The argument you make also doesn’t recognize the existence of voter impersonation fraud, but rather the theoretical belief that a single case exists.

    As far as O’Keefe, it’s not killing the messenger, because he has no actual message that he’s delivering. He’s making up stuff, which is different.

  15. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD [Part I]:

    {When I typed this and didn’t break-up your hyperlinks, it was dubbed “awaiting moderation”; thus, have interrupted your hyperlinks and am reposting it.}

    Thanx for your [belated] reply; my browser didn’t recycle, although your comments remain faulty, as will be detailed:

    Robert

    0) Learn to post a link without breaking it up into pieces. I’ve already explained how to do this.

    And I already explained that they are broken-up so that they will post immediately [passing the PoliticsPA screen].

    1) The 1400 voters you claim in North Carolina would not be stopped by VoterID laws if they have photo ID like drivers license. I already explained this is a problem at the registration office checking citizenship. PhotoID’s don’t indicate citizenship. How thick are you?
    Strike 1.

    They should not receive a photo-ID from the “registration office” or from anywhere else; thus, you have admitted that the current system allows for Illegals to vote.

    A set-up for Voter Fraud; Ball 1.

    2) Did you even bother to read the article? I guess not. One voter (who was not 164 years old) reported that his birthdate was recorded/listed incorrectly. The year 1850 was a dummy value entered for records when a birthdate wasn’t available as a way to flag voters that needed to be contacted to get updated information. Some people, mostly women over 21, didn’t want their full birthdates available for privacy, as the voter records were public information. These aren’t dead people left on the rolls from the 1800’s, as you’ve implied. It’s old data from before computerization that they are cleaning up.
    But, again, not voter fraud.
    Strike 2.

    You rationalize-away aberrations that set-the-stage for voter-fraud, errors that would be corrected were photo-ID to be instituted; this isn’t a tool to suppress legitimate voting. For example, you even countenance conscious registration error [“Some people, mostly women over 21, didn’t want their full birthdates available for privacy, as the voter records were public information.”] It’s great that you seem to concur that it is good “they are cleaning up” the rolls by dropping the deceased, but you should know that Dems [in Chicago and elsewhere, including Philly] resist such entreaties.

    Again, a set-up for Voter Fraud; Ball 2.

    3) Rich Lowery is wrote an opinion piece that has been debunked elsewhere.
    htt
    p://ww
    w.washingtonpost.c
    om/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/24/why-arguments-for-voter-id-laws-dont-add-up/
    He glosses over the cost of ID, which IS a poll tax. He also ignores that voters are failing to go to the polls because they don’t have the new forms of ID, by focusing on the ones who showed up had Voter-ID problems. So, he ignored an entire group of disenfranchised voters as well as voters who had valid ID but didn’t realize it.
    But, even the numbers who showed up with VoterID issues far exceed the number of cases of voter impersonation fraud (ie none).
    Strike 3.

    The Badger-article you cite concludes with a reduction-ad-absurdum claim [“If you’re absolutist about elections and feel that a single case of voter fraud averted by ID laws justifies their existence, then it doesn’t add up to also argue that any number of people disenfranchised by the creation of those laws is just the cost of protecting democracy.”]

    This therefore recognizes the existence of Voter-Fraud [which you keep denying], preferring to balance-equities. And, in the process, it validates the need to maintain some degree of vigilance, if only to generate data regarding the extent of the problem.

    Furthermore, notwithstanding your characterization thereof, you will find neither “poll” nor “tax” therein; again, the reader simply can’t trust your ability to digest articles you cite.

    You equate an individual who didn’t have Photo-ID and an individual who didn’t know he/she had the proper Photo-ID, with the former [but not necessarily the latter] having automatically been “disenfranchised”; you fail to recognize the capacity of an individual with minimal-IQ to do what is needed [@ no-cost @ PENN-DOT] to acquire a Photo-ID [that would then facilitate interactions in other facets of modern society, including acquiring public-benefits].

    Again, a set-up for Voter Fraud; Ball 2.

    4) This is another scam by O’Keefe. He, and one of his cohorts, were actually told repeatedly by campaign staffers in Colorado that such practices were illegal and not to do them.
    ht
    tp://w
    ww.motherjones.co
    m/politics/2014/10/colorado-dems-james-okeefe
    But, his game is to:
    a) present the idea himself (so the idea isn’t generated by the groups)
    b) present the idea to as many people as he can until he finds some idiot who is convinced by his argument (or in some cases just pretending to agree with him because they don’t want to turn away a person they want to help with other stuff, or maybe want to date him)
    c) use third party groups that aren’t Dem groups nor directly affiliated with the campaigns. Basically, young people that he cons into staying something stupid.

    He never actually catches anyone following up on his suggestions, because other people coming into the loop would know better.
    This has nothing to do with VoterID either.
    Strike 4.

    You engage in the typical behavior of attempting to “kill the messenger” instead of absorbing the message, just as you did with the attack on AG-Kane’s partisanship. The bottom-line misconduct is illustrated by the prompt response of the leadership of various entities he has exposed [from ACORN, onward]…namely, firing the guilty.

    Again, a set-up for Voter Fraud; Ball 4.

    [to be continued]

  16. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD [Part I]:

    Thanx for your [belated] reply; my browser didn’t recycle, although your comments remain faulty, as will be detailed:

    Robert

    0) Learn to post a link without breaking it up into pieces. I’ve already explained how to do this.

    And I already explained that they are broken-up so that they will post immediately [passing the PoliticsPA screen].

    1) The 1400 voters you claim in North Carolina would not be stopped by VoterID laws if they have photo ID like drivers license. I already explained this is a problem at the registration office checking citizenship. PhotoID’s don’t indicate citizenship. How thick are you?
    Strike 1.

    They should not receive a photo-ID from the “registration office” or from anywhere else; thus, you have admitted that the current system allows for Illegals to vote.

    A set-up for Voter Fraud; Ball 1.

    2) Did you even bother to read the article? I guess not. One voter (who was not 164 years old) reported that his birthdate was recorded/listed incorrectly. The year 1850 was a dummy value entered for records when a birthdate wasn’t available as a way to flag voters that needed to be contacted to get updated information. Some people, mostly women over 21, didn’t want their full birthdates available for privacy, as the voter records were public information. These aren’t dead people left on the rolls from the 1800’s, as you’ve implied. It’s old data from before computerization that they are cleaning up.
    But, again, not voter fraud.
    Strike 2.

    You rationalize-away aberrations that set-the-stage for voter-fraud, errors that would be corrected were photo-ID to be instituted; this isn’t a tool to suppress legitimate voting. For example, you even countenance conscious registration error [“Some people, mostly women over 21, didn’t want their full birthdates available for privacy, as the voter records were public information.”] It’s great that you seem to concur that it is good “they are cleaning up” the rolls by dropping the deceased, but you should know that Dems [in Chicago and elsewhere, including Philly] resist such entreaties.

    Again, a set-up for Voter Fraud; Ball 2.

    3) Rich Lowery is wrote an opinion piece that has been debunked elsewhere.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/24/why-arguments-for-voter-id-laws-dont-add-up/
    He glosses over the cost of ID, which IS a poll tax. He also ignores that voters are failing to go to the polls because they don’t have the new forms of ID, by focusing on the ones who showed up had Voter-ID problems. So, he ignored an entire group of disenfranchised voters as well as voters who had valid ID but didn’t realize it.
    But, even the numbers who showed up with VoterID issues far exceed the number of cases of voter impersonation fraud (ie none).
    Strike 3.

    The Badger-article you cite concludes with a reduction-ad-absurdum claim [“If you’re absolutist about elections and feel that a single case of voter fraud averted by ID laws justifies their existence, then it doesn’t add up to also argue that any number of people disenfranchised by the creation of those laws is just the cost of protecting democracy.”]

    This therefore recognizes the existence of Voter-Fraud [which you keep denying], preferring to balance-equities. And, in the process, it validates the need to maintain some degree of vigilance, if only to generate data regarding the extent of the problem.

    Furthermore, notwithstanding your characterization thereof, you will find neither “poll” nor “tax” therein; again, the reader simply can’t trust your ability to digest articles you cite.

    You equate an individual who didn’t have Photo-ID and an individual who didn’t know he/she had the proper Photo-ID, with the former [but not necessarily the latter] having automatically been “disenfranchised”; you fail to recognize the capacity of an individual with minimal-IQ to do what is needed [@ no-cost @ PENN-DOT] to acquire a Photo-ID [that would then facilitate interactions in other facets of modern society, including acquiring public-benefits].

    Again, a set-up for Voter Fraud; Ball 2.

    4) This is another scam by O’Keefe. He, and one of his cohorts, were actually told repeatedly by campaign staffers in Colorado that such practices were illegal and not to do them.
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/colorado-dems-james-okeefe
    But, his game is to:
    a) present the idea himself (so the idea isn’t generated by the groups)
    b) present the idea to as many people as he can until he finds some idiot who is convinced by his argument (or in some cases just pretending to agree with him because they don’t want to turn away a person they want to help with other stuff, or maybe want to date him)
    c) use third party groups that aren’t Dem groups nor directly affiliated with the campaigns. Basically, young people that he cons into staying something stupid.

    He never actually catches anyone following up on his suggestions, because other people coming into the loop would know better.
    This has nothing to do with VoterID either.
    Strike 4.

    You engage in the typical behavior of attempting to “kill the messenger” instead of absorbing the message, just as you did with the attack on AG-Kane’s partisanship. The bottom-line misconduct is illustrated by the prompt response of the leadership of various entities he has exposed [from ACORN, onward]…namely, firing the guilty.

    Again, a set-up for Voter Fraud; Ball 4.

    [to be continued]

  17. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    There is no factual basis for your assertion that the reason was “lest a Dem be convicted”. That is your opinion.

    Kane was right: the case was not prosecuted.
    A plea deal with no penalties is just saving the defendant tens of thousands in court costs. Because even if you win the case, it still can be prohibitively expensive, if you can even afford it in the first place.

    I replied to your VoterID links, and debunked every single one of them. I especially enjoyed the ones where you linked to articles than undermined your case.

    You write: “you failed to reply” but the very link you just provided shows my point-by-point take down of you as the last post.(timestamped 1.5 hours after your comments) So, you are either too stupid to follow your own link or you are just a flat out liar, hoping no one follows the link to call you out on it. You’ve been lying about my lack of reply for 4 weeks now.

    VoterID is well-known to be a voter suppression tactic designed specifically against the poor and minorities. There is no wide-spread voter-impersonation fraud. Any claim by you to the contrary are simply fantasies (and misunderstandings) on your part. The PA Supreme Court rules against the VoterID nonsense they tried to pull.

    Also, I post against YOU for sport, because you are too stupid/dishonest to be taken seriously, and have no purpose beyond entertainment.

    So, go follow your link, see my reply that you have denied existed, and stop lying.

  18. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    As has grown customary, you evaded the thrust of Larry’s comment, namely, that AG-Kane refused to prosecute overt corruption lest a Dem be convicted.

    You have become tiresome, recalling how you can run, but you cannot hide; as had been anticipated, after you were confronted elsewhere [by moi], you persisted in discussing Voter-ID rather than attempting to rectify your prior gross-errors [which had been distilled and spoon-fed].

    Furthermore, after your lengthy subjective attack on advocates of Voter-ID were “answered” by a series of hyperlinks that contradicted your claims–objectively, you failed to reply.

    Thus, you have again demonstrated why you merely consider posting on this site to be “sport,” pursued to satisfy your desire for entertainment; this also explains why no one should take you seriously.

    http://www.politicspa.com/breaking-justice-seamus-mccaffery-resigns-from-pa-supreme-court/61344/#comments

  19. David Diano says:

    Larry-

    She is being sentenced by a federal court on a separate “conviction earlier this year of lying to a federal grand jury about ticket-fixing at Philadelphia Traffic Court.”

    “Under Tynes’ deal with city prosecutors, they have agreed not to seek a sentence that adds any punishment to that meted out in federal court. The District Attorney’s Office also agreed to drop other changes filed against her, including bribery, conspiracy, and failure to report the gift on public financial-disclosure forms.”

    So, what did Williams actually accomplish? He didn’t prosecute her and dropped all the charges that they couldn’t win on.

    So she pleaded guilty in exchange for no additional punishment (and saving herself court costs for a trial). Sounds like a win for her and not for Williams.

  20. Larry says:

    Or maybe Pennsylvanians see what happens when you elect Democrats. You get people like Kathleen Kane, who declined to prosecute Dems caught red-handed taking bribes. She said the case could not be prosecuted. And what do ya know? Seth Williams is getting guilty pleas in those cases.

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20141111_Former_Traffic_Court_judge_to_plea_guilty_in__sting_.html

  21. frankie says:

    wow ed looks like deputy dog

  22. David Diano says:

    “Rendell served as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1999 until 2001”

    Hmm…. what happened in 2000 election? Oh, yeah, we got Bush-wacked.

    Maybe Ed should stick to reviewing cheese-steak shops.

    Debbie Wasserman-Schultz hasn’t been any better.

    Howard Dean did the best job by taking the fight to districts everywhere, even in red territory.

Comments are closed.