One Nation Under..?
Among the overnight emails was one from Grant pointing to a White House directive ordered up and moving into place with no fanfare. It designates the president as director and "insurer" of not only the Executive Branch, but the other two, too.
I'm still absorbing it. As linked to in the main article, the statement of what they're aiming for was posted on the White House website on May 9th.
On the face of it I'm unsure if all of the repetition of "Constitutional" should be taken as reassuring or Orwellian misdirection; is "Constitutional" being invoked again and again in a process that essentially redefines it in context? It seems both emphatic and vague, as if forms of "constitution" are being invoked for effect rather than meaning.
It appears to leave it to the Excecutive Branch in the event of any emergency, and we're not necessarily talking about national emergency, to oversee and even determine who is in control of each of the other two branches. So, as long as the President declares some emergency it appears to give him the authority to decide who will be covering the other two branches.
As noted in the final line of the Progressive, and as seen waaaaaay down near the bottom of the White House statement, marked as (23), there's a classified document attached to this directive; something we're, presumably, being told isn't something we should see for reasons of national security..?
It's all just enough to make me uncomfortable -- certainly a feeling I should have become accustomed to concerning the federal government in the 21st century. Having heard the statements by the candidates at the recent Republican debates - encouraged by the torture-happy audience Fox arranged for the event - it's a frightening prospect. Certainly, having seen the vicissitudes and extremes of statements from front-runners among the Democrats - Hillary in particular - I'd be almost as frightened of that, too. The "almost" is a matter of degree, and because I'm still getting too, too strong a sense of entitlement by God from the GOP side.
I don't trust hyperlinks for such stories to remain intact or for the text to remain unedited indefinitely, so below I'm reproducing first the article from The Progressive and then the statement on the White House website.
Based on this, from the White House:
Among the overnight emails was one from Grant pointing to a White House directive ordered up and moving into place with no fanfare. It designates the president as director and "insurer" of not only the Executive Branch, but the other two, too.
I'm still absorbing it. As linked to in the main article, the statement of what they're aiming for was posted on the White House website on May 9th.
On the face of it I'm unsure if all of the repetition of "Constitutional" should be taken as reassuring or Orwellian misdirection; is "Constitutional" being invoked again and again in a process that essentially redefines it in context? It seems both emphatic and vague, as if forms of "constitution" are being invoked for effect rather than meaning.
It appears to leave it to the Excecutive Branch in the event of any emergency, and we're not necessarily talking about national emergency, to oversee and even determine who is in control of each of the other two branches. So, as long as the President declares some emergency it appears to give him the authority to decide who will be covering the other two branches.
As noted in the final line of the Progressive, and as seen waaaaaay down near the bottom of the White House statement, marked as (23), there's a classified document attached to this directive; something we're, presumably, being told isn't something we should see for reasons of national security..?
It's all just enough to make me uncomfortable -- certainly a feeling I should have become accustomed to concerning the federal government in the 21st century. Having heard the statements by the candidates at the recent Republican debates - encouraged by the torture-happy audience Fox arranged for the event - it's a frightening prospect. Certainly, having seen the vicissitudes and extremes of statements from front-runners among the Democrats - Hillary in particular - I'd be almost as frightened of that, too. The "almost" is a matter of degree, and because I'm still getting too, too strong a sense of entitlement by God from the GOP side.
I don't trust hyperlinks for such stories to remain intact or for the text to remain unedited indefinitely, so below I'm reproducing first the article from The Progressive and then the statement on the White House website.
Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
By Matthew Rothschild
May 18, 2007
With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.
In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”
Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”
He laid this all out in a document entitled “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”
The White House released it on May 9.
Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.
The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”
It defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.”
This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.”
The document emphasizes the need to ensure “the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,” it states.
But it says flat out: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.”
The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But this effort will be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial
branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”
Among the efforts coordinated by the President would ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to “provide for orderly succession” and “appropriate transition of leadership.”
The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.
She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.
As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to “state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”
The secretary of Homeland Security is also directed to develop planning guidance for “private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators,” as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.
The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.
“This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.”
The document also contains “classified Continuity Annexes.”
Based on this, from the White House:
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 9, 2007
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20
Subject: National Continuity Policy
Purpose
(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.
Definitions
(2) In this directive:
(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;
(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;
(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;
(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;
(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;
(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;
(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and
(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.
Policy
(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.
Implementation Actions
(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.
(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of
the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:
(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;
(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;
(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;
(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;
(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and
(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.
(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.
(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and
responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall
continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.
(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.
(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of
the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.
(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.
(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:
(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;
(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;
(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;
(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;
(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between
and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;
(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and
(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.
(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing
on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and
assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.
(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:
(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;
(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and
(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.
(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:
(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;
(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and
(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.
(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:
(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and
(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.
(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;
(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;
(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;
(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;
(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an
official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;
(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;
(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and
(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.
(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.
(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.
(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:
(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;
(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;
(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;
(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and
(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities
General Provisions
(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate
support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.
(21) This directive:
(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;
(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and
(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its
agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.
(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.
(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.
GEORGE W. BUSH
.png)
Comments
Thanks for sharing the story. I think. (Somehow, the resounding chorus in my brain sounds like "Not in MY LIFETIME. Not in MY LIFETIME."
To the extent that I've looked into it and done any comparison and contrast, the Clinton-era directive this one negates (Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998) is very department and agency-structured, while Bush's brings it all immediately back to him and his staff. It's the way it allows such a broad number of local emergency scenarios to trigger it, and how it formally places the checks and balances of all three branches into the hands of those he chooses that many of us find alarming.
Again, against the backdrop of the appropriately 24-ish terror scenarios presented to the Republican presidential candidates recently, I'm apprehensive about this directive both under this administration and future ones, regardless of party affiliation.
I take some heart from the fact that the Repubs are working their little asses off to steal the 2008 vote. See the map that Joseph Cannon has done here
to see a pretty much irrefutable display of exactly what the U.S. Attorney purges were about. And they're going ahead on several other fronts, too -- the movement in many states to pass laws requring proof of American citizenship before one can vote is specifically meant to suppress the turn out of the poor, because as a general rule, driver's licenses will not be considered valid proof of this -- you'll need either your original birth certificate (not a copy) or a passport, and a great many poor people have neither. This may not seem like it will be all that effective, but bear in mind that Rovian politics is all about tiny, tiny percentages. Keep 3% of Democratic voters from even showing up at the polls, or from voting if they do show up without 'proper identification', and you've pretty much won.
Beyond that, there are strong indications that Bush's newest immigration proposal will be used to (a) drive the 'prove you're a citizen before you vote' movement and (b) lead to new voter roll sweeps, as discussed here
(Basically, Republicans in charge of elections love anything that gives them an excuse to go over a voter registry and cull it of Democrats. In Florida, Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush used a deeply flawed database of 'convicted felons' to cull almost 100,000 names off vote lists, many erroneously... and those weren't Republican names that got knocked off, either, they were mostly black voters. If Bush's new immigration law granting amnesty to millions of current illegals passes, then Republican election officials will get new lists of so called 'former illegals' they can cull off of voter rolls... most or all of which, of course, will be people who would vote Democratic if they were allowed to.)
I really suspect, though, that this new Executive Order of Bush's is a 'just in case' thing. If all the myriad vote suppression tactics DON'T work, and the Republicans STILL lose in '08, well, gee, you can always have an emergency and restock every branch of government with your own people again.
If there's one thing that Bush Inc. has learned to fear, it's what happens when the enemy manages to get back into a position of power over them.
I swear to God, it's going to take marching in the streets to get the Republicans back out of the White House again... and we'll be lucky if that's ALL we need to do.
Since when is Carmine Infantino the sole creator of the Silver Age Flash? Doesn't Gardner Fox get some kind of credit in there? I think Bob Kanigher usually gets a co-credit, too.
Since when is Carmine Infantino the sole creator of the Silver Age Flash? Doesn't Gardner Fox get some kind of credit in there? I think Bob Kanigher usually gets a co-credit, too." -Bunnyman
Yeah, I don't know what went wrong. I had to repost it, and then the comments showed up. The mysterious ways of Blogger!
As for Fox and Kanigher, screw 'em! Fekkin' writers always hogging the credit!
I was just tossing the verbatim notes WWE had next to him at that point and hadn't yet taken the time to go pin that down. I've changed it to a safe "co-creator." Fox went decades ago and Kanigher went five years ago, so Infantino wins the creative credit tontine! ;)
As I pointed out before, all of the alleged shenanigans were totally ignored when it turns out that the Republicans lost the last election. And these shenanigans were whined about all over the blogosphere until about two hours after the polls closed. Then everything was both hunky and dory.
If there are true, actual, demonstrable voting problems were should all be screaming, yelling and fighting to fix them -- no matter if "our" side wins or not.
If the election process is dirty, or flawed, then let's pull together and fix it.
I am the Alpha and the Omega. Everything begins and ends with me.
As I pointed out before, all of the alleged shenanigans were totally ignored when it turns out that the Republicans lost the last election. And these shenanigans were whined about all over the blogosphere until about two hours after the polls closed. Then everything was both hunky and dory.
The Oakland Raiders cheat outrageously in every game. By your logic, this means that any time a team beats them, it proves that the Raiders never cheated at all. Or, it proves that... I don't know... the other team must be just as bad, or something. I don't know.
If there are true, actual, demonstrable voting problems were should all be screaming, yelling and fighting to fix them -- no matter if "our" side wins or not.
There are true, actual, demonstrable voting problems, and I am screaming, yelling, and fighting to fix them. I'm not sure, because, as usual, your wordy screeds seem to lack integral clarity, but it seems to me that if there's anyone who isn't screaming, yelling, and fighting to fix true, actual, demonstrable voting problems, it's you. And it seems to be because you think that Democrats should refuse to take any winnings they may get at a table they know is rigged. Which strikes me as retarded, since you can't reform the system until you get into power. But I admit, I've never been able to make any sense whatsoever out of any your hallucinatory ravings to date, so maybe it's just me.
If the election process is dirty, or flawed, then let's pull together and fix it.
I absolutely agree, although, again, in all honesty, I have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make. MY point is, the election process IS both dirty AND flawed, and I would love to fix it, which is why I have decided, all on my own, to start speaking of 'stealing' the 2008 election at this point, just to irk you, because it's all about you, of course.
Actually, Greg Palast started talking about how the Republicans are already stealing the 2008 election way before I did, but never mind that, I suppose it doesn't count if you don't read it in a comment thread on somebody's blog.
One further point -- it's very likely that all that 'whining' about 'shenanigans' that took place 'all over the blogosphere' prior to the 2006 elections had a purpose -- to at least partically counter Republican voter suppression tactics by making people more aware of them. And I believe that purpose was at least partially achieved, as reflected in the results of the 2006 elections.
Now, I realize there are people out there who 'whine all over the Internet' for no purpose other than to get attention, and to those people, it is very difficult to believe that anyone else 'whines all over the Internet' for any other reason. But try to trust me on this -- sometimes, when people are actively engaged in acts of communication with other people, it is because they are trying to accomplish something above and beyond their own self aggrandizement.
I know, it's a very difficult concept for you to grasp, but try to expand your mind enough to encompass it. You'll be a better person for it. Really.
In a football game, I wouldn't care one way or the other. But in politics the cheaters all win, no matter how the elections pan out, and so far you and me and our children lose -- no matter how the elections pan out.
So yeah, I think Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals -- at least in the political system -- are all cheating.
And that's why we get presidential candidates that are all educated at the same schools, belong to the same clubs, and take money from the same corporations. There may be a game being played here, but the opponents are not Democrats VS Republicans.
It's the ruling class VS you and me.
I've been predicting the implementation of a US police state since about 2003, and have settled on 2008 as the expected election year for it to happen in.
Concerning election fraud, it's a card that's being played by both sides, but it's being played differently. The GOP is suspected of placing foxes in charge of the henhouse when it comes to local voting oversight, and more importantly of being in bed with the people providing paperless, touchscreen voting systems which have been shown to be extremely vulnerable to manipulation. Additionally, moves to make minorities uncomfortable through a combination of police activity and zealous scrutiny, along with doing what can be done to make voting in some districts a longer, harder process has been noted.
When the GOP screams foul over voting irregularity it's generally because they're concerned about real people casting votes they're not entitled to (ie illegal aliens and those who have been officially disenfranchised due to a prior conviction.) Given the potential scale and issues of morality involved, the claims made against the GOP are ones I've judged to be vast and terrible giants compared to the claims made against the Democrats on this issue.
The 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections all contained strong indications of regional tampering, so it was no surprise that the alerts were running high in 2006. To those of us who believe in the previous tampering we're attributing what didn't happen in 2006 to a combination of increased scrutiny making it more difficult to pull off, and the machine behind the prior tampering deciding that losing a little ground in 2006 would be more than worth keeping the tactics in reserve for 2008 if they need to call on it. Letting the other side win a little also allows them to make the same "chicken little"-like claims made earlier in the thread.
Aside from making sure that all voting leaves a record -- preferably a paper trail, and additionally one that the voters can see while they're still at the polls -- we as a nation also have to address the issues of disenfranchisement. While those serving time in prison certainly shouldn't be allowed to vote while they're there, once someone's served his sentence it should be considered a moral abomination - something contrary to the spirit of this nation - that any state could prevent that person from returning to full citizenship, including the right to vote. A free citizen should have the rights of a citizen, not be condemned to a second class status; not to be taxed but denied the opportunity for representation in government. The scale of this is made all the more staggering as we continue this "War on Drugs" with its draconian sentencing measures, which have literally put millions of people behind bars for what should at most be minor offenses of possession. Someone who's been working his way rapidly through a six pack is far more of a menace to society than someone who's just smoked a joint.
As Mike S. mentioned, and I believe all of the respondents in this list so far are likely to agree, it really is a class war.