The Bush administration can not allow the Democrats to take control of either house of Congress. And they are in a position to prevent it, regardless of the will of the American voters.
These are the two controlling facts that make all other conditions of the coming election trivial in comparison, or even irrelevant. The failure of the media and even the Democratic Party to acknowledge and deal with these facts in no way diminishes their significance. Quite the contrary.
And why can't the Busheviks allow the loss of even one house of Congress to the Democrats? Such a loss might, of course, result in the halting and even some reversal of the Bush/GOP agenda. But that is the least of their concerns. Far more important would be the reestablishment of Congressional oversight -- of investigations, with the penalties of perjury and contempt of Congress, into vast array of crimes committed by the Bush administration. Among these crimes are bribery, the disappearance of billions of dollars in Iraq, war crimes, the disregard of acts of Congress, lying to Congress, and fraudulent elections. In a new, Democratic, House of Representatives, the incorruptible Henry Waxman, as the new Chair of the Government Affairs Committee, would doggedly examine and expose the corruption of the Bush Administration, and John Conyers, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, would, at long last, energetically investigate the issue of stolen elections. Accordingly, Bush and his partners in crime face far more than a curtailment of power; they face possible indictment, prosecution, and prison sentences for their crimes.
How, then, might the Busheviks avoid accountability for their crimes by remaining in control of the Congress? The same way that they seized control of the White House in 2000, and maintained control of Congress and the White House in 2004, namely by rigging these elections through their surrogates in "the election industry."
The accumulated weight of evidence has moved e-vote fraud well beyond the status of mere accusation. To those willing to examine that evidence scrupulously and objectively, it is now a proven fact. The refusal of the media to deal with this issue and the pathetically weak rebuttal-by-ridicule of the debunkers has not mitigated the force of the evidence. Because I have
written repeatedly and at length about the stealing of the national elections, I will not argue the point here. Those still unconvinced are urged to examine these sources.
Significantly, despite the aforementioned media silence and weak rebuttals, a Zogby poll reports that less than half the public is "very confident that Bush won [the 2004 election] fair and square," and a third if the public is "not at all confident that he won fair and square."
Given the likelihood of another rigged election, does this mean that those of us who desire a Democratic victory - apparently a sizeable majority of likely voters - should simply give up, accept the inevitable, and stay at home?
By no means. We should redouble our efforts. For even if the GOP retains control of Congress through still more of the same electronic vote fraud combined with their familiar vote-suppression schemes, this could be the election that finally exposes and puts an end to the paperless, non-verifiable e-vote scam. If the election precincts are flooded with crowds of angry citizens demanding the ouster of the Republican majority in Congress, the GOP just might be made to pay an exorbitant price for one more rigged election. For all their advantages, including their control of the election processes, the GOP faces a daunting dilemma: on the one hand, steal one more election and risk, at long last, exposure of this crime, or on the other hand, "allow" the Democrats to take control of one house of Congress with the expectation that the crimes of the Bush administration, including election fraud, will be rigorously investigated.
I expect that the GOP strategists will opt for the former course of action. Even so, it is just possible that the GOP will still lose the House, although, given their control of the e-ballots, their continued the Senate is a lock for the Republicans. To win the Senate, the Democrats must lose no seats while winning almost all of the contested seats. Should the GOP "fix" just three close elections, say in New Jersey, Missouri and Ohio, their control of the Senate is assured. Even so, that might not be the end of it. If, by over-reaching this time, the election-fraud machinery is finally exposed, those ill-gained Senate seats might be contested and overturned by court challenges. And these would be decided by state courts, out of reach of the GOP packed federal courts.
The House of Representatives, however, is a different story. If the election is close, the Republicans, by "fixing" from one to two dozen of the most endangered seats, will salvage their majority. That many individual electoral finagles are quite do-able.
But if as many as a hundred GOP seats are at risk, this may overwhelm the resources of the Dieboldian (etc.) shock troops. Moreover, the more individual contests on the "fix-list," the larger the circle of election conspirators and the greater the risk that one of these scams will misfire and blow open the e-voting crime wave. Then a chain-reaction of disclosures might follow, reaching back to Ohio in 2004, Georgia in 2002, and Florida in 2000, to mention just a few electoral crime scenes.
And it appears now that a tsunami of voter discontent might strike the ballot boxes on November 7. The latest Newsweek poll reports that "fully 53 percent of Americans want the Democrats to win control of Congress next month..., compared to just 35 percent who want the GOP to retain power." This 18% gap is considerably more than that which preceded the 40 seat sweep of the "Republican revolution" of 1994.
Accordingly, Paul Krugman observes that
And the much-respected and non-partisan observer, Charlie Cook notes that
These are the two controlling facts that make all other conditions of the coming election trivial in comparison, or even irrelevant. The failure of the media and even the Democratic Party to acknowledge and deal with these facts in no way diminishes their significance. Quite the contrary.
And why can't the Busheviks allow the loss of even one house of Congress to the Democrats? Such a loss might, of course, result in the halting and even some reversal of the Bush/GOP agenda. But that is the least of their concerns. Far more important would be the reestablishment of Congressional oversight -- of investigations, with the penalties of perjury and contempt of Congress, into vast array of crimes committed by the Bush administration. Among these crimes are bribery, the disappearance of billions of dollars in Iraq, war crimes, the disregard of acts of Congress, lying to Congress, and fraudulent elections. In a new, Democratic, House of Representatives, the incorruptible Henry Waxman, as the new Chair of the Government Affairs Committee, would doggedly examine and expose the corruption of the Bush Administration, and John Conyers, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, would, at long last, energetically investigate the issue of stolen elections. Accordingly, Bush and his partners in crime face far more than a curtailment of power; they face possible indictment, prosecution, and prison sentences for their crimes.
How, then, might the Busheviks avoid accountability for their crimes by remaining in control of the Congress? The same way that they seized control of the White House in 2000, and maintained control of Congress and the White House in 2004, namely by rigging these elections through their surrogates in "the election industry."
written repeatedly and at length about the stealing of the national elections, I will not argue the point here. Those still unconvinced are urged to examine these sources.
Significantly, despite the aforementioned media silence and weak rebuttals, a Zogby poll reports that less than half the public is "very confident that Bush won [the 2004 election] fair and square," and a third if the public is "not at all confident that he won fair and square."
Given the likelihood of another rigged election, does this mean that those of us who desire a Democratic victory - apparently a sizeable majority of likely voters - should simply give up, accept the inevitable, and stay at home?
By no means. We should redouble our efforts. For even if the GOP retains control of Congress through still more of the same electronic vote fraud combined with their familiar vote-suppression schemes, this could be the election that finally exposes and puts an end to the paperless, non-verifiable e-vote scam. If the election precincts are flooded with crowds of angry citizens demanding the ouster of the Republican majority in Congress, the GOP just might be made to pay an exorbitant price for one more rigged election. For all their advantages, including their control of the election processes, the GOP faces a daunting dilemma: on the one hand, steal one more election and risk, at long last, exposure of this crime, or on the other hand, "allow" the Democrats to take control of one house of Congress with the expectation that the crimes of the Bush administration, including election fraud, will be rigorously investigated.
I expect that the GOP strategists will opt for the former course of action. Even so, it is just possible that the GOP will still lose the House, although, given their control of the e-ballots, their continued the Senate is a lock for the Republicans. To win the Senate, the Democrats must lose no seats while winning almost all of the contested seats. Should the GOP "fix" just three close elections, say in New Jersey, Missouri and Ohio, their control of the Senate is assured. Even so, that might not be the end of it. If, by over-reaching this time, the election-fraud machinery is finally exposed, those ill-gained Senate seats might be contested and overturned by court challenges. And these would be decided by state courts, out of reach of the GOP packed federal courts.
The House of Representatives, however, is a different story. If the election is close, the Republicans, by "fixing" from one to two dozen of the most endangered seats, will salvage their majority. That many individual electoral finagles are quite do-able.
But if as many as a hundred GOP seats are at risk, this may overwhelm the resources of the Dieboldian (etc.) shock troops. Moreover, the more individual contests on the "fix-list," the larger the circle of election conspirators and the greater the risk that one of these scams will misfire and blow open the e-voting crime wave. Then a chain-reaction of disclosures might follow, reaching back to Ohio in 2004, Georgia in 2002, and Florida in 2000, to mention just a few electoral crime scenes.
And it appears now that a tsunami of voter discontent might strike the ballot boxes on November 7. The latest Newsweek poll reports that "fully 53 percent of Americans want the Democrats to win control of Congress next month..., compared to just 35 percent who want the GOP to retain power." This 18% gap is considerably more than that which preceded the 40 seat sweep of the "Republican revolution" of 1994.
Accordingly, Paul Krugman observes that
a huge Democratic storm surge is heading toward a high Republican levee. It's still possible that the surge won't overtop the levee -- that is, the Democrats could fail by a small margin to take control of Congress. But if the surge does go over the top, the flooding will almost surely reach well inland -- that is, if the Democrats win, they'll probably win big.
And the much-respected and non-partisan observer, Charlie Cook notes that
For Republicans, it is a time to defend every seat, no matter how secure those seats appear. If things don't change, GOP incumbents, who never even contemplated having a difficult race, may well lose this year. And if I were a Republican, I'd start praying that something happens to take the spotlight away from Iraq and scandals, because this current issue mix is lethal.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
