Re: [sixties-l] A Very American Coup

Date: 12/14/00

  • Next message: Jeffrey Blankfort: "[sixties-l] michael & jeff fighting"

    In a message dated 12/14/2000 7:56:14 PM Central Standard Time, 
    > Pinochet to Bush - Coups then and Now
    > by Stew Albert  
    >     The Gore v Bush post-election was infinitely more exciting and 
    > significant than the actual contest.  Who would have thought that such a 
    > boring and manipulated competition would culminate in an American style, 
    > Supreme Court certified coup d^etat.
    Forgive me for laughing...but to call this a coup d'etat is the height of 
    hysteria.  If this was a coup, then so was the election of 1824...the 
    election of 1877...the election of 1960...need I go on?  Looks like we have 
    lost our "coup" and should let "coup"ler heads prevail.
    >     It like the Chilean coup minus bloodshed. The Republicans did not order 
    > an air raid against  Clinton^s White House. After four years of trying to 
    > overthrow his government, the right-wing settled on a blow job and the 
    > President^s unfortunate effort to conceal the stain. They failed to kick 
    > him 
    > out. Clinton^s ugly behavior was too ordinary for a successful impeachment. 
    I'll buy that.  However, how do you "overthrow" a government in a federal 
    republic?  I guess you can make that argument...but it is a stretch.  It was 
    more of a political hissy-fit rather than a coup.  Such should be no surprise 
    when a nation of laws becomes a nation of lawyers.
    >     Fixing the presidential election was the next best step. All the 
    > predictions said the race was close with Bush enjoying a slight lead. A 
    > little rigging here, a little calling in some favors  there, and the deed 
    > would be done. The main objective in Florida, was too screw the Blacks and 
    > Jews who would be voting for Gore. A neat trick would be to fool them in to 
    > choosing the candidate they most hated, Pat Buchanan. And then let^s get a 
    > lot of Blacks kicked off the voting  rolls because they might be felons, 
    > make 
    > ^Black while voting^ a crime, why don^t we?
    This all sounds good, but do you have specific evidence to back up your 
    claims here?  If you are referring to the butterfly punch ballot as a "way 
    too (sic) screw the Blacks and Jews who would be voting for Gore", then you 
    are also going to have to make that claim in other voting districts that use 
    the same instrument, such as Bill Daley and Jesse Jackson's native 
    Chicagoland.  Was this also a GOP conspiracy in Richard "My dad was the Don" 
    Daley's own back yard where Democrats did quite well?  Your "black while 
    voting" comment is pretty desperate, considering that prior to the fiasco in 
    Florida, the NAACP was hailing the 2000 election as a triumph of 
    African-American voter participation.  Also the areas you mention are run by 
    Democratic election boards, and the official who decided on the butterfly 
    ballot was herself a Democrat.  Were they bought off, too?  As for the felons 
    comment, there were numerous areas that threw out or turned away voters with 
    criminal records, including areas where those persons were honkeys...not 
    blacks.  That is not new.  I think you overestimate the Bush family's 
    capacity to do anything so slick and ingenious.  I am not sure their 
    collective intelligence could jumpstart a toaster.  Next...
    >    Election day was a drag for ^W^. He lost in the popular vote by three 
    > hundred thousand and he didn^t do that well Florida. True, Jeb swindled all 
    > those old Jews and felonious Blacks, in to actually voting for Buchanan!  
    > But 
    > when all was said and done the Republican pollsters must have had Gore 
    > ahead. 
    > The uncounted ballots would favor the Democrat. Why else would Bush scream 
    > so 
    > loud against a true count?   Gore offered him a state wide recount and he 
    > turned it down. He knew he lost. Why else was the Bush family calling in 
    > Godfather  type  favors from five Supreme Court Justices? Too hell with 
    > with 
    > court and its good reputation - the Bush family was taking over the Oval 
    > Office and that is now a fine place for fellatio, even by five justices in 
    > Black robes.
    Speculation, innuendo and hysterical rhetoric, as good as that right-wing 
    witch hunter Joe McCarthy at his finest.  Looks like some on the left have 
    become what they despise.  First of all, losing the popular vote means 
    nothing within the American Electoral College system.  Yes...Bush did lose 
    the popular vote.  Big deal.  If you do not like the EC (which I have plenty 
    of trouble with myself), then work to fix it within the scope of legislative 
    change via a proposed amendment to change the Constitution.  Granted, this 
    won't fix the problem of Gore losing the EC, but it could deal with future 
    problems.  Such a dispute belongs in the hands of officials chosen by the 
    people...not by appointed justices in a state or national court.  Secondly, 
    the fellatio started in the Florida Supreme Court, dominated by Democrats, I 
    might add.  The election belongs in the hands of elected officials, notably 
    the legislature, in the event of a dispute.  At least that is what the 
    Constitution says.  Then again, no one seems to appeal to that unless it 
    benefits his or her interests, be it on the right or left.  For your 
    information, the governor of Florida has nothing to do with ballot style OR 
    procedures carried out by the individual voting districts.  I agree with you 
    that the Supreme Court should never have been involved in this decision, but 
    my argument comes from a Constitutional argument rather than a "Bush family 
    Texas/Florida Syndicate" argument.  We better start draining the Everglades 
    in search of the body of Luca Brasi.
    >    I was in Chile during the Allende period and so much of what has been 
    > going on here  recalls that nation^s political agony. The resemblance 
    > dawned 
    > on me when the Republicans began accusing Gore of  trying to steal the 
    > election. The Chilean right wingers accused Allende of plotting a coup 
    > against the constitution. No such thing was true - it was they and the CIA 
    > who were plotting to spill blood on democracy. It^s and old Company trick 
    > to 
    > accuse your enemy of what you yourself are planing.  And it wasn^t Gore but 
    > Bush who was running down Florida^s streets with the purloined election in 
    > his shaking hands.
    If I am not mistaken, both Bush and Gore hacks were accusing each other of 
    stealing the election.  It goes both ways.  The picture of Bush "running down 
    Florida's streets" is hilarious, but little more than more hysteria.  Great 
    word play, even if it is built on a foundation of sour grapes stomped into 
    Democratic "whine" by the blood-sucking lawyers who descended on Florida. 
    >     The Chilean resemblance comes again by way of how all the Republicans 
    > lined up with Bush. Was there a single Republican official anywhere in 
    > America who said ^Hey now, a fair vote count  is more important than us 
    > winning.^ If such a Republican exists, I never heard of him. And so in 
    > Chile 
    > all the centrist parties who claimed an undying love of democracy, 
    > supported 
    > the military coup.
    Depends on what you mean by a "fair count," which based on the rest of your 
    diatribe leads me to conclude it means "a count that gives Gore the victory." 
     If Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, this would not have even 
    mattered.  Combined with the principled, substance-laden campaign of Nader 
    and the wishy-washy nature of Gore's own sell-out neo-liberalism, that is 
    what did him in.
    >    Consider the right wing Cubans paid by the Republicans, who rioted and 
    > stopped the vote count in Dade County. How many CIA favors did the Bush 
    > family call in? The CIA also organized anti-Allende riots in Chile. They 
    > sabotaged the economy in the same manner that the Republicans sabotaged the 
    > vote count.
    Yes...we all know that Republicans don't protest unless they are paid off.  
    Did you happen to see those clowns who "rioted" in Dade County?  I didn't see 
    as many Cubans as I saw Yuppie whites.  A riot you say?  I have seen more 
    action in the mosh pit of a Ramones concert.  And what about the fact that 
    Dade County officials told AP that they ceased the count because of time 
    constraints and NOT these so-called rioters?  I guess that doesn't matter 
    either.  Combine that with the fact that Bush carried as many moderates as 
    "right-wingers" in Florida and elsewhere, and your whole "right-wing 
    conspiracy" smacks of the demagoguery more often associated with the kind of 
    groups that you stereotype as typical of the political right.  It is easier 
    to resort to name-calling and stereotyping than engage in a discussion of 
    problems in our election process.  Not every conservative is a 
    right-winger...not every right-winger is a nut case, no more than every 
    antiwar protester during the 60s was a hippie.
    >    And finally we have the Supreme Court. In Chile the top court declared 
    > the coup legal and Pinochet president. Our highest court has returned the 
    > favor.
    >     Ah, but the reader will say, ^there are no military in the streets, no 
    > round-ups, no murders in stadiums. No there aren^t. Not this time. But this 
    > is our first coup, tell me why it will be our last.
    It wasn't a coup.  It was a screwed-up election brought about by a mixture of 
    clueless voters, bad voting techniques, and compounded by "legalista" lawyers 
    and courts who apparently do not understand how laws are made in this democratically elected officials...not ivory-tower safe for life 
    justices.  While I will die for your right to espouse your views, Mr. Albert, 
    I find the bulk of this piece to be little more than hysterical rhetoric that 
    echoes great hysterians of the past from all shades of the political 
    spectrum.  I hope this response isn't taken as a personal attack as that is 
    not my intention.  I am only taking a different view on things.  My guy 
    didn't win any way.  I think I should demand a recount for Harry Browne since 
    his campaign was sabotaged by Democrats and Republicans who conspired to 
    overwhelm media time through huge campaign funds that are more than the 
    annual GNP of most third-world nations.  Get David Boies on the phone!  :-)
    Resident Gen-Xer Libertarian,

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 EST