Democrats Versus Military Voters: Not the First Time

Evil 1 2012/08/08 16:22:09

Last Thursday, Breitbart News' Mike Flynn broke the news that the Obama campaign was suing in the swing state of Ohio to block a law that extends early voting for members of the military for an additional three days. A fierce battle erupted, with Democrats (and a few conservatives) arguing that Obama campaign was simply trying to extend the military's privilege to everyone else. Regardless of the remedy they seek, Flynn points out, they are suing to end an exemption for military voters. It would not be the first time Democrats--who pretend, in their fight against voter ID, to want more ballot access--have tried to stop the military's votes from counting.

In 2008, for example, the State of Virginia (a critical swing state in 2012) had failed to send absentee ballots to members of the military on active duty in time for them to complete the ballots and return them before the election. When the campaign of Republican nominee Sen. John McCain sued to compel the state to count military ballots that had arrived after election day, the State Board of Elections--then run by Democrats, appointed by a Democratic governor--argued, effectively, that it could send absentee ballots to the military a day before the election and still be in compliance with the law. As RedState's Soren Dayton put it:

...the Democratic Chairwoman of the Virginia State Board of Election (appointed by the Democratic National Committee Chair Tim Kaine, in his capacity as Virginia Governor) Jean Cunningham just claimed a legal basis for massively raising the barrier to voting for soldiers at war.

The Department of Justice (then still run by fair-minded appointees of George W. Bush, and not yet part of the Democrats' voter-fraud-and-intimidation-machine) replaced the McCain campaign, which faced problems of legal standing, as plaintiff in the lawsuit. Eventually, the federal court ruled that Virginia had indeed violated federal law--but that the number of missing votes would not have changed the outcome of the election.

Meanwhile, in the swing state of Ohio, Democrats had done everything they could to bring apparently fraudulent voters to the polls in 2008. When early voting began, they took buses and rounded up homeless people--some from as far away as Chicago, allegedly--and brought them to the polls. Then-Ohio secretary of state, Democrat Jennifer Brunner, turned away Republican poll observers, virtually enabling the Democrats' shenanigans to take place.

When Democrats sue to remove an exemption designed to give military voters an equal chance of being counted, they claim they are only acting in the interests of fairness. When Republicans support for voter ID laws--laws supported by large majorities, even among black voters--the left cries "racism," claiming that Republicans want to suppress the vote of those most likely to vote Democrat. It is a sadly typical act of leftist projection--for is is Democrats, not Republicans, trying to make it more difficult for a particular group to vote because that group tends to vote for the opposition.

Since Flynn's story broke, the Romney campaign weighed in to support those facing down the Obama campaign's army of lawyers. "I stand with the fifteen military groups that are defending the rights of military voters, and if I'm entrusted to be the commander-in-chief, I'll work to protect the voting rights of our military, not undermine them," Mitt Romney said.

Yes, counting the ballots of a reliable Republican voting bloc is good for Romney, politically. But it is also in keeping with the measures taken by nearly every state in the Union over the past two years to make voting easier for soldiers, who have done so much to fight for the right of strangers to vote in hostile lands.

Barack Obama, who once claimed he supported gay marriage because of the soldiers "fighting on my behalf," evidently cannot be bothered to defend those same soldiers' right to vote.

Read More: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/05...

Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • t.eliot, topbard 2012/08/08 19:32:13
    t.eliot, topbard
    Typical GOP standing of facts on their heads. Obama wants the same voting rights for all in Ohio. What's wrong with that?
  • RED DAWN 2012/08/08 16:50:12
  • Zuggi 2012/08/08 16:27:53
    Blatant lies.

    The Ohio lawsuit would not remove early voting from one single military member. Instead, it is to give more days of early voting to all Ohioans.
  • Evil 1 Zuggi 2012/08/08 16:31:40
    Evil 1
    Sorry you're wrong.
  • Zuggi Evil 1 2012/08/08 16:32:19
    So explain to me how it would remove early voting rights from one single military member.
  • Evil 1 Zuggi 2012/08/08 16:39:20
    Evil 1
    The basis of the lawsuit in Ohio is stating the extra days must be extended to everyone not just those in the military. So if a court ruling were to eleminate those days it would be a detriment to those in the military. And I think that if our personnel are deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq they deserve a few extra days to vote as opposed to those residing in the state in which they are voting. Furthermore these days were by the Ohio legislature to eleminate voting problems that had previously occured with the military. The lawsuit is nothing but political posturing and nothing more. The problem is if a court eleminates the extra days it will be at the expense of our men and women in uniform.
  • RED DAWN Evil 1 2012/08/08 17:06:47
    I'm with you here.Our deployed troops need some extra time.The locals only have to travel maybe a couple of miles.The troops have to wait to receive the absentee ballot then find time to fill it out and then mail it back and anyone that has ever been the military knows with them it's hurry up and wait.I feel the deployed troops vote should be count where they are at and then post on a computer then sent to the pentagon for safe keeping until the votes are counted.
  • Zuggi Evil 1 2012/08/08 17:09:29
    The military will still have those extra days to vote. Again, how will this negatively impact military voting in any way?
  • Evil 1 Zuggi 2012/08/08 17:17:49
    Evil 1
    If the court rules that the days must be eleminated rather than given to all voters it will have a direct negative impact on those in the military. For example, someone stationed in Iraq from Ohio may need extra days to vote as opposed to someone living in Cleveland or Cincinnati. So should the court rule to eliminate the days rather than extend them to those in the state on election day it would be a burden on the individual in Iraq as opposed to the person in Cleveland or Cincinnati. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand it.
  • Zuggi Evil 1 2012/08/08 17:19:02
    A court would never do that. If I knew you in real life, I'd be throwing down $100 for a bet.
  • Evil 1 Zuggi 2012/08/08 18:21:47 (edited)
    Evil 1
    That statement is your opinion and holds no valid basis. You have no way of knowing how the court will rule. And based on some recent rulings by politcally corrupt judicial system I wouldn't bet $1.00 on what ruling a court may make.

    But the point is that if the court rules to eleminate the days it would have a negative impact on the military more so than those residing in Ohio.
  • Zuggi Evil 1 2012/08/08 18:22:57
    It has my experience as a lawyer behind it.

    So you wouldn't bet on what you're convinced of.
  • Evil 1 Zuggi 2012/08/08 18:30:27
    Evil 1
    I never said I was convinced of it. I stated if the ruling eleminates the days it would negatively impact the military personnel. No where did I say it was guaranteed. I just proved how it would adversly impact Ohio military personnel. And if you are a lawyer and you think that you know exactly how a court will rule you must have never lost a case. Just because you are an attorney does not give you the ability to read the mind of the judges. To even insinuate that is preposterous.
  • Zuggi Evil 1 2012/08/08 18:38:26
    No, but I know the basic rules that judges follow, and saying "haha, screw everybody!" is not one of them.
  • Evil 1 Zuggi 2012/08/08 18:41:29
    Evil 1
    That in no way can substantiate that you know how the judge will rule. Again, thinking is does is preposterous. It is nothing but speculative opinion on your part.
  • Zuggi Evil 1 2012/08/08 19:10:02
    Taking away the military early voting would require two things that judges pretty much just don't do:

    1) Going against the action called for by the plaintiff or the defense,
    2) Restricting voting rights by decree.

    The judge really has two options.

    1) Tell Obama to GTFO.
    2) Expand early voting for everyone.

    Your theoretical third solution will never happen.
  • Evil 1 Zuggi 2012/08/08 19:19:39 (edited)
    Evil 1
    And again that is nothing but speculation on your part. Nothing more. You have no way of realistically knowing that the judge will not rule to rescind the days that are currently allotted. So stating it will never happen is nothing but personal opinion and carries no factual basis.
  • Zuggi Evil 1 2012/08/08 19:50:41
    Hell, ask any lawyer.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/06 09:12:29

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals