HOLY MOLY! In Kerry's own words: The Diebold Machines CAN BE HACKED!

[helderheid]

Near the end of the interview!

http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com/122105SenatorKerry.mp3

[hedda_foil]

1. OMFG! That's amazing!

I wouldn't have believed he'd acknowledge it if I hadn't listened myself.

[helderheid]

2. Me too, me too!!

[kansasblue]

3. can you summarize? what did he say? Where in the program?

Dial-up! not a lot of time.

[helderheid]

5. It was near the end - Ed asked about the wiretaps and if Kerry was

concerned his campaign had been bugged - he mentioned what concerned him most were Blackwell, what happened in Ohio with his voters, and Florida rejecting the machines because they can be hacked!

[hopein08]

22. "bugged"? as in spyed on?

or just as in cheated out of an election win?

This is incredibly sad to say...but I can believe it either way.

[helderheid]

23. as in spied on. Ed mentioned that many Kerry fans had contacted him

concerned that the Kerry campaign had been spied on.

[mzmolly]

29. I am certain the Bushista used the NSA for political purposes.

Boy do we need a "deep throat" to come clean.

[helderheid]

31. I'm... dreaming... of impeachment hearings...

[mzmolly]

33. Just like the hearings we had befoooortre ............

Where nervous foreheads glisten,
and rednecks listen
To hear George Bushie in great woe

I'm ... dreaming... of a impeachment hearings...
With every DU post I write
May Georgies days be filled with.... fright
And may our remaining Bush days be slight

I'm ... dreaming... of a impeachment hearings...
With every DU post I write
Crooked Presidents resigning in shaaaaaaaammmmmmmmme, and democracy will be restored agaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiin.

Post Cabernet "post" - hope it makes sense. :P

[Maine Mary]

51. LOL!

Thats just too funny! :rofl:

[helderheid]

147. LMAO! That is GREAT Mzmolly!

[mzmolly]

159. Thanks for the inspiration.

;)

Just realized that "before" has a T it doesn't need. Musta been the cabernet?

[PATRICK]

61. Already enough proof

The spying on the UN was done by who exactly? The spying on the Congressional Dems as an intramural event, but who instigated that practice? Someone who said it was OK for them because it was OK for the Prez? Those are two smoking pistols for any grand jury to probe.

I think the climate of spying is not only something in the air but actually a corruption seeping directly through the WH, with strings, puppets and perps galore all operating with assurances and impunity and encouragement. A real Hoover style internal infernal meltdown of epic proportions.

[PATRICK]

62. Already enough proof

The spying on the UN was done by who exactly? The spying on the Congressional Dems as an intramural event, but who instigated that practice? Someone who said it was OK for them because it was OK for the Prez? Those are two smoking pistols for any grand jury to probe.

I think the climate of spying is not only something in the air but actually a corruption seeping directly through the WH, with strings, puppets and perps galore all operating with assurances and impunity and encouragement. A real Hoover-style internal infernal meltdown of epic proportions.

[mzmolly]

81. I hope your right. I wonder if the media will resent being possible

targets and as such, start drumming the impeachment drum?

[Imagevision]

183. Shucks John; "The Diebold Machines CAN BE HACKED!"

Kerry doesn't seem to have been that worried, I mean...what did he do to have this Rove/Bush Diebold hack blow up so everyone could have seen?-- could it have been the Iraq war wasn't going strong enough yet? -- oil pipilines were still being blown up (like the one today) Kerry said that all the votes would be counted and we now know this wasn't the case but did end up with between 27-34 million of contributions.

Would Trump consider bringing Kerry to the Table? -- nah too many dead and crippled for life over this phoney war.

[kster]

66. TEXT OF KERRY INTERVEIW

John Kerry
Interview - Ed Schultz, 12/21/05
Excerpt concerning election issues



"We brought a couple of lawsuits in Ohio, we were working there on the issue of what happened to our voters, with Mr. Blackwell and others, and the involvement of the machines. Well here we are now, with a Florida election official who has publicly refused to use those machines because they can be hacked, and the company for months and months and months was denying any possibility of hackability. Now you even have the New York Times in one of its editorials acknowledging that these machines indeed can be hacked, and obviously the Diebold company is in trouble for a lot of other reasons. So, this is something that really has to be followed up on. You can't leave the voting integrity of America and the rights of citizens to know what happened to their votes in proprietary hands. It's simply absurd to believe that could be the case. And so I believe there's not just the issue of survielance and not just the issue of accountability for violation of people's rights in terms of the organizations and their right to assemble, but also the fundamental right in our democracy to be able to have your vote count and be counted, is still at question, and we have to stay on that one."

[helderheid]

68. thank you!

[kster]

118. Your welcome

but I stole the text from Garybeck, not to worry he doesn't even know its missing. :rofl:

[mtnsnake]

71. Thanks. Amazing how it's such a big deal because Kerry said it.

Imagine if this joke of a candidate ever responds to the SBVT. The Kerry clique on this place will have a collective orgasm!

[LittleClarkie]

120. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Oh, clique of Hillary, is that all you got?

Has Hillary even mentioned the subject?

Supporters in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[mtnsnake]

143. Another feeble attempt, LittleClarkie..going after me by attacking Hillary

Nice try, though. LOL!!

Hey, tell me about it if and when Hillary ever runs as pathetic a campaign as Kerry did, although that would be virtually impossible. Wouldn't you agree? :smoke:

[paulk]

145. I wonder if you really are a hillary supporter...

the bad will you create around here with your over the top attacks on the 2004 Dem. nominee

can't be gaining Hillary any friends

[mtnsnake]

148. I'm not as much a Hillary "supporter'" as I am a Hillary "defender"

and good gawd does she ever need defending around here, if you really wanna know.

BTW, you have no clue what "over the top" is if you think I've been over the top with my criticism of Kerry.

You wanna know what "over the top" is?

"Over the top" would be doing something like calling him a Republican.

"Over the top" would be doing something like saying how he panders to the right wing.

"Over the top" would be calling him a rightwing neocon.

Any of those would be "over the top", none of which I have ever done, but all of which have been done by other posters to Hillary on this forum....and all of which are totally false accusations. That's what "over the top" is pal.

BTW, am I supposed to know you or something?

[paulk]

156. you don't know me

but I recognize your tag

you repeatedly come into Kerry threads and trash Kerry

I wouldn't call it "criticizing"

your comments on Kerry are some of the most hateful I've seen on this board

so your posting vis a vis Kerry kind of sticks in the memory...

especially when you are quite eloquent in your defenses of Hillary

most of which I agree with btw

but it makes you seem uneccessarily partisan this far out from the primaries

it makes me question your motives

[mtnsnake]

162. If you'r going to make accusations, back them up with specific examples

All you've done is generalize with accusatory comments without backing any of them up with actual examples of what you're talking about.

If you're going to come on here and say my "comments on Kerry are some of the most hateful you've seen on this board", then how about at least having the common courtesy to quote me on which comments you're talking about. Go ahead, I can handle it. Post the comments you speak of in your next reply, and take all the time you need to find them. If you're right, I'll admit it.

I think for the most part that you're going to find comments I made about him in regards to what a pathetic campaign he ran and what a poor campaigner I thought he was. If that's the case, you're going to find some of those because I most certainly do think he was a terrible campaigner. Show me the hateful ones I made about him, though. I'm going to wait and see what you come up with. I have the feeling you're pretty good at getting "hateful" and "truthful" mixed up.

You also said you question my motives. Well, there you go again, not being specific. Feel free to tell me what you think my motives are instead of beating around the bush.

Something tells me you're mostly whining because I called Kerry a joke of a candidate in this thread. I've got some news for you. He WAS a joke.

[FreedomAngel82]

176. If you're going to

bash someone make your own thread.

[sweetm2475]

186. nice to see senator kerry finally coming around

at least publicly. he waited a while, but better late than never i guess. welcome to DU, senator kerry.

:toast:

[babsbunny]

26. Wait Around a While

He'll Flip Flop.

[rockymountaindem]

37. While you're at it, do you have any more RW lies to tell us?

Just curious.

[Tim Howells]

60. OMFG Yeah! A Democratic leader actually said something!

Not only that it was about something that actually matters!
The retraction can only be minutes away!
Tim Howells

[iconoclastNYC]

4. Too late.

Dean said this about 1.5 years ago. Why do we care what Kerry thinks anymore? He's finished as a national candidate.

[babylonsister]

6. Speak for yourself. We're all adult enough to form our own

opinions, and yours isn't mine.

[iconoclastNYC]

9. If you're so adult and can form your oppinion...

Why jump on me for expressing mine? Are you not adult enough to tolerate me expressing my opinion?

Or is it that you just can't bare to read any criticism of your guy?

That's not very adult.

(edit: correct typo)

[FreedomAngel82]

177. Because you said "we"

Don't speak for me hon.

[cmd]

10. Thank you. n/t

[Upfront]

30. It Is Mine!

[helderheid]

7. I care because he is a senator and he's finally waking up (better late

than never).

[mtnsnake]

72. Wrong. "Better late than never" is when it would've mattered...not AFTER

the matter.

Kerry is a poll follower, plain and simple. He rides along with whatever the popular mood is at the time.

[helderheid]

127. It won't affect 2004 but IT DOES EFFIN MATTER for 2006, 2008, ...

[fujiyama]

187. You're the biggest Hillary shill on the board

and you're saying Kerry is a 'poll follower?

God, the irony of ironies. God, I hate the idea of losing with Hillary, but to see your reaction when that happens, it almost sounds worth it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. Someone better start paying attention to this or '06 is toast for the Dems

if it's not already too late.

[iconoclastNYC]

11. I agree.

I just think Kerry once again is late to the party. He had to wait this long to say it? The writing has been on the wall for a very long time now.

I don't think he has any credibility on this issue. He just rolled over after the election. He could have made the possibility of fraud, lack of a paper trail.... the centerpiece of his concession.

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. I would have thought that Sen. Kerry would have known of the problem

and would have spoken out about it before this. After sElection 2000, I would have thought that all of our party leaders would have been on this? Well better late than never, I guess. :shrug:

[helderheid]

20. I don't know what took them so damned long.

[SammyWinstonJack]

46. Well we liberals tend to be complacent or trusting?

or naive? Whatever works for us! :rofl:

[iconoclastNYC]

54. Here's why

It's because politics teaches you to be risk-adverse and then the media is always ready to jump on you.....so Kerry's biggest fear was that the media would call him a sore looser.

Thats why the biggest thing I look for in a leader is fearlessness. We need someone who isn't afraid of the media, isn't afraid of the 'convential wisdom', and isn't afraid of the names the republicans will call him.

That's why i'm excited about Russ Feingold.....

Political analyst Larry Sabato commented on Senator Feingold's viability in the 2008 Presidential election in an article that came out today. http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=66...

"Political watchers such as University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato point out that while Feingold's recent stands on civil liberties and the Iraq war may please liberal activists, they may well hurt his chances later on with moderate Democrats and conservatives. "

The Senator's response?

"I don't care,"... "Whatever political considerations I have are absolutely irrelevant to the decisions I make having to do with people's civil liberties and something as weighty as Americans risking their lives overseas. The day that I start think politically about those things is the day I should leave politics."

This is the embodiment of what we should demand from our political leaders. Decision making and real leadership sans politics. Just imagine if all our leaders acted like this rather than worrying non-stop about their political futures.

And, I still think that the Senator can be President in 2008.

[Hubert Flottz]

63. Maybe a little more time will reveal that the reason Kerry is ...

speaking up now, is because he finally has the proof to make the charge stick.

[helderheid]

67. that would be my suspicion

[MH1]

92. Well, now he can point to an expert opinion -

"Florida election official" - and not just his own opinion, or the opinions of those considered to be on the fringe or have partisan purposes.

Before anyone jumps on me - election officials are entrusted with the JOB of certifying election machines. The fact that some of them are now refusing to certify Diebold machines, means FAR more than anything yet presented by Bev Harris or others. HOWEVER, that is not to say that the work of Bev and Andy and others didn't matter!!! The election officials' rejection of Diebold is probably a direct result of all the hard work put in by voting integrity activists!!

One can honestly disagree with Kerry's tactics in leaning on the credibility of election officials. (Full disclosure - I DO agree with Kerry's tactics on this. But that's just me.)

However I don't think it's helpful for people to castigate Kerry for coming out with this statement now just because they believe he should have done it sooner, on the credibility of activists or partisan lawyers.

[helderheid]

93. WELL SAID!!

:applause:

[bpilgrim]

110. he & the rest of the dem 'leaders' should have come out on this way before

the 04 election & there where EXPERTS pointing out these serious issues even before the 2000 elections it has taken a sustained and ever increasing grassroots effort to FINALLY get a MENTION by only a few.

but i am glad he is finally acknowledging the critical problem and can only hope that everyone will continue to apply pressure on all our LEADERS to start addressing VVPB before the next election.

peace

[bpilgrim]

111. Dear Gov. Dean -- It’s no longer baseball …

I realize that the DNC, DCCC, DSCC, and a variety of other Democratic Party organizations have all their org charts, turf, and whatever. I’ve struggled for most of 2005 to develop a terse analogy -- a way of informing all of you that politics-as-usual is over in America.

I realize that perhaps even more than half of the voting age citizens in America do not need analogies to understand that Bush, Cheney and their neoconster minions, along with their mega-buck financial and media collaborators, are destroying everything America is supposed to be. What those folk also recognize is the abject failure of the Democratic Party to bring unambiguous leadership to the ballot, and to demand verifiable results at the polls.

So, this analogy is largely for the folk huddled inside the beltway taking polls and twitching every time a leader like Congressman Conyers, Slaughter, Lee and the CBC, or Senator Byrd, Feingold or Boxer (and, recently, Congressman Murtha) speak truth.

So, here’s the terse analogy, Gov. Dean. (Kerry, et al)

more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5687852

peace

[FreedomAngel82]

179. That could be it

I remember back in March Teresa was speaking about them stealing it. I've heard that one of Kerry's daughters were getting threats and I've also read here on DU that Teresa had her own investigation going on. Remember that in politics sometimes timing is everything. And remember that Kerry is a prosecutor and he knows you can't go around and make a claim without backing it up.

[blm]

139. You can't FIND a handful of lawmakers TODAY who even SEE the problem.

This is a big deal and I hope he and Dean are working on a plan to expose the machines.

[Raksha]

58. Too late for 2004, definitely.

I too wish he had spoken out sooner. However, he is NOT too late for 2006! If John Kerry wants to make a stink about election fraud now, I'm all for it. That just might be what it takes to break the stranglehold of the Republican voting machine companies on the electoral process, and gets us a majority in both houses of Congress. The political timing is good too, with so many Bush voters having buyers' remorse these days.

[helderheid]

15. Well, it's being talked about by the respected and elected so I am pleased

especially with Diebold being rejected left and right! I am working on getting it rejected in my state now. :)

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. I am glad it's being addressed by our party leaders, don't get me wrong.

I hope we get the problem fixed in time for the very important mid term elections.

[helderheid]

19. I totally agree.

[FreedomAngel82]

181. Yep

And that's what is nice. I'm glad to hear all of this. The machines getting rejected. Hopefully they will all over the place. I wish there was hope for Ohio.

[babylonsister]

12. You assumed "we" don't care. I'm

just correcting you; you don't speak for me.

[iconoclastNYC]

13. I asked why we should care.

I didn't say you didn't care. Don't twist my words to make me seem like the bad guy.

[babylonsister]

42. Then you should have stated, "YOU don't care."

Twist words? Bad guy? You are definitely reading too much into this.

[LittleClarkie]

43. See reply 35

But even I don't presume to explain why "we" should care, only why I still care. If others think I have a point, then they are welcome to care as well.

[blm]

140. Because WE can't find many lawmakers who BELIEVE in machine fraud.

So it IS a big deal.

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. You claimed to be speaking for the nation. And that's naughty.

[LittleClarkie]

35. He is, however, still a Senator

and one of the Dems who's been fighting for various issues. You may not want him in 2008, and in that sense think that he is "finished," but why would that mean that you don't care what he says at all? He is still an expert in certain fields, such as foreign policy and the environment.

Your two sentences don't necessarily go together. One does not need to be a national candidate for us to care about what he thinks. There are plenty of Senators and Congresspeople who are not national candidates who's thoughts I would also care to hear. Being a national candidate does not bestow worthiness upon your words, and not being a national candidate doesn't take that worthiness away.

Btw, Dean SAID this 1.5 years ago, but he wasn't the one it affected during the election. Kerry was. And in this interview he sort of forced the segue from wiretapping to Diebolding, mentioning Florida and how they've rejected Deibold. He says that Americans need to be able to trust the process. And that's true even if he never runs again, or even if he does.

I don't know if that would be a reason why "WE" should care. I don't speak for "WE". I speak for me. And I still care. So sue me.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. That's your opinion. People have said that for as long as Kerry's....

...been in office. He's still there, and will be there long after the NeoCons have become dust in the wind.

[LittleClarkie]

59. They didn't care what he had to say about BCCI and Iran/Contra

either. That's why he used to dive at live cameras. And when he went after a politician that everyone liked, but who was up to his ass in the BCCI scandal, Kerry wasn't terribly popular either.

He managed to damage himself politically during those times. I'm sure that folks have often wished he'd shut the fuck up.

[blm]

146. If Dean BELIEVED it as an issue 1.5 yrs ago he would have told Kerry about

it back then - but he didn't GRASP it completely either, even though he saw a demonstration.

Face it - NONE of them grasped it as an issue then and NONE of them moved to expose the machine fraud before the election then. They are JUST NOW getting it. And it is still only a handful who are getting it - the rest don't believe it at all.

[Pastiche423]

17. Gawd, is he ever

s l o w!

[LWolf]

32. My thoughts exactly.

I'm glad he finally figured this out.

I wish we'd gone with someone a few steps ahead of this issue in '04. Maybe we wouldn't have been subjected to "concession day."

Still, better late than never; welcome aboard, Senator Kerry!

[helderheid]

34. yes... FINALLY. I remember Kucinich talking about the dangers of evotes

early in his campaign. Not sure where he's been lately on the subject though. Thank goodness for Conyers and yes, WELCOME ABOARD Sen. Kerry!

[rzemanfl]

44. Don't you think, considering the delicacy of the position he was

in that he had to wait until the demonstrated hack of the machine in Tallahassee before he could speak to this point? By the way, that took some serious guts on the part of the Supervisor of Elections in Leon County what with Dubyah's fat little brother right there and all.

[LWolf]

49. No.

I think, given the position that we all found ourselves in when he didn't speak to this point, that of enduring 4 more years of *, that perhaps the situation wasn't quite that delicate. What terrible thing might have happened if he'd spoken up earlier? He might still have lost?

[rzemanfl]

50. Crying "foul" without proof may have poisoned the well forever

and made it even easier for the Repukes to steal the next election and the ones after that. That's just my opinion and you are entitled to yours. In November '04 I was all for Kerry and Edwards going to another country, declaring an government in exile and ordering the troops home from Iraq, even though that probably would have started a civil war. It is simply amazing that the Democratic party was so unprepared for an election theft after what happened in 2000. I was sure that Bush was going to "postpone" the election because of "terrorist threats" and when he didn't, I was pretty sure the fix was in.

[petgoat]

82. Crying "foul" without proof is done all the time in certain contexts

For instance, if somebody kidnaps a little girl and keeps her in a hotel room overnight,
nobody gets to say "prove he harmed her." The situation itself is regarded as evil.

Our votes have been kidnapped by the electronic machines that keep them in secret and
out of our sight and care. Under those circumstances no proof of harm is required.

[ProSense]

86. When someone is kidnapped the first thing the police do is call

a press conference to announce the person is missing and if they have proof pointing to a possible crime they usually say they don't rule out foul play, but they never announce the victim was harmed without proof.

Imagine that announcement: we have reason to believe the victim was kidnapped and murdered (with no proof)

[petgoat]

87. You're missing the point. In kidnapping of a child or of

a democracy, the kidnapping itself is proof of harm. We don't
need DNA evidence.

[ProSense]

89. The DNA test is after you find the evidence (hair, finger, etc.). n/t

[petgoat]

90. You're talking about a missing persons case.

I'm talking about a clearcut case of kidnapping: a child was kept overnight in a motel room
by a known person who had no business doing so.

Our votes are similarly held hostage secretly in the electronic machines. We have
no way of knowing what's happening to them while they're there.

To argue that mere kidnapping was not harm and that there must be proof of some psychological
or physical harm is specious.

The kidnapping was itself harm. Our votes have been kidnapped. That's all the proof we need.

[helderheid]

91. The fact that our system is not transparent is a crime in and of itself.

Stealing elections is a separate crime.

[petgoat]

94. Exactly. That is the distinction I was trying to make with the

kidnapping analogy.

Under these circumstances asking for proof the election was
stolen is like asking the victim of a date-rape-drug for
proof that the assault was not consensual. The fact of
the use of the drug is sufficient wrong-doing itself, just
as the fact of unreliable, buggy, hackable and possibly
dishonest voting machines is wrong.

[TayTay]

121. But that's not the way it came off to a lot of people.

You are seeing a 'black and white' case where a lot of people are seeing gray. To stick with your kidnapping analogy, a lot of people are seeing a child who spent the night with a relative who forgot to inform the parents that they were staying the night. This is a while different story and much murkier in figuring out intent and motive of crime.

Many people on DU and the other liberal spots on the web believe that election fraud occurred in 2004 and that it might have been significant and widespread enough to have changed the outcome of the election. We now have to prove it. This means proving it not to an audience of liberals but to the wider American population. There is also a dedicated army of people on 'the other side' who are just as motivated to prove that this is nothing but a 'sour grapes' move on the part of the Democrats and that Dems should be pitied more than anything else for their delusional beliefs and inability to let go of '04.

This is not about Kerry anymore. He legally lost and nothing can change that. What he can do is try and continue to gather evidence and stay involved in the lawsuits that challenge the results of the last election and try to get definable proof by getting into those election machines. Then he has to convince others in the Democratic Party to take this issue seriously. So far there have been grumblings about the election system, but no other national Dem has done more than sign onto legislation that promises reform but that everyone knows has no chance of passage in this Congress. (At all. That doesn't mean you don't pursue it, but do know that there are powerful forces that oppose you and that just mentioning the topic isn't the same thing as solving the problem.)

I see this fight as lasting a long time. There are just too many people who don't want to know that this is happening and don't want to believe that democracy can be hijacked like this. We have to be prepared to make this argument to 'non-believers' hundreds and hundreds of times, over and over and over until it sinks in. That's the only way.

[petgoat]

128. a lot of people are seeing gray

Well, they are imposing their own grays on a clearcut situation and rationalizing
away the objections to the situation in doing so.

To imagine that Diebold is like Uncle Jim and he's okay and the kids love him is not
justified. Diebold is like an unknown stranger that has without our bidding or
informed consent insinuated himself in, and taken custody of, the process.

That the machines CAN be hacked raised alarms with some people; others let "'Can be
hacked' does not mean 'was hacked.' Where's your proof?" justify their complacency.

Proof is beside the point. There isn't going to be any proof that the machines were
hacked, because they are designed to be proofless. They are like mute retarded kids
who can't tell you if they were molested or not. My analogy is meant to make the
point that kidnapping the votes is wrong on its face; it's mistaken to make the issue
stand or fall on whether we can get proof that the votes were harmed.

If anyone can think of a better analogy, I'd be grateful.

[ProSense]

134. Proof is beside the point?

"There isn't going to be any proof that the machines were
hacked, because they are designed to be proofless."

So, you're suggesting that by saying the election is stolen the country is going to deem the election stolen because "proof is beside the point"?

Since the GAO and Conyers' reports document the problems and proof isn't necessary, as you suggest, then why aren't these reports considered all the proof needed to deem the election stolen?

Why isn't anyone walking around with these reports in hand and declaring the election stolen?

And to another point in one of your previous post: A "clear cut" case of Kidnapping means there is proof.

[petgoat]

149. I'm sorry I'm not clear in making the distinction

Proof of a stolen election is, yes, beside the point. Because there isn't going to
be any proof. The machines do not provide proof.

A clear-cut case of kidnapping there is proof of kidnapping; there is not
necessarily proof of harm to the kidnap victim. My analogy was meant to illustrate
the current situation in those terms to suggest that people are suggesting that
since there is no proof that the victim was harmed (that the electin were stolen)
there is therefore no harm in the kidnapping (the secret vote counts).


The GAO report and the Conyers report prove that the voting machines are not worthy
of our trust and that Ohio was such a dirty election its electoral votes should have
been thrown out, but they do not prove the election was stolen.

My point is that proof, or lack thereof, of a stolen election is not the point.

Maybe another analogy would be better.

Our child (democracy) wandered off and got mauled by wild dogs (untrustworthy vote counts). Do we allow the fact that we can't prove the nanny's malevolence to convince us the child was not mauled? Or do we settle for the fact that we've proven that the nanny was negligent, and stand on that?

[ProSense]

150. Negligence has to be proved (need evidence). No getting around proof. n/t

[helderheid]

151. this is only true (in my opinion) if you want to prove 2004 was stolen. T

The fact that our votes are vulnerable and you can prove the machines are hackable is all we need to change future elections ensuring transparency.

[ProSense]

152. I agree! Need to address both the machine and suppression issues. n/t

[marions ghost]

182. Excellent Points

:applause:

[rzemanfl]

95. There's the rub, without proof, you can only really say we believe

our votes were kidnapped-somehow. With the proof of the undetected hack, we can say we believe our votes were kidnapped and here's how it could have been done without leaving a trace.

[petgoat]

102. without proof, you can only really say we believe

I disagree. The way the machines are built, they take custody of our votes,
and take them out of our sight and keeping.

It's just as if a stranger took somebody else's child to a motel room. That
in itself is a criminal act, and failure to prove that psychological or physical
harm resulted is irrelevant to that fact.

To those who would plead that we authorized machine custody of the votes I say this:
we entrusted the custody to our election officials and to Congress, and their
negligence in the matter is analogous to an authorized day care worker passing the
child off to a stranger who took the child to a motel room. If that much happened,
they're both proven guilty.

The standards of criminal guilt and the standards of "fiduciary duty" are quite different.
You don't have to prove that a brokerage house profited from SEC violations, you just have
to prove that they failed to observe standard procedures. You don't have to prove the
Board of Directors stole money, you just have to prove that they held secret meetings, or
failed to provide complete reports. These are the standards that should apply in elections.

The Ohio Revised Code for elections has language indicative of this spirit: "A violation
of any provision of Title XXXV (35) of the Revised Code constitutes a prima facie case
of election fraud within the purview of such Title."

That nobody's been prosecuted yet for blatant violations of Title XXXV is a matter of politics.

http://www.yuricareport.com/2004%20Election%20Fraud/OhioVoteFraudBattleHeatsUp.html

[rzemanfl]

109. This is more like the parent leaving the child with a stranger at

a motel, we were forced to give our votes to the black box or vote absentee or not vote at all. The county I live in has a history of "losing/overlooking" absentee ballots so what choice did I have?

[petgoat]

131. what choice did I have?

I'd say the more important question is "who put you in the situtation where
you had no choice?"

Are you saying that election officials who lost absentee ballots remained in office?
Then clearly that's the fault of you and the citizens and the press in your county.

And to some degree the fault belongs to all of us who were more interested in baseball
and our jobs and our families (or whatever) than we were in voting machines and electoral
processes.

But the real fault IMHO lies with the people who played the part of the lazy babysitter that
handed your child over to a stranger, making a choice you didn't even know was being made.
And that's the election officials who incompetently purchased hackable unauditable machines
and the Democrats who failed to warn them about them.

And you really have to wonder why the Democrats failed to defend democracy.

[rzemanfl]

164. Oh, it's worse than that here. The incompetent election official

who lost the absentee ballots retired and Dubyah's fat little brother appointed her replacement, whose husband, oddly enough, had in the past worked for ES&S and was "consulting" at the time of her appointment. The replacement's office "overlooked" some ballots in the next election, too.

I didn't vote for out Supervisor of Elections, or at least that's what the machine said. The St. Petersburg Times is on Bill O'Liely's enemies list so I don't think it can be blamed either. So I guess it falls on the voters.

[LWolf]

138. Yes, I am.

Entitled to my opinion, of course.

It is my opinion that the Democratic Party, and the one they anointed, should have been on this years beforehand. After the 2000 "irregularities," what should have been higher on the priority list?

Enough was known by the time the '04 primaries rolled around for the party as a whole to have made an issue of it well before election day. What was known, and what was standing still in Congress, should have been before the public every single day, and the nominee should have acknowledged it.

As we've seen, "proof" doesn't stop this machine; it would take an entire party of people standing out in front of the machine with the proof to bring it to a grinding halt.

While I'm glad Senator Kerry has finally decided that it's ok to say something about this "little" problem, I am not over my disappointment in him, and in the Party that anointed him, for not moving on this long before '04.

[helderheid]

53. how could he talk without proof?

[LWolf]

78. Before he was even nominated;

before the convention; during the '04 primaries, he had opponents who recognized the possiblilities and spoke up against electronic voting. If they could see that train wreck coming, and speak out about it, he could have, too. If he'd made the possibility of stolen elections via electronic voting machines part of what he had to say during his primary campaign, and during general elections, by opposing any kind of voting without a paper trail, then speaking up about it after the fact wouldn't have been crying wolf without proof. It would have been pointing to evidence that he had been correct in his concerns all along.

If, when others were recognizing the problem, he'd brought it to the senate floor, long before he was the anointed one, or before the '04 general election, he would have had enough credibility to bring it up when the vote count did not match the exit polls, imo.

[helderheid]

80. I did actually hear him talk about it during one of the debates

Can't remember which one. I think he was taking his cues from Dennis on that one.

[petgoat]

83. they could see that train wreck coming

It was quite clear from the fact that the Rush Holt bill that would have
outlawed the touch screen machines was being held up in Bob Ney's House
Administrative Committee, and the fact that the Election Assistance
Commission that was charged with developing standards for the HAVA
electronic voting machines was sabotaged by a republican Congress through
an inadequate budget and even more inadequate appropriations--$1 million
allowed only for a staff of ten, with no chance of developing the standards.

Democratic Party leaders should have been screaming bloody murder about this.
That they were not makes me think something is seriously amiss. But that's
for another time.

[LittleClarkie]

41. Aside from the person who is your avatar

who else is talking about it in Congress at all? Who else in the Senate? Does Dean bring it up any more?

Slow or no, it is good, yes?

[Peace Patriot]

21. It may not be a matter so much of "waking up," as it is of not having a..

...target put on your back for saying it. That's why I will not, and cannot, judge Kerry for Nov. 3 until I have more information about it and feel that people are speaking freely. I don't have any information, insider or otherwise, that he or his were threatened. It's just a creepy feeling I have. I did pick up along the way that it was Christopher Dodd who advised him on electronic voting. That may explain a lot. (I'm very suspicious of Dodd re: electronic voting.) Anyway, we really, really need to be careful about making snap judgments of people and situations, given the lies and illusions spun by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, considering the amount of corruption in DC and in our own party, and considering that we are being ruled by a fascist junta that is grabbing more and more dictatorial powers, as if it had not already gone well over the line into war crimes and other crimes, with complete impunity.

When someone says "I'll never vote for Kerry" or "I'll never vote for Hillary Clinton," or he or she is "finished," I think it's naivete--as if the choices were ours any more, as if we have any say, with Bushites controlling the election system with "trade secret," proprietary programming code and virtually no security or audit/recount controls. Who are we kidding? The president and war policy will be determined FOR us, just as the election system has been made non-transparent and fraudulent without our consent. And until we take our election system back into the public venue, and make it transparent once again, and rid it of private corporations, our opinion of Kerry or Clinton or anyone or anything else is little more than a candle in the wind.

[FogerRox]

24. Peace Patriot-- good point

if it was Nov 2008 and the choice was Cheney or Hillary--- after all the HIllary bashing Ive done-- I aint voting for Cheney--- ya know

[Media_Lies_Daily]

39. Bingo. Well said.

[LittleClarkie]

40. Indeed. Listening to the interview, the segue was forced

but something had just happened. Florida had just rejected Diebold. And Kerry sort of connected discussion of wiretaps with discussion of Diebold. He was looking for a way to discuss it, it seemed to me, while making it seem like it fit in with everything else that was going on. Not completely successful. It appeared to me that he was looking for a way to bring it up regardless.

That's something I find interesting. He's a very careful man. But he does appear to know what's going on.

[helderheid]

45. I noticed that too! Ed didn't ask about the machines so I thought that

was telling.

[OnionPatch]

48. Yep, I noticed too

It was really obvious that Kerry wanted to talk about this. It seemed like he almost brought it up off topic.

[YvonneCa]

57. I think...

...he's been gathering evidence for some time now. If you watch his appearances in the past year, you can almost see the transition he's made. I really don't think he WANTED to believe it in the beginning (And, by the way, I didn't either. It's a lot to take in.) But now, it's clear he does. He's a man of conscience. He believes in democracy and the value of citizenship. I don't think his conscience will allow him to just let it go. This is comforting and makes me very grateful.



:patriot:

[petgoat]

85. Getting threatened just comes with the territory in public life.

You could say the same thing about Bush. "Well maybe he just invaded
Iraq because somebody threatened his family." "Maybe he just let
9/11 happen because somebody blackmailed him."

If you don't want to be threatened, you stay out of public life. And
when you are threatened, you don't cover it up and you don't knuckle
under. That's negotiating with terrorists.

[SheilaT]

25. Omigod! Stop the presses!

Oh, wait. we've known about this for, how long has it been? Two years now?

And to think that now it can be told just because John "I won't concede until the last vote has been counted" Kerry has finally discovered this, strikes me as more than a little sad.

Get it straight. The election was stolen in 2000. Certain races were stolen in 2002. The presidential election was stolen again in 2004. Don't think for one minute that they won't steal again in 2006 or in 2008. A lot of people, good Democrats mostly, are cautiously optimistic that we'll win back House or Senate next year, and we'll get the White House in 08. I want that to ge true, but as I've been saying since December 12, 2000, these people came to power in a coup, and people like that do not readily surrender their power.

[helderheid]

27. I've got it straight. And I'm thinking 2006 and 2008 might have a fighting

chance now that politicians are openly talking about this! Look at what is happening in NC and CA - I'm working on getting it out of Utah (not that it matters until the electoral system goes) and I know this movement is alive and well. One more politician talking about it is another small victory.

[petgoat]

84. Giving the benefit of the doubt to Kerry, I'll suppose he's

broaching the issue in preparation for 2006.

Now, bolstered by the Florida hacks, it can be
brought up as a cold technical issue. In 2004 it
was perceived as an angry partisan issue.

[robbedvoter]

28. It's a good thing the GOP would never take advantage of such a thing.

Oh, wait! They did!


Did I do something wrong?

[emulatorloo]

36. kick n/t

[gordontron]

47. related link

"Testers claim success in Diebold hack"
http://news.com.com/2061-11203_3-5995798.html

[helderheid]

52. thanks and welcome to DU!

[lonestarnot]

55. Holy shit John Kerry! Why didn't you fight harder. You disappointed me

so badly. America has been one big disappointment lately! Hope it improves soon!

[PurityOfEssence]

56. Guinness Book of World Records: "World's tallest invertibrate"

Playing chess in a barfight, big John never seems to rise to the occasion. He should have contested Ohio the night of the election, he should have immediately fired back at the Swift Boat assholes and he should have called Junior the cold-hearted monarchist that he is. He's useful as a senior statesman, and he's a decent guy, but I'll fight against him getting the nomination with every fiber of my being. He makes Al Gore look forthright and daring.

I wonder when he'll retract this statement.

[robbedvoter]

64. Playing chess in a barfight - actually, that's what Gore did in 2000

Kerry played nothing, just fanned himself, curtsied, took a bow,checked himself in the mirror again, put on his powdered wig and laced coat and quietly left the establishment (and his people) behind.

[PurityOfEssence]

154. Absolutely. Ya got me there.

Florida was the best metaphor for the ineptitude of the Democratic Party I've ever seen. To only contest four counties out of some kind of "politeness" was idiotic, and it made them look like they were trying to pull a fast one. They should have contested the entire state.

Kerry reminds me of a cigar store wooden indian.

[socialistrot]

65. Anything can be hacked...

Just ask Dish Network or Direct TV.

[paineinthearse]

69. any bets how long it will be before....

...Kerry's handlers spin this around, like last week's "impeach *" statement?

[mtnsnake]

73. "The machines can be hacked, although I'm not saying they were, but

that they might have been, although I bet they weren't...."

[robbedvoter]

96. And if I knew then what I know now, I'd say it and have an aid retract it

and then have my fan club cheer for my letting out a "trial baloon"

[ProSense]

76. Kerry made an impeachment statement last week? Are you referring to this?

A spokeswoman for Kerry, April Boyd, quickly condemned what she called the RNC's ''humbug" response to Kerry's joke, explaining in an e-mail to the Globe, ''Impeachment jokes in Washington are as old as Donald Rumsfeld."

Then again, even Boyd suggested that the remark might not have been fully in jest.

Wrote Boyd: ''He did make the serious point, which he's made forcefully before: 'How are the same Republicans who tried to impeach a president over whether he misled a nation about an affair going to pretend it does not matter if the administration intentionally misled the country into war?' Good luck finding a Democrat in America who disagrees."


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/12/16/kerry_says_impeachment_talk_was_just_merrymaking/

[mtnsnake]

70. Saying the Diebold machines can be hacked is momentous or something?

Is that all he said, that the machines can be hacked? What's he supposed to say, that the machines CAN'T be hacked? BFD. I suppose when you're a loser, though, of a candidate, saying something like this is a big deal, relatively speaking. LOL

[helderheid]

74. It's a BFD when a senator says it - no matter who the senator is. Hope you

at least read the transcript.

[mtnsnake]

75. Yeah, I read it if it's the transcript that's posted on post #66

thanks

[robbedvoter]

97. Everything Kerry says is a BFD - unless he retracts it and then it's a

shrewd political maneuver meant to tell the truth while not making the press attacking him too much...

[karynnj]

114. It is a huge deal

For 2006 and 2008, the point is we need a system that can not be hacked and where the results can dbe audited. His choice rather than saying the machines can be hacked is to say nothing or say he doesn't know.

The exit polls give a suggestion that something was done (although NOT proof), this gives a means, the motive is obvious - the last part is to find some proof it happened in some state. Even then it won't correct the results but lead to charges against those involved.

[helderheid]

115. Thank you!!

[BamaBecky]

77. Well, What the hell does he really think? One day it's this, and

the next day it's that.....

Why did the deny "his remarks" that were said to Mark Crispin Miller?

Sheesh

I've lost respect for this man. Skull and Bones Skull and Bones Skull and Bones

Why can't we find a real Democratic leader, instead of patching up this balloon??????

Bama

[ProSense]

79. Well here's the thing

Kerry has no need to go around saying "Mark Crispin Miller said..." On the other hand, Miller needed Kerry to lend credibility to his book, that little piece of insider knowledge.

[BamaBecky]

99. No that's not the thing, that's just BS

Kerry can not be genuine and honest in public or private - he is plastic and bends to a shape that fits the moment. Hey I voted for the guy, but have been extremely disappointed since......not because he lost, but of how he has conducted his self...since

Bama

[ProSense]

101. I just listened to Kerry on AAR and, IMO, he has conducted himself

admirably in terms of the election. He continues to fight for the issues he spoke about during the campaign. I believe Kerry, in his own words.

[robbedvoter]

103. Which words? before or after the denials?

[Inuca]

104. Which denials?

Before or after the facts? All this is silly and incredibly counterproductive. My apologies to all, me included, for succumbing to temptation and participating in it.

[ProSense]

105. Did you listen?

If someone didn't say something, before or after the person denies saying it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't said.

Every word Kerry utters get enormous attention from supporters and detractors alike. Which to me, as one of his supporters, suggests he hit a nerve among those who prefer that he not take the lead on any issue.

Kerry reiterated his position on a number of issues during the interview. It was fantastic.

[emulatorloo]

122. Kerry is a former prosecuter and a Senator, not a screaming ninny on the

internet.

It is easy for Screaming Ninnys like me and other DU'ers to make wild claims without evidence to back it up. I can type any damn craziness I like on my 101 key USB keyboard.

Prosecutors have to have the goods before they say things.

[karynnj]

113. Your statement is so biased

You ASSUME the very thing in question - THAT HE SAID what MCM said he said. There are only 2 people here who know anything.

MCM has an agenda and he gets press using Kerry. He says that Kerry said something that MCM himself identifies as a bombshell in a very casual comment where he appeared to MCM to agree with a very volatile MCM statement. Note MCM DOESN"T FOLLOW UP AT ALL. You expect him to say something with surprise, shock, validation, and to ask why ha hadn't said anything. This lack of any further comment on this seems so unatural that I suspect he either doubted that Kerry meant what he interpreted or knew Kerry would add caveats if asked. In either case, MCM is a complete jerk. (He used what he had FOR HIS OWN benefit.)

Kerry has spoken of various issues concerning the election. He has made very strong statements about things he can prove were problems and advocate for fixes. With Diebold, he is using the FL results to say the machines need to be secure and they're not. In both cases, he wants to stand on solid evidence.

[BamaBecky]

135. And yours isn't? Ha! Ha! Ha!

And then there was the in incident at the party where he made a statement about Impeachment and then denied that one too!

C o m e*** o n

and don't forget we all gave $50,000,000 to fight the vote fraud - and what did he do about that?

Bama

[ProSense]

137. He did no such thing.

A spokeswoman for Kerry, April Boyd, quickly condemned what she called the RNC's ''humbug" response to Kerry's joke, explaining in an e-mail to the Globe, ''Impeachment jokes in Washington are as old as Donald Rumsfeld."

Then again, even Boyd suggested that the remark might not have been fully in jest.

Wrote Boyd: ''He did make the serious point, which he's made forcefully before: 'How are the same Republicans who tried to impeach a president over whether he misled a nation about an affair going to pretend it does not matter if the administration intentionally misled the country into war?' Good luck finding a Democrat in America who disagrees."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/12/16/kerry_says_impeachment_talk_was_just_merrymaking/


He has spent money investigating the election tampering. He reiterates what happened during the campaign and subsequent to the election in the AAR interview yesterday. Take a listen.

Too many people just say things without knowing the full story. If I'm going to rely on information about what Kerry is or isn't doing, his own words are better than someone else's.

[BamaBecky]

160. I agree with that statement!

>>If I'm going to rely on information about what Kerry is or isn't doing, his own words are better than someone else's.<<

Bama:toast:

[karynnj]

158. You DON'T feel it strange that MCM made NO follow up statement???

Think of it as diologue -

MCM -I think you were robbed
JK - Yeah looks frustrated

(MCM for whom this is topic one says - "crickets chirpping"???)

He's a film critic - is this believable diologue

More logical responces - You do, will you be making a statement, pressing charges, Do you have a smoking gun etc.

[BamaBecky]

161. Oh Contraire!

I heard him talk extensively about this on www.Meria.net THIS MONTH

Ha! Ha! :rofl:

You don't have a clue!

Bama

[karynnj]

175. I mean in his conversation with Kerry

I know he's been talking about it ad nauseum in public. I have never heard him relate a second sentence said by Kerry. I really think Kerry's answer is more believable, logical and far more likely to be a fairer comment on what took place.

[LittleClarkie]

178. About election fraud, yes

and about contempt for the Democrats, indeed. But even he can't make much more of a conversation that went "You wuz robbed" "I know" followed by some chat about what Kerry was trying to do about the hackable machines.

MCM morphed that conversation into "John Kerry says knows that the election was stolen." It's not being a flip flopper to point out that he never said the words that MCM attributed to him.

Rather points up the fact that MCM is not a journalist, but an author and a professor. A real journalist would have sat down for an interview and gotten a proper quote, making sure he knew what his subject meant.

But I'm not sure that someone who has professed contempt for the Democrats would be the one I would listen to regarding what they are doing and what they have to say. Such a person would tend to be biased I suspect.

[personman]

88. OH MY GOD! Out of Kerry's mouth: The Hydrogen blimp - UNSAFE!

[robbedvoter]

98. Stop the presses!

[emulatorloo]

123. STOP THE PRESSES! Patrick Fitzgerald says Libby leaked Plames Identity

Too Little too late, we at DU have know this all along. :sarcasm:

Look, Kerry is a former prosecutor and senator, not some DU Blogobob like you and me. I can make wild accusations all day long w/o proof. A US senator/former prosecutor won't.

Unless he or she is dishonest (think rethuglican)

[AgadorSparticus]

100. ROFL!!

funniest post!! :)

[helderheid]

106. I absolutely love your nickname! I loved the movie!

[AgadorSparticus]

107. Thanks!! It's my go to movie when I am feeling like I need a laugh or

two in this insane world. :)

[helderheid]

112. i think I need to see it again! Agador! SPARTICUS! He insists we call him

by his full name!

[AgadorSparticus]

167. yes, one must have a hint of color...

:)

[helderheid]

168. Let them go down with the ship!

[helderheid]

169. Let them go down with the ship!

[blm]

142. You prefer NO SENATOR BELIEVE IN MACHINE FRAUD?

Cuz that's what we have right now.

My...aren't we all so clever when we aren't being logical?

[personman]

188. Everyone knows they can be hacked...

Was that ever even disputed?

There is a big difference between "voting machines can be hacked" and "hey everybody, I think Bush stole the election from me by hacking voting machines". ANYTHING can be hacked...you can hack a friggin vending machine if you know how the codes work.

Now I havn't listened to this clip, but the subject of this thread atleast, seems to indicate the first of those, and you seem to be trying to turn it into the latter.

[goforit]

108. DUrs need to wake up. Kerry has been behind this conspiracy from

day one. He's known about the whole Diabold voter coup deta and
has played possum the whole time.

He plays to the uninformed and naive American.

[helderheid]

116. proof? What are you talking about?

[BuyingThyme]

117. You obviously know nothing about possums.

They play dead while democracy dies for real.

[LittleClarkie]

119. I disagree

Kerry is an honorable, if cautious, man, and the only way you could make the above statement is if you knew nothing of the man except for his tenuous connection to Bush re: Yale. That is not enough.

[apple_ridge]

125. Wake up.

There is no way that Kerry could not have known about these machines and the various other tactics that were planned for the election. If I was well schooled on the subject long before the election, then I would assume that he had at least a minimum amount of education on the matter.

He is exactly the kind of spineless wimp that does us no good at all.

[ProSense]

126. And despite your and all the others knowledge of this

the election went ahead anyway. After all the articles about the probability of a stolen election, which got no play in the MSM, all of you voted.

Where was the protest the election crowd? You know, standing in front of the polls with signs and the like; stopping them from suppressing the vote?

Imagine the impact that would have had.

Kerry at least deployed a lot of people to keep an eye on the happenings, and they pointed to a lot of the flaws on election day and got some coverage. He has followed through with due diligence, while all the detractors who have a lot of evidence at their disposal, keep spinning their wheels around what Kerry is doing.

So you all who claim to be so up on things, go to it, do it, prove it, and then convince the rest of the country.

Where are the rest of the elected official across the country who are speaking out about the stolen election?

Kerry is one man, and smarter and more principled in his conviction than most.

[petgoat]

129. You raise an important point.

The Dems did nothing on the voting machines issue.

Rush Holt had a bill that would have outlawed the unauditable machines; I
believe the Clinton-Boxer bill would have done the same. So they knew the
danger. Those bills were stalled in Committee. The Election Assistance
Commission that was supposed to develop standards for the HAVA voting machines
was sabotaged through inadequate funding (and even less adequate appropriations).
The EAC could only pay for a staff of ten.

The Democrats had to know all this. Randy Dugger's important article in The Nation
came out in August http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040816/dugger.

The Dems never said a word. I didn't vote. That's how I protested. Why did the
Democrats not defend democracy? I want an answer.

[ProSense]

130. You didn't vote? How does that help?

What did you do to ensure that by not voting you were not lumped into the apathetic voter category? A non vote by itself is not a protest, it could simply mean you didn't care.

IMO, the Democrats did defend democracy, they fought hard to win. The folks who "knew" the election was going to be stolen were the ones who didn't defend democracy.

[helderheid]

132. I voted on a paper absentee ballot and will continue to do so - if you

want to protest, THAT is the way to do it. If states expecting a free and easy time of it because the computer will be doing all the work get SLAMMED with absentee paper ballots, I think a strong message will be sent.

[petgoat]

133. they fought hard to win

They had to know the dangers of the voting machines. PhD computer scientists had been
screaming bloody murder for a long time. They had to know the Republicans were playing
politics to obstruct the bills that would have outlawed unconscionable machines. And
the Dems did nothing.

Kerry never even bothered to explain about the $87 billion when he could have easily
explained that he voted for a tax-funded bill and against a deficit-funded bill.
He never pointed out that Bush threatened to VETO the very same $87 billion.

He never brought up the fact that 9/11 would not have happened under Gore--that under
Bush warnings from 11 countries and 3 FBI offices were ignored.

I won't vote on an electronic machine just like I won't play slot machines or three-card
monte on the street. Only a sucker plays a rigged game. And guess what. The absentee
paper ballots are counted on an op-scam machine that is just as hackable as the touch-screens.

[BamaBecky]

136. You prove it - the conviction part

[blm]

155. National Security Archives prove it - IranContra, BCCI, CIA drugrunning

were only pursued because of the convictions of just ONE LAWMAKER - John Kerry.

You are welcome to name one other lawmaker whose record against corruption you can show to match Kerry's.

You are also welcome to prove that the National Security Archiives are full of shit and Kerry didn't work to expose more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history.

[BamaBecky]

170. What has he done since 2004?

[blm]

172. Where were you throughout 2005? Most people KNOW the

constancy of his efforts this entire year, including the DSM letter of inquiry and his Iraq withdrawal plan.

[helderheid]

173. well said.

[blm]

144. Then name ONE LAWMAKER who knew about the machines and worked

to expose them before 2004.

Or are you saying that Kerry is the ONLY lawmaker who was supposed to know about this?

Even Kucinich and Dean who SAW the demonstrations in 2004 didn't grasp the issue completely and didn't think it warranted further attention at the time. Neither warned Kerry and his campaign about it then.

[LittleClarkie]

174. Spineless wimp is not as heavy an accuastion as co-conspirator

Do you agree with the poster above you, that he was not a spineless wimp so much as he was in on the deal?

"Spineless wimp" is your opinion. You are entitled to it, though I wildly disagree. However, accusing the man of being part of the fraud is a different matter entirely. That is a flimsy accusation based on nothing more than a shared college affiliation and is not worthy of a people who are supposed to be more informed than their conservative counterparts. That sort of baseless guesswork is best left to the folks over at "Coast to Coast".

[wisteria]

124. You are totally wrong on this. Absolutely incorrect .

How can you state such things and not have anything to back up what you claim. I suppose this is just your opinion. A misguided on at that. Assumptions need to be backed by facts. You offer none.

[blm]

141. HAHAHAHAHAH...only uninformed people would believe THAT horsecrap.

Funny how the ONE lawmaker even mentioning machine fraud is the one you want to blwme. I suppose Kerry is guilty of IranContra and BCCI, too, because he was the only one working to expose those crimes.

And I guess Kerry killed Gary Webb because he was the only senator who believed him and demanded the documents that proved CIA drugrunning?

You would have to be totally ignorant of some of our most crucial history to believe that Kerry was one of them just because some hyperbolic attacks against him at some internet forums.

[goforit]

153. You sound like a rah rah rah DLC'r , are you?

[blm]

157. NO. And someone would have to be totally uncomprehensive of history to

think that the DLC types even approved of the investigations into IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning.

In fact, you would have to be totally ignorant of crucial history to not know that the entire DC powerstructure, including Democratic powerbrokers turned against Kerry and ostracized him for over a decade BECAUSE of his work exposing that corruption.

Anyone who trashes Kerry with ignorant attacks sounds like a faux lefty to me. Especially when one tries to turn it around and make a false claim that a post sounded DLC when it couldn't have been FURTHER from the DLC.

Try reading an Octafish post and catch up to real history.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5684998&mesg_id=5685172

[oregonindy]

163. has kerry come out yet and say he didnt say this?

[TayTay]

165. Actually he has repeated these irrgeularities

twice in one week. Once on the end of an Ed Schultz interview and once again on the ARA show.

I wish other Democratic officials would follow up on this. There is a decent bill stalled in Congress that would be a good start. But there are only a few co-sponsors and it would be nice to get more. No one person, elected or otherwise, is going to affect change without a lot of other people behind them.

Who else will step up to the plate now? Any guesses?

[globalvillage]

166. Actually, he said it again yesterday

here:
Politically Direct 12/25
http://www.airamericaplace.com/archive.php?mode=display&id=3112

While we're at it, might as well post links to the other Kerry interviews from the past week where he kicked ass.

Ed Schultz 12/21
http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/122105SenatorKerry.mp3


Bill Press 12/21 (around 1:36)
http://www.billpressshow.com/podcasts/billpressshow-2005-12-21.mp3

I believe they call that a hat trick. Nice work, Senator. :patriot:

[helderheid]

171. .

[BikeWriter]

180. I'd be saying it, too!

[Imagevision]

184. Does it not strike anyone odd that Kerry is stating this NOW???

[helderheid]

189. after there is proof? No?

[helderheid]

185. .