Here's What's Left

"Anything to Get Elected," Part II: Republicans Disenfranchise African-American Voters and Others

Part I of this series is here.

I've decided to focus Part II exclusively on Republican electoral dirty tricks. I was going to try to be balanced about it, but the preponderance of evidence is so great that I feel a moral obligation to point out that one party is engaged in a massive effort to keep certain segments of the population from voting. The other is not.

I'll go state by state.

I. Ohio:

1) Republicans have hired 3600 people to stand at (heavily minority) polling sites and challenge voters who they don't think are registered. An added problem:

"Our concern is Republicans will be challenging in large numbers for the purpose of slowing down voting, because challenging takes a long time,'' said David Sullivan, the voter protection coordinator for the national Democratic Party in Ohio. "And creating long lines causes our people to leave without voting.''

2) Some Ohio Democrats have recieved phone calls reminding them to vote on Nov. 5 -- three days after the election.

3) According to a Cleveland TV station, some Democratic have recieved letters:

The phony letter says newly registered voters signed up by the Kerry or Capri Cafaro campaigns or the NAACP, their registrations are illegal and they will not be able to vote.

Here is the letter, via LawGeek.

Stupid Americans again (again)

Orcinus points me a Salon article about how rabid Kerry-haters are. You should go read the whole thing, it's very disturbing, etc. Just a taste, because the fact that it's disturbing is not my point:

Lisa Dupler, a 33-year-old from Columbus, held up a rainbow-striped John Kerry sign outside the Nationwide Arena on Friday, as Republicans streamed out after being rallied by George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger. A thickset woman with very short, dark hair, Dupler was silent and barely flinched as people passing her hissed "faggot" into her ear. An old lady looked at her and said, "You people are sick!" A kid who looked to be about 10 or 11 affected a limp wrist and mincing voice and said, "Oh, I'm gay." Rather than restraining him, his squat mother guffawed and then turned to Dupler and sneered, "Why don't you go marry your girlfriend?" Encouraged, her son yelled, "We don't want faggots in the White House!"

The throngs of Republicans were pumped after seeing the president and the action hero. But there was an angry edge to their elation. They shrieked at the dozen or so protesters standing on the concrete plaza outside the auditorium. "Kerry's a terrorist!" yelled a stocky kid in baggy jeans and braces. "Communists for Kerry! Go back to Russia," someone else screamed. Many of them took up the chant "Kerry sucks"; old women and teenage boys shouting with equal ferocity.

Idiocy

I've been flogging David Brooks for a few months now, because I used to respect him. He was the articulate conservative, the one whose take on things I found interesting. He hasn't been that for a while now. This is the last straw. He's talking about Osama:

One of the crucial issues of this election is, Which candidate fundamentally gets the evil represented by this man? Which of these two guys understands it deep in his gut - not just in his brain or in his policy statements, but who feels it so deep in his soul that it consumes him?

No. Not at all. That's 100% wrong. Not right in any way, shape, or form. I don't give a fuck which candidate has a deeper gut. I care about which candidate will find terrorists and make them not attack us. I don't care about which one feels sadder about it. I care about which one will do something about it.

If the election were held between George W. Bush and a terrorist-seeking robot, I'd vote for the robot. The robot might be effective.

George W. Bush can sit around and feel sorry for poor people in his gut all he wants. But I want someone else to actually do the work of eliminating poverty in this country.

George W. Bush's gut can cry all it wants about the civilian casualties in Iraq. But I want a president that will actually try to avoid them.

George W. Bush and his gut can go have a beer with a regular guy all they want. But I want a president whose policies favor regular guys, and not his rich friends.

Why is this so disappointing? Because Brooks is the guy who knows how to write. Who knows how to think. Who has thoughts that are complex enough to be in books. And instead he's worrying about which candidate has a bigger gut. Though I suppose there is some sort of sick logic at work here -- the modern republican party has come full circle. Even their intellectuals are anti-intellectual.

Brooks, unfortunately for us all, continues:

It's quite clear from the polls that most Americans fundamentally think Bush does get this. Last March, Americans preferred Bush over Kerry in fighting terrorism by 60 percent to 33 percent, according to the Gallup Poll. Now, after a furious campaign and months of criticism, that number is unchanged. Bush is untouched on this issue.

Is this the same American public, Dave, 42% of which thinks that Saddam was involved in 9/11? Do those 60% of Americans you refer to actually know Bush's positions on terrorism, and everything else? Or do they have their facts wrong? I'm not optimistic.

-- Michael

Osama

Atrios points to two news stories that involve republicans seeming to rejoice at the re-emergence of bin Laden. I knew republicans were craven, but they should really keep this kind of stuff to themselves:

Wrapping up a campaign shadowed by war and terrorism, President Bush and Democratic Sen. John Kerry unabashedly sought political advantage Saturday from Osama bin Laden's re-emergence.

"It's very helpful to the president," contended Bush ally Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., although the president didn't mention the menacing new message from bin Laden at his first campaign stops on a four-state, 14-hour swing.

Wow! Bin Laden is helpful to the president. That's nice to know. How about this:

"We want people to think 'terrorism' for the last four days," said a Bush-Cheney campaign official. "And anything that raises the issue in people's minds is good for us."

A senior GOP strategist added, "anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush."

He called it "a little gift," saying it helps the President but doesn't guarantee his reelection.

Bin Laden is a "little gift"! That's great. Can someone please put that in a TV ad? We here at the RNC want you to feel "nervous" about your personal safety because it helps us keep our power. Maybe you should have a new slogan. "republicans: we don't want you to feel safe." If this is so helpful to you guys, maybe you should encourage bin Laden to kill some more Americans. That would guarantee re-election!

Despicable

Now, I don't want to jump to conclusions here. This may be a hoax. But if the republicans are really handing out this flyer in African-American neighborhoods in Milwaukee, someone should be prosecuted. George W. Bush? Ed Gillespie?

-- Michael

Mosh

I've gotta say, I've never been a huge Eminem fan. Don't get me wrong, I think he's talented, and I thought "Stan" was a good song. But, ya know, the gay-bashing thing, the misogynist thing, and his general attitude...

But his new video, "Mosh," which has been getting a lot of attention, is really fantastic. Really. Not just because I agree with him. I really think it's an excellent music video and a good song, and that's saying something coming from a boring classical musician. Not to mention an astute bit of cultural criticism.

Go watch it, if you haven't already.

-- Michael

Right-wing reaction to the al-Qaqaa explosives scandal

Now, people that read this blog often know how much I despise right-wing lies, but there is something about the al-Qaqaa missing explosives scandal that has made republicans lie even more blatantly than normal. Let's take a few quotations.

And I'll take it as a given that at the very least a substantial amount of explosives were looted from al-Qaqaa after the president failed to order the US military to secure the site. You've all seen the photographs of the explosives there, taken by an American news team. You've seen the video of US military officers breaking the IAEA seal.

And you all know that former chief weapons inspector David Kay has said:

Well, at least with regard to this one bunker and the film shows one seal, one bunker, one group of soldiers going through and there were others there that were sealed, with this one, I think it is game, set and match.

There was HMX, RDX in there. The seal was broken and quite frankly to me the most frightening thing is not only is the seal broken and the lock broken but the soldiers left after opening it up. I mean to rephrase the so-called Pottery Barn rule if you open an arms bunker, you own it. You have to provide security.

So in that context lets examine some of the carnage. I'll put the obvious lies in bold type. President Bush:

Now the Senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign policy advisor admits "we don't know the facts." End quote. Think about that. The Senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts. Unfortunately, that's part of the pattern of saying anything it takes to get elected.

Simplicity

Let's make this real easy:

Q. Were explosives looted from the al Qaqaa facility after the Iraq war ended?

A. Yes. KSTP has photographs of the explosives (intact) from April 18. They also have photographs of the IAEA seals, still intact. Reuters has an explanatory story.

Former Bush administration weapons inspector David Kay, on CNN, says: "There was HMX, RDX in there. The seal was broken and quite frankly to me the most frightening thing is not only is the seal broken and the lock broken but the soldiers left after opening it up."

Q. Is this the fault of the soldiers in the field?

A. No, even though republicans are saying so. The soldiers followed orders.

Q. Is it the fault of the Bush administration?

A. Yes, because they failed to have the site guarded, even though the IAEA had warned them about the site on several occasions. The administration knew the explosives were there, but chose to make the site only a "medium" priority site.

Or to put it as David Kay did when asked whether there is "any reason not to have anticipated that there would be bunkers like this, explosives like this, and the need to secure them?" Mr. Kay answered, "Absolutely not."

Q. Why are the republicans blaming the troops? Why were they saying the Russians did it? Why are some implying that these explosives were WMD? And why will they not admit what happened?

A. Because they are liars. Because they aren't interested in finding out the truth. They're only interested in getting their candidate elected, and they'll say anything to win, even it means lying about the troops, lying about the Russians, producing phony satellite photos. They hoping to sew the seeds of confusion so that no one really knows what happened before election day.

Q. The administration says 263,000 tons of munitions have been destroyed in Iraq. What's the big deal about 380 tons of explosives?

A. Well, munitions can mean anything. A single bomb can weigh a ton or more. What we're talking about here are very concentrated explosives, one pound of which was used to blow up a plane in the 1980s. Also, these types of explosives have been used in attacks on our troops before.

That's not the only issue though. It speaks to the broader fact that the Bush administration didn't plan properly for the aftermath of the war.

-- Michael

Shameless

Why does Rudy Giuliani hate our troops?

The president was cautious; the president was prudent; the president did what a commander in chief should do. No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?

On the Today Show. Atrios has the video.

UPDATE: Media Matters has a few more troop-hating republicans.

William Kristol:

The Bush campaign was actually slow to respond, I think, but finally yesterday pointed out that Kerry was launching very serious charges against the president of the United States, based on a thinly sourced New York Times article, charges that really impugn the competence of the U.S. military. [President] George [W.] Bush didn't decide, you know, "skip that dump" [the Al Qaqaa military installation, where the missing explosives were supposedly housed]. That was 101st [Airborne Division] or the 3rd ID [Infantry Division], "skip that arms dump." That's not a decision made by the president, that's made on the ground. Even if there were some weapons there, this is what happens in war. You know you have to make tough decisions, leave some stuff to take care of later.

Laura Ingraham, in dialogue with Steve Murphy (formerly of the Gephardt campaign):

STEVE MURPHY: Laura, Laura, John Kerry did not question the troops. John Kerry questioned the leadership of --

INGRAHAM: Oh, really? Who was looking for those weapons, Steve?

MURPHY: He questioned the leadership of George [W.] Bush. George Bush did not send enough soldiers.

[CROSSTALK]

INGRAHAM: Was George Bush on the ground there? The military commanders were on the ground there, Steve.

MURPHY: He [Bush] didn't send enough soldiers to Iraq. He didn't secure the borders.

INGRAHAM: That's not how the soldiers see it, Steve.

MURPHY: He didn't secure the weapons.

INGRAHAM: Why don't you talk to the soldiers for a change?

As someone once said, they'll say anything to get elected. To my republican friends: you really shouldn't attack our troops like that. It makes you look bad.

-- Michael

Victory Salute

Bob Harris was kind enough to make the above animated gif. Feel free to download it. Send it to your friends. Your parents. Evangelical Christians. Anyone that thinks that George W. Bush is on their side.

Lest you should think it was photoshopped or otherwise faked, it wasn't. There is a real honest to God video of Bush at the end of his tenure as governor of Texas. Lots of people were on to this one yesterday, but Kos was the first one I saw.

I feel like I've been saying this a lot lately, but if the DNC doesn't have a TV ad using this footage by the end of the day, someone should get fired. It must be the excess of material or something.

-- Michael