GREG PALAST: an Un-Gore/Kerry FIGHTS for his stolen election

[yurbud]

WHY DEMOCRATS DON’T COUNT

Published by Greg Palast July 14th, 2006 in Articles

Lessons from the Un-Gore of Mexico


KEY EXCERPTS:

For six years now, I've had this crazy fantasy in my head. In it, an election is stolen and the guy who's declared the loser stands up in front of the White House and says three magic words: "Count the votes."

<snip>

Recently, Al Gore was asked if the election of 2000 was stolen. "There may come a time when I speak on that, but it's not now," said the beta dog. (I suspect that if Al Gore were found bleeding in an alley, he'd answer the question, Who shot you? with "There may come a time when I speak on that...").

Lopez Obrador is of a different breed. At the rally last Saturday in Mexico City, he played video and audio tapes of the evidence of fraud on a screen eighty feet tall. Imagine if Gore had projected the "scrub sheets" of purged Black voters on a ten-story-high screen in front of the White House.

Lopez Obrador put political force behind his legal demands by calling on voters from every state in Mexico to march to the capital. Two million are expected to arrive this Sunday. The result: the word among the political classes is that the election may be annulled. Even the conservative Financial Times has warned Mexico's elite not to "fool itself" by ignoring the demand for a full vote count.

North-of-the-Border Democrats just don't get it. The Republican Party is pushing "provisional" ballots, pushing voter ID requirements, compiling secret challenge lists, scrubbing voter registries and selling us vote-nullifying ballot boxes: they get it completely. The GOP knows the key to their electoral domination is not in winning over their opponents' votes, but in not counting them.

FULL TEXT:
http://www.gregpalast.com/why-democrats-dont-count#more-1452

Greg Palast was the first to document the purge of black voters in Florida in 2000, and has been one of a handful of reporters following the oil story in Iraq--which should be the 800 pound gorilla in the Iraq debate but no politician will talk about). Now he offers the sad contrast of what our last couple of Democratic presidential candidates have done compared to the challenger in the recent Mexican election. Read every word, and you'll get a pretty good idea of what will happen this fall.

My greatest disappointment in the 2004 election was not that Bush got enough votes to be able to claim he won in spite of the exit polls or that Republicans used a combination of electronic voting machines, black voter purges, voter challenges, and withheld voting equipment to create massive lines in Democratic districts. That was all predict after the pattern was established in 2000.

What was most disappointing was in the face of this evidence of wrong-doing, Kerry immediately surrendered.

In 2000, this was forgivable because it seemed like the worst that would happen would be a C student rerun of Papa Bush's administration.

But by 2004, most Americans knew this election would be a matter of life and death for our soldiers, and perhaps even our democracy since Bush has since appointed a justice to the Supreme Court who does not believe in our system of checks and balances and refused to repudiate the idea of that the president is all powerful and can't be subject to oversight by Congress and the courts.

An army of volunteer observers documented the suppression of votes, and an army of lawyers stood by to challenge it in the courts--and Kerry told them to stand down.

Now a presidential candidate is fighting back against these rigged elections, but in Mexico not here. If he wins, there might be people sneaking across the desert in the middle of the night to get IN to Mexico.

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. Greg Palast is an idiot

"Kerry immediately surrendered."

What a bullshit LIE that is. Notice how Greg Palast never actually suggests what Kerry should have done in face of the FACTS, which are that he was down by 100,000 votes in Ohio - not 400 like Gore - and that there was NO proof of anything that you could actually take to a court and prove, in a court of law, that he won.

"An army of volunteer observers documented the suppression of votes, and an army of lawyers stood by to challenge it in the courts--and Kerry told them to stand down."

That is a LIE. Kerry has been involved in court cases in Ohio SINCE 2004 - stand down my ASS. You know why they haven't gotten anywhere? Because what Greg Palast claims is "documentation of the suppression of votes" is nothing that can be used in a court of law. There is NO PROOF that "Kerry really won" that any court in America is going to accept. The most you could "prove" is that some voters were disenfranchised. You can't "prove" that enough were disenfranchied to make a difference - the very suggestion is inane. It suggests that you "know" the disenfranchised voters would have voted for Kerry, which is of course, not an observation that would stand up for two seconds in a court of law.

If Greg Palast wants to blame someone, why doesn't he blame the DNC for refusing to press for investigations into election irregularities in both 2000 and 2004? Apparently it's so much easier to demand that Kerry throw a temper tantrum and scream "I wuz robbed" - which would have gained him NOTHING but derision, especially from his own party. The DNC had made it perfectly clear that it would not support a lengthy recount.

So who's really to blame here, and why does Greg Palast keep repeating BLATANT LIES? He's such a piss poor example of a "journalist" it makes my head spin.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

2. Yeah....Kerry Had Our Backs!!!

:sarcasm:

[WildEyedLiberal]

4. Care to disprove ANYTHING I wrote?

Or is all you can manage useless snark?

I dare you to disprove that Kerry has not been involved in Ohio since 2004. I dare you to prove that there is evidence that would overturn the election result in a court of law that Kerry is purposely ignoring.

Save yourself the time, because you can't.

Why do you and Greg Palast continue to perpetuate a lie? What purpose does it serve? Do you think it helps you promote some other Democrat of your choice? Or does it just make you feel better to fall back on an old, tired lie to magically explain the universe?

[shance]

10. You're the one who needs to prove Kerry's done anything

to stand up and be an actual leader. Let's talk present tense and/or the past five or so years.

Why are you holding on to an illusion that doesn't serve you?

How do you benefit from believing in John Kerry when his actions have shown you, he will leave Americans high and dry when push comes to shove.

I don't like saying it anymore than you like hearing it. However, how does it benefit us to ignore that we have essentially little or no true leadership in the Democratic Party?

BTW, much of our lack of good leadership I would blame on the Republican racist zealots and those in Intelligence agencies like the FBI and CIA, who have killed in cold blood our leaders from JFK, Bobby, MLK, Malcom X to Paul Wellstone, and some of which I blame on Americans at large for not demanding the fearless truth regarding these murders. No doubt these calculated, ruthless murders have left a gaping wound, void and fear for our leadership. The largest consequence has been the denial of justice for these leaders who gave their lives to make this country a better place. If we don't honor them for all that they did so that we could have better lives, WHY IN THE HELL is someone else going to get up to bat? In our culture of denial and distraction, no one has adequately addressed this issue. It won't change until we bring it to the light and take back the truth and what is right. We cannot let those leaders who gave their lives for our country die in vain. They gave too much and so did others as well.

With that said, we have to look at where we are now and not canonize those who really don't deserve the accolades. At the same time we have to consider OUR PART in the lack of true leadership confronting us now.

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. Why don't you pay attention to THE REAL FACTS?

Not the whiny baby fantasy that Greg Palast likes to indulge.

I don't really like doing the research for people who don't get off their ass to do their own work, but since so many crybabies here are unwilling to look at the real facts, I guess I have to.

RFK Jr. agrees with me, not with the whiny crybaby crowd:

By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

Oh wait, looks like YOU'RE WRONG:

Kerry/Edwards file MORE Ohio election motions: http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/24/183243/756

Wow, here's the actual COURT RECORD! Isn't it amazing what you can find if you're willing to look for the TRUTH!
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/cobbbadnariktransfertatement22305.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmotionforhearing22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmctiguedecl22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardstransferstatement22405.pdf

Oh, and looky here: He's STILL IN THE CASE. Looks like it's set to go to trial in August.
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardstransferstatement22405.pdf

Oh, and looks like John Conyers agrees with me, too:

Whether the cumulative effect of these legal violations would have altered the actual outcome is not known at this time. However, we do know that there are many serious and intentional violations which violate Ohio’s own law, that the Secretary of State has done everything in his power to avoid accounting for such violations, and it is incumbent on Congress to protect the integrity of its own laws by recognizing the seriousness of these legal violations.

B. Need for Further Congressional Hearings

It is also clear the U.S. Congress needs to conduct additional and more vigorous hearings into the irregularities in the Ohio presidential election and around the country.

While we have conducted our own Democratic hearings and investigation, we have been handicapped by the fact that key participants in the election, such as Secretary of State Blackwell, have refused to cooperate in our hearings or respond to Mr. Conyers questions. While GAO officials are prepared to move forward with a wide ranging analysis of systemic problems in the 2004 elections, they are not planning to conduct the kind of specific investigation needed to get to the bottom of the range of problems evident in Ohio. As a result, it appears that the only means of obtaining his cooperation in any congressional investigation is under the threat of subpoena, which only the Majority may require.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/issues/issues/election.html

Amazingly enough, John Kerry does not constitute "the majority."

[shance]

21. Shut up with the insults, please. It's apparent all you want to do is

lie to yourself and promote an illusion that will serve you nothing in return.

[WildEyedLiberal]

27. ADDRESS THE FACTS.

I PROVED that he is still involved. And all you can do is still whine.

It's too bad you don't take being proven WRONG very graciously...

[EFerrari]

12. Kerry conceded before the disenfranchised voters in Ohio

had time to wipe their eyes. And that election WAS NOT HIS TO GIVE AWAY, was it? That was OUR election.

Why do you chose to ignore the vast accumulation of evidence that has been piling up since before Kerry conceded?

If you really believe what you are saying, it is your obligation to notify John Conyers, the GAO, Bob Fitrakis, Steve Freeman, Mark Crispin Miller and a HOST of others that they are very mistaken and that their work is "magical".

I'm sure that Gore and Kerry would do differently now that they know they are up against a mafia.

And, beyond that, the proposition that I have to prove to YOU or to ANYONE that the election is stolen is bull.

Show me the votes because "trust us" voting is not democracy. THAT is magical thinking.

/typo

[WildEyedLiberal]

18. Looks to me like Conyers agrees with me

See my reply upthread. You seem to think Kerry hasn't been fighting in the Ohio courts or that he's sitting on some surefire evidence. As my links above prove, that is not factually correct.

[shance]

22. Where's the proof/articles/references he's been fighting Wildeyed?

You have nothing because there is nothing.

[WildEyedLiberal]

28. Can you READ the reply I wrote to you?

It's in English, so I assume you can read it.

[EFerrari]

24. Kerry became irrelevant when he conceded. The election

is the issue, not Senator Kerry.

The Greens are still fighting in OH for the blocked recount, too.

[WildEyedLiberal]

30. You act as if there was an option.

As if not conceding was an actual option.

Without evidence, you can't refuse to concede.

The most you can do is contest it in a court. That's all Kerry - or anyone else - can do.

[EFerrari]

36. That's exactly backwards.

Without proof that the election was clean, there is every reason not to concede.

Ohio voters rioted at their statehouse. There were outrages reported ALL over the state. And, that's just in Ohio. See also, Florida, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Colorado. In New Orleans alone, most majority black precincts had power ONLY INTERMITTANTLY all day. There was enough to say, I can wait.

This isn't about piling on Kerry, although he made a mistake. This is about changing the way we think about our "elections". The way we think now is magical. "Oh, there were problems here and there, but we probably lost it." And then we get a weekend of televised handwringing by paid consultants who haven't been affected in any way.

Probably? Wtf, tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of minority voters get screwed every four years. Tell them we "probably lost it". Tell them their vote isn't worth counting?

That's not democracy, that's betting in a rigged system -- with someone else's vote.

[WildEyedLiberal]

38. There is a problem, but the root issue is far deeper than one election

There obviously IS a problem here, as you and I both know, but the time to address it isn't Election Day. Not conceding would not accomplish anything until AMERICA as a whole realizes that our election system is broken. It's about securing the infrastructure BEFORE the election. If any one group or person is to "blame" for 2004 - besides the thieves - it is the DNC, who KNEW there were irregularities in 2000, didn't care, didn't work to establish regulations for election procedures, stuck their head in the sand, and then told Kerry they didn't want the embarassment of a long recount again. They failed Gore, they failed Kerry, and most importantly, they failed the entire Democratic party and the American people.

I agree with the gist of your post and would add that changing this is NOT the responsibility of one candidate. It's the responsibility of the entire party, and the media (what a joke) to make us CARE about the integrity of our vote. Because until Joe Schmo cares that his vote might not count, nothing will be done to solve the problem.

[EFerrari]

41. I agree this is not about John Kerry. It would be hard for Palast

to resist getting a dig in on that score. He may or may not be right. I tend to think he is because ANY of us who has an opportunity to make a difference, should.

Joe Schmo is too inundated with propaganda to do much more, imho, than try to feed his family.

If any of us can facilitate his participation at ANY level to win back our vote, let's please do that.

:)

/grammar

[shance]

26. Absolutely Sfexpat***

n/t

[shance]

9. I'm sorry. You're SO wrong. Kerry couldn't surrender fast enough.

I had read he was going to throw in the towel, and I just couldn't believe it. To this day I cannot believe he walked away so fast. Except perhaps that it is true and Americans don't want to face that fact that Kerry walked away from the presidency. Why? Im not sure if we'll ever know the truth.

Whatever the case, it was a breathtakingly cowardly choice on Kerry's part and one containing so many repercussions to this nation, that John Kerry should never ever ever, be allowed to run for president again because of such a spineless choice. I like John Kerry, but the man who showed courage when he returned from Vietnam seems little more than a Washington operative now.

A choice that America is having to suffer the consequences for every single day.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[shance]

23. LOL! You have nothing, no facts, only rude replies and accusations.

n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

33. You're making a complete ass of yourself

Anyone who can read this thread can see the reply I posted with a dozen links proving you dead wrong. Upon being proven wrong, you are incapable of admitting your error, so you make a dozen petulant replies.

Make a dozen more, and it won't erase the facts I documented.

[dailykoff]

43. Yep. The DNC found no evidence of "widespread fraud" in Ohio

after five months of study. From the executive summary of "Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio":

The statistical study of precinct-level data does not suggest the
occurrence of widespread fraud that systematically misallocated votes
from Kerry to Bush.

(snip)

That the pattern of voting for Kerry is so similar to the pattern of
voting for the Democratic candidate for governor in 2002 is, in the
opinion of the team’s political science experts, strong evidence
against the claim that widespread fraud systematically misallocated
votes from Kerry to Bush.

As I recall, Kerry did NOT say "we lost," he said "we cannot win" -- and he was right.

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/ohvrireport/section02.pdf

[rman]

47. To bad we can only call idiots those who are not here

to defend themselves.

[itzamirakul]

3. In thread after thread on DU, I have expressed these same

identical concerns concerning the election fraud, theft of the presidency and most of all, the immediate capitulation of Kerry like a whipped puppy dog.

The Kerry supporters on this board will argue with you until the first of neverary that Kerry did not quit...that he is still working on the stolen votes, that he did indeed turn loose the hordes of lawyers that so many of us donated money to ensure their presence on the scene at the polling places where hanky-panky was suspected. None of that ever happened, nor was the final use of that lawyer money ever accounted for satisfactorily for me.

Those of us who suspect that Kerry was a mere placeholder for the Dem party in an election that was already thrown to the GOP by the DLC are of course, "cursed and spat upon" by those who are anxious to encourage Kerry to run again, if Hillary doesn't work out.

And I don't need a tinhat!

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. Prove that none of it ever happened.

Prove your lies or shut up.

You can't and you never have. Your word counts for jack shit.

[itzamirakul]

29. You need to read and re-read your posts and remember that

this is supposed to be a discussion among Democrats who believe in the same principles and ideals and not the party of one man that you choose to lionize. By posting such a nasty comment, do you really think you are convincing me to change my mind about Kerry?

This is the Democratic Party and not the Kerry Party.

I don't have to shut up...at least not NOW. Not until people who are actually pawns of the opposition manage to steal our votes and put enough DINOs in office that we Democrats will lose all of our rights, including the right to free speech. I am assuming that that is the way that WildEyedLiberal feels when he or she tells me that my opinion "counts for jack shit". That he/she is telling me that I do not have the right to post my opinion that John Kerry was not the choice of the majority of Dems but was shoved down our throats by the DNC, was then supported fully by the majority of Dems and who in the end, pulled down his pants and stuck his naked ass in our loyal faces. And that is who this poster thinks we should support AGAIN? Does the Dem Party stand a chance of running Kerry for President again? Does a bear have feathers?

Or perhaps I am just over-reacting and the above poster is just having a bad day and doesn't really mean what he/she has posted here. That sometimes happens, too.

Yes, I do believe their are people who post at DU who have large post counts but who are actually operatives of the RW and it is they who constantly try to shove piss-poor candidates like Lieberman and Kerry and Hillary down our throats.

[WildEyedLiberal]

31. A "discussion" doesn't mean lies can go unaddressed.

Your wackjob conspiracy theories are cute, but not to be taken seriously.

I do believe there are people who post at DU in order to constantly undermine critics of the Bush administation while disguised as tinfoil-hat wearing far leftists. People who consistently ignore the facts fall into this category. Care to address my factual evidence that you are dead wrong?

[itzamirakul]

37. I have nothing to prove to you...This topic has been argued and

argued on this board long enough that the facts have become whatever the poster chooses them to be.

The neocons are running both the Democratic and the Republican Parties and they most certainly do have spies and plants on most sites such as DU. You can tell them by their language...like calling other posters "whiney" or other such nasty, snarky comments.

I'm not going to change your mind and you certainly are not going to change mine. Spread your message among those willing to hear it and I will do the same with mine.

[WildEyedLiberal]

39. The difference is that my opinions are facts with links to back them up

My facts are copies of court records. Statements by the actual lawyers involved in the case. Proof that Kerry's lawyers have been involved since 2004. That is not a negotiable opinion that you can agree with or disagree with at will. It is a documented FACT.

FACT: Kerry lawyers are still involved, will go to trial this summer: http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2005/08/kerry-and-edwards-to-stay-in-recount.html

You stated that "his lawyers are not involved." I have demonstrably proved otherwise. That is not an "opinion," in which yours is as valid as mine. It is a fact, and the facts show that your opinion is wrong, because it is based on things that are not true.

You know, speaking of trolls, there was a poster during the 2004 election who had almost the same opinion of Kerry you did. He would use the worst and most vile insults to describe him, call him a "Skull and Bones collaborator," and constantly try to undermine him. On election night, he outed himself as a freeper troll and laughed at all the people who believed his smears, lies, and tripe. It is not a mystery why the right-wing would be so interested in vilifying a man who has spent the past 35 years uncovering their dirty laundry. The only "mystery" is why any self-proclaimed leftist would parrot their smears.

[itzamirakul]

40. Uh-huh...Yeah....right....what you say....mmmm-hmmmmm...

and to think I wasted my time and energy marching for the Dem. Party and supporting Kerry and having a straight Democrat Party voting ticket since 1959, and voting for Hillary who I will never support again just as I will never vote for Kerry again and even voting for the Gore-Lieberman ticket in 2000 and watching THAT neocon sit and talk with Dick Cheney instead of debating as he was supposed to do.

And sitting up night after night online campaigning for Kerry-Edwards and talking with friends and finally voting for Kerry with all the enthusiasm of a teenager on a first date to get WHAT?

He QUIT! You can twist it and turn it but the bottom line is...HE QUIT when he had PROMISED us that he would not, no matter what. I know what I heard him say and I am not going to try to document it word for word for you because we are not in court. But I DO know how to take the information that I have and share it with people who do read or involve themselves in politics as much as I do.

As with theatre tickets, word-of-mouth will sell more tickets than a million dollar ad.

[WildEyedLiberal]

42. Once again: my opinion, based on facts; yours, based on... nothing.

It's pretty obvious to everyone reading this thread that you a) lied about Kerry's involvement in election lawsuits and then b) became belligerent when called upon your dishonesty.

I posed FACT. A link that backed up my assertation. That's not twisting jack shit. The only thing you've done is rant, rant, and rant some more, bloviating with zero - ZERO - real world facts to back up your ridiculous and false assertations. You think your red-faced ranting is somehow going to change the fact that you have been proven dishonest in this thread repeatedly? That if you stick your head in the sand and continue to deny the actual facts, you can magically make them go away?

I'm so sorry reality doesn't support your opinion.

[MisoWeaver]

6. I think your are right

Kerry did fold faster the Superman on laundry day...

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Mass]

32. 2nd longest time in history. Longest was Gore.

This said, I am not sure that Palast wanted this post about Kerry. It was about ALL Democrats.

[bemildred]

8. Exactly. nt

[EFerrari]

14. It would seem to me more useful to clean up our elections

than to vilify John Kerry. We can't read his mind. We can do something about getting our vote back.

[Hoosier Dem]

7. Palast is an idiot, BUT...

The topic of his article is a good one. We Democrats did not fight the way Obrador is fighting in Mexico. While we here in cyber-world gripe and bitch, the rank and file (with the DNC lapdogs at the forefront) just turned back to their TVs and said "Well, OK, I guess."

When I watched "Fahrenheit 911", the scene that got me the most was when NO Democrat in the US Senate stood to challenge the electoral count. Not even ONE!! Granted, DINOS like Bayh or Breaux would never have done it, but I was saddened that some of the lions of the Democratic Party took a powder on this. Bob Graham of Florida had the best case to plead, but he remained silent. Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer or Paul Wellstone would have made excellent spokesmen for the disenfranchised, but they did not. All it would have taken was ONE SENATOR to challenge the count. That was the day Democracy died in America.

I think this actually emboldened Rove and his henchmen. By 2004, they had a full-scale plan to steal the election. Once again, Democratic protests were anemic. Yes, Kerry got involved in lawsuits. No one called for peaceful protests, no one tried to expose what happened. Now, we have RFK Jr's excellent article in Rolling Stone, but this is 2006. Investigative reporters would have had a gold mine in Ohio, but they didn't show up.

If we don't get ready for whatever crap they come up with for 2008, we have no right to call ourselves Democrats. We've seen what they will do, now we have to show what we can do.

[fasttense]

13. Very well said Hoosier Dem

Welcome, for a first post you really did well.

There is enough blame for not standing up to vote rigging to go around from Kerry, to Gore, to the Democratic party, to the dancing supremes. The bottom line though is we the people.

[EFerrari]

15. Palast is an idiot? LOL!

And, btw, Boxer challenged the certification of the 2004 theft.

[yurbud]

48. I admire Boxer and the black caucus, but it's tough to win if

the candidate himself doesn't challenge it, and is too polite to say WHY it needs to be challenged.

Just as in Mexico, there was tons of video proof before election day was even over.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

25. What Will Happen WHEN It Happens Again....And Again....

The Amerikan public is much too concerned with their own lives, and useless Crap like who the next Amerikan Idol will be.

Out of perhaps 20 people I told back in November 2004, what had occured, maybe 1 of them agreed and understood. The rest were like, "Ehhh.....so why isn't it in the media?"

[Mass]

35. Excellent first post.

[teryang]

50. Gore gave up pending lawsuits in Leon County FL prematurely

He could have appealed the outcomes but chose not to. That was his choice. I didn't agree with his decision because the legal interpretation of the first Supreme Court decision could have resulted in a different outcome, in which he would take the election. However, the Supreme Court had indicated a disposition to twist the law beyond recognition, indicated Bush v. Gore was of no precedential value, ignored conflicts of interest, and displayed an arbitrariness beyond belief. Additional further unlawful actions were contemplated by the Florida legislature which would have prolonged the Constitutional crisis So Gore made a reasonable decision. The legislature would simply have ignored the outcome of a Gore favorable recount.

However, since then, the time to bring lawsuits concerning elections is before the fact. Declaratory judgements and injunctions should have been sought before the elections by candidates with judicial standing in 2002, 2004, and now 2006 based upon the fact that recounts are not possible with electronic voting and therefore the machines are unconstitutional and violate due process. If recounts cannot be performed with e-voting, then the electoral process is unconstitutional and illegitimate.

I understand from a thread posted at DU recently that several states have such lawsuits pending now. Hope they get somewhere.

[Yoda Yada]

11. And any effort to stand up for American voters...gets side-lined.

Since RFK Jr. launched his whistlebower lawsuits targeting several E-vote machine manufacturer (over FRAUD- related issues), the Bush regime has sprung into action.

Kennedy was told that they FIRST had to consult the Department of Justice. Alberto Gonzalez's Department of Justice proceeded to issue a GAG ORDER for 60 days. (That would squash any investigations BEFORE the election.) Isn't this In-Your-Face obstruction of justice?

But IMO the bigger issue is this. After what happened in the Ukraine, and now what is happening in Mexico (concerning MASSIVE "election-fraud" demonstrations everywhere in the country), we see how desparately hungry some citizens of the world are for their freedom . They know what oppression is like... and they will fight IN THE STREETS for change.

Americans won't do that.....they have more important things to do....more self-serving,and self-indulgent "things to do." Their sense of ENTITLEMENT and INDIFFERENCE (a deadly combination) has become a priority, and they won't fight for their freedoms UNTIL they find themselves saluting a dictator AND being punished if the don't comply.

What happened to us?
:cry: :cry: :cry:

[EFerrari]

16. Find a reform group in your area that is solid and help them.

This is an important year. BushCo is implementing a sweeping law that makes it easier to steal, HAVA.

Do it today. Even if it's only on line or an hour a week somewhere. Your help is needed!

:hi:

[Mass]

34. Interesting - Palast wrote an an article against ALL Democats. Why did

this become an anti-Kerry thread? And what did the OP attack Gore, who contested the election?

[yurbud]

46. Gore didn't make an issue of black disenfranchisement that was done

systematically in Florida and was documented as it happened.

Palast has footage of the Civil Rights Commission hearings where the data crunching firm execs says the way the state wanted felon voters purged would result in false positives, which ended up being tens of thousands, and sec of states office sent memo saying that the way they wanted it.

Blacks have been solidly democrat for a long time, but Democratic party leaders often treat them like retarded cousins that you have to tolerate to get Grandma's inheritance.

[stevenleser]

44. Kerry had our backs much more than people realize...

...want proof?

Where is the smoking gun? Kennedy wrote a great article, great books have recently been written, I've written several articles (10 in fact) on the subject while the recount was going on, but to what evidence could Kerry point that the election was DEFINITELY stolen? Am I sure it was? Yes, but could anyone prove it to the extent that the GOP smear machine could be effectively countered? No. Sure, Kerry could have fought more overtly and longer, but would we have had HIS back? And what would have been the consequence? There is no way to prove in a court of law that the election was stolen. The constitution has no provision for a revote. Once one clears their heads and analyzes what would have happened, the inevitable conclusion becomes obvious.

#1 - The Democratic Party would have taken a huge hit for an unsuccessful election challenge. Kerry and Edwards would have born the brunt, but the entire party would have been hurt. You can forget the 2006 midterm election advantage we have right now. That would be gone. After two contested elections in a row, we would have thoroughly bought ourselves the Sore Loser party moniker.

#2 - We would have further solidified the Republican Party behind idiot-boy. Instead of fraying support in his own party over the next 18 months, the GOP would have been a much stronger and unified entity.

#3 - The Democratic/Liberal/Progressive left is not ready to mount the sort of protest that they are about to mount in Mexico. I wrote an article about this a few weeks ago. Even here at DU, what percentage of us does anyone think are ready to leave our jobs for a month or two to support a protracted protest? We are not ready for the necessary courses of actions to make something like that work. We dont have a Gore or Kerry's back, and they know it.

[yurbud]

45. I hope you are right about Kerry, and that there is some genius to this

passive strategy of the Democratic leadership.

I often criticize it here, but it reminds me of the Russian general in War & Peace's response to the French invasion. His lieutenants would plan and argue and fight while he slept, then he would wake up just long enough to say "WAIT!" then go back to sleep.

And of course it worked.

If the Republican ideas are truly wrong and destructive, reality will catch up with them the way political machinations will not.

Unfortunately, too often the Democrats have done worse than nothing. Rather than wait for the GOP to implode, they have voted with them, giving a potent, legitimate weapon to their opponents.

[GetTheRightVote]

49. As much as I hate it, I must agree with you, if we were in the streets

they would love it. I am sure they would jump on the opporunity to prove us right. WE need to be there where they can see us supporting them and that means the street people, the streets.

:kick:

[teryang]

51. Actually the defense against fraudulent elections is the recount

...but recounts are not possible with electronic voting. The constitution does provide for recounts, where state law provides for recounts. It is up to the States to designate the manner and method of conducting elections. Where these state statutes provide for recounts, they must be practicable. If not the election process is illegitimate.

The battle therefore has to be fought in the courts with lawsuits for declaratory judgements and permanent injunctions, outlawing the use of e-voting. It takes foresight, it takes leadership, it takes millions of dollars. Such lawsuits need to planned and prepared with experts well in advance of an election. The lack of leadership in the party was before the election. When there was no proactive filing of lawsuits in evoting jurisdictions before the actual 2004 election, I knew it would be a lost cause. The failure was a legal one before the election. After, the election, it was too late.

[yurbud]

52. good ideas all. Unfortunately, this has only been grassroots with spotty

action by state and national Democratic leaders. Howard Dean clearly understands this issue, but leaders in Congress don't seem to be backing him up.

At a state level, here in CA, we have some good legislation, and a good candidate for secretary of state, but the Democrats allowed the previous secretary of state, who caught Diebold doing illegal patches red-handed and took appropriate action, Democrats allowed him to be chased out of office by the GOP and confirmed Arnold's choice for his replacement.

[stevenleser]

53. Exactly right, and herein lies the course of action...

..we MUST pay attention to elections for state legislatures. We MUST elect Democrats to the state legislatures, take control of all of them and pass legislation that precisely describes and specifies how good elections are to be conducted in each state. This MUST include a thorough and verifiable manual recount process that MUST be concluded before electors can be sent to Washington. I put the rest of my ideas here---> http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060513_election_2006_state_.htm

Please folks, help me spread the word on this. It is very difficult. Getting people to get excited about voting for someone for state legislature is not easy, but if we can control the state houses in all the swing states after 2006, we can make a lot of important changes happen and that is the ONLY way to prevent 2008 being a repeat of 2004 and 2000.

[yurbud]

55. aggravating but accurate--clean out the corrupt, parasitic assworms at

state level in legislature and sec of state's office, get clean money and hand counted ballots (if you don't get the first, the second won't stick), and then use the states to leverage the national process.

It will be slow and painful, and it's difficult to get people to stick with the process if they aren't doing it for personal gain like many democrats and nearly all republican candidates.

[teryang]

54. Appreciate the comments - my response

Actually, the courts are a much more effective forum to stop evoting. In my state, the laws already provide for recounts. If recounts are not possible because of the nature of the voting machines, a temporary and then permanent injunction should issue. This, one presumes would go to the State Supreme Court and govern elections for that entire state.

Grass roots, yes that is true. The judicial challenges should emerge from figures with standing, that is candidates. However, it is the depth of the pockets rather than the breath of the support which rules in the courts. Therefore, challenges to the evoting shortcomings, which are constitutional in dimension can be met by small teams of lawyers and expert witnesses if they are sufficiently funded. I admit the costs could be in the millions for each lawsuit and course of litigation. However, only one litigation package need be prepared for each type of evoting machine and state election law.

The fact that sufficient funding has generally not been forthcoming and that it has been sporadic is indicative of what Noam Chomsky calls "Deterring Democracy." The rich in this country want anything but a democracy. This is an unpleasant reality. I don't know how to deal with it. If someone hired me to work on one of these teams right now, I would insist on working on the 2008 elections, because my sense of legal timing tells me, it's already too late for 2006. I'm hoping that one of the litigation teams working on this for 2006 in a few states proves me wrong. I would also insist on a virtual blank check to hire experts, collect data, conduct discovery, after finding someone with standing to make the challenge. Once a suit succeeds, it becomes a precedent, at least for that entire state.

I haven't researched the standing issue. I have to get paid to do legal research. My time is stock in trade. Perhaps some professional here at DU has looked into it. If so, I would love to hear their point of view. Moving a few judges to do something about this is a lot easier than overcoming the incumbents and jerrymandering in state legislative districts.

My views on this issue were formulated before the 2000 election and really haven't changed since. The initial insight came from a web site called TheBell.com which could not get around the impossibility of a valid recount from a emachine which also protected the "secret ballot" with encryption. In other words, the due process requirements of evoting conflict with the constitutional requirement for a secret ballot. There is no remedy other than to abandon evoting altogether. The idea of voting with electrons is patently insecure, unverifiable and absurd.

Good luck to all those challenging evoting, regardless of their strategy.