KERRY Was NOT Going To Concede Ohio-Carville Tipped Bush Off!!!

[kpete]

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)
By M.J. Rosenberg | bio
I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.


On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?
James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

more at:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


because so many of you are asking what happened next:

-kpete: Matalin tells Bush - They send an SOS to Blackwell (who is IN CHARGE of Ohio Elections) The rest is history....

[acmavm]

1. If true, Carville should be tarred and feathered and run out of the

country.

He was more interested in helping his wife and the repubs than standing up and doing what was right by keeping his fucking mouth shut.

I'm one of those who've been saying that Carville's a fraud, hasn't been worth a shit since the election of Bill Clinton. People here are impressed because he's good with a come back. Well folks, they ain't that good. And he is NO ASSET to the democratic party.

[Cronus Protagonist]

Sleeping with the enemy.... what more needs to be known?

Common sense really.

[Tellurian]

111. Were "they" involved in Criminal Activity?

Cause if they are involved in ballot tampering,
they otta be run out of town on a rail..and
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!

[icymist]

148. Yeah, and if Carville tipped off the Republicans then he's complicit.

Carville should clarify if this actually happened or not.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

168. It might be a matter for civil court...

To the extent that Carville has taken money from liberal and Democratic clients, the fact that he divulged confidential information to a competitor could be grounds for a lawsuit.

If nothing else, he'll never get another gig working for a Democrat again.

[Tellurian]

178. Who was he working for at the time?

Was he officially in Kerry's employ?

Or was he just an unpaid observor?

[suziedemocrat]

242. maybe they needed the money from her WH job?

maybe they both somewhat wanted Bush to win because they couldn't afford to lose her job was at the Whitehouse. It's not just a matter for the Nation, it's also a matter of household finances.

I know she ended up quitting later, but attitudes change.

[othermeans]

116. You lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas n/t

[tblue]

189. So HOW did this STOP KERRY from making sure all votes were counted???

Nobody was holding a gun to Kerry's head! He still should've stood & fought. We all had been waiting 4 years to challenge the next fraudulent election, remember? Even when the Greens posed a legal challenge to all the crap that went on, and when John Conyers conducted his investigation and wrote his What Went Wrong in Ohio report, Kerry STILL remained silent (doo te doo te doo......I'm not saying anything, I'm preserving my future electability.....). Where the hell was Kerry then? WHERE WAS JOHN?????

And he still had $15 million in the bank! That's money you and I contributed to make sure he'd go all the way.

Sorry, I'm not buying this.

Even John Edwards was pissed as hell that Kerry caved too soon.

I think Kerry's NOW trying to revisit history because he realizes he missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and he lost the chance to be president once and for all. I can't imagine he'll ever get the Dem nod ever again. I wouldn't trust him with it anyway. He's cashed his check, in more ways than one.

[ProSense]

195. The OP is about Carville tipping off Bush!

Maybe that had an impact on the spoiled ballots and the discovery that there were much fewer provisional ballots than reported.

The recount efforts were continued:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/ohio_provisional_11-03-04.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x69779


http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/24/183243/756

http://www.truthout.org/pdf/cobbbadnariktransfertatement22305.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmctiguedecl22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmotionforhearing22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardssummarychart22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardstransferstatement22405.pdf

[tblue]

197. All the more reason for Kerry to challenge Ohio!

I'm not arguing with you. Screw Carville! He's not one of us anymore. I'd go upside his head tonight if I was the violent type.

But one thing the Repubs never do that I wish our side would stop doing is GIVE UP.

I still think Kerry should have done the right thing regardless of what Carville or Mary Matalin or Blackwell or Cheney or Bush did.

[ProSense]

199. What do you mean?

The lawsuits were challenges. This wasn't a matter of a few hundred votes. There were tens of thousands of votes to make up, the challenge was to prove fraud and tampering in Ohio. Unfortunately, the people, even the judges, who were responsible for handing down the decisions within the state were in Blackwell's gang. Other than that, the country saw Bush ahead in the popular vote nationwide.

[tblue]

305. So he'd have nothing to lose by challenging all of that.

What do you want me to say? That I think Kerry did everything humanly possible for a candidate to do in that situation? I don't think that. I think he could have said what you just siad. That the judges and Blackwell were partisans who were imposing their biases on the election, that people in black precincts didn't have enough voting machines and waited in line for hours to vote, that Blackwell had illegally tossed out thousands of voter registration forms, and whatever else went wrong in Ohio. Then, at the very least, the spotlight would have been shown on the problems there, and perhaps the entire country. Instead, Kerry said okay, I fully accept this result, which took the wind out of the sails of all of us who were ready to fight along side John Kerry.

It's not for John Kerry's political hide that I wanted him to fight. It's for all of us and for our right to vote and have our votes counted.

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[exlrrp]

241. He cashed my check too

I gave him more than I'd given in all previous political donations. I consider that money thoroughly wasted, not because he lost, but because he gave up

[Leopolds Ghost]

322. Which is it? Did he lose or did he give up?

The irrationality of Kerry-bashing never ceases to amaze me. They never criticize him for his stands on the issues, although one could -- indeed they think there is no way he could have lost -- and if they are so confident he won, where's the proof? You have to go to court to find proof. Carville prevented that from happening when Blackwell lowered the number of contestable ballots BELOW the number Kerry needed to contest the vote. Don't Kerry-bashers know anything about election law? This makes Carville the equivalent of a mole in the Justice Department sabotaging evidence to kill an ongoing investigation (by Kerry).

[exlrrp]

240. I agree!!

Carville is like Morris--He's a sleazeball and fuck him he's had his day. He and top Repub wifie like to play Machiavelli.
Why anyone has ever trusted him as a Democrat is beyond me.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

291. I've never trusted him or liked him either...

it was the 'traitor vibe' I guess.

[Richard D]

2. Then why did Kerry concede?

[kpete]

15. MORE

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.

The rest is history.

Does something about this story stink to high heaven!

[EFerrari]

21. It should. It comes from Woodward!

[KittyWampus]

24. Right, Blackwell was just hanging out doing nothing... this story is bull

Like it took Carville's 'leak' to set Blackwell in motion to start tossing ballots etc.

[EFerrari]

45. Blackwell was busy for WEEKS before the election - remember?

He was disallowing reg forms because of the paper's WEIGHT, fer Christ's sake.

This story IS bull.

[Kurovski]

114. I also agree. The story is stink on stink.

I wonder how the story would unfold after sorting through the half-truths and Woodward's motivations.

[blm]

123. Carville hasn't challenged the details in the story as far as I know.

.

[EFerrari]

126. Why should he? It would only keep this smear going.

This is Woodward's attempt to get people riled up at Kerry all over again and distrustful of Carville.

Let's not buy in.

[blm]

128. Because Carville claims you never leave a charge unanswered.

If the story is untrue Carville would say so.

[EFerrari]

131. Do you believe him? I'm not sure I do.

I don't believe he's a traitor to the party but instead that he is being set up to look like one.

In that instance, it would be to his advantage to just let this die.

I've been wrong before. :shrug:

[blm]

132. It depends on which WING of the party one is being loyal to.

In that sense, an entire wing of the party would not consider him a traitor for doing this.

[EFerrari]

135. Sure, I understand that. But using blunter tools, Woodward

can stir up a lot of cr@p with this story. Imho, we should take it with a pillar of salt.

[blm]

139. I leave that possibility open, as I've had past experience with Woodward

of a personal nature. But, he would have to know that Carville has access to television that few targets would, and that Carville will fight mean back at anyone lying about him or his wife.

So .... we'll see.

[truedelphi]

161. Also the numbers that we are hearing from Woodward

are not what we were hearing via the media on November 3rd.

I never heard anything (to my recall) about a quarter million votes. Probably didn't hear that there were a quarter million votes until much later - the following summer?

It was always presented in the media as there only being 136,000 votes - with
the source of many of those votes being in more Republican areas - hence it seemed very much an uphill battle.

Were some of you who followed this hearing this about the 250,000 votes early on? I'd certainly be grateful to be corrected if wrong.

[EFerrari]

225. That isn't a number I remember, in any case. n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

325. Thanks to Carville, 250,000 contestible ballots did not exist. n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

324. Oh for Heaven's sake. That's the point. Blackwell covered up the real #s

So Kerry would not have a leg to stand on.

Blackwell knows Kerry needs to go after 250,000 ballots to challenge the results, so what does he do? Come out and declare that there are a much smaller number of contestable ballots, not enough to change the outcome. In essence, CARVILLE HELPED BLACKWELL SPOIL THE BALLOTS by telling Mary exactly how many ballots need spoiling.

Connect the dots people!

[Chipper Chat]

226. A pillar of salt? That's a LOT of salt.

(chortle)

[wisteria]

203. If you think it is bull, explain why Woodward would even include it

in this book. Why bother? I have never read of any bad blood between Carville and Woodward. I thing Woodward is honest about this incident, I have no reason to think otherwise.

[EFerrari]

222. The fact is that Ken Blackwell had his marching orders well

before the election. He made a number of moves that would allow him to disqualify virtually any provisional ballot he chose to.

On that level alone, this story becomes incredible.

[glitch]

259. Maybe the Bushes felt he was dropping the ball. Maybe he was dropping the

ball. Maybe he wasn't and they were just micromanaging. Some of the fraud on the margins and blitzkrieg stuff can get confusing to the newbies. This was no Jeb/Katherine situation. I bet they were nervous about Blackwell pulling it off.
Not that I believe Woodward, just saying the Bushes wouldn't wait and see if Blackwell handled it all right if they heard of a possible fumble. They'd intervene, if only with advice.

[EFerrari]

296. Sure -- but that is an entirely different story than Carville

selling us out to BushCo, right?

Micromanaging, entirely believable -- and that despite that Blackheart was involved in Florida 2000.

[wisteria]

316. Maybe he dropped the ball and wasn't paying enough attention to the

provisional ballots.

[cornermouse]

23. I agree.

It seems to me that in a high stakes game like the presidential race, the norm would be to fight any possibility of losing.

The idea that Bush had the ability to bluff or blackmail Kerry before the election but didn't use it? That defies logic and what we know Bush to be like.

[MH1]

58. Suddenly, instead of 250,000 ballots to contest, there were only 120,000.

There was no conceivable scenario of reversing the result based on those 120,000 ballots. 250,000 was still slim, but something to work with.

[Leopolds Ghost]

326. WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO GETS IT! n/t

[karynnj]

90. In the early morning he was told by the people in Ohio

that there were only around 150,000 provisional ballots - making it extremely unlikely that there were enough votes. Not all provisional ballots count and not all of them would be for Kerry.

In his concession speech, Kerry spoke about the fact that all the ballots would be counted - and they were, If, by some miracle an unprecedented % of the provisional ballots were valid and they were all for Kerry, he could "unconcede" as Gore did in 2000.

[OzarkDem]

166. and he believed them?

Why? Seems Kerry trusted the wrong people and was bamboozled instead. Doesn't speak well for him.

[karynnj]

308. It was the official number given to him by his own people in Ohio.

It wasn't just Kerry - all the top Democrats who pushed Gore to challange told Kerry there was no basis for a challange. Even NOW no one has PROOF that more bonefide votes were for Kerry. (RFKjr didn't find this - he did make a good case that more people INTENDED to vote for Kerry. He included "votes" for people who left due to long lines - Kerry can't do that in a legal case.)

[StraightDope]

3. I never did like that smarmy cajun fuck...

Now I know that my gut feeling had some factual basis.

[goclark]

11. Even if it's half true, that is the end of him for me

I have not liked that Dick Morris like scum since he hooked up with Matalin.

The Demorats need to dump him right away.

Didn't Hillary hire him?

[jus_the_facts]

22. In defense of Cajun's....

....smarmy or not.

[StraightDope]

152. I cheerfully withdraw the "cajun" modifier.

I never did like that smarmy fuck. Better? :)

[Divine Discontent]

232. lol

you were quick to rebuttal with your admission... but, when I told my Mom what the book said, I said, "that cajun political operative for the democrats". he's one of the few cajun acting guys I know. he's funny, but rarely is vicious enough for what the repubs deserve, although he was very good on the CBS evening news with Katie Couric (lol) the other day slamming the republican ethics problems.

[Little Star]

4. Soooo? I don't get it. Why did Kerry back off?

Just because they were warned? How would that have changed anything? Carville is a traitor though!

[Warren Stupidity]

8. exactly

[DoYouEverWonder]

Remember Ross Perot?

Somehow the Bush's made him back off too?

Everyone has something that the Bush's can hold over them.

[glitch]

Something, like families they can threaten or countries they love.

Perhaps people will look more closely at what Perot was saying about the Bushes back then. Doesn't look so crazy now does he?

[Divine Discontent]

233. my good Lord in heaven...

EXCELLENT POINT!

[cyberpj]

137. And with all this wire tapping, email reading, and stolen laptops

they've added much much more to their blackmailing arsenal while he's been in office; enough to threaten quite a few for the rest of their days...

[Tellurian]

38. Yep, this issue was raised yesterday..

I thought the same way. How would this have changed anything? If the votes weren't there, they weren't there.
Unless, the votes were tampered with. But why would Kerry concede before he knew? This issue was brought up
last week in the Edwards thread. Sen Edwards wife was shocked to learn Kerry had conceded the next morning.

The only person who knows the TRUE answer to that question is KERRY..anybody have contacts there?

[DemReadingDU]

68. Ballots were tampered with

9/12/06 Richard Hayes Phillips Declaration: "Direct Evidence of Ballot Tampering"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x448932

[Tellurian]

92. Excellent...So many questions..

How does this affect the Bush presidency?

Just reading the shell page.. So,if in fact the forensic evidence supports
ballot tampering, do they know who did the tampering..does this implicate
The Bush WH...Matalin, Carville..???

This could be bigger than Foley!

[DemReadingDU]

102. Maybe some kind of organized mob?

We need someone that know the bad guys from the organized criminal mob, to start speaking out.

Conyers, Baiman, Freeman, Dopp, Richard Hayes Phillips, Palast, Fitrakis, RFK, Jr. are the good guys speaking up. They know elections are stolen.


Who is organizing the mob to steal elections?
The Bonanno Family?
The Colombo Family?
The Genovese Family?
The Luchese Family?
The DeCavalcante Family?
Tony Soprano?
Bush Family?
?????

[Tellurian]

107. Start with the call Matalin made to Blackwell..

that seems to be where the debacle begins..

strike the 1st 6 Crime families mentioned..and the one left standing is:

BUSH!

aside:

If I'm not mistaken it was Poppy who insisted all the crime families be vanquished
while he was in office...He seemed to be obsessed with ridding the country of the Italians..

[kitkat65]

124. Wonder how the timing of this coincides with the Warren County

lockdown done because of terrorist threats.

I hope I have the county right.

[Tellurian]

133. Yes, you do have it right!

Reading the pdf file...Phillips was astounded when he heard about the Homeland Security
Lockdown in Warren Cty..His research went further. The Security People from the ABC Sec Co.
were former Secret Service empl, fbi and several employees from Diebold.

[karynnj]

93. Elizabeth Edwards did not say she was shocked

clearly they were dissapointed, but there were no statements to the MSM that they saw any problem with conceding. In all I read Edwards has not made any comments on the various types of voter suppression or anything else that happened in any interviews he gave since the election. He certainly said nothing in 2005, when both John and Teresa did. Kerry spoke of those types of problems frequently- at least as early as January 17, 2005, when he was derided and ridiculed for doing so.

Elizabeth Edwards is saying this when it was safe to say so. Coming out with something now - when it is acceptable- does not count.

[Tellurian]

109. IT COUNTS...and my only recollection is she said she was shocked..

And, I don't blame her for not saying so at election time..
she was dealing with her own life or death struggle.

How many wars can you give your focus to when your own life
hangs in the balance?

[karynnj]

125. I'm not criticising Elizabeth or John Edwards

I honestly do not remember it being shock. As to speaking out, I meant John Edwards - who had msny public appearances during 2005 and 2006 and never brought this up.

My take from the comment in the book was that she simply heard John's side of a telephone conversation made when the lawyers, strategists etc looked at the more current information and decided the vote difference versus what was not counted was too great to make the difference. John's response may well have been based on the numbers of the previous night - when, with the same numbers, Kerry felt the same.

What I imagine was that she and her John felt the same disappointment as the Kerrys likely did. Her comments on Kerry at that time don't reflect the kind of feeling she might have if she amd JE were angry at the decision. I simply see nothing other than the normal reaction on the phone to hearing there was no chance. My point was, that if he disagreed with Kerry on not challanging it, it would seem that election issues would become one of his major issues and it hasn't even almost 2 years later.

I don't have the book - I will concede, if there was something more specific - I only read the excerpts. I am not questioning EE, but the fact that people seem to have made a huge jump from the quoted comment to a desire to wage a major battle.

[Tellurian]

136. Don't worry so much..

The evidence collected by Phillips has just been completed as of Sept 1st 06'

The perps are getting sloppy, where there was so much evidence left hanging around
subject to review was an amazing feat in itself. Nothing, like the Gore/Bush election
where the ballots were packaged up and transported post haste by Ryder Truck to DC (for safekeeping)(uh,huh)
led by the thunderous roar of armed motorycle guards..

At any rate, I'm not at all concerned about EE's remarks as I am of what triggered Kerry's concession so soon after the election. When I went to bed that night thinking a recount was going to be called for and awoke to a concession of the election. I was totally floored, thinking I was dreaming..

What would be the next protocol if in fact, Kerry HAS won..Would he just UN concede and request Bush step down?
And any and all "signings" made by Bush over the last 2 yrs would be hence, null and void?

[karynnj]

156. Kerry would have had to prove he won before Congress

accepted the electors in January 2006 per the Constitution. Once the Congress did its thing on January 6th, the only way to get rid of the President was through impeachment. The Constitution has no provision that would after that point give the Presidency to the real winner. (In fact, a consortium of newspapers did a recount of the entire state of FL 2000 and Gore won. Nothing happened.)

There was some date in December by which Ohio designated it's electors. The Constitution does not even require states to select the electors by a general election. (In FL, Alito wrote a position paper saying if there was no clear winner, the legislture had the power to themselves vote in electors.)

There is time for standard recounts, but there was no way a standard recount could find that number of votes. Finding and proving fraud is much harder - and I can't imagine how they could work out the details, file a legal case, get it scheduled, and tried. Then wouldn't there be appeals. The purpose of the various cases is to determine the truth and if any illegal behavior is found, to charge those who did things. This really is a flaw in the law. I am not a lawyer, so much of this could be wrong.

From comments of both John and Teresa, they very likely think that had there been no voter suppression they would have won. He is involved in all the legislation (that I know of). From his comments in the Senate on the Rosa Parks Voting rights extention bill, he is as aware of the machine problem as anyone here - he has spoken of each as soon as tests by generally recognized experts speak on them.

[Tellurian]

173. Alls, I can say is..

We're dealing with Federalist Law now, not Constitutional Law anymore.
John Kerry should do himself a favor to cut through all this legal jargon
and GO TO THE SOURCE for advice.

That would be Bruce Ackerman. Have a conversation with him and ask him point blank
how to circumvent these problems. I believe, Ackerman would level with him and
tell him where to look and what to do next.. I know how attorneys think, Ackerman
would consider it a pleasure to give Kerry private tutelage on this ever enfolding
extravaganza.

I doesn't hurt to ask..Why try to rebuild Rome when the man who's blueprint is available
why not contact him and see when he is available for discussion?

[karynnj]

179. What I wrote is based only on things like the NYT

I have read what Cam Kerry wrote in November 2004 - which I assume was his brother's views as well. I don't know who Ackerman is. Many high powered Democratic lawyers were with Kerry on the day he conceded. Having watched Kerry guestion people on his committee's he is a very smart guy, who actually really listens to answers - an unusual combination. I assume that he has spoken to many many people, perhaps including Akerman and has learned a lot about election law.

If there were a way, the really obvious time to have used it was with Gore. Kerry has publicly in at least 2 major speeches referred to Al Gore as having been elected - though not made President.

[Tellurian]

190. Ackerman is the attorney who engineered Bush's win in court

There was a way, and Gore's attorney never pursued it..
There was a Constitutional Breach during the court battle.

It was dubbed a Constitutional Crisis, the media played it down.
David Boise was Gore's attorney. His life and his family's lives were threatened
that if he went forward under the Breach, he would surely never live to see the court's decision..

What Kerry needs has nothing to do with election law..

I doubt very much Kerry has talked to Ackerman. He is not your average
everyday run of the mill lawyer. He is a scholar, who advises people like Scalia
how to proceed under Federalist Law in SC decisions..
He is the #1 guy, the top of the line, political strategist.

That is, if Kerry could even get an appointment with him.

[karynnj]

91. The implication is that Blackwell could have done something:

- created more votes on machines
- eliminated more - remember the votes with stickers on K/E
- "lost" provisional ballots

who knows what else. By morning the numbers were too great to justify not conceding.

My big question is what else did Matalin feed to them - during the campaign. He also subtely knocked Kerry every time he was on (sometimes after approving of something, but usually only after mocking Bush.)

[Tellurian]

115. karynnj..read this link..

in case you missed it..

It appears to be DESTRUCTION of ballots is where the tampering begins..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x448932

and if your numbers are accurate..it would amount to 100,000 ballots..

[karynnj]

127. I had seen this - but it's something different

It is requesting that the 2004 ballots NOT be destroyed because there are ballots that the man had studied that showed patterns of having been tampered with. (They showed examples of things like ballots where there was a sticker covering a blackened K/E oval and a colored Bush one) These are troubling and are the type of evidence the Kerry lawyers have worked to retain. (I don't know if this was a Kerry lawyer. It might be as you need standing to requet stuff like this, but I don't know)

At any rate, it's about future destruction (that would have happened last month) not destruction in 2004. The other thing is that in the convulsion of election night the Ohio Democrats - who were in the midst of chaos - might have had a lot of double counting.

I honestly think that the important thing in the story was that Carville passed on information. This may have changed nothing, but it was wrong to pass this on. I had always said that Begala and Carville were only good at hitting Bush. They made no effort at all to sell Kerry.

[Tellurian]

129. What I gleaned from the pdf file was...

> ballot tampering in all 11 counties

> there has been no location of boxes of spoiled or unused ballots in any county

> there was a HomeLand Security Lock down in Warren Cty, prohibiting independent observers from witnessing the voter count.

> Directive 2004-43 10-24-04 by the Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, states that all boxes of spoiled or unused ballots are to be returned to the Sect. of States' Office to be included in the auditing process of counted ballots. To date, none have been returned to that office and none can be found in any of the county's.

> Phillips conclusions boiled down to Blackwells double counting of absentee votes is a used as a discretionary tool.

> Votes scheduled for destruction Sept. 2, 2006...Phillips recommended court order for protection of voter and ballot forensic evidence.

[Tellurian]

130. double post...sorry!

[lies and propaganda]

151. i think he knew what was going to happen all along.

very skull & bones power sharing type bullshit.

[aquart]

5. This is exactly what we were afraid of with Carville.

You can't trust his lying, cheating, fascist wife.

[originalpckelly]

14. It wasn't his wife so much as him; he just thought it wouldn't be right.

Little shitbag!

[blm]

76. What wouldn't be right? What's wrong about challenging 250,000 ballots?

And how did that number get changed to 150,000 in a couple hours time?

Interesting in that sympathies are becoming apparent.

[Iris]

89. then he should have kept his mouth shut. Quit in the middle of it if he

had to, but if he really did tell her, that's just unethical.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. This story makes no sense.

So what if Carville (who I think is a snake) tipped off the cabal through his viperous wife Matalin? How does that change Kerry's decision? This story has been repeated here about a half dozen times and I have yet to see an explanation for why the cabal knowing that Kerry intends to challenge the election makes any difference at all to Kerry's plans and result in his changing his mind. If this story is true, there is a vital additional piece of information missing that completes the story such that it makes sense.

[NNN0LHI]

12. Its as if Kerry wouldn't have conceded Bush would have never found out...

...if Matalin hadn't have told Cheney? I don't get it either.

Don

[blm]

72. Somewhere in between the provisional ballot totals changed from 250,000

to 150,000 which would have made it impossible to make up the difference Kerry needed to challenge.

So - if Carville was inside, who was on the inside changing the NUMBERS?

[OzarkDem]

170. And Kerry was dumb enough to believe that?

He should have known the numbers were not anywhere near final that night. He had plenty of time to wait and get more information later on. He was just in such a rush to concede.

[glitch]

253. Thank you. That was the dot I was looking for. nt

[maseman]

25. Nothing ads up here

This story is bullshit. Carville is OK. He is a very smart man. I just think he's made a shit load of money and doesn't care anymore. But I doubt Kerry would concede because Cheney was tipped off. Come on, don't believe everything you read.

[fedupinBushcountry]

55. The number of provisional ballots CHANGED

later that morning. I forget the exact amount but it was in no way 250,000, as the Kerry campaign knew it was at the time. That new number made Kerry's chances of finding the votes almost impossible.

Anyone on our side that leaks information like that to the other side should never ever be trusted again. PERIOD.

[Leopolds Ghost]

330. Too late...folks are too busy bashing Kerry to demand Carville be arrested

On charges of racketeering and criminal conspiracy to defraud Kerry of votes.

[blm]

85. Because when Carville MADE the call, Kerry was challenging 250,000 ballots

and then some time AFTER the call, Kerry is told the 250,000 ballots are not there, the number has been lowered to 150,000 which closed the MATH window he had to make his challenge.

If Carville was being a sneak, who else on the party's election team was near the numbers and part of the crunching?

[elehhhhna]

7. I don't get it. Yeah Carville's married to a drunk, but why concede

when Bush would find out regardless?

[AX10]

9. I never liked that smary dingdong before I heard this. I still don't....

like him and never will. He is shit!

Still, I do not see why this was a reason for Kerry to concede.

[originalpckelly]

10. That son of a bitch took it upon himself to decide the fate of a fucking

country. In my book he is no longer a Democrat! GODDAMN SON OF A BITCH!!!!!!

There is however a missing piece, why did Kerry decide to do it?

[MissWaverly]

37. well, remember Gore said his family was threatened by goons

after the 2000 election, he said that goons would stand outside his house at night and
shout threats to his family.

[grasswire]

44. those weren't goons, they were freepers

I was monitoring freerepublic then, in real time, as they gathered themselves up outside the vice presidential residence to holler "Get out of Cheney's house!" and make noise. It was quite a party for them.

[MissWaverly]

64. well, it was still threatening behavior

they have the ability to sum up shock troops on the ground and then they can have
plausible deniability, do you really believe that the "blogger" that revealed the page
who leaked the e-mails from Foley by hacking the ABC News site was just a "self-righteuos"
citizen?

[grasswire]

73. I'm just saying....

...that freepers are cowards, and not capable of real threats or real violence. The ruckus outside the vice president's residence was not a physical threat. It was gutter politics, but not physical.

[MissWaverly]

78. Let me tell you about that

we have little thugs that roam our neighborhood, the police are now looking for 2 of them
that ran 2 people down w/o stopping. That's one of the intimidation tactics they do, I
live in an aging neighborhood and about 2 am, they go around beating on people's door and
trying to bust open doors by throwing their weight against them. It's a very effective
tactic to scare the old people into not calling the police and telling on them. That's the
thing about what goes on as business as usual since 2000. It was just a prank, we didn't
do anything wrong. Foley was just joking around, thay weren't real e-mails.

[grasswire]

103. can't you separate criminals from protesters in your mind?

Gee! The thugs in your neighborhood are apples. The pathetic freepers (who can't even get a dozen people together for a rally) are oranges.

[MissWaverly]

106. Man arrested for threatening Gore's family after 2000 election

I thought I would include one of those harmless pranks here, apprarently the police were
not amused.

Man charged with threatening Gore's uncle over election
December 12, 2000
Web posted at: 8:38 PM EST (0138 GMT)
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) -- Phone threats to Vice President Al Gore's 82-year-old uncle led to federal charges against a Houston man Tuesday. According to court papers, the man allegedly threatened to harm Whit LaFon unless Gore conceded the presidential election.

Robbins Lee Mitchell, 52, was ordered detained Tuesday for prosecutors in Tennessee. Len Register, the assistant U.S. attorney in Jackson, said he wants Mitchell to stand trial in Jackson.

Mitchell faces charges of making a threatening phone calls across state lines and making a threatening calls to a member of the vice president's family. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of eight years in prison and $500,000 in fines.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/12/gorethreat.ap/

[rosesaylavee]

183. How awful for Gore and his family

and we wonder why we have so many nuts in govt - who would want the job?

[MissWaverly]

186. Yes, I agree, I can't believe what has gone on since 2000

I never remember people acting like this before the Bush family came on the scene, not
one time and now we have elections turning into a goon parade where the family of the
candidate is threatened; where recounts are stopped by staffers from congressional offices,
where phones are jammed in New Hampshire with the blessing of GOP officials. Never, never,
never.

[rosesaylavee]

244. All a symptom of bad leadership.

*co has zero leadership qualities. It's not surprising that most of this is treated like a sports event or 'prank' by those on the Republican side of the aisle.

[MissWaverly]

246. yes, including the signing statements

including the Bush tweak of the bill mandating minimum standards for the head of FEMA,
Bush gutted that with his unitary executive clause.

[nicknameless]

223. You have absolutely no way of knowing each and every single person

who was making threats against Gore's family.

Plenty of bullies are cowards. But others do follow through and act on their threats.

[Fovea]

221. Don't call the police.

Shoot them through the front door, and bury them in the backyard.
If you miss, that is one door they will avoid in the future.

When in Skidmore Missouri, do as the Missourians did.

[MissWaverly]

247. don't worry they are circling the drain even as we speak

the police are hot to pick them up after the hit and run mishap. Hopefully there will be
justice at last.

[Fovea]

290. Good to hear.

We have a similar problem with a family that moved in to the block about 6 months ago.
They steal anything not strapped down, and get drunk on their front porch on weeknights, making noise and
being literally combative when asked to keep it down. The wife's mother is called 'love-knuckles' by the local police.

They have beaten two of my neighbors up in 'N on 1' assaults.
I just went out and bought a *huge* cap and ball pistol, figuring that between them and the upcoming election,
a multi shot handgun (as opposed to my .50 cal cap and ball rifle) might be a good idea.
I prefer black powder for several reasons.

[MissWaverly]

303. they won't stay, they are unstable, we had a family like that here

woman was trying to sue everybody including me, she left in the middle of the night with
a pile of debts unpaid, they have been just as much trouble wherever they have been, I
would do a backround check and let interested parties know of her new address. That type
is trouble, it's better to deal sooner than later.

[nicknameless]

220. Do you have a crystal ball?

You obviously don't know every single person who made threats. Nor can you personally attest that each and every one would never get physically violent.

:shrug:

[MissWaverly]

250. If Gore said his family was threatened

then I believe him, I trust the man and feel that he is a capable leader

[The Count]

171. But Gore fought anyway...Kerry didn't. 1000 Carvilles won't whitewash that

That night is Kerry's "Pet Goat".

[MissWaverly]

249. I still say that we don't know the facts

we don't know what really went on, the same way with the march to Iraq; the facts that we
do know is that Kerry went to Vietnam, he went because he felt he had a duty to go, so
he risked his life for this country. Maybe he felt that it was something impossible
to prove with a Republican controlled election in Ohio, we do not know. But what we
do know is that we, the American people have seen Katrina on our Tv screens, we have
seen how the problem with the House pages was covered up to preserve a Republican
majority. We have seen no WMD's in Iraq, and we see 300 billion wasted in Iraq and the people there need food and water. These are facts not speculation, we have to get back to the facts to make real decisions about who our leaders should be.

[Imagevision]

13. Carville story is rubbish, he wasn't actively involved in Kerry campaign.

[Tellurian]

41. So, how did Carville know before it was common knowledge?

Did he have a mole inside the Kerry campaign?

[blm]

100. No - he wasn't w/Kerry - he was THERE with the Dem PARTY leaders.

the same Dem PARTY leaders who did nothing to counter the RNC and their operatives working for four years on vote suppression, purged voter rolls and rigged machines all over the country.

Just like a weak party infrastructure kept Gore's votes from being counted in Florida, Cleland's in Georgia, and Kerry's in Ohio.

All states with COLLAPSED Dem party infrastructures who could not perform their duty to secure the election process.

[Robbien]

16. Do I believe the DLC consultants are working against the

Democratic party? Yes. Definately.

Do I believe this story about Kerry wanting to stay and fight? Not really. He conceded fast. Way too fast.

[karynnj]

96. Other than 2000, it was I think the latest concession since 1960

[robinlynne]

17. If that is true, why didn't kerry challenge then? It would have changed

history!

[karynnj]

97. No it wouldn't the ballots were still counted and there weren't enough

If there were, Kerry would have un-conceded as Gore did.

[robinlynne]

268. They have not yet been counted. The lawsuit, filed by the greens for a rec

ount, is still in court.

[ProSense]

271. Which lawsuit is that?

August 31, 2005

Kerry and Edwards to Stay in Recount Case!!! Trial to Start in August 2006

Don McTigue, attorney for John Kerry and John Edwards, appeared in federal court in Toledo, before Judge Carr, on August 30th, and told the Court that Kerry and Edwards intend to remain in the case.

Judge Carr set an August 22, 2006 trial date.

Additionally he consolidated the two recount cases, Rios v. Blackwell and Yost v. Cobb & Badnarik. He gave the plaintiffs until September 15th to file amended pleadings (plaintiff's counsel had requested an opportunity to streamline their claims).

Judge Carr set a discovery cut-off of May 1, 2006, and ruled that any summary judgment motions must be made by May 15, 2006.

February 10, 2006

Associated Press Reports: Ohio Recount Suit Dismissed

According to the Associated Press, the Ohio recount suit has been dismissed:

Judge Dismisses Penultimate Ohio Lawsuit
By JOHN McCARTHY, Associated Press Writer
Thu Feb 9, 10:42 PM ET

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit over Ohio's recount of the 2004 presidential election, leaving only one court challenge remaining from the state's role in the re-election of President Bush.

U.S. District Judge James Carr in Toledo threw out the suit filed by a voting rights group on behalf of the Green Party and Libertarian candidates. Tuesday's dismissal, barring an appeal, leaves active only a suit filed by the League of Women Voters of Ohio.

This one was just filed:

Activists want Ohio election chief out

By Julie Carr Smyth, Associated Press Writer | August 31, 2006

COLUMBUS, Ohio --Activists filed a civil-rights lawsuit Thursday claiming Secretary of State Ken Blackwell deprived people of their voting rights during the 2004 presidential election and seeking to have him removed from overseeing the general election in November.

The plaintiffs, who range from the Ohio Voter Rights Alliance for Democracy to the head of a Columbus neighborhood association, accuse Blackwell of distributing fewer voting machines per person in black neighborhoods, purging voter registrations and disproportionately assigning provisional ballots to blacks. Those provisional ballots then were disqualified at higher rates than in nearby precincts that were mostly white, the plaintiffs allege.

"The court should appoint someone that everyone will say is honest and competent and will ensure that the appropriate security measures are in place and we don't have this kind of vulnerability in the next election," said attorney Cliff Arnebeck, who represents the plaintiffs.

Blackwell, a Republican running for governor this November, said he sees the lawsuit not as an attack on him, but on Ohio's elections process, run by 88 bipartisan county elections boards.

"They're frivolous, they're off-base, and they're political," he said.

Randy Borntrager, a spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party, said the party wants Blackwell to stop setting rules that affect his own campaign.

more...

[karynnj]

307. All the ballots, regular and provisional were counted

The Greens' case is for a RE-count -

[EFerrari]

18. The only way this makes sense is Woodward is stirring up sh!t

between Democrats.

Carville isn't my fav but please consider the source.

[KittyWampus]

19. Yeah, AND??? Carville told Matalin, she told Cheney AND AND AND?

What?

This story is so meaningless.

[joemurphy]

30. The bottom line is that Kerry didn't do anything and Kerry

conceded. And subsequent recounts (whether Diebolded or not) didn't do us any good. Remove Matalin and Carville from the equation and Blackwell was still the Ohio Secretary of State with a lot of say in the recount process. I don't see how Carville's telling Matalin about some Kerry strategizing (which was apparently rejected and never came to pass) affected anything. This "story", to me, is a big zero.

[AtomicKitten]

77. Extrapolation is a favorite sport here at DU.

I am appalled at the way this and other OPs declare outrage at a conclusion arrived at by arbitrarily and randomly filling in imagined dots they are desperately trying to connect. Blaming may assuage sour grapes but a true story this does not make.

Humoring the OP, even if this allegation is true (I reserve judgment until Carville has a chance to comment), it's effect on the overall course of events would have been zero. Ohio remains a cesspool and was the epicenter for election fraud circa 2004. Blackwell was prepared to do whatever it took to secure Ohio's vote for Junior.

[rosesaylavee]

184. I'm with you...

Carville needs to respond and we need more information.

BTW, miss the happy Gore pic you used to have up... who's the new guy?

[AtomicKitten]

187. hey

1) Robbedvoter dug up a terrific piece that puts this matter of scapegoating to rest. Kerry chose to throw in the towel based on the disbursement of the ballots, not the number of provisional ballots as is alleged over and over and over again. That's just a red herring in the blame game.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2340537&mesg_id=2343259

2) My sig pic is from the Kids in the Hall's Mark McKinney character saying "I'm crushing your head" as he looks through his fingers at people in the distance.

3) Still love Al Gore.

[wisteria]

208. This doesn't prove anything really, it may of just been an additional

count possibility the Kerry camp was considering at the time.

[AtomicKitten]

210. it proves it wasn't the number of ballots by their own admission

which seems to be the cause celebre here in the blame game

to think that it was anyone other than the BFEE that stole the last three elections is just crazy

[wisteria]

207. This little incident may just offer additional proof of tampering.

I to would like to hear what Carville has to say. And, you got to wonder why Woodward bothered to put in in his book if it were trivial and meaningless hear-see.

[AtomicKitten]

209. Ohio was the epicenter of election fraud - of course there was tampering

robbedvoter posted a piece here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2340537&mesg_id=2343259
that talks about the Kerry campaign's own admission that it was the disbursement of ballots being why Kerry conceded, not the number of outstanding provisional ballots.

I think Carville is being used as a scapegoat by people looking to connect an obscure passage in Woodward's book to the ultimate outcome of the election in 2004 when it has always been clear it was the BFEE that are to blame for 2000, 2002 and 2004.

[blm]

82. It didn't come to pass because the 250,000 number was changed to 150,000

some time after that phonecall.

So, the numbercrunchers who told Kerry earlier that he had a 250,000 ballot window to challenge, then came back to him with the smaller number which closed that window.

The question is what or who changed that earlier figure to the lower one later? And was THAT lower number legit?

Kerry was being told he had no math with him to delay the concession, and no legal evidence to continue in court. Kerry was PREPARING to challenge until that number changed. So - the origin, the who and the what, of that number change needs to be looked into.

[kpete]

119. Thanks blm

just looking for truth and every bit of information (in my mind) is just ONE MORE piece of the puzzle.

[AtomicKitten]

157. yeah, thanks for blaming at the expense of truth, fairness, and decency

regardless of who gets shit on in the process. I hope it assuages whatever would motivate someone to do such a thing repeatedly here at DU, but that unfortunately never seems to be the case.

[wisteria]

212. Woodward is considered a reliable source. He isn't the usual

careless journalist. He lays out what he considers the truth, and allows the reader to decide. Obviously, you have decided to believe Carville is being victimized here. Others here believe just the opposite,Kerry was victimized. It doesn't mean that fairness and decency is not evident in this posting. People are just expressing their opinions. Just because those opinions differ from yours don't mean they aren't fair and decent and even truthful.

[AtomicKitten]

214. the passage in Woodward's book has been

extrapolated to read more than it does. That isn't fair nor is it truthful. And using that extrapolation to suggest Carville ratted out the Kerry campaign and that caused him to concede is not cool, particularly when it incites others to react to something Woodward didn't say. That's how the crazy train leaves the station too often here at DU. If there is more to the story, it hasn't been told yet and I, for one, will wait until all the information is in before I board the Blame Train.

[EFerrari]

230. Wooward is a Bush shill. He's smeared Fitz, he smeared

Tenet and now he's smearing Carville.

Why anyone believes a word out of his Bush owned mouth is beyond me.

[rosesaylavee]

245. Did you see his interview on 60 minutes?

He looked downright sad that Boooosh wouldn't meet with him this time. He definitely was tied into this emotionally... not appropriate for a journalist. He is either a shill or has lost his journalistic objectivity about what he is reporting.

[wisteria]

318. He reported things as he saw them at hte time. Bush shill?

Bush isn't too happy with him now.

[wisteria]

206. if it is zero, why did Matilin tell Cheney ,Bush and then SOS Blackwell?

And, why would Woodward even bother with the story?

[wisteria]

205. If it means nothing, why would Woodward bother with it at all? n/t

[gully]

20. Carville should NEVER be allowed to "assist" us again.

He's a traitor.

[texasleo]

26. Why did Kerry, in typical NE liberal fashion, back down?

:nopity:

[Caution]

57. This NE liberal finds that characterization pretty dammned offensive.

[karynnj]

99. Because there was no case

Do you thing Terry McAuliffe, Bill Clinton, the Democratic Senators, Governors etc would have backed Kerry in a challange - where he was short 128,000 votes with no comprehendible way to get them?

[bahrbearian]

27. Wasn't everyone thinking that Kerry would contest Ohio,, come on.

and yet he didn't , why?

[BuyingThyme]

65. Kerry's advice to people who wanted to challenge their OWN VOTES was,

"fuck off."

[BuyingThyme]

66. epud

[Terri S]

28. holy sh**!

You know, I never forgave Kerry for wimping out on that! Wonder if anyone else caught this. I'm off to get the book today..

[bunny planet]

29. Carville most definitely did not want Kerry to win.

Disgraceful. And not real thrilled with Libby's defense fund shindig being held Chez Carville/Matalin either. That marriage is one big conflict of interest but seems to be moot because Carville's interests are suspect at this point.

I still don't understand why Carville tipping Jr. (and of course KKKarl) off would have kept JK from doing what he planned to do and not concede.

[blm]

105. When Carville called the number of provisional ballots Kerry was

challenging was 250,000. Some time after that phone call, new number came in and said there were only 150,000 ballots to challenge which closed the math window Kerry had to mount a challenge.

With no legal evidence to continue in court, and no MATH to mount a challenge, Kerry had no choice. The Dem election team included the same election lawyers who advised Gore that he DID have a case to continue. I am wondering who all was on the NUMBERS CRUNCHING team and how the ballot number changed from 250 thou to 150 thou.

[bunny planet]

134. good question. I was always surprised that JK conceded when he did.

[elehhhhna]

238. Carvilles' WIFE wass a WAR CRIMINAL'S Employee (Cheney), so

of COURSE he didn't want Dems to win.

[pat_k]

31. Whatever the threats, Kerry failed the nation. . .

. . .We expect members of the armed services to risk their lives to fulfill their oath to support and defend. Why should we expect less of the people who serve us in elected office and take the same oath? Whatever his fears, why ever he folded, he failed the nation.

And that failure was compounded on January 6th, when Congress failed to fulfill their oath and reject the electors from Ohio, who were appointed persuant to an unlawful and incomplete election.

Kerry and every member of the Senate and House are complicit with the theft of the Presidential election.

And we are paying the price -- the loss of the soul of the nation.

[Tellurian]

43. Your post,as a general overview, I can agree...

But the Devil is in the Details...The minutia...

We have to know what triggered Kerry's concession so quickly after the election..

[pat_k]

53. Why? What could constitute justification? (nt)

[Tellurian]

59. Thats what I want to find out..

Was some family member held hostage to Kerry's concession?

Kerry owes us an explanation...we've got to get to the bottom of this
no matter how rotten it is or how long it takes.
I'm not buying the Bin-laden excuse..

[pat_k]

63. To prosecute perpetrators, yes. But wouldn't excuse Kerry's betrayal

. . .of his oath. Members of the armed services are expected to choose between life and duty -- even someone elses life (as they order others into battle). Families send their children into war.

Of course, I would want to know in order to prosecute the criminal action, but even if "they" (whoever they are) were threatening the lives of his family, I don't view that as a sufficient reason for deriliction of duty. He too sworn and oath to protect and defend.

[Tellurian]

86. Who are you to decide the meaning of the word "sufficient'?

Your definition may not be "sufficient" as an acceptable explanation..

Are you a high school student?

[CTyankee]

80. My son in law worked on Kerry's campaign

with Tom Kiley, a pollster, and did focus group testing in 3 states. I asked him what the word was on Kerry's concession. He said that at the time Kerry knew he simply couldn't back up a claim that voting machines had been tampered with. Remember, this guy was a prosecutor so he has that mind set, that you have to have proof. Without solid proof he would fall flat on his face and so would the party. I think maybe Kerry has changed his mind somewhat in view of subsequent information about the Diebold machines, but this was in 2004, before a lot of us had heard about the Diebold connection.

Wihtout hard evidence, what would you do if you were Kerry?

[AtomicKitten]

87. no question

the magnitude of the theft made this a very tough call. Kerry cannot be faulted for conceding under this circumstances.

[CTyankee]

108. well, also, it was that nobody at that point knew about Diebold's plot

We arelooking at this in hindsight which is 20/20. Even now we really don't have a lot of solid evidence to swing opinion, much less an election. I wouldn't even mind people saying we have sour grapes, but we just don't have enough to back up our case. AND we run the risk of being called a "conspiracy theorist."

What I say is that the election results "raise troubling questions" and then I talk about the mathematicians with Ph.D's who have scientifically proved that the votes were fraudulent. It is mathematically impossible to have MOE's from the exit polls that crazy without the data (votes) being wrong. If we stick with the hard facts we are better off. But realize that most people don't have knowledge about that; it's just blah, blah, blah to them.

[Tellurian]

149. With the Philip's forensic review, there IS hard evidence..

Also, what I would do in future elections would be to have every state
install video cams at every voter location..If they intend to have their
votes counted in the election. These cams would be manned with round the
clock guards with live video feed in the local Demo headquarters w/backup feed.

The tapes would be viewed and changed every (?)hours and sequestered in a Wells Fargo
like armored truck until the outcome of the election results are made public.

[marions ghost]

182. right

It's hard for people to imagine the predicament Kerry was in way back then. 2004 seems like an eternity ago when it comes to awareness about the potential for stolen elections. There was no public acceptance of the dangers of e-voting at that time. The MSM media was in blackout mode after the election. There was no backing from the Democratic party to contest. There was no real successful precedent. If Kerry had protested, the media would have hounded him relentlessly with "sore loser."

Kerry was in a no-win position.

[midnight]

193. There was a story circulating around here about

Diebold sending a letter out saying it was bringing the vote in for Bush. I thought at that time some of us were questioning this and talking about the co. who would guard their code and therefor prevent us from seeing the actual count.

[Mnemosyne]

204. Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold, did in a fund raising letter.

Voting Machine Controversy

Published on Thursday, August 28, 2003 by the Cleveland Plain Dealer
Voting Machine Controversy
by Julie Carr Smyth


COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.

O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.

The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

[windbreeze]

237. but wait a minute

Tell me I don't recall hearing how the owner of Diebold, had guaranteed Bush, BEFORE the election...that he would deliver the state of OHIO to him????yet no one suspected that dirty work was afoot in Ohio???? Ok then...but perhaps you'll forgive me if I have trouble swallowing that...There was no excuse for not suspecting, and for not being prepared for Ohio to be a hot bed of election problems...we were out and out warned ahead of time...I just wonder how many times do we have to be taught the same lesson, before we get it?

Let's just say I don't care for Carville...and leave it at that...

After the last election, I had an occasion to watch individual taped interviews...one with Kerry and one with *..each man was asked about skull and bones...and both men...gave exactly the same answer, word for word...even chuckling with (what appeared to be)faked embarassment at the same point..I had to watch the interviews more than once....because I couldn't get my mind around what I was seeing and hearing...it just didn't seem right...I don't care if they both belong to a secret society...but the exact same answers word for word....left me with a very strange feeling...and also questions...such as...what exactly would one member be expected to sacrifice, or be willing to do, for the other?? what's the protocol in a situation where they are both up for the same position...

I have to say this...I voted for Kerry, and felt good when I went to bed, with him stating he would fight...then when I got up the next morning, he had already conceded...I was beyond stunned...I couldn't believe he had given in....I will say, I don't think Kerry realized exactly what his concession was going to cost him....that it was his ONE chance to be president..I really believe he thought there would be a next time...and I don't think there will...

To all those who support Kerry...no offense is meant...excuses don't matter at this point and placing blame now, won't correct anything(hindsight is supposedly always 20/20)....our country is a mess...we can't undo the past, (unless we can prove, beyond a doubt that Kerry WAS elected, and someone is willing to forcibly remove whe whole * cabal from office)...mistakes were made in the past...the future is all that matters....learning from our mistakes, is the most important thing we can do...because until we DO learn, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes...will there be enough of our country left to save, if we allow even one more stolen election..???Sometimes I wonder how many people, really understand what a precarious position we are in, RIGHT NOW...because of the last couple elections...

The Democrats must be willing to challenge and fight until the last dog is hung..and make NO concessions from here on out...disclaimer: jmo
windbreeze

[autorank]

263. What you say makes sense....

But the shame here is that his staff, so many staffs in our party, is arrogantly misinformed. By that I mean, they dismiss something that's fairly obvious because the "right people" didn't tell them. The 'goto' guy on electronic voting was Dodd (who co sponsored the Help America Vote Act) and he would have dismissed this. The other arrogance is the arrogance of stupidity. Any political staff should have at least on person familiar with history. There is a rich history of election fraud in American politics, documented, real, available. Bob Shrumm, btw, should have know about the right wing Republican ownership of all the major machine manufacturers and he certainly should have known election history.

Even someone without any specific historical knowledge would have noticed the letter of Diebold's Chairman promising to do anything to get * re elected and Blackwells spectacular voter suppression techniques.

Sloppy staff work, experts who know not of what they speak and speak not often out of the arrogance of misinformation and ignorance.

Too many people either not bright enough to get it or asleep at the switch.

[roseBudd]

278. You have to apply the Law & Order test, the Ds had no standing to seize

any of the evidence. There were 88 county board of elections and without a whistleblower no probable cause. Arnebeck called the C. Ellen Connaly anomaly prima facie evidence, and that was nothing more than statistics.

Without a criminal complaint it is a whole lot harder to prove something.

That being said, absence of evidence is not evidence.

[robinlynne]

284. file for a simple recount. the republicans do it all the time. stand up

with barbara boxer and ask that the ohio electors not be allowed to post theirt votes until the recount is complete.

[Mme. Defarge]

51. I figure

BFEE was threatening to somehow trash Theresa, or another family member, like they did with Dukakis.

[karynnj]

101. Why make up reasons - when the reason stated is still logical

There is still, almost 2 years later, no legal proof that more of the votes cast were cast for Kerry. RFKjr in his article has a very nice graphic showing where Kerry votes were "lost". A huge chunk of them was an estimate of those lost to long lines. I belive that is an excellent conservative estimate - but you can't count votes never cast. My final conclusion after reading that article is that the various ways to suppress the Democratic vote changed the result. As Kerry said they cheated legally in some cases. (This is why Kerry and Feingold have written legislation to require paper ballots - to be counted as regular votes - be available if there are too few machines that are working.)

They couldn't threaten to smear any of the Kerry as a threat - because they had been doing it for a half a year. One the election got close if they knew anything bad, they would have used it. The Kerrys would have had 4 years as President and First Lady to shoot down any lies.

[Garbo 2004]

121. ? The RW noise machine had already bashed Teresa during the campaign,

claimed she was a Hezbollah supporter, that her foundation gave money to Hezbollah, all kinds of shit. And then there were the Swiftboaters. They also tried to claim (via Drudge where they drop their sewage that they don't want directly tied back to them) that Kerry had affair with intern but that story fell apart quickly and went nowhere. This during the campaign. Trashing his family post election was no threat considering they'd been doing it for months.

[politicasista]

120. No, the ENTIRE Democratic Party let him down

Including the left leaning pundits and Democrats that didn't back him up when the Swifty liars made their rounds.

Where is your anger at the Democrats that stayed silent and sat on their tails instead of backing the candidate up?


Why don't you put the blame on Bush instead of complaining about how his opponent let YOU and "the nation down."

[Olney Blue]

138. It seems to me that the crooks who stole the election should be blamed.

Why just Kerry?

[bowens43]

32. Kerry did concede so I don't see your point.

[AtomicKitten]

88. the point

is the need to blame regardless of how anorexic the allegation is
time to stick a fork in it and move on

[Cameron27]

94. That does seem to be the point.

[Hubert Flottz]

33. I Don't trust Bob Woodward any more than I trust Bush...

[IndyOp]

34. So, Kerry's "I've got your back" statements don't apply if James

Carville tells his wifey-poo and she tattles to Darth Vader?

:shrug:

[never_get_over_it]

35. Kerry conceded because he wanted to run again in 08

and didn't want to be seen as a SORE LOSER - makes no sense that the * campaign knowing Kerry was going to challenge had any impact on Kerry's decision. There is only ONE person responsible for not fighting the theft in 04 and that is John Kerry - he let the people who voted for him down, ulitmately he let the whole damn county down...that election wasn't just about him it was about this country and our Democracy -

I heard Mark Crispin Miller on Bernie Ward last night and there are some analysis that shows that Kerry actually should have won by MILLIONS of votes if they hadn't screwed with the results....shame on you John Kerry for not fighting for US.

[fedupinBushcountry]

56. Give me a break

EOM :tinfoilhat:

[Laurab]

191. WTF?? in 2004?

"Because he wanted to run again in 08"? I doubt that - I doubt that on Election Day 04, he was saying to himself "gee I want to run in 08, so I'll just give it to the other guys". Seems more than a little ridiculous to me.

My thought was always that he didn't want to look like a frigging lunatic, and ruin his career, along with that of a lot of dems, by running around shouting "I wuz robbed, i wuz robbed" with NO EVIDENCE that would stand up in a court. The RW would have DESTROYED him.

2 years later, Diebold is only just beginning to hit the mainstream. There are still people totally unaware, although a lot more are familiar with it now than they were then.

The thing that so many people seem to miss, and have been missing for almost two years, is that you need PROOF to challenge an election. Not a hunch, not a few people telling you their votes were screwed up. Proof that would stand up in court. If Kerry had it, he would have used it. I, for one, am glad that he is still an effective member of the democratic party, rather than having made an laughingstock of himself then.

[zulchzulu]

311. So it seems you disagree with John Conyers about John Kerry...

Perhaps you should do some homework...

"Fighting for Every Voter"

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me. As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes...

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth.

That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

- John Conyers

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

Care to comment on this? I thought not...

[glitch]

36. There is a dot missing between the SOS to Blackwell and Kerry conceding.

What am I not getting?

[truedelphi]

315. I'm thinking the sam e thing

let me know if you find out - It is worth a whole topic on its own

[Canuckistanian]

39. Sorry, not seeing the repercussions of this

What's the history? What is it that Blackwell did? Is this when he went into super-asshole mode?

[immoderate]

40. I'm with the "So what?" crowd here.

What difference did it make?

--IMM

[Imagevision]

42. Kerry: Bin Laden Cost Me Election

Failed presidential candidate John Kerry is blaming Osama bin Laden for "scaring" voters into re-electing President Bush.

"It was that Osama tape — it scared them ."

Kerry told the Fox host that the terror master's October surprise came too late - just four days before the vote - for him to counter.

"Senator Kerry clearly believes not only is it the security issue that cost him the election, but very specifically the Osama tapes coming out in the 11th hour,"
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/21/212238.shtml

Note: John Kerry also stated on MSNBC that; "he believed the Bin Laden tapes released days before the election is what did him in"

[Tellurian]

48. yeah, well...there is alot of missing information

here between the cup and the lip..and it is in our best interests to get to the bottom
of it to avoid future cumulative mistakes.

Is this why President Clinton doesn't want any dependence in the 08'election on Absentee ballots?

[earth mom]

46. Sorry, but I don't get it either.

* & Co were expecting a fight no doubt about that, so why would Kerry withdraw just because * & Co KNEW he would fight them over Ohio?

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

47. bottom line: two years later still NO smoking gun. he had challenges

and cases go into court and still the election hasnt been declared stolen. what would have been accomplished on day one. NOTHING

[mod mom]

83. No case has been made in court. Get Blackwell under oath (he has refused)

and let the attorney's make their case to a fair judge and jury. The evidence was good enought for RFK Jr and Mike Papantonio (who took on the frickin tobacoo companies and won)

[karynnj]

104. RFKjr proved that suppresion cost Kerry the election

NOT that Kerry got the most votes cast in Ohio. In his article he has a nice graphic showing where votes were lost. The largest piece - nearly half of them was an estimate of people who couldn't vote due to long lines.

[whistle]

49. Kerry still could have done this strategy, but he choose instead

...to concede. Why? Edwards was on TV at midnight after the polls closed saying that Kerry would fight for recounts. Yet Kerry conceded early the next morning. Why? Nearly every democrat believed Kerry would stand and fight, yet he conceded. Why?

I think the Carville story is a false flag. Kerry told voters he would never let another stolen 2000 election and democrats believed him, still he conceded without even attempting to fight back. Why?

[karynnj]

110. Both Edwards and Kerry did not want to concede late in the evening

By morning the final numbers they got in as more votes were counted and the firm tabulations on the number of provisional ballots, led the team of Democratic lawyers in Boston - many of the same people who told Gore to challange - told Kerry that the numbers weren't there to justify not conceding.

Nearly 2 years later, there is no smoking gun. If machines were tampered with, it was done with no audit trail.

In the last 2 years Kerry has spoken at least 10 times on tv or in the Seante about voter suppression techniques. He is one of the few Senators to speak about the problem of machines with proprietary code counting the vote and touch screens that default to one candidate or mysteriously change to the same candidate. Kerry, Feingold, Boxer and Dodd just submitted 2 bills to deal with problems - one is K/F the other B/D but all of them are co-sponsors on both.

Edwards has by and large not made this his issue and did not speak of this. (Speaking about it in 2005, led to both Teresa and John being ridiculed and trashed. That was when it was tough to speak about it.)

[tularetom]

50. Carville is absolutely useless

He's not interested in getting Dems elected. He just wants to keep getting invited back on Press the Meat with his freakshow wife, and getting invites to all the big shot beltway cocktail parties. He's repeatedly trashed Dean and other dems and his calls for Dems to be "tough on terror" somehow ring hollow when you read them (what he's advocating is for us to agree with pubs on the WoT and Iraq issues). He's provided consulting services to anti-Chavez candidates in Venezuela. He's a worthless slug - lower than whale shit on the ocean floor.

Yet I fail to see where what he did would have any effect on Kerry's decision to concede Ohio.

[PassingFair]

69. I couldn't let your post go by without a big

KISS.

I agree with everything you said,
and I LOVE the way you said it!

:patriot:

[Bluerthanblue]

52. The "piece" that links this all together

isn't obvious yet- but I believe it's there-

Like all mysteries, and jigsaw puzzles- It doesn't make sense at all when looked at without ALL the crucial pieces in place-

No one could understand why Kerry 'gave in' so easily- that was a 'piece' that still doesn't have all the key spaces filled- but somehow this is one of them I believe-


and
How the 'marriage' of 2 such arrogant diametrically opposed individuals could possible work is beyond me- this is one of the 'pieces' that make the Carville/Matlin union less of a puzzle.

[philly_bob]

54. How about an 11/04 Commission ... after November! /nt

[CTyankee]

81. A great idea

I wonder if the triumphant Dems would have the guts to do it. They could, of course, if they held both houses of Congress.

An interesting possibility. A lot of sh*t would hit the fan and the media wouldn't be able to ignore it.

At the very least, we could get the Diebold machines taken out and some legistation passed to safeguard future elections that are held with such machines.

[shraby]

60. One thing everyone is forgetting here,

Right after the election, a big Fallujah offense was started in Iraq. Bush may have decided to begin because he found out that Kerry was going to challenge. That would give the GOP the opportunity to charge Kerry with not being patriotic to challenge in the face of a major battle in Iraq. Matalin's heads-up to Bush and Bush gave the word to attack in Fallujah.

[karynnj]

112. Nice catch - Do we know when the battle started?

Kerry, of course, knew that a concession meant nothing if the provisional ballots elected him.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nashville_brook]

70. word

[Neecy]

62. well...

To me, the real issue isn't what happened or didn't happen after Carville made the phone call.

The real issue is exactly how much he passes on, in any election, in any situation, to his wife. We now know the answer, and he's now toxic. Radioactive. What Democrat would ever hire him, knowing he has these bizarre urges to phone his wife, a GOP operative, and blab away!

[glitch]

255. And during a close election yet, with vital news. Hard to claim it's just

loose lips in this scenario. Disclaimer: never liked Carville but don't trust Woodward, so we'll see.

[lonestarnot]

71. Woodward named names, but I already knew the game.

[bread_and_roses]

74. Kerry should have challenged on the disenfranchisement of

Urgan (Black) voters. People standing in line for hours to vote ALONE should have invalidated the election. Of course, after the Democrats failed to stand with the CBC over Florida, 2000....

Again and again, so much comes back to the failures of the Democrats to stand up.

And nonetheless, here I am once again working for Democrats - always the lesser of two evils. There is no question in my mind that we have to put an end to R absolute rule in this election, but how long, oh lord, how long???

[karynnj]

113. In principle, I agree with you that this should have been the caee

but in reality, apparently that wasn't sufficient grounds under Ohio election law.

[bread_and_roses]

140. What would MLK have done in that case, then?

I think it quite possible that he would have called for Nationwide non-violent protests - if the law cannot provide any recourse, then it is time to go into the streets. First Gore, then Kerry, utterly failed this Nation's African Americans in particular.

And how many of us would have gone, had Kerry called?

It would have been the right thing to do. Even practical, in terms of the voting base in the minority community. Now, 2000 and 2004 are just two new dates in the betrayal of poor and most particularly minority voters. And yet people will still say, "why don't they vote?"
*one word edit for grammar

[politicasista]

143. The ENTIRE Democratic Party let Gore and Kerry down

They didn't fail anyone. Their records and actions speak for themselves. Did they make mistakes, yes, but had we listened to what the candidates said rather than believing the stupid spin lies of the corporate media, both of them would have been in the WH.

[bread_and_roses]

144. I agree 100% with your subject line

But they are culpable for their own actions. In Gore's case, I am referring specifically to HIS not standing with the CBC - and if my memory is incorrect on that, I would be happy to be corrected. And I do mean that sincerely.

[politicasista]

145. But the Dems that are hated on have spoken out on this.

a lot more than most of our elected officials. It is OUR job to get his, Gore, and other Dems' messages out to those who are angry over 2000 and 2004.


From Kerry's Senate floor speech last summer:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his discussion of an important way of having accountability in voting . I must say that I saw how that works out in Oregon. It works well. It works brilliantly, as a matter of fact. People have a lot of time to be able to vote. They don't have to struggle with work issues or being sick or other things. They have plenty of time to be able to have the kind of transparency and accountability that makes the system work. There are other States where you are allowed to start voting early--in New Mexico and elsewhere.

It is amazing that in the United States we have this patchwork of the way our citizens work in Federal elections. It is different almost everywhere. I had the privilege of giving the graduation address this year at Kenyan College in Ohio, and there the kids at Kenyan College wound up being the last people to vote in America in the Presidential race in 2004 in Gambier, at 4:30 in the morning. We had to go to court to get permission for them to keep the polls open so they could vote at 4:30 in the morning.
Why did it take until 4:30 in the morning for people to be able to vote? They didn't have enough voting machines in America. These people were lined up not just there but in all of Ohio and in other parts of the country. An honest appraisal requires one to point out that where there were Republican secretaries of state, the lines were invariably longer in Democratic precincts, sometimes with as many as one machine only in the Democratic precinct and several in the Republican precinct; so it would take 5 or 10 minutes for someone of the other party to be able to vote, and it would take literally hours for the people in the longer lines. If that is not a form of intimidation and suppression, I don't know what is.

So I thank the Senator from Oregon for talking about the larger issue here. He is absolutely correct. The example of his State is one that the rest of the country ought to take serious and think seriously about embracing.

This is part of a larger issue, obviously, Mr. President. All over the world, our country has always stood out as the great exporter of democratic values. In the years that I have been privileged to serve in the Senate, I have had some extraordinary opportunities to see that happen in a firsthand way.

Back in 1986, I was part of a delegation that went to the Philippines. We took part in the peaceful revolution that took place at the ballot box when the dictator, President Marcos, was kicked out and ``Cory'' Aquino became President. I will never forget flying in on a helicopter to the island of Mindanao and landing where some people have literally not seen a helicopter before, and 5,000 people would surround it as you swooped out of the sky, to go to a polling place where the entire community turned out waiting in the hot sun in long lines to have their thumbs stamped in ink and to walk out having exercised their right to vote.

I could not help but think how much more energy and commitment people were showing for the privilege of voting in this far-off place than a lot of Americans show on too many occasions. The fact is that in South Africa we fought for years--we did--through the boycotts and other efforts, in order to break the back of apartheid and empower all citizens to vote. Most recently, obviously, in Afghanistan and Iraq, notwithstanding the disagreement of many of us about the management of the war and the evidence and other issues that we have all debated here. This has never been debated about the desire for democracy and the thrill that everyone in the Senate felt in watching citizens be able to exercise those rights .

In the Ukraine, the world turned to the United States to monitor elections and ensure that the right to vote was protected. All of us have been proud of what President Carter has done in traveling the world to guarantee that fair elections take place. But the truth is, all of our attempts to spread freedom around the world will be hollow and lose impact over the years in the future if we don't deliver at home.

The fact is that we are having this debate today in the Senate about the bedrock right to vote, with the understanding that this is not a right that was afforded to everyone in our country automatically or at the very beginning. For a long time, a century or more, women were not allowed to vote in America. We all know the record with respect to African Americans. The fact is that the right to vote in our country was earned in blood in many cases and in civic sweat in a whole bunch of cases. Courageous citizens literally risked their lives. I remember in the course of the campaign 2 years ago, traveling to Alabama--Montgomery--and visiting the Southern Poverty Law Center, the memorial to Martin Luther King, and the fountain. There is a round stone fountain with water spilling out over the sides. From the center of the fountain there is a compass rose coming back and it marks the full circle. At the end of every one of those lines is the name of an American with the description, ``killed trying to register to vote,'' or ``murdered trying to register.'' Time after time, that entire compass rose is filled with people who lost their lives in order to exercise a fundamental right in our country.

None of us will forget the courage of people who marched and faced Bull Connor's police dogs and faced the threat of lynchings, some being dragged out of their homes in the dark of night to be hung. The fact is that we are having this debate today because their work and that effort is not over yet. Too many Americans in too many parts of our country still face serious obstacles when they are trying to vote in our own country.

By reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we are taking an important step, but, Mr. President, it is only a step. Nobody should pretend that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act solves the problems of being able to vote in our own country. It doesn't. In recent elections, we have seen too many times how outcomes change when votes that have been cast are not counted or when voters themselves are prevented from voting or intimidated from even registering or when they register, as we found in a couple of States, their registration forms are put in the wastebasket instead of into the computers.

This has to end. Every eligible voter in the United States ought to be able to cast his or her ballot without fear, without intimidation, and with the knowledge that their voice will be heard. These are the foundations of our democracy, and we have to pay more attention to it.

For a lot of folks in the Congress, this is a very personal fight. Some of our colleagues in the House and Senate were here when this fight first took place or they took part in this fight out in the streets. Without the courage of someone such as Congressman JOHN LEWIS who almost lost his life marching across that bridge in Selma, whose actions are seared in our minds, who remembers what it was like to march to move a nation to a better place, who knows what it meant to put his life on the line for voting rights , this is personal.

For somebody like my colleague, Senator TED KENNEDY, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who was here in the great fight on this Senate floor in 1965 when they broke the back of resistance, this is personal.

We wouldn't even have this landmark legislation today if it weren't for their efforts to try to make certain that it passed.

But despite the great strides we have taken since this bill was originally enacted, we have a lot of work to do.

Mr. President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on this particular component of the bill, there is agreement. Republicans and Democrats can agree. I was really pleased that every attempt in the House of Representatives to weaken the Voting Rights Act was rejected.

We need to reauthorize these three critical components especially: The section 5 preclearance provisions that get the Justice Department to oversee an area that has a historical pattern of discrimination that they can't change how people vote without clearance. That seems reasonable.

There are bilingual assistance requirements. Why? Because people need it and it makes sense. They are American citizens, but they still may have difficulties in understanding the ballot, and we ought to provide that assistance so they have a fully informed vote. This is supposed to be an informed democracy, a democracy based on the real consent of the American people.

And finally, authorization for poll watching. Regrettably, we have seen in place after place in America why we need to have poll watching.

A simple question could be asked: Where would the citizens of Georgia be, particularly low-income and minority citizens, if they were required to produce a government-issued identification or pay $20 every 5 years in order to vote? That is what would have happened without section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Georgia would have successfully imposed what the judge in the case called ``a Jim Crow-era like poll tax.'' I don't think anybody here

GPO's PDFwants to go back and flirt with the possibility of returning to a time when States charged people money to exercise their right to vote. That is not our America.
This morning, President Bush addressed the 97th Annual Convention of the NAACP after a 5-year absence. I am pleased that the President, as we all are, ended his boycott of the NAACP and announced his intention to sign the Voting Rights Act into law.

But we need to complete the job. There are too many stories all across this country of people who say they registered duly, they reported to vote, and they were made to stand in one line or another line and get an excuse why, when they get to the end of the line, they can't vote. So they take out a provisional ballot, and then there are fights over provisional ballots.

There are ways for us to avoid that. Some States allow same-day registration. In some parts of America, you can just walk up the day of an election, register, and vote, as long as you can prove your residence.

We have this incredible patchwork of laws and rules, and in the process, it is even more confusing for Americans. We need to fully fund the Help America Vote Act so that we have the machines in place, so that people are informed, so that there is no one in America who waits an undue amount of time in order to be able to cast a vote.

We have to pass the Count Every Vote Act that Senator Clinton, Senator Boxer, and I have introduced which ensures exactly what the Senator from Oregon was talking about: that every voter in America has a verifiable paper trail for their vote. How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?

How can we have a system where the voting machines are proprietary to a private business so that the public sector has no way of verifying what the computer code is and whether or not it is accountable and fair? Just accounting for it.

Congress has to ensure that every vote cast in America is counted, that every precinct in America has a fair distribution of voting machines, that voter suppression and intimidation are un-American and must cease.

We had examples in the last election of people who were sent notices--obviously fake, but they were sent them and they confused them enough. They were told that if you have an outstanding parking ticket, you can't vote. They were told: Democrats vote on Wednesday and Republicans vote on Tuesday and various different things.

It is important for us to guarantee that in the United States of America, this right that was fought for so hard through so much of the difficult history of our country, we finally make real the full measure of that right.

I yield the floor. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague for her forbearance.

What other potential candidates are saying more than what Kerry is saying? I know the General has, but who else?

[Karenina]

154. How many would have heeded the call?

As many as took to the streets on Thursday??? :shrug:

[karynnj]

159. Bush is in power:

From the view of likely 80% to 90% of the country, IF people actually followed:

-Kerry loses an election
-Kerry starts a nationwide riot (I know a non-violent protest is not a riot - but think of how it will be cast)
-Bush declares marshall law (It's a time of war and this is an uprising against the government)
-How fast would the Democrats abandon Kerry?
-How quickly would any leaders of this and Kerry be jailed.

Long term would this be a better situation than now, or would Kerry's insurrection (as it would be called) eliminate any remaining civil rights.

[Reciprocity]

75. Has Carville commented on this?

[AtomicKitten]

79. self-delete - dupe

[savemefromdumbya]

84. Those who sleep with the enemy.......................

what do expect with carville?

[depakid]

95. Carville is slime- plain and simple

Anyone who trusts that man deserves what they get.

It's pretty obvious that he doesn't care about anything other than his own self-aggrandizement.

[Mass]

98. This is the man who said a few days before the GOP convention he was proud

to have help Zell Miller been elected. What is surprising here?

Carville and the Clintonstas did not want Kerry to win because they wanted Hillary to run in 08. What is it that people do not understand in there? Why do you think he talked to his wife?

What I do not understand is that people here still trust Carville and Begala. All he has achieved in a presidential election was 42 %. Even Schrum did better twice.

[benny05]

312. That is what I have thought all along n/t

[Octafish]

117. ''I don't agree with it.''

Gee. What other part of Kerry winning Ohio don't you agree with, Carville?

[1932]

118. Someone help me understand this. So what if Bush knew Kerry was going to

do that? How does Carville telling Matalin prevent Kerry from pursuing that strategy?

Bush was going to know something was up when Kerry went out to Ohio and started camping out with protesters.

[blm]

150. Carville tells Matalin JK's going to challenge 250,000 provisional ballots

Matalin tells Cheney and Bush who contact Blackwell.

Numbercrunchers come back to Kerry saying the number is no longer 250,000 ballots available to challenge, the number is now 150,000 which effectively closed the math window of opportunity.

That's as far as I can tell combining what happened according to the book and what we knew already.

[1932]

262. I still don't understand how it matters that Carville told Matalin.

If he hadn't, when Kerry challenged, Blackwell still would have lied about the numbers.

[blm]

264. That would have been pretty obvious - if 250,000 ballots were acknowledged

in a public way, and THEN Kerry challenges them, and THEN Blackwell pipes up with "No, I meant 150,000" it would be a hardsell.

But, since the number was switched to 150,000 AFTER the phonecall and before the higher number was confirmed and ballots gathered, it closed the MATH window Kerry needed to make the challenge. It's not like Kerry knew about the phonecall that was made or how it could have caused the sudden reduction of ballots.

[1932]

266. I'm still not convinced it would have made a difference.

If the election was challengeable, why would Blackwell have confirmed any number that would have allowed a challenge?

Is there more information for this somewhere? Is there a link to a source that explains this situation in more detail?

[blm]

267. Someone was going to put a timeline to it. I think I read that RFK Jr. had

discovered about 400,000 ballots that could have been identified, but the number kept getting changed till it eventually became 90 some thing thousand.

If Kerry knew Carville told the WH about the challenge to the original 250,000, and THEN was told the number was reduced, it's likely they all would have clearly seen what was being done.

[1932]

269. Why trust any number BLACKWELL gives

regardless of what Carville did?

Know what I mean?

Blackwell was never going to give the right number, and they should have challenged, if not the challengeable ballots, then at least, through civil and possibly criminal charges, the number of ballots Blackwell claimed were challengeable.

[blm]

270. Again - that's Dem party INFRASTRUCTURE - were they up to speed in Ohio

for the number crunching and plugged into what was actually happening? They are the eyes and ears on the ground there.

Pretty much every story I have heard the Ohio Dem party ingrastructure had been collapsed for years before 2004, and they may have just not had the muscle to find the real numbers.

[1932]

272. Or that's what the courts are for?

In any event, Carville telling Matalin about Kerry's intention to challenge shouldn't have stopped Kerry from challenging.

[blm]

273. 150,000 ballots to overtake a 118,000 vote deficit

And most ballots from GOP strongholds.

There is a lot more to the story, it's obvious now, and Carville should challenge Woodward if he's lying - but if the story is true, then why should we believe that Carville was the ONLY Dem party insider in place? My guess is that someone in the numbers game would also have to be involved, too - it wouldn't be JUST Carville.

[1932]

275. So, remind me again how this made a difference.

Do I have this right?: You say that there were, in fact, 250,000 challengeable ballots (and you also say that Dem infrastructure is so bad that nobody knows how many challengeable ballots there were), and Blackwell was about to release the number of challengeable ballots, but when he heard, by way of Carville-Matalin-Rove, that Kerry wanted to challenge, he announced there was a much lower number of challengeable ballots, and based on that information, Kerry chose not to challenge?

That makes no sense to me.

Why is Kerry basing his choice to challenge on a number Blackwell picks out of his ass? If the number is a lie, challenge to find out how many ballots there are.

And no matter what Carville says, the first slight move Kerry makes towards challenge, Blackwell is going to do what he can to interfere.

That's the thing about politics. Watergate, notwithstanding, there really are no secrets. All your moves are public. When you make your move, everyone know what it is. If Kerry tells Carville (someone not even on his team) that he's going to challenge, unless he says that it's top secret, and I'm telling you in your capacity as a lawyer admitted to the LA bar association and I expect atty-client privilege to appy, he's basically giving the public notice on his imminent next move which is about to become very very public.

[blm]

276. Kerry trusted the Dem party's election number crunchers the way I see it.

And Carville wasn't involved as part of Kerry's campaign team, he was there with the Dem PARTY crew.

I guess we'll hear more about this - maybe Carville will sue Woodward.

[1932]

281. That still doesn't answer my question.

I still don't understand the logic in the belief that this stopped Kerry from challenging in Ohio.

[blm]

282. At 250,000 he had the math window open, at 150,000 the math window closed.

And the number crunchers told him there was no chance to make uo the 118,000 vote deficit.

I don't know - I can only guess from what's being said in this book and what was known before - but I'd like to closer examine who the number crunchers are who handle that part of election night, and specifically the ones charged with that task in Ohio, and what they were saying to the campaign and Kerry.

[1932]

285. So? You think Blackwell lied about the number ONLY because he had

a heads up? You think he would have given 250K as the number, but for the heads up?

And this begs the question: shouldn't Kerry be challenging based on the real or percieved number, REGARDLESS of what Blackwell says?

[blm]

289. WE don't know exactly what the Dem number crunchers in Ohio were telling

the campaign, so.... how can there be an answer.

You know the decisionmaking doesn't happen in a vacuum based on what you feel - Gore didn't just jump up and declare he was going to mount a court case, the Dem team of election lawyers were telling him he HAD a case to continue and the math was on his side and ADVISED him to go for it. Kerry was told the opposite.

[NVMojo]

122. I remember donating money to Kerry to fight. This is outrageous!

And highly believable! Carville is OUT!

[roseBudd]

141. Were there 250,000 provisionals before 130,000 were invalidated for wrong

precinct?

[ProSense]

142. The reports throughout the night indicated 250,000 provisional ballots,

then suddenly there were fewer and a more than 92,000 were declared spoiled:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/ohio_provisional_11-03-04.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/election.main/index.html

http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/11/02/ohio_provisional/index.html

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_print.asp?id=25809


One thing for certain, Matalin can't be trusted!

[confludemocrat]

146. Kerry: " I caved like a wuss because of Carville! WAAAAAAAAAH!!!

what did an already distrusted Secy of state do that made JK quit? the ballots were going to be in dispute no matter what Blackwell did or said.
Kerry thought wrongly as he often does that it would be more costly to stand and fight on this because his 2008 chances would be gone if he fought. Trouble is he traded in his 2008 chances by this course of action. Add that to his vote against the first Gulf War, the vote for the second Gulf War and other examples of bad judgement, like voting against the Iraq troop funds "after voting for it", and his saying that if he had it to do over again knowing what he knew then in Aug of 2004, he would vote the same way.

[fedupinBushcountry]

155. See you listened to MSM sounbites

instead of looking into what he really said. On your 2008 comment, I love people who think they know it all, were you inside Senator Kerry's brain that night,"Kerry thought". sheesh. :crazy:

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

147. Wasn't Carville Rushs' best man?

Or was that the other way around? Not that it matters much, due to the fact that..

the wheels on the bus go round an round, round an round....

[dailykoff]

153. What a difference a lie makes.

How nice that Dem moles are helping good folks like Karl and Kenneth cook up the right lies at the right moment.

:puke:

[truedelphi]

158. I reported this (based on Democracy Now audio of Card)

Andrew Card, Chief of Staff to President George W Bush, may well live to regret his announcements at 5 AM on Nov. 3rd.
But at the time he was exultant at what the voting machines had wrought. His voice rang out resonant and a tad bit festive, happily victorious, "I'm Andy Card. I am President Bush's chief of staff. We are convinced that President Bush has won re-election with at least 286 electoral college votes. And he also had a margin of more than three and a half million votes. President Bush's decisive margin of victory makes this the first Presidential election since 1988 in which the winner received a majority of the popular vote. And that in this election, President Bush received more votes than any other presidential candidate in the history of our country In Ohio, the President has a lead of at least 136,000 votes. The Secretary of State's office has informed us that this margin is statistically insurmountableÉ So President Bush has won the state of Ohio."
The Right winger had not only stolen the election - they had a media blitz in effet were it not for the fact that Kerry resigned himself to the loss.

Had kerry stood his ground and gone ahead and camped out with the protesters, the media would have amped up their Swift-Boating, as the battle was raging in Fallujah. Right wing Christians the country over had been told by their ministers that if Kerry won, it would give strength and courage to the militant insurgents fighting our brave forces in Iraq.

[The Count]

169. Thank God kerry didn't allow the media to amp the swift boating....

"Had kerry stood his ground and gone ahead and camped out with the protesters, the media would have amped up their Swift-Boating"

and??????????Your point is???????
Why the hell did he want to run if he couldn't take this shit?

[Ava]

160. i have a feeling this is untrue

i think kerry didn't challenge the vote because he had no backbone... but hey, that may just be me :shrug:

[The Count]

162. I'm with you. Woody also tarred tenet with the slam dunk Iraq - untrue

because we know Tenet insisted on action against AlQuaeda.
And I still don't see how this stopped Kerry from contesting "because the country is at war"

[AtomicKitten]

163. duck and cover, Ava

:)

[Ava]

165. don't you know i'm not afraid of nuttin

'cept spiders :P ;)

[The Count]

167. Why should she? She is the voice of reason. How was this a secret?

You mean BFEE didn't expect kerry to contest???? And what, Blackwell fixed it over night? because Kerry declared "we are at war - can't have that" way before the actual concession and recalled the layers from the tarmac that very night.

[AtomicKitten]

172. I was being facetious.

Ava got it.

[The Count]

174. I know. I wanted to be sure everyone did too.

All this cloak and dagger story obscures the fact that it was Kerry - not Carville who set himself out as the leader to be and got our votes.
he owed it to the voters to stand up for them. he acted like a lawyer/accountant, not a leader.

[AtomicKitten]

175. I actually blame the Republicans.

But if some here want to start apportioning blame to random Democrats based on an obtuse passage in a book (some at DU have even suggested Democrats are complicit in the election fraud), then they better be prepared to see the finger point in the direction of the candidate himself who made the call to concede.

IMO it's all bullshit and we should just move on.

[blm]

258. And if it IS untrue, then Carville needs to use HIS backbone and say so

and if he doesn't then it isn't Kerry's backbone that deserves attack, it would be Carville's passing of information to the WH on election night shortly before the NUMBERS of the ballots changed from 250.000 to 150.000, and there was NO MATH scenario that Kerry could challenge.

Or do people not realize that MATH in the election process is what matters.

[The Count]

164. Uh..."the rest is history" confuses me. Why did Kerry concede again?

I notice you are all having fun tarring and feathering Carville - and I am not a big fan, but.....

I DID NOT VOTE FOR CARVILLE

[robbedvoter]

176. Clenis responsible for 2000, Carville for 2004. How conveeenient!

One little detail left out:

BFEE STOLE BOTH ELECTIONS!!!!!!

why do we always need a scape goat freom our own ranks? Do we doubt the election was stolen?
Did Blackwell need secret info ("he'll challenge!) to start stealing??????
How twisted is this?

Ah, one more thing:

I VOTED KERRY NOT CARVILLE!

[AtomicKitten]

177. brava, mam !!!

If I could vote your post the most fabulous one EVER, I would.

[robbedvoter]

180. Another - scape goat-less- piece of the puzzle:

Kerry forces planned for a battle that never was
> By Patrick Healy, Globe Staff  |  November 4, 2004
> http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/11/04/

5{es_planned_for_a_battle_that_never_was/
> According to Cahill, the uncounted Ohio ballots, on which Kerry's
> fortunes depended, were not overwhelmingly from Democratic-rich
> counties and cities in Ohio, but rather dispersed relatively evenly
> across the state -- meaning a share of votes for Bush as well. And
> while a team of lawyers pressed to go to court on Ohio at 8 a.m. to
> challenge the state's vote-counting procedures, Cahill said, Kerry did
> not see the point.
> ''He immediately just decided that in order to go forward in a time of
> war, was not something that he wanted to put the
> country through," Cahill said"

This was in Boston Globe. Link is dead, but I can provide a copy of the full article upon request.

[survivor999]

181. I don't buy it. Does not sound like Kerry.

His MO is to TALK big (usually both in favor and against something) and DO nothing. Sorry, seen enough.

[FredScuttle]

185. Hold on a sec....

I'm supposed to believe Bob Woodward, who not only concealed his role in the Plame outing but pontificated about it and smeared Fitz on TV for months like the pompous ass he is, because......?

[Time for change]

188. I don't understand this

How could knowledge that Kerry intended NOT to concede have changed anything. What does "The rest is history" mean? Whatever cheating Blackwell did -- and there was plenty of that -- why would have it turned out different whether Blackwell thought Kerry was going to concede or not?

and anyhow, he DID concede. Is this article suggesting that Blackwell used the knowledge that he intended not to concede to change his mind and get him to concede?

[dailykoff]

192. Kerry caught with super-secret Skull and Bone Phone

Now THAT we'll believe.

:sarcasm:

[zulchzulu]

194. Remember that a concession speech IS NOT legally binding...

The critical issue is that 250,000 votes that could have been contested were shrunken to 120,000, possibly from Carville's big mouth alerting the GOP critical layers of political strategy.

[AtomicKitten]

196. the number of provisional ballots is a red herring in the blame game

it was the disbursement of ballots that caused Kerry to throw in the towel

as robbedvoter astutely pointed out, it was the BFEE that stole the election in 2000, 2002, and 2004

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2340537&mesg_id=2343259

[ecstatic]

198. This just makes me dislike Kerry more--he better not run in 2008

WTF does a little leakage have to do with Kerry IMMEDIATELY conceding before all the votes were counted? Meanwhile, many minority voters in Ohio had to wait in line 7+ hours just for him to immediately quit.

So let me get this straight, is this story supposed to help Kerry earn support? All it does it reinforce the 'flip flop' impression many people already have of him! Oh, Kerry *was* going to count all the votes but then changed his mind when Bush found out.

Alrighty then...:eyes:

[Mr_Spock]

200. Glad to see someone who isn't just jumping on the bash Carville bandwagon

As if Carville was the only one aware of the strategy - how long can one keep the strategy of recounting a secret anyway?

And why DID Kerry concede anyway?

(just parroting your post in my words - I agree with your post)

[ProSense]

202. Kerry didn't write the book, and Carville should have kept his mouth shut!

It may have given Bush the chance to lose some ballots, but it didn't stop Kerry from trying to get to the bottom of what happened .He in fact didn't concede until the next morning.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2340537&mesg_id=2343503

[wisteria]

215. I don't get you, you can't count something that isn't there?

You can't have 250,000 ballots then have 150,000 ballots with some of them going to Bush, and expect to engage in a legal challenge. He also, has spoken up and offered and amendment directly associated with the disenfranchisement of the minorities in Ohio.

[zulchzulu]

310. So you would like Kerry if he had protested election results without proof

At the time, there wasn't proof. In fact, many of the votes that disappeared in the election are indeed untraceable, hence not evidence to be proven in a court of law.

John Conyers has praised Kerry for his post-election efforts. Many others have as well. You should know this by now. Additionally, a concession speech is not legally binding anyway...

[FogerRox]

201. IIRC w/o any notes.

IIRC Blackwell told Kerry that the number of outstanding votes was less then the margin bewtween Bush & Kerry. Something like there are 90k outstanding porvisionals, and the margin is 125k.

As was discussed on Democratic Underground, the real number of uncounted votes was closer to 400k. RFK Jr's math is very close to that number. Anyway, Kerry thinks that he doesnt have enough of the provisionals to make up the difference.

Blackwell lied to Kerry. No one knew the real provisional ballot numbers until much later. SO.. leave the 250k number out of the story, it just complicates the jist of the story.

This is how the story should read: Kerry said he is headed for Ohio. Jim tells Mary, Mary tells the boyz in the WH. The WH tells Blackwell that Kerry is on the way to Ohio. Blackwell lies to Kerry. Kerry quits.

We at DU suspected this by the end of 2004. We knew that Blackwell lied. By the end of the Ohio recount, enough Kerry votes showed up to make the Margin between Bush & Kerry about 112k.

By August of 2004, Kerry had raised around 3.5 million for his legal contingency fund. He was ready to fight.

Roger Fox



http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward#comment-170689

[Tellurian]

211. Knowing Ohio and PA were the battleground states

why didn't Kerry have people already there on the
ground verifying information as it was coming in?

why would Kerry take Blackwell's word as
worth anything, except for playful banter???

This still isn't even close to being a plausible
excuse for concession...and who in their right mind
would not want to see for themselves the actuary's,
after a long hard road traveled, specifically, waiting
for this moment in time?

[kpete]

213. Thanks FogerRox

This one had some interesting ?s Who, What, Where, Whys -
my personal conclusions were very similar to yours....

I would add that we are far from knowing the whole truth
- I have doubts we will EVER completely know...

[FogerRox]

218. I was recruited in NJ to go down to FLorida

By Ted Carter, Clintons '96 field ops Dierctor. I don't know If I buy Woodwards story. But Blackwell did lie to Kerry.

[EFerrari]

224. The thing is, in order to believe that story, you have to believe

that my intelligence on Ken Blackwell was better than John Kerry's!

I mean, even I knew that Blackwell was a dirty sonuvabitch BEFORE the election. Are we supposed to believe that JOHN KERRY didn't know that? To believe that JOHN KERRY believed Ken Blackwell?

That's hard for me to swallow, any way. :shrug:

[ProSense]

251. It wasn't about believing Blackwell!

Blackwell was the person in charge of certifying the elections in that state, just as Katherine Harris was in Florida. That was the reason for the legal challenges!

[EFerrari]

257. Yes, it was about believing him according to this silly story.

And, I'm very aware of who and what Blackwell is -- and was before the election.

Are you saying John Kerry knew less than I did and took Blackwell's word on the number of ballots at issue? Because that's the bull Woodward is peddling.

[ProSense]

260. What was the solution?

The SOS secures the election data, and says the number of provisional ballots are fewer than previously thought, what does one do? In fact, the number reported was less than 150,000 in addition to the more than 92,000 spoiled ballots. The only thing to do in that case is to file a legal challenge!

[EFerrari]

261. Ohio has state laws regarding recounts. Which Blackheart

violated three ways to Sunday.

[ProSense]

265. This is about what happened election night!

Blackwell's infractions are well documented, as are the legal challenges the Kerry campaign filed, which included tampering during the recount process.

[EFerrari]

280. Blackwell was not deployed on election night but WEEKS

before that. That's why this story is incredible, or at very least, overblown.

[ProSense]

283. Blackwell was there before, during and after the election

That's part of his job:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/election.main/index.html

[EFerrari]

286. Wrong. It's not his job to deny qualified Ohio voters their franchise.

He pulled every dirty trick possible BEFORE the election, so John Kerry had no reason to take his word for how many ballots were in play. No reason, none, zip, zilch.

[ProSense]

288. No one said that was his job!

Blackwell's job was to certify the election, the only way to challenge his actions was through legal channels.

[EFerrari]

292. Well, duh. But this story hinges on the Kerry camp TRUSTING

this felon to accurately report the number of ballots in play AFTER the election.

Why would the Kerry camp trust this guy? We all knew what he was BEFORE a single vote was cast.

That part of the story -- Blackwell got an SOS from the White House -- is bullshit. Blackwell was ALREADY working for and with the White House 'way before the election.

[ProSense]

294. It has nothing to do with trusting!

It has to do with what Blackwell did! He also certified the election despite all the questions surrounding the results.

[EFerrari]

297. Of he did. He was BushCo in Ohio. Geezus. n/t

[glitch]

256. Thank you FogerRox. This is info I need during these overload times

It's just flying fast and furious now, thanks for the grounding.

[brettdale]

216. Kerry should of screamed at the top of lungs

What we all know.

[Tellurian]

217. But he didn't..

There was something else stopping him from going there..
I'm pretty sure I knowwhat the Truth is...but I'll quit now..
tired and the feather ball is calling me..g'nite all :hi:

[doctor_garth]

219. this is pure bullshit

let's blame Carville now for Kerry's cowardice.

I never heard so much infuriating CRAP in my life.

[EFerrari]

227. It's a 2fer. It gets people mad at Kerry all over again and it

makes Carville look untrustworthy. It's cR@p.

[FogerRox]

274. Crap, very likely, I dont recall the 250k number being floated right away

Woodwards version has the 250k number in it, IMHO its not pertainent to the story of Carville doing this. Why is it included ?.... puzzles me.

I'm fairly sure Kerry was told there were 90k provisionals, & the margin in Ohio was 125k. Watching TV @ HQ, on Nov. 3rd, thats what we were told. So wouldnt then Kerry be coming to ohio to 90k ballots?

It seems this story is infering that Matlin, the White House, et al, are running around talking about 250k ballots. Which I don't believe, why would the number of provisionals in Ohio be of any import to the gist of the story. All that really matters is Kerry is coming to Ohio.

And then Blackwell lies to Kerry.

If Kerry is coming to Ohio because there are 250 uncounted provisional, & the Margin is 125k. Then if Blackwell tells Kerry this.... Kerry is definetly coming to Ohio.

SO Woodwards account, in a purely math sense, does not add up. IF Woodwards account of the math is faulted, then is there more to the account, that is also faulted?

[ProSense]

277. It was all over the news!

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/ohio_provisional_11-03-04.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/election.main/index.html

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_print.asp?id=25809

[FogerRox]

287. Provisional ballots

Blackwell said in statements to reporters Wednesday morning that as many as 175,000 provisional ballots may have been cast ...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/ohio_provisional_11-03-04.html

While he said the exact number of provisional ballots was unknown, he said it is "trending toward 175,000."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/election.main/index.html

[ProSense]

298. Bush was up by 136,000 votes,

not enough to trigger an automatic recount, and 175,000 versus 250,000 made the math less than favorable. By the time the recounts brought the margin down to 118,000 votes, the number of provisionals stood at about 150,000, and many were still being declared spoiled.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6460869

From Conyers report, the provisionals were a moving target:

1. Confusion in Counting Provisional Ballots
Facts
Secretary Blackwell’s failure to issue standards for the counting of provisional ballots led to a chaotic and confusing result such that each of Ohio’s 88 counties could count legal ballots differently or not at all.371 In turn, this fostered a situation where subsequent to the election, Cuyahoga County mandated that provisional ballots in yellow packets must be “rejected” if there is no “date of birth” on the packet. This ruling was issued despite the fact that the original “Provisional Verification Procedure” from Cuyahoga County stated, “Date of birth is not mandatory and should not reject a provisional ballot” and simply required that the voter’s name, address and a signature match the signature in the county’s database.372 The People for the American Way Foundation sought a legal ruling ordering Secretary Blackwell and the county elections board to compare paper registration and electronic registration records.373 People For the American Way further asked the Board to notify each voter whose ballot was invalidated and how the invalidation could be challenged.374 Neither of these actions were taken.

In another case, while the state directed counties to ensure voters had been registered during the thirty days before the election, 375 one college student who had been registered since 2000 and was living away from home was denied a provisional ballot.376

Analysis

Mr. Blackwell’s failure to articulate clear and consistent standards for the counting of provisional ballots likely resulted in the loss of several thousand votes in Cuyahoga County alone, and untold more statewide. This is because the lack of guidance and the ultimate narrow and arbitrary review standards imposed in Cuyahoga County appear to have significantly contributed to the fact that in Cuyahoga County, 8,099 out of 24,472 provisional ballots, or approximately one third, were ruled invalid, the highest proportion in the state.377 This number is twice as high as the percentage of provisional ballots rejected in 2000.378 These series of events constitute a possible violation of the Voting Rights Act, as not only were legitimate votes apparently thrown out, they undoubtedly had a disproportionate impact on minority voters, concentrated in urban areas such as Cuyahoga County which had the highest shares of the state’s provisional ballots. The actions may also violate Ohio’s constitutional right to vote.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf

[EFerrari]

295. Yes, fake numbers were all over the "news" and the DLC

spent the next weekend bemoaning the loss of fictitious "values voters" when there weren't any such.

Please.

[ProSense]

299. What are you talking about?

What fake numbers? There were more ballots than were eventually counted!

[EFerrari]

300. I'm talking about one of the most corrupt SOS in the nation.

Do you actually BELIEVE in Ken Blackwell's stewardship of Ohio elections?

:shrug:

[ProSense]

302. What does that have to do with it? Is Blackwell still SOS of Ohio? n/t

[EFerrari]

304. One last time: Ken Blackwell was not deployed the day after

the election -- a fact upon which this story hinges.

He was BushCo in Ohio in the run up to the election. Kerry had no reason to take Blackwell's word for anything. So, this story is baloney. There's nothing that Maitlin could have done re alerting Blackwell that would change for a single moment what he was ALREADY DOING.

[ProSense]

306. Blackwell on the day after the election:

Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell issued orders for counties by 2 p.m. Wednesday to report total numbers of provisional ballots. Counting of those ballots will not begin until Thursday, according to Blackwell's directive.

It is not clear how long the ballot-counting will take. Initially, Blackwell said the counting of provisional and absentee ballots would not begin for 11 days.

He said he could not immediately put an estimate on the number of those ballots but said 250,000 might not be out of the realm of possibility.

While he said the exact number of provisional ballots was unknown, he said it is "trending toward 175,000."

Blackwell suggested that "everybody just take a deep breath and relax."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/election.main/index.html

He was also SOS. There was no other SOS, he was it!

[EFerrari]

293. It doesn't add up. Woodward is trying to stir up distrust

among Democrats as far as I can tell.

We all know that Blackwell was screwing with voters 'way before election day. :shrug:

[wiley]

228. So, they have found an issue to start the cat beatings and hangings?

You can't wait 30 f•cking days? 30 f•cking days?

Kerry suppporters: Let it go, now.

[EFerrari]

229. Really! Why is anyone listening to this BUSH SHILL?

:shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

301. because they just can't let it go

this is such nonsense, such an epic waste of time
pretzel logic to beat a dead horse
stick a fork in it

[upi402]

234. so, kerry didn't. period. nobody barricaded him in...

and carville worked for clinton , republican-light. he's married to matalin yet seems exceptionally bright. gee, what's up?

[leveymg]

235. Carville also told Dems not to challenge the WH on Iraq and 9/11

I have no doubt that if the Kerry campaign had made an issue about the very detailed prior warnings given Bush, Rice, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld about imminent terrorist attacks during the summer of 2001, we would have won the Presidential elections. There has long been plenty of evidence that the Bush White ignored the warnings. The Dems also would have won if the campaign had highlighted the Bush Administration's lies and treasons that led us to invade Iraq.

It was the strategy of silence pushed by reigning strategists James Carville, Bob Shrum and and Stan Greenberg to leave those subjects untouched. See, below: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1111-29.htm

Published on Thursday, November 11, 2004 by The Nation
It's the War, Stupid
by Ari Berman

The Democrats lost by not turning the race into a referendum on George Bush's handling of Iraq. The result: the Administration that ignored warnings about domestic terrorist attacks prior to 9/11, let Osama escape, alienated the world community, boosted Al Qaeda's recruiting, neglected to secure America's ports, and bungled the occupation of Iraq maintained its national security advantage.
Despite these clear national security disasters, Democrats failed to present a coherent critique until it was too late.

Bill Clinton defeated the elder Bush in 1992, and won again four years later, by running on James Carville's famous adage: "It's the economy, stupid." But that mantra alone doesn't fly in the post-9/11 world and Democrats have been shamefully slow to recognize this.

Back in the fall of 2002, the trio of consultant Carville, pollster Stan Greenberg and operative Bob Shrum assured the Democrats that whether or not they voted for the Iraq war--despite strong opposition from their antiwar base--the 2004 election would hinge on the domestic issues which traditionally favor the party. "This election won't turn on regime change," wrote Democratic pollster Jeremy Rosner at the time. Support the policy and change the subject became the strategy. This insider mentality convinced presumed nominee John Kerry to heed his party's advice and support this doomed direction.

Then Howard Dean shocked the Democratic establishment by soaring to top of the primaries on the strength of his straightforward, antiwar, in-your-face challenges to Bush on Iraq. Suddenly Kerry followed suit, came back, and won the primaries, though his "antiwar" statements left him open to accusations of "flip-floping" from the Republicans. (Last week Karl Rove called Kerry's Iraq contradictions, "the gift that kept on giving.")

But after winning the nomination, Kerry again embraced the 2002 strategy, hoping that increasingly bad news from Iraq would taint Bush while he capitalized on the economy and health care.


Well, we all know what happened.

[The Count]

236. And it's all Carville's fault! Poor wittle Kerry! he tried, but Carville

kept giving him the wrong advice...It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!

[leveymg]

239. It wasn't just Kerry who was taking this advise

Carville and his partners are a genuine powerhouse in political strategy and polling on the Democratic side of the Hill.

They churn out very solid, professional materials and numbers, as a result a lot of people listen to their recommendations, even though they've been very wrong or very late on some very big issues.

It's not a conspiracy, it's just a fact that the Dems haven't been well served by some of their most competent people.

[ProSense]

243. It's not poor whittle Kerry! It's Carville's big mouth sabotaging

one of the best chances to give Bush a one-way ticket to Crawford! Everyone seems to agree that Kerry won, but want to fault him for a systematic failure. What failed is the Democratic mechanism to turn a record number of votes into a win! It's not Kerry's fault the machines weren't secure. It's not his fault the Ohio Democratic party infrastructure couldn't help to mount a significant challenge to Blackwell. It's not his fault that New Mexico decided against a recount. The idea that Kerry, who put 10,000 lawyers and 35,000 workers in place, which is part of the reason any of this is known, is ludicrous. That team was in place reporting and collecting information on the scene. There were even news reports of these incidents. What other infrastructure within the Democratic Party provided that kind of monitoring?

This blame Kerry nonsense is BS!

[ProSense]

248. While Ohio was in question, here is what Carville said:

Carville says Kerry needed a narrative

By Karen Roebuck
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, November 4, 2004

Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign failed because it lacked a narrative telling voters what the candidate was for and against, Democratic political strategist James Carville said Wednesday.

President Bush's re-election campaign had a narrative that was successful, though not necessarily accurate, Carville told a crowd of about 250 students and faculty at Robert Morris University the day after the president's re-election over the Massachusetts senator.

"What they did was not accurate, and disingenuous, but they did it and, for the moment, got away with it," said Carville, co-host of "Crossfire" on CNN. Carville led Robert Casey's 1986 successful bid for Pennsylvania governor following three failed campaigns, followed by Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign.

Kerry lost the election despite raising a lot of money, claiming victory in all three debates and having waged the campaign "in the middle of a disastrous war and a soft economy," Carville said during a half-hour talk frequently punctuated by one-liners aimed at Republicans.

Snip...

He would not say whether he expects New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the party's presidential candidate in 2008, saying only it's a possibility.

"I think she's going to be a major player in the party, obviously, as she well should," he said.

more...

[Raster]

252. You know, I bet Kerry could have purchased that narrative from

Carville/Matlin's Consulting Company. They seem to have all the bases covered. Both sides of the Aisle, both sides of their mouths.

[The Count]

254. I can't believe this Woodward idiocy is top thread on DU!

Not DU's best day - I can tell you that.
Wgat other things are best kept secrets prone to betrayal? That we try to win elections? That we know SOSs are not always "neutral"?
There is another election about to be stolen - instead of worrying about THAT, we are minding little factions withing the dem party...how very productive!
Can't wait who's going to be the baddie this time?
Nancy Pelosy? barak Obama? Got to find a new one you know - or else people may get bored and

BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR STEALING!!!!!!(OR WAR, OR TORTURE, OR CURRUPTION, OR SUBVERTING THE CONSTITUTION)

[zulchzulu]

313. So many typos behind such little thought...

Why are you here, Freeperzoid?

As for you drinking while typing, I'd check into some kind of AA if I were you.

[The Count]

314. You rekindled all the anger at Kerry I had started to let go of. Be proud.

I am not the only one. Yelling "freeper" will not cancel this horrible mistake you guys did in trying to whitewash Kerry's "My Pet Goat" moment. The more you flaunt it, the more it stinks.
These days I got used to celebrating stinkos from the other side, but somehow, you managed to top DU with Kerry's cowardice.
yeay, you! Forget Foley, war, torture - let's all disect Kerry's concession of a won election. Good plan.

[AtomicKitten]

317. disregard that nasty toady response

He and his ilk are pissed off folks who dump on everybody and everything in an effort to assuage their misery dealing with the fact that their boy lost. The ironic part is that his nasty attitude is turning people against the possibility of ever supporting his boy in 2008, which would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

[wisteria]

319. Now I get you, you pretend to want fairness and truth, yet you

have not let the original premise of this post alone. You have constantly expressed the same opinion over and over again. We get it. You have chosen sides.You find it easier to denounce anything related to Kerry. I would wager a bet you would fight against Kerry any opportunity you got. Excuse us for questioning the mighty Carville's honesty and truth worthiness. Obviously, there are things he has done in the past that have allowed people to believe he is capable of what is implied in Woodward's book.
Sure, we Kerry supporters are continually fighting for him and some do believe he was robbed of the Presidency. He was and still is the better man. You speak of us not facing facts, I would suggest that you do not want to fact the facts. You and the others who expected Kerry to go to ridiculous and stupid lengths to not concede when he had no other choice. Maybe he actually won, maybe he did lose. We still feel he is deserving of another chance because of the good he could do for this country. Anyway, don't vote for him if he runs again, seems to me you would find any excuse not to anyway. You may correct me if I am wrong, but this major defense of Carville seems to indicate to me that you support Senator Clinton, and since he has been supportive of her and most likely will be working on her election, you feel it is necessary to strike at those of us who question Carville's loyalty. Or maybe, it is anyone who would work against Kerry that you support?

[AtomicKitten]

320. no, dear, what I want is civility

#1. Period. That's the most important thing. I didn't even read your post because you clearly DON'T get it.

In addition to the nastiness he posted on this thread, your fellow Kerryite just referred to Dean supporters on another thread as "pre-Primary Deandroid red-faced stupidity with all the wrong talking points".

If you are going to defend that, then you are part of the problem.

[wisteria]

321. Wow, don't lump us all together. We are all our own people.

My act is clean. And, the posts I have read in this thread seem fairly civil. I have supported Kerry, past, present and future. I am proud of that fact. generally, I do not comment on other candidates unless I have very good reason to do so. I don't do it very often and the Clinton post was one of those times.

[Mass]

336. Did anybody said they defended that? Give us a break!

I agree I am not sure why this thread is still living, but apparently, bashing Democrats is still very much alive. No "holier than God" attitude is going to prevent that.

DU is about bashing Democrats and there is NO potential democratic candidate who does not have a handful of supporters on DU behaving badly. Nothing you can do about that, except ignore them or enter the battle.

[zulchzulu]

340. Lemme guess...

You were for Dean in the primaries, right?

As for the difference between Dean supporters at the time and what I termed "Deandroids", I saw these people firsthand on the streets and other grassroots events at the time. They would scream at you, red-faced, and it was apparent that they would not want to engage in debate in a civil manner. There were Dean supporters and there were...yunno...

A lot has happened since that time.

I work with the DFA when I can, have met and videotaped Howard Dean and am engaged in a couple races locally doing what I can to help them win in this election cycle.

That's "my ilk". And when Kerry runs again, he will be "my boy". Whatever...

[The Count]

335. I too believe he was robbed of the presidency he won (with my vote too)

I also voted against Hillary in the primaries (and for the anti-war candidate) and will have a hard time voting for her in November (I might not pull that lever at all).
Not everything is the Kerrys vs the Clintons.
I detest Carville since the Crossfire episode where he said torture could be justifiable some times(years before it became law).


That being said, I hold Kerry responsible for not fighting for our votes - and I will never be conned in voting for him again.

[zulchzulu]

332. I know it can be difficult attaining actual facts and such...

Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2340537&mesg_id=2348872

I know... you think Kerry should have grown into King Kong and marched down Pennsylvania Ave. to the White House...picked it up...shook it around....and then demanded that everybody say he won the election...or else...

Ooops! I have to go back to Planet Earth. Good luck!

[The Count]

338. No. Just not concede until the count and allow the "values won" BS

All the acts of contrition. of the Dems after his concession are his fault. All the "we should be more like them so we can win" is Kerry's fault. All the "W won, had man date can do anything - Kerry's fault.
he might not have prevailed in his challenge - but at least the truth would have been out - the way it was in 2000.
But Kerry prefered to duck and let his voters think he lost when he knew better. That's his fault.
The robbery I lay at the feet of BFEE.
See? it's easy really.

[cascadiance]

279. l still remember disliking Carville's comments on election night...

Too bad someone can't find an old tape of Carville getting interviewed on various channels then. I remember at the time feeling like Carville was "throwing in the towel" and being "retrospective" about trying to analalyze why the voters voted for Bush instead of Kerry, and saying to myself that it was "WAY TO EARLY" for him to be doing so, when some of the exit polls, and voting results still seemed to be contentious at the time.

I wonder if that was part of the spin where he might have been part of the effort to keep legal challenges from happening in Ohio!

I don't really trust Carville. I think that his marriage to Matalin is more than just a "novelty item". I think it's symbolic and a macrocosm of how corporate America is looking to control both parties now and will say two different things to each, even though the goal is to keep ultimate control over both. This is why the DLC needs "kicking out"!

[MODemocrat]

309. James Carville stooped to a new level

I've always suspected he discussed this with his arrogant republican wife, and this just proves it.
Shame on him; he's let Mary Matalin bring him down to her level, which is the lowest of low.
How pathetic; at one time, I really admired that Cajun.:mad: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

[Leopolds Ghost]

323. Woodward IS a plant, and he IS telling the truth about Carville.

That's what the Overclass hires him to do as a media liason with the intelligence service -- hold on to damaging information about powerful people until such time as it suits the Overclass to release it.

THAT'S WHAT HE'S PAID TO DO.

Or do you Kerry-bashers think Watergate was a hoax?

Woodward's book is not coming out by coincidence.

The Overclass has given him the go-ahead to publish damaging truths.

Most of the Kerry-bashers defending Carville on these boards probably owe their position in the Dem party to Carville, in all likelyhood. Or are flat earth conspircy theorists (and that's saying something compared to me being called a fearmonger for speculating on what's really going on here.)

At least I understand you can't challenge an election if the enemy knows in advance how many contested ballots you need to make a challenge.

Carville defenders here and elsewhere are muddying the waters in order to strengthen the Carville/Clinton camp at the expense of the Kerry camp. If Woodward is a plant, then by all means so are they.

[AtomicKitten]

328. okeeedokeeee

And maybe Kerry fans are grasping at straws and seeking to blame anybody and everybody for the fact that Kerry isn't in the White House.

The extrapolation of this Woodward passage to be waaaaaaaaaay more than it reads is just absurd, that absurdity furthered by the fact it would have made zero difference to the outcome in that Kerry declined pressing a challenge to the election by his own admission because the provisional ballots were spread out and he didn't see where it would make a difference.

Don't confuse people that try to inject an element of reason (reads sanity) into the process with plants for whatever entity you perceive to stand in opposition to Kerry ascending the throne. By your own description, that would make you a plant, and I would say both the organic and inorganic kind.

[Leopolds Ghost]

331. Are you saying I'm a nut for telling you Kerry couldn't have challenged?

250,000 --> Kerry could have, and would have, challenged. You must think Kerry is the nut.

150,000 --> Kerry could not have challenged. You must think Woodward is a liar and there never were 250,000 ballots, which Carville warned them to "get rid of" by declaring them spoiled or uncontestable.

Kerry would have lost no matter what --> you are defending Carville on the grounds that you think Kerry DESERVED to lose just like Carville said. --> you are in some sort of Carville camp, ideologically or jobwise?

Kerry might have won, thus explaining his decision to contest the 250,000 ballots, and Woodward is telling the truth --> my position.

The 250,000 ballots disappeared in time for Kerry to call and request the precise number Blackwell knew he was looking for.

If you are calling me a conspiracy theorist for saying Woodward is a plant, why aren't you attacking the Carville defenders who are saying that Carville did NOT commit a crime here because they think Woodward is a plant?

Woodward's role is simple -- he is paid to tell the truth WHEN AND IF IT SUITS HIS EMPLOYERS. Otherwise he is paid to keep his mouth shut about inconvenient facts. What part of that don't you agree with? And if you think the Woodward is legit, why aren't you going after Carville for tantamount to criminal conduct on his part?

[jollyreaper2112]

327. figures

I never trusted that space alien-looking motherfucker.

[bridgit]

329. a wedding of true political usury & abuse of office & loyalty...

Carville/Matalin, Matalin/Carville, you cannot possibly have expected the one to exclude the other, why is this so shocking?

[FogerRox]

333. Boy oh Boy. I worked for Kerry.

But Woodwards story does not pass muster. If anyone has the right to be pissed at Kerry, its me. I was recruited by Bill CLinton's '96 Field operations Director, to go down to FLorida.

I might know what the campaign people were talking about............. ya think?

However one might feel about Kerry, Blackwell lied to him.
However one might feel about Carville, Woodward's story sounds like BS, on more than one level.

I don't see anyone citing Ohio election law here, as to when Absentees & Provisionals get counted....

AS if that doesn't make a shits difference........ to some posters in this thread.

Woodwards story doesnt work, period.

[bridgit]

334. Woodward's bones are at this very moment being picked apart...

and cleaned, my thought is not for Woodward; as he wants it seven ways to Sunday imo though it is well past time to hold someone responsible somewhere for something...but my thought remains, and that is that one cannot presume a husband will never, ever confide in his wife or cross-talk about chit-chat, nor wife visa versa; that union in particular would i think require less than a wedding certificate as it would an affidavit full of blanks to be filled in later perhaps, again imo though i do wish them long life & happiness

thank you for your work :hi:

[wisteria]

339. So you were indirectly connect ed with Clinton loyalists/ Are you still

connected? Are you planning to do something for Senator Clinton? Just asking. Carville is, after all associated with President Clinton for most.

[FogerRox]

343. I am talking field ops.....GOTV .... Not policy/communications.

.... generally considered as.... 2 separate communities, IMHO.
I am currently working for Tom Wyka for Congress, NJ11. Tom is an IT project manager who has never run for office, he is DFA & PDA. As for Hillary, she should stay in the senate >wink<. I think of Bill Clinton as the best republican President in my lifetime.

[Occulus]

337. Wow.

Just....... wow.

Gaius Baltar would be proud.

[ProSense]

341. More BS from Carville, Begala, Matalin:

Snip...

MR. RUSSERT: Who’s best equipped to conduct the war on terror and they decided to continue with George Bush rather than change for John Kerry.

MR. CARVILLE: There’s extensive evidence that that’s really not—the reason that they did not vote for Kerry is, is not because they thought he was too liberal or they thought he wouldn’t protect America. It was they were more concerned it looked like his stance were one way and another and were not definitive.

That is the price that you pay if you don’t have a central unified message. You get J-HOSED because you allow them to define you. But I checked on our polling on the way over here this morning and it is absolutely true that the reason that the biggest doubts about Kerry were not that he wouldn’t protect America—he was too liberal—but that he was too wobbly. And that’s what we do in this book, Tim, is it’s not the same prescription. A prescription for Democrats always is, “are we too liberal or where do we adjust ourselves on the ideological scale?”

As Paul said, we believe the problem is anatomical, not ideological. There’s no reason that if you’re for an increase in the minimum wage that you have to be for gun control. I mean, that’s a typical ideological approach and that’s the kind of stuff that we argue against. I think we argue very, very hard and I just keep pounding the table on this energy independence thing. I mean, Tom Frieden’s...(unintelligible)...absolutely right about that. And I don’t know why the Democrats don’t take it up.

MR. RUSSERT: In fact, let me quote exactly again from the book on that subject of transplant. “Democrats have failed on the basics, defining their message, attacking their opponents, defending their leaders, inspiring their voters. The problem with the Democratic Party isn’t—is not ideological, it’s anatomical. We lack a backbone. Consider this book an attempt at a spinal transplant.”

You agree with that, Mary?

MS. MATALIN: Well, there waffly because they’re not on—they have no firm ground to stand on. There is no Democratic foreign policy, there is no Democratic security policy, there is no Democratic economic policy, there is no Democratic energy policy. Bush has laid out policies on all those things. You can disagree with him, you can debate on them, but this is not about attacking him or Kerry’s medals. It’s about putting out some policies. So if they’re waffling, put something out there and we’ll debate on it.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Senator Clinton’s position on the war in Iraq’s been clear, unambiguous, firm?

MR. CARVILLE: Yeah, I think so. I think she supported the resolution, she did not support kicking the U.N. inspectors out when they were there, and she’s, you know, trying to get some kind of a solution that works. She’s one of 40 Democrats that said it was time to put Iraq on a timetable. Look, it’s a very difficult thing that we’re going through in Iraq, you know, I suspect that this president’s going to start pulling troops back, and they’re going to do exactly the same thing that the Democrats that they’re accusing the Democrats of urging them to do.

Snip...

MR. RUSSERT: Let me go back to the book and quote some of the reflections that you had on the race of 2004, Paul Begala. “So why did Democrats lose in 2004? We belive that the lack of a clear, simple, consistent message was the greatest shortcoming of Democrats in 2004. The Bush message was everything ours wasn’t. One of President Bush’s top strategists told us after the election, ‘From day one we talked about three things: strength, trust and values.’ In their story, Bush embodied all of those things and John Kerry had none of them.”

Our friends who ran the Kerry campaign continue to insist they did have ea message. Here’s what they called a message: J-HOS. That’s right, J-HOS. It stands for jobs, healthcare, oil, security. They talked and they talks but voters weren’t listening or more accurately, couldn’t hear any message in the laundry list of issues. Without a message, Democrats were, if you’ll pardon the expression, J-HOSED.” Ouch.

MR. BEGALA: That was incredibly painful experience to write it. You know, it—we were performing an autopsy in a cause that we believed in. You know, I like Senator Kerry, I supported his campaign. And the people who ran it—as you know, it’s a small town—they’ve been friends of ours for decades. And yet there’s no getting around it. It—we have to be candid as Democrats. And look at why it was that that President Bush was able to prevail even though most of the country thought we were moving in the wrong direction. Part of it is because he ran a strategically brilliant campaign and we talked to many of his strategists—I will way I don’t reveal my sources—but we did not talk to Mary. She was one of the few people who would not talk to us...

MS. MATALIN: Because I don’t talk to either.

MR. BEGALA: ...about that campaign. But the—the Democrats blew it, let’s face it. They blew it, and it’s not that people think that we’re too liberal. It’s that they think we’re too weak, because we don’t stand up and say clearly and plainly what we stand for. And that’s really the thesis of the book. It’s that our problem is not ideological, it is anatomical. We need a spine. And a party that allows someone who has won five major medals, who three times has shed blood for our country, and won the bronze star and the silver star to be positioned as weak and woffling and weird is—it’s a sin. It’s awful. And Democrats have got to learn from that if we’re ever going to take it back.


MR. RUSSERT: You have in the book comments, reflections, observations by former President Bill Clinton on election night of 2004 that I had never seen anywhere else. Tell us what he said.

MR. BEGALA: Yeah, this is something I’ve never done before and James has never done before, but I thought it was so powerful. I called him up at 11:30 on election night, as returns were coming in, and I was sure John Kerry was going to win. And I was just dead wrong. So I called him and I said, “Sir, what did I miss here? What did I get wrong?” And right away before the exit polling had been digested or anything he said, “you can’t ignore those social, cultural values voters. You don’t have to switch on their issues, but you have to talk to them.” He said, “You can’t go around and just ignore them. People are concerned about the moral direction of the country. We should be able to address that with equal credibility with the Republicans, but when you simply ignore it,” he said, “you’re going to lose.” And he used as a contrast on that night your first guest this morning.

He said, “Look at Barack Obama. He traveled around the state with his preacher and talked about a very progressive agenda but did it in terms of his faith and his family in a way that resonated with middle class voters in downstate Illinois who probably don’t have a lot of friends named Barack.”

And I thought it was a very impressive conversation.

MR. RUSSERT: James Carville, many observers of the 2004 race was terrorism, September 11th.

MR. CARVILLE: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: Who’s best equipped to conduct the war on terror and they decided to continue with George Bush rather than change for John Kerry.

MR. CARVILLE: There’s extensive evidence that that’s really not—the reason that they did not vote for Kerry is, is not because they thought he was too liberal or they thought he wouldn’t protect America. It was they were more concerned it looked like his stance were one way and another and were not definitive.

That is the price that you pay if you don’t have a central unified message. You get J-HOSED because you allow them to define you. But I checked on our polling on the way over here this morning and it is absolutely true that the reason that the biggest doubts about Kerry were not that he wouldn’t protect America—he was too liberal—but that he was too wobbly. And that’s what we do in this book, Tim, is it’s not the same prescription. A prescription for Democrats always is, “are we too liberal or where do we adjust ourselves on the ideological scale?”

As Paul said, we believe the problem is anatomical, not ideological. There’s no reason that if you’re for an increase in the minimum wage that you have to be for gun control. I mean, that’s a typical ideological approach and that’s the kind of stuff that we argue against. I think we argue very, very hard and I just keep pounding the table on this energy independence thing. I mean, Tom Frieden’s...(unintelligible)...absolutely right about that. And I don’t know why the Democrats don’t take it up.

MR. RUSSERT: In fact, let me quote exactly again from the book on that subject of transplant. “Democrats have failed on the basics, defining their message, attacking their opponents, defending their leaders, inspiring their voters. The problem with the Democratic Party isn’t—is not ideological, it’s anatomical. We lack a backbone. Consider this book an attempt at a spinal transplant.”

You agree with that, Mary?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10909406

It wasn't the Swift Liars, it was waffling, Democrats don't have a message, Hillary is for a timetable (Oops, she voted against a timetable!). There is so much BS in this transcript, it's a wonder they call themselves Democrats.

[wisteria]

342. Yeah, well when you are interviewing for a position with a potential

presidential candidate,the idea is to lie and distort the campaigns and ideas of others running before in order to make another potential candidate look good. Pardon me while I LOL, sure, the color coded warnings, the fear tactics, the Bin laden tape, the mindset of the public- don't change horses in mid-stream- meant nothing. It all came down to waffling and values.Even though, I do recall clearly, Kerry laying out plans and a direction for this country. Bush's plans were well defined and he never changed his mind? Sure, I got that out of his campaign. Seems to me, Carville and Begalia were part of the problem. Why they didn't even know how to talk up Kerry in 04. They should have had all the facts and all the talking points down or they shouldn't of appeared anywhere on behalf of the party.IMO, they dropped the ball, now they are blaming Kerry and his campaign and at the same time doing a shameless promotion of another candidate. Since these two clowns weren't close to the Kerry camp why do their opinions even matter. They are just out slamming Kerry pre-primaries.

[FogerRox]

344. Yes, I agree. IMHO Woodwards story is much ado about nothing/BS.

"Since these two clowns weren't close to the Kerry camp why do their opinions even matter."