Posted on 08/03/2012 10:51:21 PM PDT by John Semmens
In recent elections less than 5% of the ballots cast by active duty military personnel serving overseas arrived in time to be counted. Nevertheless, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and the Ohio Democratic Party have jointly filed suit in Ohio to strike down a law that gives deployed troops more time to cast absentee ballots.
The suit alleges that the provision allowing more time for deployed troops is “contrary to the policy of the current Administration” and “would improperly embroil military personnel in partisan politics.”
DNC Chairperson Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla) declared that “it is a long standing tradition in America that our armed forces do not engage in partisan politics while on duty. States should not be permitted to undermine this tradition.”
“Not only would the Ohio law undermine this tradition, it also would undermine national security,” she added. “Soldiers deployed overseas should not be distracted from their primary duty of carrying out the orders of their Commander-in-Chief. The idea that we should be accommodating the opportunity for them to vote to depose their Commander-in-Chief is about as wrongheaded as could be.”
Wasserman-Schultz assured that she isn't advocating taking away their right to vote because “a move that overt could incite a negative reaction from too many people. Letting them cast ballots that arrive too late to be counted is a good compromise. It's kind of a 'pressure release valve.' We allow them to vent without subjecting the nation to an unwarranted influence on election outcomes.”
Surveys of military personnel indicate that they tend to favor Republicans by about a three to one ratio.
In related news, U.S. District Judge Gregg Costa blocked a Texas voter registration law on the grounds that “requiring ID will tend to discourage those without documents from voting. This disproportionately affects those of Mexican descent.” Costa ruled that “until everyone has documents no one can be required to show them in order to cast a ballot.”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/116119-2012-08-03-semi-news-a-satire-of-recent-news-august-5-2012.htm
You’re late on this one, John. They’re already doing this.
very good John
Good satire John, now how long before the detractors show up?
Ah-HA! Semmens is CHANNELING Wasserman-Schultz! (I always wondered how he knew what they were really thinking.)
John, another fine (and scary) column. BTW, do tell Miss Cleo we all say "hi".
Some on this board thinks that is OK, since they feed at the taxpayer trough.
ROTFL! It’s SO dang believable!!
If we keep troops from voting because they get a govt paycheck maybe we should also exclude the 45 million getting food stamps.
The idea of not allowing the military to vote because they get a gov't check is so idiotic I figured I'd never see it here. This practice would of course include retirees and anyone getting service-related disability pay. Just goes to show, never say never.
DNC Chairperson Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla) declared that “it is a long standing tradition in America that our armed forces do not engage in partisan politics while on duty. States should not be permitted to undermine this tradition.”
“Not only would the Ohio law undermine this tradition, it also would undermine national security,” she added. “Soldiers deployed overseas should not be distracted from their primary duty of carrying out the orders of their Commander-in-Chief. The idea that we should be accommodating the opportunity for them to vote to depose their Commander-in-Chief is about as wrongheaded as could be.”
Wasserman-Schultz assured that she isn’t advocating taking away their right to vote because “a move that overt could incite a negative reaction from too many people. Letting them cast ballots that arrive too late to be counted is a good compromise. It’s kind of a ‘pressure release valve.’ We allow them to vent without subjecting the nation to an unwarranted influence on election outcomes.”
That all sounds like something she would say in reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.