Voter Fraud: Widespread in 2009 elections

Time magazine reported the reasons that might make the Iranian elections of this past weekend seem suspicious. Among them were unusual amounts of voter turn out, voters being barred from voting stations, support across the country seemed strangely consistent given the differences in elections of the past. Any of this starting to sound familiar to those who voted this past November in American voting stations?

ACORN made sure that there were unusual amounts of voters at the polls, some without identification, and some who voted more than once. The legal cases (27) are being tried in separate courts across the country. Black Panthers stood in front of one voting station with a nightstick and vulgar language while threatening those who came to vote. The same panthers had their cases easily dismissed and the panther that carried the nightstick has been ordered not to repeat the offense. Support across this nation seems now, as it did then, to be consistent as long as CNN and MSNBC does not ask taxpayers how they feel about what is happening in the government.

To those who have lived long enough, the elections in our country have seemed strangely predictable. Of the eleven first ladies that have served at their husband’s side, my memory is strong toward the events and political rallies that each attended. The strangest, and perhaps most frightening, of this is that we knew who would be elected, which first lady did the best job on the campaign trail, and how many terms each president would serve. That is a little more than coincident, so it is extremely inappropriate for us to sit on the other side of the world and say that an Iranian election was rigged, when we cannot prove that our own elections are straightforward. When we can prove that we have always followed the democratic strategy of fair and balanced elections then we can call out those who do not.

Skepticism, on my part, started long before Obama was elected.

Posted by D. Ffallis at June 15, 2009 3:04 PM
Comments
Comment #282982

Forgive me, but… I’m failing to see the First Lady correlation?

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at June 15, 2009 3:33 PM
Comment #282983
ACORN made sure that there were unusual amounts of voters at the polls, some without identification, and some who voted more than once. The legal cases (27) are being tried in separate courts across the country. Black Panthers stood in front of one voting station with a nightstick and vulgar language while threatening those who came to vote. The same panthers had their cases easily dismissed and the panther that carried the nightstick has been ordered not to repeat the offense. Support across this nation seems now, as it did then, to be consistent as long as CNN and MSNBC does not ask taxpayers how they feel about what is happening in the government.

Source?

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 15, 2009 3:42 PM
Comment #283001

“Any of this starting to sound familiar to those who voted this past November in American voting stations? “

No but the November 2003 elections do come to mind.

“ACORN made sure that there were unusual amounts of voters at the polls, some without identification, and some who voted more than once.”

Lets face it D.Ffallis the election in 2008 was a runaway for Obama due to the fact that the repubs sacrificial lambs couldn’t live down the repub record from the past 8 years. There is no tinfoil hat conspiracy here.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2009/04/weekend_diversion_do_tinfoil_h/tinfoil_hat_antenna.jpg


“The strangest, and perhaps most frightening, of this is that we knew who would be elected,”

Well not all of us… I found it impossible to believe that GWB/Cheney won their first term considering they lost the popular vote, good thing the SCOTUS was stacked in their favor.

” which first lady did the best job on the campaign trail, and how many terms each president would serve.”

Never really gave much thought to the first lady, but I never thought the American public was more foolish than usual to vote Bush/Cheney in the second time, guess we got what we deserved on that one, huh?

“That is a little more than coincident, so it is extremely inappropriate for us to sit on the other side of the world and say that an Iranian election was rigged, when we cannot prove that our own elections are straightforward.”

Isn’t this a grand old American tradition? Why would we have to prove anything before we agreed with the many thousands of Iranians marching in the streets in protest? Perhaps it was wishful thinking on our part to see a moderate in office rather than a conservative in Iran but to think the Iranian polls were fairly accurate in this case still can’t keep us from a “what if” can it?

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/6/15/worldupdates/2009-06-15T194027Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-403433-1&sec=Worldupdates

Posted by: j2t2 at June 15, 2009 10:19 PM
Comment #283004

Ma’am, Don’t try to draw parallels, you’ll only end up dizzy. First, the overwhelming turnout was FOR Mr. Mousavi, the candidate who ostensibly got screwed in Iran. In America, the overwhelming turnout favored Obama. With Mousavi, he was losing, even in places where he was supposed to win. Obama was expected to win, or come close in many of the places where he did well, and Demographic and political shifts already presaged in the previous election manifested them again in 2008.

And 27 cases? I think many Iranians supporting Mousavi can tell of more cases than that.

Here are some other Disparities:
1) Despite the rather unfortunate tendencies of the last President, he didn’t come close to being a tyrant the way the Ayatollahs are in Iran, with their rigid control of much of the system. This control was what was exercised at the expense of Mousavi, and in the aid of Ahmedinejad; at the expense of the reformer, for the benefit of the hardliner. We can hardly say that was the outcome in America.

2) We have freedom of speech here, something the Conservatives find invaluable as they peddle debased conspiracy theories and use overheated scare tactics to frighten people back to their sides. The Iranians are being billy-clubbed and even shot as they protest, even in waves of hundreds of thousands. This voter fraud in Iran is in part signified by the sudden blackout of electronic communications that suddenly occured.

3) Our vote counts were far more rigorous and doublechecked before results were announced. The government of Iran announced official results of tens of millions of hand counted ballots just hours after the close of the polls.

I don’t think much of your argument. It seems to follow the same premise that so many Republican argument seem to follow in the same desperation: America is still waiting to welcome back our party to primacy, if only unfair forces didn’t conspire against us. Sooner or later, y’all will figure out how silly this argument sounds to those who aren’t caught up in the overhyped echo chamber of GOP thought.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2009 11:27 PM
Comment #283005

DF

“ACORN made sure that there were unusual amounts of voters at the polls…”

There is absolutely nothing wrong, illegal,unethical at all with helping to increase voter turnout. The opposite is true. It strengthens democracy and should be commended.Allegations of voter fraud etc. happen every election. Even if every court case you claim is pending finds fraud it would not change the election results. The Republicans lost, fair and square.
I am also baffled by conclusions about first ladies.
You do have a point about the hypocracy involved with US criticism of the Iran election. Iran refuses to allow international monitors. The US also refuses to allow international monitors. BTW The Chavez elections did have international monitors.Observers are appalled at the US system of allowing partisan politicians to be in charge of vote counting, for example.The US has strict laws preventing other countries from injecting money into US campaigns but we routinely inject large sums of money and agents into other country’s elections.
Black Panthers? Wow, are they still around? A 60s flashback?What is that saying? “The more things change,the more they stay the same.”

Posted by: bills at June 15, 2009 11:36 PM
Comment #283013

“Lets face it D.Ffallis the election in 2008 was a runaway for Obama due to the fact that…”

Very funny, if I’m not mistaken more than 47% of the country did not want to see Barack Obama in charge of us. It’s a sad commentary that a slight majority were sold that yes, but no runaway election. There are a few independant minds left.

Posted by: Bradley at June 16, 2009 3:54 AM
Comment #283014

Bradley

365 electoral votes for Obama.173 for MacCain.
8,552,597 more Americans voted for BHO than McCain. That,s far more than could be accounted for by any of the silly wing nut conspiracy theories. That,on top of the huge Democratic gains in the congress mean that it was a decisive election. The results were much more pronounce than we have had for some time.
He is aware of the fact that he is the president of the whole country and governing from the center more than he should be IMO. An example of this is his proposal for a competing public health care insurer. To many on the right this is outrageous. In reality it is a very modest proposal and represents a huge compromise from the single payer option or the more radical direct government provision of health care .
This is in sharp contrast to GWB’s first term. He won by the slightest of specious margins and immediately did his best to take the country as far to the right as possible.

Posted by: bills at June 16, 2009 6:36 AM
Comment #283018

Hm, try writing anything with an almost 3-year-old granddaughter hanging off one knee and a 9-month-old screaming in your ear. The reason that I mentioned the first ladies…since the sentence was incomplete and I knew after I had posted (so much for editing properly)…is that the men who will be president are shown, in concert with their wives, in a highly appealing light through the media. And this is not Obama bashing, this is what has been happening for decades, nothing more. The ACORN 8 along with Bobby Jindal have been trying to get ACORN to open their books. The ACORN organization does not debate the fact that there were problems with ACORN groups during the campaign, but they deny any responsibility for the actions of those that got paid money to recruit voters. There is over $53 million that is unaccounted for and ACORN is refusing to allow anyone to look at their books…and you will not hear Keith Olbermann mention anything about most of what goes on inside the ACORN organization…MSNBC has it’s own agenda because of the connection with GE. All of this is traceable and available for information on the Internet.

http://msplaceddemocrat.com/http:/msplaceddemocrat.com/marcel-reid-and-the-acorn-8-need-our-support/

Posted by: Donna Fallis at June 16, 2009 8:22 AM
Comment #283019

“Very funny, if I’m not mistaken more than 47% of the country did not want to see Barack Obama in charge of us.”

Bradley I wonder if it was the same 47, actually 45.7%,% who fell for GWB’s “mandate” after his reelection? After all if 50.7% is a mandate for those people certainly 52.9% is an absolute decisive mandate or a “runaway” victory isn’t it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

Posted by: j2t2 at June 16, 2009 8:38 AM
Comment #283022

j2t2

It comes from the casual use of the word mandate. In general, whoever wins has the mandate. Bush had it; Obama has it. It is churlish to suggest otherwise. BTW - it does not have to be a majority (i.e. more than 50%). No candidate won a majority in the elections of 1992, 1996 or 2000, yet presidents Clinton and Bush were both legitimate.

But we tend to use the term mandate a bit more expansively, to mean a clear mandate for change. Reagan won almost 58% of the vote in 1984. That was about as high as we can get and some people didn’t think he had a mandate for change. 52.9% is a clear majority, but it is not overwhelming.

So President Obama has a mandate to be president. He will need to be careful not to push too far too fast. He is, after all, no Ronald Reagan - yet.

Posted by: Christine at June 16, 2009 9:00 AM
Comment #283032

Donna Fallis-
First, at worst, what was done was that some lazy voter turnout workers put people on the ballots who could never show up and vote without an additional person coming in and risking their ass for limited gain. Do you think ACORN has enough resources to pay off several million voters or more to vote again, and that out of those several million, NONE gets disgruntled and comes forward to blow the whole fraud wide open?

Divid up that supposedly missing money: no more than several dollars a person. Do you think several million people would commit a felony for the sake of pocket change?

I just have to wonder: is it just so shocking to you that voters could give your party such a stinging rebuke that you have to invent reasons to believe that it was all just a bad dream?

The GOP lost the election, and not as some fluke, not as the result of some conspiracy. It lost because it failed to govern well. It lost because it became unconcerned with remaining in good standing with many Americans. It lost because it supported one of the most terrible presidents of modern times to the hilt, and still won’t admit most of its policies are wrong.

Admit you lost. That’s the first step to being able to honestly assess for yourself why, without resorting to explanations that are clearly self-serving.

Christine-
Obama’s policies tend to be popular with the majority of Americans, and those are policies he campaigned and won on. I don’t think it gets much clearer. Your folks campaigned and even now campaign on the other argument and lost.

Who has the mandate? The party that loses points the more it opens its mouth, or the one that gains them when people see some action out of them? It’s no coincidence that Congress’s numbers rose in response to their getting actual legislation passed.

I’m sick of folks saying there’s no mandate for change. Do you think much of anybody thinks the current healthcare system is tolerable? That the Stock market’s status quo is acceptable? That labor conditions are good? That the perpetual shipping of jobs over seas, and wealth to the already wealthy, is right?

People want change. They’re sick of things as they are now. If the GOP took that more seriously, they’d still be in charge. But they didn’t, and now we are. If we’re smart, we’ll start restoring the balance to this country, stop catering to the rich and powerful, who don’t need further help.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2009 10:14 AM
Comment #283034

This is as bad or worse than anything that those on the left have conjured up over the past few elections.

While I think we all agree that it is important that elections are fair, as a nation we also need to accept that by design there is a winner and usually a loser in the elections. If our “side” doesn’t win, we need to start practicing what we preach to our children, go over there shake their hand, and “tell them congradulations,” and good luck, we’ll get you next time.

Then we have to get back to work doing what the elections are all about. We have become so focused on the event of the election that we forget that it is the means to the end not the end itself.

Posted by: Rob at June 16, 2009 10:24 AM
Comment #283036

“It comes from the casual use of the word mandate. In general, whoever wins has the mandate. Bush had it; Obama has it. It is churlish to suggest otherwise.”

Churlish! to disagree with your interpretation of the issue at hand? Churlish in a surly sort of way or churlish in a vulgar sort of way?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 16, 2009 10:33 AM
Comment #283039

Carter took about 50.1% popular vote in 1976 that was a close race, Ford 48.0% made up a lot of ground in the last month but not enough. So from 1976 till 2008 Obama 52.9% was the only Democratic President to take over 50% since Carter. 2000 Election Gore 48.4% Vs Bush 47.9%

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 16, 2009 12:13 PM
Comment #283040

1988 election “Dad” George H. W. Bush R. 53.4% Michael Dukakis D. 45.6%

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 16, 2009 12:19 PM
Comment #283042


The Mullah’s vs the Money.

The primary difference between the Iranian and our political process is that corporate control of our process is not absolute.

Posted by: jlw at June 16, 2009 1:32 PM
Comment #283052

Quote “I do believe that something has happened in Iran,” with Iranians more willing to question the government’s “antagonistic postures” toward the world, Obama said. “There are people who want to see greater openness, greater debate, greater democracy.” Sounds practical and reasonable to me.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 16, 2009 5:00 PM
Comment #283053

Stephen

People say they want change, but many don’t agree on what the change means. That is why Obama has to tread carefully. It is actually the big problem for Democrats. They indeed sold Americans on the need for change w/o clearly defining what that change would be.

The current healthcare debate is a good case in point. I want change. I would go with something more like a Scandinavian system that rations care and essentially eliminates the lawyers’ involvements. I suppose you are for change too. Is “my” change what you want? My neighbor is for change too. He just wants to have the same thing he has now and pay less.

My neighbor is a lot like many people who want “change”. They want what the political system cannot give them. They just want more of everything and want to be more successful relative to others.

J2t2

Yes, churlish in a surly sort of way to complain that Clinton, Bush, Obama are/were not legitimate. Of course, since I am so reasonable it is probably also churish to disgree with me in general (a joke).

Posted by: Christine at June 16, 2009 5:15 PM
Comment #283071

OG-
An opinion poll carried out by CNN in March of this year measured the strength of public anger at various institutions, the blame they placed on different groups.

They placed much blame on the banks for their unnecessary risk taking, much on the Bush Administration for its shoddy regulation, much on business leaders for their poor business decisions, and a lot on consumers.

That doesn’t sound like a very conservative way to look at things.

The conservatives lost out because they’ve gutted the credibility of their theories, that they are better at defense, that they are the moral and religious standard bearers to look up to, that their laissez faire and/or pro-business legislation can keep the economy strong without causing major bubbles and economic collapses like we’re going through.

Undoubtedly, some conservatives are pissed off at the excesses of the Bush administration. My thinking, though, is that if they had let themselves be pissed off earlier, had not rigidly prescribed both dogma and defense of that dogma as their approach to the rest of the country, they might have maintained power. Instead, they lost it, trying to push malfunctioning policies down American’s throats with scare tactics.

I don’t think more of the same is going to sway enough people. They could win back a seat or two, but I don’t think the public has the heart to give the Republicans additional chances to run the country with the errors of their past such fresh memories.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2009 10:37 PM
Comment #283072

Christine-
Careful? If he gets too careful, he could end up passing healthcare reform in name only. He needs to be bolder than that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2009 10:38 PM
Comment #283073

OG
A dramatically mistaken assessment. McCain is far from a liberal Republican or liberal anything else. As regards to the bailouts, Bill Clinton, who you most likely do not think much of but must accept as being adept at electoral politics, says that the Republicans actually lost the election at the exact same time the decision was made to let Lehman fail. That was it.

Christine
Your neighbor is likely to get what he wants. The goal of the administration and the Dem controlled congress is to allow Americans to keep their current health care plans if they choose. Those plans should cost less for a number of reasons ,most notably because insurance companies will not be absorbing the cost for the uninsured.
I recall a trial lawyers commercial. It was quite effective. There was a middle aged women looking right at the camera stating,” It wasn’t lawyers that cut off my breast by mistake”.
The importance of malpractice litigation has been over stated re high medical prices. Texas which caps personal damage awards has one of the highest rates of increase for medical care. Largely a red herring and handy whipping boy.

Posted by: bills at June 16, 2009 11:00 PM
Comment #283074

Christine
You touched on a fundamental defining difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservative are basically uncomfortable with change and automatically resist it. Liberals tend to the opposite. Niether are right all the time but both are right some of the time. That is why we need a responsible conservative party minority and I hope that the Reps can once again evolve into one and eschew their current malice. Trying to blame the results of an unusually clear cut election with unproven,insubstantial ballot descrepancies does not help the process.

Posted by: bills at June 16, 2009 11:17 PM
Comment #283099

The reason Palin is attacked by the left is because she is an uninformed, bombastic, nitwit who doesn’t deserve national publicity. She is a bad joke and if that is the future of the GOP, your future will be as a permanent minority party with regional power in the deep south and parts of the west. If minority status is what you seek then ride the Palin horse to oblivion. The only reason she is listened to at all is because there are no reasonable voices in the GOP getting heard. All we hear from are criminals like Dick Cheney or idiots like Palin and Limbaugh. Where are your smart reasonable people? Oh yeah, you ridiculed them and disregard what they say in favor of the above fools and criminals.

I would like to see the Democrats start acting like a party in power. The Democrats are wimps and said nothing as George Bush ran over the top of everything reasonable. Now they are being too inclusive of bad ideas from the GOP on health care, foreign policy, and financial regulation. We were not consulted when W started stupid and illegal wars, we were not consulted when W decided to turn a blind eye to corporate greed, we were not consulted when our treasury was raided by Bush for the benefit of his supporters.

Fear Sarah Palin? Nope, not in the least. She has about as much chance of becoming president as I do.

Posted by: tcsned at June 17, 2009 10:26 AM
Comment #283109

“”While these figures have shown little change over the past decade, the nation appears to be slightly more polarized than it was in the early 1990s. Compared with the 1992-1994 period, the percentage of moderates has declined from 42% to 35%, while the percentages of conservatives and liberals are up slightly — from 38% to 40% for conservatives and a larger 17% to 21% movement for liberals.”” What happened from the mid 1990s until 2000 (and still going on with rush and others today) was Newt& company kicked out many of the moderates in congress and waged war with the popular Bill Paxon and his wife a moderate and very popular Susan Molinari and others in New York and in the rust belt and Northeast if you look the Liberals went up 4% points if you noticed in the last few years the Democratic congressional leadership and President Obama are doing just fine in appealing to moderates and Independents. And the Republican party is smaller than the Democratic party.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 17, 2009 11:53 AM
Comment #283120

The last republican that I voted for was Ronald Reagan. He won, so what? This issue of “your guy lost” is redundant, I did not like McCain either, but I find the whole argument about who lost and who won very silly and child like. People whom actually pay attention to politics, base their opinions on policies and expenditures, not who won or who lost. This administration has done nothing but spend since January 20th, and with the fires being fanned, the people will do nothing until they realize how stupid the arguing is, and stop this runaway government. I would not care if Obama were democrat, republican, independent, or libertarian, if he had six legs and walked on his toupee, as long as what he was doing was in the best interest of this country. Unfortunately, there are countries, all over the world, that are able to see where this administration is leading us and they have enough sense to be frightened, as we should be.

Posted by: Donna Fallis at June 17, 2009 3:01 PM
Comment #283128

sam-

OG has a point. Neither CNN nor Clinton have a record of telling the truth, so wouldn’t put any trust in anything they had to say.

Clinton’s talking political strategy. Why would he mislead CNN about it? He’s got no stake in convincing his fellow liberals that they’ve got support they don’t. As for CNN, are you claiming they misreported what Clinton said, or that the whole conversation is a figment of CNN’s imagination?

According to the Kaiser poll here, more than sixty percent of Americans still want healthcare reform despite our economic and fiscal problems I also seem to recall there was another poll that put the Republican position within margin of error of the Insurance company as far as the popularity of their leadership on the matter. And Obama beats both like rented mules on the question of who the public trusts more to lead America on the matter, with the other Democrats comfortably ahead of the two as well. Obama has a clear majority of 58% and the Republicans a clear minority of 34%.

Oh, I looked at that Gallup Poll, and found an interesting tidbit:

Thus far in 2009, Gallup has found an average of 36% of Americans considering themselves Democratic, 28% Republican, and 37% independent. When independents are pressed to say which party they lean toward, 51% of Americans identify as Democrats, 39% as Republicans, and only 9% as pure independents.

If you break down the independents according to where they lean, the Democrats take a share of almost 55% of the voters, where Republicans take about 43.5%.

The question also is, what makes somebody a self-identified conservative, and how closely does that track with what hardliners define as conservative positions?

If we look at other poll results, including the ones that reflect where Americans opinions are, then we see many places where the opinions of Americans are in the majority, if not the vast majority, in the Democrat’s favor.

McCain faces an America where the support for the Republican Party has dropped considerably, in the wake of Republican governance.

One advantage that the conservative self-identifying group has is the high, unalloyed concentration of conservatives in the Republican Party. Not so many people self-identify as Liberals. Democrats tend to split their identification between moderate and liberal and independents identify, by about half as Moderates themselves, according to the Gallup poll you cite.

Moderates are represented poorly in the Republican party, only about twenty-six percent of their total, where conservatives dominate by sixty-nine percent.

The case can therefore be made that this is a matter of what’s important in the matters of what you identify as liberal or conservative: what people say, or what they support.

Republicans are about twelve points down here. I would say the major reason is, the Republican party’s grown so extreme that it’s leaving many who consider themselves moderate or conservative behind.

As for Palin? The reason Palin is despised, I think, is that she’s so cheerfully hateful. She seems to be the kind of person who enjoys sticking her thumb in liberal’s eyes. Add to that her blatant hypocrisy on earmarks and corruption, and the fact that she was offered up as a kind of attempt to both exploit Hillary voter, and Obama change voters, with her politics essentially insulting the intelligence of both groups, and you can understand why Democrats just can’t stand her.

She’s worse than a typical Republican candidate, in that she tries to act like she’s something fresh, when in fact she reeks of the Gingrich Republicanism that so contaminates the party to this day, the belligerent, take no prisoners political attitudes. Do you think that little stunt with David Letterman really makes anybody really sympathetic to her?

Donna-
At the very least, you might want to take the results as a barometer of what works.

The Republicans did their best to keep the Liberals from making any changes. They staged record breaking campaigns of obstructionism, and Bush finally got that veto pen out for some exercise.

Result? Though the failure of conservatives to be conservative was a hindrance to Republicans in the last eleciton, their real failure was to get moderates, independents and Democrats to vote for their candidate. McCain might have had a better chance to be president if he had made a better impression in the middle than if he had done his best to impress the right throughout the election. He might have been able to make up for his problems with the Right by compensating with the center. Instead, he and the rest of the Republicans handed that middle to the Democrats on a silver plate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 17, 2009 6:17 PM
Comment #283133

Sam,

In reference to another’s characterizastion of Palin and other conservatives you stated: “We must be able to hold a logical conversation without personal attacks.”

You then proceeded to state that “Obama’s goal is to destroy our nation and he is doing it.”

Characterizing the president of the US as an enemy of the US is not a personal attack? Do I detect a bit of inconsistency? Naa, you were just referring to his policies.


Posted by: Rich at June 17, 2009 8:38 PM
Comment #283134

BillS

Newt Gingrich is probably the most change oriented in politics in the last decades.

Many liberal proposals are back to the 1970s in terms of organization and regulation.

I think we do need both sides, but sometimes they are not the sides we might think. Liberals claim people like Gingrich advocate risky change and fight to protect established interests such as large firms (GM) and labor unions.

The free market is very radical and creates all sort of change. That is what many people don’t want and what liberals often want to regulate.

Posted by: Christine at June 17, 2009 8:38 PM
Comment #283137

“The free market is very radical and creates all sort of change. That is what many people don’t want and what liberals often want to regulate.”

The “free market” as practiced is, as is typical with those on the right, just the opposite of the name. What is free, Christine, about Wal-Mart dictating to suppliers and buying from the dictatorial Chinese? What is radical about Wal-Mart suppressing wages in this country to the point those working there qualify for food stamps. What kind of a change is it when Wal-Mart comes to town and many of the small business’s go under?

That is the problem with many on the right they have been duped into believing this type of conservative capitalism we have seen develop over the past 30 years is the “free market”. Free to exploit maybe , free to hamper our representative democracy, and free to buy our elected representatives, but that is not innovation Christine that is robber baron style capitalism that leads to one financial disaster after another. That is the real election fraud in this country IMHO, the amount of money spent to bribe politicians in the name of free speech.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 17, 2009 9:57 PM
Comment #283152

Christine
I guess it depends on how one defines change. Gingrich certainly help usher in a change in tactics,a very agressive conserrvatism but the power bases he protected and sought to advance were the status quo.

j2t2
The kind of capitalism the Reps allowed to raise its head again was certainly nothing new. A look at some of the railroad history would ring bells. They retarded whole regions of the West like Idaho from any economic development with there pricing policies. They did things like like demand to see a companies books to determine just how much could be charged for frieght and still leave them(maybe)in business. For Idaho they shipped all goods to San Fransisco and then back to Idaho to gain the additional charge instead of stopping. Any real competition was met with opposition by political thralls and if that did not work,armed thugs. One thing that helped stop their economic rape of a whole region was common carrier regulation,damn liberals and their big government interference.

Posted by: bills at June 18, 2009 6:01 AM
Comment #283185

Gingrich offers change towards greed, corruption, and ineptitude. Great. Advocating Gingrich is like advocating for a Nihilist with an evil smile.

One of the most hypocritical, deceitful politicians to walk the face of the earth. Anything he proffers is a foil for his own advancement. How anyone can take seriously anything the man says, given his history, is something that astonishes. Then there are those that actually advocate Palin.

Posted by: gergle at June 18, 2009 1:00 PM
Post a comment