Mark Crispin Miller: My exchange with Kerry

[Stephanie]

As posted in the Election Reform forum:


Kerry's statement was not planned. He did not expect to see me.
His sister, Peggy Kerry, purposely invited me to that fundraiser so
that I could hand the senator a copy of my book. (She too understands
the urgency of getting the top Democrats to push the issue of
electoral reform.)

So I spoke briefly with him just as he arrived, and handed him the
book, saying, "You were robbed, Senator." He said, "I know!" with
a clear gesture of extreme frustration, and then said that he can't get
any of his colleagues on the Hill to face the issue. Said that he had
lately had an argument about it with Chris Dodd, who didn't want to
hear about it. Kerry tried to tell him about all the problems with the
electronic touch-screen machines, but Dodd refused to listen, saying
that he had looked into it, and that "there's nothing there."
(In bringing the subject up with Dodd, Kerry was not influenced by
the GAO report, which he didn't even know about until I mentioned
it to him. Indeed, he seemed mightily impressed that the GAO had
come out with a strong report.)

I urged him to spearhead a major senatorial investigation into what
went down last year, in the spirit of his best work in that chamber,
when he led inquiries into Iran/contra and BCCI. He said that, given
his position, he doubts that he can be the one to go out front about
the issue, because of the "sour grapes" factor. I appreciate his
dilemma, but still think that he must embrace the issue of electoral
reform, for the country's sake. (I also think that it would be the only
way in which he might redeem himself for his deplorable concession just
a year ago.)

Believe me, I understand, and share, your feelings of impatience
at the senator's long silence (which, again, he certainly would not
have broken if I hadn't happened to bump into him). But if he'll
champion the issue of electoral reform, we stand to gain much more
than we can get from merely cursing him for his timidity. I therefore
would advise you all to shower him with strong encouragement ASAP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=399775&mesg_id=399790

[MelissaB]

1. Recommended!

[jsamuel]

2. ditto!

[MelissaB]

3. We have got to educate our "leaders" and let them know what we want them

to do. They all need to hear from us. Somebody needs to step up to this task, and it doesn't need to be Kerry.

On edit: Who should we target to lead an investigation?

[SharonRB]

4. I'm shocked that Dodd won't support him in this

He needs to find someone else to "front" for him so as not to have the "sour grapes" factor come into play. What about Sen. Boxer? Seems she would be an appropriate one to take this role on. And, in the House, John Conyers would make sense. We need to get this to the forefront in both the House and the Senate now that the GAO report has come out.

[jsamuel]

6. Not Boxer, we need someone who can ... like Dean

My opinion... he can't take any sour grapes heat at all.

He may be very busy with other things, but this could just add to it.

[MelissaB]

8. Why not Boxer?

[jsamuel]

18. I don't think she could give enough time and attention that the issue need

s

Dean is in contact with every dem and is able to concentrate his time on something like this along with other issues.

[blm]

16. I do believe Dean should be the lead on this. Machine fraud effects ENTIRE

roster of candidates no matter where they are on the ballot.

Gore should step into this issue, too.

And isn't Cantwell a tech savvy Senator?

[librechik]

19. I agree--if only he would take an interest!

everyone send him the GAO report, please

Here's a good link
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529

[Chiyo-chichi]

23. Yes. Who better than the DNC Chairman?

[blm]

24. The integrity of ALL Democratic votes is his job.

A job that Terry MacAuliffe should have taken care of LONG before Nov.2.

Nov 3 was already too late. The machines that did the cheating were already erased.

[Mass]

7. The obvious should be Leahy in the Senate with Conyers in the House

They are both ranking members of the Judiciary Committee.

(I doubt Leahy would do it, though, unfortunately).

[FreedomAngel82]

45. With Leahy

what if enough people sent enough evidence? Maybe we have to show them that enough people do care about this issue.

[CitySky]

80. I like this idea.

What about we make it our "DU Activist" challenge for next week? I know that's been dead for a while, but this just seems perfect. I'll post something over in Voting Issues if I get a letter out this weekend. If enough people there (who are the ones really studying this issue), think urging Leahy to spearhead an investigation is the way to go, then we can post it over in Activism then try to vote it onto the Greatest Page so good folks will see and DU it.

FreedomAngel, how about you PM me to make me stay on the case? I tend to get busy/distracted. But if we can do our little bit to save democracy this weekend, well then I guess we'd better. Thanks.

Peace!

[blm]

17. Wec need a TOTALLY TECH SAVVY LEADER on this. I think Gore should do it

along with Dean and with the most tech savvy Senator we have.

Anyone know who that would be? I think Cantwell may be.

[Stephanie]

27. It looks like Gore might run in '08

So I doubt he would want to lead on this issue for the same reason as Kerry.

[IndyOp]

77. Tech Savvy Gore - Damn GOOD thought!

I hadn't thought about this angle before... Thanks blm!

:bounce:

[NewJeffCT]

20. Since he is my Senator, I will write to Dodd

He is actually decent about responding...

[bryant69]

5. I like Kerry

I can totally understand his frusteration. It's easy enough for us to sit back and say "Well obviously here's what he should do." but he would have a hard time selling it for exactly the reasons he mentions.

It would be far better if Hillary Clinton or Edwards or Reid or someone else spearheaded it. But if noone else is willing to, my guess is that Kerry will eventually rise to the occasion.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[blm]

14. Obviously other Dem senators are turning Kerry down, so he must be

approaching them to try and get SOMETHING done.

I think we need Dean to push this whole story, since it effects ALL Dem candidates, no matter where they are on the ticket.

[FreedomAngel82]

46. They all should I think

[Mass]

9. Thanks for posting this.

[sepia_steel]

10. Recommended. nt

[TayTay]

11. I think Kerry knows way more than he's been saying.

There was this hearing on identify theft in May of this year. The good people from ChoicePoint, who brought you the lists used to ban black voters in the Florida election in 2000 were testifying about how wonderful they are in compiling info and keeping it secret. Lovely, lovely. (The chief of LexisNeixs was there as well.) These people are collecting financial and medical data on millions and millions of Americans. (Hmmm, I wonder if you can makes suppositions on how someone thiks and acts based on their purchasing history and their medical background.)

Anyway, at the end of the hearing, out of the blue, Sen. Kerry had this exchange with the Chief of LexisNexis.

KERRY: Could I just have one quick follow-up?

SMITH: Absolutely.

KERRY: Would either of you sell to a political committee?

SANFORD: Senator, we have legal research business, news and business information services. There's nothing that would stop them from having access. I don't think they would qualify for permissive use under TLBA (ph) or the BPTA (ph), though. I mean, those are around fraud detection and prevention and law enforcement type of permissible use.

KERRY: But is there anything to stop a committee from -- have you sold anything to a political committee?

SANFORD: Not that I'm aware of, no, Senator.

KERRY: But could they buy?

SANFORD: I don't believe that's a customer segment we serve.

KERRY: But could they?

SANFORD: I don't believe they would get credentialed, but I can find out. It's not a question I've heard before. But I don't believe -- I've never heard -- I've been around with the company since its inception, and...

KERRY: Well, do you have a means of checking, so that...

SANFORD: We have a business purpose criteria upon which we'll enroll people as customers. I don't believe political committees meet the business purpose; therefore, I don't believe we would set up a customer account with them.

KERRY: What about a political consultant, who is doing sophisticated political analysis, polling analysis?

SANFORD: I don't believe they're customers of ours, nor do I believe we'd serve them.

KERRY: You don't believe, but there's no set of guidelines with respect to...

SANFORD: I'm trying to be very specific. There are very specific guidelines about who we serve as customers. I've never heard of this customer segment being anybody we serve.

The preponderance of our customers are large insurance companies, large financial institutions, trying to process transactions so a consumer can get some kind of benefit -- an insurance policy, a job -- large retailers or large customers of ours. We don't have very many customers that aren't in the large commercial -- space (ph) or government enterprises.

BILL NELSON: May I ask a follow-up on that.

But if one of your large commercial customers asked for this information and you had some reason to know that they were going to use it for political purposes...

SANFORD: Our customers, by and large, have to send us -- they're asking questions an application at a time, so I'm not sure how they come in and ask that question anyway.

The most likely way they could present themselves is through the direct marketing business, where we don't sell sensitive personal identifiable information in any way.

But -- again -- I'll be happy to get back to the senator and the committee on that. I'm not aware this is a market we have any interest or any services to.

SMITH: Like I said earlier in the hearing, Senator, this is a question that didn't register Republican or Democrat, but maybe both sides are pretty interested now.

(LAUGHTER)

But I think you raised...

BILL NELSON: Well, I've seen some pretty sophisticated analysis based on those things.

SMITH: In all seriousness, I think your point is well-taken, and I think both sides do have an interest in making sure that people's rights and privacy are protected.

So we appreciate very much, gentlemen, your being here today and for the contribution you've made to our understanding of this issue and the kind of problem we're trying to wrestle with and get some results for the American people.

This session can be viewed at:

http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1491

[donkeyotay]

30. Great line of inquiry, TayTay

We should assume these people have our democracy's best interests at heart and would never, ever bend the law?

The preponderance of our customers are large insurance companies, large financial institutions, trying to process transactions so a consumer can get some kind of benefit -- an insurance policy, a job -- large retailers or large customers of ours. We don't have very many customers that aren't in the large commercial -- space (ph) or government enterprises.

Isn't another name for "large insurance companies, large financial institutions" corporate political donors?

[TayTay]

36. That was a scary hearing.

The amount of info that these companies have on voters is amazing. There was an article in the LA times recently that showed how the Repubs are using extensive marketing lists and procedures to woo African-American voters in the Midwest. (They know everything about them and can tailor personal appeals based on various personal activities the voters engage in.)

There should be a law that says that the databases of these large corporations can't be used by political consultants. That is a real nightmare.

[FreedomAngel82]

48. I think he definietly knows

And also back in May Teresa started talking about election fraud too and saying they stole it from him. Wasn't this reported interviewed on DemocracyNow?

[sojourner]

12. Kick this up! Get it on the main page...

Need 5 more votes....

Great post, Stephanie!

As to Kerry's comments, I'm glad to hear that JK knows the truth. Not surprised that he chooses to be cautious...but I am dismayed to hear that he's not getting more support from his colleagues.

I also find it surprising that these folks don't know about things like the GAO report. Has it been "sent out" to media? To congressional reps and senators? Maybe this is something WE can do if we haven't yet.

(edited to add "Recommended" -- )

[Selatius]

13. If Bernie Sanders wins Vermont in '06, get him to do it?

He's an Independent, so he doesn't have to deal with inter-party politics.

[bleever]

15. We've waited a long time to hear this.

Recommended.

[oneold1-4u]

21. "timidity" Allowed and empowered bush!

We no longer have months and years to make changes!
If Mr. Kerry wishes to remain in any political position for the rest of his life, timidity can not be in his best interest! He should not even vote himself "dog catcher" if he won't catch a dog!
This should be the concern of every Democrat politician now, elected or planning to run!

[Land Shark]

22. If there's going to be an effort, let's not forget about the activists

that have been working on this for a year now.... there's a lot of expertise in Election Forum in tech, statistics, law, elections, etc., that should be tapped so any effort does not have to reinvent the wheel.

[hootinholler]

25. "then said that he can't get any of his colleagues on the Hill to face"

WHAT??? What Bullshit.

How about Boxer on Jan 6th? Remember he was in Iraq? I was outside the Capitol building.

He should talk to Boxer now, then Byrd, I can't believe that no one will rally to him on this issue.

-Hoot

[Stephanie]

26. HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPT from Democracy Now >

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/04/1532218

[Junkdrawer]

28. Betcha Mark's phone is ringing off the hook...

This is a high stakes gamble...

:popcorn:

[Stephanie]

29. I know - he's stopped replying to emails

I'm trying to get further comments from him.

Pass that over here, please. :popcorn:

[ibegurpard]

31. How much were people screaming about this before the election?

What steps were taken to try to prevent it?
My impression is that it was poo-pooed by most higher-level Democratic officials.

[Mark_Crispin_Miller]

32. Kerry's office now denies he ever had that conversation with me.

Well, friends, it looks like Sen. Kerry won't be joining us in our
attempt to publicize the truth about the last election. His office
just provided RAW STORY with a categorical (and rather snide)
denial that he ever had that conversation with me. I've responded to
RS, which should be posting my reply ASAP.

Other than to reconfirm that my account is wholly true, what can I say?
I'm more than sorry that the senator has failed us all (again).

[Stephanie]

33. Why do you think he is denying it?

What are the consequences if he admits he said it?

[FreedomAngel82]

49. I remember reading a few months ago

there was a gentleman's agreement not to talk about the issue. Only thing I can think of is they're trying to keep it hush-hush until they have enough proof of everything. :shrug: And someone on BradBlog told how one of Kerry's daughters was getting threats. :shrug: Anybody know about that?

[Stephanie]

34. Are the last two lines above the comment that you gave to Raw Story?

Is that your quote to them?

[Junkdrawer]

35. I am so sorry to hear that. The tragedy continues...

We desperately need to cast off the "tinfoilhat" put downs and start asking:

"So why aren't elections appropriately audited?"

Control of the most powerful military on the planet is at stake. Of course power hungry liars will cheat if given half a chance.

Hell, we give them the ballots and trust them to tell the truth without audits. I don't know which is worse: their crimes or our stupidity.

Whispers in back rooms will not reverse this issue. They will not quietly concede back one of their two main sources of power (the other being their ownership of the lion's share of the press).

[understandinglife]

37. I think Senator Kerry should fire all his "handlers" and join the ...

.... "reality-based progressive community" that his handlers clearly have no clue is the force of the future in America.

I have zero reason to doubt your word or your motives Prof. Miller. Zero.

Senator Kerry's handlers just stabbed him in the back, again.


Peace.

[Mass]

40. He may have to quit the democratic party in order to do so.

I dont see many dems saying the election was stolen. Even Conyers does not say that (he said that people were not allowed to vote, but that he was not contesting the result).

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. So be it, if he has to quit

maybe that is what it will take....

he is just cudling the treason with the rest of them... though he might have gotten a call from the Powers that be in the WH threatening his well being adn that of his wife... and I will not put that above them.... anthrax anyone?

[IndyOp]

100. Once again, UL nails it !

Your posts cut right to the core of the matter --

:applause:

[Mass]

38. What do you think happened after people started to call Dodd?

Do you really think Kerry could have kept silent?

I think you are right in what you are telling, but I was sure the denial would come once I heard the part about Dodd. I am sure it did not suit too well with the Democrats in the Senate and Kerry is a good soldier following orders.

[Noisy Democrat]

92. I'm not so sure

This sounds to me more like one of the classic things where Kerry agrees with something up to a point and the person he's talking to jumps to conclusions, connecting dots that Kerry never meant to connect. I doubt it's a straightforward "he said X and then denied X" kind of deal. More likely, he said Z, Miller heard X, and Kerry is now denying X.

[mzmolly]

39. Respectfully Mark. The Senators office is not "the senator."

Also did he give permission to have his remarks made public?

What he can say publically may differ from his professional statements?

I DO appreciate all that you do.

Flame away people.

[Gregorian]

41. Politicians work in weird and slow ways.

It may just mean that this is a preliminary way of getting the media attention. Give it time; Let the word sink in; Repeat and then confirm that it was indeed stolen.

How would I know? Just guessing. But my guesses often turn to gold.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

43. I'm not surprised at all. But I do want to express my

gratitude for your efforts. There's alot more of "US" out here than we get credit for.

[sandnsea]

50. Oh puhleeze

I supposed he could have called you a tin-foil hat nut, but that wouldn't have been too smart. You took a friendly conversation and made it much much more than it was.

There's a huge difference between knowing fraudulent things happened, they happen in every election, and claiming there was a conspiracy to steal an election.

It's been a year later and I have yet to see any evidence of a pattern that would generate enough votes to have stolen the election. Mass voting problems, absolutely. National conspiracy connected directly to Bush? No evidence yet.

[maximovich]

51. No Evidence?

I thought Conyers wrote about there being plenty of fraud.

[sandnsea]

54. "National conspiracy connected directly to Bush"

If Conyers had that, Bush wouldn't be President. He doesn't. Nobody does. I am really tired of the two word debates on DU. Things must be taken in complete context with whole sentences, whole paragraphs even.

[Junkdrawer]

60. The lack of evidence is our main complaint...

The current generation of voting machines (and laws surrounding their use) leave behind no evidence.

Kerry could have won (and many reputable statisticians say he did) by a wide margin and yet there is no way of proving the theft one way or another.

Currently it's a "faith based" system, which is ironic because it was funded by the nation's leading extreme RW, "faith based" billionaires.

[sandnsea]

66. Attack the machines, not the election

I've said that since the day after election. I named it, "Glitchgate". You focus in on all the bizarre glitches, many of which have still not been explained, and you get people's attention. You run around screaming "stolen election" and nobody pays attention.

I am well aware of all the problems with these machines, how they work and don't work, all of it. There's still not a single shred of evidence to claim a national conspiracy to steal that election. It's just not there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. GAO Report, read it lately?

[sandnsea]

55. I actually did read it, the real report

I read about the precincts where there were more 3rd party votes than Kerry votes. Amounting to 700 votes. Not enough to turn an election. Not a national conspiracy to steal an election.

That's the way all of it is. A glitch here that is totally unreleated to a glitch over there. No pattern, and certainly nothing that can be connected back to a national conspiracy connected to Bush.

There are voting machine problems and systemic voting problems that must be fixed. That is a far far cry from evidence that Bush conspired to steal the election.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. the new one

I have read them too and they are commng pretty close to saying something is more than just affoot

I know it is hard to admit there was a coup in 2000, and a stolen in 2004, but this is a hallmark of a fascist state

[sandnsea]

59. "pretty close" is not evidence

I honestly don't understand what is so hard to grasp about that. I also don't understand why people don't get that election reform gets one alot further than stolen election. We have to fix the computer glitches, everybody would understand that. The Republicans are stealing elections? Eyes roll. Getting the problems fixed seems to me to be the goal.

[maximovich]

Gee... I guess There Will Be No Need to Investigate

Or to assume at all. Black and White... even if there are plenty claiming to be witnesses to fraud. I see.... see ya around.

[sandnsea]

69. Who said that?

I said screaming stolen election is the wrong way to go about it. I've said that ever since Bev said "It's okay to say the "f" word". It was a dumb dumb dumb strategy. Attack the machines and quit ranting about conspiracies that you can't prove. If you get the machines fixed properly, they can't use them to steal elections. DUH.

[KoKo]

64. What about Ohio? No evidence connected to Bush? Fla/2000 No evidence

connected to Bush? Which two states threw him over the top in both elections? Florida and Ohio. To say nothing of the machines in all the other states that malfunctioned by losing thousands of votes, or tallying the votes only one way...for Bush! :eyes:

Don't you remember all the work that DU'ers and others have done on this? How can you discount that or the GAO report? Election machines sold by companies who donated to Bush? Who wine and dine elections officials in all our states and in some stated the commmissioners have been charged and convicted for taking money from the Machine Producers?

I just don't know how you can ignore all that. :shrug:

[sandnsea]

70. I'm not

I'm saying I wish we WOULD HAVE focused on all those machines around the country and not screamed "It's okay to say the "f" word". If we had, we would be alot further along in getting those machines fixed. If the machines are fixed, they can't use them to steal anymore elections.

[helderheid]

73. don't fix the machines - get rid of them and speak in a language

politicians and voters understand - MONEY. These machines cost the taxpayers millions and they have a short shelf life. THAT they will pay attention to - and I am one who fully believes they were used to steal the election.

[sandnsea]

75. Stuffed ballot boxes?

That's a solution?

[helderheid]

76. It's easier to stuff a virtual black box voting machine.

[sandnsea]

78. No it's not

Regardless, stopping hand-counted paper ballot stuffing is very difficult. Machines with open source, paper printed ballot audits, and high access security, are much less susceptible to fraud. Besides, we're stuck with the damned things so we better do everything we can to make sure they're working right.

[helderheid]

79. Key words: open source

I could go with that so long as the process is transparent, as is the software, and there are meaningful audits in place AND when the exit polls don't match, a recount of the paper ballots.

[sandnsea]

81. Well there you go

And you don't get there from here by screaming stolen election. You get there by screaming glitch glitch glitch, fix the computer glitches.

[July]

111. Paper ballots are used in other countries successfully.

I am familiar with Spain's use of the paper ballot, and someone posted here recently that Canada also uses it.

In Spain, counts are overseen by ordinary citizens called to election duty the way we are called to jury duty. Several of them supervise a table for 300 citizens. The ballots are not sealed into an envelope until all agree on the numbers. The whole nation's vote is counted within a few hours of the closing of the polls.

[flyarm]

52. why not call edwards and get a statement from john E.???

if kerry is going to flip flop again and deny your meeting..go for the juglar..call edwards and ask for a comment !!

fly

[Mass]

65. Edwards never said that the election was stolen.

He has been pretty much silent on that as has been the Democratic party in his totality.

Boxer, Conyers, Dean's position is that there was fraud but that the election was not stolen. You should read Miller's article in Harper's a few months ago. He says as much.

[Noisy Democrat]

91. That's probably Kerry's position as well

Just a guess. But it sounds about right. Fraud and a broken system, but not outright election theft.

[robbedvoter]

106. Yup. he just promissed all our votes will be counted. Another weasel.

That's what I get for voting for pro-war candidates (or should I say - opportunistic?)

[seabeyond]

57. i really have to wonder how you did this story

and i also have to wonder how it has ended. how this became a hot topic here on du today, and how kerry was shot down just as quickly today. think i will reserrve judgement on all this for now, and see what else comes up on this whole misinformation, one way or another.....

[i miss america]

63. So you mean he actually agreed he was robbed before he said he wasn't?

:wtf:

[Mass]

67. Being robbed in votes and the election being stolen is not the same thing

Ask Conyers if you dont believe it.

[Garbo 2004]

72. And possibly your reporting of the conversation may further ensure that

he won't be "publicizing the truth about the last election" since that's not what he wanted to do, according to your report of the conversation. Was the conversation on the record? Was it for public attribution?

If your public comments were taken by Kerry as an attempt to force him to publicly show his hand or just publicly putting him in a position he didn't want to be, it may have further ensured that he won't be leading on that issue, which apparently he didn't intend to do anyway. Hence the denial by his office. He's a politician. You're shocked?

[cynatnite]

74. I'm glad he's denying it...

The repukes would use it against him and us in ways that twists my gut.

[Noisy Democrat]

89. Perhaps you remembered wrong

It could easily have been a misunderstanding about the intent of Kerry's comments. For him to express agreement when you said "You were robbed!" or even to express concern about voting machines is a long way from him saying the 2004 election was stolen.

Personally, I was shocked that your recollections of a casual conversation he had with you at a fundraiser were being broadcast on AirAmerica. It wouldn't have occurred to me that Kerry exchanging a few words with me meant I had a right to publicly announce what I believe to be his position on an explosive issue. OK, I have told several people about the funny remark he made when he shook my hand at a rally, but it wasn't the kind of thing that would cause a massive public uproar. Nor was I speaking about it on AirAmerica.

[Sapphire Blue]

104. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

AGREE!!! It would appear that Miller is twisting Kerry's alleged agreement w/his (Miller's) comment during a brief encounter into something that it was not, possibly to further his (Miller's) own agenda, whatever it may be.

Kerry is capable of speaking for himself and does speak for himself... I'll listen to his own words... not some third party who has neither the authority nor the consent to speak for or represent him.

[LittleClarkie]

95. Who are you to decide how he should present this issue

Trying to drag him out into the open could just possibly have driven him farther back.

I know what you want to see happen, but Kerry is proceeding in his own way. You would like him to proceed differently. But publicizing and sensationalizing what he likely took as a private conversation has gotten us no where.

And I am angry now that I heard Sean Hannity bring up your report, but not Kerry's refutation. He likened Kerry to a fat and crazed Gore, shouting away, insinuating that losing an election must make a person crazy to some extent.

Swell.

It was a casual conversation. Perhaps if it had been an interview, Kerry could have elaborated and talked about what he really thinks. He knows that there is something wrong with electronic voting. That's why he is still involved in a lawsuit in Ohio.

But knowing something is wrong and being able to prove it are two different things.

You brought publicity to this issue for him that did not help. I understand that your intent was to help the election process. But I think that agenda led you to do a disservice to Sen. Kerry.

[rox63]

98. It sounds to me like Kerry believed

that the conversation was off-the-record. His statement about the fact that he can't be at the front of this issue seems to back that up. He's generally very cautious about what he says on the record. I've been his constituent for over 20 years, and I'm familiar with his style. And I can't see him dissing another Senator (Dodd) on the record. That would make it very difficult for them to work together on issues in the Senate, at least for the next few months.

[eridani]

99. Was what Kerry said off the record?

If so, what did you expect? Of course he'll deny it in that case.

[Fabio]

110. You are an ass, Mark Crispin Miller

[FreedomAngel82]

44. Thanks for this report

I'm glad to hear that Kerry has known and tried to do something about it. Maybe now that the democrats are all coming out unitied something can be done. This really helps to clear things out.

[Stephanie]

47. Here's the Raw Story article >

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senator_Kerry_rebuffs_claim_he_said_1104.html

<excerpt>

Kerry's campaign quickly denounced the claim.

"I know Mr. Miller is trying to sell his book and he feels
passionately about his thesis but his recent statements about his
conversation with Senator Kerry are simply not true," spokesperson
Jenny Backus said. "The only thing true about his recollection of the
conversation is that he gave Senator Kerry a copy of his book."

Miller told Democracy Radio Kerry "told me he now thinks the election
was stolen. He says he doesn't believe he is the person that can be
out in front because of the sour grapes question. But he said he
believes it was stolen. He says he argues with his democratic
colleagues on the hill. He said he had a fight with Christopher Dodd
because he said there's questions about the voting machines and Dodd
was angry."

Miller was shocked to hear of Kerry's denial.

"I call that contemptible," Miller told RAW STORY. "That's completely false."

"Anyone who knows my work knows that I'm not much interested in
commercial gain," he added. "I wrote Fooled Again out of a sense of
civic obligation, and I had thought the senator shared that concern
with me."

***

Backus said Kerry would have fought to reverse the election's outcome
if he believed the election had been stolen.

"Make no mistake, after pouring his heart and soul into the campaign
and seeing George Bush continue the mess he created, if the election
had been stolen John Kerry would be fighting them today to reverse the
outcome," she said.

[deutsey]

58. Was it "Democracy Radio" or "Democracy Now"?

Small point, but I missed DN this morning and know that Miller was a guest on it today.

[Stephanie]

68. Democracy Now - here's a link to the transcript >

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/04/1532218

[KoKo]

61. Oh GAWD....this looks like a cat fight...uh...dog fight. We don't need

this. I hope that Mark Miller isn't supporting Hillary for 08. :eyes:

Who is correct on this? I wish Kerry had stated his reply, differently though. He could have softened it by saying: "Well, I remember the conversation differently than Mark, and I want to assure him that I did everything I could for Election 2004 and if there was any real evidence it was stolen I would have done everything to expose it." :shrug:

[deutsey]

62. Can you try to get a PR job with Kerry's office?

:evilgrin:

[robbedvoter]

84. Can't be the person out in front because the sour grapes question?

Uh, Gore had balls, kerry is gonna hide so they don't attack him. Some hero! This voter is underwhelmed.
Earth to John: this is NOT ABOUT YOU! IT"S ABOUT ME! (the voter, the American People, Democracy)

[grannylib]

71. I am going to contact Mark Dayton from MN and anyone else with a brain

on Capitol Hill...
Dammit, I am so sick of this theft being ignored, covered up, hushed, pooh-poohed as 'tinfoilhatism' and all that...
it was THEFT, pure and simple, we know it, anyone with more than half the sense God gave a goat knows it, and I want my country back!
We should all write to Conyers too; he's been trying to get to the heart of this for some time now; let's let him know that we are behind his efforts and maybe he'll step it up again.

[robbedvoter]

82. Kerry DENIES it:

"A spokesman for Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) vehemently denied that the senator had told a popular liberal author and journalist that he believed the 2004 election was "stolen" in response to queries from RAW STORY."

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senator_Kerry_rebuffs_claim_he_said_1104.html

[Stephanie]

83. Yes we know - see this post upthread >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5264692&mesg_id=5265960

[robbedvoter]

85. Dear John: this is NOT about YOU, but about democracy, right to vote

Surely it's a lofty and important enough notion for you to take some "sour grapes" attacks for it....

[willing dwarf]

86. Would it violate the credo of the Skull & Bones Society

if Kerry were to denounce the 2004 election? Would it count as some sort of double cross of Bush? Would that be keeping him mum on this?

[Vektor]

87. There has to be something more going on.

All of this reluctance on the part of Kerry and other Dems to go balls out on this. Another poster mentioned Kerry's daughters receiving threats. I have no doubt that Bush and his ilk are not only corrupt and evil, but dangerous. They have already proved that they feel they are above the law and have no respect for human life. They blatantly lied about the Iraq war and don't give two shits or a fuck about the countless thousands that have died as a result of their greed and dishonesty. I strongly suspect that people are staying mum on this topic because there is no telling what the Repukes are capable of.

[Noisy Democrat]

93. Could be, but

the simpler explanation is that they don't think they have enough evidence to get anywhere even if they do push it hard, and they don't know how they could ever get enough.

[lildreamer316]

94. I second this.

Something rotten in the state of............?
WHAT the hell is going on???

[Old and In the Way]

96. No one campaigns as hard as he did for over a year with the conviction

and knowledge of just how bad this administration is and then walks away with challenging the results. Unless there's stuff we don't know.

Hey those anthrax perps are still on the loose, aren't they....

[Moochy]

105. Anthrax

Nothing to see here, moving right along.

[Zan_of_Texas]

88. Well, it's time to get a grip, folks.

Kerry, and the US Senate, are not champions of election reform.

Not.

Remember how there were over 100 sponsors of Rush Holt's VVPAT bill in the House, and zero Senators, at first. Finally, there was a handful of sponsors, including several really bad bills in the Senate.

1. post-November 2000. Attempts by Congressional Black Caucus to contest the election. They needed ONE Senator. If you saw Fahrenheit 9-11, you know they practically begged on bended knee, and NOT ONE US Senator would go along.

2. post-November 2004. Attempts to contest the electors from the state of Ohio. DUers and others phoned, wrote, emailed, cajoled until finally, after thousands of contacts, ONE US SENATOR agreed to contest. ONE! The Rs who "debated" the contest of election used derogatory, insulting, snide language. I saw it, and I was shocked at their tone. (See some of the comments below)

3. On September 14, 2004 in Houston, I told the candidate's brother Cam Kerry in person, face to face, to be ready for voting machine fraud and get some technology experts and people familiar with this onboard, gave him a copy of The Nation cover story by Ronnie Dugger. He seemed polite at best, and not at all curious. He had assured the crowd that the campaign had hundreds of attorneys ready in case of a problem; the idea of technology experts on call that I raised (twice) seemed like it was spoken in Latin or something. Did not resonate. {Magazine I handed Cam Kerry: "How They Could Steal the Election This Time," by RONNIE DUGGER, The Nation, Cover Story -- August 16, 2004 issue http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040816&s=dugger }

As Mark Weisbrot wrote in an article published by the Knight Ridder newspaper chain, Republican lawmakers responded to Senator Boxer, and to Representative Tubbs-Jones and her colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, "with howls of derision."<31> Some engaged in ad hominem tactics, labeling the objections "base" and "outrageous" (David Hobson, R-Ohio), and calling the objectors "aspiring fantasy authors" of "wild conspiracy theories," whose behaviour exemplified "their party's primary strategy to obstruct, to divide, to destroy" (Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio). Others denounced the debate itself as "a travesty" (Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania), a "squandering time" by people "who persist in beating a dead horse" (Senator George Voinovich, R-Ohio); or, more gravely, as an exercise that "in the midst of a global war on terrorism <...> clearly emboldens those who would in fact undermine the prospect of democracy" (David Dreier (R-California), and "an assault against the institutions of our representative democracy" by the "X-Files wing" of the Democratic Party (Tom DeLay, R-Texas).

--Michael Keefer:
"The Strange Death of American Democracy: Endgame in Ohio"
Global Research
January 24, 2005
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE501A.html

[Stephanie]

90. We've come a long way, haven't we Zan?

And yet nothing's changed.

[EFerrari]

97. We're picking up steam. Every time someone does something

courageous as Mark did today, we take a giant step forward. Even if Kerry had to weasel out of it, a thought was planted. Even if Dodd's people tried to shake me off, they were made to think: why don't we have someone assigned to election reform?

We'll get there. Just keep your helmet on. :)

[BlueEyedSon]

101. The primary election theft mechanism was manipulation of public opinion

via FOX, etc....

October 23, 2004
PIPA Report: Bush Supporters Hold False Beliefs

The latest Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) report shows startling results, unless you've spent the last ten months of your life monitoring the FOX News Network as we have. The report reveals that even now, after overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the report finds that Bush supporters "still believe Iraq had WMD or a major weapons program, actively supported al Qaeda and misperceive world public as not opposed to Iraq War. In addition, they AGREE with most Kerry supporters that the Bush administration is still saying that Saddam Hussein had links to Al Qaeda and had WMDs. Amazingly, the average Bush supporter believes that the US should NOT have gone to war if there was no evidence of WMD or links to Al Qaeda.

(Begin excerpt.) Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

http://www.newshounds.us/2004/10/23/pipa_report_bush_supporters_hold_false_beliefs.php

Report PDF: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/IraqRealities%20Oct04%20pr.pdf

[nashville_brook]

102. FLIP FLOP goes the weasel

i happen to love weasels but they make for strange bedfellows.

i totally believe the election was stolen, but i can't bring myself to "encourage" a grown man to take a stand for himself. if he wants to LEAD, then he needs to LEAD.

[spooky3]

103. A coalition of Dems (and Repubs if possible) not just one

needs to take action on this issue.

Kerry is absolutely right that he would be dismissed if he spearheaded the effort, unfairly of course, but that is the likely reaction. That does neither the cause of fair elections nor Kerry any good.

It is ALL elected officials' responsibility to ensure that our elections are fair. At least three or four Dems need to become intimately involved in this and take the leadership role.

I would like to hear Dodd's side of the story. From the side described above, he appears uninformed.

[Moochy]

107. great post

Politics is not talking one-on-one with an author about voter fraud.

He needs to build a coaltion in order to get any reform and with (R)'s stonewalling and controlling every committee what good would it do?

[spooky3]

108. thanks--have any ideas on how to get this

coalition built? I sure don't, but it seems essential to getting any real change made.

Maybe *'s poll numbers will have to drop so far that all the moderate Republican senators and those in states that are purple to blue will start realizing that they MUST distance themselves from this corrupt regime and take action.

[robbedvoter]

109. Anyone is dismissed if they go against the BFEE (see Plame, Clarke etc)

See also Wes Clark, Shinseki, Zinni. Some have the guts to risk it, some don't. A matter of priorities and character.