Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who recently wrote a piece in Rolling Stone, pointing out the irregularities of the 2004 election, says in an interview with PR Week that he’ll be bringing lawsuits against as-yet undisclosed defendants, noting that many of the “same people” involved in suspicious activities in 2004 are “up to the same shenanigans” with respect to upcoming elections.
In the Rolling Stone article, Kennedy said that he has “become convinced that the president’s party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004.” He now says that he’s meeting with lawyers to devise a “litigation strategy” to address the problems raised in his article. “And I would say very soon we’ll be announcing lawsuits against some of the individuals and companies involved.”
It’s got a Kennedy name attached to it, so perhaps the lawsuits will be enough to draw the attention of the mainstream media, which could get the awareness of the Republican voter-supression and subversion tactics out there before the 2006 mid-terms….
…but I’m not going to hold my breath. The American people have clearly communicated that screwing around with not one, but two Presidential elections could be done without reprisals. Why would they bother to get incensed about a mid-term?
Nothing is going to get us into the streets. Nothing.
Hold on a sec. I thought I understood your politics. You’re actually QUESTIONING Glorious Leader? I think someone forgot to get their Kool Aid rations recently.
%lt;snark off>
I think the vast majority of Americans really didn’t get that the last two elections were truly wholesale tampered with.
It’s not like the story was couched in that fashion in the mainstream press, and those who were screaming were systematically discounted by the bastards who wanted to keep their place in the briefing room. Unless you were someone who had it happen to you directly (like it did with
Will this get coverage? Maybe. Will it get people into the streets? Doubtful. It is possible, however, that a properly placed lawsuit could force change in practices with regard to electronic voting systems…quite possibly, assuming the lawsuits target the appropriate parties.
However, it may take years for it to have an impact. At least the Kennedys have the money to throw at the litigation to make it stick.
D.
Nothing
I think there are things that would, given time, stimulate the populace enough, I just think they are very extreme things.
Re: Nothing
Like what?
If the subversion of free elections doesn’t qualify as “extreme”, what would?
Re: Nothing
Try introducing proper firearm controls.
THEN there’d be trouble.
*eyeroll*
Re: Nothing
Real War….the kind where we lose so many young people that it can’t be ignored, the kind where those who come home do so mutiliated and serve as a constant visual reminder. Loss, real painful loss.
Re: Nothing
With 2500 dead and 18,500 wounded, I would argue that we have the “Real War” — the problem is that the media is falling down on the “constant visual reminder” side of things….the administration called the tune, and the media is playing as requested.
Again, it comes back to the media.
IF the media would show the war for what it is, people might react.
IF the media would cover the crimes committed by this administration with the same fervor that they devote to the disappearance of Natalie Holloway, for example, people might react.
IF the media would cover the curious events surrounding the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections, people might react.
Without the coverage, who can say? I’d like to think that there would be some reaction….but again, I doubt it.
Re: Nothing
IF the media would show the war for what it is, people might react.
It is exactly for this reason that the current administration has specifically taken steps to prevent the media from being able to show things that might motivate the populace (no pictures of the caskets arriving from Iraq, etc.).
The populace keeps having yellow ribbons waved in front of their faces with the admonition of “support our troops”, to keep them distracted from the truth of it. And those who do try to speak out on the truth of it, get accused of trolling for fame on the backs of their dead loved ones.
It’s profane.
Although, it would be interesting to do a timeline comparison with Vietnam to see at what numbers of dead did the virulent protests start cropping up…is it just that the number isn’t big enough or real enough? Or is it that people’s children aren’t being taken forcibly from them to be sent there?
D.
Re: Nothing
Or is it that people’s children aren’t being taken forcibly from them to be sent there?
Bingo.
Oops, my tag didn’t work…I meant to say, like it did with, you may well not have noticed that something was amiss.
D.
Oh, and I did have another thought. I would imagine he’s not looking to try to shore up the mid-terms by any means. If litigation progresses in the normal sorts of timeframes, this would come to fruition most probably in the range between mid-terms and the next presidential.
D.
Re: Nothing
I think it is bit of all of it.
We dont see it on the news.
The numbers are big, but not big enough.
We don’t all know someone who has died there.
We are not losing our brothers and sisters and friends in big enough numbers either.
But what should be enough…is that this is about oil. We are at war over oil.
Re: Nothing
Sadly, I think there are a large number of people in this country who would be wholly behind the idea of invading countries for their oil…the sort who believe it is their God-Given-Right to drive an SUV bigger than their fucking house…
At some level, I think that’s why there wasn’t an outcry over the fact that the impetus for war was a complete fraud…between that and those who believed that America shouldn’t have “pulled out before the job was done back in Desert Storm”…a majority simply shrugged and said “well the real reasons are good ones”…that is, in those instances where people actually got the message that there was a lie involved. There are still a good number that believe that Iraq had something to do with 9-11 and do actually buy the line that we are fighting terroists there…
Scarily enough.
D.
something big and undeniable…
well loosing the tallest towers in new york didnt do it.
and loosing most of the gulf coastal towns and the majority of new orleans didnt do it either.
so whats next…something big and nasty with a half life lingering afterwards?
im sure they would find a way around that too.
If you’ll recall, people *did* get into streets in 2000, including rushing a building where one of the FL recounts were underway.