Restoring Democracy in 2008

[H2O Man]

"In the course of American history the nation has been confronted with wrongful events that went to the core of its existence, and the resolution of these events spoke of who we are as a people. Beyond question, the U.S. Supreme Court’s handing the office of the presidency to George W. Bush by its ruling on December 12, 2000, was one of them. And with these epochal events there have been Americans who have stood up and spoken out against these wrongs: for example, Tom Paine against British control of the colonies; Edward R. Murrow against the vicious and false charges made by Joseph McCarthy; Daniel Ellsberg leaking the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. With his article in the February 5, 2001, Nation magazine titled ‘None Dare Call It Treason,’ Vincent Bugliosi takes his place in this special pantheon of patriots with his powerful, brilliant, and courageous expose of crime by the highest court in the land. ….

"As Election 2000 recedes into historical memory, it is imperative that ‘None Dare Call It Treason’ be preserved in book form for future generations where it will provide a window on a contentious time and serve as a reminder of how democracy’s central function of letting every citizen express his or her choice in the voting booth went awry. ….

"We hope that as a book, Bugliosi’s dissent will in the months ahead alert a wider audience to the dangerous precedent set by Bush v. Gore. As one of our readers wrote: ‘I’ve never felt so disenfranchised in my life.’ Bugliosi’s words can help mobilize the forces of protest so that such an injustice never happens again."
--The Editors of The Nation; Preface; The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President

The 2000 election theft was one of the most obscene displays of political corruption in our nation’s history. While we might debate and even argue about the merits of one candidate, or piece of legislation, we recognize that there must be "One Person, One Vote" in order for our Constitutional democracy to survive. When there are forces that would deny the will of the people, we should be united in our opposition to them.

There are two issues that should be of concern to all of us in the democratic primary. The first is the fact that there are "super delegates." The idea of "super delegates" is too close to the idea that "all are created equal, with some being more equal than others." If one candidate falls behind the other in both the popular and delegate vote, will their campaign attempt to hijack the process by resorting to a super delegate coup?

If we oppose the Animal Farm swine, such as John Bolton and Karl Rove, who believe that they are "more equal" than the citizens of this country, should we be willing to accept similar behavior by democrats who behave like Bolton or Rove?

Two of the many repulsive personality traits of George W. Bush is his inability to either admit to making any mistakes – including his lying to the nation to bring us to war in Iraq – and his inability to accept that losing – which is why he thinks that cheating is an acceptable tactic to achieve "victory." These are traits that should never be considered as "strengths," or accepted as a toughness our candidates need to "win."

The second thing that should be of concern is the issues involving the disputes with Florida and Michigan. An article in today’s New York Times, "Obama’s Lead in Delegates Shifts Focus of Campaign," notes that:

"Mrs. Clinton’s advisers acknowledged that it would be difficult for her to catch up in the race for pledged delegates even if she succeeded in winning Ohio and Texas in three weeks and Pennsylvania in April. …..

"With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan …."

The democratic party needs to come up with a solution to the issues involving Florida and Michigan without resorting to the incendiary tactics of the republicans in Florida in 2000. And we should all reject any efforts by any candidate who cannot accept the fact that the voters support their opponent, to cheat to steal the victory.

Hopefully, we have learned something important in the years since the 2000 theft of the presidential election.

[Yael]

1. K&R

[Coexist]

2. I don't know why Sen. Clinton is allowing people to say things like "taking incendiary steps"

that looks power hungry - ugly - and a lot of Democrats still have a bad taste in their mouths from 2000.

Not a smart move. She needs to fix that dialog, or she risks racking up some Disapprove % points.

[H2O Man]

4. It would be

destructive to our party to have anyone "taking incendiary steps."

[antigop]

3. Here is a link to "None Dare Call it Treason" from The Nation

WARNING: May be hazardous to your health -- could cause your blood pressure to go up

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi

[H2O Man]

5. It is one

of the single best books on politics that I've ever read.

[antigop]

7. It was enlightening... and very, very frightening. n/t

[Hart2008]

33. K & R

:kick:

[Window]

6. K/R

I hope Hillary's campaign realizes that kind of talk is not helpful to her nor the Democratic Party.


Peace:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

10. I think it

could be either some of the people who are frustrated with the direction that the primary is moving in, or possibly a journalist using a phrase he thinks defines the campaign's attitude. If it is just the reporter, and not the campaign, they should request an immediate correction -- because the phrase communicates a sense of entitlement that would "justify" damaging the democratic party in order to promote selfish interests.

[Window]

13. Well said.

"...because the phrase communicates a sense of entitlement that would "justify" damaging the democratic party in order to promote selfish interests."


Peace:thumbsup:

[Me.]

8. So Many Issues Here

Watching the Clemens testimony yesterday I found I didn't believe the man, yet there he was forcefully making his case, lying to us while looking us in the eyes. And I thought of the many congressional hearings in the last couple of years where people have testified while lying through their teeth. I wondered when lies became so acceptable, for they must be as nothing is ever done to those who do. Was it the 'I never had sex with that woman' moment or did the massive amount of * lies make it business as usual? As to the super issue, after hearing an interview yesterday it is clear that the system has become perverted. The idea of super delegates supposedly was put in place as a checks and balance sort of thing. (though I do wonder of the cigar smokers did it because they simply don't trust the hoi polloi). But with the Clinton campaign prepare4d to use incendiary measures to secure the nom, I now wonder how corrupt things will get on our side of the aisle. And isn't that a shame?

[H2O Man]

15. I had to turn

the tv off when that came on. Here we have serious issues that the Congress should be investigating, and educating the public about. And they want to distract us with that. I would say that there are many, many types of lies and falsehoods -- and the most significant one in those hearings was that told by our elected representatives.

[ananda]

9. You know, I want to say that..

.. it's too bad democracy was lost in the first place,
and especially too bad that leaders couldn't have
stood up to Bushinc WHEN IT COUNTED!

I mean, look at the media.. they've slowly started to
speak some truth about Bushinc and the way people
feel now.. even if it's not enough and often filtered.
But where were they when it counted? Suffering from
SARS, Smirking American Rahrah Syndrome.. which
still has traces here and there.

My gut feeling tells me that it's too late to restore
America and Americans and recover from the insane
and terrible damage that has been done.

Why: First, corporations are way too powerful and
influential. Secondly, many many people are still
racist, sexist, homophobic, adultist, and just plain
selfish... not wanting to pay their fair share of taxes
and then use those taxes on America and Americans
in a way that benefits everyone. Third, the ability of
the planet to support life has been, and is still being,
severely compromised to the point of no return.

Sue

[H2O Man]

17. Right.

We will not achieve unity as a party if we have people believing they are justified in using incendiary tactics.

[bigtree]

11. again with the false analogies

Tell Julian Bond that his effort to seat the delegates is akin to the 'incendiary tactics of the republicans in Florida in 2000'

These petty, attacks just get more ridiculous as you go.

If you ARE concerned with who "voters support" you wouldn't be so callous about disenfranchising those voters who cast their ballots in Florida, and who the Obama camp is encouraging to lose their representation at the convention. The Obama campaign pushing for the denial of the representation of those votes is very much like the insider-driven superdelegate effort. Both efforts intend to replace or interfere with votes cast employing a top-down, heavyhanded insider manipulation of the process in the interest of advancing or denying the advance of one of the candidates. The party insider manipulation on both sides is anti-democratic and wrong. But, to suggest that the effort to seat those delegates in Florida is anything like Bush's theft of the 2000 election is a trivialization of both his tyrannical appointment by the Supreme Court, who stopped the counting of votes in that election, and a surprisingly blatent disregard for the rights of those voters in Florida today who are seeking to have their votes count in this primary.

[H2O Man]

12. Please be accurate.

My post makes clear that I do not want voters in those states disenfranchised. All I ask here is that my position not be mis-represented.

The NYT's article makes clear that many of the good democrats from those states and around the country want an accurate representation of the voters.

[bigtree]

14. you preceded your concern about the seating of the delegates with this:

"With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan …."

Then you go on to question the incendiary steps, and, relate those 'incendiary steps' to her opinion on superdelegates. All I'm pointing out, which you neglected to distinguish with your analogies, is that Clinton's effort in Florida is to allow those votes cast to count. The opposition to that effort to make those votes count which is coming from the Obama camp is more akin to the concern you have about Clinton expecting the superdelegates to disregard the vote count if she's trailing close behind. It appears that BOTH candidates intend to disenfranchise voters with their top-down rationalizations, behind party insider constructions.

You don't do anyone any service with these shorthand attacks on Clinton's integrity. You do a further disservice when you disregard the anti-democratic efforts of Obama in seeking to disenfranchise these *Florida voters, you say you care so much about, for his political benefit.

[H2O Man]

16. What I think could

be useful here is a reading of the second to the last section of the book "Malcolm X Speaks," which is titled "Confrontation With An 'Expert'." He is debating a fellow named Gordon Hall on New York radio station WINS on February 18, 1965.

Malcolm discusses concerns he has with potentially explosive situations in the black community. Hall accuses him of attempting to exploit those situations. "Don't ever accuse a black man for voicing his resentment and dissatisfaction over the criminal condition of his people as being responsible for inciting the situation," Malcolm reminded him.

There is a situation that deserves our attention. I quoted a NYTimes article that notes that the Clinton camp is preparing to take "incendiary steps." That isn't my phrase.

Yesterday on MSNBC's Morning Show, Patrick Buchanan was saying the Clinton camp needs to "throw some bombs." If I quote that, it does not mean I think the Clinton camp should throw bombs. I disagree with Mr. Buchanan, and hope that the Clinton camp does not subscribe tyo his tactics. But that NYTimes article raises the possibility that they will.

What needs to happen is that all of the voters from those two states have a voice. It needs to be fair, and on the up-and-up. That should be a standard that we could all agree upon.

[bigtree]

19. I'll accept your characterization of what you meant. That's a fair attitude toward the votes cast.

In turn I would ask you to take heed of whatever Hillary Clinton's characterization of that phrase may be, as she expresses it. I don't think it's even her quote. I smells like a media invention.

[H2O Man]

20. If the quote

is inaccurate, as I noted early on in this thread, the Clinton campaign should demand an immediate correction. I am hoping that they are not looking to use the incendiary, bomb-throwing tactics.

[snappyturtle]

22. I agree that the voters from MI and Fl should have a voice despite

the fact that they actually disenfranchised themselves...imho. I've heard discussions that say elections would be too costly for either state. What do you think of each holding a caucus? I can't see seating the pledged delegates as they stand because many who did not "vote" at all, knowing the delegates were not to be seated, would still be disenfranchised.

What really bothers me is this: If Sen. Clinton's camp decides to use incendiary tactics and throw bombs that there would be outrage.....but only for a while....not unlike the 2000 election. Could it be that voters have become accustomed to votes not counting and to malicious tactics that alter elections? Seemingly, when politics evolves into a jungle of fighting the average citizen tires of it all and in the end succumbs to the bully. After all, many are fighting their personal battles to survive today and simply wear out. This is what I fear.

K&R

[bigtree]

24. Both camps will scrap for the nom in the end. The ruthlessness won't be restricted to Clinton

I think that since the superdelegates, effectively, would get a second vote, perhaps, there is a logic for holding another contest. I'm not a fan of caucuses.

[H2O Man]

26. "ruthlessness"

I wouldn't use that word to describe the Clinton campaign. It reminds me of what some falsely accused Robert Kennedy of in the late 1950s and early '60s. Thus, that word is one of affection for me.

[bigtree]

27. politicians

. . . and their supporters can be, and usually are, ruthless.

NO one owns the language.

[H2O Man]

30. While it is true

that no one owns the language, it is also true that some politicians make much better use of it. I like seeing the "great moments in presidential history" that contrast some of the eloquent leaders like FDR and JFK to the bumbling George W. Bush.

[snappyturtle]

28. I can see good and bad reasons for caucuses however, I don't

think the states can afford elections. Therefore, a caucus is better than no 'vote'.

I don't believe Sen. Obama will resort to ruthlessness....not his modus operandi.

[H2O Man]

29. Right.

I don't see Senator Obama as "ruthless."

[bigtree]

31. I'm not so naive about the politician

from Illinois

[snappyturtle]

32. I am quite familiar with politics in the Land of Lincoln.

Lived there from '69-'92 and in northwest IN from '47-'69.....trust me, Sen. Obama is an angel! A breath of fresh air!

[H2O Man]

35. He has a

different concept of dispute resolution than the typical politician. It doesn't mean he's not "tough," for one has to be tough to take his approach. It does not mean he shies away from confrontarion -- actually, just the opposite: he is confident that he can handle confrontation without resorting to gutter tactics.

In time, I think that many DUers who actually would like to hope, will come to recognize that working together as a people is our best hope. It may be our only hope.

[Coexist]

18. I am a Florida voter - you do not speak for me - Sen. Nelson

most certainly doesn't either.

I was a member of my county's DEC at the time this was voted on here. The general feeling in the room was 'well, the primary is usually decided by the time it gets here anyway, if we lost the delegates this year, what difference will it make'.

There was no righteous anger in the room, no thrill that we were making history, just all casting a vote that might or might not make a difference.

No one forsaw this close race.

I voted, knowing full well the delegates wouldn't be seated, it was in all the papers, in the news, in my mailings from the FDP stating that they would work to make it count. They just wanted Dems at the polls to defeat the property tax amendment.

Floridians are not stupid, and there is no anger about disenfranchisement except among Sen. Clinton's supporters. They were also the ones pushing the early primary, to help her sew it up earlier. Her most fervent supporters in the room were transparent on this.

[H2O Man]

21. Thank you

for pointing out that the democrats in Florida do not fit into a single, like-minded group in the context of the 2008 primary. There are voters who support Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, or someone else. Each one of those citizens deserves to have their voice heard, and their vote counted. And it would be wrong for one campaign to use incendiary tactics to try to have only their supporters counted, and other democrats disenfranchised.

[snappyturtle]

23. This posted in editorials by babylonsister:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x338086

There's also a link on the page to urge super delegate transparency and voting the will of the people.

[H2O Man]

25. Very interesting.

Thank you for the link.

[mmonk]

34. Sad to say, but the potential for a bad outcome is there.

No matter what solution, there may be some that will say the process wasn't clean. I've never seen such almost driven anger in a democratic race which is not good. It's very unfortunate Fl and MI went ahead anyway. Nobody will be 100% pleased and add in the superdelegates, it makes for violatile mix.