Watch the video above, Mr. Mattiacci challenged by local senior citizen on his Republican party line stance that thousands of citizens in PA won't be denied the right to vote due to just passed voter suppression law.
Citizen: "Wait till you hit 80, I am a secretary of a group of 235 women. Most of whom are in their 80s, used to drive and have expired drivers licenses, with their picture on them - they won't be able to vote! 200 of my friends."

Senior Citizens not being able to vote bother you? How about our youngest voters?
When this voter suppression bill that Mr. Mattiacci supports was passed, Gov. Corbett assured everyone that "student Ids would be ok to use." Well not so much:
From the paper "The Morning Call"
"Some of the state's largest schools — including Penn State, Temple and the State System of Higher Education colleges, such as Kutztown and East Stroudsburg universities — issue student IDs that can't be used at the polls under the new law. DeSales University and Cedar Crest and Lafayette colleges are in the same boat."
... The same goes for most of the state's private colleges and universities, said Mary Young, director of government relations for the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Pennsylvania."

http://articles.mcall.com/2012-03-30/news/mc-pa-college-voter-id-20120330_1_ids-expiration-dates-college-students

Perhaps these "disenfranchised college students" can take a few minutes out of their Summer Vacations from school to visit the DMV and solve this "problem" they now face.

"Dean said that her research shows that only ten cases of voter fraud have occurred in Pennsylvania over the last ten years, and that such a small number shouldn't potentially inhibit the rights of others to vote."

A disinterested article...
http://paindependent.com/2011/06/expert-photo-id-best-way-to-detect-voter-fraud/
...includes this prescient comment: "Von Spakovsky said voter fraud might not even be detected without an identification law in place."

Therefore, particularly noting how the ETS/ACT recently altered their registration-requirements to obviate testing-fraud, it is necessary tor the government to use available technology to ensure the credibility of the inviolate ballot-box is optimized. [When I took the SAT's in the 1960's, all we needed to do was to bring a #2 pencil.]

Doctor, I respect your opinion, however, Tom Corbett was Attorney General from 2005 to 2011, can you tell me how many cases of voter fraud he prosecuted? How about investigated?
Voting is a constituional right. You seem to be easily dismissing the concerns of the local senior citizen in the video. What about all those seniors statewide?
Its estimated that 340,000 PA seniors do not have proper photo I.D. The bill amounts to a poll tax, requiring mostly seniors to spend their valuable dollars to obtain a photo ID, considering transportation and/or the documents they will need to obtain in order to prove who they are to get the id. Many will need to track down birth certificates from over 80 years ago, that is not a "simple task."
In 2008, only 4 cases of voter fraud reported out of 8.73 million registered voters.
In PA, since 2004 we’ve cast 20 million votes and had 4 convictions for fraud.
In Ohio, a statewide survey found four instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to vote in 2002 and 2004, out of over 9 million votes cast - a rate of 0.00004%.
Missouri, of the 2.3 million votes cast in 2000, only 6 substantiated instances of ineligible voters were uncovered.
Wisconsin, 7 cases of voter fraud were found out of 3 million votes cast during the 2004 election. A fraud rate of 0.0002%.
The fairest comment I can think of is this: When restricting a constitutional right, more thought should be given to the "unintended" consequences.

Regarding the indication for this intervention, just recall ACORN and stop perseverating regarding what has/hasn't been reported via the PA-AG.

Regarding the remedy, it costs nothing to get a voter-photo-ID, which is needed for multiple other life-events; can you really document your claim that "It's estimated that 340,000 PA seniors do not have proper photo I.D."?

So, I take that to mean that you will not be answering my questions. How about AARP finghting this law? http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/follow-bills-pa1787.html

I answered the questions thoroughly; have you disputed the national impact of ACORN-mediated voter-fraud?

Regarding your citation of AARP, it's credibility as anything more than a D-party mouthpiece has been dashed, yielding formation of another senior-citizen group [AMAC - http://www.amac.us/] that isn't so politicized.

You answered it by saying you were not going to answer it. Acorn is a red herring, as this voter suppression law will not do anything to address that issue. Unless you can tell me how this law will address that issue, lets stay focused here. The 350,000, or 18 percent, is actually the conservative number used to estimate how many seniors do not have proper id. The argument on your side is that 18 percent of seniors is a small group and the benefit to our elections could greatly outweigh the burden on a few elderly voters. "But just as quickly as they weave this argument, it unravels. Looking only at Pennsylvania's senior population, 18 percent works out to more than 350,000 Pennsylvanians. That is 50,000 more people than reside in the entire city of Pittsburgh: a significant number by any measure."

I have never heard that accusation against AARP. I think many seniors trust what the group has to say on a wide range of issues. However, how about The County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania? Are they a D mouth-piece as well? They have said that, urban legends aside, there is no proof that voting fraud is a problem and it warned that the mandate will unnecessarily increase the length of lines at the polls, create confusion for some voters, and result in no greater security of the ballot.

I had the privilege of speaking with the citizen that spoke up after the forum (the actual subject of these posts), and she told me that most of those senior citizen women that she spoke of in her group are Republicans. I will close as I opened, Constitutional right, period.

ACORN is not a red-herring; convictions have resulted.

The "vote early - vote often" mantra must be punctured, and this law will help to do so...particularly in Philly; if memory serves, there have been times when more people voted in a precinct than had been registered thereat.

Please provide a reference for the estimate you are invoking.

The AARP has been exposed--particularly when its perfidy regarding ObamaCare was explored--as a self-interested insurer/lobbying-entity.

I read the relevant testimony [http://www.pacounties.org/GovernmentRelations/Documents/VoterIDHStateMemo20100318.pdf], but it's a year-ancient; has this entity provided an update regarding what was finalized?

Having served as a judge-of-elections and having performed each clerical task, I can claim that it would take an extra few seconds to scan the photo-ID, surely yielding a negligible effect on the waiting-line.

How can you claim--presumably, with a straight-face, that this would result in "no greater security" if it could reasonably yield the capacity to preclude fraud?

Mr. Barbiero, Esq.
You once again fail to mention that you are the leader of the Abington Democratic Organization. Before you close the case and, in the name of fairness, let all readers know about your position. Respectfully, John Monaghan, GOP Committeeman, Abington 12-2

I think we have hit the point of diminished returns Doctor.
It is not my "claim," that this voter suppression law is worthless, it is was the statement that you brush off with being "a year-ancient"? from the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania. Their position still stands to this day I believe. I do happen to agree with it not only with seriousness, but with earnest. Are they a Dem-mouth piece as well?

Also, it was you who suggested Dem vs Repub was at issue here when you hit the AARP.
You are definitely an interesting person to debate Doctor, I will give you that.
Just so I can be clear: I have advocated, and continue to do so, for the constitutional right to vote. I've given local and statewide examples of just one group, senior citizens, that will be majorly effected, hundreds locally just from one source above in the video, to hundreds of thousands across our state.
You are advocating to put restrictions on the constitutional right to vote.
I believe you are lacking evidence of need, as well as, in any event, lacking direct evidence that this voter suppression law will do anything to address that need.

1. Please provide evidence that the CCAP opposes the version of the bill that was signed.

2. I do not ignore politics [AARP bias] when attempting to discern policy that is party-blind [involving seniors of both parties].

3. You haven't documented the presumed number of seniors who lack photo-ID's AND/OR the capacity to acquire them.

[The proper word would be "affected"...not "effected."]

You have not refuted the references to prior fraud, both via ACORN and within Philly .

Thanks Michael for your reply. I'd also like to point out that while Ms. Dean certainly took the time to take Mr. Mattiaci to task about a poll taken by some unknown entity during her introduction. Mr. Mattiaci did not return the favor by adding that anytime Ms. Dean refers to herself as an Abington Commissioner she should also add that she was a Commissioner for all of about 10 days before she threw her hat into the ring for the 153rd seat. Too bad that a resident of her ward didn't stand up and ask her about the promises she made during her campaign last fall. Did she really mean them or where her eyes on State House there all along? John Monaghan, GOP Committeeman, Abington 12-2

@MLB
1. I "answered" the alleged-fraud point by invoking the quote that it would be desirable to establish a structure which, then, could be used to ID mis-use thereof; I also cited Philly-politics and ACORN, but you have not addressed any of these specifics.

2. You are again cordially invited to document the claim regarding the # of seniors who would need photo-ID's...from a source other than AARP.

Otherwise, scroll-back and note the numerous points made by moi to which you chose not to reply.

Doctor, with all due respect, citing a a catch-phrase (vote early vote often) in politics is hardly a specific regarding voter fraud.
You are not going to answer the Corbett question, because by this point, we all know the answer sir. Corbett did not go after the rampant voter fraud during his six years as Attorney General.
Is your invitation to answer the number of seniors an acknowledgment that if substantiated, you will deem this a serious issue?

Again @MLB
Your hyperlink states, regarding the allegedly-defamatory poll which you'd like to hang upon the GOP: "Next there was a list of statements about Dean and Mattiacci and callers were asked if this statement would change their view of the candidates. I don’t have a full list and only have pieces of some of the statements."

I'm truly @ a loss, here, regarding the vagueness of the allegation and, thus, perhaps it would be profitable either to provide a modicum of documentation [regarding this and other issues] or simply admit intellectual bankruptcy.

Doctor, oh good, you're at the personal attack phase of your argument. I was wondering when that was coming. Here, I will quote the relevant portion for you:
"The poll was taken by VSS, Voter Survey Service, a part of Susquehanna Polling and Research . This a respected local firm, not some fly by night group that snuck across state lines in the dark of night. No one has taken responsibility for requesting or paying for the poll, but the political client list on their website does show a partisan bias, with Jim Gerlach, Lou Barletta, Stewart Greenleaf, all Republicans, and the House Republican Campaign Committee and the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania among the clients listed. In fact, none of the partial list of Pennsylvania clients presented ran as Democrats. Perhaps they have an equal number of Democratic clients and just don’t list them. No telling."

Michael....Nick clearly disavowed any knowledge of the poll's origin and responded to Madeline's claim that it cost $10,000 by replying that there is no way he could afford that type of poll. I choose to take him, as I take Madeline, by his word. This is a canard. It distracts from the issues at hand. Above Average Jane is a blog put up by a loyal Democrat, hardly an unbiased source. I find it interesting that you decided against replying to my comment about Madeline's tenure on the Board of Commissioners. Your silence speaks volumes.

@MLB
Accusing me of attacking you personally [just as you did with Dean, speaking] doesn't make it so.
I am petitioning for documentation of what specific quotations from the polling-effort were allegedly problematic.
You continue not to produce, and one must wonder why....

Funny doctor, just like saying you've answered questions does not make it so. But, fair enough, I respond to your comment on luring you in and agree, it is off-putting when your questions are not responded to, isn't it?
I'll make my question easier: Was the number of prosecutions of voter fraud by Corbett in his six years as AG more or less than 100? 50? 25? More or less than 10?

As far as the 18 % of seniors, or 350,000 seniors in PA, it was testified to in the senate debates, the SeniorLaw Center, and as you say that far left institution, AARP. However, the reason I was luring you, as you pointed out, is the estimates Under H.B. 934, is that as many as 700,000 people would have to obtain photo ID, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (another liberal powerhouse institution).
How about this, I will acknowledge sir, of course, these are all estimates, but will you acknowledge that there is no doubt people will be disenfranchised for a problem that there is no proof exists?

Provide references, for the umpteenth time!

Was the number of prosecutions by Corbett in his six years as Attorney General more or less than 5?

[Grammar alert! "her" should be "she"...as in "she IS." It's the subject, not the predicate.]

As if anyone cares. Sheesh.

You know, now that I think about it, I have a BA cum laude in communications (which I earned while I worked full-time as a single divorced mother) and should have known this. But most 99%ers speak colloquially.

It's okay. English grammar don't make no sense most of the time. ;) I approve of typing how you speak, especially in a format such as this where we have bigger fish than typos and grammar to fry!

yeah, and a preposition is a bad word to end a sentence with....

Dr. Bob will only believe the number of affected senior voters if the source is Fox News or Rush, not those pinko commies at the AARP who dare to represent the rights of the "Greatest Generation".

Doctor, your assertion that AMAC not being as politicized as AARP is completely disingenuous, as their own website states that they are a conservative group that has supported tea party organizations within the past 4 years. Further they boast on their website about sending representatives to the Value Voters Summit which is an ultra right wing event that featured speakers such as: Glenn Beck, John Boehner, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Eric Cantor, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ed Meese and Mitt Romney. Clearly a fair and balanced panel.

What about your assertion that AMAC is not politicized? Does that not compromise your credibility here?

In 2009, the Opinion Research Corporation, conducted a survery of 987 randomly selected American Citizens of voting age. The results of this survey indicated that 18% of American Citizens age 65 and above do not possess government issued photo ID, which equates to more than 6 million senior citizens nationally and more than 350,000 in Pennsylvania.http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf Is that data specific enough, or will you just discount it under the guise of it being a left wing, D sponsored survey?

Voter ID laws smack of poll tax laws of not so long ago that were intended to keep the poor and minorities from exercising their constitutional right to vote. Such laws are a solution to a non-existent problem...Unless the problem you are seeking to solve is keeping the youngest voters, the oldest voters, the poorest voters and minority voters from being able to exercise their right to vote. If that is the goal, then problem solved.

All stats aside...can any one of you supporting this bill be in touch with the fact that there are people out there that can't afford an ID? Yes, the DMV has to provide free ID's, but if someone doesn't have one, chances are they don't have a car either, yet they probably have a job that they can't afford to take time off from...and it's probably not a 9-5 Monday through Friday job. So these people, who may barley have two dimes to rub together at the end of the week, need to somehow pay their way to a DMV to get an ID. Any of you been on a bus lately? Any of you ever live pay check to pay check? Any of you know what it's like to be overdrawn at the end of the week and not know if the bank will even keep you account open? Or counting your change at the checkout line for food for the week and having to put something back to make it? Can any one of you relate to simply not having enough money to go get an ID? I seriously doubt it, but I can....I've been there...I remember...cause I worked my ass off to get out of that type of life. But it doesn't mean I'm a bad person for having gone through it.....or that my rights should be removed while I was going through it. This is out and out wrong and takes away rights from US citizen simply because they don't have the extra money to go get their ID.

And, all of this argument above has gotten very intellectual and all kinds of quotes and numbers are being thrown around. But the simple fact of the matter is, if one, just ONE, person isn't able to vote because of this then it goes against all the USA stands for. If there was a problem that needed to be addressed (which I've yet to see that there was), then it should have been addressed by fixing it not removing our CONSTITUTIONAL right to vote. If ID is required, then the State should be issuing the acceptable ID ahead of time to every registered voter. But no, that would be too much of an expense for the State to afford...so instead they screw the people already having a hard time...the decision makers don't want them voting anyway because they'd vote them out for not ever doing anything with their best interest in mind...cause they don't know what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck. And if they ever did, they choose to forget...well, like I said, I won't forget and I take this type of behavior personally, regardless of whether or not I have my ID on election day. Which of course I WILL so I do my part to stop this type of crap!

If you take the cost of bus fair, average it out over the time between when the law was passed and the November election, these 'barley have two dimes to rub together' are in luck, because it would cost them $0.10 a week to afford to get to the DMV to get their free ID.

Wow...your response almost makes me angrier than the bill. Other than saying, "too bad, they deserve to have their rights removed because they're poor", that's about as insensitive as you could have gotten.

The ACORN "voter fraud" incident is not evidence of massive voter fraud, nor is it an argument for voter ID laws. A handful of people hired by ACORN to register voters for $1.00 per completed form decide to complete forms themselves in order to receive the $1.00 without doing the work. This was not institutional fraud by ACORN. In fact, they caught the fraudulent forms themselves and informed the proper authorities. Not one fraudulent vote was cast as a result, nor were any ACORN employees implicated as accessories. The real fraud is the claim by Republicans that voter ID laws are for the purpose of protecting the integrity of the vote. We need only refer to the words of Paul Weyrich, a far-right GOP operative, in 1980 in a speech in Dallas to divine the true intent of these laws: "I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." Florida 2000. ACORN 2008. It's all the same. Thanks to Robin Beall for ultimately getting to the real point. We should be encouraging people to vote, not erecting obstacles.

Robin, Many of us have to show ID for many of the other activities we engage in, including the exercising of rights. We plan in advance and do what needs to be done.

You made the case that people are too poor to get to the DMV; I illustrated that it costs a dime a week at the minimum.

I don't find it unreasonable to expect someone to have to save $0.10 a week to ensure that they can prove who they say they are.

Thank you Ernie. And Bill, if is one dime, one dollar, 10 dollars, it is still the same as a poll tax...it should cost zero to cast your vote. As Ernie said, we should encourage people to vote not put up obstacle.

Robin, The IDs are free. How you choose to get to the DMV should be of no consequence to the argument.

By your logic one could argue because I want to take a Taxi to the polls to vote in the Primary its a poll tax...

Free options exist to get to the DMV; Friends, Family, neighbors, Constituent Services, Community Transit, etc.

By your logic Bill, every person has access to your suggested avenues. Some people have no one to help them, some people have no clue how,or the ability, to contact constituent services, etc. Again, obstacles. Not acceptable. Why is making it more difficult to vote so important to some?

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that requiring photo id to vote was not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights. So, any argument that photo id laws somehow violate our constitutional rights is invalid. Furthermore, 75% of voters are in favor of photo id. There are very few public policy issues in this country that enjoy such broad support. Obviously, the vast majority of Americans think requiring photo id is a good thing. So, whether or not there is one case of voter fraud or 100 or 1000 is irrelevant. The American people want these laws, regardless of the expense. Finally, there can be no expectation that the government must remove all burdens on a citizen exercising his or her right to vote. Getting to the polls to vote could be considered a burden as could buying a stamp to put on your absentee ballot application. It is simply not an unreasonable burden to ask citizens to get themselves to the DMV to get their free photo id.

Because you view it as 'Making it more difficulty.'
Others view it as insuring the integrity of the voting process.

You're welcome to make mountains out of mole hills but the fact remains that people have (had) 9 months to obtain their free IDs.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter because I feel nothing more needs to be said.

"Peacock Lies!" Sklaroff is reduced to the level of a third grader getting into a fight at recess. He should scroll past the headlines and actually read some of the posts he cites before passing them along as evidence that supports his claims, in particular, the Fact Check and Brad Blog sites. Here are those two links, again, and others. The Brad Blog site lists tons of other links to articles that debunk the ACORN story. We could both go on, but Sklaroff knows he is wrong, so why bother?

http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=6500
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/acorn-accusations/
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2010/01/acorn_voter_fraud_claims_are_p.html
http://mediamatters.org/research/200810170005

Arguments about how many people favor voter ID laws are irrelevant. If the South had its way, there would still be "colored" fountains and washrooms. As for the Supreme Court, it wasn't the first time they were wrong and it won't be the last. We all cite the Supreme Court when it agrees with us. Driving is a privilege. Voting is a right.

Buck: the Supreme Court? Do you mean the same court that declared corporations have the same rights as people in Citizens United? Or the same court that at one point declared "separate but equal" to be the law of the land? Sure, they're never wrong.

So, the argument is that the Supreme Court was wrong in ruling that photo id laws are constitutional, and the 75% of the American populace that support photo id laws are wrong as well.

Good luck with that.

Jim Crow Laws, anybody?

Ask Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Section 2 contains a general prohibition on voting discrimination, enforced through federal district court litigation. Congress amended this section in 1982, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result. The 1982 amendment provided that proof of intentional discrimination is not required. Let me repeat that last part...proof of intentional discrimination is not required. Although I think this video actually supplies some proof of intent http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwpXTg6Ryjw

I think I'm a Democrat because I really do care about people being disenfranchised on many levels of the system. I have a family member who is developmentally disabled but lives alone and is self-sufficient. He cannot drive and takes public transportation to and from work. He cherishes his voter registration card and his voting record is 100%, He loves walking to the polls and participating in the process. (He loves Jon Fox, whom he invariably refers to as "Jon D. Fox".) He would have no access to a DMV office nor would he understand why he must go there. In this case, someone in the family will need to find a way to get him to DMV. But I know several people in his spot who have no people to drive them, or care enough to. There are so many like him. I have many disabled friends, some are on Social Security. They really are disenfranchised, and if people don't care about that just say so. But do not deny that they are. Also, the biggest scandal in the world is the low voter turnout in the U.S. Perhaps voter suppression hellps republicans now, but it won't always be so. A participatory democracy is ultimately in everyone's best interest.

Fascinating to see the comments from those who distrust government and oppose government regulations. The statement that it is "not true" that voters have been disenfranchised follows the story of a voter who has been disenfranchised. Here is another: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/elections/20120327_Annette_John-Hall__Voter_ID_bill_fulfills_its_intent__Discouraging_voters.html?viewAll=y.
There are no doubt many such stories that do not make the papers. The evidence is in these stories. I am also fascinated by the new-found respect for the SCOTUS. Be honest. When the justices affirm what we believe, they are correct. When they do not, they are "activists" or they "overreach." Also fascinating is the scorn expressed for my sources, but a plea to respect the use of Fox as a source. As for the ACORN videotaping "scandal", according to the Office of the Attorney General in California, "The evidence indicates that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor." No wrongdoing was ever found and the videographers were discredited. BTW, if anyone has any illusions about the legitimacy of some of the commentary on these pages, look no further than the rhetoric. Can't win the argument? Attack the opposition with non-sequiters and ad hominem statements. And, as for unanswered questions, no one has addressed the comments I cited by Paul Weyrich. Very telling.

Are Ms Dean and Mr. Barbiero and the other Democrats asserting that there is no Voter Fraud in Pennsylvania? No Voter Fraud in Philadelphia? Reading?

Rightfully, Mr. Barbiero references senior citizens who don't have ID and yet does not mention those disenfranchised by Voter Fraud which nullifies legitimate voters voice. There is a Double Standard in only mentioning one side of the equation.

Mr. Barbiero and Ms Dean have made a salient point about Republican Attorney General Tom Corbett's failure to prosecute Voter Fraud cases during his tenure.In my opinion, it was because he acted more like a politician than a prosecutor.

On April 24th, the Democrats have an opportunity to choose an INDEPENDENT prosecutor, Kathleen Kane, over an ambitious politician entangled with the Democratic Establishment Insiders.

Ms. Kane unlike Democrat Murphy and Republican Dave Freed is independent of party leadership. Not good for the party; good for us.

This is my last post here. Let's be clear about Sklaroff's objectives. He wishes only to be the "last man standing." No doubt, he usually gets his wish. How? After a point, some people check out because, to paraphrase Barney Frank, it's like talking to a table. Sklaroff's posts are voluminous, incomprehensible and littered with the same flaws he accuses other correspondents of committing. Others get tired of the abuse. Sklaroff's posts are insulting, smug and dismissive. Spelling errors? Really? Finally, others check out because of time. It is obvious that Sklaroff's primary vocations are litigating and posting. The rest of us have actual lives to live.

Pennsylvania's Forgotten Taxpayers pay $26,000,000,000, 26 billion dollars a year, for government K-12 education. How much do the Democrats think the Taxpayers should be forced to pay for a system that is failing 10s of 1000s of students in 144 failing schools.

@ Lombardi - I

You are a typical-D, failing to confront facts by false-accusation...for I have confronted each assertion and have documented otherwise.

"What I'll never understand about Sklaroff is that, as Ernie Peacock mentioned, the posts are indeed voluminous and littered with the same flaws he accuses others of being gulty of having in their statements. Dismissing the factual content of someone's remarks just because of a spelling error or an 'ad-hominem' statement that is being used to state an example is like dismissing someone's remarks or opinion because the have horrendous body odor."

Ignoring the typos supra, let's just say that the stench arises from the deceit of false-accusations from Peacock.

@ Lombardi - II

You are a typical-D, engaging in moral egalitarianism...when the facts document otherwise.

"There are a lot of statements here on both sides that are partisan and maybe a little bit too based on party rhetoric and talking points. The best solutions often come from an outsider's or independent's perspective. Both sides should really look deeply at the information posted by those on the other side of the aisle to try to find actual merit in the beliefs."

No, the reader can adjudge the credibility of the blogger regardless of his/her professed ideology; in this instance, of course, I documented assertions regarding ACORN's felonies, yet the D's failed to acknowledge gross/conscious error.

@ Sklaroff

Clearly I'm not a typical D since I see nothing wrong with a Voter ID law as proposed and passed.

However, in regards to your statments about ACORN, you're using that but ignore the other key points in this. The actions of a few within ACORN do not damn all of the information gained from their studies or the results of all of the good that they have done as an organization. You can't pick and choose which facts you want to acknowledge and which ones you want to ignore.

I mean, I suppose you CAN, but it certainly doesn't help your credibility.

Credibility? You mean like when Sklaroff cited AMAC as not being as politicized as AARP? Or when he cites Fox News and conservative blogs as his proof, yet dismisses an independent survey that concluded that Senior Citizens are disenfranchised by Voter ID laws?

We all thought (and hoped) Ernie Peacock would never be heard from again after he was replaced as a Township Commissioner.

You mean the facts as set forth by Fox News, Rush, Breitbart, AMAC and any other right wing blogger that you happen to agree with?

Peacock's reference to Barney Frank was perfect. It's like arguing with a table. You're just a table who is determined to get the last word. I'm done reading the circuitous drivel that I am sure you believe is witty, insightful and well researched. You go back to watching Fox News and thinking of new ways to waste my tax dollars by filing frivolous lawsuits against the township, and I'll go back to my life being a productive citizen.

@ Lombardi

You inquired: "Did you just violate Godwin's law? Doesn't the first person to bring up any analogy invoking the word Nazi automatically lose the argument?"

I would suggest that you watch the Frank-Video [I provided the hyperlink] and you will note his "dining room table" reference was to being accused of being a Nazi.

THEREFORE, you-guys lost the argument, citing Godwin!

Doctor, congratulations. You've lured me back in with your nonsense.

Just to clear things up, I will concede that Sklaroff is not a "nazi table". His circuitous arguments make him simply a run of the mill table (or wall or any other inanmiate object, if that makes you feel any better), to which one is wasting their time arguing with.

Mission Accomplished?

Better check your Tea Party Talking Points, Doc. I think that phrase was officially retired by your party after W's speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003.

Who's on first?

Correct. I am truly awed by your genius. Tell me why you have never run for office yourself? You seem to have all the answers. My three minutes are done, so I'm going to sit down now. Have a good weekend.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has, comprehensively, compiled and analyzed the Voter ID in all 50 states. http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

In New England and Mid Atlantic States, Deep Blue Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware all require non photo ID to vote as does Virginia and Ohio.

Empirically, with real world experience, there has been no evidence of disenfranchisement of anyone. The claims of discrimination are demonstrably unprovable in the real world.

32 States have Voter ID Laws.

Ant the Winner is: Robert B. Sklaroff, MD. ! Not at all surprising. Dr. Bob has prevailed once again.

Guzzardi places an honorable second behind Dr. Bob. Marc, Unfortunately did not even place.

Lombardi needs to go back to his timeout chair.

so what does the voter id law have to do with ACORNS?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1545391966001/4-in-dems-charged-w-election-fraud

The latest!

Isn't there something useful for you all to do? I indicated emails for updates here- big mistake; won't do THAT again.

First, "doctor", it's spelled Koolaid. You're such a stickler for pointing out other's typographical mistakes, that it's only right to point out yours.

Second, congrats on your "win" (SARCASM IMPLIED). Now if Victor was only a real judge and not a crackpot, you might actually win in a courtroom once in a while where Fox News and republican bloggers don't count as "factual citations".

Now you are citing to a group founded by James O'Keefe who was arrested and convicted for breaking into the office of a United States Senator tampering with the phone lines. http://thehill.com/capital-living/in-the-know/100105-filmmaker-okeefe-sentenced-in-sen-mary-landrieu-break-in

Swing and a miss, Sklaroff. Any more convicts you'd like to cite?

Koolaid and lombardi need to sit in the time out chair along with obamas attorney general.

Yes, I tend to disregard the credibility of convicts and crackpots who file frivolous pro se lawsuits against the township. You know the old saying: "He who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client." Maybe your time would be better spent learning the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure than wasting your time on neo con blogs and filing inappropriate Summary Judgment Motions? I'm sure Rex Herder and whatever lawyer that is representing the land developer loves you and your absurd tactics as you are only lining their pockets when they have to respond to your baseless lawsuits. Thank you for continuing to waste my tax dollars on Solicitors fees. The township doesn't have anything better to do with it's money.

Too bad that Koolaid does not know that the Township Solicitor is paid a yearly salary of $ 105,000.00 and not charging the Township "billable hours".

If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader. Thank you Dr. Sklaroff for being a Leader and not a follower.