Regarding the batch of notes that you have posted today: I also
sense some significant movement on the election fraud issue. Last
year I wrote that (1) given the conditions at that time, the GOP was
certain to win in 2006 and 2008 regardless of the will of the voters,
(2) provided that those conditions remained in place (e.g. “black
box” DREs in place, MSM indifference, and public apathy and
ignorance). But I also wrote (3) that it was likely that those
conditions would not remain in place.
There are four factors which, together, might tip the balance:
1. Bush/Cheney have pissed-off the New York Times, which has
heretofore been a Bush enabler. Will more of the print media follow?
To the Busheviks, it is not enough that the media be net-asset
supporters, their obedience must be total. Now the high-voltage
Bushevik charges of “treason” over the NYT’s disclosure of the latest
Bushevik outrage may pull the Times back into line, or it might be
the final straw that chases the Times off the reservation. If so,
where the Times leads others (e.g. the Boston Globe) will follow.
2. The solid front in the mainstream broadcast media is
beginning to break, as heretofore Bush supporters are beginning to
stray, most notably Joe Scarborough and Lou Dobbs. Dobbs especially
is raising holy hell about election security. In addition, aggrieved
“victims” can become formidable opponents: cf. Dan Rather.
3. I sense that at last some significant Wall Street
movers-and-shakers are finally beginning to appreciate that where the
Busheviks lead, they should not want to follow. They appreciate
this, not out of any loyalty to the Constitution or our political
institutions, nor for any pangs of conscience over economic
injustice. Their concern is rooted in those most significant Wall
Street motives: greed and self-interest. They understand that in the
economic armageddon toward which Bush is leading the economy, there
will be no winners.
4. The public is waking up at last. A sizeable minority has
always suspected that the elections were fraudulent. But that
minority appears to be growing, and equally important, the salience
of the election fraud issue is growing — from “yeah, so what?”
toward “omigawd, we’ve been screwed!” If the economy continues to
sour, that increase in public outrage will accelerate.
As we learned from the era of Joe McCarthy, and also from the fall of
the Soviet Union, a regime based on fear and intimidation, however
formidable it may appear (hence its effectiveness), can be very
fragile. No one wants to face the beast alone, but when a few step
forward, say an Ed Murrow or an Andrei Sakharov, hordes of the
reluctant and the intimidated join in, and the regime collapses like
a breached levee.
I’m not saying that this will happen. But it could, as it has so
many times in history. And in this case (unlike Dubya’s “faith-based
reality”), believing can make it so. Si se puede!