Charge Voter Intimidation, Even if None Exists

[daniel1113]

Drudge Report

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.

Tisk tisk tisk.

 

[Kappo]

They are intimidating them because they wont let them vote twice in different areas

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Hmm...

Conjur just floated this accusation via a link. Seems the call has gone out.

CsG

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hmm...

Conjur just floated this accusation via a link. Seems the call has gone out.

CsG

Hehe... I wouldn't expect anything else.

Thanks for the link CAD. Something tells me it will become a very long topic...

 

[Pliablemoose]

One top DNC official confirmed the manual's authenticity, but claimed the notion of crying wolf on any voter intimidation is "absurd."

"We all know the Republicans are going to try to steal the election by scaring people and confusing people," the top DNC source explained.

LOL, it sounds familiar all right...

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).

Issue a press release
-Reviewing Republican tactics used in the past in your area or state
-Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people form voting
Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points.
Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concerns 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

Link to .pdf dnc.pdf

Link to .jpg dnc.jpg

 

[daniel1113]

In my home state too... TISK TISK TISK.

 

[Pliablemoose]

No one but the neocons jumping in on this group hug yet?

 

[Chadder007]

The Dems just got Owned by their tactic.

 

[Todd33]

Any proof this came from the DNC or did it magically come out of no where? I smell BS.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Any proof this came from the DNC or did it magically come out of no where? I smell BS.

It was Rove

(Cept from that quote from someone in the DNC admitting it exists...)

Of course, it is Drudge, I'd like to see another source, before it gets any bigger...

 

[conjur]

After looking at that image, this looks more like pre-emptive calls to be sure no hanky-panky occurs than it is a call to file lawsuits or anything.

Doesn't seem too out of line.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Sorry Repugs, but this is a non-issue. This is a strategy for prevention not false allegations. Nice try. Try actually reading the sheet next time.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Todd33
Any proof this came from the DNC or did it magically come out of no where? I smell BS.

It was Rove

(Cept from that quote from someone in the DNC admitting it exists...)

Of course, it is Drudge, I'd like to see another source, before it gets any bigger...

via Fox :Q

Payback is hell

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: conjur
After looking at that image, this looks more like pre-emptive calls to be sure no hanky-panky occurs than it is a call to file lawsuits or anything.

Doesn't seem too out of line.

I don't think we're looking @ the same document, Conjur...

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).

 

[ntdz]

i read their little manual, and that is dispicable. It says right in the manual claim voter fraud EVEN IF NONE EXISTS. What the hell is that garbage? Thats lying right there, and not only that, its extremely dirty politics, just like when they brought up Cheney's daughter in the vice presidential debate and later in the presidental debate. With them putting stuff like this out, it just PROVES they are desperate.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz
i read their little manual, and that is dispicable. It says right in the manual claim voter fraud EVEN IF NONE EXISTS.

No, it doesn't.

1) You're only seeing a portion of that document.
2) It seems to only recommend "pre-emptive" strikes in what would appear to be an effort to prevent improper actions from occurring.

It does not call for lawsuits.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: conjur
After looking at that image, this looks more like pre-emptive calls to be sure no hanky-panky occurs than it is a call to file lawsuits or anything.

Doesn't seem too out of line.

I don't think we're looking @ the same document, Conjur...

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).

I'm missing the part where it says to file lawsuits or to charge voter intimidation. It says issue press releases in areas where the potential of fraud exists and state concerns of threats of fraud.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
i read their little manual, and that is dispicable. It says right in the manual claim voter fraud EVEN IF NONE EXISTS.

No, it doesn't.

1) You're only seeing a portion of that document.
2) It seems to only recommend "pre-emptive" strikes in what would appear to be an effort to prevent improper actions from occurring.

It does not call for lawsuits.

Oh! It only recommends pre-emptive strikes? Well, that's just fine.

Are you kidding me? Of course not... sometimes I forget who I'm talking to.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
i read their little manual, and that is dispicable. It says right in the manual claim voter fraud EVEN IF NONE EXISTS.

No, it doesn't.

1) You're only seeing a portion of that document.
2) It seems to only recommend "pre-emptive" strikes in what would appear to be an effort to prevent improper actions from occurring.

It does not call for lawsuits.

Oh! It only recommends pre-emptive strikes? Well, that's just fine.

Are you kidding me? Of course not... sometimes I forget who I'm talking to.

It's only part of the document. Notice the "2. "?

Also, it's only calling for issuing of press releases to state concerns of possible threats of fraud and contact local newspapers to reaffirm how they should accept advertisements. Not to charge actual intimidation.

This thread's title is misleading.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
i read their little manual, and that is dispicable. It says right in the manual claim voter fraud EVEN IF NONE EXISTS.

No, it doesn't.

1) You're only seeing a portion of that document.
2) It seems to only recommend "pre-emptive" strikes in what would appear to be an effort to prevent improper actions from occurring.

It does not call for lawsuits.

Oh! It only recommends pre-emptive strikes? Well, that's just fine.

Are you kidding me? Of course not... sometimes I forget who I'm talking to.

It's only part of the document. Notice the "2. "?

Also, it's only calling for issuing of press releases to state concerns of possible threats of fraud and contact local newspapers to reaffirm how they should accept advertisements. Not to charge actual intimidation.

This thread's title is misleading.

Misleading? It's the title of the article... perhaps you should email Drudge and complain.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
i read their little manual, and that is dispicable. It says right in the manual claim voter fraud EVEN IF NONE EXISTS.

No, it doesn't.

1) You're only seeing a portion of that document.
2) It seems to only recommend "pre-emptive" strikes in what would appear to be an effort to prevent improper actions from occurring.

It does not call for lawsuits.

Oh! It only recommends pre-emptive strikes? Well, that's just fine.

Are you kidding me? Of course not... sometimes I forget who I'm talking to.

It's only part of the document. Notice the "2. "?

Also, it's only calling for issuing of press releases to state concerns of possible threats of fraud and contact local newspapers to reaffirm how they should accept advertisements. Not to charge actual intimidation.

This thread's title is misleading.

Misleading? It's the title of the article... perhaps you should email Drudge and complain.

Thanks for proving my point: Drudge.

The king of inflammatory headlines.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
i read their little manual, and that is dispicable. It says right in the manual claim voter fraud EVEN IF NONE EXISTS.

No, it doesn't.

1) You're only seeing a portion of that document.
2) It seems to only recommend "pre-emptive" strikes in what would appear to be an effort to prevent improper actions from occurring.

It does not call for lawsuits.

Oh! It only recommends pre-emptive strikes? Well, that's just fine.

Are you kidding me? Of course not... sometimes I forget who I'm talking to.

It's only part of the document. Notice the "2. "?

Also, it's only calling for issuing of press releases to state concerns of possible threats of fraud and contact local newspapers to reaffirm how they should accept advertisements. Not to charge actual intimidation.

This thread's title is misleading.

Misleading? It's the title of the article... perhaps you should email Drudge and complain.

Thanks for proving my point: Drudge.

The king of inflammatory headlines.

No, you just proved my point. The title of this THREAD is just fine. Whether or not the title of the article on Drudge's site is misleading doesn't matter.

 

[conjur]

If you read the words from that memo you'd see Drudge's title was misleading. Copying that title to here propagates the mistruth.

 

[daniel1113]

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).

It's right there...

 

[LTC8K6]

Typo in the pdf. "there techniques" should be "these techniques".

It looks like Drudge put the cover page and part of the page with the words in question together in one pdf. I guess he included the cover to show that he actually has the legit document.