a simple request to all those who criticize Kerry for not saying the

election was stolen.

At this point, there is NO Democratic rep or senators that have said the election was stolen. Some (including Kerry) have said that there was fraud. But none (and that would include Conyers and Boxer) have said that the fraud would have changed the results.

(Read the DNC report, Miller's article in Harpers, ...).
So why dont you call them and ask them to do so?

You can whine as much as you want on Kerry - The fact is that he is the worst placed to make this claim.

having said that. As I said earlier, at this point, I dont know any.

Here is Harpers's article -

http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html

None Dare Call It Stolen

Although Conyers trod carefully when the report came out, insisting that the crimes did not affect the outcome of the race (a point he had to make, he told me, “just to get a hearing”),

I will not be played a fool the second time.

you don't have to like or support kerry, but there's certainly no reason to lend credence to known right-wing talking points.

but I would ask yourself where you got those specific words. Flip flopper, I mean.

It's one thing to say Kerry is not consistent. But why "flip flopper"?

Do you normally agree with the Right Wing on their take re: Democrats? Do you also refer to Howard Dean as "Waffle-powered Howard"?

He said fraud, but he also said stolen

comes from the fact he couldn't get his concession speech out fast enough. He didn't and doesn't have the stomach, balls, guts and to fight.He is the last Democrat we need to say anything.

But I agree. He is the last democrat who should say something. It is my point, actually.

.. some of us, and I include myself, agree 100% with what you have said. On the other hand there are a core of folks here who just think Kerry hung the moon and you will never convince them otherwise.

Coming out with the obvious a year late is not my idea of a leader, period. It really makes me think even less of Kerry, who always takes the tough stand long after there would be any risk in taking it and long after it will do one RCH of good.

But, some think this sort of stuff indicates fortitude and leadership. I'll never understand, really I won't.

i am constantly amazed at the anger directed at kerry.
*WE* got screwed, all of us. kerry, the democrats, america. we all got the shaft.

getting upset because the guy that should be in the oval office today didn't do -- what, exactly should he have done?

absolutely NOTHING that kerry could have done would have made a damned bit of difference, and i'm rather sick and tired of people pretending that kerry doing a repeat of gore's post-election performance would have magically transformed things.

not that it mattered much either way, but i think kerry did the best thing he could. go along with it AT THE TIME, continue his job as senator, let OTHERS pursue the election fraud angle, and eventually, maybe, let himself RELUCTANTLY be drafted into the election reform crusade IF others lead the charge.

*WE* got the shaft, not kerry. *WE* got an evil, rotten president instead of kerry.

*WE* are the ones who need to advance the election reform cause in order to make *OUR* votes count.

blaming kerry is pointless at best and counterproductive at worst.

STOP IT and do something positive to help improve the situation.

:grr:

... I'm trying to keep this party from nominating a loser AGAIN.

fix the damn machines!

if more people voted for kerry than shrub, and kerry in truth received more electoral votes than shrub, yet shrub is not in the office because of the lying machines, then WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT WINNING CANDIDATE????

so what if next time 60% vote democratic and 40% vote banana republican. the same damn machines can make the same damn lies and put yet another banana republican in office.

our guy WON, ergo, our candidate was NOT THE PROBLEM.

.... until someone who has been DENIED OFFICE due to vote machine rigging STANDS UP AND REFUSES TO ACCEPT IT, nothing is going to happen and we'll see election after election UNTIL SOMEONE WITH A VESTED INTEREST DOES SOMETHING.

Kerry had the chance of a lifetime to stand up and he sat down. It really is that simple as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I don't believe they can steal an election with more than a few percentage point margin, they cannot risk being caught.

You can explain away small discrepancies, not gigantic ones.

Enough excuses, he WON. The statistics overwhelmingly prove it...again and again in odds of millions and billions to one. JK won nearly all "groups" (including Women, Blacks, the Youth)...AND the Exit Polls.

He just needs to find the spine to get out and confirm it.

That was indeed very shocking. Viewed live from here in Europe.

towel election night fast enought.

I need a senator or representative who contested the election, and Carter is none of them

That isn't even what happened.

two nights ago on CNN's Larry King.

Why do we respect Jimmy Carter and have such a scorn for flip-floppers such as Kerry?

:think:

:sarcasm:

I happen to like Carter a lot, actually, but clearly I am right in my assumption that no congresspeople (with the potential exception of McKinney) said the election was stolen.

that is unable to say that Bush is a war criminal and should be impeached, or that IWR was a blank check for war and that he was wrong in voting for it.

Dennis Kucinich said it like it is!

moderate on abortion (whatever this means). This seems pretty much like Kerry said, IMHO.

And Kerry said he was wrong voting for IWR. I know truth is difficult to hear, sometimes.

Because I just went through the transcript and can't find it. I can't find where he talked about the election at all.

Mark Crispin Miller on Democracy Now: "when Kerry conceded, he gave up his moral right to make this claim (i.e. that the election was stolen)."

perhaps that's why he said Kerry is the "worst placed".

He is not a shy man, as far as I know.

you raised an issue about Kerry being the worst person to raise the issue of the stolen election with ...

i made no comment on this issue other than offering a possible explanation of what Miller may have meant ... bringing up irrelevant issues as a petty defense of Kerry is not appreciated ...

for the record, here's the exact excerpt of what Miller said:

"My aim here – let me just say one thing – my aim here is not to challenge the outcome of the election in any way that would mean let’s, like, install Kerry in the White House. That’s not constitutional, and I think when Kerry conceded, he forfeited his moral right to do that anyway."

again, my point is that Miller may regard Kerry as the worst person to raise this issue with because he "forfeited his moral right to do that" when he conceded ...

said Kerry should say the election was stolen, on the contrary.

But thank you for the quote. It shows that even Miller can change his mind.

And I was wondering which congressperson has said that the election was stolen, and if we should push them to do so.

Thanks for posting this Mass.

I have to point out that much of the destructive criticism of party leaders is sour grapes.
The expectations of all voters cannot be met by one candidate- in their own political party.
The people who are brave enough to take on a campaign for president, congress, or state and local races are forced into some difficult and gut wrenching decisions. They will make mistakes. (DUH?) I can't immagine what it must be like to be trying very hard to do what will convince the most voters to support you, only to find out that your best input and analysis were distorted. Let alone your comments.

I know we are all trying to figure out how to win the next one. And obviously, every race should have some lessons. The problem is the tendency to stone the losers with what should have been OBVIOUS during the campaign.

This is going to attract the best and the brightest to want to run for office in this party?

Which is not to say we should hold our opinions on what we see the lessons were.
All critique should be done with the idea that by the time we get to the next election, the circumstances will be unique and every campaign presents unanticipated scenarios.

If we stay with constructive support for our leaders and losers, we keep the party stronger. We also don't provide the GOP with ammo for the coming elections, makes our candidates sitting ducks - in a row.

Kerry is a miserable failure! The only thing that can save Kerry as a viable candidate would be if the race came down between him and Hillary. Many of us that don't like or trust Kerry would become his most avid supporters if the choice was between him and that woman.

They might actually have to give him credit and take back their criticisms.

I refer you to Rep. John Conyers' book - "What Went Wrong in Ohio, the Conyers Report on the 2004 Presidential Election", 142 pages of detailed facts and analysis.

If it had been the Republicans, they'd be bellyaching from sun up to sun day 24/7. It's too late now to contest the election, to say the least. We should have never rolled over in 2000. That was disgraceful. I never saw nor heard about the protest along the inauguration route until saw it in F9/11. Dems just never had the stomach to stomp their feet and refuse to budge. And until they do, I don't see the Republicans easing up on voting machine fraud, voter intimidation, and all the other varied assorted tricks they've become so good at. It won't stop until they are made to stop and one more election of fraud will put the Republicans so firmly entrenched it will become impossible, that is if it isn't too late already.

Neither did the report from the DNC. And the recent GAO reports lists problems and does not come to the conclusion that those problems cost the Dems the election.

little children, they want more and throw a tantrum to get it.

a paper trail?

What we can prove are "irregularities" but proving a "stolen election" is another matter.