Could Romney Big The Biggest Liar In American Presidential Campaign History?

[thoughtone]

source: Mother Jones


The Mystery of Romney's Exit From Bain

Now there's a debate over when the GOP presidential candidate left his private equity firm—and what it means.

There is now a media debate over when Mitt Romney left Bain Capital, his private equity firm—and the meaning of his departure.

The Romney campaign and Bain maintain that he said au revoir in February 1999, when he took over the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. On Monday, I reported that documents filed in late 1999 with the Securities and Exchange Commission—including one signed by Romney—identify Romney as a participant in a Bain partnership that invested $75 million in Stericycle, a medical-waste firm that in recent years has been assailed by abortion foes for disposing of aborted fetuses collected from family planning clinics. The documents suggest that Romney had not fully removed himself from Bain's business dealings.

Yet here's how Bain responded to questions from me:

[A] spokeswoman for Bain maintained that Romney was not involved in the Stericycle deal in 1999, saying that he had "resigned" months before the stock purchase was negotiated. The spokeswoman noted that following his resignation Romney remained only "a signatory on certain documents," until his separation agreement with Bain was finalized in 2002. And Bain issued this statement: "Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies since that time."

And the Romney campaign, responding to a Washington Post report on Bain-bought companies outsourcing jobs, also recently insisted that Romney left Bain in February 1999 and had nothing to do with firms purchased by Bain after that point.

Romney's actual departure date is significant. If he did fully leave Bain in February 1999, he is better able to argue that he cannot be held responsible for the firm's actions afterward—though he maintained his ownership interest in Bain and its various entities for years and, consequently, benefited from these deals. This past week, the Obama campaign has been tussling over this issue with FactCheck.org, the independent fact-checking organization created by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. After the Obama campaign launched an ad blasting Romney as a "corporate raider" who "shipped jobs to China and Mexico," FactCheck.org called the ad false, partly because Romney had exited Bain in February 1999, prior to the deals in question. In reply, the Obama campaign sent a six-page letter to the group, challenging its determination regarding Romney's departure. But FactCheck.org reaffirmed its initial conclusion and told the Obama-ites their complaint was "all wet." Meanwhile, Dan Primack, a senior editor at Fortune, took issue with my article for noting that the SEC documents undercut the claim that Romney had no participation in any Bain decisions after February 1999.

Both Primack and FactCheck.org were unimpressed by the fact that the Boston Herald reported on February 12, 1999, that Romney was not resigning but taking a leave, during which he would provide Bain "input on investment and key personnel decisions."FactCheck.org pointed out that this story also noted Romney would "leave running day-to-day operations to Bain's executive committee," and the group cited an April 4, 1999, Associated Press story reporting that Romney was overwhelmed by his Olympian task and had no time for Bain. Primack insisted that the Herald story and a July 19, 1999, Bain press release referring to Romney as "currently on a part-time leave of absence" and quoting him speaking for Bain Capital were not all that telling, because when Romney left for Salt Lake City he probably "assumed that he'd still be involved in [Bain] decision-making, albeit from a distance," but ended up not doing that, due to his workload in Utah. Primack said he has "numerous sources," including many who were with Bain, who have told him that Romney did not make any investment-related decisions after February 1999.

What about the various SEC documents—some of which Romney signed—that identify him as controlling assorted Bain entities and large blocs of shares in firms in which Bain invested after February 1999? The Obama campaign letter cited at least 63 SEC filings after March 1, 1999, that describe Bain entities as "wholly owned by W. Mitt Romney." Both Primack and FactCheck.org contended that these documents prove only that Romney continued on as an owner of Bain, not as a decision maker.

Though Primack did cite sources (anonymous sources), much of his and FactCheck.org's respective arguments relied on assumptions and interpretations of the existing record. An example: In 2007, R. Bradford Malt told the Washington Post that Romney finally resigned from Bain in 2001 and reduced his role to that of a passive investor in 2001. To some that could mean Romney was somewhat active prior to this change in status. But FactCheck.org noted, "[W]e read that to mean only that Romney went from being an absentee owner to being a passive investor." (FactCheck.org also checked in with Malt, who, no surprise, said that Romney was "not involved in the management or activities of Bain Capital" after February 1999.)

These rebuttals did not take into account all the evidence. For instance, neither one directly referred to those SEC filings—such as this May 10, 2001, document—that describe Romney as a member of the "management committee" of Bain funds. Perhaps he was a member in name only, but if so, wouldn't he still bear some responsibility for these entities' actions, especially when he was signing his name to their deals and reaping the benefits of ownership? (This particular filing notes that he and another member of the management committee controlled 1,376,377 shares of DDi, a manufacturer of circuit boards.)


And neither Primack nor FactCheck.org addressed the matter of Bain Capital NY. In 2001 and 2002, Romney filed Massachusetts state disclosure forms noting he was the 100 percent owner of this Bain venture. But Bain Capital NY was incorporated in Delaware on April 13, 1999—two months after Romney's supposed retirement from the firm. Was Romney uninvolved with the incorporation of a new Bain entity—which only he owned—after his departure? Perhaps.

In its letter to FactCheck.org, the Obama campaign contended that "the statement that Gov. Romney 'left' Bain in February 1999—a statement central to your fact-check—is not accurate, Romney took an informal leave of absence but remained in full legal control of Bain and continued to be paid by Bain as such." No one disputes that Romney retained ownership and legal control of Bain. For that alone, he might be considered partly accountable for its actions. But is it believable that while he remained Bain's owner and possessed full legal control of assorted Bain entities, he never took an interest in what the firm and its funds were doing?

The Romney campaign and Bain insist that Romney had not a thing to do with Bain after February 1999, though he signed filings and pocketed millions. But they won't answer specific questions about Romney and Bain during this period—just as Romney won't come clean on his tax returns. (See this Vanity Fair blockbuster report on Romney's personal finances and what is still unknown about them.) He remains the opaque quarter-billionaire—with mystery surrounding his wealth and the business career he touts as a steppingstone to the presidency. He has yet to be fully vetted.

[ballscout1]

it took 3 years for his seperation agreement to take effect ?

GTFOH

[thoughtone]

All of this could be answered by him releasing 12 years of his tax returns, just like his father did when when ran for president.

[Upgrade Dave]

He might be. He takes the art of spin to an entirely new level. He could literally be on both sides of a debate with video footage of him strongly affirming his belief in both.

[ballscout1]

I would love to listen to the conversation if his wife busts him cheating.

Mitt would be classic trying to explain that shit away.

[COINTELPRO]

Why would you want to put your money into a country where all your financial transactions are reported to the government? People routinely monitor and use the information from your financial transaction at the bank, there is no criminal laws protecting your privacy. If you are high profile, such as a judge, politician, every transaction is looked at.

In Bermuda, I believe it is a crime to disclose this information and they are under no obligation to report any information. He might have his money over there to get privacy that is clearly lacking in the United States and not to avoid taxes. I think that is what he wants to say but can't politically.

[thoughtone]

Just relaease the tax forms!

source: The Boston Globe

Mitt Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he stated

Firm’s 2002 filings identify him as CEO, though he said he left in 1999

Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.

Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”

Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain is a key point of contention because he has said his resignation in February 1999 meant he was not responsible for Bain Capital companies that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date.

Contradictions concerning the length of Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital add to the uncertainty and questions about his finances. Bain is the primary source of Romney’s wealth, which is estimated to be more than $25o million. But how his wealth has been invested, especially in a variety of Bain partnerships and other investment vehicles, remains difficult to decipher because of a lack of transparency.

The Obama campaign and other Democrats have raised questions about his unwillingness to release tax returns filed before 2010; his offshore assets, which include investment entities based in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands and a recently closed bank account in Switzerland; and a set of “blind trusts” that meet the Massachusetts standards for public officials but not the more rigorous bar set by the federal government.

Romney did not finalize a severance agreement with Bain until 2002, a 10-year deal with undisclosed terms that was retroactive to 1999. It expired in 2009.

Bain Capital and the campaign for the presumptive GOP nominee have suggested the SEC filings that show Romney as the man in charge during those additional three years have little meaning, and are the result of legal technicalities. The campaign declined to comment on the record. It pointed to a footnote in Romney’s most recent financial disclosure form, filed June 1 as a presidential candidate.

“Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way,’’ according to the footnote. Romney made the same assertion on a financial disclosure form in 2007, during his first run for president.

According to a statement issued by Bain Wednesday, “Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies, since that time.”

A former SEC commissioner told the Globe that the SEC documents listing Romney as Bain’s chief executive between 1999 and 2002 cannot be dismissed so easily.

“You can’t say statements filed with the SEC are meaningless. This is a fact in an SEC filing,” said Roberta S. Karmel, now a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

“It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to say he was technically in charge on paper but he had nothing to do with Bain’s operations,” Karmel continued. “Was he getting paid? He’s the sole stockholder. Are you telling me he owned the company but had no say in its investments?”

The Globe found nine SEC filings submitted by four different business entities after February 1999 that describe Romney as Bain Capital’s boss; some show him with managerial control over five Bain Capital entities that were formed in January 2002, according to records in Delaware, where they were incorporated.

A Romney campaign official, who requested anonymity to discuss the SEC filings, acknowledged that they “do not square with common sense.” But SEC regulations are complicated and quirky, the official argued, and Romney’s signature on some documents after his exit does not indicate active involvement in the firm.

A spokesman for the SEC said the commission could not comment on individual company filings or address the meaning of Romney’s name and title on the documents.

Karmel, the former SEC commissioner, said the contradictory statements could have legal implications in some instances.

“If someone invested with Bain Capital because they believed Mitt Romney was a great fund manager, and it turns out he wasn’t really doing anything, that could be considered a misrepresentation to the investor,’’ she said. “It’s a theory that could be used in a lawsuit against him.”

Romney first deployed the defense that he left the firm in February 1999 as a candidate for governor in 2002, when Democrat Shannon O’Brien featured a laid-off worker from a Kansas City steel mill that went bankrupt in 2001, after Bain Capital had reaped a handsome profit from its investment in the company. “Romney has taken responsibility for making the initial investment but has said he could not be blamed for management decisions at the company,” the Globe reported at the time.

Romney’s exit from Bain Capital also served as a ready-made rebuttal when in May President Obama’s reelection campaign began its public scrutiny of Romney’s business record with an ad focusing on former laborers at the same mill, GST Steel. But the SEC filings examined by the Globe indicate Romney remained at the helm of Bain Capital when the steel mill declared bankruptcy, in February 2001.

And financial disclosure documents Romney filed in Massachusetts show that he was paid as a Bain Capital executive while he directed the Olympics.

When he was named chief executive of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee on Feb. 11, 1999, Romney declared that he would not accept the job’s $285,000 annual salary until the Games were over and he had proven his turnaround worth.

Romney continued to draw a six-figure salary from Bain Capital, according to State Ethics Commission forms.

In Romney’s 2002 race for governor, he testified before the state Ballot Law Commission that his separation from Bain in 1999 had been a “leave of absence” and not a final departure.

[muckraker10021]

Could Romney Big The Biggest Liar In American Presidential Campaign History?

YES!!

---

Mitt Romney The Ultimate Liar!
There Are Liars, There Are DAMNED Liars, and Then There's Mitt Romney

Holy crap. It will take about 19 minutes for you to watch the video below. If you had any doubts about Romney's utter lack of scruples and honesty, this will destroy them. My God, the depths of this guy's sheer mendacity are breath-taking.



Website below Methodically exposes Romney’s perpetual lies The insert below debunks many of Romney's lies point by point - click the link after each lie for the true facts

http://romneytheliar.blogspot.com/

---

[QueEx]

[thoughtone]

consistent?

Originally Posted by actinanass

ok call me when Obama shows his Birth certificate....



*not saying I'm believing the hype, but why not kill they hype?*

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

T.O.,

I've re-assessed my position on this. I now believe actinanass is right on this whole release the tax returns thing:

Originally Posted by actinanass

I, nor any other conservative on here, have to explain shit to y'all fuckheads.

Originally Posted by actinanass

I don't care if Romney shows his tax forms, or not.

To stay consistent, this tax form play is the worst play to use in politics.

and

Originally Posted by actinanass

It really doesn't matter.

Tax records, what a person did in high school, Koch Brothers, or any other bs conspiracy theory people post on here will not matter.

I now believe that Romney should not release any more tax returns.

This is generating just too got damn much negative publicity against Romney.

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

Hold on, wait a minute, around the 19:00 mark did that intelligent mature journalist, just say they been taking money out the social security trust fund..??

If they been taking money out aka stealing, why is the media acting like its the baby boomers causing the money to deplete??

[thoughtone]

source: Huffington Post

National Review Online Calls For Mitt Romney To Release Tax Returns

Yet another conservative voice -- or in this case, publication -- has joined the chorus calling for Mitt Romney to release his tax returns.

The right-leaning National Review Online released an editorial Tuesday arguing that Romney may not be required legally to release his tax returns, but that at this point, he needs to do so anyway.

"It is to President Obama's advantage to fight the election out over tactics and minutiae," the editors wrote. "By drawing out the argument over the returns, Romney is playing into the president's hands. He should release them, respond to any attacks they bring, and move on."

The presumptive GOP nominee has refused to release any more tax returns -- so far, he's made public his 2010 return and an estimate of his 2011 return -- even as Democrats continue to attack him for his lack of transparency.

A number of conservatives, including pundits Bill Kristol and George Will and GOP politicians such as former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and primary rival Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, have called for Romney to release the documents.

Romney said in an interview published Tuesday by National Review Online that he is "simply not enthusiastic about giving [the Obama campaign] hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort, and lie about."

The publication's editors wrote later in the day that Romney had said the Obama campaign won't be satisfied with any level of disclosure and that the call for more returns is just a "fishing expedition" to criticize his wealth and business success.

Still, the editorial said he should go ahead and release them.

"Romney is right, but he should release the returns anyway," the editors wrote. "Let them go fish."

[thoughtone]

source: Huffington Post

Ann Romney: 'We've Given All You People Need To Know' About Family Finances

WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney's wife is reinforcing her husband's refusal to make public several years of tax returns, saying "we've given all you people need to know" about the family's finances.

"You know, you should really look at where Mitt has led his life, and where he’s been financially," she said. "He’s a very generous person. We give 10 percent of our income to our church every year. Do you think that is the kind of person who is trying to hide things, or do things? No. He is so good about it. Then, when he was governor of Massachusetts, didn’t take a salary for four years."

Ann Romney told ABC News she thinks the Obama campaign's attacks on her husband have been "beneath the dignity of the presidency." And she said people will decide whom to vote for based on whether their lives would be better under Mitt Romney than President Barack Obama.

She said that ultimately she believes voters are "going to fire the coach."

CORRECTION: The original version of this article omitted the word "people" from Ann Romney's quote.

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by Mrfreddygoodbud

Hold on, wait a minute, around the 19:00 mark did that intelligent mature journalist, just say they been taking money out the social security trust fund..??

If they been taking money out aka stealing, why is the media acting like its the baby boomers causing the money to deplete??

This isn't a secret really, bruh. When people have real discussions on SS on tv, they say that to solve any financial problems with it is put back the money they've taken out of it. That's why I've been againt Simpson-Bowles or any other arrangement that tampers with Social Secuity. There was a brother on the board (name escapes me) but he was onto that shit a long time ago.

malaki, that was his name. I didn't agree with his idea that Obama was going to cut SS (and he hasnt and wont) but he identified the problem with the narrative early.

[TheBigOne]

Ok, this line of attack by the Obama campaign and allies has had good effect on the polling numbers. Let the press keep attacking on the tax returns shit and lying tack. But, now is the time to move to the next nail in the Mitt coffin. Plus, you know that the swift boat attack is coming where they have to take some wind out of the foreign policy and commander in chief ratings. Get ready to play defense and don't be afraid to get personal...

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

source: Huffington Post



Ann Romney: 'We've Given All You People Need To Know' About Family Finances

I'm with you sista !

Don't give em shit !

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by TheBigOne

Ok, this line of attack by the Obama campaign and allies has had good effect on the polling numbers. Let the press keep attacking on the tax returns shit and lying tack. But, now is the time to move to the next nail in the Mitt coffin. Plus, you know that the swift boat attack is coming where they have to take some wind out of the foreign policy and commander in chief ratings. Get ready to play defense and don't be afraid to get personal...

The Obama campaign should never get personal. That's a losing proposition. Keeping the attacks on Romney's Bain record and his record as Governor of Mass is the best tack. With Romney being a guy who can be shown firmly defending both sides of nearly every major issue, you don't go rolling in the slop with the pigs.

[MASTERBAKER]

see my thread on mainboard "Old Fart Rants," About Anne Romney, And Mitt's Tax Returnshttp://www.bgol.us/board/showthread....1#post11768421

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by QueEx

T.O.,

I've re-assessed my position on this. I now believe actinanass is right on this whole release the tax returns thing:

and

I now believe that Romney should not release any more tax returns.

This is generating just too got damn much negative publicity against Romney.

Harry Reid floats claim that
Romney didn't pay taxes
for 10 years

p o l i t i c o
By MAGGIE HABERMAN
July 31, 2012


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used the T-shirt gun of unsubstantiated claims in an interview with The Huffington Post, saying a former Bain investor told him that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years, hence the lack of disclosure:

"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.

Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.

"Harry, [Mitt] didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.

"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?

"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars."

SOURCE: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-...ay-130665.html

Man, I would just love it if Mitt would just release those returns and shut Harry Reid's ole-ass mouth.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

All of this could be answered by him releasing 12 years of his tax returns, just like his father did when when ran for president.

They're Now Calling Harry Reid

Dirty Harry ! ! !

The gotdamn Irony !!!

Last Friday, Clint Eastwood endorsed Romney.

Sunday, the Republican National Committee upped the ante:

The head of the Republican National Committee called Senate majority leader Harry Reid a 'dirty liar' on ABC's "This Week" Sunday morning.

Reince Priebus made the comments about Reid during a discussion of Reid's claims that presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney has not paid income taxes for the past 10 years

[actinanass]

Romney needs to do the same thing Obama did. Wait until you get elected, wait another year, make sure you do something politically effective to your future *Obama killing Osama*, and make the tax record a mock towards your enemies of the far left.

BTW, I didn't give lip service towards the birth certificate situation until President Obama was in office.

The Taxers of the far left tend not to have the same mindset I did.

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by actinanass

Romney needs to do the same thing Obama did. Wait until you get elected, wait another year, make sure you do something politically effective to your future *Obama killing Osama*, and make the tax record a mock towards your enemies of the far left.

BTW, I didn't give lip service towards the birth certificate situation until President Obama was in office.

The Taxers of the far left tend not to have the same mindset I did.

Honestly

What the hell are you talking about? Obama released his returns for 2000-2006 in 2008.
You think he killed bin Laden for the politics of it? Really? So we're just going to forget that it was a campaign pledge?

Don't equate the birth certificate foolishness with Mitt's holding back his returns. Mitt has been fighting against revealing his tax returns for his entire political life.

Wow, you already weren't good at this but Mitt's putting you in even worse rhetorical positions.

And here I thought we were against distortions.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by actinanass

Romney needs to . . . Wait until you [he] get[s] elected, wait another year, make sure you [he] do[es] something politically effective to your [his] future *Obama killing Osama*, and make the tax record a mock towards your [his] enemies of the far left.

Mayne, don't listen to U.D.

I think you're right !!!

Don't release shit for at least a year !!!

Mrs. Romney's husband has already given "you people" enough personal information.

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

Honestly

What the hell are you talking about? Obama released his returns for 2000-2006 in 2008.
You think he killed bin Laden for the politics of it? Really? So we're just going to forget that it was a campaign pledge?

Don't equate the birth certificate foolishness with Mitt's holding back his returns. Mitt has been fighting against revealing his tax returns for his entire political life.

Wow, you already weren't good at this but Mitt's putting you in even worse rhetorical positions.

And here I thought we were against distortions.

Hold up, thoughtone just said that this "scandal" is equivalent to the Obama birth certificate "scandal". I'm just putting things in prospective.

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by actinanass

Hold up, thoughtone just said that this "scandal" is equivalent to the Obama birth certificate "scandal". I'm just putting things in perspective.

Okay. Without the quote, I can't tell in what context he said that. The only connection I see is the people who squalled so loudly for the BC have been silent on the tax returns, even in the face of Republicans and conservative publications saying he should release them.
The rest of that stuff was still manure.

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by actinanass

Hold up, thoughtone just said that this "scandal" is equivalent to the Obama birth certificate "scandal". I'm just putting things in prospective.

The hypocrisy is sickening.

[Upgrade Dave]

When I say Romney's a big f%cking liar, I mean he's a HUGE f&cking liar.

AAA, talk to your folks about distortions please before you climb off that soapbox

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/r...173202620.html



Mitt Romney and his staff are accusing President Barack Obama of threatening the ability of military personnel to vote early in Ohio following the administration's decision to sue the state over new early voting laws.

The Democratic lawsuit aims to restore early voting rights for all Ohio voters, but Republicans are crying foul.

"We disagree with the basic premise that it is 'arbitrary' and unconstitutional to give three extra days of in-person early voting to military voters and their families, and believe it is a dangerous and offensive argument for President Obama and the DNC [Democratic National Committee] to make," Katie Biber, general counsel for the Romney campaign wrote in a memo issued Sunday. "It is despicable for the Obama campaign to challenge Ohio's lawful decision."

The memo follows comments issued by Romney on Saturday denouncing the Obama administration's actions. "President Obama's lawsuit claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state's early voting period is an outrage," Romney said in a statement in which he pledged to stand with the 15 military groups defending the state law.

But Obama staffers say the Romney campaign is "completely false and misleading" in its characterizations.

"What that lawsuit calls for is not to deprive the military of the right to vote on the final weekend of the campaign—of course they should have that right," Obama's top campaign adviser David Axelrod told host Chis Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." "What that suit is about is whether the rest of Ohio should have that same right. And I think it's shameful that Gov. Romney would hide behind our servicemen and women to try and win a lawsuit to try to deprive other Ohioans of the right to vote."

Wallace noted that 15 military groups oppose the lawsuit, including the National Guard Association. But Axelrod suggested they are misinformed. "They need to look at the lawsuit and they need to know that that lawsuit stands up for the right of military service people to vote early but it wants that right for everybody in Ohio," Axelrod said. He then accused Republicans of trying to shrink voting participation.


Obama for America, the DNC and the Ohio Democratic Party filed a lawsuit on July 17 in U.S. District Court against the Ohio secretary of state over a new state law Democrats argue illegally deprives nonmilitary voters of early voting privileges. The lawsuit seeks to restore early voting rights for all Ohioans.

"Ohio election law, as currently enacted by the State of Ohio and administered by Defendant Ohio Secretary of State, arbitrarily eliminates early voting during the three days prior to Election Day for most Ohio voters, a right previously available to all Ohio voters," the lawsuit states.


The Republican-sponsored law ends early in-person voting for nonmembers of the military three days prior to Election Day this November, eliminating early voting on the Saturday, Sunday and Monday leading up to Nov. 6.

Romney's campaign, select military groups defending Ohio's law and others say that special consideration and flexibility for military voters is wholly constitutional and helps secure the right to vote for the military amid the added challenges they face.

Ohio is a key swing state Obama narrowly carried in 2008 by 4 percentage points, or 207,000 votes. The Democratic lawsuit states that in 2008, 93,000 voters in Ohio took advantage of in-person early voting in the three days leading up to the election.
...
.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/r...173202620.html


"We disagree with the basic premise that it is 'arbitrary' and unconstitutional to give three extra days of in-person early voting to military voters and their families, and believe it is a dangerous and offensive argument for President Obama and the DNC [Democratic National Committee] to make," Katie Biber, general counsel for the Romney campaign wrote in a memo issued Sunday. "It is despicable for the Obama campaign to challenge Ohio's lawful decision."

Have these people no regard for the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of these United States ? ? ? - - which provides:

"no state (including Ohio) shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Clearly and emphatically the Equal Protection Clause means that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.

Here, whether they are members of the military or mere members of civilian society - - they (the persons) are ALL just voters. No right (the ability to vote with greater ease, etc.,) should be given to one voter that is not given to another voter.

Voting is a "Fundamental Right" -- and the SCOTUS has ruled long ago that a state cannot create classes, i.e., classes of voters, and enact a law that favors or discriminates between those clases of voters, unless there is a compelling gotdamn reason for doing so. That compelling reason, I respectfully submit, Ohio does not have - - because there is no reason why a soldier should have any greater access to vote than any other citizen.

Hence, the republican-driven Ohio law designed and enacted with the idea of influencing the presidential election in favor of the republican candidtate is, patently UnFuckingConstitutional.

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by QueEx

Have these people no regard for the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of these United States ? ? ? - - which provides:

"no state (including Ohio) shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Clearly and emphatically the Equal Protection Clause means that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.

Here, whether they are members of the military or mere members of civilian society - - they (the persons) are ALL just voters. No right (the ability to vote with greater ease, etc.,) should be given to one voter that is not given to another voter.

Voting is a "Fundamental Right" -- and the SCOTUS has ruled long ago that a state cannot create classes, i.e., classes of voters, and enact a law that favors or discriminates between those clases of voters, unless there is a compelling gotdamn reason for doing so. That compelling reason, I respectfully submit, Ohio does not have - - because there is no reason why a soldier should have any greater access to vote than any other citizen.

Hence, the republican-driven Ohio law designed and enacted with the idea of influencing the presidential election in favor of the republican candidtate is, patently UnFuckingConstitutional.

So the Obama Admin sues to get all early voting rights restored/protected and it's become "They're trying to take early voting from military"?

[QueEx]

Precisely !

[Upgrade Dave]

Can't wait for Romney supporters to speak out against his distortion of facts because I know that grinds their gears.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

Can't wait for Romney supporters to speak out against his distortion of facts because I know that grinds their gears.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by QueEx

Ice cold.