Evidence? We Don't Want
Your Stinkin' Evidence!
January 24, 2006
By Ernest Partridge, The
Like biologists with evolution and atmospheric scientists with
global climate change, those who warn us that our elections have
been stolen and will be stolen again must now be wondering, "just
how much evidence must it take to make our case and to convince
enough of the public to force reform and secure our ballots?"
The answer, apparently, is no amount - no amount, that is, until
more minds are opened. And that is more than a question of evidence,
it is a question of collective sanity.
In his new
book Fooled Again, Mark Crispin Miller not only presents
abundant evidence that the 2004 election was stolen, but in addition
he examines the political, social, and media environment which made
this theft possible.
When I first read the book immediately after its publication,
I confess that I was a bit disappointed. What I had hoped to find
was a compendium of evidence, from front to back. To be sure, Miller
gives us plenty of evidence, meticulously documented. But evidence
tells us that the election was stolen. Miller goes beyond that to
explain how and why it was stolen, and how the culprits have managed,
so far, to get away with it.
So on second reading, I find that it was my expectation and not
Miller's book that was flawed. We have evidence aplenty, to be found
in John Conyers' report,
and the new
book by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, in addition to the
Black Box Voting website
others. Soon to be added is Prof. Steven Freeman's book on the
statistical evidence of election fraud. What we don't gain from
these sources is an understanding and appreciation of the context
in which this crime was committed. This we learn from reading Miller's
If, in fact, the last two presidential elections have been stolen,
and if in addition there is a preponderance of evidence to support
this claim, then this is the most significant political news in
the 230 year history of our republic.
So what is the response of the allegedly "opposing"
party to the issue of election fraud? Virtual silence. And of the
news media? More silence. Case in point: the media response to Mark
Crispin Miller's Fooled Again. As he reports:
"There have been no national reviews of Fooled Again.
No network or cable TV show would have the author on to talk about
the book. NPR has refused to have him on... Only one daily newspaper
the Florida Sun-Sentinel has published a review."
Force the question of election fraud and demand an answer, and
the most likely response will be a string of ad hominem insults
"sore losers," "paranoid," "conspiracy
theorists" - attacks on the messenger and a dismissal of the
message. We've heard them, many times over.
Persist, and you might get as a reply, not evidence that the elections
were honest and valid (there is very little of that), but rather
some rhetorical questions as to the attitudes and motives of the
alleged perpetrators and to the practical difficulties of their
successfully accomplishing a stolen national election. Questions
such as these:
- How could the GOP campaign managers believe that they could
get away with a stolen election?
- Why would they dare risk failure, and the subsequent criminal
indictments and dissolution of their party?
- What could possibly motivate them to subvert the foundations
of our democracy?
The answer to the first two questions is essentially the same:
they believed and they dared because they controlled the media and
thus the message. Miller's sub-text throughout his book is that
the great electoral hijack has been accomplished with the cooperation,
one might even say the connivance, of the mainstream media, without
which the crime could never have succeeded.
Immediately following the election, the critics were shouted down
with such headlines as these: "Election paranoia surfaces;
Conspiracy theorists call results rigged" (Baltimore Sun),
"Internet Buzz on Vote Fraud is dismissed" (Boston
Globe), "Latest Conspiracy Theory Kerry Won
Hits the Ether" (Washington Post), and in the "flagship"
newspaper, the New York Times: "Vote Fraud Theories,
Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried." (Miller, 38.)
Even more damaging than the slanted "reports" in the
media, was the silence. The Conyers investigations? Ignored. The
scholarly statistical analyses of exit poll discrepancies? Ignored.
Evidence that Bush cheated in the debates with a listening device?
Dismissed. The recent GAO report on e-voting vulnerabilities, and
the Florida demonstration hacking of computer vote compilation?
Ignored. And most appalling of all: the media blackout last week
of Al Gore's eloquent speech, warning of the threat to our Constitution
and our liberties posed by the Bush regime.
And all this merely scratches the surface of media malpractice.
For more, read the book.
The motivation to steal the election, says Miller, combined religious
(or quasi-religious) dogma and self-righteousness and a perception
of the opposing Democratic party, not as the loyal opposition, but
as the enemy - deserving not defeat, but annihilation. ("You
are either with us or against us," says Bush). Together, this
adds up to what Miller calls "The Requisite Fanaticism."
It is not "conservatism" that impelled the theft
of the election, nor was it merely greed or the desire for power
per se... The movement now in power is not entirely explicable
in such familiar terms... The project here is ultimately pathological
and essentially anti-political, albeit Machiavellian on a scale,
and to a degree, that would have staggered Machiavelli. The
aim is not to master politics, but to annihilate it. Bush, Rove,
DeLay, Ralph Reed, et al. believe in "politics" in
the same way that they and their corporate beneficiaries believe
in "competition." In both cases, the intention is
not to play the game but to end it because the game requires
some tolerance of the Other, and tolerance is precisely what
these bitter-enders most despise... (Miller 81-2.)
Reiterating a theme that is prominent in his writing, Miller points
out that the psychological pathology most conspicuously at work
in the right's demolition of politics is projection: the attribution
in "the enemy" of one's own moral depravity:
The Bushevik, so full of hate, hates politics, and would get
rid of it; and yet he is himself expert at dirty politics: an
expertise that he regards as purely imitative and defensive.
Because his enemies, he thinks, are all "political"
dishonest, ruthless, cynical, unprincipled he
is thereby "forced" to be "political" as
well, in order to "fight fire with fire." As we have
seen, this paranoid conviction of the Other's perfidy suffuses
and impels the propaganda campaigns of the right, and it was
especially important in Bush/Cheney's drive to steal the last
election. Indeed it was their firm conviction that they had
to steal the race, in order to frustrate the Democrats' attempt
to do it first. (Miller, 82.)
This is just a brief sampling of Miller's astute political and
psychological analysis of the "why" and the "how"
of the stolen elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004. That analysis, which
takes up about a third of the book (Chapters 3 and 4), adds an invaluable
dimension to our understanding of the political disaster that has
befallen our Republic, and that analysis suggests guidelines in
the struggle to avoid the theft of the upcoming elections of 2006
I have written
at length about what might be done if we are to restore the
ballot box to the voters. These crucial steps come immediately to
mind, as I read Miller's Fooled Again.
Briefly, we need a media, we need an opposition party, we need
an aroused public, and we need a miracle. But take heart: history
tells us that political crises have a way of producing miracles.
The mainstream media (MSM) must be discredited and an alternative
media established in its place. The internet offers a voice to an
opposition that is excluded from the mainstream, and a few independent
publications and broadcasts remain, however feeble in comparison
to the MSM. If a sizeable portion of the public deserts the mainstream,
and directly informs the publishers and broadcasters why they are
doing so, the media, and particularly their sponsors and advertisers,
will take notice. Recently, some of the media have become more critical
of the Bush regime and the GOP Congress, but it is, by and large,
too little and too late.
So either the commercial media must resume the role of watchdog
of government power, as intended by Jefferson and Madison, or it
must be made irrelevant. The Russian dissidents late in the Soviet
era have given us an example: if you have no media, create one,
even if it is suppressed by the government. It was called "Samizdat"
a painstaking process of typing several carbon copies of
forbidden manuscripts on condition that the recipients would do
likewise. Similarly, the Iranian dissidents during the reign of
the Shah copied and distributed audio tapes of revolutionary speeches.
In the computer age, there are huge advantages: Internet publication
and, f the Internet is taken from us, CDs and minidiscs. For now,
the Internet is our Samizdat.
The Democratic party is the only potentially effective opposition
party in sight. But at the moment, it is a toothless tiger. We must
tell that party that it must either lead the struggle to restore
electoral integrity or step aside. When the Clintons, Cantwells,
Liebermans and Feinsteins run for re-election, they must be opposed
in the primaries by authentic progressives. Even if those progressives
lose, but with a creditable showing, the "establishment"
Democrats will nonetheless get the message. Next time you get a
solicitation notice from the DNC or the Senate or Congressional
Campaign Committees, tell them "no dice" unless they deal
with the election fraud issue. Then tell them that instead of a
contribution, you are purchasing Miller's book and donating it to
the local library.
As for the public, remember that more than half the public is
awake, aware, and opposed to the Bush regime. Of these, a small
but significant minority is convinced that election fraud is a serious
problem. But that dissenting public lacks a voice, cohesion and
leadership. This is a recipe for potentially sudden change: like
fuel and oxygen, lacking the third necessity heat of ignition.
A message, from a Tom Paine or a Jefferson, or leadership from a
Washington, a Gandhi, a Mandela or a Sakharov, can ignite the fire
that will consume this evil regime. Or not. That depends on whether
concerned citizens sit by and wait for others to act, or instead
take some initiative and join the struggle writing to Congress,
talking to any and all associates that will listen and perhaps a
few that won't, contributing to alternative media, copying and distributing
dissenting essays, and generally raising hell.
And finally, miracles: they are, by nature, unpredictable. Some
possibilities: A few corporate and financial elites will finally
come to realize that where Bush is leading, they don't want to follow,
and they will join the opposition. (There are a few intimations
of this already). Similarly, perhaps a few journalists, and even
some Republicans, will finally if belatedly decide that they would
prefer not to live in a dictatorship. Bushenomics is bound to lead
to an economic collapse that is certain to wake up the public. And
even now, some state Attorney General or some District Attorney
may be preparing an indictment for election fraud against an e-vote
company executive that could break this conspiracy wide open.
But don't wait for miracles to happen make them happen.
If we are to take back our country, we must first take back our
vote. Mark Crispin Miller's book will tell you what has happened,
how and why it has happened, and what must be done about it.
Will we, the people, take up the challenge? On that question rests
the fate of our republic, of our liberties, and of "our lives,
our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in
the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He publishes
the website, The
Online Gadfly and co-edits the progressive website, The
Crisis Papers. He is at work on a book, Conscience of a
Progressive, which can be seen in-progress here.
Send comments to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Crisis Papers Archive