WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-06 19:36:35 +0000

no.

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-06 20:37:57 +0000

WSJ Sept 28th 2004 "In June 2001, following a six-month investigation that included subpoenas of Florida state officials from Governor Jeb Bush on down, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report that found no evidence of voter intimidation, no evidence of voter harassment, and no evidence of intentional or systematic disenfranchisement of black voters." ...."Which leaves the 'stolen election' crowd with these inconvenient facts: In 24 of the 25 Florida counties with the highest ballot spoilage rate, the county supervisor was a Democrat. In the 25th county, the supervisor was an Independent. And as for the 'felon purge list,' the Miami Herald found that whites were twice as likely to be incorrectly placed on the list as blacks."

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-06 20:39:06 +0000

as if being a felon at all doesn't make you ineligible to vote....

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-06 21:25:23 +0000

http://www.usccr.gov/ Under Findings "During Florida’s 2000 presidential election, restrictive statutory provisions, wide-ranging errors, and inadequate resources in the Florida election process denied countless Floridians of their right to vote." "This disenfranchisement of Florida voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based on county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in the November 2000 election.[5]" I guess it wasn't "systematic disenfranchisement," just general disenfranchisement. There are many reasons I avoid the WSJ, but here it seems that they tried to pass off the dissenting opinion as the actual report. As for the "In 24 of the 25 Florida counties with the highest ballot spoilage rate, the county supervisor was a Democrat. " This supports the idea of a stolen election. Curious.

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-06 21:55:32 +0000

restrictive stauatory provisions would be overseen by the Democrats presiding over the county at the website you linked to, which I dug a little further to find exactly what it was you were referring to : you need to click on the link publications, and then click on the "voting" link subset to look for the June 2001 report. this report gives no hard proof that people were denying people their right to vote because of the color of their skin. If spoilage rates are higher in some places rather than others, how does this infer that there is some conspiracy?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-06 22:11:57 +0000

This is ballot spoilage, not restrictions. If is higher some place and not others, it is not random = human error/conspiracy/what have you. Now, I'm guessing here, but it seems that where the supervisor is a Democrat the voting population may also lean Democratic? As for hard proof that people were denying people their right to vote because of the color of their skin, I consider the graphs in the Appendix hard. I can't figure out if the white/black purging ratio is overall or by percentage. ie. 100 whites, 10 purged: 30 blacks, 5 purged. So whites are twice as likely, but still 10% vs. 17%....

Posted by G lib on 2004-10-07 12:27:26 +0000

Some of you may not know that TravisG is a registered Florida voter, and is getting his family to do the same (from England). Do you have an opinion about the balloting process in Florida, Trav?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-07 19:16:05 +0000

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005682 The discrepencies between the WSJ opinion piece rladew quoted the actual US Commision on Civil Rights "Report on voting irregularities in Florida during the 2000 Presidential Election" are startling. Again, I point out the only statements I can find that even remotely support the WSJ Opinion piece are not from the real report, but from the "dissenting statement," written by Abigal Thernstrom a partisan Republican and Russall G. Redenbaugh of the Lexington Institute. (If you don't know the Lexington Institute, look them up. Their stance Postal Service reform is particularily frightening.) The actual report is loaded with findings of spoilage, intimidation, etc. So much so, I can't believe no one called the WSJ on this. Even in the response section to the WSJ piece, no one seems to have read the report. They just rant "Democrats are liars," "the liberal media," "Jimmy Carter is the worst president ever." Obviously, it is OK to read the WSJ, but remember to question news sources with a clear agenda, especially when they're so dishonest.

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-08 14:46:14 +0000

[quote:e01b3d63bf]They just rant "Democrats are liars," "the liberal media," "Jimmy Carter is the worst president ever."[/quote:e01b3d63bf] I certainly see how you could infer a negative Carter message from the referenced article, but nowhere are the above statements presented verbatim except in yr mind, Dawn. The report in question DOES NOT quantify a conspiracy against people just because they have a certain skin color. Many factors made the Florida voting situation tenous at best, but no one has proof that it purposely held people back for racial reasons. The point of the article to my understanding is that when politicians that are trying to appeal to a minority voting population tell their prospective constituents that their votes dont matter or at least haven't mattered in the past, it becomes a backfiring strategy where these voters might actually listen to the message the politician is giving and stay home.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-08 15:16:24 +0000

rladew wrote: "I certainly see how you could infer a negative Carter message from the referenced article, but nowhere are the above statements presented verbatim except in yr mind, Dawn." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/responses.html?article_id=110005682 From the first response: "It is hard for me to fathom that all these Democrats are telling such lies. Where is the press and why are they not questioning this? And how dare former President Carter who was the biggest failure as president that we ever had, stand up on a stage and lie, and downgrade a sitting president." I do not make stuff up, rladew....

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-08 15:24:41 +0000

Being the "biggest failure" does not mean "worst". Or does it?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-08 15:29:58 +0000

I suppose if you thought Carter was going to do spectacular things and failed to do so, then yes. But I didn't get that from these replies....

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-08 15:44:28 +0000

yeah - this seems to be a bit of semantics again: WSJ didnt say Worst, (and if you think Carter was a huge success, please speak up Dawn) (didn't say "Liars", said "Lying" about this particular situation) and did not allude to Liberal Media. How about the real substance of my post and the point of the article: Where is this irrefutable evidence that the "Man" isnt letting people who happen to be black vote in Florida? why is it a good strategy to tell prospective voters that their votes don't count?

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-08 15:56:38 +0000

No, WSJ didn't say "worst", dawnbixtler was pointing out the tenor of the comments attached to the opinionjournal.com entry. After reviewing the main report, along with the dissenting statement, I feel like there were serious issues with the way the State of Florida conducted itself during the 2000 election. Going for walks are a healthy and good thing. If I know that there is a thief on your walking route, shouldn't I let you know that? So you can be prepared when you go for a walk? I don't see how this report scares people from voting, or implies that their vote in the future doesn't count. On the contrary, I see it as helping people see that their vote will count. We've seen that voting activists have only stepped up their efforts. Both Parties in Florida have urged constituents to vote early through the use of absentee ballots.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-08 16:18:31 +0000

Again, I point to the USCCR's report. Read it! There's hard evidence, from anecdotal to hard numbers and graphs. Rladew's Jim Crow point of view that it was not intentional, is disturbing, especially when you read the stories of the blacks at the polls who were turned away illegally. Do you really think that thousands of blacks are lying about this? As for letting people know that their votes didn't count, it forces people to act, to make sure the polls work next time, and demand that the country remains a true democracy. How can this possibly be bad? And as for Carter, he planted the seed to win the Cold War, and I consider that a big achievement. He also started peace treaties in the Middle East.... curious....

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-08 18:14:22 +0000

Oy vey. we see things too differently on this. I suggest we agree to disagree....

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-08 18:29:25 +0000

Can't let it go: Why should you NOT tell people their votes did NOT count?

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-08 18:40:08 +0000

ive made my case. I'm sorry you cant let it go...

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-08 18:58:19 +0000

Piling on.... The real spectacle here is that some Democrats are only too willing to exploit the painful history of black voter disenfranchisement for some short-term partisan advantage. And it just might backfire. Democrats played up the Florida fiasco in the 2002 midterm elections, repeatedly telling blacks that their votes hadn't been counted in 2000. Rather than being riled up, many black voters believed what they were told and stayed home. Apples and oranges. How can you compare turnout for a midterm election for one in the presidential cycle? I'd be interested in seeing turnout rates for 1998 compared with 2002.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-09 17:41:40 +0000

Victory! dawnbixtler & the honest press-1 : WSJ & the neo-con agenda-0

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-09 23:49:53 +0000

We'll see about that soon...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-10 00:55:39 +0000

No, you ceded, and I proved the WSJ was incredibly dishonest. Case closed.

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-10 00:58:53 +0000

I'll Use REM's words against them (from What's the Frequency Kenneth): "Richard (Linklater) says to withdraw in disgust is not the same as apathy" Silence and / or going back and forth is NOT victory.

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-10 01:22:50 +0000

BTW: "We'll See About That Soon" wasn't intended to bring this whole Florida debate back up so much about who was wrong or who was right, but meaning "We will see what happens this Election on NOV 2 2004. It is my sincere hope that whoever wins, we wont have a large group of people saying one candidate or another stole this election too. A mandate would be nice! (wishful thinking here...) Having said that, I enjoy sharing viewpoints and discussion and debate, but as I tried to do a month or so ago by just trying to politely withdrawl (and give my friends the respect they deserve by not forcing my political opinions on them), I was met with statements akin to the fact that I must be conceding that the left argument has somehow "Won" the debates / discussions we were having, or that the left ideology is more "correct" than my viewpoint. This is so INCORRECT it is unfunny. Ever heard of choosing your battles? I'm not running for president, having you guys grade a term paper of mine, or trying to convert you to my beliefs. I am happy to share some sources just as you guys are, but I fail to see why Dawn considers his sources to be more correct than mine. Largely, I feel very happy and respected that everyone has tolerated my varying viewpoints on this board, but there comes a time when how I feel doesnt need someone elses approval. This language about me ceding points is absurd IMHO. "I'm sorry you cant let it go" doesent translate to you are right, it just means we are going nowhere, and I would like to move on. I highly respect any individual who will seriously run for the Presidency of the USA. Come Nov 3rd, if Kerry wins, I will offer my support, best wishes, respect and hope for the best outcome in this awesome country of ours. Until then, I feel conspiracy theories such as the theft of the election from the left are hard to swallow at best and I would prefer to talk about THIS election

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-10 01:29:08 +0000

BTW whats with calling me Jim Crow?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-11 04:38:29 +0000

I was going to do a point by point review of all our previous posts, but is it worth it? I was hurt by rladew's "except in yr. mind, Dawn" line. And after I posted and quoted the WSJ response section where those sentiments were shown, I expected an apology. Instead rladew argued over "the worst" vs. "the biggest disappointment" and that saying Democrats are lying vs. calling them liars. Then rladew implied I said that the opinion piece itself contained these sentiments, which I did not, (terryg backed me up on this). Here again I expected an "I stand corrected" or something. But this is only my ego, and it is small potatoes compared to rladew's post: "The report in question DOES NOT quantify a conspiracy against people just because they have a certain skin color. Many factors made the Florida voting situation tenous at best, but no one has proof that it purposely held people back for racial reasons." It is impossible to prove unless someone from Florida comes out and shows a geniune memo that reads, "We held back the black vote." Like the infamous "Whites Only" water-fountain next to the dirty sink under a sign that reads "colored," it is impossible to determine if the water fountains are different on purpose or simply by chance. In the Florida 2000 vote, blacks from Punch card & central-record counties had 19.4% of their votes invalidated, versus 2.2% for non-blacks (Table 1.2 from Chapter 1 of the USCCR's June '01 report). The laws of mathematics say that this is possible, and there is the minute chance it was NOT a conspiracy. Blacks were just really, REALLY unlucky, just as they were unlucky that their "colored" water fountain hadn't been replaced as recent as the whites. This is called a Jim Crow response. Still, it is undeniably "hard evidence," and it most certainly "quantifies a conspiracy" (defintion of quantity as IT IS NUMBERS) with an extreme varience, even though the numbers themselves DO NOT PROVE a conspiracy. Which leads me to the WSJ itself. I believe the Wall Street Journal to be a very, VERY respectable news source. Though it leans neo-con right, their news is geniunely spot on, and it can be the best source for financial issues. That said, their opinions and "news analysis" (though they don't call it that) can be a disaster. I note the infamous Paul Gigot editorial of Feb. '03 (brought to the forefront by Al Franken's "Lies" book) when Gigot claimed that Clinton's gun violence policies failed because gun violence DECLINED from 12% to 9% (of violent crime) from '93 to '01. It was so asinine, that the WSJ never ran a correction, and in fact Gigot (still editor in of the editorial page) still refuses to talk about it. This is another one of those disasters. When an editorial references a report that immediately refutes it, how much of it is stupidity? How much of it is dishonesty? And how much of it is the WSJ trusting that its readers, blinded by ideological convictions, will never check up on it? If you, rladew, or anyone else found evidence in the USCCR's June '01 report (not in the dissenting statement) that supports the WSJ opinion piece, please point me to it... In closing, I quote the Commision on Civil Rights' June '01 report (chapter 9, paragraph 4) "Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic. And state officials failed to fulfill their duties in a manner that would prevent this disenfranchisement." Those who do not learn their history are bound to repeat it. Let's not let this happen again, so the next President will not have to answer these stolen election questions, and we can all support him/her.... Peace

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-11 14:44:53 +0000

Ha! AGREEMENT! We all agree that without a clear victory in Florida (or in every state), questions of legitimacy will dog the Administration for the next four years.