Incensed that George Bush had defeated John Kerry November 2, 2004, by narrowly carrying Ohio, where substantial voter fraud might very well have occurred, seeing that “W.” was acting as if he had been handed a huge mandate to govern as he saw fit, I had to vent my indignation.
***
American elections never play out perfectly. But the dramatic imperfections in the 2004 presidential election in Ohio, as detailed in a series of letters and reports circulated by Representative John Conyers (www.house.gov/conyers), deserved a far more serious response than they received from most Congressional Democrats. Conyers got his information the old-fashioned way: by listening. When Ohioans began to raise concerns about irregularities in the approach of Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell–a Bush campaign apparatchik–to conducting the election and counting the votes in the contest that ultimately decided the race between Bush and John Kerry, they initially got more encouragement from Greens and Libertarians than from national Democrats. But Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, took the complaints seriously enough to go to Ohio. There, he and minority staffers for the Judiciary Committee conducted hearings and investigations that reached two basic conclusions: First, voting and vote-counting procedures in Ohio were so flawed that citizens were disenfranchised; second, legitimate questions about the problems with the Ohio vote have yet to be fully resolved. Accordingly, Conyers announced that he would object to the certification of the results from Ohio when Congress met to review and approve Electoral College votes on January 6.
Conyers found a handful of allies among House Democrats, mostly from the Congressional Black Caucus, but he had less luck in the Senate, where at press time only one senator–California’s Barbara Boxer–was considering signing on. At least one backer is required to sustain a formal objection. If sustained, the objection would force a full debate in both House and Senate on whether to count Ohio’s votes for George W. Bush, although in the end those Republican-controlled chambers would have defended Bush’s claim.)
The events surrounding the certification question offered an eerie echo of 2001, when members of the Congressional Black Caucus tried to object to the certification of electoral votes from Florida, only to be ruled out of order because no senator backed their complaint. The scene of African-American members being gaveled into silence was one of the most powerful moments in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, and it was impossible to imagine that it would ever be repeated. Yet this year [2005] Conyers, the senior African-American in Congress, pled for a chance “to debate and highlight the problems in Ohio which disenfranchised innumerable voters.”
It is important to note the language Conyers used. He was not calling for overturning the election of George W. Bush. Rather, he was suggesting that, based on the evidence of voter disenfranchisement, flawed or corrupted voting machinery and improper procedures for counting and recounting votes in Ohio, it was inappropriate for Congress simply to rubber-stamp the decisions of Blackwell and other Ohio officials. Ultimately, that objection never had a chance to get beyond the debating stage. But Conyers was right to argue that a formal objection needed to be made, and that the objection should be broadly supported by Democrats–and honest Republicans–in both the House and Senate. That it was not is a sad statement about the seriousness with which most Democrats took their party’s pledge to “count all the votes this time”–and about the prospects for reform of erratic and unequal voting systems that, as Conyers and his aides have ably illustrated, are prone to abuses that undermine confidence in America’s democratic experiment (Nichols 1-2).
Work cited:
Nichols, John. “An Appropriate Objection.” The Nation, January 6, 2005. Net. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/appropriate-objection/
***
I resent being lied to, especially by the President of the United States.
Emboldened by his reelection “mandate,” he is at it again, pushing what should be labeled Medical Malpractice Accountability Destruction and Social Insecurity, Let’s Line-the-Pockets-of-Wall Street Privatization.
Each issue deserves a thorough analysis of what is fact and what is crafted beeswax. Look for well-respected newsmagazines and newspapers to continue to provide it. My purpose? To remind you that “Pants on Fire” George W. expects yet again to hoodwink us. Why shouldn’t he, having slipped past us the following?
“Most of the tax cuts went to low-and middle-income Americans.” Oct. 13, 2004
“There was nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings.” Apr. 13, 2004
“Facing clear evidence of peril [Saddam’s WMD], we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” Oct. 6, 2002.
“Saddam was a threat because he could have given WMD to terrorist enemies. Sanctions were not working.” Oct. 8, 2004
“Clear Skies legislation will significantly reduce smog and mercury emissions, as well as stop acid rain.” Apr. 22, 2002. It will “bring cleaner air to Americans faster, more reliably, and more cost-effectively than under current law.” Aug. 30, 2003.
“America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.” No date. “We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of Sept. the 11th.” July 2002.
“We’ve never let up on Osama bin Laden from day one.” campaign commercial
“Because you [Congress] acted to stimulate our economy with tax relief, this economy is strong, and growing stronger … and jobs are on the rise.” Jan. 20, 2004.
“When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn’t kill you.” Oct. 8, 2004
“We are -- should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm’s way.” Jan. 17, 2003.
Printed February 19, 2005, in the Siuslaw News
Not having had the votes three years ago to repeal permanently the estate tax, Bush and his friends legislated a graduated increase in the amount a deceased person’s estate is exempt from taxation. This year that amount is 1.5 million. If I should die tomorrow, my heirs would be able to subtract 1.5 million from the value of my estate and would pay taxes solely on what remained. They need not worry. I’m not close to being worth 1.5 million. Less than 1% of the country’s population is.
The way the Repubs presently have it, nobody will have to pay an estate tax in the year 2010. After that, the tax returns. Oh, we can’t have that! they lament. Time to spread again lies about how much small businesses and rural America will be affected. (Fact: 440 such estates paid taxes last year, 1 person out of every 665,989 deceased) We can cut badly needed social programs, short-shrift our veterans, do nothing about spiking medical care expenses, and expand the national debt beyond comprehension; but we must protect yet again the wealthiest of Bush’s friends!
Should be easy, heh, heh, heh, says George. We’ve got the votes! And, heck, 77% of the good folks out there believe the Death Tax affects all Americans! What’s $1 trillion in lost revenue over the first ten years after 2010 anyway? Why, we’ll just grow the economy!
Printed April 20, 2005, in the Eugene Register-Guard
***
My letters were now getting blow-back. I wrote the following criticizing a Republican fool whose frequent letters to the Register-Guard consisted almost entirely of abusive name-calling of Democratic officeholders.
***
James T. Bryant (letters, June 18) rails against the liberal media, which gave scant attention to the blatant election fraud perpetrated by Republicans in Ohio last November. This is the very media that has ignored the Downing Street and related British government memos regarding President Bush’s perfidy about invading Iraq.
Bryant should write Rush Limbaugh’s copy. Or has it been the other way around?
Printed June 29, 2005, in the Eugene Register-Guard
***
I received this response in the mail June 29, 2005. A post-it was attached to it saying “An advance copy. Cheers!”
***
Another liberal idiot checks in. Liberal idiot Harold Titus writes in, from Florence, to criticize me, saying that I sound like every Conservative sounds; fit to be tied over our abusively liberal media’s coverage of the events of the day.
Liberal idiot Titus scolds me and suggests, as all good little liberals in lock-step with kook websites like moron.org, do, that I get all my info from their arch nemesis, Rush Limbaugh. Could it be that liberal idiot Titus listens to Limbaugh, or is he, like all good little liberals, merely repeating the liberal mantra; “Left-wing extremists good and all Conservatives bad”?
Liberals have never recovered from their thumping in every election in recent history. 2000, in Florida, is especially appalling. What they can’t accept is that every liberal rag media organization in the country looked at that election under a microscope and all they found was that George Bush actually got more votes than originally reported. Of course liberals, being basically stupid, didn’t learn that just having the media on their side didn’t let them steal the election and tried it again in Ohio in 2004. Liberals have no ideas so they look to larceny to try and win elections. Idiots!
Remember! The liberal profile is appalling ignorance backed up by fundamental dishonesty. These idiots will say anything, fully knowing that it is a lie if they think it will harm the Bush Administration. Liberal idiots like Titus have no conscience, no morals, no honor, no integrity, no courage, no vision, no perspective and nothing except a seething and drooling rage against a man their superior in every way.
Liberal idiots like Titus despise George Bush and admire Bill Clinton, an admitted liar, a convicted perjurer, a womanizer, an adulterer, a sexual harasser, a disbarred attorney and a three time rapist.
Liberal idiots, to who instinctive idiocy is a gameplan, would not recognize and probably wouldn’t care for an honest man. In the land of our libs a decent and caring man is a freak.
James T. Bryant
Eugene
No comments:
Post a Comment