Kerry Says Election WAS Stolen- Updated
Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 07:56:38 AM PDT
This morning on Democracy Now, Mark Crispin Miller, author of Fooled Again, reported that he had a conversation with Kerry at a fundraiser where Kerry told him that he now believes that the election was stolen.
He went on to say that he was pressured to concede by his staff to avoid the "bad loser" label. I guess the plutocrats care more about their reputation as a good sport than the future of our country. Edwards aparently argued violently against conceding in a phone call with Kerry, but Kerry still undercut Edwards who had promised, four hours earlier, to make every vote count. Still won't see this on the front page. Kos has a reputation and a career to protect. UPDATE:Democracy Now now has the show available for download. Start at 25:00 or go to 30:15 for the meat of it.
November 5th, 2005
Kerry Suspects Election 2004 Was Stolen
By Robert Parry
November 6, 2005
Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, has told acquaintances over the past year that he suspects that the election was stolen, but that he didn’t challenge the official results because he lacked hard proof and anticipated a firestorm of criticism if he pressed the point.…
Miller and Winer said Kerry suspected possible tampering with electronic voting machines, but that he was persuaded by his campaign’s top advisers, including veteran consultant Bob Shrum, that contesting the results only would lead to accusations that Kerry was a sore loser.…
In an interview with me, Winer said the “disquieting stuff” that troubled Kerry included reports that touch-screen systems had malfunctioned in such a way that voters who tried to vote for Kerry saw their votes switched to Bush. Kerry also was upset with reports that Ohio’s Republican election officials shorted Democratic strongholds on voting machines, Winer said.
In some Democratic precincts, there were complaints that voters waited in line for hours or gave up and went home, while in heavily Republican precincts, there were plenty of voting machines and lines were relatively short.…
Based on reporting for Fooled Again, Miller said Kerry told Edwards in a phone call that Shrum and other advisers insisted that a concession was the best course. “They say that if I don’t pull out, they (Kerry’s political opponents) are going to call us sore losers,” Miller said, recounting the substance of Kerry’s phone call to Edwards.
Miller said Edwards responded, “So what if they call us sore losers?”
I'm with Edwards on this. Kerry, like most of his Democratic colleagues, is paralyzed by fear of being unaccepted. I suppose part of what attracted many people to Howard Dean was that he didn't have that fear so much.
My exchange with Kerry
Kerry's statement was not planned. He did not expect to see me. His
sister, Peggy Kerry, purposely invited me to that fundraiser so that I
could hand the senator a copy of my book. (She too understands the
urgency of getting the top Democrats to push the issue of electoral
So I spoke briefly with him just as he arrived, and handed him the
book, saying, "You were robbed, Senator." He said, "I know!" with a
clear gesture of extreme frustration, and then said that he can't get
any of his colleagues on the Hill to face the issue. Said that he had
lately had an argument about it with Chris Dodd, who didn't want to
hear about it. Kerry tried to tell him about all the problems with the
electronic touch-screen machines, but Dodd refused to listen, saying
that he had looked into it, and that "there's nothing there." (In
bringing the subject up with Dodd, Kerry was not influenced by the GAO
report, which he didn't even know about until I mentioned it to
him. Indeed, he seemed mightily impressed that the GAO had come out
with a strong report.)
I urged him to spearhead a major senatorial investigation into what
went down last year, in the spirit of his best work in that chamber,
when he led inquiries into Iran/contra and BCCI. He said that, given
his position, he doubts that he can be the one to go out front about
the issue, because of the "sour grapes" factor. I appreciate his
dilemma, but still think that he must embrace the issue of electoral
reform, for the country's sake. (I also think that it would be the
only way in which he might redeem himself for his deplorable
concession just a year ago.)
Believe me, I understand, and share, your feelings of impatience at
the senator's long silence (which, again, he certainly would not have
broken if I hadn't happened to bump into him). But if he'll champion
the issue of electoral reform, we stand to gain much more than we can
get from merely cursing him for his timidity. I therefore would advise
you all to shower him with strong encouragement ASAP.
It has been reported that Libby's attorney tried to work out a plea deal. But Fitzgerald insisted on jail time, so Libby refused to make a deal. It appears that only Libby, in addition to Cheney, knows what Cheney knew, and when he knew, and why he knew, and what he did with his knowledge.
Fitzgerald has clearly thrown a stacked indictment at Libby, laying it on him as heavy as the law and propriety permits. He has taken one continuous false statement, out of several hours of interrogation, and made it into a five-count indictment. It appears he is trying to flip Libby - that is, to get him to testify against Cheney -- and not without good reason. Cheney is the big fish in this case.
Will Libby flip? Unlikely. Neither Cheney nor Libby (I believe) will be so foolish as to crack a deal. And Libby probably (and no doubt correctly) assumes that Cheney - a former boss with whom he has a close relationship -- will (at the right time and place) help Libby out, either with a pardon or financially, if necessary. Libby's goal, meanwhile, will be to stall going to trial as long as possible, so as not to hurt [filthy Bushists'] showing in the 2006 elections.
So if Libby can take the heat for a time, he and his former boss (and friend) may get through this. But should [filthy Bushists] lose control of the Senate (where they are blocking all oversight of this [regime]), I predict Cheney will resign "for health reasons."