MOOREWATCH
Mike In Germany
Author: Lee
A German blogger named David Kaspar reports on the media attention Michael Moore is receiving in Germany.
Michael Moore: Americans are Dumb, Germans Educated

ZEIT presented an open letter from Michael Moore to his German admirers ("Greetings to his local fans"). Moore's naive world view, his Bush hate, his playing down the threat posed by Saddam, his admiration of the pacifist appeasement policy of Germany and France - everything mixed together in an anti-American broth just as it is presented everyday in the German media.

Quotes:
"Not all of America is Crazy"

The coalition of the unwilling is forming. In the USA, public opinion is also turning against President Bush

By Michael Moore

Millions of us here in the USA are trying with all our might to prevent the Bush regime from doing even more damage around the globe. For us it is urgently critical that you Germans resist Bush and you should know that we desperately greet any such resistance. ...

I can assure you that not all of America has gone crazy. ... I am writing to you so that you know that I am in no way alone but instead am standing in the middle of a new American majority. Many millions of American citizens think as I do or I think as they do. You just don't hear anything about them, at least not through the press. But they are out there - and their anger is boiling just below the surface. ...

The lot that is currently governing us feels bound by no law. You just have to ask yourself what these crooks are capable of after they already stole the election. This much I can tell you: They have no scruple about destroying everything that stands in their way, especially when they are in the process of making even more money. ...

Should such an ignorant people lead the world? How did it come to this in the first place? 82 percent of us don't even have a passport! Just a handful can speak a language other than English (and we don't even speak that very well.) ...

We approach life relatively openly and generously and without complication. When you ask us for help we come to help you. And when you tell us that donkeys can fly we believe it (when you say it on television.). ...

Ok, come on, you Germans, you really know better! You are well-read. Your media also reports on things south of the Alps. You travel. You value education. And in the past year you took over the moral leadership in the question of war or peace. I urgently ask of you that you show the same moral ability to judge when it comes to maintaining the German social net for those weakest in your country. Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way."

Michael Moore is an American and it is above all the matter of the Americans themselves to judge his unpatriotic attacks on his own country. Despite that, even from a German point of view it is apparent that the man is driven by a virulent hate of everything that makes America strong. If America followed the ideas of Michael Moore - ideas that reflect in large part those of the German media -, its economic and political power would quickly be broken. The USA would then follow Germany into the desert of economic hopelessness and depression.

Laughable is Moore's statement on "a new American majority" which Michael Moore claims to be standing in the middle of. These Enlightened Americans are at the same time confirmed by Moore to be the world's biggest political backwoods hicks. You have to be called Michael Moore or be a member of the German media not to notice this contradiction...

His recommendation to all Germans to resist the necessary social reforms in their country should be viewed as a guide into the abyss. German employees paying more than half of their income for taxes and social deductions are surely grateful for this piece of unasked-for advice.

BTW: Here's a superb analysis of Moore's manipulations and distortions. And DIVIDEDWEFALL describes how Moore endangers the fight against terrorism.

More about Michael Moore in this blog.

Update: Required reading: "You (and Bush) are likely too dumb for this".

Translation by Raymond Drake.



Posted by: Lee on Nov 17, 03 | 9:01 pm (profile) | Permalink
COMMENTS
Posted by: Toastrider on Nov 17, 03 | 9:50 pm
You know, it's a shame we can't revoke these people's citizenship.

I keep running into that First Amendment bit, but dear God, I want to kick Martin Sheen in the head. Christ, man, do you want The West Wing to tank? After the Dixie Chicks opened their yaps, you'd think celebrities would be a touch more careful in how they worded their bloviating.

Sigh. Oh well. We've got sites like this and others to simply hold up a mirror and demonstrate how simple-minded and shallow these overpaid actors really are.

--Toasty

Posted by: calloffthedogs on Nov 17, 03 | 10:38 pm
this is why I can't understand the pro-moore mentality. I just can't fathom agreeing with (hell, even just excusing) that sort of bullshit. they say it takes all kinds, but I have to believe we could do without some of those kinds.

Posted by: NukeChild on Nov 17, 03 | 11:49 pm
I was most depressed by Moore's comprehension of the florida election. He is using legal ignorance to prove his point.

Posted by: Thededalus on Nov 18, 03 | 5:03 am
Does anyone have a link to a good rebuttal for the whole Bush-stole-Florida thing?


Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 18, 03 | 6:05 am
"it is apparent that the man is driven by a virulent hate of everything that makes America strong"
The problem is that what makes america economically strong makes other countries weak. Remember that a strong economy doesnt mean a strong nation: inequality all over the States, inequality all over the world. It leads to that hate against the USA. Michael Moore wants those inequalities(and so that hate against the USA) to cease, so you cant say he hates America( well you already said it, but thats not true). Actually,you just dont understand Moore, that's why you made this site. Hate is the result of misunderstanding, you should read people like Nietszche, Schopenhauer or oriental philosophists like Kundera.

Posted by: calloffthedogs on Nov 18, 03 | 7:05 am
i understand he thinks more of the germans than he does americans. live in fucking germany and be worshipped like Hasselhoff if you love them so much. otherwise, kindly shut the fuck up. no intelligent american wants to hear that prattle.

Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 18, 03 | 7:27 am
huhuhuhu
you seem to have a very particular definition of the word "intelligent".

Cool down now, take a breath and think about beautiful landscapes, haaaaaaaa, might feel better now dont you ?
Life is too short for wasting time in getting angry like that, little boy.

Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 18, 03 | 8:54 am
Does anyone have a link to a good rebuttal for the whole Bush-stole-Florida thing?


Here you go.

Posted by: calloffthedogs on Nov 18, 03 | 9:01 am
doesn't work

Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 18, 03 | 9:14 am
Actually,you just dont understand Moore, that's why you made this site.

Maybe you, as an intellectually superior European (I assume), can enlighten us.

The problem is that what makes america economically strong makes other countries weak.

The US isn't making other countries economically weak, their own inability to compete in the global economy is. If they spent less time blaming the US and more time improving their infrastructure and production means, they might make strides toward self-sufficiency. Why does everyone down on their luck want to blame someone else? Why do they want a hand-out for doing nothing?

Michael Moore wants those inequalities(and so that hate against the USA) to cease...

Moore is espousing socialist/communist views. History has proven that they don't work. However, the capitalist system used in the US has proven strong for over 225 years. It certainly has serve Moore well.

Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 18, 03 | 9:18 am
doesn't work

Can you read me now?

Posted by: calloffthedogs on Nov 18, 03 | 9:20 am
Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 18, 03 | 8:54 am
Does anyone have a link to a good rebuttal for the whole Bush-stole-Florida thing?
here you go

still doesn't work. 404age..

Posted by: calloffthedogs on Nov 18, 03 | 9:22 am
thank you sir. though i had to turn off my god-forsaken pop-up blocker to view it. a blessing and a curse...

Posted by: teqjack on Nov 18, 03 | 9:36 am
The problem is that what makes america economically strong makes other countries weak.

No, it is what makes other countries strong too. It would do the US no good to be strong economically if it could not buy from or sell to others. Another point, it is not so long ago that there was some fear Japan might take over the US by buying it: tere was a big flap when Rockefeller Center in New York City was sold...

Posted by: Cigarskunk on Nov 18, 03 | 10:01 am
The problem is that what makes america economically strong makes other countries weak


This is just zero-sum-gain vudoo economics BS - pure and simple - no one has to suffer in order for someone else to profit - the pie is infinate.

Posted by: Cigarskunk on Nov 18, 03 | 10:30 am
Millions of us here in the USA are trying with all our might to prevent the Bush regime from doing even more damage around the globe. For us it is urgently critical that you Germans resist Bush and you should know that we desperately greet any such resistance. ...

Yes, we must stop President Bush before he frees even more people from blood thirsty dictators and before he destroys and dismantles even more terrorist organisations - we can not afford a world free of terrorists and dictators.

I can assure you that not all of America has gone crazy.

Just yourself and America's liberal elite.

... I am writing to you so that you know that I am in no way alone but instead am standing in the middle of a new American majority.

Actually, you're still standing in the middle of an old American minority - the radical left - they are considered a minority because there are so few of them - that's why they got thier collective backsides handed to them in the 2002 elections. Remember Mike, just because you delete it from your webpage doesn't mean it goes away in real life.

Many millions of American citizens think as I do or I think as they do.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other - either way it's a lose/lose situation since we're still talking about the thoughts of morons. Besides Mike, I sincerely doubt that you can claim that many millions of Americans "think" as you do - if these folks who simply parrot everything you said and wrote were actually thinking, they would realise that you were spouting a bunch of lies and bullshit and stop listening to you.

You just don't hear anything about them, at least not through the press. But they are out there - and their anger is boiling just below the surface. ...

Well, if the boiling is just below the surface, us dumb Americans usually refer to it as a "simmer" - once the boiling reaches the surface then it's boiling and when it's really boiling good we sometimes refer to it as a "rolling boil" - and that's our lesson today on water boiling jargon.

The lot that is currently governing us feels bound by no law.

No - that was the previous lot - we threw them out in the 2000 elections after the impeachment was screwed.

You just have to ask yourself what these crooks are capable of after they already stole the election.

You're not refering to when the Democrats stole the Senate in 2003 are you?

This much I can tell you: They have no scruple about destroying everything that stands in their way, especially when they are in the process of making even more money. ...

You're doing transference again.

Should such an ignorant people lead the world?

No - thankfully you and your millions of Moore-ons don't lead the world.

How did it come to this in the first place?

Well, it all started when people came under the delusion that Bill Clinton would make a great president - fortunately, less than 50% of America voted for him, so that means that over half the country is still perfectly sane.

82 percent of us don't even have a passport!

Thank god for that - it's bad enough you're running around the globe telling lies about this great country of ours and deliberately attempting to undermine it's leadership - we don't need anymore of your ilk following suite.

Just a handful can speak a language other than English (and we don't even speak that very well.) ...

I'll give you that much - when your fellow Moore-ons get onto this site and post stuff along the lines of "u guys suck and your stupid and Mike is the best cause he says your dumb", well, it's really quite sad - it's a good thing that your books aren't written higher then a 4th grade reading level or your followers would never be able to read your words of, well, something or other.

We approach life relatively openly and generously and without complication. When you ask us for help we come to help you.

And then our liberals run off to Germany and tell the Europeans what terrible people we are for helping others.

And when you tell us that donkeys can fly we believe it (when you say it on television.). ...

Ahh, so that explains why your lies and decite are so bold faced - you know that your average fan is so stupid as to beleive anything - even that jackasses can fly (or is that just a reference to your flying during your recent book tour?).

Ok, come on, you Germans, you really know better! You are well-read.

You're just saying that because your books have sold there almost as well as "Mein Kempf" did - flattery gets you everywhere.

Your media also reports on things south of the Alps.

Always good to know what the Italines are up to - what this has to do with America I'm not sure, but it must be a valid and salient point - after all, YOU, the all wise and godly Mike Moore, brought it up.

You travel.

Especially to France while driving Panzers.

You value education.

The Germans love to re-educate people - thier re-education camps have nice showers too.

And in the past year you took over the moral leadership in the question of war or peace.

You're refering to the same German moral leadership which took payoffs from Sadam and voted against war in order to save thier sweet oil contracts and hide the fact that they had sold him raw materials for making chemical weapons - right?

I urgently ask of you that you show the same moral ability to judge when it comes to maintaining the German social net for those weakest in your country.

Seeing as how that moral leadership has spiralled the German economy into a nosedive that's going to leave everyone in the country equally weak, maybe it's best for the German people to just keep thier heads down and try not to drag anyone else with them.

Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way.

Yes - it would be terrible if Germany were to become a land where a poor immigrant with only the shirt on his back could become a millionare and Governer of CA through hard work and good old fashion elbow grease. It would suck if Germany had the fattest poor people in the world. And how could the Germans ever survive if they reached a level of wealth and prosperity equal to America's were you were considered poor if you only had one color TV in your home.

Face it Mike - you're slime and a hypocrite - if you think America is such a terrible and evil country, why don't you put your millions where your mouth is and bail? Why don't you move in with your boy Johnny and get French citizenship?

I'll tell you why - because you're a greedy little piggy at heart - you know that as soon as you become a Canadian, German or even a Frog, you'll be paying anywhere from 50-75% of your income in taxes and upwards of $4 a gallon to fill those SUVs you and your body gaurds zip around in.

Many of your supporters have wished for more terrorist attacks to prove you right - one can only hope that you happen to be right in the middle of thier fantasy if they ever get thier wish.

Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 18, 03 | 1:03 pm
Maybe you, as an intellectually superior European (I assume), can enlighten us.
It's not because I'm European that i'm intellectually superior to you, it's because i'm French. And no, sorry i cant enlighten you, only those who eat frog can reach such a powerful and winefull mind as mine.

Yes - it would be terrible if Germany were to become a land where a poor immigrant with only the shirt on his back could become a millionare and Governer of CA through hard work and good old fashion elbow grease.
Yeah that's for sure. As a neighbour of the Germans, I pray for this day to not come. But it would take a lot of money to buy all California and move it to Germany, and there's also the problem of space, CA is a quite big place, so i do not care too much about that for now.

Its really sad that you dont understand the world you're living in. Really sad because I also live in this world, and i must suffer people like you every day.

Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 18, 03 | 1:06 pm
hey cigarskunk, you have to accept the world with all its components, not only as a gigantic economic system.

Posted by: Rann Aridorn on Nov 18, 03 | 2:37 pm
What the hell? He says he's French and he's still talking? He should have surrendered the debate, by now...

Posted by: Thededalus on Nov 18, 03 | 2:54 pm
jwilliamsii,

I've read this link before. I wouldn't call it comprehensive. It doesn't offer much in support and doesn't take into consideration the mass, incorrect disenfrachisement of minorities.

Posted by: Cigarskunk on Nov 18, 03 | 3:02 pm
i'm French. And no, sorry i cant enlighten you, only those who eat frog can reach such a powerful and winefull mind as mine.


Are you kidding - you guys can't even deal with a minor heatwave.

As a neighbour of the Germans, I pray for this day to not come.


LOL - yeah, I'm sure you guys were already buying up every white flag and scrap of white clothe you could find when you heard that East and West Germany were reunifying.

Its really sad that you dont understand the world you're living in. Really sad because I also live in this world, and i must suffer people like you every day.


"Suffer people like [me]" eh? My friend, if you had any idea how much of a vacume you live in over there, your head would explode.

hey cigarskunk, you have to accept the world with all its components, not only as a gigantic economic system.


I do - that's why zero-sum-gain is bogus. Opportunity is limitless - the only thing that comes in finite quantities are restrictions.

The big picture is that if I get more freedom, you don't get less. The big picture is that if I get a tax cut you don't get your taxes raised. The big picture is that my success does not require your failure.

You need money to make money - America creates real wealth and as that wealth increases, so does everyone elses as economies of scale decrease the cost of products and increased ability to buy from markets which were previously closed to us due to lack of money, which results in more money going into said markets, more buying power for the people doing the selling, etc, etc, etc.

I swear, economics should be mandatory in every school in the world.

Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 18, 03 | 3:30 pm
jwilliamsii,

I've read this link before. I wouldn't call it comprehensive. It doesn't offer much in support and doesn't take into consideration the mass, incorrect disenfrachisement of minorities.


How's THIS?

Posted by: Thededalus on Nov 18, 03 | 4:30 pm
jwilliamsii,

Thanks for the link. I've been reading it for about an hour now (still haven't finished) and I have to go... I'll post my comments later...

Posted by: Thededalus on Nov 18, 03 | 8:44 pm
Okay, I'm back and I finished the article...my criticisms of it are as follows:
1. It is obviously partisan.
2. The author denies that the election was "too close to call," even though Bush's initial margin of victory was somewhere around .01% better.
3. He underplays the significance of the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach first as a ploy to justify manual recounts. Second, he suggests that there was no anomaly in the number of Buchanan votes despite ample evidence to the contrary.
4. He often says that Dems claimed that both under & over votes were intended more for Gore than Bush, but doesn't support it, ie. he is generalizing.
5. He says manual recounts are a flawed recount method, which also strikes me as a generalized understatement. More flawed than mechanical counts? One university study I read about suggested that hand counted votes were the most accurate, even more so than computerized methods.
6. No mention of the gross disenfranchisement of minority voters.

There are certainly many takes on this issue. I really think Gore lost it by his weak-kneed stances on common Democrat issues like the environment. That said, I have yet to hear a good argument to rebut the disenfranchisement of minority voters and still think it fair say that Bush's legitimacy is questionable.

Posted by: Wheels on Nov 18, 03 | 9:11 pm
Thed, at least you admit Gore lost. Cause I am sick and tired of hearing lines like "No, he won! Bush just cheated and changed the results."

Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 19, 03 | 7:13 am
Thed,

I'll take them one at a time:

1. Most reporting is. Don't you find it a bit odd that the networks named Al Gore the winner of Florida before the polls closed and while Bush was leading.

2. His point was that after 2 counts of the votes, Bush was in the lead.

3. What evidence to the contrary? Buchanan got 4,000 votes in the '96 primary. Palm Beach had fewer ballot errors than some other counties.

4. The dems focused on these ballots. I think it's safe to assume they thought they could squeeze out enough votes from these to lead to victory. The Dems said 19,000 votes were thrown out, implying that votes for Gore were thrown out when in reality 19,000 ballots with errors were thrown out.

5. The point was that the people conducting the manual recounts were asked to determine who was the voter intending to vote for through looking at hanging, dimpled, and pregnant chads. The Dems were asking them to count votes that weren't votes.

6. I keep hearing of disenfranchised minorities in Florida, but have seen no evidence of this. Also, why do you assume that the minorities would have voted for Gore. Dems consider blacks "their" voters and do everything in their power to keep it that way.

Bush never trailed in Florida by a single vote. How can his legitimacy be in question?

Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 19, 03 | 10:47 am
Are you kidding ?
mmmmm, what do you think ? its a difficult question...

You need money to make money - America creates real wealth and as that wealth increases, so does everyone elses as economies of scale decrease the cost of products and increased ability to buy from markets which were previously closed to us due to lack of money, which results in more money going into said markets, more buying power for the people doing the selling, etc, etc, etc.
The problem is that it doesn't work at all. Perhaps it would if we were robots, but unfortunately we are human beings, with all those shitty feelings and stuff...

Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 19, 03 | 12:31 pm
I dedicate this song to you, cigarskunk :

Frogs with dirty little lips, by frank zappa

Frogs with dirty little lips
Dirty little warts on their finger-tips
Dirty 'n green
Tiny 'n mean
Floppin' around
By the edge of the stream

Frogs with dirty little eyes
Dirty little tongues all covered with flies
Dirty brown
Floppin' around
Puffed up 'n bloated
When the sun goes down

Frogs with dirty little nose
Dirty little spots all over their clothes
Dirty legs
Dirty feet
Dirty little frogs is what you eat

Posted by: Craig on Nov 19, 03 | 1:48 pm
Bravo! Bravo!
Welldigger's Ass,
Do you know the lyrics to "Burnt Weenie Sandwich", from the Dangerous Kitchen Albumn?
You could dedicate THAT to Michael Moore.

Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 19, 03 | 2:10 pm
Oh Thed, about 6. No mention of the gross disenfranchisement of minority voters.

Read THIS.

It should put to rest that idea as well.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 19, 03 | 2:18 pm
"Many millions of American citizens think as I do or I think as they do."
-Michael Moore

Ah yes,
and it's safe to assume that Moore's statistic includes all those stupid 18 to 25 year olds who are incapable of finding Iraq on a map.
You can read about them in his next book; "Spoiled Stupid White Brats".
Learn how they are too dumb to read, write, complete simple mathmatical problems, or accurately recall basic historical events; But DAMMIT, they sure do have great self-esteem. That's because Moore only reveals their stupidity, behind their backs, while performing for Foreign audiences. Too bad Moore doesn't tell them what he really thinks about them.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 19, 03 | 2:34 pm
jwill,
I can't help but think that if someone is so paranoid/delusional that they feel "intimidated" by an empty patrol car parked outside of a polling place, then they really have no business voting anyway.
I've also wondered how those evil mean-spiwited wascally wepublicans were able to psychically divine the race and ethnicity of voters, considering that ballots and voter registration lists don't include race of the individual.
Did Carnak the Magnificent or the Amazing Kreskin come out of retirement, just to work the election?
It's also amazing how Bill Daley gets all those dead people to vote in alphabetical order. Does he use a Ouija board?

Posted by: Thededalus on Nov 19, 03 | 4:31 pm
JW,

1a. Sure, all reporting has some bias but some do better than others in being objective. My only point that at times the guy from your link seemed less than objective...
1b. I would agree that it is unethical for networks to call elections before they end and doing so can effect the outcome, though I'm not sure who that would favor.
2. I really don't think his point was after 2 counts. I read it again and I get the impression that he contends that no recounts were ever warranted because Bush always had a lead. I think we might be debating two points here so I'll just clarify mine. I think the initial results did warrant a recount because they were *so* close. Initial vote counts are rarely 100% accurate but most aren't recalled because the margin of victory is greater than the margin of error. But when the difference is around .01%, it should require a closer look to make sure all the tallies are accurate as possible. That said, I completely disagree with any strategy involving multiple or select recalls or rule changes to hunt down more votes. If you want to count chads and hanging dimples, do it the first time, one time and for all ballots evenly.
3. I find the Primary's vote suspicious. Why does he mention the primary's compared to general election? Were these Reform Primaries? I don't remember, but did Buchanan ever try to win the Republican bid in '96? If so, his Republican title would have made a significant difference. Plus, you only have to look at the butterfly ballot to know that it is reasonable to assume that a number of people voted for Buchanan by mistake. It goes like this: 1. On the left side you see Bush then Gore. 2. As Gore is two down you, you go two down on the ballot and cast your vote. And so you're done. Only thing is, Buchanan was 2 down. Yeah, I know... A democrat designed it and it's the voters fault if they're too stupid to read a ballot correctly. Stupid or not, it's easy to believe that a 2 or 3 thousand people out of 400,000 made this mistake by the faulty logic I outline above. That clearly makes a difference. HERE is a link that also demonstrates these Buchanan votes as unlikely. He even went on TV to say he doubted the results. All that said, I don't care. It's done and there was nothing that Gore could fairly do about it. The reason I brought this up was to demonstrate the bias of the author, who again, understated the significance of it. I agree with him in that it really doesn't matter because you can't change it and it isn't proof that Bush stole anything, but, on the other hand, it certainly was a factor in Gore's loss and is a good argument for the peoples' intent.
4. Again, did the Dems go on record as saying this undervotes/overvotes were Gore votes, as opposed to Bush votes? I understand the point of votes vs ballots. They probably went too far in changing the rules on the fly and by focusing on select counties. The only fair was to do it statewide. I don't know how I feel entirely about the dimple/hangin chad thing, but generally speaking I don't think it wrong in principle to try to count every reasonable ballot. Critics can call it vote hunting but if we value the will of the people then the concept at least is fair -- you just have to be consistent.
5. See above.
6. I've read that blacks typically vote 90% democrat (maybe it was Moore, I don't remember, but the number doesn't surprise me). For example, Gore not Bush didn't campaign in Washington DC, which is heavily black, because it already decided in a sense. I read your link, too, and I don't know. To it's favor its authored by a guy from the US Commission of Civil Rights. However, it takes arguments from the dissenting opinion of another guy at USCCR. Here is the USCCR's main report

So I don't know. Again, I think Gore is mostly to blame for his inability to separate himself from Bush. I also think that Bush isn't to blame for most of the elections shortcomings. However, the DBT thing with the felon purge list is still questionable. If thousands of legal black voters were unfairly disenfranchised due to in part by actions taken by George & Jeb, then it would be fair to question the legitimacy of Bush's election. And to those people who contend it was the counties responsibility to verify the list's accuracy, well, that doesn't absolve George of what would be clearly unethical, if not illegal.

Here's a decent linke about it. One thing it doesn't really address is the proportion of minority voters incorrectly identified compared to whites.

Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 19, 03 | 6:14 pm
Thed,

Regarding DBT, it was their role to find names of Florida voters that matched those of convicted felons. It was the job of the counties to verify if they were actually felons or mistakenly put on the list.

One thing it doesn't really address is the proportion of minority voters incorrectly identified compared to whites.

Besides, as stated HERE, "The list was inaccurate; it included people who shouldn't have been on it. Thus, the myth holds that the purge list was somehow a tool to deny blacks the right to vote.

But facts are stubborn things. Whites were actually twice as likely as blacks to be erroneously placed on the list. In fact, an exhaustive study by the Miami Herald concluded that 'the biggest problem with the felon list was not that it prevented eligible voters from casting ballots, but that it ended up allowing ineligible voters to cast a ballot.'* According to the Palm Beach Post, more than 6,500 ineligible felons voted."






Posted by: Thededalus on Nov 19, 03 | 6:33 pm
JW,

It was the job of the counties to verify if they were actually felons or mistakenly put on the list.

I don't entirely buy that, as I mentioned before. If Bush & Co knowingly exaggerated the size of the DBT to lasso in more felons without regard to non-felons then they are partly responsible. It, again, would be clearly unethical if not illegal -- to say the responsibility would solely lie on the counties who failed to to verify the lists is a cop-out.

"The list was inaccurate; it included people who shouldn't have been on it. Thus, the myth holds that the purge list was somehow a tool to deny blacks the right to vote.

I read this, but I wonder. Like I stated before, these statements were taken from the dissenting opinion while the *main* opinion of the USCCR states the opposite. According to Greg Palast (I know, liberal loon) half of those unfairly purged are black. I looked for the Miami Herald's "exhaustive study" but to no avail...so I don't know...

Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 20, 03 | 6:59 am
Thed,

You don't think the USCCR doesn't have an agenda? The fact that even one member stepped forward with facts to the contrary of the report should tell us something.

The report considers ballots being thrown out because of errors made by the voter as disenfanchisement (is that a word?). How coud the tabulation machines know the ballot came from a black voter. Is it anyone's fault but the voter's that their ballot had an error? They weren't deprived of their right to vote, they just misused it.

The USCCR report states "...a disproportionate number of eligible African American voters being removed from the voter registration rolls in error." This doesn't mean more blacks were removed in error than whites. It simply means that as a percentage of the population, blacks were more likely to be removed. A 2 to 1 ratio of whites to blacks is in line with this statement. The USCCR report is intentionally misleading.

What I find interesting in their report is that 31 percent of the "disenfranchised" (read: convicted felons) in Florida are black men. Notice it doesn't say wrongly and it says only MEN. If women are taken into account, I bet that it would get to at least 33 percent and, low and behold, that's 2 to 1. Also the national rate is more than 2 to 1 (36%). The fact that blacks are about 15% of the population and make up 36% of our convicted felons makes it more likely that a black will be disenfranchised than a white.

The report also says that convicted felons should have their right to vote restored upon completing their sentence. I'm not sure I'm okay with this.

How about this from the report: "The state of Florida should institute effective monitoring systems to ensure the uniform implementation of any voting system that allows... an opportunity for the voter to correct his or her ballot..." What? This has to be a joke.

And How about this: "The U.S. Department of Justice should immediately initiate the litigation process against Florida state officials whose list maintenance activities during the 2000 presidential election discriminated against people of color in violation of federal law or resulted in the denial of people of color to have equal access to the political process." It's okay for whites to have their right to vote wrongly removed, but not "people of color."


The police "presence" was covered by the dissenting writer. As Craig stated earlier, anyone who is intimidated by an empty police car (at one polling place) or a check point that wasn't on the same road as the polling place (and handed out more citations to whites than blacks) probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

The dissenting report goes deeper into detail and provides more concrete facts than the USCCR report. As I stated before, the USCCR report is (intentionally?) misleading.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 20, 03 | 7:24 am
Only a loony-tune like Palast would disregard the obvious logicistics of such a racist plot to disenfranchise voters, or consider a goodfaith effort to remove fraudulent voters from the rolls is some kind of shadey conspiracy.
First and foremost; Governor Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris could not have carried-out such a conspiracy alone. They would have needed helpful conspirators, some of whom would have been outraged and would have talked. As conservative as I am, If I learned that the Governor of my state was conspiring to illegally remove voters from the rolls to rig an election, I would go straight to the authorities and the press. Fear of federal civil rights prosecution would override any partisan concerns, plus I personnally want my elected officials to be honest (regardless of political affiliation). This may sound mercenary, but such a whistle-blower would not only change history and be famous, but would be eligible for lucrative book/movie deals. (They'd be rich). There is just no possible way that the Governor of Florida could purposely engage in such a conspiracy to deny some Floridians their right to vote and expect it to remain a secret.

Posted by: Cigarskunk on Nov 20, 03 | 1:19 pm
The problem is that it doesn't work at all. Perhaps it would if we were robots, but unfortunately we are human beings, with all those shitty feelings and stuff...


Nope - the problem is that it does work - it doesn't depend upon human kindness and decency - it actually depends upon greed and the desire for more stuff.

That's the problem with leftist - you guys think that everything is based off of emotion - it's not - there are many things in this world where emotion, feelings, etc have no place or effect over.

If I sell alot of stuff, then the more I sell, the cheaper I can make it - that means that I make more money.

Now, I've got all this money - what am I going to do with it? I'm going to either spend it or invest it of course. Either way, that puts additional money into the economy of where ever I'm spending or investing.

As this money changes more and more hands, overall wealth grows - basic economics - people with money spend it one way or another.

I dedicate this song to you, cigarskunk :

Frogs with dirty little lips, by frank zappa


Sorry, the only frog I find the least bit entertaining is Pepe Le Pew.

I find the Primary's vote suspicious. Why does he mention the primary's compared to general election


The significance of this is that only about 10-20% of actual voters that will participate in the real election will participate in the primaries - this means that those primary votes were going to be significantly lower then the actual votes during the election itself.

A democrat designed it and it's the voters fault if they're too stupid to read a ballot correctly


The Democrats tried to pull a simular stunt this year during the CA recall elections - trying to use thier own incompitence at running elections to change the results when they lose them.

Again, did the Dems go on record as saying this undervotes/overvotes were Gore votes, as opposed to Bush votes?


They made the assumption in thier favor reguardless of what the truth was. While we're on the subject of disenfranchisement, let's also not forget the attempts by the democrats to disqualify legal absentee ballots cast by our soldiers overseas - ballots which they knew would be cast primarily against their candidates. Finally, there's also the issue of several Democrat controlled areas messing with the ballots, not to effect the national election, but simply to effect local elections and ensure continued Democrat control of certain areas - the local Dems hung Gore out to dry for thier own gains.

Perhaps the most entertaining irony of all for the 2000 election though, was the fact that if Moore hadn't been pimping for the Greens, the voters which he'd swung over would have made the difference for Gore - Gore only basically needed ONE more Democrat vote in every FL precient - esentially, Mike Moore "stoled" the election from Gore and handed it to Bush. :D

I've read that blacks typically vote 90% democrat


This is pretty much accurate - the actual number varies from 85-90% depending on region - considering how badly the democrats abuse the black population of America, this has always puzzled me. One thing which does have to be taken into consideration though is that blacks also have a notoriously bad turn out rate - the worst of any group in America - this edge in FL though is mostly neutralised by the heavily pro-Republican (espcially after the incident with Clinton sending that kid back) Cuban immigrant population.

However, the DBT thing with the felon purge list is still questionable. If thousands of legal black voters were unfairly disenfranchised due to in part by actions taken by George & Jeb, then it would be fair to question the legitimacy of Bush's election


If you read the article through, you'd have caught that the purge list affected twice as many whites as blacks. If you are working under the assumption that most of the folks on the list were black (bad liberal - very racist of you) then you would have also noted that the list allowed 6500 illegal votes which would have meant for extra illegal black votes. (see below for details)

But facts are stubborn things. Whites were actually twice as likely as blacks to be erroneously placed on the list. In fact, an exhaustive study by the Miami Herald concluded that "the biggest problem with the felon list was not that it prevented eligible voters from casting ballots, but that it ended up allowing ineligible voters to cast a ballot."* According to the Palm Beach Post, more than 6,500 ineligible felons voted.

to say the responsibility would solely lie on the counties who failed to to verify the lists is a cop-out.


Not in the least bit - do you have any clue how difficult it would be for just one entity/organistation to verify that entire list??? The counties had to verify thier own copies - the list was too large.

First and foremost; Governor Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris could not have carried-out such a conspiracy alone. They would have needed helpful conspirators, some of whom would have been outraged and would have talked.


The fact that 25 of the 26 districts were controlled by Democrats and that the 26th district was controlled by independents would also have to mean that a good chunk of the FL Democratic party leadership and apperatus was also helping Bush - about as likely as Moore admitting that BfC was a total lie and returning his Oscar.

Posted by: Thededalus on Nov 20, 03 | 3:25 pm
JW,

If representing the voting rights of minority voters can be called an agenda, then yes, the USCCR can be said to have an agenda. The question is how objective they are in that representation.

Regarding minority “disenfranchisement” (btw, I looked it up – it is a word after all) I think there are two issues: 1. Were votes of minorities miscast disproportionately due to systemic problems? & 2. Did George & Co. purposefully inflate the size of the felon purge list?

As for the former, if the USCCR’s arguments are valid (and I think some probably are), then the lesson here is to fix the problems. I don’t think the question of the election’s legitimacy hangs on this since neither candidate can be at fault. But you ask if anyone is at fault other than the voter? My answer is yes. It is easy to blame the voters individually and they are partly responsible, but there are two things to consider here. One is bad equipment rejecting what should be good votes and the other is the availability of good equipment. If on average, white neighborhoods have better equipment and polling systems then minority neighborhoods, that would disproportionately “disenfranchise” minority voters.

Let me comment on the whole “disenfranchisement” semantic argument for a moment, as well. I understand the sentiment that it is a strong charge to suggest that miscast votes can be equated to disenfranchisement and I agree to some extent that if the voter does not follow simple instructions then he is largely to blame. However, if the nature of equipment and polling systems disproportionately affects one group versus another, then at the very least it is fair to argue the case that it as disenfranchisement.

You mention that the USCCR report is misleading for claiming that "...a disproportionate number of eligible African American voters being removed from the voter registration rolls in error." You then say, “it simply means that as a percentage of the population, blacks were more likely to be removed.” That is the very meaning of “disproportionate.”
That word should imply that the total number of removed blacks does not outnumber whites. If that was the case, the USCCR would have not have used “disproportionate,” but rather “greater,” which would have translated into a stronger indictment, and since they did not say this, they were not misleading.

Also, consider this: let’s say 100,000 voters are unfairly removed from the voter rolls. Now let’s say that 10,000 of these voters want to vote. Let’s say 3000 are black and 7000 are white. Let’s also assume that 90% of minorities vote Gore and 40% of whites do as well. The result: Gore 5500 & Bush 4500. That would be an extra 1000 votes in Gore’s favor. That might have been the difference in the election. If you change my numbers into more people wanting to vote or to a higher percentage of disenfranchised minorities, you can see how this could have affected the outcome of the race.

You also comment on the disproportionate legal disenfranchisement of convicted felons. I don’t think anyone is debating that. The real matter was who wrongly disenfranchised. Just because a disproportionate number of blacks are convicted felons that doesn’t justify the possibility that an equally or greater disproportionate number of innocent blacks be wrongly removed.

So again if George & Co. did indeed have a role in exaggerating the size of this list and did so with malicious intent then the election’s legitimacy is in question. I am not convinced that they were complicit in this, nor am I convinced to the contrary. As for Craig’s comments, well, this could have been done with the decisions of only a few people with plausible deniability at their side, along with the canned response that verification was the responsibility of the counties. That’s what makes this conspiracy theory possible.

Should convicted felons who have served their sentence be allowed to vote? I don’t know, but I’m inclined to say yes since they have paid their so-called debt to society, but I digress.

As for the right to correct your ballot, do they mean on the spot or after the matter? I agree with the former but not the latter.

I don’t know if it is fair to say that the dissent report is more concrete or has more detail. The main report is much longer and has endnotes. I would also like to see though the exhaustive study of the Miami Herald.

For the record, I also don’t put much stock in the intimidation-by-empty-patrol-cars-bit.



Posted by: Thededalus on Nov 20, 03 | 3:48 pm
The significance of this is that only about 10-20% of actual voters that will participate in the real election will participate in the primaries

You missed my point. I was conjecturing that Buchanan got 4000 points as a potential Republican nominee, as opposed to a Reform nominee. I have sinced verified that this is indeed the case. Maybe primary voters turn out in lower numbers, but they are typically registered Republican who are loyal to their party and are, in my opinion far more likely to have voted for Bush, not Buchanan. My point was that the original author downplayed the significance of Buchanan/butterfly ballot scenario.

This is pretty much accurate - the actual number varies from 85-90% depending on region

I've since read that 93% of blacks in Florida voted for Gore in 2000.

If you read the article through, you'd have caught that the purge list affected twice as many whites as blacks. If you are working under the assumption that most of the folks on the list were black (bad liberal - very racist of you) then you would have also noted that the list allowed 6500 illegal votes which would have meant for extra illegal black votes.

I read the article, thanks. Like you I don't believe everything I read at face value. I never assumed the entire list was Black so quit making assumptions. Finally, even if the ratio was 2 to 1 Black to White, the effect could be more negative to Gore based on Bush based on the higher tendancy of black people to vote for Gore than for white people to vote for Bush.

Not in the least bit - do you have any clue how difficult it would be for just one entity/organistation to verify that entire list???

I'm sure it isn't easy, especially when the list so LARGE. The point remains that IF George & Co. purposefully inflated the list then THAT would be a serious problem.

That's the problem with leftist - you guys think that everything is based off of emotion

Yep, you have us pegged. Good job.

Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 21, 03 | 4:16 am
Thed,

If representing the voting rights of minority voters can be called an agenda, then yes, the USCCR can be said to have an agenda.

No, I mean an agenda like the NAACP. It seems that most "civil rights" organizations march in lock-step with the Dems. Considering the treatment of Judge Janice Rogers Brown by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, I think it's about time they changed their acronym to NACECP, the National Association for the Continuation of Entitlements for Colored People.

I've since read that 93% of blacks in Florida voted for Gore in 2000.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why blacks continue to vote Democrat. To support a party that treats you as THEIR entitlement and buys your votes by supporting legislation that keeps you down; through welfare, public housing, opposition to school vouchers, and the like; is baffling. To me, welfare is the new slavery, the Dems are the slave masters, and public housing is slave quarters.

Posted by: Thededalus on Nov 21, 03 | 5:48 am
JW,

I had to read up on the Judge Janice Rogers Brown issue. I was familiar with the filibuster but not with her specifically. Anyways, the NAACP may not be perfect but their opposition to a conservative black judge doesn't make them hypocritical. It would more hypocritical for them to endorse everyone of color regardless of their idealology.

I honestly don't know why so many people vote Republican, so I guess we're in similar boats, but it's not like we have a lot of good choices out there with only two major parties. The issues over welfare, etc., I think are overdone. I don't see how they keep blacks down, unless you are referring to a lack of incentive to improve your life. I doubt the average black person on welfare living in public housing is content with their situation.

As for Republicans, I don't know. They have a reputation for be being fiscally conservative, but they lately haven't done a good job of managing the budget. They current admin is weak on corporate welfare, campaign finance, environmental protections and other issues that have contributed to an increasing polarization of wealth, which doesn't benefit anybody of any color in the lower class. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Dems have done a bang up job, either, but again, what can you do with only two parties to choose from?
In hindsight, I think we would have been much better off with McCain than Bush or Gore to be honest.

Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 21, 03 | 6:13 am
Thed,

Why does support for the law as laid out by our constitution make one a Conservative? Wouldn't having a black curcuit court judge be an advancement?

You don't see how welfare keeps blacks down? Then how do you explain generation after generation of black families being on welfare? If they aren't content with their situation, why don't they go out and get a job? You don't see how an absence of school vouchers keeps blacks down? Forcing them to attend the educational cess pools that most inner-city schools are is criminal.

The budget is doing a lot better than most people know. It is difficult to manage the budget during economic recession and while we are at war. But as the economy is turning around, so is the budget. Don't be fooled by the Democratic rhetoric regarding the deficit. It is the largest ever in raw dollars, but not the largest ever as a percentage of the GNP. And it is shrinking; tax revenues are up, despite (or because of?) the tax cut. By this time next year, the economy will be booming and Dubya will have been given four more years by a grateful American people.

Posted by: Thededalus on Nov 21, 03 | 6:28 am
JW,

Let me start by thanking you for your thoughtful, objective and unarrogant debate...

I will respond more later so don't go. Meanwhile, I need to pack or I'll miss my flight to Ohio!


Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 21, 03 | 6:39 am
Thed,

I've enjoyed our point-counterpoint. It's good to debate with someone who doesn't resort to name-calling and profanity.

P.S. Good luck on your flight...

Posted by: Craig on Nov 21, 03 | 9:03 am
Yup JW,
I like Thed too. Just because we don't share the same political beliefs, doesn't mean we can't be friend.

I have to agree with him; when it comes to fiscal and domestic policies, I don't really see much difference between Bush and Clinton.
The true distinction lies in foreign policy and the response to terrorism.
The democrats wish to treat terrorism as an issue of justice and law enforcement; hence, their demands that the terrorist combatants held at Guantanamo should recieve legal representation and criminal trials.
If Al Gore had been President during 9/11/2001, I have no doubt that Al Qeida would still be harbored in Afghanistan under the protection of their Taliban hosts and Saddam Hussein would still rule Iraq. In fact, I have no doubt that Gore's response would have included him going hat-in-hand to the UN, making a big speech condemning the terrorists and asking the UN to "bring them to justice" under international law; all followed by the usual collegial UN debate and inaction. This would most likely even result in more, even worse terrorist attacks by even other more emboldened middle east terrorist groups. President Al Gore could then lead even more candle-lit vigils and bask in all the international sympathy and "goodwill" obtained by our renewed victim status. It would be chock full of more Oprah moments for us all.
In his state of the union address, President Gore would inform us about how people in other parts of the world have had to live with terrorism for decades and it is high time that we Americans just get used to it on our shores and just accept it as a fact of life. (...all to the great joy and approval of France and Germany.)

Posted by: Craig on Nov 21, 03 | 9:08 am
So, since Bush has thrown down the gauntlet and chosen to treat middle eastern Terrorists as a foreign military threat which should be dealt with by military means, then I don't care if he lets Sen. Tom Dash-hole write the farm bill and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Chivas) write the education bill, and Sen. Bobby Byrd (D-kkk) name more bridges and roads after himself.

Posted by: NukeChild on Nov 21, 03 | 11:44 am
Clinton's economic policy was simmilar to Bush's because he wanted to take issues away from republicans.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 21, 03 | 12:50 pm
I've really had it with Europeans.
just take a look at THIS:
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=673853

Notice the comments of the scatterbrained Norwiegan woman who:
sent her son off to a foreign country to stay (unsupervised, mind you)
with an unmarried/strange 45 year old man who has previously been accused of child molestation. He wears outlandish clothes, makeup, and has purposely self-mutilated his own face through repeated plastic surguries and bleachings.
Yet,
she is more worried about "the conduct of the American police" than she is about the fact that her son is staying in the home of a weirdo who likes little boys.
FUCKINGDAMMIT!!! How could those people be any MOORE Fucked-up, naive, and stupid???
They are completely BASS-ACKWARDS...to them: evil is good and good is evil...
She's is so damned brainwashed by Michael Moore-type anti-American bullshit that she thinks that our police are more dangerous to her dumbass child than a fucking sick-o child molester is. That woman is just as fucking warped as Jackson and Moore put together.
...and Moore has the utter gall to try and call Americans "ignorant" when the weenie Europeans consider Mumia to be an honorary citizen, Saddam Hussein a trading partner...all while hating George Bush with a purple passion.
I'm through with them...They're a bunch of fucking fools.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 21, 03 | 12:57 pm
Damn! Those people are fucking SICK!
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID+495386

| 1 2 | NEXT page


Add your comments

Click to format text (requires Javascript): Bold | Italic | Link


Characters remaining: Notify you when someone replies to this post?