Voter ID laws miss real culprit

Texas’s voter identification law is in place to guard against voter fraud.

Is it working? Does it seek out the most common culprit? Frontline, the acclaimed PBS news documentary series, suggests it doesn’t.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/?elq=0cc302db5c214170a765a52f0c448eb8&elqCampaignId=1064

The most common abusers are absentee voters, according to Frontline. The Texas law, which has been upheld by the courts, targets those who show up at the polls without proper identification or who have false ID and seek to pass themselves off as someone else.

Yes, those incidences do occur — rarely.

The more common element of fraud occurs away from the polling place.

Frontline notes that most absentee votes are white and older than the rest of the voting population. Accordingly, voter ID laws draw their aim on those who are least able to afford to pay for the kinds of identification that many states now require. As Frontline reports:

“Laws that require photo ID at the polls vary, but the strictest laws limit the forms of acceptable documentation to only a handful of cards. For example, in Texas, voters must show one of seven forms of state or federal-issue photo ID, with a valid expiration date: a driver’s license, a personal ID card issued by the state, a concealed handgun license, a military ID, citizenship certificate or a passport. The name on the ID must exactly match the one on the voter rolls.

“African-Americans and Latinos are more likely to lack one of these qualifying IDs, according to several estimates. Even when the state offers a free photo ID, these voters, who are disproportionately low-income, may not be able to procure the underlying documents, such as a birth certificate, to obtain one.”

Therein lies the problem that some see in these voter ID laws. They make it harder for some Americans to vote and those Americans happen to be among the more disadvantaged among us.

Didn’t we pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit such a thing?

Simple questions need simple answers

Greg Abbott apparently fielded a question that didn’t require a lot of verbal nimbleness.

However, the Republican nominee for Texas governor tried to get cute with his response and in the process had some folks scratching their heads over what he really meant.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/does-anyone-really-believe-that-greg-abbott-opposes-interracial-marriage.html/

The question came from the San Antonio Express-News editorial board, according to Dallas Morning News blogger Jim Mitchell: Would the state attorney general have defended a state ban against interracial marriage?

Abbott has said that as AG, it is his duty to defend state laws, such as the law that bans same-sex marriage. So the Express-News sought to broaden the context just a little by posing a hypothetical question about interracial marriage.

Abbott fluffed the answer, according to Mitchell. Here’s how Mitchell reported it: “Rather than say ‘no I would not defend a ban on interracial marriage,’  he slipped into an accurate, but weak response: ‘And all I can do is deal with the issues that are before me… the job of attorney general is to represent and defend in court the laws of their client, which is  the state Legislature, unless and until, a court strikes it down.’”

The result, said Mitchell, was to create questions about whether Abbott somehow believes such a ban is worth defending, that he’s might actual favor such a prohibition.

Abbott’s arguments against same-sex marriage also pose some problems for the GOP nominee. He said something recently about marriage needing to produce children. Obviously, two people of the same gender cannot do such a thing. Here’s Mitchell’s take: “I’ve taken Abbott to task for his defense of the same-sex ban and the prime reason cited in court filings — the supposed state interest in procreation. Regardless of his personal thoughts, the procreation argument is just amazingly weak.”

Come on, Mr. Attorney General. When you get asked a straightforward question, respond with a straightforward answer.

Keep it simple.

R.I.P., Ben Bradlee

I came of age during a most interesting and turbulent time.

Being near the leading edge of the baby boom, I was born not long after World War II. I grew up in the 1950s and ’60s as the nation was being shaped into the greatest economic and military power in world history.

Then came the turbulent time of Vietnam, a war that divided Americans. I did my tiny part in that war, came home and re-enrolled in college. Dad asked me, “Do you have any idea what you want to major in?” I said no. He offered a suggestion: Why not journalism? “You wrote such descriptive letters when you were away,” he told me, “that I think you might want to try journalism as a career.”

So, I did take some entry-level journalism courses in college. I fell in love with the written word.

Then a burglary occurred on June 17, 1972. It was at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. Some goofballs had been caught breaking into the Democratic National Headquarters. The Washington Post covered the event as a “cop shop” story initially. The paper buried it.

Then a couple of young reporters began sniffing around. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein smelled a rat. This is bigger than we think, they told their editor, Ben Bradlee, who died today.

The reporters had to talk their editor into letting them go hard after the story.

Bradlee eventually relented. He turned the young men loose. They uncovered the greatest constitutional crisis of the 20th century.

It was a good time to be a journalist.

I’ll make an admission. I was among the thousands of  young journalism aspirants who became star-struck by the notion of breaking the “big story” because of the work that Bradlee, Woodward and Bernstein did in uncovering the Watergate story.

I trust others in their mid-20s, such as myself, were as smitten as I was at the intrepid nature of the reporting that was done in the field and the tough decisions the reporters’ editor had to make to ensure that they got it right.

Brother, did they ever get it right.

They can thank Ben Bradlee for guiding them, pushing them, perhaps even goading them into telling this story completely.

My own career, of course, didn’t produce that kind of notoriety. I am grateful, however, for the nudge my dear father gave me in late 1970 to seek an educational course that would enable me to enjoy the career I would have. I also am grateful that Ben Bradlee had the courage to seek the truth in a story known as Watergate and gave young reporters all across the land further incentive to pursue a noble craft.

Thank you, Ben.

Price goes up … then comes back down

Update: I thought for a moment I had been hallucinating earlier today when I noticed the price of gasoline had jumped 20 cents per gallon during the night. But nope. I saw it.

Then I noticed a competing convenience store chain had kept its prices the same as the day before, $2.79 per gallon of unleaded gasoline. Lo and behold, the two stations I noticed the big jump had rolled the price back to $2.79 during the day, and then dropped the per-gallon price a penny more by the end of the day.

Could there have been, shall we say, a gasoline pump trial balloon sent aloft this morning?

***

A mystery of economics has been made even more mysterious as of this very morning.

While completing an errand a few minutes ago, I noticed the price of regular unleaded gasoline jumped 20 cents per gallon overnight.

It’s still under $3, but it’s now at $2.99 at one local gasoline station. It’s a local chain, so I’m betting I’ll see a similar spike at other corner gasoline stations later this morning when I trudge off to work.

The mystery is this: I keep reading stories in the media about the plummeting price of crude oil and the accompanying decline of gasoline — which is a product of aforementioned crude oil. Then I witness this upward spike in prices here in West Texas, which supposedly is one of the centers of the domestic oil production boom that I thought was helping drive the price of energy down.

What in the world am I missing here?

I get the supply-and-demand drivers that fuel the economy.

News reports keep telling us that our supply is outstripping our demand. Production is up, demand is down. Thus, prices are supposed to come down. Isn’t that how capitalism works? It’s kind of basic.

Now the price of gasoline here in Amarillo, Texas, has shot back up — by a lot!

It’ll take some time for the price to trickle back down. That’s how it works. What jumps up quickly comes down at a snail’s pace.

I’ll be waiting and watching.

Where does Davis go from here?

This is not a particularly bold prediction: Wendy Davis is likely to lose her bid to become Texas’s next governor.

The Democratic nominee is being whipsawed by a combination of circumstances: She’s running in a heavily Republican state; she hasn’t gotten serious traction on the serious issues she’s sought to raise; her opponent, Greg Abbott, has proven to be unflappable in the face of intense criticism.

My question now is this: Where does the state senator go from here?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/wendy-davis-2014-texas-elections-112027.html?hp=l23

Some observers had speculated that Davis could emerge with a moral victory even in defeat. She’s made a name for herself. She gained national fame with that notable filibuster in 2013 of a strict anti-abortion bill. She is an articulate spokeswoman for her party.

The problem is that the Texas Democratic Party is in shambles. Republicans have grabbed every statewide office and have tightened the vise-grip they hold.

Davis had been seen as a possible leader of a Democratic resurgence. Trouble is that the resurgence has failed to take hold.

Davis’s future as a political star in Texas is questionable at best, and not because of anything she’s said or done, but because the party cannot seem to pull itself off the deck.

If she’s going to maintain a future in elected politics, it looks to me as though she ought to follow the Scott Brown model up yonder in New England. Brown, a Republican, lost his U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts to Democrat Elizabeth Warren. Then he moved to neighboring New Hampshire and is mounting a serious challenge to Democratic U.S. Sen. Jean Shaheen.

Sen. Davis? New Mexico might be beckoning.

Oops! GOP governor tells truth, then backs off

Hey, I always thought Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich was a straight shooter.

Turns out he needs to get his sights re-set.

Kasich told The Associated Press that the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is here to stay, that Republicans have no hope of repealing it, even if they win control of the U.S. Senate after the Nov. 4 mid-term election.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/politics/kasich-obamacare-here-to-stay/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

‘AP reported this: “‘The opposition to it was really either political or ideological,’ Kasich said of Obamacare. “I don’t think that holds water against real flesh and blood, and real improvements in people’s lives.'”

That sounds pretty darn reasonable. But wait! Gov. Kasich’s people said AP got it wrong. The governor was referring to the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.

The ACA should be repealed and replaced, the governor’s office said — speaking for Kasich.

Here’s the deal, folks.

The ACA is working. Millions of Americans have signed up for health insurance who didn’t have it before. It’s providing comfort to those who prior to the law’s enactment couldn’t afford to be insured.

The ACA rollout was a Keystone Kops affair, to be sure. The computerized system crashed. It was a mess.

Then it got fixed. Yes, the rollout likely caused Kathleen Sebelius her job as health and human services secretary.

I’ll stick with Kasich’s initial view that repeal of the ACA ain’t going to happen.

Congressional Republicans, I’m quite certain, will have no trouble finding other issues with which to pick fights with the president. It’s in their DNA.

'Kick-ass militiaman' discovers humanity

Charles Gilbert has told a fascinating and gripping story about how he changed his attitude toward those who come to this country illegally.

He joined a Texas “militia” organization and deployed to the state’s southern border. He intended to join others who were angry about the illegal immigrant flow.

Then he discovered something. He says in a lengthy article attached to this blog that he found “humanity.”

http://www.texasobserver.org/texas-border-volunteers-reconsider-the-mission/

Yes, the Texas Observer is a left-leaning publication based in Austin. One isn’t likely to find such a story in, say, the Amarillo Globe-News or other right-leaning publications.

Gilbert’s story is a lengthy one as published in the Observer.

The most interesting thing he said, however, is the one about discovering that the illegal immigrants coming into Texas merely were human beings seeking a better life.

He describes himself as a typical “angry white male.” He was ticked off when he went to the border. Gilbert told the Observer: “‘I decided I wanted to go down to the border and kick some ass,’” Gilbert says. ‘I’m your typical angry white male. I’m conservative. I’m pissed off at the double-standard in the media. I’m that guy.’”

Then he got up close and personal with the folks he sought to stop.

Not only did he discover the humanity in the form of the people who came to Texas from Mexico and beyond, he also found some humanity within himself.

'Kissing congressman' testing voters' values

By all rights, Vance McAllister should be toast. Done. A goner from public life.

The Louisiana Republican congressman got caught on a video laying a seriously wet kiss on a female staffer. They were making out, man. Oh, McAllister and the staffer have spouses. The woman’s husband was so angry he declared their marriage to be over; I haven’t heard the latest on that one.

As for McAllister, he apparently is still married to the mother of their five children. He had declared his intention to leave office after this term, then he changed his mind. He’s running in that free-for-all Louisiana system in which Democrats and Republicans run against each other in the general election.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/vance-mcallister-the-kissing-congressman-112015.html?hp=t1

You know what? The guy just might win — again.

It looks as though the congressman is testing his constituents’ tolerance for misbehavior.

He represents a reliably Republican district. His constituent base is generally quite conservative. So, I’ll presume that under most circumstances they’d frown terribly on their elected representative in Congress making out with someone other than his wife.

Doesn’t Scripture tell us that “adultery” results even when we look lustfully at someone other than our spouse? By that measure, McAllister has committed a serious sin, correct? What’s more, McAllister campaign for election while declaring himself to be a God-fearing, wife-and-children-loving family man.

Well, he’s back in the game. He’s running hard for re-election, only he’s kissing babies this time.

This will be most intriguing. The incumbent’s constituents reportedly are looking past the kind of misbehavior that used to get politicians into serious trouble.

Wow!

Hysteria czar? Why not?

Todd Roberson’s blog for the Dallas Morning News is spot on.

The United States doesn’t need an Ebola czar as much as it needs a “Hysteria czar.”

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/we-need-a-hysteria-czar-not-an-ebola-czar.html/

The worst fomenters of the hysteria gripping some Americans appear to be the cable news networks. Roberson singles out CNN, with its endless “Breaking News” alerts and its ominous-sounding music.

He writes about images of men walking around in hazmat suits, helicopters flying over Dallas-area housing complexes and a Nigerian student being denied admission to Navarro College because the school no longer accepts applications from students who come from countries with confirmed cases of Ebola.

I don’t think I’m going to say much more about this hysteria nonsense. I’m spent. No one at CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CNBC or the broadcast networks are paying attention. I feel as though I’m talking to myself.

Ebola is not a “crisis” in the U.S. of A. We’ve had precisely one death of someone who came into this country from a country infected with the deadly disease.

I’m with Roberson. President Obama needs to appoint a Hysteria czar.

Sucking it up for an early vote

Grumble, grumble.

That’s me, griping about a task I have to perform this election season.

Duty calls and I’m going to be forced to vote early in this year’s Texas mid-term election.

A polling research company has hired me as an exit pollster on Election Day. I’ll be working at a Randall County precinct, giving confidential questionnaires to voters as they leave the polling place. It’s a 12-plus-hour gig that day and I’ll be unable to go to my regular polling place to cast my ballot.

Readers of this blog know how I feel about early voting. I detest it. No, I actually hate voting early. My fear is that voting early exposes voters to being surprised when their candidate gets caught doing something naughty, or illegal — or both — before Election Day. Yes, I know that an Election Day vote doesn’t prevent someone from misbehaving between that day and the day he or she takes office, but I want to hedge my bet as much as is humanly possible.

Texas secretaries of state have proclaimed the virtues of voting early. They want to make it easier for Texans to cast their ballots, even though the state now has a voter identification law that — some have said — will make it more difficult for some Texans to exercise their rights as citizens. But that’s another story.

The blunt truth about early voting, though, is that it doesn’t boost the total number of voters. Texas still ranks among the lowest-turnout states in the Union. All it does is enable more Texans to vote early rather than wait this year until Nov. 4.

So …

I’m going to suck it up and vote early. Just to be true to my belief in hedging my bet against something bad happening to the candidates of my choice, I’m going to wait until the very last day of early voting.

See? Pay attention, tea party Republican members of Congress: This proves you can compromise without sacrificing your principles.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience