Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Bama's Latosha Brown screams "racism" over primary loss to black moderate
Fox News ^ | 8.15.02

Posted on 08/16/2002 6:32:14 AM PDT by meandog

Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:28 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

SELMA, Ala. In 1965, civil rights leaders marched on this Southern town to protest discrimination against black voters.

Thirty-seven years later, the "cradle of the voting rights movement" is being rocked by accusations from white voters who have been forced to testify before a legal panel of Democratic Party officials.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: Alabama; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: bama; latoshabrown
Wonder if GA's SINdy McKinney will pull the same trick when she loses...?
1 posted on 08/16/2002 6:32:14 AM PDT by meandog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mhking
Thoughts?
2 posted on 08/16/2002 6:33:12 AM PDT by meandog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog
LaTosha Brown / Yusuf Salaam

my, what a choice the folks in that district have, ehh ??

fercrisesake ...

3 posted on 08/16/2002 6:34:27 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Khepera; elwoodp; MAKnight; condolinda; mafree; Trueblackman; FRlurker; Teacher317; ...
Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

4 posted on 08/16/2002 6:35:06 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Does the secret ballot not apply to primaries, or don't they have that in Alabama?
5 posted on 08/16/2002 6:37:53 AM PDT by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog
The couple of things that stick out to me are:

Why the hell does the GOP allow crossover voting if the Dem's don't? How stupid.

It scares me to death that a political party has the authority to basically act as judge, jury, and executioner in this matter. Frightning.
6 posted on 08/16/2002 6:44:26 AM PDT by mikesmad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog
What? An african PO'd withn another african? There is just NO justice here.
7 posted on 08/16/2002 6:54:08 AM PDT by sandydipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dakmar
Does the secret ballot not apply to primaries, or don't they have that in Alabama?

I think it's just that they mark down which ballot you ask for in a primary election if it's one other than your own party's. So all the hate RATS have to do is pull the records of registered Republicans that asked for a RAT ballot, then do some undercover work to discover which of them are white. Then they can go play Brownshirts.

8 posted on 08/16/2002 6:54:25 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mikesmad
It scares me to death that a political party has the authority to basically act as judge, jury, and executioner in this matter. Frightning.

Me too. How is this even LEGAL?

9 posted on 08/16/2002 6:55:20 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
I don't know. I will be sending an email to Bob Riley that this should be one of the first things he corrects after being elected.
10 posted on 08/16/2002 6:57:09 AM PDT by mikesmad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: meandog
...white voters who have been forced to testify before a legal panel of Democratic Party officials.

So which was it? A LEGAL panel or a DEMOCRAT PARTY panel?

The two are mutually exclusive. The Democrat Party has no legal authority to decide who votes in its primary. If they have a problem with it, let 'em take it to the Alabama courts.

If I were a voter asked to appear before this kangaroo court, I'd simply refuse.

11 posted on 08/16/2002 6:58:47 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Thanks for the explanation. Funny how the Dimocraps can never seem to put their money where there mouths are when it comes to people actually exercising their rights. All they want is something to holler about.
12 posted on 08/16/2002 7:02:12 AM PDT by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mikesmad
What kind of communistic law is that? Who the he$$ do the democrats think they are manipulating the vote in such a way? Now THAT is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! More of the same from these shamless people.
13 posted on 08/16/2002 7:10:21 AM PDT by wingnuts'nbolts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wingnuts'nbolts
Was on FOX last night...that Brown woman came over as a real screamer....the voters were angry so her hissy fit looks to be counter productive....also bad publicity for the rats
14 posted on 08/16/2002 7:19:38 AM PDT by spokeshave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mikesmad
It scares me to death that a political party has the authority to basically act as judge, jury, and executioner in this matter. Frightning.

Would you prefer the government determine who is going to be the candidate for a political party?

The process of selecting a candidate to represent a party is up to the parties. The government shouldn't have anything to do with it at all. Which brings up the next obvious question:

Why the h*** does the government run primaries at all?

Political parties are private entites, not part of the government. Yet, the government spends millions of dollars each year helping parties choose their candidates. Why should my (hard earned) tax money be given to two private organizations? You don't see the government running primaries for the Libertarian or the Green party. Spending tax money to help two parties choose their candidates for the general election is not only an inproper use of public money, it creates a huge advantage for the two parties being subsidised by the state.

The Dems. and Repubs. get huge amounts of publicity and press coverage due to the government sponsered primary. It gives the impression in voters minds that there are only two legitimate parties. Other parties have just as hot and contested races for their party's nomination, but you don't hear about it because the state doesn't subsidize their party with a public primary.

What authority does the state have for running party primaries? The state is required to run elections. A primary is not an election. It is a party choosing a candidate to represent them in the election. The state has no authority to help or get involved in any way in how a party chooses its candidate for the election.

15 posted on 08/16/2002 7:20:21 AM PDT by Brookhaven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
What happened to counting every vote? The ONLY thing that counts is whether the voters' intent can be discerned? I don't recall anyone in Florida trying to ascertain voters' eligibility during their recount process.
16 posted on 08/16/2002 7:33:25 AM PDT by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
So which was it? A LEGAL panel or a DEMOCRAT PARTY panel?

The two are mutually exclusive.

You would think, but apparently not in Alabama.

And state law gives the parties authority to launch legal proceedings into voting impropriety.

17 posted on 08/16/2002 7:34:59 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
Don't disagree with anything you say, other than if there is a legal issue then the party should take it to an independent judiciary and let them issue subpoena's to testify and threaten jail time. If the political parties have subpoena power then so should the NRA, NAACP, and Disney.
18 posted on 08/16/2002 7:38:19 AM PDT by mikesmad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Well, at first blush it appears that if you are white and you vote for the "correct" black then you are just fine and wonderful. If however you vote for the "incorrect" black then you are racist. (Remember that the article addressed "racism" and not procedures.)
19 posted on 08/16/2002 7:44:35 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mikesmad; Timesink; Dakmar; Illbay
"It scares me to death that a political party has the authority to basically act as judge, jury, and executioner in this matter. Frightning."

This happens every few years here in Alabama. You guys need to remember that this is a primary. The courts here have ruled that since the purpose of the primary is to select a party candidate, then the party has exclusive right to determine how it will be run.

The ballots are secret, but each party has their own ballot. You can only ask for one.

The last time this was an issue was in the late eighties in a gubernatorial election. One of the dems (who was also state attorney general) figured he could win the primary with gop cross over votes. So he issued an unsolicited (they're legal here) opinion (conflict of interest) that said these votes were legal and then started running ads soliciting cross over votes. He won.

The party establishment didn't like the idea that their handpicked boy didn't win so they went to court. The courts said they could set the rules. A similar panel was convened and "determined" enough cross over votes had occurred to tilt the election and that they "felt" that the other guy should have won. So this other guy got to be the democratic candidate.

The good news is that all these shinanighans so torqued the voting public that a relatively new and unknown GOP candidate won in a landslide. The first GOP governor since prohibition. Well, the democratic legislature impeached him. Seems he was a minister and sometimes performed weddings. He also took a love offering like all ministers do for this service and that was a gratuity. They put the democratic lt. gov. in office. This really torqued the voters who promptly voted in another republican.

I say power to 'em. Let 'em make fools out of themselves again. It can only help the gop.

20 posted on 08/16/2002 7:53:12 AM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mikesmad
"Why the hell does the GOP allow crossover voting if the Dem's don't? How stupid."

Could be that the Republicans want to be able to influence who the opposition is in the election....

21 posted on 08/16/2002 8:02:47 AM PDT by dixierat22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dixierat22
Your statement doesn't make any sense. We the current rules the GOP cannot influence who the opponent is but the Dem's can.
22 posted on 08/16/2002 8:05:18 AM PDT by mikesmad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mikesmad
With the current rule. Sorry.
23 posted on 08/16/2002 8:12:38 AM PDT by mikesmad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Republican voters prefer his moderate views to what they consider Brown's "racially divisive" rhetoric.

But Brown claims the election was unfair.

"I certainly feel that there is an effort led in the white community to sabotage the campaign," she said.

I wonder where her constituents get the idea she is "racially divisive" and want to get rid of her? Baffling.

24 posted on 08/16/2002 8:16:13 AM PDT by What Is Ain't
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog
If I was in this situation and got called to testify, I would simply say I voted for Brown, and because I mistakenly thought I could vote in that election, please take my vote off of Brown's total. :-)
25 posted on 08/16/2002 8:17:24 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog; All
Brown, who is African-American, held on to her base of liberal, black voters.

Can anyone explain the reason for Fox's inconsistent treatment? If I'm writing/editing the story, the only way I'm doing that is if she's on record as calling herself A-A (if even then).

26 posted on 08/16/2002 8:17:39 AM PDT by newgeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
I agree with you.

If a party wants to have only its own members choose who runs under its name, then they should have that right.

That being said, I will be crossibg over and voting in the Dem primary this Tuesday.
27 posted on 08/16/2002 8:20:12 AM PDT by Guillermo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
If I was in this situation and got called to testify, I would simply say I voted for Brown, and because I mistakenly thought I could vote in that election, please take my vote off of Brown's total. :-)

...but a lot of the voters were white Democrats and eligible to vote in the primary...and the point is that Brown's attorneys are forcing all voters subpoenaed to reveal how they voted.

28 posted on 08/16/2002 8:39:37 AM PDT by meandog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: meandog
I would have to say, yes.. I do see racism in this situation, and I recommend that Latosha Brown stop trying to use her same old worn out divisive racist tactics to steal this election.
29 posted on 08/16/2002 8:50:55 AM PDT by Richard Axtell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
The Democratic party is scarcely to be distinguished from an ordinary criminal conspiracy.

That the various state governments actively subsidize and promote this swindle is shocking.

There is no mention in the Founding documents of the Establishment of these interest groups, save a disparaging reference to 'factions'.
30 posted on 08/16/2002 8:52:00 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
The Democratic party is scarcely to be distinguished from an ordinary criminal conspiracy.

Ordinary? They are much worse than that.

31 posted on 08/16/2002 9:22:18 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: general_re
ANYONE can launch "legal proceedings," no matter who they are.

But the Democrat Party has no legal authority to subpoena people to its own tribunal, etc.

That's just BOGUS.

32 posted on 08/16/2002 9:59:00 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mikesmad
They don't have that power, no matter what anyone else may think.

There is no way something like this would survive a court challenge.

33 posted on 08/16/2002 10:00:01 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
But the Democrat Party has no legal authority to subpoena people to its own tribunal, etc.

Don't get me wrong - I think this stinks to high hell also, but the way I read this article, Alabama law gives them the legal authority to subpoena people and make it stick. I'm not an Alabama attorney, so I can't say for sure, but that's certainly how it sounds to me...

A panel consisting of five members from Alabama's Democratic Executive Committee has been formed with full subpoena power.

34 posted on 08/16/2002 10:03:23 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
If I was in this situation and got called to testify, I would simply say I voted for Brown, and because I mistakenly thought I could vote in that election, please take my vote off of Brown's total. :-)

hehehe. I wish I would have thought of that.
35 posted on 08/16/2002 10:23:57 AM PDT by mikesmad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: general_re
I am SUPREMELY CONFIDENT that if a legal challenge were mounted, the Dems would back down in a hurry. The ONLY reason they are able to do this is that they live in the past, when winning the Democrat primary meant winning election.

There are LOTS of archaic laws hanging around. They go away when they are challenged. It's as easy as that.

There is NO WAY a political party has subpoena power under the United States Constitution--which doesn't even RECOGNIZE political parties.

Show me the Constitutional basis for a kangaroo court formed by a partisan political machine, please.

All this would take is someone like Judicial Watch to get interested in it--unfortunately, they're too busy tilting at windmills just now.

Maybe Landmark. Whomever, all it would take is a serious legal challenge and that "law" would be a dead letter.

36 posted on 08/16/2002 10:26:31 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
I'm not trying to defend it, just explain it - I think your analysis is pretty much right on the money.

Simplest way to challenge it is to be one of the people subpoenaed. Just wad the summons up and throw it away, and then wait to see if they've got the stones to try to force you to testify. Boom - instant standing to sue. Just add lawyers ;)

37 posted on 08/16/2002 10:37:04 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: meandog
"Many voters have admitted to crossing parties during the runoff, but insist they had no idea it was illegal.
...
Brown and her attorneys say ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Brown and her attorneys need to learn the LAW themselves.

Crossover voting is against Democratic Party rules, not Alabama law. Violating an organization's rules is VASTLY different than violating a law.

Voter intimidation and the demand for knowing how someone voted on a secret ballot, however, could easily be against the law.

Not that there is a reporter in America smart enough and gutsy enough to point that out, however...

38 posted on 08/16/2002 10:40:40 AM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
Thanks - your post made me smile.
39 posted on 08/16/2002 11:02:02 AM PDT by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Brown, who is African-American, held on to her base of liberal, black voters. But Salaam, who is both black and Muslim, attracted a large number of moderate to conservative white voters in the runoff.

I don't get it. Is Salaam African-American too? Or Arabian-American? Or just American?

Whiney liberals...a pox on them.

40 posted on 08/16/2002 11:11:53 AM PDT by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
At the local level in Alabama, Democrat Party politics are incredibly corrupt.

For eight years (1985-93), I lived in rural Central Alabama and was astounded at the level of corruption in places like Selma and Tuskegee. It was open, unapologetic and was basically petty and unimaginative -- low grifters working a daily scam, but always looking for the big score. Usually, one mention that you recognized what was being requested was enough to have the demand dropped. Thus, these party hacks essentially preyed on the ignorant -- blacks fleecing other blacks.

And, all of them, ever ready to play the race card in any electoral or legal matter. I've a very good idea who taught Latosha Brown how to conduct herself -- the inimitable Senator Henry "Hank" Sanders.

41 posted on 08/16/2002 11:39:12 AM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: meandog
The Rats are so intolerant of a moderate Rat winning their own party's primary that they have to corall and round up and subject voters to the Inquisition to determine why the liberal lost? Pinch me I must dreaming. This doesn't sound like America. More evidence if one needed it, that liberals consider Republicans something to put away in jail or to be scraped off their shoes.
42 posted on 08/16/2002 12:19:24 PM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Why can't I change parties any time I want to ?
Can't I be a Republican on June 10th, then decide I want to be a Democrat and 'lo & behold, there is a Rat runoff on June 26th ?
I'm SCHOCKED, SHOCKED that a case such as this could be considered illegal shennanigans !!
43 posted on 08/16/2002 2:32:12 PM PDT by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomkat
It really says something, when the Black Muslim is the voice of racial moderation and religious unity. I'm just so happy, when another Black leftwinger goes down to defeat. It really gives me some hope for Black Americans. Cynthia McNinny is next on Tuesday. Woo Yaaa!
44 posted on 08/16/2002 3:26:16 PM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
I'm not disagreeing with you, but you wrote:

Show me the Constitutional basis for a kangaroo court formed by a partisan political machine, please.

Just out of curiosity could you show me the constitutional basis for Federal Drug Laws or Social Secuity and Seat Belt Laws or the DeadBeat Dad laws, or the Helium reserve, (I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point).

Regardless, I am confident I could find a Federal Judge to say all of above are OK. I live in Oregon, so the entire District Court (#10) would uphold. Then you could go to Supreme's and hope for a good 5 to 4 split. The Constituion isn't dead, it's in one of those frozen chambers like Ted Williams. If we have the political will perhaps some day it can be revived. Until then we can look at it and touch it but it can no more protect us from criminal democrats and racist black politicians than Ted can show us how to hold a bat.

45 posted on 08/17/2002 12:40:41 PM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson