Charge Voter Intimidation, Even if None Exists

[Ferocious]

Damn.

Reps seem to be on a rampage this year.

And people thought they stole the election in 2000.

 

[Pliablemoose]

First sighting outside Drudge...

CNN alluded to it (Dem playbook), but didn't mention specifics yet.

Rocky Mountain News 10-15-04

 

[conjur]

Can you smell the desperation from the Bush supporters?

Continuing to drag up Vietnam?

Bringing up this memo.

Slamming Kerry for complimenting Cheney's daughter after the Cheney's already brought up the fact their daughter is a lesbian?

 

[Darkhawk28]

LOL, you Repugs must have the reading comprehension level of a first-grader.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
LOL, you Repugs must have the reading comprehension level of a first-grader.

It's that kind of attitude that'll really lose the election....

But hey, if it makes you feel good.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
LOL, you Repugs must have the reading comprehension level of a first-grader.

It's that kind of attitude that'll really lose the election....

But hey, if it makes you feel good.

If to win an election, I have to lie, cheat and steal, then I don't want to win it. But if doing that makes you feel better at night, then by all means, you go ahead.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28


If to win an election, I have to lie, cheat and steal, then I don't want to win it. But if doing that makes you feel better at night, then by all means, you go ahead.

You must have skipped ahead in the Dem handbook, please reread it...

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: conjur
Can you smell the desperation from the Bush supporters?

Continuing to drag up Vietnam?

Bringing up this memo.

Slamming Kerry for complimenting Cheney's daughter after the Cheney's already brought up the fact their daughter is a lesbian?

So you're signing on to my theory of Rove's "Death of a Thousand Cuts" plan?

:Q

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
LOL, you Repugs must have the reading comprehension level of a first-grader.

It's that kind of attitude that'll really lose the election....

But hey, if it makes you feel good.

If to win an election, I have to lie, cheat and steal, then I don't want to win it. But if doing that makes you feel better at night, then by all means, you go ahead.

*cough* Dan Rather *cough*

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: conjur
Can you smell the desperation from the Bush supporters?

Continuing to drag up Vietnam?

Bringing up this memo.

Slamming Kerry for complimenting Cheney's daughter after the Cheney's already brought up the fact their daughter is a lesbian?

They are very desperate and it's quite amusing to see, really.

 

[MonkeyK]

I just read the excerpt.

Looks to me like another classic case of people reading what they want into a statement. Maybe I'm just reading what I want into it, but I see nothing suggesting that Dems should make unsubstantiated claims of voter intimidation. I see descriptions of how to look for voter intimidation and how to warn people of it's possibility.

What is the big deal here?

Here is the section that Drudge refers to:

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).
? 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

Maybe inciting people to vote, but hardly accusing where there has been no intimidation.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
The Dems just got Owned by their tactic.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Just caught another reference to the Handbook on CNN...

Nothing direct yet

 

[wiin]

Bush haters are in denial here. Like I said before, a bomb could be right in front of you, you still wouldn't see it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: wiin
Bush haters are in denial here. Like I said before, a bomb could be right in front of you, you still wouldn't see it.

What's there to see? This is a non-issue.

 

[Darkhawk28]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[yankeesfan]

It says right there in the document, "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 means that they will announce voter intimidation even if there is none. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
It says right there in the document, "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 means that they will announce voter intimidation even if there is none. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS!!!

READ! THINK! LEARN!

If there's an area that has had voter intimidation in the past, notify the media to be there to make sure things are on the up-and-up, have community leaders denounce such tactics and make sure the local media does its job.

OMG, you guys have sunk to even a lower low.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
It says right there in the document, "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 means that they will announce voter intimidation even if there is none. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

Umm no it means take actinion to prevent or pre-empt people from using voter intimidation.

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
It says right there in the document, "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 means that they will announce voter intimidation even if there is none. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS!!!

READ! THINK! LEARN!

If there's an area that has had voter intimidation in the past, notify the media to be there to make sure things are on the up-and-up, have community leaders denounce such tactics and make sure the local media does its job.

OMG, you guys have sunk to even a lower low.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, it doesn't say that? Am I blind? See for yourself. The DNC has said that the manual is real.

I can't believe you. :roll:

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
It says right there in the document, "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 means that they will announce voter intimidation even if there is none. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS!!!

READ! THINK! LEARN!

If there's an area that has had voter intimidation in the past, notify the media to be there to make sure things are on the up-and-up, have community leaders denounce such tactics and make sure the local media does its job.

OMG, you guys have sunk to even a lower low.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, it doesn't say that? Am I blind? See for yourself. The DNC has said that the manual is real.

I can't believe you. :roll:

The Democrats aren't denying that it's real. See those bullet points? They explain item #2.