Conspiracy theory??

A little while ago, I made mention of a Republican IT specialist (Stephen Spoonamore) discussing how the republicans stole the 2004 election (http://ritasrants.blogspot.com/search/label/outrage). Well one of the main characters in that nasty play was Mike Connell. Who was he? Oh nobody really, just a chief IT specialist for Karl Rove and the IT person who set up the election website for Ohio in 2004--remember Ohio in 2004?? Convenient huh?

Anyway in October it was announced that Mike Connell was deposed regarding an investigation of the 2004 election and his access to Karl Rove's files and how they went "missing". Friends of Connell's said he stated afterwards that he was afraid that Rove and Cheney would "throw him under a bus." Who needs a bus, when you have a plane?

Connell was said to be an experienced pilot--that means nothing I realize. Apparently in December 2008, his plane crashed after running out of gas??? Oh yeah and bad weather (weather which had passed 2 hours earlier). I'm no conspiracy theorist but this seems to be awfully convenient for our friend Karl--watch out Stephen Spoonamore!

landslide....

I have to say congratulations to all you die-hard Obama followers. I can't count myself among your ranks --although I did (somewhat reluctantly--I'm still deep down a Nader fan) give him my vote. The airwaves are ringing with the giddy sounds of liberal news reporters--and I have to say I'm feeling a little giddy myself. I am still reeling over my home state of Indiana going blue for the first time since like 1930 or something. I know Obama will make a good president. I don't think he will be as liberal as I want him to be--or as hard on lobbyists or big businessman as he says he will be--but I know there will be an improvement.

My relief is tempered somewhat by the noticeably absent defeat of constitutional amendments discriminating against gays in both California and Arizona. I am disappointed in my fellow Americans.

Where's the Outrage?

Our folks told us, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. I am reminded of this during this year's election. It strikes me that if you don't have anything nice to say about your "chosen" candidate, you will choose, instead, to say something nasty about the alternative. It reminds me a lot of middle school. Typically, we are at our most insecure and vulnerable when we are "blossoming' into maturity. Middle school girls suck. I know--I was one of them. Because they are so obsessed with hating themselves, they strike out at everyone else. If you can't feel good about yourself--at least you can feel better about NOT being THAT girl. I think its time that we get rid of the broken two party system. The atrocities and dishonesty that we will tolerate these days are amazing. Introducing alternate parties would not only reduce the amount of "I'm supporting X because Y is even worse"; it would also eliminate the need for electing the opposite party for president to reduce the threat of "too much power" of the other party. Imagine, if we had libertarians and green party candidates in congress. We wouldn't worry about one party having enough votes for a filibuster. Our debates are a joke. They used to be sponsored by the League of Women Voters--a bi-partisun group. Everyone was invited to participate. Unfortunately, in 1988, the Bush and Dukakis campaigns drafted a joint "memorandum" outlining what topics could be discussed and how the questions would be presented. The League was outraged and refused to succomb to demands from the candidates. Unfortunately for the American people, this resulted in the creation of the "Commission for Presidential Debates". The "Commission" is actually a corporate-sponsored consortium of former heads of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The result? Only major party candidates are invited. Both candidates agreed with the "bailout" not because it was a good plan or a good idea--but because they didn't want the other party to get the upper hand--well what if there were more than two choices? Could candidates actually do things that they thought important rather than because they were afraid of losing votes?

Citizens were outraged because our politicians were not holding the bankers and investors "accountable" for the recent debacle. My question is why should we expect them to hold Wall Street accountable when we don't hold politicians accountable? Sure in extreme cases we "stick it to them" by voting for the opposite party--but during elections we willfully listen to promises that we know won't be kept. We say things like "oh I know they won't do everything they say, but that's just politics. Why? Why have we let things get so out of control that candidates will say anything to get elected? It is estimated that 5.8 billion dollars will be spent for this campaign. That's a ridiculous amount of money to see who can put on the better show. That is what it seems to me. The most money gets the most media time and the most votes. What is the connection? I think of it this way... I take tests well. I learned at a very young age that I had a knack for cramming for tests. Because of this talent, my grades have always been excellent. A few years ago, I met someone who did not have this talent. This guy could remember every fact he'd ever learned--and actually understood the concepts on which he was tested. I can't remember something I learned yesterday. Unfortunately for this friend of mine, I look much better on paper. I will get scholarships and jobs- but I can admit that he is actually a better biologist. It seems that it's the same for politicians. There ARE honest people out there--even a few honest politicians (look at Dennis Kucinich)--but because they are honest, they will never get the big positions. Think about this--despite the record-breaking fundraising that the Obama campaign has done--only a quarter of it comes from small donors. And the rest? Well we'll probably find out based on his policies should he get elected. The worst is that because Obama refused public financing and proceeded to raise so much money---election reform is probably dead for another 10 years or so. Did somebody say Change?

But then again, we may never find out. A recent interview granted by Stephen Spoonamore (who is a conservative republican McCain supporter) outlines how the GOP used electronic means to subvert the 2000 and 2004 elections and plans to do the same in 2008. Spoonamore names names and outlines procedures. Google it to learn more. Is it true or just some disgruntled conservative causing trouble? I can't say for sure, but it doesn't surprise me in the least. We are the most powerful nation in the world, but we can't hold an election these days without charges of fraud or disenfranchisement. To top it off, the highest percentage of eligible voters to actually cast a vote in recent years was 64%! We'll see if we can top that this year--by all accounts we should.

Where is the outrage? We, as a country, have settled. We have settled for a pseudo-democracy. We have settled for corruption and corporate welfare. We have settled for presidents that can't run a baseball team and war-mongering profiteering vice-president. We have forced John McCain to choose a moron like Sarah Palin in order to please his base and get the "ignorant white woman vote." We have forced Barack Obama to spend millions on a cheesy public service announcement in order to reach the Budweiser-lovin baseball fans. What a country.

pigs and pitbulls

Well, I knew it would happen--Democrats have devolved into politics as usual. Instead of staying "above the fray" they try to play a game of which they know nothing. I laughed out loud this morning when I heard Barack Obama make the comment about lipstick and the pig. I've heard the expression before, but you can't tell me Palin's recent comment about the pitbull didn't inspire its use yesterday. It was funny, it got a laugh line--but I think it was a huge mistake. I don' t know why this is the case, but for some reason Democrats are not as good at being nasty as Republicans. For some reason it makes them look foolish. I'd like to think it's because it doesn't come naturally to them.

I am not optimistic about this election. As soon as it became clear that Barack Obama had secured the nomination, I felt a sinking feeling. It's not that I think he would do a bad job as president--it's just that ---well the cynic in me saw all the excitement about this message of hope and change--(and saw those as empty words) and said, "well, there goes the election." I have little faith in my fellow citizens and even less in our politicians.

Yesterday afternoon I spent some time watching Democracy Now!'s coverage of the conventions of the two parties. The reporters from DN! spent some time harrassing politicians and a lot of time covering the protesters outside. I was particularly touched by the coverage of IVAW (Iraq Veterens Against the War). They had drafted a letter to each candidate with three demands: get out of Iraq, provide healthcare and education benefits to the veterans, and provide reparations to the Iraqi people. At the Democratic National Convention, Rage Against the Machine played a free concert after which the demonstrators marched (in formation) four miles to the convention center. They were greeted by the police in full riot gear. Here are the words of one member.

Well, I just—actually, I think it’s a communication thing. If we could get them to come out here, I believe they would be fine with having us read that letter. You know? They’d be just fine. If somebody can get the word in there, I’m sure there are a lot of good Americans in there that would be not OK with the idea that they’re about to arrest a bunch of Iraq vets if we don’t go home. This is my home. This is my home.


Here is what one former marine said to his fellow protesters:

The police of the City of Denver have given the dispersal order to the protesters in the rear of the formation. We’re told that if that order is given three times, they have authorization to shoot teargas into the crowd. And Iraq Veterans Against the War will be standing here in formation awaiting further response from the campaign of Senator Barack Obama.

Shooting teargas, or a threat of it, or threatening to disperse while we exercise our First Amendment rights to peacefully gather—and I emphasize peacefully—is a disgrace.

These veterans fought too hard to come back here and be ignored, as we have been for the last seven years by this same administration. To be ignored again by the would-be savior of America, his antiwar rhetoric—to be ignored again is a disgrace.

These words and those of several others brought tears to my eyes. Despite the fact that Barack Obama ran his primary campaign on the message that he was against the war from the beginning and he would call for an immediate withdrawal of troops, he would not agree to meet with these men. Finally, after the stand-off, the veteran's liason from the Obama campaign came out to receive the letter. He told the protesters that he would "get back to them." Well I don't need to tell you that he did not get back to them. The letter was not read on the convention floor, and who knows if it made it past the circular file on the way back into the convention. If ending the war hadn't been such a big part of the primary campaign, I would say, "yeah, ok, politicians can't meet with all special interest protest groups." Here was a group of people that could potentially be the most ardent supporters of Obama, and they are ignored. That doesn't spell hope or change to me.

I'm not saying that McCain is better. I would have to get a brain transplant before I made even a hint of a suggestion to vote for the swine/pitbull ticket--I am just experiencing the same deja vu I experience about every four years.

You should have thought of that before!

Ok, I told myself I wasn't going to blog about politics for a while, but I have something on my chest that needs to get out.

This morning I heard a story about how the democratic party was in a tizzy over whether or not to count the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Some folks (mostly supporters of Hillary Clinton) say that it is disenfranchising the voters of those states not to seat those delegates. Ok wait, I remember this battle months ago where the Democratic National Party made the decision to punish these states for moving their primaries up. At that point, the respective states made the decision to do it anyway (don't they feel stupid now--they would have had more of an effect on the race if they had waited). So that's when the discussion of voter disenfranchisement should have taken place. Seriously, I wonder if this wasn't a ploy to ensure Hillary's election. "Yeah guys, we're just going to boycott those states--nudge nudge wink wink" It's ridiculous to me. They (the states) flipped the National Party the Bird so they lost their ability to seat their delegates--period!

The same goes for the people who are registered with a non-mainstream party. (I hate the term 3rd Party because it just perpetuates the idea that a 2 party system is natural). When I registered as a Green Party member in New Mexico, the nice elderly lady that was taking my application told me that registering as "Green" meant I couldn't vote in the primaries--did I understand? Of course. It was my decision. Its not like I was forced to register as Green because I was a woman of short stature or due to ethnicity--I had the choice and I made it. I don't get to vote for the NRA president--why? Because I'm not a member. I don't vote for Governor of Pennsylvania--why? Because I chose not to live there. Make a decision and stick with it already. We aren't guaranteed the right to choose the candidate from a particular political party by the constitution--you're supposed to pick a party based on your interest in it. Instead of meddling in the mainstream parties' business why don't you spend your energy getting your own party candidate?

Politics of Fear

I can't resist talking about politics since the airwaves are jammed with the upcoming election.

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and I'm not ashamed to say it. One of Nader's phrases that resonated with me was "Vote your hopes, not your fears." Call me naive but I really respect that sentiment--especially in the primaries. One of the things that always bugged me about the Democrats post Election 2000 debacle was their insistence that people like me lost the election for Al Gore. But rather than come to folks like me (whacko liberals) and ask us what it was that we didn't like about Gore's campaign and how could they bring us into the fray--they chose to use guilt and fear. "If you don't vote for the democrat in 2004, you'll get another 4 years of Bush." Ok, so most of us did and look where it got us. Why? Because the republicans are way better at fear mongering than the democrats. Be afraid of the flip-flopper--he might actually re-think a bad decision one day.

But now, with the 2008 election approaching, fear is the dominant force again. First it was "don't vote for Hillary, she'll never win the general election." I admit, I probably had that thought--but it took a back seat to my general dislike for her. Thanks to the media--who couldn't wait to pit a woman against an African-American--we overcame that fear. Then, it was Hillary's campaign that joined in the "fearleading." Even though Joe Biden and Bill Richardson are WAY more qualified and WAY more suited to lead this country--we can't vote for them because they are second tier candidates--they don't have a chance to win the nomination--the media says so. So many people interviewed in Iowa and New Hampshire leading up to the caucus and primary said "well, I really prefer Biden, but I'll vote for Obama because he had a better chance at winning." or "Bill Richardson is obviously the most qualified, but I'm going with Hillary because she has more money." Voting their fears. I fear my chosen candidate won't have enough support--therefore I vow to make it so. I'm not going to go into the media's role in all this--that will be another day's rant.

When did our hopes take a backseat to our fears? How did this happen? Don't tell me 911--because it started way before that?