Sneaky, underhanded, downright vile….not to mention brilliant. Few decades from now we might just throw out all pretense durring our elections and just start opening fire with machineguns at each others conventions. The republicans may have the NRA but the liberals have the islamic fundementalist jihadi’s and CNN.

Posted by: Ronin at July 2, 2004 10:19 AM

I like your humor Ronin! I was thinking the same thing. I don’t care which political party one belongs to but such actions are not only childish but undemocratic in the worst way. Essentially, the people advocating this strategy and the people who will follow it have abandoned the political process in favor of actual disruption of it. This is one step removed from sedition. There are laws against that, aren’t there?

Posted by: jose at July 2, 2004 10:42 AM

Sedition? C’mon!

It’s unspoken that the largest political block in the US of A is the group which hates the partisanship, the squabbling, and the back-biting of our two parties. Size?: 50% of the eligible voters. This group choses not to participate (largely out of disgust, I’d guess, but most likely because they can’t distinguish either party from the other).

So if this group wants to yank the chain of the parties at the height of their self-serving revelry—Oh no! Cheney will have to get his own Iced Tea and Kerry will have to carry his own bags!!—it’s fine by me (and probably way overdue).

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at July 2, 2004 11:00 AM

Ok i just now caught the update, Elvis our post were from before the update when it was just shown as one sided. NOW this is a little more like it, yes very long overdue.

Posted by: Ronin at July 2, 2004 11:09 AM

I disagree with this statement Elvis:

“So if this group (the one you describe as hating partisanship) wants to yank the chain of the parties at the height of their self-serving revelry.”

They would look down on the discussed political stunt.

Posted by: Danking70 at July 2, 2004 11:28 AM

I’ll dispute that 50% figure - non-party voters typically make up about 20% of the electorate, and although you might want to include those who fairly regularly vote for the other party (i.e., independents in spirit but not in registration), I still think 50% is a little high. Plus, I think it’s a little much to read your own voting preferences or prejudices into their motivations.

That said, political dirty tricks are part and parcel of democracy in America. We might not like it (especially when it’s the other guys doing it), and we have to move to correct it when we see it, but let’s not pretend that it’s some recent creation.

-BF

Posted by: BacksightForethought at July 2, 2004 11:28 AM

This is, like the consurrrvative support for Nader, a complete perversion of the Political Process.

There’s a reason why we invented Politics. It’s our best assurance that when we deal with Public Policy, we won’t start shooting at each other.

This sort of nonsense, and any other, is really poor judgement.

Posted by: Don at July 2, 2004 11:34 AM

I’m with Don. Government is necessary, the best government is government of the people, and political parties are an important part of the popular expression of power.

If one wants to say that there are better ways to run government, fine. But the solution is to introduce and sell a new form of government, not blow up the old form, thus leaving a vacuum in the power structure.

Posted by: Tomorrowist at July 2, 2004 12:16 PM

OT: Our SUV got “keyed” today in a liberal neighborhood. We think it’s because of our Bush/Cheney’04, “Peace Through Superior Firepower” and “Support The Troops” bumper stickers.

More hate from the “Party of Peace”, you know, the party with the peaceful nuanced tolerance of diversity.

Posted by: Max Darkside at July 2, 2004 01:07 PM

BTW, the combination of the Bush/Cheney’04 and the “Peace Through Superior Firepower”, with it’s large peace symbol, really make people scratch their heads. Bush? Peace? The liberals so much see him as a “war lord”, they can’t grasp the concept of peace through strength.

I’ve gotten comments from liberals that they think we’re ‘stealing’ THEIR peace symbol. I just explain there’s their peace: through surrender and servitude to evil, vs. ours: being strong so evil doesn’t “mess” with you.

Posted by: Max Darkside at July 2, 2004 01:23 PM

BacksightForethought…
Only 50% of eligible voters actually do so. This is the group to which I refer.

When these people do decide to engage, our currrent parties will have some major explaining to do.

As for the tactics at the conventions…
Protest through disturbances, work stoppages or slow-downs, and general civil disobedience has a long history in the United States, perhaps starting with black slaves and indentured servants.

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at July 2, 2004 01:33 PM

“Protest through disturbances, work stoppages or slow-downs, and general civil disobedience “

Sounds like a bunch a kids when they don’t get their way.

Posted by: Max Darkside at July 2, 2004 01:38 PM

“Groups planning protests during the convention … have been encouraging activists to sign up as volunteers and then either not report for their assignment or show up and cause trouble.”

Such a false commitment is fraud, pure and simple. In this case, and I’m not a lawyer, I believe it is legally “fraud in fact” and since it was done over the internet, it may be procecuted as “wire fraud”?

Of course, you would have to prove that they had no intent to perform the services and were doing it for personal gain while injuring the Repubs, but that might not be too hard and would help prevent this crap from continuing on either or both sides.

————————-
fraud (frôd), n.

Deception carried out for the purpose of achieving personal gain while causing injury to another party.

————————-
wire fraud
fraud committed by using a means of electronic communication (as a telephone)

Posted by: Max Darkside at July 2, 2004 01:55 PM

I think there is a significant difference between protest and civil disobedience on the one hand, and SEDITION on the other. The acts of the so-called “Shadow Protester” are the acts of an anarchist. Again, for anyone foolish enough to follow the call to disruption and think that it is simply a part of the political struggle they should get a clue. This point was not lost on the leadership who signed the Declaration of Independence or the articles of succession. Both events precipitated war.

This election cycle has been characterized more and more by desparation and a move away from the established democratic process in favor of methods designed to disrupt it. For anyone who thinks that their “side” should gain office at all cost, that the ends justifies the means, they should prepare themselves to shoot their neighbor. Our focus on Iraq these past two years should teach us all this lesson. For those who do not heed this should be careful what they wish for; they just might get it.

Posted by: jose at July 2, 2004 04:26 PM

Max Darkside has a several valid points. One that really grabbed me was;

“This election cycle has been characterized more and more by desparation and a move away from the established democratic process in favor of methods designed to disrupt it.”

How much of a move away from “the established democratic process” can be tolerated before the entire process becomes a mockery of democracy?

Posted by: Phobos at July 2, 2004 07:56 PM

I agree this is more an act of sabotage than protest and spinning it as the latter is lame. The other thing that’s wrong with this tactic, or whatever we should call it, is that it’s contributing to a further erosion of public trust while conferring no public benefit whatsoever. It’s safe to say that the American public’s confidence in government, media, business and public institutions generally has been on a steady decline in our lifetimes. And many people feel no particular compunction to be truthful with any of the above, as evidenced here by the ease with which a coordinated campaign of lying involving many people is not only undertaken but readily defended.

Posted by: marymcl at July 2, 2004 11:10 PM