Reply #75: This is a really important discussion, and I thank everyone who...

[Peace Patriot]

...is participating in it, whether I agree with you or not.

It's vitally important that we are able to evaluate our leaders and other important elements of our struggle to recover our right to vote. And it's important to speak freely--not just for their sakes (to push them) but for our own, so that we can help each other understand the situation we are in.

troubleinwinter: I keep going back and forth about this--Kerry's retreat, what I would like him to have done, and what his long term plan might be, and if it is at all relevant to what most of us see as needed (dumping Diebold machines into Boston Harbor!).

I'm at risk of flip-flopping here myself, but maybe what I'm about to say just points up how difficult this all is, and how painful it all is.

IF Kerry had immediately challenged the election (or even if he had waited out the assault on Falluja, and had the benefit of the Exit Poll analysis and other info, which came forth over the weeks just following the election), he would have been in direct challenge of these dangerous people, and it would have caused a crisis in the legitimacy of the government. And there is no way that the BushCon Congress would have backed him up, or even held a fair and honorable investigation. So, very likely--and also given the BushCon media--he would have flamed out. A grand stand up for the truth--an unmerciful trashing by the BushCon media.

He might have been able to recover from it. He would have been a great hero to many (to the majority!). But here, I think, was the heart of his problem--and what would have been the basis for the trashing:

The people of this country would not have merely been made to "think about" election fraud--they would have been very angry about it. I think most Kerry voters (the majority!) felt in their gut that something was wrong, and still do. But most have had no confirmation. And further, Kerry's concession really took the steam out of most.

But what if it had been different? What if the Exit Polls had not been disguised by the TV networks--what if everyone had known that they said Kerry won (and were in conflict with the "official" BushCon-controlled "results")? Or what if this information had been exposed? And what if Kerry had not conceded--or had unconceded (when the Exit Poll analysis and the Ohio stuff came out)? He may well have found himself at the head of a revolution!--one that it might have taken arms to put down! And still with a Congress that would have absolutely blockaded any effort to remove Bush, no matter how rightful.

I think Kerry's concession had nothing to do with the evidence for election fraud (it is overwhelming)--or with the number of provisional ballots in Ohio. I think it had to do with an evaluation of what POWER he had to challenge the election--and possibly also of what kind of position he would be putting voters in. This is a surmise, but I think a realistic one. His own internal polls must have told him that he'd won. The Exit Polls (and everything else--pre-election polls, Dem registration drive, etc.) confirmed that. And he certainly must have known about Wally O'Dell & Co. So the choice may have been rather stark: Lead a revolution, or shut up!

There might have been a middle way (although BushCons make a "middle way" very hard to find). And it may be that Kerry is pursuing what he THINKS is a middle way. (This DNC line about "not overturning the result" that we kept hearing from the heroes of Jan. 6 may well be one visible sign of a deliberate "middle way" long term strategy.) The trouble with this "middle way," though, is that it is so weak! Maybe...MAYBE it will result in eventual exposure of the BushCon coup. But will we still have a country at that time?

Again, this is just a surmise. I've been puzzling at the whole thing for some time, trying to look at it from various angles (and hoping against hope that revolution would be the choice!) (But that's me! I would not have been responsible for all the potential blood on the streets!). And this scenario does NOT explain the very odd Dem leadership lack of vigilance on the election system. But I think it might be closer to the truth than anything else I've seen among the speculations about it all.

Upshot, and meaning for US: The Democratic leadership has no power. They have been neutered (far more severely than we realize). They can't even object to a blatantly, egregiously unfair election.

The other upshot: We have to take this matter into our own hands, and recover our right to vote (state by state, county by county) on our own initiative.