Florida Pubbies Push Harris Under the Bus! Snoopy Happy Dance!

[Squink]

[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
A blog, by definition, is commentary, not evidence.
[/QUOTE]
No, a blog is a web log. Where did you find that definition? (facts only please)
Wiki on blogs:

A weblog, which is usually shortened to blog, is a type of website where entries are made (such as in a journal or diary), displayed in a reverse chronological order.

Blogs often provide commentary or news on a particular subject, such as food, politics, or local news; some function as more personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to its topic. Most blogs are primarily textual although many focus on photograph (photoblog), videos (vlog), or audio (podcasting).

While a blog may contain commentary, there is no rule, law that it must only contain such.

[Carol_Stream]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
No, it isn’t, Carol.

Yes, it’s commentary. My freakin cat could post a blog. That’s the thing, anyone can. Doesn’t make it news, let alone evidence.

Please bear in mind that her conduct might have been criminal even if it wasn’t illegal.
[/QUOTE]

How is that, exactly? In order for conduct to be criminal, it has to be illegal, right? Please explain further.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
How is that, exactly? In order for conduct to be criminal, it has to be illegal, right? Please explain further.
[/QUOTE]

As a lawyer, I agree. As a citizen, I say it’s not that simple. Kathleen Harris has betrayed the republic by her dishonesty, even if she has done so by means the law allowed.

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s a recent article by a journalist who went on the bus with the Katherine Harris campaign. Seems kinda . . . surreal.

[Carol_Stream]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Here’s a recent article by a journalist who went on the bus with the Katherine Harris campaign. Seems kinda . . . surreal.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that’s surreal alright–the author’s creepy descriptions, that is.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Yeah, that’s surreal alright–the author’s creepy descriptions, that is.
[/QUOTE]

From what I know of Harris, it’s shoe that fits like she’s been wearing it five years.

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
From what I know of Harris, it’s shoe that fits like she’s been wearing it five years.
[/QUOTE]

Ruby. Belonged to her sister.

[jayjay]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Ruby. Belonged to her sister.
[/QUOTE]

bows before Luci

That was worth the $7.50 I spent on my subscription this year…

[Carol_Stream]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
From what I know of Harris, it’s shoe that fits like she’s been wearing it five years.
[/QUOTE]

Well, here’s the root of our difference of opinion, I think.

Do you consider Mr. Elliot’s commentary on www.progressive.org to be “news” or “factual”?

Obviously, I do not.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Do you consider Mr. Elliot’s commentary on www.progressive.org to be “news” or “factual”?

Obviously, I do not.
[/QUOTE]

I see nothing by Elliott on the (front) page you linked. As for his article on the Harris campaign, it rings true to me – what reason do you see to doubt it?

[Carol_Stream]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I see nothing by Elliott on the (front) page you linked. As for his article on the Harris campaign, it rings true to me – what reason do you see to doubt it?
[/QUOTE]

Um, I was refering to you own link in post # 44. Sorry I wasn’t clear.

I don’t accept that Elliott’s statements support the claim that Ms. Harris acted illegally in regards to the election.

You asked why I doubt it, but what reason to do you have to believe that they do?

[Evil_Captor]

[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Is there any factual information to indicate that Ms. Harris’ “conduct of the 2000 election was illegal in some respects”?
[/QUOTE]

Sorry to be so long in getting back to you. Here’s a quote from Greg Palast’s article on the topic, it originally ran in Harper’s Magazine, which wasn’t a blog last time I checked:

THE GREAT FLORIDA EX-CON GAME

How the ‘felon’ voter-purge was itself felonious

Harper’s Magazine

@Greg Palast

… Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 “ex-felons,” who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls.

Two of these “scrub lists,” as officials called them, were distributed to counties in the months before the election with orders to remove the voters named. Together the lists comprised nearly 1 percent of Florida?s electorate and nearly 3 percent of its African-American voters. Most of the voters (such as “David Butler,” (1); a name that appears 77 times in Florida phone books) were selected because their name, gender, birthdate and race matched - or nearly matched - one of the tens of millions of ex-felons in the United States. Neither DBT nor the state conducted any further research to verify the matches. DBT, which frequently is hired by the F.B.I. to conduct manhunts, originally proposed using address histories and financial records to confirm the names, but the state declined the cross-checks. In Harris’s (bolding mine - EC) elections office files, next to DBT’s sophisticated verification plan, there is a hand-written note: “DON’T NEED.”

…After the election, Harris (bolding mine - EC) and her elections chief Clay Roberts, testified under oath that verifying the lists was solely the work of county supervisors. But the Florida-DBT contract (marked “Secret” and ?Confidential?) holds DBT responsible for ?manual verification using telephone calls.? in fact, with the state’s blessing, DBT did not call a single felon.

Of the "matches’ on these lists, the civil-rights commission estimated that at least 14 percent - or 8,000 voters, nearly 15 times Bush’s official margin of victory - were false. … Last May, Florida’s legislature barred Harris (bolding mine - EC) from using outside firms to build the purge list and ordered her to seek guidance from county elections officials. In defiance, Harris has rebuffed the counties and hired another firm, just in time for Jeb Bush’s reelection fight this fall.

At www.GregPalast.com you can read and subscribe to Greg Palast’s London Observer columns and view his reports for BBC Television’s Newsnight.

Here’s the url for the full story. It’s pretty good: one registrar declined to use the purge list because she found her own name erroneously listed on it!

This activity sounds enough like vote-rigging to me to justify a thorough investigation, but ain’t gonna happen with the Feds and the Florida cops so thoroughly under Pubbie control, which is why the Pubbies really can’t AFFORD to allow any more fair elections in America. Harris is far from the only official to be looking at time in the slammer if the Pubbies lose control of the cops.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Um, I was refering to you own link in post # 44. Sorry I wasn’t clear.

I don’t accept that Elliott’s statements support the claim that Ms. Harris acted illegally in regards to the election.

You asked why I doubt it, but what reason to do you have to believe that they do?
[/QUOTE]

Don’t try to tell me it’s news to you that Katherine Harris is a sleazy creep! Quite apart from her role in the 2000 election! You don’t live in Florida, do you?! Try this.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
I don’t accept that Elliott’s statements support the claim that Ms. Harris acted illegally in regards to the election.
[/QUOTE]

So? The article is about Harris’ current campaign. It hardly even mentions the 2000 election, except for this bit:

I drove with Katherine between Inglis and Gainesville. I asked her point blank about the election of 2000. “I talked to my husband,” she said. “He told me it was simple. I just had to act with extraordinary integrity. So that’s what I did.”

“Really?” I asked, thinking back on Republican mobs shaking buildings where votes were being counted.

“I sleep so well at night,” she replied.

And that, like the rest of the article, rings true to me and should ring true to you. That is, it’s not true that Harris acted with extraordinary or with any integrity 2000, but I have no trouble believing she would say that to a reporter. Perhaps she even believes it herself.

Don’t forget, this is the woman who:

1. Became the co-chair of W’s campaign in Florida while already serving as Secretary of State, responsible for running the elections.

2. Hired a private company to compile a purge list of “ineligible voters,” at least 15% of whom – some 57,700, mostly blacks and mostly Dems – were included erroneously and had never been convicted of a felony in Florida, or had done so and had had their right to vote restored.

3. Participated actively in Pub efforts to stop the manual recount.

Now, maybe there’s nothing in there that could be charged against Harris as a crime, but “integrity” it was not.

[BrainGlutton]

And now Harris’ Pub opponents in the primary are asking her to drop out of the race for the good of the party.

[kaylasdad99]

@Brain Glutton

2. Hired a private company to compile a purge list of “ineligible voters,” at least 15% of whom – some 57,700, mostly blacks and mostly Dems – were included erroneously and had never been convicted of a felony in Florida, or had done so and had had their right to vote restored.

There might be a slight clarity-related problem with the numbers in this statement. Iread that approximately 57.7K names were purged, with later investigation revealing that about 15%, or approximately 8K, were purged in error.

Your wording looks like a claim that >57,000 names were later found to be improperly removed.

Just a housekeeping nitpick, and not intended to detract from the severity of the bullet point.

I am, or course, open to correction on my nitpick.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Your wording looks like a claim that >57,000 names were later found to be improperly removed.
[/QUOTE]

That’s how I read the Wikipedia article linked, but other sources, e.g. Greg Palast in Harper’s, report that 57,700 was the total number of names on the list. Ignorance smashed!

[Evil_Captor]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
That’s how I read the Wikipedia article linked, but other sources, e.g. Greg Palast in Harper’s, report that 57,700 was the total number of names on the list. Ignorance smashed!
[/QUOTE]

The really important caveat being that the total number of names that were wrongly disqualified – about 8000 by Civil Rights Commission estimates – were 15 times Bush’s official margin of victory. In short, that alone sufficed to steal the Presidential election.

Gore should be President, Harris should be in a jail cell.

[Carol_Stream]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Now, maybe there’s nothing in there that could be charged against Harris as a crime, but “integrity” it was not.
[/QUOTE]

Backpedal much? In post #32 you said she was a criminal. Which is it?

[elucidator]

Boy, she got you there! Whatever she may be, she hasn’t been charged, or convicted, of anything! Ha! Boy, she sure got you good that time! Why, your whole case falls apart!

Mine doesn’t, of course, but yours is toast.