What the HELL is wrong with the Dems?

[Amaryllis]

I just heard Mark Crispin Miller speak on his new book, Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them). He emphasized that the Dems are every bit as much of a problem as the Repubs because of denial, complicity, whatever.

Any of us who have been following election fraud know this, of
course; nothing new here. Just fresh in my mind since I just heard him. Mark said a lot of them just don't want to go there because the implications are too frightening...or are they afraid they will be laughed at?

Mark talked a lot about his recent experience where Kerry told him that he knew the election was stolen, then Mark going on Democracy Now and reporting Kerry said that, and then Kerry's staffer denying Kerry ever said that, and essentially calling Mark a liar and saying that the only true thing Mark said about his encounter with Kerry was that he'd given Kerry a copy of his book, and that Mark said Kerry said he knew the election was stolen so he could sell more books.

Mark exudes integrity. Anyone who knows anything about Mark knows he is no liar. He was far more concerned over the denial and the implications of that than he was over essentially being called a liar. WHY is it so hard for Dems to face this issue?

Mark said that he thought if Kerry really launched a full scale investigation similar to what he did with BCCI and Iran Contra, he could really blow the lid off and turn this thing around. He told Mark that there wasn't enough evidence. Kerry hadn't seen the GAO report on voting machine vulnerabilities that was just released. Mark told him to read the book; the evidence is OVERWHELMING to anyone who justs takes the time to LOOK at it...

Then we have this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2245871&mesg_id=2245871
This is DEMS doing this, folks:
Plaintiffs Blocked During Discovery Phase of New Mexico '04 Election Lawsuit
Kept From Inspecting Voting Machines as Promised
Process So Far Has Revealed Votes Changed from One Candidate to Another, Disappearing All Together...

WHY do Dems refuse to even SEE this, let alone take it on, other than a few brave souls like most of the members of the COngressional BLack Caucus? Why do so few white people have serious cajones? Then there is Kevin Shelley, who did, and look what they did to him...again, Dem complicity.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2229726

We've already spent a lot of time spinning theories about why Dems refuse to take this on - not only do they not take it on but they join the chorus of those who roll their eyes and talk about conspiracy theorists...okay, so I am not raising anything new here, but, I just had to get this off my chest. Mark got me all fired up again.

[Stevepol]

1. Kicked and recommended!!!!!

[David Dunham]

2. Kerry lost OH because of gay marriage and his problems as a candidate

Also, OH is a generally Repug state. No Dem has won statewide office there for many years.

Sorry to say, but Diebold DID NOT cause Kerry to lose OH.

[Amaryllis]

5. Read Mark Crispin Miller's book and then tell me that. Read

Bob Fitrakis's book "Did George Bush Steal the 2004 Election" and tell me that. REad John Conyers' house judiciary committee report "What Went Wrong in Ohio" and then tell me that. REad Mark Crispin MIller's August Harper's article: None Dare Call it Stolen. The evidence is there; it's overwhelming. All you have to do is read it. How much documented evidence does it take? Are volumes and volumes not enough? REad the evidence.

[mzmolly]

54. When the evidence disapears into thin air it's tough to prove.

That is Kerry's dilema. Kerry agreed with Miller that he'd been "robbed" of votes, but he did not use the word stolen per se. My guess is he suspects it was, but again - the proof disapears with electronic voting - DRE's.

[Lexingtonian]

7. thank you for spouting the Republican talking points

of last November as if they were true, but the factual evidence (which you clearly didn't bother with) refutes the gay marriage and the fatally flawed character crap.

[MercutioATC]

10. Get with the program.

If we lose, it was "stolen". Didn't you get the memo?

:eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

14. But they didn't feel like stealing VA or NJ

for some reason. Hrm.

[Zynx]

63. Yes. Even though the Dems winning VA made Bush look idiotic.

It's all a big conspiracy. Oooooooohhhh! Be frightened!

[converted_democrat]

48. Guess you're not a big fan of statistics??? n/t

[MercutioATC]

52. Judging by your response, not YOUR interpretation of them, no.

[converted_democrat]

56. See that's the beauty of stats, they don't lie, and they don't spin. My

interpretation has nothing to do with this, the interpretation of almost every noteworthy statistician of our time is a different story though. You think the people at MIT are liars, or you think they made it all up??

[CTyankee]

57. I also use this argument

but I find that trying to convince people of a mathematical certainty difficult. I don't know why. Just like you, I find the statistical evidence compelling. The margin of error is the margin of error. If it is that out of whack, as it was in sections of Ohio, then there is something seriously amiss with the data. The MOE is not political. Like gravity, it just is.

The question is: why don't people respond to such factual evidence?

[converted_democrat]

58. Honestly, I think they don't understand it, and they don't want to bother

with actually trying to understand it. That's the only thing I can come up with. They don't understand the process, they don't understand the results, and they don't want to bother with trying to "get" it. I really don't think there is any other answer, they just don't want to take the time to learn and understand it. It's easier to just be skeptical, as apposed to actually taking the time to learn something that is "hard." Margin of error, is margin of error, period. I thought fundies were the only ones that hated math and science.

[CTyankee]

59. Well, then let's put together a simple explanation

Hell, I'm no mathematician myself and I can "get" the fact that the MOE is just that.

Until we can figure out a way to do this, we're never going to win on this argument.

[converted_democrat]

64. I think that is an excellent idea....

Should we show the accuracy of results of exit polling in past elections, and then explaining the process, results, and what they mean? Then maybe come up with a little exercise that "anyone" can do, that maybe shows that stats are not as "scary" as they look? A person does not need to be a statistician in order to "get it." They just have to understand the concept, and I think the rest would take care of itself. I'm just pitching ideas here, what do you think?

[CTyankee]

70. I kinda try

and when I do their eyes glaze over, the Repubs not so much the Dems (but even they don't stay on it much).

I try to say "I'm no math major but..." I also say "I'm no conspiracy theorist, but this raises serious questions as to the validity of the 2004 Presidential election and I think that's important and should be looked at more closely." That way, you are not looked like some moonbat.

[dogday]

62. Ever think that people are scared to face the fact that

the whole election process could be tainted, that there is no trust in Government, that all these elected officials are cheaters?

Do forget a lot of the cheating went on before the election with the purging of Democratic voters. How many new registration Democrats were lost or purposely held up or thrown away?

[converted_democrat]

65. I have no doubt that people are scared, however I don't see that as a

legitimate excuse for denying the facts that could actually save us.

[MercutioATC]

67. This would be easier if you linked to the specific MIT reference.

The study I'm familiar with is the Caltech/MIT Voter Technology Project which analyzed data over the 1998-2004 election cycles. Its conclusion was that “there is no evidence, based on exit polls, that electronic voting machines were used to steal the 2004 election for President Bush".

...so you see why I'm a little confused by your "MIT" cite.

[mirandapriestly]

16. Oh, please.......nt

[Catamount]

17. Oh please--------------You cannot be serious!

:shrug:

[struggle4progress]

19. Standard media reported, well before the election, that the GOP ..

.. was training operatives to slow voting by challenging voters. In addition, as was reported by standard media after the election, many precincts did not receive needed numbers of voting machines. This had the result, reported by standard media on the day of the election, that waiting times in a number of precincts were ten hours or more, which prevented thousands of people from voting, simply because they could not spare the time.

After Florida 2000, "Ohio was clean" is a hard sell.

And if you're following the news, you should be able to name at least one state (besides Florida and Ohio) where Republican dirty tricks might be expected to have an impact in 2006. Hint: Republicans have been gushing that a certain natural disaster can affect the voter rolls.

Maybe there's a pattern ...

<edit: typo>

[TheFarseer]

37. People that think the election was definitely stolen

are totally underestimating the fundies and the RW media/propaganda machine. I think it is possible it was stolen but I remain unconvinced. I think in every state the republicans HAVE to win, all they need to do is have some vote on gay marriage and they can count on the religious freaks coming out in hoards to support the "party of Jayzus."

[Der Blaue Engel]

43. Riiiiiiiiight

It was the gays' fault. :eyes:

[applegrove]

3. When you fight adolescent fascists - you fight as adults. That means:

might, intellect, empathy & discernment. You don't say things are so when they are in fact still speculation.

You tell the truth.

[Robertwf]

4. Problem with Dems

the problem with democrats is simply that they are democrats. It's like Will rogers said when asked if he belonged to a organized political party. he replied ...hell no I am a democrat.:grouphug:

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. ..

:applause: :yourock:

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Circumstantial evidence isn't going to convince anyone

Unless there's absolute, unquestionable tangible evidence (of which I have seen absolutely none), anything we say will be "sore loser" or "lunatic conspiracy theorists". And if this book had tangible and unquestionable evidence, I'm pretty sure it'd get somewhere.

Sorry, but wake up and join us in reality. It ain't happening.

[For PaisAn]

9. True but

not being able to convince people of something does not equate to it being untrue. So perhaps a few Dems will have to risk the conspiracy theorist label in order to get this the attention it desperately needs, otherwise it will remain buried and never get a thorough investigation. A thorough investigation is how it can finally be proved with "absolute, unquestionable and tangible evidence."

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it."
Mohandas Gandhi

[shance]

11. Circumstantial evidence will prove any case if there is enough of it.

There is volumes.

It's been proven.

Quit obsessing over what others think and try to see what the seriousness of this issue: a fight for what is right and a fight for our Democracy.

This has nothing to do with parties. It has to do with right and wrong.

[snowbear]

12. Oooooh Shance... excellent response!

~~~ (( )) ~~~

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. There ARE many people fighting.

Hell, the existence of the book alone is fighting. Fat lot of good that's all doing right now, huh?

Sorry, but it will take a LOT more than that to convince people, and honestly, it would probably take key Republicans coming forward to fight to give this credibility. And that isn't going to happen in this lifetime.

[loyalsister]

38. Someone would have to get killed over it

I think there was a Law and Order episode where the murder victim was entangled in election fraud. It would take something like that.
I think the dems have been distracted in the wrong direction. Sorry, but Diebold fooled you guys.
The old machines that don't work are the most likely to eat votes.
People have become paranoid by the very existence of a margin of error.
We should push for competition in electronic voting systems with confirmation. Auditory (for people who war blind), visual, and receipt confirmation, possibly?
More effective election day oversight to get rid of the dirty tricks.
Don't take your eyes off of what has the greatest chance of having a large effect on elections in the future because of the comment of one CEO.
It's a distraction, the circumstantial evidence is less conclusive that people wish. Look at the big picture if you want to be taken seriously.

[shance]

39. Possibly, however the more people we have herded all over the country

the safer we are. Our numbers and our unity are our safety and our strength.

[bvar22]

46. a "printed receipt" not good enough.

A Voter Verified Paper Ballot which is deposited in a locked box observed at the polls with an enforced public chain of custody is the only acceptable option.

[loyalsister]

55. Like the old ones

The antiques that are more subject to dirty tricks because of jamming and holding up lines.
You guys are missing some of the lessons from FL. that are the problems with the paper voting machines.
Also don't forget that even under the circumstances you described, paper ballots are vulnerable.

[Amaryllis]

29. Since when does MSM base what they say on evidence? why should

this topic be any different than any other on which they don't report what's going on until it's so blatantly in their face that they can't ignore it? I challenge you to read Mark's book and say there is no tangible and unquestionalbe evidence. I've noticed that those who disregard the evidence are those who haven't actually read it.

[desi826]

68. As the lawyer downthread stated....

circumstantial evidence has sent many a person to their death once presented to a jury; this is no different.

A few things:

One, last poll I saw, about 51% of the country now believes that Bush stole the 2004 election. With no help from mainstream media, or the Dems, Americans came to this conclusion on their own. The number climbed steadily in the months since last November.

I believe that is the reason Bush appointed that sham secret election panel that recommended id's for voters as well as "no paper trails" for the machines.

My point here is that more people suspect this to be the truth than you think, even though they may have no clue as to how it's being done.

Two, you make the assumption that if no one is taking this up, it must be because the evidence isn't strong enough or there is no evidence at all.

Ask any lawyer, circumstantial evidence is powerful when presented in a logical and efficient manner. It has sent many to their deaths.

But I think that the problem isn't the evidence, it's the fact that no one has the guts to pursue it. Those citizens that try to get it started are always cut off at the pass.

Dems in Washington are, for whatever reason, afraid to tackle this and so wind up losing critical elections.

It's a lack of courage that's the problem here, not a lack of evidence.

If Dems wanted to avoid the "sour grapes" label, all they have to do is focus on the machines, using the GAO report.
Most Americans don't trust them anyway.

There are certainly thousands of complaints for them to choose from and they aren't focusing on a specific electoral race so there's no chance of the label sticking.

If the Cover-up Congress keeps blocking them, then they should put the issue on the ballot as initiatives.
Take it straight to the public and let them outlaw the use of the machines in their state.

This may have to be done anyway by the public, if Dems keep showing their cowardice.

The one major problem I see in all of this is that everyone seems to be waiting for "somebody else" to start something. I think the collective "we" each have to start something in our own states.

If there was one thing that the November 8 elections proved to me, it's that if Repubs don't bother to "fix" an election, they don't win them.
They thought they "had" the elections in Virginia, NJ, and California, so didn't bother and were THEY shocked.

That's why this is worth pursuing.
If the playing field can be evened, they are a dead party.

So it may be up to US to save our democracy, not DC Dems.
Des

[LittleClarkie]

13. Like Spock, Miller didn't lie, but he did exaggerate

He may exude integrity or something, but he is a professor and an author, not a journalist as some have referred to him. If he had been a journalist, he would have known better than to get into a "he said, she said" situation.

Do you wanna know how the encounter went? It was at a fundraising party. There was no interview. It was more like party chat.

The encounter was:
"You were robbed, Senator"

"I know"

Which got translated into "Sen. Kerry has told me that he now suspects that the election was stolen."

I'd have felt better about the encounter if it had been something of an interview, where Kerry could discuss at length what he thought and what he meant.

And I didn't like that Sen. Dodd, who seems to be a good man, got dragged into the issue as well.

I think Kerry has tried to do some things about the fraud issue and the suppression issue, with lawsuits and a speech on MLK Day and legislation, and some things on his website he appears to be putting together, like voter action teams, and rhetoric on his site that talks about antiquated machines and partisan election officials.

That's not what some people want, I'm sure. But that's what he's doing.

I think that Miller is so passionate about this issue, and distainful enough of the Dems and perhaps Kerry himself, that he tried to drag Kerry out into the spotlight on the issue whether Kerry wanted to be dragged there or not. That's the kind answer.

But I don't accept that if Miller is supposed to be full of integrity, that would mean that you think Kerry and his staff are the liars. They aren't. Kerry didn't say what Miller said, not in those words.

Miller took a bit of chat, and blew it all out of proportion. So he didn't lie either.

He exaggerated. Probably to get attention for the issue, with book revenue being a happy bonus.

And I'm not terribly happy with him for that.

[Kurovski]

15. K&R

[WildEyedLiberal]

18. Why do you canonize Miller? Does he PROVE anything?

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/11/14/miller/

This review in Salon is pretty enlightening. Miller's book basically provides a lot of hysterical hype, while actually failing to prove any of his allegations. Much like his crass stunt with Kerry - he used Kerry's name and manufactured an instant "controversy" to whip up the far left into a frenzy to sell some more books. Sorry, but this unthinking acceptance of the word of a man willing to pull journalistically irresponsible and unrespectable stunts to sell a book is pretty ludicrous.

[belle]

22. I saw him at a panel last spring. I liked "Bush Dyslexicon," but...

seeing the man in person last year--at a panel on the Religious Right's influence on the Republican party and the U.S. in general--I was a tad concerned. (At least one of the other speakers--Frederick Clarkson, whom I got to respect quite a bit--seemed to have the same reaction, iirc). I'm not saying he isn't right--first of all, I have to actually read his latest book--but, going strictly by shallow first impressions, he did seem a bit Chicken Little-esque. Well, maybe that's a bit strong. He was very passionate and rather hyper-focused on this issue, let's put it that way. Mostly his tone and overall demeanor, if not his words, left me with a feeling of "AAHHH!!! AAHHHH!! If we don't do something ANYTHING RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND, we are all doomed, DOOOOOMED" (He was not alone in this, of course). I wasn't sure how helpful it was. It got everyone revved up, as that sort of thing tends to do (witness right here on DU), but I'm not always sure it's the best sort of revving up; kind of like a sugar/caffeine high, I sometimes think. once the crash hits you're bluer than ever.

[eridani]

24. How do you do that if you can't get the goddam evidence?

Recounts not properly done, proprietary software, etc.

[Amaryllis]

47. Exactly. Thousands of "irregularities" all locked up on corporate hard

drives with secret source code.

[Amaryllis]

30. Have you read the book? REad it and then I challenge you to make

the statement you made in your post.

[snot]

20. as a lawyer,

I agree: circumstantial evidence alone has been sufficient to send plenty of folks to their deaths.

We have more than enough evidence to inspire anyone who cares to investigate the possible death of democracy.

"All that is necessary for evil to prevail in this world, is that enough good men do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

40. Unfortunately, when bad...

...news, whether it's that a loved one has been diagnosed with a terminal illness, or that one's spouse has been unfaithful, or even that one's country no longer has free and fair elections, is sufficiently traumatic and there does not appear to be a ready solution, denial is the all too common human response. The circumstantial evidence for, not one but two, stolen presidential elections is overwhelming.

One can only hope this denial we continue to hear is only a stage, soon to be followed by rage, and then action. We'll see.

[Greyhound]

66. Legal question; Is statistical/mathematical evidence considered

circumstantial? For example, the fact that the software 'errors' favor the re:puke:s 98% - 100% of the time is mathematically impossible.

[BamaBecky]

21. What's really wrong?

Read David Icke!

[BamaBecky]

31. And read Robert Gaylon Ross

[BamaBecky]

32. and listen to www.Meria.net

[Adelante]

23. On this point of Miller's, leaving the rest aside

"a full scale investigation similar to what he did with BCCI and Iran Contra"

My mouth waters at the thought of John Kerry turning the rays on what's gone wrong with the election system in this country. If anybody can straighten out this mess, it's Kerry.

[Amaryllis]

34. But he told Mark he couldn't take it on becasue of the sour grapes factor.

[Adelante]

36. Not just Ohio

The whole shooting match. Every state in the Union. The entire voting system is screwed up in this country. In the course of this, natch, should he discover vote tampering and machine tampering, all the betta :evilgrin:

It's a shame if the best person to do this critical job is disqualified for such a reason as sour grapes, but I'm not really talking about what he said or the other guy said here.

[Amaryllis]

44. Kerry did an incredible job on BCCI and Iran Contra. He could do it.

Damn sour grapes...

[rman]

25. Corruption,

just a little less so then Repubs. 75% vs 95% according to Ted Kennedy.

[Marleyb]

27. why did Kerry continue to ask for money up until the election?

Amy Goodman to David Cobb on Democracy Now...
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/17/1525203
"I want to know if you have talked to the Democratic Party about what they're doing with their money, looking at the report from the Center for Public Integrity they did a day before the election. John Kerry has $51 million left. That is more than any presidential candidate ever had. He has, I think, George Bush had something around $25 million. So, he has about, oh, or $27 million. He has about $17 million more than George Bush. Compare $51 million to what Gore had after 2000. He had something like $3-something million. Center for Public Integrity asked the Kerry campaign what they were going to do with this money. They refused to say. But have you been in communication with them? Have they talked about putting some of this money into recount efforts?"

[karynnj]

42. Those numbers were debunked at least 9 months ago

They are way too high.

[LittleClarkie]

50. Indeed, if you go over to Open Secrets you see it was about 15 mil

At about 8 mil now, I think. I have a lousy memory for numbers. I believe when I compared Gore and Kerry, though over there, include GELAC funds, they came out about the same in the end.

[Al-CIAda]

28. .

[BamaBecky]

33. How is everything going for you these days?

Good to see you posting.....
Bama

[Al-CIAda]

61. Hello BamaBecky...

...and thanks for the 'welcome back'.

[xchrom]

35. what an interesting read this thread has been thus far.

after this thread actually feel less than hopeful re: 08.

[happydreams]

41. These fascist slime co-opt, coerce or kill anybody that

threatens their power!!

What about this is so difficult for people to understand?

What is wrong is the people who are facing the Bushistas don't, still don't understand what they are dealing with. They are acting like we have a viable political system. When WWIII begins it will be to late if it isn't already.

[leftofthedial]

45. $$$

this is a class war and almost all of them play for the other team.

[mom cat]

49. I think that you just nailed it.

[Iowa]

51. Yep, it's always about money...

Corporations own politicians. They own virtually every Republican, and a good chunk of most Dems. There are only a few good folks left who actually represent the people some of the time. The passion for doing good that drives most of the people here at DU is completely foreign to most politicians. They're hired hands who do the bidding of the highest bidders - and that ain't us.

[mzmolly]

53. Here we go with this flame bait bullshit again.

:eyes:

Stolen elections are just that "stolen." Thus the need for friggen changes in the voting system which are being worked on by uhm DEMOCRATS. Unfortunately we need bipartisian support in order to pass legislation to prevent future theft, and we ain't gonna get that if we start screaming "stolen election."

[losdiablosgato]

60. The middle class feels abandoned by the party and in some ways too liberal

1. Many in the missle class see no connection to the democratic party. In the past when the party was truly the party of the working and middle classes it had power and made change. Many now after nafta and frankly a lack of talking about their concerns many in the middle class have turned their backs on us.

2. Gay marriage and gun control. To many values matter. And if we want their votes we need to meet them half way on this.

[AX10]

69. KICK

:kick: