In his speech to minority journalists in Washington (discussed here and here yesterday), Kerry made the remarkable claim that “[t]he harsh fact now is that in the last election more than 1 million African-Americans were disenfranchised in one of the most tainted elections in history.”
What is the evidence for that claim?
I looked first at a source, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that is notorious for exaggerating the breadth and depth of discrimination, but its report on Florida was not very helpful. (The report, which doesn’t seem to have its own URL, can be found here by rooting around under “voting rights.”) It was very big on the “disparate impact” of the “disenfranchisement” on blacks but the absolute numbers it claimed were hard to find. Maybe they’re there somewhere, but in Chapter One the Commission actually concluded that “[I]t is impossible to determine the total number of voters turned away from the polls.” The total number of unrecorded over- and under-vote ballots in Florida was 280,000, a lower percentage of the total than in several other jurisdictions. Regarding the number of people improperly purged from voting lists because their names mistakenly appeared on lists of felons, the Civil Rights Commission estimated, in the two counties that would be most likely to make its case, that between 13% and 14% of the names on the lists were improper, and that on average blacks made up 65% of all the names. Thus, in Miami-Dade, using the CRC’s own figures, that would mean 524 people in 2000. This actually considerably exaggerates the number, since the CRC’s estimate of a 13-14% error rate is based on the fact that 812 people successfully appealed their exclusion and remained on the rolls.
Perhaps the most thorough examination of the 2000 vote nationwide was conducted by the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project. It found a likely total of 4-6 million “lost votes.” From pp. 10-11:
We estimate that between four and six million presidential votes were lost in the 2000 election….
Two million ballots, two percent of the 100 million ballots cast for president in 2000, were not counted because they were unmarked, spoiled, or ambiguous. Of this two percent it is estimated that 0.5 percent did not intend to vote for president, so 1.5 percent (or 1.5 million people) thought they voted for president but their votes were not counted….
We lost between one-and-a-half and three million votes because of the registration process in 2000. According to the U.S. Census, Current Population Survey, 7.4 percent of the forty million registered voters who did not vote stated that they did not vote because of registration problems….
We lost between 500,000 and 1.2 million votes because of polling place operations. According to the U.S. Census, Current Population Survey, 2.8 percent of the forty million registered voters who did not vote in 2000 stated that they did not vote because of problems with polling place operations such as lines, hours, or locations….
We lost an unknown number of votes because of mishandled and controversial absentee and overseas military ballots.
I didn’t read the whole report, but I couldn’t find any racial breakdown of these “lost votes.” So, it would be good to know what evidence Kerry has for his charge that over a million blacks were “disenfrancised” in 2000.
Perhaps a place to start would be an explanation of what he means by “disenfranchisement.” For example, I’m not sure that a person who doesn’t vote because the registration line is too long should be recorded as a “lost vote.” Does Sen. Kerry think that non-voter was “disenfranchised”? Can one “disenfranchise” oneself by not voting or by improperly marking a ballot? Charging that over a million blacks were “disenfranchised” sounds like a charge that there was a massive, nationwide violation of the Voting Rights Act. Does Sen. Kerry believe that was the case?
Maybe this charge was simply another example of one of his “overzealous speechwriters” at work.
UPDATE
For much more information and analysis, see Dave Huber’s excellent post. In addition, reader John Matthews sends this link to a thorough post on RealClearPolitics debunking the leading propagator of the massive disenfranchisement story.
http://www.gregpalast.com is the place you want to look for black disenfranchisement in voting.
John, America has an ABOMINABLE record on black voting rights, from elligibillity, to poll taxes, grandfather clauses, intimidation, etc. Why on EARTH can’t you fathom that racism to this extent exists today?
You have the false felon voter purging in Florida. You have elected GOP officials speaking OPENLY about “suppressing votes” in urban areas,
http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw101420_20040721.htm
There are more examples as well.
John, your posts present an admirable quality…a dogmatic desire to believe in the altruism of the white majority in America. Unfortunately, history and reality don’t defend your viewpoint as often as you would like.
–Cobra
To the governing and media classes out there, Do I have the right not to vote?
Especially if there is no one who would represent my views.
So poll taxes are still in effect, though now unconstitutional? Wow, lawsuit time! Somebody could make a wad of money over this…
Do I think the U.S. has a sordid history of discriminating against blacks in voting? Yes. Do I think that discrimination against blacks voting continues? No, not really. I’m sure it happens, but I don’t think it happens on a large scale.
KEEPING THE LIE ALIVE
John Kerry has made the [remarkable] statement numerous times that “one million African-Americans were disenfranchised in 2000.” Since “mainstream” journalists appear reluctant to push Kerry on the “evidence” of his claim (even “minority” journalists t…
“ONE MILLION” DISENFRANCHISED
In the WaPos’ article on John Kerry’s appearance before the Unity Conference (of minority journalists), the last paragraph of writer…
If several million votes were “lost” nationwide, and perhaps a million were cast by illegals and felons, one must wonder who actually won in several of the close states like New Mexico and Wisconsin.
Some jerk runs away without voting because he sees a highway patrol cruiser parked outside the polling station.
Obviously he was disenfranchised.
Here’s how a lefty defended these types of statements to me:
Regardless of the truth of the accusations (which she admitted aren’t supported at the least and are probably not true) the accusation serves to focus attention on black participation in the political process which is a positive outcome. Therefore, anyone speaking out against these accusations is retarding black progress consciously or not.
She didn’t seem to think promoting a false belief that America is still a pervasively racist country was a significant price to pay for this “progress”. She regarded it as a bonus, since such a belief will increase racial vigilance.
Well, at least she was honest.
If you include actual felons who were correctly placed on the felon lists in the states that bar felons from voting, I think you could get the number up to a million blacks.
Of course, it would be rather disingenuous to describe those people as “disenfranchised,” and Kerry would never be disingenuous, would he?
mj, you should explain to your acquaintance that promoting a false cause of a problem in order to draw attention to that problem is self-defeating. After time and resources have been spent solving the false cause and the problem still persists it will be concluded that it is intractable.
For those interested, the following link is to the ACTUAL Florida “felon” list by Accenture, a company hired by Jeb Bush’s administration for THIS YEAR’S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. This list was deemed as “flawed”, because although there are 47,000+ names of “felons”, only 61 of them have hispanic surnames. Now, according to polling data, Hispanics tend to vote Republican in Florida.
This list only came into the public eye because of a lawsuit by the media.
This is a repeat of the same tactics the Jeb Bush/Katherine Harris Machine ran in 2000, when 57,700 names were purged from the list. According to Liam Scheff, in Boston’s Weekly Dig, 90.2 percent of the “felons” on the list, were innocent people who just happened to have the same or similiar names as those on the list.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2
I don’t have to tell you that the names listed on the “felon list” were disproportionately African-American.
In an election in Florida decided by 534 votes, you can understand why Congressmen like Corrine Brown of Jacksonville, FL JUSTIFIABLY claimed that the GOP stole the election.
It is only NOW, with the weight and power of the LAWSUIT and the TRIAL LAWYER do we see the TRUTH arise.
http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues22.html
–Cobra
“1 million disenfranchised?”
Evidence seems to be lacking for JFKerry…’s claim……
I read about the Hispanic name thing in FL and I’m still not sure how Hispanics who are felons won’t be on the banned voter list just b/c they are apparently “mixed” in w/those w/”white” surnames. Check out this link.
The link notes:
Technical advisers charged with developing the database discussed race at the October meeting and concluded that Hispanic could not be used as a separate race category in creating the match, meeting minutes show.
The minutes show that the committee planned to group Hispanics with whites for matching purposes. That step would have allowed Hispanics to be included in the felon list because Hispanics are reported in the white race categories in many voter registration databases and by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
So, where’s the conspiracy? If many voter registration databases and law enforcemment do NOT include a separate Hispanic category for their purposes, then how is deciding not to include one for figuring a felon list somehow “irregular?”
Hey, here’s an idea — do away with ALL racial figuring when compiling a felon no-vote list! Oh wait — even if with that there’s a “disproportionate” number of black felons, there’ll still be a conspiracy.
John’s last link in his update pretty much lays waste to Palast’s conspiracy theories about how “apartheid” voting exists in the US (and Florida).
>>The minutes show that the committee planned to group Hispanics with whites for matching purposes. That step would have allowed Hispanics to be included in the felon list because Hispanics are reported in the white race categories in many voter registration databases and by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
Maybe I can make this less complicated, so that you can understand.
This first link is the ACTUAL LIST ordered by Bush/Hood. It is only availible because of the lawsuit by the media, and I hope you have broadband if you decided to look at the PDF files. When you do look at them, you will notice how COMMON the names are.
http://www.pfaw.org/go/purge
The second link is the explanation by the State of Florida as to why you might have your voting rights removed.
“You may have been disqualified from voting by mistake because:
1. Your name and identifying information are the same or nearly the same as a convicted felon;
2. You have a felony conviction but have had your right to vote restored;
3. You had a felony arrest but the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor by the court;
4. You have a felony arrest but it did not result in a conviction; or
5. You had an arrest or a conviction, but it was not for a felony offense. ”
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/voterinfo/felony_convictions.html
According to this website, a person can have their civil rights stripped from them for simply SHARING THE SAME NAME. How many of the 47,000+ names on the list do you recognize as people you know? How many “Johnsons”, “Williams”, or “Smiths?”
Now, there are many who say…who cares? Just go down to the polls and straighten it out, right? Wrong! You must go to Florida Law Enforcement to be finger printed (at whatever cost they deem fit to charge you) and proove you’re NOT the felon they think you are, and THEN get the approved fingerprint report from the Law enforcement office to the Supervisors of Elections Department for review. By the way, they happen to meet QUARTERLY, and handle only 55 applications per meeting.
COUPLE THIS WITH THE FACT, that Greg Palast discovered that NONE of the people on the list in 2000 were notified by phone (he has the phone records) prior to Election Day that their names had been scrubbed from the voting rolls, what you had was a situation where people walked into the polls, found out they couldn’t vote, and had no way to REGAIN that voting status that same day.
NOW….
The LIST, as you can see for itself, has only 61 hispanic surnames on it. That is STUPIFYING in the face of the Florida Crime statistics on Hispanics. Why, 11% of the Florida Prison population is HISPANIC.
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:RGgWSgvVEFwJ:www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/07/more_fla_democr.php++Florida+Prison+population,+Hispanics&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Well, I know that reasonable people can disagree on theories, and motivations. But I have provided EVIDENCE that not only backs up Greg Palast, but exposes the reluctance of national news media to expose this “cyberklanning” activity.
—Cobra
If over 3 million valid votes were lost nationwide, and at least 2 million invalid votes were counted nationwide, in a close election it becomes difficult to judge who actually won.
In many states identification is not required at the polling place, making it easy for illegals, felons, and the French to vote for an american president.
In Wisconsin in the 2000 election, a very close vote, Gore won the state at least partially on the basis of large groups of college students who roamed from polling plact to polling place, voting repeatedly for Gore, never being checked for qualifications. It was systematic fraud, but no one really cared since it favored Gore.
OK, well it’s a bit more clear as to what is happening there, Cobra, and it *may* be evidence as to what Palast (and you) want to believe (BTW — were these people in 2K notified by mail or other means?); however, again, the site to which John (and I) linked pretty much trashes Palast’s theory about systematic nationwide black disenfranchisement, and furthermore it is inane to believe that the national media wouldn’t jump on the story if there was indeed concrete evidence of systematic — and purposeful — wrongdoing.
I recall reading one of Palast’s online posts where he was complaining about just this — where a big media type didn’t follow up on his complaints. The reason was “no hard evidence” and “just theory.”
Fleming: Here in nearby Philly, there were widespread stories about people voting who were dead, as well as groups of people who had addresses of industrial warehouses and such.
Dave,
You write:
>>>and furthermore it is inane to believe that the national media wouldn’t jump on the story if there was indeed concrete evidence of systematic — and purposeful — wrongdoinghttp://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/caas/welcome/Research%20Report.pdf
As you can see from this blog alone, white people seem to have a problem with any account of minorities being discriminated against. They tend to disparage the messenger of such news, discount it, or dismiss it entirely.
So if white people simply DON’T WANT TO HEAR about the problems minorities face, it won’t make programming sense to mercenary white males to AIR those problems.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12174159&BRD=2207&PAG=461&dept_id=444751&rfi=6
That’s why you won’t hear major stories on HOUSING DISCRIMINATION, even though it’s rampant in America.
http://www.huduser.org/publications/hsgfin/hds.html
That’s why you won’t hear major stories on segregation.
http://www.community2000online.org/comm_tensions/demographic_trends/
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Education/Back_To_Segregation.html
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/K/2/pub2084.html
And third world issues involving minorities? Please!
http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/newswire/2004/07/805128.shtml
http://www.ppu.org.uk/peacematters/1999/pm_99sum_media.html
Shall I tell you about media coverage of loan discrimination, wage discrimination, inequities in the administration of the justice system? I could fill this box up with FACT AFTER FACT, STUDY AFTER STUDY, and LINK AFTER LINK, Dave, but the bottom line is this–would it matter to you? I learned early on in my life as a black kid growing up in a predominantly white environment that there are some minds you’ll never change, some attitudes you’ll never influence and some fights you’ll never win. But I’ll never give up trying to get my point across. The same folks who tell me that black votes aren’t purposely disenfranchised are the same folks who DENY THAT ALL THESE OTHER DISCRIMINATORY ISSUES EXIST AS WELL, even after I lay out the studies, research and data.
It would be inaccurate to say the white-controlled media never covers racial issues, but there isn’t the focus applied.
–Cobra
http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues6.html
Cobra, I see you have no problem with discrimination and hatred of Arabs. Imagine.
Cobra, this “white males are responsible for all the evil in the world” act is stale cheese.
One can only guess at the psychology issues that provoke one to keep on upchucking this nonsense.
I gather you are white. Usually, when this is the case, we are witnessing an occurrence of “halo preening.” Liberal white men do this as an expression of their holiness and willingness to engage in self-denigration. Only in leftist communities do people understand why this is supposed to be a virtue.
It is, in fact, childish nonsense.
Stephen,
I’m African-American, and I don’t assume all white people are evil. If you were to rattle off statistics on minority crime, or out of wedlock births, I wouldn’t consider you anti-black or racist. You’re just reciting facts. For me to claim that white people control the national media is also a statement of fact. What’s the difference, Stephen?
–Cobra
Cobra: I’ve taken in only a few days of your perorations on this site. And though relentless in posting comments (both your own and links to other inane fellow travellers), I doubt that carpet-bombing is going to win you the day. Though please continue–it doesn’t seem to be affecting your work.
I should also say that I enjoyed your expatiation on the “Bush mafia” and “cyberklanning.” Ooooh those sound scary. In more prosaic terms, you have identified yourself as uniquely bearing the “TRUTH” and buttressed this proposition with the self-flattery of “I’m intellectually honest.” Clearly so. Though while modesty may not be your strength, solipsism certainly is. To expand on this just a bit, I culled a few samples from your already-burgeoning library of highlights:
* You were quite critical of John’s “dogmatic desire to believe in the altruism of the white majority.” As opposed to the altruism of the black population, you mean? Or are the high standards of altruism only to be applied to whites? If so, why? If not, then let’s hear how “altruistic” other races are in relation. Be specific and provide support if possible.
* You “have no use for a racist like Rhenquist.” It actually took a moment initially to digest this eccentric take on our Chief Justice. But now it’s perfectly clear. However, it led me to wonder what other racists you might have no use for. Sharpton? No, he’s ok. Jesse? Just fine. Maxine Waters? Farrakhan? Mugabe? Colin Ferguson? Jonathan and Reginald Carr? Or do racists have to be a certain color to pique your disdain? And if so, what does that make you?
* “There are NO MINORITY OWNERS of any National broadcast or cable news outlet.” Oh really? I’m sure Robert Johnson will be quite perplexed to learn this. http://www.bet.com/articles/0,1048,c15-225,00.html. Also, by minority ownership, I presume you mean black? And since nearly all news organizations are (or owned by) corporations, what do you mean by “owner?” Every news organization has thousands of black owners. Do you mean large shareholder? Largest shareholder? Majority shareholder? Or simply whatever is convenient for your argument?
Well, Cobra, then I’ll have to say that your obsession with President Bush is hurting you and I think you would be well advised to dump it.
I am a white man, and I’ll tell you some things that will surprise you. I was born into poverty and ignorance as deep as any black person. My father, who was just a redneck from the small town midwest, preached and practice racial equality.
I’ve lived most of my life in integrated communities, and I am married to a black/Filipino woman.
I would advise you very seriously to abandon this obsession with race and racism. The person getting hurt by this obsession is you. President Bush is not a racist, nor is he attempting to harm black people in any way. In fact, I see the Democratic party as racist, deliberately racist, and I see this as hurting black people.
The Democratic Party, to which I once belonged, is wedded to a policy that appears to benefit black people, but in fact hurts them. I see this every day in my interactions with blacks in the community where I live and work. The overwhelming issue for the black community today is not racism. It is the rejection of black gang violence. The Democratic Party continues, literally, to endorse black gang violence, by endorsing thugs like Al Sharpton. The damage that this does cannot be over-stated.
White men, like me… redneck white men, grow up in an atmosphere in which we are compelled to abandon gang violence. There is absolutely no public tolerance of gang violence for white men. This must be made the case for black men, too. I am seeing progress here among my black male friends, but I am not seeing this progress in the media or in the Democratic Party.
Forget the 2000 presidential election. I know that you think this is important, and I sense that you will just find another way to start on it again. Your attempts to recall the Mau-mauing rhetoric of the 60s suggests that you have an agenda that has nothing to do with President Bush or the election. To be blunt, you are living in the past and failing to make the adjustment to present reality.
The changes that have to be made in the black community now do not lend themselves to this Mau-mauing rhetoric. Those changes, which involve really digging in at school, renouncing gang violence, and bringing back to life the black family, are a little on the boring side. This is where people really prove themselves, in the boring struggle of everyday life. These issues cannot be resolved by attempting to impose the rhetoric of Malcolm X and Bobby Seales on 2004. I think that you hold onto this grand rhetoric because it is more comfortable to believe that change can be brought about in grand explosive demonstrations and speeches. That time is over. Let it go.
I hope you will take what I’ve had to say to heart.
Commenting while on vacation at the shore…
Cobra: It is utterly naive to think that just b/c “rich white males” own the media they wouldn’t jump all over a vast discrimination story if it had any merit. (Ted Turner — not a progressive? LOL!) The “big” media is *always* groping for stories of discrimination against minorities, and if there was indeed evidence that blacks were systematically denied the right to vote they’d jump at it full throttle. Look beyond “who owns” the media to who actually works there — high 80% who voted for Clinton and Gore in the last few elections! And what was the ratio of the recent UNITY conference? Even higher?
Naivete at its finest to think if Palast’s story had wheels it wouldn’t be picked up. The bottom line is that Palast’s “story” was about as believable as “The Clinton Chronicles.”
My, my, my. Where do I begin here? Well, let’s start with the assault upon my character.
Stuart,
You make the claim that my “carpet bombing won’t win me the day.” I already know I don’t change many minds here. When I see viewpoints that I disagree with, I challege them. You have listed some problems you have with my arguments. I will respond to them without ad-hominem attacks on you personally. After all, you’re just a one name signature without a link. Who knows who anyone really is?
POINT #1
>>>* You were quite critical of John’s “dogmatic desire to believe in the altruism of the white majority.” As opposed to the altruism of the black population, you mean? Or are the high standards of altruism only to be applied to whites? If so, why? If not, then let’s hear how “altruistic” other races are in relation. Be specific and provide support if possible.http://www.bjmjr.com/aamh.htm
There are horrific stories of the treatment of black soldiers, but they served anyway.
http://www.bet.com/articles/0,,c3gb9769-10772,00.html
http://www.nps.gov/foda/Fort_Davis_WEB_PAGE/About_the_Fort/Buffalo_Soldiers_Constitution_Overview.htm
African-American millitary personel, including my late father and his brothers, faced the double-edged sword of battling both the enemy in front of them, and bigotry from their own countrymen. There were times when German POWs during WW2 were given more rights than our own African-American soldiers.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0227_0228_tuskegee.html
Given the obstacles that these men and women faced, I believe that the sacrifice in BLOOD and HONOR fits the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of Altruism, as our black troops showed an amazingly unselfish regard for and devotion to a nation that didn’t even view them as equals.
POINT #2
>>>* You “have no use for a racist like Rhenquist.” It actually took a moment initially to digest this eccentric take on our Chief Justice. But now it’s perfectly clear. However, it led me to wonder what other racists you might have no use for. Sharpton? No, he’s ok. Jesse? Just fine. Maxine Waters? Farrakhan? Mugabe? Colin Ferguson? Jonathan and Reginald Carr? Or do racists have to be a certain color to pique your disdain? And if so, what does that make you?http://www-stu.calvin.edu/chimes/2001.04.27/perspectives/story02.shtml
Is there some nuance in that statement that I didn’t pick up on, Stuart? Some code words that I might have glossed over? Read that above link for some more “colorful” Rehnquist quotes on Native Americans and Jews.
Now, I’m not going to sit here and try to elaborate on the possible racism of Sharpton, Jackson, Waters, Mugabe (not even an American), Ferguson (didn’t know he held political office,)and two car-jackers named Carr. I don’t have to. NONE of these people wield anywhere NEAR the power as CHIEF JUSTICE of the SUPREME COURT, with a deciding vote on Constitutionality, and as we learned in 2000, the selection of Presidents.
POINT #3
>>>* “There are NO MINORITY OWNERS of any National broadcast or cable news outlet.” Oh really? I’m sure Robert Johnson will be quite perplexed to learn this. http://www.bet.com/articles/0,1048,c15-225,00.html. Also, by minority ownership, I presume you mean black? And since nearly all news organizations are (or owned by) corporations, what do you mean by “owner?” Every news organization has thousands of black owners. Do you mean large shareholder? Largest shareholder? Majority shareholder? Or simply whatever is convenient for your argument?http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/621/Black_Entertainment_Television_sold
This link will show you what happened to Newsgathering at BET once that happened.
http://www.globalblacknews.com/BET.html
There is hope that other national minority cable news services can rise to fill the void, but there is only speculation at this time.
As of now, BET is controlled by the SUMNER REDSTONE of Viacom, who by last account, was NOT a minority.
http://news.com.com/Viacom's+president+steps+down/2100-1026_3-5223646.html?type=pt&part=inv&tag=feed&subj=news
See, Stuart? I made my points, and I didn’t even insult you once. Isn’t intelligent, friendly discourse grand?
Stephen,
I went to your link. I like your website, and I enjoyed your singing. You and your wife make a lovely couple, and if you’re ever up here in Jersey, maybe we could jam together. You see, I’m also lead singer of a rock band called Omega Train.
http://www.omegatrain.com
You can go to the site, and see just how “Bobby Seale”, “Mau-mau” we look. I share your concern about anger, and hostility. I don’t live my life that way, Stephen. Here on this site, I see discussions about issues that affect me personally, and outside of Richard Lazarus, I didn’t see anybody opposing some of the statements on here that effectively. So I put my two cents in.
John has a tremendous weblog here, and although I disagree with him on many points, it is the spirit of debate that makes this country great.
Dave,
We’ll have to agree to disagree, my friend. Big media is worried about one thing…RATINGS. If they put up issues that their focus groups say will turn off the majority in the “heartland”, they won’t do it…or at least they won’t put the focus on it that it deserves. If you were executive producer competing for ratings, and the other guys killing you with Laci Peterson/Hacking/Gay Marriage, why would you opt for that in-depth study on the Sudanese genocide, or housing discrimination?
Well, I’m off to do finish laundry. Let’s all do this again soon!
–Cobra
Dave Huber, I’ve got to admit that your comment about ‘dead people voting’ really tickled me. Here’s why:
Back in the 60’s, it was common knowledge throughout Texas that LBJ was elected to Congress in a ‘landslide’ vote that included a lot of people voting who had never voted before. It was such a rousing, stimulating election that people even rose from the dead to vote!
This kind of voter fraud has simply been de rigeur for many, many years in Texas under the Democrats. Yes, these dead people always seem to want to vote Democrat when they rise up!
I can remember telling folks from New York about this years ago, and seeing their astonished disbelief that their ‘beloved’ LBJ would actually be part of such a thing. But down here in Texas, it was just the way things have always been, and LBJ was just like any other Democratic Texas politician in those days. At least LBJ was an honest politician – he tended to stay bought.
I can remember when I was working downtown in San Antonio, across the street from the Alamo. Democrats would come by in vans on election day, offering money to anyone who was willing to go to the polls and pull the party lever for the Democrats. Didn’t matter if you were a registered voter, or even a U.S. citizen. You didn’t have to speak English – they provide a ‘translator’ for you. Just vote by pulling that lever for the Democratic party. They even used to give out little cards in Spanish with instructions specifically on how to do it – I used to have several.
If you need another example, just look to Chicago. Lots of dead people have always voted there, and again, they have almost uniformly been Democrats.
No, voter fraud has a long, documented history in this country. And that history almost exclusively connects it to the Democratic party.
Yet here Democrats stand, continuing to accuse Republicans of voter fraud in the 2000 election, and laying the groundwork for accusations in 2004. In fact, they’ve begun accusing before the election even takes place, completely blind to the hypocrisy of it.
I was a Democrat for nearly 20 years, simply because for that period the Democrats were the only party who had a primary. Republicans were a disenfranchised minority, and those few elected soon found themselves isolated and stonewalled by the Democrats’ monolithic hold on the state.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it’s pathetic to see the Democrats running ’round whining and moaning and carrying on. At least the Republicans bore their minority status with grace and dignity for the most part during the Democrats’ long reign.
Claire: Indeed. Who knows what would have been dug up in *1960* had Nixon decided to challenge the results?
Cobra: Agreed, but one last word on “corporate” big media — Bernie Goldberg notes that the “rich white male owners” really couldn’t care less about what the major newscasts put out since it is such a pitifully small portion of their co.’s bottom line. This is why that 80+% do what they wish w/no hassle.
Cobra,
Assault upon your character? My goodness but you are a delicate flower. I would have thought that one who so eagerly employed such fiery rhetoric would be draped in thicker skin than that. Apparently not. Alright, fair enough. You are a man of great vision and virtue, and if anyone forgets, you
Did he really call the Carr’s merely carjackers? The man has some issues with white people, sure enough. You can learn a lot about a man by the euphemisms he utilizes.
StuartT,
I see you have taken time to write back. That’s excellent. Really, with no sarcasm I must say I enjoy our running conversations. Cobra is my stage name for music, and pen name for my editorial cartoon website. I use it everywhere. And as far as my being “thin-skinned”, well…I like to keep it elevated. Why digress into personal attacks when facts are available?
That being said…let’s take a look at some points you made in your last post.
>>>As opposed to the altruism of the black population, you mean? Or are the high standards of altruism only to be applied to whites? If so, why? If not, then let’s hear how “altruistic” other races are in relation. Be specific and provide support if possible.>>However, this is not a valid counter-point for you, unless you mean to imply that whites have done nothing similar. If so, I would point out the hundreds of thousands who lost their lives in the process of freeing blacks in the civil-war.http://www.bjmjr.com/aamh.htm
>>>A more modern example would be the debacle in Somalia where
Cobra:
Like you, I too have enjoyed our parley. Unlike you though, I haven’t an over-abundance of time, though I will hope to offer a more thorough (and well-earned) debunking of your last comment if the thread hasn’t been archived by the weekend.
Now if you would indulge me just a moment for a personal opinion: You’re an impassioned advocate for your position. And I respect that. Unfortunately, your passion has manifested itself in a mostly negative form. You’ve turned yourself inside out and become what you purport to hate: a racist. And don’t misunderstand me. I don’t use this term as the Democrats do–a vacuous pejorative–sound and fury signifying nothing. I mean it exactly as you just posted above:
“a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”
You don’t overtly pronounce your belief in black superiority (though you actually come close); however you make it just as apparent through an unimpeachable belief in the intrinsic state of white malice and perfidy. Your bookend match–the white racist–could just as easily say, “I’m not saying whites are smarter than blacks, but blacks certainly are more stupid.” In matters of morality, this is precisely your position as I discern it. Though I would be happy to be wrong here.
Time and again, your only rejoinder is to cite acts of white evil while spraying squid ink at any notion that blacks themselves aren’t exactly neophytes to this endeavor.
If you simply can’t restrain yourself, then continue to cite chapter and verse in your burgeoning mental tome of white misdeeds. Though to save your fingers from wear, I’ll acknowledge them all in advance. What I will not and will never acknowledge is that you are an inherently more moral, more “good” creature because your melanin content exceeds mine. Until you are able to acknowledge the same, I’m afraid we’ll have little productive to talk about–and won’t that ruin your Christmas!