Did the US Supreme Court deliver the Indiana Primary to Hillary Clinton?
Imagine Hillary Clinton's luck.
When she needed to win a primary in New Hampshire, the machines glitched up, and she emerged with an unexpected margin of victory. Whether it was due to electronic voting breakdowns is not clear. But there was never a a full recount or a thorough investigation of the serious problems that plagued the vote count in that state.
When she needed a victory in Ohio, Republican voters -- urged on by Rush Limbaugh -- crossed over in droves and helped give her one. Cross-over voting may also have been a factor in her critical victory in Pennsylvania. There were also numerous instances of computer tabulation glitches in the Pennsylvania secretary of state's office.
Now the Indiana primary looms ahead. Less than a week prior, the US Supreme Court has delivered a devastating decision on voter ID that could again make a big difference in Clinton's favor.
When she needed to win a primary in New Hampshire, the machines glitched up, and she emerged with an unexpected margin of victory. Whether it was due to electronic voting breakdowns is not clear. But there was never a a full recount or a thorough investigation of the serious problems that plagued the vote count in that state.
When she needed a victory in Ohio, Republican voters -- urged on by Rush Limbaugh -- crossed over in droves and helped give her one. Cross-over voting may also have been a factor in her critical victory in Pennsylvania. There were also numerous instances of computer tabulation glitches in the Pennsylvania secretary of state's office.
Now the Indiana primary looms ahead. Less than a week prior, the US Supreme Court has delivered a devastating decision on voter ID that could again make a big difference in Clinton's favor.
Did the US Supreme Court just elect John McCain?
The US Supreme Court has just dealt a serious blow to voters' rights that could help put John McCain in the White House by eliminating tens of thousands of voters who generally vote Democratic.
By 6-3 the Court has upheld an Indiana law that requires citizens to present a photo identification card in order to vote. Florida, Michigan, Louisiana, Georgia, Hawaii and South Dakota have similar laws. Though it's unlikely, as many as two dozen other states could add them by election day. Other states, like Ohio, have less stringent ID requirements than Indiana's, but still have certain restrictions that are strongly opposed by voter rights advocates.
The decision turns back two centuries of jurisprudence that has accepted a registered voter's signature as sufficient identification for casting a ballot. By matching that signature against one given at registration, and with harsh penalties for ballot stuffing, the Justices confirmed in their lead opinion that there is "no evidence" for the kind of widespread voter fraud Republican partisans have used to justify the demand for photo ID.
By 6-3 the Court has upheld an Indiana law that requires citizens to present a photo identification card in order to vote. Florida, Michigan, Louisiana, Georgia, Hawaii and South Dakota have similar laws. Though it's unlikely, as many as two dozen other states could add them by election day. Other states, like Ohio, have less stringent ID requirements than Indiana's, but still have certain restrictions that are strongly opposed by voter rights advocates.
The decision turns back two centuries of jurisprudence that has accepted a registered voter's signature as sufficient identification for casting a ballot. By matching that signature against one given at registration, and with harsh penalties for ballot stuffing, the Justices confirmed in their lead opinion that there is "no evidence" for the kind of widespread voter fraud Republican partisans have used to justify the demand for photo ID.
Shattering the war consensus
Why, for God’s sake, does nothing change? The war goes on, the money flows, the blood flows, the lies stay exactly the same. Have you noticed? Have you ever wondered, with a stab of transcendent confusion, why a self-correcting rationality hasn’t kicked in by now, why a saner awareness hasn’t made itself evident in the macro-affairs of the nation by now?
Folks, we have a seriously dysfunctional situation on our hands, more pervasive, I fear, than most of us realize. Deep into Bush II, our government appears to have taken on a crack house dysfunctionality. The institutional checks and balances that Americans are so proud of — including, of course, the watchdog media — have been so compromised by the war-junkie administration they’ve served and enabled they have almost no objectivity left with which to challenge or counter it. And thus the national war addiction permeates every facet of governance, and the media’s coverage thereof.
Folks, we have a seriously dysfunctional situation on our hands, more pervasive, I fear, than most of us realize. Deep into Bush II, our government appears to have taken on a crack house dysfunctionality. The institutional checks and balances that Americans are so proud of — including, of course, the watchdog media — have been so compromised by the war-junkie administration they’ve served and enabled they have almost no objectivity left with which to challenge or counter it. And thus the national war addiction permeates every facet of governance, and the media’s coverage thereof.
Making YOU pay for the next Chernobyls ... in advance!!
Are you ready to pay for the next Chernobyls---in advance? Are you willing to have nuclear power PREVENT a solution to the climate crisis?
Twenty-two years ago today, an apocalyptic cloud rose up from Unit Four, in the heart of the Ukraine. For the next few hundred generations, you and your progeny will breathe its radioactive fallout, which was thousands of times worse than that released at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Conservative estimates of Chernobyl's financial costs are in the $500 billion range. In downwind regions festering with cancer and birth-defected children, the ultimate death toll is impossible to estimate.
Another Chernobyl could be happening as you read this. And you are already on line to pay for it.
The so-called "reactor renaissance" is built on high-priced lies and public liability.
Not one of the 104 US reactors now licensed to operate, and not one of the new ones being hyped, can get insurance from private sources against another Chernobyl.
Twenty-two years ago today, an apocalyptic cloud rose up from Unit Four, in the heart of the Ukraine. For the next few hundred generations, you and your progeny will breathe its radioactive fallout, which was thousands of times worse than that released at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Conservative estimates of Chernobyl's financial costs are in the $500 billion range. In downwind regions festering with cancer and birth-defected children, the ultimate death toll is impossible to estimate.
Another Chernobyl could be happening as you read this. And you are already on line to pay for it.
The so-called "reactor renaissance" is built on high-priced lies and public liability.
Not one of the 104 US reactors now licensed to operate, and not one of the new ones being hyped, can get insurance from private sources against another Chernobyl.
Truth wreckage
The interests of war, which siphon off 40 percent of every dollar we pay in taxes, have no choice but to declare peace — or at least truth — anti-American, because the blood myth of national exceptionalism, and the perpetual insecurity it creates, is all they’ve got.
It’s also all they need.
Did anyone, for instance, expect the Petraeus-Crocker testimony before Congress this week to affect or even address what we’re actually doing in Iraq? The best we get is some mild criticism from the opposition party, stern words about our “missteps” in the waltz to victory, ineffective calls for a timetable for troop withdrawal that, sincere or wholly insincere, will not in fact lead to a timetable for troop withdrawal because nothing is on the line in this testimony; and, in any case, no congressperson dares trample on “the seeds of nascent democracy” our boys and girls have been planting over there for the last five years. And lo, “There has been growth,” the general declared. And those baby democracies are so cute!
It’s also all they need.
Did anyone, for instance, expect the Petraeus-Crocker testimony before Congress this week to affect or even address what we’re actually doing in Iraq? The best we get is some mild criticism from the opposition party, stern words about our “missteps” in the waltz to victory, ineffective calls for a timetable for troop withdrawal that, sincere or wholly insincere, will not in fact lead to a timetable for troop withdrawal because nothing is on the line in this testimony; and, in any case, no congressperson dares trample on “the seeds of nascent democracy” our boys and girls have been planting over there for the last five years. And lo, “There has been growth,” the general declared. And those baby democracies are so cute!
Party like it's 1932: the Obama option
Seventy-six years ago, to many ears on the left, Franklin D. Roosevelt
sounded way too much like a centrist. True, he was eloquent, and he'd
generated enthusiasm in a Democratic base eager to evict Republicans from
the White House. But his campaign was moderate -- with policy proposals that
didn't indicate he would try to take the country in bold new directions if
he won the presidency.
Yet FDR's triumph in 1932 opened the door for progressives. After several years of hitting the Hoover administration's immovable walls, the organizing capacities of labor and other downtrodden constituencies could have major impacts on policy decisions in Washington.
Today, segments of the corporate media have teamed up with the Clinton campaign to attack Barack Obama. Many of the rhetorical weapons used against him in recent weeks -- from invocations of religious faith and guns to flag-pin lapels -- may as well have been ripped from a Karl Rove playbook. The key subtexts have included racial stereotyping and hostility to a populist upsurge.
Yet FDR's triumph in 1932 opened the door for progressives. After several years of hitting the Hoover administration's immovable walls, the organizing capacities of labor and other downtrodden constituencies could have major impacts on policy decisions in Washington.
Today, segments of the corporate media have teamed up with the Clinton campaign to attack Barack Obama. Many of the rhetorical weapons used against him in recent weeks -- from invocations of religious faith and guns to flag-pin lapels -- may as well have been ripped from a Karl Rove playbook. The key subtexts have included racial stereotyping and hostility to a populist upsurge.
Where's George?
So what ever happened to George W. Bush, the worst chief executive this nation has ever endured?
This is an election year. Aren't we supposed to be evaluating the legacy of the previous administration?
In this case, we have a man whose approval ratings are subterranean. Who's sunk us into an endless war based on impeachable lies. Who's dragged our national honor into the toxic mud. Who's brought us to the brink of depression. Who's dropped the dollar into the toilet. Who wants more subsidies for terror-target nuke reactors and more tax breaks for CO2-spewing oil barons.
Who screams "Terror! Terror! Terror!" at every possible moment, but lets Osama bin Laden run free.
What would Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the rest of the corporate bloviators be screaming today if a Democrat had hosted the 9/11 attacks and then let their perpetrator roam the world without capture for more than six years?
The only thing the American people can say with pride about George W. Bush is that we never elected him president of the United States.
This is an election year. Aren't we supposed to be evaluating the legacy of the previous administration?
In this case, we have a man whose approval ratings are subterranean. Who's sunk us into an endless war based on impeachable lies. Who's dragged our national honor into the toxic mud. Who's brought us to the brink of depression. Who's dropped the dollar into the toilet. Who wants more subsidies for terror-target nuke reactors and more tax breaks for CO2-spewing oil barons.
Who screams "Terror! Terror! Terror!" at every possible moment, but lets Osama bin Laden run free.
What would Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the rest of the corporate bloviators be screaming today if a Democrat had hosted the 9/11 attacks and then let their perpetrator roam the world without capture for more than six years?
The only thing the American people can say with pride about George W. Bush is that we never elected him president of the United States.
The done deal
If politics is the art of saying nothing, then Barack Obama is sure blowing it, isn’t he?
His latest “gaffe,” to proclaim at a private fundraiser in San Francisco (of all places) that small-town Americans are bitter and cling to guns and God in lieu of financial security — these words purveyed to the American public by way of a scratchy, Osama-quality recording — triggered such heartfelt hypocrisy from his opponents.
“It is hard to imagine,” said John McCain, “someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.”
I almost agree with this. Obama is definitely out of touch with something. However, it isn’t “average Americans” — who, it turns out, really are bitter in large numbers — so much as what I would call “the tacit covenant of presidential politics.”
Serious presidential candidates aren’t supposed to go there, see. That’s what makes them “serious” — their understanding that American politics is settled, a done deal. The deal is this: While real Republicans can drift, unchecked, to the dark side of empire and neofascism, Democrats are supposed to campaign and govern as moderate, “responsible” Republicans.
His latest “gaffe,” to proclaim at a private fundraiser in San Francisco (of all places) that small-town Americans are bitter and cling to guns and God in lieu of financial security — these words purveyed to the American public by way of a scratchy, Osama-quality recording — triggered such heartfelt hypocrisy from his opponents.
“It is hard to imagine,” said John McCain, “someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.”
I almost agree with this. Obama is definitely out of touch with something. However, it isn’t “average Americans” — who, it turns out, really are bitter in large numbers — so much as what I would call “the tacit covenant of presidential politics.”
Serious presidential candidates aren’t supposed to go there, see. That’s what makes them “serious” — their understanding that American politics is settled, a done deal. The deal is this: While real Republicans can drift, unchecked, to the dark side of empire and neofascism, Democrats are supposed to campaign and govern as moderate, “responsible” Republicans.