Why does Mark Crispin Miller have more credibility here THAN John Kerry?

[mzmolly]

I don't get it.

A guy comes here just before selling a book, answers a couple questions, makes a bold PUBLIC statement about a PRIVATE conversation had with John Kerry and DU backs this guy no questions asked?

Is it not possible that two people engaged in a conversation may have a different impression of what was actually said?

Mark Crispin Miller describes himself as a "proud independent." It's not likely to disturb him if he rattles a few cages, sells some books and divides Democrats.

I'll check back later, but I felt that this deserved consideration.

[tx_dem41]

1. He's done a good job at dividing.

And a lot of people were desparate to buy into it.

[MADem]

2. I don't know Mark, but I do know John

...so it isn't an issue for me. I like Kerry, and anyone with a different opinion is entitled to it.

My mind is not going to be changed by his comments.

[Snotcicles]

42. Also DU does have it's share of Haters. n/t

[rocktivity]

3. It depends on what WAS actually said.

What was actually MEANT is open to interpetation, of course. But if there's no agreement to what was actually SAID, someone is either hard of hearing or lying.

:headbang:
rocknation

[KittyWampus]

85. Or remembering things in their own way. Or presenting info to make oneself

appear in the best possible light.

And embellishment and framing things to ones benefit is a very human trait... we pretty much all do it.

[MH1]

4. Very well said. n/t

[onehandle]

5. John Kerry has more credibility than any blogger with me.

He has never needed to be a public servant. He chose to serve.

I admire Mark Crispin Miller too, for different reasons.

As for the critics...

You can be a Liberal and get it wrong.

[EFerrari]

49. Omg, Miller is not just "a blogger". Please be careful n/t

[Rich Hunt]

179. I think you can respect both people

I do, but I guess some people have a hard time with that concept. Seems immature and uncivil, but whatever.

And Miller is a PUBLISHED author, NOT a blogger.

[IndyOp]

6. I admire Kerry and I believe he lied to Mark Crispin Miller.

I admire Kerry and I am very, very disappointed that he lied about his conversation with Miller. That is my belief based on what I know about Miller and what I read of his account of the conversation with Kerry.

Kerry is right now expending energy to pass new laws re: voting. What he is not doing is fighting to see that the laws are enforced that were broken in the past elections. New laws don't matter if the existing laws aren't enforced. By not standing up - telling the whole world that *we* were robbed - he is appeasing bullies. When bullies are appeased they only get stronger.

Miller has a whole lot of courage - he has told the whole, naked truth about many issues again and again and again. He is professor of media studies at NYU and has tenure - which means he can speak his mind and keep his job. (Thus, he has a salary and does not need to sell books for cash). He publishes and speaks and performs to get the truth to the people. His parents operate Chicago Academy Press -- which helped Congressman Conyers publish "What Went Wrong in Ohio" when Congress refused to let the government press print the report. Everything I have seen and heard about him leads me to believe he is genuine and not given to hyperbole.

Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the Election of 2004 & Why They'll Steal The Next One Too If We Don't Stop Them

The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder

Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney's New World Order

The State We're In

[Chicago Democrat]

28. Kerry lied this time for political reasons as he has so many times before

The Iraq War vote was another political decision. For these reasons, I don't like Kerry .


What a waste of energy 04 was . He didn't spend 100 million? What a total shithead. (well meaning) but total shithead....


I'd take Teresa over Kerry any day.

[mzmolly]

50. I believe it was simple miscommunication.

;)

[KittyWampus]

86. Kerry Lied? I Missed His Actual Statement On The Matter.

[texpatriot2004]

7. No, that's not the issue. It's not Kerry v Miller. n.t

[roguevalley]

96. This amazes me. Miller stood up against the machine first and

most consistently, when it was DANGEROUS to do this. He has always spoken out against Bush. He was doing it when the entire Dem establishment including Kerry were on their knees with their heads up their butts. I am disgusted with this. Miller is reporting a conversation he had. Kerry has apparently had the same conversation with others. Its amazing to me that people can't believe that he said what Miller reported. I trust Mark Miller. He has credibility. Kerry needs to get his shit together and decide what he wants and what he's going to do. This doesn't make him attractive to me in the least. AND, since this is a democracy, I should be able to say this and hold this opinion without being attacked for it.

[mzmolly]

109. Miller stood up against uhm, "Gore" as well.

And, I fail to see how it's dangerous for the author of a book to speak out?

I appreciate the good deeds of anyone involved in election reform however.

[blm]

138. And what if Kerry's words were used against the 3 court cases in Ohio righ

The GOP judges there could use any intemperate language from Kerry as a reason to dismiss the case on trumped up technicalities.

[Tace]

8. I Think Miller Is Promoting Election Reform -- Not Trying To Divide Dems

His explaination on another thread seems reasonable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=399775&mesg_id=399790

[IndyOp]

13. Thanks Tace - reasonable sounds good right now.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

30. I don't know what his *intent* was, but I do know the end results.

1. Book sales
2. Division

I read his statements, and immediately wondered if he had Kerry's permission to share publicly what was said.

Again, it could be a simple matter of miscommunication that has been blown out of proportion.

[KittyWampus]

89. That would imply Miller adhers to Journalistic Standards. Apparently,

he doesn't.

[ProSense]

9. I don't think it's all of DU

I think it's among the "Kerry discarded his credibility when in 2002 he voted to give Bush the authority to go to war crowd." (Not the way they would put it.) Even though these same folks claim to have been among the 59 million plus Americans who voted for him two years later. They also claim the election was stolen.

[MH1]

32. Welcome to DU ProSense!!!

:hi:

And I see your handle fits. ;-)

[ProSense]

71. Thanks!

:)

:hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

131. Kerry also discarded his credibilty when he conceded before all the

votes were counted and when he failed to conduct an effective campaign and carry off a cheat-proof victory for all the Democrats, Greens, and Independents who banded together and volunteered for him in unprecedented numbers. This when he was running against the worst and weakest candidate the Republicans have ever put up.

[merh]

10. Nominated

Thank you for asking this question.

:hi: :hug:

[LoZoccolo]

11. Because John Kerry doesn't act like the guy from Rage Against The Machine.

If John Kerry went up before the Senate in dreadlocks and jumped up and down yelling, then we could say that he's shown some leadership in the issue of election reform (after he's instituted ranked instant runoff voting so I can vote for my favorite loser first and then the candidate who's going to win second too) (also after he rewrites the Constitution as well so that we have a parliamentary system so we can have our candidates from the Green Socialists and the Socialist Greens as well) (and after he dumps Diebold voting machines in the harbor dressed as an old-fashioned constitution guy).

Mark Crispin Miller isn't tasked with that because he is not elected to represent me (all those things I list up there would represent me; John Kerry is supposed to represent me as the Senator of Chicago), his job has been well-done as he has been speaking truth 2 power, and those who say he is making money off the books have given us 0 facts to show this.

It is time for John Kerry to use his position as chair of the Democratic Party to fight for the basic principles of democracy.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

57. LOL

:rofl:

[MelissaB]

12. John reportedly said something similar on camera which

aired in NH. I received an email from a friend who lives there. Somebody else in another thread also pointed this out and that they had seen it.

[IndyOp]

16. Just to clarify - 'said something similar ' meaning

he said he knew election 2004 was stolen?

:shrug:

[MH1]

22. That republicans have been engaging in election fraud.

And that he is concerned about how they are trying to hobble the Voting Rights Act (it is up for renewal and the thugs are trying to eviscerate it, of course). - That's assuming I know what Melissa is referring to.

Not as specific as you are looking for, I believe. But, contradicts the assertion that he is doing and saying nothing about election fraud.

I personally think it isn't helpful to make it about a specific election - doing that derails the discussion with "sour grapes" talk. Instead Kerry is trying to generalize the discussion so that it isn't about him. Some people here at DU honestly think that's wrong, and some (IMHO) are just using any excuse to trash him.

[IndyOp]

52. I am open to agreeing to disagree --

I believe that John Kerry must stand and unequivocally state the Presidential Election of 2004 was stolen from the American People and I will take whatever actions are necessary to see to it that election laws already on the books will be enforced. Laws were broken in the election - and that cannot be allowed to go unpunished.

Kerry can rise to this occasion. I thought Kerry had dynamic, powerful moments during the campaign (though they were hard to spot given that the MSM was determined to help the GOP slam him at every turn).

Kerry is safely in his Senate seat - take a risk!

While he must broach the issue in terms of defending the Americans whose votes were stolen, I believe that he must rise to this because, in an important way, the people around Kerry are stuck until he stands up for himself. If Kerry 'seems to accept' the situation others won't take a stand.

Hillel has this situation covered:
If I am not for myself, Who will be for me?
If I am only for myself, What am I?
If not now, When?

If Kerry won't stand for himself, Who will stand for him?
If he is most concerned about protecting his reputation, What is he?
If not now, When? When? When?

Virtually all dysfunctional families organize their lives around pretending problems don't exist. Massive amounts of personal energy is put into hiding, deflecting, lying, and remembering lies already told. Everyone in the family does this because they are afraid -- if, if we speak it aloud - the family will be destroyed, I'll be all alone. No one will believe me.

You know what often happens when 'it' is finally spoken aloud? The world doesn't end. Things change. Sometimes the change is scary and painful.

Everyone who is thinking right now - John Kerry CAN'T say it aloud - please pause from your political strategy thought process - and ask yourself why not? Really, why not?

Because people will be upset? People are upset now - more and more people are living in dire situations.

Because people will call Kerry names? Sticks and stones...

Because people will marginalize Kerry? Unlikely.

On Edit: By the way, the issue of Harper's Magazine that carried Mark Crispin Miller's "None Dare Call is Stolen" outsold all issues of that magazine since 1972 - and it may have even outsold that issue (all the data is not in yet). So -- it seems to me that there is a sizable proportion of the population who would like to hear Kerry speak more directly to this issue.

[MelissaB]

23. I'm going through my email to clarify.

I can't find the link I had sent her that she is commention on. I think it had to do with the GAO report. I'm afraid to say for sure. Let me dig some more.

[MelissaB]

27. Here is the post from GDP

31. Sen. Kerry specifically and on camera mentioned
Edited on Fri Nov-04-05 10:22 PM by TayTay

fraud last week in Boston when he participated in the Selma-Boston commemorative march. He mentioned this in a brief speech to the crowd that was broadcast on Boston cable and on local tv stations. It specifically mentioned fraud. This is not the first time and it was not the first time that he said it publicly and on the record.

Fraud, fraud, fraud. He said it, his wife has said it, and his brother said it in an OpEd on the Huffington Post not too long ago. Fraud, fraud, fraud. In public and on the record in a 'you could look it up' kind of way.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2223672#2224875

[mzmolly]

35. I don't get the point ?

As I said, it's likely a matter of miscommunication.

[MelissaB]

45. I agree. n/t

[mzmolly]

60. Thanks.

:)

[katinmn]

38. There you have it.

The greater question is, why would Kerry deny it now?

Our country is in a deep crisis.

Every day that goes by we lose precious time needed to reform the election process for the 2006 elections.

[MH1]

63. He denied that the conversation included what Miller

said it included. Possibly because Miller made it sound like he was criticizing other Senators by name. And who knows what he really said - Miller may have grossly misreported it. Or not. We just don't know. But Miller should have gotten clarification and permission from Kerry before going public with a private conversation. Had he done so, all this hashing could have been avoided. Of course, it is possible that Miller WANTED the attention that this is bringing to him and his book. I only raise the possibility, not an accusation.

Whatever, denying that his conversation with Miller was as Miller reported, is NOT the same as denying that fraud occurred in the 2004 election. Perhpas he didn't feel that needed to be clarified, because he's spoken of fraud many times.

[mzmolly]

65. Spot on!

:toast:

[katinmn]

74. Are we splitting hairs on fraud versus stolen election?

How is an election stolen? It must be through fraud. What is the goal of vote fraud? To steal an election.

I don't fault Miller for not getting sign off on a quote or comment. That's what they do in public relations.

The number 1 rule to remember when speaking to journalists, even in social situations, is you're never off the record.

If Kerry wants to deny he said it, he has that right. None of us were there so we don't know what happened.

The denial that he believes the election was stolen doesn't bode well for election reform, though. It just continues to enable those who will steal the next one through vote fraud.

[sandnsea]

121. Oh my god, YES

FRAUD happened here in Oregon. Big time FRAUD. The Sproul people threw away registrations here too. Our state went to Kerry so there was no election stolen here. But there was still FRAUD. Do you see the difference now??

[seabeyond]

123. as they threw them away in az and nv, and told media they

did it and would do it again. then this orginization was invited to a bush dinner. go figure

[katinmn]

125. And if I recall, a lot of people worked their asses off to make sure

the votes in Washington's governor's seat were recounted!

We almost lost the governor's seat to fraud.

In other states, like Ohio, where the Sec of State is a political whore, the fraud is more systemic and entrenched. But it happens everywhere.

[sandnsea]

127. That was Washington

The point is, fraud does not automatically lead to a stolen election or to a conspiracy directly connected to the one elected.

[katinmn]

129. so if it doesn't lead to a stolen election it's ok ??

:shrug:

Call me a purist but I think all fraud is bad.


Thanks for the correction regarding which state's gubernatorial votes were in question. I corrected my misstatement.

[sandnsea]

133. Please, little rabbit, how do you jump there?????

My post said fraud is not the same thing as stolen election and it is not splitting hairs to point out the difference, as you suggested.

How do you jump to the conclusion that pointing out the difference means that I'm saying fraud is ok???

Does honesty mean anything to people who claim to be so concerned about the integrity of elections????

[katinmn]

137. LOL. Ok, grasshopper

You admitted there was fraud but do not seem to agree that there was a stolen election.

Focus.

Why did the fraud occur if not to steal the election?

[sandnsea]

143. Yes, focus

Where did I say fraud doesn't matter? Answer that one because I really get tired of people putting words in my mouth.

Fraud does not necessarily lead to enough votes to steal an election. And really sorry to burst your bubble, but Democrats have been known to participate in a little fraud themselves. Election law punishes the person who commits the fraud, it does not overturn an election. Fraud in one county in Kentucky would not, and should not, be enough to overturn a Presidential election, for instance. That's the problem with the whole "stolen election" rant. Unless you can prove a conspiracy that leads directly to Bush, you still haven't got a stolen election, under the law.

We had fraud in Oregon, we did not have a stolen election.

[mzmolly]

150. This is the KEY point.

KEY.

[mzmolly]

147. I think if Kerry says "they stole the election" he loses credibility

on voter reform. Remember we are the minority party and we NEED some Republicans to cross over on this issue. We won't get ONE if Kerry starts yelling "fraud."

I agree with your statement to this effect: None of us were there so we don't know what happened.

[peacetalksforall]

90. That's crazy - Kerry could have told him it was on or off the record.

Kerry is not a God.

Who is doing the dividing here?

People are somewhat open to Miller because of his work and professionalism. Why bash him.

For those who know Kerry better than I do:

1. What has Kerry done or even said about the voting machines being manufactured and sold by Republicans?

2. What has Kerry done or even said about Republican software?

3. What has Kerry done or even said about Repubalican manufacturers sending mysterious technicians in to 'fix' (meaning mend or manipulate) machines?

4. What has Kerry done or even said about reports that some of the technicians were from Russia or Israel?

5. What has Kerry done or even said about networks who represent the Republican Party paying for, owning, and 'analyzing' polling data?

6. What hs Kerry done or even said about networks having total control over calling the vote before all the votes are counted and contentions dealt with?

7. Why did Kerry ignore John Edwards?

No one is dividing me and I hope noone is speaking for me.

I am willing listen to Miller or an MIT guy or anyone else in addition to listening to Kerry and Edwards.

It is my feeling that Kerry is an overly careful person when it comes to taking a stand.

I am upset that anyone is saying that Miller is dividing the Dems or DUers. Kerry managed that very well on his own before Miller entered the stage.

I will not be happy with anyone who ignores the state of our plight with those voting machines and fact that our Congress and the Democratic Party have provided no oversight AND HAVE ALLOWED REPUBLICANS TO OWN THE VOTE. YES, THEY OWN THE VOTE. It is almost a waste of time for Kerry or John or Dennis to say anything because the Democrats as a whole have allowed the country to be stolen.

[mzmolly]

145. Kerry introduced CEVA in February of 2005 in order to address all of the

issues you note above.

NO ONE HERE KNOWS what was said between Kerry and Miller except the two involved. I think it's pathetic that this has become a dog and pony show when any remarks Kerry made should have remained private.

I'd much rather be discussing Mark's book then what Kerry said to whom on what day.

[mzmolly]

37. Fraud sure. Stolen election? That may require a greater burden of proof.

My guess is that there was a misunderstanding that has been blown out of proportion.

[HamdenRice]

14. Reason number one: he's not a politician

It seems that a number of DUers are not familiar with MCM. He began writing about shrub -- his first book on shrub was "The Bush Dyslexicon" -- when many still thought bush would govern as a "compassionate conservative." He has been one of the most incisive critics of the administration. And in his latest book, he has the courage to risk being called a conspiracy theorist and lay out how the election was stolen.

Kerry, by contrast, is a professional politician, and a particularly poll-tested one at that. One big problem with our politics today is that most Democrats rely heavily on polls to limit themselves about what they can say.

In other words, we are now in a conundrum created by polling and the most evil administration in US history. Polls show that uncommitted voters are "turned off" by politicians saying "negative" things about other politicians. Whether by design or default, bush has brilliantly capitalized on this by wreaking havoc, death, destruction, treason and bankruptcy on the US. Just by telling the truth about bush, one is "going negative" and risking turning off uncommitted voters.

There are two kinds of Democratic responses: Some, worrying about "sounding negative" refuse to call a spade a spade. They say things like, "what president said was incorrect" rather than "the president is lying and is a habitual liar."

The other kind of Democrat is realizing that we can no longer have this kind of poll limited discourse. Carter says bush is destroying American values by practicing torture. Kennedy calls bush out as a liar. Dean, Gore, Boxer, Conyers are re-discovering a politics of plain truth.

Kerry remains locked within his poll driven, mealy mouthed universe. When Kerry speaks, he is not saying exactly what he thinks.

So I'll take Mark Crispin Miller's word over Kerry's any day. Miller does not commission polls before he speaks.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

41. Mealy-mouthed Universe!

meal·y-mouthed (ml-mouthd, -moutht)
adj.

Unwilling to state facts or opinions simply and directly.

Word History: It seems fitting that Martin Luther, a man noted for the forthright expression of his ideas, may have had a hand in giving us the contemptuous term we apply to those unwilling to state facts or opinions directly. Mealy-mouthed may come from a saying such as German Mehl im Maule behalten, “to carry meal in the mouth, that is, not to be direct in speech,” which occurs in Luther's writings. In English we find the terms mealmouth (1546) and meal-mouthed (1576) recorded around the same time that we find mealymouthed (around 1572). Mealy-mouthed is the only form that survived to describe this trait described by Luther, which not only survives but flourishes in our time.

[mzmolly]

43. Miller is selling a book. And, if he put his vote where his book about

Bush's lack of compassion was, I'd personally consider that a plus.

[GreenArrow]

158. nevermind

.

[liberalpragmatist]

70. Which politician has said '04 was outright stolen?

The position of virtually everyone is that the Ohio election was unfair and there was a lot of voter suppression and quite possibly some fraud. But nobody has said that the election was outright stolen. The closest to it came from Jimmy Carter who said that had it not been for the vote suppression, Kerry would have won Ohio. But vote suppression is a sticky matter and you can't count votes that were not cast.

Kerry was right to concede when he did because the numbers were not on his side.

[AndreaCG]

171. Then why did he raise millions specifically TO fight election fraud?

I donated money to Kerry specifically for that. I wrote demandding a refund, of course I did not get nor expected one.

He rolled over. He was a shitty candidate in retrospect. Fuck Kerry.

[robbedvoter]

15. Because Miller has been more consistent.

That comes from someone who heckled him at an anti-fox rally a few years ago (for dissing Gore). I am not a fan of the man - but I have to give it to him - he had never reversed himself or tried to accomodate his audience, adversaries. UNLIKE OTHER PEOPLE.

[mzmolly]

40. Consistent?

I don't see how one can come to that conclusion given the lack of scrutiny Mr. Miller has been put under in comparison.

[shance]

100. B.I.N.G.O. And he is an investigator that has proven hes not in it for

the bucks.

He wants the truth and he's shown that time and time again.

[blm]

124. Well, let's see how Parry, a great investigative reporter handled the info

Kerry Suspects Election 2004 Was Stolen


By Robert Parry
November 6, 2005

Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, has told acquaintances over the past year that he suspects that the election was stolen, but that he didn’t challenge the official results because he lacked hard proof and anticipated a firestorm of criticism if he pressed the point.

“Kerry heard all the disquieting stories” about voting irregularities in Ohio and other states, said Jonathan Winer, a longtime Kerry adviser and a former deputy assistant secretary of state. “But he didn’t have the evidence to do more.”

The Massachusetts senator conceded to George W. Bush on Nov. 3, 2004, the day after the election when it became clear that the uncounted votes in the swing state of Ohio were insufficient to erase Bush’s narrow lead.

The move infuriated some Democratic activists who felt Kerry should have lived up to his campaign promise that he would make sure every vote was counted. In January 2005, as Bush’s victory was being certified by Congress, Kerry also refused to back a resolution challenging the fairness of the Ohio vote.

More: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/110505.html

[katinmn]

132. Wow. Great article, blm! The last line sums it up:

But Kerry’s decision not to fight has left millions of Americans wondering if their democratic birthright has been stolen – along with the last two presidential elections.

[blm]

136. I think this part is significant to the reality of the "evidence"

Winer, who is now a private attorney with a specialty in information security, said it’s conceivable that electronic balloting was hacked in Election 2004 but that – without a credible witness confessing – there is little hope to prove it.

“There are systems for one-time use that erase themselves afterwards,” Winer said. “You’d have to have a confession and anyone who would confess would look psychotic.”
>>>>>

THERE is the biggest problem about pursuing any case. There is NO EVIDENCE. It's erased at the time.

The only thing that CAN be done is to deal with the FUTURE races KNOWING this stuff in advance.

I find it interesting that Winer is involved with information security now. This bodes well for future work on the machines. Winer was Kerry's righthand man at uncovering IranContra and BCCI.

To me it all means they KNOW DAMN WELL, and are trying to be careful or else it can blow whatever they are working towards for fraud free elections.

Winer is being very careful here, but also conveys the certainty that the machines are rigged.

[Moochy]

17. Is it really about credibility?

When Kerry threw in the towel, no matter how irrational contesting the results might have been, it just caused me to lose a great deal of faith in Kerry. The contrast between Edwards promise to count all the votes on election nite, and the concession was striking.

Re: Rawstory & Kerry, I feel that it's possible that this was a misreporting of information given to Miller on a backgrounder.

But I dont feel that it's a he-said he-said thing. I know politicians have to finesse opinions, especially so with Senators, being generally elected from the finest elites of the elite establishment.

It's well withing my expectations for even my favorite senator (Boxer) to have to make corrections to statements made that are "misinterpreted", or that something given on background is used out of context.
I guess I'm cynical/realistic that way and allow for even my heroic senators to "weasel" out of, or "parse words." In other words the realpolitik of the situation forces me to consdier that if Kerry did this its not shocking, out of form for senators or even wrong.

[mzmolly]

64. I agree actually.

I really think it's about miscommunication, in the end.

[Vinnie From Indy]

18. You have a point!

There is no disputing that there may be a host of motivations and angles in regard to Miller's reporting of a conversation that allegedly took place and you make a good point that one shouldn't just look at this using tunnel vision. That being said, I still think Kerry's political instincts (and his advisors) are seriously flawed. Here they are presented with an opportunity to let Miller's claims kick around the 'Net and the media for a while. Instead of waiting, they choose to kill the story within the first few hours. Why? It would seem that Kerry could have let this go for at least a few days and then decide how to respond. He could certainly have presented the same denial next week. To fully get my point about Kerry's political missteps one should contrast this situation with the Swift Boat crap. Kerry waits days to respond in that situation. He needs to see political advantage when it is standing right in front of him. I don't dislike the guy but I question his understanding of the field of battle of the current national political landscape.

[mzmolly]

148. I agree with EVERY word.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

[Dr Ron]

19. Why bother fact checking?

We've seen for a while that any false claim about Kerry, or misquotation of what he has said, will be accepted by many.

Those who accept all these claims about Kerry are no better than those who accept the right wing claims that Saddam was threatening us with WMD or was behind 9/11.

Either you believe these things uncritically or you check out the facts. Crispin's account doesn't hold up will when compared to actual statements made by Kerry post-election.

[Angry Girl]

20. Because Kerry let me down hard in 2004

First time I ever voted was in 2004 and Kerry conceded so fast it wasn't funny. Threw my vote right down the toilet and those of millions of others. Didn't even apologize.

And the issue of election fraud is being ignored by the press because, like someone pointed out, Conyers is a minority and Slaughter is a liberal female, both easy to dismiss in today's America. If we had help from people like Kerry, people who are in the limelight and who can attract media attention, things might be different

When Kerry (or his spokesperson) backs off from stating the election was stolen, particularly after someone like Mark Crispin Miller says he did, it's very hard to believe this is a leader who will go on a limb for his people. In any case, it's far from inspiring and not what I think is needed to get us out of this handbasket.

Sorry, Kerry lovers, but this how I feel: Abandoned by politicians covering their ass, again.
--
URGENT! Timing is critical to save earthquake victims before winter!

[Marlie]

25. I'm with you Angry Girl

I worked so hard for the Kerry Campaign, contributed more money
than we could possible afford because I felt desperate for him to
win. So many of our friends did the same thing. So much time and
money and for what? He conceded without a fight. I wish him well,
but I will never feel the same about him & I believe Mark. I also
believe Edwards wanted to fight but Kerry didn't.

[blm]

126. And whatever Kerry says intemperate now can damage the 3 court cases in

Ohio that they are in. Or didn't Miller factor that in?

[BuyingThyme]

21. Miller did not swear to live a life of lies

to the benefit of a Secret Society and the detriment of democracy.

(As far as I know.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. What "crediibility" does John Kerry have after his IWR vote?

Followed by his "Duh, I believed Bush" defense.

[ProSense]

26. Did you vote for him? n/t

[Chicago Democrat]

33. hehe, I'd vote for a rabid squirrel over GWB!

Of course we held our noses...

Gave the jag off Hundreds of Dollars...

Campaigned for the boring doofus....

Listened to his UNBELIEVABLY UNINSPIRING LONG WINDED SPEECHES....


and Voted for his ass and IT DIDNT MATTER CAUSE THEY CHEATED

and when THEY CHEATED, KERRY BLINKED,

So he B-LOWS and if he comes even close to the nomination again I'll go INSANE



All that said, I'll take him over Clinton or Biden

All the Democrats suck, but every Republican is worse

[ProSense]

39. So...

If he was just a stand in for a rabid squirrel, then why the drama? Seems you tossed a blind vote into the stolen election pot. It was an expensive gamble, according your statement, and you lost.

I on the other hand voted for him expected him to win, believe he won and will vote for him again. Call me nuts!

[EFerrari]

46. Welcome to DU, ProSense

:hi:

[ProSense]

54. Thank you!

:hi:

[mzmolly]

58. I second that welcome.

:hi:

[ProSense]

62. Thanks!

:hi:

[Chicago Democrat]

47. Why the drama? People are dying because of this Bush Crime family.

People are being tortured!


Dean would have made it..(IMO)



All I care about is 2006, getting the Dems in Congress is my focus. You do what you can. I love and appreciate ALL Dems. Even Kerrry, even tho he lies all the time, esp with this Mark Crispin Miller thing, its totally obvious he was speaking off the record.

[ProSense]

61. I'm glad you support all the democrats

But to say Kerry lies all the time, is untrue.

Off the record is off the record, and we still don't know if Kerry made that exact or any statement on or off the record.

[Chicago Democrat]

80. I'm sorry I said he lies all the time, what I meant was this whole

"on the record" "off the record" crap is bullshit! Everything is on the record. I wanna know straight up the truth. I forgive occassional mistakes like Dean does. I'd rather my politician err on the sid eof full disclosure.


See I really think this is a problem. Politicians are too afraid to offend. Who cares about your political future John? Its about the country, its about our party showing some balls.

Bill Clinton came closest in recent memory to just telling the truth. You could ask him anything and he would just tell you. Kerry is so measured, so practicedd, it like he manages the words that come out of his mouth by committee. I know I am being completely idealistic.

I don't want them to hold important shit back like "they stole the election" becaus e of 'the sour grapes issue' i want my politician to seize the moment and fall on his sword and take one for the team. Everyone and history always respects the risk taker over the careful man.

[ProSense]

114. It's not crap

When an interviewee says something off the record, it's not mean to be repeated. Such comments may add context during the interview, but it is unethical to use them. Even if the writer can get away with alluding to the context of the comment (the person may never again tell you anything in confidence), he or she shouldn't repeat it and attribute it without permission.

[Robb]

174. No, actually it *is* crap.

When an interviewee says something's "off the record," a journalist has a decision to make.

A journalist's #1 job is to ask the same question of all his/her reporting: Does this serve the readers?

And you're right, the reporter may not hear anything else from the interviewee. But that's the decision you make: is this worth burning the bridge for, in the interest of the readers?

No one has to give journalists permission to publish anything. Real life is not TV. :hi:

[globalvillage]

77. Please post link to lies.

I must have missed them, and I try to be thorough.
Thanks.

[Chicago Democrat]

81. When he took in all that campaign money and didn't spend it!!

THAT WAS A BROKEN PROMISE! A huge lie. I feel so ripped off.


I DONATED HUNDREDS AND HUNDRED TO


Kerry 04


NOT KERRY 08!!!


That unspend, what 80 million? Is unbelievable and PROOF he just didn't want to win. A major betrayal. That money could have gotten 10 seats in the House and 3 seats in the Senate!!


IDIOT!Q

[Chicago Democrat]

82. When he said he would fight all the way and then went limp as a

noodle when the moment was perfect and he needed to CONTEST THE ELECTION!!!, wimp! Liar! You said you had all the lawyers and a fund and YOU LIED!


Pissed me off.


I dont need no dam link

[mzmolly]

113. How does one contest an election in a state without a paper trail?

How does one contest an election without evidence? Sorry, contest or no - it would have been futile.

I too was let down by his concession, but THIS was not a matter of 500 votes and hanging chads. Bush supposedly won the popular vote by over 1 mill.

[Chicago Democrat]

83. His pathetic, legalistic, unbelievable

explanation of his Iraq vote.

[Chicago Democrat]

88. All that said: I like Kerry. He's a great Senator, totally reliable

to do the political correct thing taking into account a myriad of interests, facts and opinions.

[globalvillage]

92. Thanks for the links! n/t.

[Chicago Democrat]

93. Thanks for agree with the above 3 points

by not having anything of substance to say..


smarmy

[Chicago Democrat]

94. Kerry lies for political expediency all the time

In fact he doesn't even call them lies. "I was speaking off the record" is a LIE sorry, you were with a journalist. You aren't JFK and you can't have sex with Marilyn without us finding out.


I say Mark Crispin Miller and John Kerry be forced to take LIE DETECTOR TESTS. LOSER QUITS HIS JOB....

No

Loser APOLOGISES... thats fair.

[globalvillage]

95. You replied to my request for links.

And didn't supply any. Sorry that I don't feel the need to respond to your talking points.
If you're going to accuse someone of lying, you should have the evidence to back up your accusation.
Otherwise, it's just an opinion.
To which you're entitled, BTW.

[Chicago Democrat]

97. It is not Opinion that there was an enormous unspent amount of money

left in the kerry coffers! Like 80 Million. That's fraud. That's Dishonest. That's not honest. That's so close to a lie, it a liesel.

What part of that fact you need a 'link' for? What fact do you need to be effing researched? DON't YOU REMEMBER THAT?


What 'link' do you need to the word that came out of his mouth THE NIGHT OF THE ELECTION. "WE ARE GOING TO FIGHT THIS ALL THE WAY" What link do I need to make to your brain that THERE WAS "Millions for Lawyers to fight FRAUD" THAT WAS A LIE! SINCE THOSE MILLIONS WENT INSTEAD TO KERRY 08!! Why do I have to recreat the past that is COMMON KNOWLEDGE?!


NOW THESE MULTIPLE REPORTS OF MIXED MESSAGES! Someones' lying. again.

[globalvillage]

102. I don't believe he kept 80 mil for '08

Total Receipts: $326,236,288
Total Spent: $310,013,730
Cash on Hand: $16,222,557
Debts: $4,438,705
Date of last report: December 31, 2004
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00000245

I don't know the balance in this account. I imagine it is still costing $ to proceed with the Ohio lawsuits, which I would consider fighting election fraud.
I know some part of the campaign fund went to the DNC prior to this report, don't know how much. Was it 80 mil? I wouldn't call it a Kerry '08 fund, in any case. I expect and hope that money is going to '06 candidates.
I wish I knew the answers to all the questions. I don't. So I am disinclined to call the man a liar, since I have no proof that he lied.
So, you can continue to attack me and yell till you pop a vein, but without some evidence, I'm unconvinced.

[Chicago Democrat]

103. OK 16 million... as of 12.31

Why does he have anything at all?

He transferred a bunch out right after 11/2

The number was much closer to 80 million on election night.

Maybe i overstated it a bit. 16 or 300 million... what a waste do you know that maybe 500K will make a huge difference in house campaign.

What happened with the huge lawyer fund to fight the fraud since you have access to the Kerry Campaign apparrently and all the answers. What happen to that? What happen to the fighting all the way on election night?

[globalvillage]

106. As I said in my last post,

I don't have the answers. And I don't have access to the Kerry campaign, Sen Kerry, or anyone directly connected with him. I am just a supporter of Democrats that I believe are working in the best interest of this country, and that includes Sen Kerry.
What I do have is a date, and I'm late. So, as much as it's been a pleasure discussing this with you, I've got to go.
Have a pleasant evening.
:hi:

[IndyOp]

29. Has everyone read Miller's "Discussion with DU?"

I am not saying he is god, I am saying he is worth reading.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/11/05_mcm.html>

[mzmolly]

31. I took part in that conversation. I still don't think the Kerry remarks

should have been made public without clarification/permission.

[omega minimo]

34. Invitation to comment on this MCM post from DU discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5262012

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"We tend to think of many of our fellow-citizens as apathetic because, let's face it, we too live inside "the media bubble," which represents us to ourselves (and to the whole wide world) as far less discontented than we really are.

"Now, it is surely true that people should be more than discontented. They should be actively protesting and resisting. (Although there too the media tunes out what protest and resistance HAS welled up.) On the other hand, the system has radically depoliticized us, training us to watch and, if we can afford it, shop, and little else. We've therefore long since lost our civic virtue, and the necessary habit of saying NO when things become oppressive.

"Just remember that the situation is a lot more fluid, and potentially explosive, than it appears to be on CNN and in the New York Times. The elites have fallen out with one another——a clash that now provides us with a most important opportunity to say things that have been verboten for too long. The iron is hot. It's therefore crucial that we not despair, or paralyze ourselves with undue worries vis-a-vis the seeming or alleged indifference of "the masses."

btw-- I would echo those who are underwhelmed with Kerry after his capitulation WHEN SO MUCH WAS AT STAKE, yet remain open-minded.

[jus_the_facts]

36. ...more credibility THAN Kerry.....

....the theme was anybody but bush...credibility wasn't much of an issue....now nor THEN....

[robbedvoter]

44. Good point. He started with barely "more credibility than bush" and

by November 4 ended with "but not by much"

[mzmolly]

48. Thanks for correcting my grammar.

But, ABB was not about supporting a person without credibility. It was about trusting the Democratic Primary process to sort through the candidates and choose a person who was qualified and could win.

[jus_the_facts]

66. after seein' the primary process in action last year I don't trust it.....

...it seems to me or one could say...the same computer voting machines could have picked Kerry as he was basically picked as the nominee before most of the country had a chance to even vote in the primary process...I was never comfortable with John Kerry and everything I've learned since has proved me correct in my view of him...at least from my own perspective....the illusions we're fed by the media know NO bounds...the politicians don't seem aware of it or are complicit in their agenda to keep the masses divided and confused...misinformed and complacent...the solutions to age old problems still unsolved after millennia...that is our reality today..the very same troubles without any real change...sigh.

[mzmolly]

110. Voting reform is in the works, and in order for Kerry to remain credible

on this issue in the Senate, he has to be cautious about how he approaches the matter publicly IMHO.

[robbedvoter]

68. Most of us felt sold out by the primary process who was a fix by MSM

We decided to still fight bush IN SPITE of our broken hearts and frankly, dispair. So, please don't preach to me about "trust in the primaries"
ABB was an act of desperation to me.

[Freddie Stubbs]

51. He is telling people what they want to hear

People are more likely to believe something if it reinforces their word-view.

Example: Last year many DUers would post that they did not believe polls which showed that Bush and Kerry were neck-and-neck. The polls must be purposefully skewed by the corporate media to favor Bush. Now that those same polls are showing Bush to be very unpopular, no one is questioning them.

[mzmolly]

53. Makes sense Freddie.

:hi:

[seabeyond]

55. i still question them. i get a gallop poll at 42 for bush i drop it to 38

i absolutely still adjust the polls to bias

[oregonindy]

56. maybe because kerry has been for things then against them then for them

then against them....


time and time and time and time again....

[mzmolly]

59. Well one could argue that Miller trashed Gore and then wrote a book

about how bad Bush was? ;)

I'm not trying to trash Miller, I do think he should step up and say "it's possible there was miscommunication" though.

[texpatriot2004]

67. Why shouldn't Kerry step up? nm

[mzmolly]

107. As far as I know he doesn't post at DU.

;)

[robbedvoter]

69. But his propositions were NOT inconsistent with each other.

There was no "I would have voted for war knowing everything I do" and a year later: "it was wrong to vote for war"

[shance]

101. English is a pretty definitive language if you've spoken it for a while.

A miscommunication is a polite way to describe avoiding the truth.

[mzmolly]

108. People have different recollections of events, conversations

on a regular basis - english speaking skills aside.

[shance]

116. Like the "I don't recall" explanation? Yes you are right that people

have different recollections, but what I believe you are glossing over Molly is a out right denial.

How do you think you benefit Molly from defending Kerry and a potential lie?

I ask you that honestly. What benefit do you think you might gain from protecting Kerry when he did not protect you in 2004? Or in other words not living up to his commitment as a presidential candidate. I think John Kerry is obviously a good man in many ways, however I believe he is one of many that is "smelling the marble".

In other words, what has made you feel safe and comfortable with Kerry other than a persona you view on television? His voting record is marginal and certainly nothing to be impressed with.

Perhaps there was 'miscommunication'. Very well could have been. However I believe from past behavior and patterns from both the author and the real president, Miller is the one being honest and more accurate with regards to the conversaion.

[mzmolly]

141. I don't think Kerry is lying.

I could ask you the same question, how do you feel defending Miller and a potential lie? :eyes:

Protecting Kerry? I'm not protecting anyone, I'm saying that YOU don't know what took place, and neither do I. Further, I did not vote for Kerry to "protect" me. I supported him as my President.

As for his voting record, he was considered one of the most LIBERAL members of the senate - even more so than Kucinich. You are obviously not familiar with it.

[shance]

172. Most liberal?? Come on Molly.

You and I both know thats not true.

[mzmolly]

177. Actually it is true.

I can't recall the name of the liberal organization but they ranked the Senate, and Kerry was right at the top. I believe Wellstone was the only person ahead of him? He has an outstanding "liberal" record. He was wrong on the war vote, but other than that, he's been quite consistent.

[mntleo2]

72. What Is Credibility?

Apples and oranges as to who is more credible because one wanted to be president and the other is a teacher. Not the same as far as how we give credibility is concerned, IMO.

In my eyes, Kerry folded way too soon after the election and his reason was they would call him a sore loser. Any leader worth his salt knows there are important hills to die upon as well as some not so important. Our vote being counted is absolutely imperative if we are to call ourselves a democracy, and I believe Kerry is smart enough to know this. It pales compared to being called a sore loser that he show true leadership and stand up for the American people's right to have their vote count, and standing up for that would have also been standing up for a whole lot of other basic rights people should possess. it was an important step he failed upon and is still failing for he barely speaks about it publicly.

Unfortunately that I know of, Kerry has not shown leadership worthy of my support, if he folds just because he did not want to look stupid. Real leaders almost ALWAYS looks stupid in the beginning and they know that. All people of vision are initially considered kooks, this is the way it is. It was this way with Martin Luther King, it was this way with Gandhi, it was this way with Paul Wellstone, it was this way with John and Bobby Kennedy and the list goes on and on. The thing these men have in common is they ended up dead, but they knew this was a possibility, yet still stood up. The key here is they had the courage to face the diversity when they knew they were right. In leaders, there is an evolving that needs to happen before the Truth is known in one's self, from what I have seen. Once found inside, it IS powerful when you know you are right, because anybody can call you all the names they want, still you KNOW you are right.

I am not expecting anyone becoming a martyr, but I am expecting my president to be a true leader. For me, a true leader has the courage to stand up and say what is wrong, leaders have vision to know what do do about it, and leaders are not afraid to say the truth and do what needs to be done. To be a leader, it is imperative that you do not back down for the Truth with a capitol T. I will stand with John Kerry if he shows spine, but I am sad to say he has shown nothing of the sort so far. The status quo seems to be his mantra, IMO. While there is wisdom in going with the status quo, a true leader knows when it is bunk and causing more harm than good. Going with the status quop and ignoring all the problems with our last cycle of voting WAS a hill that needs to be stood upon!

As for Mark C Miller, who has never thought he could be president, he is doing what he knows best, and he does know it. He has pointed out important points and used his vast knowledge and wisdom to educated the rest of us who do not have the privilege of being his or any other professor's students. I am not so sure I would vote for him as president, but he has not even indicated he would want that either, lol.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[LittleClarkie]

73. Can I get a clarification on something? Reporter or author?

Miller that is.

I don't think Kerry lied, and I do think that Miller took a very small comment and blew it all to hell out of proportion.

The whole fraud conversation was:

"You were robbed"

"I know"

The world's smallest interview, or just party chat.

I think Miller overreacted, and heard what he wanted to hear, and extrapolated that little conversation out to a dramatic "John Kerry now admits that there was fraud."

He always has, btw. And he has been working on various things to correct the flawed system that lets partisan hacks run elections with antiquated machines.

That wasn't likely enough for Miller, so he tried to make something happen. And now he's crying about Kerry's despicable denial. Dude, you asked for it.

And, you may notice, in answer to your question, that there is an anti-politician prejudice here.

And Miller is a DUer, so he can't be called a liar according to the rules, or the perpetrator will get deleted.

The answer then is to get John Kerry a DU account. Then he will be a DUer, and folks won't be able to call him a liar with impunity. So there.

[robbedvoter]

78. Lying is the minor crime anyway. Giving up a win for fear of personal

attacks is the biggie. I'd call it BETRAYAL.

[LittleClarkie]

98. Then I guess poor Scooter should go home

a free man. It's okay Scooter, as lying is a minor crime.

Poor guy. Resigned and everything. For a minor crime.

Giving up a win because there wasn't enough concrete take-it-to-court evidence that a former DA who'd never lost a case could use to prevail is not betrayal. It is being realistic. Esp. when that person didn't even have the popular vote. How fast do you think they could pull out millions and millions of votes?

The betrayer is George Bush. And lying is damned well a serious crime. It's gotten two thousand soldiers killed so far, and counting.

[robbedvoter]

119. Minor in relation to betraying democracy. Scooter betrayed the country

so, HIS lie is quite major. Nice attempt at sophistry, but I was just trying to point to what was important in this story - and it's not Kerry vs Miller, but kerry vs the American People.

[Proud_Lefty]

75. Could they both be credible?

When Kerry conceded a year ago, it seemed so contrived with something devious and criminal lying just below the surface. Rumors have been flying, but Kerry's reactions since, and honestly even beore the elections, were to fight as hard as he could within the boundaries that were laid for him. He was always very careful never to go beyond those boundaries even though they were presented to him numerous times and would win him much more support.

I could easily see Kerry saying something about the stolen election on the side. Every single damn one of them knows the last two elections were stolen. But Kerry might have to be careful not to make public for fear of loved ones that have been threatened. These people (BFEE) aren't above retaliation and I believe many in congress are under similar threats or other forms of blackmail.

[robbedvoter]

76. How does hiding the truth equate credibility? he knows it was stolen,

shout it out. You are afraid to - you had no business being a candidate in the first place. Stay home, protect your loved ones and spit on the majority of voters who put their trust in you - how excusable is this?

[Moochy]

84. Not Excuseable, Not suprising either

But not suprising, or unexpected. Kerry chooses his battles, and fights inside the senate for the good democratic causes, but it seems he has made the decision that as a spokesman for election reform, he can not be seen as impartial. I've read the argument that he can't champion election reform without sounding like "sour grapes."

He was quoted by Miller when he wasnt on the record, making conversation about election reform.

He knows that he was robbed. He wont' speak up about it without clear unquivocal proof, and even then, I'm sure he's afraid of the "sour grapes" frame, and without the ability to hold hearings and subpoena people in the senate or the house, what would be the possible outcome of shouting to the hills about voter fraud?

(I'm 100% in agreement with your frustration about Kerry not doing just this, screaming about fraud, but as an emotional response I guess that's not as effective as having a committe with real subpoena power to investigate and indict the Diebold posse. Without a majority in the house or senate we'll have no possibility of voter reform, so they may just have a lock)

[robbedvoter]

118. Chosing battles? What is more important than democracy? Without

elections, all other battles are meaningless. All political power is effective handed to BFEE - so why even pretend that there are any other battles?

[stillcool]

79. i cringe

at the incindiary nature of Kerry posts. As my senator, he has not once disappointed me with his actions, or what he chooses to persue for my welfare. Regarding what 'he' should do, about stolen elections...i don't know. It seems to me proving electoral fraud would be easier, and more convincing coming from an independent source, but thats just me. Another thing is that i really don't expect perfection from any human being, and am okay with people making choices, and sometimes making the wrong one. i still think he'd make a great president, but hope he chooses not to run. He's too good of a man.

[RazzleDazzle]

87. Um, maybe because he wrote the book on the subject

(literally) and Kerry didn't????

Maybe because Kerry's known to be the spineless one in the group and Miller isn't?

Maybe because Kerry's been known to say one thing and then its exact opposite? Or DO one thing and then its opposite?

Etc.

[seabeyond]

91. repug talking points. say one thing, do exact opposite, give me

an example please

[RazzleDazzle]

111. Pretty much the whole war issue

You know, I didn't call him a flip-flopper, but just as with political humor, that appellation wouldn't have gained any tractions whatsoever if there hadn't been a shade of truth to it.

Look, I don't happen to like the man, and I don't think he's much of a leader and hasn't been for many years now. If people are still sticking up for and defending him after this little stunt, then all I can say is they deserve what they get: pretty much nothin' but blow-dried hair and stupid photo ops. And oh yes, I almost forgot: a breathless petition now and then.

[seabeyond]

122. the reason it hangs around is people like you continue to promote it,

yet you cant give me a point. do show me where anywhere in the war thing he flipflopped i dont need, pretty much the whole thing. just one little piece. the reason is you are wrong

and as for this to do today and you "writing" him off for that, you dont have the fact on that either, heresay only and then insist i buy into it, though you cant make a valid point.

yes, it is obvious you dont like the man. at least allow that to be the reason for not being informed, knowing what kerry has done and said, and the reason you attack the man without fact, promoting lie

[FreedomAngel82]

99. I've never heard of him before

:shrug:

[deutsey]

104. I first heard of him after the 2000 election. Wrote "Bush Dyslexicon"

It's a good book and worth the read.

Miller's got "street creds" among many DU'ers, I believe, mainly because of that book and a number of other articles, books, even a one-man show (I think), that have provided intelligent, funny, and cutting analysis of the Bush regime.

At least that's my opinion.

Unfortunately, Kerry lost credibility with me around 2002, although I voted for him in '04. I'm not a big fan of his, but I do wish he were president now.

[EFerrari]

112. google is your friend:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mark+Crispin+Miller&btnG=Google+Search

[mondo joe]

105. Kerry could help himself by stating unequivocally his opinion on the

matter.

But that's not his forte.

[EFerrari]

115. I don't want to post to this thread because I get too rude but

why not do something constructive? Instead of this flap, let's support Miller's book tour because unless we get our elections right again, we will lose in 2006 and in 2008, I promise you.

Why not go to Mark's site: www.markcrispinmiller.com and take a gander at where and when his book events are? And then email your crew about it?

Really, I understand the impulse and the NEED to vent. But, please, we can do better than that.

And better would be to support this book that exposes the fraud or at very least, gets people THINKING about how our elections are run.

Peace, mzmolly.

Beth

[katinmn]

130. Well done, Pat. MCM is here on the 15th

Election Integrity is on board and promoting it.

See you there, mzmolly? :hi:

http://www.electionintegritymn.org/events.php?action=fullnews&id=30

[EFerrari]

160. Super! Thank you Kati!

:hi:

[buddysmellgood]

117. That's the question

[robbedvoter]

120. Not really. The question is why is Kerry betraying democracy by

putting his own peace from personal attacks over the fate of elections in this country?

[buddysmellgood]

134. Well, that's a better question.

[Darranar]

128. John Kerry is an establishment politician, hence, a professional liar.

Miller has far more credibility in my view.

[northzax]

135. because he's saying what many people want to hear

and it's easier to believe what you want to hear than something you don't want to hear.

[mondo joe]

139. Kerry prevaricates. Who can tell what he means? n/t

[tavalon]

140. On Nov. 3rd, 2004

Kerry lost all credibility with me. Everyone, with the exception of those in the Bush administration, has more credibility with me than John Kerry.

BTW, I worked in the John Kerry campaign headquarters in Seattle in the run up to the election so it's not like I was always backing another horse. That's why his betrayal was extra acute for me.

[mzmolly]

142. I don't get how a person who supposedly lost by over a million votes

betrayed America when he conceded?

[merh]

144. I'm with you mzmolly.

There was a big difference between the "results" of 2000 and those in 2004. Gore won the popular vote and the question regarding the election came down to the electoral votes.

Kerry lost both.

I believe they were stolen from him. I also believe that hating him for not doing more is akin to blaming the victim of a rape for the rape. It seems pretty logical to me that if Kerry could have proved fraud in 2004 he would have. He is, after all, a career politician. To this day we still cannot "prove" election fraud. There is no real proof, no smoking gun, no inside witness, nada.

[robbedvoter]

149. Key word: "supposedly". here's a little quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3987237.stm

Early exit polls quoted by media seemed to give Mr Kerry the edge, but colleagues said Mr Rove indicated right away that they did not tally with his information.

He used his own data to put Ohio and Florida in the Bush column - bringing cheers from the president and his family when he went into the Roosevelt Room and told them

HE KNEW THEN and chose not to challenge it. NO EXCUSE!!!!!

[mzmolly]

151. Again, what do you challenge with diebold machines. They leave NO

PAPER TRAIL?!

[tavalon]

153. You challenge

by keeping the light on the issue. That's the power he had and that's the power he squandered.

[mzmolly]

154. Actually real power comes from effecting change. And that is where

the focus needs to be. You don't shine a light on that which is impossible to prove.

[tavalon]

156. You do shine a light on these awful roaches

The BFEE withers under scrutiny and Kerry had the power to keep the light on. He shut the light off on the morning of Nov 3rd, 2004 and those that continued to shine the light were summarily ignored.

[mzmolly]

157. Again, we need Republican support in order to prevent future stolen

elections. That requires diplomacy. I'd prefer we get our ducks in a row on securing future elections before we cry foul.

[tavalon]

159. Yeah

Diplomacy has worked quite well for us so far.

Too bad Howard Dean hasn't learned diplomacy the way Kerry has. :sarcasm:

Look, you aren't swaying me and I'm not swaying you, so I think we're at the agree to disagree stage.

[mzmolly]

161. Fine by me.

Cheers :hi:

I supported Dean in the primaries and for Democratic Party Chair but even he has not come out swinging, saying "the election was stolen."

[tavalon]

164. Yep

And that's one area I don't support him in, either. I think it's time for all of our elected and chosen Democratic leaders to stand up as one and scream about the election elephant sitting in the corner stinking up the place.

[mzmolly]

166. I'd prefer they wait until we have the necessary legislation in place.

;)

But I FULLY understand your position.

[tavalon]

168. Isn't there a possibility

that if we broadcast this across the nation 24/7, the public perception will shift and that the politicians, always hyperaware of the way the public wind is blowing, will introduce and push through legislation to get rid of privatization?

There are days when I'm unsure of whether the pols are listening to the public at all but if they are.............

[mzmolly]

169. I think if we did so when people were "open" to hearing about it yes.

But too much too soon only causes people to cover their eyes and plug their ears IMHO.

[tavalon]

173. Or stare dumbfounded and get angry and loud

like with Hurricane Katrina. We saw the Rethugs in all their dismissive disgustingness (dubya ain't the only Texan who can make up words ;) ). I think the day after the stolen election people were ready to take up the cause with a ferocity that may never be seen again. I think that was the day to strike. Kerry was the one who was supposed to lead.

But alas, we're back to that subject we don't agree on. Mea culpa.

[mzmolly]

176. LOL.

Well I felt like you did on that day to in all honesty.

I play devils advocate on behalf of Democrats on DU however. SHHHHHHHH.

[tavalon]

152. He promised to make sure every vote was counted

and then went back on that promise faster than I've ever seen anyone do it. He took the legs out from under the fraud assessment advocates. With his concession, the media and by proxy, the American people were no longer interested.

That is how he betrayed us.

[mzmolly]

155. He did support recount efforts.

But again, with diebold the beauty of theft is the fact that it's impossible to prove.

[rox63]

146. I think Kerry believed their discussion was off the record

And that Miller abandoned the code of journalism ethics by publicizing it. He probably did it because the issue of election reform is so important to him. But that's not a good excuse.

There is no way that Kerry would have dissed Senator Dodd if he thought that it had any chance of becoming public. He's too cautious a politician to do that.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

162. Because there are people here that have a vested interest....

...in seeing that Kerry continues to be discredited.

Some are freepers...those people are pretty easy to spot and get thrown off the board.

But some are fellow DUers who can't stand the idea that "their" candidate was not selected to run as the Democratic Party nominee.

Sad, very sad.

[in_cog_ni_to]

163. IMCPO, Kerry said what he said to Miller, but

doesn't want the world to know he believes the 2004 election was stolen. He's covering his ass for the next run in 2008. What he SHOULD be doing is trying to get rid of the freakin' evoting machines. If he doesn't feel comfortable confronting the election fraud, he should have, at the very least, found someone who WOULD take it on. I believe Miller. Kerry has a political agenda.

[seabeyond]

165. actually two days of reading this stuff, i am seeing kerry has

been doing stuff to go after the machines. which makes me feel better. there is some good info on these threads, facts, of what is being done

[mzmolly]

167. Miller has an agenda too - book sales.

Kerry's political agenda right now is to effect change for future elections and that is what I want him to do. ;)

I don't really think either man is lying though. As I've said time and time again, I think it's likely an error in communication?

[izzybeans]

170. I also think it possible that one person confided in someone

who ran off an used it to to say "look at me." No offense I enjoy Miller's work but a bombshell like that shouldn't be dropped by an esoteric professor in the "psssst..." kind of way. I honestly believe him, but I also doubt Kerry would publicize that position willingly without full support from "the Dodd's" in the world.

[brindis_desala]

175. This is very poorly framed and to be polite, beside the point.

The question is not whether Kerry was misquoted. The issue is, now that the GAO has issued a report that should have ALL Democrats (who as far as I know do not own or have supporters who own touchscreen voting machines) worried about the integrity of our elections, WHY Kerry felt constrained to even acknowledge a common sense response. It does not mean he did not say it was stolen anymore than Miller is necessarily correct that he did, but what his spokesman's instant clarification suggests is that KERRY has FEW or NONE of the party's POWERHOUSES BACKING HIM. This is serious people so I understand why the ramifications are too disturbing to contemplate. This is NOT about John Kerry it is about the apparent complacency of the party leadership in the face of damning evidence. A little refresher:
If this is not a RED FLAG I don't know what is:

Examples of problems reported by GAO include (1) computer systems that fail to encrypt data files containing cast votes, allowing them to be viewed or modified without detection by internal auditing systems; (2) systems that could allow individuals to alter ballot definition files so that votes cast for one candidate are counted for another; and (3) weak controls that allowed the alteration of memory cards used in optical scan machines, potentially impacting election results. GAO concluded that "these weaknesses could damage the integrity of ballots, votes, and voting system software by allowing unauthorized modifications (p. 25).

Flaws in Access Controls

Examples of problems reported by GAO include (1) the failure to password-protect files and functions; (2) the use of easily guessed passwords or identical passwords for numerous systems built by the same manufacturer; and (3) the failure to secure memory cards used to secure voting systems, potentially allowing individuals to vote multiple times, change vote totals, or produce false election reports.

Stop hashing about who said what. Write your reps and senators and demand to know what steps THEY have taken to expose the problem.
The Republicans are not going to correct it unless the public KNOWS
there's a skunk in the kitchen

[mzmolly]

178. Actually I find my thread quite relevant and framed just fine, thanks.

As to the rest of your post, there have been several threads on the subject already ~ and, I've taken action with my local reps.

BTW, the public will never believe there is a skunk in the kitchen unless they can pet him, and unfortunately, he's been buried in the back yard. ;)

[rasputin1952]

180. Locking

This has become a flame war.

Thankyou for your understanding.