I’m just trying to get my mind around this. So, is it correct to interpret the Republican stance as “Democracy is good as long as people who aren’t likely to vote for us don’t vote”? Am I missing some nuance?
Zut and BrainGlutton I seem to be missing something. According to that article about Papageorge* he wanted to increase Republican voter turn out and decrease Democratic voter turnout by emphasizing a certain issue.
I agree entirely with you and others that intimidating voters, denying legal voters their sufferage, and perhaps even encouraging people not to vote are all naughty things to do. But is that really the same as advocating a political strategy which seeks to do a similar thing through the pushing of particular issues? That’s what political speech has always been about? Surely you are not against that.
As I said, perhaps I’m missing something.
*I really thought this was another insulting reference to George Bush before I read the article. Very funny that.
pervert: But is that really the same as advocating a political strategy which seeks to do a similar thing through the pushing of particular issues?
I hesitate to risk starting another of these long nitpicking sessions with you, but I’ll comment anyway. I agree that all politicians wish that the other side’s voters would just stay home, and they’re within their rights to emphasize the issues that they think will decrease the other side’s enthusiasm for its candidate.
But talking about it as though that’s a key part of the strategy—“we’ve got to suppress the Detroit vote or we’ll have a tough time of it in the elections”—leaves a nasty taste. And any Republican politician with a grain of sense these days should know better than to talk about “suppressing” Democratic votes in any way, just from a PR perspective.
Even if “suppress their votes” was only pol-speak for “give them our side of the issue to enlighten them and correct their misguided enthusiasm for the wrong candidate”, it was still a very stupid thing to say, in the circumstances.
I agree with you, however, that “giving them our side of the issue to correct their misguided enthusiasm” is a legitimate campaign tactic. Trying to make it more difficult for them to vote in any way, on the other hand, is definitely not.
Matter of intention, I think. In the this example, I infer from the Oakland Press article that Pappageorge was advocating the inclusion and support of a medical marajuana-legalization initiative on the Detroit ballot. (I admit it’s hard to be sure just exactly what Pappageorge was proposing; I understand his comments were not made in public and there’s no solid record.) This wasn’t an issue that Pappageorge supported; he was advocating the initiative solely to suppress voter turnout; no other reason.
If you’re advocating a political position that you believe in, I have no problem with that – even if I disagree with it, and even if, by some analysis, it would tend to depress the vote of some segment of the population. But to take a position or formulate a strategy solely to suppress turnout, and for no other reason, is unethical.
Isn’t putting something that controversial on the ballot likely to increase voter turnout? Lots of zealots who might otherwise have stayed home will turn out to vote both for and against it.
Well, here we go again.
Ok, not really. I agree entirely with your post. I understand the ick factor in this issue. I think Papageorge does too. That’s why he quit.
Just remember this feeling the next time you hear about a politician “energizing” his core constituency. Unless I am much mistaken, it amounts to the same thing.
No, I don’t think so. I agree that the details are fuzzy. But the article seemed to me simply to say that Papageorge wanted to emphasize or advertise, or use the fact that John Kerry was connected in some way with the marijuana initiative.
“It was in the context, he says, of trying to explain what he believes to be Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry’s involvement with a backer of the medical marijuana issue on the Detroit ballot. It was opposed by Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. Pappageorge thought it would also be unpopular with Detroit Democrats in general and would “suppress” their turnout.”
I agree with you that the ick factor increases somewhat if the tactic a politician uses to “decrease” his opponents turnout involves something deceptive.
This was my first thought as well. For some reason Papageorge thought Detroit was against the initiative enough that it would depress their turnout. Either that, or they were disgusted enough with the backer of the initiative that a connection between him and John Kerry would depress voter turnout.
It is difficult to make out exactly what is going on. They are clearly talking about an upcoming presidential election. At the same time, the marijuana initiative passed in some past election. But it also says the Republicans did not get any advantage implying that the presidential election is over. I am totally confused as to what they are talking about.
In the end, he was talking to a meeting of Republicans about election strategy. Part of the discussion centered on some issue that Papageorge thought might depress Detroit voters and give the Republican candidate an advantage in the upcoming election. His comment was taken out of context and a racial element was added.
You are much mistaken. Encouraging your own core constituency to go to the poll on election day is not the same thing as encouraging your opponent’s core constituency to stay home.
No, encouraging people to vote is not generally regarded as being the same as encouraging people not to vote. In fact, technically it’s the exact opposite.
I just came across an article in the October 2004 issue of The Progressive –
“Bullies at the Voting Booth,” by Anne-Marie Cusac – http://www.progressive.org/oct04/cusac1004.html – which provides the best summary of this problem I’ve seen to date. The article looks closely at Republican voter-intimidation tactics being used this year in all the “swing states” – Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, and South Dakota (SD is not a swing state in the presidential election, Bush has it sewn up, but there is a tightly contested Senate race – the Pubs are trying to unseat Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle). It’s well worth a read.
Razorsharp linke to this article in the thread on the third Bush-Kerry debate, and I thought it would be appropriate to add it to this one, just for the sake of a dissenting viewpoint – http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc66.htm:
The linked page of the Kerry-Edwards Colorado Election Day Manual 2004 (the jpg image is a bit blurry and hard to read) says:
This kind of “pre-emptive strike” might look like dirty pool to the Pubs, but to me it looks like a necessity their own tactics have forced on the Dems.
Meanwhile, Pubs in Nevada and Oregon are trying a new tactic: Get Dems to “register,” then destroy their registration forms after the deadline, so when election day comes it’s too late for them to remedy their status.
From Nevada – http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2421595&nav=168XRvNe:
From Oregon – http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1097647496301300.xml&storylist=orlocal:
Yeah, the FBI. John Ashcroft’s FBI. :rolleyes:
Ah, the party of character, accountability, morality, and all that. Charming.
:eek: That’s unprecedented! At least in all the other recent dirty tricks mentioned in this thread, the tricks were apparently perpetrated by some separate pro-Republican organization – not by an actual arm of the Republican Party!
Meanwhile, the Pubs in Florida are planning to station poll-watchers to challenge voters’ eligibility. From the St. Petersburg Times, 10/16/04, http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/16/State/Voters_will_be_under_.shtml:
For a party dead set against coordination, the Republicans sure have a lot of it. Illegal ID-blocked calls to seniors telling people that Kerry wants to destroy their social security benefits (sic) and not saying who paid for the calls, timed to hit on the exact same day the RNC sends out a mailer to seniors with all the same themes. What an amazing coincidence! And the Republican line is: we have a more centralized message. Darn straight they do.
Update to the update: It now appears Republican vote-challengers will be permitted in Ohio. From http://www.blogthevote.org/blog/archives/2004/11/court_oks_voter.html#more:
:mad:
The website of The Nation has a whole page of links to sites and blogs which are doing real-time monitoring of the election – http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow?bid=4.
From one of those, the Michigan Independent Media Center, http://michiganimc.org/:
:rolleyes: God bless America.
It surprises me that there would be rampant conspiracy theories circling among Democrats on election day. I’m truly stunned. It’s almost as if, based on the last election, some individuals have discovered that there could potentially be a cheap but useful ploy of screaming “election fraud” as loud as possible no matter what the circumstances.
I also understand that menthol cigarettes contain a substance that sterilizes black people; and that the Republican’s secretly began to spread AIDS among gays because gays are predominantly Democrats and AIDS would keep them from voting.
I’m voting for Kerry, and still embarassed by far too many Kerry supporters. Let’s hope he’s not as stupid as his followers (he must be, as he is smarter than GW, who in turn is smarter than most Kerry supporters).
These aren’t theories, Sly, they’re actual news reports. Read the above posts.