Al Gore's scary statement on stolen elections

[HamdenRice]

This is a little out of date, because it came out last week in New York Magazine's generally favorable portrait of Al Gore. It seems all the more relevant now that Bobby Kennedy's article has come out in Rolling Stone, and a mini-controversy has erupted over John Kerry's continuing refusal to agree that the election, at least in Ohio, was blatantly a violation of the Voting Rights Act, and probably stolen.

Al Gore has also been unwilling to make a definitive statement, but the response he gave the magazine was chilling, and at least explains how seriously he takes this issue, and why it might not be in the best interest of the country for a leader like himself to come out clearly in support of those who claim both elections were stolen.

I'd be very curious how DUers interpret this strange Gore quote:

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/politics/17065/index2.html

“In spite of that,” Gore goes on, “we won the popular vote and came within one Supreme Court justice’s vote of winning the election. So if that final decision had gone the other way, the question might well be, how did you guys pull it off?”

Does he, like many Democrats, think the election was stolen?

Gore pauses a long time and stares into the middle distance. “There may come a time when I speak on that,” Gore says, “but it’s not now; I need more time to frame it carefully if I do.” Gore sighs. “In our system, there’s no intermediate step between a definitive Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.”

Later, I put the question of Gore’s views on the matter to David Boies, his lawyer in the Florida-recount battle. “He thought the court’s ruling was wrong and obviously political,” Boies says. So he considers the election stolen? “I think he does—and he’s right.”

[mdmc]

1. He will get my support

with a re-elect strategy

[cantstandbush]

54. "V" for Vendetta!! n/t

[man4allcats]

2. I like Gore's statement.

I agree that it is scary, but the pursuit of freedom has often been and will likely always be at times scary. Gore is the only politician I can think of off hand who, during dubya's misadministration, has had the courage to even speak of revolution. Kind of puts me in mind of this:

"We want freedom by any means necessary.
We want justice by any means necessary.
We want equality by any means necessary." - Malcolm X

[Imagevision]

3. Of course it was stolen, who's got the balls to take it home?!!

[kimpossible]

4. Gave me chills when he said that

Do we need any more proof that the man gets it?

[HamdenRice]

5. But what do you think he means?

You are right -- he clearly gets it, and the quote from Bois suggests that he has privately told people he thinks the election was stolen. Is he afraid that if he comes out strongly, mobs with pitchforks will beseige DC?

[JDPriestly]

6. I believe Gore was silent because he wanted to avoid

having to deal with a constitutional crisis at a time when the Supreme Court was not on his side. I believe that Kerry also may have considered the likelihood that any attempt to challenge the election outcome would be rejected by the partisan Republican Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote on the Supreme Court. She gave the election to the Republicans and Bush. And what was her thanks -- an attack on the Court -- an attack on the justice system. O'Connor made some good decisions while on the court. Puzzlingly, she often stated the liberal argument persuasively and then voted for the conservative decision. But, her reputation as a justice will be soiled forever by her decision in the Bush/Gore case. Legal historians will blame her. And she deserves the blame. Her decision was strictly political, strictly partisan.

[HamdenRice]

7. But the quote refers to his feelings now, not back in 2000

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but he seems to be saying that if the extent election steeling were revealed today, there might be violent revolution???

[JDPriestly]

10. I' m saying he thought that then as now and that is why he

did not say much in public about the election after the election of 2000 for a long time and does not say much today. He is saying that that there are few avenues of recourse available other than violence if and when the Supreme Court fails to deal justly with election fraud.

Actually Congress, I believe, could have questioned the legitimacy of the election, but Democrats failed to find the courage to even pose the question. Because of the cowardice of the Democratic majority in Congress at that time, our nation has been raped and ravaged. Bush has wasted the wealth and legacy of our children and overseen its transfer into the pockets of his friends. Remember, the Democrats were in the majority in congress at the time the rape and ravage was allowed to begin.

[kaygore]

11. NO, there is another, more sinister, interpretation

that just came to me: If BushCo had not won, they would seize the country through a violent revolution. Look how far they were willing to go to further their power by being complicit in 9/11. These are very evil people who will stop at nothing.

Kinda makes you believe the nut jobs that say the government is being controlled by Lizard-looking aliens in an underground bunker at Area 52.

[bobbieinok]

57. remember she supposedly said during selection 2000 that she

was tired and wanted to retire BUT did not want her replacement to be nominated by a democrat.......she was reported to have said this at some cocktail party

[Zorra]

8. Wow. Seems like Al smells the same putrid stench of fascism

that most of us do.

[Supersedeas]

55. Who now believes that the smell we are now exposed to is roses?

[Baconfoot]

9. He just means there is no appealing an SC decision except illegally...

But then why the word "violent?"
Well I think Al Gore is such a...frankly the only word which is appropriate is patriot that he uses the word "violent" to indicate the violence which would be done to the constitution and the people even in the case of a so-called peaceful revolution. You might think there is no such thing as a peaceful revolution when the system you are revolting against is something as or even more dear to you than family. To revolt against it is to do it violence even if you plan to reinstate the system later in the exact same form. If your family member gets kidnapped and later returned, violence was done to them. You don't say violence wasn't done to someone or something, you don't say a serious wrong wasn't inflicted upon them, just because the wrong stops.

So I think I can even take a wild guess as to what he is holding back from saying: That what we experienced in 2000 was, properly speaking, a violent revolution from which we have not yet recovered.

[kaygore]

12. Good interpretation

[elehhhhna]

24. HE did not want to TRIGGER a "Violent revolution". It's obvious.

Had he called bullshit on Florida AFTER the SC "decision", WE'D have taken it to the streets...I truly believe it.

He's saying there's no middle ground between the USSC's decison and the chaos that would ensue if he had not dropped it.

[blm]

13. WHY do you say this is important WHILE you claim Kerry refuses to say

anything about it? That's INCORRECT - Kerry has said ALOT ABOUT IT - but obviously YOU are the one who refuses to HEAR a DAMN WORD he says.

For you to attach so much meaning to Gore's ONE NONSPECIFIC statement just to attack Kerry with a false claim is BOGUS SPIN.

Have you ever asked why didn't Gore work for four years with the Dem party to ROOT OUT ELECTION FRAUD on every level if he was so AWARE and so CONCERNED that it happened in 2000 and would happen again in 2004?

[AtomicKitten]

15. let's be honest here

You must admit Kerry's nonplussed reaction to 2004, specifically that there was no substantive evidence of fraud in Ohio that would have changed the outcome of the election, has resurfaced again and again like a bad meal of tainted clams.

[blm]

16. Yeah - let's be REAL HONEST - why didn't Gore CARE ENOUGH about election

fraud to work with the Dem party to strengthen an infrastructure that ALLOWS IT TO HAPPEN. Instead, the Dem party infrastructure was weakened MORE between 2000 and 2004.

Kerry became the nominee in June 2004 and he had to depend on the Dem party's work and attention to the issue because that was their designated job.

You all didn't ask Terry MacAuliffe and the Dem party heads to write Kerry's position papers or do his debates for him, why do you blame Kerry for not doing the job of the Dem party heads who are in charge of TRAINING and educating election board Dems and state party Dems to watch out for fraud?

[AtomicKitten]

17. being honest

would include acknowledging your emotional response to this, and IMO it would be a good idea for you to step back a bit. One can support a candidate without taking it so personally. Your blanket black & white overview that Kerry is god and all else pale in comparison makes it really difficult to have a conversation with you.

Respectfully, I will not engage you further on this. Suffice to say I do not view the world in such stark terms as you appear to do where Kerry is concerned.

And I also believe we are in this together.

[blm]

18. I never said that - YOU ACCEPT when people attack Kerry FOR NO REASON

and I do not. The poster said that Kerry refuses to say anything about election fraud and that is demonstrably false statement and he said it WHILE IMPLYING Gore's nonspecific statement bears so much weight that it makes Kerry look even worse.

Do you really think inaccurate remarks like that should NOT be countered?

I get angered over SPIN - unnecessary spin whose purpose was to attack Kerry with an INACCURATE STATEMENT. And unfortunately for people like me, Kerry gets attacked FAR MORE than any other person - and 95% of the attacks are PURE LIES that come from people have every intention of spreading those falsehoods for their own reasons.

You can applaud falsehoods all you want - I will not. I counter them.

Here's Kerry's recent interview with Miller addressing election fraud

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0517_kerry.mp3

Here's a list that counters the lie that Kerry refuses to talk about the fraud:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1015710&mesg_id=1015710

And here's legislation he co-sponsors:

ls co-sponsored (that I know of)

S.195 : A bill to provide for full voting representation in Congress for the citizens of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. (introduced 1/26/2005) Cosponsors (13) Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Latest Major Action: 3/9/2005 Referred to Senate subcommittee. Status: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs referred to Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia.

S.391 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit certain State election administration officials from actively participating in electoral campaigns. Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. (introduced 2/16/2005) Cosponsors (5) Committees: Senate Rules and Administration Latest Major Action: 2/16/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

S.450 : (The Count Every Vote Act) A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified paper record, to improve provisional balloting, to impose additional requirements under such Act, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham (introduced 2/17/2005) Cosponsors (6) Committees: Senate Rules and Administration Latest Major Action: 2/17/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

S.1975 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 11/8/2005) Cosponsors (4) Committees: Senate Rules and Administration Latest Major Action: 11/8/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

[RestoreGore]

36. Because he wants to run again, no?

And where in this bill does it mention getting rid of electronic voting machines completely? Because unless we do, forget about it.

[blm]

43. Kerry said he wants electronic voting machines banned on Thursday

and he said it has to be done state by state - he will be working to make it happen.

Now - why was it OK for the original post to make a FALSE claim about Kerry just so he could post positively about a statement Gore made? And why do so many of you accept it?

[Kahuna]

19. Gore work with the turncoat Democratic party????!! That's rich

What Dems stood by Gore to lend support while the Florida fiasco was going on? None that I could see including your precious John Kerry. Why? You know I just figured it out today. It's the Democratic ego that keeps them from working together to acheive results. I dare say that some of those who had their own presidential aspirations sighed a sigh of relief when Gore was felled by the feeble frat boy. Now they would only have to wait four years for their crack at the bat instead of eight.

[blm]

22. That's FALSE - Kerry was one of the only Dems who stood up for Gore during

that time and did it PUBLICLY while most were keeping their distance.

Why are you revising what happened then?

And why is it OK for Gore to turn his back on election fraud for the four years after it hurt HIS VOTERS? You think he COULDN'T HAVE worked with the Dem party or are you saying he WOULDN'T HAVE for personal reasons?

Please be very clear about what you are saying here.

If ANY Dem understood election fraud clearly it was their DUTY to democracy and to every Democratic voting citizen to work to stop it. You all are saying Gore understood and applaud that he STOOD SILENT about it for four years.

[Kahuna]

27. You know what, you're right. I just wanted you to admit that Gore WAS

pretty much out there alone, save for John Kerry. But you will have to admit that the rest of the Dems hung Gore out to dry. So why be so disingenuous as to suggest that Gore should work with those panty-waists to accomplish anything? They abandoned both Clinton and Gore. Face it, our party sucks.

[blm]

32. WHY??? For the same reason that NONE OF US CAN QUIT. We fight BECAUSE

of what we know. I would expect Gore to do the same and MORE because of his sphere of influence and his access to the Dem INFRASTRUCTURE.

[wisteria]

51. Gore had a lot of support initially. It was only around the time the

Supreme Court took the case that Dem's started scattering.

[RestoreGore]

28. Really?

Then why didn't he sign to contest the electoral votes of Florida in the Congressional chamber in January 2001? They only needed ONE Senator. Why did he tell us to stop crying in our teacups? Why did he concede to Bush the very NEXT DAY? And Gore didn't turn his back. He at least FOUGHT IT.

[blm]

31. He fought it under DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. You want to claim here and now

that Gore would have taken it to court if he were PERCEIVED to be over 100,000 votes behind and PERCEIVED to have lost the popular vote by 3 million votes?

Are you saying Kerry WOULDN'T have fought if there was a 1500 vote difference and HE was perceived to be the popular vote winner?

Try using REALITY as a factor when you make your claims.

And Gore ASKED the senators to not contest and to move on.

And Gore DID turn his back on all of us if he KNEW alot about election fraud and for four years chose to not make it an issue at least within the Dem party infrastructure itself.

[RestoreGore]

34. Well then to turn the tables...

Are you saying Kerry would have done any different than Gore under his circumstances? If not, then what the hell is your point? And what is YOUR duty in all of this as an American citizen? You don't think you have one? The fact remains that not ONE Senator would do the right thing in 2001. It matters not what anyone said to them if they truly believed and knew it was morally right to do it. If they listened they are just as complicit, although I think that is false. And your nitpicking about what Gore did or did not do regarding election fraud after that as a private citizen doesn't compare to the Congress's blatant disregard for this issue even today. But go ahead and blame him entirely for everything if it makes you feel better to think none of it is your fault for not working for election reform yourself. Are you? If not, you have no right complaining about others.

[blm]

35. I didn't. But, I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone LIE ABOUT KERRY

to make a point to benefit Gore. The poster could have made their positive point about Gore WITHOUT bashing Kerry unnecessarily AND falsely.

And Gore SHOULD HAVE worked his ASS OFF to make election fraud an issue IF HE KNEW ALOT ABOUT IT, as people here are claiming.

And YES - I do work on election reform issues - I was the first person at DU to sound the alarm about ES&S and their GOP owners BEFORE the 2002 election - thank you very much.

[RestoreGore]

39. worked his ass off...

I think that should be DEMOCRATS IN GENERAL working their asses off. Perhaps he figured he wouldn't do that because he basically felt he would get no backing... You know, be called a conspiracy theorist, a sore loser, a tinfoil hat wearer, etc... would you have backed him up? From your posts here where you seem to have a penchant for outward disgust for him, I doubt it. So again, what is your point? Where has Kerry or for that matter any Democrat really been on this issue for the last SIX years? I mean, if you want to place blame, let's go all the way.

[blm]

40. I said IF GORE KNEW then it was his responsibility to make the Dem party

LISTEN to him. You all are the ones saying Gore knows alot and applauding his silence - I'm saying that if he did know alot as claimed and chose to stay silent and NOT secure the votes of the American people for the next election then that is WRONG.

And it IS the Dem party's duty to secure the votes for the Democratic voters and every candidate on the ballot. Blaming Kerry for something that WASN'T his job is a convenient DISTRACTION which keeps everyone off the back of the ACTUAL PEOPLE who failed to do their duty and secure the machines and strengthen the Dem infrastructure in crucial states BEFORE The election.

Gore wasn't completely ostracized as people here assume. He could have muscled his way into making election fraud a bigger issue for the four years before.

Kerry was no election expert - the Dem party supposedly HAD plenty of those and were using Gore's election team from 2000 - it was Kerry's job to WIN his matchups with Bush. It was the Dem PARTY'S job to secure every apparatus used to record votes for Democrats. Kerry's going to BECOME an expert now - he has no choice - he has to make the Dem party listen, and this RS article will help.

[bobbieinok]

58. read on DU that Gore requested that no senators back black caucus

b/c he feared what might happen...... there have been several DU posts that claim that Gore led the party NOT to contest the election when congress validated the electoral college vote in Jan 2001

[RestoreGore]

23. Personally...

I hope he continues to do what he is doing out here as an environmental statesman and gives them all the finger (figuratively speaking.) He is a great man, and they don't deserve for him to run in this same shitty system that dissed him when he needed them to stand up for him, and more importantly our Constitution. If they can't do their duty to right the wrong and bring these criminals to justice, then they deserve what they get. As it is said, you get the government you deserve. I'm beginning to think we sure as hell did.

[AtomicKitten]

29. welcome

and I gotta say your screen name is top-drawer.

[RestoreGore]

37. Yes,,,

I like it too.;-)

[Samantha]

50. Another welcome, RestoreGore

I came here in 2001 and posted essentially your same remarks. I hovered for a few months when I found this site, until one day, I could not hold my anger at the Dems in any longer. I was particularly angry with Kerry, who had made a remark following the voting of the electoral college, that he was not asked to sign the petition of the Congressional Black Caucus and he would not have signed had he been asked. He made these remarks in a live interview on CNN as he exited the building. I was outraged, and asserted he figured Bush would fizzle and he could easily defeat him in 2004. Pretty much the same sentiments you expressed!

In a thread one day expressing thoughts on the lack of support the DNC gave to Gore during this protest process, I jumped in and officially made my first post: Where were they, where were they, I asked, and also blasted Kerry. I was immediately flamed, flamed, flamed.

Today I realize there are many people who have developed a passion about Kerry just as I did about Gore, and I simply understand that's what politics is all about, fighting for your personal political favorite.

Good luck to you in your DU travels. I have now been here five years, and it is wonderful to see new people joining who are likeminded. And keep your chin up!!

[calmblueocean]

45. I think you're right.

Gore should have seen massive support from the Democratic party, even after the election. Instead, they basically turned their backs on him, condemned him for running a campaign which actually won. It's shameful, and I can't say I would blame Al if he didn't choose to run again.

[HamdenRice]

33. On being honest and objective

We each have our favorite Democratic leaders as this point, and I won't try to pretend that I prefer John Kerry over Al Gore.

But I think objectively, their reactions to their respective stolen elections, what they have done in the interim and what their positions are now, are quite different.

First, Gore fought for his rightful election for much longer than Kerry. The 2000 election "crisis" lasted several weeks, while Kerry conceded the day after the election. This was so, even though in many ways, the Republican violation of law was far more blatant in 2004 than in 2000. In 2004, TV images showed Ohio voters waiting on line for hours, being denied the right to vote. In 2000, the battle was about a recount. In other words, in 2004, even if Kerry wasn't sure the election had been stolen, it was obvious even before election day that the Voting Rights Act had been violated because African American voting districts had been systematically denied voting machines and had voters in those areas had been harassed and intimidated.

Now, Kerry is making cautious statements about election reform, but has publicly rebuked Mark Crispin Miller about Miller's contention that Kerry knew the election was stolen. Gore is basically saying that the election may have been stolen but for national security reasons, he has to craft a careful statement about it. And in the politics of leaks and spokespersons, Gore has freed his attorney to say, yes the election was stolen while even through his spokesmen, Kerry's message is basically, we can't know what the outcome would have been.

Your cross post also contains assertions that have little to do with the OP's topic, but have to do with the war. Since you raised it, let's address it. Gore is the only major Democratic leader other than Dean who from the beginning said the war was wrong. That's why Gore endorsed Dean at great risk to his own reputation. Kerry according to your own cross post is still talking about getting the mission right. That plays into the idea that there is some shred of a reason for the invasion of Iraq other the pure lies and the desire to create an oil empire.

But you have to look at this comparison in context. Gore has been out of office for six years. He has no standing within the party or the government to work on election reform. He has basically the bully pulpit, and from that pulpit, he is speaking truth to power. Kerry is still speaking Senate-speak -- the carefully crafted and poll tested language of someone who wants to make modest criticisms without saying that our entire constitutional democratic order is at risk. Gore is saying that the constitution is under attack, and according to this statement from New York Magazine, that the slimist shreds of legitimacy are keeping us from suffering violent revolution.

[blm]

38. Do you realize what you all are saying? You're saying GORE KNOWS ALL ABOUT

election fraud - you applaud that he knows - and you EXCUSE that he chose to stay silent about it and would not work with the Dem party infrastructure to protect the vote.

You can't say Gore knows and then excuse that he decided not to share what he knows because the Dem party doesn't deserve it.

This was about ELECTION FRAUD and you excuse Gore for staying silent about it to the American people and Dem party while targeting Kerry and you did so by FALSELY describing Kerry's attention to election fraud.

[HamdenRice]

41. What I am saying is that Gore "exhausted his remedies"

Gore fought election fraud through the Florida and US Supreme Courts and lost. After that, there was no remedy other than "violent revolution". Kerry did not exhaust his remedies; he didn't even try them.

[blm]

42. Put them both in the exact same circumstance. Kerry is losing Ohio by 1500

votes and he has the perception that he won the popular vote by half a million - are you saying Kerry would NOT have exhausted his remedies, he wouldn't even try them?

Gore is perceived to be losing Florida by 130,000 votes and he is PERCEIVED to have lost the popular vote by 3 million - are you saying you are certain Gore would not have conceded?

[sandnsea]

47. Kerry joined the Ohio recount

He joined several lawsuits. I really don't know what it is anybody thinks he could have done that he didn't do. They are still involved in lawsuits.

Until Al Gore's movie, people used to gripe about Al Gore not fighting too. People are weird.

[AtomicKitten]

14. He gets it.

He knows and knew precisely the ramifications of the opposite of acquiescing. And that is substantive enough for me. Did he make the right decision? I don't know. The alternative would have been a full-on civil war, one I didn't know if I was prepared to fight then, but I must say I have a hankering for now. Sometimes I'd love to knock some Republican heads together. 2000 was a bitter pill that continues to leave a bad taste in my mouth. I would dearly love the election of Al Gore in 2008 to the job he rightfully won in 2000, only this time he moves in to the White House. My wellbeing requires a reckoning.

On edit: I would have titled the OP "Al Gore's statement on the scary stolen election."

[elehhhhna]

25. You nailed it, Boomboomkillty

[RestoreGore]

20. There is an intermediate step...

There is an intermediate step, and it is called the CONSTITUTION, ESPECIALLY when the ruling of the USSC is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and in violation of separation of powers as the ruling in 2000 was. Congress had a DUTY under the 12th amendment to the Constitution to discard the Florida electors as they were selected outside the safe harbor of Florida election law. Had they had the guts to do their duty, Al Gore would have been President as he was the candidate with the majority of the electoral votes without them. That is what the 12th amendment states, but of course, since the coup was planned knowing the people would not stand up to it (and boy did we prove them right) this is where we are. I think what Mr. Gore is saying here exactly, is that we now live in a Fascist country. Well, I for one am not going to accept that, and that is why our PAC has been trying for three + years to seek redress for this crime from the Congress which did not uphold their oaths in January 2001. It is a travesty of justice and a permanent black stain on the history of this country that this crime has been allowed to be so cavalierly swept under the rug.

How would the people of 1789 have reacted to the truth that the man whom they voted for to be their President and the man who received the most votes for President could not serve that term? That this good man could not lead them into that future as the man who won because of fraud and malfeasance that they were expected to just ignore? Why, that would be unheard of, as it would for sure emulate the conditions they had just fought a war of Independence to undo! Would they then have ignored it? My answer to that question is a resounding no. They would have fought against it with everything in their souls, because not only would it be the honorable thing to do, but because they would have known that the future depended on what they did about it.

That is what we have been hoping to accomplish Constitutionally.
Consider this:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/...?ltl=1138124243
~~~~~~~
Constitutional Remedy for Election Theft
To: U.S. Congress

_We the undersigned citizens of the United States of America, do hereby submit this petition in support of the "Restoration of Albert Gore Jr. to the office of the Presidency of the United States of America" for which he was duly elected to by popular and electoral vote in the year 2000. This petition is submitted as a formal request for action to be taken by the Congress of the United States of America, in response to the grievous and treacherous violations of our constitution and Democratic process by states, legislatures, courts, and elected officials which were permitted to occur in the year 2000 that have yet to be addressed by this body in accordance with the principles of said constitution. This is also a formal request to seek redress for the unconstitutional means utilized by George W. Bush, the state of Florida, and the USSC to claim the Presidency of the United States of America over the will of the people, and to seek legislation to provide for the fair and equitable treatment of the American people and their votes should such circumstances arise again. In this now new age of "electronic voting," these usurpations are becoming far more common and will continue unless action is taken to bring back true Democracy and Democratic choice.

_It is the right of every American citizen to have one vote to represent their voice, and to have that vote fairly and expeditiously counted. It is the right of every American citizen to also be free from harrassment, intolerance, and deliberate malice being exerted against them with the intent of denying them that right. This was not the case regarding the election of 2000 as reported in many states. This is especially true in Florida where reports of harrassment, intimidation based on race, and fraud were reported, recorded, and litigated. However, to this date proper recourse has not been expedited to the people of the state of Florida, nor to this nation as a whole for those violations which have brought about dire repercussions to our future as a Representative Democracy, and our national security.

_It is the responsibility of the Congress of the United States not the USSC to resolve Presidential election disputes, as was the case regarding Hayes/Tilden in 1876, and also as is outlined in the 12th Amendment of our constitution. Therefore, the USSC was in violation of the checks and balances and separation of powers clauses that our forefathers incorporated into our constitution in order to guard against such tyranny by not seeking Congressional participation, and by our Congress, for allowing the USSC to exert such power over our electorate.

_It is the responsibility of states to expedite due recourse for any unconstitutional actions taken against the people they represent under the 14th Amendment of our constitution and their state laws, which was not done by the state of Florida regarding this election. Nor did Congress exercise the power to enforce the provisions of this article regarding the state of Florida, or any other state reported to have experienced such violations as is outlined in this article.

_Through the course of our nation's history there have been many challenges faced by the American people. These challenges while daunting at the time were met and overcome with firm resolve, conviction, faith, and an irrepressible spirit that chartered our course to preserve the principles we cherish. This nation now stands at a crossroads of unparalleled historical significance once again, when it will rest upon the actions of our people to decide its fate. These past five years have been years of tremendous turmoil, devastation, war, and the erosion of those principles that so many gave their hearts, souls, and lives to preserve. These conditions have been a direct result of the inaction taken regarding the violation of our constitution regarding the election of 2000, which we believe not only led us to such turmoil, but also put our national security at risk.

This current administration has proven from its actions that it is not one that believes in the constitution, the rule of law, or in respecting the voice or will of the people. This can no longer be tolerated by a people or a Congress that believe in liberty and Democracy. The direct participation of our people in the political process is now imperative to right the wrongs of the past in order to ensure justice and a sustainable future for ourselves and future generations.

_It is now incumbent upon our Congress as representatives of the American people, to now exercise its powers under the constitution of this nation to give proper recourse to the citizens of this nation regarding their choice for President in the year 2000, in order to bring about unity, stability, and security to our nation.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever our affairs go obviously wrong, the good sense of the people will interpose and set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789.

The evidence regarding 2000 is there, and it is time to bring it forth. This petition will be delivered to Congress one way or the other whatever the outcome, if for no other reason than to let them know that we will NOT acquiesce to their blatant unAmerican actions regarding 2000.
I am an American citizen who is one of millions who had my right to see the true President and man I voted for denied me. No one should ever have to accept that in this country, and I never will. I won't get over it, I won't forget, it, and I will not be deterred from this mission.

What will our children think when they grow older and read about this? What questions will they have about why this was allowed to happen and be accepted? How will they contrast that inaction with the actions of those Americans who forged our Constitution with so much more to lose by their sacrifice? Do we not owe them that legacy? And what answers will we give them? Well, we can either say we allowed it to stand because we were too afraid to change it, or we can say we threw caution to the wind as true Patriots and really did something to take back our country.

I truly do believe nothing we do in this country will ever be right again until we make this right. Of course, it won't be easy. Of course, there will be obstacles. Of course, it will be hard. Nothing worth doing isn't... And to me, this is worth it. Again, if for nothing else in the end to let my signature be a living and enduring monument to standing up to the Fascism that has been allowed to engulf this country. They will know we have not forgotten.


Thank you.
Jan Moore
Patriots for Al Gore

[RestoreGore]

21. reposting link

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/198629181?ltl=1149367989

[elehhhhna]

26. wow I hope you're advising him. he could have used ya in 2000.

seriously. WELCOME.

[RestoreGore]

30. Thank you

I appreciate that.

[TayTay]

44. What a crock of horseshit!

I heard John Kerry say that there was fraud in Ohio. I was present when he brought this up on three seperate occasions. Kerry talked about how the Republican Party in Ohio handed out flyers saying Democrats vote Wed. I heard him talk about how the voting machines intended for heavily Democratic districts were loaded on a truck and driven around the cities so they couldn't be used. I have heard Kerry talk about the tricks Blackwell tried, including the caging, the paperweight and other things.

Oh, right, I just heard it with my own ears. By all means, let's rely on hearsay.

What a bunch of horseshit.

And while your cannoniszing Al Gore, why don't you ask him why he never reported back to the DNC on the fraud, never advised the Democrats about what he learned about fraud on the ground in 2000 and never did anything about it in the intervening years. He had a moral obligation to inform the Dems for 2004 and took a pass. And that's an absolute but inconvenient truth.

[ariellyn]

49. What "horseshit" are you referring to?

Nothing in the article says that Gore validated that the election had been stolen. As for moral obligations--it was and is common knowledge that the 2000 election was stolen. Al Gore didn't need to advise anybody about that.

What's all the outrage about?

[politicasista]

59. People turning every stolen election thread into Gore v. Kerry flamebait

And slamming Kerry while promoting Gore, or slamming Kerry and Gore respectively. That's what this is all about.

[question everything]

46. The private and the public man

None of us will ever know how personally he took those events. How they affected his family. It is possible that at some point he just decided that he wants to put this behind him. That he wanted to move on to other issues, like the global warming.

We, Democrats, like RFK Jr. are the outsiders and as much as we took those two defeats very personally, especially those of us who worked hard on either campaign, we still did not have to give a concession speech in such a public setting of humiliation.

Let him be.

[Samantha]

48. I read that interview and that literal statement lept off the pages

Please note my signature line....

[wisteria]

52. What a non answer. He wouldn't of fought the results if he thought

he didn't win and now he is being evasive and dancing around the question of a stolen election. He should come out and declare himself the winner in 2000and denounce the Supreme Court's political decision. What does he have to lose? And, it will bring more attention the our unfair election process.

[HamdenRice]

53. The painfully obvious difference between Al Gore and John Kerry

It's amazing how this post brought out the Kerry squad who are pretending that the responses of Gore and Kerry to their respective stolen elections was somehow comparable. The purpose of this post was not to compare the two or bash Kerry, but simply to ask what everyone thought Gore meant in that cryptic quote.

But if the Kerry squad wants to make comparisons, fortunately, the differences between how the two reacted to their respective fraudulent elections is quantifiable and painfully obvious:

Election Day 2000: November 7, 2000
Gore concession: December 13, 2000

Election Day 2004: November 2, 2004
Kerry concession: November 3, 2004

[AzDar]

56. Wow... n/t