Holy crap, campaign attack ads

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Designs

Look, I'm not sure where you're getting that information, but I can tell you with 100% certainty because I am doing exactly the kind of voter-outreach work that you describe there is no effort being conducted by any major campaign, any Republican State Committee, or the Republican National Committee to discourage anyone from voting. Quite the opposite, in fact, is true.

---

Which 'major' congressional race are you part of: Allen or Santorum?

'Cause it seems that the Santorum camp, after failing to split the liberal voters by sponsoring a green candidate, have now started issuing filers from a phoney leftist group sating Casey isn't liberal enough.

So tell me: what is the purpose of sending out fliers saying Casey isn't liberal enough? Does that somehow boost Republican turnout? Or does it only discourage liberals from wanting to vote?

You'll notice from this guy's bio that he's connected with the DoJ and the WH - not exactly an outsider to the GOP networks.

I'm a staffer for Senator Santorum's race. The Green Party candidate had nothing to do with failing to split liberal voters - it was an attempt, not directly endorsed by the Santorum campaign, to allow multiple parties on the ballot -- also known as democracy. Casey's campaign attempted (but failed completely) to help bring a Libertarian candidate onto the ballot. They also smothered democracy by fighting Carl Romanelli's placement on the ballot.

As for the other "phoney leftist group," I can assure you with certainty that neither our campaign, the Pennsylvania GOP, nor the Republican National Committee had any involvement with that. Thus, I cannot comment on the reasoning behind this and the factuality of the accusations or the material sent by the group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Designs

I
As for the other "phoney leftist group," I can assure you with certainty that neither our campaign, the Pennsylvania GOP, nor the Republican National Committee had any involvement with that. Thus, I cannot comment on the reasoning behind this and the factuality of the accusations or the material sent by the group.

---

an official involvement or any involvement whatsoever. I think there is alot of communication going on between the "splinter" groups and members of official campaigns.

Any involvement whatsoever. That kind of association (I believe) is illegal under the new campaign finance laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Designs

Any involvement whatsoever. That kind of association (I believe) is illegal under the new campaign finance laws.

---

do you really believe that though. A campaign has alot of people working for it, some with their hearts in the right place but their heads up their...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

What evidence leads you to believe that???

---

First hand observation. Knowing people involved in described activities. Shocking! There are regular citizens who actually believe that Republican candidates are better suited for a position and are willing to cooperate and use resources to get out that message. The audacity!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

The organizations that fund and produce those ads do not operate in a vacuum.
In most cases they are simply ways for political leaders to skirt campaign finance laws via a separate entity and/or to create deniable plausibility when it comes to the really vile mud-slinging.

---

Proof?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

is able to get every party leader and every rightwing media pundit repeating in lockstep the same exact spin within 24hrs, and let's not forget this is the same organization that had no ethical or lawful problem with paying for fake news stories and propaganda against their own citizens to further their own political agenda, and finally let's not forget the images from the last election of democratic precincts that were so shorted on voting machines that it created 8-10 hour waiting lines... if that's not voter surpression, I don't know what is...

If ayone really believes that promoting a simple and basic strategy of voter surpression is beyond the abilities of the republican organization, or beneath their ethical limits, or that they are too naive to be able to think of it on their own, then to repeat, they are either deluding themselves or they haven't been paying attention... or perhaps they're only interest is in pushing a particular political agenda... hmmmm.

---

And it's the Democrats preference to believe in this kind of tripe instead of acknowledging that there might be others who thoughtfully disagree with their positions that is causing them to fail. We're back to Star Wars fantasies again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Perhaps we're talking about two different animals here.
I was not referring to "over-sampled polls" which are taken ahead of time from people who could change their minds or not show up at the polls.
I was instead referring to "Exit Polls" which are only taken from voters who have just voted and are so accurate that they are used by our government and watchdog groups to discover election fraud in third world countries, and which have never been "wrong" in American election history... except during the last election where republican-owned voting machines delivered the republican win exactly as the voting machine maker's CEO guaranteed at a republican fundraiser before the election... hmmmm.

---

Perhaps we were referring to two different things. But, now that you mention it, the exit polls were probably over-sampled as well. The company that conducted the exit poll did investigate why there was a discrepancy and concluded that it was due to flaws in their methods, not some kind of fraud. Sorry skywalker. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Designs

I'm a staffer for Senator Santorum's race. The Green Party candidate had nothing to do with failing to split liberal voters - it was an attempt, not directly endorsed by the Santorum campaign, to allow multiple parties on the ballot -- also known as democracy.

---

Sorry, hold on one minute...

...

...okay, all done now.

Quote:

---

Casey's campaign attempted (but failed completely) to help bring a Libertarian candidate onto the ballot. They also smothered democracy by fighting Carl Romanelli's placement on the ballot.

---

Wait, wait - I thought getting more people on the ballot was democracy, not smothering it...?

Quote:

---

As for the other "phoney leftist group," I can assure you with certainty that neither our campaign, the Pennsylvania GOP, nor the Republican National Committee had any involvement with that. Thus, I cannot comment on the reasoning behind this and the factuality of the accusations or the material sent by the group.

---

Ah yes, those infamous 'bad apples' that seem to be behind anything bad that happens in order to advance the GOP's cause.

Did you miss the part where the guy who supposedly founded this group worked in the white house? And the DoJ? Resonable deniability gets harder when you have to deny insiders. If this was James McWingnut from Noqueers, TX it might work, but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gerbick

I personally don't get why the shock though. It's nothing major... it's like the fist fights at the Japanese or British Parliament. It happens. The politicians are largely people I'd really never trust anyway - spending millions of dollars campaigning for a job that pays thousands... I've said it in the past. It doesn't make sense - and above all, they tend to not truly know what's going on at a local level as is the case with the local government here and in places I've travelled in the past.

---

Yeah. I believe it's a weakness of capitalism. Our best citizens tend to stay in the private sector. [I'm sure it's not a popular idea but I believe that government elect should get paid much more to compete with the rewards of industry.]

I do believe it. I know every one of our staffers, and every one of the state party's staffers, from the campaign manager down. Anything they did on their own time, not paid by the campaign, is their own perogative, and is not associated with the campaign. I can't know without question that they weren't involved in that sense, but I am just about certain that they weren't knowing them personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Designs

I do believe it. I know every one of our staffers, and every one of the state party's staffers, from the campaign manager down. Anything they did on their own time, not paid by the campaign, is their own perogative, and is not associated with the campaign. I can't know without question that they weren't involved in that sense, but I am just about certain that they weren't knowing them personally.

---

impossible. nobody can possibly conclude that a Republican should be in office without being manipulated by Rove.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

Wait, wait - I thought getting more people on the ballot was democracy, not smothering it...?

---

It is. Casey's campaign, the PA Democratic Party, and his smear-machine, Larry Smar, successfully fought the placement of Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli on the ballot in court -- hence smothering democracy. They were, however, also unsuccessful in getting their Libertarian candidate on the ballot. Two different scenarios.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

Perhaps we were referring to two different things. But, now that you mention it, the exit polls were probably over-sampled as well. The company that conducted the exit poll did investigate why there was a discrepancy and concluded that it was due to flaws in their methods, not some kind of fraud. Sorry skywalker. ;)

---

I'm sorry, I must have missed this - what flaw in their methods?

The only explanation that was ever given was the unsupported claim that more Kerry voters talked to exit poll workers than those that voted for Bush. (page 3 or so).

What flawed "method" are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Designs

It is. Casey's campaign, the PA Democratic Party, and his smear-machine, Larry Smar, successfully fought the placement of Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli on the ballot in court -- hence smothering democracy. They were, however, also unsuccessful in getting their Libertarian candidate on the ballot. Two different scenarios.

---

you seem to have missed the irony in your statement - you say they are trying to smother democracy by keeping someone off the ballot right after you say the failed in trying to get someone on the ballot with almost completely contrary viewpoints

Ultima, the Green candidate couldn't get on the ballot because he didn't have the required signatures. Many of which (among those not just made up) were of Republicans. The entire operation (at least $55k out of the total $60) was from Santorum donors.

Face it - it was a sandbag operation, and it used your candidate's fundraising machinery.

I really can't comment on what Casey may have done (quite honestly, I've never heard a mention of it - researching now) and I wouldn't be surprised if he had. Politics is a dirty business, but you're belief that everyone in state party's operations are squeeky-clean, all-above-the-board types smacks of naivte, IMHO.

*edit*
might help if I knew the name of the Lib. candidate - google's being unhelpful today...

Don't see any candidate as libertarian: PA Sen. Wiki

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

I'm sorry, I must have missed this - what flaw in their methods?

The only explanation that was ever given was the unsupported claim that more Kerry voters talked to exit poll workers than those that voted for Bush. (page 3 or so).

What flawed "method" are you talking about?

---

The director of the poll has stated that Democrats were more anxious to participate in the poll and were thus over-sampled.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/polit...lls_11-05.html

[that may or may not be true. i dont think we can ever know. but, i think he is in a better position that you or i to comment on the plausibility of that. apparently, people think that the history of polls is evidence that there was voter fraud. i call it a thread.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

you seem to have missed the irony in your statement - you say they are trying to smother democracy by keeping someone off the ballot right after you say the failed in trying to get someone on the ballot with almost completely contrary viewpoints

---

Not trying to be ironic, just making two separate statements - one is that the Casey campaign and Dems have attacked the drive to get Romanelli on the ballot but tried to do the same; the other is that the Casey campaign and Dems have smothered democracy (hypocritically in contrast to their earlier attempts) by fighting to get Romanelli off the ballot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

Ultima, the Green candidate couldn't get on the ballot because he didn't have the required signatures. Many of which (among those not just made up) were of Republicans. The entire operation (at least $55k out of the total $60) was from Santorum donors.

Face it - it was a sandbag operation, and it used your candidate's fundraising machinery.

---

I disagree. Romanelli's drive was simply an attempt to open up the race to multiple viewpoints and candidates. We supported Romanelli's candidacy as such, and also because Romanelli was willing to confront the issues and (unlike Bobby Casey) did not duck from debates and the issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

I really can't comment on what Casey may have done (quite honestly, I've never heard a mention of it - researching now) and I wouldn't be surprised if he had. Politics is a dirty business, but you're belief that everyone in state party's operations are squeeky-clean, all-above-the-board types smacks of naivte, IMHO.

*edit*
might help if I knew the name of the Lib. candidate - google's being unhelpful today...

Don't see any candidate as libertarian: PA Sen. Wiki

---

No candidate ever filed on the ballot, I don't believe -- it was an early and outright failed drive.

I never said that politics is a clean business or that everyone is squeeky-clean, but simply that we and they weren't involved with some of the activities described earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Designs

I disagree. Romanelli's drive was simply an attempt to open up the race to multiple viewpoints and candidates. We supported Romanelli's candidacy as such, and also because Romanelli was willing to confront the issues and (unlike Bobby Casey) did not duck from debates and the issues.

---

so you're saying that republicans tryed to get a left-leaning candidate on the ballot and democrats tryed to get a right-leaning candidate on the ballot.

I highly doubt either party fought for this based only on their love of the democratic process. If so, Satorum would have been fighting for the Libertarian as well, and vice-versa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

The director of the poll has stated that Democrats were more anxious to participate in the poll and were thus over-sampled.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/polit...lls_11-05.html

[that may or may not be true. i dont think we can ever know. but, i think he is in a better position that you or i to comment on the plausibility of that. apparently, people think that the history of polls is evidence that there was voter fraud. i call it a thread.]

---

That's hardly an explanation, IMHO. This was the first time people were excited to say they voted for their candidate? And only Democrats? And only in a select few states?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

The director of the poll has stated that Democrats were more anxious to participate in the poll and were thus over-sampled.

---

It does sound plausible as republicans tend to be conservative who are busy and grumpy, while democrats tend to be liberals who are all community oriented and more than willing to piss away time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Designs

Not trying to be ironic, just making two separate statements - one is that the Casey campaign and Dems have attacked the drive to get Romanelli on the ballot but tried to do the same; the other is that the Casey campaign and Dems have smothered democracy (hypocritically in contrast to their earlier attempts) by fighting to get Romanelli off the ballot.

---

...that sounds like the same thing to me.

By the way, how did Casey "try" to get this libertarian on the ballot? Did he fund any type of signature campaign? Seriously, I've found 0 on any of that.

Quote:

---

I disagree. Romanelli's drive was simply an attempt to open up the race to multiple viewpoints and candidates. We supported Romanelli's candidacy as such, and also because Romanelli was willing to confront the issues and (unlike Bobby Casey) did not duck from debates and the issues.

---

Seems rather reckless for a candidate to support his opponents - don't you think? What person in their right mind would help someone else compete for their job, unless they knew they had no chance of winning?

You really think this was about democracy and opening up to new ideas? Where was Santorum when this supposed libertarian candidate was trying to get on the ticket? Why did he support the Green (ideologically his opposite) and not the lib (ideologically closer)?

Quote:

---

I never said that politics is a clean business or that everyone is squeeky-clean, but simply that we and they weren't involved with some of the activities described earlier.

---

And if you believe that, I have a bride in swampland in FL to sell you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar

It does sound plausible as republicans tend to be conservative who are busy and grumpy, while democrats tend to be liberals who are all community oriented and more than willing to piss away time.

---

Unlike all the other elections where... oh wait a minute...