Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

every day that kerry stays conceded and not publicly supporting a recount

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
UpsideDownFlag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 10:34 PM
Original message
every day that kerry stays conceded and not publicly supporting a recount
is another day in which bush, the repubs, and the media can ingrain in us that BushCo is legitimate. Please, help me understand why no one, NO ONE (at least to my knowledge) from the kerry campaign, DLC, or DNC (do your job, McCauliflower) has come out in protest of this? Do they not understand the severity of the situation? are they gonna wait till * has been inaugerated, or what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TangledThorns Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. Protesting
There are protests, ask around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. A contingent of good Dem Congresspeople have sent a letter...
...demanding that the GAO investigate vote fraud. Didn't you see John Conyers on Countdown? Or do you just run off at the mouth whether you know what you're talking about or not?

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthday Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Yikes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
24. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU/YOU WERE BORN ON THE
Edited on Sat Nov-13-04 08:05 AM by fasttense
OOOPPPs Saw my mistake. Happy Birthday for the 12th/not13th.

Same day as my husband. The 13th has always been lucky for him and probably for you too. Happy Birthday!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpsideDownFlag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. show me someone from the kerry campaing, a spokesman, press person...
or, dare i hope for kerry himself to protest this? how would you describe the content of his Paula Zahn interview?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. You said "from the kerry campaign, DLC, or DNC."
Edited on Fri Nov-12-04 11:13 PM by ClassWarrior
I answered your question. Conyers, Nadler, Wexler, and company are members of the DNC. Don't change the question now that I've answered.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. Zahn Interviewed BOB KERREY not John Kerry and he had many interesting
things to say - you should read every word of it

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0411/08/pzn.01.html

<snip>

BOB KERREY (D), FORMER U.S. SENATOR: That's it. That's it.

ZAHN: Welcome back.

KERREY: Thank you.

ZAHN: I wanted to start off tonight by talking about the role that faith and the evangelical vote played in the reelection of President Bush.

And one of your former colleagues, Senator Hart, wrote quite pointedly about that issue in an editorial today. And he said -- quote -- "It should concern us that declarations of faith are quickly becoming a condition for seeking public office. Declarations of faith are abstractions that permit both voters and candidates to fill in the blanks with their own religious beliefs."

He thinks that's dangerous. Do you?

KERREY: Well, it can be if you don't understand the importance of keeping the government secular, so that you can practice whatever religion you want.

(CROSSTALK) ZAHN: Do you fear that's going to happen the second go-round of the Bush administration?

KERREY: Well, I think it's not likely, but it's potentially there.

When the president stood up at a faith-based initiative program and said, we don't need a rule book, we just need the good book, and held up a Bible, that was a mistake. That sends a signal that the New Testament is going to be the rule of law. And it cannot be. We have got to keep that separation, so that we can practice our religion, whatever our religion is. Or if we choose not to practice a religion, we can choose that as well in this country.

ZAHN: So what do you think is going to be the defining moment for the president when it comes to whether in fact he rules by the good book or rules more...

(CROSSTALK)

KERREY: Well, I think it actually could become this same-sex marriage amendment.

Look, my religious belief causes me to conclude that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both natural states, that God put gay and straight on this Earth alike. And it's taken us a while to come to terms with that, but that's my religious belief. It's an article of faith. It's not based on science or a political calculation.

And, as a consequence, I find myself saying any church that wants to deny a right for a man and a man to get married, that's fine with them. The Catholic Church won't let me get married in the church, even though I would prefer it, because I won't have my first marriage annulled. But marriage is a legal issue as well. And just as the government shouldn't tell the church what to do, the church shouldn't tell the government what to do.

And I fear that's what this is all about, as well as people not really understanding that homosexuality is a state that people acquire at birth. It's not a choice that's been made.

ZAHN: Well, a lot of Americans don't think it's an article of faith according to their own religious convictions.

(CROSSTALK)

KERREY: They need to hear Democrats say -- this isn't a political calculus. This isn't us trying to put together a coalition.

It's just as important a religious belief of mine as it is those who say I'm uncomfortable with same-sex marriage. I think it is in fact a natural state. It was a question that was asked during the debate and I think answered improperly. That was the one where John went on about the vice president's daughter. That set off a wave of anger, etcetera, rather than focusing on the question, which is, do you choose it or are you born that way? And Americans need to understand that. I think the president understands that. The question is, will he push that as a religious issue?

ZAHN: The former president, President Clinton, in a piece over the weekend suggested John Kerry lost for a number of reasons, particularly because he didn't think John Kerry connected in rural America with voters, particularly on moral issues, including the issue of gay marriage, and went on to say the Republicans had a clear message and a great messenger, that they used a culture war to leave the Democrats -- quote -- "demonized, cartoonized, as aliens."

Did they not understand the culture war going on in this country?

(CROSSTALK)

KERREY: President Clinton never faced an opponent as tough as George W. Bush. His father wasn't as tough and Bob Dole wasn't as tough.

George W. Bush is a very tough campaigner. He is an intuitive politician. He's an incumbent president. And he was an exceptionally difficult person for John Kerry under the best of circumstances.

ZAHN: Was John Kerry an intuitive campaigner?

KERREY: He's not as intuitive a politician as George Bush is. I mean, George W. Bush's father isn't as intuitive. I'm not as intuitive.

George Bush knows when to kiss the baby. And that's a hard thing to teach. In fact, it's an impossible thing to teach. He's very good on the street and he's good with the message. His message was, I will keep you safe, and the other guy won't. And when you are the incumbent, it's a much higher standard for an opponent to prove that you're wrong. So...

ZAHN: The American public, by and large, didn't think John Kerry was the guy to do that.

KERREY: That's correct, because the president had a case, a very simple case to make: I am the commander in chief. I won the war in Afghanistan, even though John Kerry supported it, even though, by the way, there's a credible case that the president's own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place.

ZAHN: How so?

KERREY: Well, the 9/11 report says in chapter eight -- now that it's beyond the campaign, so the promise I had to keep this out of the campaign is over.

The 9/11 report in chapter eight says that, in the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn't do anything to harden our border security, didn't do anything to harden airport country, didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn't do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people.

The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn't made.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: But what we continue to hear from this administration is that the threat was much too diffuse. There was no way you could zero in on the fact that al Qaeda was going to use jets as bombs and ram them into buildings.

KERREY: That is a straw man.

The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That's what he said.

Mr. President, you don't need to know that. This is an Islamic jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in '96 and '98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat.

And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission. Now, that's in the report. And we took an oath not to talk about it during the campaign, I think correctly so, to increase the capacity of that commission's report to be heard by the people's Congress.

But the report, I think, it's difficult for a challenger. If I had been the challenger, it's difficult to make that case when you are running against an incumbent. He can stand back and say, oh, you're just grousing.

ZAHN: Oh, we couldn't connect the dots is what we heard.

Final question for you sir. In Falluja...

KERREY: Yes.

ZAHN: There are some Democrats that suggest that this incursion was delayed until after the election because of the vulnerability of the U.S. troops and this could be a very bloody campaign. Where do you stand? KERREY: Oh, I think it's likely it was delayed until after the election. And it's probably a smart thing to do. This is as much a political battle inside of Iraq as it is a military battle. And everybody knows that who has talked to people that's over there. So I think it's likely that it was.

ZAHN: Bob Kerrey, thanks for dropping by.

KERREY: You're welcome. Nice to see you.

ZAHN: Always appreciate your perspective.

<snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthday Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. Clean Hands
I wonder if it is because it seems so much better coming from us. Maybe that is just naive. But I think that it is a lot better if J. Kerry isn't weeping into the television begging for recounts. It is for us, the people who voted on the 2nd, to cry out for an accurate count. Kerry can stay above the fray and not look as if he is grovelling for a chance to be president. Just my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zan_of_Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Maybe. It would be nice if the variously-reported 3,000 or 17,000
lawyers he supposedly has at his disposal (the 17,000 was in an email I got from Cam Kerry) or the more than chump change he collected specifically for recounts suddenly appeared ready for action.

Jesus H. I supposed we are going to have to write his foreign policy too, when he is inaugurated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WyLoochka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
23. Agree here
It isn't about John Kerry - it's about MY vote - it's about YOUR vote.

John Kerry would be dead meat in very short order if he came out verbally at this point. He knows this isn't about him, and he also knows if he uttered a word the massive propaganda machine that is fucking with the peoples' minds would instantaneously make it about him.

What the GOP and the media would do to him would be really really ugly. We would hate every second of it and then we'd shriek and holler and moan about what a stupid thing it was for him to do.

The public tearing, limb from limb, would so poison everything - the results of the research work being done, in a real genuine grass roots effort right now, would never, ever get a fair public hearing.

This is the way to go. The categorical demand that our voting systems be investigated in a totally transparent way and that mistakes or fraud discovered during the investigations be corrected immediately, not only in preparation for the next election, has to come from the people.

We should go on and on and on - insisting in every single precinct of the entire country that we investigate every single "irregularity."

John Kerry's insertion of himself, at this point, would likely kill any and all opportunities we have to actually achieve results from the investigative work being carried out right now by just people.

This is the peoples' battle. It is far better, strategically, to let the demand for truth bubble up from the people, until it is so loud and pervasive it can no longer be ignored, than it come from one man who would be annihilated within a couple of news cycles.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sally343434 Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. I know this sounds awful
All the "big talk" from various democrats about every vote being counted was true, it just didn't mean that every vote would be counted once and for the intended recipient.

We were had by everyone from Kerry on down. It was all a charade.

I know that sounds awful. But that's what it is -- awful.

As much as I hate to admit it, we're all just vassals of Lord Bush now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. The assault on Fallujah was a Bush/Rove trap
Can you imagine the backlash of Faux News and company if Kerry was openly contesting this election. Unleash the attack dogs and take cover.

He is playing this thing smart. When the evidence is in hand, he will make his move. For now, keep a low profile and deny any involvement. Let the people do the work. After all, who can complain about local efforts being undertaken to give voters confidence that the election was fair and that all votes were counted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pbartch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. that is what this article says. KERRY IS PLAYING SMART.......
HERE ARE A FEW PARAGRAPHS -- READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE .....
......Well, the battle in Fallujah began hitting the media hard in the week before the election, right on cue. Of course it was billed as the solution, the battle that – if you just keep Bush in office – will wipe out those insurgents and solve the problems over there. This was yet another obvious use of our nation’s troops by President Bush as if they were campaign volunteers rather than non-partisan volunteers to defend our nation.

But Fallujah, it turns out, seems to be even more than that. Fallujah, in effect, was the get away car for an election heist.

Following the fiasco in Florida in 2000, Gore was able to battle on for 30 days to try and get a fair accounting. All the while, the Bush camp claimed he should just stop and give up because his delaying of what they were saying was the inevitable end was threatening the nation’s security and stability. They said the stock market was suffering, the nation was unstable, and so Gore should just give up and accept the result as is.

This time, John Kerry had made clear he was prepared to fight 100 times as hard and long as Gore did if necessary. In fact, he had solicited fund just for that eventuality so he could battle all over the nation if necessary to ensure that every vote was properly counted.

Enter Fallujah. As we know – and saw on election night, as Bush’s people began calling Networks and demanding they call Ohio for their camp – the Bush team’s strategy was to try and force all questions to be closed ASAP. Last time, they weren’t prepared for that part. This time, they were.

Picture if John Kerry had chosen to call the election into question. Immediately, the Bush camp would talk about how 50,000 of our troops are just about to launch the biggest military operation since the invasion of Baghdad. And, just a couple of days after the election, it was launched.

You can imagine the arguments from the Bushies: “How could Senator Kerry undermine our security while our troops are in the midst of battle.” Fallujah was to be the pressure point that would, if not stop Kerry from uncovering all the dirt and getting a fair election count, would at least tarnish his name with much of the nation and, as importantly, create something for the right-wing dominated media to hammer away at him on, making it seem as if he is only caring about himself and not the nation.

It was quite a well-crafted plan. Completely amoral, but smart.
Unfortunately for them, John Kerry was smarter.

As Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, who has been about the only mainstream journalist to actually follow up on the many serious problems with regard to the integrity of the election, has pointed out, a concession speech, in effect, means nothing. It is not legally binding.

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
life_long_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
8. Kerry is a smart man and a strong closer.
I think he's aware of what needs to be done. Give it some more time and if he doesn't come forward before Dec 13th then we can all FLAME away.

Until then I am going to believe he is doing what is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KaryninMiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. From the Moderate Independent about Kerry's involvement...
(I don't know who she is or where she got this information, but this was sent to me yesterday and it's a great read- long but worth the effort)...


Think Kerry Is Not Involved In This Fight? Think Again. Also: Fallujah = Operation Distract From Fixed Election.

by Betsy R. Vasquez

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm

NOVEMBER 10, 2004 – When Senator John Kerry (D-MA) talked about how his policy would be different in Iraq, he kept saying, in effect, ‘It’s the how, stupid.’ He said repeatedly he would fight a “smarter” war.

Flash forward to today. Following the election, there was a problem apparent. The exit polling didn't match the ballot count, and many reasons for that began to become apparent.

John Kerry was faced with three options. One, fight on publicly rather than conceding and put the nation into a media frenzied limbo. Two, concede and go on with his life, turning his back on his promise to his supporters to ensure that “every vote will be counted.”

Most people are assuming that John Kerry opted for the second of these while John Edwards, his runningmate, opted for the first, and since Kerry was the big dog, he won out. But people who think this are thinking in Bush terms, all or nothing, either you are for the war or against it, that either Senator Kerry was for recounting the votes or he was against it.

The reality is, John Kerry has chosen a third, much smarter course – just as he said he would all along.

John Kerry realized that to launch a public campaign calling the vote into question would be disastrous. In fact, he likely realized he would we walking right into a Bush-set booby trap.

In particular, during our election coverage we talked about the pending battle of Fallujah, about the timing of it being an election ploy, about how it was following in the constant Bush pattern of creating a media event to sway the election, as he did last time by making the run up to the Iraq invasion come to a head exactly on election week.

Well, the battle in Fallujah began hitting the media hard in the week before the election, right on cue. Of course it was billed as the solution, the battle that – if you just keep Bush in office – will wipe out those insurgents and solve the problems over there. This was yet another obvious use of our nation’s troops by President Bush as if they were campaign volunteers rather than non-partisan volunteers to defend our nation.

But Fallujah, it turns out, seems to be even more than that. Fallujah, in effect, was the get away car for an election heist.

Following the fiasco in Florida in 2000, Gore was able to battle on for 30 days to try and get a fair accounting. All the while, the Bush camp claimed he should just stop and give up because his delaying of what they were saying was the inevitable end was threatening the nation’s security and stability. They said the stock market was suffering, the nation was unstable, and so Gore should just give up and accept the result as is.

This time, John Kerry had made clear he was prepared to fight 100 times as hard and long as Gore did if necessary. In fact, he had solicited fund just for that eventuality so he could battle all over the nation if necessary to ensure that every vote was properly counted.

Enter Fallujah. As we know – and saw on election night, as Bush’s people began calling Networks and demanding they call Ohio for their camp – the Bush team’s strategy was to try and force all questions to be closed ASAP. Last time, they weren’t prepared for that part. This time, they were.

Picture if John Kerry had chosen to call the election into question. Immediately, the Bush camp would talk about how 50,000 of our troops are just about to launch the biggest military operation since the invasion of Baghdad. And, just a couple of days after the election, it was launched.

You can imagine the arguments from the Bushies: “How could Senator Kerry undermine our security while our troops are in the midst of battle.” Fallujah was to be the pressure point that would, if not stop Kerry from uncovering all the dirt and getting a fair election count, would at least tarnish his name with much of the nation and, as importantly, create something for the right-wing dominated media to hammer away at him on, making it seem as if he is only caring about himself and not the nation.

It was quite a well-crafted plan. Completely amoral, but smart.

Unfortunately for them, John Kerry was smarter.

As Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, who has been about the only mainstream journalist to actually follow up on the many serious problems with regard to the integrity of the election, has pointed out, a concession speech, in effect, means nothing. It is not legally binding.

So, if you were thinking like a Bush goon, you would expect that either Kerry would stand up to the mischief that went on, not conceding in the meantime, and so your booby trap would work perfectly, or that he would just give up and let it go, as wimpy Democrats are prone to do.

But John Kerry chose a smarter course. Ask yourself the question, what if John Kerry were to do both, concede publicly but, at the same time, look into every instance of mischief, and see if in fact the election was fair or fixed.

This would be a no lose situation for him. The booby trap set up for him would become irrelevant, as he would have done the right thing for the nation, not putting it into turmoil while its troops are in battle.

But at the same time, he is still just as free to look into any voting irregularities as he would have been had he not conceded. Even better, he could do it without the press going insane and the nation being kept on tension-creating edge. All of the lawyers he could have sent to look into things still could be sent to look into things, and if the election is truly called into question, he could then, with ample justification so as to make it legitimate, come out publicly and retract his concession. It is the prosecutor, also one of Kerry’s previous jobs, who knows well enough to thoroughly prepare and investigate his case be leveling charges. You may have a real hunch that someone is responsible for a murder, but until you believe you can win that case in court, you do not make the allegation.

This is called fighting smart. And the Bushies, in the same way they failed to plan for the subtleties of doing battle in Iraq, haven’t even caught on yet that this is what is occurring, that they are, in fact, being outflanked and attacked after being tricked into looking the other way.

And just in case you don’t quite believe John Kerry is on the case, and instead think he just turned out to be a wimp who didn’t live up to his word, take a look at this letter from his brother, released privately to his supporters:

CAM KERRY'S LETTER

I am grateful to the many people who have contacted me to express their deep concern about questions of miscounting, fraud, vote suppression, and other problems on election day, especially in Florida and Ohio. Their concern reflects how much people care about the outcome of this election. I want to you to know we are not ignoring it. Election protection lawyers are still on the job in Ohio and Florida and in DC making sure all the votes are counted accurately. I have been conferring with lawyers involved and have made them aware of the information and concerns people have given me. Even if the facts don't provide a basis to change the outcome, the information will inform the continuing effort to protect the integrity of our elections. If you have specific factual information about voting problems that could be helpful to the lawyers doing their job, please send it to (e-mail removed for the story) rather than to me. The election protection effort has been important to me personally, and I am proud of the 17,000 lawyers around the country who helped. It's obvious that we have a way to go still, but their efforts helped make a difference. Their work goes on. Thank you, Cam Kerry

Notice that he chose to have his brother, who is not well-known to the public, sign the letter. As far as the public is concerned, John Kerry has conceded at that is that.

But now you know that that is not truly the case.

Make no mistake, he will never publicly call the election into question unless enough fraud turns out to truly challenge the end result. And so, in effect, he is not at this point contesting the election. But in reality, he is like the DA who says, “At this time we are not charging President Bush with anything.” Evidence first. It is the best strategy for him personally, the best strategy politically, and the best strategy for the nation.

And now stepping in to help is the man who was supposed to be the spoiler, Ralph Nader. As the Washington Post reports (see article: Losing by 335,000 in N.H., Nader Demands a Recount), Nader is using New Hampshire as a staging ground to call the Diebold machine-recorded electronic votes into question.

Why is he doing it in New Hampshire, which Kerry won? Does this mean he is going after Kerry?

Not at all. It is tactically brilliant. In New Hampshire, any candidate can call for a recount as long as he offers to pay for it. And that cost in this small state is only $2,000 dollars. So Nader is choosing to challenge the results there, but only to make the case that, if there turns out to be a problem with the machines there, the votes must be challenged everywhere.

As the WashPost reports, "We have received reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting in New Hampshire," Nader wrote Secretary of State William M. Gardner. "These irregularities favor President George W. Bush by 5% to 15% over what was expected."

So you see clearly he is charging that the machines skewed in favor of President Bush. New Hampshire was just the easiest, smartest, and cheapest place to get a first crack at making the case, and so opening a Pandora’s Box that will spread out across the nation.

So enjoy the non-Moderate Independent media’s coverage of Fallujah and ignoring of the recount. But rest assured that people are on the case, and that Kerry is taking the fight to them – in such a smart matter they don’t even know what’s hitting them. And remember, Watergate didn’t break the week after the election. No one knew anything was even fishy, but in the end, the devil go his due.

And on another note, the non-M/I media should be given some credit. As one Washington Post reporter told me, you can bet they are looking into all of this. And, as you see with the above Washington Post story, when they get something concrete they are going to print.

But it is the new media – the blogs – that are powering this one as much as the mainstream media.

So rest assured, and feel free to help out in anyway you can. We are the eyes, ears, and analysts of our nation. Support Olbermann at MSNBC, and rest assured, Kerry is on the case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Magic_Cookie Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Honestly
while that sounds good & DOES address a lot of things I have no reason to believe that email & IMO will just add to the 'conspiracy' momentum.
We need to use the internetS when they are valuable but when its destructive, we have to change course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fearnobush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. I also received this - from a very good souce. Interesting.
I am inclined to believe that keeping this under the radar is good thing for now. Going full steam too early will give the so called liberal media a window to crush the truth once again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
floridadem30 Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. can anyone give me bev harris's email please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristndem Donating Member (346 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #16
25. I'm with you
Under the radar is better than splashed all over our TV's.

Remember 2000, Baker raging on and on (his ugly contorted face everywhere you looked), Mobs of angry conservatives (we all know who they were) storming the counting centers, all the cracks about the dems whining etc.... Don't you remember that? It was a nightmare, and I never quit hoping cuz I knew we were right, therefore we couldn't lose (not so nieve today)

They won the PR war then and they would again, Rove is a master at that sort of thing. Kerry had to change the playing field....
It could not have been fought the same way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sally343434 Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. I'm sorry, but...
While it may make an interesting script for a political thriller novel, I think these types of "scenarios" being proffered are nothing but projection. Sure, we'd all like to see the end to this nightmare "just around the corner." WIll everyone still be waiting for Kerry to jump out on his white horse four years from now?

The fact is that the window of opportunity has closed. Any attempt to challenge anything at this stage, especially with the press having put its seal of approval on the whole fiasco, would never be allowed to be taken seriously by the mainstream media. They are willing co-conspirators in this, and they're not going to admit culpability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Magic_Cookie Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. i agree
things are at stake more than anyone can comprehend - as much as there is a voter fraud issue there is a 'game' issue. And really, the stakes are so high...well, anything could happen, we just have to believe in our candidate, and actually that may mean more than just this election - big stakes, long time = not just this election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mak3cats Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
15. Look at it this way...
If he stepped in now he becomes a member of the "wacky conspiracy theorists" along with the rest of us, and open to media ridicule. (You can bet this story would get plenty of airtime, then, and it wouldn't be positive for us. I bet the GOP is just salivating waiting for that to happen. I would assume this is why others like Moore and Jackson and Sharpton are also keeping a low profile.) Let's be content with doing (or supporting those doing) the legwork until there's something that's iron-clad enough to not be dismissed.

Also, every person I talked politics with prior to the election expressed the same desire: that the election would be over without a long-drawn-out battle like 2000. So the election is now over. If (as I desparately hope) an Ohio recount gives us enough for a quick correction of the Electoral College, a Kerry inauguration will follow without alienating a lot of underinformed people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
20. everyday kerry stays conceded he STAYS OFF THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW
Do you really want endless bellicosity from Rush? Better to have Rush and Hannity sleep while Kerry Nader etc find out what really happened in Ohio and Florida/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowdawgdem Donating Member (972 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
21. the time deadlines are most impt now
Not the concession, which can be changed if circumstances change. It is somewhat demoralizing that he conceded, and yes I agree that the repubs will make it seem inevitable. However our real problem imo seems to be can these counts and recounts be done by 12/13 or whenever the electoral college meets? Because it seems to be going really slowly, and that will be to the repub's advantage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrModerate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
22. Don't try to put a tinfoil hat on John Kerry
If he steps forward now, given the weak evidence that's currently on the table, it would kill any serious consideration of fraud.

If he waits, and the truth comes out (presuming the truth is as we believe it to be, i.e., fraud was committed at a level that changed the outcome), then he can step forward, presidentially, and take the reins.

Bush's position is no more solid today than it was on Nov. 5 -- IF THERE WAS OUTCOME-DECIDING FRAUD.

We don't know that yet. We may believe, but we do not KNOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristndem Donating Member (346 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
26. Remember 2000?
Edited on Sat Nov-13-04 08:35 AM by kristndem
Remember James Baker's ugly contorted face everwhere you looked, remember mobs of angry citizen's (we know who they were) storming the counting, remember the Dem's "whining", cartoons of crying childdren with "whine" captions under them, remember "sore Loserman" etc........

They won the PR war bigtime! Remember people who voted for Gore who said " i just want this to be over" talking heads saying it's time to move on, the country cannot stand this...

Kerry had to change the playing field. you can't say "Plan A didn't work, Now let's go back and try Plan A.............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC