Agree or Disagree?: Priority #1 should be 2006 midterm elections

[brentspeak]

It's fun to speculate about 2008, but if we don't focus on first-things-first (2006), we can kiss everything else 'goodbye'.

[wryter2000]

1. Agree

We must win one house of Congress. If we do, there will be serious inquiries into Rovakgate (Rachel Maddown's term) and DSM. That could win 2008 for us.

[NMDemDist2]

2. aye n/t

[FogerRox]

4. Election reform & GOod dems in 2006

[Vincardog]

23. ELECTION REFORM in 06

We won in 2000 and 2004 and they STOLE it. Why do you think they can get away with anything? Forget 2008 if we do not get open fair elections we are lost.

[IChing]

35. kick

But that is why 2006 election and election reform is important not 2008

[PATRICK]

50. Check out

the updated election reform reports on DU and your local paper and you will see simply fighting back Diebold is a mammoth undertaking. despite the revelations, the obvious dangers and record, the HAVA pressures, the salesmanship, the myth that touchscreens are better take precedence.

As if the wheel had never been invented, the march of ignorance bewildered and bending to pressure form the "reforms" heading their way is incredible. It sometimes seems you have to literally deprogram the ignoramuses who TRUST the stuff coming at them and cannot imagine what computer security means, cannot read their own news stories, cannot see how their own oxes have and will be gored by fraud. Their is built in haste to get more crime in place with vapor ballots in addition to all the tabulation fraud.

Your local and state election officials may be more conversant on baseball stats than the hair raising, blindingly simple threats oozing into their districts.

For which they will pay millions and gripe and grumble- and submit. Many are not, but it seems there will be more room for fraud next time, not less- and little prospect of protecting the tabulation process above the machines.

It might even come down to the SCOTUS ruling that districts must purchase the offending touch-screens to safeguard the rights of the blind. Supreme irony of sublime hypocrisy.

Everyone is blind except for the critics of this plot against democracy. But try and tell them that politely. The average Jowe can be educated in three minutes, but all too many schmoozer bureaucrats for various reasons are immune to basic logic and criticism of their circles. Many are plain corrupt and an integral part of the problem, but not all.

[FogerRox]

68. Actually election reform N O W !!

[genius]

67. Disagree.2006 is a guaranteed loss because of elect voting.

The best we can do is stand strong and get people to push on all members of Congress to impeach now.

[deadparrot]

3. Agree.

If for no other reason that for our own morale.

Right now, the Democrats are not a national party. The far right holds *everything*. A good showing in 2006 can go a long way towards boosting in-party spirits and paving the way for 2008 and beyond.

[Imagevision]

58. Absolutely - Rovegate could be a boost for Dems in 06

[IChing]

5. Agree sometimes I wonder who is pushing the 2008 talk

OK, it's fun to fantasize,
but 6 different posts?

Without more democrats in the house and senate
2008 means nothing.
I want impeachments, investigations, hearings etc.
and you not gonna get those with
the makeup of Congress right now.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

6. It's absolutely vital to focus on the mid-term elections.

We Dems need to get at least the House or the Senate back in our column.

[Boredtodeath]

7. Electronic voting MUST be Priority #1

Without solving that problem, we'll continue to be eaten alive by vote stealing.

You can't vote them out if you didn't vote them in.

[Zinfandel]

12. NO QUESTION ABOUT IT! ELECTRONIC VOTING, NOTHING IS EVEN CLOSE!!!!

(Just remember the senate race in Georgia, double digit lead for the democrat, the night before the election democrat is ahead of the republican all night but in the morning....the democrat loses to a republican by many points even though the exit polling clearly showed the democrat won...They have 100% electronic voting machines in Georgia)

"In the 2002 mid-term elections , the Republicans "shocked" Democrats by solidifying their power in Congress, using the same fraudulent methods, along with new and improved black box technology.

"The technology had a trial run in the 2002 mid-term elections. In Georgia, serviced by new Diebold systems, a popular Democratic governor and senator were both unseated in what the media called ‘amazing’ upsets, with results showing vote swings of up to 16 percent from the last pre-ballot polls. In computerized Minnesota, former Vice President Walter Mondale—a replacement for popular incumbent Paul Wellstone, who died in a plane crash days before the vote—was also defeated in a large last-second vote swing. Convenient ‘glitches’ in Florida saw an untold number of votes intended for the Democratic candidate registering instead for Governor Jeb "L'il Brother" Bush. A Florida Democrat who lost a similarly ‘glitched’ local election went to court to have the computers examined—but the case was thrown out by a judge who ruled that the innards of America's voting machines are the ‘trade secrets’ of the private companies who make them."

In 2003, black box voting also helped oust Governor Gray Davis and installed Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Democratic stronghold of California.

The probability of a fix was obvious throughout the 2004 presidential campaign. Corporate media polls continued to predominantly favor Bush, never dipping his rating below 48 percent, despite his trouncing in three straight debates with Kerry, and despite mushrooming war scandals. This was in stark contrast to independent surveys that showed Kerry with commanding leads. Kerry momentum, and massive Kerry/anti-Bush voter turnout, was evident on election day, and confirmed by exit polls with dominant Kerry numbers.

Then what?

Greg Palast reveals in exhaustive detail that John Kerry won the 2004 election and had it stolen through such methods as "spoilage", intimidation, polling place chicanery, ethnic cleansing of polls. (See Kerry Won .)

Once again, criminals do not "permit" elections. They make them. This time, the Bush forces had years of unencumbered time to orchestrate it, from Ohio (where its notorious secretary of state is the head of the Bush re-election campaign), and, of course, Jeb Bush’s Florida."

[skids]

19. So what you are saying...

...is that we should pour ALL our resources into voting reform, and then end up with a bunch of fairly elected republicans because we didn't run a campaign for our candidates?

Sorry, I'm a big and active supporter of voting reform, but this kind of talk is not productive. There are plenty of places where the fraud operation does not have a foothold, and we should hit them hard in those places. And we should hit them hard even where there is fraud, so it will be obvious this time that they had to resort to fraud.

[Zinfandel]

24. You don't seem to understand, where ever there are electronic voting

machines, they are owned by republicans.

The self proclaimed republican corporations who donate to the republican party, every day across this country more & more of these same electronic voting machines are being quietly put in place.

The democrats have at least two bills SITTING in Congress, FOR reform and TO correct the republican owned electronic voting machine process...BUT TOM DELAY AND HASSERT WILL NOT ALLOW THE DEMOCRATS BILLS TO COME TO THE FLOOR OR EVEN BE DISCUSSED, SO OF COURSE NO VOTE CAN BE TAKEN, NOTHING WILL CHANGE. THE REPUBLICANS LIKE THE VOTING MACHINES AS THEY ARE.

What good is winning or "hitting them hard in those places" if you win in those areas, but get your ass kicked everywhere else around the country of importance...the key is to get back Congress, first, number one goal, to have any real chance to change and adjust our laws and what will be brought on to the floor...IF YOU WIN 212 SEATS IN THE AREAS WHICH YOU SPEAK OF BUT THE DEMOCRATS LOSE SAY, 20 SEATS ILLEGALLY THROUGH THE REPUBLICAN OWNED MACHINES...WHAT GOOD IS IT? THE REPUBLICANS will STILL HOLD ON TO CONGRESS WITH THE MAJORITY OF SEATS.

More elections will be stolen! Under the bullshit guise of the "Help America Vote Act" Critical races that will determine and the outcome tipped, the power illegally stolen but nothing done because they are the majority party.

The republicans are not, of course going after every race to steal, right now they can't (there's NOT electronic voting machines everywhere, not yet) the republicans just need a few key races to steal to hold on to that majority...Just like in the 2004 presidential election, they didn't try and steal every state, just a precinct her and a precinct there and it adds up to getting the numbers they wanted and desperately needed, to "win".

As you speak they are coming into your state and mine, here in California...Where ever there is republican as Secretary of State, more voting machine are flooding in...don't be the least bit surprised the next time you go vote and see electonic voting machines owned by republicans in place of the other voting machines you were using.

"In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, which provided $3.6 billion to upgrade voting systems across the U.S. But many critics have raised questions about the security of electronic voting systems, and some question how voting machines can be audited if voting fraud is suspected. Other critics have raised questions about board members of Diebold Election Systems, an ETC member, contributing money to the Republican Party.

The American vote count is controlled by three major corporate players, Diebold , ESS , Sequoia , and a fourth, SAIC , Science Applications International. All four are hard-wired into the Bush power structure, the Bush crime family.

They have been given millions of dollars by the Bush regime to complete a sweeping computerization of voting machines that were just used in the 2004 election. The technology involved had a trial run during the 2002 mid-term elections. Georgia had Diebold machines in every precinct. As a result, a popular Democratic governor and senator were both unseated in what the media called an "amazing" 16 percent swing.

Diebold’s Walden O’Dell, a top Bush fundraiser, publicly committed himself to delivering his home state Ohio’s votes to Bush. At Diebold, the election division is run by Bob Urosevich. Bob’s brother, Todd, is a top executive at "rival" ES&S. The brothers were originally staked by Howard Ahmanson, a member of the Council For National Policy , a right-wing steering group stacked with Bush true believers. Ahmanson is also one of the bagmen behind the extremist Christian Reconstruction Movement , which advocates the theocratic takeover of American democracy.

The four companies are interconnected; they are not four "competitors". Ahmanson has large stakes in ES&S, whose former CEO was Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. When Hagel ran for office, his own company counted the votes, and his victory was considered "an amazing upset". Hagel still has a million dollar stake in ES&S.

Sequoia is the corporate parent of a private equity firm, Madison Dearborn , which is partner in the Carlyle Group . (Also see here .)

Meanwhile, SAIC is referred to a "shadowy defense contractor". They have gotten into the vote count game both directly and through spinoffs by its top brass, including Admiral Bill Owens, former military aide to Dick Cheney, and Carlyle Group honcho Frank Carlucci and ex-CIA chief Robert Gates. SAIC’s history of fraud charges and security "lapses" haven’t prevented it from becoming one of the largest Pentagon and CIA contractors, and will doubtless encounter few obstacles in its entrance into the vote counting business.

The mad rush to install these unverifiable computers is driven by the Help America Vote Act, signed by Bush! The chief lobbying group pushing for the act (while we dumb asses sat out here and thought, ‘That sounds like a good idea!’) was a consortium of arms dealers including Northrup Grumman and Lockheed Martin."

And on and on it goes, they are NOT being stopped!

[skids]

32. And exactly how many...

...of those installations are you going to stop/fix in 471 days (and counting)??? I really want to know. How long is it going to take each BoE/SoS to convince? After that, how many BoEs/SoSs are going to overturn their vendor selections, bid out new contracts, and rewire their entire system, and how much time will they have to do it?

Face the facts... it won't be fixed by 2006. Swamping the system is going to be our only hope in some places. We have to either overcome their capability to tweak, or make it painfully obvious they cheated.

As much respect as I have for pushing this issue, and praise for those successes that we have got so far, their are balls headed towards the floor right now and unless someone catches it, it will be dropped.

I have seen absolutely zero advanced organizing being promoted on the local level for poll watching, registration monitoring, and day-of support activities. With 2005 off-season contests coming up, you would think we'd be having some practice runs by now, but I don't see them. Wake up. Very soon a big voice is going to come down from the sky and say "pencils down, the test is over" and we'll still be stuck on question 1.

[tavalon]

41. Do you really think

That they can't change a 20% lead as easily as a 2% one?

[skids]

53. Do you really think...

That they can't change a 2% lead by only having 10% of precincts under their control?

[PurityOfEssence]

22. Absolutely. Second is to concentrate on the House for '06

There is simply no other issue that imperils the Republic like unverifiable voting. With that unresolved, the rest is rather moot.

Still, we shouldn't just focus on one thing; we should aggressively target any vulnerable Republicans and actively help marginal Dems. American's have an idiotic celebrity fixation, that's why the Presidency takes so much attention. Taking the House next year is very possible, and having control of it would ratfuck the neocons and theocrats bigtime.

[chieftain]

8. Agree. The power to investigate is the key to the '08

presidential election.

[IChing]

52. exactly, that is why the house, voting rights and local elections count

[Stinky The Clown]

9. My views on 2006

Our number one job would be to get more Dems elected and to hold every dem seat we have now. I would like nothing more than to see the Joementum crowd out on their asses, but that's for later. Right now, our energy and campaign dollars would be best spent supporting dems running against repubs that can be beat. In general, these would be the very odious ones (Delay, Drier, that sort) and the moderates (Snowe, Shays, Chafee). I don't know if any of these are specifically up for reelection, so I've cited them here just to suggest the types we should be targeting. I'd like to see national support for these kinds of races.

We also need to work hard in our own states to to get local dems in local seats .... like secretaries of states!

[lumpy]

60. Good post, Husb2

Hope everyone reads it. Good points.

[newswolf56]

10. Absolutely. Though we will be that much stronger if...

genuine economic hope is embodied in the leading 2008 contender. (I believe the economy will be the chief issue in 2008 because by then skyrocketing fuel prices and federal borrowing from China will have culminated in total economic collapse -- even as the Bush assault on working families and the poor will have totally destroyed the social safety net.)

[Angry Girl]

11. Fine. But who's going to count the votes THIS time?

I mean, I voted ONCE in my life, just ONCE, and that was in 2004, when I still thought America held fair presidential elections. After reading the mountain of evidence and testimonials and the coverups from the wretched aftermath, I now know that to be the most naive thing I've ever believed.

So what's a girl to do?

[IChing]

13. Work locally on local elections and congressional elections.

the 2004 presidential election was another matter that everyone including our hero Andy was working on.

[Stil]

14. Time is counting down to 2006

Also getting a bigger base next year in turn helps the chance in the 2008 election. Having those people who worked for the elections and support from any new areas will help in the future.

[tedoll78]

15. I'll refine that statement even further.

The Supreme Court is our priority (or should be). If Stevens were to croak in his sleep one night, we'd be sooooo screwed, with only three "liberals" on the court. Thus, it would follow that getting a majority in the Senate is of utmost concern. And if not a majority, then at least a nuclear-proof minority in the Senate (48 or 49), assuming that there are at least one or two Repubs who refuse to obliterate the filibuster.

That's where my mind is for 2006. Getting investigations & nailing Rove is nice and all, but a bad nominee could be on that bench until 2040 for all we know. Sit and think about that for a while: a Scalia clone.. until 2040..

[IChing]

16. I want to recommend this thread for this reason.

If we do not get great gains in 2006 we got nothing even if we have a democratic president for he/she will not take office until

2009

[brentspeak]

18. And, added to that,

without more Democratic governors and Senators in office, it makes it that much more difficult to win the White House (because local politicians are responsible for rolling out the welcome-mat for their party's nominee).

[eallen]

17. Emphastically, absolutely agree.

[WMliberal]

20. If someone wants to show me they're good 2008 material, they better do

a hell of a lot of fund-raising and grass-roots stumping and
canvassing in 2006.

If they think they can be the nominee/public face for the
party, they need to show they're good at its most important
party role: attracting new voters and donors.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. Absolutely

At a minimum, the Democrats should take back the House.

To take a majority in the Senate would be difficult, but not impossible.

If the Democrats can't do that they will lose what credibility they have left as an opposition party.

[tibbir]

25. 2006 has to be taken care of

before the focus turns to 2008

[IChing]

28. Seems like some like to talk about the far, far future

2009 is a long way away until someone else takes over the office of President.

Unless we impeach

[shelley806]

26. ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE. The #1 priority should be on the Iraq War,

the unjust lies that brought us into War, the daily death count which should include Iraqis citizens, the Rovegate/Plamegate affair, the Media which is filling us with pablum and daily lies, because 75% of it is owned by corporations who have an interest in making blood money off this War just like B* and his Whole Evil Family for decades,
restoring DIGNITY to this sorry ass Democratic Party and our pathetic non-representatives, revealing the ELECTION FRAUD and the SCOTUS NOMINATION of 2004 and 2000.....

WAKE UP.....YOUR COUNTRY IS NO LONGER YOURS. GET THOSE THUGS OUT OF OFFICE NOW...NOT IN 2006...NOW. NOT ONE MORE LIE, NOT ONE MORE DEATH........

[ncteechur]

27. agree

[IChing]

29. kick

[liberaliraqvet26]

30. Agree....

If with any luck we can cath the house, we can hold all the hearing we want and force the media to cover us.

[Panda1]

31. Yup

State by state....who's up for re-election, ratings, open seats etc.

http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/Retire06.htm

[Catchawave]

33. 2005 Gov elections....Virginia !

Kaine (dem) vs. Kilgore (rove)....let the nasties begin!!!

More details in the DU's Virginia forum.....join us :)

[EFerrari]

34. Disagree. Secure elections have to be #1.

What do we have without our vote?

[JNelson6563]

36. Agree!

Those wasting time dreaming of 08 should be flogged and then put to work on 06.

Julie

[IChing]

37. I agree, 08 talk is useless, it is really 09 when someone takes office

Look at the low post numbers on some people posting on those threads. mmmm????

[IChing]

38. Notice the low posting counts of some of the people on the 2008 threads

Also they have no profile and do not post on this thread.

IE> NancyG

[pat_k]

39. Priority 1: Trustworthy Elections

Election Revolt!

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. If we fail to fight for our right to have confidence in our elections, we are truly insane.

What good does it do to promote candidates for 2006 if elections across the nation are corrupted by systematic vote suppression, data manipulation, human and machine error, and fraud?

Massive overhaul is needed in every state. We must demand what we require. The recommendations in Conyers report are a start.

DREs have no place in free, fair, and open elections. The bottom line on the machines is this:

1) Secret Vote Counting is Unlawful.

2) Direct Recording Electronic voting machines (DREs) count our votes in secret. This is intolerable.

Sure, machines could be used to capture choices in a way that prevents over or under-votes, but the output must be a paper ballot and that voter verified paper ballot MUST be the official ballot. No result can be official until those ballots are counted in a way that is open to public scrutiny.

Every citizen must be afforded an equal opportunity to cast their vote and have that vote accurately counted. Hours long poll tax lines and other intolerable barriers render an election invalid.

Tragically, a vast majority of the organizations like the Center for American Progress or the National Priorities Project fail to include trustworthy elections as a priority. Trustworthy elections never seem to appear on those "What is most important to you" polls."

Even the ACLU fails to include voting rights -- our most basic right -- on the list of rights they are dedicated to preserving.

This is insanity.

It is imperative that every organization fighting for us on other fronts include the fight for Trustworthy Elections.

If you care about preserving the consent of the governed – our founding principle – please call, write, and fax the ACLU and other organizations that are failing to fight for voter rights. Take a look and see if the organizations you support have joined the fight. If they haven't, make some noise.

[tavalon]

40. Diebold

Fix that while focusing on 2006.

[pat_k]

43. It's one and the same

The fight for 2006 and the fight for our right to have confidence in our elections can be one and the same.

Fighting for free, fair, and open elections is an issue that activates citizens across the spectrum. Any candidate committed to taking up the battle will energize and enlist vast numbers.

Pushing organizations to join the fight is a priority, but if we want our candidates to WIN, we need to make sure they are VERY VISIBLY committed to the fight.

At public events, crowds consistently cheer loudest when an elected official says anything related to the fight for trustworthy elections. If they say "stolen election" the crowd goes wild.

Tragically, very few of them include elections in their "issues list." If we want them to win, we MUST change that.

http://tabletalk.salon.com/webx?14@@.773a529d/2575">Related post on TableTalk

[welshTerrier2]

42. great ... almost everyone agrees ... i don't ...

focussing on 2006, 2008 or any other year is, in my view, short-term thinking ... it is thinking that puts politics and strategy ahead of platform and principle ...

there are two key things the Democratic Party needs to focus on as their highest priorities ... one is, party unification ... unification will NOT come about by selecting a candidate acceptable to all; it will come about by opening up the party for more participation ... it will come about when party leaders truly respect, by both words and deeds, all constituencies within the party ...

the second is platform ... we cannot be a party that in the name of being a big tent tries to be all things to all people ... a truly tragic example of this was Dean's recent endorsement of Casey for Senate in PA ... Casey is not only anti-abortion; he's anti-choice ... when Americans come to know the Democratic Party as a party that will do or say anything to get elected and as a party who stands for winning more than they stand for any principle, our candidates will start their races with both legs tied together ...

planning now for 2006 is of course critically necessary ... but the Democratic Party cannot continue to operate without clearly defined values and clearly defined issues positions ... we seem to be for and against abortion, for and against the occupation of Iraq, for and against globalization ... and i fear that many former ABB activists who fought hard for Kerry will not continue to just support any candidate the Democrats nominate ... i believe the activist base of the party is strongly in favor of withdrawal from Iraq while most of the more likely big name Dems seem to favor continued occupation until some unattainable goal is achieved ...

2006 is obviously a very high priority but it should be seen as a key component of a long-term planning process; not an end in itself ... and it is this long-term planning process to address key problems the party faces that should be the Democrats' highest priority ...

[sakabatou]

44. Agree

If we don't take back the house and senate, who knows what will happen.

[Chichiri]

45. 100% agree.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. Agree

At this point, any talk about the 2008 candidate is "an attractive nuisance," a distraction meant to get us all emotionally involved in the next presidential campaign so that we flub the midterm elections.

Frankly, we could elect some president who had great ideas and was beloved by the entire party in 2008, and he would be helpless if the Republicans made gains in 2006.

Remember that and don't feed the trolls who try to push blow-dried, empty-suit, non-threatening, boringly bland Ken dolls as the answer to what ails the nation.

[Califooyah Operative]

47. amen, that and election reform. nt

[laylah]

48. Agree..

Since the last Coup ('04), I have a hard enough time of thinking a month in advance, let alone 3 years. 2006 is going to be very, VERY important and for that reason, I choose to focus on that! That is unless, of course, these bastards stop the freaking games and fess up that they HAVE taken this country over. :mad:

jenn

[johnaries]

49. Agree. There's nothing wrong with "keeping an eye on 2008",

but first things first, we need to win in '06.

In order to do that, we have to make sure we have clean, accurate elections.

[cosmik debris]

51. Why wait

The Repukes don't think in 2 year cycles. They think politics is a year around job. If you want to think of it in cycles while they think of it as linear, you lose.

[lala_rawraw]

54. Ah, I no longer

Trust elections... the focus should be on correcting the reason I don't trust elections and that is by impeaching the administration who 1). was installed in 2000 and 2). who defied the laws of math, probability, and such to "win" 2004.

[Bullwinkle925]

55. I think we can focus on both. Seems our party has been caught like

the proberbial 'deer in the headlights' in regards to what Rove and his dirty bag of tricks has done to us. I would hope that we keep in mind that the opposition has been working on undermining us for years.

[election_2004]

56. Here's my concern....

2006 definitely is important, BUT...

By saying "Let's wait until December 2006 before worrying about 2008"...

Essentially, grassroots activists will be letting corporate power brokers in the Democratic Party coronate the presidential nominee ahead of time, for all intents and purposes shutting the grassroots out of the process.

My point is that it's necessary to focus on 2006 and 2008 SIMULTANEOUSLY.

[wyldwolf]

57. oh, yeah, definitely.

Priority #1 should be to get Democrats elected in the 2006 midterm elections

[lumpy]

59. Definately, a very important race.

We need to get control of the Congress. This vote will be crucial to determine what road the US is going to take.

[Adelante]

61. Absolutely agree

First things first.

[cry baby]

62. no doubt about it! nt

[fujiyama]

63. Agreed...

Either priority number 1 or number 2 (after Rove - though this can be used for elections as well).

I'd say the most important thing about '06 is simply not losing any more seats. We've been bleeding in both '02 and '04. At the minimum we have to contain this. I'd be happy to break out even.

[bunny planet]

64. Win back a Dem majority in both houses and then get rid of those freakin'

vapor not paper machines.

[WLKjr]

65. Agree

[TriMetFan]

66. I Agree with you 100%.

Our #1 priority should be 2006 elections. We need to try and take as much as we can and them worry about 2008. But it is fun wondering who our next Democrat Prez. pick will be.

[Bucky]

69. Disagree. Job One is turning more people against the war in Iraq

When the voters clammer for peace, the pols will move. Voting, particularly since Florida, is a secondary aspect of democracy. The main part of it is the participation by ordinary citizens in the discussions of public affairs.