A Postscript to the "GOP Takes Measures to Suppress Black Vote" Allegation

[Bman]

Several days ago, we had a very contentious debate on this board about allegations in Bob Herbert's column that Florida Police were using allegations of election fraud as a pretext to suppress and intimidate the black vote. I noted that there was no evidence that the investigation was anything but proper and argued that, if there was good reason for an investigation, it should be investigated whether those being investigated are African-American or some other race. It turns out that Herbert was even more full of it then I expected and that the investigation was entirely proper and conducted for good reason.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/blog_8_19_04_1112.html

[nathanielmark]

I find it interesting that the biggest advocates of this "real clear politics" are from the washington times, WSJ Op/ED and the Weekly Standard... this piece does nothing to clear the issue up one way or the other.

[Bman]

It absolutely does. It notes the basis for the investigation, past suspicion of vote fraud by the person being investigated, it notes the affidavits that votes were falsified, it notes that white organizations have been investigated as well. This was a pretty exhaustive link-filled post. I don't think you can dismiss it simply by noting the ideological leanings of the site.

[Bman]

Oh, and the fact that there was enough evidence for the voting fraud allegations for a judge to allow a lawsuit on the matter to go forward. Remember, we're not debating whether the voting fraud allegations are true. We're simply debating whether there is enough evidence for the police to begin an investigation without being tarred as racists attempting to suppress the black vote. There demonstrably was.

[nathanielmark]

you could argue that this article tilts the facts the very same way herberts column does...

[The ZAPINATOR]

Context is indeed everything.  Herbert should be ashamed, but of course he won't be.  Some people will stoop to any level to ensure that Bush is not re-elected.  That's half the reason I am very, very wary before I take claims against the President seriously, and need to see hard evidence to do so.  I think you and I are on the same page on this.

ZAP

[The ZAPINATOR]

Context is indeed everything.  Herbert should be ashamed, but of course he won't be.  Some people will stoop to any level to ensure that Bush is not re-elected.  That's half the reason I am very, very wary before I take claims against the President seriously, and need to see hard evidence to do so.  I think you and I are on the same page on this.

ZAP

Oh yeah... not to mention the fact that the president was not directly mentioned in connection with this by anyone but Jeffjoe, but of course that's the reaction they were hoping to get from the rank and file... "he's trying to steal the election all over again, just like last time!"

ZAP

[Bman]

You could argue that. But Herbert's column contained no facts. It simply noted an investigation, invoked some of the truly vile racially-based voting restrictions in American history, and inferred that the same thing happened here. This article on the other hand, explains the background of the election in question, the fact that money was paid to the person collecting absentee ballots, the fact that dozens of affidavits have been collected to the effect that the votes were falsified, the fact that the person in question has been investigated before, the fact that a mostly white union is also being investigated, and the fact that the police are selecting from the 264 absentee ballots in question at random to try and confirm or squelch the allegations of wrongdoing. The two pieces are not at the same level of factual inclusion. They don't even belong in the same planet.

you could argue that this article tilts the facts the very same way herberts column does...

[nathanielmark]

well i emailed it to him for kicks.

[nathanielmark]

these things you mention are, indeed, facts.

You could argue that. But Herbert's column contained no facts. It simply noted an investigation, invoked some of the truly vile racially-based voting restrictions in American history, and inferred that the same thing happened here. This article on the other hand, explains the background of the election in question, the fact that money was paid to the person collecting absentee ballots, the fact that dozens of affidavits have been collected to the effect that the votes were falsified, the fact that the person in question has been investigated before, the fact that a mostly white union is also being investigated, and the fact that the police are selecting from the 264 absentee ballots in question at random to try and confirm or squelch the allegations of wrongdoing. The two pieces are not at the same level of factual inclusion. They don't even belong in the same planet.

you could argue that this article tilts the facts the very same way herberts column does...