From someone you might be familiar with... his name is....shetline...
Yes, I'm quite familiar with what I wrote. You interpret those words of mine as saying "must be Republicans"? Even after taking the time to quote those words you couldn't read them better than that?
I suspect that you are smart enough to understand the literal meaning of my words, but probably fancy yourself as incisively and "seeing past" the mere words to what you "know" is my "real meaning". No fooling you!
As for the article you linked to... accusations, and accusations denied. Data to arouse suspicions, but not anywhere near enough to draw conclusions. At any rate, the most important thing to investigate in things like this is to find out how high up in the political organization such things go. I don't hold any candidate of any party accountable for what a few zealous but irresponsible supporters might do.
Sure... all you have to do is show how I'm not talking about Dean and dirty tricks.... oh wait... I was... how shameful.
I know... I'll quote Josh Marshall since that is a good thing to do accord in the Shawniverse.
Quote:
Here's the scoop on the ARG poll and the comments in their daily poll analysis suggesting that someone was telling older independent voters that they weren't eligible to vote in the Democratic primary.
This afternoon I spoke to Dick Bennett, president of ARG. And here's what he told me.
On Wednesday evening, ARG interviewers (i.e., the folks who call you on the phone) started noticing that a number of older independent voters were screening themselves out of the survey because they'd been called by another campaign and told that they wouldn't be eligible to vote because they'd missed the deadline to declare as Democrats.
But that's not how New Hampshire law works. Independents (called undeclared voters in the state) can vote in either primary. And they don't have to decide till they're at the polling station.
ARG's interviewers kept hearing the same thing on Thursday night and Bennett told TPM he found out about it when one of his supervisors asked him whether the voting law in the state had been changed.
Bennett said his interviewers had not compiled a list or numbers of how many people they called who had mentioned this. But his interviewers apparently spoke to quite a few respondents each evening who had gotten these calls.
Based on that information, Bennett decided to mention it in his daily poll analysis.
-- Josh Marshall
So now it isn't so weird to hear about it from the polling firm.
Of course me adding information and sources to a thread is just... "hijacking it" again. I guess I'll just have to settle into some conspiratorial one line dismissive statements like some other people I know.
Yes, I'm quite familiar with what I wrote. You interpret those words of mine as saying "must be Republicans"? Even after taking the time to quote those words you couldn't read them better than that?
I suspect that you are smart enough to understand the literal meaning of my words, but probably fancy yourself as incisively and "seeing past" the mere words to what you "know" is my "real meaning". No fooling you!
As for the article you linked to... accusations, and accusations denied. Data to arouse suspicions, but not anywhere near enough to draw conclusions. At any rate, the most important thing to investigate in things like this is to find out how high up in the political organization such things go. I don't hold any candidate of any party accountable for what a few zealous but irresponsible supporters might do.
Well next time I'll just look at the article you linked to and compare it to my article to get a better understanding.
Oh wait.. you didn't link.. to anything.
You just made a claim that if anyone had organized it, that you "wouldn't put it past Republicans."
We are talking about dirty tricks here. You can cast doubt with regard to Dean, not even with any proof. God forbid someone actually cast doubt on the Republicans doing this though.
As for the article you dismiss, perhaps you should read the letter linked as well. It is from the Gephardt campaign and makes it clear that their charge is sourced not just by a prior Newsweek article, but also by a Dean staff member.
Quote:
First reported in Newsweek (November 22, 2003; enclosed), one of your staff members has
contacted us to confess that efforts to send non-Iowans to caucus is indeed a critical piece of your
?perfect storm? strategy. Despite your campaign?s claim in the Newsweek story that action taken
to organize out of state voters were those of a single ?kid from Burlington,? we have learned that
Wow big surprise. Political campaigns are dirty, wow.
Yup, and so are elections. For some reason though, I never heard from any conservatives when there were reports of republicans crossing the borders in the south to vote on confederate flag issues (or maybe it was flag burning.)
An ex-Deaniac wrote on the blog that he was disgusted that Joe Trippi was absolutely no different than Carl Rove and therefore would support a different candidate. Really.
Last time I checked Carl Rove was a hero to the Republican party. Heck, Rove is considered a great patriot, a role model for young Republicans. Fighting dirty and using underhanded tricks was perfected by Rove. Every Republican running for office for the next 25 years will refer to the Rove handbook.
So the question begs...do Democrats fight fire with fire or do they take the high road, play as fair as possible and risk getting slaughtered into obscurity? Or do Democrats employ Rovian techniques to get an advantage, or at the very least level the playing field? I don't know.
I don't like dirty politics. I don't like when other campaigns disguise themselves as the other campaign, use dirty tricks (like calling Iowans after 11 o'clock at night, claim they're representing Dean, put out fake Dean flyers, etc.), to try and defame the other candidate. But, the reality is that it has been happening for decades and will likely continue to happen. What does a Dem candidate do?
50% of Americans like Carl Rove and admire him. Is that a disqualifier?
An ex-Deaniac wrote on the blog that he was disgusted that Joe Trippi was absolutely no different than Carl Rove and therefore would support a different candidate. Really.
Last time I checked Carl Rove was a hero to the Republican party. Heck, Rove is considered a great patriot, a role model for young Republicans. Fighting dirty and using underhanded tricks was perfected by Rove. Every Republican running for office for the next 25 years will refer to the Rove handbook.
So the question begs...do Democrats fight fire with fire or do they take the high road, play as fair as possible and risk getting slaughtered into obscurity? Or do Democrats employ Rovian techniques to get an advantage, or at the very least level the playing field? I don't know.
I don't like dirty politics. I don't like when other campaigns disguise themselves as the other campaign, use dirty tricks (like calling Iowans after 11 o'clock at night, claim they're representing Dean, put out fake Dean flyers, etc.), to try and defame the other candidate. But, the reality is that it has been happening for decades and will likely continue to happen. What does a Dem candidate do?
50% of Americans like Carl Rove and admire him. Is that a disqualifier?
While I appreciate your passion, I would bet that if loads of people still don't know who say Howards Dean is, an even smaller percent know who Rove is and what he does for his job. Most people don't tune into politics until elections. Even then they tune into the candidates and not the background people. There are a percent that do, and we should always rememeber how small they are with regard to using efforts wisely.
I mean take it outside of politics. There are people who might know the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer was on television. There are people who would know Michelle Geller was the main character. (That would be about where I stop with my knowledge of that show) Then there are the people that know when this writter left. How this director in this season changed the shows visuals. How this subplot rocked and this other subplot totally sucked.
Look at all these authors we have read/discussed/looked into this year. Hillary, Coulter, Conason, Franken, O'Reilly. I think that Hillary sold the most out of all of them and she might have hit a million books. Britney Spears moves that in music albums in less than two weeks. And Hillary is about as MAJOR as they come with regard to political figures who could move a book yet it is small change compared to movie tickets, television ratings, and album sales.
This is why I find campaign limits so amusing. I know you follow Dean a bit so consider the limits placed upon his speech. He will hit fund raising marks on his website and have gotten something like 10,000 people to donate to get $700,000. $700,000 wouldn't even pay for the product tie-ins in the Happy Meals for a movie opening. Yet he is raising more than any other Democrat.
So the way to fight this in reality would be to stop all these silly limits on campaign fund raising. Then real money could project a real message. You wouldn't have the fate of the nation decided on the number of dollars Apple might spend on advertising for a QUARTER.
Nick
P.S. I like your sig! Didn't know I was such a trend setter.
reminds me of the Gore campaign in Madison. they were handing out cigarettes to homeless people to get them to vote for Gore.
if the homeless people wanted the cigs, all they had to do was fill out a few forms, and all pile in a van to go to the voting stations. they'd get the "go for gore" speech then vote.
turned out (from what i remember) that it basically came down to overzealous campaign workers. of course that's the official version, and who knows, but they never tied it to anyone higher-up.
I never heard from any conservatives when there were reports of republicans crossing the borders in the south to vote on confederate flag issues (or maybe it was flag burning.)
Seemingly Off-Topic:
What's your point with this comment Bunge? Give me a link please, I live in the South and am always interested when someone wants to imply that flag-burning and racial discrimination are solely held to our territories. I'm certain you did not mean to impugn an entire region of the nation with your comment, that wouldn't be very intelligent.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Try reading the thread then
From someone you might be familiar with... his name is....shetline...
Yes, I'm quite familiar with what I wrote. You interpret those words of mine as saying "must be Republicans"? Even after taking the time to quote those words you couldn't read them better than that?
I suspect that you are smart enough to understand the literal meaning of my words, but probably fancy yourself as incisively and "seeing past" the mere words to what you "know" is my "real meaning". No fooling you!
As for the article you linked to... accusations, and accusations denied. Data to arouse suspicions, but not anywhere near enough to draw conclusions. At any rate, the most important thing to investigate in things like this is to find out how high up in the political organization such things go. I don't hold any candidate of any party accountable for what a few zealous but irresponsible supporters might do.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Oh good lord. Are you hijacking another thread?
Sure... all you have to do is show how I'm not talking about Dean and dirty tricks.... oh wait... I was... how shameful.
I know... I'll quote Josh Marshall since that is a good thing to do accord in the Shawniverse.
Here's the scoop on the ARG poll and the comments in their daily poll analysis suggesting that someone was telling older independent voters that they weren't eligible to vote in the Democratic primary.
This afternoon I spoke to Dick Bennett, president of ARG. And here's what he told me.
On Wednesday evening, ARG interviewers (i.e., the folks who call you on the phone) started noticing that a number of older independent voters were screening themselves out of the survey because they'd been called by another campaign and told that they wouldn't be eligible to vote because they'd missed the deadline to declare as Democrats.
But that's not how New Hampshire law works. Independents (called undeclared voters in the state) can vote in either primary. And they don't have to decide till they're at the polling station.
ARG's interviewers kept hearing the same thing on Thursday night and Bennett told TPM he found out about it when one of his supervisors asked him whether the voting law in the state had been changed.
Bennett said his interviewers had not compiled a list or numbers of how many people they called who had mentioned this. But his interviewers apparently spoke to quite a few respondents each evening who had gotten these calls.
Based on that information, Bennett decided to mention it in his daily poll analysis.
-- Josh Marshall
So now it isn't so weird to hear about it from the polling firm.
Of course me adding information and sources to a thread is just... "hijacking it" again. I guess I'll just have to settle into some conspiratorial one line dismissive statements like some other people I know.
Nick
Originally posted by shetline
Yes, I'm quite familiar with what I wrote. You interpret those words of mine as saying "must be Republicans"? Even after taking the time to quote those words you couldn't read them better than that?
I suspect that you are smart enough to understand the literal meaning of my words, but probably fancy yourself as incisively and "seeing past" the mere words to what you "know" is my "real meaning". No fooling you!
As for the article you linked to... accusations, and accusations denied. Data to arouse suspicions, but not anywhere near enough to draw conclusions. At any rate, the most important thing to investigate in things like this is to find out how high up in the political organization such things go. I don't hold any candidate of any party accountable for what a few zealous but irresponsible supporters might do.
Well next time I'll just look at the article you linked to and compare it to my article to get a better understanding.
Oh wait.. you didn't link.. to anything.
You just made a claim that if anyone had organized it, that you "wouldn't put it past Republicans."
We are talking about dirty tricks here. You can cast doubt with regard to Dean, not even with any proof. God forbid someone actually cast doubt on the Republicans doing this though.
As for the article you dismiss, perhaps you should read the letter linked as well. It is from the Gephardt campaign and makes it clear that their charge is sourced not just by a prior Newsweek article, but also by a Dean staff member.
First reported in Newsweek (November 22, 2003; enclosed), one of your staff members has
contacted us to confess that efforts to send non-Iowans to caucus is indeed a critical piece of your
?perfect storm? strategy. Despite your campaign?s claim in the Newsweek story that action taken
to organize out of state voters were those of a single ?kid from Burlington,? we have learned that
the problem is much deeper than that.
Nick
Originally posted by Crusader
Wow big surprise. Political campaigns are dirty, wow.
Yup, and so are elections. For some reason though, I never heard from any conservatives when there were reports of republicans crossing the borders in the south to vote on confederate flag issues (or maybe it was flag burning.)
Last time I checked Carl Rove was a hero to the Republican party. Heck, Rove is considered a great patriot, a role model for young Republicans. Fighting dirty and using underhanded tricks was perfected by Rove. Every Republican running for office for the next 25 years will refer to the Rove handbook.
So the question begs...do Democrats fight fire with fire or do they take the high road, play as fair as possible and risk getting slaughtered into obscurity? Or do Democrats employ Rovian techniques to get an advantage, or at the very least level the playing field? I don't know.
I don't like dirty politics. I don't like when other campaigns disguise themselves as the other campaign, use dirty tricks (like calling Iowans after 11 o'clock at night, claim they're representing Dean, put out fake Dean flyers, etc.), to try and defame the other candidate. But, the reality is that it has been happening for decades and will likely continue to happen. What does a Dem candidate do?
50% of Americans like Carl Rove and admire him. Is that a disqualifier?
Originally posted by Northgate
An ex-Deaniac wrote on the blog that he was disgusted that Joe Trippi was absolutely no different than Carl Rove and therefore would support a different candidate. Really.
Last time I checked Carl Rove was a hero to the Republican party. Heck, Rove is considered a great patriot, a role model for young Republicans. Fighting dirty and using underhanded tricks was perfected by Rove. Every Republican running for office for the next 25 years will refer to the Rove handbook.
So the question begs...do Democrats fight fire with fire or do they take the high road, play as fair as possible and risk getting slaughtered into obscurity? Or do Democrats employ Rovian techniques to get an advantage, or at the very least level the playing field? I don't know.
I don't like dirty politics. I don't like when other campaigns disguise themselves as the other campaign, use dirty tricks (like calling Iowans after 11 o'clock at night, claim they're representing Dean, put out fake Dean flyers, etc.), to try and defame the other candidate. But, the reality is that it has been happening for decades and will likely continue to happen. What does a Dem candidate do?
50% of Americans like Carl Rove and admire him. Is that a disqualifier?
While I appreciate your passion, I would bet that if loads of people still don't know who say Howards Dean is, an even smaller percent know who Rove is and what he does for his job. Most people don't tune into politics until elections. Even then they tune into the candidates and not the background people. There are a percent that do, and we should always rememeber how small they are with regard to using efforts wisely.
I mean take it outside of politics. There are people who might know the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer was on television. There are people who would know Michelle Geller was the main character. (That would be about where I stop with my knowledge of that show) Then there are the people that know when this writter left. How this director in this season changed the shows visuals. How this subplot rocked and this other subplot totally sucked.
Look at all these authors we have read/discussed/looked into this year. Hillary, Coulter, Conason, Franken, O'Reilly. I think that Hillary sold the most out of all of them and she might have hit a million books. Britney Spears moves that in music albums in less than two weeks. And Hillary is about as MAJOR as they come with regard to political figures who could move a book yet it is small change compared to movie tickets, television ratings, and album sales.
This is why I find campaign limits so amusing. I know you follow Dean a bit so consider the limits placed upon his speech. He will hit fund raising marks on his website and have gotten something like 10,000 people to donate to get $700,000. $700,000 wouldn't even pay for the product tie-ins in the Happy Meals for a movie opening. Yet he is raising more than any other Democrat.
So the way to fight this in reality would be to stop all these silly limits on campaign fund raising. Then real money could project a real message. You wouldn't have the fate of the nation decided on the number of dollars Apple might spend on advertising for a QUARTER.
Nick
P.S. I like your sig! Didn't know I was such a trend setter.
if the homeless people wanted the cigs, all they had to do was fill out a few forms, and all pile in a van to go to the voting stations. they'd get the "go for gore" speech then vote.
turned out (from what i remember) that it basically came down to overzealous campaign workers. of course that's the official version, and who knows, but they never tied it to anyone higher-up.
Originally posted by bunge
I never heard from any conservatives when there were reports of republicans crossing the borders in the south to vote on confederate flag issues (or maybe it was flag burning.)
Seemingly Off-Topic:
What's your point with this comment Bunge? Give me a link please, I live in the South and am always interested when someone wants to imply that flag-burning and racial discrimination are solely held to our territories. I'm certain you did not mean to impugn an entire region of the nation with your comment, that wouldn't be very intelligent.
I would bet that if loads of people still don't know who say Howards Dean is, an even smaller percent know who Rove is and what he does for his job.
This is definitely true. In the 2000 Presidential Election, 11% of the people that voted for George W. Bush thought they were voting for his father.
Originally posted by drewprops
Seemingly Off-Topic:
What's your point with this comment Bunge?
That fudging elections and illegal voting habits are a part of politics, not a single political party.