Posted on 10/20/2016 12:24:12 PM PDT by seanmerc
A profile of Secretary of State John Kerry published Sunday in The New Yorker reveals that, 11 years after his election loss to George W. Bush in 2004, Kerry still believes he was robbed via systematic fraud.
The article itself, written by David Remnick, focuses mostly on Kerry’s efforts to achieve peace and democracy in the Middle East, but it also dwells extensively on his presidential defeat more than a decade ago.
“In 2004, when Kerry lost the Presidential race to George W. Bush, who is widely considered the worst President of the modern era, he refused to challenge the results, despite his suspicion that in certain states, particularly Ohio, where the Electoral College count hinged, proxies for Bush had rigged many voting machines,” Remnick writes.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I seem to recall that the main focus of the Kerry campaign in 2004 was on alleged GOP fraud in Ohio, but Bush's margin of victory there easily surpassed any possible effect of fraud.
There was an investigation of the voting machines used in Ohio conducted by a Democrat-controlled legislature, and videos of some of those hearings are still available on YouTube.
Different rules for communists versus conservatives.
No point in reading any further. I know it is "The New Yorker" but 'widely considered' should take in more than the editorial offices around New York City!
Kerry lost a lot of people when he 'reported for duty' at his Democrat Convention acceptance speech! Coming from a man who compared his fellow military members to Genghis Khan in terms of barbarity, that was a real piece of theater!
As for 2004 election, I remember the GIDDY excitement in the MSM as the widely reported exit polls showed JFKerry with a strong lead. They were ready to crown him at about 3-4pm EST until the working folk started to get to the polls. That was a real downer for the 'intelligentsia'!
This also depicts just how stupid the Bush clan is.
They go along with this stuff every day and get all huggy with those backstab them in the back on a daily basis.
They have their kingdom, so let us eat cake!
Creamer, or the other career criminal—whichever. I’m not reviewing both videos—said that the Dems have been doing voter fraud for fifty years, and they do what they have to to “beat you f@#$ing a@@holes”. Their own admission that this has been going on since Johnson if not Kennedy, is proof enough.
Doesn’t he have enough other disasters on his plate?
Near as I can tell, GOP fraud does not exist.
Dem fraud is pervasive enough that I would question any rat win of less than 1 point or maybe 2, ie Al Gore’s popular vote margin, Obama winning Florida in 2012 and NC and IN in 2008, the 2010 IL Governor’s race, the 2004 WA Governor’s race (DOUBLE recount until the rat won, unreal), and many House and Senate races over the years. If a rat wins by 0.5 or only after a recount, I presume the Republican won for sure, if 1.5%, the Republican probably won.
But anything much more than that, Obama winning nationwide, Harry Reid winning in 2010, “rigged” massive fraud? No. Too often it’s used as an excuse to explain away terrible campaigns by Republicans.
GOP fraud is a different can of worms. This usually involves the party establishment working with Democrats to defeat outsider Conservatives. Witness here in TN with RINOs routinely prevailing in open primaries and the situation with Cochroach in Mississippi.
I can't recall the last losing Republican candidate in any election to even mention the word FRAUD in analyzing the vote.
Trump is a breath of fresh air in even raising awareness of the existence of the 'Rat fraud and cheating and, coming before most of the voting takes place, it hopefully might have some deterrent effect on the fraudsters.
I don’t like that either but how does that constitute “fraud”? It’s perfectly legal to exploit open primaries.
Fraud is registering illegals and dead people, ect.
In 2010 there were a lot of strange newcomers who never voted before in my area.
Legal does not equate to moral or ethical, as we have seen. It’s fraud because it undermines the legitimacy of the choice of actual party voters. If base party voters aren’t allowed the right to choose their own nominee, that is tyranny and corruption of the democratic process. As examples, AL & TN Dems threw out nominees they believed were chosen by Republicans voting in their primaries, interfering with their right to nominate a candidate “cleanly.” Whether they do it or whether we do it, it can be construed as fraud in attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the process of nomination.
Point taken and it’s nasty but I don’t equate underhandedness with serious felonies, one is clearly worse and only one party engages in that. God damn the democrat farty criminals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.