That's right, that's what was heard over the radio waves yesterday, arguably the most tantalizing, and possibly disconcerting, statement to come out of the current campaign.
Karl said they had the "machinery," - not the issues, not the candidates, not the momentum, not the organization - not any of those things or any number of other terms he could have chosen. No, he said "machinery."
Ok, so, as long as he's brought it up, let's talk about "machinery."
Last week, Electionline.org, a non partisan clearinghouse that tracks electoral reforms across the United States, announced that at least ten states, all involved in close races, could encounter trouble on Election Day because of, among other things, "fledgling voting machine technology."
Numerous other organizations and scholars have issued similar warnings in recent weeks, according to the Washington Post.
Six months ago, the 50th Congressional District in San Diego County held a special election to replace convicted Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. The contest was won by the Republican candidate under a cloud of suspicious circumstances, including the charge that precinct workers took the electronic voting machines home with them. The "winner" was hastily sworn in by Hastert before the election was even certified, and the California courts subsequently ruled that, because of this, the matter was out of their jurisdiction and they could not order a recount.
The primary election held in Maryland just last month was described as being "dismal" by Electionline.org with "human and machine failures galore."
Without a doubt, one of the fondest hopes of all Democrats, and others opposing the current power structure in Washington, is that the forthcoming mid term elections will play out on a level field - that we won't be inundated with reports of misdeeds and rigged machines after it's over.
But, what are the chances? Certainly, on the basis of what we are already hearing, there seems to be sufficient cause to fear a repeat of the election of 2004.
Alan Waldman, one of the most respected political writers on Gather, and one of the most published as well, laid out a strong case for his assertion that the sum totals of the documented problems in that election were sufficient to have put Kerry into the White House. If you are interested in reading his comprehensive analysis of the situation, and it's a sure bet you will be amazed, just check out this article by our resident expert on voter fraud, entitled "How The Grinch Stole the White House Again (November, 2004)," which was published on Gather on April 14, 2006. Despite the partisan slant to the title, Waldman concentrates on documented facts and conclusions of responsible researchers, with an overwhelming litany of information.
For example, Waldman reveals that Verified Voting, a group formed by a Stanford University professor for the purpose of assessing electronic voting, has collected 31,000 reports of election fraud. Also, among his many sources, he quotes Dr. Steven Freeman, a University of Pennsylvania researcher of the 2004 election results, who concluded : "The odds that the discrepancies between (exit poll) results and actual vote counts in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania could have been due to chance or random error are 250 million to 1.
Two years ago, Johns Hopkins researchers performed a detailed analysis of the major types of electronic voting machines. Waldman reports that they concluded: "The voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts. We identify several problems, including....vulnerabilities to network threats. We show that voters, without any insider privileges, can cast unlimited votes without being detected. Furthermore, we show that even the most serious of our outsider attacks could have been...executed without access to the source code. Worries about insider threats are not the only concerns; outsiders can do the damage. We conclude that this voting system is unsuitable for use in a general election."
Surprisingly, legislation to correct the problems, and require a paper record of voting, has stalled in Congress, despite strong Democratic backing.
The three main manufacturers of voting machines are Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia, who have multiple connections with the Republican Party and the Bush Administration.
Meanwhile, it's been reported that 80% of voters will vote on electronic systems on November 7th.
And in a statement appropriately scary for the Halloween season, Carl Rove said: "We have the machinery to win."
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 47
But the thing that really bothers me is Rove's focus on the "machinery" of victory to the exclusion of any discussion of issues. Politics is not a sporting event. Our electoral system is the lifeblood of our nation. We will not survive as a nation longterm if we are unable to develop the civility and voter education to regard elections as something more important than a football game to which one shows up, waves a banner, and goes home.
Rove's focus on winning at all costs and establishing a Republican dynasty that will last for eternity must be viewed as unsustainable. Diversity in politics keeps corruption down and encourages new ideas. If you want to see the detrimental effects of one-party political systems, try China or Cuba. Mexico had the problem too until recently with the PRI party. I am not saying here that we need to have Democrats in charge of all three branches of government for the next ten years either. I think divided government somethimes has better results than one party running the whole show.
Today may be a justifiable exception, however, given the policies that have been engineered by the current power structure. and the need that opponents feel to effectively change the course.
Those that think that Fascism is not possible here may just wake up someday and find that they are dead wrong ... those that love so much what they think this administration is doing for 'them', are in their support of it, are in effect saying, 'bring it on'.
Did you watch CNN today? They did a very detailed and comprehensive study of the problem. CNN expressed thanks to the bloggers who are exposing readers to the problem. You call it "complaining."
If you think this is complaining, just wait until the election is over. If Rove has orchestrated another rigging, you will think this article is mild compared with the howling you'll hear then.
As far as Iraq is concerned, it already is another Vietnam. This is not the war on terror. We're not wanted there. Even the puppet government is telling us to bug out of their business. There are many solutions that can get our troops out of harms way.
We have built permanent bases in Iraq at great expense. Maybe the troops should be there. I'm sure there are many alternate strategies that can reduce and hopefully eliminate the casualties.
At this point, given the total absence of any benefit from this campaign, we should move quickly to put a halt to the American deaths and the hemmoraging of American taxpayers' money.
In the business world, when an executive creates a major failure, someone else is appointed to find a solution. Businesses know that the one who erred would be too concerned with covering his own backside to make the right decisions.
That's what is needed here - new decision makers to straighten out this mess that has become a major embarassment to this nation and its fine history.
Even under the best of circumstances it will be many years before we can recover from the multiple damages inflicted on this country by the George W. Bush presidency.
And the first thing that needs to be done is to get the balance of power that Bush has usurped back into the hands of Congress.
"If these blogs are just going to be full of hatred, then they should end,..."
This is exactly the mindset of the right wing. This is precisely what we are likely to hear more and more of. You, and the right wing do not want the public to be able to express and read opinions that differ from your own. This right wing tendency was well illustrated in the thirties when an extreme right wing government came into power in Germany and contrary thought was supressed.
First come the accusations, like yours. Bloggers do nothing but complain. Then it will somehow become a matter of national security and all bloggers will be shut down, one way or another..
That's what will happen under a right wing government in this country.
Personally, however, I believe that the silent majority of Americans are getting a little sick of the right wing's power grab over the past six years, and this radical faction will lose what control it now has.
First of all, I think our best years occured when we were less offensive, militarily...and our worst years when we were more offensive (since WW II). WW II holds no lesson for the Iraq situation. It was a military war, not a political one.
The tide turned when Truman yanked MacArthur out of Korea, and since then every war - and only two have been real wars - were disasters.
The tax base that the government now enjoys is, in fact, a debt that is approaching $9 trillion. If you are talking about the tax cut in which Bush paid you off with future taxpayers' money, then that, in fact is a major reason for our skyrocketing debt.
If you are referring to the recent Bush fable about the annual deficit being down "50%" because of the tax cuts, that is one big howl. Annual deficits are the ultimate playing fields of creative accounting. You would need the world's largest certified audit to figure out just one year of any in the last twenty or thirty.
What is true, however, is that the latest deficit of $248 billion is no great shakes. Clinton's surpluses were great shakes. And that "50%" drop is actually a drop from an intentionally inflated estimate made last year - totally meaningless. Also, Bush's figure doesn't include what he borrowed from Social Security funds. If it did, the deficit would have been $550 million.
You say there is no concrete evidence, and I say "to what?" To the Iraq War fiasco? To the profiteering? To the disruption in the oil market enabling obscene windfall profits? To Bush's environmental policy (which doesn't exist)? To the real problems in this country that the government is too distracted to address? Well, whatever you're referring to, the answer is in every daily paper somewhere.
And blaming Clinton for 9/11 is another mindset of the right wing which flies in the face of the facts and is nothing more than an argument of desperation.
It is very obvious to one that watches many networks, where your ideas come from. The distortions and innuendos of FOX are all there in your comments. You are all puppets dancing without awareness of the strings that are so obvious to others.
If you folks ever begin to really think for yourselves you may come to realize this ... but I for one do not plan to hold my breath till then. Meanwhile you all take your own denied faults and pretend it is the left that have them ... I guess that if you tell yourself and each other a lie often enough, you too may start to even believe them. It is apparent that it must work that way ... or else you are just seriously disingenuous.
8.5 trillion deficit growing by $800,000 per minute, $136,500 Federal debt per household is economic success????
It is astounding to me that you can in one paragraph justify Bush and claim Clinton was a failure because some dopey girl gave him a bj. You can dismiss 3,000 American servicemen dead, 21,000 injured and 45-50,000 Iraqis killed with no end in sight. You are a sickness, part of a cancer that if unchecked will be the undoing of everything that made America great. God have mercy on us all, especially the likes of you.
Randy can't help it, they are all the same, lock step sheeple, going baahh baahh baahh, blaming everything on Clinton yet ... how sad can it get.
You ignore the simple fact that when Bush took office 0 deficit and now 8.5 trillion while the Republicans held the both houses and the Presidency then blame the Democrats for spending? Have you a clue how the process works? The Repubs control the purse string. Deficit=Republican spending. Does it matter to you the level of corruption and lies in this government?
Bush put us into Iraq, created another VietNam, botched what little crediblity, (based on lies) that we had and yet you still think it has anything to do with 9/11. The recent security estimate says we are doing EXACTLY what Bin Laden wanted: radicalize the Middle East and create more terrorists. Let that sink in.
About backbone. Try out these two words: Stupid and cowardly. That's what I think everyone of you right wing sheep are. Stupidity is having access to information and ignoring it. You are surrounded with the failure of your boy and tell ME to come up with a plan. I didn't vote for the fool, you did. This mess is your vision of America, not mine. I gave you a plan.
It takes guts to be an American. It's not the government for whining chickenshits. Our founders faced near certain extinction when they wrote the Constituion. They did it in a world of torture, of invasion of homes and privacy, of imprisionment without trial or evidence. You say 9/11 is an excuse to violate principals held sacred for 230 years. Our founders were fresh out of the Revolution with a peace treaty only 4 years old. We held a thin strip along the eastern seaboard and beyond was wilderness claimed by European powers. 7 years after the Brits burned Washington. Backbone? You and your neo-con buddies don't know a thing about backbone, but these boys did and were brave enough to write and pledge with their lives and fortune a document Bush and his un-American supports spit on.
Nope Randy get your head out of the sand and try being an American for a while.
PS, do not take this as a casual insult ... there is nothing 'just casual' about real truth, it just is.
Well, with eight days to go, Rove hasn't launched his Oct. Surprise yet. Maybe he felt too many people were anticipating it and would dismiss it as a stunt. It is encouraging to see so many media pieces on election fraud and to read how very many Americans are now skeptical of electronic voting machines. One reason the GOP stole the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections was that not many people were paying attention. That appears to have shifted.
Also encouraging: While GOP hackers stole the Dem. Senate seats in NC, GA and MN in 2002--despite Democrat polling leads of about 8% the day before the election--today they could probably only get away with stealing very close races (like TN, VA, MT, NJ and MO)--while the Dems have such substantial leads in OH, PA, RI, MD, WA, MI and MN that they wouldn't dare electronically reverse the totals there. Today (10/30) Dems finally moved in front in six of the GOP races they need for control, and they continue to pad their leads in TN, VA, MO, MT, NJ and MD. I remain guardedly optimistic.
Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative
Power of the Pen
The president uses signing statements to decree which laws apply to him.
by James Bovard
For generations, Republican politicians have spoken reverently of the rule of law. But since 2001, this hoary doctrine has been redefined to mean little more than the enforcement of the secret thoughts of the commander in chief.
George W. Bush has added more than 750 "signing statements" to new laws since he took office. Earlier presidents occasionally appended such comments to new statutes, but Bush is the first to use signing statements routinely to nullify key provisions of new laws. He perennially announces that he will not be bound by limits on his power and that he will scorn obligations to disclose how federal power is being used.
While Bush supporters speak glowingly of originalist interpretations of the Constitution, Bush's signing statements have far more in common with George III than with George Washington. The Constitution specifies that Congress shall "make all laws" and that presidents must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." But Bush—his ego swollen by swarms of groveling intellectuals—has embraced theories that convince him that the president alone may decree what shall be the law.
Bush's most famous signing statement was on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. After White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales publicly declared that Bush enjoyed a "commander in chief override" regarding laws prohibiting torture, members of Congress enacted legislation to make it stark that torture was illegal. The White House engaged in long and arduous negotiations with Congress. After Bush signed this law last Dec. 30, he announced that he would construe it "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power." This was widely interpreted to mean that the law is binding only when Bush pleases. He was reiterating a confidential 2002 Justice Department memo that declared that the federal Anti-Torture Act "would be unconstitutional if it impermissibly encroached on the President's constitutional power to conduct a military campaign."
Getting the Patriot Act renewed was one of the Bush administration's highest priorities. After months of negotiations and compromises, a bipartisan agreement was finally reached, giving the White House almost everything it wanted. As part of the deal, Bush administration officials agreed to provide Congress with more details on how Patriot Act powers were being used. The Justice Department would be obliged to disclose to Congress how many Americans' privacy was being violated by FBI subpoenas known as National Security Letters. (The Washington Post reported that the FBI was issuing 30,000 such letters a year). However, Bush reneged in a "signing statement" quietly released after a heavily hyped White House bill-signing ceremony. Bush decreed that he was entitled to deny Congress any information that would "impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties." Bush announced that he would interpret the law "in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information."
In other words, any provision in the law that requires disclosure is presumptively null and void. The crux of the "unitary executive" is that all power rests in the president and that checks and balances are an archaic relic. This is the same "principle" the Bush administration invoked to deny Congress everything from Iraqi war plans to the records of the Cheney Energy Task Force. Bush has invoked the "unitary executive" doctrine almost 100 times since taking office, according to Miami University professor Christopher Kelley.
Democrats were furious over what they saw as a Bush Patriot Act double-cross. Representatives Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) bitterly complained to Gonzales: ''Many members who supported the final law did so based upon the guarantee of additional reporting and oversight. The administration cannot, after the fact, unilaterally repeal provisions of the law implementing such oversight." The Bush administration ignored the complaint.
Bush's prerogative also apparently includes the right to cover up waste, fraud, and abuse—regardless of how badly taxpayers get boarhogged. After Congress created an inspector general in late 2003 to look into the Coalition Provisional Authority, Bush decreed, "The CPA IG shall refrain from initiating, carrying out, or completing an audit or investigation, or from issuing a subpoena, which requires access to sensitive operation plans, intelligence matters, counterintelligence matters, ongoing criminal investigations by other administrative units of the Department of Defense related to national security, or other matters the disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to national security." Since the Bush administration seems to consider any unfavorable press coverage a "threat to national security," it is not surprising that the inspector general found almost nothing—despite pervasive reports and rumors of massive fraud. (There is no evidence that the wording of the signing statement was dictated by Halliburton.) Bush also used a signing statement to undermine the power and independence of an inspector general for Iraq in 2004 legislation.
Another frequent target of Bush signing smitings are provisions in laws on whistleblowers. Apparently he considers legal protections for whistleblowers a violation of his own prerogatives. The administration recently swayed the Supreme Court to undermine protections for federal employees who disclose federal crimes, and the Justice Department is signaling that it could prosecute both whistleblowers and journalists who publish leakers exposing government abuses.
Some people consider Bush's "El Supremo" view of his own powers as necessary for the war on terror. But Bush claims this prerogative regarding any foreign intervention. As the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage, who has done the best work on this subject, noted, "On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels. After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief." The Colombian government's paramilitary allies have committed some of the worst atrocities in recent Latin American history. The fact that Bush would claim a unilateral right to engage in what could become a full-scale civil war in Colombia vivifies that his boundless power stems from his job title—not from any conflict with al-Qaeda or other "Islamofascists," as he likes to call them.
Bush's signing statements also imply that he considers the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878—which prohibited using the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement—null and void. Congress passed laws in 2004 and 2005 prohibiting the military from using intelligence not "lawfully collected" on American citizens. In both cases, as Savage noted, "Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military." It is appalling that Congress would feel it necessary to pass a law declaring that the Pentagon cannot violate the Bill of Rights—but the president responds by declaring that he will not be bound by any such law—or by the Constitution.
The "signing statement" gambit for stretching presidential power was hatched during the Reagan administration. Attorney General Ed Meese instructed Samuel Alito, then a Justice Department lawyer, to analyze how such presidential assertions could buttress the administration's viewpoints in court. But Alito was a piker compared to George W. Bush. Alito declared that the Justice Department should ''concentrate on points of true ambiguity, rather than issuing interpretations that may seem to conflict with those of Congress."
Bush, on the other hand, has used signing statements to negate the most important parts of legislation. According to the Bush administration, if the president issues a signing statement memo that is printed in the Federal Register, federal agencies are not obliged to obey laws enacted by Congress.
The American Bar Association has appointed a bipartisan panel to examine whether Bush's signing-statement policies conflict with the Constitution. Their report is due later this summer. However, an ABA report earlier this year that concluded that Bush's warrantless wiretaps were illegal failed to make the slightest dent in either the administration's policies or its preening.
We have a nullification crisis at the heart of the American Republic. Torture is apparently legal, despite a federal prohibition. Domestic wiretapping is apparently legal, despite clear legal and constitutional prohibitions. Seizing suspects and holding them indefinitely is apparently legal, despite the Constitution's requirement of habeas corpus.
Apparently, the government is not obliged to obey any law that Bush does not personally approve of. And how can we know which laws Bush approves of? It's a secret. Bush's personal thoughts thus become the ultimate law of the land—and no one can know if the government is violating the "law" because Bush has not publicly declared what the law is.
Why should anyone give Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is obeying all of the laws that he has not yet publicly proclaimed a right to violate? New York University law professor David Golove told the Boston Globe, "Where you have a president who is willing to declare vast quantities of the legislation that is passed during his term unconstitutional, it implies that he also thinks a very significant amount of the other laws that were already on the books before he became president are also unconstitutional."
Americans may have to wait many years to learn what the rule of law meant in 2006. The truth may be suppressed until Bush's aides begin publishing their memoirs or until the Supreme Court has a change of mood and decides that the executive branch is not entitled to boundless secrecy. In the meantime, don't count on the legislative branch to right the balance: Bush has encountered almost no effective resistance in his own party to his power grabs. One Republican senator recently told author Elizabeth Drew: "We've got to hang with the president because if you start splitting with him or say the president has been abusing power we'll all go down." Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, recently denounced criticism of the NSA warrantless wiretapping as "insulting" to the president, Drew reported. Apparently, some prominent Republicans believe that the president cannot be criticized even after he admits breaking the law.
So what is the meaning of "limited government" in the Bush era? Merely that the courts and Congress must be prohibited from limiting the president's power.
——————————————————————
James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy (Palgrave 2006) and eight other books.
July 17, 2006 Issue
Thanks for such a thorough summary of Bush's signing statement gambits. I had no idea they totalled over 750. All I can say is, thank God he is unpopular. If he was riding a wave of popularity, can't you just see how this country might begin to experience a nightmare similar to the one that played out in Germany during the thirties? That thought - which seemed remote to me prior to Bush - is now very real and scary. Thanks for such a great analysis, Ray. It holds so much important information, I would strongly suggest you publish it as a blog....
And...you are also so right, Ray, in just the few words you wrote about our authoritarian government. The Republican Party veered from traditional conservative values under Reagan, it seems, and the crowd that took over at that time never let go. Why there isn't a greater movement by true conservatives to take back the party is beyond me.
And Alan....you're the man...keeping us up to date on the polls, as well as publishing the ultimate rundown on election fraud. I can only think what a vacuum we'd have in our information banks were it not for you...
Jerry and Sam, I commend you for sparring with Randy much more effectively than I could. Randy's a pit bull when it comes to getting his views out. He wore me out....
That position put upon a worshipful pedestal little different from what the churches have done with the concept of the man Jesus as Savior to return in body with our salvation dependent upon worshipping 'Him' as God in the mean time.
Each such case attributes great trust and faith to the concepts involved, as if there were no better consideration. Wake up folks, put your intelligence to better use than false worship.
Let's leave aside the very sweet opinion about Alan Waldman, except to say what a joke.
Where do you begin when the "opposition" actually BELIEVES such things as "stolen elections," when only a self serving reading of the data is used to make such a wild conclusion. Such an "analysis" should be resigned to the same level of intellectual discourse as so called "global warming."
What one does is simple-- take known facts, and extrapolate. Since it is impossible to know the future, much less to prove an election was "stolen," you cannot be refuted, cannot be rebutted, and cannot be shaken from your premise.
Bush is evil, he must have stolen the election. This is the beginning thought that compels the analysis to be undertaken in the first place. You say to yourself, I don't like Bush and I just can't believe he actually won, so you set about to "prove" that idea.
Ho hum.
All of the same "Bush stole the election" people are the same people whining for a "paper trail." As if paper trails have an immaculate record of never being corrupted or abused. If I remember correctly, it was a paper ballot district, with "hanging chads" that enabled the "Bush stole the election" fallacy to spread.
Paper trails, paper ballots, a hand count, or taking a picture of each person as they cast each vote, it doesn't matter what method is used, corruption will occur from both simple negligence, and outright fraud. This is something new? This is something we didn't know? This is something you believe you can prevent?
The "machinery" I guess that is being decried in this article, is what politics is all about. The "machinery" consists of many levels of activity, up to and including "gerrymandering." Big deal. So what. Who cares? That's what political parties have always done in this country, GET OUT THE VOTE.
It's more "legal" now than it's ever been really. They used to routinely bus the homeless and the poor, or anyone else they could find to the polls, in many instances paying them. Does it still happen today??? I have little doubt, just not in the same numbers as yesteryear.
Give me a solution will you??? As you pretend to believe a pristine voting process is possible. Tell me what it is, how it would work, and demonstrate for me it is viable on a national scale.
Tell me please, what man made institution, what man made machine, what entity enforced by men, will ever be without flaw, without error, without corruption?
There are very few precious things on earth, not susceptible to corruption.
I fail to see anything productive, anything meaningful coming from such discussions. Ostensibly you believe in America, and the freedoms we enjoy, yet you deny these very institutions are effective, and willingly concede they are "broken," even as you participate in the process.
Do you not see the futility of your beliefs? Do you not see the logical consequences of your ideas about reality??
If what you suggest is true about BUSH--- about these "stolen elections," if all of these "lies" are actually TRUE---- then what does it say about the concept of "freedom?"
Are we indeed "free?" How could we be??
If what you suggest is "true" we live in a world much like the movie "The Matrix." Whatever notions we have about "reality" is based in lies, and if those lies are in fact reality, there is NOTHING we can do about the cage we find ourselves in.
We are trapped you and I, if what you suggest is "true." We are doomed to be the actors, on the stage of life, around the world. We are nothing more than pawns, controlled like marionettes. Our free will is a joke and our mind is useless. Any data we've been given is false, therefore any conclusions we might come to are faulty.
If what you suggest is "true," why doesn't someone come, quietly while you sleep, and silence you? Why are you allowed to stir the masses with your "truth?" What good is control if the control is not exposed, unperceived, indeed---- rejected as even existing?
Don't you see how your "reasoning" leaves very little room for "reality" to even occur?
I believe in machinery, machinery is good, machinery propels, machinery gets things done. Without machinery, mankind would be lost. We need more machinery, not less. You cannot fault the tool, you can only fault the man using the tool. Inanimate objects have no volition.
If you are suggesting I have no volition either, I am forced to part ways with you. Such intellectual blindness is nothing I care, or am able to entertain.
You said:
"Give me a solution will you??? As you pretend to believe a pristine voting process is possible. Tell me what it is, how it would work, and demonstrate for me it is viable on a national scale."
No one's calling for a pristine voting process. I don't know whether you noticed it or not, but confidence in our electoral process has seriously eroded, and that is the problem. It needs to be restored or there will be serious consequences. Hopefully, this election will start the process, but the many warning signs we've read about are more than a little discouraging.
Alan Waldman has not created the problem. He is more likely a cog in the wheels of solution. The crisis in confidence has been created by the actions of Republican operatives and it has been magnified by the inability or unwillingness of this Republican Congress to correct it.
Machines without paper trails? Machines that are made by companies with multiple ties to the Republican party and the administration? C'mon, jJack, you don't think that's a recipe for a landslide of dirty tricks?
Well, if the circumstantial evidence isn't enough, how about the hundreds of examples of voting results from the last election which were totally inconsistant with the voting profiles of the precincts involved? Or, the results that were so far removed from the exit polls (in not just precincts but in several key states) as to cause one expert to say that the likelyhood of such a discrepancy was 250 million to one.
Certainly, if you care for this country, you must be somewhat concerned about this lack of confidence in what is the very core of our democratic process.
You also said:
"If what you suggest is 'true,' why doesn't someone come, quietly while you sleep, and silence you? Why are you allowed to stir the masses with your "truth?" What good is control if the control is not exposed, unperceived, indeed---- rejected as even existing?"
Well, my response to that, other than probably not being able to sleep tonight, is to be a little confused about your point, but I want to say that it is this fundamental right to identify and talk about one's point of view that precisely separates us from the Germany of the 1930's. On Sunday, CNN aired an in depth report on the problems associated with electronic voting machines. In an obvious reference to mainstream media's avoidance of the subject, CNN commended bloggers for persistently pointing out the need to restore confidence in the system.
My biggest hope is that in the days following November 7th this will be a non issue.
I believe it must have been one of my 2 AM comments where I should have been sleeping. When I read back over it all I can see how screwed up I was because I remarked on his obvious intelligence and I know that is not the case as I now remember another person on another thread I was thinking of when I said that ...
I will be more careful in the future, please forgive me, you have to know I think the highest of you and your messages.
Peace, j.
Karl Rove's simple strategy is brilliant : foster antagonism and energize the base. I wouldn't be surprised if the Repubs do better than the polls are saying.
Uhmmmmm.....
I would be more concerned about Venezula owning balloting companies and machines, rather than an American company. And who do you think Venezula is going to "cheat" for when it comes to manufacturing votes?
Perhaps you'd better start listening to your fellow old grouch, Jack Cafferty, on CNN.
On one hand you seem to say "if fraud exists at the level the Dems say why hasn't the Gestapo visited." Then say "fraud is ever present so forget about it."
Fraud does exist on all levels, it should be a given-- but if it existed at the level you people suggest, even the illusion of freedom would no longer be possible.
Fraud does and has existed since Eve bit the apple, but in the American experiance these are new depths.
Sure so can I, but I'm pretty sure YOU'RE seeing things that aren't there--- if they were there, you could DO something about it. You know, like IMPEACH the bastard.
these are new depths
Hardly.
As far as Venezuela is concerned, that would be a huge problem, if there is anything to it. However, the fact that Sequoia is calling for an investigation of itself suggests it may just be a lot of counter-smoke, launched by the Rove crowd.
Incidentally, that situation certainly points up the difference in the current reaction of Sequoia's and that of Diebold, etc. to the charges favoring the Republicans, which basically was to hide like frightened turtles.
If the Democrats had orchestrated a pattern of fraud anywhere near as pervasive as what the Republicans did, I would be ashamed to be a Democrat (and, by the way, I'm not).
As for 'dirty tricks' by our leaders ... there is much evidence coming forth ... probably only the tip of the iceberg ... but in order to see it, we must first allow the possibility of it existing. Far too many loyalists are locked into denial.
For those of us who are opting for a change of direction, let's hope the Dems have gotten better organized this time around.
Unlike with some people, the majority of even this poor a congress is responsible enough to know that impeachment shouldn't be used lightly or simply because you dislike someone personally. Such a maneuver is doomed to backfire and leaves negative impression that will impede attempts to impeach in the future when there might be significant or legitimate charges.
Carolyn, do you know who would be the head of the House Judiciary Committe?? Check their words, the democrats on the record concerning this particular issue.
I also believe that the Democrats will at best take back only one house of congress. That means they could bring all the charges they wanted, and the Senate would not vote to convict. They are two years from a presidential election. Another mud-slinging impeachment process that they couldn't possibly win would enrage the voter base and further divide the country. This was the same situation facing the Republicans with Clinton. They chose a divided country knowing they couldn't win the vote. They publicly stated that if they had nothing more material than lying about a blowjob they couldn't win but they continued anyway.
I think Democrats learned from that. Yes, there are some extreme liberals who would like to see Bush impeached, just as there are some extreme conservatives who believe Bush is doing a good job as president. Neither represents the majority.
Apparently you didn't bother to take my advice. There is far more than ONE democrat insisting impeachment WILL HAPPEN if they take back the House.
I guess, you've already conceded the Senate to the republicans. Odd that, given the impression you seem to be a "true believer."