The other day a friend passed me an article that was written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. back in 2006. It concerned election “irregularities” in the 2004 Presidential elections. While I knew something about what had taken place, I was stunned by
The other day a friend passed me an article that was written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. back in 2006. It concerned election “irregularities” in the 2004 Presidential elections.
While I knew something about what had taken place, I was stunned by the information that Kennedy revealed concerning the widespread efforts, in states such as Ohio, to throw the vote in favor of the Republicans.
Much like the notorious 2000 presidential election, settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of George Bush, it is more than likely that the Democratic candidate- in 2004 that was Senator John Kerry, won the election.
Nevertheless the antics carried out read as if from a novel. Voting machines that automatically indicated a vote for George Bush even if the voter indicated John Kerry (which could be corrected if caught); a county that declared a “terror threat” in order to ensure that the vote count was done in secrecy; a complete mismatch in terms of numbers of voting machines where heavily populated areas (largely Democratic) received fewer machines, whereas less populated and more suburban areas (and largely Republican) received more machines. Adding to this list from infamy was the purging of voting rolls, including, as described by journalist Greg Palast in a separate piece, the purging of the names of deployed Black servicemen if they did not respond to letters sent to them by Republican operatives.
As we quickly approach the November 2008 election, there is no reason to believe that election theft is off the table.
Understanding that our last two presidential elections were stolen really reshapes how one understands the politics of the last eight years. Right-wing Republicans have been prepared to take whatever steps necessary in order to guarantee their continued dominance.
While it is absolutely the case that election theft is not a new phenomenon in the U.S. (with both the South and the Southwest notorious for years of racially-based electoral theft especially from the mid-19th century through the mid-to-late 1960s), it is significant that what we witnessed in 2000 and 2004 was so blatant in the post-Watergate era where the electoral system was supposedly cleaned up.
Right-wing Republicans have been insistent in pressing their irrational and dangerous agenda, and they have done this through a doggedness and determination that contrasts with a willingness by so many Democrats to cave.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 certainly provided the conditions for advancing this agenda, but the right-wing wished to take no chances.
Thus, and often in apparent cooperation with Republican state secretaries (responsible for elections in each state), they set out to lay the conditions for Republican victories in flawed elections.
The mainstream media, rather than challenging these undemocratic practices, appeared more concerned about matters of stability and civility than in democracy and the rule of law.
In the aftermath of the 2000 election, for example, the mainstream media pushed Senator Gore to give up his quest for the White House and concede the election, despite the very apparent irregularities that called the entire election into question.
One does not need to be an Obama supporter to share these concerns regarding the legitimacy of the pending elections.
Having experienced two questionable elections that have brought disaster in their wake, it is unacceptable to believe that another such election can be permitted to stand.
In the aftermath of both the 2000 and 2004 elections lawsuits were filed, articles were written, and a great deal of head-shaking took place. The problem is this: an election cannot be stolen fair and square.
If the election is flawed, then it must be called into question and corrected. The victor of a flawed, if not outright stolen election, cannot be permitted to assume office under the banner of legality.
The conclusion from all of this is, admittedly, unnerving but it is this: if the November 2008 election is stolen, we must be in the streets making our voices heard.
If it means that we need to stay in the streets for days or more, we will need to do that. Because at the end of the day, a stolen election is just another name for a coup d’etat. Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies and the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum.
______
Copyright 2008 Chicago Defender. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
About Post Author
