Reply #139: We will have to disagree [View All]

[karynnj]

It is not lack of being candid. Kerry is sticking to what is 100% provable. He has, from the beginning, made three points:

- There was voter suppression and various irregularities that cost him numerous votes
- Ohio was extremely close - 59,000 votes
- Those type of problems hurt our democracy

You can put the first two together to see that he may either believe it was stolen or accept the possibility that it might have been stolen. A point blank statement that the election was stolen especially by either Gore (who has not said this) or Kerry challenges the legitimacy of the government. The problem is that you want Kerry to say what you view is the truth and reality. If Kerry had PROOF he would speak of it as he did all the known provable problems. Going beyond that is not truth, but speculation.

It also is not "consultants". Kerry was know a cautious, well prepared prosecutor in MA. In his Senate investigations on Contra dru running and BCCI, he pushed the investigations well beyond what other Senators would have done, but his reports contains ONLY what was within his ability to prove. This is why those controversial investigations were vindicated in the end. There were others who have tried to go further on the Contra drug running, who by making even one misstatement saw there work entirely discredited.

I also think that you can get general agreement on the need to make changes starting with those three points. That a close election {i]could be awarded to the loser, due to problems in how we register and how we vote demands we clean up both processes. Going the other way, you simply get to a war of words - where neither side is completely on the high ground.