Some will probably scream at my posting this

[Wiley50]

and if you do I'll have to start screaming myself about how hard I worked on the campaign, and after the fraud, on the challenge.
And I was proud that Boxer and the rest of them heard us enough to do what they did on 1/6.
I guess these days I'm as happy as any of us that anything happend at all.
But when I read something that slaps me up beside the head with the whole ugly truth, to the point that all I can say is, very softly, "He's right"; it's time to spread it around.

This is from www.conceptualguerilla.com

Monday, January 10, 2005

BAD POLITICAL THEATER

At the end of the last post here -- which you can find underneath this one -- I said that I would be posting something about the electoral vote challenge. Then I watched some of the proceedings on C-SPAN, and promptly asked myself, "why bother?" Why did I ask that? Well, let's consider the position of the Democrats challenging the electoral vote from Ohio.

Mind you, they weren't claiming that the reported outcome from Ohio was wrong. They weren't claiming that Ohio's electoral votes were "stolen" in a fraudulent election. They were claiming that there were "problems" in Ohio that made no difference to the outcome of the election. Apparently, this challenge was based on some abstract principle -- a principle I agree with, but which has little traction with your average American -- that Ohio's electoral votes should be thrown out because some small portion of the electorate was disenfranchised by some combination of means, that were characterized as mostly "bureaucratic bungling" rather than a systematic effort to rig the election. There were lots of speeches about the "sanctity of the right to vote," all of which were purely academic, since the challengers didn't claim any change in the outcome. Presumably, some level of bureaucratic incompetence at running an election -- is a standard of "zero error" even feasible in the best of circumstances? -- requires that the entire slate of electors be disqualified, thus nullifying the millions more votes that were actually cast and fairly counted.

I wouldn't vote to sustain the challenge on that basis -- and I'm no friend of George W. Bush or his hatchet man Kenneth Blackwell.

The whole thing was pitched as a "whine-in" about "fixing problems" with the election system. It was packaged as a complaint about "problems" that didn't make any difference -- thus guaranteeing, since it didn't make any difference, that nobody in Peoria would give a shit. The opportunity to build any groundswell of support for reforming the election system -- including ridding ourselves of "black box voting," not to mention odious vote suppression efforts -- was completely missed. Nobody gave a shit before the challenge, and nobody gives a shit now. The media had its cameras pointed at both houses of Congress. Unfortunately there was nothing to see. Weak gestures about abstract principles don't make good television.

Meanwhile, somebody has suggested that I thank Senator Boxer for making the whole spectacle, such as it was, possible. Anytime someone stands up to be counted, however tentative the effort, I suppose that's a good idea. But if I had been Senator Boxer, given the terms of the challenge, I believe I would have taken a pass. The challenge accomplished exactly nothing, because it was set up to accomplish exactly nothing. Convincing those of us in the American dissident community that there were "problems" counts for exactly nothing. After all, we already knew that. The question is who else they convinced, and the answer is "Nobody."

Here is the simple case that should have been made, but wasn't. This wasn't bureaucratic incompetence. The Republicans used a variety of tactics, from intimidation of some voters, to inadequate equipment in Democratic polling places, to partisan based "challenges" to the credentials of tens of thousands of registered voters, to purges of voting lists, to illegal access and possible tampering with voting equipment, to suppress Democratic votes sufficient to ALTER THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION. That's why they did it. Whatever hard-on Republicans might get from the theoretical denial of some Democrat's right to vote, the results are what they care most about. They got the results they wanted.

And of course, the success of these various efforts at changing the outcome of the election was the point of the challenge in Congress. The challengers just didn't want to say that out loud. Instead, they hoped to frame their protest as some obscure civics lesson in "the sanctity of vote -- not that it made any difference, doncha know." They hoped the facts would make the stronger case -- all by their little selves. I can almost hear them. "Jeez, do we have to draw you a picture???"

Yes, you do. Sorry folks. Ordinary people don't watch C-SPAN -- and don't understand the significance of what they are seeing half the time, anyway. The corporate media has little interest in exposing massive vote suppression and/or outright vote stealing. Presenting them with a "low profile" challenge, does nothing but make it easy for them to sweep the whole thing under the rug -- which is exactly what they have done from the beginning. In other words, if you want to make some noise, well you have to make some FUCKING NOISE.

You have to take some risks. The Democrats in Congress have nothing to lose. The Republicans have treated them, and will continue to treat them, like the barely tolerated "traitors" the Republicans claim that they are. Remember, the Democrats in Congress are the "Washington Generals." They get paid to lose to the Globetrotters. They're the masked villains you see on professional wrestling. The crowd is supposed to hate them -- so the heroes look even better. Meanwhile, they're advisers, "legislative directors" and other professional staffers keep doing their inane political calculus, telling Democrats in Congress about the sentiments of the increasing ignorant, increasingly bigoted, and increasingly mean electorate. Their advice is predictable and uniform across the board. Don't piss off the cretans.

Oh no, my political-science-major-who-got-a-job-on-the-hill-because-your-uncle-raised-a-pile-of-cash-for-your-first-boss professional. Don't ever doubt that public opinion is written in stone, and the right-wing drift of that opinion is an immutable force of nature like the tides. We couldn't possibly expect Democrats in congress to be LEADERS, who actually influence public opinion. They strictly follow public opinion. They don't create it. Never mind that the Republicans created the right-wing shift in opinion by working day and night for forty years to accomplish just that. And they didn't do a very good a job, either. The majority of the electorate favors the Democratic position on taxes, the deficit, the environment, healthcare, education, jobs, the economy, and the quagmire in Iraq. They favor the Republicans on "terra" -- which John Ashcroft says isn't a problem anymore -- and homo's. Oh wait, most Americans favor some form of "civil unions."

The Republicans took a grossly unpopular agenda -- eliminate social security, medicare, the minimum wage, environmental protection, labor unions, and create "cheap labor paradise" -- and parlayed that turd of ideology into majority status. Meanwhile, the Congressional Democrats can't take the majority position and fend them off. Presumably they are all hoping that public opinion will move back to the left, all by itself, and then they will be able to jump in front of the parade and pretend like they're leading it. In fact, public opinion is to the left - miles to the left -- of the Republican corporate fascists -- but the Congressional Democrats can't capitalize on that simple fact.

There are two kinds of people in Washington, those who create political reality, and those who play the game in a reality created by somebody else. The whole mindset of the Democrats in Congress -- as well exemplified by the miserable shadow of an electoral vote challenge a handful of them staged -- is that they just can't possibly stand against the Republican onslaught of empty symbols and values blather. They can't possibly take public opinion majorities on the issues that matter, and turn them into anything that even resembles political power.

Here is what I want to know. It's very simple. Who are these people in Congress who call themselves "Democrats?" Who are their strategists and tacticians, and how did these miserable failures ever get to be regarded as "professionals?" How did they get into positions of leadership, and what the hell are they still doing there? When are we going to see some Democrats who take strong, unmistakable positions, that MSNBC has to report -- even if it doesn't want to? When are we going to see some Democrats who appear as guests on Chris Matthews, and call him on the carpet for the corporate shill that he is? When are we going to see a Democratic leadership that not only opposes Republican policy initiatives, but opposes their entire cheap-labor ideology? That ideology is actually unpopular. You think we might persuade a few of you to expose it for what it is, and call the Republicans to account for it?

In other words, when can we expect Democrats in Congress, and other positions of leadership, to start acting like the leaders of a principled opposition? When are they are going to take some risks? When are they going to stop following public opinion on "terra" and "homo's," and start leading public opinion on taxes, the deficit, the environment, jobs, healthcare, education, the quagmire in Iraq -- oh, and stolen fucking elections, while we're at it. They have plenty of "political capital." They need to stop pissing it away.

And if they're not going to serve as tough and smart opponents of a ruthless regime, when are we going to get leaders who will?

Tomorrow, I'll be taking up Social Security "reform."

[KarenS]

1. I agree !! I watched on Jan 6th & I just cringed every time they said,,,,

"We aren't trying to change the outcome of this election."

:wtf:

[poe]

2. "Elections are a Scam"-recommended article just google-a few excerpts

Once elected representatives are isolated from the general public but surrounded by bureaucrats and other politicians.  They therefore have a tendency to see things from the perspective of politicians and bureaucrats, rather than from the perspective of the general public from which they are isolated, and are much more susceptible to pressure from government bureaucracies.

Elected representatives’ dependency on the state bureaucracy for information makes them very susceptible to manipulation by the bureaucracies they are officially in charge of.  For example, in the late ‘50s the CIA secured approval to launch an uprising in Indonesia by feeding a series of increasingly alarmist reports to their superiors in the National Security Council, who otherwise might have shot the proposed uprising down.  This shows how government agencies (especially secretive ones) can pressure politicians and influence policy in preferred directions.  This is enhanced by the fact that individual politicians come and go but the bureaucrats are permanent, which makes it easier for bureaucrats to manipulate information and ensures that politicians have less experience with such manipulation.  Because the state bureaucracy is permanent while politicians are transitory state bureaucracies tend to accrue more power than elected representatives.
What a politician says to win an election and what he actually does in office are two very different things; politicians regularly break their promises.  This is not just a fluke but the outcome of the way the system is set up.  Bush the second said he wouldn’t engage in “nation-building” (taking other countries over) during the 2000 election campaign but has done it several times.  He also claimed to support a balanced budget, but obviously abandoned that.  Clinton advocated universal health care during the 1992 election campaign but there were more people without health insurance when he left office than when he took office.  Bush the first said, “read my lips - no new taxes!” while running for office but raised taxes anyway.  Reagan promised to shrink government but he drastically expanded the military-industrial complex and ran up huge deficits.  Rather than shrinking government, he reoriented it to make it more favorable to the rich.

This refutes all the nonsense about how “your vote makes a difference.”  Politicians are required to implement the same policies (what the elite want) even if it conflicts with their campaign promises no matter who is elected.  Elected representatives are figureheads.  That’s why there are so many examples of people getting elected and then doing the opposite of what they promised.  Electing different people to power is not an effective way to change policy.  In practice, politicians differ only in the lies they tell to get in power.  Once in power their policies are the same given the same situation, although the rhetoric and symbolism used to justify those policies may change greatly.

Changes in policy direction are due to changes in the situation, not who is elected to office.  Most major changes in policy do not coincide with new people getting in office; they coincide with changes in the situation.  When the Great Depression started the US government responded with Keynesian state interventions in the economy designed to resuscitate the economy and prevent growing population movements (caused by the depression) from bringing about revolution.  This actually began under Hoover, who did more in this area than any previous President, even though these policies are usually attributed to the next President, FDR.

[[e-mail]]

3. Sitting by the Beautiful River:

Dude, we're never going to do better until we admit the truth(s)and stop sitting on the banks of de-nile. Like pretending that the left-wing party lost to the right-wing party because it wasn't left-wing enough, which may be true in the Floating Wingnut universe, but doesn't happen down here.

The most basic truth is that WE LOST THE ****ING ELECTION. And it was our own goddamned fault.

We had as much money as the Republicans, we had unity, we had every loathsome, preening Hollywood star (wish we didn't), we had most of the newspapers and network news on our side, and we had high turnout -- remember how we kept saying if only people would vote, we'd win?

And guess what? We LOST.

We didn't just lose, we got ass-whupped. We've become a joke -- the South Park guys' favorite target for mockery.

We got 5,000,000 more votes than in 2000; less if you discount 2000's Nader voters returning to the fold. The Republicans got 11,500,000 more votes than in 2000. It wasn't bible-thumpers, either. Most of the GOP gain was in the blue states and among women and minorities.

We came within a hair of losing the entire upper midwest. We lost most of California and the Pacific Northwest, being saved by a few big cities.

Look at the county-by-county map and the country's a sea of red, with little blue dots. The only areas with any substantial blue zones are New England and the old plantation belt in the South, and the latter doesn't count because it's always in a state-by-state minority.

Bush took a major chunk of the Hispanic vote and closed the gender gap to within 3%. Huge majorities of married people with children went Republican, and so did 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties in the nation.

He even made progress with blacks -- that's why he won Ohio -- and dude, if we start losing as little as 20% of the black vote we will never, ever win a national election again. We'll be the New England Whiners Party.

One simple rule for recovery:

Do not insult the American people, call them stupid, bigoted, etc. They know what you think. Your attitude is one of the major reasons we keep losing.

Vox populi, vox deii: the voice of the people is the voice of God. If they reject us, it's OUR fault.

[Fly by night]

7. Welcome to DU. Now study our history.

If you'd been around here much, you'd be familiar with the evidence that we did not lose the election, it was stolen. To the tune of 4.3+ million votes switched from Kerry to the smirking chimp, when the Republi-Nazi efforts at voter suppression and intimidation, election day dirty tricks and general immorality didn't win the Duh-bya his second unelected term. And even then, had honest (and legal) recounts gone forward in Ohio, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa and Florida; the dumb-ass from Texas still would have lost. The evidence is here. Just review the twenty pages of threads available to you right now. Start with Freeman, Conyers, TIA and berniew. Then if you need more recommendations, send me a PM.

The one thing you said that I agree with is that we get nowhere by calling the American people stupid. They're not and they demonstrated their intelligence and their patriotism by voting to send Cheetah back to the zoo. What we have to keep doing is to inform them (and new DUers) of the facts of this election theft, which should undermine forever any future efforts by the Republi-Nazis to stay in office.

80 to 100 million Americans believe right now that the election was stolen, even in the face of a corporate media blackout on this subject. And you will too once you do a little reading. Again, welcome to DU. Now read a while -- you've got lots of catching up to do.

[New Earth]

8. we didn't lose

democracy lost, truth lost. you obviously haven't done any research into what has transpired the last few months :boring:

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. ahem. WE DID NOT LOSE THE F****** ELECTION!

I hope you heard that. The repukes STOLE the election. Maybe it would behoove you to do a search of DU archives and find some FACTS before you continue to spew lies. The repukes did not win...again! 3rd election they stole, btw.

[Chi]

10. Please don't use 'we'.

"we had every loathsome, preening Hollywood star (wish we didn't), we had most of the newspapers and network news on our side"

It's not too late to seek the truth, think for yourself.

<in my best Rob Snyder voice>
'You cang dooo it little guy, you cang dooo it'

The Pope and I will say a prayer for you tonight, and hope you see the true evil in this world.....'W'.

[DETERMINEDPROGRESIVE]

11. YOU ARE 100% RIGHT joatsimeon!!!!

Well, that's what I would've been saying if it was still noon on Nov 3rd. By November 4th I had already learned enough to deem the majority of the statements above creditless. And now, 3 whole months later, well, now you can ask all the people in this forum who've been following everything throughout and I'm sure most will tell you the days of all the things you list above being relevant are longggggggggg gone, if they ever existed at all.

[Hugin]

12. Oh... And BTW...

[e-mail]

The email address goes in the blank *UNDER* the *USERNAME*.

[msongs]

15. california presidential election results are..............

you said:

"We lost most of California and the Pacific Northwest, being saved by a few big cities."

California results Kerry 5,427,000 Bush 4,403,000 margin 1,024,000

that margin is higher than the entire population of many so called red states.

We won ALL of California and Pacific Northwest* if you are referring to electoral votes. If you are referring to nearly empty square miles with just a few people in them, that is different, we did lose most of those :-)

Last time I checked, the cities are where MOST OF the people live.

duh.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/liberaltshirts.htm

* Idaho is not the pacific northwest, northwest maybe, but it usually does not actually touch the Pacific....ocean that is.

[tex-wyo-dem]

4. Although I agree with his opinion for the most part ...

I can also understand why the challenge was approached the way it was.

Make no mistake, if Boxer had come out and said "this election was stolen...manipulated....fraud...fraud...fraud" the media and neocon propaganda machine would have had a field day with the "sore loser" label. This very well could have submarined the whole election reform effort and probably would have had a net effect of damaging the Dems even further. In other words, it would have gotten a lot more public exposure, true, but most of that exposure would undoubtedly have been reported negatively by our oh so liberal media.

On top of that, as a result, Republicans in congress and senate would have been a lot less likely to cooperate with any kind of investigations or reform bills presented and the issue would have gone nowhere.

The only way such a direct approach would have worked is if all the Dems had been on board that day along with a few moderate Repubs. Only then would they have had the critical mass to push this stolen election into the light and taken seriously.

All in all, I think that Boxer and the few Dems that stood with her played this well. They put the issue on the floor for discussion, got the subject more exposure and made the Repubs look like idiots with their prepared speeches obviously written for countering claims of stolen election, where, in fact, the Dems weren't doing that at all.

[marions ghost]

5. yep

I can also understand why it was approached the way it was...

but this is also why we have to keep working on all fronts to make this system work better for us. Those Dems in congress need our help. We the constituents have been quiet and complacent for too long.

[tex-wyo-dem]

6. Exactly...

It's up to us, the people, to keep hammering at this until congress is forced to do something. The louder the public outcry, the harder it will be for politicians and the media to ignore.

[KoKo]

13. Well...I think your post is interesting for discussion and I checked

to make sure you had a DU Star..to trust you...and I read...and might have some "differs" with you...but, in general, I think this is something we Dems need to discuss. :-)'s to you for bringing this up!

[msongs]

14. do the dems match the jews/nazis experience??

at first Germany's Jews said, oh the nazis will not last. Then the Jews said the nazis will not really do what the nazis say they are going to do. then the Jews said well if we be nice to them they will leave us alone. then the Jews said if we just do what they want they will leave us alone. then the jews said...oooops sorry, no more Jews!

so the dems are nice to bush gang, the dems trust the bush gang, the dems would rather go along with the bush gang and not protest election fraud, then fraudulent elections reduce the number and power of elected dems over a period of years, and then the dems are a minority in congress with NO HOPE of ever having influence.

umm holocaust anyone?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Fly by night]

16. Wiley. A big shout-out (I'm not screaming, really) ...

from a fellow Orange Stater. I'm glad you checked in. There's still lots to process about every phase of this rabbit hole that our body politic has been in since November 2-3, 2004 (a day and a half that will really-the-hell live in infamy) and your post helped you, me and some more do just that.

The key point we have to keep reminding ourselves about these days is "... it's the principles, not the personalities". Despite the players that have brought us here and the positions they've taken on (and not taken, and not even acknowledged and -- at least once too often -- actively taken against) investigating election fraud, we have to keep our eye on the prizes. And they are election reform. And election justice.

Staying close to this forum, the messages that we need to carry loudly and collectively are beginning to get crystal clear to me around this issue. And you know that our level of public discussion here in Tennessee is expanding about election theft, in great part through the ten Gatherings, rallies, pot-lucks or lectures to activists that we have held in the past seven weeks AND our successful efforts to engage and re-engage the local, regional and internet media. That amount of public discussion, discourse and debate is helping all of us to identify what we must now do together. Because it's no longer about people -- it's about voting rights. And what it will take to honor them again (and maybe do them right once and for all times hereafter), through what we accomplish now. And that includes putting on trial those who were brazen enough to try to steal us blind -- to operate as the leaders of this nation without having lawfully and honorably received the consent of the governed -- through the 2004 re(uns)election.

So thanks for posting. Get re-involved in Gathering/V.O.T.E. right now. I'm going to post later about where we're at here in TN. But you, and Mac and the Nelsons and Eleanor White (and me) need to be thinking and talking and arranging a presentation for our Maury County Democrats ASAP. (And thinking about just who should represent us on the election commission and as county chair.) So keep posting thought-provoking thoughts and reactions. And keep working locally and at the state level to take our country back. Starting with the Orange State.

See ya' soon, neighbor. Keep your chin up -- we're gaining on 'em.

[European Socialist]

17. Globetrotters vs. Washington Generals

A very good analogy. Our side stinks! It started in the 70's with two-tiered labor contracts to appease big corporations and stretches to the surrender of the 2004 election to repuke fraud. It's cave-in after cave-in.

[NationalEnquirer]

18. The WHOLE POINT was that SOMEBODY had the guts to

to stand up and SAY SOMETHING.
In another day and time, nobody would have said ANYTHING, and the Dems would have rolled over and played DEAD.
That is what I totally expected.
Even the rumours that Boxer was going to say something didn't raise my hopes ONE IOTA because I didn't BELIEVE.
Well, I have changed from briefs to BOXERS.
I am a believer that at least SOMEONE in power knows whats going on, and had the FRIGGIN BALLS to say something, unlike some of the limp noodle democrats like Liebercrap and Bidenmytime.