Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
The Donkey that Refused to Kick |
Current rating: 0 |
by Chaelan MacTavish Email: mbatko (nospam) lycos.com (verified) |
09 Jan 2005
|
Had Kerry called for a new election, his huge base would have followed him.. The democratic nominee for president never seems capable of this righteous chutzpah. It's too bad there's not a donkey around who can kick anymore. |
The Donkey that Refused to Kick
Spineless Kerry should have embraced evidence of election fraud, supported protests
By Chaelan MacTavish
[This article was published in: The Portland State University Vanguard, January 7, 2005. Chaelan MacTavish can be reached at counterpropaganda (at) dailyvanguard.com.]
John Kerry, like Al Gore before him, does not deserve the presidency of the United States.
This is not because they are incompetent politicians. This is not because they lost their elections. No. Itâs because despite winning, Gore and Kerry refused to claim what was rightfully theirs.
Yesterday, Re. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), along with a dozen other House members, formally objected to the choice of Ohioâs electors. There is ample evidence that this election was just as crooked as the 2000 election, and Bush has once again stolen the presidency.
Let me repeat: there is evidence.
This is not a conspiracy theory; there are concrete, cold, hard facts that Republicans have stolen massive numbers of votes in another contested election. And once again, Democrats have rolled over and let them do it.
Who could forget that scene in âFahrenheit 9/11â when lame-duck vice president and official president of the Senate Al Gore watched all the representatives contesting the election stolen from him, and not a single senator would join the call for an investigation? Why didnât Gore call out into the halls of Congress, âI am the rightful winner! Come on, Democrats, letâs take this country back!â
Because heâs a wimp, thatâs why.
Enter John Kerry (D-Mass â get it? D-Mass?), one of those same senators from four years ago and a member of this yearâs senate. He could have reserved a place for himself in the pages of history by standing up and thundering, âYes, Ms. Jones, I will join you in your call! I won that election and, by God, I will take that office!â
That is the kind of president we need.
What we do not need is a man who wonât even show up when others claim his election for him.
In a mass e-mail to his supporters, he agreed that there were huge irregularities in the Ohio voting. He acknowledged that many voters (Democrats) were disenfranchised. He recognized âquestionable practices by some election officialsâ (Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, the man Ohioans look to for free and fair elections). He even noted that lawful voters were denied the right to vote. But, despite this destruction of democracy, he declined to join in yesterdayâs objection.
Thatâs right â the challenger recognized that there was undeniable fraud in this election, but ânot enough.â Instead of fighting for democracy against its most blatant threat, he spend the day somewhere in the Middle East, congratulating our troops on their invasion and occupation, leaving others to fight for democracy at home.
âI canât for the life of me understand why Kerry isnât fighting harder for this,â said Cliff Arnebeck, an attorney for the Alliance for Democracy in Massachusetts. âMaybe itâs some secret Skull and Bones tradition, where youâre not supposed to show up the other guy,â he said, referring to the Yale secret society of which Bush and Kerry were both members. Arnebeck filed a lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of 40 voters to decertify Mr. Bushâs electors and certify the elector4s for Democrat John Kerry. The court did not respond.
Neither, ironically, did John Kerry. He has offered no assistance for the lawsuit; he is not fighting for the election that he most likely won. âWhile the existence of anomalies could possibly be explained by human error or technical malfunctions, the fact that, in every case in Ohio known to the contesters, the error favored the Bush-Cheney ticket, strongly indicates manipulation or fraud,â the lawsuit said.
âThis was an election where you have some glitches but none of these glitches were of a conspiratorial nature, and none of them would overturn or change the election results,â Blackwell admitted on Monday, announcing his certification of Ohioâs results.
So the question, then, is not âWas there fraud?â because there was. Now everyone is asking, âIs there enough fraud to change the outcome?â
There is not an acceptable amount of electoral fraud allowed by the Constitution. We need a fair election, and if we didnât get one then we need a new one.
But first, we need a candidate.
The only member of Congress who has actually contested Bushâs victory is Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) who singed on to Rep. Jonesâ objection, making it valid. Rep. Jones, and all other Democrats speaking in favor of the objections, all said that while they, like Sen. Kerry, believed there was disenfranchisement, they did not believe that Bushâs re-election is in doubt.
So, in the end, the Democrats have not changed anything. The Republican-dominated House and Senate both voted to overrule the objection to Ohioâs electors, and all the wimpy Democrats accomplished was forcing two hours of debate over the issue.
This would have been different, had the debate been spurred and sanctioned by Senator Kerry.
Had Kerry called for a new election, his huge base would have followed him. We saw in the Ukraine this year that when the âofficialâ election tally by the incumbentâs government is vastly different than exit polls, the challenger can cry foul, and get a new election, and claim victory. How utterly democratic.
The democratic nominee for president of the United States never seems capable of this righteous chutzpah.
Itâs too bad thereâs not a donkey around who can kick anymore. |
See also:
http://www.mbtranslations.com http://www.commondreams.org |