We can write off Kerry, I think. We don't have time to screw around with zeroes like him.

What about getting mad? How about, "The election was stolen and I'm not going to take it!"

Even not wanting to appear "sour grapes" is pretty damn flaccid. There is all the evidence or there isn't. Let's put on the balance "sour grapes" on one side and the end of democracy on the other. Doesn't quite balance out, does it?

This is so sad.

The voters of Mass. should be educated, so they'll know to replace him.

We can't afford to elect a suit, even if he appears usually to have a brain.

I wonder if a poll of Dem Senators could be done to let us (if not the entire public) know which of them believe there was 'problems', 'hanky panky', election fraud or 'nothing there'? It would be helpful.

It must really piss off the Repubs. Here they go spending several decades and who knows how much money and Kerry can barely discern anything unusual happened. It makes the Repubs look like geniuses and we know that just ain't so.

It's important to understand that Kerry himself didn't deny agreeing with Mark Crispin Miller. In true Inside-the-Beltway style, he sent his spokeswoman out to refute the story. In effect, she called Miller a liar and added, "I know he's trying to sell books, but the conversation didn't happen."

It's just stunning, folks! The G.A.O. report has been out for almost a week, debunking for all time the notion that election fraud claims are the work of "conspiracy buffs." Chris Dodd is a blooming idiot to say "there's nothing there." Exit polls that show a mathematically impermissible 5-1/2% discrepancy versus the tablulated vote amount to
"nothing?" The fact that vote flipping (something I personally witnessed in Florida as a pollwatcher) benefited Bush almost exclusive is "nothing?"

Let's get Kerry and Miller together. Let's hear Kerry call Miller a liar to his face. He won't do it, I guarantee you, because he'll be calling his own wife a liar at the same time. Theresa Heinz-Kerry said the the same thing as Miller months ago. Once that's settled, let's get Kerry and Dodd together to recreate their "fight," and force Dodd to defend his claim that "there's nothing there" when it comes to the 2004 election.

The national Democratic party is a pathetic gang of liars. That's the bottom line. What's impossible to figure is why, when the truth would serve their interests so perfectly.

Brad, I've a question for you - has any group or any body done a survey on where the parties both the DNC and the GOP stand on verifiable, auditable, transparent elections?

I ask because around January of last year when the DNC started making it's fund-raising calls I asked the woman doing the soliciting what the position of the party was regarding election fraud and verified voting - her response was quick and sounded very rehearsed - she said that the party supported and was behind electronic voting and were going to champion that cause.

We had a bit of a discussion about e-voting and how it's hackable and not auditable. She was very insistant that the machines were safe... I told her that until the Dems started getting serious about verified voting with an auditable paper trail that they weren't getting any money from me.

I now think it's going to be necessary to shove the GAO report, Conyers report and all the various state reports under every single Senators, Representatives, and every single representative of both parties noses and get them on the record on whether they actually support non-partisan transparency and auditability in the voting system.

There are two conclusions that you can draw from the lack of action - that there are a whole bunch of party members that are dumber than a bag of hammers - or they know the system is rigged, and that works just fine for them. I'm leaning toward the latter.

Gore had more kahonis in 2000 than Kerry ever did! Kerry conceded the election way too early. Even though they say he could have retracted it, we know he didn't. He can't street fight and we all know it can get pretty dirty. I was VERY disappointed in Kerry and certainly would not support a repeat performance. I believe Teresa said the election was rigged. Maybe if Kerry didn't concede the election and kept it out in the open in MSM, maybe the rigged election wouldn't have been swept under the rug so quickly. I hope that by 2008, those opposed to current adm can get together and get them out! If everyone goes off in different directions, we'll be stuck with another 4-8 years!!

I think we should certainly see to it that Sen. Dodd knows about the GAO report. If Kerry was unaware of it, Dodd might have been, too.

I feel like I've stepped through the looking-glass. True, the corporate media is silent about the report, but is seems to me inconceivable that Kerry wasn't apprised by someone of a major GAO report directly applicable to the election.

As #4 Sukabi, there must be more than meets the eye.

Oh dear, Arry! I was going to post my open letter to John Kerry, but your comment #1 stole my word! Oh well --- great minds --

Dear John Kerry,
We campaigned our butts off for you in 2004 because we wanted you to be our ZORRO --- not ZERO.

I guess we should have given you a hearing aid.

Thanks for the big promises and the big bunch of nothing we got in return.

And --- I agree that there should be some way to get these documents (such as the GAO report on election fraud) to our frightfully busy congresspeople.

If they're too busy to keep up with all this extremely important news --- then they are incompetent. We The People must let them know.

How can we do this?

Kerry is absolutely right that he cannot and never could be the one out front on this issue. It WOULD simply be dismissed as sour grapes. The issue would never have grown the legs it has if Kerry had been out front.

Miller was wrong to out Kerry. His report confirms, though, what we already knew from Mrs. Kerry's comment. Kerry knows he was robbed.

The person we should be pressuring on this topic is Boxer, if anyone. Some Dem senator, not Kerry and not Kennedy, needs to take the lead on this. With the Gao report, we should have the leverage, finally.

Boxer had the courage when Bush's "election" was officially accepted by the Senate, but she apparently needs to be reminded.

I'm not really standing up for Kerry. I'm sorry, but he appears to be an idjit. I mean, sure, Miller created a tough situation, but Kerry should have found a way to get out of it without discrediting both of them. He's either an idjit or a traitor to Democracy, I'm more and more convinced.

But one way or another, Kerry cannot be out in front of the Stolen Election controversey.

I like Kerry. I wish he was President. I think he would be very good. I don't blame him for not talking about the election fraud. Look at it from his position. These people are ruthless and nothing is below them. They destroy everyone. Look what happened to Gore. What do you think would have happened to Kerry if he had cried foul?
We are behind because the neocons have been developing their evil plan to take over the world for 20 years or more. We have to work and make progress. No matter what Kerry said or did after the election it would not change anything. It would only serve to give them fodder for their spin machine. There is a website with political stickers that sends me e-mails with their latest bumper-stickers. Right after the election they had a sale on election stickers. One had been made just in case Kerry contested the election results. It had a very unflattering picture of him and some very unkind (crybaby) words. They already had the spin ready. He would have been crushed by the neocons spin machine. He knew it and I think we all know it now. We have to expose their putrid souls to the world without becoming targets. I think that is what Kerry is working on now. Anyway, thats my take on it.

I just have to say again that even though Miller was wrong to attempt to out Kerry on the Stolen Election, it just amazes me that Kerry bungled the difficulty so badly. Now, if he ever DOES come out about the Stolen Election, he looks like a liar, like the liar he apparently he is. At the same time, he has taken a major shot at Miller's credibility.

I mean, what kind of idjit do you have to be to take a bad situation and make it ten times worse? What's he going to say next? That he agreed with Miller before he disagreed with Miller and now he agrees with him again?

It's like a cup and lie game! Under which cup is the lie! :laugh:

I've spoken to Mark Crispin Miller several times --- I have difficulty imagining him lying about this.

Folks, things are beginning to crumble.

More details on these stories at http://www.blackboxvoting.org. I expect that developments will keep both Brad and I busy next week.

Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood announced on Wednesday that she is resigning effective Nov. 21. I ask you --- how many elections chiefs decide, six days before elections, that they must resign?

Florida State Elections Division Chief Paul Craft has also resigned, according to credible sources.

Craft's resignation is especially interesting. He is one of the top three NASED officials responsible for certifying the Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia voting machines. He stated in Washington D.C. on Oct. 7 that he intended to replicate the Harri Hursti hack immediately after the Nov. election. Looks like that won't happen.

However, a top M.I.T. security specialist, Ron Rivest, has weighed in on the Hursti hack, sending the report to the Election Assistance Commission with a strong advisory to replicate. He referred to the findings as "startling" and "stunning" and said, if they are true, they indicate the system should not have been certified in the first place.

Adding to this, our own Jim March conducted the first pre-election voting machine examination Wednesday in San Joaquin County, Calif., and there he discovered that the GEMS defect is alive and well and worse than we thought.

The GEMS central tabulator hack was demonstrated by me to Howard Dean, but a more cunning version was demonstrated by Dr. Herbert Thompson. What we didn't know is that the absentee votes --- and there were millions in 2004 --- lack the normal safeguard that's supposed to protect votes from the GEMS hack.

I am heartened by the resignations, but disgusted by the plodding pace. I exposed the GEMS defect on July 8, 2003. It was confirmed by CompuWare in its August 18, 2004 report, but Ken Blackwell withheld that report.

Elections were run without correcting the defect. Now we know that the absentee votes counted by GEMS were wholly at the mercy of the GEMS defect. The risk to absentee votes was and is just staggering, and it is inconceivable that none succumbed to this simple manipulation, and the risk has not been corrected for the elections taking place next week.

Diebold has admitted to the GEMS defect, but lied about the design defect exposed by Harri Hursti. They tried to claim the GEMS defect is not important, but they are putting in third party software to correct the defect they say is not a problem.

The third party software to protect GEMS is not yet being used, however, and we also need to take a very, very, very close look at whoever is behind the scenes making a profit on this third party software.

Expect the pace to pick up briskly in the near future.

]
...Jo said on 11/4/2005 @ 5:47pm PT...

I like Kerry. I wish he was President. I think he would be very good. I don't blame him for not talking about the election fraud. Look at it from his position. These people are ruthless and nothing is below them. They destroy everyone. Look what happened to Gore. What do you think would have happened to Kerry if he had cried foul?
We are behind because the neocons have been developing their evil plan to take over the world for 20 years or more. We have to work and make progress. No matter what Kerry said or did after the election it would not change anything. It would only serve to give them fodder for their spin machine. There is a website with political stickers that sends me e-mails with their latest bumper-stickers. Right after the election they had a sale on election stickers. One had been made just in case Kerry contested the election results. It had a very unflattering picture of him and some very unkind (crybaby) words. They already had the spin ready. He would have been crushed by the neocons spin machine. He knew it and I think we all know it now. We have to expose their putrid souls to the world without becoming targets. I think that is what Kerry is working on now. Anyway, thats my take on it.
-------------

Jo, I really want to like Kerry. But fear of being savaged by the Pubs should never stop a politician with a spine. At some point the determination to fight back needs to take over.

That said, I still think Kerry is right that he cannot be out front on the Stolen Election issue. But he shouldn't have made Miller look like a liar, if that's what he did. That was a huge mistake and not the kind of mistake you want a President making.

That said, I think Kerry has a leadership quality rare in politics: he seem to have a strong desire to listen well and to assemble a team in a way that encourages everybody to achieve, not a team where obesience (sometimes called "loyalty" in bushevik speech) is the most important quality.

But it really disturbs me the way he seems to bungle problematic situations.

Thanks Bev.

This is a non-story that could only fuel the right-wing machine. It makes no sense for the Kerry Team to support this without rock-solid proof. Miller put Kerry in a difficult position.

#15
I agree about the right wing machine. They would LOVE to have Kerry come out on something like this. They are at their best when they are destroying someone.

Phil and Jo --- I respectfully disagree with the one point of Kerry's involvement. (Disagreement with either of you being very rare.) True, I don't think it would make any sense for Kerry to carry the entire load, but there is *so* much evidence of election fraud now, anything he said at this time would throw a more general light on the subject to millions of American citizens. There is a point beyond which Bushevik spin will no longer be effective. When the spin is demonstated to be nothing but spin, it's the end for the regime.

I firmly believe that Americans are looking for people of principle and for fighters, and the political landscape would dramatically change if Kerry stood up for the truth "come hell or high water." Just my opinion.

Miller should have cleared the story with Kerry. What does Miller gain by doing this?

This is a no win for Kerry. Sour Grapes if he speaks out, whimp if he doesn't.

Having said that, I worked hard to get Kerry elected, putting in many nights and weekends going door to door and phone canvassing. When I see him now, I feel dirty, like I want to take a shower.

If only Al Gore..................... *sigh*

I voted for him......He is dead to me.........he is milk toast!

I would vote for Kerry or Gore again. Are you buying the right-wing spin? Who do you see who will get more votes?

Sorry for the change, but what is worldcantwait.com? Were they behind 11/2?

Kerry needs to to do what he does best: Fight the corruption in the Senate.

Senator Dodd is out of control on trying to deny random manual audits of the machines. And it was this that led to Kerry's stolen election.

Kerry should confront Dodd and people need to make Dodd read the GAO report, and then tell america out loud that this issue does not need to be taken care of!!!!!!

It's damn time!!!!!!!!!!! Bev Harris has all the facts too from the looks of it. It's DAMN time for the leadership to spearhead this and throw out the machines!!!!!!!!!!

Doug E.

Kerry shoulda taken on the "sour grapes" charge head-on from 11/3 on. He could have said he conceded but contested. He could have said he was going to contest and not try to claim the office, that he was doing it for the American people. If he would have invented a way to attack the election fraud that would have no positive for him, he could have been the great statesman our country needed. Never surrender???
Sheezch...
My friend, the late great Andy Stephenson, believed that Kerry was somehow involved in a hack job of his own in at least one Dem primary. That might explain why he (and others) didn't wanna bring it up...

The 2004 Democratic pimaries were hijacked by the Cons. We got the canidate they wanted, not the canidate we should have had. They knew he could be Swift Boated, they knew they could throw his yes vote on the war in his face. He practically laid down and took it, but we had to try to get Boosh out, no matter who the Dem was.

Remember that old chestnut "I voted for it before I voted against it". Did he ever explain what that meant? No, because if he did it would have made perfect sense because they changed the bill he was voting on. And the only person I've ever heard explain it was Randi Rhodes on AAR.

I'm not buying what the Cons feed me on Kerry, I have eyes and ears of my own. And the Dems had better not even think about running Kerry in 2008 because I WILL vote Green, then and from now on, as well as a whole lot of other progressives who are sick and tired of all this bullshit.

And just in case no one's showing her any love:

BEV HARRIS, YOU ARE A TRUE AMERICAN HERO.

Kerry, you're a pussy.

End of story.

And speaking of American heroes, guess who is playing the Vice President on ABC's Commander in Chief? None other than straight-talking election reform advocate Peter Coyote!

I nominate him for a guest slot on the next Brad Show. Great guy, too.

The Democratic Party, unfortunately, is castrated. They are so worried about how the right will perceive them, that they sit in the corner like a beaten dog. Pathetic.

On Kos, I was recently called "Kool Aid Man" because I believe impeachment of Bush is likely in 2006. There is no hope with democrats. It's like they've just given up. There is little vision.

I hate it because I want to support the dems (I try, God knows I try!!!), but if they can't find a voice then it's hopeless. If they can't take a controversial position when appropriate, then they aren't leaders at all...they are followers.

I meant to say... impeachment likely in 2007. Not 2006!!

I'm sorry my kids interrupted me. I meant to say:

I agree about the right wing machine. They would LOVE to have Kerry come out on something like this. They are at their best when they are destroying someone. I think Kerry is doing the right thing by being quiet now. If he said the vote was stolen it would just give Rush, Hannity and O'Rielly material to spin against the Dems. It is better to let them self-destruct than to give them material to work with. Look at the approval ratings. They are circling the drain. In 08 we flush.

I don't think the Dems should run Kerry again. Too much baggage and disappointment.
I don't know who they have right now to run, but it's still a while off.
I hope he didn't throw the fight. (sigh)

I'm Independent ,not Dem, so if someone else can come up with a winning candidate, count me in...

What an f***ing coward

Kerry's a good guy though the smear campaigns are way off. I know as well as anybody else that the real reason he did not come out front, was because he didn't want to damage everyone's credibility by being called a sore loser.

He's always known it was stolen. He has always understood the facts. Now if only he could get the GAO report mainstream attention, by everyone, that would be a HUGE victory and redeem Kerry's problem for a whole lot of people.

I think he should do it! Regardless if he runs or not, this isn't about politics its about the life or death of democracy period!!!!

Doug E.

And you don't believ it when I say it is one party with two faces. What more proof do you need?

And you want this flip-flopper Herman Munster as a candidate? Nice choice. The 2004 election was a setup. Kerry backed down the minute they said he lost and called it fair. He knew the GOP was stealing it then and he knows it now too. It was a setup to continue the wars and the police state.

This country needs a second party.

# 8 - Kira --- I don't know. I guess everyone could point it out to his or her representatives and Senators as well as to other key Congress people.

It's getting kinda weird when the constituents have to act as fact gatherers and secretaries for our elected officials.

(But I have heard comments from senators that they get their news from the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. No wonder we're in the shape we are in.)

Isn't it ironic that the blogs know more about what the GAO is saying than an elected representative who make his living in DC repesenting the people?

I find it just a bit too ironic, no, incredible. At this point in time, Kerry should be considered history in the Democratic party. He's a 1%er and that's who he represents right alongside Hillary.

Conyers for Pres.

I think we had better take a very good look at the Democrats. As I've said before - even not considering Kerry because of his unique position - the entrenched Democratic leadership has slowed the efforts to uncover election fraud every step of the way. They didn't have to do it. They could have been allies. Stupidity is just not a good enough explanation. ("Oh, I just didn't see that GAO report...")

I think we have to assume that elements of the Democratic Party are opposed to true election reform. Is their idea that someday *they* will control the election process? Make a few deals. We have to admit that possibility. (They certainly vigorously opposed open debates.)

Hugs for Kira for posting this on another thread:

"[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, VIII,c.12:] 'When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.'" --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.

Find those who clearly understand the truth of the above statement and who make it a central operating principle and we will have found our candidates. And it is for us to find them, to bring them out.

I didn't put that smilie in there.

I didn't do it!
Nobody saw me do it!
You can't prove anything!

It makes me furious. We "hire" these people to Represent us in congress. (At least we used to before the elections were hijacked by the neoCONs.) Anyway --- for them to be so ignorant is inexcusable.

Several activists for REAL voting reform have made statements about several Democrats (Dean for one) who stated they had never read John Conyers report on the voting "irregularities" in Ohio. That BURNS me up!

According to the polls --- what the people want is not what the Dems in office are voting for (or against.) WTF is that?

What is it going to take? MORE letters? Do they even READ the ones we send? Maybe we should project a HUGE, ALL WEEK LONG ad on the side of the Capitol building in DC --- With Audio --- that replays over and over and over. Kinda like catapulting the truth.

People, the DLC leadership is complicit in the coverup. That's why real leaders need to lead, like Conyers or Boxer. Or even Kerry. And get the GAO report out there and highly recognized, I mean damnit, it "ONLY" was signed off by more than half of CONGRESS in a bi-partisan commission!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF is wrong with Senator Dodd?!??!?? The DLCs need to be stopped.

Doug E.

Dodd was one of the main sponsors of HAVA. Just so's ya know...

There's clearly an honest disagreement among us about the wisdom of Kerry's "Every vote must count, and people were disenfranchised, but I'm not claiming the election was stolen..." routine.

And believe me, folks, it is a routine; for God's sake, his wife said the election was fishy, and months later, he's still denying (through a third party, of course) that he had agreed with Mark Crispin Miller? That's weakness, folks, not wisdom.

Put me down among those who say, "Who gives a damn what the neo-cons would say if Kerry cried foul?" Fight fire with fire! Make Bill O'Reilly call the authors of the G.A.O. report liars. Tell school dropout Rush Limbaugh that on his best day, he'd never understand why the exit poll/tabulated vote discrepancy couldn't have happened randomly.

I personally don't like allowing the right wing to set the rules for a debate. They'd call Kerry a "sore loser?" Sure they would. So what? Look at all the damage that has been done in the world since the Fox Network and Rush Limbaugh took control of TV and radio news. Isn't it time to stop being afraid of them? Are Argentinians afraid of what Bill O'Reilly says? Are Venezuelans afraid of Limbaugh? Throw it back at them! Call them the liars they are!

It's a shame nobody is keeping an accurate league table of which news-organisations avoid which stories. (such as the GAO report on election problems)

So that when the repugs are out of power... we know which media companies to starve and cripple into obscurity... these traitors don't deserve column space or airtime. They need to be taught that betraying their country comes with severe penalties.

As for Kerry... if he could have totally united the party with him, his claims of fraud could have gone a lot further. As it stands it's better that it's not him leading the charge... BUT... We need more than just Boxer, Conyers and Tubbs-Jones fighting this... we need the whole damn party to grow some balls, as it stands... 2 women and one man appear to be the only ones with the proverbial 'balls' required to directly fight the corrupt scum they're up against.

The Democratic party needs solidarity. And the republican-lites of the party have gotta go... and I still can't help think the skull 'n' bones crap make Kerry partly complicit in things... I prefer him to Bush but cannot be sure whether we can trust him or not.

BevHarris #12

This thread illustrates how we miss the forest because of the trees.

The first order of business is the business you are doing over at Black Box Voting (link here).

Until we have american elections again (fair, not corrupt, and accountable) all this "he said she said" dialogue is chaff, fodder, and a waste of time.

The debate needs to revolve around the GAO report and the efforts to expose the compromised systems used in US elections ... an effort you folks at Black Box Voting literally wrote the book on.

Kudos to you.

No more excuses for Kerry.

It's true that there's only one party.

Here's something interesting that few of you know. Before the 2004 election, the Coast-to-Coast AM radio show host, George Noory, invited all the candidates for President to be guests on his radio show. The audience is 5-10 MILLION people every night, second highest rated radio show in the USA. And guess who agreed to appear? That's right, only one candidate:

RALPH NADER. He even took questions from the listeners. Where was Bush? Where was Kerry?

Now, I know that Ralph Nader has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. But this is the kind of balls we're looking for. And my guess is that you won't find that kind of balls ANYWHERE in the current scene. Not Obama, not Boxer, not Conyers, not Feingold, not Dean.

We don't need a politician. We need a goddamned Napoleon, a Gandhi, an MLK.

And a CHAVEZ!

I agree with comment #25, Teri in S. Fla. You hit it right on the head. The cons got the candidate THEY wanted, Kerry. Although I think Kerry would've made a better president than Bush, I was for Howard Dean. The Cons and the media wanted Dean out. The MSM showed Howard Dean's scream 24×7, then bombarded us with interviews from rightwingers, stating that Howard Dean was unstable for screaming like that.

Howard Dean was MASSIVELY ahead right before the primaries, then Kerry came out of nowhere. Don't forget, the Dem primaries are on the same electronic voting machines, duh!!! Howard Dean would've put issues on the table during the debates, that Corporate America does not want the 2 controlled parties talking about. That's why they don't let any other party besides Dems & Reps in the presidential debates. Could you imagine how Cobb and Bednarik would crush Bush & Kerry, by talking about health care, vote fraud, etc...??? Who controls the presidential debates? Corporate America.

I don't think anyone has ever examined how Kerry suddenly beat Dean, after Dean had a huge lead. Maybe it was also the voting machines. Why don't we think the forces that be, also control the Dem primaries??? Just because it's all Dem candidates? It's the same damn machines! They probably control the primaries, too! I bet no one ever examined any shenanigans in the Dem primary because it's off the radar, because there were no Republicans in it.

Maybe...that's why Kerry is silent about the vote fraud at the national level. Because a close examination would reveal fraud at the Dem primary level.

Just throwing something out there...

Dean would've been a clear-cut opposition to Bush, but Kerry was pro-war, too, if you remember. Corporate America got a win-win situation, 2 pro-war candidates. Anyone ever think of that? That the Dem primary was hacked into, too?

...big dan said on 11/5/2005 @ 6:57am PT...

"...
Howard Dean was MASSIVELY ahead right before the primaries, then Kerry came out of nowhere. Don't forget, the Dem primaries are on the same electronic voting machines, duh!!!"
...
I don't think anyone has ever examined how Kerry suddenly beat Dean, after Dean had a huge lead. Maybe it was also the voting machines. Why don't we think the forces that be, also control the Dem primaries??? Just because it's all Dem candidates? It's the same damn machines! They probably control the primaries, too! I bet no one ever examined any shenanigans in the Dem primary because it's off the radar, because there were no Republicans in it."

The Iowa caucuses were done in person, though there may have been some vote tallying done by machines. I haven't heard anything about that.

My speculation is that when the Repubs put their people in as Dems to create the Florida ballot of 2000 (remember madame Butterfly, she was a Repub!) and they put in weak-kneed non-political Dems on the Ohio boards of election to take orders from the Repub Sec. of State, then I think maybe in Iowa they stacked the Dem caucuses with some Repub ringers. It's just an idea, but it's consistent with what they've done in some other places.

That would allow them to pick the candidates and control the election outcome too. The Repubs ARE thorough.

#50, grateful for your comments> so many wise, and insightful points.
We The People just gotta keep our eyes and ears open for any and all corruption from every source, we cannot afford to be duped anymore by Neocons or anyone, or tolerate lack of backbone from Dems or anyone.
It is my fervent hope and prayer everyday that the Religious Right wake up and smell the coffee> even if they would not have voted Dem, they still would never have voted Repub either had they been aware of the PNAC hijacking of their Republican Party.
Something has gotta give> the Repubs in Senate and Congress gotta speak out against this cabal that hopefully they were unaware of when they won their Senate and House seats. If the Repub Senate and House WERE duped , then for crying out loud, be grown-ups and stick up for what is right instead of covering up for the cabal. If the Repub Senate and House can simply admit they were fooled just like the Dems were fooled, then we can go from there and we as Americans can jointly rid ourselves of this PNAC poison. But if the Repubs continue to dig in their heels and cover-up for the Neocon infiltration, then they are cowards and complicit with the war crimes.

We are always singing to the choir but we gotta , we just GOTTA start reaching out to our fellow American brothers and sisters that voted for an evil entity that scammed them (and me the first time). The fact that our American families and friends were scammed by the Neocons does not make them bad people, it makes them victims of a huge corrupt crime machine. We gotta reach out to these good people and gently persuade them to view the TRUTH.

Email all your family and friends to Google PNAC.

poor fool liberals - every time an election is lost, they think it's stolen. Your boy lost by over 4million votes. Meanwhile your muslim fellow travelers are burning down france. When sharia comes you wont 'ave to worry bout no steenking stolen elections no mo.

(all your base are belong to karl rove)

OK, I'll bite: Hey "Castro" - wake up commie! Trying the "sour grapes" thing so you won't have to engage your brain, eh? Yeah, I have seen that knee-jerk response before. Do some research, then you are qualified to comment, try Brad's earlier articles or blackbox. FACT Ohio was stolen, were the tracks concealed? Yes, but not entirely, time will bring out the truth.

I am wondering if Miller asked Kerry if his remarks were "on the record" or if Miller misunderstood that Kerry didn't want his remarks made public. From Miller's reaction to Kerry's spokesperson's comments, maybe neither.

My perception of John Kerry is that the brave and outspoken young man who spoke out against the VN war has been replaced by a careful and cautious politician. While unfortunate, I can certainly understand why, esp. with the junk he had to put up with last year.

I am sure that Kerry knows that the election was stolen. I'm sure Dodd knows it too. But to admit it means opening oneself up to labels of "conspiracy nut", "crybaby", etc., etc. He definitely should not be the front man on this.

What encourages me about Kerry is that he is a behind-the-scenes crackerjack investigator. I hope he is currently exercising those skills against the bush white house.

I am also reassured that the vast American public is coming out of its general stupor of ignorance, and the MSM seems to be getting better at actually doing its job. We're not there yet, but as Brad says "Be the media." I suggest we all flood our newspapers and congressional offices with the truth, presenting as many facts as possible. And by first framing the issue (read "don't think of an elephant!" by George Lakoff). As patriots of this country, it is our duty.

It's taking way too long for these "cons" to come to justice, but it is happening.

I also extend my thanks to Bev Harris for her work.

#54- Well said.
Kerry seems to be a man who has learned to choose his battles.

For those who didn't get it, Castro's "All your base are belong to Karl Rove" is a video game in-joke. He's just messing with you.

Interesting theory about Dean/Kerry and the primaries. General Wesley Clark CERTAINLY would have been the best of the bunch--a Clinton-style Rhodes scholar and a respected military man. Yet he never got any traction despite a Newsweek cover. Why? Kerry was certainly one of the weaker of the candidates.

I do NOT believe Kerry was in on the fix. But it is logical to assume the Republicans manipulated the playing field to give us the candidate they knew they could assail.

I just got back from distributing Reform Ohio Now leaflets to remind people to vote YES on Ohio issues 2 through 5. The great part? All of people I talked to want a big change in Ohio and believe that the election was stolen in Ohio. It's easy to make that connection now because a lot of corruption with nasty Washington connections are surfacing in our state. as well as the reverse - corruption in Washington with Ohio connections.

Another great thing - and I would hope Kerry would be proud - all of the Kerry/Edwards bumperstickers still on cars in my area! The sad thing? The article I am responding to.

I took my bumpersticker off as soon as I realized that Kerry was wimping out on calling the election what it really was - stolen.

Go, TLV! You rock!

But does anyone believe a bill to make to fix Ohio's election systems can pass... in Ohio?

Sigh...

... Arry #35 said:
(It's getting kinda weird when the constituents have to
act as fact gatherers and secretaries for our elected officials.)
An odd thought for all of us here, would be:  Does
the "staff" of our Democratic Senator or Representative, convey the
actual views of their constituents to our Congressman?  The staff would
cost less to buy off, but only one of them could be trusted to be the
"traitor-in-chief" among them, as they would fight amongst themselves, and expose
the other one.
Have you not received some peculiar responses to your
"concerns" whether you e-mail, write or call? I've even been answered,
as though I were a farmer, addressing my crop situation.  (I was at that
time working in Washington, D.C.... Farming, I was Not.)
...BIG DAN #48 said (...s below)
(Howard Dean was MASSIVELY ahead right before the primaries,
then Kerry came out of nowhere. Don't forget, the Dem primaries are on the same
electronic voting machines, . . .)
That's a real eye-opener, Big Dan!
(... imagine how Cobb and Bednarik would crush Bush &
Kerry, by talking about health care, vote fraud, etc...??? )
I still think Nader's votes all help
the Republicans, and Cobb and Bednarik are not known  by the general
populace enough to get elected. Third parties will not succeed. A Democrat will
HAVE to win it. So, far they have Hillary Clinton in mind for that one, but she
is too hated by a lot of people that I know, due to her type of
"swift-boat" attacks by the Republicans in the past. Then again, she
votes too many times with the Republicans and won't stand up for the people.
It is the WAR, election fraud, our jobs
going overseas, and illegal immigration above all else. If it is not stopped,
health care will not be a main topic for any of us, as we will be a Third World
Country, and  only the richest among us will be blogging our warnings on a
computer.  Writing in the dirt with a stick, maybe! (No smiley face here!)
The Political Action Committee Brad
mentioned, called ImpeachPAC (http://impeachpac.org)
has a great solution as to who should be in office.
Look at it, and give it your serious
consideration.

I agree with number nine. For all we know Kerry could be keeping things hush-hush until he has enough proof. Remember what all the republicans do whenever someone mentions the stealing of 2000 from Gore: sour grapes. I've read on DU that Teresa was doing her own investigation and I remember she talked about the election being stolen back in May. I've also read at DU that there was a court date in Ohio for August of 2006. Does anybody know about that and if it's still going on? I think if anything is going on and Kerry is keeping it hush-hush it's like with Reid and closing the Senate. He only told two other people because the republicans control everything and they would've stopped them from letting it happen. You have to becareful with all the republicans controlling everything.

Vote Green in local elections and primaries but save your national vote for someone who can defeat the fascists. If Kerry can win the nomination in 2008, all progressives should vote for him. Don't feed the neocons like Nader did in 2000 and 2004. Kerry is an ethical leader and a much better candidate than anyone (including McCain) the neocons will nominate. The same goes for Hillary, Wes Clark and Bayh.

Re: #61 - For all we know Kerry could be keeping things hush-hush until he has enough proof.

I haven't seen anyone knocking down our doors to look at the 100,000 pages of audit logs we obtained. No one has uttered even the mildest question about what's in those documents.

Except a few ordinary citizens, of course.

And I have a question: Why did it take two 53-year-old women to go find a computer expert from Finland to tell us the truth about what's inside these voting machines?

If they have something, it had better be good. What I'm seeing right now is rats resigning from the ship. I'm watching elections officials, vendors, you name it, jockeying for position in the free pass line.

Bush's ratings are ridiculously low, the neocons are losing support rapidly. It's the time to strike and Kerry is still denying. We'll be waiting forever. (Or until he jumps onto a bandwagon.) He's no friend of ours or of fair elections, I believe. Very few in positions of power are, either from political "hardheadedness", clubism, or from unfortunate standard CYA bureaucratic motives and naivete (dazzled by venders - I've seen it.)

Bev's point can't be denied and has to be faced, IMO, and we should think and act from the standpoint of what it tells us.

Kerry and his ilk are part of the problem. Remember, Kerry chaired the congressional committee that was investigating the documented CIA drug smuggling connection during Iran/Contra hearings.

He covered up that mess. He is part of the DC crowd, more interested in maintaining the status quo than exposing corruption. Hillary is in the same boat. It's time to throw all incumbants out on their collective asses and elect representatives who are sensative to concerns of most Americans.

We all face a health care delivery system in a death spriral of ever increasing costs and rising insurance premiums at a time when Medicare is going to provide coverage for a progressively larger bulge in the population. Younger Americans will be paying for all those knee and hip replacements that Medicare reimbursements fail to fund adequately.

The priorities are all f**ked up and these dimwitted cronies in DC don't give a shit. Throw them all out before a total conversion to manipulated vote totals make it impossible.

Here's some fighting Dems. Beatty and Bening are fighting for Nurses, Teachers and first responders.
Beatty Tries to Crash Schwarzenegger Rally
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD, Associated Press Writer
...The Hollywood couple …strode side-by-side to the entrance of an airport hangar where several hundred of the governor's supporters had gathered.
A Schwarzenegger aide told the "Bulworth" star he was not on the guest list and did not have the appropriate wristband to get inside.
"You have to have a wristband to listen to the governor?" Bening asked. "He represents all of us, right?"

Hey folks, Miller's story has been effectively confirmed. Kerry is simply a liar. His own associate, Jonathan Winer, told Robert Parry much the same thing that Miller reported about Kerry's views of the matter. Head on over to consortiumnews.com --- it's their top story as of now, although it was presumably written before Kerry's denial as the latter is not mentioned.

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

Thanks Bev for taking the time to blog with us. Don't forget the dirty Dem who wouldn't allow investigation into New Mexico's voter fraud. Elliot Richardson. Upthread on the comment of being called Kool Aid kid for saying Bush will be impeached on Kos. Kos took Diebold money , so it's pretty hard to get a discussion up and running on that site. Think of them as dirty dems like Richardson, Kerry and Dodd. I'm sure Biden would be astounded that election fraud was even mentioned as well as a bunch of others. THIRD PARTY

Robert #43 --- EXCELLENTLY PUT!! I totally agree with you. Especially this:

"I personally don't like allowing the right wing to set the rules for a debate. They'd call Kerry a "sore loser?" Sure they would. So what? Look at all the damage that has been done in the world since the Fox Network and Rush Limbaugh took control of TV and radio news. Isn't it time to stop being afraid of them?"

Are y'all tired of sitting at the BACK of the neoCON BUS? I am!! We can choose to be in the FRONT - unafraid of the taunts and smears. Just like Rosa Parks and others who fearlessly led the Civil Rights movement, we must stand up for our Basic Human Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

More stories keep coming out about Democrats who are refused entrance to Republican public speeches. (See - ABC NEWS - Beatty Tries to Crash Schwarzenegger Rally (and NOTICE the way the headline is written to make it sound like Beatty & Bening were doing something wrong!!)

What about the 2004 arrests of Badnarik and Cobb (Libertarian and Green Party Presidential Candidates) when they refused to pay attention to the cops who were telling them they could NOT even attend the Presidential Debates --- AFTER they were NOT ALLOWED to participate!!! And other accounts we have all read about over the years since duhbya TOOK office.

This thing will fall apart if we "sit at the front of the bus". (Great analogy.) It is all staged, and when the illusion fails, the neocon agenda will have virtually no support, IMO, because it is entirely un-American and has been marketed under false pretenses.

The scaffolding is becoming very visible and it will become more so when people refuse to play by the rules they have been bullied into accepting.

But the debates issue shows the extent of the work before us. The Greens with, I believe, widely accepted American values are shut out of the debates, even to the point of being arrested for trying to attend. (I'm a Green, so I can speak particulary of my party, but it is undoubtedly true of the Libertarians, too.) But even more important, most of the issues that urgently need to be discussed but that involve questioning the corporate agenda are ignored, and it is certainly the main reason for closed debates. And we go year after year with the issues being defined or excluded by an elitist few and according to corporate/anti-democratic doctrine - which is killing our system of government, our society, and the planet. We cannot allow it to go on.

All of this central to the issue of election fraud.

Personally, I think we have to scare the corporate/government-by-bribery two-headed party. There is a very large contingent of progressive Democrats, probably a good portion of the party. Its views are close to, often identical with, those of most Greens. What can they do to scare the hell out of the big money wing? To raise the ante? To move forward as is absolutely necessary? Something has to be done, folks.

So, Arry, how do we umbrella the anti-neocons together into a serious machine that can kick out the regime?

Who would make the best candidate to run for '06 who will make the showing the CONs can't deny? That's what we need.

For Kira: You're right. It's about being unafraid. The right wing plays politics the way Bush plays international relations...like bullies. Rosa Parks was unafraid of laws that bullied blacks, and we have to follow her example.

For me the most interesting aspect of the Mark Crispin Miller/Kerry episode (I believe Miller) is that Kerry and Dodd supposedly had an argument over election machines. Dodd was angry at Kerry for saying "There's a problem with these machines."

You'd think Dodd had manufactured them himself, wouldn't you? As Brad pointed out, Dodd had worked on HAVA, so I suppose he took Kerry's honest statement personally.

It seems Dodd's ego, not the public interest, is what's at stake here. Politicians have become like professional athletes and movie stars; they need approval all the time, and if they don't get it they throw a tantrum. But we should be throwing the tantrums!

HAVA DIDN'T WORK, CHRIS! THIS ISN'T ABOUT YOU, IT'S ABOUT SOMETHING CALLED HONEST ELECTIONS! WE DON'T CARE WHO CALLS US
"SORE LOSERS!" WE REALLY DIDN'T LOSE, THAT'S THE POINT! READ THE CONYERS REPORT! READ MARK CRISPIN MILLER'S BOOK! READ THE G.A.O. REPORT! READ THE ANALYSIS BY 12 COLLEGE PROFESSORS OF THE EXIT POLL/TABULATED VOTE
DISCREPANCIES!

#57 - Talking about Wes Clark.
I thought he seemed like a good candidate, too. I even had one of his bumper stickers on my car and was on one of his e lists. When he came here to TN, I went down and stood outside and carried a sign and even got interviewed and heard the next day on NPR; but by the next day, I was already an ex-Clark supporter; as I'd been around him when he arrived.
His bus drove up, we started cheering (we'd been waiting an hour...) when we could see him sitting on the front seat. He was talking on his cell phone. He didn't seem to notice us. After 10 minutes or so, he stumbled off the bus, like he was tired, or sleepy or something; and we were hollering support like crazy. He seemed to not hear us as he talked to the local set-up chick; who had to awkwardly suggest that maybe he should go over and work the barracades, behind which stood the hundred or so strong supporters of his candidacy in this part of the world. Clark awkwardly walked the line shaking some, but not nearly all, of the hands that were there to see him; he didn't look me (or anybody else that I could see...) in the eye when he shook my hand; seeming distracted and looking at the next hands and not faces.
Clearly this was not a guy who had a stomach for campaigning; either having poor handlers or not hearing them. He went on in and made what appeared to be a standard stump speech, appearing to be holding on to a lecturn for dear life; which was a huge contrast to the guy before him, John Edwards, who prowled the stage like he was Donahue or Opra in an audience, ad-libbing about Tennessee to a Tennessee crowd. In short, Edwards destroyed him.
A candidate for Prez has to not be ashamed to wade into any crowd smiling and taking a half second or so with as many hands as he can to look supporters in the eye and make thim feel that he is there for them; that he cares for them.
As a politician, Clark was a great general...

Shannon, I'm sure you're right that Edwards is a smoother politician than Clark.

That begs the question, "What is the correlation between being a smooth politician who can 'work the crowd' like Oprah Winfrey or Phil Donahue, and being an effective president?"

Would anyone want Oprah or Phil running the country? Not me. Is your point that getting elected comes first, after which a politician can turn off the charm and get down to business?

Clinton did seem to have that ability, and maybe Edwards does. It helps to be an extrovert in politics; most presidents are. Clark might simply be an introvert who'd rather talk to his campaign manager on the cellphone than shake someone's hand. That makes him a poor celebrity, but it doesn't mean he wouldn't have made a first-rate president.

20th Century Presidents on the Personality Scale

Theodore Roosevelt---Extrovert
William Howard Taft---somewhere in the middle
Woodrow Wilson---Introvert
Warren G. Harding---Extrovert
Calvin Coolidge---Introvert
Herbert Hoover---somewhere in the middle
Franklin D. Roosevelt---Extrovert
Harry S Truman---somewhere in the middle
Dwight D. Eisenhower---Extrovert
John F. Kennedy---Extrovert
Lyndon B. Johnson---somewhere in the middle
Richard M. Nixon---Introvert
Gerald R. Ford---Extrovert
Jimmy Carter---Introvert
Ronald Reagan--Extrovert
George H.W. Bush---somewhere in the middle
Bill Clinton---Extrovert
George W. Bush---Introvert (who pretends he isn't)

I'ts hard to correlate personality with being a good president, I'd say.

RL Mills (#74)

Absolutely. I don't mean to say that being an extrovert or introvert has anything to do with good governance; merely to show that I don't think any candidate can win if they cannot at least appear to enjoy the public when in public. As you say, Dubya may not be an extrovert, but he has at least come up with a plan to make himself seem like one. To me he looks like a guy that is a party-head frat boy, which he once was, a guy to hang out with the gang, pour the shots and snicker at lewd jokes.
Jimmy Carter sold the world his big smile and "aw-shucks" sincerety. The real, sometimes troubled Jimmy showed up more and more in the White House, and he lost.
Clinton may have been one our greatest electable personalities. He to this day likes nothing better than wading into the crowd, shaking hands, looking folks in the eye and making them feel that he, in the time he spends with them, cares only for them. He seriously loves sitting up half the night getting to know new people. That's the kinda guy he is, and with all his troubles, that came through his whole presidency, It shows that the man loves people, and folks still love the man.
Most of us on this list have varying opinions of Clinton, but I'd say every one of us would love to have him in charge now vs. what we have.
Clark may have made a fine president. I certainly was convinced by his writing and his history. However, if a guy can't connect with an audience in person, he is seriously behind from the beginning...
We supporters who waited for him were there. We were ready. He did not appear to care. Were my feeling hurt? No. I just saw that he didn't have the proverbial "fire in the belly" it takes to get elected. Neither do I. I wouldn't want to have to be ready to look my best and make visual and firm-handshake love to strangers over and over while being away from home every night, giving the same speech two or three times a day for weeks, and constantly being in front of camaras so that any cough or nose scratch or awkward moment was available for the world to see. I'm not saying we have a great way of choosing a prez, but I am saying that if a person is not prepared to deal with the facts of getting elected as they are, they are not prepared to be POTUS.

I was so pissed at Kerry's comment on Friday I wanted to scream. Why couldn't he say, well I didn't say it exactly, and it wasn't proven by the one-side DOJ investigation, but that don't mean it didn't happen...like we all know it did! No the balless 'illuminati' asshole did his usually half-ass backout. He best not run again because that will cause the demise of the democratic party. F-Kerry!
We need true democrats, not political lifers that forgot what we the people stand for!

#9 Phil..."Kerry is absolutely right that he cannot and never could be the one out front on this issue. It WOULD simply be dismissed as sour grapes. The issue would never have grown the legs it has if Kerry had been out front."

Please note...the issue never grew legs or it would have been dealt with properly. So what if Kerry was looked at with sour grapes, had he had the balls to fight, maybe just maybe verifiable auditable paper trail voting would have grown the legs it needed to be in place for 2006, now it's already to late and we're screwed again!

For Shannon: Taking the Edwards/Clark analysis a step farther, it's clear Edwards is better dealing with crowds. He made his career persuading juries that his clients had been vicitmized by the system; in reality, he was a super-salesman with a law degree.

Clark was a soldier. Soldiers don't have to sell anything. They give orders, take orders, and kill our enemies whenever the president tells them to, no questions asked. With the exception of Ike Eisenhower, no soldier/president was ever a
glad-hander like an Edwards or a Clinton, because it isn't part of the job description. The four men elected to office primarily on their military exploits were very unlike Edwards and Clinton, politically.

Washington...Quite aloof, really, though popular
Harrison...Campaigned from his porch, said nothing
Taylor...Very apolitical, hated campaigning
Grant...Inferiority complex, gullible, shy with people

Eisenhower...The exception. Friendly and warm. A people person. Other generals of his era were anything but...Marshall, Bradley, Patton, MacArthur
ran the gamut from efficient to rough to pompous.

Jackson, Hayes, Garfield, McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and the first George Bush were all soldiers or sailors during wars (albeit T.R.'s march up San Juan Hill is grossly overrated). Good records, but none of them were soldier/presidents.

I posted this elsewhere on Bradblog, but it would seem to go here for you ADA #77. I disagree, I don't think we are yet screwed for 'O6, as a lot of states (not sure how many, 30 maybe?) have already mandated Voter Verified Paper Ballots, even some show-nuff red states like Wyoming and Nebraska; and a lot of the rest of us are fighting to bring 'em in by '06.

So what can we do in the way of positive action???
Here in Tennessee we (a group called Gathering to Save our Democracy - you remember us, we threw the first National Election Reform Conference back in April...) are trying like hell to mandate Voter Verified Paper Ballots (VVPB) to use as the ballot of record and to use for a random manual recount.
This past Saturday we had a Tennessee Election Security Conference where we had a number of distinguished guests to discuss these issues.
On the national level, our Nashville congressman, Jim Cooper, appeared (he brought his mom as traveling companion, a nice touch...) and was solidly in our corner. He is a co-signer of H.R. 550, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2005, and ammendment to HAVA, which mandates mandatory paper record audit capacity. Cooper says that as long as they don't get 12 House co-sponsors to this bill, it will never even get a hearing. He stated that what is needed is at least 12 Republican moderates to jump on and co-sponsor.
So. That's what y'all can do. If you live in a Dem congressional district, get your Representative on board if they are not already. If you have a Pub Rep, hammer them ("hammer 'em..." Oh, I crack myself up...), and get your friends to hammer them to consider this bill. The Republican party is weakening now and the moderates would like a chance to save themselves so the right wingers don't pull them down, too. Show them that this is a chance; and if they don't, hammer 'em (oh, stop!) with it in November 'o6. So there it is kids. That's what needs to be done.
Also, amazingly, our Congressman Cooper had not heard of the GAO report (introduced by an evenly matched bipartisan group of 12 Representatives) on flawed voting systems released a couple weeks ago, even though his TN Dem neighbor, Bart Gordon, was one of the ones who did it. Just shows how busy these guys are. So, while you're contacting your congressional folks, be SURE to make them aware of the GAO report. You can find it here on Bradblog at:

https://bradblog.com/archives/00001940.htm

(sorry, ignorant about understanding how to do the CLICK HERE for help adding links...)

Make both Senators and Representives aware of this, and especially if you have Republicans. We're looking for a few of them who are ready to jump their ship that's listing to the right.

And, for any Tennesseans on this list (the rest of y'all might wanna know what we're doing in case y'all need to do it in your states):
NOW is the time to contact your state representative and state senator, as the next election commission meeting is next week and the General Assembly folks are the ones who appoint the commissioners. They need to know that DREs should not be purchased using HAVA funds. They need to know that (Congressman Cooper told us) there is no looming deadline to use the Fed HAVA money or lose it. Cooper said Congress has few if any strings attached to the money, and there is no mandate to get rid of, say, punch card systems (which ARE a paper ballot system...). They need to know that any county buying DREs is risking having NO paper ballots to count if a recount is called for (as happened in Memphis recently in a primary and a final election for a state senate seat - a problem for both a Dem and a Pub loser...) by state law in a close election, which then can set them up for lawsuits. Basically, tell your to contact the 5 state election commissioners and encourage VVPB election equipment purchases and mandatory recounts.
And, if you are in Tennessee and have not made contact with our Gathering organization. Please e mail me and I'll make the hook-up...

I know y'all can do this, so let's get busy!

Sorry so long, but, as y'all know, the nitty and the gritty of vigilance to protect freedom is sometimes about perserverance through the system.

peace out,
shw

I've scanned through all of the posts, and nobody seems to have mentioned Bob Fitrakis' work in Ohio from www.freepress.org ...Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman, and Steve Rosenfeld have put a huge manual together - almost 800 pages of evidence including affidavits from poll workers and correspondence from Blackwell and other GOP operatives, plus statistical analysis. The book is called "Did George W. Bush Steal America's 2004 Election?" It is brilliant. (Short answer: yes)

You may remember that Fitrakis was one of only four people who brought suit in Ohio to prevent the election results from being certified. He was a trained UN observer when El Salvador had their first democratic elections in '94, and says that all of the things that observers were supposed to look for in El Salvador he witnessed, or has testimony of occurrence, in Ohio 2004. He also credits Bev Harris for her work.

As far as those who pooh-pooh third parties, give me a break. Last time I recalled, it was Cobb and Badnarik who challenged the inconsistencies, NOT the pussified Democrats. In fact, when Barbara Boxer stood up with Stephanie Tubbs-Jones and others after the election to make the case for a Congressional investigation, who stood with her? Clinton? No. Kerry? No. Reid? No. Obama? No - not even Barack Obama. In fact, a numbero f Senators made empassioned speeches about how important it was to protect every Americans vote, but when it came down to putting their ass on the line where were they? Did they vote to support Boxer? Hell no. The Democrats, as a party, do nothing because they are as tied to corporate interests as the Republicans are. Why didn't they challenge the obvious theft of Max Cleland's election in 2002? Why will they not challenge the impending theft of the elections in 2006 and 2008.

There is a rift in the Democratic party, between those who have a pair and those who don't. Those who don't should just go and join the Republicans because they are useless.

#71 -Kira --- Long day away from the computer. I'm pretty tired, so this may be rambling...

I don't know how to answer your question, but I think it is something we should think about and discuss.

The corporate party Dems and Reps are setting the agenda and in control of the corporate MSM, debate commission, and elections. I think there are two ways for us to operate. One is by gradual wearing down of the facade through honest blogs such as this and all the work we "6 or 7" do. Incessant, necessary work.

But we also need to also assert ourselves through bold and surprising actions - and not under the authoritative eye or within the template of the corporatists/power elite. What do you think? What percentage of the Democratic Party does the progressive wing comprise? I've worked on projects with Democrats a lot in the last few years, and it is always surprising to me the number of them that say, "I'm really a Green at heart." I mean, it is almost predictable. Most of them do say it, believe it or not. These are grassroots, regular citizens.

So, why don't we scare the hell out of those who are bringing the world and our political system down - that's exactly what they are doing - by creating a real third/second party that is structured in the values that a large percentage of Americans actually subscribe to - the point being to bring in the numbers that reflect the reality of support. Progressive Democrats and others, not just those who gave up on the "two-party" system a long time ago.

This does not mean we hand the elections to the neocons. We can support a depressing blah corporatist Democrat if necessary, but the point is that we need a party that truly reflects the best in America, not one that is incessantly diminished into a black hole of corporate propaganda and phony assurances of concern for the welfare of citizens.

Pie in the sky, but I think it is high time for people to realize that we can't let those who we don't agree with, those who will sell us out (as the corporatist *will* do - Clinton, for example, with the Telecommunications Act - don't get me going on that) --- we can't let those who will sell us out speak for us. The Greens don't and the progressive Democrats and others shouldn't either. We should *attract* candidates.

Let's not get stuck. Creativity is the word. Let's not be shy about proclaiming that we want to set the direction of the nation. What shall we do to accomplish it?

Ok, Arry. It's tough right now because of the incomprehensible actions of far too many dems in congress and the instability of the DNC etc.

I found this article to offer to our discussion, by Thom Hartmann, written Feb. '05:

Progressives and Democrats: Assert Your Brand!

[snip] The largest lights of the Democratic Party - it's founder, Thomas Jefferson, and it's two most famous recent presidents, FDR and LBJ - knew their brand and their identity, and brought the majority of Americans along with them. The largest landslide Democratic election victories of the 20th century were FDR's after he introduced the New Deal, and LBJ's after he introduced the Great Society. Their logo was the flag, and their identity was average working people, and those who aspire to the economic and educational middle class.

Jefferson not only defined the identity of the Democratic Party that he founded - the longest-lasting political party in world history - but defined the identity of America as well. He defined us in positive terms (what we're for) in the Declaration of Independence, as well as in contrasting terms (what we're against like the "ban on monopolies in commerce" he tried to write into the Bill of Rights).

For example, in a February 8, 1786 letter to James Madison, Jefferson made clear his thoughts on what he considered a great international immorality - national belligerence that leads to a war of choice.

"And it should ever be held in mind," Jefferson wrote, "that insult and war are the consequences of a want of respectability in the national character."

Later, Madison - also a member of Jefferson's Democratic Republican Party (which dropped the "Republican" from its name in the 1830s, although the www.whitehouse.gov website now lists Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and John Quincy Adams - the first four Democratic presidents - as "Republicans") would write, "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

FDR brought us back to Jefferson's ideals with his third inaugural address, sometimes called his "Four Freedoms speech," on January 6, 1941, when he said:

"The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are :

"Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.

"Jobs for those who can work.

"Security for those who need it.

"The ending of special privilege for the few.

"The preservation of civil liberties for all.

"The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.

"These are the simple, the basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations."

In that, FDR created a brand, a packaging concept, a place for people to anchor their identity. It's name was the New Deal, but it was far more inclusive than just that. [snip]

It's a great article. Maybe it (or parts of it) should be sent to all Dems in Congress as well as the various political parties who need to join together in this fight for freedom!

Note: I didn't put that smilie there.

The Democratic ideals advanced by Jefferson, FDR and JFK/LBJ were a response to social stresses during the immediate preceding administrations. If history is a guide (it usually is), it will happen again.

We almost went to war with France during John Adams' administration. The Alien & Sedition Acts restricted personal freedoms. People were scared.
People starved during the Hoover years, and the troops were called out to drive people out of makeshift shacks they had built to embarrass the government. In the 1950s, left-of-center folks were stigmatized as Commies and "left-of-Caucasians" were arrested for keeping their seats on public buses

Jim Crow wasn't Ike's fault. But the point is that during Gilded Ages (1920s, 1950s), progressive ideals are suppressed in favor of: "family values," laissez-faire business practices that favor the rich and inevitably lead to scandals, anti-intellectualism,
passive presidents who "allow the system to work," and dissent (the foundation of our country) is redefined as a lack of patriotism.

George W. Bush is the political legatee of Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Eisenhower...with an added fillip of personal meanness. But as sure as dawn follows night, progressive ideals will rise like the phoenix, just as they did in the 1930s and 1960s.

It remains to be seen if the Democratic party of Jefferson will benefit; the current gang is so inept that it has allowed the G.O.P. to steal two elections (basically without saying a word), signed off on a corrupt war, and allowed the worst presidential administration in 80 years (arguably, ever) to set the national agenda. We may need a coalition party
of liberals, independents, and moderates.

Even then Robert, the machines must be ripped out of the walls and destroyed and you know exactly why.

Doug E

Kira and RLM --- I hope you are right (and I really believe that you are) about the possibilities of a progressive response. (And, Kira, you brought up two of my favorite people - Thomas Jefferson and Thom Hartmann.) The main practical question is what can we do to help bring it about. Every resurgence in the past was, of course, the result of 1.) the inept, foolish, and intolerable actions toward real conditions and 2.) a response by those who understood that another way of dealing with the world was necessary. The people in the latter group had to develop a course of action in those real conditions. The response consisted of many decisions. Individual decisions are what we have to arrive at if we take our role as citizens seriously. It is those decisions we are discussing here, I think.

There are far too many considerations to talk about in depth, I think, other than in a forum specifically devoted to the changes we need to bring about (probably in a moderated thread). But we can sure brainstorm here.

There are some disturbing elements to consider, IMO:

--- the Bill of Rights has been virtually nullified. You may not agree with this, but when your rights are only "rights" at the discretion of the government, the whole thing is a sham and meaningless. We are at that point now, and there doesn't seem to be any end to trashing the Constitution in a manner demonstrating no respect for its concepts or for the traditions of liberty at all.

--- The technological and psychological advances in media, marketing, and propaganda - now in the hands of a small, wealthy, powerful elite - have been immense and are too much for many people to deal with effectively, resulting in an easily manipulated fear and a perpetual "off-balance". (A nail in the coffin of an informed citizenry was hammered in (partially) by a Democrat - Clinton - in his support of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.)

--- Corporate culture has swept away community and character to such an extent that we have absurdities (and genocide supporters) like William Bennett defining what virtue is and a dismal diminishing of self-reliance and intellectual standards sliding down into wishing for safe contentment in the cocoon of authoritative and moral "sounding" PR. An honest-to-goodness Orwellian nightmare.

(To me one of the strangest and most disturbing aspects of the election fraud issue is the blindness of election officials, "news" people, and many citizens not only to the clear evidence of fraud but to systems that so patently and easily allow fraud. There is something really disturbing about the psyches of such people, and it seems to me that they are representative of what has happened more generally to the powers of intellectual discrimination - not to mention common sense.)

I could go on, but what's the point? My post is too long anyway. (I guess this blog isn't particularly a forum for my views. I would have to talk about the final feverish decadent manifestation of post-WWII capitalism (a distinct era, IMO), which we are seeing right now in the one party/"two" party government...and lots of other things!)

Many of the traditional values and goals of the Democratic Party are great things that we should all support (in fact, not just in words), but I believe renaissance in values and education is urgently needed because of the facts of the world and of what we've learned, particularly in the last 50 years, about power and wealth consolidation, corporate institutions, the relationship of business and government, and the power of electronic media and its effect on education and an informed citizenry.

The main thing we have to do politically is to analyze our political and social environment and to make the decisions, just as folks in previous eras had to do. My emphasis here is that it is crucial that we set the course. We, the people who are recovering character, civic responsibility, and the fire to make the necessary changes. I personally believe we do need a coalition party. A coalition of "we, the people".

If we can change the views of mainstream Democrats and Republicans, so much the better (and we always have to keep the pressure on - the Hartmann article for sure), but there has to be a sea-change if we want to recover the country and we are the sea-change. I don't see any other way out.

Arry & Robert, you both bring up so many very important points I agree with. This people of our country seem to be losing their regard for honesty & integrity. Where are the moral and family values we keep hearing about? From what I've been able to ascertain, certainly not on the side of the new republican supporters.

I agree that much propaganda slipped under the radar for many years, but now that the Internet has provided a way for us to share historical facts with each other over many miles --- we couldn't have done this pre-Internet --- us three chatting here. Now - it has nowhere to hide. It's out in the open. That is GOOD.

We have to BUST the bastards in all political parties --- expose them ALL for their true intent (judged by their actions, not their talking points.) And keep after those who hold to our most important and sacred values and rights.

I really don't think much has changed from the FDR list in my #82 --- I think MOST people still want those things. To be able to achieve those goals, we need representatives in government who are intelligent, capable, creative and willing to toe the line.

We have way too many people representing the Democratic party shilling for the 'CONs and repeating their Newt Gingrich memo Talking Points. We gotta point them out and BUST 'EM!

Check out My Comments #39 - #41 on the latest threads.

Maybe there's a revolution afoot! If the idiot son bu$h keeps on being himself without the aid of the demonic Rove --- these guys will drown in their own toxic sludge. YeeHaw!