« Things that make you go "WRONG ANSWER, MOONBAT!" | Main | Halloween Mix, Volume 4 »

Doing My Part to Keep "Banana" Out of Republic

[Just a couple more things on my mind before I get down to the business of talking smack on the Red Sox] By now, everyone has read and/or linked to Stephen Green's post on why he's voting straight Republican. I'm with Stephen. A couple of weeks ago - right after the first debate, in fact - I said I wouldn't set myself on fire if Kerry won. A lot can change in a short time. Just yesterday my son asked what I would do if Bush lost the election and I replied "set myself on fire." Then I had to explain to him what "metaphorically speaking" means. I actually wrote one of my usual novel-length commentaries on this subject. Seven paragraphs of anger tinged with resignation, sauteed in sadness, basted in rage.....something like that. I put those paragraphs away in a folder somewhere because Stephen said it so perfectly. bq. I'm going to vote Republican straight down the line. If I have to punish a couple of local Democrats I'm fond of, then so be it, but I have to try to get a point across: The national Democratic Party is bad for this country. Read the rest if you haven't.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Doing My Part to Keep "Banana" Out of Republic:

» Voting Right from The Black Republican
Americans must stand to defend their country with the most potent weapon they own - their vote. [Read More]


"State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd "investigation" that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November.
The officers, from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March.
Officials refused to discuss details of the investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots are involved. They said they had no idea when the investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may continue right through the presidential election.
I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to tell me what criminal activity had taken place.
"I can't talk about that," he said.
I asked if all the people interrogated were black.
"Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were looking at - yes,'' he said.
He also said, "Most of them were elderly."
When I asked why, he said, "That's just the people we selected out of a random sample to interview"
Joseph Egan, an Orlando lawyer who represents Mr. Thomas, said: "The Voters League has workers who go into the community to do voter registration, drive people to the polls and help with absentee ballots. They are elderly women mostly. They get paid like $100 for four or five months' work, just to offset things like the cost of their gas. They see this political activity as an important contribution to their community. Some of the people in the community had never cast a ballot until the league came to their door and encouraged them to vote."
Now, said Mr. Egan, the fear generated by state police officers going into people's homes as part of an ongoing criminal investigation related to voting is threatening to undo much of the good work of the league. He said, "One woman asked me, 'Am I going to go to jail now because I voted by absentee ballot?' "

Just so I'm clear on this, if I educate my son about his right to vote and how he shouldn't fall for voter intimidation scams when he is not currently being the victim of such a scam, I'm turning this country into a banana republic? Note that although I'm sure the Democrats are only warning about "Republican" scams, the fact is that anyone of any intelligence what-so-ever should be able to apply that knowledge regardless of the source. If the Democrats are, as Mr. Green claims, so much better at stealing elections, aren't they shooting themselves in the foot? We also get a new definition of chutzpah: Republicans complaining about Florida in 2000.

As a side note: the UN is controlled by the USA, China, France, Russia and the UK. These are the "world's most brutal dictatorships"? How can you complain that both parties are pulling election dirty tricks and then complain about international observers for the election?

If you're going to have a banana republic, mash reese's peanut butter cups into the banana.

Tastes wonderful. It's been my breakfast for a few days now. If Jason were in today instead of getting his tooth worked on, he'd have snapped a picture of me with a banana and a peanut butter cup by now.

Too bad Mr. Green's screeding about nothing (My God! Press releases! The horror!)... but I realize that 300 comments and 70 track-backs later, one can't easily admit to be suckered by a bad, context-less Drudge Report cut n' paste job.

Excuse me...

Falsely charging voter intimidation where none exists in order to lay the groundwork for lawsuits is "nothing", norbiz??

Yeah, sure...like gunshots into Republican HQ's and breaking the arm of a Republican volunteer because he had the temerity to resist a righteous Democrat invasion and vandalism gang into the Republican HQ are no big thing. Nothing to report, no trend here, move along.

Good lord, I'm not young and I've NEVER seen this level of outright viciousness and blatant aggitating that ANY possible win by GW will be met with not only lawsuits but with lies and "armed resistence." The DNC election manual underlines the fact that this "at any cost" mindset is being touted from the highest levels of the campaign.

As much as I'm a registered Republican and conservative (in the grand tradition of modern conservatism that is also known as classical liberalism), I don't want the political landscape 100% the Republican Party nor do I want government that way either. However, I want a vibrant and LOYAL opposition to debate, argue and sharpen my skills against.

The Democratic Party of today needs a huge spanking at the polls for this crap. Just as the Republicans have had in the past. The Democratic Party needs serious reform, or it needs to cease to exist and new LOYAL AMERICAN party to rise in its place. The DNC has pissed away (and on) the tradition of the real JFK and driven away people like Dennis Prager and Zell Miller.

The Left cannot win through persuasian, so it will go through litigation and/or violence.

A pox on everyone of you that supports or excuses such tactics.

Will any of you Republican voters hold the Republican controlled House, Republican controlled Senate, Republican controlled Supreme Court and Republican controlled White House accountable for the state of the Union a few years from now? Let's say Bush gets elected and the Republicans take a few more seats on the House and Senate. Terrorists smuggle a dirty bomb into the U.S. made from radioactive materials obtained from unguarded nuclear sites in Iraq, detonate it in Times Square, and kill 10,000 Americans.

Will you hold Bush accountable? Or will you continue to blame it all on "appeasement" Democrats?

Darleen: To prevent this from spinning off into the ionosphere, I will simply reiterate that the badly excerpted pamphlet on the Drudge Report story does not mention lawsuits. It also mentions nothing about actually alleging voter intimidation where none exists. It involves press releases and media strategies. Let's evince some level of sophistication and remember that huge, corporate political parties actually work the press.

Where you imagine that my vanilla statement expresses apologeia for violence directed at GOP campaign sites or 'armed resistance' is really more your issue than mine.


Once again, your comment is absurd. Republicans will hold whoever is responsible responsible.

Ignore Brad. He deals strictly in absurdities.

But Republicans hold Clinton responsible for Sept 11. Right?

How about this absurdity: say Bush gets elected, he stays the course in Iraq, and 3 years from now there are still 100,000+ U.S. troops and it's still chaos. Will you hold Bush accountable? or will you blame the Iraqis for "not being able to handle democracy?"

I think that's a legitimate question.

No, it's not a legitimate question because you're peering into your crystal ball and making up these wild scenarios. I'll let you know if/when we get there.

I hold everyone responsible for 9/11, from Carter down to Bush and that includes Clinton but doesn't exclude anyone else.

Stick it, Brad.


Is English your first language? If not, DO look up the word "pre-empt" and re-read the phrase If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a “pre-emptive strike”

What is it about CHARGING VOTER INTIMIDATION WHERE NON EXISTS that you are not getting here?

Earth to Brad

Republicans (and other non-Leftists) hold the ISLAMOFACISTS that drove the planes into the buildings on 9/11 responsible. And we recognize that unless we keep the pressure on this deathcult ideology, unless we move forward rather than "go back to where it was a nuisance" we will get more of the same.


If that happens, we'll replace those old-and-tired Republicans with new-and-vibrant Republicans.

One does not replace a burnt-out light bulb with a candle shoved into the socket.

Bush sure looked old and tired in those debates, didn't he?

Michele, have you read the update on Fitzhugh? You know he's denied those flyers were his.



Well he did in the first one... having spent the better part of even THAT day trudging through hurrican devestation doing his job while Kerry was having his mantan fixed and his nails buffed.

Leftists are becoming quite vile in this election campaign. My children are learning firsthand why their father is no longer a leftist.

Of course they would destroy the country to gain power. Once I thought the same stupid way. But I grew up.

You want vile? What about Sproul & Associates--a company hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters, destroying Democrat voter registrations and sparking a criminal investigation?

and how about this guy:


Maybe I should have made some of the text from the excerpt above bold, but none of you are acknowledging the fact that police officers under the direction of Jeb Bush, a Republican, are intimidating voters in Florida.
I guess you all just overlooked that part, because really, Republicans can do no wrong in your book. It's always the Democrats who're to blame.

To Brad: If terrorists smuggle a dirty bomb into the U.S. made from radioactive materials obtained from unguarded nuclear sites in Iraq, detonate it in Times Square, and kill 10,000 Americans, I intend to lay the blame squarly on John Fuckin Kerry, who has done everything imaginable to keep his terrorist allies in the headlines throughout this election.

Every time John Kerry says "Iraq is a mess" another truck bomb goes off ... I'm quite sure this little factoid has escaped you.

If my kid is anywhere around when it goes off ... well, I'll let you imagine just how I'll get my retribution.

Wow, Michele, you really rattled the moonbat cage.

Msquasred, they're investigating vote fraud. They're not intimidating. No one is telling people not to vote. What they are doing is checking into irregularities concerning absentee ballots--I believe it revolves around absentee ballots being sent in for people who showed up at the polling place on election day.

And, like most vote fraud, a Democrat is at the heart of it.

anonymous--your comment deserves ignoring, but the sheer illogic of it should alarm anyone with a brain.

"Good lord, I'm not young and I've NEVER seen this level of outright viciousness and blatant aggitating that ANY possible win by GW will be met with not only lawsuits but with lies and "armed resistence.""

Then I guess you weren't paying attention in 2000 when Bush's campaign did far worse. Or you haven't been paying attention to the GOP's current tactics around the country, which -- contrary to the BS put out by Bush backers -- include:

  • Physical assaults
  • Vandalization of Democratic campaign offices
  • Systematic attempts to keep likely-Dem voters off the rolls by falsely classifying them as felons and then making them go through significant hurdles to "prove" they have the right to vote
  • Sending people to the homes of minorities to intimidate them into not voting
  • Calling newly-registered voters on the phone and telling them that their registrations weren't valid so they shouldn't bother to show up at the polls
  • Hiring "phone bombers" to bog down the phones at Democratic "get out the vote" offices (a 2000 tactic)
  • Registering thousands of new voters but illegally shredding and tossing those that were Democratic
  • Trying to disqualify likely-Dem voter registrations because they were printed on paper that wasn't the right weight
  • Trying to throw out likely-Dem registrations because a "citizen" box wasn't checked even though all the new voters signed a citizenship paper attached to the registration form
  • And so on, and so on, and so on.

The Democratic party is simply trying to ENSURE that people who have the RIGHT to vote GET to vote. The GOP is determined to keep anyone who might not vote for Bush away from the polls.

Only a complete idiot, or someone on the Bush payroll, would claim that the Democrats are doing anything REMOTELY similar, or even "bad." It's called democracy. The Democrats are for it; the GOP is not. The Bush campaign knows that the more people who vote, the worse Bush chances at winning. Their only hope is that democracy doesn't prevail. It's sickening, and if those who are whining about this alleged "DNC memo" had ANY decency or credibility, they'd be taking the GOP to task for their horrible record on voting rights.

I won't hold my breath, though.

Yes MD, I got my Rovian paycheck yesterday

carry on with your delusions (and that's being charitable about your list)


Is English your first language? If not, DO look up the word "pre-empt" and re-read the phrase If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a “pre-emptive strike”

Well, let's do a little research for those of us wondering if it's reasonable to call educating people about voter intimidation scams a preemptive strike using the English language:

In his opening remarks, NIDA Director Dr. Alan I. Leshner cited figures from national drug abuse surveys and surveillance systems that show heroin use increasing during the 1990s, particularly among people ranging in age from 12 to 26. "Today, we are launching a preemptive strike to halt this trend before it can become a crisis," Dr. Leshner said. His call to action was echoed by Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Donna E. Shalala and by General Barry McCaffrey, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, in their keynote speeches. - NIDA Notes

Do you think Dr. Leshner, Dr. Shalala, and General McCaffrey are calling for us to falsly accuse 12-26 year olds of using heroin?

Brouwer's subjects also mentioned more personal reasons for getting an AIDS tattoo. It makes a preemptive strike against social rejection, for example, disclosing the wearer's HIV status to potential partners up front and screening out those who might be scared off by the illness. - Psychology Today

A tattoo can be a "preemptive strike" against social rejection? Why, that's shocking! Clearly the staff of Psychology Today don't know English.

Conclusion: "preemptive strike" does not imply a false charge. It is quite reasonable, especially if you read the next few paragraphs of that pamphlet, that any reasonable person (ie someone who isn't looking for to gin up phony outrage for partisian gain) should reach the conclusion that they are talking about educating people about their voting rights and the potential for voter intimidation scams. Clearly, they are going to bring up only Republican example cases, but the general principle should be applicable to any voting scam regardless of party. The Republicans in my area are currently doing the same thing to educate voters about Democratic dirty tricks, just as they have been for as long as I can remember. Making it hard to decieve the electorate is a good thing for democracy.

"Pre-emptive strike" can be read in a lot of ways, true. But frankly, the steps outlined immediately after the phrase is used do sound an awful lot like alleging voter intimidation whether it exists or not; if not a legal accusation, certainly a press smear campaign. (Legally, that would be libel, not that it would ever be prosecuted.)

I read the DNC's response to Drudge, including the entire text, and it still looks that way to me in context as well as out. The gist of the DNC's response seems to be not that Drudge was wrong because that's not what they planned to do but that it was OK because OBVIOUSLY the Republicans are going to use voter intimidation tactics and no possible scenario exists where they won't.

And I'm not much impressed either by the "I know you are but what am I" defense. I'm ANGRY when I read about voter fraud cases that involve Republicans. I want these lowlifes the hell off my team. Why is the response here "Yeah, but it's OK because your guys are so much worse"?


Here is the complete definition of the preemptive strike, which comes directly after the drudge quote (numbered by me) from the DNC response that I can't link to here:

1) Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state

2) Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting

3) Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points

4) Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics

5) 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

6) Train field staff, precinct workers, and your own poll watchers thoroughly in the rules they need to know for election day.

7) Plan and completely prepare for possible legal action well in advance of election day

8) Have Secretary of State record public service announcements about election day – when polls are open, who is eligible, etc.

Please tell me which of these statements you can twist to mean "falsely charge the Republicans with intimidating votes right now." Also, please consider that if you replace "Republican" with "Democrat" and "minority" with "farmer/rancher," the Republicans in my state have been doing every single one of these with no objection from anyone for the past 30 years. I consider it to be an excellent public service and just a generally good idea. I volunteered to help with one of these outreach campaigns in support of Dole in '96 and found quite a number of otherwise sensible people who'd been "told by a neighbor that if I vote, the durn state will reassess my ranch for durn higher property taxes," etc.

The fact is, quite often their are unethical people on either side who try to suppress voting from demographics that favor their opponents. In a perfect world each party would do this sort of thing with a fair assessment of their own past mistakes as well as those of the opposition. I find that to be an unrealistic expectation for the United States today. However, most normal folks I know have no trouble applying a lesson about voting rights, regardless of the source, equally to scammers of either stripe. Usually the problems comes not from being informed by a Democrat or by a Republican, but from not being informed at all.

The red flags for me are numbers 3, 4, and 7. They are rather open to interpretation, to say the least. Maybe they wouldn't be red flags before the 2000 election and in an election year where things hadn't already gotten so ugly, but here and now they make it look as if the Democratic party is getting ready to go through the election kicking and screaming.

I agree both parties have people willing to play dirty. What I've seen this year is some dirty play by Republicans and a LOT by Democrats; for every voter-fraud story I see implicating a Republican group, I see three involving a Democratic group. This is the other reason that pamphlet disturbs me; taken all together it looks like the party leadership is engaging in more egging-on than reining-in.

You know why you "place" stories about voter intimidation even when it hasn't taken place?

You're creating a paper trail, albeit a false one, on which to file a lawsuit, or institute a criminal investigation. And if the suit fails, you just keep up the mythmongering that it DID take place and the election was "stolen." See Florida which every official criminal investigation found NO evidence of any criminal activity..yet we still get the myths of "One Million Blacks Disenfranchised!" et al.

I have NO tolerance for ANY of this crap. From the beginning, on my own blog, I called BOTH sides indecent for all such tactics INCLUDING sign stealing. There's ONE investigation into registration fraud by one private company and IF the allegations are true (and we are dealing with a disgruntled ex-employee) then the company should be hammered, and hammered HARD as an example to others.

However, as LabRat states, this is not a situation of tit-for-tat. This is not a situation where a few bad apples here and there are creating problems. Not one Republican is defending Sproul. I certainly hope Dems are not trying to defend ACORN.

The Repulicans think "pre-emptive" means using trumped up or false charges to take action, because that's the model the WH gave them with the pre-emptive strike on Iraq.

I'm so glad Texas has been redistricted to add more Republicans to the House.

And all of you on the other side freaking out over the post. Fix Terence McAuliffe and we'll talk. Till then, I pull the red handle.

Actually, Brad, it's far more likely that terrorists will smuggle weaponized anthrax or VX smuggled out of Iraq thru Syria in the year we were "rushing to war" by dicking around with the coalition of the bribed known as the UN. Oh, and Brad, I don't hold Clinton SOLELY responsible for September 11; he had lots of help from Carter, Reagan, and Bush I. It's simple: I have two choices on Nov 2. One, I can pick Bush, who for all his tactical flawes has a strategy (first Law of Battle: Strategy drives Tactics) that ISN'T what has failed for 30 years. Or I can pick Kerry, who wants to kowtow to the same coalition of the bribed. If the DemoRATS had had the brains and heart to put up Lieberman (in 2000 or now) for Prez, I'd have a real problem.

Soli:"As a side note: the UN is controlled by the USA, China, France, Russia and the UK. These are the "world's most brutal dictatorships"?"

When China, France, and Russia (who are NOT OUR FRIENDS) can stop action on mass-murdering dictators like Saddam, or force us to NEGOTIATE to get action on genocide in the Sudan, because they can paralyze the process, we don't CONTROL anything. Control, in Webster's, means that your actions are solely your decision. What we have at the UN isn't control, it's bullshit. Climb back on the short bus. Come back when your IQ breaks 50.


You know why you "place" stories about voter intimidation even when it hasn't taken place?

You place stories about the threat of voter intimidation for the exact same reason that your bank reminds you that they will never, ever, in a billion years send you an email asking for your online account password. The absolute best prevention of these scams is an informed public.

Making false charges is a completely different matter, which rightly falls into the category of electoral malpractice. As written, I cannot see how any reasonable person can interpret those guidelines as suggesting the idiotic move of making a public false charge.

Actual partisians making actual false charges may be persecuted as normal, I offer no defense of such abhorent behavior.


When China, France, and Russia (who are NOT OUR FRIENDS) can stop action on mass-murdering dictators like Saddam, or force us to NEGOTIATE to get action on genocide in the Sudan, because they can paralyze the process, we don't CONTROL anything. Control, in Webster's, means that your actions are solely your decision.

Actual definitions of control:

1 a archaic : to check, test, or verify by evidence or experiments b : to incorporate suitable controls in a controlled experiment 2 a : to exercise restraining or directing influence over : REGULATE b : to have power over : RULE c : to reduce the incidence or severity of especially to innocuous levels control an insect population control a disease

See 2a. Every member of the permanent security council can restrain the UN. That is control and it also prevents any other form of control. As long as the USA has a veto, brutal dictators can never rule the UN. We can't rule the UN either, but we don't need to. The UN can't "force" us to do anything, either, because we are a sovereign nation (another word you should look up).

OK, Soli, then Kerry's "global test" was just another BS line. You see, requiring the US to pass the "Global Test" is the antithesis of national sovereignty.


No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. - John Kerry

Sounds like an easy test to pass. Have legitimate reasons for doing things, it's been the core American principle since the founding.

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

It's actually pretty funny you came to this, since it's exactly the same pathetic attack style we were already talking about. Take a few words out of context and make as much fuss as possible.