On November 7 Vote Anti-War Candidates!
• On November 7 Vote Anti-War Candidates - Voice of Revolution
• A Nation Still at War - Cindy Sheehan
• 2006 Election to Cost $2.6 Billion
• How to Steal an Election with a Diebold Machine
• Fraud of "Voter Fraud" - Voice of Revolution
• More Than Five Million People Denied Right to Vote
• Lawsuits Block Voter ID Laws
• Election 2006: The Fix Is Already In - John Walsh, CounterPunch
• Another Stolen Election? - Prof. Michael Keefer, GlobalResearch.ca
• A Vote on the Iraq War - Michael Schwartz, Asia Times
On November 7 Vote Anti-War Candidates
The broad anti-war stand of the people is being expressed in the 2006 elections in numerous ways. The voter's peace pledge circulated by many organizations and signed by tens of thousands, demands not only a speedy end to the Iraq war but also opposes all aggressive wars. It reflects not only the demand to end the Iraq war, but also the demand by the people to themselves decide the platform of candidates and to support only those candidates who defend that platform.
Consistent with this drive, various groups developed "peace voter" guidelines, listing their demands and insisting that candidates respond. These demands included: demanding an end to the Iraq war and no permanent bases in Iraq; opposing use of force and calling for negotiation and diplomacy for resolving international conflicts; opposing funding for new nuclear weapons and calling on the U.S. to reduce and disarm; opposing taking military action against Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; increased funding for social programs and reducing funding for the Pentagon and homeland security. These efforts in many states are a positive initiative to be continued and strengthened after the elections. They are an important part of the work among the people to build up their own mechanisms for selecting and supporting candidates, focused on elaborating the demands of the people.
Anti-war candidates standing with the people have also come forward in this election. They are representing not only the stand of the majority against war, but also the great anger the people have with the fact that the will of the people against war is not represented in Congress. Given the complex and difficult obstacles facing independents and small parties simply to get candidates on the ballot, the fact that a number of them are and that the small parties are welcoming them and assisting them is also an indication of the strength of the anti-war stand of the people. It also reflects the growing consciousness among the people that relying on their own efforts and selecting and supporting their own candidates is serving to politically empower them.
Among the demands advanced by the anti-war candidates in various states are:
- Immediate and unconditional U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan
- U.S. Hands Off Iran, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Venezuela and Cuba
- End the U.S.-financed Occupation of Palestine
- Stop Domestic Spying and Attacks on Rights
- End police brutality and racist profiling
- No human being is illegal
- No fences at borders
The anti-war candidates are on the ballot in New York, Michigan, and elsewhere. The Voters' Guide in your area from the League of Women Voters lists all the candidates, including those of small parties and independents and includes their stands on the war. Get informed and vote for anti-war candidates!
[TOP]
Demonstrate November 7 at the White House
A Nation Still at War
While Democrats are jumping for joy and Republicans are scrambling like Keystone Kops and falling all over each other to cover their asses, 25 of our brave young children have been killed in Iraq.
While Democrats are busy counting their un-hatched chickens and Republicans are getting muscle cramps from pointing fingers at everyone, including the pages that Foley hunted down, but themselves, Congress was busy erasing from common law and our Constitution our centuries-old rights to habeas corpus. (If anyone thinks that this abomination will only extend to "terrorists," I say: "how do you like living in fantasyland?") The Foleygate scandal may be the thing that finally brings the corrupt party of gloat and bloat down, but it should be Iraq.
It should be suspending habeas corpus. It should be the lies and subsequent cover-ups of the lies that led to now 2,738 of our young people coming home to 2,738 families in flag-draped coffins; not the scandal and subsequent cover-up of Foley and his corruption.
The war, which was never a popular news story, has fallen far behind Foley in coverage. However, the most important and potentially damaging story of all: Congress voting, once again, to consolidate power in the executive branch, by giving BushCo power to imprison us without our due process, is not in the public awareness at all. I guess I should also be jumping for joy that something is bringing the party of the corporations and hypocrites down, but I feel molested and by the entire Congress. We the people who do feel violated by Congress and by this out of control administration know that Congress has been busy invalidating themselves during the past six years and it may be very hard to regain any power, because by George, George has already exonerated himself from the crimes against humanity he and the rest of the ne'er do well neocons have committed.
I read an article about a mother whose son was deployed to Iraq and he was to be home in December. He is one of the soldiers who has been killed this month. The poor mom was at home when her doorbell rang, and she reports that she immediately knew (we all know) who was at her door and she started "screaming." I have, unfortunately, been there and done that. I know what that mom has been going through since her son flew off to this misguided and evil occupation of Iraq. She has spent many sleepless nights and had many panic attacks and "unexplained" crying jags. She has been waiting for the other shoe to drop for almost a year. She started to relax just a little and she was planning for a joyous Christmas with her son finally home to rejoin the family. She knew that there would be some adjustment and awkwardness, but she knew that plenty of good food and motherly love would pull her son through the re-adjustment period. Well, that awful other shoe dropped and now her life is changed forever. She was looking forward to her son's happy homecoming, now all she can look forward to is a life of pain and longing.
Twenty five families this month. 2000 since Casey was killed. 2600 since George declared, "mission accomplished" on May 01, 2003. 3000 Iraqi families are devastated by we Americans every month. When will it end? I wish I could say that I have confidence in our electoral process and in our Congress, but I don't. I am naively hoping that the Democrats will take Congress back and George and his crime family will be held accountable, but given the fact that the Democrats haven't really done anything for us in the past 6 years, I am not holding my breath.
Friend -- it is going to take us (me and you) to effect any changes in this country. From the anti-slavery movement to the Civil Rights movement, to every good movement in between, it has been we the people demanding these changes and not resting until we got them. Good comes from the bottom up -- crap rolls down hill. I am tired of getting crapped on by our government -- when will it be enough for you? We are covered with crap and our leaders aren't going to clean it up -- we have to.
Gold Star Families for Peace is planning on convening on the White House on Election Day and the day after. We hope that there are enough Americans who are willing to stand up and be counted with us to demonstrate to BushCo and Congress, Inc. that we are tired of having our rights taken away from us faster than our bombs destroyed Babylon. We are tired of having our young people die and kill innocent people to enhance corporate America's bottom line. We are tired of the constant drip, drip, drip of the wearing away of everything that we hold dear.
I withdrew my consent to be governed by maniacs long ago. I withdraw my consent to be hauled off to Guantánamo and be stashed away for matriotically dissenting from this crime-ridden regime.
Are you sick and tired of being sick and tired of the corruption and heartache? Show your discontent with us.
* Cindy Sheehan is a mother who lost a son in the war, founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, and author of three books, including: Peace Mom, A Mother's Journey from Heartache to Activism.
[TOP]
2006 Election to Cost $2.6 Billion
The 2006 election for all the House of Representatives and about one third of the Senate will likely be the most expensive midterm election ever. Candidates, national political parties and outside-issue advocacy groups will spend roughly $2.6 billion by the end of 2006 on the campaigns of the 472 federal contests, while also building up the war chests of incumbents not running this year.
In 2004, which included a presidential contest, the election cost $4.2 billion. About $2.2 billion was spent in 2002. Congress has since passed campaign finance "reform" bills, said to limit the influence of large corporations on the elections.
There is no evidence this is the case. The $2.6 billion for 2006 is an 18 per cent increase from 2002. Corporations are directly responsible for about 3/4 of all financing.
All candidates for the House and Senate have raised nearly $1.3 billion, according to the Center on Responsive Politics, using data available from the Federal Election Commission on October 23. Republicans will spend a total of about $1.4 billion and Democrats about $1.2 billion. Candidates still in the running for the House have raised, on average, about $760,000, while Senate candidates have raised $5.8 million (which includes money raised since the start of the six-year term in 2001). Incumbent senators have a 4:1 advantage over their current challengers, on average. House incumbents have outraised their current challengers 7:2.
The money paying for home-stretch election advertising, voter mobilization and other campaigning, is coming from the same industries and interests that have largely funded past elections. Topping the Center's 2006 list of big donors are Wall Street, the real estate industry, lawyers and contributors who list their occupation as "retired."
(see the Center's full report at www.OpenSecrets.org)
[TOP]
How to Steal an Election with a Diebold Machine
Princeton researchers made a demonstration video of how it is possible to steal an election with a Diebold voting machine in under a minute. Anyone with physical unsupervised access to the machine can put in malicious software to steal votes -- people such as the private contractors who install and work on the machines, or people from the Democrats or Republicans involved in supervising elections, and so forth. All the person has to do is open up the machine with a key (or pick the lock), remove the old memory card, insert another memory card, reboot the machine and it automatically installs the software stored on the memory card.
At the end of the demonstration election, the poll machine prints out the incorrect result. The internal memory card also stores the incorrect result. Every piece of evidence of how the election actually went is based on this fabricated result. So a recount would yield the same false result. And, after the election is over, the vote stealing software can delete itself. There is no evidence that the vote has been stolen using the false memory card.
There is also a flaw in Diebold machines that allows a virus to spread from machine to machine, infecting a memory card and using it to spread to other machines.
[TOP]
Elections Manipulated by Big Parties
Fraud of "Voter Fraud"
Following the fraud and scandal of the 2000 elections, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002. The law requires that each state create a single, centralized "voter list." The Secretary of State in each state has responsibility for compiling the lists, which includes putting names on the list and taking them off as well, such as when people die or move out of state. HAVA requires that these statewide voter registration databases be in place January 1, 2006.
At least four states, Alabama, Maine, New Jersey and New York still do not have completed lists. Others, like California, are still updating their system. California's initial effort, for example, had a 25 per cent rejection rate of eligible voters from the list. A recent study nationwide of the voter registration databases estimated that millions of eligible voters will be denied the right to vote because of state manipulation of the voter lists and failure to accurately compile them.
A main role of HAVA has been a push toward electronic voting and much stricter requirements for voters to register and vote. The number of states requiring government-issued photo identification has doubled since HAVA became law. Many states are also requiring proof of citizenship at the time of voting. Up until HAVA, many states had numerous means for people to provide identification at the voting polls, including utility bills, bank statements, telephone bills, as well as other forms of identification not issued by the government, such as work, student or medical IDs.
As well, 80 per cent of all votes will now be cast and counted by electronic voting machines, some with a paper trail and some without. Numerous studies, including those by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) have outlined how readily these machines can be manipulated to change and eliminate votes. The GAO, for example, reported, "it was possible to alter cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected." They also reported that it was possible to alter votes for one candidate so they would be recorded for another candidate and that uncertified voting system software was and could still be installed at the local (state) level. Such software could change ballot totals statewide and do so without being detected.
All of these problems were well documented in the 2004 elections by numerous studies. The fraud of millions of people being blocked from voting or having their votes changed, or not counted, included not only the well-known states of Ohio and Florida, but also similar fraud in Oregon, Nevada, South Dakota, New Mexico, Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and North and South Carolina.
There is, quite literally, almost no fraud by voters. Indeed, one study found that the incidence of voter fraud was less than that of the incidence of people being killed by lightening.
The fraud that is taking place is by the government and by the Democrats and Republicans who control the Secretary of State offices and the voting machinery.
What is also becoming clear is that all the requirements for identification supposedly aimed at voter fraud are in fact more sophisticated means for further excluding people from participation in the elections and more generally in the political life of the country. Large numbers of people, especially the elderly and poor, may not have proof of citizenship and may not be able to afford getting it or the required IDs. Many eligible voters may be removed from the lists because the government could not verify their identification, or because they are falsely branded as felons and thus removed from the list and so forth. All of these illegal and fraudulent acts have already occurred and been well documented. Yet the government is not acting to block this fraud. It is instead targeting voters and organizing to block many more millions from voting. Indeed, the main direction of the government is to deny whole sections of the population the right to vote and create a situation where the results of elections are guaranteed before they even occur.
[TOP]
More Than Five Million People Denied Right to Vote
In 2004, felony disfranchisement laws were responsible for directly denying 5.3 million Americans their right to vote. This represents one in every 40 voting-age adults. Millions more people who were no longer in jail and were eligible to vote were also disfranchised due mainly to misinformation from state officials about their voting rights. About 73 per cent of disfranchised individuals, 3.9 million, are people who have completed incarceration and are living in communities.
Most states currently impose some voting restrictions on people with felony convictions. Procedures in each state varies, with some prohibiting anyone with a felony conviction from voting while incarcerated, to those imposing a lifetime ban on voting. The United States is the only Western country that takes the vote away from citizens who have completed their sentences. Many countries allow prisoners to vote, including Canada, Denmark, France, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Norway, Peru, South Africa, Sweden and Zimbabwe.
Given the increasing number of non-violent crimes now classified as felonies, including minor drug possession and burglary, many more people will lose their right to vote. The racist character of the existing justice system is also clear. More than 13 per cent of African American males nationwide are blocked from voting using felony disenfranchisement laws. It is also the case that these laws have been used to remove eligible voters from the voting lists, using the claim that they were ex-felons, as occurred in Florida and others states in 2004.
A recent study by the research center Demos also found that:
In states that disfranchise ex-offenders, one in four African American men is permanently disfranchised. Given current rates of incarceration, three in 10 of the next generation of black men can expect to be disfranchised at some point during their lifetime.
The average disfranchisement rate for blacks is nearly five times higher than that of non-black Americans. In Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Illinois, the disfranchisement rate for blacks is more than 17 times higher.
African American men make up 38 per cent of the total disfranchised population. Nationwide, more than 13 per cent of black adult males are denied the right to vote.
Seventeen per cent of Latino men will enter prison in their lifetime, compared to only 6 per cent of white men, replicating much of the political disfranchisement experienced in the African American community.
(To find out more about felony disfranchisement laws or other election-related issues, visit www.demos.org.)
[TOP]
Lawsuits Block Voter ID Laws
Across the United States, various states are attempting to establish new restrictions on the right to vote, utilizing stricter voter identification requirements. The government has long utilized both registration and voting requirements to disenfranchise large numbers of voters, especially African Americans. New laws being put in place are being challenged, as the people reject this effort to further block them from participation in the political life of the country.
In Ohio recently, a group of naturalized citizens challenged and defeated a state rule requiring naturalized citizens in Ohio to provide proof of their citizenship, at the polls, if challenged by a poll worker. It did not require this of other citizens. The judge rejected the rule and stood against restrictions on the right to vote and asked that his decision be disseminated to other states.
In Arizona, in early October, a federal appeals court blocked a state law requiring voters to present identification at polling stations and proof of citizenship when registering to vote. It is estimated that in just one county, Maricopa, Arizona's largest in population, 35 per cent of new voter registrations were rejected for "insufficient proof of citizenship" last year and that 17 per cent had been rejected so far this year. It is likely that many of these rejections are in fact eligible voters.
A law in Indiana requiring voters to have a state-issued photo ID is also being challenged in the federal courts. Close to 10 per cent of registered voters in Indiana do not have the most common state-issued ID, a driver's license.
In Georgia, a state judge rejected a state law requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification. The law, pushed by Governor Sonny Perdue, would have disenfranchised tens of thousands of people. In previous elections, Georgians could present any one of 17 types of identification with their names and addresses, including a driver's license, utility bill, bank statement, or paycheck.
In Kansas City, Missouri, a Cole County judge tossed out a new law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, saying the measure violated Missourians' fundamental right to vote. Governor Matt Blunt signed the law and is urging an appeal.
A separate law requires Missourians to present a passport or a copy of a birth certificate to obtain a driver's license or other state-issued photo ID.
At the federal level, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill (HR4844) that would require voters to present valid photo ID cards when they head to the polls to vote in federal elections starting in 2008. By 2010, under the bill, voters would have to present identification that certifies they are U.S. citizens.
A coalition of groups, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the American Association of Retired Persons, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, have denounced the bill, saying it would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.
Those most affected by voter ID laws are minorities, immigrants, seniors, people with disabilities, and the poor. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that 6 to 12 per cent of voters do not have government-issued photo identification.
While all the states claim the new requirements are supposedly to prevent voter fraud, a study by the Brennan Center found that the rate of voter fraud is less than that of the rate of people killed by lightening. It found no evidence of voter fraud in Georgia, Indiana or Missouri. Of Arizona's 2.7 million registered voters, 238 were believed to have been noncitizens in the last 10 years; only 4 were believed to have voted; and none were impostors plaintiffs stipulated in their lawsuit. The statistics were not challenged by the state.
[TOP]
How Rahm Emanuel Has Rigged a Pro-War Congress
Election 2006: The Fix Is Already In
But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do that. Let ME do it.'"
- Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson presidential race by
Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost Authority."
"Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops; In Close Races, Most Reject Rapid Pullout," the headline atop page one of the Sunday Washington Post informed us as the election season got underway (8/27). Stories like this abound these days, and they should all be prefaced with the single word, "betrayal." Only 17 per cent of rank and file Democrats are for "staying the course," 53 per cent want immediate withdrawal and another 25 per cent are for gradual withdrawal. Among all voters, only 30 per cent want to stay the course, 37 per cent want immediate withdrawal and 26 per cent a "gradual withdrawal" (Gallup poll - 9/24/06). According to recent Pew Polls, 52 per cent of voters want a timetable for withdrawal while only 41 per cent oppose setting a timetable.
In contrast to voters' sentiment, 64 per cent of the Democratic candidates in the 45 closely contested House congressional races oppose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Note carefully: not only do these Democratic worthies oppose the Murtha or McGovern bills for rapid withdrawal or defunding the war; they oppose so much as a timetable. (The number of Democratic candidates supporting the Murtha or McGovern proposals is vanishingly small.) The position of these Democratic candidates is indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush. How did this betrayal of the Democratic rank and file come about? Who chose these Democratic candidates that oppose rank and file Democrats on the number one question on voters' minds, the war on Iraq? How could such candidates get elected in the primaries? Two primary campaigns, now largely forgotten, give us the answer. They are near perfect case studies, and they deserve some reflection although the Democratic establishment would dearly like us to forget them.
The first case is the Democratic primary race between Christine Cegelis and Tammy Duckworth in Illinois's 6th Congressional District (CD), a Republican District, which has elected Henry Hyde from time immemorial. Then in 2004 Christine Cegelis, who is only mildly antiwar, ran as the with a grassroots campaign and polled a remarkable 44 per cent against Hyde in her first run. It was not too long before Hyde decided to retire, and the field seemed to be open for Cegelis in 2006.
Enter Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who dug up a pro-war candidate, Tammy Duckworth. Although she had both her legs blown off in Iraq, she has remained committed to "staying the course" in Iraq. Duckworth had no political experience and did not live in the 6th District, but Rahm Emanuel raised a million dollars for her and brought in Democratic heavyweights Joe Lieberman, Barak Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to support her. Despite all this help and with the Cegelis campaign virtually penniless, Duckworth barely managed to eke out a victory by a measly four percentage points. According to a recent Cook Report, Duckworth is not the smashing success that Rahm Emanuel had dreamed of; she remains tied at 41per cent of the vote with her rookie Republican Rival, Peter Roskam, the same percentage that Cegelis had against the entrenched Hyde in 2004! Recently (9/30), Duckworth was pushed onto the national scene to help her campaign, providing the "rebuttal" to Bush's weekly Saturday radio address. AP, in its story on the exchange where Duckworth was supposed to differ with Bush on Iraq, concluded thus: "She offered no proposal for an immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal."
But in one case, and sadly in only one of the 22 districts, which Emanuel selected for intervention, he did not prevail; but that is also instructive. The second case study is California's 11th CD Democratic primary where Emanuel poured in money, much of it apparently coming from his own district in Illinois, to bankroll Steve Filson, essentially a political unknown, who opposed immediate withdrawal from Iraq. But in this primary battle the grassroots prevailed and the strongly antiwar candidate, Jerry McNerney, who supports the Murtha bill for immediate withdrawal, defeated Emanuel's minion, Filson. It is noteworthy that McNerney, strongly antiwar, won, whereas Cegelis, weakly antiwar, lost. Now in the general election McNerney is pulling ahead of his pro-war Republican opponent by 48 to 46 per cent in the most recent poll even though his opponent has outspent him by $1.6 million to $303,000! McNerney has raised a total of only $452,000 to his opponent's $2.5 million. Some cash from Rahm would ensure McNerney's victory it would appear, but it is not forthcoming. It seems that Rahm Emanuel is stanching the influx of money in this very competitive race.
Meanwhile, even though Duckworth has been the recipient of Rahm's largesse, to the tune of $1.8 million, the same amount as her Republican opponent, her campaign has not taken wing. You get the picture. If you toe the line for Rahm on the war, the money rains on you like manna from heaven and you are elevated to national celebrity status. But if you are anti-war, Rahm cuts you off at the wallet.
Note that in each of these two cases Emanuel did not pick candidates based on a proven ability to raise money. Nor did he pick them for their ability to win. In Duckworth's case she damned near lost despite the cash infusion, and McNerney did win despite the money that Emanuel funneled to his opponent. Emanuel is not choosing proven fundraisers or winning candidates; he is choosing pro-war candidates.
Rahm Emanuel's Stable
To win the House, the Democrats must win 15 seats from the Republicans. Here are the 22 candidates hand picked by Emanuel to run in open districts or districts with Republican incumbents, according to The Hill (4/27/06):
Darcy Burner (WA), Phyllis Busansky (FL), Francine Busby (CA), Joe Courtney (CT), John Cranley (OH), Jill Derby (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Diane Farrell (CT), Steve Filson (CA) defeated in primary by Jerry McNerney (see above), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Tessa Hafen (NV), Baron Hill (IN), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Ron Klein (FL), Ken Lucas (KY), Patsy Madrid (NM), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Chris Murphy (CT), Lois Murphy (PA), Heath Shuler (NC), Peter Welch (VT).
If we group these 22 candidates by their positions, it is much worse than one might have imagined. Here it is:
U.S. must "win" in Iraq (9): John Cranely (OH); Jill Derby (NV); Tammy Duckworth (IL); Brad Ellsworth (IN): Teresa Hafen (NV); Baron Hill (IN);Ken Lucas (KY); Lois Murphy (PA); Heath Schuler (NC).
More troops should be deployed in Iraq (1): Diane Farrell (CT);
Bush (or Congress or Bush and Congress or someone other than the candidate) must develop a plan or timetable for exit. This means that the candidate does not offer a timetable or other withdrawal plan and amounts only to a partisan criticism of Bush without a plan offered by the candidate (6): Francine Busby (CA); Joe Courtney (CT); Kirsten Gillibrand (NY); Mary Jo Kilroy (OH); Patricia Madrid (NM); Harry Mitchell (AZ).
Biden's 3-state solution (1): Phyllis Busansky (FL).
No position (1): Chris Murphy (CT).
Not for immediate withdrawal (3): Steve Filson (CA) (He lost Democratic primary. See above.); Ron Klein (FL); Harry Mitchell (AZ);
Withdrawal in 2006 (1): Peter Welch (VT). (In VT, you could probably not get elected dogcatcher without calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Still it is a bit mysterious why Rahm is backing Welch who for that reason probably deserves a bit of scrutiny. Perhaps something "worse" like a Green is waiting in the wings.)
So only one of Rahm's candidates is for prompt withdrawal from Iraq. And it is noteworthy that Rahm found pro-war candidates in both red states and blue, like Connecticut and California. Check out these candidates for yourself. If you live in their districts, pressure them to change their positions and do so publicly with letters to the editor, withholding of funds and most importantly support for third party anti-war candidates where they are to be found no matter how slight the establishment media regards their prospects.
[TOP]
Another Stolen Election?
During the lead-up to the November 7th midterm congressional election, the Republican Party has appeared to be in serious trouble. George W. Bush's approval ratings have been so consistently low (they're currently hovering around the mid-30s) that most Republican candidates for seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives have been about as eager to be seen in his company as to fall into the embrace of a carrier of bubonic plague. The Democrats have led by growing margins in every one of the 110 generic opinion polls taken since September 2005, and currently hold a more than 14 percent lead over the Republicans in the "5-poll moving average" used by pollsters as the most reliable guide to trends in public opinion.[1]
On the reasonable assumption that the Democrats could expect to receive 60 percent of the undecided vote, the noted polling and exit-poll analyst who posts at the Progressive Independent website under the name 'TruthIsAll' has calculated their average anticipated share of the November 7th vote, as of October 28th, to be 57.8 percent. He estimates that in an election free from fraud, there is a 97.5 percent probability that Democratic candidates should garner, on average, more that 56.4 percent of the votes cast. Even if the Democrats were to win only half of the undecided vote, they would quite certainly -- in a fraud-free election -- recover control of the House of Representatives, gaining at least 25 seats. Whether or not they win control of the Senate as well would depend—again assuming a clean election—upon the share of the undecided vote that they receive: the probability that with two-thirds of the undecided vote the Democrats would win control of the Senate is calculated by 'TruthIsAll' as 78 percent.[2]
But it might be premature to get excited over the prospect of the United States ceasing to be a one-party state. For if the Republican party is in trouble with the electorate, American democracy is in a much more parlous condition -- thanks largely to the devious machinations of the Bush Republicans. Given the accumulating evidence of large-scale and systematic preparations by the Republicans and their corporate allies for suppression of the Democratic vote, for mis- or non-counting of the vote in Democratic strongholds, and for an unprecedented level of electronic vote-tabulation fraud, the likelihood of these midterm elections being clean is approximately zero.
In the 2000 election, it was only through a combination of Jim Crow vote suppression tactics and a rich array of different methods of vote-count fraud that George W. Bush was able to arrive at a point at which his father's Supreme Court appointees could push through what has been appropriately described as a judicial coup d'état. His party won control of the Senate in 2002 through what was almost certainly vote-tabulation fraud.[3] The 2004 presidential election was marked by fraud on a gigantic scale, not just in Ohio, which ended up being the deciding state, but in many other states as well: by January 2005 there was compelling evidence to show that had the votes been honestly counted, John Kerry would have defeated Bush by a commanding margin.[4]
My purpose here is not to review yet again the evidence on which these observations are based, but rather to provide a very selective list of recent books, articles and documentary films which assess and analyze the evidence of flagrant Republican breaches of the most fundamental principles of democracy, together with the prospects for a repetition and extension of these fraudulent practices in the 2006 and subsequent elections.
These items are divided into three categories. The first category, "Critical Studies," includes exemplary work by Steven Freeman (the book he co-authored with Joel Bleifuss is, in my opinion, the single most important of these studies), as well as work by other major contributors to an emerging understanding of the theft of the 2004 election.
In the second section I have listed films, including one by the prize-winning director Dorothy Fadiman, which bring together documentary footage and illuminating interviews with election analysts.
And finally, the short list of items anticipating Republican fraud in the midterm election offers a representative cross-section of current concerns -- including evidence of further massive purges of voters' lists, and evidence from unimpeachable sources that the touch-screen machines manufactured by two of the major suppliers of voting machines, Diebold and Sequoia, have been designed to facilitate electoral fraud.
It's worth noting, by way of coda, that these skewed machines were hard at work well before election day. According to a report published in the Miami Herald on October 28th, voting machines in Democratic-leaning Broward and Miami-Dade counties in southern Florida had already during the preceding week been detected flipping the choices of early voters from Democratic candidates to Republicans. The problem, as the corporate press likes to insist, must be understood as one of "glitches" -- or, more strangely, of a kind of computer fatigue that supposedly induces the video screen "on heavily used machines to slip out of sync" with "the electronics inside."
Only "conspiracy theorists" or voters rendered "particularly skittish" by "a history of problems at the polls" would want to go so far as to suspect that electronic voting machines made by Republican-leaning corporations might be inclined to behave in this way, not because they're tired or having bad hair days or hissy fits, but because they've been programmed to do so.[5]
1. Critical Studies
Baiman, Ron, Kathy Dopp et al. "The Gun is Smoking: 2004 Ohio Precinct-Level Exit Poll Data Show Virtually Irrefutable Evidence of Vote Miscount." U.S. Count Votes / National Election Data Archive (17 January 2006, revised 23 January 2006), http://www.electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf.
DeLozier, Abbe Waldman, and Vickie Karp, eds. Hacked! High Tech Election Theft in America. Austin, Texas: Truth Enterprises, 2006.
Fitrakis, Bob, and Harvey Wasserman. How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008. Columbus, Ohio: CICJ Books / www.Freepress.org, 2006.
----, eds. What Happened in Ohio. Columbus, Ohio: CICJ Books / www.Freepress.org, 2006.
Fitrakis, Bob, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman, eds. Did George W. Bush Steal America's 2004 Election? Essential Documents. Columbus, Ohio: CICJ Books / www.Freepress.org, 2006.
Freeman, Steven F., and Joel Bleifuss. Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006.
Freeman, Steven F. "Who Really Won—and Lost—the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election?" 61st Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Montréal, 19 May 2006. http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/AAPOR060519.pdf.
----. "Illegitimate election. A key source for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. responds to criticism of his analysis of the 2004 election." Salon.com (12 June 2006), http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/12/freeman/print.html.
Kennedy, Robert F., Jr. "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" Rolling Stone (June 2006), http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/Print.
----. "Will the Next Election Be Hacked?" Rolling Stone (October 2006), http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11717105/robert_f_kennedy_jr_will_the_next_election_be_hacked/print.
Miller, Mark Crispin. Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them). New York: Basic Books, 2005.
Palast, Greg. The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. 2nd ed.; New York: Plume, 2004.
----. Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats, Bush Sinks, The Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left, and Other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War. New York: Dutton, 2006.
----. "Greg Palast Uncovers the ‘Armed Madhouse' of the Bush Reign of Greed, Fear and Stolen Elections." A Buzzflash Interview. Buzzflash.com (13 June 2006), http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/06/06/int06022.html.
Peckarsky, Peter, Ron Baiman, and Robert Fitrakis. "Official States Electronic Voting System Added Votes Never Cast In 2004 Presidential Election: Audit Log Missing." The Free Press (1 November 2006), http://www.freepress.org/images/departments/2209.pdf.
'TruthIsAll.' TruthIsAll. The Unanswered Question: Who Really Won in 2004? With an Introduction by Democratic Underground Poster Autorank. http://www.truthisall.net.
2. Documentary Films
Unprecedented: the 2000 Presidential Election. Directed by Richard Ray Pérez and Joan Sekler. http://www.unprecedented.org/UnprecedentedFirstPage.html.
Hacking Democracy. Directed by Simon Ardizzone and Russell Michaels. HBO Documentary Films. http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocracy/index,html.
Eternal Vigilance: The Fight to Save Our Election System. Directed by David Earnhardt. http://eternalvigilance.us/index.html.
Stealing America: Vote by Vote. Directed by Dorothy Fadiman. http://stealingamerica.org/screenings.html.
Invisible Ballots: A Temptation for Electronic Vote Fraud. Directed by William Gazecki. http://www.realityzone.com/ballots.html.
American Blackout. Directed by Ian Inaba. http://theconnextion.com/american_index.cfm?ArtistID=400.
No Umbrella: Election Day in the City. Directed by Laura Paglin. http://www.noumbrella.org/index.htm.
3. The Next Stolen Election?
Feldman, Ariel J., J. Alex Halderman, and Edward W. Felten. "Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine." Center for Information Technology Policy and Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University (13 September 2006), http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/ts-paper.pdf.
Fitrakis, Bob, and Harvey Wasserman. "A Loaves & Fishes / Holy Ghost Victory for the GOP in November?" Common Dreams News Center (18 October 2006), http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1018-26.htm.
----. "Will a shocking new court victory and Karl Rove's attack on Ohio doom the Democrats nationwide?" The Free Press (2 November 2006); reproduced online at the Centre for Research on Globalization, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FIT20061102&articleid=3681.
Friedman, Brad. "HERE WE GO AGAIN: 'Just Push the Yellow Button and Vote as Many Times as You Want' on Sequoia Touch-Screen Voting Machines!" The Brad Blog (2 November 2006), http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3714.
Harris, Bev. "10-31-06: Reports from the front line Anyone who can get at the yellow button can ruin the election. It takes no password, no computer knowledge, no equipment." BlackBoxVoting.org (31 October 2006), http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/44823.html.
Jones, Doug. Voting and Elections. http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/%7Ejones/voting/.
Kuttner, Robert. "Hampering the Vote." The Boston Globe (28 October 2006); reproduced online by Common Dreams News Center (29 October 2006), http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1028-20.htm.
Miller, Mark Crispin. "Our Rigged Elections, Part I: The Elephant in the Polling Booth." The Washington Spectator (1 October 2006); reproduced online at Truthout.org, http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101906O.shtml.
----. "Our Rigged Elections, Part II: The GOP Playbook: How to steal the vote." The Washington Spectator
Solar Bus Election Justice Center. http://election.solarbus.org.
Stokes, Jon "Hannibal." "How to steal an election by hacking the vote." Arstechnica.com (25 October 2006), http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/evoting.ars.
Warren, Kenneth F., and Steve Freeman. "Instructions for Conducting an Election Verification Exit Poll." ElectionIntegrity.org (29 October 2006), http://www.electionintegrity.org/Do_Your_Own_Exit_Poll.pdf. (15 October 2006); reproduced online at Truthout.org, http://www.treuthout.org/docs_2006/101906O.shtml.
Notes
1. See 'TruthIsAll,' "Quantifying the Risk: 2006 Polling Analysis (10/28 Update)," Progressive Independent (28 October 2006), http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topicv&forum=120&topic_id=3264.
2. Ibid.
3. One of the more notorious Senate upsets in 2002, Max Cleland's defeat in Georgia by the chicken-hawk Republican Saxby Chambliss, appeared at the time to be highly suspect. Pre-election polls gave Cleland a 5 percent lead, but Chambliss won by 7 percent in an election that was entirely conducted by Diebold Corporation. In the more recent of his two articles cited below, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. provides evidence from a Diebold insider that immediately prior to the election Diebold's CEO illegally altered the software in the touch-screen machines which counted the votes.
4. I summarized much of this evidence in my article "The Strange Death of American Democracy: Endgame in Ohio," Centre for Research on Globalization (24 January 2005), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20050124&articleid=389. (The opening section of that article contains two small errors: the Scioto Country Club at which Kenneth Blackwell spoke is in Columbus, Ohio, not in Scioto County; and Congressman King's indiscretion dates not from the day of the election, but from a White House barbecue in 2003 -- a fact that makes it if anything more incriminating.)
5. Charles Rabin and Darran Simon, "Glitches cited in early voting," The Miami Herald (28 October 2006), http://www.miami.com/mid/miamiherald/news/state/15869924.htm.
[TOP]
A Vote on the Iraq War
If you have a political bone in your body -- even if you're usually a cynic about elections -- you're undoubtedly holding your breath right now. With the 2006 U.S. mid-term elections on us, the question is: Will the Democrats recapture at least the House of Representatives and maybe even take the Senate by the narrowest of margins?
There is very little agreement about what might happen if a change in congressional control takes place. The Republican administration of President George W Bush, of course, has trumpeted the direst of warnings, predicting (in sometimes veiled ways) nothing less than the demise of the country. Less apocalyptic predictions include an expectation among 70 per cent of potential voters (as reported in the latest New York Times poll) that "American troops would be taken out of Iraq more swiftly under a Democratic Congress." The more cynical among us hope for at least a few challenging congressional investigations of administration activities at home and abroad.
So we will go into Tuesday looking for that tell-tale count that will indicate a Democratic gain of 15 or more seats in the House, and -- a much bigger if -- six seats in the Senate. We probably face a long night sorting out so many disparate races -- and America's traditional counters, the television networks, won't even begin their task until the polls close on the east coast. So we could face a long day's journey into night, if we don't have some other "benchmarks" -- to use a newly favored administration word -- and issues to ponder.
Before the polls close Voter turnout is crucial: the TV networks have grown skilled at predicting elections using exit polls and they begin collecting their numbers first thing in the morning. Even for close races, they often have a very good idea what will happen by early afternoon. They are, however, sworn to secrecy until those polls close, because early forecasts of results have, in the past, affected voter turnout later in the day.
But they are willing to reveal one very important fact during daytime newscasts: voter turnout, which is generally the determining factor in close races in the U.S.. Here's why.
By the time election day arrives, just about every voter has made up his or her mind about whom to vote for. Even for that vaunted category, independent voters (who, so many experts are convinced, will determine this election), fewer than 15 per cent were undecided a week before the election.
True enough, those who hadn't by then made up their minds are expected to be splitting two-to-one for the Democrats even as you read this, thereby making some previously secure Republican seats competitive. But by election day itself, the handful of independent "undecideds" who remain will not be enough to tip the close races one way or the other, no matter what they do.
The determining factor in winning those "too close to call" seats is: how many already committed voters actually go to the polls. Traditionally, in a mid-term election as many as two-thirds of a candidate's supporters may stay home, so whoever moves the most people from the couch to the polling booth will win.
And this year there is real intrigue about which party can get its supporters to the polls. Since the 1990s, the Republicans have been hands-down better at this. Leaving aside the question of fraud for the moment, most observers believe this "get out the vote" effort was critical in the elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004. But this year may be different.
Republican superiority has been based on two factors -- much better on-the-ground organization and far greater enthusiasm among the rank and file. Such enthusiasm means potential voters are more likely to brave cold weather or long lines to vote; and it also means more volunteers to encourage people to get out and, in some cases, to transport them to the polls.
The Democrats have been working since 2004 to build up their on-the-ground organizations in key states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. Because President Bush is so unpopular and the Republicans obviously so vulnerable, opinion polls tell us that there is tremendous electoral enthusiasm among the Democratic rank and file -- and concomitant gloom and disillusionment on the Republican side.
So check the news early for turnout reports from key areas. Look for whether turnout is higher this year in Democratic urban strongholds, and lower in Republican suburban or rural ones. This will tell you a lot about each party's congressional (and gubernatorial) possibilities.
What About Fraud?
In 2000 in Florida and 2004 in Ohio, fraud made a world of difference in close contests. As early as noon U.S. time on Tuesday, you should begin to get a sense of how much of a problem fraud will be this time around.
Many people are terrified that the new electronic voting machines will be the means to falsify vote totals (as was apparently done in Ohio in 2004) and so steal elections - especially with no paper trails available for recounts. However, the biggest threat is old-fashioned indeed: legal and illegal methods that block eligible voters from voting.
Two examples will illustrate how this can be done. In the 2000 election, Republicans in Florida disfranchised more than 10,000 voters, by purging names from the voting lists that happened to match the names of convicted felons. When these voters showed up at the polls, they were simply declared ineligible; and by the time they took their case to court, Bush was already president. (The excluded voters were largely black and would have voted overwhelmingly in the Democratic column.)
In Ohio in 2004, election officials simply did not provide enough voting machines in predominantly Democratic areas, so many potential voters waited all day in endless lines without ever getting the chance to vote, while others grew discouraged and left. There seems little doubt that the excluded voters would have tipped the state to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry -- and this act of voter suppression wasn't even illegal.
This year, Republican state officials in as many as a dozen states have already made good use of the legal system to exclude otherwise eligible voters. They have, for instance, passed laws that will disqualify people who think they are eligible to vote. One common way to do this is by requiring a state-issued picture identity document (a driver's license), which many old and poor people (guaranteed to fall heavily into the Democratic column) do not have.
These potential voters will simply be turned away and, by the time anyone can register a meaningful complaint, the election will be a fait accompli. Watch especially for complaints in the following states that have passed such laws (or similar ones to the same end): Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia.
But Ohio will probably be the worst, since Republican officials there have developed an ingenious electoral "purging" system. State-appointed officials are allowed (but not required) to eliminate people from the voting rolls for a variety of minute irregularities - without notifying them. This year, only strongly Democratic districts had their rolls purged, while strongly Republican districts, not surprisingly, went untouched. On election day, many voters, possibly hundreds of thousands statewide, are going to show up at the Ohio polls and be told they are not eligible.
So start looking for news reports early in the day reflecting the following symptomatic problems: (1) voting sites with tremendous long lines because there aren't enough machines to accommodate all the voters; (2) people in enough numbers to catch reportorial eyes who claim they have been declared ineligible on appearing at the polls. Expect virtually all affected people to be Democratic.
Election Night
Contested races: of the 14 contested Senate seats, the Democrats currently hold six (Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Minnesota and Washington state) and are favored in all of them except Connecticut, where Senator Joseph Lieberman, the defeated Democrat, is leading as an Independent. If Lieberman beats Ned Lamont, but then caucuses with the Democrats (not exactly a given, despite his promises), then in addition to holding those six, they have to win six of the eight Republican races.
Right now the Democrats seem likely to win three of these -- Pennsylvania (ousting the odious Rick Santorum), Ohio (barring massive disfranchisement and fraud) and Rhode Island (replacing the most liberal Republican in the Senate, Lincoln Chafee). The latest polls indicate that they are behind (but not out of it) in Tennessee (see below) and Arizona (where incumbent Jon Kyl is leading shopping-center magnate Jim Peterson).
Their best chances to get those crucial three more seats are Virginia (where incumbent George Allen has given away the lead with verbal gaffes), Missouri (where Michael J Fox and a statewide referendum on stem-cell research may put underdog challenger Claire McCaskill over the top), and -- most surprising of all -- Montana (where challenger Jon Testor has a slight lead).
Among the approximately 60 House seats now generally agreed to fall into the category of "contested," all but six are currently held by Republicans. The Democrats need just 33 of these, a little over half, to claim the House. It's obvious why so many people are predicting that the Democrats will win.
Three states to watch: New York (at least five contested seats) may be a real bellwether, since the results will come in early. All five of them are upstate Republican, and if even three go to the Democrats, that could mean a genuine sweep to come (barring massive fraud elsewhere) -- as well as being a signal of the emergence of a solid Democratic north that might in the future help offset the solid Republican south.
Ohio (five contested seats) is at least as interesting, because polls show at least three of the four contested races, all with Republican incumbents, to be really close -- and so especially sensitive to fraud.
If all of them go Republican, this might be a strong signal of success for the various Republican voter-suppression schemes in the state -- and for fraud in the rest of the country. If the Democrats win at least two, it will probably be a long night for the Republicans.
And then, keep an eye on Indiana. Three Republican House seats are up for grabs in districts that were supposed to be Republican shoo-ins. Miraculously, Democrats are leading in all three, and the lead is approaching double digits in one of them (the Second District). If one or two of these actually go Democratic, you're seeing a small miracle, a tiny sign of tidal change in the electorate -- and the good thing is, the polls close early in Indiana, so what happens there could be a bellwether of change.
But take note that Indiana passed "the strictest voter-identification law" in the country; so watch out as well for frustrated Democratic voters turned away at the polls and a Republican sweep of these seats.
Three elections to watch, for very different reasons: first, keep a close eye on the Tennessee Senate race. Black Congressman Harold Ford, the Democratic candidate, was in essence written off early in a generally blood-red (heavily Republican) state -- until, that is, he caught up and even pushed ahead in some polls. Now, he is slipping back a bit and probably won't win (in the 10 polls since October 20, he is, on average, lagging by about 3 per cent).
But even if he loses, the margin by which he goes down will be an interesting indicator of the national mood. It seems that white southerners have this habit of telling opinion pollsters and exit-poll workers that they favor a black candidate, even though they vote for the white opponent. This peculiar racial trait has resulted in black candidates losing big in "close" races. So if Harold Ford stays within 5 per cent of his opponent, businessman Bob Corker, it may indicate that white electoral prejudice in the south is waning (or that anger over the president and his war in Iraq simply trumps all this year).
Second, make sure to keep an eye out for the results of the anti-abortion referendum in South Dakota. This is a draconian measure making virtually all abortion illegal. It is meant as a full-frontal challenge of Roe vs Wade (a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy) offering the new Bush Supreme Court a future chance to weigh in on the subject. The latest poll suggests that it is losing, 52 per cent to 42 per cent, with only 6 per cent undecided.
Third, Connecticut is fascinating because Joe Lieberman, defeated by anti-war Democrat challenger Ned Lamont in the primary election, is leading as an Independent. He says he will caucus with the Democrats, but we should have our doubts. If the final tally in the Senate, for instance, is 50 Democrats and 49 Republicans, think what his vote would mean and what kind of horse-trading might then go on.
After all, the Republicans could then retain the ability to organize the Senate and appoint committee heads as long as he voted with them and the vice president cast the deciding vote to break any 50-50 ties. The pressure would be huge, and so would the temptation for honest Joe to take a Republican dive. Remember, he has already shown himself more loyal to his own career than to the Democratic Party through his refusal to accept defeat in the primary. If things are close, this is a story that will eat up media time in the days to come.
The Morning After
What do the Democrats stand for? But what if, as some pollsters, pundits and even Republican prognosticators are suggesting, those New York seats go Democratic, along with moderate Republican ones in Connecticut and previously red-meat Republican ones in such states as Indiana? What if the Democrats win by 20-35 seats or more, as some are suggesting, decisively gaining control in the House?
From the opinion polls, we already know that most Democratic voters this time around will see the taking of the House, or all of Congress, as a mandate to begin a draw-down of U.S. troops in Iraq and to bring the U.S. part of that war to an end in some undefined but rather speedy fashion. As it happens, however, Democratic leaders do not see it this way. Their strategy has been to "lie low" and let anger toward Bush sweep them into office.
An indicator that voters know the Democrats ran on a non-platform is the fact that independent voters favor them in polling by 2-1 mainly because they are incensed with the president and the Republicans. As the Washington Post put it:
"Independent voters may strongly favor Democrats, but their vote appears motivated more by dissatisfaction with Republicans than by enthusiasm for the opposition party. About half of those independents who said they plan to vote Democratic in their district said they are doing so primarily to vote against the Republican candidate rather than to affirmatively support the Democratic candidate. Just 22 per cent of independents voting for Democrats are doing so "very enthusiastically."
A Democratic victory, if it actually occurs, will be a statement by independent (and other) voters that they disapprove of Bush administration policy on a wide range of issues, not an ideological tilt in support of the Democrats. But then how could it be? Today's Democrats in essence stand for nothing. They are the not-Republican Party.
Will a Democratic victory mean a "mandate" for change? Do the Democrats need to avoid political positions? Those of us who are actively hostile to the Bush administration tend to excuse the absence of a Democratic program as a necessary ploy to win the election. Lying low and not being too "left wing" are, the common wisdom goes, the keys to winning independents -- and thus the election. Many of us expect that the Democrats, once in control of all or part of Congress, will see themselves as having a mandate from the people to be much more liberal than their campaigns have suggested. This, I suspect, is an illusion -- and this cynicism is, unfortunately, supported by recent political history.
Remember, as a start, that Bill Clinton's 1992 election as U.S. president was based on a similar "anti-Republican" appeal. Yet, once in office, he proved himself to be a "modern Democrat" by, for instance, advancing the Republican agenda in eliminating much of the welfare system, adopting a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuals in the military, and abandoning a national health plan.
Then, of course, came the Republican "revolution" of 1994, which really did drastically alter policy. The Republicans made an explicit and vociferous break with the failing policies of the Democrats, began the most serious drive of U.S. times to roll back history to the days before Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, and never flinched from taking strong stands.
Since that year, the Democrats have found themselves increasingly locked out of power, while the Republicans have finally inherited the mantle of the established party with the failing policies. Instead of riding back to power on a dramatic set of alternative policies as the Republicans did, however, the Democrats -- like Clinton -- are mimicking parts of the Republican platform, while arguing that the Bush White House administered it in an inept, extreme and corrupt way.
This strategy may indeed get them elected if the Karl Rove system of political governance finally comes apart at the seams, but it won't work to generate the changes in policy that so many of us desire.
Instead, we can expect Democratic leaders, suddenly invested with the power of the subpoena (but probably little else), to investigate past Republican sins while attempting to prove that they can, indeed, pursue a less overtly offensive Republican program more honestly and efficiently than the Bush administration has.
Just as the Democratic leadership has promised, they will probably continue to support fighting the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more "effectively." They are also likely to continue the essence of Bush tax policy (more cuts, just not as favorable to the very rich), and to serve money to the Pentagon more or less on demand, but not to domestic "reconstruction" programs.
Could the Democrats win in 2008 on the basis of actual differences in policy? Only if they tried to win over the American people (including independents) to a genuinely different platform. On the Iraq war alone, look at how close ex-marine Paul Hackett came to winning a 60 per cent Republican congressional district in Ohio in 2004 on a simple platform of withdrawal from Iraq.
Or look at the actual attitudes held by independents. According to a typical recent poll, only a third believe the war is "worth fighting"; three-quarters think the U.S. is "headed in the wrong direction"; only 37 per cent approve of the job Bush is doing. Doesn't this suggest that such voters might indeed be receptive to ideas that dramatically challenge Bush administration policies?
But let's face it, even if such a strategy could win, the Democratic leadership will not follow the path laid out by the Republicans from the 1970s through the 1990s as they toppled an entrenched Democratic establishment. They may want to win on Tuesday, but what they don't want is a mandate to lead Americans in a new direction. In the end, they prefer to hang in there as the not-Republican Party, pick up old-hat and me-too policies, and hope for the best.
What's at Stake
As in 2004, there is no mystery about what the voters think when it comes to this election: it is a referendum on Bush administration policies in which unhappiness over the war comes first, second and third.
And this is why, no matter what the Democrats do afterward, the 2006 mid-term elections whose results we will all be anxiously watching on Tuesday are so important. If the Democrats prevail, however narrowly, against a world of massively gerrymandered seats, Republican finances, blitzes of dirty ads, the presidential "bully pulpit" and well-planned campaigns of voter suppression, U.S. -- as well as world -- public opinion will interpret it as a repudiation of Bush administration war policy.
And this will become a mandate for those who oppose these policies to speak and act ever more forcefully. With or without Democratic Party leadership, this added momentum might even make a difference.
* Michael Schwartz is professor of sociology and faculty director of the College of Global Studies at Stony Brook State University.
[TOP]