Dems Make Knowingly False Charges…

The Drudge Report is reporting that

[t]he Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee are advising election operatives to declare voter intimidation — even if none exists….

A 66-page mobilization plan to be issued by the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee states: “If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a ‘pre-emptive strike.”

Say What? (40)

  1. Craig October 14, 2004 at 12:23 pm | | Reply

    Having actually read the image linked by Drudge (which is the only support he offers), I think that you are being either (or both, perhaps) presumptuous or unfair.

    The actual document, which I’ve provided the URL for below, does not suggest that the Democrats have or plan to level false charges. The document suggests that the Democrats should pre-emptively combat potential voting problems (which is why the tactic is especially important where improprieties have occurred in the past). The specifics of the strategy include denouncing previous bad acts and expressing concern about the possibility of future bad acts.

    This, of course, could all be in bad faith; i.e., the Dems could be raising the ghost of bad acts solely to sway votes, as opposed to preventing voting problems. However, it is not the case that this document supports the claim that the Democrats are levelling false charges.

    http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc.jpg

  2. John Rosenberg October 14, 2004 at 2:22 pm | | Reply

    Craig – Thanks for posting the link to the actual report from Drudge. When I linked to Drudge, that link was not on his site. By the way, I think you are being presumptuous or unfair, or both. I didn’t vouch for the accuracy of the report or Drudge’s characterization of it. He had just posted his comment when I linked it, and I thought people would be interested in it, as apparently you were.

  3. Craig October 14, 2004 at 3:09 pm | | Reply

    Turn-about is fair play!

    Although I would still have some quibble with your headline, which seems to adopt Drudge’s reading, I am mostly annoyed with the tendency to read more ominous tones into things than are plainly there (often at the expense of ignoring more pressing evidence); Drudge’s report was a prime example. But, he doesn’t have comments, and I don’t like reading his page, and you have comments, and I do read yours.

  4. John Rosenberg October 14, 2004 at 3:15 pm | | Reply

    Fair enough. And, further, I suppose I did implicitly endorse what is apparently Drudge’s conclusion with my headline, no doubt because I really don’t think the Repubs have engaged in voter suppression aimed at minorities.

  5. ThePrecinctChair October 14, 2004 at 3:52 pm | | Reply

    Sort of like crying rape when there hasn’t even been so much as a flirtation. . .

  6. Cobra October 14, 2004 at 4:06 pm | | Reply

    >>>Democrats on Wednesday denounced a Republican lawmaker quoted in a newspaper as saying the GOP would fare poorly in this year’s elections if it failed to “suppress the Detroit vote.”

    State Rep. John Pappageorge, R-Troy, acknowledged using “a bad choice of words” but said his remark shouldn’t be construed as racist.

    Pappageorge, 73, was quoted in July 16 editions of the Detroit Free Press as saying, “If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we’re going to have a tough time in this election.”

    http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20777_20040721.htm

    I would like to hear some commentary on this report.

    –Cobra

  7. Dave Huber October 14, 2004 at 4:25 pm | | Reply

    Why, Cobra? To further inflame your belief that the US is an incredibly and thoroughly racist nation?

    Further, why is it “racist” to desire to keep a certain voting bloc from coming out in force to vote? Since 90%+ of African-Americans vote Democratic, and in this case Detroit is overwhelmingly black, it makes sense for the GOP to desire low black voter turnout.

    The question is whether “supression” of voters involves any illegality.

    From your link:

    “I’m extremely disappointed in my colleague,” state Sen. Buzz Thomas, D-Detroit, told reporters Wednesday during a conference call. “That’s quite clearly code that they don’t want black people to vote in this election.”

    Do you think John Kerry wants white Christian Fundamentalists to come out in force to vote on November 2? Of course he doesn’t. And if he said so, would that be “code” that he doesn’t want white Christians to vote in the election? Hell, you don’t even need code! Obviously Democrats don’t want solid GOP voting blocs to vote in large #s, and Repubs don’t want solid Democrat voting blocs to vote in large #s.

    “In the context that we were talking about, I said we’ve got to get the vote up in Oakland (County) and the vote down in Detroit. You get it down with a good message. I don’t know how we got them from there to “racist,”‘ Pappageorge said.

    Pappageorge may indeed be a racist for all I know. But if his remarks were indeed just expressing a desire for low black voter turnout, it’s only logical, not racist. But like the very term “minority,” which only applies to certain minorities, Pappageorge has to apologize to one of those certain minorities.

  8. Cobra October 14, 2004 at 5:31 pm | | Reply

    Dave writes:

    >>>”The question is whether “supression” of voters involves any illegality.”

    Well, actually the question of illegality wasn’t raised at all in this thread, or on the DNC link. I posted a story about voter suppression in response to John’s statement–

    >>>”And, further, I suppose I did implicitly endorse what is apparently Drudge’s conclusion with my headline, no doubt because I really don’t think the Repubs have engaged in voter suppression aimed at minorities.”

    Your disagreement isn’t with me, Dave. Your disagreement is with John Rosenberg, because he doesn’t believe that GOP minority voter suppression exists, while you seem to ENDORSE this very activity in your post.

    >>>”Further, why is it “racist” to desire to keep a certain voting bloc from coming out in force to vote? Since 90%+ of African-Americans vote Democratic, and in this case Detroit is overwhelmingly black, it makes sense for the GOP to desire low black voter turnout.”

    This debate should be a good one, don’t you think?

    –Cobra

  9. Dave Huber October 14, 2004 at 6:01 pm | | Reply

    Cobra. Please note what I have in bold in my previous post.

    I support nothing within reason that would impede anyone’s right to vote and/or access to voting. Got it?

    I said I can’t tell whether Pappageorge is really a racist or not. What I did say is that his desire for low black voter turnout is perfectly logical and legitimate, and not necessarily “racist.” See reasons in my previous post.

  10. Cobra October 15, 2004 at 12:52 am | | Reply

    Dave writes:

    >>>I support nothing within reason that would impede anyone’s right to vote and/or access to voting. Got it?”

    Would you consider these examples “within reason?”

    >>>According to the NAACP, in 2003, in Philadelphia, “men with clipboards bearing official-looking insignias” were reportedly dispatched to African-American neighbourhoods.

    “There were 300 cars with the decals [logos] resembling those of federal agencies and the men were asking prospective voters for identification. In a post- election poll of 1000 African-American voters, 7% had encountered such efforts.”

    In Louisiana flyers were distributed in black neighbourhoods telling voters that if it was rainy they could vote the day after the election. In Maryland, flyers went up listing the wrong date for the election.

    Other irregularities noted by the NAACP included Son Kinon, a South Carolina Republican in the House of Representatives, issuing a brochure to black voters which said the FBI would be checking to see if wanted felons were among voters. Kinon wrote: “This election is not worth going to jail [for].”

    http://www.sundayherald.com/45159

    The article details other activities that most reasonable people would consider voter intimidation and/or suppression.

    The DNC is well within reason to suggest that pre-emptive action may be in order to counteract these issues. After all, an effective anti-suppression campaign would almost have to be pre-emptive, due to the fact that Election Day is generally a once a year occasion, with Presidential elections occuring once every four. To take action only on that one day probably wouldn’t provide enough protection for the populations affected.

    –Cobra

  11. mikem October 15, 2004 at 2:37 am | | Reply

    This goes to the heart of the liberal mentality. Making false accusations is defensible because there is a greater truth (past accusations by the Democratic Party). Forget truth or integrity. It is the message that justifies all else. No doubt Cobra would be understanding of preemptively combating black crime by calling in the press to warn citizens of crimes not yet committed.

    Cobra adopts the message, which calls on Democratic activists to claim injuries even when they have not occurred, without blinking an eye. No surprise here.

  12. Nels Nelson October 15, 2004 at 4:18 am | | Reply

    Michigan should be more concerned that one of it’s elected officials is opposed to democracy – and confirms the opposition even in his apologetic clarifications – than that he might or might not be a racist.

  13. Dave Huber October 15, 2004 at 7:47 am | | Reply

    Cobra: *Yawn*

    I could counter tit-for-tat instances of voter intimidation/irregularities in predominantly black areas, instigated by black officials. Does this then mean that the GOP should pre-emptively act in these [mostly] urban areas to prevent such?

  14. Dave Huber October 15, 2004 at 8:55 am | | Reply

    Oops, forgot to add to my previous:

    Using Cobra logic, yes — GOP officials should act pre-emptively.

    But they won’t. Why? Fear of the “R” word.

  15. La Shawn Barber's Corner October 15, 2004 at 10:27 am | | Reply

    DNC Election Fraud Manual

    The voter fraud frauders are gearing up, I see. Does anyone have information on this?

    I hear Bill Hobbs has quite an archive on voter fraud issues.

    Update (10/15): New York Post: Republicans ripped into John Kerry yesterday over a stunning new in…

  16. ELC October 15, 2004 at 11:00 am | | Reply

    Thank Heaven somebody is standing up for the rights of wanted felons.

  17. Cobra October 15, 2004 at 12:36 pm | | Reply

    Dave here are some more examples of voter intimidation and suppression:

    >>>In fact, the scope of such efforts during the past two decades is startling. Based primarily on reports gleaned from newspapers across the nation, there have been documented instances of the following:

    Challenges and threats against individual voters at the polls by armed private guards, off-duty law enforcement officers, local creditors, fake poll monitors, and poll workers and managers.

    Signs posted at the polling place warning of penalties for

  18. mikem October 15, 2004 at 2:39 pm | | Reply

    “I have the weight of American history behind me.” This is more reflective of the quality of education you received than any other statement I have heard you make. It is a joke! The Democratic party has been long associated with voter fraud. Richard Nixon is credited by historians with sacrificing his own candidacy by accepting the Kennedy victory in the face of strong evidence of Democratic voter fraud. I watched Ellen Sauerbrey lose by a whisker in Maryland after the last dozen or so voting precincts in Baltimore to report came in at 97%, 98% etc. for Glendening. Those kind of numbers are found in the old USSR and old Iraq, not in democratic societies. For you to make that statement, as counterintuitive as it is and with actual history contradicting it, is stunning. Also, the long history of voter discrimination blacks endured in the deep south was perpetrated by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY who had a lock on Southern politics for centuries. You are defending your historical persecutors and your apparent lack of knowledge about black history is stunning considering that you depend on it for most of your rationalizations for skin color preferences.

    Anti-Bush organizations are bragging about registering millions of new voters, with a high percentage of unverifiable addresses, convicted felons and persons otherwise ineligible to vote. The Democrats are counting on people like Cobra who defend false accusations against their opponents to chill any attempt at stopping voter fraud.

    “Signs posted at the polling place warning of penalties for

  19. zzx375 October 15, 2004 at 2:43 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    Kind of like LBJ’s folks in Texas arranging for all of those dead people to vote?

  20. Dave Huber October 15, 2004 at 2:56 pm | | Reply

    Yes, I do have a problem with illegal means to prevent voters from voting. And I said as much, what — two times already? Why do you incessantly make this so unnecessarily tedious?

    I’d be foolish to deny past history w/regards to black voting. But we’re talking about recent history now, Cobra. Matching anecdotes is indeed a waste of time. The question is whether either party should act “pre-emptively.”

    Should the GOP act so in the face of Democrat-instigated voting irregularities? Or will you and others call them “racists” for doing so?

  21. Michelle Dulak Thomson October 15, 2004 at 3:35 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    Buried in your list of despicable practices above (and I agree with you — all that stuff is despicable, not to mention obviously illegal) was

    Signs posted at the polling place warning of penalties for

  22. Cobra October 15, 2004 at 4:04 pm | | Reply

    This link pretty much sums up my opinion on what’s happening to black voters in many parts of America.

    http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues22.html

    Mikem,

    You’re posting under the assumption that I completely trust one political party. That’s a false assumption. I know very well what white conservative elements in the old Democratic Party used to do. That doesn’t offer blanket immunity for the voter suppression actions against minority voters happening today.

    >>>”Anti-Bush organizations are bragging about registering millions of new voters, with a high percentage of unverifiable addresses, convicted felons and persons otherwise ineligible to vote. The Democrats are counting on people like Cobra who defend false accusations against their opponents to chill any attempt at stopping voter fraud.http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1289b-1.html and Number #3, exactly who else are we talking about here as far as, “inelligible voters?” My philosophy is to encourage MORE CITIZENS to do their civic duty and VOTE, while yours and many others in here, I’d wager, is to try to REDUCE that number.

    As far as “sign placement”, I don’t have a problem with it. Just put them up in YOUR polling place too, or do you think that only “certain groups” are capablem of voter fraud, Mike?

    Dave,

    I believe there should be a BIPARTISAN effort to make sure of voter integrity and BIPARTISAN pre-emptive efforts to prevent intimidation and suppression. If that can’t be accomplished, then I would suggest, as many have already, international monitors for at least our Presidential elections.

    –Cobra

  23. andy October 15, 2004 at 5:47 pm | | Reply

    I get it. They’re just talkin’ about it. They’re not really going to do it.

  24. mikem October 16, 2004 at 2:35 am | | Reply

    ” ..if Bush’s Department of Justice can’t keep tabs on black citizens who want to go through the trouble of publicly appearing to vote…” Yeah Cobra, that’s what good old boy Bush is up to, trying to keep blacks from voting. It is this type of ridiculous statement on your part that has made you a running joke and the target for derisive comments from other commenters. You are a caricature of the modern professional victim that Americans of all races have come to despise and, laughably, you actually seem to be pleased with your ignorant remarks. You have that whine down to the point where it’s on automatic. What a treasure you are for racism, both black and white, in America.

  25. Nels Nelson October 16, 2004 at 4:17 am | | Reply

    mikem, Rep. Pappageorge, in the article above, freely admits – even clarifies – that he wants blacks to not vote. Dave says that it’s perfectly logical and legitimate for Republicans to want blacks to not vote. It’s therefore reasonable to assume that Bush as well wants blacks to not vote. Obviously none of that means that Bush or other Republicans are actually doing anything to discourage or prevent blacks from voting, but I’d say that makes Cobra’s charge unsubstantiated, unsupported conjecture rather than ridiculous.

    Imagine that I were to stand to gain significant wealth through my wife’s death and that I had told friends that I wished her dead. Would it be absurd for someone to suggest that I was planning her murder? It might be an untrue charge, but there is already both motive and intent.

  26. Harry in Atlanta October 16, 2004 at 9:37 am | | Reply

    This pre-emptive strategy by Democrats using minorities and press releases to scream voter fraud may be simply a foundation to claim that Bush cheated his way back into the White House if he wins. It gives them an in into demanding recount after recount and investigations in every precinct that Bush wins by a slim margin.

    Democrats are extemely frustrated by their almost complete lack of power after fifty years of almost total control. The only real power Democrats possess today is their ability to filibuster in the Senate and they use that to an extreme almost unethical level. The Democrats behavior in this election may have the unfortunate effect of undermining the American people’s faith in the voting process.

    And if you are intimidated by a sign that says voter fraud will be prosecuted then you probably have a reason to be intimidated. Or if you are intimidated by police cruising the neighborhoods where voting sites are and traffic will be heavier than usual then you are a nitwit. Unless you are forcibly stopped from voting you are either just spouting off or a coward.

    And my guess is that if your name is not on the voter rolls in minority precincts, which more than likely would be managed by minority election workers, then you are probably at the wrong precinct or you have made an error that prevents you from being on the voter list. We have two weeks before the election that is more than enough time to check and see if you are registered and where you go to vote, and even if you find out that something is wrong on election day you have usually have twelve hours to find out and hopefully correct your problem. Registering and voting correctly is the citizen’s responsibilty not the government’s.

    I see the Democrats’ behavior as business as usual, it’s cheesey and suits them perfectly.

    BTW both Atlanta and Detroit proper have been run by minority Democrat administrations for more than thirty years and both cities are rife with street crime and government graft. In other words they are hellholes. Go figure.

  27. mikem October 16, 2004 at 12:12 pm | | Reply

    Nels: What you are trying to explain on Cobra’s part is not what I complain about. For sure, all of us want our opponent’s supporters to not show up on November 2nd and nothing wrong with that sentiment. But Cobra throws in another one of his ridiculous charges with his casual reference to a DOJ program that tracks black voters who wish to vote, as if it is common knowledge that the Bush administration has an ongoing program to harass black voters. Frankly, if the remark had come from someone else I might have assumed it was just a mangled sentence and the author didn’t mean it to imply what it does. But given Cobra’s history of name calling and declaring of conspiracies where none exist, I’m not going to assume that he does not mean what he says.

  28. actus October 16, 2004 at 12:20 pm | | Reply

    ‘]he Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee are advising election operatives to declare voter intimidation — even if none exists….’

    The piece on drudge didn’t advise people to declare it before it exists, but to raise the issue in places it has existed in the past.

  29. Nels Nelson October 16, 2004 at 2:21 pm | | Reply

    Thanks for the clarification, mikem.

    Not to change the subject, though it is somewhat relevant: please don’t paint such a broad brush with “all of us want our opponent’s supporters to not show up on November 2nd and nothing wrong with that sentiment.” Desiring that people not vote is anti-democratic and dangerously short-sighted, and I hope a sentiment shared by few people in this country. Swaying others to your position and motivating non-voters to show up at the polls are legitimate methods of affecting an election.

  30. Cobra October 16, 2004 at 4:05 pm | | Reply

    Nels,

    I couldn’t agree with you more. I for one want MORE PEOPLE to vote. I desire to see the entire adult population of the US take part in the electorial process, instead of the below 50% response we get now. If the nation showed up at the polls like that, we’d see TRUE reforms occur in Washington and at the state level. We’d see politicians held ACCOUNTABLE for their promises, and we’d break the backs of special interest groups. In fact, there’d be a far better chance to RAISE the quality level of people we actually send into office, and not just settle for whichever candidate has the biggest advertising budget, or most connections. The more people vote, the more power is returned to the people.

    Mikem,

    My friend, attacking the messenger doesn’t make the message any less true.

    I believe I’ve provided current incidents of ongoing black voter suppression by Republicans. IGNORING those incidents doesn’t mean they don’t exist. And my goodness, the on-the-record QUOTES from some of the Republicans…

    >>>And that brings us to the ugly racial undercurrent of the Florida debacle. As black Floridians complained that they faced unusual and innumerable barriers, their claims were dismissed.

    Asked about the Florida voting debacle, Tom Feeney, slated to become speaker of the Florida House, said: “Voter confusion is not a reason for whining or crying or having a revote. It may be a reason to require literacy tests” — a common tool of black disenfranchisement. With that casually racist remark, Feeney, too, has made Jackson’s job easier. (By the way, as a GOP lawyer in the 1960s, Chief Justice William Rehnquist helped Republicans enforce the literacy test requirement.)”

    http://www.uexpress.com/asiseeit/?uc_full_date=20001215

    Mikem, you claim that I’m just a “whiner”, and a “professional victim.”

    Well, one thing is for sure…I’m not a disenfranchised Puerto Rican–

    http://members.fortunecity.com/multi19/coup.htm#cbc

    ..or a Native American–

    http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/23/mcdonald-l.html

    No, Mikem, I’m a African-American liberal, something no amount of name calling on your part will EVER make me ashamed of being.

    Harry writes:

    >>>And my guess is that if your name is not on the voter rolls in minority precincts, which more than likely would be managed by minority election workers, then you are probably at the wrong precinct or you have made an error that prevents you from being on the voter list. We have two weeks before the election that is more than enough time to check and see if you are registered and where you go to vote, and even if you find out that something is wrong on election day you have usually have twelve hours to find out and hopefully correct your problem.”

    Harry, I wish that was the case. I really do.

    This is a link to the “Potential Felon List”, the State of Florida was going to use this year for the election.

    http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=16170

    The second link is the explanation by the State of Florida as to why you might have your voting rights removed.

    “You may have been disqualified from voting by mistake because:

    1. Your name and identifying information are the same or nearly the same as a convicted felon;

    2. You have a felony conviction but have had your right to vote restored;

    3. You had a felony arrest but the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor by the court;

    4. You have a felony arrest but it did not result in a conviction; or

    5. You had an arrest or a conviction, but it was not for a felony offense. ”

    http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/voterinfo/felony_convictions.html

    According to this website, a person can have their civil rights stripped from them for simply SHARING THE SAME NAME. How many of the 47,000+ names on the list do you recognize as people you know? How many “Johnsons”, “Williams”, or “Smiths?”

    Perusing this list of 47,000+ names, I discovered that, lo and behold, MY GIVEN NAME, exact spelling and all, appears on this list. That means that, if Jeb Bush had his way, as he did in 2000, I could’ve been PURGED from the voter rolls in Florida, and inelligible to vote. Now, since I’ve NEVER been convicted of a felony, how would that square with you? Correcting this issue would require a heckuva lot more than 12 hours, considering I’d have to be fingerprinted, investigated and have my case brought before a Election review board that only meets quarterly.

    It seems the deeper you bite into the apple of American elections, the more worms of voter disenfranchisement you find.

    –Cobra

  31. mikem October 16, 2004 at 6:48 pm | | Reply

    No Cobra, you are decidedly not liberal. No true liberal would spend weeks defending open and ‘legal’ discrimination against minority minorities, as you did. I get a real chuckle from you parading as a defender of other minorities in this thread after you expended great effort rationalizing a right to discriminate against them in other threads. Not a liberal, Cobra, just another hand out from the divisive racial identity crowd. And yes, I’m quite aware that you are proud of what you are and I’ll let that acknowledgment stand alone for the sake of civil discourse.

  32. mikem October 16, 2004 at 7:28 pm | | Reply

    Nels: I too support a greater participation by American citizens (only) in American elections. But I would be a bald face liar if I said that, in any specific election, I am just as hopeful of my opponents supporters getting out their votes as my candidates’. Whatever small minority you think that places me in, it reflects the actions and voices of thousands of voter registration activists who tend to target groups that they feel will most benefit their candidate. I don’t think that hoping for a greater turnout by my candidate’s supporters than by his or her opponent’s is as disrespectful of the democratic process as it is a simple acknowledgment that “we” want our candidate to win. Your attitude, sincerely, is admirable and commendable, but I doubt there are many Kerry or Bush supporters who are also hoping for as great a turnout as possible for their opponent. That is human nature and politics. The line is crossed when active measures are taken to discourage or prevent eligible voters from voting. I have no problem with discouraging persons ineligible to vote from breaking the law.

  33. Dave Huber October 17, 2004 at 9:04 am | | Reply

    mikem: Your last post expresses my views as well. This is what I meant earlier by it being “logical” and “rational” to desire your opponent’s voter turnout to be less than yours.

  34. Cobra October 17, 2004 at 12:10 pm | | Reply

    mikem writes:

    >>>The line is crossed when active measures are taken to discourage or prevent eligible voters from voting. I have no problem with discouraging persons ineligible to vote from breaking the law

    Dave writes:

    >>> Your last post expresses my views as well. This is what I meant earlier by it being “logical” and “rational” to desire your opponent’s voter turnout to be less than yours

    So basically, you both are AGREEING WITH ME, and stand against voter suppression, and that gaining more votes for your candidate is encouraged, as opposed to preventing your opponent’s supporters from legally voting is ethical and preferable.

    This message is no different than the DNC memo, or the statements I posted.

    Exactly what are we arguing about at this point?

    –Cobra

    –Cobra

  35. mikem October 17, 2004 at 12:38 pm | | Reply

    Errr, instructing Democratic campaign workers to claim voter suppression even if there is no evidence of it?

  36. Dave Huber October 17, 2004 at 1:00 pm | | Reply

    Indeed. What’s hard to figure out, Cobra?

  37. chrisc October 17, 2004 at 1:47 pm | | Reply

    Like Craig, I read the DNC memo. It doesn’t do this. So what’s the problem other than the Drudge Report?

    >Errr, instructing Democratic campaign workers >to claim voter suppression even if there is no >evidence of it?

    Posted by: mikem on October 17, 2004 12:38 PM

  38. chrisc October 17, 2004 at 2:01 pm | | Reply

    >>>Democrats on Wednesday denounced a Republican lawmaker quoted in a newspaper as saying the GOP would fare poorly in this year’s elections if it failed to “SUPPRESS the Detroit vote.” (emphasis added)

    Problem with the argument that this statement is OK is that suppress is an active verb. To suppress something, you have to take actions to reduce that vote, not just passively hope that it won’t occur. How can anyone defend that? To me, that’s very different than working to turn out the vote for your candidate and hoping that the other person’s voters won’t turn out. If you actively do things to make it difficult for the other candidates’ supporters to vote (like throw away registrations or give ppl the wrong voting information or tell them that it’s illegal to vote if you’re on welfare), that’s despicable IMO and should be a felony.

    BTW, I generally vote Democratic. When I did voter registration drives for the Demos, of course we tried to target neighborhoods where we thought there’d be more Demos than Repubs. But I’d never think of discouraging or turning away a Repub who wanted to register or – much worse – helping them fill out a voter registration card then throwing it away. To me, that’s undemocratic (with a small d).

  39. mikem October 17, 2004 at 3:08 pm | | Reply

    chrisc: I agree. I don’t know what incident you are talking about, but if a Republican campaign official said that then he/she is an ass and deserves condemnation. Likewise, I would expect even Kerry supporters to condemn an official campaign handout that instructs its workers: “If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a ‘preemptive strike.” That is pretty plain language to me. And it is a license to lie. I find it hard to believe, having worked for Democratic campaigns in the past and exercising common sense, that reverse circumstances would not draw swift condemnation of the Republican party.

  40. axiyd January 27, 2008 at 8:48 pm | | Reply

    http://yj-real-estate3.150m.com/ “>California real estate brokers

Say What?