|
Even I didn't see this. And I tend to think that election fraud is the key to EVERYTHING. (I mean, what else can you think, with rightwing Bushite corporations "counting" all the votes with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code?). But I hadn't quite put this one together. That CONTINUED election fraud is going to need MASSIVE legal cover, and that means US Attorneys WILLING to cover it up. Refusing to prosecute it. Refusing to SEE it. Because that's the only career path open to them--lies and deceit.
Wow.
Really, I was thinking of other Bushcon crimes--as the reason for the US Attorney purge. There are so many crimes. But--even though there were indications that this was the purpose (for instance, the pressure on them to pursue cases of "voter fraud" for which there was no evidence)--I just didn't see THIS: fired up voters and candidates in '08 in revolt against Bushcon election fraud (the "trade secret" programming, 'disappearing' of tens of thousands of Democratic votes, purges of black and other minority voters), and gathering evidence and filing lawsuits, en masse, and needing US Attorneys to pursue this democracy-killing crime....and the justice system just evaporates, because it's been packed with Bushcons.
My profound thanks to Senator Kennedy for pointing this out.
---------------------
Someone upthread suggested that Diebold/ES&S "permitted" Democrats to win the '06 elections, in order to lull us into complacency. I don't think that's what happened. I think the voters OUTVOTED the machines, in many cases. By my guestimate (and that of others), Diebold/ES&S is placing a 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" for Bushcons, warmongers and corporatists (and not all of them Republicans), in the primaries (who gets to run) and the general elections (who wins). But they can't just concoct a false win out of whole cloth. And they can't be too obvious about it (--although there is one instance I know of, in which they WERE obvious--the Ohio election reform initiatives in '05 were flipped from predicted 60/40 wins into 40/60 losses on election day). Given the handicap on true representatives of the people, it took Dean's "50 state strategy," great grass roots activism, and the fury of the American people, to make it possible to outvote the machines. But the vote didn't accurately represent the voters' mandate for change, and thus, we have 75% of the American people opposed to the Iraq War and wanting it ended, but we could only achieve a 50/50 Congress. Part of this is because only 1/3 of the Senate was up for reelection. But where it really comes into play is in the House. The Democrats likely won more like 50 seats (rather than 30), and more antiwar candidates probably won, in reality, but lost to Diebold/ES&S. And if the House was truly constituted, as a representative body--if the vote counting had been transparent--the House would have had a lot more clout in dealing with the dinosaurs--the Bushcon remnants--in the Senate.
Caveat: It's a mistake to presume that Diebold/ES&S is all powerful. We CAN outvote them. This is very important to know. And it makes sense. They don't want to imperil their power to determine the outcome of our elections. So they have to be careful just how much they twiddle the vote, and where. Do they have good cover (dishonest election officials and secretaries of state)? Do they have a Bushcon US Attorney in place? (!!). Is there an independent newspaper in town, or a strong public advocacy group? Is it an overwhelmingly Democratic area? (--has to be written off; a flip would be too noticeable). What can they get away with, and where, and when?
They went all out in '04, and they just flipped it over for Bush--which TruthIsAll and other statistical analysts caught them at (the unexplainable exit poll discrepancy). The stakes were so high, they took the risk (in the confidence that the war profiteering corporate news monopolies--and corrupt Democrats--would cover it up.) But, in this respect--the limits on Diebold/ES&S fraud--it's interesting what happened in California. John Kerry won the state in '04 with a 10% margin. But Barbara Boxer, running for Senate, won by a 20% margin. This oddity might be explainable by her incumbency, or because she is a woman, or by some coolness on the left toward Kerry--except that the difference between Kerry and Boxer occurs only in Republicon-controlled counties. Go figure.
My surmise: A Kerry loss of California would not have been plausible. But what they COULD do, with impunity, was shave votes off from him, in Republicon-controlled counties, to help manufacture and pad Bush's national popular majority. But a similar con on the Boxer vote would have made the whole thing too noticeable. They wrote her off as a loss (too popular). And there was another possible factor*: her opponent was a potential Schwarzenegger rival; Schwarz is the only Con who can hamper the left, and protect Bush Cartel and other Global Corporate Predator interests, in Calif.; if her opponent--Bill Jones--had done well against Boxer--he could have been a threat to those interests in the future, by diluting/dividing Schwarz's support--so they left Boxer alone, and just stole votes from Kerry. And it's possible they were trying to win Calif for Bush, but the voters just wouldn't let them.
One of the lessons of the California '04 vote may be the need for activism and more vigilance by Democrats in Republicon counties, against dishonest election officials. But the big lesson is, again: We can outvote the machines. The handicap they can place on good candidates has LIMITS.
----------------------------
*(A third reason why they may have left Boxer alone is that they figured that Diane Feinstein would be a counterweight on war votes, and on some other important items--although I think Feinstein just voted for the Iraq timeline--possibly a measure of just how strong the antiwar sentiment is in Calif and the nation. If the country as a whole is 75% antiwar, you can figure California is probably at 90% by now. Feinstein needed to score some points with the left. She was reelected in '06--one of the stranger things that has happened, since she is out of sync with the voters on almost every issue. She had no significant opposition in the primary. A really great guy, Michael Strimling, ran against her--but he had no money, and people found out about him too late. I suspect that the war profiteers had something to do with no one with money or name recognition running against her in the Dem primary. And her Con opponent in the general election was such a nothing I can't even remember his name right now. She--a big war proponent--benefited from the Dem antiwar landslide in '06. A bitter irony, indeed.)
BY THE WAY: These election officials in Calif Republicon counties--like Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange--are a bloody menace. They are some of the most corrupt people in the country--and are now militating against the reforms of our new Sec of State Debra Bowen. They colluded with L.A. county election head Connie McCormack--who actually does sales brochures for Diebold--to "swiftboat" our previous reforming Sec of State Kevin Shelley out of office, and to install Diebold shill Bruce McCormack (Schwarz appointee), whom Bowen beat in '06 (our '06 election miracle!). It would have been these election official Cons who facilitated the theft of Kerry votes in Con Counties.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
