Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
|This topic is archived.|
|Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform|
|Peace Patriot (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore||Sat Mar-12-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
|15. "why is election fraud in 2004 such a non-starter for discussion...|
...among progressive activists? Why no urgency?" -- omega minimo
Well, I think that election fraud IS a topic of discussion among SOME progressive activists--but I know what you mean: There is a perception that it isn't. But possibly we're all too influenced by what the media creates as reality--even leftist media. I think election fraud is probably much more of a topic of discussion than anyone realizes. Certainly the PRESUMPTION of election fraud is--whether it's being talked about or not--in some cases, a silent, sullen, angry, depressed realization.
As for the news monopoly picture of what progressive activists are talking about--how to bend over and get whipped by BushCon fascists, how to become more rightwing, how to "respond" to Bush's "mandate": although it is wholly manipulated, we can't dismiss it as an influence on what progressives think of THEMSELVES. They tell us that no one is talking about election fraud--or rather, they create that as the reality by the big black hole that election fraud has become (non-starter, to the news monopolies). And we believe them, or some part of us believes them. (Many of us are plugged into their delusion, despite ourselves.)
And in LEFTIST media there is a split--between the Al Franken types who take their cue from the DNC (AND the internationalist leftists, like Amy Goodman, for whom fascist rule in the US is a given, and election fraud is just a symptom, so they don't much talk about it), on the one hand--and Randi Rhodes types on the other, who still believe in the Constitution, and expect things to be fair and just, and when they aren't, get really mad.
In my experience, the Randi Rhodes types tend to be far more intellectually rigorous than the Al Franken types. In fact, my internal phrase for Al Franken, whenever I think of him, is "the flabby brained one."
But, actually, I think the problem with the Al Franken types is far more serious than an inability to absorb facts and to think them through. The problem is who they're getting their information and opinions from and who they are allied with: the Democratic Party leaders who, a) support war in the Mideast, and b) permitted an egregiously fraudulent election SYSTEM--with BushCon electronic voting machine companies counting all our votes in SECRET (or not counting them)--with not a whisper of objection.
There is a parallel between what happened with the Democratic leadership on the Iraq war and on 2004 election fraud.
In the lead-up to the Iraq war--after Paul Wellstone was killed, and in the general time period of the anthrax attacks on Democratic Congressmen--the true facts about Iraq WMDs and Iraq and 9/11 were actually quite well known. The UN weapons inspectors knew them. The US and British intelligence communities knew them. France knew them. Germany knew them. Russia knew them. China knew them. Indeed, the entire world--except for the US news monopolies and the general American public--knew that Saddam had no WMDs and had nothing to do with 9/11.
And all of these entities--within and outside of the US--also knew that Saddam was a US client (personally visited by Rumsfeld who gave the nod to chemical weapons, supplied by US companies, being used against the Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war, in the '80s), that Iraq was decimated by the first Persian Gulf war, and that UN weapons inspectors had completed the task, and had utterly crippled any ability of Iraq to cause trouble anywhere. Furthermore, Saddam was not about to let Iraq become a hotbed of Islamic terrorism--he was a secularist and a dictator. Iraq was the least likely place in the Islamic world to have any Al Q activity.
So when this matter--the Iraq war resolution--came before Congress, the Democratic Senators and House members who claimed not to know these facts were just lying. (I won't even bother to discuss the Republicans--I'm not sure they know what lying is.)
Of those who voted for it, some were afraid--not of Iraq, but of the Bush Cartel (Wellstone; anthrax). Others were playing politics with it, hedging their bets. If the country went into war fever, they didn't want to be left out. They feared the Bush Cartel using it against them. They CLAIMED to be concerned about Iraq (i.e, WMDs)--but weren't really (they knew it was all shuckin jive). They made speeches saying that Bush should exhaust diplomacy and do the war through the UN, but failed to include sufficient language in the resolution to force him to do that, and voted to give Bush the power to invade with no controls. They thus violated the Constitution, as Senator Byrd has repeatedly pointed out, to no avail--Congress alone has the power to declare war.
After violating the Constitution, they then started funding billions and billions and billions of essentially unmonitored taxpayers' money into the pockets of Halliburton and all the other military-industrial pigs.
124 Democrats and 1 Independent opposed the Iraq war resolution. Everybody else-Dems and Repubs--voted for it.
This highly corrupt, highly compromised, FALSE position (the position that there was justification to invade Iraq, and reason to be very fearful of Iraq) fanned out from these highly corrupt, highly compromised, FALSE-FACED Democratic leaders to the progressive community at large. And it took about a year--given US news monopoly collusion--to completely expose it. (And Fox News and Clear Channel were not really the worst of it--the worst of it was the New York Times, the nation's newspaper of record. The NYT's later apology to its readers for the lies it told about Iraq is particularly galling, given what they had done. But it is indicative of just how false their coverage was--it compromised their news organization so badly, in the eyes of progressive New Yorkers and other readers, that they HAD to apologize or permanently lose all credibility.)
By that time, Iraq had been invaded, 100,000-plus innocent people had been slaughtered by US bombs (according to the British doctors' report), and that was only just the beginning of the carnage. Mission accomplished. The US was now committed to a full scale military presence in the Middle East.
In the lead-up to the 2004 presidential election, during the theft of the election itself, and during the aftermath, the very same dynamic occurred. Misinformation, disinformation, no information (information black holed) and outright lying from the Democratic leadership, fanning out to the progressive community, and propagated by the news monopolies.
(Definition of "progressive community": I actually believe that this is a very progressive country. I think Americans on the whole are justice-loving and generous, and very tolerant. It is a complete news monopoly myth that Americans are tending to the right--toward some weird combination of gentle Jesus and injustice, greed, intolerance and murderousness. That is not my experience of Americans--and opinion polls strongly support me on this. There is overwhelming evidence that most Americans dislike and disagree with Bush comprehensively--on both domestic and foreign policy. So, by "progressive community" I mean "activist progressive community"--those who speak and organize and pressure politicians and educate the public. The "activist progressive community" in turn provides information to--and influences the opinion of--the general population of our progressive country.)
As the progressive community got wise to the Iraq war scam (and horror)--and lacking Paul Wellstone as a candidate (Wellstone would have been the obvious choice)--it began to organize an antiwar campaign for the presidential election in 2004, and soon Howard Dean emerged as the strongest advocate of that position. When the news monopolies (probably with the collusion of the DNC) killed his candidacy (via the doctored "scream" video clip), and the DNC forced a pro-war candidate upon the party (Kerry), the progressive community then made a choice: Should it put aside this difference about the war to oust the Bush Cartel, or not? And it decided that ousting the Bush Cartel had to be the priority.
Thus, an amazing coalition occurred--unprecedented, really, in the last 50 years--of all the progressive grass roots groups in the country and the despised, compromised, corrupt DNC. (The "Anybody but Bush" coalition).
However, what that progressive community DIDN'T know--or didn't fully realize--is that the Democratic leadership had ALREADY failed them, catastrophically, on the HAVA bill--the legislation to "fix" the election problems of 2000 (which had installed Bush in the White House illegitimately)--which required computerization of the voting system, but failed to require essential items like a paper trail, and FURTHERMORE, permitted companies whose CEOs were major Bush supporters to gain control of that system and to use SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code in their electronic voting machines and central electronic vote tabulators.
A small tussle occurred in Congress over the provisions of HAVA. Good Democrats tried to get a paper trail, for instance. They were strong-armed by Tom Delay. End of story.
When this inherently, egregiously fraudulent election SYSTEM was put into place, for 2004, the Democratic leadership should have screamed bloody murder. At the very least, it should have been a campaign issue.
Total silence. Not a word of objection.
Once again, as with the Iraq war, the Democratic leadership has FEIGNED ignorance. Their reaction to the mountain of evidence that this fraudulent election SYSTEM produced a fraudulent RESULT is a blank stare. Silence. Change the subject. And even, "Bush won."
As if they didn't know. (I don't buy it. It's their JOB to know how votes are counted.)
And, once again, this attitude fanned out into the progressive community, and from the progressive community into the country and its mostly progressive population. And it has created a kind of schizophrenia: most people in their gut know that the country didn't vote for Bush, and strongly suspect fraud, but since the Dem leaders won't tell them the truth--that they FAILED to achieve an honest election system--and that Kerry actually won--people bury this doubt. What can they do about it, if the Democrats won't fight?
Do the Dem leaders know Kerry won? I'm pretty convinced that they do, and that they knew this on election night, and possibly lied to Kerry. The numbers are just stunning--for instance, a Dem blowout success in new voter registration, Dems 57% to Repubs 41%. And that's just ONE of the numbers and other indicators--all of which point to a Kerry win, and some of which point to a Kerry landslide. And today we have about 60% of Americans in stark disagreement with Bush on virtually every one of his policies--domestic and foreign--in opinion polls; and continued miserable Bush approval ratings.
Now...now...think about election night. They knew Kerry was winning. They knew he had won. Everything point to this. All day long the exit polls said Kerry had won--until they were switched off late in the day, and CHANGED to reflect the OFFICIAL TALLY coming from BushCon-controlled electronic vote tabulators.
So Kerry won. But there is no "proof." Why is there no "proof"? Because DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERS permitted a fraudulent election SYSTEM to be put into place without objection! An election system with NO PAPER TRAIL. An election system WITH SECRET SOURCE CODE. An election system CONTROLLED BY Bush partisans. And THAT was their argument, re Ohio--that Kerry had lost the popular vote, and if he hadn't, there was NO PROOF. Proof aplenty there was, at that moment, of Ohio election fraud--innumerable violations of the Voting Rights Act--but they just walked right over that, in their rush to be defeated.
I repeat: What is the "proof" that Kerry lost the popular vote--as opposed to the overwhelming circumstantial evidence (new Dem voter registration, the exit polls, etc.) that he won it? The "proof" is to be found in several central electronic vote tabulators run on secret, proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by Bush partisans. That is the proof that Bush won and Kerry lost. There is no other.
These tabulation results have not been verified by ANYONE. (And much of it CANNOT be verified.) As for the Electoral Vote--that is a matter of Sec's of State "certifying" the "results" and thus awarding the power to vote Bush in to the state's Republican Electors. These so-called "certified results" come right from the BushCon-controlled central vote tabulators. There is almost zero verification of these results at the precinct level. And given such a fraud-prone system, the ONLY verification tool we have is the exit polls, and they say Kerry won!
(We could go back now, to the precinct level, and recount--which is what UScountvotes.org intends to do--but it is extremely laborious and time-consuming. And in about a third of the country, "recount" is meaningless, because they have no paper ballots to recount and compare to the electronic tally, although a comparison of vote totals and signed-in voters and other such indirect evidence might help.)
As with Iraq, it's going to take some time for the falsehood of this election to be fully exposed, and for the progressive community to pick itself up, repair its broken bones, and implement a solution. (--a state by state, county by county, grass roots, knock-down, drag-out struggle over election reform, an incremental battle--since Congress isn't going to do a goddamned thing about it, surprise, surprise).
Dean might help. On the other hand, it may be that he is just being watched (as DNC chair). We'll see.
But I think we have to ask ourselves...
1. What are we going to DO with our vote, if we ever get it restored?
Are we going to continue to put up with this bullshit from corrupt Democratic Party leaders? People who are living in a bubble of money and power, apart from the rest of us? People who falsely represent themselves as being the champions of the grass roots and the oppressed and the exploited and the war-weary? People who are addicted to controlling, and doling out, billions of dollars that are not theirs, and to pocketing some of it, one way or another--whether it's the HAVA billions, or the Halliburton billions, or the consultancies, board memberships or outright jobs that are doled out in association with this power? People who support war in the Middle East, and in particular, a huge US military presence surrounding Israel, but lie to us about their reasons? People who have bought into a US economy based on endless warfare and arms dealing and skullduggery of the most heinous kind?
These are the REASONS they didn't warn us about the fraudulent election SYSTEM, and won't admit its fraudulent result; and why they gave us a line of bull about Iraq, and wouldn't permit an antiwar candidate to be nominated. Corruption. Bubble living. Addiction to power. And fear (some of them).
If we can restore our right to vote, despite them--and even in the face of their opposition (see Question #2 below)--will we be given the same limited choices? Hillary Clinton, who voted for the Iraq war? Diane Feinstein, who voted for the Iraq war and might as well be a Republican? Barack Obama, who has played everything right down the middle (for instance, voted for Condi Rice but against Alberto Gonzales)? Kerry or Edwards, both of whom voted for the war (and are associated with the concession--though I think they shouldn't bear the whole blame for it, and maybe even none of the blame)?
Obviously, we are going to have to vote for people who refused to defend us on Jan. 6--because that's most of the Democrats in federal office. How far are we going to be forced to compromise this time? When will we ever have a candidate who represents the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS?
And, given how far the BushCons have taken their extremist policies, are we going to be able to elect a President who will undo it all, and move forward with progressive initiatives, or will we have to settle for a candidate dictated by corporate donors--who just pulls us back a little bit from fascist rule?
2. What are we going to do about Democratic Party leaders' complicity in the fraudulent voting system?
The current California situation has been a real eye opener for me--with DEMOCRATS being the enemy, DEMOCRATS advocating for paperless Diebold voting machines, DEMOCRATS witch-hunting the best Secretary of State in the nation, who fought Diebold and stood up for the voters--and driving him from office. DEMOCRATS.
What the hell is going on here? And what does it tell us about what's happened nationally--looking back a few steps, to the Iraq war resolution, to Democrats giving Bush (of all people!) carte blanche in Iraq; and to HAVA, and the Dem leadership silence about it?
"Houston, we have a problem!"
Note: These problems are not insoluble--as we demonstrated with Apollo 13. Americans have a wonderful "can do" attitude, and when we work together as a team--something that is far more characteristic of Americans and of humanity in general than anyone recognizes--we can do the impossible. BUT--as those Apollo engineers knew--you MUST be working from a basis of reality and fact. And the fact is that some of the Democratic Party leadership is a real big obstacle to election reform, as well as to a just and peaceful society. And we're not going to be able to solve the fundamental problem of fraudulent elections without a real, hard, cold-eyed look at the entire corrupt, complicitous system that permitted the Bush Cartel to take over our government.
But even so, it's a PRACTICAL problem--election reform. A solveable problem. Almost a mechanichal problem. It is not a difficult problem, really. Most people would agree that we should have honest elections. Transparency is the key. And to get it done, we need to think in a very practical, strategic way; take our allies where we can get them; plug away at it state by state; build upon incremental victories; get as much transparency as possible in any given situation; stay focused. Do it!
|Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top|
|Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform|
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC