[lbo-talk] Re: Why Kerry Conceded

Joseph Wanzala jwanzala at hotmail.com
Mon Nov 8 15:38:10 PST 2004


Why Kerry Conceded Defeat despite Electoral Fraud

Speaking out against voter fraud would carry an implicit challenge to the myth of American democracy www.globalresearch.ca 7 November 2004 The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN411A.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Power conceding nothing without demand, as usual by Jenny http://michiganimc.org/feature/display/7637/index.php

The easy smile on Kerry's face as he conceded to Bush should have made a few things clear.

There are reasons why Kerry conceded so quickly, there are reasons why he never mentioned a single instance of voter fraud or intimidation throughout the day on November 2nd as widespread evidence of disenfranchisement was surfacing (at least through independent media outlets) and there are reasons why he didn't use his concession speech as an opportunity to articulate even mild opposition to Bush policies.

The reasons are rooted in the fact that Kerry has much more allegiance to elite power in the U.S. than he has or ever will have to the millions of disenfranchised and unrepresented voters in this country.

Speaking out against voter fraud would carry an implicit challenge to the myth of American democracy.

Why should Kerry take the risk of challenging the legitimacy of the system? He is a pro-war, neo-liberal imperialist of the millionaire class. He has nothing to lose and much to gain from another 4 years of the Bush administration.

Given this realization, it's critical that everyone, from the Democrats who actually saw Kerry as an alternative to the liberals who merely wanted "anyone but Bush" conduct a serious interrogation of how the notion of "electability" dominated political discourse leading up the Democratic primaries.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list