David S
2009-05-29 18:24:26

@35. Juvenal:

I realize that you have no argument to make (but you have to do something or you won’t get paid), but really, how dumb do you think people are?

Apparently some people are pretty dumb, getting all bent out of shape over the dropping of a case that never should have been brought. The Bush administration was prosecuting an unarmed poll watcher for being at the polling location… on what basis? Did someone actually complain that their right to vote was interfered with? Only one person at the scene had a weapon, and he left the scene when asked to do so. It appears that this person now is restricted from approaching a polling place with any weapons – a very measured and appropriate response to a very minor “incident”.

There was never a strong case here for the government to pursue – and pressing a case against these defendants when they mounted no defense would effectively promote their cause, as it would be seen as government overreacting. There is nothing to be gained by abusing the rights of these men. A designated poll watcher should not be removed arbitrarily when he is trying to monitor the polling.

There is a fine line when it comes to voting rights, and Obama’s team got this one right.

Peace.

DS

The nerve it must take to sign your post with “Peace” when you’ve just pretended to see nothing wrong with at least three guys (only one of which was a poll watcher) armed with bats at a polling site intimidating voters of the wrong race is astounding. I don’t want to have anything to do with your twisted notion of “peace.”