Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats

DNC and Voter Suppression 159

Posted by michael from the stitch-in-time-saves-nine dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DNC and Voter Suppression More

DNC and Voter Suppression

Comments Filter:

  • what's worse? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Friday October 15, 2004 @12:20PM (#10536231) Journal

    What's worse? Being overly-proactive in being ready to resist voter fraud or actively engaging in it [slashdot.org]?

    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?

    • Re:what's worse? (Score:3, Informative)

      by (trb001) ( 224998 )
      The Democrats confirmed that the page in question is legit [rockymountainnews.com]:

      But Democrats, who verified as authentic the page from a playbook called "Colorado Election Day Manual: A detailed guide to voting in Colorado," said they must be pro-active to assure that minorities and all others are not scared away from the polls.

      --trb

    • Re:what's worse? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      1) This isn't about being "overly proactive", it's about making sure that "voter intimidation" is featured prominently in the news whether or not it takes place.

      2) "What's worse?" is less a concern to me than is "Is this bad?". There's nothing that happens in US politics that doesn't have a "What's worse?" that can be raised to excuse it.

    • Re:what's worse? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by N3WBI3 ( 595976 )
      Do you honestly believe the democrats are not involved in voter fraud as well? I mean seriously do you think only republicans are commiting voter fraud in this election?

      • Re:what's worse? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by The Briguy ( 612887 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @01:25PM (#10537144) Journal
        Democrats don't have to - polling indicates that people who aren't currently registered favor Kerry by wide margins. Additionally, Voter intimidation only works in poor uneducated areas where people are unsure of thier rights. I suppose Democrats could send voter intimidators out to the backcountry, but the population density is too low to make this viable. In short, democrats time is far better spend trying to register people [since this results in a net gain of democrats], and in voter turnout on election day [again, because people who don't turn out are more likely to vote democratic]. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that democrats are "above" the tactics republicans use, just that it happens to be the case that legal tactics are better at improving the democratic vote.

    • Re:what's worse? (Score:5, Informative)

      by hal9000 ( 80652 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @01:37PM (#10537302) Homepage
      Dude, you wanna talk about voter suppression? Read up about the Dems vs. Nader. Some serious antidemocratic stuff going on there.

      • Re:what's worse? (Score:4, Informative)

        by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john.lamar@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Friday October 15, 2004 @03:21PM (#10538608) Homepage Journal
        Democrats vs. Nader?

        What about the fact that illegal 527 groups have fought to get Nader on the ballot when they, the groups, are professed Republicans?

        That right there is worse. Think, although neither party shares all of Nader's views the Democrats are arguably the closest thing to him. If Republicans are fighting to get him on the ballot it is for one reason only: to syphon votes from John Kerry.

        Don't even try that bullshit about Republicans fighting for Nader's rights either because it won't hold water. If they really cared about Nader they would adopt some of his ideas

        From this page [whywehatebush.com]:
        In its July 12th edition, Newsweek reported that of the $1 million that Nader has raised for his campaign so far, about $50,000 is from donors who have also given to President George W. Bush's campaign. One in 10 of Nader's biggest contributors are longtime Bush supporters. On that list, for example, is Richard Egan, Bush's former ambassador to Ireland and source of more than $1 million in various contributions to Bush's campaign efforts. Egan, his son John and his daughter-in-law Pamela each contributed the maximum $2,000 donation to Nader's effort.


        Houston businessman and longtime Bush-family friend Nijad Fares, the son of Lebanese Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares, also gave $2,000 to Nader. In 2000 Fares gave $200,000 to the Bush Inaugural fund. The state Republican committees in Michigan and Florida have announced efforts to collect signatures to get Nader on the ballot in those states.

        In Arizona, the state's Democratic Party claims that half of the 10,000 registered voters who signed petitions last month to get Nader on the ballot were Republicans.


        More? [the-hamster.com]

        Oregon is the state being hit the most with these underhanded actions. Why? Because there are lots of liberals up in Oregon who would vote for Nader just as fast as they would vote for Kerry.

        When Nader takes money from groups like "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" it makes me wonder if he really is the man he says he is. Has Nader realized that running for office is a very lucrative job?

        • Re:what's worse? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hal9000 ( 80652 )
          Yea yea, I didn't say squat about Republicans backing Nader. For the record, I think it sucks at both ends, OK?

          Just about every meaningful state's Dem party has taken Nader to court in a bald effort to take away a choice on our ballots. The Dem party acts as if it has an inherent right to progressive votes. CLUE: To get back the progressives you lost in 2000, don't resort to oppressive schemes.

        • So you prefer fewer rather than more choices? That doesn't sound very democratic.
      • +5 Informative? This is total FUD, no proof, just a statement that everybody probably suspects already. (I don't necessarily disagree with the statement, more that the mods found it informative. It is jus as bad as the spin you hear on Fox or CNN every night.)
        • Oh come on, I'm not just spewing FUD here. Have you heard about all the state court cases brought by the Democratic party challenging Nader's right to be on ballots?

  • I had a nightmare last night (Score:3, Funny)

    by Prowl ( 554277 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @12:20PM (#10536240)
    that slashdot links to a story from Drudge.

    Thank god its... ...oh nevermind

  • How is this "voter intimidation"? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by revscat ( 35618 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @12:27PM (#10536346) Journal

    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...

    • I think the problem Drudge has is the pro-active part.

      I'll agree, it seems a bit sleezy in that it implies that tactics in the past will definitely used again. However, at the same time, I see the reason for it: they're saying that these tactics have been used in the past, so it only makes sense to make sure that people are aware of them and on the lookout to ensure that they aren't used again.
    • I think you have got it backwards. What Drudge is saying is that Democrats are wanting to say that THEY were intimidated, regardless of whether or not it exists. For the record, I am a Democrat and will be voting Democrat. But if this manual is real, I have to say that I am ashamed to be associated with whoever wrote it or intended to follow it.
      • Don't take Drudge's word for it, Dems already admitted it [rockymountainnews.com]. It appears this thing is, in fact, a legitimate document.

        --trb
        • It's a ligitimate document, agreed. But what that proactive stance means- is another thing entirely. NOWHERE in the document does it say "make stuff up", it says "publicize what happened in the past". Now true enough- the people doing the publicizing might not be the same people that it originally happened to, but that's another thing entirely to the Drudge assertation that the Democrats are making up fake events.

          It's as bad as saying Kerry is a flip-flopper on Iraq when, after looking at the proof, all

          • Re:How is this "voter intimidation"? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by drakaan ( 688386 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @02:35PM (#10538017) Homepage Journal
            Okay...here's the thing. The page from the manual says:

            2. If no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive
            strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there[sic] techniques have been tried
            in the past).

            - Issue a press release
            i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state
            ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing
            tactics that discourage people from voting
            - Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking
            points
            - Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat
            of intimidation tactics
            - Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly
            disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or
            about what will happen at the polls

            If there's nobody being intimidated, do the following (why, exactly? because you wish there was intimidation to point out?)

            • Send out a press release about past times when it *has* happened...nothing like creating problems where they don't exist.
            • In the press release, quote stuff from respected people that talks about the (currently nonexistent) intimidation of voters being a horrible thing (which it is, when it happens)
            • Get minority leaders ready to talk about it (even though it's not happening), and give them talking points to emphasise that the problem of voter intimidation (which isn't occurring) is a bad one
            • Put stories from the leaders (about the intimidation tactics that you're just waiting to see evidence of) that you've primed wherever possible, so that people will see them
            • Warn local newspapersnot to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls (hey, that one actually seems sensible, assuming papers are stupid enough not to know this already).

            Perhaps "Make stuff up" vs. "emphasise what happened in the past (since there's nothing happening now)" is different, but please don't try to say that this manual isn't going to lead to some pretty big misperceptions about whether voter intimidation is happening. This is politics meeting group psychology, and not in a good way.

            • Perhaps "Make stuff up" vs. "emphasise what happened in the past (since there's nothing happening now)" is different, but please don't try to say that this manual isn't going to lead to some pretty big misperceptions about whether voter intimidation is happening. This is politics meeting group psychology, and not in a good way.

              Any misperceptions are bound to only hit the people who are predisposed to be stupid to begin with- If you're too stupid to actually listen to everything somebody has to say, it is
            • Well the problem is that it isn't "stuff from the past". High level RNC members have just been caught perpetrating large scale voter fraud in both the northeast and nevada.

              The DNC is trying to head the RNC off at the pass as it were.

      • Did you read the .jpg? (Score:3, Informative)

        by khasim ( 1285 )
        Oh, sorry. I forgot I was on /.

        Anyway, the .jpg posted has NOTHING about claiming intimidation where it does not exist.

        NOTHING.

        It's all about making sure everyone (particularaly minorities who have been targetted in the past) knows the past attempts so that if they are attempted again they will not work.

        But if this manual is real, I have to say that I am ashamed to be associated with whoever wrote it or intended to follow it.

        Don't worry. I'm sure they feel the same way about people who won't read the
        • I guess you missed the following in your thorough reading of the manual. "If no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" If you bother to read the rest, it basically says that, if there is no evidence that voters were intimidated, do everything you can to "suggest" that they were. It's the same crap that Bush pulled with Iraq and 9/11. Sure he never SAID that they were linked, but he did enough "suggesting" of it to convince a large segment of the American population through

          • I did read it. (Score:3, Informative)

            by khasim ( 1285 )
            I guess you missed the following in your thorough reading of the manual. "If no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike"

            No, I read that. And then I read the actions recommended. And they're short so I won't have to "summarize" them like you did. (Strange how your "summary" uses more words than were on that .jpg)

            If you bother to read the rest, it basically says that, if there is no evidence that voters were intimidated, do everything you can to "suggest" that they were.

            Nope
            • If there is no evidence of voter intimidation, why would you issue a press release saying that the Republicans have done stuff in the past and here are the things to look for etc.? Why would you start having leadership comment on it to the press? That's the kind of thing that you do when there IS evidence of voter intimidation, not when there IS NOT any evidence. Basically, if there isn't any evidence that the other side did anything wrong, just try to convince people that they "might have done it". Very
              • If there is no evidence of voter intimidation, why would you issue a press release saying that the Republicans have done stuff in the past and here are the things to look for etc.? Why would you start having leadership comment on it to the press? That's the kind of thing that you do when there IS evidence of voter intimidation, not when there IS NOT any evidence. Basically, if there isn't any evidence that the other side did anything wrong, just try to convince people that they "might have done it". Very R
                • Coming from a non-partisan voter-rights group and if they were concentrating on the topic in general terms I could agree. But done during or after the vote and directed only at Republicans, I'd have to say it is bad politics. Once again, let me stress that I am apparently a Democrat (my current interests seem to fall in their corner for the time being) and I have serious issues with the GOP and Bush Administration at the moment. But this looks a lot like the tactics that I am routinely bashing the GOP fo
    • What it IS is fraud; the whole notion of the "pre-emptive strike" is to allege voter intimidation even when there is none.

      • Re:Pre-Emptive Strike? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by revscat ( 35618 )
        So let's say this is true. Is this worse of a crime, the same, or less of a crime than the wholscale destruction of voter registraiton cards as carried out by GOP operatives in multiple states over the past few weeks?
        • So, do two wrongs make a right then?

          • Re:Pre-Emptive Strike? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by revscat ( 35618 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @12:46PM (#10536626) Journal
            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.
            • While I think the death penalty may be a bit extreme I agree that these guys should face severe punishment.

              Of course the guys over at ACORN should face the same punishment for the exact same crime [floridatoday.com] (among others).

              The one really good thing I see coming from this is that now that a Republican has been caught doing this the problem which is becoming an epidemic is finally getting some media attention. I don't know if it's bias or if reporters just expect this kind of thing from Unions and big city political
            • The destruction of voter registration cards is CRIMINAL, and worthy of no lesser punishment than death.

              So, if you witnessed someone destroying a voter registration card, what reason would they have not to kill you?

        • Re:Pre-Emptive Strike? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by N3WBI3 ( 595976 )
          As was well said eralier in the post is it OK cause its 'less wrong' than what someone else is doing?

          But I guess if you want to even things out how about the DNC fraud in Ohio:

          http://hundredpercenter.blogspot.com/2004/09/autho rities-investigating-voter-fraud.html

          Face it both parties are ripping up registrations and registering dead people (like in SD where someone paid 13K by the democrats registered a dead person and had many more suspicious cards turned in.

          • Re:Pre-Emptive Strike? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by revscat ( 35618 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @01:30PM (#10537200) Journal
            That's all you got? Some right-wing blog? Here's the deal, man: I start off with the assumption, based on hard experience, that all conservatives are liars, especially when it comes to the GOP. You point out something with a little more substance, we'll talk. Until then, I've seen a CRAPLOAD more evidence that the RNC is funding vote fraud, including vocal support for such efforts from conservatives like Michael Savage ("those commie idiots shouldn't be allowed to vote!") than I have from the Democrats. See, I AM a Democrat, an active one, and I have NEVER heard a fellow Democrat encourage vote fraude by either word or deed. I HAVE heard Republicans defend it.

            So no, both sides are not equally complicit. The GOP is far and away more criminal. [kuro5hin.org]

            • Re:Pre-Emptive Strike? (Score:3, Informative)

              by N3WBI3 ( 595976 )
              Here's the deal, man: I start off with the assumption, based on hard experience, that all conservatives are liars, especially when it comes to the GOP.

              And yet htis gets modded interesting? yea this is not a troll/flamebait. I love it when Democtrats and Republican knee padders point to eachother and cry *liar* voting for a 3rd party this time around its great to see.

              You point out something with a little more substance, we'll talk.

              Ok put your knee pads back on cause I have something for you and I know

            • In Colorado [rockymountainnews.com]

              False registration is going to cause registrations that are legitimate to get thrown out, causing cries of voter disenfranchisement. If that's not encouraging vote fraud by deed, I don't know what is. And it's being done by a group that considers themselves to be champions of everyman. This group pays their employees to collect Democrat and unaffiliated registrations. Do you really think that every Republican registration is being turned in? Voter registration needs to be left out of the
            • ACORN is misbehaving [duluthsuperior.com] in Minnesota too.

      • Re:Pre-Emptive Strike? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Merk ( 25521 )

        Did you read the thing?

        • Issue a press release:
          1. Reviewing [a] Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state
          2. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics which discourage people from voting
        • Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points
        • Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics
        • Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly d
      • What it IS is fraud; the whole notion of the "pre-emptive strike" is to allege voter intimidation even when there is none.

        Read the document again- all it says is to publicize past cases of REAL voter indimidation, not make up new ones. Try NOT to read between the lines- and you'll see that there's NOTHING about reporting events that didn't happen.
        • "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike,"

          Not making them up? How can you launch ANY srike when there are no signs yet without making SOMETHING up?

          • Not making them up? How can you launch ANY srike when there are no signs yet without making SOMETHING up?

            By pointing out what happened in the last election, of course. Election fraud usually doesn't show up until the last minute- so what this manual is trying to do is get people to notice the fraud, by publicizing the sort of fraud that usually happens.
    • Did you read the same JPG I did? It's calling for, at best, Democrats to raise a fuss when there's nothing to raise a fuss about, and at worst claiming voter fraud where none exists. And this is from the party's MANUAL.

      Addressing your second concern about the reliability of Drudge, Democrats have already admitted it's legit [rockymountainnews.com].

      --trb
      • Let me ask you the same question I have posed elsewhere in this thread. Let's say this is true. Is this worse of a crime, the same, or less of a crime than the wholescale destruction of thousands of voter registraiton cards as carried out by GOP operatives in multiple states over the past few weeks?
        • I've read about a single case involving less than 100 Democrats' registrations being ripped up. Can you cite references to the thousands? Honest question, I just haven't read about that many.

          To answer your question, yes and no. No, if Democrats can't vote on election day, that's worse. However...yes, this is worse because this comes directly from the DNC, the political party in question, as opposed to people who are working the registration booths. No offense, but if you can't figure out how to regist

          • I've read about a single case involving less than 100 Democrats' registrations being ripped up. Can you cite references to the thousands? Honest question, I just haven't read about that many.

            Would it matter if I did? If you had a strong suspicion that the GOP were actively encouraging vote fraud, I expect that you would avert your gaze or seek to justify it. If there is one thing I have learned about modern conservatives it is that they have wholly abdicated any and all responsiblity and morality.

            None

            • The Oregon report said one person "might" have seen 8-10 registrations shredded and another "might" have been encouraged to do so.

              The second one references the same people as the first one (same individual, at least).

              The third is a woman who says she was told to do something, by people who deny it, and never saw it happen.

              Since you seem to be so insanely insistant I chastise the RNC, I will admit that if any of these cases are proven legitimate then the firms responsible should be held accountable. That
              • The Oregon report said one person "might" have seen 8-10 registrations shredded and another "might" have been encouraged to do so.

                The second one references the same people as the first one (same individual, at least).

                The third is a woman who says she was told to do something, by people who deny it, and never saw it happen.

                Oh- the people accused deny it, and "never saw it happen!" That settles it then!

                Your insinuation- that this is somehow nothing but hearsay, and that these are just mean Democrats
        • Why does it matter which is worse? Both are accusations of hindering the democratic process. Which is worse stabbing somone to death or shooting them? Stealing through a hold-up or fraud? Does it really matter?
    • Yeah, it's not like the Democrats [nwsource.com] ever engage [centredaily.com] in criminal [michnews.com] activities [nwsource.com] aimed [prnewswire.com] at defrauding [9news.com] and intimidating their way into office.
      • Democrats [nwsource.com] were only accused of doing this by the Republicans and only laptops (the easiest and most valuable hardware to steal) were taken, quickly from an office where they were plainly visible from the street.

        Engaging [centredaily.com] in vandalism against Bush offices by teenagers is not quite as bad as tearing up valid registrations.

        Criminally [michnews.com] negligent op-ed pieces do not facts make.

        Accusing a group of committing illegal activities [nwsource.com] with no evidence is a typical Republican tactic.

        Press releases aimed [prnewswire.com] at creating

        • Democrats were only accused of doing this by the Republicans and only laptops (the easiest and most valuable hardware to steal) were taken, quickly from an office where they were plainly visible from the street.

          And can we assume that the Washington Post will assign a modern-day Woodward and Bernstein to investigate and report on this and the other breakins? I thought not.

          Engaging in vandalism against Bush offices by teenagers is not quite as bad as tearing up valid registrations.

          So it's only bad when

    • Voter intimidation, how about Voter disenfranchisement ...

      Minorities who are ex-felons have to jump through hoops to get their right to vote back. Florida doesn't even automatically re-authorize an ex-felons right to vote. And since minorities make up a large amount of disenfranchised, it really affects the minority vote.

      See Democracynow [democracynow.org] and Voter Disenfranchisement [failureisimpossible.com] to read about it.

      Why is something as simple as voting in 2004 still a problem? Makes me sick that people are excluding votes to win, and g
    • +4 Insightful? How about -1 "low reading comprehension".

      It's the DEMOCRATS charging "voter intimidation" and the accusation is that they intend to raise the hue and cry when the HAVEN'T (yet) experienced it.

  • Drudgery Report. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by yoder ( 178161 )
    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.

  • Drudge report vs Druge Retort (More Politics) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @12:57PM (#10536747) Journal
    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 [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 [factcheck.org] and Spinsanity.org [spinsanity.org] have cleared up a some "Sound bites" from both sides. Why can't I get a news channel like this?

    -
    Partisan [wikipedia.org]

  • To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by overunderunderdone ( 521462 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @01:14PM (#10536973)
    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.

    • Re:To be fair... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by GodHead ( 101109 )
      "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."

      Oh bullshit. Publically denouncing known tactics that republicans use is a hell of a lot different then claiming they happened.

      • Oh bullshit. Publically denouncing known tactics that republicans use is a hell of a lot different then claiming they happened.

        Let me illustrate:
        Regarding Mr. GodHead let me just say that I denounce wife beating. Domestic violence is a serious matter and I think we should all watch Mr. GodHead to make sure he doesn't engage in it. Mr. GodHead is a married man and the vast majority of wife-beatings have been committed by married men much like Mr. GodHead. He proclaims his innocence and while it is true w
        • Your analogy would be accurate, except that there are sufficient past cases of Republican interference.

          You have no evidence that GodHead ever beat his wife nor that anyone in his family ever beat their wives. Nor that anyone he knows ever beat their wives.

          Yet there are sufficient examples of past Republican problems. So saying that people should be watching for CURRENT Republican problems is just fine. (and prudent)
          • Yet there are sufficient examples of past Republican problems. So saying that people should be watching for CURRENT Republican problems is just fine. (and prudent)

            I still disagree. I think it is wrong to single out one group here, whether it be the dems or pubs. I think it is very reasonable to make a broad statement saying to watch for any interference. Your reasoning just expand the rift between the political parties.
            • Really. Did you bother to read it?

              I still disagree. I think it is wrong to single out one group here, whether it be the dems or pubs.

              It was put out by the DNC. Did that little tidbit pass you by?

              I think it is very reasonable to make a broad statement saying to watch for any interference.

              You would be correct if I said that or if any non-partisan organization/individual/whatever said that.

              But it was put out by the DNC. Again, did you somehow manage to miss that little fact? It's only in the title of
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Responding to my own post, but I read some more of the DNC manual and it confirms my thesis.

      One of the things they cite as "voter intimidation" is the presence of Republican poll watchers in minority precincts! Of course that is where Republican poll watchers WOULD be, they aren't worried about fraud in their own precincts but in the Democratic ones. I'm really not sure that black voters are intimidated anymore by the presence of one or two white guys in a black neighborhood. If I had to guess I would sus

    • Re:To be fair... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jdiggans ( 61449 )
      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.

      Do you have any proof to this at all? There is plenty [democrats.com] of proof about Republican action during the 2000 election (and an attempt at a repeat [cnn.com]).
      • Yes I do.

        1998 Florida Mayoral [csmonitor.com] race overturned because of massive voter fraud. This is only the most recent of a half dozen cases [state.fl.us] in Florida some of which resulted in convictions and/or invalidated elections. Lots of funs stuff... Deceased voters, vote buying, non-resident voters, ballot switching - the whole nine yards. (Gee I wonder if THAT could possibly explain the "intimidating" presence of Republican poll watchers and an attempt to purge the rolls of deceased, illegal and non-resident voters? NO it M
        • oops, I didn't finish the sentence about the 1960 election... I meant to say something to the effect of ...political machines have long lives. There is STILL a mayor Daley ruling over Cook County Illinois.

  • Reading is fundamental (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eXtro ( 258933 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @01:36PM (#10537289) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:Reading is fundamental (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CXI ( 46706 )
      This is a very dishonest viewpoint. The handbook specifically says "if nothing is going wrong in your area, make a big stink in the media about voter fraud anyway". This is not something you can dispute, it's there in black and white. Now, why would they want to make a big stink about fraud? Perhaps to continue a disinformation campaign and prepare the stage for all the lawsuits they are planning. They are clearly using minorities, and intimidating them through scare tactics that the Republicans are this bi
    • You are completely correct in what the document says.

      What it actually says.

      The words printed upon it and what those words mean.

      BUT! That has nothing to do with the attempts to spin it by various people (as seen here on /.). Spin is about emotion.

      Could the posted .jpg be, in any way, interpreted to mean "make false accusations"? No.

      So people will say that it says that anyway and hope that other, less intelligent, people react emotionally and will not bother reading the material dispassionately.

      That's
    • 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.

      We have a name for that: Fearmongering.

      • It would be fear mongering if there wasn't a realistic threat. Clearly, it's happened many times in the past, so a person fearing that their vote might be unlawfully taken away is not being unrealistic. Warning people that it could happen to them unless the remain vigilant is not the same as crying wolf.
  • * 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close