Kalibah

Im looking for some solid proof. As I sit here watching the news I again see The Reverand and Sharpton saying Florida is the "scene of the crime" and Kerry saying " this reminds us that not only does every vote count,but every vote will be counted"


that and the recent ACT poster with a fireman spraying a african-american with a firehose saying " this is how they used to keep blacks from voting" this is how republicans do it now


So im asking for proof- solid proof? Cause Im really getting tired of it ...

prof.pickles

Start at the US Commision on Civil Rights report on the Florida 2000 disenfranchisement.

All the quotes are from the executive summary (I'm lazy, too).

Kalibah

WSJ says otherwise and I trust them over Merry Berry

Earlier this week we wrote about the attempt by some liberals to scare up black voter turnout this year by invoking the Florida myth of 2000. But in case that doesn't work, the fallback seems to be to play the race card one more time," the Wall Street Journal 's editorial board writes.

"At least that seems to be the strategy of the Democratic majority on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which is about to deliver a scathing report on President Bush's record on civil rights. This is the all-too-familiar handiwork of Chairman Mary Frances Berry and her staff, who produced the document all by themselves with zero input from the Republican commissioners, to whom it was delivered late yesterday morning. We'll be intrigued to see which newspapers give it prominent play today."

prof.pickles

What points has the WSJ editorial board given to refute the commision's report? Are there any reasons that all of those people were unable to vote or why African Americans were disproportianately affected by disenfranchisement?

hammer4all

Here are a bunch of sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida...al_Voting_File

http://www.failureisimpossible.com/n...tehearings.htm

Kalibah

the only source WAS
(U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Commision on Civil Rights)
and newspapers that had their sources as the US commision on Civil rights

and the decidly partisan

http://www.failureisimpossible.com/


so those are not valid sources

Ustwo

This is kind of ironic too as the democrats try so hard to keep Nader off the ballots.

Same crap, same playbook, different year.

Democrats have turned the african american population into a vote plantation, and all their good will has only destroyed the black family in the process. Its been nice seeing Bush make at least some inroads, and he has doubled his support among african americans. Now when I read this I made a joke to a democrat friend of mine that now 6 will be voting for him, and he seemed to enjoy it.

Shame to see the party of Lincoln lose the black vote to the party of segregation, but as more african americans succeed despite the poverty inducing programs, you will see more switching.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Kalibah

Actually Ive read that a lot of African Americans would be voting Bush or Independent because a majority are against, same-sex marriages and find that it is a deal breaker- But for each of those articles Ive found- Ive seen one that says the opposite. Eitherway we wont know who won Nov.2nd

KMA-628

The first issue here is in the definition of the word: deprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote. It sounds all emotional and gushy, but it isn't.

Most of the people mentioned in this article are legally disenfranchised.

African-American voter disenfranchisement in Florida is a fact. Currently, this is a law that has been on the books for a long, long time. These people are not losing their right to vote because of some partisan game, they lost their vote because of a law that has been on the books longer then President Bush has been alive.

It is stricly a matter of convenience that this comes up during election years. It sounds like the evil Republicans are en mass to Florida to make sure that black people can't vote--hardly the case.

Scream about the law--change the law--but don't play petty games

Prior to Jeb, we had a very popular governor in Florida that was a Democrat (Chiles) and he never did anything to help get this law off of the books, and he had plenty of time. With as popular as Chiles was, if he had been behind a measure such as this, it probably would have passed without a problem. To blame this on Jeb or GW is just silly. To say that this is part of the Republican agenda is equally as silly.

/granted there were some people that were on the no-vote list that shouldn't have been. That should be corrected. But there are similar problems in other states that happen election after election that nobody screams about.

Kalibah

What is that law?

KMA-628

Florida election law (s.98.0977, F.S.) establishes specific circumstances to be considered by county Supervisors of Elections in determining the eligibility of Florida citizens to vote. Included as one of those factors, a voter who has been CONVICTED OF A FELONY is not eligible to vote.

Granted, I have read the the person who created this law in 18-something was a racist. If that is true, that is where the law should be argued.

prof.pickles

And your unimpeachabe source is the a single quote from the WSJ's editorial staff, hardly a non-partisan group themselves. Again, I ask you what arguments other than insults and innuendo do they give to refute the charges?

What makes a federal commision or the other sources invalid? Your word? Aren't the stories in the report real?

KMA-628:

The stories that I pasted, and there are many more in the report, have nothing to do with
legally disenfranchised felons, if that is what you are referring to. If not, I'm very curious what law there is that legally disenfranchises african americans living in Florida.

Reread my post...you'll see descriptions of people normally able to vote that were impeded in 2000. Read the report....it details polling places that were moved without notice, selective refusals because of minor issues that didn't seem to effect voters in more affluent districts. I don't see how mentioning these facts amount to petty games.

Ustwo: the Republican party turned their back on the legacy of Lincoln as soon as they courted the southern democrats that left their party over civil rights issues. Strom Thurmond had been a republican for a very long time. Tasteless plantation imagery will do nothing to bring african americans back to the party.

To all:
I am not alleging a Republican conspiracy here. I doubt that any one group planned all of this mess to throw off the african american vote. It does reveal a pattern of neglect that should enrage all of us, regardless of party. To avoid allegations this time around, Republicans should have joined with Democrats in a massive effort to reform the Fla. system. We should not waste our outrage in violent condemnations of any accusation of wrongdoing, particularly when their are so many documented cases....we should use it speaking up for those deprived of a voice no matter what creed we personally swear allegiance to for that is the essence of what an American should be.

Kalibah

but the "normal people" that were disafranchised didnt say whether or not they were Black or not( in a large amount of the cases)- I have no doubt some voters get disafnrachised- but whether or not its RACIALLY motivated or just due to the "rush" to get votes counted LEGALLY is the question


And as I stated - itw as investigated and that " federal commission" was really just Merry Berry- it wasnt a non-partisan effort and she did not work with republicans on the comission- typical of her


And showing blacks being hosed by a fireman will not get democrats votes

KMA-628

prof.pickles - I mention this because this thread is parotting the accusations that Republicans are out to get the black people in Florida.

I point out the law because the article states numbers that are eerily similar to the numbers of legally disenfranchised voters in Florida. The article leaves that out. Are they legally disenfranchised or not--I would guess legally.

The "facts" in the article seemed questionable.

Kalibah

Yes i always see democrats on the news saying they want every voter, and every vote counted

they lack the world legal

is that a freudian slip???

prof.pickles

The statistics cited show that African Americans were disproportianately effected by ballot spoilage. This probably says more about where resources are placed than overt racism. The report itself does not allege that it was intentional racial discrimination or that there was any conspiracy. It does rightly criticise the officials that failed to create a system that functioned correctly.

None of what I mentioned before had anything to do with the felon rolls, including the stats. While on the subject, the felon purge was another serious blunder on Floridas part. They set the probability percentage on identifications of felons in the rolls too low although it was easily possible for the data mining company that inspected the data to ensure a more accurate survey. They dropped the ball again.

Democrats may be making hay out of this but that doesn't make that disenfranchisment any less real. Focus less on the politics and more on the people. It's okay to be pissed at Florida officials even if you plan on voting for Bush.

Kalibah

I was pointing out the quips about people unable to vote moreso than the statstics

prof.pickles

Although the statistics do show how african americans were disproportianately effected, if you read the full section of the report dealing with that, not the executive report, you'll find many examples where race is mentioned. These examples will all be cut off before fully explaining the disenfranchisement scenario because I don't want to spam the board with pages of stuff.

To read the full story of each, see the report.

MSD

The only source you have cited is the WSJ, which is widely recognized as a conservative publicaiton.

so that is not a valid source.

You also state that you have read that a lot of African Americans will be voting for Bush or independent candidates. I have not herd anything like that, and I see no source.


So we have a Civil Rights Commission report that you dismiss due to allegations that it was a partisan effort versus a vague reference to a WSJ report that you trust because their writers aren't liberals. Can you see why someone lookin at this argument from an outside point of view sees absolutely nothing being accomplished? The only conclusion that I can come to is that liberals don't tust conservative sources, and conservatives don't trust liberal sources. I already knew that.

Kalibah

I heard it from African American friends
but also ....

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4588282/






Also

In total, 13 percent of all black men are barred from voting due to a felony conviction, the Commission on Civil Rights was quoted by Reuters as saying Wednesday, September 22.


And since the MSM doesnt post much about the antics of Mary berry - the findings can speak for themselves
"
* Many Haitian-American and Puerto Rican voters were not provided language assistance when required and requested;
"


That one alone gives you an idea of the kind of stuff shes crying Disenfranchisment on


We speak english- if you cant, dont vote

daswig

Racists? in FLORIDA???? Who'dathunkit! Florida is the State where the State Supreme Court ruled in the early 1940's that CCW laws didn't apply to whites, because the legislative intent was ONLY to disarm Minorities. No joke...

Kalibah

ohh not letting felons vote is racist

riiight

prof.pickles

One, english is not the official language of the united states.

Two, what about all the examples of disenfranchisement that were already given? Do we just ignore them and focus on the examples that you consider frivolous?

aliali

[QUOTE]The only source you have cited is the WSJ, which is widely recognized as a conservative publicaiton. so that is not a valid source.


The WSJ does not deserve this kind of attack. Its reporting is consistently great. If the facts don't matter and it's ok to just attack the messenger, what publication, if any, can be considered a valid source?

KMA-628

Couldn't agree more.

Being born and raised in Southern California, Florida was the first place I encountered "racism". I had always heard about the "other side of the tracks" thing, until I saw it first-hand.

Kalibah

then its the " unofficial"

Its foolish that something like that makes the list

The examples I was given fail to state the persons RACE. The statistics do- the examples dont. Do I think there were problems voting? Sure. DO I think there was an intentional effort to target blacks? No.

cthulu23

The WSJ's financial reporting may be consistently excellent but their editorial stance is extremely slanted and biased. That may be par for the course as far as editorials go but it hardly qualifies it for inclusion as a primary source. Editorials are opinions and are not hampered by any burden
of proof.

cthulu23

Pardon me if I'm somehow delusional, but aren't there several examples from the report pasted above that mention race? They seem to have been given in response to your earlier statements.

Kalibah

you mean these

Cathy Jackson, an African American woman, has been a registered voter in Broward County since 1996. Upon registering in Broward County, Ms. Jackson was told that if she ever experienced a problem with her voter registration card, she would be allowed to vote if she could produce a valid driver’s license.

Donnise DeSouza, an African American, has been registered to vote since 1982 in Miami-Dade County. When she entered the Richmond Fire Station in Miami-Dade County at 6:50 p.m. and showed her identification to the poll worker, Ms. DeSouza was told that her name was not on the rolls.

Angenora Ramsey, an African American former poll worker with 18 years’ experience, had changed her address prior to November 7. Based on her familiarity with election procedures, when Ms. Ramsey went to vote at Precinct 62 in Palm Beach County, she completed a change of address affidavit.

R. Jai Howard, vice president of the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Student Government Association, testified on behalf of more than 12,000 predominantly African American students.

Barbara Phoele, a poll worker in Broward County at Precinct 6C, observed mostly African American and Hispanic voters being turned away because their names did not appear on the rolls.

When Lavonna Lewis, an African American first-time voter, went to her polling place to vote, she was told by a white poll worker standing outside that the poll was closed.



Non show disanfranchisment of blacks


Last one- So the poll was closed? What time was it? The report doesnt mention this- its completly worthless without CONTEXT

Names didnt appear on the rolls? Ohh okay thats intentional black voter disanfrachisment... right

None of these prove blacks were TARGETED- these lack context- being turned down because your name isnt on the rolls- the real question is- WAS HER NAME ON THE ROLLS? If it was- and she was turned down- then that would be disanfranchisment- but turning down someone who isnt on the rolls isnt discrmination

Kalibah

WSJ is as IMHO as unbiased as they come- there always seems to be one damming Bush. Thursdays paper for example always includes Albert R. Hunt.


That said all editorials are biased- I just think WSJ is the most fair as far as allowing point-counter point- they dont FAIL to list counter arguments in letters to editors in regards to editorials.

cthulu23

That explains the lack of context.

Doesn't the fact that a large number of black voters had their name disappear from the rolls even though they were regular voters strike you as odd? If the precentage of "lost" black names was significantly higher than other races, doesn't that seem a tad bit suspicious? Why were the ballots of black voters rejected at such a higher rate then other groups? Why weren't polling stations moved without notice in white districts?

Taken alone, all of these things may not appear that damning but taken together and a pattern begins to form. If there is no systemic problem here then we are looking at the largest coincidence ever....somehow, I just don't buy that. There doesn't need to be any sinister conspiracy or KKK members involved for racism to have influenced the election....all it takes is an official dose of neglect.

cthulu23

Publishing letters to the editor in reponse to editorials is a tradition of every major newspaper and is not a good indicator of a paper's evenhandedness

Arguing about whether or not a paper is biased is probably pointless....the issue is too subjective and neither of us is going to do the research necessary to really back up our claim. The more important point involves the use of an editorial as the only source to discredit the civil right's commission's report. Character assassinating a commision member does not equal negating the truth of the findings.

Kalibah

Character assiassinating? You have any doubt Mary Berry is a good person? She laughably declared herself independent so she could have ANOTHER democrat on her comission....


December 11, 2001

Mary Frances Berry: Civil rights bully

Mary Frances Berry, the chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, is a bully. Her most recent escapade -- last Friday -- involved her refusal to seat Peter Kirsanow, the man appointed by President Bush to a commission seat that became vacant on Nov. 29. Berry told White House counsel Al Gonzales he'd better send federal marshals if he wanted Kirsanow to take his lawful place on the commission. But her outrageous behavior in this incident is nothing new. I've watched her in action for years, even before President Reagan appointed me staff director, the chief executive officer of the commission, in 1983 when she served as vice chairman. She once bullied a member of the commission staff so badly -- in words not fit to print in a family newspaper -- I had to threaten to have her removed from the building.

"Your use of intimidating curses and vile language as well as your overall abuse of a subordinate go far beyond permissible behavior," I informed her in a memo. "If you repeat such abusive behavior in the future, I will ask you to remove yourself from the premises and will seek to have you removed if you do not comply."

"Call It Uncivil" The New York Times dubbed the conflict, one of many in our stormy tenure together.

Berry was first appointed to the commission in 1980, largely to get rid of her at the then Department of Health, Education and Welfare, where she served as an assistant secretary. Berry had embarrassed the Carter administration by returning from a trip to China extolling the Maoist education system there, including its use of ethnic quotas in higher education. So President Carter passed over Berry when he created the new Department of Education, shipping her off to the Civil Rights Commission instead. She's been getting even with presidents ever since.

In 1983, President Reagan fired Berry and two other commissioners. At the time, commissioners were appointed to serve "at the pleasure of the president," like all presidential appointees of executive branch departments and agencies. But Berry refused to go -- until I changed the locks on the door.

She then went to court to fight her removal, and got a favorable ruling from a liberal District Court judge. But in the meantime, the Congress re-wrote the law, authorizing the president to appoint four commissioners for six-year terms and Congressional leaders to appoint an additional four members with the same conditions, thus mooting her court case, which had moved to the U.S. Court of Appeals by then.

I was with President Reagan in the Oval Office when he signed the new law, but he did so with strong reservations. The Justice Department had issued a legal opinion questioning whether the new commission structure was Constitutional. Article II, section two clearly gives the president exclusive right, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, judges and "all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for."

The Constitution limits Congress' role to vest the appointment of "inferior officers" by law in the president alone, the courts or the heads of departments -- but not to assign such powers to itself.

Ignoring such Constitutional niceties, the Democrats in Congress proceeded to appoint four commissioners, including Berry, for six-year terms. And she's been reappointed every time her commission expired since then.

President Clinton appointed her chairman when he took office, but even he had reservations about Berry. When he decided to initiate what he called a "national dialogue on race," he kept Berry out of the picture, appointing a whole new commission to oversee the enterprise.

President Clinton also appointed Victoria Wilson on Jan. 13, 2000, to fill the unexpired term of a commissioner who had died. The presidential appointment Wilson received clearly states her term expired Nov. 29, 2001. It's Wilson's place Kirsanow should have taken last week after President Bush appointed him and he was sworn in by a federal judge. But Berry believes she -- not President Bush nor President Clinton -- determines when commissioners' terms expire.

The White House says they'll take Berry to court to force her to seat Kirsanow. The president ought to fire Berry at the same time. As long as this issue is going to wind up in the courts, why not settle the question left unanswered in 1983? Since when did the Constitution permit Congress to limit the president's right to appoint and remove officers of executive branch agencies anyway?




That was one of the better articles showing how she is trying to be a political control freak on her domain known as the civil rights comission




But I agree- we'd be hard pressed to "prove" a paper is fair and balanced. That said- they were the only paper I subsribed to that mentioned Soro's desperate attempt to get hte black vote with his most recent ACT adds - OUTSIDe of editorials- so to me atleast, it puts things in perspective

cthulu23

Kalibah,

My point was that simply disparaging the character of a commision member (no matter how deserved) does not prove that any of the findings of the commission were incorrect.

Kalibah

Agreed but my point was take it with a bag o salt, and remember Mary Berrys political agenda ( this is true of ALL reports, and ALL publications, and ALL politicians btw).




Such things as her handling with "MemoGate"

Johnson's April 17, 2002, memo surfaced as part of the "Memogate" scandal, in which Republican Judiciary Committee aides downloaded documents that Democratic aides placed onto computer files that were accessible to all committee staff. "Elaine [Jones] would like the [Judiciary] Committee to hold off on any 6th Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided by the en banc 6th Circuit," says the memo, which Johnson wrote to Sen. Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.). "The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but if a new judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able, under 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it." The memo then recommended that "Gibbons be scheduled for a later hearing."

At last week's scheduled meeting of the Civil Rights Commission, Berry suddenly declared she was canceling the session because all four Republican appointees, who were traveling from out of town, were ten minutes late. "Commission meetings start late all the time," said Republican appointee Abigail Thernstrom. "Sometimes the chair is late and we wait for her." The four Republican members went to Berry's office to ask her to reconvene the meeting, but she refused.



Thats taken from Human Events Online- but it isnt an op-ed piece- and all the facts can be verified at a number of less- right wing news sources.




Im just showing you need to keep a persons agenda in mind...

In fact the most ludacrious was



“Inflated rhetoric depicting crimes for which there is no evidence undermines public confidence,” Ms. Thernstrom said.

She also said the majority had withheld data from her.

Mary Frances Berry, the chairwoman of the commission, hotly denied the accusation as they sat next to each other at the witness table.

“It is an absolute falsehood,” Ms. Berry said, noting that Ms. Thernstrom had asked for a disc of data and was told there was no disc but that the information was available on the Internet.


From

The New York Times.

Senators Hear Bitter Words on Florida Vote
June 28, 2001

By Katharine Q. Seelye



Telling a fellow- comission member that the " information is avaiable on the internet" is in and of it self a travesty. Obviously Mrs. Berry HAD the data - how else could she assemble this decidly partisan report - but in yet another one of her fiits she is unhelpful.

cthulu23

Kalibah,

But you still haven't shown how the statistics and affidavits are flawed.

tspikes51

In short: there is none.

I just did a report on the fallacies of Fahrenheit 9/11. This is one of the fallacies in it. Here is an excerpt from that section of my report:

One of Moore’s first, and more bogus, claims is that some of Bush’s friends and workers hired a private company, Data Base Technologies (DBT), to purge voters who may have voted for Gore, specifically African-Americans, from the Florida voter rolls. This was generated, according to an article in the Palm Beach Post (Hiaasen, Kane, & Jaspin, 2001) from a 1998 Miami, Florida mayoral election that went haywire because convicted felons were allowed to vote, which is against state law. To prevent this sort of disaster in the future, the Florida legislature ordered the executive branch to remedy the problem by purging all convicted felons from the voter rolls. The executive branch decided to hire Data Base Technologies, a private company, to take care of it. They made a list of 19,398 people who could not vote, and the election officials in each county were expected to use the list. However, DBT wrongly purged around 1,100 eligible voters who’s names either matched that of a convicted felon, felons convicted in other states that restored their civil rights after their sentence was served, or people whose crimes were only misdemeanors, but were shown by records to be felonies. Twenty counties in Florida completely ignored this list, which permitted thousands of felons to vote.
Where then, does Moore draw his conclusion that blacks were disenfranchised when this took place, and how does he know that they would vote for Gore? Moore most likely draws his conclusion from a couple of statistics. First, as published in the same article in the Post (Hiaasen, et. al., 2001), “Blacks make up nearly 49 percent of the felons convicted in the state…so any purge of felons would include a disproportionate number of blacks.” Second, he probably based it on the fact that the NAACP filed a lawsuit claiming disenfranchisement. However, race couldn’t have been a factor in putting names on the list of because the people denied their voting rights, in many cases, did not match the race of the felon that DBT was targeting in the purge. Michael most likely based his claim that the people improperly purged would have voted for Gore from a study reported by the American Sociological Review, (American Sociological Review, 2003) that 68.9% of felons vote Democrat. Therefore Moore draws his conclusion from a weak combination of sources.

I hope this helps.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox