The Command Post
2004 US Presidential Election
October 14, 2004
Kerry | DRUDGE: Charge voter intimidation, even if none exists

Matt Drudge in a WORLD EXCLUSIVE BREAKING NEWS has posted a page out of the DNC Election Manual that suggests that operatives launch “pre-emptive strikes” charging voter intimidation where none has been reported…

2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a “pre-emtive strike” (particularly well-suited tio 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 pints.

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.

Who’s the Fear Campaigner now?



Posted by Laurence Simon at October 14, 2004 12:17 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Those scuz buckets. This is simply infuriating.

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.

Posted by: Tomorrowist [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2004 01:17 PM

If you read what is being advocated in the manual it is no big deal. The headlines on this thread are grossly misleading. The document says nothing about “making up” voter intimidation. It merely suggests discussing voter intimidation because it HAS happened in the past, SO THAT it won’t happen again. Geesh.

Posted by: rdelephant [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2004 07:26 PM

We saw the same thing in Florida 2000. Hundred of charges of voter intimidation, but not one credible example panned out.

One example that was given: the police had erected a roadblock near the polling place, with their lights flashing. This supposed freaked out “victim” of this henious act, and they wheeled around and headed home without voting.

Wow. Those cops really mean business. The police in question were interviewed, several of the police were minorities themselves. The roadblock had nothing to do with the polling place. The ‘victim’ just assumed the police weren’t going to let them vote.

This is intimidation? Only with an active imagination.

Posted by: torpedo_eight [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2004 07:33 PM

I’m telling you, the DNC has made the institutional decision to simply steal elections. They know that the demographic trends aren’t on their side and won’t be in the foreseeable future, meaning that with everything else being the same, they’re looking at the next 5-6 generations in the minority like the Republicans following the Civil War.

Donkey don’t play that. Faced with the decision to change their ridiculous economic presuppositions or cheat, they’ve chosen to cheat; Election 2000 was just a dress rehearsal. It may take McAuliffe, Cahill et. al. doing time in a Federal penitentiary before the power structure in the Democratic Party gets it. Which of course presumes they don’t ruin America first.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2004 07:51 PM

Where I grew up, this is called “vexatious litigation.”

With this as evidence, I hope the courts systematically fine the Democrat Party in every case they lose. Like, say, on the order of $100,000.

Posted by: gus3 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2004 08:12 PM

I’m wondering if I want to stand by my oh-so-harsh words. Here is some context, from the DNC:


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 and fight fair, so that the country may reunite after the election.

I stand by my oh-so-harsh criticism.

Posted by: Tomorrowist [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2004 10:05 PM

The keystone of the democratic state, the keystone of any democratic republic, rests on the agreement of all parties to cede the obvious. If you don’t have the votes, you have lost the election.

We know from recent events in Venezuela that any election can be subverted, even with near-perfect human beings (Jimmy Carter) supposedly observing to give the final count their imprimatur.

John Fund in the WSJ compared the 2004 election to tinder-dry California. He said the conditions might be as dry as they were in 2000, but this time a lot more people have matches.

Don’t be surprised if we don’t know who the President is on November 3rd. The groundwork has already been laid. The question is, will the democrats accept a loss?

Posted by: torpedo_eight [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2004 11:03 PM

RDE it not surprising that you’re apologizing for the DNC. it’s a nice try but once again you’re simply on the wrong side of this. The DNC clearly doesn’t care about America, only about power.

Raising “issues” where no problem exists will diminish all of us and you’re displaying a lack of thoughtfulness by blinding supporting this

Posted by: skip [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 15, 2004 01:44 PM

Frankly, I’d much prefer 475 democratic news releases screaming about intimidation that isn’t there. Americans are quite savvy when it comes to propaganda and cries of “Wolf!” - they’ll be able to smell this one a mile away.

Along with the fake draft scare, the democrats are pulling out all the stops, the way they pulled them out on Arnold 3 days before his election. The problem with misinformation is that it can backfire badly and make you look like the snake you truly are.

Hundreds of claims of voter intimidation will only serve to trivialize what few legitimate claims might exist (if that). By making 100 false calls to the fire house, the only thing the democrats will ensure is their own house will burn to the ground.

And if that’s the route they want to take - Burn, baby, burn.

Posted by: torpedo_eight [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 15, 2004 07:38 PM

I still remember the 2000 election in Florida when Democratic lawyers tried (with some sucess) to exclude the legitimate absentee ballots of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines stationed overseas.

They’re willing to do that, because most of those servicemen and women vote Republican. However, it’s fine if an illegal alien votes — and you’d better NOT ask for proof of residency either by golly! Or the Democratic law machine will come down on your little head in a heartbeat.

Please! The Dems were caught RED HANDED in the last election. OF COURSE they are going to try to steal this election. OF COURSE they are going to allege voting fraud (even if none exists). They complained to high heavens about the “hanging chads” in 2000 and how “archaic” Florida’s voting procedures were. Now that Florida has computers — they’re complaining about that. The Democrats are banking on ONE thing — that you are TOO STUPID to see through their lies.

Posted by: Mark [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 26, 2004 02:08 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)