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.
What do you think?
|
The Democratic Leadership Council 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. ...
|
|
|
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 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.
|
|
|
|
