What does it say about the Democratic party when they battle for votes from ex-cons and illegal aliens. What does it say about that party and its objectives?
Welfare, statism, steps away from totalitarianism. That is the end of that failed ideology. History has ample proof of the that.
This from John Fund, Wall Street journal, Political Diary (PAID)
The bitter controversy over Florida's felon voters has been resolved for now. In 2000, the fact that Florida is one of three states that require ex-felons to initiate an appeal to restore their right to vote became a cause celebre among Democrats in the Bush v. Gore recount. Some 70% of Florida ex-felons register Democratic, and their status was further inflamed when it was revealed that a private company had improperly put some eligible voters on a list of those who should be excluded from voting.
Amid all of the complaints and charges of unfairness surrounding Florida felons, it was ignored that investigations by the Palm Beach Post and Miami Herald found that many more ineligible felons had been allowed to vote than eligible voters had been excluded.
But now an agreement has been reached that the state clemency board will begin the process of restoring the civil rights of felons automatically once they complete their sentences. The 20% of felons who have committed the worst crimes will be put on a slower track than the rest. Florida Governor Charlie Crist says the change is only fair because the board had a backlog of several years of cases in which ex-felons were petitioning to have their rights restored.
Liberal advocacy groups are protesting that the new procedures don't go nearly far enough to re-enfranchise ex-felons. But there is also criticism from the right. Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a member of the clemency board, voted against the change, saying many felons still exhibit anti-social tendencies and should be forced to demonstrate they can stay out of trouble with the law for a period of time before having their rights restored.
UPDATE: And the best writer over at American Thinker, Ed Lasky, exposes the left's hypocrisy;
Race and felonious voters
There it goes again: The New York Times characterizes felon voting laws as Jim Crow-era. The Times wants readers to believe that laws that deny or restrict rights of felons to vote are a relic of Civil War oppression of blacks. Therefore, supporters of these laws are racists.
However, the basis of these laws is the principle that lawbreakers who are felons should not have a role to play in choosing who will make and enforce the laws that they have violated in the past. What is racist about that and why do opponents of these laws choose to depict these laws as being racist?
Aren't they showing their racism? This is a law and order issue that has been transformed into a race issue by Democrats for political purposes (presumably because most felons will vote for Democrats who have a soft approach towards criminals).
Go here at and read it all.
UPDATE: Ed emailed my this addendum;
One more aspect I should have mentioned is that the New York Times is revealing its biased views towards the South and Southerners. These felony voting restrictions exists outside of Florida and outside of the South. Would these laws be depicted as Jim-Crow era laws? The genesis for these laws was not race-based: Here is where the Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar writes:
But the history of felon disfranchisement laws is, in fact, far more complex. Many states, north and south, passed such laws (or constitutional provisions authorizing such laws) long before the Civil War and for reasons that had little or nothing to do with race. Connecticut did so in 1818, for example, as did New Jersey and Wisconsin in the 1840s. In some southern states, moreover, felon disfranchisement provisions were first enacted not by the racist redeemer governments that came to power in the 1870s, but by their predecessors: the Republican governments that supported black voting rights. By 1900, felon disfranchisement laws were in place in a majority of states, with widely varying ethnic and racial compositions (including even Vermont!). (The data for all these assertions can be found in the appendices to my book, The Right to Vote.)
For additional information on the breadth of these sorts of laws one can also find information here. Many states have had these sorts of laws on their books for years-and one would probably be hard-pressed to have them characterized as being Jim-Crow era laws.
The New York Times has a very high disregard for the South and for Southerners. I , for one, thought they viewed themselves as a national paper, not a race-baiting one.