Lanny Davis, a former top adviser to President Bill Clinton, today issued a scathing rebuke to a controversial new Democratic super PAC ad that ties Mitt Romney to a woman’s death from cancer.
“I’m pretty sad for our country that we have presidential candidates engaging in sophomoric – and that’s a compliment – sophomoric name calling,” Davis said in an interview on WMAL radio in Washington.
Davis says both Romney and Obama, and their supporters, have sponsored ads “that make us all want to take a shower.” But when it comes to the cancer ad, he said the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action has gone too far.
“Bill Burton needs to go back to ethics school,” Davis said of the group’s senior strategist, who is a former Obama White House spokesman. “He knows perfectly well that the ad is misleading and disgusting and he needs to apologize for it.”
The former Clinton aide, however, says Romney and his supporters “dumped garbage” into Iowa. Davis is particularly critical of a Romney TV ad that features Obama out-of-context, citing a quote from John McCain about running on the economy in 2008.
“This is disgusting on both sides,” he said.
Davis said the president shouldn’t allow his supporters to suggest that Romney is in any way to blame for the woman’s death.
“President Obama owes it to the American people to repudiate this ad,” he said.
Obama campaign officials have refused to disavow the ad, claiming independence from the outside group and no knowledge of the woman’s story. Priorities USA strategists insist the ad is factually correct and will air as scheduled later this week.
What we need is some legislation that will shut these super PACs down, while passing Constitutional muster, and yer not getting anything so intellectually challenging out of this Congress.
And I am really so glad not to be on the cable, and not to have to see any of this horsepucky.
http://www.therightscoop.com/must-listen-mark-levin-goes-nuclear-over-obama-ad-ends-in-fantastic-rant/
My father died of esophageal cancer (oddly enough the morning Obama was inaugurated), it is going on 4 years and it still hurts, a day does not go by that I do not think of him. I couldn’t imagine the kind of person who would pimp out their dead wife for any reason but to do it for political gains and fabricate most of the story, just blows me away.
I think my feelings are shared by millions of people not just republicans but also democrats maybe even a few liberals. Obama should not walk away from this, he should run like hell.
Seriously what kind of a dirt-bag does that?
Libby I am with you 100%!Get the unions out of politics. Get the AARP out of politics. Or make them donate dollar for dollar to each party. Oh and lets not forget the NRA get them out also.
Is this even an ad really? I read somewhere today that it hasn’t aired ANYWHERE but on the internet. I don’t understand why the media is giving a You Tube video from a super pac so much attention. It would seem to me that this is just cutting into their ad revenue because they talk about it so much no one has to pay to air it.
I think the ads from both sides have been horrendous. Romney has just flat out lied so many times I can’t believe it. Both of the guys running for president of the most powerful country on the planet are lying sleazeballs.
My heart breaks for Americans who lost out on the chance to have Jon Huntsman as our president. He would have cleaned Obama’s clock and then hopefully started to clean up this country that Bush and Obama managed to practically destroy.
PAC’s are made up of persons…no getting rid of them.
This one seems to have stepped in it big time…unfortunately for Obama, Joe Soptic can be traced back to him.
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-campaign-caught-lie-over-joe-soptic-possible-violation-of-law
And there’s a Bain executive with a closer connection to this man’s story. If they want to blame the death on someone (ridiculous!) they could have picked this guy:
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-camp-calls-obama-taking-bain-donations-height-004505337–abc-news-politics.html
Some packs may be totally untrustworthy. This one certainly is. But the lies from the Obama campaign are another matter. If they will lie about this….
The ad was being run in your favorite battleground states!
Where else!
“Romney has just flat out lied so many times I can’t believe it.”
Really? How many? Which “lies” bother you the most?
The biggest lie Romney told recently was his accusation that Obama is suing to keep the military from voting in Ohio. That is just flat out false. The suit was to allow everyone in Ohio to have the same early voting dates as those in the military.
Another lie is his claim that Obama is trying to get rid of the work requirement for welfare. Romney himself as governor signed a letter requesting this exact type of waiver for his state. Again, he is just lying trying to get people to repeat this nonsense.
The ad was not run in any battleground states. I heard Karl Rove talking about this on Fox News where he was complaining that they never even had to pay to show it because the media drew so much attention to it people were watching it on You Tube for free.
These examples are matters where there is a difference of opinion rather than fact.
Traditionally members of the military have been the given the consideration of extra days for voting because of conflicting deployment and assignment issues. Why would Obama want to deny this consideration to members of the military? The general public doesn’t have the same need of consideration. Get out the vote drives will assure that locals can vote. A military assignment can disrupt voting plans and nothing can be done about it. None of us is a mind reader but it is quite possible that Obama brought this suit to deny military votes since they more often vote Republican.
Regarding the waiver of work rules, the Obama administration did issue a policy directive that allows the Department of Health and Human Services to waive the work requirements. See the directive here:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html
The Heritage Foundation evaluates (opinion) about the ramifications of the directive:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/12/obama-guts-welfare-reform/
“The ad was not run in any battleground states.”
CNN reported that the ad ran:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/07/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html
“I heard Karl Rove talking about this on Fox News where he was complaining that they never even had to pay to show it because the media drew so much attention to it people were watching it on You Tube for free.”
So the PAC got lucky. This will happen a lot for both parties and all PACs in the next three months. The challenge for us will be to sift through all of the hoopla and innuendo to determine which ticket will be the better choice for our future. From my perspective the blatant lies in the Obama ad, the scurrilous accusation linking Romney to the death, the denials that the Obama campaign was involved, are not just a matter of opinion. This is fact…and pretty sleazy.
Hey Princess, sorry your beloved Jon Huntsman lost his bid to be our next president, but you need to get over it and either be a part of the solution or continue to be part of the problem. Accusing Romney of lying is showing you either are a liberal democrat or so gullible youll believe what the MSM says.
I posted in another comment about the 15 military groups who support the lawsuit against Obama. President Lincoln during the Civil War even made accommodations for the military to vote, so allowing our military a couple of extra days is NOT new.
Remember in 2010 the ballots were not even mailed to the troops overseas before the deadline to return them. Less then 5% of our military have voted in the past, which should be a red flag that there is a huge problem when the national average is in the 40% range.
The President is also the Commander in Chief, and those that serve under him and his direct command should be given every opportunity and accommodations taken into consideration allowing them the necessary time to vote given their unique job hours and duty requirements.
Here the list of the military who support the law suit. (There may be more since this was printed.)
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-campaign-sues-to-restrict-military-voting-ohio
The Ohio case is Obama for America v. Husted, 12-cv-636, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio (Columbus). Ohio Attorney General Michael DeWine and Secretary Husted have both filed papers opposing the Obama campaigns complaint.
Fifteen military organizations have joined the Obama v. Husted case to fight to preserve military voting rights!
They include:
National Guard Association
Association of the U.S. Army
Association of the U.S. Navy
Marine Corps League
Military Officers Association of America
Reserve Officers Association
National Association for Uniformed Services
Non Commissioned Officers Association of the USA
Army Reserve Association
Fleet Reserve Association
Special Forces Association
U.S. Army Ranger Association, INC.
AMVETS
National Defense Committee
Military Order of the World Wars
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/yes-obama-really-is-suppressing-the-military-vote/
Are Americas armed forces wrong and dishonest? Do the Army, Navy and Marine organizations listed above not understand the issues of military voting as thoroughly as the experts at Snopes and Media Matters? Are the Special Forces and Army Ranger groups just plain dumb?
Or is it just possible our military knows something about military voting that Obama and his sleazy lawyers dont know? Yes, sleazy. The lead counsel on this case is none other than Robert Bauer, who author/analyst Matthew Vadum reminds us, asked the Department of Justice to prosecute Obama critics and fine television stations for daring to carry an ad about Obamas close personal friendship with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Bauer, Obamas former White House Counsel, is married to Anita Dunn, the Mao-loving former director of communications in the Obama White House. Bauer has been instrumental in whitewashing Obamas radical roots by filing lawsuits keeping a bewildering array of the presidents personal papers hidden away.
But as the Ohio defendants legal response points out so eloquently, America has always made special concessions for its soldiers to assure their opportunity to vote, going back to the Revolutionary War.
Unfortunately, argue lawyers for the Ohio defendants, throughout history military personnel have been prevented from [exercising their right to the franchise] due to both procedural and logistic hurdles, resulting in their franchise being effectively hollow.
They explain:
The problem of how to allow those serving in the United States Military to cast a ballot has been with us since the time of our nations war for independence.
Dating as far back as the Civil War, President Lincoln issued an executive order declaring a cessation of military operations in order to allow military personnel to travel home so that they could cast their ballots.
In order to make sure that those serving in the Civil War had access to the franchise, many states authorized elections officials to travel to units in the field to set up polling locations and to collect ballots from soldiers.
Military voters the shocking truth
Putting aside arguments pro and con, is there or is there not a serious problem in todays America with active-duty members of the armed forces having enough time to vote?
Heres a one-question quiz: During the 2010 election, what percentage of Americas military and overseas voters do you think were able to cast a vote that actually counted in the election results?
If you guessed 5 percent, youre too high.
Tens of thousands of service members votes not counted was the headline of a June 27, 2012, McClatchy newspaper article detailing just how seriously flawed the current system is for enabling the millions of men and woman in the U.S. military to vote.
The story includes the following shocking statistics:
In 2010, of the approximately 2 million military and overseas voters accounted for in data reported by the states to the Election Assistance Commission, only 4.6 percent of those voters were able to cast an absentee ballot that counted, according to the Military Voter Protection Projects analysis of that data from the federal Election Assistance Commission, which tracks participation in voting. That compared with 5.5 percent in 2006, which was also a midterm election, the organization concluded.
The overall national voter participation rate for the 2010 election was 41.6 percent, authorities said.
According to that report, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted yes, the same Jon Husted being sued by Obama for America was so disgusted he told county election boards it would be considered grounds for removal of board members if their agencies should fail to electronically send out absentee ballots 45 days prior to an election to all military voters who requested one.
Maybe Team Obama didnt like Ohios zeal to make sure our brave soldiers get to vote along with all the illegal aliens, dead people and others the left is so eager to have vote early and often this November.
Princes, Snopes and Fact Check may say its false, but Ill go with what our military says any time.
Your other accusation that Romney lied about Obama attempting to wave the work requirement for welfare recipients is flat out wrong. Obama did try, was challenged and has had to back track to cover his behind. Here are a couple of links for your reading enjoyment.
http://heritageaction.com/2012/08/welfare-work-requirements-not-waiveable/
Welfare Work Requirements Not Waiveable
August 9, 2012 by Ashe Schow
The Heritage Foundations Andrew Grossman has written a Legal Memorandum on the Obama Administrations recent directive to grant waivers to states in order to get out of the welfare work requirements included in the 1996 reforms. Not only does this undermine the letter and the spirit of the law which cut the welfare rolls in half and increased the employment and salaries of low-income individuals but it also runs contrary to the law:
Under the guise of providing states greater flexibility in operating their welfare programs, the Obama Administration now claims the authority to weaken or waive the work requirements that are at the heart of welfare reform. In particular, it argues that Section 1115, which provides waiver authority for states to establish demonstration projects, authorizes it to approve state programs that test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including different definitions of work activities and engagement. In this way, states could evade Section 407s work-participation requirement without sacrificing federal funding.
Continued in link.
http://politicalnews.me/?id=16350&keys=WELFARE-WORK-REQUIREMENTS-RESCINDED
As Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney Consistently Fought To Protect Strong Work Requirements For Welfare Recipients:
Club For Growth: As Governor, Romney Pushed For Important Changes To Massachusetts Expansive Welfare System. As governor, Romney pushed for important changes to Massachusetts expansive welfare system. Although federal welfare reform passed in 1995, Massachusetts was woefully behind, relying on a waiver to bypass many of the legislations important requirements. Romney fought for legislation that would bring Massachusetts welfare system up to date with federal standards by increasing the number of hours each week recipients must work and establishing a five-year limit for receiving benefits. (Club For Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #5, Press Release, 2011)
As Governor, Mitt Romney Pushed For Increasing And Expanding The Work Requirement For Welfare Recipients And Increased Funding For Support Services And Job Training. “As part of his spending plan for Fiscal Year 2006 that will be filed on Wednesday, Romney will propose increasing and expanding the work requirement for welfare recipients to bring it in line with stricter federal standards in use by virtually every other state in the country. To help more welfare recipients transition to work, the Governors budget will also propose higher levels of spending on childcare and transportation as well as education and job training. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, With Work, Romney Helps Welfare Recipients Get On Their Feet, Press Release, 1/24/05)
Governor Romney Line-Item Vetoed A Provision That Would Have Weakened The Work Requirement For Welfare Recipients. “Specific vetoes include language that would have: … Allowed education and training to substitute for the 20-hour per week work requirement for able-bodied welfare recipients. This veto saves $8 million and preserves the cornerstone of welfare reform, which has been the work requirement. Romney signed into law a provision expanding the work requirement to recipients who have children between the ages of two and five.” (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, “Romney Signs No New Tax Budget In Time For New Fiscal Year,” Press Release, 6/30/2003)
Governor Romney Proposed Changes To Massachusetts Welfare System To Bring The State In Line With New Federal Requirements. The governor also wants to make changes in welfare to bring Massachusetts into line with new federal requirements, under which recipients must work at least 24 hours per week. (Scott S. Greenberger, Romney Sets A $22.98b Blueprint Education Aid Rises, The Boston Globe, 1/29/04)
Continued in link.
Before you call someone a liar Princess I suggest you check the facts first and not rely on what you hear from the liberal media or your liberal friends.
I love how if you don’t toe the party line you are a “liberal.” Give me a break. Just because I choose to not believe everything the RNC tells me does not make me a liberal.
Was everyone paying attention during the Bush presidency? I didn’t see a lot of fiscal conservatism. Our national debt exploded with two unfunded wars, Medicare expansion and socialist education mandates with No Child Left Behind. In case you don’t know, PV High School in Chico does not have a band anymore because we have cut music from most schools in Chico. Those cuts to music started years ago and now those elementary students are in high school and they never took band.
Why do you think the Tea Party happened? It wasn’t because Republicans were real happy with their leadership. I am not going to defend a politician who I do not believe represents consevative values just because he is the only candidate on the ballot. The party is getting smaller and smaller because people like me are being called “liberal” just because we don’t like what Republicans have to offer.
Under George Bush we got the Department of Homeland Security which was the beginning of the end of our National Security. MILLIONS of people work in that department, and the only place we can find to make cuts is in programs that affect everyday Americans.
We waste too much money on defense in this country. I would start making cuts there.
“PAC’s are made up of persons ….”
Super PACs have been visited upon us by the Supreme Count, bless it, and a Congress not populated by a lot of do-nothing schmucks can remediate that situation, but won’t.
I dont agree with everything the Republican party has done, nor will I in the future. When that happens I too will speak up. What I was suggesting is you give up on whining about Huntsman not winning and get on board supporting the candidate that did. He may not be perfect and meet everyones standards, but he deserves our support and is tons better then the idiot weve got now. At least Romney knows how to read a budget, run major corporations, close those that need to be closed and has experience as a leader.
I also agree that our defense budget is too big, as Ive stated before in the blog. I do not support housing our military in countries since the end of WWII. That portion of our defense budget should be moved to foreign aide. Why are we there still to protect those countries? What are those countries providing us in return? I want those soldiers home protecting our north and south borders instead.
My concern with our defense is we no long produce enough steel in this country to produce a buildup of our armament to defend us again. Of course if its a cyber attack we wont need it, but where will the steel come from if we do need it? China? The very country that is attacking us with their government supported cyber attacks and building the steel we now need to build our bridges.
I fault Carl Rove for speaking badly about Christine ODonnel and loosing us the control of the Senate. She may not have been the perfect candidate, but she would have been that necessary vote to stop ObamaCare.
If you dont like certain things Romney and now Ryan does, thats fine. Just stop trashing them because theyre not Huntsman and support what you do like.
Libby, I don’t understand why we need PAC’s and a lot of other things related to putting money into politics. It should be kept very simple and something like this:
Any US citizen elgible to vote may donate up to $5000 (tax deductible) to any one candidate or any one party in any 12 month period. All other donations, gifts, remunerations of any sort including labor, transportation, materials, goods, from any other source are prohibited.
My first reaction to watching the ad in question is to feel a terrible sympathy for the man in the video. My second reaction is outrage that a SuperPAC would use this man’s tragedy to further their political agenda.
This man is clearly in a lot of pain and I am very sorry for his loss, but it seems wrong for him to blame that on his former employer. Especially now that the facts have come out, and it seems the woman lost her own health insurance due to an unrelated circumstance. I don’t see how this can be traced back to Romney. And it is absolutely immoral to use this man’s pain and anger as part of a political campaign.
I don’t think Obama had anything to do with this ad, but he should still denounce it. I think lies like this one bring shame to an entire campaign, regardless of whether or not they are started by the man running. Candidates have a responsibility to denounce lies that are told in their names. I, personally, am ashamed of this ad.
We should all be able to call out lies and shameful attacks, even when they come from people on our side, even when they benefit our favored politicians and parties. I was taught from a young age to do the right thing even if it causes you to lose. Unfortunately, in the high stakes game of politics, few seem to agree.
Tina: “These examples are matters where there is a difference of opinion rather than fact.”
No, Tina; either Obama sued to restrict military voting, or he did not. Similarly, either Obama got rid of work-to-welfare restrictions, or he did not. These are not matters of “opinion.” They are matters of fact, and they can be easily determined to be true or false. In both cases, every major news and fact-checking organization has determined that they are false. (The same organizations have also taken aim at the dishonest anti-Romney ad and determined it to be false as well.)
“Traditionally members of the military have been the given the consideration of extra days for voting because of conflicting deployment and assignment issues. Why would Obama want to deny this consideration to members of the military?”
The answer: he isn’t. Nothing is being “denied” from the military in this instance, because they will still have the extra time to vote. The lawsuit simply allows every other eligible Ohio resident to vote during that time as well, which is exactly what the law in Ohio was until the GOP changed it last year. If anyone is restricting voting in this case, it’s your party, not mine.
“None of us is a mind reader but it is quite possible that Obama brought this suit to deny military votes since they more often vote Republican.”
No, that is not “quite possible;” it’s the exact opposite of what the lawsuit asks for. You can read the lawsuit here:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/ObamaforAmericavHustedcomplaint.pdf
The lawsuit only seeks to restore early voting rights to all Ohio citizens. I suppose there is an extremely tiny chance that a court would decide to completely eliminate the three day period for everyone, but that would be a) not the fault of the campaign since that’s the opposite of what they’re asking for, and b) crazy. What judge wants to be known for restricting military voting? And what political campaign would want to be known for being responsible for such a restriction? It would be political suicide. It’s just not gonna happen.
And again, if any party is trying to sway the election here, it’s the Ohio GOP. Minority and low-income voters are far more likely to participate in early voting. Some estimates say almost 100,000 people who did this in the last election won’t be able to this year. Early voting for them has been restricted, by the GOP. The Obama campaign’s lawsuit does not seek to restrict voting for anyone. You have this situation completely backwards.
“Regarding the waiver of work rules, the Obama administration did issue a policy directive that allows the Department of Health and Human Services to waive the work requirements. See the directive here:”
I’ve read the directive, Tina, and it doesn’t confirm Romney’s claims or the claims from Heritage.
Romney claims that Obama is “taking the work requirement out of welfare,” but that’s not true. It simply allows states more flexibility in implementing work requirements–something that Republicans, including Mitt Romney, have favored in the past:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/06/4177069/romneys-welfare-to-work-attack.html#storylink=cpy
“At issue is the administrations decision last month to consider granting waivers to states that seek more flexibility to run the federally funded program. Republicans immediately accused the administration of looking to weaken the work requirements, prompting a letter from Health and Human Services Secretary Katherine Sebelius, who defended the change as a way to move more enrollees off welfare and into jobs by utilizing state-based innovation.
States have to apply for the waivers, and Sebelius wrote that waivers would only be granted to states that move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work. States also must demonstrate clear progress toward that goal or their waivers could be rescinded. In return, states get some relief from some of the administrative requirements of the law.
Administration officials noted that in 2005, 29 Republican governors including then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney requested similar authority.
Perhaps (Romneys) argument is with his past self, White House spokesman Jay Carney suggested.
Sebelius said the waivers those governors were proposing were very far-reaching and went beyond what the administration now would sanction. But she said that the governors of Utah and Nebraska both Republicans have more recently requested waivers.
Jonathan Burks, deputy policy director for the Romney campaign, charged in a conference call with reporters that the administration “took the (Utah) governors reasonable request for increased flexibility and used it to gut the core welfare-to-work requirement.”
Policy experts said that at best, the Romney campaigns charge that Obama quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements is an exaggeration.
Ron Haskins, co-director of the Brookings Institution Center on Children and Families and a former Republican congressional committee staff director, said he believes the administration erred in not reaching out to Congress before it made the change.
But he called Romneys assertion clearly an overstatement.
Haskins, who was staff director on the committee that helped draft the House bill that eventually resulted in the legislation Clinton signed, pointed out that contrary to the ads claim, the Obama administrations offer of waivers doesnt do some broad overhaul.
States would have to apply for the waiver and each state requesting a waiver would be required to show how the new approach would either increase employment or lead to better employment, Haskins said.
If you just read the words (of the policy) its a reasonable kind of provision, he said.
And Haskins noted that it would be to the states advantage to keep caseloads low, so the idea that theyre going to use these waivers to bring all kinds of cases onto their rolls, it really doesnt make sense.
Liz Schott, a senior fellow with the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities welfare reform and income support division, said the Obama policy doesnt weaken the welfare-to-work provision.
Its not about people not working, she said, adding that the policy wouldnt take effect until a state applied for and received a waiver. But she said the waiver could allow a state to run a demonstration project it believes will do a better job of connecting people to work than what it now does.
The administration is saying this is only about work and about approving work, she said.”
Peggy, one former Air Force officer (and current law professor specializing in voting law), Diane Mazur, disagrees with the military groups protesting the lawsuit. She says:
“The primary confusion is between in-person and absentee voting. There is a long history of accommodation for military and overseas voters to vote by absentee ballot, and this is settled. I am unaware, however, of any prior attempt by states or the federal government to grant extra voting privileges to service members voting in person, not absentee. … The news reports ought to make more clear that this is a giant leap beyond any other kind of military voting accommodation. If you follow the statements of the military groups and Republican representatives closely, you’ll see that they glide back and forth between references to absentee and in-person voting, realizing that their in-person arguments are without precedent, and without justification…
…The Democrats are sputtering in their explanations, and not doing a very good job of it, because they are afraid of the accusation. They could be more clear about what is going on, but they have no confidence it will be understood.
The idea that service members are fuller citizens than the rest of America is a disaster for military professionalism. Making reckless allegations that civilians are trying to disenfranchise service members is one of the most destructive things you can do to the military. That’s another message that is being lost here. We have raised a generation of service members and veterans who completely believe the falsehood that some civilians don’t want them to vote, and our civil-military relations are worse for it.”
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/military-groups-argument-about-obama-voting-lawsu
Chris: “either Obama sued to restrict military voting, or he did not.”
What you cannot measure, Chris, is any covert intent that may have been in play even if the language of the suit does not specify. These are lawyer politicians. They are trained to use the language. Depends on what the definition of “is” is.
I am expressing my opinion about what this bunch is up to in bringing this suit. My opinion is based on three things: 1. That it will harm some in the military, 2. That Democrats have blocked military votes in the past by unscrupulous means, and 3. That getting out the vote has never been a problem for Democrats even when voting occurred on a single day within a specified time.
These are opinions. I don’t believe that voter ID laws would prevent poor people and old people from voting either.
I think this is all political garbage designed to give Obama an unearned advantage. Opening the opportunity for cheating is what I believe all of this is about for Democrats.
“They could be more clear about what is going on, but they have no confidence it will be understood.”
Yeah right…sorry, the history of voting across state lines, of votes cast for babies, dead people, cats and cartoon figures and dementia patients is just too frequent a practice especially in unions like the SEIU.
Here’s the rub…military guys in 2010 KNOW their votes were not counted…they don’t have to guess or be influenced:
http://truthontarget.blogspot.com/2010/10/military-votes-not-counted-98000-lost.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/271715/disfranchised-military-hans-von-spakovsky
http://pjmedia.com/blog/disgrace-doj-fails-to-protect-military-voting-rights/
Tina: “What you cannot measure, Chris, is any covert intent that may have been in play even if the language of the suit does not specify. These are lawyer politicians. They are trained to use the language. Depends on what the definition of “is” is.”
I don’t think you’ve actually read the lawsuit. It’s actually written in very plain English, not legalese. The demands are very clear. There is nothing in there that can be interpreted as demanding the three day period be restricted from the military or anyone else. If there were, some right-wing lawyer would have found it by now and reported it.
“I am expressing my opinion about what this bunch is up to in bringing this suit. My opinion is based on three things: 1. That it will harm some in the military,”
What? That’s not a thing you’re “basing” your argument on. That’s your CONCLUSION. You’re using your conclusion as your premise, making your entire argument invalid.
You’ve provided no evidence that this lawsuit would harm anyone in the military.
“These are opinions.”
You can’t just hide behind words like “opinion” and “intent” as if they’re magic shields protecting you from any and all criticism. You made an argument, you need to be able to support it.
None of us are mind-readers, so we can only judge the “intent” of this lawsuit by…looking at the lawsuit. By your logic, I could just as easily argue that Paul Ryan’s “intent” is to starve the poor to death, then claim it was only my “opinion,” and you’d have no grounds to complain because I would literally have as much evidence for that absurd position as you do for yours.
You’re basically admitting that your opinion has not been decided by evidence or reason, but by a knee-jerk reaction to the presence of Democrats. Clearly using evidence and reason to persuade you on this issue is not going to be fruitful, because that’s not what you’re interested in. Your reaction is emotional and irrational.
“I don’t believe that voter ID laws would prevent poor people and old people from voting either.”
But it’s already happened. Here is just one case of many:
“Tomorrow the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania will hear a challenge to the states new voter ID law from the ACLU and other voting rights groups. The lead plaintiff is Viviette Applewhite, a 93-year-old great-great grandmother who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. Applewhite worked as a hotel housekeeper and never had a drivers license. Four years ago, her purse was stolen and she lost her Social Security card. Because she was adopted and married twice, she cannot obtain the documents needed to comply with the states voter ID law. After voting in every election for the past fifty years, she will lose the right to vote this November.”
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169035/pennsylvania-voter-id-law-goes-court#
“Yeah right…sorry, the history of voting across state lines, of votes cast for babies, dead people, cats and cartoon figures and dementia patients is just too frequent a practice especially in unions like the SEIU.”
No, these practices are not “frequent” at all, Tina. The conservative media has overhyped voter fraud to a ridiculous degree. Most independent estimates have found that voter fraud is extraordinarily rare. From a study by the Brennan Center:
“In Ohio, a statewide survey found four instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to vote in 2002 and 20042C out of 9,078,728 votes cast – a rate of 0.00004%. Despite the invocation of fraud as support for the new Georgia law, Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox has stated that she could not recall one documented case of voter fraud relating to the impersonation of a registered voter at the polls during her ten-year tenure as an election official. Nationwide, since October 2002, 86 individuals have been convicted of federal crimes relating to election fraud (including several offenses not remedied by ID requirements), while 196,139,871 ballots have been cast in federal general elections. Statistically, Americans are more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning.”
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_voter_identification/
Politifact found that shark attacks might be more common than instances of voter fraud:
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/mar/02/aclu-florida/shark-attacks-are-more-common-voter-fraud-florida/
Also more common? UFO sightings:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48098099/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.UCpsJT1lS2B
Let me know when the GOP gets equally tough on these very serious threats to our nation.
More on how rare voter fraud is can be found at any of the links on the first page of this search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=voter+fraud+rare&rlz=1C1TSNP_enUS487US487&sugexp=chrome,mod=19&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8