Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Saturday, August 11, 2012

RYAN'S THE ONE


So.  Willard has chosen the "zombie-eyed granny starver?"

The last time the the GOP chose a radical rightwinger--a "game changer"-- as a veep, we all remember how that worked out.

Here are some of the reactions around the political spectrum on Romney's choice:

Ross Douthat:
"This will make the race more exciting and more serious, and I’m looking forward to watching it play out. But I don’t think it’s made a Romney victory more likely."

"This is an admission of fear from the Romney campaign. You don’t make a risky pick like Paul Ryan if you think the fundamentals favor your candidate. You make a risky pick like Paul Ryan if you think the fundamentals don’t favor your candidate. And, right now, the numbers don’t look good for Romney: Obama leads in the Real Clear Politics average of polls by more than four percentage points — his largest lead since April."  --Ezra Klein



Paul Ryan? Seriously? Is the #RomneyRyan2012 logo just going to be a middle finger waving at the poor?
@elonjames via Twitter for iPad


Craig Crawford:
"WI Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare is about as politically toxic as it gets. In picking this darling of conservative elites Romney is spread eagle on the third rail.Now we know he knows it. This decision shows just how insecure he is about holding his party’s base. He got bullied into this, the most telling sign yet that he is desperate."

ABC:
THE RISK IS OBVIOUS: This race is now fought on territory that has long been favorable to Democrats. Voters trust Democrats more on issues relating to entitlement programs and are inherently suspicious of Republicans on the issue.THE REWARDS ARE LESS CLEAR: In picking Ryan, the Romney campaign is gambling that a debate on substance is thing that voters are hungry for. It is also an acknowledgement that a campaign fought on the terrain and issues that it has been for the last few weeks is not one that they can win.

Frank Bruni:
There have long been two theories about presidential elections. One is that they’re won in the middle, by the candidate who can pivot most successfully to the center and pick up the swing voters there. The other is that they’re won by the candidate who gets higher turnout from voters always inclined to support him or her.The Ryan selection seems to endorse and put stock in the second theory. The severity of his budget proposals and his intellectual romance with Ayn Rand don’t strike me as big turn-ons for a large number of independents and moderates, many of whom will deem him—and maybe, by extension, the nominee who chose him—as too callous: as the man in that political ad who pushes grandma in her wheelchair all the way off the cliff. But true conservatives? Many are doing cartwheels right now.
"Romney has transformed a campaign about jobs and growth into a campaign about entitlements and Medicare." --David Frum

From the Daily Paul site:
"The INSANITY of Ryan's proposed budget plan needs to be aired to Independent voters who are the ones that will decide this election.
Romney has just helped to drive away 98% plus of Independent voters with his pick of Ryan as VP.
When Independent voters are informed about and understand Ryan's budget plan, Romney will sink EVEN lower in the polls.
He is already being slaughtered in polls for swing states and Electoral College maps and the trend is like a nose dive off a cliff."
And the best one from "The Shrill One:"

Galt / Gekko 2012

"Paul Ryan for VP — or, as Romney said in the press conference, 'the next president of the United States.' I did say Galt/Gekko, not Gekko/Galt…
[A]nyone who believes in Ryan’s carefully cultivated image as a brave, honest policy wonk has been snookered. Mark Thoma reviews selected pieces I’ve written about Ryan; he is, in fact, a big fraud, who doesn’t care at all about fiscal responsibility, and whose policy proposals are sloppy as well as dishonest. Of course, this means that he’ll fit in to the Romney campaign just fine.
As I said, I have no idea how this will play politically. But it does look like a move from weakness, rather than strength; Romney obviously felt he needed a VP who will get people to stop talking about him."  --Dr. Krugman



Intrade markets are unchanged (59/34 Obama).

Romney's choice is a complete cave to the GOP base and its Randian nutters.  Ryan's proposals to fundamentally change Medicare and privatize Social Security will not appeal to the middle; and as others have said, that's where elections are won.  Romney's choice changes nothing.  He's still a weak candidate who bowed to the extremists on the right and who has betrayed his essentially moderate political past.

Good going, Mitt.  You've just helped re-elect President Obama.


h/t dailykos, smartypants

45 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

Ryan? Really? LOL. Romney just caved. He will win the right...and lose the middle and left. Ryan is Romney's Palin.

BB-Idaho said...

The Ryan Plan has been attacked by the Catholic bishops and nuns. It is toxic with seniors and independents. Romney proves his
far right credentials and chases
some of his own to the other side.

Shaw Kenawe said...

It takes more than the base to win the presidency.

The Obama campaign will use the Catholic bishops and nuns indictment on Ryan's plan to hammer the Romney/Ryan ticket.

Paul said...

If you want to live in pre 1930's America, then vote for Romney/Ryan.
Before you do, read up on what living in America was like back then.
Republiscums have been trying for 75 years to kill the Democratic policies that helped stop early death, hunger, and poverty.
They have never had the support of the American people to do that, so they began the "starve the beast" process. Cut taxes until the government was to poor to fund those programs.
Here we are, and the Ryan plan is the start of destroying those policies.
At least the American people have a stark choice. Now it's up to them.

Les Carpenter said...

Cliff indeed. The same one we've been heading for since, oh, about 1900.

And it won't matter who gets elected. The paths will be different. The cliff will be the same.

Have the parachutes handy. It will be a long way down.

Anonymous said...

consider Ryan: He's worked in politics his entire life, beginning as an aide to Sen. Bob Kasten, then working for Sen. Sam Brownback and as a speechwriter to Rep. Jack Kemp.... how does Romney say the problem with Barack Obama is that he's "never spent a day in the private sector" and then put Ryan a heartbeat away from the presidency?
The same way he does everything else -- shamelessly.

Sean W. Scott said...

Once upon a time it would have been considered political suicide to espouse the dismanteling of Medicare and Social Security, Medicaid perhaps, after all that's just poor people, but never ever mess with senior's benefits lest you bring down the rath of the elder voting block. Apparently, however, in the new world politic according to the Ayn Rand, self-seeking, individual über alles mentality of the "new" fiscal conservatives, the senior vote can be discounted and overcome by appealing to the egocentric core of the human condition. Paul Ryan and his ideological clone Marco Rubio, will tell you that the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln, and based upon the principals of emancipation. Both Ryan and Rubio are here from the government and they are here to help you, help you free you and your family from the chains of entitlement programs so you can self-motivate and take care of yourself. Let us emancipate you from those government programs that remove your will to be self sufficient. After all, if we pull the safety net, your focus should be much keener not to fall.
Remember though, its not the fall that kills you, it's that sudden stop at the end.

Les Carpenter said...

Politics is a shameless business. Both Mittens and Obie wear the shameless shade well.

Infidel753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Infidel753 said...

Is the #RomneyRyan2012 logo just going to be a middle finger waving at the poor?

It should be a giant middle finger flipping Grandma off the cliff as it waves at the poor.

The last thing I want to do is encourage complacency, but I'm feeling more and more confident that our side is going to win this thing, and maybe win big. The Republican blogs are stoked over Ryan right now because he's "articulate" at advocating conservatism, but that's pretty much lipstick on a pig, or in this case more like lipstick on that thing that's always chasing Sigourney Weaver around darkened spece-ships. Their ideas and plans are just too ugly, and Ryan embodies some of the most hideous of all.

Les Carpenter said...

Conservative plan equals ugly... Progressive (liberal) plan equals hideous.

And the cliff waits.

Silverfiddle said...

It presents the American people a stark choice:

More progressivism and its crushing debt, or a serious adult conversation about how to put this nation back on its constitutional foundation and restore fiscal sanity.

Remember Simpson Bowles? Has anyone see the Ryan-Wyden Plan?

There is hope America, and it starts with voting Comandante Zero out of office.

Shaw Kenawe said...

SF, you've left out the part where the RED team wants to cut more taxes on the wealthiest of the wealthy, and make the poorest of the poor pay more.

The Catholic Bishops--y'know those folks who got a high five when they went after Mr. Obama and the birth control issue on the ACA? Those Bishops AND nuns are against Ryan's plan to impoverish the already impoverished and enrich the one percenters.

Also, Ryan will not help Romney with women voters. He voted AGAINST the Lily Ledbetter law!

Imagine, the guy who wants to be veep doesn't think there's anything wrong with descrimination agains women in the workforce.

You're excited, SF, because you're part of the extreme base of the GOP.

The base doesn't win presidential elections, q.v., Sarah Palin.

Les Carpenter said...

Simpson Bowles? You mean the bipartisan plan to address our grave fiscal issues? The one ignored by progressives an Obie won the spendthrift?

Vote out Team Zero. Vote in a team for change and fiscal responsibility. Vote Gary Johnson.

Anonymous said...

GOP 2012: Mitt and Shitt

Dave Miller said...

How people of faith support an Ayn Rand view of the world, I do no know, but it seems the Christian base of the GOP is very much in like with Ryan.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"...the Christian base of the GOP is very much in like with Ryan."

It appears their values are as fungible as Romney's.

How the base could be "in like" with a guy whose heroine, Ayn Rand, who changed his life, is a person who supports abortion up to the ninth month AND is an atheist, is passing strange.

I recall how the Right howled over Mr. Obama attending Rev. Wright's church, saying that he listened to him every Sunday [Rev. Wright never preached "every Sunday, BTW], but the Right will now presumably give Ryan a pass on his utter devotion and worship of Ayn Rand's atheism and stand on abortion?

How do they reconcile that?

Les Carpenter said...

Shaw is correct about one thing, it will take more than just the conservative base /Christian right to elect Romney.

The progressives are practically lock step with Obie, some liberal republicana will hold their nose and pull the plug for Obie, and independenta may go for Obie as well.

Answer? Enlarge the tent, deliver honest truths not scare tactics, stay on message, be sincere and the votes will come. Frankly a huge center in Americahas had it with 12 years of fiscal and foreign policy BS.

Shaw Kenawe said...

It's a bit late for letting out the seams in a very small Republican tent, innit?

The GOP is against marriage for everyone

The GOP is against equal pay for equal work

The GOP is against a woman's right to control her own body

The GOP's followers and politicians have ceaselessly used racial slurs and innuendo against our first bi-racial president and his family

The GOP is anti-immigration

The Romney/Rand, er I mean Ryan ticket represents tax cuts for the rich and the resulting deficits from them and pulling the safety net out from under those in most need.

Les Carpenter said...

I find laughable how the left uses Rand in the narrowest sense to flog the right who professes to understand Rand but doesn't really. In reality the gum flappers on both sides misrepresent Rand and likely few of them on either have read her non fiction.

The cliff looms large...

Les Carpenter said...

And the Obie plan, bankrupt America asap.

The cliff looms large...

Shaw Kenawe said...

RN: "The cliff looms large..."


RN comments here:

"A noun, a verb, and "The cliff looms large..."

Really, RN, I've read this several times, and you've made your point.

Also to answer your question about whether or not I've read Rand, yes, years and years ago.

I started "Atlas Shrugged," found it to be schlocky, filled with turgid prose, and couldn't get through it more than half way.

"Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).

As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, 'In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.' ”

Shaw Kenawe said...

More on Ryan's heroine, Ayn Rand, by Joshua Holland of Alternet:

"Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax. By 1974, the two-pack-a-day smoker, then 69, required surgery for lung cancer. And it was at that moment of vulnerability that she succumbed to the lure of collectivism.

Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand , McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality. Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.


“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.

The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”

Silverfiddle said...

@ Les: I find laughable how the left uses Rand in the narrowest sense to flog the right who professes to understand Rand but doesn't really.

I do too, but that is what the left does. They have no substance, so they engage in constant tactical maneuvers, mudball throwing and noxious gas attacks.

The Lilly Ledbetter law is a joke. When you disaggregate the wage data and control for degree type and work history, there is no gap.

Like all the other extreme leftwing issues, it's bogus, just like the "control her own body" argument.

By all means, control your own body! On your own damn dime!

Sandra Fluck is the apotheosis of modern-day liberalism. A woman fortunate enough to be going to a prestigious law school goes on national tv and demands we all pay for her to get her freak on.

We are $15 trillion in debt and still spending, but Obama and the Pelosicrats promise the slack-jawed droolers more, more more.

Rainbows, unicorns and candy for all the little kiddies so long as you keep voting for us!

As Les would say, it's not rational.

Les Carpenter said...

Shaw, thank you for your answer. Evasive, with footnotes from a collectivist.

I am well aware of who Rand's husband was, as well as Rand's lover. I too, having been Forced to pay into social security for 44 years to date, and Medicare/Medicaid sure plan on getting MY investment back. Had I been given a choice at 16I would have opted out. Which is after all the point.

You've read practically nothing.

Jerry Critter said...

Social security and Medicare are not investment programs.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"I do too, but that is what the left does. They have no substance, so they engage in constant tactical maneuvers, mudball throwing and noxious gas attack."--SF

Because "death panels," "Muslim, Kenyan, Commie, Marxist," and Romney LYING about taking away Ohio veterans' voting rights are dealing in conservative principles?

You never did get back to me about that Ohio veterans' voting issue as you said you would, did you. You said you were going to "look into it."

You obviously have discovered it was a blatant lie, but that fact would cause cognitive dissonance in your brain, and would, obviously, put the lie to your rants about how dishonest liberals are.

The rightwingers were all over Mr. Obama on his Rev. Wright issue, because he belonged to Wright's church for 20 years, so Obama MUST believe in goddamn America!

But you think it's "mudball" politics to point out that Paul Ryan HIMSELF has stated that Ayn Rand is the single most important person who influenced his life [Obama, BTW, never said that about Rev. Wright].

If Ayn Rand is THE most important influence in Ryan's life, we can examine what her philosophy is, and in turn, what drives Ryan's agenda.

It is fair game. But apparently, it touches a sore spot in conservative thinking, since Rand was a "severe" atheist and believed in abortion up to nine months.

We're going to remind people about who Ryan worshipped as his political and philisophical ideal.

And we will remind folks about how eagerly Romney embraced Ryan's budget.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Thersites, Darth Bacon, Radical Redneck, or whomever the voices in your head tell you you are, I suggest you do what anonymous told you to do in the last thread:

Stop beating your monkey here.

Les Carpenter said...

What are they then? Theft at the point of the statist bazooka?

Jerry Critter said...

That's a pointless comment. You know what they are, RN.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Now SF's followers are tut-tutting and scolding me because, as they claim, we mustn't judge a person's ENTIRE philosophy or career on a past influences.

Exactly what SF and his pals did to Mr. Obama via Saul Alinsky* and Rev. Wright, and any other passing acquaintance in Mr. Obama's life.

That tactic cannot be tolerated when it comes to their heroes, can it.

Paul Ryan can devote himself to a fifth-rate writer and her philosophy of greed, but no one is supposed to take notice of it?

By the way, Ayn Rand has NEVER been compared with an American patriot, Alinsky has. Even William F. Buckley admired him.

Les Carpenter said...

Of course, the point progressives keep evading.

As the march to the cliffs edge continues

Les Carpenter said...

Class envy, hate for those who produce and prosper, misrepresentimg a philosophy you don't understand , and stoking the fires of class warfare will ultimately fail Shaw. Just like OWS has.

But I thank you for rekindling my fire for Objectivism in the face of the coui8ntinuing Collectivist onslaught by the progressive left.

Paul said...

Rand is nothing more than cult political thinking. It has never been taken seriously by any political thinkers over the last 60 years. She had a good 60 years to present her thinking to America. She was famous, and had plenty of publicity to get her message out. It was rejected by Americans and people all over the world. Her thinking died well before she did. It's followers are cultists, like Moonies. They see her as a GOD of politics, which has .005% of the population bowing to her old speeches and videos. Her theories have never been implemented anywhere, because of the obvious lack of interest and failure to address solutions to national issues. Given her celebrity status, there is a mountain of intellectual, serious conclusions on her theories. They are considered more philosophy than political thought, and fail even on that basis.
The most recent (movie) attempt to resurrect her cult, failed miserably.
American people are wise and understand who is responsible for our national debt. The Republiscum policies of cut taxes, but not spending.
Now they want Americans to believe they will cut spending after not doing so for the last 30 years. It's laughable.
Rands thinking is that of the one, not the many. It's a selfish philosophy that allows it's followers to incubate the hate they have for governments proven success of communal taxation that has made America great and given Americans a better standard of living, than anywhere else in the world.
Her thinking is a result of being born under the darkest of Soviet rule, thus her conclusion that any collective effort can only lead to severe Communism. Total hogwash.
Rand is the most important influence in RN's life. And we have seen his thinking and hate towards minorities. I rest my case.
RN has declared war on you and now they (he and his attack dog SF) hit you with the lies of whose policies have bankrupted America.
Of course Randians will say I'm full of it, but this will give the old Randians a chance again, and again Americans will see their cult for what it is; a gathering place for those who deny humans communal efforts to better human kind, which have worked, until Republiscums adopted her thinking and applied it to the United States fiscal policies that gave us this huge debt.
Isolationism, no foreign born, minorities treated less than human, humans being an unfortunate waste product of their selfish theories.
Start you reading about this cult with a good post by "Sleeping With the Devil" posted 2 months ago by Dervish.

Les Carpenter said...

Steve, you never cease to amaze. You have nothing but hate and contemt... For all who disgree with you.

A sad sack at that. Apparently you
Feel either threatened, insecure, or both. Whatever...

Good day.

Shaw Kenawe said...

RN,

I don't speak for Steve, but I'm guessing he reacted to your comment:

"Class envy, hate for those who produce and prosper, misrepresentimg a philosophy you don't understand , and stoking the fires of class warfare will ultimately fail Shaw. Just like OWS has.

But I thank you for rekindling my fire for Objectivism in the face of the coui8ntinuing Collectivist onslaught by the progressive left."

That was a bit contemptuous, IMO.

Giving his opinion on political matters is not indicative of being a "sad sack" or feeling "threatened" or "insecure."

Paul said...

RN

Being immersed in the cult, you have no objectivity.
No one compares to the hate you write, and your hate has been documented here and other blogs.
Don't try with ideas to show I'm wrong, just like the troglodytes at SF's blog, just name call and insult.
Take your hate and put it where the Sun don't shine.
Does Rand approve of your anti-Semitic views?
Probably, because her view is the one is more important than the many.
A great philosophy to encourage and build hate.
Rand has been rejected by 100's of millions of people and 10's of thousands of scholars, but ONLY YOU are correct.
A deffinition of egomania.

Les Carpenter said...

Steve, since you obviously missed the good day, or failed to understand its implication I will lay ot out for you... I no longer read nor will I respond to you.

I find you reprehensible.

Les Carpenter said...

Lying is. Your defense of his slander and lies about me speaks for you as well.

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw: It's all fair game, so you can traffic in whatever irrelevancies strike your fancy. I'm just pointing out that it's all a big leftwing smokescreen to avoid discussing real issues.

So keep it up, and we'll continue to laugh at you.

As for Obama trying to keep Ohio military from voting, I base my opinion on this:

http://www.redstate.com/paulkib/2012/08/06/military-groups-suing-obama-campaign-lying/

So we'll have to see how the lawsuits turn out that military groups are using to sue the Obama administration.

I can understand your confusion on the issue. Google it and StinkProgress lies, distortions and disinformation pop up like weeds.

But see? You've got us off of the important issues again.

I remember awhile back you and your klatch of sea creatures dogpiled me, laughingly accusing me of logical fallacies, including one called Gish Gallop. Well, you're the champion at it.

Your constant diversions from the important issues are a great service to Comandante Zero's reelection.

If you can just keep people tied up with BS and trivialities to avoid a discussion of the issues, Obama could just pull it off...

Silverfiddle said...

Here's a link to the lawsuit filed by military organizations against the president

These are real military organizations that have a long non-political history, unlike the phony-balony leftwing supposed veterans organizations that popped up after the Iraq war kicked off.

So, to answer your question, Shaw, I side with my fellow veterans on the Ohio issue, not Stink Progress.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Wow! You really ARE afraid Mr. Obama will win a second term.

"StinkProgress" is all lies but REDstate is the TRUTH?

And you're laughing at ME?

Oh that's so cute, I want to put a bonnet on it!

Ryan's devotion to Randian philosophy is an issue, and the fact that Romney chose him as his running mate, knowing he worships that philosophy is important because that means Romney sees no problem with it.

Romney is now, like a coward, running away from his endorsement of Ryan's ridiculous budget proposal, just like he cowardly ran away from his Romneycare, and his promise to support a woman's right to choose.

PolitiFact:

Obama’s lawsuit clearly states that it seeks to permit all Ohioans - not just members of the U.S. military - to vote during the three days before the election, as was the case in 2008. The suit in no way suggests restricting early voting by members of the military.

It is simply dishonest for Romney and his backers to claim that Obama’s effort to extend early voting privileges to everyone in Ohio constitutes an attack on military voters’ ability to cast ballots on the weekend before elections.

We rate the claim False.


Washington Post's Swampland:

Romney suggested that the Democratic complaint undermines the rights of military members. But the military groups essentially conceded that this is not the express purpose of the lawsuit. Here’s an excerpt from their filing:


“Although the relief Plaintiffs seek is an overall extension of Ohio’s early voting period, the means through which Plaintiffs are attempting to attain it -- a ruling that is arbitrary and unconstitutional to grant extra time for early voting solely to military voters and overseas citizens -- is both legally inappropriate and squarely contrary to the legal interests and constitutional rights of Intervenors, their members, and the courageous men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces.”

Translation: the Democrats only want to extend the civilian deadline, but their legal arguments could be used to deny military voters of special privileges -- collateral damage.

At the end of the day, the Romney campaign has to rely on a slippery slope argument. But there’s really no end to how far politicians can carry this type of logic. Besides, the fact remains that the Democratic lawsuit does not seek to change voting privileges for service members.

The Pinocchio Test


Romney’s statement suggests that the president is undermining the voting rights of Ohio service members. But the lawsuit in question would not change the deadline one way or another for military voters. It simply requests an order for the state to extend its civilian deadline.

The lawsuit doesn’t describe the military privilege as unconstitutional or arbitrary, which is what Romney and Biber suggested. Instead it uses that argument against the separate deadline for civilian voters, in what the Obama campaigns appears to believe is an attempt to supress African-American turnout.

Overall, the facts show obvious contradictions to the statements from Romney and Biber, no matter how carefully they were worded. The Romney campaign earns three Pinocchios.


Three Pinocchios

Paul said...

RN,

I asked you months ago to ignore me, not address me, but NO you can't resist spewing your hate and attacking me.
So I respond in kind and you go ape shit....what a louse.
You won't talk because you loose the argument hands down.
You have said many times you won't come back to Shaw's blog, but here you are. You can't stay away. Your ego tells you we might someday believe your hate and lies.
What lies, what slander did I write? The lie about your Jew hate, well documented by more than one hate filled comment by you.
You wrote nothing debating what I wrote about Rand, just more insults and name calling. Coward.

Non issues?

Like voter ID laws!

The Penn. prosecutor could not show the judge even ONE case of voter ID fraud.

Yet Republiscums make it a priority issue passing laws that deny the vote to hundreds of thousands.

You guys are laughable.

Go back to the chicken shack and scream your anti-gay agenda. Another non issue.

30 years of cut taxes but not spending, now there's an issue, that has led to the 16 trillion dollar debt.
And Republiscums response to the debt they created, tear down programs that have served millions of Americans well for 80 years.

Stupid is to kind for traitors trying to kill off the American government.

Jerry Critter said...

You can read the Democratic lawsuit here. In particular, take note of the following statements from the lawsuit.

"Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to restore in-person early voting for all Ohioans during the three days prior to Election Day – a right exercised by an estimated 93,000 Ohioans in the last presidential election."

And

"For these reasons and those specifically alleged herein, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from implementing or enforcing the HB 224 and SB 295 changes to Ohio Rev. Code § 3509.03, thereby restoring in-person absentee voting on the three days immediately preceding Election Day for all Ohio voters."

Note that both quotes say the purpose of the lawsuit is to RESTORE early voting for ALL Ohio voters. Nowhere in the lawsuit does it say anything about taking voting rights away from members of the military.

Silverfiddle said...

Of course they don't Jerry. They are pleading for the other side, the side that wants to narrow the voting window for military personnel.

This is nothing new for the Democrat party. Remember Al Gore attempting to disenfranchise all those military voters in Florida?