This just broke on Drudge...and it is becoming a disturbing pattern of false claims, most specifically that the Republicans are disenfranchising minority voters.

Before going on, I'll tell you all that I live in a minority district, and there were no dogs, fire hoses or poll taxes four years ago, nor on primary day. But that's just me.

DNC 66 page election day manual



The document (Drudge has a scanned copy- can't verify whether it was typed on a 1971 IBM selectric) goes on to instruct Democratic leaders to 'call a press conference and remind voters of past intimidation' and to have minority leaders speak out on such tactics. They are instructing Democratic party leaders to do this specifically when there is no intimidation happening.

Another specific allegation by the DNC is that "one million black voters were disenfranchised in 2000" which John Kerry has repeated in various stump speeches. Lately, he has also begun to appear onstage with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, as seen here in the New York Times (requires registration).


Larry Elder recently wrote about this claim, found in his recent column here.


If the DNC document is accurate, what are the likely consequences for election day?

Is an organized effort to make false claims about the worst sort of racism and discrimination good for our democracy, given the poisonous atmosphere generated by Florida 2000?

With allegations of Jim Crow, "dogs and hoses," voter intimidation and black disenfranchisement, has the DNC crossed the line? Why are they so bent on instilling fear in minority voters?

With allegations of Jim Crow, "dogs and hoses," voter intimidation and black disenfranchisement, has the DNC crossed the line? Why are they so bent on instilling fear in minority voters?
Yes, those promoting fear among minority voters have indeed crossed the line. This democrat-funded America Coming Together group is shameless. As if "Coming Together" will be somehow easier when we are reminded of race riots in the 60's on a daily basis.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041017/D85PGARO1.html

once again, I woder if the right can interpret things being said, or do they just live in their own world. There are testimonial of the disenfranchisementsoof Blacks in Florida and Missouri. Conservatives know that black in masses are not with them in terms of political affiliation. Of course I know that we can't go on conspiracies cause "it can't be proven" so forget it. Let's look at it from a logical motivation.


You are making a claim that democrats are scaring blacks, but are they "scaring" them to vote or scaring them to vote for democrats?? News flash, Democrats don't have to convince black to vote Democrats. Blacks are going to overwhelmingly vote Democrat, because blacks, for the most part ( I repeat not ALL) see Republicans as status quo supporters... and guess what Blacks are not?? The status quo. So explain to me how they are instilling fear?? Jim Crowism happened, racism still exists. The worse this pamphlet is going to do is show Blacks what those before had gone thought to get equal rights for Blacks and motivate them to vote. And I understand why some on the right would hate to see this happen.

Now let's take a second to look at what preemptive means. Is it not wise to be PROACTIVE against voter fraud, even if none has happened to ENSURE that none does happen. What exactly is wrong with telling people about STD's before they get them. What is wrong for public figures to talk to groups to show how voter fraud has happened before to inform the public. I didn't see "make false allegations in that pamphlet you have linked, maybe it was some other pamphlet you are thinking of.

With allegations of Jim Crow, "dogs and hoses," voter intimidation and black disenfranchisement, has the DNC crossed the line? Why are they so bent on instilling fear in minority voters?



And conservatives wonder if the left lives in reality. Democrats have been claiming voter intimidation and "disenfranchisement" since the 2000 election, despite the fact that there no proof that such intimidation ever took place and the leftist U.S. Civil Rights Commission, given six months, couldn't find one single qualified registered voter who was turned away from the polls.
Democrats were claiming that police were using dogs and fire hoses to keep blacks away from polling places. Never happened.
After six months of investigation the (left leaning) US Commission on Civil Rights received the testimony of a handful of 'disenfranchised' voters, all of whom couldn't back up any charges with witnesses or fact.
But somehow, this is what the Democratic campign is being run on.

The democratic party is instilling fear in the same manner they always have. They brainwash black voters into believing that republicans will bring back Jim Crow, strip away voting rights and lead them down path to slavery. And this coming from the party that has taken them for granted, used them like a two dollar hooker and put obstacles in their path towards self sufficiency and economic ascension.

Is that harsh, sure it is. But no worse than the ads run by those on the left.

Kerry/Edwards have pledged that the Democratic party will work to head off ballot irregularities that they say gave the election to Bush. The implication is that they weren't counted last time. They were. The people intelligent enough to follow simple instructions on how to vote did have their votes counted.

When NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a speech bashing the Republican party, he accused them of "playing the race card in election after election." This is interesting, because it is Democrats that play the race card in every election, not Republicans. Bond has called the republican party "neo-fascists", the "white-people's party" and "a crazed swarm of right-wing locusts". Real classy.

It's Democrats that insultingly pander to the black community, begging for votes in exchange for welfare spending and hiring quotas. Through the soft bigotry of low expectations, the NAACP and their masters in the Democratic party have become the new pimps in the black community. They want to keep everyone as dependent on government as possible. And they do this through scare tactics. They do this by employing poverty pimps and race warlords.

The republicans do the same thing with the christian right, but they aren't near as blatant, near as insulting

Firstly, on this board, "the right" is not a solid target for criticism - you have to be more specific please. And if you have links to testimony from disenfranchised voters that the Civil Rights Commission have not yet dismissed, you should post those too.

Now to your example. I first dismissed it, but have instead thought of a way to improve upon it. If you really want to compare this race-baiting voter drive to an STD pamphlet, you would have to show a pamphlet that John Ashcroft is really putting STD's into the recipe at Church's Chickenin order to keep black men sterile. That would be a more accurate parallel example to the flyer showing people being fire hosed and claiming that John Ashcroft is keeping blacks from registering to vote.

As for GOP support among blacks, it is apparently small but growing.
Bush Doubles Support Among Blacks

With these two articles what we see is the fact that November 2 will note decide the election. It seems as though both Camps will declare themselves victor of the election and use teams of lawyers to find fraud and abuse the Courts decision in Gore v. Bush.

Nobody was disenfranchised in 2000. If you can't follow the simple instructions on how to properly vote, you aren't disenfranchised. If you are turned away at the polls, that is disenfranchisement.




Nope, I'm happy to see more minorities registering to vote. My concern stems from your party telling black people that a bunch of Republicans are going to be spraying them with fire hoses on election day.

And by the way, Everything Dontreadonme said is absolutely true. The Democrats want minorities to think that they cannot possibly advance themselves without their help.

I guess it is safe to say that Kerry will not be taking the Nixon way out. Kerry will subject America to a battle over the presidency. If the shoe were on the opposite foot, and it looked like Bush was going to loose, I wonder if he would have pulled the same tactic?

Just read through the MSNBC version of the article that yehoshua linked, and I sincerely hope that this is an oversight, and that the networks are not going to call the Florida election early again. The polls in the Florida panhandle close at 7PM CENTRAL time, not 7PM Eastern as shown on the MSNBC graph. What's the point of a news organization posting this sort of info if they can't even get their own facts straight? I know that it was only 10 or 15 minutes early, but when an election is decided by a handful of votes, it surely made a difference.

MSNBC - you have to scoll down and click 7PM EST

Edited - MSNBC fixed their chart. Hope someone reminds Peter Jennings on Nov. 2.

If you'll remember correctly Yehoshua, in 2000 he did. His people were much more organized, were proactive in trying to advance the decision, were responsible for filing the supreme court case and directly afterwards Bush declared victory, even after Gore decided to fight it. His people were out on the ground telling everyone he had won and his people were actively involved in the recount process and fighting various things and fighting for others. It wasn't that long ago Yehoshua, surely you haven't forgotten.

So your question is moot, he has already done it. It would only be logical to assume that he is prepared to do the same for this election. However, he will have the benefit of being the incumbent with the power to use government resources this time.

The article you quoted mentions nothing about Kerry trying to steal the presidency or anything devious. What it does say is that every vote should be counted. If you'll also recall, that was something that didn't happen in Florida.

I also think your assumption that Kerry is preparing to do this because he expects to lose is false as well. It is prudent preparation for the upcoming election. He would be a fool not to learn from Gore's mistakes and allow 2000 to happen all over again. The election will likely be as close this year as it was in 2000, which allows for the possibility of the same thing happening.

Bush only declared victory after he got the call from Gore. He gets the call, makes an acceptance speech, get the next call saying, "wait, I take that back." It was Gore who started the whole thing. Not Bush.

As the article states, The fault of Gore not declaring victory is what cost him the bid for presidency claims the Kerry advisors. So this time, Kerry will declare victory and work everything out later as stated in the article



Who said Kerry would steal the election? Why didn't every vote get counted in Florida? Because the Court ruled that what you do for one county one state you do for all. The people of Florida choose not to do it for all.



I agree, with a close election Kerry and Bush will be looking for fraud in every swing state in order to claim the presidency.

Considering the thread you are posting this in, the questions for debate and your politics, I think the implication there is pretty clear. If I have characterized your intentions incorrectly, feel free to correct me and clarify them. Because actually the article you cited, doesn't have anything to do with voter intimidation.

As for the second part of your statement, you are also incorrect. According to Florida election law a losing candidate has 72 hours to request a recount of specific (not all) counties if just cause is shown. Furthermore, a full recount is out of the question unless the election is certified (which it wasn't until after the supreme court decision) and the losing candidate requests it. However, discussing that in this thread is completely off topic and I'd encourage you to consider posting on this thread to share your thoughts on the 2000 election and the supreme court decision.

I don't know if the story is true or not and I don't care. I do know for certain that blacks were unfairly accused of being a felon and thus not allowed to vote in the 2000 election. I have watched a video - I don't remember what it was called, sorry - that documented how loosely the felon name list was concocted. For example, a felon named James M. Williams, 38, could be mistaken for law-abiding Jeremy Williamson, 52. Yes, the parameters were that loose. No serious effort was made at all to make sure that those on the list actually were convicted felons.



This is 110% WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

Botched Name Purge Denied Some Right to Vote

Sure, okay. No one was disenfranchised. It was their own damn fault that no one took the felon list seriously enough to care whether the people on it actually belonged.

As far as this "Democrats are really the ones against blacks" mentality - I'm going to put that to rest right. Now. There is no possible way you can compare any perceived racist legacy of the Democrats to the Republicans. You just can't do it. Remember Reagan, who fondly loved telling the story of the "Welfare Queen?" Nevermind she didn't exist, don't let facts get in the way of reassuring voters in their beliefs that welfare is nothing but their hard-earned money going to a bunch of lazy blacks. Remember Reagan, supporter of "constructive engagement?" Remember Bush 43, campaigning at Bob Jones University, which until very recently forbade interracial dating? Remember Reagan trying to get Bob Jones University included for tax-exemption? Remember Strom Thurmond, or his protege Trent Lott? Remember James Hart, running for Congress in Tennessee?

When it comes to civil rights policy, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have anything to brag about. I'm not like some people in this thread, who completely demonize the other side whilst completely ignoring the very real faults of their own. I don't think that pointing out the racism on the other side somehow justifies the racism in one's preferred party. All I'm trying to do is balance out this whole "Republicans are so much more minority-friendly" nonsense, because no, they aren't. They're just as bad, and IMHO, so much worse. Both parties are dominated by old white men who think they know what's best for minorities based on their limited exhanges with the "black leaders" - leaders I never got a chance to vote on to represent me as a black person - and the presence of minorities prominently displayed in their positions on their staff. These token gestures are meaningless if you don't translate your experience and understanding of minorities into your actions - your speeches (preferably not at Bob Jones University), your legislation, your policies.
Maybe now you'll understand where we blacks who feel antagonistic towards the GOP are coming from.

It's true, the Democratic party issued this press release to confirm it. From the release:


The article you cited from the Washington Post mentions 2 people, one who was a victim of identity theft by her sister, and one who was previously a felon, but should have been re-enfranchised 8 months prior to the election. It cited 2000 felons who could have been erroneously removed from the Florida rolls. (and it doesn't add up to 'one million black votes not counted' either). This is unfortunate, but if I were a felon and really wanted to vote, I'd get to the local election board 30 days in advance and just make sure things are OK. But it's still no excuse for a flawed system, you are right.

Also from the article you cited:

I agree that this system is flawed, but I disagree that it is racist. If we want to argue about what drug busts make you a felon, and the root causes of crime, fine. But the fact that 31% of black males in Florida are felons is not specifically due to GOP 'disenfranchising' people.


Very eloquently put. I particularly like your take on 'black leaders.' Technically, I didn't elect Danny Davis to be my representative either, but everytime he runs in my gerrymandered district, he's sure to win!

As an experiment in Democracy, my wife is going to serve as an election judge this year. We live in a majority black neighborhood in Chicago, and there are like 2 Republicans, I guess she's one of them. I will share any news of black voter intimidation or voter fraud, and I also plan to share this stuff with any and all conservative talk show hosts, who say on the air that this is all a fiction.

Of late I've been truly appalled by the psuedo-editorial style and partisan bent of the way questions have been phrased in topics in the Election 2004 thread and the questions you pose carlitoswhey sadly continue this unfortunate trend.

But I'll play along and answer your questions.

1. Well, if things end up as a Florida redux, there's not a snowball's chance that this election won't end up back in the courts and probably in the hands of Antonin Scalia and the other four Supreme Court justices who selected George W. Bush in 2000. I'm amused that Matt Drudge---the same self-important sleazeball who tried to "expose" John Kerry's alledged affair with a reporter---is now the authority on Democratic National Committee dirty tricks. Drudge is part of the right-wing agitprop machine that would have you believe that voter fraud and intimdation is a figment of Terry McAuliffe's imagaination. Unless there is a clear and obvious winner on November 2nd, on November 3rd hordes of lawyers will be descending upon federal courthouses across the nation to void the results of the 2004 Presidential Election.

For one such perpective on five possible scenarios that could wreak havoc on Election Day check out: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108339/

2. Well, let me answer your question this way. Who says that these claims are false?

* In 2002, the Lousiana Republican Party admitted to paying black youths $75 to hold up signs on street corners in black neigborhoods that appeared to discourage African-Americans from voitng.

* Again, in Louisiana there were notices placed in predominantly black neighborhoods that read, "Vote! Bad weather? No problem. Remember, you can wait and cast your ballot a few days later."

*In Baltimore in 2003 and Georgia in 2003, black voters were sent flyers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills, had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations.

* 2003, in Lousiville, KY, Jefferson County Republicans annouced plans to Election Day challengers at 59 voting precints in predominantly black neighborhoods. Party officials claimed the precints were chosen without regard to race, but a flyer for recruiting volunteers specifically mentioned to black labor unions as a "militant" force alledgedly encouraging voter fraud.

source: http://www.naacp.org/news/releases/jimcrow.pdf

But if 2002 and 2003 are ancient history, how about right now and right here in my home state of Ohio?

Here's today's headline story from the Columbus Dispatch:

Voters report fake calls

Instructions to change polling place don’t come from board of elections

The caller interrupting a North Side couple’s dinner earlier this week said he was from the Franklin County Board of Elections.

He told the elderly woman that her voting site had changed and that on Nov. 2 she and her husband should cast their ballots at a South Side precinct. The caller even left the phone number of the board.

Her husband, who didn’t want their names published out of fear of retribution, called the board, sat through a long menu of automated options and finally spoke with an employee.

"They said there was no way in the world they would make such a call," he said. "I think it’s hankypanky and somebody in the election is trying to kill some votes."

At no time, Elections Director Matthew Damschroder said, does the board call voters. "The only communication from the board of elections is printed on official board of elections paper with the logo," he said.

"If they’re saying they’re the board of elections, that’s a violation of the law. My recommendation to them would be to cease and desist."

http://www.dispatch.com/election/election-...1022-A1-00.html (registration required)

This came a day after a federal judge blasted Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell for failing to comply with court order regarding provisional ballots and for "failing to do his duty."

U.S. District Judge James G. Carr in Toledo also suggested that Blackwell risked denying large numbers of Ohioans the right to vote on Nov. 2 and "apparently seeks to accomplish the same result in Ohio in 2004 that occurred in Florida in 2000.''

While an appeals court decides the legal dispute over provisional ballots in Ohio, Carr wants Blackwell to give county election officials alternative instructions for the possible outcomes in the case so no time is lost once there's a ruling.

The judge even offered his own language for those guidelines, saying Blackwell can't be trusted to do so.

"I cannot be confident . . . that Blackwell will, indeed, fulfill his obligation to this court, Ohio's election officials, and Ohio's voters,'' the judge wrote.

Blackwell, who has called Carr a "left-wing judge,'' said through a spokesman that the judge's strong language was "surprising'' because Blackwell thinks he has complied with Carr's requests.

Blackwell has become notorious nationally for his relentless attempt to throw procedural roadblocks up against Ohioans in their attempts to vote. His tireless crusade to disenfranchise voters can be followed along with other attempts at the Village Voice's updated section on voter suppression:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0442/vote.php

3. Nobody has to "instill" fear in blacks and other voters of color. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you and the Republcian Party in particular has too often been shown to be on the wrong side of disenfranchising black voters. Why would the GOP do that? Even if Bush has reallly doubled his support among blacks as another poster noted he's still losing that vote to Kerry

The Republicans put so much effort in diluting the black vote because they don't want to spend the time and money to really wrest it away from the Democrats. Columnist Paul Krugman recently wrote in the New York Times, "We must acknowledge the possibility that a narrow Bush win, especially if it depends on Florida, rests on the systematic disenfranchisement of minority voters."

The Democrats know this as well as the Republicans. For all the pious lip service given to assuring every vote counts, the best hope for another four years for Bush lies in discouraging when possible and outright denying blacks the right to vote.

That's why I believe that Karl Rove and the sneaky little scuzzballs at the RNC don't have a big "October Surprise" up their sleeves. Why bother when good ol' November Jim Crow disenfranchisement will work just as well?

I know Suzy addressed this, but this is the type of misinformation that can cause real problems right before an election. The events in Florida were a mess and it doesn't take much time to find examples of people who were wrongfully turned away from the polls. This is not a Democratic conspiracy, it is the reality of the 2000 elections.






Rights Commission's Report on Florida Election

That Civil Rights Commission report may not have found "one single qualified registered voter who was turned away from the polls" but it found a lot more than that and it found extremely disturbing evidence.

I think the Democratic party better be ready to be skeptical about election results this time around and it better inform people that they may want to engage in early voting so they have time to find a remedy if something has gone wrong. Something appears to have gone wrong in Nevada already. Nothing from the 2000 election should comfort voters of any political stripe that they should assume to encounter an effective voting system when they arrive at the polls in 2004.

Anyone who has so little understanding of the election process as those purported to have been misled by the examples given by nightimer shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place.

The Repubs are surely discouraging the votes of those who know nothing about what they are doing and simply following their masters who need their vote to bring them back to power. The same power that has been used to keep them underfoot and beholden to the hand that feeds them. And that's the worst kind of racism.

The Republican Party continues its fight to free these minorities, but it is an uphill battle.

I find it very interesting, Nighttimer, that you fail to mention that Ken Blackwell is...a black man.

Of course, he is also a Republican. What you are saying is that in Ohio, the black vote is being suppressed by the actions of a black man.

I think we should all keep in mind that in the 1960s and before, the South was dominated by Democrats, not Republicans. The legacy of the South is largely a Democrat legacy.

You know what I noticed Amlord? I noticed that you didn't bother to challenge anything I said about what J. Kenneth Blackwell is doing to suppress the African-American vote.

So Blackwell is black. Two words: SO WHAT? What, a black man can't act against the best interests of black people? Ever hear of Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe? Black people sold other black people to white slavers. Black people betrayed other black people trying to escape during slavery. Black people killed Malcolm X. Black people commit crimes against black people.

I didn't make an issue of J. Kenneth Blackwell's race because I didn't think it mattered. Blackwell's color and party affilation doesn't bother me. His actions do. Please don't tell try to tell me "what I am saying" Amlord. I know what I am saying. Instead, say what you think I'm saying. And in the interest of full disclosure, I should tell you that I have met Blackwell, participated in a panel discussion before Ohio State University students about political empowerment with him and have interviewed him for a black newspaper.

And what I want to keep in mind is the issue today isn't what Democrats did in the South in the age of post-slavery Jim Crow, but what both parties are doing now. Democrats are trying to scare blacks into believing George W. Bush is going to throw them back into chains. Republicans are trying to intimidate blacks into not exercising their right to vote. Both are bad. One is worse. You can decide which that is.

Regarding your barely-concealed swipe at the intelligence of those black voters in those examples I gave, Passion51, I'd give your criticism more credence if you had bothered to read the report by the NAACP and the People for the American Way that I linked. Maybe you just don't have Adobe Acrobat to read a PDF file. More likely, you just had your rhetoric down before you had your facts straight.

The Repubs are surely discouraging the votes of those who know nothing about what they are doing and simply following their masters who need their vote to bring them back to power. The same power that has been used to keep them underfoot and beholden to the hand that feeds them. And that's the worst kind of racism.

Does that mean the Republcans are doing those folks a FAVOR by challenging their right to vote? Where in the Constitution does it say that only a informed voter can cast a ballot? If we started disqualifying everyone who "know nothing about what they are doing" and "simply following (sic) their masters who need their vote to bring them back to power" then there would be a ton of dumb Republicans who wouldn't be voting next Tuesday for the EXACT SAME REASON.

I will give props to carlitoswhey for his willingness to look at both sides of the issue before rendering a judgment. It doesn't mean he is going to change his mind but it does illustrate that it's open.

Mark Twain said, "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." It would be a refreshing change if people troubled themselves to get the order of events right.

I'll admit ignorance here. Just what the hell is a "black name"? How does one "target" the black community by using a list of names? James Williams is a 'black name"? Jeremy Williamson is a "black name"? Really, how does this work?

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, Aquilla, but pray tell how many blue-eyed, blonde surfer types have you met named "Raheem Washington?"

And a "black-sounding name" does mean something. Names have power.

A recent University of Chicago study, "Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?" by Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, found that people with names like Pam or Amber got 50 percent more callbacks for job interviews than applicants with similar résumés and names like Lakisha and Shaniqua.

Even though the study looked at 5,000 résumés, a group of young professionals didn't quite believe the name on top of their résumés could make that big a difference. The skeptics included Carita, an attorney; Tavoria, a law student; Orpheus, an educator; Arsenetta, a statistician; Tremelle, a financial adviser; and Ebony, an M.B.A. student. So 20/20 asked the six to participate in an experiment.

20/20 put 22 pairs of names to the test — the six skeptics included.

Each person posted two résumés on popular job-search Web sites — one under his or her real name, and the same identical résumé under a made-up, "white-sounding" names like Peter, Melissa and Kathleen.

You'd think the identical résumés would get the same attention. Instead, the résumés with the white-sounding names on them were actually downloaded 17 percent more often by job recruiters looking for candidates.

"You really never know why you don't get called back for that interview. I thought it was because of my job skills, or my résumé wasn't appropriate, but I never thought it was because of my name," Carita said.

http://www.xtremerecruiting.org/blog/archives/ss/001064.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...34/ai_112647828

http://www.truecareers.com/jobseeker/caree...ity_14711.shtml

Black people sold black SLAVES to white slavers. Or if you prefer, Black SLAVERS sold black people to white slavers. You have to give credit to the fact that the people sold into slavery were slaves as a result of losing a war.

Secondly the black people who killed Malcom X did so because Malcom X came back from Mecca a changed man, claiming it wasn't the white race that kept the black race down, but individuals that kept other individuals down. Its not whitey its the man.

Black people commit crimes against other black people because that is who is in their neighborhood. The white family in the black neighborhood gets picked on more then all the other families; however when there are no white people to single out, or Korean shops as shown during the Rodney King Riots of LA, then crimes are committed against certain blacks. People commit crimes against people whom the come into contact more with.



I think it is more then BLACKS.
I think it is safe to say, that with an election this close both side are desperate in their attempts to get their man elected into the White House. But the criminal acts of the individuals do not damn the race, or the political party.

The problem with calling it race afflicted or party afflicted is false. These are individuals, some with power, other with fist, trying to get their man elected through criminal means. This has happened in our nation since we began the election process. People crossing state lines to vote for a slave state. The Civil War was nothing more then a group claiming that the president elect will have no control over them.

To call it a race issue is to deny the means behind the issue, as in the Jim Crow Laws. It wasn't to stop blacks from voting, it was to stop blacks from voting Republican (the party of Lincoln). The goal of all elections is to win, and some people will win at all cost. Curse those people, not the party.

The fact that people would even claim that there are 'black' and 'white' names is the reason why this country continues to remain racist. When you divided people into groups of 'names' by which race uses the name more often, then you might as well say that no one is equal. Some people with 'black' names have better lives then people with 'white names.' Division is the reason why racism continues to exist: recognizing a race creates racism. One must recoginize that a name is a name, its not a blac name or a white name. A man is a man, he's not a black man or a white man.

This is too simplistic an answer. In the following list of first names, what guesses would you make at ethnicity or race?
Leroy, Jose, Fei-Weng, Michael, Muhammad, Gunther, Pierre, Vladimir

Naming patterns tend to reflect cultural differences. And there is an African American culture. Saying that we should not have black or hispanic or white sounding names will not change the reality.


Greg Palast first broke this story but it originally showed up in the British media



THE GREAT FLORIDA EX-CON GAME How the 'felon' voter-purge was itself felonious


In Florida the felons list was made with an attempt to cast a wide net and make people whose names were close to those on the list prove that they were not felons in order to vote. If they were lucky they were notified by the local commission prior to election day.


THE PATH TO FLORIDA

The only thing that is likely to occur on election day is the democrats and black leaders keeping the system honest. The "pre-emptive" strike you talk about is merely having a black leader talk about potential disenfranchisement and that kind of thing for two purposes. (1)To keep the issue alive; (2)To force the bluff of an election bureau in a state that might be engaging in unsavory conduct, and who just wants the issue to "go away." Hinting at accusations isn't a crime, and if things are conducted properly, then there is nothing to worry about. Raising concerns about any election impropriety is nothing new, I'm sure the Republicans have a similar line in their own manual. This whole thing has been distorted since day one in terms of meaning and interpretation.



Once again, it's designed to call the bluff and force straight forward answers should anything occur. This is totaly presented in the wrong light.



What's the advice?





None of the above suggested tactics is illegal, it's merely to try and keep the heat on elected election officials who probably have something to hide.

This just broke on Drudge should have been your first clue

I think I'll take the reputation of a much more reputable news source like.... The BBC.


So, I don't think these claims of voter intimidation are quite so far off as some might want to believe. I also think that everyone should probably be listening a little more closely to nighttimer, rather than dismissing his opinion as partisan rhetoric.

This also appears to be happening in Ohio as well.

Well, here's why republicans often times laugh at threads such as this. Your own BBC story includes the following explanation. My personal opinion is that the world isn't a huge conspiracy. Afterall, this was just an email... so read away... courtesy of the BBC:

"When asked by Newsnight for an explanation of the list, Republican spokespersons claim the list merely records returned mail from either fundraising solicitations or returned letters sent to newly registered voters to verify their addresses for purposes of mailing campaign literature."

If someone held onto them just in case, I can't say that I blame them. Maybe this person was doing their job??

Also, the mention of an unmarked van filming voters and blaming republicans is absurd. The camera person even stated that he wouldn't name who was paying him.
"Intimidating black voters"???? How exactly did they do that? Cameras? What a farce....

Also, in reference to your post about Ohio, the SAME Washington Post article states:
" Ohio's voter-registration rolls contain more than 120,000 duplicate names, and an untold number of ineligible voters, such as people who have moved out of the state. A review of the rolls by the Columbus Dispatch even found a murder victim and two suspected terrorists among the eligible"

I can say that this SHOULD raise some concern....

Huh? That is how you propose to debunk the story? Did you honestly expect the spokesperson to say "Why yes, we are keeping this list to keep black voters down and intimidate them in the polling booths, we can't tell a lie."

If you read the very next line you'll see that she also doesn't really deny it either:

The BBC doesn't have a reputation for running gossip masqueraded as stories, they are probably the only true journalists this country is exposed to.


Yes I saw that, and that is a problem. But it in no way merits the following:

According to Ohio law, this isn't legal. Ohio law states:

Therefore stationing people at the polls on election day would be illegal. The stat is required to give voters notice and a hearing, in other words that pesky concept known as due process.

I won't argue the points in reference to the BBC story, because I think American Liberals inherently don't want to believe the logical statement given by the campaign spokesperson.

However, you mention that sending recruits to the polls to challenge voters is illegal, which is blatently untrue according to your own post. It never mentioned that there can't be people standing by to ensure that duplicate votes aren't cast (The article states that there are a large number of dup names, etc), underage voters don't cast votes, etc, etc, etc.
Due process is a logical and wonderful thing. Also, protecting our best interests are equally wonderful. The fact that republican representatives will be on site isn't illegal in itself.

Are you serious? If one of John Kerry's spokesmen was saying the same thing, would you be inclined to believe him? There is no "American Liberals" to this, spokespeople for campaigns aren't going to tell you the truth, period. I don't trust the Demorcatic ones, nor do I trust the Republican ones.


My post absolutely does not contradict that. The law states you must have a hearing no less than 2 days before the election. How exactly are these people going to validate registrations without breaking the law? I think that the people conducting the election are perfectly capable of checking photo ID, as they have done for decades. I can't possibly see the need to send 8000 republican cronies out to the polls to "help out". I really don't see an alternative to what the article suggested, that they'll be ready to pounce on any voter they can. If you are so sure this is kosher, then you tell me why they need 8000 people when technically, they can't do anything outside of blatant fraud.

This today from Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way:

The New York Times reported that the Republican party has registered thousands of people to serve as partisan "vote challengers" at Ohio polling places, in what they say is an effort to prevent "voter fraud." Meanwhile, the Columbus Dispatch reported that based on a mailing to newly registered voters, the GOP plans to challenge 35,000 voters in an effort to keep them from the polls.

"Based on the lessons of history, this isn't an effort to prevent voter fraud. It's an effort to prevent voting. It's an effort to keep people away from the polls by creating confusion, congestion and chaos. That's un-American," said Neas.

"What is so threatening about tens of thousands of new voters coming to the polls? Doesn't democracy work best when more people vote, not fewer? Obviously, voter fraud must not and should not be tolerated. But there is no evidence of massive voter fraud in this country. Instead, there is evidence of massive voter disenfranchisement. Our priority must be to bring more people to the polls, not keep them away.

"In recent years, the Republican party has been forced to sign at least three court-ordered consent decrees for attempting to challenge voters or suppress voter turnout on the basis of race. The question must be asked, is history repeating itself? Are these tactics once again targeted against minority voters?" Neas asked.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1024-01.htm

There are few times and fewer issues where my mind is not open to the opposing side of the story. But I have yet to hear a convincing argument from the Republican Party that they are not trying to harass, intimidate, and suppress the black vote in Ohio, Florida and other states.

We seem to live in some delusional fairy tale world where people delude themselves that simply because there aren't poll taxes, citizenship quizzes, literacy tests or some fat redneck sheriff fingering his pistol at the doorway that black people still don't have to fight for their right to vote. It seems that many whites find this an impossible concept to grasp. Is that because white males never needed a Constitutional Amendment protecting their right to vote?

In Jacksonville, to determine if Republicans were using the lists or other means of intimidating voters, we filmed a private detective filming every "early voter" - the majority of whom are black - from behind a vehicle with blacked-out windows.

The private detective claimed not to know who was paying for his all-day services.

On the scene, Democratic Congresswoman Corinne Brown said the surveillance operation was part of a campaign of intimidation tactics used by the Republican Party to intimate and scare off African American voters, almost all of whom are registered Democrats.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3956129.stm

How do you counter record-breaking voter registration? With voter suppression, that's how.

I'd like to issue a challenge to anyone who believes the GOP isn't trying to disenfranchise black voters in 2004. Show me just one credible, well-researched study, article, op-ed, or column that makes the case. I'm willing to consider the other side of the story. Not just rhetoric and talking points. Not just crap from a blogger like Matt Drudge. Something with authority and something with some substance.

Until proven otherwise, the Republican Party is engaged in a deliberate policy of voter disenfranchisement that is anti-democratic in its practice and racist at its heart.

Oh, never mind. I found it myself.

"Minority voters should make their unique voices heard, especially the African-American voting bloc, which is always a major factor in every election," said Florida Republican Party voter-drive organizer Mark Monreal, as he handed out flyers at a community center in the mostly black Miami neighborhood of South Farms. "That's why we put up hundreds of brightly colored banners featuring Martin Luther King Jr. and the 'Vote November 3' reminder. We needed to make sure they know when we want them at polling places."

"You can't walk through a black neighborhood here in Miami without seeing our 'Don't Forget Big Wednesday!' message up on a billboard, tacked to a phone booth, or taped to a bus shelter," Monreal added. "The Republican Party has spared no expense in this endeavor."

GOP committees in Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Florida have spent more than $3 million on pamphlets, posters, stickers, and T-shirts bearing such slogans as "Put America First—Vote On The Third!" and "November 3rd Is Your Time To Be Heard."

Let's be honest," Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie said. "The Bush camp has been criticized for ignoring the minority vote for some time, especially during the last election. This project is our way of correcting that misperception. The Bush camp is extremely concerned about the black vote, especially in places like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. This year, on Nov. 3, we'll make a concerted effort to welcome minority voters into our own special camps with open arms."

What a beautiful thing to say.

If only it were true.

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?iss...043&n=1&ref=myy

Both parties are acting despicably in the runup to this election, no doubt about it.

But one thing that emerges is the continuing damage done when race is pushed to the forefront, regardless of the issue. Those who insist on emphasizing their race at every turn will find themselves viewed and treated as outsiders. Why? Because they paint themselves that way.

Those of us who try to lead our lives by treating all people the same, regardless of race, continue to be confronted by those who prefer to emphasize their differences rather than similarities. The Democrats encourage this and the blacks who assert their independence are ostracized by.........blacks themselves.

Its a sad commentary when the alleged 'black leadership' fights those who want to live life as a human being who happens to be black.

If you refuse to see past the color of your own skin, how can you expect anyone else to?

Just to address the 2 slaps at Drudge first, this post was generated from a Drudge Report story, which showed a DNC handbook, on DNC letterhead, and called attention to some key sections, which I noted in my title. The very next day, the DNC issued a press release, confirming that the document was real, and that they stood by it 100%. Feel free to debate this topic, but impugning Drudge isn't really helpful. He just posted the document and quoted from it. Without sites like his or bloggers, I'd be forced to get inside scoop info from where exactly - CBS?

As far as nighttimer's claim that the Republican Party is racist and suppressing the vote until proven otherwise, that is indeed a tall order. How does one prove he's not a racist? Have you now, or have you ever been, associated with the RNC? The DNC? How about the NAACP? IBM? Texaco? Denny's? This paints with too broad a brush for me. While there are clearly knuckleheads at the local level doing unfair things (I wouldn't say that videotaping is one of them), I do not see a clear pattern that is limited to republicans, in the past 15-20 years.

I read the NAACP pub on the subject, and while it has a ton of useful and very incriminating racism / vote-suppresion evidence in history, it becomes more scarce in recent years and is very limited as to Florida 2000 in particular. The Civil Rights Commission report is much more detailed, but mostly concludes incompetence, not racism. Additionally, the one Republican member issued a fairly vociferous rebuttal of the tone and many specific points, which didn't make it into the summary that was linked. This makes sense to me, especially in the poor counties with higher minorities, there were elected Democrats running the polling places. Should we allocate funds more equitably across counties - yes, and I think we are heading in that direction now. Every action taken seems to be opposed by those in local control - conspiracy theories on touch screens, from the same people calling the lack of technology in black counties 'racism' seems inconsistent.

As to the overall fraud question, there are too many links to post on this. There are now more registered voteres in Philadelphia than there are people. Partisan organizations like ACORN and ACT are finding their way to register multiple people, false people, underage people, etc. There were thousands of voters registered in Ohio who couldn't receive their registration cards, because they were kicked back due to wrong or non-existent addresses, some going 5 or 6 to one house. This is at best, over-exuberant voter registrations, at worst, registration fraud. I'd keep a list too!

OH voter registrations unable to be mailed

11,700 dead people still registered in MO

Just chiming in about Ohio. A judge ordered a stay today on the Ohio Republican Party's voter challenge until further hearings. Reasons:

• One military member in Falluja using his brother's mailing address
• Someone's mailbox has been hit by trucks and they pick up mail at a post office box
• A regular voter lost her job and had to move into a shelter
• Homeless people
• Oddly enough, a Republican with the same address for five years was challenged

It seems like the Ohio Republican Party, afraid of mass fraud, aimed for a blitz voter challenge instead of researching undelivered mail. Republicans withdrew all 2,319 challenges in Montgomery County.

This huge a challenge, 35,000 in all, doesn't directly support a Republican voter challenge on the basis of race (I'll leave others to debate whether challenging new voters registered by liberal voter drives is in itself unfairly challenging voters on the basis of race), but their actions make it very clear they believe ACT willfully and knowingly broke federal law on a large scale.

I could be wrong but I don't think Democrats are as inclined to challenging newly registered voters. Perhaps this is why they're prone to glower suspiciously in the first place?

Is an organized effort to make false claims about the worst sort of racism and discrimination good for our democracy, given the poisonous atmosphere generated by Florida 2000?
With regards to the Colorado Election Day manual:

If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which techniques have been tried in the past).
Unfortunately this already assumes intimidation will take place, but I don't see anything wrong about informing voters of previous intimidation techniques to overcome it should it take place. Assuming the manual is the same nationwide this is applicable advice in states like New Jersey and Louisiana, where the RNC hired off duty police to "monitor" poling places in the 80's.

Issue a press release: 1) Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state; 2) Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting.
1) Encourages a press release with the caveat that past intimidation occurred in your area/state; 2) I interpret that as a follow-up to said caveat as a fairly obvious suggestion that could be viewed as leading.

Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points.
This suggestion wouldn't be necessary if intimidation will never take place again. No one can guarantee that. This is on par with "experts" getting slots on talking head shows dishing out opinions on everything from how to keep your kids off drugs to garden variety legal advice.

My only beef is providing them with talking points. There are enough puppets on prime time television already. Let them do the research. This doesn't have much bearing on the debate question. Just a pet peeve of mine.

Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics.
See above.

Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls.
This one is tricky. I'm not sure how to read the first part but "...not to accept advertising... that contains false warnings about voting requirements..." seems on target with the rest of it.

In closing, this may be all a party zealot needs to go wild with unscrupulous allegations. Who should we blame in that case, the party zealot or the DNC?

Evidently, they have lots to worry about. First, letters have been sent out to democratic voters telling them falsely that they are ineligible to vote. Second, three republican campaign workers notzarized absentee voter ballot application without the person there. Third, the Florida GOP is using the old flawed felons voter list in order to try and eliminate some votes. If you are a minority, you would be crazy not to fear this last tactic. Fourth, asinine rules in Ohio stand to eliminate voters who fill out a form correctly, but who may face serious problems as election officials are receiving a deluge of mail to up grade their voting cards to a heavier paper type card. Not only that, but provisional ballots will not be handed out to those who show up at the wrong polling place, a practice that is not that uncommon elsewhere. Lastly, the GOP in Florida is evidently stalking minority voters.


source

So, filming at polling places is intimidating minority voters...and who's the culprit exactly?. My emphasis added. This is becoming a circus.

[quote=carlitoswhey,Oct 31 2004, 01:56 PM]
So, filming at polling places is intimidating minority voters...and who's the culprit exactly?. My emphasis added. This is becoming a circus.

My source was the St. Petersberg Times, these are journalists who approached the van and documented that P.I.s were out watching voters. Michael Moore's cameras are different in that no one in their right mind would assume that he would want to suppress the minority vote. If someone messed with you, it would be documented. Yes, it is a "circus" but dirty tricks things happen all the time.

Somebody is going to have to explain to me how filming a voting site is intimidating voters, much less 'stalking' them.
Do we have a history of people being filmed walking in to vote, there vote being found out, them being followed home and burning bags of poo thrown on their doorstep?

Where is the intimidation?

And defending Michael Moore filming onsite, because he's a self proclaimed champion of the little guy, not to mention a liberal democrat, is a bit bizarre to me.

Personally, I would be more offended to be an unwitting cast member in Moore's next science fiction movie.

Glad to see were all being mature and thoughtful here...



So lets say one day you noticed a black SUV sitting outside your house and a guy with a camera watching and waiting. You wouldn't find that discomforting? I think the story is being blown out of proportion, but I can't see ANY value in a covert surveilliance of voting stations that would outweigh the possibility of even a single person (whether perfectly sane or very paranoid) feeling pressured away from voting. Then again, who cares about the integrity of the democratic process these days... It seems to me that people only care when their fellow republicans or democracts are interfered with.



You may dislike Micheal Moore, (and in fact I'm fairly certain you do), but even you know who he is. Are you honestly suggesting that you think a known documentary (and don't bring up that tired 'it's not a documentary' argument, this isn't hte place) filmmaker is on par with a P.I. who can't even say who is employer is? You're a far more trusting man than I am. What happened to the conservative value of skepticism?