Why not in America?

Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq - we see massive protests everywhere. In the US a rogue regime and two stolen elections. Where is the protest?

They don't know how to fight back anymore. They are so use to going along with the crowd, going along with authority figures, they don't know when or what to do. What these sheeple really need is a leader.

Last weekend there were tens of thousand of Peace Protesters in London and other countries. What do we get a couple thousand in DC, Chicago, California, and NC. Half the size of what other countries got.

The religious right have their leaders and they protest stupid things like the right to interfere in a private family tragedy. But who is leading us?

We need someone like Martin Luther King to galvanize and organize us. Kerry had his chance but blew it. Now we need to find someone willing to stand up against the loony right and be lambasted by the corporate media. I thought Dean would do something but he's not. The person will be denigrated by the media so no politician is willing to risk their career. I see no one standing in the horizon and I don't think there ever will be.

John Kerry did not contest anything.

In the other cases, the opposition accused the winner of stealing the election.

If Kerry would have made accusations, many people would have taken action.

I believe people may still take action if evidence is revealed which forces Kerry to make a statement. That one act alone could motivate millions.

millions in the street. But I believe he missed his window of opportunity. Anything he says now about the stolen election will be characterized as flip-flopping by the right wing corporate media and a lot of people who supported him may believe it.

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

See Post 19 -- in this thread 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... this is typical in elections.... 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 yet found the smoking gun, to bring the * Administration down. (I know, I know... many are working on it!)

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 conceding
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?

He should have used the campaign, months before the election, to raise awareness of the problems with our election system. He should have been talking about what Walden Odell, the president of Diebold said in a fundraising letter for Bush. He should have pointed out that the voting machine companies have refused to let anyone see their source code. he should have pointed out that many people at diebold have been convicted of computer fraud already.

It just goes on from there. After the election, HE FOUGHT AGAINST ALL THE LAWYERS that were filing lawsuits for recounts. Just ask Bob Fitrakis and Cliff Arnebeck how much support they got from Kerry's legal team.

He also continuously stated publically that "bush got more votes."

he never even raised the question.

Basically he should have done what David Cobb did.

I'm not saying it would have changed the result. But the problem now is that we can't get any people off their butts to do anything to change the system for next time around because they have no idea how bad it is because Kerry kept his mouth shut. Most democrats have never even heard of Diebold. If we just had more awareness, we could get some things done.

There is a remote possibility that something like Ukraine could have happened, if Kerry would have just raised the question. I know there were millions of people just waiting, with their pitchforks in hand, to take to the streets, and not let the election be stolen again. But thanks to Kerry, no one even knows it was stolen, or even thinks it might have been.

So to answer your question, he did everything wrong. Every step of the way.

And for those of you who still think his legal team is working on some kind of secret plan, don't hold your breath.

was not as close as Florida 2000's Gap. What exactly would Kerry have been 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?

I know that Dean sat with B. Harris for a little demonstration of hacking the vote -- wasn't this prior to the Iowa Caucasus? Once he lost could Kerry have politically taken up the issue that Dean had interest in -- or would that have been a weakness (I'm not saying it would have been, but would it have been perceived as such).

I'm still at a place which feels that he was in a situation that couldn't be solved easily -- to contest with Fallujah so close (probably on purpose) would have been more costly than not contesting. See http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm

There would have been NO political way to order a hand recount of all of Ohio with the gap as large as it was.

I know nothing of campaign strategies. But I guess the question is how much he and his team knew about Diebold and O'Dell, and proprietary code, and paperless/ballotless voting during the campaigning. It's an important issue (indeed a crucial issue) -- but could it have been an issue for a current candidate to keep as a talking point throughout the campaign trail when campaigning against an incumbent? Isn't it like calling one person a crook without having proof? (Sure, we can argue that the 2000 election was proof -- but wouldn't that have "mobilized" *'s "base" more?) I don't know the answer to any of these questions, just throwing them out as I think of them.

So...beyond the campaign missteps that might have enabled him to talk about possibility of fraud -- what exactly would Kerry have been contesting? If we don't have solid "proof" (smoking gun, whatever) even now -- where would Kerry be now if he had contested on basis of election fraud?


edit:typos

Some of us seem far more able to muster their talents to tear others down than to build new ideas.

Fact is, this coup d'etat isn't anywhere near over yet.

And we all have a part to play. Arrogance and disingenuity will be a great weakness in the battles to come.

solutions in most things -- especially, in politics....

as just having Kerry contest Ohio or call for a recount.

But it is important to note that the Kerry legal team actually lobbied AGAINST the legal efforts in Ohio and other states as well.

When people say the margin of victory was too large to contest, you're missing the point. When the votes are counted in secret and laws are broken, it doesn't matter what the margin is. When we say that Kerry did the right thing by not contesting Ohio because the margin was so large, we are playing right into their hands. It doesn't matter what the margin was. Look at the percentages. In nearly every state that has questionable results, the margin was 51-49. Is that close enough?

Laws were broken. That is reason enough to demand a recount. And a second recount. If it werent' for David Cobb, the people on this forum might not even know about all the things that happened in Ohio. But the fact is that Kerry should have been the one doing all the things that Cobb did. if he was, we would be a lot further along in fixing the system now than we are.

the margin of victory didn't stop Cobb from fighting back, and it shouldn't have stopped Kerry either.

Kerry even promised they would "count every vote" and that never happened.

throughout this whole ordeal (so far) -- his display last week was pitiful. (listen to audio here) http://statenews.org/story_page.cfm?ID=8215&year=2005&month=3

I don't think I'm missing the point about the Gap when Gore couldn't even get the whole state of Florida counted with a 1,000 vote difference (or -- only asked for a few counties counted, and had a political fight even for those counties).

THINGS ARE BROKEN. I don't dispute that. And for the record, I wanted Kerry to hold out a little longer than he did. But I can't change his (or his team's) choices, I can only change how I react to the choices that were made. The people on this board are not content, and hopefully, in our way, we will not shut up. I'm only bringing up these issues to see how other people think because to just say he could have done more makes me wonder what could have been done that would have made a difference that week. I know my thought process and my interpretation of what happened. I know my understanding of the ineffective media, and the Supreme Court which interfered in 2000. I know that I don't know what happens behind closed doors for decisions made by those running for office. I may not be right, but my interpretation of the events, and the surrounding events was what I needed in order to process and become mobilized. I just wanted to see what others used for their rationalization and interpretation of the situation. If I thought, as my husband does, that "nothing is going to change" -- that what people are trying to find out is "moot" -- that we are just cogs in a big machine, and we can't make a difference, then I may as well just shut my mouth, stop writing letters (when I can find the time), and accept what has become "America."

I don't think this is over. But Ohio is passing legislation for those who order a recount in other elections to pay for the entire thing -- and I think other states are leaning toward this as well. We have a lot of work to do, but I think we still need to push forward. The problem is mobilization and group efforts -- when one letter here and there may get published or get air time but gets buried because of other issues, and over 400 people on the Columbus Square are misreported as under 300, and the Indoor Rally in Columbus on January 3rd had lots of media, but no carry over effects, and NPR states that Tubbs-Jones and Boxer acted on their own on January 6th (instead of acknowledging that thousands, if not 10s of thousands of letters, faxes and phone calls were made by the public, demanding that our congresspeople "stand up for democracy"), then we have a lot of work to do.

While it is important that those in office stand up for honest elections, I think it is also up to us to be as public as possible (in whatever way we are comfortable) in discussing this issue. As you know -- we are deemed "conspiracy theorists" because either people believe us, or think we are cracked. Websites, such as your own, are necessary to help educate those who think nothing happened. We need to band together -- and find a way to demonstrate throughout the nation at the same time -- on the same day, yet we DID do that on the the 6th of January -- and how was that reported throughout the nation? How was that reported just around Washington? How long and loud do we need to yell before being seen? Unless we find a way to get out our message en mass -- "election reform" will only be what the legislators pass, which may not be exactly what we expect of "reform."

is by simply opening a mouth, and saying what they believe(d).

Let me say first that I'm no fan of "woulda, shoulda, coulda" discussion, and that it's only the fact that Kerry, Gore, or both could still today help the situation, by "confessing" to their complicity (after the fact) with these travesties, that compels me to respond.

Now Kerry has been much cagier in his comments on this last stolen election than Gore was able to be. (Gore knew/knows full well, as everyone who was/is not willfully ignorant knew/knows, that the people of Florida, and therefore the nation, elected him over the bushkid.) But for our purposes here, I think we can afford him the respect of not thinking he was utterly foolish enough to believe that more Americans wanted the bushkid when all polling told him the opposite was true.

So in both cases, they should have simply told the truth. To simply say, "I think this offical vote count is not correct." Then let the chips fall where they may.

So that responds to your point 1. But before responding to the rest I'd like to suggest that some of the things you say aren't (and weren't) really relevant to the decision. This is not to say they were not used as "reasons" (rather rationalizations) for these "leaders" to betray the truth, the people, and themselves with -- because I can't claim to know their thinking -- just that if they were used, it simply compounds the tragedy.

One of these things is the keeping political power (Kerry) or preserving political viability (Gore). Neither had the right to consider their own personal ambitions while bearing the standard of the majority of the electorate. The same would be true for your mention of Fallujah, or for any resulting divisivness (real or imagined). Simply not a sufficient basis for surrender.

Now to grudgingly respond to your hypotheticals, I'd just like to say what may well have happened. I wouldn't rate it as likely, or even probable, but it's based on the only roughly analagous situation I can think of. It may well have played out similarly to the failed impeachment. For Kerry or Gore to have simply said "No, I don't concede," would be akin to Bill Clinton's decision to say "No, I won't resign."

Sure, there would have been a lot of hoopla, complete with vilification, hand-wringing, chicken-little dire predictions of chaos and anarchy, accusations of criminality and the Euphemedia would have parroted all the new-fascist propaganda they could muster. But at the same time, the truth about the level of suppression, the stealthy computer tabulation, the reliable accuracy of the pre-massaged exit polling, and every substantive allegation of fraud would also be spreading into the public consciousness -- even with a total Euphemedia blackout.

In fairly short order we could well have had "impeachment numbers" (or even closer to Shiavo numbers) coming from public opinion polls on the question of legitimacy of the vote counts. Play out that hypothetical with the same players.

At this point I'd also like to take issue with your "no political way" comment, as I think it's simply false. In 2004, states like Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, etc... may well have been forced to scramble to defend their counts. Which could well have revealed some interesting realities. In 2000, Florida may well have simply been denied participation due to racist, unlawful process (which is ironically the official factual position of the US Gov't, in the form of the findings of the US Comm. on Civil Rights).

What we would certainly not have had was the considerable power of the Democratic party actively working to help the election thieves. We would likely not have tanks in the streets, though if we did at least it would be for a good reason. And almost certainly not have any popular uprising against Kerry/Gore, as the many reasons for public apathy given in this thread apply to that as well.

As Bill Clinton often says, given enough time and inforation, the American People always "get it right." Had Kerry or Gore followed the "Trippi advice" of having the courage to simple jump out the window, I'd like to think that We The People would have caught them.

----

are because the camps here either believe he should have conceded, or he shouldn't have. And while I didn't really expect it to happen as quickly as it did, I tried to understand -- in my limited way -- why a politician would make the decisions he and his team made the day after the election, and some of the issues that may have surrounded this decision that were (or weren't) so evident. Yours brings up more shades of gray -- and in a way I agree that this shouldn't have been about future political aspirations. I do wonder how much Kerry played a part in smoothing some things over overseas for European leaders, etc. to work with * -- (perhaps not at all).

My intent is just an exercise to imagine what would have happened -- different (or the same) to Gore's experience. Just to illicit a more rational discussion about the fast conceding. While we wouldn't have had the knowledge (or maybe, someone did), Blackwell would have done Everything in his power to stop any type of recount/investigation in Ohio-- and this would have put the contesters and the state (and the public) at odds.

We can't go out and do this over -- but we can learn from it, I believe. We can try to change things. We can mobilize and take politicians to task -- something I don't think would have happened with such intensity if it had been just Kerry and Edwards contesting.

problems and in fact -- those of us who immediately started looking for answers felt in our gut something was wrong, and were willing to question and investigate this feeling. But those who feel just a little bit at odds refused to believe it was something as incidious as an election that was somewhat tainted.

Even those we talked it about now (or directly after the elections) --either listened to us and agreed, shook their heads and said "elections have always been messed up," "nothing's going to change," "maybe we'll win next time," "I don't believe it." Most want to move on, and let it be. They want to believe that America is the poster child for free, transparent elections, the poster child for democracy and freedom -- so when * makes them sign a loyalty oath in order to see him speak, they do it, because in their heads they rationalize terrorism concerns, and do not see the * is limiting the type of audience that he speaks to.

http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm

is in trouble, except us. The media has effectively silenced decent. You must remember that WE are the informed. Most people, including Dems, have no clue what is going on, because they get their news from the poodles.

zalinda

Kerry had millions standing by to fight fraud. It's not just as if it should have caught anyone by surprise. Kerry knew that past administrations have be underhanded and even fought against them in his tenure in the Senate. And still we get people saying 'the time wasn't right' or that 'most people don't know'. The Democratic leadership should know. Can you really say that the Democratic leadership wasn't really looking for fraud? After 2002 and WMD in Iraq? There were hundreds of lawyers standing by could have found what you all have found. Can you give me another options for why they didn't fight than these?

1) two slow to figure it out

2) waiting for the right time (2000 no... 2002 no... 2004 no).

but, proving it is another thing. The repubs are great at spinning and have umpteen RW radio talk show guys ready and willing to speak the Rove talking points. And the RW has the "liberal" press willing to do the same thing. How long do you think it would have taken for this thing to have come back and bite US in the butt? Even if we are in the right, and have a little proof here and a little proof there, we have NO proof that the election was stolen. We wouldn't have looked like fighters, we would have looked like sore losers after the RW got through with us.

We have no idea what the Dems are doing, or Kerry. I suspect there is a lot that we don't know and that they may not want us to know. Until we have SOLID PROOF that will stand up in court that the election was stolen there is not one damn thing you or I or anyone can do about it. And bashing Dems and Kerry is one of the least productive things that you can do. I am sick to death about all the bashing that goes on here. You would think that this is a repub forum, instead of a progressive one. Although, they really don't bash their own. But, it's easy to sit on your butt, in front of the computer and complain. If you are so upset with what is going on then do something to change it, run for office or do an Andy.

zalinda

While I am by no means ignorant of the appalling poverty in this country, by and large the average American has it far better off than any of the citizens of the countries you listed.

I think a lot of what we are seeing in terms of complacency (besides flat out ignorance) is the thought that, "I have food to eat, I have a roof over my head and I'm not really all that worried I'll be blown up at the mall. What's on tv tonight?"

And don't forget the hundreds of thousands of us who marched in protest against the war.

And the overwhelming lack of media coverage.

This is not a battle that can be defined and won on the internet... it's being fought in every hospice, at every Baghdad checkpoint and around every office water cooler.

Pretend we will be studying the effects of violent video games on children. Get the MSM to champion our cause and get those Dem judges busy. Get some loud rabble rouser and strong ethnic identification to lead. Get the UN to demand justice for us.

Of course we might have protests even on a massive scale anyway, but what is the fun knowing we will lose without those wonderful props?