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.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: Alabama; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: bama; latoshabrown
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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