Mark Crispin Miller on election fraud
RFK Jr. made the case, Salon printed a largely inapposite response. Salon declines to print the counter from Miller, who has been all over the issue. THis is from Miller's response as printed @ The Huffington Post:
The kind of vermin who rig American elections need darkness to do their evil. What is remarkable and and terrifying is that so many Democrats, when presented with evidence of infestation, insist on turning off the lights.
The DNC report is typical of that cowed, calculating party, whose managers consistently deny the evidence of fraud, even though the consequence is their assured political castration. Why exactly would they take that suicidal course? The reasons generally given for their silence on the subject are preposterous on their face. Kerry won't discuss the issue frankly on the record, we've been told, because he's worried that the media will smack him for it. ("They're saying that, if I don't concede, they'll call us sore losers!" he reportedly said to a stunned John Edwards just before he called it quits the morning after.) That may be what Kerry, among others, actually believes, but it's absurd, as no amount of public scorn, however withering, could ever be as frightening to a democratic politician as the twilight of democracy itself.
We also hear that Democrats have been reluctant to speak out about election fraud because they fear that doing so might cut down voter turnout on Election Day. By such logic, we should henceforth utter not a peep about election fraud, so that the Democratic turnout will break records. Then, when the Republicans win yet again, because they've rigged the system, how will all those Democratic voters feel? Maybe those who haven't killed themselves, or fled the country, will recover just enough to vote again. Would it then be prudent for the Democrats to talk about election fraud? Or would it still seem sensible to keep the subject under wraps?
The argument is idiotic, yet the people who have seriously made it -- Bernie Sanders, Markos Moulitsas, Hillary Clinton's and Chuck Schumer's people, among others -- are extremely bright. The argument, as foolish as it is, does not bespeak a low I.Q., but, I would suggest, a subtler kind of incapacity: a refusal and/or inability to face a deeply terrifying truth. The Democrats refuse to talk about election fraud because they cannot, will not, wrap their minds around the implications of what happened in 2004, and what is happening right now, and what will keep on happening until we, as a people, face the issue. In short, whatever clever-sounding rationales they may invoke (no doubt in all sincerity), the Democrats won't talk about election fraud because they're in denial, which is itself based on a lethal combination of inertia, self-interest and, above all -- or below all -- fear.
The kind of vermin who rig American elections need darkness to do their evil. What is remarkable and and terrifying is that so many Democrats, when presented with evidence of infestation, insist on turning off the lights.
posted by bluememe at 6/17/2006
5 Comments:
If election fraud isn't real then they don't have to put thier reputations on the line and possible (likely?) fail. By the way...where are the regular Republican voters on this? It is nice to be on the winning side, but don't they think our Country is worth a fair fight? Wouldn't it be ironic if someone on the Right were the ones to save our Democracy? Newt Gingrich makes me want to vomit but if he could bring enough Republicans around to end the fraud, I'd vote for the slimy bastard...any one have an extra barf bag?
Regular Republicans ... what a concept. Like the ones who eventually came around against Nixon. Like Arlen Specter's periodic bark, as opposed to his complete lack of bite.
It would indeed be nice if such people would make themselves known. It would also be nice if the United States had a Bill of Rights and a system of checks and balances.
How strange that the consultant class and their clients are happier believing they lost a couple of fair fights than that their opponents cheated.
Well, when I say 'regular Republicans' I mean people I know personally to be decent Human Beings. I may not agree with thier politics but I'm not afraid they would rob me with a gun, nor would they condone anyone doing it. I just think the idea of the wholesale theft of our Constitution is so monstrous an idea that they refuse to believe it could happen...kind of like the Democratic leadership.
Perhaps you could buy your friends copies of Greenwald's book and a framed copy of the Niemoller quote.
I'll be lending my copy out to the next guy I talk to who doesn't get it.
I sure hope this story keeps going. It surprises me that so many people don't know about it. And I wonder why it is taking hold now.
Some Republican voters I know think these are ridiculous, outlandish accusations that couldn't possibly be true. So they don't bother looking in to it. Why would they? I mean, the implications are frightening, and it is much easier to go on with life blissfully in ignorance.
I bought the Miller book months ago, along with the Conyers report. But nobody wanted to hear about it. I am encouraged, though because a Republican at my wife's workplace has been speaking out against Bush and actually loaned her a copy of "How Would a Patriot Act."
On the issue of why Democrats don't embrace this story and move it forward, well, that supports my sneaking suspicions that the Democratic Party is either a.) Infiltrated by REpublican sleepers, b.) controlled by the same monied interests that control the Republican agenda, or c.) both. But then there's Markos, who I think would not be swayed by a.) and b.) above.
Can we, as a nation, enter in to a massive 12 step program? Admit we are powerless, take an honest inventory, make ammends, all that and then begin our National Recovery?
Post a Comment
<< Home