Democrat strategy: Charge voter intimidation even if none exists.

[DaChew]

From Drudge:

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc66.htm

24 hour rule?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by DaChew
From Drudge:

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc66.htm

24 hour rule?

If it lays on the floor for less than 24 hours, it is OK to pick it up and eat it?

[corplinx]

I didn't need a memo to know this. Its been their tactic since 2000 to allege voter intimidation without evidence.

[DaChew]

Originally posted by corplinx
I didn't need a memo to know this. Its been their tactic since 2000 to allege voter intimidation without evidence.

Yes, but to put it in a manual and distribute it as standard procedure is very revealing. I imagine, if true, the publishing of this playbook will significantly undermine their ability to challenge results.

[jj]

Originally posted by DaChew
Yes, but to put it in a manual and distribute it as standard procedure is very revealing. I imagine, if true, the publishing of this playbook will significantly undermine their ability to challenge results.

Of course, the mere accusation undermines their ability, and that's the real intent here, I'm sure.

We've seen hard evidence that there are problems to be complained about, so it would make a great deal of sense to watch for such problems as part of SOP.

Look at Florida in 2000, the number of people who got disqualified. Look at the 'tear them up' reports we have now.

[DaChew]

Originally posted by jj
We've seen hard evidence that there are problems to be complained about, so it would make a great deal of sense to watch for such problems as part of SOP.

But the manual says to charge intimidation even if you have no evidence of it.

[jj]

Originally posted by DaChew
But the manual says to charge intimidation even if you have no evidence of it.

This is the Drudge report, remember? Did it ever occur to you that this is the "pre-empt" to the obvious intimidation and illegal disqualifications going on right now?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DaChew
But the manual says to charge intimidation even if you have no evidence of it.

What do we call a person like JJ who supports these people filing claims _without_ evidence and excusing it based on current or past disproven and unproven claims of intimidation?

Oh thats right, a woo woo.

[DaChew]

Originally posted by jj
This is the Drudge report, remember? Did it ever occur to you that this is the "pre-empt" to the obvious intimidation and illegal disqualifications going on right now?

That, of course, is why I suggested the 24 hour rule. However, if it is true, then this has nothing to do with "the obvious intimidation and illegal disqualifications going on right now" because this is about making charges even if there is no evidence to support them. That the DNC would make this a standard practice seriously undermines their credibility.

[corplinx]

And since I had to read JJ's nonsense because it was quoted:

Dear JJ, tearing up ballots is not intimidation nor are disqualifications. Those are seperate issues. Please at least have some clue what we are talking about next time before trying to excuse the democrat party. Try to keep that knee from jerking buddy.

[Random]

I just went to the Drudge Report (ugh) and took a look at the page in question. I don’t see anything in there about alleging voter intimidation when none exists. It simply says they should make every effort to warn the public about voter intimidation and suppression tactics beforehand. Which is better, warning people about it before it happens, or telling people about on November 3rd?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Random
I just went to the Drudge Report (ugh) and took a look at the page in question. I don’t see anything in there about alleging voter intimidation when none exists. It simply says they should make every effort to warn the public about voter intimidation and suppression tactics beforehand. Which is better, warning people about it before it happens, or telling people about on November 3rd?

I guess "preemptive strike" is open to interpretation.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Random
I just went to the Drudge Report (ugh) and took a look at the page in question. I don’t see anything in there about alleging voter intimidation when none exists. It simply says they should make every effort to warn the public about voter intimidation and suppression tactics beforehand. Which is better, warning people about it before it happens, or telling people about on November 3rd? Good catch, see what happens when people actually read before responding. Looks like a lot of knees have been wildly jerking today.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Random
Which is better, warning people about it before it happens, or telling people about on November 3rd?

They should warn people that they may get hit by a lightning also. Launch a preemptive strike to warn people about lightning strikes even if there aren't clouds in the sky the day.

My own unskeptical speculation is that this is part of the unspoken policy of keeping minority voters in a state of fear about their civil rights to keep them voting for democrats.

[DaChew]

I just went to the Drudge Report (ugh) and took a look at the page in question. I don’t see anything in there about alleging voter intimidation when none exists.

Here is the line in question:
If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
What do we call a person like JJ who supports these people filing claims _without_ evidence and excusing it based on current or past disproven and unproven claims of intimidation?

Oh thats right, a woo woo.

Why are you lying about my position.

You haven't shown or proven that anyone is filing claims without evidence, all you have is the "evidence" from a known provacateur.

Ergo, you are acting without evidence, and accusing yourself by implication.

Retract your false claims about my position immediately.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
And since I had to read JJ's nonsense because it was quoted:

Dear JJ, tearing up ballots is not intimidation nor are disqualifications. Those are seperate issues. Please at least have some clue what we are talking about next time before trying to excuse the democrat party. Try to keep that knee from jerking buddy.

I see, then, the people disqualified in Florida in 2000 were not disqualified?

The people challenged elsewhere (yes, the reports are there) were not intimidated?

How convenient of you to put your head in the sand when your own candidate acts in a totalitarian, completely unconcionable fashion.

What do the REAL Democratic instructions, if any, say? That would be a good thing to know. This is Drudge, and we know what that's worth.

[jj]

Originally posted by DaChew
Here is the line in question:
If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).

Why did my context-o-meter just twitch, anyhow?

[Random]

Originally posted by DaChew
Here is the line in question:
If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).

But the memo doesn’t tell people to say voter intimidation is happening when it hasn’t happened yet. It says that they should get the message out to the public that voter intimidation has happened in the past and to warn the public and the media about what forms it might take if and when it does happen. Considering that this sort of thing happens election cycle after election cycle, I don’t think trying to warn the people about it beforehand this time is out of bounds.

[jj]

Originally posted by Random
But the memo doesn’t tell people to say voter intimidation is happening when it hasn’t happened yet. It says that they should get the message out to the public that voter intimidation has happened in the past and to warn the public and the media about what forms it might take if and when it does happen. Considering that this sort of thing happens election cycle after election cycle, I don’t think trying to warn the people about it beforehand this time is out of bounds.

Stop that, Random, you're defusing the repugnican's attempt to mask the effects of any of their possible anti-opposed-voter strategies.

[CBL4]

What do you think Section 1 and 3 say? Drudge only shows Section 2 from a report. Clearly this would be acceptable if he provided a method to read the whole source but he does not. Could there be a reason?

CBL

[Random]

Originally posted by CBL4
What do you think Section 1 and 3 say? Drudge only shows Section 2 from a report. Clearly this would be acceptable if he provided a method to read the whole source but he does not. Could there be a reason?

CBL

Given the quality of Drudge’s work, I would have to assume that it is because they either do not support the conclusion he is trying to convince us of, or they directly contradict it.

Matt Drudge is an adherent of the Shotgun School of Journalism. He sends out twenty or thirty “exclusives� a day, usually ending them with the tagline “Developing…�, and usually (but not always) with a right-wing slant. With twenty or thirty shots in the dark a day, he can usually get some kind of “hit� every couple of months. Some of those “hits� will have some meat to them (Monica Lewinsky), some will make a splash but amount to nothing (John Kerry’s “affair�), and some will turn out to be facts and information that are already fairly widely known.

His hundreds of “misses� quickly fade into obscurity. The tagline “Developing…� is his shield against claims of journalistic incompetence and lawsuits, as he can always say after the fact, “I just didn’t have all the information yet, but the basic story was there, and I reported on that.�

[DaChew]

OK, it's 24 hours later.

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.

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_3256347,00.html

So, Drudge was apparently right about the page's authenticity: it is from the Democrat's "Colorado Election Day Manual" and the page reads exactly as was reported.
The manual does, in fact, tell Democrat opperatives to launch a pre-emptive strike against voter intimidation even if no evidence exists that anyone has been intimidated.

[Dorian Gray]

My irony meter is BLOWING UP. Why would Republicans be against a preemptive strike against voter intimidation, expecially in light of the history of it? Gosh, that sounds familiar. Republicans have intimidated voters before......

[Random]

Originally posted by DaChew
OK, it's 24 hours later.



http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_3256347,00.html

So, Drudge was apparently right about the page's authenticity: it is from the Democrat's "Colorado Election Day Manual" and the page reads exactly as was reported.
The manual does, in fact, tell Democrat opperatives to launch a pre-emptive strike against voter intimidation even if no evidence exists that anyone has been intimidated.

The facts you have just stated are mostly true. Yes, the DNC memo encourages a “pre-emptive strike�, even if no evidence of voter intimidation exists yet.

But that is not what Drudge got wrong. Drudge misread the memo (either through stupidity or design), and said it encouraged Democratic Party operatives to declare that voter intimidation was happening when it wasn’t.

DNC ELECTION MANUAL: CHARGE VOTER INTIMIDATION, EVEN IF NONE EXISTS

**World Exclusive**

The Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee are advising election operatives to declare voter intimidation -- even if none exists, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

That is not what the memo advises. The memo advises Democratic Party operatives to inform the public that voter intimidation has taken place in the past, and tell them ways that it might happen during this election cycle. And it advises them to do it before voter intimidation takes place. There is nothing immoral or unethical about this.

Drudge is trying to inject yet another right-wing meme into the mainstream, and hoping people don’t read the memo itself and think about it for more then a few seconds.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by DaChew
The manual does, in fact, tell Democrat opperatives to launch a pre-emptive strike against voter intimidation even if no evidence exists that anyone has been intimidated. Even the "liberal" local news made a similar comment last night. They quoted the "pre-emptive" (and showed the words) statement, but failed to note the bullets underneath with describe what that meant. That enables the naive and intellectually dishonest the ability to just make ***** up, kind of like what you and Drudge did :rolleyes:

[TillEulenspiegel]

The tome in question
<snip>
Then, the manual says the operatives should issue a press release "reviewing Republican tactics used in your area or state." They should also quote "party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting."

<snip>

This is quite different from the posted "But the manual says to charge intimidation even if you have no evidence of it." Ostensibly the press release would have a DNC or local county DEM organization attached to it as promulgator.
I found the topic very troubling until I researched the story. As for Drudge if that is where you get Your "news" from you will never want for LSD.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Even the "liberal" local news made a similar comment last night. They quoted the "pre-emptive" (and showed the words) statement, but failed to note the bullets underneath with describe what that meant. That enables the naive and intellectually dishonest the ability to just make ***** up, kind of like what you and Drudge did :rolleyes:

Its because some of us can read between the lines. Disrupting an election by levelling knowingly false accusations of voter intimidation would be highly illegal. Just put ::wink:: and ::nudge:: in that document and you get what I think is the most likely meaning.

Invariably, some ahole in some state will pass out flyers saying you can lose welfare benefits if you vote more than once; but the real voter intimidation is the demonstrable organized effort by one party to scare black voters into voting for only their party.

And its a f*cking shame.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by corplinx
Its because some of us can read between the lines Ahh, yes, "reading between the lines". Kind of like what a majority of Americans did when Bush, Powell, Condi, etc. were making their insinuations about Iraq, Saddam, terrorism, WMD's and 9/11. and decided that they must all be related and the war was necessary. But no one in the administration actually said Saddam and 9/11 were related did they? People read between the lines, didn't they? Same thing here. Reading between the lines.

Hypocrisy, no reading between the lines necessary, it's all out there for us all to see.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Touche'
NO!
Threeche'

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Ahh, yes, "reading between the lines". Kind of like what a majority of Americans did when Bush, Powell, Condi, etc. were making their insinuations about Iraq, Saddam, terrorism, WMD's and 9/11. and decided that they must all be related and the war was necessary. But no one in the administration actually said Saddam and 9/11 were related did they? People read between the lines, didn't they? Same thing here. Reading between the lines.


You might have a point.

[a_unique_person]

Having handed out how to vote cards in elections in Melbourne, you can assume that there will be dirty tricks going on. The recent election saw young women with big **** handing out 'how to vote green' cards, that told people how to vote conservative. Happens every election that someone comes up with some gimmick like this, and you don't find out about it till election day. Others include the conservative party, which had a record of closing public hospitals handing out how to vote cards for a 'save the hospitals' candidate, how directed his preferences to the conservatives. The Labor party has indulged itself in it's own acts of skullduggery.

The warning, if correctly worded, should be telling people to watch out for scams from both parties.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
My irony meter is BLOWING UP. Why would Republicans be against a preemptive strike against voter intimidation, expecially in light of the history of it? Gosh, that sounds familiar. Republicans have intimidated voters before......

Right....you're upset that there's voter intimidation....even though there IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY VOTER INTIMIDATION, OR IMPENDING INTIMIDATION.

Would you also send your wife to the hospital to have a "pre-emptive" mastectomy.....because well, hey, even if there is no evidence of breast cancer now...hey might as well pre-empt the nonexistent thing!!

:dl:

If Kerry wins the election by the same slight margin as Bush did in 2000 will you be screaming for investigations then??? Ahhh the hypocrisy!

-z

[Dorian Gray]

Right....you're upset that there's voter intimidation....even though there IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY VOTER INTIMIDATION, OR IMPENDING INTIMIDATION. Right, sure.

PFAW claims those tactics include attempts by "plainclothes officers from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to question elderly black voters in their homes." http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL 20040920a.html
They say they are investigating voter fraud - but WHAT voter fraud? Jeb Bush, obviously a Republican, sent his state troopers to investigate voter fraud, but no one knows what they mean. Isn't this basically the same thing?
On November 7 tens of thousands of eligible Florida voters were wrongly prevented from casting their ballots--some purged from the voter registries and others blocked from registering in the first instance. Nearly all were Democrats, nearly half of them African-American. The systematic program that disfranchised these legal voters, directed by the offices of Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was so quiet, subtle and intricate that if not for George W. Bush's 500-vote eyelash margin of victory, certified by Harris, the chance of the purge's discovery would have been vanishingly small. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010205&s=palast
People were purged from the voter rolls that were eligible to vote. Purged by Republicans.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department (search) is investigating accusations that Florida law enforcement officers intimidated elderly black voters during a probe of voting fraud last spring.

Sheldon Bradshaw, principal deputy assistant attorney general with the department's Civil Rights Division, disclosed the investigation after Mary Frances Berry, chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (search), raised the matter at a commission hearing Friday.

"We are aware, and we have opened an investigation," Bradshaw said. "I'm not at liberty to discuss details" because the probe is ongoing, he said. Now what are THEY investigating?

Democrats have certainly done their share of intimidating blacks at the voting booths. But right now, it seems to be the Republicans. Want to know what I think is a sure-fire way to end or at least marginalize voter fraud, intimidation and abuse? Get a candidate that's so good that he wins in a landslide - like Reagan, or Clinton. This coin-flip business is getting old.

Now:Would you also send your wife to the hospital to have a "pre-emptive" mastectomy.....because well, hey, even if there is no evidence of breast cancer now...hey might as well pre-empt the nonexistent thing!! For your information, my wife does have cancer, so thanks for the insensitive reminder, you jackass.

Having said that: Would you also send your army to Iraq to have a "pre-emptive" war.....because well, hey, even if there is no evidence of WMDs...hey might as well pre-empt the nonexistent things!! HA HA HA! Now THAT's really funny.

If Kerry wins the election by the same slight margin as Bush did in 2000 will you be screaming for investigations then??? Ahhh the hypocrisy! You must not have been paying attention to your own post because of your recent discovery of the JREF smiley page, because Democrats are not waiting for the election. They're "screaming" for investigations NOW.

Look, I think that A) we need at least one landslide-causing candidate, or B) every state needs to be a percentage state instead of an all-or-nothing state. If a candidate wins a state by 1%, is it really a representation of the people that that candidate gets all the electoral votes?

Speaking of hypocrisy, Jeb Bush sent his troopers to investigate voter fraud because...... wait for it.... a Democrat narrowly won a local election for Mayor of Orlando! Jeb is a huge hypocrite! Democrat Buddy Dyer's narrow victory sparked accusations that a black activist may have improperly filled out absentee ballots. FDLE agents interviewed dozens of voters who cast absentee ballots.