Skip to main content

Another of the great zombie lies--that Democrats want to stop military members from voting--is rearing its ugly head once again.

This is a story on Breitbart, by editor/lying hack Mike Flynn, that a friend who's a Marine vet forwarded along to me (no links for liars):

OBAMA CAMPAIGN SUES TO RESTRICT MILITARY VOTING

by MIKE FLYNN  2 Aug 2012, 11:48 AM PDT

President Barack Obama, along with many Democrats, likes to say that, while they may disagree with the GOP on many issues related to national security, they absolutely share their admiration and dedication to members of our armed forces. Obama, in particular, enjoys being seen visiting troops and having photos taken with members of our military. So, why is his campaign and the Democrat party suing to restrict their ability to vote in the upcoming election?

On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state's law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is "arbitrary" with "no discernible rational basis."

Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military are given three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as "arbitrary" and having "no discernible rational basis," I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women's time and their obligations to their sworn duty.

...

Make no mistake, the Democrat lawsuit is intended to disenfranchise some unknown number of military voters. The judge should reject it with prejudice.

Just to be clear, everything in bold is a total lie. Details below the fold.

Anyone who wants to can view the actual complaint filed against Ohio. But much like Mitt Romney with Jared Diamond's book, I'm pretty certain that Mike Flynn never actually bothered to read what he was citing.

Flynn claims that the lawsuit is an attempt:

"to restrict [service members'] ability to vote in the upcoming election."
That's a lie. The very first sentence of the actual complaint reads:
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.
The request is simple and direct: expand early voting for all citizens, not just military members. In no universe is that the same as saying restrict early voting for all citizens, including military members. It's pretty much the opposite of that.

Next comes the claim that:

"the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state's law governing voting by members of the military."
Insert chorus of Simon & Garfunkel's "The Boxer" here.

The lawsuit is aimed at correcting a legislative screw-up. Long story short, Ohio's legislature passed three versions of bills that deal with early voting. The first one was HB 194, and it was so widely despised that a coalition of Ohioans managed to get a referendum placed on the ballot to repeal it. Republicans, knowing that they were about to get their asses handed to them, repealed most of the provisions of HB 194, but kept the new restrictions on early voting in place. Voters covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act (UOCAVA) can still vote early during those three days, but everyone else is barred from the polls. The lawsuit is arguing that those provisions that were included in HB 194 should be enjoined, as they were all supposed to be blocked until put to a referendum.

The state law that the lawsuit is seeking to keep from being enforced isn't, therefore, one governing military voters, but one that prevents non-military voters from casting ballots. Again, if Mike Flynn bothered reading the lawsuit before commenting, he would know that.

Lastly, we have this:

"the Democrat lawsuit is intended to disenfranchise some unknown number of military voters."
More bullshit than a factory farm. Again, the lawsuit kind of states in direct terms what relief is being sought. And you'll never guess what - they're not trying to disenfranchise anyone!
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.
See where they call for disenfranchising military voters? NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE WITH FUNCTIONING EYES.

Look, I know that the Breitbart empire isn't exactly what we* think of as a credible news source ("we" here being "people with more sense than a sack of doorknobs"). But those imbecilic fabulists are good at setting narratives. Thursday night, AP reported that "Fifteen military groups are opposing a federal lawsuit in Ohio brought by President Barack Obama’s campaign because they say it could threaten voter protections afforded to service members, such as the extended time they have to cast a ballot."

The fact that this accusation isn't true doesn't matter: this lie will travel around the world, to Bagram, Ramstein, Yongsan, Camp Lejeune, Fort Benning, Miramar, and every post in between.

We need to start by setting the record straight, and the fact is that the core right of American citizens--the right to vote and have that vote counted--is being attacked by Ohio Republicans, and President Obama is trying to defend that right from those who'd take it away. Anyone saying otherwise is lying to our troops, and exploiting them to baselessly smear the President.

I don't know about you, but that pisses me off.

So if you catch someone making these claims in the next few days, send them to the actual lawsuit (which even for non-lawyers is very clear and easy to understand), or point them to this diary. But don't let this lie stand, because when you have a President with a record this strong on veterans' issues, the only way the GOP can compete is to make these lies stick.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Obama is suing Michigan over military votes, (13+ / 0-)

    too! Oh NOES. He's suing because at least 71 clerks failed to mail absentee ballots to military and overseas by the deadline, and at least another 215 just failed to respond to repeated requests as to whether they've mailed them on time or not.

    "Mitt Romney looks like the CEO who fires you, then goes to the Country Club and laughs about it with his friends." ~ Thomas Roberts MSNBC

    by second gen on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 06:39:37 AM PDT

  •  Note the quaint assumption.... (5+ / 0-)

    ....that soldiers can be counted on to vote en masse against Obama. Seems to me that if I were in the military, the prospect of having Willard the Witless as Supremo would be utterly terrifying.

    "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

    by sagesource on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 06:39:42 AM PDT

  •  Somehow I've a feeling Adm McRaven's (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sue B, middleagedhousewife, JR, theKgirls

    high praise for Obama may well carry a good deal of weight among the troops. Also they trust that Obama isn't going to command them to spill their blood just so Neocons can turn a profit.

    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

    by JTinDC on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 06:48:57 AM PDT

  •  This incident is a good example of three things: (4+ / 0-)

    1) A half truth is often worse that a lie because it is intentionally deceptive.  In this case, the truth is that a law suit about voting rights has been filed.  The lie is that it's about military personnel.

    2) Conservatives are people who operate from ulterior motives.  They specialize in indirection.  It's a strategy that's facilitated by their conviction that for every thing and person there is an antagonistic alternative or opponent.  It enables them to "promote" by taking offensive action.  In this case, the object is to promote Republican interests by taking action against Democrats. I think it's what the belief in magic has evolved to.

    3) Conservatives are all about intent, which serves as a prompt.  They are not into initiative.  All their behavior, including their speech, is in response to some external prompt.  So, of course, they also assign intent to their antagonists.  Indeed, it is their commitment to intent which allows them to preempt what they perceive as a threat. It's what made the invasion of Iraq entirely reasonable to their way of thinking.
    Substituting intent for action is also the safer mode of being.  When the intention is taken for the act, then the person doesn't actually have to do anything.
    One could say the conservative mindset is peculiar, except for the fact that there are many people who operate that way and they can be found all around the globe.

    Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage". He's not into "catch and release."

    by hannah on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 07:03:43 AM PDT

  •  And you'll never guess.... (0+ / 0-)

    ...what Mike Flynn was cheering about on July 25th:

    A Romney effort to get Virginia's uber-conservative Attorney General (and gubernatorial hopeful), Ken Cuccinelli, to investigate newly registered voters. Wanna bet some of them are military members?

    Flynn cares about as much about military voters as he does about accuracy in journalism: I imagine that would be somewhere above Sri Lankan cricket scores and below whether to get blue or yellow Post-It notes at Office Depot.

    "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

    by JR on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 07:46:56 AM PDT

  •  Here's some more on the Ohio GOP shenanigans... (0+ / 0-)

    http://www.dispatch.com/...

    Yet another adventure into highly questionable "Retroactive" legislating.

    Religious Freedom died? Should we send flowers?

    by here4tehbeer on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 08:28:00 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site