Update: ‘Americans Elect’ Hack Doug Schoen on Hannity

Doug Schoen - Deal With the Devil?

You may remember my earlier coverage of this group, going back to late September, but I think it’s time to become more watchful still.  The organization “Americans Elect” is intent upon influencing this election by putting a candidate on the ballot in all fifty states, who will be selected by an Internet-based process, but will ultimately come down to the decision of the directors of the group.  In other words, they’re putting on the farcical show of making it look democratic, but in fact, what the final selection of the candidate will be the choice of management.  On Thursday night’s Hannity show on FoxNews Channel, Doug Schoen, one of the prime movers and shakers for the group defended the effort, as Hannity and his other two guests, Mike Gallagher, and Amilya Antonetti joined in condemning the actions of Americans Elect as just one more front acting to divide the anti-Obama vote and thus give Obama a victory in November.  Here’s video of the exchange:


What remains astonishing about this group is how little coverage it is getting, despite its nationwide effort to get on the ballot in all fifty states.  It’s run by close associates of George Soros, and anybody who doesn’t see the Soros signature of mischief in this hasn’t been paying attention.  One of the most disturbing things about the group has been the fact that it legally changed its form in order to avoid disclosure laws that would have given people a better sense of who is funding them.  Frankly, I have no interest in any group that won’t tell me where their money originates.  Be wary when you see this group, and if you hear friends talking about it, you might wish to caution them as well. There’s something rotten here, and it’s beginning to stink mightily.

Leave a comment ?

4 Responses to Update: ‘Americans Elect’ Hack Doug Schoen on Hannity

  1. Ugh.

    I have no doubt but that there's going to be third party challenger — and I don't mean Ralph Nader, either.

  2. JOHN HAIN says:

    It is so very interesting how pundits and mouthpieces from the political right and left are attempting to define or undermine the public's perception of Americas Elect, usually discounting its potential to revolutionize the political process. What they are not telling you is that AE represents a means of citizens directly defining their their own personal political positions and preferences and adding it to the mix as an AE delegate in an attempt to match up with a nominee they can support. Because this could evolve into a truly democratic process of reaching consensus (like a wiki), based on crowdsourcing, it is a huge threat to all the political elites and extremists who have been fueling the polarization of public opinion. There is a great deal for them to lose (and the American people to gain) if the AE model succeeds. By joining and helping to grow AE, we will begin to control the ball (our destiny) and move it forward without interference from the vested interests that benefit most from gridlock or leadership oppression.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      John, here's the problem with that: I want disclosure of funding. Until they do that, and given who is running the outfit, and given the fact that their flimsy rules still permit them to override the decision of their "voters," and since they have no accountability in the public sphere whatsoever, you're right: I look at them with requisite suspicion. Are you shocked at that?

      There is nothing Democratic about a process in which they can overrule from the top what their "voters" decide.

      Sorry, it smells of George Soros.

    • Thomas Dixon says:

      John, even if you are enamored by the theoretical process they espouse, I cannot understand why you would voice support without checking into their funding since it is such an integral part of the political process.

      If you frequent this site, you've no doubt encountered many views, most of which are weary and leery of the pundits, mouthpieces, and national party representatives that know better than we which candidates are best and those that are electable. And by means of Mark's blog we learn about process and are intelligently informed on an array subjects. But, we do our research before arguing viewpoint in public ~ out of respect for our host, if not for ourselves.

      If you recall in the 2008 electioneering, the internet and political blogging quickly rose in popularity among the Twenty-somethings and injected a new, unknown 'life form' into politics. And, true to their youth, vitality, innovativeness, electronic acumen, and idealistic viewpoint, they led a generation of voters to help elect a political unknown who promised 'Hope and Change.' Whom do you think was behind that innovative strategy? Doesn't sound conservative does it?

      So, when a new, innovative strategy that uses the internet as a baseline is introduced into the 2012 electioneering, one must ask who might be the creators. When the originators first filed as a 401c(3) non-profit organization required disclosure of funding and, then, refiled as a 401c(4) that's NOT required to disclose, it would naturally give one pause as to why.

      That IS something you would wish to know, right? I mean before you endorsed the process as an alternative to selecting a candidate the old fashioned way. And, as Mark says there are procedural anomalies that should be addressed out in the open before sanction can be given to this innovation.

      On the other hand, if you were already associated with Americans Elect and your task were to insert new ideas into blog sites… But, that's just me ~ a cynical old guy that's learned over the last three years that even people that should be trustworthy sometimes aren't. I'd check things out if I were you.