Politics Plus

Republicans love to crow about how they and they alone support our troops, but in RepubliSpeak, that only means spending billions to greedy war contractors.  Republicans have no concern for the men and women who have put their lives on the line to serve our nation.  If they cared, they would not have done this!

Legislation to put veterans to work preserving and restoring national parks and other federal, state and local lands was defeated Wednesday afternoon when Senate Republicans successfully blocked the bill’s advance with a budgetary point of order.

The largely party-line Senate vote of 58-40 fell two votes short of the three-fifths majority needed to overcome the procedural objection. Republicans said the Veterans Job Corps bill violated the Budget Control Act by adding a new program that would increase the deficit.

“They’re going to kill it on a technicality,” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), one of the bill’s co-sponsors, said on the floor before the vote. “That’s the bottom line here. That’s what’s going on here, and it’s sad.”

Democrats charged that Republican opposition stemmed from a refusal to support an initiative that originated in the White House. The corps, loosely based on the Civilian Conservation Corps created during the Great Depression, would employ veterans in conservation, resource management and historic preservation projects on public lands. The legislation would also provide for hiring veterans as police officers and firefighters.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said the measure would have “sailed” through the Senate in past years but had been derailed by partisanship. “Blocking a veterans’ jobs bill is a new low,” he said in a statement… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

Photo credit: Anti-Republican Crusaders

Rachel Maddow and former Congressman and Iraq vet Patrick Murphy discuss how Republicans cravenly turned their backs on our vets.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Murphy is right. This is a disgrace, but it his hardly new.  Democrats have routinely supported increased pay for troops and benefits for vets over Republican opposition.  I suppose that in the Republican view, our vets are just part of the 47% they disdain.

For the past two Sundays, I have posted election projections, in which I have forecast an Obama/Biden victory as highly likely. However, I have included the caveat that my calculations do not account for Republican prohibition of the voting rights of legitimate Democratic voters.  Unless this Republican election fraud is stopped, their voter suppression could tip the balance in several states.  One such is Pennsylvania with 20 electoral votes.  I’m happy to bring good news.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court today vacated a lower-court decision upholding the state’s voter ID law, instructing Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson to rehear the case, looking specifically at whether the state is doing enough to make sure that every eligible Pennsylvania voter has the right ID to cast a ballot. The supreme court, in a 4-2 decision, found a “disconnect between what the Law prescribes and how it is being implemented,” and noted that “if the Law is enforced in a manner that prevents qualified and eligible electors from voting, the integrity of the upcoming General Election will be impaired.”

Two key sections of the court decision:

Overall, we are confronted with an ambitious effort on the part of the General Assembly to bring the new identification procedure into effect within a relatively short timeframe and an implementation process which has by no means been seamless in light of the serious operational constraints faced by the executive branch. Given this state of affairs, we are not satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials.

…We will return the matter to the Commonwealth Court to make a present an assessment of the actual availability of the alternate identification cards on a developed record in light of the experience since the time the cards became available. In this regard, the court is to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment of the cards comport with the requirement of liberal access which the General Assembly attached to the issuance of PennDOT identification cards. If they do not, or if the Commonwealth Court is not still convinced in its predictive judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election, that court is obliged to enter a preliminary injunction.

The important takeaway from the ruling is that the supreme court shifted the burden of proof from the plaintiffs, who in lower court had to show that eligible voters would be disenfranchised by the law, to the state, who now has to prove that voters will not be disenfranchised. That’s why lawyers for the plaintiffs, which includes the ACLU and the Advancement Project, are optimistic about the chances of receiving a preliminary injunction when the Commonwealth Court rehears the case, possibly as soon as next week. A decision is mandated by October 2… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Nation>

Photo credit: bolgernow

Given that Pennsylvania Republicans have openly stated that this law was intended to steer the election to Willard, and given that PennDOT lacks the capacity to process the needed ID in the time allotted, the state’s burden of proof is insurmountable.

If you voted for Barack Obama…

If you are a vet and were maimed defending our nation…

If you worked all your life, and paid for Social Security…

If you paid for your Medicare…

If you have a student loan…

If your children receive a free meal at school…

If you receive unemployment benefits, even if Bain Capital outsourced your job…

If you receive food stamps…

If you receive a penny from the government in any way (except corporate welfare)…

Then Romney does not concern himself with you, because you are a lazy moocher, you refuse to take responsibility for your own life, and you consider yourself a victim.

How do we know?  Willard said so himself!

Republican nominee Mitt Romney, speaking to donors at a closed-door fundraiser this year, said that supporters of President Obama failed to take personal responsibility for their lives, relied on government for their needs and paid no income tax.

“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care of them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it,” Romney said in a videotaped speech to donors that was given to the news organization Mother Jones, which posted it online Monday.

“That’s an entitlement," Romney said. "And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. … These are people who pay no income tax.”

In the remarks, Romney said he had no hope of swaying those people to his side and would instead focus on unaligned voters.

"[M]y job is not to worry about those people,” Romney said, referring to Obama supporters. “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <LA Times>

Willard said he was speaking off the cuff.  He was, and to me that means he was unguardedly saying what he really thinks.  He certainly was with those with whom he has most in common: people who can afford $50,000 for dinner.

Ed Schultz covered the story with Ted Strickland and EJ Dionne.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This was a proclamation of class warfare.  Romney’s statements only acknowledge the policies of the Republican Party.  I am a proud member of the 47%.  I AM entitled to my Social Security and Medicare.  I PAID for them.  But the Republican War on America, extends beyond just 47%.  It’s a war against the 99%!