Monday, November 06, 2006

If You Think Too Long About Election Fraud and Work All the Angles . . . .

. . . . You can really begin to despise Republicans.

Democrats don't fare too well either.

It makes absolutely no sense that there would be enough voters in each district around the country voting for Democrats (enough for the House to change hands), and not the Senate, too.

It's the House districts that have been surgically shaped, gerrymandered, to favor the incumbents. Particularly incumbent Republicans. But if enough of the voters in these districts are willing to vote for Democrats (in great enough numbers to have the House switch to a Democratic party majority), then surely there would be enough within each state to elect a Democratic majority in the Senate, too.

I know, I know, I've heard the theory that voters like to split power, but I've never bought it. It's the lazy pundit's explanation, the pundit sitting in Washington and has no finger on the pulse of the local electorates around the nation to know what really motivated them to vote as they did.

It does not make sense that voters would be motivated to want to split the ticket, to vote for one party at the top of the ticket and then, consciously wanting to split the power between the Executive and Legislative branches, to further split their choices for the House and the Senate between the two parties.

If you believe that voters want to split the power by voting for one party for President-Vice President and the other party for Congress, then you can't believe that the last three elections weren't stolen. Because if they weren't stolen, then Bush-Cheney should have been dealing with a Democratic Congress. Either one or both houses.

I've read just about everything that's been published on this subject, and I'm convinced. But once you're at the point where you accept that Republican operatives have a lock on stealing elections, that they're home free and can do it with impugnity, what do you do with that? The Republican GOTV machine is solely for the purpose of hiding the theft. The theft itself actually takes place in the vote tabulation software, one person doing the deed. You know it, they know it, they know you know it, you know they know you know it, so now what?

I've been toying with this idea for a little while:

The political operators in Washington, elitests that they are, probably all agree that it wouldn't be a good idea to let the American people lose faith in their government and the election process by letting them know that Karl Rove and the Republican party have stolen the last three elections. If that was widely believed by most Americans (and verified as fact), and if politicians and media personalities openly discussed it, we'd be in uncharted waters. The future of the republic would be in grave doubt.

So how would one party (the Democrats) get the party that has been able to steal the last three elections (and any future election, because they are able to prevent any repair of the process from happening) to agree to stop doing it, and yield some of the power (or else the Dems will spill the beans to the American people, and damnitalltohell if the republic is lost)?

Rove-Bush-Cheney might reluctantly offer this: "We'll give you the House of Representatives, but not by much. You're not taking over control of the Senate - you won't have enough numbers to override a veto. We'll let enough votes for your candidates to slide through this election, to give you a majority in the House, on the condition that you will conduct limited investigations. Just enough so that your liberal base can believe you're with them. But you'll go nowhere close to uncovering anything that would lead to impeachment. Take it or leave it - it's your word against ours on the election-stealing thing."

I could see the Democratic party leadership agreeing to this (as well as other power mongers in the party, AND, other power brokers above the fray - those in the Iraq Study Group, for example, Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton). The soon-to-be-new-House-speaker might say publicly something like, "Impeachment is off the table if Democrats take control of the House," a couple of weeks before the election.

It would certainly keep the Democratic base on tenterhooks, "Do we vote Democratic (on the chance Pelosi's trying to appear unpolarizing and really will launch all appropriate investigations and oversight operations, even if they lead to impeachment), or vote independent (and give up on the Democratic party once and for all time), or stay home and pack for Canada?."

If Democrats had made a deal with Republicans, I'd then expect Democrats to tamp down their campaign rhetoric. The only reason to whip up the electorate is if elections are legitimate and you're out to motivate those who would vote for you to get to the polls. If Republicans can steal elections with a few strokes on a computer keyboard, and you're not willing to expose that fact, there's no point in riling the base up with negative campaigning if there has already been an agreement to share some of the power. If the deal is that Republicans get to negatively campaign in order to get their base to the polls, I can see Democrats standing down and relying on Rove to fulfill his part of the deal in the magical privacy of the Diebold vote tabulating program. Democrats would agree because once inside the room, with a little bit of power, they might be able to parlay it into more. In 2008.

The only X factor that I can see is the exit polls. The total number of voters and who they voted for. If the polls were to indicate overwhelming support for Democrats, that would have to be suppressed from the public. Because the deal had already been cut for just the House and not the Senate.

The media has already agreed on a blackout of the exit polling.

What if the Democrats get 5 of the 6 seats needed to take control of the Senate, and newly independent Joe Lieberman winds up winning over Ned Lamont (of course he will - the DLC sold out Lamont and the democratic voters in Connecticut when they didn't force Lieberman out of the race after the Connecticut Democratic primary in August). That would put ol' "out for himself"-Lieberman in quite the catbird (swing) seat? Are they really so sure of "pro-war"-Lieberman, that he'll caucus with the Democrats, if that happens?

Filed under: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments: