or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
November 06, 2005
How Interesting
Here's a new article by Robert Parry. I wouldn't go just by Mark Crispin Miller's wordâ€â€as great as he is, he can get a little overexcitedâ€â€but it's clearly not just him saying it:
Kerry Suspects Election 2004 Was StolenPosted at November 6, 2005 12:13 PM | TrackBackSen. 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.
“Kerry heard all the disquieting stories†about voting irregularities in Ohio and other states, said Jonathan Winer, a longtime Kerry adviser and a former deputy assistant secretary of state. “But he didn’t have the evidence to do more.â€Â
The Massachusetts senator conceded to George W. Bush on Nov. 3, 2004, the day after the election when it became clear that the uncounted votes in the swing state of Ohio were insufficient to erase Bush’s narrow lead.
The move infuriated some Democratic activists who felt Kerry should have lived up to his campaign promise that he would make sure every vote was counted. In January 2005, as Bush’s victory was being certified by Congress, Kerry also refused to back a resolution challenging the fairness of the Ohio vote.
Mark Crispin Miller, a New York University professor and author of a new book about the 2004 election entitled Fooled Again, said he discussed the voting issue with Kerry on Oct. 28 when he encountered the senator at a political event.
In a Nov. 4 interview on Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now,†Miller said he gave Kerry a copy of Fooled Again, prompting Kerry’s comments about the 2004 election results.
“He told me he now thinks the election was stolen,†Miller said. “He said he doesn’t believe that he is the person who can go out front on the issue because of the sour grapes … question. But he said he believes it was stolen. He says he argues about this with his Democratic colleagues on the Hill. He had just had a big fight with Christopher Dodd.â€Â
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...
Kerry Suspects Election 2004 Was Stolen
"Light dawns over Marblehead" as my sister would say (usually about me.)
Posted by: BroD at November 6, 2005 01:07 PMThank you for "Light dawns over Marblehead." I had never heard that before, which I suppose means I'm the Marblehead.
Posted by: Jonathan Schwarz at November 6, 2005 01:16 PMArguing with Chris Dodd must be like pissing into the wind. Or pissing on marble. Or something.
Posted by: Sully at November 6, 2005 01:22 PMYeah. It's the Democrats' same ol' conundrum:
It's hard to POSE as being serious about 'standing' for something (ANYTHING) without ACTUALLY (occasionally) 'putting a foot down' SOMEWHERE...
---------
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 00â€â€949
GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
[December 12, 2000]
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.
...What must underlie petitioners’ entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
I respectfully dissent.
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD.html
---------
Tuesday, January 9th, 2001
Black Caucus Walks Out On Bush Certification
Congress met in joint session over the weekend to certify the Electoral College vote that made George W. Bush the official President of the United States.
But while Congressional certification is usually routine and uneventful, this year, Black Caucus members walked out of the chamber in protest after attempting to block the counting of Florida's 25 contested electoral votes.
The African American lawmakers defiantly declared at a subsequent news conference that they did not consider Bush the legitimate president....
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0154218
---------
Published on Thursday, November 15, 2001 in the Long Island, NY Newsday
Not That It Was Reported, but Gore Won
by Jim Naureckas
IN JOURNALISM, it's called "burying the lead"...
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm
So Kerry didn't contest the results because he was afraid of being called a sore loser? This is the best the Dems could do for a "leader"?
Posted by: Brett at November 6, 2005 06:44 PMThe sad truth of the matter, Brett, is that Kerry was a far better candidate than his party deserves...
Posted by: Mike at November 6, 2005 07:29 PMAnd let's not forget to give thanks to Mr. Shrum, one of the Democratic Party's corps of professional election losers, for his incisive advice to the candidate not to contest the results--as we had been promised.
Kerry says he had insufficient evidence; what about the thousands of observers the party was crowing it would have on the scene to make sure nothing weird happened? We never heard a peep out of them.
Posted by: spaghetti happens at November 6, 2005 07:37 PMErm. This is hardly anything new or at all unsurprising, is it?
Posted by: Kaelri at November 6, 2005 09:52 PMAttention people with short attention spans: go back and read the above post about personal vs. structural history. The decision to throw the 2004 election was not due to some quirky lack of character in John Kerry, it was due to the fact that the Democratic party is owned by corporate campaign donors who didn't want a long drawn-out battle which would hurt business.
Posted by: John at November 7, 2005 11:14 AM
