Can Dem's explain this?

Why are you looking for an explaination in such a small group of people?
I think you may be looking for someone to argue a statement wich they didnt make. Just because someone is part of a certain political party doesnt make them responsible for what comes out of someone elses mouth even if they are of the same party.
Politics are nasty. Always have been always will be. It is pretty much common knowledge that both sides ' talk alot of crap' before the election.
Simple fact is that that CRAP determines some peoples vote at the last minute. But argueing it, in my opinion, simply makes the crap we all hate more acceptable.
But.. that is just my opinion.
Im a democrat. Im not responsible for what comes out of Kerry's mouth, or out of a play book for that matter. I may not like it. But so be it.
:-)

Is that a self portrait astromouse? I am sure your mommy will be more than happy to hang it on the fridge for you. I am sure she is proud of you.

Time for you nappy MCg. you're getting cranky

shewolfnm, as a democrat, you must have an opinion on this. Do you approve of these tactics by the DNC?

McG,

What problem should democrats have with this? - A document that essentially says, "Keep an eye out for tactics that Republicans have used in the past - and make sure you're getting the press to keep an eye out too."

The intent of the document is to insure a fair vote; to avoid minority voters being disenfranchised.

No, what it's doing is preparing to create controversy in case Kerry loses. It states that regardless of any impropriety, Dem's should start reporting there is so that when Kerry loses, they can say the republicans were bullying voters. Whether there were any incidences or not.

McG's post
Explain this?
Hell.. anyone with a HS education should be able to understand it.

The bullet points are the way to launch a preemptive strike to prevent dirty tricks by the other side. If you make the public aware of possible attempts it reduces the likelihood of them occurring or being successful if they do occur. I see nothing that is illegal in what is proposed. Rather it is a way to make people aware of the law and of past illegal activity by the GOP.

Lets take it point by point. You tell us what is illegal.
1. First is issue press release (nothing illegal there.)
a. cite past instances of past abuse by the GOP.. (Nothing illegal there, most such instances are already a matter of public record and often include the fines paid by GOP for the abuse.)
b. Cite leaders of the groups most likely to be disenfranchised.. What is illegal about this?
2. Have leaders ready to talk to the press.. Gee.. BOTH sides do that.. Nothing illegal here unless you think minorities should NOT have the same rights you do.
3. Gee. Another example of PRESS RELEASES.. Lots of way to do that. Write letters to the editor, release official press release from party. AGAIN.. BOTH parties do it.
4. Warn local newspapers that a law exists and that you will be watching to see that they abide by it? Since WHEN is it intimidation to require that the law be followed?

McG, The REAL question is how the F*** you can possibly think this is illegal or a dirty trick. So. Please. Explain to us what on the page is illegal or is NOT done by GOP in some fashion.

The only possible complaint about this page is that it implies that GOP is very likely to attempt to intimidate voters. (Based on past fines and criminal proceedings against the GOP that actually is not that unreasonable.)

The document doesn't say to be untruthful, does it? It says: Even if there is no present activity, review what's gone on before, use your influence to get reporters to be on the lookout for bad behavior. There's nothing wrong with that, is there?

I've been on both sides of the press/political and this just looks the your basic --be on your guard and get the media to be on guard too -- stuff. It's called Press Relations.

Joe

McGentrix dosen't like to fight with people who hit back. He's a true bushite.......

McG writes


ROFLMBO.. talk about attempting to create a controversy. You just make up crap that is NOT on the page then accuse the Dems of doing something that is NOT THERE.

No where does it say report improprieties that are NOT THERE. It says point out PAST ONES and PREPARE in case there are any new ones. It does not say "make them up" as you claim.

You are the one that is playing dirty tricks here. You are very clearly LYING about something that was NOT DONE by the Dems. You are doing EXACTLY what you are accusing the Dems of wanting to do, making crap up then saying they did it when there is no evidence they did.

Please respond and point to any SPECIFICS that you feel support your claim and we can discuss your grasp of the English language.

From the article---"If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike," rule No. 2 says.

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."

Indeed, a press release from the Colorado Democrats on Wednesday looked straight out of the playbook.

After Secretary of State Donetta Davidson and Gov. Bill Owens, both Republicans, said anyone caught defrauding the voter registration process would be prosecuted, the Democrats shot out a statement decrying Davidson's and Owens' remarks as "voter intimidation."

Let's see you spin THAT comment?

How is enforcing the law, voter intimidation?

Kind of a pointless to try to answer this one. Since you don't include the ENTIRE statement put out by the Sec of State and the Gov, it is impossible to see what the Dems were responded to and calling voter intimidation. For instance if the Governor had said that police officers would be at the polling places to check IDs, that WOULD be voter intimidation under Fed law.
(My guess is that the GOP officials were a little heavy handed in their comments and the Dems overreacted but that is how the game is played.)

I've not called it illegal. I have questioned the ethics of it.



Being proactive and lying are two seperate issues. This document is telling dem's to lie. Period. No matter what does or does not happen, dems should lie and proclaim republican bullying.

If you guys find nothing wrong with that then I seriously have to question your ethics on other issues as well.

Seriously, McG, where does it tell anyone to lie? It says report what's happened before, it doesn't say anything about making anything up, that was the figneuton of imagination of the Rocky Mt. News and you are buying it. How come?

Dems have been burned before by Republican strategies. The document tells Dems not to wait until it's too late. To look at and talk about the strategies that the Repubs are using.

Bringing in comments from the GOP party doesn't help your position - when it is clear to all who can read what the Dems meant by "pre-emptive strike" - Hell there's a bloody bulleted list defining it.

Which part of "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike." strikes you as not being a lie?

Let me tell you what that says to me, then you can translate it into liberalese or whatever it is that you guys understand.

"If the voters are having no problems due to republican interference, lie about it by saying there have been. Especially in places where we have accused them of it in the past."

That's not what it says, my friend, I'm sorry you see it that way, you've been blinded by the right.

Be well.

Joe

WHAT SORT OF DEMOCRATIC MANUALS HAVEN'T WE SEEN?

A plan was leaked yesterday from the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee advising Democrats that they should claim that there was voter intimidation, even if there was none. Of course this should come as absolutely no surprise, because the left has been claiming voter intimidation and "disenfranchisement" since the 2000 election, despite the fact that there no proof that such intimidation ever took place and the leftist U.S. Civil Rights Commission, given six months, couldn't find one single qualified registered voter who was turned away from the polls.

If you think back to 2000, Democrats were claiming that police were using dogs and fire hoses to keep blacks away from polling places. Never happened.

I guess this is just the new Democratic Party. It used to be that when liberals couldn't win at the ballot box they would legislate from the bench. Their new strategy now is to not accept election results...and instead to pretend those evil Republicans intimidated people at the polls. Now that they have been exposed, let's look at the lies and the dishonesty.

In a Drudge exclusive, the 66-page Democratic mobilization plan says "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'" The 'Election Day Manual' goes on to say that operatives should issue a press release and call out the race warlords to discuss the mythical "voter intimidation" in the press. It also says talking points should be provided to the "minority leadership." This is absolutely unbelievable. Essentially, it is the official position of the Democratic Party that even if there is no voter intimidation occurring, they should make some up. They are telling people to lie and to slander Republicans.

Fear mongering at its finest. But notice, please, just how this is being covered in the media. You see little criticism of the Democrats for this ploy. Instead, you see constant revisits to the election of 2000 and the disproved charges that somehow tens of thousands of voters were kept from voting in 2000. The seed is being planted from coast to coast, and if Kerry should lose on November 2nd. there will be a huge cry of "I told you so!" from the Democrats ... and the lawsuits will fly.

One more thing. Studies of the 2000 election in Florida show that the vast majority of the problems there were caused by people who were not bright enough to figure out a simple punch-card ballot. Democrats were in charge of the election process in 24 of the 25 Florida counties in which these problems emerged. This means that the bulk of the people who lacked the limited amount of intelligence necessary to figure out how to punch a hole through a card were living in Democrat controlled counties in Florida. Is anyone surprised?

-Boortz

So tell me how you read and interprete it Joe.