RNC and Voter Suppression

Indomitus writes "Slashdot recently listed the story about a voter registration company tearing up registration forms from Democrats but the story is quickly becoming much more than just that one story. Daily Kos is keeping track of the many folks digging up more and more information on this scandal-in-the-making. This is not only an important story to get out to voters, it's a great example of power of the internet to facilitate participatory journalism."

Comments

initial thoughts?

[Shakrai]

I predict a deluge of posts saying that /. is biased towards the left and pointing out that the Democrats haven't been above using dirty tricks in the past (and may very well be doing so now). Of course this ignores the obvious fact that no matter who is committing such fraud it's ultimately a travesty of justice and the biggest danger our Republic currently faces.

Of course the bigger question (that nobody is asking) is are these actions being coordinated by the RNC in any way shape or form? Is it a "wink, smile and nod" system or was the RNC truly caught off guard by this (as they will no doubt claim)? It also begs the question of why would you hire such clearly biased people and trust them with such an important responsibility?

Much more importantly how exactly does voter registration work in Nevada? Why should the system be setup in such a way as to even allow this to happen? In my state the only way to register to vote is to do it yourself in person or mail it to your local board of elections. Why the hell are third-party people (with either party) being allowed to do anything more substantial then hand out registration forms and encourage people to actually register? In a smart system they would be allowed to drive them to the Board of Elections if need-be but they should have no business handling these forms after they are filled out.

Re:initial thoughts?

[b-baggins]

This is nothing more than setting the stage for cries of "stolen election" should Bush win.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. It is absolutely insane that they would let a third party handle voter registration forms. Of course you then have to worry about people at your local town hall/government designated registration place. Do they file your card properly, or does it "accidentally" get coffee spilled on it and thrown away after you leave the building if the person does not agree with your party affiliation? Why the fuck do you need to specify affiliation to register? I selected "undecided" just to protect myself!

Re:initial thoughts?

[kentmartin]

That's not such a silly thought, but possibly not for the reasons you think. I am a bit tired and can't be bothered digging it up at the moment, but there was a story about both sides hiring a veritable army of lawyers ready to contest the election results in court.

Could this be grounds should Bush win? (I don't have a clue - it is a question for those more knowledgable in these matters than me).

Re:initial thoughts?

[Hard_Code]

Yeah, just like reporting a stabbing is just like crying "murder" if the victim dies. Damn attentions whores.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Poppler]

My state allows you to register without party affiliation. This is very helpful in avoiding fraud - the only thing they could do is throw away registration forms based on demographics (e.g. throw out forms from predominantly black neighborhoods).

I agree, this overall situation is terrible. I would encourage readers not to use third party registration and go direct. I wouldn't put it past operatives/supporters of either party to disenfranchise voters.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Otter]

Of course this ignores the obvious fact that no matter who is committing such fraud it's ultimately a travesty of justice and the biggest danger our Republic currently faces.

To spin this a little differently -- destroying acceptance of the results of elections is an enormous danger to the country, whether it's actions like this (alleged) case that genuinely prevent people from voting or the Democrats spinning fairy tales about Florida roadblocks. Both are shameful and incredibly destructive to our society.

I've been struck by the contrast over the last few weeks between the opposition candidates in Afghanistan declining to use the ink problem as a pretext to dismiss the election results and the Democrats' preemptive campaign to invalidate a Bush victory.

It's worth noting, by the way, that the Democrats have been waging a systematic campaign to get Ralph Nader off ballots, with no one seeming too upset about it...

Re:initial thoughts?

[Ivan the Terrible]

One of my complaints about conservatives is that they are hypocritical. If Republican voter registration cards were being torn up, what do you think the Republican reaction would be?

Re:initial thoughts?

[TykeClone]

It's worth noting, by the way, that the Democrats have been waging a systematic campaign to get Ralph Nader off ballots, with no one seeming too upset about it...

Like how he was kicked off of the ballot in Pennsylvania(?) because he had enough signatures obtained in a timely manner, but the signatures were from Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.

Re:initial thoughts?

[jnaujok]

Blame a little thing called the "McCaine/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act" for these lovely little "get out the vote groups" that were specifically created and deputized by McCaine/Feingold.

These groups are allowed to distribute, collect *and validate* new voters without ever presenting anything other than the completed form to election officials. They basically answer to no one, and are even allowed to pay money for each registration collected.

There is now a county in Ohio where several thousand more voters are registered than the population of the county.

Thanks to John McCaine, Russ Feingold, and the rest of our congressmen for "fixing the system".

Re:initial thoughts?

[Poppler]

It's worth noting, by the way, that the Democrats have been waging a systematic campaign to get Ralph Nader off ballots, with no one seeming too upset about it...

Thing is, the Democratic party and their mouthpieces have demonized Nader to the point where a lot of Democratic Party loyalists actually have more animosity towards Nader than towards Bush. Many liberals who may have even supported Nader in 2000 are now foaming at the mouth when his name comes up.
It's perfectly legitimate for these people to decide to vote for Kerry, but I'm disgusted by the smear campaign waged by the DNC.

BTW I apologize for linking to a site that requires registration. The headline linked to is "Nader Emerging as the Threat Democrats Feared".

Re:initial thoughts?

[SkyWalk423]

1. One of my complaints about conservatives is that they are hypocritical. If Republican voter registration cards were being torn up, what do you think the Republican reaction would be?

They would accuse the Democrats of being hypocritical.

It's a zero-sum game.

Re:initial thoughts?

[j0nb0y]

Unfortunately, it looks like that's going to happen no matter who wins. There's ample amounts of fraud on *both* sides. At least this year, unlike 2000, at lot of it is being uncovered *before* the election, which is the superior time to catch it, imo.

My advice to everyone on this particular issue:
1. Send those involved to jail. The GOP should oust the people who decided to fund this fraudulent organization. Yesterday.

2. States affected should pass emergency legislation to allow late voter registration for this election, and encourage everyone who registered this year to double check that they *are* registered. This should be heavily publicized. All this is expensive, but much better than the alternative.

I'm a republican, btw.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Ivan the Terrible]

Well, I'll be damned! You are an existence proof that I was wrong in characterizing [all] Republicans as hypocrites. Congratulations on taking a principled stand when it doesn't benefit you.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Anonymous Coward]

It also begs the question

No it doesn't, it raises the question. Begging the question is circular logic.

Re:initial thoughts?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

This is nothing more than setting the stage for cries of "stolen election" should Bush win.

Your fellow citizens are quite likely being denied their civil right to vote. All you can think about is how this is some conspiracy fueled by partisanship? Unless you can provide some proof that the Democrats are doing something shady regarding the right to vote, your speculation is useless. All the Democrats have done is make their people aware of these problems so that they may be used to insure that the vote is properly counted. That's believing in the rule of law, not trying to intimidate and deny civil rights.

There is a pattern of Republican operatives and party members attempting to suppress the vote. At times, the suppression is racially targeted. I will not live under these conditions, and I am completely unwilling to give this country up to people who would impose them.

When it comes to the people's right to choose their leadership, justice will be served. If it's not done through fair ballots or fair courts, it will be done with some very unfair chaos. We've reduced ourselves to Civil War twice before in this nation's history, don't believe it can't happen again.

Without faith in the integrity of our system, what law can be just and what authority can be legitimate? If you don't insure that your fellow citizens are delivered the guarantee of voting that the Constitution gives them, then who will insure yours?

Re:initial thoughts?

[Angry Monkey]

If you want a more exhaustive and less-spittle-flecked catalog of offenses than what Kos offers, check out the site of (admittedly, a conservative) Bill Hobbs.

I agree that the deligitimization of the electoral process is the biggest threat confronting the republic. But from my perspective, most of the attacks on the process are coming from the left. Witness:

- the last-minute, illegal substitution of Frank Lautenberg in New Jersey when the existing candidate was going to lose;

- the Gore team's Florida ballot attack (I know it's conventional wisdom that Bush did this, but it was the Donks that spread rumors of ballot problems, then conveniently had lawyers on hand to save the day. Oh, and Bush just plain won Florida, and therefore the election, according to a coalition of journalistic organs including the NYT, Washington Post, and CNN);

- the effort to import election observers from abroad. I'm not keen on being lectured about the democratic process by the corrupt Kofi Annan or anyone of his choosing.

I hope Bush wins. But if he loses, I hope he gets his ass handed to him. I don't know how well the republic will endure another fiasco like the litigation following the 2000 election, and if it's a close election this time, all bets are off.

Re:initial thoughts?

[ConceptJunkie]

I think the problem is that most everyone interested enough to get involved in politics is blindingly biased to begin with.

I am biased, but I try very hard to look at things objectively. I can see plenty of shenanigans starting that look like they're coming from both sides, but no indication that the parties themselves are behind it.

There are similar stories of intimidation from numerous Republican campaign office being vandalized or stolen from. There are insinuations that the unions are involved, and since the unions are a de facto arm of the Democratic party, and not above getting their hands dirty roughing people up, that's not implausible.

What's even scarier is that the Democrats are clearly gearing up to make a huge legal morass out of this election before it even happens. I think the best thing that can happen in this country right now is a resounding victory one way or the other. (And you know where I stand from my sig.)

Re:initial thoughts?

[ignatzMouse]

via Atrios

"Every election year Republicans start pointing to counties where there are more registered voters than eligible ones. Okay, very slowly people. This happens. People die, and rarely call their local election board to inform them of that fact. People move, without bothering to tell their local election board. Often when they move they fail to re-register, or if they do re-register their new election board doesn't bother to inform their old one.

Do inflated voter rolls open up the possibility of voter fraud? Sure. But inflated voter rolls are not evidence of voter registration fraud."

Re:initial thoughts?

[TykeClone]

Most Republicans as well as most Democrats are decent people. There are a bunch of scumbags on both sides of the aisle.

Don't, however, think that if this was cleaned up that it would show more illegalities on the Republican side of the fence.

Re:initial thoughts?

[GTRacer]

Why the hell are third-party people (with either party) being allowed to do anything more substantial then hand out registration forms and encourage people to actually register?

I don't know about NV, but I recently registered to vote in Florida at Chik-Fil-A. They had a booth going with both parties represented (with signs/banners, not humans). My wife brought me the form and I handed the completed form to the cashier. My wife got to eat the ice-cream brownie they were using to bribe registrants with.

GTRacer
- Both choices suck

Re:initial thoughts?

[b-baggins]

---
There's ample amounts of fraud on *both* sides.
---

Factually incorrect. There's one case in AZ where a fired employee is claiming he saw people tearing up Democrat ballots. The company is actually subcontracted to do the registration drive. There's a second case in OR where an individual is claiming the same company was also shredding Dem ballots. The company claims the man never worked for him.

On the other side, there are extensively documented instances of voter registration fraud among democrat organizations in Colorado, Ohio, Illinois, New Mexico and Iowa.

One one side the cases are isolated and suspect.On the other the cases are systemic and organized.

I understand the way to gain credibility with liberals is to call your side equally corrupt, facts be damned, but the truth is the truth.

Re:initial thoughts?

[bibliophage]

It's happening ins Florida, too.

Re:initial thoughts?

[revscat]

My advice to everyone on this particular issue: 1. Send those involved to jail. The GOP should oust the people who decided to fund this fraudulent organization. Yesterday.

No, that would be the ethical thing to do. Instead they just fired them, and then moved them to Ohio to do the same damn thing.

I'm a republican, btw.

I was too, until I realized how deeply criminal the party has become. From Tom Delay to Cheney to Rowland to the treason committed against Valerie Plame to the almost innumerable criminal investigations into Republican activities, it just sickens me. I *was* an Eisenhower Republican, but today that makes me a bleeding-heart liberal.

Re:initial thoughts?

[b-baggins]

Read the news story. These are registrations that occurred by means of voter registration drives. These registrations were done through a private company, and the company would then forward the forms to the state registration offices.

These are people who couldn't be bothered to get off their a**es to register themselves, they just happened to fill out a form only when someone came and pestered them to do it. I'm not terribly bothered by the fact they won't be voting this election either.

Re:initial thoughts?

[abulafia]

These are people who couldn't be bothered to get off their a**es to register themselves, they just happened to fill out a form only when someone came and pestered them to do it. I'm not terribly bothered by the fact they won't be voting this election either.

In that case, I won't be terribly bothered when you have no rights. Me, I'll be sitting in a country where people actually give a damn.

Thanks for clearing things up for me - for a minute, I felt a twinge of guilt sbout you poor suckers.

Re:initial thoughts?

[bibliophage]

Sigh. *In* Florida, not *ins*.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that makes you a traitor to your country then.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, this is typical for you, isn't it? No concern whatsoever about the problem itself, just whining about how Liberals are taking advantage of you. Grow up.

Re:initial thoughts?

[worm eater]

Is it a "wink, smile and nod" system or was the RNC truly caught off guard by this (as they will no doubt claim)?

Well, three people who resigned from the South Dakota GOP over the voter fraud scandal, have now been hired to work for the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio. I think that's more than just a "wink, smile and nod" system. They are actively being encouraged to maintain these tactics.

If the DNC is involved in this sort of thing, lets see some evidence. And no, the Colorado election day manual is not evidence of voter fraud, or even of false allegations of voter fraud, but merely that the DNC would like to see confirmed stories of GOP voter fraud from the past resurface. Not even remotely comparable.

Re:initial thoughts?

[bofkentucky]

It when the dead show up at the polls to vote (like Chicago '60) that's the problem. I'm starting to lean towards supporting a national ID card just to clarify who is and isn't eligible to vote. Each state can place a denied or allowed endorsement on the card based on their ex-felon status, and we're done. Of course, this drips of common sense, so it will never be implemented.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yehaw!!!! Bill Hobbs is good people. He helped us fight hard against the blacks and the kikes back in the day. He'll help us do WHATEVER HAS TO BE DONE to fight them thar democrat commies!!!!

Re:initial thoughts?

[yoder]

"I'm a republican, btw."

Cool. I like being proven wrong every once in a while. Like so many other liberals, it is easy for me to put republicans in one neat little group. Easier to vilify.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations. You fail the non-partison global test.

Re:initial thoughts?

[drix]

Bzzt! Wro-ong! I defy you to tell the the population of the county for any individual county in the United States. You, sir, have no clue what the capital-T True population of any county as, and neither does anyone else short of the Lord. Oh, you will lamely answer by foisting up the latest decennial census results for that county. To which I utterly dominate your argument by noting:

1. The census undercounts minorities, the very same people who have been the target of extensive voter registration efforts in states like, ta-da!, Ohio. It is well-documented that the 2000 census did not use statistical correction procedures to control for undercounted low-income persons and persons of color. Q: Could that result in a discrepancy of several thousand? A: Easily.
2. Even if said procedures were employed, is the census a full count? Nope. And several thousand in a large county in Ohio is well within the margin of error. Q: Could that result in a discrepancy of several thousand? A: Easily.
3. Even if the census were perfect, a lot of people have died or moved since 2000. Duh. Not even worth making the point. Think before you post, boy. Q: Could that result in a discrepancy of several thousand? A: Easily.

I have come to conclude that, well, you're just freakin' wrong. Better luck next time, try again, and all that.

Re:initial thoughts?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

I'm *very* familiar with the news story. This is about a group using deception and fraud to violate people's right to vote. How many of those registrations were people who had just moved and thought it would be convenient to do a change of address they hadn't gotten to yet. I've done plenty of those on voter registration drives. I've also turned in new GOP registrations, as much as I loathed doing so.

These people are impugning my integrity as someone who attempts to register new voters and insure that my neighbors are able to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. They have even attempted to confuse the names of valid groups that do voter registration drives.

There are laws surrounding how you can register voters, these people violated those laws with the intent of suppressing voters they disagreed with. If you're not bothered by people's rights being denied, then why should I be bothered the next time yours are denied? Concern over this is your duty as a citizen of this country, turning a blind eye is treasonous.

Re:initial thoughts?

[SpaceLifeForm]

So, you don't mind taking away the right of people to get off their asses?

People are being disenfranchised even when they decide to participate. If you don't understand that, *you* should not be allowed to vote yourself!

Re:initial thoughts?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Unlikely. The waiting list for naturalization in Fantasyland is decades, you'll still be in this shithole.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Jherico]

I hate to say this, but you may be barking up the wrong tree. Registration levels are usually way below population levels, so the idea that voter registration groups managed to hit everyone in the county, even the people missed by the census, AND get them to register seems pretty unlikely. Also, the eligible voters in a given region are actually a subset of the population, since you can't vote if you're under 18. All these factors work against your arguments. On the other hand no one has posted a link to any actual backing for this story, so it might just be apocryphal bullshit anyway.

Re:initial thoughts?

[N3WBI3]

Every election year Republicans start pointing to counties where there are more registered voters than eligible ones. Okay, very slowly people. This happens. People die, and rarely call their local election board to inform them of that fact

And more people turn 18, and more are born, and yes new people move in who are just as unlikely to nor register as the people who moved out..

Re:initial thoughts?

[Lars T.]

Most Republicans as well as most Democrats are decent people. There are a bunch of scumbags on both sides of the aisle.

AKA the politicians.

Re:initial thoughts?

[TykeClone]

And their hangers-on.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's absolutley disgusting is the way Nader has willing sold his soul to the GOP to get on a couple more ballots. You do realize that the company which has been tearing up Democratic ballots in Nevada was working to get Nader on the ballot in Arizona. Nader is a GOP lapdog.

Re:initial thoughts?

[KilobyteKnight]

Yeah, just like reporting a stabbing is just like crying "murder" if the victim dies.

That would be a good analogy if the real story was that somebody asked a waiter for a clean knife; and then got charged with a stabbing murder for cutting the steak.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and Bush just plain won Florida, and therefore the election

i remember reading somewhere, can't find it now, that a state-wide recount was completed and gore would have won that. that wasn't what he was asking for in the recount, so it's kindof a moot point, unless you believe in that whole everyone's vote counts thing.

- the effort to import election observers from abroad. I'm not keen on being lectured about the democratic process by the corrupt Kofi Annan or anyone of his choosing.

it was the state department that brought in the OSCE.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Anonymous Coward]

'it was the state department that brought in the OSCE' ...true, but the process was initiated by a group of Congressional D's... http://www.sitnews.us/Reagan/081204_reagan.html

I realize the source will automatically invalidate the claim...but google and you can find others...

Re:initial thoughts?

[Indomitus]

It's worth noting, by the way, that the Democrats have been waging a systematic campaign to get Ralph Nader off ballots, with no one seeming too upset about it...

Well since RNC funded organizations have been getting Nader on the ballet as a spoiler in places where he wouldn't normally be on, it's not as simple as you make it seem.

Re:initial thoughts?

[jnaujok]

Wow, you must be one of those peace-loving, compassionate democrats I hear so much about, like the one who let the air out of my truck tires after they keyed my Bush bumper sticker.

Here's your citations:

Number of registered voters in Franklin County, OH as of October 6th: 820,000 MSNBC

Census Data for Franklin Co. Ohio.
2003 estimated population: 1,088,944
3 year growth rate = 1.9%
Additional year of growth = .64%
Population in 2004: 1,095,913
Percentage of county under the age of 5: 7.2%
Percentage of county under the age of 18: 25.1%
Total population uneligible to vote: 32.3%
Population eligible to vote: 741,933

According to the census an additional 6% of those in the 742,000 are foreign born and likely not citizens (it's impossible to determine the actual number that are or are not citizens from the census data) but we have to assume that the number would therefore be even lower.

That's a net of nearly 80,000 "phantom" voters. Are you actually trying to claim that somehow a bunch of people running a "get out the vote" campaign registered every eligible voter in the county, and then found another 80,000 voters that were somehow missed? You're telling me the census is off by almost 15%? The largest estimate I've ever heard is in the 2-3% range.

But hey, keep deluding yourself. It's your life.

Re:initial thoughts?

[rjung2k]

On the other side, there are extensively documented instances of voter registration fraud among democrat organizations in Colorado, Ohio, Illinois, New Mexico and Iowa.

So extensive, you couldn't even link to one.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Anonymous Coward]

As an aside, the latest news in the Plame case is that it might not have been illegal to leak her name, as the leakers might not have had access to any classified information about her.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* Oh the burden of being the self appointed corrector of all mistakes. Jeeze, shut up. It was obviously a typo.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Otter]

That's certainly true and I think it's a distastefully cynical attempt to game the system. That said, getting someone on the ballot is a far different matter from preventing people from voting for him.

Incidentally, do you see anything wrong with signing a ballot petition for a candidate you don't support? I always sign petitions for anyone who isn't obviously evil, as I think willingness to run for office ought to be encouraged.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather correct myself than have someone else do it for me ;) --bp

Re:initial thoughts?

[mink]

Too bad about your car.

As for Franklin county, as a person who actually lives there, I can tell you why and how they came up with an extra 80 thousand voters.

Ohio State University for starters, on top of that there are at least 5 other universities all likely to have students who are not considered "population" but do register and vote in the county.

Re:initial thoughts?

[DunbarTheInept]

You describe a problem with the accountability of some voter registration groups to be honest. Yes, that (if true) is a huge problem. You also mention the McCain-Fiengold bill. You utterly fail, however, to describe the alleged link between the two that was the main thrust of your point. All you did was assert it.

Re:initial thoughts?

[jnaujok]

It was my belief that one of the requirements on slashdot was the capability of using a search engine. Since that seems to be beyond you, here is a link to the text of the bill:

McCain-Feingold

McCain Feingold specifically struck down an attempt to restrict 527 groups, making them the only avenue for political speech in America. These 527 groups are also allowed to create "get-out-the -vote" or "voter motivation groups" These groups are the ones currently registering thousands upon thousands of voters. This activity was specifically brought under consideration by the courts, but they decided that at this "late date" in the elections, any decision about the legality of 527 activities should be deferred for 90 days (i.e. past the election).

The part of McCain Feingold that allows these groups to register voters without providing ID information back to the clerks for the county is one of thse lovely little "in section 23(A) strike "." and replace with ";". One of these innocuous lines changed the entire meaning of a clause in the law and made the people out collecting registrations also able to verify ID.

Which clause was it ? I have no idea, IANAL, nor do I have hours to parse this legalese. But, again, two minutes on google or dogpile should answer your question.

You do know those are search engines, right?

Oh well...

[TheLink]

Maybe the UN should send in troops to help restore democracy :).

Re:Oh well...

[rmull]

Liberate America!

Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Goatse links disguised as GMail invites; how original.

So, did your mom set a date for when you have to move out?

Re:Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

They are legitimate, but there are better places to share invites.

What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidation?

[gtwreck]

I'm not disputing that this is news, but is it not also news that the DNC has issued marching orders to it's operatives that instruct them to claim voter intimidation even if no such evidence exists?

I like the new politics section, but at least have some semblance of balance about what stories get posted.

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[Zelet]

You have your facts wrong. They want their "operatives" to highlight past voter intimidation so that there will be a spotlight on the area to possibly make that intimidation impossible.

Never goes just one way

[Brown Eggs]

While I am certainly no Republican or Republican supporter (I am voting Libertarian), I just wanted to point everyone to this. It is things like this that led me to believe that both parties are corrupt (and EQUALLY corrupt) and that looking elsewhere is in the best interest of all rational people. Now let's hope that such heresy does not catch the ire of the moderators and get me modded down

Re:Never goes just one way

[TykeClone]

If they're equally corrupt, the corruption balances out and it should be ok.

There's news like that all over. Not sure what the right answer is except to maybe classify voter fraud (of any stripe) as a capital offense.

Re:Never goes just one way

[rocketfairy]

The link you provided shows Democrats -- sometimes without reason -- denouncing alleged Republican voter suppression techniques. While unsavory, such tactics are not in the same ballpark as having a registration company shred your opponents' right to cast a ballot -- or, for example, having Florida arbitrarily purge its voter rolls of large amounts of non-felons listed as "black", but no non-felons listed as "Hispanic," as it did under Republican leadership. Dems levy such slanders because they stick; they stick because Republicans use such tactics as a matter of course.

Re:Never goes just one way

[gl4ss]

if they're corrupt, how the hell you suppose you even CAN 'look' elsewhere?

their corruption NEEDS to be pointed out again and again, and fought, not just letting it happen.

Re:Never goes just one way

[An Onerous Coward]

It sounds to me like "pre-emptive strike" means "warn people about past intimidation efforts and warn those who would consider using such tactics." It doesn't mean "make up evidence of intimidation that doesn't exist."

Re:Never goes just one way

[Pentagram]

(I also posted this in another thread, but since that has been modded down as a troll (rather unfairly I might add) I'll repost it here:)

Well, I looked at that site, which seems to be a rather vague interpretation of an election handbook. Not willing to trust the clearly partisan tone of the article, I tried to look at the original source, which is stated as drudgereport.com.

drudgereport.com has a link to the story on its front page... which links back to the story you linked to!

Looking at drudgereport.com's "recent headlines" link, http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/links_reca p.htm , it has three links to what I assume is the document, labelled " [HIGHLIGHT OF ELECTION DAY MANUAL, NOVEMBER 2004. CLICK FOR IMAGE .PDF FILE]".

The first, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/1 4/20041014_201651_dnc.pdf , is a 404.

The second, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/1 4/20041014_161007_dnc.jpg results in "The image [...] cannot be displayed because it contains errors".

The third, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/1 4/20041014_150700_dnc.pdf , is also a 404.

You'll have to forgive me if I find these vague, unsourced accusations unconvincing.

Re:Never goes just one way

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

You act as if they're somehow fundamental opposites. Unfortunately, their corruption is additive.

The same puppeteer has the Dubya sock puppet on his right hand, and the Lurch puppet on his left. He's so fat that the curtain no longer hides him, but I'm still supposed to believe him when he tells me I have a choice to make....

Re:Never goes just one way

[TykeClone]

But if you don't vote for one of them, the wrong lizard might win!

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[Hard_Code]

But what's worse, frivolously claiming voter intimidation or actually actively disenfranchising voters and deceiving the public about it?

I don't care who's doing it, if it was the Democrats doing it and the Republicans complaining, I STILL WANT TO KNOW. It still should be stopped.

Hang em

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Republican, I say hang em high. I have no use for these people either. But at least hold Democrats to the same standard. The ongoing fraud being reported by in Denver, Chicago, etc should also be reported. Voter fraud should be punishable by a minimum of 5 years in prison.

Re:Hang em

[Anonymous Coward]

You recommend hang 'em high, and a minimum of 5 years in prison?

I think the other prisoners will start complaining about the smell after a week or so.

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[SkyWalk423]

Ohhhh.... So the difference is all in how you word it?? OK, I get it now.

I'm starting to get the hang of this "politics" thing.

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[benhocking]

In some ways, (i.e., I'm being noncomittal) it could be considered worse to frivously claim voter intimidation (assuming that frivously = falsely). Perhaps it's just our culture, but this seems like the idea that it's worse when your friends betray you than when your enemies attack you. Falsely claiming voter intimidation cheapens actual instances of disenfranchising voters, and therefore aids those who would do so. To have it as a matter of policy (i.e., premeditated and deliberate) would be even worse. However, the DNC play book does not call for this tactic - at least not openly. It calls for a preemptive strike which could easily be interpreted in numerous ways - e.g., explaining to your constituents that even if x, y, or z happen you still need to vote.

Please stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop ramming the POLITICS section down our throats. I've had the section disabled for many weeks in my preferences and the bug that prevents it from working STILL is not fixed. It works for every other section. How can it possibly be broken just for the POLITICS section unless it is intentionally being crammed down our gullets?

This is fuckingp issing me off.

christ

[Anonymous Coward]

We're linking to Daily fuckin' Kos now??? I've found the politics section somewhat interesting, if ridiculous at times, but this is beyond ridiculous.

*preferences - homepage - politics = none*

ahh...

Honestly, I'm disappointed... I thought the politics thing was a good idea when it started up, but apparently not.

Have fun with your liberal wankery.

Oh the shock and surprise.

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Continuing on this thread and another highlight over at DailyKos:
Rock the Vote versus the RNC, Ed Gillespie told MTV to stop talking about the draft. MTV responded very succinctly, IMNSHO:

Dear Chairman Gillespie,

The letter I received from you yesterday was quite a surprise. It struck us as just the sort of "malicious political deception" that is likely to increase voter cynicism and decrease the youth vote. In fact, it is a textbook case of attempted censorship, very much in line with those that triggered our organization's founding some fifteen years ago.

I am stunned that you would say that the issue of the military draft is an "urban myth"that has been "thoroughly debunked by no less than the President of the United States."

I have some news for you. Just because President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld, and for that matter Senator Kerry, say that there is not going to be a draft does not make it so. Just because Congress holds a transparently phony vote against the draft does not mean there isn't going to be one. Anyone who thinks that the youth of America are going to take a politician's word on this topic is living on another planet.

By your logic, there should be no debate about anything that you disagree with. There's a place for that kind of sentiment (and your threats), but its not here in our country.

There are questions that the politicians are running away from. How long can we keep 138,000 U.S. troops or more on the ground in Iraq? What if full-scale civil war erupts there, as the CIA has warned is a realistic possibility? Would the next President be faced with a choice of pulling out of Iraq rather than institute a draft? Would women be drafted? What exactly would the draft-age be?

According to the Pentagon's own internal assessment, there are "inadequate total numbers" of troops to meet U.S. security interests. The current issue of Time magazine reports that, "General John Keane, who retired last year as the Army's No. 2 officer, says the continued success of the all-volunteer military is not guaranteed" Keane has told Congress that adding more than 50,000 troops to the Army would require thinking about a return to the draft."

But you want young people to believe that the draft is just an "urban myth." I was expecting that you were going to present some facts to back up your assertion. But, instead, you have demanded that we stop talking about it.

Now this is probably flamebait, but I think it's poignant given this thread:
Conservatives: Still trying to enforce the 3/5ths compromise!

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[Otter]

So, now, along with their campaign about the bogus threat of a draft, they've added the equally bogus accusation of "a textbook case of attempted censorship". Perhaps they should open up that textbook and see what "censorship" really means. Those imprisoned bloggers in Iran might be able to elaborate.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[SkyWalk423]

This is just another illustration of the real Bush Doctrine:

"Fear, uncertainty, doubt, deception, suppress dissent, nothing to see here, it's hard work, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, consume, consume, consume."

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[crmartin]

Yeah ... just 'cause the military doesn't want it, the civilian DoD administration doesn't want it, it's illegal, and the law to make it legal -- which was submitted by the Democrats -- went town to defeat 402-2 including votes against even from the dolt who sponsored the bill in the first place -- that doesn't prove the Republicans aren't trying to re-establish the draft.

And you take this letter seriously.

Look -- if you're stupid enough to buy this argument, you're too fucking stupid to vote.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[spitzak]

Though that was unusually well worded, he really should be looking at what many, many people are saying on all sides of the political spectrum. There is not going to be a draft. It would be political suicide for the congress (even if a lame-duck is president). More importantly, there are very believable claims by military experts (including doves) that it is unnecessary or may even be counter-productive.

I'm voting for Kerry, but I agree their tactics are pretty questionable.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Oh please. Stop with the logical fallacies, it's killing me.

It's not bogus. There's a very real possibility that the MTV generation could bear the majority of human costs of our current series of military operations. This could be through a draft or through a volunteer army, but it doesn't change the probability of the age group most likely to get killed. Without political power, these people will not be able to make that decision. Did you read Gillespie's letter? He's claiming that they are violating the IRS code and is threatening to take action if they do not stop.

How is government intimidation not censorship? Gillespie doesn't want them talking about this because it's the GOP perception that this hurts Bush's chances for winning. I believe you could call Gillespie's actions a "cheap and tawdry political trick".

MTV's actions are those of people who don't want be in a position where they could wind up like those bloggers in Iran. If Iran had had more people like this, there wouldn't be bloggers in jail now. The Iranians handed power to the Islamic Revolution in order to get rid of the Shah and couldn't control their monster.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

You should go read Gillespie's letter to MTV then. That should clear things up for you. The draft issue has been used by the Rock the Vote campaign to bring home the fact that their target groups are the ones who are directly impacted by our current foreign policy. If they don't pay attention and make decisions now, decisions may be made for them. A draft may be the most extreme outcome, but it is possible. Just because the DoD, Administration and Congress are saying there's not going to be a draft, doesn't mean that's going to happen. These are the same people who thought we would find WMD and be welcomed as liberators. They got that pretty freaking wrong too. Don't expect rationality to save anyone, the entire Iraq war has been irrational.

Rock the Vote isn't lying, they aren't saying that there will be a draft, they are pointing out that there could be a draft in order to get attention to the issue. They do not make any claim that any candidate would do anything, it's simply a starting point for discussion. These people are the shiny things network, they use this same tactic in all their programming. Why wouldn't they use the same format to discuss politics with their target audience?

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[Sevn]

What a lot of people busy reciting the crap they read on their favorite biased "news" sites don't seen to understand is that the democrats submitted this bill in an attempt to draw attention to the fact that rich kids don't go to war. If you actually *read* the bill, it was so over the top as to be obvious. It was a lame attempt at attention getting, and decidedly anti-draft and anti-war. I understand that this doesn't mesh well with attack-dog style forum wrangling, but it is the truth. As a former "poor kid" that did serve my country, I agree with the sentiment they were trying to get across but not the method employed.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[An Onerous Coward]

Yeah ... just 'cause the military doesn't want it

The military has little say in it. They take their orders from Congress and the Executive Branch.

the civilian DoD administration doesn't want it

Who do you mean, specifically? Rumsfeld? People with connections to the current regime^H^H^H^H^H^H administration aren't going to come out in favor of a draft in an election year.

it's illegal

It's illegal to reinstate the draft? According to who? Why are we bothering with Selective Service?

It's "illegal" because nobody has passed a law making it legal. But they could at a moment's notice. Which brings us to the next point.

and the law to make it legal -- which was submitted by the Democrats -- went town to defeat 402-2 including votes against even from the dolt who sponsored the bill in the first place

The "dolt" was actually being very clever. Crassly political, but clever. He managed to drum up anti-war sentiment by giving people the opportunity to say, "Psst! Did you hear that there's a bill in Congress reinstating the draft?" and giving the Powers That Be in Washington a taste of the outrage they would get if they seriously considered such a bill. But you make it sound like the "dolt" was just too stupid to keep himself from submitting a bill he disagreed with.

You cannot--by any stretch of rationality--consider this vote an indicator of the way a vote would go once the election year has passed and our congresscritters are suddenly faced with a very real choice between reinstituting the draft and losing Iraq altogether.

The military is suddenly overextended, desperate for bodies to the point that a "backdoor draft" is already happening as people are forced to reenlist under threat of being shipped off to Iraq for the remainder of their contract.

-- that doesn't prove the Republicans aren't trying to re-establish the draft.

You're absolutely right about that.

Look -- if you're stupid enough to buy this argument, you're too fucking stupid to vote.

Likewise.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Unfortunately, the MTV generation (specifically the hip-hop and gangsta rap crowd) will vote the NY democrat Rangel back into office. You know, the author of our latest draft bill, the sponsor, and contradictorially, the guy screaming loudest that Dubya would institute a draft.

Mind you, Dubya is just as bad. Anyone ever stop to consider that both sides want this, and that they're doing a little theater show for us just so we don't realize what's going on?

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[crmartin]

Yeah.

The truth is, "soldier" is increasingly a high-tech, high-training sort of job. You can't learn it sufficiently quickly to do it in a two year draft, and you really want people to be motivated and enthusiastic anyway.

The biggest need, in any case, is special operations (Special Forces, Air Commandos, etc) people, and you just don't draft those people.

Now, Kerry has suiggested an obligatory "national service" requirement, but that wouldn't be useful for the military.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[crmartin]

The "dolt" was actually being very clever. Crassly political, but clever

Okay, he wasn't being a dolt. He was maliciously raising fears of the Republicans doing something they don't want, in order to use his lies against them in an election.

Yes, I feel so much better about it now.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[Sevn]

I agree. It would be different if we were locked into a land war with a neighbor, but that's not the case.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[An Onerous Coward]

Okay, it's obvious that you're not interested in actually debating this. If you were, you wouldn't have latched onto the one correction I made that wasn't relevant to the discussion.

To get you back on topic: Your original post implied that it was ludicrous to think that our congresscritters were even considering reinstating the draft. You offered four points of evidence, and I refuted them in turn.

Rather than discuss the merits of my refutation, you decided the best response was to castigate the guy who introduced the bill, then restate without evidence that the Republicans don't want the draft.

Let me reiterate:

- Even if you can show the military feels a draft would be a bad thing, the military doesn't have authority to reject the draft if Congress demands one.

- The civilians running the DoD are Bush appointees, and would be unlikely to publicly favor a draft in an election year.

- A draft would be legal if Congress voted to make it legal.

- There is no reason to believe that the outcome of the vote you cited was a serious vote, that it reflected the actual beliefs of any representative, or that a similar proposal wouldn't get through if the situation in Iraq continues to degrade.

- The military is overextended and desperate for bodies right now. The situation in Iraq seems to be getting worse.

Now, you called anyone who believes that a draft is likely "too fucking stupid to vote." Yet all the evidence you offered is the evidence which the MTV letter rightfully dismissed: that our elected representatives claim they don't want a draft.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[crmartin]

All right, let's take them in turn then:

(1) the military doesn't want a draft. Your response: the military can't turn down a draft if one is established by law.

You neglect to ask the essential questino: if the military can't use draftees, why would one be instituted?

(2) DoD doesn't want a draft either. Your response: they wouldn't propose such a thing in an election year.

True. But then, since there is no reason to imagine that the military wants one -- it doesn't fit with the way a US military works any longer -- there's no reason to imagine that someone would propose such a thing in a non-election year. You're suffering under the burden that you're proposing that in the face of uniform denials, you're having to find some reason to imagine that they could be lying. But the only evidence you have for it is a bunch of political opponents trying to sell the idea.

Might as well assert, say, that Kerry wants to force everyone in the US to marry someone of the same sex. No evidence for that? Well, that just proves it.

(3) The draft's illegal. Your response: it would be legal if it were made legal.

True enough. But then, it hasn't been passed, the law proposing it wasn't passed, and Bush has insisted he's veto such a law if it did pass.

(4) The law to provide for a new draft failed 402 to 2. You're response: there's no reason to suppose that this was a serious vote.

You're right: it wasn't a serious vote. Everyone knew it would fail, and the bill would normally have died in committee.

Until the Democrats started lying about plans for a draft, using as their evidence the very Democrat-sponsored bill they proposed.

So, to settle the question, it was brought to the floor and voted down.

(5) The military is overextended etc. Now, this might be true -- although I work with the military and follow the more "technical" open sources pretty closely, and that's not the way it's being reported there. In fact, if you follow the reports more closely, you'll find that the areas in which "insurgents" are operating are getting smaller, the "insurgent" attacks are not being very successful and are losing steam, the Iraqis are increasingly trying to get rid of the "insurgents", and if you plot the attacks on a map you find that the attacks are very very highly correlated with where Western media is found.

But let's say you were right. Then you are still ignoring the fact that a draft would not solve that problem. Modern forces can't use "cannon fodder" -- you don't do modern oeprations by throwing a couple divisions up against the line, as we did even in Viet Nam. A modern infantryman has to have about a year of specialized training to be effective, and the infantry only accounts for about 10 percent of any fighting force. Everyone else needs even more training.

What's worse, the real issues -- the ones that are leading to people being recalled from the IRR or retained past their expected release date -- are the loss of specialized training or skills, like experienced intelligence analysts or people who speak foreign languages. We could also use lots more special operators -- Seals, Green Berets, Air Commandos, and so on.

You can't draft those people.

So, what you come down to is that there's no one in authority asking for a draft, which makes sense because a draft wouldn't solve their problems.

Now, up to this point, I've assumed that you're merely ignorant or ill-informed, but let's think about the other option: that you, like Charlie Rangel, actually know these things.

In that case, you're lying.

Pick one, you're choice: stupid or liar?

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[multimed]

But the draft crap is fearmongoring plain and simple. Some guy telling an organization to stop lying isn't exactly censorship. There is absolutly no factual basis for saying that Bush is going to reinstate the draft. It is in fact an urban myth because blatantly false information is passed on as fact. Like the "pending legislation." A transparently phony vote? What a load of crap. The bills were written by Democrats to make a political point (one I didn't disagree with) but never had any intention of being passed. To turn around and use those Bills of evidence of a malicious plan to bring back the draft is intentionally lying. The House's "phony" vote was to try and counter the FUD. Though I have to question what exactly makes an on-the-record vote "tansparently phony?"

By your logic, there should be no debate about anything that you disagree with.

MTV and those wonderful emails rolling around are not debate--a debate has two or more opposing viewpoints. They are trying to scare gullable people (especially young people) into believing something that is unlikely by presenting one side and presenting false information as true. The fact that the Urban Legends site has as an entry & directly disproves some of the references MTV and others have made should be enough.

Perhaps most amusing:
Anyone who thinks that the youth of America are going to take a politician's word on this topic is living on another planet.

Yeah because MTV most certainly wants kids to think for themselves... So long as they listen to the music and watch exactly what they are spoonfed. And go out and be good consumers. MTV not only knows their viewers will take whatever they hear on TV as true, they bank on it.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[LurkingStranger]

He might have been acting as you say maliciously...or he might have been foring the issue... So, you think that the Sinclair Group is not politically motivated either?

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[crmartin]

He might have been acting as you say maliciously...or he might have been foring the issue...

Well, you apparently think, fuzzily, that these are mutually distinct, which isn't encouraging, but ....

Forcing what issue? For a number of purely military reasons (as I've described above) there is no military reason to even want a draft; politically, the Republican Party knows that it wouldn't be acceptable anyway; practically, by the time a draft could be reorganized, and the first recruits trained, the potential need will probably be gone.

But observe: the Democrat side introduces a "revive the draft" bill -- and "watch out, the draft is coming and those Eevil Republicans are doing it" becomes a campaign theme. (Kerry's still pushing it as late as last night.)

I'd say the circumstantial evidence for malice, even outright malevolence, is pretty good.

By the way -- I've noticed that it's a surprisingly good prediction to assume that pretty much anything the Democrats accuse the Republicans of is something they're already doing, or planning. With that in mind, it's worth noting that it's the Kerry campaign that has floated the idea of mandatory national service.

If you're going to worry about a draft, who do you want to vote for? Bush, who said explicitly "not on my watch, no way" or Kerry, who has made the revival of conscription part of his campaign?

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Did you read Gillespie's letter? He was threatening them with legal action if they didn't stop talking about the possibility of a draft. Your argument over the draft bill is confusing the issue. The vote was an obvious act of political theatre. Rangel wanted to make a point about the differences in sacrifice between the have and have-nots, while the GOP saw a chance to visibly vote down a draft bill. That's not a serious discussion of the issue, since it is mere political theatre, by definition, you cannot trust that the issue is dead.

MTV is not trying to debate with Gillespie about whether or not there will be a draft, they were arguing about the legitimacy of discussing the issue with their target audience. Should we threaten Ed Gillespie with legal action for the events where Dick Cheney says Saddam and 9/11 are connected, what about the NRA claiming that Kerry wants to take everyone's guns? If political theatre is good enough for Congress and the Administration, it's good enough for a private voter registration group. Attempting to claim partisanship for their political theatre and threatening them with legal action is a private attempt to censor. The fact that Gillespie has the President and the Attorney General in his address book pushes this action over the top.

Your last comment is just as valid directed at many of the other organizations involved in this election year. I never claimed MTV was some beacon of integrity, I claimed that Gillespie was unduly trying to exercise power where he had no right. As long as MTV has the right to do what it does, sending nasty letters to them speaks to the character of the sender.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[crmartin]

Just by the way, the Wayback machine yields the Kerry proposal for mandatory service for everybody.

If you're worried about a draft, you should be worried about Kerry and the Democrats -- they're the ones proposing a revival of the draft.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[An Onerous Coward]

Even with the gratuitous "stupid or liar" comment at the end, this is a commendable improvement in both quality of evidence and quality of argumentation. I'm far less inclined to believe that a draft is possible than I was before reading your post. Well done.

The biggest question still lingering in my mind is, what happens if Bush stays in office, and throws a couple more potential quagmires into the mix. Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Syria? Unless Bush gets better at alliance-building and diplomacy (and I think despite his protests and "resolve", he's learned some things from this) the personnel shortages are going to get worse and the idea of having large masses of bullet catchers might start looking better to all parties.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[stanmann]

You will see more "civilian contractors" dying. Fortunately(or not) "civilian contractors" aren't "our boys in uniform" so their deaths aren't necessarily as impactful to the American public, for some reason the American public cares much more for professional Soldiers than for Professional soldiers. good, bad, I don't know, but mercenaries are making upwards of 100k a year.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[crmartin]

I'm still curious, though: were you opining without knowing the topic, or were you promulgating error knowingly?

In any case, though, it's a good question, but the underlying facts are the same: we don't have a military that can make good use of big hordes of semi-trained cannon fodder, and thus aren't likely to draft them. Most likely would be a continuing policy of using diplomacy -- the real kind, where the people against the US interests know there's a down side to continued intransigence -- to elicit real changes, and a place-by-place application of force in the most effective way available. This would be much more likely to be special operators of some sort. My guesses, and they're only guesses, I don't have any access to OPLANS or the like, would be:

Syria: continued pressure and sanctions, possibly armed action against Syrian positions in Lebanon, but more likely by air power than ground forces.

North Korea: continued multilateral pressure; no one in the area thinks the current conditions in the DPRK are a good thing, and China, Japan, and Russia have lots stronger motivation for finding a way to calm "Mr Ron'ry" down. And frankly, the DPRK can't continue starving the populace forever.

Sudan: Sadly, this is one that's likely to go on as it has, at least for a while: the PRC pretty clearly considers it to be in its interests not to let any little genocides get in the way of an oil deal. (Can you say "Blood for Oil"? This would be a good time for that complaint.)

Iran: this is the hard one. I'm glad I don't have to make the actual decisions, but I think there's a real good chance it's solving itself. The mullahs are becoming increasingly repressive, which is a good sign that conditions are getting increasingly out of hand. I'd be amazed if we were not supporting the forces of freedom somehow. The rest of the question (eg, Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities?) I just don't have good information about.

All of these cost money and make demands on the special operators (who, really, just can't be drafted) but don't use big troop masses.

The underlying assumption, however -- that Afghanistan and Iraq are "quagmires" -- is a very poorly thought out one as well. If you look more deeply at the real reports from both places, they indicate not an extended and successful insurgency, but one that is increasingly limited in scope, and in Iraq in particular, one that has just about worn out whatever welcome it had from the population.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[multimed]

since it is mere political theatre, by definition, you cannot trust that the issue is dead.

But using exactly the same logic, since the bill was an obvious act of political theatre in the first place, you cannot trust the issue is alive either. It is using the bills themselves (which we seem to to roughly agree about) as evidence of a plan to reinstate the draft that I find so distasteful.

I did read Gillespie's letter though just now, I hadn't when I initiall posted. I don't for a minute think Gillespie isn't a slimeball or that he does anything without self/RNC-serving interests. There is now a link on the Rock the Vote site, to an article addressing most of the false rumors. Of course any discussion threads they link to are filled with hundreds of posts of people who apparently haven't read that link or lack the attention span to actually process it (ooh a shiny quarter!).

Ultimately, the President and the rest of the current administration have been clear that they have no intention of reinstating the draft. Senator Kerry has expressed the same. Both candidates gave fairly lengthy answers at two of the three debates, responding to the question of their position on the draft as well as how they would handle the situation of having a shortage of volunteer military personnel. SO anyone who makes the claim that the government will be instituting a draft needs to provide some semblance of factual basis that counters the sizable evidence to the contrary.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[crmartin]

By the way, here is the SECDEF's own response on the draft question.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[crmartin]

Calling truck drivers "mercenaries" is either an idiot mistake or ... nah, no "or". It's an idiot mistake.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[stanmann]

Not knowing that civilian contractors perform "armed combat" is an idiot mistake One source

During the first Persian Gulf War, one civilian contractor was employed for every 60 active-duty personnel. That figure has grown to about one in 10, according to a Century Foundation, a nonpartisan public policy research foundation in New York City. More than 20,000 private contractors are being used in Iraq. While many perform engineering, clerical and construction work, others "have increasingly engaged in the exchange of fire formerly limited to soldiers," according to the foundation's September 2004 study titled "Legions Stretched Thin: the U.S. Army's Manpower Crisis." "It is perfectly appropriate to hire contractors, and most of their uses are not controversial, but we have no way of knowing what is happening with them in Iraq or elsewhere," said Leif Wellington Haase, co-author of the report. "There is little if no oversight for contractors, and in a democracy that is pretty troubling." Since the first stories of abuse at Abu Ghraib, the role of private contractors in America's war on terror has been brought into question. "Private security people are out of control," said Carl Conneta, co-director of the Project On Defense Alternatives, a nonpartisan arms control think tank in Cambridge, Mass. "Accountability is very tough to impose on them, and they are operating in a Wild West environment. "They don't have the same type of legal constraints that are operating inside the military," Conneta said.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[crmartin]

Yeah, those are reliable sources: one says, instead of truck drivers, translators (hint: that means "talks other languages"), the other one is guys saying "mysterious guys in black hoods did nasty things, give me money."

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[stanmann]

Ok, here from TIMETime magazine

blackwater

look into what blackwater inc really does, and what they offer.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[crmartin]

Right, so now rent-a-cops are mercenaries.

Look up the fancy words before you use them if you don't know what they mean.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[stanmann]

rent a cops don't carry m-203s and drive APCs. rent a cops don't fight pitched battles against enemy soldiers and call in for mortar fire support.

in the real world, we call people who do these things mercenaries.

Did you submit a story about it?

[artifex2004]

I like the new politics section, but at least have some semblance of balance about what stories get posted.

Did you submit a story about it?

If not - remember, the editors rarely go out and look for stories. They're almost entirely dependent upon readers. If you perceive a bias, it's at least partly due to this.

If so - post the rejected stories to your journal, and show us what you have. Plenty of us have networks of friends and trade information this way. I'm strongly in the defeat-Bush camp myself, but I know both main parties are guilty of a lot of things, so I'd like to see evidence of dirty tricks by Democrats as well, especially those that are actually illegal.

Flawed elections

[karnat10]

... the story about a voter registration company ...

That's were I start to worry already. Why do obscure private companies carry out tasks that important to build trust in an election's result?

Where I live (in the old world), my administration knows I'm a citizen and when there's elections, they send me all necessary stuff automatically. That's what a public administration is for, after all.

It's still before the elections, and I already know I'm not gonna trust the result.

But we'll have to live with it anyway, so please, dear Americans, take a wise decision.

Re:Flawed elections

[fenris_23]

The U.S. does not have a national registry of citizens like other countries making that unfeasible. It probably won't happen because of problems like illegal immigrants and the lack of consensus on what rights they actually have.

Therefore, the government would have to surmount a lot of bullshit in order to determine who can vote and who cannot. Whenever the government does make a determination about who can vote and who cannot, there is invariably a huge battle. Furthermore, it would worry me that our current administration could make such decisions.

Thus, I think it is better that people should be responsible for arranging their own voting registration (it really is not difficult).

I mean, can you imagine what would happen if the federal government (either the executive or legislative branches) began pre-emptively deciding who can vote and who cannot?

Re:Flawed elections

[Anonymous Coward]

'... illegal immigrants and the lack of consensus on what rights they actually have.' - None, they're here illegally...

Indeed!

[Rayonic]

Whereas the Democrats are so anti-voter-suppression that they even encourage dead people to vote.

Wait, I'm sorry, I should have said "living-impaired people". ;-)

Re:Indeed!

[lavaface]

Whereas the Democrats are so anti-voter-suppression that they even encourage dead people to vote.

Ah yes . . . and our current Attourney General was such a piss-poor republican he lost a Senate race to a dead man. Interesting political times . . .

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[gtwreck]

That is sort of like telling the cop who pulled you over for doing 50 in a 35 that the other cars on the road were going 60. Well, that doesn't make what you were doing any less wrong.

I do agree however on your point that we should know of shenanigans from both sides. Which is why I started this thread in the first place. There needs to be balance.

In general, I agree with a previous poster who stated that this is all part of a campaign to set the stage so that if the Democrats lose they can claim the election was stolen like they did last time. Even though all the independant investigations (Miami Herald, Civil Rights Commission, Justice Department, CNN-) into voter intimidation claims, etc. could find no major problems with the Florida results nor any substantiation to claims of police using dogs and firehoses, etc. to suppress minority votes. In fact they found that most of the problems were due to voter error.

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[Otter]

But what's worse, frivolously claiming voter intimidation or actually actively disenfranchising voters and deceiving the public about it?

I'd say they're equally bad. The end result (the destruction of acceptance of the electoral process) is the same. If anything, the latter destroys an election while the former destroys the electoral process itself.

Excruciating Editorial Bias

[Snerdley]

Once again, we have an abysmal editorial decision on Slashdot.

A submission from Indomitus, a left-leaning reader (nothing wrong with that) comes in citing the dailyKOS as a source of news, and the editor doesn't even explain that that site is so unbelievably slanted as to be unreadable.

Just as a test, I've submitted the following story just to see what response I get. I'll be FLOORED if it gets through, although it is at least as accurate as the post Michael approved.

Submission:

The DNC has now confirmed that the excerpt from their Training Manual reported on the Drudge Report is authentic.

The excerpt calls election workers to issue press releases and give interviews about voter suppression, and that, "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike".

Sinclair sotry even more so

[chatooya]

There's also been a huge amount of participation built up around this Sinclair Broadcasting scandal. People have been deluging advertisers with calls, mostly driven by interest on blogs. It seems to be working. (via The Regular)

Re:Sinclair sotry even more so

[Anonymous Coward]

The Regular seems to be doing the same thing as politics.slashdot.org. I guess that makes sense since there are only a few posts a day over here. Politics nerds need their info-crack too!

My media biased opinion

[secolactico]

I'm not american and I usually follow foreign politics with the detachment of someone who believes that the rest of the world is a "far away place", so most of my opinions of american politics come from the media.

What I'm reading on news sites (mostly left leaning) is that this particular election is quickly becoming the farces that you only see/hear about from third world countries (I should know, I live in one), where the stories of election theft are so fantastic people would feel like laughing out loud if they weren't crying.

People voting several time in the same recint, while the judges look the other way. People suddenly grabbing the urns and bolting in districts where the opposing party or parties have a marked majority. Papers that would dissapear in transit for days only to reappear with changed results...

Once again, this is what I've seen and read. I haven't been in the US for a couple of years now, so I can't really say what the feeling on the street is. I'm sure a lot is exageration. It's not like on january the US is going to be ruled by a Military Junta (or so I hope).

Re:My media biased opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

What I'm reading on news sites (mostly left leaning) is that this particular election is quickly becoming the farces that you only see/hear about from third world countries

Getting people to believe that is part of the democratic plan for their eventual November loss. Kerry can prove his patriotism by stopping his own party from trying to destory trust in our election when he fairly loses in November.

Re:My media biased opinion

[Poppler]

It's somewhat overhyped. There is some legitimate concern about disenfranchisement, but our elections are in much better shape than some. No blatent widespread fraud (like changing the results).

Of coarse now that we have the new Diebold machines, this could all happen in theory... but it's all speculation. The machines are not 100% secure, their code is proprietery. It's clearly imperfect, but again, not as bad as some other nations *cough*Afghanistan*cough*.

But I'm not worried about the Military Juanta (yet - check back in 10 or 20 years and see where we are).

Re:My media biased opinion

[macrealist]

Few Americans still contest the previous Presidential election. The process that was followed afterwards was very tense, but needed. The democrats, and Al Gore, should be commended for keeping the country together by not attempting to invalidate or attack the Supreme Court's decision.

Having your election decided by a razor thin margin in a state run by your brother and elections presided over by your campaign manager of the state destroys trust in the election process. Admitting defeat after following legitimate procedures for reviewing the election restores the trust. Blasting the democrats for not wanting to be burnt again is ridiculous, unfair, and blatantly biased.

If California were close, you better believe that there would be republicans preparing to battle Kevin Shelly (CA Sec. of State), and for good reason.

Now, my big question to you. Why do you support Bush?

Do you think that pulling the together the US after 9/11 took courage and leadership? Any idiot in the White House could have done that. It was the people that came together, not a leader that brought them together.

Do you think that attacking Iraq was an immediate priority? And if so, was doing it in a way that alienated us from the world (except for England and Poland, and 28 other small countries) the sign of a good leader? After 9/11 nearly every country in the world supported our war on terror. After we unilaterally decided to attack Iraq, only a handful supported us. Only an idiot in the White House could have done that.

Do you think that the tax refund check you received is worth your vote? Are you bought off that easy? By giving huge tax breaks while simultaneously waging war, by increasing spending and decreasing taxes, our leader is bankrupting the country for our children.

You can not both support the war in Iraq and tax breaks without leaving the costs for our children. Is your selfish desire to acquire more money worth more to you than the soldiers fighting in Iraq or the kids that will have to eventual pay for our short sidedness?

Mr. Bush supporters, how selfish are you?

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[Zelet]

Are you an idiot or a really bad troll?

My point is that if the media is watching for voter intimidation it makes it hard to disenfranchise voters. I don't see how getting the media involved to help make voting fair and available to every body is a bad thing. Not wanting the media to watch for voter fraud is only the opinion of the people allowing/wanting the fraud to happen. Like you.

For all you democrats

[dtfinch]

It may be a good time to contact your local newspapers. Phone and personal appearances speak louder than email.

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[Anonymous Coward]

"I like the new politics section, but at least have some semblance of balance about what stories get posted."

There is equal coverage -- both Democrats and Libertarians get equal coverage on /.

-AC

Tell me again that Slashdot isn't biased...

[DesScorp]

...to the left. Voter fraud goes on in every election, by lots of people in both parties. And it's not like there's been a lack of stories about Democratic voter fraud. And pointing this out DOES NOT ENDORSE IT. All voter fraud should be punished. But it's a damn disgrace (and a big help to the Democratic party) to only point it out when it helps Republicans. Since Slashdot won't report it when Dem s do it, here's a recent sampler:

- Attempted Democratic Voter Fraud In Nashville
- Voter Fraud In South Dakota
- Colorado To Tackle Voter Fraud Fears
- Rendell will send monitors to elections offices
- ACORN Voter Registration Fraud Allegations Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg, Says Employment Policies Institute

And lets not forget the revelation that the Democratic Party plans a pre-emptive strike by alleging voter fraud in close races, even if there's absolutely no proof of it.

Slashdot; not fair, and damn sure not balanced.

Re:Tell me again that Slashdot isn't biased...

[hey!]

Sure, but one thing you have to note -- this company is sponsored by the RNC. You can't say it was some local yahoo.

Re:Tell me again that Slashdot isn't biased...

[An Onerous Coward]

Story 1 - Lone gunman
Story 2 - Lone gunman
Story 3 - People paid on a "per voter registration card" basis have incentive to turn in forged voter registrations. No indication that these people actually intended to make use of these fake registrations for voting purposes.
Story 4 - Democrat governor wants his people to oversee elections. Republicans don't.
Story 5 - Only story nearly as newsworthy as the one Slashdot is reporting.

As for your final story about the Democratic playbook, discussing voter intimidation and fraud before it happens is a sound preventative measure. Nowhere does it specifically say to allege voter fraud without evidence, and I don't believe that was their intent.

what really worries me about these elections

[Anonymous Coward]

is that it is as hard to tell an American that his elections are rigged as it is to tell an Iraqi citizen that Saddam was an undesirable dictator.

No-one except 1 person in each state vote!!!!

[Red Moose]

I have a solution to the matter of the US elections.

If everyone campaigns and elects a single person in each state to vote, only one person does that, and there is an easy way of counting the electoral college votes.

So really, the democrats need to convince the republicans that they have it won so easily that they all sit at home and don't bother voting while secretly all the democrats go and vote mwahahahahahha. Or is that what the Republicans are doing to the democrats

Might as well get the whole story

[crmartin]

Have a look at the running log of voter fraud stories.

Re:Might as well get the whole story

[TykeClone]

Nothing in there (yet) on Iowa - it sounds like the way that the absentee ballots were distributed this year will be ripe for fraud.

Re:Might as well get the whole story

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Hobb's site is complete shit unfortunately. He comes off as a barking lunatic, and endorses whacko's. That and he appears to be a little slanted. Got a real site and not some nutball?

Re:Might as well get the whole story

[crmartin]

Bill's got a gmail address for these reports. Send it in.

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[Hard_Code]

I just don't get this. By that logic the "electoral process" itself is safe even if it is completely corrupted, just as long as the public doesn't know about it and still trusts it? SHOULD we trust a system which is rigged? If either party is doing this, it needs to be known, and the fact that it is occurring means that it should be STOPPED or FIXED, not that it should be hidden.

No I did not, and that's a good point

[gtwreck]

But it's not the first time I've noticed such editorial decisions. And I felt it needed discussion.

I have noticed that another poster *did* submit the story subsequently. We'll see what happens. However, the real test is what happens the next time, and the time after that, etc.

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[SkyWalk423]

You got all that from my *sarcastic* two line post?? I never said bringing media attention to the problem of voter fraud is a bad idea. I was merely pointing out the sematics of one person alleging that DNC operatives were instructed to "claim voter intimidation" and you calling it "highlighting past voter intimidation." A subtle but very important distinction to make.

Calm down. I think we're on the same side.

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[Otter]

Your original comment referred to "frivolously" making charges of voter intimidation, remember? Obviously, accurate reports of election tampering are vital, not problematic. (On the other hand, using a minor incident as a pretext to undermine an entire election, the outcome of which it clearly did not change, would fall under my definition of "frivolous".)

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[Zelet]

If you read the documents carefully - they aren't saying to 'claim' that there was fraud but point out past incidents of fraud. It isn't a difference of wording - it is a difference of meaning.

Sorry to jump down your throat btw.

Re:DNC voter intimidation: tactical analysis.

[lynx_user_abroad]

Neatly ignoring the fact that this isn't what was alleged...

...claim voter intimidation...

If a news story broke that the other candidate was falsely alleging voter intimidation by your guy, would that keep you from voting for your favorite candidate? If you weren't previously planning to vote, is there a possibility that such a story might prompt you to vote? Would it make a difference if the allegations were proven to be true?

If a news story broke that your favorite candidate was falsely alleging voter intimidation by the other guy, would that keep you from voting for your favorite candidate? If you weren't previously planning to vote, is there a possibility that such a story might prompt you to vote? Would it make a difference if the allegations were proven to be true?

What if the news falsely alleged that some of your guy's supporters (yourself included) would not be allowed vote because the other guy' supporters tore-up voter registration cards supporting your guy? Would that keep you from voting for your favorite candidate? If you weren't previously planning to vote, is there a possibility that such a story might prompt you to vote? Would it make a difference if the allegations were proven to be true?

What if the news falsely alleged that some of the other guy's supporters would not be allowed vote because your guy' supporters tore-up voter registration cards supporting the other guy? Would that keep you from voting for your favorite candidate? If you weren't previously planning to vote, is there a possibility that such a story might prompt you to vote? Would it make a difference if the allegations were proven to be true?

I suspect he first case results (for most people) in either a total gain of votes cast, or a neutral impact with people who wouldn't have voted anyway possibly choosing to still not vote. I suspect only a very few people would be so morally outraged by these allegation (true or false) against their guy that they would choose not to vote when they otherwise would have.

In the second case, there is a possibility that some people (the ones disenfranchised in the "true" case) which would otherwise have voted find themselves unable to do so; a net loss of voters.

If our goal is to encourage every voter to vote his/her concious, then the first case is a possible positive and the second a certain negative. If, on the other hand, our goal is to ensure our candidate wins even at the expense of voter intent, then the first case (true or false) offers us no tactatical advantage, while the second offers us a clear and certain tactical advantage, so long as it is the other guy's supporters disenfranchised, and only if the allegations are true.

Someone once said all the answers of the world can be found in Game Theory. I don't know if that's true, but the harder I look, the more I believe.

Someone please clarify

[tetranz]

As a non-american I haven't been able to get an indication of how 'normal' it is to register through these sort of channels. In other words, I don't know how valid is the response which says "If you register through some stranger rather than the official way, then you deserve what you get".

Re:Someone please clarify

[Thunderstruck]

Actually, this can vary depending your citizenship. Citizens of Some states can only register by going to the local courthouse, some states permit and encourage private groups to do registration drives, and citizens of North Dakota do not need to register at all. (They just have to bring some proof that they live in the precinct, or sign a statement to that effect at the polls.)

Re:Someone please clarify

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Voter registration throughout the U.S. is a pot-luck. In Michigan, where I live, you just fill out a few extra fields on your driver's license. In many places there are drives, where people go door-to-door trying to sign up voters. Unlike many other nations, voter turn out in the U.S. is piss poor, with less than half of the citizenry voting. Much of this is because of our backwards electoral system, that is not equally representative, and the entrenched two-party system that makes voting a choice between two candidates with very similar views.

Allegations of voter fraud are unbelievably common. Here in Michigan, the secretary of state, issued notices to people registering to vote, telling them they were not eligible to vote in the coming presidential election, since they registered to late. The notices, however, were sent out a month earlier than intended and now many people who can vote, probably will not. When called on the issue, they decided not to send out corrections, citing that it would be too expensive.

A final problem with the U.S. voter registration system is that it is not independent. It is almost always conducted by members of one party or another. This provides incentive for them to try to skew the process, and reason for their opposition to be suspicious. The secretary of state and registrar of votes are both prominent members of one party. In fact a state representative from one party publicly made statements about how important it was to "suppress the vote" in Detroit, the largest and most liberal city in the state.

Basically the system is corrupt, no one is surprised, half of the people I know don't think their vote will even be counted, a good portion of the country thinks our current president was not legally elected, and there does not seem to be any way for the public to force an actual vote that would make a difference. Some of the smartest people I know are moving out of the country, I may follow them.

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[Hard_Code]

Since you can't know until after the charge has been aired and reviewed, the choice is whether to air complaints or not air complaints. Of course if there was a FRIVOLOUS_COMPLAINT bit we could inspect then we could know which to allow and which to disallow. But we don't, so have to defer to hearing all complaints. If I have to choose actual disenfranchisment vs. frivolous complaints, I choose frivolous complaints. I'd much rather have a democracy that is verifiable despite a lot of complaining, than one that is undermined yet absolutely trusted.

A question

[antizeus]

It looks like the standard right wing talking point response to this story is to mention a DNC document (usually citing the same Rocky Mountain News story) in which it is said:

If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike.

It's well known that the right wing is really good about distributing these talking points and hammering away on them in a consistent fashion. My question is: where is this particular point being coordinated from? Is it though a web site like Free Republic, or through the propaganda channels in the more traditional media outlets, e.g. Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc? I've been following these things on the left, but am curious about how the right is operating.

say what??

[Dr Kool, PhD]

So I guess this is a huge Republican conspiracy right? I bet they paid this company millions of dollars to rip up... uh... ten ballots? And the company that did it was so stupid as to dump them in the trash rather than shredding/burning them??

It seems more likely to me that some leftwing wacco filled out a few voter forms, tore them up, and then came running to the press about "REPUBLICAN VOTER FRAUD!! OMG!!!!" Except the mainsteam media saw through the fraud, so the only place you'll find the story is on extreme liberal sites like Kos...

Re:say what??

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw you whoever modded the parent post troll.

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[lynx_user_abroad]

That is sort of like telling the cop who pulled you over for doing 50 in a 35 that the other cars on the road were going 60.

No cop is going to pull you over for doing 50 in a 35 if the other cars on the road are going 60, except perhaps for obstructing the flow of traffic. But that's entirely off-topic...

...this is all part of a campaign to set the stage so that if the Democrats lose they can claim the election was stolen....

It is equally applicable no matter which party "loses". Both incidents reduce the confidence that a Free and Fair election has occurred; which opens up the election process to post-ballot manipulation-- out of control of the voters.

There are those who would claim that the Republicans actually did lose last time, then proved-out their strategy of post-ballot manipulation to eventually win the office.

If this did happen, I'd imagine both the Democrats and the Republicans are chomping at the bit to utilize this "newly accepted" campaign strategy to put their candidate into office. After all, the other side would do it in a second if they had the chance.

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't a difference of wording - it is a difference of meaning.

Or in other words, spin.

OH MY GOD!!!! I DEMAND A RECOUNT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

RECOUNT!!!! RECOUNT!!!!

Oh wait, Kerry hasn't lost yet, nevermind...

Screaming "Liberal!" is not a rebuttal to the fact

[revscat]

A submission from Indomitus, a left-leaning reader (nothing wrong with that) comes in citing the dailyKOS as a source of news, and the editor doesn't even explain that that site is so unbelievably slanted as to be unreadable.

If you have a problem with the facts, say so. Otherwise please stop with the incessant whining about "bias." The facts as they stand are that the RNC is encouraging if not sponsoring massive vote fraud, the DNC is NOT, and all the movement conservatives seem to be able to offer up in defense is "liberal bias!" and unsubstantiated claims of "they all do it!", neither one of which are justifications nor rebuttals.

Source?

[Pentagram]

Well, I looked at that site, which seems to be a rather vague interpretation of an election handbook. Not willing to trust the clearly partisan tone of the article, I tried to look at the original source, which is stated as drudgereport.com.

drudgereport.com has a link to the story on its front page... which links back to the story you linked to!

Looking at drudgereport.com's "recent headlines" link, http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/links_reca p.htm , it has three links to what I assume is the document, labelled " [HIGHLIGHT OF ELECTION DAY MANUAL, NOVEMBER 2004. CLICK FOR IMAGE .PDF FILE]".

The first, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/1 4/20041014_201651_dnc.pdf , is a 404.

The second, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/1 4/20041014_161007_dnc.jpg results in "The image [...] cannot be displayed because it contains errors".

The third, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/1 4/20041014_150700_dnc.pdf , is also a 404.

You'll have to forgive me if I find these vague, unsourced accusations unconvincing.

The good fight

[Brown Eggs]

I can look elsewhere because I still believe I have a choice in which parties I support. I completely agree that corruption like this needs to be pointed out, and needs to be fought. I think that the best way to fight corruption of this sort is to show that it has a negative impact on voter morale and opinion towards the party practicing this. Each party uses these tactics to try and sway voters, and try to energize their followers. So clearly the way to really penalize them is to show each party that we will no longer support them when they use morally questionable tactics, and we will fight hard to make sure noone else does either. And it for this reason that I very vocally proclaim that I was (emphasis WAS) a Democrat/Republican, and am now backing another party.

What's the word after "tax and spend"?

[Futurepower(R)]

One of my complaints about conservatives is that they are hypocritical.

One of my complaints about "conservatives" is that they are not only not honest, they are not conservative. Look at Democrat and Republican spending patterns.

Re:What's the word after "tax and spend"?

[Geraden]

Both parties are centrist.

True conservatism lies in a third party.

Re:What's the word after "tax and spend"?

[Dh2000]

That'd be the Communist party.

Re:What's the word after "tax and spend"?

[Slime-dogg]

Don't equivocate republicans with conservatives. Conservatism is a political ideology, along with liberalism and socialism. "Republican" is one of the U.S's national parties. Yes, it is reasonable to say that many conservative minded people vote republican, but that does not mean that every conservative votes republican, nor does it mean that every republican is conservative.

Then again, the modern day "liberal" that Rush Limbaugh likes to rail against is not the same as the liberal political ideology. The modern "liberal" leans in the socialist direction. The original liberal ideology, however, is much more in line with libertarian beliefs: less government control of the individual, everyone has an equal oppurtunity to make or break themselves. The arguments in liberal ideology come from the definition of an equal oppurtunity. Some believe that it is the oppurtunity that needs to be equal, which means that the government shouldn't provide anything for anyone. Others believe that the government is responsible for providing everyone with at least a minimal quality of life, so that they may use their oppurtunity.

Conservatives focus on the community. It is their belief that the community should provide for it's less fortunate. Keep in mind that community != government. This is the small town mentality, where everyone knows each other and sees each other at Church. Their spending is not to conserve money, but to conserve the community.

Socialists believe that it's the role of the government to provide it's citizens with everything required to live life. This is all well and good, but with anything government based, it is very susceptible to corruption and bloat. Communism is the extreme economic form of the socialist political ideology.

Also, if you look at how economic systems work, you'd realize that the increase in debt under Reagan was not only due to his finality in finishing the cold war, but also due to the fallout from economic policies put into place under Carter. Worse yet, the policies under George H.W. Bush had the effect of stimulating the economy under Clinton, while his policies had the effect of exploding an economic balloon. It's tiresome to listen to the democrats take credit for the surpluses in the 90's, just because there was a democrat president. If anything, Clinton is most responsible for the economic crash that we had four years ago.

Political Zealotry

[jazman_777]

The heated election environment (not just here) shows that politics is becoming our Holy War. There is a long-running streak of "America-as-Messiah" in our history but now there seems to be that extra dash of religious fervor about Running The State that makes this election a real zinger.

Whoever loses is going to have legions of bitter hardened zealots available to rally four years later.

Google search on voter fraud shows many examples.

[Futurepower(R)]

Google search: voter fraud.

--
Government data shows Democrat and Republican spending patterns.

answer

[antizeus]

Ah, according to an article which was subsequently posted, it appears that this is being spread through the Drudge site.

Maybe I should spend more time personally monitoring the right wing.

Corrected: Might as well get part of the story

[Sevn]

Have a look at a cherry picked list of democrat only voter fraud stories being passed off as the whole story.

Disclaimer: Pissed off conservative sick of the biased "bored again conservatives" making the rest of us REAL Conservatives look like bushbots.

Re:Corrected: Might as well get part of the story

[crmartin]

Moron. You get the whole story by getting parts of the story from multiple sources. We had a cherry-picked anti-RNC story, and I suggested "get the whole story" by providing another source with a different viewpoint.

Re:Corrected: Might as well get part of the story

[Sevn]

My bad. I misinterpreted what you were saying. I tend to get testy when I see a supposed news site that is loaded down with rhetoric from either side. Little things send up red flags like:

Ann Cooter (or however you spell it) ads. Hannity, Moore, Franken, etc. We already have enough people going out of their way to shut off the sources of information they don't like whether it's useful or not. Not to mention people deliberately doing the strawman thing. Most of my friends think it's ok to "win at all costs" because "this is a war on the liberals" but we all lose when that happens. Hobbs is just another mouthpiece for an idealogy that includes the information that backs his viewpoint, and ignores the rest. He's every bit as bad as moore. This isn't a war against "the liberals" or a war against "the bushies". It's a war against truth. Plenty of people are getting manipulated so some spoiled rich guys can gain the crown and help out their buddies. Nobody wins this no matter what happens in November.

Re:Corrected: Might as well get part of the story

[crmartin]

Yeah, exactly. Although at least Ann Coulter is kinda hot.

Neither is screaming "Vote fraud!"

[Anonymous Coward]

The facts as they stand are that the RNC is encouraging if not sponsoring massive vote fraud, the DNC is NOT...

Facts and citations to support your assertions, please?

These are both some pretty weighty allegations. I'd like more investigation than what I've seen so far before accusing the RNC of "massive vote fraud". On the flip side, and unfortunately for the Democrats, they have a history of massive voter fraud (Tammany Hall? Chicago?). The DNC needs to make an effort to convince me that they're completely above board and not resorting to something that they have resorted to in the past. So far, they've failed to do so.

Re:Excruciating Editorial Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

The scan linked to on that site does not seem to exist. Clicking on it: /The image cannot be displayed because it contains errors/

If the drudge report cannot find a decent scan how can we believe their summary ffs? Context is vital in this sort of allegation.

The "facts" are that there's no PROOF...

[the_skywise]

The only validated fact is that the Sproul ran a Republican leaning get out the vote drive with standing orders to only offer registration forms to those who claimed to be Republican. That's shady, but not illegal and certainly not vote "fraud".

The rest of the accusations of registration destruction is all hearsay and could very well be a counter campaign by the DNC to smear the Republicans. Not true you say? Well what does page 66 of the DNC manual say? "pre-emptive" strikes on vote intimidation and fraud... hmmm...?

I'm not going to say that the RNC is a bastion of honesty and purity. If there's proof this guy ordered the destruction of Democratic registration forms, hang him high. But if you think the DNC doesn't have their own version of Karl Rove, you're seriously mistaken.

Honestly.

[scootr1]

Is it *that* hard to get off your ass and go to your official voter registration area to vote?

If you're too lazy to go a little out of your way to register to vote, should you really even be trusted with making an educated decision on who you are going to vote for?

Re:Honestly.

[great om]

I am a pittsburgh resident. Unexpectedly, i have had to temporarily live in new york, i did not expect to still be in new york now, and therefore i did not apply for an absentee ballot. (i still pay PA taxes and maintain a primary residence in PA), however, i have to fly back to pittsburgh in order to vote. I would've been much easier for me to simply drive to philadelphia (from new york) and vote.

In MI: "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Those looking for better documented details might want to check out this story. It contains a catalog of GOP voter suppression efforts. Of course it's one-sided, but quite frankly I haven't ever come across any similar documentation cataloging DNC voter suppression efforts. If anybody has one, please post it for all to see!

Here are a few excerpts:

Philadelphia's 2003 mayoral election did not set especially high standards for civic discourse ...

... According to Sherry Swirsky, a local antitrust attorney who is active in Democratic politics and who worked as an election monitor that day, the men carried clipboards and drove around in unmarked black vans.

"Some of them were just driving around neighborhoods, looking menacing," Swirsky recalls. "But others were going up to voters and giving them misinformation about the kind of I.D. they needed in order to vote. The truth is, you don't need any I.D. to vote. But they were telling them they needed a major credit card, a passport or driver's license. They were telling them it was risky to vote if they had any outstanding child support bills. Imagine the menacing presence of a bunch of big white guys in black cars who look like they're law-enforcement people telling you all these things."

... It was not a sick prank by one or two racists but instead a systematic effort that required planning and not-insignificant outlays of money (the uniforms, the vehicles and the men, some of whom were reportedly recruited from out of state). ...

Swirsky met dozens of voters who were intimidated by strange men in uniforms; in a survey of black voters taken after the election, 7 percent reported being accosted by voter-intimidation efforts. ...

. . .

[Ralph] Neas [president of the nonpartisan People for the American Way Foundation] is referring not just to the Philadelphia mayor's race but also to a widely publicized absentee ballot-fraud investigation conducted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in Orlando this summer. In that investigation, elderly African-American voters were visited at their homes by police officers curious about their voting behavior. While Florida officials deny any attempt to intimidate voters, critics say the investigation is emblematic of the kind of under-the-radar, state-sponsored intimidation program that Republican officials have conducted in the past. On Friday, the Justice Department disclosed that it has initiated a civil rights investigation into what occurred in Orlando.

. . .

In July, John Pappageorge, a Republican state representative in Troy, Mich., attended a local party meeting to discuss with colleagues the Republicans' chances of winning the state for Bush in November. In the course of the discussion, according to an account published in the Detroit Free Press, Pappageorge declared, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election." Detroit, of course, has a huge minority population; about 83 percent of its residents are African-American. Pappageorge's statement was roundly condemned and he quickly apologized for it, insisting that he wasn't suggesting anything racist or illegal in calling for a suppression of the Detroit vote. As a matter of politic strategy, Pappageorge was probably right.

. . .

In 1986 the party hired an outside company to conduct another ballot-security initiative, this one aimed at challenging the voting eligibility of 31,000 voters in Louisiana, the vast majority of whom were black. According to a 2002 study of voter-intimidation practices that Swirsky wrote for the Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review, when Democrats again sued over the ballot-security initiative, they unearthed a Republican planning document t

Re:Excruciating Editorial Bias

[Snerdley]

Well, blow me down.

Not only did they not post the submission above (from a non-Anonymous reader with multiple sources), they chose to post THIS DRIVEL from an anoymous poster.

I'm sorry, but as much as I like the information on Slashdot, I'll be browsing elsewhere until after the election. I'm afraid your advertisers (I'm a big ThinkGeek fan) will also not be seeing any more of my cash. See you in January

Reagan borrowed money for corrupt programs.

[Futurepower(R)]

My understanding is that Reagan ran up a big bill by asking for the "600 ship Navy". Reagan also spent a lot on the Star Wars Missile Defense, which was entirely government fraud, because it could not work with present technology.

My understanding is that Reagan did this to embezzle money for his friends in the weapons industry. Both of these programs were entirely government corruption.

Note that the last few presidents have come from alcohol-influenced families: Reagan was an ACOA. George H.W. Bush is an ACOA. Clinton is an ACOA. (Adult Child of Alcoholics) George W. Bush is an alcoholic.

It amazes me how little people know about the activities of their government. Here are facts that are important now:

Table of U.S. Parties and Economics

Government data shows Democrat and Republican spending patterns.

We get it

[OptimoosePrime]

We know already that /. doesn't like George Bush. It's getting old.

I hate to tell you this, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ann Coulter is a dude. I watched "her" on O'Reilly recently and I've come to that conclusion. Note "her" large Adam's apple which moves as she speaks. Google for Ann Coulter Adam's Apple.

happens on both sides

[Anonymous Coward]

If the person said "Bush"
they were given a voter registration form. If they said "Kerry" they
were just told thank you and no form was given

I knew a woman who was/is a Kerry supporter who worked with voter registration. If the person was a bush supporter she moved down to the next house. If they were for Kerry she registered them to vote.

Duh...

Re:happens on both sides

[doppleganger871]

But you'll never see the version that you just mentioned of in the national evening news.

Seriously!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a republican, btw.

That's a good thing. If integrity ever becomes just a word, for either party in total, it will be a long painful crawl out of the abyss.

And I think we've begun to creep towards the precipice in earnest.

For myself, I'm probably voting a full Democratic ticket, for the first time, Yikes. Otherwise I'm esentially independant with history of about a 60% 40% split to the Democrats. But I look at what these people are doing to people's voter registration with grave seriousness. People, better than I, killed and died to preserve the right of a person to have a say in their government foremost among others. The did so with great ferocity and in like numbers. It's not a thing to take lightly should one not wish to see their name added to the bottom of that list.

Let's see the RNC playbooks

[Tungbo]

Just to prove that they are persons of CHARACTER, why don't the RNC and state committees publish their training manuals and playbooks after the election?

If you read the DNC training manual, it asked the staff to review local DNC tractic and remind the media of past RNC practices. So what's wrong or fraudulant about that? It's certainly a far cry from destroying voter registraion cards.

Re:National Review agrees

[realityfighter]

I've got a better idea. Let's see 'em before the election.

Re:Excruciating Editorial Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Bye. Bye. Can't say we'll miss you, but if we ever do, we'll be sure to visit.