Bernie Goldberg has gone back into the depths of time to dig around in CBSs own reports on the Rathergate/Bush TANG story.
The money quote that Goldberg found on pg 130 of the report was,
Mary Mapes knew before she put the story on the air that George W. Bush, the alleged slacker, had in fact volunteered to go to Vietnam.
Who says? The outside panel CBS brought into to get to the bottom of the so-called “Rathergate” mess says. I recently re-examined the panel’s report after a source, Deep Throat style, told me to “Go to page 130.” When I did, here’s the startling piece of information I found:
Mapes had information prior to the airing of the September 8  Segment that President Bush, while in the TexANG [Texas Air National Guard] did volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots. For example, a flight instructor who served in the TexANG with Lieutenant Bush advised Mapes in 1999 that Lieutenant Bush “did want to go to Vietnam but others went first.” Similarly, several others advised Mapes in 1999, and again in 2004 before September 8, that Lieutenant Bush had volunteered to go to Vietnam but did not have enough flight hours to qualify.
It’s clear from the comments after Goldberg’s story that people are still arguing the issue over whether or not Bush received special treatment. However, what is clear here is that Mapes had first-hand reports from Bush’s senior officers and instructors that he had volunteered for duty in Vietnam. She may have questioned the accuracy of the reports, but — as a reporter — she was duty bound to recognize those accounts and reports in her stories. She did not. She simply ignored any evidence that contradicted her predetermined outcome. She was going to find Bush guilty regardless of what the evidence might have shown. More and more, we can see that Mapes and Rather’s collusion smacks of an attempt to rig the outcome of the 2004 election.
Update: Accuracy In Media adds more to the story in this post
This Business and Media Institute article tags the troubles with Fannie Mae – Freddie Mac as “Enron x19″. The authors note that if the socialist government bailout of these firms goes through, it could leave every taxpayer in the U.S. on the hook for a $2,000 share of the billion (+) pay day.
The article also details the close ties that the upper management in these firms have with many in government, especially the Democratic party, including high ranking members of the Clinton administration and members of both the Kerry and Obama presidential campaigns.
There were also political ties between Fannie Mae and the Clinton administration. Former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines and former Vice Chairman Jamie Gorelick were instrumental in the Clinton administration. Gorelick is also “rumored to be a possible attorney general in an Obama administration,” according to Politico.
According to the Dec. 23, 2004, Washington Post, Raines “was a director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton administration, and his name was mentioned as a possible Treasury Secretary had Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) been elected president.”
As Reuters explained on July 11, 2008, “Fannie Mae in particular has strong connections to Democratic politics.” In addition to Raines and Gorelick, “former Fannie Mae CEO James Johnson headed John Kerry’s vice presidential search team, and was doing the same job for Obama but left the post after reports he received favorable mortgage interest rates as a result of his ties to the chief executive of the troubled mortgage lender Countrywide Financial.”
Not wanting to be left out, high-ranking Republicans are also described as supporting the bailout, despite their knowledge of inappropriate goings on in the federally-backed mortgage companies.
The NBC “Today” show hinted at problems with the two government-sponsored companies on July 14 when Andrea Mitchell reported Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) reaction to a bailout:
“John McCain also says the survival of the mortgage giants is essential, despite some of their past practices,” said Mitchell. Viewers were left to wonder what those “past practices” could have been. Here are a few hints: billions of dollars in accounting scandals, stock prices that have plummeted, connections to prominent politicians and a high-risk portfolio.
As you read further through the article, you see that both parties (surprise!!!) are closely connected to the corruption.
“Political influence” was also cited by The Wall Street Journal in 2002. “During the 1999-2000 election cycle, Fan spread around $1.6 million and Fred $2.4 million, giving to both parties about equally. The total of $4 million is almost double what Enron spent.”
In 2004, Fannie’s CEO and vice chairman were former Clinton administration officials. A new article in the July 15 Journal said Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists “are said to have strongly influenced the 1992 legislation” that “created the companies’ regulator.”
The New York Times listed Fannie Mae’s Washington connections positively on April 20, 1997. That story, “The Velvet Fist of Fannie Mae,” focused on James A. Johnson, who was at the time chairman and chief executive of Fannie Mae.
That’s the same “consummate Washington player” Obama “tapped” to lead his vice presidential search, according to the June 11 ABC “World News with Charles Gibson.” After taking heat related to Countrywide loans, Johnson resigned from Obama’s campaign.
“Washington insiders respect him as the most skilled political operator in corporate America, protecting Fannie Mae’s franchise with an influential network that extends from the highest reaches of the Clinton Administration to the ranks of conservative Republicans on Capital Hill,” said the Times.
The July 16 Washington Post also linked ousted Fannie CEO Franklin Raines to Obama’s campaign. It said Raines has recently “taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.”
Unfortunately, it seems that the news media has also been complicit in allowing this scandal to develop. While the big 3 networks could speak and think about nothing but Enron during the highly publicized breakup of that company, they have all but ignored the growing corruption at Fannie Mae. Only the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post have bothered to criticize the back room deals, influence peddling, shady lending practices, and careless money handling that was going on there.
Unlike the three networks, which were praising Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac earlier in the year, The Wall Street Journal has been sounding an alarm bell about the corruption and financial danger of the lenders’ practices for more than six years. The Journal has run at least 29 editorials or op-eds exposing the two businesses for political connections, preferential regulation, and Enron-like “cooking” of the books.
“The Washington political class has nurtured and subsidized these financial beasts for decades in return for their campaign cash and lobbying support,” said one Journal editorial on July 12. That editorial also pointed out the lack of reporting on the issue saying, “Maybe the press corps will even start reporting how this vast confidence game could happen.”
The Journal wasn’t alone. The Washington Post said on July 14, “Though the implosion of investor confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac last week was sudden, the worries driving it have been the subject of countless warnings over many years.”
So it seems that both major parties have been involved in helping foist this socialist behemoth on the taxpayers of the country. Now that their loose accounting rules and corrupt policies have brought about the same results as all socialist “businesses” eventually achieve (i.e.: bankruptcy), they and their willing accomplices in the media are largely refusing to get the information on the depth of the scandal out to those of us who will be forced to foot the bill.
Once again we see that Democrat-Republican … Republican-Democrat … there’s really not all that great a difference. More and more it is becoming a matter of Washington insiders and Washington elites (regardless of party affiliation) that the rest of America needs to watch out for.
I’m frankly a little bit shocked that Mary Mapes is still trying to sell the lie about her and Dan Rather’s forged memos.
It has been three years since we aired our much-maligned story on President Bush’s National Guard service and reaped a whirlwind of right-wing outrage and talk radio retaliation. That part of the assault on our story was not unexpected. In September 2004, anyone who had the audacity to even ask impertinent questions about the president was certain to be figuratively kicked in the head by the usual suspects.
What was different in our case was the brand new and bruising power of the conservative blogosphere, particularly the extremists among them. They formed a tightly knit community of keyboard assault artists who saw themselves as avenging angels of the right, determined to root out and decimate anything they believed to be disruptive to their worldview. …
Instantly, the far right blogosphere bully boys pronounced themselves experts on document analysis, and began attacking the form and font in the memos. They screamed objections that ultimately proved to have no basis in fact. But they captured the argument. They dominated the discussion by churning out gigabytes of mind-numbing internet dissertations about the typeface in the memos, focusing on the curl at the end of the “a,” the dip on the top of the “t,” the spacing, the superscript, which typewriters were used in the military in 1972.
It was a deceptive approach, and it worked.
These critics blathered on about everything but the content. They knew they would lose that argument, so they didn’t raise it. They focused on the most obscure, most difficult to decipher element of the story and dove in, attacking CBS, Dan Rather, me, the story and the horse we rode in on — without respite, relentlessly, for days.
Ok, everyone say it with me … 1, 2, 3 ….. Aaaaawwwwww! You poor poor poor poor thing. Having to come out of your protective little cocoon at CBS to face serious criticism when you fabricate “evidence” and try to use a major media outlet to rig a presidential election must be soooo difficult. I feel your pain.
Folks, this would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. Ms. Mapes, you and Dan conjured up a story; you got caught red-handed and then you got fired for it. Despite your best attempts, your boy lost the election. Even you admit that it was three years ago. Get over it. Move on. Get a job. Do something constructive. Stop blaming other people for your screw ups.
Its also instructive to see her unrestrained distaste for anyone and anything in the political right. We’re apparently supposed to believe that this hard-left, choleric, harpy was ever able to present the “news” in an unbiased fashion? Yeah right!
Something doesn’t compute here. If this is true,
Then this would have had to have been a lie,
“He betrayed this country!” Gore shrieked in a red-faced Dean-like frenzy at a rally of Democrats on Sunday in Tennessee, the home state that rejected him in 2000.
“He played on our fears! He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure pre-ordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!” …
“It is not a minor matter to take the loyalty and deep patriotic feelings of the American people and trifle with them.” Then he screamed, “The truth shall rise again!”
Now if Mr. Gore can so easily flip his beliefs for personal and political gain — from Bush 1 betrayed the country for not going after (a terror funding and supporting) Saddam fast or hard enough, to Bush 2 betrayed the country for going after Saddam too hard and too fast when we weren’t 100% sure about whether he was really all that bad — just how much faith would an intelligent individual put in any of his other political games.
Nod to Darcey
Update: It just hit me that Gore’s political
maneuvers nuance must be where Kerry got his “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it” concept. Standard issue, liberal playbook material – Never tie yourself to any one goal/objective or philosophy, other than arrogating additional power to yourself and the government. Always be for or against whatever the people standing in front of you are for or against.
The number of cancer deaths in Canada will rise to crisis levels if the Conservative government doesnâ€™t deliver on a promised $250-million prevention plan, the Canadian Cancer Society warned Monday.
This type of thing takes some real class. Nothing like scaring the pants off of those suffering from cancer as a means of bolstering your bank account. After all, we all know that not a single person was diagnosed with or passed away from cancer during the Liberal Party’s reign. it’s only when those bloodthirsty Conservatives are in power that cancer is ever really a problem.
If you can get around Ann Coulter’s desperation to be more important in this recent column, she still makes an excellent point. She notes that, since they can’t win in elections, the liberals are targeting Republicans in the courts. The problem is that in pretty much every case they have brought, the Democrats have no legal or moral basis for targeting these people. The only reason the Dems are bringing charges against these Republicans is that they are dangerous to the Democrat’s political aspirations.
In the remaining money-laundering case against DeLay, the prosecutors have acknowledged that they cannot produce the actual list of candidates who allegedly gained from the purported money-laundering scheme. But they hope to introduce a facsimile cobbled together from someone’s memory.
In other words, during Rathergate, the case against the president consisted of a faked memo, whereas the case against Tom DeLay consists of an imaginary one.
No doubt this memo-ry is imaginary, but real … or fake, but real … or something like that as well.
I guess that even the Democratics don’t watch CBS news. If they did, they might have learned something about making up “evidence.”
She also accurately notes what it will take to get the liberals to straighten up and fly right.
The only way to stop the left’s criminalization of conservatism is to start indicting liberals.
It wasn’t calm persuasion that convinced liberals the independent counsel law was a bad idea. It was an independent prosecutor investigating Bill Clinton (who actually was a felon!).
It wasn’t logical argument that got them to admit that – sometimes – women do lie about sexual harassment. It was half a dozen women accusing Bill Clinton of groping, flashing or raping them.
It wasn’t the plain facts that got liberals to admit that, sometimes, “objective” news reports can be biased. It was the appearance of Fox News Channel.
Remember, during the run-up to the November election, we were treated to a bevvy of self-righteous speeches about how the Republicans were hateful, and sought to emphasize the negative? Remember how the Dems repeatedly informed us that Bush was a divisive leader and how he emphasized the differences in the two parties? Remember how those who would vote for Bush were instructed that they needed to build bridges and expend more effort on bipartisanship?
Well from the same self righteous group that brought you all of the above – and the fellow who is expected to take over as the Chairman of the DNC – we have the following.
“I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for,” — former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean
This is just the sort of thing that proves the Democratic Party is crumbling under its own weight. This proves that anger and hatred are the base of what is driving the Dems and their leadership. It also proves that they need to clear the cobwebs out of their collective heads, give up on foolish and divisive talk like this and then come back to considering issues.
One can hardly call the last few weeks an attempt to build bridges or to act in a bipartisan manner. A few examples: holding off on the vote to recognize Condi as the Secretary of State, Gonzales, Social Security, John Kerry pooh-poohing the Iraqi election (“Don’t overhype it”), Ted Kennedy lambasting the US military as the problem in Iraq, Barbara Boxer actually claiming that Condi attacked her ….
This sort of thing demonstrates clearly which side needs to start building bridges and which side needs to start working toward bipartisan measures. Simply put folks, the election is over; deal with it. You’re making more enemies than friends with this stupidity.
Seems the morons in the ILF are not alone in their desire to quash dissent and free speech.
The sons of a first-term congresswoman and Milwaukee’s former acting mayor were among five Democratic activists charged Monday with slashing the tires of vans rented by Republicans to drive voters and monitors to the polls on Election Day.
Sowande Omokunde, son of Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., and Michael Pratt, the son of former Milwaukee acting mayor Marvin Pratt, were charged with criminal damage to property, a felony that carries a maximum punishment of 3 1/2 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The activists – all employees of the John Kerry campaign – are accused of flattening the tires on 25 vehicles rented by the state Republican Party to get out the vote and deliver poll watchers Nov. 2.
Keep it up folks. When you act out like this, you only strengthen our resolve.
The cacophany of self-righteous indignation coming from Chis Matthew and the other apologists for the mainstream media is getting amusing. They’re so busy blaming the vast-right-wing-conspiracy for their failure, that they have (once again) completely overlooked the fact that they refused to police or check their own raving biases.
Just one quote from page 61 of their own report proves this
Late on Monday, August 30, Lieutenant Colonel Burkett agreed to meet with Mapes and Smith on Thursday, September 2 and to show them some documents. In apparent anticipation that Lieutenant Colonel Burkett might be reluctant to show them the documents, Smith e-mailed a detailed proposal to Mapes on Tuesday, August 31, regarding putting Lieutenant Colonel Burkett in touch with an agent for a book deal, and Smith indicated that he would try to work something out with his publishing friends:
Today I am going to send the following hypothetical scenario to a reliable, trustable editor friend of mine . . .
What if there was a person who might have some information that could possibly change the momentum of an election but we needed to get an ASAP book deal to help get us the information? What kinds of turnaround payment schedules are possible, keeping in mind the book probably could not make it out until after the election . . . . What I am asking is in this best case hypothetical scenario, can we get a decent sized advance payment, and get it turned around quickly.
Then they will respond with some possible scenarios of what they could do. When we get to Burkett s house I will have at least some scenarios to show Burkett about what could happen if he played ball with the documents. If he shows us what we want, then I can call my friend and tell him the real details and start the process. Smith told the Panel that the book deal was his idea, and that it was not a 60 Minutes deal. Mapes responded in an e-mail to Smith s proposal, stating that looks good, hypothetically speaking of course. Notably, she did not tell Smith in her reply e-mail that he could not promote the book deal in order to entice Lieutenant Colonel Burkett, although she told the Panel that neither this, nor the options presented in Smith s reply e-mail described below, were real options in fact. Smith wrote in reply: Just in case Burkett asks let me make sure I have this right. This is our plan: If he shows us some leg, we are going to talk to him about his options in the following areas: 1) Security, 2) Publishing, 2A) (related topics of taking care of him with money) and 3) forcing Kerry campaign to acknowledge his wisdom and strategic abilities . . . If his leg is sexy and useful then we are going to then do whatever it takes to help him in those areas.
Smith and Mapes were actively courting Burkett to get his forged documents. They were planning to bribe him with a book deal and “decent sized advance payments” all as a means of “possibly chang(ing) the momentum of an election“.
One plus one equals two folks.
CBS was completely ignoring the Swift Boat Vets while dogmatically pursuing Burkett and his forged documents, so they could impact the outcome of the election. They were ignoring and/or downplaying any story that might negatively impact Kerry and herniating themselves to obtain documents that might be damning to the Bush campaign.
And they still have the gall to blame the political right for their problems.
That takes some big brass cajones.
I hadn’t been to Adam Daifallah’s blog in a looong while, so I popped over there this morning. When I did, I remembered why I linked to him in the first place.
His take on the possibility of Newt Gingrich’s run for the Presidency is dead on.
One of his other posts looked at the movement of Canadians and Americans based on their political beliefs. I found this interesting, because I am moving to the US, while the leftist anti-Bush types are moving north.
I have to add that while the Bush win was nice to see, my move had nothing to do with the outcome of a specific election. Making that substantial a life change based on the outcome of one election is foolish and immature. Kerry could have very easily won the election in November. If the fraudulent CBS story on Bush’s TexANG service had been released a few weeks later, or the Swift Boat Vets had not been so effective in getting Kerry’s history out, or the more conservative element of US society had decided to sit out another election, things could have been very different over the next four years.
Those differences, however, would not be sufficient reason for one to abandon their country. Ideas, morals and philosophies are bigger than who is or isn’t the President for a four year term and for the socialists in American society to abandon their country over the outcome of an election is silly.
Don’t let the door hit you in the rear on the way out.
Four CBS News employees have been ousted in connection with CBS’s flawed, inaccurate “September surprise” story questioning George W. Bush’s National Guard service.
The departing CBS staffers include Senior Vice President Betsy West; “60 Minutes/Wednesday” Executive Producer Josh Howard and his deputy, Mary Murphy, all three of whom were asked to resign, press reports said Monday morning.
Mary Mapes, the producer of the segment on George W. Bush’s National Guard service, was fired.
Interesting (as this article noted) that the President of CBS News – Andrew Heyward – who presided over this fraudulent attempt to mislead Americans, just 50 days out of an election, is staying on.
It was also interesting to see that Dan “Ratherbiased” Rather was also allowed to stay on until his chosen retirement date. As an aside, this was truly a brave statement by the figurehead of CBS News. Dan made sure to cover his but, protect his retirement funds and choose his departure date from CBS, but the people that he worked with to develop the fraudulent memogate story can get unceremoniously dumped. No skin off of his nose. After all, because his errors were the result of being overworked and over-ethusiastic about the story.
So while this relatively limited purging will help, the idea that CBS can keep any integrity in their news room while retaining Dan Rather and Andrew Heyward is laughable. The key figures involved in the fraud are still in the employ of CBS, still running the news room, still managing the news production, etc. They may bring in some new blood to replace Mapes and her cohorts, but that new blood will not have a final say in the actual production and presentation of the news.
In the end, it is reasonable to ask if anything has really changed there?
Read the CBS report on the memogate scandal here.
Since it is almost Christmas, it is a good time to give out awards to the most deserving recipients. Thomas Sowell’s latest editorial awards two captains of the mainstream media with their richly deserved Joseph Goebbels award.
This year’s Joseph Goebbels award goes by a narrow but decisive margin to CBS News anchorman Dan Rather for his planned broadcast on “60 Minutes” — just days before the election — to discredit President Bush’s National Guard service 30 years earlier. Leave aside for the moment the fact that discrepancies in the documents he relied on have convinced experts and many others that they were forgeries. Why was what George W. Bush did or didn’t do 30 years earlier “news” in 2004?
It was news by Dr. Goebbels’ standard — something that could lead to desired political reactions by the audience. Waiting until it would have been virtually impossible for an effective answer to be made before election day was in the same Goebbels spirit. Had the documents been real, Dan Rather would still have been a strong contender for the award. The fact that virtually everyone, with the notable exception of Mr. Rather, now regards those documents as fake — instead of simply “not authenticated” — makes Dan Rather the clear winner of the Joseph Goebbels award for 2004.
It is not necessary to believe that Rather knowingly used phony documents. It seems more likely that the political opportunity was too juicy to resist just because some document experts pointed out some problems with the typing and other details. It is the purpose that is decisive, so that even honest people are eligible for this award. We have to be inclusive.
Dan Rather’s closest competition for the Joseph Goebbels award was Ted Koppel, whose “Nightline” broadcast went to a Communist country to get witnesses to speak on camera — with a Communist official present — to discredit what the Swift Boat Veterans had said about an incident involving John Kerry during the Vietnam war.
Not one of the American eyewitnesses, who could have spoken freely in a free country, was interviewed in this “Nightline” broadcast.
Nice move guys. Kos and Atrios couldn’t stand up to the puppy blenderer and Charles @ LGF any other way.
I suppose that after Kerry’s crushing defeat, they’ll scrape up whatever “wins” they can. No doubt that these are the same people that keep whinging about voting irregularities in Ohio.
Update: They are the same people that are whinging about voting irregularities.
So, I held my nose and voted PC in the Alberta provincial election last night.
I had to give Ralph credit for making the hard choices, early on in his tenure, that brought Alberta back from its NEB aided economic malaise. That said, I also have to admit that very high resource prices have played a serious role in solving Alberta’s budget issues, meaning Ralph was dealt a good hand but he has still played it pretty well.
I was forced to hold my nose while I voted for two primary reasons.
1) It is clear that after a decade of power, that the PC’s are getting very comfortable in their role as government and a comfortable government is no friend of the electorate. We’ll see whether or not Ralph’s claims to have “heard” the voters of Alberta ring true a year or two into this mandate. Even more importantly, it will be interesting to see which group of voters he will “hear” the most clearly. This issue is what drives my second reason for holding my nose.
2) After fighting our way through the hard choices and belt tightenings, Ralph now seems willing to reverse many of those hard won battles. A review of the spending forecasts indicate that spending is set to skyrocket on issues like education, healthcare, and other social programs. As a decidedly unfriendly Macleans review of Klein’s performance rightly noted a few years back.
And hard as it is for people outside Alberta to believe, his harshest detractors are hard-core conservatives who cite the government’s high levels of program spending and the premier’s political elasticity as proof Klein is, well, a closet Liberal.
So, I was uncomfortable portraying the idea that I am an enthusiastic supporter. However, when given the choice between Klein’s ten years of relatively solid performance and the out in the open socialism of Kevin Taft and his NDP counterparts, the choice is not all that hard.
Now let’s all say a prayer in the hopes that Klein forgets his liberal beginnings and leanings and sticks with the tried and true.
Note to Ralph: Capitalism works, leave it alone.
Democracy Failed! (or The Sky Is Falling)
By Christopher di Armani
“It’s a national tragedy. This election is devastating to all who believe in democracy.’ So said Jeffrim Kuznetsov, a 25-year-old student from Russia, in a November 6, 2004 NYNewsday.com article.
Why? Because the candidate he chose was not elected?
By this logic the US Election is proof that democracy “was devastated” for 55,350,113 Americans (Kerry/Nader voters). By this same logic it is resounding evidence that democracy is alive and well for 59,459,765 Americans (Bush voters).
But what does it prove for the approximately 130 million Americans of voting age (based on 2000 census numbers) who chose, for one reason or another, NOT to vote at all?
The total number of voters in the 2004 Presidential election was 115,809, 878. Which means more people chose NOT to vote for ANY candidate than voted for all three men combined.
Did democracy fail these non-voters? Or was democracy ALREADY devastated for them? What other conclusion can be drawn from an election where more eligible voters REFUSE to vote than the number of people who voted for all parties combined?
That democracy hasn’t truly existed in America for over a hundred years is probably far closer to the truth than Kuznetsov’s whiny “democracy is devastated” comment.
Is Bush the best man for the job? Given his disgusting PATRIOT Act, obviously not. With not so much as allowing Congress to even READ the proposed Act, Republicans voted that Liberty-shredding document into law in a heartbeat. In a mere few days the Bush administration did more to demolish the Constitution than probably all the presidents before him. Now THAT takes some doing!
Does that mean Kerry is the better man, despite the outcome of the election? Given what Swift-Boat Veterans have to say about the man’s character and his Congressional voting record, again, obviously not.
Nader? Who knows. For better or worse, with just over 400,000 votes, he doesn’t really enter into the equation.
So the “best man for the job” was not elected on November 2, 2004. Neither did the “best man for the job” lose the election.
Maybe that’s why more people chose not to vote at all than voted in the entire election.
- 30 -
Copyright 2004 www.diArmani.com
The Liberal Party Needs T-Cells
Commentary by Clive Edwards
It’s not those who casts the votes who wield power, but those who count the votes. I am reminded of the above words attributed to Josef Stalin by a statement I heard recently, “I don’t believe the Liberals won the last election”. Think about the ramifications: one party stealing an election. We know it happens in banana republics, but in dowdy old Canada? How could anyone think such a thing?
The real power, anyway, is held by those who run the local riding associations. These are the people whose resolutions are passed up the organization to be voted on to become party policy, or to change the party constitution. These are the people who determine who will run as candidates in the elections (in theory, anyway – parachuted candidates and party leader vetoes put the lie to this). And of course at the riding level honesty prevails, right? No one signs up dead people, pets, non-existent people; no one sells multiple memberships to the same person. All right, I can’t think of a single political party in Canada (or in the world, for that matter) where these things don’t go on. That still doesn’t make it right. It is illegal. What is not illegal (depending on the party constitution under consideration) is selling memberships to those as young as fourteen and who are not citizens or landed immigrants. The only other requirement is that you declare you are not a member of any other party. Just how dead people do this I don’t know. It may be technically legal to have two people go down to the cruise ship terminal and one person sells a party membership to anyone who will take one (perhaps as a souvenir of their trip through Canada) while the other person pays the ten dollars (the standard price of a party membership in Canada) and as long as the recipient is fourteen or older everything is hunky dory.
If pro rights people bought memberships in the Liberal Party and became active in the riding association, as few as a dozen activists could shape riding association policy and work to shape party policy. Since the anti-rights gang has already done this on the sly, it is worth going in and slugging it out with them, figuratively speaking, of course at the riding level. My bet is there are more of us than there are of them. This would be dead easy in rural ridings. The anti’s are more numerous in urban ridings. If we each took out a $10.00 membership in the Liberal Party we could control most of the seats in the country. We would control outright the rural seats and substantially weaken the anti’s control of the urban seats. Such control would allow us to pick who would run for Prime Minister. Such control would allow us to pick which proposed laws would even make it to parliament, let alone pass a vote.
The trick is to get application forms to sign in order to become a member. The Anti’s who currently control the Liberal Party tightly control access to membership forms. One way to overcome or at least challenge this control over membership forms is to send a Postal Money Order to the Liberal Party of Canada, 81 Metcalfe Street Suite 400, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6M8 and specify the $10.00 is to pay for a membership in the Liberal Party. If they think the money is a donation they will treat it as such. By sending a Money Order specifying it is for party membership the Liberals must either steal the money (by cashing the money order and not sending you a membership card) or they must return the money order to you and thereby providing evidence for a legal challenge. If enough people 14 years of age and older who are not required to be Canadian Citizens are turned down there may be grounds for a class action suit which would bankrupt the Liberal Party.
Remember that it is officials at the riding level who arrange to circumvent election rules by bussing in people from outside the riding and having them declare their eligibility. It is officials at the riding level who know how many dogs and dead people are members of the party. If you want to change politics in Canada the best way is to become a T-Cell in the infection that is the Liberal Party.
- 30 -
Copyright 2004 diArmani.com
I checked and can confirm, there’s no media bias at CNN … none at all … not a bit … so stop asking about it … it’s all a right wing plot to make CNN look bad.
That picture?!?! Oh … well … that was just jokes … yeah jokes. No harm, no foul … right?
As an aside, check out this post if you need some levity injected into an otherwise humdrum existence. (note: many of the comments you will find in the Democratic underground are not for the faint of heart – those Dems can cuss like truck drivers. You were warned.)
There is an interesting map floating around the Internet that shows the degree of support Bush won across the US, county by county.
The map gives a striking image of the political makeup of the country and shows how the ‘liberal’ mindset is becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of America in a limited number of large urban areas.