The Nashua Advocate: Kerry Statements Not Grounded in Principle

[nashuaadvocate]

Find the article here --

http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate

[Twist_U_Up]

1. this truly is Bizarro World ....n/t

[emulatorloo]

2. Petty Attacks on John Kerry Don't Impress Me

So Sorry JK is publicizing disenfranchisement.

Too bad he is bringing it national attention.

[nashuaadvocate]

6. A Reply from The Nashua Advocate.

We have been publicizing disenfranchisement for two months now. We have been seeking to bring it national attention.

The force with which John Kerry can bring election reform into the public eye is of such a grade and degree that it will cause many of us, we're certain, a metaphysical form of whiplash.

Loving a man is not the same as loving an ideal. And we at The Advocate are in love with the ideal of meaningful and timely election reform.

And even loving a man -- for we do hold some love for Senator Kerry (at least two of our Staff have been represented by him in Congress) -- does not mean loving his mistakes, or loving him incontrovertibly, or loving him so much we will not rebuke him, even severely, for his short-comings. Children are rebuked on occasion; a national politician and former warrior should expect no less.

The editorial is not intended as an attack of John Kerry's human-ness -- it is an attack on a series of actions which, we believe, are craven and do not speak of the great principle we *do* believe the man possesses.

But he did not show in it that speech, and he does not show it now by broaching the subject of election reform only when it is politically safe -- and, frankly, immeasurably less controversial -- than it was just a month ago.

Kerry was in Iraq while Barbara Boxer risked her political career to safeguard the votes of Ohio's voters. That was Kerry's job.

The Green Party desperately fought to raise funds in Ohio and New Mexico in order to pay for recounts, investigations, and lawsuits which were sorely needed. That was Kerry's job. And as the Greens struggled to raise even $80,000, Kerry had 50 million dollars sitting uselessly in his campaign bank account.

And while recount and election reform activists took daily body-blows in the media, and from friends, and from family members -- while, in short, they put their personal and professional credibility on the line every single day for the sake of election reform -- Kerry was windsurfing.

If you don't think that deserves *a single highly-critical editorial* from one of the sites which did as much as any other to speak out about election reform post-November 2nd, then you're either on Kerry's payroll or this is a fight whose toll you have not yet personally felt. .

We sincerely hope you do not feel the slings and arrows of this fight; none of us want the attendant harms which are often commensurate with fighting for what you believe in. We sincerely hope you join the fight, however, harms or no. And we sincerely hope Kerry spends the next four years fighting for election reform with actions, not words, and redresses those wrongs he committed post-election by temporarily letting go of the principles he fought so hard for during the campaign.

We will not support Kerry in 2008, that is almost certain. But we whole-heartedly support -- having rebuked him, now -- everything he does for the cause of election reform, going forward.

But this one, single rebuke was *needed* and *justified*, we feel.

With great respect,

The Nashua Advocate

[Wilms]

12. Don't mean to Nashua-Bash...

But the following statement of yours indicates a surprising lack of sophistication.

"Kerry was in Iraq while Barbara Boxer risked her political career to safeguard the votes of Ohio's voters. That was Kerry's job."

[nashuaadvocate]

14. Wilms, how so?

Some of us gave our vote to John Kerry. Who better to safeguard what we've given than the man we've given it to?

I don't doubt the trip to Iraq was important; however, it was also ill- (or, if you will, excessively well-)timed.

-- TNE

[Wilms]

26. The "take" on all this that I find most compelling is...

It took one senator to move that debate forward.

As it is Boxer took a lot of heat, but Kerry would have been turned to ash. If they don't (yet) have the goods to over-throw this election, it's better to "keep the powder (kerry comin' out swingin') dry".

The best that probably could have been achieved on Jan 6th, probably was.

I think the ME was a very god place for President-elect Kerry to be at that time.

[nashuaadvocate]

33. No.

Kerry had already been re-elected to another six-year term by one of the most liberal, progressive-adoring electorates in the country. (I know, I was a member of it for the first twenty-five years of my life).

He could not have been "turned to ash," at least not in terms of his Senate career. He would have harmed his chances of running for President again -- (which won't happen anyway) -- and *that's* what he wasn't willing to sacrifice.

There's a difference.

Had Kerry stood up, the issue of election reform would have been the greatest and most-publicized story -- internationally -- of the last four years.

Period.

We were deprived of that platform for this vital and time-sensitive issue.

Now Kerry's just one-of-fifty again.

-- TNE

[Wilms]

42. Sorry. I needed to say the "ash" referral had to do with the 2K4 election.

And judging the way the whole thing went down in Congress, Kerry being there, let alone standing with Boxer, sure would have gotten MSM attention. Like flames from hell.

If Conyers, and the others, can get the ducks lined up, then I'll be looking for a bit more from Kerry.

But, in fact, I think he has to (at least seem to) be the reluctant saviour.

[nashuaadvocate]

49. Ah...

...you think there's still a shot for 2K4...

-- TNE

[Wilms]

51. If they can prove fraud...

I'm thinking that would be tough on *.

[nashuaadvocate]

52. *s*...let's hope. n/t

[Jo March]

66. Nope. It wouldn't have been great

He would have been Gored and re-Gored and raked over the coals and ridiculed and skewered. He could have written off any chance of 08 as the right would have steamrolled him.

And if you think that he shouldn't care about being Gored, I ask you this:

How is Al Gore's political career these days? Was he even considered for running in 04? Don't think so.

I think that he needed to be in Iraq.

The 50 million - wasn't that debunked? I don't think that he could have given that money to any groups working on the recount.

Kerry is not perfect but he is not an idiot.

[nashuaadvocate]

68. I'm not worried...

...about Kerry in 2008.

He won't be the nominee.

But he *will* be a force in the Senate for many years to comeand I look forward to that.

As to Gore, the news was just leaked that he's considering a run in 2008. Frankly, some of us think he might have won in 2004.

As to how much Kerry had in the bank, my numbers might be off by 5-10 million -- but not off by so much that Kerry couldn't have personally bank-rolled the recounts in Ohio and New Mexico. (Remember, his brother Cam says the New Mexico result would change if properly litigated; but John won't fund any of that litigation and the groups left holding the bag are presently penniless).

So: Kerry is not an idiot, I agree. But he had his one shot at the Presidency, and now he needs to have the courage of his convictions and spend the better part of his remaining Senate career fighting for meaningful and timely election reform.

He's already missed out somewhat on the "timely" part, though I think most of us would be happy to see reform by 2006 or, at worst, 2008. As to the "meaningful" part, that's up to Kerry -- and we'll be watching what he does with great interest.

-- TNE

[merh]

87. We could have put Gore or Dale Ernhardt or Elvis on the ballot

and they would have lost. The thieves stole it!

[ailsagirl]

89. As long as Diebold and Co. are in charge of our votes...

the Dems will never win another presidential election.

Of that I am certain.

I only hope that whoever plans on running in 2008 (and I've love it to be Gore) is aware of this and does something long before the campaigning starts!!

How much more obvious can it be??

Clinton would never have won against Chimp Sr. had Diebold been in place.

WE'VE GOT TO GET RID OF THOSE MACHINES!!!

[never_get_over_it]

91. A-freaking-MEN eom

[Laurab]

121. No, the greatest and most publicized story would have been

KERRY THE SORE LOSER.

And what exactly would that have accomplished? I know one thing - a loss of integrity for the very important issue that needs to be addressed.

[LittleClarkie]

100. I agree with your assessment

I wonder how Barbara was chosen. Did they draw straws? I have this image of several Senators standing around saying "Well, SOMEBODY'S got to contest it." "Yeah, but who?" and then playing rock, paper, scissors or something to choose which one got to be the lucky hero.

[RaulVB]

24. Too "sophisticated statement"...

For us to understand.

Please, explain.

[LittleClarkie]

73. Will Pitts said that Congressmen asked Kerry NOT to be there

knowing that his presence would derail what they were trying to accomplish.

Just seeing this same old criticism coughed up anew tells me that this editorial is just regurgitated whining from one faction of the fraud squad.

I maintain there is more than one way to skin this cat. And while perhaps Kerry ain't perfect, he's not the opportunist he's being made out to be here.

Cut the man some slack for fuck's sake.

[robbedvoter]

109. Sounds like the Secret Service not allowing W to DC on 911

What a douchebag argument!

[LittleClarkie]

111. Will, or me

or the Congressmen who asked him not to be there?

To which douchbag do you refer?

[RaulVB]

25. Your reporting has great quality

And you are following the most traditional definition of independent journalism, one that this country lost decades ago.

Kerry is a public official and his behavior has not been the most adequate lately.

Your criticism of Kerry is well based and very fair.

Thanks.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nashuaadvocate]

90. Merh --

I'm an attorney who works for next to nothing defending the poor.

I don't take lectures from multi-millionaire politicians on how to stand up for my principles "the right way."

Kerry's service to his country has been amply re-paid, with more money and fame and power than I will ever see in my lifetime.

And it's once again time for him to earn his keep.

I'm not shedding any crocodile tears for him; I don't particularly care how difficult you or he thinks it is to be a multi-millionaire U.S. Senator with limitless money, power, fame, influence, and public respect. You can fall on the sword for him if you like.

-- TNE

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr.Phool]

11. Where the fuck has he been for over 2 months?!!!!

I know that I've been turning out press releases and going over precinct reports and scraming to high heaven since Nov 2nd!

And here's the guy who could have been a much louder voice than all of us combined. How much did you see on the news or talk shows about the irregularities in Florida, Ohio, New Mexico? Nothing. Because Kerry wasn't fighting.

And I'm godamned pissed off over it. I worked my ass off on his campaign for 6 months. I donated lots of money! He owes me a fight!!!

"No Retreat, No Surrender" was his theme song. Bullshit!! He did retreat and he did surrender. I'm so disgusted I can't even listen to Springsteen anymore.

[RaulVB]

34. Tell me, please, how many TV notes you saw about Kerry's statement

I HAVE SEEN NONE.

[Kolesar]

3. JK was fighting

There were surrogates in his service trying to advance his cause if there was any chance that he could win. JK had a weak hand to play, with a large vote margin to overcome in Ohio and a notable popular margin of 3 million votes. There was also a press who would have tagged him as "sore loser" had he been more prominent.

That is the nicest retort I can write to "the Nashua Advocate" online blog.

[nashuaadvocate]

7. Men have died for more than bad press. And none of us...

...have used surrogates to inform the nation of what we believe in.

You seem to give Kerry more credit and more leeway than you would a friend or neighbor, which is strange, because your friends and neighbors did not make the decision to run for President of the United States.

-- TNE

[LittleClarkie]

17. How would a "sore loser" have helped our cause

How could Kerry out front have helped? Now the emphasis is on reform, not on flipping the election. With Kerry out front, it would have been about a result we were never going to get.

We saw how much effect a "sore loser" had in 2000. And on Jan. 6th, he was asked not to be there. I think that was wise, and I'm glad. I'm able to talk to Repubs about reform now as long as it's about fixing the system and not flipping the vote.

I never expected Kerry to be the advocate someone like Jesse Jackson is. That has never been Kerry's style. But if he quietly works for reform and gets it I will be glad. Of course he'll not get credit. He never does. People will continue to accuse him of calculation as they always do. Funny how the left and the right tend to agree on this issue.

Actually, not funny at all. Kind of sick to watch one side support the other in their assessment of the man. Yes, let us marginalize this evil, evil man. No matter what he says or what he does, let us put it down as the calculations of a career politicians.

Thank God such things have never stopped him before. He's been called a conspiracy theorist. And even in his proudest moments in 1971 he was called an opportunist. Luckily, he just works through it and does what he does. Perhaps not with the style that others want to see. Doesn't bother me. I never needed a dog and pony show from the man in the first place. No need to make me feel better (esp. if that's the only result). Just get the job done, Senator.

I'm actually heartened by what I've heard from him and several of the other Dems, including Reid, who I wasn't sure I'd like. I think they're all in a fighting mood. I will support them in their endeavors. I will also be patient to see what develops during the 109th Congress. I'd like to see fireworks. I hope I'm not disappointed.

[nashuaadvocate]

20. Little Clarkie, you called the man three times as many names...

...in defending him as we ever did in criticizing him severely.

That "sore loser" (Gore) would have won the presidential election but for Antonin Scalia. How close did Kerry come?

Remember how harshly Dean criticized the Democrats? Remember how it strengthened them? Remember, in fact, how it *strengthened* Kerry as a candidate (after his disastrous poll numbers through December 2003)?

We said in our "Reply," above, that we have "some love" for Kerry. Seconds later, you accuse us of saying he is an "evil, evil man." Please re-read our "Reply" and re-think your characterization of what we're said.

Remember, also, that Ted Kennedy has just warned his colleagues of becoming "Republican clones." See how criticism is often a sign of love, not hate?

-- TNE

[justice4all]

96. How close did Kerry come?

I don't think anyone will ever know, between all the irregularities and the truck-size security holes in the voting tabulation systems.

[RaulVB]

29. Your rationale is conditioned by RW talking points

We need to step up our efforts not to be conditioned by RW media.

Kerry should have acted differently.

If he really is thinking in 2008, is even a bigger political mistake than the one he made during the last 7 weeks.

[LittleClarkie]

37. Yes, we should not be conditioned by RW media

That's why I spaz out every time he's called a flip/flopper, a coward or "Live Shot."

Whether or not we get election reform out of this mess will determine whether or not Kerry should have acted differently. There's more than one way to skin this cat.

[housewolf]

57. You state....

"And on Jan. 6th, he was asked not to be there."

I've never heard/read that before. What evidence do you have that this is so? Who did the asking?

Respectuflly asking,

[LittleClarkie]

58. I heard from William Pitt, for one

I thought he was referring to Conyers and the Black Caucus. But that's all I recall. I can do my own research and see if there is more than what Pitt said. If I find another source, I will post it.

Respectful questions are never a problem. :-)

I will seek to give you a proper answer. I tend to snatch information from several sources.

[LittleClarkie]

59. Here's William Pitt's original article

http://truthout.org/fyi/
Look for the Jan 11th entry entitled "Lather, Rinse, Repeat." I'm not sure where his info came from, but this is where I got that comment I made.

[housewolf]

79. Thank you! I found it there in that blog entry.

Thanks for looking it up, I appreciate your reply.

[bunny planet]

97. I find it amazing that there is such criticism of Kerry's trip to Iraq.

To me, his presence there, in a very dangerous part of the country right now, and his meetings with soldiers and the Iraqi people, was the right thing to do. He conducted himself more like a President than the president, which I think was the point. It made * look as small and petty and ineffectual as he is, to those of us who were watching. The media of course, all but ignored it, as they always do. They would not have ignored Kerry had he been in the Senate on January 6th though, they'd have skewered him and hijacked any good he might have wanted to do by being there.

His being in the Senate that day might have called needed attention to the election fraud issue, and then again it might have taken away from what was accomplished just as much, by giving those nasty, unethical Rethuglicons someone to really sink their vicious teeth into and more options to lie to the public about JK again. Kerry being there would have been a story alright, but very possibly, the wrong story. If Kerry had had anything substantial proof-wise to take to court, he would have.

I am disappointed that Kerry could not have anticipated that they would try and steal the election again, and I cannot explain why those machines without paper trails were ever allowed to be used in this or any election, especially after 2002 in Max Cleland's race. Maybe he did anticipate it and something they were doing to try and expose or prevent it fell through. We might never know.

I will withhold judgement of Senator Kerry, someone I have enormous personal respect for, until he is back in the Senate. I think the 'fact finding' he did in Iraq might just be a very strong place for him to start right out of the box. It remains to be seen whether or not he has 'rolled over' as so many cynically remark. I don't believe he has, or will.

[RaulVB]

32. Kerry can't be conditioned by RW talking points

"Sore loser" is a concept ONLY USED in right wing circles.

[LittleClarkie]

60. We're still fighting a public relations war along with everything else

especially considering the media is controlled by the other side, it would be all too easy for them to dismiss it all. As it is, I can still get some republicans to admit there's a problem with the vote. I consider that a victory. People have to take the concept of reform seriously as something that is needed in and of itself, and not a cry from a bunch of people who can't get over the election.

[nashuaadvocate]

69. I've heard the same argument from DailyKos...

...there wasn't enough wrong with the election to be of any serious consequence -- at least not enough to spend any time looking back at the election, now -- but we should nevertheless feel that election reform is a vital issue which must be addressed *now*.

Do you see the paradox there?

How do you light a fire under people so far as election reform is concerned, when you won't concede a fire already exists and that thousands upon thousands of Election Day voters got burned?

-- TNE

[LittleClarkie]

70. The language I've seen from the Kerry camp

was that there wasn't enough EVIDENCE of what was wrong. There wasn't enough wrong that was PROVABLE to change the outcome of the election (not that it wasn't of serious concequence).

Plenty of smoke, but not enough provable fire.

However, as Kerry states in this speech, and without even bringing up the subject of fraud, there was enough SUPPRESSION in this election to choke a horse. Dirty tricks galore.

What I'm getting from Kerry is that he knows there was something wrong with the election (or at least he knows NOW), that it is indeed of consequence, and that it needs to be fixed.

To me, fraud in the form of machine tampering, and suppression in the form of throwing out registrations and not providing enough machines (especially in minority areas) are two different issues. If we can make no headway on the first, that doesn't mean that we don't try to fix the second.

Rather like getting Capone on tax evasion. It's less sexy than getting him on murder, but at the end of the day, he has still been stopped.

If we can get election reform based on the suppression instead of outright fraud, then let's go for it.

I see this as a much longer battle than what's happened so far. And I refuse to squash anyone who may still turn out to be a soldier in this battle.

And I'm sorry, but this editorial of yours just still smacks of the same old shit that is always leveled at Kerry, based on nothing much except for how some people feel about career politicians. Here you are attributing motivation to Kerry that may or may not be the truth. Again, I choose to believe otherwise and reasons for why I feel that way.

[Nothing Without Hope]

117. I agree with what you are saying here and elsewhere in this thread

I have heard many people express an opinion that what Kerry has been doing since the election is geared to his plans for the 2008 Presidential election. If that is true, then he has made and is making a huge mistake in misplaced priorities that has already cost us all more than we can ever afford. But I am not in a position to know whether these assertions of his intentions are true. His silence and withdrawal after the election have been pretty hard to miss, though, whatever his reasons. This is a crucial time, a turning point in the history of this country and its place in the world, and so far he has basically sat it out. I try not to be uselessly angry at Kerry's behavior and seeming lack of leadership, but I can't avoid feeling bitterly disappointed in him.

I can see why he wasn't a central part of the challenge on Jan 6th, as that would have given credence to the false Repub claims that it was only about sore losers trying to overturn the election, but not why he has been so aloof from the struggles to expose the fraud and suppression ever since the election. A speech here and there and a few other largely token gestures fall far short, especially after all the "fight for every vote" talk before Nov 2.

I haven't given up every vestige of hope that Kerry will provide some of the desperately needed leadership to bring the Dems together and fight for what must be done to preserve democracy in this country and fight against the b* admin's insane policies.

But I am not holding my breath.

[EFerrari]

4. Well, you'll probably get a lot of flak for this article and I agree

with you. I think a lot of people here are too young to remember when Dr. King was more willing to go to jail than to be thought odd or radical or strident. People were willing to be beaten, willing to die for what they believed in.

Those were the days before blow dryers baked our brains :)

Maybe our leaders will improve as we get better at pushing on them again.

[pamela]

5. New Right Wing strategy...

Bash Kerry for not doing enough to fight election fraud even when he is speaking out against it. The right-wingers figure there will be some Dems stupid enough to go along with their plot and it looks like they were right. Sad how we keep doing their dirty work for them.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kerrygoddess]

84. Moot point!

[Dr.Phool]

15. Listen Pamela

I was the Kerry Campaign spokesman in my county.

I was also a congressional candidate in Florida.

I've been onstage with and have met John Kerry and John Edwards several times. I'm a Dennis Kucinich- Howard Dean type Democrat.

Don't even infer that we're part of right wing conspiracy. We want justice for everyone who was disenfranchised in November.

[pamela]

18. Not part of it maybe...

but playing right into their hands.

[Dr.Phool]

21. You don't play into their hands

By being quiet when they're shipping people off to the gas chambers.

You fight from day one.

Bad analogy, maybe, but same thing.

[pamela]

23. You're right...

It is a bad analogy.

[nashuaadvocate]

27. But I think...

...you get his point, anyway.

-- TNE

[pamela]

31. No, I don't.

If you are going to be critical of someone for not speaking out, why do it on a day when they are speaking out?

Listen, I don't want to put you, or Dr. Phool, down and I apologize for some of my original wording. But I truly believe that John Kerry is addressing this issue and has been staying on top of things. I understand that many of you feel he hasn't done enough but this incessant Kerry bashing is counter-productive.

[nashuaadvocate]

38. Pamela, no worries...

...we can agree to disagree on how to approach the issue. I do think -- and this is the good thing -- that we both feel strongly, in a very positive way, about the issue itself.

I suppose today was chosen because it represents a pause in time -- a point at which we can reflect concretely on what was done, or not done, by Kerry.

Before he spoke, every day was merely another day of silence, and no one day seemed any better to highlight this issue than any other.

We expect this will be the first and last time we highlight this issue with such force, unless and until Kerry misses another monumental, once-every-four-years-or-more opportunity to advance a cause he has now said, on the record, he strongly believes in.

-- TNE

[Dr.Phool]

45. See my post a little lower

About his legal team being told to stand down 2 days after the election. Us in the field kept right on working and gathering evidence, just hoping he'd spring back to life, but nothing happened.

[Peace Patriot]

50. Bad analogy?

Iraqis don't count? (over 100,000 slaughered by US bombs, according to the British doctors' report just before the election--and thousands more still at risk from US action, from US-induced chaos, from DU and other pollution...).

And what about US soldiers? They don't count? --being shipped off even now, or shipped BACK for mulitple tours, many against their will, many to die or be maimed in Iraq.

I think the analogy is quite on point.

[pamela]

55. Kerry was in Iraq! Kerry was talking to soldiers!

He's being critcized for that, too, and that is what is so insane. Look at what he has done in the 75 days since the election. He joined the fight in Ohio, he called on us to support election reform, he went to visit the soldiers and met with world leaders and today he, once again, brought up the issue of election fraud in a very public way. I don't expect people to agree with every move he makes but it is clear that he is concerned about this issue and isn't going to let it drop. This anger against Kerry is misplaced.

[Dr.Phool]

56. I think he's doing a great thing there

And I really hopes he's energized and ready to start fighting. We need all the leadership we can get right now. Let's see if he can prove himself to be a leader.

[RaulVB]

28. Kerry has not performed his role

A RW talking point will not be so kind with Kerry.

Fair criticism is healthy and Kerry should respond to it with actions, not statements.

If he chooses not to do so, he is open to public scrutiny, from his supporters, "US".

[bush_is_wacko]

8. NOT SO FAST! Kerry comes prepared MLK didn't always do the same

And this is why MLK is no longer living. MLK was killed by hate filled bigots like the same ones in the WH right now. He was killed BECAUSE he spoke out without FIRST finding evidence and protecting himself and others from those that did not want that information spoken of out loud. I am actually, quite encourage that Kerry, who is oh so aware of the need to have these things behind his words, is seemingly stepping up his visibility on this issue. Especially given the fact he has just spent an awful lot of time away in the very countries that our current administration is trying to "DEMOCRATIZE"

Once again, those that do not grasp these needs feel the urge to attack a man that could very well prove to be one of their greatest allies. This will only serve to make the process go slower! Praise him, the way you have praised Boxer, Kennedy, Clinton, Tubbs-Jones and others and you help the situation speed up!

Nuff' said. Man it is getting tedious to point out these "truths" to people.


<<snip>>
But he wouldn't have waited seventy-five days until after a U.S. presidential election fraught with irregularities to do so. And to pay tribute to the man with a calculated deployment of those principles his life and death so embodied is to neither pay homage to those principles nor to the man who so honorably made them the ineluctable foundation of his public life.
<<end snip>>

[nashuaadvocate]

13. Friend...

...we agree with you.

As you say, Kerry undoubtedly spent the last month and a half "protecting himself" (your words) from political damage.

Though I do not see who else (the "others" you mention) has received this "protect(ion)."

Moreover, I find it interesting that Kerry was "finding evidence" of the problem until right after the certification of Bush's re-election. What evidence did he find, do you think, between January 7th, 2004, and today, January 17th? Was it worth waiting for, you think?

And could Kerry's motivations be, perhaps, *best* expressed not by you, but by the man himself, who publicly stated on January 6th that the reason not to speak out on election reform was because "it wouldn't change" anything?

Is that a "principle"? Or is that "politics"? What The Advocate has said is that the man did not stand up for a principle, and that the timing of "standing up" is every bit as important as the "standing up" part -- do you dispute this?

-- TNE

[bush_is_wacko]

22. Timing...I agree with whole heartedly...but that is about it.

Either the Advocate hasn't really looked in to how pervasive the damage to our democracy is or they have forgotten how powerful MLK's generation became by standing UNITED, not divided.

I have previously enjoyed the Advocate very much, but it is nothing but damaging to the cause to indulge in "Kerry bashing." If this is how you think unity is created, you ought to read some informative books on the Civil Rights movement.

[nashuaadvocate]

30. I do agree...

...that Democrats and Republicans show their love of justice differently.

Republicans stand united, almost frighteningly so, in supporting injustice; and Democrats frequently fight against injustice by challenging one another -- to do the very best that can be done in the fight against injustice.

Kerry, thus far, has not does his best. And you know this.

Does The Advocate forget history? Let's see -- how's this for a quote, from British historian Robert Graves (author of "I, Claudius"):

"There are two different ways of writing history: one is to persuade men to virtue, and the other is to compel men to truth."

Perhaps now you understand history -- and our place in it.

We are not uneducated, sir.

-- TNE

[bush_is_wacko]

43. I am not a Sir and you do not know the truth yet. No one does.

Quietly searching for information and keeping a low profile has served Kerry and this country quite well. It is the people's job to shout at the top of their lungs at injustice. Those within the system, however, are better served by not revealing the mystery until it is nicely packaged while making random speeches such as this at opportune moments. Jesse Jackson, Tubbs-Jones, Conyers, and Boxer have been serving as the cheerleaders for the public. Kerry's style has never been the same.

BTW, I don't think Kerry is alone on this. I think many in our party are united in this effort.

I don't think you are uninformed or uneducated, I think you need to point the light on those that need exposure. Kerry is not one of them.

[RaulVB]

47. We'll see if his behavior (Kerry's) matches your wishes (n/t)

[nashuaadvocate]

53. Sorry...

...I was using the rhetorical "sir." But I apologize nevertheless.

As I mentioned in another response (there are too many now, I can't remember which one) this is likely the last (and, frankly, it is the *first*) time we will be so hard on Kerry.

And we encourage you to read (or, as the case may be, continue to read) our coverage to make sure we are, as you say, "point(ing) the light on those that need exposure."

It *is* our mission, after all. Today, we felt Kerry wanted -- and so we gave him -- exposure. It just wasn't the exposure he would have wanted.

Tomorrow, we'll return to our normal programming, and hope that Senator Kerry remains on board with those principles he first enumerated in his concession speech.

-- TNE

[LittleClarkie]

62. You felt kerry wanted exposure

So it is your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

I on the other hand find that stance entirely too cynical, and ever so slightly snarky.

And the reaction he got today tells me that when he stands out front he doesn't even get an even break from our side, let alone the other.

I can only imagine the reaction if he would have stood up before now. As if we've gotten fair coverage in recent memory from the media.

I still say he has to be careful, or his words could derail what we are working for, which is a fair vote. And that's all he's talking about here -- not fraud per se, but a fair vote.

Not necessarily talking about your publication specifically, but the reaction to JK in recent days from more than a few people.

If Kerry works on election reform this year, I don't want to see that endeavor stillborn.

[Pooka Fey]

118. I loved your editorial. Keep up the good work. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

61. bush_is_wacko, re the "unity" in the 1960s on civil rights...

You just don't have your facts right on this--or you've misread what you've been reading. The civil rights movement was EXTREMELY DIVISIVE, and there were many who advised caution, and go-slow, and "gradual change," and who considered ML King a radical who wasn't doing the "colored cause" any good. He was particularly criticized--by many liberals, I should add--for speaking out against the Vietnam War (what does that have to do with "civil rights"?) It was in the "tinfoil hat" vein of criticism--he's hurting the "cause" (by people for whom civil rights was hardly a big cause).

Furthermore, the civil rights struggle split the Democratic Party right down the middle--between those who supported King, the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, federal protection for civil rights workers (who were being murdered in the South), and the end of Jim Crow segregation. Many Southern Democrats left the Party rather than sit next to a black citizen--and were then recruited by the bigots and exploiters in the Republican Party (who now dominate that Party).

As the movement song goes, "Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?" There really could be no compromise on civil rights, for people of conscience--just as there can be no compromise now, on black voting rights in Ohio, or on EVERYBODY's right to vote in a fair, honest, transparent, non-BushCon-controlled election system.

This is what Nashua is talking about: PRINCIPLE!

I DO sympathize with those who worry about a split on the Left, and within the Dem Party. I've been very concerned about it myself, and have given it a lot of thought. What I have worried about was Germany 1933--when the progressives and the Left fractured into many warring parties, making Hitler's rise all the easier (and probably with some of it instigated by his henchmen).

I think it's something to watch out for. I do wish for unity in dealing with this fascist coup. I think it's critically important. But the unity needed is much broader than just the Dem Party. It includes Greens (our strongest defenders!), Independents, and any well-meaning Republicans that might still be registered in their party.

But we cannot gather the strength we need--and strategize the way we need to--by ignoring the WEAKNESSES in the Dem Party and its leaders, their FAILURE to warn us of this fraudulent election system, their acquiescence in this fraudulent election system, and their failure to defend us afterward. You've got to know who your people are. You've really got to know them well--and what their strengths and weaknesses are.

And please note: re "Kerry bashing." People sometimes mean "the Democratic leadership," or the DNC, or the K/E campaign leaders, when they say "Kerry." It's often NOT personal--and when it has been, I've read almost no vilification of Kerry, merely disappointment and anger. Disappointment and anger are not "Kerry bashing." Criticism is not "Kerry bashing." And I think everyone knows that the problem is not just Kerry, but the entire centrist Dem leadership that has led us right off a cliff into a fascist state, through their continual "adjustment" to the right over the last decade, and, most of all, by their lack of leadership and lack of vigilance on electronic voting and who controls it.

This is a crisis of the first magnitude. And we DO NEED to figure out how we got here--who and what failed our democracy, as well as who and what assaulted our democracy--and how to get it back.

If we cannot rely on John Kerry and the Congressional Democrats to recover our right to vote (and I've pretty much concluded that we cannot), we NEED TO KNOW THAT.

[anaxarchos]

67. The split was deeper than that....

MANY of those who are icons today were deeply critical of Dr. King. SNCC, CORE, later the Panthers, Malcom, Stokely, Angela, Huey, Rap Brown, Muhammed Ali, MANY, MANY others. The spectrum of opinion was very wide. There was always (or almost always) an understanding of Dr. King's pivotal role but the movement was always driven by the left and consolidated by Dr. King. It was always the nature of the split and not just its existence that determined whether it was positive or negative.

Vietnam too...

[bush_is_wacko]

74. Actually, I think maybe you misunderstood me...

<<snip>>
"You just don't have your facts right on this--or you've misread what you've been reading. The civil rights movement was EXTREMELY DIVISIVE, and there were many who advised caution, and go-slow, and "gradual change," and who considered ML King a radical who wasn't doing the "colored cause" any good."
<<snip>>

This actually was something I pointed out earlier as one of the reasons MLK is no longer with us today. I didn't delve into it enough, I suppose. As far as unity goes. That was one failure of the Civil Rights movement. The unity took way too long and was quickly abandoned when each person met some unknown point to where they felt their cause had been met. Liberals THIS time round should not EVER think "the movement" is complete. We have failed "the movement" when we fail to realize it never ends.

I actually didn't include Kerry's war protest in the vein of "Civil Rights" I'm sorry if you got that impression. Kerry is best at investigation and prosecution. That is what he has always been best at doing. In order to investigate and prosecute, you must follow a different path from the dissenters. Having said that, a well placed political speech now and then does not hurt the cause and it should serve to rally the troops not bring them out call you un-principled.

This behavior in the party is DESTRUCTIVE, period

[kerrygoddess]

85. Obviously you really don't know John Kerry

And you use your blog as a sounding board to rant.

[nashuaadvocate]

103. Obviously...

...I should take that as a thoroughly *unbiased* statement on the whole "Kerry" question...

..."Kerrygoddess."

:-)

-- TNE

[Peace Patriot]

10. I think it's well deserved, and it's time we said it--those of us who...

...have been holding back. I feel utterly betrayed by John Kerry and the DNC. They promised that this election would be vetted by some 10,000 lawyers--after the debacle of '00--and they took our money for this purpose. (I responded to a special appeal on election night, after Edwards repeated that "every vote will be counted." I'd like to know what that money is being used for.) They lied! They have done NOTHING to protect our right to vote. In fact, they sat back and said virtually nothing while this BushCon-controlled election system was put into place--with motives that I still do not understand (it seems incomprehensible).

And please understand that this is NOT a personal thing. I LIKE John Kerry, and I feel much compassion for him. I think he was and is in a tough spot. The people he opposed are extremely dangerous criminals with all the power.

But that doesn't make a realistic assessment of what went down a mere rant, or venting of feelings. We NEED TO KNOW who will defend our right to vote, and who will not, or cannot.

In my opinion, I think we should write off all of Congress--even the few Jan. 6 heroes--as to actually being able to restore our right to vote. I think they are powerless, and any move they make will be used to further entrench the BushCons (for instance, yet another Congressional bill on election reform, after the HAVA disaster--will they, this time, take away state election powers, so that we ordinary citizens have no remaining avenue of remedy? Be warned!).

It's fine for them to give speeches--as Kerry just did (limited to the DNC line, though--"irregularities in Ohio"). That is a help, as to informing the public of SOME OF WHAT happened. But don't be lulled! Don't be fooled! Don't be naive!

I think we have to retrieve our right to vote locally, state by state--and A.S.A.P. I don't think our Democratic national representatives are capable of doing it, and it appears that a great many of them don't give a damn. It will be struggle enough with entrenched local officials (for instance, Democratic SoS's), committed to electronic voting. But I think local is possible--while federal is not possible, and may result in an even worse situation.

[Dr.Phool]

19. Thats another bone to pick

A good friend of mine was head of our Kerry Legal Team in this county. We kept taking all the incident reports of screwed up machines, lost ballots, people turned away at the polls, etc.

TWO DAYS after the election, the entire legal team was told to "stand down". No fight, don't investigate anything.

[Nothing Without Hope]

119. WOW. That is significant. So much for fighting behind the scenes.

All that time when we kept telling one another how Kerry surely must be working hard to expose the fraud and organize the evidence. After all, if he wasn't, how could he ever be expected to gain the trust of the people whose votes he promised to fight for?

Two day, huh. Now to my mind, that's a pretty clear indication of his real intentions. Or lack of them.

[Peace Patriot]

35. Note to Bush_is_wacko on Martin Luther King...

Bush_is_wacko, I think you ought to reconsider what you just wrote--or consider it more deeply:

"NOT SO FAST! Kerry comes prepared MLK didn't always do the same...
"And this is why MLK is no longer living. MLK was killed by hate filled bigots like the same ones in the WH right now. He was killed BECAUSE he spoke out without FIRST finding evidence and protecting himself and others from those that did not want that information spoken of out loud." --Bus_is_wacko

If what you mean is that John Kerry might have been assassinated, had he challenged the election, then I think you should say so outright (I happen to agree with you--the danger was real), rather than saying that Martin Luther King "was killed BECAUSE he spoke out without FIRST finding evidence and protecting himself and others...".

Please understand that assassination within US borders was not the sport of the day for US fascists in March 1968, not quite yet anyway. Robert Kennedy was still alive (for a couple of months, running an anti war campaign--assassinated in June 1968). JFK's assassination in 1963 was still in highly successful coverup mode (the "lone assassin" and the "magic bullet" theories believed by most people). And Mel Carnahan and Paul Wellsonte were still alive (and quite young).

It was a different country.

Secondly, what do you mean by, ML King "spoke out without FIRST finding evidence..."? I think you are just trying to defend Kerry, and his excuse that there was no "evidence" of election fraud (when in fact there is a mountain of evidence--and BushCons, including media BushCons, wouldn't be convinced by ANY evidence, anyway--not if you had a hundred "smoking guns"!).

ML King had plenty of evidence of racism, poverty among blacks and disregarded whites, and rampant racism in the Vietnam War Draft. What "evidence" are you talking about, that he didn't have? What on earth do you mean that ML King "didn't come prepared"? (Your statement doesn't make any sense.)

ML King should have protected HIMSELF? Again, what are you talking about? If you mean that Kerry didn't put himself out there on his white charger as a target, you are perfectly correct. And he may have had his reasons for not doing so--among them, the menace and ruthlessness of the people he was opposing.

But comparing the two may not be fair to either one. ML King was a non-violent protester in the Gandhi tradition. The POINT is to put yourself "out there"--to be beaten, jailed and even killed, in an effort to REDEEM and TRANSFORM the people who are opposing you and the rightfulness of your cause. Kerry, on the other hand, is a politician, through and through. And while we may think that these are times requiring special courage in our politicians, as well as in ordinary citizens, I myself have hesitated to criticize Kerry since the election for the very reason that I comprehended some of the danger he was in.

It would be good if we could all be clear about this--if we could all know the whys and the wherefores. That is just not possible in a fascist country. So we have to guess, and surmise and evaluate--who can defend us? and who cannot (for whatever reason)? and who can assist us, and who cannot, in our most immediate need--recovering our right to vote?

[Dr.Phool]

41. Just for the record

Every time I saw John Kerry, he was surrounded by a whole bunch of Secret Service agents. And to get anywhere near him, well, it was easier to get on an airplane.

[Carolab]

16. Speaking of statements not grounded in principle.

In Atlanta, Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss told the crowd at Ebenezer Baptist that the country is better off because of King's work.

"The dream of Dr. King will not be fulfilled until everyone who is uneducated is educated, everyone who is homeless has a roof over their head, and all who hunger become fed," Chambliss said.

Wow, just as * has dumped housing programs for the poor and cut funding for our schools. Why does anyone let these hypocrites get away unchallenged when they make these statements?

[candy331]

95. Did they really let that hateful warmonger get within a mile of their

church to spew false hoods. Did he never read "thou shalt not Lie" and to do in the house of God.

[flyarm]

112. and ............

fought for their nation, and lost their votes on nov 2nd!!!

[Vinca]

36. From one New Hampshirite to another . . .

you are exactly right. Thank you for saying it.

[nashuaadvocate]

39. Thanks, Vinca.

Let's "stay blue" in '08, shall we? :-)

-- TNE

[New Earth]

40. i'm not even going to read that

or i'll end up cursing you out. :hi:

[RaulVB]

44. Is journalistic criticism, Faye

Of great quality and fair. That's all.

[New Earth]

46. i know

fact or opinion, if i read that i'll come back here, spit obscenites and get myself banned :) :hi:

[RaulVB]

48. Oh!

Ok...:hi:

[pat_k]

54. Perhaps "the question" is getting through?

nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com...Said Kerry of President Bush's November 2004 re-election, "thousands of people were suppressed in the effort to vote. Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways. In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, eleven hours to vote, while Republicans went through in ten minutes -- same voting machines, same process, our America....in a nation which is willing to spend several hundred million dollars in Iraq to bring them democracy, we cannot tolerate that too many people here in America were denied that democracy."

The following questions were included in many of the 1000's of messages that were faxed to Members of Congress:

Are hours-long poll-tax-lines for poor, minority voters AND none for affluent, white voters a tolerable condition for you?

On January 6th, 2005, will you uphold the objection to electors from a state where this is the documented reality, or become complicit with the perpetrators of this condition?

He's got the phrase "we cannot tolerate." I wonder when the meaning will actually dawn on him. Perhaps we can help him along with some follow-up faxes and mail. Faxing is still enabled at http://capwiz.com/thedeanpeople

[troubleinwinter]

63. It was a good opinion piece, whether you agree or disagree with it.

I have stayed out of the "Kerry bashing" threads for the more than 2-1/2 months since the election. I have been active in election fraud and recount issues, but have not mentioned Kerry's name once since 11/2.... choosing to let my thoughts and feelings on him distill out for awhile.

Considering the time and emotional, physical, financial, mental and intellectual enegery spent by so many people trying to deal with this election mess and recounts, I do have to wonder why he has been absent through one of the most important periods of American Democracy.

We all know he was the one who WOULD draw media attention. "Political suicide", "being called a sore loser". So effin' what?! Why should we fear the GOP defining who, what and how we are, and act according to THEIR script?

Perhaps we'd have had a shot at getting a bit of the truth to seep through the corporate media to the people... enough so that they'd at least have HEARD about it, which MIGHT bring them to THINK about it.

[Laurab]

122. This is why we should fear the GOP defining...

Because it WORKS, and it works far too well. Until it doesn't, we need to fear it.

[housewolf]

64. TNE ... Thanks for this article

Thank you for expressing the disappointment that I have felt in John Kerry since the election, that I have not felt free to express.

I have been in this state of thinking that I "can't believe my lying eyes" in regards to Kerry - holdiing on to every hope that any day not he would step forward and join the battle that waged in his behalf, trying desperately to believe every hope that "he's working behind the scenes," "working hard beneath the radar," and all that, while day after day NO real hints to the truth of those ideas came forth.

It was my desperate hope that kept me believing and hoping.

It is clear to me now that Kerry "moved on" the day after the election.

He may try to do some work on electoral reform in the senate but he has lost a huge opportunity for credibillity that he might have had if he had stayed prominently involved after the election. As it is, electoral reform is going to have to come from US pushing and pushing, because a leader of the house in the past few days said they have much more important work to do than election reform, that it wasn't going to happen.

In a sense, with this, I understand those on the right who persist in believing there are wmds in Iraq and that they will be found some day. It's a desperate hope in order to be make past decisions and beliefs righteous, so that one won't have to be disappointed in his/her chosen leader and experience the personal horror of failure and disappointment. There is a rationalization process that goes on to deny the reality before your eyes because the pain of being being disappointed by a leader is so great. For those heavily invested in the leader, it becomes personal.

I could sense your disappointment in Kerry from your article. I share that and thank you for your words.

TNE, you :kick:

[Nothing Without Hope]

120. Well said. I feel the same as you express. n/t

[righteous1]

65. Guess that's what they mean by the term"paying lip service" n/t

[LittleClarkie]

72. Only if he doesn't do anything BUT this

still waiting to see if we get legislation. The 109th Congress is but a fetus. Hopefully we will see the birth of something good soon.

[UTdem]

71. Thanks

Well said TNA.

[Peace Patriot]

75. This is a really important discussion, and I thank everyone who...

...is participating in it, whether I agree with you or not.

It's vitally important that we are able to evaluate our leaders and other important elements of our struggle to recover our right to vote. And it's important to speak freely--not just for their sakes (to push them) but for our own, so that we can help each other understand the situation we are in.

troubleinwinter: I keep going back and forth about this--Kerry's retreat, what I would like him to have done, and what his long term plan might be, and if it is at all relevant to what most of us see as needed (dumping Diebold machines into Boston Harbor!).

I'm at risk of flip-flopping here myself, but maybe what I'm about to say just points up how difficult this all is, and how painful it all is.

IF Kerry had immediately challenged the election (or even if he had waited out the assault on Falluja, and had the benefit of the Exit Poll analysis and other info, which came forth over the weeks just following the election), he would have been in direct challenge of these dangerous people, and it would have caused a crisis in the legitimacy of the government. And there is no way that the BushCon Congress would have backed him up, or even held a fair and honorable investigation. So, very likely--and also given the BushCon media--he would have flamed out. A grand stand up for the truth--an unmerciful trashing by the BushCon media.

He might have been able to recover from it. He would have been a great hero to many (to the majority!). But here, I think, was the heart of his problem--and what would have been the basis for the trashing:

The people of this country would not have merely been made to "think about" election fraud--they would have been very angry about it. I think most Kerry voters (the majority!) felt in their gut that something was wrong, and still do. But most have had no confirmation. And further, Kerry's concession really took the steam out of most.

But what if it had been different? What if the Exit Polls had not been disguised by the TV networks--what if everyone had known that they said Kerry won (and were in conflict with the "official" BushCon-controlled "results")? Or what if this information had been exposed? And what if Kerry had not conceded--or had unconceded (when the Exit Poll analysis and the Ohio stuff came out)? He may well have found himself at the head of a revolution!--one that it might have taken arms to put down! And still with a Congress that would have absolutely blockaded any effort to remove Bush, no matter how rightful.

I think Kerry's concession had nothing to do with the evidence for election fraud (it is overwhelming)--or with the number of provisional ballots in Ohio. I think it had to do with an evaluation of what POWER he had to challenge the election--and possibly also of what kind of position he would be putting voters in. This is a surmise, but I think a realistic one. His own internal polls must have told him that he'd won. The Exit Polls (and everything else--pre-election polls, Dem registration drive, etc.) confirmed that. And he certainly must have known about Wally O'Dell & Co. So the choice may have been rather stark: Lead a revolution, or shut up!

There might have been a middle way (although BushCons make a "middle way" very hard to find). And it may be that Kerry is pursuing what he THINKS is a middle way. (This DNC line about "not overturning the result" that we kept hearing from the heroes of Jan. 6 may well be one visible sign of a deliberate "middle way" long term strategy.) The trouble with this "middle way," though, is that it is so weak! Maybe...MAYBE it will result in eventual exposure of the BushCon coup. But will we still have a country at that time?

Again, this is just a surmise. I've been puzzling at the whole thing for some time, trying to look at it from various angles (and hoping against hope that revolution would be the choice!) (But that's me! I would not have been responsible for all the potential blood on the streets!). And this scenario does NOT explain the very odd Dem leadership lack of vigilance on the election system. But I think it might be closer to the truth than anything else I've seen among the speculations about it all.

Upshot, and meaning for US: The Democratic leadership has no power. They have been neutered (far more severely than we realize). They can't even object to a blatantly, egregiously unfair election.

The other upshot: We have to take this matter into our own hands, and recover our right to vote (state by state, county by county) on our own initiative.

[EFerrari]

76. Exactly. Politicians don't court controversy, they're made to face it.

"The other upshot: We have to take this matter into our own hands, and recover our right to vote (state by state, county by county) on our own initiative."

[meganmonkey]

88. Very good post, Peace Patriot

Your 'upshots' are the most important things for us to remember. This is up to us, the Dem leaders are lacking, without us they are becoming useless, this is about more than Kerry, and IT IS UP TO US!!!

:toast:

[LittleClarkie]

102. Agree or disagree

I appreciated your thoughtful post and the way you laid out your thinking without nary a bash nor snark.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

77. Kerry's speech did hit AP and is in newspapers. Has TV picked it up?

I have seen many what I thought were breakthrough articles in major newspapers, and yet if it isn't on the boob tube, the majority of the populace of our country doesn't know about it.

I will continue to say, that if Kerry stood up and fought along with the Glibs, everyone in our country would have been aware of all of the irregularities and possible fraud. People would have started to wonder if their vote counted. Now they don't have that opportunity. There is no way with a Congress that is controlled by the Repugs that election reform will ever see its way to the polling place in 2006. To think that IMHO is just dreaming.

To bring real reform the message has to get out to the populace, but I believe there were so far two shots at it that were blown. Kerry conceding in a nano second, and then on Jan. 6th, when all the Dems could have locked arms together and voted aye.

One solution that keeps coming to mind is forming a group to raise money for primetime ads. For most people, if it isn't on TV it isn't real..........

[Pooka Fey]

78. Great article. Thanks for the post.

I totally agree with the writer. Kerry looks like a conniving political opportunist by remaining silent in early November, and then coming out now to say "MLK wouldn't have overlooked these illegal actions against African Americans." That' what the MSM and the Repugs will focus on, not the issue itself. I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't bet against myself on this one.

[kerrygoddess]

80. Tacky... Tacky... Tacky...

Kerry has been speaking up on this... perhaps you weren't listening!

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=192

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=220

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=194

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=204

[liam97]

81. Nashuadvocate, great piece

I am 300% in agreement with what you say

[nashuaadvocate]

82. Yes, it's called activism-by-fax. Very courageous. n/t

[Gloria]

83. I agree with Randi Rhodes' comment...Election night, when the

reports from Ohio started coming in, Kerry should have gotten on that jet with reporters in tow and stood on line with the voters out there in the long lines and busted the whole thing for the entire world to see.

Then maybe the country would have known what happened in the months afterward, what Blackwell was up to. Because Kerry would have made it a issue immediately.

[merh]

92. And then faced charges for trying to influence voters?

Yeah, Randi is a rocket scientist on that one! I can just imagine what the press and the repukes would have done then. The headlines might have read "Presidential Candidate charged with interfering with the election and disturbing the peace".

[candy331]

98. So the repukes and msm is still the most important thing, that

is why the "revolution will not be televised", the media is quickly becoming obsolete and they know it and repubs dirt will be their own undoing.

[nashuaadvocate]

105. (Self-Deleted and re-posted as new response).

(Self-Deleted and re-posted as new response).

[nashuaadvocate]

106. ATTENTION: WE DO NOT HATE JOHN KERRY AT THE ADVOCATE.

We voted for him.

He has represented us in Congress.

We support 90%+ of his initiatives.

We believe he would make a great President.

We believe he is a war hero.

We agree with 90%+ of his Senate votes.

We think he is articulate, intelligent, and capable of being a strong leader.

We admire his years of service to the nation as a prosecutor and, later, a politician.

We believe he was a better candidate for President than his opponent. By a lot.

We believe he may have, in fact, won the Presidency.

We believe he does "care" about most if not all of the issues he supports/espouses/crusades for/champions.

We also believe he dropped the ball on the election reform issue, and that he did so because he was making crass political calculations which were, in the final analysis, beneath him, beneath his principles, and beneath the dignity of those who have and do support him and who are now so diligently and articulately trumpeting the need for timely and meaningful election reform in the United States.

And we believe in tough love.

We believe Kerry will come back on-board the election reform bandwagon, and we look forward to him doing so.

We wouldn't vote for him in 2008, but we view him as an ally in the fight for electoral justice in America, going forward.

That is all.

-- TNE

[LittleClarkie]

107. And some of us disagree with your assessment

re: the crass political calculations, and think that perhaps you might need to adjust your understanding of the facts a smidge.

But hey, that's democracy for ya.

[nashuaadvocate]

108. Fair enough. n/t

[In Truth We Trust]

113. Perhaps you should add "We believe John Kerrry should advocate

Paper ballots and Hand counts NOW!" to his position on election reform.

That is what I believe he should have said on Nov 3 and what he should have said on Jan 6 and at any and every other time possible. I for one support no man or women who does not support this as the means to election integrity.

[fearnobush]

115. Believe in tough love. TNE, that was a good read.

Despite that I don't agree with all of it, your Iraq language etc. I did feel the anger and frustration build, not at you, but at the non-role Kerry has played during the last 75 days. John Kerry as a man and a Senator - fuck, I love that man and will most likely continue to love him. Yet, as the article accurately paints, where is the "no surrender" John Kerry. The whole sore loser, not enough votes to over turn results speech is a cop out. It's an excuse to pretend your dealing with a problem, yet doing nothing substantial to actually confront it. I can only assume that over the next several years, Kerry will eventually confront this issue and fight for our voting rights, but until that happens - I will continue to use "tough love" on his neglect as well as the Democratic party.

To all those who want TNE to stop whining about the Kerry problem, please, realize that the opposition to Kerry's voter fraud neglect is rooted in our love and passion for the man. We are hurt that, for what ever reason, he gave up. It does not mean we hate him.

[Laurab]

123. Just one question for Nashua Advocate

WHY in the world would you make a decision in January 2005 who you would or would not vote for in 2008? Don't you think that's a little premature? Even maybe unfair?

How about waiting and seeing what unfolds before making that decision?

[robbedvoter]

110. You are much kinder than I feel. But I agree.

Lip service to civil rights/voting rights now is insulting.
I of course still cry in my teacup. For 2 elections.

[WeHoldTheseTruths]

114. Principles and Courage - Outside the Box

I realize that many or most of the people here have tons more experience in this stuff than I do, and I thank you in advance for listening to my two cents. I'm humbled by many of the posts and comments I read here.

There is an out of control steam roller on the rampage (actually, an out-of-control M-60 Abrams tank is better). Beyond the damage already done we are facing collapse of the economic system -- not only united States, but worldwide -- and greatly expanding irregular warfare. We are, in fact facing increasing horrors in the coming years which are beyond the imaginations of many of us.

I mean to say it is a terrible, terrible situation. And what I am increasingly seeing is that the only path to victory for us is to "get outside of the box" -- not play or fight by the rules of consensus reality / the rules of our now very perverted culture.

Worrying about how something will be treated by the controlled media or how it fits with the games played in the sick politics of D.C. is only a part of reality.

We have to stand resolutely on principles (for example non-violence, and the principles expounded in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of our Constitution), but aside from that we need exceptional courage and innovation.

I hope and pray that Kerry is going to strike out and hit weak flanks of the beast with forces piling in behind, but sometimes I fear he is trapped in the box.

(Great article, Nashuaadvocate, regardless of whether or not I can share your perspective completely or not. Thanks for creating it and putting it forth.)

[GetTheRightVote]

116. I lost my faith in Sen John Kerry along with many not because of who he is

but for better reasons then just one person. I believe with all my heart what my country represents should be displayed in her leaders, JF being one of them. When our Democracy fails or is stolen from us it must be defended by all who see it happen be it, you, myself, or our elected representatives. This opportunity appeared to be slipping away on us until we the people stood up and said no to everyone. That is everyone, Republicans, Democrats, and all the right wingers who would take what is ours away from us in the shadows of the night.

We told them all to hold on one moment, we smell a rat on this sinking ship and we demand a stop to it all. You will not take what is mine from me without a fight. Now I feel more American then I have ever felt in my life. I am alive with Democracy running thru my blood and I know that as long as you and I live this country is safe because we will fight for her when all others fail us.

Though I to was very angry with JF and will be watching him to improve over the next few weeks and months because I am sure this man wanted to be President perhaps too much to the point he even questioned what was happening in this country. WE THE PEOPLE are becoming reborn, slowly but surely we are awakening to the dangers which our country faces and we want badly to protect her and to hold on to her. I feel a bond which strengthens every day more so then the day before with those who will stand up with me to claim their rights as citizens.

It warms my heart to see the actions and to read the words of fellow patriotics so I will allow JF to stand up now and have his say. It is better then the other option with Mr. * who will not even admit that he made a mistake, it takes strength to stand up after making a mistake. Remember this, Sen Barbara Boxer stated that she felt badly about not standing up for the stolen election of 2000 yet this year she stood up to defend Democracy and has made up for her previous mistake. She is forgiven, can we not now extend the same thoughts to JF and give him his day as well to be forgiven or are we not the Americans we represent ourselves to be ? We must stand together as one force against those who would destory us.