Monday, July 27, 2020

Why Don't Democratic Leaders Support Verifiable Elections? The Reason Is Simple and Obvious

>

The original Mayor Daley wasn't the first, but he was the best at election manipulation. Daley would have not supported verifiable elections for the obvious reason. Why don't today's Democrats support verifiable elections?

by Thomas Neuburger

"Everyone I know wants Trump to lose. Do you know anyone who actually wants Biden to win?"
—Howie Klein, here

I've often contended that neither political party — not the Democrats, not the Republicans — wants free, open, verifiable and uncorrupted elections.

Both parties, of course, say they want fair elections. The Republicans use these pronouncements, though, as cover for creating obstacles to voting by Democratic-leaning citizens based on demographics like race and place of residence. That much is a given, and this hypocrisy is obvious to everyone, including Republicans.

But what about the Democratic Party? There the situation is more mixed, but it's not unmixed. I cut my adult teeth in Chicago, the perfect model, if not ground zero, for election manipulation, and there are many Chicago's in the country.

There are also many approaches to stealing elections, but one of the most common is faked and manipulated vote totals, and for that, the solution is well known: hand-counted paper ballots. Given that fact, you have to ask yourself: If Democratic leaders really wanted uncorrupted elections — as opposed to just elections they could win — wouldn't they demand a national return to hand-counted paper ballots, the gold standard for honest elections?

And yet they don't. Year after year they keep the same corruptible voting systems in place, often expanding them, and focus their fire instead on Republican gerrymandering and voter list purges as evidence of the other party's evil and their own goodness.

It's likely there's a simple and obvious reason for Democratic leadership not seeking to secure our elections with hand-counted ballots, but it's not a pretty one: Like the Republicans, Democratic leaders, many or most of whom hate progressives with a passion, also want the ability to "fix" elections when they wish to.

"Ballot-Stuffing" in Philadelphia

For example, consider this, from the Philly Voice:
South Philly judge of elections pleads guilty to stuffing ballot boxes, accepting bribes

Prosecutors say Domenick DeMuro, 73, inflated results for Democratic primary candidates

A former judge of elections in South Philadelphia pleaded guilty this week to fraudulently stuffing ballot boxes for Democratic candidates in recent primary elections, accepting bribes from a political consultant hired to help influence local election results.

...During the 2014, 2015 and 2016 primary elections, DeMuro admitted that he accepted bribes ranging from $300 to $5,000 per election. A political consultant hired by specific Democratic candidates gave DeMuro a cut of his fee to add votes for these candidates, who were running for judicial and various state, federal and local elected offices.

DeMuro would "ring up" extras votes on machines at his polling station, add them to the totals and later falsely certify that the voting machine results were accurate, prosecutors said.
U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain said, "DeMuro fraudulently stuffed the ballot box by literally standing in a voting booth and voting over and over, as fast as he could, while he thought the coast was clear."

This happens all the time and is rarely caught and punished. In this case, it's likely the bribes from a "political consultant hired by specific Democratic candidates" were the only reason DeMoro was prosecuted. A number of hand-made videos during the 2016 primary showed similar corrupt "certifications" at the local level, all of them disadvantaging Bernie Sanders, yet none of these videos sparked an ounce of indignation from "free election" Democratic leaders — whose preferred candidate, it should be noted, Hillary Clinton, benefited every time.

"Progressive Democrat" Blocks Gerrymandering Reform in Nevada

Or consider this sordid tale from Nevada, in which the local League of Women Voters attempted to eliminate gerrymandering following a recent Supreme Court decision that returned gerrymandering lawsuits to the states to resolve.

From the Nevada Current (emphasis added):
Apparently some Democrats think gerrymandering is fine in blue states

In June of 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal courts will no longer accept partisan gerrymandering cases. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority that partisan gerrymandering is a political issue that must be resolved at the state level. In response, the League of Women Voters U.S. launched a People Powered Fair Maps plan to create barriers to partisan gerrymandering in each state.

The League of Women Voters of Nevada adopted the plan and reached out to our democracy partners to form the Fair Maps Nevada coalition. On November 4, 2019, Fair Maps Nevada filed a constitutional amendment ballot initiative to create an independent redistricting commission. Nevada’s constitution protects the right to circulate a ballot initiative as well as the right to vote on ballot questions.
So far, so good. But wait:
On November 27, 2019, Mr. Kevin Benson, a Carson City attorney, filed a lawsuit challenging the ballot question’s summary of effect for a “progressive Democrat.” His client argued that the summary of the amendment that appears on each signature sheet was misleading. Fair Maps Nevada offered to edit the summary to clarify the amendment’s intent, but Mr. Benson refused. The Judge James Russell ultimately agreed with Mr. Benson’s client and asked both parties to submit new versions of the summary to address the plaintiff’s complaints. 
It's suspicious that a self-proclaimed "progressive Democrat" would try to monkey-wrench the process, but still, so far, so good. However: 
Fair Maps Nevada submitted a new summary, but Mr. Benson did not. Instead, he argued that the whole amendment was misleading and so should be blocked completely from moving forward.
In other words, the whole exercise was a sham to get the entire process thrown out by the local judge.
Essentially, Mr. Benson was asking Judge Russell to deny the Fair Maps Nevada coalition our constitutionally protected right to circulate a petition. Judge Russell accepted Fair Maps Nevada’s new summary of the amendment and closed the case [in favor of Fair Maps Nevada].
Still, the issue didn't die there. Benson took his appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, which allowed it to go ahead. Fair Maps Nevada eventually won, but not before they realized (wasn't it already obvious?) that this mystery litigant's real goal was to run out the signature-gathering clock on the initiative. Further, the state Supreme Court failed to close the legal loophole that allowed the appeal in the first place, preparing the way for similar future challenges on the same spurious grounds.

Why would a Democrat, in Democratic-controlled Nevada, want to block gerrymandering reform, if not to continue to benefit from the unreformed system?

The Danger for Democrats

The danger for Democrats in tolerating and continuing their own vote corruption is great. When voters say "both parties do it" — they're right. Perhaps Party leaders, national and local, think they can get away with these acts given that most of the mainstream media — busy people's only source of news — protects listeners and viewers from information that supports the "both are corrupt" frame.

But that protection can't be effective forever. While most Sanders supporters, for example, will vote for Joe Biden, most won't give him money, under the assumption perhaps that his billionaires have that covered. And this is widely seen as a race that most want neither candidate to win — especially if you include non-voters — even though even more voters want Trump to lose.

The bottom line is this: While Democratic leaders may think the situation — their current and safe control of their share of power — is well managed, the nation may easily become so alienated by both parties, and by the people's inability to vote outside the two-corrupt-parties framework, that they seek "other avenues" for change.

Ironically, a "back to the normal" Biden administration may be just the match Americans need to spark an active rebellion against the corruption of both political parties. One more round of mainstream Democrats in charge, may be the last straw for that national beast of burden, our suffering governed, to bear.

If that's the case, watch out. Democratic leaders are running out of time, as are we all. When a nation seeks "other avenues" for reform, that nation's in trouble.
 

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Will Wall Street Mafia Completely Take Over Chicago Now?

>


Yesterday Blue America tried to help Carol Moseley Braun get going with some national grassroots fundraising. As you can see, we raised around $7,500 for her. But we also discovered that Chicago progressives are so riven and so focused on Rahm's slick, pervasive, negative narrative about Braun that it's nearly hopeless that Emanuel can be stopped. Worse yet, Emanuel and the Big Business interests behind him are working behind the scenes to also win a conservative majority on the City Council. A Daley/Emanuel operative has put together a new PAC, which has already raised a million dollars from anti-family/anti-consumer forces to help bring about a take over that will be more complete and more devastating than anything Al Capone-- or Richard Daley-- ever contemplated.
Greg Goldner, who worked as campaign manager for Daley in 2003 and Emanuel’s first congressional campaign in 2002, is listed as the chairman of the new For A Better Chicago PAC, according to documents filed Friday with state elections officials.

...The effort appears to be an attempt to counter the enormous participation in local politics of organized labor, which was the biggest campaign donor by far in the 2007 council election. Goldner said For a Better Chicago would provide its endorsed candidates with “direct mail, survey research, voter education and get-out-the-vote efforts in wards throughout the city.”

Carol was fighting back against Rahm's slurs this morning. No one could doubt who exactly she's referring to, could they? Only one candidate for Mayor took some time off from work in DC, got a "job" as a bankster, went to work for Wall Street for a few months and was handed tens of millions of dollars to help him build power to further advance their interests!


Stop Rahm!

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, January 04, 2011

Yes He Can... Find Someone As Bad As Rahm To Run His Office

>


I grew up with a cast of bipartisan political enemies handed to me by my grandfather. Although many were Republicans, back then just as many were conservative Democrats, overwhelmingly southern Dixiecrats who ALL became Republicans or died before they got around to switching. But there were some really bad northern Democrats too and one of the worst of all was Mayor Daley. And for people of my generation, Mayor Daley, meant Richard J. Daley, Chicago's mayor for 21 years and a powerhouse in the Democratic Party, a powerhouse always on the wrong side of history. He was the posterchild for political corruption, though he always personally managed to escape formal charges. He was also an unrepentant bigot and authoritarian. During the infamous Democratic Convention in 1968-- which resulted in the election of Richard Nixon, Daley presided over a police riot and screamed "Fuck you, you Jew son of a bitch" at Connecticut Senator Abraham Ribicoff when he referred to Daley's Gestapo tactics.

Daley's oldest son, Richard M. Daley, elected in 1989, is the only man in history to have served as Chicago's mayor longer than his father. The traditionally Republican downtown interests support him despite his party. He's every bit a Conservative Consensus kind of guy. He's retiring now and making way for someone every bit as ruthless and corrupt as the Daleys, Rahm Emanuel, another Conservative Consensus dedicated follower of cash flows.

Richard J.'s youngest son, William M. Daley, was Clinton's second-term Commerce Secretary, a usually shady position reserved for shady characters whose main function is to fill party coffers. In 2004 he was made Midwest Chairman of J.P. Morgan, long one of Wall Street's most criminal enterprises. Yesterday it came to light that Obama is likely to appoint William M. chief-of-staff, keeping the whole Chicago political Mafia thing very much intact. In fact, Daley and Emanuel worked together to strong-arm Democrats in Congress who opposed NAFTA, which Big Business was demanding and which Clinton promised he would deliver.

This Daley is widely credited with being Rahm's mentor. In late 2009, when far right Dixiecrat Parker Griffith jumped the fence and officially joined the GOP, Daley penned an OpEd for the Washington Post defending Blue Dogism and Emanuel's anti-progressive jihad as former head of the DCCC. And he celebrated "a diversity of views even on tough issues such as abortion, gun rights and the role of government in the economy." He was a bastion of the Conservative Consensus which had come to power with Obama.
On the one hand, centrist Democrats are being vilified by left-wing bloggers, pundits and partisan news outlets for not being sufficiently liberal, "true" Democrats. On the other, Republicans are pounding them for their association with a party that seems to be advancing an agenda far to the left of most voters.

...All that is required for the Democratic Party to recover its political footing is to acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans -- and, based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan.

For liberals to accept that inescapable reality is not to concede permanent defeat. Rather, let them take it as a sign that they must continue the hard work of slowly and steadily persuading their fellow citizens to embrace their perspective. In the meantime, liberals-- and, indeed, all of us-- should have the humility to recognize that there is no monopoly on good ideas, as well as the long-term perspective to know that intraparty warfare will only relegate the Democrats to minority status, which would be disastrous for the very constituents they seek to represent.

In his editorial, Daley got it all wrong. Voters rejected what he calls "moderate Democrats" but what are clearly conservatives who reflexively vote against the interests of working families and with the Republicans to back the Big Business status quo-- his own brand of Conservative Consensus Democrat. The Blue Dogs were decimated in November-- over half their anti-family Caucus was defeated (the explanation for what looked like a rejection of the Democratic Party). Disillusioned, disappointed, unmotivated Democrats just did not show up at the polls and dozens of Daley's and Rahm's misnamed "moderates" were swept out of office. With Daley as his chief of staff, a similar fate could be in store for Obama in 2012 and, much worse, for more congressional Democrats. Daley's clearly and unambiguously a Wall Street shill (the way Rahm is) and he's on the take. His advice to Obama will always be wrongheaded and will lead to more anti-family GOP policies (from NAFTA-like trade policies to the dismantling of Social Security) not just gaining traction and enactment but being blamed-- rightfully-- on Democrats.

Did you ever imagine Obama could find a worse chief of staff than Emanuel? I had faith in him that he could do it, although I never imagined it would be as grotesque as Daley. I'm guessing the guys and gals at OpenSecrets, which keeps tabs on all the sleaze-- and has all the Daley stats-- wasn't in the least bit surprised.


UPDATE: The Plot Thickens

Supposedly, at least according to Howard Fineman, the White House is also considering Acting Chief of Staff Pete Rouse, ethically-suspect Tom Daschle, and former DLC Chair, former Agriculture Secretary and former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. Sounds like Daley has it sewn up. Sam Stein broke the story today that Daley has publicly opposed healthcare reform and that he "was not exactly enamored with a new consumer financial protection agency, a key element of the plan and one of the president's most cherished provisions, going so far as to lobby White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to drop the idea."

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Confidential to IL Gov. Pat Quinn and Dem Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias: Do you know what Master Rahm is doing right now?

>


"A loss by either [Quinn or Giannoulias] -- and that scenario isn't terribly hard to fathom -- would give Emanuel an opening to run against a Republican."
-- Chris Cillizza, in a Washingtonpost.com "The Fix" 

by Ken

In the present economic and political climate, both Illinois statewide candidates already had their hands full. Now it turns out that both the governor, running for election in his own right after succeeding Rod "Show Me the Money" Blagojevich, and state Treasurer Giannoulias, running for the Senate seat formerly occupied by President Obama, have something potentially far more dangerous to worry about than either the state of the economy or the strength of Republican candidates.

Yesterday Washingtonpost.com's Chris Cillizza reported in The Fix on the next step for superthug Master Rahm Emanuel, who in an hourlong interview Monday told superdolt Charlie Rose: "I hope [Chicago] Mayor [Richard M.] Daley seeks reelection. I will work and support him if he seeks reelection. But if Mayor Daley doesn't, one day I would like to run for mayor of the city of Chicago."

Cillizza quotes from a recent New Yorker profile of the mayor by Evan Osnos (thereby reminding me that I never did get through that piece) on personal considerations, notably his wife's ongoing battle against cancer, that might deter Mayor Daley, who's about to surpass his father's tenure as the city's longest-serving mayor, from running again, but also the difficulty anyone else would have in keeping him out if he does choose to run for a seventh term. He also points out that new campaign finance laws would be unfriendly to a traditional Daley fat-cat-financed race.

What's interesting, though, is the prospect facing Master Rahm if Mayor Daley does run again, or if he can't crowd out the large field of prospective post-Daley mayoral candidates. Here's how Cillizza puts it:
To give Emanuel an opening at either the governor's mansion in 2014 or the Senate in 2016 (and it's hard to imagine he would wait that long to get back into the political game), either Gov. Pat Quinn (D) or state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) would need to lose their bids in November.

A loss by either -- and that scenario isn't terribly hard to fathom -- would give Emanuel an opening to run against a Republican. Otherwise, it's impossible to imagine that he would primary a fellow Democrat.

Much as the prospect of a de-Rahm-ed White House gladdens the hearts of all freedom-loving Americans, if you're Pat Quinn or Alexi Giannoulias, and your defeat could be the only thing standing between the Master and, well, something he wants badly enough, shouldn't you already be losing sleep worrying about how best to watch your back?
#

Labels: , , , ,