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

Fox News ^ | 8.15.02

[meandog]

SELMA, Ala.

[meandog]

Wonder if GA's SINdy McKinney will pull the same trick when she loses...?

[meandog]

Thoughts?

[tomkat]

LaTosha Brown / Yusuf Salaam

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

fercrisesake ...

[mhking]

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.

[Dakmar]

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

[mikesmad]

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.

[sandydipper]

What? An african PO'd withn another african? There is just NO justice here.

[Timesink]

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.

[Timesink]

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?

[mikesmad]

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.

[Illbay]

...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.

[Dakmar]

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.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

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.

[spokeshave]

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

[Brookhaven]

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.

[DK Zimmerman]

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.

[general_re]

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.

[mikesmad]

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.

[Enterprise]

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.)

[DugwayDuke]

"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.