about, and I think I may be more cynical than Larisa Alexandrovna about the potential for a Dem majority Congress to bring the Bush Junta to justice. For one thing, too many Dems vote like Bushites (witness the Dems who voted for torture and suspension of habeas corpus the other week). For another Diebold/ES&S controls the results of primaries as well as general elections, another reason to not expect even a Dem majority in Congress to be truly representative of the American people. Larisa goes through a lot of past Rovian behavior--and I agree with her that Rove is not even close to being a genius, but is just a mean little weasel with far too much money at his disposal and far too much power--then she says this:
"If there is no insurrection, then why suspend habeus corpus? Unless it is a contingency plan for a possible insurrection. Why pass this before the election, urgently, as though the country were on fire and despite the begging of the world? Perhaps the contingency planning for an insurrection is taking into account what the exit polls will once again fail to deliver. Perhaps the answer is as simple as it is historically supportable: (a) if the GOP cannot give up control of Congress, (b) and there is ample proof that they will retain control of Congress through election fraud, then (c) faced with a no longer sedated public, this brave new America of the GOP might require extreme measures in order to secure peace in the event of an uprising, (d) perhaps through something like domestic policing measures."
http://www.alternet.org/story/43798/"...something like domestic policing measures..." What doe that mean? Arresting voters? Arresting election officials who announce Dem victories? I don't know. It's kind of vague. But probably she means that the Bush Junta will steal the elections, insurrection will follow, and will be put down. --that these unconstitutional assertions, recently, are planning FOR an insurrection, WHEN the election is stolen.
I think she's got some faulty premises. One, that a Dem Congress means impeachment. It does not. In fact, Pelosi said they wouldn't. There will certainly be investigations, but I don't think the Dem majority will be permitted to be strong enough (with real Dems) to accomplish impeachment. I think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld know this--the people counting all the votes, with "trade secret" code, are their buds. They also have other enforcement mechanisms to impair a majority on impeachment--spying, blackmail, bribery, anthrax in the mail, murder. Really, I wouldn't expect that much from a Dem Congress. We have a lo-o-o-o-o-ong way to go, to have a real democracy again.
Two, Larisa doesn't give nearly enough attention to the sex scandal that the corporate news monopolies unleashed on the GOP four weeks before the election. Why did they do this? It's damned weird. It's as if they now want the Bushites to lose. Has there been some kind of falling out among the powers-that-be?
Three, she barely mentions Diebold and ES&S and their CAPABILITY to outright steal almost every Congressional election, and how it might be used. For instance, would they risk losing that capability for future purposes, by massive theft, if they don't need to? (Martial law in a gigantic country like this one would not be easy--for one thing, a lot of the Nat'l Guard is in Iraq! For another, would the U.S. military go along with an election-related martial law? I'm not at all sure they would.) Better to just tweak the Congress a little, give the Dems an edge in the House, let them have some fun investigatin' (see how far they get with Bush "national security" secrecy enveloping all, and Bush-appointed courts to back it up), pad those accounts in the Cayman islands some more, and get ready for some fun in Paraguay toppling nearby So. American democracies, as a sort of "hunting sport" for retired top tier Bushites.
See what I mean? I'm more cynical. Martial law is EXPENSIVE and a lot of trouble. Better to blackmail Democrats not to go too far, and have Diebold/ES&S create a block of them that the Junta can count on, in a crunch (along with their Bushite "pod people.").
I think the '06 (s)election is going to result in a Dem majority in the House (but not in the Senate), and it's all going to be rather disappointing. Some investigations, probably some underlings of the Ollie North type indicted; no earthshaking reform of any kind; it might be hard even to get a bill for TRANSPARENT vote counting (--too many compromised Dems).
It's what happens NEXT that is more important. If we are going to have TRANSPARENT vote counting in the '08 primaries and general election, I think it's going to be up to the people--for instance, to the millions of outraged voters who are voting by Absentee Ballot this time--BOYCOTTING the e-voting machines--to achieve it. I think we can do it. But it's going to be a messy effort at the local level, to try to get the AB votes counted properly. People want proper vote counting, and I think the big AB vote we're seeing in this election is the only way we're going to get it.
The big players--the powers that be--we never know what they're going to do. They could pull another 9/11 on 11/6, for all we know, and for all the power we have to prevent it. Their actions are mystifying and unaccountable. They exist on another plane. Yeah, their kids are going to have to deal with a dead planet, too--but they must figure they'll have privatized NASA entirely, by then, or have other means of transport outa here, to the biospheres on the moon or Mars.
In that unaccountable sphere, they may or may not heist our entire election, or they might want to continue the illusion of democracy. I sure get the feeling of "something going on" behind the scenes. Which brings me to my fourth point of divergence from Larisa: There may be OTHER reasons for the recent unconstitutional bills and actions of the Junta--other than plans for martial law. For instance, the Congressional endorsement of torture gives the Bushites some immunity from prosecution for torture. I have a feeling that some kind of deal has been made--the Junta backs down from, say, invading Iran, or other fascist actions, in exchange for LIMITED investigations and no impeachment for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other top players. The torture bill is not so much to permit torture in the future, as to indemnify the Bushites for past crimes.
Another for instance, all the signing statements may be a strategy for FUTURE override of anything the Dem Congress passes--and then we will see a messy contest between the executive and legislative branches, with a Bush-appointed Supreme Court as arbiter. The Bushites would be worried about things like Congress overriding the Junta on secrecy, or canceling bad actor contracts, or, really, anything to do with the money pigsty or potential criminal liability. In other words, it's not a Hitlerian measure (though it hauntingly resembles one), but just a means of protecting the loot and making a getaway.
Again, I think the American people are the wild card in this situation. They've done everything they can to brainwash us and steal us blind, but they haven't convinced us of anything--except maybe that we are powerless and that the great progressive American majority is a MINORITY--and even those scales are falling from our eyes. I've sometimes thought that the Grand Corporate Scheme is to hit us with in-your-face fascism, and the insult of Bush as our president-- thus to make us feel relieved and GRATEFUL for MERE Corporate Rule, a la Clinton. (No more Seattle '99s!). The Bush Junta has also expanded the powers of the executive to ENFORCE Corporate Rule, if necessary--and to handle the food riots and so on, if it all collapses.
I'm much more worried about that than I am about a Nazi state, at this point. I don't see a Nazi state developing around me. No Hitler's Youth sieg heiling in the streets. No obeisance to the Great Leader. Far from it! I see ordinary Americans in a somewhat bewildered state, wondering how Bush could be president--and going on with their lives, and work, and businesses, and citizenship duties like voting, as per normal. Many Americans are angry--but they're not angry at the Bushites' targets, gays, women, liberals, brown immigrants. They're angry at the Bushites--for insulting them with hypocrisy and intolerance. Hitler had a lot of willing German worshipers. Bush does not. People want him out--and are just kind of puzzled on how to do that (--just figuring out the e-voting thing).
It may be a danger down the line. I am not discounting very grave items like the suspension of habeas corpus, or the potential for a Hitler's rise, perhaps after further economic deterioration. Right now, I think the biggest danger is that Americans will go back to sleep under Corporate Democratic rule.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
