READER COMMENTS ON
"Rawstory Covers Clint Curtis Run For Congress"
(26 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 3/24/2006 @ 1:57 pm PT...
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 3/24/2006 @ 2:26 pm PT...
Watch out for the hack being in the Dem primary, to avoid a Clint-Feeney direct election.
The hack will be in the Dem primary, where no one's expecting or looking for it.
...because a Clint/Feeney campaign will expose e-vote fraud, because the MSM would have to cover this election like any other election. If the MSM covered every election run-up, except the Clint/Feeney one, that would be too obvious.
The powers that are controlling the machines have put "A1" priority on hacking this Dem primary. Does anyone in their right mind believe otherwise?
A CLINT/FEENEY SHOWDOWN WOULD EXPOSE E-VOTE FRAUD!!! That is too big a risk for the e-vote machine controllers.
There, I laid it all out for you, how to catch these guys. We finally know ahead of time, what their number 1 priority will be.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 3/24/2006 @ 2:28 pm PT...
The Dems should run Clint "unopposed" to force a Clint/Feeney showdown. But it won't happen. Here's what will happen: Clint will lose the Dem primary via "the hack"... Do you think they only hack GOP vs. Dem elections??? That would mean they have boundaries, and they don't. They can set things up and down the whole line, do you think otherwise???
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 3/24/2006 @ 5:34 pm PT...
Does anyone know what has happened to Doug Elderich - he used to be in every blog concerning vote hacking. Big Dan, you are right - they will try to prevent Curtis from being the Democratic candidate. The Democrats must run him "unopposed" and if that doesn't happen, the media should be warned in advance of the HACKING that will most likely transpire. Posters should be hung in public places warning of the "Fix to Be", Democrats should write to the "Letters to the Editor" section of their newspapers , and everyone should go out of their way to expose the Republican hierarchy. Clint Curtis should hold a press conference, if possible, and tell the media what to expect and to whom the fingers should be pointing ( SOS, Diebold, ES&S, etc.)
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 3/25/2006 @ 1:06 am PT...
You're right, Dan. There is a great danger of the Dem primary being hacked against Clint Curtis. The country seems to be turning a blind eye to what is happening here. I never thought I'd live to see such a thing. It's sickening. Our votes need to be accountable and un-hack-able. This is no way to run a proper election.
**'Expose Tom Feeney'**
"SUPPORT CLINT CURTIS!"
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 3/25/2006 @ 6:51 am PT...
BB, what Dem is running opposite Clint?
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 3/25/2006 @ 8:01 am PT...
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 3/25/2006 @ 9:34 am PT...
Clint's primary opponent is Dr. Andy Michaud, a veterinarian. I understand he's a first-rate guy.
As long as Clint is able to conduct a primary campaign, he'll have an impact on the issue of election fraud/Feeney. I hope Clint wins the primary, but if Dr. Michaud should win, it's hard to see how he could shun the issue in the campaign afterwards. The main idea is EXPOSURE.
Don't know if anyone caught it, but Feeney's response to Clint's candidacy is classic Republican boilerplate from the 1970s. He warned his district that "Democrats will send union thugs down here to try to take the district away from you." Union thugs, indeed...the last time a union thug influenced any election in this country was before Ronald Reagan's win in 1980. The good news is that Feeney's temper seems to be getting the better of him...now is the time to keep the heat on.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 3/25/2006 @ 9:47 am PT...
Maybe we could alert everyone who intends to vote for Curtis,to demand an absentee ballot.WE MUST NEVER ALLOW ANOTHER STOLEN ELECTION!!Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.Since I've been in this miserable and corrupted state through all this,I will do everything I can to fight for fair elections in this season,even if I have to get a group together to demand we be allowed to do OUR count,if that is possible.I am a member of United For Peace And Justice,and intend to bring this up to other members.Honesty must be restored to our election systems,or Democracy will become extinct!!
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 3/25/2006 @ 12:42 pm PT...
Jeanie, I see where you are coming from, but absentee ballots are counted by machine I think here in FL. I'm afraid until we can get a sane conscientious legislature, we're stuck. There are afew, but not enough, not near enough.
Robert, thank you. I'm not in that district, but maybe others are getting tired of the "fear" factor. It is sooo boring!!
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 3/25/2006 @ 1:56 pm PT...
Yeah, absentee ballots won't work. Sorry! They'll likely never get counted at all, and even if they do, they get scanned into a Diebold machine... yep, that's right, the bastards thought of everything.
Interesting theory about hacking the primary... someone posited here awhile back that Kerry was hacked in the primary to be the candidates since he was considered vulnerable. I would not put ANYTHING past these sick bastards.
We can only hope that the Dems have secretly hired their own hackers for '06 to make sure the election results match the polls. Then when the NeoCons are forced to quietly throw in the towel, the Dems can finally pass legislation ensuring a paper trail.
Of course, that would take organization, a clue and an actual plan on the part of the Dems, so forget it.
Everyone right now--go contribute 5 bucks to Clint Curtis!
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 3/26/2006 @ 5:01 am PT...
I heard the same thing. For 08, the Reps are pushing for Hillary, knowing she doesn't have a snowball chance in hell of winning. Can't we have an election without a bush or a clinton??
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
Paul in LA
said on 3/26/2006 @ 4:58 pm PT...
"Kerry was hacked in the primary to be the candidates since he was considered vulnerable."
NONSENSE. Senator Kerry had the SENIORITY over everyone else on the ballot, and was going to be the candidate once he entered the race, anyhow.
Dean understood this. The party does not run just anyone, even a governor, for president.
Kerry won the race. But it was predictably stolen.
As for the fixing of primaries, there is the evidence of Arnie's special election ballot measures, which were NOT hacked, apparently because Diebold is keeping their tinder dry until November 06, which is possibly the crucial election of our lifetimes. They didn't turn the votes, because they are afraid of YOU, and what you can do with more evidence in hand.
You can protest vote fraud, you can educate, you can gather evidence, but UNDERSTAND that without removing crooked election officials you can still be denied a recount (assuming there is anything to recount, thus the built-to-jam machines, etc.).
The Dem party has been predictably slow in responding to the election fraud, mainly because the NON-ELECTED leadership has been in mothballs for years.
Gov. Dean is a new hope for voter-protection, provided we can work to keep the issue in front of him, and directly with him as possible (Brad?).
Attacking him, and the party, in counter-productive, uninformed screeds is not helping. If you are interested, the attacks on Dean in the thread a few down (that he eliminated the LGBT desk) have been REBUTTED (in comments).
Turns out he has completely revamped the system to provide a much more flexible system for responding to STATE-LEVEL INITIATIVES.
Gov. Dean is very smart, and he is on our side. How can we work with him to get him redhot focused on the necessary vote-fraud removal efforts, and, critically, on a national Dem vote-fraud response to stolen elections?
WORK WITH HIM, DON'T ATTACK HIM.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
Paul in LA
said on 3/26/2006 @ 5:03 pm PT...
Mugzi: "Can't we have an election without a bush or a clinton??
What makes you think that GWB won't "run" in 2008?
The 22nd Amendment will not stop this 'war powers' president from "running" for the rest of our lifetimes.
All that has to happen is for the rigged SCOTUS to declare that the 22nd is unconstitutional in time of war. That's it. Repeal is not necessary, since the amendment is deemed unconstitutional. And they have the machinery to shove it down our throats, don't think they don't.
However, it is HIGHLY likely that VP Al Gore will be the candidate for the party in 2008. But if we can't remove Bush long before then, then why even talk as if we live in a legal democracy? Bush shouldn't be ALLOWED to run --- he's a criminal and a traitor. He should be allowed to be indicted for his crimes. I'd vote for that.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 3/26/2006 @ 11:56 pm PT...
For Paul in L.A.: Work with Dean? I agree he's smart, but the D.N.C. has refused to face up to the fact that the last two elections were stolen. So what is there to work with?
The D.N.C. is just like the mainstream media. Election fraud is taboo with them. They won't even talk about it, let alone highlight it as an issue. What will Dean do if the Republicans steal enough key Congressional elections this year to maintain control of the House and Senate? Complain that people didn't give enough money?
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
Paul in LA
said on 3/27/2006 @ 1:19 am PT...
COMMENT #15 [link]
...Robert Lockwood Mills said on 3/26/2006 @ 11:56pm PT...
"For Paul in L.A.: Work with Dean? I agree he's smart, but the D.N.C. has refused to face up to the fact that the last two elections were stolen. So what is there to work with?"
Great. So with that defeatist attitude, a lot will get accomplished.
Your claim, though, is spurious. As with many commenters, you don't put the CONTEXT into your theory. The DNC did nothing while Senator Wellstone was probably assassinated, anthrax was sent to our Senate Majority Leader, Bush allowed/sponsored a national disaster, etc.
Where's the context? No, the way you put it, they failed to respond while sitting back with their loafers up in the back of the club. It just isn't the case.
In politics, EVERYTHING is 'If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try, try, try, try, try (etc.) again. But your theory allows for MAXIMUM LAZINESS in the face of obstacles.
Phew, what a relief, huh? You don't actually have to try to get hardheaded, under appreciated politicians to climb the learning curve. You just stick your defective children out on the curb, eh? "They weren't going to work out, officer."
Wow, are you world-weary. Whatever will happen if we DO NOTHING? Whatever will happen if you, satisfied that you have done EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE, retire and put your thumbs in your buttonholes?
That's the key thing about leftism --- it has become a method, a theory, of laziness in the guise of knowledge.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 3/27/2006 @ 9:13 am PT...
Paul in La #16
NONSENSE! You're full of SHIT.
You say "what will happen if we do nothing?"
You say "leftism" has become " a method, a theory, of laziness in the guise of knowledge".
What ever happened to the other thread a day ago, in which YOU are the one that claimed it's not the good Dems fault for doing nothing so far & it's not the good Dems fault if they never do anything in the future either, unless they can get elected to a majority one day.
THEN you've got the nerve to say--well, they can't be elected because of e-vote fraud!!
Do us a favor & SHUT THE HELL UP.
Don't cut your answer short because your ride's here to take you back to the loony bin, surfer boy.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 3/27/2006 @ 10:32 am PT...
Defective children out on the curb? What the hell are you talking about?
Defeatist attitude? World weary? My God, man, if there's one think I'm not, it's a world-weary defeatist. Did you fly from Connecticut to Florida at your own expense to serve as a pollwatcher on Election Day, 2004? I did. Did you travel to Washington at your own expense five days later to attend and speak to a Common Cause hearing about the election? I did. Have you devoted the last 16 months of your life to demonstrating that the 2004 election was stolen? I have.
Grow up, Mr. Paul. I didn't make any claims in my posting, spurious or otherwise. I simply stated the truth, i.e., that the Democratic National Committee has purposefully avoided the election fraud issue, as have all Democrats on Capitol Hill except John Conyers, Barbara Boxer, and a few others. Implicit in my comments was the assumption that unless election fraud is dealt with openly and steadfastly, no other issues matter.
If you want to "try and try again" with people who refuse to listen, go ahead. I prefer to deal with others (outside the Beltway) who care more about our freedoms than about Washington politics. With a few exceptions (Feingold can be added to Conyers and Boxer), the Democrats spend their time rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, when they should be trying to save the ship.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
Paul in LA
said on 3/27/2006 @ 2:19 pm PT...
"YOU are the one that claimed it's not the good Dems fault for doing nothing so far & it's not the good Dems fault if they never do anything in the future either, unless they can get elected to a majority one day."
If that's your reading skill, no wonder you don't understand. I never said any of that. What I pointed out is that IN AN ELECTION YEAR IN WHICH IT IS POSSIBLE TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE HOUSE, it is not so shocking that the Dem leadership would want to wait until they have THE MAJORITY (and therefore CAN ACTUALLY MOVE A BILL OF IMPEACHMENT) then line up to take a loss for no practical reason.
"THEN you've got the nerve to say--well, they can't be elected because of e-vote fraud!!"
Yeah, that's the conundrum. The vote-fraud may prevent the Dems from GAINING THE LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF THE MAJORITY. That is the counter to the Dem leadership strategy, and it's a big one. Therefore, I recommend working with Dean and others to develop a REAL RESPONSE PLAN for stolen elections, at the state level especially.
"Do us a favor & SHUT THE HELL UP."
Do yourself a favor and take the remedial reading course at your local high school.
COMMENT #18 [link]
...Robert Lockwood Mills said on 3/27/2006 @ 10:32am PT...
"Defective children out on the curb? What the hell are you talking about?"
The implication is pretty straight forward. You are done before you even begin --- how lucky for you.
"Have you devoted the last 16 months of your life to demonstrating that the 2004 election was stolen? I have."
Those are all good efforts, and I applaud you. I have worked right along side you since well before this current debacle, since I was 12 years old, forty years ago. But your statement that Dean can't be worked with because he hasn't done what you think he should have yet is DEFEATIST.
"the Democratic National Committee has purposefully avoided the election fraud issue,"
To date. However, in the interim, you and other activists have developed FAR MORE probative data on how the vote-fraud works. Because the main problem is that the Dems are afraid of making an easily refuted claim, and losing the issue.
"all Democrats on Capitol Hill except John Conyers, Barbara Boxer, and a few others."
Those Democrats are Democrats. You don't think Conyers and Boxer identify themselves as Democrats because they believe in the party? You want to abandon the others, withdrawing support for Conyers' and Boxer's efforts, because the learning curve of the rest of the party is to you a flat line. I don't think you have proven that it is --- it is, in my opinion, a defeatist proposition, counter-productive, thick-headed, and false.
"Implicit in my comments was the assumption that unless election fraud is dealt with openly and steadfastly, no other issues matter."
I agree. What I don't agree with is your determination that the Dems have permanently abandoned the issue, and therefore it is hopeless to work with them, and especially Dean, on it.
"If you want to "try and try again" with people who refuse to listen, go ahead."
I never stopped. After 40 years of working in the grassroots, and having studied American history extensively, I am well aware that all things in DC are slow, slow, slow. Since when has that been different?
"I prefer to deal with others (outside the Beltway) who care more about our freedoms than about Washington politics."
Where you choose to work is not the issue. Bully for you. But you are spreading a determination you have made to others, who may be willing to make the efforts you eschew.
As for that, I have been announcing to all in earshot, on blogs and in the streets, that Iraq was being dismantled for airbases, since before the invasion. Am I ready to stop because the "people" haven't stopped their cars in the middle of the streets and grabbed signs. NO I AM NOT.
"With a few exceptions (Feingold can be added to Conyers and Boxer), the Democrats spend their time rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, when they should be trying to save the ship."
See, you provide NO CONTEXT for this slander. No Wellstone murder, no anthrax attacks on our leaders, no Nine-eleven cockup, no media coup, no vote-fraud and illegal mid-decade redistricting, no illegal invasion, no nine trillion dollar debt ceiling, no takeover of the courts, no jingoism and race-baiting, no spying away our fourth amendment, no nothing.
You present the Dems as lolling around on the deck of the Titanic, ignoring the actual FIRE they are taking. And you singularly ignore things they have done, such as preventing the redesign of Social Security, which is no small feat.
The efforts by Conyers and Boxer are NOT OUTSIDE THE PARTY. Those are efforts BY democrats. Yet you further your defeatist point by refusing to credit the party with their efforts as party members.
You're very unfair, and your communication of your despair of the Democrat party is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE and aids the Bushoviks. Is that your intent?
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 3/27/2006 @ 10:22 pm PT...
#19 Paul in LA (surfer boy)
You're a liar.
You DID say all of that & more.
I caught you red-handed, being the prissy little phony that you are & trying to weasel out of what you said yesterday.
The conundrom is how you can still be stuck in the bottom of the bowl & won't flush away.
As you always do, you did not answer the question & what you did say was a lie. Your credibility gap is widening.
Your little weasel game ain't workin.
Let's refer to ONE question you didn't answer, (among the many).
How the hell does your it's-ok-if-the-Dems-have-not-&-will-not-do-anything-unless-they-get-a-majority stance, (which you took YESTERDAY,) jive with the--"Whatever-will-happen-if-we-DO NOTHING?--the-key-about-leftism-is-it's-become-LAZINESS-in-the-guise-of-knowledge" stance, (which you pontificated on TODAY)?
You dodged my point in your first answer:
So which one is it, surfer boy?
Are our expectations of the Dems too high on this blog, & we need to learn how to "wait" as you said we should yesterday---or are we too "lazy" & "whatever will happen if we do nothing"? as you tried to school us today.
That is the question.
What's your final answer?
The stuff you gave Robert Lockwood Mills was uncalled for also & makes no sense. He commands respect on this blog. You never will until you stop talking out of both sides of your mouth...
Gotta run, Paul in LA. My ride's picking me up for base jumping. More latter.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
Paul in LA
said on 3/28/2006 @ 1:04 am PT...
Again, Charlene, you are a slanderer. I'm happy to have you pretend to be handing me my ass. Have fun.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 3/28/2006 @ 3:42 am PT...
Paul: Do I write Howard Dean a letter every day, begging him to address the election fraud issue, hoping he eventually relents? Is that what you mean by "working with Howard Dean?"
Someone once defined foolishness as doing the same futile thing over and over while hoping for a different outcome. That's what "working with Democrats" means to me. I've gotten maybe 30 requests for money from John Kerry and Hillary Clinton in the last year; without exception, I've responded to every request with the same message..."Not one thin dime until you talk about stolen elections." The response from John and Hillary? Nada...except to ask for money again, based on whatever issue they've discovered that day as representing a new threat to our democracy.
Is that enough context for you? Or would saying more only prove what a defeatist I am?
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 3/28/2006 @ 8:14 am PT...
#21 Paul in LA
You enjoy shooting your big mouth off on this blog.
Now, face the music & ANSWER THE QUESTION.
That's what responsible people do.
I resent the big waste of time that you are.
Others on here are patriots & good, sincere & responsible people.
You're just full of irresponsible, high-handed, loud-mouthed disinformation that you refuse to be held accountable for.
One has to wade through your stuff with hip boots, looking for some common sense.
You don't deserve to be here with us.
Here's your ass on the platter---take it & get out.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
Paul in LA
said on 3/28/2006 @ 4:51 pm PT...
"Paul: Do I write Howard Dean a letter every day, begging him to address the election fraud issue, hoping he eventually relents? Is that what you mean by "working with Howard Dean?"
Not specifically. I think it is quite possible to set up a meeting or series of meetings with Gov. Dean. A LARGE-SCALE letterwriting campaign might move that potential forward. But I applaud your efforts, and hope that his office is at least tabulating your views.
"I've gotten maybe 30 requests for money from John Kerry and Hillary Clinton in the last year; without exception, I've responded to every request with the same message..."Not one thin dime until you talk about stolen elections."
These campaign letters are rote. While people do scrawl protests on them, TMK they go to the fundraising company, which promptly puts them in the trash. Fundraising letters are not a good route for protest.
I don't mean this kind of low-level efffort. I mean a specific offer to meet and brief Gov. Dean.
"The response from John and Hillary? Nada...except to ask for money again,"
If you really think that John or Hillary ever saw your letter, you have a different idea of how it works from me.
This is very similar to people who think that the 'debates' should be real debates, or that campaign speeches are the best guide to the caliber of the candidate.
"Is that enough context for you? Or would saying more only prove what a defeatist I am?"
Clearly you are working hard at advocacy, so that's not defeatist anyhow. The defeatism charge is to leftists who have condemned the Dems outright, and communicate the futility of working with them, in favor of ... absolutely nothing other than a scapegoating.
If I ever seemed to accuse you of defeatism, please be aware that I was referring to instances of the aforementioned refusal to realize that there are ways to reach politicians, even after long unrewarding efforts have failed --- but slandering them is rarely that way, and speading the message of futility is defeatist and counterproductive.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
Paul in LA
said on 3/28/2006 @ 4:52 pm PT...
"Here's your ass on the platter---take it & get out."
Hilarious. Thanks so much.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
Paul in LA
said on 3/28/2006 @ 5:16 pm PT...
"How the hell does your it's-ok-if-the-Dems-have-not-&-will-not-do-anything-unless-they-get-a-majority stance, (which you took YESTERDAY,) jive with the--"Whatever-will-happen-if-we-DO NOTHING?--the-key-about-leftism-is-it's-become-LAZINESS-in-the-guise-of-knowledge" stance, (which you pontificated on TODAY)?"
The first point is that the Dem leadership have specifically said that they will not take a run at Bush until after the elections. The second UNRELATED point is that scapegoating is not a strategy.
"You dodged my point in your first answer:"
If I understood your point, I would reply. As I recall, when this started people were slandering the Democratic party as being corrupt, which supposedly was why they wouldn't support Feingold's resolution of censure. NO EVIDENCE OF THAT CORRUPTION WAS PROFERED. The people ('leftists') promoting that idea apparently considered it a tautology requiring no evidence other than the failure itself.
Well, that's just slander. It isn't really an argument; it's more of a prejudice. And I further pointed out that this prejudice is:
1) CONTEXTLESS, not mentioning the Wellstone assassination, the anthrax letters to Dem leaders, the scapegoating of all opponents to Bush policies, the media coup, the direct verbal threats on the floor of the Congress, the many violations of Congressional protocol by the junta in charge (and that junta itself), the use of unlimited war powers, or the vote-fraud that has produced the near-total imbalance of power.
2) CENSORIAL, not mentioning Dem accomplishments and positive acts, because they don't fit the preconceived argument. Thus Sen. Kerry outs and repudiates the PNAC plan in Iraq during the VERY public first debate, and Democracy Now! doesn't report it. Another example is the Hackett 'scandal,' in which a candidate with NO experience and NO won elections is supposed to be supported over the head of Rep. Sherrod Brown, a four-star progressive with 30 years of successful elections in and for Ohio, running for the US Senate after fifteen YEARS in the House. By not bringing up Brown's abundant right to the support of Sen.s Reid and Schumer, a false, censorial, impression was given. Intentionally, one presumes, based on the stark differences between Brown and Hackett, a man who voted for Bush in 2000, and apparently has now become an Independent.
"So which one is it, surfer boy?"
Don't forget to baste every hour, Charlene.
"Are our expectations of the Dems too high on this blog,"
"we need to learn how to "wait" as you said we should yesterday"
I never said that.
"---or are we too "lazy"
Slander and scapegoating are incredibly lazy approaches.
It didn't use to be that way. Leftists worked HARD, but the rhetoric now supports inaction and lost opportunities. They won't vote, and they encourage others not to vote. I meet kids in bandana masks who tell me 'f*ck voting.' That's not because of the vote-fraud, it's partly YOUR results in scapegoating the Dems and the 'D=R' rhetoric.
Instead, join the Bushoviks and attack the minority, without context, and while allowing censorship to bolster a preconceived slant on the facts.