Skip to main content

View Diary: Going After the Roadblock Republicans (319 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  yes but (0+ / 0-)

    Kerry conceding the election so early gave the signal to the nation that the 2004 "victory" by Bush was legitimate.  The issue is not whether there were enough provisional ballots to push Kerry over the top, the issue was the litany of abuses which allowed Bush to steal Ohio in the first place.  Had tens of thousands of Democratic voters not been purged from the voting rolls, had tens of thousands of Democratic voters in urban minority areas not been forced to stand 10 hours in the rain because of deliberately planned insufficient number of voting machines, then there would have been close enough of a margin for the provisonal ballots to push Kerry over the top.  Hell, we probably wouldn't even have needed the provisional ballots.  Also, what criminal activities were going on in Warren County on election night, when election officials declared a "terrorist" threat, and went on to conduct the vote counting in secret.

    Remember, the NEP exit polls showed Kerry winning both Ohio and the nationwide popular vote.  Kerry should not have conceded.  He should have pointed to the warning signals of a stolen election, based not only on the exit polls but on all the other abuses we are all aware off.

    While we did get rid of J Kenneth Blackwell in 2006, I would venture it is because even Karl Rove could not rig the election when there was a 20% margin of victory.  Kerry failed to fight and lead the way in 2004, even his wife wanted him to fight.  We now know John Edwards counseled him to fight.

    •  We don't KNOW that Edwards advised him to fight (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oncall, MH in PA, Indie Liberal

      The Edwards never said this in 2004 or 2005. Kerry spoke out far more often on the fact that there was significant voter fraud in Ohio. His brother wrote a detailed description of the problems in either November or December 2004. In January 2005, Kerry spoke in Boston at a MLK day event. In fall 2005, Kerry marched in Boston with Rep Lewes and spoke of voting problems. He also gave a very detailed speech in the Senate when the Rosa Parks Voting Act was considered that spoke of the various ways used to prevent people from voting or which prevented people voting as intended. Teresa Heinz Kerry (I think in a Seattle paper) was quoted as saying that the fact that the machines could be manipulated was a problem. Speaking out made them subject to right wing ridicule. To my knowledge in this time frame - when the Edwards spoke out on other things - they said not one peep on this.

      When Edwards first implied (rather than said) that he would have fought it was ONLY in the blogosphere - in the mainstream media there was nothing. Elizabeth Edwards wrote pretty ambiguously in her book an account that could be interpreted as him being dissapointed and surprised or that he wanted to fight back - mostly depending on what you already heard.

      •  maybe (0+ / 0-)

        Maybe the Edwards did not feel it appropriate to contradict John Kerry in public so soon after the election.  However, I do distinctly remember press reports in the days after the election that indicated Edwards wanted to fight and made his views known to the Kerry campaign.

        What I think happened is the ever so cautious Kerry campaign managers, (who counseled him that no one would believe the Swiftboat campaign and it would go away), advised John Kerry that if he wanted to run again in 2008, he could not open himself up to charges that the Republican spin machine would level at him-that he was a sore loser if he fought.

        I sincerely wanted Kerry to win in 2004 and campaigned for him.  After the subsequent horrors of 2 and a half more years of the Bush regime, it does not surprise me that Mrs. Edwards felt in writing her memoirs that she owed more to the country to tell the truth about how her husband felt and so she included that passage in her book.  

        I'm not just jumping on Kerry, I lay blame on Gore as well for not rocking the boat.  Even Bill Clinton bears a major share of the blame, for he allowed this criminal coup d' etat to take place without a whimper of dissent.  I'm not saying he should have refused to give up power.  I'm not advocating a revolution.  I'm just advocating alerting the American people to the coup d'etat that was taking place, and if they would have done this we might have been spared the subsequent 6 and a half years of horror that we lived through and are still living through.

        •  So soon? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          He didn't speak out until at least a year and a half later. That argument would also make more sense if he at least backed up all the things KERRY said and took grief for.

          As to Kerry thinking it could hurt a 2008 run, if there were a real case to be made in 2004, fighting 2004 is a far more probable way of winning. Not to mention, Kerry knew the changes that had to be made that wouldn't. On under In Massachusetts, there is a post on the Iraq town hall that he gave. At the end of the post, there were several small videos segments. One had Kerry speaking of meeting Abbas after he became the head of the Palestinians and regretting that as he was not President he could not do what needed to be done - which was to provide Abbas with the resources to be the one to meet the needs of the people. He mentioned that he spoke to Stephen Hadley when he returned. The point is that it is clear he wanted to be President as much because of the good he could do than for the glory. If there were any reasonable way to be declared the winner, do you think he would have left Bush in charge. (Remember this is a man who risked his career - to speak out on Vietnam, to fight the Contras, and to stop BCCI.)

    •  But how ? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      karenc, MH in PA

      How, on the morning after the election, was Kerry--were we--going to make a case based on voter purges months earlier, which in both FL and OH, in both 2000 and 2004, was and is the largest issue.  That's something that needed (needs) to be fought as it was (is) happening, not after it has had its effect.

      "What is a political regime, when devoid of justice, but organized crime?" (Augustine, DCD)

      by Allen on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:25:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  he should have told us (0+ / 0-)

        He should have issued a statement on these lines:

        "While it is clear that the figures coming out of the Republican Secretary of State's office in Ohio indicates that the provisional ballots will not be sufficient for me to overtake George Bush in the official totals, I will not concede this election because by conceding I will cast legitimacy on an election which was far from legitimate.

        The Republicans have engaged in widespread voter suppression, they deliberately shortchanged Democratic voters sufficent numbers of voting machines, forcing them to stand in the rain 10 hours or more, and even then some of them being turned away when they tried to vote.

        In Europe and all over the world, exit polls are used to ascertain whether voter fraud was at work.  The respected NEP nationwide exit poll shows that I carried the nationwide popular vote as well as won Ohio by a comfortable margin had all those who tried to vote for me had their votes counted.

        Until there is a national inquiry examining whether this election was legitimate, I will not concede because that would cast legitimacy on an election which has all the indications of widespread fraud and irregularities.

        I realize this will not prevent George Bush from being officially declared the winner, but I cannot in good conscience be a party to a process that has all the indications of fraud.

        I owe that to the millions of Americans who, often at great inconvenience, tried to vote for me and whom the non-partisan exit polls, which had no reason to distort the results, showed gave me the majority of the votes in the election of 2004.

        The fight has just begun."

        •  I think more blame needs to be directed at (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          karenc, oncall, Jail the BFEE

          McAuliffe and the GOP. It was his job to secure the elections, solidify and work with the Democratic Parties of each state, which is what Dean is doing with the 50 state strategy.

          As others have said, knowing it is one thing, but proving it (as much as we wish) is another thing.

          He has spoken out on this issue, more than Edwards. More than most including the 08 candidates. No one wants to ask why have they been silent on this issue.  Which is why we have to make them push and speak for stronger election reform.  Kerry can't do this all by himself.

    •  So early? He didn't concede until the next (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      karenc, Jail the BFEE

      morning.  The second latest concession in modern history (Gore being first).  He didn't have the proof to contest the election.  This is also a matter of understanding that moment in time:  Marines outside Fallujah awaiting orders to attack.  The election in Iraq was in January '05, and Fallujah was considered a "no go zone" at the time, making an election impossible.  You're telling me that Senator Kerry should have contested an election for which he was down over 120,000 votes without any smoking gun to prove it had been stolen during a time of war?  That is beyond nuts, and as Anastasia said upthread, would have been the biggest joke ever.  Look at how Kerry was treated for trying to filibuster Alito, and now you're saying that he, a former prosecutor, without firm evidence and 120K votes down, should have contested the election?

      As to the Edwardses, well, a private conversation in a hotel room, which was not communicated to anyone else hardly means much at all, other than a nice story for those on the left who feel the way you do.

    •  EDWARDS DID NOT argue to stop the concession (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      karenc, beachmom

      only to hold off till next day, which they DID.

      Ohio WAS recounted by Ohio's rules as the recount was triggered automatically.

      This fantasy that has been constructed around Edwards is absurd.

      Does anyone really believe that if Edwards was arguing that he had a case to make to continue in court that he couldn't have convinced the Dem party's election legal team?

      I dare say that both Kerry and Edwards are talented enough lawyers that they could have convinced the election legal eagles there was a legal case to make in court IF they had any legal evidence in hand, or even the math, to make that case in Ohio - as this same team of election experts did for 2000 in Florida.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (155)
  • Community (74)
  • 2016 (53)
  • Elections (50)
  • Bernie Sanders (45)
  • Environment (39)
  • Climate Change (37)
  • Culture (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (34)
  • Republicans (33)
  • Civil Rights (31)
  • Science (31)
  • Media (30)
  • Education (30)
  • Barack Obama (28)
  • Law (25)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Congress (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site