Be Prepared to Lose the Election.

In spite of clear signs to the contrary, the Republicans have a good chance of retaining complete control of the government in the 06 election.

The stakes could not be higher.

George Bush's legacy rides on this election. If he wins, he will retire undefeated and cast as the most successfully electable President and boon to the Republicans in history next to Lincoln. Iraq will be a sideshow in the never-defeated Bush's by-line. Consider how Americans view Kennedy and Johnson with regard to the Vietnam War. Does it hurt their legacy? Barely.

Should the Democrats take both houses of Congress, the historic storyline can shift by re-casting the Iraq War as being Bush's "undoing". Whereas the 02 election was about creating the historical events as they wished, the 06 election is about Bush's biggest blunder - Iraq.

Bush and his entourage can not afford to lose this election. They have had three opportunities to perfect their methods. While irregular (if not illegal) manipulation of the election mechanism has certainly occurred, their chief success has been in voter turnout. They have plugged themselves into a system of blind loyalty as a means to power with businesses, churches, and country clubs.

The reality is that the election will be won by whomever has the best mechanism for voter turnout. Mid-term elections yield notoriously low participation from Americans, which makes efforts at voter turnout much easier to accomplish.

By carefully massaging the system and using the government's enormous resources for political purposes, an effective and targeted effort that is well funded can easily stave off defeat in the 06 election. By the same token, Democrats could effect a change in the government with simply enough effort at bringing out voters. But, we can not ignore the reality that the Republicans have an unfair advantage, both in manipulating massive government resources in their favor and through illegal manipulation of electronic tabulation and vote fraud.

If this all sounds pessimistic, consider recent history. In the past three elections, optimism has been high among Democratic supporters only to be thwarted at the polls and, in each case, by historically unprecedented means; Supreme Court intervention, massive electronic vote manipulation, rebutting proven scientific polling data, voter suppression and fourth-estate media intervention to name a few.

No one should be surprised by a loss in 06. To do so would simply display naivete and ignorance.

Those who are of like mind with myself, who have been at odds with the Bush Administration since its inception, would do well to prepare for what to do in the event the Republicans retain control of the US government. Otherwise, we will once again do nothing to correct the course of US history. It is simply un-American to stand idly by as our massive government resource, our very way of life, is routed by incompetents, hypocrites, liars, warmongers, torturers, and war criminals.

What are we prepared to do if the Democrats lose the election again? How can we assert our rights, defend our military, support our citizens, and secure our blessings of liberty and prosperity for generations to come if the electoral system no longer functions?

We who consider ourselves progressive and intelligent, who purport to exhibit reality-based thinking and rationale, who have gathered up tomes of exculpatory and excoriating evidence against Bush and the Republicans, who claim to hold the moral high-ground in ethical contrast to Republicans, we are the only ones that future generations can count on to succeed in re-claiming the real America - an America that stands for justice, for moral behavior even in war, for giving of ourselves and our prosperity to help the less fortunate, for striving to improve the human condition by fighting diseases and illnesses vigorously, for leading a moral alliance of countries throughout the world in efforts to protect us all from not only the effects that our human endeavors have on our environment, but even from ourselves and our own vanities, we are the ones who hold the mantle of truth for our children and our future.

What will we do if the election is once again thwarted? Is this being considered? We have less than two weeks to go. A victor's celebration is easy to throw together, but a disaffected populace's response to the illegal shenanigans of a rogue leader and his minions is much more difficult to predict, if not to plan.

despite the fact we look great in the House races, but I read that msnbc.com "too little too late?" about Bush making a comeback and out campaigning for rethugs.

NEVER STOP, KEEP SENDING THINGS TO PEOPLE, DONATING, GIVING TIME, WAVING SIGNS OR PUTTING STICKERS ON YOUR CARS!

I look to the Soviet Union and Iraq. The "free market" really "saved" them, didn't it? Bush's "democracy" really "saved" Iraq, didn't it?

Vodka is the answer.

They are surfing a massive wave of voter contentment.....
Bushes legacy is shit no matter what he does...

...WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US midterm election campaign has entered its last full week amid a groundswell of support for Democratic candidates for Congress as unbridled bloodshed in Iraq continued to dog Republicans...

Uhuh, things are going swimmingly for the child molester/macaca party...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061029/pl_afp/usvote

Perhaps that will be enough to shift the balance of power. I certainly hope so.

I haven't seen anyone ask Smirk a tough question, or harp for days about how Hastert protected a pedophile in his delegation, or say out loud that torture is wrong. What planet do you live on where the meida is on our side?

Not if our corporate media keeps them guessing about who will dance with Jerry Springer, or who will be the next William Hung on American Idol.

We COULD learn some lessons about what is going on in Mexico, sadly, Americans are too into selfishness.

He has a self inflicted plague and no one wants anything to do with the jerk.

at his campaign rally I see on msnbc.com

he can have him! gotta help the democrat!


www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

I'm all ears.

I don't presume to have all the answers. My humble suggestions would be demonstrations across the nation, legal recourse wherever possible, massive corporate protests (where the money comes from), and massive focused boycotts. I have other suggestions that I no longer feel free to discuss in a public forum, which is part of the problem.

I think the most effective alternative would probably be a nationwide localized protest, meaning one that is managed on a local level while organized loosely on a national level.

Discussing alternatives is exactly what I'm promoting. My simple suggestions are just that, simple suggestions. The current election cycle system that we have sets us up for defeat, as we've experienced before.

The key is for us NOT to accept defeat. Defeat can not be an option with the stakes such as they are. We should be ready for anything after the election.

....of failure in mind, as a motivator. It does not seem (to me) worth diverting time, energy and focus on a plan for what to do in the event of failure. Yes the stakes are high for Bush and his cronies and yes they will move heaven and earth to avoid losing but, if the polls, the pundits and the media are to be believed, that just may not be enough for them to succeed in that objective.

The new, unique, 2007 Anti-Bush Graffiti Calendar and other items

Nothing written here should be construed as diverting our current resources. Rather, I'm asking for more. I'm encouraging us to work harder and be ready for anything.

The current wave of sentiment against Bush must not be stymied by an election loss, especially knowing what we do about the many illegal and unethical means that the Republicans use to achieve their ends.

We must avoid the quelling effect of an election loss should that be the case by being ready for any result. This is bigger than just another stolen election. No one ever expected a stolen election. We have always been surprised by the gall and revelations after the fact.

Our present course can only be averted by our insistence that the REAL voice of the American people is heard.

Phone from home for Webb:

http://webb.bluestatedigital.com/page/s/homephone

>Consider how Americans view Kennedy and Johnson with regard to the Vietnam War.
>Does it hurt their legacy? Barely.

But President Kennedy was pulling the US out of Vietnam per NSAM 263. That's a big part of the reason the war profiteers killed him in a bloody coup. Mere days into usurper Johnson's administration, he canceled NSAM 263 and replaced it with an NSAM escalating the war.

Please don't lump President Kennedy in with the murderous goon LBJ.

You are correct in your assertion that Kennedy intended to end Vietnam. LBJ, another fellow Texan (yes, I'm a Texan) definitely played a different and arguably more pernicious role in prosecuting the Vietnam War. As I understand it, Eisenhower actually fomated the origins of the Vietnam War, but I'm not a historian. LBJ's legacy has been tempered by his Great Society legislation and his uprooting of segregation and racism in the South.

Nevertheless, the point still remains that none of these Presidents suffer from a single, iconic military failure that plummeted our nation into peril.

Gerrymandering makes takeover tough

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- Michigan's economy is in bad shape, one reason why the governor faces a tougher than expected re-election campaign this year. But good luck finding competitive races among the state's congressional delegation, even in the eight House districts that rank among the worst in the country in terms of declining income, rising poverty and surging unemployment.

If people truly voted their pocketbook, the lawmakers who represent those districts - four Democrats and four Republicans - ought to be nervous heading into the Nov. 7 elections. But seven of those incumbents are virtually assured of another term. The other lost a Republican primary in a safe GOP district.

So why the lack of competitive House races in a politically balanced state that ranks at or near the bottom in so many economic categories? "The Republicans did a whale of a good gerrymandering job," says John R. Chamberlin, a University of Michigan political scientist.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1133AP_Congress_Gerrymander.html




Cher

This author is not the only one saying this may be America's last chance to save itself through conventional electoral means. Read the editorial and Jonathan Schell's article at the Nation.

There are some targeted groups that will be at great risk: Muslims; antiwar activists; GLBTs; people of draft age. In the past, people from Albert Einstein to Margaret Sanger have left their homeland, at least for a while, until it was safe for them to return.

Check out this video to learn more: Monster on the Loose.

...take a moment to remind yourself what the world is really like. Laugh and feel wonderfully free.

Baby Panda and Mom - Just try not to smile.

And don't forget to be prepared for anything in the coming days.

Be prepared for the BA's Waterloo.

Carry on.

Is this what you're saying? Elections are pointless, so start getting guns and ammo and start a civil war? Go out and start plugging people you don't like or trust? What do YOU want to do, Keopeli?

This is not hyperbole. This is MY anger. I'm sick of these posts that say "What are you going to do when we inevitably lose?" It's not the concept of us losing that bothers me. It's the fact that the person leaves the question hanging in the air, fishing for responses, probably the most negative possible.

Tell you what, Keopeli. You tell us what YOU intend to do. Then we'll have a civilized debate about whether it is a sane moral course or not. Be specific. No glittering generalities.

If you knew me, you'd know I am about the last person you'd think of as a violent revolutionary. But a week from Tuesday there will be massive fraud, vote-rigging, and disenfranchisement. If it results in Smirk be given a vote of confidence, I HOPE there will be enough of us pissed off to the point of taking to the streets peacefully to get someone's attention.

I know a lot of people who are really pissed. If they steal the election this time, they won't get away with it. We have to do something about it or we are part of the problem. Apathy can no longer be an excuse.

I listed some possible responses in post No. 14. I did not say we were going to "inevitably" lose. I DID say that history offers a sobering lesson to us about being caught off-guard by election shenanigans. I also endorse taking every action to WIN the election legally and outright.

This post is about being PREPARED for any contingency. Hopefully, you'll accept my motives as honest, frank and supportive of our common cause. Considering options beyond the possibility of losing yet another election to illegal maneuvers seems prudent to me. Perhaps, if you agree, we can start that civilized debate about possible responses to the real possibility of a thwarted election. As for me, I'm willing to try just about anything. I don't own a gun and I never mentioned guns in my post. To do so would be tantamount to sedition, which is illegal. Since this website is no doubt monitored by our own government, I wouldn't feel free to discuss such an option openly, even if I thought it appropriate.

Maybe you don't mean it. Maybe you didn't think you were writing it at the time. But you are sure focussing anger on this. And there will be people who will take those comments to mean, "get a gun and kill fill-in-the-blank."

There was a thoughtful review of the movie "Taxi Driver" in a film book. It started by saying (quote only approximate) "Filmmakers have learned that whenever a character performs antisocial violence, they must make it absolutely clear to the audience that this violence is not to be imitated." Because, of course, "Taxi Driver" fed into John Hinckley's needs, and encouraged him to assassinate Ronald Reagan. That he failed was only an accident (and given Reagan's declining mental state in his second term, I consider it only a partial failure).

I believe that much of the right wing violence of the last two dozen years, from Oklahoma City to the Atlanta Olympics to Columbine, was encouraged by somebody proposing slaughter and murder, not simply as a solution to a problem, but a way to empower oneself. This week there's a videogame called "Bully" where the character is in a high school, is hated by everyone from teachers to cheerleaders, and is encouraged to take revenge. It's supposedly only "nonlethal" revenge, but I'm sure the upgrades and program patches to include guns and pipe bombs will be along shortly.

Let me tell you straight out: if you don't immediately and specifically exclude violence when you enlist people's rage, you are encouraging it. You might blame someone else for "taking it the wrong way," but if you don't specifically exclude the wrong way, you are showing someone that path.


ON EDIT: If you want proof, look at some of the gun-happy responses that popped up in this thread.

I renounce violence and specifically assert that my call to be prepared for any eventuality come election day is NOT a referrendum or endorsement of violence of any kind. I have no reservations in saying as much, nor do I feel a particular need to clarify this position. But, in deference to your own concerns about just such a possibility, I am only happy to clarify my intentions.

Violence: what a terrifically painful and ominous word and thought. I understand that you believe violence must be specifically rebuked in any call for rage or anger. While I concede that my words are meant to stoke the coals of discontent to provoke action as a response, I reserve my opinion that fomenting a sense of rage at disenfranchisement is not tantamount to inciting violence. I do not hold the makers of Taxi Driver (or even Jodie Foster) responsible for the actions of John Hinkley, Jr., even though they may be conscious of the possibility that such an aberrant reaction to their endeavors might be possible.

Anger and rage are not immoral human reactions; in fact, they are particularly appropriate in certain circumstances. Violence, on the other hand, carries the additional weight of injury, abuse, distortion, infringement and profanation. It is a leap, albeit a small one, to suggest that the intentions of an angry reaction are implicitly violent and must be qualified to discount such a response.

Consider the reaction of the parents of the victims in the recent slaughter of Amish schoolchildren at the hands of a mad man. The self-control exhibited by the families of the slain, who sought to include the family of the perpetrator in their mourning, is an example to us all. Who would fain denial that the families of these children felt a rage or hatred at the vicious act that brought them such sorrow? Had they chosen to litigate against the perpetrators family in response to the tragedy, they would have been viewed as exercising a justifiable tool of retribution, even if they failed in their pursuit. But, had they chosen, instead, to react with violence, by inflicting harm on another as a means for vengeance, then they would have erred. In other words, while rage and anger would have been (and are in fact) a justifiable response to the murders, any act of violence that might ensue would remain unjust and wrong.

To presume I am encouraging rage or anger is a reasonable assertion. To presume I am encouraging violence is an unfortunate assumption that is not true. If some tortured soul reads these words and responds with violence, then I pity that person's condition and rebuke their actions.

In my estimation, our democratic government has been perilously stunted by those who currently hold the power to govern. This truth alone has been at the root of revolutions and rebellions throughout modern history. Whether such a response is violent or not does not and should not preclude the right to know the truth and to speak the truth.

The words expressed here are meant to promote a deliberate and thoughtful response to any further malfeasance in the practice of American democracy; to be prudent so as to effect a meaningful and ultimately successful response to the usurping of our rights as citizens. Discourse and debate are meant to synthesize our thinking and advance our common cause. Such an exercise, by its very nature, suggests that all of the options available would be explored, considered and deliberated so that the most effective means to our common end goal may be achieved. Certainly, there will be those (like the few here who have posted a response which suggests violence as a viable option) who will favor violence. The likelihood of such suggestions manifesting themselves into action is countered by the tempered suggestions of the majority who respond with anger but do not extend their reach to violent means.

On July 4, 1776, the people of the Americas joined in unanimous agreement on a simple, non-violent declaration. When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. The mere act of expressing the truth in this case led to a violent revolution which eventually gave birth to the government we have known for over 200 years.

While my call to be prepared for our electoral system to be thwarted once again is not revolutionary and certainly not intended to promote violence, it is my hope that it will light a fire which will lead to the prosecution of the criminals in our midst who I believe have set a course which deliberately threatens our democracy. I pray that our response will be as magnanimous as those who founded our American Democracy. I hope fervently that violence will not be the fruit of the criminal enterprises to which we have been witness. But, I place blame squarely on those who have sought to usurp our rights and liberties and I hold harmless the voices which amplify the truth in the darkness of these days. Your posts seem to demonstrate that you are among those of us who would rather have the truth be known than to feed on peddled lies. I humbly aim to count myself among the truth-tellers as well, unafraid of the cognitive dissonance and justifiable anger that may ensue. While this may be a perilous course we find ourselves on, it is not a course we have chosen but rather one that has been placed upon us. It is the truth that will set us free from our fears and tormentors.

That was the technique opposition forces used to express dissent in Chile (admittedly, they were on the wrong side.)

So: Every Saturday, say, go to a park at noon and nonviolently (but loudly) bang a pot for ten minutes.

It's only symbolic, of course.

I'm not sure it would be very effective, but it'd be better than nothing!

Of course, several million people banging on pots across the nation might have some effect. At least it would make a good photo-op!

thanks to the magic of Diebold.

--in any district where there have been long lines and/or evidence of criminal voter disenfranchisement. Period.