Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Exit Poll Fraudists Wander the Internet Grassy Knoll

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 09:54 PM
Original message
Exit Poll Fraudists Wander the Internet Grassy Knoll
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 09:54 PM by TruthIsAll
Winning an Election in 17 Easy Steps

1. Slander your opponent every chance you get to shore up your base.

2. Friendly media pollsters will have your guy in the lead.

3. Register new Democratic voters and lose the forms.

4. Vote counters are people you know and trust.

5. Voting machines should not leave a paper trail.

6. Very few voting machines will be available in your opponents districts.

7. The SOS in critical battleground states is aware that his or her job is to make it very difficult for opposition party voters to register and vote.

8. Focus early on states which are solid for you or your opponent and have no paper trail. Even 1-2% discrepancies will have a major impact on the popular vote shown on the TV networks and will give the illusion of an impending landslide.

10 Do not interfere with local police in case they invoke a terror alert to prevent access and lock down the voting machines in those precincts which heavily favor your opponent.

11. Watch the early exit polls to monitor the situation in the battleground states. If your opponent is leading, make sure that late voters are mobilized in sufficient number to win the state by at least 150,000 votes. This way, if a recount is necessary, your guy will most surely come out ahead.

12. Make sure that the exit pollsters adjust their state exit poll numbers after midnight to agree with the actual votes.

13. The National Exit Poll must also reflect the actual votes, but since there are many questions (characteristics) asked in the poll, the percentages must be logically consistent across all characteristics. The pollsters will announce that although the 13,000 polled show that your opponent won, these are preliminary results and no conclusions should be drawn from them. They will need to make further revisions to the raw data in order to more accurately reflect the actual votes.

14. The Exit Poll raw data will not be released for at least three months by the media or the pollsters. There is much work yet to be done to present the information in such a manner that the public will firmly believe that your guy really did win, and not rely on "preliminary", unweighted, raw data.

15. Inform friendly media that internet fraudists are just conspiracy freaks looking for a bullet in the exit poll grassy knoll. They are delusional in questioning any discrepancies between preliminary exit poll data and the actual votes.

16. Provide talking points to the media in order to convince the public into believing that exit polls are unreliable; that there is no way that your man could have lost, not when he has won the popular vote by 3.5 million votes. The exit polls were clearly wrong once again, the third time in a row, as they were also wrong in Georgia 2002 and Florida 2000.

17. Have your guy give a press conference as soon as possible the day after the election, declaring that the mandate provided by the American people gives him the political capital necessary to follow through on his God-given agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. You have the appropriate name. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm speechless.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ailsagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. You hit the nail squarely on the head
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. Nominated.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. &*$^&%@ $#@!!!
:grr: :nuke: By the way Nominated! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
m.standridge Donating Member (269 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. and ignore that 48% Approval rating
the fact most consumers are "pessimistic about the coming year"
that most Americans are "pessimistic about the future"
that most Americans now think the war in Iraq is failing

--and don't talk so loudly about the Electoral College as you did the last time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. OR..."The Idiot's Guide to Winning an Election...."
Or..."The Idiot's Guide to STEALING an Election in 17 Easy Steps." The election wasn't actually won by him, but we sure got the Idiot.

Positively Rovian analysis, though I'm sure you're much nicer than he is. Sounds like what happened, all right. Now we've got to convince all the complacent ones out there of the truth: this is no longer a representational democracy. Uphill battle, but the alternative is not to be borne.

Thanks for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sunnystarr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
30. or Election Fraud for Dummies (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
euler Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. That's Fraudistas, not Fraudists
Fraudists isn't a word.

Areeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeba !

: )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. Question
According to this site:

http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/pollcalc_letters_flor ...

Bush actually did better in some exit polls than he did at the actual poll.

New Jersey: B +2

New Mexico: B +1

Wisconsin: B +2

And their data shows that Bush was falsely favord in some counties in Florida as well.

Were these somehow disproved at another time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melissa G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. You forgot 18) Have opposing party leadership
Not put up a fuss.
19) Own All THE Mainstream Media
20)Own 80% of the companies that make the machines that count the votes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lostnote03 Donating Member (850 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
11. Truth, if you do not run for SOS one of these days.....
......I will have lost all respect for you!!!....j/k.....Best Wishes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmileMaker Donating Member (346 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
12. A suggestion - offer wall to wall coverage of election fraud
in other countries. Repeat soundbites about democracy in friendly media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoMama49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. This should be sent to all representatives in the House and
Senators on both sides of the aisle!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burn the bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
14. hmmm seems there's always a bush or two on the grassy knoll doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
euler Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
15. Damn. I agreed with you completely through #10
#11: I'm ignoring #11 because I can't imagine you mean that there are thousands of people hanging around to vote for Bush just in case they are needed. In fact, I assume you don't mean that, so I must not understand you.

#12: Since, for the type of exit poll conducted in the US, exit pollsters have ALWAYS adjusted their numbers after midnight in order to match the actual vote (and will continue this practice in the future.) I can't imagine why you included it in your list.

#13: What you describe is standard procedure. There is nothing unusual about this election in this regard. Please remember, the exit poll respondents do not constitute a random sample (the precincts are chosen randomly, not the people). If it was a random sample, there would not be a reason to spend so much time making adjustments. As it is, many adjustment must be made. Like you, I don't understand this part, but the experts understand it, and I take their word for it.

#14: see #13

#15: Not delusional - wrong. I cannot over emphasis this point. Mitofsky has stated that his design is not suited for election verification. On page 3 of the latest version of Freeman's paper, Freeman also acknowledges this fact.

Mitosfsky designed the exit poll, so who could possibly know it's capabilities more than he does ? Not me. Do you ? Well, over the weeks, your answer seems to be yes you do know more than he does. At the same time you have admitted you are not a exit poll expert. However, Mitofsky is an exit poll expert, so I don't get how you can disregard him so easily. I don't think I've ever asked you to explain this. Will you do so now ?

#16: Exit polls are not always accurate. I don't know what else I can say here. The answer to this question is a matter of historical record. Anyone, expert or not, can check it out for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoMama49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Dr. Garby Leon says:
Fellow activists!

We are being made dumb, dizzy and mindless by the MSM
in general, and in particular by its refusal even to
discuss - let alone release - the NEP/Mitofsky exit
polling data, showing discrepancies that are greater
than in the Ukraine, and showing in Steven Freeman's
analysis that Bush's "win" in Ohio and elsewhere was
and is a statistical impossibility.

In other words, it didn't happen.

We have to raise hell about this, and never stop.

Why? We are facing what appears to be a sinister,
Stalin-esque conspiracy by all the networks and major
newspapers to "shield" Americans from the potentially
disturbing information that a neo-fascist tyranny has
been imposed upon us by the treasonous and criminal
theft of the 2004 election.

Despite all their efforts to censor this information,
the Exit Poll data has been available online, a
pro-freedom-of-the-press whistleblowing coup that, to
my mind, is as historically important as the
publication of the Pentagon Papers or even more
important.

Send your friends and neighbors to:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm

and here for the complete data

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/pdfs/Mitofsky4zonedata /

as well as to Freeman's analyses:

http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm


I suggest that we find as many ways as we can to take
this explosive, smoking gun proof of election fraud
and force EVERYONE to confront what it says, and what
it means.

To me, this is our greatest weapon, Square One in our
battle to throw the bums out, making sure that the
recent travesty of democracy never occurs again in the
Land of the (formerly) Free.

Let's make them answer this, and answer for it!

Let's FOCUS! It's the Exit Polls, stupid !!!


peace - but never give up the struggle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Write or call your Local MSM, as well as the "Networks"...
Edited on Wed Jan-12-05 12:23 AM by DearAbby
Ask them how much are they being paid. Seems like Arstrong Williams is not the only one getting top dollar to promote.. Maybe enough letters to the General managers of local TV stations and News Papers, they would have to address the issue.
:grr: :nuke: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. First, to euler...
You wrote: "#12: Since, for the type of exit poll conducted in the US, exit pollsters have ALWAYS adjusted their numbers after midnight in order to match the actual vote (and will continue this practice in the future.) I can't imagine why you included it in your list."

The U.S. was using a brand new and highly controversial election system, not yet tested in a national election--one with no paper trail, with secret, proprietary source code running individual machines and central vote tabulation, owned by BushCon companies. This situation CRIED OUT for an honest Exit Poll, like they use in every other decent democracy in the world to check for fraud. Mitofsky damn well knows this; so do the networks. There is NO EXCUSE for what they did.

Just to clear up a point: Mitofsky himself has said that there is no reason his stats can't be used to verify the election. (See the Freeman paper cited above by JoMama.) Too bad he didn't provide them to the VOTERS so we could judge the situation for ourselves.

There are so many colluders and liars and obfuscators and apologists and war profiteers and compromised Democrats and Republican criminals, mass murderers and thieves involved in creating this ILLUSION of a democracy, I just want to puke.

JoMama, thanks! I'm with you. I would only add...

CONGRESS IS NOT GOING TO HELP US, and, if anything, they may make things worse by taking away state control over election rules, so that we are unable to fix this at the local level, state by state, in each jurisdiction, with people power.

EVERYONE PLEASE UNDERSTAND--and it couldn't be plainer--the Democrats in Congress have NO POWER to fix this, and NO POWER to stop the BushCons from making it worse, and are furthermore deluded (or complicit) in proposing that federal level reform is the answer.

Yak, yak, yak is all we're going to see. No reform. Mark my words. And this may lull people into NOT acting where they still have some power--locally.

(...or, in a state where things are really bad--Ohio, Florida--where we have more of a chance of turning things around than we do of turning Congress around).

I don't know what's the matter with the Democrats in Congress--how they could have let this happen. But whatever the reason, they cannot, or will not, fix it NOW.

ACT NOW, at the local level!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Euler. Exit polls are not always accurate???
A thread's around here somewhere with a pile of news items that, like TIA, claim just the opposite.

Would you hook us up and point at the "historical record" indicating otherwise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. Wilms, Exit Polls are only inaccurate when Bush or BushCon...
...operatives are involved in the election: 2000, 2002 by-elections, 2004. And the reason for the inaccuracy in those special cases is that Bushes and Bush designees MUST be elected, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. So, if a Bush or Bush designee is NOT elected, then the Exit Poll MUST be inaccurate. It's in the Constitution, I think--or maybe they haven't written that part yet.

Aside from BushCon elections, Exit Poll reliability and accuracy are highly respected throughout the world, and they are used virtually everywhere as a check on election fraud.

See Freeman:

http://www.truthout.org/unexplainedexitpoll.pdf
http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berniew1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
16. The Exit poll people need to compare their data to the fraud documentation
There was widespread and systematic voter suppression of minority voters, dirty tricks, vote machine fraud, dirty tricks and other vote manipulation in Ohio, New Mexico, and Florida- that was of magnitude enough to call in question who won those states.

http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla.html
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19
?http://www.helpamericarecount.org/NewMexicoData/NewMexi...
http://www.flcv.com/bernalil.html
etc.

and also similar patterns in other states where the suppression and fraud did not change the election results including vote machine fraud in Calif., Pennsylvania, Washington, Texas, etc.
http://www.flcv.com/orangets.html
http://www.flcv.com/snohomis.html
http://www.flcv.com/mercerco.html
http://www.flcv.com/philadel.html
http://www.flcv.com/texas.html
http://www.votersunite.org
etc.

(the voter suppression of minorities in Mercer County is the worst I've ever seen-followup needed)

The unethical and illegal actions were so systematic and widespread that this cannot be allowed to continue uninvestigated and unpunished. There was a huge amount of obvious malfeasance and dirty tricks that should be investigated and dealt with
http://www.flcv.com/dirtytrf.html
http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla2.html
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm
http://www.votersunite.org
http://www.freepress.org departments

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #16
26. berniew1 - thanks so much for that great list! n/t
Edited on Wed Jan-12-05 03:10 AM by Peace Patriot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
18. By 2am EST, 3 Nov 2004, I had already adopted a very simple...
...perspective on any subsequent 'exit poll' data released by any pollster or those who pay them.

Unless all relevant information was retrieved by subpoena including all data, analysis, internal communications at ME, communications with the media customers... -- zero credibility.

Unless all personnel involved in polling, analysis and communications of results were required to make statements under oath -- zero credibility.

And, even under those conditions, would expect all materials to be scrutinized by independent, non-partisan information experts, statisticians, and forensics experts.

In other words, when it was obvious to many following the events at CNN and elsewhere after ~ 11pm EST 2 Nov 2004 that something inexplicable was happening, I decided I'd consider everything suspect until the full force of the law and independent investigative experts were brought into the matter.

Events of the past 2+ months have only strengthened my perception of intentional manipulation of the purpose and veracity of 'exit polls.' However, that's all it is; my opinion and its not what I do for a living so I may be way, way incorrect.

Peace.

"Prove My Vote Counts, Now"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
21. TIA
You're one of my favorite posters at DU and this post explains why. This is great! Luv it! Thanks for all you do and share.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 02:17 AM
Response to Original message
22. Change "actual votes" to "official results," above, and your point will be
...clearer.

...as in #13, above: "They will need to make further revisions to the 'raw' data in order to more accurately reflect the actual votes."

...should read: "They will need to make further revisions to the 'raw' data in order to more accurately reflect the 'official results'."

There is nothing "actual" about the "actual votes." Many of those votes did not actually exist--were literally mere electrons. What came forth from BushCon controlled central electronic vote tabulators with secret source code, that AP fed to the networks and that was used to "adjust" the Exit Polls, was only the "official results" or the "official tally."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mordarlar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
24. Media Blackout??? lol Hey can i repost this elsewhere? NICE!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
27. KICK!!! So, let's discuss the Grassy Knoll part.
We need to talk more about the Grassy Knoll syndrome.

Re: The Grass Knollsters were right, but it took a long time to establish this, and the criminals were never caught. But one can infer from the "who benefits?" principle of investigation, that those who did it were war profiteers, since the biggest, most profound result of it was to reverse JFK's de-escalation in Vietnam.

Soon afterward: Over one million people slaughtered for no good reason. Vast new military spending and weapons development.

Although it's much easier to see the more obvious criminals of THIS coup--for instance, we have BushCon election machine company executives pledging support for Bush, and donating in $100,000 chunks to his campaign, secret source code and no paper trail--and we have a long history of dirty tricks and stolen elections overseen by Karl Rove.

But I wonder if we are seeing deeply enough.

I keep thinking of David Kelly, the British weapons inspector who was killed in July '03, just as he began whistleblowing on Tony Blair's lies about Iraq WMDs, and his email about "dark actors playing games" the day before he died. (Note: His death was whitewashed as a suicide--a highly questionable conclusion, given the odd facts of his death.) (--yet another mountain of evidence unattended!)

I've often thought that a quite plausible motive for killing him would have been that he had stumbled upon a plot to plant WMDs in Iraq--or was possibly asked to join such a plot and refused.

At the time, there was nothing that Bush and Blair needed more, on the political scene, than a "find" of WMDs in Iraq. It would seem a simple enough covert operation, given the chaos in Iraq. With all we know or suspect now about 9/11, anthrax, Paul Wellstone, Al Zarqawi, the timely "capture" of Saddam Hussein, Homeland Security "alerts," and other dubious events, surely there WAS such a plot, to plant WMDs. So what happened to it? How/why was it derailed?

And if my guess is right--that an honest man was killed because he found out about such a plot and objected to it (and was possibly trying to remedy the situation, or balance things out, by whistleblowing on Blair's WMD lies)--that is, in short, if an honest man was killed because he knew too much, what other dark, dirty deeds are we looking at and can't see, for all the smoke being blown in our eyes?

I've been wondering, too, about the various mercenaries in Iraq (Titan Corp. et al), and their possible role, and that of the FBI, in some of the more mysterious events there, such as the beheading of Nick Berg.

There is a fascinating FBI trail from Zacharias Moussaoui's computer to Nick Berg, that turned up in news reports after his beheading--the truly odd coincidence (?) that Moussaoui was using Berg's email address and pass word. There is a whole FBI cover story about it (in the news stories of Berg's beheading), that Berg innocently let a stranger on a bus use his email--a stranger who just happened to know Zacharias Moussaoui. Summer 2001. (--the very computer that Cathleen Rowley was trying to get inside of, and couldn't get permission to open until AFTER 9/11).

Anyway, is what we are looking at here, in this election, JUST election fraud? I mean, is it the mere theft of an election for the obvious political motive of staying in power? And was it merely accomplished within the NORMAL, VISIBLE corruption of the corporate American political system?

Or is it worse? Is it deeper? Is it wider? Is it in the "Grassy Knoll" category--where people following investigative trails fall off steep cliffs, and somehow manage to slash their wrists on the way down?

WHAT is in operation here? Just a corrupt political machine--that could possibly be ousted and brought low by election reform?

Or is it something more fundamental--the turning of our entire military and intelligence establishment and its corporate masters--into some kind of beastial thing, a greedy, bloodthirsty, torturing monster, that can only be dealt with by strong-willed Hobbits and self-sacrificing old Wizards?

And if it's the latter, what hope do we have of "exposing" Election Fraud? And what hope do we have that "election reform" will remedy the problem?

You can probably tell that I just read Howard Zinn. He takes a dim view of the Founding Fathers and their successors, and their mechanisms for controlling the masses. He does hold out hope for the cleverness and independence of thought of ordinary people, though. He says that a pro forma revolution is just not possible here (the bad guys have too many weapons of mass destruction), but that a different kind of revolution, one of disengagement from "the system," undertaken locally, community by community, is the answer. (He bases this, in part, on stories of underdog rebellions throughout American history.)

Looked at from another perspective, however, what he describes as "the answer" is so like the fall of the Roman Empire and the subsequent thousand years of feudalism (small communities surviving, by means of their own skills and limited trading) that I shudder to think of it, and I can't help but note that the price of survival was often enslavement by local robber barons, whom Zinn doesn't figure into his scenario, but whom I'm sure will always be with us.

You see, in theory anyway--and in English history at least--the king was the peoples' protection AGAINST the robber barons (he/she protected the forests, for instance, from rapacious use by the rich, while allowing smaller scale, local sustainable use).

The federal government has been our "king"--the overarching authority that protected our rights under the Constitution, against depredations by corporate robber barons, landowners, the rich, the bankers, the railroad kings, the factory owners and corrupt, bigoted local officials (especially in the case of black civil rights).

When the bankers and speculators destroyed the financial system, the federal government (via FDR) came to the rescue of the common people. When local and state officials sanctioned murder, lynchings, segregation and denial of voting rights against black citizens, the federal government was pressed to respond, and was EXPECTED to respond, as the logical agent of protection.

That protection--that sense that someone in DC has the common good in mind--is gone. It vanished almost overnight for both the poor and the middle class (or, rather, it seemed to vanish overnight, with Bush's ascendancy, but it was actually long in the making).

Zinn doesn't give the Founding Fathers due credit for the system of checks and balances by which this protection of the common people came about. (He says we don't even belong to "the nation" that was created--a provocative argument, well worth thinking about, but it ignores the mystical relationship between king and commoners that is a large part of our psychological makeup as a people.)

I write this in a state of bereavement over January 6. Despite the heroes who revealed themselves (or maybe because there were so few of them), it just became so very clear to me that the Democrats will never again be the party of the "New Deal," and that they have no power in the current situation, and don't seem to even want power. They are near to being useless as an opposition to Bush Inc., and they are complicit it too many ways.

So where does that leave us as a democracy and as a people? Hung out to dry is where. And if that is the case--and I challenge anyone to provide convincing evidence to the contrary--what do we do next?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quakerfriend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
28. TIA, you are always so succinct! Very nice!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smartvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
29. Just about says it all. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
31. Hit the nail on the head nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kitkat65 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
32. We should start calling all this a conspiracy reality instead of
conspiracy theory
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
33. Ted Kennedy could use these to help make up his 1000 causes
for our defeat.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1...

"In an election so close, defeat has a thousand causes -- and it is too easy to blame it on particular issues or tactics," Kennedy said.

He needs to do a little homework.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
34. Good one. Dont forget "Carpet Bomb Falluj to Create Smokescreen"
of human ashes so that reporters wont have time to ask questions.

:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
35. Up you go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Sep 03rd 2014, 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC