Kerry Cites Voter Intimidation Examples

[Master of Ossus]

This is CNN.

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Many voters in last year's presidential election were denied access to the polls through trickery and intimidation, former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told a voters' group Sunday.

"Last year too many people were denied their right to vote, too many who tried to vote were intimidated," the Massachusetts senator said at an event sponsored by the state League of Women Voters.

"There is no magic wand. No one person is going to stand up and suddenly say it's going to change tomorrow. You have to do that," he said.

Kerry supporters have charged that voting irregularities in largely Democratic areas made it difficult for voters to cast ballots in the November election. A lawsuit in Ohio cited long lines and a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority neighborhoods, but the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the suit.

Kerry also cited examples Sunday of how people were duped into not voting.

"Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote," he said.

Kerry has never disputed the outcome of election, saying voting irregularities did not involve enough votes to change the result. Bush won the pivotal state of Ohio by 118,000 votes, giving him enough electoral votes to win re-election.

Bush supporters have denied using voter intimidation tactics to keep people from going to the polls. A call to the Republican National Committee media office was not immediately returned Sunday.

Earlier this year, Kerry joined Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat, in filing voting reform legislation. The Count Every Vote Act would create a federal holiday for voting, require paper receipts for votes and authorize $500 million to help states upgrade voting systems and equipment.

Congress' investigative agency, the Government Accountability Office, has also begun looking into the handling of provisional ballots and malfunctions of voting machines. The study could lead to changes in the election process.

Kerry, using crutches as he recovers from knee surgery, suggested the United States should spend as much time promoting democracy at home as it does abroad in countries like Iraq.

"We need to go about the business of making our own democracy in America work better," he said.

Alright, now I see that people should have reasonable access to polls, but seriously if you're dumb enough to fall for that "Republicans vote Tuesday, Democrats vote Wednesday" thing then I don't want you voting to elect a President.

[Durandal]

And if you're dumb enough to fall for that "The Earth was created in 6 days by God" thing, I don't want you voting to elect a president. Unfortunately, these people did vote, and they voted Republican. The Democrats' morons should have just as much representation as the Republicans' morons.

[Darth Wong]

If this shit happened to Republicans, we would be unable to escape it. FOXNews would never let it drop, right-wingers would insert it into all manner of totally unrelated discussions and news items and editorials (the way they do now with Clinton's blowjob), Rush Limbaugh would rant about it daily until the end of time, etc.

One thing I've observed about American politics is that despite their "liberal media" bullshit, Republicans are far better at manipulating the media than the Democrats are.

[Keevan_Colton]

One thing I've observed about American politics is that despite their "liberal media" bullshit, Republicans are far better at manipulating the media than the Democrats are.

That one's easy to explain, most journalists are left wing, most editors are right wing...who has more say over what actually goes out?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

If this shit happened to Republicans, we would be unable to escape it. FOXNews would never let it drop, right-wingers would insert it into all manner of totally unrelated discussions and news items and editorials (the way they do now with Clinton's blowjob), Rush Limbaugh would rant about it daily until the end of time, etc.

One thing I've observed about American politics is that despite their "liberal media" bullshit, Republicans are far better at manipulating the media than the Democrats are.

The "Liberal Media" myth exists because in fact the media is actually profoundly conservative as well as being bought and paid for by the Right-Wingnuts ruling this country. Plus the fact that the wingnuts pander to the stupid side of the bell curve with their sweet-tasting sugarcoated prechewed easy-to-understand logical fallacies, propaganda, and blatant lies while we're stuck with Brussels-sproutsesque big words, flawless debate tactics, use of context and evidence, and good old-fashioned LOGIC; all of which makes utterly no sense to anyone under a 90 IQ is a very big hindrance to getting our message across to the willfully uninformed dumbasses who listen to and vote for the Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots, Osama Bin Ladens, and George Dubyas of the world...

[Knife]

One thing I've observed about American politics is that despite their "liberal media" bullshit, Republicans are far better at manipulating the media than the Democrats are.

That one's easy to explain, most journalists are left wing, most editors are right wing...who has more say over what actually goes out?

I think it has more to do with the libs having a good ~40 year run at power in the States and they got lazy and secure, and for the last 10 years have refused to see that their getting they ass's kicked in PR and politics in general.

They're stuck in the mind set of 40 years ago and still go with it while the Conservs are out manuvering them. Granted, I'm a conservative, but even I want an active opposition to keep the powermongers in each side in check.

[tharkûn]

"Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote," he said.

The leaflets sounds more like a gag than intimidation. The parking ticket is more odious. Sometimes these things are nothing more than young people dicking around for kicks, and voter reform is never going to remove that behaviour from society. The solution would of course be voter education, but that unfortunately hasn't been working for the last 40 years.

[Glocksman]

The thing to remember is that Kerry is merely playing to his base.

In reality, neither party has any real interest in reforming the voting system as they both benefit from the current state of affairs.

Sure the Democrats would like to make it easier for anyone (including the dead in certain areas )to vote but have no interest at all (the Dems in my state legislature walked out to keep a voter ID law from being passed) in fraud prevention measures like a simple requirement to show a photo ID before voting.

The Republicans would like to implement some fraud prevention requirements but have no interest at all in increasing turnout levels, especially among minorities.


With this in mind, I'd like to award Kerry the Captain Louis Renault 'Shocked' award for hypocrisy.

[Glocksman]

Oh yeah, and as far as 'voter intimidation' goes, what about that thing in Wisconsin where the son of a prominent Democrat slashed the tires of vans that the Republicans were going to use to transport voters to the polls?

This kind of juvenile horseshit goes on all the time with both parties and Kerry's 'who struck John' act is a little tired if the best he can come up with are the old 'voting days' and 'parking tickets' schticks.

[Axis Kast]

Where's your evidence of a conservative media slant?

Conservatives may dominate radio, and FOX News may be gaining in television ratings, but most print and televised media remains demonstrably liberal.

The New York Times is unabashed about its spin. Same for the Los Angeles Times. And let's not forget MSNBC and ABC. Dan Rather? Walter Cronkite was a liberal, too.

[The Dark]

Where's your evidence of a conservative media slant?

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447 . Journalists tend to be much rosier about the economy than the common people, are anti-growth for Medicare and Social Security, are less critical of big business than the general public, much less likely to approve of progressive tax programs, more supportive of NAFTA, and against federalized health care. The only issue in which they are demonstrably more liberal than Joe Q. Public is environmental laws.

http://www.independent.com/cover/Cover953.htm contains an interview with Bill Moyers. He cites a study that one-third of journalists have been ordered to squash stories "offensive to the clientele of their corporate bosses."

Then there was the treatment of the Swift Boat Veterans. Even when explicitly caught in a lie by the Washington Post, the New York Post continued to run their story. As did the Wall Street Journal. The Washington Times reported the Washington Post's findings, and continued to report the SBV's claims as well. Their editor tried to claim the Post was acting dishonestly to help Kerry's reputation. The Weekly Standard claimed it came down to "Kerry's word versus his opponents'," ignoring that there was eyewitness evidence cited in after-action reports (as reported by the Post). Fox News predictably failed to mention the new findings.

[Lord Zentei]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447 . Journalists tend to be much rosier about the economy than the common people, are anti-growth for Medicare and Social Security, are less critical of big business than the general public, much less likely to approve of progressive tax programs, more supportive of NAFTA, and against federalized health care. The only issue in which they are demonstrably more liberal than Joe Q. Public is environmental laws.

Of course it is a national pastime in America as elsewhere to dis the economy, free trade and evil corporations. This bit should be taken with a pinch of salt. As for your other comments, no objections.

http://www.independent.com/cover/Cover953.htm contains an interview with Bill Moyers. He cites a study that one-third of journalists have been ordered to squash stories "offensive to the clientele of their corporate bosses."

Ugh.

Then there was the treatment of the Swift Boat Veterans. Even when explicitly caught in a lie by the Washington Post, the New York Post continued to run their story. As did the Wall Street Journal. The Washington Times reported the Washington Post's findings, and continued to report the SBV's claims as well. Their editor tried to claim the Post was acting dishonestly to help Kerry's reputation. The Weekly Standard claimed it came down to "Kerry's word versus his opponents'," ignoring that there was eyewitness evidence cited in after-action reports (as reported by the Post). Fox News predictably failed to mention the new findings.

An anecdote, though that is of course no excuse for dishonesty. As I recall Dan Rather wasn't completely honest during the elections either.

[The Dark]

An anecdote, though that is of course no excuse for dishonesty. As I recall Dan Rather wasn't completely honest during the elections either.

True. I haven't seen O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes, Smith, Hume, Gibson, or Dhue "resign" because of their dishonesty, though. Or Wesley Pruden, for that matter. *shrug*

[Tommy J]

An anecdote, though that is of course no excuse for dishonesty. As I recall Dan Rather wasn't completely honest during the elections either.

True. I haven't seen O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes, Smith, Hume, Gibson, or Dhue "resign" because of their dishonesty, though. Or Wesley Pruden, for that matter. *shrug*

If a reporter admits his/her bias upfront and then reports from that position I don't think that's intellectually dishonest to the viewers eg. O'Reilly. Fox can say over and over they are fair and balanced but the viewer understands their bias in advance regardless.

However, if Dan Rather, Tom Brokow [now Brian Williams], Peter Jennings et al claim to be completely objective and then are not, [Rather with the Bush military investigation] that's something different. Also remember that CNN and Fox do not use the public air-waves while CBS, NBC, ABC etc. do.

[Lord Zentei]

Using shaky or erronous evidence to publically attack the character of a person regardless of whether you claim to be "fair and balanced" or not is dishonest IMO. Though of course it becomes worse if you do claim to be "fair and balanced" while doing so (there you have false advertisement in addition to dishonesty).

To his credit Dan Rather resigned in the wake of all that, though he clearly reied to hide the truth for a while first. And ironically it was O'Reilly who later defended him.

[Tommy J]

Using shaky or erronous evidence to publically attack the character of a person regardless of whether you claim to be "fair and balanced" or not is dishonest IMO. Though of course it becomes worse if you do claim to be "fair and balanced" while doing so (there you have false advertisement in addition to dishonesty).

Again, Fox can say that God communicates directly to them if they want and HBO can say it's as reliable as Reuters in terms of news gathering. The rules regarding Cable programming don't apply the same as to the use of the public airwaves.

[Lord Zentei]

Using shaky or erronous evidence to publically attack the character of a person regardless of whether you claim to be "fair and balanced" or not is dishonest IMO. Though of course it becomes worse if you do claim to be "fair and balanced" while doing so (there you have false advertisement in addition to dishonesty).

Again, Fox can say that God communicates directly to them if they want and HBO can say it's as reliable as Reuters in terms of news gathering. The rules regarding Cable programming don't apply the same as to the use of the public airwaves.

I was referring to ethics, not the law.

[Durandal]

An anecdote, though that is of course no excuse for dishonesty. As I recall Dan Rather wasn't completely honest during the elections either.

True. I haven't seen O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes, Smith, Hume, Gibson, or Dhue "resign" because of their dishonesty, though. Or Wesley Pruden, for that matter. *shrug*

If a reporter admits his/her bias upfront and then reports from that position I don't think that's intellectually dishonest to the viewers eg. O'Reilly. Fox can say over and over they are fair and balanced but the viewer understands their bias in advance regardless.

However, if Dan Rather, Tom Brokow [now Brian Williams], Peter Jennings et al claim to be completely objective and then are not, [Rather with the Bush military investigation] that's something different. Also remember that CNN and Fox do not use the public air-waves while CBS, NBC, ABC etc. do.

Wait, wait wait ... you're telling me that it's okay for Fox News to be dishonest because we should expect that from Fox News, while other news networks do not get this leeway? Are you on fucking drugs?

[Crossroads Inc.]

Wait, wait wait ... you're telling me that it's okay for Fox News to be dishonest because we should expect that from Fox News, while other news networks do not get this leeway? Are you on fucking drugs?

Yes,

Thats basically how Fox and others defend theselves when you hear them.

"It doesn't matter if what were saying BullCrap, because you should expect that from us"

[Keevan_Colton]

Fox, who won a court case on the grounds that it is not illegal to lie in the news.

Charming people really...so, because Fox are liars, it's okay for them to lie, but if anyone else does it, it's awful...

Sometimes Tommy, I wonder what the fuck happened to your brain and what it is that allows you to type without one.

[Stark]

Hang on - is Glocksman serious? Do you not have to provide photo ID to vote? Not even a drivers license or something? That's nuts.

[Darth Wong]

most print and televised media remains demonstrably liberal.

Wow, such an unexpected comment from our resident long-winded knee-jerk right-wing mouthpiece. Tell me, what are your test criteria for the label "demonstrably liberal"?

[Keevan_Colton]

Hang on - is Glocksman serious? Do you not have to provide photo ID to vote? Not even a drivers license or something? That's nuts.

Not entirely. What if you dont drive?

Passport? What if you dont have one of those?

Unless you have a national ID card (try getting that in the US) then you run into the problem of what phot ID will people need?

[Keevan_Colton]

most print and televised media remains demonstrably liberal.

Wow, such an unexpected comment from our resident long-winded knee-jerk right-wing mouthpiece. Tell me, what are your test criteria for the label "demonstrably liberal"?

Not right wing enough I'd wager...

Compare even the most liberal news media in the US to something like the BBC and you'll find it coming up more conservative...and I'd be willing to lay money on it being more than 4 times out of 5 that way.

[Master of Ossus]

Hang on - is Glocksman serious? Do you not have to provide photo ID to vote? Not even a drivers license or something? That's nuts.

Not entirely. What if you dont drive?

Passport? What if you dont have one of those?

Unless you have a national ID card (try getting that in the US) then you run into the problem of what phot ID will people need?

That's absurd. Every state's DMV has a state-identity card which they're happy to issue for a nominal fee (I think in CA it's $2).