![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWhy wouldn't they? It worked in 2000.
Via Crooks and Liars
The last time, the target was black voters and the rationale for removing names was the voters were convicted felons. This time the target is Hispanic voters and the rationale offered that they are “illegal immigrants”:
A list of “suspect voters?” Matching names to voter rolls? Anyone who remembers the 2000 presidential election, and is up on what happened in Florida is going to find this nastily familiar.
This news story was aired in Great Britain in the wake of the last election. It goes into devastating and well-documented detail about how the election was stolen in Florida. But one of the most telling moments, one that helps explain the mystifying inertia of Democratic leadership in the wake of that fiasco, comes near the end, at about the 11:35 mark, when reporter Greg Palast talks to Democrats at a $5,000 a plate fundraiser.
The Democratic Party Chairman, Bob Poe, who was apparently attending that fundraiser, does bitterly denounce the disenfranchisement of voters in this clip. But here in 2012, with our greater awareness of the divide between rich and poor, that unnamed Democratic fat cat whispering his contempt for the vote resonates painfully. For many Democrats back then, it was a shock to discover how little the integrity of the vote mattered to the people in power, Democrat or Republican. Those of us (like the Black Caucus) who objected too loudly and too persistently were essentially told to sit down and shut up. It was an sign of just how much big money had come to matter, and how little the rest of us did.
The Republicans plainly haven’t changed. Have the Democrats?
We’ll see.
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
Via Crooks and Liars
The last time, the target was black voters and the rationale for removing names was the voters were convicted felons. This time the target is Hispanic voters and the rationale offered that they are “illegal immigrants”:
The full universe of potentially ineligible voters that state elections officials plan to check for possible removal from the roles is about 180,000, a spokesman for the Division of Elections said Friday, reports David Royse of the News Service of Florida.
Elections spokesman Chris Cate told the News Service that in all, when matching voter rolls against newly available citizenship data from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, officials found that number of possible matches, and began further investigating each one to see if they were likely to be wrongly registered to vote…
But earlier this week it wasn’t clear how many more names might eventually be checked. On Friday, Cate said the larger number was the total identified so far, but that it will take some time to further cull through that list to determine which names are most likely accurately identified as non-citizens.
(Emphasis added)
A list of “suspect voters?” Matching names to voter rolls? Anyone who remembers the 2000 presidential election, and is up on what happened in Florida is going to find this nastily familiar.
This news story was aired in Great Britain in the wake of the last election. It goes into devastating and well-documented detail about how the election was stolen in Florida. But one of the most telling moments, one that helps explain the mystifying inertia of Democratic leadership in the wake of that fiasco, comes near the end, at about the 11:35 mark, when reporter Greg Palast talks to Democrats at a $5,000 a plate fundraiser.
It’s back to champagne politics as usual. One Democrat, a big shot at the soiree, whispered they would have done the same as Katherine Harris [Florida Elections official who oversaw the purging of thousands of legal Democratic voters from the rolls] if they had the chance.
The Democratic Party Chairman, Bob Poe, who was apparently attending that fundraiser, does bitterly denounce the disenfranchisement of voters in this clip. But here in 2012, with our greater awareness of the divide between rich and poor, that unnamed Democratic fat cat whispering his contempt for the vote resonates painfully. For many Democrats back then, it was a shock to discover how little the integrity of the vote mattered to the people in power, Democrat or Republican. Those of us (like the Black Caucus) who objected too loudly and too persistently were essentially told to sit down and shut up. It was an sign of just how much big money had come to matter, and how little the rest of us did.
The Republicans plainly haven’t changed. Have the Democrats?
We’ll see.
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:27 (UTC)Nobody reading this has any reason to believe you did.
bdj: Oh, well, that changes everything.
Uh, yes, actually, there is a difference between claiming to have something and actually having it and presenting it. And that difference does change things in that it adds a significant level of credibility.
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:28 (UTC)I don't expect those who believe a lunatic like Greg Palast to believe it, no.
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:35 (UTC)So far you've not offered one reason why we should consider Greg Palast a "lunatic."
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:49 (UTC)And yet you can't come up with one thing he's said to support his claim that's been inaccurate.
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:53 (UTC)I posted an entire news story he did.
What did he say in that clip that was inaccurate?
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 01:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 01:15 (UTC)But you know he's crazy.
Right.
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 02:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 04:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 07:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:54 (UTC)This message is addressed to both of you, not just jeff, he's just the last person to reply.
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:57 (UTC)Did you bother to watch it?
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 01:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 01:16 (UTC)And by the way -- the point of my post was actually a line in the story I specifically point readers to. They don't have to watch the whole fifteen minute clip. It was Jeff who announced that he "knew" Palast was crazy.
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 19:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/5/12 01:58 (UTC)Probably, because reading a book I'm not really interested in is a pretty rare occurrence. If I were so uninterested that I had no memory of its contents, then I certainly wouldn't hop into a discussion of the author and pronounce an opinion about it.
(no subject)
Date: 16/5/12 20:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/5/12 16:16 (UTC)It does mean you need to reread what you read before hopping into a debate about it.
(no subject)
Date: 17/5/12 17:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 02:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 17:59 (UTC)Not that they'd make a dent.
And by the way, the reality of what happened in Florida during the 2000 election is pretty much taken as a given in the OP. My original point centered on a comment near the end of the piece, and I provided the time code so that readers don't have to watch the entire 15 minutes.