We need to stop fantasizing AND demonizing.

[Cuban_Liberal]

The election of 2004 is O-V-E-R, y'all, and we L-O-S-T. Not a pleasant fact to accept, but one we MUST accept, because a refusal to accept it is preventing us from getting on with the useful work and behavior that will benefit us in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, etc. . There are major problems with voting technology that need to be confronted and dealt with, and as long as we continue to have this pity party, we're wasting energy we need to devote to making sure every vote DOES count from here on out.

We also need to stop this whole 'circular firing squad' thing we Democrats have developed into a high art form. It is entirely non-productive to engage in such ridiculous behavior. John Kerry (e.g.) ran a decent campaign; maybe it wasn't the best campaign ever, but it wasn't the worst, either. We need to focus on why the voters liked Bush's message better than they did Kerry's, and work on getting a better (or clearer) message out there in 2005 onward. Why it's supposed to be beneficial to our party to savage it's 'senior members' (for want of a better phrase) is beyond me.

Is anyone else ready to stop the silliness, and take a hard look at the mechanical/technological AND institutional problems we have? Raise your hand, if you are.

Thank you.

[alternative2]

1. Count me in

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. I know I am.

On the other hand, I want to see the vote thing fully and completely invesigated and vetted as well.

Many elements make up the whole.

[Cuban_Liberal]

3. I'm all for that.

I want that sh*t fixed a.s.a.p., too.

:)

[robbedvoter]

4. Glad you are over it. Bye now. I'll stay "silly".

I want to tell my grandchildren of the times we had a Constitution and voting rights. That's how silly I am.

[Cuban_Liberal]

5. Where did I say 'over it'?

Please point out where I use that phrase, will you? Furthermore, since when was dealing with reality considered abnormal behavior?

:wtf:

[robbedvoter]

7. In your reality, W won. In mine, he cancelled elections, installed

himself a dictator. Obviously we need to deal differently with our different realities.
O.S. make sure you study yours fast enough, before they change it again


''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And
while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Bush aide to Ron Suskind

[Cuban_Liberal]

10. Reality is an objective concept.

The fact is that he is and will remain President----reality. The fact is that the technology is flawed, and needs to be fixed, as I said in my o/p--- reality. Whining about it is a waste of energy--- reality. Savaging our party leadership and each other is pointless--- reality.

[Clark2008]

87. Whining about it is a waste of energy?

While I can accept that Democrats need to understand how to better manipulate the media to get their message out to the "red states," and they need to kick out their leadership on their keisters - I don't think bitching, complaining and whining about the flawed voting machines is something we need to "get over."

[Redleg]

104. Reality is quite subjective. Ask Berger and Luckman.

EOm

[XemaSab]

120. I like the quote...

Every time I read it it reminds me of John Doe in the movie "Seven."

"You can’t see the whole... the whole complete act yet. Not yet. But, when this is done, it’s going to be... so... so... It’s going to be flawless. People will barely be able to comprehend it. It will seem almost surreal... but it will have a tangible reality, so they won’t be able to deny it. It’s really going to be something."

"I’m setting the example, and it’s going to be puzzled over and studied and followed, from now on."

"You should be thanking me. You’re going to be remembered, and it’s all because of me. And, the only reason I’m here right now is because I wanted to be. You’re only alive because I didn’t kill you. I spared you, and you’re going to have to remember that every time you look in the mirror at that nose on your face for the rest of your life. Or, I should say, for the rest of what life I’ve allowed you to have."

[m berst]

17. really

You didn't use that precise phrase, it is true...

"The election of 2004 is O-V-E-R, y'all, and we L-O-S-T. Not a pleasant fact to accept, but one we MUST accept..."

"Must accept that it is over" = get over it

I would say. No?

[Cuban_Liberal]

20. No.

If I had intended to say "get over it", I would have said that. I use language well, and what I write I write quite deliberately.

[m berst]

39. explain

What is the practical difference between "get over it" and "you must accept this and move on" in this context?

I understand that the phrase "get over it" has negative connotations and a recent history from which you may wish to disassociate your comments, still the two phrases are every bit as much the same as "get out of here" and "scram" are.

[Cuban_Liberal]

42. This is exactly what I wrote:

"The election of 2004 is O-V-E-R, y'all, and we L-O-S-T. Not a pleasant fact to accept, but one we MUST accept, because a refusal to accept it is preventing us from getting on with the useful work and behavior that will benefit us in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, etc. ...."

Those are simple, declarative English sentences. I am not responsible for those who wish to construe it to say something besides what I clearly wrote.

[m berst]

89. understood

I know what you wrote. I stand by my statement that the re-wording of it by others does not distort the meaning of what you wrote.

[Cuban_Liberal]

118. Well, you are wrong.

I meant exactly what I wrote---nothing more, nothing less. Any other meaning subscribed to it is a creation of YOUR and THEIR brains, not mine.

[Sugarbleus]

98. Geez Mberst, what word smith you are...

You are missing the point..my friend.

[m berst]

100. ok

Well, I am crabby and contentious lately and feeling stressed out. Sorry to the op for being a pain.

My sense is that the language in the original post only increase the bad feelings and will lead to more infighting.

Thanks for the gentle admonishment.

[Sugarbleus]

101. =o)

.....

[r3verberate]

103. Trying to explain things on this forum ...

... is quite similar to explaining on a conservative forum that Bush getting 51% of the vote over Kerry's 48% of the vote by no means a blowout.

There are mindless herds on both sides of the fence.

[liberalmuse]

6. I've accepted it.

Do I think some aspects of the election were rigged? You bet I do. Should we cast our votes on electronic machines with no paper trail? Hell no! As for strategy--my god, if doing the right thing isn't enough anymore, we're truly fucked.

In my unqualified opinion, we need Democratic leadership to stand for what is right and not waver. THAT'S what won it for Bush--the non-wavering part. If we're going to be for civil unions, we'd better not qualify it with, 'I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but...' Fuck that. People are so afraid of going left, but if we do so with conviction, we will triumph.

[charlie]

8. It's early yet

No need to rush things. Taking a strap to a recalcitrant media and oblivious public to make them at least notice that something fishy is going on takes a lot of energy and focus. We can spare a bit of that for now, before events lose their immediacy and blur into the haze of "who cares, that was years ago?" in the public mind.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. I'm inclined to let people process things

in whatever way they need to. I just don't see the intense urgency. It's going to be awhile before the focus shifts to the next set of elections. Not much politics is going on at all through the Holidays, which means through the start of the new year. I happen to think that people will be more productive when it counts, if they are able to go through a complete processing of their thoughts and emotions.

I like to think of DU as a place where we can go to let off steam, or talk about our feelings, as well as a place to focus political efforts. I also think that there are some truly valid concerns that many people have with the party, it's direction, and whether it can even continue as more than a marginal force in American politics. There is some very intense self examination that needs to happen, and I think it's good that it should happen among rank and file Democrats as well as party functionaries. I happen to think these discussions are important, even the anger and pain that's expressed in many of them.

I realize that these processes are uncomfortable for alot of people to see, which is why I think that liberal use of the Hide Thread feature, and the ignore button is a good idea.

I don't think that it helps to lecture people who are in pain, or are going through their own emotional processing. Of course, they're free to use those features too.

[robbedvoter]

11. As you process things, you may want to pay attention to this (fixed link)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1390442

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. Bad link. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

14. Hey robbed

link doesn't work.

[Cheswick2.0]

12. One element of figuring out why Bush won is

figuring out what we did wrong. Since Kerry became all our collective candidate and we all voted/worked for him, I think we have a right to discuss what went wrong. That included discussion of why Kerry/the party failed.

[robbedvoter]

40. Like how come we didn't expect 11 million martians to descend

on the polling place right AFTER the exit polls (3 of them) were taken?
I mean, karl knew, why didn't we?

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

[Hippo_Tron]

75. By Martians, you mean Evangelical Christians

That's what they spent most of their time doing.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. Kerry was an average politician, Bush had the Terra element...

Bush's central message to the swing voters was "You may not like my socially conservative or my fiscal policies one damn bit, but has there been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11? You know what will happen with me in office, you can't trust Kerry as commander-in-chief because he flip-flops too much." Then we had Kerry who hired people that didn't respond properly to the Bush flip-flop attacks and the swift boat veterans. Only towards the end did he start doing things right when he hired Clinton's strategists, something he should've done in April or June, not September. Another thing they accused him of was being a "northestern eliteist", which he should've countered by telling people that Bush grew up wealthy, privilaged, and connected and as a result, he never put in a single day of honest work in his life. People were under the impression that Bush actually lives modestly. Then there was them Evangelical Christians which Bush spent the last four years appealing to because they didn't show up in 2000.

[smoot]

102. Good points for regaining strength

Cuban, Cheswick, and Hippo have good points.

Bush should have been easy to beat: the country is war-weary, they're suspicious of meddling evangelists, and fearful of high deficits. An inspiring and eloquent candidate with strong principles could've done much better. The problem is, there aren't many of them in the party. I think Lieberman would have stood a better chance.

And addressing what went wrong in our camp is exactly what's needed, in my opinion (we aren't going to change the Repubs). Like serving the needs of the working man--most of whom are now shareholders and landowners--it doesn't help to scold them about not doing their share when they already know that lower-income people pay NO income taxes.

And giving the seat of honor to rich celebrities who are famous for calling Americans cowards and idiots--how is that supposed to win votes?

[newyawker99]

117. Hi smoot!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Bleacher Creature]

15. Everyone needs to relax

There are two separate issues going on here.

First, the election to decide who will be inaugurated on January 20th is indeed OVER. Nothing is going to change the fact that Bush will be sworn in and that John Kerry will be watching it on TV. I'm not trying to deny the possibility of fraud, but it is going to take a hell of a lot to change the outcome -- basically the smokiest smoking gun ever.

Second, we do need to investigate everything that happened on November 2nd to make sure that it never happens again. And if we do eventually find some good evidence of fraud, we can use it to remind America that if 51% is surely not much of a mandate, a FAKE 51% is even less of one.

That's just my two cents -- and I don't see how that is any different than what Cuban_Liberal had to say.

Look, nobody thinks that we should stop investigating the likely fraud that took place. But people do need to get past the fantasy that we are going to find something that is going to convince George Bush and Co. to say "you're right' and step aside.

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. We're on the same page.

I think we need to figure out what went wrong, too, on many levels, but it's high time to stop the fantasizing that anyone bu Bush is gonna take the oath of office on January 20th, 2005.

:thumbsup:

[ironcity]

114. why so many swing voters went for bush

if anyone is interested as to why an independent voter from the south would vote for george bush i will be happy to explain.it is a long but maybe worth the read

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Cuban_Liberal]

23. Coronated? N/t

[Bleacher Creature]

32. Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm sure not rolling over

Do I believe that more people went to vote for John Kerry than George Bush? Yes.

Do I believe that we need to investigate EVERY aspect of the vote -- Yes. And not just the possibility of computer fraud, but also what happened to the people who were denied the right to cast their ballot in the first place.

I just believe that the fight is no longer about trying to get John Kerry sworn in as President in two months. How is that rolling over?

[robbedvoter]

38. The fight was NEVER about Kerry - it was about democracy all along

kerry had great standing to lead it, but folded. Still, he cannot concede my right to vote, so I am still fighting.
And the unpleasan reality is that this election was stacked right from the start.
kerry as a legislator who sat on his ass the past 4 years is responsible.

[Blue_Roses]

116. Excellent post and well said!

I accept the fact that this election was laced with obvious fraud, but to think Bush is just gonna say, "okay, I lost," and give it to Kerry is living in another realm. Maybe that sounds extreme, but if they went to such extremes to make sure he "won" then there is no way they would give it up short of a civil war.

I think what we need to focus on more now than ever is the "how" of this fraudulent election. How were so many non-existent people allowed to vote and where did these inflated numbers come from. That needs to be the focus. Until we fix that will never win another election.

[seriousstan]

16. Kerry was our Bob Dole

Lifeless and without a message. People voted against Bush, not for Kerry. That about sums it up.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[seriousstan]

52. You must be confusing me for someone else. I never addressed you.

[catbert836]

33. I personally think Kerry was more like Barry Goldwater. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

46. As in New Democrat: fiscal hawk, stronger on defense

and yet still liberal on social issues.

Sort of a Kennedy throwback in a way, isn't he? I know that JFK was his hero, but would it be wrong to compare the two? They have the emphasis on national service in common.

[Leilani]

48. Huh?

John Kerry is unlike Barry Goldwater as anyone I could think of.

Goldwater was a Movement candidate, a radical to some.

Kerry was a Status Quo candidate, hardly a radical.

[Freddie Stubbs]

91. Bob Dole didn't have a chance. Kerry could have won it

Things were going pretty well back in 1996. Clinton was going to win regardless of who his opponent was. That wasn't the case in 2004. Bush was a waek incumbent and it eas Kerry's race to lose.

[muse]

112. Agree. Plus, Kerry is smart, well informed. Had makings of great candidate

. . . was a great candidate, in my opinion. I can't figure out if we lost because we were out campaigned or "out-media -ed" . Still contemplating. I truly thought Kerry was/is terrific.

[imenja]

21. I agree, and I'm in

I think a lot of people are in serious denial. Not to say there aren't problems with the voting system. Clearly there are and we need to fix them. But waiting around for Kerry to be declared winner like he is our savior is ridiculous. More people voted for Bush than Kerry. Now we need to work to make sure Republicans don't gain ground in 2006.

[Cuban_Liberal]

24. Exactly!

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[catbert836]

34. You know, recognizing something is wrong is

the first step to recovery.

[robbedvoter]

36. I need to recover from what? Dictatorship?

Something is wrong since 2000 - but it ain't me.

[catbert836]

54. George Bush is what's wrong

and that he is president. But you're not changing that by despairing and thinking that the United States=Third Reich. You know, I remember that under Reagan, a lot o people thought the same thing, and guess what? IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

[m berst]

26. this is an opinion

You are presenting your opinions, and phrasing them as though they were facts about which people need to be lectured. You start by characterizing your opinion as "reality" that people should deal with, and the opinions of those who disagree with you on this as "fantasizing" that people should stop thinking or expressing.

That makes it pretty difficult to discuss the subject intelligently. Even if you are correct - that your opinion is reality and those of others are fantasy - not very many people are going to be willing to discuss moving on with you when you have already trashed them so thoroughly and done so in a covert way rather than in a straightforward manner.

I think that people have a variety of legitimate opinions about what is over and what isn't, and a variety of opinions as to what criticism of the party or particular leaders is or is not constructive. To call one reality and the other fantasy is in itself contributing to the problem that you are lamenting, is it not?

[robbedvoter]

30. Thanks for the ray of sanity in his thread.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Cuban_Liberal]

31. Thanks for the lecture, mom.

It's a discussion board, ffs! Of COURSE some of it's my opinion, but most of it is objective reality.

:eyes:

[robbedvoter]

35. Not your mom. And your reality is manufactured, study well and fast!

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And
while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Bush aide to Ron Suskind

[Cuban_Liberal]

37. My reality is objective.

It has points of reference based on objective, factual events.

[robbedvoter]

41. Who are the 11 million then? Please explain.

And don't forget all the disaffected W voters from 2000, the 42 approval rate , the huge crowds for kerry vs the staged W events...
Not unlike this story:


    Mr Yushchenko started the presidential campaign as Ukraine's most popular politician, and it took an enormous propaganda effort on state-run TV channels to make Mr Yanukovych look like a real contender, correspondents say.

[Cuban_Liberal]

43. WHAT 11 million people?

:wtf:

[Cuban_Liberal]

56. *crickets* n/t

[VioletLake]

60. New voters. n/t

[Cuban_Liberal]

62. That was simple.

Thanks for not being cryptic.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[jonnyblitz]

28. I look at it this way....

If nothing ever came of all the crap that went down in 2000, nothing will come of all of this going on now and it was more glaring in 2000, IMHO. I STILL want "whoever" to pursue all of this stuff but I believe Bush is the president for the next four years no matter WHAT comes of all of this. Look what they did to secure his presidency in 2000. :shrug:

[catbert836]

29. Here! Right Here!

Listen to Cuban Liberal. He speaks the truth.

[OneBlueSky]

44. you're absolutely right . . . we allowed them to steal another one . . .

we didn't learn in 2000, and we didn't learn in 2002 . . . so we went right ahead and allowed them to steal another one in 2004 . . . yes, it's over . . . but if John Kerry and the Democratic Party had stood up and raised hell both before and after the election, it wouldn't be . . . the cumulative evidence of voter fraud (which is voluminous) would be front page news across the country, and people who supported Bush would be re-thinking their decisions . . . but we just let them have it . . . and, in doing so, have done possibly irreparable harm to what's left of our democracy . . .

as for future elections . . . don't bother . . . they still control the voting machines and the entire electoral process, so they'll do in 2006 what they did in 2000, and in 2002, and in 2004 . . . and there's not a damn thing we can do to stop them . . .

[Cuban_Liberal]

45. Where did I suggest that in my O/P?

Be so good as to point out where I urged giving up.

[robbedvoter]

49. In your first sentence:

The election of 2004 is O-V-E-R, y'all, and we L-O-S-T. Not a pleasant fact to accept, but one we MUST accept,

If you validate their theft, nothing else matters.

[Cuban_Liberal]

51. It's an objective reality.

It's pure fantasy, if not an outright psychologically-disordered thought pattern, to think that anyone other than Bush will be sworn in on Jan. 20th. 2005.

[robbedvoter]

53. The reality is WE DID NOT HAVE AN ELECTION. Nothing lost, nothing won

It was kabuki theater that you take as "objective reality"
I am not contesting that the dictator is still in power.
he never won anything, we never lost anything.
The action you take is dictated by your comprehension of this.

[Cuban_Liberal]

55. We did have an election.

It was Nov. 2nd, and it wasn't 'kabuki theater'.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Cuban_Liberal]

61. John Kerry got more votes than Al Gore did, too.

More people voted this time than in 2000.

:eyes:

[robbedvoter]

47. However, people of conscience owe it to themselves to expose

the truth, no matter the odds, obstacles. It's that or run with the rhinocerouses, or stick your head in the sand like this bunch.

[Leilani]

57. Cuban Liberal, do you believe the election was stolen?

Do you think Kerry actually received more votes than Bush?

Because I think that's where the great divide lies.

As for myself, I haven't made up my mind...I just don't know WHAT's true anymore.

But if people truly believe the books were cooked, it will be hard for them to move to the stage you're suggesting.

[Cuban_Liberal]

58. I think Bush got more votes.

I've seen no legally-sufficient evidence of vote fraud or theft, so yes, I do believe that Bush got more votes. If someone produces actual evidence proving large-scale vote fraud, I could change that belief.

[robbedvoter]

63. The evidence is gathering. Berkeley, MIT concur

We have 2 forums here where fresh evidence is piled on daily.
I amnot even taking all of it at face value - but the critical mass was achieved early on. An MIT study in 2000 showed that 6 million votes nationwide were not counted. Why is it so hard that 11 million are bogus (or syphoned from us?)

[Cuban_Liberal]

65. Because no one has produced legally-sufficient proof.

Other than taking to the streets in an armed revolution, the only chance we theoretically have of overturning this election is the courts, and that requires proof of fraud or theft. If Berkley and MIT have it, why isn't it being put into a legal compalint and filed in court?

Don't forget, the National Enquirere has 'proof'that Elvis is alive, too...

:eyes:

[robbedvoter]

68. Legally? Ya mean up to Scalia's snuff?

They also didn't have any legal reason to impeach Clinton, but that didn't stop THEM. read one of the signs of fascism - for "objective reality"


14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a
complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns
against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of
legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries,
and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their
judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm

have you kept up with the going ons in Ohio or you're to busy to accept your losses and bully others into joining you?

[Cuban_Liberal]

71. I'm not bullying anyone.

Confronting fantasy may seem like bullying to those who entertain those fantasies, but trust me, it isn't.

:eyes:

[Leilani]

64. Thanks for your reply.

I seem to vacillate back & forth.

I'm waiting for real evidence...if Kerry's 17,000 lawyers can't produce it, it ain't there.

[Cuban_Liberal]

66. Exactly.

If 17000 lawyers can't find it, it doesn't exist.

:hi:

[Leilani]

69. What really bothers me is that these voting issues

should have been addressed BEFORE the election.

We knew after 2000 that the system was not reliable.

The party should have made a paper trail a huge issue, & then vote fraud would have been on the radar screen.

[Cuban_Liberal]

78. Gotta agree with you there.

That's why we have to start work on fixing it NOW.

:hi:

[Sugarbleus]

99. Exactly...Kerry or DNC..or whomever

Should have used those 17,000 Attorneys to ENSURE the voting process BEFORE WE WENT TO THE POLLS, goddamnit. Our Leadership let us down in more than one way....we should be just as furious with them as we are with the fascists.

Time to get busy about our future now. DEFINE in CLEAR, CRISP detail WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY STANDS FOR. We are all over the place at this point.

[robbedvoter]

70. Kerry's 17,000 lawyers are sitting on their duff.

Don't roll over just because Kerry did. It's people like Kerry and their constant accomodation of the thugs that landed us in such a massive fraud.
Use your own head,

[Cuban_Liberal]

74. Maybe they're sitting on their duff because....

.... there's no 'there' there. Frivolous lawsuits ARE frowned on.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. How about this, my middle of the road analysis...

1) BBV was a factor, the CEO of Diebold said that there was no way that he would let Bush loose the election. How MUCH of a factor? Not enough to tip the scales by itself probably. This is the kind of thing that they can get away with on a small scale, not on a large scale.

2) 9 hour voting lines in Ohio

3) Flyers saying that if you were registered by the NAACP or the Kerry Campaign, you are not legally registered.

4) People handing out voter registration forms promising to deliver them but then throwing the democratic ones away.

5) Provisional ballots that don't count if you are in the wrong precint, which is almost pointless.

Throw in all of these factors and I think that it's questionable as to who would've had the most votes. Not saying that it would've been Kerry or Bush.

[janx]

67. 2006 is very important.

I'm looking forward to it.

[Leilani]

72. Only if the system is fixed.

And will it be? Will people have confidence that their vote was counted, & that everyone who wanted to vote, was able to?

[janx]

77. I sure hope so! It had better be.

But before anyone can fix it, we have to find out exactly what happened. That's probably going to take some time.

[robbedvoter]

73. Wanna see more kabuki theater?

[Leilani]

76. Robbed, do you think that if Kerry had absolute proof

that he had really won the election, he wouldn't do anything?

You know Kerry wasn't my candidate, but do you think he folded?

See, this is what I'm finding hard to believe.

Approximately half the country voted for him...if he had proof, don't you think he'd bring it forward?

And why is there such silence from the Dems?

[robbedvoter]

81. Yes, I do. he caved under pressure on IWR, on VP choice, why not

on this one? He made it about himself rather than democracy. he wanted to save face - not put himself through the hell Gore went.
it was all "God testing John". We were only the extras in this main drama.
I expected him to fold. I didn't want him as a candidate because I KNEW he can't take pressure. PNAC would have played him as a fiddle. I only voted for him thimking of the judges.
A leader, this one wasn't. Not in many, many, many, many years.

[Leilani]

83. Thanks

I REALLY do know where you're coming from, I really do.

[OneBlueSky]

96. they set it up so there CAN'T BE any proof! . . .

some of us have been screaming about this for two years or more . . . with the Republicans controlling the elections, and Republican corporations counting the votes, and with what happened in 2000 and 2004, that the Democrats didn't make this a HUGE issue is inexcusable . . . and now, with the Repugs firmly in control of the Congress, there's no way that any of this is going to change . . . why should it? . . . it's given them complete control of the government, so why should they change it . . . that's why it's critical that we expose every last bit of election fraud and chicanery NOW . . . if we don't, future elections will indeed by further exercises in kabuki theater . . .

[The Flaming Red Head]

79. IT WILL N-E-V-E-R B-E O-V-E-R as long as Bush is in the WH

I can spell too. F-R-A-U-D.

[Cuban_Liberal]

84. Where is your p-r-o-o-f?

You know, that little legally-sufficient bit of evidence every court in this country would demand be produced?

[m berst]

88. "proof" is a red herring

No crime could ever be solved if investigators had to have proof before an investigation could be considered or intitiated. Of course there is no proof up to the standard you are asking for at this point. There could not be.

Even should a Republican operative go to the press tomorrow and say that he had been paid to steal votes for Bush it is likely that the right wingers would be able to spin that out of existence as they did the proof from Edmonds, Clarke, O'Neil and Wilson. In each case, and with this case of potential election theft, there is more than sufficient evidence to call for a full scale investigation for the purpose of discovering the proof that would hold up in court - if such proof does in fact exist.

If the police were constrained from questioning suspects until and unless they had "proof" how would they ever solve a crime?

[The Flaming Red Head]

97. Exit polls same as Ukraine and every other civilized nation

[robbedvoter]

109. They used to work fine until 2000 when they worked fine except for

Florida. They were trashed in 2002 (second stolen election) and in 2004 worked fine again in non-Diebold states...Go figure.

[Heimdallr]

85. Indeed. Please supply some evidence to support your claim.

[robbedvoter]

105. See # 88

[Jim Sagle]

86. Kerry won, w lost, and everybody goddamn well knows it.

[Heimdallr]

95. How does 'everybody' know it?

[Jim Sagle]

107. Since you already goddamn well know it, I don't think I'll waste time on

the jibber jabber.

[Sugarbleus]

90. Focus on why the voters went for bush...EXACTLY..

I'm coming to a horrible reality. First I ranted and spit fire, now I'm really Looking at the problems we have within our own party.

Yes, goddamned ensure we have proper voting techniques, but DON'T just roll over like our Leaders did...FIND OUT WHAT THE HELL about our party/platform was NOT appealing to the Bush and cross over voters.

I for one only voted Kerry as anybodybutbush. Kerry doesn't represent my views in social matters. He was too conservative for me.

Maybe he and his ilk aren't "in touch" with a lot of people in America. The DNC isn't working to reflect the "people's view" either. These groups put their heads together and decide amongst themselves "who" is the "appropriate" candidate to "lift up". That has to STOP.

The Democratic Leadership is too insulated from everyday america. Time to clean house.

[janx]

92. That's putting it pretty succinctly!

Good for you!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. What Positions On Social Issues Do You Recommend Our Candidates Take?

And how will it help us get more votes?

[Sugarbleus]

119. Some candidate in Leadership had to

IMO, take up the cause of the everyday guy, in everyday America and STAND FIRM FOR THOSE IDEALS without backing down or compromising with the opponents.

What are the problems we face in "everyday" America? JOBLESSNESS and OUTsourcing, low wages, lack of healthcare, safty net programs being gutted or killed, skyrocketing prices for homes and goods, education system from K-12 is falling apart, increasing intolerance, anti-family ideals cloaked in "Family Values" rhetoric. Too quick to launch wars of choice.

Republicans and Dems alike are both struggling in a "tough economy". There are people w/o any healthcare and there are those whose premiums are SKYROCKETING. I'm sure they'd appreciate some help there, just like we do. They'd like their aging parents to be treated with dignity just like we do.

"Domestic Issues" might be a better term for what I'm talking about. As soon as someone uses the word "Social" they freak out.

[XemaSab]

121. *Word* , Sugar....

Furthermore, I think standing up for the founding principles of the country is critical. Like the first amendment, maybe?

I'm all down with Brand Democrat's

"What happens in your bedroom, stays in your bedroom. It's just none of our business."

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

93. Hand raised.

[Tuddie]

94. So, insisting on free, fair and transparent elections is silly?

It's not over until its over. The first amendment does not read, "Sit down and shut up." If you have a problem with multi-tasking then let it be your problem and don't impose it on those of us who are staying the course by insisting on civil rights for all who cast a vote and trusted that vote would be counted. Advocacy for free, fair and transparent elections - from November 2, 2004 - is about preserving democracy in the United States.

The DNC can go f**k itself as far as I'm concerned. The voters did NOT like Bush's message better. Kerry's message was clear enough. The DNC needs to get a spine. Too bad my anger looks like a "pity party" to you. Revolutions and true change are not initiated by pity - I do not read "pity" within any of these DU blogs. I read a call to action, a call to truth and integrity in leadership. If the DNC cannot offer these things, then, yes, it is time to move on.

What is preventing YOU from useful work and behavior!? Are you writing and calling your "elected" officials? your local media newspapers, television stations and NPR? Are you doing useful research on right-wing organizations and individuals and exposing them for the scum that they are? Are you defending the civil rights of tens of thousands of disenfranchised voters?

Guess what? Hundereds of people have already been about the business of taking a hard look at the mechanical/technical AND institutional problems we have and YOU have labeled their efforts "silly." Why not take your raised hand and get back to work.

[robbedvoter]

106. Yup. next time, we'll throw more votes in the Diebold garbage - maybe

we'll have so many votes, we'll jam the machines (that's how the "close enough to steal delusion works") . we'll have a candidate so perfect, no lie will ever be possibly invented about him - the teevee will burn the liars on the spot. And we must pray, repent , kiss thieves' ass - and all these miracles will happen. So goes the logic of those who'd rather see themselves as losers of one election than of democracy itself

[Cuban_Liberal]

110. Chasing will o' the wisps...

In my o/p, I specifically stated that we need to engage in useful behavior. Working to fix BBV technology would be an example of 'useful behavior', while holding on to some fantasy about George Bush being confronted with a bunch of allegorical garbage about 'fraud' and suddenly saying, "Gee, you're right, John Kerry was elected, so Dick and I will just quietly go away" is NOT an example of useful behavior. Examples of the second are abundant on these boards.

Not only am I currently deeply involved in working to change flawed voting technology, but I started being involved in it long before Nov. 2, 2004. I attended county board meetings in my county and surrounding counties and raised holy hell when the boards in question even considered buying and using any sort of paperless machines--- and carried the argument; every county where I (and others) spoke now uses optical scanners. Furthermore, I am actively working with my State Representative, Bob Flider, to change the law in Illinois to require EVERY county to use voting equipment that leaves a paper trail and to fully fund any changes that would entail.

I have not labeled anyone's efforts as 'silly' where those efforts have been aimed at changing flawed BBV technology, nor can you or anyone else find ANY statement in this thread where I have done so. Distorting what a person has plainly written is a tactic I personally associate with Republicans, and it shocks me to see any progressive engage in it.

:wtf:

[LisaLynne]

108. As I've been saying ...

it's not an either/or propsition. If some people truly believe there was some sort of fraud involved in the election, then they need to pursue that. Why discourage them? At the same time, we can also start looking at what we need to do as Democrats and progressives to get our message out there, to start winning elections.

I do understand frustration, but besides the 'circular firing squad', we have also perfected the "draining of energy by negativity". That needs to be addressed, too. I am tired of spending all day trying to fight for progressive causes, only to have to fight against other progressives. We should be supporting each other, not tearing each other down. We're supposed to be about supporting those with differing ideas, even if they are not wholly our own.

[billyskank]

111. But

any suggestion for what we should do differently in the future is necessarily an implied criticism of the way things have been done. And very quickly someone will jump on you. Then someone else will bemoan the "circular firing squad!" :(

[Q]

115. It seems to me that the Dem party continues to 'move on' to the next step

....without bothering to learn from history and what went wrong before. Simply moving on for the sake of moving on is 'silly'.

It's obvious that the party didn't learn much from 2000. The Bushies simply browbeat the Democrats into conceding and then had THEIR SC help them along with the finally blow to democracy.

Planning ahead isn't going to help if the Dems keep making the same mistakes over and over again. And thus far...their biggest mistake has been to listen to those advising them to move on.

[I_Love_Oregon]

122. Here Here

Way to go, Cuban_Liberal!

Your message is a healthy one, and much needed here. We've been through a very tramatic election, and our energy is desperately needed refocusing towards the future.

Yes, Election/machine reform must happen, and it is our duty to see that it does. But we must also turn our attention to IDEA building. It's not enough to point out our opponent's flaws. We must also continue to refactor our understanding of the world, and the policy postions we take accordingly. In a world that changes on a 24 hour news cycle, I think the Democrats, more than anything else, lost focus. I'm afraid this might be the Left's biggest fault.. too much attention on the past, and not enough attention building solutions geared towards the future.

No person is perfect.. and neither is a political party. It's also our duty, as shepards of this party (along with many others, of course) to find its flaws, and emphasize its strengths. In doing so, let's be tolerant of all opinions, keep our minds open, and search our souls.


K

[Perky]

123. Yes..Amen and Amen

We need new ideas..cerainly new leadership and most importantly we need a Clue.

We would rather joust at windmills then win the hearts and minds of 50 million voters in the middle.

We have to be as much for something than we are against someone....why? because it just gets old and tiresome and we look like whining lunatic fringe conspiracists.

We got beat because more americans trust Geoge Bush then they do a Democrat..Instead of calling them stupid or controlled by big media... we need to have a discussion with the political center in this country rather than behaving like elitist snobs.

This is not an academic subject it is not time for idealism... its is time to reevaluate our message, it's effectiveness, and how to regain the trust of the middle.

[bhikkhu]

124. LIBERAL - Retake the Word

Reading the definition, liberal values are and have always been American values. Probably the most damaging coup the repugs have pulled is to hijack the word and convinced everyone its an insult. It should be a compliment, and everyone here should recognize it as such. I kept hoping Kerry would talk about it in that light...there is nothing more maddening to an enemy than taking his insults and wearing them like a badge of pride.

[Senator Lamb]

125. im tired of...

people attacking John Kerry for not being liberal when he cleary was, Im tired of people already calling Barak Obama a sellout because he doesnt talk about Bush as the antichrist but instead has pragmatic reasonable discussions in his interviews. im tired of people saying moderates are zell miller republican lites when moderation has nothing to do with indiviudal characters who talk aagainst their own party. we dont have to compromise our core principles to sell our ideas to the american people. but we have to present them and illustrate them in a way that the american people will buy. from what i see on this board, already bashing barak obama for not calling for revolution, well, it just needs to stop

[otohara]

126. And We Will Continue To Lose, Silly DU'ers? or BBV

when you consider they own every aspect of the federal government, the BBV machines, who by the way pay portions of the Secretaries of States salaries. The Ohio Secretary of State just happened to be chairman of Bush/Cheney re-selection. (sound familiar))

Kinda hard to stop this "silliness" when so much is stacked against us, don't you think?

Learn from OUR mistakes? Fuck that BS, you need to read this column:

Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Brazille and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the Bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, “Why did they beat me?”

And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.

They will tell you, every single day.

The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.

http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html