For anyone who cares and didn't see it the SNL skit Tina fEY AS palin again getting interviewed by Kouric . Funny stuff and fairly accaurate.

linl:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_129956.html

KMOV had three different video clips of it. But the one clip I posted alone is very chilling. Setting up a "truth squad" made up of prosecutors, Sherrifs and other law enforcement to intimidate dissent is quite remarkable. Plus, in the video, they say they are going to "take action" against people criticizing Obama. Now, if an active DA says they will "take action", the assumption is that some kind of criminal charges will be filed. This is intimidation pure and simple and this crew should be punished.

Plus, here's the tagline on the video clip I posted:

Wow, this is almost "Nazi-esque". If the Obama campaign did indeed ask law enforcement to do this, they should be held to task as well. It would be nice if someone would look into this so that we can see if the extent of what this "truth squad" is intimidating people.

Well that obviously will not happen. No one, left or right (i hope) would stand for that in either campaign. I'd love to see who in the campaign asked for that.

Where was the decrying though when W did things that we're executed and "nazi-esque"...For another thread I know but I'd love to have seen you (and you may have) skewering their tamping down of civil liberties.

either way, both are bad and wrong.

If that happens I'm with you, but I haven't seen anything that clarifies what these people are going to do.

Yes, though I disagree with these type of tactics I find it ironic how Republicans are bitching about this and alot of dirty polictical tactics" the Dems 527s have started using since the Republican propaganada machine were totally relying that crap especially in the Bush Kerry election. Too funny.:lol:

The Missouri Governor released a statement:

Even if no charges are filed against anyone, the intent on intimidation is set. If a group composed of two state CAs, a sheriff and other law enforcement come out and state they will "take action" on people who run ads against Obama - the damage is done. I doubt they would be stupid enough to ever file charges (esp now that all this has come out), but their attempt at intimidation is clear. It's one thing for a group of citizens to do this (I still think it's seedy), but it's a whole other thing for active state attorneys and law enforcement to be part of it.

You'll never read about it in the NY Times or Washington Post, but it's a terrible political move by Obama supporters in Missouri.

Too bad you weren't in this big an outrage over McCain supporters using intimidation and questionable tactics to dissuade voting from people who were undergoing foreclosure. But hey, you win because you invoked the nazis.

its crap and wont fly....

You didnt comment on my statement about W's similar intimidation maneuvers.

I'm not a fan of any kind of political intimidation, so if W did it I think it's crap as well. What's crazy in this case is that it involves actual state attorneys, sheriffs and law enforcement. That's the unbelievable part.

McCain supporters does equal local law enforcement and state prosecutors. I expect these type of shenanigans from supporters of each campaign (but don't approve of them). But it gets real scary when the people put in place to protect against this type of thing start taking part. That's where my outrage is here.

You guys have got to be fucking kidding me. That video was such a hatchet job. There was not one thing in the statement by either person that supports what the reporter was claiming. Maybe we should wait and see if there is a shred of evidence supporting what some random local reporter says before yelling at the ACLU or anyone else to respond. They also haven't responded to the GOP attempts to prevent foreclosed people from voting in Michigan.

A truth squad? Sounds like a rapid response operation to me.
If you don't think there are GOP DA's and Sheriffs working on McCain's campaign in other localities, then you're just pretending to have a realistic discussion.

Hey, quick look over there! Some McCain supporters did something almost as bad months ago. So lay off the Missouri police!

Looks like I don't have a monopoly on questionable debate tactics.

Well, I guess I was wrong in being upset about these tactics. I fully expect when someone posts the yearly "minorites were intimidated by law enforcement" story on election day to see those from left here use these same arguments:

1. Hey, other areas have used intimidation before so it's no big deal.
2. The other side has done some intimidation on other states, so lay off those intimidating voters.
3. This story is a hatchet job, you can't point me to an exact television interview with people admitting they intimidated voters, so it can't have happened.

So you don't have a real response to what I said? Okay.

State Attorney states "We will take action against those who lie about Obama". Yeah, who would be intimidated by that? I mean, it's completely harmless for a state prosecutor to say they will "take action" against free speech.

The state prosecutor said in the video they will "take action" against ads critical of Obama. That's enough to show intimidation to me.

I agree it should be investigated, but there's an enormous difference between some GOP supports and a freakin state prosecutor saying what was said above.

Rapid response of intimidating citizens. Quality operation there.

Thankfully, any attorneys in that capacity for the GOP haven't come out on local news and said they will "take action" against those criticising McCain. Once again the outrage is the combination of:

1. The person being a state prosecutor.
2. The person going on TV news and saying they will "take action" against those giving dissent.

as opposed to the Feds, Army and DOD?

and not once did I say what your saying is ok for the Obama campaign nor the officials in Mizzou to do.

Eh, I didn't say to lay off the Missouri police, but until there's some legit proof that something like this is really going, I'm going to reserve judgment. If it is going on, then it's more stupid than it is shady since everyone knows it won't fly. I was merely poking fun at your sudden "outrage" over one side's potentially shady tactics and invoking nazis when the other side is equally guilty. Partisan games are fun though. I wish Ron Paul had won just for fun.

Again, the entire initial outrage from me is based on the state attorney saying will "take action" if someone posts lies against Obama. If that comment wasn't made, this wouldn't be a big deal, IMO.

I thought getting pissed about comments was reserved for me ;)

See, in that clip, no where does either of the people interviewed say "take action". If you have a different clip where that happens, then by all means please link us to it. The only comment I see is "respond to" and I hardly think that's the totalitarian threat you're trying to make it sound like.

But they are like nazis!!11!1

There's a reason that St. Louis is the laughing stock of Missouri in every election. Most Missouri residents don't even bother to act shocked when another election controversy comes out of that city. There's a reason that the city's actually LOSING residents.

Plus they seem to have shitty local news.

Shockingly, St Louis is urban, the rest of Missouri is generally rural. There's a reason why those country folks don't particularly care for the city folks.

If you look at the breakdown, you essentially have the Dems dominating in St Louis, with the rest of the state generally leaning GOP.

The nerve of reporters, asking politicians for their positions on national security issues and expecting that they're being given actual answers!

Link: McCain retracts Palin's Pakistan comments

Just curious, but when did "W" authorize the "Feds, Army, and DoD" to intimidate voters or free speech?

I'm specifically looking for something that isn't a perfectly reasonable action by a seated president, especially something that was a departure from precedent.

The second statement leaves it completely open to subjection as to whether or not it meets your threshold so actually googling and citing stuff is a fruitless endeavor.

Realistically the first part, the "perfectly reasonable action by a seated president" that you should have taken me to task for. It wasn't reasonable by a long shot.

I'd still like to think you wouldn't want to hold W accountable for something that previous presidents would do.

Cite away. I don't need any stinking links. Just looking to see W using public servants to intimidate voters.

Arles statement was:


so my statement wasnt confined to intimidation of voters themselves. The free speech portion is easy, see CIA agent outing sic Scooter Libby (Edit to add that Im sure you'll disagree as to the meaning of this event or it's intimidating implications hence proving my point about fruitlessness).

That wasn't intimidation. That was retribution, along with a healthy side of
"attempt to discredit". Any intimidation in that debacle was tertiary at best.

Wilson's wife's identity as a CIA employee was exposed by a leak to the press. That is a far cry from using the "Feds", "Army", or "DoD" to intimidate people that shouldn't be intimidated.

I'm not stating that W hasn't stooped to such tactics. I'm just saying that if you're going to make that kind of assertion, you should be able to back it up with an example.

and I feel I clearly did (and knew ahead of time you'd disagree hence my lack of effort to push the ball forward) in that they intimidated anyone else who'd be thinking about 'speaking out' or face the same consequences or similar. This is just one quick example but Ill skip searching for more since it is a fruitless effort to attempt to convince you otherwise, no offense.

EDIT to add: me being unable to convince you isnt a reflection of my lack of respect for you since I think youre civil but I also am guessing you showed your hand at the beginning of this line of talk.

Flasch. Come on. "DoD", "Army", "Feds". You made the allegation. To live up to your standard of everyone standing behind the letter of their statements, you need to be able to pony up some examples. Three would be nice, one for each.

Heck you cited three pretty specific entities that "W" used to intimidate. I'd think that you had examples in mind when you did so. Even if they aren't convincing to me, you should be able to cite them.

Frankly I didn't put much stock into your ability to produce examples that would convince me when I asked for them, but I figured you wouldn't make such an allegation without having something substantive from your perspective to support it.

Now, I'm not so sure you weren't just making an unsubstantiated statement, counting on W's unpopularity to boost the credibility. All in all that isn't very different from playing the Nazi "card". You played the "W" card.

So forget about convincing me, just give examples to support your allegation.

No offense taken...

Hey wait a minute. It isn't a reflection of your lack of respect of me? Are you saying that you don't respect me, but you want to hide it from me?;)

Back ot No offense taken.

it's early but did you just compare the "W" card to the "Nazi"' card as somewhat even? Im jewish, y'know.

In all honesty Glen, I truly view it as a waste of time. I could find what IMO are the perfect examples and you'll shoot them down (as you did above) as not being good examples or being an example of something else. Hmmmm, perhaps Im evolving from this thread and learning what is worth effort or stress and what isn't. Doubtful, but I know that whatever I 'prove' you'll say proves diddly squat.

Polls?

Gallup Tracking: Obama 50, McCain 42
Rasmussen Tracking: Obama 50, McCain 44

The interesting in both (well, aside from the gap) is that Obama is at 50%.

So when did a population center on the west end of the state of just under 2M people become rural? Kansas City is actually the largest city in the state of Missouri, though if you add in the subarbs, St. Louis gets the nod as largest metro area.

Every election, Missouri residents get to hear about the racism going on when the inner city districts close down the polls with people waiting to vote still in line, despite the fact that they had ALL DAY to go down and vote when there were no lines. At some point, people have to realize that the polls are open 14 hours for a reason and it's not so they can bitch when they show up after 8:00 PM and wonder why the doors are closed.

Well, people do have to work.

And poor folks, generally, have more of a difficulty getting out of work in order to go vote.

So I hear........EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. Anymore, Jesse Jackson just sets up a press release office in advance and starts bitching about people being closed out long before the polls even close. It's a time-honored ritual of the Democrat machine in St. Louis.

Well in all honesty they should open the polls from 12:01 to 11:59 but whatever.

But if you did that, you'd have to arrange nap times for all the 60+ yr. old volunteers. All the snoring and teeth in drinking glasses would likely hinder my ability to vote.

Three day weekend voting FTW.

GW/Battleground tracking has McCain up 48-46. I really wish this poll released their internals.

You're missing an obvious hint.....


;)

Maybe because its true every single election. Should be a federal holiday, really.

There's already laws on the books that require that an employer has to allow its employees to vote. We don't need any more laws where laws already exist. Just enforce the laws that are already applicable. It varies from state to state, but the right is there in one form or another in all states.

http://www.hrtools.com/legal_complia...jury_duty.aspx

Is Missouri an 'at-will' state? Because, you know, while they may not fire someone for taking time off to vote... they could "find" another reason.

Yes, it is an 'at will' state, though Missouri is a really bad place to 'find' another reason when it comes to voting. Missouri, since it is a bellweather and battleground state, has lawyers from both parties along with union lawyers absolutely everywhere for a few weeks on either side of the election day. There's literally several hundred lawyers on the ground on election day in St. Louis alone. The lawyers for both parties let the voting public in KC and STL know well in advance exactly who to call in these instances, and they do call in droves. I can't remember the last presidential election where there hasn't been multiple emergency court rulings on election day in the state of Missouri. It's chaos, but it's always fun to watch.

FWIW......I mentioned earlier in this thread that Missouri is the best bellweather state in the nation (last time the losing candidate won Missouri was 1900). McCain still holds a slight lead in Missouri, but the lead is shrinking. Should be heartening news for Obama supporters.

yeah cuz while youre having to sue your former employer in a case you very likely could not win, the bills get paid by....... ...... ...... hmmm, maybe it should be federal holiday. It's not really a law MBBF so we wouldnt have to worry about *more* regulation.

I'd be interested in hearing about the massive number of people who come to work every day and do not abuse leave policy who were fired. In my experience in management, the vast majority of people who are fired are people who abuse leave policies and are gone from their job more than they should be. People who take an hour to vote on election day don't get fired, especially in Missouri given the scrutiny that our state receives and the possibility of pro bono party lawyers breathing down their neck.

I don't think that a federal holiday is a bad idea at all. Toss out Columbus Day and move the free day to the first Tuesday of November. But from what I've seen in my home state, I believe the voting scandals to be extremely overexaggerated.