The War Protester's Champion

[A Desert Rose]

October 4, 2002

ATLANTA — Arguing that defeated Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney was the victim of a "malicious crossover" vote by Republicans, five DeKalb County voters asked a federal court Friday to throw out the results of the primary.

Democrat McKinney lost her bid for re-election to former Judge Denise Majette by a 58 percent to 42 percent margin on August 20. Majette faces Republican Cynthia Van Auken in November, but is expected to win in this heavily black Democratic district.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta and names as defendants, among others, Secretary of State Cathy Cox, the DeKalb and Gwinnett County elections supervisors and Majette.

The state of Georgia does not require voters to register by party and allows them to vote in the primary of their choice. Nevertheless, McKinney, who is black, is blaming Republicans for jumping the political aisle in droves to help her Democratic opponent, who is also black, to oust her.

The suit claims that black Democratic voters in the 4th District had their voting rights violated and interfered with by the crossover votes. It asks that those crossover votes be declared unconstitutional and invalid and that McKinney be declared the winner of the Democratic primary.

"The issue is that black Democratic voters in the 4th District had their voting rights interfered with and violated," said Atlanta lawyer J.M. Raffauf, who represents the five black plaintiffs.

"Malicious crossover voting occurs when one party invades another party's primary to sabotage that party's choice of its own nominee for political office," the lawsuit reads. "The Republican Party voters crossed over and affected the outcome" of the Democratic primary.

State officials pointed to the law Friday and said it was clear that Georgia voters can vote for whomever they want in the primaries; there are no restrictions on preferred political party affiliation.

"I am simply unaware of any provision of law that prohibits voters from making a choice as to which party primary they will participate in," said Chris Riggall, a spokesman for the secretary of state.

Attorney General Thurbert Baker, a Democrat, said Georgia's law "is crystal clear in its guarantee that a voter can walk into a polling place on primary election day and choose a ballot for which ever political party he or she chooses."

He added, "Georgia's open primary system has withstood previous legal challenges and I will vigorously defend the Aug. 20 election results."

Critics say that McKinney's loss was her own doing. During her five terms in office, she has often garnered national headlines for controversial comments, while generating criticism that she's lost touch with Georgia voters.

This year, she had accused President Bush of ignoring warnings of the Sept. 11 attacks because friends in the defense industry would profit from a war. She scolded former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani for returning a Saudi prince's donation for Sept. 11 victims when the prince blamed U.S. Mideast policy for the attack, and then proceeded to ask the prince for the money to give to poor black neighborhoods.

McKinney has blamed outside Jewish organizations for funneling money to her opponent in response to the congresswoman's Palestinian support in the Israeli-Palestinian Middle East crisis.

Her father, a state legislator who was vocal in his opinion that Jews had ruined his daughter's re-election, was also defeated in his own re-election Sept. 10.

Raffauf said he recently talked with McKinney and that she approves of the lawsuit.

Since her defeat, the Green Party has courted McKinney to join them and seek that party's presidential nomination in 2004.


I challenge someone, REDWAVE, anyone, to explain how this case can have any merit. This woman is the champion of the anti-war protesters. Some one step up and defend her and this ridiculous case.

Georgia law is specific regarding voting in primaries, according to this article. How on earth do you prove that some voters cast "malicious votes?" Stepping into the voting booth is as sacred as entering a confessional. How dare anyone question the sincerety of votes cast, not to mention how does one ever prove that the votes cast were basically bogus.

Furthermore, when did it become a "crime" to "funnel money" to an opponant, who happens to support the money giver's cause? If Jewish organizations did donate money to McKinney's opponant, when did this become something to take issue with? Donating money to the candidate of one's choice is a freedom of speech issue. Do I want the government telling me that I cannot financially support a candidate of my choice in a campaign? I think not. My money will TALK to the candidate of I choose to support.

 

[Ishmael]

Uhhhhhhhh, no one taking this on I see.

REDWAVE should, he's a BIG McKinney fan. Even was quoting her WEB site earlier this year.

The good news is that it appears that the voters in her district actually recognize intelligence when they see it. One of the reason's that she lost in the primary.

Ishmael

 

[SINthysist]

As I have been pointing out, three examples of Democrats running to the courts to redress outcomes they do not like. It has become a knee-jerk reaction and a clear sign that they want the courts, not the people, to decide the course of elections and policy...

But for two years I have been talking tactics and here is what is going on. In the next 30 days, all the Laurel's and lavy's who have been sitting like Hillary, Carnahan, and now Lautenburg, on the sidelines saying, the political discussions are too mean, too spitefull, beneath my dignity because I want to discuss issues not trade charges.

So now, it's time to discuss issues, which means they are going to run all over, make charges, and when challenged, call you names and then go somewhere else and repeat the same gawd-damned charge. Seen it happen already, bro...

REDWAVE has WAY more intergrity because he's here day in day out saying what he wants, standing in there and taking the heat. He is much more noble and sincere that the prior mentioned persons and as such deserves a lot more respect and attention than Big L and little l, Liberal Laural and liberal lavy. Besides he's a Trotskyite and while he most likely VOTES Democrat, he's only an ally of the leftmost fringe (like L&l...!).

 

[Lost Cause]

The new tactics of the Dem-Soc's..

Tie things up in legal circles, while the spin machine spews out the doubts and disinformation. It's another "Gore-ism" that is poisoning the party in the eyes of at least the intelligent voters!
The CCCP of Washington has the same process for now, both sides are lobbying to close it to a defined party choice, effectively killing any other third party representation. The fucking cowards can't get elected by running on values, and sound ideas, they got to squeeze our court system fighting about "scraps!"

www.lp.org

 

[SINthysist]

That's the reason the Liberals aren't in the discussions. They have only charges. Dashle, Hillary, GeBhardt, et. al., aren't offering us their competing plans on Iraq or Kitchen Table issues, just blasting away at the President and their newest incarnation of Newt, Ashcroft, the Liberal's Great Satan...

Look back at the threads.

It's true!

 

[takingchances42]

Racism reaches new depths. Now some people want to disenfranchise voters based on their skin color -- white voters shouldn't be permitted to vote for the candidates of their choice in majority black districts.

This lawsuit should be thrown out immediately on the grounds that it is unconstitutional -- the Constitution clearly specifies that electoral law is set by the state legislatures, NOT the judiciary. But, the scary part is that with the Florida and NJ Supreme Courts having usurped that power and flagrantly violated the Constitution recently, they might actually get some judges to agree with them. Too bad the US Supreme Court will likely lack the guts to overturn the NJ Supreme Court decision on simple constitutional grounds. Politics and fear of media bias triumphing over the rule of law.

I am truly disappointed in the Green Party. They already have an outstanding female candidate in Winona Laduke, their VP candidate who was much more impressive than Ralph Nader in the last election. Asking McKinney to seek their nomination is a slap in the face to the very talented, intelligent and committed Laduke, as well as a betrayal of the environmental roots of the Green Party.

 

[Ishmael]

That's the reason the Liberals aren't in the discussions. They have only charges. Dashle, Hillary, GeBhardt, et. al., aren't offering us their competing plans on Iraq or Kitchen Table issues, just blasting away at the President and their newest incarnation of Newt, Ashcroft, the Liberal's Great Satan...

Look back at the threads.

It's true!

Unfortunately you're right. The liberal wing of the Democratic party has all but disappeared. There are no new ideas coming out because the ideas that dthey did have were rejected by the voters. So their only remaining reason for being is to finger point and criticize.

I have seen some ideas forwarded here on the boards. But they been nothing more than a 'replay' of the liberal agenda of the 60's. An agenda that has been thoroughly rejected by the voters.

Even J. Patrick Moynihan recognized this in the party and not being able to get his party to look at new paradigms, he retired. Ole' J. Patrick now sounds like a Reagan democrat. Hmmmmmmmm, I guess some learn. Then switch sides.

Ishmael

Mornin' Bro, LC.

 

[phrodeau]

Originally posted by SINthysist (edited)
As I have been pointing out, three examples of Democrats running to the courts to redress outcomes they do not like. It has become a knee-jerk reaction and a clear sign that they want the courts, not the people, to decide the course of elections and policy...

And how did Dubya win the election?

 

[Ishmael]

And how did Dubya win the election?

Fairly.

Ishmael

 

[takingchances42]

And how did Dubya win the election?

Bush won the election fair and square, in spite of three unconstitutional and blatantly partisan attempts by the 100% Democratic Florida Supreme Court to usurp the Constitution, and change well-established electoral laws after the election, in order to try to get Gore in office.

 

[phrodeau]

Dubya appealed to the courts to stop the Florida recounts. He eventually succeeded when he reached the US Supreme Court.

Apparently, he trusted the court system to redress an outcome he didn't like. Don't you?

 

[Ishmael]

Bush won the election fair and square, in spite of three unconstitutional and blatantly partisan attempts by the 100% Democratic Florida Supreme Court to usurp the Constitution, and change well-established electoral laws after the election, in order to try to get Gore in office.

You know tc42, I'm about over this ignorant shit that the "Dubyah stole the election" crowd is spouting. Apparently they can't read, or comprehend what they do read.

1. All of the disputed votes occured in Democratically controlled counties. It appears that the ignorant are unaware that the voting process is administered on a county by county basis and that the supervisors of the elections are either elected or appointed by the party in power. In all of the Florida counties that were disputed, both in 2000 and this year, the voting was planned, administered, and executed by Democrats. Not being content with the results, they are effectively suing to overturn a process that they put in place themselves.

2. A consortium of newspapers, the New York Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald, and others, paid to recount all of the ballots in the disputed counties. They counted dimpled chads, hanging chads, barely touched chads. Whatever. The results? Bush won. Of course each and everyone of these notable bastions of informing the public printed the story on page four, under the fold. And that with the disclaimer that they only counted the votes in the counties that the Democrats sued about and that if they had counted all the votes, in all the counties, the results MAY have been different.

3. The Supreme Court did nothing more than uphold the laws of the State of Florida. They did not change law or read any obtuse interpretation into the law. Further, by upholding the law, they were saying that they found nothing unconstitutional about the Florida law.

4. I suspect that if the Supreme's hear the New Jersey case prior to the election, Lautenburg will be out.

Ishmael

 

[takingchances42]

Dubya appealed to the courts to stop the Florida recounts. He eventually succeeded when he reached the US Supreme Court.

Apparently, he trusted the court system to redress an outcome he didn't like. Don't you?

No, I do not trust judicial activism, or believe that the courts should politically rewrite the laws in order to achieve the goals they want. This applies to both the left and the right. The US judicial system has been systematically usurping the powers constitutionally granted to the legislatures for far too long, which is both unconstitutional and undemocratic. But what do you do when it is the watchdog that is breaking the rules?

 

[Ishmael]

Dubya appealed to the courts to stop the Florida recounts. He eventually succeeded when he reached the US Supreme Court.

Apparently, he trusted the court system to redress an outcome he didn't like. Don't you?

The opperative word here is "appealed". He did not inititate the law suit.

Further, the request of the Republican party was nothing more than the law be upheld.

It was in the end.

Ishmael

 

[takingchances42]

Ishmael, what is going on with the 2000 election court decisions is the theory that if you repeat the same big lie often enough, most people will come to believe it. Which is why the truth needs to be "shouted from the rooftops" when the lie is asserted. Not that it will do any good with those who see truth as being a function of political beliefs.

 

[Ishmael]

Ishmael, what is going on with the 2000 election court decisions is the theory that if you repeat the same big lie often enough, most people will come to believe it. Which is why the truth needs to be "shouted from the rooftops" when the lie is asserted. Not that it will do any good with those who see truth as being a function of political beliefs.

And that is the point, isn't it? There is a large group here on the boards that are heavy into the "ends justify the means" thinking. They see themselves as the salvation of mankind and the champions of the underdog (Many of these underdogs didn't know that they were until it was "explained" to them.)

For the most part they are students or recent graduates from a middle-class background that have far too much time on their hands and use that time to meddle in the affairs of others. They are unable to see that there is absolutely no difference between themselves and the Bible tottin' fundamentalist that wants to direct the lives of others in a different direction. And that is the point there. Not any difference in actions, just the direction.

Ishmael

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

And that is the point, isn't it? There is a large group here on the boards that are heavy into the "ends justify the means" thinking. They see themselves as the salvation of mankind and the champions of the underdog (Many of these underdogs didn't know that they were until it was "explained" to them.)

For the most part they are students or recent graduates from a middle-class background that have far too much time on their hands and use that time to meddle in the affairs of others. They are unable to see that there is absolutely no difference between themselves and the Bible tottin' fundamentalist that wants to direct the lives of others in a different direction. And that is the point there. Not any difference in actions, just the direction.

Ishmael

Even though I should be working, I'd like to take a second to add my 2 cents to this.

This is a very astute observation Ish. My addition is that there are lots of us here, myself included, who believe that effective and efficient structures should be set up like contract law, business 'rules' (e.g. accounting rules), courts, election processes, tort, etc.) that are fair and provide for equal opportunity i.e. education. That's equal opportunity and access, not equal results. We are also not proscribing the affairs of others, not meddling. The approach is to set up the structure and then let people interact as they will (a rules based environment with a level playing field.

 

[Spinaroonie]

if they had counted all the votes, in all the counties, the results MAY have been different.

I am so glad my vote counts!!!!11111

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Ishmael, what is going on with the 2000 election court decisions is the theory that if you repeat the same big lie often enough, most people will come to believe it. Which is why the truth needs to be "shouted from the rooftops" when the lie is asserted. Not that it will do any good with those who see truth as being a function of political beliefs.

I agree, TC!

It seems to have become the strategy of the Democrate Party and many Democrates as well. Look to the number of liberals on this board who parrot the line that, "Ashcroft lost to a dead man".

That inability to think critically drives me "nuts"!

Rhumb

 

[A Desert Rose]

And that is the point, isn't it? There is a large group here on the boards that are heavy into the "ends justify the means" thinking. They see themselves as the salvation of mankind and the champions of the underdog (Many of these underdogs didn't know that they were until it was "explained" to them.)

For the most part they are students or recent graduates from a middle-class background that have far too much time on their hands and use that time to meddle in the affairs of others. They are unable to see that there is absolutely no difference between themselves and the Bible tottin' fundamentalist that wants to direct the lives of others in a different direction. And that is the point there. Not any difference in actions, just the direction.

Ishmael

Indeed. It comes down to people with opinions but no life experiences behind them to actually formulate intelligent ones.

Many have been spoon-fed these opinions by the academia elite who also have no clue about the real world: revisionist historians and liberal professors.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Which is why the truth needs to be "shouted from the rooftops" when the lie is asserted. Not that it will do any good with those who see truth as being a function of political beliefs.

Great post, especially that last sentence. Thank you for your input.

 

[Purple Haze]

Ishmael, what is going on with the 2000 election court decisions is the theory that if you repeat the same big lie often enough, most people will come to believe it. Which is why the truth needs to be "shouted from the rooftops" when the lie is asserted.

The coup began in the summer of 1999 when Katherine Harris, an honorary Stupid White Man who was both Bush's presidential campaign co-chairwoman and the Florida secretary of state in charge of elections, paid $4m to Database Technologies to go through Florida's voter rolls and remove anyone "suspected" of being a former felon. She did so with the blessing of the governor of Florida, George W's brother, Jeb. The law states that ex-felons cannot vote in Florida. And sadly (though I'm confident that Florida's justice system was always unimpeachably fair), that means 31% of all black men in Florida are prohibited from voting because they have a felony on their record. Black Floridians, overwhelmingly, are Democrats - and, sure enough, Al Gore received the votes of more than 90% of them on November 7,2000. That is, 90% of those who were allowed to vote. In what appears to be a mass fraud committed by the state of Florida, Bush, Harris and company not only removed thousands of black felons from the rolls, they also removed thousands of black citizens who had never committed a crime in their lives - along with thousands of eligible voters who had committed only misdemeanours.

How did this happen? Harris's office told Database to cast as wide a net as possible to get rid of these voters: people with "similar" names to those of the actual felons, people with the same birth dates as known felons, or similar social security numbers,. an 80% match of relevant information, the election office instructed, was sufficient for Database to add a voter to the ineligible list

Before long, 173,000 registered voters in Florida were permanently wiped off the voter rolls. In Miami-Dade, Florida's largest county 66% of the voters who were removed were black. Eight thousand additional Floridians were thrown off the voting rolls because Database used a false list supplied by another state, a state which claimed that all the names on the list were former convicted felons who had since moved to Florida. What state was it that offered Jeb and George a helping hand by sending this list to Florida? Texas.

George W Bush would officially be credited with receiving 537 more votes than Al Gore in Florida. Is it safe to assume that the thousands of registered black and Hispanic voters barred from the polls might have made the difference if they had been allowed to vote - and cost Bush the election? Without a doubt Sixteen months later, George W Bush made the following comment on the victory of Robert Mugabe in the Zimbabwean presidential election of March 2002. "We do not recognise the outcome of the election, because we think its flawed and we are dealing with our friends to figure out how to deal with this flawed election."

Fairly.

Ishmael

 

[SINthysist]

An incumbant vice president, with a Daley on his side, dig, dig, who can at best manage a tie is a loser. His challenge tarnished his dignity. His recent performances may have permanetly damaged it.

It seems some of you are collectively accusing Conservatives of being mired in an eight year period when you are decidedly focused upon an event. An event whose outcome, right or wrong, they should have both been DQ'd and the election given to the guy I voted for, who has said, he wouldn't be involved AT ALL in Iraq..., but I digress, has been decided and you need to be happy with the control you have of the Senate...

AND ADVANCE SOME COUNTER IDEAS!

 

[SINthysist]

Here's an idea...

Tonight's Speech
John LeBoutillier
Monday, Oct. 7, 2002
Tonight in Cincinnati, the President will deliver a live speech to the nation about a possible war on Iraq and an update on the 'War on Terror'. Here is what he should say:
Ladies and Gentlemen, let me please take a few minutes to explain 'where we are' with respect to Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

1) First of all, I am, for the first time ever, releasing previously Top Secret satellite and radio intercept information showing exactly how advanced the Iraqi development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons actually is.

2) Furthermore, we are also releasing previously secret information about contacts between Iraqi agents and the al-Qaeda cell that carried out the 9/11 attacks. Richard Pearle yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press" mentioned that we have information that indeed Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi agents - and that others from that cell also had contacts with Iraq. That is true - and we are now going to prove it.

3) I am also announcing the immediate resignation of CIA Director George Tenet and all his top lieutenants.

4) I am today promising you that we will exhaust every possibility before we resort to the war option. If the U.N. can figure out a way to strip this violent and brutal dictator of these weapons of mass destruction then we are ready to listen. But we also know that Saddam is a diabolical psychopath who cannot be predicted. The safest thing is to keep these weapons out of his grasp.

5) As for al-Qaeda, I am now going to do what we should have done a year ago. I am ordering 200,000 U.S. military personnel to the region to conduct a house-to-house search in eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan for Osama bin Laden and his chief henchmen. It is clear that the Pakistani military and intelligence operation is hopelessly corrupted and compromised. We can no longer trust them to honestly try to find bin Laden and leading Taliban personnel.

6) I am today appointing former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to a temporary post. His mission will be to ride herd over the CIA while we search for a new Director. Rudy has been told he has one mission: catch Osama within 30 days. Period.

7) In light of recent German behavior, I am recalling all U.S. military personnel from Germany and closing our bases there. We hope to relocate those vital supply and hospital facilities in another European country - perhaps Spain or the Czech Republic.

Let it be clear: the pain from 9/11 is still as fresh as it was that morning. We are still outraged over terror attacks - and we seek to punish all those involved, including Iraq.

 

[REDWAVE]

Me?

I don't give political support to any bourgeois politician, McKinney included. However, I did agree with the statements she made about Bush's foreknowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks. The recent report by the congressional committee supplied further damning evidence. McKinney was targeted for her courageous remarks by very powerful and well-financed elements in our society-- and they got her.