Both Turley and Crawford claimed that Kerry capitulated

[grasswire]

Both of them said that Kerry backed off prematurely in order to save his political future. And one of them said that it's harder to go after fraud or malfeasance when the candidate isn't behind the effort.

[Generator]

1. Yep, who needs, 2004 when 2008 is so close!

It's time to face facts, people, we was had, big time. I'm still thinking about that rotten concession speech. That should be a clue.

[EPV101773]

6. Sign me........

http://www.petitiononline.com/USAVote/


Guys... John Kerry, Keith Olberman, Craig Crawford.
Not ONE of them can do what we all CAN as a group.
We must speak together!
God help us if this crap goes down again in 2008

We didnt come out quick enough after 2000- and look at where we are now.

[EPV101773]

7. ?

What makes you think the concession speech was rotten?
I thought it quite eloquent.


I think we are all looking too hard for a conspiracy theory

lets work on change for 2008

http://www.petitiononline.com/USAVote/

[lenidog]

31. "?"

Another voice of reason. I thought I had hit the wrong link and ended up on some conspiracy or the old Art Bell website. The election is over. We lost and now its time to get up, dust ourselves off and get ready to win the mid-term elections and find some dynamic young firebrand to run for president in 2008.

[OrwellwasRight]

43. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to have hated the speech

I was angry because:

1) making a concession speech implies that Bush & Co. behave like gentlemen and deserve be treated as such. They don't. He had the option of doing nothing.

2) conceding early just to get it over with sets a bad precedent. The American public, Dem & Repub alike, MUST get used to waiting for results. We don't need to have a decision 5 minutes after all the polls close. Accurate vote counting is more important that speedy vote counting. He could have waited until all the votes were counted.

3) conceding early told some voters that their votes didn't matter. The Dems, of all parties, should not be sending that message. Again, BBV and charges of fraud notwithstanding, he could have waited.

4) the Repubs saw it as a sign of weakness that he conceded so early. They laughed at his early concession speech. I have witnesses who heard the laughter from Repub offices on Cap Hill.

5) the speech itself was a joke. We should reach out a hand to the Repubs? Give me a break. They exclude us from conference committees, hold votes open in order to bribe people to change their votes, lie to the American public, refuse to bring Dem bills to the floor (even when more than half the Congress has sponsored the bill), and on any on. They have no interest in reaching out. They do not behave in a bipartisan manner and it is ridiculous to tell Kerry supporters that it is our job to cooperate. He should be telling us to stand up and fight for our principles, not capitulate to Rove and DeLay.

Those who are angry about the concession speech can be a "voice of reason" just as well as you can.

[dmac]

49. Were you watching, listening, seeing, and hearing the pundits on

the Wednesday morning after the election?! Not addressing the press was not an option. They were even batting around the question of whether Bush could go ahead and make his acceptance speech even if Kerry didn't concede. Come on! The networks made the concession necessary - don't you see? Anything else would have made Kerry look like a sore loser and troublemaker - the Repubs set that up months before the election, with all their talk about the legal teams we had in place. It wasn't hard to see where they were going to take it. And Kerry lost nothing by conceding - nothing except your respect for him - and that is a casualty I am sure he regrets deeply, but is hoping to win back when this thing plays out and his strategy becomes clear. Do not feel deserted. He is still there. Silence is difficult for Rove to fight, isn't it?

My, my. Some of you are more brutal than the Repubs were about him. Did you ever really believe in him?

[OrwellwasRight]

54. When did "the press" become American voters?

Kerry owes us, his supporters, donors, volunteers, voters, etc. everything.

He owes the press nothing. Waiting does not equal sore loser. He will appear much more of a sore loser if he tries to argue election fraud now, AFTER conceding. Can't you see the pundits now, jumping on him for flip-floppng again?

And if you think Rove is weak against silence, look how successful the swiftboat ads were, when Terry McAuliffe, Mary Beth Cahill, & co. said nothing for a month.

Believe me, I worked my butt off for Kerry and other Dem candidates, and I am not a fair weather friend. But politics is not a baseball game. It DOES matter who won. People will lose their lives, civil liberties, and jobs as a result of what happened and our candidate owes it to us not to cave too fast. Where will we go in 2008 if the person who is behind feels she/he has to cave by noon the day after the election? It took them a month to count votes in Afghanistan. Don't we deserve as much attention to our vote counting as the Afghanis got?

[dmac]

56. Good points,

I do see where you are coming from. I didn't mean to imply Kerry is beholden to the press in any way, nor do I believe he feels that way. I do believe he knows full well that he is beholden to us - his supporters, who spent mind, body and soul and mucho $$ to try to get him elected.
That said, I also think he is (and has to be) sensitive to the fact that the press has GREAT power to influence in our country - and I think the press would have had a field day with Kerry if they had tried to "publicly" dispute the vote counts. As it is, they are just having a field day with us (Dems) - :( - and I do not like it anymore than the next guy. But if we can absorb some of the Conservatives ridicule to defer the real plays for later, I willingly accept.
Please trust me I intend to hold Kerry and the party accountable if they do not get behind this - when the time comes (when the votes are tallied and everything is official). Until then I, for my own sake, must believe that the silence is part of the plan - and that he will not let us down. And if it plays out the way we all hope it will, the press will have a hard time saying he flip-flopped, they will have to admit that he outsmarted the boy genius.

[txindy]

63. dmac, I agree with all of your points in this thread

I've been saying much the same for almost a week, now, but it's an uphill battle sometimes. Emotions are running high. But I feel very strongly that what we've been saying here will play out in the end. I'm really looking forward to it, too.

I agree about silence being difficult to fight, especially when one's skills have been developed around attacking and distorting the opposition's message. The complete lack of communication - the utter lack of any messages, at all - must be playing havoc with the boy genius' plans. Well, isn't that awful. :evilgrin:

Welcome to DU, dmac! :toast:

[Divine Discontent]

48. welcome to DU

just remember, newbies with very few posts come across as freepers if they're attacking views of DU regulars as being off base and telling them to "MOVE ON" just isn't wise, you may not be around too long.

[dmac]

52. ?

Sorry if I overstepped. I have been a bit confused about the way things work and sorry if I am posting too much but I sat up until 4:30, 3:30 and 1:30 AM Fri,Sat, Sun reading all of these posts but couldn't get on because my computer kept telling me that new members were shut down until after the election - which it was already well after the election. So I grew extremely frustrated with so much to say, so many questions to ask, and no means to do so. Could you please explain the real "rules" to me - obviously the ones I read to join are not the only ones based on what you just said. Because trust me I do not want to do anything to get kicked off.

PS. I didn't mean to tell anyone to move on if that is the way what I said came off. I am heart broken and frustrated about the election - and plainly not very adept at this kind of communication, but I will get the hang of it if given the opportunity.

[dmac]

53. ??

and sorry, but what is a "freeper"?

[OrwellwasRight]

57. Free Republic

some Repub forum (don't worry, it took me a while to get that one too, not having ever heard of such a thing--who would want to talk to a Bush-fan, and, since they clearly don't think deeply or analyze well, what could their discussions possibly be about?).

Some people on this forum seem overly suspiscious of new members, assuming they are freepers posing as rabid democrats, and some of them base their suspiscion completely on number of posts, so just beware that you might get some skeptical responses at first. Apparently 250 is the cutoff...

However, I have found that the vast majority of folks here are kind and friendly and will throw you a welcome to DU message! It's not like there are any Ari Fleischer "watch what you say rules," but if what you want to say might be interpreted as more right than left, you might want to delay saying it. I've seen people with 1000+ posts get away with saying very controversial, not-so-liberal things (I think they also have developed very thick skins).

Welcome. :hi:

[dmac]

58. 250????

yikes. thanks for your kind explanation. I will definitely catch on. It is so nice to be able to say some things after mostly having to suppress it - I live in a highly Conservative area - :(

[The Flaming Red Head]

30. They won't get that base out again. If they don't stand up for us, now.

Fuck 08 with the crap that is happening now, do you think we'll ever see another Dem in the WH in our lifetime?

[lenidog]

32. Yes we will

We just have to find another Bill Clinton. He or she has to young and dynamic, a real firebrand, someone who believes in something and sticks with it and someone who isn't telling us something just because they think it will get our votes.

[Sideways]

65. Thanks for the freeper talking points

"someone who believes in something and sticks with it and someone who isn't telling us something just because they think it will get our votes."

Stick it in your ear pal.

[The Flaming Red Head]

68. No they won't, unless they show some backbone and fight this fraud.

There is no point in showing up to vote if your vote doesn't count, or if it mysteriously disappears only to show up again on the wrong side.


And they need to shut up about attracting voters from the religious right. I have no room whatsoever for that sort of rhetoric.


They did great with the campaign, they got out the base, now they need to defend us in court if necessary and quit worrying about their own sorry hides and pitiful career ambitions.

[BayStateBoy]

60. Recounts are almost impossible without the candidate being supportive

If Kerry-Edwards don't request a recount, we can pretty much just give it up because nothing is likely to happen. No one takes seriously recount requests unless they come from the candidate(s).

I think Kerry is a fool not to request recounts in OH and particularly FL irrespective of whether his so called advisors think the votes are there. What there is out there is probably fraud and lots of it, and for him to ignore it is unconscionable.

1. Kerry promised that all the votes would be counted. 55 million Americans subscribed to that. He needs to fulfill his promise. I'm hearing nothing but severe criticisms of him here in Mass by people who voted for him. They won't forget or forgive.

2. There is a fine line between a quitter and a troublemaker. Kerry may not want to "make waves" thinking about 2008. But as far as I'm concerned, if he doesn't want to investigate these reports of possible fraud, then he's political roadkill. The soul of Democracy is the truth, and Kerry has to honor that before his own personal political agenda.

3. If we don't investigate, there is little if any hope that we will be able to mount a turnout like we just did. People stood in line for 10 hours to vote and we are willing to let their votes be thrown in the trash. Next time we need those voters they will stay home, so we are slitting out own political throats by not getting recounts.

4. If we don't demand recounts, the perpetrators will take it as an open invitation to commit the same frauds in 2006 and 2008. Kerry and the DNC are delusional. By not acting and fighting we are guaranteeing that all the setups will be in place for our future defeats and it will be a no win situation. We have to take a stand and fight now or else...

5. Elaborating on #4, recounts would serve to focus the national spotlight on the evils and unreliability of electronic voting. The measures in Congress to mandate a paper trail have been languishing for over 18 months. We have a small window of opportunity to act; if we don't we'll never get the electronic genie back into the bottle.

6. The history of voting in America is the history of vote recounts and rigged elections. Besides it's our Christian duty to recount the votes to insure that no crimes have been committed and the will of the people is being expressed accurately. The worst the Repugs could do is accuse us of being sore losers and we could take that charge and ram it back down their throats.

7. Even if the votes are recounted and the final results don't change we won't be hurt for trying. There is no evidence that fighting in FL in 2000 cost us any votes and it won't now. We have more votes to lose by not fighting and everything from a strategic political aspect.

[Ducks In A Row]

2. crawford was sure nothing would have changed, there wasn't a plan

to steal anything, so it would have damaged kerry unnecessarily, because the results wouldn't have changed


sadly, keith acted like he agreed there wasn't any fraud.

I don't know why people are so excited by keith's reporting. it looks to be like he's throwing a bone to get ratings, but doesn't plan to really look at the fraud.

keith has already bought into the lie about the dixiecrat's in florida. he'll find other explaination that wish away the fraud.

[Generator]

3. I don't agree with your spin

If anything, I get the feeling that Keith is personally trying to save Democracy himself. I know what he thinks of the "Bush residency" I've been watching him for a year now.

They said "there's a chance". A chance is not dismissing it. If you want dismissal, I guess you should catch ABC.

[saracat]

4. Really? That saddens me. I didn't watch it but from

Keith's blog it sounded like he was interested in pursuing the matter. I just can't believe no one cars. Silly me.

[crispini]

15. I disagree, Keith mentioned that SOME of the

counties were "dixiecrat" counties but that a lot of the others WERE NOT.

I got the feeling that he would really like to pursue this.

[JohnnyCougar]

21. haha...the Dixiecrats in Florida is a red herring

it makes us look bad. They all voted for Bush in 2000 and Dole in 1996. Personal testimony reveals that this is Bush country, even though they are registered Democrats.

[Generator]

35. You keep saying this, I get it already. but it's not the only fraud

Have you heard the one about no Republican can win the White House without Ohio? Why, look they didn't.

[JohnnyCougar]

40. No kidding. That is my point.

Harping about circumstantial evidence defeats the purpose of exposing fraud. There are better cases for fraud tha we can talk about.

1. Central tabulator computers are easily hackable, as well as BBV machines.

2. The exit polls show Kerry won.

Pushing the meme that any old hacker can change vote totals gives people the idea that fraud is easy. Pushing the fact that Kerry won exit polls shows that the results are suspicious. These two facts together is all we need, and they cannot be brushed off as speculation.

All this nonsense about counties in Florida is circumstantial at best, and can easily be ignored.

[Cronus Protagonist]

37. Your claims are unsupported by the evidence.

And your conjecture is also not supported. I could make the claim that your data supports deep and systemic fraud in these precincts. However, unlike you, I won't go out on a limb with such flimsy support as you have.

[JohnnyCougar]

42. Flimsy support such as actual vote totals from the last 3 elections?

You can't get any less flimsy than that.

Please, when you shoot yourself in the foot by jabbering on about hearsay, don't tell anyone that you know me. Save me the embarrassment.

I already posted the link 5 times today. Look for it.

[goodboy]

45. Keith mentioned in his report that those particular states did the same

thing in 2000, and 1996, but just voted more for Bush this time.


You're right.

[Bread and Circus]

5. Kerry made a stand....

like a house of cards.

Never again will I be duped by the letter "D" behind a candidate's
name.

[shraby]

9. If Kerry thinks not fighting this now

will help a run in 2008, he's sadly mistaken. All the people who got shafted this time certainly will not vote for him again. He's sealing his run for presidency now.

[Generator]

11. Yes! As they used to say, is he on crack or something?

Doesn't he get how much we needed him to fight these Bush bastards. Today. Not four years from now. Not after how many more have died from if nothing else incompetence in Iraq.. and well I could give a string of litanies...it's too easy..the time was NOW, the most important election of our lives..does that ring a bell?

Nah, it was all about the unity. Damn the concession speech pisses me off. I was thinking..if there were people rioting, if Dems were dying, then okay..sacrifice for unity.. but what would a week have cost Senator Kerry..sore loser and loser are no different in my mind.. we signed up for a fighter and got?

[Hailtothechimp]

17. Joe Lieberman probably thought the same thing 4 years ago.

Didn't work for him, either.

[Cha]

51. lieman sure acted like that's

what he was thinking..four years ago. Who really knows except joe and his inner circle? We do know he acted like a traitor.

And I would really like to hear from Kerry as to what he was thinking before I condemn him to eternal hell for seemingly giving up too soon on our Democracy.

I'd like to think that he's too caring and smart for that.

He did say that he had our BACKS! Were those empty words? Didn't sound like them.

[smirkymonkey]

19. He will NEVER have my support again - and most of my

Democratic friends feel the same way. He thought of himself and only himself. He's another Clinton, and I don't mean that in a good way.

[HEAVYHEART]

26. NO

HELL NO! If Kerry doesn't fight this, there is no way in hell I'm voting for him again. Unless I can be convinced that there was no fraud involved in this election (which is highly doubtful because based on all the evidence we've seen so far, some fucked up shit definitely went on), then he better fight with us. Because BUSH STOLE THE FUCKING ELECTION! The question is, will Kerry come through for us or did he bail already? And where the fuck is everybody else?

Sorry guys, I'm just frustrated and I'm getting really impatient.

:grr:

[The Flaming Red Head]

23. Never again will I stand in line to vote in another rigged election

in four years they'll really have their voting apparatus in and streamlined. One party America. Nobody is going to vote anymore if they don't at least demand recounts and do something.

[lenidog]

33. Just to play the Devil's Advocate

If Kerry had won even though there was fraud as you claim would you still be making such a case for an investigation?

[Generator]

34. No but you can sure as shit your Republican friends would

If Kerry won the electoral college by one state with 100,000 votes, recounts would be breaking out all over.

We aren't as dumb as our leaders seem.

[lenidog]

36. Since I am not a Republican I really can't asnwer that

But as for the rest of my friends who voted with me for Kerry we are getting ready for the next election and getting ready to win instead spinning tales of grand conspiracies and hoping for recounts that even if they would happen won't make a damm difference.

[Divine Discontent]

50. LENIDOG (freeper) is at it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

well, "lenidog", no I don't think we'd be making much noise because we'd NOT be looking at the vote counts because we'd be too happy celebrating the fact that a SICKO President who has lied to the country, sold us out for corporate profits, and has his wacko fanatic followers come on this board to try and appear like sensible voices of dissent, has finally been Kicked out of the White House!

The party that has been screwed in any matter is the one that typically is the one to state they were screwed over in any situation.

I'm not wasting any more time on you, the Mods need to send you a dirty email and take away your name.

fool.

[HEAVYHEART]

66. I agree themartyred!!!

Yup. Every single one of lenidog's post sure as hell sound like freeper talk. I thought maybe I was just being paranoid. Yes. Freeper indeed. So when does he get booted?

GOODBYE LENIDOG!

[Dixon Cox]

64. I understand your anger

The emotional hangover I felt from a week ago turned into a blinding rage when I found out about the fraud charges, and vowed to not partake in the voting process again (first time voter myself), but I realized that's what the cons what us to do - just give up. So come the next election I'll just do what was recommended by others - if the polling place is using e-voting machines, ask for a paper ballot instead, it's our right to ask for and use a paper ballot. But please don't give up in '08 or now. Spread the word. I personally am going to take this election fraud message and ram it down anyone's throat who'll listen.

[Jade Fox]

8. The Democrats were between a rock and a hard place...

I'm MAD at Kerry for conceding, but.....

You know the media would have made the Democrats look like idiots who
just couldn't accept defeat. It's always the media, the god-damned media.

I'm hoping that fraud will be eventually proven. "Impeachment" has a
lovely ring to it, doesn't it?

[LisaL]

10. With all the republicans in the house and in the senate,

they wouldn't impeach Bush if he came out and and admitted to FRAUD.

[Jade Fox]

22. Yeah, it will have to be undeniable evidence of fraud.....

with some connection to Bush.

Reagan got off for Iran-Contra by claiming to be completely out of the loop--
a damned strange admition for a President, but it worked. It would
probably work for Bush too given how many people "love" him. :puke:

[OrwellwasRight]

44. "With all the republicans in the house and in the senate,"

they wouldn't impeach Bush if he molested his grandmother, forced the twins to have abortions, gave a million dollars to stem cell research, and then drove two buses full of nuns and children off of Mt. Smoky.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Kathy in Cambridge]

14. Bye Bye!

:hi:

[Jade Fox]

24. What's the matter, is all this talk of election fraud making you nervous?

[Straight Shooter]

41. Don't let the screendoor hit ya where the Good Lord split ya!

:hi:

[RaulVB]

13. ZOGBY's Official website posted this today

Votergate 2004; We Don't Need Paper to Prove Fraud, But We Do Need Money and Leadership, NOW.
Since last Tuesday there has been a justifiable uproar about the major differences between the exit polls in Ohio and Florida and the actual results. Democrats and Republicans, who both saw the same exit polls that showed an electoral landslide in favor of Kerry, have confirmed this. Investigative reporter Bob Parry confirmed from his sources that the Bush campaign was convinced they were going to lose. George H. W. Bush also confirmed this in an interview with The Today Show. So why have the exit polls been so wrong in the last two elections? It is clear that there must have been manipulation in the voting machines. While there's been a lot of talk of problems with not having paper trails, computer fraud is uncovered most of the time without paper trails.

As a former C.P.A and auditor, I have used statistical sampling throughout my career with great confidence. With electronic record keeping, it's easy to create a program to falsify the books. But there are ways to uncover that. Auditors have developed statistical ways to cut right through corruption in companies. You don't even need a paper trail. These statistical approaches can be used with almost 100% accuracy to uncover fraud.

With the votergate 2004 it's a numbers game just like it is with corporate accounting, even easier. All you're talking about is one number-- total votes for each candidate.

There's a huge difference between polling what WILL happen and polling something that has already happened. The reliability of polling something that has already happened is highly reliable vs. predictive polls, like Gallup or Zogby, which is very risky. The reliability can be, not plus or minus 4 percent as we see with predictive poplls, but rather a much more reliable plus or minus one half or one tenth of one percent with exit polls, because those are based on asking people who already voted. I would even say that if the exit polling were done in the key precincts of Florida and Ohio, which it was, then these results should be practically “bullet proof.”

It is important that people know how accurate random sampling of historical events can be in order for them to understand how unlikely it is that the exit polls were wrong. So if you want to fight the battle correctly, you must get more statisticians and forensic accountants involved as well as the lawyers. These statisticians can show with great credibility the probability of manipulation within the computer programs used for counting the ballots. They do this kind of work all the time to uncover fraud based upon computer manipulation in commercial and corporate activities. And these types of expert analyses are admissible in a court of law. The problem with all of this is determining who is going to fund such an investigation. Where will the money come from? Perhaps the Kerry/Edwards campaign fund has some surplus that can be used. It is possible that the DNC has some excess funds. How about the 527s and PACs who spent millions on ineffective political ads, coming up with a few million? In addition, who is going to lead the process of getting this done? This kind of an effort requires solidarity along with an organized coordinated effort. It's easy to come up with the forensic and technical people to get this done, but we need a strong leader and solidarity. Leadership and funding-- these are the two real challenges that must be dealt with in the coming days. We have a Watergate story here that could give the media a post election explosive news story that could make the 2000 Florida vote debacle look like small potatoes. We need to get the media to see that votergate 2004 is huge news and we need to quickly fund the investigation and get Democratic leaders behind it.

Sheldon Drobny is CPA and Venture Capitalist and co-founder of Air America Radio.

(11/9/2004)
- By Sheldon Drobny, Op-Ed News

[MelissaB]

20. This is amazing!

I think it deserves it's own thread, but I can't start one!

:kick:

[enough]

38. Can you give us a link for this --

thanks.

[MelissaB]

39. Here ya go!

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10385

[Straight Shooter]

16. Did Kerry tell them? Or is it hearsay? Or hearsay on top of hearsay?

Or how about I know a guy who knows a gal who had a boss who once had a relative who worked for a guy who used to have a food service company in Washington, D.C. that served the Senators Lounge, that says he knows what Kerry's position is.

If it can't stand up in court, Crawford and Turley can shut their trap and stop repeating innuendo and speculation.

[wanpete]

18. Has there been word that Kerry is thinking of another run in 08?

:shrug:

[grasswire]

25. yes

in the news yesterday and today.

[Karmadillo]

27. Crawford was sure Hillary would run in 2004; Turley was a favorite of

the anti-Clinton forces during the Republicans' dry run for the coup of 2000. I wouldn't get too worked up over anything either of them had to say.

[L84TEA]

28. well...

If he does NOTHING then it will continue for the next elections... then it becomes almost pointless to waste our time voting.

[candy331]

29. Nothing we didn't already know already along with the rest of the

nation, no wonder the SBV could keep their message out there because they knew old flip flopper would not strike back.

[OrwellwasRight]

46. SBV?

[DieboldMustDie]

55. Swift Boat Veterans

Great name, by the way. ;)

[OrwellwasRight]

59. Thanks!

I'll get used to all the acronyms eventually. I'll have to, it's so "orwellian" to use them. :+

[Groggy]

47. I'm disappointed in him

Well I have to say I am disappointed that John Kerry isn't at saying ANYTHING about the voter irregularities. I mean...he said he would make sure every vote counted. Empty words again by another politician? I had such faith in him and now I feel really let down. I'm not saying he should un-concede, but you would think he could at least acknowledge that there were problems with this vote. I guess its pretty obvious he's protecting his own political future and its safer for him not to stick his neck out. Maybe I can't blame him, but where does that leave us?

[judaspriestess]

62. catch 22

for Kerry, he is walking a fine line. If he is trying to save his political career with a concession speech, he risks pissing many demos off for being so self-centered.
Come on John, fight!! You will come across as a true American hero.
I know I wouldn't support him in the primaries if he ran again if he continues to hide like he is doing now.

[Nordic]

61. Kerry won't HAVE a political future if the vote's been hacked

DUH!

Double DUH!

[robbedvoter]

67. Here's an article (Who are Turley and Crawford?)

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1107-24.htm  
 
Published on Sunday, November 7, 2004 by the Madison Capital Times (Wisconsin)
Kerry Left Volunteers in the Lurch
by Phyllis Hasbrouck
 
Hey, John Kerry! I want my $25 back!

I gave it to your campaign specifically for the fight around a contested election. Your e-mail said, "In the post-election period of 2002, the Republicans had four times as much money as we did. With your donation, we'll be ready this time, with an army of lawyers prepared for any contingency." You probably raised millions from that appeal, and we figured you really meant it.

svip
How can it be good for our nation to be subjected to four more years of Bush? If you think that a tidy beginning to a national nightmare is more important than a messy beginning to a fresh start for America, why did you bother to run?
snip
You can be sure that if the Republicans had been in your position they would have fought tooth and nail to pull a victory out of defeat. Why didn't you give investigative journalist Greg Palast a million of our donated dollars to run an investigation into black box vote fraud in Florida? Why didn't you send your army of lawyers to fight for every provisional ballot in Ohio? Why did you betray our hopes?

A real leader would have organized a coordinated strategy of legal challenges, popular demonstrations in the streets and a public relations blitz to let the actual votes of the American people be counted fairly. Sound familiar? It's what the Republicans did in 2002, and it worked. I'm not suggesting that we should cheat like they did, but we would have shown an avalanche of activism in defense of the people's right to vote, if you had only led the way.

You had on your side Air America, MoveON, ACT and many more groups who would have joined the fray to make it possible, for the first time ever, to stop and reverse, and possibly rerun, a fraudulent election. Think of how glorious it would have been, how energized your millions of dedicated volunteers would have been, had they actually beaten back another right-wing attempt to steal their democracy!

snip

So goodbye, John Kerry, and send me back my $25. You obviously don't need it anymore, and I'm looking for a group that can use it

Phyllis Hasbrouck is a Madison area activist who was a ward leader for the MoveONPAC voter drive for John Kerry.

© 2004 Capital Times