October 18, 2006 Reflections on the Eve of Another Rigged Election By Ernest Partridge The Bush administration cannot allow the Democrats to take control of either house of Congress. And they are in a position to prevent it, regardless of the will of the American voters.
These are the two controlling facts that make all other conditions of the coming election trivial in comparison, or even irrelevant. The failure of the media and even the Democratic Party to acknowledge and deal with these facts in no way diminishes their significance. Quite the contrary.
And why can't the Busheviks allow the loss of even one house of Congress to the Democrats? Such a loss might, of course, result in the halting and even some reversal of the Bush/GOP agenda. But that is the least of their concerns. Far more important would be the reestablishment of Congressional oversight -- of investigations, with the penalties of perjury and contempt of Congress, into vast array of crimes committed by the Bush administration. Among these crimes are bribery, the disappearance of billions of dollars in Iraq, war crimes, the disregard of acts of Congress, lying to Congress, and fraudulent elections. In a new, Democratic, House of Representatives, the incorruptible Henry Waxman, as the new Chair of the Government Affairs Committee, would doggedly examine and expose the corruption of the Bush Administration, and John Conyers, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, would, at long last, energetically investigate the issue of stolen elections. Accordingly, Bush and his partners in crime face far more than a curtailment of power; they face possible indictment, prosecution, and prison sentences for their crimes.
How, then, might the Busheviks avoid accountability for their crimes by remaining in control of the Congress? The same way that they seized control of the White House in 2000, and maintained control of Congress and the White House in 2004, namely by rigging these elections through their surrogates in "the election industry."
The accumulated weight of evidence has moved e-vote fraud well beyond the status of mere accusation. To those willing to examine that evidence scrupulously and objectively, it is now a proven fact. The refusal of the media to deal with this issue and the pathetically weak rebuttal-by-ridicule of the debunkers has not mitigated the force of the evidence. Because I have written repeatedly and at length about the stealing of the national elections, I will not argue the point here. Those still unconvinced are urged to examine these sources.
Significantly, despite the aforementioned media silence and weak rebuttals, a Zogby poll reports that less than half the public is "very confident that Bush won [the 2004 election] fair and square," and a third if the public is "not at all confident that he won fair and square."
Given the likelihood of another rigged election, does this mean that those of us who desire a Democratic victory – apparently a sizeable majority of likely voters – should simply give up, accept the inevitable, and stay at home?
By no means. We should redouble our efforts. For even if the GOP retains control of Congress through still more of the same electronic vote fraud combined with their familiar vote-suppression schemes, this could be the election that finally exposes and puts an end to the paperless, non-verifiable e-vote scam. If the election precincts are flooded with crowds of angry citizens demanding the ouster of the Republican majority in Congress, the GOP just might be made to pay an exorbitant price for one more rigged election. For all their advantages, including their control of the election processes, the GOP faces a daunting dilemma: on the one hand, steal one more election and risk, at long last, exposure of this crime, or on the other hand, "allow" the Democrats to take control of one house of Congress with the expectation that the crimes of the Bush administration, including election fraud, will be rigorously investigated.
I expect that the GOP strategists will opt for the former course of action. Even so, it is just possible that the GOP will still lose the House, although, given their control of the e-ballots, their continued the Senate is a lock for the Republicans. To win the Senate, the Democrats must lose no seats while winning almost all of the contested seats. Should the GOP "fix" just three close elections, say in New Jersey, Missouri and Ohio, their control of the Senate is assured. Even so, that might not be the end of it. If, by over-reaching this time, the election-fraud machinery is finally exposed, those ill-gained Senate seats might be contested and overturned by court challenges. And these would be decided by state courts, out of reach of the GOP packed federal courts.
The House of Representatives, however, is a different story. If the election is close, the Republicans, by "fixing" from one to two dozen of the most endangered seats, will salvage their majority. That many individual electoral finagles are quite do-able.
But if as many as a hundred GOP seats are at risk, this may overwhelm the resources of the Dieboldian (etc.) shock troops. Moreover, the more individual contests on the "fix-list," the larger the circle of election conspirators and the greater the risk that one of these scams will misfire and blow open the e-voting crime wave. Then a chain-reaction of disclosures might follow, reaching back to Ohio in 2004, Georgia in 2002, and Florida in 2000, to mention just a few electoral crime scenes.
And it appears now that a tsunami of voter discontent might strike the ballot boxes on November 7. The latest Newsweek poll reports that "fully 53 percent of Americans want the Democrats to win control of Congress next month..., compared to just 35 percent who want the GOP to retain power." This 18% gap is considerably more than that which preceded the 40 seat sweep of the "Republican revolution" of 1994.
Accordingly, Paul Krugman observes that "a huge Democratic storm surge is heading toward a high Republican levee. It's still possible that the surge won't overtop the levee -- that is, the Democrats could fail by a small margin to take control of Congress. But if the surge does go over the top, the flooding will almost surely reach well inland -- that is, if the Democrats win, they'll probably win big." And the much-respected and non-partisan observer, Charlie Cook notes that
"For Republicans, it is a time to defend every seat, no matter how secure those seats appear. If things don't change, GOP incumbents, who never even contemplated having a difficult race, may well lose this year. And if I were a Republican, I'd start praying that something happens to take the spotlight away from Iraq and scandals, because this current issue mix is lethal." If that "tsunami" strikes on November 7, just as the "fixers" are at work on the presumably "endangered" seats, a strange and suspicious profile will emerge: close "contested" seats will be won overwhelmingly by the Republicans, while many "safe" Republican seats will be lost to the Democrats.
Now suppose that despite the polls and the well-publicized discontent of the voters, the Republicans retain control of both houses of the Congress. Suppose further, that this is the result of numerous allegedly "miraculous upsets," none by Democratic candidates, and all by GOP candidates who overcome fifteen to twenty point polling deficits. (Among these, Ken Blackwell, the Ohio Secretary of State who "administered" the 2004 Ohio election, now a candidate for Governor, is trailing his opponent Ted Strickland by eighteen points).
Should this occur, can the dirty secret of stolen elections still be contained? Or might not, instead, the backbone of public denial and media silence finally be broken?
If, this time, the GOP control of the vote counting once again frustrates the will of a large majority of the voters, the proportion of doubters (half of the population, according to Zogby) will likely increase. Perhaps then much more than half will seriously doubt the validity of the elections, while many more "somewhat" doubt these results. At some point of no-confidence, the public at large will finally come to realize that the government of the United States no longer rules with "the consent of the governed" and thus lacks the legitimacy to govern.
What then? Worst case: Bush imposes the dictatorial powers given him by the Patriot Act and by the Military Commissions Act (of September 28), and the United States becomes in fact what it is now implicitly -- a dictatorship. Best case: the people, united, overthrow the illegitimate regime. This has happened recently, in Ukraine in 2004 and in the Soviet Union in 1991. Most significantly, it happened in July, 1776, justified by a document known as "The Declaration of Independence," which proclaimed: "That to secure these Rights [to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That, whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
It is not without justification that some have called the upcoming election of November 7, 2006 the most significant non-presidential election in the history of the United States of America.
Now, at long last, the balance of power might be turning against the Busheviks, as their "establishment" corporate supporters and traditional conservatives seem to be having second thoughts, and as these qualms are reflected in the mainstream media.
Traditional conservatives, such as Richard Viguerie, Paul Weirich, Bruce Fein, and Joe Scarborough, are publicly proclaiming that the Bush administration has abandoned their core principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility, and that a Democratic victory in November, and the resulting divided government, "might not be a bad thing." Dissenting opinions are becoming ever more conspicuous in the media, among them Bob Woodward (at long last!), and the disaffected evangelical Christian and former official of Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives," David Kuo, both of whom appeared in successive appearances in CBS's 60 Minutes.
As I have repeatedly suggested, where the Bush regimes leads, enlightened corporate and media interests should not choose to follow. These interests flourished under the Clinton administration, during unprecedented economic growth when the United States and its political principles were respected throughout the world. Moreover, these same "establishment" interests must appreciate that in the coming collapse of the United States economy, there will be no winners.
Who could have predicted a month ago the present disarray of the GOP and the decline of its prospects in the upcoming election? The Foley scandal and its aftershocks were nowhere in sight, and continuing Republican control of the Congress seemed secure. Likewise, we can only guess at what surprises might suddenly appear in the remaining four weeks of the campaign.
When it is all over, we may discover that this contest will have been won by the side that responded to these developments, promptly, intelligently, and decisively.
This is no time for apathy, despair and surrender.
Copyright 2006 by Ernest Partridge
Authors Website: http://www.crisispapers.org
Authors Bio: Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. Partridge has taught philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, \"The Online Gadfly\" (www.igc.org/gadfly) and co-edits the progressive website, \"The Crisis Papers\" (www.crisispapers.org). His book in progress, "Conscience of a Progressive," can be seen at www.igc.org/gadfly/progressive/^toc.htm . |
