At tea party convention, Tancredo says Obama elected due to lack of "civics literacy test" requirement for voting
February 05, 2010 11:24 am ET by MMFA Staff
From Tom Tancredo's February 4 speech at the National Tea Party Convention:
TANCREDO: And then, something really odd happened, mostly because I think that we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this country. People who could not even spell the word "vote," or say it in English, put a committed socialist idealogue in the White House, name is Barack Hussein Obama.
Media Matters: Will Glenn Beck's The Blaze follow Breitbart's trail?
Media Matters: On the brink of Glenn Beck's salvation
As someone on their side posted on the research item about Obama's citizenship:
As if a so-called side loses simply becuase another side effectively channels its hatred. In truth, we all lose.
I suppose he's leading a charge to repeal the Fifteenth Amendment?
Don't believe me? Read the Patriot Act.
If you believe right wing radicals,a test wouldn't have mattered anyway since Acorn would still have stolen the election(such power they have)!!!
Would the Republican VP candiate have passed this civics test??/....Not likely..she still doesn't know what the VP's job really is.
Now... I bet the recently naturalized citizens would have passed..they make then study the constitution and civics' facts.Based on this, shouldn't Tancredo be more pro(legal) immigration to improve the knowledge base of the electorate?!!!
In the same speech, he also decried the "cult of multi-culturalism." What a racist p.o.s.
Not a poll tax, or anything favoring those with money behind them, just some fundamental knowledge. An audio or oral version could be available for those needing it. Learning disabilities, poverty, lack of access to a decent education can keep otherwise informed people from doing well on a written test.
Maybe I'm playing Devil's Advocate, but I'm betting this requirement wouldn't turn out the way Tancredo is suggesting it would. If all of the necessary information was made easily available, the uneducated should have no problem passing a simple test. The teabaggers aren't just uninformed, that's willful ignorance, and that isn't affected by any amount of information.
Foreigners need to pass a test to be given U.S. citizenship, but it's taken for granted by those of us born here. I personally wouldn't mind seeing Tancredo get his wish, as I'm pretty sure it would blow up in his face.
As long as he didn't get to write the test questions, which might require one to "know" that the U.S. is a Christian nation and that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. .
The US Congress and the US Supreme Court disagree with you.
I think you missed my point. I'm wasn't talking about something that favors English speakers or better readers, I was just saying that Tancredo probably wouldn't like the results of his wish coming true, i.e., more informed voters. There's nothing more dangerous to the GOP.
I'm in complete disagreement with Tancredo. If you think he and I are suggesting the same thing, I don't know where to go with this.
You seem to be more in agreement with Tancredo.
The only way to interpret that statement is that you think it would be a good idea to require a test of basic knowledge in order to vote. Explain to me how I'm misinterpreting that.
Don't talk to me like I'm stupid- by clams casino (26 minutes ago)
As a barrier to voting: bad.
That's my philosophy.
Republicans are in super minority and did their duty for their masters.
The gist of his point was that informed voters generally don't vote republican. Not a good first point to make at a "Tea-Baggers" convention.
Did I hear someone say they had no US Flag at this event? Let's see if Fox and Fools calls them out for it.
/snark
And no, I don't think that this would actually be a good idea, with all the problems associated with it. Some would be taxed without representation, choosing the testing authority would be troublesome, etc.
Seriously, who would we choose to create and administer the tests. It cant be academia or the intellectuals because conservatives would not allow it. The scientific community would be out because of their "supposed plot" to take over the world with climate scares and policies supporting cap and trade. It wouldn't be any of the mainstream experts in any field because apparently they are all wrong according to Fox's experts. The only people qualified would be Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and a few others.
Like our political state now, every truth would turn into our word vs their word (which is louder and more often heard). The uneducated would be shut out, but also the misinformed would be shut out, unless they found a way to answer correctly without actually believing their own answers. They would say things like "Is Barrack Obama Nazi, Yes, but Ill jot down No because the test creators are clearly biased."
I think history has already proven you wrong on this one. You might want to familiarize yourself with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
I believe he's dead wrong.
Geez, I know I'm no Johnathon Swift, and it's Friday, but I really don't see how this is confusing.
But your idealized test would weed out teabaggers instead of disenfranchising poor black and Hispanic voters?
Tancredo believes the opposite.
I was talking pure theory. Tancredo is leveling an insult toward the left that I think would more accurately apply to the far right wing that he's courting.
In opposition to Tancredo's implication that Obama was voted in because of the uninformed or uneducated voter.
I believe the Col is trying to say is that liberals are generally more informed than the people who proposed the idea of a civics test.
I wrote a little on his original point earlier but we know the test would be unconstitutional and infeasible. Its idealistic in application but in theory would not be such a bad idea.
I guess my opposition to such a test is the massive potential for abuse. If literacy/civics tests were allowed, no doubt both parties would argue plans/questions for implementation that would favor their own side and disenfranchise their opponents (as we have seen it done in our history already).
That's the inevidable result. Just think of all of the people who "know" that congress can't regulate commerce and guns can't be well regulated.
As you point out, a naturalized citizen has to pass a test to be a citizen, part of which is based on civics (who runs the government, etc).
Anyone that graduates from school, in the U.S., should be taking a civics class. (I hesitate to say that you are required to, since I am sure I would be proved wrong.)
The problem is that a naturalized citizen has a better understanding of civics that the average "Real American".
Not to mention the history of "poll taxes" and other exclusionary measure that have been used as a means to deny certain people the right to vote.
Also, you don't have to be literate to be informed, even though it may make it more difficult.
That's exactly what I said in my original post. I also don't think fluency in English is a requirement for being informed, which I didn't say explicitly, but thought was implied.
I almost didn't include the "Devil's Advocate" remark in my first post, thinking it may have been a little ham-fisted. Apparently, it was too subtle, something I'm not accused of very often.
I just think the argument that, in the past, voting requirements have been used in a calculated way to deliberately hurt one side is about the same as saying health care reform can't work because Country X has long waits, or a practical electric car is impossible because early models weren't great.
Somewhere along the line, in registering to vote, changing address, etc., we're required to sign one of those "I, the undersigned, understand ... all of the above information is true..", so there are requirements in place. That's a very low level test, making the arguments about the constitution and voting requirements a matter of degrees.
Again, that's all theory. This MMFA item is about somebody suggesting a test and implying that it would favor the ultraconservative candidate. I don't support Tancredo's suggestion, but certainly not because I think he's right about the results he imagines.
"How many of you have ever taken a civics or government class?" I asked.
In a room of 130, three hands went up. And they were all instructors over the age of 30.
Back in the 70s, my little hometown school would not pass you out of 8th grade unless you passed civic with a 75% or better. And that requirement was repeated in 12th grade. You didn't pass, you didn't graduate, period.
If the grueling final exams we took in those classes were what Tancredo means by a "civics literacy test," I say bring it on, for every high school kid in America. Force Tancredo to put his money where his mouth is -- and build it right into the high-stakes testing the phants are so fond of.
Joe Citizen takes a 90-question multiple-choice test, one-third of which is U.S. history, one-third political science, and one-third current events. Within the political science portion, we can include questions tailored for each region, such as "who is your U.S. Representative?" There's also a 10-point bonus to anyone either currently serving or honorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces.
Joe's final score is the percentage of the "bonus vote" he would earn. Even if he were to guess at everything, he would surely get some correct, and thus earn something, gaining an advantage over his neighbor who didn't take the initiative.
There should be an option to re-take the test if Joe didn't like his first score. This alone would give a motive for him to make himself more knowledgeable.
My reasoning behind this whole idea is that if someone knows more about politics than I do (and there are many such people), then I honestly think their vote should count more. Moreover, for the same reason, I think my vote should count more than the standard Beck viewer's.
I see many advantages to a plan like this, but I won't take the time for them here. Just something to think about. And I agree with you that Tancredo and the other Tea Baggers would be horribly embarrassed by the final results if such a plan were implemented.
Half the republican questions would get thrown out. The other half would be for petty crap like "did Obama mispronounce Corpsman's name?"
Meanwhile democrats could put in fun stuff like "Bush's tax cuts for the rich created a)the most b)the fewest new jobs since ww2" and "how many members of the Bush administration seriously believed that Saddam was an immediate threat to the national security of the United States?"
More knowledge is definitely a good thing, but enforcing knowledge is reeeally tricky.
That's the first problem with what he said - people can become informed about who they should vote for, who will best support their best interests, without being a fluent English-speaking or reading voter.
But secondly, he's trying to imply, just like Beck did, that Obama is something other than fully "American". How did he do that? By mentioning his middle name. His birth name says NOTHING about his "American-ness". Nothing. His middle name is simply used to inflame his base, not inform anyone.
What a disgusting man Tancredo is.
MSNBC samples
Ask.com sample questions
Let me qualify: One of the questions pertained to voters rights, which Rep. Tancredo and anyone who didn't boo at his remark would have missed. Two other questions dealt with The Bill of Rights, and it is my opinion that the "astroturf" tea baggers are only aware of portions of the First, the entirety of the Second, and, if they have had a brush with the law, perhaps the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Tancredo IS a racist... no question about THAT, either.
he changed his mind. as will sometimes happen when one sees the light.
i don't think strom thurmond ever apologized has he?
george wallace i believe did ask forgiveness for his actions.....
i would ask if you know the meaning of double standard but it seems obvious you don't
Tancredo introduced the Mass Immigration Reduction Act. The act would have imposed an indefinite moratorium on immigration to the United States. Under the act, only spouses and children of American citizens would be allowed to immigrate, which Tancredo estimated would amount to 300,000 immigrants annually. The moratorium would last for at least the first five years of the act and, after that, until such time as there were fewer than 10,000 illegal immigrants entering per year. When those conditions were met, immigration would only have been allowed at whatever level the president and both houses of Congress agreed would have no adverse impact on wages, housing, the environment, or schools. When last introduced in 2003, the bill had 11 cosponsors. Organizations that have endorsed Tancredo's bill include: NumbersUSA, Population-Environment Balance, Carrying Capacity Network, Federation for American Immigration Reform, Negative Population Growth, and the American Patrol. Tancredo introduced the bill in 1999 (H. R. 41), 2001 (H. R. 2712), and 2003 (H. R. 946). Tancredo did not re-introduce the bill in 2005, but in 2007 he proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to "establish English as the official language of the United States," (H.R. 19).
To begin with, causing biz to front this cost puts biz at a severe disadvantage to the import. This practice has obviously at least contributed to the demise of business in this country as evidenced by the exodus rate of business during in last 40--50 yrs coinciding with the increase in the SS tax rate/upper limit of liability and then came the Med tax that began doing the same thing--increasing the cost to business of doing business. Add to this scenario the Government mandated W-comp insurance premium whose cost to business often exceeds the cost of paying SS/Med to begin to understand why biz can not survive in this country. I will note here that the cost of health care is impacted in the same manner. This would give creedence to the claim that we should 1st address major tax reform prior to addressing health care reform or any other means by which we might try to rejuvenate our economy.
If it requires nationalizing the W-comp insurance industry we should at least consider the option
because simply considering a potential action hurts nothing and may lead to alternative ideas. Surely we could convert the SS/Med tax to a retail NST as an experiment in progress for starters?
Biz would still report who earns how much for purposes of entitlement and I would expect biz would suddenly become far more competitive vs the import that would be taxed at retail right alongside the domestic product thereby causing the import to help fund SS/Med while leveling the playing field for domestic biz vs the import.
I realize W-comp is State regulated but that does not change the impact upon biz for having to front this cost. I also realize the concept of nationalizing is often considered to be Socialistic by some but I point out that SS/Med might also be considered to be Socialistic and/or a Ponzi-like pyramid method that is embedded in our econonic system. The very fact that the citizens of this country are now required to carry auto insurance is argueably unconstitutional as are many other laws and regulations that have emerged in recent decades. If Government is contemplating requiring that everyone carry health insurance and decides to tax biz for health care it will have again made a mistake from which we may not recover simply because even more biz will be forced to leave-- Never mind the potential that the citizenry would rise up in revolt because we would have lost our credit rating and begun the process of finally losing entirely our ability to influence what happens in this world.
That sounds like a dire prediction because it is. If Government refuses to recognize that the tried and true methods we used in prior recessions only delayed the inevitable we will slowly decline. We have reached the point at which we must change course in a definitive manner that allows our business community to compete on the global stage and the way to do that is to take a hard look at why business has been forced to leave. The corporate tax rate is often blamed but less than 1/3rd of businesses pay a corporate tax and it provides only about 8% of budget requirements according to the IRS so how does it make any sense at all to say the corporate tax rate hurts biz when it could be argued that 2/3rds of all business makes no profit? This is one reason I claim the cost of Government mandated expenses levied upon biz is the primary reason biz left. SS/Med,W-comp and a host of other Government mandated costs and fees levied upon biz have caused biz to leave the country and this is the reason we now find ourselves in the mess we are now immersed in. That is my opinion and I think I present a strong arguement to back my opinion so what harm could possibly come of having explored this concept?
This is the question I have been asking all of my elected officials-- For 2 yrs! Anyone surprised that I receive no real answers?
Either way, we wouldn't score too well.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/media-matters-highlights-tancredos-anti-obama-screed-ignores-mccain-bashing/
More proud to be a progressive now!