We need John Kerry to be straight with us, and now.

[joeunderdog]

After 6 weeks of screaming, we got a few splashes of mainstream coverage this week—even negative spin is better than no coverage at all. But it somehow feels like crusts of bread for starving men. And since John Kerry has offered only cryptic reassurance that he is serious about getting to the bottom of this election scandal, I simply don’t see evidence of the kind of OUTRAGE on his part that most of us feel. Why isn’t his position obvious to us?

I, for one, am growing tired of having to use my imagination to interpret the ambiguous so-called hints of Kerry’s quest for honest election. Sure, his lawyer sends letters and he "supports?" Cobb's recount. Isn't this kind of half-assed for a challenge? And despite sounding initially encouraging, the fact that he used the words “regardless of the outcome” is hardly proof that he is trying to win in 2004. But that’s all we get. With each day of invisibility, it’s becoming less and less believable that John Kerry is playing possum as part of some grander scheme. No sense of urgency. No leading The Charge. No, well… No Show.

Without strong leadership and coordination, Election Fraud activism is horribly, horribly disadvantaged. We are well-intended, but fractioned in our methods and far less efficient than we should be at this critical time in history. The problems at BBV are perhaps the most glaring of many examples of this problem on a smaller, yet critical level. Election Fraud activists simply need to make better use of the talent and available resources. We have a common goal, but work cross-purposes at times in large part because we're uncoordinated. And it's because John Kerry won’t help us help him. Time and resources are being wasted because the leader we voted for won’t lead.

Over a year ago, John Kerry foresaw Diebold scams and voter suppression, hired attorneys and pledged to use them if needed. Kerry was locked and loaded, a clear signal to us that he was not going to go without a fight. So when the election was stolen, we fought and we are still fighting, waiting for a shoe to drop. Unfortunately, JK is MIA. During his concession speech, Kerry essentially said he was moving on. Like so many of his supporters, we assumed it was a decoy. And in light of the disturbing revelations since then, most of us naturally assumed he was following up on his promise and doing something with those 17,000 lawyers. Maybe he is, but I think it’s high time for him to candidly address the hardworking constituency that remains so dedicated to getting all the votes counted.

Either tell us an outline of your plan to expose the fraud or look us in the eyes NOW and tell us you’re still actually comfortable with conceding, John Kerry.

If John Kerry thinks we’re nuts to believe the election result is still in question, then he owes it to us to tell us straight out, “I believe that there is small-time Election Fraud, but not a concerted attempt to steal the election. My experts explain the exit polling and statistical anomalies in this way: ____________. Thank you for your concern, but we do not believe that computers or republicans stole the election.” Then maybe the people who are risking their lives, their careers, their reputations and their sanity can just move on, too.

Instead, he seems to be neither in nor out, and it's not helping the cause. He should stop hedging his bets and take a HARD position. I want to know if he’s outraged about OH's election practices or just "a little curious," disgusted with voter supression or merely "disappointed," defeated or energized by what's happening. What is it? Show me the passion, conviction and sincerity we all saw before Election Day.

[troubleinwinter]

1. As in: "Shit or get off the pot"?

[OKthatsIT]

22. SEND HIM THIS...

Declaration of Intent



As a Member of Congress it is my sworn duty to uphold and defend the US Constitution. Being mindful of that oath, I believe that the single moral tenet on which that document, and therefore the nation, rests is the principle that government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed.

Consequently, the right of the People to have confidence that they are being afforded free and fair elections for their government officials is a right that no other consideration can supersede. A free and fair election is one in which all citizens have been afforded equal access and opportunity to cast their vote and have that vote accurately counted.

I choose to make this declaration at this time because it has now become clear to me that several states have, to this point in time, failed to fully provide for what would generally be regarded as a free and fair election for their citizens. And consequently, they have generated an insufficient level of confidence in their official result.

There can be no arbitrary point in time -- whether it be a date scheduled for appointing electors, electoral voting, or electoral vote counting -- that can limit the right of the People to have their consent justly measured and expressed. An election is a survey not a contest.

With these principles in mind I would urge the duly authorized election officials in each and every state to make every effort -- whether it be ballot recounting, independent auditing, reopening voting, or even judicially-sanctioned statistical adjustment of results -- to assure that their election truly reflects the will of the citizens of their state.

I wish to recognize that efforts are ongoing in some states -- by candidates, election officials, the news media, and citizens groups, through recounts and other means -- to clarify and adjust the official results in order to increase the level of public confidence. These efforts are necessary, however, they cannot be sufficient.

This is true because by far the most disturbing circumstances that have occurred in this election are the confirmed cases of disparate treatment being afforded to certain classes of voters. If systemic barriers to exercising the franchise existed that correlate to a citizen's age, race, religion, gender, socio-economic status, military status, partisan status, absentee status, immigration status, or other identifiable characteristic, the election was neither free and fair, nor lawful in the absence of any corrective remedy being applied.

Therefore, in keeping with my oath of office, I publicly declare my intention to act on January 6th 2005 and object to any presidential electors that I believe to have been unlawfully appointed. To do less would make me complicit with a violation of our shared democratic principles.




________________________________
Member of Congress


_______________
Date


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator John Kerry
One Bowdoin Square
Tenth Floor
Boston, MA 02114
[phone] - Phone
[phone] - Fax

(Due to the Holidays and timeliness of this 'Intent'', I would sugggest sending this in snail mail, directly to his home base. If enough people did this 'tandible' method, it would have more emotional impact, dont you think?)

[ConstitutionGuy]

41. Correction

Self-delete. I stand corrected. Amendment 20 also provides for an acting president if not president is chosen by January 20. It automatically falls to the Vice President elect (assuming he/she qualifies), and if not, Congress may designate by law how an another acting president may be selected until a president is selected.

[New Earth]

42. where did you see anyone say differently?

as far as i know everyone here knows that January 20th is basically set in stone.

Jan. 6th is the day Congress meets to certify the electoral college votes, which is the deadline for any litigation/recount/etc that would officially effect the election.

what have you read to make you think that? and correct me if you think i'm wrong.

[ConstitutionGuy]

44. I Spoke Prematurely

There is a provision for appointing an acting president if a president is not qualified by Jan 20 (See 20th Amendment). However, I disagree with the earlier 'Declaration' that these dates are 'arbitrary'.

arbitrary - 1. not fixed by rules but left to one's judgement or choice; discretionary 2. based on one's preference, notion, whim, etc. capricious (Webster's Third College Edition)

The dates and timelines for the various events leading to presidential succession are not arbitrary, they are set in law. U.S.C 3, Section 15

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[zann725]

3. And sometimes we all need a little leadership!

I've hesitated to say this for some time now. But due to the short 'window of time' we have left to reverse the Electoral Vote... I agree it's TIME for JK to CLEARLY step forward (no more videos please) to CONCISELY let us know where he stands. If he 'tips his hand'...he tips his hand! We gotta roll here! And the silence is deafening.

On a positive note, Kerry has NOT given us his detailed upcoming plans in the Senate...which he promised to reveal several weeks ago. Does that mean he's not planning a future in the Senate perhaps? Oops there I go again...reading tea-leaves.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[hippiechick]

16. For you, perhaps.

Maybe the rest of us need a little more than blind faith and fuzzy 'clues' in supposedly coded videos and emails to go on.

I don't speak here much due to the contentiousness of this forum but I do read and am concerned by the consistent tone of your posts ... brow beating those with questions and doubts is certainly no way to bring fence-sitters over to your side.

I understand and applaud that you are 100% sure of your case but there are others here who truly and sincerely WANT to believe, but are in need of more than hints, hopes, and chastisements.



:hippie:

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[KaliTracy]

17. yep, I agree with you IAR...

while we know a lot (or think we know a lot) about politics, unless you are in there, playing the game, it's pretty hard to do -- kind of like watching someone play chess, poker, scrabble, soccer, and thinking you had a better play than the one just made. I'm not sure what I think about the eventual outcome of this election in light of the new stuff posted by Will Pitt and Fritrakis -- if massive protests on January 6th might wake people up or what, but I do know that I don't have a problem with how Kerry has played his hand so far.... and I'm not about to tell him what he should do next. The recount isn't about him, per se, it's about a system that is FLAWED and needs attention to get it fixed. Even if Bush was dethroned and Kerry rightfully took his place, there would STILL be a broken system. (not to mention a majority house and senate that would puvlerize any new initiatives he'd try to make).

This needs patience.

[kalidas]

35. Kerry's got to step up to the plate

Agreed. Kerry's got to lead and call his supporters to action. Without his leadership, nothing will happen. He needs to ask Americans that voted for him to rise up and contest the election results. I am hoping against hope that Kerry and Edwards are quietly collecting evidence of voter fraud behind the scenes that they will bring before the public. It's high time Kerry set the hound dogs of the MSM loose on the trail of campagin fraud. He's the only one that can really do it. The media will not pursue it unless he gives the go ahead. Kerry needs to start throwing his weight around - the political capital he garnered when over 56 million Americans voted for him.

It's up to Kerry - the ball is in his court. Karl Rove stole the election from the dems in 2000 and he stole it again in '04 with a little help from his friends in Florida and Ohio (and God knows where else). If the results of this election stand, our democracy is finished. If Kerry does nothing, I am not optimistic. At least Gore put up a fight, but he didn't realize what he was up against until it was too late.

[seabeyond]

13. we have waited over four years for the democrats to speak up

how long does blind faith and patience go

[robbedvoter]

25. Blind faith? next time we should do prayers INSTEAD of elections then

I bet the chances would be just the same.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Cocoa]

4. why not focus on the leader we do have?

John Conyers is well worth following, and is taking the lead on this.

In my view, he's better on this than Kerry would be anyway.

[Carolab]

24. Why does everyone keep leaving out Cobb?

He is the one leading in Ohio, along with Badnarik.

The Green Party is doing what the Democratic party is not doing (with the exception of Conyers and the BCG).

I don't know what's going on behind the scenes. But these are the people we need to support right now, who are out in front of the battle lines.

[New Earth]

6. I'd like him to come out and be clear too

We do need it, especially to build that 'public opinion' he tried so hard to build/change during Vietnam.

There is a part of me that is frustrated with the fact he has not been literal in his words lately. It's been enough for me to surmise that he is with us, but I do think the time is coming that he better get out there and speak up before it's too late. As much as I would like to see him come out right now and say something, I do still believe he will when the time is right - and that time is approaching sooner than we think. The more ridiculous maneuvers Blackwell and Election officials in Ohio pull, the more evidence we have to back up our case. The past week, these 'maneuvers' are becoming all the more apparent, and so is Kerry's involvement. I'm still holding onto my faith in the man, and I still believe he will come out at the most pivotal moment and that is when 'all hell will break loose'.

[mdb]

7. For ones who will say stop bashing Kerry this is NOT bashing.

Calling Kerry out to get involved is similar to when you were a kid asking if Johnny can come out to play. It is not bashing.

I'm beginning to become suspicious of posters here who are calling this bashing and to give it a rest. I gave it rest and now that we are in what seems to be the ninth inning I can't rest any longer.

We can separate the ones who are actually bashing Kerry from the ones who are calling Kerry. The people who are actually bashing Kerry are the ones who are screaming at Kerry, because (as in past tense) he did not get involved in the recount.

I don't want this election to be remembered as "the recount efforts went to third party candidates" as Kerry was no where to be involved. When are the ones saying give Kerry a rest going to stop resting? When the ball game is over?


The presidential election was pretty much run on "anyone but shrub". Yet we all know without Kerry we would never have gotten this far or this close in the election. Yes - it is bigger than Kerry. But it is not being taken seriously because it is being done by a third party.

[New Earth]

8. i agree with you

there is obviously a difference between 'bashing' Kerry and 'callinng Kerry out'. I call him out myself. (but in no way will bash)

The only reason i personally made my post 'ENOUGH ABOUT KERRY" is because that day the board was in abosolute 'Kerry chaos' and i thought the board could use a little chill pill. didn't mean to offend anyone if i did. it also occured to me for a minute that there might already be and/or might will be people (fr**pers) here who are purposely trying to turn us against Kerry thiinking it will make us give up on proving the fraud.

[mdb]

9. Thanks.

I just thought this needed clarifying on what is actually bashing.

[seito]

10. I think this post sums it up quite well

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x172738#174754

Where it really counts, John Kerry is there. What we want and what we need are two separate things.

We need for the legitimate issues to be brought forward through investigation and legal proceedings.

We want to see John Kerry leading the assault.

Sometimes we can not have everything we want when we want it. Sometimes we have to fight, just because it is the right thing to do.
Sometimes we have to pick ourselves up from the depths of discouragement to fight just one more day...

This is our country. I trust and believe in John Kerry, and I find his words deeply inspiring, but he is not what I fight for. I would love to see Kerry in the White House, but that is not my sole cause.

I fight because this nation has been hijacked by a corrupt band of corporate thieves that will stop at nothing to retain power. I fight to expose the crimes they have perpetrated on the American people. I fight to educate other Americans in the truth of what this government has become. I fight to bring attention to the woeful treatment our soldiers are receiving as they are conscripted into longer and longer terms of service to support *'s little war for corporate wealth.

So to answer your post, I empathize with you. But, I have faith in the issues that I fight for. I know that John Kerry has similar values that he holds very deeply. I believe that he knows the truth about the election antics, why else would he have joined in the legal proceedings. I also believe that he will be addressing us very soon.

No Retreat No Surrender

[Skip Intro]

11. I don't have a problem with Kerry keeping a public distance from this

at this point.

His visible, public involvment would lead to a (new) media smear and a chorus of (Iraqi) baby-killing repukes painting him as a sore loser - with (misinformed) public opinion tending to agree. The topic for most of the country wouldn't be about election fraud or the treasonous snakes slithering about in our WH - the topic would be Kerry.

What can be gained by Kerry's grand entrance into the recount(s) and related issues?

What can be endangered and/or lost?

Weigh it.

I'm fine with Kerry, and his state of "involvment" so far.

[New Earth]

12. see, this is the exact kind of discussion we need.

our feelings and expectations being expressed without verbal attacks on eachother or Kerry.

this is a good thread. (in my opinion)

[seabeyond]

14. i have no desire ot attack either, i like kerry

adn i dont dump on a person at a drop of the hat. i respect kerry both his past and how he ran the campaign, and what he had planned for htis nation. i do wonder if he is of the position that this election was not flawed adn i am wasting my time.

i dont think i have faith, but i certainly will be patient for a while longer. what are my alternatives, lol

[Imajika]

15. John Kerry is done with Election 2004

Once Kerry conceded, that was it. The Kerry election lawyers toss a bone to the election activists once in awhile so as not to completely alienate this group, but at the end of the day Kerry and his campaign team simply do not believe in the idea that there was a massive conspiracy to steal the election in Ohio or anywhere else - probably because there is no evidence to that effect.

"Kerry essentially said he was moving on. Like so many of his supporters, we assumed it was a decoy."

Bad assumption. It was no decoy, it was the end. Because some refuse to accept that his concession meant pretty much what all concessions generally mean, should Kerry have to come out and repeat himself till every single person finally gets it?

"Either tell us an outline of your plan to expose the fraud or look us in the eyes NOW and tell us you’re still actually comfortable with conceding, John Kerry."

He already conceded, why would he do it again? Kerry is not going to associate himself with theories about "the fraud" because the total lack of actual evidence of such a thing would damage his current political standing and future viability as a national leader. A congressperson from a safe district can afford to speak to such things because they risk very little and satisfy a partisan base, a statewide politician on the national stage simply can not associate with what, at the moment, appear to be tin foil hat conspiracy theories.

"With each day of invisibility, it’s becoming less and less believable that John Kerry is playing possum as part of some grander scheme."

It was never believable. Some of us have been saying as much, but unfortunantly many desperately continue reading far more into his comments and actions than has ever really been there. Kerry meant what he said when he conceded.

"He should stop hedging his bets and take a HARD position."

Kerry's concession was the hard position, at some point this fact will finally sink in for most people.

Kerry's plan is to enjoy the holidays, go on vacation, go to Iraq and visit the troops, then come back home and likely take a more visible role in the Senate while he considers whether to run in 08'.

There is how people wish it would be - fantasy, and how it really is - reality. What I've just stated is reality whether folks want to believe it or not.

Imajika

[joeunderdog]

27. Excellent points. If you take JK quite literally, he's done.

The rest of the plot is probably wishful thinking on our part, at least that's what I'm leaning towards now.

Unfortunately, if you apply the same logic to his pre-election posturing, he was equally as clear and literal that he was ready to fight any wrongdoing if he lost unfairly.

That said, the only logical conclusion (assuming you take him at his word on both counts) is that he believes he lost fair and square.

Where does he get his info?

[OneBlueSky]

45. you're absolute correct . . .

that people are still hanging onto the hope that Kerry will emerge as a major critic of election fraud are dreaming . . . he conceded, and that was it . . . all the subsequent talk of him working behind the scenes and getting ready to spring something big are just so much nonsense . . .

all of which, in my view, leaves Kerry open for whatever criticism anyone wants to throw at him . . . he either a) believes that there was no major election fraud, in which case he's an idiot and doesn't deserve to be president; or b) believes that there was major election fraud, but won't do anything about it lest he lose his place at the table of the powerful, in which case he's a hypocrite and doesn't deserve to be president . . . either way, he lost me a long time ago . . .

about the only elected official I have even of modicum of respect for these days is John Conyers . . . although his life in Washington is going to get very difficult in the coming months . . . the oligarchy has decreed that Bush won, and anyone in the inner circle (i.e. elected and appointed officials of both parties) who dares to dispute that will soon be an outsider and rendered irrelevant . . . John Kerry doesn't want to be an outsider, and neither do most of the other senators and congresspersons . . . that's why they're all keeping their mouths shut about election fraud . . .

[m berst]

46. this is not helpful

Regardless of a person's opinion on these issues, you are not making a case for your point of view here. You lump all those who happen to disagree with your particular point of view and then dismiss all of them as being beneath consideration. That does your own cause no good, and will merely alienate and antagonize those whom you are lecturing here.

I would think that were you truly confident in your view, you would not feel compelled to answer people with a different point of view in the manner that you are here. I would make the same suggestion to you that you are offering to others - merely wishing your point of view to be true does not make it so, and it isn't buttressed by cavalierly dismissing other points of view without a shred of evidence provided to support your theory.

"...probably because there is no evidence to that effect."

There may not be evidence that justifies certain actions, or that implies certain outcomes, but the blanket statement that "there is no evidence" is simply not true.

A congressperson from a safe district can afford to speak to such things because they risk very little and satisfy a partisan base, a statewide politician on the national stage simply can not associate with what, at the moment, appear to be tin foil hat conspiracy theories.

You contradict yourself here. If "there is no evidence" then what difference would it make how safe a congressperson's seat was?

"...but unfortunately many desperately continue reading...."

I don't see this "desperation" and the use of that word seems to me to merely be a way to discredit those with whom you disagree.

Kerry's concession was the hard position, at some point this fact will finally sink in for most people.

What is it that you would "sink in" for people, why is that of value to you, what would it achieve and how should people do that exactly?

There is how people wish it would be - fantasy, and how it really is - reality. What I've just stated is reality whether folks want to believe it or not.

Gain you use pejorative words - "fantasy" - to characterize those with whom you disagree.

What is your "desperate" need to cling to the "fantasy" that this election was on the up and up?

Now, doesn't that statement make as much sense as yours?

[VTGold]

18. If Kerry wasn't active behind the scenes - wouldn't he be more public....

...and doing damage control by now?

I hope I'm not naive but - perhaps he and his team are very active out of sight and planning to use all of that $ for the mother of all legal battles....

Its also possible that he and the Glibs (Greens/Libs) are working together.

- OR -

The Glibs could be getting in the way of some strategy he has.

We can only wait and see 'cause Kerry isn't answering any demands to be more visible.

If he doesn't "show up" I say we all change party in protest - all on a given day - go to our town halls and change party.

[lthuedk]

19. Kerry can't lose by standing up. His alternative is a bleak 2008.

[kalidas]

39. Can't arue with that

He doesn't have a prayer in 2008 and he has been in the senate for twenty years. At this point, he has nothing to lose. He should throw caution to the wind and wage an all out battle against voter fraud. It's better to go out in a blaze of glory than with a wimper.

[sandnsea]

20. Oh you bet

What John Kerry says would make a difference to "the people who are risking their lives, their careers, their reputations and their sanity". John Kerry has absolutely nothing to do with their motivation to prove election fraud and never has. It won't matter what happens in Ohio or what John Kerry has to say about Ohio, these people will never move on.

[SueZhope]

21. an inspiring blog

Someone posted this Joseph Cannon blog on another DU thread...
JC mentions about someone working with Kerry, he also reminds us why if he is behind the scenes its best that way. I found his words hopeful.

However joeunderdog I also here were you are coming from and some days I feel this same way....I will give it till the 6th and after that I will let go of any faith in Kerry if he does not come forward.

http://www.cannonfire.blogspot.com/
A house divided: David Cobb of the Green party blasts John Kerry for not contributing to the recount effort. Cobb alleges that Kerry retains $51 million of leftover campaign money. The vast majority of that money, however, was given to the DNC for the financing of future campaigns for lower offices.

Readers may snarl, but I retain great admiration for both men.

I have been told by at least one tireless worker for Kerry that the senator is not doing nothing. But suppose he were to shout "I was robbed!" -- what good could he accomplish? He'd be the butt of Jay Leno's jokes for weeks. He would not become president, and he would lose his senate seat to a Republican in the next election.

On the other hand, I hope that he will contest the selection of electors from Ohio, if no other senator takes on the task.

[robbedvoter]

26. I tell you what he'd accomplish: all his voters who think we lost

(cuz we are imoral or sumptin') might realize we are the majority and democracy is worth enduring a few Leno jokes.

[EFerrari]

36. Joe rocks. n/t

[Firespirit]

23. YES! Speak up, Senator Kerry.

Tell us the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth, whatever that may be. We can take it. We DO want to move on. We DO want this thing legitimized, and let the chips fall where they may.

I don't know how many others I'm speaking for, but this has gone WAY past wanting him in office. There are so many questions that have been raised, that if they are never answered satisfactorily--NOT "possible" explanations and theories, but DEFINITE explanations and facts--I will go nuts. I have to know whether this election was legit or not.

[LittleClarkie]

28. For those who think they have to interpret his word

I say they are looking for things that fit what they want to hear, and overlooking what has been said already.

He's taking steps to make sure every vote is counted. He has not said that he is seeking to flip the election. He has said that he will fight for election reform. For that, he will need evidence. That is being gathered by several fronts, some his and some not. All will be useful later.

As he gets involved with making sure votes are counted, he's being sucked into the stonewalling of Blackwell. As he is sucked into the stonewalling of Blackwell, I think his anger will grow and his suspicions will be activated and his stubborn streak will become more pronounced. From there may grow other good things. That is an unknown and a "wait and see" situation.

Right now, I'm taking him at face value, as his actions have matched his words for most part, except the polite "unity" talk, that is. That's all I think that talk is, by the way. Just the things one is supposed to say regardless of ones feelings when one is being gracious. The video let us know that he feels otherwise, though.

[politicasista]

29. That's good, but he is going to have to do more to convince us..........

and the woman who wrote in her diary at dailykos.com about him not standing up to African American disenfrancisement in Ohio and everywhere else. She is thinking of leaving the Democratic party for good if Kerry doesn't have our backs like he said he did. I think lots of us wished we could have re-elected Clinton and just frustrated.

[LittleClarkie]

32. He doesn't have to spend time convincing

He needs to spend time getting results. But I don't necessarily expect those results in the next month or so. He doesn't have to make a show of doing, he just has to do. He doesn't have to perform for me so that I will feel he is working for us, he just has to work for us.

It may not be sexy or dramatic or sensational, but what we need is not a show of fixing the vote. What we need is a fixed vote. I make no stipulations on how, or that he's loud about it as he goes. Just that the job gets done.

He doesn't tend to get alot of credit when he fixes something. How many people know about BCCI and Iran/Contra. Not many. Don't expect alot of publicity. Then again, he wasn't a failed presidential candidate before, so I might be wrong. More folks are paying attention to him than usual.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

51. There is no way he would go back on his word, IMO

And I think something BIG has happened to cause him to go behind the scenes. Whether is is some kind of blackmail, or my favorite theory, that he got word the election WAS in fact rigged via widespread, systematic e-voting fraud, and was advised that it would be too complicated to challenge and prove it before inauguration day, so he and Edwards are building their case, and saving their recount money for the legal expenses to bring his (I meant this) administration down.

[halley]

33. John Kerry

I remember thinking during the primary when Kerry was chosen, I hope the Repubs didn't choose our candidate. In the gubernatorial race in Fla. I firmly believe Bill McBride was pumped up to attract the voters because I believe that Janet Reno would've creamed Jeb.
Whether you liked her or not, her reputation for honesty was impeccable and she was very popular in South Florida.

With all the silence from Kerry, I wonder again who chose who.

[burn the bush]

34. John Kerry is thinking about John Kerry and nothing else

[lip-sink]

37. on the nail buddy!

[malatesta1137]

52. thank you

every time I hear this 'behind the scenes' nonsense, it drives me crazy.

[Firespirit]

38. More on Kerry's motives....

Several people have posted that they think Kerry has been so inscrutable because for him, it is over, he disbelieves that fraud swung the election, and he is just tossing bones to the election fraud people.

Let's take that to its necessary conclusion.

If he thinks that there was little or no fraud, but yet he IS tossing bones to people who think there was and are busting their butts to uncover it all, what motive could he possibly have for doing so? It can't help him in 2008. This is hardly a mainstream high-coverage issue. There can be no way that tossing these bones could benefit him.

Why would he even acknowledge a cause that he didn't believe in? If he completely disbelieves in fraud, and there are no doubts in his mind, then he would not have done a thing, IMO. Not even toss bones. Purportedly he supports the investigation, according to Fitrakis (http://www.freepress.org). If that's a lie, then there is only ONE possible motive for that and the other things that he has done, and it's one that I would prefer not to attribute to him.

If you believe that HE sees nothing and doesn't care but is tossing things out to convince others that he DOES care, then you must also believe him capable of incredible manipulation and deceit, and for no other reason than to laugh at people he's playing for fools. --Not just that, but good people, people who supported him, who share some of his ideals, who are doing this at least in part for his benefit, and who are already under extreme mental and physical strain. I do not want to think John Kerry capable of that kind of sadistic behavior.

I don't presume to know what his thoughts are on this matter, but I am not going to accuse him of THAT unless I have good evidence of it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. Kerry is being straight

He conceded. He said that there were not enough disputed votes in Ohio to turn the tide. Nothing that he has said or done since then would cause a reasonable person to think otherwise.

The problem is that many of you are not thinking reasonably. You are so fixated on the idea that Bush did not win that you are seeing signs of support of your cause where there are none. Seeing hints that he wants to contest the election from Kerry's statement is like seening the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich. If you really want to see it, you'll see it. But if you aren't looking for it and you aren't a true believer, you won't.

Until Kerry comes out and says that he is trying to contest the election, I'll take him at his word.

[emcguffie]

43. Kerrymay not think it was hacked

I haven't posted here in several days, because I feel quite unwelcome. This is my first "chat room" or bulletin board experience, whatever it is.

And what drove me out (I guess I'm still hanging around) is the response I got when I posted about my experience when I got on the phone a few days ago and started calling the Kerry people and the DNC and the Voting Rights Institute (if that name is correct) looking for anyone who thought that the election was fraudulent. Also Brazile Associates. Well, the "receptionist" was the only one I could find who seemed to think so.

Now, maybe I was doing this on the very day they were coming around. I hope so. I hope they have come around. But I was thoroughly demoralized. And then I posted something about it here, and was immediately labelled a "troll". Otherwise, it is as if I am non-existent. What, I don't speak the slang?

This place seems to be a clique. I guess you need to know how to appeal to people, just like in kindergarten.

But when I read your post, I thought I should again attempt to share my very frustrating experience. I find it hard to believe, that they do not see fraud. I was told that they had had statisticians look at it, and they could not find any evidence of widespread fraud. Astonishing. Maybe it isn't true, that they see no fraud. Maybe they're just pretending? I'm not so sure.

[GetTheRightVote]

47. If Kerry does not come out and help us w/ this problem, It is over for me

Voting for him,never in a million years will I. I do not like to back someone who jumps out of the boat on me, I hope you get the picture I am drawing for you.

[KaryninMiami]

48. I share your concerns- their lack of concern is deeply frustrating.

It's more then frustrating- it's downright disturbing. How can they not see it or at least be curious enough to find out for sure what happened? Is it us that is missing something or is it them?

Last night I ran into a local elected official in a restaurant. We worked a poll closing together and had discussed our mutual concerns about the machines and having no verifiable paper trail. I asked if he was involved with the election fraud investigation and he had no idea what I was talking about. Then he said "Oh, you mean that recount stuff in Ohio?" I was flabbergasted. He had no clue about any of it- not Ohio, not North Carolina, Not NM and not even our own state of Florida. I was so shocked - all I could do was take his card an promise to send him info so he can find out what's going on.

Did people just dig themselves into a cave after the election because they were so depressed? Maybe that's it. Is it the lack of media coverage? Is it denial? Is it a lack of curiosity? Don't people wonder, knowing that the massive grassroots efforts brought out tons of voters and new registrations, don't they wonder what happened to all of those votes? Are they totally oblivious to the stories that did get covered about the long lines in minority and university precincts and about the machines that counted backwards and precincts where there were more votes then voters? We live in Florida for goodness sakes-- Jeb's State-- and we voted on machines with no verifiable paper trail (again) on machines made by Diabold.

I didn't mean to ramble but I feel exactly the way you do. I pray that those in the inner circle of the Democratic party know everything and are waiting for the right timing for Kerry to pick up the microphone. But there's a part of me that worries that they may never jump on board and have already moved on. Why is Al Sharpton so quiet? He knows what went on with the lines and the suppression in Ohio and in Florida. Howard Dean knows too. There's no way he isn't keeping close tabs on this. Then there's the Michael Moore mystery- he knows for sure, everything that is going on and he is watching it carefully. I'm sure of it. Plus, he's getting bombarded with mail all the time about this so it would be difficult for him not to know AND he has the films from election day. Is he also waiting for the right minute? Will there be a point when someone says "Go" and everyone comes forward at once?

God I hope so. We are all so needing for this to happen so that this can finally catapult into the mainstream media where it belongs.

Please don't stop posting and don't stop sharing how you are feeling. I'm pretty new here and people have been welcome. Some I've noticed, get a bit testy about people doubting Kerry and I do see how it can feel like a clique at times. That's probably because some people have been hanging around here for quite a while. For me it's almost like a support group where I can hang out with a like minded community of people who are as concerned about America and as committed to truth as I am and who will not rest until the world knows what really happened on November 2 (and in 2000 and in 2002). Most of the people in my life, are sick of hearing me talk about this issue. Here it's totally the opposite- not only are we talking about it and sharing news as it unfolds but we are also strategizing about ways to take a action and being part of that, for me, is pretty amazing.

[emcguffie]

54. IS IT a CONTROLLED PLOT?

Sometimes I wonder if there is a huge "conspiracy" to keep quiet about it.

Somewhere, some time back, I did see something about Kerry having made an agreement with Bush to concede, if it looked as if Bush won, and not to make a big fuss over it. Something to do with Kerry's father having worked for the CIA too?

I didn't understand the connection. But I did see this somewhere. Oh, I remember, that "Voice from the White House" guy. But that could surely be a hoax, as well. That site looks like propaganda.

[joeunderdog]

50. If you don't question JK's word, then you have to ? his reasoning.

If you're like me and believe he was honest when he pledged to challenge any wrongdoing during the election and that he was honest when he said he lost and that it was time to move on, then you have to believe he thinks it was all on the up and up.

Maybe he has completely different information than we do. Maybe he looks at all the hard stats that you can find here at DU and comes up with some benign conclusion or explanation. How does he conclude this was legit? I just wish he would tell us how, because I don't understand his reasoning.

And for him to look the other way on the exit poll irregularities, clear voter suppression and Blackwell's scandalous, arrogant, lawbreaking behavior is just plain ridiculous. At least SAY something. At least put these assholes on notice. Tell people that even though you lost, you aren't going to let a jerk like Blackwell remain above the laws that were designed to protect all the voters who stood in line all day to vote for you.

Instead, NOTHIN.

[emcguffie]

55. and DOnna Brazile

I e-mailed her, because I wanted to go to Washington, well prepared with a lot of the statistical analysis that has been done on DU, and talk to someone, show them, and maybe see why they don't think it happened. Now, maybe that's a crazy thought, but I did wonder if I just went there and insisted on being seen....

Anyway, I ended up e-mailing Donna Brazile, and she basically said, sorry we disagree, we are fighting, don't be so insulting. (I asked why all the lethargy regarding the recount.) She was pissed at me.

But I don't think she meant fighting to demonstrate fraud. So I asked specifically, said, please let us know if you are really fighting to prove the election was stolen, or if you think the Dems got creamed.

No answer.

I honestly think they are so demoralized they don't look hard enough. Sort of like closing your eyes at the movie before the violent part. They flinch at every "debunking". But they should not, of course.

[malatesta1137]

49. Jan 6 will come and go

Kerry will NOT take a stand one way or the other. He conceded on Nov 3, and as far as he's concerned, it's over.

He might make an announcement through a spoke-person that the election system is 'flawed' and he'll leave it at that.

He's afraid of what Republicans might accuse him the minute he opens his mouth about any sort of 'illegality'.

Evidence of fraud abounds.

Unfortunately, he is concerned about his legacy, his career, not justice.

[The Straight Story]

53. He seems to be....what's the word......waffling. (recount states we won)

In other words, he is like most all other politicans - they were for something before they were against it but were never against it they just wanted to do X because it will give them Y later.

Against heavy logging? Vote for it because someone will throw in a line for your state that gives them some money to build something they want - and tell people that the logging was voted for because they made the bill more responsible with more oversite (etc and so on ad nauseum).

There are 50 states. Many have voting machines which can cheat or malfunction. Kerry wanted all votes counted. Recount all states, even the ones we won - ESPECIALLY the ones we won closely.

WHY? Simple. They probably cheated there too, eaking up the repug numbers and keeping it close so next time when they win that state it looks less like cheating and more like a close one.

Even states we won big, check counties where it was close - might see a new rep with an R coming from there soon...