Tag Archives: carter

Please Stop Pretending That Millennials Are Loyal Supporters of Hillary Clinton

Mother Jones

Atrios:

The savvy thing for liberal pundits to do is to write think pieces that millennials will never read about how stupid millennials are for considering voting for 3rd parties, even though millennials (according to polls) are voting for Team D in a higher proportion than any other age group. Amazingly they figured that out without the sage wisdom from their elders, who are voting for Trump. Stupid Kids Today!

I’ve been ignoring the sudden popularity of this meme, but enough’s enough. As it happens, millennial support for Hillary Clinton isn’t higher than any other age group when you poll a 4-person race—which is, after all, the actual race being contested. But even if it were, the issue isn’t raw support. Young voters are far more liberal than older voters and have voted heavily for Democrats for years. The issue is relative support compared to previous years.

The chart on the right compares exit polls from 2012 with a recent Quinnipiac poll. It’s not a perfect match with the exit polls, but it’s close. And what it shows is that millennial voters prefer Hillary Clinton at far lower levels than they preferred Barack Obama four years ago. Other age groups are down too, but just a few points. Only among young voters has support plummeted, and it’s plummeted by enough to put the election in genuine doubt.

So yes, Hillary Clinton really does have a big problem with millennials. As for third parties, I’ll say only this: in 1980, when I was 22, I voted for John Anderson. That sure was stupid. Eight years of Ronald Reagan because Jimmy Carter didn’t quite meet my idealistic standards of excellence for presidents. I’ve never made that mistake again.

Link: 

Please Stop Pretending That Millennials Are Loyal Supporters of Hillary Clinton

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Please Stop Pretending That Millennials Are Loyal Supporters of Hillary Clinton

Pentagon Approves Women in All Military Roles, Including Combat

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This is pretty big news:

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Thursday he will formally end the Pentagon’s ban on women serving in combat jobs…. “There will be no exceptions,” Carter told a Pentagon news conference. “This means that, as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before.”

First blacks, then gays, now women. And mirabile dictu, Republican opposition so far appears to be fairly muted. Next up: will women be required to register for the draft on their 18th birthday? Carter says that will be evaluated within a few weeks.

This is yet another big win for our lame duck president. He’s making quite a go of things in his last two years.

Source article:  

Pentagon Approves Women in All Military Roles, Including Combat

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Pentagon Approves Women in All Military Roles, Including Combat

Military Opens All Combat Jobs to Women

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced on Thursday that the military will open all of its combat jobs, including those in special operations, to women for the first time.

Those combat jobs, including in infantry, artillery, tanks, and other front-line roles, will be open to women after a 30-day waiting period, Carter announced at a press conference. “Today I’m announcing my decision…to proceed with opening all these remaining occupations and positions to women,” he said. “There will be no exceptions.”

Carter cast the decision as a vital tool in recruiting talent and keeping up the military’s capabilities. “Our force of the future must continue to benefit from the best people America has to offer,” he said. “In the 21st century, that includes drawing strength from the broadest possible pool of talent.”

The military opened some indirect combat jobs to women in 1993, including flying combat aircraft and serving on Navy fighting ships, but kept front-line roles closed to female service members. That translated to about 220,000 positions across the military in 2015, Carter said. The change began in 2013, when the Obama administration said the military would have three years to study the role of women in combat and provide any reasons why they should still be barred from jobs such as infantry, artillery, and other direct combat roles. In that time, the military conducted studies and tests in which women participated in grueling combat schools, including Marine infantry officer training and the Army’s Ranger School, which three female officers passed this year. Carter said all the services except the Marine Corps recommended full integration. That includes Special Operations Command, which oversees elite forces like the Navy SEALs and the Army’s Delta Force.

Carter said he was confident that the inclusion of women would not reduce combat effectiveness, and that physical and performance standards would not be altered for women. Some military standards, including the scores on mandatory physical fitness tests, are scaled differently for men and women. “Women will be subject to the same standards and rules that men will,” he said. “Combat effectiveness is why we’re here.”

Carter acknowledged that the transition may be rocky. “While at the end of the day this will make us a better and stronger force, there still will be problems to fix and challenges to overcome,” he said. “We shouldn’t diminish that.” he said.

The Marine Corps was the service most vehemently opposed to integration. It released a study this year saying mixed-gender units performed worse in combat than all-male units, a conclusion that some analysts rejected. Carter said that study, which he called “not definitive,” and other data provided by the Marines were ultimately not enough to convince him that the service should get its own exemption from integrating combat unit. “We are a joint force, and I have decided to make a decision that applies to the entire force,” Carter said, noting that Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had made the same recommendation. Dunford, however, did not attend the press conference, and reporters pointed out that in his previous job as the Marine Corps’ top general, he opposed full gender integration for the Marines.

Carter said Dunford will work with him as the military integrates all its units, but he seemed to dodge a question about whether Dunford supported the move. “You’ll have to speak to him about that, but he understands what my decision is, and my decision is my decision,” Carter said.

Read article here: 

Military Opens All Combat Jobs to Women

Posted in Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Military Opens All Combat Jobs to Women

The US Is Preparing to Ramp Up Its Ground War in Syria

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said on Tuesday that the United States is willing to add more soldiers to its small but controversial deployment of special operations troops in Syria—and allow soldiers stationed across the border in Iraq to conduct raids into the country.

The administration announced last month that it was sending a group of fewer than than 50 special operations soldiers to northern Syria to work with the Kurdish-Arab opposition forces fighting ISIS. Carter said those soldiers had produced better intelligence, helped ramp up airstrikes against ISIS, and aided the opposition forces in making important gains. “Where we find further opportunity to leverage such capability, we are prepared to expand it,” he told the House Armed Services Committee at a hearing on Tuesday.

Carter said the United States would deploy a “special expeditionary targeting force” to Iraq that would conduct raids to kill or capture ISIS leaders and create a “virtuous cycle of better intelligence which generates more targets, more raids, and more momentum” against the terrorist group. While the force would be based in Iraq, Carter pointed out that such soldiers would be able to strike into neighboring Syria, where the Defense Department says special operations soldiers aren’t yet taking part in combat. “This force will also be in a position to conduct unilateral operations into Syria,” he said. “The enemy doesn’t respect boundaries. Neither do we,” added Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was testifying alongside Carter.

While neither Carter or Dunford provided more details on the targeting force at the hearing, the rough outline sounded much like the special operations machine that conducted daily raids and intelligence gathering on Al Qaeda fighters and other insurgents during the Iraq War.

Carter also called out the international community for inaction in Syria. “We all—let me repeat, all—must do more,” he said. He praised a “galvanized” France for its airstrikes against ISIS following the terrorist attacks in Paris, but attacked Russia’s air campaign in support of the Syrian government and pointed out that Persian Gulf countries have barely taken part in airstrikes by the coalition against ISIS in months.

“American leadership is essential,” he said. “But the more contributions we receive from other nations, the greater combat power we can achieve.”

See the article here: 

The US Is Preparing to Ramp Up Its Ground War in Syria

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, eco-friendly, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The US Is Preparing to Ramp Up Its Ground War in Syria

Jimmy Carter Reveals He Has Cancer

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In a statement posted on the Carter Center website on Wednesday, 90-year-old former President Jimmy Carter revealed he has cancer that has spread throughout parts of his body:

Recent liver surgery revealed that I have cancer that now is in other parts of my body. I will be rearranging my schedule as necessary so I can undergo treatment by physicians at Emory Healthcare. A more complete public statement will be made when facts are known, possibly next week.

On August 3, Carter announced he had undergone a surgery to remove a small mass in his liver. Carter’s father and all of his three siblings died from pancreatic cancer.

This is a breaking news post.

Visit site:  

Jimmy Carter Reveals He Has Cancer

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jimmy Carter Reveals He Has Cancer

7 Reasons America Is Stuck in Never-Ending War

Mother Jones

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

It was launched immediately after the 9/11 attacks, when I was still in the military, and almost immediately became known as the Global War on Terror, or GWOT. Pentagon insiders called it “the long war,” an open-ended, perhaps unending, conflict against nations and terror networks mainly of a radical Islamist bent. It saw the revival of counterinsurgency doctrine, buried in the aftermath of defeat in Vietnam, and a reinterpretation of that disaster as well. Over the years, its chief characteristic became ever clearer: a “Groundhog Day” kind of repetition. Just when you thought it was over (Iraq, Afghanistan), just after victory (of a sort) was declared, it began again. Now, as we find ourselves enmeshed in Iraq War 3.0, what better way to memorialize the post-9/11 American way of war than through repetition. Back in July 2010, I wrote an article for TomDispatch on the seven reasons why America can’t stop making war. More than four years later, with the war on terror still ongoing, with the mission eternally unaccomplished, here’s a fresh take on the top seven reasons why never-ending war is the new normal in America. In this sequel, I make only one promise: no declarations of victory (and mark it on your calendars, I’m planning to be back with seven new reasons in 2019).

1. The privatization of war: The US military’s recourse to private contractors has strengthened the profit motive for war-making and prolonged wars as well. Unlike the citizen-soldiers of past eras, the mobilized warrior corporations of America’s new mercenary moment—the Halliburton/KBRs (nearly $40 billion in contracts for the Iraq War alone), the DynCorps ($4.1 billion to train 150,000 Iraqi police), and the Blackwater/Xe/Academis ($1.3 billion in Iraq, along with boatloads of controversy)—have no incentive to demobilize. Like most corporations, their business model is based on profit through growth, and growth is most rapid when wars and preparations for more of them are the favored options in Washington.

“Freedom isn’t free,” as a popular conservative bumper sticker puts it, and neither is war. My father liked the saying, “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” and today’s mercenary corporations have been calling for a lot of military marches piping in $138 billion in contracts for Iraq alone, according to the Financial Times. And if you think that the privatization of war must at least reduce government waste, think again: the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan estimated in 2011 that fraud, waste, and abuse accounted for up to $60 billion of the money spent in Iraq alone.

To corral American-style war, the mercenaries must be defanged or deflated. European rulers learned this the hard way during the Thirty Years’ War of the seventeenth century. At that time, powerful mercenary captains like Albrecht von Wallenstein ran amok. Only Wallenstein’s assassination and the assertion of near absolutist powers by monarchs bent on curbing war before they went bankrupt finally brought the mercenaries to heel, a victory as hard won as it was essential to Europe’s survival and eventual expansion. (Europeans then exported their wars to foreign shores, but that’s another story.)

2. The embrace of the national security state by both major parties: Jimmy Carter was the last president to attempt to exercise any kind of control over the national security state. A former Navy nuclear engineer who had served under the demanding Admiral Hyman Rickover, Carter cancelled the B-1 bomber and fought for a US foreign policy based on human rights. Widely pilloried for talking about nuclear war with his young daughter Amy, Carter was further attacked for being “weak” on defense. His defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980 inaugurated 12 years of dominance by Republican presidents that opened the financial floodgates for the Department of Defense. That taught Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council a lesson when it came to the wisdom of wrapping the national security state in a welcoming embrace, which they did, however uncomfortably. This expedient turn to the right by the Democrats in the Clinton years served as a temporary booster shot when it came to charges of being “soft” on defense—until Republicans upped the ante by going “all-in” on military crusades in the aftermath of 9/11.

Continue Reading »

Link:  

7 Reasons America Is Stuck in Never-Ending War

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citadel, Citizen, Cyber, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Oster, Prepara, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 7 Reasons America Is Stuck in Never-Ending War

Ivy League Eggheads Have Lead Us Into a String of Disastrous Wars. It’s Time For Something New.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

Policy intellectuals—eggheads presuming to instruct the mere mortals who actually run for office—are a blight on the republic. Like some invasive species, they infest present-day Washington, where their presence strangles common sense and has brought to the verge of extinction the simple ability to perceive reality. A benign appearance—well-dressed types testifying before Congress, pontificating in print and on TV, or even filling key positions in the executive branch—belies a malign impact. They are like Asian carp let loose in the Great Lakes.

It all began innocently enough. Back in 1933, with the country in the throes of the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt first imported a handful of eager academics to join the ranks of his New Deal. An unprecedented economic crisis required some fresh thinking, FDR believed. Whether the contributions of this “Brains Trust” made a positive impact or served to retard economic recovery (or ended up being a wash) remains a subject for debate even today. At the very least, however, the arrival of Adolph Berle, Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and others elevated Washington’s bourbon-and-cigars social scene. As bona fide members of the intelligentsia, they possessed a sort of cachet.

Then came World War II, followed in short order by the onset of the Cold War. These events brought to Washington a second wave of deep thinkers, their agenda now focused on “national security.” This eminently elastic concept—more properly, “national insecurity”—encompassed just about anything related to preparing for, fighting, or surviving wars, including economics, technology, weapons design, decision-making, the structure of the armed forces, and other matters said to be of vital importance to the nation’s survival. National insecurity became, and remains today, the policy world’s equivalent of the gift that just keeps on giving.

Continue Reading »

From: 

Ivy League Eggheads Have Lead Us Into a String of Disastrous Wars. It’s Time For Something New.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Oster, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ivy League Eggheads Have Lead Us Into a String of Disastrous Wars. It’s Time For Something New.

Obama Is the Most Liberal President Since LBJ — But That Doesn’t Really Mean Much

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Michael Gerson thinks that Democrats have regressed to the bad old days of 70s liberal excess, when the American public rebelled against lefty craziness and finally installed Ronald Reagan as president to get the country back on track. Bill Clinton and the New Democrats eventually got their party back in power by moving toward the center, but over the past six years that’s all been thrown overboard. “President Obama has now effectively undone everything that Clinton and the New Democrats did in the 1980s and ’90s,” he warns.

Ed Kilgore, who was there, throws up his hands in irritation:

Since Gerson appears to assume that Clinton was strictly about appropriating conservative themes, I guess he cannot come to grips with the fact that the Affordable Care Act was based on the “managed competition” model that a lot of New Democrats preferred to Clinton’s own health care proposal, or that Obama’s “cap-and-trade” proposal was relentlessly and redundantly promoted by the New Democratic think tank the Progressive Policy Institute. Just about everything Obama has proposed on tax policy, education policy, infrastructure policy, trade policy and even national security policy has been right out of the Clintonian playbook. Has Gerson noticed that Obama’s not real popular with people on the left wing of the Democratic Party?

There’s a weirdly schizoid nature to Obama’s presidency. If you were to call him the most liberal president since LBJ, you’d be right. There’s really not much question about it.

But that’s not because he’s some kind of wild-eyed lefty. It’s because there have only been two other Democratic presidents in the meantime, and both of them were relatively conservative. It’s easy to forget now, but Jimmy Carter’s strength in the 1976 Democratic primaries was largely based on his appeal to evangelical Christians. This spawned the ABC movement—Anybody But Carter—midway through the primaries, but it was motivated not by Carter’s liberalism, but specifically by a fear among liberal Democrats that Carter was too conservative for the party. And he was. In office, Carter governed mostly from the center left, infamously opening himself up to a crippling primary challenge in 1980 from Ted Kennedy.

Ditto for Bill Clinton, who explicitly ran and governed as a centrist liberal. So is it fair to say that Obama is the most liberal president of the past half century? Sure, in the same way that it’s fair to say that a Honda Civic is faster than a Toyota Corolla or a Chevy Cruze. But that hardly makes the Civic a speed demon.

Still, even with all that said, Obama is, in fact, more liberal than previous Democratic presidents of the past half century. He’s rhetorically more liberal than Clinton, for example, and he’s rarely felt the need to do any Sister Souljah-ing. What’s more, while he may have made occasional noises about entitlements and budget deficits, he’s got nothing like either welfare reform or bank deregulation on his record. Everything he’s done has been pretty much in the mainstream liberal tradition.

Plus there’s one more thing: Obama has been far more effective than either Carter or Clinton. That obviously makes him seem more effectively liberal than his predecessors. But this isn’t really due to either a fervent commitment to radical populism or to shrewd management of the lefty agenda. It’s because Obama enjoyed a huge Democratic majority in Congress for his first two years. When that went away in 2010, so did much of his success.

So two things are true: Obama is the most liberal president since LBJ and he’s also a fairly standard-issue mainstream Democrat. Obamacare, in particular, doesn’t make him a radical. It just makes him lucky to have had a Congress willing to pass it.

After 30 years of ascendant Reaganism, it’s probably normal for conservatives to feel that any kind of liberal agenda is extremist almost by definition. But that’s little more than an unwillingness to accept the normal pendulum swings of American politics. As Kilgore points out, Obama’s tax policy, education policy, infrastructure policy, trade policy and national security policy have been to the left of George Bush, but not really much different from anything Bill Clinton would have done if he’d been able to. In the end, Obama is a Honda Civic to Clinton’s Toyota Corolla. A little faster, but still not exactly a thunderbolt.

Continue at source: 

Obama Is the Most Liberal President Since LBJ — But That Doesn’t Really Mean Much

Posted in Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Is the Most Liberal President Since LBJ — But That Doesn’t Really Mean Much

Chart of the Day: Kansas Successfully Reduces Voting Rate of Blacks, Young People

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hey, guess what? If you pass a photo ID law, you reduce voter turnout. The nonpartisan GAO studied the effect of photo ID laws and, after applying all the usual demographic controls, came up with this chart for Kansas and Tennessee compared to similar states without photo ID laws:

Voter turnout was reduced by 2-3 percentage points in both states. But of course there’s more to the story. Some groups were more strongly affected than others. Here are the results for Kansas:

Age. In Kansas, the turnout effect among registrants who were 18 years old in 2008 was 7.1 percentage points larger in size than the turnout effect among registrants between the ages of 44 and 53.

….Race or ethnicity. We estimate that turnout was reduced among African-American registrants by 3.7 percentage points more than among Whites in Kansas.

….Length of registration. In Kansas, the reduction in turnout for people registered to vote within 1 year prior to Election Day 2008 was 5.2 percentage points larger in size than for people registered to vote for 20 years or longer prior to Election Day 2008.

Victory! Turnout plummeted among blacks, young people, and college students. What more could an enterprising Republican legislature want?

Oh, and, um, maybe voter fraud was reduced. The Kansas Secretary of State responded to a draft of the GAO report by explaining that “if lower overall turnout occurs after implementation of a photo ID law, some of the decrease may be attributable to the prevention of fraudulent votes.” You betcha.

Link:

Chart of the Day: Kansas Successfully Reduces Voting Rate of Blacks, Young People

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chart of the Day: Kansas Successfully Reduces Voting Rate of Blacks, Young People

How Conservative Judges Are Using Jimmy Carter To Screw Over Minority Voters.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals—all Republican appointees—paved the way for Wisconsin’s controversial voter ID law to take effect in time for this year’s midterm elections. Civil rights groups had sued the state to block the law, saying that it would likely disenfranchise more than 300,000 voters who didn’t possess the proper ID to vote—a disproportionate number of whom were likely to be minority and low-income people. But in justifying the decision, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that essentially, critics were overhyping the potential for the ID requirement to keep people from voting. After all, he said, the idea has been endorsed by none other than former democratic president Jimmy Carter, a man who has made election integrity the centerpiece of his post-presidential life.

But does Jimmy Carter really support voter ID laws?

The ex-president and former peanut farmer has become a familiar reference point for Republicans looking to shore up support for voter ID laws. Conservative outlets such as Breitbart News frequently invoke Carter as the cheerleader-in-chief for voter ID laws by insisting that even Jimmy Carter supports them.

The Carter riff dates back to 2005, when he co-chaired a bipartisan commission on election reform. One of the many measures proposed by the commission was a requirement for a voter ID. That tidbit from the commission report has wended its way into conservative talking points—and on up to the Supreme Court, which approvingly cited Carter in the 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board 6-to-3 decision upholding Indiana’s voter ID law, thereby freeing other states to create their own such laws: “The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters,” the majority opinion stated. Yesterday, Judge Easterbrook—appointed to the court by Ronald Reagan—referenced Carter and that 2008 Supreme Court decision in upholding Wisconsin’s ID law.

But what Carter’s commission proposed, and what GOP-controlled states have actually passed, diverge greatly. That’s one reason why Carter no longer seems to supports voter ID—a fact that Judge Easterbrook missed.

In 2008, while the Supreme Court was considering Crawford, Carter co-wrote a New York Times op-ed with the election commission’s co-chair, former Reagan chief of staff, James A. Baker III. The pair recognized the arguments on both sides of the debate, saying that Republicans’ concerns about fair elections were valid and that Democrats’ fears that ID requirements would disenfranchise voters also had basis in fact. But they reiterated that the 2005 commission had recommended a special voter ID card based on the REAL ID Act of 2005, one that would be issued free by the states and distributed through mobile units that would ensure everyone would get one, even if they didn’t drive. Carter and Baker’s op-ed also emphasized that any voter ID requirement needed to be phased in slowly. “The Supreme Court can lead the way on the voter ID issue,” they concluded. “It can support voter ID laws that make it easy to vote but tough to cheat.”

Virtually none of that’s happened. For one thing, the REAL ID Act, which would have created something like a national ID card, became hugely controversial and was aggressively opposed by virtually everyone: states, libertarians, evangelical Christians, and even the ACLU. From that point on, however, voter ID became something pushed almost exclusively by Republicans who weren’t interested in implementing any of the other recommendations of the bipartisan commission that would have also expanded access to voting. Carter lamented back in 2008, before a flurry of new ID laws took effect, that “the current crop of laws are not being phased in gradually and in a fair manner that would increase—not reduce—voter participation.” That’s one reason why he seems to have changed his tune on voter ID.

Last year, on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, Carter spoke on the National Mall and addressed the reality of the voter ID laws that have materialized since he first suggested that they might be a good idea. “I believe we all know how Dr. King would have reacted to the new ID requirements to exclude certain voters, especially African Americans,” Carter said. Today, there isn’t much doubt about how Carter feels about voter ID laws like the one in Wisconsin, but that doesn’t seem to keep conservative judges from continuing to claim his endorsement for their opinions upholding them.

Originally from: 

How Conservative Judges Are Using Jimmy Carter To Screw Over Minority Voters.

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Conservative Judges Are Using Jimmy Carter To Screw Over Minority Voters.