The lesson here is that the American citizenry cannot permit itself once again to be rolled over on Election Day. There should be massive and well-organized exit-polling; there should be Democratic attorneys stationed at each and every likely voting precinct and tabulation center where problems could be anticipated; there should be legal observers (one would hope with some computer smarts) observing the chain of custody of ballots and e-voting computer chips and how the ballots are tabulated, suing if necessary to gain access to the source codes.
Are any of these things being done? I don't think so, at least not on the massive scale it would take to make those manipulating the voting and vote-counting think twice about what they're doing. And so, on November 8, the opposition to CheneyBush may wake up to an ongoing nightmare of incalcuable dimensions.
I am convinced that if the election is honest, with votes honestly tabulated, the CheneyBush Administration will be dealt a serious loss on November 7. But that is a mighty big "if," given the history of how Rove and his supporting cast have behaved during the elections of the past six years.
Let's be highly cautious optimists, making sure to vote and getting our voters to the polls, standing around (dressed in Democrat blue) outside the voting venues, making sure we pay attention to how our votes are being registered and tabulated, making noise when something seems fishy, and so on. Finally, we all have to be prepared to go into the streets and massively march in opposition if and when it's apparent that the election has been stolen yet again.
This election is our best chance to begin to turn America around, and back into the light of its better self. Let's not blow it by letting our hope blind us to the more nefarious realities on the ground. #
First published by The Crisis Papers 10/31/06. www.crisispapers.org/essays6w/scenarios.htm
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
you'd recommend voting only for candidates who want peace.
There are many pro-war Democrats. Should the Democrats gain a majority that includes pro-war Democrats, they will never have a majority when it comes to an actual vote, as the pro-war Democrats will vote with the Republicans.
By claiming that you want peace, but advising people to vote for pro-war Democrats, you show yourself to be a complete hypocrite, or perhaps totally unfamiliar with Congressional politics. A Democratic majority cannot end the war. Only an anti-war majority could try to do that. But, of course, with Bush still using his signing statements to nullify legislation and holding the veto, even unanimous Congressional opposition to the war wouldn't end it. You'd have to impeach Bush first, which is something the Democrats have pledged not to do.
There are individual anti-war Democrats. Dr. Bob Bowman in Florida and Jeeni Criscenzo in California are shining examples. I recommend people vote for them, not because they are Democrats, but because they are anti-war.
A vote for a pro-war Democrat is a vote for the Bush agenda. If you oppose the war it is a vote against your own interests. How many more people have to die needlessly because of unthinking party loyalties?
If your choice appears to be between a pro-war Republican and a pro-war Democrat, take a closer look at your ballot. There are probably peace candidates there, from the Green Party the Peace and Freedom party, or without any party support at all. If you really want peace, that's who you'll vote for. Because otherwise you are voting with the blood of innocents on your hands.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Wednesday, November 1, 2006 at 10:32:28 PM
As I see it -- others have another point of view, which I respect -- the issue is not pro-war and anti-war, but breaking the six-year momentum of a neo-fascist movement and starting the work of driving them from having much influence on our politics. Once the momentum is broken, which would be the case if the Republicans lose the House and/or the Senate, then we can devote some time to "purifying" the party. But first things first.
by
Bernard Weiner (154 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Wednesday, November 1, 2006 at 11:34:49 PM
just because the Republicans lose the House and/or the Senate.
Bush still has his signing statements to nullify any legislation he doesn't like, and he also has veto power. The Democrats can't pass any legislation unless he wants them to, and they have pledged not to try to impeach him.
Add to that the fact that many of the so-called Democrats who are likely to be elected, have consistently voted with the Republicans and support the Republican agenda, so when it comes down to an actual vote, a Democratic majority in Congress will turn out to be the same old Republican majority.
You can't oppose fascism by voting for fascists and fascist collaborators. The war is just one aspect of corporate-run government for profit. But anyone who doesn't oppose an illegal war, can't pretend to be anti-fascist. And the Democratic Party does not oppose the war. There are a few brave Democrats who oppose the war, but they are a tiny minority. The party leadership is as fascist as the Republicans, pro-war, pro-corporations, pro-globalization, pro-torture, and anti-Constitution.
Pelosi isn't talking about ending the war, ending torture, ending illegal wiretapping, or in any way opposing fascism. Pelosi is talking about "breaking the links between lobbyists and legislation." And when Pelosi's bill doesn't pass because too many members of Congress are dependent upon corporate contributions, or when it passes and Bush vetoes it, Pelosi will blame the Republicans. But it was Pelosi who pledged not to try to impeach Bush, knowing full well that he has the veto power to stop any progressive legislation.
You're being played, and you think you're a player. Unless, of course, you're a paid shill for the corporatists. In that case, like any good fascist, you're just doing your job.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 7:21:08 AM
3 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
