|
whoever the nominee would be in 2004, and the voters and the American people, by its mind-boggling silence--and collusion--in the cancerous spread of Diebold/ES&S "trade secret" voting systems during the 2002 to 2004 period. Kerry was facing a Diebold (s)elected, Bush "pod people" Congress. What hope did he have of winning such a challenge--against a Bush "pod people" Congress AND a very hostile corporate media--without strong backing by other Democrats? McAuliffe & Co. advised him to concede, as I think was planned (in order to keep the war going). Another name to remember in this utter betrayal of American democracy is Christopher Dodd, who helped felons Tom Delay and Bob Ney to engineer the electronic voting coup (the "Help America Vote for Bush Act" of 2002). Dodd also advised Kerry that the new voting machines were reliable. Dodd is now running for president. And don't be surprised if this "dark horse"--with no visible constituency for a presidential run--does well in some early primaries, or even ends up as "our" candidate (or as Hillary's VP).
Also, I believe that James Carvelle called Karl Rove (or did so through Mary Matelin, his Bushite wife) to alert Rove to Kerry's inclination to challenge the Ohio vote, and Rove then likely called the Bushite Sec of State, Kenneth Blackwell, to revise the probable outcome of the Provisional ballot count. This was the Bushites' ace-in-the-hole. They had unfairly challenged thousands of black and other Democratic voters at the polling place and forced them to vote on easily tossable Provisional ballots. Sorry, don't have a cite for this. Read it here at DU. I believe it's a pretty solid story. Kerry then said there weren't enough votes at issue in Ohio. But that was not the truth. It depended entirely on what criteria were used to count them.
But I think the most important thing was that the Democratic leadership was not behind him. I think the McAuliffe DNC threw the 2004 election--by their support for electronic voting, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, and their failure to lift one goddamned finger to stop the massive vote suppression in Ohio, Florida and other places. You may recall that it was Democrat Bill Richardson who stopped the recount in New Mexico. This was "the word" from on high. They drew an "Iron Curtain" over any talk of election fraud--though the 2004 election was massively fraudulent, everywhere you look.
You might call Kerry cowardly for not fighting on anyway, or you might call him a realist, depending on how you feel about Kerry. I'm not sure what to think of Kerry. I don't think he is personally corrupt. And I have always thought him intelligent. Why then didn't he look into Diebold/ES&S's "trade secret" coup for himself? He voted FOR it. I don't know if he knew they were throwing the election. I do think he was conscious of the role he was supposed to play, after Dean was eliminated by the phony "scream" tape (they edited out the background noise that he was trying to shout over, to his supporters). Dean was very antiwar, was also going to attack the bloated military budget, and came out for busting up the corporate news monopolies just before they did him in. Kerry's role, I think, was to downplay the war, torture and military budget policies, to insure that, if he were elected, the US military would remain ensconced in the Middle East. Remember, Kerry basically said he was for a more efficient war. He didn't say it was wrong, unjust, based on lies, unconstitutional and a heinous war crime(the truth). He said the Bushites were blowing it. He played his role, but I don't know if he knew that he was slated for defeat. You see, whatever Kerry said, the voters (most of them) were actually voting to end the war. 56% of the American people opposed the war FROM THE BEGINNING (Feb. '03). And people were flocking to the Democratic Party in 2004, to end the war (and the torture, which was exposed in May '04--when polls were showing 63% of the American people opposed to torture "under any circumstances"). The Democrats--or, rather, the grass roots Democrats--blew the Republicans away in new voter registration in 2004, nearly 60/40. Why? Only big issues move people in such numbers. Unjust war. Vast corruption. They wanted Bush out, and the war ended. And if they had been permitted to elect Kerry, Kerry would have been beholden to THEM--to the People--as much as to the power brokers and war profiteers. Can't have that.
So, when it came down it--on 11/3/04--and Kerry saw the Democratic Party leadership crumbling behind him, and the power of the Bushite machine in Ohio, and maybe had only just begun to think about the Diebold/ES&S coup (if his wife's remarks are any guide), he gave up. He had been something of a tool to dampen the antiwar sentiment in the country anyway. He was no "knight in shining armor"--willing to sacrifice any future prospects in a bloody and doomed street battle for democracy. He failed us. But we probably should not have expected a champion from this very corrupt political system. It was not entirely one man's fault. Never is. He was embedded in a system that wanted war, no matter the cost to our country, our Constitution and our democracy.
|