Fw: HOW KERRY INTENTIONALLY THREW THE ELECTION TO BUSH

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Cahill"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:19 PM
Subject: HOW KERRY INTENTIONALLY THREW THE ELECTION TO BUSH


Dear All,

Some of you may recall I was saying the same thing as Carol Rawle below
about Al Gore and the 2000 election. Both 2000 and 2004 were "fixed
fights" in which Gore and Kerry each "took a dive" in boxing parlane. How
the bloody hell else could an absolute criminially insane buffon like Bush
win the White House?

And how else does "military/industrial complex" translate but into pure
and simple "FASCISM?"

Ralph Nader and those of us who voted for him suffered a lot of abuse from
Democratic Party faithful. And some of us have long memories.

Tom Cahill

____________________________________________________________________________
__

> SEE THE LINK BELOW FOR HOW THE GANNON SCANDAL LEADS TO LINKS BETWEEN
>DEMS AND REPS. HELLO!!!!! THERE IS ONLY ONE POLITICAL PARTY IN THE
>USA!!!!!

http://www.unknownnews.org/050104a-cr.html

The Democratic Leadership Council's role in losing the 2004 election

by Carol Rawle,
Unknown News
>
>Jan. 4, 2005
>
>Maybe I've finally arrived at complete and total cynicism, or even
>turned the corner and become a conspiracy nutcase. But there's been
>something about the way Kerry conducted his campaign and his
>post-election behavior that has been nagging at my mind for weeks.
>
>I've always considered myself to be a reasonable person, not given
>to jumping to conclusions on flimsy evidence, nor am I easily swayed
>by sensational sentiment. However, when things don't seem to add up, I
>can't rest until I find out why, and I'm now ready to admit that I
>strongly suspect that John Kerry threw the election, and the Democratic
>Leadership Council (DLC) was behind it.
>
>Let's look at some basic facts. The DLC had, and still does have, a
>stranglehold on the Democratic Party. It was formed back in the '80s
>to counteract the liberal bent of the Democratic Party. Who controls
>the DLC, though? Big corporations with major-big money. In fact,
>many of the same big Fortune 500 corporations that control the
>Republican Party are major backers of the DLC. Some conspicuous card
>carrying members of the DLC are Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore,
>Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, Joseph Lieberman, John Edwards, and John
>Kerry. However, Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean do not normally
>associate themselves with this outfit.
>
>Dean had the nomination practically sewed up until "The Scream," but
>it could easily have gone the other way and energized the party if
>only they had wanted to play it that way. I think it's possible that
>the DLC was ordered by the corporate elite to use it as a way to get
>rid of Dean because he doesn't fit into their long range plan.
>
>That plan happens to be interchangeable with the one the
>conservative right has, and that is to favor big business with tax
>breaks and loosening regulation so it can dominate world economics. So
>Kerry got the nomination by default, I believe, because the DLC thought it
>would be simpler all the way around if they ran a candidate who was so
>like Bush on major issues he'd stand a good chance of losing, or if he did
>win, it wouldn't make much difference to their grand scheme.
>
>Here's some circumstantial evidence to tally up. Everyone was
>disappointed in the piss-poor way Kerry ran his campaign. He blew it
>on so many levels that if it were an NFL football game, you can bet
>there'd be an investigation into point shaving. I won't go into the
>whole list of his campaign disasters, but didn't someone say at one
>point, that the election was "Kerry's to lose"? Yet he seemed bent
>on doing almost everything exactly wrong.
>
>Well, just maybe it wasn't simply a case of bad campaign management
>from his DLC handlers. Maybe it's because Kerry had agreed not to
>try too hard to win the election, and he was just following orders to
>accomplish this.
>
>Look at the election polls. Kerry appeared to have a lead on Bush
>right up to election day, and the exit polls were unmistakably in
>Kerry's favor. If the corporate rulers wanted Bush to win, something
>had to be done if Americans insisted on, god-forbid, VOTING FOR THE
>WRONG CANDIDATE! If the vote was indeed corrupted, perhaps all of the
>blame may not belong to the Republicans.
>
>There's more that doesn't make sense. Kerry surprised everyone by
>conceding the election much too early and before all of the
>provisional ballots were counted. Then when, almost immediately,
>there emerged mounting evidence of election fraud in all of the key
>states, Kerry was conspicuously silent. When it was discovered that
>Kerry had $51 million left in his campaign war chest, he tried to
>cover it up by saying it was only $15 million, and the rest was
>given to the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
>
>The truth is, there was $51 million, and Kerry had a moral and
>fiduciary obligation to all the people who donated money to elect him
>and voted for him to use that money for investigating and contesting the
>vote in Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico, where it is obvious that a fair
>election did not occur.
>
>But he has only been involved on a token level, and he has
>maintained that there was no fraud in the election and Bush won
>fairly. Why is this, when there's so much evidence to the contrary?
>
>And at the very least, you'd think he would want to know why,
>without exception, every single discrepancy occurring in the voting
>process favored his opponent and not him.
>
>The question that bothers me most about this theory is probably the
>one you are asking now. Why would Kerry go along with the DLC and
>its corporate masters and agree to throw the election? I believed,
>and still do, that John Kerry is basically a principled and decent
>man. But he's a politician who grew up as part of the "ruling
>class." He is also a member of Scull and Bones, that secret Yale
>fraternity that George W. Bush also belongs to, who, as adults, call
>themselves The New World Order which controls the purse strings and
>politics of most of the world and are all loyal to one another, first and
>foremost. He was promised, no doubt, that he'd get his real chance in
>2008, which could account for his not wanting to spend all of his campaign
>war chest on an election he'd agreed to lose. And why waste the money on
>contesting this same election when he has no intention of being president
>until 2008?
>
>There are entirely too many coincidences. So it's just a matter of
>adding up all the evidence and drawing some obvious conclusions. I
>believe, given all I now know and understand, that it was in the
>best interest of this consortium of big corporations that Bush
>continue as president. Even though he's made a mountain of embarrassing
>mistakes, he has been flawless in delivering for the corporate ruling
>class. Big business hasn't enjoyed this level of pampering and privilege
>for the better part of a century.
>
>Maybe at the end of four more years of Bush, things will be on track
>enough for the corporate elites to permit the Democrats, under the
>leadership of the DLC of course, to have another crack at the White
>House. And I'm sure that Kerry really believes they'll make him
>president.
>
>I know this all sounds like some whacko conspiracy theory, but I
>don't know how else to make sense of this truly bizarre election. I
>think there is enough circumstantial evidence that we can and should
>begin to ask some hard questions about the true agenda of the DLC,
>and expose them for what they really are -- a group more loyal to
>the conservative right than to traditional Democratic ideals.
>
>And if there might be even a shred of truth to any of this, it would
>be a leadership betrayal of epic proportion, a leadership who, for
>all practical purposes, has sold the loyal supporters of the
>Democratic Party into the slavery of the conservative right.
>
>One only needs to follow the current enterprise to install a new
>leader of the DNC for evidence of this. This could turn out to be
>the most important reason we have for stopping at nothing until we
>get rid of the DLC.
>
>I do not envision the DLC giving up control without an awful fight,
>so I think it's naive for liberals and progressives to entertain the
>notion of anything less than an all out battle to rescue the party
>from this corporate-owned, conservative-pandering faction. Then, after we
>take back the Democratic Party, the next step will be to take back
>America.
>
>To learn more about why we have to get rid of the DLC, check out a
>gutsy new website, Get Rid of the DLC.
>
>
>
>© 2004, by the author.
>
>