Are Republican Contempt Allegations Payback For Eric Holder's Defense of Voting Rights?
ProudProgressive
2012/06/13 11:40:41
|
|
|||||
|
18 votes
|
|
40% | ||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
2% | ||
|
26 votes
|
|
58% | ||
Are Republican Contempt Allegations Payback For Eric Holder's Defense of Voting Rights?
By: Yellow Dog Yankee
June 12, 2012
You know that bridge that is always metaphorically for sale to anyone who exhibits unwarranted gullibility? It is time to dust it off and offer it to anyone who does not see a link between Eric Holder's aggressive persecution of voting abuses in Florida and what has happened to the Attorney General in the halls of Congress this week.
Since the elections in November 2011, over half of the states have enacted various laws covering elections including changes to the identification needed to vote, revamping of registration rules, and tightening of early voting times. There is evidence that many of these rules have been passed in an attempt to suppress voting by minorities and the young, groups that typically tend to vote for Democratic Party candidates.
Over the past few months the Justice Department has looked into these laws in several states and has weighed in on redistricting efforts in others. In December Holder said of the various voter-related laws, "If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and approve the change. And where a state can't meet this burden, we will object as part of our obligation under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act."
The issue has now come to a head in Florida which has enacted some of the most restrictive new laws and where Governor Rick Scott recently issued a list of over 200,000 voters, 87 percent of which are Black or Hispanic and has demanded that local voting officials require they provide proof of their right to vote. Sixty-two of these local officials have refused to cooperate and the Justice Department filed suit this evening over the issue. Scott has, in turn, said he will sue the Department of Homeland Security over access to a list which allegedly will allow Florida to improve the quality of its voter purge list.
Today the wrath of both the House and the Senate was unleashed against Holder on two issues completely unrelated to each other and ostensibly only tangentially related to voting rights in the U.S. In the House, one of its most reprehensible members, Darrell Issa, is threatening Holder with charges of contempt of Congress for what Issa claims is perjury on the part of Holder over the so-called "Fast and Furious" gun walking program which was designed (under Bush we might add) to track guns into Mexico. This issue is so convoluted I will not attempt to summarize it but will direct readers to this The Hills article, one of the most evenhanded discussions I have found. While Issa has been pursuing Holder over this issue for months, members of the party leadership have kept their distance until the last few days and then began to pile on. With Boehner now behind it, the contempt vote will probably pass.
At the same time, several leaks of National Security information have prompted Holder to order an investigation and appoint several Department of Justice attorneys to administer it. Today, in a Senate Hearing Texas Senator John Cronyn launched the most vicious attack I have ever heard on a sitting cabinet member, accusing him of, among other things, perjury. He finished by demanding that Holder resign and that the President appoint a replacement who was "honest" and capable of fulfilling the public trust. While Cronyn's diatribe was ostensibly triggered by Holder's refusal to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the leaks, he referenced, among other accusations, what he called Holders attempts to stop state efforts to eliminate voter fraud.
These actions by the Republican members of Congress, at least one of whom is in a leadership position, can be designed for no purpose other than to undermine the attorney general at a minimum and, at a maximum, stop his efforts to uphold voting rights. If the Republicans are able to accomplish the latter, it will be virtually impossible for the Department of Justice working under an acting attorney general to stop what is going on in the states in time to ensure a legitimate election in November.
By: Yellow Dog Yankee
June 12, 2012
You know that bridge that is always metaphorically for sale to anyone who exhibits unwarranted gullibility? It is time to dust it off and offer it to anyone who does not see a link between Eric Holder's aggressive persecution of voting abuses in Florida and what has happened to the Attorney General in the halls of Congress this week.
Since the elections in November 2011, over half of the states have enacted various laws covering elections including changes to the identification needed to vote, revamping of registration rules, and tightening of early voting times. There is evidence that many of these rules have been passed in an attempt to suppress voting by minorities and the young, groups that typically tend to vote for Democratic Party candidates.
Over the past few months the Justice Department has looked into these laws in several states and has weighed in on redistricting efforts in others. In December Holder said of the various voter-related laws, "If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and approve the change. And where a state can't meet this burden, we will object as part of our obligation under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act."
The issue has now come to a head in Florida which has enacted some of the most restrictive new laws and where Governor Rick Scott recently issued a list of over 200,000 voters, 87 percent of which are Black or Hispanic and has demanded that local voting officials require they provide proof of their right to vote. Sixty-two of these local officials have refused to cooperate and the Justice Department filed suit this evening over the issue. Scott has, in turn, said he will sue the Department of Homeland Security over access to a list which allegedly will allow Florida to improve the quality of its voter purge list.
Today the wrath of both the House and the Senate was unleashed against Holder on two issues completely unrelated to each other and ostensibly only tangentially related to voting rights in the U.S. In the House, one of its most reprehensible members, Darrell Issa, is threatening Holder with charges of contempt of Congress for what Issa claims is perjury on the part of Holder over the so-called "Fast and Furious" gun walking program which was designed (under Bush we might add) to track guns into Mexico. This issue is so convoluted I will not attempt to summarize it but will direct readers to this The Hills article, one of the most evenhanded discussions I have found. While Issa has been pursuing Holder over this issue for months, members of the party leadership have kept their distance until the last few days and then began to pile on. With Boehner now behind it, the contempt vote will probably pass.
At the same time, several leaks of National Security information have prompted Holder to order an investigation and appoint several Department of Justice attorneys to administer it. Today, in a Senate Hearing Texas Senator John Cronyn launched the most vicious attack I have ever heard on a sitting cabinet member, accusing him of, among other things, perjury. He finished by demanding that Holder resign and that the President appoint a replacement who was "honest" and capable of fulfilling the public trust. While Cronyn's diatribe was ostensibly triggered by Holder's refusal to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the leaks, he referenced, among other accusations, what he called Holders attempts to stop state efforts to eliminate voter fraud.
These actions by the Republican members of Congress, at least one of whom is in a leadership position, can be designed for no purpose other than to undermine the attorney general at a minimum and, at a maximum, stop his efforts to uphold voting rights. If the Republicans are able to accomplish the latter, it will be virtually impossible for the Department of Justice working under an acting attorney general to stop what is going on in the states in time to ensure a legitimate election in November.
Read More: http://www.politicususa.com/republican-contempt-al...
Top Opinion
-
Risk 2012/06/13 12:59:49
SO well said!
Why is the DNC much more vile and vicious when the GOP'er is a minority or a woman? This, despite the fact that Dems are usually the first to cry racism or sexism.
"Herman Cain is an Uncle Tom." - Cornel West and Travis Smiley, CNN contributors
About Palin, Bill Maher called her a c*nt and a "dumb tw@t"
The list goes on and on.
If a Republican had made those remarks he would be hung out to dry.
And when Republicans do make remarks a thousand times worse than these, like calling a private citizen concerned about women's health a "slut" or calling the President of the United States "Barack the Magic Negro", they are GLORIFIED by the Right Wing.
Bill Maher even set up a super PAC which gave Obama a million dollars.
BTW: Rush Limbaugh is not running for any office. Is him calling Fluke a "slut" more offensive than Maher calling a governor and VP candidate a "c*nt" and a "tw@t"?
Regrading "Barack the Magic Negro: - "Barack the Magic Negro"[2] is a song by American political satirist Paul Shanklin who wrote and recorded it for the Rush Limbaugh Show as satire after it was first applied to presidential candidate Obama by movie and culture critic, David Ehrenstein, in a Los Angeles Times op ed column of March 19, 2007. It was played numerous times in 2007 and 2008 by Rush Limbaugh and appeared on the 2008 album We Hate the USA. It is sung by Shanklin to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon". Shanklin impersonates black activist Al Sharpton, who regretfully sings that white people will vote for Barack Obama for President instead of Sharpton, because Obama is a magical Negro (a term previously popularized by Spike Lee[3]), not a real black man from the "hood".
Chip Saltsman, a candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, sent out CDs containing the song to 168 other RNC members as a Christmas gift, hoping to b...
Bill Maher even set up a super PAC which gave Obama a million dollars.
BTW: Rush Limbaugh is not running for any office. Is him calling Fluke a "slut" more offensive than Maher calling a governor and VP candidate a "c*nt" and a "tw@t"?
Regrading "Barack the Magic Negro: - "Barack the Magic Negro"[2] is a song by American political satirist Paul Shanklin who wrote and recorded it for the Rush Limbaugh Show as satire after it was first applied to presidential candidate Obama by movie and culture critic, David Ehrenstein, in a Los Angeles Times op ed column of March 19, 2007. It was played numerous times in 2007 and 2008 by Rush Limbaugh and appeared on the 2008 album We Hate the USA. It is sung by Shanklin to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon". Shanklin impersonates black activist Al Sharpton, who regretfully sings that white people will vote for Barack Obama for President instead of Sharpton, because Obama is a magical Negro (a term previously popularized by Spike Lee[3]), not a real black man from the "hood".
Chip Saltsman, a candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, sent out CDs containing the song to 168 other RNC members as a Christmas gift, hoping to bolster his 2009 campaign for RNC chair. The move backfired, Saltsman dropped his bid to head the RNC, and ultimately African American Republican Michael Steele won the chairmanship.
As far as dear Sarah Palin though, she got everything coming to her that was said, not because I agree with it but because she was insulting to the President and said many disparaging things. What goes around comes back around.
More than that, Ms. Fluke is a private citizen, not a politician, like Sarah Palin, so should not in my estimation been treated that way, particularly since Ms. Fluke did not disparage anyone first either, like Sarah. Sarah was vulgar, referring to my President as palling around with terrorists and many more ugly comments, much of it untrue. She also preached abstinence and is against abortion. Well, not everyone agrees with her, so this is the fallout of that. This was also a public policy discussion, no...
More than that, Ms. Fluke is a private citizen, not a politician, like Sarah Palin, so should not in my estimation been treated that way, particularly since Ms. Fluke did not disparage anyone first either, like Sarah. Sarah was vulgar, referring to my President as palling around with terrorists and many more ugly comments, much of it untrue. She also preached abstinence and is against abortion. Well, not everyone agrees with her, so this is the fallout of that. This was also a public policy discussion, not just a bantering of words back and forth. That being said, there were many liberals (just like we are now) saying Maher is inappropriate. Rush did not apologize for his stance, only for his comments. And his stance stinks to high heaven. The conservatives still agree with him. Maher is an ass and the President would do well to ask his PAC to give back the money. On the other hand, Ms. Palin was rancid and nasty towards him and Romney would have to do the same, suggest to his PAC to give back all funds from anyone who has disparaged women, including Rush I believe, and denounce any GOP politician who said bad things about women, like the one who said women should just use an aspirin between their legs, disgusting. Both sides have said bad things, but this was thread was not about people on either side, but specifically politicians who have been vulgar and inappropriate to the President and to the Democrats, like Allen West calling all Democrats Communists. No side is perfect, but your side is worse, far worse. Ms. Palin has a right to speak her mind and I have a right to think she is a nasty person. I don't agree with Maher's comments. You won't find too many liberals that do. But if you think so, that's your issue. It simply is not true. On the other hand, some of the GOP politicians have been ugly and inappropriate. Say it isn't true, but it is true....and it matters.
I, like many feel that contraception is a matter of personal responsibility and that there is no reason for me to pay for someone else's as well as my own.
Contrary to the narrative of innocent victimhood that portrays Fluke as a wide-eyed 23-year-old girl caught without contraception on a college campus full of predatory men, Fluke herself is really a 30-year-old women‘s rights activist who not only didn’t get caught without contraception at Georgetown, but specifically knew the university didn’t cover it and chose to attend for precisely that reason. She decided to attend Georgetown with the express purpose of battling this policy.
Regarding the aspirin line: Get your facts straight.
The quote was made by Foster Friess, the main donor to the Super PAC backing Rick Santorum’s presidential bid. "On this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it’s so inexpensive. You know, back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly." Think about it. He was simply suggesting that women should just keep their legs shut. Nothing more.
My own personal view of the issue is that health insurance should cover it, including natural methods for patients. The states already cover it and now this would include private insurance, which is not you paying for anything with your tax dollars in that regard, a point totally missed by the GOP and conservatives. It's dismissive, and again, an unfair fight. Your opinion largely echos the same.
Mr. Friess suggesting that women should "just keep their legs shut" in relation to whether or not insurance should cover the cost is sexist. I could explain, but don't think you'd understand. At any rate, it's not a viable alternative for most couples.
The Dems later held their own hearing with Ms. Fluke but no Republicans.
(Please do a little research before you post. This is not the first time I have pointed out your laziness)
My insurance does not cover contraceptives nor does it cover erectile dysfunction. People's sex lives are nobody's business bu their own and so is the responsibility. It doesn't matter whether I'm paying for it through my taxes or my premium.
Contraception is preventative medical care and very necessary in some situations, and also used for treatment of certain health conditions. Whether you want to pay for it in your premium is still not the same thing as it being a public taxation. More insurance companies do cover it because it is comprehensive and costs less in the long run and has better outcomes in reducing dangerous and/or unwanted pregnancies. Family planning is a part of a woman's medical care since pregnancy is a medical condition, whether you acknowledge that or not. People's sex lives are private matters. Like any health issue or lifestyle choice one makes, it is between the patient and doctor and not your business. No one is trying to make it so.
I don't appreciate you calling me misinformed and lazy. There is no point in continuing this discussion if you cannot refrain from making personal remarks. I have respected you and expect the same in return.
You do not bother to do any research before you post or to dispute me.
YOU ARE LAZY!!!
(Typical)
But, since you cannot hold a conversation without resorting to unsubstantiated attacks and personal remarks, we're done here.
Don't worry. You're in good company. I have run into many liberals who also have no desire to do a little research before they post or after they are corrected.
Once more, respect my boundaries or get blocked. It's your choice.
"Specific 'party' affiliation is not the point of the discussion -- it is rather affiliation with a set of ideals," West writes. "Conservatives adhere to the ideals of individual responsibility and freedom, limited government, a free market and a strong defense. Those on the liberal left adhere to a collective ideal, directed and controlled by a centralized government to guarantee and enforce social and economic justice."
West continues: "You can call this what you wish. The esteemed scholar and author Mark Levin calls it 'statism.' In our lifetime, the unpalatable and pejorative brands 'socialist' and 'communist' have been replaced with the more user-friendly 'progressive' term." http://thehill.com/opinion/op...
Regarding Palin's comments about Obama "palling around with terrorists": How would you label Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn?
You seem to be getting your info second-hand and mis-quoted. You might try a little research before you post.
What you are talking about are extremes on either end of the political spectrum, and this is not what defines most progressives or liberals. Maybe Allen West thinks so, but he's wrong.
When did Obama hang out with Bernadine Dohrn? I must have missed that one. I do know that Bill Ayers was involved with many political issues and politicians, not just the President. Were they all "palling around with terrorists" too, because that is inciteful, whether you think so or not.
I get my news from all over and though I'm speaking generally and not specifically, I'm pretty well informed, thanks. You might want to try a little humility before you post.
West is an Uncle Tom? Please elaborate.
Wilson's "You lie" outburst was immediately condemned by BOTH sides and Wilson personally called the Obama to apologize.
You haven't heard any Dems doing that? Were you out of the country in 2005 when Democrats boo'ed Bush during his Sate of the Union Address? Not just one lone congressman, but a whole lot of Dems. I don't recall them ever apologizing.
When it comes to immature and just plain bad behavior Dems outdo Repubs LIBERALLY.
The battle against abortion is not about women's rights. It's about human life.
If the Dems are so pro-women then why are women in the White House paid less than men? http://townhall.com/tipsheet/...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...