Please donate to help cover the costs of operating Greater Democracy. Note that Greater Democracy is not a formal organization, and your donation is not tax deductible. Greater Democracy is not affiliated with any other business, organization, or party.
November 5, 2004The Ultimate Felony Against DemocracyThom Hartmann has an excellent new essay over on Common Dreams: The Ultimate Felony Against Democracy Published on Thursday, November 4, 2004 by CommonDreams.org by Thom Hartmann The hot story in the Blogosphere is that the "erroneous" exit polls that showed Kerry carrying Florida and Ohio (among other states) weren't erroneous at all - it was the numbers produced by paperless voting machines that were wrong, and Kerry actually won. As more and more analysis is done of what may (or may not) be the most massive election fraud in the history of the world, however, it's critical that we keep the largest issue at the forefront at all time: Why are We The People allowing private, for-profit corporations, answerable only to their officers and boards of directors, and loyal only to agendas and politicians that will enhance their profitability, to handle our votes? Maybe Florida went for Kerry, maybe for Bush. Over time - and through the efforts of some very motivated investigative reporters - we may well find out (Bev Harris of www.blackboxvoting.org just filed what may be the largest Freedom of Information Act [FOIA} filing in history), and bloggers and investigative reporters are discovering an odd discrepancy in exit polls being largely accurate in paper-ballot states and oddly inaccurate in touch-screen electronic voting states Even raw voter analyses are showing extreme oddities in touch-screen-run Florida, and eagle-eyed bloggers are finding that news organizations are retroactively altering their exit polls to coincide with what the machines ultimately said. But in all the discussion about voting machines, let's never forget the concept of the commons, because this usurpation is the ultimate felony committed by conservatives this year. Continue reading at The Ultimate Felony Against Democracy Posted by Jock Gill at November 5, 2004 3:58 PM | TrackBackComments
How is it that your enthusiasm for "greater democracy" is contingent on the outcome? Isn't democracy about respecting others' points of view? You are entitled to your own political philosophy, but (thankfully) this great country is not about to make a far left turn anytime soon. Fact of life. We're not prepared to give up our freedoms just yet. That's democracy. Posted by: J.A. Marrit at November 5, 2004 8:24 PMMr. Marrit, Thanks for commenting on this post. Actaully, I do not see where Thom Hartmann implies any contingency on outcome. We certainly agree that listening to and respecting others' points of view is essential. Altho it recently appears to be the case that many who voted for Mr. Bush do not respect a reality based approach to government. There are two questions that are of interest: 1] What is an internaly consistent reason to vote for Mr. Bush? Certainly neither Moral Leadership nor Family Values nor National Security passes this test if we do a results based analysis. Or is faith alone a sufficient reason to vote for the GOP story [narrative]? 2] Were the elections results fair and above board? This remains open to question at this time as more an more reports of strangley anomalous results are coming in. "We're not prepared to give up our freedoms just yet." Your comments are funny, Mr. Patriot Act. Posted by: political news at November 6, 2004 4:55 PMFirst I'll say that others have made the case for the President better than I can. For example, I'd refer you to excellent endorsements by the Chicago Tribune, NY Daily News, Times of London and BILD, Europe's largest newspaper. As for myself, I supported the President for the simple reason that he was the better of the two choices I had (why our system didn't produce better choices is another discussion). Too much conversation surrounding any presidential election concerns itself with all kinds of peripheral matters, aesthetics, style, personality, character and so on. But the only way I see to make a rational decision between the two candidates is to evaluate -- in light of the actual authority, responsibility and duties that the President has -- which candidate would make decisions and appointments over the next four years that, in their totality, I would be more likely to agree with. The critical ideas that make this country great and that have always attracted people here are the principles of limited government and federalism; economic freedom and opportunity; and authentic freedom of conscience. Those are the basis for my decision. While I am dismayed by the President's complicity in the growth of irresponsible federal spending (in particular wasting more resources on the failed government school monopoly and expanding federal entanglement therewith, to say nothing of paying for geezers' pills), it would be irrational to expect Ted Kennedy's shadow, of all people, to perform better on this score. The President has appointed and will appoint judges who respect the Constitution. Kerry would not. The President will try to get tort reform. Kerry put a sleazy ambulance chaser on his ticket. With regard to regulatory policy, the President's appointees will be more likely than Kerry's to apply common sense and sound cost/benefit analysis. Kerry, like Clinton, would fill the executive branch with extremist anti-life, anti-family collectivist ideologues and environmental fetishists. The President has a strategic view of the terrorism problem. I have no idea what Kerry really thinks about terrorism. (I gather he considers it a nuisance on the order of streetwalking. Call me naive, but I don't think any hookers are trying to kill me.) Judging from his incoherent pronouncements as well as his long record of advocating appeasement, I have to conclude that Kerry is no more serious about terrorism than he was about confronting the Soviet Union or evicting Saddam from Kuwait. Any Democrat president would be in the pocket of corrupt special interests, not only the ambulance chasers but the abortion industry and government worker unions. I admit to some less rational motivations. Given the obsessive hatred of the President on the part of the far left, I was very eager for the American people to rise up in righteous anger (and they did!!) to stick their thumbs in the eyes of the likes of Michael Moore and the rest of the radical chic Hollywood filth; George Soros and the rest of the blame-America one-worlders; MoveOn.org and the rest of the extremist hate groups; and all the old Sixties types who seem to keep crawling out of the woodwork. A victory for these creeps, bringing down a President, would have emboldened them, with frightful consequences. Finally, as far as I'm concerned John Kerry disqualified himself when, upon his return from Vietnam, he shamefully slandered his comrades and gave comfort to the enemy. While that may or may not have been his right as a citizen, there is no "right" to be President, and he made his choice then. "Were the elections results fair and above board?" You know as well as I. I have no evidence either way, but given the unprecedented scrutiny and four years of process improvement, it would be hard to believe that this was not by far the cleanest national election in our history. (Certainly better than 1960, when Kennedy fraudulently received a nationwide margin smaller than W's margin this year in Ohio alone.) That said, you can be sure the Democrats and their allies, up to their usual tricks, got busy voting early and often, especially in places like Cleveland and Philly (where machines started recording votes before the polls opened). I'm sure that millions of Democrat voters were "intimidated" by the prospect of having to show up at the right polling station and follow simple instructions (to say nothing of remembering an alias). I'm sure Kerry polled very strongly among cemetery residents and companion animals. I'm sure the Democrats rounded up untold thousands of drunks, bums, felons, imbeciles, illegals, junkies and government clients and "encouraged" them to do their civic duty. But yeah, it was fair and above board. Mr. Marrit, The best rebuttal to your point of view is the 60 plus major papers who endorsed Bush in 2000 but endorsed Kerryion 2004. Only 6 or 7 went from Gore in 2000 to Bush in 2004. That might tell us something. If you remove the allegations and name calling from your argument, what is left? Regards, Jock Gill Posted by: Jock Gill at November 7, 2004 2:10 PMOkay, to spare you the "allegations and name calling:" Federal government role and spending: One can make an argument for the virtues of gridlock (that a Kerry administration and Republican Congress would place a check on each other), but given Kerry's philosophy, record and allegiances, the President is a better bet. Judiciary: The President has appointed and will continue to appoint judges who respect the Constitution and the limits of their own powers. Kerry would not. Economy: The President will continue to be pro-growth. Despite a few disappointing decisions, he is pro-trade. Kerry has been pro-trade in the past, but seemed to back away in his campaign. Kerry would be indebted to the unions, particularly government employee unions. He is weak on tort reform and could possibly veto such legislation. Regulatory policy: The President's administration will continue to make common sense, pro-growth decisions. Given Kerry's philosophy, record and allegiances, he would be unlikely to do so. Terrorism: The President has taken a strategic view of this problem. Kerry did not, and his record is not encouraging. Again, these are my personal judgements about which candidate would make decisions and appointments I would be more likely to agree with, in light of the actual authority, responsibility and duties of the President, and considering the principles of limited government and federalism; economic freedom and opportunity; and authentic freedom of conscience. The election is over so obviously I'm not trying to persuade anybody. I'm just trying to be responsive to the question you posed and I hope you find this helpful. Peace Posted by: J.A. Marrit at November 7, 2004 4:31 PM"Terrorism: The President has taken a strategic view of this problem." You're a complete moron. Zero Iraqi citizens attacked us, and most of the hijackers were Saudi's. I know that you can't get it through your thick skull, but killing random Arabs from countries with oil is not a strategic solution to terrorism. Posted by: political news at November 12, 2004 2:18 PMPost a comment
|