self-delete

[dzika]

another thread has been started here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x203024

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

Troublesome Statements By One of Kerry-Edwards' Ohio Attorneys, Explained

By ADVOCATE STAFF


Section 1: Clear Statement of Surrender Alienates, Confuses Kerry-Edwards Supporters

In an e-mail to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on December 27th, 2004, Kerry-Edwards attorney Daniel J. Hoffheimer came dangerously close to dashing the hopes of progressive recount activists everywhere. Said Hoffheimer,

I would caution the media not to read more into what the Kerry-Edwards campaign has said than what you hear in the plain meaning of our comments. There are many conspiracy theorists opining these days. There are many allegations of fraud. But this presidential election is over. The Bush-Cheney ticket has won. The Kerry-Edwards campaign has found no conspiracy and no fraud in Ohio, though there have been many irregularities that cry out to be fixed for future elections. Senator Kerry and we in Ohio intend to fix them. When all of the problems in Ohio are added together, however bad they are, they do not add up to a victory for Kerry-Edwards. Senator Kerry's fully-informed and extremely careful assessment the day after the election and before he conceded remains accurate today, notwithstanding all the details we have since learned.

At the time this statement was made, it was indeed read by many activists as charting a new course for the Kerry-Edwards campaign's post-election stance -- one in which the ticket would ascend to their presumably rightful places if presently-unanticipated events unfolded which warranted doing so, but that otherwise neither Kerry nor Edwards expected to nor were willing to take any great pains, or even any pains at all, to uncover voting fraud in Ohio. The belief, in short, was that Kerry and Edwards were checking out entirely from any concerted effort to reverse the results of the November election.


Section 2: The Six Incontrovertible Maxims of the Vestiges of the Kerry-Edwards Campaign, Post-Election

A detailed analysis of Kerry-Edwards campaign statements since the election, however, reveals that the campaign's present stance is far more nuanced than it would at first appear. The Advocate asserts, for example, that regardless of any statements made by Kerry, Edwards, or their legal/political agents, the following six maxims are and will remain unalterably true throughout the post-election phase of the 2004 presidential race:

1. The Kerry-Edwards ticket will seek to ascend to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency if and when events warrant them seeking same, and they are assured of significant but localized, or at the very least manageable, political repercussions...


continue reading here:
http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2004/12/analysis-election-2004-troublesome.html

[nashuaadvocate]

1. Oops, sorry Dzika! Didn't see this post & I started a new thread! Yikes!

Folks can choose whichever thread they wish. Just wanted to make sure this was out there, especially with new threads such as the "I Hate John Kerry" (paraphrase) thread/rant out there.

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[davidgmills]

2. Unfortuantely, I think this article has the situation about right.

I am a lawyer and I have felt for some time that the legal avenues were just not sufficient at present to get the ball rolling down hill fast enough to do any good.

The big difference between 2000 and 2004 is that in 2000, the tallied votes between Bush and Gore in Florida were 500 votes or so apart. Any moron could see that a recount could swing the election. The press was all over it.

Not so in 2004. There is still a 100,000+ spread between Bush and Kerry in the "tallied" Ohio votes.

There is no evidence whatsoever, other than the exit polls, to indicate that Kerry could have won Ohio or the election. The results of the present exit polls of Ohio are subject to attack and even Mitofsky is not willing to vouch for them.

Without really concrete evidence that Kerry could have won the election, the judges will give the lawsuits a ho-hum response. In 2000, the media, because the election was clearly in doubt and was daily news, put all kinds of pressure upon the courts to do something and do it expeditiously. They did.

I have been saying for two weeks now that judges will view all litigation from a "harmless error" point of view. First, elections aren't perfect. Secondly, if there were mistakes or errors or fraud, they will need some clear and convincing proof that would indicate these mistakes or errors rose could have caused the outcome of the election to be in doubt.

I have suggested for two weeks now that there there seemed to me to be only one way one might get enough clear and convincing evidence to get the courts to listen and actually have "real" litigation as opposed to "apparent" litigation. A second re-exit polling of about 16,000 voters of Ohio that clearly shows Kerry won Ohio.

Without it, or some evidence that equates to it, I see the litigation going nowhere. I hope I am wrong, but that is my 2 cents.