Saturday, March 31, 2012

Re: Opinion: Suppress the Vote!

Can you cite any examples Tom?
 
I can give you a dozen just off the top of my head, where socialists stole an election; the first one that comes to mind is that communist Al Franken in Minnesota, and how he and the Democratic Party stole that election,  plain and simple.

 

Tom,  I dare you to watch this video:
 


On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
False.

Voter surpression comes from the right wingnuts and GOP, and serves to
prevent Democrats, minorities, and the poor from voting.

The agenda is Republican skewed election rigging.

On Mar 30, 2:24 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Lil' Moonbat Tommy cut and pasted:
>
> *"There is one pointed difference in the behavior we can expect from the
> two sides in the general election. Whereas liberal groups have generally
> been interested in increasing voter turnout, conservatives have tended to
> want to suppress it."*
> **
> *============*
> **
> Hardly.   What conservatives demand, is that American nationals over the
> age of 18 cast one vote.  This is the big distinction, as socialist
> elitists with a far left Anti-American agenda realize that they are in the
> minority, and the only way that they can win an election, is by only one of
> two ways:
>
> (1)  Gerrymandering the voting districts thereby rigging a geo-political
> region to where a large proportion of  Moonbats are within the
> gerrymandered region; and/or:
>
> (2)  By any means possible,  to include voter intimidation, and  voter
> fraud.
>
> Wacko Left, Socialist-Elitist Moonbats hate this!  Thus, the reason for the
> nasty hateful prevaricate, yet vociferous outcry!
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Suppress the Vote!
> > By JIM ARKEDIS and LINDSAY MARK LEWIS
> > The grip of the super PAC on the Republican primary season has been
> > well-documented. They are wrecking balls operating outside the
> > candidates' direct control, fueled by massive influxes of cash from a
> > handful of wealthy patrons. The millions spent by the pro-Santorum
> > Red, White and Blue Fund and the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our
> > Future, have prolonged their respective candidates' rivalry with the
> > front-runner, Mitt Romney, whose own Restore Our Future has bludgeoned
> > the competition from Iowa to Florida to Michigan.
>
> > And that's just the start. In the general election, super PACs will
> > evolve into full-blown shadow campaigns. This transition is already
> > underway, with the super PACs supporting Republican candidates
> > beginning to take on voter persuasion operations — like sending direct
> > mail and making phone calls — that have traditionally been reserved
> > for a campaign operation or party committee.
>
> > The phenomenon won't be isolated on the right. President Obama
> > recently embraced the outside groups that he had rejected, saying that
> > he would not unilaterally disarm. The president has dispatched one of
> > his most trusted aides to run Priorities USA, the White House's super
> > PAC of choice.
>
> > There is one pointed difference in the behavior we can expect from the
> > two sides in the general election. Whereas liberal groups have
> > generally been interested in increasing voter turnout, conservatives
> > have tended to want to suppress it.
>
> > In the general election, right wing groups may try to use super PACs
> > to affect the vote in this fall's election. And if we fail to
> > recognize super PACs' enormous potential to suppress voting before it
> > happens — and don't regulate them appropriately — millions of
> > Americans could be disenfranchised on Nov. 6, 2012.
>
> > Who Votes?
> > A series about the complexities of voters and voting.
> > Super PACs are the perfect vehicle for voter suppression, thanks to
> > two crucial advantages they have over traditional campaigns. First,
> > they operate in a legal black hole of opaque disclosure requirements
> > that allows them to disguise their activities. Second, a candidate's
> > campaign is shielded from a super PACs' duplicitous actions by a legal
> > firewall that prevents coordination between the two entities. These
> > features afford a super PAC plausible deniability: they can suppress
> > the vote while claiming to have done something else, and the candidate
> > can easily disavow a super PAC's actions.
>
> > Check out Restore Our Future's filings with the Federal Election
> > Commission, and it's easy to see how vague terms could mask reality.
> > While a super PAC must fill out a form for every expenditure, each can
> > be classified as "voter communication," "media production," or "direct
> > mail."
>
> > The devil is in what those terms might be hiding. "Voter
> > communication" could actually be a robocall that targets African
> > Americans, reassuring them that Obama has the election in the bag. A
> > "direct mail" piece sent to senior citizens' homes might encourage
> > them to vote on Wednesday, Nov. 7, just 24 hours too late.
>
> > This isn't just something we dreamed up. For decades conservative
> > groups have proven that voter suppression is cheap and effective: It
> > cost just a few thousand dollars for Allen Raymond, a Republican
> > operative, to make harrassing calls, jamming New Hampshire Democratic
> > Party phone lines during the 2002 Congressional campaigns, for which
> > he spent three months in prison; in 2006, the Republican National
> > Committee paid for fliers in Virginia that told African Americans to
> > "skip this vote;" Paul Schurick, an aide to former Republican Maryland
> > Governor Robert Ehrlich was convicted of using robocalls that told
> > African Americans not to vote in 2010.
>
> > Should a super PAC get caught doing something like this, its legal
> > separation from a campaign means the crime could never drag down a
> > candidate or party. "Yes, I'm aware of the allegations against
> > Cornering Our Future," a candidate might explain, "but as you know, my
> > campaign cannot coordinate its activities with a super PAC, so I
> > consider the matter closed."
>
> > And the candidate would be legally correct.
>
> > These are also key differences in accountability. When a candidate or
> > national party runs an ad, sends mail or makes a phone call, those
> > responsible for the activity are relatively easy to find and
> > investigate. Even in that context, hundreds of irregularities take
> > place every election cycle.
>
> > More importantly, parties and candidates have reputations to protect,
> > and want to live on to fight another day. Not so for a super PAC.
> > Terminating one is easy: its officers file a notice with the F.E.C.,
> > which then certifies that it has ceased operation. The super PAC's
> > only requirement is to maintain copies of its records for three years.
>
> > That's why most super PACs will disappear on the morning after the
> > votes are counted. There is little incentive to observe election laws
> > if you can just close up shop.
>
> > The rise of the super PAC parallels a subtle but concerted effort by
> > conservative groups to suppress the vote, which are disguised as
> > efforts to defeat exceedingly rare voter fraud. A 2011 study by
> > N.Y.U.'s Brennan Center found that 14 Republican-dominated states have
> > approved new legislation requiring higher standards for voter
> > identification. The center estimates that five million people could
> > find it more difficult to vote this year.
>
> > There's a close connection between these efforts and super PAC
> > funders, too. In some 30 cases, state lawmakers received model "voter
> > fraud" legislation from a conservative networking group called the
> > American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC has received funding from
> > Koch Industries, which is run by the conservative siblings of the same
> > name who have reportedly pledged $60 million to defeat President Obama
> > this fall. Given donation restrictions to campaigns, much of that
> > money would have to go to super PACs.
>
> > Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated Press
> > At a news conference in Trenton in November 1993, New Jersey
> > Governor-elect Christie Whitman defended her campaign against
> > accusations of voter suppression.
> > An infamous case from the recent past serves as a cautionary tale. In
> > 1993, Christine Todd Whitman defeated incumbent New Jersey Governor
> > Jim Florio to become the first female Republican governor in American
> > history. She squeaked through by one percent, overcoming a deficit of
> > some nine points in the final week of the campaign.
>
> > But in the days following the election, long-time Republican operative
> > and Whitman campaign manager Ed Rollins did something truly bizarre:
> > he started bragging about his secret weapon, suppressing the
> > (presumably Democratic) vote.
>
> > With just $500,000 in hand, Rollins — who worked for Michele Bachmann
> > in this year's Republican primary — was shockingly frank in a 1993
> > Times article about how he instructed grassroots organizers to
> > approach ministers at African American churches, then as now centers
> > of political gravity for black get-out-the-vote efforts. In return for
> > sizable contributions to a minister's favorite project, all church
> > leaders had to do was not mention the election from the pulpit.
>
> > New Jersey and other states have a long-standing practice of handing
> > out "walking around money," a few bucks to cover transportation and
> > lunch for campaign workers on election day. Rollins contacted a key
> > few Florio get-out-the-vote workers and offered to match it, provided
> > they just sit home and watch TV.
>
> > How many votes did Rollins suppress? We'll never truly know of course,
> > but Florio lost the election by just 26,000, a pittance in an election
> > in which almost 2.5 million votes were cast. That's 1.05 percent.
>
> > The Whitman campaign immediately went on the defensive, issuing
> > denials and trying to insulate the candidate from Rollins's
> > activities. Michael Chertoff, then the U.S. attorney for the district
> > of New Jersey and later George W. Bush's Secretary of Homeland
> > Security, launched an investigation into Whitman's campaign that
> > eventually cleared her, just days before her inauguration.
>
> > Chertoff did acknowledge that some money had been paid to Democrats,
> > but cast the issue as one of free speech, pointing out that members of
> > a political party shouldn't be required to support only its
> > candidates.
>
> > More telling is Chertoff's opinion of the spirit of Rollins'
> > wrongdoing. Chertoff cautioned aspiring political consultants who
> > "play tricks and cut corners" that "that's a very sad outcome, and if
> > they take that message to heart they will
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

No comments:

Post a Comment