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.
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...
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.
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
* Democrats claim Bush will reinstate the draft. Despite two bills introduced by Democrats, Bush absolutely claims that no draft will be done, even going as far as to explain that the draft would be contrary for their plans for better trained, more mobile army.
* It was Democrats, not Republicans, who actively lynched blacks in the South for voting, who instituted poll taxes and reading requirements. Republicans are the ones who fought them and instituted federal rules on who is and is not allowed to vote, and prosecuted the lynchings by the Democrat Ku Klux Klan. (Yes, that's right, most KKK members were democrats!)
* It was Democrats, not Republicans, who managed the counties where the voters were reportedly disenfranchised in Florida during the 2000 election scandal. The butterfly ballot was approved by democrat election officials. This claim was unsubstantiated because it didn't happen, yet they continue to insinuate it.
* It was Democrats, not Republicans, who want illegal aliens and non-citizens to vote. They impose the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for motor voters, where even the forms cannot state the requirements for voting.
* It is Democrats, not Republicans, who have told the elderly that if Bush is elected, their social security check would disappear. Newsflash: They are still getting their social security checks.
* When someone comes along and says, "Maybe we should purge the rolls of inactive or moved voters, or at least verify people's identity before they vote" it is Democrats, not Republicans, who scream bloody murder and say we are trying to disenfranchise voters.
I'll get modded down, and I know it, but those who browse at -1 will get to see the truth.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.