US presidential election

The country to our immediate south has a different way of electing a federal government leader aka president for a 4-year term.

This Youtube hints at the complexity of their voting ballots.

Nonetheless, it would appear that, just as the Cons attempted to influence the voting outcome with the systematic targeting and suppression of non-CPC supporters, the RAPEublicans under the tutelage of Karl Rove are also using dirty tricks, such as giving people false information.  Robocalling is but one tactic.

Twice in the last few weeks, voters in Maricopa County, Arizona – Home of Sheriff Joe Arpaio – were sent notices by election officials telling them to vote on November 6 in English and November 8 in Spanish.

Ohio Secretary of State John Husted, who is doing everything in his power to avoid counting votes, apparently defied federal courts yet again on Friday when issued an order that could invalidate legal provisional ballots.

Steve Rosenfeld reports, “Democrats in Denver are worried that their top local election official—who is running for county commisioner as a Republican—is not planning to deploy enough voting machines to easily accommodate polling place voters on Tuesday, particularly in racially mixed areas where Democrats are expected to do well.”

Florida Governor Rick Scott has also been a leader in making it hard to vote, leading to scenes like this – described as a 9-hour wait in what is obviously not a GOP stronghold.

Some excellent overviews, here and here.

Old-school ballot-box fraud at its most egregious was localized and limited in scope. But new electronic voting systems allow insiders to rig elections on a statewide or even national scale. And whereas once you could catch the guilty parties in the act, and even dredge the ballot boxes out of the bayou, the virtual vote count can be manipulated in total secrecy. By means of proprietary, corporate-owned software, just one programmer could steal hundreds, thousands, potentially even millions of votes with the stroke of a key. It’s the electoral equivalent of a drone strike. [...]

Meanwhile, the new millennium, far from delivering a democratic promised land, presented Americans with the debacle of the 2000 presidential election, whose fate hung absurdly on “hanging chads”—the little pieces of punched-out ballot so contentiously examined during the monthlong recount. Few Americans knew (and many still do not know) that a faulty computer memory card triggered this fiasco. Late on Election Night, Al Gore’s total in Volusia County, Florida, suddenly dropped when one precinct reported 16,000 negative votes. Fox News was immediately prompted by Florida governor Jeb Bush to call the election for his brother. On his way to a 3 a.m. public concession, Gore changed course when a campaign staffer discovered that he was actually ahead in Volusia County by 13,000 votes.
 
But the damage was done. Gore was cast as a sore loser in a hostile media environment. His effort to obtain a recount was described by Sean Hannity on Fox News as an attempt to “steal the election.” Meanwhile, George W. Bush invoked his duty to get on with the business of running the country. The rest, as they say, is history.

My prediction for the outcome is predicated on the RAPEublicans' manifest bottomless proclivity to cheat, lie and steal, as well as their deep financial resources from billionaires like the Kochs who would rather fund Romney and other GOP candidates than pay taxes for the public infrastructures they use or remunerate their workers fairly.

A stale-mate.  

In poll after poll, county after county, voting results will be invalidated, then challenged by both parties as countless errors, deliberate misdirection, illegal procedures and outright fraud are exposed.

A clear *winner* will not be declared tonight. There may be days of acrimonious accusations and quite possibly, zealots like Tea Party Hatriots will lash out violently.  It will be ugly, and a perfect reflection of what US politics has become.

You Don't Own Me

Yes.  Sing it, women!

Funny.  I was thinking of this very song recently.  

Lesley Gore.  One of the original Riot Grrrlz in music.

And. Also this, too. via Sherry's tweet.


from Pat's tweet, merci!

California (State University) Wants Her.

After months of requests from reporters, a California university has agreed to allow members of the media to attend a fundraiser next week featuring Sarah Palin.

Officials with California State University, Stanislaus issued an e-mail advisory Friday announcing that the June 25 gala at its Turlock campus would be open to the press. The Associated Press has been requesting access to the event since mid-April.

Palin's appearance has generated widespread coverage and criticism since it was announced in March. University officials have refused to divulge the terms of the former Alaska governor's contract or her speaking fee for the event, where the least expensive tickets cost $500.

From here.

$arah Palin continues to feather her nest with wide-ranging speaking engagements as well as to demonstrate some pickiness with regard to which Republican candidates (and for which political office) she will actively support. This has not pleased some of her supporters.

In choosing Branstad, Palin skipped over businessman Bob Vander Plaats, a tea party favorite, in favor of a former governor with a strong chance of returning to office - and wielding political power when the Iowa presidential caucuses roll around.

"She's playing her cards, and trying to set herself up" for making a push, should she run, said Dante Scala, an associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire who is watching to see who, or whether, Palin endorses in his state.

Palin also backed former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina in the California Senate primary, and got a backlash on Facebook, a preferred way for Palin to communicate with supporters.

To critics who said Fiorina was a Republican in name only, Palin countered: "Most importantly, Carly is the only conservative in the race who can beat Barbara Boxer. That's no RINO. That's a winner."

For some conservatives, that's also a problem. Shelby Blakely, executive director of the Tea Party Patriots' online publication, New Patriot Journal, said Palin's endorsement has become "so undependable, it's marginalized itself." While she once thought highly of Palin, Blakely said that during the past two years the "Going Rogue" author has gone more establishment, and Palin's failure to criticize her own party is bothersome. [...]

Whatever the impact on her wider public, Palin's endorsement translates into crowds and valuable media attention for her preferred candidates, and her message - flowing via her social networks - reaches millions of people.

From here.

It will be interesting to watch, from the outside, who will come out in support of Palin, if she is indeed planning to launch a run for the presidential nomination in 2012. Truthiness, expediency and opportunism are the guideposts she consistently follows. Whether that spells trustworthiness for potential supporters remains to be seen.

Not like the other.

This may well turn into a series about the ongoing lies and stupid propaganda by infuriated rightwing zealots and their pathetic attempts to show moral equivalence.

Gateway "Miss The Point Much?" Pundit compares and contrasts photographs. The first shows a view of lawn around the Mall after the 70,000 Teabaggers March on September 12. The other depict Washington streets after the US presidential inauguration in January 2009.

The difference is that presidential inaugurations are events open to the public. There is a budget allocated for clean-up afterwards, and the crowds are messy, regardless of which party owns the presidency. Those pictures could have been taken after the Santa Claus parade, in any major US or Canadian city.

The Teabaggers shindig likely needed a demonstration permit, and those responsible would have had to post a bond worth several thousands of dollars to cover clean-up after the crowds disperse. If the organizers convince the participants to clean up their litter, they get the bond back.

Is that simple enough for you? It's all about the money, thus not evidence that Teabaggers are "cleaner" or less filthy, though commenters at GP seem to think so.

And also.

Among the considerable comments in response to the blogpost that I found bewildering, a Palin supporter suggested that Ross Douthat had the inside track on Palin's bi/non/partisan appeal.

Palin’s popularity has as much to do with class as it does with ideology. In this sense, she really is the perfect foil for Barack Obama. Our president represents the meritocratic ideal — that anyone, from any background, can grow up to attend Columbia and Harvard Law School and become a great American success story. But Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard.

This ideal has had a tough 10 months. It’s been tarnished by Palin herself, obviously. With her missteps, scandals, dreadful interviews and self-pitying monologues, she’s botched an essential democratic role — the ordinary citizen who takes on the elites, the up-by-your-bootstraps role embodied by politicians from Andrew Jackson down to Harry Truman. But it’s also been tarnished by the elites themselves, in the way that the media and political establishments have treated her. ...

Sarah Palin is beloved by millions because her rise suggested, however temporarily, that the old American aphorism about how anyone can grow up to be president might actually be true.

It seems to me, an ordinary Canadian citizen observing the US political scene for a few decades now, that Palin exploited and did not honour that which Douthat claims was a true and essential democratic opportunity. Perhaps anyone in her position would have succumbed to the temptations on offer. Her mis/fortune is that she's not anyone or even 'everywoman', she's Sarah Palin.

Never Again! unless the Catholic Church has its way ....

The above political cartoon was first borrowed to illustrate a blog about meddling bishops posted at Birth Pangs. It comes from a short opinion piece that was written in 2007 but it remains relevant, given the political activism of the Roman Catholic Church clergy during the 2008 Canadian federal election (no, the RepubliCons' Opus Dei candidate did not win) and especially during the US presidential elections where Cardinals spewed ideological diatribes against the Democrats because of their pro-choice position.

We are sad that Bloc Québecois Raymond Gravel was not a candidate for re-election. He received a letter from Vatican officials that told him to withdraw from politics or he would no longer be allowed to perform sacraments. The Le Devoir article above is much more critical than this mild report from the CBC.

In spite of claims to the contrary, it would seem that the spirit and practice of the Inquisition is still alive and kicking at the Vatican.

Pelvic Theology: The Bleat Goes On and On and On …

Yet another high-falutin’ Catholic cleric has his ecclesiastical pantaloons in a knot.

Fordham University Law School’s plan to give an award to the Supreme Court justice Stephen G. Breyer on Wednesday night has drawn criticism from Cardinal Edward M. Egan … Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision overturning Nebraska’s ban on late-term, or so-called partial-birth, abortion. One of the reasons he cited was that the law was unconstitutional because it made no exception for situations in which the mother’s health was at risk.

He is not the first supporter of abortion rights to receive the Fordham ethics prize, established in 1976 to recognize “individuals whose work exemplifies outstanding standards of professional
conduct, promotes the advancement of justice and brings credit to the profession” of the law. But other members of the court who joined in opinions upholding abortion rights — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who received the prize in 2001, and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was given the award in 1992 — did not draw criticism from Catholic activists and the hierarchy.

Ah, but Bader Ginsberg and Day O’Connor were not awarded this recognition during a presidential election campaign where the issue of abortion has become confrontational and is being framed in terms that escape the control of the fetus fetishists.

In recent months, the Cardinal Newman Society, which brought wide attention to this year’s award, has become increasingly outspoken in its criticism of Catholic university officials perceived as less than faithful to church doctrine.

On Oct. 9, Mr. Reilly labeled it “a serious scandal” when Pamela Trotman Reid, the president of St. Joseph College in West Hartford, Conn., was quoted in The Hartford Courant as saying she was “concerned about the right of women to make choices about their own health” if John McCain became president. … In an interview, Mr. Reilly said that the society’s criticisms were not intended to favor one party or candidate over another, or to discourage the exercise of free speech on Catholic campuses.

Or to ensure that the Catholic Church maintains control over women’s reproductive health? As was affirmed at Birth Pangs, these robe-wearing misogynists meddle in political and legal issues because of the implicit authority they claim: Pelvic Theology.

First posted at Birth Pangs

No-choicer bombast falls short of risking tax-exempt status.

In Colorado, a Catholic clergyman attacked US presidential candidate Obama and his running mate at the Educating on the Nature and Dignity of Women dinner. Archbishop Chaput also took the opportunity to criticize liberal Catholic groups as well as the Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec who recently endorsed Obama.

Many members of Catholics for Choice in the US believe in a broad definition of pro-life which includes opposition to war and the death penalty as well as support for those principles associated historically with the Catholic worker movement: eradicating poverty and promoting social justice. Their president Jon O’Brien issued a statement:

“The fact sheet from the bishops’ lobbying arm, the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, reaffirms the US bishops’ desire to place themselves at the center of the political discussion on abortion. However, in doing so, they do not reflect the fullness of Catholic teaching on abortion, nor do they represent
what Catholics actually believe. It is simply not true that the Roman Catholic church’s position on abortion has remained unchanged for 2,000 years.

While members of the Catholic hierarchy have consistently opposed abortion, their reasons for doing so and the teachings they espoused to the faithful have varied continually. … It is also telling that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops omitted to mention that no pope has proclaimed the
prohibition of abortion an ‘infallible’ teaching. This means that there is much more room for debate than is usually thought, with opinions among theologians and the laity differing widely. In any case,
Catholic theology tells individuals to follow their personal conscience in moral matters, even when their conscience is in conflict with hierarchical views.

The reality that the bishops are trying to overcome is that the majority of Catholics do not agree with them on abortion, or on their role in political life.”

More at Catholics In Public Life.

Wendy Norris writes about the Bishop’s dinner screed for the Colorado Independent:

… Chaput was sure to point out that his remarks were offered as a private citizen and not as a representative of the diocese at the dinner for Catholic women. The Internal Revenue Service has been cracking down on clergy for breaching the law that prohibits tax-exempt religious groups from making statements supporting or opposing political candidates.

Indeed. So it may not require hell freezing over, more likely the icy gaze of the IRS to make sure a certain religious cleric refrains from meddling in election campaigns, for fear of having his status and privileges go kaput?

First posted at Birth Pangs.

Palin attacks choice, yet offers nothing to families.

Does this sound familiar? An all-out attack on choice, framed by a fetus fetishist who offers nothing in support of pregnant women and families.

Sarah Palin attacked the Democrats’ presidential candidate once again at a rally in Pennsylvania yesterday, this time for his position on choice.

Speaking at a rally in a packed hockey arena in Johnstown, Palin accused Obama of consistently supporting abortion legislation as a legislator in Illinois and Washington. ”In times like these with wars and financial crisis, I know it may be easy to forget even as deep and abiding concern as a right to life, and it seems that our opponent will forget that,” Palin told about 6,000 supporters in
the arena. “He hopes you won’t notice how radical, absolutely radical, his ideas on this and his record is until it’s too late.” … ”Americans need to see his record for what it is,” Palin said. “And, please, it is not negative, it is not mean-spirited, to talk about his record.”

For the record, here is some information about the Republican and the Democrat platforms regarding support to families.

McCain lacks an articulated family-policy platform, a consistent view on women’s issues, and a perspective on government’s role vis-à-vis children beyond the walls of the schoolhouse. Obama, on the other hand, has well-defined plans for tackling teenage pregnancy, expanding early-childhood education, improving child-support collection, and - importantly - supporting new families as they step into the uncertain terrain of parenthood.The American family is a fragile institution. High rates of poverty, divorce, single parenthood and social isolation exaggerate the typical strains of parenting. As a result, the United States has one of the highest child maltreatment rates among industrialized nations, and generations of children are raised under difficult and sometimes traumatic circumstances.

Against this backdrop, the United States provides few services to support new families. Unlike many European countries, we do not offer universal paid parental leave, universal child care, universal health care, or universal income supports. … Low-income families, in particular, can have a better shot at parenting their children well if given intensive support before, and after, the birth of their child. … If elected, Obama’s initial steps into the field of family policy would signal an important shift in federal policymaking. But it would provide more than a signal to low-income parents. For them and for their children, it might offer a real lifeline to a better future.

From here.

First posted at Birth Pangs