We give to you Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who, asked about the various bills being passed in state legislatures requiring an ID to vote – many of which allow for free issuing of state picture ID’s to those people who don’t have the $15-20 available to get one – offered this pearl of wisdom yesterday…

[I]f you go back to the year 2000, when we had an obvious disaster and – and saw that our voting process needed refinement, and we did that in the America Votes Act and made sure that we could iron out those kinks, now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally – and very transparently – block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it’s nothing short of that blatant.

Wasserman-Schultz, of course, is the new Chair of the Democrat National Committee. Which makes her a bigger deal than Weiner, masterful though he may be at attracting media attention for inconsequential and obnoxious stuff. Like what kind of markup Goldline does on their product, for example, which is OBVIOUSLY grist for a federal case – don’t they sponsor Glenn Beck’s show, after all?

No, Wasserman-Schultz is actually in a position to represent and speak for the Democrat Party in its efforts to get candidates elected. When she says something, it doesn’t have the effect of policy but it more or less serves as the Dems’ default position in political campaigns nationwide.

That’s what the DNC chairmanship means.

So when she equates laws which impose the same oppressive level of certainty on the franchise that prevail when you want to write a check or board a plane with Jim Crow, you can reasonably says this is what the Democrats think.

Bear in mind that what she’s calling Jim Crow are laws which say “You need to show an ID to vote. And if you can’t afford a picture ID, just go get one and the state will comp it for you.” That legislation “blocks access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic candidates than Republican candidates.”

She’s right. It does.

Why? Well, because dead people and fictional characters overwhelmingly vote Democrat. And Wasserman-Schultz – stupidly – has confirmed that those are critical constituency groups for the Democrat Party.

Again – if you’re a live human being whose voting eligibility contains no fatal infirmity, the idea that you’d have to show ID to vote is completely innocuous. This shouldn’t be particularly controversial. Any voter, regardless of ideological persuasion, ought to loathe the idea that his or her vote could be cancelled out by a fraudulent ballot being counted.

Showing ID takes all of three seconds. An ID is something almost every adult in America has. The bills being passed across the country make it even easier to have one.

The only people for whom this is problematic are people who wish to vote fraudulently – like, for example, if they’re felons and are ineligible. Or if they want to vote more than once, or in a precinct they aren’t registered to vote in. Or if they’re not citizens.

As we know, though, Wasserman-Schultz and her pals at the DNC have been busy stealing a few elections through the use of vote fraud and stuffing the ballot box. The Minnesota Senate race in which Al Franken was installed over Norm Coleman with votes from felons in 2008 was a good example. There are lots of others.

It’s clear Democrats see vote fraud as an important tool in their electoral strategy. Wasserman-Schultz left no doubt today.

Absorb that, and then ask yourself why you would want a Democrat – ANY Democrat – having anything to do with elections in your state.

By the way, and not for nothing, there’s a Democrat running for Secretary of State in Louisiana this fall. That’s the office which runs elections and manages the voter rolls. Her name is Caroline Fayard, and she’s embroiled in an ethics investigation thanks to the fact that her campaign accepted money essentially laundered from her father through the state Democrat Party in contravention of campaign finance laws when she ran for Lieutenant Governor last year.

Anybody think it’s safe for Fayard to be the Secretary of State in light of Wasserman-Schultz’ comments? Given that Wasserman-Schultz represents, as a default, Democrat candidates across the country?

Anybody?