See? THAT is an intellectually honest response from a position of integrity. What’s the reason that everyone can’t do that?
If the story is completely accurate, I would have no trouble issuing such a condemnation. I just find that some of the details of the story simply don’t ring true. There are elements that seem rather implausible. Hence, I reserve judgment.
Not to seem snarky, but it would be nice to know exactly what behavior it is that you’re condemning. After all, there is a great deal of behavior going on at present. Thank you in advance.
So, the question becomes, if the party afiliations were reversed in the story, would your reaction be the same, or would your first reaction be along the line of “Oh, I can believe it, that’s exactly the kind of shit Karl Rove and the Pubby stormtroopers like to pull”? Think for a second and be honest now.
No, I really think that the same story details that landed with a “thunk” in this case would do the same if the parties were reversed. I’m thinking particularly of the “crowd reaction” element of the tale, which I simply can’t imagine happening outside of a partisan rally. And I have never referred to “Pubby stormtroopers.”
I confess that I have some predilection for believing that the Republicans are more capable of dirty tricks. Part of that stems from my young, idealistic years, during the Nixon administration - I never heard about a Democratic “plumbers” unit, or of any Democratic operative on a par with G. Gordon Liddy or Donald Segretti. Part of it comes from reading about what Rove has done in the past (not rumors, but documented dirty tricks). I try not to let it get in the way of objective thought.
Since politicking in or near a polling place (within 150 feet, IIRC, in Illinois) is illegal you can have them arrested.
Not to mention, the ‘Democratic’ actions aren’t even tactics; they’re just boorish, jerkish behavior perpetrated by a handful of individuals.
But the Republican tactics come straight from the party organization.
GOPers, which one should be given more weight, regardless of which party is which? Your position is like saying, “Watergate wasn’t such a big deal. I know a guy who committed a burglary once, and he was a Democrat. See, both sides are involved in this shit.”
Go back and read the story (or my post). Apparently when FL added the early-voting period, they forgot to make the no-electioneering zone apply on those dates.
I think you’re misinterpreting me. I’m not talking about the level of passion among politicans and their lackies. I’m talking about the level of passion among dopers… I find it hard to believe that the most partisan SDMBers on either side of the debate are motivated by power and money. If that’s what you’re implying, than you have taken cynicism to a grand new level.
(And I wish I was young, idealistic and shit. Or at least young, idealistic, and “the shit”)
Y’all want specifics? Fine: I specifically condemn being in a voting line and saying jack shit about politics to anyone else in the voting line. If it ain’t illegal, it’s still treading on ethically thin ice.
Is this as bad as cases in which ballots of Democrats are torn up? Of course not. It’s not as bad as kicking puppies, either, but that’s not what we’re talking about.
If you refuse to condemn electoral bullshit when it’s performed by your own side, you lose credibility when it’s performed by your opponents. That’s precisely why you condemn it: if you don’t, then the election process devolves into mob rule, survival of the meanest.
Condemn this bullshit here, and leave it. Condemn other bullshit in other threads. You’ve nothing to gain by saying, “But the Republicans are doing worse!”
Nothing in this story strikes me as implausible, although it is plausible that some of the complainants are exaggerating. And what if they are? All we’ve got to go on is the story as given to us; our condemnation here does piss-all about the actual event. All it can do is elucidate our character for other folks reading the boards, provide other folks with a way of thinking about an example story and how one ought to respond to it.
I condemn the events in the story as described; I condemn anyone who exaggerates about election thuggery or manipulation. That really ought to be an uncontroversial position.
Daniel
So, because of a mistake in the wording of the law, which technically makes poll site politicking legal before election day while specifically prohibiting it on election day, something like this is hunky-dory( as long as it’s Democrats doing the politicking, of course)? Congratulations RTF, you’ve been headed that way for months, but you’ve officially reached the land of blind partisanship. Hopefully rjung, or 'luce or DTC or one of the other members of the usual gang of idiots will buy you a drink and make you feel welcome, because the cost of admission has been your credibility.
BTW, Left Hand of Dorkness? Kudos on a proper, common sense, reasonable response. It’s nice to see that not everyone has lost their mind as this election draws nigh.
Hmmm, that is a bit different that I thought you were saying, sorry I was wrong before. However, given your clarification, I AM cynical enough that I would still classify people who actually think one candidate is going to be different from the other on anything much more substantive than surface rhetoric as “idealistic” (if I was being charitable) or a “fucking moron” (if I was not). I have absolutely no problem with you being known as “the shit”, however, and will lobby to have that unofficial moniker added to your name, so that whenever anyone mentions MaxTheVool, the response is “man, that guy is the shit!”, said in an admiring tone of voice. 
Dave, in that specific post Rufus wasn’t being blindly partisan. He was just stating a fact about the law. Which, he may notice if he chose to reread his earlier post, he probably should’ve fleshed out more when he mentioned it earlier. I mean, if it’s not election day you can politick right in the polling place? Can you hector people as they are voting? What a cool law! :smack:
On a simlar note, I was chronically unable to remember the definition of the word “apotheosis” until I realized its technical definition was “the shit.” As in, “Jenna Bush is the apotheosis of the drunk sorority girl”=“When it comes to drunk sorority girls, Jenna Bush is the shit.”
Daniel
In the post immediately proceding the one I quoted, RTF was excusing what this article says the Democrats are doing on the gounds that it was not as bad as what Republican do. That’s like claiming a rapist should get off “because at least he didn’t murder the bitch”. I only quoted one post, but the reply was to both.
Yeah, but it’s also like claiming we shouldn’t punish a child who sticks his tongue out at the teacher because “At least he didn’t say anything mean to her.”
Funny what you can do with analogies, huh? Don’t compare someone to a rapist-apologist without good reason.
Daniel
I have to agree with some of the others here that the boorish behavior mentioned in the article linked by the OP mostly does not in fact appear to refer to any organized effort by the Democratic party organization to harass voters (the sole possible exception apparently being the handing out of leaflets inside the voting facility). Nevertheless, I’ve read of cases in Florida and elsewhere of voter harassment on both sides, but the stories I’ve read so far on the subject indicate that the harassment has been more blatant and more clearly party-organized on the Republican side.
Hmmm. Sounds like a bit of fieldwork would be useful. If anyone cares, I’ll be early voting in Montgomoery County, TX tomorrow morning (Tuesday, Oct. 26). I’ll report it here if anyone tries to buttonhole me while I’m striding towards the polling booth.
So… you believe that if Kerry had been president for the past 4 years, we still would have invaded Iraq? (Note: this question is value-neutral, in that Bush supporters would presumably argue that we would NOT have invaded Iraq, and thus, Kerry is a weenie, whereas Kerry supporters would presumably argue that we would NOT have invaded Iraq, and thus Kerry is not a right wing nutjob.)
I mean, starting wars strikes me as a pretty important, non-surface-rhetoric, issue.
I think that this bullying will eventually end up in violence, especially when the SEIU is involved. Their “lives” are at stake on this upcoming vote. Being #9 on the list of a 100 top political donors with 97% of the contribution going to Kerry, I think the SEIU’s mob mentality in Florida will lead to violence before election day. One of those idiots will errantly assume that strong-arming during union voting is ok, that it’s probably ok to strong-arm public voters. One knucklehead…that’s all it takes.
The behavior, as described in the article, was bad.
However:
(1) It’s not clear whom to condemn. If this was organized by Democratic party operatives, then the answer would be simple: condemn them and that would reflect badly on the party.
But, and this is likely the case, if this wasn’t organized by party operatives, what does “I condemn some jerks” accomplish in terms of assigning responsibility to the Democratic party? Does it prove that there are jerks on both sides? Did this need proving? Has anyone said otherwise?
(2) Even if the behavior was organized by some Democratic party operatives, I just can’t force myself to feel too bad about it, even though the behavior was bad. It’s like if your kid is in a fight with a school bully who keeps fighting unfairly and hits below the belt. And your kid suddenly does something unfair, like kick the guy in the balls. Even if this is, by itself, bad behavior, considering the way the other guy has been fighting, you can’t feel too bad that your kid did it.
Therefore, “But the Republicans are doing worse!” *is * relevant, because you can’t isolate one incident from the wider context in which it occurs.
To make the issue simpler, consider the statement:
“George punched Joe in the stomach”
That sounds like a bad thing and we ought to condemn it.
But if the full story is:
“Joe broke into George’s house at night and started attacking George with a machete, and during the fight George punched Joe in the stomach”
then, George’s action, seen in the larger context doesn’t seem so bad after all.
Anyway, I’m not excusing what those jerks did, and I hope it is stopped from happening again, just saying that the larger context provides useful info about how to interpret and feel about the incident.