Showing posts with label Threats to Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Threats to Democracy. Show all posts

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Obama And The Rightwing Smear Machine

I have always been and remain very much against book burning. However, I am not so sure anymore, with respect to authors of trash like this book. These kinds of antics won't stop until there are consequences for the spewers of lies, and half-truths which are simply more sophisticated lies.


Perhaps the liable laws should be changed so that politicians can sue the pants off authors who deliberately lie about a candidate for the express purpose of misinforming voters. Perhaps, we, the voters, should be allowed to file class action suits against liars who attempt to mislead us. This isn't just about candidates, this is about Democracy itself, which cannot exist without an informed electorate. Misinformation, like that put forth as fact by the likes of the Swift boat of fools, is more dangerous to this nation than Osama bin Laden could dream of being, even in his wildest dreams.


These kinds of "authors" might want to understand that in these days of the information age, they aren't all that difficult to find and punish as enemies of Democracy.


While I am a big defender of the first amendment, it does have its limits. For example, try yelling fire in a crowded theater, just for the heck of it, and see what happens. Try calling in a bomb threat where there is no bomb and see what happens. (Not encouraging anyone to actually do such things, but most people with more than three neurons firing know perfectly well that these types of speech are not covered by the 1st amendment.)


Intentionally misinforming the electorate in a supposed Democracy is every bit as dangerous to every citizen.


This Corsi guy needs to be taken down and shown for the paranoid, misinforming, malicious nut case that he is.


By Eugene Robinson
Friday, August 15, 2008; A21


Here come the goons, right on schedule.


The "author," and I use the term loosely, whose vicious lies damaged John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign has crawled back out from under his rock to spew vicious lies about Barack Obama. Right-wing radio talk-show hosts are dutifully transmitting this concocted venom. This presidential campaign has officially gotten ugly.


The "author" I'm talking about is a man named Jerome Corsi. In a book published last year, "The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada," Corsi claimed that George W. Bush was at the heart of a secret conspiracy to subsume the United States into a post-national, one-worldish North American Union. Corsi's writings on far-right blogs have been even more paranoid and delusional. He has written that pedophilia, for which he used a more graphic term, "is OK with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press." He has referred to Muslims as "ragheads."


Corsi would be known as just another visitor from the outer fringe if he had not been the co-author of "Unfit for Command," the book that slimed Kerry's exemplary record as a Swift boat commander in Vietnam. The allegations in that book were discredited, but not before they had been amplified by the right-wing echo chamber to the point where they raised questions in some voters' minds -- perhaps enough to swing the election.


It was an abominable trick, but quite remarkable. Kerry's opponent, George W. Bush, had avoided Vietnam by taking refuge in the Texas Air National Guard. Kerry was a decorated war hero, yet somehow his valor and sense of duty were turned into a political negative and used against him.


Now Corsi, in what he acknowledges is an attempt "to keep Obama from getting elected," has come out with a book that similarly tries to turn one of Obama's strengths -- his compelling life story -- into a liability.


Corsi's new volume of vitriol, "The Obama Nation," seeks to smear Obama as a "leftist" and add fuel to the false and discredited rumor that he is secretly a radical Muslim, or at least has "extensive connections to Islam." The liberal Web site Media Matters has already demonstrated that the book is riddled with factual errors -- for example, Corsi repeats the charge, thoroughly disproved, that Obama was in church for one of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's most incendiary sermons. But the point isn't to tell the truth. The point is to repeat the lie and thus give it new life.


Corsi's dirty work is more difficult this time because Obama has already written his life story in the autobiographical "Dreams From My Father." Since he can't reveal anything about Obama's past, Corsi is reduced to reinterpretation -- or, at times, invention.


It sounds like the kind of book that should quickly be consigned to the remainder bin, but -- unsurprisingly -- it is already a bestseller. The Post and other news organizations have noted that this and similar anti-Obama books win the imprimatur of best-seller status by being "pushed by conservative book clubs that buy in bulk to drive up sales."


This time, though, somebody is pushing back: John Kerry, whose political action committee has launched a new Web site, called Truth Fights Back, to "fight against the right-wing smear machine." The site weighs in vigorously on behalf of several Democrats who are being hit with unfair attacks, but its most urgent campaign is "making sure Jerome Corsi doesn't get away with his lies unchallenged."


The Obama campaign faces a classic dilemma. If smear attacks are left unanswered, voters can get the impression that the lies are true. But there's no way to respond without giving the falsehoods wider circulation.


For Obama, this choice seems doubly fraught. Just look at the way John McCain's campaign jumped all over Obama when he predicted -- correctly, it turns out -- that Republicans would try to scare voters by making him seem alien and somehow frightening. His observation about not looking like previous presidents was opportunistically slammed by McCain and his surrogates as playing "the race card."


Yesterday, the Obama campaign released a lengthy rebuttal of Corsi's book. The vacationing candidate himself remained silent, leaving it to others, such as Kerry, to give a more full-throated response. Kerry knows better than anyone what it feels like to be Swift-boated, and he's determined not to let it happen to anyone else.


Thank You, Senator Kerry. Unfortunately, some of our fellow citizens are such knee-jerk, right-wing extremist they will believe anything and spread known lies, thus making independents and moderates have doubts about the target of any such hit piece.


eugenerobinson@washpost.com



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

An Attack That Came Out Of The Ether

Some of my friends have gotten some of these idiot-mails.

The following article examines ways of stopping this kind of anonymous attack.

I say the best way is to track down the people who are responsible for it and beat the living daylights out of them! These people aren't just defaming Obama, they are messing with democracy itself.

We've been tracking some rumor-mongers ourselves, thanks to some really good I.U. geeks.

They had better be ready to move when we find them because we have had about all we can take of fear-tactics and lies no matter where they come from.



Scholar Looks for First Link in E-Mail Chain About Obama


By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 28, 2008; C01

PRINCETON, N.J.


The e-mail landed in Danielle Allen's queue one winter morning as she was studying in her office at the Institute for Advanced Study, the renowned haven for some of the nation's most brilliant minds. The missive began: "THIS DEFINITELY WARRANTS LOOKING INTO."


Laid out before Allen, a razor-sharp, 36-year-old political theorist, was what purported to be a biographical sketch of Barack Obama that has become one of the most effective -- and baseless -- Internet attacks of the 2008 presidential season. The anonymous chain e-mail makes the false claim that Obama is concealing a radical Islamic background. By the time it reached Allen on Jan. 11, 2008, it had spread with viral efficiency for more than a year.


During that time, polls show the number of voters who mistakenly believe Obama is a Muslim rose -- from 8 percent to 13 percent between November 2007 and March 2008. And some cited this religious mis-affiliation when explaining their primary votes against him.


As the general-election campaign against Sen. John McCain has gotten underway, Obama's aides have made the smears a top target. They recently launched FightTheSmears.com to "aggressively push back with the truth," said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor, and go viral with it. The Web site urges supporters to upload their address books and send e-mails to all of their friends. "


But long before this, Allen had been obsessing about the origins of her e-mail at the institute, which is most famous for having been the research home of Albert Einstein. Allen studies the way voters in a democracy gather their information and act on what they learn. She was familiar, of course, with the false rumors of a secret love child that helped sink McCain's White House bid in 2000, and the Swift boat attacks that did the same to Democrat John Kerry in 2004. But the Obama e-mail was on another plane: The use of the Internet made it possible to launch anonymous attacks that could reach millions of voters in weeks or even days.


As an Obama supporter -- she had met the senator while she worked as a dean at the University of Chicago -- it made her angry. And curious.


"I started thinking, 'How does one stop it?' "


Allen set her sights on dissecting the modern version of a whisper campaign, even though experts told her it would be impossible to trace the chain e-mail to its origin. Along the way, even as her hunt grew cold, she gained valuable insight into the way political information circulates, mutates and sometimes devastates in the digital age.


How Rumors Are Born


Allen was ideally suited to embark on such a difficult hunt. She boasts two doctorates, one in classics from Cambridge University and the other in government from Harvard University, and won a $500,000 MacArthur "genius" award at the age of 29. Last year she joined the faculty of the institute, the only African American and one of a handful of women at the elite research center, where she works alongside groundbreaking physicists, mathematicians and social scientists. They don't have to teach, and they face no quotas on what they publish. Their only mandate is to work in the tradition of Einstein, wrestling with the most vexing problems in the universe.


While Allen was already an expert on the mechanics of politics, she fast began to learn the mechanics of the Internet. She discovered, for instance, that the recipe for launching a chain e-mail attack is not as simple as typing it up and hitting the send button to a long list of recipients. It takes effort to seed a chain mail that spreads as widely as the Obama missive, explained Jeff Bedser, president of the Internet Crimes Group, a company that helps corporations battle such broadsides. "Lighting that fire, getting something to have momentum, takes work," he said.


For this kind of chain-mail message to gain traction, it must be plausible, and it has to resonate, said Eric Dezenhall, a public relations specialist who once worked in the Reagan White House. Obama was vulnerable, Dezenhall said, because of his unusual name, his childhood in Indonesia, a foreign-born father, and his sudden arrival on the national stage without a fully fleshed-out biography. "All of these things gave it merchandising legs," Dezenhall said.

As Allen scrolled through the e-mail about Obama, she saw that the list of people who had received the missive consumed several full screens. Her first thought was to try to learn about the people behind the addresses. She traced a number to North Carolina Web sites about golf, but quickly hit a dead end. Then she had another thought: What if she took some of the unusual phrases from the text of the e-mail and Googled them?


Her eyes fell on this untrue sentence: "ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Kuran (Their equivalency to our Bible, but very different beliefs)."


The use of "their equivalency" and the spelling of "Kuran" instead of "Koran" made the sentence her point of departure.


That search showed that the first mention of the e-mail on the Internet had come more than a year earlier. A participant on the conservative Web site FreeRepublic.com posted a copy of the e-mail on Jan. 8, 2007, and added this line at the end: "Don't know who the original author is, but this email should be sent out to family and friends."


Allen discovered that theories about Obama's religious background had circulated for many years on the Internet. And that the man who takes credit for posting the first article to assert that the Illinois senator was a Muslim is Andy Martin.


Martin, a former political opponent of Obama's, is the publisher of an Internet newspaper who sends e-mails to his mailing list almost daily. He said in an interview that he first began questioning Obama's religious background after hearing his famous keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. In an Aug. 10, 2004, article, which he posted on Web sites and e-mailed to bloggers, he said that Obama had concealed his Muslim heritage. "I feel sad having to expose Barack Obama," Martin wrote in an accompanying press release, "but the man is a complete fraud. The truth is going to surprise, and disappoint, and outrage many people who were drawn to him. He has lied to the American people, and he has sought to misrepresent his own heritage." Martin's article did not suggest an association between Obama and radical Islam.


Martin was trying to launch a Senate bid against Obama when he says he first ran the Democrat's name by a contact in London. "They said he must be a Muslim. That was interesting to me because it was an angle that nobody had covered. We started looking. As a candidate you learn how to harness the Internet. You end up really learning how to work the street. I sort of picked this story up as a sideline." Martin said the primary basis for his belief was simple -- Obama's father was a Muslim. In a defamation lawsuit he filed against the New York Times and others several months ago, Martin says that Obama "eventually became a Christian" but that "as a matter of Islamic law began life as a Muslim" due to his father's religion.


The belief that Obama unavoidably inherited his religion was not uniquely Martin's -- as recently as May, it was proffered by Edward N. Luttwak, a fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, in a New York Times op-ed piece.


(After the Times was deluged with complaints, the paper's public editor, or ombudsman, later wrote that he had interviewed five Islamic scholars, at five American universities, recommended by a variety of sources as experts in the field. All of them disagreed with Luttwak's interpretation of Islamic law.)


Martin said he posted his 2004 article on Web sites, and distributed it by e-mail to authors of other popular blogs. But he said he had nothing to do with the chain e-mail that got Allen's attention. "I'm not trying to smear anybody," Martin said. "I just felt that was an underreported story."


But Martin said he understands how his initial article has taken on a life of its own. "There's nothing sinister here. I was thinking of running for Senate and was looking for a story to put some sizzle on the plate."


Other articles followed Martin's. Andrew Walden, the founder of an alternative Hawaiian newspaper with the motto "The untold story, the unspoken opinion, the other side," published an article with many of the same false biographical details from the e-mail in the weeks before Obama announced for president -- that he was "Raised in Muslim lands and educated in Muslim schools." He said in an interview that Obama's "alliance with Islam" was "all over the Internet," a source he often considers more trustworthy than the mainstream media.


Around the same time Ted Sampley, a North Carolina man who runs his own Web site, published a similar piece. In an interview, he denied authorship of the e-mail, but said he did not doubt that his article had provided source material. "That's the miracle of it," Sampley said. "Once it takes off, and people start posting it on Web sites, you really have no idea how far it goes or who reads it. You get a ripple effect. It's like a little pebble and then it gets bigger and bigger."


Poring over these early articles on the topic, Allen noticed what she thought was an important pattern. In each instance, someone had posted the articles on the Free Republic Web site, prompting a discussion involving the same handful of people, with several expressing a desire to spread the word about Obama's supposed faith.


Keeper of the Obama File


Of the file folders that are spread in neat rows across Allen's desk, only one is bulging. It holds printouts of the reams of conversations about Obama's religion appearing on Free Republic. Since its start in 1996 by Jim Robinson of Fresno, Calif., the site has grown into a home for discussion of all types -- though it is particularly noted for spirited political discussions dominated by conservatives and libertarians. Freepers, as they're called, converse with a varying degree of transparency. Most remain anonymous.


Allen counted 23 freepers among those engaging in regular discussions about Obama's religion, and isolated a handful whom she began to suspect as having a role in the e-mail. Sifting through hundreds of postings, she began to piece together their identities. There was "Beckwith," whom she pegged as a veteran from Boston, old enough to vote for John F. Kennedy, in uniform by 1964, and host of a Web site that devotes considerable space to an "Obama file" that says the senator is "by birth, blood and training, a Muslim."


Allen found Beckwith discussing the matter in a Jan. 13 clip from a Web-based conservative radio show based in San Diego. In his thick Boston brogue, Beckwith told hosts Jeff Lynch and Mike Howard that Obama's "relationship to Islam is the big question. When one investigates the background of Obama's conversion, I can find no record of his baptism."


"Wow! Interesting!" Lynch gasped.


"This guy could easily be the Muslim Manchurian candidate," Howard said.


As Allen scanned his postings on Free Republic, she noticed that Beckwith repeated several phrases that also surface in the e-mail. Beckwith called Obama "an apostate Muslim, educated in madrassas." And when Beckwith later repudiated the "madrassa" claim -- after it was debunked by the mainstream media -- the term disappeared from subsequent versions of the chain e-mail. The Post located Beckwith in a Boston suburb, and he agreed to be interviewed under the condition that he not be identified because "I get a lot of really nutty stuff and some of it's threatening." The 69-year-old said he is retired as a software engineer and lives alone, but for brief stints babysitting for his grandchildren. He said he started a Web site in 2005 "because I don't play golf." His initial goal was to take swats at the liberal left. "Then this new guy comes along called Obama," he said.


Beckwith said he built a Web site that features hundreds of pages of material intended to undermine Obama. "If 20 percent of what's on my Web site is true, this guy is a clear and present danger," Beckwith said. (He later added, "I try very hard to be accurate.") But while Beckwith speaks with pride about his research -- much of which he credits to an unnamed "colleague" in Europe -- and to his extensive Obama files, he rejects outright the suggestion that he authored the chain e-mail. "I've never been involved with any e-mailings. Period," he said.


Another Free Republic participant who attracted Allen's interest went by the handle "Eva." She was one of the first to write on the site about Obama's religion -- in November 2006 she began repeating the phrase "Once a Muslim, always a Muslim," when discussing Obama.


With the help of Allen's biographical sketch, The Post located Eva in rural Washington state. She is Donna Shaw, 60, a teacher who said Obama's ability to captivate audiences made her deeply uneasy because his "tone and cadence" reminded her of the child revivalist con-man preacher Marjoe Gortner.


Shaw says she has done extensive online research about Obama but believes many of the initial sites that provided "proof" of his Muslim background have been removed from the Internet: "Everything about his Muslim background was readily available on the Web in 2004. But they were all cleared from the Internet before he ran for Senate." Shaw says she's always had a hankering for politics. Probably, she muses, that's because her father served for a spell as a New Jersey state assemblyman. He was driven out, she notes without a hint of irony, when he became the victim of a 1950s smear campaign that wrongly accused him of being a communist.


When asked about the Obama e-mail, she says evenly: "I've never seen the e-mail. I don't get any political e-mails. I have a good filter on that."


Old Tactic, New Twist


The idea of unsubstantiated charges whispered through gossip trails has been a tried-and-true political technique since well before Machiavelli's time, Allen said. Traditionally, the best approach to combating them has been to "flush the charges out into the open."


That was easier when the rumors flew off a printing press, or when they appeared -- as with Swift boat attacks against Kerry -- in television ads paid for by a well-funded group of partisans. The attacks on Obama are different, Allen says. The level of anonymity, the technical efficiency, and above all the electoral impact of Internet-based smears all represent a new challenge.


"What I've come to realize is, the labor of generating an e-mail smear is divided and distributed amongst parties whose identities are secret even to each other," she says. A first group of people published articles that created the basis for the attack. A second group recirculated the claims from those articles without ever having been asked to do so. "No one coordinates the roles," Allen said. Instead the participants swim toward their goal like a school of fish -- moving on their own, but also in unison.


Obama's campaign, for better or worse, is writing the manual on combating this new asymmetrical guerrilla warfare. Obama has not shied away from the rumors -- he mentions them frequently. "Before I begin," he told a pro-Israel group this month, "I want to say that I know some provocative e-mails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. . . . They're filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for president. And all I want to say is -- let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening."


Allen says the casual pushback and aggressive response plan could provide the model politicians will follow in the future. But she remains uncertain it will work.


"Citizens and political scientists must face the fact that the Internet has enabled a new form of political organization that is just as influential on local and national elections as unions and political action committees," she says. "This kind of misinformation campaign short-circuits judgment. It also aggressively disregards the fundamental principle of free societies that one be able to debate one's accusers."


For proof of this, Allen says, she need look no further than her e-mail inbox. After months of research, a new chain-mail smear against Obama arrived with an innocuous subject line: "Food for thought."


Research editor Lucy Shackelford and polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Sunday, July 8, 2007

Threat From Without...or Within?

Is this a trick question?

Threat From Without...or Within? | Diatribune:

Who presents a greater threat to American society - international terrorists, or the current caretakers of the federal government?

The recent United Kingdom bombing buffoonery provided further evidence that the rhetorical bark of the global jihad may be worse than its operational ability to bite. Conversely, President Bush's liberation of Scooter Libby confirmed that there are no legal or ethical boundaries that his administration will not cross to satisfy its own ends.

Is the War on Terror more dangerous than the terrorists? Is Al Qaeda merely a straw man cast as a formidable foe in order to cow the masses and keep neo-cons in power? Read on for a discussion for the true nature of the threat posed by each side of this tangled equation...

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Let's Please Get Rid Of Those Damnable Machines!!!!

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael__070424_sdd_threat_to_health.htm


SDD threat to health of U.S. elections
By Michael Richardson


Software Driven Devices [SDD] endanger the health of U.S. elections in a way that no previous technology has been able to threaten.

(No SHIT, Sherlock!)



The manufacturers of SDD technology have blinded the public to the danger with an overload of jargon--DRE, Op Scans, VVPAT, etc. Efforts in the "voting integrity" movement have focused on the DRE threat with its touch-screen technology complete without any recount ability. Some argue instead that optical scanners are the way to count ballots since a recount would then be possible.

In the end however, there are only two ways to count ballots--by SDD or by hand. While the SDD vendors offer different levels of technology and complexity, all SDD options include the danger of malicious self-deleting software. No SDD has yet been built that cannot be hacked or infected with a virus.

Hacking and viral attacks have been made against major businesses, government and military computers, communication networks, and university data bases. Voting machines are not immune to such threats. Indeed, since the payoff for a successful hack is the outcome of an election, voting machines are at great risk of viral attack.

Researchers at Florida State University, investigating the 18,000 "undervotes" in Sarasota's 2006 congressional race, found a security flaw that would allow the introduction of a virus on the SDD touch-screens used there. That flaw may be present in similar SDD machines in 16 states.

Several public hacks of SDD optical scanners have demonstrated that any machine using software is at risk of infection. Yet Congress is posed to vote for "reform" legislation that will further embed the dangerous SDD technology in our election infrastructure.

Our supposed protection from the undetectable viral threats are "paper trails" and "audits". Yet a recent audit in Ohio showed the votes didn't add up. Now what?

All over the country reports of SDD vote-flipping, where your vote is not only taken from you but given to the opponent of your candidate, have occurred. There is only one protection from electronic election fraud--ban SDD from the voting booth and counting room.

America's love of technology has ushered in a new level of election fraud, previously undreamed of by political fixers. SDD "improvements" have opened the lid to a Pandora's Box of new threats to honest elections.

The way out of the SDD quagmire is simple. Paper, pencil, and public counting. Instead of trying to repair SDD security holes that cannot be fixed, we need to demand a return to hand-counted paper ballots.

Public observation of hand-counting is the most secure way to count ballots. It is the only way to guarantee an honest count. The time has come to simply say no to the SDD threat to our country. Congress must be told that we do not want any form of SDD to infect our body politic.
Hand-count paper ballots, in public, now.

Authors Bio: Michael Richardson is a freelance writer based in Boston. Richardson writes about politics, election law, human nutrition, ethics, and music. In 2004 Richardson was Ralph Nader's national ballot access coordinator.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Oh God, Here We Go Again!



Super-Disaster Tuesday ahead

By Brent Budowsky
April 20, 2007

It is time to revolt.

Progressives, conservatives, reformers, and all who believe America faces serious challenges that require serious discussion should open their windows, as Howard Beale suggested in the movie “Network,” and say:“I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

Super-Disaster Tuesday warps our presidential campaign into another travesty of democracy: First, the early stage of the campaign turns presidential candidates into carnival barkers for the obscene amounts of campaign money that now dominate and distort our democracy.

I know countless members of the House and Senate, as well as would-be presidents, who are disgusted with the lifestyle of perpetual fundraising. The American people are appalled by the corrupting power of mass money over a system whose integrity they no longer trust, and whose corruption they will no longer tolerate.

Second, virtually all of these Iraqi-like tons of cash will be dumped into our living rooms, compressed into a period of days, through a massive deluge of television commercials drenched with negativity, character attacks and smears.

Finally, almost any weird, strange, sick, crazy, extreme, unexpected event occurring in the hours before Super-Disaster Tuesday will totally dominate the outcome; and of course there will be no rational process of discussion or response to any such last-minute event.

2008 began as a perfectly rational and improved system, with Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina giving voters in diverse states an opportunity to seriously consider the candidates. This is perfect.

Then, 2008 degenerated into a nuclear arms race, with one megastate after another elbowing each other until we have a giant blob at the front end, which disenfranchises every state that comes later and makes a mockery of serious dialogue in the Super-Disaster states.

We now have the near-total domination of money over our democracy, and the near-total domination of television over our politics.

Super Tuesday magnifies everything that makes the American people cynical about our system. The most critical moments of our democracy will be pumped into a microscopic time frame. The boob tube distortions will be dumped onto voters, who will be force-fed eight tons of broccoli in a 15-minute dinner.

Let’s step back and spread out the Super-Duper-Disaster Tuesday primaries.

Let’s focus on the people aspects of politics and the idea aspects of politics.

The early campaign debates will be unenlightening because there will be so many candidates, sharing so little time, each parroting staff-written bites hoping to be the quote of the evening.
Extending the primaries will allow longer, more serious debates with a smaller number of candidates and a higher standard of dialogue.

It would maximize the personal interaction between the candidates and the people. It would enhance the people-politics of voter turnout and make the next president far more sensitive to the regional and state issues of a diverse nation.

Today, Super-Duper-Disaster Tuesday makes candidates far more addicted to television studios and far more dependent on desperate front-end, and last-minute, fundraising.

An extended campaign enhances the quality of discussion and the integrity and rationality of the process. It would give worthy candidates the time to rebut the slanderous and negative attacks that the current system guarantees.

Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, populists, reformers — serious people of every persuasion, say it loud and clear: “We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore!

”Brent Budowsky is a former aide to U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), then chief deputy whip of the U.S. House. He is a contributing editor to the Fighting Dems News Service, and can be reached at
'
brentbbi@webtv.net

This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.