VA to ban nonpartisan vote-drives to vets.

[SirNitram]

NYT

WHAT is the secretary of Veterans Affairs thinking? On May 5, the department led by James B. Peake issued a directive that bans nonpartisan voter registration drives at federally financed nursing homes, rehabilitation centers and shelters for homeless veterans. As a result, too many of our most patriotic American citizens — our injured and ill military veterans — may not be able to vote this November.

I have witnessed the enforcement of this policy. On June 30, I visited the Veterans Affairs Hospital in West Haven, Conn., to distribute information on the state’s new voting machines and to register veterans to vote. I was not allowed inside the hospital.

Outside on the sidewalk, I met Martin O’Nieal, a 92-year-old man who lost a leg while fighting the Nazis in the mountains of Northern Italy during the harsh winter of 1944. Mr. O’Nieal has been a resident of the hospital since 2007. He wanted to vote last year, but he told me that there was no information about how to register to vote at the hospital and the nurses could not answer his questions about how or where to cast a ballot.

I carry around hundreds of blank voter registration cards in the trunk of my car for just such occasions, so I was able to register Mr. O’Nieal in November. I also registered a few more veterans — whoever I could find outside on the hospital’s sidewalk.

There are thousands of veterans of wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and the current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan who are isolated behind the walls of V.A. hospitals and nursing homes across the country. We have an obligation to make sure that every veteran has the opportunity to make his or her voice heard at the ballot box.

Connecticut’s attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, and I wrote to Secretary Peake in July to request that elections officials be let inside the department’s facilities to conduct voter education and registration. Our request was denied.

The department offers two reasons to justify its decision. First, it claims that voter registration drives are disruptive to the care of its patients. This is nonsense. Veterans can fill out a voter registration card in about 90 seconds.

Second, the department claims that its employees cannot help patients register to vote because the Hatch Act forbids federal workers from engaging in partisan political activities. But this interpretation of the Hatch Act is erroneous. Registering people to vote is not partisan activity.

If the department does not want to burden its staff, there are several national organizations with a long history of nonpartisan advocacy for veterans and their right to vote that are eager to help, as are elected officials like me.

The department has placed an illegitimate obstacle in the way of election officials across the country and, more important, in the way of veterans who want to vote. A group of 21 secretaries of state — Republicans and Democrats throughout the country, led by me and my counterpart in Washington State, Sam Reed — has asked Secretary Peake to lift his department’s ridiculous ban on voter registration drives.

Bills that would require the department to repeal the ban have been filed in both houses of Congress. They need to be signed into law no later than Oct. 1, so that veterans in V.A. care don’t miss their states’ deadlines to register to vote in the fall elections.

But federal legislation shouldn’t be needed for the Department of Veterans Affairs to lift the ban on voter registration drives by state and local election officials and nonpartisan groups.

The federal government should be doing everything it can to support our nation’s veterans who have served us so courageously. There can be no justification for any barrier that impedes the ability of veterans to participate in democracy’s most fundamental act, the vote.

I concur, SecState Bysiewicz. It's a bizarre thing; the GOP has begun it's training classes to purge voter rolls with maximum 'Aw, shucks, were jus' mistakes!' CYA built in. But Vets? McCain's 'Let's divert caregiving away from the VA so I can call it pork and slash it' plan is getting revealed for what it is(And a convention of veterans recently hated it and his entirely-negative message) is apparently hurting him alot.

[frigidmagi]

You know, we went to bat for em. We went up for Reagan in 80 and 84. We voted for Sr. in 88 and most of us went for him in 92 and for Dole in 96. We voted for Jr in 2000. Most of my unit in Okinawa did as well.

In 2004 we ended up facing a pretty shitty choice in our view. Kerry may have spend a part of that campaign singing about his military service but to be honest most of the vets knew him better for what he did when he got home and the overall feeling I got was he turned on his boys to get political power. Jr was pissing on us pretty hard core right then and there to cutting benefits and pressuring the military to cut costs by screwing over enlisted. I noticed no damn Generals got fucked over though. Don't think that escaped the notice folks. Don't ever think that.

So our choice was a guy we knew had turned on us in the past during a nasty unpopular war and a guy who was turning on us now and had ordered the start of a nasty unpopular war. Pretty Stark wasn't it?

Well you saw the Swift Boating, the Webb columns and so on shooting back and forth. It was messy. To be honest with you military vets aren't exactly the most cohesive of voting blacks but we do tend to vote in trends. 2004 saw alot of vets jump off the Republican ship.

This year we got a WAR HERO versus some lawyer out of Chi-Town who never served. Should be an easy choice yes? Huh Not the way you're thinking.

The WAR HERO has been helping saw away at benefits. He fought a good modernization of the GI Bill. All of this while screaming about being a vet.
And the lawyer? He's been backing us up.

It don't work that way bubba. You don't get the benefits of being part of the unit while fucking over the unit. You fuck over the unit, you got tossed out of the unit. You stop being us and start being them.

I had hoped that the reaction of the Vets, from VoteVet.com and others would well... Shake some wakefulness into the certain people. Or at least some simple human decency but it seems they have decided to treat us the same as they treat the fundamentalists. Use us for as long as we're good for it and then drop us and try to shove under a rug and hope we choke under there.

They had best hope that Obama turns out to be some kinda of Bond Villain or a Sith because otherwise the next decade or so is gonna be a lonely one for them.

[SirNitram]

I cannot speak meaningfully on the voting patterns of veterans or active duty servicemen. Thankfully, I can simply cite those handy contribution studies.

Link

During World War II, soldiers crouching in foxholes penned letters assuring their sweethearts that they'd be home soon. Now, between firefights in the Iraqi desert, some infantrymen have been sending a different kind of mail stateside: two or three hundred dollars -- or whatever they can spare -- towards a presidential election that could very well determine just how soon they come home.

According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain's haul.

Despite McCain's status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall -- whether stationed overseas or at home -- are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama.

With the latest campaign finance filings, detailing June fundraising, McCain has overtaken Paul among all military donors, though Paul still leads with contributors listing an overseas address. Financial support from military personnel for anti-war candidates Obama and Paul is a trend that the Center for Responsive Politics first observed last September.

Individuals in the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps have all leaned Republican this cycle, but the only branch in which that ideology has carried over to the presidential race is the Marine Corps, where McCain leads Obama by about $4,000. In each of the other branches -- including the Navy, in which McCain served when he was taken prisoner during the Vietnam War -- Obama leads by significant margins.

"That's shocking. The academic debate is between some who say that junior enlisted ranks lean slightly Republican and some who say it's about equal, but no one would point to six-to-one" in Democrats' favor, said Aaron Belkin, a professor of political science at the University of California who studies the military. "That represents a tremendous shift from 2000, when the military vote almost certainly was decisive in Florida and elsewhere, and leaned heavily towards the Republicans."

In 2000, Republican George W. Bush outraised Democrat Al Gore among military personnel almost 2 to 1. In 2004, with the Iraq war underway, John Kerry closed the gap with President Bush, but Bush still raised $1.50 from the military for every $1 his Democratic opponent collected.

A former West Point professor, Jason Dempsey, noted that the small set of contributions from deployed troops at this point in 2008 -- just 323 donations -- should not be extrapolated to form conclusions about military personnel overall. "If, on a bad day, a guy gets that letter that says [his tour has been extended] from 12 to 15 months, that could spur a quick donation and expression of anger," he said. "Donating helps members of the military express their political views privately."

Seeing political activity of any sort among soldiers is notable, Dempsey added. "It's hard to describe how apolitical a lot of the enlisted ranks are. He's worried about other things than following the news."

Obama, who opposed the war in Iraq but was not in the Senate when it was authorized, has said that as president, he would withdraw most troops from Iraq within about 16 months. McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a staunch proponent of the Iraq war, has resisted setting a timeline for withdrawal.

CRP's totals based on employer are limited to donors contributing more than $200, since information is not provided to the Federal Election Commission for smaller contributions. So these figures are likely to disproportionately represent the mood of officers, who have more disposable income to spend on politics than do the lower ranks. But because young people tend to be more liberal than their elders, the total dollar figures could lean even more in Obama's favor.

"One possibly mundane explanation (for the tilt in contributions from deployed soldiers) is that the Obama campaign has just been so much savvier with web-based donors. It may be a logistical question," Belkin pointed out.

Army Specialist Jay Navas contributed $250 while deployed in Iraq, but it wasn't over the Internet. "It took some effort to get that check. I had my mom send me my checkbook and I walked to the post office in Camp Liberty in Baghdad with an envelope addressed to Barack Obama in Chicago, Illinois," he said. "He was right on Iraq long when others were jumping into the sea like lemmings, and that's hard to do. We're soldiers and we respect courage."

Only the Coast Guard prefers Democrats across the board, with 78 percent of employees' total federal contributions going to members of that party, and Obama beating McCain $7,795 to $250. Navas anecdotally confirmed that soldiers are often conservative but that many are making an exception in the presidential race. "Most of my friends are conservative Republicans and they say, 'I'm voting for Barack.' McCain does not have a lock on the military vote, that's for sure," he said. "We'll complete our duty -- I'm deploying next year -- because it's a commitment I made to the nation, not to a president. But we all know that Iraq was a big mistake."

The decisions of the U.S. government affect Navas more than most Americans, he said.

"What happens politically in America affects us immediately," he said. "As soon as the surge was ordered, my tour was extended, just by a pronouncement from the president. For very few Americans can the president say something and your lives are changed."

6:1 in Obama's favor. Money talks, bullshit walks, gentlemen. And the money is talking very clearly.

[SirNitram]

Link

McCain's response to 6:1 from the soldiers? 'We've got more retired admirals and generals!' Awful elitist to put the brass over the enlisted! Also, active-duty troops are way too busy to donate. Nevermind they did donate, just to Obama.