Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kerry if FINALLY FIGHTING BACK!!!

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 » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
RockHardCore Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:33 AM
Original message
Kerry if FINALLY FIGHTING BACK!!!
Granted it is too late to do anything about 2004, but people still need to hear this story and John is willing to carry the torch for it now!

Sen. John Kerry didn't contest the results at the time, but now that he's considering another run for the White House, he's alleging election improprieties by the Ohio Republican who oversaw the deciding vote in 2004.
An e-mail will be sent to 100,000 Democratic donors Tuesday asking them to support U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland for governor of Ohio. The bulk of the e-mail criticizes Strickland's opponent, GOP Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, for his dual role in 2004 as President Bush's honorary Ohio campaign co-chairman and the state's top election official.

"He used the power of his state office to try to intimidate Ohioans and suppress the Democratic vote," said Kerry's e-mail.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/28/D8JPNR480.html

PLEASE SUPPORT HIM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. sorry john. i was behind you until you left us holding the bag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. You mean YOU had evidence in that bag and didn't give it to the Dem party
legal team of election lawyers?

Have you at least shared it with RFK Jr?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #3
38. you are selling a lie here blm
evidence of voter intimidation and suppression was EVERYWHERE in ohio, on election day. john kerry should have been screaming his lungs out THAT DAY. in fact, he should have been on top of the whole issue of diebold machines after his "brother" max cleland was diebolded in georgia in '02.
sorry, no fucking excuses for kerry. harvey wasserman and bob fitrakis wrote a book called "did george w bush steal america's 2004 election" it is a phone book size listing of instances of vote tampering and voter suppression.
all kerry had to do was pay one iota of attention to his grassroots supporters. we sure the hell all knew by midnight on election night that something was wrong. we knew before election day what we were dealing with. if john kerry was not up to fighting, he is a follower, not a leader. fuck you john kerry. you are a traitor and part of the problem. you promised to count all the votes. they are uncounted still.
all the apologists on the planet will never convince me otherwise. save your breath blm. you are putting lipstick on a fat, lazy, cowardly pig.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. What Democrat was in CHARGE of election law and voting rights c2001-2004?
Edited on Tue Aug-29-06 10:35 AM by blm
YOU are selling a lie that the nominee bears all the responsibility.

Play it out YOUR WAY - if the DNC and the Dem party infrastructure are not responsible for countering the vote suppression and machine fraud that the RNC employs throughout their 4yr tenures then we are all waiting for the NEXT Dem presidential nominee to take that job on in the summer of 2008.

Sounds to me like the lie that is being sold is the idea that it's NOT the Dem party's job or the election lawyers' job to counter the tactics of the RNC's vote suppression and machine fraud experts.

What was the name of the position Donna Brazille was given when Terry McAuliffe was in charge?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupinBushcountry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #38
47. Wow
first you call a fellow DU'er a liar, then you go on in a putrid diatribe.

Now I will try to get past your hatred and ask you a question.

Who was in charge in Ohio ?

Who made the voting laws in Ohio?

Can you show me proof where anyone has won a court battle yet over what went wrong in Ohio?

Where is your proof that the lawyers left ?

How do you think the kids at Kenyon got to vote till the wee hours of the morning ?

Bob Fritakis is a lawyer has he won any cases yet on the election of '04?

Did you take to the streets and demand accountability ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #47
63. 'i have your back' and 'we will count every vote' was kerrys battle cry
Edited on Tue Aug-29-06 04:12 PM by bullimiami
and he did NOTHING. Concession the very next day.

Look at mexico, the election was rigged the count was rigged and the commission was rigged but they are still fighting because they know they are right and wont give up without a fight.

"send money for the legal fund' 'we are ready to fight'

I will NEVER support kerry again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. Examine what you are saying - Kerry was relaying to US what the DNC was
telling him - The DNC said they were prepared with 10,000 lawyers across the country ready to jump into an election battle on election day. Candidates and voters didn't have to worry, the Dem party was ready for anything.

What did the RNC do? They worked for FOUR YEARS to suppress Dem votes, purge Dem voter rolls and gain control of the input and output of electronic voting machines.

Kerry won his matchups against Bush and won the election - he did his job

He did his job and won - How did the Dem party infrastructure do?

Were they strong enough in Ohio to counter the 4yrs of vote suppressing tactics the RNC focused on? Did the DNC have the machines secured for ALL the candidates on the ballot?

Was the Dem party legal team for elections well schooled on all the election fraud tactics?

And how did the left media do matched against the RW machine?

And how did Kerry match up against Bush again?

Or was it Kerry's job to run the DNC, the left media AND beat Bush?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupinBushcountry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. I don't care who you support
the thing is whoever you do support, ask yourself what have they done about the problem not just in '04 but in '00. I think you will be surprised at what you find.

About Mexico, where were the Americans in '04 ? To bad nobody looks at "we the people" as part of the problem.

As far as the legal team there were 30,000 lawyers all over America and they told Kerry they wouldn't be able to fight it, are you a lawyer? The only case that has been proven is in NH and that was from 2002 and involving a Senate race.

This problem is bigger then one man, and until "we the people" demand accountability, nothing will change, period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. justify it all you want. i would never support kerry again.
Edited on Tue Aug-29-06 08:18 PM by bullimiami
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackthorn Donating Member (675 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #38
68. Well said. Kerry never intended to fight.
Three words; Skull. And. Bones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
2. Old news - Kerry has been saying this since Jan 05 - YOU are just noticing
his remarks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RockHardCore Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. This time...
It's even on Drudge so lots more people are going to see it and it is right before an election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Lesson #1: Drudge is not a worthy source. Check out
LBN, GD, GD/P here, you'll learn a lot more, faster, and the sources will be respectable.

"It's even on Drudge?" So what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RockHardCore Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Drudge...
There is no reason not to read Drudge - he links to credible sources all of the time and he is a very highly trafficked website. I take the time to see what everyone is saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
25. He's a lazy gossip, but you're obviously free to get your 'news'
from wherever you want.



"critics regard Drudge's contribution to journalism as questionable, saying that the only stories he actually breaks are completely conceived, researched, funded, and written by other reporters. A federal judge noted in a judgment on a libel lawsuit, which ended in Drudge's favor, that Drudge was not a "reporter, a journalist, or a newsgatherer." Drudge's most famous achievement, the breaking of the Monica Lewinsky story, offended editors because by publishing details of the story, Drudge essentially made an editorial decision that overrode Newsweek's (which was sitting on the story)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Drudge
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
5. Kerry, please fight over 2004, but don't run in 2008
That's basically my sentiment. I was furious with Kerry -- both the way he ran his campaign and the fact that he conceded so quickly in 2004.

Since then, I've changed my mind about Kerry, largely thanks to Kerry supporters on DU. They have convinced me that he is a great and courageous Senator.

But I wish he would just stay Senator of Massachusetts and hope he doesn't run for national office again. We need someone who will fight this kind of thing the day after, not two years after.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. You are wrong - it can't BE fought the day after. RNC tactics need to be
Edited on Tue Aug-29-06 08:51 AM by blm
countered for the FOUR YEARS in between presidential elections. You falsely assume that it is the added duty of the presidential nominee to counter vote suppression tactics that the RNC has focused on for four years prior to the election.

Kerry won his matchups with Bush.

How did the DNC handle its matchup for four years with the RNC?

How did the left media do up against the RW message machine?

How did Kerry do with his matchups against Bush?

YOUR plan is to get rid of the ONE guy who won his matchups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. What?
If by matchup you mean debates, winning the debate doesn't matter. Winning the election matters.

As for fighting for a full recount, these dates speak for themselves.

Election day 2000: November 7, 2000
Gore concession: December 13, 2000

Election day 2004: November 2, 2004
Kerry concession: November 3, 2004

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. He was right to concede
The votes were not there. In all the time since, no definitive proof has emerged that would have done anything to reverse the count.

There are process court cases ongoing about how the vote was run and on the issue of purposeful disenfranchisement. No cases were found to have merit that the '04 race results could have been reversed. There is no proof of this. Period.

People fight on this issue because they care about votes counting and counting votes. That is an ongoing fight. But it is over for '04 and I believe Kerry was right to concede when he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #13
26. Kerry WON the election - the Dem party infrastructure was in such collapse
that it could not support that win.

And I think you don't even realize that you are attacking the SAME PEOPLE you also PRAISE.

The Dem party team of election lawyers who advised Gore that he had the evidence and the math to CONTINUE in court, are the same team who told Kerry he did NOT have the legal evidence or the math on his side to continue in court.

You think that the nominee is in charge of every aspect of the campaign?

ANY Dem nominee would have had the same people at their given duties that Kerry had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RockHardCore Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Then who?
I know this question is beat around all of the time, but who could run well in 2008 and who would they be running against.

I was talking to a friend about this last night and I just can't get comfortable with any of the ideas at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #9
19. You're Calendar Is in 2007??? Did I Miss The 2006 Election?
The 2008 election will revolve around on several factors we have no clue about right now. First, and most important, is who wins in November. If Democrats win control of the House &/or Senate, how the Iraq invasion is going, how poorly the economy is and how angry people are. At this point in 1990 would anyone have considered Bill Clinton a credible candidate, yet one who would win? No one knew.

The delight of the Democratic party right now is the flux its going through. There's a change going on that's rockin' the party and is going to have an effect on 2008. What's that effect? Stay tuned.

Wake me up sometime next October about 2008 talk...then lets see whose standing.

Regarding Senator Kerry...may he have a very long and productive career as Senator of Massetchussets.

And wasn't it Drudge that put out the phony story about Kerry having a sexual affair? Did Drudge ever retract it? He prints RNC talking points constantly and is part of the Rove machine. Feel free to read his slime, but please don't try to ask folks here to take anything on that site seriously or with any credibility.

Peace...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
24. I agree with you that the question is who could run well in 2008
and it will depend on which issues are most important to people then. The issues in 2000 weren't the issues in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. "I was furious with Kerry -- both the way he ran his campaign and
the fact that he conceded so quickly in 2004.

Since then, I've changed my mind about Kerry, largely thanks to Kerry supporters on DU. They have convinced me that he is a great and courageous Senator."

1. Kerry's campaign was sensationally successful.
2. Read post 3. again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. What? sensationally successful?
By what measure? He was swiftboated and decided not to respond. He was running against a total moron and liar and never really called Bush out for what he is. That he thought windsurfing and skiboarding were positive images made me groan.

But I'm through debating 2004. Let Kerry be a great Senator from Massachusetts, but I hope and pray he is not the Democratic standard bearer. What's so offensive about that to Kerry supporters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #15
29. There is a looong thread in the Research forum
Edited on Tue Aug-29-06 09:31 AM by karynnj
that lists everything done to counter the SBVT. The media decided to give liars credibility and air time AFTER many lies were completely refuted.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

Kerry's sports activities that include ice hockey, biking (he just rode 111 miles in less than 6 hrs in a charity race), and skiing were not a problem. He certainly spends enough time working. In 2004, he went windsurfing during the Republican convention for a few hours. It is traditional not to campaign during the opponent's convention. Having just come back from a vacation where I saw people windsurfing - mainly athletic young men - I'm impressed he can do this. It looked like healthy, good fun out in the sunshine on the ocean. I seriously doubt if it is anywhere near as elitist as golf. (It discriminates more on athletic ability.)

What is so offensive to me as a Kerry supporter is:
THE REPEAT of disproved things like "not responding to the SBVT" and "not speaking out against Bush - which he did harder and earlier than ANY other Democrat - yes, I include Dean and the idea that windsurfing was bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #15
30. That's patent nonsense! This is not your first such post!
Edited on Tue Aug-29-06 09:25 AM by ProSense
You continue spewing BS even when presented with evidence to the contrary. You were very critical of Senator Kerry's "Dissent" speech. Your arguments takes so many twist and turns they're becoming quite hypocritical. This is a pattern with you.

"That he thought windsurfing and skiboarding were positive images made me groan."

Ding! BS right-wing talking points.

Here, again, are the facts:

In the last two campaigns, the parties divided the electoral map almost exactly in half. In 2000, George W. Bush won the second-narrowest Electoral College victory since 1800. In 2004, Bush won a smaller share of Electoral College votes than any reelected president except Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outlook7may07,1,3221992.column?coll=la-headlines-nation


Despite your comments to the contrary, Senator Kerry did fight the Swift Liars:



May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."


It stopped them cold, until the MSM launched its onslaught in August. Then Kerry called them out and issued a direct challenge to Bush:

Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc0e-904bcc95946c&


Text:

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555


What is your beef, and why are you hoping Senator Kerry doesn't run? What's the threat? That he might win the primaries?

Tell the truth! Try to do it without spewing BS!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #30
46. LOL! How to stop a conversation!
I realize you think your role is that of pro-Kerry thought police, but don't you think that this time you've gone too far? I mean, one way to stop a conversation is to post a lot of stuff and call the other person a liar who spews bullshit, and this ensures the other person will ignore you as a troll, and your stuff gets to remain unchallenged, right?

But haven't you gone a little too far? I wrote that Kerry's windsurfing and skiboarding made me groan, and you say I'm a liar? Were you in my living room watching me watch Kerry? You saw me not groan? That's hilarious. You are basically saying that my relating of own feelings at the time is false? That's rich!

But this is analogous to the bigger point, about the campaign. I, and many fellow Democrats and progressives found it infuriatingly uninspiring. What are you telling us -- that we are liars because it was in fact a sensational campaign and of course we found it inspiring? WTF????

The Swift Boat affair was a perfect example. Although the first parts of the story came out in the spring, it gained media traction right after the Republican convention, in the first week of August 2004. To quote the author of "Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over For Bush," Eric Boehlert, "in the month of August, 2004, NBC network news alone covered the Swift Boat story on Aug. 8, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29. CBS covered the story Aug. 8, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 30, while ABC devoted airtime to it on Aug. 6, 8, 9, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 26." The newspapers also began running with the story.

By your own post, you date Kerry's comprehensive response as beginning on Thursday, August 19th, which I agree was the date he began countering the Swift Boat liars.

But almost ten days had elapsed, during which the story gained momentum and the media reported that Kerry's staff was not addressing it because they thought the story would not gain traction and "go away". Perhaps their reporting of Kerry's motives was false; maybe it was true.

But the bottom line fact is that Kerry waited 10 days in the middle of a convention season, during which people formed opinions -- basically, why isn't he responding if it isn't true?

When Clinton ran for president, he had a "War Room" that hit back hard at the Republicans with a rapid reaction force on the same day that they made any allegations.

Now we are supposed to celebrate because two years after the election, Kerry is highlighting election fraud in Ohio? Where was he when John Conyers came out with his report? Where was he when Mark Crispin Miller's book came out about how the election was stolen? He actually implied Miller was a liar because Miller reported on a conversation he had with Kerry, in which it is alleged Kerry said he did believe the election was stolen. Kerry then came out with a statement to the effect that Miller was a lying conspiracy theorist. Now Kerry has changed his mind. I guess he was didn't believe in stolen elections before he did believe in stolen elections.

The only time Kerry inspired me during the campaign was when he didn't realize the mic was on and he said of the Bush gang, something to the effect that these are the most dirty, rotten corrupt group ever to get power.

Other than off mic, Kerry brings boxing gloves to a street knife fight. He's a nice guy and I wish him well as Senator from Massachusetts. As for me, I'll support someone who comes loaded for bear, whether it's Al Gore, Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, or any of a whole group of Democrats who "get it" that we are in the grip of a bunch of murderous, lying thugs, not gentlemen across the aisle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. Still ignoring the facts, huh?
April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)

May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).


Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)



What does the press rolling over to play lapdogs have to do with Kerry's response?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. Faxed a letter? That's classic
That's a classic example of bringing boxing gloves to a street knife fight. Look at your own posts. Look at the widely available chronologies. However long the Swift Boat lies were in the public arena, the story "broke" in the first week of August in the wake of the convention. By your own admission, Kerry came out strongly only on August 19. It was widely reported that Kerry's staff thought the story would go away.

And, btw, accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a liar, rather than someone who disagrees, is not just getting old, it's offensive and stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Stop the spin!
"By your own admission, Kerry came out strongly only on August 19."

Where did I say that?

Lawyers write letters and file complaints, and those efforts have impact:

Bush-Cheney lawyer resigns over veterans flap
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/25/ginsberg.swiftboat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Here:
You wrote about the early August stories and then said Kerry stopped them cold based on the August 19 speech. Well, in fact, that did not stop the lies cold because they had been circulating and hardening public opinion without a strong response. You wrote:

It stopped them cold, until the MSM launched its onslaught in August. Then Kerry called them out and issued a direct challenge to Bush:

Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.



But you know what? You are so insulting and so unable to have a civil discussion, I'll just concede. I didn't really groan to myself in my living room, comrade, when I say Kerry in his windsurfing suit. Comrade, I confess my political errors and admit that John Kerry is a great and dear leader, selfless and courageous in the face of the onslaughts of the running dogs, and he will end exploitation, man by man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. No where in my statement are the words
"Kerry came out strongly," it's not even implied. The stopped them cold, well they stopped:

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)

May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Whatever, Comrade
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #15
66. He was mobbed wherever he went before the election. There
awesome photographs of the crowds he always drew.

Record numbers came out to vote. And it wasn't to vote for Bush.

The evidence that he gained a massive electoral victory (however virtual it was rendered by Republican fraud) is unambiguously compelling.

You have a right to vote for whoever you want, of course, but you've misrepresented what really happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
22. The day after there was no legal case to be made - and there still isn't.
Even in November 2004, Cam Kerry explained that while there were irregularities and there was voting suppression, they conceded because they could not prove Kerry got the majority of votes cast in Ohio.

This is still the case. What Kerry is doing now is trying to shine as much light as he can on the problems with the way US elections are currently done. As to 2004, even if proof were found of a wharehouse in Ohio with 300,000 Kerry votes, people who were involved in voter fraud could go to jail, but the election result - per the procedure in the Constitution - would remain the same.

The closest parallel is that Republicans have gone to jail in NH for jamming the Democratic Manchester GOTV phone lines. Sunnunu won a pretty narrow victory - this might have made the difference. There is NO talk of replacing him with former Governor Sheheen. In Ohio, the main suppression technique - inadequate number of voting machines in Democratic strongholds - was not even illegal. Worse, the bipartisan county election commisions were given the numbers, but no one saw the problem ahead of time.

The question is who can we get who will really fight more than Kerry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oc2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
10. Sorry Kerry, you had your chance.

He had his chance and fiddled it away. We thought we had a fighter, but only had a nuanced insider.

Too bad, soo sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. No. You had your chance and you'll see it won't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #10
27. Too bad so sad - another flunked history student.
Indergod save me from people who never read the congressional record or National Security Archives who think they should instruct the lawmaker who effected this nation's real history more positively than any other lawmaker of the last 35 years, that he had his chance and needs to go away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
14. Many, many Democrats talked about this in Jan of '06
Go back and review what was known at that time. The speeches made in the Senate are a matter of public record and are available through a search online.

Sens. Boxer, Durbin, Reid, Obama and many others talked about the fraud. Kerry was in Iraq at that time, but he also concurred with the idea that something went wrong in Ohio and possibly other locations on election day in '04. They lacked the physical proof to challenge the results. However, the speeches made at that time hold up remarkably well with what we know today.

There are a certain number of people who pretend that they want to solve the problem of voting and fruad in the voting process. Yet they do everything they can to disparage anyone who doesn't speak out exactly the way they want. This fosters the image that there are no serious people involved in this fight, only people who want to be 'right' and people who attack their own when they offer help. I have talked to people who view this issue as not serious and the province of the conspriacy nuts. Maybe a seroius approach that starts with actually welcoming people in who want to help would go farther to present this as a serious issue than the constant sniping among Dems that occurs whenever this comes up. I have trouble maintaining respect for a few people on this issue. I think their real purpose is just to denigrate other Dems or other people who might actually be able to help. Why would I want to help those people immolate this issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RockHardCore Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Just a thought, could it just be better to...
learn to use voter fraud to our advantage if it is just going to be a part of the game from no on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. It would be better to take the issue seriously
and fight it point by point. It would be better if people actually tried to get others to fight this rather than pushing people away. It would be better if people understood that this is political fight that could take years to resolve, just as voting rights issues in the past have taken years, if not decades to resolve.

I believe there are a lot of people who just want someone to blame. I don't want to work with them, I don't read their bitter diatrabes about this issue and I won't send them money. I believe they hurt this cause as much as any Republican. So many of them can't see this, they only see that 'they are right' and everyone else is wrong. I hope they have fun storming the castle with the few people they have. They have caused a great many more people to leave this cause because of their acidic ways of allegedly persuing reform.

If you want to use election fraud, then you are as bad as what you rail against. If that is how some people wish to fight, leave me out of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #17
28. That's HORSESHIT - No REAL Democrat would condone election fraud.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #17
36. First of all, it's not voter fraud, it's election fraud
Second of all, we Democrats actually value our Constitution, so no thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeveneightyWhoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
64. Wow..
What a fan of democracy you are.

Perhaps you should move to, like, Russia or Ukraine if that's your attitude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
16. He Has My Support
and poo poo poo to those who won't support a political figure willing to bring this issue into the mainstream.

HOW MUCH DO YOU REALLY CARE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
20. Solution: Elect Secretaries of State...
...and election officials that demonstrate an ability to be balanced and fair, and are known for their integrity, not partisan hacks like Blackwell and Harris.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #20
33. Electing them may make it more likely they are partisan
Maybe appointing them with approval needed by the majority of legislature members in each party. This might accomplish your goal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
21. RIGHT ON! If this gets enough attention in time, we can save future votes
from being stolen!!!

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
31. This is NOT news. Kerry has been saying this for years now.
I love how every couple of weeks someone notices this, then we get a whole new round of Kerry bashing for "not fighting befo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pansypoo53219 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
32. too fucking late
Ohio was a HUGE fucking red flag. clearly it was NOT free and fair.
mr. SENATOR is also too grey too senatorial to answer a fucking question simply. did not trust america to even give a fucking hint to what his fucking 'plan' for iWaq was.
plan
plan
plan
well, what is it????
bush is the worst president EVER. it should have been a landslide. the democrats lost again playing it safe.
thanks to gephardt taking down Dean.

i am fucking SICK of kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. Dean would have had the same team of Dem election lawyers and the same DNC
Edited on Tue Aug-29-06 09:31 AM by blm
and collapsed Dem party infrastructure that Kerry had.

I think it's SICKENING that people are so ignorant of REAL HISTORY that they could make a comment that they are sick of Kerry. It seems to me that only CORRUPT REpublicans should be sick of Kerry as he has investigated and exposed more of their government corruption than ANY lawmaker in modern history and more than all of the other 2004 candidates COMBINED.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #32
39. Calm down before you hurt yourself
Edited on Tue Aug-29-06 09:57 AM by karynnj
As many here have said - there is no legal proof Kerry won Ohio. There is ample proof that there was massive voter suppression - but most of it was not illegal (though obviously it was unethical). There is no law on the books that dealt with number of voting machines.

Too grey (when later you back Dean) - Kerry was nearly a Democratic action figure hero.
- He was a war hero of the very best kind
*** he risked his life to save another person
*** he analyzed the type of deadly ambush that killed others, made a plan, checked with others, sold the plan and implemented it under the conditions that had previously led to death and it worked.
*** Even in VN, he tried to work through the system to change the non-working way they were fighting
- When he returned to the US, he fought to end a war that was unwinnable. He did this very well keeping many angry veterans within the system
- He fought the Mafia as a prosecutor and successfully fought to exonerate a man falsely accused with murder (on death row) as a lawyer.
- He worked on acid rain as Lt Governor
- He was the lone Senator willing to investigate the popular Reagan administration allowing Contra drug and gun running
- He stood alone to fight a terrorist bank - and succeeded in getting his information to people who closed it down.


Take almost any of those points - and you can see it could make a "made for TV movie" (Most are as good as McCain being a prisoner and all are more dramatic than man from Hope.) I seriously can't think of any more interesting or colorful politician - or one with more integrity. I would love to see your comparable list for the colorful Dean - who I first knew of as a moderate Governor of VT.

The media gave scant coverage to Kerry's major speech on Iraq (given at NYU). Kerry also summaried the same plan concisely in less than a minute on the Letterman show that evening. Kerry was very clear on it in the debate as well.

The fact is that half the country still was convinced that Bush stood between them and disaster. The media was in Bush's pocket - and presented him as a nice guy, which he never had been.
-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
34. Kerry's Senate speech on the Rosa Park's Voting Rights Act
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his discussion of an important way of having accountability in voting . I must say that I saw how that works out in Oregon. It works well. It works brilliantly, as a matter of fact. People have a lot of time to be able to vote. They don't have to struggle with work issues or being sick or other things. They have plenty of time to be able to have the kind of transparency and accountability that makes the system work. There are other States where you are allowed to start voting early--in New Mexico and elsewhere.
It is amazing that in the United States we have this patchwork of the way our citizens work in Federal elections. It is different almost everywhere. I had the privilege of giving the graduation address this year at Kenyan College in Ohio, and there the kids at Kenyan College wound up being the last people to vote in America in the Presidential race in 2004 in Gambier, at 4:30 in the morning. We had to go to court to get permission for them to keep the polls open so they could vote at 4:30 in the morning.

Why did it take until 4:30 in the morning for people to be able to vote? They didn't have enough voting machines in America. These people were lined up not just there but in all of Ohio and in other parts of the country. An honest appraisal requires one to point out that where there were Republican secretaries of state, the lines were invariably longer in Democratic precincts, sometimes with as many as one machine only in the Democratic precinct and several in the Republican precinct; so it would take 5 or 10 minutes for someone of the other party to be able to vote, and it would take literally hours for the people in the longer lines. If that is not a form of intimidation and suppression, I don't know what is.

So I thank the Senator from Oregon for talking about the larger issue here. He is absolutely correct. The example of his State is one that the rest of the country ought to take serious and think seriously about embracing.
This is part of a larger issue, obviously, Mr. President. All over the world, our country has always stood out as the great exporter of democratic values. In the years that I have been privileged to serve in the Senate, I have had some extraordinary opportunities to see that happen in a firsthand way.

Back in 1986, I was part of a delegation that went to the Philippines. We took part in the peaceful revolution that took place at the ballot box when the dictator, President Marcos, was kicked out and ``Cory'' Aquino became President. I will never forget flying in on a helicopter to the island of Mindanao and landing where some people have literally not seen a helicopter before, and 5,000 people would surround it as you swooped out of the sky, to go to a polling place where the entire community turned out waiting in the hot sun in long lines to have their thumbs stamped in ink and to walk out having exercised their right to vote.

I could not help but think how much more energy and commitment people were showing for the privilege of voting in this far-off place than a lot of Americans show on too many occasions. The fact is that in South Africa we fought for years--we did--through the boycotts and other efforts, in order to break the back of apartheid and empower all citizens to vote. Most recently, obviously, in Afghanistan and Iraq, notwithstanding the disagreement of many of us about the management of the war and the evidence and other issues that we have all debated here. This has never been debated about the desire for democracy and the thrill that everyone in the Senate felt in watching citizens be able to exercise those rights .

In the Ukraine, the world turned to the United States to monitor elections and ensure that the right to vote was protected. All of us have been proud of what President Carter has done in traveling the world to guarantee that fair elections take place. But the truth is, all of our attempts to spread freedom around the world will be hollow and lose impact over the years in the future if we don't deliver at home. The fact is that we are having this debate today in the Senate about the bedrock right to vote, with the understanding that this is not a right that was afforded to everyone in our country automatically or at the very beginning. For a long time, a century or more, women were not allowed to vote in America. We all know the record with respect to African Americans. The fact is that the right to vote in our country was earned in blood in many cases and in civic sweat in a whole bunch of cases. Courageous citizens literally risked their lives. I remember in the course of the campaign 2 years ago, traveling to Alabama--Montgomery--and visiting the Southern Poverty Law Center, the memorial to Martin Luther King, and the fountain. There is a round stone fountain with water spilling out over the sides. From the center of the fountain there is a compass rose coming back and it marks the full circle. At the end of every one of those lines is the name of an American with the description, ``killed trying to register to vote,'' or ``murdered trying to register.'' Time after time, that entire compass rose is filled with people who lost their lives in order to exercise a fundamental right in our country.

None of us will forget the courage of people who marched and faced Bull Connor's police dogs and faced the threat of lynchings, some being dragged out of their homes in the dark of night to be hung. The fact is that we are having this debate today because their work and that effort is not over yet. Too many Americans in too many parts of our country still face serious obstacles when they are trying to vote in our own country.
By reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we are taking an important step, but, Mr. President, it is only a step. Nobody should pretend that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act solves the problems of being able to vote in our own country. It doesn't. In recent elections, we have seen too many times how outcomes change when votes that have been cast are not counted or when voters themselves are prevented from voting or intimidated from even registering or when they register, as we found in a couple of States, their registration forms are put in the wastebasket instead of into the computers.

This has to end. Every eligible voter in the United States ought to be able to cast his or her ballot without fear, without intimidation, and with the knowledge that their voice will be heard. These are the foundations of our democracy, and we have to pay more attention to it.

For a lot of folks in the Congress, this is a very personal fight. Some of our colleagues in the House and Senate were here when this fight first took place or they took part in this fight out in the streets. Without the courage of someone such as Congressman JOHN LEWIS who almost lost his life marching across that bridge in Selma, whose actions are seared in our minds, who remembers what it was like to march to move a nation to a better place, who knows what it meant to put his life on the line for voting rights , this is personal.
For somebody like my colleague, Senator TED KENNEDY, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who was here in the great fight on this Senate floor in 1965 when they broke the back of resistance, this is personal.
We wouldn't even have this landmark legislation today if it weren't for their efforts to try to make certain that it passed.

But despite the great strides we have taken since this bill was originally enacted, we have a lot of work to do.
Mr. President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on this particular component of the bill, there is agreement. Republicans and Democrats can agree. I was really pleased that every attempt in the House of Representatives to weaken the Voting Rights Act was rejected.
We need to reauthorize these three critical components especially: The section 5 preclearance provisions that get the Justice Department to oversee an area that has a historical pattern of discrimination that they can't change how people vote without clearance. That seems reasonable.
There are bilingual assistance requirements. Why? Because people need it and it makes sense. They are American citizens, but they still may have difficulties in understanding the ballot, and we ought to provide that assistance so they have a fully informed vote. This is supposed to be an informed democracy, a democracy based on the real consent of the American people.
And finally, authorization for poll watching. Regrettably, we have seen in place after place in America why we need to have poll watching.
A simple question could be asked: Where would the citizens of Georgia be, particularly low-income and minority citizens, if they were required to produce a government-issued identification or pay $20 every 5 years in order to vote? That is what would have happened without section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Georgia would have successfully imposed what the judge in the case called ``a Jim Crow-era like poll tax.'' I don't think anybody here
wants to go back and flirt with the possibility of returning to a time when States charged people money to exercise their right to vote. That is not our America.
This morning, President Bush addressed the 97th Annual Convention of the NAACP after a 5-year absence. I am pleased that the President, as we all are, ended his boycott of the NAACP and announced his intention to sign the Voting Rights Act into law.

But we need to complete the job. There are too many stories all across this country of people who say they registered duly, they reported to vote, and they were made to stand in one line or another line and get an excuse why, when they get to the end of the line, they can't vote. So they take out a provisional ballot, and then there are fights over provisional ballots. There are ways for us to avoid that. Some States allow same-day registration. In some parts of America, you can just walk up the day of an election, register, and vote, as long as you can prove your residence.
We have this incredible patchwork of laws and rules, and in the process, it is even more confusing for Americans.
We need to fully fund the Help America Vote Act so that we have the machines in place, so that people are informed, so that there is no one in America who waits an undue amount of time in order to be able to cast a vote.
We have to pass the Count Every Vote Act that Senator Clinton, Senator Boxer, and I have introduced which ensures exactly what the Senator from Oregon was talking about: that every voter in America has a verifiable paper trail for their vote.
How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?
How can we have a system where the voting machines are proprietary to a private business so that the public sector has no way of verifying what the computer code is and whether or not it is accountable and fair? Just accounting for it.


Congress has to ensure that every vote cast in America is counted, that every precinct in America has a fair distribution of voting machines, that voter suppression and intimidation are un-American and must cease.
We had examples in the last election of people who were sent notices--obviously fake, but they were sent them and they confused them enough. They were told that if you have an outstanding parking ticket, you can't vote. They were told: Democrats vote on Wednesday and Republicans vote on Tuesday and various different things.
It is important for us to guarantee that in the United States of America, this right that was fought for so hard through so much of the difficult history of our country, we finally make real the full measure of that right.
I yield the floor. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague for her forbearance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #34
40. Can you tell me the date of that speech? Approximate is fine.
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. July 20, 2006
Sorry - I really should have dated it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. Thank you. Just copied and pasted it and needed a date.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
37. Fight 'em with the truth JK. You are the President, as is/was Gore.
K & R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
44. better late than never.
I'm glad he's doing this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. I am surprised at all the "too little too late" well, yeah for 2004 but
what about 2006? 2008? We need as many voices as possible united on this to prevent FUTURE elections from being stolen! Better late than never is damn right! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevolutionStartsNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. I agree. My first reaction was negative, but
I think we need to raise our voices about this issue RIGHT NOW, before the 2006 election. We knew it happened in 2000 and while the activists worked hard to shine the lights on it in 2004, I don't think there was enough national political attention paid to it before the 2004 debacle.

I was in Ohio that night in 2004, and will never forget what I saw...all the returns were coming in for Kerry and we were ready for the victory party when Ohio turned on a dime. We should do whatever we can to NEVER let that happen again, and if Kerry wants to throw his weight behind the cause, more power to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
48. Too little, too late.
Edited on Tue Aug-29-06 12:25 PM by Kurovski
(for a presidential run, that is. He was given the presidency and let the Republicans take it away, and more importantly...he let the Republicans steal and cheat us out of OUR VOTES.)

He's a great Senator, though. No doubt about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
50. David Hammer(Associated Puke)
I already commented on the snide slant of this article which certainly helps turn it into flamebait and is exactly the predictable media treatment what Kerry has been avoiding. I note in Kerry's full comment that he pulls his punches so as not to make the inferences that Hammer is accusing him of.

"All judgments about Kerry aside,
read that first snide sentence in the AP report carefully. Read it again. That is an interpretation, an attack and a definite tone of sneer. Then it continues to show how Bush "won" and FINALLY includes a snippet.

Then the issue is reexamined by all those unsuccessful challenges and Blackwell gets the last word in his defense, a much longer citation than that granted to Kerry(who pulled his punches in an attempt to avoid this very predictable kind of media riposte.

Posting the Kerry story via this source is like trying to scrape the barf out of your pet's bowl. I would hope it can become more habitual to put the context of the post clearly in the light of this slanted, predictable and flamebait media reaction and not the factual story it spins toward the gutter. We might as well report what the freepers are saying or Rush says about the Kerry message because at least it would clear what agitating role the spin is playing.

We are always playing off the presentation of the MSM and forgetting it is not an impartial observer or fair commentator. That is why it is absolutely essential to stake out real news sources and channels(which don't exist for the mainstream yet) in all the main media. You can't get around its destructive monopoly of the national forum."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Excellent analysis of the writer's slant
The other important thing is that this article is in response to a {i]Kerry e-mail. I have rarely seen articles based on the content of fund raising letters. Most letters of this sort are written in a highly partisan manner. Kerry's is stated in Kerry's ususal way to staying absolutely factual while hitting hard.

The real question is why an article at all. Kerry has said the same thing at least since Jan 2005. I think they fear it could be a powerful fund raiser and issue raiser in Ohio. I wonder what Democrats in the statehouse with supoena power could learn in Ohio.

It also looks like no one posted the Kerry email - so here it is - it is not what the AP writer suggests:

Dear Karen,

Almost two years ago today, Ted Strickland and I stood together on a stage in Steubenville, Ohio and I heard Ted tell the crowd about the damage the Bush presidency and the Taft governorship had done to the state -- the unemployment, the jobs shipped overseas, and corruption at the top.

As I write to you today, Ted Strickland is offering Ohio a better choice in a campaign that our entire country is watching.

The choice couldn't be clearer.

On one side is Ted Strickland -- a good man admired by Democrats and Republicans alike. On the other side is his Republican opponent, Ken Blackwell, who has used his office to abuse our democracy and threaten basic voting rights.

Support Strickland. Beat Blackwell. Donate Now.

This isn't just rhetoric. In 2004, while serving as a co-chair of George W. Bush's 2004 Presidential campaign in Ohio, Secretary of State Blackwell oversaw the state's 2004 election. He used the power of his state office to try to intimidate Ohioans and suppress the Democratic vote. Is he ashamed of what he did? No -- he's emboldened by it.

Since 2004, he has twisted the election process even more, adding new voting regulations that have created confusion and controversy. His legacy as Secretary of State? Putting partisanship ahead of the electorate's fundamental right to vote. That's not just a reason not to promote him as Governor; it demands a grassroots mission to stop Ken Blackwell from getting a further grip on power in Ohio.

That is why I am asking you to act right now to help Ted Strickland wage an all-out effort in this tough race. It is a contest in which every member of the johnkerry.com community has a stake.

Support Strickland. Beat Blackwell. Donate Now.

In Congress, Ted has been an outstanding advocate for working men and women, children's health care, and veterans' rights. He has worked to bring good jobs to Ohio by fostering investments in technology, energy production, and economic development. And, while fighting to give our troops the equipment they need, Ted has been a steadfast opponent of the war in Iraq.

Ted knows the world beyond Washington -- he was a minister, a professor and a psychologist before he went to Congress.

Support Strickland. Beat Blackwell. Donate Now.

The Republicans who run Washington, DC know Ted is serious and have called in all their big guns to campaign against him. They know how important this race is for their future -- they think they need to win it to remain in power. Let's not let them have their way.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. And the issue itself is completely buried
in an obvious GOP talking counterpoint. Kerry's e-mail was internal to Dems. The AP decided to make it a national negative issue against all Democrats, in effect. It strains the mind to make this into anything positive for the fraudulent Blackwell and his cheating counterparts but the intent is to turn any Democratic uppityness into a negative against them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #57
70. I agree
There is NOTHING in the letter that suggests Kerry is saying the election was stolen - which could be debatable.

Kerry says the Blackwell suppressed the vote - which is undeniably true. He also praises Strickland and asks people to contribute. There is NOTHING controversial in the letter.

My guess is the Republicans need Blackwell to win - Kerry's letter will likely bring in substantial money - he is a villian to people on Kerry's list. It also points out that he is unscrupuless and a cheat. This is just an effort to smear Kerry, because that's their hobby, and to try to confuse an issue that's pretty clear.

I think Kerry's office needs to demand a correction or retaction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
53. God damn it John, why the hell did you wait so long?
Jeez...

This is an example of why I won't vote for Kerry ever again.

Is it good he's finally speaking up? YES

BUT WHAT TOOK SO GOD DAMNED LONG?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prisoner_Number_Six Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
59. Way too little, way way WAY too late.
I don't believe him anyway. I thought he was a ringer, and in all the time since, I've seen nothing to make me change that view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
61. Please share your thoughts here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
62. finally? he has been f*in fighting back for two years consistantly
and screw that to little to late bullshit
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 Apr 25th 2024, 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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