.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Dems Trying To Suppress Military Vote

Once again, as in year 2000 in Florida with Albert Gore, Junior and in 2004 with John "I served in Vietnam" Kerry, The Left is at it again, trying to suppress the Military Vote and doing all they can to disqualify absentee ballots by those serving in the United States Military.

From WSJ.com:

    The McCain campaign has already filed a lawsuit in Virginia to ensure that all absentee ballots from overseas military voters are counted. Late Tuesday, a judge set a hearing for Nov. 10 and ordered election officials to keep late-arriving military ballots.

From Hampton Roads:

    "Because many counties in Virginia failed to mail absentee ballots in time to our men and women in uniform stationed overseas, service members are being disenfranchised because they are unable to return their ballots before the November 4 deadline," campaign spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said in a written statement about the suit, which is scheduled to be heard in Williams' courtroom at 1:30 p.m. today.

    Chesapeake, Suffolk and Virginia Beach are among the localities cited in the lawsuit as those that mailed absentee ballots overseas in late September. The suit argues that service members didn't have enough time to cast their votes and return them stateside.

Yep, once again The Dems don't want the Military vote to count. But don't call them anti-American, anti-Patriotic or Military-haters. No...the Libs support the Military. Uh-huh, yeah. Right.

Labels: , , , ,


Comments:
Wait, aren't the rules pretty simple: you get your ballot in in time and your vote gets counted? It's not like we haven't known that election days was November 4th for, oh, about 4 years now.

Also, do you feel this passionately about tax-paying ex-pats abroad? I mean, if they get their ballots in late, shouldn't they, too, be counted?

Just one other thing -- isn't this actually an issue with the administration of the elections in general? Shouldn't the provision of ballots, voting machines, and time to vote be done in such a way that it is absolutely certain that everyone has an equal chance to vote -- where the responsibility is owned by a non-partisan body capable of administering a nationwide election rather than being yet another partisan bickering point?
 
Don't know if you read the linked stories or not. The Pentagon, still full of Lefty employees from the Clinton era, may have intentionally and on purpose mailed some Military ballots out late.

Personally, I think any ballot cast by someone currently serving in the Military should have their vote county twice the amount of civilians.

So you don't want to give the Military voters a break. I'm not surprised. You hate the Military, am I right?

Oh, but if a minority was disenfranchised, or claimed such, you would be screaming like a spoiled child.

"Partisan-bickering points[s]" - whoa - that's all the Dems know!

No ex-pats aren't the same as currently serving Military members.

If you want to talk about the administration of the election in general, are you willing to FORBID early voting? Why not? We have a set election day, and it's Fed law that people can take time off from work to vote. So why the need for early voting?
 
Wait, so you're suggesting creating a super citizen? That doesn't sound very American at all - certainly unconstitutional.

As for disenfranchisement: I'm against it no matter who it happens to.
 
Anony,

A "super citizen"? What is that?

Nice try to move off topic, but the question remains, if you want to discuss the administration of elections are are against absentee ballot voting, then are you against early voting as well?

Last chance for you to answer.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker



Web Site Traffic Counters
Alabama Internet

Listed on BlogShares

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

This site uses photographs and material from other sources in strict
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.

Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.