When Strategy Fails, Rove Will Fight Dirty
By Larisa Alexandrovna, AlterNet
Posted on November 3, 2006, Printed on November 7, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/43798/
Let us begin in the middle -- that is, at the center of a chess board,
the most important area strategically to control in any game -- and
take a bird's eye view. There is no question that all things being
equal, the Democrats will utterly slaughter their opponents from one
side of the nation, slashing and slicing, all the way to the other.
I
am therefore amused at the Monday-night quarterbacking going on --
still -- as though with only a week left, the outcome of this upcoming
election is still somehow debatable. Karl Rove -- aka Bush's colon --
might have his math, as he so arrogantly chirped
recently, but the rest of the science-abiding world can still add and
subtract, and it is quite obvious to anyone with the ability to dress
themselves in the morning that there are simply not enough members of
the hate constituency to deliver this election to the Republicans.
There are not enough homophobes, bigots, and criminal braggarts left to
offset the massive exodus of the recently awakened from the rotting
base of the GOP.
The strategy played thus far by the RNC has been
catastrophic, and all the talk of a Rove endgame surprise -- that is, a
legal surprise -- is pure nonsense to anyone who understands strategy,
as well as to anyone who knows that once you have lost control of the
center, you are at a material disadvantage, and your opponent is
positioned but a few moves from checkmate, there is absolutely nothing
that can be done to salvage the game.
Then again, Rove has never been a strong chess player, or strategist even. His success comes simply from his willingness to act outside the law,
an endless amount of money with which to do it, and connections that
will keep him safe from legal prosecution. That is not genius, it is
simply power crank. Because he is such a weak strategist, Rove tends to
play the same game over and over and over. But his favored
divide-aggravate-focus strategy is not working this time; it is simply
far too visible, and the GOP is far too corrupt for even the most
faith-based of their base.
So then why have I been in near panic for the last few weeks?
Because all things are not equal, or even barely Constitutional, and they have not been for some time now.
Distilling panic
Because I play chess, I can see that (a) the Republicans must hold the House to avoid impeachment,
(b) yet because it is simply not probable that the GOP can hold the
House, then (c) the game must be altered to favor the GOP in some way.
There
is no question that the Republicans must keep the House, if they are to
avoid criminal investigations which will no doubt land many of them in
prison. More importantly, the unprecedented abuse of power by the White
House cannot be allowed to be examined or investigated, because there
is enough evidence to not only impeach this administration, but also to
convict them of serious, criminal, even treasonous acts.
But that
is not all that is at stake here, because of the unprecedented
corruption, criminal activity, and outright violations of domestic and
international law that include as bedfellows fascists and corporate
interests. Halliburton, Exxon, and AT&T, for example, will no doubt
face serious probes. Halliburton alone has been engaged in enough
criminal activity to make the combined crimes of Enron, Arthur
Andersen, and WorldCom look like standard operating procedure in
comparison.
But how?
My friends, no matter how rough the road may be, we can and we will, never, never surrender to what is right. —Dan Quayle
Since
the House must be kept under GOP control at all costs, thereby assuring
a safe haven for the blue chip mob, how can such a miracle be pulled
off in the face of simple math?
I am obviously not speaking from
a position of direct knowledge when I present what I feel are logical
scenarios. This is pure speculation on my part. That said, however, I
am speculating as a person who studies history, as a chess player, and
as someone who understands what is really at stake here.
The only
way that Republicans can fix an election watched this closely and with
so much focus on vote fraud allegations -- and with good reason --
against a party that excels in suppressing the vote, is for them to
have three very important control mechanisms in place and operational:
numbers, media and diversion.
It's all in the numbers
Karl
Rove's recent deployment of a "question the polls" edict to his minions
shows that the argument is already being planted by which to minimize
the shock of an impossible GOP win. But that alone is not nearly enough
when real math is to be Republicanized.
Have you ever wondered
why it is that the GOP will go out of its way to falsely register
Democratic voters as Republican voters? The most recent example of this bizarre activity occurred in Orange County,
where 12 Republican operatives have tricked Democrats into registering
as Republicans. What is the point of putting so much effort and money
into wrongly registering people, when in the end, regardless of party
affiliation, people vote in private for whomever they choose?
The
answer is, quite simply, that if you are going to fix an election, you
have to show that the exit polls are wrong, an argument that tends to
cause mass riots in other countries, but in the math-impaired States
seems to have no effect.
One way to show that the exit polls are
inaccurate is to point to increased registration for a particular party
and thereby claim larger voter turn out, because despite how someone
actually votes, the GOP can claim she/he voted for a Republican
candidate based on her/his party affiliation, listed on their newly
minted registration card.
But this too is not enough to make the
numbers game work. Consider, for example, the obvious issue surrounding
black voters appearing on election day in large numbers.
African-Americans generally vote for Democrats, and because they can be
identified as opposition voters simply by the color of their skin,
their visibility might counter the Republicanized math version of
reality.
In Ohio during this past election cycle, it was possible
to see Democratic voters in large numbers waiting in line for up to 11
hours because of the color of their skin, something that the bigots of
the RNC cannot afford to simply put, the visible presence of black
voters might make lying about the tally that much more difficult. Which
is why Ohio was such an obvious mess of numbers.
So for the GOP
to win, voters of color must be purged, and have been in large numbers
already. This now applies to Hispanic voters as well, since the hate
constituency has added them to this election cycle's undesirables list.
In Florida, for example, during the 2000 and 2004 election cycles, the GOP created a caging list
by which to suppress Democratic voter turnout. That list was based on
the color of the voter's skin, and regular citizens who had never
committed a crime in their life ended up on felon lists across the
state. In Florida, felons cannot vote, and at least 20 thousand innocent Americans suddenly found themselves listed as felons.
During the same election cycles, the Hispanic community had actual
felons scrubbed off a real felon list, because in Florida the
anti-Castro Cuban community tends to vote Republican.
Now,
however, the anti-immigration rhetoric has put Hispanics on the target
list, so they too are being purged from registration lists across the
nation or intimidated into not voting by phony GOP letters sent out warning them of arrests.
For
a party who claims that they represent the majority of American people,
even claiming a mandate last time around, they sure go to a great deal
of trouble to suppress voter turn out, do they not?
Karl Rove's recent comments about his own private math system
adds to the fuzzy math suspicions, because other than to monitor in
advance what adjustments need to be made for each district, why does he
need to watch polls so closely? Remember, these are people who claim
over and over that they don't pay attention to the polls to begin with.
I
have never heard Howard Dean say he watches all the national polls to
this extent, or even the number of polls he pays attention to. Rove's
assertion that he has access to roughly 65 polls and claims he is privy
to polls that the public is not privy to, should have sent shockwaves
through our brave new Democracy. Is Howard Dean privy to this same
information, or is Karl Rove just the lucky one?
I have asked the
following since day one of this presidency and still have gotten no
answer: Why does Karl Rove get to run the national election
representing only one party from the national seat of power and using
the highest of security clearances and all the power of the presidency?
How is this legal?
Add to this the brilliance of the early-voting
system, which of course is just so convenient for us working folks,
giving us extra options of when to vote, just in case we have to work
on election day. Did it ever occur to anyone to simply make national
voting day a national holiday, thereby giving people the day to cast
their ballot?
And the early-vote coupled with the
"ease-of-technology without paper" concept together make U.S. elections
now the best hacked open secret in the world.
Consider Broward
County, Fla., in 2004 as an example of how to adjust the numbers game
in advance of the actual national voting day. It was amazing that no
one seemed to really notice or care that on election day, 21 voting
machines were mysteriously disappeared after having been left
unattended for two weeks during the early voting period. Yes, they had
votes on them. I tried to find these machines at the time: who took
them, where they were taken to, and for what reason really, etc. Sadly, I did not get very far.
Someone has to set the tone: Enter the media
None
of the GOP's contract on America can happen, of course, without the
help of an obliging fourth estate, who will always deny accusations of
election fraud while trying to make funny math seem like a logical
explanation for the improbable.
Remember the "sore-loser" theory
as a way to explain away anyone who questioned the math of the 2004
Ohio miracle? Or what about myth of the "values voter," who suddenly
appeared in large numbers to give the Bush-Cheney cabal a mandate? The
right wing targeted (also as part of the distraction mechanism) anyone
who relied on logic and reason, labeling him or her a lunatic, idiot,
or bad sport. The right had help from the mainstream media, of course,
and from the label-phobic liberals who embraced this foolishness for
whatever reason.
The exit polls simply could not account for the
sudden influx sometime around 10 p.m. EST of these mysterious values
voters, who inexplicably and suddenly moved Ohio into magical number
territory. That did not stop the press from using this nonsense to
explain away those who dared to question the supposed Christians of
America. The exit polls told us who really won and have been accurately
predicting elections all over the world for ages. But since Bush and
the Republicans took over America, exit polls have suddenly become
faith-based.
During the same election cycle, Ukrainian citizens
took to the streets when the exit polls were out of sync with the
official outcome. The American media supported the citizens of Ukraine
in their effort to reclaim their electoral victory, but they abandoned
their own citizens who pointed to the same type of discrepancies in our
domestic election. Our media was more than willing to help spread
democracy and champion free elections in another country, just not
here, where it would be too close to their own paychecks, it seems.
Distraction
The
most important feature for a stolen election, Republican-style or
otherwise, is to create a distraction to draw attention away from the
theft. The media cannot do its part without some pieces and lies to
work with, and the RNC has been very creative in throwing sand in the
eyes of American citizens. In order for the media to even halfway buy
into the tricky numbers game and subsequently sell it to the public,
there must be an event or some dramatic effect that mobilizes the
supporters of the GOP while at the same time silencing the opposition.
Once again, enter the mysterious values-voters and their magic numbers.
Fatih
is personal and sacred to any real practicing member of any religious
institution. Using faith as a distraction was as brilliant as it was
cynical. On the one hand, the hate constituency was mobilized by pride
and fiercely protective of its supposed victory. It made a great deal
of noise, if anyone remembers, despite the reality of what the math
showed. On the other hand, the left was largely intimidated into near
silence for fear of attacking something as personal as faith.
This
time around, however, the real Christians in America have pushed back
against the hate constituency and exposed not only their duplicity but
also their small numbers. Sure, there are some small voter pockets of
the pedophiles-for-God clique, but they are hardly a force of any
import.
Enter now
What then will be our current
distraction, and how will it be delivered to a public finally wide
awake and paying attention? My near-panic mode almost entirely hinges
on this one question.
The fuzzy numbers game is obvious and a
given, for me anyway, at this point. But it is the distraction
mechanism that keeps me awake at night.
To really understand the
full implications of the distraction question, it has to be cut into
pieces and digested slowly for the full flavor of my concern to
register.
What would a morally bankrupt, criminal, and arrogant
person with a casket full of millions do in order to retain power? What
would a person who is willing to violate the Geneva Conventions,
torture and degrade people, and watch as an entire American city slowly
drowns on live television do to retain power? And what would someone
like this, with an endless supply of resources and money, with the
highest security clearances and running a campaign from the national
seat of power, be able to achieve?
Does this not frighten you? It
frightens me greatly. What can be done that would occupy a no-longer
friendly media and silence an outraged public when the election results
come down and, once again, show up as imaginary numbers and mysterious
calculations?
And this is where my usually logical, measured self
begins to see the sheen of tin-foil. One scenario, especially, has kept
me swimming in liquid foil for weeks, hoping to be wrong and hoping
against hope to prove that history need not repeat itself.
In case of an emergency
The
possibility of something sinister delivered as a diversion is not
unthinkable, given this crowd and what they have already done. But how
far would they be willing to go in order to retain power and thus avoid
prosecution for crimes already committed?
If recent developments
are any indication, we may be looking at something so drastic that I am
fully ready to attire myself from head-to-toe in all manner of
paranoia. There is logic here, and it is measurable, adding fuel to my
near panic.
When the President recently signed the Military
Commissions Act (better known as the Stalin “No Man, No Problem”
Decree), amounting to the end of habeus corpus, my panic became
palpable. This law is so antithetical to the principles of democracy,
that to even put pen to paper in order to sign this farce of a bill
into law amounts to treason, in my humble opinion.
This law
literally gives the president alone full authority over all branches of
government to decide who is an enemy of the United States and who is an
ally. It grants the president power over that person's freedom,
property, and basic human rights -- short of organ failure (as if
murder in secret can be objectively investigated for signs of "organ
failure" type torture). The operative word here is "secret" and the
frightening reality is that if one considers the crimes this
administration has already committed by the light of day, imagine what
happens when night falls.
For whom was this law really passed,
and why was it so urgent before the election? Add to the MCA the
passage of HR 5122, which has buried in it authority for the president
to federalize the National Guard. Again, for what purpose is this law
needed, and why was it so urgently needed before the election? Are
there not other, more pressing, more obvious issues to deal with?
My panic continues from my initial question to what, for lack of any real answers, my imagination addresses.
If
there is no insurrection, then why suspend habeus corpus? Unless it is
a contingency plan for a possible insurrection. Why pass this before
the election, urgently, as though the country were on fire and despite
the begging of the world? Perhaps the contingency planning for an
insurrection is taking into account what the exit polls will once again
fail to deliver. Perhaps the answer is as simple as it is historically
supportable: (a) if the GOP cannot give up control of Congress, (b) and
there is ample proof that they will retain control of Congress through
election fraud, then (c) faced with a no longer sedated public, this
brave new America of the GOP might require extreme measures in order to
secure peace in the event of an uprising, (d) perhaps through something
like domestic policing measures.
This may be my Soviet-background
paranoia coming into play. Or it may be the shiny-happy tin foil that
has grown on my skin over the course of this presidency.
But as a
chess player, I too am watching the game and attempting to calculate
well in advance the strategy and the desired outcome of my opponent. I
have to play out each possible scenario to its end and find the most
logical and probable solution, even if it is possibly the most morally
challenging one. I have to assess my opponents from top to bottom and
calculate what they are planning to do based on what they have already
done.
All that said, in the end, the most frightening aspect of
the brave new American election system is that it appears to move in
the ether, with stage-craft, far removed from us citizen-voters,
despite its direct effect on every facet of our daily lives. It is that
sense of having no voice that frightens me to no end, and it is the
fear that attempting to reclaim that voice might cause an already
deadly animal to go on the defensive. But since when has fear ever
stopped a revolution?
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/43798/