Quote:
Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I posted on this previously. As you may have noticed, it starts at #2. As little as you think of the Dems intellectual capability, they are surely smart enough to start numbering at #1. This leads me to conclude that something may be missing that would have provided additional context.
As to what is there, I don't see what you find so insidious. There has been evidence of voter intimidation in some areas in the past. Much of this has been directed at demographics who traditionally vote dem. Do you expect them to not prepare for it?
eta The GAO has issued a report stating that the DOJ "has not established procedures for documenting voting irregularities or voter intimidation, and has no clearcut policy for responding to such allegations." http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...d_041014213734
You'd think after 2000 that Ashcroft would have spent a little more time dealing with this and a little less time and taxpayer money covering the boobs of statuary. After all, we don't want this to be a banana republic election, do we?
|
As you would have noticed had you clicked the link, #1 is on the website.
What is so incidious is that they are mapping out a strategy to claim voter intimidation
even if none exists.
Quote:
|
If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" . . .
|
The other curious thing is that they use the word "yet" as if it's inevitable. This coupled with the not so quiet stoking of the myth of black disenfranchisement is WAY out of bounds. It is absolutely reprehensible.
