I listened as his voice cracked. At a major national conference, a colleague from another university—an eminent historian—could barely contain his anguish as he referred to the recent detention bill and its gutting of habeas corpus. A few hours later I listened to two young people who work in the film industry talk about how they fully expected this election… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (38)Page 1 of 1 pagesWill our system of constitutional democracy survive? And for many, this election is a crucial, desperate test.
First principle of a democracy: When you lose an election, you lose an election. That is all the sovereign legitimacy the winner needs. Raising unsubstantiated conspiratorial cries of fixed elections just because you are a sore loser is the sign of an emerging fascist state.
It is incredible that liberals would be at the vanguard of this emergence.
Will the Republicans pay for the public’s opposition to the war in Iraq?
Well, the public will have that opportunity very soon. Oh, I forgot. If the Republicans don’t lose, that is first-class evidence that the elections were once again, stolen?
I believe psychologists have a few words on the subject of denial that liberals should read up on.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2006 at 2:06 PM Right. This is however not about libs or cons.
You are in a state of denial, holding on to the grand ole party come hell or high water...yeh ahh. Wake up Jay and stop being buggered by the party you put all your faith in.
Principles and actions for the common good of all man are at stake and you could care less. Whats that about backing a so called winning horse. Just becuase democracy got BUSH the ticket to your meal does not give him all house privilages shmuck. Thats your democracy for ye!
And conspiracy thoeries are disregarded becuase they are conspiracy thoeries, right? What better propoganda could the BUSH admin use as a weapon?!
Posted by Watson2006 on Nov 2, 2006 at 9:15 AM Dude,
How is calling for a little respect towards the will of the people, as expressed by elections, considered partisan?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 2, 2006 at 2:34 PM I hear the Dems have 7000 lawyers standing by in all 50 states to challenge any election they lose.
If they know about a specific case of voting fraud, wouldn’t it be a great idea to challenge it BEFORE the election?
Or is it axiomatic that if the Democrats lose an election, it can only be because the election was a fraud?
Think about it.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 2, 2006 at 2:51 PM Well, Mr. Cline, the election of 2000 was definitely stolen and I have read
a lengthy article by RFK, Jr. demonstrating the same about 2004.
As far as the far right representing the will of even half the people that
show up to vote, that’s arguable to put it charitably.
If the Dems lose this we need to get a new progressive party.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 2, 2006 at 6:44 PM jc,
If you are a serious about your view that US elections are both fair and transparent, you would of course support tasystem that ensured that all elections for public officials were conducted by a non partisan body, and that every vote is recorded by marking ballot papers, that every vote is counted, and that scrutineers are able to watch while people who are not partisan, actually count the votes.If you do not support such a process, you are not serious about a properly functioning democracy. US election procedures are a laughing stock in every democratic country in the world. You have the goddamned cheek to invade everyone else to impose democracy, but you are completely incapable of embracing the most basic checks and balances to ensure that it functions properly in the US. I do not doubt that your partisan opponents also engage in underhand practices, but the solution is root and branch reform, not a childish version of ‘he did it too, so why shouldn’t I ‘
Posted by Jane Doe on Nov 3, 2006 at 12:21 AM blonde,
You’re right of course. I do remember RFK Jr, as the prosecuting attorney, successfully make that argument in a court of law. I just don’t remember in which county.
A little help here?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2006 at 11:12 AM Starboy aka Jane.
absolutely! anyone with a passing familiarity with Logic 101 would insist that your first paragraph, by necessity, follows my statements.
Unfortunately, you have always succumbed to your stereotypes, as evidenced in your second paragraph, which is a pile of hooey.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2006 at 11:15 AM JC, I’m just familiar with the Rollingstones article and a recent Progressive interview. At the time in 2004 I did not think it was
an analogous situation to 2000. I’ve changed my mind.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 3, 2006 at 12:48 PM bm, still wondering what county bobby’s little boy prosecuted this stolen election scandal.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2006 at 1:18 PM Jay, your neocon line is getting very old. All of the Ohio GOP figures from
Governor Taft on down are as crooked as a dog’s hind leg.
I believe it many counties, not just one in Ohio. Check out the Rollingstone piece and tell Cheney to give you some new talking points.
Let’s just see what happens on Tuesday.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 3, 2006 at 3:58 PM Criminal conspiracies are tried in court, dude.
Which county?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2006 at 4:02 PM The only thing scary about this election is the number of high-ranking Jihad leaders that very much want the Democrats in power. This interview piece of Jihadists at the World Net Daily is simply astounding -
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747
Yes this site might lean conservative, but these are the words of the terrorists themselves. So, answer me this. If Bush’s policies were “creating terrorists” and otherwise furthering their cause, why wouldn’t the terrorists want to keep with success and endorse Republican policy of staying in Iraq? Why would they want Democrats in power?
Having such evil people so clearly endorse one political party over another I’m sure is unprecendented in American politics.
Posted by Hyjinx22 on Nov 3, 2006 at 7:02 PM blonde,
I am stumbling over some of your logic -
Let’s just see what happens on Tuesday.
How is this relevant to allegations of corrupt balloting? Are you saying if the Democrats win, then that is proof of corruption? Or are you saying the Democrats will always win a fair fight and the only way a Republican can win is through corruption?
Have you read my first post on democracy and this pre-emergent fascist attitude amongst Democrats in the past couple elections?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 4, 2006 at 6:41 AM Jay and hyjinx, you dudes need to get a life ! Read the Rollingstone piece by RFK, Jr. What are you two dudes so SCARED of ?
As far as the “terrorists” backing the Dems, where’s the proof ?
Why would they ? If you can READ the daily papers you can see how bush is creating more terrorists in Iraq EVERY day and in Afghanistan
where the Taliban is making a huge comeback.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 6, 2006 at 11:07 AM I am very afraid of mobocracies, where the accused is presumed guilty.
Again, which county prosecutor overturned the “stolen” 2000 election?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 6, 2006 at 11:14 AM The worst Supreme Court decision in history, Gore v. Bush, decided
that stolen election. They stopped the voting and in Florida’s case
as was later the case in Ohio, there were many counties involved.
We need to stop playing this rightist troll’s game and move on.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 6, 2006 at 3:08 PM blondemike -
There is a link in my previous post to the article, copy and paste into the address bar of your web browser. Very scary, that is a sad statement indeed.
Posted by Hyjinx22 on Nov 6, 2006 at 10:46 PM How the hell are we “creating terrorists?” I think in Afghan and Iraq we are doing what all you libs always carp about, addressing the “root causes.” That being rampant injustice, both legal and social in the Arab world by trying to institute representative government and looking forward to a better day. We have to overcome millenia of religious problems in the Arab world, where the teachings of Islam are so intolerant to others it will take a long time. We have win in Iraq and Afghan by all means nessary so we can create the conditions for Arabs to question their beliefs. Unfortunately, it is their religion that is at the root of terrorism. Islam requires a reformation akin the the Christian reformation prior to the Renaissance and we need to support the leaders who can facilitate it. THIS IS THE BIG WAR. The war on terrorism and Iraq are one in the same, we MUST PREVAIL at all costs.
Posted by Hyjinx22 on Nov 6, 2006 at 10:50 PM blonde,
So, there is no democracy in America? There is no justice? It is all a farce?
As I said earlier, if you believe that you are right and the only way you can lose an election is through deceit and fraud, maybe the real problem is your own intolerance towards other viewpoints.
The hell with elections! We need to overthrow the government, by whatever means!
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 7, 2006 at 9:54 AM We are the leading terrorist state in the world followed closely by Israel.
We invade a country for no reason but the lies Bush & the neocons told
us, we overthrow its secular government and put total chaos in its place, we kill hundreds of thousands of its people and displace millions more, we destroy its infrastructure, electricity, roads, schools, mosques, hospitals, water supply, impose curfew to try to control the chaos we created, impose martial law, search homes without warrant or cause, detain thousands of people with no charges, gee, big fella, do you think even you can figure that out, “hyjinx” ? We don’t have any right to impose democracy over there, WE DON’T HAVE IT OVER HERE WITH THE BIG CAPITALIST CORPORATIONS RUNNING EVERYTHING AND BUYING BOTH CORPORATE PARTIES. ISLAM CAN’T BEGIN TO TOUCH THE JEWISH CULT OF CHRISTIANITY WHEN IT COMES TO CRIMES, THEY MURDERED 30 MILLION WITCHES, 30 MILLION BLACK CATS WHICH THEN UNLOOSED A RAT EXPLOISION THAT WIPED OUT HALF OF EUROPE, THE GERMANS KILLED 30 MILLION OF THEMSELVES, AUTO-GENOCIDE, IN THE 30 YEARS PROTESTANT-CATHOLIC WARS, THE US KILLED TENS OF MILLIONS OF AFRICANS, INDIANS, INDOCHINESE, INDONESIANS, ETC. WE MUST LOSE THIS INSANE WAR AND PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE GOING TO SEE THAT WE DO !
Got the message, hyjinx ?
Jay, shouldn’t you be out helping little Joey today ?
Posted by blondemike on Nov 7, 2006 at 10:33 AM blondemike -
Seems I struck a nerve. I’m glad you are honest though, unlike the people that lead your party. At least you admit openly you desire defeat. If we do lose, I hope the Jihadist behead your stupid ass first.
Posted by Hyjinx22 on Nov 7, 2006 at 3:20 PM If we were not in the Middle East for 50 years supporting Israel and all the Arab rightwing dictatorships 9-11 would never have happened.
PERIOD. The Jihadists are not the threat to our liberty & lives, the US
Govt IS, regardless of party, the GOP at present is worse. To be anti-US
foreign policy is not to be pro-Al Queda. That war is not winnable short
of killing everyone over there and then new enemies would pop out from
someplace else. There’s ALWAYS someone to kill and everything will be
fine, the Kaiser, then Hitler, then the Soviets, then Mao except Nixon
befriended him, then the Ayatollah, then Noreiga, then Ortega, then Castro, then Arafat and the list will go on as long as we as a collectivity
are stupid enough to fall for this.
You are in NO danger UNLESS you work for Halliburton in Iraq. The
only danger here is the street crime, two young men of color put two
guns to my wife’s head here in Oakland last week.........fortunately
she survived but 130 people here haven’t this year.
The Dems are not my party, in local & state races I voted GOP & libertarian but nationally I want them to win solely to send a strong
message to Bush and the neocon crazies who run him.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 7, 2006 at 5:01 PM blondemike -
Well, it appears you like the number 30 million. So, every witch had a black cat I suppose. You might also suppose that their were plenty of non-black cats that escaped Christian clutches who may have been able to eat all those damn rats.
Christianity is not without its sins, and I do not wish to see them repeated. The Reformation (Council of Trent) was instrumental in moving us beyond the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance, I advocate the same for Islam. NOTE: There is no reason to kill everyone in the Middle East, and that is certainly not the policy.
Unfortunately, if you read the comments of the Jihadists that I reference, they very much believe opposing our current policies directly aides them and certainly amounts to being ‘pro’ their cause. I think you have to stop the denial, if we retreat they read defeat and we will certainly pay the price in blood as they so clearly state.
We are all in danger. The Prophet Muhammad was a very intolerant warlord, and he cast his expansionist aspirations as a religion and made it the word of God. Unfortunately, close to a billion people idolize this man so this is his legacy. This war is 1400 years old, we need to keep this in mind. I think starting in the heart of the ancient caliphate (Iraq) is a shrewd move.
Posted by Hyjinx22 on Nov 7, 2006 at 7:01 PM The Jihadists ONLY came over AFTER we were LONG OVER THERE.
Spare me your tendentious selective reading of history.
NO, most of us do NOT wish to join you in a new Crusades.
Seek professional help, please.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 8, 2006 at 10:22 AM Left out “here” between “over” and “after” in above post.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 8, 2006 at 10:23 AM hmmm, the “site-friendly” trolls have a new theme. Instead of rational debate, they disparage any commentary they don’t like with admonishments to seek professional help.
And, we have a rather interesting discussion with regards to fascism. Perhaps we are seeing an ugly phenomena reemerge right here in River City? From the left, even?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2006 at 12:12 PM Wait a minute. Social control from the fascist right has always been strong-armed, brown shirts and such. Social control from the extreme left has been predominantly that of psychological and psychiatric manipulation.
I thought I was onto something here.
oh well, same ol’ same ol’.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2006 at 12:18 PM Jay, a “troll” is anyone who posts something that you disagree with.
Your on a progressive board, naturally people here are antagonistic
toward your views, what’s the big deal ? I’ve found the same reaction
on rightwing boards, just make my point and move on. I’ve found those
folk are even quicker to censor & delete than the left is.
Stop your whining.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 8, 2006 at 1:11 PM hmmm, the “site-friendly” trolls have a new theme. Instead of rational debate, they disparage any commentary they don’t like with admonishments to seek professional help.
Now that is funny!
It seems you have a new theme too, Jay. Instead of appreciating someone’s humorous comment, you disparage the commentary you don’t like with accusations of the commentator being a troll.
How droll!
The definition of a troll, as I understand it, is someone who deliberately and single mindedly seeks to disrupt and sidetrack a discussion with comments that inevitably lead to a flame war.
And by that definition it could be argued that we are all trolls.
It just depends on the company you keep, as Mike points out.
Mike, please go easy on Jay. I suggested he seek help back a couple weeks ago and even though I was joking, mostly, it has upset his applecart.
Anyways, back to the discussion, whatever it was!
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 8, 2006 at 3:48 PM david,
not at all. I found myself quite amused. surely I do not have to explain e-acronyms to you, no? Buddy, you are beginning to sound too much like starboy. (I know, I know - compliments all around...) But I would really hate to pull out the “D” word on you, eh?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2006 at 4:19 PM I must have missed the amusement in your comment Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2006 at 12:12 PM .
But I did note your amusement in your comment Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2006 at 1:40 PM.
A delayed reaction I guess? Or is there a more operative explanation?
Thank you for your kind words, Jay.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 8, 2006 at 5:05 PM David, I agree with your perceptive comments. I probably was allowing myself to be baited by Jay but it may be a personal reaction to forty years of listening to rightist blowhards with their perpetual argumentum by assertion.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 9, 2006 at 12:42 PM Mike, thank you for your kind words.
I probably was allowing myself to be baited ...
No problem, Mike, sometimes the bait looks good. I bite if I am hungry too.
But if the bait tastes like shit ... just spit it out before you get hooked.
Sometimes the other end of a baited line is not a fishing pole at all but instead is another hook.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 9, 2006 at 4:15 PM Thanks, David, again for your wise words here. Unfortunately I had to
respond at some length to “Scorps” over on The Dueling Democrats
thread, he had more concentrated rightwing lies than you normally see
in one place. Sometimes you just have correct the record after these
cretins post their Limbaugh talking points lies. It is a bit like shoveling
manure.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 9, 2006 at 4:51 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Susan J. Douglas
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
