It doesn't say Obama stonewalled the nominees in the article. Did he?

Nabb1: It doesn't say Obama stonewalled the nominees in the article. Did he?

He put a hold on renowned vote cager Howie Van Spanker. McConnell then put a hold on the rest of the nominees preventing the quorum.

BritneysSpeculum: Nabb1: It doesn't say Obama stonewalled the nominees in the article. Did he?

He put a hold on renowned vote cager Howie Van Spanker. McConnell then put a hold on the rest of the nominees preventing the quorum.

Gotcha. Thanks. It would probably take the FEC months to do anything, anyway.

So Obama held up one nominee, possibly with good reason, and McConnell the rest of them? So the headline is off-base. What a surprise...

Nabb1: It doesn't say Obama stonewalled the nominees in the article. Did he?

Yep. (new window)

I'm sure the Bush appointees would jump right on that, if they could.

/yeah, right.

didn't he hold up the one who favored voters to show ID? so now that the supremes have ruled, no doubt he'll back off his opposition and let him be confirmed, right? right?

albo: didn't he hold up the one who favored voters to show ID? so now that the supremes have ruled, no doubt he'll back off his opposition and let him be confirmed, right? right?

Why would he do that, if he's taking a principled stand?

albo: didn't he hold up the one who favored voters to show ID? so now that the supremes have ruled, no doubt he'll back off his opposition and let him be confirmed, right? right?

He held up one person... who was a partisan Republican operative known for voter caging. The GOP was hoping having him on the FEC would quash any investigation into their voter caging operations. The Republicans held up the rest.

How does this help Obama's children?

SquirrelsOfDoom: Nabb1: It doesn't say Obama stonewalled the nominees in the article. Did he?

Yep. (new window)

I'm sure you realize that the story you linked describes Obama blocking one nomination, and not all four like the headline claims.

I'm sure you wouldn't do something so intellectually dishonest as intentionally spread disinformation because it happens to suit your political interests.

I'm sure of it.

This is the guy Obama moved to hold.

He was implicated in the Attorney firings. His own colleagues accused him of "injecting partisan political factors" into decision making in the election commission.

He was a cog in the GOP hacking of the justice Department for electoral advantage.

Obama's hold was absolutely principled and necessary.

McConnell's was pure politics.

BKITU: disinformationmisinformation

FTFM

Maybe President Bush should try appointing some people to the FEC that Congress is willing to confirm.

Failure to ensure that the FEC has a quorum is a failure to execute the laws of the United States. It falls on the Executive Branch to find a way to git 'er done.

submitter: Which would be filled by now if Obama hadn't personally stonewalled the nominees

Yeah, what a jackass for not allowing someone who supports restricting voting right to the FEC.

BKITU: BKITU: disinformationmisinformation lies

FTFM

Lets just call a long handled excavation tool a long handled excavation tool.

Paedophile_Deluxe: Yeah, what a jackass for not allowing someone who supports restricting voting right to the FEC.

Wow, what an abortion of a sentence. Let's try again: Yeah, what a jackass for not allowing someone who supports restricting voting rights to be appointed to the FEC.

Oh good more Clinton Obama drama. And people wonder why Mccains numbers keep climbing.

Look, people, if they pass the literacy tests, they get to vote. Is that so hard to understand?

Oh, what's that? You said this is 2008? I could've sworn this was 1952. It looks and feels just like 1952. Oh, yes, the internet. That's a dead give away. How silly of me. (ahem)

Look, people, if they show a photo ID and their name is on the voter registration list, they get to vote. Is that so hard to understand?

BKITU
I'm sure you realize that the story you linked describes Obama blocking one nomination, and not all four like the headline claims.

QFT.
If the plural is inaccurate, one has to wonder why, oh why the submitted headline is green (and not red).


I'm sure you wouldn't do something so intellectually dishonest as intentionally spread disinformation because it happens to suit your political interests.

You light up my life.

Skleenar: Obama's hold was absolutely principled and necessary.

McConnell's was pure politics.

Glad subbie's biased misinformed attack headline got exposed but howsabout the group from TFA themselves?

Hill's got her own little 527 werking hard fer her now?

Who are they exactly when they are at home?

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the AFSCME is the United States' largest single contributor to political campaigns, having donated more than US$38 million since 1990.

Okay, and now they are shelling out beaucoup bucks in the form of attack ads against Obama?

Did someone fergit to tell them that the campaign started a few months back or that it's all but over now?

Remove all Republicans: Although your Weeners could apply to Obama himself.

I'd prefer to apply my Weener to Heidi Klum, thank you very much.

/not that there's anything wrong with that

Don't you love it when partisan politics turns around and bites the hand that feeds them?

Code_Archeologist: albo: didn't he hold up the one who favored voters to show ID? so now that the supremes have ruled, no doubt he'll back off his opposition and let him be confirmed, right? right?

He held up one person... who was a partisan Republican operative known for voter caging. The GOP was hoping having him on the FEC would quash any investigation into their voter caging operations. The Republicans held up the rest.

it's important to also note that the republicans held up the rest because they refused to let them be confirmed one at a time, because they wanted this one guy on. much like how bush vetoed any FISA bills that didn't have telecom immunity in them, all while charging that congress was preventing the bill to be passed.

once again, the true motives were more than apparent.

Actually, from what I recall:

* The FEC has only two people, both of whom are serving beyond the end of their terms, so really there's not a single properly appointed member and there should be six, not four, nominees.

* Three nominations, two Democrats and one Republican, are being held up in the Senate.

* The remaining three seats don't even have a presidential nominee for Congress to act on.

* There's also legislation in play that would dissolve the FEC entirely and replace it by a three-member panel with expanded powers.

So that's what they mean by 6 degrees.

Remove all Republicans: Although your Weeners could apply to Obama himself. Ha ha.

Well, if he swings that way. NTTAWWT.

albo: didn't he hold up the one who favored voters to show ID? so now that the supremes have ruled, no doubt he'll back off his opposition and let him be confirmed, right? right?

If you didn't have a driver's license, you would have needed the Georgia photo ID card... which would have cost you $20. These photo IDs were quite quickly ruled unconstitutional. von Spakovsky, of course, did not see a $20+ requirement to vote as a poll tax. Sounds like prime FEC material to me.

Tallgordon: Look, people, if they pass the literacy tests, they get to vote. Is that so hard to understand?

You're comparing a literacy test to having the civic knowledge of being able to go to the DMV and get a free ID card?

fosborb: If you didn't have a driver's license, you would have needed the Georgia photo ID card... which would have cost you $20. These photo IDs were quite quickly ruled unconstitutional. von Spakovsky, of course, did not see a $20+ requirement to vote as a poll tax. Sounds like prime FEC material to me.

Of course it's not a Poll Tax, silly. It's a Prove You Are Who You Say You Are to Anyone Who Demands It Citizen Tax. You simply need to meet the election official's demand that you prove that you are who you say you are. It's completely different.

sarcastrophe: You're comparing a literacy test to having the civic knowledge of being able to go to the DMV and get a free ID card?

Where do you live? I've never heard of a place where this is free. There are always fees.

sarcastrophe: You're comparing a literacy test to having the civic knowledge of being able to go to the DMV and get a free ID card?

von Spakovsky fought for a straight up poll tax under the guise of guarding against voter fraud.

His nomination is rightly laughable.

Remove all Republicans: Tallgordon: Look, people, if they show a photo ID and their name is on the voter registration list, they get to vote. Is that so hard to understand?

Because not everyone can afford to pay for a photo ID. The homeless and indigent have a right to vote too.

Which is why voter-ID laws normally come with free-for-poor-people clauses so that that particular stalking horse of an argument doesn't apply.


Paedophile_Deluxe: Yeah, what a jackass for not allowing someone who supports restricting voting right to the FEC.

His position (voter-ID is constitutional) has just been affirmed by the SCOTUS.
So he's being opposed for supporting current law?


poot_rootbeer: Maybe President Bush should try appointing some people to the FEC that Congress is willing to confirm.

Obama didn't hold up the appointment because Congress wouldn't be willing to confirm him - he held up the appointment because they likely WOULD. The Senate is full of special rules like this - where an individual Senator can impose his/her dislikes on an appointment and prevent the Senate body from ever considering a nominee.

mcwebe0: Where do you live? I've never heard of a place where this is free. There are always fees.

Link (new window)

fosborb: von Spakovsky fought for a straight up poll tax under the guise of guarding against voter fraud.

His nomination is rightly laughable.

That's not the argument that was made. I'm specifically referring to voter identification.

Remove all Republicans: Tallgordon: Look, people, if they show a photo ID and their name is on the voter registration list, they get to vote. Is that so hard to understand?

Because not everyone can afford to pay for a photo ID. The homeless and indigent have a right to vote too.


And considering the fact that you could buy several votes from them all day for a bottle of ripple and pack of cigs, they most definately need photo ID's.

Because everyone knows right after Speedy Gonzales sneaks across the border he goes directly to the emergency room for a doctor visit, then to the welfare office for all the glorious free handouts and then directly to the nearest polling station to vote for a democrat. Right?

/oh and then he steals the job you always wanted that pays $8 an hour.

And if you're too lazy to RTFL:

"Detractors insist that this is a backdoor poll tax designed to suppress turnout among certain (Democratic-leaning) voting groups, such as the poor, minorities and the elderly. That, indeed, may be the not-so-blameless goal of some of the legislators who voted for the restrictions, all of whom were Republicans. Indiana's voter ID cards, of course, are free. But critics say the time and expense of gathering certain required documents-a birth certificate or a passport, for example-are too great for some Indianans to bear, particularly those born out of state or those with no cars of their own."

Are the Dems for or against the national ID? I can't keep the parties straight on that one.

sarcastrophe: Link (new window)

Okay. Now please demonstrate how a homeless person born in another state is supposed to get all the documentation required. Hell, a homeless person born in Indiana for that matter. It is still something that restricts people who have poor life skills and keeps their voices from being heard. Like it or not, they are citizens and deserve to have their votes count.

SquirrelsOfDoom: Nabb1: It doesn't say Obama stonewalled the nominees in the article. Did he?

Yep. (new window)

Ah, WSJ. Thanks for doing exactly what I thought you would do. "So much for Mr. Obama's call to transcend partisanship."

Yeah, because "transcending partisanship" means using your power to bend over and take it from any jackass who wants anything at the moment. Like giving a known vote cager a spot on the FEC. Nice logic there, WSJ.

Tallgordon: Look, people, if they pass the literacy tests, they get to vote. Is that so hard to understand?

Oh, what's that? You said this is 2008? I could've sworn this was 1952. It looks and feels just like 1952. Oh, yes, the internet. That's a dead give away. How silly of me. (ahem)

Look, people, if they show a photo ID and their name is on the voter registration list, they get to vote. Is that so hard to understand?

So there is a cost to vote? Hmmmm, my poll tax wants a word with you.

Bonus question: whose voters would this new policy cost the most votes?

Hint: Minorities and elderly are least likely to have purchased an ID.

mcwebe0: Okay. Now please demonstrate how a homeless person born in another state is supposed to get all the documentation required. Hell, a homeless person born in Indiana for that matter. It is still something that restricts people who have poor life skills and keeps their voices from being heard. Like it or not, they are citizens and deserve to have their votes count.

In the law, there are exemptions for the indigent. You're going to have to be a little bit more informed to argue your point on Fark.

sarcastrophe: In the law, there are exemptions for the indigent. You're going to have to be a little bit more informed to argue your point on Fark.

I'm not just talking about the homeless here. I'm talking about poor families who are struggling to make ends meet. People for whom 80% of their net monthly income is devoted to paying rent. Are there exemptions for them? Can you simply have a person who is identifiable sign an affidavit certifying your identity? What is the work around? Where is the exemption in that law? The article you linked seemed to indicate that the thinking was that only about 1% of citizens would be affected to fark 'em. I see the need to regulate the elections system and to avoid voter impersonation, but it will require a multi-decade plan to avoid unwanted effects.

bmasso: His position (voter-ID is constitutional) has just been affirmed by the SCOTUS.
So he's being opposed for supporting current law?

von Spakovsky's position was that voter ID that you have to pay for is constitutional.

SCOTUS ruled 3-3-3. 3 saying hell no, 3 saying hell yeah, and the 3 who wrote the majority opinion saying if you can bring any case of voter disenfranchisement due to these laws, please, please, please bring them forward.

Voter ID is far from decided. Which is why the Georgia voter ID challenge is still hoping to go to the Supreme Court. (Georgia's ID is now free)

sarcastrophe: In the law, there are exemptions for the indigent. You're going to have to be a little bit more informed to argue your point on Fark.

...

Not all states have the same laws regarding ID fees.

mcwebe0: I'm not just talking about the homeless here. I'm talking about poor families who are struggling to make ends meet. People for whom 80% of their net monthly income is devoted to paying rent. Are there exemptions for them? Can you simply have a person who is identifiable sign an affidavit certifying your identity? What is the work around? Where is the exemption in that law? The article you linked seemed to indicate that the thinking was that only about 1% of citizens would be affected to fark 'em. I see the need to regulate the elections system and to avoid voter impersonation, but it will require a multi-decade plan to avoid unwanted effects.

How do you get a job without proper identification? It's not possbile to do so legally. If you have a job, you must fill out an I-9, which requires that you identify yourself. If you can identify yourself to your employer, you can identify yourself for voting.

If you don't have a job and are on welfare, you still must be able to identify yourself.

If you don't have a job and are indigent, you can fill out the affidavit as such.

BKITU: Not all states have the same laws regarding ID fees.

They can be challenged. The SCOTUS upheld this ruling which I think is incredibly fair. Without these exceptions, I'd tend to agree with you.

Who cares if the cards are free?

What about the fairly rediculous requirements to get one?

I spend half a day at the DMV only to find out that despite the fact that I have a US passport and documents with my current address, its not enough to get a license. I have to have an actual social security card. (Long since missing.)

After spending a day waiting at the SS office, I couldn't get a replacement card because someone misspelled my name 30 years ago. I need to have a birth certificate to get it corrected and get a replacement.

And of course, it costs $40 to get a copy of my birth certificate so that I can spend another day waiting in line at the SS office to get my social security card so that I can spend another half day at the DMV.

Three days off of work plus $40 but you're saying the license is "free"?

All because my passport isn't a good enough identity document.

I'm middle-class with a flexible job so this wasn't a big deal but I have friends who live paycheck to paycheck who wouldn't be able to navigate this red tape.

Tough call... Is submitter:

1) a troll?
2) an idiot?
2) an asshat?
3) an asshat idiot troll?

Okay, not that tough. I think you know how I'm voting.

I love it when a plan comes together

Aexia: Who cares if the cards are free?

What about the fairly rediculous requirements to get one?

I spend half a day at the DMV only to find out that despite the fact that I have a US passport and documents with my current address, its not enough to get a license. I have to have an actual social security card. (Long since missing.)

After spending a day waiting at the SS office, I couldn't get a replacement card because someone misspelled my name 30 years ago. I need to have a birth certificate to get it corrected and get a replacement.

And of course, it costs $40 to get a copy of my birth certificate so that I can spend another day waiting in line at the SS office to get my social security card so that I can spend another half day at the DMV.

Three days off of work plus $40 but you're saying the license is "free"?

All because my passport isn't a good enough identity document.

I'm middle-class with a flexible job so this wasn't a big deal but I have friends who live paycheck to paycheck who wouldn't be able to navigate this red tape.

This.