Voter suppression is a disgrace to our democracy

While I am encouraged that the media has covered this quite a lot this election cycle (well, except for Fox of course because they are not really news)….I am way more enraged that there is anything TO talk about.

First of all there were attempts to require ID to vote across many states. This seems innocuous until you think about the many reasons why people might NOT have a currently valid photo ID – such as my older son who doesn’t have a driver’s license and whose state photo ID card expired recently – even though he has been legally registered to vote since he was 18 and has voted every election, he would be turned away this year if we lived in a voter ID required state. There are a LOT of examples for varying reasons of folks who don’t have photo ID and would not have had the time to get one by tomorrow.

In most cases the voter ID laws were struck down by higher courts because their primary impact is to disenfranchise citizens.

Since the confirmed cases of actual voter fraud are less than 1/10 of a percent nationally this seems like complete overkill. More people would LOSE their ability to vote in just this one election than any proven fraudulent totals over the last four Presidential elections.

So it’s good that those laws were challenged and watered down or delayed or struck down entirely.

But wait – that is not the only effort to suppress the vote that has been going on.

In the last few weeks there have been huge problems with early voting. Some of the most critical swing states – Ohio and Florida – made efforts over the last decade to ease up long lines on election day and opened polling places for in person voting for up to 24 days at a time. Allowing for multiple weekend voting and spreading out the crowds. Makes sense right? Voting in person ONLY on the 1st Tuesday in November is ludicrous in 2012. It is one of the most outdated rules we have clung to over the decades and states that have taken steps to change the process are to be applauded. Voting by mail (as Oregon does) and allowing permanent absentee status without conditions (as many states such as CA do) expands the potential participation rates in elections.

Growing up I always heard people lament how low turnout would be and it seems only logical that expanding the days/times/methods of voting is one of the best ways to increase that.

Unfortunately, Ohio and Florida this cycle have taken steps to roll BACK early voting access. In Florida the number of early voting days were reduced, then subsequently added back at the lat minute in certain precincts when lawsuits were filed. And yet people stood in ridiculously long lines – up to 8 hours! to cast their ballot.

In Ohio steps were taken to make the actual ballot used more confusing for early voters thereby increasing the chances that a voter would end up having to vote “provisionally” which then increases the changes that those ballots wont be counted at all. So you stand in the long lines and think you have voted only there is a good chance it wont be counted.

I have YET to hear a logical reason why ANY of these efforts is needed. None. Anyone looking at this would see only one reason why you it would happen like this – those state officials are TRYING to suppress voter turnout and invalidate the ballots of as many voters as possible.

WHY?

Let me digress for a second to pull from a blog post by Steve Benen on the MaddowBlog:

This should not be easy.

This affects every voter, regardless of party or ideology, but because Republicans benefit more from lower turnout and higher disenfranchisement, this is a purely partisan scheme to rig an election in the GOP’s favor.

OK, you’re thinking, early voting in Florida has been disgraceful, but at least voting on Election Day itself will be smoother, right? Wrong — due to Republican budget cuts, there will be fewer polling precincts this year than four years ago, meaning more long lines.

I’ll just conclude with Rachel’s conclusion: “[I]t is frankly an outrage that there are forces at work in our politics right now that not only make this type of situation possible, but that make it inevitable — who see problems like this and go out of their way to try to make it worse…. If you are one of those people being forced to stand in those long lines tonight or tomorrow or on Election Day, honestly, your country needs you to do it. Your country needs you to do it, not only because it’s your civic responsibility, but also because there are people trying to profit politically off of you not doing it.”

 

And then a quote from Rachel Maddow directly “I did not grow up with the expectation that casting a ballot was supposed to be an endurance sport.”

Voting is a right, not a privilege. There is NOT rampant voting fraud that needs to be fixed.  Voting should be EASY, ACCESSIBLE and COUNTED consistently every single time.

Oh…well, there is this one minor detail we should consider here that was alluded to in the quotes.

ALL the states creating these problems? Voter ID laws, early voting cutbacks, provisional ballot rules – ALL have Republican Governors and Secretaries of State.

Because if you cannot convince citizens to vote for you based on your POLICIES, then the next best step is to just stop the people you don’t like from casting their ballot at all.

Presidential Debate #2

What a difference two weeks, a town hall format and a much better moderator and set of questions makes!

Obama was so much better and on point this time. He didn’t let Romney get away with ANYTHING. Neither did Candy Crowley. Her follow up questions to both candidates were very strong. Her on the spot fact check on the Libya section was fabulous and it was about time a moderator took charge like that.

I was very pleased to see Obama challenge Mitt on his changes in position from the primary to the general. I was REALLY pleased to see him bring up the times Romney referred to “self deportation” as a viable immigration policy and also how frequently he brought up Romney’s pledge to pull Federal money from Planned Parenthood and how Obama tied that to the overall health of women and the impact it would have on women’s economic standing.

When Romney slid in yet another line about Obama going on “an apology tour” I was LIVID and tweeted so. I normally don’t like to show such anger at an opponent, but that line always makes me spitting mad because it is SO DAMN offensive and WRONG. Fact check after fact check has proven it wrong and yet he uses that line.

While Obama didn’t charge back on that one (letting it lay there is fine because it is really so stupid), he DID get visibly angered at Romney’s assertion/implication that the White House and the State Department employees had purposely made misstatements about the embassy attacks on Benghazi. He rightly told Romney – looking him directly in the eye with a quite a glare – that he was offended by those accusations. I loved that!

I know if you follow me on twitter you saw me so frequently say that I thought Romney’s plan is basically “magic pixie dust” – that’s because he still never stated anything close to a specific detail of what he would do. He just kept declaring “I know how to do it! I know how to create jobs! I know how to grow the economy!” How, how how? I still am not closer to knowing HOW.

Of course the best part was how Obama dropped the 47% statement at the end in a perfect moment of closure. That was an easy mark for him to hit and that he never hit it in the first debate was a clear mistake.

I firmly admit that Obama lost that first debate.

I strongly believe he won this one.

Will the GOP admit their guy was weaker this time? No way. They NEVER admit a mistake. C’est la vie!

And the big takeaway this time? Not Big Bird…(though Obama did awkwardly slide that in)…no…the internet meme that sprung up almost INSTANTLY was this one:

 

I’m pretty sure Mitt Romney’s statement that he asked his staff to bring him “binders of women” to choose from for his cabinet in Massachusetts will haunt him for a looong time.

Or, at least as long as this tumblr keeps getting submissions: http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/

Yep, not sure Romney did himself any favors with women this time:

Romney’s lazy mendacity on Obama, trade agreements

Romney’s lazy mendacity on Obama, trade agreements.

Steve Benen has been Chronicling Mitt’s Mendacity on a weekly basis. This particular lie was so so so mendacious that it had to be logged immediately.

Sadly, as the final sentence indicates, the Romney campaign keeps lying because they can – there are no significant media challenges to his falsehoods and he can always run over to Fox News for protection and cover.

Sigh………….

Debate Notes

I didn’t hang out on twitter because I didn’t want other people’s reactions to skew my own. I also knew I couldn’t multi-task nearly well enough to read and listen closely at the same time!

So, I watching while texting with my very a-political boyfriend who follows nothing other than receiving classic chain emails and opinions from a very conservative friend and then whatever he hears from me from the left.

His first text?

“Romney is getting burned right now”

Followed by:

“It just seems like Obama makes more sense”

“POTUS is very calm and collected”

“Romney has a little sarcastic humor!”

I think he fell asleep after that since he’s traveling for work in the Midwest.

Anyway – here are my own notes written into a notebook:

Blue and red ties? Really? How predictable.

Obama uses his “new economic patriotism” line again. It had been mentioned that Romney had been practicing some “zingers” and early on that seemed to be true.

“Trickle down Government” was Romney’s response to New Economic Patriotism. Jim Lehrer picked up on that quickly and asked Obama to respond to it.

“Economic Tax” was thrown out there which you could tell was intended to land something but didn’t land as well as the first.

“You only picked losers” was another one on the topic of investing in new energy companies.

After that he seemed to move away from any zingers until much later on the topic of the role of government specifically in education when he dropped the “You are entitled to your own plane and house, but not your own facts” ha ha.

Outside of the zingers – Marcus was right about their demeanors. Mitt appeared with agitated or amused or most often as if he was lecturing people who Just Don’t Get It. His tone was one of impatience and sometimes exasperation. Obama was his usual cool self. He did scowl and smirk in response to some Romney statements and took notes.

Most though, Obama used Math. He took a note from the Bill Clinton DNC speech and dazzled with facts and arithmetic. You could see it frustrated Romney a few times because he couldn’t answer to those.

Obama gave more detail not only about his own policies he has already put into place, or about his own plans for a second term, but he also gave more detail about Romney’s plans! It truly seemed like he knew much more about them than Mitt did. And, if he didn’t he frequently pointed out that the reason he didn’t is because Romney *hasn’t* put out details on a lot of key topics.

Romney continued to dodge any request for details. He would lean on vague promises with no actual plan on how he would achieve them.

Obama remained hopeful and positive about the country.

Romney, as challenger had to tack more pessimistic about the direction.

That makes sense in the framework of any Presidential election so I don’t necessarily blame Romney for that.

I’m writing this before looking at any other reactions of seeing if any fact checks have come into place BUT –

Did it seem as if Romney was presenting an entirely different tax and healthcare plans than he has ever mentioned before? I swear he was making all new claims about his never properly detailed plans.

Romney also railroaded the moderator and often corrected him or derailed the format as planned.

I thought it was a little insulting that Romney told people over 60 they could stop listening when they started talking about Social Security and Medicare. As if people that age don’t care how policies will impact their kids or grand kids.

I would also like to know what planet he was on when he stated that private insurance companies have ALWAYS covered young adults over age 19 and people with pre-existing conditions?

My disappointment with Obama is perhaps that he was, again, too nice. So many times when I was screaming responses at the TV to nonsense Romney was stating, he just ignored it. So many times he had opportunities to bring up many of the truly extreme things Romney has said in the last few months and he never rose to the bait. I know people can react badly to candidates directly attacking each other but many times Romney attacked and Obama *never* responded and certainly never counter attacked.

If you are a policy hound or, wonk as they say, then Obama was much stronger since he actually laid out specific details and math and facts. If you like mud-slinging and combative battles, then you probably thought Romney did a better job.

Of course, he has a lot of ground to make up. He needed to be aggressive and domineering and he was. It will probably tighten up the race in polling, but polling doesn’t matter one hoot. Voting matters. And I truly doubt any actual voters who are now or intend to cast their votes in the next 30 days had their minds changed. What this might drive is fund raising since it has been rumored that Romney’s big donors have been hesitant to go all in any more. So he might get a poll boost and a money boost. But there are two more debates and one VP debate and I truly doubt that Obama is going to remain this careful and professorial.

Fun stuff! I love Presidential election cycles 🙂

Freedom

In an interview with 60 minutes this weekend, Mitt Romney was asked what his primary focus would be for the country should be win the election. He stated that he would bring “Freedom” to the country. Freedom.

Oh really?

Ok, I am being snarky because I understand what he is doing there completely. It’s all in how to drill down and define “freedom” really.

For the Libertarian/Conservative leaning folks it means freedom from as much, if not all, government intervention in your day to day life.

With some key exceptions of course.

Government still gets to restrict marriage to heterosexuals only. Totally fine to keep an entire group of people as second class citizens without all the rights and benefits of marriage because, you know, they don’t approve. Or really, their church doesn’t approve.

Government still gets to cut funding to Planned Parenthood effectively removing it from some areas.

Government can also allow insurance companies to restrict the health care they cover for women specifically. It will be totally OK to make it tons harder in both those examples for women to pay for birth control, well woman care and to make decisions about their own bodies.

Basically, again, because their church doesn’t approve of women having the ability to make those choices you see.

So government…err..churches…er…government…wait, aren’t those supposed to be SEPARATE?! Yeah, anyway, they can set restrictions – intervene even, in the lives of women and LGBT citizens.

Suffice it so say that my definition of freedom is a tad different.

Those government mandates and regulations that the right seems to think is chaining them to some imaginary fence preventing them from living their lives as they would choose?

Well, those mandates help to pay for a few things that I view as ENHANCING people’s freedom.

Oh, by people, I mean the less fortunate. Gasp! Horror!

Access to healthcare and insurance coverage is a basic need for everyone, rich or poor. Contrary to something else Mitt Romeny said on Sunday night, access to emergency rooms does not exactly suffice as an alternative to insurance and being able to see a regular doctor. I know because I have watched my older son struggle with this.

Emergency rooms wont help if you have ADHD or depression or need cancer treatment or have MS or lupus or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and any other of the hundreds of chronic illnesses that can debilitate someone even IF they have regular healthcare.

In other words, without access to a county/state/federally funded clinic or health insurance, your FREEDOM to maintain your health and your ability to support yourself is greatly reduced.

Without the FREEDOM to marry who you want, you can end up leaving a lifetime partner with no social security benefits, no dependent healthcare benefits. None of the things guaranteed to heterosexual couples. Think of all the inherited government benefits that the widow of Neil Armstrong received upon his death. None of those went to the widow of Sally Ride.

Those are the freedoms that mean something to me.

Tangled Webs

On Sunday’s Up With Chris Hayes I was finally able to identify what had *really* been bothering me about the entire Mitt Romney/Bain story line.

Chris asked his guest Ed Conrad – a Bain executive during the Romney years (the active ones and the semi-retired ones) why Romney isn’t OWNING his the actions of his company. Why is he seemingly embarrassed by what the company may or may not have done after 1999? If the company founded by him and run exclusively by him until 1999 was performing in a manner that he is PROUD of (is he?), then did something drastically change after he went to run the Olympics?

Of course Mr Conrad didn’t have a good answer to that – he did state that the company continued business practices as usual and he speculated that Romney WILL begin to show more pride in Bain’s record.

But – why wait?

I mean, as an onlooker and voter (granted knowing full well I will vote for Obama), the main message I have gotten from Mitt Romney is that I should be considering him BECAUSE of his record at Bain. Right?

Yet when it is pointed out that, in the course of earning significant profits for his investors, some companies were shut down vs reorganized and eventually expanded – Romney balks at those claims.

Yes, the political spin is that he is taking credit for companies that grew and increased employment under Bain Management and he is trying to minimize discussions of times when companies were dismantled and sold.

Again – why?

Even in government there are segments that are running poorly or are completely antiquated. What’s wrong with cleaning those up? If the bottom line is that a government program is draining money without a matching value to taxpayers, then why should it continue?

Don’t both sides talk about cleaning up bloated programs?

I would argue that Ed Conrad has made a stronger argument for that than Mitt Romney has.

And isn’t THAT the main problem here?

IMHO Romney has no confidence in his own record. This whole comedy of lies/spin/gaffes from he and his staff about his role at Bain from 1999-2002 is of his own doing.  He is running away from or is embarrassed by or sees it as politically damaging that in those years there were some factories and companies broken up and the jobs sent overseas. Did his investors make money? YES! Isn’t that the POINT of Bain? YES! So, that’s a success! Romney has alluded to streamlining or entirely shuttering down some Federal Programs – isn’t that the same thing? YES! So those actions are as much a support of your intended policies as POTUS as are your claims that your job creation record at Bain will translate to the White House.

Now, professional bloggers have spent a long time chronicling the lies and spin and flip flopping of Mitt Romney, but honestly I think this one is the most damaging because it truly goes to his core economic message contrasting himself from Obama.

And you have to think that someone who has been running for political office for over a decade that he could have figured out a way to frame this in a more positive manner. I mean – *I* figured out a way and I’m just a nobody accountant and sometime lame political ranter on a blog read by 10 people at most.

I mean – his ability to run a campaign and show leadership and hire competent campaign employees is right now on par with John McCain – and that’s a low bar! After all McCain VETTED Romeny – he’s seen 23 years of tax returns – and then he chose..well..someone ELSE to be his VP nominee.

Today – Romney – Mitt Romney himself, not a spokesperson or adviser like those guilty of Etch-A-Sketch and Retroactive Retirement, no – Mitt himself today defended her decision NOT to release any more than 2 years of tax returns by stating that A) Teresa Heinz Kerry only released 2 years and B) He doesn’t want to give the Obama camp more fodder for opposition research!!

Uh??!!

A) That was a candidates WIFE – the candidate in question (JOHN Kerry) released 20 years of returns.

B) Yeah….exactly. Wonder what kind of fodder he’s afraid of providing eh?

I also wonder if a Democrat – ANY Democrat would be able to get away with all of this nonsense.

Don’t answer that.

 

An honest question for the disillusioned Democrats

In Democratic voter circles – somewhere between folks like me who have no qualms about supporting Obama again and the Emoprogs who want to primary Obama (read that link, it’s a great round up of the anti-Obama voices from the left) – exists voters who are not quite AS mad at Obama as the Emoprogs, but also cannot truly embrace supporting him again. I’ve seen a couple of tweets already about hanging up on callers from the OFA trying  to recruit volunteers & get donations for Obama ’12. Even though these folks did knock on doors in 08, they just cannot do it again in ’12 because they feel Obama has not been looking out for them. While I don’t agree completely, I do GET why they feel that way. But then, here’s my truly honest question. – so what WILL you do?

While you wont spend the energy pounding the pavement for him or spend your $ donating – will you still vote for him?

I’m genuinely curious because I get your conundrum. You are all smart enough and your memories are long enough to know that a 3rd party challenge such as what happened in 2000 will potentially hand the White House to the GOP and I know you don’t WANT that. You are Democrats after all and you do believe in Democratic values and many of you have spent a lot of time & energy trying to get Democrats elected. So I am sure you are feeling extremely conflicted.

What will you do?

My uneducated brain dump on DADT, Obama & voting.

So much on this topic has been rattling in my brain these recent weeks. I was moved beyond belief when Lt Dan Choi came to  Netroots Nation in Las Vegas to give Senator Harry Reid his west point ring. Having recently been formally discharged under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, he was turning the ring over to the Senator as a reminder that a promise of repeal had been given to him personally. I was sitting right behind him when he stood and saluted Harry Reid & then jumped onstage. Since that moment, the repeal of DADT has been moving along, inch by inch. President Obama prefers that it be repealed the way it was enacted – by Congressional law. He feels this will be the most permanent solution. Because of the nature of the original law, he cannot just strike it down by Presidential decree. Meanwhile many have wondered, including me, why he didn’t at least put a freeze on discharges. He had asked the military to embark on a six month study on how best to implement the repeal & full integration of all branches of service. He’s made it clear to the Pentagon staff that he wants it repealed and they should prepare for that as an inevitability. His Joint Chiefs of Staff have openly supported repeal. So why not a freeze? Especially when so many of the recently publicized discharges were clearly not even done legally.Many were involuntarily outed. They were ASKED when they were not supposed to be. Other people TOLD on them. And they are losing their careers due to these outings. Why continue to let this happen?

Vice President Biden was asked this question in an interview with Rachel Maddow. For the first time, we got a clue – politics. The dismissals were being allowed to go on ostensibly because it would buy them votes. This admission came about a week before the Senate finally did get to vote on it – and…..surprise surprise, the GOP blocked it. Wouldn’t even vote to let it be debated. Add it to the long, long, record setting list of obstructionist filibusters from this session of congress. No deals.

So then why weren’t dismissals stopped? Well, the tune changed to the White House frequently talking about the ‘orderly enactment of repeal’. Wanting to give the military the six months they were granted to complete their review. “We are in a time of war.” they stated. “We cannot disrupt the units fighting overseas.” Eh….I can…see…SOME…logic to that, perhaps? After all, with many of those discharges being the result of someone ASKING when they were not supposed to – when soldiers are being routinely OUTED….that does speak to some divisiveness in the ranks right? Of course, I tend to take Lady Gaga’s stance when approached with that argument – if the straight soldiers cannot handle serving alongside the gay soldiers it seems as if THEY are the ones who should leave! Gay soldiers have been fighting & working in all branches of the military since day one. There is no less honor or dedication or loyalty to their service compared to any others. And *most* straight service members get this. The statistics are in favor *within* the military for repeal of DADT.

Meanwhile, soldiers have been fighting their discharges. They have filed court cases. And they are winning. Judges have declared DADT unconstitutional. They have called IT a policy that divides soldiers and destroys unit cohesion. In these cases, the Department of Justice has been in a position to NOT defend the law. There is precedent to step away. There is also a historical tie in here to the last big civil rights issue. After all, it was a judge who first ruled in favor of the African American right to vote. Congress *followed* a path set by an ‘activist’ judicial branch. Why not allow the same route to equality here? Well, Obama is not taking that opportunity either. He’s standing behind the fact that the DOJ is supposed to, by the letter of the law, defend all existing federal laws on the books, even those he does not currently agree with. Maddening, right? He makes my own sense or pragmatism seem so weak! I had to laugh today when one of my favorite media tweeters reacted this way to the news that the DOJ was filing yet another injunction to halt the judicial repeal of DADT:

WestWingReport:

“Re: “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” President lacks the authority to strike it down on his own. He wants Congress to do it – not a federal judge.

The process: if Appeals Court grants an “emergency stay,” (as the WH wants) it means DADT remains in effect. Even though Obama hates it.

Some of Obama’s critics say he is acting too much like the lawyer he is. If he wants to get rid of DADT, then a judge’s ruling did so.

Re: DADT. Obama’s end goal: get rid of a law he says is discriminatory. But the President seems more focused on the means to this end.

A lawyer focuses on the process, the means to an end – in contrast to, say Larry the “Get ‘er Done” Cable Guy.”

EXACTLY!!! And as I was laughing at this last mental image, I’m sure you can figure which President *I* was thinking of who would be more like the “Get ‘er Done” guy!!!!

Yes, I am very very happy to not have Larry the Cable Guy in the White House anymore – still….

I have to wonder what candidate Obama was thinking in his mind when he said he would be a “Fierce advocate” for the gay community. He doesn’t support full gay marriage rights. He has certainly gotten himself stuck in the weeds of the path to DADT repeal. I personally have not yet seen a whole lot of fierce from him yet.

I still believe in him though. I still believe that, at least on DADT, somehow it will get done. But I also *completely* understand those who don’t share my faith. Because I know a lot of my faith is based on my own nature to be patient. To know that progress & equality do come in little fits and starts. But then this doesn’t impact me personally. I am not Lt Dan Choi, or Lt Victor Ferenbach – discharged from their dream careers for something they CANNOT CHANGE. If they have lost faith? I understand why. I will be fierce in my faith and in my efforts towards full equality. Which may mean supporting Obama when he hasn’t exactly shown he deserves it. Because right now he’s all we’ve got. It means supporting Democrats like Harry Reid who don’t seem to be the fighters they claimed to be when it comes time to hustle votes. Because those Democrats are still a better shot than the recent wave of Tea Party driven GOP candidates. I’ll hold my nose and vote in two weeks to hopefully keep as many Dems as possible in office.

And I really really REALLY don’t want a whole bunch of Larry the Cable Guys in DC!

Image via Wikipedia