Obama Sues to Stop Military Personal From Voting in Ohio

[seanD]

And that view may be correct. I personally view Obama as a centrist. Not that he "really supports these issues" so much as that they fall within his zone of indifference, and he wouldn't mind things going either way. And there are some indications (such as in his state of the union addresses) where he has come right out and complained about "the politics of no" making effective government extremely difficult.

My own view is that he faces a different and more rabid species of political opposition than Clinton did, for example. Yeah, the right wing hated Clinton and tried to make as much hay as they could from Clinton's womanizing problems, but Clinton WAS allowed to work politics, and get a lot of his program enacted. Obama may not be nearly as skillful a politician as Clinton was, but nobody every accused Bush of being politically adroit, and Bush never faced a solid uncompromising unanimous opposition to every move.

In regards to the second part of your post; Obama had the majority in the first two years he was in office. In regards to the first part; this kind of contradicts what you've been saying. How can we argue that Obama is an indifferent centrist on one hand; then blame the right for forcing the policies upon him against his political interest on the other?

[Rational Gaze]

I salute you--and quite sincerely. There are many on this earth (and no few on this forum) who would have rejected any contradictory evidence provided. I will admit I thought you one of these--I was wrong, and for my error I apologize.

In which case, please ignore my most recent post to you in the: "How obviously true is Christianity or Atheism?" thread.

[Seasanctuary]

So I just heard Jay Sekulow on Hannity's radio show. He's still claiming Obama is trying to keep military people from voting. He's not in a position, especially at this point, to be mistaken out of ignorance.

[Pilgrim]

So I just heard Jay Sekulow on Hannity's radio show. He's still claiming Obama is trying to keep military people from voting. He's not in a position, especially at this point, to be mistaken out of ignorance.

Indeed. Although you wouldn't be wrong if you called him an ignoramus.

[Seasanctuary]

Indeed. Although you wouldn't be wrong if you called him an ignoramus.

That wasn't what I was calling him! ;)

[Pilgrim]

One of the comments on the news story linked to suggested that the election board was only manning extra hours at voting stations in republican leaning counties but necessarily in den leaning counties. Anyone know if there's any truth to that? The comment suggested this was a big part of the law suit.

[phank]

In regards to the second part of your post; Obama had the majority in the first two years he was in office.

Yes, this is true, and he could have pushed for some of the policy changes you recommended. He chose to push for the health care policy instead. Given that the Democrats during his first term did not vote for his program in lockstep, while the Republican's voted AGAINST him in lockstep, his majority was more nominal than actual, and his political captial may have been limited.

In regards to the first part; this kind of contradicts what you've been saying. How can we argue that Obama is an indifferent centrist on one hand; then blame the right for forcing the policies upon him against his political interest on the other?

Because, as I said earlier, the Republicans have voted unanimously against all he's proposed even when he proposes what they demand. My sense of all this is, EVEN IF he were a right-of-center person, Republicans would oppose everything he tried to do for reasons more personal than practical. Down here in the Deep South, I've heard dedicated Baptists say that if Obama proposed banning abortion, they would STILL oppose him, because "it ain't called the White House for nothin' and it shore ain't the Black House." Clinton may have been a Democrat, but he was a good old boy from Arkansas and "one of us", and Obama is most definitely "one of them".

So I think Obama recognizes that he must choose his battles carefully if he hopes to win any of them against an uncompromising opposition. And I admit that if I were in his position, I'd simply keep pushing my campaign-promise and political-left program, lose EVERY battle, and hope the voters could see that I'm trying to accomplish a lot - as opposed to actually accomplishing at least something.

I'm expecting an interesting election.

[Jaecp]

One interesting thing is thay Obama didn't really have 60 senate seats for 2 years, closer to six months. The delays of the confirmation of the radio host guy and then the stuff with Ted Kennedy really shortened the window of what should have been a supermajority. Plus, as you said, the democrats aren't regimented like the republicans.

[seanD]

Yes, this is true, and he could have pushed for some of the policy changes you recommended. He chose to push for the health care policy instead. Given that the Democrats during his first term did not vote for his program in lockstep, while the Republican's voted AGAINST him in lockstep, his majority was more nominal than actual, and his political captial may have been limited.

Because, as I said earlier, the Republicans have voted unanimously against all he's proposed even when he proposes what they demand. My sense of all this is, EVEN IF he were a right-of-center person, Republicans would oppose everything he tried to do for reasons more personal than practical. Down here in the Deep South, I've heard dedicated Baptists say that if Obama proposed banning abortion, they would STILL oppose him, because "it ain't called the White House for nothin' and it shore ain't the Black House." Clinton may have been a Democrat, but he was a good old boy from Arkansas and "one of us", and Obama is most definitely "one of them".

So I think Obama recognizes that he must choose his battles carefully if he hopes to win any of them against an uncompromising opposition. And I admit that if I were in his position, I'd simply keep pushing my campaign-promise and political-left program, lose EVERY battle, and hope the voters could see that I'm trying to accomplish a lot - as opposed to actually accomplishing at least something.

I'm expecting an interesting election.

This still doesn't make sense. If Obama is an indifferent centrist as you say, then he's not ever going to win against the opposition because he doesn't care to win, thus what the right does is irrelevant. Blaming the right for the continuation of neocon polices sounds like this is just a political red herring or shifting the blame towards someone else because, like I said, Obama koolaide drinkers are suffering cognitive dissonance in face of the harsh reality they were terribly betrayed. If that's true (which looks highly likely), then this sort of lifts it above and beyond the typical left vs. right debate, don't you think? In light of that, it's certainly no accident that Romney's policies of the past greatly resemble Obama's policies of the present.

[Ansgar Seraph]

One of the comments on the news story linked to suggested that the election board was only manning extra hours at voting stations in republican leaning counties but necessarily in den leaning counties. Anyone know if there's any truth to that? The comment suggested this was a big part of the law suit.

From Daily Kos:

Meanwhile in Ohio -- tilting the tables. 2012-08-03. Accessed 2012-08-07

What this segment misses is what is happening with "extended voting hours" in Ohio. In Ohio you can go to the Board of Elections to vote early if you chose and a very large number of people did in 2008. That year the Boards of Elections in the major counties maintained evening hours, Saturday morning hours, even the occasional Sunday. Good of course for working people of course and they made good use of that.

This year that is changing. Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) and Summit County (Akron) have been limited to "normal business hours" while at the same time big Republican suburban ring counties are voting to be open evenings and weekends. The implications are obvious. If you are a working stiff in those counties there is no need for extra hours to accommodate you. But if you are working stiff in Butler County or Warren County, reliably Republican counties then by all means your convenience must be accommodated. Same is true in Medina and Portage Counties near Cleveland.

© source where applicable

The writer writes that Ohio county election boards are composed of two Republicans and two Democrats: in counties that are restricting voting hours, the decision has split 2-2, with the Republican Secretary of State serving as the tie-breaking vote. Thus, counties that lean Democratic are being restricted to "normal business hours," while Republican-leaning counties' voting times are being preserved.

Good catch, Pilgrim. <John Wayne voice>


--Sam

[JimL]

From Daily Kos:

Meanwhile in Ohio -- tilting the tables. 2012-08-03. Accessed 2012-08-07

What this segment misses is what is happening with "extended voting hours" in Ohio. In Ohio you can go to the Board of Elections to vote early if you chose and a very large number of people did in 2008. That year the Boards of Elections in the major counties maintained evening hours, Saturday morning hours, even the occasional Sunday. Good of course for working people of course and they made good use of that.

This year that is changing. Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) and Summit County (Akron) have been limited to "normal business hours" while at the same time big Republican suburban ring counties are voting to be open evenings and weekends. The implications are obvious. If you are a working stiff in those counties there is no need for extra hours to accommodate you. But if you are working stiff in Butler County or Warren County, reliably Republican counties then by all means your convenience must be accommodated. Same is true in Medina and Portage Counties near Cleveland.

© source where applicable

The writer writes that Ohio county election boards are composed of two Republicans and two Democrats: in counties that are restricting voting hours, the decision has split 2-2, with the Republican Secretary of State serving as the tie-breaking vote. Thus, counties that lean Democratic are being restricted to "normal business hours," while Republican-leaning counties' voting times are being preserved.

Good catch, Pilgrim. <John Wayne voice>


--Sam

Not only are voters being unfairly restricted with regards to time, but in depriving voters those additional hours with which to cast their ballots, the republican action will cause, during the newly restricte hours, very long lines and waiting times at the polls, a situation which causes many to give up and leave in frustration, and many others to not show up in the first place. Think about it, close to 100,000 thousand people voted during those inclusive hours and who knows how many thousands more voted on other days due to the shorter waiting time. There is no reason to do this other than to suppress the vote. It has nothing to do with the military, since the military is not effected one bit. Nothing changes for the military no matter how the lawsuit turns out. It is nothing more than a republican sham to undermine democracy and steal the election.

[JimL]

I don't want to insult your intelligence by suggesting you actually believe what you just said.

Well I don't want to insult your intelligence either, so I won't. I'll just say that you are misinformed or underinformed. Republican run states all across the country are attempting in various ways to suppress the vote, and the road blocks, just by coincidence mind you, always seem to target Democratic leaning voters. Hundreds of thousands of them. George Bush won-(lost) Florida, if my memory serves, by some 500 votes and Gov. Scott, the millionaire welfare fraud, enacted legislation there that would effectivly deprive 187,000 citizens from voting. Pennsyvania, Ohio, S. Carolina and many other Republican run states are doing the same thing. Thats an undermining of democracy and a power grab and they are doing it with the support and funding of the super rich and multinational corporations, and that is who will be effectively running this country should they pull it off. Wake up!

I'm not American, I'm from the UK. I was considering moving to the US, but then I discovered that Switzerland is the 5th most economically free nation in the world (1st most economically free in Europe), and has significantly freer gun laws, yet is one of the richest countries in the world, and has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. I'm also not a Conservative. Conservatives are right-wing authoritarians, whereas I am a right-wing libertarian. I also know that much of spiel about the Republicans trying to stop poor people from voting is simply untrue, and that much of the claims made against Fox are either blatantly over-exaggerated or apply equally to liberal news sources and outlets. If I had my way, I'd get Republicans and Democrats together in a sack, and then I'd tie the top of the sack and beat them with sticks, and I wouldn't care who got the worst of the stick beating.

First off Switzerland is not the U.S., they are incomparable. Second, how do you know what the Republicans are up to? The fact is that the targeted voters, by coincidence of course, just happen to be, by a wide majority, democratic. Oh and btw, Fox News is nothing more than propaganda media and so no claim against them can be over-exaggerated. Liberally biased News, of which there are only 2 that I am aware of, MSNBC and Current TV, are not propaganda. They do not blatantly lie, misrepresent the facts or manipulate the news as does Fox.

[Ansgar Seraph]

On The New Republic, Timothy Noah runs down the most prominent examples of GOP-led voter suppression. Regarding Voter ID:

Art of War: How Republicans mastered voter suppression. Timothy Noah. 2012-08-02. Accessed 2012-08-07

What voter ID laws are useful for is reducing voter participation by you know who. Requiring an unexpired government-issued ID, a bank statement, or a utility bill is good. Requiring an unexpired government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport, is better, because about 25 percent of African Americans and 16 percent of Latinos don’t have any––as against 11 percent of the general population. The nine states with the strictest photo ID requirements are mostly rural, which means the government offices where such ID can be obtained are likelier to be far away and to keep irregular hours. The Woodville, Mississippi office is open only on the second Thursday of every month. Wisconsin’s Sauk City office is open only on the fifth Wednesday of every month, and since eight months in 2012 don’t even have a fifth Wednesday, the office will open its doors only four days this year.

© source where applicable

Every bit of outrage that was mistakenly pointed at Obama and the Democrats for the Ohio incident should be magnified tenfold and aimed squarely at the GOP.

--Sam

[Darth Executor]

On The New Republic, Timothy Noah runs down the most prominent examples of GOP-led voter suppression. Regarding Voter ID:

Art of War: How Republicans mastered voter suppression. Timothy Noah. 2012-08-02. Accessed 2012-08-07

What voter ID laws are useful for is reducing voter participation by you know who. Requiring an unexpired government-issued ID, a bank statement, or a utility bill is good. Requiring an unexpired government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport, is better, because about 25 percent of African Americans and 16 percent of Latinos don’t have any––as against 11 percent of the general population. The nine states with the strictest photo ID requirements are mostly rural, which means the government offices where such ID can be obtained are likelier to be far away and to keep irregular hours. The Woodville, Mississippi office is open only on the second Thursday of every month. Wisconsin’s Sauk City office is open only on the fifth Wednesday of every month, and since eight months in 2012 don’t even have a fifth Wednesday, the office will open its doors only four days this year.

© source where applicable

Every bit of outrage that was mistakenly pointed at Obama and the Democrats for the Ohio incident should be magnified tenfold and aimed squarely at the GOP.

--Sam

I fully support these tactics. The only reason why the Democratic party gets so many low income votes is because they are literally buying them with taxpayer dollars. In a just world Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party would be in prison with this guy:

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/humphrey/2...us-senate.html

[Rational Gaze]

Well I don't want to insult your intelligence either, so I won't. I'll just say that you are misinformed or underinformed. Republican run states all across the country are attempting in various ways to suppress the vote, and the road blocks, just by coincidence mind you, always seem to target Democratic leaning voters.

Vote ID laws are to stop illegal immigrants from masquerading as US Citizens, but you're right, it is no coincidence that these illegal aliens tend to vote Democrat. This is because of the Democrat parties insane social and economic policies. Whilst these policies are detrimental for working people, they are beneficial to illegal immigrants. We have a similar problem in the UK. We had tons of immigrants (legal as well as illegal) come over from the Middle East, purely to tap our welfare system (that some of these immigrants were also violently anti-Western Muslims is an irony that is as lost on the government as it is on the immigrants themselves, I imagine.) However, the claim that poor people will be denied the vote seems dubious to me, since you need an ID to cash a check in the US, as well as to pick up welfare checks.

First off Switzerland is not the U.S., they are incomparable.

Indeed. Switzerland has less restrictive gun laws, yet lower crime, than the US, and a freer economy than the US. Federal income tax in Switzerland is between 0.77-11.5%, and VAT is between 2-8%, and the average annual household income is the equivalent of $100,000. They also aren't a member of the EU, and actually hold public referendums.

Second, how do you know what the Republicans are up to? The fact is that the targeted voters, by coincidence of course, just happen to be, by a wide majority, democratic.

I know what the Republicans because I try and keep up-to-date on current affairs.

Oh and btw, Fox News is nothing more than propaganda media and so no claim against them can be over-exaggerated.

I've been in the US since June, and since then my fiancee's mother has done nothing but watch Fox News 24/7, and from my observations, the claims you make are simply not true.

Liberally biased News, of which there are only 2 that I am aware of, MSNBC and Current TV, are not propaganda. They do not blatantly lie, misrepresent the facts or manipulate the news as does Fox.

Yes, they do, and there are more liberally biased news sources than those two, for example the New York Times. The lying, offensive, poorly researched opinions of economically illiterate buffoons such as Paul Krugman never cease to amuse me.