You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #144: That's a pretty strange argument, tandem5--that replacing Bush with... [View All]

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
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-05 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #137
144. That's a pretty strange argument, tandem5--that replacing Bush with...
...Kerry would be dismissing "the fundamental role our voting system plays in preserving our country." It seems to me that the rightfully elected candidate taking his place as President would reinforce the fundamental role of our voting system and RESTORE our democracy. Maybe I'm not understanding you.

It's my understanding of the legal side of things that a finding of a stolen election would have to be made by Congress in the course of an impeachment proceeding. The courts do not have any power to remove a president. Only Congress does. (And the Supreme Court should damn well have kept their paws out of it in '00. They violated several principles and provisions of the Constitution in Bush v. Gore, among them Florida's right to run its election according to state laws; Congress' role in the Electoral College and succession issues, and its ultimate power to determine who will be president; and the "balance of powers" principle.)

Anyway, here's the deal. Congress holds all the power in this situation. (This is possibly why Kerry conceded--he didn't have a prayer of getting justice from Bush's "pod people" in Congress.) Kerry or someone else could win a court case that Ohio was stolen, or could win 10 court cases in 10 states, and it wouldn't have any legal force, as to who gets to be president. The only way to remove a president who has been granted the Electoral College vote by Congress is to impeach him.

Could Kerry present such a strong case to Congress that even Bush's "pod people" would be forced to impeach him--say, via public pressure? Possibly--but it's a very, very outside possibility. For one thing, you can be sure that they have insulated Bush from any direct involvement (they would be fools not to). So Bush's "pod people" could choose some scapegoats (Kenneth Blackwell comes to mind), and say that Bush himself committed no "high crime and misdemeanor" and took office in good faith. I can just see the "pod people" weeping over these misguided Republicans who stole Ohio, and lied to Bush's people, and on and on. Articles of impeachment (at least historically) have not been brought for anything but alleged crimes by the president himself, not by underlings (and not for election fraud or chicanery). (Nixon would have gotten off scot free in Watergate if it had not been for the tapes in the Oval Office that had him involved in funneling money to the burglars. Prior to that, he probably would have evaded impeachment, because there was no evidence of his direct involvement, even though people on his Committee to Re-Elect the President, and his own A.G. were involved.)

That's what Emperors do when they are accused of anything. They find scapegoats.

And you can be sure that the Bush "pod people" in Congress--if they are forced by public opinion to look like they are doing something--will jump at the slightest excuse not to impeach Bush.

If Kerry or someone else nevertheless pursues it in Congress (with little hope that Bush will actually be impeached, but with the purpose of exposure of the fraud and maybe election reform)--or if it is exposed in another venue (the news monopolies, in an effort to prevent revolution maybe? --or, thinking creatively, the U.N.? --or, the International War Crimes court? --or, just through the cumulative impact of books, blogs, movies, grass roots conferences like Nashville, possibly local political action--city council resolutions? and other such means--what is the likely outcome? And what will the Bush Cartel do to counter it?

Create a "commission" on election reform. Guess what? They've already done that. And put James Baker in as co-chair (with Jimmy Carter). An entirely private "commission" in which the public has no rights whatsoever, but it's acting all official, and intending to issue a "report to Congress" in fall '06; this private "commission" is stacked with paperless voting advocates and BushCons.

So, whatever head of steam election fraud '04 gets up, they will try to deflect it, with this already existing, offiicial-seeming "commission," and I think they have planned all along to go further than that--I think they intend to nationalize our election systems, under Bush Cartel control, and that will be the end of any real election reform. The people won't have any power any more at the state/local level to demand paper ballots or auditable elections.

This private "commission" gives the Bush "pod people" in Congress political cover for such a power grab (in dealing with secretaries of state, county election officials and other state-oriented groups). It's pretty clever. And once they have the power of election systems, procedures and rules, they can do whatever they want.

Will they succeed with this scheme? Dunno. Maybe. (They actually have the power in Congress to do it right now, but it's a little brazen. That's why the "commission," in my view. What other reason could there be for this "commission" to spring up all of a sudden? According to just about all powermongers in DC and in the states, and, of course, according to the news monopolies, there is nothing wrong with our election system. Why have a "commission" about it? Could be just a preemptive strike on emerging election fraud evidence. Could be preparation for something they think Kerry has. All possible. But the arrival of this "commission" certainly stinks to high heaven. They're definitely up to something.)

Other likely outcomes: Voters will be upset, of course--if the truth comes out. (And their outcries will just bolster the private election "commission"'s self-appointed mandate--I can hear it now.) If a lot of people become convinced of the election fraud, Bush will be discredited, and the Bush Cartel may be prevented from committing some of the worser crimes they have in mind (invading Iran, Syria and Venezuela, to consolidate all control over oil, for instance). I think that's what we might be looking at--somewhat of a caretaker government, with Bush Cartel people scrambling to cover their asses (an orgy of shredding!).

Or, if they succeed in taking total control of elections, they'll just ride it out. What do they care? I'm sure they wouldn't mind a few riots--the opportunity to bash some heads and show a little muscle here at home. Given the lapdog press, it's all spinnable, to the extent that they even bother to spin it.

The best scenario (of the probable ones) is that the Baker/Carter "commission" fails in what I'm pretty sure is their mission--nationalizing elections, the election fraud is exposed, Bush & Co. are discredited, and can't do much in their final years, the election fraud inspires serious election system reform in the states, and we are able to elect a decent president and a decent Congress.

What we have to do NEXT is even harder than what we have to do now--insure that a fascist coup never happens here again; get the corporations out of our government and our political system; remove private money from our election system (maybe a Consitutional amendment); reform our political parties; bust up the media monopolies; recover from massive looting of federal and state treasuries; convert to alternative energy; restore government openness and transparency; join with other countries in saving our planetary environment; replace all the Bush Cartel yes-men in government, in the military, in the diplomatic corps, and in the intelligence agencies; investigate 9/11, etc., etc. We have to UNDO all that the Bush Cartel has done, and move forward.

But I think this is true about Americans: Just set out the program for progress, for justice and fairness, and for environmental protection, give us a little inspiration and even set before us impossible tasks for the common good, and we will damn well get it done. That's the country I know. A good country. A well-meaning country. A practical, "can do" country.

I want to warn people here against hoping for a savior--or any big revelations suddenly changing the political climate. We may have to restore our democracy step by step, in a long term effort--and I'm thinking, in particular, state by state, locality by locality, with election reform. Anything Kerry might do to help that along would be very welcome. I won't (and can't) judge the man, pro or con. I really don't know what's up with him (--although Teresa's recent remarks about the election were certainly interesting). If he helps us, fine. If he doesn't, he may have good reasons and he may not. Most of all, I hope he-- and a lot of others--help us get rid of the electronic voting machines (or open them up to public scrutiny and control), and help prevent the nationalization of elections while this regime is in power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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