illegal, mass murdering, torturing war. And they are not. So it makes you wonder. But I think it's more a case of Dems starting out in life, when they were young, as Democrats--with all the right instincts about fairness and justice and good government and a "level playing field" for the poor and the oppressed--and gradually, over the years, getting sucked in by the military-corporate complex that now rules our land, and experiencing power and the perks of office, and nice, secure benefits and regular salary increases, and having to pander after millions in campaign contributions, and getting "above us all" as a result, flying above "the masses." In short, becoming Republicrats.
And now, things are so unbalanced, with the Bushites gone off the cliff of fascism--and, critically important, with Bushite corporations having gained control of our election system, with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY software and firmware, and virtually no audit/recount capability (this, too, a result of both Dem and Repub corruption)--many of the Democrats are bundles of fear, corruption, malfeasance and seeming stupidity, and, in fact, seem just like Republicans, only without the fascist, goose-stepping arrogance.
Not all of them, mind you. Russ Holt, for instance, has a great election reform bill, HR 550, that will stop the corruption of our election system by private corporations in its tracks. It has 169 sponsors. (Sign the petition:www.russholt.com/petition.html )
This man knows what's going down. So do his (99% Dem) co-sponsors, apparently.
Other Dems (like the ones who want to "succeed" in Iraq, i.e., do a better job of killing and torturing Muslims), some of them, I think--Hillary Clinton comes to mind--want to be the War Democrat that Diebold and ES&S "selects" as our candidate in 2008, and who might well be permitted to "win," because, among other things, the war profiteers need a military Draft (Bush can't do it), and they need someone they can start blaming for Bush's financial and foreign policy disasters, and to deal with domestic unrest, while retaining huge military budgets and a huge military presence in the Middle East, poised to invade more countries (as soon as they can trump up another "Gulf of Tonkin" incident). Clinton is after the main chance. She knows what the score is. She wants in.
The hitch for the war profiteers may be that she will have to at least pay lip service to progressive values like honest elections, and that we might, thereby, get our country back, eventually. Tattered ruin though it will be, by then.
Ah, me. I'm feeling rather bad about my 40 year loyalty to this benighted party today. I've heard it all before. LBJ, the "peace candidate" in 1964; result: upwards of 2 million slaughtered. And all the real peace advocates dead: JFK, RFK, MLK, Paul Wellstone. So that, any serious candidate for the highest office CANNOT be for peace. They will not be permitted into the White House. They'll be done in by the corporate news monopolies (Dean), assassinated, or--these days--Diebolded. (While Kerry was not a peace candidate, he WAS supported by an extensive antiwar grass roots, to whom he would have been at least partially beholden; and I think that's one of the reasons why he was Diebolded; that, and they had quite a bit more looting and covering up of crimes to do.)
During WW II, we developed "the War Party," and, although Republicans (representatives of the rich) never stopped reviling FDR, they did agree to war against the Nazis and the Japanese. After the war, this "War Party" never really disbanded; the military contractors of those days became (with big gov't subsidies) the global corporate predators of today, that just gobble up our money and have no loyalty to us as a people or a country, and we now have an entirely war-based economy, which needs war to continue. And war needs an "enemy." If it isn't "communists," it's "terrorists." "Terrorism" is a police problem; not a military problem. But that doesn't matter. It is an excuse. And it has been TURNED INTO a military problem--wholly without justification, and wholly artificially--in Iraq and the Middle East.
And all of the above is why the War Democrats support Bush's war (and just want to do "a better war"). Its complete illegality; its utter horror; and the 100% pack of lies that the Bushites told about it--none of this matters to them. This is a FINANCIAL matter, to them, not a moral one. Justice and right have NOTHING to do with their war policy.
And the war profiteers WILL NOT PERMIT a peace candidate to win. The great majority of the American people WANT a peace president-- desperately want it--and they want to be relieved of these humongous military budgets, and want to see peace and justice in our country and in the world. That's WHY our corporate rulers took away our right to vote. They know what we would vote for (confirmed by ALL the polls, over a several year period): justice, fairness, diplomacy, helping the poor, protecting the environment. But the best we can hope for is a War Democrat with some amount of progressive social policy, and--it is to be hoped--who at least pays lip service to progressive values like transparent elections, so that we can recover our right to vote under such an administration, and begin serious political reform.
For an easy to read pamphlet on the perils of electronic voting:
www.votersunite.org
For a project for statistical monitoring and challenges of the '06 and '08 elections:
www.UScountvotes.org
More good info at (the paper ballot US map is heartening): www.verifiedvoting.com
For analysis of the 2004 election:
www.TruthIsAll.net
For the recent GAO report on the horrendous anomalies and election system insecurity in 2004:
access to pdf:
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-05-956text only:
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05956.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
