READER COMMENTS ON
"BBV: More Troubling Details from Volusia County, FL"
(8 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 11/25/2004 @ 1:34 am PT...
Even among the many very troubling items Bev has posted on DU recently, the following paragraph stands out in horrifying relief [at least to me]:
"The Kerry attorney in Volusia, by the way, came by but asked not a single question, never asked to look at any evidence, and told one of the producers of Votergate that he thought Black Box Voting was just here to "stir up trouble.""
Is anybody else wondering what's going on here? All through the campaign I had the nagging suspicion that the Democrats didn't really want to win. Did anybody else get that impression too?
Kerry failed to take a stand against the war, failed to challenge Bush on any of his other most vulnerable areas, conceded when the result was far from clear, and has kept a very low profile ever since. There may have been 'tactical thinking' behind all these moves, but to me they sure looked like part of a pattern.
Bev Harris has a much more 'inside' point of view than I do, of course, but during the past three weeks she has mentioned a lot of different things that the Democrats have done, or have failed to do, all of which seem to fit that same pattern.
And now ... well, there's no gentle way to put it, is there? if Kerry's lawyer isn't in Volusia looking for incriminating evidence, then why is he there at all?
Is this all a show? Are the Democratic Party's legal team and war chest being used simply to create an ILLUSION?
I've been wondering if the reason why Americans aren't out in the streets contesting this fraudulent election, like the Ukranians are, is because in America the opposition candidate doesn't seem to want the job.
If you think I've got this wrong: Can you please tell me what I'm overlooking?
And if you think I've got it right: What does this mean for America?
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 11/25/2004 @ 2:40 am PT...
:angry: I agree!
I've been starting to feel as if Kerry didn't want the
Tin-foilers are even saying he was paid to run and then to lose.
Why else would he just sit there?
Goodbye Democratic party forever!!
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 11/25/2004 @ 9:39 pm PT...
i don't know.... i'm still in the air about this --- I at first felt that Kerry Conceded because perhaps he felt that *more* could be done by the pissed off masses, than by a forced recount of a couple of Ohio counties that would then be Halted by the Republican Secretary of State (who had his own "tactics" of voter suppression in less than a month before the election), which would then be determined by the Supreme court (and we all know where that went before....)
Sure, it sucks. Kerry's not saying anything either way, (so far), so it's just a guess. The DNC can support recount attempts (Ohio's attempt has already been stopped) --- but Blackwell was already planning on delivering the confirmed votes at the last possible day, which would have only give two weeks for a full recount.) If the DNC gets too involved, in any of this, it would be seen as a partisan thing. Originally the gentlemen, third party candidates, behind the Ohio recount weren't necessarily trying to "find" Kerry votes, but to ensure that the Ohio voting system is valid.... now Bev and others are actually looking for provable fraud. If fraud is determined and *verified* --- even after election --- do you think Bush and Co. will actually stay in power?
At the point when it came to only the provisional ballots in Ohio being the "clincher" of what would determine the outcome of the election, and that only 155,000 of these were gathered, and the probability that Kerry would NOT get every vote (though possibly a high percentage), I can see why he conceded on the 3rd of November. You may not agree, and I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with it --- though I think, given the information he had at the time, and the crazy things Blackwell legally pulled prior to the election, I can say I understand it.
While there may have been murmurings even after the first night about exit poll differences, and disenfranchisement, Kerry *didn't* have proof that counting any particular county in Ohio would have benefited him, short of calling a statewide recount. I tend to agree with this article, I think he avoided some political booby traps, and while he's irked some people with his silence, I think he probably confused the hell out of the Republicans.
Think back to 2000 and how Gore was treated during the whole recount fiasco. It was political suicide. Perhaps this stance is too? To be aligned with the "bloggers" and "conspiracy theorists" that the Main Media calls all of us who are questioning things that happened in the election. If he stood up with the bloggers, holding up the Florida charts showing the discrepancies in the counties with electronic voting .vs normal punch card counties do you think people would suddenly look seriously into the allegations? If he held up statistical data from the last 4 elections about exit poll results, do you think people would suddenly get a clue? Mainstream Media in the same breath said that it looked like exit poll results stated that Moral Values was the deciding factor in "going for Bush", but --- then MainStream Media would say --- (again, sometimes in the same report), that the reason why the polls were so skewed is because Republicans didn't participate in the Exit Polls.
I personally don't think that Kerry could do anything by not conceding in the first place, or demanding a "recount of Ohio" except dig his own grave.
As for the investigations going on now in other states, if there is fraud involved... there should be accountability --- and punishment. And a re-vote. But, until there is extremely hard evidence to blame one party of fraud (more likely a few choice groups within the party), I can't see Kerry taking back his concession.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 11/25/2004 @ 11:39 pm PT...
"perhaps [Kerry] felt that *more* could be done by the pissed off masses..."
If that is true, then Kerry was WAY WRONG! I don't undertstand how anyone could actually believe that the "pissed-off masses" would achieve more without a leader than with one. It's especially difficult to see how somebody could believe this after serving in the military. Military history is full of stories of battles lost because leaders were lost, and of the armies which sank into confusion almost immediately. No doubt Kerry saw some of the same thing in Vietnam. And now we have seen it again here, have we not?
"If the DNC gets too involved, in any of this, it would be seen as a partisan thing. "
The last time I checked, an election WAS "a partisan thing". Everybody prior to Nov 2 knew that and accepted it. Why should it all of a sudden become non-partisan on Nov 3? This line of reasoning makes no sense to me at all.
"Think back to 2000 and how Gore was treated during the whole recount fiasco. It was political suicide."
Funny you should mention that --- it seems to me that Al Gore has a heck of a lot more credibility than John Kerry does at the moment. In my view Gore's political suicide came from his concession, not from his willingness to fight for those who supported him.
Think of how Kerry was treated during the campaign. How much worse could it get? I don't see how it could get ANY worse! The Republicans were smearing him as badly as they could already!
And what did Kerry have to lose? A potential shot at the presidency in 2008? Are you kidding? Kerry's credibility is SHOT --- and there may not even BE an election in 2008. Sorry, Tracy, we needed leadership and we needed it now, not four years from now.
"Kerry *didn't* have proof that counting any particular county in Ohio would have benefited him"
Maybe Kerry didn't have "proof that counting any particular county in Ohio would have benefitted him" but he surely had seen enough to make him wonder whether the election was on the up-and-up. He didn't need to ask for a recount in any particular Ohio county on the morning of Nov 3; all he had to do was to stand up and say "It's close and the outcome is still in doubt. A lot of strange things seem to have happened last night. We will not concede anyhing until we find out what really happened in this election."
That's all it would have taken, and if he had done that, things today would be WAY different. Would they be better or worse? Well... HOW could they be worse?
"I think he avoided some political booby traps, and while he's irked some people with his silence, I think he probably confused the hell out of the Republicans."
It makes no difference if he "confused the hell out of the Republicans" ... they are still in power, are they not? In fact they are more in power than they were after the last bogus election. And what difference does it make if they are confused? They seemed pretty confused a long time ago.
The sad fact is that they are now in a position to do whatever they want. Kerry may have avoided a few personal 'booby traps', and he may have confused the Republicans, but he has also confused his supporters, and he has led THEM into a far worse trap!
"If fraud is determined and *verified* --- even after election --- do you think Bush and Co. will actually stay in power? "
Um... YES! ... just like they did four years ago.
And you? What do you think?
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 11/26/2004 @ 5:42 am PT...
That comment of "without a leader" is off base. For Kerry to come forward publicly supporting a challenge would make him be seen as a "sore loser" under our media lockdown. Consider that all of the major media served as Bush's PR/propaganda agents trumpeting the White House lie that there was certainty that Saddam was hiding huge stores of WMD etc.--they're all in bed with the fascists. In today's America, when virtually everyone worships the very personification of power, "The Almighty," nothing is politically as fatal as to be seen as a "sore loser."
The problems here are far deeper than that commentator recognizes.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 11/26/2004 @ 7:34 am PT...
Something is very wrong in the states that are supposed to be united.
Kerry ran a shitty campaign, never said anything about his "plan" and gave up far too quickly for a "soldier".
Maybe it was all rigged, even Kerry's participation.
That's why the smear campaign on Howard Dean was so harsh, they couldn't buy him off or persuade him to "go along" with this farce of an election.
If any of what I think is true, we're even more fucked than I thought, all of us, republican and democrat and all the inbetweens.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 11/26/2004 @ 9:16 am PT...
Well.... my main point is that given what he knew on the 3rd there really wasn't much point in saying "I'll wait it out." The article I sited gives a much better reasoning around the cecession than my "pissed off masses" comment.
I'm not saying that I condone the concession or when when it took place --- only that I'm trying to figure out some sort of logic to figure this whole thing out. So I have to look at it from an angle other than "we lost, and he didn't fight." Everyone pulled Gore apart in 2000, Katherine Harris did everything in her power to stop the recounts, and Kenneth Blackwell is a clone of her, for all of the things that he's pulled and the connections that he also has at the White House relection campaign. On the morning of November 3rd, it was only about Ohio and the 155,000 votes.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 11/26/2004 @ 10:01 am PT...
thread at DU stating "December 6th is deadline to Flip Ohio's electors to Kerry's" gets deep into the law surrounding recounts. ... feel free to delete if not appropriate to this thread.
Link at DU