The Obama campaign would like to see some ID, please

posted at 12:41 pm on June 15, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

To gain entry into President Obama’s speech in Ohio on Thursday, attendees were apparently required to present a photo identification along with their ticket. Which just so obviously, impartially, logically begs the question: Why does the Obama campaign want to disenfranchise minorities?

CLEVELAND — President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign checked the identification of the supporters attending Obama’s “framing” event at Cuyahoga Community College today.

The 1,500 supporters in attendance picked up tickets at campaign offices in Northeast Ohio beginning on Monday, though tickets to the event made no mention of an ID requirement. …

“We checked every ID at the door to make sure it matched with the name on the ticket that supporters filled out,” she said. “We did this for every person who came in.”

Discrimination! Bigotry! Racism! After all, as DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has so aptly reminded us, asking people for government-issued identification is going to literally drag us back to the era of Jim Crow laws. As U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has so patiently chided us, requiring proof of identity jeopardizes the entire civil rights movement. As Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia) so recently proclaimed, requiring an ID makes it “almost impossible for young people, for students, for our seniors, for minorities to participate, for the disabled to participate, is a sin. It’s obscene…”

Oh, what’s that? President Obama’s security requires an ID-check to deter the crazies from coming out, which is completely just and legitimate and in no way speaks to any innate racism, but protecting the ballot box from the many proven attempts at fraud and abuse is somehow completely different?

[Head meets desk.]


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Hence the felony risk is pretty low…under the ACORN mantra “by any means necessary”, it’s a low-risk move.

And an incredibly low-reward move too. To have any impact on the election (especially national elections) such fraud would need to be widespread and coordinated. If it reaches that level, there’s a much great chance of being caught.

red_herring on June 15, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Maybe they’re more likely to be farmers?

red_herring on June 15, 2012 at 3:34 PM

You have no idea what’s behind the moronic talking points that are fed into your little head, do you child?

MNHawk on June 15, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Erika has struck an appropriate tone. But no amount of clarity can help those unequipped with irony detectors.

curved space on June 15, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Maybe the confusion here is that you think “irony” allows one to use words incorrectly?

red_herring on June 15, 2012 at 4:25 PM

You have no idea what’s behind the moronic talking points that are fed into your little head, do you child?

MNHawk on June 15, 2012 at 4:24 PM

gee I guess not, thanks for helping me see the light, adult!

red_herring on June 15, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Maybe the confusion here is that you think “irony” allows one to use words incorrectly?

No. No confusion. And no explanation forthcoming. You have gaps in your understanding of the issue, such understanding being a requirement for irony and/or sarcasm detection. Or you’re pretending to have gaps. But, benefit-of-the-doubt allowances for clueless leftists have long ago been consumed. So, you have gaps, AKA ignorance. You’re welcome to wallow in it.

curved space on June 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

No. No confusion. And no explanation forthcoming. You have gaps in your understanding of the issue, such understanding being a requirement for irony and/or sarcasm detection. Or you’re pretending to have gaps. But, benefit-of-the-doubt allowances for clueless leftists have long ago been consumed. So, you have gaps, AKA ignorance. You’re welcome to wallow in it.

curved space on June 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Wait, I think i get it. She’s being “ironic” because she doesn’t actually mean Obama’s disfranchising anyone. That’s irony!

Sorry for harping on this, but I just really don’t like the recent additions to hotair. First we have Tina “Planned Parenthood wants kids to have sex so we can do more abortions” Korbe. Now Erika “FF is a grand conspiarcy” Johnsen. I’m sure there are plenty of young intelligent conservative bloggers out there, so why they choose these two is beyond me.

red_herring on June 15, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Dang those hypocritical, hypocrites….

I wonder if they had the same voter rule they want to shove down everyone else’s throat… have someone there that can vouch for you being you times 12.

The rules are for thee and not me! It’s good to be KING.

ActinUpinTexas on June 15, 2012 at 5:01 PM

red_herring on June 15, 2012 at 4:23 PM

so let’s go back to my original post on the topic…you can’t prove that it doesn’t happen, I can’t prove that it does. we have the technology, 3rd world countries have tighter election laws than we do, the vast majority of the population already has an approved ID (or could get one free under any voter ID law I have ever seen) and we take away what has become an election issue so we can focus on why somebody really won or lost.

the liberal fight against bringing our elections into the information age only tells me that they need it and they use it (black helicopters perhaps, perhaps not).

teejk on June 15, 2012 at 6:21 PM

And an incredibly low-reward move too. To have any impact on the election (especially national elections) such fraud would need to be widespread and coordinated. If it reaches that level, there’s a much great chance of being caught.

red_herring on June 15, 2012 at 4:23 PM

How is this a “low reward” effort? People potentially get paid to vote the way they’re told and by doing so set themselves up for a piece of the Dems’ crony socialism. And if you have a DOJ run by one of the Dem cronies (i.e. Holder) there is no risk because he will not investigate Dem fraud (see Black Panthers, ACORN, etc).

dentarthurdent on June 15, 2012 at 6:46 PM

And an incredibly low-reward move too. To have any impact on the election (especially national elections) such fraud would need to be widespread and coordinated. If it reaches that level, there’s a much great chance of being caught.

red_herring on June 15, 2012 at 4:23 PM

And by “widespread and coordinated” – you mean like through someone like say ACORN or a bunch of thug controlled labor unions.
Oh of course that could never happen, right?////

dentarthurdent on June 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM

And an incredibly low-reward move too. To have any impact on the election (especially national elections) such fraud would need to be widespread and coordinated. If it reaches that level, there’s a much great chance of being caught.

red_herring on June 15, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Not really if we take your attitude and not check IDs. You people are hilarious.

CW on June 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Typical leftist; do as I say, not as I do.

aposematic on June 16, 2012 at 6:25 AM

Comment pages: 1 2