Al and Robert,
Thanks for chatting at Drinking Liberally.
I'm on a couple of election reform email lists, and I forwarded them this article Believe It (Or Not): The Massachusetts Special Election For US Senate about substantial voting irregularities in the MA Senate race. In short, Diebold (the Republican-friendly maker of electronic voting machines) counted the votes in MA, but independently hand-counted votes strongly suggest that Martha Coakley, the Democrat, won.
I'm not sure whether those allegations are correct, but they seem worthy of investigation.
The election activists said, Oh, we've known about these problems for years, but the Kerry campaign and the DNC refused to investigate. Several of the election reform people said the author of that article is reputable. One person said, "Jonathan Simon is highly respected."
Another person wrote, "Thanks for posting this. Many of us in this group have known Jonathan Simon for years and feel he's one of the most reliable election statisticians we have. To me, if he says it - it's true. His indispensable mathematical proofs and the horrifying election theft they reveal are always hard to find anywhere but right here...hardly circulated wide by anyone other than us.
Here's a video clip of him from the day his work came to my attention, asking an INCREDIBLY astute question of a rising DNC star.
Actually, election fraud may, politically, be even more worthy of investigation and prosecution than war and torture. If the Dems don't investigate and oppose election fraud, then they might as well just give up. Books have been written about evidence for GOP election fraud. Won't the Dems do anything about it??????
This is symptomatic. The Republicans cheat, lie, steal, backstab, impeach, you-name-it every chance they get. If they get control of the House, they'll subpoena Obama and keep him on the defensive, on trumped up charges. (Then who will laugh at Obama?) The Dems just bend over and take it up the ass, even though the GOP torture, start fraudulent wars, steal elections, etc, etc, etc.
Many Dems say, in a frightened voice, "Oh, prosecution would be a distraction. Oh, we have to be bipartisan. Oh, the GOP would raise hell. Oh, that would be divisive." No wonder many Americans and independents think the Dems are uninspiring. Americans love fighters and don't respect wimps.
Are the Dems gonna stand up and defend themselves or not?
Apparently not. President Obama is looking Forward ---- to a GOP-controlled Congress. He's gotta look Back and tell the Americans what happened!
Anyway, I don't at all buy the argument that prosecution would have been a distraction. The Dems spent a lot of time over the last two years and accomplished little. (Yes, largely because of the GOP, which Obama and Pelosi protected.) Investigation of the war, of election fraud, of corruption in federal agencies, and of the politicization of the Justice Department would have taught the American public how bad the GOP is and would have made it harder for them to come back.
Obama's bipartisanship earned him nothing. The GOP still opposed his every move. All he did was compromise away anything that would have inspired the base and attracted independents. Now he makes the Dems look either ineffective or like the party of Wall Street and Big Insurance.
Obama should push for strong progressive legislation. If the GOP filibuster, so be it. Let them get the blame for failure. A weak bill that nobody likes is a poor compromise.
1 | 2