Reply #15: I've discussed this many times, Husb2Sparkly, but I didn't notice your... [View All]

[Peace Patriot]

...thread. Let me just start by saying that I think the answer is a complex one. The question you pose is certainly the biggest political puzzle that I have ever come across--in 40 years of political activism, and much reading of history.

It goes back to HAVA (which was supposed to be the answer to 2000 election fraud) and the anthraxed (and Wellstoned) Congress of 2002. That's the Congress in which we began to see the Democrats cower under Bush Cartel bullying.

I don't remember the exact sequence of votes on HAVA--which I believe was first passed in Oct. '02, a month before the Congressional elections of '02. But what occurred was this: Congress ultimately appropriated over $4 billion to help the states purchase new voting systems, but failed to require a paper trail in electronic voting (specifically blocked by House Bushite Tom Delay), failed to forbid secret, private, proprietary software used to record and count votes, failed to debar partisan companies from providing voting systems, failed to prevent conflicts of interest of all kinds (such as private, partisan control of election systems, and "revolving door" employment between public officials and private voting machine companies), and underfunded the watchdog commission (the EAC).

The result was powerful corruption (the $4 billion--plus big lobbying $$$ by Diebold, ES&S and others), involving both Dem and Rep election officials--and taxpayers' money pouring into the pockets of people like Wally O'Dell (CEO of Diebold, Bush-Cheney campaign chair in Ohio, who wrote a letter promising to "deliver" Ohio to Bush-Cheney in '04) and the ES&S owners and investors (ES&S originally funded by rightwing billionaires).

Our tax money went to the Bush regime, thence via Congress back to the states, thence into the pockets of major Bush donors and partisans (the CEO's and investors of electronic voting machine companies), thence (some of it) into Bush-Cheney's campaign coffers, with the rest used as bribe money for the states to buy extremely insecure, hackable, fraud-prone election equipment. Jeez. It's so corrupt, it's mind-boggling.

The only Democrat that I know for sure was completely immune to this corruption was CA Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, who sued Diebold for the lies they told about the security of their voting machines, and decertified their touchscreen systems prior to the '04 election). They took care of him with a 'black ops' campaign (he was driven from office on trivial, unproven charges of corruption, and has now been replaced with a Schwarzenegger appointee).

And now we have a Democrat in Los Angeles, for instance--head of elections Connie McCormack--who is an advocate of paperless voting and of Diebold. (Her best friend was Diebold's chief salesperson in Calif.)--not to mention our former Republican Sec of State Bill Jones and his chief aid Alfie Charles now working for Sequoia.

I haven't tracked the corruption through Congress--but I'm sure it's there. (I think Christopher Dodd, for one, is corrupt on electronic voting issues.)

What should have happened, back in 2002, is that the Democrats should have SCREAMED BLOODY MURDER AND SHUT THE CAPITOL DOWN over paperless electronic voting and Bush partisan ownership and control (via secret, proprietary programming code) of our election system.

Why didn't it happen? Part corruption. Part obliviousness and stupidity. Part fear. (Keep in mind the atmosphere of 2002--9/11, anthrax, Paul Wellstone's plane falling out of the air, for no reason, with no official investigation afterwards.)

Fear causes people to want to "circle the wagons"--protect their rears, protect their own little fiefdoms. I think there are any number of Democrats who think they can ride this fascist coup out--and/or protect some little area of power and privilege, as the Bush barbarians raid the countryside. They may not be bad people necessarily--just fearful.

There are others who are in collusion with the Bush Cartel over the Iraq war and US control of the Middle East. They didn't necessarily want to win the 2004 election. They would just as soon Bush take the rap for the deaths and the cost--yet their interests and those of their donors are served. (I think some of these may have been advising John Kerry on election night.) And there are in addition, just plain military-industrial Democrats--wholly into the militarization of the country, often for corrupt reasons.

The thing is, the grass roots of the Democratic Party rose up--and in conjunction with a big majority of new voters, Independents and Nader voters--voted the Bush Cartel out of office, by a landslide (if the truth were known). (We gave the Democrats a blowout success in new voter registration in 2004, for instance--a nearly 60/40 advantage.)

Insider Democrats--and war Democrats--hate the grass roots. (The vast majority of the Democratic Party, and the majority of the country, are very anti-Iraq war.) I'm sure they hated the fact that Dean Democrats, for instance, put aside their differences with the DNC, and fully backed Kerry, and helped elect him. THE WAR DEMOCRATS DID NOT WANT A PRESIDENT WHO WAS BEHOLDEN TO AN ANTIWAR MAJORITY. (--and thus, they did not object to the stolen election, and not even to the egregious, massive violations of the Voting Rights Act in Ohio and Florida).

Do keep in mind that 125 members of Congress ('02) VOTED AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR, despite all this. (124 more than voted against the Vietnam war resolution!) So there were--and still are--Democratic leaders who believe in "consent of the governed" and the will of the majority. But fear and corruption--and also, just plain ignorance about electronic voting--are playing a big part in the Democratic Party silence on this matter.

It's also possible that some Democrats are in very direct collusion with the Bush Cartel--and have bargained with them to be the token opposition, that is, to retain some power and privilege in the junta. (Lieberman comes to mind.)

Finally, I think, at this point, some Democrats may be worrying that if they cry the alarm on the election system, people won't vote. 120 million people voted in 2004--a huge turnout. Will that happen again? Will all those new Democratic voters ever vote again? It's a real question. I've thought about it myself. But I don't think the answer is SILENCE ON THIS THOROUGHLY CORRUPTED ELECTION SYSTEM.

Talk about sweeping things under the rug! Covering up the fact that Bush partisans own and control the election system would be catastrophic--not just for the Democratic Party, but, of course, for the whole country--for our democracy.

We have got to clean house--really clean house. And it is one hell of an uphill battle--with the almost complete lack of help we are getting from the Democratic leadership. They surely fear that, in a real house cleaning, some of them will have to go. And they are quite right about that.

It's as if every flaw--every fissure, every neglected problem, every compromised issue--in our democracy is coming upon us, in full force, all at once. Corporate control of elections through campaign contributions (our utterly filthy political system). Increasing corporate control over policy. Bought and paid for politicians. Over-militarization--long a problem--being like a ripe fruit plucked by the fascist junta. The increasing distance over the years between the governed and those in power. The Congress constantly improving their own salaries and benefits--while passing legislation that would outsource millions of jobs (as a favor to corporations). The re-writing of the tax code under Reagan. Capital punishment--every civilized country in the world has abandoned it, except us. Our festering prison system. Our deteriorating schools. Our dependence on oil, and lack of planning. The failure of the "War on Poverty" (it becoming a war on the poor). The increasing corporate monopolization of the news (a big one!) Etc. Etc.

The Democratic Party has contributed to many of these problems--by an increasing tendency to compromise--and by our leaders themselves increasingly coming from the rich class. (Only the rich can afford to run for office.)

As I said above, it's a complex answer. We need very much to understand it. And I hope my musings here will help us to sort it out.

I think we need to face that we are in a dire situation--and that outright fascism is right at our door. I think the only way to set things right is to battle for transparent elections--with or without the Democratic Party.

And I think we also need to remember this: We are the majority. (The Bush Cartelists and their news monopolies are trying to convince us otherwise. They are wrong.)