Need Information - Greg Palast - Anything to This

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/whistleblower/palast.shtml ^ | March 01 | Greg Palast

[bogeybob]

Is there any validity to this guy's allegations about Jeb Bush pulling a "dirty trick"?

[Glenn]

Put the tin foil hat back on, Buster! And I mean RIGHT NOW!

[Phantom Lord]

Well, "dirty trick" is pretty expansive. How about a specific allegation.

I know of a specific dirty trick played against Jeb Bush. Lawton Chiles having his campaign make phone calls to Flordia's seniors just days before the election claiming that if Jeb was elected he would cut Social Security. Something a governor has no power to do.

[So Cal Rocket]

All you need to know about Palast is in the first few sentences of this article he wrote:

Killer, Coward, Conman - Good Riddance, Ronnie Reagan
By Greg Palast
Jun 6, 2004, 20:51

June 6, 2004 -- You're not going to like this. You shouldn't speak ill of the dead. But in this case, someone's got to.

Ronald Reagan was a conman. Reagan was a coward. Reagan was a killer.

[bogeybob]

Glenn... Whoa. I am a long time Freeper and card carrying member of the VRWC. A lib on www.asmainegoes.com threw out this article as an example of a Bush "dirty trick". I figured that this had already been hashed and re-hashed on this site and there would be some good intell I could use in countering lib.

Trapped in liberal hell,

Bogeybob

[JeeperFreeper]

This is old hat and quite exaggerated. It's sorta like Moore's rantings. In a nutshell, the felons were identified.(Remember, felons sometimes give out different names.) The state tried to track down thoses named. Mailouts were sent to last known addresses. There was an appeals process as well. Many appealed and some were reinstated as voters. As I recollect there, over 80% of the appeals were rejected because the appellants were felons. And, some Democratic dominated counties simply did not purge the felons from their lists at all in order to allow felons to vote for Democrats. The Dems election supervisors, on the other hand, rejected absentee military votes because they were in the wrong color ink, red, I think. It was all looked at by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, hardly a bastion of conservatives, who had some criticisms, but overall blessed the whole mess. IMHO, the commission had to approve because the party that looked crooked and illegal was....you guessed it... the Dems.

[Glenn]

I am a long time Freeper and card carrying member of the VRWC.

I checked that out before I posted. But you have to admit that bringing a post like this into FR in an election year smacks of something curious.

I intended no harm.

[FactQuest]

In a word, yes. Its isn't exactly as portrayed by Mr. Palast, but there may really be something "there."

And, they're trying to do it again.

Here are some links.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A99749-2001May30

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=16167

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/10/national/10elect.html?ex=1088913600&en=355b1dd0c8651df2&ei=5070

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/28/fla.vote/index.html

"A Florida state official acknowledged to CNN that the 2000 list contained errors -- in particular that it included felons convicted in other states, who are eligible to vote in Florida."

http://www.yarock.com/Politics/Report%20from%20the%20Voter%20Rights%20Institute%2005.htm

http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=0

Atlanta Journal: "ChoicePoint Blames Florida Officials for Fraudulent Felon Purge
29-May-01
Stolen Election 2000
No doubt afraid of massive lawsuits for disenfranchising at least 1,100 voters - and helping Bush steal the Presidency - ChoicePoint is pointing the finger at Florida officials. ChoicePoint "wanted to compare its felons lists with several other databases, including property tax records, to correct any inaccuracies. But the state of Florida did not let the company do so." ChoicePoint also "recommended to the state that county elections supervisors undergo training to help them work with the felons database. Florida turned down the offer." Clay Roberts, director of Florida's Division of Elections, says these actions would not have prevented voter disenfranchisement. Tell that to a jury, Clay!"

Or, just google on Choicepoint, felon purge and Katherine Harris...

Maybe they meant well. If so, they were very incompetent.

[bogeybob]

Thanks. Just trying to get to the bottom of this.

[FactQuest]

This is old hat

Well, old anyway, but I've never heard it fully rebutted.

and quite exaggerated.

In what way? Ok, he does sensationalize it, because the numbers just barely might have given Florida to Gore, but gosh, there were a LOT of other irregularities, in many different states, of greater magnitude, some pro-Dem, some pro-Rep... our system has some flaws. The question is, is there any validity to the claim of bad intent?

and quite exaggerated. It's sorta like Moore's rantings.

On that one, I have to disagree. I think Greg Palast has done a decent job of documentation - with the real stuff, not just "connect the selected dots" type of crap Moore does.

In a nutshell, the felons were identified.(Remember, felons sometimes give out different names.) The state tried to track down thoses named. Mailouts were sent to last known addresses. There was an appeals process as well. Many appealed and some were reinstated as voters.

The problem is with the database they started with - it contained at least 8000 names that should have never been in there to begin with. They were from a misdemeanors (not felons) file from Texas. The problem was exacerbated by Harris's office - when Choicepoint tried to steer their client into different ways of reducing the number of false matches, Harris's office kept steering them to methods that would increase false matches.

As I recollect there, over 80% of the appeals were rejected because the appellants were felons.

That doesn't apply to the 8000 who were not.

And, some Democratic dominated counties simply did not purge the felons from their lists at all in order to allow felons to vote for Democrats.

Now, that is true, although the reason they gave was that the purge list was so incredibly wrong - that only about 30% of the voters on the list were actually felons. Of course, that gets into which is worse - allowing 1000 felons to vote, or denying the vote to 2000 upstanding citizens? That's a judgement call.

The Dems election supervisors, on the other hand, rejected absentee military votes because they were in the wrong color ink, red, I think.

There were lots of problems with the military ballots too, but color of ink is not one of the many things I've heard about. Uncounted hundreds were received after the legal cutoff date, and they were still counted. But all that is really beside the point, which is the felon purge list.

It was all looked at by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, hardly a bastion of conservatives, who had some criticisms, but overall blessed the whole mess.

They filed some suits, but not about the purge list. IMHO, the reason was, there was no clear evidence of intent.