"It's not about who won"

[nmoliver]

Oh, yes it is.

Aren't you tired of hearing this mantra? I am.

We don't have elections for the sake of enjoying a big, expensive national party. We have elections so that we can determine who won, and from that, who will govern for the next period of time.

If elections aren't a matter of "who won", then why are they worth the bother?

In getting caught up in this santized rhetoric about "not who won, but whether we have a democracy," as if one were separable from another, we lose sight of certain things.

We lose sight of how intently and single-mindedly * has been running this country into the ground for the last four years.

We lose sight of how much we need an independent agency to investigate *'s likely complicity in the events of 9/11, and to prosecute, convict and jail everyone who was involved.

We lose sight of the fact that the Democrats REFUSED to consider an impeachment initiative for *'s crimes because they said we should just focus on getting him out of office through the 2004 election. So we all dutifully went along with that song, only to prove what we knew all along - that there would be no free, fair, transparent election by which we could get rid of him.

Next time a call for impeachment is followed by the answer of "No, just vote him out," we need to answer: Our elections are BROKEN, remember?

We can't allow the Democratic leadership to see-saw back and forth between eschewing impeachment and giving a pass to crooked voting machines and crooked elections, always passing each one off by pointing to the other one!

[mattclearing]

1. It is for us this time, but for all time, it's not, nor should it be.

It's about having fair elections that earn the public's confidence. That's not a partisan issue.

We may have won this time, but in fifty years, it could be us cheating and stealing again, as apparently we were forty years ago.

Jesse Jackson said last Thursday that we can lose, you win some and lose some, but you can't allow the franchise that people have fought and died for to be weakened or denied.

Winning and losing is peripheral to the question of whether or not we have a functional democratic republic. Right now, we don't.

We have two extremely pivotal elections in a row decided by little more than a flip of a coin.

[Amigust]

4. NOT decided by a flip of the coin, but by widespread, systemic Republican

fraud, apparently acceptable to all except those Democrats who happen to be informed.

Fair elections that earn the public's confidence apparently IS a partisan issue. I don't hear of many Republicans anywhere screaming that fraud determined the outcome of both elections. They're happy with the system that gave them what they wanted.

It is also very much about saving the nation and world from the plundering, ruthless thugs who have stolen both elections, if not already too far gone to save.

[mattclearing]

9. I understand what you are saying.

The point is that an individual's vote is not currently guaranteed to be counted. That is a systemic problem that transcends partisanship.

[Mistwell]

13. Sadly, you don't hear Democratic politicians saying it either

The "F" word, Fraud, is almost NEVER spoken by Democratic politicians about EITHER the 2000 or the 2004 Presidential election. The closest was Conyers for 2004, and even his document was extremely watered down and says things like "perhaps even fraud" and "irregularities" etc...

When NOBODY in power is saying fraud, and in fact the overwhelming majority of people OUT of power are not saying fraud, it's hard to say what Republicans would say were the positions reversed.

In fact, though I strongly suspect fraud and am a DU'er active in this forum, even *I* am not positive there was actual fraud, nor that the things that went wrong with this election were *ALL* in favor of the Republicans like so many people here seem fond of saying.

So really, how can we say that people do not have faith in the system when SO MANY people from both sides of the political spectrum DO seem to have faith in the system, at least enough faith to look at this as a minor issue that needs a bit of window dressing to fix.

[Amigust]

18. It wasn't *ALL*,

it was *almost all of those cases examined in key states.* Those irregularities broke for Bush, which is statistically impossible unless fraud was involved.

At some point in your life I suspect you have to finally realize that if you're caught in a great cloud of smoke, there's usually a fire somewhere nearby. And a careful look at their methods shows that smoke all too often follows Republican operatives.

Throughout this election and since, there has been a monumental smothering cloud of smoke, tens of thousands of irregularities, including additional irregularities in the recounting. Those irregularities that were examined in keys states almost always broke for Bush, which is statistically impossible unless fraud was involved.

[Mistwell]

20. You are wrong on this

"it was *almost all of those cases examined in key states.* Those irregularities broke for Bush, which is statistically impossible unless fraud was involved."

See, the problem is, that is outright false. Key states include New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, for example. Massive fraud was reported in both, and yet BOTH issues were dropped because the fraud was from the Democratic side and we didn't want to hurt our chances.

It's not statsically impossible that every issue *WE* focus on break for Bush, when we intentionally IGNORE issues that break for Kerry and then forget about them and pretend they never happened.

The focus was on breaks for Bush because that's what we were looking for, and very few people were looking for breaks for Kerry because, once the election was declared for Bush, anyone with an interest in looking dropped it.

I *THINK* there was fraud that hurt Kerry, but I am not POSITIVE. And posts like yours, that speak as if there is a known statistical variation that results in an impossible result when we both know damn well there is no such conclusive statistical evidece, hurts the cause itself.

As for the rest of your post, all too many times I have heard the prosecution attack a defendant with the same kind of faulty logic...where there is smoke, there is fire...if the defendant was near, then the defendant did it, etc...

It's a bunch of bunk. You need PROOF. Not just guesses. You may THINK it was stolen (as I suspect it might have been), but you do not KNOW it. And the more often people say they KNOW it, the more suspect I am that people speak louder when their doubts are high. If you, and others, were as confident as you say, then you wouldn't ignore the problems with your own position. Deal with the problems up front, rather than ignoring them, and I will believe you more.

[mordarlar]

22. If you are speaking of Mercer Co PA it was in dem precincts.

[Carolab]

23. What? WHAT fraud in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania?

Document this claim that "Democrats did it". I have heard NOTHING of this.

[Laurab]

24. Interestingly, that's the first I've heard of it

"massive fraud from the democratic side"? Dropped? Please provide backup for that one. Rove would have plastered it everywhere methinks. I'm sure there are quite a few people who would have jumped on it.

As if Dems were in any kind of position to "drop" anything these days - that's kind of like implying they have power, which they don't. If they did, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. I really, really would like to see a link to that info, and so would a lot of rethugs. I'm a staunch Kerry backer & member of the democratic party, but fraud is fraud, and it's wrong no matter which side it occurs on.

Backup for those allegations would be much appreciated, because, quite honestly, I don't believe it. We'd surely see the corporate media reporting THAT.

[Mistwell]

29. No

It was stuff posted HERE, it was just dropped. I'm not going to back anything up, as I am not here trying to make that case. If you want to know, and REALLY want to know (because you are anti-election fraud wherever it comes from), you can look it up. Me, I was giving you an couple of examples of a mountain of stuff that gets ignored...much like the stuff I mention on the exit polls (where TIA intentionally exagerates to get peoples attention and ignores any possible explanation other than fraud for anything).

There was a lot up in North Carolina as well, I seem to recall. Again, dropped when it was found it was anti-Bush stuff.

Y'all can pretend those claims never appeared here...but they did. Some people DO get it...some people DO demand the appropriate level of logic be applied to these claims. But, MANY do not here. Too often anyone who expresses any doubt or dissent is shouted down.

You can even see that shouting in this very part of this thread. If I had mentioned "I seem to recall a fraud claim in Nevada that went against Kerry", lots of people would jump in and help out and link to the threads and clarify what the fraud was about and speak supportively of investigating it, etc... However, I mentioned some fraud that went anti-Bush, and I got "Prove it! I don't believe you". That just isn't the attitude of someone who is plain Anti-Fraud...it's someone who is plain Pro-Kerry. Now I am Pro-Kerry myself, but I simply want a consistent anti-fraud message, and PROOF of fraud...not speculation and faulty logic and ignoring evidence that is contrary to our theories.

[Laurab]

31. "No"? Sorry, but

You should not make assumptions about someone because they ask for proof of something. How would you know I am "anti-election fraud wherever it comes from"? You're mistaken. I have no doubt election fraud occurred. I also never saw a single thing written anywhere about "massive fraud" that was pro-Kerry. Never. Not here, not anywhere. If I had seen it, and it was backed up, I would not "shout it down". I wouldn't be happy about it, but I would surely want to know about it. No, all the election fraud info I've seen has been fraud that benefitted *, and I believe it; #1 because I have seen things to back it up, and #2 because I already know how the current administration operates, and it fits into their MO.

Maybe it was claimed by a freeper who couldn't back it up. Maybe it was a rumor that couldn't be substantiated. Most of the people who are not "anti-election fraud" have been convinced because it has been backed up. I read Conyers 102 page report, among other things. I also give people here more credit than you seem to. From what I've seen, du'ers are not blind followers, and are certainly open to ideas as long as they can be backed up. Fraud is fraud, and it's wrong, no matter who it benefits.

Lastly, I think you're wrong because, had it happened, it would have been jumped upon by the rethugs, and probably on the front page of newspapers everywhere, as the media blackout doesn't apply if you're a rethug. They're not adverse to contradicting themselves, as the court case in Washington proves. "Claims" are quite different from documented evidence, and I guarantee you that, had that happened, it would not have been "dropped".

Asking for something to substantiate your allegation is a reasonable request. You should not make rash assumptions about a person for making that request. Nor, should you make claims of massive fraud if you have nothing to back it up with.

edited for typo.

[Mistwell]

32. Fraud happened across the board

"You should not make assumptions about someone because they ask for proof of something. How would you know I am "anti-election fraud wherever it comes from"? You're mistaken."

I think you don't understand what I said. I was complimenting you. I assumed your ethics were consistent, that you are someone who IS anti-fraud no matter where it comes from. Are you seriously saying that I am mistaken, that you DON'T care about election fraud no matter where it comes from, but ONLY care about anti-Kerry election fraud? If that is what you are saying, I guess there is no room for this discussion, as you have closed your mind and are acting purely on an emotional rather than logical level with this issue.

As to your other questions, here are some anti-Bush reported election fraud events which I found with a 20 minute Google search (see my note below):

Pennsylvania mailed out absentee ballots to residents currently living out of state, including military voters overseas but also voters temporarily residing in other states. Those ballots included Ralph Nader as one of the choices, but a Pennsylvania court later ruled Nader ineligible for the ballot. New absentee ballots were sent, and Gov. Rendell (D) – refused to extend the deadline for voters to return them. Meanwhile, there was a great deal of confusion over whether votes already cast on absentee ballots that listed Nader were tossed out. Many voters overseas did not have sufficient time to receive, complete, and return a new ballot. While eventually the old ballots were ruled to be valid, with Nader votes counting as a write-in vote, reports were rampant that people had already tossed out the old ballots, but had not received new ballots in time to send them in for Election Day. Clearly SOME voters were disenfranchised, but we have no idea how many, and most people here don’t seem to care that much because it involves so many military voters who are more likely to vote Bush.

In Ohio, there was ACTUAL PROVEN FRAUD in the registration process. While the people were fired, nobody seems to be doing much to correct THAT problem for future elections here. Why? I suspect it’s because this is an issue that does not go CLEARLY against Democrats, so it remains a low or non-priority. In fact, the official Democratic party line in Ohio for that issue was “The fraud uncovered in Ohio equates to "minor errors" when viewed in the bigger picture.”, even though the groups paid people to register voters with registrations filled out for dead people, containing fake addresses, and others named fiction characters such as Dick Tracy and Mary Poppins. This is old time Chicago type fraud.

http://www.10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2458796
and
http://www.cincinnati.com/text/local/2004/10/20/loc_fraud20.html

In Wisconsin, prisoners voted, even though it is illegal to do so in that state. Nobody here seems to care much though, I suspect because those votes tend towards Democrats.

http://www.theamericanmind.com/mt-test/archives/015807.html

Two convicted felons were also hired to register voters in Wisconsin, also illegal:

http://www.theamericanmind.com/mt-test/archives/015835.html
In South Carolina, bulk mail was sent to six of South Carolina's poorest counties falsely promising vaccinations if they came out to vote (they didn’t HAVE to vote, but they had to show up on the voting day, making it more likely they would vote). Again, people here didn’t seem to care much that this was possibly an illegal bribe to encourage people to vote, I suspect because the people were more likely to vote Democratic.

http://www.jquinton.com/archives/002060.html

In North Carolina, there are many eyewitness reports of poll workers “guiding” people to vote for Kerry. No call for investigations here at DU.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/31/005259.php

Also In North Carolina, illegal aliens were registered and did actually vote in the election. However, I suspect because they tend to vote Democrat, folks here are not looking into the issue.

https://registration.charlotte.com/reg/login.do?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.charlotte.com%2Fmld%2Fcharlotte%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F10001227.htm

Between both North and South Carolina, more than 60,000 voters were registered to vote, and may have actually voted, in both states. However, I suspect that because we do not know how these people tend to vote, there is no call for an investigation here at DU that I have seen.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/politics/10001227.htm?1c

In Florida, the Justice Department, with state authorities, is still investigating to determine whether voter-registration applications filled out by Republicans and taken by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a coalition member, purposely were not submitted to state election officials as part of a Democrats-only voter-registration drive. Mac Stuart, a former ACORN field director, told investigators that workers for the organization routinely withheld Republican voter registrations, while "thousands of invalid voter-registration cards" were submitted in their place. He said he was ordered by ACORN officials to generate 103,000 voter registrations from Dade County. And, like all the other cases I’ve mentioned here, we don’t talk about this type of voter fraud here at DU much, for obvious reasons.

None of this even mentions the SERIOUSLY flaws with the early exit polls. Nobody wants to deal with the fact that, if massive REGISTRATION fraud took place (which it seems like it did), then that can throw off the early exit poll weighting (since they use registered voters as one weighting factor). If people voted more than once in different counties or even states, or were ineligible to vote, then that too throws off exit polls. And, of course, all the other previously-detailed early exit poll flaws, such as over-weighting for eastern states, for Democratic voters, for women, and for time of day.

I found all of this in about 20 minutes of Google searching. Now, I am not saying that ANY of this is necessarily true, or as important as other election fraud issues. However, I am saying there is a distinct lack of interest to discuss these fraud issues that go in the other direction (against Bush), and continued repetition of the claim that all reported fraud went anti-Kerry (which is just plain false).

We should look into these claims with the same zeal we look into the anti-Kerry fraud claims if we want to be taken seriously. It’s not only happening against Kerry simply because we tend to only look at the anti-Kerry stuff and focus on that. Problems seem to have occurred ANYWHERE we look closely, and they appear on the face of it to go both directions.

[Laurab]

33. What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

You have so completely twisted what I posted, that I do not recognize it. It is not even close to what I said. I believe I said the exact opposite. Election fraud is wrong, no matter WHO does it.


"Now, I am not saying that ANY of this is necessarily true, or as important as other election fraud issues."

Therein lies the difference. If in fact, this were true, we would hear the usual repub outcry. We didn't.

Why are you working so hard to demonize democrats, when the fraud against democrats has, in my opinion, been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? I can't help but wonder what your agenda is. WE, the democratic party, did not steal the election, obviously.

[Mistwell]

35. Twisted? Indeed.

Here is what I said:

"If you want to know, and REALLY want to know (because you are anti-election fraud wherever it comes from), you can look it up."

Here is what you responded:

"You should not make assumptions about someone because they ask for proof of something. How would you know I am "anti-election fraud wherever it comes from"? You're mistaken."

Here is my response to that:

" think you don't understand what I said. I was complimenting you. I assumed your ethics were consistent, that you are someone who IS anti-fraud no matter where it comes from. Are you seriously saying that I am mistaken, that you DON'T care about election fraud no matter where it comes from, but ONLY care about anti-Kerry election fraud? If that is what you are saying, I guess there is no room for this discussion, as you have closed your mind and are acting purely on an emotional rather than logical level with this issue."

And now your latest response:

"You have so completely twisted what I posted, that I do not recognize it. It is not even close to what I said. I believe I said the exact opposite. Election fraud is wrong, no matter WHO does it."

You show me where I twisted ANYTHING. Your current position IS exactly opposite of what you said. What else did you mean by "How would you know I am "anti-election fraud wherever it comes from"? You're mistaken" Was it maybe a typo on your part? How else am I supposed to take you claiming that I am mistaken in thinking you are anti-fraud wherever it comes from? It was your words, not mine, and there was no twisting at all on my part.


As for this: "Therein lies the difference. If in fact, this were true, we would hear the usual repub outcry. We didn't."

I just posted the outcry. I sourced every single one. Some of them are Republican blogs, some of them MSM, some of them fairly neutral. But here you are, burying your head in the sand and making a circular argument...if you didn't hear about it, then it didn't happen, which means you would not have heard about it. But people DID post about it, there WAS some outrage, but you, and others don't care to seek it out. And now that the MSM has declared Bush the winner, there is no motive for Reps to seek it out any more because THEY DON'T CARE. But WE should care, because WE agree that fraud should be stopped no matter who does it.

I am not "demonizing" Democrats. I *AM* one. I am working TO BENEFIT the Democratic party. We, as a group on this board, are IGNORING evidence of fraud depending on whether or not it sources back to a Republican. That isn't honest. It decreases our credibility with people NOT on this board. It hurts the message, and makes us look partisan, emotional, and subjective. It's the very thing that is most likely to persuade the MSM to not cover the issue...if we are unwilling to look at any evidence contrary to our belief system - and refute that evidence rather than dismiss it out of hand.

As for why I am "working so hard"...hey, YOU asked me for some links lady. Before then, I didn't post a damn thing about those particular claims. YOU seemed to want to hear about it, so I answered you, and now by answering you I am somehow working for the other side? Gimme a break. Next time, don't ask if you don't want an answer.

See, what BETTER example could I offer people than your very response. Ask for any claims about fraud from our side, get a response, and then attack the messenger for daring to respond outside of the party marching orders. That's a load of crap, and any logical person here will see that. No wonder people don't talk about this kind of fraud here...they get bullied and attacked for saying it. Talk about twisted...

[Laurab]

36. Well, enough waste of my time

However, may I remind you that we are attempting to get election fraud fixed? Not REPUBLICAN election fraud, election fraud. It is not a partisan issue.

[Mistwell]

37. Indeed

That is my friggen point! That on this board we pay all the attention in the world to election fraud that is anti-Kerry, but NO attention to anti-Bush fraud, and we should be focusing on BOTH. By focusing on both, our chances of success increase because we look (and are) more credible in our efforts.

[Blue in the face]

26. You want to back this up?

"See, the problem is, that is outright false. Key states include New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, for example. Massive fraud was reported in both, and yet BOTH issues were dropped because the fraud was from the Democratic side and we didn't want to hurt our chances."

I've gotten the same Rovian talking points from the fascist on my local message board as well. But if you ask him what they were, he brings up the same dead people voting crap that both sides do. Pa has hardly been 10 hrs of waiting in line, closed poll books, vote counting closed to the media, voting system employees tampering with machines, unsecured ballots in unlocked rooms, Secretary of States making up new election laws as they go along, etc that was found in Ohio.

I am fed up with both parties, but if you are going to talk about fraud, but one side has perfected it. And it isn't Kerry's Keystone Cops campaign of "What fraud, where's the proof, I'm running in '08 so I can't make this an issue" that has taken fraud to an unprecedented 2 terms of election-fraud whitewashing of the media and total control of the political and judicial systems.

[renaissanceguy]

30. From that perspective, yes

it is a partisan issue. However, in order for Dems to get (moderate) repug support, they need to reiterate that fraud could happen on either side (which is true).

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16200506

[NationalEnquirer]

15. I agree, non partisan.

I am hopeful that we can get some Republicans on board.
Washington state must surely scare the crap out of them over vote fraud.
Maybe this can help us enlist some of them, shouldn't take too many.

[Amigust]

19. Now it will take a MAJORITY of House REPUBLICANS to pass ANY bill,

according to Hastert's recent reinstatement of the "majority of the majority" rule. No longer will a majority of Representatives be enough to bring a bill to a vote. Now a bill will not move to the House floor unless a majority of House Republicans want it.

So, you see, it's not just some Republicans that we need, it's a majority of House Republicans that we need.

See why no meaningful election reform or Constitutional amendment that could threaten their grip on power can ever be passed?

That's why we need a more aggressive stance now in addition to work on electoral, media and campaign finance reform.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22majority+of+the+majority+rule%22&btnG=Google+Search

[Amigust]

2. They know they've been castrated.

So they're behaving like it.

[ananda]

3. You can't?

Jesse Jackson said last Thursday that we can lose, you win some and lose some, but you can't allow the franchise that people have fought and died for to be weakened or denied.

Winning and losing is peripheral to the question of whether or not we have a functional democratic republic. Right now, we don't.

We have two extremely pivotal elections in a row decided by little more than a flip of a coin.

-You- can't? -They- are doing it at will... and -they- will keep doing it until somebody stands up and says enough. People in the middle class are too comfortable to stand up right now, and people in the lower economic echelons are too scared or busy surviving.

Sue

[sui generis]

5. nail on the head

and the icing on the cake is that our panty waist democratic lawmakers with few exceptions are too scared to death to stand up and fight for us, fearing the loss of their "middle" constituency.

[Eye_on_prize]

16. ...or the loss of their reputations, fortunes or getting Wellstoned..n/t

[oscar111]

8. I too am tired of the weak dem mantra

We need to stand up and put an end to all election shenannagans.

Canadian model should be our goal:

paper ballots hand counted.

Not paper that is optiscanned or such... we need

NO MACHINES IN SIGHT.

none. A machine adds complexity, and complexity hides new ways to steal.

Simple, and visible to many eyes.

that is the only way to avoid creative geniuses in the GOP who will invent new ways to steal. Evil geniuses do exist. Look at Werner von Braun, onetime Hitler's designer of the V-1 bomb that wrecked London.

[troubleinwinter]

6. It absolutely IS "about who won"

The disenfranchisement, manipulation and fraud was EXACTLY to make sure Bush "won".

It is impossible to think that it is not about who won. It is all that it IS about.

[Amigust]

7. Dems are SO AFRAID of Republican criticism, they just can't

bring themselves to admit that it IS about BOTH who really was elected and reform of the electoral system. You can't separate them except by mind-fucking political rationalization.

[bowens43]

10. It depends on what "IT" is.

If "IT" was the challenge to Ohio's electoral votes then it most certainly was NOT about who won. The challenge could not have changed the outcome under any circumstances.

[electropop]

11. You've got that right.

It's making me crazy hearing that line. The other thing that makes me crazy is this insane fear of the Repukes. "Ooooh, they might call me mean names and hurt my feelings, I'd better not say anything that might offend a Republican!" Give me a break! Any Dem with an ounce of self respect is flattered to be insulted by idiots. Grow a pair, Dems.

[KerryDownUnder]

12. Everytime I brought this up

everyone would shout me down and tell me that it didn't matter if the election wasn't overturned. I never quite understood that.

[PATRICK]

14. Note to party leadership

Get your memes somewhere else than what placates the media and the focus groups. You DON'T have to parrot back the parrot talk of the other side, even if you are not going to cry bloody foul, waving investigated cases under the blinded eyes of Justice. Because the media makes unbelievably false and stupid talk or opinions "popular" does NOT mean you have to join in!!! That is an abuse of the political instinct.

Worst memes of the past four years that EVERYONE except for some here kept using as a polite preface(like "sir" or Madam" please and thank you don't hurt me please).

"No one was at fault(could have known) about 911." A joke too painful yet to examine but it no longer is used.

"Gore lost because..." An absurdity after the second word unless you are talking about a coup d'etat.

"Bush is an honorable man" Thank you Marc Anthony and Shakespeare. Kudos as well to Orwell for other big lie thoughtspeech pronouncements.

"Nothing will change the results..." with variations, these are as bad as the 911 prejudgments but more deeply tragic for a political party in this day and dark age.

Come to think of it, it is much more likely for a Dem to preface with the lying creations of the RW Noise Machine and the hostile media than to use a) original thinking b) anything here or from other rational outlets. Neither can they turn the meme around(it is always a weak concession) nor can they make a clear opposition(not smart or clear enough and always shouted down). Our memes are pathetic and languish in media limbo. "Hope is on the way" and out the door again(you had to look fast). "Leveling with the American people"(leave out the "with" in future editing).

The RW doesn't do it smart or fairly or with much respect for the truth. They do it with impunity and the wooden soldiers of Dem party leadership can't cope up with the simplest child's trick or lead the American consciousness. The bully pulpit is only for RW bullies NOT the President, as the Dems still fondly imagine as the whole problem.

[Eye_on_prize]

17. I think you pose a great question - good point, but/and it was Kerry who..

..set this tone in the first place by conceding so abruptly and then even with his Jan6 letter to Congress he's still saying that he doesn't believe the outcome could have been different...ie that * 'wins' the election. Kerry's apparent obtuseness about the scope of the fraudulent activity is inexplicable to me.. a mind-fuck of major proportions.

I keep waiting to be pleasantly surprised by Kerry 'coming out' fighting for fair elections like he really means it, but alas, I still am waiting...

Having truly fair elections is the ONLY way to really know who wins, yet if a candidate is not playing to win, they most assuredly will NOT win. I want to believe that Kerry was playing to win, but the evidence so far does not support this conclusion...so alas, I am still waiting for new more hopeful evidence.

[Democrat Dragon]

21. I totally agree with you

You should have seen the way I was bashed in my rant:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x276030

I will never forget what Kerry did on Nov. 3rd, nor will I ever forgive unless he redeems himself somehow.

But I realize why Kerry "lost": HE'S A BLUE BLOODED BONESMAN!:mad: :argh: :grr: :tinfoilhat:

[EFerrari]

25. If we want action from leadership, we must keep pushing

Not because they are lazy, bad, corrupt, uninformed or otherwise occupied.

Because politicians try to consolidate power, and so avoid controversy.

This is our job, on us. Let's keep doing what we're doing and not expect politicians to lead the way. That's not how they're built. Sooner we know that, the better off all of us will be. My 2. Beth

[Democrat Dragon]

27. My first thought

after Kerry conceeded was that the grassroots movements should push him and recount Ohio for him and prove that he won before Jan 13th. Unfortunatley it didn't happen. The funny thing is maybe Kerry wanted to see how badly we wanted him as president. But without 100 milion people marching in the streets, it would not have been possible.

[EFerrari]

28. Between nothing and a general strike, we can get so much done.

Don't lose faith. I was just as invested and I'm not even a Dem.

But, we hold the future of this country in our hands. It really is up to us. That's the bad news and the good news.

[ShinerTX]

34. Excellent post. nt