[spacefreak]

[RAILhead]

Heh, pretty sad, isn't it? I guess Kerry handles this like he handles abortion -- he's against it, but he won't let his opinion influence what others do.

What a leader!

Maury

[BRussell]

Care to comment on this? It sure isn't self-evident to me what the issue is. Democrats are concerned about intimidation of minorities. It's happened in the past. So they say to get out front to talk about the issue in order to prevent it. Any kind of voter intimidation is wrong, no?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Care to comment on this? It sure isn't self-evident to me what the issue is. Democrats are concerned about intimidation of minorities. It's happened in the past. So they say to get out front to talk about the issue in order to prevent it. Any kind of voter intimidation is wrong, no?

Man, come on now -- and you call some of us Conservatives blind?

Maury

[BRussell]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Man, come on now -- and you call some of us Conservatives blind?

Maury

Maybe I am blind. I just want someone to specifically point out to me what your problem is. It should be easy if it's so obvious.

My assumption is that Republicans are trying to say that Dems want to accuse them of intimidation even if it doesn't happen. But I don't see it that way - I see this as trying to prevent something illegal from happening. For example if you're trying to prevent illegal drug use, you don't only sit back and wait until it happens, you get out front and talk about why it's wrong and try to prevent it.

The fact is 1) people are very concerned about this happening, 2) it has happened in the past, and 3) it is illegal. Given those facts, I'm not sure what's wrong with this "pre-emptive strike" business.

[zigzag]

Oh, the horror! Democrats trying to promote their cause! It's unthinkable! [But I thought Bush supporters were all about pre-emption. ]

This guy had to resign from the Bush campaign after stating in front of God and everybody that it was important for Republicans to "suppress" the Detroit (read: black) vote:

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/vote13e_20041013.htm

Republicans want as few blacks as possible to vote. Democrats want as many blacks as possible to vote. Each will do what they can to accomplish their goal. Tell me something i didn't already know.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Care to provide a link to this "manual" proving it actually come from the DNC?

[surly]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Care to provide a link to this "manual" proving it actually come from the DNC?

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp

http://www.democrats.org/news/200410140008.html

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by surly:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp

http://www.democrats.org/news/200410140008.html

Thank you, hadn't seen those. It's a non-issue anyway in my opinion, especially considering Florida 2000.

[typoon]

The funny thing is they are calling for "Pre-Emptive" strikes even if there is no proof of any intimidation. While I believe there might be some I don't think it's as wedespread as Jesse Jackson portrays it to be. Besides I thought Democrats didn't believe in Pre-emption.

[BRussell]

I don't doubt that this is from the DNC. This is a real problem, and lots of Democrats take it very seriously. Here's a report that catalogs in great detail alleged incidents of voter intimidation directed at minorities. Every election some anonymous leaflet is distributed in minority areas saying something like "remember you can't vote if you haven't paid all your bills" or some other such nonsense. It's not an issue of saying it happened if it didn't - it happens, it's bad, we shouldn't pretend like it doesn't happen.