This article will provoke some 'lively' discussion.

he would deny.

Just imagine the pb this statement would cause in the Senate, if he starts accusing other Dem. Senators to stonewall the investigation.

But I would not expect some people to even try to understand that.

I just noted that the title is Kerry rebufs claims HE SAID the election was stolen, not Kerry says the election was not stolen.

The whole speaking to Chris Dodd.

It sounds Kerry thought he was having a private conversation about the election fraud with Miller. It is one thing to say you 'think' it was stolen and to advocate behind closed doors for reform. It's another thing to have to prove it in public. Should this story have any legs beyond the liberal blogs, then it will hinge on this: Senator, what proof do you have?

Apparently, some people have started to call Chris Dodd and ask why he did that. I am sure this is what provoked the answer.

All I saw was this:

Kerry rebuffs claim he said election was stolen... Developing...

with no link.

Thanks.

Like the registration stuff here in Oregon, which is a fact, as opposed to an orchestrated conspiracy.

Like I said the other day, the problem with all the reports is that there's no pattern. The only thing near a pattern I've seen is NM where there are apparently entire minority precincts that didn't have a Kerry vote and only with the DRE's. But trying to find anything on that lawsuit, outside indy news, is impossible.

I also read the GAO report, the precincts in Ohio in question only have a few hundred votes. And, the 3rd party voting in Cleveland as a whole isn't any different than it was in 2000. So there's peculiarities, but no problem. And they're taking a few sentences about peculiarities and blowing it up into stolen election and the GAO report doesn't come close to saying that. Not if you take it as a whole.

that we think Kerry knows there was fraud. But if anyone has iron-clad proof, particularly of the negatives, i.e., the voters who didn't show up, then I wish they would post it. (How do you prove a negative.)

I think the qualifying statement will state that there was fraud. I also think it will say there is no concrete proof that the fraud shows the entire election was stolen, because no such proof exists. (This is what Sandy is saying.)

As Sandy reminded me in a different thread, Sen. Kerry has said fraud before. He said it twice when I was in attendance in the crowd, once in April when clean and fair elections were his 5th or so 'felt need' and again this past Sunday when he participated in the Civil Rights March in Boston. He explicitly stated that fraud had occurred. (We mentioned it in the thread about the March in here.)

reason why the denial is so strong. Other people have already reported Kerry said he was robbed in NM, and there was no denial.

on one of the links you guys posted - NECN ? or the other one.

And remind people of the provable fraud, like in Oregon as I said, they'll understand he could have meant a variety of things. And maybe Miller misinterpreted fraud for completely stolen.

Can't say I appreciate that.

He ought to know that if he starts publicizing an off-the-record interview, Kerry is going to back away from it. If it's out there that Kerry believes the election is stolen, the next logical questions is, "what's your proof?" I respect Miller's work but he needs to have a better understanding of that sort of thing before he starts his loud condemnations. Why doesn't he work on pressuring other Dem senators to take up the cause, instead of ripping Kerry? So counterproductive, and this is why the Left can't get it together.

Kerry had no choice than to backpedal on it. Without that, he could have kept silent, I think.

I was disappointed by Miller coming into DU and saying Kerry had "let us down again." He really doesn't understand why Kerry would have denied it, after DODD starts getting calls? I mean I sympathize with his cause, but he needs a little bit of common sense.

Oh well, more drama in the life of Kerry supporters I guess x(

till the shit storm blows over.

I was driving to work yesterday when he said this on Morning Sedition. My first reaction was to say, "Oh, shit" out loud. I'm surprised it took a whole 24 hours to blow up into a full scale shitstorm. I was hunkered down yesterday.

not a word about Dodd. The stuff he said on Democracy Now appears to be much more detailed.

He did say he had talked with JK at a party/benefit, and sort of talked to himself out loud about whether it was meant to be off the record or not. He concluded that since JK "never said it was off the record" that it was okay to talk about it.

He has always be silent to claims that he believed the election was not kosher. This is not IMHO what provoked the reaction.

Until the storm subsides. It's getting nasty out there... :hide:

So you guys are saying that he really DID say the election was stolen, but since it was off the record, he can deny it? Huh? How does that work? I mean, obviously in the leak case in the WH, they couldn't lie about it because the actual talking to a reporter was against the law. But you're saying that in Washington, if you say "this is off the record", then if someone talks, you can deny it? Obviously, if the person betrayed your trust that's an awful situation, but once it's OUT THERE, isn't denying it lying? Or is it not really lying because it should never have been in the public sphere in the first place?

Call me stupid, but I got the impression from the report that this guy read too much into what Kerry actually said. That he DIDN'T say it was stolen. Who are we supposed to believe? I'm highly confused by this whole thing.

This is not the first time that reports like that are made or that the word fraud is pronounced. THK said as much, as did his brother Cam.

Until now, this has never been denied (or confirmed) by Kerry's team.

Some people on DU started to call Chris Dodd to ask questions about what Miller was saying (That Dodd was against an investigation on BBV). I am sure at this point, Dodd called Kerry (whether Miller is correct in his claim or not), and the easiest way to deny that was to deny everything.

It sounds like Kerry agrees there was fraud - which he has said since Nov I think - and informally he may think that without fraud he COULD have won.

Even the conversation Miller recounts with Kerry agreeing with "frustration" to having been robbed, is very informal, not precise. In that context, Kerry could count votes that never were - because the lines were too long, polling places were changes, or registrations weren't processed. In the sense that he very likely did motivate more people to want to vote for him in Ohio, he was robbed.

Miller also has a case when he says he told Kerry that the only way he could redeem himself in the eyes of most Democrats is to say "WHAT HAPPENED" (obviously by Miller's definition) last year. the problem is things are more ambiguous.

I can assure you that there are tons of people who voted for Kerry like myself, who think some fishy stuff went down in Ohio and in other states, but do NOT think if all of these shenanigans were uncovered that the results of the election would change. I just think * won. It hardly was fair given all the lies in the campaign, the media situation, the high bar set for voter registration, but to me it was a legitimate election result. This may put me in the minority in DU, but not in the country. Most people have moved on. And I did read all the theories when they came out after the election and none of them convinced me. So I resent Miller dissing Kerry while trying to speak for "most Democrats" when he doesn't have his facts straight on how we feel. (I think a week after the election 50% of Democrats were suspicious. Surely that number has gone down since then, and in any case, 50% does not equal "most")

That's the really really dumb part. So if he hadn't conceded, where would we be now? We would have gone through all the same stuff, had it all shot down in court, and been in a worse position to get the voting process and machines fixed. It's like the "we knew" about the WMD. They just don't see the difference between suspicious implication and hard evidence. To go against a President, you've got to have hard evidence.

From what I'm reading. Miller said "Senator, you were robbed!!" Kerry replied, (tongue-in-cheek) "I know!" And then went on to have a serious discussion about the problems with the machines, etc. I don't know what he thought or meant, but maybe he thinks people don't literally mean conspiracy stolen, but just serious problems that have become entrenched over time. And new problems with the DREs.

Or maybe he really thought he could trust Miller to have enough sense to know a Senator can't run around yelling "stolen election", especially after 2000. I don't know.

Off the record can generally be reported, but not attributed. When attributed, a dance ensues.

Nice explation!

I often forget that deciphering political discussions is an art form and is not understood by everyone. My apologies. (And I sort of feel bad explaining this. I feel like I'm taking some innocence away or something.)

This was described as a private conversation, although, as Whome pointed out, Sen. Kerry didn't specifically say it was 'off the record.' So now it becomes a big 'he said, he said' thing. People will believe what they want to believe. As ever.

Off the record conversations mean that someone can speak freely without fearing that their personal observations, including comments on colleagues, will wind up published somewhere. This is a big deal. Printing 'off the record' comments is a violation of trust. (Unless it is being used to hide a crime, see Plamegate.) You can deny 'off the record' comments, because, officially, they never happened. Mr. Miller has 'wiggle room' here.

Sen. Kerry is not lying. There is always the possibility that he thought he said one thing and Mr. Miller thought he heard another. All depends on what the definition of fraud is. Is agreeing there was fraud last year the same as agreeing that the whole election was stolen? Sen. Kerry's rebuttal to Mr. Miller's story seems to indicate that he thinks not. (Technical note, that is my spin on what happened. I wasn't there. I am making interpretive comments on an event that I actually have no verifiable way of recalling.) Mr. Kerry has 'wiggle room' on this.

What is 'wiggle room' you might ask? Well, 'wiggle room' is the difference between saying the election had massive fraud and saying it was stolen. You can admit it was a fraud-laden event, but stop short of saying this fraud changed the outcome. (Logical, no?) It sounds like you are splitting hairs, in the vernacular, and that can well be what you are doing. (Although not really in this case, sort of. There is a big difference between fraud and stolen. OMG, I just spun myself.)

Clear now? (And sorry about that innocence thing.) Also, Mr. Kerry would never have spoken ill of Sen. Chris Dodd if he thought the comments were going to be published or widely disseminated on TV and such. Never, ever, never. It is a violation of Senate courtesy among Democrats and Mr. Kerry bone-cold certain knows this would piss off Mr. Dodd. If indeed Mr. Kerry is trying to gain Mr. Dodd as an ally in fighting election fraud, then this would be the absolute wrong way to do it. So, Mr. Kerry has to deny Mr. Miller's interpretation of the conversation in order to go to work next week and still deal with Chris Dodd as a colleague. Otherwise there would be very awkward conversations that would be non-productive. "Dodd: Hey, John, did you really call me a dunce and anti-democratic and a sort of coward in that conversation with Miller?" Ahm, this would not be a good thing. Thus Mr. Kerry has denied portions of the conversation with Mr. Miller. (Well, he does have 'wiggle room' here, don't ya think?)

Even some of us non-virgins can learn something. That was masterful.

robbed", not the election was stolen. There is no doubt that he was robbed of votes (and that Kerry believes it). Does that mean that enough votes were robbed for the election to be effectively stolen? This is more difficult to prove and I can't imagine Kerry saying it, even if he believes it.

In fact, that there was fraud but the election was not stolen is the official position of the Democratic Party since Jan 5th. Boxer did never say the election was stolen, nor did Conyers or Dean (and Miller knows it as he wrote so in his article in Harper's).

as John Kerry would have ever said that stuff about Chris Dodd with attribution. Never. There is also a great deal of space in here for interpretation.

Also, Mr. Miller seems to think that his way is the only way to fight election fraud. (Sigh! He has 'the liberal disease.' My way is the only way! Not so. There are many ways to skin this cat.)

Walter Shapiro talked about interviewing John Kerry in his, 'One Car Caravan' book. He said that there were two types of interviews with Mr. Kerry, with the tape recorder and without the tape recorder. The gentleman who is interviewed 'off the record' is free and very insightful in making remarks about colleagues and such. But Mr. Shapiro said that the guy 'on tape' was much more reserved and cautious. (As well he should be. One man's 'over-cautious' is another person's 'thinking before they speak.') My favorite line on this was that Kerry regarded the tape recorder as , 'a vampire regards sunlight.' (With good reason. This man has been raked over the coals in the press in the past. I would walk very, very cautiously as well around anyone with a tape recorder. It is one thing to call for openness and such, it is another thing to have your words twisted out of recognition by Faux News and such and have them claim, see tape.)

Kerry is a cautious guy, as far as what he says, probably because when he was young he got burned for what he said. So "the election was stolen" just doesn't sound like him to me. I mean, he was a prosecutor and learned that you don't just spout allegations, you find proof first and then indict (like Father Fitzmas). I don't think there will ever be definitive proof of conspiratorial outright election fraud for '04, and I think Kerry knows that. However, he also knows that a lot of the voter suppression was just unbelievable and has to be stopped in the future. That's what annoys me about these people who go on and on about how Kerry "betrayed" us by not making sure every vote counted. Kerry is a guy of substance who isn't going to start mouthing off about something to please the minions (who at this point would probably put THAT down) where he's got NOTHING to back it up.

I guess they wanted him to scream the election was stolen and subject the country to endless and fruitless lawsuits which would NOT have changed the fact that yes, George W. Bush is still the president. Really, they just hate him for losing the election, and don't care about much else, like, say evidence or facts.

I mean I'm not even 40, and my kids are still small, and now you're telling me about how a technical lie is in fact the truth, while the truth is really a lie because it was a betrayal of trust so that the person could tell the truth instead of the usual white lies that everything's fine and "I love all my Senate colleagues so much, and they do no wrong" and the U.S. constitution hasn't been subverted and black is white and white is black?

Maybe I'm going to sit down and watch Clifford the Big Red Dog with my daughter. You know if we could get everyone in Washington to watch that show and Berenstain Bears every day, the whole country would start getting better. I was SO tempted to mail The Berenstain Bears and "The Blame Game" book to the WH after the Katrina debacle. It would have been good reading for *, really much better reading than "My Pet Goat".

Sigh . . . here in this thread does my innocence go . . .

Again, sorry about that innocence thing. But it was bound to happen sooner or later. (You do hang around on a political board, you should have known the risks.)

Okay, let me think on this thing you wrote: a technical lie is in fact the truth, while the truth is really a lie because it was a betrayal of trust so that the person could tell the truth instead of the usual white lies that everything's fine and "I love all my Senate colleagues so much, and they do no wrong" and the U.S. constitution hasn't been subverted and black is white and white is black?

There was no technical lie. (Mr. Kerry did not lie. I doubt Mr. Miller lied either. I think they had a conversation. I think, as Mass said, there were things said that were implied. It is very possible that they were implying different things. Fraud means stolen. Stolen means fraud. Not so sayeth one of the principles in the actual conversation. So, says the other. sigh!)

Everything is not black and white, there is interpretive movements here, like in jazz. And, as in jazz, people might just be making more of the notes that weren't played that the ones that were.

As for pissing off colleagues, well, I might think someone in DU is a total asshole, but I'm not going to write that down in the searchable archives. (Unless it's Sen. Allen.) I would take such comments to PM. That is simply called discretion and is usually smiled upon.

So, all is right with the world, there may not have been any lying going on at all and up is still up and down is still down. Right?

And I firmly stand by what I said in the first place. That the two were talking but somehow Miller thought he heard something specific that wasn't there. Fraud, yes. Election stolen, no. This happens all the time with my husband -- where one of us will accuse the other of saying something 5 minutes ago, when in fact, we "heard" something in between the lines that never was specifically said.

Although I'm not a huge Jazz fan, I'm definitely not a black-and-white girl. I find the more you learn about something that is complex (like, say the Iraq War) the less sure you are of the "truth". There are certain truths I like to live by which cannot be compromised but when you get into specific political or geopolitical situations it is often not so simple, when you have competing principles pointing you into different directions. Unfortunately, * doesn't see the world this way. This is why he doesn't read the newspaper -- facts would get in the way of his ideas of "good and evil", "right and wrong", "with us or with the terrorists".

It's a pretty informal conversation - it sounds like "You were Robbed' was the first thing said and the response was almost as much frustration as "yeah..." Now, if Miller were handling this as a serious journalist, shouldn't he see both the comment (It wasn't a question) and the response are vaguely defined. This is a major issue. If he genuinely thought this was a major breakthrough statement by Kerry - wouldn't he comment or question it. (ie "Senator Kerry, do I have this right, you are saying the election was stolen.") Logical follow-up questions would be what are you planning to do or say, and have you found bonafide proof.

That his interpretation of Kerry's statement is that Kerry was in agreement with his view of the world suggests projection or reading stuff not there.

The Dodd stuff is harder to figure out - Kerry doesn't seem to do a lot of name calling. So, I wonder if he was simply secribing the problem and the adjetives and characterizations were Miller's. Either way, Miller should have had some sense before writing it.

Riiight.

I think Miller is trying to drag Kerry into the light where he obviously thinks he should be. But it's not Miller's call. I think he has an agenda.

Noo, couldn't have an agenda, say it isn't so. cough *sell books*

trying to get somebody out in front of the fraud issue. I was just looking at an article of his called "None Dare Call it Stolen". I think, personally, he heard what he wanted to.

What's bugging me now is that he's dragging Dodd into this. I want comfirmation or denial now from Dodd.

I suppose if one were truly convinced an illegal coup had taken place one would do literally anything to try and expose it. Some of this stuff does tend to take on a Naderseque tone though, where an agenda has to be promoted in order to maintain interest and money in the underlying groups.

Remember this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=48038&mesg_id=48038

(F word = fraud, folks ;-))

I can't spend time on the board right now but perhaps some brave soul(s) could apply this to the claims floating around that JK hasn't talked about the election fraud.

It seems he is denying certain claims Miller makes about the content of their conversation, not the question of election fraud.

Just my $.02. Back to the salt mines...

(I'm coming in late to this conversation so forgive me.) If a reporter/author (say Mark Crispen) got a quote from a senator (say John Kerry) that was A.) at a political fundraising event (not an official interview) and B.) potentially VERY explosive, why wouldn't he pick up the phone and ask him again if he got the quote right - did he (the reporter) fully understand what had been said? There was no emergency deadline here, no need to scoop anyone else with the story (because no one else realized the "story" existed).

I read some of what was in GD/GD-P earlier but I'm really afraid to go in there now. I feel bad for Sen. Kerry and for his sister who invited Mark Crispen to the event in the first place.

Not to mention horribly unprofessional. I agree with the other posters who said it was designed to create a quick controversy, draw attention to Miller, and sell some books. I think at this point Kerry needs to come out with a statement, though I don't know what he'd say. Miller strikes me as very self-serving.

he said exactly that. This is the only reason, I guess.

and I'm still completely confused!

Did this conversation happen? Was it private? Was it a misunderstanding? What are Mark's motives and is the key words, "Fraud" or "Stolen Election"? Is there a significant difference?

AND furthermore, can an election be stolen just by the idea that people were denied their right to vote (like in Ohio) even if by the final vote count there would not have been enough votes to give him the win.

In my opionion, what Blackwell did by his shredding of registrations, playing games with polling places, provisional ballots, and taking people off the roles was indeed sufficient evidence to say, "Stolen Election". BECAUSE in a Democracy elections should be run to allow everyone the opportunity to vote fairly, easily, and without regard to color, creed, or political idea.

Blackwell INTENTIONALLY stole Democracy and he stole the election. It's as simple as that!

NOW...if you're using the word "Fraud" that has legal ramifications, then Senator Kerry would have to provide evidence that could be used in a court of law. My understanding is that there are indeed 3 lawsuits and that those questions may be answered there.

Either way, Mr. Crispen and Senator Kerry may have been talking about the same thing or different thing. Mr. Crispen is most likely trying to sell books, because frankly until this evening I had no idea who he even was, but now I do. (Still will not buy his book though!)

Also, perhaps Mr. Crispen wanted to back Senator Kerry into a corner and force him to come out with a public statement (acknowledgement) of what happened.

Many of us spend a lot of time in blogworld, but the average American voter has no clue about anything that happens beyond what's reported by the MSM. (Most of them don't even pay attention to what's reported on Faux and CNN, truth be told, unless it involves a missing white girl and is reported on ad nauseum.)

And here at DU, most of the people taking Miller's side and bashing Kerry on this incident, were Kerry-bashers already. They weren't doing anything to help Kerry anyway.

It's easy to forget sometimes that they entire country isn't as obsessed with politics as people in blogland are, and that the world doesn't revolve around DU. I would bet if you went up to ten random people on the street today and asked them what they thought of the Mark Crispin / John Kerry controversy they would all look at you like you were nuts, and by the time you talked to the tenth person, the men in the white truck would be coming to get you.

It is bad though when Democrats bash Democrats in public, which seems to happen a lot more than in the Republican camp.

and we don't.