The 2012 "Election" thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:35 pm

Yeah, Wombar, why'd he stop there? Shoulda gone for broke, adding:

"We . . . must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." ~ Eisenhower's farewell address.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:15 pm

Wombaticus Rex wrote:It bugs the fuck out of me that Global Research would run a piece of shit like that. Quality control. Lost artform.


Editors. Extinct species, outside of certain preserves (Harper's?).

It also bugs minor fuck out of me that he can't spell Rothschild.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby justdrew » Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:22 pm

:playingknight:

Leftsplaining
September 28, 2012 | Erik Loomis

I really loved reading this Rebecca Solnit article on “leftsplaining” after being attacked on Twitter all day yesterday from self-proclaimed lefties because I suggested that those who urge us to vote for Gary Johnson because of Obama’s terrible drone policies can do so because they are privileged enough to ignore what a Romney or Johnson presidency would do to poor people in this country. Glenn Greenwald has basically spent 24 hours attacking this site on his Twitter feed and essentially claiming that we are mouthpieces of the Democratic Party. Which if so, where’s my paycheck from the DNC? I hope it’s as much as Glenn makes from CATO.

Anyway, Solnit:

O rancid sector of the far left, please stop your grousing! Compared to you, Eeyore sounds like a Teletubby. If I gave you a pony, you would not only be furious that not everyone has a pony, but you would pick on the pony for not being radical enough until it wept big, sad, hot pony tears. Because what we’re talking about here is not an analysis, a strategy, or a cosmology, but an attitude, and one that is poisoning us. Not just me, but you, us, and our possibilities.


I don’t think we should be grateful to Obama for his successes. But it is OK to recognize them for the limited wins that they are without going completely ballistic about all the bad things in the world. As I’ve been saying a lot lately, we need a smarter left that understands the mechanics of the American political system if we want to create long-term meaningful change at the government level. Like myself, Solnit sees a lot of people who don’t get this:

So here I want to lay out an insanely obvious principle that apparently needs clarification. There are bad things and they are bad. There are good things and they are good, even though the bad things are bad. The mentioning of something good does not require the automatic assertion of a bad thing. The good thing might be an interesting avenue to pursue in itself if you want to get anywhere. In that context, the bad thing has all the safety of a dead end. And yes, much in the realm of electoral politics is hideous, but since it also shapes quite a bit of the world, if you want to be political or even informed you have to pay attention to it and maybe even work with it.

Instead, I constantly encounter a response that presumes the job at hand is to figure out what’s wrong, even when dealing with an actual victory, or a constructive development. Recently, I mentioned that California’s current attorney general, Kamala Harris, is anti-death penalty and also acting in good ways to defend people against foreclosure. A snarky Berkeley professor’s immediate response began, “Excuse me, she’s anti-death penalty, but let the record show that her office condoned the illegal purchase of lethal injection drugs.”

Apparently, we are not allowed to celebrate the fact that the attorney general for 12% of all Americans is pretty cool in a few key ways or figure out where that could take us. My respondent was attempting to crush my ebullience and wither the discussion, and what purpose exactly does that serve?

This kind of response often has an air of punishing or condemning those who are less radical, and it is exactly the opposite of movement- or alliance-building. Those who don’t simply exit the premises will be that much more cautious about opening their mouths. Except to bitch, the acceptable currency of the realm.


As Solnit points out, being yelled at by leftier-than-thou people does not build movements. If you can’t engage a diversity of opinion, forget about making change. It alienates people immediately. Yet, in our atomized and hyper-individualistic modern left, a modern left very much shaped by the fetishization of individualism pushed upon us by the consumer capitalism it theoretically rejects, each individual feels that have the right and responsibility to yell at the top of their lungs about the issues they care about and to personally attack anyone who doesn’t show their commitment to purity.

Of course, there are many, many committed activists who don’t do these things. But it doesn’t take a lot of people to tear apart movements when purity is demanded in loud voices. See the inability of Occupy Wall Street to continue in its present form for example.

Let’s let Solnit close this post with a statement I could not agree with more:

You could argue that to vote for Obama is to vote for the killing of children, or that to vote for him is to vote for the protection for other children or even killing fewer children. Virtually all US presidents have called down death upon their fellow human beings. It is an immoral system.

You don’t have to participate in this system, but you do have to describe it and its complexities and contradictions accurately, and you do have to understand that when you choose not to participate, it better be for reasons more interesting than the cultivation of your own moral superiority, which is so often also the cultivation of recreational bitterness.

Bitterness poisons you and it poisons the people you feed it to, and with it you drive away a lot of people who don’t like poison. You don’t have to punish those who do choose to participate. Actually, you don’t have to punish anyone, period.


Indeed.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Nordic » Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:30 am

Sorry but that's just fucking disgusting. Any rationalizations for the support of Obama are just disgusting.

http://www.alternet.org/world/i-was-min ... child-play

I Was Minutes Away From Ordering a Drone Strike on an 'Insurgent' ... Until I Realized It Was Just a Child at Play

Distance from murder makes it all the easier for societies to tolerate.

I find myself caught between the need to follow the drone debate and the need to avoid unpleasant memories it stirs. I used drones – unmanned aerial vehicles – during the nadir of my military career that was an operational tour in Afghanistan. I remember cuing up a US Predator strike before deciding the computer screen wasn't depicting a Taliban insurgent burying an improvised explosive device in the road; rather, a child playing in the dirt.



Fuck Obama.

What kind of twisted moral rationalization can make someone want to support, and vote for, someone like this? Only in AMERIDUH.

Fucking brainwashed media-conditioned freakezoids.

Vote for ANYBODY but this human pile of steaming shit.

Next person who mentioned a "pony" is gonna get punched in the nose.

This is why I left that other thread. Is that what this thread is gonna turn into?

Somebody should lock it now then.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby lupercal » Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:22 am

Glenn Greenwald has basically spent 24 hours attacking this site on his Twitter feed and essentially claiming that we are mouthpieces of the Democratic Party. Which if so, where’s my paycheck from the DNC? I hope it’s as much as Glenn makes from CATO.

Ha. 50 bil buys a lot of whining.

Forbes: Koch Brothers Now Worth $50 Billion
User avatar
lupercal
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby justdrew » Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:23 pm

maybe some objective information would be of interest, because it's looking more and more to me like this overwrought reaction to drone attacks is highly questionable. Could it be a knee-jerk overreaction? How can we be sure?

You would have a democratic president commit political suicide... only that is sufficient, even though it would only evoke a republican takeover and far worse crimes would be committed, "in your name" - hell it might even lead to an outright coup or assassination if the fantasy of "just cut and run" were even attempted to be implemented. Let's for one second look at the political reality of the situation...

In a February 2012 poll, 83% of Americans (77% of the liberal Democrats) replied they support the drone strikes. In May, the US began stepping up drone attacks after talks at the NATO summit in Chicago did not lead to the progress it desired regarding Pakistan's continued closure of its Afghan borders to the alliance's supply convoys.

At Senator Dianne Feinstein's insistence, beginning in early 2010 staffs of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have begun reviewing each CIA drone strike. The staff members hold monthly meetings with CIA personnel involved with the drone campaign, review videos of each strike, and attempt to confirm that the strike was executed properly.


I don't think that many Americans agree the sky has oxygen in it. That's a wildly popular program.

and Obama personally looks at the list of allowed targets, having reigned in CIA's earlier efforts to start targeting based on 'behavior' (which is what the guy in the above quote, who almost blew up a kid playing in the dirt) was part of. That has stopped; a thing of the past. Every target, the evidence is checked, vetted by numerous people, and finally the president himself takes personal responsibility.

Unlike republican scum, who would certainly have the most knuckle-dragging elements just having a field day, totally unaccountably. Totally undocumented. Refusing to confirm or deny strikes even occur.

but hey, what do the people in the area think....?

Reactions from people in Waziristan

Between November 2008 and January 2009 Pakistani Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy conducted a survey of the public opinion about the drone strikes in Federally Administered Tribal Areas. 5 teams of 5 researchers each interviewed a total of 550 people from all walks of life. Most people thought that the drone attacks were accurate and did not lead to anti-American sentiment and were effective in damaging the militants.[38]

Based on the responses the researchers concluded 'The popular notion outside the Pakhtun belt that a large majority of the local population supports the Taliban movement lacks substance'. Most people thought that the drone attacks were accurate and did not lead to anti-American sentiment and were effective in damaging the militants. In addition the locals wanted the Pakistani forces to also target the militants.[93] According to Farhat Taj a member of AIRRA the drones have never killed any civilians. Some people in Waziristan compare the drones to Ababils, the holy swallows sent by Allah to avenge Abraha, the invader of the Khana Kaaba.[94]

In an analysis published in Daily Times (Pakistan) on 2 January 2010 Farhat Taj, a research fellow at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Research, University of Oslo and a member of Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy discussed the issue of drone attacks with hundreds of people of Waziristan. She claims that they see the US drone attacks as their liberators from the clutches of Islamist militiants into which, they say, their state has wilfully thrown them. She claims that estimates about civilian casualties in the US and Pakistani media are wrong because after every attack Islamist militiants cordon off the area and no one, including the local villagers, is allowed to come even near the targeted place. The militants themselves collect the bodies, bury the dead and then issue the statement that all of them were innocent civilians. However, according to the people of Waziristan, the only civilians who have been killed so far in the drone attacks are women or children of the militants in whose houses/compounds they hold meetings. But that used to happen in the past and now they don’t hold meetings at places where women and children of the militants reside. In one case when the funeral procession of an Islamist commander was hit and some civilians were killed. But after the attack people got the excuse of not attending the funeral of slain militants or offering them food.

Farhat Taj claims that locals usually appreciate drone attacks when they compare it with the Pakistan Army’s attacks, which always result in collateral damage. People said that when a drone would hover over the skies, they wouldn’t be disturbed and would carry on their usual business because they would be sure that it does not target the civilians, but the same people would run for shelter when a Pakistani jet would appear in the skies because of its indiscriminate firing. They say that even in the same compound only the exact room – where a high value target (HVT) is present – is targeted and others in the same compound are spared.[95]

In response to this analysis Irfan Husain writing in Dawn agreed with Farhat Taj's assessment and called for more drone attacks. He wrote: "We need to wake up to the reality that the enemy has grown very strong in the years we temporized and tried to do deals with them. Clearly, we need allies in this fight. Howling at the moon is not going to get us the cooperation we so desperately need. A solid case can be made for more drone attacks, not less."[74]

In North Waziristan, to combat the strikes, a militant group called Khorasan Mujahedin targets people suspected of being informants. After a drone strike, the group kidnaps people from the area suspected of selling information that led to the strike, tortures, then usually kills them. The torture and executions are often videotaped then sold in street markets as warnings to others.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan#Civilian_casualties

Radical militant (meaning they'll kill people) Islamic groups, aka terrorists DO EXIST. They threaten us (marginally, but over time, it's a serious risk worth addressing), civil society in Pakistan and elsewhere (aka our allies, friends, people we'd like very much if we met them who happen to live in the area), women generally, etc.

How would you PREFER we fight loosely organized small bands of gunmen with access to money and (now limited) international scope? Can you EVEN address what you think should be done?

and is there any room for condemnation of the militants?
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby ninakat » Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:03 pm

From the comments section of Chris Floyd's latest essay:

Ron • 4 days ago

Not arguing with the premise of the report, just the math. If 2-3000 non-civilians were killed, does that mean they were taliban or al queda? That sounds like a 90% success rate. If you want to argue the merits of drone attacks versus regular military attacks, they don't come off too badly as far as civilian deaths and success rates go. Think London or Dresden, Germany. If you want to argue the merits of hitting targets inside Yemen or Pakistan, how do we help/encourage those countries to deal with terrorists themselves? Pakistan has a horrible record of supporting/ housing al queda and the Yemen "government" exists more on paper than on the ground.

    Empire Burlesque - Chris Floyd MOD • 4 days ago

    Well, let me ask you a question. Should I carpet-bomb your neighborhood tonight or maybe just lob mortar shells into the houses? I mean, I understand there are two or three criminals living near you. And hey, you aren't dealing with them yourself, are you? So which do you prefer? I guess mortars, because that would kill fewer people at a time. So what'll it be? How would you prefer your children to die because someone thinks there might possibly be someone in your neighborhood who might possibly come across the ocean someday somehow and might possibly do something that might possibly hurt me? I mean, I'm justified in killing your children for that, right? I don't need any proof that your next-door neighbors are planning to do me harm; I can just come in with some mortars and machine-guns and let fly, right? You wouldn't have any problem with that, would you?

    The "non-civilians" mentioned in the report are not all "Taliban or al Qaeda." Christ Almighty, do you think there are only "good" Pakistanis/Yemenis/etc. and then the rest are all "Taliban and al Qaeda"? And do you think that "Taliban" and "al Qaeda" refer to some kind of consistent, monolithic entities? Do you have any inkling of the ever-shifting complexities of the tribal, ethnic, religious and political makeup of the Pakistani territories where most of the attacks take place? Groups allied with the US and/or Pakistan today are called "Taliban" tomorrow -- and then are taken back into the fold, relabeled, then cast out again, etc. etc. Victims of the drone attacks are labeled "non-civilians" in cases where it is not possible to discern whether or not they have anything at all to do with any kind of militia or militant group -- or if it suits the US or the Pakistanis to give them a sinister label -- or if they are simply non-elderly adult males. For as we know, it is the Peace Laureate's admitted policy to label any non-elderly adult male he kills a "terrorist" -- even if there is nothing else known about the "target.".

    And for those who might be involved in some local armed group, do you actually believe that every "non-civilian" killed in these countries is plotting to attack America in some way? None of them can possibly be involved in local conflicts, local concerns -- it's all about US, is it? They're coming to get us, and so they must die. I don't even know how to respond to a stance as vacuous as this. It's just the old Cheney 1 percent solution: "There's a 1 percent chance that one of these spooky darkies might come hurt me, so I am justified in killing thousands of people to save myself."

    And I'm not "arguing the merits" of "hitting targets" in Pakistan and Yemen. (Oh these marvelous euphemisms! "Hitting targets." You mean "killing people," don't you? Why not say so?) I'm stating as clearly and forcefully as I can that THERE ARE NO MERITS in the drone campaigns. Is that clear enough for you? And I happen to agree with the Western intelligence agencies which have said over and over that it is the drone campaign itself, and similar "interventions", that are fomenting extremism and rousing hatred against America. I am "arguing the merits" of stopping actions which we know to be harmful to American security (as well as being savage, inhuman and immoral, although I know that's a secondary concern for many). I am "arguing the merits" of ceasing to murder innocent people and rousing hatred against us.

    There is no "merit" in waging war -- even wars which "don't come off too badly" when compared to the London blitz or the Dresden firebombing -- in order to stop a few criminals who might at some point commit a terrorist action somewhere. Or rather, there is the same merit in this course as there would be in blowing up your house and killing your children because there might be criminals, murderers -- or even terrorists! -- somewhere in your neighborhood.

    Finally, as I made clear in my piece -- and as the report (whose "premises" you claim to agree with) makes clear -- I believe the act of "hitting targets" in these countries with drones constitutes a monstrous act of terrorism in itself. It is an act of murder, an act of terrorism, and it is demonstrably threatening the security of Americans and the United States.

    As for your concerns about counter-terrorism efforts in Pakistan and Yemen, I'm afraid I can't help you. Maybe you could ask Henry Kissinger about that. At the moment, I'm more concerned about finding ways to "help/encourage" Americans to deal with the terrorists in their own midst -- the ones in control of the largest military force on the face of earth.
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby justdrew » Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:45 pm

well all Floyd has to do is convince some significant majority of 83% of the population that we have no need to be fighting terrorism in any way any where. Yep, just completely 180-degree change, turn the world upside down for 50-60% of the population. Good luck with that.

To our shame, the US population got sold a load of bullshit from the bush gang for 8 years. A lot of them were already sold, and a lot of others buy the basic premise. There is no possible political solution except getting to some point where we can say "we won" and end this bullshit. THAT is the tragedy that befell us when we LET bush get elected by the thinnest margin in US history, despite significant election theft activities. This is ALL the bitter harvest of that coup. We have to walk it back, though a moral minefield of shitty no-good-choices.

I wish Obama could have just snapped his fingers and ended it all, I wish I was SURE he would have liked to.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby lupercal » Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:44 am

^ the actual numbers of casualties appear to be rather modest. This from Salon on Tuesday:

“Living Under Drones,” citing statistics from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, estimates that drone strikes have killed between 474 and 884 civilians since 2004, including 176 children.

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/25/drone_s ... roductive/


That's under a thousand since 2004, or about 1,000 righteous media rants per casualty, and probably less than the number of civilians killed in a day of NATO-backed mayehm when rent-a-rebels are busy "liberating" some unlucky city like Tripoli, Homs, or Damascus, not to mention Baghdad, Basrah and Fallujah. Funny how the corporate commentariat never seen to mention that.

justdrew wrote:I don't think that many Americans agree the sky has oxygen in it. That's a wildly popular program.

and Obama personally looks at the list of allowed targets, having reigned in CIA's earlier efforts to start targeting based on 'behavior' (which is what the guy in the above quote, who almost blew up a kid playing in the dirt) was part of. That has stopped; a thing of the past. Every target, the evidence is checked, vetted by numerous people, and finally the president himself takes personal responsibility.

Very interesting point about the popularity. That and the unrelenting monotony of the corporate "leftists" hammering home the dead-babies meme give the whole business an air of one of those focus-grouped RNC "turn-an-asset-into-a-liability" campaigns à la Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. But try to tell that to the true believers lapping up every brown squirt. :tongout
User avatar
lupercal
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Nordic » Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:04 am

Hey, you know, the other day I got into my car and NPR was on and they were telling me how GREAT the drone strikes were! Yeah, in Pakistan, people are really happy about the drone strikes, because if they didn't have the drone strikes slaughtering their neighbors, things would be even WORSE.

That's NPR, your "liberal" media.

Yes, that's how bad and fucked up things are in this country, that your liberal whities are swallowing this shit because it's on NPR.

And drone strikes are just the tip of the iceberg with Obama. He lied about Keystone. He lied about Gitmo. He lied about NDAA. He's a fucking liar, even vastly more so than any other politician I've ever seen.

Fuck him to hell and back.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:18 am

Nordic wrote:He's a fucking liar, even vastly more so than any other politician I've ever seen.


I'm sorry, that's insane.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Forgetting2 » Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:07 am

As the situation grows more dire, is the lie more severe?
You know what you finally say, what everybody finally says, no matter what? I'm hungry. I'm hungry, Rich. I'm fuckin' starved. -- Cutter's Way
User avatar
Forgetting2
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby 82_28 » Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:30 am

JackRiddler wrote:
Nordic wrote:He's a fucking liar, even vastly more so than any other politician I've ever seen.


I'm sorry, that's insane.


I don't think it is. It's a position taken because it needs to be taken. Nothing has fucking changed other than the literal beatdown of the anti-war left, the anti-discrimination left since Obama took office. When I was a kid you would take a friend's hand and when he wasn't thinking that you were going to do it, you would use his own hand to slap himself. And the question would be, why are you hitting yourself? It was great fun. . . Not. But it was at the time.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby justdrew » Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:06 am

"the anti-war left" has largely been proven right and the wars are ending. Things are being wound down. Israel's saber rattling is going to go nowhere if mittens loses. Things may turn out to not be as bleak as it feels like they are. hopefully




and some "what to expect" ...

Get Ready Dems: If Obama wins conservatives will try to de-legitimize his victory with hysterical, phony claims of "massive election fraud." There are four important ways Dems can plan now to fight back

Every Democrat is painfully aware of the widespread GOP/conservative efforts to suppress the Democratic vote in the coming elections. An extensive and detailed report by Demos and Common Cause has carefully delineated the major problems that exist and searing indictments of the voter suppression strategy have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Postand a wide range of other national periodicals.



Elizabeth Drew summarized the situation nicely in a recent New Yorker commentary:

...The current voting rights issue is even more serious [than Watergate]: it's a coordinated attempt by a political party to fix the result of a presidential election by restricting the opportunities of members of the opposition party's constituency--most notably blacks--to exercise a Constitutional right. This is the worst thing that has happened to our democratic election system since the late nineteenth century, when legislatures in southern states systematically negated the voting rights blacks had won in the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution.



But while the possibility of Romney and other Republican candidates actually winning elections by disenfranchising Democratic voters is the most grotesque threat on the horizon it is also important for Democrats to be aware of a second major danger that springs directly from the first: even if Obama not only wins the election but does so by a sufficient margin to avoid a contested result, the claim that massive voter fraud occurred can and will be used to de-legitimize his victory to millions of Americans and to provide a bogus justification for continued GOP intransigence and political sabotage during his second term.


Unfortunately, both the Republican Party and movement conservatives have the strongest possible incentives to follow this path if Obama is indeed re-elected.


For the GOP, an Obama victory will generate tremendous pressure on the party to moderate their extremist strategy of complete noncooperation and refusal to compromise with the new administration. The claim that Obama was only elected because of massive voting fraud will provide an easy and hypocritically "altruistic" rationalization for them to continue employing their extremist political strategy.


For movement conservatives, an Obama victory will generate tremendous demoralization among "the troops" and even the most ferocious denunciations of Romney's ideological weakness and personal ineptitude will not be sufficient to restore their former fighting spirit. The claim that Obama was elected by massive voting fraud, on the other hand, will not only provide an explanation for the conservative defeat but also serve as a rallying cry for continued mobilization and a justification for continued belief that conservatives are still the "real" majority.


It is, of course, completely inevitable that the conservative grass-roots voter fraud groups that have been organized to monitor polling places on Election Day will loudly allege "massive voter fraud" and a stolen election regardless of what actually occurs on November 6th. But for this accusation to gain any significant credibility beyond the circle of already convinced conservatives, an absolutely key requirement will be some kind of dramatic visual evidence of problems or disruptions occurring at polling places. After all, by themselves on-camera interviews with the leaders of the voter fraud monitoring groups -- interviews in which these grass-roots "voter vigilantes" will breathlessly allege the existence of busloads of swarthy immigrants and shiftless minorities having been herded from precinct to precinct to vote multiple times -- will not be sufficient to convince anyone outside the circle of true believers.

The impact of such charges will be vastly amplified and reinforced, however, if video images of even the smallest and most unrepresentative handful of disruptions at polling places can be obtained and then presented as evidence that something suspicious was actually going on. It is only necessary to remember how Fox News' relentless repetition of the footage of two motley and rather forlorn "Black Panthers" standing for several minutes in front of a single African-American precinct in 2008 elevated the notion of "thuggish intimidation" of McCain voters into a major national story and an unquestioned truth for millions of Fox viewers.


Most disturbingly, even incidents that are directly and entirely provoked by the actions of the new voter vigilantes themselves will actually serve to bolster and reinforce the bogus accusations of voter fraud. The simple fact is that, from a distance, images of angry people shouting at each other do not reveal what their dispute is about or which side is actually at fault. Any dramatic video images of angry confrontations or disruptions on Election Day, regardless of their actual cause, will powerfully reinforce the false perception that "something fishy" was really going on.


Unfortunately the danger that disruptions will be provoked by the voter vigilantes themselves is extremely high.


In the first place, the grass-roots voter vigilantes are already deeply and passionately convinced that massive voting theft is an established fact. An article in The Atlanticdescribed one grass roots leader in the following way:

Speaking at one Texas Tea Party gathering, Alan Vera, the Army ranger turned volunteer-trainer, cautioned that "evil" forces were about to launch "the greatest attack ever on election integrity," and implored the crowd to prepare for a "ground war": "In 2012, we need a patriot army to stand shoulder to shoulder on the wall of freedom and shout defiantly to those dark powers and principalities, 'If you want to steal this election, you have to get past us. We will not yield another inch to your demonic deception ... If you won't enforce our laws, we'll do it ourselves, so help us God.' " Shaking his fist in the air, he cried, "Patriots, let's roll!" The crowd cheered wildly.



(Other activists, of course, are far more cynical. A board member of the Racine county Wisconsin GOP who supervised the county's major voter fraud group in 2010 noted that some precincts might be targeted "just because it's a heavily skewed Democratic ward.")


But, for the most part, the conservative ground troops will be utterly committed true believers who are completely convinced that massive voting fraud is occurring and that they are heroic patriots defending the nation from a sinister coup-de-tat.


This problem is then compounded by the fact that the tactics of the voter vigilantes are inherently provocative and extremely likely to provoke conflict.


Download the pdf and/or:


As a New York Times editorialnoted:

This is how [intimidation of minority voters works] today: In an ostensible hunt for voter fraud, a Tea Party group, "True the Vote," descends on a largely minority precinct and combs the registration records for the slightest misspelling or address error. It uses this information to challenge voters at the polls, and though almost every challenge is baseless, the arguments and delays frustrate those in line and reduce turnout.



In the Scott Walker recall election, Appleton, Wisconsin provided one specific example:

On Election Day, poll watchers appeared to have slowed voting to a crawl at Lawrence University in Appleton, where some students were attempting to register and vote on the same day. Charlene Peterson, the city clerk in Appleton, said three election observers, including one from True the Vote, were so disruptive that she gave them two warnings. "They were making challenges of certain kinds and just kind of in physical contact with some of the poll workers, leaning over them, checking and looking," said John Lepinski, a poll watcher and former Democratic Party chairman for Outagamie County. He said that as a result of the scrutiny, the line to register moved slowly. Finally, he said, some students gave up and left.



Similarly, in Houston in 2010:
...poll observers were accused of hovering over voters, blocking lines of people who were trying to cast ballots, and, in the words of Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Rourke, "getting into election workers' faces."



Ohio offers a clear example of the kinds of tacticsthat are available to disenfranchise "undesirable" voters:

When the voter walks up to the table the first thing they do is state their name, address, and present a "proof of the elector's identity." Ohio lets voters use a variety of forms of ID, including a current electric bill, as long as it has the voter's name and address.


However, the law provides no standards or guidance for precinct election officials in determining whether the form of ID is valid. How does the judge decide whether it is a real ID? If you have any suspicion about its validity can you give the voter a provisional ballot? Do you have to have probable cause in order to reject the ID? Is it a reasonable doubt standard? Giving no guidance for standard of review leaves a loophole large enough to drive a Mack truck through. Here is where the law allows the zealously partisan poll worker to find any minuscule irregularity and make someone vote a provisional ballot.


Of course, the most common form of ID that voters will carry is the driver's license. Information on the ID will be checked against what the precinct election official sees (your physical appearance & what's in the poll list or signature poll book). What if you've lost a lot of weight since that picture was taken? Is that enough to doubt the ID? What if you have a wildly different hairstyle? Again, where is the standard?


After the ID check, the second vulnerable stop is the signature comparison. The voter is directed to sign in the poll list or signature poll book. Here the poll worker can challenge if they think the signature doesn't match the one the voter provided on her registration form. The law then provides for a vote of the precinct election officials on whether the signature "substantially conforms" to the one in the signature poll book. Expect some partisan-line voting here with the presiding judge breaking the tie.


The third most obvious vulnerability emerges as a consequence of the others: long lines caused by frivolous challenges. This is most likely to happen at the busier times of day at the polling place. Seeing irregularities everywhere and asking for votes on many disputes will send the queue out the door. Some people will be deterred from voting.




Topping off this highly combustible mixture will be the fact that Fox news and other conservative media groups will be strongly tempted to fan the flames. It is not premature to suggest that Fox, in particular, may be tempted to cross the line between neutrally reporting on disruptions and tacitly encouraging them because the network has a history of engaging in precisely this kind of crowd manipulation. As a Huffington Post articlein 2009 noted:

A Fox News Channel producer has been caught in a behind-the-scenes video rallying the crowd during last weekend's 9/12 protest in Washington. The Huffington Post has confirmed that the woman in the below video -- seen raising her arms to rally the crowd behind Griff Jenkins, who was reporting from the scene for Fox News -- is Fox News producer Heidi Noonan...The video shows the producer on her cell phone as she urges the crowd behind Jenkins to cheer louder.



The reality is that whenever disturbances do break out during political events even politically neutral cameramen and reporters can unintentionally inflame the situation. When politically partisan cameramen and reporters rush to capture footage in ways that frame rapidly unfolding events in a conservative way, however, the danger of crowd manipulation becomes vastly greater.


What can be done?


The Demos/Common Cause Report has many specific suggestions for preventing voter disenfranchisement on Election Day. But in regard to the specific issue of preventing disruption and conflict, the key factor is to minimize situations that can be exploited by the conservative media. For this purpose the following four approaches can be useful.

• Neutral election officials should be prepared and encouraged to call for police assistance in maintaining order the moment problems begin to arise and not wait until frustrations have mounted. The militants in the voter vigilante groups will have no hesitation about dismissing virtually all electoral monitors - state, federal or neutral third party -- as collaborators in the sinister Democratic conspiracy but they will emphatically not want to be seen as clashing with the local police. The organizers of the voter fraud groups will not want to see video of their militants confronting policemen or news headlines that read "Voter fraud groups clash with police at polling places"

• Democratic observers should be prepared to caution frustrated voters that angry confrontations or disruptive behavior will play directly into the hands of the voter vigilantes and conservative media. In contrast, calm but firm protest and dignified interviews with local TV and other media can dramatically illustrate who are the victims of injustice and who are the victimizers.

• Citizens at polling places should be prepared to relentlessly track and digitally record all Fox news and other GOP-friendly media and cameramen with their cell phones and be prepared to quickly provide local and national TV stations with any video evidence they obtain of conservative photographers and reporters encouraging obstruction or disorder. "Fox news cameramen provoke clash at polling place" is headline Rupert Murdoch will most definitely not want to see the day after the elections.

• Democratic election monitoring groups should be prepared and have a system in place to precisely document all legitimate voters who are denied the right to vote because of delay or disruption of the polling place by the voter vigilantes and be ready to use this documentation as the basis for both civil and criminal legal action against any voter fraud groups whose actions result in the disenfranchisement of American citizens.


It is important for Democrats to have systems like these in place by the time Election Day arrives because the very existence of these precautions may restrain the behavior of the voter vigilantes and conservative media and thus help to limit disruptions and allow voting to proceed without incident.

Democrats have one important advantage in this situation: they genuinely want to avoid problems rather than create them and to insure that the election proceeds smoothly and without incident. The promulgators of the "massive voting fraud" myth, on the other hand, will be desperately hoping to find or magnify examples of disruption and confrontation in order to provide some aura of plausibility for their otherwise baseless accusations.


Download the printed version.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Hammer of Los » Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:27 am

...

We have to walk it back.


Listen to the drewster.

Despair and helplessness are not your allies.

...
Hammer of Los
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)
PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 154 guests