portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

election fraud

More Proof Kerry Threw The Fight

In failing to become a party to the Cobb/Badnarik request for an expedited recount, John Kerry has proven yet again that he was in the race to lose it - not to win it.
On November 21, the Cobb/Badnarik team in Ohio filed a request in Federal District Court to expedite the recount so it could be completed or at least well-along prior to December 7, the date the election results are to be certified.

On November 22, the judge in the case denied the request for an expedited recount, based on the fact that since neither Cobb nor Badnarik had secured any electors, neither would suffer irreparable harm if the recount were delayed. The judge could hardly have ruled differently, since the prospect of "irreparable harm" is a legal prerequisite for securing the requested relief. The Kerry legal team certainly knew this. Had John Kerry been a party to the request, the prospect of irreparable harm would amply have been demonstrated and an expedited recount might well have been ordered.

Under the judge's ruling, December 11 is now the EARLIEST a recount can begin, with no guarantee it will begin even then. This is four days AFTER the challenged results are certified and only two days before the Electoral College electors meet to cast their votes.

In failing to become a party to the Cobb/Badnarik request for an expedited recount, John Kerry has proven yet again that he was in the race to lose it - not to win it. His promise that every vote will be counted may yet be fulfilled, eventually, but the recount - even if it proves Kerry won Ohio - will be academic and won't have the effect of overturning the election.

So if it turns out after the fact that Kerry carried Ohio and therefore rightly won the Presidential election, the voters will once again have the satisfaction of knowing their "leaders" are illegitimate - their grip on power secured not by the consent of the governed but only by the force of arms.

Perhaps we should be secretly grateful if the only victory we achieve is an academic one. Better an undisguised wolf than a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Convincing... 29.Nov.2004 12:20

some kid

very convincing. And the money? Why do we have to pay to have our votes counted. Kerry is either a fucking dipshit or a republican operative. Either way, fuck kerry. Besides, no democrat could be THAT far to the right.

Kerry Threw The Fight? 29.Nov.2004 15:09

@

What about the way he took Bush to task over Abu Ghraib torture in the debates. Oh, wait, that never happened...

I meant look at how Kerry berated Bush over running a concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay. NEVER AGAIN? Oh, wait, that never happened either...

Really sorry. But remember how Kerry lambasted Bush over the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction? Oh, wait, that never happened...

Well, I guess they did bicker over Vietnam. Way to throw the election, John W. Kerry.

"fight"?!? what "fight"? 29.Nov.2004 19:49

huh

Selection 2004 was definitely no "fight".

Kerry is Skull & Bones, just like the current Whitey House occupant.

 http://www.oilempire.us/kerry.html


agreed 29.Nov.2004 19:59

Rob

I've said it...Kerry was a dud, and I felt that all along. It was quite funny to hear some blaming the Democratic strategists, how they 'missed' what was important to get elected. Well, friends, the strategy was apparent to a child. And where was Kerry when he was being told to what to do? Sounds again like Gore, another dud who couldn't think for himself, listened to a bunch of political hacks, and managed to let himself be beat by an idiot on idiotic issues.

Kerry is all about $$$$ 29.Nov.2004 21:43

watch what he does, not what he says

Lets look at the guy for a moment.

He marries his first wife which he has two daughters with. She was worth over $300 Million dollars. He then has the Catholic church annul the marriage so he can stay in good standing in with the Church. I don't know how you can annul a marriage after two children, but they did it. This annulment drove her into a deep depression for which she ended up writing a book about it.

Next after Teresa's Republican Billionaire Senator Husband dies in a plane crash, He marries her who is now worth over 1 Billion dollars. She had the good sense to make him sign a prenup.

Lets face it. Finding true love that happens to be worth hundreds of millions once is one thing. Doing it twice is calculated to be sure.

Finally, Kerry has a choice between paying for the recount or transferring (tax free) the 51 million leftover from his campaign to his personal account. Well, guess what he did???

Now he has on his website a new fund that people can donate to that will help pay for the recount. I wonder who gets the leftovers from that pile of cash??

His actions tell me that his only real concern is live is living the life of a VERY rich BOY-TOY. He's never in the senate to do work, and I assumed he would be absent also in the Whitehouse had the vote went differently.

No big loss in my book, unless you were one of the people who donated to one of his campaigns.

The system is corrupt and politicians like money. . . 29.Nov.2004 22:24

none

No one here seems to disagree about that. But why should we spend time blaming Kerry for the result of Bush's tyrany and deceit? We didn't vote for Kerry because he was a stellar candidate. We voted for him to get Bush out. He put in a genuine effort. There are so many other things we can do with our energy. . .

Kerry Did His Duty 29.Nov.2004 22:36

balsam root

Hey...they gave us two candidates--a choice. We got to vote. What more did you expect?

You want more, you're going to have to fight real hard for it. It won't be given to you by the ideological and institutional descendents of the white settler plantation slave holders. And you can't vote for it.

That "revolution" was their revolution--meant to get the the king out of their hair, so they could be and act as kings for themselves. Was it your revolution?

Get back to work. Go shopping. Watch TV. Support the Troops.

yes, it was my revolution 29.Nov.2004 22:49

1773

"That "revolution" was their revolution--meant to get the the king out of their hair, so they could be and act as kings for themselves. Was it your revolution?"

The American War of Independence was not directed against the king but against the East India Company. It was an anti-corporate war which many, though not all, hoped would rid this country of aristocracy and corporate controlled government. Sadly, it was not entirely successful, largely due to 2 of Jefferson's proposed amendments failing to be incorporated into the bill of rights. At best, those who fought for this country would be considered upper-middle class by today's standards, the rich backed the king. Most of those that had any money and fought had their fortunes wiped out in the process, the rest had it wiped out within a generation as there were strict laws preventing the accumulation of wealth to be passed on.

I'm happy, that despite their flaws, at least some people stood up to a corporation backed by a national army. It's more than any of us can say today, at least so far...

Check out Thom Hartmann's book "What Would Jefferson Do" for some good information on what was done right, and what wasn't. Understanding history is important if one wishes to shape the future.

excerpt from "A Fundamental Change In America" article 29.Nov.2004 23:16

by Harley Sorensen

A final thought this week concerns the millionaires and multimillionaires in Congress. It's hard to get an accurate count on these things -- they really don't want us to know how wealthy they are -- but it appears there are at least 40 senators worth more than a million and more than 120 House members.

Their financial disclosure forms, which don't include primary residences, give such a wide range of options that it's hard to nail down exactly what these people are worth in dollars.

To give you a hint as to how much some of them hedge, Rep. Tom DeLay, the super wheeler-dealer from Texas, claimed earlier this year that he had, at most, $166,000 in assets. If you believe that, you and I must talk bridges: I have a couple of fine ones for sale here in the Bay Area.

DeLay, incidentally, is a Republican, but congressional wealth crosses party lines.

Both major presidential candidates this year, and their running mates, are multimillionaires.

Here in California, if you want to knock on Sen. Dianne Feinstein's front door, you can try the gingerbread house on Presidio Terrace, or you might have to go to the Sierra, to Aspen, or to Hawaii. Like John Kerry, the lady has houses everywhere; I'd guess I missed a few.

Feinstein admits to at least $26 million in assets. Barbara Boxer, our other senator, is a downright pauper according to her financial disclosures, worth only slightly more than $1.1 million.

San Francisco's representative in the House, minority leader Nancy Pelosi, brings up the average a mite; she and her husband admit to holdings worth at least $22.8 million.

Other well-off California legislators include Rep. Darrell Issa, a Republican worth more than $112 million, and Rep. Jane Harmon, a Democrat worth (with her husband) at least $160 million.

My favorite rich legislator is Rep. Kathleen Harris, former secretary of state of Florida. Harris, a Republican, has done well for herself. She admits to assets of at least $11 million.

I have nothing against rich people. Very often the very rich dedicate themselves to public service. They can do that. They don't have to pound away day after day to eke out a living.

But I have to wonder if it's healthy for a democracy to be so overrepresented by wealthy people.

If, as my e-mailers suggest, American democracy is going down the tubes, is there a connection between that and the economic gap separating most of us from those who make our laws?

I don't know. What do you think?


The House of Lords 30.Nov.2004 00:50

balsam root

One consideration in the formation of the legislative branch was the practical need for "a representative" to attend "the meeting", while the others were prevented by the necessities of tending to the farm, the shop, the livery stable, in the pre-industrial moments of the early U$... "The meeting" was held at some distance, so it was all the more necessary to appoint or elect "a representative" to go to "the meeting" to speak for the others--to look after their interests.

From that era of horse drawn coaches over mud roads, silk stockings and powdered wigs, we have the curious artifacts of the 18th c. bravely perservering, striving mightily for relevance. That those institutions have long outlived their purposes in the 18c. form, have become anachronistic, is reflected in their ever more bizarre and arcane processes, wretched excesses of fraud and waste--throwing up veils of lodge-like mystery, complexity and privilege by which they seek to salvage their indispensibility and importance to the rest of us in the feed lot.

One has to ask, today, just who the hell do they "represent" now?!!

Jane Harmon: The American Dream 04.Aug.2005 20:16

bot

In what other country can a person who's dumb as a rock become worth $160 million?