Am I hearing this right?

I found this.



From http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/?mobile=nc

No, you are hearing it wrong. You may wish to re-read the article. No votes are being taken from anyone unless you want to make the case that 1 state's decision to curtail early voting is the same as taking away someone's right to vote (it doesn't.) Or if you think that requiring someone to have an ID amounts to taking away the right to vote. (I don't think it does, but I understand that some think this way.) But hey, people can spin it any way they like. And in this case, democrats are apparently trying to spin it to their advantage, just as republicans would do if the shoe were on the other foot. Politics as usual.

I'm going to let someone else respond to your post about photo ID's not taking away votes.

From MPOV, requiring something that's not required creates a handicap for most seniors and minorities who would normally vote democratic.

It's a little complicated. When the GOP took over the Ohio State government they immediately passed a big fat Voter ID law, many screams of protest followed, so they backed off almost all of it except they kept the part about NO PRE-ELECTION DAY VOTING. As if the supposed fraudulent voters would want to show up when there is hardly anybody else there. They made an exception: all Military voters could still vote in person prior to the election.

Got it? GIs yes, everybody else, no.

The Obama administration sued~~~~ saying that if you are going to allow some people to vote on certain days, you've got to allow everyone to vote on those days.

This is where it gets fun.
The Romney campaign, because they cannot read, took that to mean the Obama Administration was in favor of not allowing ANYONE to vote prior to the election. (which if you have been paying attention was how the GOP wanted things before they stuck in the Okay for GIs part.)

"Oh," they cried" Obama is trying to stop our military from voting!!!! Land Sakes alive.!!"
See?
They were claiming what was the opposite of true as true..

...Someone needs to check to see if anybody has been reported missing from BizzarroWorld.

They got the words "everyone" and "Anyone" mixed up. Kids do the funniest things.

So, everybody, except Rush, jumped all over the Romney folks and told them to shut up. And they did.

Court decision to follow soon....me betcha EVERYBODY get to vote early.

Joe(that is all)Nation

CI, I understand your POV. From my POV, requiring an ID does not take away one's right to vote. It does place a requirement on voting, and whether that is constitutional or not will probably eventually have to be decided by the supreme court.

The article being referenced spins the Ohio situation as though republicans (and Mitt Romney, if I read the article right) are trying to take away the RIGHT to vote from military personnel and emergency service providers. That is bullcrap. And I think you would agree with that.

Thanks Joe(informative)Nation! Very helpful info on this "one" issue.

Why are conservatives able to rationalize all this bull ****? I don't get it.

And here is a situation where I agree with you Joe. Dang, will wonders never cease.

Either you let anyone vote early or you allow no early voting. Just don't try to spin the issue to make people think some group is trying to take away the right to vote from some other group, which was the gist of the article as I read it and as the original poster also believed.

It's too bad the Romney folks keep shooting themselves in the foot with stuff like this. There are actual issues to be addressed, instead we get the almost daily Whoops! from the campaign staff.

Today's (or I guess, yesterday and today's) is the ad attacking Obama for removing the work requirements from welfare programs.
Uh. No. He did not. He. did. not.
He actually did what any really good State's Rights Republican would do; he lifted regulations on the individual States allowing them to set their own work requirements.
Where's the applause from the GOP? <crickets>

I hope and pray that these so-called conservatives whose only claim to fame is strict adherence to doing what they have been told by Eric Cantor on every single issue get sent home. They will not acknowledge, even for purposes of discussion, any position put forth by the President or members of his party.

If they don't get everything they want on a particular bill whether it be Budget or Jobs or healthcare or unemployment benefits or spending or Please don't bring up taxes -they won't raise taxes on anything or anybody (a truly unRepublican and unConservative idea), they won't vote for the bill.
Even IF THEY DO GET EVERYTHING THEY WANTED ie the ACA, they still won't vote 'aye'. (The Affordable Care Act is a through and through Republican idea.)

That's not governing, it's not even being members of opposition, it's obstruction without a true purpose with a slight stink of cultism.

Joe(we should check, they may in fact be zombies)Nation

Excellent post, Joe(tothenub)Nation.

Appreciate your contributions.

I do what I can.

Joe( )Nation

What CI said.

Uh...you first.

Oh, I think the purpose has been clearly stated. It's to make sure Obama doesn't get reelected. For the first time in my life I'm hoping that the Dems get control of both chambers of Congress and keep the WH.

Sounds pretty reasonable considering what the obstructionist GOP have been doing to our politics in the US.