To Ed Pearl, The articles you've posted below help frame this important issue of concern.
I'm hoping you might see value in using the argumentation I've outlined below in hopes of swaying those Kucinich fans who believe it's "wiser" NOT to vote for Kucinich in the Democratic primaries. These well-meaning registered Democrats support and agree with Kucinich but believe (realistically) he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Where their political strategy goes awry is in believing that voting for Kucinich in the primaries would mean throwing away the only opportunity to have their “say” about who does get nominated. Moreover, many voters including Kucinich fans, think that in the primary elections one should vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate with the best chance of beating the Republican nominee in the general election. I will attempt to outline a number of reasons why both of these arguments are flawed or wrong-headed, especially in context with our current political environment. First, we can and must assume election rigging will be the norm in the 2008 general election and in the primary process as it was in 2004 and 2000. Accomplished with great technical sophistication, vote rigging is only rarely detectable by election observers. Election rigging is most often conducted by corrupt election officials behind closed doors and/or facilitated through computerized election systems. Although there have been some significant efforts by state legislators and state officials such as CA Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, to legally abolish the use by counties of hackable computerized voting and tabulating systems, these efforts have not been completely successful, not only in California but around the nation. Precinct voting machines can be programmed to shift votes from candidate A to B using algorithms hidden in the computer program and or hacked into and votes changed for the same purpose. One computer at each polling place receives and tallies the votes cast at the voting machines. The data then uploads onto a removable data storage card which can be pre-programmed to rig the data before the card is delivered to the county registrar. Massive rigging can also be done with ease in many (if not most) county tallying computers where the smart card data is uploaded on election night. Many counties (including L.A.) use Diebold tallying software, designed with a “back door” for ease of hack-ability through a phone connection from anywhere on Earth. Exposing electronic vote fraud usually requires a massive and costly post election audit, if it can be exposed at all in the absence of paper ballots marked by the voter and hand-counted at the precinct level. Moreover, states impose stringent limits on the conditions which trigger an audit. Many rigged elections never trigger an audit under present laws, regardless of the losing candidates’ demands. In short, under current circumstances, who we vote for in the primary or the general election has little or no bearing on determining the "winner". The perpetrators of election rigging must also ensure that the mainstream media's election day reporting of projections and tallies reinforces the perception that the predetermined winner is ahead or is coming up from behind for a believable "win". How is this perception management implemented? One method going back decades, is to have a single source on election day supplying virtually the entire spectrum of mainstream TV and radio news networks and stations with regular vote tally updates, (manipulated) precinct exit polling results for the networks and newservices' election projections. These earlier projections then nearly always match the final "official" vote counts sometime after the polls close, beginning on the east coast and following the time zones westward. The high degree of uniformity of this information between news networks/outlets and the relatively smooth progression of vote count updates (as the numbers change) lends the appearance of legitimacy to the network projections and the "official" election results. In the long established political environment of rigged (or rigable) elections and phonied-up election reporting, it's clear that presidential nominees are essentially selected by those party leaders connected at the national security level of politics. In this case, the democratic nominee will most likely be Clinton, Edwards or Obama (Edwards & Obama sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee) but the actual votes cast will not determine which candidate is selected. It's more than likely that the same rigged processes will be the norm in the general election, too, which means our next president will again be selected, but not by voters. *Because of the certainty of election rigging in the primaries and general election to come, the only real political (or "democratic") benefit of elections currently, is the degree to which the electoral process can be used as a public platform to promote important positions on the most critical issues.* Consequently, by failing to vote for Kucinich in the primaries, democratic voters inadvertently but potentially reduce (or silence) Kucinich’s important views from being 'front and center' on the national media stage—just at the time when the listening audience is largest—between the primary and the general election. Kucinich's platform and unambiguous record in Congress endows the Democratic Party with most of whatever credibility it may still possess. Whether or not the votes are accurately counted and reported, the more voters who promote the legitimacy of Kucinich's candidacy as the only moral and sensible choice for Democrats to vote for, the greater will be the credibility of his issue platform throughout the movement. Hopefully too, Kucinich's impact in the U.S. political arena will be strengthened by influencing wider public opinion on those critical issues through nothing else but his visibility in the public arena. By convincing other Democrats of the moral imperative to politically reward with our votes only those candidates that have unwaveringly resisted the policies and decisions of the Bush gang. Not surprisingly, Kucinich's foreign policy position appeals to many conservatives and to supporters of Republican Ron Paul for the same reasons that progressive Democrats support Kucinich—namely, their position on US foreign policy, the attacks on the Constitution and our civil liberties, especially since 9/11. By sacrificing their vote for Kucinich in the primary elections, Democratic voters give up what could really be their only opportunity to express their deep concerns over issues that are overwhelmingly felt by citizens of every political stripe from coast to coast. By voting for Kucinich, voters will be providing legitimacy for those issues of concern well into the campaign for the general election and beyond. Who knows, although unlikely, it's possible that Kucinich could win many of the primary elections that were not of concern to the election riggers to ply their 'trade' in. Most importantly, a vote for any Democratic Presidential candidate other than Kucinich sends a philosophical message that collusion with or even acquiescence to an unbridled Executive Branch guilty of crimes against humanity, "high crimes" against the Constitution and more illegalities and immoral actions, will be tolerated and rewarded. Under the conditions and circumstances we as US citizens find ourselves in today, it is unconscionable to support any of the candidates who have supported the Bush operation. That leaves only one candidate who deserves democratic votes in the primaries: Dennis Kucinich. Simply put, a vote in the primaries for anyone other than Kucinich is REALLY a vote thrown away. Jonathan Markowitz -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [LAAMN] Gore Vidal on Dennis Kucinich, Gore Vidal AND Dennis Kucinich Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 07:36:48 -0800 From: Ed Pearl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Ed Pearl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Ed Pearl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Dawson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:rcdawson%40att.net>> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 11:36 AM I am so annoyed that so many of my friends tell me that Kucinich has the best position on issue after issue, but they are still going to support one of the other candidates because Kucinich cannot win. This is basically conceding our elections to corporate controlled media and/or corrupt electoral processes. Bush has been pretty bad. Some of the Republicans running look at least as bad, plus they are probably smarter, a bad combination. None-the-less, what do we have to lose in the primary by supporting Kucinich? I know Clinton is bad, but are any of of the Corporate favorites any better? I don't really think so. It appears to me that the "goodness" of the candidates is inversely related to corporate media approval. The more their positions reflect the popular opinion, say bring the troops home ASAP, the more the media belittles their chances. What kind of Democracy do we have here? Personally, I think Kucinich would have a better chance of knocking off the Republican candidates than would any of the other so-called Democrats in the primary. Of course there isn't much point in speculating on that if Kucinich's supporters aren't willing to vote for him in the primary!! If you cannot bring yourself to campaign for him, or even to vote for him, at least send his campaign $50 so he can stay in the running and, to some extent, keep the others honest! "Kucinich for President" www.dennis4president.com http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18790.htm <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18790.htm> Gore Vidal : Dennis Kucinich The Nation 11/28/07 For the past two years I've been crisscrossing the United States speaking to crowds of people about our history and politics. At the same time, would-be Presidents of the greatest nation in the country, as silver-tongued Spiro Agnew used to say, have been crowding the trail, while TV journalists sadly shake their heads at how savage the politicos have become in their language. But then, it is the task of TV journalists to foment quarrels where often none properly exist. As I pass through the stage door of one auditorium after another, I now hear the ominous name of Darth Vader, as edgy audiences shudder at the horrible direction our political discourse has taken. Ever eager as I am to shed light, I sometimes drop the name of the least publicized applicant to the creaky throne of the West: Dennis Kucinich. It takes a moment for the name to sink in. Then genuine applause begins. He is very much a favorite out there in the amber fields of grain, and I work him into the text. A member of the House of Representatives for five terms since 1997, although many of his legislative measures have been too useful and original for our brain-dead media to comprehend. I note his well-wrought articles proposing the impeachment of Vice President Cheney, testing the patriotic nerves of his fellow Democrats, but then the fact of his useful existence often causes distress to those who genuinely hate that democracy he is so eager to extend. "Don't waste your vote," they whine in unison--as if our votes are not quadrennially wasted on those marvelous occasions when they are actually counted and recorded. Meanwhile, Kucinich is now at least visible in lineups of the Democratic candidates; he tends to be the most eloquent of the lot. So who is he? Something of a political prodigy: at 31 he was elected mayor of Cleveland. Once he had been installed, in 1978, the city's lordly banks wanted the new mayor to sell off the city's municipally owned electric system, Muny Light, to a private competitor in which (Oh, America!) the banks had a financial interest. When Mayor Kucinich refused to sell, the money lords took their revenge, as they are wont to do: they refused to roll over the city's debt, pushing the city into default. The ensuing crisis revealed the banks' criminal involvement with the private utility of their choice, CEI, which, had it acquired Muny Light, would have become a monopoly, as five of the six lordly banks had almost 1.8 million shares of CEI stock: this is Enronesque before the fact. Mayor Kucinich was not re-elected, but his profile was clearly etched on the consciousness of his city; and in due course he returned to the Cleveland City Council before being elected to the Ohio State Senate and then the US Congress. Kucinich has also written a description of his Dickensian youth, growing up in Cleveland. He has firsthand knowledge of urban poverty in the world's richest nation. Born in 1946 into a Croatian Catholic family, by the time he was 17 he and his family had lived in twenty-one different places, much of which he describes in Dreiserian detail in a just-published memoir. Kucinich is opposed to the death penalty as well as the USA Patriot Act. In 1998 and 2004 he was a US delegate to the United Nations convention on climate change. At home he has been active in Rust Belt affairs, working to preserve the ninety-year-old Cleveland steel industry, a task of the sort that will confront the next President should he or she have sufficient interest in these details. I asked a dedicated liberal his impression of Kucinich; he wondered if Kucinich was too slight to lead a nation of truly fat folk. I pointed out that he has the same physical stature as James Madison, as well as a Madisonian commitment to our 1789 Constitution; he is also farsighted, as demonstrated by his resolute opposition to Bush's cries for ever more funding for the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More to the point, in October 2002 he opposed the notion of a war then being debated. For those of us at home and in harm's way from disease, he co-wrote HR 676, a bill that would insure all of us within Medicare, just as if we were citizens of a truly civilized nation. *** Gore Vidal and Dennis Kucinich Sunday, December 9, 2007 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM Join Dennis & Elizabeth Kucinich, Gore Vidal And a host of celebrities & supporters At the home of Jerry Manpearl & Jan Goodman Santa Monica , CA. 90402 Donation: $125.00 per person & $200.00 for two Space is Limited, RSVP Required: (310) 458-7213 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:jansorders%40gmail.com> HOST COMMITTEE In Formation Aki Aleong, Aris Anagnos, Lila Garrett, Jan Goodman, Louis Gossett Jr., Hon. David Finkle, Jim & Channa Horwitz, Earl Katz, Mimi Kennedy, Julie Lopez Dad, Jerry Manpearl, Michelle Phillips, Hon. Bill Rosendahl, Stanley Sheinbaum, Bree Walker, Gore Vidal and many others Event producer: Ilene Proctor --- Unconsciously, Many favor Kucinich By MARC HANSEN Des Moines Register: October 23, 2007 Don't panic, but there's a chance you aren't supporting the presidential candidate you most agree with on the issues. As we stumble toward the primary/caucus season, millions of voters (or at least dozens) are going online and taking surveys that match them with candidates. And they're not automatically matching up with their favorite candidates. This happened four years ago when the Democrats were trying to figure out how to beat George Bush. Most of them wanted Kerry or Edwards or Dean. But surprise, surprise. When they punched in their select-a-candidate surveys, Kucinich's name kept blinking back at them on the computer screen. That's the Dennis Kucinich whose poll numbers were below sea level, the Kucinich nobody took seriously, the Kucinich who never had a chance. Kathleen Ferguson of Des Moines says nothing has changed four years later. She found one of those surveys on the Web site of WQAD-TV in the Quad Cities. She answered the 11 multiple-choice questions and decided how important each issue was to her. The topics were Iraq, immigration, tax cuts, stem cell research, health care, abortion, Social Security, a line-item veto, ethanol, same-sex marriage and the death penalty. Ferguson clicked "select a candidate," and up popped Kucinich. She had family members take the test. Kucinich came in first or second. She wondered what was going on. A lot of Democrats like what he has to say on the issues. Yet only a small percentage like him as their candidate. "We're not all that liberal," Ferguson said. "Several of us are former Republicans. It's astonishing to see what we want was labeled too far-out liberal." A lawyer she knows took the test, and another friend. Kucinich, Kucinich. "To paraphrase Kucinich himself," she said, "we can have a president who agrees with us on the issues and will work to institute the policies we want, or we can have a president who's tall." It can't be just physical stature, but it's almost certainly a self-fulfilling prophecy. Voters might agree completely with a candidate, but if they don't think the candidate has a decent shot, they'll vote for someone else. Ferguson, a paralegal at the Principal Financial Group, fits that mold. She supported Kucinich in 2004. She volunteered for him. But now she's trying to decide between the two front-runners. "I threw away my voice last time by supporting somebody who had no support," she said. "It's important to stand up for your beliefs, but if I'm reasonably certain it's going to be Obama or Clinton, don't I have the responsibility to decide which is the better candidate and support that person?" Ralph Nader, George W. Bush's best friend in 2004, would say no. Ferguson gives Kucinich good marks for his debate performances. His punch lines get positive audience response. He's quick on his feet in the debates. When they asked him about prayer, Kucinich said he was praying somebody would finally ask him a question. David Redlawsk, a political science professor at the University of Iowa, isn't surprised by the contradiction. Redlawsk and Rutgers University professor Richard Lau wrote the book on this subject: "How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns." Redlawsk says you can't read too much into these computer-match programs. They sometimes oversimplify a candidate's positions. And even when they don't, issues aren't everything to the average voter. "That isn't to say they aren't useful," he says. "People who go through them learn more about the candidates. But most people don't make decisions looking at every issue. They look at a limited set of issues, then they look at other things like personality, viability, who's the best overall fit." Voting on a candidate's position on issues alone is a little like dating through the personal ads. You have to see the prospective suitor up close. Focus too much on content at the expense of context and you might miss the big picture. Redlawsk then committed political science blasphemy. He said the voters with the most information don't automatically vote in their best interests anyway. "People are efficient at taking small amounts of information," he says, "making good decisions with that information and moving on with their lives." Speaking of small amounts of information, I took the candidate-match test. All I'll say is I like Mike Gravel and Ron Paul a lot more than I thought. Published October 23, 2007 Columnist Marc Hansen can be reached at (515) 284-8534 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:mahansen%40dmreg.com> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
