John Kerry's WDW comment

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by Lebjwb
I get all warm and fuzzy just knowing that Uganda has got our backs.

Here is a list of the Coalition of the bribed:

Afghanistan

****Australia
***********
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria

****Czech Republic
Denmark

Georgia

Hungary

****Italy
****Japan
Kuwait

Lithuania

Netherlands

****Poland
***********
Portugal
Romania

****South Korea
Spain
****Turkey

****United Kingdom
*****************
Uzbekistan

Give me the choice of the USA, Great Britain, Australia, and Poland, and I will take on any coalition you can form from the rest of the world in any fight.

I left out the obviously insignificant nations to shorten the list, however if you made a list of the nations that "opposed" us, and omitted the similarly insignificant nations, you would be left with a far shorter list than the above. Try it - see what stellar nations you have on YOUR list.

In fact the only nations with any significance that oppose us are Germany, France and Russia. An that is just political opposition.

Were it to come to choosing up sides for a war, China would side with us - in fact - so would Russia and Germany - LOL - you are going to have FRANCE to do your battle? France would surrender to the postman.

AND

It is hilarious that you speak of the "bribed." (I know you are just parroting a Kerry line that he wishes he had not said - look for him to have to eat those words in the debates - notice that HE has not re-uttered them because he knows how stupid it is, and what it opens him up for. Unfortunately, you are not so bright - you think that it is still a 'zinger.')

The "bribed" nations are really Germany, France, and Russia. THEY are the nations that had been sponsoring Saddam because of the bribes THEY had been receiving.illegal. THEY are the ones who were armpit deep in the 'sanctions' corruption - trading "oil for food" as per the precious UN blessing - enabling Saddam to further tighten his grip on the nation and watching his people starve while he built more palaces with the "oil for food' money.

It was FRANCE primarily who wanted the "investigations to continue" so they could CONTINUE with their graft. It was THEY who wanted to "give sanctions time to work" so THEY could continue to receive the dirty money.

No - Kerry will have THOSE words shoved down his throat sometimes during the debate - only true idiots parrot them now - unknowing idiots.


MARY FRANCES BERRY is not 'independent' - i don't care what SHE says she is. She is the most biased and overbearing member of the commission and she is the chair. I would not read anything that came out of any panel that Mary Frances Berry had any association with. Her very presence taints the report beyond saving, and the fact that she is the CHAIR of the commission is a travesty - thank you Mr. Clinton.

 

[Kendra17]

You have to remember that to Kerry, Only France, Germany, and Russia are "real" countries.

But that is only what he thinks now. Remember, on November 12, 1997, when France and Russia weren't concerned about Saddam's illegal actions, Kerry said, “where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France?”

He also said, 1997:

"It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge."

Kerry said it was clear the U.S. did not need allies nor the U.N. to force its will on Iraq.

"The administration is leading." said Kerry. "The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. (Richard) Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war."

And this:

"It's not the first time France has been very difficult. ... " he said. "I think a lot of us are very disappointed that the French haven't joined us in a number of other efforts with respect to China, with respect to other issues in Asia and elsewhere and also in Europe. These are, this is a disappointment. But the fact is this. The president has, in effect, put military action on the table. . "

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37578

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
ThAnswr, how much of that was already in place before the Florida Election Reform Act of 2001? I only ask because I seriously don't know. I have been following (not closely, but keeping an eye on) Rep. Robert Wexler and the paperless ballot issue (some news today btw) and on his website there is this;

"The Florida Legislature recognized the importance of being able to conduct recounts by including more specific provisions for machine and manual recounts in the Florida Election Reform Act of 2001. According to this law, a manual recount will automatically be conducted in any election when the margin of victory is one-fourth of a percent or less. Without individual paper ballots being verified by each respective voter, a true manual recount is impossible."

That makes it sound like the recount laws were different in the 2000 election. Now I thought I had heard something like that way back but to be honest, sometimes the old memory just ain't what it used to be.

Richard

Different in what way? Florida has always had a provision for mandatory recounts and the clear intent of the voter provision, although I do believe the mandatory recount changed from 1% in 2000 to 1/4 % in 2001.

The biggest change with the 2001 reform was the use of new voting technologies such as touch screen voting and optical scanners.

I believe what Wexler is most concerned about, as am I, is the lack of a paper trail with the touch screen machines. How do you conduct a mandatory recount when there's nothing to count? Btw, this is still an open issue for this year's election.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/taskfc/flbill.htm

http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/vie...tory=session/2001/Senate/bills/billtext/html/

Far too many were left with the impression that the Florida State Supreme Court in 2000 were making their own laws when they ordered a recount and that just isn't so.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Grog
That's easy... France, Germany, and Russia. Didn't you know that countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, Italy, Poland, etc, don't rate in the eyes of Bush haters?

I don't know how Kerry proposes to convert France and Germany. They've already said they won't be sending troops, regardless of who is President. And who can blame them? with all the doom and gloom they hear from Kerry about Iraq. Why the hell would they want to get involved?

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36048bf8-0ff7-11d9-ba62-00000e2511c8.html

No French or German turn on Iraq
By Jo Johnson in Paris, Betrand Benoit in Berlin and James Harding in Washington
Published: September 26 2004 21:13 | Last updated: September 26 2004 21:13

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.

Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations with European allies and increase international military assistance in Iraq.

"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview.

"That said, Mr Kerry seems genuinely committed to multilateralism and as president he would find it easier than Mr Bush to secure the German government's backing in other matters."

Even though Nato last week overcame members' long-running reservations about a training mission to Iraq and agreed to set up an academy there for 300 soldiers, neither Paris nor Berlin will participate.

Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later".

That view reflects the concerns of many EU and Nato officials, who say the dangers in Iraq and the difficulty of extricating troops already there could make European governments reluctant to send personnel, regardless of the outcome of the US election.

A French government official said: "People don't expect that much would change under a Kerry administration, even if things can only get better. We do not anticipate a sudden honeymoon in the event Kerry replaces Bush.

"A lot depends on who is in power in both Washington and Baghdad. If there's change in both countries then it's possible we would re-examine our position, but I don't expect a massive change either way."

A German government spokesman declined to comment on the outcome of the US presidential election. But the feeling in Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's office is that, if anything, Berlin is growing less rather than more likely to change its mind as security conditions deteriorate in Iraq.

Mr Schröder would also be unlikely to renege on his 2002 electoral commitment not to send troops as a new general election looms in 2006.

There is no sign that the German public, which loathes the US president, would accept risking German lives to salvage what is widely seen as Mr Bush's botched war.

In fact, high-ranking German officials are privately concerned at the prospect of Mr Kerry becoming president, arguing it would not change US demands but make it more difficult to reject them.

Both France and Germany, however, have said they would contribute to the reduction of Iraq's debt and participate in economic and environmental development programmes. Berlin already trains Iraqi security forces outside Iraq and France has said it would do so.

Mr Kerry is expected to make Mr Bush's record of alienating foreign capitals and undermining US credibility in the world one of the chief arguments on Thursday night when he confronts the president in the first presidential debate.

The televised debate, which is expected to be watched by more than the 46.6m people who watched the debate in 2000, will focus on foreign policy and national security.

In a speech hammering Mr Bush for his decision to lead the US into Iraq, Mr Kerry said last week that in Afghanistan "I will lead our allies to share the burden."

He continued: "the Bush administration would have you believe that when it comes to our allies, it won't make a difference who is president. They say the Europeans won't help us, no matter what. But I have news for President Bush: just because you can't do something, doesn't mean it can't be done."

The German government continues to oppose sending troops to Iraq under any circumstance.

Berlin was one of Europe's most vocal opponents of the invasion of Iraq and, with sizeable forces in the Balkan and Afghanistan, it has also argued its troops are overstretched.

Although the government did not oppose Nato's decision to start training inside Iraq, it still thinks the deployment is counter- productive.

 

[dmadman43]

I believe what Wexler is most concerned about, as am I, is the lack of a paper trail with the touch screen machines. How do you conduct a mandatory recount when there's nothing to count? Btw, this is still an open issue for this year's election.

I would share your concern. Moreover, given the number of people I see that still can't competently navigate their way around an ATM, I don't see how touch screen voting will improve the process.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I don't know how Kerry proposes to convert France and Germany. They've already said they won't be sending troops, regardless of who is President. And who can blame them? with all the doom and gloom they hear from Kerry about Iraq. Why the hell would they want to get involved?

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36048bf8-0ff7-11d9-ba62-00000e2511c8.html

It looks like the planks are falling out of the floor of Kerry's platform.

This has been a bad week for the Democratic nominee. And, this is saying quite a lot since every week has been a bad week for the nominee. This past week is perhaps the worst.

1. Kerry's assertion that Bush is incompetent in foreign policy is obviously false. After the new Prime Minister of Iraq gave his speech to the Joint Session of Congress in which he outlined a positive future for his country--and thanked the U.S. for freeing them from tyranny, Kerry chose to criticize the Prime Minister saying that Allawi was essentially wrong in his estimation of his country's future and implied that Allawi was lying.

This is not how a man who wants to lead the United States will make friends with foreign leaders.

2. Kerry's favorite allies in Europe--the French and the Germans--have both recently promised--as late as today--that they will not send troops to Iraq even if Kerry is elected President.

The foundation of Kerry's foreign policy--if he were to ever have one--is that our so-called allies will help us shoulder the burden of the conflict in Iraq. Now that these so-called allies have promised to help under no circumstances, Kerry's foreign policy is now shown to be exactly what it has always been--completely bereft of clarity, accuracy, realism, and effectiveness.

3. Despite Kofi Annan's assertion that the War in Iraq is illegal, we have every right, and no not require the permission of the United Nations--or any supranational body, to ensure our national security. Any reasonable person will recall the enumerable United Nations' resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein and requiring/demanding his compliance with those resolutions. So, isn't it fascinating that when the United States with a coalition of 30-some countries compels Iraq to comply with the United Nations resolutions, the ensuing conflict is illegal? This is absolute hypocrisy and insanity on the part of the leader of an organization that has not the spine to back up its strong words with action. Unfortunately, for all of us, the United Nations is now as toothless as its predecessor, The League of Nations. The very purpose of the UN is to ensure international legality and stability. The UN has completely failed, overrun by the bizarre agendas of tiny, generally illegitimate nation states, who would never have a voice except for the General Assembly. The UN is basically a NGO with a very large headquarters building. Its purposes and goals are commonly positive, essentially the end of war and a global eradication of poverty. However, in order to end war, there are times when the United Nations must make war upon States that seek the destruction or conquest of their neighbors. The UN is unwilling and unable to do this. This is a fundamental aspect of their existence. There are core members of the UN that support that organization with money and blood. The United States being the premier member of the UN. The remaining members of the UN who are the real drivers of that entity are commonly known as NATO. It is a global catastrophe that the UN has failed. But it's very important we recognize its failure.

Kerry has stated before the that the UN should be the body that provides legitimacy for states to go to war. If we recognize the failure of the UN, it would be irresponsible of any State--especially the U.S.--to subsume its national defense to this failed international body that gives legitimacy to countries like Sudan by putting it at the head of its Human Rights Commission. The absurdity of this cannot be overstated. The UN was a dream, just like the League of Nations. In the face of Nazi aggression and the pleas unanswered of Haile Selassie to rescue Ethiopia from Italian invasion, The League of Nations collapsed. There are more complicated historical reasons for the collapse of the League--specifically, the punishing Versailles Treaty that ended WWI. Failure of the the League to come to Ethiopia's aid despite Salassie's eloquent pleas, was the final nail in the League of Nations' coffin. The failure of the UN to support the US in enforcing its OWN resolutions in Iraq--and its withdrawal from Baghdad after the appalling bombing of its headquarters there--is unfortunately the final nail in the coffin of the legitimacy of the UN.

As a platform for US-bashing rhetoric, it has no peer, as the protector of human rights, the eradicator of war, and the protector of global peace and stability, it is an absolute failure.

In light of these things, John Kerry's excessive affection and misplaced trust in this body, perhaps more than any other thing, disqualifies him from serving as the President and Commander in Chief. There is no question that Kerry's rhetoric has demoralized our soldiers in the field. His thoughtlessness and arrogance disqualifies him from being Commander in Chief.

Despite the Kerry campaign's desire to make this campaign about Kerry's Vietnam activities, this is but a smokescreen. This campaign has nothing to do with Vietnam and is perhaps the most important Presidential campaign of our lifetimes. The future of our country and our society is at stake. And all John Kerry wants to talk about is his experience on the Mekong River. Just like MacArthur, McCain, or George B. McClellan, military service does not necessarily qualify one to be President.

**********
For the full text of Selassie's speech: www.apl.jhu.edu/~yabera/him_geneva.html - Look at how brilliant and prescient he was. . . and look how these beautiful words fell on deaf ears. This is one of the most important speeches in the 20th century.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I would share your concern. Moreover, given the number of people I see that still can't competently navigate their way around an ATM, I don't see how touch screen voting will improve the process.

No joke!

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by Kendra17


the final nail in the coffin of the legitimacy of the UN.

[/I]

How true - President Bush gave the UN its last chance to avoid total irrelavancy - and they dropped the ball. They were never more than a barking dog, but now they are merely a nuisance.

The UN needs to be relegated to a "Red Cross" type of agency, concentrating on the logistics of moving food and water to famine striken areas. Their opinion on matters of global security have long since been shown to be irrelevant.

Now they have buried themselves.

Anyone putting faith or credence in the UN is not fit to be Commander in Chief of the USA.

 

[Lebjwb]

No - Kerry will have THOSE words shoved down his throat sometimes during the debate - only true idiots parrot them now - unknowing idiots.



Way, Way, Way over the top.

 

[Geoff_M]

Christopher Hitchens (not exactly a fan of the GOP) weighed in on Kerry pinning his hopes on gloom and doom in Iraq and the war on terror (bolding mine):

Flirting With Disaster
The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Sept. 27, 2004, at 11:35 AM PT


There it was at the tail end of Brian Faler's "Politics" roundup column in last Saturday's Washington Post. It was headed, simply, "Quotable":

"I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month." Teresa Heinz Kerry to the Phoenix Business Journal, referring to a possible capture of Osama bin Laden before Election Day.

As well as being "quotable" (and I wish it had been more widely reported, and I hope that someone will ask the Kerry campaign or the nominee himself to disown it), this is also many other words ending in "-able." Deplorable, detestable, unforgivable. …

The plain implication is that the Bush administration is stashing Bin Laden somewhere, or somehow keeping his arrest in reserve, for an "October surprise." This innuendo would appear, on the face of it, to go a little further than "impugning the patriotism" of the president. It argues, after all, for something like collusion on his part with a man who has murdered thousands of Americans as well as hundreds of Muslim civilians in other countries.

I am not one of those who likes to tease Mrs. Kerry for her "loose cannon" style. This is only the second time I have ever mentioned her in print. But I happen to know that this is not an instance of loose lips. She has heard that very remark being made by senior Democrats, and—which is worse—she has not heard anyone in her circle respond to it by saying, "Don't be so bloody stupid." I first heard this "October surprise" theory mentioned seriously, by a prominent foreign-policy Democrat, at an open dinner table in Washington about six months ago. Since then, I've heard it said seriously or semiseriously, by responsible and liberal people who ought to know better, all over the place. It got even worse when the Democratic establishment decided on an arm's-length or closer relationship with Michael Moore and his supposedly vote-getting piece of mendacity and paranoia, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The DNC's boss, Terence McAuliffe, asked outside the Uptown cinema on Connecticut Avenue whether he honestly believed that the administration had invaded Afghanistan for the sake of an oil or perhaps gas pipeline, breezily responded, "I do now.")

What will it take to convince these people that this is not a year, or a time, to be goofing around? Americans are patrolling a front line in Afghanistan, where it would be impossible with 10 times the troop strength to protect all potential voters on Oct. 9 from Taliban/al-Qaida murder and sabotage. We are invited to believe that these hard-pressed soldiers of ours take time off to keep Osama Bin Laden in a secret cave, ready to uncork him when they get a call from Karl Rove? For shame.

Ever since The New Yorker published a near-obituary piece for the Kerry campaign, in the form of an autopsy for the Robert Shrum style, there has been a salad of articles prematurely analyzing "what went wrong." This must be nasty for Democratic activists to read, and I say "nasty" because I hear the way they respond to it. A few pin a vague hope on the so-called "debates"—which are actually joint press conferences allowing no direct exchange between the candidates—but most are much more cynical. Some really bad news from Iraq, or perhaps Afghanistan, and/or a sudden collapse or crisis in the stock market, and Kerry might yet "turn things around." You have heard it, all right, and perhaps even said it. But you may not have appreciated how depraved are its implications. If you calculate that only a disaster of some kind can save your candidate, then you are in danger of harboring a subliminal need for bad news. And it will show. What else explains the amazingly crude and philistine remarks of that campaign genius Joe Lockhart, commenting on the visit of the new Iraqi prime minister and calling him a "puppet"? Here is the only regional leader who is even trying to hold an election, and he is greeted with an ungenerous sneer.

The unfortunately necessary corollary of this—that bad news for the American cause in wartime would be good for Kerry—is that good news would be bad for him. Thus, in Mrs. Kerry's brainless and witless offhand yet pregnant remark, we hear the sick thud of the other shoe dropping. How can the Democrats possibly have gotten themselves into a position where they even suspect that a victory for the Zarqawi or Bin Laden forces would in some way be welcome to them? Or that the capture or killing of Bin Laden would not be something to celebrate with a whole heart?

I think that this detail is very important because the Kerry camp often strives to give the impression that its difference with the president is one of degree but not of kind. Of course we all welcome the end of Taliban rule and even the departure of Saddam Hussein, but we can't remain silent about the way policy has been messed up and compromised and even lied about. I know what it's like to feel that way because it is the way I actually do feel. But I also know the difference when I see it, and I have known some of the liberal world quite well and for a long time, and there are quite obviously people close to the leadership of today's Democratic Party who do not at all hope that the battle goes well in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I have written before in this space that I think Bin Laden is probably dead, and I certainly think that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a far more ruthless and dangerous jihadist, who is trying to take a much more important country into the orbit of medieval fanaticism and misery. One might argue about that: I could even maintain that it's important to oppose and defeat both gentlemen and their supporters. But unless he conclusively repudiates the obvious defeatists in his own party (and maybe even his own family), we shall be able to say that John Kerry's campaign is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His new collection of essays, Love, Poverty and War, is forthcoming in October.

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107193/

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

I hope that Kerry keeps using ridiculous attacks and claims in a last minute attempt to help his sinking campaign. It certainly is not helping. The American public was smart enough to not believe that someone who was as Pro-War as Joe Lieberman is really more anti-War than Howard Dean. Horrible, horrible, horrible idea from the Kerry camp to become so anti-war when Kerry made so many pro-war statements in the past two years, it just gave Bush a whole lot of stuff to use to call him a flip-flopper.

Now he's trying to scare young people with the threat of the draft, scare old people by saying Bush wants to privatize social security, and now bronzing it up.

The Kerry ship is sinking.

 

[dmadman43]

Like they say, bad news for people is good news for the Democrats. The last thing the Dems want is people to not be dependent on the govt for solutions.

I found it quite funny that Kerry chose to believe a CIA report that said terrorism in Iraq will increase, yet was all to happy to cite the CIA as incompetent for giving Bush questionable data on WMD. So, when the CIA delivers bad news, they are good, when they deliver any other news, they are bad?

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

Exactly, Kerry wants failures in Iraq, and wants the economy to fail. That is the only way he can get elected is to harp on these things even though Iraq by and large is a success, and that Bush has done such a wonderful job with the economy in the face of the .com burst, corporate scandals, 9/11 (the World TRADE Center reduced to rubble).

The problem is, is that Kerry was just as pro-war as Bush before the war and during it (sometimes), and that the majority of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling the economy. So what does Kerry have to do to win? Well basically hope that the economy falters and that his 9th flip flop on the war basically wins voters over.

 

[disneyatl]

With that comment, Disney shouldn't add him to the Hall of Presidents (if he wins).

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by disneyatl
With that comment, Disney shouldn't add him to the Hall of Presidents (if he wins).

I don't think he'll win, but if he did, maybe they would stop short of giving him a speaking part!

Or, they could give alternate speeches. . .on one day, he'd say something different than he would the next. . .that would be funny. . .or, if you sat through two shows, you'd here two different speeches, each with opposing points of view!

 

[Geoff_M]

...and that the majority of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling the economy.

Actually, the data I've seen indicates just the opposite, which makes the "hill" that Kerry has chosen to make his "last stand" on (Iraq and terrorism) even more puzzling. Even tough the numbers are pretty good, a large portion of the population is in a funk about the economy and analysts agree that it's Bush's weakest area in the election. The economy is also the one area that voters have historically been willing to turn on a sitting President over. So why has Kerry chosen to go after an area that GOP strongholds with the electorate (national defense and "getting tough" with international "bad guys")?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
Actually, the data I've seen indicates just the opposite, which makes the "hill" that Kerry has chosen to make his "last stand" on (Iraq and terrorism) even more puzzling. Even tough the numbers are pretty good, a large portion of the population is in a funk about the economy and analysts agree that it's Bush's weakest area in the election. So why has Kerry chosen to go after an area that GOP strongholds with the electorate (national defense and "getting tough" with international "bad guys")?

Because he knows his economic plan will spell ruin for any recovery? Just guessing. I could be wrong.

 

[Geoff_M]

Nah, I figured he do a "Clinton"... i.e. trash talk the economy (even though it's improving) with the usual "worst economy in 50 years" mumbo-jumbo, promise to grow jobs with tax incentives etc., promise a middle-class tax cut while you to soak "the rich", and then hope to take credit for the good economy that you inherited from the guy you beat in the election.

 

[Patch'sD]

This just in. Kerry Stated that before he drove to Disney World he in fact did drive by it. News at 11:00

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by Lebjwb
Perhaps you'd care to tell us what the other 2 Republican members of the commission thought of the findings.

Why didn't they share in the dissenting statement?

Talk about timing

The Florida Myth
Spinning tales about 2000 to boost black turnout.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

In case you were lucky enough to miss it, here's a recent fund-raising letter from New Jersey Democratic Senator Jon Corzine:

"Voter suppression and intimidation . . . in Florida again!? The GOP used voter intimidation and outright fraud to hand Florida to George W. Bush in 2000, and if we don't stop them, they'll do it again."

Yes, the political urban legend that black voters in Florida were harassed and intimidated on Election Day four years ago is making a comeback. Only yesterday Jimmy Carter, fresh from blessing Hugo Chavez's dubious victory in Venezuela, moaned that in 2000 "several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities" in Florida, and that this year more black than (Republican) Hispanic felons are being disqualified to vote--as if all felons weren't supposed to be barred, regardless of race.

As the Corzine letter and the "Jim Crow" pamphlet nearby suggest, this is all election-year demagoguery. Democrats and their acolytes are raising this myth from the dead to scare up black turnout and lay the groundwork for challenges in court if John Kerry loses. So, before Dan Rather concludes this is another scoop, let's all remember the fraud that didn't happen in 2000.

In June 2001, following a six-month investigation that included subpoenas of Florida state officials from Governor Jeb Bush on down, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report that found no evidence of voter intimidation, no evidence of voter harassment, and no evidence of intentional or systematic disenfranchisement of black voters.

Headed by a fiercely partisan Democrat, Mary Frances Berry, the Commission was very critical of Florida election officials (many of whom were Democrats). For example, "Potential voters confronted inexperienced poll workers, antiquated machinery, inaccessible polling locations, and other barriers to being able to exercise their right to vote." But the report found no basis for the contention that officials conspired to disenfranchise voters. "Moreover," it said, "even if it was foreseeable that certain actions by officials led to voter disenfranchisement, this alone does not mean that intentional discrimination occurred," let alone racial discrimination.

The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division conducted a separate investigation of these charges and also came up empty. In a May 2002 letter to Democratic Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont, who at the time headed the Judiciary Committee, Assistant Attorney General Ralph Boyd wrote, "The Civil Rights Division found no credible evidence in our investigations that Floridians were intentionally denied their right to vote during the November 2000 election."

Peter Kirsanow, a Republican member of the Civil Rights Commission, told us in an interview that "the press has tried to spin what happened in Florida into something sinister. But there's a disconnect between what was actually found [in these various investigations] and how it's been portrayed."

Senator Corzine's letter references the New York Times, where heavy-breathing columnists are trying to link a routine investigation of voter fraud in an Orlando mayoral election with a statewide effort by Governor Jeb Bush to intimidate blacks into staying home in November. Elsewhere, the NAACP and People for the American Way have issued a report claiming that "intimidation" led to racially motivated voter disenfranchisement in Florida. These and other left-wing groups are planning to dispatch 5,000 lawyers nationwide on Election Day in the name of "voter protection," presumably to prevent a "repeat" of something that didn't happen the first time.

Another prong of the attack on the legitimacy of the Florida outcome, at least as it pertains to the notion the black voters were intentionally disenfranchised, is the number of black voters whose ballots were spoiled. The Civil Rights Commission concluded that blacks were more likely to spoil their votes than whites by a factor of 10 to 1. Other investigations put that ratio closer to 3 to 1. In any case, the numbers are educated guesses extrapolated from sample precincts because ballots don't record the race of the voter.

But the idea that racial animus rather than all-around incompetence produced higher spoilage rates for blacks, or accounted for their misplacement on the infamously inaccurate "felon purge list," is fanciful at best. In Florida, as in many other states, the manner in which elections are conducted, including all of the essentials of the voting process, is determined at the county level.

Which leaves the "stolen election" crowd with these inconvenient facts: In 24 of the 25 Florida counties with the highest ballot spoilage rate, the county supervisor was a Democrat. In the 25th county, the supervisor was an Independent. And as for the "felon purge list," the Miami Herald found that whites were twice as likely to be incorrectly placed on the list as blacks.
The real spectacle here is that some Democrats are only too willing to exploit the painful history of black voter disenfranchisement for some short-term partisan advantage. And it just might backfire. Democrats played up the Florida fiasco in the 2002 midterm elections, repeatedly telling blacks that their votes hadn't been counted in 2000. Rather than being riled up, many black voters believed what they were told and stayed home.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005682