Why doesn't Bush want veterans voting?
An op-ed in today's New York Times questions the Veterans Administration's policy that bans nonpartisan voter registration drives from federally-financed veterans sites.
NYT:
WHAT is the secretary of Veterans Affairs thinking? On May 5, the department led by James B. Peake issued a directive that bans nonpartisan voter registration drives at federally financed nursing homes, rehabilitation centers and shelters for homeless veterans. As a result, too many of our most patriotic American citizens — our injured and ill military veterans — may not be able to vote this November.
The federal government should be doing everything it can to support our nation’s veterans who have served us so courageously. There can be no justification for any barrier that impedes the ability of veterans to participate in democracy’s most fundamental act, the vote.
So let me get this straight: We ask these brave young men and women to risk their lives in order to protect our rights and freedoms -- most important of which is the right to vote -- and then we make it harder for them to exercise that right when they return? Why is Bush so afraid to have our veterans register and vote?
(HT: Faiz)
They'll vote against him, that's why.
Because the polls show they will vote Dem.
Not a big mystery.
They dont want anybody voting, unless its for them. What is the average of voters vs. eligible voters?
They have seen first hand how inept this administration is and would probably vote against anyone who represents follow the bush line of thought.
This administration is despicable.
Cheney is just plain evil and bush is an idiot.
I'd vote for a dog before voting for a republican, at least until they shed the weight of the Religious Right and the NeoCons. They actually used to be a good party until Reagan started making government top heavy, used to be about less govt in our private lives, now its just the opposite..
Good grief. These men and women are recovering from wounds suffered in battle and they need to schlep somewhere to fill out a voter registration card? For the Repubs it's all about voter suppression--they block motor-voter whenever possible and now keeping vets from voting. Support the troops!!
Bush doesnt want vets wasting their time voting. He cares about their precious time and wants them to save money.
Repubs are going to rig the election anyways.
Ora devo andare per incontrare i miei amici per la prima colazione.
Spero che il vostro giorno sia buono.
ciao.
breakfast time, have a good day.
Christopher Turkel @ 1:
Nailed it. Since Vets have been treated like shit during his run. Plenty have had their benefits/Rx programs downgraded, and I know some of them.
It is looking more like the roman empire where soldier do not do anything but make a lifetime career of being a soldier until they die in battle. what is the highest number of tour of deployment for an American soldier? Do I have a case?
they will vote for mccain right?.....he got all the awards from all the veteran's group....that's what he said.
well his voting record for vets. is NOT good. i'll bet the majority of vets don't realize that. he didn't like the webb
g.i. bill.....he'd rather have the g.i. bill where you get more benefit if you stat in longer.....ya that one....the one...that won't get used as much....to me no matter what the cost vets should offered college education.
I agree that it is certainly despicable that so many impediments are placed in the way of veterans being allowed to vote in the United States. But as a Vietnam veteran, I strenuously disagree that soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq had been risking "their lives in order to protect our rights and freedoms." That is basically the same idiocy that I had heard during the Vietnam conflict, when it was claimed that the U.S. was fighting in Southeast Asia in order to keep America safe from communism. Crooks and Liars would be better served if it left the super patriot ramblings to those who inhabit the neoconservative web sites. Considering the fact that only 2 per cent of those who are in Iraq could be considered foreign jihadists and that no one from Afghanistan [or Iraq] had been involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there is no basis in fact to claim that American soldiers who have returned from illegally occupying Afghanistan and Iraq are [allegedly] protecting our rights and freedoms.
Bush hates the troops.
That was a wonderful rhetorical question.
this veteran challenges mccain on his senate voting record regarding vet. issues.....mccain avoids the real queston.....i believe the public/vets. should be made aware....short video...this guy doesn't back down
http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/al/CqyL
From the department of rhetorical questions...
test
Bismarck @ 8:
My impression is that Vets like to vote for War Mongers. Bush would be right up their alley.
Vets like to wear silly hats, hand out poppies, ride in clown cars in parades, and vote for Republicans to prove their patriotic.
They why of this is unknown.
To me it is sick and pathetic.
Erroll @ 11:
Spot on. I would give the good folks at c&l the benefit of a doubt and surmise that they are using the right wing talking points against them.
Still, our vets gave their all protecting or advancing this administration's agenda and this is the thanks that this administration gives anyone who doesn't have a couple of million in the bank: They give them the shaft, can you dig it?
How about Mitchell vs. Public Workers? This is a 1949 US Supreme Court case, wrongly decided, I think, which holds that it is ok to prohibit partisan political activity at US govt facilities. Justification for the majority opinion is that it shields federal govt employees from undue influence ... Minority opinion in Mitchell points out that govt employees are denied the normal rights / responsibilities of citizenship that other Americans take for granted. I would like your reporters to ask this agency if they are relying on Mitchell in their decision. Personally, I think that is a stretch if they are.
The strangest part is the silence surrounding moves like these. Where's that liberal MSM?
kerplunk @ 17:
The only thing that is sick and pathetic is how quickly Bush and his enablers turn on those that they claim to honor and admire.
"Why doesn’t Bush want veterans voting?"
Because Vets know that Repugs got us into this war and that the repugs voted against the GI Bill.
kerplunk @ 17:
My impression is that old Vets who are doing okay are like that. They did their service way back when and look at today's troops as a different breed(usually with a "Us real troops didn't have all that fancy gear" attitude).
The vets I know who have served in the last ten years are not like that, and do not vote R.
yes...why?
And why, after being registered as an independent for decades & having never been involved with either party(he mostly voted democratic 'cuz he's a lifelong union guy), does my grandfather, after starting to go to the VA for his healthcare, now receive, on a bi-monthly basis, letters & surveys addressed to him as a "fellow republican"?
Ah, Stop Loss perhaps?
Or is it part of the Illuminati plan to destroy America.
http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/
Can I say a giant DUH? I mean, give me a break. If Vets vote for the GOP it must be PTSD. I am a veteran and will never vote for a republican--I don't care if Jesus Christ comes down declaring He is a republican--I would say-"sorry, I'm going with the other guy."
kerplunk @ 17:
Wow you're clueless.
tim @ 20:
Olbermann is going to have a field day with this if not tonight then on tuesday.
it's been my experience that certain demograpics within the military culture vote republican. they're often what i
identify as black and white thinkers.....having said that because i do tend to think in the grey spectrum often. i understand the need to have these type of thinkers...why?
they take an order and follow it through. they told to jump....and they do it.....no they don't even ask how high.
the other day i spoke to an older guy (a stranger nice guy) but he said obama may be similar to jfk....who he thought was at complete fault for the bay of pigs..he's voting for mccain even though he's had nothing but problems with the v.a.....jfk wasn't completly at fault for the bay of pigs and mccain has a "D" rating with certain veteran groups regarding his voting record.
mccain can use his prior service as a free ticket.....
unchallenged because people assume they know.
Scott @ 23:
Speaking aa a vet, I confirm your observation. Kerplunk is way off base, confusing crotchety old men with recent veterans.
An interesting bit of history here: The VFW was founded by WWII vets because the WWI vets in the American Legion treated them as less than equals. The Iraq vets (starting with Desert Storm) are getting the same treatment from the VFW. The only older vets I know that treat the new vets with respect served in Korea and Vietnam. Gee, I wonder why. (It's rhetorical question night.)
Why is Bush so afraid to have our veterans register and vote?
Because the Cons don't want to dip into their own pockets and wallets to pay for it stupid.
Because they have seen too much, Duh!
some troops experiencing adverse effects from shots
may be a bigger problem than is being i don't know myself
http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXj7AN4fRe6s
It's not just the vets either. Posted this over at Digby's:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9931998
Just before Santa Clara County immigrants were sworn in as U.S. citizens, they got voter-registration cards and were shown how to fill them out. At the conclusion of the naturalization ceremony, most new citizens had signed the cards and handed them in to become registered voters. But in March, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services declared that the county registrar of voters must not hand out those cards until the recipients are officially citizens. And now voter registration has plunged by 82 percent. "Everybody's really disappointed," said Diane Moore, precinct operations division manager for the county registrar's office. "Before this processing change, we were one of the models in the state of California. We did this with a great amount of pride."
With new citizens unable to fill out the cards at their own pace during the ceremony, registrar workers found it nearly impossible to catch the new citizens as they rushed toward the door after the ceremony to get back to jobs or to family obligations.
Plus, one Citizenship and Immigration Services staffer has been "telling new citizens to leave the building while they are still filling out their voter registration cards," according to an internal county memo obtained by the Mercury News.
The impact was definitive: The county registered 3,140 new voters at naturalization ceremonies in the four months before the new policy
went into effect, but only 557 new voters registered in the four months since. Registrars signed up as many as 65 percent of new citizens before the change, but just 8 percent registered at the most recent ceremony in June.
Erroll @ 11:
your comments imply you are an arrogant asshole reichwingneocon bastard.
these honorable vets were sent into iraq just like they were to vietnam,
BY LIES AND DECEPTIONS.
you should stay in your house with your head in the toilet. that is the only
safe place for you and the rest of the neocons. you have dishonored the
brave troops who serve this nation.
WTF!
Banning NON-partisan voter registration drives at veterans centers, hospitals and nursing homes? Seriously, how can they justify that? Did they give a reason, or even make a statement?
The secretary needs to re-read the Hatch Act. It only prohibits voter registration drives for one party. Bipartisan registration drives are fully legal.
CJ Colvis @ 37:
He doesn't need to re-read anything. He didn't read it in the first place. This is just another extralegal partisan move to disenfranchise anti-Republican voters. And the pussies in the Democratic Cuacus will do nothing about it.
Because he's a DICK. Next question?
Nineteen Kilo @ 38:
If you think Jim Webb is just going to smile and let this pass think again.
"The illusion of freedom [in America] will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."
Frank Zappa
GOP knows the deal. troops gun ho (R)philosophy going in
and (D) when out......they have the stats they know how vets vote.........and bush not wanting to vote for the new g.i.bill...
someguy @ 40:
I hope you are right, but I do not share your faith.
Gypsy Chief says: @19
"How about Mitchell vs. Public Workers? This is a 1949 US Supreme Court case, wrongly decided, I think, which holds that it is ok to prohibit partisan political activity at US govt facilities."
According to the Times article, the directive bans registration and voting drives by NON-partisan groups. So, while I wouldn't put it past the HIGHLY partisan Bush appointee who runs Veterans Affairs to try to stop people who just might be sore about the war, or their treatment after returning home from it from voting, they at least have to provide a standard, plausible cover story for doing it. We need to find out what it is. (Secondly, I'd say that banning 'partisan political activity at US govt facilities' makes about 90% what every thing the Bush administration has ever done illegal. But we already knew that. It's only Pelosi who doesn't.)
Eroll @11:
"I agree that it is certainly despicable that so many impediments are placed in the way of veterans being allowed to vote in the United States. But as a Vietnam veteran, I strenuously disagree that soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq had been risking “their lives in order to protect our rights and freedoms.” That is basically the same idiocy that I had heard during the Vietnam conflict, when it was claimed that the U.S. was fighting in Southeast Asia in order to keep America safe from communism. Crooks and Liars would be better served if it left the super patriot ramblings to those who inhabit the neoconservative web sites. Considering the fact that only 2 per cent of those who are in Iraq could be considered foreign jihadists and that no one from Afghanistan [or Iraq] had been involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there is no basis in fact to claim that American soldiers who have returned from illegally occupying Afghanistan and Iraq are [allegedly] protecting our rights and freedoms."
Nice try, but you're not going to get anybody on this board to bad mouth our soldiers just so Bill-O can have something to quote on his show.
The truth is this: in order for a democracy to survive and function, it must have a group of people who are willing to fight, kill, and die to defend it. (The 'Men of Silver' from Plato's Republic.) Furthermore, this wouldn't work if they were allowed the luxury of only picking the wars that they felt like fighting in, or if they agreed with all of the goals of it. They must be a group of people who volunteer to fight, kill and die in the wars that the leaders WE CHOOSE to LEAD them have decided upon, whether they agree with those wars or not. The fact that these people volunteered to fight in any and all wars that WE ask them to fight in, regardless of how stupid the decision to go to war was, or regardless of how much they may disagree with it is what makes them heros, and is what makes their actions a defense of our rights and freedoms. Not the specific war, per se.
(And if you are a Vietnam Vet, you're one of them. :) The war might have been wrong, but the fact that you agreed to fight in it was, in and of itself, a defense of our rights and freedoms.)
Nineteen Kilo @ 43:
You could be right but I doubt a man who faught so hard for the Webb GI Bill is going to stand by and let voter disenfranchisement drive "his" people away from the polls.
I sent a letter to my Congressman about this issue but got only a generic response. I told everyone I knew about it, though.
Service in the military does not give an individual the right to vote. Instead, you vote when we tell you to vote and how we tell you to vote.
(This public disservice announcement was brought to you by The Cheney Administration. And you will agree with it.)
Pericles at #44
I suppose I should be grateful that, unlike dadams at #35, you did not deign to label me a "arrogant asshole reichwingneocon bastard." Perhaps you can kindly explain to me and others how your defense of these soldiers who are illegally occupying Afghanistan and Iraq is any different than what one would expect to see and hear on a neoconservative web site. I am sure that your super patriotic beliefs make your chest swell with pride but they do nothing to lessen the fact that those in the military are aiding in the illegal and immoral and unjust and idiotic occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.
You believe that soldiers who blindly obey orders which contribute to the illegal occupations of two sovereign countries somehow qualifies those military personnel to be called heros [sic]. On the contrary, I submit that the true heroes of this country are people like Kevin Benderman and Camilo Mejia, who went to jail for not obeying their orders which would have meant aiding in the illegal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. They, in turn, were inspired by those who participated in the GI movement that took place during the Vietnam conflict those many years ago. I suggest that since you do not seem at all familiar with the GI rebellion, that you may wish to purchase David Cortright's classic work Soldiers in Revolt: GI Resistance During the Vietnam War and/or purchase the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir!, which based much of its story upon Cortright's book. Soldiers in Revolt says, among other things, that, contrary to what many people still believe, those who took part in the protests in the military during the Vietnam conflict were volunteers, not draftees.
Regarding your absurd claim that I am supposed to be a "hero" because I was in the military back then, that statement ["you agreed to fight in it was, in and of it self, a defense of our freedoms"] also makes absolutely no sense, since contributing to the deaths of many innocent Vietnamese people is hardly a qualification for using that over used word, hero. I certainly was not preventing the North Vietnamese from storming the shores of New Jersey and/or San Francisco since the only thing that the North Vietnamese were guilty is that of defending their country, as are the Iraqis and Afghanis. One of the reasons that I am dealing with PTSD is because of the tremendous guilt that I feel for not having disobeyed the orders that I was given while being in Vietnam. Americans seem to be so quick in declaring others heroes while rarely engaging in the critical thinking which would justify why someone would be a hero.
I wish that I had had the wisdom to realize the veracity of what Master Sergeant Green Beret Donald Duncan said in Sir! No Sir!: "I was doing it right but I wasn't doing it right." Again, I submit that it takes far greater courage and integrity to say NO to illegal orders than it does to blindly obey them.
Erroll @ 48:
"illegal occupations of two sovereign countries"
I smell a truther.
Someguy at #49
"I smell a truther." I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to mean and therefore I cannot respond to it. In your first statement, quoting what I had said, I am again in doubt as to what you are in disagreement with. If you are somehow claiming that both Iraq and Afghanistan were countries in turmoil, do you then believe that gives the United States the right to somehow illegally invade those countries, neither of which remotely posed any threat to anyone in these United States? I think not.
Voting is so 20th century. In the new 21st century economy, we're going to outsource our voting to China.
Christopher Turkel @ 1:
Why do you think?
The soldiers are like trash to Bush, he doesn't need them anymore.
Erroll @ 50:
Our going into Afganistan was 100% legit.
WELL HEY C&L!!! WELCOME TO THE PARTY I INVITED YOU TO MONTHS AGO!
http://anntichristscoulter.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-am-some-mother-fucking...
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/12/mikes-blog-roundup-262/
( yes monitor - I know I just used all capitals! Please have the courtesy to change it to small case rather then delete it if it's THAT much of a problem. I'm sorry but these things ARE important, not just to me as a veteran but to all of us! And also please inform the C&L crew of the extensive cases of rape of our female military members since there seems to be a C&L blackout on that subject. Here's some links in case they ever decide it's an important issue:(many more links in the comment there!)
http://anntichristscoulter.blogspot.com/2008/07/evolution-makes-another-...
http://anntichristscoulter.blogspot.com/2008/08/as-always-terrible-makes... )
(Again monitor I'm sorry if I've been inapproptiate in this comment but this IS important! If feel you have to suppress me please don't suppress these links!)
They are only doing away with non-partisan voting registrations. Partisan (Republican) registration drives will be perfectly acceptable.
Someguy at #54 said:
"Our going into Afganistan was 100% legit."
Based on what??? If it is based on capturing the perputrators of the 9/11 attacks you could not be more wrong as the invasion of Afghanistan pretty much guaranteed that those people would never be caught!
kerplunk @ 17, you've been LEAD to believe that! Ask yourself why 70% of military members disapprove of the bush administration. Ask yourself why the majority of military members donated to the Paul and Kucinich campaigns. Ask youself why so many members of the military write stuff like this: http://calmbeforethesand.blogspot.com/2008/07/endings-and-beginnings.html
This is the most pathetic bunch of partisan whiners on the net. Plenty of opinion - little fact. You blame, but provide no substantiation, you complain but don't fully understand what it is you complain about. Just look at this site - if the tables were turned you would be screaming how biased it is. Since the themes (and commenter's) seem to all be liberally biased, Democrats with a hatred for Bush and all things Republican, there really isn't much actual though going on. Just a pep rally for disgruntled Democrats who like to fantasize about those whom they hate (or at least think they hate). P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C
GROW UP - DON'T TRY TO SEE ALL WHO YOU DISAGREE WITH AS EVIL - CONSIDER THE FACT THAT YOU JUST MIGHT BE WRONG
NOBS @ 54, So you're saying veterans and active duty military personnel should NOT be allowed to vote??? 'Cause it sure as hell sounds like that's what you're saying! Oh HELL! Who the hell am I kiding? That's exactly what you're saying sounds like.
excuse me that should have been NOBS @ 58
Hey NOBS, did you EVER consider the truth? That it might be about what we here LOVE? America? And the fact that therfore we hate that which destroys it? Did you tiny mind ever consider that?
kerplunk @ 17, you've been LEAD to believe that! Ask yourself why 70% of military members disapprove of the bush administration. Ask yourself why the majority of military members donated to the Paul and Kucinich campaigns. Ask youself why so many members of the military write stuff like this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=The+Calm+Before+The+Sand+endings-an...
(ps: the link is not direct as something is preventing me from linking it. But check the first google link at that link and you should get the blog post I want to link to.)
You know what NOBS, you fact challanged idjit, do you think it's a fiction that the chairman of the VA ordered the prevention of voter registration? Do you think that he wouldn't have changed his little mind if not for the fact that tens of thousands of the very people you're bad mouthing wrote tens of thousands of letters to their Congressional members to put serious political pressure on him to smarten the f*** up? Listen NOBS, I don't know what you have against vets and active duty personnel but don't expect us to respect your need to spread anti-troop/anti-vet propaganda!
Republicans are scared witless of negative public opinion getting out of control. Although Bush's popularity rating is laughingly low, there is no universal "get those jerks out of there" mob chant by the right, but a bunch of fed up Vets declaring their intent to vote Democratic might present such a scenario. It has long been maintained there have been no medal of honor awards to surviving Iraq veterans -- for the simple reason it would be too great a risk -- a surviving medal of honor recipient would have instant credibility -- and could pose a huge propaganda risk to backing of the Iraq war.
gregory zurbay @ 64, I didn't know that about the medal of honor awards. Thanks for the info!
And I hear you on the Republiscum fear. You'd think they'd have enough sense to rein in douchebags like NOBS considering how they're viewed already. But on the other hand.... let them show their true color - yellowbellied troop using scum color.
THEY CANT BE SURE VETERANS WILL VOTE FRO McCAIN
McCain can't be sure veterans will fall in behind him
At a major Las Vegas convention, some veterans express concern about his positions on veterans' benefits.
By Bob Drogin, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 10, 2008
LAS VEGAS -- No one was surprised when both presidential candidates appealed for votes Saturday at the annual convention of the nation's largest organization of disabled military veterans.
But Fred Bristol, who has attended the Disabled American Veterans convention for the last 55 years, marveled at his fellow veterans' reaction to Sens. Barack Obama, who sent a video, and John McCain, who addressed the group in person.
"I think there's an unusual split in the group we haven't seen in the past," said Bristol, 81, of Sarasota, Fla. "I'm hearing that from a lot of friends."
McCain has built his political career on his Navy service, including 5 1/2 years as a POW in Vietnam, and he remains immensely popular with many veterans groups. But the Arizona Republican's appearance here suggested limits to that appeal.
The 1.4-million-member group said that in 2006, he voted for only one of the five spending bills the group considered most important -- 20%.
"It's a pretty low score," said David Autry, spokesman for the congressionally chartered nonprofit group. The group rated Obama (D-Ill.) at 80%.
The bill McCain supported, which passed the Senate unanimously, increased funding for veterans' health benefits and got rid of enrollment fees and higher pharmacy co-payments.
The four he opposed would have increased funding for veterans' services and benefits. In each case, aides said, he objected to earmarks: amendments that members often attach for pet projects in their home districts, including those involving the Veterans Affairs Department. Opposition to earmarks is a signature issue for McCain.
McCain used his remarks here Saturday to try to reassure the 4,000 or so people at the convention.
"Exactly because funding VA programs commands bipartisan support, some in the Congress like to attach unrelated pork barrel appropriations and earmarks to VA bills," he said. "The result is to mix vital national priorities with wasteful and often worthless political pork."
McCain also discussed his plan to issue sick or disabled vets a special access card so they could use private healthcare providers outside the VA system. Some veterans and the Obama campaign oppose the plan.
"Let me make very clear: This card is not intended to either replace the VA or privatize veterans' healthcare, as some have wrongly charged," he said.
The director of Illinois' Veterans Affairs Department, L. Tammy Duckworth, countered on behalf of the Obama campaign that McCain's plan would reduce veterans' benefits. An Army helicopter pilot who lost both legs in Iraq, she is the national group's Outstanding Disabled Veteran of the Year for 2008.McCain's proposal, she said, would push disabled vets "out into the local economy in hope that someone can take care of their combat wounds. It's essentially privatization, something I cannot support."
Obama pledged in his remarks, recorded before he left for a week's vacation in Hawaii, that he would fully fund VA healthcare, and add more veterans centers, particularly in rural areas. "We'll have a simple principle for veterans sleeping on our streets: zero tolerance," he said.
On the subject of Iraq, McCain and Obama differed sharply on their plans for ending the unpopular war, or least on how to describe their differences.
McCain said the buildup of U.S. troops last year "has succeeded" and victory "is finally in sight." But he warned that it "could still be squandered by hasty withdrawal and arbitrary timelines," a reference to Obama's pledge, if elected, to withdraw most troops within 16 months of taking office.
Obama "would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory," McCain said.
Both the White House and Iraq's government have recently signaled support for a staged withdrawal. McCain has said that he too would begin to bring troops home if conditions in Iraq continued to improve.
Obama's aides argue that McCain is trying to give himself political wiggle room to pull troops out while simultaneously accusing his opponent of accepting defeat by advocating withdrawal. They say McCain's tactical and political shift proves that Obama was right all along.
It's difficult to gauge whether McCain's military service and pedigree -- he is the son and grandson of Navy admirals -- gives him a campaign advantage with veterans.
President Clinton, who did not join the military, beat two World War II veterans to win his two terms in the White House: President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and former Sen. Bob Dole in 1996. And in 2004, Sen, John F. Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, lost to President Bush, who served in the Texas National Guard.
Many vets here said they do not consider the Iraq war or McCain's military service to be key campaign issues. Their chief concerns are the ailing economy and high gas prices.
"I work three jobs to make ends meet," said Jeff Graves, 45, an Army veteran from Falmouth, Ky. "I need to know who's going to help with that."
IT'S THAT SIMPLE
As I have stated over and over, even the bogus polling data they are shelling out to us will not sway not just the vets but any other well thinking Americans to vote Republican
someguy @ 49:
Hahah! Yes, you can always spot a truther by their verbosity and obsession with belittling their opponents over trivial spelling and grammatical errors. As for the verbosity part, I'm borderline myself, and should probably join some sort of a program.
(and Erroll, if you're still reading, I happen to think that refuseniks who go to prison for refusing to fight in what they consider to be unjust wars are heroes, too. As are civil libertarians and a variety of political gadflies that keep a democracy in balance by constantly challenging its status quo.)
It's a well known fact that Republicans are the party of voter suppression. The more people that vote, the less likely they are to win. Therefore, everything possible must be done to prevent people from voting. The Republicans have really turned into quite a despicable bunch.
NOBS @ 58:
*Scratches head* I'm a little confused. This is an anti-conservative, anti-Republican, left wing blog. On a bad day, it's anti-Democrat, too. Is this the first time you've realized it? If so, please tell me you don't have a job that requires operation of heavy machinery.
All Obama has to do is send out an ad about this, and not only will he guarantee the Veteran vote, but a large slice of all that support them ...
Rimmer's Clone @ 70:
I agree. Obama has at least two hot button issues that he can exploit besides gas prices. (In fact, I'd argue that if he follows the Republicans into the mud pit of gas prices to fight his platform, he'll just get dirty. It's a trap. There are better, cleaner issues, and this is one of them.)
Two hot button issues that he should exploit right now are:
1. Disenfranchisement of old and/or impoverished veterans. (The kind who use or live in these facilities.) This was a federal move.
2. Disenfranchisement of poor and elderly in the red states that have brought in the photo-ID laws, specifically to cage voters. This was a state move, but it's all being done by the same party for the same reason. Voter suppression.
Both of those issues need to be addressed. But I have a feeling that the Democrats, with their amazing fetish for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, won't bother to even mention them. (Somebody above mentioned that Jim Webb wouldn't stand for this? Well, that directive was issued in MAY! I think if Webb had any intention of addressing it, he would have done so by now.) Instead, the good old Dems will probably just stick to some predictable, vapid 'strategy' of trying to time the Rove investigation into the U.S. Attorney firings, and jailing Don Siegelman so that it 'explodes' in October for maximum effect. As if a bunch of Congressional hearings on CSPAN is going to fire up their base, and swing uncommitted voters. These guys just don't get it.
This administartion would rather our soldiers just get killed instead. It's cheaper for them and it keeps the soldiers quiet when they return.
The Bush junta knows that most vets are going to vote against it. I should think that that directive is illegal.
Someone told a BUSH joke the other day, I don't even remember what was said. I said, "Simply, not funny anymore!". I remember Imus telling people on the radio in 2000 how glad he was the Bush would be President; Imus was assured of comedy material for another eight years. But I'm not laughing anymore! The bumper sticker that says, "If you aren't appalled (or disgusted, fed up, pissed, etc.), you're not paying attention!" says it ALL!
This is just another way for the GOP to rule this country. They want government so small, it resembles a monarchy or more precisely, a monarchy that doesn't work. Blocking vets from registering? - WHY? WHY? WHY? What purpose does it serve UNLESS you're afraid of HOW they're going to vote! Does the administration have to be this stupid, inconsiderate, criminal? Yeah, I guess they do otherwise we might not be scared enough. I AM NOT SCARED-GET IT!
69 Pericles Says: NOBS @ 58:
This is the most pathetic bunch of partisan whiners on the net. Plenty of opinion - little fact. You blame, but provide no substantiation, you complain but don’t fully understand what it is you complain about. Just look at this site - if the tables were turned you would be screaming how biased it is. Since the themes (and commenter’s) seem to all be liberally biased, Democrats with a hatred for Bush and all things Republican, there really isn’t much actual though going on. Just a pep rally for disgruntled Democrats who like to fantasize about those whom they hate (or at least think they hate). P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C
GROW UP - DON’T TRY TO SEE ALL WHO YOU DISAGREE WITH AS EVIL - CONSIDER THE FACT THAT YOU JUST MIGHT BE WRONG
*Scratches head* I’m a little confused. This is an anti-conservative, anti-Republican, left wing blog. On a bad day, it’s anti-Democrat, too. Is this the first time you’ve realized it? If so, please tell me you don’t have a job that requires operation of heavy machinery.
As a person who demanded the right to vote when 18 year olds couldn't but could get sent to Viet Nam, I disagree with NOBS @58. I don't care who tries to suppress mine or anyone else's vote, GOP, DEM, IND, TALIBAN, nobody, no how!
Why is Bush so afraid to have our veterans register and vote?
C'mon! This is like asking why after teasing and starving a dog, when given the opportunity s/he bites you.
This is why:
send this link to all your friends who believe Republicans like democracy.
Terrible @ 63:
We don't have ANYTHING against vets. In case you haven't noticed (Make that; you didn't bother reading any posts, or the subject of this thread) we SUPPORT the vets!
What you're doing right now is called: LYING.
You're desperately trying to say we are saying one thing, when in fact we've said another. All someone has to do is read the posts and subject of the article. See? Right there in front of you.
That just proves your a liar.... or delusional.
Numinous @ 78:
The previous post should have been directed at NOBS.
Sorry, Terrible.
☻Bangkok Bob ☺ @ 7:
You're having calzones for breakfast?
{Pick a name and stick with it ok . SiteMonitor}
NOBS @ 58:
Consider the fact that Bush/Cheney really are as EVIL as we have seen them repeatedly prove themselves to be.
Maybe the real problem is those who need to cling to their delusions rather than face the fact that they were utterly and completely wrong in who they chose to give their allegiance to. And that in supporting such EVIL men, they - you - are also responsible for what has happened in the last eight years.
It must be hard to know that the people you have chosen to vilify for the last eight years were right about the petty bullies you lined up behind and cheered for. And as the bodies continue to come home in boxes, and not one of the security threats has been dealt with, the Treasury's been looted, and the economy's in shambles, we, who knew all along what was going on, must really make your blood boil.
Maybe acknowledgeing, even to yourself, that you were wrong all along is too big a pill for you to swallow, so you go to liberal sites and screech your frustration out on those who understood what was going on. You certainly aren't trying to inject reason into the arguement here, you're just ranting. Why would you bother, unless you're still trying to convince yourself to 'stay the course', right behind the blood-soaked murderers you look up to?
I'd say you were worthy of pity, but you're not, you're as dangerous as they are, because your pride won't let you admit you were wrong in who you gave your support to. You'll watch your country circle the drain rather than admit you made the wrong judgement.
Every dictator, every Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, needs glassy-eyed, vehement, devoted, irrational minions like you to thrive, survive and escape. Good job.
wha? @ 80:
mea culpa, msg recvd.
During medieval times, in feudal lands the adult male population were expected to spend their free time practicing for war, then forced to serve in a lord's army for minimal pay, with no compensation for any injuries suffered.
Refusal to serve was punishable, and often was severely so. Worse still, such people had no recourse nor authority to appeal to against injustices except by revolting.
Terrible @ 57:
It's you who couldn't be more wrong.
If not for Bush's being a dumbass we would have caught Osama years ago.
WHAT is the secretary of Veterans Affairs thinking?
He is thinking that veterans might not vote republican. Here is a fact for NOBS. The republican party cheats. ((They cheat at every opportunity and if you actually read this site regularly you would see plenty of facts and evidence to back it up. Lorita Doan. Monica Goodling. The Valery Plame case. A war based on lies. The 2004 election in Ohio. Florida 2000. If you really study the facts in all those cases you will come over to our side, unless of course you are so blinded by partisanship and the fox propoganda channel that you refuse to see it. )) Back to Veterans: the republican machine has targeted their votes, just as they have african american and college aged voters. They are cheating AGAIN and everyone in America should pray that they don't get away with it this time.
Bismarck @ 8:
I agree. Three words describe the Chimp at this point: user, abuser, loser.
They don't want ANYONE to vote.....the ideology and movement of the government corporatocracy is fascist and totalitarian. It seeks total control of all people with a One World Government through globalization of all economies under the control of those whose chain of power is dynastic. As a student of geopolitical issues for over 25 yrs I can say that , if you don't believe this happening, you are grossly mistaken.
Why indeed.. Do we really have to ask that question?? The answer is obvious and was plainly stated by the very first poster to this thread... If this was a Frankenstein movie, Bush would be the monster and those vets would be the ones with the pitchfolks and torches leading a parade of 55 million looking for vigilante street justice.... Apologies to the late Lon Chaney and Bela Legosi, Christopher Lambert and all other Frankensteins of stage and screen. You guys played the role. George lives it and is the real face of a monster now... Along with his puppet handler Dick. They are both monsters who deserve...... They deserve same fate they've wrought on others around the world................JD
The whole voting system is a joke for the military anyway.
Basically you can still cast your vote on the same day as the election. But that does not mean your vote will actually be considered because, you know it can take a while to get all those votes back to the US.
So basically, military votes might only be counted if the reach the US in time.
Not to mention was there not an issue with the 2000 election and mail-ballots that were not counted?
frank @ 91:
Not every one in the military is in Iraq.
Over at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub I'm simply asking people to phone the White House and tell them to change the policy. We have a right to petition, and this issue is one to use that right for.
You can register your opinion at the White House comment number, 202-456-1111.
Call today. Tell Bush to change the VA's policy, to stick with the VA's own memo urging help for veterans in VA facilities who want to vote. It's required by law.
Thank you.
Comments are closed on this entry