"Pre-emptive Strike" in Colorado

[juanez]

As a Colorado resident, this is outrageous to me especially since CO is now a "battleground state". The Democrat playbook says to make up false claims of voter intimidation? Jeeeez. This and their obvious scare tactic about a Bush draft...proposed and supported only by Democrats. How phony can you get?

Can the Democrats make themselves look any more non-credible just two weeks before an election?

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats got caught with their election playbook open Thursday when a leaked page was published urging operatives to lodge a "pre-emptive strike" of claiming voter intimidation, whether it's true or not .

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike," rule No. 2 says.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
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." (This was after thousands of fake Democrat voter registrations were discovered. Perhaps it would have pleased the Democrats if the Governor encouraged voter fraud instead?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Full Story (http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_3256347,00.html)

[SnakeRat]

Sounds like the war in Iraq.

Pre-emptive strikes, scare tactics, all that jazz.

[juanez]

So you think these deceitful tactics by the Democrats to wrongfully influence an election are acceptable?

[John Feeney]

What am I missing? When I read the document on Drudge I see nothing about "claiming voter intimidation, whether it's true or not." I see the sentence, "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike'(particularly well-suited to states in which there (sic) techniques have been tried in the past)." It just sounds like they want to prevent any possible intimidation. As they mention, that would make the most sense in states with a history of such intimidation. (not Colorado, AFAIK.)

[juanez]

(italicized comments are mine)

[ QUOTE ]
A page from the Democrats' "Colorado Election Day Manual: A detailed guide to voting in Colorado" appeared on the Drudge Report.

• Chapter 2 says: " If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet , launch a pre-emptive strike."

[/ QUOTE ]
(launch a "strike" when no signs of intimidation exists? To what end except to spread fear and loathing against Republicans to advance a Democrat agenda?)

[ QUOTE ]
• Operatives are directed to issue a news release " reviewing Republican tactics used in your area or state ."

[/ QUOTE ]
(if no intimidation was found, what "tactics” are they referring to except fictional ones?)

[ QUOTE ]
• They should also quote "party/minority/ civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting."

[/ QUOTE ]
(if no intimidation was found, what "tactics" would be denounced except fictional ones?)

The Democrat manual instructs operatives to hold press conferences and incite racial tension even if no intimidation has been found to exist. Is that not offensive and dishonest?

You wrote: "It just sounds like they want to prevent any possible intimidation."

I'm all for prosecuting anyone caught intimidating voters on either side. But to make a scuffle about intimidation when none has been found is simply a dishonest, dirty trick by Democrats. If any Republican "intimidates" a voter, they should be prosecuted. If and Democrat "intimidates" a voter, they should be prosecuted.

The kicker for me was when Governor Owens said, after thousands of fraudulent Democrat voter registrations were discovered, that anyone found guilty of voter fraud would be prosecuted . The Democrat mouthpieces said that statement was "voter intimidation", just as their playbook instructs. You gotta be kidding me.
"Commit voter fraud and you will be prosecuted" is voter intimidation? Sounds like “felon intimidation” to me, which is just fine.

Gov. Owens replied with:
[ QUOTE ]
"We're not trying to intimidate anybody," Owens said. "I'm encouraging Coloradoans to go to the polls. I want it to be a fair and honest vote, not skewed by somebody who registered 35 times."


[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree with that 100%, but apparently the Democrats take it personally, like they have the right to register fraudulently 35 times.

For what it's worth how does one intimidate a voter anyway? If I get "intimidated" by anyone on election day, I brandish the 9mm and I "intimidate" back.

[Chris Alger]

The "tactics" described at the top of your quoted article don't appear in the manual on which it's purportedly based. According to Lowe, the manual urges "operatives to lodge a 'pre-emptive strike' of claiming voter intimidation, whether it's true or not."

The manual says nothing about "claiming voter intimidation" when none has occurred. It describes a "preemptive strike" to discourage it, impliedly in states where it has occurred in the past or is likely. It's not the same that you're complaining about.

Here's the relevant portion of the manual:

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).

• 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 points

• 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

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.

Notice that there is nothing in the "pre-emptive strike" that encourages people to claim non-existent intimidation.

[Chris Alger]

I see your complaint now. You believe that any press conference that quotes "party/minority/ civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting" amounts to "incit[ing]... racial tension" and making "a scuffle about intimidation when none has been found," a "dirty trick."

In other words, you've been sucked by Drudge into letting your imagination run away with you.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like the war in Iraq.

Pre-emptive strikes, scare tactics, all that jazz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends if you consider republicans as evil, vile, and anti-american as Saddam or not.

[juanez]

The Democrats are encouraging the initiating of press conferences when no intimidation had been found. I guess we will hear Democrats in press conferences saying something about Republicans commiting voter intimidation whether it has occurred or not.

The Democrat playbook recommends quoting minority leaders denouncing tactics (from Republicans only, right?) at these press conferences and telling "stories" about the threat of the tactics (from Republicans only, right?), EVEN IF NO INTIMIDATION HAS BEEN FOUND.

Why even bring it up if it hasn't been found? It's a non-issue if it has not been found. If it's found, go ahead and make an issue out of it. Don't plan on insinuating there's a Republican voter intimidation issue when you don't even find one. Of course those who are actually found "intimidating" voters should be prosecuted.

Do you think registering to vote 35 different times is fraudulent? The Democrats leadership here apparently does not. They called our Governors statements about those committing voter fraud "voter intimidation", just as the Democrat playbook suggests. Voter fraud is a FELONY. Discouraging voter fraud should be applauded, not spun into some sort of "voter intimidation" screed at a press conference. It's flagrantly dishonest.

[ QUOTE ]
• 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

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all of these for both sides.

[John Feeney]

It seems to me a "pre-emptive strike" just means bringing it up before it happens, pointing out that it has happened before and so trying to prevent it from happening now. Not such a bad idea, I would think. (particularly in areas with such a history) As Chris just pointed out, it doesn't mean falsely reporting inimidation that hasn't happened.

You ask, "if no intimidation was found, what "tactics" would be denounced except fictional ones?"

The answer is any and all such tactics. I really think they're talking about denouncing the practice as it has sometimes happened, not making up false claims.

The Rocky Mountain news article, which has the bit...

"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.'"

...doesn't quote anyone; it only summarizes Davidson's and Owen's statements and provides just two words of the Democrats' response. So there's really no way to assess it without digging further. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing such digging would reveal that the Democrats' compaint was not so far out.

[juanez]

Come on Chris, what I inteded to get accross is that anyone (Dem or Rep) who gets minority leaders to speak at press conferences about voter intimidation when none has been found to actually exist (in other words. it's a lie) is deliberatly inciting racial tension among potential voters in order to gain votes for their party. Yes, I think that's a dirty trick and should be exposed as one.

[juanez]

I'm not trying to be a total c0ck here, but would it offend you if Republicans held a press conference with religious leaders strutting around, squawking about Presidential hopeful John Kerry getting blowj0bs in the oval office and lying about it under oath before it actually happened because it "might" happen at some time in the future? After all, it happened in the past with a Democrat in office, right?

Of course it would be absurd. Just like insinuating that voter intimidation has/is/will occur in Colorado during the upcoming election. And BTW, I have never heard of voter intimidation in Colorado - just fraud by the Democrats (35 registrations for one person? LOL).

If it happens, hold several press conferences and skewer the buttheads that did it. I have no problem with that. Otherwise, don't insinuate that it "might" happen by Republicans unless you admit that it might happen by Democrats as well. To do otherwise is simply dishonest.

[John Feeney]

"Otherwise, don't insinuate that it "might" happen by Republicans unless you admit that it might happen by Democrats as well. To do otherwise is simply dishonest."

I'm not so sure. From what I've read, the practice has been carried out many times in the past by Republicans so as to suppress the black vote since it has traditionally been heavily democrat. I haven't made a study of the history of this sort of intimidation, so I don't know how extensive it's been. But there have certainly been major complaints about it from the NAACP and others. I haven't heard of any significant version of the same thing on the part of Democrats. Even if they wanted to do the same thing, what vote are they going to suppress - the wealthy vote, the white upper middle class and above vote? I'm not sure how they would do that. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not so sure. From what I've read, the practice has been carried out many times in the past by Republicans so as to suppress the black vote since it has traditionally been heavily democrat. I haven't made a study of the history of this sort of intimidation, so I don't know how extensive it's been.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, I don't know, but I believe you have read of such things. I have read things that suggest that the Democrats historically did more of the general suppressing of blacks (not necessarily re. the black vote), and fought the hardest against black civil rights. George Wallace, Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond(?)...anyway even if I am wrong on specifics, much or most of the southern opposition to black civil rights was from the democrats, no?

But this is today, not yesteryear. And I do recall some allegations about more recent somethings about possible voter intimidations in the South, perhaps by Republicans, too.

While we're speaking of today, is there any even remotely recent history of voter intimidation in Colorado?

If there is not, and if there is no current reason to suspect that there will be, then I suggest that the aforementioned grandstanding tactics would be nothing more than a very cheap shot, especially as it would seem to be aimed at one particular political party in Colorado.

[John Feeney]

"anyway even if I am wrong on specifics, much or most of the southern opposition to black civil rights was from the democrats, no?"

Well, I'm not sure how it broke down, but for a very long time I don't think there were very many Southern whites from either party who were championing black civil rights.

"If there is not, and if there is no current reason to suspect that there will be, then I suggest that the aforementioned grandstanding tactics would be nothing more than a very cheap shot, especially as it would seem to be aimed at one particular political party in Colorado."

The document was a "DNC election manual" which, according to Drudge, "is to be distributed in dozens of states." I don't see any indication that it was aimed at Colorado. I don't even see any mention of whether Colorado was one of the states the manual was to be distributed to. It just happened to be reported in a Colorado paper (as well as other papers, I assume).

There was the exchange I mentioned between the Colorado Governor and Seccretary of State and Colorado democrats. But no specifics were given, so I can't assess their alleged resulting complaint of voter intimidation.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone (Dem or Rep) who gets minority leaders to speak at press conferences about voter intimidation when none has been found to actually exist (in other words. it's a lie) is deliberatly inciting racial tension

[/ QUOTE ]
1. Go back to the text. There was nothing overtly racial in the DNC manual. It referred to party leaders, civil rights advocates and minorties as being suitable candidates to address voter intimidation issues. Given the history of intimidating minority voters (e.g., beating and killing them), and of federal legislation enacted specifically to address such problems, putting minority leaders on the list of possible appropriate candidates hardly seems provocative.

2. There's no misunderstanding your position here. You contend that no one should "speak at a press conference about voter intimidation" until the intimidation happens (virtually always after the election is over, when it's too late to do anything about the result). Most people in both parties would find this ridiculous, especially given the historic fact of voter intimidation. Claiming that any discussion of the issue amounts to a "dirty trick" is even more absurd.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe so, I don't know, but I believe you have read of such things. I have read things that suggest that the Democrats historically did more of the general suppressing of blacks (not necessarily re. the black vote), and fought the hardest against black civil rights. George Wallace, Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond(?)...anyway even if I am wrong on specifics, much or most of the southern opposition to black civil rights was from the democrats, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely true. The history traces back to the Civil War as Lincoln was a Republican. What's happened over the years is that many of Southern Democrats changed parties which more or less started with the "Dixiecrat" revolt in 1948. This trend started to accelerate after the 1964 presidential election.

[MMMMMM]

OK, that it isn't targeted to Colorado specifically takes a bit of the sting off, and now I'm wondering about those Republican intimidations which you mentioned and of which I may have read a reference to somewhere.

Guess I'll Google for a few minutes. If it comes up pretty dry then I will assess this "pre-emptive strike" as primarily a cheap shot grandstanding tactic; if the search results appear more weighty then my view will not be so harsh.

[John Feeney]

"Guess I'll Google for a few minutes. If it comes up pretty dry then I will assess this "pre-emptive strike" as primarily a cheap shot grandstanding tactic; if the search results appear more weighty then my view will not be so harsh."

Quite a bit about it here. (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=16368) A recent article about it here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33798-2004Aug25.html)

[MMMMMM]

Well some of that does look bad and some of it doesn't necessarily look so bad.

My view of the "grandstanding" has been modified somewhat, thanks for the links, John. I still suspect they are going to use this "pre-emptive strike" business for not only its own real purpose but also for some cheap-shotting. Awaiting further developments in the next 2 weeks...