Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I was just clicking links and I found THIS

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 7, 2012, 11:02 p.m. EST by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Banana Republicans: Block the Vote - From SourceWatch

"Block the Vote" is the title of chapter five of the 2004 book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing Is Turning America Into a One-Party State (ISBN 1585423424).

In the face of overwhelming rejection from African-American and other minority voters, Republicans have adopted a two-tiered strategy:

  1. token efforts at symbolic inclusion, aimed primarily at soothing the conscience of white voters, many of whom want to see themselves as supporters of a racially inclusive party; and
  2. efforts to minimize the number and influence of black votes.

One strategy to suppress black votes has been to run negative campaign ads that accuse Democrats of racism. If blacks cannot be persuaded to vote Republican, the goal is to make them cynical enough that they won't bother to vote at all. A similar effort to suppress the black vote has been linked to black preacher Al Sharpton's campaign in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary. Sharpton postured as a radical firebrand, accusing other Democratic candidates such as Howard Dean of racial bias. Roger J. Stone, a longtime Republican operative, told the New York Times that he had been behind several of Sharpton's most visible campaign tactics, including scrutiny of Dean's record of minority appointees when he was governor of Vermont.

Perhaps the most striking recent example of voter suppression came in the 2000 presidential election, where a slim margin of 537 votes in Florida gave George W. Bush the votes in the electoral college that he needed to claim victory over Al Gore. (Nationwide, Gore won the popular vote by 543,614 votes.)

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), produced a report in June 2001 titled "Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election." The report concluded, "Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic." The USCCR found that African-American voters were at least ten times more likely to have their ballots rejected than other voters and that 83 of the 100 precincts with the most disqualified ballots had black majorities.

More --->

43 Comments

43 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

The Kochs want segregated schools.

That should tell everyone where the rightwing is headed.

Backwards is the answer, for you slow-learners from the right.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1980) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

See Frontline tonight!! "The Choice" about Obama V Romney, pass it around

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Try not to spam the site with pro establishment propaganda.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (1980) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Frontline?

That's right, to the RW, information and clarification is spam.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Debating Romney v Obama is only validating these two pathetic leaders.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

So now we are using entertainers are a judge of worthiness?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1980) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26867) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hey they're doin a hell of a job sellin greed on wallstreet and mittens is really pounding away the points for lying.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26867) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And he is so clueless - he thinks he needs some GoldBond and perhaps some antibiotics.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6717) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If Romney is able to appoint 4 Justices over the next eight years, that would put the Court at 7-2 for the next thirty years, it is really scary to think how far they would let the GOP go down this road.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Did you read the recent issue of the NATION - all on SCOTUS
really scary. Do you know this did not start with reagan -
it started with the "Powell memo"

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1980) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Earth Day - Lewis Powell Memo - John Birch Society - Milton Friedman Chicago School of economics - Nixon and all his men - Chile - Shock Doctrine - ALEC - Heritage - RayGun and all Nixon's men - 1% Class War on the 99% - disenfranchisement - Crab Mentality - disinformation - political impotence - bankruptcy - dynasty - Wage Slavery.

We need to vote.

See Frontline tonight!! "The Choice" about Obama V Romney, pass it around

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6717) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

No and I can't find the story on their website but will keep looking.

Though Powell’s memo was not the sole influence, the Chamber and corporate activists took his advice to heart and began building a powerful array of institutions designed to shift public attitudes and beliefs over the course of years and decades

I have know for a long time it is the US Camber of Commerce that is the real enemy of freedom in this country.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/

All through the eighties I watched and studied how they rolled out their new way of thinking watching it shape the people I knew well. I know that there is a cure a counter thought process, but I don't have any "outlets" but who knows, one thing I've learned is if you've thought of it, then somebody else has too most likely, and well maybe people will start thinking for them-self's and stop thinking what they been told to think someday.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

one of the NATION articles is on our site
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

click documents
scroll down to document #25
Powell memo is #22
many other docs & polls
plus 70+ videos

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6717) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thanks for the link this is a great resource, I really like in #25 where they talk about the "Robert's Court" I do think it is important for us to do that, also in the actual "Powell memo" early on he starts to talk about "land owners" this is always the struggle, he was speaking in a time when the concentration was just beginning again after the post war middle class boom and the wealthy were just starting to tweak the rules, they have been very successful.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Thanks for looking at our site
Any ideas for other citizens united / corporate personhood data
we should add ?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6717) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I keep meaning to spend more time there, to see if I could add anything, getting anything done on it will depend a lot on the makeup of the next congress, I fear this will be a multi-year effort maybe even multi-election and the power of the corporate spending, this time it was unfocused, they had no ideal this would be given to them but in two years they will be good at this, I think the only chance we have is to break the mindset created by the Powell memo (like how I worked that in?) can it be done? will it be done?????

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

2012: anti-political OWS blew this opportunity
2014 : our primary goal must be ELECTING
20-40 pro amendment, anti-norquist people in the house,
3-5 in the senate


If willard wins, and senate goes to 50R, thats the end - McConnel will end the filibuster


tiny glimmer of hope
senate ND & CT & MA & VA are doing ok

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6717) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

looks like 11 toss ups, 4 Rs and 7 Ds not bad considering the Ds are 23-10 this year

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

This is not surprising to me at all. Just typical R dirty politics. An act of desperation. You think the KKK is not partially represented in the R party? Think again.

[-] -1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

When the KKK was founded, it was southern Dems. Remember Geo Wallace,. Lester Maddux , Strom Thurmond. I know, KKK started before they were born, but Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN. Not sure how the D's have become the party of minorities, really.

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Exactly because Lincoln was a Republican, the South was Democratic for a very long time until Johnson got the Civil Rights Act passed and signed in 1964. When that happened, Southern Dems fled the party to the Repubs like chickens from a burning hen house. As for Lincoln, he was the very 1st Republican president. The R party was brand new then, and thus had some progressive ideas in it like, say, freeing the slaves for example.

[-] 0 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

Interesting....but the R party passed LBJ's Great Society Agenda. THEY pushed it and controlled Congress. Google it

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I Googled it. Read this link, the first paragraph of which is reproduced below.

Civil rights

In conjunction with the civil rights movement, Johnson overcame southern resistance and convinced the Democratic-Controlled Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed most forms of racial segregation. John F. Kennedy originally proposed the civil rights bill in June 1963.[46] In late October 1963, Kennedy officially called the House leaders to the White House to line up the necessary votes for passage.[47][48] After Kennedy's death, Johnson took the initiative in finishing what Kennedy started and broke a filibuster by Southern Democrats in March 1964; as a result, this pushed the bill for passage in the Senate.[49] Johnson signed the revised and stronger bill into law on July 2, 1964.[49] Legend has it that, as he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation", anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party. Moreover, Richard Nixon politically counterattacked with the Southern Strategy where it would "secure" votes for the Republican Party by grabbing the advocates of segregation as well as most of the Southern Democrats.[50]

[-] 1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 1 year ago

You do understand that the "southern resistance" LbJ faced were DEMOCRATS. Not sure how old your are, but does George Wallace, Lester Maddux, Strom Thurmond ring a bell? Until Nixon, Democrats were the known as racists. The Repubs were still basking in Honest Abe's light. After the civil war until the 70's, the Democrats were the segragationists, bigots and KKK members.

Your little google blurb above just reinforces my statements. Course, you have to have some knowledge of American History to see this. GIven that Libs own the schools, I'd imagine they are some how glossing over about 100 yrs (little less than HALF) the history of this country. I really don't know what caused minorities to embrace the Dems when I was in high school. I had much more importantf things to worry about as a teenager :-)

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

I am 57, and thus grew up in the 60s and well remember Wallace, Maddux, etc., although I admit to being a bit young at the time to fully understand the racism they stood for. I think you and I are misunderstanding and/or miscommunicating with each other. Yes, the racists (KKK) were in the Dem before they fled to the Repubs after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But it was a Democratically-Controlled Congress that worked with LBJ to get it passed (you said it was a Republican congress). LBJ was Dem, Congress was Dem. The southern Dems (Dixiecrats) looked at the CRA as an act of betrayal and thus fled to the Repubs where they have been ever since.

[-] 0 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 1 year ago

The Dems had the House, Reps had the Senate. The dems were the ones that fillibustered the bill. From Wikipedia: By party

The original House version:[16] Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%) Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[17] Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%) Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[16] Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%) Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16] Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%) Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

I will concede I never considered that some dems became reps afterwards, but the Reps were more supportive than the Dems, overall. I don't think the exodus was enough to say the reps were subverted by racist dems. The reps get a bad rap. If anything, they are anti welfare and somehow that has been twisted into racism.

[-] 0 points by gsw (2697) 2 years ago

Another good book brought to our attention from ZD- Thanks ZD

http://www.prwatch.org/books/bananas.html

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 2 years ago

I was just reading an article in time magazine, red truth blue truth, by Alex Altman oct 15, that it is very hard to get a person's ideas to change, when they hold political preconceptions, even when they are told something is not true, like bush tax cuts increased treasury revenue, they will not accept the facts as legitimate- revenue decreased.

I think we have to get to the people real information when they are young and are open to thinking and learning, such as at universities, or before.

Maybe that is why repubs worry that teletubies push policy., etc.,

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And there it is in black & white.

Bastards

[-] -2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

I cannot find the words to express the reality that has not changed in over 2000 years! This present nation was not founded on equality for all men, women, races or cultures. It was created for the betterment of the Pale skin male domination and rulership! Why keep sweeping that fact under the rug? Once everyone comes to that understanding, we can forge ahead with a better vision and creation of a better future!

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

When the USA was founded only white men (mostly rich white men) could vote. No women, blacks, Native Americans. Revolution was fought so that these rich white men could practice unregulated capitalism free from the burden of British taxation. It was NOT fought for social reasons, but economic ones.

[-] -1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Huh? The problems of this country are purely economical and social. One cannot separate the two....try and you are in for a shocker. Social inequality paves the way for lack of economic power. The pale skin of America knew this, and now all of America is suffering for that very reason. Why are you all ashamed to admit what they did? These social problems existed here long before the "alleged" British were ever on the battle field on these shores. social is defined as relating to human society and its modes of organization as well as how communities live and function together. Please get your facts straight.... There were over 30,000 "social" tribes on these shores before anyone ever thought of the 13 colonies....Read Benjamin Franklin writings for example.. What you all fail to realize is that the problems of how this country was allegedly founded and developed, is the very same fabric of the problems that exist to this day.
Economic combined with social INEQUALITY! It is the basis for the lack of all of the rulers disregard of equal humane fundamentals in life!

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I think you might have misinterpreted/misunderstood what I said. I basically agree with you that there was social injustice during the founding of this country by reason of the fact that the rich whites who started the revolution were concerned about breaking away from England to get away from taxation (mostly) so they could practice what amounted to unregulated capitalism, and the (R)ich whites of today still want to do more or less the same thing (want to practice un(R)egulated Ayn Randian capitalism). It is a philosophical business tenet that they all worship both now and back in 1776. The social aspect was a secondary consideration, or else there would have been a greater emphasis on freedoms for all classes and races of people (women, blacks, native Americans, etc.). But the US Constitution did not provide those equalities until MUCH later because the society of their day really only recognized whites (primarily agrarian white land owners) as the rightful voter citizen, otherwise ALL would have been able to vote right from the beginning.

[-] 0 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Oh, in that case, I must say that I appreciate the clarification of your statements. I concur, back off and will take into consideration all that you have stated, which by the way was very good, I must admit....