It's ok because he's an American Icon. The RNC should be embarrassed because that appearance completely overshadowed Romney's acceptance speech.

The funniest thing I read was

"Minutes after Eastwood began his speech, someone created an @InvisibleObama account on Twitter. It has already amassed 30,000 followers and counting."

My favorite line so far was one a poster left on Taegan Goddard's Political Wire:

"Go ahead. Make my dementia."

Yeah, it's kind of sick, but it made me laugh.

I was watching something else, but turned on the RNC briefly. When I saw the man talking to an empty chair, I turned back on "World's Dumbest" and just waited until he was done.

A federal court has ruled against a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots in November.

The three-judge panels says that presenting a photo ID to vote imposed "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.

Now, I'm struggling with this one and would like someone here who sides with the three-judge panel's decision to explain to me how showing a photo ID is a burden. I realize some of these people may not have a driver license... but neither does my son, who just graduated and is 18, but he carries with him a school ID that has his picture on it. (Hopefully he'll get his actual driver license today - he's taking the test! Please send me good thoughts that my car doesn't get smashed!!)

How do people without a photo ID get jobs or, if unemployed, draw benefits... etc. Help me with this... how does a person NOT get a photo ID - ANY sort of ID? I think the fee for a Driver License in California is only $30... I know, I know... that is eggs, cheese, and milk for a poor family. But still... anybody here NOT have ANY photo ID or proof of existence?

I can be swayed to the left on this one if someone has good some good ideas on this...

Thanks!

You don't need to have photo ID to vote in the U.S?

That is definitely a requirement if you want to vote here! I just assumed that was the case everywhere. Or at the very least that you would have to produce some sort of identification.

Well, Ann, it does matter. That there would be even ONE vote improperly or illegally cast, thereby cancelling out the right of another to have their voice heard is an outrage and is unacceptable.

I happen to find this sort of thing an exaggeration and it reminds me of S.E. Cupp on The Cycle making the 70 cases of possible voter fraud the biggest deal. I understand that there is a potential for voter fraud to have an effect on an election (probably more likely at a local level where less people are voting) but this is more of a solution in search of a problem. The requirement itself isn't a problem--the timing of it is. When millions of people vote in an election and there is no evidence of any massive voter fraud then the whole idea of preventing one or two instances of it seems rather trviial. There are way more significant things going on that deserve more time and energy than this specific issue no matter how civic minded anyone wants to be.

With regard to voter suppression, we could argue that back and forth until doomsday; I could offer that Democrats routinely attempt to suppress the votes of service men and women around the world... I won't argue these points until doomsday but will simply hold the position that voter fraud of any kind should not be tolerated and those who so causally dismiss it clearly have another agenda.

And this is the type of partisan response that makes both parties a waste. Somehow what the Democrats might possibly be doing something terrible but the Republicans are just making the nation better by making it harder for a significant number of people to vote even when one of them admitted that this plan would benefit Mitt Romney? In partisan world one side cannot possibly be doing anything with malicious intent when you can point the finger at the other side.

As far as casual dismissal goes, I think it's a stretch to assume someone who is not like minded automatically has an agenda. It's not that clear to me. But true, maybe some people would rather see money go toward education or feeding starving children than spent on trying to prevent people from being able to vote.

Voter I.D. is a fantastic idea. Implement it on January 1, 2013 not just in time to keep some people from voting.

Because what I am hearing and reading is that denying thousands of individuals their right to vote in this upcoming major election is a great idea since it might keep one or two people from fraudulent voting and I guess there's no such thing as fraudulent I.D. either.

I happen to find this sort of thing an exaggeration and it reminds me of S.E. Cupp on The Cycle making the 70 cases of possible voter fraud the biggest deal. I understand that there is a potential for voter fraud to have an effect on an election (probably more likely at a local level where less people are voting) but this is more of a solution in search of a problem. The requirement itself isn't a problem--the timing of it is. When millions of people vote in an election and there is no evidence of any massive voter fraud then the whole idea of preventing one or two instances of it seems rather trviial. There are way more significant things going on that deserve more time and energy than this specific issue no matter how civic minded anyone wants to be.

If the people pushing these laws were truly interested in the "integrity of the process" they would be more concerned with making IDs easily available and free. They would also encourage early voting instead of trying to curtail it, they would encourage BOEs to accept provisional ballots instead of fighting to have them thrown out and they wouldn't create loopholes that force institutions to spend money like the way a number of Pennsylvania schools have to in order to change school IDs to adhere to the rule that have to have an expiration date. They also wouldn't be training people in voter intimidation and they wouldn't be going after groups like the League of Women Voters or high school teachers who register their students.

This isn't about the process. It isn't about "if even one person votes fraudulently, blah, blah, blah." It's about the fact that Obama won in 2008 because of an unprecedented turnout of minority and young voters and the GOP is going to do everything possible to make sure that never happens again. Honestly, I don't understand how anybody who tries to keep people from the polls can consider themselves an American when they are spitting in the face of one of our most precious rights just because they didn't like the outcome last time.

I'll be voting early but I'll be volunteering to help people get to the polls on Election Day and I can honestly say nothing would make me happier than to come face to face with one of these "True the Vote" thugs.

I could offer that Democrats routinely attempt to suppress the votes of service men and women around the world...

You could offer that but it would be a lie.

Edited August 31, 201213 yr by marceline

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/31/the-most-cringe-worthy-lines-of-the-2012-gop-convention-that-didnt-involve-clint-eastwood/

I'm fascinated at our media friends who are going on about how this convention paves the way for Condi to run in 2016 or 2020. The Republicans will never accept anything about her. This is more of the same fantasyland Beltway crap which believes "T-Paw" is an icon.

I'm surprised Clint Eastwood qualified to speak at the Convention, seeing as how he's had 7 children by 5 different women, and only married 2 of them.

Edited August 31, 201213 yr by alphanguy74

I'm surprised Clint Eastwood qualified to speak at the Convention, seeing as how he's had 7 children by 5 different women, and only married 2 of them.

He's the coolest guy they've got. Otherwise they're stuck with Ted Nugent or Chuck Norris.

I'm surprised Clint Eastwood qualified to speak at the Convention, seeing as how he's had 7 children by 5 different women, and only married 2 of them.

Not just that, he's also pro-choice and pro-environment, his record as Mayor of Carmel was really very strong on environmental issues.

I'm surprsied Clint Eastwood qualified to speak at the Convention, seeing as how he's had 7 children by 5 different women, and only married 2 of them.

He's in the special family values category where all that counts is that he's married now and I'm assuming he must like rifles or his iconic character leads them to believe he does and that apparently is more than enough.

http://www.washingto...clint-eastwood/

I'm fascinated at our media friends who are going on about how this convention paves the way for Condi to run in 2016 or 2020. The Republicans will never accept anything about her. This is more of the same fantasyland Beltway crap which believes "T-Paw" is an icon.

As far fetched as it seems (because it would be jaw dropping to even see any woman in the Republican party reach that high), it's not out of the realm (though I doubt she has that as an aspiration).

Due to America's complicated relationship with race, she's got to be in the "Exceptional" category. Somehow in the minds of people who think like that, she's not like those other people. I once heard a former co-worker say some negative things about black people and when the person to whom she spoke reminded her that she was telling all this to a black woman, she told her that she didn't see her as black because she's not like those others.

Soledad O'Brein's CNN series Black in America would have been a lot different had she explored the whole craziness of black people not really being black as it shows how some have nullified Martin Luther King Jr's line about "color of their skin."

He's the coolest guy they've got. Otherwise they're stuck with Ted Nugent or Chuck Norris.

Don't forget Mel Gibson

I happen to find this sort of thing an exaggeration and it reminds me of S.E. Cupp on The Cycle making the 70 cases of possible voter fraud the biggest deal.

It is not an exaggeration. It is mendacity as Big Daddy called it in one of my favorite movies, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. The typical lies that Republicans trot when they want to suppress the votes of people they know won't vote for them.

If the people pushing these laws were truly interested in the "integrity of the process" they would be more concerned with making IDs easily available and free. They would also encourage early voting instead of trying to curtail it, they would encourage BOEs to accept provisional ballots instead of fighting to have them thrown out and they wouldn't create loopholes that force institutions to spend money like the way a number of Pennsylvania schools have to in order to change school IDs to adhere to the rule that have to have an expiration date. They also wouldn't be training people in voter intimidation and they wouldn't be going after groups like the League of Women Voters or high school teachers who register their students.

This isn't about the process. It isn't about "if even one person votes fraudulently, blah, blah, blah." It's about the fact that Obama won in 2008 because of an unprecedented turnout of minority and young voters and the GOP is going to do everything possible to make sure that never happens again. Honestly, I don't understand how anybody who tries to keep people from the polls can consider themselves an American when they are spitting in the face of one of our most precious rights just because they didn't like the outcome last time.

Pretty much. Suppressing the vote of ethnic minorities and women has been the favorite past time of primarily white right-wing conservative males. This imaginary "vote fraud" delusion is just their latest strategy.

I'll be voting early but I'll be volunteering to help people get to the polls on Election Day and I can honestly say nothing would make me happier than to come face to face with one of these "True the Vote" thugs.

Good for you! I love this.

You could offer that but it would be a lie.

Yep, I am enjoying how the Republicans' pathological lying is finally forcing the mainstream to acknowledge that they are liars and dishonest about everything that they say about their political opponents.

Edited August 31, 201213 yr by Ann_SS

Well a judge has restored Ohio's three days of early voting. Chalk one up for the "eeevil" Democrats who sought to deprive military voters of their rights. Oh wait that was another one of those false accusations that the fact checkers had no business revealing.

Well a judge has restored Ohio's three days of early voting.

And honey, we're going to use the HELL out of them. Trust.

I have to say the Republican ticket seems better this time around than last election. Romney/Ryan seem liks less of a joke than McCain/Palin