posted on December 6, 2000 08:47:59 AM
Yo know, a thread of a few days back (http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=2&id=294501&thread=294338) warned us of strange men approaching people in parking lots, offering "sniff" samples of perfume they are selling. The victim sniffs the perfume and is rendered unconscious, because it's not perfume but "ETHER! When you sniff it, you'll pass out. And they'll take your wallet, your valuables, and heaven knows what else!"
Could something along this same line have occurred with these hapless voters, with Republican brownshirts stealing their IDs/voter registration cards or substituting invalid cards for the real thing - or even kidnapping these poor people in their own cars and taking them to the wrong polling place?
posted on December 6, 2000 08:58:22 AM
Brings to mind the accounts of German citizens throughout the country who, when asked why they did nothing while their Jewish neighbors disappeared, uniformly replied: "I never knew that anything was wrong. We had no idea".
posted on December 6, 2000 10:48:38 AMBrings to mind the accounts of German citizens throughout the country who, when asked why they did nothing while their Jewish neighbors disappeared, uniformly replied: "I never knew that anything was wrong. We had no idea".
Or the claims by alien-invasion-conspiracy buffs that lack of physical documentation actually proves and in fact reinforces their theory, since clearly the government wouldn't work so hard to completely cover up the evidence if there weren't any evidence to cover up. (?)
Last time I checked, it's pretty hard to prove a murder without a body. I'd like to see actual testimony, under oath - and with cross-examination - before I make any judgment.
So, isworeiwouldneverdothis, where can we find the "specific instances" to which you refer?
posted on December 6, 2000 10:59:57 AM
HCQ, although I, like you, look askance at any story, about any subject, that makes breathless claims with such supporting details as "a newswoman," I don't think stories such as these can immediately be placed into the same class as "perfume sniffers" or "and he woke up in a bathtub full of ice cubes with only 1 kidney" stories.
Fact is, acts such as these are part of a political strategy called "voter suppression." Voter suppression is well used, and nothing new.
Although mostly used by Republicans, it can also be used by Democrats (a few nights ago on "Hardball," that freak Pat Caddell mentioned using voter suppression strategies for one of Cranston's campaigns) A little about what Caddell did here -
Caddell used negative campaign ads to suppress voting; Another way is to keep registering to vote as difficult as possible. As voter suppression favors the more conservative candidates, it's no surprise that motor voter laws have been Democratic-backed, with stiff Republican opposition. The less people who can cast a vote, the more the total votes cast favor Republicans and conservatives.
Is it a far hop to get from trying to discourage people to register to discouraging those who have registered to cast a vote? Not at all.
Did what people are saying happened this time really happen? It probably happens all the time, that's the way politics works, it's just that usually nobody pays much attention.
posted on December 6, 2000 11:20:56 AMdonny, I'm not questioning that such stories COULD be true, or that voter suppression is a fact of life. Frankly, I think it's pretty pathetic that anybody is surprised at a certain percentage of fraud and pure f*up. Human beings run elections, after all.
However, until somebody comes up with multiple firsthand reports from credible witnesses, I think we should hold off on whipping the populace into any more of a self-righteous frenzy than it is in already. With the one exception I noted earlier, all we've heard so far is "I heard from somebody who knows somebody a HORRIBLE STORY which we ALL KNOW TO BE TRUE!!!! Uh....or it could be true....right?"
By the time the actual reports come out, the FACTS don't matter any more. People's minds are made up - end of story.
posted on December 6, 2000 11:21:48 AM
I am here in Florida right now. And some of the stories posted here have little credibility. The story about going to six polling places loses a little credibility with me unless a person from Florida will verify whether or not Precinct maps are available at polling places.
In a heavily populated area it possible for four or more precints to overlap. But traditionally most Americans in urban areas vote close to home. At the same the election Judges at the precincts in most cases are local residents. So they would know where you go to vote just by looking at your voter registration card.
But I quantitfy that statement with this disclaimer as I have been advised by my father that in many areas the Judges for the election might not live anywhere near the precinct they are Judging. If that is the case in Florida, then Blacks in Florida need to get off their butts and register to be judges in their precincts. I am asking that someone local to here please clarify that. And if that proves to be a factor in this problem. Networker is on the next plane back to Chicago. For I will not waste precious brain cells and resources to fight for a problem that in 2000 we should have already addressed in our communities.
posted on December 6, 2000 05:04:55 PM
Hey, everyone! I started this thread and have something to say here. I first included names and e-mail addresses (a string of them) and my posting was closed down (and I understand why) because of the names.
I guess I need to remind you that the NAACP hearing was NOT hearsay, second-hand, third-hand stuff. At the hearing were blacks who had 1st-person stories to tell. And if you caught any of it on cable, you could see they were very credible witnesses.
Second thing: Of course, no one is saying this doesn't happen elsewhere; it's just that the world has been told about its happening in Florida. I would be equally outraged if it took place in any other state and actually heard about it!
Surely no one wants us to turn our heads over any injustice? Is any crime humdrum if it happens elsewhere and is not reported?
posted on December 6, 2000 05:22:47 PM
Apparently the evidence is compelling enough to spur the department of justice to investigate. Certainly in any case of such a thing there is a 'bandwagon' factor which brings in various elements with separate and possibly untrue or exaggerated claims.
The news media can be relied on to follow the most sensational reports in most cases, and to embellish those within the constraints of the law.
Even with those things being the case, complaints had begun to be made before anyone knew that Florida would be as controversial as it has turned out to be.
I did see interviews with students at Florida A&M on election day relating that their usual and long time polling place on campus was no longer available when they went there to vote, and that they were directed to another polling place off campus where their registration was not recognized.
posted on December 6, 2000 08:01:39 PM
The last I read in the Orlando Sentinel is that the U.S. Justice department sent two investigators on a fact finding tour but that they have not begun an official investigation. I believe that this is DOJ legalese for we are investigating to see if we should investigate with legal powers (i.e. subpoenas, grand juries, etc.)
posted on December 6, 2000 08:15:28 PM
Yeah. I read somewhere in all of this that the dept. of justice has a policy not to initiate investigations of election malfeasance whilre the election is ongoing. Guess they're cooling their heels longer than expected.
posted on December 6, 2000 09:36:51 PM
It does not take (just) evidence to spur an investigation or a probe. Politics and/or appeasement are two common catalysts.
Nevertheless, no investigation is necessary by any agency. We have the victims saying all allegations occurred, all acts were racist and criminal, all occurrence were systemic; and we have an abundance of witnesses who were not present at these alleged acts to testify that all allegations are true.
Save the tax money. Screw any evidence, screw due process, and screw the credibility of the accuser and the accuser's story. Let's just assume that all allegations are true and hang the guilty bastards just to appease.
posted on December 6, 2000 10:24:33 PM
Jesse Jackson, a monumental fraud. Had he been alive in the 1800's, he would have been a traveling salesman of homemade potions.
Tell me about one great accomplishment of his, outside of how he has personally managed to amass millions of dollars under the cloak of his non-profit organizations.
The guy is nothing but a mouth and an instigator of conflict. Without conflict, his presence would not be required and his money would dwindle.
posted on December 6, 2000 10:38:45 PM
Jesse Jackson makes me laugh. Whenever he appears it automatically tells me whatever he is there for is not the truth.
Like when he showed up in Fla then I knew he was there to draw attention away from the truth.
Just like he surfaced for a second at the Supreme Ct hearings.
If I were black I would find it insulting that the democrats think I'd follow Jesse anywhere.
posted on December 6, 2000 11:31:03 PM
Many of my black friends are insulted and embarrassed knowing that most non-blacks believe JJ is the Guru to all blacks.
posted on December 6, 2000 11:31:42 PM
I don't know... I never thought so much of Jesse Jackson, too transparently self-aggrandizing, too obivously trying to imitate Martin Luther King Jr., seemed to me he was trying to profit from the man, make his living off his legacy, but that he lacked MLK Jr.'s sincerity.
But during these last few weeks, I've come to think more highly of Jesse Jackson. With so much rank hypocrisy going around, on both the Republican and Democratic parties' sides, Jesse Jackson's hypocrisy seems much less, in comparison. And at least Jesse Jackson has been preaching the same message, over and over. He was saying it before this Florida thing, and he'll keep on saying it after. And while the messenger is a little squirrly, the message is a good one, and, nowadays, that's about the best you can hope for. It's come to that.
And with all these unsavory characters running around, and flat out lies that both the Republican and Democratic politicians have been telling, it looks to me that Jesse Jackson has gotten a pretty raw deal from the Democratic party. Republicans never liked him, and the Democratic party never liked him either, but he keeps chugging along. And he works hard. In this election, I've read that he did more travelling, campaigning for Gore and Lieberman than anyone but Gore, even more than Lieberman.
And he keeps up the work of registering new voters and getting out the vote that the Democratic party as a whole has gotten so lazy about. Black voter turnout in Florida was much higher this year than in 1996, and part of it was probably due to the work of Jesse Jackson. If it wasn't for that higher black voter turnout, the race in Florida wouldn't have been close.
But as hard as he works, the Democratic Party won't really let him in. So, maybe he's working to build himself up - so what? All of these politicians do, Democrats as well as Republicans.
So when this stuff first happened in Florida, Jesse Jackson gets called into action, organizing rallies, and put on the news show circuit. Then when it looks like Gore can pull it off after the favorable Florida Supreme Court decision, and can win this with the help of Democratic county canvassing boards, and Jackson won't be needed, he's pushed to the background again. Now that it's not going well, Jackson gets brought out again as a last ditch effort.
Jesse Jackson's looking better and better to me, and everyone else is looking worse.
posted on December 7, 2000 01:28:16 AM
Jackson does not need to be called out, and rarely is by the people with brains. Jackson just appears like a fly does on rotten meat.
Neither Party wants to be affiliated with a clown whose personal background could cause real problems by the association if his background is revealed and proven.
posted on December 7, 2000 04:25:45 AM
"Jackson just appears like a fly does on rotten meat."
And this differentiates him from other politicians and mouthipieces how?
I don't know what you partisans, on either side, see. What I see is a whole lot of misinformation, double-talking, self-serving rhetoric, and downright lies. From Democrats as well as Republicans.
IMLDS2 says that:
"Like when he showed up in Fla then I knew he was there to draw attention away from the truth."
What truth would that be? There's no truth being put out down there by either Republicans or Democrats, not that I can see, and I'm pretty dern perceptive (if I do say so myself.)
posted on December 7, 2000 01:21:21 PM
I left this thread off of my email notification on auction watch to see where it would go. First off let's lay off insulting JJ. As an African American, I have never condoned our leaders always appearing to come from the ranks of the Church. I don't like this practice because I beleive firmly in seperation of Church and State.
However, I have read many of the post to thread over the past 1/2 hour and finding some of the views refreshing.
roadsmith I taped the hearings and watched them later. And you are right the witnesses are credible on the surface. But when I go and place these incidents in the context of only 9,000 or so questionable ballots in those areas. I have to seek a precinct by precinct accounting of where those discounted votes come from. I spoke with Mufume today and asked does any one have hard numbers on which precincts the 9000 ballots come from. And he was honest, "we have no reliable information to ascertain what percentage of the 9000 tossed ballots come from predominately Black Precincts". That bothers me because in Illinois a few days after the election you can find out precinct by precinct where the vote went.
sgtmike I beg your pardon, if Jesse Jackson was alive in the 1800's he would have been lynched from a tree for daring to serve as a catalyst for Blacks. And if you have friends of the Black persuasion who are embrassed that non-blacks view him as our guru. Then as a friend ask them what are they doing to promote an African American agenda in America. Now on his accomplishments, I guess getting those Airmen released from Lybia, the lost patrol from released from Bosnia, and his attempt to work with the Eilan parties were all staged to make him look good.
donny Your candor in sizing up Jackson and how recent events have changed your views is interesting. And your take on the Democratic party and him is almost on the money.
Now some of these allegations have merit. Now the question is were these events normal occurance on election day. Or were they strategically planned to lessen the impact of the African American vote in Florida.
I agree about Jesse Jackson. I think that he has diplomatic skills that have gone, for the most part, underutilized and certainly unacknowleged. I remember when he went to talk to the folks in Syria. I NEVER thought he (or anyone else) could pull that off. Those Syrians just weren't in the mood to be rational. But he did, bless him.
posted on December 7, 2000 03:36:04 PM
Networker, re this:
"I have never condoned our leaders always appearing to come from the ranks of the Church. I don't like this practice because I beleive firmly in seperation of Church and State"
I don't subscribe to Jesse Jackson's religious views, but I can't find any fault with the way he applies his own religious views to his politcal activities. What I mean is, while his world view and political views might be influenced by his religious views, he doesn't, from what I can see, seek to use politics to impose his personal religious views on others. Compare that to the way that Jerry Falwell uses politics.
And, I think if you think further along than the first Black leaders who might come to mind, MLK Jr., Jesse Jackson, and Farrakhan, in political offices, while you might think of Hosea Williams, there's also Julian Bond and Andrew Young, neither of whom came from the church (I don't think?).
Going back to sgtmike's grumbling's about Jackson's money; it's been an issue a lot of people have with Jackson, it's the other side of the benefit Jackson's gotten out of MLK Jr.'s stature, the MLK Jr./Gandhi association. There's always been a feeling that Jackson should be faulted for not adhering to a strict Gandhi standard.
But it's not a standard we hold other political leaders to, or, really, other citizens. Look at the way people make their millions - manufacturing and advertising cigarettes, or weapons of destruction. Look at what employers do - they can make their workplaces much safer, for some money for safety improvements. They weigh profit against a statistical analysis of how many people will die without the improvements. If the analysis of profits figure is higher than the cost of lawsuits that can be expected, then they don't make their workplaces safer. Same with companies who sell products - They know about ways to make their products safer; they do an analysis of profit vs. lawsuits from consumers. If the profit figure is higher, then it's acceptable to them to know that a certain % of buyers will be injured or killed.
By comparison, a guy making a few millions like Jackson has is worthy of regard, not censure.
posted on December 7, 2000 04:15:03 PM
Hart Cottage- on the way to vote in Florida, i heard on the radio that people were illegally being turned away, as the law requiring a picture i.d. had recently been changed and there was no longer any such requirement. the new law was said to state that if your signature on the voter registration card matched the one on the registration ledger that you just had to sign an affidavit to be able to vote. when i got there i was asked for a picture i.d., so i asked what would happen if i didn't have one. i was told that i would not be allowed to vote! i related what i heard on the radio and was told that all(could be 100's) the volunteers were trained that way. when i asked about the affidavits i was told they did not have any. i glanced down and saw the affidavit pad right on the desk. when i asked how many were turned away they wouldn't tell me.
posted on December 7, 2000 04:38:54 PM
I voted in FL too. Poorest county in the state. Walked in, said howdy, showed my ID, was given a demo on how to vote, voted, put my ballot in the ballot box, left. So did all the people of assorted races in the line ahead of me.
Anyway, your understanding that that if your signature on the voter registration card matched the one on the registration ledger that you just had to sign an affidavit to be able to vote isn't quite accurate. Here's FL law:
Each elector desiring to vote shall be identified to the clerk or inspector of the election as a duly qualified elector of such election and shall sign his or her name in ink or indelible pencil to an identification blank, signature slip, precinct register, or ballot stub on which the ballot serial number may be recorded. The inspector shall compare the signature with the signature on the identification provided by the elector. If the inspector is reasonably sure that the person is entitled to vote, the inspector shall provide the person with a ballot.
BUT
101.111 (1) When the right to vote of any person who desires to vote is questioned by any elector or watcher, the challenge shall be reduced to writing with an oath as provided in this section, giving reasons for the challenge, which shall be delivered to the clerk or inspector. Any elector or authorized poll watcher challenging an elector at an election shall execute the oath set forth below [form is here]....If the challenged person refuses to make and sign the affidavit, the clerk or inspector shall refuse to allow him or her to vote....
Someplace in FL law is enumerated the forms of ID that are acceptable, but of course I can't find it now. Anyway, if you sign the register and they don't think your sig matches with your valid ID, a written challenge to your eligibility to vote has to be given to you; and if you refuse to sign an affidavit after that, you're SOL.
Edited for big typo.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Dec 7, 2000 04:41 PM ]
posted on December 7, 2000 04:50:05 PM
i understand the point about the signatures, but my point is that people were being turned away and not being given that option if they did not have a picture i.d.! that is a violation of election law-a federal offense.
posted on December 7, 2000 06:03:43 PM
Hosea Williams passed away shortly before Thanksgiving.
He was notorious in the Atlanta community for his inventive excuses for driving under the influence.
He also was stopped from boarding a commercial airline flight from Hartsfield airport here in Atlanta because he was carrying a revolver in his bag. He said he forgot that he had it with him.
He was one of the leaders of the Civil Rights movement in its glory days and continued as such to the very end.
I will remember him most for his annual Thanksgiving feed the hungry program. Too bad he wasn't there for it this year.
[ edited by codasaurus on Dec 7, 2000 06:06 PM ]
posted on December 7, 2000 06:10:40 PM
Republicans keep saying Gore wanted to change the rules after the election. But it seems that the State of Florida driven by the Republicans changed rules during the election. They used every trick in (and off) the book to get their govenors brother elected.
How can so many irregularities happen in one state? I feel so bad for people who were not allowed to vote. That to me is the dirtiest thing in this whole election. This is not another country, this is the United States. How naive I've been all these years thinking everyone that fought hard to vote were allowed that right.
