Senator John Kerry, please report for duty if you think the 2004 election

[MelissaB]

had fraud. It appears that every who interviews RFK, Jr. will say that Senator Kerry doesn't believe there was fraud. I understand that there is a difference between proving fraud in a window of time and believing there was fraud enough to throw the election, but that's now how this will be played on television with talking points.

We are fighting for fair and clean elections. Please help us.

[LSparkle]

1. YES! He needs to clarify

that those quotes were right after the election, and if he now has doubts, say so. What about Mark Crispin Miller's quote from the cocktail party? Did JFK refute that?

[MelissaB]

2. What about this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1332766

Maybe he isn't afraid to express his doubts in private. :shrug:

[MelissaB]

4. snip from that report

"...I got to talk to him as we walked down the hall and rode down in the elevator together. I asked him about the Robert F. Kennedy piece that is coming out today in Rolling Stone in which Kennedy says that all the allegations of election fraud in Ohio are true, that the election was indeed stolen from Kerry, and that Kenneth Blackwell was definitely involved and it possibly went all the way to the White House. Kerry said he had seen the story and that he was quoted in it."

Edited to add link: http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/kerry_speech_pacific_conference.htm

[kerrygoddess]

62. I was there yesterday

I organized the meetup. I think we wil here more from him on this. he is very focused right now on getting the troops out of Iraq. Another issue that the rest of the Dem party is ignoring. I can tell you this... the Senator deserves some support from the blogosphere -- the bloggers in that meeting all acknowledged that he does far more than the rest of the Dem Senate caucus. Maybe we should acknowledge that too.

[blm]

5. What he needs is more Dems reading the article and finally joining him

on the issue. They have been reluctant and skeptical up till now.

The crucial part of that interview was Kerry saying we need to BAN electronic voting state by state - that's exactly what DUer Kelvin Mace has been saying and also other EV experts.

[kerrygoddess]

61. Thank you!

Yes, I just said this in another thread here - Where the F is the rest of the Dem party on this?

[Stinky The Clown]

83. PLEASE don't take this as a slam on Kerry

I honestly, sincerely do NOT mean it to be such ...... but when I read what you said ("Where the F is the rest of the Dem party on this?") what comes up for me is that *someone* better decide to be a leader on this.

I'm not in any way confining that to John Kerry. If you've followed my DU odessey in any way, you'll see I've gotten flamed by the supporters of virtually every Dem with a fan club for asking the same thing ...... "Where are our leaders on this?" "Where is our party on this?"

Here's the thing ...... there is really only one aggrieved party in this ... and that is the voter. Beyond that, others directly affected by fraud are Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry and John Edwards. And beyond that, the DNC has some standing in it all, but less than the principals.

SOMEONE *has* to lead.

And right now, Kerry's in the hotseat.

[MH1]

8. Sheesh, he's talked about it on Ed Schultz and

Stephanie Miller.

The audio links were posted all over DU each time.

:banghead:

[MelissaB]

12. Yep, I've heard them, but has the general public, & is this what the media

is using? NO!

[MH1]

14. If you are talking about Wolfie, then I believe he is a liar

based on what I saw on another thread about Wolfie talking to RFK and saying that Kerry didn't agree there was fraud.

Kerry AGREES there was fraud. Sheesh, it's even in the RS article (although he doesn't use the F word there, he HAS used it at other times). What he won't say is that it made the difference in the election - because based on what we KNOW today - and KNOW is a very strong word - it is impossible to say that unequivocably. There are at least a couple allegations in the RS article that make no sense to me, and some others that show very serious signs that there was tampering, but do not PROVE it.

And Kerry has co-sponsored bills to address the fraud. They will go nowhere because of the repuke congress, and also because as he says, anything that does come out of this congress will probably be worse - like HAVA.

[MelissaB]

22. Yes, Wolfie and Bowtie boy last night.

They both said basically the same thing. It doesn't take a genious to figure out the media spin already.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

3. He Has Our Backs....

Well.....perhaps not anymore.

Kerry doesn't care. He won, but that's over now. He just wants to get enough respect back so he can sucker enough people into supporting him when he runs again in the '08 primaries. That way he can get people to pay for his campaign again.

He won't get past the primaries, but that's irrelevant. It won't cost him a dime because he'll find plenty of willing supporters to give him money again.

But you won't hear a peep out of him regarding '04. That's over and done. Even if he did win.

[partisan]

6. We're all lucky.

We're so fortunate OrangeCountyDemocrat knows exactly what Kerry is thinking. We're so fortunate they're good friends.

The guy didn't think the election was stolen from him. It's pretty clear he's running in 2008. That makes it pretty clear to me that he wants to be president. It ALSO makes it very clear to me that if he thought there was any question that it was stolen from him, he would have fought.

[Leopolds Ghost]

28. I love all the armchair quarterbacks asking Kerry to stick his neck out

So his fellow Beltway Dems can butcher him for "going over the edge with bitterness and a sore loser mentality" and "buying into the hype amongst his far-left supporters". Learn some political TACT, people.

Just like, if someone's trying to draft you in a write-in campaign you do NOT say "sure, I want to be drafted!" you let other people do the talking and let folks make up their own minds. Kerry saw what they did to Gore and he was right to let people who were unimpeachable, like Murtha and RFK Jr., be the first to come out on these sorts of issues for which he was pilloried.

The whole MSM rap against Kerry was that he was trying to hide his "inner leftist" by PRETENDING to be strong, steadfast, etc.

He would play into that image of a closeted straightjacketed leftist (the same image Gore had) by coming out after the election and saying:

"It was stolen, I know 70% of my fellow DEMS don't believe it was stolen and now they won't believe ME on anything else I say, because I look like a fool to be the first to come out and say it was stolen, since I have no proof."

Just like the idiots who want Pat Fitzgerald (another prosecutor) to show his hand.

[MH1]

35. Hey no fair you're using logic.

;-)

[Marr]

57. I'd call that leadership, personally. This is an enormously important

issue, and Kerry could really bring it to the forefront if he so chose. And with the research that's been since 2004, he could make a real argument.

Would his competitors use it against him, and take away his shot at the Presidency? Almost certainly. But I would think a leader might put cause ahead of career.

[karynnj]

65. Kerry's statement on Stephanie Miller and in this article

show that he does not agree with you on the quality of the research. On Stephanie Miller, he said that some of the ways they supressed the vote were legal. Kennedy's Ohio chart actually backs this up - the votes lost to long lines, voter list purges (which are legal) and the rejection of the entire ballot if the voter was in the wrong precinct (though in the past the state wide votes still were counted (spirit of the law) all were lost without the letter of the law being violated.

What Kennedy, to his credit shows, is that there was a lot of Republican cheating that went on and it likely was enough to steal the election. (Some things are clearly estimates - ie there is no way to know the number of votes lost because the lines were too long. What Kerry (and I assume Kennedy) have focused on is the need to fix these low tech problems.

[ginnyinWI]

9. once again...

Of course he cares. He's just not going to "go there" without proof. Can you blame him, given the toxic media atmosphere in this country? They are going to want proof, and plenty of it.

Don't vote for him then, and don't give any money. But he has a right to try if he wants to.

[Imagevision]

72. Kerry would only drop his dime if the world supported election fraud inste

of bringing light to previous hearings/investigations that have already shed enough light on the election rip-off that the bling could see!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

94. And by remaining quiet, the former prosecutor is allowing

the criminals to go unpunished. At the same time, he is allowing what vestiges of Democracy we have left be stolen away too.

[MH1]

7. Looks to me like some others need to report for duty

S.1975
Title: A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 11/8/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Related Bills: H.R.4463
Latest Major Action: 11/8/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

COSPONSORS(4), BY DATE :


Sen Kerry, John F. - 11/10/2005
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 12/12/2005
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. - 12/12/2005
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 12/12/2005

Kerry has spoken about Ohio election fraud on Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller and probably others that I don't know about. He's brought it up at other times, I don't have the links handy.

So, I'm not sure why you are singling out Kerry on this. Do you really think the ONE guy (okay one of the TWO guys) that is susceptible to derailing the discussion by raising the "sore loser" meme is the BEST person to lead this charge? Do you REALLY think that?

Meanwhile - what are you doing to build momentum for the passage of S.1975? Hell, a few more co-sponsors would be nice, wouldn't they?

Maybe your next post should be "DU, please report for duty if you think the 2004 Election was stolen"?

[MelissaB]

11. I brought it up because he's the only one who can correct the misconceptio

misconception if there is one. This article may be the post prominent thing on the stolen election yet, and like I said in the OP interviewers will continue to say that Kerry said there was no problem.

Yes, I realize the work Kerry has done. Yes, it would be nice if more dems would chime in and there were more co-sponsors, but that's not what is in the media at the moment.

[politicasista]

13. That's the problem

Most dems haven't chimed in. If they would then maybe they could get the media attention, but they are downplaying this like nothing never happened and Blinky "won fair and square." :shrug:

[MH1]

18. If they say that Kerry said that then THEY LIE.

From the RS article:

Kerry conceded, however, that the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the outcome reflected the will of the voters. "I think there are clearly states where it is questionable whether everybody's vote is being counted, whether everybody is being given the opportunity to register and to vote," he said. "There are clearly barriers in too many places to the ability of people to exercise their full franchise. For that to be happening in the United States of America today is disgraceful."

Maybe the National Anthem should be sung in some other language for these people - because they sure as hell don't fucking speak ENGLISH.

And that's not even mentioning the other times he's gone on record.

Now tell me again though cuz I missed something:

KERRY is the only one who can correct the misconception? Why the fucking hell is that? He's said this on record.

EVERY SO-CALLED LIBERAL FUCKING PUNDIT OUGHT TO BE CORRECTING THESE LIES.

Like the campaign. The so-called liberal pundits duck and cover and don't even use the material the Kerry campaign issues to defend him against the repuke smears, then after the election somehow it is KERRY's fault, somehow HE "didn't defend himself"?

GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. JUST ONE LOUSY FUCKING BREAK.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke::nuke: :nuke::nuke: :nuke::nuke: :nuke::nuke: :nuke::nuke: :nuke:

Okay I'm done. I'm going to go have a beer and do something useful. Fuck this shit.

[politicasista]

19. Good rant n/t

[NightOwwl]

24. As usual, lots of huffing and puffing without making a commitment...

one way or the other.

He obviously didn't think there was a problem on the evening of November 2, 2004. And I don't see anything in his current statement that answers the question: Do you (Kerry) think the 2004 election was stolen?

He weaves and bobs very well, but it's pretty clear you won't get a straight answer from him when it comes to the events of 11/02/04.

[sandnsea]

36. He doesn't know

Knowing that there were election problems, and knowing that those problems really added up to enough votes to overturn the election are two different things. It's also a completely different thing to know that there was a coordinated conspiracy, and there's absolutely no evidence that Blackwell directed local BOE's to short machines or hack machines. Proving something in court is just not as easy as throwing out accusations in an article.

[NightOwwl]

41. Then he shouldn't have made that last request for funds....

funds that he said were to be used specifically for on-call lawyers who would be available to immediately investigate any perceived irregularities. I sent him money in good faith; he took it and put it in a pot for his 2008 run. So he can talk all he wants about voting irregularities, but unfortunately, the time for him to walk the walk has long passed.

[sandnsea]

45. The lawyers investigated

There are still court cases. What is it exactly you want?

There are tons of people investigating. Some people say the Ohio vote initiative election was stolen too. What's their malfunction? Why haven't those people brought down the election fraud?????

Some people say Max Cleland's election was stolen? Why no dumping on him? Cynthia McKinney is in Georgia, why isn't she leading the investigation into Georgia election fraud?

Why is John Kerry supposed to single-handedly solve every single problem in the world??

[Stevepol]

78. I like Kerry and he should be prez now, but it wouldn't take much to say..

"I don't know, maybe it's impossible to know for sure, but given the evidence I've seen, I BELIEVE the election was stolen in OH.

That would resolve the issue. He doesn't have to commit. "I may be proven wrong, but I believe, given the information I've seen, that the election was stolen, Yes." YES YES YES YES.

[karynnj]

66. Kerry's quote does not say there is no problem

he has repeatedly talked about the irregularities and the voter suppression - and was ridiculed for doing so. The first time he did this was on MLK day, 2005 - and was soundly trashed for misusing MLK day - you wouldn't think that MLK would object to inner city voters being disenfransized would you? The media didn't like it, but the largely black Boston audience did.

Kerry's precise, accurate statements haven't gotten that much press because they point out the very real problem without giving them an opportunity to make Kerry look like a fool.

[bemildred]

10. Kerry was part of the fraud. He quit.

Gore fought it all the way to the Supreme Court in 2000.
He had nothing left but to call for civil insurrection.

Kerry folded like a wet paper towel in 2004.

[Adelante]

15. Gore fought for however many days

Kerry at least has continued fighting. I don't think either of them have done enough. I don't think *anyone* has done enough. But don't call up Al Gore to put Kerry down on this. Kerry stays with it. He didn't retire to a mountaintop while the country went to hell in a handbasket.

[politicasista]

16. Despite the GOP controlled Congress, they're doing what they can

I agree with you.

[bemildred]

21. I call them like I see them.

Kerry will never see my vote again, or a nickel of my money.
Al will.

Kerry promised to fight for us, and he took our money, and then he crumpled up like paper mache.
He is a weathervane, and the wind is blowing, and hopefully one of these days it will blow him away.

[karynnj]

69. Who was your candidate in the primaries?

You're weathervane comment likely shows that you never were a supporter.

[bemildred]

70. I voted for Kerry in the November 2004 election.

I have never voted anything but Democrat in any presidential election, going back 40+ years.
Does that count or not?

[karynnj]

90. and who did you vote for in the PRIMARIES???

[bemildred]

92. It wasn't Kerry. Now you: does 40+ years of Democrat voting count?

[karynnj]

119. Of course it does and I never said that you weren't a Democrat

I was commenting that from what I remember of your posting, you clearly do not like Kerry. My comment was that you were not for him in the primaries in 2004 and will likely not be in 2008. I {i]assume that all of us will likely vote for the Democrat in the GE - I see no likely Democrat/Republican matchup where I wouldn't.

I guess what you are saying is that if Kerry wins the primary, you won't even vote for him in a GE against Allen, McCain, Romney .... If this is true, it is pretty sad.

[bemildred]

121. I don't see why it matters.

I don't like Kerry, therefore my opinion is suspect, or something like that? That's kind of circular, isn't it, I have to agree with you or I am "pretty sad". I did support him in the general election, reluctantly, because of his principled anti-war stand long ago. He appeared to me to be a big disappointment as a candidate. I don't see why I have to be enthusiastic about another go around.

If my choices are McCain or Kerry, I will vote for Kerry. That does not mean I have to accept such a unpalatable choice passively. There are candidates I like better to be had.

I don't dislike Mr. Kerry personally, he seems a nice enough man, and he has exhibited principled action in the past, but I have no enthusiasm at all for him as a presidential candidate, and my reasons for that are perfectly sensible, whether you agree with them or not.

[Raksha]

23. Kerry will NEVER get over that quick concession

that left so many good Democratic activists feeling heartbroken and betrayed. I remember how I sat on the couch and cried listening to that speech, and I didn't even pound the pavements! Kerry is very bright guy and a great senator, but some mistakes are simply irrevocable. The bottom line is that Al Gore FOUGHT for over a month for his presidency, and John Kerry conceded in less than 24 hours of the dirtiest election in US history. We don't know why he conceded so quickly. There may even have been good reasons for it, but it was a fatal error of judgment that can NEVER be reversed or overcome. I like John Kerry, but he won't get the 2008 Democratic nomination for that reason alone.

[bemildred]

58. Well said. nt

[never_get_over_it]

60. Its pretty clear to me why he conceded so quickly

and although I can't KNOW this is the reason - I believe with all my heart and soul he conceded quickly because he wants to run again - and didn't want to be tagged as a sore loser. But I'm sorry Senator Kerry our right to vote and have our votes counted honestly is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than your desire to be President. All Dems should be shouting from the rooftops about these machines and these repunk tactics and Kerry should be leading the charge - simply because those who want to make people who believe the election was stolen look like looney conspiracy nut cases simply say if John Kerry doesn't believe it - the one who lost the most - than how could it be true. Howard Dean should be screaming about these machines and tactics and should absolutely run parallel elections in key races in November. I have a very bad feeling that despite the fact that November should be an absolute blood bath for the repunks - that it won't be. The Dems aren't going to take back the House or the Senate and that will be thanks to the voting machines and tactics that started in 2000, worked on again in GA in 2002 - and perfected in 2004.

And for the record I also believe John Kerry, who given his history, should have NEVER voted for the Iraq War Resolution voted that way also because he was running for President. I am one of those Dems, who despite promising myself I would never vote for anyone who voted for the Iraq War Resolution, did and sent Kerry money too - but never again. Kerry is done for me.

[Raksha]

109. I'm skeptical of that "sore loser" story

because it just isn't in character. Kerry has proven he's got both physical and moral courage. That's a matter of public record. He's got a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts, and he's taken plenty of flack from the righties ever since his 1971 Senate testimony on Vietnam.

I just don't buy it that a guy like that would be so afraid of being called a sore loser he'd concede a clearly flaky election in less than 24 hours. And the people who would call him a sore loser didn't vote for him and never would vote for him anyway. Why pander to his enemies and antagonize his supporters? It doesn't make any sense.

My own belief (which of course I can't prove either) is that he was told by the Democratic party leadership that they wouldn't support him if he tried to contest the election, although I can't even begin to imagine WHY. But then I've never been able to understand their apathy on this issue--it looks pretty damn self-destructive to me.

It's also possible that he or his family were threatened. As I said in my earlier note, there might even have been good reasons. But in the end it doesn't matter. It was the single WORST thing he could have done if he had any desire to run again in 2008.

[NightOwwl]

26. folded like a wet paper towel....

:rofl:

[karynnj]

67. Gee, 537 = 100,000+

Kerry did not have prove - even RFK, jr's analysis would not stand up in court, especially as some of the lost votes were legally stolen.

[bemildred]

71. Gore did not have proof, either, so what?

Proof takes time, Kerry just quit immediately, no questions asked.

[karynnj]

87. Gore could ask for additional recounts as it was possible

that a manual recount would find 537 more votes. A recount in Ohio was not going to find over 100,000 votes.

Kennedy's analysis shows that there were 300,000 votes lost - not all of which would be Kerry's. Around half of these are the estimated votes that weren't cast due to long lines. Others were lost because they were cast at the wrong precinct - the letter of the law in Ohio is that they don't count.

What Kennedy's analysis in Ohio really shows is that Ohio's procedures need to be cleaned up an that if there was a clean, fair process Kerry would have won. It doesn't show enough legally countable votes to change the election. Looking to the future, the important thing is to fix the process. Even a year and a half later, there is not the type of evidence Kerry would have needed.

[bemildred]

93. Kerry said: "Get over it".

After saying "I will fight for you".
Well, I'm not getting over it, and there as lots of people that feel that same way.

[ProSense]

95. Nonsense! Only people in denial feel that way

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1344708&mesg_id=1344708

[bemildred]

96. Ah, the classic ad hominem attack.

You don't like my opinion, so I must be in denial, or ignorant, or confused, or something. I can assure you I paid close attention to the election, as most of us do here. He also said "Get over it", and other things, and ran a pusillanimous campaign in every respect against a very defeatable opponent, and then caved the next day and spent weeks trying to stay out of the spotlight, when he ought to have been raising hell about the stolen election.

[ProSense]

97. Everything you've said is refuted by the information provided. Denial! n/t

[bemildred]

98. It is a bunch of tedious bullshit.

I want political leadership, not legal wrangling.

[ProSense]

99. Facts are always tedious bullshit to people who prefer to ignore them. n/t

[bemildred]

100. Indeed, I ignore all facts whenever possible.

:rofl::rofl:

[ProSense]

101. I've noticed!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[bemildred]

102. Here are some "facts" for you to ignore:

"It's Time to Get Over It": Kerry Tells Anti-War Movement to Move On

02/18/04: Researchers and investigative reporters are fascinated with the neoconservatives, that group of American empire peddlers who turned George W. Bush into a junkie war criminal. A similar group, the New Democrats, has been pushing its own dangerous brand of U.S. hegemony but with much less fanfare.

The leading mouthpiece for the New Democrats' radical interventionist program could be our next president. John Kerry, the frontrunner in the quest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, has been promoting a foreign policy perspective called "progressive internationalism." It's a concept concocted by establishment Democrats seeking to convince potential backers in the corporate and political world that, if installed in the White House, they would seek to preserve U.S. power and influence around the world, but in a kinder, gentler fashion than the current administration.

In the battle to control the American empire, the neocons have in their corner the Partnership for a New American Century while the New Democrats have the Progressive Policy Institute. Come November, who will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?

In fall 2000, PNAC released Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. It's a blueprint for "maintaining global U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5707.htm

[ProSense]

103. Are you serious? What does saying get over "misinterpretations of

that war" (Vietnam) in February 2004 have to do with the stolen election?

[bemildred]

104. Completely serious.

Kerry is war party all the way.

[ProSense]

112. A Feb 2004 quote about Vietnam has nothing to do with election fraud! n/t

[ProSense]

114. Here express you concern about Iraq here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2658795&mesg_id=2658795

[bemildred]

105. Here is another:

John Kerry: Get over it

Kerry was tiptoeing on Sunday, but did go into how liberals shoot themselves in the foot. Exhibit A, he said, was the enormous amount of effort and money Democrats had to spend in the Northwest in 2000 "to pull people back from the (Ralph) Nader precipice." Invested elsewhere, it might have won the day for Al Gore. He is impatient with Democratic oratory about the "stolen" election. "Stop crying in your teacups," he told one audience. "It isn't going to change. Get over it.

http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/2003/07/john-kerry-get-over-it.html

[bemildred]

106. Here, have one more:

No, Senator Kerry, We Won't Get Over It, A Personal Commentary from the Chair of the Draft Gore 2004 Movement

As the nation prepared to celebrate her heritage of freedom last week, Senator John Kerry offered his own peculiar take on the meaning of democracy: "Stop crying in your teacups," he told an audience in response to outcries about the stolen election of 2000. "Get over it!" ("He is impatient with Democratic oratory about the 'stolen' election," a July 2 article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted.)

Get over it? We’re talking about one of the most sacred rights of a free society here, Senator, not about getting over a bad hair day. Americans have died to secure our freedoms -- including your right to run for office and our right to have our vote counted. If we believe that right was violated when the Supreme Court refused to count legal votes, it is our patriotic duty to say so.

Kerry's remark is an eerie echo of the Republican refrain of 2000 to "move on, get over it!" But why would a Democrat feel so threatened by people’s vivid memories of the stolen election that he felt compelled to lecture a crowd about it?

For two and a half years the establishment has engaged in a conspiracy to erase from the nation's consciousness one of the ugliest chapters in the history of American democracy. Yet the brainwashing did not work. People are still not getting over it.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/10_kerry.html

[ProSense]

113. So, "get over" Vietnam becomes get over the stolen election? Draft Gore?

You need to find reliable sources!

[bemildred]

108. And let's not leave Greg Palast out:

KERRY WON OHIO
JUST COUNT THE BALLOTS AT THE BACK OF THE BUS

This February, Ken Blackwell, Ohio's Secretary of State, told his State Senate President, "The possibility of a close election with punch cards as the state’s primary voting device invites a Florida-like calamity." Blackwell, co-chair of Bush-Cheney reelection campaign, wasn't warning his fellow Republican of disaster, but boasting of an opportunity to bring in Ohio for Team Bush no matter what the voters wanted. And most voters in Ohio wanted JFK, not GWB. But their choice won't count because their votes won't be counted.

The ballots that add up to a majority for John Kerry in Ohio -- and in New Mexico -- are locked up in two Republican hidey-holes: "spoiled" ballots and "provisional" ballots.

OHIO SPOILED ROTTEN
American democracy has a dark little secret. In a typical presidential election, two million ballots are simply chucked in the garbage, marked "spoiled" and not counted. A dive into the electoral dumpster reveals something special about these votes left to rot. In a careful county-by-county, precinct-by-precinct analysis of the Florida 2000 race, the US Civil Rights Commission discovered that 54% of the votes in the spoilage bin were cast by African-Americans. And Florida, Heaven help us, is typical. Nationwide, the number of Black votes "disappeared" into the spoiled pile is approximately one million. The other million in the no-count pit come mainly from Hispanic, Native-American and poor white precincts, a decidedly Democratic demographic.

Ohio Republicans, simultaneously in charge of both the Bush-Cheney get-out-the-vote drive and the state's vote-counting rules, doggedly and systematically insured the spoilage pile would be as high as the White House.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=393&row=1

[karynnj]

120. Link, please

I follow the JK group here, I've never heard that quote from Kerry. He has said that on a personal level you have to continue fighting. The only context I can imagine the quote is that we need to get past it, learn from it and fix things.

[EFerrari]

17. And there's Leslie, quoting Kerry's demural.

For Christ's sake, if not now, when?

[WiseButAngrySara]

20. Bingo! Wolff Blitzer just protrayed it this way. Let's start a DU letter

of request to press Kerry on this issue. He is already being intentionally misquoted, IMO!

[MH1]

25. Maybe we should press some liberal pundits to STAND UP to Wolfie?

Oh yeah, sure. Uh huh. What was I thinking?

:eyes:

[MelissaB]

27. I'm not sure what you were thinking, but do you have a problem with

Kerry stating his view one way or the other? Exactly what's wrong with that?

I didn't start this thread in hopes it would become a Kerry bashing thread because I still like and respect the man.

[sandnsea]

31. He has

He's clearly said there are serious election problems and reform is desperately needed. He's also said it needs to be done at the state level because if we let the Republican Congress do it, we'll end up with worse problems than what we've got now.

I could have sworn that was at the end of the article. Didn't you read it??

[MH1]

34. At the end of the RS article, AND I EVEN QUOTED IT

upthread.

Sorry for the caps. Off to find another beer.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[MelissaB]

42. Ya know, I read RawStory daily and keep a window open every weekday

at work, but the average American doesn't know about Raw Story or that article about Kerry.

Enjoy the beers. I mean that honestly.

[sandnsea]

50. Here

Contact your local paper and ask them if they're going to run anything on the election story.

Newsroom Contacts
Main Newsroom: 740-4725
Franklin County Bureau: 332-0140
Main Sports: 740-4715
Newsroom Fax: [phone]
Executive Editor: T. Wayne Mitchell, 740-5721

News events, story ideas:
Mike Goens, Managing Editor at 740-5740

http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=ABOUT

[MelissaB]

40. I even quoted that upthread, but that's not the spin.

:(

[sandnsea]

43. "stating his view one way or the other"

That's what you said, why can't Kerry stat his view one way or the other.

I guess my best hope is that you're about 15 and thought you could post this and everybody would just chime in. So whatever, I'm not going to waste any more of my time.

[MelissaB]

49. From the MSM

BTW, done with you, too. It's too bad you can't disagree without insulting.

[sandnsea]

52. I was being optimistic

As disjointed as your complaints in this thread have been, that was the absolute best case scenario I could think of.

And what are we disagreeing on? You said you agree that Kerry has made a statement on the election, you just can't seem to say why you chose to ignore that when you made your original post.

[MelissaB]

53. Look, if you can't see that this needs to be covered in the MSM

in addition to sites liberals listen to and read there is no need for discussion. Just keep listening to the same shit in the media that Kerry said there is nothing wrong.

[sandnsea]

54. That wasn't what your OP said

But nice tap dance.

As many of us have been saying for years now, if you want something in the media, you have to focus on what it is you want in the media; NOT bashing Democrats because the media won't do its job.

I listed your local newspaper. Contact them and get your local media to report the story the way you want them to. When you've accomplished that, contact the rest of the newspapers in your state. You are more likely to be listened to by your local newspapers than Senator Kerry. One person cannot get every media outlet to do their job, it takes a concentrated effort by local citizens. That's just the way it works. Senator Kerry cannot force the media to run stories the way he wants them run or ask questions the way he wants them asked, even when he's right there on the show.

[MH1]

32. He ** HAS ** stated his view, many times.

I even excerpted the RS article above.

I mentioned the appearances on various radio shows, for which I am sure transcripts are available.

MY problem IS with people not accepting what he has said, and backing it up. If you think it's not enough, fine. But don't AGREE with the lying MSM when it can clearly be shown that they are lying, when they frame it that he doesn't agree that there was fraud.

My **REAL** problem is not with you at all or anyone here who honestly thinks Kerry should go further in his statement. MY PROBLEM is with the pundits and so called liberal talking heads that let the lies stand about him "not stating his view one way or the other."

I'm really at a loss to understand why any Democrat wants to continue supporting the false memes that undermine someone who really is trying to do what's right.

[robbedvoter]

77. "stating views" not enough after his concession.

needs a bit more - how shall I put this? conviction? passion? fight? respect for voters and democracy?
Put the country before his self image (sore loser risks). Stuff like that.
Gore left us with the truth at least. Kerry's silence cover the lie. And don't forget the other chutzpa 2008 - Edwards - guilty of the very same.

[sandnsea]

30. Why not attack the damned press???

If THEY are the ones doing the distorting and misquoting, why the hell don't you attack THEM???

I will never understand that. Who was it that just said we should be blocking access to CNN and MSNBC until they start reporting facts. Stop blaming the victim when the media lies about them.

One person cannot take on the entire media, state and federal party committes, AND their political opponent too.

[sandnsea]

29. Right on schedule

Never mind that the "evidence" is supposedly out there, all in that RFK article, and that NOBODY has been arrested yet.

Never mind that the story hasn't gotten any traction whatsoever and that Bobby is being treated pretty much like a nutball.

Never mind any of that, just dump on John Kerry because he hasn't single-handedly discovered how the machines were hacked or uncovered a smoking gun memo that directed machines to be shorted in Dem precincts.

Yeah just dump on John Kerry when the media doesn't do it's job, once again, and chooses to make the story about John Kerry instead of about our democracy. Just like the swift boat lies should never have been about the Kerry campaign, election irregularities across the country should be covered outside the partisanship of particular candidates. That's what the press is supposed to do.

Come on all you balls and spine grassrooters, why don't you all step up and show us what you got. Make the press cover the stories that they've refused to cover for at least 5 years.

Either he ran the worst campaign in history and lost to the worst president in history. Or he won a great campaign and the election was stolen. But it can't possibly be both, so some of you who choose to dump every chance you get obviously have another agenda and that agenda sure isn't to benefit the Democratic Party.

[MelissaB]

38. I'm ROFL if this is directed at me.

I have never dumped on Kerry. You can search DU all you'd like and you won't find that at all.

The problem is the media keeps quoting and will keep (mis)quoting Kerry saying:

Sen. John Kerry -- in a wide-ranging discussion of ROLLING STONE's investigation -- expressed concern about Republican tactics in 2004, but stopped short of saying the election was stolen. ''Can I draw a conclusion that they played tough games and clearly had an intent to reduce the level of our vote? Yes, absolutely. Can I tell you to a certainty that it made the difference in the election? I can't. There's no way for me to do that. If I could have done that, then obviously I would have found some legal recourse.''

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/4

That's what the two talking heads who have interviewed RFK so far have picked out and twisted, and I can't do a damn thing about it or the other things you have listed above. You may not agree with the orginal post, but I'm no Kerry hater and I'd appreciate it if you and others wouldn't try to paint me that way.

[sandnsea]

39. It's directed at the thread

But the point remains, if you know what he said about the election, then why are you asking him to report for duty??

Wouldn't it make more sense to object to the media distortions and start a phone call, email campaign about their lying? No matter how many times this happens, why do we blame the victim instead of the lying media victimizer???

[MelissaB]

44. It was said on liberal radio and on a liberal website. What about the

rest of America who doesn't DU or seek out the news? How are they supposed to know that? Please don't say the talking heads will tell them. That will never happen. How can they know?

I'm really not trying to be a smartass. I'd like this article in Rolling Stone to receive positive airplay, and the talking heads keep beating RFK down with the same thing. I hope that changes as this progresses, but I doubt it will.

[sandnsea]

47. And so???

That's been the problem for years and years. What's John Kerry supposed to do about it? Shut off the power to CNN? You've got his statement. Get busy sending it to every single news outlet, that's the way you put the media on notice that people notice when they lie. If people would do that whenever any of our Dems get attacked, the media would stop attacking and distorting. Instead, we help attack the Dem. I don't know why, but that's what happens, over and over and over.

[ProSense]

48. Writing the media made easy!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2658991&mesg_id=2658991

[The Straight Story]

56. I think because it is felt he should be leading that charge, not us

The whole line about reporting for duty - he was shot at in vietnam, and yet he stayed and fought. Could have been killed for a war he did not believe in.

Now? Politics is a greater fear motivator than the viet cong. He could be out weekly stumping, putting out memos, railing about it on the floor, whatever. Great leaders take charge and lead, not try to have others wage the war for them while barely supporting it.

He could have conceeded when he did and still made it all an issue by coming out and saying he won't fight the political machine of * and crew, and will work everyday to insure we have fair elections because this one wasn't, etc and so on.

Dems in general (ie, the elected ones) are too worried about losing a job to fight damn hard on things. From Iraq to elections to supreme court nominees and so on down the line. Make a line in the sand and hold to it with all you got, even if you lose because you are the minority party you will at least be able to say you stood up and fought.

If americans see the few who are now leading as 'kooks' and 'out of touch' (and so on) what must they think about us folks that support them? Well - we don't care what they think, we fight on anyway because we have principles that we won't let be cowered into hiding.

Ya think Kerry or any other dems have bumper stickers that say 'bush lied, people died'? Or anything even remotely like that? Sure they will talk tough at times (and I thank them for those times) but if they were my employees I would fire most of them and hire some folks from DU for the job. Oh wait - they are our employees....

[bemildred]

59. Well, I disagree.

He ran a bad campaign, not the worst in history, but bad. And he won anyway. And then he guit in a way that prevented further scrutiny of the vote stealing and ensured that Bush had another chance to fuck up the country, which Bush has continued to do.

[Xenotime]

33. They need to stand up for the truth...

the GOP has had it their way for far too long.

[Sensitivity]

37. Unfortunately, the uninformed "Joe and Janes" don't like a complainer.

It not smart for Kerry to cry over spilt milk on the campaign trail.

He has to deal with the challenges we face today.
If he could prove fraud in public that would be another thing.

[ProSense]

46. Kerry did say something!

His statement is in the article:

Sen. John Kerry -- in a wide-ranging discussion of ROLLING STONE's investigation -- expressed concern about Republican tactics in 2004, but stopped short of saying the election was stolen. ''Can I draw a conclusion that they played tough games and clearly had an intent to reduce the level of our vote? Yes, absolutely. Can I tell you to a certainty that it made the difference in the election? I can't. There's no way for me to do that. If I could have done that, then obviously I would have found some legal recourse.''

Kerry conceded, however, that the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the outcome reflected the will of the voters. ''I think there are clearly states where it is questionable whether everybody's vote is being counted, whether everybody is being given the opportunity to register and to vote,'' he said. ''There are clearly barriers in too many places to the ability of people to exercise their full franchise. For that to be happening in the United States of America today is disgraceful.''

Kerry's comments were echoed by Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. ''I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided,'' Dean says. ''We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened, and we'd like to safeguard our elections so that democracy can still be counted on to work.''

Does anyone believe those are not Kerry's words, that he is likely to say something different?


RFK Jr. and Rolling Stone are calling for an investigation, which means the article isn't the end all.

[UTUSN]

51. "Reporting for duty" is WAY too late. We need to fight AT THE TIME

[robbedvoter]

75. It'd still help now, before the next election

Although the selfishness is duly noted.

[brindis_desala]

55. The crucial point in the RFK article was this:

<snip> America's voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. "We didn't have one election for president in 2004," says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. "We didn't have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities."

It is not enough to charge that there was voter disenfranchisement. The problem is that part of the Republican strategy has been to balkanize our elections. This has to be tackled state by state, county by county and it will TAKE TIME. HAVA was a trojan horse because it allows for easier manipulation of larger numbers. The sad truth is there are many Democrats who do not want to see the system become more transparent nor do they want to see the minority vote fairly represented perhaps because they (ie a certain Gov. Richardson) have national ambitions and fear being tagged as "too liberal". Bad as things are and as much as I agree the public deserves this information there is not all that much that can be accomplished without a Democratic Congress. It comes down to lots of letters to Election supervisors and good old shoe leather. But kudos for all your excellent work Melissa B. it is invaluable!

[upi402]

63. We need to fund FULL state recounts if the election monitors get blocked

Gore would have won if the entire banana republic of Florida had been recounted -by ANY method of recount used.

[Kerry fan]

64. Gore's fight to the Supreme Court

Did a lot of good, didn't it? It really helped to make our election system more clean and honest, didn't it? Really cleaned up the dirty tricks and the fraud, didn't it? And, after the election, there was Gore, right on the job, continuing to fight for us? Continuing to work hard to prevent another election from being stolen? Really showed us that he cared as much about our rights to vote as he did about his loss, didn't he?



No, you say? That's all wrong? He did none of that? He promptly slinked out of sight and curled up in his own little world and licked his wounds in private, without a backward glance at those who had worked so hard for him? He did nothing to try and help insure that no other candidate would suffer the fraud and dirty tricks that he had suffered? Geez, you mean he didn't work with his party to improve the voting conditions and fraud in our election system?

Well, good news. Kerry didn't go to the Supreme Court to try and argue why he should be president. He went to court in the state where the fraud and dirty tricks happened to try and show that the voters, not he, had been cheated. He tried to expose the fraud in the system, to clean up the system, so future elections may be more honest. Damn you, Kerry! Why did you care so much more about the election system and the voters than you did your own aspirations? You should have been more selfish, like Gore, selfishly fight for yourself, and if you didn't win the fight, just fade into oblivion, hoping all would blow over and you could come back another day, a big hero, the one who fought to the Supreme Court and made a laughing stock of yourself and your "sore loser" supporters.

But, no, John Kerry, you just had to stay in there, quietly fighting under the radar, where none but the closest observers saw you working your heart out, for future honest elections. Even tho the officials in your own party tried to ignore your fight, did nothing to assist you in proving election fraud. Damn man, how can you be so unselfish, patriotic, and caring?


IMO, You Gore supporters need to get a grip and stop trying to divide the party. Stop trying to claim that what Gore did was so much better than what Kerry did.

IMO, what Gore DIDN'T DO, speaks volumes. He DIDN'T stay in the fight to help make our election system cleaner. If he and the rest of the democratic party had worked on that problem, who knows, maybe Kerry would be president instead of Bush. Or, did the officials in the democratic party want Kerry to lose, to set the stage for Gore, Hillary or another in 2008?

I like Gore, and even tho I was very disappointed that he didn't stay and fight for the voters, for cleaner elections for our future, I could still support him if he is nominated in 2008.

I want so much for Kerry to be president that I sometimes still cry when my thoughts wander to that election. It hurt me far more than when Gore lost.

That said, I could easily support a Gore/Kerry ticket. I could easily support a Gore whoever ticket.

But, Gore was no angel in the after action of his losing. He slinked out of sight, leaving us on our own, with a fraudulent election system, to, once again, lose an election to the Karl Rove dirty tricks slime machine. With the erroneous logic some of you try to use against Kerry, I suppose I should say I will never forgive Gore for leaving us in the clutches of Karl Rove, instead of staying and helping us fight the fraud?

Do you know how many democratic candidates across this country Kerry is helping to fight the fraud? How many did Gore help after he lost his election?

Support Gore if you wish, that is your right. If he is nominated, I will give him my utmost support. But, it is not in the best interests of the country nor the party for you to act like Rove neoCONs, and "Swiftboat" Kerry, when you don't have all the facts, and obviously don't care enough about the party's or the country's best interests, to get your facts and info correct.

Gore slinked off and selfishly licked his wounds in private. Kerry held his high, and is fighting for an honest election system, he is fighting for democrats across the country, both financially and verbally, he is making powerful speeches and encouraging people to be active in holding their government accountable.

I choose the John Kerry way. I choose John Kerry.

[MelissaB]

73. Ummm....right!

IMO, You Gore supporters need to get a grip and stop trying to divide the party. Stop trying to claim that what Gore did was so much better than what Kerry did.

You've been a DU'er long enough to know about the election forum, right? That's where I hang out the most. Most of us there supported Kerry though the election. Many of us continue to support him. If he wins the nomination, I'll support him again.

Since you directed this at me, let me tell you that the OP was in no way an effort to divide the party or make one candidate look better than the other. Get real! I want this dirty election exposed.

[Raksha]

110. Gore supporters are dividing the party???

It's totally possible to defend Kerry without trashing Gore! I don't know why you think you have to do that, but you've been doing it on a couple of threads that I know about. The one thing I have against him is his quick concession. I think that was a huge mistake for a number of reasons, which I've gone into in other posts. Other than that, I like and respect him. But that's no thanks to you, because your snarky posts are no credit to him to say the least.

[TexasLawyer]

68. If Kerry believed fraud happened

he sure hasn't done a thing about it (that I have heard about).

Friday, November 4th, 2005
Mark Crispin Miller: “Kerry Told Me He Now Thinks the Election Was Stolen”

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/04/1532222

[robbedvoter]

76. kerry sent a flunkie to retract that one, BTW. Why upset BFEE?

[robbedvoter]

74. That goes for Edwards too. "He wanted to fight" is wearing thin.

Wanna fight, Johnny? get in and duke it out!
They both are fixin to "run" (or running to fix?) again.
What about your voters from last time guys? Were they losers? Care to enlighten?

[robinlynne]

79. I CLEARLY remember a man who walked away without getting the votes counte

counted. I remember a PROMISE to get every single vote counted. I have friends who quit tehir jobs, yes quit their jobs to work full time for kerry. We all went to other states to protect the vote after 2000. He walked away. He stepped down. The lawsuits in Ohio were lost for lack of funding. We needed Kerry to stand up. The only possible reason to let the fraud go unchallenged was to "be nice" to the nice republicans. He may be a wonderful senator. In 2004 he let millions of us down. That fact, and its repercussions, is much more important than ANY career or ANY human being can ever be.

[ProSense]

81. You remebered wrong!

By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

Kerry continued legal efforts:

Today, Kerry-Edwards filed a document in support of that statement. Most significant, Kerry-Edwards also filed today a separate document in support of our motion for hearing with two critical attachments: 1) a declaration from Kerry-Edwards attorney Don McTigue regarding a survey he conducted of Kerry-Edwards county recount coordinators; 2) a summary chart of the results of that survey (which highlight the inconsistent standards applied during the recount).

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/24/183243/756


http://www.truthout.org/pdf/cobbbadnariktransfertatement22305.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmctiguedecl22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmotionforhearing22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardssummarychart22405.pdf (counting)
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardstransferstatement22405.pdf

They were thrown out by the courts, by partisan players, but if there was solid evidence not even partisanship would have been able to refute the case. As Conyers report stated:

Whether the cumulative effect of these legal violations would have altered the actual outcome is not known at this time. However, we do know that there are many serious and intentional violations which violate Ohio’s own law, that the Secretary of State has done everything in his power to avoid accounting for such violations, and it is incumbent on Congress to protect the integrity of its own laws by recognizing the seriousness of these legal violations.

B. Need for Further Congressional Hearings

It is also clear the U.S. Congress needs to conduct additional and more vigorous hearings into the irregularities in the Ohio presidential election and around the country.

While we have conducted our own Democratic hearings and investigation, we have been handicapped by the fact that key participants in the election, such as Secretary of State Blackwell, have refused to cooperate in our hearings or respond to Mr. Conyers questions. While GAO officials are prepared to move forward with a wide ranging analysis of systemic problems in the 2004 elections, they are not planning to conduct the kind of specific investigation needed to get to the bottom of the range of problems evident in Ohio. As a result, it appears that the only means of obtaining his cooperation in any congressional investigation is under the threat of subpoena, which only the Majority may require.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/issues/issues/election.html

More in these interviews:

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/122105SenatorKerry.mp3

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0517_kerry.mp3


As Rolling Stone now states:

Enough. Only a complete investigation by federal authorities can determine the full extent of any bribery and vote rigging that has taken place. The public must be assured that the power to count the votes -- and to recount them, if necessary -- will not be ceded to for-profit corporations with a vested interest in superseding the will of the people. America's elections are the most fundamental element of our democracy -- not a market to be privatized by companies like Diebold.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10463874/editorial_a_call_for_investigation

[mopinko]

80. the outcome cannot be trusted, that is what he should say.

that is what he has said, and that is what we should all be saying. because that is the most important point. kerry won or bush really won is not the point. stolen, rigged, unintentionally screwed up, whatever. that is not the point. the point is that we held and election and the actual winner could not be determined to that satisfaction of people who looked at it closely. the point is that our votes are not counted in the open. they are not counted with an acceptable level of accuracy.
kerry could say all that perfectly honestly, effectively, and be heard. but he doesn't. why? melissa is perfectly correct that kerry's failure to demand a public and accurate count of all the votes, everywhere, has crippled election reform as an issue. a leader would stand up. period.

[ProSense]

84. That's nonsense!

The effort is only being crippled by people laying blame instead of building support. How many more Democrats (and Republicans) in the Senate have been encouraged to support an investigation. Name one more. Not even Barbara Boxer is leading call to investige the election. Members of Congress listen to their constituents. Yet, not one more has come out in support of an investigation. Conyers has said repeatedly said that the outrage must come from voters (no different from the impetus behind members of Congress joining his censure motion). So laying blame on Kerry is a cop out. Everyone should be putting pressure on all members of Congress.

This meme that Kerry has damaged the effort has been repeated since the election. Now, RFK Jr. comes out with more convincing research---compiled over several months---to call for an investigation, and proves that the effort is is ongoing, not damaged. He even quotes Sen. Kerry, who was obviously aware that the article was being prepared. Does anyone know exactly what his involvement was? The idea that Kerry is going to come out and make a statement and all these members of Congress are going to line up in support of an investigation is nonsense!

[karynnj]

88. That's what he has said repeatedly

including in the Rolling Stone article. Teresa has also said that.

[pat_k]

82. What Kerry sez is irrelevant--voters are the only stakeholders that matter

. . .it was the same BS we heard from members of the Senate when they rationalized their silence on January 6th, 2001 and again on January 6th, 2005.

"Gore doesn't want us to stand up." "Kerry isn't disputing the result. . ."

It is the will of the PEOPLE that an election measures, NOT the will of the candidate.

Sure, push Gore to admit his failure; push Kerry to tell the truth to the public, but make no mistake. Neither Kerry nor Gore are the stakeholders who get to say Yeah or Nay to unverifiable and unbelievable results. Neither Kerry nor Gore have the right to declare a discriminatory election to be legitimate. (I don't care what the so-called "margin of victory", an election that systematically denies voters their right to vote must ALWAYS be rejected. Accepting the results of an unfree and unfair election is an intolerable violation of everything we stand for as Americans.)

The only stakeholders that matter are the voters and the ONLY answer when pund-idiots invoke Kerry's (or Gore's) dismissal of the truth is "So What?" -- or if you want to be more verbose:

Kerry's statements are unfortunate and misguided, but they are also irrelevant. The voters have been denied their right to have confidence that the man who occupies the White House was elected by the people in a free and fair election. If Kerry chooses to be complicit in denying the voters their rights, that is his personal failure. His failure cannot be used to rationalize away voters' rights or to rationalize away the undeniable evidence that Election 2004 was stolen.

[Raksha]

111. You're absolutely right.

"It is the will of the PEOPLE that an election measures, NOT the will of the candidate.

Sure, push Gore to admit his failure; push Kerry to tell the truth to the public, but make no mistake. Neither Kerry nor Gore are the stakeholders who get to say Yeah or Nay to unverifiable and unbelievable results. Neither Kerry nor Gore have the right to declare a discriminatory election to be legitimate."

Very well stated.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

85. Come on Kerry -call it like it really is!

It's time-
And stop listening to your hurtful aides-
do what's in your heart!

[philly_bob]

86. Be the warrior we nominated and voted for

We didn't vote for a 6'4" war hero and jock because we were looking for a cautious, precise legal strategist.

You know all too well what's at stake in continued Republican election tampering.

[karynnj]

89. Although Kerry is a 6'4'' war hero and very athletic,

I voted for him because of his abilities as a proscecutor, a Lt Governor and Senator.

He can't declare war on the Republicans and it would not be productive for him to beat up George Bush personally.

This has been a problem that existed at least since 2000, no one man could fix it - and certainly not one running for President.

[TayTay]

91. Senator Kerry does believe there was fraud.

He does not believe that he has or had the evidence to overturn the election.

Neither do I. Neither do a lot of people. That would have required evidence that would stand up in a court of law, not in the court of wishful thinking.

Kerry spoke out about fraud and Republican dirty tricks many times in 2005 and has done so in 2006 on many occassions.

Why do people here insist on repeating the outright lie that Kerry doesn't believe fraud happened? He does believe it happened. He has said so on many occasions. I was present at 4 of them and heard this with my own lips. I had a private meeting with him and about 12 other people last Dec. We posted about it at DU. We asked him point blank about this. He said there was fraud.

What we are lacking is evidence that will stand up in court.

Why don't people care that what they are saying is a lie and is based on wishful thinking that helps no one.

[politicasista]

107. Thanks for being a voice of reason here n/t

[robbedvoter]

115. Why Kerry folded (or what he gave as reason):

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/11/04/kerry_forces_planned_for_a_battle_that_never_was/
According to Cahill, the uncounted Ohio ballots, on which Kerry's fortunes depended, were not overwhelmingly from Democratic-rich counties and cities in Ohio, but rather dispersed relatively evenly across the state -- meaning a share of votes for Bush as well. And while a team of lawyers pressed to go to court on Ohio at 8 a.m. to challenge the state's vote-counting procedures, Cahill said, Kerry did not see the point.

''He immediately just decided that in order to go forward in a time of war, was not something that he wanted to put the country through," Cahill said.

[ProSense]

117. Yet, he did go forward!

Today, Kerry-Edwards filed a document in support of that statement. Most significant, Kerry-Edwards also filed today a separate document in support of our motion for hearing with two critical attachments: 1) a declaration from Kerry-Edwards attorney Don McTigue regarding a survey he conducted of Kerry-Edwards county recount coordinators; 2) a summary chart of the results of that survey (which highlight the inconsistent standards applied during the recount).

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/24/183243/756

http://www.truthout.org/pdf/cobbbadnariktransfertatement22305.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmctiguedecl22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmotionforhearing22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardssummarychart22405.pdf (counting)
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardstransferstatement22405.pdf

More in in his own words:

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/122105SenatorKerry.mp3

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0517_kerry.mp3

[Jeffersons Ghost]

116. I WONDER IF THE RFK Jr ARTICLE IS MORE "JAZEERAGATE"

like Jessie Macbeth. Check it out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1348089

[helderheid]

118. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past

24 hours