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

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).

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

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?