The difference being that voting is a constitutionally provided right whereas drinking at a bar is a privilege.

In the case of a constitutional right, the onus falls on the state to provide adequate ID at no cost and with no impediment to ensure that no individual's legal rights are disenfranchised.

In the case of a privilege, the onus is on the individual seeking to take advantage of that privilege.

But again, there is no evidence of systemic voter fraud...anywhere. And where individuals have been found to have committed voter fraud, they are prosecuted.

Meanwhile, evidence of systemic election fraud continues to accumulate.

Brad, why doesn't American TV do this? The biggest enemy of the United States is its news media. It is the news media that enables myriad crimes to take place by broadcasting lies and suppressing facts.

The US corporate news media knows perfectly well about the war on US voters via electronic voting machines, voter suppression laws, etc. but deliberately chooses not to report on it, but does enthusiastically broadcast disinformation such as the fictional voter-fraud problem as if it were true.

Do you think he realized that he was admitting that this was a poll tax, which is unconstitutional? He kept referring to a $10 ID (yet another totally made-up "fact", but who's counting?)? You have a tremendous ability to keep your cool.

Great effort, Brad! I've been listening to the latest media coverage of this whole invented crisis and it really exposes how facts are totally ignored in these discussions. NPR's coverage and your appearance on RT seem to make the point that there's legitimate controversy here- and that "both" sides have agendas. (Unfortunately, the both sides is not Dems/Repubs, it's fact and fiction.) Let's hope the DOJ continues to argue based on the facts.

Obviously it can be difficult to make every point you'd like to when some vicious idiot is shouting over you, but I would have liked to see you make the point that getting such an ID is an undue hardship for many people, who in some cases have to travel over 100 miles in order to get such an ID.

We make it difficult enough for working people to vote already; putting elections on a Tuesday, for example. Now they have to travel significant distances and deal with extra bureaucracy. It is a calculated move to make it an even more onerous process.

Wow. Stunning how disconnected-from-reality and yet obnoxiously-self-righteous co-exist in this(and so many other like-minded)clown(s).

Woulda been nice if the host had had a clue. It comes off too much as if there are two points of view worthy of consideration. Not the case.

... David Lasagna said on 3/13/2012 @ 8:08 pm PT...

Woulda been nice if the host had had a clue. It comes off too much as if there are two points of view worthy of consideration. Not the case.

For me, it didn't come across at all like there were two points considering. It served as a contrast between sober fact-based opinion, and moth-frothing dogma-based opinion and highlighted how moronic Seton Motley and what he represents are.

It was fighting match between a skilled martial artist of the intellect and a tactless meathead of the anti-intellect, showing how superior one is and inferior the other is.

Brad,

Do you think it might be helpful, as part of your strategy in going into a TV situation like that, to have a quick way to tell viewers how they can find out for themselves the unassailable truth on these matters?

This is part of what drives me crazy about TV. Happens on Bill Maher all the time. He'll have the ex GEO of General Motors insisting that climate change is bullshit and an actual astro-physicist who says it's not. AND THE CRAZY GUY WILL STILL COME ACROSS AS MAYBE KNOWING SOMETHING!!!!!!

The host on this clip needed to have done her homework and not just let that guy say crazy shit unchallenged. The way it's set up and the way they give you too little time only perpetuates the falsehood that that guy possibly has some credibility.

Can't we figure out something for you to say or do that would interrupt the narrative of he said vs he said with the know nothing host serving as an enabler/validater for the crazy guy by leaving it pretty much at that?

Adam,

I can appreciate that it came across that way to you. I'd agree that that's the way it was.

But if you're looking at it from the point of view of someone who either believes the crazy bullshit or who really doesn't know but has been influenced by the crazy bullshit by having heard the crazy bullshit repeated a million times, I'm guessing it's not so clear. And I think the cuckooheads sorta count on that being the case. So they keep on saying completely batshit stuff with great enthusiasm and conviction. That in my opinion is their greatest strength. They say the bullshit so strongly like it's real. And frightened people believe them. That's the MO I'd like to figure out a counter-strategy for.

The dude should change the name of his org from "Less Government" to "Less Logic."

Brad and everybody else,

Please don't think that I'm saying Brad didn't do an excellent job as per usual. We'll all know Brad knows his shit and is very strong at keeping his cool in the face of infuriating nonsense.

But, as Jerry Mander brilliantly points out in his book Four Arguments For The Elimination Of Television, TV is a very shallow medium. It is inherently inhospitable to nuance and complexity. Lacking the full range of dimensions it prefers simple, black and white, strongly contrasting, high action, basic emotional content. For instance, the profound complexity and ecological importance of swamps doesn't translate well on TV. Nor does the Native American worldview. Two guys having at it on polar opposite sides of a volatile issue does. But where does that leave viewers trying to understand reality?

The subjects of voter fraud, election fraud, election integrity, and Republican shenanigans related to all of the above have a lot of moving parts. It takes more than 10-12 minutes to present the whole kibosh. Especially when you have someone who interrupts, misinforms, and doesn't have his facts straight given equal time.

Every time lies and nonsense are not thoroughly, logically, unambiguously refuted with facts, reason, and plenty of back-up sources the truth has a shadow covering it up to some degree or other.

What I'm desiring here may not be possible. On TV, I mean. But I think we can do better than we generally do.

I'm always looking for some hero or heroine who 1. knows their shit incredibly well-2. has unflappable personal integrity and strength of character-3. has the mental agility and facility to think surpassingly well on their feet so they can counter the creativity of the forces of ignorance, madness, and fear so pervasive in our times in real time.

My dream is for us to have an ever-expanding number of us who raise ourselves to this level of understanding and communication skill so that whenever the madness is presented as normal, factual reality, we are capable of immediately, relentlessly, firmly and with love tracking it down and exposing it for what it is. So that any onlookers would have no doubt.

I think we need to be Sherlock Holmeses for truth. Ready to jump up and go after it whenever, wherever as part of our enlightenment strategy. Cuz I think our problems primarily stem from consciousness/awareness issues. Or lack thereof.

Brad seems to possess the attributes of the champions I envision. There are not a lot who do.

A few who come to mind are Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders. Michael Moore. Arundhati Roy. Molly Ivins. Bill Moyers. Howard Zinn. Daniel Ellsberg. Glenn Greenwald.

RT needs segments called "follow up", kinda like "Facts R Us", where they point out the facts, and lack thereof, following these type of encounters of the "I vote" kind.

In so doing they will discover that Brad is correct to point out no "registration fraud" episodes have translated into "voter fraud" episodes.

That is, Snow White's voter registered dwarfs did not thereafter become Snow White's voting dwarfs, as Brad pointed out.

Brad, your self control in the exchange was really remarkable – I couldn't be in the same room with that loathsome troll. Where it not for the seriousness of the issue he would have been a world class belly laugh.
Motley (what an appropriate name) is obviously a complete idiot. He could have been replaced with a yapping dog for all his comments - they would have better control of the dogs manners.
It's truly depressing how people of his ilk can rise to some prominence.
Well done!

What did Seton Motley do to get himself kicked out of that Fox News subsidiary called "Media Research Center"? He used to show up all the time on Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and "Breitbart TV"... Did he say something disparaging about a Cheney?

Very amusing to see Motley now appears regularly on the Thom Hartmann show and Russia Today... only media outlets with a "strident liberal bias" will actually have him anymore.

CambridgeKnitter @ 3:

Do you think he realized that he was admitting that this was a poll tax, which is unconstitutional? He kept referring to a $10 ID (yet another totally made-up "fact", but who's counting?)?

I don't know that he even knows what a poll tax is. If he does, obviously, he couldn't care less --- just like the folks who created Jim Crow laws until they were, finally, found unconstitutional. (Yes, in 1967, a $1.50 poll tax was found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, but in 2012, jackasses like Motley and those who support these bills are cool with a minimum of $20 being charged for folks to be able to cast their vote.)

Excellent job, Mr. Friedman. For the future, discriminatory laws can be facially discriminatory (e.g., "Blacks can't vote") or have a disparate impact on a minority (e.g., "People with dark, curly hair can't vote.")Both are illegal, and the Voter I.D. laws are of the latter variety. So, yes, they are racist --- in addition to being unwarranted.

Hankdub @ 5:

Obviously it can be difficult to make every point you'd like to when some vicious idiot is shouting over you, but I would have liked to see you make the point that getting such an ID is an undue hardship for many people, who in some cases have to travel over 100 miles in order to get such an ID.

Yup.There were many points I was prepared to make. Didn't count on this guy being such a fraud, though. Didn't know him in advance, and figured they'd be putting me up against some guy that actually knows what he's talking about (when lying), such as John Fund or Hans Von Spakovsky, or one of those professionals.

Yes, you are exactly right, of course. This is from the DoJ's objection to the TX Photo ID restriction, as we covered earlier this week:

During the legislative hearings, one senator stated that some voters in his district could have to travel up to 176 miles roundtrip in order to reach a driver's license office. The legislature tabled amendments that would have, for example, provided reimbursement to voters who live below the poverty line for travel expenses incurred in applying for the requisite identification.

David Lasagna asked @ 9:

Can't we figure out something for you to say or do that would interrupt the narrative of he said vs he said with the know nothing host serving as an enabler/validater for the crazy guy by leaving it pretty much at that?

It's difficult. Because every situation, every host, every "opponent" is different. In this case, I was on satellite (with a delay) and he was in studio with the host, who was not particularly firm in demanding decorum and ground rules. (Had I been moderating, I'd have reamed the hell outta the guy for calling the other person a "doofus".)

So I was at a bit of a disadvantage with the time delay, and ability to easily get the attention of the host, etc.

Motley was also very good at moving the goal post whenever he knew he couldn't defend what he was saying, which meant I had yet another point that needed to be spoken to. So, in the end, I didn't do a particularly good job of disabusing the world of any one of them before the time was up. Always frustrating, and usually, I think, I'm a bit better at that, though it sometimes takes a host who will lay down the rule of law.

Beyond that, always open to suggestions on how better to handle such confrontations --- not that it's always possible, in any case.

For the record, btw, I do plan to speak about the RT interview today on my KPFK show at 3p PT. If not in L.A., you can listen live at http://kpfk.org/listen-live.html

Dredd @ 12:

I have passed your suggestion on to the RT people. Hope they'll take you up on it!

Thanks for the response, Brad. I'll continue to think on it, as that's one of the things I do. Yeah, I saw that the time delay was another sorta hamstringing aspect of the whole weird deal for you. Still, and all, you were excellent.

... Brad Friedman said on 3/14/2012 @ 1:07 pm PT...

So, in the end, I didn't do a particularly good job of disabusing the world of any one of them before the time was up. Always frustrating, and usually, I think, I'm a bit better at that

Say what?! You did a great job, responding with reason to someone whose main strategy is to shout, try to intimidate, wham his hammy fist on the table, and aggressively repeat the lies of his extremist slogan mill. In debate, your "off day" was better than my best "on" day.

RT could have done a better job at moderating and certainly could have chosen a more worthy opponent for you, but at least they did provide you with a forum to present facts in an era of disinformation in the US. Can the same be said about the US mainstream media?

I think more people than you image will have picked up on the reasoned points you made and seen an irrational and pugnacious lout shouting you down, insulting you, and repeating skewed lies for what he was.

Adam8 (banned by Rawstory's Dear Leader, Roxanne Cooper)

States that pass these laws should be forced to go on a media blitz in all TV, newpapers, & radio for WEEKS telling voters about how the law effects them. All I hear is, "VOTER ID LAW PASSED" in the media, with no follow up instructions on how to make sure you can vote, or EVEN WHAT IT IS! Also, the STATE should have to pay for all costs incurred in getting this ID.

How many people who HAVE this voter ID info are simply going to FORGET it - OOPS! - when they get to the polls, even though they have it? No one EVER forgets anything, right? How many are going to show up to vote and not know all the new rules because the media & GOP simply said: "NEW VOTER ID LAW PASSED" with no follow up instructions on how it affects everyone, and they thought it didn't affect them because they've been voting for the last 40 years?

Murky & unclear on purpose?

Brad: next time, you should ask your opponent

1. What is this new law, the one you're arguing for, please explain it to the viewers. (Ummm, I don't know exactly, I just know it was passed and I was told to show up here and blurt you out when you talk)

2. Who will be affected that have already been voting in previous elections? (Ummm, see the previous comment)

Every state that passes such blatantly unconstitutional laws should have all federal funds stripped from them.

Great job under the circumstances Brad, this was just bad hosting.

Adam @ 22 said:

I think more people than you image will have picked up on the reasoned points you made and seen an irrational and pugnacious lout shouting you down, insulting you, and repeating skewed lies for what he was.

Hope you're right!

And my thanks to the others who also offered nice comments above!

Brad, what about this?

When/if you're opponent starts namecalling, you say something like,

"Okay, timeout. Time and again I hear conservatives using namecalling as their go-to debate tactic and I'm sick of it. Besides being insulting, it strongly suggests you have no argument at all. No facts, no reason, no sense, no morality. All you've got is basically a schoolyard taunt, nyah, nyah, you're dumb, you're liberal, you're a socialist. What kind of an argument is that? Then you have the gall to complain about the lack of civility. Any chance you can stick to arguing the merits of your case, or should we just assume you have none?"

I don't know. That's just a for instance.

I realize it's already a given that you're unlikely to have adequate air time in the first place. So you might not want to use precious time like this. But I can't help thinking it might be helpful to call them out publicly on their favorite debate strategy. It's so lame. They've been getting away with it for decades. I say name the beast and shine a light on it. Again and again until people really begin to see it for what it is--a conversational bullying tactic desperately disguising a complete lack of substance.

(Ooops. Don't think I used the blockquotes correctly.)

My dream is for people to start objecting to the conservative conversational bullying as a regular human response. Can you imagine the impact it would have if done on a regular basis? And really it's not asking for so much. Just for people to respond honestly, forthrightly in the moment to extremely objectionable behavior. It's just good parenting skills. These people are, afterall, just older infants acting out.

Brad you handle that guy interrupting you like a Champ!! It is so funny to see him get outmatched and outwitted, so he relies on the interruption tactic. You didn't let him get away with it. Good to see some strong progressives once in a while. THANK YOU.

Ugh! Problem with a program like this is that a wing nut can spout one falsity after another, and the best that comes from it is a "he said, but I say."

Yeah, Ernie, that's why I'm wondering what we can come up with so that when our tribe is in the media spotlight opposite a forked tonguer we would stand a chance of offering/presenting/channeling/redirecting a different outcome.

Beside my suggestion at @27 for changing the ongoing acceptance of intolerable rudeness in place of reasoned debate and beginning the process of neutering their primary debating tool, how about this?--

What if say in this instance Brad were to name the media construct of he said vs he said that was occurring in the moment and explain that the only way for a viewer to really find out for themselves is to look. So check out the archives at Bradblog and check out the archives at biggovernment and see which you think is credible and consistent with the facts and reality.

That's perhaps a clumsy way to do it, but something along those lines where we direct the citizenry to the source material necessary for acquiring an informed opinion.

Maybe at the same time attempt to inspire them by suggesting politely that it's time for all of us to get involved if we wanna right this ship and here's the recommended homework for this topic we're discussing today. Go get 'em America.

I'm such a dreamer, ain't I?

Here's how to debate a Republican: you have to talk LIKE a Republican...the critical error thoughtful people make is that they rely on decency from both parties, therefore opening yourself up to conversational weakness. The best parts of Brad's arguments were when he simply and totally refuted what Seton said, and threw a fact back in his face. Seton has no facts, just hubris, so he is easily thrown.
To sum it up: we must be sharp, fast and unrelenting in our message!

Happened again on Rachel Maddow last night. A conversation between Inhofe and Maddow about climate change became, again, basically a he said vs she said affair. We gotta do better than that. Stewart and Colbert continue to be the primary, most consistent truth bearers on TV shining light on the insanity with comedy. What brilliant writers they've got.

I was taken aback for a moment when Seton brought op the need for photo ID in a bar, to prove that you're of drinking age.

However, if you walk into a bar, and the bartender knows you're of legal age, you don't need the ID. So these Republican voter ID laws are the equivalent of a bartender knowing you, and knowing that you're of legal age, but not serving you a drink because you don't have photo ID.

On voter fraud --- I'm sure there are many people in transition who are simultaneously registered in two or more states; but how many people actually vote in two or more states??

Seton is pathetic.

There is one point that needs to be made whenever some wingnut, whether deluded or intentionally deceptive, brings up the O'Keefe video.

That video does not prove that anyone, at any time, actually committed actual, in-person voter fraud (voter impersonation).

All that the video proved is that, if one took the time to research the records of the recently deceased and compared them to the active voting rolls immediately before an election, it would be possible for someone to carry out in-person impersonation --- though anyone who goes to all that time and expense to cast one (1) solitary, fraudulent vote, runs the risk that a poll worker knows the recently departed, and, if the individual were caught, that individual would be subject to a felony conviction and to serving time in prison for that one (1) fraudulent vote.

But then, it is also possible that someone could produce a phony photo ID that looks like the real thing. In such a case, a photo ID law would in no way prevent that fraudulent vote from being cast either.

The reality, as demonstrated by every academic study and by last September's expert testimony before the U.S. Senate is that in-person voter impersonation doesn't exist. In fact, in the Crawford case, the U.S. Supreme Court, even though upholding Indiana's photo I.D. law noted that there was no evidence of so much as a single case in which someone committed in-person voter fraud at any time in that state's history.

Photo ID is a very effective tool for its intended purpose --- prevention of those who are likely to vote against the GOP from exercising the franchise.