Question for William Pitt re: comment on early concession

It was suggested I pull out my question from another thread, and post it on its own thread, so here goes.

If you consider the concession to have been too soon and a terminal blunder, what do you think waiting would have changed?

Not a rhetorical question. What hypothetically might have changed?

I guess I don't understand how the campaign was going to get anything concrete fast enough to make a difference as far as changing the outcome was concerned. How long realistically could they have waited? What would the Republicans have done differently to fight K/E?

And if people like Madsen are correct, would it have been for naught if these are air votes that would have made a difference?
What would waiting have changed, now that we know pretty much what those people had to say? Would we have had enough evidence in that say, first week to do something different?

Or are we looking at more of a political move so that people would have felt the vote counted since many were still voting? I could have seen that at least, Kerry saying that we should wait for people to finish voting at least, and perhaps for the absentee ballots to be done.

Do you accept his given reason, that he just didn't want to see the country divided any more? Or do you see a different reason?
All I know right now is that I'm sitting here in tears again, feeling helpless and really depressed. It's like I'm reliving Nov. 3 reading this thread.

And I still like Kerry alot. I think he did what he thought was best, even if I'm not sure I agree with his decision. He's moving on, sometimes at the speed of light, fighting in his way. He looks to be keeping up an almost campaign pace. I'm glad he's still around here, there and everywhere.

I ask these questions because sometimes the criticism seems somewhat vague. I will see the words, "He should have fought" without any concrete answers as to how Kerry should have fought. Or that he should have waited before conceding without saying how long he should have waited and what that waiting would have accomplished.

And of course there are those who say that nothing short of getting Bush out of office now will be acceptable, without any realistic plan as to how that should be accomplished short of revolution that is not likely to happen given the current mood.

Hoping for an answer, or perhaps some good discussion. But I do hope Mr. Pitt in particular will respond as he is the one who inspired the question. I'm just having trouble reconciling on the one hand people I know who think Kerry did the only thing he could in conceding, and those who think that it was terrible folly. I must admit, in my daily life, I meet more of the former than the latter. Even among those who believe the fraud happened, most I speak to think Kerry did the only thing he could.

So for those who believe there was something else he could do, I'd like to hear both what he could have done, and realistically what it could have accomplished.

One of his worse mistake was when he was at the Grand Canyon during the campaign, and the press asked him if he would have voted the same way to give bush the authority to invade Iraq knowing what he knows now, and he said he would not have changed his vote. What that one statement said to the undecided was that there was essentially no difference on Iraq between him and bush.

Other mistakes were during the debate. In all the debates he was asked why he voted against the 87 million aid for the troops, and even though he had a good answer, he never answered it during the debates when it counted

The worst thing he did though, was NOT responding to the swift boat lies. It was obvious to most that it was getting out of control after one week, and he continued to ignore it until it finally became firm in the voters minds

I cannot understand why he doesn't sue those bastards today?

Kerry anyway, but he bemoaned Kerry's decision to say he still would have voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Arrrghhh! Next time around, we need a Democrat who is not afraid to really stand up and not be afraid of what people will think.

politician, is going to stand up and say, I was wrong to vote to give the president the authority that the resolution gave him, when I am president, "I never want anyone to vote to give me the authority to use the military".

The weed violated the resolution and that is where the campaign, congress and the rest of the nation is wrong -- in not calling the pitiful excuse for a president on his violation of the resolution and the Constitution (Art I, Sec. 8).

Here is the actual language of the Iraq War Resolution (HJ Res 114):

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

(Section 3A is the part that grants the president authority to use military action as he determined to be necessary and appropriate).

Read the actual resolution, then tell me what part Bush violated.

As far as violating Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, that is impossible, because Article 1, Section 8 grants authority to the Congress. It is impossible for the Executive branch to violate that part of the Constitution.

If you go back to IWR (read section 3C), you will see that Congress specifically complied with the War Powers Act, which was a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

- inspectors were still inspecting. Plenty of proof of that exists independent of our national sources.

the basis (one of) the legal claim of the war being illegal.

Each of those represent a reason that Congress used to authorize the use of force against Iraq. it only takes one, but Congress found 18.

If one of them is not true (or was later found to be incorrect or incomplete), there are still 17 legitimate causes belli, including violations of the cease-fire of the 1991 Gulf War (any one of which was reason enough to resume hostilities,) and Public Law 102-1, which specifically authorized the President to use military force to enforce UN resolutions.

Kerry voted for PL 102-1, too, if I remember right.

Using a legal standard, losing one cause for the war, but still having 17, still meets "beyond a reasonable doubt," and is definitely more than "the preponderance of the evidence."


The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

What crime was committed when Bush intentionally bypassed the intelligence community to present knowingly false information to:
The congress, in order to pass a war resolution
The people, in the State of the Union Address
The world, when trying to get resolutions passed in the U.N.

I am no lawyer, so I ask your input, what was the worst crime committed in this situation?

Thnx in Advance

as you have described the situation.

Please remember that I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :-)

*As President, Bush does not report to "the intelligence community," (which, I presume you to mean the CIA, NSA, DIA, the rest of the alphabet agencies, and the counterintelligence division of the FBI), so the premise that he "bypassed" them to speak directly to the American people is faulty.

*Presuming that the information you have referenced was false, and that Bush knew it was false when he said it, it is still not a violation of any law of the United States. There is no Constitutional or statutory requirement for a president to tell the truth to the American people; if there was, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and LBJ would all have been out the door or sitting in jail.

*Bush did not "present" the information Congress used to pass IWR. Congress relied on direct reports from CIA, etc. to the Intelligence Committees of both houses to get their information, as they do in all intelligence matters. Any information sent to the Hill by the Administration that conflicted with the Intelligence Committee's own information should have sent up red flags.

BUT, we never heard anything from a certain Massachusetts senator on the Intelligence Committee about such red flags before he voted for IWR. To the contrary, he made an empassioned speech in support of IWR (October 9, 2002), in which he said, "I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons." (http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html , paragraph 13.)

That senator based his speech, and his vote, on information provided directly to the Senate Intelligence Committee by the CIA and DOD.

*You'll have to be more specific about which State of the Union address contained false information (the year will be sufficient), which UN resolutions were based on "knowingly false" information(please provide the specific resolution numbers, so I can research them), and your evidence that Bush presented false information "knowingly." That last one will be tough, since it will require you to prove Bush's foreknowledge of the falsity of the information.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

"Please remember that I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :-)"
Very nicely timed, I got a good chuckle out of that.

Your answer seems to indicate we are gonna be worlds apart on this.

Let me ask you something else to get a sense of what you believe...
In Sept 2002, the White House was trying to get the authority for war against Iraq from congress. A senator requested the NIE for Iraq, and was told there was none (which in itself is telling), so one was created. This new NIE contained the same conclusions that the WH was using to promote the Iraq war. Later, we find out that the conclusions in the NIE were altered and did not agree with CIA conclusions that they were based on...the only thing they did match was the WH talking points.

Who altered the original intell to come up with a false NIE on Iraq?
Why hasn't it been investigated?
Should it be investigated?

We have different information sources, and different ways of processing the information we receive.

Before I can give an intelligent answer, I need to get a couple of facts straight. I try to avoid giving an opiniion until I find the facts myself (keeps me from being bitten on the hindquarters by my own mis-statements)

Can you give me the name of the senator, and the person who stated that the NIE was altered or different from the CIA report? If you have a source for the story, I'd appreciate it. I'll go out and look for the reports, if I can find them.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

Have you not heard about this?

The senators were Bob Graham of Florida and Dick Durbin of Illinois.


Here is a commission report on the erroneous NIE on Iraq...

"(U) Conclusion 1. Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

http://dks.thing.net/NIEfaulty.html

From the US Government itself (no bloggy middleman):

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

That blogsite you used a a citation does not contain the "full text of the official conclusions" of the actual report.

You have been lied to, Chi!


The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

The same conclusions are found in the full text that you posted.

"(U) Conclusion 1. Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s
October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s ContinuiHg Programsfor
Weapons of Muss Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying
intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the
mischaracterization of the intelligence."

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
(page 14)

BTW, I found that page in a search. It is not a regular reading source of mine. I also came across the full report after posting the summary.

I have been civil and respectful to you in my posts, and I don't appreciate you dragging me into your disagreements.

If you took my post in any other way than informational, it wasn't intended.

I never read your posts in any way but as straight-ahead and polite. In fact, I have enjoyed talking to you.

I wasn't using you down the page. However, your citation argued to the point I had made in that same thread, so I used the citation (which is certainly fair use.) Definitely nothing personal.



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

"However, your citation argued to the point I had made in that same thread, so I used the citation (which is certainly fair use.) Definitely nothing personal."

My post supported your statement that the guard was less than 50% of the total Iraqi force, I knew that when I posted it.
But both posters facts were inaccurate, so I thought it somewhat neutral to give more accurate numbers, IMO.

The information I supplied was fair game, agreed.
Using my name in your post to prod someone is what annoyed me.

Thats OK..... It's only a flesh wound. 8)
But you owe me a shrubbery.

that I cut down the tallest tree in the forest with a.....




The Pagan Preacher
chained to my desk after a fine, fine weekend

here is the language you are citing (extra stuff removed):

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;

Distilling it further, it says, "In connection with the exercise of the use of force, the President shall make a report to the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of his determination that reliance on diplomatic or peaceful means will not adequately protect the United States or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions."

The key words are "his determination". It put the judgment to go to war in Bush's hands, and his alone. His only responsibility was to make a report to the leaders of the two houses of Congress. Otherwise, it was carte blanche.

Kerry's claim that he didn't give Bush the authority with his "yes" vote is bullshit. The plain language of the resolution gave Bush all of the authority that he is using.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

I haven't talked to you in awhile. I was afraid that you were mad at me, or something.

So, what part of the War Powers Resolution do you think Bush violated?

The Pagan Preacher
i don't turn the other cheek.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(snip)

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

In post #24, you pointed out the section of the IWR that said, "nothing in this resolution shall supercede the War Powers Resolution."

In response, I asked you to cite the part of the War Powers Resolution that you believe Bush violated. You then cited Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (which is not the War Powers Resolution, which you referenced in your original post).

Here is the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (PL 93-148):
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

When you read it, you will see that the language of the IWR follows right along with the War Powers Resolution, and it references the constitutional authority of the Congress to declare war, and the President to act as Commander-in-Chief (specifically read Section 2, paragraph 3.)

Now that you have the legal citations, you can see that 1) Congress acted within its constitutional and legal authority by giving authority to the President, and 2) The President acted within his constitutional and legal authority in deploying troops and initiating hostilities using his own judgment (under the War Powers Resolution and IWR).

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

there ya go!

I resent the heck out of fellow DUers referring to me as "dear" or "my friend". It is very patronizing. Stop trying to patronize me.

I stand by my position that those who voted for the Iraq resolution voted to allow "THE USE OF FORCE" if all other means failed to get SH to give up WMD's, etc.

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Using your own cites (paragraph "b", particularly), Congress acted within its Constitutional authority by making a law to give the decision-making authority to the President (it could give them to the Boy Scouts if it wanted to, and it would be constitutional), and the President acted within that legal authority by sending the troops to battle using his own judgment.

The language of IWR put the full decision-making authority in the President's hands, without your limitation of "if all other means fail." That is not the language of the resolution. It said, "in his judgment", and that meant the President's judgment (and his alone.)

Kerry voted to give full control over prosecution of the war to Bush, and that is an inescapable fact. If Kerry really thinks that Bush acted wrongly, he could introduce a new law rescinding IWR at any time. He has not.

On a more personal note...Only I know if I was trying to patronize you (you cannot know my motives, unless I tell you- we have had that discussion before). For the record, I was not. If the worst thing anyone does to you today is call you "dear", then you have had a good day. Don't sweat it, merh. Life's too short.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

go outside or beyond the Constition which provides "suppress insurrections and repel invasions"

There was no insurrection and/or invasion, therefore, the War Powers Act could not be used to authorize the passing of the resolution for purposes of declaring war.

The section of the Constitution you have cited gives Congress the authority to call out the militia, for those specific reasons, but it does not limit the use of the armed forces to only those uses. Your cite does not address the standing Army, or the Navy, at all (it only mentions the "militia," which is different from a standing army.)

If you were correct, then Clinton could not have sent the Army out on the meals-on-wheels programs of the 1990s, nor could Bush have deployed the Navy to perform tsunami relief operations earlier this year.

Because Congress has the authority to regulate, in all manners, the conduct of war, it can give the authority to commit troops to battle to the President, the Boy Scouts, or Mrs. Beasely's Sunday book club. All are constitutional. If Mrs. Beasely decided to use that authority to attack the Elm Street Sunday book club (or if the Boy Scouts attacked the Camp Fire Girls), it would be legal, under the authority granted by Congress. If Congress disapproved of Mrs. Beasely, their responsibility would be to take away the authority to commit troops. So far, I haven't seen anything from Dems on Capitol Hill in that direction, just Kerry and Hillary Clinton supporting long-term troop commitments in Iraq (in other words, actions that continue to support Bush's Iraq policy).

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

fighting in Iraq, I would think that this provision of the Constitution applies.

1. Of the total troop strength in Iraq, more than 1/2 are National Guard. False.

2. The provision of the Constitution authorizing Congress' use of "the militia" retroactively applies to employment of the regular Army, when more than 1/2 of all troops committed in an operation come from the National Guard. False.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

n/t

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/troopsforiraq.html
*"reservists and guards comprise over 40 percent of the total troop strength." (Note that the Army Reserve is different from the Army National Guard)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18980-2004Jun5.html
*(paragraph 1): "With almost 40,000 troops serving in the unexpectedly violent and difficult occupation of Iraq, the National Guard is beginning to show the strain of duty there..."
* (paragraph 11): "...almost one-third of the 125,000 Army troops now in Iraq are from the Guard."

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

Your second link is almost a year old.
Your first link is underestimating the percentage.

here is a more 'straight from the source' report.

"More than 120,000 citizen soldiers from your states where you represent are right now deployed in 44 countries around the world. Today the National Guard on the ground in Iraq makes up a little bit more than 40 percent of the combat forces that you see when you go into theater. And our Air National Guard makes up about one-third of the combat power that is being generated by the Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan today."

http://www.ngb.army.mil/media/transcripts/HASCTranscriptsBlumAndSchultz2Feb05.rtf

The current combined troop strength of the Guard and the Reserves makes up over 50% of the total Iraq force.
The worst part is that the National Guard's combat ready units, are all tapped out, and the reserves are getting very low.
There are no more combat ready Guard units to send.
The Army reserves are down to 18% combat ready, not in field.

"The mix of troops in the U.S. force rotation now under way in Iraq is about 50 percent active duty and 50 percent reserves. But that is set to change to 70 percent active and 30 percent reserve for the rotation after that, beginning this summer, because combat-ready Guard units have been tapped out."

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/breaking_news/10718639.htm

"“The reserves are pretty well shot” after the Pentagon makes the next troop rotation, starting this summer, said Robert Goldich, a defense analyst at the Congressional Research Service."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6861259

Just thought you would wanna know.

1. The ngb.mil source, states that Army National Guard troop strength is still less than 50% of total Army pesonnel deployed to Iraq (countering merh's point that the Guard makes up "the majority" of OIF deployed troops).

Since the Army Reserve is not part of the 'militia' defined by federal law at Title 10, Section 311:
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.,
Army Reserve troop strength does not factor into the equation.

2. Your statement, "there are no more combat ready Guard units to send" is false on its face.

For example- the 35th Infantry Division-Mechanized is headquartered at Fort Leavenworth, KS, and contains Army National Guard units from 6 states. Out of the 7 brigade-sized units (~3500 troops each) of the 35th Infantry Division, only 2 are deployed, leaving 5 brigades ready to answer the call. There are some separate units that are deployed, but ess than 1/2 of all soldiers in the Division are deployed (in units or individually), leaving more than half of all 35th Infantry Division soldiers "back home." If Wisconsin invades Illinois, the 35th Division is ready to respond!

BTW, I chose the 35th Infantry Division, because my old unit (Headquarters Troop, 1st Squadron, 167th Cavalry Regiment) is part of the 35th. http://www.neguard.com/unit/1-167cav/trooppage.htm.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

say your actions are legal. No percentage of the militia can be used for any other reason but to stop insurgencies or invasions. The constitution is quite clear. I am trying to find a copy of the ABC Town Meeting regarding the Iraq War. During that meeting Joe Wilson makes this point.

Why you want to explain away an illegal war is beyond me. The War Powers Act provides that only congress can declare war. It does not authorize congress to give the president the power to declare war or to make that determination.

If Joe Wilson (whom I have never heard of) said that the National Guard may only be called up by Congress in cases of insurrection or invasion, and that the Active Army is part of the "militia," then he is mistaken.

The Army, Navy (and Marine Corps), Air Force, and Coast Guard are not part of the 'militia."

Under federal laws, the "militia" is made up of two parts, the "organized militia" (since 1902, the National Guard and "naval militia,") and the "unorganized militia" (every able-bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45.) Under the law, Congress can order every male citizen aged 17-45 who can carry a rifle into a "Homeland Defense Corps" if the US is attacked, or if Minnesota attacks North Dakota, and can send any man who refuses to prison.

As you may know, the Army National Guard can be ordered into full-time service for military, public safety, or disaster-relief operations. That is because of Federal laws giving authority to activate the Guard to the President, in some things, and to the states' governors, in others.

The Guard served in Europe in World War II (my old unit fought in Italy, France, and Germany, as an example). Guard troops and aircraft served in Korea, and Viet Nam. I was activated and deployed for Operation Desert Storm, as a National Guard soldier. None of those wars involved an invasion or insurrection on US soil, yet they were legal uses of the Guard.

Every year, National Guard helicopters deliver food and water to remote places after blizzards, Guard engineering equipment builds levees and dams to protect against flooding (or to divert water already flooding), and the Guard responds to tornadoes and hurricanes. None of these disasters are invasions or insurrections, yet they are legal uses of the Guard.

National Guard MEDEVAC helicopters have transported sick and injured civilians between hospitals, and from accident scenes to trauma centers (the program was called MAST- Military Assistance to Safety and Traffic). None of those operations involved invasions or insurrections, yet they were legal uses of the Guard.

After 9/11, the National Guard was ordered to secure roads, buildings, airports, and water treatment facilities, and to assist law enforcement. National Guard units are activated for riot control duty.

All of those uses of the Guard are legal and constitutional uses of the Guard, as is their deployment to Iraq for OIF.

Short of sitting down with you and presenting a big pile of legal citations, constitutional law articles, and opinions by courts (which would be expensive for me to get from WESTLAW, since I would have to pay for the access), I don't see a way to show you that the Guard is being deployed in accordance with the Constitution and Federal law.

I wish I could. You are so wrong about this, merh.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

action. If part of the forces fighting this military action are the militia, that is a constitutional violation.

You cannot partially violate the constitution.

Those other duties you refer are duties assigned to the Guard by the States, not the feds. Don't you know that?

but that doesn't make it correct. Your personal interpretation of the Constitution is wrong.

Read this paragraph again:

"The Guard served in Europe in World War II (my old unit fought in Italy, France, and Germany, as an example). Guard troops and aircraft served in Korea, and Viet Nam. I was activated and deployed for Operation Desert Storm, as a National Guard soldier."

The National Guard has been deployed on Federal active duty, to take part in military operations that did not constitute repelling invasions or insurrections ON AMERICAN SOIL, since the National Guard was enacted by Federal law (at the time the Constitution was written, the National Guard did not exist. Any inclusion of the National Guard in "militia" had to be by Federal Law- the same laws that give the President the authority, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, to order the Guard onto Federal active duty.)

Those are the facts.

Now, unless you have something more solid than your personal opinion of the Constitution, we are at an impasse'. You think you are correct. I think you are incorrect. I have legal citations and history, and you have your opinion.

Unless we arm wrestle for it, I don't see a way to come to an agreement.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

make it constitutionally correct today. Two or three wrongs do not make a right.

Gosh, how hard is that to understand?

Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution places all forces, including the militia when in federal service, under the control of the executive branch by making the president Commander-in-Chief.

Here is Article II, section 2, clause 1: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."

Since the president has Constitutional authority to command the militia (defined now as the National Guard and the unorganized militia), his use of those troops is, by definition, constitutional.

The activation of the National Guard is regulated by Federal Law.

Unless, and until, the Supreme Court rules that those laws are unconstitutional, they are legally presumed to be constitutional, and valid (that is the way the system works in the United States).

The National Defense Act of 1916 spells out the president's authority to order the National Guard to Federal active duty. Information on the National Defense Act of 1916 may be found here:
http://www.arng.army.mil/history/Constitution/default.asp?ID=14

Unless and until the Supreme Court decides that The National Defense Act of 1916 is unconstitutional, or it is repealed by Congress, it is the law of the land.

Title 32 of the United States Code governs the National Guard.

Section 102 authorizes Congress to activate units or individuals of the National Guard, when Congress decides that the military needs of the United States exceed the available active troop strengths. Under that same law, National Guard troops and units may be activated "for as long as so needed." However, section 102 does not limit the authority to activate the Guard to Congress (in other words, Guard units or soldiers may be ordered to Federal active duty by either Congress or by the President.)

Unless and until the Supreme Court decides that section 102 is unconstitutional, or it is repealed by Congress, it is the law of the land.

Section 104 places the President in command of the units and individuals of the National Guard as part of being the Commander-in-Chief, and authorizes the President to appoint officers for the National Guard as subordinate commanders.

Unless and until the Supreme Court decides that section 104 is unconstitutional, or it is repealed by Congress, it is the law of the land.

Section 110 says, "The President shall prescribe regulations, and issue orders, necessary to organize, discipline, and govern the National Guard."

Unless and until the Supreme Court decides that section 110 is unconstitutional, or it is repealed by Congress, it is the law of the land.

Section 112 authorizes individuals and units of the National Guard to be activated under Federal orders for counter-drug operations within the United States.

Unless and until the Supreme Court decides that section 112 is unconstitutional, or it is repealed by Congress, it is the law of the land.

Section 113 authorizes the payment of money from the Federal budget to states, for National Guard duties performed under Federal orders that are not paid directly by the Federal budget.

Unless and until the Supreme Court decides that section 113 is unconstitutional, or it is repealed by Congress, it is the law of the land.

Do you see a pattern, merh?

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

Use of the militia to suppress insurrections and to defend against invasions.

How you try to complicate the simple.

That task was accomplished by Congress over the span of 200 years.

Those laws exist, and they are constitutional unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise.

There are only two ways to simplify the system:
1. If the Supreme Court decided that all of the Federal laws regulating the National Guard are unconstitutional.
2. If Congress repeals all the laws regulating the National Guard.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

or approved by congress does not mean they are constitutional.

http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/constitution/article03/13.html

The US Supreme Court declared that the judicial branch, and especially SCOTUS, were the arbiters of constitutionality, in Marbury v. Madison.

The legal principle flowing from Marbury, where laws are presumed to be constitutional unless and until the Supreme Court declares them to be unconstitutional, was decided in the early 1800s, and has been binding ever since. Here are some cases on point:

Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 213, 270 (1827); Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cr.) 87, 128 (1810); Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 531 (1871).

So, merh, Federal law, the US Constitution, the decisions of the US Supreme Court, and the history of the United States all go against your point. Ready to concede yet?

;-)

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

the militia as it has been used in Iraq.

But, it is time for me to deliver the final blow.

Waaaaay back at post #57, you introduced Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. If you may recall, that section said:

"to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions;"

Now, read it again, with the reasons that the militia may be called forth numbered, and color coded:

"to provide for calling forth the militia
1) to execute the laws of the Union,
2) suppress insurrections,
3) and repel invasions.

Are you seeing red, merh? You missed #1 before, didn't you? "To execute the laws of the Union" is right there in your citation. Don't believe me? Scroll up to your post #57 and see for yourself.

Go ahead, I'll wait. :-)

Since the militia may, according to your citation, be called to Federal active duty to execute the laws of the United States, and since the National Defense Act of 1916, all of Title 32 of the US Code, the War Powers Act, and "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution" (Public Law 102-1) are all laws of the United States, then the use of National Guard troops in Iraq is specifically permitted under the part of the Constitution you have cited.

Checkmate, merh. Well played.



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

language found in the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power ... To Declare War."
--- Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, The Constitution of the United States of America.

Congress can not transfer that power to the President. Our very wise founding fathers in drafting the Constitution divided the federal government into three independent branches, and authorizedd the powers of each branch. Each branch of government may have no power other than that authorized by the Constitution.

Our Constitution endows Congress with the power to declare war. Once war is declared, Article II, Section 2, authorizes the President, as the Commander in Chief, to execute the war. But the Constitution does not authorize the President to declare war or to determine when war should be waged. Every action of the federal government must legally conform to the Constitution, including resolutions such as the resolution authorizing "use of the military". Our Constitution is not a statement of principles or a mere expression of ideals or political philosophy. It is black-letter law - it is the supreme law of the land. Its provisions are fully operative, like any federal statute, but more important and more powerful than any federal statute because any statute that violates the constitution is illegal. Every action of the federal government must legally conform to constitutional rules. The President and every member of Congress swears to uphold the Constitution; meaning he or she swears to uphold the law.

War was not declared by Congress. Congress cannot transfer the power to declare war to the executive branch. President Bush is not above this law - nor is the Congress of the United States. Our founding fathers insisted that the decision to go to war was to be made by the legislative branch of government, not the executive. Their reasoning was simple: it is far too dangerous to place the power to wage war in the hands of a single individual.

I stand by my posts.

I'll say this for you, merh, you are one persistent Black Knight.

You're mistaken, but you're persistent.

You've listed a whole bunch of "is's", "can nots", "may have nots,", "is nots", and some of your own very weighty legal pronouncements- all of which are mistaken. So far, you are batting .000, but you are still swinging for the bleachers .

You have ignored the the plain language of the Constitution, a laundry list of Federal laws that are constitutional until proven otherwise, several legal citations, and the evidence of 200 years (all of which argue against your position), in favor of your own idea (which is completley unsupported, and in fact contradicted by the only evidence you have provided to date.)

If you truly believe your position to be the correct interpretation of the Constitution, then you should contact Alan Dershowitz and see if he'll file a suit against the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Department of Defense, the Attorney General of the United States, and the Supreme Court, on your behalf. You may singlehandedly change the course of history!

It might be hard to find a high court to hear your case, though, if the Supreme Court has to recuse itself.



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

Supreme Court's role is to interpret the laws passed by Congress and to decide if they abide by or violate the Constitution. In 1801, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Congress alone had the "whole powers of war" (Talbot v. Seeman, 1801).

The War Powers Act of 1973 authorizes the President to start a war so long as he notifies Congress, which then has 60 days to authorize the action. If Congress disapproves, the president must withdraw forces after another 30 days. It is argued by many that this "act" was illegal because it was passed by joint resolution rather than by the individual chambers of Congress, and it unconstitutionally delegates power to the President..

If "many" have argued such, then you should have no trouble citing those arguments, and the venue in which they have made those arguments. If your "arguments" are on the pages of newspapers or blogsites, then they are worthless as cites. However, if you have some Supreme Court cases on point, feel free to share them.

I'll be out of town until Sunday afternoon, but I'll check in and see if you found any legitimate citations to argue your latest point.

Have a good weekend!



Riding into the sun,

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

I read Talbot v. Seeman. Once again, you have used a citation that destroys your own case.

In the decision on Talbot, Justice John Marshall wrote, "The whole powers of war, being by the constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this enquiry". (emphasis added)

Guess what, merh. The "acts of that body (Congress)" that are germaine to our discussion were "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution" (Public Law 102-1) and the Iraq War Resolution.

Congress acted in a constitutional manner, fully in accordance with the decision in Talbot, when it passed each of those statutes. Unless and until the Supreme Court rules that those laws and resolutions are unconstitutional, they stand as the legitimate law of the United States.

And now for the coup-de-grace, merh:

If you get a chance this weekend, read the Supreme Court decision of United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. 299 U.S. 304 (1936). It is the Supreme Court decision that grants the President more power than what is enumerated in the Constitution, when dealing with strictly external matters. It cancels the absolutism in Talbot because it is a newer case.
(http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/395/)

As always, it's been nice talking to you. I hope you have a nice weekend!

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

invading Iraq. That is treason.

"Treason" has a specific legal definiton. "Lying" is not part of it. If it was, Clinton would have been a traitor, too, and I certainly don't think he was.


The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

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

You appear to be operating without the facts necessary to make an informed statement. Let me help you.

Here is a link to the US Constitution:
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Here is Article III, Section 2, which defines "treason":
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Under the US Constitution, there are only two acts that can be called "treason" for the purpose of impeaching the President:

1. Making war against the United States.
2. Providing "aid" and "comfort" to another country that is making war against the United States, or its soldiers.

So, should I report you to the mods for your foul language and "freeper" accusation, or should I give you one opportunity to apologize?

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.
(but I may make an exception, just this once).

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

You made a statement, but did not provide evidence to support it.

"Provide aid and comfort" is a phrase with a specific definition, used in treason prosecutions for the past two hundred years. If you can explain how Bush "adhered to the enemy, and provided him aid and comfort", I'll concede the point.

However, if you feel the need to revert to poorly-worded invective, I'll just have to tell the study hall monitor that you have been misuding the school computer again!

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

I think I read it in Newsweek, but anyway, this is what happened: Kerry was asked the question, near the Grand Canyon, and it was windy, and he didn't hear it right. He thought it was the same old question he had heard and answered a hundred times. But this time they were asking a slightly different one.
After he realized the error, he directed someone on the staff to make a correcting statement, but it didn't happen. He assumed it had been corrected, and didn't realize until later that the error had been left to stand as it was.

Kerry still won the election--mistakes or no mistakes--and certainly Bush made more than a few.

for one thing, he could have helped expose the problems so that more people would be aware now.

his decisions have directly affected our efforts to repair our democracy. he still walks around saying "bush got more votes."

You don't hear David Cobb saying that do you?

The point about the timing of the concession speech is minor but it's worth noting because his concession affected the minds of millions. at that point everyone gave up. even today democrats don't want to hear about election fraud.

if there was a fight, can you imagine how much awareness would have been raised. All these tired democrats who actually elected Kerry wouldn't be sick of politics and tired of hearing about it all now. They would enraged, like many were after what Gore did in 2000. but instead, they don't even question the results because Kerry never did.

don't you think there was a good chance of it creating a small civil war in this country.You have some Republicans who believe everything the media tells them, ready to fight for *. And Dems they are still p*ssed about 2000,plus more dems learning 2000 and 2004 election were both stolen,all while getting fired up ready to fight with and for Kerry.

Then the supreme court ends up putting * in office and all hell breaks loose throughout the country. Fighting, rioting at that point the country goes from bad to worse.


I kinda think it might be what the country needs,but I would not want to be in Kerrys shoes, having been the one that created it.

Just my thought on it.

Sore loser, draining his (non-existent) political capital, hurting the (weak, lackluster, repuke-light) Dem party, turning the country to civil war, etc. etc.--Everyone who is still defending him keeps citing all the bad things that might have happened to him if he had stepped up to claim his prize, our prize actually.

Would some one please explain to me WHY he wants to put himself into this perilous position again in 2008? Thanks in advance.

I especially would like to hear from garybeck on this one.

Do you have a link to that story, I haven't heard that he was running in 2008. But I think it would be up to "we the people" whether Kerry decides to run again. I'm still holding out hope he will become prez within this year.

but I've read it a million times here at DU.

The point of my post was that if he was so worried about what the repukes would do to his reputation/political future, etc., why in the hell would he want to run again? He won this time, we got screwed, not to mention the world got screwed.

"We the people" will decide. You've got to be kidding.

Kerry had 24 hours after the election,if "we the people" would have been in the streets at that time,he would have fought with us.But we were not there. Now we can blame Kerry for that or we can get ready for our next chance,which will be if he gets the recount in Ohio and finds out he won. That will be our next cue to act. If "we the people" don't act I would not blame Kerry for never running again.Thats what I meant by "we the people" will make his decision.

congress. You have no idea how it really works up there if you can write comments like this: "draining his (non-existent) political capital, hurting the (weak, lackluster, repuke-light) Dem party".

QUESTION:
"Would some one please explain to me WHY he wants to put himself into this perilous position again in 2008? Thanks in advance."

ANSWER:
Because he loves this nation as much, if not more, than you and I. Funny thing, some people really want to make the USA the best it can be. Some folks are willing to put themselves out there to try to make a difference rather than just critizing and judging on a message board.

Except further division of a nation in a time of war.

The fight and the investigation continues and if it continues in relative silence, there is a chance that evidence that would have been destroyed if it was fought loudly can still be discovered. Lulling the guilty into a false sense of security affords the opportunity to investigate and capture them with their hands in the cookie jar.

If anything, the slow, almost mind numbing pace of the existing litigation should clue everyone in on how frustrating and unpredictable the pace of litigation such as this can be.

Election fraud litigation is some of the most difficult to pursue.

In response to the OP's query, nothing would have changed relative to the issues, we would be where we are now. However, the Democratic Party would be have been harmed -- we would have been seen as sore losers and conspiracy theorists. I would rather it be the bloggers who are seen that way until we can prove the crime and/or change the legislation to prevent further thefts. When your power base is weak, you don't harm your credibility, it just further weakens your base.

awareness is key

every time he says "bush got more votes" he hurts our cause.

truth -- until fraud and theft are proven, that is the truth. Working within the constraints of the LAW is not easy, but it is what we must do.

You ought to study the issues and the law - things are not as black and white as you would like them to be.

law or now law, he is perpetuating a lie.

he's a candidate first, and a lawyer second.

and no, it's not the truth anyway. it's only what the official numbers say. there is no proof. there is nothing to back up the claim that Bush got more votes, other than claims made by Diebold and ES&S which are extremely partisan companies and have not allowed anyone to see how they tabulated the votes.



I have never heard Kerry even say a word about electronic voting, diebold, etc. that is a travesty to our cause.

the only time he mentions problems, it's only in Ohio and it's about machine allocation.

why is it OK for him to mention long lines in ohio but not electronic voting problems? How about the thousands of compliants that were regeistered on the hotline? How about machines defaulting to Bush? I could go on and on...

But he just says "bush got more votes" and every time he says this he is lulling everyone to sleep, especially democrats, at a time when no one realizes we don't even live in a democracy.

Why did he sit back and allow the machines in NM to have their memory erased, when there were many signs of fraud?

Why did the green party have to be the one to even try to have a recount there? Are you saying that Cobb is wrong, or acting outside the law by trying to get recounts, simply because fraud has not been proven? Your argument does not make any sense to me. Kerry should be doing everything Cobb did and there is no reason, legal or otherwise, why he shouldn't.

Law, or now law, he is not helping the cause. He's hindering it. He should look to Cobb as an example on what he should have done.

Because of his inaction, people like us are not only having to try to fix the system, we also have to spend all our time trying to convince people there's even a problem at all.

proven. It is not perpetuating a lie. As of this moment all of the SOS of the state's certified to the election results, the electoral college meet and decided who their votes would go to and congress accepted the votes -- THAT IS THE TRUTH

You are not alone in your efforts. Stop thinking you are.

he does mention long lines, and not enough machines at the voting places thats also the truth. Which is why I think Kerry is zeroing in on the fixed recount,the truth has and will come out in that area, if he gets the full recount. Correct?

obviously Bush is in office.

However, the recount in Ohio was done illegally.

and the TRUTH is that partisan companies produced electronic voting machines that conceal what happens after a person votes. there is no way to know what happened. exit polls indicate something fishy went on.

He still has yet to speak a word about the real problem - electronic voting - and it's not "faulty machines," it's fraud.

I guess you're saying he should say or do anything until it's proven in a court of law? I disagree 100%. If there ever is a trial on this, no one is going to even know about it because the press is going to bury it. Unless Kerry talks it up publically but based on his track record I doubt he will.

other candidates speak the truth. Cobb.

other candidates in other countries do what they should when there is an appearance of fraud. Ukraine.

Kerry THWARTED the legal efforts of the Alliance for Democracy. Kerry ALLOWED the e-voting machine's memory to be erased in New Mexico.

His lack of action has hindered the truth from getting out.

by the way, I don't think I'm alone in my efforts. I know I'm not. I don't know where you got that.

I'm just saying that Kerry is not leading this fight, as he could and should be, and his decisions have actually hindered the fight.

as has been stated, he conceded before the election observers EVEN HAD A CHANCE TO MAKE THEIR REPORTS!

By the way, you know all those 17,000 lawyers? Some of them are pretty pissed off. It's not just me.

Look, I'm not trying to bash Kerry. I still think he would be a good president. I just think he handled this thing horribly. I hope to God that someday I eat my words and I can look back and see that this entire thing was all planned out by him and his lawyers and the truth finally came out and it would not have happened unless they did it this way. I used to think that's what was going on, but I'm highly doubtful at this point. Now I just think they're trying to save face because people are pissed off at all the money they didn't spend.

and Kerry for the judge's activity or inactivity in the case? Do you blame the party or Kerry for being required to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that sets forth time for the filing and answering and rebuttal to motions? Do you blame the party and Kerry for having to resort to FOLLOWING THE LAW?

Well tell those pissed off members of the 17,000 lawyers to donate their time to the litigation that is pending in Ohio. There are 3 suits in federal court that I know of (and I am just a simple lay person, but I can find out these things) and there is the call for sanctions that the Ohio 4 faces in State Court. If they are so pissed then tell them to put their anger to good use and help those who are still litigating this.

"Kerry THWARTED the legal efforts of the Alliance for Democracy. Kerry ALLOWED the e-voting machine's memory to be erased in New Mexico." Kerry did this himself - Gov. Richardson had nothing to do with this? Kerry is solely responsible???

My God, he is not a knight in armor, he is a man. For someone not bashing Kerry, you do a damned fine job of blaming him for everything. Your failure to see beyond your anger and "disappointment" is clouding your judgment.

because he didn't ask for a recount or anything. Green party tried everything they could. Kerry, dems did nothing.

No I don't blame Kerry for the judge's inactivity. have I ever suggested anything like that?

I repeat, if Kerry had done what Cobb did I would not be complaining. Everything Cobb did was within the law. There's nothing in the law that says Kerry had to never say a word about the problems with e-voting. there's nothing in the law that says he couldn't have LED the fight instead of followed what Cobb did.

if you want to keep talking about law, remember, someone has to make an accusation in order for there to be an investigation or trial. you can't say he should keep his mouth shut and never say a word until it's proven that fraud took place.

wouldn't make a difference.

Stop blaming Kerry for your woes. Stop blaming the victim of the crime for the crime.

What benefit do you foresee should Kerry say "they stole it from it, there was fraud"? Just what benefit????

I never said I blame Kerry for everything that went wrong. Indeed, he didn't steal the election.

I only think it is proper to point out some things that he did or didn't do, which I think were mistakes. Isn't this a free country? Aren't I allowed to believe that?

With all due respect, you got on my case saying something about how he was doing the legal thing by not doing anything. somehow you were implying that he would have been breaking the law by asking for a recount, because fraud hadn't been proven yet. that does not make sense. There's nothing that says fraud has to be proven before you can ask for a recount. Every state has its own laws about asking for a recount.

The fact is that if it were left to Kerry, there never even would have been a recount in Ohio. Think of all the evidence that has come out from the recount that we would not know about today.

We're all entitled to our opinions based on our perception. You are entitled to defend Kerry all you want, to the death if you choose. I should be allowed to point out FACTS without you jumping on me saying that there's some legal reason he couldn't ask for recounts.

I still believe he would have made a good president and I wish he were in office. Maybe this will clear something up for you. I am not in any way saying that I think Kerry could have done something to overturn the election. I think that was a done deal. The courts were stacked all the way to the top. But certain key decisions he made have thwarted the efforts to get the truth out.

in the election results with Kerry -- why hasn't he come out and blasted the air waves with his position? Why has he remained silent? It was his election too! :shrug:

You're expectations are unreasonable. (imho)

Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral college vote. He challenged, all hell broke lose and he f'ckin' lost anyway. We were not in war and as vulnerable as we are today. Actions like the ones you fantasize about would have made our nation more vulnerable and weaker than it is today and our economy probably would have collasped.

9/11 justifies electoral fraud?

heads in the clouds dreaming of how things could have been if only if, need to understand that the fight is not over, the investigation no where near complete and the battle no where near as simple as you would like it to be.

So Gore challenged in 2000, what did that accomplish? They still stole 2004. He walked away after the challenge and nothing more was done. Well, I think more is being done this time, it is not just a one time roll of the dice, but a more involved effort and an effort over a longer period of time than just the short span that was Gore v. Bush.

Kerry maintaining his credibility and reputation in the Senate is key to the effort.

because I agree with you, and I am thinking right along your lines.What is the possible outcome of all this, in your opinion? The wildest scenario to the most modest.

I try to be upbeat but moments of despair occasionally seep through

times! If you see any of my posts that appear to be slipping into despair, please give me a kick in the ass and a reminder that sulking over the loss is a waste of energy that is necessary to fight the evil piles of steaming dung that are trying to destroy my nation!

Go here and read paragraph two. http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=232268

I'm not talking about faulty voting machines.

I'm talking about partisan companies restricting our access to open and fair elections. I'm talking about an appearance of fraud.

they're not faulty.

they work perfectly fine if you ask the republicans.

this is just another example of how Kerry has failed to address the issue.

Kerry. The integrity of our democracy is at stake. I don't understand the game plan of the democrats, if there is one. I do know that we must make the American People aware of the travesty. Kerry won the election, Gore won in 2000. The corporate sponsored enablers who had access to votes MUST be held responsible for their actions! It is up to every informed person to get the word out.

have happened? What would he say the next day? How long would he have waited?

See Post 19 -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=335598&mesg_id=335768&page=

for my reasons why I think he didn't concede

but a quick synopsis of that post is that as far as I know, all we had on the day after the election in Ohio (the "State" being looked at as the final call) is voter suppression (Which the SOS of Ohio completely denied happened) -- and even after the election, when "glitches" were starting to be talked about they were always framed in the way that this was not unusual... it's just that people were more aware of them at the time. (Not that I believe that, mind you -- but what was being portrayed in the media).

Even Today no one has found the smoking gun, to bring the * Administration down.

It’s easy for us to have our opinions and think about what could have happened differently if Kerry, indeed, did not concede. I would like to hear from people here who believe he should have waited it out about what they think

1. he would say in order to do this
2. what the press would do, (how they would have handled it)
3. how the Votes would have been recounted (or the election deemed “False” and then re-voted). Would it just have been Ohio?
4. How the populous would have reacted
5. how long he should wait before conceeding
6. If the word “fraud” would be used at first – or later
7. etc.

I’m truly curious to see what people think would have played out here – for right now, I cannot see how this could have played out any other way and him keeping what political power he currently has (as noted in his travels to the Middle East and Europe http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/01/15/kerry_urges_repairing_us_europe_ties/ ).

Start from the time the exit polls switched if you want -- or start the next morning. But would have changed? What would have stayed the same? Why?



edit for clarity

with the election fraud than Kerry, that we are more informed. Just like the war, how did we know that it was a bogus war, but the senators who voted for it didn't?

Are we supposed to say to ourselves, they just don't have the time to inform themselves, they just don't understand, that we understand better than they do?

None of this computes for me. Until further notice, I think of them as undependable, very bad, even treasonous people. (Of course, not counting the few that see what is before their eyes and have spoken up about it.)

Aides who inform them of what is going on. We tend to forget how busy these people are. They don't have time to search on the Internet to find out the real news. They depend on their aides to summarize the news and give them an update.

WE are not the norm. WE are the informed. And we can spend hours reading about what is going on in the world, from all points of view. This is not the case for everyone. Politicians for the most part, only have their aides research items on which they are to vote.

And, as to the war..............Senators did NOT vote to go to war. That is a repub spin. They voted to project a show of force, war was to be the LAST resort. Kerry made a long speech about it, with his vote.

Did Kerry and his team make mistakes? Yes. But, everyone makes mistakes, that is how most of us learn. I will not condemn this man because he made mistakes, or did not do what I would have wanted him to do. We have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. His 20+ years in DC, has given him insight into what can and can't be done. We can only hope that he knows what he is doing.

I'm sorry, but I will NOT bash our own. I believe that trashing people solves nothing and will only divide us.

zalinda

the noise to find the real gem of news information. I DID expect my politicians to be on top of it. That's part of their job IMHO.

Kerry dumped us. I don't know why, but it certainly made people think that election fraud didn't happen and that computer voting is just Okey-Dokey. The vast majority of people don't know who's counting the votes (many would be appalled). They don't know how slipshod vote security is. Many don't understand how stupid computers really are and thats why you need extensive testing before going live. They don't realize that voter registration is being more computerized and that little "glitches" are keeping registered voters from voting cuz suddenly they aren't in the database. Many didn't know that lots of provisional ballots were tossed. I only learned about vote spoilage in 2000 thanks to Gore's tenacity. I had no idea so many minority votes were being tossed.

There's a lot more things to be highlighted - many of which are now being brought up in national and state legislation - that people don't know about in the 2004 election because Kerry didn't shine the spotlight. Of course he'd have to fight through the media, but some of it would filter through. I bet he'd get coverage if he went to individual station local news and gave them interviews. Maybe the national legislation would have some legs on it if Kerry was there to lead the charge. He also could be leading the charge in teach-ins, web sites, disseminating information, petition drives, state legislation (in case the national falls through), even a constitutional amendment for voters rights. He could be putting the heat on in Ohio to make sure Ken Blackwell goes to jail, or if there are not laws to put his ass in jail for failing to follow state law on the recount, then get Ohio (and all other states) to pass legislation so the next Ken Blackwell/Katherine Harris/Glenda Hood goes down.

He bailed. He might have gotten the Ohio electors overturned, but more importantly he would have been a leader when the Democrats (and America) needed one.

Did Dean grow up middle class? He seems to get that the populous is really the power of the democratic party. Edwards grew up middle class/poor and he seemed to get it. Maybe you have had to strive a little in life to get it.

Maybe Kerry thought he was avoiding a civil war. I don't think it would have come to that. A lot of moderate Republicans (after all their primaries have probably been hacked, too) and most of the Dems would have come over to our side. People may have died in riots, I don't know, but then people are dieing from lack of health care or amoral companies (Vioxx anyone?) every day.

I think more likely Kerry was only thinking of the 2004 election and didn't see his fighting it as winning it. He was afraid of looking like a sore loser and effecting his 2008 campaign. He was stuck in that mental box of most politicians of seeing everything as legislation, fighting in courts, petition drives, raising funds. This was much bigger than that. He disappointed me, but I'm giving him a year to see if he was doing some heavy stuff behind the scenes. I'm still thinking the SAIC, Choicepoint and now Bank of America thefts are for a higher purpose. I really hope we still have some good guys left.

and I don't believe he "dumped us" at all. Before one takes legal action, or even "shines a spotlight" on something, there needs to be PROOF. It was probably a very frustrating decision for Kerry - he had no proof, he didn't have the votes Gore had (and look what the media and the rethugs did to Gore), and while he may have known it wasn't right, he really had no choice. Maybe he would have retained his integrity with a small percentage of Du'ers, but he would have been made to look like an ass by the RW media. The whole party would have suffered. I don't think there's anything the RW does better than SPIN, and in my opinion, they would have crucified Kerry. I don't believe anything good would have been accomplished by his not conceding. These are evil people, and they would have done anything and everything to discredit him.

I honestly can't believe, that the day of the heartbreaking loss, when he had to make his decision to concede, that he was thinking of '08. I'm just not that cynical. He had to be devastated, even more than we all were, and I doubt very much he was thinking of '08 on that day. It was probably all the more painful because he KNEW he won, and there wasn't a damn thing he could do about it.

I'm happy to hear that Kerry/Edwards are still involved in Ohio, and I believe that if there is concrete evidence it will be found. How long should he have waited to concede? The evidence is apparently still not there, should he still be waiting, due to suspicion of fraud? I think not. I really don't think he had any choice.

could find some solid data in Ohio.
This is an exciting idea. We're very close now. Professor Phillips has Bush's lead down to either 10,298 or a Kerry lead of 6,250. However, this includes 30,000 "votes" that were illegitimately lost by Kerry due to Voting Rights Act violations. These are not in the computes. They add up to about 30,000 votes, in three areas cited by Phillips in his article "Estimated Vote Count in Ohio": Columbus, Cleveland and Toledo. In Cleveland, he lists 17,500 votes as effected by BOTH vote migration (a computer-based irregularity) and low turnout due to non-allocation of voting machines. This means about 6,000 votes still have to be found, to make up for the 6,000 of this that is actuall "disenfranchised voters" rather than computer-based data.
In Columbus and Toldeo, Philips cites a total of 24,000 votes that were not allowed to be cast, again a violation of Voting Rights.
But that total--6,000 plus 24,000= 30,000, has to be subtracted from the 101,000 inflated figure claim.
But the good news is we still have 73 more counties--and, at an average of 324 votes per county, statistically, in terms of numbers that could be found in the computers--we might actually get there.
And this would be something that could be put together and presented as evidence in court that the election was simply counted wrong, and that an incorrect computer tally resulted.
This is new legal ground. Possibly--or probably--we're still overcome by the GOP-orientation of the courts involved. However, because it's new, gray area legal ground, there's room for some optimism--and also for optimism that the media might want to publish it.
So, let's hope there's enough in the computers in those other 73 counties to turn this around. It doesn't seem to be an unrealistic hope, at all.
I'm just impatient to see it happen. If Phillips' group's stats are shown to be enough "in the computers" the computer audit could be a very real possible legal argument.

running the clock and so were the Courts. Kerry did basically file an injunction protecting the evidence in the machines and they haven't even acted yet. With no "proof" available to them, and "real proof' not some pie in the sky conspiracy theory, he couldn't prove his case. And certainly not in time. Kerry is a prosecutor.He knows what he is doing. Edwards knows as well. If anyone could have done it quickly it would have been those two. If you believe that Kerry sold out , you have to believe John and Elizabeth Edwards did as well. I don't.
It would have made me happy if they waited a bit longer. I think Edwards would have preferred that as well.But you know what, it would have been just window dressing to make folks like us feel better. That being said. the suits are still pending. Maybe someday we will gety the truth. Something happened. Blackwell is too scared and evidence is mounting in other states as well.
The bigger story is what the GOP nationally did in local elections across the board. In my state a huge story is about to burst, and watch for Iowa as well. New Mexico is dead because of Richrardson. He hung us all out to dry.He is a PNAC pawn. Imagine a Dem Governor erasing evidence and refusing to do a recount in a close state. If he is EVER considered for anything , I will campaign against him. There is your traitor.

I should poll the GD:P people and see how many in the general population of DU, outside of the election forum, believe in the fraud.

I'm wondering how much room for disagreement there is. Are the ones who don't believe misinformed or uninformed? Or are they seeing reality? Even among those whom we look to and expect to be informed, people like Al Franken and others don't believe, and some like Randi and Olbermann do.

So even among our informed population, there is much disagreement.

In Sept. Ted Carter's one single overwhelming concern was massive fraud. I knew, They (Kerry/Edwards) knew, what could happen.
On Nov. 3rd at the Broward county K/E headquarters,All we talked about was the incredible job they did of sucking up the huge numbers we threw at them.
They did a great job.

contesting if it weren’t the closeness of the race? The gap was not under 1,000 as in Florida 2000 but over 100,000 in Ohio. 2004. So was Kerry just supposed to throw his hand up in a press conference the November 3rd and say This is not over yet, I believe that there were things wrong with this election and I want an investigation, now. While suppression was known in Ohio -- when the Secretary of State denies that there was a problem in Ohio the day after the Election, and says "We had a very good election" and implores everyone to just "breathe deep" how would Kerry calling for an investigation change things?

There is still no real "smoking gun" -- though people are working on this tirelessly -- people who believe that something happened, but cannot, even now, with all of the documentation in the US get a rise out of the general public, or definitively say This is what happened folks, This is who did it, This is How, and This is why.

But, some say, if Kerry went out there on November 3rd and demanded more investigation into the disenfranchisement in Ohio (that's all we had at the time to go on), it would have made a difference. I wish with all my heart I could say they are right, but after what they did to Gore and his recount efforts, I just don't see it.

Actually, if this had happened I do not think we'd be in the same place we are right now. I actually believe we've moved this issue up a few notches, because we've made it NOT about Kerry -- but about the Democratic process and free, open and transparent elections. I don't believe the press would have been kind to Kerry halting things for an investigation -- hell, they could care less that our White House is a propaganda machine even with real information regarding this at their fingertips and for something as amorphous as Election Fraud to them (and ultimately the general public) they would simply have let the Republicans spin, spin spin spin.

People would have been even more divided than they are now about Kerry's action or inaction because it wouldn't have changed anything (Blackwell would have STILL done all he could do to delay the certification (although granted, we only know that because we've just lived through it, I truly think that one of the reasons Kerry did pull back is because he knew something was brewing with Blackwell – hell, the man had lawsuits in the courts that were decided on even ON the day of the election (specifically here, about the challengers in the poll places) )-- and Kerry would have been seen as a sore loser, much like Gore (maybe worse than Gore).

Bush would have still been inaugurated. Members of the House and Senate may still have stood to show their support -- but the media still would have neglected to tell the general public that these Senators and Members of the House received thousands, if not tens of thousands of pieces of correspondence urging them to take action. When the media doesn't inform the general public that large groups are fighting for our own Democracy , and instead, pin the contested election on a Feisty Barbara Boxer and Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, the general public is missing the entire picture. Would they have reported this differently if Kerry led the action? Would they have still called those of us Protesting in Ohio and other states "sore losers?" I tend to think so. But I’ could be wrong.

And let us not forget, Fallujah was already on the books to be an issue -- and I believe that was a strategy the * administration planned.... look at Kerry counting votes when our troops are doing the Hard work at keeping us free... This article says it better than I could, though http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm

It’s easy for us to have our opinions and think about what could have happened differently if Kerry, indeed, did not concede. I would like to hear from people here who believe he should have waited it out about what they thought

1. he would say in order to do this
2. what the press would do, (how they would have handled it)
3. how the Votes would have been recounted (or the election deemed “False” and then re-voted). Would it just have been Ohio?
4. How the populous would have reacted
5. how long he should stay in concession
6. If the word “fraud” would be used at first – or later
7. etc.

I’m truly curious to see what people think would have played out here – for right now, I cannot see how this could have played out any other way and him keeping what political power he currently has (as noted in his travels to the Middle East).

For me, unless Kerry was/is holding a golden trump card in his hand that detailed/s everything, and he simply miscalculated when to play it, there really wasn't/isn't much he could do with the hand he was dealt. But I’d like to know how you would have played the hand differently.

I suppose I could pm him. But since he made his comments out here, I wanted some answers out here.
Whatsa girl gotta do to get arrested in this town.

or anything that drastic.... :hi:

Don't mind me. I'll just go get tarted up and see if I can't make a buck or two in the land of the free and the home of family values.

Hey, sailor, you want to have fun... I love you long time... TEN CENTS A DAAAAAANCE...

in Ukraine would he be president? oh sorry, we only protest elections when Bush and Co (read the US government)say it's okay.

and the Ukranians are willing to do things, like stand out in frigid cold. Can't for the life of me picture a large group of Americans doing that. I don't care what Bush had to or didn't have to do with the election, it was still the Ukrainian people willing to risk frostbite for what they wanted.

We, Kemosabi? That wasn't we the people. That was them the people. If we the people en mass had felt similarly about this election, nothing should have stopped us from doing just what the Ukraine did.

But alas, here we are in our underwear, in front of a computer screen, eating cheetos and bitching about the election.

And that wasn't a simple question. That was the setup for a punchline.

in Ohio -- and people looked at our signs and some smiled, and some were visibly upset -- others yelled during the demonstration. Many were angry that we would even "question" the powers-that-be without standing around to hear why were were even there....

Even people in my general family think I'm a little "overboard" about this election mess -- some say it won't make any difference, it's been happening for years, it's over, get over it.... you know the song.

I stood in the cold rain Nov 1st with something like 10000, I think was the estimate, just to see the guy I thought would be the next president. I couldn't feel my feet by the end. It is said that Kerry was quite touched by the number of drowned rat Dems waiting for him that day.

Folks around here who are good and solid liberal Dems say the same. "Get over it!"

Never.

A Conservative friend of mine said the same. She voted for Bush, and considering she's an Evangelical (albeit a generally conservative independant one who hates politics) I think she voted for evil incarnate. And if she gave a damn, I would hope she'd be with me in the fight. It is as much a fight against evil to me as a political fight. It's tied into my faith and my value system. As such, I can't believe more religious folk can't see it. So glad most in my church can. Bless their Liberal Lutheran hearts.

for the guy who is working to find this thread out of 20,000 other threads.

Next time, if you're so impatient for an answer, PM me.

...personal matter of bashing Kerry or defending him. And we have to look at this thing--election fraud, election reform and the future of our country--strategically.

And before I get off this topic, I just want to ask a point of information: LittleClarkie, you wrote, "Do you accept his given reason, that he just didn't want to see the country divided any more?"

I never heard that Kerry said that. (I remember Gore said something like that.) Do you have a citation for that, or is it just a guess or a paraphrase?

-----

I cannot help but sympathize with garybeck's remarks and questions. That's how I FEEL--betrayed and abandoned. However, what do you do AFTER you have been betrayed and abandoned? You just have to get up on your feet, assess your situation as best you can, and act in your best interests, and in the best interests of all concerned.

You see, I think the betrayal and abandonment is much deeper and much more serious than anything this one man, the candidate, Kerry, did or didn't do.

I think the betayal was pervasive among the Democratic Party leaders, the DNC, and those advising Kerry.

We have a party that

1) Permitted known Bush supporters--a Bush/Cheney campaign chair, for heaven's sake--to gain control over our voting SYSTEM, with SECRET, proprietary source code, and paperless voting. Not a peep out of our leadership on this matter, BEFORE, during or after the election. They should have been screaming bloody murder about this OBVIOUSLY, BLATANTLY, EGREGIOUSLY fraudulent election SYSTEM.

2) Supported Bush's Mideast War and continue to support it.

Nearly 60% of Americans oppose the Iraq war, now, today. That MAJORITY has little or no representation in Congress or anywhere in the federal government.

The MAJORITY of voters--by a margin of 4% to 6%--voted to oust the Bush Cartel, and put a decent, intelligent man in the White House. Many didn't agree with Kerry's stance on the war but they could see that he is a better man than Bush in every way. (And if you don't believe that, then you are simply ignorant. You need to read the documentation below.)

So, by the time that Kerry--the individual candidate--got to election night, 11/2--he was already in a seriously compromised position. The Bush Cartel had boxed him in, with the attack on Fallujah the following week, an attack in a war that he supports. They had stolen the election from him in a virtually untraceable way, with electronic fraud--in a voting SYSTEM that neither he nor other party leaders had not objected to. And then, the ONLY EVIDENCE OF FRAUD that was obtainable that night--the Exit Polls showing a Kerry win--was hidden by the TV networks.

The TV networks ALTERED the Exit Poll data--those figures everybody was watching on their TV screens--to fit the "official tally" that was coming from BushCon controlled central vote tabulators.

Exit Polls are used worldwide to verify elections and check for fraud. This election, here in the US, cried out for verification, because electronic voting machines (and highly suspect ones at that) were being used nationwide for the first time.

But the TV networks did not let Americans see that evidence.

So he had nothing but Ohio--which was wildly in dispute. Yes, he could have held out until at least the voting was complete, or the counting. But the first Exit Poll analysis report (the only way to check for fraud in a secret vote counting system)--the reports based on screen shots of the early polls--didn't come out, as I recall, until about Nov. 10 or 11. And the complete Exit Poll data was withheld for months.

We have a system of betrayal here that is profound. And if Kerry had decided to buck it, at that point--an unlikely decision, given his views on the war, and his failure to object to this inherently fraudulent election system--he would have been facing a fraudulently elected, BushCon-controlled Congress that would not have voted against Bush no matter WHAT evidence was presented. Those BushCon Pod People in Congress were prepared to spin ANYTHING that Kerry or anyone else had sent their way. (Bear in mind, these are the same people who recently said, on the floor of the Senate, that the DEMOCRATS were being RACIST by opposing Condoleeza Rice, an African-American woman! Heard it with my own ears. They could've been shown photos of George Bush and Dick Cheney murdering Democratic voters, and it would have made no difference.)

So here is what I'm getting at. People who are hating and reviling Kerry, personally, for the decision he made that night--and detesting him for not helping us expose this fraud--are aiming at the easiest, most visible target, and are ignoring the CONTEXT of which he was a part--a political party that had left most Americans ignorant of the perils of electronic voting, and of who was "counting" our votes in secret; political party leaders who didn't feel the same way about the Iraq war that most Americans felt, and that had several reasons for supporting Mideast war (one of them being to surround Israel with US military protection); a political party that had long sneered at, and had itself acted to disempower, the grass roots, and that had become besotted with big time campaign donations, with military porkbarrel and with corporate ties (ask yourself who signed NAFTA into law--it wasn't Bush); a news media that has proven itself beneath contempt, in its warmongering and propagation of lies upon lies; and a political party IN POWER--or rather, a fascist faction of that party in power--that ruthlessly tramples over people and laws in its bloodthirsty pursuit of the last oil reserves on earth.

If you think of Kerry as isolated from the context--yeah, it seems like he and he alone decided to betray and abandon the grass roots people who elected him president. But it's just not that simple, and if you make it that simple, you miss everything. You miss what we have to do to get our country back.

Your anger (and I'm talking about MY anger here, too) only lasts as long as you DON'T SEE this context. Anger at Kerry is just absolutely useless in this situation. It is a distraction.

When I pull back in this way--and try to see the big picture--my anger evaporates. Kerry is just one human being, caught up in a really sick, in fact near death, political system. I actually feel compassion for him. I think he's a good man. I think he's relatively honest--as people in DC go. I think he is very intelligent. And like many good, honest, intelligent people, he, too, can go very astray, live inside a bubble, not see reality, compromise his ideals (especially being steeped in this utterly corrupt system), and can fail.

We should never have expected a White Knight (not after what was done to Howard Dean). But then, that's human, too. To want to be rescued.

And that's what we have to face, I think. No one is going to rescue us. (And I think we need to realize, too, that if anyone DOES try to become the champion, they WILL be destroyed, one way or another. I'm talking cold shower, here--the cold shower of the reality of our situation.)

Restoring our democracy is up to us, collectively, as a people. And it must begin with our restoring our right to vote--however we can get that accomplished (at the local/state level, is my best prognosis)--but it cannot stop there. This political system that made it virtually impossible for Kerry or anyone else to challenge an obviously stolen election must be changed, fundamentally.

Personally, I think the right to vote movement has the potential to become a broad democracy movement that will engender and make possible other reforms.

-------

Here is some of the documentation for the 2004 fraudulent election:

Exit poll analysis: astronomical odds against Bush win

Dr. Steven Freeman: Professor, Center for Organizational Dynamics, Univ. of Penn.; Karel Steuer Chair for entrepreneurship, Univ. de San Andreas, Buenos Aires; Professor of Management, Central Amer. Inst. of Business Administration (INCAE),
http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm
"The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," and "Hypotheses for Explaining the Exit Poll-Official Count Discrepancy in the 2004 US Presidential Election"
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970

Dr. Ron Baiman: Economist/Statistician - senior research specialist, Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicago; teaches at the University of Chicago.
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/997

Baiman: "I conclude that, based on the best exit sample data currently available, neither the national popular vote, or many of the certified state election results, are credible and should not be regarded as a true reflection of the intent of national electorate, or of many state voters, until a complete and thorough investigation…."

Dr. Webb Mealy: http://www.selftest.net/redshift.htm (Bush vote skewed to the Electoral Votes that were needed to win.)

Nine Ph.D's from leading universities say, 1) Kerry won the Exit Polls (by 3%); 2) the Exit polls were skewed to Bush, so Kerry's margin was likely even higher; 3) there is evidence of electronic fraud at the precinct level, and 4) call for investigation of the 2004 Election:

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf

Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. - Temple University Statistics Department
Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics and Director of Statistical Consulting (ret), University of Wisconsin
Frank Stenger, PhD in mathematics - School of Computing, University of Utah
Richard G. Sheehan, PhD - Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
Elizabeth Liddle, MA - (UK) PhD candidate at the University of Nottingham
Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. - Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. - Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
Campbell B. Read, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
Kathy Dopp, MS in mathematics - USCountVotes, President
Also Peer Reviewed by USCountVotes’ core group of statisticians and independent reviewers.

Florida: 130,000 to 230,000 phantom votes for Bush--paper vs. electronic voting—calls for investigation:
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu
Report issued by Dr. Michael Haut, & UC Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team; Haut is a nationally-known expert on statistical methods and member of the National Academy of Sciences and the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center
Press release: http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1118-14.htm

Democratic Underground (ignatzmouse):
(North Carolina: absentee ballot vs. electronic, inexplicable 9% edge to Bush in electronic:)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x45003
(also at:) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/12/233831/06

TV networks alteration of the Exit Polls to fit the "official tally" (& Zogby prediction of Kerry win):
http://www.exitpollz.org/

Johns Hopkins report on insecurity of electronic voting: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00196.htm#5

Easy demo of how insecure voting machines are:
http://www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevote.htm

"Myth Breakers: Facts About Electronic Elections" (2nd edition): www.votersunite.org

Ohio vote suppression: http://www.bpac.info

Documentation of widespread machine fraud and dirty tricks in over 20 states: http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html

57,000 machine malfunction/vote suppression complaints to Congress:
http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=3961

"Kerry won – just count the votes at the back of the bus!" – by Greg Palast
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php

Democratic Underground (TruthIsAll): "To believe Bush won, you have to believe…"

Part 1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1316010

Part 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1358806

Part 3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x197878

Democratic Underground (TruthIsAll): The Time Zone Discrepancy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x318693

In progress compilations of various articles and materials on 2004 Election Fraud:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x311105

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=304579

---

NOTE: Here's a great compilaton site for 2004 election fraud

http://www.solarbus.org/election/archives.shtml

"GD/Politics Forum." It's a great read and your links might serve as a refresher for many. We are working on keep more of the "Touch Screens" out of NC and educating our state legislators about how these machines work. You'd be amazed at how clueless most of them are. And, that's Dems as well as Repugs! I was told yesterday that most of them don't "read" so it's useless to send them too much information!

You have to write up short proposals to get their attention....:wow:

Anyway, I think many here are furious at Kerry because we see so many mistakes that we never thought he would make. But, his isolation in the Senate for so long and the lack of his own parties support, plus bad campaign ops were more the fault than the man himself. One would wonder why he made such bad decisions, but the Party in many ways forces a candidate to use the "insiders." The more I've gotten involved with the Dem Party on a state level the more I see how clueless the "establishment" is. It's shocking really that they seem to care more about doing things the way the've been done for years than "rocking the boat" as they would see it.

You are so right about needing major party reform. The activists/grassroots workers for Dean, Kucinich and Nader made a difference here in NC. But...there's so much work to be done.

Anyway, your post is good because it focuses the anger off Kerry and onto the sickness of both parties which has allowed the "Bush Crime Syndicate" to take over.

Lots of people need to see your thoughts. It might help some heal their wounds. I have to admit, I'm still very angry about 2000,20002 and 2004 and can't believe that we Dems let this happen again. I think Dean at least recognizes it, but anger with Kerry at this point is distracting from the major reforms we need. Your links are great to have as a reference, too.

Thanks for the post...:-)'s

Thank you for so eloquently explaining things.

...all the votes in Ohio would have been counted and WITH EVERYBODY WATCHING...the recount would not have been a farce.

..Kerry wins Ohio and guess what??? The White House too.

margin (at the time of the concession, no one knew about the Connelly votes being more than Kerry votes, no one knew about the large and small "computer glitches" that favored *, etc. The thing we need to go back in the archives of media information is WHEN did that information come out -- and determine if Kerry could have stayed "un-conceded" until the first news of these (and other) anomalies broke...

I am not sure it would have changed anything. The three million national vote margin wouldn't be changed by waiting. But at a minimum, the poll watchers could have been debriefed. 48 hours and it is possible the campaign could have had actionable data. Once that concession was out there - and I know it isn't legally binding, but it was a rhetorical finality - the horse was out of the barn.

wasn't much to ask. It just seems that the expectation of some who say Kerry should not have conceded is that he could now be in the White House. I don't think that was going to happen, nor after a while was it the point.

Could the actions that K/E take now be seen as something of a recognition of that blunder? That's how I take Kerry's comment that he based his decision on what he'd been told.

Sadly, it looks like not everyone in Ohio who was supposed to be on his side actually was, from what I gather from rawstory.

Sorry for making such a fuss, Will. I should have known you were busy. But I respect your opinion on these things.

In Steven Freeman's second paper on the exit polls (which is now off the internet because it is to be published as a book in May), he does a prediction of the vote, based on the base vote going in (who voted in 2000), the big switch of Nader voters to Kerry, and new voter registration (which greatly favored Kerry), and finds a 4 million vote discrepancy (actually 8 million, if you add the Bush/Kerry discrepancies together). Kerry should have won by something like 4 million to 8 million votes. Since this info has been around DU, I think it's okay to provide just this excerpt. To read Freeman's first report, or to request the second, go to: http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm.

Table 2.2. Expected Presidential Votes based on Changes From the 2000 Election

----------Dem (G or K)---------Bush ------------3rd Party--------Tot

2000:----50,999,897 (48%)---50,456,002 (48%)---3,949,201 (4%)---105,405,100
2004:----57,890,314 (48%)---61,194,773 (51%)---1,170,071 (1%)---120,255,158

Increase:---6,890,417--------10,738,771----minus(2,779,130)-----14,850,058 (14%)


(Distributing the votes on a reasonable expectation formula:)

(1) 95%
of 00 vote----48,400,00------47,900,000---------3,800,000------100,000,000

(2) 3rd
Party -----2,300,000 (64%)------600,000 (17%)
-----------------------------------------------New voters: 20,200,000

(3) New
Voters
distrib'ed ----11,500,000 (57%)---8,300,000 (41%)

Expected
Total --------62,200,000-------56,800,000


Discre-
pancy --------(4,300,000)-------4,400.000


Freeman explains this very simply in his section entitled, "The Numbers Don’t Add Up." He says that, in 2000, Gore won the popular vote by more than half a million, but in 2004, Bush "beat" Kerry by 3.3 million—yet there were only two major changes in the voting population: 1) the 3rd party vote declined by 2.8 million (where did that vote go?), and 2) get-out-the-vote campaigns. 95% of the 2000 electorate voted in the 2004 election. That gives Kerry a base of 48.4 million (Gore voters), and Bush 47.9 million. Election night polls showed that Kerry got 64% of former Nader voters (2.5 million) and Bush got only 17% (600,000). In 2004, Dems soundly beat Repubs in new voter registration by 57% to 41%. And when you add these three blocks of voters together—the base vote from 2000, the 3rd Party vote, and new voter registration—"…it looks as though Kerry somehow received 4,300,000 votes less than he should have, and Bush somehow received over 4,400,000 votes more than he should have."

-----

The Democratic Party leadership--including those advising Kerry--certainly knew all of this, on election night, and they know it today. They have their own internal polls and ways of gauging election outcomes. And all of the above is public information.

So, why are they acting like they don't know it?

And, within two weeks of the election, we and they had strong CORROBORATING evidence that Kerry won--the Exit Polls (evidence hidden from the American public by the criminal TV networks!). In fact, the early exit polls were known on election day (Kerry was winning). And subsequent revelation of the full data only corroborates a Kerry win (corroborates it in every way possible, including UScountvotes.org's discovery that the Exit Polls were actually skewed to Bush--contrary to the Karl Rove "talking points" in the news reports--thus making Kerry's margin even larger than the Exit Poll 3%).

So, what's up with the Democratic Party? Why did they let this fraudulent election SYSTEM be put into place, with not a whisper of protest against it? Why are they silent about it now?

I agree with Blue Shark that a visible, candidate-backed recount in Ohio would have resulted in a different outcome in Ohio--Kerry won Ohio. But the theft of the national popular majority was more obscure--harder to establish--so, for a time anyway, he would have been in Bush's position in 2000, having won the Electoral Vote but not the popular vote--a shaky position to be in, with no media support, in fact, with media in full attack mode.

But I do think it needs to be asked, why didn't that happen (candidate-backed Ohio recount)? --not as an exercise in Kerry bashing (or defending), but to try to understand the heart of the problem.

I think Kerry was boxed in, in several ways: Corrupt DNC advisors telling him he'd lost--despite all the evidence--or telling him they WOULDN'T BACK HIM in fighting it. Likely among them, people who support Bush's Mideast war, and also who may never have intended to win the election (preferred Bush to take the rap for all the deaths and cost), who never liked the grass roots and don't want the grass roots--the majority of Americans--running the party, or our government. Kerry was facing a BushCon blockade in Congress. Without DNC and other party leader support, it was hopeless. Secondly, the BushCons had cynically arranged for an attack on Fallujah for the week after the election. Kerry had THAT to contend with--a war that he had basically supported.

I'm actually learning some things--figuring some things out--about Kerry and the concession, as I write this. Here is what I'm thinking: Maybe this was not a matter of Kerry betraying and abandoning the grass roots people who elected him. Maybe it was KERRY who was betrayed and abandoned--by his own Dem leadership.

This would certainly go some way to explain his ambivalent behavior. (Conceding, under great pressure, then starting to file motions in the Ohio lawsuits; being very quiet, but then filing MORE motions, recently; being absent on Jan. 6--taking a trip to Iraq--but NOT forbidding the Jan. 6 challenge (as Gore did). Etc.)

I've certainly had the feeling that he was in a terrible bind on Nov. 2-3. It's like he was made to eat his own words. ("Count every vote"? Right.) He cannot have been oblivious to the irony of that. I've even thought of the most dire scenarios (Bush Cartel threats, his family in danger). It IS one of the most puzzling events in political history (his concession).

By the way, I have NO fault to find with Kerry in the campaign. He won, by a landslide. So whatever he did was just right. I didn't agree with his stance on the war--nor did many of his grass roots supporters. I put that aside. I wanted the Bush Cartel out. And I know that was the general feeling. I disagreed with him on the war, and on a lot of things. I would like to have seen a principled stance on torture, for instance. But I CANNOT ARGUE WITH his political decisions. He drew support across the board--even from many Republicans.

The ONLY thing I find fault with is his--and the DNC's--failure to object to the fraudulent election SYSTEM. And that keeps leading me back to the Party in general, and to the tenor and the behavior of its leadership.

THEY--whose JOB it is to get votes, and to understand how votes are counted--didn't warn him, and didn't warn the rest of us.

I have a friend who says that IF Kerry had hit hard on the war, and the torture, and the massive theft of federal money, and all the Bush Cartel crimes (that is, if he had been Dean, I guess), he would have won by such a landslide there was no way they could have stolen it. He needed a 10% to 20% margin to overcome the fraud and would have gotten it--if he'd been a populist.

I've thought about this a lot, but I don't agree with it, finally. I would love to have seen such a campaign, but I think he would have "lost" anyway. I think the Bush Cartel had backup plans to deal with any amount of popular support for Kerry. I'm pretty sure that one of them was a "terrorist alert" plan that they had very carefully prepped in the "news" prior to the election--but all their other fraud plans worked, and so they didn't use it. The only advantage would have been that the coup would have been more visible. We would have all known that it was a coup.

As strongly as I feel about the Mideast war, I cannot say that Kerry "lost" because his policy on it was wrong, and out of the mainstream (or blame it on any other policy, or campaign decision). I just don't think it's true. Kerry could have won by an even bigger landslide than he actually got, and Bush would still be in the White House.

And that is the problem that "we, the people" have to solve.

that it's over, but then I read something like this and it just kinda makes me want to go into denial all over again.

Look where we are now, look where we were on January 6th.

he's still able to fight for us in the Senate now. If he'd been "Gored" I'm not sure that would be the case.

Some people are dreamers and want to be rescued, others are realists that recognize the problems and can still see the good in a bad situation. They also recognize that things are not as easy as others would try to make them, yet not a dire as they fear.

about DU; helps me get my perspective back. If I just hang out inside my own head I can lose it.

coming to DU to clear my head. Sometimes too much information is a bad thing and some times we can't process it as quickly as we are devouring it. Think of your mind as your CPU. You store all of this information on your CPU, you access some of the stored stuff while you are obtaining and storing new stuff, you may have 5 programs running at once. The size of your CPU or your processor may not be small, you are just trying to do too much at one time or to take in too much information while processing other information.

Take time to defrag your processor. Take time to recharge your battery. If you are like me, the only sanity you can find in all of this insanity is on the web. DU is a refuge and an addiction. It gives us a sense of control over what is happening. Well, remember take time to give up control and recharge. In order to gain control you should relinquish control.

reading Freeman's numbers of the margin Kerry should have had.

election.... but I've come to see this as something that will take time. I think whatever happened in order for * to win that several people will be charged.... and that *'s "legacy" that he's trying so hard to build will hinge on his fall....




(a girl's gotta dream, right?)

to somebody dying. Or something. Maybe hope.

I'd been so hopeful. I couldn't believe I could be so wrong.

You have mentioned actionable things, and this time-frame.
A computer audit might be an actionable thing.
Right now, based on Professor Richard Hayes Phillips' results, Bush's lead of less than 119,000 votes is inflated by at least 101,000 votes.
And, there's a possibility that he may not have a lead at all, going into the last 73 counties still to be examined.
However, 30,000 "votes" of that, couldn't be found in a computer audit.
We'd have to get those 30,000--the ones listed in Phillips' article "Estimated Vote Count in Ohio", under Cleveland, Toledo and Columbus, mainly in reference to people who got out of line and didn't vote because of lengthy lines due to deliberate misallocation or non-allocation of voting booths and machines.
Those votes were probably legitimate to look at--especially from the standpoint of Voting Rights Act violations, but that's a separate issue from a computer audit.
If some party--possibly this may come to be reflected in Phillips' statistical analysis once the other 73 counties are done--conducted a computer audit, the actual, cast ballots might be there, demonstrably, for Kerry and a legal case made that computers were miscounting and misallocated counts--at human direction, of course.
This is new legal ground and a gray area. Could an election's outcome be overturned if a computer audit determined that the ballots had been counted wrongly by the computers? This isn't clear, but it's a separate kind of case from the Votings Rights Act ones.
So, Kerry's concession may have precluded such a computer audit from happening before the various deadlines expired. But it can't prevent one from ever being conucted. De facto, Professor Phillips may be able to find, in those other 73 counties he hasn't gotten to yet, enough--324 votes per county on average--to give Kerry that 30,000 votes he needs to overcome Bush's lead.
Based on Phillips numbers in the article, Bush either was leading at that point by about 10,298 votes, or Kerry was leading by 6,250. This is adding in two possible scenarios in Butler and Mahoning County.
Therefore, adding back in the 30,000 votes listed above, since they aren't audit-based numbers, and giving them back to Bush, we have to get either 40,298 more votes for Kerry in those other 73 counties, or 23,750 more Kerry votes. Either way, if that's done, if that's accomplished by Phillips' group with the statistical analysis--in the sense of data that would be in the computer, such as "vote migration" phenomena, this could actually be a legally actionable issue.
Whether there would be a fair court to hear the case, one without a political commitment or agenda, might be a more difficult thing to arrange. But it will be intriguing to see if Phillips' stats involve numbers findable within the computers, via an audit--that is, aside from those involving disenfranchised voters who didn't get to vote at all.

I feel like a kid whose Father went out for some cigarettes, and never came home again. I (we) just kept waiting and hoping... against hope and facts...that he wouldn't let us down. That he somehow had a secret plan.

Oh well...sigh. And the hurt of that perceived 'abandonement' still lingers.

day, but it took a whole bunch of people working together to make it happen.

And the Republican Media machine was so set to pull the "Sore Loser Man" stuff that they pulled out for Gore. Going down that route was not going to get anyone anywhere. I think it is best to let the wheels chug slowly now. I have a true belief that at some point these wheels are going to hit something hard that the media and the public can't turn their eyes from.

in morale. Remember back. It took us weeks to get back up off of our collective asses. No, I don't think we would have President Kerry but I think we would have maintained momentum better.

It might not have served any purpose EXCEPT for fulfilling his promise to ensure that EVERY vote was counted. THIS he did NOT do. And as much as I like him, I cannot get over this hurdle.

but...

... it just popped into my head (I was never a Dean fanatic), but it just popped into my head that Dean would NEVER have conceded. Maybe I'm wrong, and this could be an irrelevant comment, but gives an oblique perspective on the Kerry concession, if true.

that over 100,000 votes gap... what would he hold on to? What would he say? (just curious on how you would see it being played out, that's all.)

(on edit... see post 19 or 32)

...and don't have a lot of time to put into this right now since I am at work but wanted to get back to you. I'm with you all the way, I had my nose to the windowpane throughout the whole thing, and all along believed in my heart that Kerry had a strategy to keep his promise that every vote would be counted. Maybe he did, maybe not. At this point, I've given up hope. In any case, we can't change the past... so what happened, happened. It's over. Kerry did the best he could, and that's all anybody can do.