Laurie discourses at length on her race

I discuss the elements that underlie the 2016 races of myself and other candidates who dare to defy the Establishment diktat — broken into seven YouTube segments:

Part 1


Part 2



Part 3



Part 4


Part 5


Part 6


Part 7

[Below is a full transcript of the audio. The other voice is my campaign manager, John Carpenter.]

JSC:  All right. You're running.

LD:  Bernie is saying things all the time but on the basis of his experience has given us a unique eye into this process, and a perspective that he'd gained from seeing so many people reinforcing him and telling the truth, and speaking his truth about — and his assessment of things understood over years in Senate and mayor and everything he's, done every truth he's held in his heart and everything he — his values lead him to do and try for, his courage and his — his — his relationships with others to bring forth all those ideas, he has become a man of worth, by staying on track to those, and by maintaining and perpetuating, continuing his efforts at this time despite, this seemingly insurmountable opposition in the form of what? 300 superdelegates were bought by Hillary? That's supposed to be the insurmountable thing, are these 300 people? When you have millions of people whose vote's been disenfranchised, don't count, these "super people" — I refuse to call them delegates — and these super, super sn— super idiots, super —

JSC: henchmen

LD: super crime criminal super criminals. And that's what they should be called: super gangsters are are are are often from the lowest forms of life, from stockbrokers and that sort of thing, because, you know, they dredge from those who are willing to do these things already. They're already pre-corrupted so there's no corrupting to be done. It's easier for the party to just find them, and then bump them up.

 Your listening is helping extremely well. I can hear myself.

So I don't want to say in this point, I want to understand, if Bernie has gotten to this point, he can call this truth by its name. He can, as I said, throw the gauntlet down any direction. And it's a valid point and that's what I have.  But I must be — I must be judicious in it, as well as he

does. We just can't — you can't waste this — and what is this thing? They say it's having a voice, but really it's having an ear but it's — some — it  carries some weight, because there was a fight. And the fight was significant, because people understood the stakes. Some people understood. Those people, those people want resolution. I want resolution from his — I want resolution from Bernie's fight, because it involved me. [This fight] mattered — it matters to me, my race. I want it to matter to others.

It mattered to many people, that I did not succeed. And so that's one of the main things worth saying, that my — my lopsided, as my mother called it, vote, the low point of that vote showed that people were loath to support me. They wanted somebody to align with something they already had vetted and found useful. Susan Deschambault, because she'd gone up against the governor. She was on Rachel Maddow, she was on all these things, she seemed to be a candidate that would stand up for people. Seemed to. And everything about the way she was promoted by the party just fell in line to that and then all these ward people, these — these people known in the different places in Biddeford, and Denk's being well known for all these different things she's done, everything about their being well-known and pairing up and matching up looks like a Dynamic Duo, y'know, the D Twins or something, y'know, that they'd be the ones who can make things happen who could help the vetoproof majorities. And that's all they focused on.

 Y'know, except for some blather about seniors and bullshit that she's never done anything about. Which — look at the record — I've done things for seniors. She's never done anything for seniors — that I can see. So I mean, it's not evidence-based — it's — it's um — it's — endorsement-based. It's endorsement. It's — it's people-speaking-on-her-behalf-based. So it's — it's so many people wanting her in.  Now is it that they say they can get these things done? She's held positions but what has she accomplished in these areas before? And being on a committee, being on a platform being on a this-thing, being on a that, is — is all about, y'know, playing the game to get on it. It's not about necessarily — in fact it's sometimes opposite the act of getting things done.

When you get things done , y'know, there's — there's a certain amount of change involved in that. And the more you get done, the more change there is involved, change is the — is the thing that — that is important in this election. Change is not her strong point. Maintaining the status quo is her strong point. So if that's the case why was  a person elected with so much status quo fighting behind her? And one would say, "well, it's a primary, it's that she made a case for being a change agent", and there were so many people saying "she'd be effective, she'd do this, she'd get the job done".

Those are words that are used effectively, to elect people. There are books out there, these are words in the playbooks. But why would those words win, here, and does it matter that they did? I mean is there any point in my saying, "guys, next time you should look more at who really did do those things", but that's just like — again, that's not the point- who's done more things, who's accomplished more things-- it's "to what end"? Are those things useful? What kinds of things did I bring which were more useful to what we need right now? And I would say almost everything I've done has led to what makes me more useful as a candidate to fight the status quo.

So what is all of this race for? What is this race for? What was this campaign for? What was the representative seat? What does that mean for people? What do they want out of that?  Y'know, I did not do a poll to find out if people wanted things to stay the same or if they wanted change. The party has done that. And they know that people want change. So if I have done these things, and am the better positioned candidate in terms of — of experience, then why have the people not trusted that?

And then you have to think, "well, the" —  two possible reasons. One is the parties make great pain with all their material and media complicit, they made it look like she was (the one to be trusted). And that people just bought it.  Or else, another idea is they could have been afraid not to — vote for her. Because what would happen if they didn't, y'know, vote for something like that, when —  would voting for someone like me, would there be retribution upon them? In the state? As a result of that. I mean, people are afraid of not following what seems to be orders given to them. And the party is more coming down looking like, "this is the way things are — organized. You will just accept that there is terrorism. You will accept that there's strange things that don't add up.

Look —  the — the quality of terrorism in our country is now — is sort of implicit in every action that happens. I mean, in the media reporting it doesn't have to be backed up, it just has to be reported. And so there's this element of terror of not accepting and supporting a person that appears to have the party's blessing. You will vote for this person because they are with the party that is in control. So being as how it's confusing, because, which party is in control? We don't know, because it doesn't seem to be one or the other. It seems to be both. Both seem to be one party. So let's call it what it is. The single corporate party is in control, is what people are seeing and feeling, and are afraid of opposing. And I think that is why I lost.

I believe I lost to the corporatists because people are afraid of voting their conscience, of being serious, of looking outside and trying change, because they're afraid their home area would be targeted. This is something that history has shown is not outside the range of absolute possibility, and is a legitimate fear in my view.

<break> 10:08

So, people are afraid. So the first idea was did she just run a better campaign, and people just were snowed by how it appeared that she would do all these things she professed to be?  They bought the package? The packaging sold them?

The second thing is the implicit warning on the package, or the understanding that there is a price to pay if it's not — if it's not bought, if it's not taken, it's not accepted. What it represents if she's not — enthroned, that there will be retribution. So there's a fear thing. The greed thing, first of all, the greed, of "Oh, my God! I'm going to do so great." And it's ignorant. It's like, it's really laziness it's just fear, because people don't want to take a position, they just want to buy whatever seems to be — what others are—  they're afraid of NOT doing — it's popular opinion. They're afraid not to be doing what — it seems they ought to be doing, and are afraid of not being overseen not doing. Y'know, they must of course want them. Everybody else is buying it. Everybody else is doing it —the 'right' thing, and that is one of the killers of all time of truth — truth and reform, and people die for such a baseless motive. That's — that's herd instinct.  So that's just going along with the herd. Going along to get along. That's another thing. And that is very rampant. People follow that.

There's a certain decorum around things. When you lose you have to be graceful in defeat, or else you look like a sore loser. There's all these — some — supposed rules about how people will render themselves inconsequential as a duty, because they're not allowed to do any more than that, indeed they never really had a chance at all to be considered, but we pretend to give it to them and we expect them to be grateful for the 15 minutes of pretense and pretend consideration. And those that don't buy it are looked at as greedy themselves!

"What are they after? What do they want?" Why won't they accept that polite, sweet, "we wish you well in the future" shit? "What are they after? Are they crazy? Are they — are they psychopathic? Are they sociopathic? Do they want to hurt people? Do they want to not be — uh, graceful towards those who are elected with the so-called popular will? Even if it's fear-based popular will, it's the popular will of the people, so we have to accept it.  We cannot look at, for example, the fact it might've been controlled or contrived. Because people chose not to look at it, they didn't want to look too far, they wanted to just believe on the face of it, and therefore whatever the people wanted the people ought to have. And that's — that's I think a very strong motive for why people will refuse any further consideration of the candidate that has run and lost, especially lost badly.

And then, the other thing is to have people that buy it because of popular appeal, the popular opinions, in the fear of opposing somebody who may — may — may say that, y'know, she could've done so much if only people had — had not done that(opposed her so hard). And then the guilt factor: we didn't vote for whom we should have voted for. We didn't do as the authority issues directed us.

So there's the Mommy-Daddy thing. Mommy told us — and she is been totally, y'know, coming off as — that she's a mommy, (D. Denk) which is kind of funny because she doesn't have any kids of her own. Anyway that's never — nevermind that. It's — it's an instinct in — in people, and they respond to it — certain point. She's very strong on that. She's very strong on letting people know what she expects of them. And, y'know, I can't condemn her [outtheticals 14:51] I certainly have enough of it in myself. But it's what it comes from. Why does she want to tell people what to do? What — what is it she knows best? That she's gonna — her top issue is she's going to take care of seniors?  No! Her top issue, when she says that is, she's not gonna take care of anybody else. And seniors will come last also but they don't know it.  They just don't know it yet.  She just doesn't — with any program for how she's going to do anything. And yet, she had the legitimate last say, so-called legitimate last say in the papers, that I had no substantive — substantive issues, that I was just being divisive.

The papers refused to print anything, the Portland Press Herald, the Kennebunk Post was 3 to 1 against me, and the last in the Kenne— in the Biddeford Journal, um, Courier, the Biddeford Courier, the Journal Tribune lost a letter, and then it was just too late to put it in. The Post wasn't going to allow me any more words even though my word count was way below hers. And even if, y'know, my two paragraphs, one on banking, one on resource protection against Nestlé, were put in, they weren't going to be allowed, even though the word count on those would still be under her word count on her thing because I was amending my things. So they said that we can't amend it, as we didn't offer that to both candidates, because we didn't need to, because her word count was already maxed out. And she didn't choose to change it, you see.

It's all about a contrived, specious reason to not allow me anything more than what I was given, which was the modicum, minimal allowance against the establishment picked candidate. The fact that I chose my self, and wasn't picked as [from] a slate of proffered candidates by the DNC in the first place, or the ones that were preferred or suggested to them by local parties which they did in Biddeford apparently, y'know, the party would tell people who they thought they ought to vote for. Or, in the case of York County Democrats, her picture was plastered all over the place. I wasn't even included. They didn't add a picture of me in there. They just let it look like she was the only candidate.

So I mean there is no effort on anybody else's part in the — in the parties or in the papers or in the towns or in any leagues of voters or any societal forums, social efforts to educate on primaries, which are so important, because that's where sometimes the biggest differences are between a progressive and establishment person. There is such an attempt to shut down discussion. When I went places people would — or in church or anywhere I went, there was no allowance of discussion about what I was doing. It was as though it was a bad, poor — poor topic, because it was dirty. What I was running, what — it was as though I was a — that I represented a vile profession, and therefore polite society would allow me to enter, but I was looked at askance.

So it's not as though I really had any ability to discuss the race.  There was no real interest in the in the district for that — there were people walking around me. As you saw, when I wore the Bernie shirt and a person who helped me with my website, y'know, gave me a hug and then backed right away. No pictures allowed.

And, um, it's as though you're branded. And that is what it feels like. It's a certain branding if you're a candidate. So with all that fear, with all that firepower of fear that an establishment candidate brings with them, how does anybody bring progressive issues to light? I mean, Diane Russell appeared to. She was in a different district. She was in the city. She was in an area where she could get a lot of young people to come out and help her. And — and, she was running earlier when Bernie was — at his power — at his best.By the time I got there in March he was fighting — y'know, he was fighting for it.  He was — he was managing, but it wasn't the best place for me to enter a race. Because I couldn't — because the minute I was there, my opponent was telling everybody to unify the party around Hillary, and not say anything negative about her. That was — that was the direction from her, seemingly from her, but everybody understood it was from top — top down — to her. She was always representing the top-down, instructions from on high, where she was soon to be ensconced and nobody was to get in the way of that. The, y'know, the — her website apparently was all about how it was inevitable that she was already ensured a victory, that it was in the bag and that — a videographer was to be there just to have at the party afterwards. It was all set up.

20:12

There was such certainty of her success. And that can only be when you have vast amounts of people for you and every corner in every direction, assuring a win, can sometimes be an upset.  But, when you're against an establishment person who knows the game, and has played the game, it was never going to happen. So — so that's another thing, that — that why would I have stayed in the race? There must be something wrong with me, or some something obdurate,  or stubborn, something obstinate, abstinate[! well, yes, you're abstinate since you stopped drinking — LOL], y'know, something that has always been in my nature and that — that looks like a character problem. Difficulty, being a difficult person. I'm known to hang in there for tough things and — and — and that's a — that's a benefit but a lot of people thought, "well, maybe she's just not gonna be able to get along with anybody." "Will she embarrass us?" People don't like to have a representative that doesn't know her place. Her decorum is at issue. And certainly I came across that way: the boat captain and a recovering alcoholic, is somebody who would say anything that needed saying no matter how many noses she'd tweaked. And so, you know, or — put out of joint. So not the kind of character —. And her judgment must be called into question, because when she did see that she was up against Diane Denk, whether it was before or after Denk got on, didn't matter. The fact is that she — that she — that I —  didn't understand the lay of the land, and continue to waste people's time, and clearly I had no chance, and that I probably knew it and was running anyway showed vanity and poor judgments, and stubbornness, and self-interest,

JSC: selfishness

LD:  and selfishness, yeah. And so, not having people's interest at heart. And I must say this has — this, y'know, this's got some — that's a valid point.  Was I selfish by continuing? I just had to, and — I'm not a quitter, but is that a self-centered issue? And I can say, "Well, I'm in early sobriety", and that is a character defect. So in truth I think if I'm to be faulted in this race, it's that I didn't quit the field when I joined in. But I did believe that the reasons that I said at the time of the caucus, the people — that I — that I said I would run. I gave people my word that I would run and I — and I did.  To back out then seemed wrong.  Seemed like the violation of that — of that trust that I would be their defender, and I felt that that trust was within me from the other race I ran in 2009 when I lost to — <sighs> you know when —when I — I — couldn't get on the ballot because the party kept me off. Matthew Dunlap, Secretary of State, kept me off the ballot. And I made a promise to my late husband that I would get on the ballot when I ever could, to — to keep my promise. So, y'know, is this all about me keeping a promise to my husband? That I wouldn't. And it's —it is partly there. It's not just that, but it's certainly in me that, when I make promises to people around elections, about running for office, that I should be serious about it. And I — it's not something to do lightly. It's not to be undertaken lightly. It's not to be entered into lightly, it shouldn't be left lightly. I should make sure that I'm doing these things for the betterment of humans — human people. You know, just human people in my district, human people everywhere. And if I can't justify that every day, I'm running this race for people, why? What — what can I do for them?  What really am I doing for them, or am I just doing something in my own mind, that I'm doing for them. And that's not enough. How can I personally make their lives better? Y'know, first I wondered, "do I have enough brainpower?" I figured out that I did. I got sharp enough during the race I realized I was — I was up for it. I could do that, and I had the energy, had the passion, I had the desire, I had a sense of need for justice, and I think I had th— a better motive — for running, than what I presumed hers was. Now she was already in the race last time around, and maybe she feels she can just keep going again. And I'm at this point, y'know, I'm one of those also-rans. Now, does anybody want to hear from — Ted Cruz? Rick Santorum, um, Martin O'Malley? Not really. No, only as far as they will shine light on the two people in question, and the focus all being about them and their ideas.  My ideas are now — moot. And — what I can say, what — what — what somebody who was running a race can say legitimately is, "all of the races — all of the races, wherever they are, whatever they are, are going to be constrained and shaped by the — by the people in control. By the money movers, by the power players, the oligarchy, Hillaryites, the Clinton Foundation, others" — who — whoever it is that's got these purse strings, and is playing us all chumps, they are the ones — — still at play, and directing even the media who will get people like me to speak or to communicate about — to other people about what — what's going on.

So — so who would listen, what — what would they want me to say? I'm still — still reaching around in my mind for something valid to say to them. You know, I can — I can say "thank you!" — y'know, for letting me talk to them. I can say thank you for supporting my ideas. But they're their ideas in the first place.  They're Bernie's ideas. I can say I just did this — all — for Bernie. I did it all for Bernie. 

And I truly did. I did it also for people that are suffering — under the policies that Bernie is addressing. That the world will be better with him as president, with him leading a revolution. He can be president. I think he's got to lead the revolution. And — and I will just be another one of those who said, "yes, I will run for office" because he asked for help.  He asked for people to join him. People paid for things, they did things,  they did all kinds of things, and I did this, which took a ton — a ton of myself, and — I'm not alone.

Somehow I feel I've got something else, I've got some investment in the outcome politically, because I'm an ally.  Which makes me, um, somehow — I engaged in the fight directly, by opposing the establishment directly, with the candidate in op — opposition, that got directly involved in fighting me.

It came down from the top — to oppose me.  So — and — and to beat me.  So I'm wondering if what I can do for his cause, which is my cause, now can make a difference. And I would like to. I'm invested in that, because I do feel I did enough to further it. And the words I did manage to squeeze out, tiny pieces of — tiny pieces of ideas and words that they tried to cut up and scissors and paste and cut and make so trivial, so — they try to make look so foolish — . And they succeeded — people thinking, "why, she's just crazy" — for saying things because they came out chopped up and half formed and caricatured by — by titles, of headings, of positions in the paper, of everything that was done that you can do as a journalist to smear somebody, they did. And I looked — I mean, why people didn't even notice that and comment on that, maybe they did: maybe those letters never got printed. There is so much control <laughs> of the message now, I wouldn't be surprised.

I would like people to let me know that they saw some gross unfairness, just so I don't feel that it's something people can't even register on — on their screens anymore, because then it seems that there's much more work for me to do. I have to prove to people that their interests were used poorly, and served poorly in the media.  That's just yet another thing I still have to — make a case for. I'd like the case to been made. But perhaps that's just my job now is to say, "Look, I'm sorry. Maybe you think I'm a poor loser, but — but in fact — in fact this was a shabby hatchet job from the start. And I can verify that. I can — — can affirm — that I was hatcheted. And for her to milky-toast sweetly, try to chum — to be chums with my, y'know, campaign manager and me afterwards during, y'know, the countdown waiting for the vote to come in at the poll, and — and then afterwards at the papers just trying to reinforce in everybody's minds that she truly is a candidate of note, and I was well beaten and should have been. 

It's just a further self glorification on her part, and I don't know whether anyone will notice that,because it's so deftly done. And it's —its not that I'm astonished at her capacity, because I have certain qualities as a candidate myself to, y'know, profile my campaign, and make it look as as good as I could. Because, y'know, that's just product placement shit.

But in and of itself, it gets a bit tired. And will people resent me for not making a better taste to them?  And I must make it now. I must say, "I did what I could" now to you.  I did give you a choice, people. You did have this choice. And you chose that. Now, if you're sorry for that, I don't think you can say you want your vote back, and you want to have the other candidate. I think it's a little late.

So it is an important thing to try to decide ahead of time, and try to force, y'know, a better, y'know, a better forum for deciding and discovering — your — your discovery process was radically, y'know, truncated. So you — you want that in the future, if somebody like me runs which I won't do.  Ha ha! I won't do. I won't put myself though that, because I just — will not — ever — do that.  I might do other things, but — no.

So you're going to have to get new people that don't know what I know. They won't make the case that I can — make.  They won't have the chance, because things will be even worse next time.  And I'm — I'm sorry. But I did try. And — if we're screwed we're screwed. I know maybe there's some way people can get on the horn, get on the bus, get —  get into into action.  When things get really fucking bad. But they're bad enough. And we didn't do anything. So there's a certain conscience of — conscience of country that is — that is amiss. And fear has done its part. I feel like I'm, y'know, Naomi Klein, saying, y'know, the stages of Shock Doctrine, the stages down the road. And, at every point people do make — do make their — their — it's their time to try, and we must join up. There may be other battle lines redrawn, there may be other ways we can take these losses in and use them as fodder for — for — for for other efforts and realize what we have to gain back from what we lost. Maybe ground can be regained. I can help with that.  But this is pretty — torched earth here. This is — this a scarred. And — and I'm scarred. And I'm not — happy. This is a sore loss because it's not one of my own. It's a loss of my country's. It's a loss of my locality. It's going to be overlorded now,  overlorded by these women who are not true to the values I know as a woman. And that's kind of almost double-damning.  And — Denk and Deschambault and this whole — Hillary  bizarre universe, this twilight zone of women who are not — good for us — in my view. And that — is not my call to make in the end. It's God's world. I can at least say I don't know everything, and what I did think I knew, well, can always been informed by what truly is — in the world. 

But those were the best shots I could make at the time. And if my view now as I sort of expressed it more fully is not like — well enough formed or good enough qualification for me to have been a representative, then — then those are the judgments people make. So, in the end, I think it is best for me to just say, the people spoke —, y'know, long live — Queen Denk. 

And, that's what you get, folks. Y'know, "Buh-buh-buh-buhbye!"  What is that Porky Pig says?

JSC:           

LD:   That's all, Folks!  That was Bugs Bunny.  Yep! 

JSC:  Uh, b'the, uh, b'the, uh, b'the, That's all, Folks!

LD:  And, uh, good luck with that.  That's your story, and you're sticking to it.

And, so, these are sort of silly, silly signoffs. I'd like not to sign off. I'd like to fight. But nobody is asking me to do any more than I've already done.  Maybe it was more than I could have done already.  I don't know. I don't know.

So, this is the wrong place to end this thing.  But at least I got it out. So yeah.  So there's sadness, there's remorse, for what I couldn't do. Y'know, there were things I couldn't do. Am I just that?  Just that there was a "what if" there. The whole world's almost, it seems to me now, this great "what if"?  The only thing that's standing up right now, that's got any shot — is Nature.  Because mankind seems so determined to — to fall short — now, at least this generation, set of generations. Where will we change this, as humans? It's got to come from somewhere. Divine intervention? We've had a lot of that.  Good efforts by people? If you don't get Bernie Sanders elected, because of stinking, nasty horrible rotten Superdelegates that nobody in the main delegation will oppose, when they go up with them, WHAT THE FUCK GOOD ARE WE?  That's what I would do.  I would go up there and make it is just as hard as I possibly could for superdelegates — to get their way. That's where I could fight and hopefully I will find a way.  That speech on the floor that I gave at the delegation, that was a pretty valid point to make. So I hold to that. You know, that — that's still there. That's — this campaign washes down the drain but, that speech lasts. That's — that's burned into some brains, thank God!  We'll see where that goes. I — I — I made some impressions. Maybe, maybe bolstered some egos and some — enough to make people more visible, so they can be better opposed. And also encouraged some souls to fight harder.  Those are hopes.  And — and I can — I can just wait and see how this eventually redirects, and reforms, and — and uh, I mean, sorry.  This is life. Life is — life is learning from us: we're not just learning from life.  But I hope it's not a virus that's just trying to figure out how to end humans once and for all. 

Sometimes I think that's — that's what's at work.  <laughs> I wouldn't blame her! I wouldn't blame life if it had it in for us, given what we've done to it. I better stop. I'm done.