First step in restoring America: admit a coup d'etat took place in 2000

[Q]

- How naive do we have to be as a people to believe that once an election is stolen that it won't happen again? What's to prevent a rerun of the 2000 election? Absolutely nothing.

- The three most important events in the last century...2000 election fraud, 9-11 and lies that drove this nation to war...remain unexamined and unreported by both our elected officials and the American media.

- What's the official explanation for this lack of oversight and investigation? We were told that the 2000 election fraud couldn't be fully examined because the country needed to 'come together' after 9-11. And then we were told that 9-11 couldn't be investigated because our country was 'at war' with terrorism. Finally...we were informed that the Bush* administration wouldn't/couldn't be held accountable for the lies that drove this nation to attack Iraq because it would endanger 'national security' during a 'time of war'.

- The 2000 coup would have been impossible without the complicity of:

1. Supreme Court

2. American Media

3. US Congress

4. Democratic/Republican parties

- The first step in taking back our country is to acknowledge that the 2000 election fiasco was a coup d'etat.

Coup d'<'e>tat (Politics), a sudden, decisive exercise of power whereby the existing government is subverted without the consent of the people; an unexpected measure of state, more or less violent; a stroke of policy.


- We must accept this reality before we can take the next step in returning this country to the people...where it belongs.

[gandalf]

1. How to convince the "broad public"?

I agree with your analysis. But, as you wrote, the media is not much help, is there a realistic possibility at all to get this message beyond a small circle of DUers and other progressive, political interested and educated people?

[ixion]

2. Indeed. I agree.

However I think that getting the mainstream to admit to themselves that these events transpired in the manner that they did is a highly improbable outcome. As near as I can figure, most of the people are in a state of denial, and prefer to make saddam jokes rather than apply that same wit (sic) to this lying maladministration.

Of course, if it were to happen, I would be pleasantly suprised.
:-)

[mojo2004]

3. You really think....

dwelling over the 2000 selection is key for taking back this country? The media covered the election story non-stop during the month long fiasco. The media has also covered the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found. The people know all about this and most don't seem to care. They key is finding issues that we can win with. IMHO, this is the path of losers.

[Q]

7. "Dwelling"? You'd think the end of 'democracy' in America...

...would merit at least a bit of 'dwelling'.

- indeed...the very reason we're in the mess that we find ourselves is because we've been told to 'move on' too many times. And no...the American media never covered the 2000 election in the sense of telling the truth to the people. What they DID offer was excuses and misinformation that made it easier for Bush* to steal the election from the Democrats and the American people.

- How can the people 'care' if they've never been given enough information to understand what's going on?

- The 'path of losers' is to 'move on' without seeing justice done.

[INTELBYTES]

10. I agree Mojo...

I think it is a waste of energy and "sour grapes" dwelling on the 2000 election issue. We are only "preaching to the choir" when we complain about it. What's done is done. Let's move on with issues and not be crybabies about what could have or should have been.:eyes:

[Q]

15. The 2000 election made it possible for Bush* to TAKE power...

...and then force this country to the right.

- It amazes me that some people think that election fraud means nothing in the context of a Democracy and 'free' elections.

- So far I've seen the words 'loser' and 'crybabies' used in describing an interest in seeking justice. It's very insulting to use these words against citizens who happen to think that free elections are important to the very survival of our way of life in America.

- And frankly...these are RWing talking points that I refuse to accept as credible.

[INTELBYTES]

17. Face reality Q, what do you think our party will gain if we start...

bringing this issue to the forefront again? It may work for fellow Democrats who are already in our camp, but it won't buy anything from the "undecided". If we don't campaign on issues alone, we gain nothing. How many votes do you think you will gain by bringing this out into the public again? I would honestly say that this topic in the media will lose more votes that it gets.

[Q]

18. This isn't about the Democratic party...it's about the American people...

...our Constitution and the rule of law.

- Bush* didn't become president* by accident. It was planned that way...regardless of how the people voted. They circumvented the Constitution and cheated to install Bush* in office.

- It's strange that you seem so worried about 'losing votes' when literally hundreds of thousands of votes weren't even COUNTED in the 2000 election.

[INTELBYTES]

21. Again, Q, I don't disagree with a single thing you say.

My question is, "Do you think this is a viable campaign issue?" How do you think this will be percieved by the main stream?

[dennis4868]

16. I don't think it is ever sour grapes to....

let the people of our country know that the U.S. Constitution was trashed in 2000. We as a people owe it to all those before us who fought so hard for our generation to have fair elections and a true democracy to never forgte what happened in 2000....I mean think about it people....the state of florida stopped the counting of legal votes and the US Supreme Court allowed it....that is sickening!

[INTELBYTES]

19. I don't disagree with you and Q about the fiasco.

I'm sure it still gives many Dem's sleepless nights. But like I ask Q in the previous thread, do you actually think we will gain, (instead of lose) votes if we make this a campaign issue? If you think it will help our cause one bit, that is where I am in total disagreement.

[Q]

23. I'm not talking about 'campaign issues'...

...but about hearings, investigations and possibly impeachment. The 2000 election isn't the only thing that needs investigating. 9-11 and Bush's* lies that drove this nation to war are just as important.

- Are you aware of the term 'informed consent'?

[INTELBYTES]

25. There should be hearings and investigations....

but if you do it in an election year, you will just give the right-wing more ammo. They will use that against us. Do you see how offended some in this thread got when I said "crybabies"? That is how we will be portrayed. They will have a field day. I thought the investigation should have already have happened. If it hasn't by now, it never will. Shrub will see to that.

[Q]

28. I understand your argument...

...but can we ever expect our 'democracy' to be restored when so many refuse to accept that crimes were committed and power was TAKEN by illegal means?

- And perhaps some of us worry too much about 'giving the right ammo' to use against us? They will attack us no matter what we do or say. We should stand on principle and not worry about them.

- Keep in mind that it's the very people who attack us that have the most to hide.

[INTELBYTES]

29. It is an interesting topic. One that I think would make a good poll.

Since I am not a member (yet) I cannot make a poll thread. But it would be interesting to see how many people think the 2000 election snafu should be either investigated, made a polical issue this year, or just dropped entirely.

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. Crybabies?

Nice! :argh: :grr:

[truth2power]

38. A coup d' etat is not a minor thing

and not something which merits moving on. It's usually those who benefitted from the coup who keep telling us to just get past it.

[Terwilliger]

73. it is for the Democrats

hey look, see what Tom Daschle said about the coup of 2000 the other day?

[rman]

55. dunno, "dwelling" on Watergate seemed like a good thing - for Dems

-

[Skittles]

87. DWELLING on the THEFT OF DEMOCRACY

I WILL NEVER GET OVER IT AND IF YOU WERE A TRUE PATRIOT YOU WOULDN'T EITHER

[MSchreader]

4. Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?

For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
- Sir John Harington (1561-1612)

[Q]

5. Many on the left still won't accept...

...the truth about Election Fraud 2000. These are the same people who bring up the term 'conspiracy nut' every time someone mentions prior knowledge of 9-11.

- Perhaps we need to convince our own side before we can convince the rest of the American people?

[tinanator]

6. absolutely right

these would include those who hold faith in the media, the DLC, the Clinton's and high powered Democrats who have enabled these acts to take place without examination or question, let alone resistance. The primary obstacle is the media, the biggest enemy, ourselves.

[Q]

9. A coup is impossible without the help of the media...

...whose job it is to make a wrongful transfer of power appear as if a 'fluke' in the normal process of democracy.

- I've heard time and again (including from a post above) that only 'losers' (sorelosermen, to be exact) would want to rehash the 2000 election. But this is where it all began. Where the executive branch TOOK power not granted it by the Constitution. Where the Bushies claimed themselves above the law of the land.

- We wouldn't have recognized this election if it happened in a third world country.

[rwork]

13. And now Antonin Scalia

is duck hunting with Dick Cheney.

[rwork]

11. I have two friends

and my self who still bring up the stolen election. I don't thing it is something we will ever "get over".

[Q]

14. Is 'remembering' enough?

- Or must we do something to prevent it from happening again? Is just 'getting out the vote' enough if the other side has plans to cancel their votes?

[Selwynn]

46. Don't be dishonest...

The "people" who object your conspiracy nuttage about 9/11 are not objecting every times someone mentions prior knowledge of 9/11. No, the people who object do so when a conclusion about the nature of the prior knowledge is assumed a priori without the search for evidence. It is assumed based on emotions and biases, and then the search begins to find "evidence" to fit the conclusion.

I don't mind people who ask honest questions about anything. I don't mind considering the possibility that Bush made it happen, or let it happen, or was guilty of negligence. What I care about is when bias drives the search for truth more than scientific rigor does. When the principles of conjecture and refutation are not generously applied to our theories and conclusions. When people shoot for the sensationalistic rather than the long hard "slog" that is the search for real truth based on solid credibly evidence. When people trade in intellectual honesty and reflectiveness for their desperate need for absolute certainty.

That's what I mind.

The Election 2000 was a mess. There were some incidents that I believe were fraudulent. The decisions of the Supreme Court to hand Bush the election were indeed biased. It is a travesty that the most obvious fair solution (to have all the votes in Florida recounted) was ignored. But I do not know the full scope of the fraud, I don't know how high or deep it goes, or who all is implicated. I can make some guesses, but I don't have hard evidence. I tend to react with skepticism to people who instantly jump to the most extreme conclusion. There was fraud in Florida, therefore EVERY REPUBLICAN IN AMERICA IS IN ON IT, and so is the Pope, and probably some space aliens, and my mom.

That's what those of us with.. you know... functioning critical minds object to.

[lovedems]

8. Don't you think that the closer we get to the election, those "old wounds"

are going to open again? That is the thing about being an adult. I will use the example as a mother. Everytime one of my children has a birthday, it seemed like just yesterday that he was born. I think the closer we get to the election, the fiasco of the stolen election and the divided nation (which is arguably more divided now then it was 3 years ago) will seem like "yesterday". Those wounds haven't healed, there are still alot of angry people and I think it has the potential to hurt the idiot in the WH.

That is why there are people coming out in droves in the primaries.


BTW, the election was stolen and * went on to enact policies like he won by a landslide. People are angry.

[Q]

12. Agreed...people ARE angry...and they won't forget...

...but for every angry person on the left...there's an angry person on the right who doesn't care about stolen elections as long as it's THEIR side that benefits.

- At the very least we must prepare for another power grab in 2004. The very same machinery that 'allowed' the 2000 election to be STOLEN is still in place and ready to go in 2004.

[lovedems]

22. I wouldn't put it past this administration. They don't seem to concern

themselves with public opinion or for that matter, even care about what the public thinks. I might be deluding myself but I don't think this country would stand for another 2000. I can't possibly imagine what the public would do but the anger people had in 2000 combined with 3 years of this administrations frequent disregard for the law and the constitution, that anger would be alot worse than anything we saw in 2000. What would happen?

What am I getting at in a nutshell is lets suppose there is another stolen election...What would the american people do?

[Q]

24. What 'could' they do...

...without the help of their representatives and the media?

- The people would be powerless to stop another stolen election. The Bushies know this...which is why they're about to do it again in 2004.

[lovedems]

26. I suppose you are right but surely we have learned some lessons

since then. It seems that Wes Clark has learned a lesson. The repubs are mincing his words like they did Gore in 2000. He is correcting them immediately and harshly (I don't have my candidate yet so my praise of Clark is for purpose of example). Regardless of the representatives and media, if 2000 happens again, I just envision the public angry. Mass protests, arrests, I think it would be an ugly scene.

Hopefully we are all paying much more attention this time around.

[lovedems]

31. BTW, after reading some of the other threads in which

we were called "cry babies" or "whiners" totally misses the point. I think it is completely reasonable to try and win on the issues while offering a gentle reminder that the election in 2000 was not a democratic election. It is not representative of a democracy where all votes count. It would be effective on the stump to remind people that all votes should count and out candidate will fight to see that it happens.

[reprobate]

77. Good point, lovedems. Let me add something.

I don't believe that the stolen election should be included in the speeches of candidates. That's something that we all should be talking about to everyone we discuss politics with. And use the facts. Thay are availabe to anyone who does a google.

Whispering campaigns (and that's really what I'm suggesting) are almost impossible for the regime to counter because no one officially speaks of it. Just talk about it with friends, and interject it in all political discussions.

This kind of thing works because of every ten you mention it to, two or three will believe and pass it on. And on. And on. This can grow geometricly, and by the time it's recognized by the BFEE, it's too late, cause the people will take it as truth by that time.

It works on the principle of critical mass. At some point it become the majority view.

[sweetheart]

27. "Democrats in the UK" is screening "unprecedented"

At group session, with one in london where one of the film's makers is available for chat... People are fucking furious about the coup.

I expect this next election to turn this.

I wish the unprecedented makers would make their film public domain so that it could be seen by more people.

It is one thing to believe in a coup.... it is quite another to see paid republican workers subverting democratic choice... those treasonous scumbags should hang.

Sorry, i myself get a bit hot on the coup.

Focus it on winning in 2004... yes.

[Q]

32. The doc 'Unprecendented' lays it all out...

...for everyone to see. This is a 'must see' for anyone interested in the future of democracy.

- It covers many facts the American media didn't bother to report. The illegal ballots counted in Bush's* favor. The 'purged' voters wrongly accused of being felons. (many were purged for having committed felonies in the FUTURE!)

- Why is it so difficult for people to believe there was a coup in 2000? Because our government and the media is withholding the truth.

[nannygoat]

66. I've watched 'Unprecedented' numerous times on

my local cable public access channel. Maybe Dems everywhere could try to do this? It actually makes me so furious and very sad every time I see it.

[Minstrel Boy]

30. And if it's stolen again, I have no doubt that

many of those who, for three years, have been saying "Get over it," will have nothing new to add.

Why? Because if the United States has entered a post-democratic phase, the implications for political life are, frankly, terrifying. Or, put it this way: Now you know your vote doesn't count, what are you going to do about it?

[soup]

33. keeping it under control in Florida

Don't know whose been following it, but a while back, Katherine Harris started talking about a run for Bob Graham's Senate seat in 2004.

The White House gang went into panic mode and after some arm twisting, HUD's Mel Martinez announced he would be running for the seat. There were several articles that came out about that time, and up to just a few days before the announcement - he'd said, no, he didn't have any interest in running, he was happy with what he was doing.

Katherine Harris spent last week in Washington, while she 'decided' if she would run for Senator Graham's seat. Before she left for Washington, she made a statement about her heart and her mind were already set - which led me to believe she was going to run. After several closed door meetings, she announced she wasn't going to run for Senate this year.

Odds are, she'll make a run in 2006 against Senator Nelson, instead. Dollars to donuts, the dollars and endorsements will flow for her then.

If it's not an issue-
Why don't they want Katherine Harris running for Senate in 2004?

sit down
shut up
get over it
sore loser
move on
fuhgedaboudit

[Q]

34. You can bet that the Bushies will keep the right people...

...in the right places...including the Supreme Court.

[soup]

52. our double whammy

While big brother works on a grander scale now, John Ellis Bush continues to wreak havoc in Florida.

12/02/02
The Bush dynasty and the Cuban criminals

New book reveals links of two presidents and the governor of Florida with exiled hardliners

>snip<
In July this year, Jeb Bush nominated Raoul Cantero, the grandson of Batista, as a Florida supreme court judge despite his lack of experience. Mr Cantero had previously represented Bosch and acted as his spokesman, once describing Bosch on Miami radio as a "great Cuban patriot".

Other Cuban exiles involved in terrorist acts, Jose Dionisio Suarez and Virgilio Paz Romero, who carried out the 1976 assassination of the Chilean diplomat Orlando Letelier in Washington, have also been released by the current Bush administration.

The current administration also maintains a hard line on the continuing Cuban embargo despite the urgings of many in Mr Bush's own party to end it. The president's adviser, Karl Rove, "has urged him to fully accommodate hardliners in return for electoral victories for both his brother and himself", Bardach's book says.

For their help, many hardline Cuban-Americans have received plum jobs in the current administration: Mel Martinez, the Orlando Republican who arranged for the shipwrecked Cuban boy, Elian Gonzalez, to visit Disney World, was made housing secretary, while Otto Reich was awarded a one year recess appointment for the western hemisphere in the state department.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,851913,00.html


12/31/02
Jeb Bush Names State Supreme Court Justice

TALLAHASSEE -- Gov. Jeb Bush named his third Supreme Court justice Monday, picking a young, conservative Pensacola judge to replace the court's most liberal and senior justice.
Bush selected Circuit Judge Kenneth B. Bell to succeed the retiring Leander Shaw, one of two African-Americans on the seven-member court. Bell's judicial philosophy appears to match the governor's but is the opposite of his predecessor's.

Shaw, who will end 19 years on the bench next week, is considered one of the most liberal and active Florida justices ever, having written the lead opinion in the state's landmark case extending constitutional protection to women seeking abortions.

Bell, however, stressed his commitment to "judicial restraint" and promised not to tread on the governor or the Legislature.

In his application for the post, Bell noted that the courts "must recognize their role as the 'weakest branch of government' and pay due deference to the legislative and executive branches." He also noted that judges must be committed to a "reasoned vs. 'result-oriented' decisions."
>snip<
http://www.grassrootsvictories.org/Content.cfm?contentid=109

-----------------------
backing up a little:

03/16/00
GOVERNOR BUSH APPOINTS ROBERT J. PLEUS, JR. TO THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

TALLAHASSEE -- Governor Jeb Bush today announced the appointment of Robert J. Pleus, Jr. to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. Pleus fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Gilbert S. Goshorn.
http://www.state.fl.us/eog_new/eog/library/releases/2000/march/robert_pleus_3-16-00.html

------------------------

01/12/04
Excerpts from editorials in Florida newspapers

In both cases, the law provided for a guardian, meant to represent the woman's best interests while still keeping the massive machinery of the state at arms-length. Unfortunately, guardians in both cases could not keep their charges from becoming political pawns. ...

The district court rightly and sternly rejected Bush's attempt Friday. In the opinion, District Judge Emerson R. Thompson Jr. explained the legal safeguards already placed on medical decisions made on behalf of mentally incompetent people. District Judge Richard B. Orfinger's concurrence rightly points out the chilling consequences to medical privacy if Bush's logic is followed to its conclusion.

But the most distressing thing about the J.D.S. decision was the 15-page dissent, written by Bush appointee District Judge Robert J. Pleus, which reads more like an anti-abortion tract than a legal document. Tellingly, the word "privacy" does not appear once in Pleus's screed, and the state constitutional right to be left alone is all but ignored.

Pleus's judicial politicking is every bit as troubling as Gov. Bush's original decision to meddle. Taken together, they point out a trend that should alarm anyone who feels that they - not Big Brother - should control their lives.
http://ap.emeraldcoast.com/stories/state/6_ds_114509.php

--------------------
keeping an eye on the FL legislature
--------------------

01/11/04

APPEALS COURT
Judges spurn Bush on guardian for fetus

>snip<
A passionately worded dissenting opinion, by Judge Robert J. Pleus, Jr., calls on Florida lawmakers to state explicitly that birth begins at conception and to include ''unborn babies'' among those considered persons under state law.
>snip<
In his dissent, Judge Pleus refers throughout to the unborn baby and unborn child. He called the words fetus and embryo ``confusing, outdated and meaningless.''

'Because the majority concludes that an unborn, viable child is not a `person' or a 'minor' unless the Legislature says so, I would urge the Legislature to overturn this decision and affirm the fact that an unborn child is a person,'' Pleus wrote. ``Such action would be a clear and unambiguous acknowledgment of human life.''
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/7682238.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

--------------------

News clips on Florida Courts
note: some of the newslinks are no longer active
http://www.whoseflorida.com/courts/courts.htm

--------------------

More and more often, I'm finding it all quite simply overwhelming.

[Cocoa]

35. they're expecting record turnout in Iowa today

candidates and supporters are working their asses off.

The primary concern on everyone's mind is beating George Bush in November.

If any of them is thinking about what happened in 2000, it looks like they're not going to let it stop them from voting in 2004. Maybe what happened last time really will have the effect of getting MORE people to vote.

[Q]

83. I'm hoping the people remember and VOTE...

...turning out in record numbers to right the wrongs of the 2000 election.

[spindoctor]

36. We're F*ed

If the Supreme Court, the media, Congress and our combined political force are all in cahoots on this one then we are screwed, wouldn't you say?

The 2000 election may have been rigged, but not to the extent were they negated a landslide victory for Gore. I think Democrats learned a valuable lesson that year and I sincerely doubt anything like it will happen again any time soon.

Unless of course you believe that Dean, Gephardt, Clark and Kerry are on PNAC's payroll as well.

[YNGW]

37. Let me get this straight.

I'm strickly speaking of the 2004 election here. And this is based on some of the other comments being made here.

If we lose in 2004, it will be because the election was stolen? Is that the "gameplan"? There's no possible way that if we lose it could be because the other side got more popular votes and/or electoral college votes? in other words, a fair election?

I've got a feeling that if we lose, it won't matter if it's 51-49 or a landslide, there are going to be people on here who will automatically claim fraud.

-------------------------------------

BTW, 4th and 26 MY ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GO PANTHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Beam Me Up]

39. You don't have it anywhere near straight

You're the only person here mentioning "game plans."

What we're talking about is REALITY CHECK.

The selection of 2000 was the first stage of a two part coup d'état; the events of 9/11 being phase two. All of the Constitutional checks and balances--as outlined by Q in the original thread--have been comprimised. Do you REALLY believe that those who have gained power by these criminal acts--and I do NOT mean either "Republicans" or "Conservatives" in the usual sense of the word--are going to relinquish it to a fair election? We are talking about power, not the sock pupets and masks of power; much less the 'necessary illusions' of a free press or free and honest elections or a non compromised judiciary or congress.

This is not politics as usual.

Edit: typo

[YNGW]

41. Just answer the question.

There's no reason this should be like pulling teeth.

If we lose in 2004, regardless by how much or how little, are you and others automatically going to claim fraud?

[Beam Me Up]

43. The SUBJECT of this thread IS:

First step in restoring America: admit a coup d'etat took place in 2000

Note that the subject is not "First step in winning the next election" or "First step in planing a strategy for what we'll do if we loose" etc. etc.

Q is pointing out that we NOW EXIST in extra Constitutional circumstances.

EDITED TO ADD: We, the People of the United States of America, DID NOT ELECT AND DID NOT INSTALL THE CABAL NOW OCCUPYING THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE OFFICES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

[YNGW]

47. This is a very simple question.

- I saw the topic header. I also read the direction this thread was headed.

- Just answer the question: Are you or aren't you going to claim fraud?

- This really shouldn't be that hard.

- Your answer, or lack thereof, will be very revealing.

[Beam Me Up]

51. Your question is IRRELEVANT to the TOPIC

I, personally, will claim whatever I claim AFTER the next election--if, INDEED, there IS a "next" election-- based on the INFORMATION available at that time. This is not a STRATEGY meeting.

[YNGW]

68. OK

It's always good to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to running the "Excuses Department".

[Beam Me Up]

72. As a voting Democrat, I am offended by your reply.

What "excuses" are you referring to?

As I understand it, the major mistake the Democrats made in the 2000 election is that the did NOT call for a recount of ALL the Florida votes.

[YNGW]

79. As a voting Democrat, I am confident...

... that there are those here who have already decided if we don't win it is because of fraud. In fact, this excuse, and their accompanying cousins, are already on the drawing board. That crowd includes, but is not exclusive to, the "911/Bush Knew" crowd.

There would be a measure of respectability if they would just come out today and say, "If Bush wins in 2004, it will be because he stole the elections by BBV, paid minions, etc...." since it's obvious that that's exactly what they're going to say anyway. But, directly admitting what they've already predetermined to say isn't in the playbook. So instead, I'll just have to wait until November, 2004, and if we unfortunately lose, I can sit back and watch what I already know is going to be said by these people. But, that's OK. I'm a very patient person.

[Beam Me Up]

80. So, let me get YOU straight. . .

Are you saying that the installation of Bush was not a result of a series of criminal acts? Are you saying that bush did NOT have any reason to suspect events such as 9/11 would occur? And are you saying that anyone who disagrees with your understanding is unworthy of "a measure of respectability"?

[YNGW]

82. I'm saying...

... that should we lose in 2004, there are those who have already decided that it happened because of fraud, and they've decided this is their story 10 months before the election has even taken place. Now that's what I call planning out your excuses ahead of time.

But, I'm done on this subject for the day. I'll let them get back to perfecting their hypothesis. Time is short and they'll want to have these things spelled out so every is on the same page should the time come.

[dpibel]

86. My Answer

I don't live in a binary world. If there's nothing but a loss, small or large, that's about the end of it. If the Fierce Warrior Chieftain is reinstalled and there's evidence--say, mass disenfranchisement of voters (or do you not believe such things happen in the good ol' USofA?)--of fraud, then I'll say, "Hey, there's evidence of fraud here." Frankly, it speaks volumes that you demand to know right now how people intend to react to an event that has not yet happened. If you're looking to flush out the people who think making that kind of commitment is a good idea, more power to ya; they represent a tiny minority and apparently loom larger in your mythology than they do in mine.

Seems to me that, since I've answered your question, perhaps you'd deign to answer one of mine:

If there's a rerun of the failed 2000 election (in tone, outcome, and suspiciousness) are you going to say, "Nothing to see here, folks. Move along."? Seems to me you have some blinders on about 2000; are you willing to admit to your strategy of keeping those suckers strapped on, no matter what?

[leetrisck]

40. I feel like the coup started with

the impeachment of Clinton. There was definitely an attempt of overthrow Clinton and they didn't care how they got rid of him - they just wanted it done and they got away with it - with the American people saying "don't do it." Then the "selection" and now look what we have - dictator.

[Q]

56. The first coup attempt was indeed with Clinton...

...but then the RWingers saw an 'opportunity' in Florida. Can you imagine the Bushie Republicans allowing Gore's brother, campaign co-chair and a 'liberal' Supreme court decide an election? Never would have happened. THEY would have rioted in the streets if the situation were reversed.

[Selwynn]

42. Fine. I accept it. Now what?

Most of the time it sounds to me like many left leaning people seem to care more about their own hurt and need for vindication than about what is really necessary to make a better tomorrow in this country.

Ok, the 2000 elections sucked. I know it. You know it. Most people know it. So what? What happens now that we acknowledge that fact? Well, it seems to me that we're right back at square one with the same problems we had before...

Other than making an extra conscious effort to make sure the elections are tampered with this year (which should include getting familiar with deibold and resisting it), what else does "accepting this reality" really have to do with returning this country to the people... where it belongs?

[Beam Me Up]

48. Before anything can change

We have to first acknowledge what is. The United States of America is not now a Constitutional Democracy. It can be argued that it has not been for some time.

The question is, do we want to live in an illusion of a Constitutional Democracy, or do we want the real thing? If the latter, then we have to begin by acknolwedging--first to ourselves--that this is not our present reality.

We don't have to outline every step. But we do need to begin from the beginning. Really let it sink in. Those who are in the seats of our government DO NOT REPRESENT OUR INTERESTS. They represent the interests of Oligarchs. They control almost everything around us from the economy to the media. Now, what CAN we do about that?

On edit: clarity

[Selwynn]

60. In other words, you have no idea what to do next.

That's really what I'm getting at.

"We don't have to outline every step."

Maybe no, but at least some would probably be a good idea. I see a lot of talk, but most of it centers on empty rhetorical things like we should "accept" that 2000 was a fraud or "accept" that we don't live in a constitutional democracy anymore. None of these "acceptances" do anything to outline any kind of plan for a better tomorrow.

[Beam Me Up]

69. In the details (where it is said the Devil lives)

you are correct. I do NOT know, specially, all the steps that need to be taken to address the current situation. Who possibly can? The FIRST step is the disillusionment, the awakening. Beyond that, I like what this author is pointing toward:

Perhaps the biggest hidden reason people don't make the paranoid shift is that knowledge brings responsibility. If we acknowledge that an inner circle of ruling elites controls the world's most powerful military and intelligence system; controls the international banking system; controls the most effective and far-reaching propaganda network in history; controls all three branches of government in the world's only superpower; and controls the technology that counts the people's votes, we might be then forced to conclude that we don't live in a particularly democratic system. And then voting and making contributions and trying to stay informed wouldn't be enough. Because then the duty of citizenship would go beyond serving as a loyal opposition, to serving as a "loyal resistance"—like the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, except that in this case the resistance to fascism would be on the side of the national ideals, rather than the government; and a violent insurgency would not only play into the empire's hands, it would be doomed from the start.

Forming a nonviolent resistance movement, on the other hand, might mean forsaking some middle class comfort, and it would doubtless require a lot of work. It would mean educating ourselves and others about the nature of the truly apocalyptic beast we face. It would mean organizing at the most basic neighborhood level, face to face. (We cannot put our trust in the empire's technology.) It would mean reaching across turf lines and transcending single-issue politics, forming coalitions and sharing data and names and strategies, and applying energy at every level of government, local to global. It would also probably mean civil disobedience, at a time when the Bush regime is starting to classify that action as "terrorism." In the end, it may mean organizing a progressive confederacy to govern ourselves, just as our revolutionary founders formed the Continental Congress. It would mean being wise as serpents, and gentle as doves.

It would be a lot of work. It would also require critical mass. A paradigm shift.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/011004Hasty/011004hasty.html

[Q]

84. You have posters on this very thread...

...who absolutely refuse to believe that election 2000 was anything other than a 'close race'. Wouldn't it be a good start to at least get THEM to look at the evidence and have them join the ranks of those who already know?

- Ignorance is the enemy.

[Q]

50. Now what?

- Saying the 2000 election 'sucks' is a bit of an understatement...don't ya think? You're robbed of your heritage and all you can say is that it 'sucks'?

- I'm not sure you and a few others understand what we're up against. This is about more than the Bushies stealing an election. It's about OUR representatives and the American media allowing it to happen.

- You say that all we can do now is to make sure it doesn't happen again. But just how do you expect this to happen when the very people we count on to 'police' the system are part of the corruption?

[Selwynn]

61. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO ABOUT IT, Q?

That's what I'm asking.

I'm sick of bullshitting about it. What does it matter if my level of "indignation" about the 2000 elections meets with your approval or not? Who cares? What does it matter? I was robbed of my heritage? Well big deal. My "heritage" was robbed from me a long, long time ago bud - 2000 just stopped being discreet about it. Now instead of pretending I have a "real" choice in politics and not just the pro-choice and pro-life wing of the corporate party, the pretense was dropped. Heh, to be honest, you know, I'm kind of thankful for the honesty. At least no one was insulting my intelligence in 2000 by acting like it was a democratic election.

You keep acting like, because I disagree with you, I just don't get it. Well that's fine, but you also continue to not answer my simplest of questions. Talk is cheap, my friend. And I'm sick of talking about it. You show me how your righteous indignation about this, and every other pet issue you have is going to translate into

CHANGE

and I will get interested in a big hurry.

So I say to you again -- the 2000 elections were a disaster. I don't know the scope of the fraud, I don't know that will ever know for certain. But it is clear that the wrong person was elected into office. That seems abundantly clear to me. I don't consider this a revolutionary occurrence in politics but just another in a long string of corruption that has alienated politics from the people. So I accept all of that OK? I accepted it last time you posted it. I accepted it the last fifteen times other people posted it. And I tell others the truth whenever I can.

But big. fucking. deal. What is to be done about it? I want to see people like you spending as much time writing about PLANS for a BETTER AMERICA as you do writing about the past and how we should be so outraged and pissed off about it all. I am outraged. I am pissed off. I'm also running out of patience and hope. Do you have message for a better future? If not, I'm not interested.

Sel

[dpibel]

63. Hurt Feelings or Hurt System?

Selwynn sez:

"Most of the time it sounds to me like many left leaning people seem to care more about their own hurt and need for vindication than about what is really necessary to make a better tomorrow in this country."

I may just be obtuse, but I don't see the reference to "my own hurt" in Q's original post, or in any of the posts arguing that the failed 2000 election and its sequelae deserve a great deal more attention than they've gotten. There is some anger there, but, gosh, isn't anger rather an appropriate response when things have happened that run contrary to all that wonderful stuff we've heard all our lives about America being the sole bastion of true representative democracy? Doesn't it make sense for people to be, oh, just a tad outraged when an election for the highest office in the land is decided by a Supreme Court decision so meritless that the court takes the bizarre step of labeling its own decision of no precedential value?

I guess you think not.

I think it's about the viability of our already shaky form of governance. That's not personal hurt feelings; it's about anger at a fundamental betrayal.

Selwynn further sez:

"Ok, the 2000 elections sucked. I know it. You know it. Most people know it."

It's possible that most people on this tiny political discussion board know that "the 2000 elections sucked," although anyone reading this thread would conclude that, even here, the "sucked" position is a minority. In fact, this thread shows precisely the effect of media complicity in the whole fiasco (and please note that complicity can be after the fact, which is to say I don't need to believe in some grand conspiracy to say that the media are complicit). The official story since the start has been (1) The Fierce Warrior Chieftain won it fair and square and (2) SoreLoserman and their brainwashed minions are just a bunch of whiners. Note that this story has been so effectively told that there are people posting here who report it as the unvarnished truth.

The very point of the original post is that what "Most people know" is this: "Ummm. Like, there was some weird thing about the election, y'know, and, ummm, that guy (what was his name?), oh yeah, that Gore guy (you know--the liar guy), whined cuz he got beat. So what's the big deal?"

You all naysayers may feel that the very most prudent electoral strategy is to play along. After all, if the Democratic candidate were to tell the truth, people might get upset, because Americans prefer to believe that they live in God's very own blessed nation and that our system of government is the unassailable model for the rest of the huddled masses. If you explain that the something rotten isn't in Denmark anymore, the American people might get sad or upset.

This may be true. If it is, then I suggest that the very best electoral strategy (and, hell, it worked for Reagan, so why not) is this: "Vote for me, and I'll give you a PONY!!" If what you're saying is that the American public is so poleaxed that it would rather hear comfortable lies than uncomfortable truth, it says something about you, and it says a lot about your opinion of the American public.

A point not directed at any specific poster on this thread:

I find it endlessly fascinating that Americans are quite free in offering their opinions and advice to the people of other countries where coups happen. "Hail's bails! If I wuz there and the stole my vote, I'd never rest until I personally threw those bastids out and returned my country to freedom." When the shoe's on this foot, that same bold freedom fighter says, "Aw, shucks. What's a little vote thievery among friends? Heck. That was a sucky election, but I bet we'll do better next time."

But then, America has long suffered from a bad sauce goose/sauce gander problem.

[Selwynn]

70. (edit) nm - I'm overkilling my point.

I just want to see more forward-thinking writing about how to rebuild the country that has been so torn down - not with ideological rhetoric but with clear, concrete pracitcal examples...

...believe me, I take that as a challegne to myself, to write in the same way. The problem is, I'm not really sure I believe the country is "save-able." That's part of my problem today.

[populistmom]

44. You're very right

And when I get ahold of a few hundred million dollars, I'll create my own media network to nationally expose this (if I don't end up dead in a small plane first).
It's a scary f*cking place to be now and it's very hard to know what to do other than talking to people and trying to expose things for what they really are.

[Malva Zebrina]

45. One needs to stand up to a bully.

No one did so, except the black caucus. Because no one did so, we are in the mess that Bush has brought/forced upon us. This should have been taken care of immediately--calls for illegality should have been rampant amongst the Democrats. Instead they retreated and let Bush have his way with them. Because of that, there has been no outrage, and a coup d'etat is likely to happen again, with the example of Bush as the benchmark to success of anyone wishing to try it again .

One does not do that to a bully. It is simple human nature to understand that once bullied, the door is left open to more. Democrats are afraid of Bush and thosse who advocate letting it go by are equally scared of him. He , the measly coward he is, loves that image of himself as one "feared" as he gazes into the mirror.

I have lost a good deal of respect for Democrats. I do not like to be negative, but the reality cannot be avoided: we have been battered not only by Bush, but by our own weak kneed, scared, tu tu wearing party. I must vote for one of them, but it will be more a vote against Bush than anything else .

[Cocoa]

49. Gore stood up

he contested the election, even after he'd conceded it.

He called Bush back, Bush got snippy, but Gore fought on for six weeks, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court.

[Q]

53. And meanwhile...'New Dems' like Lieberman were asking him to concede...

...as part of the 'move on' movement that has enabled Bush* corruption ever since.

- Gore needed help from the Democratic leadership...but they were mysteriously silent as BushCo* rigged and steamrolled the election.

- The American media did their best to coverup the election fraud and the crimes of the Supreme Court...until 9-11 came along and all was forgotten. What a coincidence!

[Cocoa]

58. Dick Durbin was advising him to concede

publicly, at least. Chicago DUers may remember him showing up in the local media being less than supportive of Gore's fight.

No one would call Durbin a "new dem", while Gore is in fact a New Dem, one of the fouding ones. So your use of "new dem" is just bringing in irrelevant hot-button terminology. I'm surprised you didn't throw "neocon" in there too, that's another one that's always appearing for no reason.

Durbin also by DU consensus is one of the fighters in the party, so what happened in 2000 is more complicated than wimpines vs. courage.

[Triana]

54. until articles like this one...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/opinion/18SUN1.html

Are on the front page of every mainstream paper and headlined on CNN and Fox, it won't happen.

As long as these are relegated to the 'opinion' back pages, it won't happen. If it does, it'll be 20 years from now and the American public, which has a .00004 ms attention span, will have long since forgotten it all.

bu$hit and his accomplices rely on just that fact. Not only to cover up the stolen election, but the bogus 'war on terra', and war in Iraq, as well as every other moral, ethical, and legal crime the cabal has committed since it occupied this country.

Politicians are like a weathervane. It's up to Americans to make the wind blow. Unfortunately, they're too lazy, complacent, and lack the attention span to do it. Lucky for the politicians. Lucky for the corprats. Bad for the rest of us.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[soup]

59. agonizingly close loss?

Got that right.
5 - 4

[Beam Me Up]

62. "agonizingly close loss"

No. The point is, the election WASN'T LOST. What was lost was any pretense of living in a society governed by law.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

64. Typical 'get over it' talking point

I'm always amazed that Repukes-who say they're patriotic-have now trouble shitting on the Constitution if it means their candidate won. What if the show was on the other foot? How much do you want to bet the whining would still be all over Faux, msRNC, and the Conservative News Network.

[Terwilliger]

71. Oh, there's no doubt that pukes would still be wailing like infants

but the party leadership isn't saying anything about 2000, and calling it a coup simply undercuts them

[Beam Me Up]

76. If telling the truth

"undercuts" the leadership of the Democratic party, perhaps the Democratic party needs new leadership.

[Terwilliger]

78. hey, I agree

but that's not going to change overnight, unfortunately

[Beam Me Up]

88. Most unfortunate, indeed.

And, frankly, I'm not convinced that "more of the same" from our Democratic leadership is going to offer any real redress of this situation.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frank frankly]

74. i will be polite and gracious

best of luck here at DU, RSR!

love,
a shrieking amateur

[Q]

81. No...the first step in 'losing' the 2004 election would be to ignore...

...the lessons of the past. And it seems you have done little research on why Bush* is in the WH instead of Gore. Hint: it wasn't a 'close' election. It was stolen in broad daylight. That you and millions of other people don't seem to know about it simply proves that the American media was able to hide the truth.

- "Simplistic" is the American people as sheep...willing to look the other way as their government commits treason and worse.

- What's 'sensible' or 'moderate' about ignoring the truth? What SHOULD drive the political process is a quest for truth and the common good. Ignoring that our whole political process is corrupt and that our government is getting away with criminal acts doesn't make one sensible. It make one complicit.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terwilliger]

65. nope...no coup

please

[Jacobin]

75. I agree 100%, but also am resigned to the fact that 90% of the public

will never admit that it happened. They are in deep denial that their country could ever do anything "bad", despite Vietnam, political assasinations around the world, etc etc etc.

[Q]

89. It's true...

...half of the country is in 'deep denial'...and the other 'half' has had their voices taken away. And then we have the squishy middle that insists we should do nothing but TAKE IT and suffer.

- Is this how democracies end? Not with a bang...but a WHIMPER?