Kerry Speaks about election: Anybody got a transcript or article?

Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., speaks to reporters after his appearance at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Breakfast in Boston, Monday, Jan. 17, 2005, where Kerry said thousands were wrongly prevented from voting in the U.S. presidential election. (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds)

I'd love more details but haven't found them yet.

What a dissapointment Kerry turned out to be.

Bullshit.

Ptthhtt!

Perhaps you would have prefered that Kerry act more like Bush and insist he won and then try to rig things his way. Perhaps you would have prefered that Kerry act unethically in the face of a huge voter margin that went Bush's way. If the margin had been slimmer, I'm sure he would have and could have done more... but of course, I'm sure you've already been told that before... you just prefer to drone on with complaints... you and many, many others here! SAD!

No, I didn't expect Kerry to act unethically. I expected him to fight for democracy.

I know, I know... I'm a crazy idealist for thinking that Kerry was actually going to make sure that every vote counted.

He is doing what he can do. He is getting the word out on the problem of too few voting machines in heavily populated democratic areas. Talking about it sooner wouldn't have done much good. I know people went home because of long lines and polls closed before they got to vote. That is not something you can realistically over-turn an election over. We just have to try to pressure those counties to create more polling places and get more voting booths.

He's still fighting. :D

And hopefully, he'll soon be the DNC Chair.

P.S. (YYYYeeeeaaarrrrgggggggg!)

Still fighting that is.

Just not in the exact way and at the exact time that some might wish. Such is the path of the obsessive compulsive.

YYYYeeeeaaarrrrgggggggg, indeed.

I will say this for Dean as DNC Chair, it would be interesting. I just hope that he be both aggressive and also work and play well with others within the party. He will need to do both. He doesn't need Dems working against him because of his famous 'tude.

"Kerry said thousands were wrongly prevented from voting in the U.S. presidential election."

Followed by quickly conceding, the presidential race.

:mad:

or you wouldn't have responded.

I can't wait until the "Kerry who" people show their apathy by not responding. Gee, that would be nice.

:toast:

Just disappointed to no end with him.

Kerry criticizes election outcome at MLK Day breakfast
The Associated Press
Monday, January 17, 2005

BOSTON— U.S. Sen. John Kerry, in some of his most pointed public comments yet about November's presidential election, invoked Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy on Monday as he criticized President Bush and decried reports of voter disenfranchisement on election day.

Kerry, Bush's Democratic challenger, spoke at Boston's annual Martin Luther King Day Breakfast. He reiterated that he decided not to challenge the election results, but went on to say that "thousands of people were suppressed in the effort to vote."

"Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways. In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, eleven hours to vote, while Republicans sorted through in ten minutes - same voting machines, same process, our America," he said.

In his comments, Kerry also compared the democracy-building efforts in Iraq with voting in the U.S., saying that Americans had their names purged from voting lists and were kept from casting ballots.

"We're here to celebrate the life of a man who if he were here today would make it clear to us what our agenda is, and nothing would be made more clear on that agenda that in a nation which is willing to spend several hundred million dollars in Iraq to bring them democracy, we cannot tolerate that too many people here in America were denied that democracy," Kerry said.

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050117/APN/501170696

How could the man have contested the election? He was down here in North Carolina covering my back. Jeez! :spank:

and maybe Kerry will find a reason to talk about it sooner.

Investigation yes. Concession yes.

“We must ... never give up on infinite hope”

This morning at MLK Day breakfast in Boston, John Kerry offered some strong words on the problems with voting in the recent election, stressing that we must never give up on “hope.” Hope was the resounding theme of the Kerry campaign, and that hope lives on with so many of us today.

While reiterating that he did not contest the presidential election, Kerry said: "I nevertheless make it clear that thousands of people were suppressed in the effort to vote. Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways. In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, 11 hours to vote, while Republicans (went) through in 10 minutes _ same voting machines, same process, our America."

"Martin Luther King reminded us that yes, we have to accept finite disappointment, and I know how to do that," Kerry said to chuckles from listeners. "But he said we must ... never give up on infinite hope."

Here is a press release from Kerry’s Senate website:

There is no greater gift than the one Dr. King gave to each of us.

Martin Luther King challenged the conscience of my generation, and his words and his legacy continue to move generations to action today at home and around the world. His love and faith is alive in millions of Americans who volunteer each day in soup kitchens or in schools, or who refused to ignore the suffering of millions they'd never met in far-away places when a tsunami brought unthinkable destruction. His vision and his passion is alive in churches and on campuses when millions stand up against the injustice of discrimination anywhere, or the indifference that leaves too many behind. Every Martin Luther King Day, we ask ourselves, "what if Dr. King had lived?" But this year we should challenge ourselves to ask the question not what would Dr. King have done had he lived, but what would he want us to do with the the time we have left.

What would Dr. King want us to do about the injustice of one out of every eight children in our country going without health care? It's time we live up to the ideal of social justice that Dr. King died for on that balcony in Memphis, Tennessee. It's time that we met our responsibility to see that in the richest country on the face of the earth every child has health care and we keep climbing until there's health care for the 44 million Americans without it today.

What would Dr. King want us to do when the right to vote we thought we guaranteed in the 1960's remains incomplete? It's time we live up to Dr. King's dream by making certain that every vote is counted in every county in every state in every part of our nation in every election bar none.

Dr. King led a generation that fought and bled for freedom. The weapons they faced were fire-hoses and night-sticks and dogs -- and intolerance. They braved them with conscience and guts, faith and determination. They fought and many died so that all Americans might be free.

Now it's time for all of us to apply the same sense of conscience - the same guts - the same determination - and the same faith in all we can be - to change our America for the better - and to finish Martin Luther King's work at home and around the world.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=238
(Links to news story and JK's press release in Blog post)

I duly note that I am reacting to words attributed to Kerry by some reporter. Perhaps that is not an accurate quote. If so, if the real quote substantially differs, than I apologize in advance. But if Kerry really said "thousands were wrongfully prevented" this is the message I take from that: Yes during the 2004 Election some morally indefensible "irregularities" or "glitches" occurred. While every vote is important and these problems should be corrected, nothing went wrong on a large enough scale to make any difference to any results. It is wrong to deny one person their vote. It is worse to deny thousands. But since Bush won the popular vote by three million votes and Ohio by 117,000 or whatever votes, there is no front page news here.

It might sound like a small thing to some, but it is exactly that type of choice of words that captures the weakness of Kerry's response to all of this. He could have at least said "tens of thousands" or "potentially hundreds of thousands" of voters without venturing anywhere near that dreaded "fraud" territory of hinting at "millions". The media doesn't take the issue of vote suppression and fraud seriously because !) for political and economic reasons they don't want to and 2) The Democratic Presidential candidate keeps conceding through his choice of words, and by what is left unsaid, that the system for the most part worked though of course it should be improved. If Kerry feels that way it legitimately makes this all a minor story in the eyes of the media.

Amazing how concerned for voters' rights politicians get right around MLK's holiday. John Kerry should be ashamed of looking so obvious!....but I guess he doesn't realize exactly how it looks, or how it sounds....cause he just doesn't have a clue!

They are having a celebration at my church in Oakland, CA....and the Gropernator will be there with the Mayor of Oakland....Jerry Brown.

My husband went for the celebration.....but I decided to stay home. I'm not going to give the Gropernator any additional bodies in his once-per-year photo-op black audience. I don't despise Arnold.....but I won't support him whatsoever. He can kiss my black Ass on MLK's birthday!

Happy Birthday Martin!

WHEN SHALL WE OVERCOME?

I see you are a Clarkie. Where can I find info on him? Sorry you dislike Kerry though.

but my post doesn't equal "hate" for Kerry. Maybe you misread what I was saying about the Governor of California in the 2nd paragraph.

I don't hate Kerry....or any politician for that matter. Hate is a strong emotion that I reserve for those who I care enough to generate that kind of an emotion.

I don't even dislike Kerry.....I just don't agree with how he handled things during much of the 2004 general election....

I still understand that Kerry is a good man at heart but that he has been cowed and compromised over time based on his political "needs".

In reference to Clark, you can start here....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=235

is what it always comes down to. On good days and bad, in good years and bad. "The talk" is just no substitute. I have some sympathy for any politician who will admit that their personal upbringing and/or prior life style prevented them from sufficiently understanding a specific oppression. Candor trumps posturing for me every time, but there is nothing like walking the walk.

Oh, by the way, for anyone who is wondering, the above are meant as generic comments, not Kerry specific.

P.S. Thanks Frenchie. Got back last night. Got a lot of catching up to do on the boards...

It is hurtful that Kerry waits until today to make those remarks when Jesse Jackson advised him to do so much earlier. As did the honorable John Conyers, Jr. Many of us in the community have taken note and will seek leaders who will engage when it is necessary not when it is convenient.

Please note Frenchie's picture 1966 & 2004 today of all days! Happy MLK Day Frenchie :hug:. Celebrate privately rather than compromise you principles! :yourock:

Alittle politically tone-deaf maybe.

It may look obvious, but I'm not convinced he meant it that way. He may have just thought it was an appropriate moment.

in sum, the lost votes were not enough to change the outcome. He has been saying this since Nov. 3.
And he has also been saying that a single lost vote is wrong.

lost votes to change the outcome. No one can know that for a fact, since the lost votes were just that. For all we know they could have numbered in the millions nationally. Unless a real effort was made to recount nationally, to audit the election, to impound the technology, to examine it and make a final tally, it is not possible to come to that conclusion with any certainty.

that's the problem, and why Kerry had to concede.
Coming up with solid evidence contrary to the official result was just not possible.

He consistently, in my opinion, understated the magnitude of the potential problem which played right into the media not having to give it serious coverage. Kerry's strongest statements came weeks after the vote, and by then the media had already done a whole round of observing that this election ran far smoother than the 2000 election except for some minor glitches and irregularities. The public turned the page on Election 2004 and the associated voting issues because if it wasn't considered important enough for strong comments by our party's candidates in the days following the election, than it must have been insignificant. It's a reversal of the old cliche, where there isn't smoke there must not be fire. Kerry, it was assumed, would be a "smoke detector" if anything seriously went wrong with this election. People looked for his reaction, then went back to sleeping soundly.

That is why I made the comment I did above about Kerry only citing "thousands" of deprived voters. Quite possibly there were tens of thousands in Cleveland alone, let alone in all of Ohio, Florida and the rest of the nation. The scope of the problem is being minimized which complicates any efforts to rally Congress to address it

The Democratic leadership? One doesn't have to be an attorney to know that like other crimes, which election stealing is, there are trails of evidence if people are willing to follow them, and in this case if enough people in power had demanded they be followed. Electronic voting machines have code that can be audited, polling places and counties have paper records. There are hundreds of threads that could be tracked down and put together to build cases for voter fraud in the 2004 presidential election. And in addition, even in criminal trials, circumstantial evidence has validity. Voter disenfranchisement, like forcing voters to wait in impossible lines, can be criminal acts. A recent NYTimes editorial said that standing in long lines is unfortunate but not criminal. That was a blanket statement that was in fact incorrect. For instance, in Georgia the number of voting machines that must be available to voters is mandated by law (not to use Georgia as any example of a legitimate voting process, by any means). There are other state and local laws that could be prosecuted that should rightly invalidate results that were obtained by illegal means.

What I can't understand is why it has become so socially acceptable for crimes to be committed without being prosecuted and those crimes, when related to elections, are not seen as legitimate reasons to overturn illegitimate elections? That is unless it's Republicans against whom the crimes were committed. They even fight through the courts when no crime seems to have been committed. Not Democrats, though. Heaven forbid we should fight for voter rights.

Why do so many progressive Americans just lay down and let the steamroller of the MSM and political marketing mavens just roll over them. Oh well, nothing can be done. To hell it can't, but it would take a will and fight emanating from US citizens and our elected leaders, not passive acceptance, a shrug, and an "Oh well, better luck next time."

Today I got a Schumer email asking me to help get Dems elected to Congress in 2006. DUH. Why would I throw more money and time down a rat hole unless the Dem leadership is willing to "take it to the mattresses" in the here and now for legitimate elections.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What was shameful was the way Kerry surrendered.

I doubt Dean would have rolled over so quickly... but again, there is no way to know that either.

term Senator. He's been through at least seven elections that I know of.

Maybe he knows more than we do?

I sent him money...I worked a second job to send him money...I worked and voted for Kerry. Okay? And yes, he is a good politician who knows the ropes on getting him elected and nominated.

Now.

This is about the ideal, one I take very seriously, of one person-one vote. I further believe that that ideal is so basic to our democracy that anyone who agrees to serve in public office must stand up for that right. Must. Everyday.

To any politician of either party to refer to that right, to claim some sort of mantle on one day while ignoring that obvious disenfranchisement that has occurred, did occur, and will occur in the future is nothing less than hypocrisy. The Senate hypocrisy club--Boxer need not apply.

And yes, Wes Clark did speak about the voting problems on Nov. 3rd on HardBall of this year. He said that what he had learned about the American people was that we do want to vote, and that we should not be running elections where disenfranchisement occurred or elections where people have questions about the accuracy of the outcome. He said we needed transparency in the voting process.

call it too soon? Maybe he could have waited another hour or two but what difference does it make? The votes are gone, they're vaporized, and there's no paper trail. What the heck do you want him to do, cry?

Everyone damn one of them should be outraged that disenfranchisement occurred. And that means everyone. I don't care about calls or who won, or whose career is protected. There are mountains to stand on, and the right to vote is on the top of that list.

As for Senator Kerry, he is but one of many who failed to report to duty.

On MLK day, I am reminded of the many brave and honorable people who lost their lives, risked their careers and families, to fight for the vote. How many women were willing to starve themselves and alienate their families to secure the vote? How many African Americans? How many followers of the American Revolution?

While you chose to focus on whether Kerry won or lost, I chose to focus on what we all lost. Perhaps that is why we are failing to come to a common ground; different lens often produce different pictures of the political landscape.

:toast:

When they time came, they didn't get it; they didn't understand; they didn't fight for the right to vote.

Now the meme is to be quiet, afterall, they have lived to fight another day. They'll be addressing and fighting for our rights some other day.

But the truth is, being in the minority means the party of Kerry and others have NO say about anything that is discussed on the floor of the Senate. There was one brief opening, one window of opportunity, and rather than risk the next soundbite they caved and missed their finest hour on that Mountain Top.

"There was one brief opening, one window of opportunity, and rather than risk the next soundbite they caved and missed their finest hour on that Mountain Top."

I don't have your beautiful way of expressing myself, so I'll call it "political expediency."

turned. There was NO CHANCE IN HELL. NONE!

And when the Electoral votes of Ohio were challenged WITH KERRY'S GO-AHEAD the Democrats stood up and got the facts on the record.

Kerry was in the ME talking to the people who matter WHAT WITH JUNIOR GETTING READY TO INVADE IRAN.

Seems to me the obvious FACT that Kerry's presence during the Electoral Count would have negated ANY positive impact the Challenge could have had. It would have been 'sourgrapes' and trying to steal the election.

WHAT FUCKING PART OF THAT TRUTH CAN YOU NOT GRASP?

First if you truly believe that what you are doing is the right thing to do, then standing up to do it is the right thing do. There is where one finds strength.

Fact: I never said that the election would be over turned. I took that out of the equation immediately, before I considered any of this. This is about the vote.

Fact: According to many statements made by those who did fight for the vote--Jackson for one--the lack of Kerry's participation mattered, because without it, the group had no public forum.

Fact: Neither you nor I have any idea how this would have played out had K stood up from day one. Stood not for himself, he had conceded--an action I have never judged or even questioned. No, he needed to stand with all of us who care about voting rights. People who tried to give their votes to him were denied, they are now voiceless. Someone needed to speak for them.

Fact: The Democratic party has known for a long time what was up with elections. McAuliffe was asked in person about BBV and concluded that machines can't be hacked. But the overt suppression that occured in Ohio, is the same suppression that has been used in the South for years. Letting it spread would seem a weird answer to a problem that threatens our rights.

You know, I vote with a number two pencil on a piece of paper that is then counted by hand by neighbors. So maybe I too should consider the suppression of voting for others none of my business. After all, that is the truth: it is not my problem. And yet, something within me whispers that when one person is diminished we all are diminished. That to me is the truth. Am I not a citizen? Is Kerry not a citizen? Were the voters who lost their voting rights not citizens? Given the chance to support or ignore each other, what should we do?

My first post said clearly that this is not about Kerry. If one thinks that he did everything right, who am I to differ with that opinion. But I believe that every member who swears to up hold and protect the Constitution needed to stand up for those who were denied their rights. Where does the slippery slope end?

As far as the ME, neither you nor I have any idea what was done or said there. Was it a photo op? Will Rumsfeld and Condi listen to Kerry? Did Syria think they had found someone to listen and carry their message? Who knows. Assumption is not fact.

Like seeing my dad about to cry, watching that concession speech.

20 years in government - pshaw!

If the voters have gifted him with 20 years in government, then it is all the more reason to stand up for the right to vote. Without the right to vote, the people's voices are silenced and we are but the husk of a democracy. Walking the walk is much more important than talking the talk.

Where would we be if MLK and Susan B. Anthony had decided to talk but protect their public image?

20 years or 20 excuses does not a patriot make.

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. ~T. Paine

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. ~T. Jefferson

concede before all the votes were counted, then state repeatedly that the lost votes wouldn't have altered the outcome of the election, without any proof that was a fact because the election was never sufficiently and lawfully audited was a mistake. We are no more than freepers if we accept our politicians actions 100% without question. That's what * supporters do. We're better than that one would hope.

The republicans and the MSM used Kerry's and his attorney's words against all those who were fighting in the trenches to get the vote count audited and to ensure that election 2004 was a fair and just representation of the intent of the people of the U.S. Ultimately this undermined efforts for fair and lawful elections in the future.

His actions undercut our efforts and left us without the support we earned, he promised, and our fight for a democratic election in 2004 demanded.

Is it Kerry bashing to tell it like it is? I say no. The fight is for democracy in America, not for or against Kerry or *, not for or against one party or another. We must hold our elected officials accountable for their actions no matter who they are or what political party they represent.

Does the fact that many, including myself, feel that Kerry made a huge tactical blunder when it comes to ensuring the election was fair render him wrong about everything? Of course not.

Kerry's INATTENTION and extremely marginal (as in "barely there") "interest" in the whole matter, not to mention his precipitously early concession, UNDERMINED everything we needed to do to ensure fair and free elections in the future.

Anyone who believes this election was valid is simply nuts or ill-informed, including Kerry and his idiot consultants and advisors if that still fits them. His concession was one of the biggest and worst lost opportunities I know of, certainly exceeds Al Gore's "loss" in 2000 due to possibly poor strategy. This was NO strategy. This was unilateraly surrender based on ignorance -- which is UNFORGIVABLE in my book.

And it doesn't matter whether or not the election could have or would have been overturned. That wasn't the issue, altho the THREAT of working FOR that would certainly have given us a lot more ability to get the press we needed and inform more of our citizens of this important BIPARTISAN issue.

Kerry let his supporters and all Americans down, no two ways about it. He reneged on his responsibilities, no two ways about that, either. It's possible he was misled by his advisors, but IMO it was his responsibility to be more informed and more receptive to other voices starting way back when. It's not as if this were a new issue that no one had ever heard about before.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I disagree with your assessment, but appreciate the civil way in which you presented it without snark. I mostly object to the snark. I also object to the gratuitous "by the way, Kerry deserted us" drive by threads we get that are unattached to any actions going on at the moment. I end up overstating my support for Kerry to match the unsupport to the nth degree coming from some posters.

Is he perfect? No. Could he have done things differently? Yes. Has he been that kind of front line guy since 1971? No, not really. He works relatively quietly, and usually without alot of support.

The possibility exists that he was advised incorrectly on Nov. 3rd, or that he was being pragmatic. I still expect election reform legislation to come out of him this session along with the children's health care bill. If we make it all the way through the 109th Congress without signs of life from the man, THEN I might start some real questioning. I ain't there yet. Maybe I'm just a stubborn bitch, but I just got here, politically speaking, and I'm not ready to change allegiances yet without good reason in regard to Kerry or the Dem Party.

:eyes:

No matter what you may think of his actions or inactions, he's not "criticizing the election outcome," his remarks were about the process.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index&cid=703

Notice the Repubs in Congress kept trying to steer it in that direction, as opposed to the Congressional Dems, who kept trying to highlight the PROCESS.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, we're going to get this almost knee-jerk bash reaction every time Kerry opens his mouth, aren't we.

Kerry played us. Kerry and Bush want their cake and ice cream too. (Us)

He doesn't seem capable of faking the emotion that was coming out of him on Nov. 3rd. I think in some way, Kerry was played too.

After playing a clip of Kerry's speech on the voting problems—

Olbermann: Senator Kerry also announced tonight that the Red Sox had apparently won the World Series.

{laughter offstage}

:evilgrin:

but that's as far as I'll go. I still think it was a good thing he was talking about it and getting it coverage. A bit late perhaps, but a good thing nonetheless.

I guess Keith should make fun of Bev Harris too.

What a fucking riot.

:mad: