How many of you think we will have a Democratic president in 2009?

[Kablooie]

Bush and Cheney have been redefining laws to strengthen the "unitary executive" concept.
They have pushed presidential powers to previously unprecedented levels.
They claim the president has the power to disregard innumerable laws.
They claim the president has the right to disregard Congressional oversight in many areas.
They have written new executive orders that give the president powerful new capabilities in certain situations that cannot be contested by Congress or anyone else in the government.

These are facts.

Now, do you think they've worked so hard all these years to hand these new supreme rights to the next president without using the new powers themselves?

Do you think they've developed all these capabilities to bestow to the next DEMOCRATIC president more power than any president in history has ever had before?

The only conclusion I can come to is that they are confident that they can prevent a Democrat from becoming president in 2009. Even if a Republican wins, it would have to be someone who supports their values and views. In short, only one of THEIR TEAM.

They might have plans to steal the election again. They might have plans sabotage the Democratic campaign.

The most likely scenario though, is the most unbelieveable. They plan on USING THEIR NEW POWERS TO PREVENT THE ELECTION FROM HAPPENING.

If a 9/11 type incident occurs, their new decrees will give the president near complete autonomy without regard to Congress, the Justice Department, or even the Constitution itself.

So what is more likely?

The election takes place as expected and a Democratic president becomes the beneficiary of potentially dictatorial powers, (and incidentally putting many in the Bush administration at risk of criminal prosecution),

or,

the extraordinarily hard to believe -- overthrow the government in a carefully planned coup and gain the ability to run the country, and essentially the whole world, however they wish without any checks and balances. (and eliminating the possibility that any in the Bush administration will be prosecuted)

They have been putting in pieces that make this a theoretical possibility.

So what do you think?

Just a fantastical theory, "Oh, they would never do THAT!" ... or ....?


Will we have a Democratic president in 2009?

[Heath Hatcher]

1. I do not have a shadow of doubt

That there will be a Democrat sitting in the White House, mark it down.

[lvx35]

24. I agree 100%. There will be a Democratic president.

In a weird way its Murphy's law, another Republican dipshit would be all it takes for the revolution to happen.

[BlackHawk706867]

2. Nope, not here ... I think you will have a Dictatorship in 2009...eom... ww

[Heath Hatcher]

3. Yeah okay

Juat keep telling yourself that in fantasyland. It's 1:27 in the am isn't it past your bedtime Blackhawk?

[BlackHawk706867]

8. I think actually it's time many of you woke up... and fast the facts..

You are so close to loosing your Constitution and many/most can not understand this.... Please get a grip on your own reality and face this fact... Tell me what stops this from happening at this point in time?

Facts:

You have an Administration that is blatantly ignoring Sapeanoes

You have an Administration that has not held the rule of law; ie: Hiring of illegal aliens

You have an Administration that fires 9 Attorneys (Part way thru the Administration time frame)

We could go on and on and on.....

ww

[Heath Hatcher]

13. Yeah and all that will change once Bush leaves office

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Sapeanoes, is that a type of food?

[snowbear]

6. Sure thing toots.

What is with you tonight BlackHawk?

[BlackHawk706867]

12. Look, I saw the movie "Sicko" tonite and realized that I had to step out...

on that edge and challenge some people to wake up in this country... Well I am trying to do just that.... Good, bad or indifferent... We need to get this thing happening and now... There may not be a tomorrow, and it needs to happen now... That's the bottom line, so get on board or get off.. Your choice...

ww

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

29. we have one in 2007

history repeats..

read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Late-Great-U-S-Coming-Merger/dp/0979045142

[illinoisprogressive]

4. strong we will but, it depends on who we nominate

[mentalsolstice]

5. Late night for tin foilers?

If only! (sigh) As much as "they" hated Bill Clinton, it's hard to imagine they would hand all of this power back to Hillary...or even worse, Al Gore, should he step in!

[CK_John]

7. I say we will have a 1 in 3 chance. n/t

[caligirl]

9. President Kim Jung Il in the White House!

[Exultant Democracy]

10. Of course we will, you don't think fascist haven't learned a few new tricks over the years?

it is a shell game and I don't even think they plan on keeping the White House, if they did they would pretend to give a rats ass about pubic opinion.

[The Traveler]

11. A possible scenario

I think the option has been quietly considered. It won't work out for them.

I think at one point the power brokers that supported Bush might have considered this a tenable option. But it is too late for that. Too many of the general population and the military are just waiting for January 2009, when the long national nightmare will finally be over. If Bush usurps the election process, the attitude of resignation may well flash transform to spontaneous rebellion.

The power brokers that supported Bush are all too aware of that possibility, and they have not yet sucked the country dry or adequately prepared their next platform (China, I expect). Bush will not be allowed to exercise that option. Instead, they will buy time by insuring the election of someone with whom they can "reason".

[Mythsaje]

14. Yup.

Check out my "Give Me a Break" post on the Latest page.

That's pretty much how I see it too.

[BlackHawk706867]

15. The Travelera: I sure hope that you are correct, cause most could live...

with that scenario as opposed to a Dictatorship with Bush/Chenny at the helm.... Please don't let it be them...

ww

[niceypoo]

19. I believe they will attempt to seize total power with Bush at the helm...

...I also believe it will fail and, hopefully, will spell the end of the GOP forever.
To them I say, go ahead and try.....let the cards fall where they may. The country hates you and the military hates you. Let their ideology save their sorry asses....not

[Mike Nelson]

16. Look at President Gore and President Kerry...

...and the Supreme Court.

I wouldn't count chickens.

[More Than A Feeling]

18. I do.

As fast as Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia are trending blue? Plus the possibility that New Mexico will turn back because of immigration? (I don't have any specific reason to believe Iowa will turn back, just hope)

[Hippo_Tron]

20. This is like the fourth thread this week about this

And so here's what I've said on all the others.

1) Bush can't suspend elections. Elections are held by the states.

2) Even if the election was suspended, his term expires in 2009 as does Cheney's. If there is no President-elect or VP-elect, the Speaker of the House becomes President.

3) In order to remain in office after his term, literally every federal official that carries a gun would have to be a Bush/Cheney crony. This is nearly impossible to accomplish in the time remaining in office. If they had started already we would've seen a news story about how Bush and Cheney are getting rid of rank-and-file Secret Service, FBI, and other agents.

Unless the rank-and-file are cronies, they won't go along with the coup because they could be charged with treason. Legally the Secret Service or if not them, the FBI, would remove Bush and Cheney from the building if they try to stay past their term, at the request of the new President

[BlackHawk706867]

21. But you are assuming that they don't declare Martial Law somewhere...

along the way, from something that they fabricate... If that happens, then what? Bush has written his own agenda to become the sole Power if I am not mistaken!

ww

[Hippo_Tron]

41. His term expires at noon on January 20th, 2009

Even if he declares Martial Law, all of the soldiers enforcing Martial Law are legally obligated to follow the orders of the new President (which would be the Speaker of the House if there is somehow no election).

[mahina]

26. Thanks for the good sense.

Refreshing.

[ShortnFiery]

34. Does it really matter?

As long as previously ESTABLISHED Executive Control, once again roatates back to the power brokers, we may be doomed from recapturing our Democratic Republic. That is, as long as the Bushs and Clintons remain close and within The Executive Branch, they can protect each other's secrets within the now *budding* Unitary Executive. :shrug:

IMO, if you want a true Democratic Government with THREE independent branches, do not elect any more people with "Bush" or "Clinton" surnames.

Specifically, the EVER increasing CORRUPT and unilateral powers of the Unitary Executive Branch will be inherited by the next Presidency whether it be a Democrat or a Republican holding the reigns. Our Problems with the now seemingly *Unlimited Power* of The Executive Branch will extend BEYOND Party affiliation if allowed to remain unchecked. The Congress needs to step up and do their damn jobs in order to CHECK such abusive powers. They need to do that NOW lest once the next Executive Branch takes office, they will be tempted to continue with the same crony capitalistic policies in order to feed the beastie (Military Industrial Complex) and keep the Stock Market artificially healthy, i.e., death and destruction profiteering thanks to our pretty new killing machine technologies.

It's well past time that Our Congress should wake-up and realize WHO they should be working for.

[Mojorabbit]

22. It just makes no sense

Why consolidate all this power in the executive branch when it is almost a shoo in for a Dem for Prez in the next election? It is illogical esp for the party who wanted to be in power for a generation re Rove.
This kind of power with a dem congress would wipe out everything they have accomplished.

[AndyTiedye]

23. I Wish

[mahina]

25. Beware the fear.

Yes, it's possible. Yes, I am sure they will do everything they can get away with to steal it again. Whether they succeed or fail depends solely on our willingness to work- to organize so that the race is so totally won, it can't be stolen. None of this 51% shit. Work in the polling stations, organize teams of pollwatchers in every precinct, and decide to f-in win.

Or we could just cry and moan that the bad W monster is going to xyz. Certainly easier in the short term.

[eridani]

27. Given that so many corporate types are donating to Clinton and Obama--

--I'd say they are definitely trying to hedge their bets. That's a "yes"--they seem to think it's unavoidable, so they'll go for the most corp-friendly Dems.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. I do

I think the "martial law/disbanding congress" types are screwy.

[Stand and Fight]

30. I could not agree more...

Even if they were thinking it, they have to know that it would mean rebellion without end until the Constitution was restored. A coup of this type simply will not work; however, I do think that they are more than capable of stealing the election AND getting away with it again.

[mahina]

31. If you or anyone else really is concerned, read "The Anti-Coup" by Gene Sharpe,

and be prepared. You can download it for free at the Albert Einstein Institution website, http://www.aeinstein.org/ Short course: lay your body on the gears.

From the site:
The Albert Einstein Institution is a nonprofit organization advancing the study and use of strategic nonviolent action in conflicts throughout the world.

We are committed to the defense of freedom, democracy, and the reduction of political violence through the use of nonviolent action.

Our goals are to understand the dynamics of nonviolent action in conflicts, to explore its policy potential, and to communicate this through print and other media, translations, conferences, consultations, and workshops.

The Albert Einstein Institution and Senior Scholar, Gene Sharp, have come under attack in speeches by President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who quoted from an article by a French writer. Open letters to President Chavez and the French critic, as well as the Albert Einstein Institution Consulting Policy, are posted here:

* Inaccurate Information: An open letter from Gene Sharp to President Hugo Chavez
* Corrections: An open letter from Gene Sharp to Thierry Meyssan
* The Albert Einstein Institution Consulting Policy

This website also offers many publications to be freely downloaded.

From Dictatorship to Democracy by Gene Sharp
Available for download in 21 languages

On Strategic Nonviolent Conflict by Robert Helvey
Available in English, Chinese (Simplified) and Chinese (Traditional) editions.

There Are Realistic Alternatives by Gene Sharp
Downloadable in English, Arabic and Hebrew

Further publications on nonviolent action
Introductions to nonviolent action
Case studies – Eastern Europe, Latin America, more
198 Methods of Nonviolent Action

Translations
Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Spanish, French, Dutch,
Farsi, Italian, Azeri, Kyrgyz, Japanese, many more.

Lectures on Streaming Video
- The Power and Potential of Nonviolent Struggle
- Principled Non-Violence: Options for Action - (offsite link)

[Perry Logan]

32. This administration cannot run an elevator, much less stage a coup

They're also far too cowardly.

[bklyncowgirl]

33. Considering that the Democrats seem to be putting voting machine reform on the back burner....

I'd say probably not.

The New York Times had an article today saying that due to complaints from local officials Congress is delaying legislation requiring reforms in voting machine technology (the Holt bill)or watering it down so much that apparently Congressman Holt is considering dropping support for his own bill.

There doesn't seem to be any sense of urgency among Democrats in Congress that proprietory vote counting software plus paperless voting machines equals a license to steal--or maybe some of them like it that way as long as they're the ones doing the stealing.

Holt's bill wasn't perfect by a long shot but it was a step in the right direction. This is very disappointing news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/washington/20vote.html?hp

[Vinca]

35. Bingo. It doesn't matter how many people "vote" for the Democratic candidate

as long as Republicans rule the software. The Democrats will have more votes, but in the end I'm afraid Rudy will "win" (in which case you can call me a Canadian).

[Totally Committed]

36. Unless entities not already involved in this race insert themselves,

no matter who wins, we will have a Republican in the WH. As it looks now, a DLC "Democrat" will probably get the nomination if nothing else happens from here out. So, it won't matter, you see. Whether it is a Republican President or a DLC President....

:graybox: There will still be no universal (i.e. single-payer, not-for-profit) healthcare.

:graybox: We will still be entrenched in the Middle East, with permanent bases in Iraq. The War for Oil will continue.

:graybox: The fight against Global Warming will remain piecemeal, and up to what the corporations feel they can do without damaging their bottom lines.

:graybox: Inner-city schools will still be allowed to crumble to the ground around the poorest kids' ears.

:graybox: AIPAC will still have a major over-riding say in our foreign policy decisions.

:graybox: There will still be no meaningful Election Reform.

:graybox: The disparity between the very rich and the very poor will still continue unabated.

:graybox: The "War on Terror" will still be a staple used to keep the populace under control.

:graybox: Black men will continue to dominate the prison population.

:graybox: The "War on Drugs" will continue unabated.

:graybox: Africa will continue to languish in bloody genocidal war and abject poverty without very much help from us.

:graybox: AIDS, Cancer, and even the Common Cold will continue to go uncured, while the price of healthcare and prescription Drugs skyrocket.

:graybox: Lobbyists, special Interests, Corporations, and rich people will still matter more than any of us ever will to those we continue to elect.

:graybox: GLBT men and women will still be fighting for the right to marry for love.

:graybox: And the beat will go on and on and on.

And, that's no matter WHO wins now, UNLESS someone who has not already declared tosses his hat into the ring. This candidate will not be "perfect". He will hold some views (past and present) that not all of us can agree with. But he will have been prescient on so much, and spoken of late so bravely and openly against all of the above that we will be crazy not to nominate him. I see no hope for this Party and this country, otherwise. This is our last election -- our last chance -- to turn this corporatist march to the Right by our Party around.

ETA:

Democrats Kiss Up to K Street
Democrats who were sent to Congress in the tide-turning election of 2006 are selling out the economic populism that got them elected in the first place.

By David Sirota, In These Times

Excerpt:

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) provides a good example of dishonest graft. In 1993, Emanuel was the Clinton administration aide charged with ramming NAFTA through Congress "over the dead bodies" of labor and environmental groups, as American Express's CEO cheered at the time. Emanuel orchestrated weekly meetings with K Street lobbyists to strategize about how to pressure Democratic lawmakers. Emanuel went on to cash in as an investment banker, raking in roughly $16 million over a two-year period. From his Wall Street perch in 2000, he published a scathing Wall Street Journal op-ed demanding Congress pass the China free trade deal --another K Street-backed goodie that has helped keep American wages stagnating in the face of skyrocketing corporate profits, and is now projected to destroy at least 1 million American jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Just two years after grossly outspending an opponent to buy an Illinois congressional seat, Emanuel was appointed to the House Ways and Means Committee, the panel that oversees trade policy and that helped corporate lobbyists ram NAFTA through back in 1993. Emanuel also was appointed head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which ran millions of dollars worth of ads trumpeting Democrats anti-corruption platform, and which supported the scores of Democrats running against the very lobbyist-written trade policies Emanuel has based his political career on.

Now, with Emanuel as Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, we see dishonest graft kick into high gear. The same day as the press conference, a group of House Democrats wrote a formal letter to Emanuel demanding he hold a Democratic Caucus meeting to discuss the secret trade negotiations going on between a handful of Democrats and the White House. That letter, according to The Hill, was "rebuffed" even though, again, it was Emanuel's DCCC that aggressively supported Democrats 2006 fair trade candidates. No meeting occurred, and instead Democratic leaders held their press conference, announcing a secret trade deal that, like NAFTA, is strongly backed by K Street lobbyists, but opposed by organized labor, environmental groups, health care groups and grassroots Democrats. Meanwhile, when Emanuel was asked by the Politico's Jeff Patch for details about why Democrats were now backing off their promises to reform lobbying laws so as to prevent Abramoff-style abuse, he did his best Dick Cheney impression, telling the reporter, "Why don't you go fuck yourself."

Running a campaign against corruption, against lobbyist-written trade policies and for lobbying reform, and then using the power granted by voters based on that campaign to engage in corruption,Êpass lobbyist-written trade pacts and reject the most minimal lobbying reforms -- all in exchange for campaign contributions -- is Plunkitt's very definition of dishonest graft. It is "political looting" and it is the result of a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party by Big Money interests.

http://www.alternet.org/story/56093

TC

[leez34]

37. -

I agree. I don't think we will have a Dem president in '09. I think we will have Hillary.

[RFKJrNews]

40. RFK Jr. might still run...

don't lose hope yet, TC...RFK Jr's still got time to decide if he will throw his hat into the ring. It's not too late.

But he needs to hear from the people who support him. We need to let him know we'd be behind him all the way, and one way to do that is gather as many signatures as possible on the petition to Draft RFK Jr. to run in `08.

You can get more info and sign up here:

http://RFKin2008.com

[SOS]

38. Possible...

But the Cheney machine will pull out all the stops to install Thompson.
The Democrat would have to win big to overcome the built-in 3%-4% vote theft.

Too early to tell, but if it's HRC v. Thompson, I'll wait til November 5th to celebrate.

[SaveElmer]

39. Absolutely...and it will be one of the following people...

In order by probability

Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson
John Edwards