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.

Thank you note

Danger Lies Ahead

Dear friends, family and supporters of this/our/my campaign for State Rep, and others,

I am grateful to you all for considering me as your Representative and for donating your time and efforts and donations to make this campaign possible. You enabled me to keep a promise to my late husband, six years ago (today would be our 17^th Anniversary) that I would get on the ballot. We got 18 percent.

Democrats contested my right to be on the ballot in 2009 as a Maine Independent for the US Senate, and they have successfully kept me from succeeding in this race, though of course, they didn't do it alone. Well, yes, pretty much they did. Our efforts were sufficient such that, without massive help from the Party, we would have had victory-- which is beside the point here, as it has been in my other races.

This letter is not the place to spell out all the ways that the forces worked together to keep this outsider from getting 'in'. That was never going to happen. I had to give us all, myself included, enough foolish hope to try and that is what matters. YOU matter. However, this race was in the bag for Denk from the start, which honesty requires me to say.

Despite this rather indisputable fact, given the prevailing establishment-run conditions of our state and country, you have participated in a significant race, one that will help the progressive cause carried out by Bernie Sanders, those before him, those trying now, and those who will continue to press for change.

We, simply, pressed for change. We named the foes to freedom and true security. We called fear out by name. We challenged those who oppose the needs of people for radical change, in the form of political revolution. We exposed corruption and named it specifically and locally. See the evidence at Laurie2016.com. We will continue to make it clear for those who wish to believe otherwise. (Visit our new blog: Tellingofthetruth.blogspot.com)  Change is often a nasty though basic necessity if we are to endure as a nation.

There are so many who don't or won't care to hear this clarion call, which I echoed locally, until things get even more fully dire. How can the imminent election of a world class megalomaniac be not dire, I ask you? Rome is burning while Hillary dithers with her Foundation Funders and the balking Senators and those reprobates in our midst who will not heed the necessity for reform. We have the FDR of our day; woe to us if we don't elect him.

Denial is a disease I have personally battled, and have prevailed, to this point, where I can throw down the gauntlet in any direction. I have escaped the common addiction prevalent among Democrats, to equivocation and mediocrity. There are benefits to truth telling. I plan to double down.

Recovered alcoholics, like myself, understand the often fatal mistake of self-dishonesty. Not telling the truth to ourselves, and/or harboring greed, resentment and fear are the four calling cards of doom. We battle them every day and guard against their poisons as though they would kill, because they do. We kill ourselves and others when we allow spiritual maladies to rule our thoughts and actions.

Knowing this, believing this, and practicing this, I have endeavored to find a way through a race I did not originally choose for myself. I stepped in and answered the call put out by Denk and the Party for a volunteer. I saw the need for a challenge to a Republican incumbent's return to the Legislature, thereby increasing the veto power of the Governor.

Had I known that the secret intention of the Party was for Denk to run all along, I don't know if I would have run anyway, so I am glad I did not know. Her politics will serve to keep the power people happy, and the voters she used to get this to go her way will not be considered until re-election time, 2018.

I was barely able to make the case against her, due to media gamesmanship and Party interference. Most of my effort went into getting word of my website out to the public to make my own case more fully understood.

Although this was a failed strategy, there are those who will find some use in our example. We must press on, and recognize where our interests as a people have been thwarted, propagandized and sabotaged. We must not continue to be complicit in our own self-undoing. We have the world to answer to, as well as our own consciences.

I have searched to see if there is a better way I could have done this and don't see any misguided intentions. That's remarkable. Practice helps and I have been at this running for office thing for awhile. It is necessary for people to exercise their freedoms while they still may, however, formidable it proves. Under a President Clinton, much of what we cherish about our freedom will be ruthlessly exterminated. Consolidation of power and all that. Her history of retribution should not be underestimated.

Sadly, this will also happen locally, since two representatives, Denk and Deschambault, are so solidly in lockstep with the Party elite, to whom they owe some pretty heavy allegiance. Forget their support for minimum wage and many other things called for by Sanders. When Denk goes to the July Democratic Convention all our other delegates will hear from her, our new DNC Rep for Maine, is the need to submit to Hillary. 

Forget her actual fight against the superdelegate system. The Party sunk Diane Russell's campaign by flooding it with dirty money. She was the anti-superdelegate champion, but she was jettisoned. As of course, was I.

You will not see our Reps stand for anything which will impinge their upward climb. You can only kick as this materializes in the coming years, for refusing to see this coming. Sorry. I tried to tell you.

Let's hope the rest of the legislature makes it hard for our new local representatives to succeed in their ambitions. Theirs shall prove to be a death spiral further and further into the eye of the elitist, corporate controllers of our lives. We must impede their alliance with those who do not adhere to our Maine Constitution, and its direction for a common wealth, which so many have suffered and died to defend.

I did not take this race lightly. Nor should you. The media has a lot to account for, in making our campaign appear inconsequential. You should all take your elections even more seriously in future. Excuses fall pretty flat when you have nobody around to excuse your own ignorant refusal to learn from basic historical warnings, from gadfly agitators, when we offer sound advice. Take heed.

Sans Sanders (Without Bernie)

Well, we have been given our marching orders, but no chain of command. General Sanders said we were to provide a new generation to go into public service and spread out across the country doing things with strength and effectiveness. Fresh recruits are to be thrown into action. They have a guide: it is at berniesanders.com/win.

I could go to that site but not until I first deplore this tactic. It is wrong to send people into pitched electoral battles that will simply serve to benefit the corporate ruled Democratic Party, sans Sanders' leadership there, to ensure that the direction of effort is not just providing further empowerment to the reprehensibly wealthy few running Hillary and her legions.

It is false to say that we have to join the Dems because the bad problems are all due to the Republicans having control over government in legislatures and as governors.  Two Parties can play at that corruption game and two parties are playing the game. The Dems relish it as much as the Republicans. As my opponent recently said when she decided to run her Bernie "moderate" (con artist) campaign in a Primary against me, "Let the games begin!"

Denk, my opponent, is now the winner of that race, due to establishment Dems and Clintonites supporting her. She is a national Bernie delegate, despite her equivocating on Bernie. The Party put all its firepower into helping Denk; they promoted her run against her Dem opponent Jill Barkley for Maine's Rep on the DNC (meaning she will be a super delegate next time).

She was able to speak before the entire Convention, and called her opponent a 'show pony'. Denk was also put on a special panel, entitled "Running for Office, Why do it?". She could make the case for why she ran after declaring she wouldn't, and  justify her reasons for running against me, the pro-Bernie volunteer. I was told by the leadership that I couldn't speak on the panel.

The Maine Dem Party promised me at Maine Dem Headquarters in Augusta, where I volunteered, that they would not support her in the Primary. This was reinforced to me by the leaders at the Candidate's Training.

Nevertheless in disregard of this, they also helped Denk by stuffing envelopes with her campaign material for every convention goer. They helped her with staff volunteers and special favors that are somehow allowed(?) in a supposedly clean election campaign. She won with Party backing and many bowed to kiss her ring.

Denk canvassed with the newly elected Senate candidate, Deschambault, who got tremendous amounts of campaign literature paid by the Party so that she could become the nominee for interim State Senator three weeks prior to the Primary, giving her the advantage over her Dem rival, Twomey. In addition, this Senate candidate received a considerable sum, (according to someone running as an incumbent for State Senate), from PAC money given to her by another Senate candidate, Russell.

My opponent got some extra help also, apparently, judging from the amount spent on her campaign materials (detailed on her supplier's price list), since the cost of her materials was more than the allotment from Clean Elections would normally cover.

Deschambault also promised not to get involved in my Primary. Is she a Bernie supporter? No, yet Denk and she canvassed together, when she doesn't even support a core tenet of Bernie's plank: the minimum wage increase. This is a betrayal of Bernie, who is fighting for the survival of his Candidacy.

Many others in the Party helped my opponent. Democratic Party staffer Marc Mallon was off to make calls on election day after telling voters he was a friend of Denk's. Other legislators assembled in a curious gathering purportedly for outgoing Speaker of the House Mark Eves' special issue, senior care (also Denk's TOP issue!) inviting the public to attend to hear her share her concerns for seniors, truckled into a self-centered campaign speech.  Legislative supporters came from many areas of Maine to our local town just days before the Primary.

Many prominent writers of my opponent's support letters were Clinton caucus delegates.  They were there when Denk, then the Caucus Convener, asked caucus goers for a volunteer back in March. They witnessed that  I accepted her request for a State Rep Candidate to run against the Republican incumbent for District 9. Despite the great response when they announced to the 800 people gathered on Primary Day that they had a candidate, (me), they still chose to support her, despite this double dealing, and nobody told me of this strategy until after I was on the ballot, and committed to run.

Strangely, my campaign signs were held up for up to a week longer than promised by my supplier who just happens to handle all the mail for the Democratic Party—the Party Bernie now wants us to support.

My local race makes it abundantly clear that what happened to Bernie is not an isolated incident. Back to Bernie, then. The rationale he gave to us in his live stream on the 16th of June, is that Republicans are the ones who keep Democrats from winning. He doesn't say that this is because Democrats themselves are the ones who fail people. They promise, Obama style, what they don't deliver, which frustrates people, who then retaliate by switching to the Republicans, or not voting. The Democrats lose but console themselves by steeping in a rich broth.

Neither side is there for people any more, this is becoming painfully unmistakeable. So why make people think that the billionaire class is now only on the Republican side? Bernie was calling Hillary out for that all season. Now he is pointing his ire at the Republicans, whose defeat, even across smaller races, he makes paramount.

He is saying that it is okay that the lesser evil will be the nominee, even though it is doubtful that she will prevail against Trump the way things look now, even if Sanders falls on his sword and breaks millions of hearts doing it.

The battle lines have been redrawn. Enemies are now friends. If General Sanders will be there to handle this new strange reality, help make the necessity clear, and hold a steady hand in steering the new direction, maybe this could fly.

That isn't happening.

Sanders has only mildly hinted that he will be heading up some new something very soon. So we hope that there is more direction. I am ready to expose, play by play, exactly how the Party keeps Bernie people outside the process. Meanwhile Party insiders infiltrate and sabotage the honest efforts of those who believe that he has created room for change.

There is indeed ample evidence, of which I can attest, that the Party will throw his supporters to the wolves. Telling people to run for office under these conditions is a tragic sacrifice of good hearted people.

Inspiration INTO Action

Inspiration INTO Action

Something I have learned in being an activist who has run for state and congressional office three times now, is that we have to be realistic as well as idealistic. That does not mean that we have to be simplistic or defeatist in any way.

I have had some people recently become very angry with me for showing a lack of Party Unity and 'divisiveness'. Clintonites to the core. That won't work with me; I don't fly in V-formation like a goose. I follow my conscience. Freedom lies in the telling of the truth.

I disagree with those who think we have to submit to the Clintons and allow them to make the country worse, so we can organize inside the Party to fight against them. It will be a disaster giving them the reins of power again. We have not recovered from the things Bill did last time when he turned the Democratic Party over to the Republicans with his ‘Centrist' policies leading the way to Neoliberalism and the Neocons.

We of the loyal opposition, Ralph Nader and other independents and anti-war activists alike, were swift boated, marginalized and penalized, even venalized for being true to progressive causes and not compromising our platforms. We were and are not dead, but are treated as though invisible.

Only until Sanders was able to convince people to try to work within the Democratic Party, via Political Revolution, and created a groundswell by brilliantly staying on message, did we have a message that could be brought forward in hopes of organizing a mass movement.

That is why I rejoined the Democrats—to bring Sander’s platform forward. That is the only reason to be a Democrat that I can see, since the high ground is the place to fight. There is no other significant high ground in the Party, there are only those of us left in a field that will be exterminated under a Clinton resurgence.

We have Sander's message but if Sanders bows to Hillary, we won’t have his leadership. It is not acceptable to leave the soldiers in the field unprotected from the Hawk. Sanders must either continue on or appoint a new leader to fill his place.

Hillary cannot be the only one we look to or trust; she is the ‘Bloody Mary’ of our day and she will retaliate—look to her record, and take extreme heed.

To support him early on, Sanders called us out of the fields of our endeavors and into the arenas of battle for his cause, our true cause, of saving the Country from oligarchic imperialism. He should look to those of us who have stood with him and called for Revolution.

We are being actively targeted for opposing the ‘Royalty'. The playbook has been used on his followers. My campaign was rendered trivial by a script following media, obscuring Sander’s message which I attempted to bring forward. The Primary is Tuesday but with Party conspiring it is clear that the outcome will reflect the favoritism continually shined on my ‘Bernie-lite’ opponent.

The media has done its sharpshooting on all our campaigns. Without Sanders message to support the groundswell for our efforts in running on Sander’s platform, it will not prevail under a Clinton Presidency, long enough to provide any reform within the Party.

The anti-war effort, under Obama has been said to have died, which is untrue--it was killed off, as was Occupy. We have stood our ground holding out hope for leadership. My White House rally to oppose Obama’s surge in 2009 stands on record as anti-war leaders and Presidential Candidates united, and all spoke as one. No media was present, but it is recorded on my website at EndUSWars.org.

We stand, still, but we have been treated as though we were the walking dead. This will also happen to the Sanderites if Sanders stops his fight.

Look to history for an example. We will be the intellectuals culled for extermination 'by a thousand cuts'. It cannot be acceptable, in my view, for Sanders to run a progressive, REVOLUTIONARY campaign and then abandon the field with so many millions of fighters ready to continue.

Sanders must choose amongst the faithful in his following. I suggest that leadership should go to Chris Hedges and Jill Stein.

Those who have called for Hillary to be our ‘unifier’ are deluded and are not to be empowered or trusted to lead the efforts forward. Following the Party ‘Unifiers’ is a weak, contrite, self-muted non-option which must be abandoned.

Furthermore, we cannot believe that the Democratic National Convention will provide justice or any Clinton concessions. The Democratic Party will silence delegates just the way that it did in the state conventions, where the State Party decided which delegates were malleable, enough to be chosen as their acceptable representatives. That means soft on Bernie.

There will be those who think they got chosen entirely on their own organizing merits. They did not notice that the Party in Maine had final decision over the delegate count at the state convention: delegate votes were tallied with no oversight accountability. When Bartlett walked the results alone up to the podium and announced them, there was no quorum to dispute the tallies. Suppression is real.

Therefore the fight is still in the field, though not at the National level, unless Bernie breaks rank.

We are left with a scrambled field. The General is not dead but he is not declaring where the standard will be placed. This is a failed strategy at present. The actual fight, as it stands now, is now going to be waged in the streets of Philadelphia, July 25 to 28.

UPDATE: There are indications that there is direction coming forth.  More anon.