Krugman quotes Andrew Gumbel: "Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election"

[understandinglife]

August 19, 2005

What They Did Last Fall

By PAUL KRUGMAN

By running for the U.S. Senate, Katherine Harris, Florida's former secretary of state, has stirred up some ugly memories. And that's a good thing, because those memories remain relevant. There was at least as much electoral malfeasance in 2004 as there was in 2000, even if it didn't change the outcome. And the next election may be worse.

In his recent book "Steal This Vote" - a very judicious work, despite its title - Andrew Gumbel, a U.S. correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, provides the best overview I've seen of the 2000 Florida vote. And he documents the simple truth: "Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election."

Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore. This was true despite a host of efforts by state and local officials to suppress likely Gore votes, most notably Ms. Harris's "felon purge," which disenfranchised large numbers of valid voters.

But few Americans have heard these facts. Perhaps journalists have felt that it would be divisive to cast doubt on the Bush administration's legitimacy. If so, their tender concern for the nation's feelings has gone for naught: Cindy Sheehan's supporters are camped in Crawford, and America is more bitterly divided than ever.

<clip>

Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/opinion/19krugman.html?pagewanted=print

Simply ... Finally.

Now, we retake America.


Peace.

[BattyDem]

1. Well, it's about f*cking time!

:applause:

[electropop]

57. One quibble: "even if it didn't change the outcome?"

Wrong. It did change the outcome. Even if we had managed to count the votes in Ohio, it wouldn't make up for the hundreds of thousands excluded from the polls by long lines and goon squads.

[Eric J in MN]

2. Put "Andrew Gumbel" in your title.

Gumbel by itself sounds like Bryant Gumbel.

[understandinglife]

4. Good suggestion. Done.

Peace.

[sallyseven]

47. I suspect that

Bryan would feel the same way.

[FreedomAngel82]

3. Yes!

They stole it from Al Gore and John Kerry. I'm so glad people are finally waking up. Hopefully we can take back the House and Senate and get some freakin justice on these criminals!

[Tigress DEM]

22. Impeach groundswell Wash DC Sept 24-26

[scarlett1]

43. I was just watching FSTV on Dish 9415

There was a great show "Orwell rolls in his grave" They had a segment on the FLA election Diebold etc. as well as the "media" Anyone who has access to Dish network go watch Free Speech TV. This program does repeat at 1:30 EST today 8/19/05

[ClintonTyree]

77. "People" aren't waking up.......

Krugman's been awake the entire time, but the number of people that will actually read this is negligible. Half the Country wouldn't read a New York Times Editorial if their lives depended upon it.

I'm glad Krugman is writing about it, but there must be more education of the American people than this article. People in this Country are woefully ignorant about the state of the State, let alone election fraud.

It's going to take something more than this to reach everyone, but what, and how? THOSE are the questions that keep me awake at night.

[wakemewhenitsover]

87. Whistleblower? Reward for election fraud info?

[fearnobush]

93. It's true, people choose to sleep, be sheep.

They won't even engage in a simple Google search for information. I've tried but they don't care or they won't leave the bubble of their US media construct built for them inside there own heads. On the other hand, some do and it is these few that make up the greater whole of us. On the bright side, the greater whole of us is growing, and growing fast. Just take DU for example. When I joined in July 2003, DU had about 37,000 members. Since then, it has doubled.

[understandinglife]

5. All the more reason for Kerry/Edwards to hang tough in Ohio.

Peace.

[understandinglife]

6. "The Republicans will be strongly tempted to make sure that they win

... those elections by any means necessary. And everything we've seen suggests that they will give in to that temptation."

Thank you for that courageous assessment, Mr Krugman.

I do not think it can ever be stated more explicitly than that and no one can deny that they were not warned.


Peace.

[City Lights]

7. Excellent column.

Last paragraph is a killer.

Paul Krugman, :yourock: :loveya:

[halobeam]

11. Excellent point.....here, this thread might interest you....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2018594&mesg_id=2018594

[understandinglife]

13. Kerry, Edwards & Gore should fly to Crawford tomorrow, take Cindy's ...

...place until she can return, and announce that they are not only sticking with the Ohio legal action, but they are going to demand the appointment of federal prosecutors to investigate both the 2000 and 2004 National elections because they are now convinced that the man on the ranch has fraudulently occupied the White House since Jan 2001.

It's time to call bullshit; draw the line in the sand and not ever again allow the neoconster crime syndicate to prevail.

Just a suggestion.


Peace.

[halobeam]

14. Yeah, they should, but they won't.

They should take their families there with them and park it, but they won't.

ELIZABETH, ARE YOU READING THIS? lol... HOW ABOUT A TRIP TO TEXAS???

I don't really know what the right answer is. Would they ruin themselves for good and we would lose so many good people fighting the system they way are doing it now?

Would they wake this country up, THE PEOPLE in this country up with that kind of a stand? There really is that strong possibility, since that's EXACTLY what this country is craving... STRONG LEADERSHIP OF THE PEOPLE...

I have to believe that I don't know all the facts. I have to believe that they know at least MORE of the facts than I do. I have to believe that they are doing what they feel is right and good for this country.

I couldn't go on if I believed that everyone is just out for themselves. I have more faith in people than that. The majority of the people in this world are GOOD and I won't believe different, because I would lose my own way.

The few are the administration, and they won't make me lose my hopes and my faith in human decency and kindness.

Good people who know the facts, will do the best they can do. And they are just that.... only people.

Kerry, Edwards and Gore are good. I have to believe in humanity. Bush challenges people's faith in each other. Not in a good way. He can make you mistrust EVERYONE. I won't go there. Otherwise, he'll have won. The bad will have me and nope....AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

Peace. Love and Flowers. That's my heart and I live in it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

82. :D

:rofl:

[oasis]

8. "Steal This Vote".

[glitch]

9. Mr. Krugman is a brave man.

One of this era's heroes. Perhaps children will sing songs of glory about him. ;)

[halobeam]

10. This is surreal. Everyday is becoming more and more surreal.

It's every cliche ever written. Pinch me, wake me up, etc. This is like a bad acid trip (one would assume).


I've printed the article. It seems if the courts drew up a legal document and stamped it with a raised seal, and it was scanned and printed on the front page of every single paper in the world, all at the same time, too many people STILL won't believe it.

There is something in the air, the water, the food, SOMETHING..... what the HELL is wrong with these people, that they can NOT accept the freaking truth when it smacks them upside their measly heads?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!

Are they THAT afraid and are they THAT insecure that they could not RISE above the injustices and realities that the control in their lives is actually FALSE, and get off their collective asses to make a CHANGE .... THE NECESSARY CHANGE FOR THE BETTER? FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR COUNTRY? Do they NOT remember that a true American RESPECTS the history of this country and all those who fought with their lives and many LOST their lives for this country to even BE A COUNTRY?? holy shit.

I'm tired, I'm drained and I'm mad. I'm also proud that I live in truth and I won't shut the hell up about it.

[understandinglife]

12. I'm also proud that I live in truth and I won't shut the hell up about it.

Please stay that way. Please never 'shut the hell up about it' because that is exactly what it is going to take -- it is what it has all taken to make change happen.

Krugman has done what no one in the mainstream media has done -- he has written and published in the New York Times an explicit statement that Gore won in 2000, and he has been explicit in warning what we should expect from the Republicans in 2006 and beyond.

You betcha they are motivated to steal another election because every single one of those criminals knows that the moment they are out of power they are on their way to prison.

Now we have no excuse. The facts have been published in the New York Times. It is our responsibility to do exactly what you state -- never shut the hell up. Spread the word and stop another election from being stolen.

Now, Kerry and Edwards should not only remain committed to the legal battle in Ohio, it is time for them to step to the podium and state the facts that are all too well known not just about Ohio, but about Snohomish county in WA State, about PN and NM and ....... They should state that no reasonable person considering the facts now available about the 2004 election can have anything but a reasonable doubt of the legitimacy of that election.

It's time to fight; it's time to challenge; it's time to refuse anything like business as usual in the Congress; it's time to bring the Bush neoconster criminal regime to a halt.


Peace.

[Tigress DEM]

21. Never shutting the hell up ... well except while I'm sleeping...

um, and I think you mean over the long haul and not every minute... so I think I can work a little between flapping my yapper... I say a little here and there, but mostly just do my job.

Still I'll be real noisy in Washington... Sept 24-26.

Do I remember you thinking about going too, or was that my imagination?

:bounce:

[FlaGranny]

40. Perhaps they do accept the truth,

they do know what happened. Perhaps they just don't care (they say they don't care, you know). Perhaps things are just the way they want them and they just don't care how they got that way. This must be how the 30% who still strongly believe in the "message" feel.

[HardWorkingDem]

15. I love Al Gore, but.....

he and his people blew Florida from the start. Just like the linked article states, if Gore had demanded a statewide recount, he would have had the votes, but he and his people chose the best Democratic counties possible to recount.

Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but if Gore had demanded an entire statewide recount he would have been able to take the very high road instead of being accused of being a cherry picker.

But on a different note - I sincerely believe that if Al Gore had not been screwed, he would not be the person he is today. Don't know about every one else, but I think Gore is destined to be more influential in this country than we realize at this time.

[Tigress DEM]

18. Yeah, it's easy to predict the score after the game has been played.

Still - the most important thing I take from this is WE ARE THE MAJORITY. It takes rigging elections to defeat the actual vote.

WE THE People are NOT as a Majority voting for those crazy whack jobs.

Gore won.

Kerry won.

WE WON.

Then they cheated. Feels like a Dukes of Hazzard episode.

But eventually with a ground swell of support, maybe for something even more Uniting than Cindy Sheehan... like IMPEACHMENT (multiple layers), so we can put a President in the office who WILL listen to her... and clean up the mess this little ape who cheated has made.

[petgoat]

28. They had to wait until after certification to get the statewide recount,

and then the request had to be based on perceived errors. Before
certification they could ask for specific counties, which they did.

That's what the Vanity Fair article from 10/04 said.

[NewJeffCT]

33. welcome to DU!

And, I tend to agree with you on Gore. I'm one of those people that believe history repeats itself sometimes. VP Nixon lost an historically close election in 1960 after being VP for a popular two-term president. Fraud was likely on the part of the winner, but never proven or seriously challenged. Nixon went on to win in 1968 after sitting out 1964.

Same thing with Gore, VP Gore 'lost' an historically close election in 2000 aftering being VP for a popular two-term president. He sat out 2004...

[mod mom]

38. We can't sit back though and hope karma will allow hx to repeat

itself. Us activists on ER +D are fighting battles in states to rid this country of the electronic equipment that assisted in the thefts. We need help. these battles have moved from the federal level to the state level and down to the individual county BOE level. I hope those reading this will join us in this fight.

One of the most powerful positions in the country is the Secretary of State of each state. If you don't believe me ask Katheryn Harris and Kenneth Blackwell. We need people at the state level working for reform in the power this position yields. Being an armchair progressive is fine, but we need people who can promote change of the system, at the local level. All the grassroots GOTV will be for naught, if we can't get control to enforce fair and transparent elections!

[iconoclastNYC]

67. Gore/Hackett 2008!!!

Gore needs to run as a populist. If he ran third party as a true progressive speaking the truth to power about the need for REFORM on so many levels, you know what I'd still support him.

We need a maverick candidate. Someone like Dean or Perot or McCain.....Americans are sick of politics as usual. They want CHANGE.

[AlGore-08.com]

45. Gore did ask Smirk several times to agree to a statewide recount

Smirk refused, of course.

There was one statewide recount, which happened immediately after the election, and was mandated by Florida law. I've read conflicting views on whether Florida law really provided a way for Gore to sue for a statewide recount after that (see Dems.com article at the bottom of this post and the Vanity Fair article mentioned in a post above). I know that Gore's lawyers considered it extremely unlikely that they would be able to successfully sue for a statewide recount initially, and hoped to get a statewide recount later in the process, when they or the Bush campaign had challenged the results in the Florida Supreme Court. They tried to get a manual statewide recount, and all the Florida Supreme Court gave them was a statewide recount of undervotes - - and that's why the Extreme Court shut the vote counting down.

Even if Florida law allowed for a campaign to sue for a statewide recount right off, there is no certainty that the suit could have been successful - - and there's every reason to believe that Team Smirk would behaved in the same way. They wouldn't have said "oh, the other guys successfully sued for a statewide recount, we have to stop cheating now".

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=249

Recount Spin
First, They Stole the Election
Now, They Are Stealing the Truth
Bob Fertik

(snip)

Gore's Lawyers Were Stupid

The Lie: This emerged as the dominant Republican - and corporate media - argument after the examination of the data refuted the "stupid voter" theory. The argument is that Gore's lawyers used the "wrong" strategy; if they had used the "right" strategy, Gore might have won.

The Truth: Gore's lawyers never had a chance to win the recount battle in court, because Republicans controlled the U.S. Supreme Court - as well as the Florida state legislature and the ultimate arbiter of a dispute over electors, the U.S. Congress.

* Gore's lawyers followed a consistent strategy throughout Florida, namely to count every vote. In contrast, Bush's lawyers followed a cynical two-track strategy. In Republican areas, they fought to count every possible vote, whether legal or not. In Democratic areas, they fought to reject every possible vote, whether legal or not. Gore's lawyers should be credited with integrity, if nothing else. Bush's lawyers, on the other hand, may have violated judicial canons by advocating one position in one state court and the opposition position in another state court.

* Gore himself publicly proposed a deal to Bush: to settle the dispute by recounting every vote in Florida. There was no provision in Florida law that would have permitted Gore's lawyers to sue to achieve this result, so Gore's only option was to request Bush's agreement. Bush did not want to count any more votes, so he immediately rejected the proposal. In doing so, he permanently discredited himself as the winner of a genuinely democratic election.

* Gore's lawyers did win one huge victory: they persuaded the Florida Supreme Court to order a recount of nearly 60,000 undervotes. Unfortunately, as election officials in nearly every county in Florida began counting, a narrow 5-4 Republican majority of the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency injunction to stop the recount, on the outrageous - and treasonous - theory that counting all of the votes would harm their fellow Republican, George W. Bush. This horrendous ruling was denounced by 673 law professors, and has been defended by virtually none. Two days later, the same Republican majority declared the election over in a decision with no basis in law, as documented in bestselling books by Vincent Bugliosi and Alan Dershowitz.

* Even if Gore's lawyers had persuaded the Supreme Court to allow a recount - and Gore had won that recount - Florida's Republican state legislature would have appointed pro-Bush electors. And any dispute over electors would have ended up in Congress, which was controlled at that moment by Republicans in both the Senate (Trent Lott) and the House (Tom DeLay) - the same folks whose partisan zeal to destroy Bill Clinton at any cost led them to focus the nation's attention on Bill Clinton's sex life for a year, while Osama Bin Laden was preparing his deadly attack on America.

[HardWorkingDem]

55. Think some of the attachment is incorrect...

I also read the Vanity Fair piece and others - Gore could have asked for a statewide recount, but he never did. It was provided for in Florida election laws.

He and his people simply picked the most promising locations for Democratic votes.

The biggest bizarre twist in all of this is that Texas election laws and Florida election laws are/were very similiar.

There are so many things that didn't go our way back then - for example, Gore should have had better statisticians working for him and been ready to play hardball.

For example, there was never an actual "recount" of the votes as mandated by state law in Florida. There was a retabulation, but not an actual recount. But to hear Baker back then, he was successful in getting it out that there was one.

[petgoat]

59. " there was never an actual "recount""

Right. A major political blunder was in allowing the Republicans to
frame the terms of the issue to their advantage. By labelling the first
machine count the "vote count", and the second machine count a "recount"
they were able to label all the subsequent counts as "recount 3,"
"recount 4," etc. to support their bogus position that the Dems were
simply wanting recount after recount until they got one that showed they
won.

We should have made the point from the start that the so-called
"recounts" were in fact "manual counts" that picked up the votes that
the machines missed. So a statewide "manual count" would have been the
first true "vote count".

Allowing the Republicans to name the terms of the issue to fit their own
frame is a big mistake. Thus they'll rename the "estate tax" which
sounds only right, a "death tax" which sounds only wrong.

[AlGore-08.com]

76. I don't think there was a way to stop the GOP spin from dominating

The media itself, not the Smirk campaign, did most of the trashing of Gore. They spent two years pummeling him as a "liar" based on their own misquotes or true statements he made, which they rebranded "lies". Plus, the party elite mostly kept their distance from Gore - - or worse, were on TV begging him to concede (more than a few because they wanted to run for President themselves in 2004).

The media beat up on Clinton and Gore for eight years (they were as much a force behind Clinton's impeachment as the GOP), they were insane during the campaign, but they were 1,000 times worse during the recount. As I said in an earlier post, Bob Sheiffer was on CNN, claiming that Gore's better performance among African-American voters proved that Gore was less popular with African-Americans - - and that was just one weird, isolated moment.

I almost posted an excerpt from Leslie Stahl's 12/04/00 interview of Gore earlier, and I think I will now - - showing exactly how the MSM was treating Gore (and his message) during the recount. It's offline now, this is from my own transcript. It loses a LOT not hearing how hostile Stahl was, and how she stepped on nearly everything he said:

Stahl: Make your best case. You're talking to the American people tonight. Make your best case for why you should go on with recounts, assuming these court decisions do go against you and you want to proceed. What's your best argument.

Gore: Well, it's not a recount. We want a first count. There are thousands of ballots that were legally cast that have never been counted at all. When people go to the polls and cast legal ballots, we count them. We don't arbitrarily set them aside and refuse to count some of them, but count others.

Stahl: You make it sound like they never were counted. They did go through the machine count and came up that there was no vote. That doesn't mean they didn't go through the process.

Gore: They were never counted. It means that the computer...

Stahl: You don't know that. There could have been votes that weren't cast.

Gore: The experts, including those called by Gov. Bush in the court hearing, said the only way you can count ballots is to count them by hand.

Stahl: Let's say you get the count or the recount, whatever you want to call it. Let's say you come out the winner. Do you think that George W. Bush will say, 'Okay, I lost, bye-bye, I concede'; as simply as that?

Gore: I think that that's what he should do. I think that whatever the other steps remaining in the process are that he feels are open to him he'd have a right to take. But at the end of the day, whichever one of us wins, the other one should step forward and help to rally the country toward unity.

Stahl: Don't you this think the Republicans are going to say you stole it? Just yesterday their lawyer in court said you want three times up at bat. Other Republicans have actually said you're trying to steal this election. You don't really think that they're going to go quietly?

Gore: That will be for them to decide.

Stahl: You're not really reaching the public with this argument. You have been making it over and over. Every vote has to be counted. There is more a sense that you're asking to change the rules of the game. Can you go on if you lose the public?

Gore: The public I think has shown a remarkable amount of patience and a determination to see that all the votes are counted. Of course it is split - -

Stahl: But it's slipping.

(snip)

Stahl: The Supreme Court hearing -- you sent your four children to listen. You've heard the tape I assume.

Gore: Part of it.

Stahl: Did you think they were leaning with you or against you -- you couldn't tell?

Gore: I have no idea. Could you?

Stahl: It was interesting. I thought questions went right along ideological lines.

Gore: It was fascinating. I thought it was great that the country could hear that. I think incidentally this whole thing has had kind of a silver lining in the sense that all of us have gotten a great lesson in American history and the electoral process, kids in school are focused on it.

Stahl: I have to stop. Let's be honest. I mean you're sitting here they call this house where we are bunker.

Gore: Who does?

Stahl: Everybody. Then you're wrapped up in this and want to present this picture to the public that everything is okay and it's a great civics lesson. You have to be angry, you have to be angry at what's happening? I mean you do think you won the election, don't you?

Gore: I think I do. I think the majority of the people in Florida who went to the polls, intended to support Joseph Lieberman and me.

Stahl: Is there no emotion here?

Gore: Anger is not -- What point would there to be feeling that? I'm concentrating --

Stahl: Those emotion that -- What about Katherine Harris? Weren't you angry at her?

Gore: I don't... that it serves any purpose.

Stahl: Have you given any thought, any thought to what would happen if it doesn't work out for you?

Gore: Very little because, you know, coming up to the election, I was pretty well prepared to win, somewhat prepared if it didn't work out. What I was not prepared for was neither outcome.

Stahl: This has to be so hard?

Gore: Well there was a cartoon in one of the papers this morning that showed both George W. Bush and me running as sprinters toward the finish line and the finish line was being held by two other runners and it keeps on getting farther away. It won't last forever. I'm expecting that it will be over with within the next two weeks.

Stahl: One way you could win this election if the absentee ballots in Seminole County and Martin County are thrown out. People say that's a huge contradiction because you're arguing every vote counts and now people's intended votes wouldn't be counted. Why haven't you repudiated the lawsuit to invalidate those legitimate --

Gore: I decided not to join that lawsuit. But what has come out in that other lawsuit since I decided not to join it has been very interesting. Apparently the Republican supervisor of elections threw out all the Democratic ballot applications that were missing this number they're talking about, but let the Republican Party workers with their computers come right into the courthouse, apparently illegally, and change the Republican applications through away the Democratic ballot applications, and accepted the Republican ballot applications. That certainly doesn't seem fair to me.

Stahl: Sounds like you like that case.

Gore: Well, I just told you why. I think it's unfair for them to throw out ballots from one party and keep them from the other when they're exactly the same.

Stahl: I want to read something in today's New York Times: 'Whichever man ends up having to concede is going to feel tormented, rejected, humiliated, victimized, angry, cheated, ashamed, lonely, and bone tired.' Oh, my. Now I know why you're fighting so hard.

Gore: I've been getting seven, eight hours of sleep a night. I'm not bone tired.

Stahl: But you don't think you're going to concede. They're saying if you end up having to.

Gore: If you want know anticipate a situation that I don't think is going to happen and then project my feelings into it, I'll do my best by telling you that have course I would be vulnerable to such feelings. But I do believe that with my family and with my faith I would find a way to come out on top of that and not to surrender to those feelings. We can choose.

Stahl: You have been described by people who have seen you as a lost soul in deep denial wracked by 'what ifs.'

Gore: Is that the person you see before you?

Stahl: That's not the person I'm seeing but I don't see you behind the scenes. Are you in deep denial?

Gore: No. No. I deny that.*

*It's very clear on the tape that this is a joke.

[PinkyisBlue]

101. Media

I have come to hate most of the MSM "news shows", and now I get most of my (political) info. from the internet. The media took a dislike to Al Gore and twisted his words to be used against him. (I'll never forget the "I invented the internet" episode, which he never actually said). If the media is against a candidate, forget about fair and balanced reporting.

This interview by Leslie Stahl seems typical of the disdainful way Gore was treated by most of the media. I just reread the interview, and it's amazing how condescending she is to him. He states that he wants all eligible votes to be accurately counted and she repeats a couple of times that he wants a recount of the votes (to try to change the outcome of the election).

Thanks for posting this. It would be interesting to compare this interview to one with "W".

Al Gore was the true winner in 2000.

[petgoat]

103. Thanks for that. I see that though Gore made the point that the counts

were not "recounts" in that they were counting votes for the very first
time that the tabulators had missed, the media never picked up on that,
and the Republicans' line was that the Dems were just going to keep recounting and recounting until they found a way to win. Stahl even
seemed to be asserting that the concept that these virgin votes were
being counted for the first time was too subtle for the American people.

[AlGore-08.com]

64. As I said, it was a strategy based on their belief they couldn't sue

successfully for a statewide recount at the beginning of the recount. I think we're saying the same thing about the retabulation/original recount - - I'm fairly sure it's called a recount in the state law, even though it was a machine recount. Regardless, there were some counties which failed to carry out the mandatory machine recount, simply resubmitting their original count.

The Gore campaign picked the counties they did since they seemed to have the most potentially spoiled ballots, although information about the number of under and overvotes in Duval county was miscommunicated, accidentally or intentionally, so they Gore campaign thought there were about 300 over and undervotes, rather than 27,000 so they missed the filing deadline.

There was nothing keeping the Smirk campaign from suing for recounts in heavily Republican districts, or agreeing to Gore's offer of trading a statewide recount for an agreement not to contest the results. I think the main (nonslimy) reason they did it was because, like the Gore campaign, they expected to have the election decided in the Florida State Supreme Court or possibly the Supreme Court.

It's not possible to prove that if the Gore campaign had sued for a statewide recount immediately that they would have won it - - or if they had won it, that Harris at al would have behaved any differently. I think it's more likely that a statewide recount would played out exactly the same way - - with the Bush campaign filing as many lawsuits as possible to stop the count or delay it where they couldn't stop it, with Harris putting her thumb on the scale for Smirk whenever possible, and the Florida State Leg. threatening to send electors for Bush to the Congress, even if recounts proved that Gore actually won, and the case finally getting kicked up to the Supreme Court.

How would an immediate statewide recount have stopped whoever it was in Delay's office or the Smirk campaign from organizing the Brooks Brother's Riot or forging military absentee ballots? How would it have stopped the Supreme Court from issuing their bizarre ruling in Bush v. Gore? It certainly would not have stopped the pre-election and election day events which reduced Gore's vote total most seriously: the "felon" purge, the altering of absentee ballot applications, the duplication and destruction of "unreadable" ballots, etc., etc., etc.

Additionally, a statewide recount would not have stopped the Smirk spin machine or the MSM from going down the "Sore-Loserman" route either. The press was absolutely insane during the recount, worse than they were during the campaign. I saw Bob Shieffer give a "report" on CNN where he claimed the following: Gore got a higher percentage of African-American votes than Clinton, but African-American voters really did not support Gore, they voted for Gore because they love Clinton so much, and for this reason they did not mind that thousands of African-American voters had not been able to vote on election day. I wish I had it on tape, it was one of the most surreal moments of a surreal year.

[otohara]

54. If Only The MSM Would Stop Trivializing Gore

as some sort of "joke" I would agree with you.

But the MSM rears their ugliest heads when speaking about the man who was elected to be our president.

[Uncle Joe]

73. I believe that the MSM trashed, slandered and belittled him

precisely because he took some of their power away and gave it to us when he became the primary champion of the internet while in congress. They have hated him ever since, when I think of Al the ancient greek mythological hero Prometheus comes to mind. Prometheus felt pity on mankind huddling in the cold and dark, so Prometheus stole fire from heaven and gave it to man. This so enraged Zeus at his loss of power that he had Prometheus chained to a rock and to have a vulture eat his liver every day only to have his liver regenerate at night, this was supposed to go on for all eternity. The corpwhorate media felt the same rage when Al democratized information by pushing the internet they wanted to remain the sole gatekeepers to the truth. This why they took up every Republican talking point as if it was gospel. This why they lied to the American People when they said he claimed to have invented the internet, a direct shot at his credibility. This is why they started lying to the American People as to who won the 2000 debates 24 hours after they and their focus groups had already determined that Al won hands down. As long as Bush did not drool on the podium during the debates, he was determined to have done better than expected. If Al sighed (and I never heard this sigh)then Al must have lost the entire debate according to the corpwhorate media. In determining the most important qualifications for the most powerful office on the planet, deciding who to have a beer with was the critical question of the day. Everything bad or tragic that has happened since the 2000 coup can be directly attributed to the corpwhorate media betraying the American People. I believe, had it not been for their treason, Al would have dominated the 2000 election to the point that no one could dispute his victory. I believe that the Corpwhorate media have as much, if not more blood on their hands than the worst neocon, because they were supposed to be our "fourth estate watchdogs" and they sold their collective souls to the devil.

[VPStoltz]

56. I believe Gore thought he was complying with the decision of the Fl SC

The Fl. Supreme Courst had already said it was o.k. for Gore to recount specific counties. This was going on when the Repugs hired some goons to disrupt the process. However, Gore's lawyers must have been pretty stupid to think the SCOTUS was going to go along with a court dominated by Democrats. There, however, was legal precedant for Gore to think he could do this. In the end, what made the SCOTUS decision so wrong was that it had decided against its own previous decisions just to get * in.

[petgoat]

60. "SCOTUS decided against its own previous decisions"

Right. The Rehnquist court had always avoided political cases, avoided
interfering in state matters, and stayed out of equal protection cases
(even capital ones!) except when deliberate discrimination was shown.
They completely violated their own principles, and it's impossible to
imagine them doing so on behalf of Gore.

[AlGore-08.com]

66. I don't think it was "pretty stupid" for them to trust the SCOTUS

would make their decision based on the Constitution and Florida state law, rather than politics. Shortly before they issued the Bush v. Gore ruling, the SCOTUS had refused to hear a Smirk campaign lawsuit. That earlier case used the same central argument that was used in the Bush v. Gore case - - if the SCOTUS were obviously and always political, they should have accepted the case the first time around and ruled for Smirk then.

The reason Bush v. Gore was so shocking was because it was so unexpected.

[LaPera]

16. We're "journalists" that stupid and didn't believe Bush was not going

to put forth his ultra right=wing agenda? Did they believe his lies and rhetoric, or are they so rich they didn't care, or think it would matter?

[Tigress DEM]

20. Ever heard of a Media Fair? I hadn't either until I attended one...

here in Minnesota. Various media reps were here and people had a chance to give them a piece of their mind. The only MSM present here in MN (May 2004 I think) was Kate Parry from the STRIB and some people loosely affiliated with NPR.

Both of those groups have made strides and Kate said something interesting... the "rich" element of the Press isn't the reporters. A lot of them are struggling like the rest of us, many make enough to get by ok and a few are well paid, but by and large the reporters themselves are independent types and chaffed at the way stories were killed or burried.

It is the MSM owners and their top editors that were pushing content choices from the top down until readers and viewers deserted them in droves and threatened the bottom line.

Since readers and viewers started screaming in outrage - especially about the DSM - and abandoned MSM for other sources the media have been scrambling to show how they are after the real stories or are really trying to show both sides again....

Notable exception: Fox - owned by a relative of Bush...

Even CNN got scared after it's co-founder Rease Schonfeld came out and said, "The media's responsibility is to lie for the government during times of war.... "

That was my part of my question during the media fair... "Do you guys agree with this statement...?" "It's the media's responsibility to lie..." They asked me if he really said that... "Yeah, on a national TV show - 'the big show with Jon Gibson' was the name of it." I knew the date of the show off the top of my head at that time as well as DSM facts and let it slip that I would be updating about 70,000 people on DU with their answers... that was fun.

[LaPera]

63. DOES ANYONE HAVE A LINK? "The media's responsibility is to lie for the gov

"The media's responsibility is to lie for the government during times of war.... " ---CNN co-founder Rease Schonfeld

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST...THIS IS OUR NATIONAL CORPORATE MEDIA, THE SAME BIG FIVE CORPORATIONS WHO OWN IT ALL... MURDOCK, DISNEY, (#8 TOP REPUBLICAN DONORS) TIME-WARNER (#10 TOP REPUBLICAN DONOR), GE & VIACOM CONTROL ALL THE TELEVISION NEWS...

AND WE EXPECT THE TRUTH FROM THEM?

[Tigress DEM]

17. WE are UNITED as NEVER before...

not < Cindy Sheehan's supporters are camped in Crawford, and America is more bitterly divided than ever. >

This "multi-headed, right-wing dragon" has shrunk in power and stature and is snapping at itself. Soon it will shrink down to the size of a "dragon fly" and we will put it in a jar with holes on the lid and put in the history books as a very clever illusion by some wickedly crooked men who sought to make America believe that ugly, evil people are the majority here.

(On edit, if they really were the majority they wouldn't have to be so loud to keep from letting anyone see how scared shitless they are.)

Silly, dragon, what were you thinking? The truth is the truth and will eventually burst forth like the sun and reveal your treachery.

Impeachment anyone?

[Melodybe]

19. Never doubted it for a second, 2000 is when I turned off CNN

and decided I should get my news on line.

Kicked and Nominated, I love Paul Krugman!

[Mechatanketra]

27. All that evil needs to succeed is for the good to do nothing.

Soon it will shrink down to the size of a "dragon fly" and we will put it in a jar with holes on the lid and put in the history books as a very clever illusion by some wickedly crooked men who sought to make America believe that ugly, evil people are the majority here.

I think not. Evil people may not be the majority here ... but the willfully ignorant, people who refuse to acknowledge any evil in the nation precisely because it reflects badly on the nation, are.

That's why with every single issue that ought to be a slam dunk (the WMD lies, the Plame leak, "Operation Ignore" and the road to 9/11, endemic vote-fixing) it's been an uphill battle to get Democrats to pay attention, let alone independents and/or Republican sympathizers ... the fact that something would be A Bad Thing is reason enough for people to consider it nigh-impossible.

That's why Nixon got pardoned instead of jailed. It's why Reagan is remembered as a beloved figure instead of hung as a traitor. And it's why Bush is sitting in a second term. People in this country just don't know how to be outraged, or at least, what to do about it.

[In Truth We Trust]

52. Great thoughts, i completely concur. Perhaps the "how to be outraged" ques

tion can be answered through continued pressure to "Tea Party" the electronic voting equipment (scanners tabulators touch screens). Individual state initiates or amendments requiring ONLY paper ballots and hand counts!

[ClayZ]

30. Our "Impeachment Champagne" is in the refrigerator...

cooling! Ahhhhhh....


:toast:

[snot]

23. The corporate media are a HUGE problem--

We can't expect the public to flock to our causes timely when they never get the info until too late.

We've GOT to develop concerted media strategies.

--We need to get our own reporters.

--We need to support Current until it either gets off the ground or proves incapable of evolving into anything effectual. Ditto Air America. And to give them both lots of feedback on what they're doing right and wrong (if you don't like what they do, fine to complain here, but I hope you're telling them, too, in a not-too-undiplomatic way).

--We need to support the legislative efforts underway to roll back consolidation and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine.

--We need to keep writing and e-mailing the media.

Simply put, truth and justice in this country will continue to decline until we do two things: reform elections and reform the media.

[brettdale]

24. kick

kick

[wakemewhenitsover]

25. Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, and the crossword puzzle...

...are the only reasons left to read the New York Times.

[SlowDownFast]

26. Recommended.

I also emailed a kudos to Krugs.

[Supersedeas]

50. Seconded as well...both counts

[ngGale]

29. Amazing - I had forgotten what real journalism ...

sounded like, I'm so use to reading lies. I'm stunned and in awe, this man speaks the truth. :thumbsup:
Cindy started a movement - a truth movement, people starting to wake up and wonder how we got to this point.

Right, now we retake America. :patriot:

[Peace Patriot]

31. As I've said before, Paul Krugman has been a bright light during the

darkest hour of our history, and I will always, alway be grateful to him for his brilliant and courageous analysis of the Bush junta. However, on one issue, and one issue only--albeit a critical one--the 2004 election, his towing the line of the corrupt Democratic Party leadership was a big disappointment. I should have realized, when Krugman took a vacation on Nov. 3, 2004, that he had drunk the Democratic koolaid. Too bad! He could have been such a help!

I'm referring to the line in his column, above, as follows:

"There was at least as much electoral malfeasance in 2004 as there was in 2000, even if it didn't change the outcome. And the next election may be worse." --Krugman

This is right out of Donna Brazile's and Terry McAuliffe's mouths. ("...even if it didn't change the outcome...") DNC/DLC. That's the lying snake that they shoved down Kerry's throat. That is the corrupt, dastardly deed of SELLING our right to vote to Diebold and ES&S!

Let me repeat, for those who don't know it, that these two Bushite companies (major Bush donors and supporters) tabulated 80% of the vote in the U.S. in 2004 using SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code! Code so secret that not even our elected officials are permitted to review it. Our vote has become a CORPORATE TRADE SECRET!

That is really all you need to know about the 2004 election. But there is so much more...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

And not a word from the Democratic Party leadership, not a whisper--about BUSHITES COUNTING ALL OUR VOTES IN SECRET!

For a man who crunches numbers for a living, Krugman has gone stupid on this issue. The theft was blatant, obvious, and premeditated. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. It runs from east to west like a wave, with the biggest theft in the eastern time zone. The "official tallies" from Diebold and ES&S are NOT POSSIBLE.

And if you want a bitter waft of just how corrupt the billion dollar electronic voting industry is, check out this post by Amaryllis, on the hogfest at the Beverly Hilton this August, sponsored by Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia--a week of fun, sun and high-end shopping for election officials from around the country. It'll burn your eyeballs. (You wonder how any election official in his/her right mind COULD PERMIT the state to sign a contract with "trade secret" vote tabulation? This is it! Lavish lobbying. Future job offers. STINKO corruption. Both parties. All over the nation)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340

[FighttheFuture]

65. Take a deep breath and get some perspecitve....

Krugman's 700 word (max) column should be considered an introduction to the what-ifs, not a groundbreaking magnum opus. The sheep that will read it will be shocked enough, but, the mixture is not so strong as to totally turn them off to what is happening.

It is a perfect column for the kool-aid drinkers, head-up-the-ass moderates, and other clueless individuals in our society. If they are tempted to find out more, PK pointed the way for them to start.

It is a perfect column for getting the message out to those who need to know, which frankly, isn't anyone here!!

Hope this helps in providing an alternate view besides "that he had drunk the Democratic koolaid".

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

32. Kudos to Paul Krugman! He's been a vocal champion against this

sociopathic administration for years now.

[Time for change]

34. Even more important than the Florida recount

is the fact that tens of thousands of Black voters were disenfranchised in Florida 2000 simply because they were a "close computer match" for felons, who were not allowed to vote in Florida. This was blatantly illegal because it was known before the program went into effect that the good majority of voters who were disenfranchised in this way were not felons and did in fact have a legal right to vote.

Given who controlled Florida and the US at the time, there was no significant state or federal investigation into this gross abuse of voting rights.

Election fraud was then repeated in 2004 on a much grander scale. And this is the way it will be for the rest of our lives, unless and until this thing is exposed and adequately dealt with.

[sallyseven]

48. The elections should be federalized and marshals should be at every poll

and be there when the votes are counted. Only verifiable ballots to be used. It can take a long time but what the hell they have until January to count them.

[Time for change]

72. I agree -- I'd rather have marshalls monitor our elections than our planes

[AlGore-08.com]

81. But so much of vote fraud happens before election day

The pre-election planning is where most of the most harmful things take place, because it's under much less scrutiny.

The "felon" purge happened before the election, as did the decision not to replace outdated voting equipment (or replace it with non-transparent electronic voting machines), the "butterfly" ballot design, the forging of absentee ballot applications, intentional or unintentional staffing decisions which left thousands of motor voter applications unprocessed, intentional or unintentional budgeting decisions which left Democratic areas with too few polling places... and there are "big" issues like the ongoing fights over the census, redistricting, whether ID is required at the polls... A Federal Marshall inside a polling place would not stop any of that.

Additionally, I think federal marshals, without some kind of independent observers, would be a mistake. Historically, law enforcement officers at the polls have been used by the right to intimidate minorities. (A uniformed officer at a polling place can be especially intimidating to folks who have immigrated from totalitarian countries where people were imprisoned or killed for opposing the government.)

Plus, I'm pretty sure that if there had been Federal Marshals watching the 2004 Ohio vote, it would not have convinced any of the folks here who believe Kerry won Ohio that Bush won legitimately. And during the 2000 Florida recount, having federal marshals present during recounts where Gore gained votes would not have convinced Bush supporters that the count was accurate. In fact, a certain percentage of folks would be more likely to suspect fraud when the President's party won.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be marshals overseeing elections, I'm just saying that they might be part of the answer, not the answer. I think independent, nonpartisan monitors are another part of the equation.

[Time for change]

86. Of course it would depend on what their job was, and how they did it

If we had federal marshalls monitoring the Ohio election, and if their job was to ascertain the final pre-tabulator vote at each precinct AND the pre-tabulator count was systematically compared with the post-tabulator count in each county AND if they did that job honestly, I feel quite confident that Kerry would have won Ohio. That would have eliminated fraud via the central tabulators, which is probably why Kerry lost Ohio.

But you are quite correct in saying that much fraud takes place prior to the election. In the case of Gore in 2000 all it would have taken for him to win by 30,000 votes in Florida was enforcement of the consitutional voting rights of black voters.

[AlGore-08.com]

90. I still think that marshals alone would not guarantee there was no fraud

Marshals are supposed to obey the law at all times, but then so are the election officials we have now, and so is the Supreme Court. There are always going to be some corrupt(able) people in positions of authority. For this reason, I also think that some kind of independent monitoring organization.

If we had a real objective, investigating mainstream media, which understood that entertainment reports and infomercials were not the same thing as "The News", I wouldn't be so keen on that last point.

[Time for change]

94. Agreed -- you might note that there were a lot of "ifs" in my last post

Even if all those "ifs" pertained, that would only stop central tabulator fraud. It wouldn't stop registration fraud, and it wouldn't stop fraud related to insufficient voting machines, and it wouldn't stop fraud related to local machines that were designed to steal votes.

This is very complicated, and we have a long way to go.

[mpendragon]

49. Marion Co. supervisor of elections

I think the felon purge took the supervisor out of the roles too.

[Loge23]

35. waiting for sunrise

Thank God for Krugman, Dowd, Frank Rich, Weiner, etc.,etc. for keeping the fires burning on our national outrage.
Our most fervent hope is that someday we will prevail and see this country embrace the truth about our post-millennium malaise.
How could we ever digress to this level - tolerating an evil, illegitimate administration? Allowing a Harris an opportunity to run for Senate?
The realist in me says we're cooked. The optimist says: keep reading, keep posting, keep telling the story - we'll get out of this eventually.
Morning has broken.

[rndmprsn]

36. f#cking says it all...

"Our current political leaders would suffer greatly if either house of Congress changed hands in 2006, or if the presidency changed hands in 2008. The lids would come off all the simmering scandals, from the selling of the Iraq war to profiteering by politically connected companies. The Republicans will be strongly tempted to make sure that they win those elections by any means necessary. And everything we've seen suggests that they will give in to that temptation."

rap on brother krugman...

[Catfight]

37. The Republicans have destroyed our democracy and voting system.

I've been saying this for awhile, Bush cannot afford to have anyone in charge that would open the lid to the corruption going on in Washington these days. It will take an outside force to bring it to light, like a crash in the economy. It will happen, it's just a matter of when.

[DeepModem Mom]

39. kick

[Ian_rd]

41. Could this issue finally be scratching itself into the mainstream?

... stay tuned (and pissed).

[RSchewe]

42. A Must Read! Thanks for the heads up! n/t

[mopinko]

44. Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election/ sept 12, 2001

"Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore"
when randi pointed out that this is the news that was wiped off the front page by 9/11, i became more than mihop.

[buddha8]

46. facism

When will people wake up? Liberals do like to come out of denial. This was not just any crooked election in 00'. Florida ushered in a Junta and 02' and 04' were not at all typically crooked American elections. They were Stalinist in nature. It is the sing song attitude of Progressives who claim that elections have always been 'controversial' that belies the truth. The truth is that there is no real count of a large number of votes any longer. The count is controled. This means only one thing. We are living under facism. This is a very difficult leap to make for liberals. Any clear examination of exit polling and machine counting last year will show this. But people must do the research and see for themselves.

[petgoat]

61. " this is the news that was wiped off the front page by 9/11"

That's an important point. In early September the report on the ballot
study was just about to be released, and the Nat'l Lawyers Guild was
about to start a campaign to impeach the Supreme Court Justices.

By the time things settled down in November, the story was buried under a whole lot of spin that legitimized Bush the War President. I read it
in the papers myself and am embarassed to say I failed to notice the way
a "Bush Would Have Won Anyway" headline covered over a story that said
at the bottom that Gore got more votes.

[BlueJac]

51. The truth will come out!

When the country is returned to the people instead of being controled by the neocons! :kick:

[volitionx]

53. IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN IN 2008

Well, the neocon fascists stole the election in 2000 and 2004.

THEY HAVE A WORKING MODEL for how to steal our country, and they'll use it again in 2008, and probably 2006 to some degree.

Just watch.

[petgoat]

62. Not Necessarily

If 2006 swings the Dems' way, impeachment in 2007 is highly possible.
The voting machines can be replaced by hand-counted paper ballots any
time there is the political will. Even two weeks before the election.
All that's needed is a photocopier to make paper ballots--and the
volunteers to count them.

[Cugel the Clever]

58. Eyes open

or eyes closed, it makes no difference if we continue to march to the same dismal end.

Krugman has concluded publicly that we no longer live in a democracy. This is a very depressing and unwanted thought. At DU, we try to make our voices of opposition heard. The preachers and the choir shouting back and forth.

Let us assume that in 2006, a clear majority of Americans wish for political change, Bush's approval is in the low 30's, Congress disapproval in 70's. Not hard to imagine. However, elections result in a considerable strengthening of the Republican majority. R's break the 60 barrier in the Senate. It is one party rule. Accusations are ignored until the accusers themselves become objects of Anti-American suspicion.

Then what?

Cheney/Bush in '08? Bush/Bush in '12?

Can our democracy abide? All I have are depressing questions and to see Krugman facing the same offers no comfort.

[autorank]

68. You think Krugman has been reading this stuff?

I do.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00238.htm

or

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x384064

[understandinglife]

69. Given that I emailed the link to your DU post to him (and several ....

.... others including Bob Herbert, Arianna Huffington and Maureen Dowd), I know that the effort to get the information to him was made. I also doubt that I'm the only person who emailed him !!! ;)

Thank you so much for all you are doing!


Peace.

[autorank]

71. Thank you too. I lovethis post. It's DU history!

The "F" word in the NYT...my, my.

[mod mom]

92. autorank, our efforts are paying off. We need to keep pushing for fair

and transparent election and one day the fraud will be common knowledge!

Maybe they will even let us back on the front page of DU!

[Cicero]

70. I wish he'd said WHICH two media consortiums...

...I'd like to know.

Later,

[Nothing Without Hope]

74. Kerry/Edwards is considering withdrawing from the ongoing court case

involving the Ohio November 2004 election. Please contact them to dissuade them from doing this. Rep. Conyers, never one to let moss grow, has already done so.

Perhaps this action would be based on the utterly bogus but official DNC report on the Ohio Election, which concluded - you have to at least credit them with imagination - that there was NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD!

More info on all of this is linked to in this thread in the opening post and in the replies:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x21645
Thread title: Proposed activist task: Tell Kerry/Edwards NOT to withdraw from the {Ohio recount process.}

Recommended. Thanks yet again, UL.

[steve2470]

89. kick nt

[understandinglife]

75. Congressman Conyers responds to Paul Krugman

I think I can predict the initial reaction of many of you who have been closely following the Ohio 2004 Presidential election investigations. You will be disappointed that Mr. Krugman stops short of saying the election fraud and irregularities in the 2004 election cost Senator Kerry the White House. While it is no secret what conclusion I have drawn about that question, I do not share this disappointment.

From What Happened Last Fall?: Paul Krugman Does It Again

A Call to Action -- Moving Forward to 2006 by Congressman Conyers on August 19, 2005

Much much more at the link and it is definitely worth reading and pondering:

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000211.htm

Peace.

[steve2470]

83. kick nt

[steve2470]

78. I hate to say this but I bet NYT cans him any way they can nt

[steve2470]

79. kick nt

[steve2470]

80. kick nt

[steve2470]

84. kick nt

[HardWorkingDem]

85. Documentary - Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election

This is a very good documentary and I'm surprised I didn't see it mentioned in this thread.

http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/u/unprecedented-dvd.shtml

I believe this is the documentary where some of Gore's strategy and mistakes are discussed.

[AlGore-08.com]

91. Gore won. His "mistake" was believing that this is America

where judges issue rulings based on a reasonable interpretation of the law, rather than short term political gain.

After all, the SCOTUS had allowed a lower court to hear Jones v. Clinton, rather than jumping in and issuing a head scratching pro-Jones ruling that had "this ruling can not be used as a precedent" into it.

[PinkyisBlue]

99. Unprecedented

I saw this documentary a few weeks ago at a MoveOn.Org movie night, and it really blew me away. I couldn't believe that this degree of blatant fraud had really happened until I saw it in the film. The footage of the protests at Bush's inaugural ceremony was shocking. No wonder he is so heavily guarded.
Al Gore was the true winner in 2000.

[steve2470]

88. kick nt

[dweller]

95. to my frickin' grave i believe it

and on my tombstone if i'm marked with one, will be

NGU


i don't believe i'll be alone.
dp

[understandinglife]

96. Krugman delivered last night. Dowd delivers tonight. Amazingly, ...

... the NYTimes is actually publishing these Op-Eds.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4403833&mesg_id=4403833

Press on my fellow Americans -- we are going to prevail.

Be unrelenting in spreading the truth. Be forever vigilant that you KNOW your vote is counted as you intend it to be - Paper, Paper, Paper -- "not one line of software between your vote and a valid election" -- never forget that.


Peace.

[autorank]

97. Kick for Truth

:kick::kick::toast::kick::kick: :kick::kick::toast::kick::kick:

A comprehensive explanation of election fraud--text and key links

or try…

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00238.htm

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

98. Gore and Kerry...

...should go on a "Wake Up America" tour starting immediately and continuing up through the 2006 midterm elections. Their presentation should detail the evidence, which is very compelling, for how it was stolen in 2000 and also 2004, and then conclude by instructing what MUST be done to get it stopped. That's the part I'd like to hear. How do you get an illegitimate, fascist regime that came to power and retains power through fraudulent elections to give that up? I can't imagine it happening without a revolution. Crooked fascists regimes will never say, "OK I guess we've been voted out, so we'll just hang around and wait for the criminal proceedings to begin"--NOT gonna happen. Either they'll be removed by force via revolution or they're staying in power until the inevitable collapse of our country that their leadership will surely bring.

[steve2470]

100. kick nt

[GoreDean2008]

102. Al Gore Is Still Our President

And he is the only viable option for the 2008 presidential election.