I am really disappointed that some people, many people,

[sepia_steel]

would rather say that 'it's too late,' and 'Kerry let us down,' instead of embracing this (possible) opportunity to set things straight. We didn't have irrefutable evidence that day a year ago, either. We had poll numbers that didn't match up and and harassment tactics and strange things happening with voting machines and statistical impossibilities.

I knew it was stolen from day one, but we had no hard evidence, we just had 'the way it looked'. We didn't have a damning GAO report.

Don't get me wrong, I was disappointed, hurt, ANGRY and I felt let down - and I DO understand that sentiment. But I'm not sure that I wouldn't have conceded had I been in John Kerry's shoes. Would you, could you, refuse to concede without proof? None of us can ever know - none of us were in that position.

We've had a catastrophic year, but it's passed and we can't change that. We cannot go back. If Kerry should have been our President then he has EVERY right to stand up and claim it, or at least to tell the world what happened. If we can go to war based on lies, then certainly * would have no moral qualms about stealing an election.

But things CAN change and we can see good things happen. And I will be standing right behind anyone who stands up for what's right, RIGHT NOW, because right now is all we have to work with.

Will you really not support him or others that try to make the truth known? Does it help us or hurt us to take that position? What's the best thing for America - for the world? It ain't Bush***.

Will you give him a chance to do something NOW?

Flame away. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to feel; it just breaks my heart that our past resentment might get in the way of something desperately needed...

[CornField]

1. What exactly can he do?

Write some op-ed pieces? The editor can simply place those next to the words from his own concession speech.

If I thought Kerry could help bring about electon reform, I'd be more than willing to make room for him on the bench. The truth of the matter is that the push for election reform needs credibility and Kerry is fresh out.

[sepia_steel]

8. Not everyone agrees with you.

That's subjective, so far, anyway. Would you really not stand behind someone who was acting in your best interests?

[CornField]

55. Good

Please read my posts again, if I felt Kerry was acting in my (or my nation's) best interest I would wholeheartedly support his efforts. I do not believe that to be the case.

[sepia_steel]

56. You don't think it's in our best interests for the public to know

that * stole the election? :wtf:

[CornField]

61. I don't think it is in our best interests

for that information to come from the Democratic candidate who gave a concession speech claiming the exact opposite.

[sepia_steel]

64. Before he had any evidence.

Okay. I think that's apalling and petty. But if that's how you feel that's how you feel. At least you're honest?

[unblock]

17. you are writing him off forever because he didn't jump within HOURS?

kerry built up his credibility over the course of a lifetime, and he irredeemably reduced is all to zero by failing to instantly jump on the fraud bandwagon within a matter of hours after it occurred?

you have rather demanding standards for credibility.

[CornField]

59. It wasn't just those hours

He voted to give Bush authority to go to war. (He voted for it before he voted against it... or vice versa, I can't keep it straight.)

He was given the opportunity during the debates to slam this administration's corruption more than once and he backed away.

He was the *only* person who could put an end to the 2004 election and he chose to do so -- even as those of us around him urged him not to.

Ultimately, he needs to be responsible for his own actions. I thank him for his service to this country during Vietnam. That service, however, cannot replace or subdue the large dis-service he accomplished last year.

[sepia_steel]

63. Again, this is 2005.

I'm asking whether you support his or others' efforts to tell this nation that * stole the 2004 election. Do you not care about that, or just not believe it, or just want anyone but Kerry to be involved in that?

[CornField]

66. LOL

Yeah, I'm here on DU almost every freaking day because I think Bush has a rightful place in the White House. :sarcasm:

I don't think Kerry has a prominent place in the push for election reform. How can someone who cared so little just a year ago be taken seriously now?

[sepia_steel]

68. Because he won

and we have much more to back it up with than we did then. We had ZILCH then.

edit typo

[CornField]

70. We are going to have to agree to disagree

And that's okay that we do disagree. I'm sure Kerry could care little about how I as an individual feel on this matter. He will do whatever is in his best interest.

BTW, there was evidence before the polls closed. That's why Conyers et al began the investigation.

[sepia_steel]

72. I love it when people pretend to know a complete stranger's mind.

He may care a lot more than you'll ever know. But whatever.

Now not never, and I'm fucking glad about it if it means something will finally be done and someon will finally speak up.

[CornField]

75. LOL - whatever

.

[sepia_steel]

77. Very mature.

You don't see me laughing at people because I don't agree with them.

[CornField]

80. I was laughing because I was trying to figure out the whole

"read people's mind" bit.

I'm not a mind-reader in as much as I am a history-reader. I only hope that when Kerry covers his cajones this time around, the process eventually works to the benefit of the people and leads to election reform.

[sepia_steel]

81. And MY hope is

that people will focus on what's really important instead of closed-mindedly bashing Kerry forever, even if he tries to do something right.

[CornField]

83. May I ask

How did you answer my call to action about Iowa election reform? Did you write any letters? Call any of the affiliated groups?

You're so focused on what's really important, I'm sure the knowledge that 47 Iowa counties are purchasing DREs with no paper trails, while legislation calling for such has been stalled in the Iowa House, forced you into immediate action. So, what did you do?

[sepia_steel]

87. If I saw the thread, I acted.

I do not pass up opportunities to act on vote security issues. If I didn't see it, does that mean that i should just give up now?

Have you paid close attention to California voting issues? What about the other 48 states, or is it just Iowa for you?

[CornField]

91. Mostly Iowa and its neighbors

Places where I think my voice can make a difference. I also work with a couple of national groups that are working toward election reform so I'm not even sure where some of the items I'm asked to look at/work on end up.

But, actually, that is my beef with Kerry. What has he done in the past year? Where has he spoken out about election reform? Where is that on his web site? I don't know about you but every email I've gotten from him since the election has been on a completely different subject, predominantly Iraq.

I appreciate those individuals who have worked tirelessly for election reform, especially those individuals who did so at a personal detriment. Kerry is not one of those individuals.

[sepia_steel]

94. I seem to rememeber VARIOUS threads regarding Kerry's work on this.

I hope that someone can prove me right, I can't begin to remember the titles of them.

I'm sorry but I think you're seeing Kerry the way you WANT to.

So you haven't been so vocal about California voting issues? I see. So what kind of crap is making an accusatory post about how I probably didn't care about your Iowa thread? That's sort of hypocritical, isn't it?

I do what I can adn I will hope that you will, too.

[CornField]

97. It was a response

You accused me of not focusing on what was important and only bashing Kerry. This, of course, was placed in direct opposition of your own activities and opinions. I wanted to point out that my distain for John Kerry is in no way a measure of my own activity and attention to "what's important." I was also hoping your own adoration had prevented you from seeing the same.

[sepia_steel]

101. Okay. So by asking that people focus on his ACTION

and not his past mistake, I have a problem with too much ADORATION. I must be blinded by ADORATION for wanting people to focus on what he IS doing, not what he DID do.

Maybe... you failed to read the original post in full. The very context of it is that this is not about KERRY or KERRY'S PAST but about what KERRY could do to help us with voting problems NOW.

[CornField]

102. And my original post addressed that

I don't see anything he can do now to help. Period. He has compromised himself to a point of being non-credible and will only serve as a hinderance to the work that is being done (and has been being done without his help).

[sepia_steel]

105. And I think you're in the minority on that viewpoint.

And he has been involved with legislation regarding these issues. Ater the election he made this one of his biggest priorities. You refuse to acknowledge that.

I think most of us would support any Dem who wanted to take this on, and we have, and we will continue to. Especially the ones who were directly stolen from. No credibility? Mere opinion and wishful thinking on your part, because I see a lot of people here who are very glad to support him.

You don't see anything that he could do because you simply don't want to. I can't prove that, and likewise you can't prove otherwise, so I'm gonna stop wasting time debating this with you over and over again. We've gone this far and I'm satisfied now that there is no opening your mind on this issue.

Done. You're welcome to the last word.

[FreedomAngel82]

174. How do you know?

How do you know he isn't working on anything? Because nobody has said anything? So do you bug Kerry's office and home and spy on him? Is that how you know? (this to CornField)

[FreedomAngel82]

168. Exactly

All sorts of people have done so much work to uncover everything. We know so much more now than we did in the beginning. Kerry couldn't go out and prove it than without enough evidence that people now have from Conyers to David Cobb and Cliff Arnebeck. People are probably now more inclined to listen to what Kerry has to say with the low poll raitings of the republicans and the Bush group instead of just writing him off with "sour grapes" nonsense like they do with Gore.

[unblock]

85. how can you seriously push reform and yet cast aside the key victim?

this is blaming the victim in the most direct sense.

personally, i think kerry's positioning can be made into a huge ADVANTAGE for the election reform side. had he immediately cried foul, he would have been pigeonholed as a sore loser and crybaby and years later we all would have been accused of simply harping on a theme and refusing to move on and get over it. sound familiar? it should, it happened to gore.

this way, he comes across as sincere and believing in the system and accepting loss with dignity and ONLY AFTER a lengthy period of time and review of the data, being RELUCTANTLY convinced that fraud occurred. this is FAR more credible and easier to sell than the gore scenario.

[CornField]

89. Even if I believed the "go down with dignity" idea

(Which I do not -- there is no dignity in not fighting corruption, especially when you are an elected official.)

I still need to qualify the past year. As Conyers and others worked an investigation, where was Kerry? Edwards?

As state after state has been ravaged by the HAVA and put in place machines with no paper trails, where was Kerry? Edwards?

I'm sorry, I don't buy that he was just waiting on the right time... unless you are saying that he was was waiting on the right time politically to make a move for 2008.

As I've said before, Kerry cares little about what I as an individual believes he should or should not do -- history has shown that to be the case. So, I'm sure he will do whatever is in his best interest and I hope that it also coincides with the best interests of the nation. (His last big decision didn't.)

[sepia_steel]

95. Still no excuse to shun efforts where they can be made NOW. nt

[CornField]

104. Do we want efforts or do we want results?

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of "efforts" on my behalf. I'm in this for the results and, as much as the Kerry Krowd seeks to change my mind, I still don't believe Kerry can garner any. In the realm of what has to happen now, a uniting force which calls Americans to speak out against non-verifiable voting machines, Kerry is more of a hinderance than a blessing.

[sepia_steel]

107. You have no way of knowing there won't be results

especially when you won't even give it a chance.

Many call him a blessing, some call him a hinderance. You have a right to your opinion, but as stated above I'm finished arguing with you.

[unblock]

175. if all he cared about was his own '08 fortunes, he would have jumped in

already.

i think he's quite wise to recognize that he cannot be the leader of this particular movement no matter how he feels about it. if others lead the charge, he can quietly agree and provide advice and support from the sidelines. but if he leads the charge the issue becomes his losing and sour grapes.

true leadership includes knowing when you need your allies to do certain things and to get out of their way.

[mandyky]

179. Not only those - he must have known about FL in 2000

And I am sure Andy Stephenson and others tried to alert the campaign to Black Box Voting issues.

Barbara Boxer was the only Senator with any credibility on this issue - at least she stood up with Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

[Xenotime]

100. * robbed the election

from both Gore and Kerry. Gore had more fight in him than Kerry did. To me Gore is president not *.

[Deja Q]

114. Or any reform. Particularly energy reform, which isthe heart of the matter

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. Okay, let's talk about this

what would the mechanism be now to put things right? What is the law? How would it be done?

[sepia_steel]

6. i have no idea. but that's not what i'm talking about.

i just think ANYONE who tries to make it right should be supported.

[mondo joe]

11. I'm not about to support "ANYONE" - I want to support those who deliver.

I'm not interested in a scattered response, but one that matters.

[sepia_steel]

13. I see.

So if Kerry were to take this issue on, it just plain wouldn't matter.

[mondo joe]

18. Kerry can take on anything he likes. If he makes progress, if he's

convincing, if he plays it smart he'll get support.

If he plays it the way he usually does, he'll get nothing.

[Xithras]

139. The best you could hope for is President Hastert

There is no legal mechanism that would allow Kerry to become President, and plenty of Acts that would prohibit it. The best you could really hope for would be an impeachment of Bush and Cheney, which would make Dennis Hastert the new President. He would get to nominate his own VP.

[electropop]

3. If Kerry works with Dems to get the GAO word out,

I'd be delighted to support any bid he makes to take his rightful office in the White House. If he really does that (and it's not easy: the "MSM" has apparently completely stonewalled the GAO report), I would even vote for his re-election in 2008.

I'm not holding my breath for dramatic moves though. I expect Bush will be impeached, but replaced by a succession of lesser Repigs (each knocked down by indictments or impeachments of their own). Kerry might conceivably have the ability to short-circuit that, but it's quite a long shot.

[William769]

4. past resentment, has nothing to do with today.

Nothing is ever going to change my mind about what Kerry did, but with that said If hew were to change today that doesn't mean I won't support him. That goes for any Democrat.

As an example, my parents have let me down in the past, that doesn't mean I hold it against them to this day.

[mondo joe]

5. I'm sorry you're hurt but see no reason to reinvest in someone who failed

me so badly the last time around.

I don't think he knows how to fight on our behalf.

[sepia_steel]

7. So you will honestly not support someone even if it could mean

big changes for the better? You'll be silent or or keep yelling that he's a quitter?

How many chances do we really get here?

[mondo joe]

9. I don't believe in his ability to "deliver on big changes for the better".

And however disappointed you are in me, I assure you it is no greater than my disappointment in him.

[sepia_steel]

12. That's not what I asked.

If he tried, you'd turn your back on that effort?

[mondo joe]

16. If he tries my support will be commensurate with his demonstrated ability

to deliver.

No unconditional support, no blank check.

[Bridget Burke]

14. Because they were hurt more than their complaining might hurt you!

Feel their pain. It is much worse than yours.

They would rather curse Kerry & retire to their tents to sulk than say "Hey it took you long enough! Let's get going!"

Edited to add: We'll also see the "just get over it" crowd drop by.

[mondo joe]

20. Nah - not retired and sulking. Just not betting again on a losing horse

in a race that matters. It's not as if Kerry is the only option.

[sepia_steel]

22. I haven't said anythign about Kerry running again,.

I am talking about Dems FINALLY addressing the fraud that occurred.

Do you support that, or not?

[mondo joe]

25. Then please clarify what "support" means.

[sepia_steel]

You know what 'support' means, don't you?

To stand with someone whose efforts you believe in. Such as telling the country that this election was stolen.

[mondo joe]

52. Again, please define what you mean by "support" in this context.

[sepia_steel]

58. It means what it means.

There's dictionaries, or you can go by my last post to you, or you
can call it 'not poo-pooing his efforts as if election fraud is no big deal'.

Take your pick.

[mondo joe]

62. So you want me to do something but you can't even say what it is?

Support can mean a wide range of things.

If you just mean saying on a message board "Okay, go ahead" then no problem.

If you mean something more than that you ought to spell it out.

[sepia_steel]

67. What is so hard to understand?

What does it usually mean to support an issue or an effort?

If he does try to do something, will you talk shit about him instead of focusing on his present efforts? That's not supportive.

If he has some sort of petition, will you sign it? That would be supportive.

If he got together with some Dem group to make some TV ads, would you donate? That'd be supportive.

If you heard other people say 'Bullshit, * won,' would you say, 'No, I think Kerry won adn he's FINALLY doing something about it?'

If Kerry wanted to work with some people to do research regarding the vote theft, would you send him a quick email that you believe this is something that the people of this county need to know about?

Or would you keep saying 'Kerry let me down a year ago,' and not help him tell people about the stolen election?

[mondo joe]

82. You may have missed it, but "support the troops" means very

different things to different people, for example.

Support can mean words, it can mean money, it can mean volunteering, it can mean a lot of things.

Are you asking me if I'll do all those things for John Kerry?

[sepia_steel]

84. I'm asking you if you will do it for the truth, which is that

2004 was stolen and we need to fix voting issues NOW.

I think I have been more than clear about this.

[mondo joe]

86. Oh sure I'll do it for the truth. But not for just anyone who claims to

work toward it.

Ultimately all resources are limited - time, money, energy and more.

Where we choose to invest those things will determine the results we get. I have no interest in investing my resources poorly.

And John Kerry, IMO, is a poor investment and a poor ambassador.

[sepia_steel]

88. Well then nothing I've said will matter to you.

He won the election, and * stole it. Stolen, fraudulent elections. If that's not a top-priority issue for our country, then I'm NOT sure what else could be.

Happy Kerry-hating, since that's where YOUR priorities seem to line up.

[mondo joe]

90. You say "Kerry hating" the same way neocons say "America hating"

when describing people who disagree with them.

I want the truth, I want justice. Those things are priorities.

To the contrary, it's because those things are so important to me that I don't want to invest in a poor choice like Kerry to get them. He's ineffective.

I just don't think Kerry is a good investment to get those things, the same way I don't believe Bush is good for America.

[sepia_steel]

93. If you want justice, if you want truth,

then that's what would matter to you, not who goes after it. Kerry, not to mention ALL of us, are the victims of that theft. I can't think of who would be more approproate to address that.

We disagree on that, and that's fine, but I think it's absolutely petty, wrong, and and more supportive of your personal venom for Kerry than the interests of America.

And don't compare well-meaning Democrats to Neocons, that's their game, not ours. I could say the same of you for the route you're going if I wanted to. But it's disgusting and stupid and I refuse.

[mondo joe]

116. I want justice, i want truth and I want to put my $ where they'll do the

most good. My time and energy as well.

I don't know what's so hard for you to understand about that.

Kerry might be appropriate to address it, but he has never demonstrated the ability to do so.

[sepia_steel]

117. The most good? I understand that loud and clear.

We can't do shit if we can't have an honest election.

[mondo joe]

122. And where my resources will do the most good is not w John Kerry,

in my opinion. You don't need to be so upset about that.

[sepia_steel]

124. I'm not upset about that.

I'm not talking about sending John Kerry money. I'm talking about lending support to getting the truth out, whoever it may be who does it, instead of focusing on Kerry's mistake.

[mondo joe]

126. Sure it is - I asked you what you meant by support and you listed

a whole variety of ways to show support which included sharing my resources.

There is no TRUTH campaign to do that with and this has so far been all about John Kerry.

[sepia_steel]

132. No, it isn't.

several of my posts say 'Kerry or others'. Go back and check.

And i didn't claim that there was a truth campaign. I'm saying that if there IS one soon, we should support it. What could be more important?

The reason I keep using the name Kerry is to address the fact that poeple are unwilling to support getting the truth out just because Kerry might be involved in it, because people are too busy being mad at Kerry to see the real issue here - that the truth about 2004 is one of the most important things we need to address in this country.

I am NOT saying that we should all get on board becasue of Kerry - rather I'm saying we should in spite of him (for those of us who are still angry with him). That's been my point all along and to insist otherwise is an insult. Re-read it all and you'll see that.

[mondo joe]

134. Funny, since I was accused of "Kerry Hating" and I never said

I wouldn't support the cause - I only said I was choosey about who would get my support.

I'll support getting the truth out - but I'm not lending my resources to that particular ambassador, if you will, unless he improves his performance dramatically.

[sepia_steel]

136. I think speaking out about 2004

would be such an improvement, don't you?

[mondo joe]

137. Not if he does his usual half assed job of it. If that is how he

does it he might do more harm than good.

[sepia_steel]

141. Well we won't know unles until he gets started.

Can we reserve judgement until then, or not?

[mondo joe]

143. Reserve judgment? Sure - but you were upset about not supporting

him, and lending support would necessarily be the outcome of a judgment - that he's worth supporting.

[sepia_steel]

145. No. This is getting frustrating.

THE ISSUE is worth supporting, no matter who is part of it. What I am upset about is that people would be willilgn to abandon the cause just based on Kerry's involvement, if that were the case.

[mondo joe]

147. I'm sorry but you have blurred the man and the issue several

times in this thread.

The issue is worth supporting, but NOT "no matter who is part of it". Some people do more harm than good. I'm not abandoning the cause - but I have no support of substance for Kerry's involvement.

[sepia_steel]

148. Whatever you say, man.

My point has been one and the same throughout. You disagree with Kerry's involvement, fine. But IF Kerry is the only one saying anything about it (I doubt he would be, but IF he were), you'd be thinking more about yourself than your country.

Last word is yours.

[mondo joe]

149. Bullshit. If I think Kerry will do more harm than good to the cause

then I am right in not supporting him. That's not thinking of myself.

I'm not going to be as indiscriminate as you'd like me to be.

[Bridget Burke]

This thread is based on Kerry's current actions....

He's looking back at 2004 to see how future elections can be cleaned up. Will you support him in this?

This is NOT about another run for the Presidency.

[sepia_steel]

39. Thank you.

Seems like few are READING what I'm saying.

[mondo joe]

53. Great. His current actions will impact my response, as will his track

record.

[Bridget Burke]

37. duplicate.....

I already said it!

[itzamirakul]

21. No, I cannot honestly support Kerry after his cowardly actions during the

vote count last year, so why should I waste more energy supporting him now that he has flip-flpooed once again. I understand from another post I read somewhere that he is NOW claiming that he DID NOT say that he would support invading Iraq knowing (in 2004) what he did not know in 2002.

I hear no truth from Kerry or Hillary about their feelings about the war or the elections.

What gags me the most is that our Dem leaders say whatever the hell they please, run toward the middle full steam ahead and then leave us here to just "take whatever they dish out" because we have no other party or candidates to turn to.

Right now in NYC's mayoral race, it is just terrible. Dem voters are being TAKEN FOR GRANTED by the party while Ferrer says things that insult us and then expect our support and our vote.

[sepia_steel]

26. Wow,.

Flip-flopping. Way to support that meme.

Changing your mind when you feel you finally have evidence to go on is not flip-flopping, no matter how much we hate that it wasn't done sooner.

And I repeat, I'm not talking about a presidential run here. I'm talking about Dems telling the truth about the vote fraud.

You don't support that?

[itzamirakul]

69. I tried to find the link to the post that spoke of Kerry "flip-flopping"..

not my term but borrowed from a previous poster.Evidently I waited too long because my posts do not include the link any longer.

Kerry was not my first choice as our candidate, but once the DLC made its choice, like any good Democrat, I jumped headfirst into the SUPPORT KERRY/EDWARDS activities. I worked this old computer to death, keeping friends, family, acquaintances, other boards, pure strangers up-to-date on every possible need and reason to vote for our team. I don't know that anyone else could have been a more loyal, Support-Kerry-Democrat than I was last year. So therefore, I I have a perfect right to express my opinion without being chastised.

Do you remember during last year's debates, when Kerry was given the once in a lifetime opportunity to draw in ALL democrats in an anti-war unity, that he frittered it the hell away? Kerry was asked, point-blank, "Knowing what you know NOW, WOULD YOU STILL SUPPORT going to war with Iraq?" And the numbskull said, 'YES!" I continued to support him, even after that dumb-as-hell remark.

NOW, in 2005, he is saying that HE DID NOT SAY THE ABOVE when we all saw and heard it!

I supported the man while the swiftboat liars kicked the shit out of his ass and he said absolutely nothing - evidently following the orders of the Democratic Party wrecking ball named the DLC. A lot of us here at DU bombarded other message boards, newspapers, radio stations and tv hosts in Kerry's support, defending him against the lies, while he very aristocratically remained above the fray that helped defeat his dumb ass.

The election was stolen in both 2000 and 2004 and it has taken this man a year to figure that out? If he is that dumb, well............

If you recall, other Dems have pointed out the stolen elections - like the Black Congressional Caucus members. Where was Kerry when they were speaking out? Did he think they were lying? Did he have so little respect for them that he had to wait a year before agreeing basically with what they have been saying for five years?

I mean, I don't understand the great glee behind the fact that Kerry is just now admitting to what so many of us have known for five years.
Perhaps you want to tell me why the fact that he is just now coming to grips with the stolen elections is so important. I must be missing something that only you can see. :)

[sepia_steel]

71. First off, I am obviously not the only one who sees it this way.

That much goes without saying.

Second, we've only known that Kerry won this election a year ago, and we're not tlaking abotu Gore, and these are entirely different circumstances.

Third, Kerry had little to back this up with, and we STILL don't have actual proof. It's vertainly not that he is dumb. How can you pretend to know how long he has believed this? What would you have done?

Fourth, the glee: BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IS BETTER THAN NEVER.

[itzamirakul]

128. Of course there are Kerry supporters who are willing to be as blind about

him as Bush supporters are willing to be blind about Bush.

You say the Gore election debacle has nothing to do with this...are you nutz? Kerry was a senator at the time and when Rep. Maxine Waters stood on the floor and begged for just ONE Democrat to support the request for a recount, Kerry was among the universal field of white Democrats who refused to budge. He had nothing to do with it? It was different? My God, connect the dots!

You say Kerry had nothing to back this up with...then why the hell didn't he wait and not concede with the break of dawn? Why did he let us all down so fast after lying and swearing he would stick it out until the last vote was counted? He doesn't have anything to back it up with because he didn't even try to gather the information. Even John Edwards is disgusted with his stupid ass.

You ask what I would have done? Well, I cetainly would not have condeded so fast. I would have inquired into a possible recount. I would have had voting districts like Cleveland, Ohio and others investigated where so many black voters were turned away for ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD REASON. They were sent from polling place to polling place because it was allowed that the black guy in charge of overseeing the voting was also a REPUBLICAN! I would have had every bit of that investigated before caving in.

I won't ask what you would have done because it is apparent that you believe that what Kerry did was appropriate.

So you are saying that just because ONE MAN has changed his mind about something he should have questioned a year ago and also decided that it might benefit him politically to lie about something that he said on national tv warrants GLEE from the Democrats? That sounds pathetic enough to come from the lips of a Repub.

Kerry has very little support, or respect from most Democrats these days. For those who still manage to find him respectable, perhaps a more decent candidate on whom they can place their loyalty will emerge soon. Certainly it will not be Hillary, because no one wants her to run except the Republicans. I still respect Edwards a great deal, but I am willing to see what else the field will offer.

Meanwhile, when it comes to finding glee in Kerry finally deciding that even WITHOUT PROOF he is NOW willing to say what he SHOULD have said a year ago, I really hope you get a life if that's all it takes to give you so much joy. :)

++edit for spelling

[sepia_steel]

140. oookay.

"You say the Gore election debacle has nothing to do with this..."

Really? Did I? Where?

Oh, that's right - I didn't. What I said was that I am not talking about Gore and that Gore's attempt was much much different. SCOTUS made sure of that. I believe Gore won and I hope he jumps on board on this issue, as well.

But what I'm addressing here is not that Kerry is the greatest person on earth. I'm saying that his perceived mistake is NOT a reason to NOT support getting the truth out about what happened in 2004.

"I won't ask what you would have done because it is apparent that you believe that what Kerry did was appropriate."

Hmmm... no. Didn't say that either. My opinion is that there wasn't much else he could do. Damed if he did, damned if he didn't. We disagree on this, but you should think about ways to deal with this without spewing insults.

"So you are saying that just because ONE MAN has changed his mind about something he should have questioned a year ago and also decided that it might benefit him politically to lie about something that he said on national tv warrants GLEE from the Democrats?"

No. :wtf: I don't care if this helps KERRY. I care if it would help US.

"That sounds pathetic enough to come from the lips of a Repub."

I DEEPLY resent that. And that's all I can say without getting banned. I care about voting problems being brought to the forefront; why is that cause to insult someone?

"Kerry has very little support, or respect from most Democrats these days."

Funny, I see about half-and-half on DU, if not MORE support of Kerry.

" I really hope you get a life if that's all it takes to give you so much joy. :)"

Two things: Show me how my post is gleeful anywhere? I'm actually pretty sad about the whole situation, wouldn't ya say? But I COULD get gleeful if ANYONE were to GET THE TRUTH OUT THERE. THAT is a definite possibility. If not the guy who got robbed, than WHO???

2nd: You know shit about me or what my life is like. But I would point out that I haven't insulted you in the ways that you have insulted me and I hope you'll rethink the way you talk to people you don't agree with, especially people who are ON YOUR SIDE, regardless of whether you agree with their methods.

UNNECESSARY.

[itzamirakul]

151. As I have already pointed out, you are clearly seeking to argue rather

than to seek support for your cause which seems to be that everyone jump on the bandwagon behind Kerry because he has belatedly decided that he actually WON THE 2004 ELECTION. According to your posts, we should all forget everything else and for the"sake of the country" get behind Kerry in demanding "the truth" in the voting debacle of 2004.

Again, I ask, where were you when we were all demanding answers throughout November and Decemeber of 2004, up until KERRY ASKED US TO STOP? WHERE WERE YOU? WHY DON'T YOU REMEMBER THIS, FOR GOD'S SAKE?

Sepia Steele, what do you think the black congressional caucus HAS BEEN DOING? Have you been on THEIR bandwagon? How have you shown them YOUR SUPPORT in trying to get the truth out about the stolen election? You go on and on about Kerry's change of mind but you totally ignore the efforts of the BCC. Why?

[sepia_steel]

154. Again you make statements abtu MY statements that are not true.

According to your posts, we should all forget everything else and for the"sake of the country" get behind Kerry in demanding "the truth" in the voting debacle of 2004.

I have NEVER said 'everyone forget about it.' The rest of it? Gultiy as charged. You disagree. Not the end of your world, or mine.

"WHY DON'T YOU REMEMBER THIS, FOR GOD'S SAKE?"

I do remember this, and stop yelling, for god's sake. The truth is, I care more abotu what people are willing to do about it NOW.

"Have you been on THEIR bandwagon? How have you shown them YOUR SUPPORT in trying to get the truth out about the stolen election? You go on and on about Kerry's change of mind but you totally ignore the efforts of the BCC. Why?"

Yes I have. I visit John Conyers' site daily as well and I sign his petitions and I donate money to this when I can. So you see, I HAVEN'T ignored the BCC.

AMAZING how you have translated 'don't drop the cause jsut becasue Kerry's involved' to 'sepia_steel has no clue what anyone ELSE is doing about this issue." This issue is what BROUGHT me to DU and it is still on the top of my list.

Stop using your ONE disagreement with me as fuel to demonize me with basless assumptions!

[itzamirakul]

172. Then it would seem that you would mention the fact that the Black

Congressional Caucus has been fighting to prove election fraud for five years and that John Kerry has finally jumped on THEIR bandwagon!
If Kerry joined the BCC bandwagon then he would not HAVE to worry about just who was or was not being supportive of him. Let Kerry stop trying to take credit for a fight that others have been waging for quite awhile before he had the guts to join in.

You say that you support the BCC, so please refer me to any one of your past posts where you discuss their efforts against election fraud. Otherwise, you make it appear that the fight against election fraud means nothing to you unless John Kerry is waging it. And anyone can CLAIM to send in donations. If you sent the BCC money or signed their petitions, Great! and THANK YOU! They, too, are great Americans and they have been fighting this fight for five years. If getting the truth out is so important to you then surely you have posted about it time and time again.

One of your last paragraphs made no sense at all...something about "...don't drop the cause just because Kerry is involved and Sepia Steel has no clue"... I believe that you are ascribing statements to me that I did not make, but whatever...Perhaps you should read more carefully just as you advise others...or perhaps you are confusing my posts with someone else's.

Perhaps you were not posting on this site during the campaign, the election and post election period, when so many of us were fighting to have the election fraud exposed. So perhaps you do not remember John Kerry asking his supporters to STOP insisting on recounts and election fraud investigation. Do you remember that period here at DU?
Or is this your first fight for election fraud expose'?

[sepia_steel]

177. i really don't know what to say to you to make you understand.

Kerry is NOT taking credit, in any way, shape, or form, for anyone else's actions. The fact that he's said that other people should be the ones championing it speaks to this. He knows it is more credible for others to do it than to try and spearhead it himself. I think it's past time that he got more involved.

"You say that you support the BCC, so please refer me to any one of your past posts where you discuss their efforts against election fraud. Otherwise, you make it appear that the fight against election fraud means nothing to you unless John Kerry is waging it."

This is ridiculous! I have made it appear in no such way!! I've simply asked that people not hurt the cause by denouncing it because Kerry might finally be joining it, or denounce Kerry for getting involved, since we need all the help we can get. Unbelievable!

"Perhaps you were not posting on this site during the campaign, the election and post election period, when so many of us were fighting to have the election fraud exposed. So perhaps you do not remember John Kerry asking his supporters to STOP insisting on recounts and election fraud investigation. Do you remember that period here at DU?
Or is this your first fight for election fraud expose'?"

You are NOT paying attention to what I've been saying. I came here post election, when I was convinced that the election was stolen. It was almost the ONLY topic I ever posted about, and I basically visited that forum exclusively. I was fighting and working too!! And yes 2004 was my first fight - does that make me unworthy to join your cause??

And I've already SAID that YES!!! I WAS HERE WHEN HE SAID THAT! I REMEMBER THAT!!!!!

You would realize this if you read my post, because I just typed it, and in English.

It does not change my opinion or the point of my OP - that the past has occured, and if he wants to stand up now and tell people what happened, that we should support him. If you want to make this a BCC-versus-white-guy issue, then I am stunned and I have no idea what to say to that. That is a VERY offensive accusation, and even though I've posted my feelings and past actions on that, you continue to insist that I don't care about the BCC's actions because they're African American!! It is patently false and hurtful!! WHAT IS UP WITH THAT - are you sure it's really ME that wants to fight? The search function is ready and waiting if you'd like to go look me up in that forum.

I just want us to stand together if someone more prominent, THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO WAS ROBBED, talks about what happened to him! This is NOT a racial issue by ANY stretch of the imagination! To say he is more prominent, and more attention-getting, more effective (whichever kind of effective you think he'd be, bad or good) is just fact. FACT!

I am on your side even though you've basically called me a racist - you need to think about the kinds of thing you imply about people!

[Orrex]

10. It's not all about resentment

Hey, Kerry took a shot and missed. Fair enough.

In retrospect it's clear that certain disastrous choices were made, and it's likewise clear that Dubya only "won" because of massive vote fraud.

Still, in the minds of the vast majority of the public, Kerry lost, and Dubya scored more votes than any other presidential candidate in history.

Yes, we here know that Kerry likewise scored more votes than any presidential candidate in history (which means that more people voted against Dubya than had ever voted for any other President), but that's irrelevant to a populace that can't discuss anything deeper than who dies on Lost next week.

If we field Kerry as a presidential candidate in 08, we basically guarantee a Repub victory. To succeed, Kerry would have to overcome the perception that he lost already, the perception that he's a fraudulent war hero, the perception that he's a flip-flopper, the perception that "the people" have already spoken, and all the rest. Sure, it's bullshit, but but that's how it is. The main Republican slogan would be Kerry: the wrong choice then, the wrong choice now.

So if Kerry can manage to do some damage to Dubya from the Senate floor, more power to him. But anyone entertaining the fantasy of President Kerry being inaugurated in January 09 would be well advised to return to reality.

[sepia_steel]

19. *sigh*

"Still, in the minds of the vast majority of the public, Kerry lost,"

THAT can be cahnged by everyone telling the public the TRUTH.

[Orrex]

24. Good luck with that

We have maybe two years to get that message out, and until now Kerry himself has done nothing to refute that perception.

I have nothing against Kerry, and I sure as hell voted for him, but I wouldn't vote for Mondale if they fielded him again, either.

Kerry's best chance to effect change is to remain a strong and vocal presence in the Senate.

[sepia_steel]

28. According to opne person's opinion.

Thank you for your reluctance to support the truth, our country needs more people like this.

[Orrex]

34. If you're that easily deflated, then your cause is over before it's begun

You and I can "support the truth" all day long, but do you really, honestly believe that Kerry could win in 08?

I listed a few entrenched perceptions that would plague Kerry's 08 election bid. To that list we must add the perception that "he didn't refute the 04 election until late in 05, so he can't care that much about it."

What you see as a failure to support the truth, I see as a recognition of political reality.

There is no shortage of windmills.

[sepia_steel]

36. I'm sorry, but I will have to repeat AGAIN

I am not talking about a PRESIDENTIAL RUN.

I am talking about the truth being told about the election fraud of '04.

Is anyone taking the time to read what I'm typing here?

[Orrex]

47. Sorry, but your original post read like a call for President Kerry

If you're just saying that we should get the word out about the stolen election, then I'd have to say "no shit." In fact, many of us have been doing exactly that for months.

I'm glad, for at matter, that Kerry has finally decided that Republicans en masse are weakened enough for him to take a stand against them. Bravo.

[sepia_steel]

51. Thank you.

That is all I was trying to say.

[itzamirakul]

142. Damn! Where have you been for a year?

You say:

"Still, in the minds of the vast majority of the public, Kerry lost,"

THAT can be cahnged by everyone telling the public the TRUTH.

Where have you been? You don't remember the democrat masses screaming to the high heavens for weeks and months that Kerry had won? Where you on a trip of some kind? You don't remember Kerry asking us to STOP?

After reading this entire post I can see that you just want to argue about something and this evidently seems like a good enough topic.

For sure, Kerry cannot want you to defend him because your attitude on this post is more damaging to him than supportive. It is more of a turn-off than an invitation to rejoin a supportive effort.

[sepia_steel]

152. It never became a real mainstream media issue.

It was ignored and laughed at. And without that it could not have been effectively shared with the public, and until it becomes one it will remain that way, and there have been countless statements from others over the past year stating the same thing.

The rest of your post is pure speculation. My intent is good and I don't have time to keep at this with people who can't help but be insulting. It's only the same few people over and over disagreeing with me, and I have the right to explain myself when people interpret my posts incorrectly. And by the way, there are several other 'Kerry-supportive' threads going on right now about this very topic, in case you missed them. I'm certainly not outnumbered here and I'm just as deserving to argue an opinion as anyone else.

Talk to Kerry personally about this thread, record the conversation, and then get back to me when you've got proof of how Kerry feels about my support.

[itzamirakul]

165. Oh, I see...the importance of this seems to come from

when one white man declares the election was stolen.

It was not a mainstream media issue when a very important group of African Americans fought for the truth both in Congress and on the internet for THE TRUTH TO BE TOLD.

Why do you keep dancing around and ignoring the part the Black Congressional Caucus has played in seeking the truth to the election fraud?

You claim to be tired of arguing only because you choose to ignore the fact that MANY OF US HAVE NEVER STOPPED FIGHTING TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH and now you want to make it sound as though Kerry needs our support to find out the truth.

WHY DON'T YOU SUPPORT THE BLACK CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS IN THEIR FIGHT TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH RE ELECTION FRAUD WITH THE SAME ENERGY YOU PLACE BEHIND KERRY?

Kerry could have joined with the BCC when Maxine Waters asked for support in 2000, but he didn't!

I see that you DO have a lot of support for you request for support for Kerry in his sudden desire to set the record straight as far as having the 2004 election stolen from him. Very good! But still, I say the man did not uphold others who have been seeking the truth in the same matter. He did not stick to his word not to concede and you know it.

Support him all you want to. If he gets the truth out there, all well and good. You never have to give credit to the Black Congressional Caucus for keeping the faith and continuing the fight. That is the way it has always been in America. Just totally overlook the work of African Americans and give them credit for nothing.

Well, I have the right to give Kerry credit for being a Johnny-come-lately in this fight. If he has the truth, let him come out with it.

[sepia_steel]

170. Are you reading my posts or not?

"the importance of this seems to come from when one white man declares the election was stolen."

No, it was imprtant before and when it happend. And who cares if he's white?

" Why do you keep dancing around and ignoring the part the Black Congressional Caucus has played in seeking the truth to the election fraud?"

Did you miss the part where I said I followed Conyers daily? Were you in my home when I celebrated what the BCC was doing with my husband and on other boards? Were you here to see that their work gave me hope and that Conyers is one of my heroes? Did you see my celebratory posts in the election forum every time Conyers stood up for us? Probably not. I think I see now why you're so upset about this issue. You're jsut as hurt as I am over this. You've decided that since a white guy said it, NOW i'm paying attention. Which means you have obviously not noticed me around here before. The country still does not know about it, and yes, I think the guy who was ROBBED, our presidential candidate, would also be a great person to start talking about it.

"You claim to be tired of arguing only because you choose to ignore the fact that MANY OF US HAVE NEVER STOPPED FIGHTING TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH and now you want to make it sound as though Kerry needs our support to find out the truth."

You could not be more wrong. I have been right there fighting along with everyone else. I can't tell you how many petitions I signed, how many donations I made, how many emails I sent to show people TruthIsAll's analysis or Conyers' latest announcement or his latest petition delivery to the WH.

"Kerry could have joined with the BCC when Maxine Waters asked for support in 2000, but he didn't!'

Never claimed he did! And if he didn't work with them, he should have! That's not my point!

" see that you DO have a lot of support for you request for support for Kerry in his sudden desire to set the record straight as far as having the 2004 election stolen from him. Very good! But still, I say the man did not uphold others who have been seeking the truth in the same matter. He did not stick to his word not to concede and you know it."

Yes! I do know it! I never said otherwise! But with regard to Kerry I'm focusing on NOW!

"You never have to give credit to the Black Congressional Caucus for keeping the faith and continuing the fight. That is the way it has always been in America. Just totally overlook the work of African Americans and give them credit for nothing."

i am literally in tears to read this, and I've already explained why.

"Well, I have the right to give Kerry credit for being a Johnny-come-lately in this fight. If he has the truth, let him come out with it."

That's all I'm asking for - give him a chance!

We're in this country together. We're both hurting over this from different perpectives. I don't think you understand how hurtful it is to be accused of not caring about what others have done, ESPECIALLY the BCC. That's an assumption. So is the assumption that I must be white (I am, but not all white, but no matter). So is the assumption, based on the last one, that this has never been an important issue to me until now - when a white man said it. You obviosuly have never seen me before.

We need to be in this together, not seperate. :hug:

And now I need to go cry.

[itzamirakul]

176. So you obviously have not been READING my posts either or else it

would be a simple matter to say:

"For the past five years the Black Congressional Caucus has worked and CONTINUES to work hard and with very little Democratic Party support to uncover the election fraud of 2000 that cost Al Gore the Presidency and the election fraud of 2004 that cost John Kerry the Presidency. Following the 2004 election, John Kerry stated that the election was won by the Republican candidate, George S. Bush and that he, Kerry, saw no need for a recount of votes. But now, in November of 2005, finally, John Kerry has changed his mind about the election results and has come out in agreement with the BCC that the election of 2004 was stolen. Let's all join the BCC's efforts as John Kerry has recently done in order to prove once and for all that the Democrats won the White House fair and square in both 2000 and 2004."

I think this sounds much better than "Will you support John Kerry in getting the truth out?"

[sepia_steel]

178. You know what?

I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with that statement. I don't know why you think I would. But just because I phrase it 'Help John Kerry get the word out' does not mean I'm saying he's done any of the work himself, or that I don't mean 'Help the BCC get the word out' - and I've spread their work adn their message to everyone I know.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Saying one does NOT mean, 'But Hey, don't help the OTHER people working on this."

And, more to my original point, what I am concerned about it people not participating BECASUE of John Kerry possibly joining in. have you not seen teh replies like that in this thread? "Kerry joining in will do more harmthan good"?

THAT is what i am addressing here. NOT who has done the work. NOT 'Kerry did all of this himself.' NOT 'It only matters now that Kerry is on board'.

If you ask me, most of us have been TRYING to get him on board for a year, and now that people are screaming about how BAD that is, I don't wanna see everyone's hard work go to waste because people have a grudge against Kerry!

You've had me wrong the entire time. Don't you understand that??

My point isn't how he joins or what he says - my point is asking people not to leave the cauase if he joins.

[sojourner]

108. Boy...people are taking this in the most extreme direction -- check out

poster's comments above: claims NOT to be talking about Kerry in '08.

So what is the discussion about? Talking about KERRY's growing awareness of being CHEATED of Presidency in '04...Mark Crispin Miller asking KERRY to work at bringing out the fraud, getting reform for sake of future elections. Poster is asking us how WE might assist in this effort. Not for KERRY. FOR US, ALL OF US.

If the "victim" of fraudulent actions cannot take the lead in speaking out, then who the hell can? True, he's been slow and circumspect in his response - because of the "sour grapes" aspect I do find this understandable. Even with Conyers, et al working on it, I don't think that without good supporting evidence (PROOF) Kerry could have done differently. Bush and his criminals were ready to ambush him back then, I am certain of it. But this may be the exact time to act...they are distracted, they are in a tailspin. This might be the right time for Kerry to speak up. But if he does, he WILL need the support of those who voted for him.

I don't think getting behind the efforts of ALL those working on exposing electoral fraud is a bad idea at all. I think that infighting about WHO we'll work with is counterproductive and just a little adolescent: "Not him, I don't like HIM (he let me down and I don't believe in him) so I won't work with him. In fact, I don't even want him on my team. In fact, I don't even want him to be allowed in the building."

Editted for clarity, (I hope)

[European Socialist]

15. a year ago we had long voting lines for black people....

in Ohio, when it was known months in advance there would be a record turnout. IMHO this was all Kerry needed to protest the election. But, if he wants to get on board now, it is still a wonderful development.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Even if he was to come up with ironclad proof that the election was

stolen, it would not change the results of the last election. By the time the court fight was over we'd be two more elections down the road.

However, if there is such proof (and I believe it is out there) it can have a decided effect on the upcoming elections, and that's what we need, so more power to him.

[rodeodance]

27. Kerry's admission will add more doubts for many people. Good timing

if nothing else.

[5X]

29. Is Mark Miller swift-boating DU?

Looking at this quickly without reading his book,
one would think he as opened a can of worms we will
only bury ourselves in.

[sepia_steel]

31. I don't know one way or another yet if what's being said about Kerry

is true. I only know that IF it is, I support his efforts to tell the truth about what happened.

[givemebackmycountry]

30. There would have to be a smoking gun...

No, let me re-phrase that.

There would have to be freaking smoking howitzer.
There would have to be video-tape of Bush, Cheney, and Rove sitting in a room together.
They would have to be laughing and talking about how they "stole" the election again and congratulating themselves on how smart they were.

Oh, and how much money they were going to steal.

That would at least make it clear to the American sheep public, that something happened that was not on the up and up.

Look, I didn't think that Kerry was the correct choice.
He didn't connect with the average high school educated, Joe Six-Pack type.

His campaign was poorly run, and he showed no sac when they swift-boated his ass.

And someone has to explain this whole "skull and bones" thing to me.

But, right now I would rather see Teresa Kerry in there than the Monkey.

Whatever it takes, I'm with you.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

32. Kerry was a ringer.

He was nothing more than a distraction.

I've posted that statement numerous times and have yet to have ANY poster reply with an even remotely convincing rebuttal.

He will never get my vote again.

[sepia_steel]

35. Um.

A distraction from what, exactly?

He was a presidential candidate who WON.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

38. He "won"- then conceded. Without a fight.

You can "Um" all you want. It doesn't change the fact of what he did- excuse me- DIDN'T do. He didn't keep his promise to fight for what was in his hands.

[sepia_steel]

40. And he had no real ground do that on.

AND this is about now, not the past. So if he and others try to get eth word out about the fraud, you hate him too much to support that effort?

Thanks for your permission to say 'um'.


And I ask again, what was he a distraction from?

edit typo

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

43. He was a vote catcher.

Better someone who didn't intend to take the job than a real candidate who would fight to win. He distracted the democrats from finding a REAL candidate.

[sepia_steel]

44. Yet he got more votes than his opponent.

That is the strangest accusation I've ever heard.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

49. Truth is stranger than fiction.

There are many on this board who agree with me. And I STILL haven't heard anything approaching a genuine argument against my view. Somehow, I doubt I will today, either.

[sepia_steel]

54. What more argument would you like me to give you?

I believe he won the election, so I CAN'T believe that he was a mere distraction, can I? If he was just a weak opponent, then he wouldn't have gotten the most votes. I think it's ridiculous. What else can I say?

[Bridget Burke]

57. No, & we haven't had many refutations of David Icke

Perhaps the elite really are a race of lizard people?

Since there hasn't been much argument, he's probably as right as you are.

[Mass]

45. Sure, he spent two years campaigning just after having been diagnosed

with cancer because he did not want to win. He really must be a masochist.

[second edition]

33. I feel like you do! n/t

[bpilgrim]

41. better LATE, then NEVER

the more leaders speaking up the better :bounce:

peace

[sepia_steel]

42. Thank you!

I can't believe what I'm seeing here.

[Mass]

46. This is a great post

[derby378]

48. Your sentiments are duly noted

I know I've been a bit hard on Kerry myself, but I'll try not to be in the future.

[MadisonProgressive]

50. I support the efforts of anyone that will work against election fraud

I will not suppport him for president unless he is the democratic nominee, which I seriously doubt will happen.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

60. I agree, why poo poo a guy who is on your side?

by saying "it's too late now" I feel people are being a bit defeatist.

At least he is talking about it now. Would people rather he just go on his merry way and forget about it?

The more who talk like this the better. There are very real problems with our voting system and disregarding someone's effort to expose these problems simply because they didn't do it earlier is contradictory imo.

I don't want him to run for president again, but I am very pleased he is speaking out about the problems with voting.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

65. I'd Rather He Talk, Than Not Talk....

I want this issue discussed. But for those of us who KNEW a year ago, without proof or no, it is a little late. I would rather he had been on My Side, and had My Back, 12 Months ago.

But it is Extremely Important that this be brought into the open, so more people can realize what took place, and the evidence which exists. And Keith Olbermann can be vindicated as the only MSM to actually cover the Voter Fraud in Ohio.

[seabeyond]

73. excellent post. appreciate the effort. how many on this board

rejected election theft nov 3rd. it was by far the strong majority. not only would kerry be going against media and the repugs crying foul, but he would have been going against the majority of the very people who "supported" him

on edit: without proof

[sepia_steel]

76. No kidding.

Most people here still may not believe it was fraud; I don't know if many people ever changed their minds about that.

Thanks for the kind words. All I'm asking for is for people to give people a chance to tell the truth. I don't think most of them understand that. Either that or hating Kerry is a bigger priority for them.

[marions ghost]

118. Right u are seabeyond!

Remember just a short year ago--how HARD it was to get anyone on the liberal side --to even talk about the idea that the election was stolen. It has been a long hard fight for any credibility at all. If Kerry can do something to help at this point, then I will support him in that, without reservation. The election problems are monumental...that is only now beginning to seep into the public consciousness. As much as we activists all congratulate ourselves with having seen The Truth on Nov 3, 2004--the vast majority did not see it. Even our best friends and neighbors refused to believe it. (My 'progressive' relatives who gave me the funny looks for awhile come easily to mind). And remember--the media blackout was inexcusable--one of the most shameful censorhip efforts in US history. The internet and KO deserve ALL the credit as far as media is concerned, for keeping the issues alive. The hot potato is still being lobbed around. Nobody in the political arena wants to touch it. If Kerry does, it will be a way for him to redeem himself and make a huge contribution to the future of Democracy in America. I hope that he will.

These things take TIME...the Queen Mary does not turn around in a hurry.

:thumbsup: for your words of sanity, Sepia Steel.

[DeepModem Mom]

74. You're right. Kerry would have been ridiculed to death earlier....

just as the rest of us were. (Or he would have pressed, and lost -- and MSM would have congratulated us for "no tanks in the streets".) We might have a chance with MSM now, and we should take it. If even the possibility that Bush stole two elections enters the minds of most people, it would be good for our endangered democracy.

[sepia_steel]

79. I remember how much shit he got for not conceding THAT NIGHT.

Yet people would turn their backs on him even when the record would be set straight.

[maximovich]

78. I Agree with You

Now is not a time for infighting. Besides, Kerry's actions or inactions are still very debatable. Let's support Dems coming forward. They are now listening to us.

[cynatnite]

92. Very well said! n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

96. we all make decisions that we regret- and

if we refuse to admit that- or limit our future by saying "oh well, it's too late to do anything" then we are crippled like * (who cannot face his fallability) or GENUINE quitters-

As I tell my LD son- the only time you really are a loser, is when you give up on yourself forever-

I was frustrated by Kerry's lack of 'fight'- but I cannot condemn him for it- And I am not so 'perfect' that I'll let that keep me from supporting what I agree with him on- That indeed we WERE robbed.

It's awfully easy to toss people aside for their mistakes- those who admit they arent perfect, are the ones who may come closest to that, in this world-

I'm glad he's speaking out-
And I agree with you Sepia_Steel.

[sepia_steel]

98. Thank you.

I can't understand why people don't want to focus on FIXING things rather than bashing him for a mistake in the past, albeit a big one.

I think you made my point more eloquently than I could.

It... is a real killer. It kills me.

[ClayZ]

112. "Election Cheat Investigation"

"Fraud" may be too big a word for those Dumbed Down by Kool-aid! "Cheat" is not!

Kerry and Edwards are each a perfect Poster Child for Election Fraud.

The Abusers are CHEATERS!

He is the VICTIM! He is a VICTIM of KKKarl Rove's ABUSIVE smear campaign. He is in RECOVERY from ABUSE! I also believe he may have had "undercover rethug liars and cheaters" among his advisers.

Sure he "should" have been on top of the fraud instantly. He must have been in Shock! I was for months!

The bu$hitco campaign battered him. The swift boaters nearly drowned him, Fox News poisoned the country. Many are just now waking up from the poison. I still feel battered!

If Kerry were to take on Election Fraud with many honorable others, he would be a great spokesman. So would John Edwards.

It simply can not go on! Just as the Plame Outing is being prosecuted so should "Election Fraud" be HEADLINE NEWS! Just as we are having a Leak Investigation we should be having an Official "Cheat Investigation". Complete with a powerful figure like Fitzgerald spearheading it.

Numbers do not lie, PEOPLE do! I think the scum is finally bubbling to the surface. Ohio's Lies will soon be as well known as Valerie Plame! How soon, is the question. Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards all the DEMS, need to challenge the lies and the liars to prove their HONOR! Not to me, but to the drinkers of Kool-aid! Otherwise we remain Poisoned as a Nation!

Let them call sour grapes, we will make fine "WHINE" out of them.

IMHO

[sepia_steel]

115. Yes, f**k their sour grapes talking points.

We can't let that get itn the way of gettig the word out. It has to be done!

Thanks :toast:

[mopinko]

99. he can investigate sproul and assoc

and why they have not been prosecuted yet, although they have been charged, for felony tampering with voter registrations in several states. he could go after choicepoint, as well.

[Stand and Fight]

103. Bless your heart.

You are dead-on target. I agree with everything you said, and it causes my heart to ache to think that progressives would allow a grudge to get in the way. This is the time to set aside petty indifferences and come together because our democracy depends upon this. Bless your heart for being courageous enough to say this, sepia-steel.

[ROH]

106. Recommended (n/t)

[Verve]

109. AMEN Sepia!

:yourock:

(on edit: WOW! Thanks for debating all these naysayers (almost)all by yourself. This is not about John Kerry becoming prez or letting people down, this is about election reform!

People need to calm down. ALL OF US should be excited that election reform might make it into the public arena where we can start to work on it.

Regardless of how anyone feels about John Kerry, they should support anyone that wants election reform. Including him.

You go girl!:toast:

[texpatriot2004]

110. You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT here. Thanks for your post. I will

support him and anyone else who dares to face the truth. A year ago we didn't have the evidence that we have now. I was devastated when Kerry conceded but I WILL SUPPORT HIM. I will find the forgiveness and the wisdom I need to get over my own feelings for the good of this country and its people.

[lonestarnot]

111. Me tooooooooooooooooooooo!

[sepia_steel]

113. God Bless Texas :)

Words from my constituents can make me just as happy as they can make me sad.

Thanks, you two. And everyone else.

[Walt Starr]

119. Kerry is the WRONG person at the WRONG time

and will only harm the Democrats and any attempt to insure proper vote counting.

It's a compelte and total strategic blunder.

[lonestarnot]

120. Again Walt Starr, you offer no supporting evidence that it is a blunder.

How can truth outting be a stategic blunder?

[sepia_steel]

121. The majority of us seem to disagree with you

if this thread is any indication.

[sepia_steel]

123. Who's the right person then? When's the right time? nt

[Walt Starr]

133. Dean would be a brilliant pick to push this issue in the public sphere

Then get any Democratic Senator, Barbara Boxer would be good, to pick it up in teh Senate.

If you get hard evidence, then Reid and Durbin pick it up in the Senate.

John Kerry stays in the background, at least until talking heads start clamouring for something from John Kerry on the issue. When that happens, it's ripe for the picking. Kerry then comes out with a statement like this:

"Yes, it is clear now that the 2004 election was stolen from me. In the interest of the nation, I have chosen not to push this issue because we, as a nation, will have a hard time facing the reality of the criminality involved at the highest levels of government. If a constitutional crisis of this degree was to begin, it had to come from law enforcement, not from me.

But now, we have incontrovertible evidence that demonstrates this administration engaged in the criminal theft of a presidential election, spitting in the face of every true freedom loving American in the nation.

I call now on my colleagues in the House to ebgin the proceedings to bring articles of impeachment against both the Vice President and the President for these criminal activities, and that my colleagues in teh Senate would move quickly to remove these people from office.

Though I will not be given my rightful place as your president, I urge us all to do what needs to be done at this time and for us to unite under the new president once these men have been removed. From there, we must hold legitimate elections in 2008 and move on from these past eight years of criminality and injustice."

It would be the political play of the millenium.

[sepia_steel]

144. Hey, I can agree with that.

All I am saying is that I disagree with bulldozing the whole thing just because Kerry might be involved. If it doesn't happen that way, and Kerry is involved from the beginning, I will still support it. I think killing it just because we're mad at Kerry would be a grave mistake. If Kerry's all we get, even if we get no one else, I would have no choice but to support him. The bottom line is that we were cheated. I CAN'T condemn any efforts on this front. Just can't.

[CornField]

125. Hello, Walt

I wrote a little ditty earlier today just for this momentous occasion:

The election was stolen, this I know,
because John Kerry finally told me so.
Little democrats, now gather below.
It's a year late, but good as gold.

(Yes, Kerry loves me.... yes, Kerry loves you...)

;)

[Walt Starr]

129. He';s rebuffong the Mark Crispin Miller report. n/t

[CornField]

146. Was there any doubt he would?

Edited to add: This rebuttal, no doubt, will be the fault of myself and others like me who did not support Kerry vehemently enough.

[mondo joe]

160. I agree. Kerry would do more harm than good, IMO.

He's already demonstrated that he's not a fighter.

[glitch]

127. I completely agree with sepia_steel. nt

[garybeck]

130. I call BULLSHIT

you are defending Kerry's inaction by saying there was no smoking gun.

Kerry never looked for smoking gun. That's what RECOUNTS are for. That's what LAWSUITS are for. Kerry did not support any of the recounts or lawsuits, which could have very easily found the smoking gun

he participated in the coverup. plain and simple.

[sepia_steel]

135. What?

Was he not involved in a lawsuit regarding Ohio? Someone back me up on the specifics, I can't remember what the specific case was.

[garybeck]

153. out of the several lawsuits in Ohio, he was only involved in one, and

he was dragged into it.

The lawyers in the cases have all said that the Kerry legal team was TRYING TO STOP THEM from their legal efforts.

And do we forget, Kerry was AWOL when the electors were being contested.

[sepia_steel]

155. Got a link?

And many thought he was absent because the 'sour grapes' angle would be damaging to the credibility of the process. I think that probably would have been the case.

[garybeck]

159. Bob Fitrakis, Freepress.org

has written about this many times, and also mentioned it in his lectures.

the sour grapes argument is lame. I don't buy it. People should stand up for what is right. In my mind he would have gained respect, not lost it. Certainly didn't hurt Gore.

[sepia_steel]

162. I think it did hurt Gore.

But we will never know what would happen to Kerry if he did try that approach. I can tell you what I THINK would have happened, and that's that he would have been laughed off the screen or off the stage and attacked by every channel on television, and the public would have bought right into it.

But I still think that between standing up with him on this issue, if he does standup, versus NOT STANDING up, it would hurt us to NOT stand up.

And I appreciate your civility. Sad that it seesm to be rare in this thread.

[garybeck]

167. when we stand up and he's not coverigng our back, we get screwed.

many of us have lost hundreds of hours of sleep since 11/2/04, working on election issues. we have been called tin foil hat conspiracy theorists, and our work is greatly impeded because we don't have the support of our leaders. this has been tremendously disappointing.

[sepia_steel]

171. And will you refuse it now that it it might finally be arriving?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5263412&mesg_id=5266635

[sepia_steel]

163. dupe

[seabeyond]

138. bullshit back at ya. at least two lawsuits in ohio had kerry and

edwards name on them. i think they dropped the third one becuase they felt it wasnt going anywhere. but they have the other two still going. get the facts instead of spreading "nontruths"? or just lies

[garybeck]

156. they did not initiate the lawsuits, they fought against them.

they only *joined* the two lawsuits you menioned, after Fitrakis, Arnebeck, and Bonifaz et. al. filed the suits, with the Green and Libertarian parties in some cases.

These lawyers in most cases donated their own time and incurred great legal expenses in the name of democracy, while Kerry and his huge legal team sat on a pile of money and did nothing to help.

the democratic party, and the kerry team, did not file the cases. and the lawyers involved have stated publicly on mulitiple occassions that the Kerry team actually was fighting against them and tried to stop them from filing their cases.

[sepia_steel]

158. I don't remember claiming he initiated any of them.

and i can see why he wouldn't. Still waiting for backup on the other statement.

[seabeyond]

161. i didnt say he initated them. they had their names on them

is what i said. a clear difference. and it wasnt these lawsuits they were fighting against. i dont believe. i believe what you are referring to is a third lawsuit that the others were talking about. there was a big to do on this board about kerry and edward pulling out, implying it was all three suits, it wasnt. it was one specific lawsuit

[garybeck]

164. just listen to what the lawyers involved have said.

if you talk to the lawyers involved, they ALL say invariably that the Kerry team was discouraging them from filing the suits.

I'm not talking about pulling out of lawsuits, i'm talking about discouraging people from filing them in the first place, and not providing any legal assistance. This is well documented.

and let's not forget the Ohio recount itself. Kerry wasn't involved at all. the green and libertarian party had to pay for it and do it all by themselves. what does that tell you?

[seabeyond]

169. and up front he said he was not the one to spearhead this

event because he would come out looking like a sore loser. yes, they went thru all this at the time. i remember it well.

[pacalo]

131. There was another thread recently that basically said the same thing...

although it was about a different subject: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5246619

My sentiment remains the same: All I care about is righting the wrongs. Period.

[Danger Duck]

150. Kerry needs to lead this charge, not us.

Don't waste a second of time on this issue. While I would have called you a kook a year ago, I now believe and understand that diebold may have had a hand in the election, although there is no evidence that would prove this. Plenty that makes it plausible, and some that would make a Strong case, but no smoking gun that would force the Senate to take action, or the press.

Now, that smoking gun needs to be in Kerry's hands. If he doesn't lead the charge, it ain't going to happen. Period. Besides, there is so much going on right now, we, as Duer's and loyal, patriotic Americans who understand that love of country means opposing tyranny, even and especially if it comes from our country, must focus like a laser beam on viable issues.

By viable, I mean the possible misuse( I say possible misuse because I don't believe the intelligence was misuse as much as it was made up) of intelligence, the outing of a CIA agent to cover the misuse, and the fact that we're dieing overseas in a war that is being waged by an incompetent administration. I have loved ones in Iraq(two cousins), and I don't believe that the was in un winnable or without a greater good, but I do KNOW that Bush is incompetent, and that the war didn't need to be fought.

However, back to my original point, we tend to act too scattered. There are so many groups that make up what I like to call the "human decency" party, or democrats, that we have trouble focusing on a singular issue. This is the Republicans strong suit.

I would love to see Bush get thrown out of office for stealing the election, but I know that it won't happen. There is no re-do law, even if you can prove he stole it, you still have to impeach him, and eventually Cheney, and you still get a toadie in there, and the whole process would take us up to the 2008 election, and it wouldn't matter anyway.

But I'm with you in spirit, I just think we should focus our tremendous resources like a laser beam, not a shotgun.

[sepia_steel]

157. "If he doesn't lead the charge, it ain't going to happen."

I'm inclined to agree. But if a few IRATE people here get theri way, we'll never know, sadly.

[Danger Duck]

173. True......

You know what, a good effort would be to petition him directly. Unfortunately a lot of people, myself included, thought that this was a "kook" theory, when there is a lot of validity to it. We should not have computers authoured by a private company count the votes. It's like leaving an unlocked gun cabinet in a childs room.

But I do support pushing kerry. I post against him often, only because I feel he doesn't behave in a way that's inspiring, to say the least. IF he could take charge, great. But he still seems to be playing it safe. Not a fan of that sort of safety.

[FreedomAngel82]

166. I agree

I understand where the anger comes from. I feel it too and I'm a huge Kerry supporter, but for all we know he could've been doing things from behind the scenes. I read in another post that Teresa had been working on her own investigation(s). :shrug: For all we know Kerry could want everything hush-hush and come out with a bang when they're ready. Remember that the republicans control everything. This is why Reid only told three people about the closing of the Senate. So nothing could be stopped.

[tomreedtoon]

180. Why is Kerry saying this now? Hmm...

For the longest time, people here and in other Democratic/progressive forums have been saying that Kerry caved in. He had numerous opportunities to speak up before this. Why is he doing it now?

Did he just realize how far out of the loop he is? Was he surrounded by squads of yes-men who told him how wonderful he had been and how he was doing the right thing by not fighting? And did someone finally break through his bubble?

Or is he worried about re-election, or his position in the party, and is now realizing he's as welcome as Stassen was to the Republicans? (Or, for that matter, Pat Paulsen?)

All I know is, I've been getting e-mails from Kerry's campaign, starting about six months ago, where he claims to support progressive ideas. I don't think his silence in the media can be completely blamed on Faux News and the MSM. He looks like a man who suddenly realizes he's let down all his friends and is trying to re-establish his friendship, after he's sold all the lawn mowers and hedge trimmers he borrowed from them.