"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

[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.