|
click here to skip this and go right to election
fraud news
Election 2006
Click
here to view the extremely exhaustive election results interactive
map--wow! You'll see there that 166 districts became more
Democratic and 27 became more Republican. That constituted a
"group movement" of 13%. That also means that 84% of
districts demonstrated their displeasure with Bush and the GOP.
CNN
Election results & analyses
State
of Minnesota election results at Minnesota Public Radio
Nov
13, 2006 Seeing this near landslide against Republican
corruption and incompetence has been very therapeutic for me and
for many people I know. It wasn't quite like watching the
Death Star explode in Star Wars, but it was close. Still,
I hesitate to be overly optimistic. After all, the
Democratic party produced such memorable dolts as John Kerry and
Joseph Lieberman. There is little doubt in my mind that
things will get better than they have been, but I don't expect a
miraculous transformation. The K Street monster is just
too big and powerful. Yet, the K Street monster was
designed to work only with Republicans, so it might take a while
for them to round up new sleezebags who are skilled at
debauching liberals. Rumsfeld is gone. Rick Santorum
is gone. Ted Haggard is disgraced (a virtual, not actual
politician), Tom DeLay is
gone--along with Grover
Norquist's beloved K Street Project. Ann Coulter is
looking at a felony charge for illegally voting in the wrong
precinct. Dennis "Stud Muffin" Hastert has
stepped down. Bush sounds like a man who has had his spine
ripped out of him, and Karl Rove is in big trouble with those
who hired him to win the election.
Minnesota sent a black Muslim Democrat and a woman lawyer
Democrat to the US Congress. Republicans were dumped all
over the country. The Bush Cheney machine has been stopped
in its tracks. Right wing media sluts like Limbaugh have
been scurrying about trying to distance themselves from
Bush. Praise the gods--all of them who obviously saw fit
to contribute their providential influence on the long series of
problems that revealed what a bunch of criminals and losers who
are the Republican politicians. All of these wonderful
events evoke that eternal question: What kind of wine should you
serve with a bloated, raw, maggot infested crow? As for
worries about rolling back the Bush tax cuts, I have none
whatsoever, given the fact that over the past six years my taxes
have gone up dramatically while my income has been frozen
solid. I didn't notice any cut, and I suspect that the
Democrats have no interest in saddling a tax hike on my tax
bracket. I do have hopes that they will mount a vigorous
campaign to put the old name (Estate Tax) back on the
"Death Tax" as they roll back any and all cuts in that
regard. As you can see in my October 24th entry below, I
do not believe in Trickle Down Economics. It's time for
the return of progressive taxation.
I have indicated before that I think that an immediate pull out from Iraq is
a stupid idea. Creating Saddam Hussein in the first place was a far more
idiotic idea, and we have Reagan & Rumsfeld to thank for much of
that. We screwed that country up over and over. This time, it's
such a mess that we're now stuck there. However, I think that there are
solutions that could result in our military departure from Iraq. Given
that Iraq is an artificial nation created by the same people who created
Israel, the territorial integrity and national identity of Iraq are
already nothing but vague memories of an American puppet despot.
Darren's Remarks on the 2004 Presidential Campaign and Election
Manichean Futurama
November 3, 2004: The Situation: It shouldn't come as a
surprise that a weak candidate like Kerry would lose to a venal,
ignorant, pathetic SOB like Bush. We have to face the facts.
Is there a bright side? a silver lining in this dark cloud of
mercury and coal smoke? As a spiritually motivated person, I'm
inclined to look for one even in the darkest depths of history such as
these. Here it is: whether the president is Kerry or Bush, America
is rolling down hot rails to hell. I mean that figuratively, of
course. What I mean is that within the next four years, it is a
near certainty that America will sink into yet lower depths of decay,
depravity and depression. The engines of this decline are too many
to enumerate here, but anyone who has been watching current events knows
that any of a number of things could go wrong and push us right over the
precipice. The other shoe will drop. That is the
fatal flaw underlying Bush's America. Now, with a stronger
Republican majority, and a stronger pro-Bush mandate (assuming Diebold
didn't cook the results, Bush actually won this election), the
Republican power structure has an extremely high profile. If
something goes wrong now, it's going to be very difficult to blame it on
Democrats. People will look up from the rubble and see who's in
power and ask themselves "Who is to blame for all this?"
They will very likely lash out against those who put them in that
situation: The GOP. Unfortunately, the realization will probably
come too late to save us from suffering the fate of Spain after 1577, or
England after WW I, or Greece and Persia after Alexander the
Great.
No doubt conservative wingnuts like Ann Coulter will accuse me of
hoping that America will suffer some awful attack or such--that I am
wringing my hands and cursing America. No. Nothing like
that. I can see the writing on the wall. The fate is
sealed. It is they who have cursed the world with their propaganda
yellavision. The end will come with or without the curses of angry
liberals. Not with four apocalyptic horsemen, but with the final
draining of the last dollar and job from this country and the escape of
the wealthy elites to off-shore havens. We have been robbed.
The money is in Caribbean and Swiss bank accounts. The future
economic engine is in China. As the ship sinks, apocalyptic Christians
will look for signs of Christ's return, but it will never happen.
Instead, America will become a Chinese territory, and a few wealthy
elites will have nothing to fear, safely insulated from the shock and
disappointment of their Evangelical dupes who helped them get to this
situation. The corporate elites will abandon their religious
zealot minions and live happily ever after as the new masters of a new
and very different world.
How did they do it? By telling Christians that "There will always be wars and rumors of war. Focus your
prayers and energy on the abortions and homosexuals, and just keep
praying." It's that simple. How will they react when
they find out that not only their political party, but their very
religion have betrayed them? It will be interesting to see, even
if we do become indentured servants of Chinese creditors. The
Democratic party will probably be a futile force, but it's probable that
we will awaken at last and finally strike down our real
oppressors--instead of engaging absurd witch hunts against homos and
abortion doctors. At best, I think both parties are doomed. I do so look forward to the day when I can look
the Evangelicals in the eye and tell them "See? Satan figured
it out. If he opposes abortion and homosexuality, he can do any
evil thing he wants. You have sold your soul and our future to
Satan in a futile fantasy of legislating sexual morality rather than
focusing on World Peace. If there is a God, may he have mercy on
your pathetic souls."
As liberals and conservatives worried about the issues of separation
of Church and State, nobody noticed that the real issue was separation
of both Church and State from the Corporations. It may be too late
now. But, what of the silver lining? Well, it's not
that nice. Not that clear. It lies in the proof that, in
1999 when we figured out that George W. Bush was setting his sights on
ruling the world with malevolent intent, that we liberals were right. The Bush family and
their associates really do want to destroy America. One more
thing--as the shit starts to hit the fan, and Bush goes over the edge
with Phase 2 of his agenda, I expect that some Republicans will realize
that, even if Bush has no reasons to worry about his future, they
do. Perhaps we will see some defections and betrayals.
Bush's people are powerful and maniacal, but I bet that some Republicans
will realize that they have been hornswoggled by the Texans.
Eventually the "Situation" will be such that the abandoned
conservatives will turn against each other. I hope it happens
before they get the idea to use their arsenals to mount a civil war
against "liberals."
You don't believe me? Take a look at these articles, and then
talk to me. Each article describes an important facet of the
gigantic conspiracy to destroy America:
But, what of the dark side of our future? What can we
expect? I really can't imagine. Unlike Condaleeza Rice, I
could not have imagined 9/11. Surely I have no business predicting
what a terrorist would do. Yet, I think it's safe to assume a
few things:
1) Bush does not have to worry about reelection now, so he can
do what he wants.
2) When he talks about reaching across party lines or ending the
partisanship, what he means is squashing all opposition to his
plans. His old motto of: "You're either with us or you're
against us." will be made even more loud and clear. Anyone
who gets in the way will be smashed.
3) The Democrats and a bipartisan grassroots coalition of
citizens will raise their voices in new ways and the media will be
pressured into turning against them simply because of the market-based
fact that the media is driven by profits. A post-election poll
showed that 58% of Americans are very worried about our future, adding
fuel to the opposition argument that Diebold tampered with the election and
that there will be lots of money to made by those willing to distribute
negative information about the Bush administration.
October 15, 2004: Pre-empting idiocy: The 3rd debate left
Kerry the clear winner in the face of Bush's weird behavior and empty
promises. Sure, the GOP spin meisters are telling us that Bush
won, or that it was a tie, but anyone with brains and honesty must admit
that Bush looked like an unstable, bumbling dolt next to Kerry.
This week we're being subjected to Bush's idiotic rhetoric of
pre-emption. Why do I call it idiotic? Because he can't see
the blatant contradiction in his own policies. Let me illustrate,
in case you didn't notice Bush stabbing himself in the back.
1) Kerry is accused of being weak on terror for criticizing Bush's
policy of pre-emption. In a typical straw man argument Bush claims
that Kerry will not act against a terrorist until after a terrorist act
occurs. I'm not going to waste time here proving that this
is not Kerry's position, though it's clear that by repeating it
endlessly that Bush has a lot of believers. So, let's look at the
next step.
2) Bush's policy on terrorism is to kill terrorists BEFORE they kill
us. It's an attractive ideal for a fearful population, but
terribly difficult to actually apply, as has been demonstrated by the
events since the invasion of Iraq.
3) During the 3rd debate Bush stated quite clearly that the way to
handle gun-related crime problems (which should include terrorism as
well, since Osama bin Laden is teaching his followers to come to America
to buy their weapons) is to punish those who commit crimes with
guns. We can't use a pre-emptive policy there.
Make sense? I didn't think so. In other words, his policy
on gun-related acts of terror here within this country is that we should wait
until after we are attacked, whereas abroad we should ruthlessly kill or
arrest anyone who is suspicious before they act. Even though a
terrorist could easily choose assault rifles to attack us here at home,
his policy on gun-related crime is the opposite of his incoherent and
fascist policy of fighting terrorism abroad. Given that Ashcroft
and Bush have been aggressive in preventing law enforcement agencies
from even looking through gun registration lists, it's utterly
impossible to take them seriously about either issue. So, the
idiot has been pre-empted.
October 11, 2004: Jacques Derrida died the past weekend, an event
which any good deconstructionist might interpret as a sort of ambiguous
omen of uncertainty--or perhaps the disappearance of uncertainty.
After the second presidential debate where Bush displayed his new, whiny
and defensive hick persona, I am noticing a dramatic shift of the tide
away from Bush and toward Kerry, or at least against voting for
Bush.
Most of the polls are projecting Kerry as the winner now, and here in
the battleground state of Minnesota Mr. Bush is down by 8% points.
He's down in Ohio and Pennsylvania as well. All of this indicates
to me that the economy is a big, big part of the turn away from
Bush. Given that Bush failed in the foreign policy debate, and
then failed in the health care and education debate, the economy debate
is sure to be washout. Obviously his economic plans are even more
misguided than his war plans, so if the latter is wrong, then the former
is terrible. I expect him to whine repeatedly about Kerry raising
taxes. Meanwhile, all of us middle class people can sit back and
smirk at him. We all saw our taxes and expenses go up under Bush,
and the deficit is also rising at warp speed. Even if our federal
taxes went down a couple of hundred dollars, that savings was eaten up
by increases in local taxes and fees. It's going to be really
tough for Bush to campaign on tax cuts for the rich and outsourcing jobs
to India. The last debates each gave Kerry a big nudge, and I
predict that this next one will push him up over the edge. It's
still going to be a close race, which bodes ill for the future as the
conservative families tend to reproduce more quickly. But, it is
looking more and more probable that Bush and Cheney will be looking for
work in January.
Bush
Flip Flops A great list of Bush's changing and inconsistent
opinions. I don't mean to suggest that changing opinions is bad,
but hypocrisy is definitely bad, especially when your flip flops make it
clear that you are really an evil SOB out to rob us all blind.
October 4, 2004: Day after the vice presidential debate. First
of all, I find it deliciously ironic that Cheney made a double mistake
when he said "FactCheck.com", which some sly internet trouble
maker has set to re-route to George Soros' anti-Bush site. The second
half of the mistake is that the actual site, FactCheck.org states quite
clearly that Edwards was right on all points with regard to Halliburton
except the assertion that Cheney was involved with the company when it
did indeed deal with Libya. A plausibly honest error,
really. Thanks to FactCheck we do have a
nice run-down of the errors and misleading statements made by BOTH
candidates. I'm not interested in suggesting that either
Edwards or Kerry are above lying or dirty politics. They are and
they have. Yet, I think it interesting that Cheney's list of gaffs
is quite a bit longer and substantial than Edwards.' Of course I'm
heavily biased against Cheney, but I do not feel especially enthusiastic
about either of the Democrats. I am dutifully following the herd
in accepting the pro-Kerry premises that:
a) nobody could really screw things up worse than the venal brutes
currently in the administration. Kerry is, without a single doubt,
a more intelligent, poised and professional man with good
judgment. He's not the best, but he is better than the
other guy who would win if I didn't vote for a viable opponent.
Ralph Nader doesn't stand a chance, and I like him even
less.
b) those venal brutes will associate with yet more venal, criminal
and fascist elements--appointing yet more fringe whackos. Their
friends are even worse than they are. If Kerry turns out to be a
lot like Bush, the most important thing is to make sure that Cheney,
Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Powell and Rumsfeld end up working in the private
sector, and that no more Federalist Society judges are appointed.
Liberal as Kerry might seem, there is no chance that he will be an
irrepressible fiscal liberal like Bush or FDR, or a weak,
terrorist-friendly president.
c) the rest of the civilized world hates Bush and his people,
and may decide to cause America some very serious problems in the future
if we don't shape up and start being more diplomatic.
d) According to a suppressed source mentioned on CNN's Crossfire by
either Carville or Begala (I can't find the damn thing again--it has
been cleaned off of CNN, Yahoo
and Reuters),
Al Qaida released a statement that they supported George W. Bush for
president because his impulsive behavior has been an incredible
recruiting tool. Bush has effectively turned a small band of
dangerous criminals in Afghanistan and Pakistan into a Hydra monster
with no single head to chop off. Cut one, and ten more take its
place. Bush has made us immensely less safe. In spite
of the big talk, Bush is quite evidently losing the war on terror at
this very minute. The statement from Al Qaida might be false, but
the idea is not. Bush clearly has helped the "Islamo-Fascist"
movement.
e) the tax cuts that Bush created didn't help me a bit. For
every cent I didn't send to the IRS, I am now spending two on local
taxes and assessments. Never believe a politician who says he will
cut your taxes. In the end, the money levels back out. It's
merely a difference of who is spending it and how efficiently it's
done. Sure, we can cut ALL taxes, but you won't have roads, and
you won't have stable corporations regulated by employment laws, and you
can just spend your days guarding your cave against attack with a stone
axe--because there won't be gun factories either. The myth of
"the private sector does it better" is now quite clear to
me. Take away the government, and the private sector thugs will
rape you, rob you and leave you to rot in a ditch. Think about
this for a moment. In three and a half years, Bush and all three
Republican dominated branches of government have overseen the
disappearance of ten trillion dollars. For those who need to break
that down to conceive of it, that's $7,301,135,326.54 a day.
That's 7.3 billion per day. Per day... that's over $5
million a minute. $84,503 every second. At that rate, the
government could have bought and paid for a good-sized house in a decent
neighborhood every 3 to 4 seconds. What do we have to show for
it? A shredded reputation, a huge debt, a great big hole in the
ground and a lot of dead soldiers. These oil tycoons couldn't even
succeed at getting the price of gas down for the election. What a
bunch of losers!
As John Edwards wisely stated, a long political resume is not an
indication of good judgment. Dick Cheney's snarling, bobble-headed
and beady-eyed glares looked pretty unsettling next to Edwards' polished
and relaxed performance. I thought Edwards did quite well.
Cheney probably helped accelerate their own downward momentum with his
grouchy old authoritarian schtick. If the voters really are as
shallow and dumb as they say, then "Smirky and Snarly" may go
down to these two guys with better looks, better attitudes and much
better hair.
One little detail continues to bother me. I can't help but
suspect that, much as Bush obviously wants to win this election, it
seems that the people who matter have already pulled out any real
support for him, and are just going through the motions to provide
damage control for the GOP as a whole. It's a bit scary to think
that they might be setting Kerry up to win.
October 1, 2004:
Day after the first debate, and here are my remarks. Bush was
absolutely odd. Kerry looks much better in many ways, even if he
has a ready-for-the-cartoonists kind of face like Nixon and Reagan.
Bush's peculiar lip gestures surely gave many people shivers and
giggles. That manic repetition of "What kind of message does
it send...", "when you gotta lead the troops", "it's
hard work", "somebody who keeps changing his position"
and "wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place" set him
right up for Kerry's coup de grace "Sometimes you can be
certain and be wrong." I shudder to think what sort of person
honestly believes that Bush did at well in that debate. We know
what sort of type will lie about it, but what worries me is that I know
there really are people out there who thought that Bush's performance
was superior to Kerry's. Yet, I'm heartened to note that on the
first round, which should have been Bush's strongest position--national
security--was nothing better than pathetic. Imagine how he'll do
on the economy debate... Paul
Krugman (yes he's a liberal) made a really astute prediction that I
agree with strongly:
What we need is an effort to regain [America's] good name. What we're getting instead is a provision, inserted by Congressional Republicans in the intelligence reform bill, to legalize "extraordinary rendition" - a euphemism for sending terrorism suspects to countries that use torture for interrogation. This would institutionalize a Kafkaesque system under which suspects can be sent, at the government's whim, to Egypt or Syria or Jordan - and to fight such a move, it's up to the suspect to prove that he'll be tortured on arrival. Just what we need to convince other countries of our commitment to the rule of law.
...
But the rest of the world has already lost faith in
[America]. In fact, let me make a prediction: if Mr. Bush gets a second term, we will soon have no democracies left
among our allies - no, not even Tony Blair's Britain. Mr. Bush will be left with the support of regimes that don't worry about the legalities - regimes like Vladimir Putin's Russia.
(emphasis added)
Amy
Sullivan, a blog contributor at the Washington Monthly site, gave
what I think is the most cogent and fair minded assessment of Bush's
creepy behavior as he listened to Kerry's direct criticisms.
Finally, people are all atwitter about Bush's twitchy and grouchy demeanor while he listened to Kerry. I didn't think it was all that surprising--it's the real George W. Bush. But I think his tendency to become annoyed when challenged has been made much much worse by the bubble he's been kept in for the past four years. No one on his staff talks to him like that. He's just not used to direct verbal pounding. Even his campaign appearances out among "real Americans" are so carefully controlled that if someone gets through the loyalty pledge to actually step up and challenge him, they're tackled and dragged away in a matter of seconds. Bill Clinton--who used to encounter all manner of hecklers on the campaign trail--was a master at sparring with protesters and putting them in their place while defending himself. Maybe that kind of practice would have been good for Bush.
Sept. 29, 2004: Crawford,
Texas newspaper endorses John Kerry. Sure, it's probably
symbolic and not indicative of a Texan revolt against the monkey
dictator. But, it is kind of satisfying. It reminds me of
the 2002 Minnesota election where Norm
Coleman barely won his senate race against Paul Wellstone's
replacement. The symbolic gesture came in the form of Coleman's
hometown, the city that once elected him as mayor voted overwhelmingly
against him. The rest of the state didn't listen to us, so there
he is, kissing the behinds of the Bushies.
Sept 15, 2004: The
military memos of George W. Bush. Being a liberal and an
admitted Bush-loather, I am perhaps too willing to believe that Bush was
AWOL during at least 11 months of his certainly social
status-enhanced military service. Yes, I want to believe it's
true. Given the obvious lack of character of the man, and his past
history of "partying" it doesn't surprise me at all. The
documents are in question. Double-conspiracy theories are even
surfacing--Carl Rove created them to bait liberal media figures.
Maybe, but not likely. However, I wouldn't want to suggest that
the Kerry Campaign has been guided by good judgment. The
Swiftboats deal was obviously an intentional red herring to bait
them. They fell for it too.
Yet, one lingering problem for Bush suggests that indeed he was
absent most if not all of the time of his service: nobody is coming
forth to say "I was on his crew." According to an Air
Force vet friend of mine, every pilot has a crew to maintain his plane,
and that crew stays with that pilot. Why is it that nobody is
saying: "I loaded practice missiles onto his jet" or
"I changed his tires." or even "I got drunk with
him."? Is it conceivable that a pilot would be unknown to the
people who worked on his jet and set him up for flights? Where the
hell are these people? All he has is a string of people who are
saying "I never saw him." That's rather difficult to
write off, don't you think? But, what do I know?
I've never been in the military--just like the rest of the Bush
administration (except Colin Powell) and the vast majority of GOP
politicians (including Dick Cheney). Note too that CBS has
declared that they cannot authenticate the documents they have. In
spite of GOP spin on this, there has been no acknowledgement that the
whole Bush service scandal is a hoax. No, it would appear that the
charges are still quite active. Surely the bad news will draw some
of the swing voter moths toward that little candle
flame.
"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove
that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable
journalistic standard to justify using them in the report," said
the statement by CBS News President Andrew Heyward. "We
should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret.
[the CBS news web site apology statement.]
Wow. It's amazing how effectively skanky the RNC is. But,
they've got trouble coming down the pipe. 60
Minutes will broadcast a damning confession from the man who got George
Bush out of Vietnam and into his cushy post in the Texas air
national guard that looked the other way when he went AWOL for 11
months. More info is coming out on missing records in Bush's
military records too. (About damned time...)
The most interesting and disturbing feature of the current Bush
campaign energy and discourse was put forward most explicitly by General
Tommy Franks. I quote the following from my new introduction to
the Apocalypse page on this site: Tommy Franks, the General in
charge of the Iraq invasion, dug an interesting grave for himself and
the Republican party. Franks was silly enough to describe Kerry's
philosophy on the war on terror as wishful thinking and undesirable
because it focuses on fighting terrorism at home with law enforcement
and intelligence programs. According to him, Bush's philosophy was
much more certain and desirable because it is, if I read between the
lines correctly, a strategy of using the Iraq occupation as a lure to
draw out terrorists "over there," rather than here at home.
Bush's strategy relies almost entirely on explosive devices, prisons
(Abu Grahib was renamed "Camp Redemption."), and attempts to
create a pro-American political system through a highly manipulated
pseudo-democracy. I have a theory, based on the teachings of
Bush's self-proclaimed faith, and the actions and statements he has
made: Bush is actively invoking the Apocalypse in the Middle East.
In all fairness, I must add that he is far from alone in this endeavor.
The picture above is a wry metaphor of the self-fulfilling prophecy that
informs the Bush Administration. In both cases, Franks' policy of
hypocritical wishful thinking inspired by Messianic self-assuredness in
Bush's appointment as the new Soter Kosmoi,
and the pan-religious obsession with the Middle East as the central
stage of a scriptural, mythical drama of terrifying implications, we see
a strange pattern: a policy of hope. A strategy of wishful
thinking, cynical and pessimistic as it might seem to those not seeking
an end of the world as we know it. The primary difference then,
between the two parties is, as they have both asserted, the GOP promotes
a dark and pessimistic resignation to terror combined with a faith in
metaphysical doctrines to justify boldly arrogant aggression, while the
DNC promotes a hopeful vision based on past experience, reasoning and
nuanced political reflection backed by diplomatic and military power.
Interestingly, the GOP has been fairly successful at labeling the DNC as
pessimistic, while they are hopeful. The irony of this mis en
abysme is nearly nauseating.
1968 & 2004: The Convention from Hell?
August 6, 2004
Besides the issues surrounding the integrity of the democratic
process in America (manipulated electronic voting), there are several
other stratagems the Bush team is using to attempt to insure their
perpetual lock on power. You may have heard that recently Bush's
lawyers are looking into the necessary conditions for postponing or canceling
the 2004 election. Even more interesting, but less well known
is the fact that the RNC
closed down primaries in Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Florida, New York, Connecticut, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Puerto
Rico. They claimed it was a cost saving measure, since Bush
was the "obvious" nominee. Among those states where the
GOP actually embraced the democratic process, there was significant
evidence of dissatisfaction with Bush. According
to this Nation article, votes against Bush came out as
follows: New Hampshire 22% said no to Bush. Rhode Island 15% rejected Bush. In Idaho and Oklahoma, 10%
"...of Republicans cast Anyone-But-Bush votes, while almost 10 percent did so in Massachusetts. Even in the president's home state of Texas, more than 50,000 Republican primary voters refused to back Bush."
No wonder they want to shut down elections. They don't even have
solid support among their own people. Even if this scenario
is exaggerated, Bush's rapidly deflating support is sure to increase GOP
anxieties about losing the Whitehouse, just when they have all the bases
loaded. Perhaps the Orange Alert police presence in New York isn't
to protect the GOP delegates from liberal protesters, but rather to
protect the Evangelical Neocon wackos from the intelligent and sane
members of their own party. Although
it's highly unlikely that we'll see a repeat of the 1968 Democratic
convention melee for the Republicans this year, it won't surprise me if
some real sparks and darts don't fly there. If even 1% of
Bush's delegates dump him or cause trouble, Bush could win the
nomination and still lose the allegedly "neck-in-neck" race
with Kerry.
That doesn't mean I believe that the political polls the media is
feeding us are telling the truth. They're just scrambling to cover
their asses, because if Bush falls, the whole propaganda machine will be
unveiled and lick spittles like Dan Rather and Larry King can simply
abandon any hopes for keeping what little integrity they might have
left. Although Bush doesn't seem to see it, the media sycophants
apparently are catching glimpses of the writing on the wall: Mene
mene tekel upharshin!
As if all this weren't enough, take a look at this story about fascist
techniques used at Bush rallies.
Oh, and this is good. The Republicans are whining about
the rhetoric of rabid Bush haters, hoping that the extremism of
entertainment figures like Linda Ronstadt and Whoopi Goldberg might
besmirch the reputation of John Kerry. This
author provides a nice little compendium of awful quotes from Bush's
supporters. So, is Bush responsible for the ideas of the
lunatic SOB's?
March 10, 2004
Ralph Nader Go Home
All over the net and among my friends I keep hearing people talk
about how Ralph is a spoiler. His campaign is helping Bush
win. He should get out of the race because he can't win and we
need to get Anybody But Bush Again, yadda yadda yadda. I have a
problem with this, though I sincerely hope that Ralph falls flat on his
face and never runs again. Why? Not because of this
disturbing liberal mantra. Not because we should give up on
democracy and vote for the apparent lesser of two evils. Not
because Ralph can't possibly win. Those are defeatist reasons that
sound like they were created in Democratic Party think tanks. If
we start believing these lies, we will only assure the impossibility of
a third party. No, the reasons are much more complex and
multifarious.
Ralph is old and not healthy. Quite simply, he looks bad.
Really bad. Not only does that make him a weak candidate in our
shallow society, but it makes him a risky choice during critical
times. I don't know about you, but I doubt that Ralph could keep
up with Dubyah's jogging routine, or even his schedule. His
running mate in 2000 was far from a proven element with no relevant
political experience to prepare her for crossing the Stygian
Potomac. Of course, with Bush we have a parallel situation--a
robust president with no brains, and an unhealthy puppet master
(Cheney). We know Bush is a risky choice, but the problem is, I
see no reason not to assume that Ralph isn't a risky choice.
Ralph is a hypocrite. He takes money from Republican
organizations, and Wallstreet. He sucks off the evil beast just as
much as those he criticizes. Not only does he benefit from the
monster he decries, but he really doesn't even acknowledge that
relationship. Yet more duplicitous is his willingness to attack
the Democrats while accepting campaign funds and assistance from
Republicans, all at the same time that he denies the validity of them
both.
Based on my observations of his behavior and remarks, I would also
guess that Ralph is a sexist, and possibly a racist. His treatment of
Winona LaDuke in the last election was shameful. Nobody else seems
to have noticed, but I did. Further, women's issues and race
issues seem to be of no interest at all to him. I can't support an
allegedly left-leaning candidate who hasn't got a coherent and explicit
platform on these issues, as well as a willingness to back those words
up with actions. Like a devout Marxist, he's only interested in
money and class. It's a good start, but it's not enough for a
president.
Ralph has social and emotional issues. His behavior
bespeaks obsessive compulsive disorder, or Asperger's
syndrome. I mean no slight to those who suffer these diseases
that Republicans don't want to support, nor do I wish to suggest that
all people who suffer these conditions are as boorish and annoying as
Ralph. [Note: Bill Frist's first action as leader of the Senate
GOP was to include in a post 9/11 security bill a provision to protect
Ely Lily from lawsuits over their measles
vaccine, which may be the cause of Asperger's.]
Ralph seems to me to lack a certain je ne sais quoi. It's as
if he is always being the self-proclaimed voice of the
people. He never shuts it off. No rability to step out of that and be...human?
I shouldn't say he doesn't have a sense of humor. He can be very
funny, but it's in a sort of stand up comic way. He's considerably
more humorous than either candidate anyway. Yet, there is a sense
in which Nader just doesn't have the ability to relate to much of the
working class--not because of the words, but, I think, because of the
odd personality. Now, I don't want to say that Bush's smirky arrogance and
penchant for malapropisms, neologisms and creative syntax aren't equally
weird, but I do feel that Ralph's oddness renders him incapable of being
a productive partner in the ongoing political battles necessary for the
Legislative and Executive branches to get anything done. He
doesn't have any real administrative experience either. The last
time I checked, the talent and ability to complain about corporations
and the government is profusely represented on blog pages all over the
Internet. The ability to make a funny story out of real life
experience might make for an interesting conversation, but it's a long
way from making a man into a president. I
have absolutely no confidence that Ralph could be a competent president
simply on the basis of his ability to rant against the crony
pseudo-capitalists. To drive home my point, imagine this: Ralph
stands before congress and tells them that they are all a bunch of
corporate lickspittles and liars (which is probably true, for the most
part). Then, he proposes a budget which
slashes the military and creates government protection for labor unions,
international trade and social security. They would tear him to
shreds after they laughed at him. If the Green Party (or now
whatever party this crackpot lines up with) is to transform America,
surely it won't work with a top-down model. We must start at the
bottom and work up. That's how the Dominion Theologist Christians
got where they are today--in a position to lick the behinds of the cheap
labor conservatives.
Ralph has a suspicious side too--not only is there evidence that he
takes money from Republicans, but he also has connections to the Fred
Newman psychotherapy cult that produced Leonora Fulani and Lyndon
LaRouche. For me, this explained a lot about Nader's peculiar
social ineptitude and abrasiveness. It may be guilt by
association, but it's my opinion that any type of connection to this New
Alliance Party makes him a very dubious candidate.
As you can see, unlike a lot of liberals, I have never really been
persuaded by Ralph Nader's ego show. I'm not voting for Ralph
Nader because I don't like him. Not because of what he did
in the last election or might do in this one. Ralph wasn't a
good candidate before and he's less desirable now.
So, please liberals! Don't criticize Nader's campaign on the grounds
that he's hurting Kerry's chances to win. Destroy Nader by
pointing out the truth about him. He sucks. I have a better
idea. Let's invent a fake Nazi party and support George W.
Bush. We'll find a patsy spokesman--like James Woods or Dennis
Miller--and let them say all the offensive crap he wants in support of
the president. "I'm a Jew-hating Nazi, and I love that Bush
guy! It's just great what he's doing with Israel there. Let's get
all those Jews out of America and into Israel so we can be an all white,
all Christian nation again. Oh, and big thumbs up on Mel Gibson's
new movie too! Jesus looked so Aryan. We anti-Semites
couldn't be happier." Can't you just see it? Ku Klux
Klan members showing up at the New York RNC convention... We don't
need to be so radical, though. I have a feeling that an artful
producer could make some really offensive and disturbing images of Bush
supporters speaking for themselves on issues like immigration,
affirmative action, labor unions, religion, homosexuality. I say
let's show Americans what Bush's supporters are really like if you take
away the think tank glitter and distortions. It would be really
unusual, but I think it would have profound effects to show people what
a strong Bush supporter really thinks like. Even if the GOP
returned the trick, interviewing air-head touchy-feely liberals, I don't
think that could compete with the images we could make of Bush
supporters speaking for themselves expressing their xenophobia,
homophobia, and support for cheap labor conservative ideas.
Feb. 20, 2004
John Kerry: Creepy Enough to Be President
At first I was stunned and amazed by how John Kerry went from
competing with Joe Lieberman for the honor of being the most dull and
pitiful candidate to a veritable juggernaut of political power.
Clearly, this leap depended on some behind-the-scenes manipulation of
the media who willingly collaborated in the destruction of Howard Dean
with a carefully distorted video clip of him growling to cheer up his
supporters. Surely, his wife's Heinz fortune has utilitarian value
in the race. But, more important in this attack on Dean was a
well-organized conspiracy to hoodwink and hijack Dean's supporters at
the Iowa Caucus. My parents were volunteers for Dean's campaign
there, and they saw some incredibly dirty pool played by the Kerry
people. I won't go into the details of my mother's narrative
here.
So, Dean has finally given up the race, and it looks like, barring a
serious revelation of sleaziness or malfeasance on Kerry's part, he will
be the next president of the United States. I say this because
Bush's presidency looks dead in the water, and it seems that Bush
himself has lost his zeal and is just biding his time for a quiet
departure. Sure, it's possible that a last minute stunt could
create a lot of fear, creating the illusion that only the Bush/Cheney
corporation could handle. However, even if Bush did win the next
election, the scandals in the making will surely mean that his second
term will be like the second term of Clinton: an auto de fe in
which the American public will once again be treated to the immolation
of their ruler.
I think we need to start looking ahead to the very real possibility
that Bush will lose. What will this mean?
Perhaps the most significant aspect of a Democratic presidency is the
right wing response. During the past three years, the right wing
think tanks and AM radio windbags have created a startlingly
militant, angry and deceived throng of gun-loving homophobic lib'ral
haters. The vehemence of this crowd makes the 1990's Clinton
haters look like Buddhist monks. It's evident that these
not-so-closeted fascists are quite independent of the GOP, and are quite
capable of
causing serious trouble for even Republicans who aren't right wing
enough for them. These people are truly frightening.
It's this fanatical vitriol among his most likely voters that I believe
is at the heart of Bush's sudden dispiriting, along with fear of facing
his own scandals in the next four years.
It is, I think, absurd to think that any Democrat could expect to win
the White House without encountering some of the most withering,
incessant attacks from all sides. In short, the life of the next
president, whether it be Bush or some Democrat, will be absolute
hell.
Howard and Judy Dean are good people. Dean would have been an
excellent president, but the Dixiecrat hijacking of the Democratic party
via the Democratic Leadership Council determined that such an
independent and virtuous man could never become president. Sadly,
the office of president has descended to such a depth of perversion and
corruption since Nixon that I have for some time believed that we must
seriously scrutinize the motives of anyone who would actually want
the job. Dean was much too nice and honest for the job. The
brownshirt talk radio zombies, and the Washington media monarchs like
Sally Quinn would have sacrificed them and drank their
blood.
So, it seems to me that, much as I dislike him, John Kerry is the
perfect man for the job. He apparently wants to be
president. He should be more careful of what he wishes for.
He just might get it. It's my opinion that the awful attacks he
will suffer as president will be wonderful karmic justice for his sleazy
campaign. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Consequently, I
have decided to move from being an independent voter enthusiastically
supporting Dean, to an independent who vengefully supports Kerry.
He's the perfect man for the job.
Jim Hightower put it best in July 2004 when he stated that he didn't
care if John Kerry was a sack of cement. "...We're going to
carry him to victory."
Furthermore, in response to delusional Republicans who fear Kerry's
alleged ultra-liberal, leftist extremism, I can only say "get a
frickin' clue!" Kerry is about as conservative and even
fascist as any of the moderates in the GOP. For example, Cheney's
accusations about Kerry's voting against military funding are profoundly
ironic, given the fact that Cheney also voted against them, or sponsored
the measures to cut them himself! Perhaps the most
illuminating demonstration
of Kerry's right wing credentials is found in the articles of Paul
Street--a real leftist who savagely slams Kerry.
In spite of the fact that these pieces might discourage Kerry voters,
I think they are helpful to those who might be wavering on whether or
not Kerry is right wing enough to lead America into its self-destructive
future.
Race, Class and Politics
I recommend the following links to get a better picture of this
complicated racial/class battleground of the current political climate:
Wal Mart Evil Empire: paying
people to lobby for lower wages for their
employees, and hauling
in illegal immigrants to work at lower pay. This
is the reality of trickle down--we give them our tax money, and they
screw us even more. So much for the idea that making the wealthy
wealthier will produce more, better paying jobs for us.
People Like Us: Social Class in
America--Bourgeois
Blues, the
Trouble With Tofu, Friends
in Low Places
Confederate
Flap: Stand Firm Howard Dean
Southern
Comforting
And what about that mess in Iraq? The
Art of the fait accomplis: "But playing the sap to
Republican fait accomplis is like paying off your drunken
kid's gambling debts. It makes you an enabler of destructive
behavior--and that's even worse than throwing your hands up in the air
and walking away. Let's give the GOP some tough love." Ted
Rall suggests that the Democrats should refuse to fix the mess created
by Bush. An interesting idea, given the fact that when Bush
loses the next election, the Democrats will be stepping into a really
*%^@'ed up mess. George Bush's "tar baby", if you will.
Election Fraud and Unsavory Coincidences
These pieces are listed in chronological order. If you want the
primary background information for the voting machine scandals, start at
the bottom of this list. I have not been vigorous in updating
this section because a) there is so much available on the 'net about
this, that I have been saturated with it, and lost some interest
b) the issue is exceedingly important, but will do no good if the
mainstream media don't pick it up.
December 17 2003: Convicted
felons employed by voting software companies. Several are even
experts in computer fraud.
November 2, 2002: Sequoia
Voting Systems involved in the same kind of scandal and hacker raid.
October 27, 2003: Diebold
is suing people who hacked into their website and stole incriminating
documents that reveal serious concerns about the very essence of
Democracy. Not just something of narrow scope like drugs, but
rather, the integrity of voting in America. The defense points out
that it's kind of like stealing crack from a crack dealer and the dealer
calling the police on you. In other words, he thinks it's going to
be a open-and-closed case against the plaintiffs. I'm not so
sure. I agree with the idea, but I have doubts as to whether
or not the people who are benefiting from corrupt voting machines will
be anxious to undermine their technological advantage. It strikes
me that the currents are drifting in the direction of continuing to
stonewall and nobody will do anything about it until after the 2004
elections. Interestingly, the main strategy Diebold is using is
one of intellectual property. It seems that the key offense is
that these hackers are publishing and distributing memos, documents,
manuals and internal e-mails. It is unsettling to think that some
hacker could publish our professional files and such. Then again,
I confess that one of my main pleasures of living in this time is the
fact that things like this can happen. I prefer the idea of
a vigilante grassroots anti-corporate technoanarchy to a Kafkaesque
world of utterly controlled information and bureaucratic
alienation.
Let them
Eat War by Arlie Hochschild: Bush screws working class
Americans--sends them to war to die, eliminates their jobs, eliminates
OSHA protections, cuts taxes for the rich... the list goes on and
on. So why in the hell do they continue to support him?
Liberals are extremely puzzled by the once democratic voters whose
unions have been destroyed and still vote for him. This article
gives some really insightful analyses of the "emotional strip
mining of the NASCAR dads."
It seems that the major producers of voting
machines in America are owned by Republican partisans. [1,
2
]
Further,
there is ample evidence that the software behind the "no paper
trail touch screen machines" is designed to be
tamper-friendly.
Voter
News Service abandons exit polling with the 2002 election--why?
Is it perhaps because the results would diverge dramatically
from the "actual" tabulation of the votes?
Would they get answers that they don't want to report
because of corporate/government control of the media?
The reason they give is because of errors in their work
on the Bush fiasco (the error in which they correctly
declared that Gore won). The alleged error was in
the actual vote tabulation, not in the opinions gathered
at exit polls. However, instead of abandoning the
work that was flawed, they decided to continue
their vote counting work (which was supposedly flawed),
and discontinue the part that was not flawed--the
exit polls. Fascinating... Still
believe in the liberal media?
Ballot
Check: Computerized Voting Comes under Fire in Georgia
and California.
Abilene
Texas computer glitch causes 2002 Republican landslide,
but reverses the outcome when repaired. A Republican
who thought he won, was informed on Wednesday that he
lost.
More claims of flawed voting: check
out VoteWatch
Who
makes those flawed voting machines, anyway?
Would you believe that it's a long list of conservative,
private corporations with vested interests in a conservative
political environment? Important article.
Read it. Another
article on voting machines. It looks like we'll
never see a valid election again--unless we can return
to hand-counted paper ballots. Is it ironic that
the Republicans are pushing to eliminate paper ballots?
Is it ironic that a referendum against voting machines,
run on a voting machine in Florida gave the win to the
voting machines? Why is it that all of the
examples of machine errors in the 2002 election benefit
Republicans? If it's an honest error, how come the
machines have such an obvious conservative bias?
Voting machine manufacturers include:
Black Box Voting--a
website with news about voting machine fraud.
Schwarzenegger Effect
Well, it looks like Gray Davis is out and the pumped up macho goons
are taking over California. Unfortunately, it really doesn't seem
like Californians had any good choices to make. The cosmic irony
will come to Californians in the form of a sweetheart deal that Arnold
has probably promised to the Enron people that will prevent them from
recovering the nine BILLION dollars they swindled out of the
state. It ought to be no surprise that the size of California's
budget shortfall is eight billion dollars. But, it doesn't seem
that the election machines were faulty. It appears that Arnold won
the election fairly. The situation is quite similar to Jesse
Ventura. Then again, Adolph Hitler was actually elected. He
did not have to use violent means. He just needed hate propaganda
similar to the sort of ranting we hear on AM radio. It's a bit
spooky that Arnold is an Austrian with a history of admiration for
powerful men like Hitler. But, I still have hopes that Arnold will
be a bigger headache for conservatives than for people actually
espousing liberal policies aimed at the productive class in
America.
I would like to make a few predictions for the Schwarzenegger regime
in California:
- Republican operatives from Pete Wilson's administration will take
over operations, plant a Republican secretary of state who will
oversee the corruption of California's voting, just like
Florida. Arnold won't be much of a governor--probably only
slightly better than George W. Bush. California will survive
the budget crisis only by enacting really drastic changes in their
policy that will eliminate those pesky environmental and property
development laws that keep California the most progressive state in
the country. Like Minnesota, this will vanish as Republicans
start to make bigger gains in the state. Arnold will not help
Latinos in his state, except for those who earn more than a couple
of hundred thousand. Designated ATV trails will increase
dramatically and the coastline of central and Northern California
will be dealt the dreadful blow of strip malls and high rise
property. Air quality will worsen at a faster rate than it
already is.
- Enron will get a signed release from Arnold that will absolve them
from wrongdoing in robbing Californians. Eventually, the media
will point out that the Republicans masterminded this election for
this very purpose, and Gray Davis was the perfect whipping boy for
them. It's likely that Enron's creditors are behind this
too. Every penny Enron keeps is another penny they can
take.
- Arnold will eventually break ranks with the right wing, or they
will break ranks with him. Face it, Arnold is a long, long way
from true right wingers like McClintock. People who really
wanted to vote for the true Republican will quickly sour on
Schwarzenegger's squeamishness with cutting funds that help children
and education. Arnold will bring a series of sexual harassment
scandals that will underscore for people that there is a huge
difference between consensual adultery (as in Clinton/Lewinsky) and
outright, grab-ass skanky adultery and unsolicited assault (as in the fifteen or more women
accusing him of behavior that would be a felony for anyone else.)
Other possible scandals surround his previous life and
opinions. According to some unverified accusations he has
responded to, he has had a pretty reckless life of sexual deviance
and entertained some romantic ideas about Hitler. It is
rumored that the collection of gay photographer Robert Mapplethorp
includes some steamy gay sex pictures of Arnold. I personally
don't care about his sexual preference or past, but I'm betting that
the real right wing will be quick to jump ship on Arnold when the
stories come out. Still, I doubt that this will save
California. The damage will be done very quickly and soon that
gigantic state will be casting its electoral votes for the GOP.
- In the end, after he offends and annoys everyone, he will end up
being irrelevant and curmudgeonly, like Jesse Ventura. He may
even face a recall election, but I kind of doubt it. We in
Minnesota know what happens when lots of alienated young males and
blue collar workers get excited about a hormone soaked stud muffin
politician who can make his famous movie lines into political sound
bites. Once you let the populist pseudo conservative Trojan
Horse into the palace, the evil will spread rapidly. Next
thing you know, they'll be redistricting the state for better
Republican election results. Take a look at the new map
of Austin, Texas to see what I'm talking about.
|
