Remember the fake furor over Women's Voices, Women's Votes? Remember how "progressive" bloggers joined the long-standing GOP effort to shut down this successful voter registration organization, under the pretense that the group was trying to help Hillary (which, in fact, it was not)?
Well, looks like the O-Bots have instituted a real robo-call vote suppression scheme in West Virginia. Naturally, you won't hear one word about this on the progblogs.
I doubt that even "Thor" Friedman will mention it, just as he made sure not to mention the first-hand eyewitness accounts of O-bot intimidation of caucus voters in Texas. But can you blame him? If the Obi cultists go after him the way they go after me, he'll soon be giving his landlord an explanation instead of a check.
The scheme goes like this: West Virginian Democrats are getting automatic calls from the Obama campaign, saying that THE PRIMARY ELECTION IS OVER, so please send money to Obama for the general election campaign. If pressed, the O Team can simply say that these are fundraising calls, not vote suppression calls. Of course, voters in states that have already held primaries are not receiving these "THE ELECTION IS OVER" calls.
Cute trick, eh? Can you believe that Democrats are doing this crap? What has happened to my (former) party?
6 comments:
Joe, is there any evidence this is actually happening, besides an anonymous email on yahoo that triggered this?
John
SluggoJD
John, you do trip me up here. I would consider that letter insufficent if it said something that disagreed with my bias. That said, I do find the detail convincing...
"Basically, they are telling voters its over. Then they ask for $400 donations. What the dollar amount is about, I don’t know."
Now, one sign of a fake story is that everything in the hoax has (usually) been stripped down. Odd or inconvenient details usually don't appear in a hoax.
The $400 bit is just such an inconvenient detail. It doesn't really make sense, and it doesn't really add anything from a propaganda standpoint. Why would a pro-Obama faker make up something like that? Why would a pro-Hillary faker make up something like that?
The detail simply does not betray an agenda. Therefore, to me, it has the ring of truth.
What has happened to my (former) party?
Joseph, first of all not forgetting that somewhere around half the membership of the party is not corrupted; Your former party leadership institutions have been carefully and intentionally corrupted, and so has our nation's press. The youth part of the party thus have not been difficult to influence and lead astray.
The corrupting cabal (call them neocons for an at least rough approximation) extends across the Atlantic.
The below does not prove those assertions, but points toward them (along with tons of other stuff I've studied, especially American history.)
Look at the institutions mentioned in the links and consider their connections to the Democratic Party in terms of influence, maybe you will see something I can't see or point to, and I will succeed here beyond my expectations.
Public exposure of the British neocons fills out a picture that is otherwise falsified by an over-attention to the U.S.A. neocon political and media apparatus.
Consider the role of current MI6 head Sir John Scarlett, as a leading "neocon booster."
Formerly the head of Tony Blair's Joint Intelligence Committee, Scarlett presided over the "sexed up" Downing Street White Papers on Iraq's purported WMD, which drove the disinformation campaign, leading to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
As chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, he had access to the full range of information -- including secret information -- available to his government. I did not, and I imagine you did not.
Scarlett's job, as chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, was to bring the intel together and apply critical reason to it. This he patently did not do. I have to say our bloggers would at least have made a better job of it than he did.
It took analysts at the International Atomic Energy Authority a matter of hours to identify the documents purporting to show that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Niger as forgeries, apparently using little more than a check with Google. Why didn't Sir John Scarlett ensure that claims made by MI6 had been tested against easily publicly available evidence?
But the press would have the sheep believe the rot and mayhem is American in origin.
(The key divisions here are less between U.S.-U.K., than within them. The neocons have gained ascendancy both in the U.S. and U.K.)
Above is but a hint of whats in the links below, which include names and institutions and much mention of media and corrupted intelligence institutions, as well as discussion in comments.
The intro, with promise of more to come:
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/05/10/british-neocon-apparatus-exposed-leading-website.html
The body, with discussion, albeit not holding to focus of intro.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/habakkuk/index.html
From a comment at http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/voter-suppression-in-west-virginia/
I’ve done some serious phone banking for Senator Obama here in WV, and I can tell you that the script we’ve been given to use absolutely focuses first on getting out the vote. The next priority has been getting volutneers to help with the campaign. Fundraising has been a distant third.
We have been given constant direction to remain respectful, not to try to talk any decided voters out of a choice they have already made, and to remain positive and focused on getting people to the polls. Someone has given you some bad information."
Now this refers to real calls not robo-calls. Could this be a scam pulled by someone out to get money? Or is it just a rumor? It does seem to be going around the internet, without any substantiation.
The burden of proof is on your side here.
And the burden of proof is on you if you say you believe (say) the Silvia Odio story. Or the stuff that Jack Martin said.
On Silvia Odio and Jack Martin. Ok, fair enough but but at least there is evidence there that can be examined, documents, interviews, etc. Which you don't have here.
Post a Comment