'Bama's Latosha Brown screams "racism" over primary loss to black moderate

Fox News ^ | 8.15.02

[meandog]

SELMA, Ala.

[dixierat22]

"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....

[mikesmad]

Your statement doesn't make any sense. We the current rules the GOP cannot influence who the opponent is but the Dem's can.

[mikesmad]

With the current rule. Sorry.

[What Is Ain't]

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.

[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. :-)

[newgeezer]

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).

[Guillermo]

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.

[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. :-)

...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.

[Richard Axtell]

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.

[headsonpikes]

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'.

[connectthedots]

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

Ordinary? They are much worse than that.

[Illbay]

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.

[Illbay]

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.

[general_re]

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.

[mikesmad]

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.

[Illbay]

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.

[general_re]

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 ;)

[Southack]

"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...

[I still care]

Thanks - your post made me smile.

[hattend]

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.