Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
Thu Apr 14, 2016, 01:42 PM Apr 2016

So why wouldn't the Clintons stand up for Blacks purged from the voters rolls in FL in 2000?



Maybe because it didn't benefit the Clintons?

The Whitehouse and the Clinton Justice Dept would do nothing about the fact that Palast had EVIDENCE that black voters were illegally purged (at the order of Jeb Bush) in 2000. They let Bush be certified as President. I remember watching Jessie Jackson Jr. asking why ONE Senator would not stamp up and voice opposition to the certification of Bush as President.




The link is to Thom Hartmann's interview with Palast.
18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So why wouldn't the Clintons stand up for Blacks purged from the voters rolls in FL in 2000? (Original Post) Skwmom Apr 2016 OP
Why would they Politicalboi Apr 2016 #1
But aren't they supposed to be fighters choie Apr 2016 #2
They are fighters for themselves. Period. Nuf said. shraby Apr 2016 #3
Agreed! choie Apr 2016 #4
Clinton and her reprehensible surrogates VulgarPoet Apr 2016 #5
They had no interest in helping Al Gore... Punkingal Apr 2016 #6
So we got War, war and more war. n/t Skwmom Apr 2016 #7
Yes, and she wants to continue that fine tradition. Punkingal Apr 2016 #8
This was going to be my answer hereforthevoting Apr 2016 #16
I have heard that he and Hillary were at odds throughout the Clinton presidency. Punkingal Apr 2016 #17
Stupid Clinton's should know they'll take the blame for the entire Democratic party Dem2 Apr 2016 #9
Bill Clinton's Commission on Civil Rights did investigate this purge-the premise of OP is false Gothmog Apr 2016 #10
This is a false claim mcar Apr 2016 #11
they can play footsie with BIL Jeb and meatsock Harris, AND blame Nader and the left MisterP Apr 2016 #12
This is a bash and trash OP that is factually wrong... Sancho Apr 2016 #13
The OP is based on a lie and is wrong Gothmog Apr 2016 #14
Yup. Agschmid Apr 2016 #15
+ 1 JoePhilly Apr 2016 #18
 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
1. Why would they
Thu Apr 14, 2016, 01:47 PM
Apr 2016

She won NY senate, so they got what they wanted. They use people ALL the time to get what they want. And since seeing all those pictures of Bush/Clinton, I think we know why they said nothing. BFF Fuck the voters. Wouldn't be surprised if there was a pay off of some kind.

Punkingal

(9,522 posts)
17. I have heard that he and Hillary were at odds throughout the Clinton presidency.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:46 AM
Apr 2016

Power games going on. I liked Al...he was my Congressman. I grew up 30 miles from his home in Carthage. I voted for him more times than any politician ever. He had a listed home phone number and you could always call him, and he was around every week-end.

Dem2

(8,168 posts)
9. Stupid Clinton's should know they'll take the blame for the entire Democratic party
Thu Apr 14, 2016, 02:22 PM
Apr 2016

...if they aren't able to do what nobody else was capable of doing. I mean, everybody expects an ex-president and newly elected junior senator to be able to do what not one other senator was willing or capable of.

Some super heroes they turned out to be!

Gothmog

(145,176 posts)
10. Bill Clinton's Commission on Civil Rights did investigate this purge-the premise of OP is false
Thu Apr 14, 2016, 02:47 PM
Apr 2016

Between the 2000 election and the time that Bill Clinton left office there was an investigation and a report that has been used in subsequent voting rights litigation on purges. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/ccrdraft060401.htm


The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted the most extensive investigation to date concerning allegations of irregularities occurring during the November 2000 presidential election in Florida. The investigation, utilizing the Commission's subpoena power, comprised 3 days of hearings, over 30 hours of testimony from over 100 witnesses and a systematic review of more than 118,000 sheets of paper.

Perhaps the most dramatic undercount in this election was the nonexistent ballots of the countless unknown eligible voters, who were wrongfully purged from the voter registration rolls, turned away from the polls, and by various other means prevented from exercising the franchise. While statistical data, reinforced by credible anecdotal evidence, point to widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights, it is impossible to determine the extent of the disenfranchisement or to provide an adequate remedy to the persons whose voices were silenced in this historic election by a pattern and practice of injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency.

During the November 2000 presidential election in Florida, restrictive statutory provisions, wide-ranging errors and inadequate and unequal resources in the election process denied countless Floridians the right to vote. The disenfranchisement of Florida's voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly ten times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in Florida. On a statewide basis, while African Americans comprised about 11% of all voters in Florida in the November 2000 presidential election, African Americans cast about 54% of the ballots that were rejected in the election. Before and during the election state and county officials were aware of several key factors that ultimately contributed to the disenfranchisement of qualified voters.

The Commission on civil rights did not find conclusive evidence that the highest officials of the state conspired to produce the disenfranchisement of voters. Instead, the Commission found that the governor and the secretary of state, in particular, chose to simply ignore the mounting evidence that many counties were experiencing rising voter registration rates in communities with out-dated voting technology. Furthermore, they ignored the pleas of some supervisors of elections for guidance and help.

In addition, election supervisors in the counties that experienced the worst problems failed to prepare adequately, to demand adequate resources or to raise a public outcry over the inadequacy of resources available. This lack of leadership in the important area of protecting voting rights encouraged the broad array of problems that occurred during the November 2000 presidential election. These officials simply permitted the unequal distribution of quality voting equipment and other needed resources statewide without the public being aware that an electoral disaster might be approaching.

As a result, African American voting districts were disproportionately hindered by antiquated and error-prone equipment like the punch card ballot system. Voting districts that were predominantly white were more likely to have high technology including the optical scan system and lap top computers used for verification of voter eligibility.

Remember that Bill Clinton's term expired on Jan. 20, 2001 and this report was issued before he left office. I know that this report was later used in later lawsuits attacking other attempts by Florida to purge votes

The premise of the OP is simply false.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
12. they can play footsie with BIL Jeb and meatsock Harris, AND blame Nader and the left
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:38 AM
Apr 2016

it's win-win-win

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
13. This is a bash and trash OP that is factually wrong...
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:33 AM
Apr 2016

It should be deleted, because it's not true. Of course that's common in GDP at this point.

There were a variety of investigations over the voter roll purges - some were DOJ - and others were organizations like ACLU - and others were investigations by news sources. During the 2000 election, it was the SC that overrode the FSC ruling about recounting the votes, and Katherine Harris's illegal certification without a complete recount that was mostly at issue. Even if the DOJ knew there were registration restrictions, it's not possible to have a revote on the basis that some were not registered who should have been without knowing how they would have voted. That's silly.

At any rate, what Jeb did to purge voter rolls was part of the typical GOP strategy that includes gerrymandering, restricting access to voting stations, more difficulty voter registration, and defeating GOTV efforts (like ACORN). Not to mention hacking the DREs and crazy butterfly ballots. The Clinton administration and DNC have certainly been aware of those issues and worked to defeat them.

Hillary was one of the first to publicly talk about voter access; which is one reason that Hillary is well-liked in Florida and she did very well in the primary as a result. Bernie has been silent as a Senator on the issue. That's another reason that Hillary is a better candidate than Bernie on the issues.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»So why wouldn't the Clint...