[Previous entry: "WOT Future"] [Next entry: "Speaking of Electoral Fraud"]

10/14/2004: "Top Dems: "Cry Wolf!""

(Based on response at Command Post.) Those scuz buckets. This is simply infuriating.

From Drudge, based on transcription at Command Post:

2. If no signs of intimidation techniques 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.

This, and any, election is bigger than any individual. I used to like to say that we replaced a constitutional monarchy with a monarchial constitution. My point was that, if nothing else, we could be proud that we had this document that rose above the fray.

But those days are plainly gone. These jerks (I'm really having to work at not being vulgar) have no respect for the process. They have no respect for the will of the people as a whole as expressed at the ballot box. They care only for themselves. They care only about gaining political power. And their willing to whore out anybody and everybody. (In my mind, minority leaders that issue quotes which indirectly support baseless charges of intimidation tactics at the behest of political hacks are political whores.)

In a way, I'm glad. In a sense, Democrats are ordering their minions to cry wolf. Well, cry away. I'm not going to come running; further, I'm going to encourage others to not come running either. And if there really is voter intimidation? Sigh. That's the cost of not having a loyal opposition.

=====================

After rereading the Dem's memo, I caught this phrase: "Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising [...] that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls.

What are "false warnings"? The law says that one must register to vote. It also says that if there is dispute, the voter must be allowed to cast a provisional ballot. So would stating that unregistered voters are unable to cast any ballot be deemed a "false warning"? What else was in that multipage memo? Would failure to count provisional ballots be considered "voter suppresion"?

And what are local Democrats supposed to do in their efforts to "warn local newspapers..."? Threaten to pull statemnts of record and place them in competing newspapers? Are there other, unseen, documents which would support charges of censorship?

It is horrible that these charges are even plausible. Such is the cost of having a disloyal opposition.
Addendum----------------------------------------------------
The pdf file itself looks a tad suspicious. Much talk on the web. The two day rule is in effect.
Addendum----------------------------------------------------
Strike that last comment. The DNC has confirmed the quote and put in in context:

FULL EXCERPT OF DNC FIELD MANUAL ON HOW TO PREVENT AND COMBAT VOTER INTIMIDATION

The DNC also released the section of their field manual titled "How to Organize to Prevent and Combat Voter Intimidation" referred to on the Drudge Report, which focuses on how to detect, prevent, and combat voter intimidation practices.

I. WHAT TO LOOK FOR

In general, the goal of minority voter intimidation programs is either to provide a basis for challenging the right of people to vote just before election day or when they show up at the polls, and/or to create doubt, confusion and fear among voters about their right to vote or the location at which they can vote.

Prior to Election Day

Activities that may take place in the weeks or days leading up to election day can include:
[...]
Activities that take place on election day itself may include:
[...]
II. HOW TO ORGANIZE TO PREVENT AND COMBAT VOTER INTIMIDATION
The best way to combat minority voter intimidation tactics is to prevent them from occurring in the first place and prepare in advance to deal with them should they take place on election day.

1. If there are any signs of present or expected intimidation activity, in advance of election day, launch a press program that might include the following elements:
[...]
2. 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).

(This is the section Drudge excerpted)

3. Train field staff, precinct workers, and your own poll watchers thoroughly in the rules they need to know for election day.

4. Plan and completely prepare for possible legal action well in advance of election day

5. Have Secretary of State record public service announcements about election day – when polls are open, who is eligible, etc.

As I read this, Dems are saying "whether or not the Republicans have been caught cheating yet, pretend that it is just a matter of time, just to be safe." Democrats are not applying a standard of guilty until proven innocent.

The whole election process itself is supposed to have sufficient safeguards to prevent fraud. If those safeguards are lacking, fix them. If they are not lacking, shut up, so that the country may reunite after the election.

I stand by my oh-so-harsh criticism.