Slashdot Mirror
DNC and Voter Suppression
An anonymous reader points to this Drudge Report story about an election day manual specifying aggressive tactics to be used in the event of any election problems. While Drudge says the Democrats are planning to "declare voter intimidation -- even if none exists", that's not what the manual says.
Isn't it enough that most of our politicians are lawyers, now we're going to have them deciding the outcome of the elections as well. Even Tricky Dick Nixon conceded in 1960 rather than send the country down such a slippery slope.
What's worse? Being overly-proactive in being ready to resist voter fraud or actively engaging in it?
And the Drudge Report? C'mon! Can I get my conspiracy theory about TWA Flight 800 posted as a story?
Maybe politics.slashdot.org is one giant piece of flamebait. Is there no room left for rational discussion?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
How can this even remotely be called "voter intimidation"? Who is being encouraged or pressured not to vote? This looks like nothing more than the DNC calling on all citizens to raise a hue and cry whenever they experience vote fraud.
And I hate to be the one to break the story, but Drudge isn't he most reliable of sources...
If this is true, it makes sense. The country wasn't ready for the last electoral debacle and it caught many by surprise. In this case pre-emption may just be a good thing. Especially in states with E-Voting.
Question everything. Don't trust anyone. Damn, I'm beginning to sound like Fox Mulder.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
Of course not. But there are greater and lesser crimes, and this is a much, MUCH lesser crime than the active disenfranchisement of voters as sponsored by the RNC over the past two weeks. This action by the Democrats is tawdry at worst. The destruction of voter registration cards is CRIMINAL, and worthy of no lesser punishment than death.
The problem, some casual readers might think this is a professional news site and not realize its a news & gossip site from a man (Matt Drudge) with right wing view.
If you go over to Drudge.com You can read the Drudge Retort, a counter view from the left side.
I read many blog/news/gossip sites, but I like to know the views of the editors and owners. Would you blindly trust everything you read on the Internet? Most sites are not non-partisan, they lean and have viewpoints which cloud true reporting of the issues.
True non-partisan sites like Factcheck.org and Spinsanity.org have cleared up a some "Sound bites" from both sides. Why can't I get a news channel like this?
-
Partisan
That isn't an unreasonable interpretation of what the manual is advising as a practical matter. It says ""If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike," and then urges a P.R. offensive which would include getting civil rights leaders to denounce tactics of which there are "NO SIGNS" - that sounds to me like "complain about voter intimidation even though there are "no signs" that it exists.
Republicans and Democrats don't trust each other for good reason. Republicans think that Democrats stuff the ballot box with fraudulent votes... dead people, illegal aliens, people voting in multiple times in different jurisdictions etc. THERE IS A LOT OF TRUTH TO THIS.
Democrats for their part think that Republicans try to suppress turnout. For instance by putting out false information about voting requirements and locations and excessive challenges to the validity of voters. THERE IS A LOT OF TRUTH TO THIS.
The two types of bad behavior have a certain synergy... Everything that Republicans do about their legitimate fear of fraud is seen as further instances confirming Democrats legitimate fear of suppression and vice versa. For instance: Republicans convinced there is fraud going on (which is often true) are excessive in their efforts to purge the polls, those challenges are seen by Democrats as intimidation (which it often is), the more Democrats complain and insist on laws that prevent purging the rolls the more Republicans are convinced that the fix is in. Around and around it goes.
Did you read the thing?
Sure, it's partisan. They want to remind people of Republican dirty tricks... but aside from that, what's objectionable? It sounds to me like they're just trying to pre-emptively ensure that people retain the right to vote, and are not misled by false ads. If no intimidation or other dirty tricks happen, all that this will result in is making sure that people are on the watch for fraud, and that newspapers etc. don't print deceptive ads. If there are dirty tricks, then the Democrats are ready to react.
There's no fraud in reporting past dirty tricks. They're true, and it's good to be on guard against them. There's absolutely nothing there telling people to claim fraud if there isn't any.
So no, both sides are not equally complicit. The GOP is far and away more criminal.
The document doesn't say to make false allegations of intimidation. What it says is that in jurisdictions where intimidation and misinformation has happened in the past be proactive. It says to make sure that the media reports on the past unethical activities so that people are both watching out for it and aware of their rights as voters.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
It said people should pre-emptively issue a press release reviewing the past Republican tactics.
It said people should pre-emptively issue a press release quoting other people denouncing such tactics.
It said people should pre-emptively prime people with talking points for the media.
It said people should pre-emptively express their concern.
It said people should pre-emptively warn newspapers about false or misleading ads.
Hmmm, nothing at all about what you said it said.
Seems that you've lied.
Do you remember the "Kerry affair" story that Drudge pounded for days, until finally the "woman involved" said it was ridiculous and pointed out that there was no substance to the story at all? Eventually Drudge apologized.
He posts uttery false crap all the time, but because he's not a "real journalist" nobody is supposed to mind.
four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
Registration never made voter rolls (10/15/04)
Eighteen-year-old Michele Black won't let anything get in the way of her right to vote in the Nov. 2 general election.
Black tried to register to vote for the first time last month when a worker for a voter signup group approached her at Wal-Mart.
Black said she registered as a member of the Republican Party. She didn't know the name of the voter sign-up group. An official told her Wednesday that her voter registration never arrived.
Continued...