Barack Beware... They're Out to Get You
In five weeks, I hope to look back on this column with a wry chuckle at my paranoia. If the system works, Barack Obama will take the White House. The two issues John McCain is most closely associated with - invading Iraq, and deregulating the economy - have produced history-snatching catastrophes in the eyes of 80 per cent of Americans. In the first debate, McCain revealed he had nothing to say except more of the same: aggression abroad, market fundamentalist ideology at home. So why am I worried?
Obama is only a few jittery points ahead in the polls, and he has yet to face an October Surprise. This is an old term in US politics, invented when, on the eve of the 1968 election, Lyndon Johnson announced a halt to the bombing of Vietnam. It was a desperate attempt to push the Democratic nominee, Hubert Humphrey, over the finish line - and it failed. But October Surprises need not come from the opposing party. They can come from anywhere.
The first and worst would be the reappearance of Osama Bin Laden. Just five days before the 2004 election, he released a video effectively endorsing John Kerry. He told Americans to imagine corpses crying: "Call to task those who have caused our death!" and said they should "return to what is right," rather than reward "the liar in the White House".
Why would he do this? Bin Laden's long-term strategy is to "provoke and bait". He explains to his supporters: "We conducted a war of attrition against Russia with jihad fighters for 10 years until they went bankrupt. We are continuing in the same policy - to make America bleed profusely to the point of bankruptcy." To achieve this, "all we have to do is send two mujahideen [to a remote, irrelevant area] and raise a piece of cloth on which is written 'al-Qa'ida' in order to make the [US] generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses."
This is his goal, in his own words - to bleed America through irrational, wildly expensive wars that will tilt thousands more fanatical young men from Islamism to full-blown jihadism. So who would you want in the White House? The guy who will wean the US off Middle Eastern oil and the wars and tyrannies it supports to get it - or his opponent? Bin Laden is a monster, but he is not an imbecile. He knows that his endorsement is a kiss of death. The man he publicly praises is the man he wants to lose. Kerry failed to expose Bin Laden's trick; Obama must do it as soon as the tape hits the air.
Beyond this, there could be a 4 November surprise: the Republicans may try to steal the election. Again. They loudly claim to be concerned about voter fraud, even though a New York University study recently found that it "is more likely an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls". But in the name of this paltry risk, they are effectively stripping millions of people - overwhelmingly black and Democrats - of their vote.
Their first vote-stripping tactic is to require elaborate voter identification that black people disproportionately lack. For example, in Indiana - a crucial swing state - Republicans have passed a law requiring voters to bring an official government document bearing their photograph to the polling station. But a study by the University of Wisconsin found that 53 per cent of black adults didn't have a passport or driving licence, compared to 15 per cent of white people. So they can't vote unless they travel for hours (often without a car) to a sparse government registry and queue for half a day to get the correct documentation. The former political director of the Texas Republican Party, Royal Masset, explains: "Requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a drop-off in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 per cent to the Republican vote." Their second tactic is to strip the electoral rolls of black names. In almost all US states, criminals lose their vote for life. This is shocking in itself - it disenfranchises a quarter of all black men in Kentucky, for one. But many states have a sloppy process where they simply scrub anyone with the same name as a criminal off the list. So if there is a criminal called "Chris Wayne" in a county, every black man called "Chris Wayne" loses their vote. That's a lot of Democrats. In Florida in 2000, black voters made up 13 per cent of the electorate yet they were 26 per cent of the people wrongly disenfranchised.
When a judge ordered the release of the paperwork, he found out why. The team under Florida governor, Jeb Bush, had ordered that black criminal names had to go - but Hispanic names were not to be touched. Black Floridians overwhelmingly vote Democrat, while Hispanics lean towards the Republicans. The Bush team said this was "absolutely unintentional" and "a coincidence".
This time, the Republicans have added another group to strip from the rolls. James Carabelli, a Republican Party chairman in Michigan, says: "We have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren't voting from those addresses." These voters are supposed to register from their new addresses - but many are out of time, or too stressed to do it. So the Republicans have launched a national "voter challenge campaign" against honest people who have lost their homes. They know that 60 per cent of sub-prime mortgages went to black voters, and virtually everyone who lost their home is angry with the Republicans.
If these acts of electoral sabotage go ahead on November 4 and tilt the election to McCain, Obama needs to learn from Al Gore's mistake. As the recent HBO film Recount shows, Gore was consensual and statesmanlike - in the middle of a knife fight. He sent urbane professors to make his case, while the Republicans drummed up mobs that physically stopped the vote-counts in Palm Beach County while the clock ticked. If the need comes, Obama needs to call fraud by its real name - and fight.
I hope I'm being too cynical. I hope I'm wrong. But it would be wise to fasten your seatbelts: it's going to be a bumpy month.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
21 Comments so far
Show All.
Nader can win....... The voters will decide.
Nader will change things.
Nader is our only hope.
Nader is the only choice.
Fight the Two-party system.
VOTE NADER 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
.I love your zeal and unflagging energy, but, after reading the dumb crap posted here by Democratic loyalists and under cover neocons I believe the American public too stupid to make a decent decision.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I just received a notice that I'm registered as a Republican instead of an Independent. A Democrat friend did also. What do these criminals have up their sleeve?
Because of his intelligence and liberal voting record, I'm just going to bet that Obama is pretending to be a conservative to attract the majority idiot vote.
Pre-supposing that intelligent people make intelligent decisions, there can be no such thing as an intelligent conservative unless you factor in greed, cowardice and evil.
tool
Actually, Osama did not endorse John Kerry back in 2004. Kerry, like Gore, threw away their base voters, the working class blue collared voters and now Obama has done the same. The author, who I normally respect, has no business inventing conspiracy theories in his blind support of Obama. Obama and Mccain are both frauds. ADMIT IT !
An excellent essay on Republican election fraud and vote-rigging, about the attacks on and disenfranchisement of black voters by the Republican Party, the party of the rich.
And the response to this conviction of the Republicans by most posting of late on Common Dreams?
Why certainly Dear Sir! It REALLY is proof of how Evil those Democrats are, come this way.
Thanks Johann Hari.
The guy who will wean the US off Middle Eastern oil and the wars and tyrannies it supports to get it - or his opponent?
-based on what? I have no idea what this DPA is basing her wishful thinking on.
Did Obama say he plans to wean us off war or is this DPA just being dishonest? I did hear Obama talk about escalating the GWOT during his "debate" with McCain last week. I also heard he want an additional 100,000 troops and more military hardware.
If Obama is planning on reducing US militarism then why does he want more troops and more military hardware? Yeah right.
During the "debate":
On foreign policy, both candidates agreed that American imperialism has the right to deploy its military forces worldwide, attacking and invading whatever country the “commander-in-chief” deems necessary. Obama said that the lesson of Iraq was “we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe, never hesitate to use military force.”
The two candidates clashed mainly over which countries should be targeted for American aggression, with Obama favoring Afghanistan and Pakistan, while McCain remained focused on Iraq. Both threatened Iran and Russia. The Washington Post noted the consensus on foreign policy approvingly in an editorial published Saturday, declaring, “Barack Obama and John McCain don’t differ as much as they may lead voters to believe.”
A vote for Barak Obama is a vote for the SAME. More war, more bailouts for the rich and less social programs and further assaults on our civil rights. The difference between McCain and Obama has grown so small that Obama spent a better part of the "debate" agreeing with McSame. Fully eleven times. I kid not. Imagine Obama debating Nader, McKinney or a socialist. I wonder how much common ground they would've found. That's why they insist on excluding third parties.
On the financial crisis: “I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility.”
On spending: “Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused.”
On taxation: “John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right.”
On the federal budget: “John is right, we have to make cuts.”
On Iraq: “Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.”
On threatening military action in Pakistan: “John ... you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say.”
On Iran: “Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.”
Obama thus acknowledged that he and McCain share a common framework, which is the defense of the interests of the American ruling class, both at home and abroad. If he had been debating a socialist candidate, he would have had no agreement on anything.
read more:http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/deba-s29.shtml
"The first and worst would be the reappearance of Osama Bin Laden. Just five days before the 2004 election, he released a video effectively endorsing John Kerry. He told Americans to imagine corpses crying: "Call to task those who have caused our death!" and said they should "return to what is right," rather than reward "the liar in the White House"
And...
"This is his goal, in his own words - to bleed America through irrational, wildly expensive wars that will tilt thousands more fanatical young men from Islamism to full-blown jihadism."
Has anyone become suspicious that it may not be Osama Bin Laden releasing these tapes and instead it is the Bush administration who has a penchant of fearmongering?
What a coincidence that the tapes are always released before elections.
Moreover, Are We The People suppose to take on "faith" that the person speaking on these tapes is actually Osama Bin Laden and that the translation on the tape is actually what the speaker is saying?
Again, given the penchant of this administration - "I don't think so...."
"Beyond this, there could be a 4 November surprise: the Republicans may try to steal the election. Again. "
Glad to see we agree those elections were stolen. Please note, they could not have been stolen without the assistance of the Democrats.
If the Democrats care about winning, why haven't they moved to abolish the anti-democratic electoral college?
Why haven't they challenged the use of voting machines that have proven security flaws?
Not that I don't agree that Republicans will do whatever to win or steal an election, but this kind of article works better if you at least have your facts straight. Indiana a swing state? Not since 1968. And "almost all states strip criminals of their right to vote for life"? Not by a long shot. Only convicted felons, who make up a minority of criminals to begin with, lose their right to vote for life in 2, count em, 2 states. Not quite almost all. Hell, not even close to almost all. And the foreclosures in Michigan? As one who grew up in Michigan, take it from me: if you were foreclosed upon, you still have the right to vote even if you haven't updated your voter registration; that's the law. Republicans can challenge all they want, but no-one will be denied the right to vote, and no court will accept whatever challenge Republicans put up. The law explicitly states you can vote from you last known address, even if you no longer live there.
None of these things would have been hard to find out. Get the facts before spouting off; even those of us on your side can be turned off by such careless reporting.
Law or not, just being challenged means you get a "provisional" ballot. Easier to dispose of.
I always believed the term "October surprize" originated elsewhere than with LBJ's temporary halt of the bombing of North Vietnam prior to the 1968 election. I thought it referred to the Reagan election team's efforts to persuade Iran to not release the American embassy hostages that were being held until after the Carter/Reagan balloting, and Ronald Reagan had been inaugurated.
Also, for your general information the Republican Party's voter caging tactic based upon lists of supposedly foreclosed mortgages has been challenged in the federal courts in Michigan on grounds that such disenfranchisement violates the Voting Rights Act, the civil rights acts and the First Amendment. In response to this lawsuit, the Michigan Republican party in Macomb county is now claiming the whole thing was just a big misunderstanding by the press, and the GOP does not plan to use foreclosure lists on election day to challenge or disqualify prospective voters.
Bill from Saginaw
Obama is just another puppet of the ruling elite - fact.
It's either tweedle-dee or tweedle-dumb and that really is no choice at all.
We are not free but we can be.
We have been lied to time and time again by politicians and everytime we vote we give away our freedom by allowing others to dictate our destiny.
Think outside the box...think for yourself.
peace and love
all is illusion...there is no government.
And you're just a puppet of Nader who wants 5% to get his $$$. Reality is not pleasant at times and the Dems are way too beholding to $$$. But check out Nader's investments.
McCain/Rove will continue the nastiness of the Bush/Cheney years. Obama is a big improvement.
getreal; yeah, St. Ralph's $ is mostly in Fidelity Magelan.
Proof? Google Nader Investments Fidelity Magellan
Then Google Fidelity Magellan Top 25 holdings.
They include Goldman Sachs, Wachovia, and Merill Lynch. Raytheon who makes cluster bombs is also a FM holding.
Ralph is a Republican Tool. That is why Republicans worked so hard to get him on the ballots in '04 and bundled contributions to him.
Obama or Sarah. (1 in 5 actuarial chance of that).
Well, time for an onslaught of personal attacks. Yawn.
.Knee jerk much?
Of all the cheap shots about Nader the ones about his investments are the dumbest, especially when you havent bothered to vet Obama's own portfolio? Silly boy, trix are for kids.....
With Obama accepting more contributions from Wall Street than McCain, with every single speech and position paper of Nader's critical of any bailout and calling for stringent regulation of our financial institutions, your comments are proven as dumb as a post.....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I'm laughing out loud my friend. Just because I state that Obama is a puppet of the elite you immediately think that i'm a puppet of Nader, how sadly wrong you are in so many ways.
Let me spell it out clearly to you, by participating in this farce called elections we hand our power to insidious people who have no interests in our own and to think that Obama, McCain, Nader et al will be an improvement will only see you be let down and end up having even more our rites stripped away by people complicit in keeping the ruling elite in control.
Think outside the box...wake up to reality and realise that you have the power to change it by taking control of your own life not letting others do it for you.
peace and love
all is illusion...there is no government
3 short points: why is the author so unconcerned with the fact that it is Obama's actual positions that are a major part of his problem with the electorate?
I remain genuinely puzzled as to WHY Democrats are not more outraged and willing to work much harder against voter suppression? Why all the capitulation afterwards and the lack of energy towards preventing it beforehand?
Obama has not earned nor does he deserve our votes. Democrats are frightened and fear is always the worst place to make rational good decisions. Progressivism can only grow when we give up on the duopoly.
Obama = McCain.
McCain = Obama.
FISA. War. Bailout.
You can stop the madness.
You can stop the spying.
You can stop the War.
You can stop the Bailout.
Power to the People. Get it done. Save our country.
Vote Nader.
Obama = McCain.
McCain = Obama.
FISA. War. Bailout.
You can stop the madness.
You can stop the spying.
You can stop the War.
You can stop the Bailout.
Power to the People. Get it done. Save our country.
Vote Nader.