Kennedy is getting trashed on Voting article,.Ed Schultz downplayed it &

even Digby's "Tristero" (who I usually love as his guest poster) said he agreed with Salon's trash of the article but he hoped to hear a rebuttal.

I know lots of DU'ers don't like Shultz but he is clued into the Dem Establishment and he must have gotten the word to "downplay" it. He said he hadn't read it.

Some DU'ers have claimed RFK,jr. is not believable because he hype themerisol/mercury link in vaccinations causing autism. I had not heard that he was wrong on that.

What's going on? We know Dems don't want to talk about Election Fraud...but why...when one of our leading Dems brings it up and Mark Crispin Miller did should a good book on it...plus the Conyers Hearings and the 2000 Debaucle where the election was stolen from Gore.

WHY WON'T Mainstream Dems talk about it? Any ideas? Aside from the fact that they are cowards?

n/t

n/t

He's a former republican, now highly conservative populist.

He can appeal to the Limbaugh audience in a way that Stephanie Miller, and Al Franken, can't.

He's kind of the "Fisher King/Boating/Every Man kind of guy with a "twists."

That said...I'm not into Franken or "MS" Dems being a DU Lefty...but I'm proud to have those voices out there.......and I think given that we had "NOTHING" to have SOMETHING that's gettin a Dem Message out there is VERY GOOD... inspite of what many DU'ers have problems with the voices are. :shrug:

Where I live it's "Religious Shows and Rush Limbaugh" 24/7...to have one station that broadcasts something different..is just amazing.

So don't put much credence in what he does or doesn't do. I thought mainstream dems were starting to talk this up. Didn't Kerry bring up the mess in Ohio last week?
Stephanie Miller talked about the Kennedy article this morning.
I agree that the MSM is not really give this much coverage directly. However, USA Today had a front page article on the problem with voting machines.
I think you have to give this issue a little more time.

towards "scab picking".

What......... What are you saying, here?

:eyes:

So it doesn't matter what or who he has on his show...he's a shill and not to be listened to?

:shrug: Should we really ignore him like this?

Schultz has promoted Congresswoman Louis Slaughter and Dems like Conyers and others along with the "Hillary DLC FACTION" since he's been on air.

He's interviewed Rep. Slaughter many times and she's a HERO TO THE PROGRESIVE CAUCUS!

So...tell me Schultz is some kind of Repug Plant...and give me EVIDENCE!!!

:shrug:

to speak for them. He jumped on it. This is why he's bashing Kennedy's story. It's what the PARTY, that owns him, wants him to say. That's why our 'Dems' aren't running with this story (evoting). They don't want to for some reason and I posted MY theory down below in one of my posts. It all fits. The Dems are SILENT on the issue ever since the article came out last week. Monday, Ed starts his down playing of the article and the Dems remain silent and let HIM do the dirty work. I think he's speaking for them. What do you think?

Fucking Shit...don't folks READ ANYMORE!

I was responding to YOUR remark in the post I responded to. Here:

So...tell me Schultz is some kind of Repug Plant...and give me EVIDENCE!!!

Duh...Oh...Fucking shit! did you forget what you posted?? Geezus fucking Krist....we're a bit snarky tonight.:eyes:

I said that there are many DU'ers who think so....but I "sure as hell don't!" :shrug: What????

about Voter Fraud?

Isn't that the REAL QUESTION and not the "Straw Dog" arguments? :shrug:

Didn't you read it? :shrug:

and what one replies to isn't always what one should have replied to..
:blush:

for a party. They made them an offer to be their mouthpiece. Randi said NO, Ed said yes. The rest is HISTORY.

mouthpiece. How cool to know that!

Sheldon Drobny was just on 'Ring of Fire' this past weekend and he talked about how Clinton was talked into signing the Telecommunications Act because BIGWIGS in the Dem Party -- the entrenched power hierarchy -- were in the media business and would benefit from the act $$$$$. So, Clinton signed, they benefitted, the quality of media CRASHED because right-wing talkshows took over and they crucified Clinton.

Holy Shit. And NOW we know why Ed Schultz is SOOOOOO big. :puke:

Two stolen presidential elections...and still....

Crickets

on my post...

Haven't we Dems here on DU (the oldies) been asking this since it was "stolen from Gore?" When does it end?

They tried to buy her on the same day Ed took them up on the deal. She said no, Ed said yes.

I can't believe they're doing this! I still think they must be planning on using the machines to pick our primary candidate for us. Why else would they ignore this when there's SO MUCH EVIDENCE OF FRAUD?

it's good we have BOTH OUT THERE? Why NOT? There's NO WAY that RW Limbaughites would listen to Randi (she's too OTT for them) but Schultz can carve away at Limbaugh because his voice is so close to Rush's they will get confused and "tune in" and LEARN SOMETHING.....:shrug:

As a very strong DU LEFTY, I seem to have fewer problems with Schultz than the rest of you....

Is there "something wrong" with me? I'm an oldie DU'er since 2001 and over 49 years old. :shrug: Meaning I've seen alot of Dem Candidates in my years and have some little perspective of our history.

She was telling the story one day because she refused to support something the Dems were supporting...the bankruptcy bill? the ScAlito nomination? One of those. Then she told this story of how she wanted to be an independent voice of the Democrats and how she ended up on AAR to do that. She wasn't bashing Ed. She was just telling a story of her meeting with the big name Dems. Durbin and Boxer were there.:( Ed speaks for them.

I can't stand Schultz because he's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too moderate for me. PLUS, he sounds just like Limpballs which NAUSEATES me. ;) I'm an oldie DUer too, since 2001...and almost 51 years old. To each her own. You can like Schultz if you want to. It's OK. :hi:

Ted may not be what his brothers were, but he is a lot more than most other dems.

BS

Joe

The heads my change, but the dance of denial continues.

:shrug::evilgrin::shrug:

Stolen and won't even get behind "investigations" of Kerry...then we know there's BAD STUFF on our OWN SIDES...

But, we need to work to find who is dissing the Election Fraud issue ...who wan't to keep it from INVESTIGATION.

Because ANY DEMOCRAT who DOES THIS...needs to be PURGED...BIG TIME...THROWN OUT....!!!!1

provides the COSTUMES and the MUSIC. :puke: SO TRUE!!!

down. and now mercury is out of shots. i dont know that he was shot down on this

that contained Mercury now being proven to be more effective and NOT causing AUTISM. Reports from DEM sites..(would you believe) calling into question what RFK says because they said Thermerisol was a bogus argument to make...that it caused autism. So, therefore we shouldn't believe anything he says. :shrug:

in vaccines. and when i said i as a mother dont want that shit put in my kids (they are done and i didnt have a choice and i didnt know about it) they jumped on my ass to tell me how it wasnt an issue..... but

my oldest child right after he got his two year old 4 shots started exhibiting strongs signs, laying in bed late at night, eyes open, doing a finger play thing. happened nights in a row. that subsided but he has his learning obtuseness, that i have questioned on that. i dont trust it. and from what i have seen on hte rise of austism adn then a decrease in 2004 and more in 2005, i say bullshit. i believe the man

so no.... i am not surprised that there were people here advocating not to listen to this man because of that. i tell you, any of our dems does a single damn thing they dont like, they are attacked from here on out

i left du for a while cause i am tired of the dem ALWAYS attacking dems jsut knee jerk all the time

that seeing RFK attacked over bringing it up was news to me.... Didn't one of the BIG REPUS who had a grandchild who became "autisitic" after receiving his vaccination try to get Hearings on This? (was it Dan Burton?) What happened to him...? If a Repug and a "Legacy Kennedy" got shut up on this...then we gotta figure what we see from drug ads dominating every time we turn on our TV's means DRUG COMPANIES WON! Just like the BIG TOBACCO did for YEARS.

I agreed that there was enough out there to question about the link with Mercury and Autism! :shrug:

...that is even remotely controversial, even with Bush at 29% and falling.

Their "strategy" is to ignore election fraud and to continue to use it as a "shadow excuse" for the elections we will continue to lose in the future.

I find it funny that some of the same activists who float election fraud on blogs, etc as an excuse for losing- will make excuses for DEMS who refuse to even utter a sentence about it.

Forget about it- all I can do is give youi some "advice" I read here at DU:

It is "your job" to tell the truth about Bush, not theirs. Also, if you have a complaint about Democrats, blame a Republican-even if that Republican AGREES or holds the same position or lack thereof as the Democrat.

Hope this helps.

for the "enemy" to implode on their own.

It's sad...finding the cause probably goes where most Dems don't want to...the LOBBYISTS..

Best not to touch it...I guess.

Thanks..I got cha.. Don't know why we keep "plugging at it." Just gotta do it..."Obsessive/Compulsive" ...:-(

Guess those "Meds" might be worth indulging in....but for someone who frets over taking an "aspirin" I guess I'm Minority.. :rofl: gotta laugh because if one doesn't one would just give it all up...walking into ocean, slitting wrists in warm bath, heading for "parts unknown"...etc....etc....etc.....

Just your job to "diss?" :D

Definitions
diss
verb

(especially US)
dissed, dissing
1. slang
To reject or dismiss someone with contempt; to bad mouth them.

From your OP, you say
"WHY WON'T Mainstream Dems talk about it? Any ideas? Aside from the fact that they are cowards?

:boring: :boring:

On my blog at http://www.baiman.blogspot.com

If you had control of the voting process, would you make the Congress 100% RW Republican, or would you put a clear RW majority in place with enough Democratic window dressing so as to make it believable?

Remember: the predecessor of Diebold and ES&S was funded by an extreme RW family in the 1984 time frame. That's 22 years ago now. Clearly they didn't gain market share overnight, but I'm also sure that 2000 wasn't the first rigged election by these guys.

Also, the Corporate Media has a field day with ANYONE who discusses any of the above, just as they do with anyone who discusses the economic/strategic reasons for war.

:shrug:

* In the battle of Labor vs Capital, Labor lost. That meant that Democratic politicians who were previously funded by Big Unions had to find alternate funding.

* The concentration of Mass Media into fewer and more conservative hands meant that Democratic politicians all pretty much accept that the RW will frame every debate.

* And yes, the increasing direct control of the very electoral process by said same RW hands means that the only Democratic politicians who stay around are the ones who fight tiny, token battles and leave the Big Issues to the Big Boys.

I could go on, but you get the idea. As I said over the weekend:

Bottom Line: We used to live in an Industrial Society. We now live in an Imperial Society.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1348978&mesg_id=1348978

...but the Salon article and Mark Blumenthal (mystery pollster) do sort of destroy the RFK piece in Rolling Stone.

I always thought the election fraud/Diebold conspiracy theories were utter bunk anyway - and the RFK piece actually wound up further solidifying my view that I am correct.

I wound up reading the Salon and Blumenthal articles/posts because of the RFK story. I found the former (Salon and Mystery Pollster) much more convincing.

It's actually getting to be almost comical. Any candidate that people on DU support, whether it be in this country or elsewhere, loses an election - suddenly it must be election fraud. Garcia beats Humala in Peru - election fraud! Uribe beats Gaviria in Columbia - election fraud! If Busby loses in the 50th - election fraud! And if the GOP doesn't do as badly as we assume in 2006 - it must be because of election fraud! It is as if it has never occured to some folks that just because a given population doesn't care for a particular right of center candidate or platform - that does NOT mean they will like the left of center candidate or platform any better. For voters, elections are very often about chosing the lesser of two evils. They may not like politician A, but it's quite possible they will still vote for candidate A over the alternative.

Apparently our candidate can never actually lose. It must always be election fraud.

I think many people just can't accept that the public is not always with them. I guess it is just more comfortable to believe the majority of people at home and abroad actually agree with you - and if only we could fix the voting machines elections would always come out just peachy.

I would like to know all sides of the story.

In truth, I'd really rather there not be massive election fraud. I've read the RFK, Jr. piece, so now I'd like to read the others.

to these articles, et al. :)

benefitted from election fraud too? Enquiring minds, anyone?

they're kept on as window dressing.

The one thing politicians understand is power. A very few try to empower the powerless. The rest, well....

because it was said that Daley in Chicago threw the election to JFK. I guess it's possible there might have been "bosses" in states who were into dirty campaigns for Dems and bought votes... But, what happened in 2000 was different.

Still...our Dems seem to always be worried about the attack machine digging up dirt and maybe there's enough stuff they figure would count for dozens of "Swift Boatings" so they want to keep it quiet.

Still...nothing has been as massive as the Supremes getting involved in a Local State Election which had national implications and they ruled in Bush's favor all the while admitting it was a "one time call" only for Bush vs. Gore would they break their non-intervention rule...thereby getting the Chimp INSTALLED. Also I know here in NC the tally count up for Kerry and Bush differed so much that even local candidates were in question. NC is even mentioned in Mark Crispin Miller's book and many of us who worked on the ground in the election and at polling places had questions. Ohio was so totally corrupt that it boggles the mind that Blackwell didn't throw it for Bush...

But...if Dems have done this...they don't want more dirty laundry out. Some of us think that dirty laundry needs a good washing...though..

They stepped out of their jurisdiction into a state matter that they had no provenance in. When the Florida Supreme Court ruled for a recount, they legally should not have intervened unless a recount couldn't settle the issue.

According to some legal types, then the Florida election should have been declared void. If this pissed off the losers, then there should have been a recall election. But what happened, should never, ever had happened legally before all these other options had happened.

Oh, yes, the problem about doing it before January? Congress could have extended Clinton's term a few months under some emergency provision they have until it was over and decided as it should have been.

Now, I am not a legal expert and quite honestly I don't remember all the sources for what I said above, but I will say that I remember these points being made and anyone who doesn't like what I said, well sue me.

should always be open to their stealing another one when Repugs and contributors to Bush owned all the DRE and OptiScan voting machines...plus many of the county elections officials were in the Bushies pockets. Heck ...even in my state with a Dem Governor...the DINO's played nicey with Repug Elections Officials.

Folks really didn't understand how these State Elections Officials have HUGE power and they aren't accountable to the electorate. They are appointees accountable only to the master beaurocrats who appointed them.

There's so much we Dems here don't know about how our State Governments work and the patronage that's involved. I didn't know anything about how much influence there was until I got involved. And "don't rock the boat" for Dems is as bad as it is for Repugs in most states. They've not had much local intervention for decades so they have a hard time with "Activists." Makes it easy for the Party Heirarchy on both sides to call all the shots...