Call me dense. I don’t get it.

In Ohio, in the past, all voters could vote early, military or not.

So Ohio Republicans have an initiative that extends early voting limits to military members to Monday before the election and removes early voting for non-military people.  So this takes something away from a majority of the people (non-military). While it gives something additional to military.

Now Democrats sue to block this and leave things the way they are. Military and non-military can vote early, to Friday before the election.

The Republicans now make this sound like Obama wants to take away voting rights of military members.

Romney now is outraged on Facebook:

Romney called the lawsuit an “outrage,” and said that “if I’m entrusted to be the commander-in-chief, I’ll work to protect the voting rights of our military, not undermine them.” He painted the court filing as an attack on the ability of service men and women to vote: “The brave men and women of our military make tremendous sacrifices to protect and defend our freedoms, and we should do everything we can to protect their fundamental right to vote.”

I don’t get the logic. Wanting the status quo to stay in place, and allowing early voting for all people, is somehow taking something away from the military in a bigger way than the original change is taking something away from everyone?

Here is a good fact-check article, if you’re interested.

That’s why we’re demonizing Democrats?

It’s like asking a child: “Do you want ice-cream or a popsicle?” If the child says “I want ice-cream” that does not mean the child hates popsicles. The child’s answer has nothing to do with popsicles.

Keeping the status quo that was there all along is all of a sudden “taking rights away from the military?”

If the measure had given extended early voting rights to the military until Monday before the election, and left things alone for non-military people, noone would have argued.

What am I missing?