Kerry speaking on Senate floor regarding lack of machines in Ohio in 2004!

[flpoljunkie]

On C-Span2. The Voting Rights Act renewal is being debated.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. Wow. I hope he got "permission" to talk about 2004 Ohio "irregularities"..

...from Chris Dodd who pertinently told him to "forget about it" when he brought up those Republican-friendly "irregularities" during a dinner, I believe.

I particularly liked the part where he mentioned {paraphrasing} "it's clear that wherever there are long lines, the state has a republican secretary of state".

Priceless!

[flpoljunkie]

He's saying now that Senate must pass the Count Every Vote Act of 2005.

Also speaking about how in the world can be accept machines where you touch one person's name and the vote comes up for someone else! Amen!

[LittleClarkie]

31. That's been on the table for a while now

Time to kick it out of committee.

[flpoljunkie]

64. It's no coincidence that the bill sits in committee with the R's in charge

[WildEyedLiberal]

76. Best argument EVER for electing D's

Every vote for a D gets us one vote closer to having a majority and being able to advance bills like the COUNT EVERY VOTE ACT to the floor where they can become LAW.

Also: JOHN CONYERS, CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

'Nuff said.

[lfairban]

51. You don't say!

Outside my poling location in a Columbus Ohio suburb.

[xzyra]

59. holy crap

[BlueCaliDem]

70. Didn't you get the RNC memo? Those were *republican* voters...

...eager for four more years! of Bush!

At least, that's what Scarborough, Megamouth Matthews, Leslie "Wolf" Blitzer and reichwing guests were saying when some photos "leaked" into corporate media...

...and then there was Olbermann...a voice in the dark, and the ONLY voice in MSM's black-out...

[Pacifist Patriot]

75. Wow!

[Dystopian]

2. Thanks!.....K/R

Just tuned in! Thank you for posting.....


peace~

[Sydnie]

3. Just tuned in too

Thanks for the heads up.

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. "How can you have a screen that you push for one name

and another name shows up?"

That's what we were wondering...

[Rageneau]

5. I hope he doesn't say anything that would upset anybody.

Kerry must be careful. He might offend someone if he tell the truth about Republican corruption. And who knows what that might do to his future political career?

He'd better play it safe and just say something to the effect that there were voting irregularitiies on both sides.

[karynnj]

13. Like he played it safe

- taking on Nixon on Vietnam
- taking on Reagan on the Contras and the Contra drug running
- taking on Bush on the criminal/terrorist connections of BCCI

Name top politicians who took on even one major effort such as these which took on the powers that be. These were major long term efforts that he devoted years to that were unlikely to ever help him, but which he thought were right.

Even on this he has spoken out - he has though restrainted himself to saying only what is absolutely provable.

[Kolesar]

21. well said

:)

[EFerrari]

48. I wonder why Senator Kerry would find it necessary to prove

election fraud. He's not the AG. And, especially in view of the riots in Ohio on election night, one would think that our elections should be clean enough to satisfy the most diligent scrutiny . . .

It's not like we have "trust me" voting on Republican machines . . .

Why do we have to prove our elections are dirty? Shouldn't we know that they're clean?


Btw, Bobby Kennedy was publicly for getting the hell out of Viet Nam. Maybe Senator Kerry is still thinking about that episode. I wouldn't blame him a bit.

/ack

[LittleClarkie]

20. Well, he's not. So where are you coming from?

Not happy that he's speaking out? Or not willing to give him credit FOR speaking out? Or perhaps you just don't like his wordage.

Why be sarcastic when he's doing something good? The dude can't win.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. So, if there had just been more machines, everything would be OK?

:shrug:

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. No, he also spoke about pressing for one name and the other

shows up; not paper trail for audit also

[karynnj]

15. No, he listed many many other flaws

- Registrations thrown away
- Machines where you touched one name and the other came up - so if you were inattentive, you voted for the other
- Proprietary software on machines
- Unverifiable, paperless voting
- People being given information that they couldn't vote if they had any outstanding tickets
- People told to go to the wrong places

There were more this is just from memory - he also commented on Wyden's account of Oregon's mail in voting that makes voting easy. He spoke of Clinton/Boxer and his legislation to have a paper trail verified voting process.

For a 10 -15 minute speech he covered a lot.

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. Listing a few dirty tricks

"If you have an outstanding parking ticket, you can't vote." Also Dems being told they vote on a day different than election day.

Now Boxer up.

[politicasista]

9. Boxer rocks too n/t

[flpoljunkie]

10. No mention of mandatory random audits after every election. Perhaps

they understand this, but am not at all sure. Anyone?

[Skidmore]

11. This would have been a little more effective if he had done this

2 year ago when the election was still fresh. It would have been wonderful if he had stood up then.

[flpoljunkie]

12. Easy for you to say, but there was no way to get inside the machines to

prove tampering--and even if you could, more likely than not the evidence would be impossible to find, by design. This is why we need a voter verified paper trail and random mandatory audits after every election.

Avi Rubin computer expert from Johns Hopkins says the only thing we can do at this late date for the mid-term fast approaching is to guard the machines themselves and have observers to make sure no one comes near the vote tabulating computers.

Read the op-ed he wrote right before the election in November, 2004.

The Baltimore Sun


Op/Ed page
An Election Day clouded by doubt
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.voting27oct27,1,595879.story

By Avi Rubin
Originally published October 27, 2004

ABOUT 50 MILLION Americans will cast their ballots for president on touch-screen terminals Tuesday.

If my experience as an election judge is any guide, voters will love these machines, which are generally easy to use and which easily accommodate voters who have disabilities or do not speak English.

And if my experience as a computer scientist is any guide, those voters will not realize just how dangerous it is to rely on these machines to conduct a free and fair election with a reliable result.

Voting on a direct recording electronic voting machine, or DRE, is in many ways similar to transferring money from one account to another at an automated teller machine. But there is one critically important difference: no receipt. There will be no physical record produced that could later be used by your local election board to prove how you intended to vote.

After you cast your ballot on a DRE, the only official record of your choices will be the electronic record within the system itself. You will not be asked to look at a piece of paper that confirms your candidate selections. You will not leave that piece of paper behind for use in case of a recount.

Why is this a problem?

Without paper ballots that can be physically examined, the only recount possible is a review of the votes recorded by the DRE system itself. And if those votes were recorded incorrectly, no recount will fix the error. The incorrect result could never be detected, much less corrected.

more...

[LittleClarkie]

18. He sponsored a bill two years ago and spoke to a black group

on MLK Day as well, and got blasted for it for politicking as well. Not so wonderful, I guess.

[shance]

14. What?? So now he wants more machines to make it easier to commit fraud?

Sometimes it seems Mr. Kerry is just another one of the gatekeepers against Democracy.

He fully realizes the repercussions of the voting machines and now he's saying we don't have enough, implying that counties need to buy more?

I don't trust Mr. Kerry especially when he promotes this type "voting reform" problem/solution. Perhaps he realizes he counldn't win at this point without cheating either.

Very disappointing.

[karynnj]

16. That is so out of context

That comment had to do with the Ohio situation where it took hours to vote. He also said THEY NEED TO HAVE A PAPER AUDIT TRAIL and that is what is in the legislation that he, Clinton and Boxer introduced in early 2005.

I doubt there was anything that Senator Kerry could have said that you would have agreed to.

[flpoljunkie]

17. Cheap shot, shance! We are not going to get paper ballots, hand recounts

We can only hope for voter verified paper trail and random mandatory recounts. The horse is already out of the barn door on electronic voting. You can request to vote absentee and get a paper ballot, but it will be fed into a vote counting machine that more likely than not will be hooked up to a hackable modem. Requiring mandatory recounts is the only way we can find out if results have been tampered with--no matter what system we use--excepting paper ballots and hand counts and that ain't gonna happen.

[msongs]

22. sorry but did they not get paper ballots in new mexico now?

if you want paper ballots and hand counts you have to go out and demand them, not give up and quit.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/demfest1.htm

[flpoljunkie]

27. If this is true, good for New Mexico, but it ain't gonna happen in FL or

the rest of the country. I have not problem with them, but it ain't gonna happen.

[BeFree]

33. Utter copout

...ain't gonna happen.

That's what idiots said about going to the moon.

And all we want is hand counting paper ballots... something that the country used to do. Either you have trust in a few machines or you have trust in thousands of democrats who will hand count the vote.

Enough with this: "it ain't gonna happen". It has to happen.

[flpoljunkie]

60. Just reality, BeFree. The best you can do is vote absentee if DRE used,

and hope the software has not been corrupted, while making sure the machines are secure and no one tampers with the "mother computers" that tabulate the votes. That is the best we can do for the upcoming mid-terms.

[BeFree]

68. For the upcoming, probably

But you never know. The stuff may hit the fan any day now, and the machines outlawed. HCPB could become the fall back position.

Heck, what county doesn't have a bunch of copiers, paper and pens? And humans.

Wouldn't you volunteer to hand count ballots if the call went out?

[kster]

26. Oh,Kerry gets it, thats for sure

John Kerry Interview - Ed Schultz, 12/21/05, concerning election issues
John Kerry
Interview - Ed Schultz, 12/21/05
Excerpt concerning election issues

"We brought a couple of lawsuits in Ohio, we were working there on the issue of what happened to our voters, with Mr. Blackwell and others, and the involvement of the machines. Well here we are now, with a Florida election official who has publicly refused to use those machines because they can be hacked, and the company for months and months and months was denying any possibility of hackability. Now you even have the New York Times in one of its editorials acknowledging that these machines indeed can be hacked, and obviously the Diebold company is in trouble for a lot of other reasons. So, this is something that really has to be followed up on. You can't leave the voting integrity of America and the rights of citizens to know what happened to their votes in proprietary hands. It's simply absurd to believe that could be the case. And so I believe there's not just the issue of survielance and not just the issue of accountability for violation of people's rights in terms of the organizations and their right to assemble, but also the fundamental right in our democracy to be able to have your vote count and be counted, is still at question, and we have to stay on that one."

Towards end of interview:
Audio: http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com/122105SenatorKerry.mp3

[flpoljunkie]

28. Thanks for the link--a must read!

[LittleClarkie]

32. That link can't be right. Haven't you heard that Kerry never did anything?

Heh.

His lawyer's name in those lawsuits was Don McTigue. I don't know why I still remember that, as I haven't whipped it out lately, but there you have it.

I wonder what the disposition of those lawsuits is now.

[shance]

36. "these machines indeed can be hacked" - is he not talking out of both

sides of his mouth.

Come on you guys Im on your side. However whose side is KERRY on?

If one minute he's agreeing the machines can be hacked, THEN saying there weren't enough machines in Ohio. What the fuck is he saying? Or is he purposefully just playing good cop, bad cop?

This is unacceptable, misleading and its dishonest frankly, because he's not specifically addressing the issue of voter fraud by (intentionally?) talking out of both sides of his mouth.

If he wants to really address the issue, then he needs to speak to banning the machines. There is no reason for them to be in our elections other than to commit election fraud and allow the wealthy privileged males to continue to allow their friends to be miraculously and "closely" elected every time.

[LittleClarkie]

43. How is that contradictory?

There aren't enough machines, and even the ones that were there could be hacked.

How is that talking out both sides of his mouth. He's not saying they can be hacked, then saying they can't, or saying there were too many, then not enough.

There were several tactics in the last election. Malfunctioning machines, not enough machines in Dem areas, thrown out regiastrations. He's listing most of them.

How is that contradictory?

[kster]

44. I don't want to debate you, because I agree with you

but, should we tell Kerry not to say anything unless it is 100% what we want him to say. I always watch a week or two after a politician speaks out about the election theft machine, to see if it was just showboating or real.

A politician speaking out ON TV about these machine is what I like to see, so when a politician does it, I will never criticize him/her right away.

We have to remember when a politician utters a word about the machines it then become "real" there are allot of people who are clueless about these machines, but once a politician says it out loud and ON TV, the other politicians and the people who are clueless, may not look at it as a conspiracy theory and may actually start looking into the possibility of the machines actually rigging elections.

[robinlynne]

57. Yes! This is a great thing.

And hackable machines and lack of machines are two ways of doing the exact same thing: keeping Democrats from voting and having their votes counted.

[karynnj]

71. What chutzpah! "should we tell Kerry not to say anything unless it is 100%

what we want him to say?" I assume that the 4 term Senator elected by the Democrats as their nominee who would have won the Presidency in a "fair fight" (Where the machines, the government and a very large % of the broadcast media weren't used against him.), can decide what to say and when to say it.

[karynnj]

45. No, Kerry is not talking out of both sides of his mouth

1) He wants the machines to have a paper audit trail that can be audited. (He also doesn't want the code to be closed, proprietary code.)

AND

2) He wants adequate numbers of these machines - so people don't have to wait 10 hours!

Can machines be good - I trust, but verify, my ATM. It has yet to make a mistake. Kerry is NOT proposing getting rid of all the machines. I assume that means that he thinks they can be controlled. You can disagree with him and you may have the technical competence to do so. What makes no sense is to question his motives. He and Al Gore were the victims of election fraud - I seriously doubt that makes either of them happy.

[flpoljunkie]

62. Avi Rubin said on Diane Rehm that technology exists to make DRE's

transparent and auditable. But, of course, Congresss must insist that this be done, and so far, with the Rethugs in charge, they have not. They will not even let the County Every Vote Act of 2005 come up for debate and a vote in the Senate.

You have to ask yourself why they have not.

[MH1]

50. Why should I think you are "on our side"??

You are making blatant false accusations and talking points against the 2004 Dem presidential nominee, a leader of the party who is BUSTING HIS ASS for his constituents and the rest of this country.

How the HELL can you NOT SEE that "the machines can be hacked" can coexist with "there weren't enough machines for people to vote"??? Didn't you SEE how long people waited in line to vote, and many left without voting, because they couldn't wait any longer? What if someone is in line to vote and they are diabetic or have some other medical condition? TEN HOURS is friggin' unacceptable NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF MACHINE YOU HAVE. OR if you have paper and pencil ballots the people STILL need stations to vote at. This country has been using machines for DECADES - why do you impugn Kerry for assuming SOME KIND of machine will be used - and any friggin' way machines WERE used in Ohio 2004 AND THAT IS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT!

Stop and think, please - do you hate John Kerry so much that you will find any reason, however nonsensical, to bash anything he says?

[MH1]

52. REASON FOR MACHINES

Note: I do NOT necessarily agree with it.

I take issue with you saying "There is no reason for them to be in our elections other than to commit election fraud...."

Since you claim to have so much experience with the electoral process in the USA, please look up and review the role of disability advocacy groups in HAVA and insisting that election machines have certain features to make them "accessible" to disabled voters.

There IS a reason for the machines. Whether it is a good enough reason for the risks they pose, is a valid argument, but the discussion needs to at least consider the concerns of the population of disabled voters.

[WildEyedLiberal]

78. You aren't on our side

That much is obvious. John Kerry has done and is doing more things for the country in one minute than you will ever do in your life.

Stop lying; everyone can see what a dishonest fraud you are.

[shance]

35. If you are waiting for them to GIVE you what you want, you'll always be

waiting and you will be in the dust.

Quit expecting them to do it for you. If you want fairness, its not going to come through the mail, you're going to have to learn to FIGHT for what is yours. The power abusers are bullies and they don't give a horse's damn about you. It's up to you and the rest of us not to let a select few of rich racist white males not to ruin it for everyone else.

I don't know about Kerry. But he knows BETTER than tolerating these election fraud machines and he knows BETTER than allowing private companies to count our votes!!!

He knows better so why is he continuously enabling the corrupt system?

Why does it benefit you to believe in someone who has yet to defend your rights as an American??

[karynnj]

46. Did you bother to watch or read his speech?

He did speak against private companies counting our machines using unverifiable proprietary code. This was a 10-15 minute speech, it did not provide detailed legislation - but both he and Boxer indicated that passing the Voting rights act was the first step. They were simply listing the problems - not giving comprehensive detailed solutions here.

Kerry has been speaking out, but in case you didn't notice the Republicans control 3 branches of government. Kerry doesn't have the authority to change the system by demanding what he wants. In various interviews, he has said a lot can be done at the state level. (Even though he clearly thinks it would be better to have one excellent system nationwide - the Constitution gives that power to the states though.)

It is much tougher to pass effective legislation to fix this than to write a book.

[blm]

72. Kerry's problem is the same as any other Dem's - they trusted the PARTY

was working on infrastructure matters and dealing with the electoral matters state by state, county by county, just like they're SUPPOSED to.

Kerry got stuck with the Dem infrastructure McAuliffe and Clinton built - or rather, collapsed.

[LittleClarkie]

73. I'm hoping things will be better under Dean

I can see bits of it around here. We have 4 field organizers now that we didn't have then, for instance.

[MH1]

19. ** WTF ** are you talking about???

More machines so PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY F***ING VOTE instead of STANDING IN F***ING LINE FOR 10 HOURS!

Sheesh.

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[shance]

37. Have you done any reading up on electronic voting machines by chance?

I've been actively involved on this issue for over four years now.

You need to get educated on the issue because it is clear you are not.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

69. Did he say electronic voting machines, or did he just say more machines?

If he didn't specify, then perhaps you're making a wrong assumption here. The problem is that Republicans will short change a highly Democratic area. There were reports that some areas recieved fewer machines to vote on than in 2002, and we all knew that the turnout was going to be insanely high in 2004.

I reckon Kerry was talking about ANY mode of voting and the inequity that Republicans in charge will inflict on an area, making sure that Republican suburbs have plenty of ballots and modes of voting, and Democratic areas not enough.

They tried that here, with the County Executive of Milwaukee, who was also the head of Bush's campaign in Wisconsin, trying to short the city of Milwaukee on printed ballots, while the suburbs were getting all they asked for

Unless you can point to a place in his speech where he says "electronic" then I think you've jumpted to a conclusion that doesn't make a ton of sense.

Kerry also talked about, in this speech, how the business of voting needs to be taken out of the hands of partisans who try to manipulate the system. And I think that's his ultimate point.

How is that wrong?

[MH1]

81. Just a little, oh "educated" one.

I will leave out the profanity this time, let's see if the post stays.

I am on my local election board and am an inspector. YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHO THE **** I AM - you have no right to presume anything.

KERRY WAS TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT PEOPLE HAD TO STAND IN LINE FOR HOURS AND MANY COULD NOT STAY TO VOTE.

How ********* hard is that to understand???? How "educated" does one need to be to see that there weren't enough machines for people to vote on in certain precincts in Ohio on Nov. 2, 2004?

Do you hate Kerry so much that you will feign any level of ignorance to come up with an excuse to attack him? Why?

[MellowOne]

23. What I've never understood

Why didn't the Democratic party fight for Kerry? He was their candidate, they knew about voter fraud, they knew the election was stolen. Instead, they expected Kerry to do all the fighting. I read in this forum over and over how Kerry let us down, Kerry conceded too soon. It wasn't Kerry responsibility to prove fraud. It was the Democratic party. The Democratic party let themselves down as well as Kerry and the American public. The Republicans got away with yet another stolen election. This is why the Republicans can repeatedly get away with scandal after scandal. The Democrats let them.

[politicasista]

25. Excellent post

We all should be asking this question, but it's always more fun to blame the victim instead.


Again, I agree with your post 100%.

[LittleClarkie]

29. Do you ever get the feeling they took 2004 off, with an eye to 2008?

It was as if some of them almost didn't want him to win. It has been said that Kerry didn't give in so much as he was set up in Ohio. I've heard rumors and mutterings, and it seems that some that Kerry thought were on his side really weren't.

Sometimes I wonder if the idea was to make sure he didn't win, so that the next Dem had a better chance in 2008. I dunno. All I know is that it isn't in Kerry's nature to come out half-cocked making accusations he can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. That would not be like him. That doesn't change what he probably feels in his heart as to what happened, however.

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. The reason? They were AFRAID of being called sore losers.

They cower at the mere thought of it and still do. Unless and until they get over that, things will never change because the repukes will ALWAYS sling the mud at them no matter what. Remember the run up to the invasion and the "You're either with us or you're against us", "If you don't support this war, you don't support the troops", "If you don't support the war, you're not Patriotic" BULLSHIT? The Democrats were AFRAID to stand up for what was right because they would be painted as "unpatriotic" and the psycho got his IWR because of it. They need to grow a backbone.

[karynnj]

34. You're right the Democratic party should have been securing the machines

starting in 2001. I remember reading an article then that spoke of how inner city dissenfrancaisement was commonplace - and that what was unusual in 2000 was that it was elderly white Jews whose votes were thrown out in 2000. Their contention was that in any election a higher percent of the vote was "spoiled" in poor areas versus the suburbs. In close elections, this gives an advantage to the Republicans.

In the years from 2001, Kerry, like all the other Presidential contenders, was developing a platform, writing and giving speeches and making multiple appearances a day for the last year. None of the 2004 hopefulls had time to work on election fraud. He was clearly a victim of others not doing their job in insuring the voting process. He would have won in spite of having most of the cable TV and radio media against him and the nastiest smear campaigns in the last 50 years. This would have been an unbelievable victory with everything stacked against him against a wartime president - but it was stolen by irregularities in Ohio.

He has also had to fight to be considered a leader in the party where he very commandingly won the primaries. From Nov, 2004 on - Bill and Hillary were declared the leaders. The oddest thing is that most people don't see that Kerry was the grassroots candidate - he was not the favorite of the media or the party. He won by convincing the people in the early primary states directly and because he did well in the debates. Oddly, part of why people feel Kerry let them down is that he inspired them and made them hope and believe that he would win.

[bklyncowgirl]

38. Did the Democratic Party ever try to do anything about Blackwell?

Before the fact, that is.

It seems to me that the Ohio Democratic Party backed by the DNC should have been all over the Secretary of State who just happened to be the chairman of Bush's campeign. Maybe they were and maybe I just didn't hear about it or forgot about it.

If they didn't then they deserved to be robbed.

[karynnj]

40. I know the Kerry campaign itself fought him on the paper weight issue

The SOS announced that he was going to follow an old regulation that the registrations had to be on a certain weight paper. The Cleaveland Plaindealer had printed a registration form and people printed them form a state web site as well. The Kerry people won - so these weren't thrown out.

From the news reports, the bipartisan election committees received reports detailing the placement of machines. None of the Democrats noticed or told any one that in Democratic strongholds there were fewer machines than in the primary. The Democrats did complain all day about needing more machines.

The problem is that you could say the Ohio Dems deserved to lose because they didn't do a good job in preventing it - but isn't that like saying to a woman who had the lack of sense to walk in a deserted area that she deserved to be raped. The point is the SOS should not be a political hack and elections should be run fairly.

This also wasn't the fault of all of us in this country, who could have had a man who was interested in international diplomacy as a 10 year old versus one who thought there was too much talk at the summit of leaders. It also wasn't Kerry's fault. He became the standard bearer officially in late July - unofficially in April. He did his part - he gave a great convention speech (that only had 2 sentences mentioning VN), convincingly won the three debates and broke attendance records at huge inspiring rallies.

Unfortunately the people who were most to blame for the state of the party - Bill Clinton and McCauliffe who did little to build the state parties didn't suffer from this - Kerry did - and it's possible that the hard work of Dean and other (despised by the DLC) may have rebuilt the parties in time to elect Hillary, who likely would never have had a chance if Kerry won.

[robinlynne]

58. The people did. the party did not.

[shance]

39. Are you kidding? Kerry didn't lift a finger to fight.

At least Al Gore gave it a week.

[karynnj]

41. Can you see the difference between 537 votes and 120,000 votes?

In one case, ANYONE would ask for a recount. In the other, a recount would be refused. The party would not have stood behind him - Clinton was negative on Kerry within a week.

Gore by the way "waited more than a week". Kerry has looked into the irregularities and has been active pushing people to fix the system. He has spoken about the problems many times.

[LittleClarkie]

42. Define "didn't lift a finger"

Would the definition exclude lawsuits, legislation, speeches and the like?

[Bretttido]

47. Al Gore faught a lot longer than one week

I'm still with Kerry though; I don't think he was in a position to be able to fight it until the evidence came out months and years later.

[LittleClarkie]

55. It was more like a month. And some still call him a quitter, poor guy

I think that the loss by both men has made them more strident and vocal in their opposition to the powers that be.

Obviously, I'm still with him too. Never left. And Gore's pretty spiffy as well.

[shance]

61. You're right. My mistake.

n/t

[MellowOne]

56. It wasn't Kerry's responsibility to fight

It was the Democratic party's job, Kerry represented them, he wasn't the lone ranger, he shouldn't have to go down with the ship by himself. Where were the leaders of the party? They should be making the noise, they should have gone to bat for him or THEIR party. It burns me when I hear people say these things about him. If you need to get upset with someone over a stolen election, look to the leaders, look to yourselves.

[shance]

63. Of COURSE IT WAS. As it was every other Dems and WE WERE READY.

But he left us high and dry at the dance.

And now the guy is thinking of RUNNING AGAIN?

Should we insanely reward candidates who leave us high and dry when its now virtually crystal clear he won?

The lack of accountability by the wealthy privileged white males (and others*) is eroding the fabric and sanity of this country.

[ProSense]

67. You're the one perpretrating a fraud!

Kerry continued legal efforts:

Today, Kerry-Edwards filed a document in support of that statement. Most significant, Kerry-Edwards also filed today a separate document in support of our motion for hearing with two critical attachments: 1) a declaration from Kerry-Edwards attorney Don McTigue regarding a survey he conducted of Kerry-Edwards county recount coordinators; 2) a summary chart of the results of that survey (which highlight the inconsistent standards applied during the recount).

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

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

Almost a year later:

August 31, 2005

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

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

Judge Carr set an August 22, 2006 trial date.

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

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

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2005/08/kerry-and-edwards-to-stay-in-recount.html

February 10, 2006

Associated Press Reports: Ohio Recount Suit Dismissed
According to the Associated Press, the Ohio recount suit has been dismissed:

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

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

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

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2006/02/associated-press-reports-ohio-recount.html

More in these interviews:

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/122105SenatorKerry.mp3

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

DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND VOTER INTIMIDATION PREVENTION -- (Senate - November 10, 2005)
GPO's PDF

--- Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I proudly join as a cosponsor of Senator Obama's Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005. This important legislation will protect voters from the deceptive practices that aimed to keep them from the polls on election day.

Free and fair elections are the foundation of our democracy--a democracy built on the unassailable principle that every single American should have an equal say in their government. No American should ever approach their polling place in fear. No American should ever worry that they will somehow be penalized for exercising their fundamental right to vote . No American should ever be tricked into thinking they do not have the right to vote .

The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevent Act takes great strides towards ensuring that no American will ever be denied the right to vote . It both criminalizes deceptive practices and provides affected individuals with a private right of action. It prevents the negative effects of deceptive practices by ensuring voters get accurate election information. It also requires the Attorney General to report allegations of deceptive practices, the actions taken to correct them, and any prosecutions resulting from those allegations.

We have worked hard to bring fair and free elections to people around the word-including the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. We must do everything in our power to ensure that our own elections are at least as fair and as free.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbn...



S.1975
Title: A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 11/8/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Related Bills: H.R.4463
Latest Major Action: 11/8/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 12/12/2005
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 12/12/2005
Sen Kerry, John F. - 11/10/2005
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. - 12/12/2005

Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005

(Introduced in Senate)

S. 1975 IS

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1975

To prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 8, 2005

Mr. OBAMA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

A BILL

To prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN ELECTIONS.

(a) Civil Action-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (b) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(b)) is amended--

(A) by striking `No person' and inserting the following:

`(1) No person'; and

(B) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:

`(2) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall knowingly deceive any other person regarding--

`(A) the time, place, or manner of conducting a general, primary, run-off, or special election for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, or Delegate or Commissioner from a territory or possession; or

`(B) the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any election described in subparagraph (A).'.

(2) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- Subsection (c) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(c)) is amended--

(i) by striking `Whenever any person' and inserting the following:

`(1) Whenever any person'; and

(ii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(2) Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection (b)(2) may institute a civil action or other proper proceeding for preventive relief, including an application in a United States district court for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order.'.

(B) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-

(i) Subsection (e) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(e)) is amended by striking `subsection (c)' and inserting `subsection (c)(1)'.

(ii) Subsection (g) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(g)) is amended by striking `subsection (c)' and inserting `subsection (c)(1)'.

(b) Criminal Penalty- Section 594 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `Whoever' and inserting the following:

`(a) Intimidation- Whoever'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) Deceptive Acts-

`(1) PROHIBITION-

`(A) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly deceive another person regarding the time, place, or manner of an election described in subparagraph (B), or the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any such election, with the intent to prevent such person from exercising the right to vote in such election.

`(B) ELECTION- An election described in this subparagraph is any general, primary, run-off, or special election for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate of the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner.

`(2) PENALTY- Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. REPORTING FALSE ELECTION INFORMATION.

(a) In General- Any person may report to the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, or the designee of such Assistant Attorney General, any act of deception regarding--

(1) the time, place, or manner of conducting a general, primary, run-off, or special election for Federal office; or

(2) the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any general, primary, run-off, or special election for Federal office.

(b) Corrective Action-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), not later than 48 hours after receiving a report under subsection (a), the Assistant Attorney General shall investigate such report and, if the Assistant Attorney General determines that an act of deception described in subsection (a) occurred, shall--

(A) undertake all effective measures necessary to provide correct information to voters affected by the deception, and

(B) refer the matter to the appropriate Federal and State authorities for criminal prosecution.

(2) REPORTS WITHIN 72 HOURS OF AN ELECTION- If a report under subsection (a) is received within 72 hours before the election described in such subsection, the Assistant Attorney General shall immediately investigate such report and, if the Assistant Attorney General determines that an act of deception described in subsection (a) occurred, shall immediately undertake all effective measures necessary to provide correct information to voters affected by the deception.

(3) REGULATIONS-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General shall promulgate regulations regarding the methods and means of corrective actions to be taken under paragraphs (1) and (2). Such regulations shall be developed in consultation with the Election Assistance Commission, civil rights organizations, voting rights groups, State election officials, voter protection groups, and other interested community organizations.

(B) STUDY-

(i) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Federal Communications Commission and the Election Assistance Commission, shall conduct a study on the feasibility of providing the corrective information under paragraphs (1) and (2) through public service announcements, the emergency alert system, or other forms of public broadcast.

(ii) REPORT- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report detailing the results of the study conducted under clause (i).

(c) Reports to Congress-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 90 days after any primary, general, or run-off election for Federal office, the Attorney General shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report compiling and detailing any allegations of deceptive practices submitted pursuant to subsection (a) and relating to such election.

(2) CONTENTS-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include--

(i) detailed information on specific allegations of deceptive tactics;

(ii) any corrective actions taken in response to such allegations;

(iii) the effectiveness of any such corrective actions;

(iv) any suit instituted under section 2004(b)(2) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(b)(2)) in connection with such allegations;

(v) statistical compilations of how many allegations were made and of what type;

(vi) the geographic locations of and the populations affected by the alleged deceptive information; and

(vii) the status of the investigations of such allegations.

(B) EXCEPTION- The Attorney General may withhold any information that the Attorney General determines would unduly interfere with an on-going investigation.

(3) REPORT MADE PUBLIC- The Attorney General shall make the report required under paragraph (1) publicly available through the Internet and other appropriate means.

(d) Federal Office- For purposes of this section, the term `Federal office' means the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, or Delegate or Commissioner from a territory or possession of the United States.

(e) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

S.450
Title: 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)
Related Bills: H.R.939
Latest Major Action: 2/17/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. COSPONSORS(6), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen Boxer, Barbara - 2/17/2005
Sen Dayton, Mark - 3/7/2005
Sen Kerry, John F. - 2/17/2005
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 2/17/2005
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. - 3/1/2005
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. - 2/17/2005

S.450

Count Every Vote Act of 2005

(Introduced in Senate)
Beginning
February 17, 2005

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 104. Voter verification and audit capacity funding.

TITLE I--VOTER VERIFICATION AND AUDITING

SEC. 101. PROMOTING ACCURACY, INTEGRITY, AND SECURITY THROUGH PRESERVATION OF A VOTER-VERIFIED PAPER RECORD OR HARD COPY.

SEC. 102. REQUIREMENT FOR MANDATORY RECOUNTS.

SEC. 103. SPECIFIC, DELINEATED REQUIREMENT OF STUDY, TESTING, AND DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES.

SEC. 104. VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY FUNDING.

`PART 7--VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY FUNDING

`SEC. 297. VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY FUNDING.

`SEC. 298. APPROPRIATION.

SEC. 105. REPORTS AND PROVISION OF SECURITY CONSULTATION SERVICES.

`SEC. 248. REPORTS AND PROVISION OF SECURITY CONSULTATION SERVICES.

SEC. 106. IMPROVEMENTS TO VOTING SYSTEMS.

TITLE II--PROVISIONAL BALLOTS

SEC. 201. REQUIREMENTS FOR CASTING AND COUNTING PROVISIONAL BALLOTS.

TITLE III--ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002
Subtitle A--Shortening Voter Wait Times

SEC. 301. MINIMUM REQUIRED VOTING SYSTEMS, POLL WORKERS, AND ELECTION RESOURCES.

`Subtitle C--Additional Requirements

`SEC. 321. MINIMUM REQUIRED VOTING SYSTEMS AND POLL WORKERS.

`Subtitle E--Guidance and Standards

`SEC. 299. STANDARDS FOR ESTABLISHING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED VOTING SYSTEMS AND POLL WORKERS.

SEC. 302. REQUIREMENTS FOR JURISDICTIONS WITH SUBSTANTIAL VOTER WAIT TIMES.

`TITLE X--REMEDIAL PLANS FOR STATES WITH EXCESSIVE VOTER WAIT TIMES

`SEC. 1001. REMEDIAL PLANS FOR STATES WITH EXCESSIVE VOTER WAIT TIMES.

Subtitle B--No-Excuse Absentee Voting

SEC. 311. NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING.

`SEC. 322. NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING.

Subtitle C--Collection and Dissemination of Election Data

SEC. 321. DATA COLLECTION.

`SEC. 323. PUBLIC REPORTS ON FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

Subtitle D--Ensuring Well Run Elections

SEC. 331. TRAINING OF ELECTION OFFICIALS.

`SEC. 324. TRAINING OF ELECTION OFFICIALS.

SEC. 332. IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS.

`SEC. 325. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.

Subtitle E--Standards for Purging Voters

SEC. 341. STANDARDS FOR PURGING VOTERS.

`SEC. 326. REMOVAL FROM VOTER REGISTRATION LIST.

Subtitle F--Election Day Registration and Early Voting

SEC. 351. ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION.

`SEC. 327. ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION.

`SEC. 299A. ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION FORM.

SEC. 352. EARLY VOTING.

`SEC. 328. EARLY VOTING.

`SEC. 299B. STANDARDS FOR EARLY VOTING.

TITLE IV--VOTER REGISTRATION AND IDENTIFICATION

SEC. 401. VOTER REGISTRATION.

`SEC. 329. PROCESSING OF REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS.

`SEC. 299C. STANDARDS FOR MATERIAL OMISSION FROM REGISTRATION FORMS.

`SEC. 249. STUDY ON INTERNET REGISTRATION AND OTHER USES OF THE INTERNET IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

SEC. 402. ESTABLISHING VOTER IDENTIFICATION.

`SEC. 299D. VOTER IDENTIFICATION.

`PART 8--PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

`SEC. 298A. PAYMENTS FOR FREE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.

`SEC. 298B. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

SEC. 403. REQUIREMENT FOR FEDERAL CERTIFICATION OF TECHNOLOGICAL SECURITY OF VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS.

TITLE V--PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES

SEC. 501. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES.

`CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES BY ELECTION OFFICIALS AND VOTING SYSTEM MANUFACTURERS
TITLE VI--ENDING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES

SEC. 601. ENDING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.

TITLE VII--CIVIC PARTICIPATION BY EX-OFFENDERS

SEC. 701. VOTING RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES.

`SEC. 330. NOTIFICATION OF RESTORATION OF VOTING RIGHTS.

TITLE VIII--FEDERAL ELECTION DAY ACT

SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 802. FEDERAL ELECTION DAY AS A PUBLIC HOLIDAY.

SEC. 803. STUDY ON ENCOURAGING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO SERVE AS POLL WORKERS.

`SEC. 250. STUDY ON ENCOURAGING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO SERVE AS POLL WORKERS.

TITLE IX--TRANSMISSION OF CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT OF ELECTORS

SEC. 901. TRANSMISSION OF CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT OF ELECTORS.

TITLE X--STRENGTHENING THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

SEC. 1001. STRENGTHENING THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION.

`SEC. 209. SUBMISSION OF BUDGET REQUESTS.

`SEC. 299E. TECHNICAL SUPPORT.

SEC. 1002. REPEAL OF EXEMPTION OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION FROM CERTAIN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS.

SEC. 1003. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

[karynnj]

74. Even now it is NOT crystal clear that he won

The RFK jr Rolling Stone article which ennumerates the "votes" for Kerry that were not counted included estimates for votes never cast.

Over half of the "votes" were from people who had to leave long lines without voting due to the length of the line. As early as MLK day before a black organization in Boston, Kerry described the problem (that the news media KNEW occurred), labeled it voter suppression and demanded it never occur again. I assume that in future races, Democrats will make certain the machine allocation is reasonable before election day. The Ohio Democrats didn't anticipate this action and it happened, blaming them for the undemocratic action of Blackwell & Co isn't fair. Blaming Kerry, who was making hundreds of campaign appearances to win voters for it is ludicrous - it was not the job of the Presidential candidate to know how many machines were where in Cleaveland. RFK jr estimates the number lost - but even if he could prove the exact number, it wouldn't matter there is no provision to add in these votes and no proof of how they would vote had they of voted. (RFK jr assumed they would vote like their neighbors.)

Similarly, votes were lost to purging the voting rolls - but it was done (per the article) within the letter of the law. The other problems that Kerry ennumerated like touch screens pulling up the wrong candidate are both suspicious (if you touch $200 on an ATM, how often does it register as $100) and impossible to quantify. That other machines are essentially black boxes, where no one can test whether they worked is scary. Kerry has spoken of these problems and demanded they be fixed going forward - the legislation that Clinton, Boxer and Kerry submitted has gone nowhere in the Senate. The Democrats don't control the Senate.

So, even more than a year later, from all the excellent work done by many people, Kerry could not make a case in a court of law (that would hold up). What Kennedy made a case for is that more people in Ohio who made the effort to go out to vote went to vote for Kerry than for Bush. In a fair world, this would have led to Kerry winning Ohio and the Presidency.

The blame for this not happening should be given to the Republicans for cheating and the press for letting them cheat and turning a blind eye. Lesser blame should go to the Democratic party for not having its act together at the local area - here McCauliffe or even Bill Clinton are more responsible than the 2000 or 2004 candidates. (Consider the local parties would have operated the same way if Dean, Edwards, or Clark would have won the nomination - each of these men would have concentrated like Kerry did in getting his message out in a hostile media enviornment, doing well in the debates and making many many campaign appearances.)

[zulchzulu]

65. Ask John Conyers what he thinks about Kerry's post election efforts....

"Fighting for Every Voter"

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

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

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

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

- John Conyers

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

[WildEyedLiberal]

79. More LIES from shance, what a big surprise

You have been DISPROVEN BEFORE with FACTS yet here you are repeating the SAME LIE.

It is OBVIOUS that you have an agenda, and I know exactly what it is. I think your frozen pizza has been in the oven way too long.

He is still involved in lawsuits in Ohio: http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2005/08/kerry-and-edwards-to-stay-in-recount.html

And he was right after the election: http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/24/183243/756

Stop LYING. Only FREEPERS hide from facts the way you do.

[MH1]

53. Thank you.

Are there things Kerry could have done differently? I'm sure there are. But your post nails the REAL problem - the lack of a cohesive party fighting effectively FOR their candidate.

I have always wondered if he really was "their candidate." He was MY candidate....but I'm not sure everyone pulling the strings at the top really wanted him to win as much as those of us on the bottom did.

[zulchzulu]

66. Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

I address this problem in a documentary I'm finishing up... some people seem to think that Kerry was going to suddenly turn into King Kong and pound down to Congress and lift up the Capitol and shake it around until they give him the victory he deserved...

Conyers appreciated his efforts...

"Fighting for Every Voter"

"...I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio."

- John Conyers

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

[WildEyedLiberal]

77. Bingo

NO ONE had Kerry's back. Not the DNC, not his fellow Congressmen, CERTAINLY not the media. No one was willing to even look into the possibility that there were irregularities. It suited their agenda to leave Kerry adrift and blame him for everything that went wrong.

Why do I say that? Terry McAuliffe has already pledged support for Hillary 08. That's why.

I don't really think they lifted a finger for John Kerry.

[MH1]

80. Well, you know...a guy who claims to care about this stuff....

but doesn't claims to not even remember that Gore fought the 2000 election for more than a week?

Kinda makes one wonder.

[w4rma]

24. Good. (nt)

[DanCa]

54. It's about time.

But can he also address the third party vote? Thank you for letting us know.