I am sure this surprises approximately no one:
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.
A 66-page mobilization plan to be issued by the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee states: “If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a ‘pre-emptive strike.'”
Here is an image of the front page.
Gregory Litchfield
Great to see the Democrats busily building the highway that will take the United States from “leader of the free world” to “Central American banana republic.”
Looks like I might be immigrating to Australia in the next 20 or so years.
This election season is far from over. I predict that Bush will win in the electoral college (last time I checked he was still forcing Kerry to defend states that should otherwise be safe bets for the Dems), and will win the popular vote by an extremely thin margin. The lawsuits will be filed before the vote tallys are done, and this will drag on for weeks, if not months. Regardless of who eventually wins, they will have essentially no mandate to do anything, and should the victor be Bush the extreme left will erupt into violence, rioting and anarchy.
I shudder at the thought, but I suspect we will look back fondly on the 2000 elections debacle as happier times.
Slartibartfast
Uh…this is surprising and/or shocking in exactly what way?
Try lowering your expectations. Works for me.
Kimmitt
Wait, you’re actually serious that this bothers you? That Democrats are anticipating voter fraud and intimidation in areas that have historically endured voter fraud and intimidation and are preparing to either head it off or deal with it when it happens?
Seriously, tell me this is a joke.
Kimmitt
I mean, I would hope that the Republicans are planning to do something about the remnants of Democratic machines, unless they’ve simply given up on winning a single state with a major metropolitan area. This is how two-Party democracy is theoretically supposed to work, with each side calling the other on their abuses.
Slartibartfast
No, Kimmitt. Surely you have learned to both read and comprehend by now. It’s the bit about claiming intimidation has occurred even if there’s no evidence of such that’s raising objections.
Slartibartfast
Not to mention, claiming abuses have occurred even when there’s no evidence for any. Gotcha.
Kimmitt
I’m sorry, but you cannot support that thesis from the page linked. He who relies on Drudge’s summaries ends up with egg on his face.
Zaphod B.
I thought it was the “Peril-Sensitive” sunglasses – or was that me?
Slartibartfast
Kimmitt, it’s there in plain English. What are you not getting?
Kimmitt
The part where false claims of abuse are presented.
I see the part where they discuss previous abuses, the part where they get people to say that abuses are bad, and the part where they try to prevent abuses by discussing abuse patterns with the media.
I don’t see the part where false claims are presented.
Slartibartfast
You misunderstand. The point is not that false claims of abuse have been presented; rather, the manual is advocating that claims should be presented, regardless of whether there’s any sign of abuse or not. It’s an Election DAY Manual, we wouldn’t expect any false claims to be presented at this time.
Kimmitt
You’re going to have to quote the section to me that advocates the presentation of false claims of abuse. I am seriously not seeing it.
Gregory Litchfield
And the emporer’s new clothes are fabulous, eh Kimmit?
Harry in Atlanta
Not understanding that memo is willful ignorance or just plain stupidity. With some Democrats it can be pretty hard to tell though.
Kimmitt
While I am thoroughly amused at the concepts of Bush supporters decrying willful ignorance and stupidity, I am still unable to discern the recommendation of fraud which is purported to exist on the memo.
Joe Schmoe
Kimmitt-
The manual doesn’t instruct campaign members to make up false stories of voter intimidation. It does, however, instruct memebrs to start complaining about it even if it hasn’t happened!
To illustrate, suppose I start complaining about the fire department’s poor response time to residential fires. Except that there hasn’t been any fire. I think you’d agree that if I were to respond “well, they’ve been late in the past,” it would be a pretty lame defense. I am accusing the fire department of very serious negligence when in fact they’ve done nothing wrong.
Or suppose I were to complain that Kerry has accused our troops in Iraq of committing war crimes. He hasn’t done that. But hey, he did it in the past, right?
John Cole
Kimmitt- What part of this quote don’t you understand:
“If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a ‘pre-emptive strike.'”
Jeebus.
Al Maviva
Kimmit, you’re a huge racist, and I’ve instructed everybody here to be ready to call you a racist at a moment’s notice, to contact the press, your boss, and your friends to let them know. I’ve primed John with talking points, to argue about how you are a racist, and I’ve asked other posters to condemn your racist tactics.
See? No fraud there. Nothing to see here. Move along folks, just a legitimate political debate tactic.
Kimmitt
Mr. Cole:
When you don’t even finish the sentence the quote is in, it’s selective quoting. Last chance — were you fooled by trusting Drudge’s summary, or are you lying?
Kimmitt
Maviva: You cannot possibly believe that contacting the media with documented instances of fraud is the same thing as engaging in a harassment campaign against one person with no supporting evidence.
Wait, don’t answer that.
Kimmitt
Actually, you know what? The heck with this; I was just stopping by after a couple of months to see if talking to conservatives was still a complete waste of time. It is, good bye, let me know when you’ve actually drowned in your own bile.
M. Scott Eiland
“good bye”
Who says that impending Democratic electoral fraud doesn’t have benefits? ]:-)
John Cole
Kimmitt-
You know what? Go fuck yourself, you lying sack of shit. And don’t bother coming back. This was not selectively quoted at all- Look at the god damned picture provided in thepost.
What it states is that even if nothing has happened, you should launch a pre-emptive strike to interrupt a fair election- you should begin to release press releases of past bad practices, to get minority leaders worked up, etc.
There is no selective quotation whatsoever, and this is nothing more than race-baiting and gaming elections.
Now, until you can read, go fuck yourself and don’t let the door hit you in the ass. I am so sick and tired of being polite to you and others like you and having you come here and shit all over me.
All you do is:
1.) Come here and make statements like “You can’t really believe that” in posts where I have spent 2,000 words stating that I do in fact believe something.
2.) Tell me to believe your spin of an issue versus what I can see with my own eyes
3.) Create some sort of strawman argument in which the moral superiority of Democrats is bound to be mentioned.
The guide says what it says. That you want to engage in ad hominems against Drudge or try to convince us we can not understand what we can plainly read with our own eyes makes me thoroughly convinced that arguing with you is futile. You can not argue with the stupid or the dishonest.
Good Riddance.
Toren
My guess is “Kimmett” will put back on his “Young Goodman Brown” persona and go over the Daily Pundit to continue his infuriating obtuseness there.
As he’s been wearing his welcome out at DP, perhaps he was just testing the waters here.
S.W. Anderson
How anyone can castigate Dan Rather and CBS and then cite something from Matt Drudge beats me.
Slartibartfast
It’s not Matt Drudge that’s being cited as an authority, Missster Anderson, it’s the election day manual itself.
That said, I’m going to cede a point to Kimmitt. It doesn’t actually advise people to claim that intimidation has taken place, just to advertise that past intimidation has taken place just in case it turns out that a repeat performance has occurred. Which, I also concede, is fair game. In that spirit, we probably need to notify the media to watch out for those NY Democrats voting in Florida, again. And of course we’ve got to start campaigning for the dead vote.
You guys can continue fighting this battle, but based on the cover sheet, it’s not exactly what I’ve been maintaining that it is.
Slartibartfast
On second thought, I’m going to hedge on that a bit. Throwing up unsupported allegations of past abuse as evidence of current impending threat is just flat-out lying. If the USCCR papers were supposed to document intimidation and/or disenfranchisement, they did a piss-poor job, and are wholly unsuitable for any kind of respectable “preemptive strike”.
CadillaqJaq
Time to shoot the messenger again (Matt Drudge). It’s amusing listening to the Dem spinmeisters today attempting to say that what is printed on the Election Day Manual doesn’t mean what it says.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-haaa!
Steverino
Slartibartfast, I think getting up in front of cameras on election day and saying, “Those nasty Republicans! We won’t let them get away with their tricks THIS time!” is scare tactics. It certainly implies that the Republicans are up to no good, even if they are completely innocent.
Slartibartfast
I agree, Steverino, but it’s not, as I had said, a claim that abuse or intimidation has occurred in the current election.