><sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>You should have checked your facts
>before you launched into a useless
>historical screed.

My facts ARE straight. Maybe my personal problems can be ommitted, they
are probably on the petty side, but what Republicans are is NOT a petty
issue. The Republican party IS the party of dirty tricks. This is not
a "useless historical screed", this is a historical fact. A Leopard
doesn't change its spots, and the Republicans won't change theirs
either. The 1972 elections were fraudulent, and so was the 2000
election. Isn't it amazing how the Republicans still haven't changed?
Here in California, right now they are trying to unseat a democratically
elected Governor, via lawyers, big money and a recall drive. Democracy
and Republicans do not mix obviously.

Be forewarned, going into the 2004 election, what Republicans are all
about.

Abel Malcolm

______

This reminds me of Nixon's campaign against Edmund Muskie. Nixon
operatives broke into candidate Muskie's office, stole letterheads with
his logo on it, they then wrote nasty racist messages to newspaper
editors across the country. It appeared like Edmund Muskie wrote those
letters, those letters were published, and Edmund Muskie's political
career was permanently damaged because of this.

Ow, and BTW, George Herbert Walker Bush (the pResident's father) was the
person who was in charge of CREEP (Campaign to Re-Elect the President),
read about all their dirty tricks below.
Go to this link, or read excerpt below:
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/water.htm

In 1971, according to Nixon aide, Patrick Buchanan, their primary
objective was to "prevent Muskie from sweeping the early primaries."
Nixon's people felt that Senator Muskie was the greatest political
threat to Nixon's re-election. Nixon's men hired agents to infiltrate
the Democratic candidates' campaign, steal documents, bug phones, spread
slanderous and false stories, and undermine the candidates' characters.
These agents sent false memos on campaign stationary accusing their
Democratic opponents of adultery, homosexuality, drunkenness, and
consorting with prostitutes. They also called press conferences and set
up meetings with prominent political groups and didn't tell the
candidates, so that the press and these groups would think they had been
slighted. In addition, they threw smoke bombs at Press conferences,
created and sold derogatory bumper stickers, and even hired a woman to
run outside of Muskie's hotel room naked, shouting "I love Muskie."

As you can imagine all these mysterious activities soon took their toll
on the candidates. Everything seemed to be going wrong for their
campaigns, and they just couldn't figure out why.

Nixon's agents planted false news stories in a New Hampshire newspaper
accusing Muskie's wife of being an alcoholic, being a lewd woman, and
slandering French Canadians. This was the last straw for Muskie, he was
furious. He called a press conference and couldn't control his anger and
began to cry. This ruined his chances to be elected President, because
the press and the media accused him of being unstable. If they only knew
what was really going on?

After getting rid of Muskie, Nixon's agents focused on undermining the
campaigns of Humphrey, Jackson, and Bayh. As Patrick Buchanan again
wrote: "We must do as little as possible at this time to impede
McGovern's rise." In fact, Nixon and his Republican agents actually
succeeded in helping McGovern win the Democratic nomination for
President.

They then ran against McGovern, charging that he was a dangerous radical
who supported "abortion, amnesty, and acid."

But Nixon's men didn't stop with destroying all the Democratic
candidates.
They were now becoming really cocky and aggressive.

Nixon wanted to make sure that he was re-elected, so his men now
targeted the Democratic Party and the Democratic Convention. They drew
up plans to wiretap the convention, bug the hotel rooms, bug prominent
Democrats' phones, and steal campaign documents.

In May 1972, one of Nixon's team went into the Democratic National
headquarters in the Watergate building and planted bugs on all the
phones and copied and stole campaign documents. But by mid-June one of
the bugs they had planted had stopped working, so they sent in a team to
replace the bug and steal more documents. But this time, on June, 17,
1972, Nixon's men were caught. Five men were charged with breaking into
the Democratic Party headquarters, and two other men were caught inside
the Watergate building and also charged.

President Nixon now had a real problem: How could he explain the fact
that seven men who worked on his campaign to re-elect the President
(CREEP) were caught breaking into Democratic Party headquarters?

On June, 23, 1972, Richard Nixon ordered a cover-up of the Watergate
break-in, telling John Mitchell, the attorney general of the United
States:
"I don't give a shit what happens, I want you to stonewall it...save the
plan."

Throughout the summer of 1972, President Nixon and his top aides tried
to use all the powers of the government that they could, in order to
undermine the investigation of the Watergate scandal. But by November
1972, despite the fact that some of his own campaign workers were in
jail facing felony charges, Nixon was able to get re-elected in a
landslide.

But, as we now know, Nixon's election was in fact rigged; through
illegal dirty tricks, Nixon had ensured his own re-election. The 1972
election was in no way a free and fair election [the 2000 election was
in no way a free and fair election either]

For more info, go to this link:
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/water.htm

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Educate yourself & go to these sites:

http://www.VoterMarch.org &
http://www.bushneverwonflorida.com & http://www.BUSHorCHIMP.com

AbelMalcolm@webtv.net wrote:
>><sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>You should have checked your facts
>>before you launched into a useless
>>historical screed.
>
>
> My facts ARE straight. Maybe my personal problems can be ommitted, they
> are probably on the petty side, but what Republicans are is NOT a petty
> issue. The Republican party IS the party of dirty tricks. This is not
> a "useless historical screed", this is a historical fact. A Leopard
> doesn't change its spots, and the Republicans won't change theirs
> either. The 1972 elections were fraudulent,

There were dirty tricks played during the primaries.

But there was nothing fraudulent about the election itself.

The voters had a chance to look at McGovern. And in the end they
rejected his policies soundly and he lost in a landslide that even his
most fervent supporters didn't challenge the legitimacy of.

I remember when McGovern unveiled his plan to cut the Pentagon by THIRTY
PERCENT, including reducing our Navy to just 6 carriers and eliminating
nearly all the systems that we counted on to win Gulf War I in 1991.

His own Dems said they were going to vote for him anyway in the hope
that CONGRESS wouldn't let him do all the things he had proposed to do.

That's pathetic.

The lesson from 1972 and 1980 is clear: The Dems can't win the White
House by running a peacenik.


> Here in California, right now they are trying to unseat a democratically
> elected Governor, via lawyers, big money and a recall drive.

The recall drive can't succeed if most Californians don't vote for it.

Here in Massachusetts we have a proud history of popular ballot
initiatives that frequently override what the legislature and governor want.

It was the Democrats who keep running to the COURTS to overturn both
what the legislature passes and what the people want in referenda they
voted for. In Florida, Dems got a sympathetic court to throw out the
death penalty even though 60% of Floridians had voted for it in a
referendum--on the grounds that Floridians "really" didn't understand it.

Kucinich along with the other so-called "progressive" Dems are notorious
for running to the courts every time they don't get their way. Bush
wanted to withdraw from the ABM Treaty--so Kucinich *sued* him.
Congress voted to go to war against Iraq--so Kucinich launched yet
another lawsuit. You don't make democracy with lawyers.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.