noemon wrote:Uh huh, so it was not Paul Manafort, Roy Kohn(chief counsel to the Joseph McCarthy during the purges) and Roger Stone that created from scratch the PAC's & SuperPACs in order to skirt the transparency rules imposed after Watergate. It was not the exact same people that got Nixon, Reagan, Bush(both), Clinton and Trump elected. It was not these exact same people that stormed the ballots in Florida to steal the election from Al Gore, it was not the exact same people that stormed the Capitol to steal the election from Biden. It was not the exact same people that established the concept of campaign manager turned lobbyist charging for access to those they campaigned to get elected. A distinction that used to exist before they legislated it out of existence. It was not the same people that ripped up the few protections American citizens had against lobbying for special interests. It was not the same people that invited foreign actors to interfere in your election system just to satisfy their own ego.
It was not the same people that campaigned for the Reform Party to deny the votes from the Republicans in order to get Clinton elected the roundabout way, and then single-handedly destroy it so that it does not pose a threat to Bush. The Reform party got 13% of the vote under Stone's campaigning which ensured Bill Clinton's victory.
But why did Roger Stone wanted to punish the GOP by getting Clinton elected? Because he was posting cuckolding ads in newspapers looking for "muscular well hung men" to fuck his wife, he was stupid enough to post both his and his wife's images. So he was shamed and removed from the GOP and engaged with the Reform party to make himself important again by showing what kind of power he can wield, .ie getting Clinton elected without even being his campaign manager.
(1) Nobody stormed any building in American history to steal the election in American history.
(2) I do not know much about the 1992 election.
I had actually heard that the reason that Bush was tanked was because he questioned the importance of Israel, which caused a great rift among conservatives.
In 1991 Bush told Israel that the U.S. would not give Israel $10 million in loan guarantees until Israel stopped building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.
...
The Israel lobby, especially the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), was outraged.
...
Ha’aretz states: “The pro-Israel lobby was shocked by the determination of the Bush administration to postpone congressional consideration of the guarantees – which it had carefully crafted with the Israeli government and expected to sail through Congress and then the White House in early October.”
An AIPAC official had predicted that the guarantees would pass “like a knife through butter.”
Ha’aretz reports:
“In making his case, Bush pointedly reminded Israel that ‘just months ago, American men and women in uniform risked their lives to defend Israelis in the face of Iraqi Scud missiles,’ and that the Gulf War had ‘achieved the defeat of Israel’s most dangerous adversary,’ referring to Saddam Hussein’s regime.
“Moreover, he said, his administration had approved $4 billion in military aid for Israel, representing ‘nearly $1,000 for every man, woman and child,” and had already given Israel ‘millions in loan guarantees’.”
...
Bush was highly popular leading up to the fight with the Israel lobby, with a 70 percent approval rating. Eventually, AIPAC and others backed down, and Congress reluctantly went along with the President and delayed the loan guarantees for four months.
This was to prove a short-term win.
While Bush won that battle and Shamir lost his next election bid, so did Bush, and indications suggest that he lost the larger war.
Europe Reloaded article by Pam Barker.
No idea what this website is about but I recollect hearing this as an explanation of why Bush would go on to lose again.
The Roger Stone view is interesting.
So, Stone disliked the GOP because he was angry he got kicked out of the party..? That is interesting to me, but I do not think that it is that doable on this basis alone.
But I do appreciate any view which shows the American democratic system to be hollow and deeply questionable.