I wish Kerry and Gore would have had the balls.............

[Flabbergasted]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4924676.stm

Berlusconi 'is biding his time'
By David Willey
BBC Rome correspondent


Mr Berlusconi is already looking towards the next election, analysts say
"I'm waiting! I'm waiting! I'm not an impatient person!"

This is what Italy's Prime Minister-elect Romano Prodi told a journalist in Rome who asked him whether he had yet received a telephone call from Silvio Berlusconi admitting defeat in last week's general election.

Few political observers believe that Mr Berlusconi, known for his combative character, is likely to admit for the moment that he has lost the election, even though the result for the lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, has been officially confirmed by the highest Court of Appeal.

[saltpoint]

1. I figure both Gore and Kerry for a full set each.

[NYCGirl]

2. If you remember correctly, Gore did, in fact, unconceed. SIX WEEKS later,

the SCOTUS ruled.

[blm]

3. If you have hard evidence then send it to JK's office and ccNYT and WaPost

As far as I know, the Dem party needed to secure the machines BEFORE the election, because after is too late since rigged machines are set up for onetime use.

Kerry's team has been hoping a real whistleblower would pop up who could provide sworn testimony re the fraud.

BTW, do you judge the size of your balls by any standard? Are they big enough to steer your boat INTO machine gun fire to rescue another? Chase down an enemy soldier who was shooting at your crew with a shoulder rocket? Or to uncover government corruption ON YOUR OWN in the senate? Or to prosecute Mafia bosses?

[Lostnote06]

14. I like how you think....geat post

[calmblueocean]

4. WTF? Bush v. Gore went all the way to the Supreme Court.

I suppose you think Gore is a pussy because he didn't grab an AK and start his own army. Geez.

Sorry if this sounds cranky. I just get tired of people bringing out this same old line of crap.

[pat_k]

8. Gore failed us when he folded to the treasonous edict handed down by . .

. . . the felonious five black-robed robbers. (See None Dare Call It Treason}

But, he can come clean, admit his failure, and tell American the truth of what happened anytime. By coming clean and redeeming himself, he would radically change the dynamics and put the nation on the road to redemption.

The same goes for Kerry,

See posts #11 and #41 here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2574553#2574577

[LittleClarkie]

10. What did you expect him to do, start a revolution?

Seriously. What did you expect him to do exactly. And for the record, "come clean" isn't specific enough.

[pat_k]

11. I described what he was obligated to do in the referenced posts

Here's #41 (referenced above)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2574553#2575286

Here's #59, added subsequently:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2574553&mesg_id=2579184

[jillan]

5. I am a HUGE Kerry supporter, but I confess....

I thought about him and Gore while listening to this story.....

[pat_k]

6. Either of them can "Come Clean" at any time. . .

. . .and radically change the political dynamics.

See posts #11 and #41 here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2574553#2574577

[LittleClarkie]

9. What do either of them have to come clean ABOUT!?

THEY didn't steal the election. If anyone did, it was Diebold and Bush Co. THEY are the ones that should, but never will, come clean. I'm hoping the truth comes out in the wash later.

Both Gore and Kerry have my utmost respect.

[pat_k]

12. Conceding to fascists and thereby failing to fulfill their oath to support

. . .and defend the constitution.

Kerry's first, and perhaps most grievious mistake, was his failure to join with the CBC in objecting to the illegitimate Florida Electors on January 6th, 2001.

Every member of the 107th Congress, with the exception of the CBC, shared in this failure.

He again failed us when he did not withdraw his concession as soon as it became clear that the election in Ohio election was corrupted by systematic vote suppression, data manipulation, human and machine error, and willful fraud. (And, it was crystal clear that there were serious problems about a week after the nation voted.)

Had he done so, it is very likely we would have sworn in President Kerry on January 20th, 2005. But, whatever the outcome, the corruption of the election in Ohio would have gotten the attention it warranted. With exposure of the corruption in Ohio, it is very likely that the corrupt elections in Florida, New Mexico, and other states have been opened up to some very serious public scrutiny too.

Gores failures are discussed in these posts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2574553#2575286

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2574553&mesg_id=2579184

[marmar]

7. Berlusconi might be in prison by the next election...

where his "no sex until the election" vow won't do him any good. :scared: :loveya:

[LSdemocrat]

13. I'm sorry, but after the highest court goes against you, it's obnoxious

Yes the US Supreme Court voted on partisan lines, but for better or worse, it's the Supreme Court, end of story. Short of encouraging a coup, there's not much you can do.

[blm]

15. The press was already inclined to brutalize any Dem to undercut any future

credibility of that person, as well. Gore and Kerry stayed alive to fight in other ways, and I expect more good will come of it, eventually. They are both too earnest of public servants to doubt their motives, imo.

I sure as hell wish the two of them would FULLY RECOGNIZE the machine fraud and work against it.

[AtomicKitten]

16. The 2000 judicial coup d'etat left Gore little choice other than civil war

Kerry on the other hand yielded too readily IMO.

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. I do not follow your logic.

Gore only had to contest 500 ballots in a few counties. That's SUREFIRE grounds for a recount. Kerry was down by tens of thousands of votes - NOT surefire grounds for a recount, at all. We can talk about electronic vote fraud until we're blue in the face, but allegations get you jack squat in a court of law. Kerry has NO case to prove anything unless/until a whistleblower comes forward and exposes the Bushco election theft. And we all know what Buscho does to whistleblowers.

What would you have had Kerry do? Start a civil war, as you claim Gore would have been foolish to do?

[AtomicKitten]

19. Gore was stopped in his tracks by the Supreme Court.

I'm just saying, of the two, Kerry had a better chance at contesting the election, although that would have been quite an undertaking. However, it could have been pinpointed and settled in Ohio. The problem with that kind of massive fraud is that it was so widespread Kerry would have had a hard time organizing a strategy to be victorious in a litigious sense.

Fahrenheit 9/11 showed the pissed off protesters on the inaugural route in January 2001 that was never even reported in the news. That could very easily have escalated, and sometimes I wish it had.

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. He had absolutely no chance of contesting the election successfully

As I replied to the OP below, the missing link most people on DU forget about is HARD EVIDENCE. Where is this court-admissible iron-clad proof that not only did a) electronic fraud occur but b) it flipped enough votes to change the outcome of the election? If it existed, do you seriously think Kerry would ignore it and say "oh well"?

Again, what is absolutely crucial in proving fraud as systemic as 2004's is for a whistleblower to come forward, present evidence of election theft, and be able to admit said evidence in a court of law. Kerry is still involved in lawsuits in Ohio, but without proof, they are going nowhere. Evidence, evidence, evidence - without it you CANNOT make a case for anything.

[AtomicKitten]

23. I think our view of this can be summed up in the pictures in our sig line.

:)

Peace.

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. I don't think it should be a Gore vs Kerry thing

I don't think, by advocating for Kerry, that I have to marginalize Gore in any way. Nor should you feel as if you have to blame Kerry in order to elevate Gore somehow. That's just silly. Gore and Kerry are both brave, noble patriotic men who deserve our admiration and respect. They were both victims of fradulent elections. The notion that one is more a victim than the other is rather silly and loses sight of the bigger issue - WE THE PEOPLE were screwed twice by being deprived of our rightful President and instead forced to accept Chimpy. That each of us supports a different one for 2008 matters not at all, especially in regards to the issue of election theft.

Peace.

[AtomicKitten]

26. Agreed - and the issue of election fraud looms still

Most pundits believe our 2008 candidate must win BIG in order to counter all efforts by the GOP to win by any means necessary.

My son voted for the first time in 2004 and I am so angry that this is his baptism into politics.

I don't think I want to live in this country anymore if we can't effect a regime change.

FTR, although a Gore candidacy in 2008 would be a wet dream for me, I will work my ass off for the Democratic candidate, whoever that may be. I would have a special appreciation for either Kerry or Gore having a rematch.

[WildEyedLiberal]

31. It was my first election too.

I cast my ballot on a piece of paper in Illinois, so I am reasonably sure it was counted, but I volunteered in Columbus, Ohio the weekend before the election - where some of the most egregious fraud took place. It hurts to know that despite all our energy and activism, Karl Rove had some people rig some machines and steal it all away.

Although Bush will not be candidate again, I think bringing down the BFEE is the single most significant thing we can do to bring their entire tawdry scheme to light, including election fraud. If the GOP's approval ratings are in the toilet, a Republican presidential win in 2008 will strain public credulity. Unfortunately, the media functioned as an extension of the Bush campaign in both 2000 and 2004 which not only tarred our candidates with unfair smears and labels, but promoted Bush endlessly to the point where a Bush election win was not out of the realm of feasibility.

Keep the scandals coming and the GOP's approval rating at 33% and there is no way in hell even Joe Moron would believe that the Republican won fair and square.

[AtomicKitten]

32. you are a credit to your generation - I am in awe at your political savvy

[WildEyedLiberal]

34. That's a sweet thing to say! Thanks!

:)

I have always enjoyed your thoughtful, rational posts on DU. Sadly, rationality seems to be seriously lacking around here some days. (Your sig pic is beautiful, too. What a lovely picture of Al and Tipper.)

[karynnj]

25. Gore had the better chance

Gore was down by I think 537 votes. He chose a logical way to deal with it in demanding manual recounts in 3 big Democratic counties. This could have found enough votes, but didn't. He opted not to go after the non-felons (all black ) on the Choice point produced felons list.

There were around 5000(I think this is the right number - but it's been at least 5 years since I read it) non felons. Assume 20% of them would have voted - that would be 1000 votes. The black vote was over 90% Gore - mathematically this would have been 800 net votes for Gore - and 20% is a VERY low voter participation rate.

I bring this up not to trash Gore. The point is that here it is provable to a reasonable person that this cost Gore many more votes than he needed to make up the difference. Yet, there was no way to take it to court and change the electors before early January, 2000. For Kerry, there is not even a case as easy to understand and logically prove it was likely a Kerry win.

Both men were victims to people who would cheat. As to the protesters, I remember sitting with my kids watching them on TV. It was covered for many many minutes.

Your 2 sentences here seem to contradict each other.
"I'm just saying, of the two, Kerry had a better chance at contesting the election, although that would have been quite an undertaking. However, it could have been pinpointed and settled in Ohio. The problem with that kind of massive fraud is that it was so widespread Kerry would have had a hard time organizing a strategy to be victorious in a litigious sense. "

Kerry, his brother, and various Democratic lawyers have said there was absolutely no case. The real problem may have been suppression and confusion - neither of which allow Kerry to claim the lost votes not cast.

[AtomicKitten]

28. you're right - they were both victims (and so were we)

I was pointing to the finality of the Supreme Court decision; comparatively based on that, Kerry had the better chance but, as you pointed out, that was pretty much slim to nothing.

[blm]

18. You think Gore would've contested if the media said he lost by 3m popular

votes?

I highly doubt he would have.

[AtomicKitten]

21. well, in retrospect, that's tough to digest knowing the

massive fraud that has been uncovered in the 2004 election, particularly in Ohio, something I think most of us suspected right from the get-go.

No, I agree Kerry and Gore were both pretty much screwed. My point was the Supreme Court 5:4 decision in 2000 pretty much drove a stake through Gore's campaign.

[karynnj]

27. "The massive fraud that has been uncovered" ???

This has not been proven. The problem is that people repeat other people's claims until it's deemed conventional wisdom. However, outside places like DU, there is no believe of this.

There were many attempts to diminish the Democratic vote. Kerry's case would not have made it to the Supreme court, it would have been rejected immediately.

[AtomicKitten]

30. I think the proof is more tangible than you give credit.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00237.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml
http://johnconyers.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BBD0FBB2E-BAE6-4A15-9517-E9E135D8F0C7%7D

But, you're right, it certainly wasn't mainstreamed thanks to our ever-negligent, impotent media.

[WildEyedLiberal]

33. Conyers' report is excellent

I think that's another key missing piece - perhaps a whistleblower would come to light if the media showed absolutely any inclination of taking election theft seriously. As it is, it's been relegated to the "crazy tinfoil-hat loonybin" along with 9/11 conspiracies and New World Order/Freemason/Illuminati conspiracies. That's a deliberate contrivance on the part of the media to dismiss something as frighteningly real as the voting irregularities in Ohio with cuckoo flights of fancy a la something out of a Dan Brown novel.

I wish I could say I remembered when we had a real free press, but I am too young.

[karynnj]

35. I have looked at a lot of it

It is suspicious to me that so many exit polls were all off as far as they were in the same direction. I do not find the "shy Bush voter" logical or believable. (It's also simply a hypothesis to explain why predicted and actual are different - where the assumption is made that the actual was correct and there were no design flaws in the polling methodology.)

I find it suspicious, because it Ohio, the greatest number of "shy Bush voters" occurred where most people voted for Bush. Also, it is rare to see "shy voters" differing that much by candidate. I could actually make a better case for "shy Kerry" voters in conservative areas where they were voting against their religious leader. The distribution of (actual - predicted) for percent Kerry or percent Bush for precincts which you would hope to be normally distributed with a mean of zero, looked like it was shifted so the mean was not Zero.

Does this look suspicious to me - sure, but it could be shy Bush voters. Mathematically - you can't dispute this. This is not legal proof - what this can help is to identify how this result could have happened - but without getting the propietary code you can't prove it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

20. First of all, Berlusconi is a nutjob and this makes him look like an ass

He's an egomaniac who lost and can't admit it. Comparing either Gore or Kerry to wacky Berlusconi - who is not contesting the election out of a genuine concern for democratic integrity, but a selfish and rather fascistic desire to remain in office against the will of the people - is pretty disingenuous.

Second of all, both Gore and Kerry did all that could be expected of them given their respective scenarios. Should Gore have refused to certify the election and thrown the nation into chaos? Should Kerry have, despite being down by a seemingly fraud-proof margin (60,000 votes), thrown a tantrum and cried fraud, thus throwing the country into chaos AND looking like an insane crybaby who can't accept that he was beaten fair and square. We can scream about electronic election fraud all day long, but all the screaming in the world about it gets you shit if you don't have PROOF. To have PROOF, there must be a whistleblower. Without a whistleblower, there is no case. Without a case, you will get laughed out of the courtroom. End of story. There is NOTHING MORE Gore or Kerry could have legally done. Of course, I have seen people on DU seriously advocate that they SHOULD HAVE started the Second Civil war and attempted some sort of revolutionary coup, but that would go over in America about as well as a lead balloon.

Oh, and these clever little emasculating comments about "balls" this and "balls" that get mighty tiresome. I'm not sure which is more ludicrous: questioning the courage of a war hero, or implying that said courage is rooted in the testicles.

[karynnj]

29. Great post, WEL