Posts
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Democrats continued their proud tradition of lecturing America about democracy while displaying only a passing acquaintance with reality after Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) confidently misrepresented his own state's voter ID law on live television.
The remarkable performance came during ABC's This Week, where Warner attacked President Trump's election security agenda and denounced Republican support for the SAVE America Act, all while accidentally demonstrating why voters are increasingly skeptical of politicians who insist they alone are the guardians of truth.
Host and alleged journalist, Jonathan Karl, asked the Virginia senator whether Democrats should simply embrace photo voter ID, given that overwhelming majorities of Americans support it.
"You know what? In Virginia, we have voter voter ID and photo ID," Warner declared with the confidence of a man who had clearly spent several seconds thinking about the subject and taking a long shot,
Karl, who apparently knew more about Virginia election law than Virginia's senior senator, politely interrupted the lesson.
"That's actually not the case," Karl replied. "I mean, I'm a Virginia voter. You don't need to show a photo ID in Virginia. There are a wide range of things you can show for ID. And if you don't show one of those, you can sign an affidavit." Karl was referring to library cards, credit cards, Blockbuster membership cards and the like. In other words, you don't need to produce actual photo ID.
Sources say producers briefly considered replacing Warner with a random DMV employee, who statistically had a better chance of knowing the law.
Undeterred by the embarrassing correction, Warner quickly shifted to the classic Washington strategy of redefining what he meant after saying something demonstrably balderdash. He insisted Virginia still has "voter ID of one form or another" before racing back to his prepared talking points about Republican election reforms.
Political analysts noted that Democrats have become remarkably consistent in arguing that voter ID laws are simultaneously racist, unnecessary, and already the law everywhere. [Isn't everything the Left disagrees with racist?]
Virginia law, meanwhile, stubbornly refuses to cooperate with Warner's version of events. Voters may present various forms of identification, [see above examples] and those without acceptable ID can simply sign an ID Confirmation Statement and cast a regular ballot. A photo ID is not required.
The irony grew even richer considering Warner serves as the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, where members are generally expected to distinguish between verified facts and things they vaguely remember from a campaign memo.
Warner went on to insist, "The SAVE Act is about voter disenfranchisement. The SAVE Act is going to take anybody that changed their name when they got married. They don't get to vote unless they go back and find [proof of a name change]."
He also claimed, "The irony here would be the case if you can show any photo that is government stamped would be fine. Certain states will say we're going to let you show your … NRA gun license but you can't show your student ID."
Election law experts noted that reality once again refused to cooperate. While some states accept qualifying handgun carry permits, many of those same states also accept qualifying student IDs under specified conditions.
At the present time, Democratic leaders had announced a new initiative encouraging elected officials to spend at least five minutes reading the laws they denounce before appearing on national television, though insiders cautioned the proposal faced stiff opposition for placing an unreasonable burden on public servants.
I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.
