Jonathan Capehart is a member of the Washington Post editorial board, and a regular MSNBC contributor…which should tell you a lot about Jonathan Capehart.
But in case there is any doubt, here is Mr. Capehart\’s assessment of the Hillary Clinton attack on states which (gasp!) have voter ID laws in place, so that (gasp again!) voters are expected to demonstrate they are who they say they are:
“Well look, what it shows is, and especially by doing this speech in Texas, she\’s taking the fight to the Republican Party. And she\’s not only doing it on their turf, but she\’s calling them out by name and you showed and as you said. But what was interesting was watching Governor Kasich, how angry he was. This is the reaction she\’s getting. She\’s forcing them to defend themselves. She\’s forcing them to defend themselves and their states, defend their party. Because it\’s the party that\’s been doing this all over the country.
“Politically it\’s a brilliant move. For her base it\’s a brilliant move. And also, just as an American, it\’s a brilliant move. Because the ideas that she put forth, I mean Governor Kasich called her out because there\’s no early voting in New York. But one of her proposals is to have at least 20 days of early voting nationwide. So she\’s forcing them to have a conversation on something she cares about on her terms.”
What\’s that old sarcasm? Oh yeah…I feel like a flea in a dog pound, I don\’t know where to begin.
I guess the best way is to do it in order:
-Taking what fight to the Republican Party? Capehart, like virtually every other opponent of voter IDs, pretends that there is a fight to be taken somewhere. In reality, virtually every poll shows that a strong majority of the country – including a strong majority of Democrats – supports voter ID. The only fight is one created out of thin air by the Hillary Clintons and Jonathan Capeharts of the world.
-“Calling them out by name”? Every person she called out by name is in a state with more early voting access than Hillary Clinton\’s own state – which they are pointedly referencing in their responses. She\’s not calling them out, they\’re calling her out, and she comes across as either an ignoramus, a hypocrite, or a combination of both (personally my vote is for door #2).
-Ms. Clinton is not forcing anyone to defend anything. She\’s giving them an opening, a mile wide, to show her up as the ignoramus and/or hypocrite mentioned in the previous point. It takes a special kind of delusion not to see this.
-Yes, Republicans are the party that is “doing this all over the country”. And based on how the country feels about voter ID, I\’m betting Republicans not only keep on doing it, but make it part of their 2016 campaign.
-Calling this a brilliant political move is roughly like giving a “Marketer Of The Century” award to whoever came up with the idea for Coca-Cola to change its formula.
-Hillary Clinton was one of New York\’s U.S. Senators from 2001 through 2008. In those 8 years, what did she do about making early voting the law of the land? Making it the law of New York in particular? Where was the legislation she proposed? Sponsored? Nowhere. Making a campaign speech proposal about it in 2015, after never doing a thing about it in all the years she could have, is pathetic.
-And, then there is my favorite, right at the end. She\’s forcing them to have a conversation on her terms? No, Jonathan, the fact that Hillary Clinton has been shown up as the ignoramus and/or hypocrite she is on this issue has backfired. Boomeranged. Now she is in the defensive position of having to explain why New York does not have early voting…..or, at any rate, would be in the defensive position if Queen Hillary allowed reporters to ask her any questions. Which she does not. But you seem to have no problem with that, do you?
If this is what Jonathan Capehart has to offer……I\’ll let you finish that sentence. I\’m reasonably certain you have an idea of how I would.
