Did Kerry throw the election????

[drummer55]

Gannon" scandal leads to link between high-level Republicans, high-level Democrats
by Carol Rawle, Unknown News

Over the weekend, while pursuing information that might lead to uncovering connections between the Bush White House and the 'non-reporter' Jeff Gannon, aka James Guckert, a blogger may have stumbled onto information that could begin to uncover a possible alliance between the Republican and Democratic leadership.


more at
http://www.unknownnews.org/0502150214BushKerry2004.html

[merh]

1. Worrying about the use of lobbying firms is like worrying about

advertising firms.

Find the thread that discussed this and you will see the varied opinions on it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1589943


Personally, I think it is crap. Having worked in politics for years, I know that you don't ever run for office unless you want to win. Losing is too hard, to damned depressing.

Kerry campaigned for over 600 days, mortgaged his home, put his family through hell, was tormented by the media and the RWers, had his honor and his service to the country called into question. You don't do that if you plan on losing. He has been serving this country for 30 years. How about you, what service have you given, will you give or are you planning to give?

[FreedomAngel82]

4. I think it's crap too

Just listen to Kerry's concession speech and listen to the sadness in his voice and all the batteling he did. I doubt it.

[NVMojo]

10. ...and Kerry put up with disgusting attacks against his time in Viet Nam

as well as the position he took afterwards, a position I felt he earned by doing his service in the war, unlike the shrub. Kerry was viciously attacked. Why would anyone put themselves up to such bullshit treatment in the public eye just to throw the election unless his life or the life of a family member was threatened?

[genius]

47. It was kind of obvious to most people that Kerry threw the eleciton.

That's why we'll never trust him with the nomination again.

[merh]

48. You are so wrong -

most people don't think that, most know he won and it was stolen -

You want to believe stupid conjecture, that's your call, but don't say most people. You are a minority.

[genius]

50. He won and then threw it. Go to a peace rally and ask if anyone still

trusts Kerry.

[merh]

55. I have been to some where they do.

He didn't throw it, there was nothing he could do to stop it. Anyone who has any concept as to the complexities of election law and challenging elections will tell you that.

Al Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral college vote. Big difference and reason to cause a stink in 2000.

Kerry had both the popular vote and the electoral college vote stolen from him. Live in your hate world all you like, you are wrong and many folks support Kerry and know he didn't throw the damned election.

Let me know when you run for office so that I can donate to your campaign.

[genius]

71. Please read. I agree he won. But then he did throw it. He conceded

the next day when he promised repeatedly he would not do that. His concession was a betrayal of everything he promised to the American people. Why do you think he and Edwards haven't been getting along so well since the concession. Kerry betrayed Edwards too and Edwards and the people who worked in Edwards's office were furious.

[merh]

73. There was not a fucking thing he could have done on the 3rd, the 4th

the 5th, the 6th, the 7th, the 8th, et cetera up to the 6th of January, 2005.

Gore won the popular and lost the electoral college vote, losing it in Florida by a few thousand.

Kerry lost (had stolen from him) the popular vote (by 3 million) and the electoral college vote by at first 300,000 then after recount 110,000 plus.

NOT A THING HE COULD HAVE DONE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!

Get over your "He threw it" crap -- "He conceded too early" garbage. What would have happened if he had waited, what do you perceive would have occurred? NOTHING. No change, maybe a nasty legal battle, but on Jan 6 the idiot still would have been given the f'ckin job - they had it all worked out, stretch out the recounts, use so many different means to steal and pad votes, no one will believe it was stolen.

Kerry and Edwards have remained friends since the election, Edwards says he talks to Kerry almost daily. What crap have you been reading, the national enquirer or something?

If Edwards wants to run it is because Edwards wants to be president, just like he did in the primaries. They are not bitter enemies and they speak all the time and the kids visit Mammy T. Get over your anger and accept reality.

[genius]

77. He could have kept his promise and stayed in there. He won the popular

vote too. We warned him about the computers. We told him a Kerry win would look exactly like the outcome did on November 2nd and that he would have to fight. He promised he would stay in there and not quit but then chickened out when everything turned out as expected.

[merh]

79. Edwards could have fought it - did he? NO.

He has the personal fortune, he could have fought it. He lost too so he had a vested interest in it and he is a lawyer and if it could have been fought, he could have fought it. If he had wanted to fight it, he could have and the party would have had to support him if he proved they had a shot and in order to save face politically. HE DID NOT.

As it stands, the official record reflects that Kerry LOST THE POPULAR VOTE.

As far as I know, the federal case that Kerry/Edwards joined litigating the matters is still active. Not to mention the Ohio dems investigating the election to this day.

The campaign had thousands of attorneys and election experts at the polls, they couldn't stop the theft because they couldn't see the faulty tabulators, they couldn't get the election managers and the heads of the State Elections (SOS) to provide the necessary machines.

You want a superhero to fly in and save you, but it didn't happen. Kerry is one man, they tried to prevent and over the next several years they will be disgusted at the way the votes were stolen.

Stop blaming the victim of the crime for the crime. Stop living in a fantasy world.

Let me know when you decide to run for federal office. I will gladly donate to your campaign and help you try to win. I want you to do it so that you can see for yourself that campaigning for an office is not as easy as you perceive it to be.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. I disagree strongly

Even if you are right that Kerry threw the election, and I'm sure you're not, I think you're wrong that most people agree with you, and I'm sure you're wrong that it's obvious.

[genius]

53. Seriously. Go into the real world and ask. That's what most are saying.

[merh]

59. Seriously -- you don't live in the real world if that is all you hear!

:silly:

[genius]

69. I'm out there talking to people every day. Try it. You might learn where

they stand.

[merh]

72. I do too, guess you just hang out with a negative group.

I hang out with a pretty sharp bunch of folks who don't blame the victim of the crime for the crime.

Hate to have you guys on a jury!

[LittleClarkie]

83. I concur

I hang with Dems who aren't terribly activist, but know the score re: Bush just the same.

I haven't met anyone yet who says that he should not have conceeded.

I guess our real worlds are different from genius' real world.

But then, I've asked if he hangs with the Patrick Henry Think Tank, but I don't think I got an answer. That might illuminate the perspective of his piece of the real world.

[ginnyinWI]

2. No he didn't.

:nopity:

[NYCGirl]

3. There's a reason that unknownnews.com will remain unknown.

They print silly crap. What a pantload!

[no name no slogan]

5. If so, where did he throw it?

...and is there any chance we can get it back? :shrug:

[merh]

7. God, wouldn't that be nice!

{{wistful sign}} :cry:

[blm]

6. Didn't you notice the way he threw all 3 debates to Bush?

And if Kerry was going to throw the election for Bush wouldn't he have given Bush a real mandate percentage instead of the NARROWEST MARGIN win of any president in history?

[merh]

8. If he had thrown it, why the heck would the weed and his band of

rethugs have felt the need to steal it?

:argh: Crapola!

[MNAZ]

25. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Kennedy defeat Nixion by

less that one percentage point while Bush won by three points.

[LittleClarkie]

28. I actually think that stat refers to incumbents in wartime

I could also be wrong. I thought that's what I'd heard.

I mean if you don't include "in wartime", then Bush/Gore was closer than Bush/Kerry so the statement would be ludicrous in its face.

[blm]

31. Wrong. Nixon was Vice-Pres, not pres. And Bush did NOT win by 3%

as the actual numbers have never been fully counted and are more likely about 2%.

You DID know that Eisenhower was pres before Kennedy, right?

[MNAZ]

63. sorry, didn't know you were referring to incumbents. Bush

does have the smallest margin of victory for an incumbent. By the way, where do you get the 2% figure? All I've seen have been between 3 and 3.5 percent once all the absentees and provisionals were counted.

[bloom]

76. maybe all the votes weren't counted...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x331601

[NVMojo]

9. my theory has been that someone connected to Reid helped OUT

Gannon as Gannon's obsession with Daschle was already noted ...look at the timeline of events since the election was certified in January. Within 24 hours after the certification/protest, Reid, Kennedy and Lautenberg came out with their foia investigation into the fake reporter Williams case. Follow that up with a few more firm stands by Reid. Then the RNC sends out a nationwide 13-page smear job on Reid similar to what was done to Daschle, and look at the timing of when this Gannon thing broke in connection with the attempt to smear Reid ...this is so KKKarl Rove ...

Reid's people are not stupid on these issues. They knew what had been done to Daschle, Daschle knows what the repukes did. By taking out Daschle, the repukes scored a major victory. Reid would be the next logical target.

Also note how quiet Reid's office has been during the Gannon outing...

[FreedomAngel82]

18. I wonder if

Daschle keeps in touch with Reid. :shrug:

[Goblinmonger]

11. I like a conspiracy theory

as much as the next guy, but this seems like a sticking pile. How did he get the exit polls to show that he won? and why?

[Guaranteed]

12. Come on. Yes, there is WAY too much

back-scratching going on between our leadership and theirs. But Kerry didn't throw this. He fucked UP really badly, particulary back in October of 2002, but he didn't throw it.

[FreedomAngel82]

19. There were a lot

of mistakes he did make but I remember reading an article that he realized that and learned from them. So if he runs again he'll know what better to do. Remember when he ran the first time for Senator he didn't win that the did he? Then he went and ran again and won and has been there since. He's more of a man then Bush. At least he isn't stubborn like Bush. Ugh.

[LittleClarkie]

30. He almost ran the campaign as a if the country was Massachusetts

as if what had worked for him there would work that much better on a larger scale with the whole country. The vets had always come out for him in Mass., so let's lead off with that in the convention.

I understand that much of his state level organization, at least early on, were alot of veterans. One gripe about that which I heard from a Deaniac was the the vets, as enthusiastic as they were, didn't quite know what they were doing.

There were alot of grassroots things going on, but some organizational things that weren't. Rapid Response would have been nice. Kerry's campaign seemed to assume folks could read, and would check things out if only they'd go to www.johnkerry.com. But no, people wanted it filtered and spoon-fed it seemed.

As for the campaign, here in Milwaukee HQ we had alot of young people who occasionally seemed to be working as a clique. Reminded me of High School on occasion. But still, we worked our asses off. And we went more blue than in 2000 here in Wisconsin. But we had people who'd been around other campaigns griping about how this, that and the other thing weren't being done. But then, I suppose everyone is an expert.

This was my first campaign. Are they always like that, semi-disorganized?

[Warpy]

13. It's a bit of a leap from a connection between

soulless lobbyists and lawyers to "Kerry threw the election," but once you get to a certain level in money and politics, you find more than one crowded bed.

There's a difference between coincidence and causality, although sometimes there's a very fine line.

However, people at the top probably thought they had as much to gain from another Bush residency keeping their taxes low while fattening their portfolios through an infusion of FICA payments into the stock market, so perhaps they weren't as interested in the health of the country as a whole as they should have been.

It's hard to see what effect this lack of enthusiasm at the top did to the rest of us, or whether design might have played a part. I do know that the men who are so enamored of their own wealth at the expense of their country need to be shoved aside to make room for party leaders who are concerned enough with the party base of working people to work to win electiions.

[Larkspur]

14. Only through his own ineptness did Kerry throw the election

and prove that he was unelectible. But I don't think that he did it consciously. His personal ambitions were bigger than his leadership ability and his ambitions and pompous ego blinded him to the Republican Nixonian tactics.

[John_H]

15. dupe

[John_H]

16. LOL! I think gannon ought to call the GOP back to bed

They're going to try to suck in the dems, natch, but this shows just how desperate they are.

Since you can tie every Rethug to the chairman of the RNC, every Dem who has worked with any republican is tied to gannon. Which is of course the same as the white house letting a gay prostitute access to the president.

I expect this kind of stupidity of greens and naderites, but i'm surprised the GOP is being this stupid.

[Catamount]

17. No Way!

[jen4clark]

20. sort of...

I don't mean he threw the election on purpose, before the results were in. But wasn't it a bit curious (understatement) how quickly he gave in after assuring us every vote would be counted, and every vote would be counted correctly?

I swear I may have my tin foil hat on too tight, but my first thought when he conceded so quickly was he had been threatened.

After a while I started coming to the conclusion that we really don't have a vital 2 party system. That we have always had an elite group of very wealthy, mostly white men in control, who have very interesting ties with each other and with corporate interests is just plain fact. Kerry may very well have given in either out of force and/or due to self-preserving interests.

I haven't read Robert Kennedy Jr's book, but what I've read about it makes a lot of sense. We certainly are the United Corporations of America. In an interview with Corporate Crime Reporter, he says:

“The Republicans are 95 percent corrupt and the Democrats are 75 percent corrupt,” Kennedy said in an interview with Corporate Crime Reporter. “They are accepting money from the same corporations. And of course, that is going to corrupt you.”

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/kennedy123004.htm

[karynnj]

21. He was fighting hard till the end and came close

Kerry's entire life would make him probably the least likely man to under any circumstances throw an election. He very clearly disliked everything Bush stood. If he were going to throw it, would he have creamed Bush in the 3 debates? Before the debates, Kerry was losing badly and the media was giving him almost no coverage. In the first debate he succeeded in looking Presidential and totally controlling the debate - especially when he called Bush on Bin Laden not Saddam attacking us. If he was trying to lose, he wouldn't have had to be so good.

Following the Kerry/Edwards blog, he had an incredibly grueling schedule during the last week, with huge rallies (some with Bruce)and he continued interviews practically till the polls closed. His entire family was out campaigning as hard as he. What action of his can you point to and say, this proves he didn't want to win. The picture of his huge smiles on election day when he arrived in Boston to vote when things looked good are exuberant.

I think he is correct that if the Bin Laden tape didn't come out when it did (less than a week before the election), the end of the campaign would have probably continued on the trajectory it was taking pre-tape. The main topic was Al Qaqaa (Sp?) - the MN TV tape had just proved that weeks after the fall of Baghdad the largest high grade explosives storage CONTROLLED AND KNOWN BEFORE THE WAR was still being raided. Kerry's comment about it being "thrown at our kids" was so clearly heart felt. They were finally connecting on this issue that Kerry brought up months before.

The sadness he conveyed in his concession speech are worthy of an Oscar if fake - and brilliant acting is a skill no one has ever credited Kerry with. Although saddened by other concession speeches, Kerry's was the only one that actually brought me to tears.

[Dr Ron]

22. Time to adjust the tin foil hats n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. Since I'm the one that started all this

please let me explain myself.

First of all, I've been an observer of American politics for over forty years. When I was 8, Kennedy was assassinated. I was with my family watching TV when Ruby shot Oswald. In the summer of 1973, I tore out my knee and was laid up at home. Since I had nothing else to do, I ended up watching the Watergate Hearings every day. I listened to most of the Iran Contra hearings on my radio at work. For the last four years, I have been very active politically and on the internet. So you can see, I'm a bona fide political/news junkie.

In regards to the Kerry Campaign, I truly believed that Kerry was the best candidate. Here on DU and in my private life I did everything I could to support Kerry. I even stood out in the blazing FL sun waiting to see John Edwards and trust me, I'm at an age, that I don't stand around for over 2 hours for anyone. I personally handed the Kerry Campaign prema facia evidence that proved the Bush Campaign colluded with the Swift Boat Vets. Even during the recount phase of the election, I totally supported Kerry and his decision to concede and even worked on crunching the data for FL. Go back and search my posts and see for yourself.

So last week, when I was doing my usual poking around the Internet, searching for the straw that will break the camel's back, I ran across a company call Quinn, Gillespie and Assoc. LLC.

Quinn Gillespie is not just a lobbying firm. That is just one aspect of this partnership. Quinn Gillespie goes way beyond lobbying. They are also very involved in shaping the policies of both parties. During the 2004 Election, they were able to place their key top level people, into both campaigns. I am sorry, but I find this sort of collusion totally unacceptable. I was appalled to say the least. To have one company helping run both campaigns, would be like Clinton using lawyers from Paula Jones law firm to represent him. Kerry and most of the other Dems couldn't be that dumb?

Yes, I know this is DC. And yes, everybody knows each other, some of them are even married to each other, go figure. But this goes beyond the familiarity that comes with working in the same industry. I know most of the key players in my industry and have even hired people who have previously worked for my competitors. But I would never allow a key person to work for me and still work for my competition at the same time.

I am sorry if my conclusions offend people. When I posted the original thread, I said some things in the heat of the moment, that reflected the emotions I was experiencing. Realizing the extent that both parties are in bed with each other is a very upsetting thing for me. It is almost as upsetting as realizing that our own government would sit on their hands and allow 3000 people to die, in order to achieve their goals. I feel betrayed and confused. Yet at the same time, the last 4 months started to make a lot more sense. Why did Kerry just walk away? Why didn't more DEMS support Conyers? Why are they rubber stamping most of Bush's nominees, including Chernoff and probably Poindexter? Why, why, why? Because the game is fixed. It's all been rigged and the beast is not just Bush and the GOP, it's most of the DEMS too.

PBWY
DYEW

[jen4clark]

26. afraid you're right

I've always enjoyed your posts. I lurked forever before ever posting. I guess you didn't read post #20. I agree with you. One thing I've noticed is that it's "hard work" accepting that our "democracy" is a sham. Too much] for many to accept and so you will be "attacked".

On the other hand, I do believe there are some in DC that are not part of the "fixed game". Those are the people we need to support. Conyers and those that worked with him on the vote fraud, Boxer - I'm sure I'm forgetting many. I don't think Dean is part of "them" either. I trust him.

This is a very interesting, related commentary:

http://www.beyondmainstream.com/politics/commentary_3.php

[DemDogs]

35. No way but he's saved millions for next race

Don't like that he kept the cash instead of handing it out at the end of the election to state parties. The Ohio Democratic Party might have made good use of it.

[LittleClarkie]

46. He said on MTP he gave what was asked for and more than anyone had before

if 20/20 hindsight says that one state race or another could have used more, it still doesn't erase the fact that they didn't ask for it, so it wasn't given.

Where did part of the money come from for Christine G's recount in Washington come from? Where did part of the money for runoff elections come from in Louisiana? What about the million dollars for Dean. Was that all out of the campaign money, or some other Kerry source like the Mrs. or the beginning of PAC money.

I wonder if we aren't pointing at something here, re: the money, that seems to be standard operating procedure at the end of a campaign. Gore apparently had 8 million at the end, and some said it would have been better to have more, in hindsight, when the recount came up. How much would the entire state of Florida have cost to recount, I wonder. Does anyone know if they figured out the amount needed?

And Gore didn't cough up his nestegg until, what was it 2003 or 2004? Was it when Kerry got the nomination.

Most campaigns don't take themselves down to zilch by the end, do they?

I never paid attention to this stuff before, so I don't know the ins and outs of what they're allowed to do, and what other prez campaigns have done.

[DemDogs]

56. He kept money that cannot be used in the general

Actually most campaigns DO go down to zilch. And Kerry's general election money did go down to nothing.
This money he kept is primary money and it only has two uses: he can use it for primaries later or he can give it state parties and other designated organizations for their electoral activities -- some of which he did AFTER the election. And on MTP he said no one "demanded" it -- well, who knew he had it? Who knew to demand it? I bet you no one in Ohio knew he was sitting on more than $10M or they would have had their hands out.

Listen, he didn't throw the election. There is no way, but someone made a stupid decision, and I don't know if it was him or whether he let someone else make this important a decision NOT to voluntarily distribute money in the money states. He should never had had to be asked or had it demanded. And now, he is still doling out the money in little parcels, keeping the lion's share and sending us all emails about how he is helping out.

[merh]

60. You sure about your statement?

Didn't Gore maintain millions after his 2000 bid only to donate to Kerry/Edwards after the primaries?

You better double check your statement, I don't believe it is accurate.

[blm]

65. He still has suits filed against his campaign and FEC investigations.

Why is everyone pretending they don't know how elections work?

[cestpaspossible]

27. The most important statement in your comment is NOT TRUE.

They are also very involved in shaping the policies of both parties

That just isn't in any way, shape or form, true. If you want to claim your assertion is true, please produce some supporting evidence.

[DoYouEverWonder]

29. I got it straight from the horse's mouth

The firm was started by Democratic White House veteran Jack Quinn and Republican communications specialist Ed Gillespie after they and Jeff Connaughton, another QGA principal, successfully collaborated on behalf of American high tech companies to reverse U.S. policy on encryption technology. As leaders of QGA, Jack Quinn and Ed Gillespie provide an unparalleled combination of strategic abilities, bipartisan experience and understanding of the Washington policy and communications landscape.

Quinn and Gillespie have surrounded themselves with the best public affairs talent in Washington. Our team of nearly 20 government relations and communications professionals have broad and extensive experience in Republican and Democratic politics and government service, and are held in high regard by the people currently shaping policy in the nation's capital. Collectively, their bios are an impressive show of legislative, executive branch, association, public relations, coalition, political and private sector experience and skills.

Quinn Gillespie & Associates believes that shaping public policy in the 21st Century is about more than just relationships and lobbying. QGA attacks client problems with a "campaign style" integrated approach. We believe that sound policy, careful research, pinpoint political and audience targeting, bold and succinct messages and an experienced understanding of the political and policy process are crucial to success.

Quinn Gillespie & Associates knows Washington and we know how to solve the public policy problems our clients confront every day. QGA offers a full range of public affairs services, including strategic planning, message development, legislative and executive branch lobbying, public relations, coalition management, corporate positioning and advertising production and placement.

http://www.quinngillespie.com/about/

[cestpaspossible]

38. What total BS

First of all, I want to point out the fallacy of saying that someone is not to be trusted, and then using their words to support your other points. Second, and the most important point, is that the text you quoted DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM IT SAYS.

This thread is total crap, I won't be kicking it again by reply to further specious comments. Talk to yourself.

[DoYouEverWonder]

42. I guess I've touched a sore spot?

I guess I should just make up statements from people, rathering then using their own statements that they post on their own website to back up my claim?

Sorry if it pisses you off that I could prove you wrong.

[merh]

61. Do me a favor, go qualify for an election, not a state office, but

a federal office, senate or house, just do it. Then you will find out how hard it is to run without the help of a successful campaign manager and firm like the one Kerry used.

Does it suck, yes, it does, but that is reality until we change our laws regarding the funding of campaigns, limits on campaign funds, equal media coverage guaranteed to all candidates, etc.

A candidate must be sold. To hire a firm that has no success in selling the candidate would be "throwing" the campaign. To hire no talents, no experience ideologues that spout pure principles but have never won an election would be a slap in the face to all dems that donated to the campaign and would be a dereliction of the candidates duty to us, their supporters.

Hell, how many posts during the campaign do you recall reading that had DUer's furious with the campaign, mad that Kerry let so and so run it?

I said it in an earlier post, I will say it again. The firm you reference is just like an advertising firm. Their job is to sell the idea, sell the client, sell the candidate. If they violate their client's confidentiality (lawyers ain't they), they have violated their ethics, their code of conduct and risk losing their licenses and clients. They want to make money so they do not violate the confidentialities of their clients and they PLAY TO FUCKING WIN!!!

Nobody threw the damn campaign, it was stolen and there was nothing he could have done after they stole it because the MFer's that stole it run the police departments, the judges, the prosecutors, etc.

[LittleClarkie]

33. Did SOMEBODY throw the election? Maybe. Kerry himself? I don't think so.

SOMEONE within the Dem Party with an alternate agenda? Considering what I've been hearing from RawStory that it looked like the Repubs possibly had help in Ohio. In other words "Kerry's people" may not have all been "his". Whether that means Dem help, or Repubs posing as Dems, I'm not sure.

I think if there was a movement within the Dem Party to make sure Kerry lost, Kerry was NOT a part of it.

I don't think he'd have come out so strongly and publically for Dean if he had that alternate agenda. He appeared to be trying to get the Dem insiders to accept Dean by leading the way. That's what I think the million dollar donation was, a leading of the way for insiders more than the grassroots. He knew the grassroots were coming. The leadership was another matter.

[DoYouEverWonder]

41. First of all, I never said Kerry threw the election

that statement just happens to be the title of this thread, which I assume is the opinion of the person who started this thread.

However, do I think they are all in bed together? Yes, I did say that. Was the election rigged? Yes, I said that too. Was it rigged by just by the GOP, the GOP & the DEMS or the GOP and plants inside the DEM party, it was probably some combination of all of the above. But to say Kerry, himself deliberately threw the election is another matter. It is his behavior after the election, not during that I question at this point.

BTW: I'd like to know what Donna and other DEMS were doing at the 12/09/04 Quinn Gillespie party, just a month after the election, while folks like me were pouring over election returns looking for the glitches?

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/dc/party-report-card-quinngillespie-christmas-and-fifth-anniversary-027276.php

[shance]

34. Great post DYEW. Honest, well-written and heart felt.

I share your feelings and questions.

So much doesn't make sense. So many questions like the ones you mentioned. I think people are scared of the truth because they are scared something will be taken away from them if they at least ask the questions needing to be asked. They have no idea that their life and livlihood is going to be grabbed from them if they DON'T look at the truth. The truth is the best friend we've got because it never lies.

I will agree with another poster that we need to support those who care as we do and are willing to tow the line, the line of truth that is.

We have to re-embolden the truth and those of us that tell it. Its the only way we will survive.

[cestpaspossible]

39. BUT UNTRUE ON THE FACTS

[shance]

43. Oh Lawerd, all these bold letters. Please bring it down for a minute

What facts are you talking about?

The truth is my friend. There are no facts right now. Those remain with John Kerry and perhaps others as well.

I guess one thing is true or factual*, there are certainly questions that remain unanswered.

[BlackVelvet04]

62. I'm afraid

I have to agree.

[Padraig18]

24. Oh, good Lord!

:eyes::tinfoilhat:

[IndyPriest]

32. THROW the election?? Kerry WON the election! n/t

[Goldeneye]

36. Yes, yes Kerry did throw the election.

And Bush really did do better in the debates. The Exit polls were wrong. The voting machine companies are really owned an operated by democrats. There weren't serious irregularities almost all favoring Bush. John Kerry really isn't a war hero at all. He certainly didn't tear up when conceding. John Kerry didn't really vote against Condoleeza Rice or Alberto Gonzoles. Barbara Boxer and the rest of the dems are Republican lites and everyone single one of them is working with Bush to get SS fixed. Karl Rove is a nice guy. The Neocons aren't after oil at all, they just love democracy and freedom. We're the most popular country in the world. The economy is growing. There are more jobs than we know what to do with. And the MSM really does have a liberal bias. Give me a freaking break. Damn!

[Mairead]

37. I watched Kerry's campaign in a desultory way, and

from the moment he failed to rip up the Swift Boat Liars, I said publicly (you can find the posts in the archives at the People For Change site, I'm sure) that he was behaving in a way that made sense only if he knew the fix was in.

Nothing he did from that point on changed my mind. It was like looking at a little-kids' puzzle where it's obvious how the pieces fit together. And when he conceded before the votes were even counted, when there was massive evidence of chicanery (even terminally mild-mannered Dennis Kucinich, talking to Amy Goodman the morning after, barely managed to stop short of calling Blackwell a criminal), that was the finish of it.

People who find reality too harsh can make up all sorts of stories to tell each other, as I'm sure everyone here remembers they in fact did, about how Kerry was hiding in the Bat Cave secretly concocting a masterful Plan To Save The World (because hadn't he been a Prosecutor!?!?) and he would soon leap out of the phone booth with his red and blue tights on and...and.... But as Feynman said about the criminally wishful thinking that killed the Challenger crew: Mother Nature cannot be fooled. Reality is what it is, not what we wish it were.

When Al Gore turned his back on us and walked away from Coup2000, I thought it couldn't get worse. But Kerry showed me that I was wrong and that there are still depths to be plumbed.

[LittleClarkie]

51. Those who disagree with your assessment don't deserve to be told

they're not facing your "harsh reality" and that they're "making up stories."

Some of us took what he said before January 6th at face value, not looking for hidden messages. But we also didn't think he'd helped fix the election. I watched Kerry in more than a desultory way, and that assessment doesn't fit with his character.

So though we may disagree, we'd appreciate it if you wouldn't label your assessment "reality" and ours "fantasy" as if you were the ultimate keeper of truth. We disagree. I can accept that. What I can not accept is the utter dismissal of an alternate reality to yours.

I also don't agree that Gore turned his back on us. He doesn't deserve such a charge any more than Kerry deserves the charge that he was in on the "fix." Gore did his best, ultimately inadequate though it may have been. And even he couldn't have known how bad it was about to get around here.

[Vinnie From Indy]

40. It is amusing to watch how many people respond to an obvious bit of

distraction dropped into our midst for no other reason than to watch the DUers dance as the drummer drums. Hell, look at me I can't resist either.

[drummer55]

45. seems like anytime we dont agree on something

its flame bait or some sort. Personally I grow tired of it.

That sort of group mind think is bad for everyone, kinda leads towards squelching of ideas and freedom of deciding for ourselves what to believe in.

"I dont agree with that so it must be "x"

gotta break out of your accepted patterns to learn anything.

IMHO

[Vinnie From Indy]

64. LOL - Let's Be Clear

This post is not what I would call flame bait. It is more like "distraction bait" or "nonsense bait".

[Laura PourMeADrink]

44. Kerry did not throw it - But he definitely caved after...

1. If you watched him campaign tirelessly day after day you could never believe he wasn't trying to win.

2. Don't think you can describe him as 'savy' and 'politically astute' - Hell I had better comebacks sitting on the sofa. Also, the Swift Boat deal -- had been brought up by his nemesis times before in senate races. Why then, would you not plan ahead for attacks from the masters of all attacks? He's just not cut out for the dirty fight.

3. Keep going back to the thread when someone got a reply from Barney Franks to election fraud. Paraphrasing, "We know, but what can you do, no where, no one to go to. (they own everything)"

So bottom line, fought too hard to have thrown it, not savy enough to run against the dirty tricksters, and gave up the fight after because it was like blowing in the wind.

[socalover]

52. Yes he did, just look at how strong he was in the 1st debate and he

intentionally dumbed it down for the remaining two, it was too much of an embarrassment for the leader of the free world....

[karynnj]

57. Dumbed it down?

The former Yale debate champ had good clear answers on every question. He looked good and his demeanor was appropriate at all times. After the first I understood why it was said Kerry has never lost a debate - he seemed totally comfortable. Too bad they couldn't have had another debate or two.

The contrast was greater between the 2 candidates at the first because Bush was absolutely clueless at times. After the fist expectations went way down to a point he had to meet them. In the second Bush was more aggressive - to the point where it looked like he would attack the moderator. In the last one Bush just talked about No Child left behind for half the domestic questions, including job growth and out sourcing.

Imagine if the media would have put together a montage of Bush's weird looks and comments from the first debate and played it every hour on the hour for at least 2 days like they did Gore's sighs. Bush might never have recovered.

[ClassWarrior]

54. Yes, and he eats small children and lives under a bridge.

<shakin' my head>

So I've never seen you before. Where you been hiding yourself?...

NGU.

[merh]

58. CW - you promised not to tell!

Just wait until I let "them" know you told!!!

There will be a price to pay :spank:

[zulchzulu]

66. How utterly pathetic and smarmy

Could this story get any lower?

[LittleClarkie]

67. Sort of a political limbo dance, innit

How low can you go?

Somehow I think Bush Co. will always find a way to go lower anyway.

As Joshua said, the best move sometimes is not to play.

[Democrat Dragon]

68. Before you immedietly label this article "crap", consider this:

People believe what they want to believe, and only pay attention to evidence that fits thier belief.
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/records/peoplebe.htm

[Vinnie From Indy]

78. LOL You never fail to make me laugh!

If what you say were true, we would still be living in the in the stone age. LOL

[OneMind]

70. Kerry is a puppet......

and so is Bush.

I'm not wanting to offend Kerry supporters (I voted for him too), but it's the truth.

There are two competing ("sort of" and sometimes) "factions," if you will, of the Illuminati. Bush was fronting for one faction and Kerry the other.

Both candidates wanted to win. BushCo cheated and "won" the election.

[LittleClarkie]

74. Illuminati?

:tinfoilhat:

[OneMind]

80. John Kerry & The Bush Cabal Iran-Contra Conspiracy

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=3234

Al Martin, author of "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider" testified before the Kerry Committee regarding Bush Cabal fraud and other crimes.



John Kerry & The Bush Cabal Iran-Contra Conspiracy


"It’s interesting to note that in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, John Kerry talked about his so-called achievements, yet he neglected to mention the Kerry Committee hearings on Iran Contra," writes political analyst Al Martin in his article called "Consequences of the Truth in America, ’Land of the Naive and Home of the Provincial,’" published on Insider Intelligence (www.insiderintelligence.com)

"Early in his speech Kerry had mentioned his career as a senator and some of the various committees he had chaired and all the good things he had done in uncovering corruption and fraud and rectifying all sorts of bad Bushonian deeds," Martin continues. "He also named the number of committees that he had sat on and chaired and so on. But there was a gaping hole. And that was he never mentioned the Kerry Committee hearings."

"You could call it John Kerry’s memory hole. They have consistently avoided that. Of course, the reason they have avoided it is that he doesn’t want the same allegations to resurface that other Democrats made against him at the time, including Lee Hamilton, who is one of his big pals, Lee Hamilton and Danny Inouye. He doesn’t want the old charges, frankly, from his own party, so that he purposely did not delve into Iran-Contra as deeply as he could have based on the evidence that the committee had received from people like me. For instance, he totally avoided the issue of CIA narcotic trafficking, and he totally avoided the issue of the enormous amount of fraud committed by the Bush family."

"So what happened that led to this behavior? What took place that led him to drop these things during Iran-Contra hearings?"

"His general counsel Jeff Goldstein told me at that time that, despite many of the senior Democratic committee members that wanted to go there, so to speak, Kerry did not want to touch this issue of CIA narcotic trafficking. He felt that it was a divisive issue. He felt that the majority of the American people wouldn’t believe it."

"Was he quietly threatened? No, I don’t think so. What I believe is that Kerry did have a pretty good understanding of the situation, the bigger picture; that is, had he really acted to expose all of Iran-Contra, the fraud, the illicit weapons, the narcotics, the American people would have gotten too much."

"When you open that can of worms, as Goldstein pointed out to me, how do you stop it? How do you stop where those worms are going to go? And pretty soon, if you keep opening that can of worms, the American people are going to start to be told the great big truths, that no one in Washington, neither side of the aisle, no politician wants them to be told; that, in fact, the CIA has long trafficked in narcotics, that there does exist a military-industrial complex, which was specifically put together to support a right-wing political cabal and to foster this cabal within the Republican Party, that there has been countless trillions of dollars of public monies defrauded by a very small group of people in the post-war era."

"But this is the way it all works. That was the magic connection that Kerry was frightened of, that you couldn’t keep this as revelations of fraud, graft, corruption, waste, and abuse. You couldn’t keep it as individual examples because there was so much interlinkage that the American people might finally understand that this is the way government works and always has."

"Has there been an historical parallel? Were the ramifications of this parallel the scandal of the so-called Watergate break-in?"

"There is no parallel whatsoever because in Iran-Contra you had the entire gamut of waste, fraud, abuse, graft, corruption and malfeasance all in one operation. And had everything been exposed that was Iran-Contra, the people would have put it together, or certainly too many of the people might have understood that these aren’t individual incidents, as in --Well, Jeb Bush committed this real estate fraud, George Bush committed that insurance fraud."

"Putting it all out there - that wasn’t the real problem for Kerry. What the problem was (and Kerry was right to look at it this way and senior Democrats knew this too because they just wanted to make political hay out of it) is that you can’t put all that truth out there and make the American people believe that these are individual instances of waste, fraud, abuse, graft, corruption and malfeasance."

"What would have happened is the American people would have started to connect the dots and they would’ve begun to figure out the place that nobody in Washington,regardless of party affiliation, wants to go. And that is what it’s really all about: how everything, how government works."

-------


Al Martin is a political and economic analyst. His tell-all memoir, "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider," ( http://www.almartinraw.com) provides an unprecedented look at the frauds of the Bush Cabal during the Iran Contra era. His weekly column, "Behind the Scenes in the Beltway," is published weekly on Al Martin Raw.com.

Al Martin’s website Insider Intelligence ( http://www.insiderintelligence.com) will provide a long term macro-view of world markets and how they are affected by backroom realpolitik.

[LittleClarkie]

82. Where's the Illuminati reference?

:shrug:

[lojasmo]

75. That's been my theory since Iowa.

Kerry was a sure loser for many reasons. I did question his determination to win.

[marcologico]

81. LMAO, meet SBVT, the sequel.

Brought to you by Talon News, for use by DU Deaniacs only. :)

[unblock]

84. locking

this thread does not serve the interests of democratic underground, progressives, or the democratic party.

unblock
du moderator